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 3, 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
Delete all Super Smash Bros. challenges pages (discuss) Deadline:April 19, 2024, 23:59 GMTApril 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT May 3, 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
While navigating through glitches pages, I came across several glitches which I was unable to perform, nor did I managed to find any proof that this glitch is real or fake. So instead of removing all unsourced glitches, we would simply add a small notice like this[unconfirmed glitch]. This way we will still have the information, while avoiding any bogus glitches (because the reader would be already aware that this glitch was not tested, unproved).
I already aware that there is a template called {{refneeded}}. However this is a different thing: not every glitch need a reference. they need just an screenshot, a video, or in some cases, discussion on the talk page may be very enough if provided with some proof. Also having a different template and a different category is better for organizing, this way we can look in the category to find all glitches pages only which contains glitches need confirmation.
Draft:
<sup class="noprint">[''unconfirmed glitch'']</sup><includeonly>[[Category:Glithes need confirmation]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Formatting Templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>
Proposer: Megadardery (talk) Deadline: February 3, 2014, 23:59 GMT, Extended: February 10, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Walkazo (talk) - Just use {{refneeded}}: an unconfirmed glitch is no different from any other unconfirmed bit of info, and needs to be backed up by the exact same kind of sources. Furthermore, the template would just categorize the whole list page, not the specific glitch: in all likelihood, every long page will end up languishing in the category, probably from multiple templates (not that you could tell from looking at the category), which isn't useful: better to just use the collab to keep track of things.
Screenshots and videos are references, and citing discussions isn't ideal even for glitches (although citing discussions beats no citations at all, of course). And what do you mean by "scrawny" "sourcing thing"? Citations are used all over the wiki, and so they should: they lend credibility to the database. Whoever told you references are only for upcoming games and beta elements is grievously mistaken. - Walkazo (talk)
Sorry, I was mistaken. After reading MarioWiki:Citation_Policy in depth again, I knew that information can be taken directly from the game without the need of external resources. Whatever, I guess this proposed feature should be separated from the {{refneeded}}, this way the category will contain all the pages that weren't tested by our users thus they aren't confirmed. About the citing discussion, take Flip'd-up Mario 1 as an example, a user confirmed this on the talk pages even describing it more, another user confirmed the glitch and confirmed his description (both users do not have capture cards), thus the glitch is confirmed, BUT it needs a reference. so replacing the {{UnconfirmedGlitch}} with the {{refneeded}}. Take Bananaport Glitch as an example, it does have an image, however I started a discussion on the talk page saying that it never happened for me, some more users said so. The {{UnconfirmedGlitch}} get added to the glitch, even when it really has an image (a reference. Megadardery (talk)
You can still use {{refneeded}} in cases where some evidence is provided but more is needed. And more than anything, the story about "Flip'd-up Mario 1" just proves that the differences in use between the established template and the proposed addition is splitting hairs and adding unnecessary complications to the straightforward process of confirming glitches (nothingrefneeded -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy). - Walkazo (talk)
A new template sounds redundant, but maybe {{refneeded}} could be modified to read "unconfirmed glitch" or something? driftmaster130 (talk)
"(nothingrefneeded -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy)"Megadardery (talk)
But don't you think that's getting a wee bit long and unseemly? Anyway, what I meant was that first, if someone adds a glitch with no refs or anything, you can just label it with {{refneeded}}. Then maybe it gets discussed on the talk page and people convincingly vouch for its existence - then you cite the discussion, and it's up to the readers to look at the citation and decide whether they believe our info despite us not having any hard evidence. Then you do find some hard evidence and can cite that instead, and when readers see that, they won't have any reason to doubt us (i.e. everybody's happy). No need for a clunky extra template or template parameter: you either have a reference, or ya don't. It also just occurred to me that if you really want to keep track of unconfirmed glitches and don't trust a list on the wiki collabs board, why not use {{talk}} or a template spun off of that to put on the talk pages? You'd still get the useless category problem, but at least the templates will draw attention to the appropriate sections on the talk page once folks wander in. - Walkazo (talk)
XX supports= Remove XX opposes freely
While I did my first Feature Nomination, I discovered that to remove opposes we need three users' votes and one from an admin. I think that this is an injustice. If an FA (or even a Proposal) have, for example, 10 supports, and only one oppose, then the rule should be different. Using the same sample: By each 10 supports, one ( or more,maybe) should be ignoted/ removed.
I mind that, at least, by each 7 supports, we can remove one( the first) oppose freely.
Time Turner (talk) Especially when it comes to articles featuring prominent characters, there are always quite a few users who flood a nomination with support votes simply due to the fact that they like the character while ignoring any flaws that the article actually has. If this proposal were to pass, this could, in turn, lead to featured articles being more of a popularity vote than anything else, which is completely against the spirit of featured articles. Though there certainly isn't a guarantee that this will occur, I do not want to take the chance of it happening.
Pinkie Pie (talk) Only Featured Articles' votes can be removed, not the proposal. Proposals' votes can't be removed. Per Time Turner.
Mario (talk) While the current system of requiring a patroller or higher to remove an oppose vote is flawed (often, they simply don't vote), this proposed rules will create much more problems than it solves. We do not feature on the quantity of votes, but rather, no oppose votes. If there is a single oppose vote that is isn't disputed, then it should remain.
If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so and how it can be improved[emphasis mine]. Please cite which rule your objection falls under. Failure to do so will result in your objection being considered invalid. Users may vote for the removal of an oppose vote if they feel it is invalid or not specific enough, but have to give reasons for their choice. Three users, including an administrator, are required for the removal of an oppose vote.
Objection cannot be 'valid' without reason and and a method of improvement. If nominators, supporters, administration, et cetera are unable to ameliorate whatever obstacle or flaw to satisfy the objector's demands then:
A) the article should not have been nominated in the first place because it does not meet the previously written standards, or
B) the objector's arguments are fallacious and the three user + one administrative vote will quickly dispatch of the objection.
In the case of scenario B, the voters + admin will be more than delighted to remove the objection.
For these reasons, I oppose. Mr. Guye (talk)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Move substantial "Official profiles and statistics" sections to a separate page
Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Toad, Bowser, Yoshi, Donkey Kong. One thing in common is that their pages are incredibly huge, and loading them may be a chore for the computer. My proposal is to move some information, specifically large "Official profiles and statistics" sections, from these pages to another page, much as how "Gallery" and "Quotes" have their own page. While this may not be a surefire way to get these pages loading a bajillion times quicker, every little bit helps so we can get potential editors rather than having their browsers crash from the immense size.
Baby Luigi and I then decided that we should move the "Official profiles and statistics" section to its own page. Now, just as with galleries and list of quotes, not EVERY article will be affected by it; only articles that have a substantial amount of information (decided by a case-by-case basis) will have the information moved.
Reasonably reducing the strain these pages do on browsers should be a plus for all of us editors here.
Update: In addition, profiles and statistics from RPG games, such as Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi and Super Mario RPG will be moved into these pages as well.
Proposer: Mario (talk) Deadline: February 9, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Support
Mario (talk) It's a pain in the ass to visit these articles I mentioned. Every little bit of trimming will be highly appreciated, so moving this information to another article will be nice.
Pinkie Pie (talk) In 2006, all the page were short like a daisy. Now, it a garbage dump today. We should move the profiles to another page. Reader could get tired of reading long articles. I said we go back to 2006. Per all.
Walkazo (talk) - YES! I've wanted to see this happen for years, but was always too lazy to to do more than mention it every now and then. As well as shortening the length of the page as a whole, it'll also halve the amount of entries in the Table of Contents for these big pages, making navigation easier (plus, then there won't be so many headers sharing names and potentially complicating section-linking). The articles will also look better without the messy lists dragging along after the prose content.
GBAToad (talk) I strongly support this. Per Mario and Walkazo.
Tails777 (talk) Yes, just yes. Maybe this can also help towards featuring these kinds of articles (maybe). Per all.
Ashley and Red (talk)Great Idea. Pages such Daisy were shorter in some time ago, but now ittakes some minutes to load completely. Also, pages such Peach and Mario doesn't load completely the images, they are very very very large pages. Per all.
Mr. Guye (talk) I agree with you even though my computer and the current browser I am using loaded these pages fine. The data of the actual article would not be a problem, but the advertisements contribute the most to agony when I used my old tablet to load REGULAR pages, mainly on this wiki and Bulbapedia. But I believe that we should do more, and establish what a character article ought to be which is an extensive coverage on the general character, which I believe (in the context of the characters you mentioned) ought to include:
A)an introduction (which reveal too much information during the status quo;
B)physical appearance and typical outfits;
C)back-stories, occupations, personality;
D)frequent character roles, recurring abilities, catchphrases, running gags,etc;
E)relationships with other characters;
F)a list of game appearances (not a list with a paragraph per appearance) with links to main articles of them for information, portrayals outside of Nintendo;
G)controversy, trivia, notes, names in other languages, name origins;
H)"See also", related topics;
I)sources, references, citations;
J)external links, extra templates.
That way, we can place stuff like some of the "History" sections and even more of your section of issue as "Main Articles" which will allow even more information and coverage on those topics!I support, per Iggy Koopa Jr. and myself.
Oppose
SeanWheeler (talk) - I have no problem loading these pages. And the profiles and statistics are shorter than the history. I don't think removing a small section would help your loading times.
Comments
I think it would be a good idea to also say that all the official profiles and stats should go on the not-subpages - i.e. instead of having some of the RPG infoboxes in the History sections, etc. That way, everything would be in one place, and it would also make the History sections more uniform and less crowded (as they can get when they have multiple boxes in close proximity). One question, tho: what would the new pages be named? "List of profiles and statistics of X" would be consistent with other "subpages", and doesn't see, too wordy after the "official" bit's removed. But I dunno, maybe there's a better choice? - Walkazo (talk)
I added some more provisions, thanks to your suggestions. Also, I think the "profiles and statistics" part can be shortened to just one word, but I'm not exactly sure what single word can replace that lengthy phrase. Maybe "List of data of this guy person" or simply "List of profiles of this guy person". Mario (talk)
SeanWheeler, if we don't move the stat to another page, the reader might rage quit on this wiki. Pinkie Pie (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2014 (EST)
That's extreme; the worst I'd do is refuse to click on those specific pages at all. Baby Luigi (talk)
I like "List of {character} profiles and statistics". - Porplemontage (talk)
SeanWheeler, just compare the loading time of Waluigi to Bowser. There is a noticeable difference. In every computer I've used, Bowser takes a painfully longer time to load. Also, you should be more considerate about those with weaker computers than yours. Just because YOU don't have a problem doesn't mean EVERYONE won't. I've also mentioned explicitly that the action will not make the page load a million times faster, but trimming reasonably will improve loading times nevertheless. Mario (talk)
I think the reason why he said it's fine, is because he has a high-performance PC that load pages faster. Check other computers with low-performance SeanWheeler, the pages take almost 1 minute to load. Pinkie Pie (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (EST)
I'm using a computer with an i7 processor and the Mario page still makes my browser hang for 10 seconds. You need a REALLY high-performance PC that doesn't make a difference. SeanWheeler's reasoning is weak: "I don't have problems and it won't reduce loading time drastically, so I will oppose." Mario (talk)
SeanWheeler might have a REALLY high-performance PC. Also, I'm with Mario: SeanWheeler's oppose is weak. Pinkie Pie (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2014 (EST)
It's a quad-core CPU with 1.7 gH I believe. It's not gaming-quality (doesn't run Dolphin Emulator GCN games such as Mario Party at full speed), but it's still decent. Baby Luigi (talk)
Loading a page shouldn't take a $10,000 premium-performance shiny spankin' new computer for goodness sake. Mario (talk)
Also, even though the long page load faster, scrolling down is a pain to look at. Pinkie Pie (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2014 (EST)
SeanWheeler, just because you said that is fine, it not fine. First, scrolling woud be REALLY hard, second, there is too much lag, and third, the profiles and stats are useless. Maybe we need to make a proposal on removing opposes. Pinkie Pie (talk)
One: that'd be extremely unnecessary for these types of proposals, and simply explaining the logical flaws is fine, which two: you seem to have done multiple times already. I'm fairly sure both Sean and anyone else reading gets what you think of their oppose without it having to be repeatedly stated. Lord Grammaticus (talk)
