MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions
(→Fanon wiki NOT like Pikipedia Fanon: Reformatting and opposing.) |
|||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
===Fanon wiki '''NOT''' like Pikipedia Fanon=== | ===Fanon wiki '''NOT''' like Pikipedia Fanon=== | ||
I love mario fanon, and the sure is a lot of it! I wish there was a wiki for fangames/romhacks like SMBX. | I love mario fanon, and the sure is a lot of it! I wish there was a wiki for fangames/romhacks like SMBX. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa The Quick}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': February 17, 2014, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
#{{User|Koopa The Quick}} | |||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
#{{User|Mario}} I don't get what's the point of this proposal. We're a Mario encyclopedia that has policies strictly against having fanon content. You'll have to make a really convincing argument to include fangames and romhacks in this wiki. So far, there's nothing convincing. | |||
====Comment==== | |||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== |
Revision as of 21:15, February 10, 2014
|
Friday, September 6th, 14:22 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.
|
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, but they may not vote for every option available.
- 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(s) 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.
- If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
- If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% support to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% support to win. If the required support threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
- Use the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
- Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then 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 canceled 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 canceled 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: "September 6, 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
Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 {{TPP discuss}}. 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 {{settled TPP}}.
- 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 subject page of the talk page 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
- Merge Car (obstacle), Truck, and Bus into Vehicle (obstacle) (discuss) Deadline: September 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Re-split Meta Crystal from List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: September 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Super Blooper (boss) to Big Blooper (discuss) Deadline: September 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Only use Dr. Mario World in-game artwork in infoboxes as a last resort (discuss) Deadline: September 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Party Tent into Mario Party 8 (discuss) Deadline: September 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move TEC-XX to TEC (discuss) Deadline: September 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split Bowser's Flame from Fire Breath (discuss) Deadline: September 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split Banana Peel from Banana (discuss) Deadline: September 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Consider the "Blurp" and "Deep Cheep" in the Super Mario Maker games an alternate design of Cheep Cheep with the former twos' designs as a cameo rather than a full appearance of the former two, in line with the game's own classification (discuss) Deadline: September 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022) |
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023) |
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024) |
Split Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels, GuntherBayBeee (ended July 2, 2024) |
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024) |
- ^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder
Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024) |
Remove excessive Pokémon lists and images, Super Mario RPG (ended August 28, 2024) |
- ^ NOTE: Proposal is requesting image deletions, which require admins
Do not use t-posing models as infobox images, Nightwicked Bowser (ended September 1, 2024) |
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024) |
Talk page proposals
Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021) |
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022) |
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024) |
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024) |
List of Talk Page Proposals
- Merge Bat (Luigi's Mansion) with Bat (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) (Discuss) Deadline: February 10, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Delete List of Adventure Mode enemies (Discuss) Deadline: February 20, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Holerö. (Discuss) Deadline: February 24, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Fly with Fly (move). (Discuss) Deadline: February 24, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Dimension. (Discuss) Deadline: February 24, 2014 GMT, 23:59 GMT
- Delete All worlds. (Discuss) Deadline: February 24, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
Create an [unconfirmed glitch] template
While navigating through glitches pages, I came across several glitches which I was unable to perform, nor did I managed to find any proof that this glitch is real or fake. So instead of removing all unsourced glitches, we would simply add a small notice like this[unconfirmed glitch]. This way we will still have the information, while avoiding any bogus glitches (because the reader would be already aware that this glitch was not tested, unproved).
I already aware that there is a template called {{refneeded}}. However this is a different thing: not every glitch need a reference. they need just an screenshot, a video, or in some cases, discussion on the talk page may be very enough if provided with some proof. Also having a different template and a different category is better for organizing, this way we can look in the category to find all glitches pages only which contains glitches need confirmation.
Draft:
<sup class="noprint">[''unconfirmed glitch'']</sup><includeonly>[[Category:Glithes need confirmation]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Formatting Templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>
Proposer: Megadardery (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2014, 23:59 GMT, Extended: February 10, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Megadardery (talk)
- Baby Luigi (talk) Per Meggy
- Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per proposal
- Mario7 (talk) Per proposal. I think this would be a great idea.
- Green 6017 King Of The Slowpoke (talk) Per all. This is a great idea, especialy for a glitch hunter like me.
- Robecuba (talk) Per proposal
- Ashley and Red (talk)Per all. I couldn't mind that :)
Oppose
- Walkazo (talk) - Just use {{refneeded}}: an unconfirmed glitch is no different from any other unconfirmed bit of info, and needs to be backed up by the exact same kind of sources. Furthermore, the template would just categorize the whole list page, not the specific glitch: in all likelihood, every long page will end up languishing in the category, probably from multiple templates (not that you could tell from looking at the category), which isn't useful: better to just use the collab to keep track of things.
- Pinkie Pie (talk) Per all.
- Lord Grammaticus (talk) - Per Walkazo, this proposal looks to me like it's basically founded on a bunch of semantic issues.
- Mario (talk) Uploading a screenshot and a video should be enough to remove both templates, so the proposed template will be pretty much redundant.
- driftmaster130 (talk) Per all.
- Yoshi876 (talk) Per all.
- Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Per all.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
- Jazama (talk) Per all
- Demonic KB (talk) Per all
Comments
Screenshots and videos are references, and citing discussions isn't ideal even for glitches (although citing discussions beats no citations at all, of course). And what do you mean by "scrawny" "sourcing thing"? Citations are used all over the wiki, and so they should: they lend credibility to the database. Whoever told you references are only for upcoming games and beta elements is grievously mistaken. - Walkazo (talk)
- Sorry, I was mistaken. After reading MarioWiki:Citation_Policy in depth again, I knew that information can be taken directly from the game without the need of external resources. Whatever, I guess this proposed feature should be separated from the {{refneeded}}, this way the category will contain all the pages that weren't tested by our users thus they aren't confirmed. About the citing discussion, take Flip'd-up Mario 1 as an example, a user confirmed this on the talk pages even describing it more, another user confirmed the glitch and confirmed his description (both users do not have capture cards), thus the glitch is confirmed, BUT it needs a reference. so replacing the {{UnconfirmedGlitch}} with the {{refneeded}}. Take Bananaport Glitch as an example, it does have an image, however I started a discussion on the talk page saying that it never happened for me, some more users said so. The {{UnconfirmedGlitch}} get added to the glitch, even when it really has an image (a reference. Megadardery (talk)
- You can still use {{refneeded}} in cases where some evidence is provided but more is needed. And more than anything, the story about "Flip'd-up Mario 1" just proves that the differences in use between the established template and the proposed addition is splitting hairs and adding unnecessary complications to the straightforward process of confirming glitches (nothingrefneeded -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy). - Walkazo (talk)
- A new template sounds redundant, but maybe {{refneeded}} could be modified to read "unconfirmed glitch" or something? driftmaster130 (talk)
- Sorry, but I don't quite understand you.Megadardery (talk)
- Which part? - Walkazo (talk)
- "(nothingrefneeded -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy)"Megadardery (talk)
- @Walkazo Like this: [unconfirmed glitch, citation needed]; and it could be modified like {{Userspace}} was for double usage. I don't know if that seems redundant or not but at least it highlights glitches more. driftmaster130 (talk)
- But don't you think that's getting a wee bit long and unseemly? Anyway, what I meant was that first, if someone adds a glitch with no refs or anything, you can just label it with {{refneeded}}. Then maybe it gets discussed on the talk page and people convincingly vouch for its existence - then you cite the discussion, and it's up to the readers to look at the citation and decide whether they believe our info despite us not having any hard evidence. Then you do find some hard evidence and can cite that instead, and when readers see that, they won't have any reason to doubt us (i.e. everybody's happy). No need for a clunky extra template or template parameter: you either have a reference, or ya don't. It also just occurred to me that if you really want to keep track of unconfirmed glitches and don't trust a list on the wiki collabs board, why not use {{talk}} or a template spun off of that to put on the talk pages? You'd still get the useless category problem, but at least the templates will draw attention to the appropriate sections on the talk page once folks wander in. - Walkazo (talk)
- @Walkazo Like this: [unconfirmed glitch, citation needed]; and it could be modified like {{Userspace}} was for double usage. I don't know if that seems redundant or not but at least it highlights glitches more. driftmaster130 (talk)
- "(nothingrefneeded -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy)"Megadardery (talk)
- Which part? - Walkazo (talk)
- Sorry, but I don't quite understand you.Megadardery (talk)
XX supports= Remove XX opposes freely
While I did my first Feature Nomination, I discovered that to remove opposes we need three users' votes and one from an admin. I think that this is an injustice. If an FA (or even a Proposal) have, for example, 10 supports, and only one oppose, then the rule should be different. Using the same sample: By each 10 supports, one ( or more,maybe) should be ignoted/ removed. I mind that, at least, by each 7 supports, we can remove one( the first) oppose freely.
Proposer: Ashley and Red (talk)
Deadline: February 15, 2014 23:59 GMT
Support
Oppose
- Time Turner (talk) Especially when it comes to articles featuring prominent characters, there are always quite a few users who flood a nomination with support votes simply due to the fact that they like the character while ignoring any flaws that the article actually has. If this proposal were to pass, this could, in turn, lead to featured articles being more of a popularity vote than anything else, which is completely against the spirit of featured articles. Though there certainly isn't a guarantee that this will occur, I do not want to take the chance of it happening.
- Pinkie Pie (talk) Only Featured Articles' votes can be removed, not the proposal. Proposals' votes can't be removed. Per Time Turner.
- Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per Pinkie Pie
- Mario (talk) While the current system of requiring a patroller or higher to remove an oppose vote is flawed (often, they simply don't vote), this proposed rules will create much more problems than it solves. We do not feature on the quantity of votes, but rather, no oppose votes. If there is a single oppose vote that is isn't disputed, then it should remain.
- Yoshi876 (talk) Per TT and Mario.
- Mr. Guye (talk) My case is in the comments section of this proposal.
Comments
Shouldn't this be appeal? Pinkie Pie (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2014 (EST)
Ashley and Red, you should look how this proposal failed: http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_37#Allow_Removal_of_Support.2FOppose_in_Proposals Randombob-omb4761 (talk)
The MarioWiki:Featured Articles Section "How to Nominate" states:
- If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so and how it can be improved [emphasis mine]. Please cite which rule your objection falls under. Failure to do so will result in your objection being considered invalid. Users may vote for the removal of an 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 an oppose vote.
Objection cannot be 'valid' without reason and and a method of improvement. If nominators, supporters, administration, et cetera are unable to ameliorate whatever obstacle or flaw to satisfy the objector's demands then:
- A) the article should not have been nominated in the first place because it does not meet the previously written standards, or
- B) the objector's arguments are fallacious and the three user + one administrative vote will quickly dispatch of the objection.
In the case of scenario B, the voters + admin will be more than delighted to remove the objection. For these reasons, I oppose. Mr. Guye (talk)
- Good oppose :) Ashley and Red (talk)
Fanon wiki NOT like Pikipedia Fanon
I love mario fanon, and the sure is a lot of it! I wish there was a wiki for fangames/romhacks like SMBX.
Proposer: Koopa The Quick (talk)
Deadline: February 17, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Support
Oppose
- Mario (talk) I don't get what's the point of this proposal. We're a Mario encyclopedia that has policies strictly against having fanon content. You'll have to make a really convincing argument to include fangames and romhacks in this wiki. So far, there's nothing convincing.
Comment
Comments
...What? Time Turner (talk)
To my knowledge: 1) There is no need for an on wiki proposal for off-wiki content, and 2) such a wiki likely already exists, for all we know. Lord Grammaticus (talk)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.