|
Current time:
Thursday, April 25th, 17:14 GMT
|
|
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
- "Vote" periods last for one week.
- Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
- All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
- For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.
|
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.
How to
Rules
- If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
- Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option 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: "April 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 {{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
- Merge Cog (Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!) and Cog (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) into Cog (obstacle) and rename page to "Cog" (discuss) Deadline: April 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Delete or be more specific with Template:Unreferenced (discuss) Deadline: April 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Delete all Super Smash Bros. challenges pages (discuss) Deadline:
April 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT April 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split Hell from List of implied locations (discuss) Deadline: April 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck (discuss) Deadline: May 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Treat Monty Mole as derivative of Rocky Wrench (discuss) Deadline: May 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Party Ball (item) with Party Ball (discuss) Deadline: May 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Arrow Switch with gravity switch (discuss) Deadline: May 6th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split "Big Boo (character)" from Big Boo (discuss) Deadline: May 8th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Potentially consider the Donkey Konga series and Barrel Blast as related to DKC. (discuss) Deadline: May 8th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
- ^Note: This has yet to be done with with several non–Super Mario fighters who still have their own page; namely, Banjo, Fox, Inkling, Isabelle, Kirby, Link, Mega Man, Pac-Man, R.O.B., Sonic, and Villager.
Talk page proposals
List of Talk Page Proposals
- Separate Wii U audio files from the ones on the GBA (Discuss) Passed.
- Separate the Nintendo eShop paragraph from the 3DS and Wii U pages (Discuss) Passed.
- Separate the Mario Bros. stage from the Smash Bros. stage of the same name (Discuss) Passed.
- Move Coin (Diddy Kong Racing DS) to Rareware Coin or Split into Two Articles (Discuss) Passed.
- Have certain amiibo be "Special Edition" (Discuss) Deadline: March 12, 2015, 23:59 GMT
- Create a new article on Template:Fakelink. (Discuss) Deadline: March 17, 2015, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Flopsy Fish with Cheep Cheep. (Discuss) Deadline: March 18, 2015, 23:59 GMT
- Move Workshop Store to Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Tipping Stars. (Discuss) Deadline: March 19, 2015, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Parabuzzy with Para-Beetle. (Discuss) Deadline: March 23, 2015, 23:59 GMT
Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Make notice for animated images
Seeing how Bulbapedia does things, I came up with a cool idea. Maybe we should create a template that should state whether this image is animated. It's purpose? To explain that some browsers are limited to viewing only the first frame of animated images and kindly remind users (especially new users that use old and worn-out browsers) not to change the image, even if it's not moving at all (unless there's really a problem, in which someone good at animated images can help).
A sample of said template can be viewed here.
Proposer: Stonehill (talk)
Deadline: March 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
Support
- Stonehill (talk) Per proposal as this would prevent from cluttered image change logs.
- BabyLuigi64 (talk) Per proposal.
- Toads Forever! (talk) It would mean that Users wouldn't just change (for example) a .gif (animated file) to a .png (solid picture)
- Andymii (talk) Sounds nice. Per proposal. This would really be beneficial to people who often edit on mobile devices (like me). "It's a hassle" is NOT a good excuse, as it just sounds like we're being lazy.
- Boo4761 (talk) I don't see why not. Per all.
- Toadbrigade5 (talk) Per all.
Oppose
- Mario (talk) This proposal, since it apparently deals with APNGS (and .gifs in mobile browsers), should be moot, thanks to this proposal. Even though it's harmless, creating, maintaining, and implementing this template just piles tedious work with little pay-off. Ideally, every sprite bar animated ones should be in .png, and the the most popular animated format that any browser can read is the .gif. So, I think the template is mostly useless.
- Vommack (talk) Per Mario.
- Walkazo (talk) - Been thinking it over, and yeah, per Mario above and per Lakituthequick and myself in the comments. While mobile devices can't load GIFs, it'd be far more trouble than it's worth to mark them all. (Plus, while the use of animation is relevant, it still seems too gaudy a template design for me in all honesty.)
- Time Turner (talk) Per all.
- Lakituthequick (talk) As said in comments.
- SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per all.
- Megadardery (talk) Unnecessary, if it was dealing with APNG, then it was already decided that this feature should be replaced with GIFs, so no templates regarding it should exist in the first place. If it was dealing with GIFs, then it is pretty unlikely todays to find a web browser that doesn't support simple GIFs, and Mobile users won't probably even care to update an image over their device (since a device that doesn't support GIFs would have troubles working with actual images and such) .
The idea makes sense, but the template must be consistent in design with other image notices, such as {{MapImage}}, {{Award-image}}, {{BJAODN image}}, etc. Having the whole "if the Goombas aren't moving" explanation also seems unnecessary: just say something like "This image is animated; please do not reupload it as a static image." and maybe an additional note that some brows might erroneously display it as already being a static image, but either way, be succinct. - Walkazo (talk)
- Thanks for the heads-up. That was a sample, after all. STONE-HILL!!! At last, the rock fell.
15:19, 4 March 2015 (EST)
- By the way, why not use another animated image? If you look at File:Evotag.png, you'll understand what I mean. STONE-HILL!!! At last, the rock fell.
15:35, 4 March 2015 (EST)
- As long as the image doesn't look like crap, it can be whatever (of the two, I'd say the SMB Goomba looks better). But there should only be one image. And again, I still think the "if the Goombas aren't moving" caveat is unnecessary (and it's unnecessary on Bulbapedia too), since even folks who see movement shouldn't reupload static versions of the image, and either way, simpler is better. The excessive !s are also less than ideal and Help:Image has nothing to do with the issue so there's no point in linking to it. Right now, I would suggest this as the design:
| Animated-image
|
|
This is an animated image. However, it may not display properly on certain browsers and devices. Please be careful to not re-upload it as a static image by mistake.
|
- - Walkazo (talk)}
- Yeah, now that I've thought about it in greater depth, I'm pretty sure Walkazo is right. STONE-HILL!!! At last, the rock fell.
18:13, 4 March 2015 (EST)
- You've got your wish, Walkazo. STONE-HILL!!! At last, the rock fell.
18:17, 4 March 2015 (EST)
"To explain that some browsers are limited to viewing only the first frame of animated images and kindly remind users (especially new users that use old and worn-out browsers) not to change the image"
Which browsers don't support animated images? I think most popular browsers (FireFox and Internet Explorer and maybe Safari) supports the basic animated .gif image. Finally, for the notice template, it would be better if the image included has transparency instead of a white background, but it's just my opinion. 
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:30, 4 March 2015 (EST)
- The Evotag example Stonehill provided actually doesn't work on Chrome without an extension (but it works in Firefox; dunno about IE), and afaik mobile devices often can't load GIFs. Anyway, I agree about the image: I couldn't do anything before since I was at school, but now that I'm home, I reuploaded it as a transparent GIF. - Walkazo (talk)
- Walkazo, the gif has an incorrect frame of animation. Just pointing that out for you.
Ray Trace(T|C) 23:23, 4 March 2015 (EST)
- Yeah, sorry, it saved with the wrong layer mode by accident. It should be better now, but the revisions haven't refreshed for me here or on the file page so I can't tell for sure yet. - Walkazo (talk)
- I see it, it works fine now Ray Trace(T|C) 16:18, 5 March 2015 (EST)
Does this count personal images too? ~~ Boo4761
- No one should be reuploading someone else's PIs, so tagging them would be unnecessary. - Walkazo (talk)
This matter itches me because there is a point that is missed here. Animated GIFs are supported in any browser since the millenium bug (bar early wearables). However, this template is meant for animated PNGs, which is not supported in all browsers yet, let alone image editors. Bulbapedia uses these APNGs in a manner not crucial to the information, just as eye-candy for those with awesome browsers.
To the matter at hand, the Super Mario Wiki does not have any APNGs at all to my knowledge (a proposal about them even failed a while ago), so while the template and idea are great (my support), no images will have it (my oppose). Lakituthequick (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2015 (EST)
- Well, GIFs still break for mobile devices iirc, but the opposite problem you speak of just occurred to me: we have lots of GIFs, and tagging them all seems like a lot of work for very little gain. After all, for the most part, if somethings uploaded as a GIF, it's because its animated (and should actually be reuploaded as a PNG if it's static), so the file type alone should let people know it's supposed to be moving - and most folks viewing with a mobile device probably aren't in a position to try reuploading files anyway. The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to feel that it is unnecessary. - Walkazo (talk)
- When mobile devices don't support GIFs it really is an old device. That aside, I do a lot on my phone but I won't go around and edit GIFs on it, so for those devices we don't need such template.
If we ever do things with APNGs (i.e. when browser support is better and when MediaWiki supports thumbnails for then), then sure. Also, this PI is an APNG, for those interested in it. Lakituthequick (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2015 (EST)
- @Walkazo, when you say mobile device users aren't in a position to re-upload files, what do you mean? Because I've ironically uploaded most of my files from an iPad. (BTW, gifs run perfectly fine on it, but I'm not sure if this is the case for other mobile users.) Andymii (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)
- I am replying to both your comment and edited vote here.
While yes, it very well is possible to upload files to the Wiki using mobile devices, just not all support it. You can't compare it to yourself either, you uploaded just JPGs lately, we're talking GIFs here.
Honestly though, this proposal is proposing we add something that is only needed for users of Internet Explorer 4 and phones with green LCDs. The need is just not there. Lakituthequick (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2015 (EDT)
- Yeah, I wasn't thinking iPads. My point was that if your device can't load GIFs, it probably isn't the sort of thing you're going to be uploading files from anyway. - Walkazo (talk)
Make a Rule Against Using Too Many Contractions
This proposal is complicated, so please read this carefully so you know exactly what I am proposing.
Ever since I joined this wiki, one thing I always keep an eye out for is contractions (won't, can't, he'll, doesn't, etc.). We are an encyclopedia, so we should be relatively formal; contractions are generally looked upon as colloquial and informal. So what should we do?
Well, first of all, contractions are completely fine in talk and discussion pages, so any rule against contractions should not apply in those pages. And since contractions have become such an important part of English, a person using a few once in a while by accident should not be penalized. However, when people start using them excessively, sentences start to sound like "Mario'll then grab the item. It'll then transform him into Mini Mario, which'll allow him to run up walls he can't run up otherwise." See how informal it sounds? As one of the premier NIWA wikis, this would be unacceptable here on MarioWiki. The unfortunate truth is that this website is loaded with sentences like these.
So, I propose that contractions in main space pages be generally avoided and using them to excess be worth a gentle Reminder. It will make things admittedly more difficult, but at the end, it is for the good of the wiki.
Contractions are already technically against our standard style, but it has to be raised a notch due to sheer amount of infractions. Pushing it off to the side will not work.
Proposer: Andymii (talk)
Deadline: March 13, 2015, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Andymii (talk) Per my own proposal.
Oppose
- Baby Luigi (talk) Sorry, but the use of contractions is already against standard style; making a rule specifically for contractions is entirely redundant with the general rules for formal and standard writing. Contractions are what they are: a type of slang, and should already be actively discouraged when writing articles on this wiki.
- Toadbrigade5 (talk) Per Baby Luigi.
- Walkazo (talk) - Contractions are no more slang than commonplace abbreviations like "etc." (et cetera), "a.m./AM" (ante meridiem), "CD" (Compact Disc), "i.e." (id est), or "laser" (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). There is nothing wrong with using them on the wiki (check the policies), and rightly so, for it would be an antiquated and pointless waste of time to forbid and remove them. Most users write the way that's familiar to us, and like it or not, contractions are a fixed part of modern language; many outlets of "formal" writing are starting to come around on this matter, and just as we allow users to write according to their different countries' standards of grammar, punctuation and spelling, so too should we allow them to use contractions as they've been taught. Within reason, of course, but using common sense is a given for all aspects of wiki writing, and the odd contraction here and there doesn't make the place illegible or unsightly in the slightest.
- Stonehill (talk) Contractions are already hard not to use for some people (such as me), so even a Reminder would be harsh.
- Magikrazy (talk) Per Walky.
- LudwigVon (talk) Per Walkazo.
- Mario (talk) I have to disagree with Walkazo about putting common contractions in the same vein as "etc.", "a.m./AM". "CD". or "laser". This wiki is meant to be as formal as possible, and contractions have a much more breezy tone. If you had to write a term paper or a letter to a company willing to hire you, it's best to avoid the contractions. Contractions are informal and laid-back, so it's probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The contractions Walkazo mentioned have hardly any tonal differences compared with the common contractions; they rose as a condensation on otherwise long terms compared to "can't", "won't", which most likely arose from spoken language. Anyway, this proposal is unnecessary, verging on pedantry that penalizes people for simply writing in an informal tone. I allow contractions on articles, but ideally, there should be none.
- Boo4761 (talk) Per Walkazo.
- Binarystep (talk) Per Walkazo. Contractions are a common part of the English language, not new slang or something.
I've noticed that you've added a point to your proposal after you voted. Yes, contractions are technically against standardized writing as I had stated (it's not our rules, it's a general rule in formal English writing that every English major should know). It doesn't necessarily need to be raised a notch any more than the forbidden second person/imperative writing nor as a raised awareness of certain styles and dictions used in a very informal manner in this wiki. I agree that more awareness should be raised about lessening the use of contractions in this wiki but it does not necessarily need to be its own rule since it's already a rule in standard, formal writing. Ray Trace(T|C) 23:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:30, 4 March 2015 (EST)
Ray Trace(T|C) 23:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)
