|
Current time:
Sunday, May 12th, 19:07 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
Writing guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Discourage drive-by templating
Improvement templates are a necessary, or at least beneficiary, eyesore but they can be subject to degenerate editing behaviours. Namely, it's very easy (and common) for editors to just slap improvement templates on pages with no or vague reasons and then leave (Template:Rewrite-expand in particular is subject to this). Not only can it be Kind of Rude when it's slapped on a recently-created article, the resulting eyesores stay on pages for years, as it's not clear to anyone but the editor who added the template what needs to be done - the Donkey Kong page has had a Rewrite-Expand notice since 2017 for vague "bad writing" and it's hard to tell what's so awful about the existing writing or what content must be added.
Through conversations on our Discord server, I've found other editors share my frustration with this behaviour. Fortunately, I believe there's an easy fix. Most improvement templates have parameters to explain in the template text why the template was added to a page, and any improvement template that currently does not incorporate this can be easily modified to have it. As such I propose, should this pass, that from this point, any improvement template added to a page must have its reason parameter filled with specific, actionable points. Emphasis on the "specific" - just saying a page has "bad writing" or "is missing images" without specifically saying what is bad about the writing or what images are missing won't cut mustard. Any currently-used instances that do not have their parameter filled (or only give a vague reason) will be removed, although it does not mean the templates can't be readded if specific reasons are listed.
Proposer: Glowsquid (talk)
Deadline: March 6, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Require improvement templates to have their reason parameter filled, remove unfilled/vague notices on mainspace articles
- Glowsquid (talk) ^^
- Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
- Swallow (talk) Per proposal.
- RHG1951 (talk) Per proposal.
- Koopa con Carne (talk) was always bothered by this
- Somethingone (talk) I don't see any reason why we should not do this.
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per (also the reason parameter should be the second one, not date or user or whatever irrelevant garbage)
- Bazooka Mario (talk) per. Also we should encourage going on talk page or linking to an existing talk page discussion, which can also serve to elaborate on points being made that can't fit on a rewrite template.
- Spectrogram (talk) per Bazooka Mario (talk).
- Platform (talk) Per proposal.
- Killer Moth (talk) Per all. I remember doing some edits to the Donkey Kong page and having trouble finding what was being considered "bad writing". So I ended up mostly just removing false information and fixing the formatting on the page.
- LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal, (maybe without the Trivia template).
- Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
- 1468z (talk) Per proposal.
- Tails777 (talk) Per proposal.
- SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) per all the users who interacted with me previously in one way or another.
- 7feetunder (talk) Possibly out of the scope of this proposal, but I also think that split and merge request templates without a discussion tied to them (I've seen several) should be removed for the same reason.
- Lord Grammaticus (talk) Absolutely on board.
Keep things as they are
This is probably a given already, but will this also apply to "more image" templates? Again, what kind of images required should be stated as well. 
Nightwicked Bowser 
21:42, February 27, 2023 (EST)
- Yeah, I think in spirit, this should apply.
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 01:54, February 28, 2023 (EST)
Two questions: Specifically what templates would be covered under this proposal? And what would happen to existing examples of unhelpful templates on the wiki already? (i.e.: Donkey Kong's page, Kamek's page) Will they just be removed (per proposal) with no discussion (if so I do agree)? — Lady Sophie 
(T|C) 11:17, February 28, 2023 (EST)
- The proposal does say that any templates that either don't have any reasoning or are too vague will be removed from articles. I'm assuming templates like Template:Rewrite, Template:More images etc will be the ones affected. Nightwicked Bowser 11:37, February 28, 2023 (EST)
So the templates covered would be the following:
"Will they just be removed (per proposal) with no discussion?"
Yes. --Glowsquid (talk) 12:41, February 28, 2023 (EST)
- Are you sure including the trivia template for this proposal is a good idea? Spectrogram (talk) 12:53, February 28, 2023 (EST)
- I almost put "Maybe it could be an exception? idk" next to it. It already identifies a specific problem so I guess it can be excluded. --Glowsquid (talk) 13:04, February 28, 2023 (EST)
- Seconding this question. The community has already discussed specific criteria for trimming improper trivia, so any problems signalled by this tag are often easy to detect and fix, even without providing specifics in said tag. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:06, February 28, 2023 (EST)
- That makes sense. You have my vote, although I believe Trivia template should not be included. — Lady Sophie (T|C) 13:36, February 28, 2023 (EST)
- The trivia template probably could be reworked some way, maybe agree on how many trivia points in a trivia section there should be before the template becomes warranted (I'd often say about five or six). Nightwicked Bowser 16:00, February 28, 2023 (EST)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
(T|C) 11:17, February 28, 2023 (EST)
