MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 89: Line 89:
#{{User|Pseudo-dino}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo-dino}} Per all.
#{{User|57sugoi}} Some of the things in trivia sections are kind of more like Easter eggs, so that could help this out. Also, adding Easter egg sections would make ate ices seem more fun and would definetely attract attention.
#{{User|57sugoi}} Some of the things in trivia sections are kind of more like Easter eggs, so that could help this out. Also, adding Easter egg sections would make ate ices seem more fun and would definetely attract attention.
#{{User|Megadardery}} Per all, the current [[Easter egg]] page is terrible, it feels very crowded and having every one of them for their respective pages feels more in form. Also, delete the easter egg page and slap it in the [[MarioWiki:Glossary|Glossary]] or something.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====

Revision as of 15:01, January 2, 2015

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, March 12nd, 21:50 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • 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.

If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.

How to

If someone has 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 other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. 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}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
  2. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  3. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (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 two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  5. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  6. 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 wiki staff.
    • 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.
  7. 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 "(blocked)" 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.
  8. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  9. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  10. 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.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  12. 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% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  13. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  14. 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.
  15. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  16. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  17. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  18. 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.
  19. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  20. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  21. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option 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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[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 simply say "Per proposal."

Poll proposal formatting

As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple sub-issues that can be resolved independently of each other. In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and Support/Oppose subheadings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were a its a two-option proposal: users may vote Support or Oppose on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". 

===[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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}

====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. The proposal is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.

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. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 {{ongoing TPP}}. 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.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
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)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)

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)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Toad wearing headphones off from Jammin' Toad, PrincessPeachFan (ended March 7, 2025)

List of Talk Page Proposals

Writing Guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Create separate articles for DKC series and DKL series boss levels

Alright, this has bothered me for quite some time, so I'd like to try and change it.

Currently, the Donkey Kong series's boss levels are merged with their respective boss articles. Apparently this is due to the fact that the levels are pretty much just a boss fight, and thus don't "deserve" sepate articles. I disagree. Here's some reasons as to why I think they should be split:

1. It's wiki policy that all individual levels get separate articles.
2. Keeping them merged breaks the link between level articles. On level pages, the infoboxes have arrows that link to the previous and the next level's article. However, because the boss levels don't have their own articles, the flow is broken and users must look for the next level elsewhere.
3. We have articles for similar levels in the Mario series, such as Motley Bossblob's Big Battle and A Banquet with Hisstocrat. There's no reason to treat these ones differently.
4. K. Rool's page encompasses 10 boss levels because of this. People looking for a specific one would have an easier time if they had separate articles.
5. It simply seems "incomplete" to not have these articles.

I'd also like to mention that there's one boss level that actually does feature another section before the actual fight: Tiki Tong Terror. This information is nowhere to be seen, however, because there's no article for the actual level, only Tiki Tong.

Proposer: Aokage (talk)
Deadline: January 3, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Create

  1. Aokage (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Kart Player 2011 (talk) per all.
  3. Walkazo (talk) - Per Aokage.
  4. Mario (talk) Seems like we do need these pages. I wonder why they weren't created so far. update: Read Glowsquid's points, Walkazo does bring up a nice rebuttal over the problem of creating redundant pages. After all, levels deserve articles, bosses deserve articles, so bosses in a boss level should have one article on both? Perhaps it's better to create two just for the sake of flow, but maybe redirects can accomplish this? Depends if people really look for bosses rather than the level or the other way around.
  5. Pseudo-dino (talk) Per all.
  6. BabyLuigi64 (talk) Per proposal.
  7. SuperYoshiBros (talk) This has bothered me too. Per all.
  8. Toadbrigade5 (talk) Per Walkazo. *Trololololololol*

Don't create

  1. Glowsquid (talk) - See below.

Comments

this "more the merrier" shit is going too far:

1): The quote-unquote boss levels can be barely called that. They either dump the player directly in the boss fight or (in DKC Returns) consist of a short stretch of land with a DK barrel. Any content they describe would be redundant with the individual boss pages. Standalone pages would be especially problematic for the first DKC's "boss levels", which are flat and (save for the last one) uses the same background graphic.

2): The existence of pages for similarly low-content Mario levels is not a strong precedent. An old proposal established DKC's featureless boss levels shouldn't have a page. Ergo, if the precedent was followed properly, the cited pages should not have been created.

3): The arrow situation sucks, but it's an argument to have the arrow lead to the next "proper" level (something the DKC 3 level pages already do), not create a bunch of useless pages when a simpler solution exist. --Glowsquid (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2014 (EST)

How do you feel about the Tiki Tong Terror level though. I get how you feel that those boss-only levels should not have their own pages but what about the one that has an actual level portion before it. Should that level at least have its own page? 3D Player 2010 18:18, 27 December 2014 (EST)
yeah. --Glowsquid (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2014 (EST)

I'm not going to log a formal vote on this, as I'm stuck between what I want to say and the policies I'm sworn to uphold. On the one hand, policy is firmly in favor of this, it falls right into our inclusion policy and standard editing practices. To bring up Glowsquid's points:

  • 1. Largely isn't an issue as policy doesn't dictate the contents of a level, only that it needs to be a formal level for inclusion. While I agree that this particular instance is going to result in some rather problematic blurb type articles, that's a matter for editorial concern and not an argument we can really have in the proposal setting (or at least not without a lot of forethought from the proposer).
  • 2. I agree that many of the pages in question shouldn't have existed in the first place due to a previous proposal (aside, a review of past proposals and how we keep track of them might be in order), this proposal passing is going to overturn the previous one anyway, so that problem solves itself. The real mess comes if this proposal fails.
  • 3. This is an editorial concern at best, not something that would inhibit the creation of articles.

On the other hand, Glowsquid has a point. We are stretching the inclusion policy as far is it can go to squeeze out every article we can and I debate the supposed quality or non-stub status some of the results have left us with. Generally speaking, lots of articles are great for a museum, but less helpful for an encyclopedia and/or archive and we qualify more as the later than the former.

I feel that we need to have a formal discussion about how we apply our inclusion policy before this gets out of hand, but that's a debate for another time and a different venue. -- Shyghost.PNGGhost JamShyghost.PNG 20:53, 27 December 2014 (EST)

If we were talking about overlapping articles about the same (or at least similar) subject type, I'd say not to bother with the extra ones, but something doesn't sit right about substituting boss articles for boss-fight level articles. It breaks the flow and navigation (like, you get to Rope Bridge Rumble, and then the page tells you it's the last level, and the infobox bounces you straight to Oil Drum Alley, and not once does it mention there's a boss fight in between: you have to go down to the nav templates and count to figure out which boss you're at (and hope it's never switched to alphabetical order); then if you do go to the boss page, you're dead-ended because there's no level template there), and it seems like an easily fixed gap. - Walkazo (talk)

Add an Easter Egg section to game articles

A while back, there was a proposal for creating sub pages for game easter eggs. A lot of votes mentioned that A. there aren't really enough easter eggs in a game to earn an full on article for them and B. they'd work better as a section in the game article. Well that's where this comes in. May as well start a proposal for adding an Easter Egg section. Not sure if it really needs a proposal but may as well throw it out there. An easter egg section can also cut down on the amount of Trivia a game article has (such as Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon for example)

Proposer: Tails777 (talk)
Deadline: January 6, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Tails777 (talk) Do I really need a reason to support myself?
  2. Toadbrigade5 (talk) Per. An easter egg page would look cool.
  3. Madz the Penguin (talk) Long Trivia sections make an article seem unprofessional (some wikis on Wikia, I'm looking at you), so even if I love Trivia sections, an Easter Egg section would make Mario Wiki seem like a more organized wiki. However, with an Easter Egg section, we might need to change the writing guidelines a bit to avoid speculation (ex. saying Bowser's inhale ability is an easter egg to Kirby's inhale wouldn't be allowed due to how different Bowser's inhale is to Kirby's inhale).
  4. SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per all.
  5. Mario (talk) Meh, I've suggested this in the link the proposal provided. I can't say I haven't changed my opinion on this. Nevertheless, I don't see why you need an approval when perhaps creating the section would be good.
  6. Viper26 (talk) Per all.
  7. Pseudo-dino (talk) Per all.
  8. 57sugoi (talk) Some of the things in trivia sections are kind of more like Easter eggs, so that could help this out. Also, adding Easter egg sections would make ate ices seem more fun and would definetely attract attention.
  9. Megadardery (talk) Per all, the current Easter egg page is terrible, it feels very crowded and having every one of them for their respective pages feels more in form. Also, delete the easter egg page and slap it in the Glossary or something.

Oppose

Comments

Ugh, @MadzthePenguin, I get that you like M@L:BIS but, why does everything you say need a reference? lol,jk Artwork of the Toad Brigade from Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker.Toad and his brigade!Toadette model CTTT.png 15:09, 30 December 2014 (EST)

Because I love references. Oh, I also love puns. Wynaut use references, because if I decided Natu, I would feel sad. It feels Fawful when you can't type references, because I Toadley love them. Audino why I just did Mario and Pokemon references and puns in those two sentences. Maybe that's why we need an Easter Egg section! Madz the Penguin (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2014 (EST)
Ok, that is Toadally Toadiffic. I'm going to stoad making Toad-puns Toaday. How you feel is definetly relaTOADable. But really, you must really, I mean, REALLY like BIS. Artwork of the Toad Brigade from Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker.Toad and his brigade!Toadette model CTTT.png 19:58, 30 December 2014 (EST)

Didn't we formally decide to move Easter Eggs and trivia sections into the body of articles where able? I seem to recall that. Then again, maybe we were all operating on the assumption that it was a formal decision. -- Shyghost.PNGGhost JamShyghost.PNG 00:31, 1 January 2015 (EST)

Not formally (at least not that I saw), but we had similar conversion when someone wanted to make a list for them. Yeah, Easter Egg page is terrible, so I support this proposal along with getting rid of that page.--
User:MegadarderyUser talk:MegadarderyDashbot signature
 13:54, 2 January 2015 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=1782064"