MarioWiki:Proposals

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removals of previously added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. Any user can support or oppose but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!" "Vote" periods last for one week. All past proposals are archived. All proposals must pass by a majority, 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}}.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

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 Guideline proposals must include a link to the draft page.
2. Anyone can comment on proposals whether logged-in or not, but only registered users can create or vote on proposals.
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 reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
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.
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 that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically 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 all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
10. If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. In other words, one option must have 50% + 3 of all votes cast. This means that if a basic two-option proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options require more precise counting of votes to determine if an extension is necessary.
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. 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 cancelled proposals must also be archived.
15. There should not be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on 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.

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.

---

===[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, at 23:59 GMT. (14 days for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals)

====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 here.

Rules

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "(Template:Fakelink)". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{fakelink}} to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. 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. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
5. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

• Delete Count Bleck's Army. (Discuss) Deadline: March 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT
• Split Roof into separate articles. (Discuss) Deadline: March 31, 2013 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines

None at the moment.

New Features

Instal the CategoryTree Extension

This extension is helpful as it provides a dynamic view of the wiki's category structure as a tree. It allows Users to navigate Categories faster, and allows the user to know subcategories without navigate to that category.. In my opinion, I say It's good Idea to have it with us, But I see we should have the arrows instead of the default icons. See to the Usage section of the extension page.

Proposer: Megadardery (talk)
Deadline: March 14, 2013, 23:59 GMT Extended: March 21, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Megadardery (talk) Per Proposal
2. Ultra Koopa (talk) Per all. Really good idea.
3. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) I don't quite understand this, but from what I do understand, it's a good idea.
4. Chaossy (talk) Per all-ish.

Oppose

1. Walkazo (talk) - When asked, Porplemontage didn't think it was needed. I'm inclined to agree. Maybe we could look at it again down the road, but right now it doesn't seem worth it, especially seeing as our categories are such a mess (which is my fault for procrastinating on getting the new system up and running - after this semester, it's my first priority, I swear).
2. Tucayo (talk) - Porple didn't want it, 'nuff said.
3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Walkazo and Tucayo.
4. King Pikante (talk) Per all.
5. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Per all.
6. YoshiKong (talk) Per all.
7. BowserJunior (talk) Per Walkazo.
8. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per Walkazo.

Comments

You need to bring that up with Porplemontage (talk). --Tucayo (talk)

Make an iPhone/iPad app

My idea is to make an app for the iPhone or iPad that links you straight to the wiki. Since not entirely nessecary, it should be free. I got this idea because Khan Academy has the exact same thing as I'm suggesting. What's more, we'll be the FIRST wiki to do this!

Proposer: Electrical Bowser jr. (talk)
Deadline:April 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Make an app

1. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Per proposal.

Don't make an app

1. RandomYoshi (talk) — You yourself state that creating an app is unnecessary. Why would the Wiki garner from a completely unnecessary addition that isn't even provided by the Wiki itself, but some other second-party or alternatively third-party management getting in the way? I just don't see it improving the Wiki at all.
2. GreenDisaster (talk) It's impractical, it'll be annoying to create in the first place, and it's simply unnecessary for both the average wiki visitor and the average wiki editor.
3. BowserJunior (talk) Per all, completely unneccesary.
4. Wintermelon43 (talk) Like what the other's said

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Change autoconfirm criteria

In my opinion, I think it is a bit too easy to make five edits in four days, especially if a certain page has a lot of typos and the user wanting autoconfirmed status edit-spammed. We should change it to more like 10 mainspace-only non-minor edits in a week, or something similar (this could be discussed in comments), because if we don't, we could become a big target for vandalism and spam.

Proposer: Goomba (talk)
Deadline: March 19, 2013 at 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Goomba (talk) Per proposal.
2. Megadardery (talk) Per Proposal.
3. Aokage (talk) Per BowserJunior.

Oppose

1. Banon (talk) As said in the comments, they have been changed recently, so we should'nt undo that.
2. Walkazo (talk) - The requirements were loosened at the same time anonymous IPs were granted the ability to edit, both of which was meant to make the wiki more open to new editors, which is good for activity levels and traffic. We're a big wiki: we can handle vandals. Besides, if someone really wanted to get autoconfirmed, it'd be just as easy to get ten edits as five, and they'll still run into the temporal requirement - and that four-day wait should be enough to cool most rash actions at that point.
3. King Pikante (talk) Per all.
4. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Walkazo.
5. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Per everything.
6. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Per all.
7. YoshiKong (talk) Per Walkazo.
8. BowserJunior (talk) Per Walkazo.
9. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per Walkazo.

Comments

The Autoconfirmed requirements were actually changed last year from what you are proposing, to our current system. So are you proposing that we overturn that change? YoshiKong (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Well, I wasn't here last year, so I wouldn't have known, but I guess so. Goomba (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

BowserJunior, WiKirby is a much smaller, way less active Wiki, so I guess it's the main reason it is more difficult to be autoconfirmed. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Remove Per Votes When Original Vote is Removed

This is probably a minor issue, but there is something in the vote removal process of Featured Articles that bothers me. When you create a Removal of Votes section to delete one vote, you also have to create other sections to remove all the votes that merely Per that vote.

My proposal is to simply make it so if one vote is deleted, all the votes that per'd it without any other reason gets automatically deleted. This should streamline the removal of votes process.

Proposer: LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Deadline: March 22, 2013, 23:59 GMT.

Support

1. LeftyGreenMario (talk) If my vote gets deleted, for instance, all votes that state simply, "Per LeftyGreenMario" should be deleted.
2. YoshiKong (talk) Makes sense: per proposal.
3. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Per proposal.
4. BowserJunior (talk) Per proposal.
5. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Per proposal.
6. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per all.
7. ‎Webkinz Mania (talk) Ditto.
8. Megadardery (talk) Per All.
9. King Pikante (talk) Per all.
10. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.

Comments

Will this apply to proposals also, or just featuring articles? Blue CosmicToad (talk)

Proposals don't really have a section where people vote to remove a vote. It can apply to proposals as well, but it's not very common for people to delete their own votes compared to the featured article process. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Miscellaneous

The Quotes Sections and Their Redirects

While scrolling through the redirects of random articles, I came across Bowser (quotes). This redirect was originally an article that listed the most notable of Bowser's quotes, and has since been turned into a redirect to the quotes section on Bowser's article. Both Mario and Luigi have corresponding redirects. The problem I have with this is that not only do the quotes sections merely link to the, there are other articles like Princess Peach, Wario, and Waluigi that have quotes sections and yet do not have redirects to them. Now, if we were to apply a blanket policy and give a redirect to all of them, that wouldn't be too hard to apply, but is it worth it? As of now, I think that it would be best to simply delete the current redirects that we have. Maybe if the sections listed notable quotes (like Wario and Waluigi's articles do), I could be swayed otherwise, but I just don't see someone actually searching "Princess Peach (quotes)" or whatever. Besides, if we're going to create redirects for the quote sections, why only the quotes and not, say, the statistics or the gallery? I don't think it would be wise to leave the three current quote redirects that we have (Bowser (quotes), Mario (quotes), and Luigi (quotes)) alone, but I'll still offer it as an option along with the other two: deleting the ones that I have listed previously, or creating redirects for everything else.

Proposer: GreenDisaster (talk)
Deadline: March 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Delete the Current Quote Redirects

1. GreenDisaster (talk) I think that this would be the best option.
2. BowserJunior (talk) Per proposal.
3. King Pikante (talk) Per proposal.
4. Banon (talk) They are just unnecessary redirects.
5. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Per proposal.
6. YoshiKong (talk) Per proposal. No one will search for these.
7. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per all.

Comments

Well, what are the benefits of deleting the redirects? 173.55.155.46 23:15, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

They're unneccesary, so we don't keep them. BowserJunior (talk)