MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:05, July 17, 2014

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page

Current time:
Saturday, June 1^st, 09:10 GMT

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.

"Vote" periods last for one week.
Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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 {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

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 guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
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).
- 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.
Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
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.
- Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
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.
No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
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.
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.
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.
Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). 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 canceled proposals must also be archived.
Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

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. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

===[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''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "June 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [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 "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" 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 MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
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:
Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
- 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.
The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Decide whether to redesign the Main Page (discuss) Deadline: June 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Include Rainbow Coaster & Rainbow Downhill back in the Rainbow Road article (discuss) Deadline: ~~May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT~~ Extended to June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Consider Spike Top derived from both Buzzy Beetles and Spinies (discuss) Deadline: June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Merge Iron Cleft with The Iron Adonis Twins (discuss) Deadline: June 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Merge Meat (object) with Meat (discuss) Deadline: June 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Re-merge Frog (Yoshi's Story) with Frog (discuss) Deadline: June 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Move the chef-based recipe lists (such as List of Tayce T. recipes) to game-based ones (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Merge the corresponding chef-named recipes (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Merge Silver Credit and Gold Credit to Silver Card and Golden Card, respectively (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Move Moo Moo back to cow (discuss) Deadline: June 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Split Samus from List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Move attack info from Super Hammer to Spin Hammer and move the latter to Super Hammer (move) (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Add Mario Bros. as a related game to the Super Mario series (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Writing Guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Create an EULA system for users to sign before joining this wiki

I have seen that a lot of users day by day when they join they immediately start vandalizing articles and blanking pages and are ignorant. I've been thinking we should implement a End User License Agreement system in our user creation system that the user should read and agree with while they are creating their account. At least that will stop the wiki from having more vandals and will let the user know what our expectations are while they are creating their account. You know we should have it set up that the user can only hit I agree after he/she reads the entire thing just like how Windows NT 4.0 and 3.XX 's eulas work.

Proposer: Pwwnd123 (talk)
Deadline: July 23, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Create

Pwwnd123 (talk) Per my proposal

Don't Create

Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per Glowsquid in the comments.
Walkazo (talk) - Per Glowsquid. This is completely pointless.
Koopakoolklub (talk) Per Glowsquid and myself.
Vommack (talk) Per comments. If people join up to vandalize, an EULA isn't going to stop them. Writing and enforcing one of these would just be a huge waste of time.
Ghost Jam (talk) Per all. It's a formality that holds no actual weight and it going to be more trouble than it's worth to set up.
Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
MichiganMarioFan (talk) Per all. This will not make the registration process any harder than it currently is.

Comments

But if a user immediatelty starts vandalizing articles, that's probably just what they are: vandalists who join just to cause trouble. I don't think they'd care much about what we expect. --Triple K, Skye 10:38, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

This is a ludicrous idea for many reasons:

1; The Mariowiki isn't a purchaseable/licensed software. It's not even a software. There's no legal basis for tying the right to edit the wiki to a contract.

2: An additional screen of legaleses isn't going to keep out dedicated trolls.

3: We already have multiple pages detailling what we expect of user behaviours and editing competence.

4: Even if we had a legal basis for requiring a contract and that it was somehow a viable deterent, there's no viable way we could enforce it in case of violation. None of us are paid, for pete's sake.

5: Even if we could somehow enforce it, taking people to the court would be a ludicrous waste of time, $$$ and effort.

teel-deer: lol. --Glowsquid (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

I know that but a lot of users just are way too goddamn lazy to even read the damn rules for crying out loud so the EULA actually acts there for convenience and it is not pointless. Hell,even Facebook and Twitter have EULAs so that users know the rules right upon sign up. The Windows NT 4.0 EULA is therefore to show how it doesn't let you hit F8 to install Windows until you read the entire whole damn thing.You get the idea right. I mean it could be a quick reference just before a user creates an account and it is just to check if a user is sincere or not. Do you get what I am trying say. I mean we could just modify the wording so that it would fit our style of writing and since we're not a company hey it will list all the rules and everything that the guideline pages talk about and sorry if you are misinterpreting things. I find the EULA system to be potential for new users when they join immediately so that they don't shoot their foot off. Pwwnd123 (talk)

You can't force people to read stuff, and they're far less likely to read a big wall of legal crap than our rule pages: they'll just hit the button automatically, or they'll give up and just edit anonymously. Either way, you're not stopping the vandals, just dissuading potentially productive users, which actually makes it worse than useless. - Walkazo (talk)

It won't be a big wall of legal shit just like the Windows NT 4.0 EULA. It will be a big wall containing all rules of the Wiki. It won't contain legal crap except for mentions of Nintendo's name and all that shit. It will make the user more productive in my point of view than a spammer or a vandal.Considering that this is my proposal,I have a right to change it and did this change your mind. Pwwnd123 (talk)

You're missing something here. There's nothing forcing people to follow it. Whether it's pages of legal crap or just explaining the rules, people are far more likely to just mash the "next page" button than read a word of it. And, let's be serious now-HOW IS EXPLAINING THE RULES GOING TO DETER SPAMMERS AND VANDALS? A two-year-old could figure out that replacing a page with the word "poo" isn't allowed. How is "forcing" them to read it going to deter someone from doing something they'd do in the first place? Writing this would just be a huge waste of everyone's time.--Vommack (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

Yeah, people will still just skip it or give up, regardless of what it is that's being thrown in their face. Rules are better divided up into manageable chunks with specific focuses so that people can look things up when they're unsure about something or are referred there or whatever: the longer the page, the faster the eyes glass over, in my experience. My mind is unchanged. - Walkazo (talk)

Why are all my proposals end up failing on me even if think of a decent idea that could be implemented on this wiki?? Why do people even hate this idea,I mean Facebook and Twitter has it too? I think it would be a good idea. The way the EULA would deter vandals and spammers is that it would give them second thoughts about if they really want to join this wiki to really be part of it or just be a one year old who would steer up trouble on the wiki and waste their time here by shooting their foot. For goodness sake,does anyone get what I am trying to say? Pwwnd123 (talk)

I must ask you, yet again: What would force them to read it? Sure, other sites do it. I'm sure you faithfully read every last word in every EULA from every site you've registered on? Besides that, "other sites do it" doesn't support any argument, as it applies to nearly anything. The bottom line is, if someone signs up for the explicit purpose of vandalizing, throwing a wall of words at them won't change it.--Vommack (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

A trigger similar to Windows NT 4.0 and Windows NT 3.XX would make that the incentives to force them to read it. But what I am trying to say is that what if a normal person and not some dumbass who has nothing better to do than to spoil all our hard work joins then at least the EULA will help out in guiding the user when they create their account. I do feel a strong sense of justice within me. Pwwnd123 (talk)

You're still missing something...There's nothing stopping any user from just mashing the trigger.--Vommack (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

I get what you're saying Pwwnd, but there's very little chance someone who comes to destroy our hard work would change their mind because of a bunch of rules they see when getting an account. --Triple K, Skye 19:06, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

If anything, it's going to make users not join. I know I probably wouldn't if all I saw was that, because it's like saying something bad will ban you because you were on a list. Some younger users might be scared of signing something like that because there parents wouldn't want them to. -

01:29, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

But what if in the future someone decided to change their mind then it will have to be there. I do think thrice about it. Besides I see more potential in a EULA system and it feels beneficial for the Wiki itself. Pwwnd123 (talk)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

None at the moment.

Miscellaneous

Do something about multiple proposals

Of course, some (but, of course, not all) users remember when Mario7 (talk) created a proposal composed of multiple proposals inside of it. Said proposal was ridden of by the Admins because "the formatting is nigh-incomprehensible". To prevent against this misunderstanding in future proposals, I propose we make a guideline about multiple proposals; should we allow them, or should we deny them?

Should the proposal pass either way, then an administator can amend a new rule to MarioWiki:Proposals/Header to determine the outcome of the proposal.

Proposer: Stonehill (talk)
Deadline: July 16, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Allow them

#Yoshi876 (talk) Unless I misinterpret this, what you're saying is ban proposals with more than one option. This is ridiculous, as certain proposals may need separate options. You seem to be basing this off one example, and yet proposals with multiples options have worked successfully in the past, there is no reason they should no longer be allowed because of one bad one.

Koopakoolklub (talk) Per Yoshi876
Tsunami (talk) I don't see anything wrong in them, but the one of example is definitely confusing. I agree, but there should be a limit of proposals regarding the same argoument in it.

Deny them

Stonehill (talk) I honestly see no point in doing them (whoa, that was bad English); first, they clutter the proposal system at deadline, and second, the mini-proposals inside of them can be separate proposals.
Randombob-omb4761 (talk) It's really confusing and long.
Walkazo (talk) - Like I said in the comments, we shouldn't have to spell it out that this sorta wholly-unnecessary, very specific abuse of the proposals system isn't allowed, but I'd rather explicitly vote "no" than risk sitting by while the "allow" option passes.
Vommack (talk) Per all.
Baby Luigi (talk) Per Walkazo
Pwwnd123 (talk) Per everyone who wants to deny it.
Mario4Ever (talk) Per Walkazo.

Do nothing about them

Comments

@Yoshi876: Just so you know, this regards multiple proposals, not proposals with multiple options. Template:Color-link-piped _{At last, the rock fell.}

If by that you mean two proposals in one, there has never been a case of that and if a case arises and it's formatted in a comprehensible way there is no reason for why it shouldn't be allowed. Mario7's was formatted badly, but was just one proposal. Yoshi876 (talk)

Yarg, edit conflict twiiiice... Anyway, one proposal is an example, and I really don't see how it could be done in a way that's not pointlessly convoluted: if there's multiple ideas, just make multiple proposals, or make one multi-option proposal, and if it can't be chopped up or boiled down to that, it's probably not a good idea in the first place. - Walkazo (talk)

I think the only reason one would need to be done is if there are multiple similar ideas, although I don't see how it couldn't be covered by a multi-option proposal. Yoshi876 (talk)

I'm generally in favor of this. If you have multiple ideas, present multiple proposals, as Walkazo said. If it can't be reduced to several proposals, then either bring it to the forums for further discussion or drop it as a bad idea. On the other hand, we've only had one instance of someone trying to pull something like that. One instance is generally not enough to suddenly jump on the S.S. Banwagon about something. -- Ghost Jam 19:58, 9 July 2014 (EDT)

Technically, we already have grounds to remove random stuff anyway thanks to the "This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged." line in the "Basic proposal and Support/Oppose format". It's not worded more strongly ("do it this way or we'll remove it, bucko") because we're a nice community and if someone doesn't format a proposal correctly but has at least the basic gist down, someone usually comes along and fixes it for them instead of killing it, but stretching that leniency to the point of nested multi-proposals is unreasonable, and we shouldn't have to single-out this one very specific abuse of the system as something that one should not do. - Walkazo (talk)

Arrgg, this proposal is very misleading and confusing. If this is dealing with multi-option proposal, I oppose because it doesn't hurt and in fact adds to the proposal itself and the way they are handled. If this is dealing with mini-proposals in one, then I kinda support, especially because discussing the matter first can reduce the situation, just start the discussion on the talk page, or the forums, and when things are arranged, propose it. However, I said kinda, because like what Walkazo said, it is just one example. The new rule is not necessary, but it doesn't hurt.--

14:57, 10 July 2014 (EDT)

Don't worry, it's not about multi-option proposals: check the example provided - it's when you have multiple proposals nested under one overall proposer header, instead of being presented as a single multi-option proposal or simply set up as completely separate proposals (like they're supposed to be be). Really, all we're doing here is voting on something that's already not allowed; it's redundant and saddening that's it's coming to this, but yeah, the only real harm that could come of it is if the "allow" side passes. - Walkazo (talk)

Usually though, when people do Multi-proposals, it just mean they haven't formatted correctly. Instead, you give multiple options that people can vote for, such as "Option one". It doesn't mean they should be instantly removed, it just means you need to get them to format it better. I'm not saying we should make this a thing, but we need to cut them enough slack for them to learn how to format it properly. -

17:42, 11 July 2014 (EDT)

Proposals aren't rocket science: there's an outline right on the page for folks to copy and paste, there's usually at least one proposal running at any given time that can also be emulated, and if even that's not enough, there's literally hundreds of archived examples to look at. It's bad enough when people can't be bothered with basic things like using headers, or adding Comment sections, or signing their names, or counting to seven to get the deadline right, but there's really no excuse to ignore all the instructions and resources to such an extent that your proposal isn't even a single vote anymore. If it's too much trouble for someone to structure their proposal as "support/oppose/comment" or "option 1/option 2/option 3/.../comment", like every other proposal ever, that's their own stinking fault, and they shouldn't be surprised when it gets taken down. - Walkazo (talk)

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 I get what you're saying Pwwnd, but there's very little chance someone who comes to destroy our hard work would change their mind because of a bunch of rules they see when getting an account. --{{User:Koopakoolklub/sig}} 19:06, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
 :If anything, it's going to make users not join. I know I probably wouldn't if all I saw was that, because it's like saying something bad will ban you because you were on a list. Some younger users might be scared of signing something like that because there parents wouldn't want them to. - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 01:29, 17 July 2014 (EDT)
-:: But what if in the future someone decided to change their mind then it will have to be there. I do think thrice about it. Besides I see more potential in a EULA system.
+:: But what if in the future someone decided to change their mind then it will have to be there. I do think thrice about it. Besides I see more potential in a EULA system and it feels beneficial for the Wiki itself. {{User|Pwwnd123}}
 ==Removals==

MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:05, July 17, 2014

How to

Rules

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

Contents

Talk page proposals

Rules

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Talk page proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

Writing Guidelines

New features

Create an EULA system for users to sign before joining this wiki

Create

Don't Create

Comments

Removals

Changes

Miscellaneous

Do something about multiple proposals

Allow them

Deny them

Do nothing about them

Comments

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

Browse

Search

Navigation

Community

Tools