MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65: Difference between revisions
Power Flotzo (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
The proposal is probably going to pass but I'm going to abstain from opposing because at least the community seems to agree on creation of the thing. The design of the thing is definitely another issue for another day, and it's something I think we can work with after the proposal. That being said, if you want more confidence for a support of your proposal, illustrate praxis. {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:16, January 28, 2024 (EST) | The proposal is probably going to pass but I'm going to abstain from opposing because at least the community seems to agree on creation of the thing. The design of the thing is definitely another issue for another day, and it's something I think we can work with after the proposal. That being said, if you want more confidence for a support of your proposal, illustrate praxis. {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:16, January 28, 2024 (EST) | ||
:That's exactly what I'm planning on doing the minute this proposal ends, but before that, I want consensus to be reached on making a template at all (and how many templates to make). {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 17:27, January 28, 2024 (EST) | :That's exactly what I'm planning on doing the minute this proposal ends, but before that, I want consensus to be reached on making a template at all (and how many templates to make). {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 17:27, January 28, 2024 (EST) | ||
===Add minecraft.wiki as an interwiki link=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0|Add}} | |||
This isn't so much a "feature" rather than a simple quality-of-life addition to the wiki. This proposal proposes to add an interwiki link to minecraft.wiki (i.e. <code><nowiki>[[minecraftwiki:]]</nowiki></code>), especially considering the multitude of subjects in ''[[Minecraft]]''{{'}}s Super Mario Mash-up pack with ''[[Super Mario (franchise)|Super Mario]]''-themed reskins. At the moment, when linking to articles on a Minecraft wiki, it is the most convenient to do so by means of using the {{tem|Fandom}} template to link to the Fandom wiki when there's a higher quality independent alternative available that a majority of the community has left to. I try to avoid adding direct urls into wiki articles in general. If there was an instance where someone added urls to minecraft.wiki throughout every article where it could apply, this would be a multitude of urls that one would have to manually fix, due to the Super Mario Mash-up pack existing. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': February 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer. | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Couldn't hurt, really. Per proposer. | |||
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} <s>get bent fandom</s> Per all, if they split off from Fandom months ago, we should probably be linking to their independent wiki by now. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} Considering that interwiki links are generally uncontroversial and I assume most of us hate that x-factorized spillway of an ad-infested radioactive dumpsite, I don't think a proposal is entirely necessary but it's still a valid way to request an added feature like that. | |||
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} This makes a lot of sense to me, as it would let the wiki remain consistent when dealing with subjects that are not ''Super Mario''-related. Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|OmegaRuby}}Per proposal. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
If this proposal succeeds, I think we could as well try a proposal for adding the [https://raymanpc.com/wiki/en/ RayWiki] (e.g. <nowiki>[[raymanpc:]]</nowiki>) next, due to the ''Rayman'' series' relevance in ''[[Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope]]'' via the [[Rayman in the Phantom Show]] DLC. Casual reminder that we have interwiki for [[kovopedia:Main Page|Kovopedia]] (even though the ''Magical Vacation'' series has little to no relevance to the ''Super Mario'' franchise yet, even while taking ''Super Smash Bros'' into account) purely because it's a NIWA affiliate, so adding a Rayman wiki as an interwiki link would only be fair, and that's double as much so for adding a Minecraft one. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:39, January 28, 2024 (EST) | |||
:Yes, I agree with this. Why not make the proposal now or do you want me to do it? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 11:43, January 28, 2024 (EST) | |||
::I agree as well. We should definitely make a proposal for adding RayWiki interwiki links. It would serve the same purpose as the Minecraft wiki links, so why not? -- {{User:FanOfRosalina2007/sig}} 14:39, January 28, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Allow staff warnings to be appealed=== | |||
{{Proposal Outcome|passed|18-0|Allow}} | |||
See [[MarioWiki:Appeals]] | |||
Appeals haven't been widely practiced in the wiki lately, but I think it's better to act sooner and also gauge a consensus on this. Rule 1 states: ''"Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator or patroller cannot be appealed."'' The rationale behind the rule is likely to focus on admin backrooms to discuss matters pertaining to decisions by admins and minimize drama. However, this runs squarely against the spirit of the wiki. We establish very clearly in [[MarioWiki:Administrators]]: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
In general, administrators are not imbued with any special authority and are equal to everyone else in terms of editorial responsibility. Staff members' votes and opinions are given equal weight to regular users in proposals, featured article nominations, or any other democratic process or informal discussion. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
This sort of rule was likely intended to prevent users from causing a scene (see [[MarioWiki_talk:Appeals#Rule_1|a discussion questioning the validity of it]]) but it squarely contradicts the above statement which makes our commitment to valuing all users questionable, if not insincere. This kind of rule instead potentially stifles good faith discussion made by users to staff and might help foster distrust in staff, something that won't work well for a collaborative wiki. Additionally, MarioWiki:Appeals already requires users to keep discussions civil, so possible bad faith appeals are already covered, and lengthy exchanges are already discouraged. | |||
People should be allowed to openly critique our performance in good faith of course (bad faith ones will still be dealt with in our [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]]; that being said, I also have my eyes set on rewriting the corresponding policies concerning "undermining admin authority" to encourage constructive criticism). If we're supposed to treat admins as equal to everyone else, at least we should invite good faith criticisms for decisions that staff has made, not make some ultimately arbitrary delineation between ''who'' gives out a warning and then also proclaim staff isn't that special. | |||
Affected pages (if there are pages I missed, please mention; they'll likely be dealt accordingly, however, since this is a simple proposed change): | |||
*[[MarioWiki:Appeals]]: Rule 1 will be removed | |||
*[[MarioWiki:Administrators]]: "''<s>While warnings given to users by an admin or patroller cannot be appealed,</s> [T]he other staff members additionally have the ability to overturn any unwarranted warnings or blocks if they see fit.''" | |||
*[[:Template:Reminder]]: "''If this reminder was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it.''"<br>⬇️changed to⬇️ <br> "''If you feel this reminder was undeserved, you may appeal it.''" | |||
*[[:Template:Warning]]: "''If this warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it.''"<br>⬇️changed to⬇️ <br> "''If you feel this warning was undeserved, you may appeal it.''" | |||
*[[:Template:Lastwarn]]: "''If this last warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it.''"<br>⬇️changed to⬇️ <br> "''If you feel this last warning was undeserved, you may appeal it.''" | |||
*[[MarioWiki:Warning policy]]: "''If you were given a warning/reminder for discourteous behavior that you feel should have only merited an unofficial notice as outlined above, you can appeal to have the template removed. However, keep in mind that excessive impolite or disruptive behavior may earn you a warning right off the bat; if the administrators feel that you should have known better than to act the way you did even without an unofficial request to stop, your warning will not be removed. <s>You cannot appeal a warning given by an administrator or patroller; if one is deemed inappropriately given, it will be handled within the staff team accordingly.</s>''" | |||
**Q. I don't think I deserve my warning. What should I do?<br>A. If you feel you don't deserve the warning, you have the option to appeal it <s>as long as the warning in question was not given by an administrator</s>. When appealing warnings, it is best to do so as soon as possible. | |||
Staff will still have the ability to overturn any warning at any notice, and bad appeals toward staff (like ''any'' bad appeal in general especially to experienced long-term users who aren't staff) will probably still be archived swiftly and hopefully without too much drama. If this kind of clarification is needed, then please do state it and I'll make the changes. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mario}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': February 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Mario}} M. | |||
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Yes, THANK YOU. After a certain ''recent incident'', I'm also questioning the "don't give reminders to staff" rule. | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} I honestly don't recall seeing a (formal) warning issued wrongly by an admin--if that ever happened, it was probably in the very early years of the wiki, when sysop responsibilities weren't outlined as well as today and the young'uns who achieved that position were obviously prone to mishandle it. For the past decade, the admins around here have actually performed their job quite commendably. That said, I very much agree with the principle behind this proposal that the administration shouldn't affect an air of mystique to bar regular users from questioning them; ensuring that users defer to a good conduct and a set of editing rules, a significant part of which was established by the community at large, doesn't mean that your judgement is impeccable and that your word is final. | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} This is certainly a lot more fair. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} I do think this is the fairest way to handle formal reminders and warnings. | |||
#{{User|Axis}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Drago}} Blocks can already be appealed to the rest of the staff via e-mail, so it makes sense for admin warnings to also be appealable. I do think successful appeals against admin warnings will be rare though. | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Well, you see, I think we should definitely make MarioWiki more equal for everyone. The people will run the wiki, everyone gets equal pay, free healthcare, etc. etc. This will be the way to achieve prosperity and happiness. It will be a people's wiki renowned all over the internet. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Ray Trace}} You can guess what my position is considering I was the highlighted comment in this proposal. | |||
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} Probably for the best, since abuse can and occasionally ''does'' happen at any level of the power hierarchy. | |||
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} How has this ''not'' been done already??? Per all, sometimes people get misjudged and sometimes people change, so it's probably for the best we account for that rather than allow one warning to just stick around forever. | |||
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Yes, we absolutely need to do this! Just because a warning is issued by a staff member and not a regular user, it shouldn't mean that you can't appeal said warning. It wouldn't be fair at all! Per all. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all (this rule is probably a reason why the appeal system doesn't get used much). | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} Equality counts. | |||
#{{User|YoYo}} any site that has a "staff have final word and you can't say anything about it" rule is always a red flag. | |||
#{{User|Glowsquid}} Per. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Doc von Schmeltwick: The ability to give these notices to staff will probably require further discussion (this one is a bit more contentious to me). I think situations involving a staff member should be dealt with via civil criticism rather than warning/reminder templates (it's not like blocking can be really enforced on members who have blocking tools, so these warning templates toward staff have little practical use anyway; removing staff tools would require intervention by other staff ultimately). We did say the most appropriate venues for criticizing staff, usually through forum DMs or Discord DMs. You can bring it up in [[MarioWiki talk:Warning policy]] or [[MarioWiki talk:Courtesy]]. {{User:Mario/sig}} 14:20, January 27, 2024 (EST) | |||
Koopa con Carne, Drago: Yeah I'm not expecting appeals on these decisions to be successful, since staff members already have good judgement most of the time, but I think it helps to at least signal to users that we give them a chance for a fair hearing first. There is always a chance they have a point or so which would be valuable feedback. We don't want to bar opportunity like that. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:04, January 27, 2024 (EST) | |||
You know, it's kinda funny: the policies keep specifying that you cannot appeal a reminder or warning given by patrollers or administrators, but for the longest time, I could've sworn that reminders and warnings could've ''only been given'' by patrollers or administrators anyway, because they have been given the authority to block you and thus should also know when someone is breaking the rules. I, at least, hadn't really noticed a time that a normal registered user has given a warning to another normal registered user before, even though the current warning policy states they can do so (a detail, I should stress, I discovered just today). {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:55, January 28, 2024 (EST) | |||
:Honestly their powers are more limited than you think. Warnings and reminders set a kind of record and then block is the final step. It would be easier for all of us if normal users can help advise others what rules they're breaking. I have noticed a few times normal users given out reminders and warnings, but I suppose some staff members are active really often and are keeping more dibs on other users so probably they're on the scene sooner and more frequently. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:52, January 28, 2024 (EST) | |||
Hewer: There actually has been like several attempts from the past couple of years, but have been removed due to rule 1.[https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Appeals?action=history] Sure, they probably should've read the warning templates first before proceeding but it doesn't mean the rule itself is valid IMO. If you were the one issuing the exact same kind of warning and reminder, these cases would've been heard and decided; kind of easily shows the useless distinction. Besides, I add: it would certainly help to get second opinion of another staff member too, like another perspective, so it would still be beneficial for staff if we removed Rule 1. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:52, January 28, 2024 (EST) |
Revision as of 20:11, February 3, 2024
Rewrite cited quotes into a new styleTemplate:ProposalOutcome
It's been two years since the <ref>[[Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development|Nintendo EAD Tokyo]] (November 1, 2007). ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' ([[Wii]]). [[Nintendo]]. Level/area: [[Bubble Blastoff]]. "'''[[Captain Toad]]''': 'That Undergrunt Gunner is keeping us from exploring the area!'"</ref> = Nintendo EAD Tokyo (November 1, 2007). Super Mario Galaxy (Wii). Nintendo. Level/area: Bubble Blastoff. "Captain Toad: 'That Undergrunt Gunner is keeping us from exploring the area!'" <ref>Shelly, Bruce; Shelly, Reed (September 8, 1990). "[[Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas]]". ''[[The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3]]''. Episode 1. "'''Royal Parrot''': 'You can't evict me! Braw! I'm the Royal Parrot!'"</ref> = Shelly, Bruce; Shelly, Reed (September 8, 1990). "Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas". The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. Episode 1. "Royal Parrot: 'You can't evict me! Braw! I'm the Royal Parrot!'" <ref>Coffin, Pierre; Balda, Kyle Balda (director) (June 14, 2017). ''{{wp|Despicable Me 3}}'' (Motion picture). "'''Bratt''': 'It's on like Donkey Kong!'"</ref> = Coffin, Pierre; Balda, Kyle Balda (director) (June 14, 2017). Despicable Me 3 (Motion picture). "Bratt: 'It's on like Donkey Kong!'" Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWill this proposal allow for the aforementioned citation templates to be created? I'm not completely clear on what this proposal is aiming to accomplish, but I would support citation templates, to help create a consistency around the use of the references tags. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:39, January 20, 2024 (EST)
The idea of making citations of all kinds more streamlined and standardized has actually been on my mind for a while now, but I haven't made a proposal yet because I don't know exactly how to go about it. Like I said in my reasoning for opposing this proposal, some citation formats are just too complicated for most users to bother following them, which is why finding the right format for a citation can make all the difference towards that format being agreed upon collectively as an improvement; that's why this proposal failed and this one unanimously succeeded. ThePowerPlayer 20:52, January 21, 2024 (EST) So, why this proposal? Citations should follow a certain standard, which I believe is illustrated in MarioWiki:Citations ("What to put as references") but perhaps not clearly, due to information on how citations should be formatted just mushed in a paragraph with no citation templates to work off, only examples. That being said, the proposal aims to change the citation style for quotes, referencing a talk page proposal for a deleted template, see Template talk:Ref quote; why was this deleted? Some people interpreted this as a proposal to create a general citation template, which I don't believe so since this proposal seems to strictly concern with quotations from fictional characters. If so, the comment by Ahemtoday is a reason to oppose: the stuff we'll be citing will have its own article, so things like listing the publisher and developer of a video game just to cite it doesn't feel like it makes sense to me." That being said, I think it's appropriate to cite some direct gameplay videos for evidence of claims in the articles. I've done this for Metal Mario's page, particularly the part where Wario yells when falling underwater; it's for my own sake in properly recalling something trivial (but amusing) and possible to forget later on. But this proposal aims to cite video games themselves for quotes, which I don't even think it's the best way to do it versus a time stamped video. If not, questions remain. What's the issue with the old system? Are we currently not even citing quotes? How are we doing citations for quotes currently? What's even the scope of this proposal, is it fictional characters or quotations from publications? What examples are there to show issues of the current citation method that led to the creation of this proposal? What do the changes even look like; what's "before" and "after"? Why should we match Wikipedia's system? It's not clear from this proposal. I've re-read the thing a few times carefully. I'm still left with confusion. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:57, January 22, 2024 (EST) Create two specific citation templatesTemplate:ProposalOutcome This proposal similarly deals with citation templates, but proposes the creation of a few not covered within the scope of a different currently active proposal. I've seen inconsistently formatted citations all over the wiki (e.g. some add a comma, followed by "pg. 7" when it should be a period, followed by "Page 7.") and templates would be perfect for making sure the citations are formatted consistently all over the wiki. I'm proposing the two following citation templates for the following purposes:
I don't expect them to be strictly enforced, but should this proposal pass, MarioWiki:Citations and probably the Manual of Style should be updated accordingly. Edit: Added an option for a single citation template (i.e. {{cite}}) that would cover for web links and publications alike, though I personally still prefer the two separately. Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) Create both
Create one citation template for all types of citations
Oppose
CommentsOne template for all citations would do just fine, no need for three. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:04, January 21, 2024 (EST)
I would like to know what each template would look like before voting on it. I'm confused by what the document one means, for example. — Lady Sophie (T|C) 07:10, January 21, 2024 (EST)
As Sophie asked, what will these templates look like? Are we going to use content from Wikipedia? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:03, January 22, 2024 (EST)
The proposal is probably going to pass but I'm going to abstain from opposing because at least the community seems to agree on creation of the thing. The design of the thing is definitely another issue for another day, and it's something I think we can work with after the proposal. That being said, if you want more confidence for a support of your proposal, illustrate praxis. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:16, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Add minecraft.wiki as an interwiki linkTemplate:ProposalOutcome
This isn't so much a "feature" rather than a simple quality-of-life addition to the wiki. This proposal proposes to add an interwiki link to minecraft.wiki (i.e. Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsIf this proposal succeeds, I think we could as well try a proposal for adding the RayWiki (e.g. [[raymanpc:]]) next, due to the Rayman series' relevance in Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope via the Rayman in the Phantom Show DLC. Casual reminder that we have interwiki for Kovopedia (even though the Magical Vacation series has little to no relevance to the Super Mario franchise yet, even while taking Super Smash Bros into account) purely because it's a NIWA affiliate, so adding a Rayman wiki as an interwiki link would only be fair, and that's double as much so for adding a Minecraft one. rend (talk) (edits) 11:39, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Allow staff warnings to be appealedTemplate:Proposal Outcome See MarioWiki:Appeals Appeals haven't been widely practiced in the wiki lately, but I think it's better to act sooner and also gauge a consensus on this. Rule 1 states: "Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator or patroller cannot be appealed." The rationale behind the rule is likely to focus on admin backrooms to discuss matters pertaining to decisions by admins and minimize drama. However, this runs squarely against the spirit of the wiki. We establish very clearly in MarioWiki:Administrators:
This sort of rule was likely intended to prevent users from causing a scene (see a discussion questioning the validity of it) but it squarely contradicts the above statement which makes our commitment to valuing all users questionable, if not insincere. This kind of rule instead potentially stifles good faith discussion made by users to staff and might help foster distrust in staff, something that won't work well for a collaborative wiki. Additionally, MarioWiki:Appeals already requires users to keep discussions civil, so possible bad faith appeals are already covered, and lengthy exchanges are already discouraged. People should be allowed to openly critique our performance in good faith of course (bad faith ones will still be dealt with in our MarioWiki:Courtesy; that being said, I also have my eyes set on rewriting the corresponding policies concerning "undermining admin authority" to encourage constructive criticism). If we're supposed to treat admins as equal to everyone else, at least we should invite good faith criticisms for decisions that staff has made, not make some ultimately arbitrary delineation between who gives out a warning and then also proclaim staff isn't that special. Affected pages (if there are pages I missed, please mention; they'll likely be dealt accordingly, however, since this is a simple proposed change):
Staff will still have the ability to overturn any warning at any notice, and bad appeals toward staff (like any bad appeal in general especially to experienced long-term users who aren't staff) will probably still be archived swiftly and hopefully without too much drama. If this kind of clarification is needed, then please do state it and I'll make the changes. Proposer: Mario (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsDoc von Schmeltwick: The ability to give these notices to staff will probably require further discussion (this one is a bit more contentious to me). I think situations involving a staff member should be dealt with via civil criticism rather than warning/reminder templates (it's not like blocking can be really enforced on members who have blocking tools, so these warning templates toward staff have little practical use anyway; removing staff tools would require intervention by other staff ultimately). We did say the most appropriate venues for criticizing staff, usually through forum DMs or Discord DMs. You can bring it up in MarioWiki talk:Warning policy or MarioWiki talk:Courtesy. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:20, January 27, 2024 (EST) Koopa con Carne, Drago: Yeah I'm not expecting appeals on these decisions to be successful, since staff members already have good judgement most of the time, but I think it helps to at least signal to users that we give them a chance for a fair hearing first. There is always a chance they have a point or so which would be valuable feedback. We don't want to bar opportunity like that. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:04, January 27, 2024 (EST) You know, it's kinda funny: the policies keep specifying that you cannot appeal a reminder or warning given by patrollers or administrators, but for the longest time, I could've sworn that reminders and warnings could've only been given by patrollers or administrators anyway, because they have been given the authority to block you and thus should also know when someone is breaking the rules. I, at least, hadn't really noticed a time that a normal registered user has given a warning to another normal registered user before, even though the current warning policy states they can do so (a detail, I should stress, I discovered just today). rend (talk) (edits) 11:55, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Hewer: There actually has been like several attempts from the past couple of years, but have been removed due to rule 1.[1] Sure, they probably should've read the warning templates first before proceeding but it doesn't mean the rule itself is valid IMO. If you were the one issuing the exact same kind of warning and reminder, these cases would've been heard and decided; kind of easily shows the useless distinction. Besides, I add: it would certainly help to get second opinion of another staff member too, like another perspective, so it would still be beneficial for staff if we removed Rule 1. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:52, January 28, 2024 (EST) |