|
|
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
| *Merge Alph with [[Captain Olimar]] ([[Talk:Alph#Merge Alph with Captain Olimar|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 24, 2015, 23:59 GMT | | *Merge Alph with [[Captain Olimar]] ([[Talk:Alph#Merge Alph with Captain Olimar|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 24, 2015, 23:59 GMT |
| *Expand [[Radio conversation characters]] to cover [[List of Palutena's Guidance conversations|Palutena's Guidance]] and rename accordingly ([[Talk:Radio conversation characters#Expand page for ''SSB4'' and rename accordingly|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' July 3, 2015, 23:59 GMT | | *Expand [[Radio conversation characters]] to cover [[List of Palutena's Guidance conversations|Palutena's Guidance]] and rename accordingly ([[Talk:Radio conversation characters#Expand page for ''SSB4'' and rename accordingly|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' July 3, 2015, 23:59 GMT |
| | *Rename [[Missile Bill]] to {{fakelink|Bull's-Eye Bill}} ([[Talk:Missile_Bill#Rename_to_Bull.27s-Eye_Bill|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': July 4, 2015, 23:59 GMT |
|
| |
|
| ==Writing Guidelines== | | ==Writing Guidelines== |
|
Current time:
Sunday, May 19th, 00:34 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: "May 19, 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 May 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy) (discuss) Deadline:
May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT May 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Memory Card (discuss) Deadline: May 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Add a Composers Subsection to Template:Themes (discuss) Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Include Rainbow Coaster & Rainbow Downhill back in the Rainbow Road article (discuss) Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split the contents of the blimp page (discuss) Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Create a Rewrite-remove template (discuss) Deadline: May 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Decide whether to redesign the Main Page (discuss) Deadline: June 1, 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
- Separate Wii U audio files from the ones on the GBA (Discuss) Passed
- Split the Paper Mario boos from Big Boo into a separate article. (Discuss) Passed
- Merge Blurp (Yoshi's Story) with Cheep Cheep (Discuss) Deadline: June 21, 2015, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Big Bertha with Boss Bass (Discuss) Deadline: June 24, 2015, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Boss Bass with Cheep Chomp (Discuss) Deadline: June 24, 2015, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Alph with Captain Olimar (Discuss) Deadline: June 24, 2015, 23:59 GMT
- Expand Radio conversation characters to cover Palutena's Guidance and rename accordingly (Discuss) Deadline: July 3, 2015, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Missile Bill to Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: July 4, 2015, 23:59 GMT
Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
Remove four proposal rules
Four rules for a proposal seem unneccessary and I think they should be removed. Here are the four rules to keep or remove.
-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.
-If a proposal 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 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 all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
-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.
If this was a soccer match, does the game go to extra time (or end in a draw) just because the score is 1-0, the winning team not winning by three goals? No. The team that scored the goal wins. Why does this have to apply to proposals?
If a soccer game goes into a penalty shootout and the shootout is extended to the "first to score while opponent misses" section, could it end because the shootout went for a long time? No. Why should a proposal be canceled because it's gone for four weeks without a decision made?
Proposer: Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness (talk)
Deadline: June 26, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
Remove one rule and keep three
- Kart Player 2011 (talk) I do think that the first, second, and fourth rule that is being put into question are good quality rules that should not be removed for many of the reasons that Bazooka Mario (talk) has made in the comments section. However, the third rule is something I disagree with. Suppose there is a proposal where there are three options, two of the options are towards changing something, possibly because there is a quality issue with the article that needs to be fixed, that can feasibly be fixed in multiple different approaches, while the third option is to keep it the same. In cases where the Do Nothing option has the least votes on it, I feel that it means that there is a general consensus that something should be done to the article, just that what is to be done to the article is still up for debate. It is clear that most people have a problem with the current state of the article in these cases and it is a bit unfair to keep a problem in an article, and not fix the problem just because people can't agree on what is the best way to fix the problem in the first place.
Remove two rules and keep the other two
Remove three rules and keep one
Remove all four rules
- Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness (talk) Per my proposal. If 1-3 rules are voted to be removed and the others kept, decide which ones.
Keep all four rules
- Bazooka Mario (talk) This proposal is very problematic and I will not support removing these essential rules. See comments below.
- Baby Luigi (talk) Per 'Zooka Mario
- Time Turner (talk) Per Mario.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per Bazooka Mario. Not that these rules are even negotiable in the first place: the admins who wrote them have the final say, so don't be surprised if we just veto the proposal sooner or later.
- Ghost Jam (talk) Per Bazooka Mario, he got it exactly right. Additionally, in favor of straight up administrative veto, but I'm willing to wait a bit to see if anyone might have an interesting counter point or two. Remembering, of course, that the admin team is not a hive mind and another admin may just go ahead and shut this down, as Walkazo said.
- PowerKamek (talk) Per Walkazo.
- Andymii (talk) Rule 1: You can't have one or two voters represent the whole MarioWiki community. It isn't accurate. For example, if you flip a coin twice, it won't always exactly land on heads once and tails once. Rule 2: Having just one voter decide the whole proposal makes no sense. Rule 3: This helps make sure that the idea that wins is truly favored by the majority. Rule 4: If people have not found a final solution after so long, then there's obviously some major issue that's bugging half of the voters.
- LudwigVon (talk) Per all.
I will outline the rules that you have problems with and explain why these rules should be in place.
-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.
- This rule is here to encourage more votes. People don't vote all the time. If people don't vote, it's usually that they overlook it or the proposal itself is perhaps not important to draw attention. At the last ditch, you should contact other active users on your proposal, but keep in mind, it is a last ditch attempt, so don't try this unless you're certain nobody else will vote. This hasn't happened in my five plus years here, so it shouldn't happen.
-If a proposal 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.
- The soccer match analogy doesn't work here. A proposal that has 20 votes in one side and 19 votes on the other side does not mean it should pass. What you're proposing places too much emphasis on the quantity of the votes rather than the the proportion of the votes. It's the reason the U.S. congress requires a 2/3 majority rather than a simple "this side has more supporters so it wins" because there needs to be a clear majority; if the amount of dissenters that rivals the supports, then there is a problem in the proposal. Allowing proposals to pass by only one vote will create problems.
-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 all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
- I don't see the problem with this? Again, you're placing too much emphasis on the sheer quantity of votes rather than the proportion.
-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.
- If a proposal has not reached consensus at the fourth deadline, it suggests a problem with the proposal. Subjects do get controversial sometimes, but this rule prevents proposals from dragging in the mud and encourages propoers to better phrase what they want next time. It also suggests that such proposal is not ready for voting and probably requires open discussion on respective talk pages and forum posts before actually putting it up to vote.
The voting process does have its problems, but what you're proposing is simply erasing the essential margin for a majority, and that's very problematic, especially when proposal decisions are quantified here. 
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:46, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
- @Kart Player 2011: You have it backwards: the third rule is to avoid cases where vote-splitting allows a third option to come up the middle and win even if the majority of people disagree with it. I.e. if there were two change options, and 3 people voted for each, but 4 people voted for no change: 6/10 voters want something to change, but since they couldn't agree, no changes are made (although it's actually worse if a change option passes without a majority, but this is the easiest scenario to try and explain). It would be better for the wiki if that proposal keeps going until most people can agree on a change, or eventually defaults in a tie and allows the proposer to resubmit it with an option the majority of users can agree on. - Walkazo (talk)
- No, what I mean is like in cases where the do nothing vote total is, lets say... 2 votes, and one of the options to change the way the article is written has 6 votes while the other option to change the way the article is written has 7 votes which is the situation I am trying to address when I am saying that I feel the third rule is unnecessary. In that case, we'd be doing nothing because neither of the options to change anything has a majority even though both of those options clearly had more support than the do nothing option. - Kart Player 2011 (talk)
- Even ignoring the third option, 6-7 is too close a race for either solution to be the right one, which is the idea behind the second rule (which also applies to multi-option proposals), which you yourself said is fair. Better to keep debating and refining the proposal than allow a barely-supported option to pass: if 13 people think a change needs to happen, it'll happen, but it has to be one that's well-supported. - Walkazo (talk)
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:46, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
