|
|
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| *Delete [[Door]]. ([[Talk:Door#Slam the door on this article|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': March 25, 2013 23:59 GMT | | *Delete [[Door]]. ([[Talk:Door#Slam the door on this article|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': March 25, 2013 23:59 GMT |
| *Delete [[Sun]]. ([[Talk:Sun#Delete page|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': March 26, 2013 23:59 GMT | | *Delete [[Sun]]. ([[Talk:Sun#Delete page|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': March 26, 2013 23:59 GMT |
| *Delete [[Galaxy]]. ([[Talk:Galaxy|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': March 26, 2013 23:59 GMT
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Writing Guidelines== | | ==Writing Guidelines== |
|
Current time:
Sunday, May 12th, 18:06 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 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 12, 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
- 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
- Split Speed Mario Bros. from Ultimate NES Remix (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Arrow Switch with gravity switch (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Re-merge Pixels with List of references in film (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs (discuss) Deadline: May 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Hat trampoline (Cascade Kingdom) to Trampoline (discuss) Deadline: May 15th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Memory Card (discuss) Deadline: May 23, 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
- Split Flower into two separate articles (Discuss) Deadline : March 17, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Pizza (Discuss) Deadline : March 17, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Overhaul Mushroom World page (Discuss) Deadline : March 19, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Plumber (Discuss) Deadline: March 20, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Plumb Fu (Discuss) Deadline: March 20, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Split the Pipe Frame and/or the Gold Standard from Kart (Discuss) Deadline: March 21, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Door. (Discuss) Deadline: March 25, 2013 23:59 GMT
- Delete Sun. (Discuss) Deadline: March 26, 2013 23:59 GMT
Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
Mobile View
Quite a while ago the following proposal was made on the MarioWiki, back then it was denied by most people. Right now I'm proposing a very smiliar but yet different idea. While I'm not suggesting an iPhone app (that was in the original proposal.) I however do suggest to make a mobile version of the site. Using the MobileFrontend extension it is possible to make a mobile version of the wiki. For an example of how it would look like: Go to Mobile Wikipedia if you want to see how it looks.
Proposer: ExPower (talk)
Deadline: March 17, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Support
- ExPower (talk) It makes quickly editing a section easily, while not necessarily creating an entire app.
- YoshiCookie (talk) Per ExPower.
Oppose
- Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Sorry, but that's very uneeded. You can still look up the MarioWiki on the Internet.
- Mario (talk) I used MarioWiki in my phone, and aside from the stupid ads (due to lack of adblocker) and long loading times for, like, Mario, I don't think it's REALLY necessary. It's nice, but Wikipedia has a mobile version because it's so much more visited than MarioWiki, which appeals to a more niche audience. I don't think it's worth it to go through the pains to create a mobile version of this wiki. Whatever Randombob-omb is saying is silly, though.
- Ashley and Red (talk) I am using right now, and I always use it on my smartphone. It is hard to load long pages, but it loads. The only problem for me is the edit box: It glitch all times that passes 100 lines. After it, I can't edit.
- YoshiToad04 (talk) Per all, especially Mario.
@Mario: SILLY!??????!!!! I'm very certain that it's uneeded, do you call that silly!?. Randombob-omb4761 (talk)
- Your only statement to back up your opinion is, "You can still look up the MarioWiki on the Internet." Mario (talk)
- Yeah, lol, you need the internet to access MarioWiki :P Baby Luigi (talk)
- Reading the oppositions I understand that it seems like a lot of work, trust me, all you have to do is to change a few lines in a file and upload a folder, that's it (I've done it on my own wiki)
- Does it cost any more? This kind of stuff, I think you should discuss with Steve, because I have no knowledge how this works. Mario (talk)
- Nope that's it (I would do it myself but I don't have ftp access (and let's leave it at that too.)) And who is Steve? ExPower (talk)
- Steve (aka User:Porplemontage) is the proprietor of this wiki. You should probably talk to him about the technical aspect of this proposal. Time Turner (talk)
- How, should I ask on his User Page or...? ExPower (talk)
- Best to talk to him on his user talk page. Time Turner (talk)
- Only if the proposal passses right? ExPower (talk)
- It's up to you, but I'd say that it'd be better to work out all of the details before the proposal passes. Time Turner (talk)
- So this proposal is unnecessary right? ExPower (talk)
- Well... even if you get the A-OK from Steve, that doesn't necessarily mean that that's what the community wants. Time Turner (talk)
- Ok so I will just have to wait and see... ExPower (talk)
Removals
Remove fake templates
All those fake reminders, construction templates etc. are useless to the Mario Wiki. They should stick with all the "real" templates.
e.g. of fake:
My userpage is under construction. Therefore, please excuse its informal appearance while it's being worked on. I hope to have it completed in a few weeks.
e.g. of real:
All I am requesting is that the 1st example and similar templates shouldn't be allowed to be made anymore, to assist articles, not for humor.
Proposer: YoshiToad04 (talk)
Deadline: March 13, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Support
- YoshiToad04 (talk) Per proposal
Oppose
- Baby Luigi (talk) Um, why? The templates aren't doing any sort of harm at all; they're even useful in some instances of userspace. Why are you so insistent in limiting what users what to do with their pages? Granted, we don't encourage excessive editing to the userpages in the wiki but this? It's ridiculous.
- Lord Grammaticus (talk) There's no way for me to read this as anything but "users can't customize their own pages".
- Mr. Game & Watch (talk) What else can we use? If people start using real templates, their user pages (which can't be edited by anyone but them and sysops) will be put in the template's respective category (i.e. the Rewrite Requested category), which are categories specifically meant for mainspace pages only. All using real templates will do is unnecessarily fill up categories and cause confusion.
- Mario (talk) Per my sister and the beeping flat guy.
- Randombob-omb4761 (talk) What? Their's nothing wrong with them, some user just do fake templates for fun.
- World10 (talk) Per all.
- Icemario (talk) Per all.
- Super Mario Bros. (talk) — Per all. This proposed change would be relatively invasive, a hassle for the administration and community to enact (since it is only the individual member and the administrators that can edit a user page), and will create organizational problems on the wiki.
- SuperYoshiBros (talk) BAD WORDING ALERT! If we end up using it like that, it'll look like the userpage is a wiki article that everyone should work on (even though they can't). Per all (especially Lord G.).
- ExPower (talk) Per all, (and Mr. Game & Watch in particular).
- Bluetoad63 (talk) Per Lord G.
Dude, fake templates aren't even being used anymore, so I really don't see the point behind this. --KP (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2014 (EST)
- Uh, yes, they are being used. Any time you see a modified template on the userpage (such as status) qualifies as a "fake" template, since the definition of what exactly constitutes as a fake template isn't clear. Baby Luigi (talk)
Just to be clear, OP, are you suggesting users use "real" rewrite/construction templates for userspace? --Glowsquid (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2014 (EST)
- @Glowsquid: No. I am suggesting that the fake templates aren't used, and the regular templates are used at appropriate times. @KP: Baby Luigi is right. The "fake" template was from Mario7's userpage as an example. I know they're fun and for decoration, but they shouldn't be in Mario Wiki so users can have more time to make contributions beneficial to Mario Wiki. --YoshiToad04 (talk)
Changes
Disallow signatures only in voting
A.K.A. signatures should be allowed in comments section in general.
Okay okay we had this proposal way back, which is basically what I'm proposing: we loosen the No-Sig policy by allowing signatures in more places, specifically, the comments section. One of the main reason the proposal failed is that it's "too complicated". Now, I've said approximately one year ago that it's not complicated; it's just poor wording. To sum it up, this proposal, if passed, disallows signatures only in voting. This is simple and straightforward to follow. With the current ruleset, we can sign in talk page proposal comments, but not comments in Featured Articles and here? THAT'S the more complicated one.
The only valid argument from the opposition, then, is that signatures can increase loading times. While true, the space that is saved is miniscule. MarioWiki project pages (like this one and the Featured Article pages), the pages that disallow signatures, are much smaller than a lot of mainspace talk pages (Talk:Mario Kart 8, Talk:Mario, Talk:Bowser) which do allow signatures. I recall that MarioWiki used to run in a MUCH slower server than it is now. Or maybe it's just me. Either way, (for me at least) the main reason a page loads slowly is its size, not from the amount of signatures it has.
The biggest reason I'm proposing this, however, is that again and again, people often make comments and sign with their signatures, and somebody else comes in and makes an insignificant change back to {{User|User Person}}. Enforcing the No-Sig policy, in this case, feels so... unproductive. At least, for me.
Of course, if there are exceptions, it must be stated (and for a good reason). But that's not the point of a rule. A rule is supposed to help people contribute, not have them waste their time "correcting" one signature in a comment section.
After all, signing with ~~~~ after a comment is supposed to be a good habit.
Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: March 13, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Mario (talk) There is a good reason to bar signatures in voting, but there is hardly good reason to bar signatures in comments sections.
- Ashley and Red (talk)Per proposal.
- Tails777 (talk) I fully get it now and I'm good. Per proposal.
- SeanWheeler (talk) I use Wikia a lot, and most of those wikis there require signatures with ~~~~.
- Baby Luigi (talk) Per all
- Lord Grammaticus (talk) Per all.
- Yoshi876 (talk) Per proposal.
- Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per all.
- Super Mario Bros. (talk) — Per Mario. {{User}} is good for voting because it makes tallying neat and efficient, but there is no reason to ban signatures from the comments. If there is a coding error in a signature that causes interruptions on the page, the error itself should be corrected rather than just enacting a stop-gap solution.
- SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per all.
- ExPower (talk) Per all.
- Bluetoad63 (talk) Per Mario's vote comment.
Oppose
Sorry, but I'm a bit confused, is this proposal allowing people to sign with their signature in the comments of propsals/FA nominations or disallowing it? Tails777 (talk)
- Disallowing signatures only in voting simply means that signatures are allowed everywhere else except for voting. So, yes, it allows people to sign with their signatures in comments sections. Mario (talk)
- After all, people are already barred from using their fancy signatures in the comments of proposals/FA nominations anyway. Mario (talk)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment
