MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 17:28, July 23, 2010 by 4DJONG (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search
dessert1.jpg


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

  1. Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
  2. Users then start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
  3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing 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. The voter 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. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
  6. 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.
  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. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  9. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
  10. 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 a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
  11. There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a 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.
  12. Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
  13. If the Sysops 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. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in GMT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is 23:59 PM of the Wednesday of the next week, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format

This is an example how 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>
'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.]<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, 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 anoother 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.

How To

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected 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. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
  4. Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer 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

New Features

Set a day for the DYK section to be updated

The DYK section is being updated randomly, sometimes not even upgraded at all for months in a row. I propose that we set a day (I don't know yet) that the DYK is going to be updated, like the FA and the "soon to be ending" FI. If you support, vote underneath the date which you want the DYK to be updated.

Proposer: KS3 (talk)
Voting start: 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Deadline: 24:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Set day for DYK section to be updated

Monday
  1. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) Any day is fine, but it makes the most sense to do it at the start of a new week.
  2. BluePikminKong497 (talk) Tuesday seems pretty random to me. Per MCD.
  3. Bowser's luma (talk) Per MCD as well.
Tuesday
  1. KS3 (talk) per proposal.
  2. Ratfink43 (talk) Any day is good for me (Im just picking the day with the most voters
  3. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! I change my mind, though Monday is a beginning of a new week, mostly everybody don't have their mind straighten up and things a rocky at first. On Tuesday they know what to do now and their minds are straighten up; that's why I'm changing it to Tuesday. Zero signing out.
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday

Keep upgrading DYK section randomly

Comments

I was actually thinking about that today... MrConcreteDonkey (talk)

Whats DYK? Booderdash (talk)

I am Zero! It stands for "Did You Know?". Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)
Abbreviations... does it hurt to type out the whole thing? LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Thanks! Who updates or edits the "did you know" though? Booderdash (talk)

Removals

None at the moment

Changes

Miscellaneous

Create articles for the Game Boy Advance ports of Donkey Kong Country series

You may have noticed how lately I've been making some changes related to the Donkey Kong Country series. While checking the games' articles, I noticed how they have a quite lengthy section describing MOST of the changes of the Game Boy Advance ports. In the case of the third game, there wasn't even one. I think we should create articles for the ports (including the Game Boy Color port for the first game. This way, we could a more well-explained article that won't be a stub. A link to the article should be put in the original games' article.

Proposer: Supermariofan14 (talk)
Voting start: 17 July, 2010, 21:00 UTC
Deadline: 24 July, 2010, 23:59 UTC

Support

  1. Supermariofan14 (talk) As explained above.

Oppose

  1. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Per comments below
  2. 4DJONG (talk) Well, if we give the GBA ports articles, we would produce multiple stubs or clone articles. Also, they work fine as sections in the original game articles.
  3. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Yeah, they'd make clone articles, just like Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World and Super Mario World.
  4. Walkazo (talk) - Per all. Merging the GBA games with the originals would be a better way to make our coverage of these ports uniform.
  5. Commander Code-8 (talk) I've never played any of these GBA games but I've heard Fawfulfury65 that they're fairly similar to the originals.
  6. Bowser's luma (talk) Per all.
  7. KS3 (talk) Per all.

Comments

Many of those listed changes are minor. Other than that, the game are too similar to have an article. BluePikminKong497 (talk)

I agree with BluePikminKong. They really aren't that different, and the changes can easily fit right into one article. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

I concur, they are two versions of the same game with the same plot, and few changes. If they were given articles, they would be clones of their root articles. 4DJONG (talk)

Also, if we split them all, I'm sure they'd turn out like this. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

I agree, the lack of major differences means that those ported versions do not deserve articles, that is why this proposal is useless. 4DJONG (talk)

Then how about a separate article for the changes on each game? Supermariofan14 (talk)
Automatic stubs, we should keep them in the article itself. BluePikminKong497 (talk)
Well, if we put the differences in the articles they wouldn't be stubs, but I think the game articles with the GBA ports merged into them is be just fine as it is now. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Seeing how the Super Mario Advance articles ended up, I'd actually prefer to merge those again rather than even separating the handheld versions of Donkey Kong Country. --Grandy02 (talk)

I put up 3 proposals to merge the SMA remake articles back into their respective original game articles.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by KS3 (talk).

Good idea, though the better thing to do would have made one proposal concerning all four SMA games, like how the New Super Mario Bros. Wii Toads were dealt with: with the proposal on only one page, and the other linking to it. Having one voting arena for all the pages ensures uniformity, avoiding a situation where people vote differently for different pages (or simply not vote for one page). I could fix it for you tomorrow, if you want. - Walkazo (talk)
Only thing, the first 3 articles should be merged, because they are stubs/clones, but the fourth one is long enough to be a separate article. KS3 (talk)
But that would be inconsistent. The fourth game may have a longer page and more things to write about, but it's still just another Super Mario Advance game, and if we merge the other three, we must merge the fourth: "all or nothing" is basic Super Mario Wiki policy. - Walkazo (talk)
But if that's inconsisent, then we should merge all the remakes into their original articles, like Super Mario 64 DS. KS3 (talk)

 

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=807934"