MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
:Your only statement to back up your opinion is, "You can still look up the MarioWiki on the Internet." {{User|Mario}} | :Your only statement to back up your opinion is, "You can still look up the MarioWiki on the Internet." {{User|Mario}} | ||
::Yeah, lol, you ''need'' the internet to access MarioWiki :P {{User|Baby Luigi}} | ::Yeah, lol, you ''need'' the internet to access MarioWiki :P {{User|Baby Luigi}} | ||
:::Reading the oppositions I understand that it seems like a lot of work, trust me, all you have to do is to change a few lines in a file and upload a folder, that's it (I've done it on my own wiki) | |||
==Removals== | ==Removals== |
Revision as of 14:11, March 10, 2014
|
Sunday, December 22nd, 10:32 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.
|
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
- Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. 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 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 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
Below is an example of what your proposal must look like. If you are unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. When updating the bracketed variables with actual information, 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}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your 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".
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 header, 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 {{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.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
- Move Shadow (character) to Shadow (Sonic the Hedgehog) (discuss) Deadline: December 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move "Rare Ltd." to "Rareware" or "Rare" (discuss) Deadline: December 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters (discuss) Deadline: December 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Tighten Category:Deceased characters (discuss) Deadline: December 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Cascading Stone, vanishing platform, and moon platform with Falling Platform (discuss) Deadline: December 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Add to-do tasks on the Main Page (discuss) Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Rename the NES Template (discuss) Deadline: January 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Merge the list of show hosts in All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros. (discuss) Deadline: January 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Split the theme songs from the list of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs (discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
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, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
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) |
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024) |
Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024) |
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024) |
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024) |
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024) |
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024) |
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024) |
- ^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
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) |
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) |
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024) |
Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), Technetium (ended November 30, 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) |
List of Talk Page Proposals
- Delete Poop (Discuss) Passed.
- Split Flower into two separate articles (Discuss) Deadline : March 17, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Pizza (Discuss) Deadline : March 17, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Overhaul Mushroom World page (Discuss) Deadline : March 19, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Plumber (Discuss) Deadline: March 20, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Plumb Fu (Discuss) Deadline: March 20, 2014, 23:59 GMT
- Split the Pipe Frame and/or the Gold Standard from Kart (Discuss) Deadline: March 21, 2014, 23:59
Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
Mobile View
Quite a while ago the following proposal was made on the MarioWiki, back then it was denied by most people. Right now I'm proposing a very smiliar but yet different idea. While I'm not suggesting an iPhone app (that was in the original proposal.) I however do suggest to make a mobile version of the site. Using the MobileFrontend extension it is possible to make a mobile version of the wiki. For an example of how it would look like: Go to Mobile Wikipedia if you want to see how it looks.
Proposer: ExPower (talk)
Deadline: March 17, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Support
- ExPower (talk) It makes quickly editing a section easily, while not necessarily creating an entire app.
Oppose
- Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Sorry, but that's very uneeded. You can still look up the MarioWiki on the Internet.
- Mario (talk) I used MarioWiki in my phone, and aside from the stupid ads (due to lack of adblocker) and long loading times for, like, Mario, I don't think it's REALLY necessary. It's nice, but Wikipedia has a mobile version because it's so much more visited than MarioWiki, which appeals to a more niche audience. I don't think it's worth it to go through the pains to create a mobile version of this wiki. Whatever Randombob-omb is saying is silly, though.
Comments
@Mario: SILLY!??????!!!! I'm very certain that it's uneeded, do you call that silly!?. Randombob-omb4761 (talk)
- Your only statement to back up your opinion is, "You can still look up the MarioWiki on the Internet." Mario (talk)
- Yeah, lol, you need the internet to access MarioWiki :P Baby Luigi (talk)
- Reading the oppositions I understand that it seems like a lot of work, trust me, all you have to do is to change a few lines in a file and upload a folder, that's it (I've done it on my own wiki)
- Yeah, lol, you need the internet to access MarioWiki :P Baby Luigi (talk)
Removals
Remove fake templates
All those fake reminders, construction templates etc. are useless to the Mario Wiki. They should stick with all the "real" templates.
e.g. of fake:
e.g. of real:
All I am requesting is that the 1st example and similar templates shouldn't be allowed to be made anymore, to assist articles, not for humor.
Proposer: YoshiToad04 (talk)
Deadline: March 13, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Support
- YoshiToad04 (talk) Per proposal
Oppose
- Baby Luigi (talk) Um, why? The templates aren't doing any sort of harm at all; they're even useful in some instances of userspace. Why are you so insistent in limiting what users what to do with their pages? Granted, we don't encourage excessive editing to the userpages in the wiki but this? It's ridiculous.
- Lord Grammaticus (talk) There's no way for me to read this as anything but "users can't customize their own pages".
- Mr. Game & Watch (talk) What else can we use? If people start using real templates, their user pages (which can't be edited by anyone but them and sysops) will be put in the template's respective category (i.e. the Rewrite Requested category), which are categories specifically meant for mainspace pages only. All using real templates will do is unnecessarily fill up categories and cause confusion.
- Mario (talk) Per my sister and the beeping flat guy.
- Randombob-omb4761 (talk) What? Their's nothing wrong with them, some user just do fake templates for fun.
- World10 (talk) Per all.
- Icemario (talk) Per all.
Comments
Dude, fake templates aren't even being used anymore, so I really don't see the point behind this. --KP (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2014 (EST)
- Uh, yes, they are being used. Any time you see a modified template on the userpage (such as status) qualifies as a "fake" template, since the definition of what exactly constitutes as a fake template isn't clear. Baby Luigi (talk)
Just to be clear, OP, are you suggesting users use "real" rewrite/construction templates for userspace? --Glowsquid (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2014 (EST)
Changes
Disallow signatures only in voting
A.K.A. signatures should be allowed in comments section in general.
Okay okay we had this proposal way back, which is basically what I'm proposing: we loosen the No-Sig policy by allowing signatures in more places, specifically, the comments section. One of the main reason the proposal failed is that it's "too complicated". Now, I've said approximately one year ago that it's not complicated; it's just poor wording. To sum it up, this proposal, if passed, disallows signatures only in voting. This is simple and straightforward to follow. With the current ruleset, we can sign in talk page proposal comments, but not comments in Featured Articles and here? THAT'S the more complicated one.
The only valid argument from the opposition, then, is that signatures can increase loading times. While true, the space that is saved is miniscule. MarioWiki project pages (like this one and the Featured Article pages), the pages that disallow signatures, are much smaller than a lot of mainspace talk pages (Talk:Mario Kart 8, Talk:Mario, Talk:Bowser) which do allow signatures. I recall that MarioWiki used to run in a MUCH slower server than it is now. Or maybe it's just me. Either way, (for me at least) the main reason a page loads slowly is its size, not from the amount of signatures it has.
The biggest reason I'm proposing this, however, is that again and again, people often make comments and sign with their signatures, and somebody else comes in and makes an insignificant change back to {{User|User Person}}. Enforcing the No-Sig policy, in this case, feels so... unproductive. At least, for me.
Of course, if there are exceptions, it must be stated (and for a good reason). But that's not the point of a rule. A rule is supposed to help people contribute, not have them waste their time "correcting" one signature in a comment section.
After all, signing with ~~~~ after a comment is supposed to be a good habit.
Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: March 13, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Mario (talk) There is a good reason to bar signatures in voting, but there is hardly good reason to bar signatures in comments sections.
- Ashley and Red (talk)Per proposal.
- Tails777 (talk) I fully get it now and I'm good. Per proposal.
- SeanWheeler (talk) I use Wikia a lot, and most of those wikis there require signatures with ~~~~.
- Baby Luigi (talk) Per all
- Lord Grammaticus (talk) Per all.
- Yoshi876 (talk) Per proposal.
- Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per all.
Oppose
Comments
Sorry, but I'm a bit confused, is this proposal allowing people to sign with their signature in the comments of propsals/FA nominations or disallowing it? Tails777 (talk)
- Disallowing signatures only in voting simply means that signatures are allowed everywhere else except for voting. So, yes, it allows people to sign with their signatures in comments sections. Mario (talk)
- After all, people are already barred from using their fancy signatures in the comments of proposals/FA nominations anyway. Mario (talk)
Miscellaneous
Merge Pages with Nintendo Network
Right now many features of the Nintendo Network are separated across many pages: Nintendo Network, two Nintendo eShop sections on the Wii U and 3DS pages, Miiverse, and Virtual Console. My proposal is to merge all of these pages onto the Nintendo Network page. Each topic would have its own section, and the Nintendo eShop would become its own section, with Virtual Console nestled below it. There are also alternatives such as creating a section with a few sentences on a certain feature and a link to the main article. For this proposal, voting will be a bit different. Add your username in support or oppose for all the sections, but be sure not to have conflicting votes (e.g. supporting both merging the Miiverse page and creating a small section with a main article link to Miiverse).
Proposer: Mario7 (talk)
Deadline: March 13, 2014, 23:59 GMT
Move Pages
Move Miiverse to the Nintendo Network page as a section
Support
Oppose
- SeanWheeler (talk) - Nope. Isn't Miiverse very prominent on the Wii U?
- Mario (talk) Opposing this is the closest thing to taking no action, so I don't want this proposal to pass until I clearly know what exactly a support vote does here.
Move the Nintendo eShop sections to the Nintendo Network page as a single section
Note: You can support this option as well as the option: Create an eShop section that describe the Nintendo eShop.
Support
Oppose
- Ashley and Red (talk)No,because:
1.The Nintend Network article will get mich karge with it 2.It is good as it already is:Miiverse article is specified and has their only characteristics. So no! 3.Images and Mario Related info fits better in the Miiverse article
- Mario (talk) Opposing this is the closest thing to taking no action, so I don't want this proposal to pass until I clearly know what exactly a support vote does here.
Move Virtual Console to the Nintendo Network page as a section nested under the eShop section
Support
Oppose
- SeanWheeler (talk) It was on the Wii, before the Nintendo Network.
- Mario (talk) Opposing this is the closest thing to taking no action, so I don't want this proposal to pass until I clearly know what exactly a support vote does here.
Create Sections
Create a Miiverse section with a link to the main article
Support
Oppose
- Mario (talk) Opposing this is the closest thing to taking no action, so I don't want this proposal to pass until I clearly know what exactly a support vote does here.
Create an eShop section that describe the Nintendo eShop
Note: You can support this option as well as the option: Move the Nintendo eShop sections to the Nintendo Network page as a single section.
Support
Oppose
Create a Virtual Console section nestled under the eShop section with a link to the main article
Support
Oppose
Comments
No, this kind of voting is unnecessarily complex. You need to reformat this proposal in a way so people like me know how to vote on this. Mario (talk)
- I agree. I have no idea where to even start with this. Time Turner (talk)
- Me too Randombob-omb4761 (talk)
- Is there a do nothing section in this proposal? Cause I don't think anything should be merged with anything, it's fine the way it is. Tails777 (talk)
- There isn't. This proposal is a mess and I highly suggest huge modifications or altogether scrapped. Baby Luigi (talk)
- Is there a do nothing section in this proposal? Cause I don't think anything should be merged with anything, it's fine the way it is. Tails777 (talk)
- I think to vote to do nothing is to oppose all of them. I've opposed a lot of sections in this proposal. I think we can do that. SeanWheeler (talk).
- Or not vote at all :P Baby Luigi (talk)
- I think to vote to do nothing is to oppose all of them. I've opposed a lot of sections in this proposal. I think we can do that. SeanWheeler (talk).