MarioWiki:Proposals
|
|
Tuesday, June 25th, 20:38 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.
|
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 25, 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
- Consider Podley and Podler to be Beanish (discuss) Deadline: June 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Decide if Gallery:Ground should be deleted (discuss) Deadline: July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door bestiary into a separate article for the Nintendo Switch remake (discuss) Deadline: July 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move The Old Psychic Lady to The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens (discuss) Deadline: July 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move Bowser's Brother to Fake Bowser (Blue) (discuss) Deadline: July 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
| Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022) |
| Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023) |
| Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024) |
| Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024) |
| Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024) |
| Discourage "([Title] for [system])" disambiguation format when "([Title])" alone is sufficient to identify the subject, JanMisali (ended June 9, 2024) |
- ^ Note: Requires action from admins.
| Add parameters for listing related groups to character and species infoboxes, Dive Rocket Launcher (ended June 21, 2024) |
Talk page proposals
| Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021) |
| Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022) |
| Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024) |
| Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024) |
| Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024) |
| Split Cheep Blimp (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) and Zeeppelin from the blimp page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 28, 2024) |
List of talk page proposals
Template:TPPDiscuss Template:TPPDiscuss
Unimplemented proposals
Writing guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Update the Manual of Style to discourage contractions on the wiki
First of all, I'm aware this proposal might sound pedantic. It's perfectly fine to use contractions in every day speech and writing because it's easier than to use the whole structure when it doesn't matter that much; see, I just did that four times now. However, they do sound unprofessional on a site that is treated as an encyclopedia. Using structures such as "it's" and "don'ts" in main space sentences create the impression of a personal addressing to the reader, much like the use of "you's" would. Therefore, I propose that the manual of style be updated to simply state that contractions are not really welcome on the wiki, and that current instances should be expanded to their full forms when spotted. I'm not saying the manual should downright enforce writing without contractions because that would be a colossal maintanance undertaking. But really, what you do when you contract a structure is basically replace one letter with an apostrophe. I don't think omitting one letter reduces the effort, and frankly, sometimes it's annoying to see that so aggressively put in practice.
Proposer: Super Radio (talk)
Deadline: October 27, 2018, 16:45 GMT
Do it
- Super Radio (talk) This can't, I mean cannot be accepted much longer.
- Syncro263892XL (talk) I agree. It should not be 'Mario can't do it'. It must be 'Mario cannot do it.'
- Alex95 (talk) - I've been writing like this anyway when it comes to content pages, so I guess I've already agreed.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) I’ve recently been removing some contractions when preforming maintenance edits to articles, so I do not have a problem with doing this.
- Yoshi the SSM (talk) I know we aren't (are not) Wikipedia. However, it does do this. And if it works there, it should work here too. As long as it doesn't effect official contractions (quotes and article titles), I am ok with this. Even though, I am part of the problem thus far. So, I per the proposal.
- Bazooka Mario (talk) *looks forlornly at the glitch pages*
- Doomhiker (talk) This change would definitely improve the overall quality of the writing on the wiki, and saying Donkey kong did not do it sounds a lot better than Donkey kong didn't do it, in my opinion.
- Baby Luigi (talk) Contractions are a type of slang, which already contradict most style guides anyway. Support.
- Niiue (talk) Per all.
- PianoKing03 (talk) I will admit, I fall a bit short of being able to say I support this fully, however I believe I will cast a vote of approval. While it could propose minor problems for those with less integrity in their sentence form, I do believe it can still be put into effect, especially if every change, major and minor, is examined for contractions. It would take quite an effort, but in the end, I do see this significantly improving the appearance of the Wiki’s pages. You have my approval.
Don't
- MarioManiac1981 (talk) While I'm not entirely against this proposal, I feel that, as Super Radio mentioned before, it is huge maintenance to remove contractions, and monitor their use on this wiki. It is somewhat contradictory to enforce a rule against the usage of contractions, because the manual of style uses contractions quite a lot for its explanations. We just need to discuss when contractions will not be tolerated, and when they're just fine to use.
- Scrooge200 (talk) I think contractions are fine. I do agree that they can get out of hand sometimes, but it's better to just fix a few small instances of contraction overdose than discourage contractions entirely.
- WeirdDave13 (talk) Changing vote, as this seems unnecessary.
- MeritC (talk) I seriously do not see why our not being able to use contractions whenever necessary would be unprofessional. The only thing that's a definite standard is not using the word "you" in mainspace articles since this is to be treated like an "encyclopedia site". So I'm voting no here.
Comments
While I certainly agree, I don't think we should draw a hard line on using contractions, just notify users when they use them, like what we already do for users who forget to use proper italics. 
(T|C) 13:01, 13 October 2018 (EDT)
- True, maybe I should have worded my proposal this way... -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:04, 13 October 2018 (EDT)
@MarioManiac1981: The proposal only addresses content in main space articles (Super Mario Bros., Princess Peach, Super Mushroom etc.), not talk pages and project pages, like this one or the guidelines. -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:18, 13 October 2018 (EDT)
@Yoshi the SSM: Don't be so harsh on yourself :) -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:46, 13 October 2018 (EDT)
Merge most game modes into their respective game articles
There has been some debate over whether certain game modes deserve to have separate articles. I disagree. Yoshi876 (talk) does too, but he suggested that I still discuss this first. My rationale for proposing this might not be a good CliffsNotes version, however, so I'll use a rather large rationale formulated by Baby Luigi (talk) here roughly two years ago:
"Ok (directed primarily at 3D Player 2010 (talk)) , so I keep reverting edits because some people (cough3DPlayer2010coughcough)think Toad Scramble, Coinathlon, Boo's Block Bash, etc. deserve to get their own articles. I firmly don't, and I'll explain why. First of all, your comparisons are very weak. Lab Brats for starters is a selectable minigame in the minigame mode alongside the other rare minigames like Seer Terror, Dunk Bros., so that's the reason it gets its own article. Super Duel Mode is far more in-depth and plays a lot differently than any mode of this game, and the only reason it got an article compared to Coinathlon because it has its own set of unlockables, maps, stats, and well, tons of separate content in this mode that can easily make it into a designated article without bloating the page up. Here, Boo's Block Party is a simple side mode in a similar vein to the side minigame games like Treetop Bingo, Battle Bridge, etc and it doesn't have enough content in it to justify its own article without being redundant or information that can be easily stated in this article. For Beach Volley Folley, it's in a similar situation as Super Duel Mode, but it has appeared in more than one game as well as being classified as a minigame rather than its own mode like Coinathlon. All modes easily fit in this article: Toad Scramble is the main meat of the game and the article should cover it without splitting things up. Coinathlon isn't a hard-to-understand mode with tons and tons of its own content, its analogous to Balloon Battle from the Mario Kart games. Balloon Bash plays very similarly to Toad Scramble except there's a different goal and some slightly different mechanics here and there. Rhythm Recital is in the same situation as Coinathlon, it doesn't have enough separate content in there to justify its own article, just like the minigame side modes in Minigame Modes in earlier Mario Parties. Challenge Tower can fit in this article too, everything that is needed to be said about Challenge Tower, this article covers. Hell, the rest of the modes are like that: everything that needs to be said can be said in the Gameplay section of this article and it doesn't look too overly bloated. The only mode that got its own article was the Character Museum, and for good reasons too, because it's a collectible list thing of the game like the Star Bank or something like that."
That also sums up my rationale for why these should not warrant articles. I should also add that we already don't have articles on Mario vs. Luigi, Free-for-All, Monster Megamix, Wario Interrupts, etc., something to keep in mind. Therefore, I propose we merge any minor game modes into their parent articles. There are a few exceptions, such as Super Duel Mode, Challenge Mode (New Super Mario Bros. U), and Character Museum, as those are distinct modes that are too expansive to include in the parent articles; other than the exceptions, I think we're doing the wiki a favor by merging these game modes into the parent articles.
Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) (banned)
Deadline: October 22, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Doomhiker (talk)As this would improve the overall consistency on the wiki, I agree with this proposal.
- WeirdDave13 (talk) Per all.
- Syncro263892XL (talk) I agree with this.
- Baby Luigi (talk) Per proposal. I also made additional quips here if anyone is interested.
Oppose
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Not sure I like the honestly rather vague and often opinionated differentiation criteria listed above. The whole thing is honestly rather vague. Personally, I'd prefer anything that isn't an archetypical game mode (ie "single player," "story mode," etc) get separate consideration case-by-case.
- PianoKing03 (talk) I’m afraid I cannot say that all minigame-type articles should be limited to their respective games. Rather, would it not be more logical to simply condense all specific minigames and modes of a particular game into another article, with the commonly used “Main Article” link? This would open up a lot of room for more detailed information as well. I believe that would be the ideal compromise...
Comments
We need to set an actual limit we can work from rather than use the weasely "most" game modes. But even if we just do end up have a case-by-case purge, having a list would be useful, and for subsequent game modes, it would require discussion. 
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:25, 15 October 2018 (EDT)
- Yeah, was about to say so myself. In my support vote, I did link to my post of a list on what is expected to be merged as a result from this proposal. Feel free to provide a more comprehensive one than mine.
Ray Trace(T|C) 22:27, 15 October 2018 (EDT)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
