MarioWiki:Proposals

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removals of previously added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. 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. All proposals must pass by a majority, including proposals with more than two options.

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

Rules

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. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and Writing Guideline proposals must include a link to the draft page.
2. Anyone can comment on proposals whether logged-in or not, but only registered users can create or vote on proposals.
3. 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.
4. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
8. 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.
9. 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 all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
10. If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. In other words, one option must have 50% + 3 of all votes cast. This means that if a basic two-option 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. Proposals with more than two options require more precise counting of votes to determine if an extension is necessary.
11. 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.
12. 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.
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. 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. Please note that cancelled proposals must also be archived.
15. 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 setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
17. 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 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.

---

===[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. (14 days for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals)

====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.

Rules

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 section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
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

• Split Roof into separate articles. (Discuss) Deadline: March 31, 2013 23:59 GMT
• Unmerge Leo Luster from Bluster Kong. (Discuss) Deadline: April 2nd, 2013 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines

None at the moment.

New Features

Make an iPhone/iPad app

My idea is to make an app for the iPhone or iPad that links you straight to the wiki. Since not entirely nessecary, it should be free. I got this idea because Khan Academy has the exact same thing as I'm suggesting. What's more, we'll be the FIRST wiki to do this!

Proposer: Electrical Bowser jr. (talk)
Deadline: April 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Make an app

1. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Per proposal.

Don't make an app

1. RandomYoshi (talk) — You yourself state that creating an app is unnecessary. Why would the Wiki garner from a completely unnecessary addition that isn't even provided by the Wiki itself, but some other second-party or alternatively third-party management getting in the way? I just don't see it improving the Wiki at all.
2. GreenDisaster (talk) It's impractical, it'll be annoying to create in the first place, and it's simply unnecessary for both the average wiki visitor and the average wiki editor.
3. BowserJunior (talk) Per all, completely unneccesary.
4. Wintermelon43 (talk) Like what the other's said
5. King Pikante (talk) That is just useless.
6. YoshiKong (talk) Like Phoenix said somewhere other than here, why would we need an app when a home screen shortcut does the job?
7. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
8. Turboo (talk) - Per all.
9. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per all.
10. Blue CosmicToad (talk) Per all.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Reorganize Galleries

I've looked through galleries, and I don't like the inconsistent layouts of them, especially in Character galleries. Game galleries are also wonky.

Also, when this was brought up, galleries did not follow a standard.

I believe we should reorganize character galleries like this:

• Artwork (this includes the miscellaneous ones found at the bottom of page)
• Sprites/Models (some "sprites" in the gallery are blatantly models)
• Screenshots

In game galleries, we can organize the article like this:

• Logos
• Artwork
• Sprites/Models
• Screenshots
• Box Arts

The reason I think this is that artwork and sprites do the best job at representing the character while screenshots show the character in action. Besides, many of the former empty gallery sections in the article have usually artwork (sprites can be resized and look ugly while screenshots show only a speck of the character unless it's close-up), and for a good reason, as I mentioned above.

As for game galleries, we should organize it like that because it's simply a logical way to do it.

Proposer: LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Deadline: March 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT.

Reorganize

1. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Putting up a standard format for galleries is something we should do.
2. Walkazo (talk) - Consistency is good, and these orders make sense. All species, item and form galleries should/will be organized the same way as the character galleries, which just laves consoles and other misc galleries, but these generally need specialized organizations anyway, so it's good that the proposal doesn't address them, rather than trying to shoehorn them into some blanket standard.
3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per the two above me.

Do Nothing

#Tucayo (talk) - The proposal only addresses Character galleries, as you mentioned, and this will cause inconsistency, which is bad. Unless you create an inclusive proposal, I will be opposing.

1. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Per the tuck.
2. King Pikante (talk) Per Tucky.

#ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per Tucayo.

Comments

@Walkazo: And what about games? Will the current organization be maintained? --Tucayo (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2013 (EDT)

She explains in the proposal how the game galleries should be organized... - Walkazo (talk)

Huh? I mentioned how galleries for games will be organized pretty clearly. You're opposing for something I already addressed. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

You yourself said you were a bit iffy on it, which is misleading. --Tucayo (talk)

I'm iffy because I didn't know if you would approve of this listing. Maybe the box art should be at the bottom, or something like that. But I now, I'm sure how to organize it. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Being open to tweaks is a far cry from not addressing something at all. In fact, now that I think about it, boxart might actually be better on the bottom, since that would allow the artwork to be closer to the top, and it would cause less repetition of the logos (which are in the boxarts as well as by themselves in their own section). - Walkazo (talk)

I tweaked it now. Now, can we convince the other voters to remove their votes? They're voting for the wrong thing. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Awesome. Hopefully they'll check back on their own, see this discussion and re-cast their votes. - Walkazo (talk)

Automatically Removing Fan Votes from FA Nominations

There have been far too many times where I have seen someone support or oppose the nomination or denomination of a featured article simply because of the fact that they like the character or enjoy the game or whatever. These kinds of votes have no place here, where articles are featured based on their ability to represent the best that the wiki has to offer, not on any personal preference. However, we still have to go through the process of getting three people, at least one of which has to be an admin, to vote to remove his vote and then waiting 24 hours before finally being able to remove it. Enough of these votes can stall either kind of nomination until they have no way of passing when they shouldn't even be there in the first place. So, what I propose is to outright disallow these kinds of votes from being used. If they are used, they're to be removed without going through the longer removal process (for unfeature nominations) or deleting the reasons and leaving the vote (for feature nominations).

Proposer: GreenDisaster (talk)
Deadline: March 30, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GreenDisaster (talk) Supporting.
2. Yoshi876 (talk) Per proposal, this should hopefully get rid of the fanvote stopping Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time getting unfeatured. EDIT: Articles should be featured/unfeatured on (lack of) quality, not I like this
3. Goomba (talk) but i liek dat game hav it feachured rite nao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Support; that example is not a vote, just pure bias.
4. King Pikante (talk) Per proposal.
5. LeftyGreenMario (talk) This proposal is made by my favorite color! It should pass! But really, those types of votes do nothing other than unnecessarily slow the FA process. We should remove them on site. Per proposal.

Add Images to Templates

Remember the old {{construction}} template? It had a distracting animated picture, which is the reason it got removed, and there was a talk page proposal about this. During that proposal, I suggested replacing the picture with a static .png of Mario from Wrecking Crew '98. Some users liked that idea, but the proposal advanced too far for me to implement it.

What I'm suggesting is we put some pictures in some notice templates. Why, must you ask? Because I want Mario Wiki to have the feel of a wiki about Mario. If we add Mario pictures to notice templates, we're putting a Mario theme to it. It would be nice, and there won't be any downsides. Besides, why do some templates including {{delete}}, {{stub}}, and {{new stub}} have Mario-related images? If you're going to say, "Oh, we don't need them," then why are there templates that do have them?

Here are some examples I proposed. You can make further suggestions if you want just in case the formatting doesn't look right for you.

If this is implemented we can have a more Mario-like wiki. I am aware that some of these templates aren't fully protected, but it won't warrant this proposal moot. These images are not distracting. If it was distracting, again, none of our templates should have images.

Proposer: LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Deadline: March 30, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Add Images

1. LeftyGreenMario (talk) We should give our Mario Wiki a more Mario theme. I don't see any downside to doing this other than "It's not necessary". Even so, you can say that to the templates that already have these images. A lot of wikis do put their own theme into the templates, so it would be nice if we did the same.
2. Chaossy (talk) Per Perposal. It seems like a good idea, I love it alot.

Keep it the Same

1. Walkazo (talk) - As I said in the old TPP, notice templates are tools, not banners: they're not supposed to be fun, they're supposed to be sober reminders that the article has issues, with the goal being to get rid of them as soon as possible. I know many don't share this view, however there's another huge problem with this proposal, and that is the drafts themselves: the images are either offset or simply too big (with one even spilling out of the template), and half of them have nothing to do with the template's subject matter. If images are to be included at all, it has to be done well, and these designs are far too sloppy and random to fit the bill.
2. YoshiKong (talk) Per Walkazo.
3. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Per all.
4. Tucayo (talk) - Per Walkazo.
5. Turboo (talk) - Per Walkazo.
6. Phoenix (talk) Per Walkazo.
7. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
8. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per Walkazo.
9. King Pikante (talk) Per Walkazo.

Comments

Excluding the first one, I don't understand the relationships the images have to the templates on which they are placed (i.e. they just seem tacked on for the sake of being there). Mario4Ever (talk)

The rewrite one involves letters (hence words) being flown away. Hoggus draws things that come to life. Bowser Jr. is holding a paintbrush (hence, images). In rewrite-expand, Yoshi lays eggs that show more needs to be there. Baby Mario is in an inconsistent time with Mario. Donkey Kong is acting as if he's seeing something coming (the upcoming game). The last image, it's there to show people interested about the game and not how the article for the game is written. I tried making the pictures relevant here. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Users won't really see many of those relationships between the template and image image unless you explained it like you have just done. --YoshiKong (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2013 (EDT)

I'll try revising the templates later, but I can't figure how to make it so some images don't spill out. You have to help me in that kind of stuff because I'm not exactly an expert in arranging the images so they look right. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Metaphors, obscure Wario enemies and personal interpretations of certain images are not appropriate choices for templates. The only truly relevant ones are the construction guy and Bowser Jr., but neither of them are coded well so it still looks bad. Besides, the rewrite templates are all supposed to be uniform, and the two image templates should be too (the fact that they're currently different colours is an oversight). - Walkazo (talk)

I'm withdrawing some of them. Again, I can't code properly, since I'm not a good coder. See, I want it like this:

Except Luigi should be all the way on the right side. I can't find a way to make it so Luigi is on the right without forcing a [[|right]] since that makes the whole thing off. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Try this:

--YoshiKong (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2013 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.