*Delete [[Player]]. ([[Talk:Player#Delete this page|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Move [[Venus Fire Trap]] to [[Fire Piranha]] ([[Talk:Venus Fire Trap#Move to Fire Piranha|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' July 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT
*Move [[Venus Fire Trap]] to [[Fire Piranha]] ([[Talk:Venus Fire Trap#Move to Fire Piranha|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' July 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT
Revision as of 13:54, July 21, 2013
Current time:
Tuesday, February 25th, 07:47 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.
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.
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
Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
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.
Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
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.
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.
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.
Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
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.
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% 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.
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.
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.
After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
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.
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.
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. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
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 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 its own mini-proposal with a deadline and Support/Oppose subheadings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were a its own 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 "Oppose" 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])====
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
Move Kutlass to Kutlass (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: February 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT
This project is pretty self-explanatory. Basically, the idea of this project is to document changes made to a game during localization, re-releases, ports, etc. These changes can include anything from different placement of coins or items to drastic gameplay changes or even characters being added in later versions of a game, such as Metal Mario being added for the North American version of the game Mario Golf, for example. As explained on the draft for the policy page and the example following it, we would create sections for "Regional differences" in the pages of games that have them, and further organize them into subcategories that include "Gameplay changes", "Level design changes", "Graphical changes", and "Textual changes". Of course, if there are changes made to other aspects of the game in question, such as changes in the soundtrack of the game, additional sections can be created to properly document them.
Without going full plagiarism, maybe we could use this - Banon (talk)
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
Remove references from "Appearances" sections on character pages
(Re-listing this, since it was "no quorum". See here for the archived proposal)
So, I was looking at the appearances section on the Wart page and noticed that for some reason he's listed as having appeared in games that only referenced his name. We include Stickers and Trophies on these sections, but I don't think a character should be listed as having appeared in a game just because his/her name is mentioned/referenced. Then there's his so-called "indirect appearances" in the Animal Crossing games, just because there's a character called Wart Jr. I don't believe these type of references should be included on the Appearances sections on any character pages, so I'm proposing that we remove them.
Of course, this doesn't mean that they should be removed from the articles entirely, per this proposal they should be listed under the "Other Appearances, Cameos and References" section.
Proposer: Aokage (talk) Deadline: July 28, 2013, 23:59 GMT
Yoshi876 (talk) I supported this the last time, it's a good proposal.
Oppose
Comments
Changes
Inconsistencies with Template Names
The vast majority of our navigational templates (templates that serve as an index of sorts for a certain subject) for games follow a specific format for its title: the beginning is always "Template:", and what subsequently follows is an abbreviation of the game's title. This is what's used for almost all of our game's templates (Template:MK7, Template:YI, Template:SMG, and others). However, this is only used for almost all of our game's templates. There are several titles out there that use the full version of their game's title for their template's title (Template:WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!, Template:Super Mario Bros. 3, Template:Mario Superstar Baseball, and others), which, from my point of view, is a fair bit inconsistent. This is something that I would like to change.
Another point I'd like to bring up is subcategories of nav. templates: when a certain aspect of a game becomes too large to fit into a standard template (such as levels or minigames), it often gets put into its own template. The names of these often follow the same rules with "Template:(game name) [aspect]", such as Template:NSLU Levels and Template:WarioWare: D.I.Y. Microgames, but there are some that are non-indicative of what game it covers, such as Template:Baseballpowerups and Template:Battlecourses, and others that don't even mention what aspect it covers, such as Template:Doubledash, Template:Galaxy, and Template:Gadd, which I find both inconsistent and just odd. This is something else that I would like to change.
So, I want to propose a simple standard for the names of these templates. For starters, all game-centric navigation templates would have use an abbreviation of the game's name, so Template:Mario Pinball Land would become Template:MPL, Template:Mario Super Sluggers would become Template:MSS, and so on. For templates that cover larger aspects of a game, they would use both the abbrevation and the aspect that they're covering, so Template:WarioWare: Smooth Moves Microgames would become Template:WWSM Microgames, Template:Galaxy2 would become Template:SMG2 Levels, Template:Mario Party 1 would become Template:MP Minigames, and so on. For games that share an abbreviation, such as Yoshi's Story and Yoshi's Safari, they can't both have Template:YS, so as an alternative, the first few words of the title would be abbreviated, while the final word would remain in its full form. Thus, we would have Template:YStory, Template:YSafari, and so on. Just about every template can conform to these rules, and the biggest problem here would probably be changing all the links, but in the grand scheme of things, that's really not that big of a deal.
I understand that this may not be the biggest issue on the wiki, but nevertheless, this is still an issue, and it's something that I think should be dealt with, for the sake of consistency.
Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Deadline: July 22, 2013, 23:59 GMT
Banon (talk) It might take a lot of time, but eventually it should be done.
GBAToad (talk) Per all. Having a standard to distinguish templates such as Template:MP9 and Template:Mario Party 9 is a great idea, though I also agree with Walkazo. Ambiguity should be the reason these templates are being adjusted, not for the sake of consistency.
Driftmaster130 (talk) I was actually planning to put forward something like this a while back, but apparently I've been ninja'd. Per all.
Rather than random truncation, names that share the same abbreviation should just be written out in full. Similarly, any other cases where abbreviations or shorthand would create ambiguity should be avoided (i.e. "tem:MP1 Minigames" is better than "tem:MP Minigames", since the latter could refer to the series), and while the emphasis is on making template names short, making them clear is still number one priority. There should also be explicit allowances for "species"-type templates getting whatever names work (speaking of which, the two galaxy templates have always struck me more as species templates than level templates to account of how specialized their designs are - just a thought). I also think you're underselling the amount of work updating all the links is gonna be, and while having a guide definitely names sense, it shouldn't be something that should be enforced to the letter especially not retroactively and when dealing with tricky cases like shared abbreviations or cases where more than one abbreviation is understandable. Heck, part of me even wants to argue that the current mix isn't dysfunctional and readers won't see any difference anyway, and so our efforts might be better spent elsewhere, while old titles simply get grandfathered through... - Walkazo (talk)
I've spent most of my time here systematically going through links and changing them. Doing stuff like that doesn't even faze me. In any case, you do raise a fair point (though I'm not sure I'd classify Galaxy as a species template), but... I want something to be done. Even if we don't have a rigid format for all the template names, I still want something to be done about all those ones with awkward names (MFb, Gadd, and the like). Maybe I'm just being overly OCD... Time Turner (talk)
I enjoy that sorta maintenance work too, actually (just cruising along, not having to think - nice and peaceful), it's just that replacing templates en masse will take a lot of time that could potentially be used for other maintenance work, like updating categories or fixing headers. And I also agree that something should be done, with a nice section on naming rules/recommendations getting added to MarioWiki:Navigation Templates as a reference for making new templates or fixing the oddball ones that should be replaced. (As for the Galaxy templates, if they were regular game templates, they'd technically have to be red, but I like their current design and colours (and I'm sure others do too), and calling them a species template lets them stay that way without technically breaking from policy.) - Walkazo (talk)
We could see if Porple could make a bot to do it, because if you go by the comments in this TPP Porple can make a bot to delete all those links, it might be possible for him to make a bot to change the template names. Yoshi876 (talk)
Operating under the assumption that it's even possible for a bot to rename templates according to the standards outlined in this proposal should it pass, I think that creating a bot that does that would take more time than just changing the template names ourselves. Mario4Ever (talk)
