|
Current time:
Friday, May 31st, 14:57 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 31, 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
- 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
- Include Rainbow Coaster & Rainbow Downhill back in the Rainbow Road article (discuss) Deadline:
May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Consider Spike Top derived from both Buzzy Beetles and Spinies (discuss) Deadline: June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Iron Cleft with The Iron Adonis Twins (discuss) Deadline: June 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Meat (object) with Meat (discuss) Deadline: June 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Re-merge Frog (Yoshi's Story) with Frog (discuss) Deadline: June 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move the chef-based recipe lists (such as List of Tayce T. recipes) to game-based ones (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge the corresponding chef-named recipes (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Silver Credit and Gold Credit to Silver Card and Golden Card, respectively (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move Moo Moo back to cow (discuss) Deadline: June 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split Samus from List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move attack info from Super Hammer to Spin Hammer and move the latter to Super Hammer (move) (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Add Mario Bros. as a related game to the Super Mario series (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
Talk page proposals
List of talk page proposals
- Add lists of implied species from franchises other than Pokémon. (discuss) Deadline: October 11, 2016, 23:59 GMT
- Coin Ring - Split Super Mario 64 (and DS) with Super Mario 3D Land and Super Mario 3D World (discuss) Deadline: October 13, 2016, 23:59 GMT
- Split Croacus rulers from List of implied characters (discuss) Deadline: October 17, 2016, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Mad Scienstein with Arewo Shitain-hakase (discuss) Deadline: October 20, 2016, 23:59 GMT
- Merge content of Bomb Toss with the appropriate segment (discuss) Deadline: October 20, 2016, 23:59 GMT
- Retool Category:Children (Discuss) Deadline: October 20, 2016, 23:59 GMT
Writing guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
Create or delete categories about an area's citizens
As far as I know, there are only two categories that catalogue every inhabitant of an area: Category:Rogueport Denizens (for Rogueport) and Category:Glitzville Denizens (for Glitzville). It seems rather inconsistent for these two areas, densely populated as they are, to be the only ones to group an area's characters together. Such a category wouldn't be necessary for a lot of locations, but there are at least a few others, such as Toad Town, Flipside, Flopside, Shroom City (although that's a near-perfect overlap of Category:Mario Party Advance Characters), and possibly others. Since MarioWiki:Categories has a minimum amount of only five entries for a category to be created, this could theoretically get out of hand quickly, but there's nothing that's stopping us from moving the goalposts ourselves. At the same time, though, it's not as if the subcategories are all that necessary, since both the Rogueport and Glitzville citizens have a home in Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Characters, and they don't offera . So, let's put it to a vote: either we create new categories for other cities (within reason, unless it's discussed otherwise), delete the two categories that currently exist, or leave everything as it is and say that these are the only two areas that deserve categories.
Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: October 2, 2016, 23:59 GMT Extended October 9 2016 23:59 GMT
Create categories
- Yoshi the Space Station Manager (talk) This is my primary choice. If I had the Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, I would be an actual helper rather than just a supporter.
- Quizmelon (talk) My primary choice. It makes a lot more sense to create than delete, even if it does take more work.
Delete categories
- Time Turner (talk) The characters that live in a given area can be listed on said area's article, and they can be included in a table that gives information about them; one example of this in action is this table on Goomba Village created by A gossip-loving Toad. Having these categories just doesn't seem beneficial to me.
- AfternoonLight (talk) I agree with him! So, let's get rid of it and per him!
- 3D Player 2010 (talk) I think we should do something for consistency, but I do not care what course of action we take.
- Tucayo (talk) - A table would work much better. Per TT.
- LudwigVon (talk) The table look way better for this than category. So, per Time Turner.
- NSY (talk) Per all
Do nothing
- Yoshi the Space Station Manager (talk) This is my second choice. This wiki shouldn't just delete categories just because there is not enough of that category to make 5. If there is less then five areas in a game, would it make sense to delete those categories? The answer, unless they have no problem being with the game's characters.
- AfternoonLight (talk) This is my second choice.
- Quizmelon (talk) My second choice, I just don't think deleting is a good idea.
Just to clarify what the proposal is this effecting, which category? Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door characters, area characters, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door area charcters or another? 
Yoshi the SSM (talk)
- It's referring to Category:Rogueport Denizens and Category:Glitzville Denizens, concerning whether they should be merged with the overall Category:PMTTYD Characters, and the "inhabitants" be listen on the area articles instead of having a category.
- I'm quite neutral about it. 31 and 34 pages in the "denizens" categories would make a very large list, unlike the example that MW:CAT gives on Aquatic Attackers, which is a very small list and already makes navigation with a category unnecessary. This is why we have "[game] Levels" categories, and "[game] Bosses". Sure, they could already be listed on the game article (with the table that you suggested). But since there's already a lot of other kind information on the game page, relying on a long and detailed page list could become quite exhaustive to navigate with. That's why we have "levels" and "bosses" categories for games. – YoshiKong (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
- I didn't mean that the game's article would have a giant table; that would easily become way too big. I was suggesting that every location would have a table that lists the NPCs in that location. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:26, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
@Yoshi the SSM: By voting for the "Do nothing" option, you're saying that the Rogueport and Glitzville categories are the only two that should exist, and that no other will be created. Since you seemed confused about the proposal's intentions, I wanted to make that clear. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:26, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
- Let me remind you that it is the second choice I am taking, not the first. It means that I would rather have nothing done than a deletion. I also rather create categories rather than doing nothing. Also, it is fact that people don't become leaders in most situations. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
I don't see what's wrong with with having a category for the citizens as well as a table on the locations' articles. The Donkey Kong Country article has a list of all the levels and the game also has a category for its levels. One is a list of links and the other is a list of information. The categories for the Mario Party Advance characters wouldn't be too small, either. There are several locations in every city with many characters. Same for Paper Mario places. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
- I just find it to be a needless division that makes it harder to find certain information without offering much in return (as per MarioWiki:Categories, only the lowest subcategory is placed on an article; anything higher isn't used). I don't think it's particularly beneficial to have a category for a given location's characters when those characters are already listed on the location's article. Anyone looking for its inhabitants would already go to the location's article, so the category doesn't offer any added convenience. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 23:22, 28 September 2016 (EDT)
- I'm not sure if I really like the "anyone looking for its inhabits would already go to the location's article". Wouldn't this be akin to saying that we have a list of all Goombas in the infobox of the Goomba article; therefore, we don't need a Goomba category? Or we have a giant list of enemies, we don't need Category:Enemies? And so forth. I myself don't exactly see the harm in including a category like this, which does add one layer of organization without being frivolous. The rules say, if the area is too small to have enough characters for a category, let common sense dictate that case and don't create the category. That doesn't seem that hard to me.
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:29, 29 September 2016 (EDT)
- The Goomba article, at best, only has an undetailed list of species and characters in the infobox and a brief description of each of them smushed between the actual Goombas. A simple list alone is not what I want, but the table that I had suggested would be more helpful than the category. It's hardly unreasonable to say that someone who doesn't know the name of a character would go to the article of the location in which they appear, which is something that a category cannot do. The harm that I see in these categories is that the sky can actually be the limit: as I said, a category technically only needs a minimum of five entries to be accepted, and there are plenty of locations with more than five characters; common sense as to what the limit should be or which locations should or shouldn't get articles can vary wildly between people. Even if there's a rigid system that works perfectly and logically, the end result will be that there's a main category which contains the bulk of the characters and then a bunch of smaller categories that needlessly disperses a handful of other characters, making it harder for navigation. I do not see the benefit in having that. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 14:44, 29 September 2016 (EDT)
Yoshi the SSM (talk)
