MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page


Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action(s) are done.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • All past proposals are archived.

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}}.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To

Rules

  1. 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 Guideline proposals must include a link to the draft page.
  2. 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.
  3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  7. Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  8. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
  9. If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. 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 cancelled proposals must also be archived.
  13. 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.
  14. There should not be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
  15. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  16. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format

This is an example of what your proposal should 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]".

===[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, at 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 here.

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "(Template:Fakelink)". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{fakelink}} to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. 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 heading.
  2. 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:
  3. 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.
  4. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
  5. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

Writing Guidelines

Categorization

Draft: User:Walkazo/Essays#MarioWiki:Categories

For years the admins have been talking about creating a proper system for our categories, rather than the unwritten rules and inconsistencies we have now. Well, we've finally come up with a solid idea and a comprehensive (some would say exhaustive) policy page that everyone can follow - should the community at large agree with the admins that this is the way to go, of course.

Basically, the idea is that the articles get the most specific categories possible, which would in turn be categorized under more general categories, leading back to the most basic and fundamental categories - which, altogether, is known as a "Category Tree" (the general category is the root, and the increasingly specific categories are the branches leading to the articles/leaves). For example, Count Bleck would be part of Category:Super Paper Mario Characters, which would be part of Category:Paper Mario Series Characters, which would be part of Template:Fakelink, which, finally, would be part of Category:Characters. This makes navigation easier on many levels: for one thing, the articles have less categories to sift through (i.e. Bleck's currently got all three of the existing categories I've listed here (SPM Char., PM Series Char., Characters)), but the more general categories can still be reached with a couple clicks of the mouse. But rather than having increasingly big lists to comb through when getting more and more general, you're presented with links to various smaller lists, which are easier to sort through. However, if you still want the big lists, there's always Characters, and other such "List Pages", so dividing up the categories with the tree system doesn't deprive anyone of resources - it just provides new, easier ways to read through the same info. Here's some examples of what some trees would look like.

And that's not all. While categories in a tree are all connected, different trees also connect to other trees, forming extensive "Category Webs". For example, cat:SPM Characters isn't just part of cat:PM Series Characters - it's also a subcategory of Category:Super Paper Mario (which is part of Template:Fakelink, which is part of Category:Mario Games, which is part of Category:Games). cat:SPM also contains things like Category:Super Paper Mario Enemies and even Category:Super Paper Mario Images, etc., which all link back to their own trees - and together, the SPM branches of all those trees (leading down from the roots to the SPM pages) forms an overall Super Paper Mario category web. Here's an example of what that web would look like (the second web is just part of the first, reorganized a bit for extra clarity.)

Of course, the branches don't just link to each other down at the most specific level (cat:PM Series Enemies/Characters/etc. are all part of cat:PM Series), and not every step needs a category for every subject of every game (some are just too minor for so much effort, among other reasons explained in the actual policy), and sometimes trees have entirely separate trees branching out of them (again, this is explained in the draft). But it's all very logic-based, and while the webs and trees might seem complicated at times, it's still an improvement over what we have now.

Proposer: Walkazo (talk), with input from Knife (talk), Phoenix (talk), Marioguy1 (talk), Cobold (talk), and the other admins.
Deadline: September 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Walkazo (talk) - Per above, per the other advantages of this system outlined in my policy draft.
  2. Fawfulfury65 (talk) This is a very well written guideline with a ton of work put into it. It will make categories more consistent and also make it much easier to tell whether a category belongs here or not. This is definitely something we need. Per proposal.
  3. Phoenix (talk) I have no doubt that this method of category organization will prove to be extremely beneficial, especially when compared with how the categories are organized now. This is long overdue, and should be implemented as soon as possible.
  4. Reddragon19k (talk) Yes, yes, and triple yes! Per all!
  5. Bowser's luma (talk) This is a beautiful thing you have here. You can't deny that all the admins put in so much work to make this possible and they deserve to have this pass - it will be a great change for the wiki!
  6. Jazama (talk) Per all.
  7. Lindsay151 (talk) It'll be much better method for organizing categories. Per all.
  8. Knife (talk) – Per all.
  9. Bop1996 (talk) This strategy is one of the most effective strategies of organization I have seen in a long, long time. It is consistent, reliable, and well-organized. Full agreement on this.
  10. Glowsquid (talk) Per proposal.
  11. Zero777 (talk) Giant explanation, but simple to follow, per all.
  12. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per proposal.
  13. MeritC (talk) Per all, especially on the fact that the category system process needs to be better organized.
  14. Magikrazy51 (talk) Per all, anything that took all the admins to make must be important.
  15. M&SG (talk) - Per all who support it.
  16. Lakituthequick (talk) Per all
  17. Toad85 (talk) Per all.
  18. RandomYoshi (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Comments

@Walkazo: Ohey, I have an idea. Why don't you make a PipeProject after this wonderous piece of policy goes through? It would greatly reduce the time it takes to get all pages correctly organised. RandomYoshi (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

To be honest, I really don't want to go to the trouble of setting up a PipeProject: I don't see any benefit of having an arbitrary list of people who want to enact a policy that's already clearly explained, and which everyone will have to obey and employ anyway. I'd rather just get the updating underway as soon as the Proposal passes, and anyone who wants to help can just drop in. If users are unsure about how to proceed with certain categories, they can always come and ask me, or any other admin, for guidance. Users can even ask questions about what is and isn't a good idea for the trees/webs on the policy's talk page: it will be good to have the situations as examples for future reference, as new games necessitate the creation of new webs and branches. If PipeProjects offered more organizational benefits, then yeah, I'd agree that making one would be a good idea, but right now, I feel that everything it has to offer can be done just as easily without all the official trappings. - Walkazo (talk)

New Features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Minigame or Mini-game

Right now we have both spellings on the wiki. The unhyphenated version is being used for the Minigame page and the infobox {{Minigame-infobox}}, while the hyphenated version is used in all the categories; both can be found on articles. Inconsistency is bad, so we should use one or the other, and I think minigame is the better choice - it's more straightforward, it's consistent with the spelling of Microgames and it's even in an official game title: WarioWare, Inc.: Minigame Mania. It's not the end of the world is it takes a while to slowly change the articles to use the unhyphenated version, but what would need to be speedily updated are the categories, to set a precedent. However, the entire categorization system is being revamped anyway if the above Writing Guideline passes, which is actually why I'm proposing this now: so I can kill two birds with one stone next week, and also provide a solid example of how the new Tree system should work by implementing it with the new "Minigame" categories right off the bat.

Proposer: Walkazo (talk)
Deadline: September 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Use "Minigames"

  1. Walkazo (talk) - Per proposal. Consistency is good, and the simpler, the better.
  2. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per Walkazo.
  3. Jazama (talk) Per proposer
  4. Reddragon19k (talk) Make it Minigames and that is a Finish on that one so... Beep-beep! (Per all! in Minigame Whistle Form)
  5. Bop1996 (talk) Per the consistency and official names confirming this.
  6. Magikrazy51 (talk) Per the everyone.
  7. Mario Bros.! (talk) Per all.
  8. Lindsay151 (talk) Per all!
  9. Lakituthequick (talk) Per Walkazo, the simpler, the better
  10. M&SG (talk) - This would stop the problems with seeing "minigame" and "mini-game" in the exact same articles.
  11. RandomYoshi (talk) Per all.
  12. Vellidragon (talk) - Per all. The official Mario Party 8 website even spells it "minigames", among other sources.

Use "Mini-games"

  1. Toad85 (talk) I think it looks better asthetically.

Do nothing (use both)

  1. Tails777 (talk) I don't think its a big deal if we leave out the hyphen or not. So I think we should just leave it.

Comments

Allow me to demonstrate. I have the Mini-Game Whistle in the wiki so, if the proposal passes, it will take away the hyphen. That is what I thought for when it passes. Do you agree? Reddragon19k 20:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Yeah, the hyphen would be removed unless it's explicitly called a "Mini-Game Whistle" in-game, in which case, our hands are tied. Similarly, if in-game modes have hyphenated occurrences of "Mini-Game", we have to use that, since it's not just a term we're using, it's a proper name. That's the only real caveat about this proposal - we can only be consistent in our spelling, but not Nintendo's. So in this case (assuming it is an official name), we could make statements like "the Mini-Game Whistle is used in minigames", but we couldn't change the name itself. - Walkazo (talk)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=1137040"