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 6, 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
Currently our writing standards regarding what constitutes as a Featured Article at MarioWiki: Featured Articles is a vague list of short phrases and one-liners, which makes it far too loose to interpretation to my liking, especially for a process where quality control is key and enforcing these guidelines is a pivotal step to picking out only the best articles in MarioWiki. I propose that we expand these guidelines into small little paragraphs, detailing what exactly we want out of a Featured Article. This will follow the model similar to how we write out our good writing policy, where key points are organized under a header as a list first, and a paragraph detailing what we want under the header will be elaborated on.
If you want the specifics on how exactly I want the writing guidelines to look like, I have worked on it in the following sandbox page, where most of my proposed points is detailed out and worked on
Toadette the Achiever (talk) Everything looks nicely policy-oriented, clear-cut, and not too confusing for the average reader. Per Baby Luigi.
Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Strong support. While I'm not usually very worried about the whole featured article thing, I have seen cases where a nomination does not pass simply because the list of prerequisites was not clear, either because the nominator believed the article was ready when it was not or because the opposition believed the article wasn't ready, even though it may have been. There it is. That phrase. May have been. The current policy is so vague that it doesn't answer users' question about what an article should look like and leaves them thinking "Well, I guess it could be ready. Maybe, maybe not." You shouldn't have to actually nominate an article to find out if it's ready, the policy should tell you all that. Frankly, I'm surprised it's stayed as long it has. No question, that whole section needs a rethink. Per all.
TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all, though I feel the first sentence of the "Be sourced with all available Mario-related appearances." section should say "All appearances of the subject need to be present in the article."
Shouldn't there be a draft of this beforehand? Rule #11 especially comes to mind: "An article must be of reasonable length and not be marked as a stub." At first glance, it's hard to know where to start. Only if we put a little more thought into the actual content (such as adding information on how certain sections should be formatted, and not to mention between certain types of subjects) would this proposal actually be clear-cut and easier to implement. (Not that this will cause me to cast a conditional oppose vote, just making sure the cart isn't being put before the horse.) (T|C) 15:41, 1 February 2018 (EST)
Never mind, didn't see the subpage. I'm apparently a little hasty. (T|C) 15:42, 1 February 2018 (EST)
For the sake of proper grammar, can you change "An article must be..." to "An article must..."? It just bugs me to see "be...be" or "be...not be". -YFJ (talk · edits) 21:49, 1 February 2018 (EST)
Noted. Ray Trace(T|C) 17:15, 2 February 2018 (EST)
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Create articles for Super Mario Odyssey minor objectives
Back when Super Mario Odyssey was released, many users were confused as to which missions get articles. A discussion started on Porplemontage's talk page, and Porplemontage said that only major objectives merit articles, and minor objectives are included with the most recent major objective. However, this creates a problem with the Cap Kingdom objectives, as all three are minor with no major precedents. As such, these three objectives have no coverage on the wiki, and that's a problem. I brought it up on the wiki collaborations board on the forums, and Mario jc (talk) told me to ask Porplemontage (talk), who told me to attempt to counter his rule with a proposal, and that's exactly what I'm doing now. Here are all the options, explained in detail:
Create articles for all minor objectives: This option would completely overturn Porplemontage's rule, and all objectives would be treated the same, major or minor. This would create all articles listed below. This is my preferred option.
Create Cappy of the Cap Kingdom only: This would leave everything as it is now; however, the Cap Kingdom objectives would all be covered in a single article. As such, "Cappy of the Cap Kingdom" would be considered a major objective, while "To the Top of Top-Hat Tower" and "The Kingdom Next Door" would be considered minor objectives of the first. Other than a single new article, everything remains unchanged. This seems to be a workable option as well, as it still gives the Cap Kingdom objectives coverage.
Only major objectives get articles: Do nothing. Minor objectives are included with the article of the most recent major objective, and the Cap Kingdom objectives get no coverage. I strongly oppose this option, as the Cap Kingdom objectives are as worthy for coverage as other minor objectives.
Baby Luigi (talk) This is the choice I'm going with. It's an exception mostly because as stated in the proposal, the objectives in the Cap Kingdom don't even have an article like this to begin with and therefore is the most justifiable into receiving one. It's also the first cutscene in the game anyway that kickstarts the entire story of the game into motion, so I say that's important enough for this mission to get its own article. I'm not a fan of splicing off separate articles for minor objectives simply because of a small title change in the mission like "round up three guys because it's one of the objectives" or "this is the same objective but since this small portion has you fight a boss it's suddenly different" like in the Ocean Kingdom's The Glass is Half Empty!'s mission.
Baby Luigi's proposed system has been a success so far. However, since we use a template for most archives, why not this one? The table columns are long and repetitive enough to get cumbersome to archive, anyways, so I propose we use a template for archiving featuring (as well as unfeaturing) nominations. I have two drafts, which you can view here and here.
Let me know in the comments if there are any issues or possible fixes you have in mind with the templates.
@YoshiFlutterJump: This was Baby Luigi's intended layout, and I don't see how structuring it the way you suggested is entirely possible anyways. (T|C) 20:15, 11 February 2018 (EST)
Add a small link to MarioWiki:Appeals in the reminder/warning/last warning templates
We have an appeal system that is not used a whole lot, and one of the reasons it's not used is simply because it's not that visible; it requires digging around our maintenance and policy pages to find it, so many users may not even know that such a system exists. Some of us do manually link to there when we occasionally hand out the templates, but why not make the process automatic? After all, this system is directly linked to those templates, and I don't see any reason to segregate the two processes entirely.
Here's an example of what I want these to look like
Please stop making unconstructive edits on the Super Mario Wiki. This isn't a warning, and it's possible that you made a mistake by accident or without realizing it; this is simply a reminder for your information. If the action continues, then a warning will be issued. Thanks for reading and keep contributing. If you feel this reminder has been unfairly given out, you may appeal it.
This is a warning to stop your inappropriate behavior on the Super Mario Wiki. Please adhere to the rules or you will be blocked from editing this site. If you feel this warning has been unfairly given out, you may appeal it.
This is your last warning. The next time you break the rules in any way, you will be blocked from editing the Super Mario Wiki. If you feel this last warning has been unfairly given out, you may appeal it.
Any changes to wording or comments, please note.
Proposer:Baby Luigi (talk) Deadline: February 18, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Toadette the Achiever (talk) Strong Support: It should be clear for users what to do if they feel they were formally warned for no reason. It just SHOULD be clear, period. I also strongly agree that appeal rule #1 should be repealed, since admins (like any other user) may make mistakes, and appealing a warning issued by an administrator would make zero difference compared to appealing a warning issued by an normal user. Baby Luigi clearly knows what she's doing, and I intend to stand by this proposal by all means.
Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Both users have really good points. Per both Toadette the Achiever and Baby Luigi.
7feetunder (talk) Per proposal. Can't see any reason not to do this.
Time Turner (talk) Per all. Users should be able easily learn about their options.
YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all. The only downside is that we’ll get a LOT more bad faith appeals, but that’s not a major issue.
BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all, I only found out it existed after someone recommended I used it, so it should be more visible.
Regarding a rule in MarioWiki: Appeals, (1#: Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator cannot be appealed.), I had challenged it on Discord and I want to see that rule removed, hence why I haven't added an extra line saying that "Keep in mind that X given out by a member of staff cannot be appealed). But I don't know what the staff's official final say on that rule is, so I will edit that line accordingly once I get official confirmation. Ray Trace(T|C) 22:17, 11 February 2018 (EST)
I did bring this up in the admin boards like I said I would. I'm honestly not sure where we all stand on the Appeals line, but we've unanimously agreed that admin warnings should not be appealed. 23:02, 11 February 2018 (EST)
I like how I don't count. --Glowsquid (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2018 (EST)
...I misread your post, so never mind I guess. 23:16, 11 February 2018 (EST)
Two edit conflicts in a row?! Anyway, one reason we have that rule is that admins can already remove warnings without appeals, so what’s the point of appealing an admin warning if you can just personally ask the admin who gave it to you to remove it? Sounds illogical to me. And by the way, we used to have that link on the userspace reminder, but it was removed when the template was repurposed for unknown reasons. -YFJ (talk · edits) 23:19, 11 February 2018 (EST)
I had argued that if that was the case, then why do we even need MarioWiki:Appeals in the first place? Why can't we settle it internally with emails, pm's, DM on chat, etc.? I mean, with this system, there will already be discussion taking place on the staff boards regardless if the administrator themselves issued a warning or not if that was made in bad faith. Ray Trace(T|C) 23:31, 11 February 2018 (EST)
(T|C) 15:41, 1 February 2018 (EST)
Ray Trace(T|C) 22:17, 11 February 2018 (EST)
23:02, 11 February 2018 (EST)
Ray Trace(T|C) 23:31, 11 February 2018 (EST)
