|
Current time:
Thursday, May 9th, 11:24 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 talk page proposals
- Delete Monita (discuss) Deadline: January 19, 2018, 23:59 GMT
- Decide what to do with the tables on the Super Mario 3D World page (discuss) Deadline: January 19, 2018 23:59 GMT
- Determine Tetris for the Game Boy's place in the Mario franchise (discuss) Deadline: January 21, 2018 23:59 GMT
- Split Antigravity Panel and/or Halfpipe-style Boost Ramps from Dash Panel (discuss) Deadline: January 27, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
| #
|
Proposal
|
User
|
Date
|
| 1
|
Split Spoing, Sprangler and Klamber from Scuttle Bug
|
Vommack (talk)
|
November 3, 2012
|
| 2
|
Create boss level articles for Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong Land series
|
Aokage (talk)
|
January 3, 2015
|
| 3
|
Create a template for the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door badge drop rates
|
Lord Bowser (talk)
|
August 17, 2016
|
| 4
|
Create a Mini article
|
Wildgoosespeeder (talk)
|
August 20, 2016
|
| 5
|
Split all remaining courts and boards from their parent articles
|
NSY (talk)
|
September 25, 2016
|
| 6
|
Clean up species categories to only include non-hostile species
|
Niiue (talk)
|
August 8, 2017
|
| 7
|
Clean up Category:Artifacts
|
Niiue (talk)
|
August 22, 2017
|
| 8
|
Trim down Category:Fire Creatures and Category:Ice Creatures
|
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
|
September 7, 2017
|
| 9
|
Create an article on Arcade Archives
|
Camwood777 (talk)
|
September 23, 2017
|
| 10
|
Split all Starbeans Cafe items from the Starbeans Cafe article
|
Baby Luigi (talk)
|
September 30, 2017
|
| 11
|
Reorganize the board table in Mario Party: Island Tour
|
Baby Luigi (talk)
|
December 15, 2017
|
| 12
|
Give the Nintendo Switch buttons in Template:Button better color resolution
|
Eldritchdraaks (talk)
|
December 18, 2017
|
| 13
|
Expand the Behemoth King article
|
Owencrazyboy9 (talk)
|
December 23, 2017
|
| 14
|
Create articles on the Remix 10 secret courses in Super Mario Run
|
Time Turner (talk)
|
December 26, 2017
|
| 15
|
Add anchor links to Power Moon lists (view progress)
|
Super Radio (talk)
|
December 31, 2017
|
| 16
|
Use points to show the statistics in the main pages of Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
|
Mister Wu (talk)
|
January 2, 2018
|
Writing guidelines
Implement the ability to remove support votes in nominations for featured articles
After seeing that people can't remove support votes in featured article nominations...why is this necessary? If we can remove both support and oppose votes in unfeatured article nominations, then why can't we do the same for featured article nominations? After all, no matter what, all you're really voting for is whether the article should be granted featured status or if it should be unfeatured, so being only able to remove oppose votes in featured article nominations sounds inconsistent.
In the policy page, the rule will look like somewhat approaching this:
Users may vote for the removal of a support/oppose vote if they feel it is invalid or not specific enough, but have to give reasons for their choice. Three users, including an administrator, are required for the removal of a support/oppose vote. This is how it should look like:
==== Removal of support/oppose votes ====
'''Name of a specified user'''
#{{User|Username}} Reasons the support/oppose vote should be removed
After the required amount of votes is met, users must wait 24 hours before removing the vote. Any vote that has per'd without providing any additional reason will also be removed.
Proposer: Lcrossmk8 (talk)
Deadline: January 28, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Lcrossmk8 (talk) It doesn't hurt to be consistent on the wiki.
- DKPetey99 (talk) After seeing your recent edit be reverted on the Super Mario Run Nomination page, I was just about to propose this myself. Implementing this would only enforce consistency and weed out any illegitimate votes. I'm not looking to single anyone out, but the two support votes on the current Super Mario Run nomination are not legitimate and should not be allowed to stay. This new system would be implemented to strictly remove any support votes that shouldn't be there. Why let them stay if we all agree that there has been cases as mentioned. Per Lcrossmk8 and my comments below.
- Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Because of what just happened, once this passes, any support votes that don't follow rules would get vaporized with the removal feature. Per all.
- Astro-Lanceur (talk)Per all.
- Time Turner (talk) If the nomination only has one support vote, then that vote carries weight. If that vote is being held up with faulty reasoning, then I see no reason to keep it there. Per all.
- Chester Alan Arthur (talk) There's really no reason not to do this. If the only support vote is clearly invalid then it should be able to be removed. We shouldn't have to wait out the process if the whole nomination is invalid.
- Supermariofan67 (talk) Per all.
Oppose
- Super Mario Bros. (talk) — The reason that the wiki does not allow for the removal of support votes from Featured Article nominations is that such a process would not have a real impact on the progress of the nomination. The job of the support is not to outnumber the opposition by a particular margin; rather, it is to completely satisfy any legitimate concerns that the opposition might have. Even if one hundred people flooded in with illegitimate support reasons, one oppose vote would disallow the nomination from being passed. Because oppose votes hold much more weight than support votes and are difficult to remove if they are justified, it is pointless to design a process to remove illegitimate support votes. Additionally, the comparison of FA support votes to Unfeature support votes falls flat when one considers that they are inherently different; whereas the burden falls on the support to pass a Featured Article nomination, the burden falls on the opposition to fail an Unfeature nomination. This means that in the Unfeature process, support and oppose votes are more equal in importance and must both be backed by strong reasoning for the process to actually work.
- Alex95 (talk) - Per SMB. Support votes are moot if there are any opposes anyway.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per SMB and Alex.
- YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Do we actually have to do this? It seems useless. Standard proposals do not work the same way as FA nominations. Per SMB.
- Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Was originally going to support, but didn't know that a Feature nomination failed with any number of opposes, so per all.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per SMB.
- Tucayo (talk) - Per SMB.
- Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per SMB.
- Waluigi Time (talk) Per SMB.
- LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per SMB.
- Baby Luigi (talk) Per all.
This doesn't hurt anyone either. If we can remove opposition we should have the same guidelines to remove supports. Good idea. 
DKPetey99TCE
You need to create a draft for writing guidelines. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 17:22, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- ^Before anyone else votes, the proposal should be drafted so we know what this new guideline would look like.
17:30, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- To clarify, you need to include a draft of what the rule will look like in the policy page. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 17:51, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- May I suggest instead of saying "not specific enough" in your draft change in to something like "insufficient." I feel that word is used better to describe it. DKPetey99TCE
@SMB: We do have a process to remove any kind of fan vote, support or oppose, so it's not an entirely novel concept. Also, I'd say that support votes can carry weight if they convince other users to support it regardless of any erroneous reasons, and the users then proceed to spend their time arguing with the opposers rather than anything productive. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 19:04, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- @Time Turner: I overlooked that and modified my vote to reflect the policy change. Even still, the reasoning applies to any other sorts of illegitimate or poorly-supported support votes. Of course, support votes can carry a symbolic weight if they are well-constructed, but that does not change the fact that when it comes down to pure policy, an oppose vote has much more weight than a support vote. · SMB (Talk) · 19:14, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- I don't disagree that a single oppose vote does more than any number of support votes, but personally, it feels weird to allow poorly constructed votes to stay just because they're not strictly impacting the nomination. They could contain false or just plain bad information and reasoning, and you yourself brought up the potential symbolic weight of them. Even if they're worth a single drop of a near-full bucket, I don't want to disregard it, because that still means that it constitutes something. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 19:20, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- Eh, it sounds like the burden falls on the opposition to fail both featured and unfeatured article nominations. And also, @SMB, the removal of support votes does have as much impact on the progress of the nomination as much as the removal of oppose votes, especially in most of the cases when you see only one reason being given by the first voter and everyone else giving it a "per all" secondary vote. It happens in both support and oppose votes. The burden falls on the supporters to support the nomination and the opposition to fail the nomination in any nomination. After all, what's the point of voting in the first place if there is no burden on your side? Lcrossmk8 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- Regardless of how many support votes there are, if there's even one oppose vote, then the feature nomination won't matter anyway. There's no need to have a "Removal of supports" because voting against the nomination does more than enough already. 19:47, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- @Time Turner: I also don't disagree that faulty support votes constitute something; rather, I believe the process already handles these situations adequately by virtue of giving a single opposition vote more weight than any amount of support votes. If the support offers weak arguments, then the opposition will simply have a strong counterargument. It is then up to the support to revise its standpoint or edit the article to eliminate these concerns. The process is designed to handle the very concern that the proposal attempts to combat.
- @Lcrossmk8: The burden absolutely falls on the support in the case of Featured Articles. A single support vote will not make a technical difference as long as the FA nomination meets the five vote threshold; however, a single oppose vote will completely stall the nomination from being accepted. The opposition does not have to make any real attempt to improve the article for their viewpoint to be officially accepted, whereas the support must address the concerns of the opposition if they want the nomination to succeed. Of course, there is some sort of "burden" on both sides; however, the process heavily favors the opposition, which means the support must work harder to succeed in their goal. · SMB (Talk) · 19:57, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- And for some reason, oppose votes don't face the same burdens? If the opposition doesn't want the nomination to succeed, then it's up to them to give all legitimate reasons as to why the support is wrong and the nomination should not succeed. It's not that complicated for any nomination, both the support and the opposition must give legitimate reasons as to why their side is right. You can say that more support votes don't make a difference in the progress of the nomination, but I can turn that around and say the exact same thing for the oppose votes: more of them don't make a difference in the progress of the nomination. The opposition must have legitimate reasons to not support the nomination for featured articles, because there is absolutely no point to them voting at all if they don't give good enough reasons. After all, my point is this: why are you voting at all if you don't have any burden to support or fail the nomination? Lcrossmk8 (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- Oppose cancels support. End of story. -YFJ (talk · edits) 20:26, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- It's unnecessary to have the oppose votes cancel the illegitimate support votes. This is about consistency and balance. Support can cancel out oppose. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (EST)
Support does NOT cancel oppose. That's why we have "removal of support". -YFJ (talk · edits) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- Exactly my point. You just proved my point right there. That's what we should have. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- Uh, no. I meant to say "removal of oppose". You might call it a typo. But a "removal of support" is pointless. -YFJ (talk · edits) 20:56, 14 January 2018 (EST)
@all opposers: I think you're all looking too deeply into this. Yes we understand that oppose votes carries a lot of weight against support votes, understandably. But you're all acknowledging that in some cases, there are support votes that really shouldn't be there. I think this new system will force any vote, regardless of support or oppose, to have legitimate reason. You're all acknowledging that there is a problem sometimes with faulty support votes, so why let that continue? Force the voters to put thought and dedication into their votes, instead of illegitimate ones that, frankly (and bluntly) stick out like a sore-thumb. DKPetey99TCE
- Well, fan votes can be deleted on sight anyway. -YFJ (talk · edits) 20:33, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- @Lcrossmk8: The burden of proof is on the support side to demonstrate why an article should be featured. The reason for this is quality control: by design, it is harder to feature an article and easier to prevent its being featured. That is why opposition is tasked with providing legitimate reasons for opposing. You cannot say that more oppose votes don't make a difference, because that's simply wrong: more opposition votes do make a difference in the progress of the nomination, provided there are a variety of concerns with the article. No matter how many reasons there are to support an article being featured, just one point against it can derail the nomination; two or more reasons to oppose absolutely creates more roadblocks to the nomination passing. Also, it is not unnecessary to have an oppose vote "cancel" illegitimate support votes (which is not the term I would use... "counteract" would be better in this case), it is literally what the system is designed to do. Support absolutely cannot cancel out opposition, because the system is skewed toward the opposition for quality-control reasons.
- @DKPetey99: There is no "problem" with faulty votes. As I said above, the system is already designed to deal with the circumstance. The voters will be forced to put thought and dedication into their votes when they get met by a well-supported opposition vote. · SMB (Talk) · 20:38, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- Well I feel this proposed system furthers that principle for the better. DKPetey99TCE
- @SMB, and the burden of proof is on the oppose side to demonstrate why an article should not be featured. In theory, you might be right about more oppose votes making a difference, but in reality, all I see is the first oppose voter giving the reasons for why the article should not be featured and everyone after him or her just saying "per all", and once the issues get fixed, why should the oppose votes be there anymore? All it really shows is how inherently weak the oppose side can really be at times. And plus, why just keep the support votes there if they are not legitimate? It's the same with oppose votes--if they are not legitimate, then get rid of them. If you look at it, there's a clear reason why I designed the system to be exactly like the system used to get rid of bad oppose votes. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- Nobody is arguing with removing opposition votes if the initial concerns have been remedied. Just because a concern has been fixed does not mean it was "inherently weak," it means that the support actually rose to the occasion and improved the article. The main responsibility of the opposition is to critique and suggest improvement, whereas the main responsibility of the support is to act on these suggestions to ensure article quality. In the end, it does not matter why the supporters want the article to be featured; the implied idea behind supporting is that they believe it meets the requirements set out for featuring and that they will take action to ensure it gets featured. It absolutely does matter, however, why the opposition votes the way they do; their job is to critique the article and control the quality of the FA process. That is why their vote is given much more weight and power, and why they are more accountable for their votes; on the other hand, that is why the support is not held as accountable for their vote, but must produce results if there are legitimate concerns with the nomination. · SMB (Talk) · 21:18, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- And with the implementation of this feature, does this mean that the power of the oppose votes will be diminished? Not really, all it does is ensure that the support votes are making sure that they are sure in what they want and that they are being entirely legitimate in their reasons for wanting the article to be featured--it does matter why they want the article to be featured, because what they say will reflect off of the quality of writing on the wiki as much as the oppose voters' criticism will. In other words, we are holding these support voters more accountable for their actions. That is exactly what we need to see here on this wiki, and plus, we cannot give the constructive criticism of the oppose voters more power and weight than the positivity and idealism of the support voters. Both positive feedback and negative feedback are of equal importance, and with the ability to remove support votes, we are basically saying that we will hold the support voters to the same standard we hold the oppose voters to. Also, this is going to hold the entire wiki to a higher standard, because if people want more articles to gain featured status, then they are going to have to work harder to make the articles and the content more high-quality and well-written. If we want to be the world's best database and research center on the Mario franchise ever found, then we're going to need to keep pushing ourselves to make better articles and more high-quality content. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2018 (EST)
I urge all users to look into the history of the Featured Articles system, specifically historic proposals and decisions that are similar in nature to the current one:
- Reformat Featured Articles...again! – Introduced the Featured Articles system to the Super Mario Wiki after several failed attempts. Notably did not specify that supporters provide a reason for supporting, just that objectors provide their reasons.
- FA Support – Failed due to not meeting quorum. Interestingly, the designer of the FA system, Son of Suns (talk), directly stated that "it doesn't make sense to have to provide a reason to support, cause all your reasons are already listed on the FA page."
- Fanvotes – Failed due to tie. Again, Son of Suns argues that "a support vote does not mean the article will become an FA - it is simply a pledge" to work on the article.
- Featured Article Voting Modification – Passed; allowed for users to remove both support and oppose votes through the removal process.
- Repeal "Featured Article Voting Modification" – Passed; partially repealed the previous proposal, specifically the provision to allow for the removal of support votes. It is noteworthy that Stumpers (talk), the sponsor of the previous proposal, supported this repeal and stated that he regretted including the provision in question.
- Change FA removal of votes rules – Passed; allowed for administrators to remove fan votes (although it is worth mentioning that support reasons themselves were not required).
- Change FA rules part 1 – Rejected; would have re-enabled the process for users to remove fan votes.
- Allow Support Votes to be Removed on Nomination Pages? – Rejected; essentially the same idea as the above proposal. It was deemed unnecessary due to the previous proposal by Tucayo (talk) allowing for Sysops to remove fan votes.
- Support Votes – Official community compromise reached to replace Tucayo's rule. Only the nominator was allowed to post an official support reason; otherwise, all other votes could remain but be stripped of any comments following the vote. This did not apply to oppose votes or any functions of the Unfeatured process.
- Require FA Support Reason – Rejected; attempted to overturn prior decision and force users to post support reasons.
- Require Support Reasoning for FA Nomination – Rejected; essentially the same proposal as the one listed directly above.
- Automatically Removing Fan Votes from FA Nominations – Passed; reintroduced the removal of all fan votes and expedited the process, requiring automatic removal. However, when it was implemented, support votes for FA nominations were specifically excluded.
- Officially repeal the "no support reason" Featured Article nomination rule – Passed; overturned the "Support Votes" community decision to end the practice of arbitrarily removing support reasons.
This proposal isn't anything new; on the contrary, I think it fails to account for over a decade of intense debate on the very topic and numerous community discussions and decisions to try and resolve the issue. Not only has this idea been implemented before, but those that were once the strongest proponents gradually became the strongest opponents of the measure. If you check through the proposals I have linked to, you might notice that I actually supported this idea many years ago; however, I have since come to realize that I was wrong. Son of Suns (creator of the FA process), Time Q (talk) and all other objectors to this idea were absolutely correct: it is not a good idea to demand a "legitimate" reason of the supporters of FA nominations as their vote is an implicit acknowledgement that they believe the article meets the requirements to be featured. · SMB (Talk) · 00:55, 15 January 2018 (EST)
- Well, I think it's time we implement it again. We cannot give the oppose voters more credit than they already deserve, and plus, why do we have the ability to remove support votes in unfeatured article nominations? Again, it is inconsistent, and plus, if the burden falls on the oppose to fail the unfeatured nomination and on the support to pass the unfeatured nomination, then why are we removing both support and oppose votes for unfeatured nominations and only oppose votes for featured nominations? In reality, we should either be removing only support votes for unfeatured nominations and only oppose votes for featured nominations, OR we should be removing both support and oppose votes for both nominations. Again, the burden should fall on both sides to progress the nomination in their favor. Also, having the ability to remove support votes in featured article nominations will make any vote, support or oppose, have legitimate reason. With this ability, no one will be able to exploit featured article nominations for any illegitimate reasons, and the nominations will have to be more rigid and strong to succeed. I'm starting to think that this is more than just a debate about whether we should implement the ability to remove support votes in featured article nominations---this is a debate about the general writing standards we have for the wiki and ourselves, and I'm starting to think that with the small amount of featured articles on the wiki, it might be time to raise the standards and push everyone to work harder to make the articles more high-quality and better. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2018 (EST)
- It's not that oppose votes are given "more credit than they already deserve," it's simply that the support and opposition have inherently different roles in the process. The opposition critiques the article based on the standards required for featuring and the support acts to resolve these concerns; the former requires a solid reasoning and the latter requires pure action. I will not address this again, as I have done so exhaustively in my vote, subsequent comments and resources linked above. Please do not distract the debate by pivoting to "general writing standards" or implying that those who oppose your proposal are voting against higher standards for the wiki, because your proposal actually does nothing to modify any writing standards on the wiki and deals purely with a voting mechanism of the Featuring process. That being said, I would like to request that proposal be recategorized under "Changes" and that the deadline be moved forward by a week. · SMB (Talk) · 23:52, 15 January 2018 (EST)
- I don't see it that way. I don't see the inherent difference in the process of featured and unfeatured article nominations, because it's that simple--if you don't have any motivation or burden to vote for your side, then you shouldn't be voting at all. And no, I'm not implying that the people who oppose my proposal are voting against higher standards on the wiki, because I know that the users all have different ideas on what higher writing standards means--heck, I am not even calling out anybody in general. What I am saying is that we are consistently giving negative feedback some more "value" than positive feedback, and that we are holding the support voters to a higher standard because we are forcing them to think twice about if any article really deserves to be featured with the ability to remove support votes. We simply are holding the featured article nominations to the same standards we hold the unfeatured article nominations to, and we need consistency and balance to do this. Featured article nominations deal with writing standards because what the support voters say will matter in the long run. Positive feeback and negative feedback must be treated equally. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2018 (EST)
- Lcross, we only allow removal of support on unfeaturing nominations for a reason. When featuring, any oppose vote will kill off any supports, as a legit oppose says that the article violates FA standards. When unfeaturing, however, it is the supporters that are critiquing the article, but an oppose will still kill off all supports. I honestly don't know why that's the case when unfeaturing with an oppose, but if you want to change that rule, you'll have to make a separate proposal. Ultimately, there is no point in eliminating weightless votes. And please, move this proposal to "changes" and make the deadline a week earlier. -YFJ (talk · edits) 01:10, 16 January 2018 (EST)
- This proposal is the right spot, according to this guideline. And if a vote is "weightless", why would it matter if it is removed then? DKPetey99TCE
- I'm opposing because we already have a "removal of support" system that goes by the name of "oppose". Why implement a system we already have? -YFJ (talk · edits) 03:03, 16 January 2018 (EST)
Here's the gist on why I agree with Super Mario Bros. on why the opposition carries more weight and is generally of more importance than a support vote in a Featured Article nomination and why the same cannot be said about an Unfeature nomination. It's far easier to describe an article's flaws than it is to talk about what it does to meet the guidelines; an analogy it's easier to describe what causes a computer to stop working than it is to describe how your computer works fine. The same sorts of praise have always been given to when an article is nominated to be featured: it follows these established guidelines, it is well-written, it is well-formatted, etc. It's the same reasons across any nomination. Hell, many times, the nomination also lists problems that it doesn't have to justify its appearance as featured: no red links, no bad writing, and all of that stuff. When an article does have problems, it's arisen from specific problems the article may have. You can go deeply in-depth into reasons Super Baby Luigi Armageddon can't be featured, because it talks about the plot too colorfully and flowerly, there's no images in X section or the images are captured in a terrible quality, there is a lack of this standard that this article doesn't have, and you can list specific sentences and link these sentences to specific guidelines that outlines. Opposition votes is also akin to proofreading an article: you don't know there are problems within your own work or nomination until another person with a different perspective takes a look at it and says what needs to be improved.
A reason I even instated support reasons back is because there's absolutely no reason to get rid of them in the first place, and praise for the article is most certainly something that should be given to deserving editors when they actually work hard on the article to get it featured on the main page because most of the time, the person who nominated an article to be featured worked on it to a degree in the first place (that doesn't happen all the time and I'm not ignoring it, but it still means that someone somewhere saw it and liked it and wanted to thank editors for their work). Support votes aren't entirely pointless either, but I don't like how some people here would like to throw the support reasons or votes under the rug because they're not "important" or that they're "meaningless" when they actually are meaningful in their own way, just not as much as oppose votes nor as constructive. Positive feedback is a good thing, people.
For an Unfeature nomination, I say that the process of the removal of support votes should be removed there instead of removing support votes in a Feature nomination, because oppose votes there act pretty much like Featured nominations, with some key differences of course that SMB already addressed that I can't really describe well outside of "well the oppose votes are trying to keep a nomination that was already passed so they have to prove themselves and..." well blah that reasoning sounds very flimsy and massive amounts of ad hoc to me myself. 
Ray Trace(T|C) 17:16, 16 January 2018 (EST)
New features
I don't really no where else to put this proposal, as none of the episodes have their own page. They are just briefly mentioned in the article about the location in which it takes place. Simply put, there are ten "episodes" which serve as the levels for the game. Each episode is rather extensive and can easily be formatted to substantially include the episode's happenings in their own respective page. The game's article, as a whole, seems to be underrepresented, and I have made it a goal of mine to improve it. I would have created the pages myself, but I feel this is too big a change to just implement on my own, so I created a proposal just in case. And to further clarify, each level will get their own page if the proposal passes, not one inclusive page with all the levels.
Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk)
Deadline: January 23, 2018 23:59 GMT
Support
- DKPetey99 (talk) I think it is only reasonable for a game's levels to have their own pages
- Alex95 (talk) - According to MarioWiki:New_articles#Level_articles, all levels should have their own article anyway
Oppose
- Lcrossmk8 (talk) If a game has only ten episodes, then it's better off to represent them all on one page. If you want some precedents, then the World 7 (New Super Mario Bros.) page should give you some if you look carefully in the revision history.
What could be covered in these pages that couldn't be covered in the existing location pages? Or alternatively, why should these episodes be separate from the locations? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 20:18, 16 January 2018 (EST) edit: the important link is visible now
@DKPetey99: Would you mind showing an example of how these level articles would look like on your project/sandbox page or somewhere? 21:17, 16 January 2018 (EST)
- @Time Turner: Some of the levels take place at the same location. Besides, look at the location articles. They briefly mention a description and a summary of the episode and fail to go in depth of the actual events/encounters that Wario experiences. They only talk about the cutscenes to my understanding. The gameplay itself takes about 30-40 minutes per episode. That's including secrets/minigames. DKPetey99TCE
- @Alex95 Yea, I will work on an example tonight. I'll do the first episode, which is the quickest one. The next levels are far more extensive. DKPetey99TCE
- @Lcross: I failed to mention that there are also special episodes, I think five to be exact. DKPetey99TCE
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
How to order navigation templates
According to MarioWiki:Navigation templates, navigation templates are to be ordered as such: "species templates should come first, followed by game-specific and series-wide templates, which are arranged in pure chronological order." I'm fine with species coming before game and series, but I have a problem with the bolded section (emphasis my own). The purely chronological order helps nobody: readers definitely don't know when every game came out, and editors are especially inconvenienced by having to look up every single game until they find exactly where each template fits... or they might just guess where it fits, and if you don't believe that's not being done, look at any large page and count how many templates are out-of-place. This may not be that much of an issue on smaller pages or with new games, but good luck trying to slot in a new template for an older game on Mario's page. The fact of the matter is, the date that a game came out is not obvious to anyone. Why not change it, then?
Option 1: Purely alphabetically
This matches how our categories are currently ordered (including how species go at the top). The templates would be ordered by the first letters in their name and nothing more.
Option 2: By series, then chronologically
This matches how the history sections of the pages themselves are currently ordered. The templates would be grouped together by their subjects' series, then subsequently ordered by their date of release.
Option 3: By series, then alphabetically
An amalgamation of options 1 and 2. The templates are grouped by series, then ordered alphabetically.
Option 4: Purely chronologically (i.e. do nothing)
Everything stays the same, and no changes are made.
Examples of all of the options can be seen here. I'm personally partial to the purely alphabetical option, because it mirrors the categories and it doesn't involve any digging around with dates, but the choice is yours.
Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: January 20, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Option 1
- Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
- Yoshi the SSM (talk) Out of the two non-series based options, this is preferred due to it being done without going to other articles, due to it being easily organize-able, and per proposal.
Option 2
- Alex95 (talk) - I'm fine with either option, but I often order things chronologically when able over alphabetically. Preferred option
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
- DKPetey99 (talk) I like this option best because it only makes sense if most articles are formatted this way. Per proposal.
- BBQ Turtle (talk) I think this is the best way to go about it as it is in line with most other things that require similar ordering, per all.
- Supermariofan67 (talk) Per all.
- Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per all.
- YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all. But how will we arrange the series? I think Super Mario games should be on top.
- Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
- Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all. The only problem I have is the templates colors would be grouped. However, this is preferred out of all due this exactly coming before categories.
- Magikrazy (talk) Pretty sure this is how the articles are structured anyway, so yeah.
- Mario jc (talk) Ordering them the same way as the history sections seems like a good idea.
- LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all.
Option 3
Option 4
- Alex95 (talk) - I'm fine with either option, but I often order things chronologically when able over alphabetically.
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) This fixes potential arbitrarity regarding what series should go first, particularly with the game Donkey Kong being both in the Mario and Donkey Kong franchise.
- Mario jc (talk) Chronological ordering is fine as well, as it provides users with an alternative to the alphabetical ordering of the categories.
- Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per all.
Dear everyone who picked 2: What about the game Donkey Kong? Should the first several templates on Mario's page relate to his involvement in the Donkey Kong franchise? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2018 (EST)
- The series would be ordered as they're ordered in the history pages. Not particularly arbitrary. At the very least, you should be having a problem with a lot more of the wiki, then. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 16:00, 13 January 2018 (EST)
- Do you mean the history sections? The only reason I don't complain about those is that we have tables of contents for that. The current template ordering, makes sense, unlike the other options. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2018 (EST)
- How does a table of contents make a difference? They're being ordered the same way. Also, what's so nonsensical about alphabetical ordering? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 16:08, 13 January 2018 (EST)
- Sigh I can see where things are ahead of time and jump to them in a table of contents. Alphabetical ordering is inadequate due to some games having different names depending on region, including English regions. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2018 (EST)
- Games having different names is a moot point when every other aspect of the wiki is using those names. Someone looking for information about whatever game would see that name, and they'd then know what name to search for afterwards. Nobody is going to the navigation templates first. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 16:17, 13 January 2018 (EST)
- It's still far less helpful than the current ordering, IMO. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2018 (EST)
- My main point is that the current ordering helps nobody in the slightest. Who is so familiar with every game's release date that they can navigate the templates with ease? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 16:20, 13 January 2018 (EST)
- The person you're speaking with? It just makes more sense to me to see Donkey Kong or Super Mario Bros in the front than, say, Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, or to have Hotel Mario be the first for Wiggler. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2018 (EST)
- I'm sure your knowledge applies to every single one of the wiki's readers. 16:55, 13 January 2018 (EST)
- AGAIN, Hotel Mario and Captain Toad would become the foremost templates on several articles. This is a bad idea. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2018 (EST)
- You realize it's "By series, then chronologically", right? The only way Hotel Mario or Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker would be the first template on an article is if that was their first appearance in the series overall. --
Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 22:11, 13 January 2018 (EST)
- Yes, but I still see the pressing Mario series vs. Donkey Kong series. I'm talking about alphabetical here. I'm saying the way we currently have it has no judgement calls, which the "by series" one would require in some cases. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- I disagree. If something appeared in the Donkey Kong series first, then it's logical that their templates would come first. No judgment calls necessary. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 16:56, 14 January 2018 (EST)
- But the game Donkey Kong is in both the Mario and Donkey Kong franchise. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2018 (EST)
- @Doc:The first game-related templates on Mario's page are Donkey Kong-related already, but in any case, if you refer to this chart, you'll see that a judgment call has already been made based on their coloration. The arcade games and the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games are Donkey Kong games first and foremost. The implementation of option 2 wouldn't change that. Mario4Ever (talk)
- That wouldn't affect the templates at all, though. There wouldn't be a "Mario series" template. I think you're confusing the Mario and Donkey Kong franchises (which wouldn't have templates on character pages) with Donkey Kong the game and the Super Mario games. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:26, 15 January 2018 (EST)
- I'm saying that, as the All-Star mode for Super Smash Bros. Brawl demonstrates, Donkey Kong is both of the Mario and Donkey Kong franchises. So which would come first is a judgement call. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2018 (EST)
- Series, not franchise. The only Donkey Kong templates affected by that would be the ones based on the original game, not Donkey Kong Country or anything else. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:54, 16 January 2018 (EST)
Whoa, start over the indents, guys! -YFJ (talk · edits) 16:51, 16 January 2018 (EST)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
DKPetey99TCE
Ray Trace(T|C) 17:16, 16 January 2018 (EST)
