MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
Line 172: Line 172:
#{{User|Zero777}} Per all
#{{User|Zero777}} Per all
#{{User|MeritC}} - Per all; especially for major games like the ''Super Mario Galaxy'' installments and ''Mario Kart DS'', for example.
#{{User|MeritC}} - Per all; especially for major games like the ''Super Mario Galaxy'' installments and ''Mario Kart DS'', for example.
#{{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} - The reception section is very useful and needs to be added to every game.It's nice to look at in here instead of search it on Wikipedia <_<


====No Keep====
====No Keep====

Revision as of 05:44, May 24, 2011

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page


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. 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.
  2. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts. (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.
  3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with 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. 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.
  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, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator 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 an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  11. There should not be proposals about creating articles on an 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 promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  13. 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.
  14. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format

This is an example of what 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>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, 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 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 here.

How To

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected 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. (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.
  4. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time 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

Add a section for Writing Guidelines on this page

Something that really need development on MarioWiki are Writing Guidelines (currently known as Writer Guidelines). First let me explain what they are, since I assume most of you are unfamiliar with this term.

What are Writer Guidelines? Writer Guidelines are pages that belong to this category, with the most notable page being the Manual of Style. Writer Guidelines are enforceable policies to some extent, but with a much lighter enforcement.

You may be wondering what distinguishes Writer Guidelines from Help pages. The difference here is that Writer Guidelines are much more specialized about the subject they pertain to while Help pages just give users a general overview of things. Since this is the case, Writer Guidelines have the ability to be very detailed and specific. This is better explained on my pending policy page, User:Knife/Policy.

What I'm proposing is that we allow regular users join in on developing more Writer Guidelines by making the process much more accessible to them. How do we do this? We should create a page titled "MarioWiki:Writing Guidelines", based off my pending policy page, which explains what Writer Guidelines (henceforth known as "Writing Guidelines") are. As for the nomination process, we can include it to the proposal page in a new section titled "Writing Guidelines". If Writing Guidelines get popular enough we may consider getting a separate page for it, but for now, a section of the proposal page should be sufficient.

Reasons why this system will be beneficial:

  1. Increased user interest in editing.
  2. Better quality articles.
  3. More opportunities for users to get involved in the development of the wiki.
  4. More consistency.
  5. An aid to help users edit.

Things that will be added if this proposal passes:

  1. A section will be added to proposal page for Writing Guidelines
  2. A new rule will be added stating that Writing Guidelines will be given two weeks as opposed to one.
  3. My draft page (User:Knife/Policy) will be created as an actual MarioWiki: namespace page.
  4. Also see User:Knife/Proposal to see what the proposals page will look like.
  5. All mention of Writer Guidelines will become Writing Guidelines (including the category).
  6. Some existing policy pages will turn into Writing Guidelines, like MarioWiki:Naming and MarioWiki:Redirect.

Honestly, this system has no real drawback other than potential lack of use, so why not give it a shot? If it doesn't work out, we can always scrap it later.

Proposer: Knife (talk)
Deadline: May 28, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Knife (talk) – Per my proposal.
  2. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) its worth a shot per him
  3. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Great, but what I'm concerned is the arguments of writing style we might come up, like the singular "they" (which doesn't exist), and so on. The phrase "reason why" is also redundant. :) per proposal, though. If it turns out to be bad, we can always delete it.
  4. Superfiremario (talk) Per LeftyGreenMario
  5. SWFlash (talk) Per proposal
  6. Bop1996 (talk) This would greatly help with edit quality for new users. I see no problem with how to instate this, or any other problem.
  7. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal and per LGM.
  8. Phoenix (talk) Go for it dude! :)
  9. Xzelion (talk) – Per Knife.
  10. Byllant (talk) - Per... you know
  11. Walkazo (talk) - Per proposal.
  12. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all.
  13. Reddragon19k (talk) P-E-R, A double ll. Put them together and you got... PER ALL!

Oppose

Comments

@LeftyGreenMario: Singular they is he or she. SWFlash (talk)

From Wikipedia: Singular they does, in fact, remain morphologically and syntactically plural (it still takes plural forms of verbs). Talmy Givón (Syntax: an introduction, 2001) even provides "If anybody did that, they'd be insane" as an example of non-referring, plural anaphoric they. Mario4Ever (talk)
We use they when the singular pronoun could refer to a male or female. I read somewhere that it is preferred over s/he or she/he. Bop1996 (talk)
Only if you have to refer to the singular subject multiple times in succession, which we normally don't. I see the singular they as more colloquial than anything. It's generally frowned upon among grammatical experts (and AP Language and Composition teachers), despite its relatively recent resurgence in usage. Mario4Ever (talk)
I think it was in the Manual of Style. I was referring to us as a wiki, not the experts (that's not to say I don't enjoy a pointless discussion over this type of thing).
It is in the Manual of Style. I understand the intention behind using the singular they, but it's not found often in standard written English. The problem is that there is no consensus among the grammatical experts (those who come up with all the rules for writing and speaking the English language) concerning its validity. Some think it's fine, while others don't. I find it perfectly acceptable in spoken English and informal writing (such as in dialogue) but not something I would use in formal writing such as would be found in an encyclopedia. I guess I'm a purist that way. It's partly because of that that all references to players in the Augmented Reality Games article, for example, are in the plural. Mario4Ever (talk)
Yeah... To be honest with you, I just took it for granted... Idk, I never gave it that much thought... That's just the way I roll, I give it a lot of thought or nearly none... Bop1996 (talk)
I wouldn't have taken you of all people as someone who would take anything relating to grammatical structure for granted. ;) Mario4Ever (talk)

@Knife: Could you elaborate on the difference between an enforced MarioWiki policy and a general suggestion for writing style? I understand the basic idea, but I'm not sure how much we enforce a writing suggestion... Bop1996 (talk)

@Bop1996: We will enforce both, but Writing Guidelines will be given a much lighter enforcement. For instance, a user may be given a reminder or warning for breaking one of our userspace policy, but failure to follow MarioWiki:Manual of Style will not carry the same consequences (unless the user is intentionally not following Writing Guidelines).
@All supporters: Please re-read the proposal and all draft pages since some changes have been made. --Knife (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for elaborating. I see the logic in your change in the proposal, I have no problems with the changes. Bop1996 (talk)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Reception, keep or no keep

I just want to resolve this issue since it looks obscure, should we keep or not keep the reception section?

Note: If Keep is chosen then the game articles with no reception section on them will get a reception section. If No Keep is chosen then all the reception sections of every article will be deleted.

Proposer: Zero777 (talk)
Deadline: May 29, 2011, 22:00 GMT

Keep

  1. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) But were not Wikipedia also i think the reception makes us look more professional since it shows that we have indeed found reliable sources, also featuring reception harms no one especially since reviews from things like Nintendo Power are official sources and there fore should be included as well Famitsu which is considered the most reliable gaming magazine in Japan, also i would like to point out that pretty much every wiki features reception since it shows how good a game is
  2. Mario4Ever (talk) Do we really want to be less detailed than Wikipedia concerning Mario-related content? The Reception section tells the reader how well a given game fares, and I think it's important to have in case games reach certain milestones (such as Super Mario Galaxy 2 receiving perfect scores from almost every well-known reviewer, making it one of the highest-rated, if not the highest-rated game in the company's history thus far). On a more practical note, keeping the section demonstrates that the wiki cares about its subject matter, and we have a standard to include as much information as possible about every subject we cover if it provides readers with a better understanding of that subject.
  3. Xzelion (talk) – Per Mario4Ever!
  4. Mariomario64 (talk) Per Mario4Ever.
  5. Bop1996 (talk) Per Mario4Ever.
  6. Reddragon19k (talk) Per Mario4Ever and Goomba's Shoe!
  7. Edofenrir (talk) - I see no conclusive reason to remove this information.
  8. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
  9. Zero777 (talk) Per all
  10. MeritC (talk) - Per all; especially for major games like the Super Mario Galaxy installments and Mario Kart DS, for example.
  11. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) - The reception section is very useful and needs to be added to every game.It's nice to look at in here instead of search it on Wikipedia <_<

No Keep

Comments

Do you mean reception as in video game reviews Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

I believe that's what it means. Mario4Ever (talk)
@Zero what do you mean by obscure Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
It's not consistent and it was left like that for a long time.

@Zero: Wikipedia's content should have no bearing on our content at all. If we sustained an argument like yours, should we also delete half of our Mario article because Wikipedia covers it? I believe not. Please be a little more alert. - Edofenrir (talk)

Well I was thinking in my mind, what are we going to make different of the reception? Receptions are just ratings and commentary, there not suppose to be specific, and wikipedia did fine on that, but I guess since it will make us look more professional, I say keep it. Zero777 (talk)

Hey guys, if it pass, should we have a chart like how wikipedia has it? Zero777 (talk)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=1042027"