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.
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".
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.
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
A recurring trend on this wiki is to create articles on real-world terms, such as Genre, Level, and Pre-release and unused content. I know we've said something like this in the first proposal aimed at reducing generic subjects, but allowing these articles as precedents would lead to further unnecessary articles, such as Episode, Map, Cutscene...the list goes on. Keep in mind that wikis are not dictionaries, and we don't necessarily need articles on those subjects, same as the generic subjects. Therefore, in a similar vein to the generic subjects proposal I linked to, I propose that we allow articles on real-world terms only if they have a function or purpose that makes them unique and discernible from the way the term is applied elsewhere.
The following are examples of real-world terms that would be allowed:
Cheat code – The cheat codes and their effects vary per game; New Super Mario Bros.'s is a simple button hold that allows Luigi as a playable character, whereas Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'s has a cheats section where the player can enter five-letter code words to drastically change the gameplay (for example, typing "COLOR" in the SNES version gives Dixie and Kiddy a palette swap).
Game Over – The Game Over screens are entirely unique for each game, and Game Overs aren't just achievable by "losing". Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, for example, has a Game Over that occurs by making the mistake of reading Ghost T.'s diary.
Fourth wall – Fourth wall breaks occur very often in the Mario universe, such as how in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, Starlow references the Year of Luigi when Luigi is otherwise alone in west Gloomy Woods thanks to King Boo ("You had, like, a whole YEAR named after you!"), or how in Paper Mario: Color Splash, Huey makes a remark when he sees the final memory revealing that Bowser had accidentally created his black paintalter-ego, ""You're telling me we could have avoided this entire game if we just installed a "Don't Mix the Paint" sign?!".
The following are examples of real-world terms that would be forbidden:
Glitch – They are recurring, but they don't differentiate enough in concept from glitches in other franchises.
Level – There's nothing different about the concept of levels in the Mario franchise. You play them, you beat them, you move on to the next level. It's the same thing.
Genre – Genres in the Mario franchise are conceptually no different from genres elsewhere.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Your reasons seem a little too subjective for comfort. There are plenty examples of unique takes on the latter terms in various games, particularly with what the concept of what defines a "world" vs. a "level," and what a "minigame" truly is. Plus, better way to differentiate from the (trademarked? patented?) "Microgames." And why is the concept of a minigame any more notable than the concept of a game over? Sure, there are special cases, but having "unconventional" game overs is fairly common. Not to mention, once again, what makes the non-standard game overs more notable than the non-standard definition of a "world" vs. a "level?" The cardinal regions of Wario Land 3 provide a decent example of this, and the arguable "areas between Bowser fights in Super Mario 64" can also be seen as an example of this, as it fits most definitions of a "world," but is very unconventional. I suppose the domes in Super Mario Galaxy also should count here.
Comments
@Doc von Schmeltwick: Like I said, I'm open to simply merging the terms into the glossary, depending on if it would be better. As it stands, the latter terms basically repeat information found elsewhere, and for what it's worth, I wouldn't mind seeing List of minigames as a page. (T|C) 15:51, 9 July 2018 (EDT)
I partly agree and partly disagree with this one, so I thought I'd share my thoughts here. I agree that Glitch, Genre and anything similar should go, but I'm not so sure about the other three, particularly Minigame, which, while it needs some work, still contains a lot of valid and Mario-specific content (Especially the Mario Party stuff). I think getting rid of some of the pages like this is the right thing to do, and I'm definitely on board with that, but I don't quite agree on exactly what needs to go, which is why I'm not voting. BBQ Turtle (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2018 (EDT)
@BBQ Turtle: To answer your question, not all of these pages will be outright removed, and each one will be determined on a case-by-case basis. You do bring up a good point, though, so I'll edit this proposal to avoid further confusion on the matter. (T|C) 17:11, 10 July 2018 (EDT)
Well, i saw a user who got warned because he/she ingored these templates. However, the templates don't say that a user can get a warning for ingoring them; and {{reminder}} has a setence: "If the action continues, than a warning will be issued", so i believe it's acceptable to put this in these two templates as well.
Here's what i want it to look like:
Hello, Proposals. Good job on your recent uploads. But when uploading files, keep in mind that you must correctly use the {{aboutfile}} template. What you were doing looks like this, and it is an inconvenience for other users to fix up the template. It is simple to learn how to format it correctly. The pre-loaded coding is shown below.
{{aboutfile
|1=Subject of the image
|2=Where you found the image
|3=Artist
|4=Describe edits, if any
|5=Other versions (use file link)
}}
Just replace the necessary parts with that corresponding information, and remove the entire line of the variable(s) you don't use. If you do not wish to use the template at all, then it is acceptable to simply remove it before you upload the file. Please consider the above information before uploading more files. If you continue using {{aboutfile}} incorrectly, then a warning will be issued. Thank you for reading, and keep contributing.
Hello, Proposals. Good job on your recent uploads. But when uploading files, keep in mind that you must correctly categorize the file. It is simple to learn how to correctly do so. Just search for the correct category by starting with the following groups:
When uploading, copy the full title of the category with square brackets, and insert it into the summary text box (below the {{aboutfile}} template), replacing the {{uncategorized}} template. For example, files related to the game Super Mario World would use:
[[Category:Super Mario World Images]]
or
[[Category:Super Mario World Media Files]]
Please consider the above information before uploading more files. Keep in mind some files can belong to multiple categories. Don't put images into media categories and vise-versa. If you continue uploading images without categorizing them correctly, then a warning will be issued. Thank you for reading, and keep contributing.
Proposer: YoshiEgg1990 (talk) Deadline: July 16, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Boo4761 (talk) It's the same thing as a reminder, so I don't see why not.
Oppose
Comments
Change the way that recurring Mario & Sonic events are handled, round 2
After the no quorum result of the last attempt at this proposal, I've taken on board the comments from last time and changed the proposal to reflect this. So, at the moment, there's an issue in the way that events that appear in more than one of the Mario & Sonic games are handled, as events that share the same or similar names across games are all put together on the same article, despite the fact that they are very different between games, using different controls, scoring systems, characters, etc.. This isn't only a problem between Wii/Wii U and DS/3DS instalments, which would obviously and understandably have very different controls and slightly modified gameplay, but also between games on similar consoles, for example, the Trampoline event in the first DS game required certain patterns to be drawn with the stylus to perform various moves and the player to slide up with the stylus to jump, whereas in the 2012 3DS game moves are performed automatically and the player must use the circle pad to keep their character within a certain area, pressing the A button to jump. This means that infoboxes are overloaded with excessive information, defeating their purpose, and that the articles are a complete mess of headers and sections. 100m Dash and 100m Freestyle are examples of this, and please keep in mind that they still have a considerable amount of missing information, particularly from the later games. Part of the reason that all of the events are sharing one page seems to have apparently stemmed from the fact that they're currently being treated as generic subjects, which is not really how they should be viewed. They should be treated in a similar way to minigames, with each getting an individual article, even if they share a name, a few controls or subject that they're based on. Just because they're based on a real world subject, it doesn't mean that they should be covered like one (And any that currently have generic subject-like articles will be changed in the future, to give them more of a minigame-like focus, similar to 100m Breaststroke). Additionally, several Dream Events also share this issue (Including Dream Race, Dream Long Jump and Dream Bobsleigh), which are in no way affected by the generic subjects policy, and should be treated as separate minigames, but are currently all placed on the same page for being similar. These should also be split, in the same way as the regular events, as the two are treated as the same thing within the games.
Therefore, I'm proposing that we split each game's version of the event into its own unique article, which only covers the event's appearance in the one game. Only the controls, missions, playable characters, etc. for one game's version of the event would be included on that page, and an About template would be added to the top of name-sharing articles with a link to the disambiguation page for the other events or the events with a similar name. An identifier would be added to any articles with shared names, and I'm currently thinking that it would specify only the game if it only appears in one of the instalments for a specific year (Such as "Pole Vault (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic games)", which appears in the 3DS version but not the Wii one), or both the game and console if it appears in more than one version (Such as "BMX (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Nintendo 3DS))" and "BMX (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Wii U))"). This is just how I think the identifiers would work from what I can piece together from here, but unfortunately, it's not really designed to help out in cases like this thanks to naming in the Mario & Sonic series, so any other suggestions for identifiers are more than welcome. Any shared names would be turned into disambiguation pages, listing all of the separate articles and any with similar names, such as 100m and 100m Dash. If an event has a slightly different name in one or more instalments, it will use that name instead of the similar one that all the other events are named after with an identifier, but will still have the about template and so on. Events such as Balance Beam that only appear in one game will not be affected by this and will remain at the one name.
So, in summary, each version of an event from each game is split and given game-specific identifiers (Or some other form of identifier if a better one is suggested), the shared title is turned into a disambiguation page and About templates are added, events with different names between versions go to the unique names and events that only appear once remain unchanged.
Proposer:BBQ Turtle (talk) Deadline: July 17, 2018, 23:59 GMT
(T|C) 15:51, 9 July 2018 (EDT)
