|
|
| Line 173: |
Line 173: |
| #{{User|7feetunder}} Per proposal. | | #{{User|7feetunder}} Per proposal. |
| #{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} Makes sense to me. Per. | | #{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} Makes sense to me. Per. |
| | #{{User|Stooben Rooben}} — This is a nice little improvement. White should be fine, as both it and black are the only colors left unused without getting into different shades of the existing ones (lavender, navy, etc.) |
|
| |
|
| ====Oppose==== | | ====Oppose==== |
|
Current time:
Thursday, May 9th, 14:14 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 on proposals with more than two choices.
- 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 9, 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
- Potentially consider the Donkey Konga series, Barrel Blast, or Jungle Beat as related to DKC (discuss) Deadline: May 9th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Replace Princess Peach: Showtime!#Plays with Sparkle Theater (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Bar Spin to Wire Spin (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Consider Beanies and Octoombas to be related to Goombas rather than direct variants of them (for consistency with Galoomba et al.) (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split "Baby Fat" from Baby Yoshi (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- 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
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 ongoing talk page proposals
Unimplemented proposals
| #
|
Proposal
|
User
|
Date
|
| 1
|
Decide how to cover recurring events in the Mario & Sonic series
|
BBQ Turtle (talk)
|
July 17, 2018
|
| 2
|
Reorganize and split Gallery:Toys and other Merchandise galleries
|
Results May Vary (talk)
|
July 30, 2019
|
| 3
|
Split all multi-items in the Mario Kart series
|
Archivist Toadette (talk)
|
October 12, 2019
|
| 4
|
Include information on Construction Zone for the rest of the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series
|
Koopa con Carne (talk)
|
November 24, 2019
|
| 5
|
Split backwards somersault info and merge it to Backflip
|
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
|
February 26, 2020
|
| 6
|
Split the attacks from Paper Mario: Sticker Star and Paper Mario: Color Splash
|
Scrooge200 (talk)
|
July 4, 2020
|
| 7
|
Split the enemy variants from Wario World
|
Koopa con Carne (talk)
|
July 11, 2020
|
| 8
|
Split the item lists from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
|
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
|
July 12, 2020
|
| 9
|
Clean up Category:Undead and Category:Deceased
|
Pokemon (talk)
|
August 6, 2020
|
| 10
|
Reorganize images in levelboxes pertaining to games with remakes, remasters, etc.
|
DarkNight (talk)
|
September 30, 2020
|
| 11
|
Create articles for minor locations in Super Mario Sunshine
|
The Mansion (talk)
|
October 30, 2020
|
| 12
|
Create an article for Cheese the Chao
|
BBQ Turtle (talk)
|
November 25, 2020
|
| 13
|
Create an article for Froggy
|
BBQ Turtle (talk)
|
November 25, 2020
|
| 14
|
Split the tour appearances of Mario Kart Tour courses
|
Koopa con Carne (talk)
|
March 5, 2021
|
| 15
|
Use indicators for pre-release images
|
Scrooge200 (talk)
|
March 27, 2021
|
| 16
|
Merge Birdo (species) with Birdo
|
Hewer (talk)
|
April 23, 2021
|
| 17
|
Do not allow WildBrain to be used as a source
|
PanchamBro (talk)
|
May 23, 2021
|
Writing guidelines
Listing changes on articles for ports, remakes, and remasters
Recently, the Changes section of Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury has been discussed while the article is being nominated for Featured status. The biggest issue right now seems to be whether to write the list of changes to 3D World as prose or a bullet-pointed list.
Some examples of other articles with a similar section: Super Mario Advance, Super Mario Advance 3, Super Mario Advance 4, Super Mario 64 DS, and Super Mario 3D All-Stars split the changes into sections, but otherwise use only bullet points. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe instead uses short paragraphs of prose, with each paragraph focusing on a different small aspect of gameplay or design.
Super Mario All-Stars and Super Mario Advance 2 blend some sections of prose with bullet lists in others. On the Discord server, Glowsquid recommended a different hybrid model: starting subsections with short prose paragraphs about general changes, and using bullet lists for the smaller details. The full post is in the Comments section below.
I am in support of exclusively bullet points. I think in this specific context, where there can be very minuscule details that might get their own paragraph when using prose, it is more effective to use bullet points. There seems to be more of a standard set with them than with prose, and I think that's because it's more convenient to read the changes when in a bullet list, especially because you can create sub-bullets to highlight groups of changes.
Proposer: 0blivion (talk)
Deadline: June 5, 2021, 23:59 GMT
List changes entirely in prose
List changes with a hybrid of prose and bullet points
- Hewer (talk) I don't really see a problem with the way we have it now since it still conveys all the relevant information and using one over the other depending on the page may be preferable to effectively convey the information in each case. Since that's what we're doing right now and it doesn't actually cause any problems I see no reason to change it.
- Glowsquid (talk) My real opinion would be "Use bullet points unless there's a broad enough patterns of changes you can introduce them in prose". See my comment below.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Hewer and Glowsquid.
- Waluigi Time (talk) Per Glowsquid.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) — While I can appreciate the organizational approach this proposal is going for, I feel like limiting our writers to one option or the other is an unnecessary restriction that will cause more harm than good in regards to article flow and readability. Since ports, remakes, etc, don't all follow a standardized set of rules in their production, each one should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the most appropriate way to document the information.
- Archivist Toadette (talk) Per Glowsquid.
- Ray Trace (talk) Per all.
- The Mansion (talk) Seems like the best option to me.
List changes in entirely bullet points
- 0blivion (talk) Per proposal.
I'll post the discord comments I made when the topic was brought up (also the proposal main text made it sound like i recommended the bowser's fury page to be like SMA2's when what happened is that BLOF brought it and the Super Mario All-Stars as examples of how those sections should be written and I opined I don,t think they work very well, and then brought up my own idea on how those sections should be done)
- "I don't think there's actually a policy about wheter bullet vs prose is preferable, and to be honest I prefer bullets in most forms. Like, if you want to have some elaboration on the kind of look super mario all-star's revamped graphics go for vs the original game, a paragraph of prose may be fine but most of the articles might as well just be a list of bullet honestly.
For example super mario all-stars, for the graphic section you could start with a prose paragraph that says "all-stars overhauls the graphical presentation of its component games redrawing sprites, adding paralax scrolling that wasn't there before", etc etc and then you have the bullets listing the specific "snifits are now green instead of red" stuff. I don't feel the two examples you gave as they are now are really all that preferable. right now you just a bunch of short paragrahs sandwiches between tons of rogue line breaks."
So for the above-cited example of SMA2, instead of the current appealing wall of text the gameplay changes section is now, it would be more like:
"Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2 gets rid of the 2-player mode and instead overhauls Luigi as a distinct player character with his own abilities. He can be played by pressing R on the world map.
- Stuff Luigi does different 1
- Luigi difference 2
- Luigi difference 3
[paragraph break]
The 100% Completion events have been overhauled, featuring different requirements and new events for triggering Fall.
- New completion requirement description
- New fall content
- New fall enemies"
etc etc. Hopefully you get the gist. --Glowsquid (talk) 09:37, May 22, 2021 (EDT)
- Sorry about that. I didn't actually see the conversation on the Discord server, so I misunderstood the intent. I've edited the main text.
However, couldn't these short prose introductions also be fit into a bullet list? I mentioned sub-bullets because when the Bowser's Fury page had bullets, it did something similar to this hybrid model by using them. For example:
- As in Super Mario Odyssey:
- Save files are saved, loaded, and copied in the same manner.
- Characters can now roll in midair, similar to the dive.
- Characters can perform a roll or Ground Pound Jump immediately after landing from a Ground Pound.
- Characters now fall through upright Warp Pipes when performing a Ground Pound through the center from above. Similarly, characters now enter sideways Warp Pipes immediately when rolling through the center without their momentum being interrupted. The sped-up variant of the Warp Pipe sound effect from Odyssey is reused upon entering Warp Pipes these ways.
If those main bullets would work better as prose, then I could be OK with that as long as the minute changes are bullet points. 
0blivion 11:39, May 22, 2021 (EDT)
New features
Use a unique archive color for proposals that fail to reach a consensus
This is something that's been bugging me for a while now. Currently, we don't have a unique color for proposals that fail to reach a consensus (i.e. proposals that get extended three times and end without any option properly "winning"). Currently we just mark them red, the same color used for proposals that straight up fail. This isn't totally illogical, since the result of both outcomes is similar (the proposed changes are not implemented and there's a minimum 4 week wait to propose again). However, I still feel that this needlessly obfuscates the archive, making it impossible to tell which proposals failed by consensus and which ones stalemated without clicking on each and every proposal link in the archive marked red, especially since there is no text in the archive that clarifies this. As a result of this, people browsing through the archive are forced to do extra work just to determine which ones are which for no good reason. Stalemates are common enough that it would be useful to be able to tell them apart easily.
As for what color should be used, my suggestion is white. It's a fitting color for stalemate proposals, and it isn't too close to an existing color (closest is gray, the color used for passed proposals awaiting implementation, but I think it's distinct enough). I'm open to other suggestions though.
Proposer: 7feetunder (talk)
Deadline: June 1, 2021, 23:59 GMT
Support
- 7feetunder (talk) Per proposal.
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Makes sense to me. Per.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) — This is a nice little improvement. White should be fine, as both it and black are the only colors left unused without getting into different shades of the existing ones (lavender, navy, etc.)
Oppose
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Combine the four pages on Mega Pi'illos into one "Mega Pi'illo" page and change the original four pages to redirects
The four pages about Mega Pi'illos (Cush, Shawn, Phil, and Lowe) are currently quite redundant. With the exception of just a few words (and the "Names in other languages" segment) , Cush and Shawn's pages are currently near-identical. Besides having a piece of trivia, Lowe's page is largely a shorter version of Phil's. The main body of all 4 pages consist of a single paragraph detailing the climb up Mount Pajamaja with regards to the Mega Pi'illos, to varying degrees of detail. Additionally, all four pages use the same artwork and claims it to be of the page's subject, despite the actual artwork being unidentified as to which Mega Pi'illo it is.
I propose the four pages be combined into one page titled "Mega Pi'illo", rewritten to accommodate all four of them, and the four existing pages changed into redirects to "Mega Pi'illo."
Proposer: Casual Koopa (talk)
Deadline: May 25, 2021, 23:59 GMT
Merge the four Mega Pi'illo pages
- Casual Koopa (talk) Per my proposal.
- The Mansion (talk) Lowe's article states he is encountered under circumstances nearly identical to Phil. That says pretty much everything.
- PanchamBro (talk) Per proposal.
- Hewer (talk) After looking at the pages I realise how similar they are, per all.
- Scrooge200 (talk) Repeated articles. I've also been wanting to work on Pi'illo species pages, such as Deco Pi'illo.
- Keyblade Master (talk) Per all. I should point out that as of now, Pi'illo Master also has yet to be made into its own article.
- RHG1951 (talk) Much like the WarioWare duos, the Mega Pi'illos don't do anything without their counterpart.
- Archivist Toadette (talk) Sure.
Keep the four pages separate
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
0blivion 11:39, May 22, 2021 (EDT)
