#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} Per all; for consistency.
====DD Month YYYY====
====DD Month YYYY====
Revision as of 02:44, July 8, 2013
Current time:
Thursday, May 9th, 10:37 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 9, 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.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
Split "Big Boo (character)" from Big Boo (discuss) Deadline: May 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT
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
In regards to consistency, there has been a lot of lenience given to galleries. It was only very recently that we addressed a significant problem with their organisation, but in my opinion, there are multiple other issues with the way galleries are structured and formatted which also need to be fixed.
To clarify, there is a clear difference between newer galleries (such as this and this) and older galleries (such as this and this). Newer galleries seem to follow a much higher standard than their older counterparts, which makes them look better in comparison. Newer galleries are also much more consistent with each other than older galleries are. I believe that this inconsistency between galleries is due to the lack of a detailed gallery policy page with a set of rules that all galleries should follow.
I'm proposing that we enforce this new policy page which will apply a comprehensive standard to all galleries to maintain their appearance and structure. There are some fantastic examples of galleries out there, and these should be used to set the standard for all galleries new and old. Thus, using galleries such as these as a guideline, I have expanded on what is present on the Help:Gallery page (namely just the bottom bit) to include other important formatting rules that (if followed) should keep all galleries looking neat and constant with the majority. Most of what I've mentioned is already standard in most galleries, but having a written outline should make maintaining all galleries much easier.
Some things I've included:
The current organisation standard, which includes a new section dedicated to printed media. It also makes it clear that screenshots from animation (such as The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3) should be included on subject galleries as per this proposal.
Formatting standards. There needs to be some consistency with the alignment of images and use of headers. Some galleries use <center> and some galleries don't. It is clear that the wiki favours using <center> and Header 2 (==) for sections.
Definitions for each section and what it contains. I've also included definitions for the three types of galleries and the differences between them (such as the amount of pictures they need to contain). This will help avoid any confusion when adding images to sections and when creating subsections.
Proposer: GBAToad (talk) (with ideas from Walkazo (talk)) Deadline: July 12, 2013, 23:59 GMT
Support
GBAToad (talk) I'm certainly not saying that enforcing this policy will suddenly make the galleries perfectly consistent, but it should greatly improve the standards of all galleries.
LeftyGreenMario (talk) Great proposal! I think you already expected me to support it, but yes, this policy will provide a good rule for galleries. Galleries do seem wonky, with a lot of inconsistent coding and formatting. This proposal will clear things up.
Walkazo (talk) - Per GBAToad. Having a solid Writing Guideline to refer to when formatting gallery pages will be really helpful.
SuperYoshiBros (talk) - Yes please! This would make everything way more organized and make the wiki look more professional. Per all.
Banon (talk) — Per all; also, maybe we could write one line or two about the intro? I mean, now we have a kind of standard, so we might as well mention it there.
Yoshi876 (talk) - Too logical to disagree with, per proposal.
Tails777 (talk) Looked at the draft and I like what I saw. A great way to organize galleries. Per all.
Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk) Per LGM and Sinanco, the galleries (starts whispering) go a little crazy.
Oppose
Comments
@Banon It's the first bullet point of the "Proper Formatting" section. GBAToad (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2013 (EDT)
Oh, ok, I thought it didn't refer to the intros. — Banon (talk)
The topic has been discussed on the forum, and we decided we will add a section for the standard to the MarioWiki:Subpages Policy. So maybe, you could link there. — Banon (talk)
Guidelines for what is a reference and what is not
Lately I've been seeing a lot of pointless references, such as saying that the appearance of Shy Guys or Pokeys is a reference to Super Mario Bros. 2, even though they've become so mainstream now. I think we should set guidelines for references, i.e. if Albino Dino appeared that could be a reference because it only appeared once, but if Monty Moles appear, that's NOT a reference to Super Mario World.
Vommack (talk) I'm not going to pretend anything's perfect, but this sounds way too vague at the moment. Get a draft of the guidelines setup, then we'll see.
Walkazo (talk) - Vague calls for regulations are not helpful: better to bring it up in conversation on the forum or on talk pages.
Sinanco (talk) I don't see a big problem with references. Plus, the referred guideline doesn't sound like a clear and useful one...
I think what it would be is 'If an enemy was appeared multiple times then it's not a references i.e. a Goomba appearing in something, but if the enemy has only appeared once i.e. the Albino Dino, then it could be a reference'. Yoshi876 (talk)
A Goomba appearing more than once is a reference, without a doubt — Banon (talk)
No, as in a Goomba appearing in New Super Luigi U isn't a reference to Super Mario Bros. due to their appearances in all main-series Mario games bar 1. Yoshi876 (talk)
Oh, okay. Currently, we don't cover references inside of the series. We gather information about Mario stuff appearing in non-Mario media. We don't gather information about Mario stuff appearing in Mario media. — Banon (talk)
I think the proposer means in the References to other games sections in games articles. Yoshi876 (talk)
Oh, that makes a lot more sense. Yeah, a Goomba in NSMBU is not a reference. — Banon (talk)
I think it's because if it passes then things like 'Shy Guy appearing in here is a reference to this' would be removed though the title does make it sound like it should be somewhere else. Yoshi876 (talk)
I'll make a draft soon, and then I'll start the proposal again. Sorry for the misunderstanding! SuperYoshiBros (talk)
Changes
Impose a standard for dates
Recently, we have no clear standard for dates. Often, we see dates like this: Month DD, YYYY, and other times like this: DD Month YYYY. I think we should have a set standard for imposing dates. So, here are two choices.
Walkazo (talk) - Starting with the word, having all the numbers together (broken up perfectly well by commas), and then closing with letters seems neater to me than mixing them all together and not using punctuation. It also mirrors how the date's spoken aloud (in my experiences), and from what I understand, MDY's the main format in the US as well; so, going by the same logic as the North American name thing, most editors and readers will have been schooled in MDY notation too - but of course, I can't assert that for sure. It's also been the proposal standard for years (starting with the List of TPP section, iirc), and changing it now seems arbitrary and will require a lot of archives to be fixed if we wanna remain consistent (most of the pre-MDY archives are already inconsistent and need fixing either way - although I've already done a few of them there and there).
Tucayo (talk) - Even though I was raised with D/M/Y and have used it all my life, for the sake of consistency the wiki should use the Month DD, YYYY format. Not only that, but, as Walkazo mentioned, it looks much better than having <number> <word> <number>, and the comma lets it flow easier.
LeftyGreenMario (talk) This should be the standard date. Signature dates and Featured Article dates already use this format, so it's a wonder how proposal deadlines don't use this format. In fact, I've tried using this standard for proposal deadline dates, but it keeps getting "reformatted" into the first one. The reason this format is so attractive for formal writing is that it is quickly grasped since the figures are separated by word. So, I support using this standard.
Yoshi876 (talk) Per Lefty, I also find it easier to read if it goes day, month, year.
Why does the time have to be first in the second option? I prefer DD Month YYYY to Month DD, YYYY, but I'd like the time to be after that because it's always the same and the date is the important part. Aokage (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2013 (EDT)
The time is first because it's the way the signature and the featured article is arranged, but the time can go after the date. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Walkazo: The numbers aren't mixed. They're ordered by the the smallest time frame to the largest one without punctuation. I think this notation is preferred in formal works, and I think this reminds me of how the U.S. uses the customary system, but most scientists (including those in the U.S.) prefer metric. According to the article you listed, more and more written works are written as this format as well. This format also eliminates ambiguity, which is the purpose of that format. I'm not calling for an immediate change in the archive system, though, but Walkazo, if you're calling for that first one, you have to change the signature formatting and the FA dates as well. Either way, something's being changed. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Graphically, it's mixed. There's no ambiguity as long as the month's written in letters and the year's got all four digits: the ambiguity comes when it's all numbers and 11/12/10 could mean anything (especially in Canada, since we use all three orders, which is just super). If I could change the sigs, I would, and I'd much rather change the FAs to mach the proposals, too. Aokage's point about the time being way less important than the date, and thus, should come last, is valid for FAs as well as proposals: unlike proposals, the times may change, but does it really matter what hour and minute an article becomes an FA? The month and year seems much more important, especially when you consider that histories are navigated using months and years (in case someone ever wants to go see what an article was like when it was featured, like if it since goes downhill and makes them wonder how it was FA'd in the first place, or if they want to just do it out of curiosity, or whatever). - Walkazo (talk)
The format we use (the one for writing out the months) works better in day month year since it's cleaner and easier to read, so there wouldn't be any ambiguity in rearranging the dates that way. I'm not asking for all numbers, by the way. I do think the time should go after the dates, though. Still, I'm not sure if DMY format is used in formal spots, much as how metric is used instead of customary in scientific works, even in the U.S. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Which method is cleaner and easier to read is subjective: you think DMY is better, but I think MDY is better; there's nothing to debate there, because both are valid opinions and it's just a matter of which opinions is more popular. I didn't think you were arguing for numbers only, I was just using it to show what is ambiguous, because saying DMY "eliminates ambiguity" implies the alternative, MDY, has ambiguity that needs eliminating, which is doesn't - unlike the number method. From my experiences, MDY is used in formal situations all the time, including academia, but either way, I still maintain that concerns about formality should take a backseat to the more important question of which format feels more natural for the users and thus, will be easier to read and use. The subjective, popular vote. - Walkazo (talk)
I'd like to go for ISO 8601: YYYY-MM-DD (hh:mm:ss). I think it's a bit more logical because year < month < day < hour < minute < second. — Banon (talk)
@TimeTurner: Please don't bring political agendas into this. The wiki is international, that's why we allow both American and British spelling, among other things. Going with the North American titles and the date format primarily used in the States isn't about "Americanizing" the wiki at all. The former is to make it easier for the most number of potential readers to find us with their Google searchers, and my argument (in addition to the subjective looks call) for this matter is similar: use the date format used by the most editors. Since the bulk of the wiki's userbase and reader traffic is from (North) America, that means the (North) American standards are the ones that will best serve the most people. It's demographics and the popular vote, not political at all, and dragging those sorts of issues into things is nothing but a recipe for disaster. - Walkazo (talk)
I... what? You have me completely at a loss, Walkazo. Time Turner (talk)
Look up the old First English Name vs. North American Name proposals, or even the comments here. The last thing any objective wiki discussion needs is to get sidetracked by any sort of political chatter, including terms like "Americanization", which can inspire rather strong feelings on either side of the argument. Besides, we're not trying to Americanize the wiki, and so, that's not why anyone should support or oppose the MDY format. - Walkazo (talk)
I... didn't realize that "Americanize" is a political term, nor that it would actually cause political arguments. I know next to nothing about anything politics-related, and since I've apparently, I do apologize. Time Turner (talk)
No worries: if I hadn't seen arguments flare up over that sorta thing many a time already, I probably wouldn't think it'd be something to avoid either. So no need to apologize - you just might want to rephrase your vote, is all. - Walkazo (talk)
