|
Current time:
Saturday, May 11th, 18:26 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 11, 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
List of Talk Page Proposals
- Move Blue Lava Bubble to Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: August 16, 2013, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Category: RPG Characters (Discuss) Deadline: August 19, 2013, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Template:Sprite gallery (Discuss) Deadline: August 22, 2013, 23:59 GMT
- Move Knight Greenie to Template:Fakelink and add information (Discuss) Deadline: August 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT
- Create a separate page for Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: August 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT
- Move Venus Fire Trap to Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: August 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Template:WarioWareChar (Discuss) Deadline: August 31, 2013, 23:59 GMT
Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
Since there is really many 3D games.. and there is too much models on this wiki that is classed as a sprite. So I porpose we create a template for them. I'm not so good with copyrights, but here is an almost a copy from {{game-sprite}}
|
This is a model originally from a copyrighted computer or video game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution models for identification and critical commentary on the computer or video game in question or the copyrighted character(s) depicted on the screenshot in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to turn a profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Copyrights and fair use rationale.
|
Proposer: Megadardery (talk) (banned)
Deadline: August 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT
Create The License and the category
- Tails777 (talk) They aren't sprites so a separate template for models seems like a good idea to me. Per proposal.
- Yoshi876 (talk) If they're different, have different templates. Per proposal.
- Madikoopa (talk) Per all.
- LeftyGreenMario (talk) Models aren't used very often, but it never hurts to have this template. I also disagree with YoshiKong. Creating this template will NOT be redundant and a waste of effort because these licensing templates also create a category for these images to go in. Lumping sprites and models in one category is messy, so this template can solve that problem too.
- Baby Luigi (talk) I strongly agree with this. BTW, there is a clear-cut difference between pre-rendered sprites and 3d models.
- Mario7 (talk) Per LGM
Rename the category to Game Sprites and Models
Do not create the License nor the category
- YoshiKong (talk) – I have regarded this idea with distaste in the past, where it was first brought up as an idea on a wiki collaboration forum thread. The idea of acknowledging the two kinds within image galleries, I'm completely fine with, mainly because it's a notion which is only needing to be changed once per gallery page, to comply with our policy. However, the fact that y'all are hoping to introduce a copyright license which is already legally covered by {{game-sprite}}, the only difference is a slight nameswap makes this template seem completely redundant, and a waste of effort to incorporate. And I don't agree that every user should be expected to correctly license every sprite/model which gets uploaded, and telling them off/continually correcting them would get excessively pedantic. It would be a lot more logical and save us all this unneeded hassle if we just modified our current sprite template to mention these fancy fashion models. And legally, we'd still be safe (which remember, is the whole point of driving licenses), not exactly keeping up with the latest rad words.
- GBAToad (talk) Per YoshiKong, he has a valid point. The obvious differences between sprites and models are regardless if they can both be legally classified under the same license. Creating another license to acknowledge these differences is highly superfluous and modifying the existing licence to accompany both sprites and models is the more logical thing to do.
- Tucayo (talk) - Per YoshiKong, the purpose of licenses is simply to be legally correct.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
- Iggy Koopa Jr (talk)Per all
- Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - I agree with YoshiKong and Tucayo.
What changes would you suggest to {{game-sprite}} - Megadardery (talk)
- @YoshiKong: It's not the legal part I'm concerned about. Creating game-model also creates and automatically places a category that neatly places all game models into one page. We could manually add a game model category, but we still have this licensing thing that will lump models with sprites. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
- Or we could call the category "Sprites and Models" but that still requires a ton of work. Baby Luigi (talk)
- Yeah, Lot of unneeded work plus it would be still mess. A separate category plus a separate license is the best way to go (in my opinion) - Megadardery (talk)
Make "List of Quotes by Character" Pages
I think we should make "List of Quotes by Character" pages (with "Character" being replaced by the name of a specific character). All the information will go onto a Writing Guideline eventually, but in the mantime, I'll just provide the main ideas here for reference...
These pages would only be for recurring characters, as oneshot characters already have complete quote lists on their parent games' pages. Discretion should also be used when determining what recurring characters should get quotes pages. If a character is major in one game, but only has a few lines in another game or two, there is no point giving them a quote page either: just give them a Quotes section with {{main}} to the major appearance, as well as some choice quotes from that and all the quotes from the minor appearance. Similarly, if a character appears in many games, but they only have a couple lines in each one, just compile them into a small list that fits in a single Quotes section (like how no separate list pages are needed when there's only one or two glitches or beta elements). Character with quotes list pages should also get Quotes sections linking to the lists with {{Main}}, with a small sample of notable or characteristic (oft-repeated) quotes (in accordance with MarioWiki:Empty Section Policy).
Each quote page will have a standardized header: "This is a list of quotes by [[character]]." (this will be added to MarioWiki:Subpages Policy). The first section will be "General", and list quotes that appear in more than one appearance; if they only occur a couple times, the appearances can be listed (put these quotes at the bottom), but otherwise, just leave them. Try to put the most stereotypical quotes at the top (i.e. "Mama Mia" for Mario, "Help me, Mario!" for Peach, etc.), and remember that generic quotes are allowed here - just not things like screams ("ahhh"), nonsense and other stuff that sheds absolutely no light on the character ("hi", "okay", etc.); when in doubt, or when there's disagreement, take it to the talk page. After that section, go by genre/media type: Platformers first, since they usually have less quotes, and after that comes Sports, then Spinoffs (including all the random things), then the RPGs (since these are likely to be the big, hefty sections), then the "Non-game appearances", and finally, a Misc. section for commercials ("Mario, Mario, Mario ja nai!" - Peach, NSLU), websites, and other things like that.. Specific series may be given headers, and specific games too, if they produce a large amount of quotes (typically, games sections will be reserved for the RPGs; spinoffs and sports will at least get series headers often, I suspect); otherwise, just put what game each quote is from following the quote All sections should follow the "unsorted" quotes; use chronological order for everything at every level as much as possible. For the non-game appearances, sections can be given for the different shows, movies, publications, etc., or just list them "unsorted" like the games/series with few quotes.
Pretty sure that's everything. But again, the real proposal part's the first paragraph, so if that's all you read, you got the idea.
Proposer: Walkazo (talk) (prompted by Megadardery (talk) and Yoshi876 (talk))
Deadline: August 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Walkazo (talk) - Per me. I've had this idea for years and have been mulling it over in earnest since this proposal happened...
- GBAToad (talk) Per Walkazo.
- Zero777 (talk) Seems like a pretty solid proposal. I'll support it! It's a good idea to have a separate page for that because putting a large list on the parent article clutters the place up and takes up too much space which can be bad for people with low bandwidth.
- LeftyGreenMario (talk) Huh, I always thought why didn't we have a separate page of quotes for characters like Mario. That should've been a standard years ago.
- Baby Luigi (talk) It's a pain in the ass to look for specific quotes by a certain character by looking in the games. This proposal solves this problem.
- Tails777 (talk) I was thinking about this myself and I feel it would be better to find quotes if one wanted to find one for a specific character. Per all.
- Tucayo (talk) - Per Walkazo.
Megadardery (talk) - Exactly Per Walkazo, I thought about this idea when I saw all those construction templates on all quotes pages for many and many years. But she seems that she organized this idea more than me.
- Yoshi876 (talk) 100% agree with this, makes it easier to find certain quotes if you don't remember the game, but remember the character.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
- Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk) Per Yoshi876.
- Driftmaster130 (talk)– Per all, I'm sure a lot of people have had this idea in the past.
- Iggy Koopa Jr (talk)Perfextly understandable, and advantegeous.
Oppose
Excuse me, but what about quotes like those? - Megadardery (talk)
- They should stay in the article. As for Mario characters, you should add the quotes into their page. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
- Cool, should we make a Collab on the forum? - Megadardery (talk)
Removals
Disallow Usage of "Per All"
My proposal is simple. It is the disallow of "Per All" sentence in proposal. Instead The voter will need a few seconds to specify the the users.
Example:
1. User1 (talk) Users should atleast have sometime reading the proposal before voting.
2. User2 (talk) Per User1
3. User3 (talk) Some Users may just want to vote, so they be called a participant in proposals.
Instead of:
4. User4 (talk) Per All
He would say:
4. User4 (talk) Per User1 and User3
He doesn't need to say Per User2, because User2 opinion is the same as User1
Proposer: Megadardery (talk) (banned)
Deadline: August 20, 2013, 23:59 GMT
Support
Oppose
- Yoshi876 (talk) I don't see a good reason for it to be gotten rid of, and it'd be incredibly annoying if lots of users contribute to a proposal each with their own reasons for (dis)agreeing with something and you having to go, Per: User 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. if you agree with all of them.
- ThePremiumYoshi (talk) — Per all... uh, I mean, this is completely unnecessary. Per the user above.
- Marshal Dan Troop (talk) per all.
- Tails777 (talk) If the per all thing is removed, then people who's reason for agreeing/disagreeing with something is already mentioned, those people either can't vote or need to come up with a whole new reason. Agreeing with someone else just makes it easier.
- LeftyGreenMario (talk) This seems to be a needless hassle to be specific on who you're perring when you per all.
- Randombob-omb4761 (talk) This is Ridiculous.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all. Having to list individuals is tedious and unnecessary, especially if lots of users make points you agree with. "Per all" isn't a cop-out, it's a perfectly valid vote.
- Driftmaster130 (talk)– The current system is fine, per all.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
- Tucayo (talk) - Per all.
- Iggy Koopa Jr (talk) This is preposterous. And additionally, how are you going to deal with users who will persist using "Per all"? Send a Warning? Possibly ban them?
- SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per all. (ha ha)
- Mario7 (talk) Per Yoshi876, Iggy Koopa Jr...ahhh! Per all!
Most votes are 'Pers' after all. - Megadardery (talk)
@Tail777 They can say Per someone - Megadardery (talk)
- True, but agreeing with many people isn't a bad thing. Tails777 (talk)
Alright, I got it now. I'll withdraw the proposal by tomorrow. Keeping it wouldn't hurt - Megadardery (talk)
Changes
Semi-Protect templates
Recently I have noticed that anons have done stupid things in the templates. Take [for example]. We don't want anons putting fake things in the templates. Or [about that?] We don't want them putting DS games in the Wii template either. It may not happen a lot, but it still happens and we don't want it.
Proposer: Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk)
Deadline: August 21, 2013, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk) Per my proposal. I still feel stupid I didn't do this earlier...
Oppose
- Walkazo (talk) - Per Megadardery in the comments. A couple bad edits is no reason for blanket protection of the templates: we're more likely to prevent good edits than bad edits from happening.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per Megadardery's comment.
- Iggy Koopa Jr (talk) A vandal is not so enormous a problem.
I got this idea in my mind before, but it is unbelievable to protect all the templates. If we have to protect some, we would protect high usage/complicated templates, mostly like Formatting Templates, Media Templates and Internal Link Templates. However, Navigation Templates, and Infobox Templates should never be protected, because maybe anonymous user finds a problem and tries to fix it. Beside all that, it is still easy to revert any vandal edit, other than complicated templates, because a vandal may make an edit, and another user fix a code somewhere else in the template. So it become hard -but not impossible- to revert it. This is nothing like the last proposal of semi-protecting the Glitches pages, because a vandal may add unreal glitch, which doesn't become hard but almost impossible because we wouldn't know if it is real or not, that is the reason our admins protected them in the first place. - Megadardery (talk)
- I agree with Megadardery. The glitch lists were protected because they are often a target for vandalism and false info. It's true that anyone can add false information to templates as well, but it only happens once in a while (much less frequently than glitch pages), and are easy enough to revert. –driftmaster130 (talk)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
