MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 15:36, April 8, 2022 by Mario4Ever (talk | contribs) (→‎Comments: Fixed signature, added timestamp.)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, May 11th, 08:55 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

  1. 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}}.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. 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

  1. 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}}.
  2. 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:
  3. 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.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
  5. 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

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Merge the Wrecking Crew and VS. Wrecking Crew phases into list articles, Axis (ended February 24, 2022)
Do not consider usage of classic recurring themes as references to the game of origin, Swallow (ended March 9, 2022)
Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Enforce WCAG Level AA standards to mainspace and template content, PanchamBro (ended May 29, 2022)
Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2022)
Trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters, Koopa con Carne (ended January 30, 2023)
Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Consider filenames as sources and create redirects, Axis (ended August 24, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)
Standardize the formatting of foreign and explanatory words and phrases in "Names in other languages" tables, Annalisa10 (ended February 7, 2024)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Create The Cutting Room Floor link template, Bro Hammer (ended May 7, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split the various reissues of Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended April 22, 2022)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences, LinkTheLefty (ended January 14, 2023)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Remove the list of Super Smash Bros. series objects, Axis (ended May 10, 2023)
Merge Start Dash with Rocket Start, Koopa con Carne (ended August 17, 2023)
Use italics for the full title of the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass, Hewer (ended September 15, 2023)
Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)
Decide which series certain Yoshi games are related to, GuntherBB (ended December 14, 2023)
Change the Super Mario 64 DS level section to include more specific character requirements, Altendo (ended December 20, 2023)
Replace "List of Game Over screens" and "'Game Over' as death" sections with a "History" section, DrippingYellow (ended December 20, 2023)
Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)
Make major changes to the MarioWiki:Links page, PnnyCrygr (ended January 10, 2024)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge the ghost Bats and Mice from Luigi's Mansion to their respective organic counterparts from the later games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split Strobomb from Robomb, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split the NES and SNES releases of Wario's Woods, SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (ended March 27, 2024)
Merge Mii Brawler, Mii Swordfighter, and Mii Gunner to Mii, TheUndescribableGhost (ended March 28, 2024)
Merge Masterpieces to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U articles, Camwoodstock (ended March 31, 2024)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Rename Beanstalk to Vine, DrippingYellow (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck, DrippingYellow (ended May 4, 2024)
Merge Party Ball (item) with Party Ball, GuntherBayBee (ended May 5, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Always use past tense when describing pre-release and unused content

Fairly self-explanatory. These kinds of pages need to be more consistent in this way. The only time present tense should be used is when drawing comparisons to the final release.

Example: "At the start of Lap 3, Lakitu's sign said 'Final Lap'; in the final version, it says '3/3'."

Proposer: DannyTheDingo (talk)
Deadline: April 8, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. DannyTheDingo (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Archivist Toadette (talk) Yeah, makes sense. Per proposal.

Oppose

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) I'd say this matter has to be explored on a case-by-case basis. In some situations, we only have some form of documentation to attest the existence of a game's early state, and, with no present whereabouts of its physical existence, it's indeed sensible to use past tense in any references to it until proven otherwise. But as Doc pointed out in the comments, some prototype builds are known to exist in the present and may even be readily available to the public--what would be the logic in referring to these using past-tense, then?
  2. Results May Vary (talk) I agree with Koopa con Carne -- the last sentence (about prototype builds resurfacing) is especially true.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. We're not going around changing everything regarding Super Mario Bros. 35 or Dr. Mario World to past tense either, so I wouldn't say this is necessary.
  4. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
  5. LinkTheLefty (talk) I get what this proposal's going for, and I agree to an extent since we're usually going to be addressing pre-release material in the context of comparing with the final, but then you've got things like "Super Donkey" where it's hard to ascertain if it should be its own thing.

Comments

What about leaked prototype builds? They still exist in a current state. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:46, March 29, 2022 (EDT)

@Koopa @Doc Fair point. When making this proposal I was primarily thinking of that "early state documentation", like E3 footage. But in terms of prototype builds, the wiki has used past-tense for them before (See Super Mario 64 and Luigi's Mansion). Black Dog DingoHazel [00496] 02:49, March 30, 2022 (EDT)

Those haven't been leaked, though. I'm thinking of like Diddy Kong Pilot, where only prototype builds exist anyway. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:06, April 6, 2022 (EDT)

Forbid "special symbols" from being used in article titles

This page - ★ door - basically describes it. While it is true that the source refers to the Star Door as the "★ Door", I believe this is unintuitive for readers of this wiki. It makes more sense for an average user to search for the "star door" instead of copypasting a character that isn't even present on many keyboards. The name "★ door" should still be used in the article itself, but the title should transcribe the symbol instead of using that symbol. This would also be consistent with other articles:

I believe, for the overall consistency of naming pages and unneeded complexity for readers of this wiki, uncommon symbols such as the star or emojis should be forbidden from being used in the names of articles.

Proposer: Spectrogram (talk)
Deadline: April 12, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Spectrogram (talk) per my proposal.

Oppose

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) The problem with the ★ door example is that "Big Star Door" is already pending a move (and currently redirects) to "Star Door" due to that being the in-game name, which complicates matters. Additionally, how levels are titled is generally consistent with official guides, and I don't think romanization systems for foreign characters can be compared since they're an established rule-based process. Overall, I don't think this comes up enough to be an issue like the use of hashtag at the start of a name. The only other one I can think of at the top of my head is ♥ from Yoshi's Story, which is deemed a unique subject from other heart articles.
  2. Hewer (talk) It's still the official name of the subject, and people not being able to type it isn't a problem because of redirects. By this logic we should also move Pokémon to Pokemon (just as an example, there are loads of pages with accents in their titles).
  3. Swallow (talk) This is a little bit like censoring content.
  4. Somethingone (talk) There is a fine line to draw between accessibility and accuracy, and this is pushing it a bit too much. Redirects will work just fine.
  5. Niiue (talk) Per all.

Comments

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Overhaul the no quorum proposal rule (#8)

The current rule no quorum proposals is vague, flawed, and counterproductive. Per rule 8, if a proposal has three votes or less at deadline, it NQs, ending with no action taken. In other words it needs at least four votes overall to pass. I have two major problems with this.

Problem #1: A blanket minimum number of votes means that opposition can actually cause a proposal to pass.

Take these hypothetical proposals, for instance.

  • Proposal A reaches its deadline with 3 support and 0 oppose votes. That's a total of 3, exactly one shy of the minimum 4. Therefore, the proposal NQs.
  • Proposal B reaches its deadline with 3 support and 2 oppose votes. That's a total of 5, enough to avoid NQ. Since there are too few votes for rule 10 to apply, and there's more support than opposition, the proposal passes.

See the problem here? Proposal B has the same amount of support as Proposal A, but more opposition, yet Proposal B passes while Proposal A does not. If Proposal B did not have those oppose votes, it wouldn't have enough votes to avoid NQ. Therefore, the opposition actually causes the proposal to pass. This should not be possible. Proposals should only ever pass in spite of opposition, never because of it.

Three-or-more-option proposals have the same problem, especially since you can vote for more than one option - the rule does not clarify whether or not multiple votes from the same user counts toward quorum. This proposal is a good example - it only met the minimum four because one of the voters picked two options.

Solution: Instead of a minimum total of 4 overall votes, make it so at least one option must have a minimum of 4 votes.

This retains the current minimum number of supports necessary to pass a proposal where no other options receive votes, but eliminates the "opposition backfire" issue mentioned above. Under this new rule, Proposal B would NQ, just like Proposal A. This rule would also apply to proposals with three or more options - at least one option would need at least 4 votes to avoid NQ.

Now for the other problem.

Problem #2: No quorum proposals just end immediately upon reaching their deadline, when we could be extending them.

Imagine the frustration. Your TPP has three supports and no opposition. If just one more person would vote, you'd be golden. But before it can happen, that deadline comes. Your proposal's over. You waited two weeks for nothing. Hey, at least you have "the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion", even though that's an extremely vague statement that is not clear at all about what it actually means. I guess it just means "redo the proposal from scratch", but why should you have to do that?

Solution: Apply the three-week extension rule to no quorum proposals.

Why do no quorum proposals have to end right then and there? Why not just extend them, like we do with proposals that do not reach a consensus by deadline? This would help give vote-starved proposals more of a chance to gain attention and reduce the number of frustrating NQs. I'm not sure if we should apply the four-week waiting period for proposals that do NQ under this new rule, but I'm leaning towards no. If you think it should, feel free to comment on it.

Proposer: 7feetunder (talk)
Deadline: April 14, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Apply both solutions

  1. 7feetunder (talk) Preferred option.

Apply problem #1's solution

  1. 7feetunder (talk) Second option.

Apply problem #2's solution

  1. 7feetunder (talk) Better than nothing.
  2. Hewer (talk) I'm neutral about the other point, but per proposal on this one (I was actually thinking of this problem recently after this proposal).
  3. Spectrogram (talk) While I disagree on some points in problem #1, namely the proposed solution, I do believe extending the NQ proposals is better than relisting them.
  4. Somethingone (talk) I feel like a better solution to problem #1 would be to modify rule 10 so that it applies to all proposals, not just ones with >10 votes, and/or maybe reduce its margin from 3 to 2. That said, I do think solution #2 is a good idea.

Leave the rule as is

  1. Mario4Ever (talk) I'm admittedly working from vague memories at the moment, so I apologize if anything I say is flat-out wrong, but my understanding is the portion of the rule about relisting NQ proposals is there because there isn't always enough information in them for users to make an informed decision and cast a vote. Other times, what information is there might be at odds with the stated goal. Maybe a proposed solution wouldn't adequately address a problem raised. Maybe someone points out (or realizes) the problem itself is larger in scope than originally outlined or an entirely different problem altogether. Since these sorts of discussions tend to happen after the deadline for editing the proposal has passed, it's an opportunity to incorporate whatever comes out of those into the next iteration of the proposal (in part because of rule 5). The initial deadline is usually enough time for those sorts of discussions to take place, and there are ways of getting people to weigh in if the specific issue is a lack of attention (an ever-present one regardless of what the deadline is). That said, sometimes, unfortunately, there aren't a significant number of people concerned about/invested in a particular thing, and I think the proposed more-votes-per-option solution could therefore result in more NQs or failed proposals.

Comments

Another problem with no quorum is that it also means that the proposal is treated as failed, as if it was a clear opposed result. I disagree; I think it should be treated as if the proposal didn't happen, opening the door for resolution to occur via discussion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:32, April 8, 2022 (EDT)

@Somethingone: I'm not going to say I'm against a rule 10 modification, but such a thing would require a separate proposal, since it would need different options for reducing the voting margin or not reducing it (or only reducing it for proposals with ten votes or less). Additionally, rule 10 only applies to two-option proposals, so it would not solve problem #1 for proposals with more than two options like the one I linked. I would also like the know the issue with implementing my solution so I can improve it or come up with an alternative.

@Mario4Ever: You completely misunderstand the purpose of NQs. It is merely to prevent proposals from passing with too few votes. That's it. It is not a defense mechanism against poorly-written proposals as you seem to be claiming. The proper response to such proposals is inform the proposer in the comments why their proposal is flawed so they can either improve it, or in the event a complete overhaul is needed, cancel it and make a new one (or request an admin cancel it if 3/6 days have already passed). Plenty of proposals that NQ don't have issues at all, they just aren't getting the attention they need, and extending them would help with that. Additionally, proposals with the issues you mentioned don't always fail to obtain votes - depending on what the issue is, voters may just outright oppose it until their problems are addressed. Alternatively, the proposal might gain support before the issues with it are fully realized (example), so the idea of NQs as a defense against flawed proposals is a flimsy excuse at best. Dark BonesSig.png 13:50, April 8, 2022 (EDT)

I'm not saying that NQs are a defense mechanism against poorly-written proposals. I was just explaining that a lack of attention isn't necessarily why the minimum vote threshold isn't met, since that's one of your main points of contention. Mario4Ever (talk) 15:36, April 8, 2022 (EDT)

Pinball (1984): full coverage or guest appearance?

Should Pinball, an NES game released in 1984, be classified as a guest appearance or a part of the Mario series? This proposal was created following User:Mario jc's comment here.

I believe this game features enough Mario-related content to justify full coverage of this game on this wiki. 1 out of 3 scenes is dedicated to Mario. In the scene C the player is controlling Mario to save Pauline, Mario is also heavily used in promotional material, including being on the cover-art for this game.

Alternatively, we can only allow coverage for the scene C, which features Mario as a playable character and Pauline.

Affected pages:

Proposer: Spectrogram (talk)
Deadline: April 15, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Allow full coverage

  1. Spectrogram (talk) per proposal.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - if Alleyway can get full coverage, so can this.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per all.
  4. LinkTheLefty (talk) I feel like this is one of the loosest games you can consider part of the franchise (and Mario is not references or advertised at all on the Famicom box), but Lady/Pauline is mentioned in the manual's "plot"/objective, so I say it barely counts. Also, Pinball is already a small enough article that I don't feel like it's worth trimming.

Classify as a guest appearance (prohibit full coverage)

Allow coverage for the Mario scene (scene C) only (and classify as a guest appearance)

  1. Spectrogram (talk) Second option.

Comments

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=3595881"