MarioWiki:Proposals

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To Rules
 * 1) If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and Writing Guideline proposals must include a link to the draft page.
 * 2) Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals, which run for two weeks. (All times GMT.)
 * 3) *For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 4) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * 5) Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
 * 6) If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
 * 7) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 8) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
 * 9) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 10) If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
 * 11) Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
 * 12) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 13) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that cancelled proposals must also be archived.
 * 14) If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
 * 15) There should not be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
 * 16) Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
 * 17) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. - ===[insert a title for your Proposal here]=== [describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]

Proposer: Deadline: [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT. (14 days for Talk Page Proposals.)]

====Support====
 * 1) [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments==== - Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert " # at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".

Talk Page Proposals All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.


 * For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see here.

Rules
 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place  under the heading.
 * 2) All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
 * 3) Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. (All times GMT.)
 * 4) *For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 5) Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 6) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Split Jumping Pumpkin Plant from Jumping Piranha Plant. (Discuss) Deadline: April 26, 2012, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Star Coin Sign from Star Coin. (Discuss) Deadline: April 26, 2012, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete The Legend of Zelda. (Discuss) Deadline: April 27, 2012, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Bowser Time Gauge with Bowser Time (Discuss) Deadline: April 29, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New Features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Proposals Must Pass By A Majority Rule
I would like to propose that in all proposals, an option is considered to win only if it obtains a majority of the votes (as well as having to adhere to Proposals Rule # 9: If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.). Should this proposal pass, it will not effect any two-option proposals whatsoever. However, it will greatly effect proposals with three or more options.

What we currently observe is that in order for a decision to be reached, an option must have at least a plurality of the votes. For example, let us consider a proposal with options Option One, Option Two, and Option Three. It could have a tally of three people supporting Option One, two people supporting Option Two, and five people supporting Option Three (for a total of ten people voting, which allows us to not consider Proposals Rule # 9). Under our current system, Option Three is accepted as the outcome because it has the most votes of support (a plurality); however, it does not have more than half of the amount of voters supporting it (a majority). Under my proposed system, the example proposal will not conclude at that point.

What I am proposing, in an instance like this, is that the option with the least amount of votes is eliminated (with the option and votes recorded not being erased, but being struck out like this using tags) and that voting be extended for a one-week period (in order for a "Run-Off Voting" period to occur). I also propose that proposals that are extended as per this rule are not effected by Proposals Rule # 10 (Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.) until the proposal in question narrows down to two options.

My aim is for this change to allow for the most preferred choice to be enacted, rather than a choice that may not be preferred by a majority of the voting individuals.

Proposer: Deadline: April 20, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) – Per my proposal.
 * 2) – Per SMB.
 * 3) Per proposer

Oppose

 * 1) - I agree that it'd be bad if we ever do get a circumstance where something passes without a majority, but I'd rather just extend the deadline like we would for a large/tied two-option vote: it's a lot simpler and it doesn't devalue anyone's votes, thus forcing them to vote for something they merely oppose less. Making a chunk of the voters choose the lesser of two evils is a horrible way to force a change through, and it doesn't accurately reflect a majority preference any more than the split votes would anyway. Also, see my comment below.
 * 2) Per Walkazo. Its also complicated.
 * 3) Per Walkazo
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per Walkazo's comment and reasoning.
 * 6) Per all

Comments
I suppose it's a way to guard against votes being diluted by similar choices, and to give voters a chance to vote for the lesser of two evils should their first choice get struck out? In sounds good on the surface, but it's a pretty complicated procedure for an issue that's come up all of three times (assuming it hasn't happened in any TPPs too), all of which were 4+ years ago and involved majorities, just not clear majorities (the votes were 7/12, 7-4-1; 9/16, 9-5-2; and 12/22, 12-6-4)). Besides, people can always vote strategically without us forcing them to recast their votes. On the other hand, some folks may not want to have to vote for their second choice at all, and not appreciate their original vote being slashed out. Plus, as I said in my vote, choosing the lesser of two evils isn't even a good way to approach these problems: forcing the Option Two people to change their vote to Option Three wouldn't mean that the majority want Option Three, just that the majority don't want Option One, and that's a rather backwards way of deciding something. It'd be better if the proposal was simply extended with all the options still on the table, giving more people a chance to come in and vote for what they really want - or giving the proposer more time to figure out a compromise and ask for the proposal to be deleted so that they can make a new suggestion that really would reflect what the majority wants. In other words, simply state that all proposals need a majority of the voters to support any one option before a decision is made, regardless of whether the choice is pass-fail, or something more complicated. Rule 9 already says this for 10+ two-option votes, but it could easily be modified to say that you need 3 more than 50% of all votes cast, (and also simply state that two-option votes therefore need a 3-vote lead, since that'll come up most and being straightforward as much as possible is a good idea). The overall gist could even be explained in the top box, rather than the rules - i.e. with a bullet point, instead of somewhat-vaguely saying we need a "consensus" and linking to a dense Wikipedia policy page. -

Remove Stagnant FA Nominations
It has come to my attention recently that a rule that was added a long time ago (A nomination may fail if it has been there for 4 months and the opposers to supporters ratio is 5:1.) that was supposed to delete stagnant FA nominations is ineffective. I remember this rule being created in response to the extremely old Luigi nomination that had a ton of opposes. However, the ratio of 5:1 supporters to opposers is very unrealistic because fan votes supporting the nomination tends to add up very quickly.

For instance, in the Koopa Troopa nomination page, opposers like me had mentioned a plethora of problems that needed to be fixed. They were apparently never fixed. This nomination is a very stagnant FA nomination (it was nominated in May 2, 2011), which means that it is going nowhere. However, the fan votes keep bumping the nomination, which means that this nomination will stay forever despite the valid reasons the opposers gave.

I'm not proposing to discourage fan voting, by the way. However, I think it's a bad thing to leave FA nominations in queue for so long. There is just... nothing happening in those pages except for more support/oppose votes. While I'm aware that some long-lasting FA nominations became successful later on (like Bowser's Inside Story), we can always monitor how active the nomination was. While the Bowser's Inside Story one was full of people trying to improve the article, the Koopa Troopa one isn't going anywhere. Also, nominations like the Bowser article is also long-lasting, but I've seen improvement on the Bowser article.

I'm proposing that we remove stagnant FA nominations just clear up space for newer nominations; also, removing old, stale FA nominations indicates us that this FA isn't going anywhere, so we'll just set it aside. Then, when the article is improved, the newer FA nomination will be easier to manage.

This rule I'm proposing also has some degree of flexibility, so trustworthy people like administrators have to judge how active the FA nomination is before deleting it. However, the basic rule is that if an FA is going on for a very long time with no progress or activity, it should fail. Again, the standards for a "long time" isn't quite defined, but by seeing nominations like the Koopa Troopa one, administrators should know if they think the FA will go anywhere.

So, simply, if there are nominations like the Koopa Troopa one, delete it. If others such as King Boo and Bowser are making progress, then don't delete it. I cannot really summarize this in words, but you should know what I mean.

Proposer: Deadline: 23, April 2012 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) We need to know if an FA nomination isn't going anywhere, and it's better if we clean the FA nomination page a bit.
 * 2) Per proposer
 * 3) – What's the point in having FA nominations if the article doesn't get improved? There just isn't any, so per LGM.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) I do agree with what you have said and this proposal would be effective in perhaps a better choice (or improvement) of FA nomination articles in the future.

Comments
Actually there is another way one can fail and that's to be inactive for 30 days Once this limit is reached, the only way to newly nominate a different article is for one of the active ones to fail (be inactive for 30 days)
 * I am aware of this; however, I stated previously that  fan votes keep bumping the nomination, which means that this nomination will stay forever despite the valid reasons the opposers gave.
 * I'd rather see a set amount of time before they fail say 6 months because I feel that 6 months is plenty of time to fix an article
 * I don't want to see a set amount of time. You weren't there at the time, but the Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story nomination went for quite a while, but I see that people are working hard on it; if the nomination failed after 6 months, that would be very discouraging. I can't find the archive for the nomination, though, unfortunately.
 * So what stops people from just renominating it when it's ready (which fun fact is what they should do in the first place :p)


 * Here's the page for the nomination. I think it would be just a waste of time to fail the article and renominate it. I'm talking about article nominations with no progress that last for a year. This nomination went for a year with massive improvements and people trying to improve the article. I don't see why this nomination should fail if people are willing to improve it. It's not logical. That's why I want some flexibility in the rule.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.