@Glowsquid @Camwoodstock, option 2 directly addresses that issue. Either way, the point of joke proposals is less the "joke" itself and more to get others in on the play house and goof around. The "punchline" is the entire community interaction itself. That kind of stuff should not share a corner with Very Serious wiki discussion, the same way the wiki's April Fools campaigns should not be a part of the actual knowledge repository. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:59, February 25, 2024 (EST)
@Glowsquid @Camwoodstock, option 2 directly addresses that issue. Either way, the point of joke proposals is less the "joke" itself and more to get others in on the play house and goof around. The "punchline" is the entire community interaction itself. That kind of stuff should not share a corner with Very Serious wiki discussion, the same way the wiki's April Fools campaigns should not be a part of the actual knowledge repository. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:59, February 25, 2024 (EST)
:I don't think Option 2 actually addresses the issue because nearly everyone who sees something titled "extremely important proposals" would immediately know it is anything but. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:36, February 25, 2024 (EST)
:I don't think Option 2 actually addresses the issue because nearly everyone who sees something titled "extremely important proposals" would immediately know it is anything but. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:36, February 25, 2024 (EST)
::Sure but the point of a joke proposal isn't to ''actually fool people into thinking it's a real proposal''. It's to goof off around something outlandish. The "Extremely important proposals" title does not ruin that goal, especially since looking at the history of these proposals, they tend to be obvious jokes from the onset ("Remove removals", "Pie for everyone", "Create SUPREME rank" etc.) {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:58, February 25, 2024 (EST)
::Sure but the point of a joke proposal isn't to ''actually fool people into thinking it's a real proposal''. It's to goof around something outlandish. The "Extremely important proposals" title does not ruin that goal, especially since looking at the history of these proposals, they tend to be obvious jokes from the onset ("Remove removals", "Pie for everyone", "Create SUPREME rank" etc.) {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:58, February 25, 2024 (EST)
Just a quick question; has the issue this proposal intends to address (joke proposals appearing simultaneously with real ones on April 1st) actually occurred before? I've only been on here since late spring of 2021, so my perspective is rather limited, but I don't think that's been the case since at least then. Last year (2023) when I made my 「ウィキを青にしてマフィンを焼く」joke proposal, it was the only one up on the Proposal page that entire day; and the year before that (2022), there weren't any joke proposals made, and serious ones were on the page. {{User:Somethingone/sig}} 19:41, February 25, 2024 (EST)
Just a quick question; has the issue this proposal intends to address (joke proposals appearing simultaneously with real ones on April 1st) actually occurred before? I've only been on here since late spring of 2021, so my perspective is rather limited, but I don't think that's been the case since at least then. Last year (2023) when I made my 「ウィキを青にしてマフィンを焼く」joke proposal, it was the only one up on the Proposal page that entire day; and the year before that (2022), there weren't any joke proposals made, and serious ones were on the page. {{User:Somethingone/sig}} 19:41, February 25, 2024 (EST)
Revision as of 21:12, February 25, 2024
Current time:
Sunday, May 5th, 21:46 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.
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 on proposals with more than two choices.
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 by a margin of 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: "May 5, 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".
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.
All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. 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 {{SettledTPP}}.
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.
Consider Beanies and Octoombas to be related to Goombas rather than direct variants of them (for consistency with Galoomba et al.) (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Split "Baby Fat" from Baby Yoshi (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
In Template:Species infobox, expand "Relatives" guidelines to include variant-type relationships with significant differences between species (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Trim or remove various Smash franchise-specific subcategories
This is what I'd consider part one to a few proposals I'd like to hopefully make later down the road. This is about the following categories, and if you'd like to humor us for a second, pick one of these at random and take a look at them:
If you played along with our request up above, odds are, unless you picked Rhythm Heaven specifically, you picked a category that has a large amount of Smash-related redirects and occasional disambiguation pages cluttering them--and potentially, if you clicked a category like Bayonetta or Tekken, you just saw a category with only redirects or disambiguation pages--literally zero unique articles to their name. The real loser has to be Pokemon, who not only has only a few disambiguation pages (that all only lead to redirects) to its name once all the redirects are pruned, but it has twosubcategories that are literally all redirects--and the only relevant information to the Mario series is provided not by the wiki, but via a now dead external-link in the main category's description that currently leads to a domain registration page.
So... Genuine question; who do the majority of these categories help? These are all vestiges of an era of the wiki that has long since passed where Smash was given its own coverage; nowadays, in the era of merged list articles and the dedicated Smash wiki, these are all just kind of linking to the same couple of articles. And on the off-chance you're looking for actual information related to non-Smash crossovers, the redirects completely flood those out.
Now, that's not to say every one of these categories is entirely worthless and without merit. We vaguely alluded to Rhythm Heaven in the opening, but in specific, here are a few exceptions to potentially retain (albeit after pruning their various Smash redirects), rather than deleting them:
Duck Hunt, Fire Emblem, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, and Star Fox all have the same reason--they make regular enough appearances (e.g. 3 or more) in WarioWare microgames.
Ice Climber not only has the WarioWare microgames, but Nitpickers make an appearance in that game.
The Legend of Zelda has the most compelling argument to exist, in our eyes--not only does Mario regularly reference it leading to another Mario Kart track, the Zelda series regularly references the Mario series; this culminates in stuff like the two Thwomps exclusiveto Zelda games.
Pac-Man makes sense because of the crossovers in the Mario Kart Arcade GP games.
Rhythm Heaven has probably the most spotless track record; we give Rhythm Heaven Megamix coverage, it has a WarioWare minigame, and alien bunnies and Cicada both appear in Rhythm Heaven alongside their WarioWare appearances; in fact, the latter is a character who started out as a Rhythm Heaven character before becoming a WarioWare character later on.
Sonic the Hedgehog makes sense because of the various Olympic Games games.
When all that's said and done, we can think of three main things to do here:
Prune all Smash-related redirects, and then delete categories that don't have enough articles left afterwards: For the sake of argument, let's say the cutoff is that you need 3 articles; thusly, Mega Man would stay for Dr. Light, Dr. Wily, and Mega Man, whereas Minecraft is deleted because its presence is just the video game itself. As a warning, this could result in weirdness--for instance, we saw that the Kirby category could stay because of Kirby, Star Rod (Kirby), and Whispy Woods.
Prune all Smash-related redirects, and delete all categories except for our previously-stated exceptions: Pretty self-explanatory. If we didn't decide personally it was good to keep, it gets deleted outright; and then we remove the redirects. We think our judgements were fair enough, but if push comes to shove, we could re-instate a category after the proposal--after all, it's happened before with these Smash proposals.
NUCLEAR OPTION: DELETE ALL THE SMASH SERIES SUBCATEGORIES: The obligatory extreme option, but as we've mentioned, while the state these are in is very suboptimal, there are at least some categories here that have merit and could be used for non-Smash purposes.
Do nothing: We're obligated to include this, and while we are strictly opposed to keeping stuff like the Fatal Fury category around, we aren't going to exclude this just because we personally dislike this choice.
Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Deadline: February 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Prune all Smash-related redirects, delete categories that have 0-2 articles left
Camwoodstock (talk) Our secondary option. While we're a little put-off by the idea of a category with only 3 articles, it doesn't hurt as much as these categories in their current state.
Prune all Smash-related redirects, delete all categories except for the exceptions mentioned above
Camwoodstock (talk) This is our preferred choice. We think these categories all have merit due to their aforementioned non-Smash crossovers, and have all got substantial enough appearances to merit keeping their respective categories. While we understand potentially wanting to retain a few more, that can come in a future proposal--for now, we'd like to just keep these ones and work off of that.
NUCLEAR OPTION: Delete all the Smash series subcategories, period
Do nothing
Hewer (talk) Smash is still given its own coverage. It's in the form of list articles now, but we are still dedicating articles to talking about subjects that only cross over with Mario in Smash, so having categories reflect that feels fine. I agree with deleting the two Pokémon subcategories since a list of redirects that all go to the same list page is pretty useless, but the others I feel like can be kept for as long as we're still covering Smash stuff.
Comments
Changes
Reserve April Fools' joke proposals to a new section
I'm working on the assumption that joke proposals aren't actually banned entirely and are allowed on April Fools.
I'm not against the concept, however, I feel like there should be a specialized area for these things. Easy as it may be to tell such jokes from serious matters (ymmv on how serious of a pursuit you find editing a Mario fansite to be), the fact of the matter is that they have no business mingling with each other. April Fools content, at large, is already being separated from the rest of the wiki, albeit seamlessly so (it's being directly presented on the home page, but not linked from the mainspace), and you're still not allowed to vandalize actual articles on that day--shouldn't a similar restriction be applied to proposals? This here proposal aims to introduce a brand-new section on this very page (alongside "Writing guidelines", "New features" etc.) that will only be instated on April Fools day and will be reserved for joke proposals. (To clarify: it won't be a permanent part of this page, just on that day of the year.)
Option 1 of this proposal is to name this section the "April Fools' Day proposals" section. Prim, proper, self-explanatory. Option 2 is to give it a more jokey title, to which I raise "Extremely important proposals". Option 3 is to not add a section and let joke proposals wander about the page.
Neither of the first two options would actually "kill" any joke. The entire "punchline" of these joke proposals is the silly interactions between users, and, looking at their history, these proposals tend to be so clearly frivolous that they're easy to tell from the actual proposals. There's no surprise to ruin by putting these in their own section, but it's beneficial in actually drawing a line between them and the actual wiki discussion, and minimizing potential spillover into the latter.
BMfan08 (talk) While the other option does make more logical sense, I think this option would be fitting for the joke-filled nature of the proposals. Now can someone help me with my comic project on N Gang and Club Nintendo?
SolemnStormcloud (talk) SolemnStormcloud's Vote is a vote made by SolemnStormcloud. (Per all.)
Option 3 (do nothing)
Glowsquid (talk) - It's April Fools. Having to preface it's a joke, kills the joke.
KCC if you don't make an april fool's proposal this year we're gonna be so sad We'd honestly prefer if there was no section, but it was disclosed to an admin that yes, it is indeed a joke or is an actually serious proposal--that way, the joke doesn't get "ruined" for most people, but there's at least someone who's able to, y'know, make sure if things get out of hand for what's meant to be a serious proposal/if things get too serious for what's meant to be a joke proposal, they can intervene. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 18:09, February 25, 2024 (EST)
@Glowsquid @Camwoodstock, option 2 directly addresses that issue. Either way, the point of joke proposals is less the "joke" itself and more to get others in on the play house and goof around. The "punchline" is the entire community interaction itself. That kind of stuff should not share a corner with Very Serious wiki discussion, the same way the wiki's April Fools campaigns should not be a part of the actual knowledge repository. -- KOOPACONCARNE 18:59, February 25, 2024 (EST)
I don't think Option 2 actually addresses the issue because nearly everyone who sees something titled "extremely important proposals" would immediately know it is anything but. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:36, February 25, 2024 (EST)
Sure but the point of a joke proposal isn't to actually fool people into thinking it's a real proposal. It's to goof around something outlandish. The "Extremely important proposals" title does not ruin that goal, especially since looking at the history of these proposals, they tend to be obvious jokes from the onset ("Remove removals", "Pie for everyone", "Create SUPREME rank" etc.) -- KOOPACONCARNE 19:58, February 25, 2024 (EST)
Just a quick question; has the issue this proposal intends to address (joke proposals appearing simultaneously with real ones on April 1st) actually occurred before? I've only been on here since late spring of 2021, so my perspective is rather limited, but I don't think that's been the case since at least then. Last year (2023) when I made my 「ウィキを青にしてマフィンを焼く」joke proposal, it was the only one up on the Proposal page that entire day; and the year before that (2022), there weren't any joke proposals made, and serious ones were on the page. S o m e t h i n g o n e ! 19:41, February 25, 2024 (EST)
2018, 2019, 2021 had them. I only just skimmed the revision log, though, so there should be more instances. -- KOOPACONCARNE 19:58, February 25, 2024 (EST)
19:41, February 25, 2024 (EST)
