|
Current time:
Friday, June 7th, 08:46 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, but they may not vote for every option available.
- 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 with a margin of at least 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: "June 7, 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 {{TPP discuss}}. 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 {{settled TPP}}.
- 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 Iron Cleft with The Iron Adonis Twins (discuss) Deadline: June 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Meat (object) with Meat (discuss) Deadline: June 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Re-merge Frog (Yoshi's Story) with Frog (discuss) Deadline: June 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move the chef-based recipe lists (such as List of Tayce T. recipes) to game-based ones (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge the corresponding chef-named recipes (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Silver Credit and Gold Credit to Silver Card and Golden Card, respectively (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move Moo Moo back to cow (discuss) Deadline: June 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Consider Spike Top derived from both Buzzy Beetles and Spinies (discuss) Deadline:
June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split Samus from List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move attack info from Super Hammer to Spin Hammer and move the latter to Super Hammer (move) (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Add Mario Bros. as a related game to the Super Mario series (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move Chain Chompikins from Madame Broode to Big Chain Chomp (discuss) Deadline: June 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move List of Toad Town News in Paper Mario to simply "Toad Town News" (discuss) Deadline: June 18th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Young Link and Toon Link info to Link's article (discuss) Deadline: June 20th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
- ^Note: Requires action from admins.
Talk page proposals
Writing guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
The Case of Donkey Kong 64 Sub-Areas
While inquiring about the Prima name of what we are now referring to as the Temple with Five Doors (discussion here), I posed another question. Why are the Temple with Five Doors and Llama's Temple (both parts of Angry Aztec) the only level-specific areas of Donkey Kong 64 to have separate articles? They date back to 2012, which is old, but not stone age old. Either way, it doesn't really make sense to have articles for just these two. So you'd think the obvious solution would to just give articles to every other sub-area. After all, we have articles for stuff like Surf Cabana and Sand Cabana, so why not? Well, there is one problem: names.
Super Mario Odyssey went so whole hog with naming everything aside from a few "bonus areas" that I had to make a proposal to decide what we didn't want articles for. Donkey Kong 64... does not do this. Wrinkly Kong mentions a few of them in her hints, but often in generic terms, so we're forced to rely on guides for many of them. Even then, the guides don't name every sub-area, so there are still some missing links in the chain. Using conjectural names to fill in the gaps would open a can of worms regarding creating articles for other nameless sub-areas such as the pyramid in Shifting Sand Land or the volcano in Lethal Lava Land.
- Only split named sub-areas: Simply put, we only split the sub-areas that would not require a {{conjecture}} template. This avoids the issue of setting a potentially troublesome precedent involving nameless sub-area articles, but creates some discrepancies regarding size and scope. The rather expansive but unnamed underground crypt in Creepy Castle would not get an article, but the very small "Silo" from that same level would, purely because it and not the former was named in a guide with a seemingly arbitrary policy for naming and capitalizing things.
- Split everything: Every sub-area gets an article, even if we have to use some conjectural names. I've already mentioned the can of worms this would open, but there's also just the fact that some of these areas, such as the crusher room in Frantic Factory, are very small and only house a single Golden Banana. Others may also prove challenging to come up with good conjectural names for. It does, however, avoid the arbitrariness of "whichever ones we can cite a name for" dictating which ones get articles and which don't.
- Don't split any sub-areas: We'd just cover them on the main level articles. Llama's Temple and Temple with Five Doors will be merged with Angry Aztec. This avoids both the arbitrariness and the nameless sub-area precedent. Of course, many of these sub-areas are fairly large and even have different music tracks, so it could be seen as losing something. However, not having articles for DK64 sub-areas isn't that illogical to me. DK64 doesn't have much lore or world-building like Sunshine or Odyssey do, and this is reflected in how the game doesn't really name its sub-areas much, with a lot of the names coming from low-effort guides. Therefore, it's easier to justify not having an article for the Llama's Temple than it would be for Hotel Delfino.
- Keep the status quo: Is there a valid argument for only having the specific two articles we have now? I really don't see how there could be one.
A list of the sub-areas and which ones have known names is included in the linked discussion page above. Note that the only guides I can reference are Nintendo Power and the Banana Guide, so anything from Prima or other guides is beyond me. If anyone could chime in about these, it would be helpful. Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64), Banana Fairy Island, and K. Lumsy's Prison will not be affected by this proposal. Also, I'm thinking that the Mechanical Piranha (from Gloomy Galleon) should get an article regardless of this proposal's outcome, since it is an active robotic construct and not "just another submap".
Proposer: 7feetunder (talk)
Deadline: October 10, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Only split named sub-areas
- Camwoodstock (talk) This is our primary choice, personally. If they bothered to get an official name, we might as well give them articles--or at the very least redirects, but, well, see our secondary option. This honestly wouldn't even be that much effort, as we don't believe there are too many named sub-areas as-is.
- MegaBowser64 (talk) It's not like consistency is a universal quality of life, we don't need all the sub-areas in the same format, if we can split an area into its own article, why not??
- Pseudo (talk) Seems like the most straightforward solution to me. Per Camwoodstock.
- ToxicOJ (talk) Per Camwoodstock. If they got an official name, I think we should give them an article.
Split everything
Don't split any sub-areas
- 7feetunder (talk) To be honest, this is what I'm leaning towards, for the reasons I've given above and the flaws of both split options. I don't think this would result in bloated level articles either, since the two sub-area articles we do have aren't that long to begin with and many of these areas aren't as big as them.
- SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
- Camwoodstock (talk) If that doesn't work out, we'd like to vote this with the caveat that we should retain redirects for named subareas, instead of a full-on deletion. We should also probably mention the official names for these sub-areas in the merged articles when it's appropriate to do so.
- Pseudo (talk) Secondary choice.
- Ahemtoday (talk) In general, I don't think a guide should be our sole determinant for whether to split or merge an article, at least not in these sorts of situations. And any size-based criterion would be fuzzy and subjective, which is also something I think we should avoid.
Keep the status quo
Regarding the point in the proposal that splitting named sub-areas "creates some discrepancies regarding size and scope", I think that we should set the baseline standard that areas with an official name should get an article, but I don't think this should mean that there should not be articles for large areas without an official name. There wasn't really an option to reflect this exact position, so I voted for the first option as I feel it's the closest. ToxicOJ (talk) 15:52, October 10, 2023 (EDT)
- It's not just the size and scope oddities that would arise from this, it's the fact that the guide that would largely be dictating what sub-areas get articles and which don't is, naming-wise, a complete mess. For example, the short, one-way tunnel in Angry Aztec (which is not even a sub-area) containing a Stealthy Snoop barrel is given a proper name by the guide (Quicksand Tunnel) even though there's no reason for it to have one, many names are very generic (with capitalization being the only reason they can be considered names at all), and several more expansive areas are not named.
- Regarding your other points: while areas with official names do usually warrant articles, not all of them do. The Super Mario Odyssey proposal I mentioned above is a perfect example of such, since the game's unprecedented "name every Checkpoint Flag" policy is the only reason it was an issue to begin with. Another example would be Windswept Valley, a specific section of a Mario 64 level I have never seen anyone vouch for splitting. About making exceptions for sufficiently large areas: we could do that, but then how "large" does an area have to be to warrant a conjecturally-named sub-area article? And that just leads us back to the slippery slope flaw of the "split everything" option.
16:36, October 10, 2023 (EDT)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
