|
Current time:
Monday, May 13th, 21:25 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 13, 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
- 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
- Delete Elephant (discuss) Deadline: February 5, 2018, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Tetrimino (discuss) Deadline: February 6, 2018, 23:59 GMT
- Remove the identifier of Captain Goomba (Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser) and change the identifier of the Captain Goomba (Mario Party 8) page to (pirate) (discuss) Deadline: February 6, 2018, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Category:Crossover Areas (discuss) Deadline: February 8, 2018, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Asia (discuss) Deadline: February 9, 2018, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Europe (discuss) Deadline: February 9, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
| #
|
Proposal
|
User
|
Date
|
| 1
|
Create boss level articles for Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong Land series
|
Aokage (talk)
|
January 3, 2015
|
| 2
|
Create a template for the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door badge drop rates
|
Lord Bowser (talk)
|
August 17, 2016
|
| 3
|
Create a Mini article
|
Wildgoosespeeder (talk)
|
August 20, 2016
|
| 4
|
Split all remaining courts and boards from their parent articles
|
NSY (talk)
|
September 25, 2016
|
| 5
|
Clean up species categories to only include non-hostile species
|
Niiue (talk)
|
August 8, 2017
|
| 6
|
Clean up Category:Artifacts
|
Niiue (talk)
|
August 22, 2017
|
| 7
|
Trim down Category:Fire Creatures and Category:Ice Creatures
|
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
|
September 7, 2017
|
| 8
|
Create an article on Arcade Archives
|
Camwood777 (talk)
|
September 23, 2017
|
| 9
|
Reorganize the board table in Mario Party: Island Tour
|
Baby Luigi (talk)
|
December 15, 2017
|
| 10
|
Give the Nintendo Switch buttons in Template:Button better color resolution
|
Eldritchdraaks (talk)
|
December 18, 2017
|
| 11
|
Expand the Behemoth King article
|
Owencrazyboy9 (talk)
|
December 23, 2017
|
| 12
|
Create articles on the Remix 10 secret courses in Super Mario Run
|
Time Turner (talk)
|
December 26, 2017
|
| 13
|
Add anchor links to Power Moon lists (view progress)
|
Super Radio (talk)
|
December 31, 2017
|
| 14
|
Create articles for the Wario: Master of Disguise episodes
|
DKPetey99 (talk)
|
January 23, 2018
|
Writing guidelines
Expand Featured Articles writing guidelines
Currently our writing standards regarding what constitutes as a Featured Article at MarioWiki: Featured Articles is a vague list of short phrases and one-liners, which makes it far too loose to interpretation to my liking, especially for a process where quality control is key and enforcing these guidelines is a pivotal step to picking out only the best articles in MarioWiki. I propose that we expand these guidelines into small little paragraphs, detailing what exactly we want out of a Featured Article. This will follow the model similar to how we write out our good writing policy, where key points are organized under a header as a list first, and a paragraph detailing what we want under the header will be elaborated on.
If you want the specifics on how exactly I want the writing guidelines to look like, I have worked on it in the following sandbox page, where most of my proposed points is detailed out and worked on
If you suggest any improvements to the writing or any further clarity, please comment on the proposal!
Proposer: Baby Luigi (talk)
Deadline: February 15, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Baby Luigi (talk)
- Toadette the Achiever (talk) Everything looks nicely policy-oriented, clear-cut, and not too confusing for the average reader. Per Baby Luigi.
- Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Strong support. While I'm not usually very worried about the whole featured article thing, I have seen cases where a nomination does not pass simply because the list of prerequisites was not clear, either because the nominator believed the article was ready when it was not or because the opposition believed the article wasn't ready, even though it may have been. There it is. That phrase. May have been. The current policy is so vague that it doesn't answer users' question about what an article should look like and leaves them thinking "Well, I guess it could be ready. Maybe, maybe not." You shouldn't have to actually nominate an article to find out if it's ready, the policy should tell you all that. Frankly, I'm surprised it's stayed as long it has. No question, that whole section needs a rethink. Per all.
- Supermariofan67 (talk) Per all.
- YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all.
- Time Turner (talk) Per all.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all,
though I feel the first sentence of the "Be sourced with all available Mario-related appearances." section should say "All appearances of the subject need to be present in the article."
Oppose
Shouldn't there be a draft of this beforehand? Rule #11 especially comes to mind: "An article must be of reasonable length and not be marked as a stub." At first glance, it's hard to know where to start. Only if we put a little more thought into the actual content (such as adding information on how certain sections should be formatted, and not to mention between certain types of subjects) would this proposal actually be clear-cut and easier to implement. (Not that this will cause me to cast a conditional oppose vote, just making sure the cart isn't being put before the horse.) 
(T|C) 15:41, 1 February 2018 (EST)
- Never mind, didn't see the subpage. I'm apparently a little hasty. (T|C) 15:42, 1 February 2018 (EST)
For the sake of proper grammar, can you change "An article must be..." to "An article must..."? It just bugs me to see "be...be" or "be...not be". -YFJ (talk · edits) 21:49, 1 February 2018 (EST)
- Noted.
Ray Trace(T|C) 17:15, 2 February 2018 (EST)
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Manually manage Featured Article nominations
For some years, I personally had a problem with how Featured Articles nominations, both active and archived nominations are handled, especially at MarioWiki:Featured Articles. We currently just link to an archive via categories when I think it's a very messy, cumbersome, and frankly lazy way to do this. No other processes in the wiki let categories organize and link to their pages; the equivalent is letting categories organize implemented proposals and nothing else. What's especially bad for the category system is that unregistered users mostly cannot even see the active nominations in the category page, as it often requires a manual refreshment of the browser cache to see the active links. I propose to organize the following processes:
- Active Featured Article nominations
I would like to implement a sortable wikitable in the Nominated articles/lists and FAs proposed for unfeaturing header. This table is something we would manually have to update ourselves, which shouldn't be a problem with our active editor community and some effort for some oversight. The table would list a link to the active Featured Article/Unfeature nomination, piped with the article name, the time it was nominated, the deadline, and the time it was passed in. If there exist no parameters, the table would be left blank, filled with a ---. We add cells as nominations go up, and delete cells when nominations pass/fail, and the minimum amount of cells is one row with dashes if there are no active nominations at the time.
- Featured Articles archives
The headers regarding the archives at MarioWiki:Featured Articles would be reorganized under a big header, Archives, with two smaller headers: Feature nominations and Unfeature nominations. Both failed and successful archives would therefore be merged together. These archives would also be handled through a sortable table format that we have to manually update, but again, this isn't any skin off our nose, as we can easily archive and document past proposals. The table format cells would use a color system similar to how we archive MarioWiki:Proposals, with a color denoting how the process goes: passed, failed, passed at the time but unfeatured today, and failed at the time but passed today. The cells would link to the archive of the Featured Article with a piped name for the name of the article, which user nominated the article, the time it was nominated, what number of nominations it has (N1, N2, etc.), and the time the nomination passed/failed.
- References
If you want a more visual picture of how I want things to be organized at MarioWiki:Featured Articles, you can check out my sandbox below. Any refinements, suggestions for improvements, or any correction of possible errors are encouraged and should be noted in the comments section.
I hope this proposal would smoothen and refine the process of Featured Article nominations and make it easier for the end user to access past featured article nominations as well as guide them around links easier as they explore our Featured Article pages.
Proposer: Baby Luigi (talk), giving huge special thanks to Toadette the Achiever (talk) for a lot of effort helping me develop my sandbox page.
Deadline: February 8, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Baby Luigi (talk)
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
- Super Radio (talk) Per proposal. This is something I wanted to see implemented for a long time, so I specially logged in to vote. Please, be sure to add the first nomination of DKCTF to the list ;)
- Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per proposal. This is a much nicer and well organised method than before.
- Toadette the Achiever (talk) Aside from still needing to create templates specifically for the sake of archiving, it's a workable system that helps organize any FA nomination of any kind. Plus, we use the same colors for the proposal archives, which makes it even easier to find articles specifically for that purpose. I simply cannot agree enough with the proposed action, and would like to give my thanks to Baby Luigi for allowing me to co-contribute to and expand upon her proposed system. All in all, per proposal.
- Supermariofan67 (talk) Per all.
- YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all.
- Time Turner (talk) Per all.
Oppose
@Super Radio: Yeah, blah, I knew I probably left something out. Thanks for the correction! Ray Trace(T|C) 15:05, 1 February 2018 (EST)
This likely isn't practical, but for the sortable tables, would it be possible to have the status column sort by colour or by day, rather than the time at the front? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 17:22, 1 February 2018 (EST)
- If you were to sort by color, what would you choose? Ray Trace(T|C) 17:16, 2 February 2018 (EST)
- I meant more the colors that were already present, i.e. all the the green ones would be stacked next to each other and so on. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 17:29, 2 February 2018 (EST)
- I think it's a good idea, but I don't know how it would be implemented. Ray Trace(T|C) 21:47, 2 February 2018 (EST)
How to order navigation templates
Following the proprietor's veto of the previous proposal, this proposal will determine how our articles' navigation templates should be ordered using the plan that he laid out. Steve's option involves ordering the templates alphabetically, except series are compiled together and ordered chronologically; see this (the one labeled option 5) for a visual example of this. You're free to look at the previous proposal for exactly why the templates' order should be changed, but to put it simply, the current purely-chronological ordering helps nobody. With this in mind, this proposal only has two choices, per the proprietor's request: either Steve's option (i.e. supporting the proposal), or do nothing (i.e. opposing it).
I'm still adamant about some change being necessary, but the choice is up to you.
Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: February 18, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
- Waluigi Time (talk) I'll be honest and say that I don't really care for this option and would've rather had Option 2 from the previous proposal, but it's better than nothing and is a lot easier for navigation than we have it now.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose
- Toadette the Achiever (talk) While Porplemontage's option seems like a workable solution, there are still many, many things that need to be fixed before it can be properly implemented. First of all, series ambiguity still has not technically been resolved. (And how do we even consensually order miscellaneous games that don't necessarily fit into one series? Some readers might consider Super Mario Maker to be grouped with Mario Paint, since the two are similar in theme.) Second, how can we be certain that all readers will understand an alphabetical setup of templates in the exact same way? (Some may consider Mario's Early Years! to come before Mario Clash, for example.) Lastly, even if series is the most recognizable format, structuring it like this leads to unnecessary instruction creep and in turn may lead to needless conflicts between users, whereas the current format is clear-cut and well-defined, and as described here, the coloration does much of the real work. In short: while it's a good idea in theory, the proposed system needs lots of work before it can be put into practice.
- YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Don't get me wrong, it's a great idea. But it has problems too. Per Toadette, in addition to the fact that the proposed option groups colors. If we group colors, why have them at all?
I'm not sure how "series ambiguity" is an issue when we already have series pages that clearly document what goes where. We can't be expected to reasonably account for every potential assumption from the readers. I'd also say that it's much more of an assumption on our part that our readers are so familiar with the chronology of every game that they can easily navigate such a list. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 01:16, 4 February 2018 (EST)
Miscellaneous
Removing bolded text from image captions
The names of articles are bolded in their intros to draw attention to the beginning of the text; everything starts here, to put it simply. With that in mind, why are page names also bolded within image captions at the beginning of the article? It's certainly not an official rule: the Manual of Style just mentions bolding the name in the intro and not including a period in image captions if they don't form a complete sentence. Even if it's just a piece of tradition that's become widely used, there's no reason we should do it. The readers' eyes shouldn't be drawn to the image caption as if it's the same as the intro text: after all, one signifies the beginning of the actual information, whereas the other is a short description of what's literally happening in the image. It's redundant, to say the least, especially if the page has an infobox that already repeats the article's name at least a couple of times. It's redundant, to say the least. It's not as if any actual information is gained by bolding the text, it only serves to distract readers with nothing gained in return. So, why do we do this?
There's no practical reason that page names in image captions should be bolded; therefore, I propose that they should be removed.
Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: February 18, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
- BBQ Turtle (talk) Doesn't seem particularly useful, per proposal.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
- Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per proposal.
- Supermariofan67 (talk)} Per proposal.
Oppose
Ray Trace(T|C) 15:05, 1 February 2018 (EST)
