#{{User|Walkazo}} - Simplifying "location" is a good idea, but it would be a mistake to make the other two changes: I'd rather "owner" be added instead of replacing "ruler", and "inhabitants" works perfectly well for both types of places.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Simplifying "location" is a good idea, but it would be a mistake to make the other two changes: I'd rather "owner" be added instead of replacing "ruler", and "inhabitants" works perfectly well for both types of places.
#{{User|Pseudo-dino}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Pseudo-dino}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Warioad}} Per Walkazo.
====Comments====
====Comments====
Revision as of 10:42, October 1, 2015
Current time:
Tuesday, February 11st, 14:44 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."
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
What to do about the unresolved identity of Worlds A-C human (discuss) Deadline: February 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT
We have this proposal for earlier reference. It failed mainly because of legal redundancy. I understand that {{game-sprite}} already covers this issue. Currently, however, 3D renders such as this, this, this, this, this and this are lumped with sprites in this category. This is not good when one of our wiki policies already took pains to distinguish between what's a sprite (including pre-rendered sprites) and a live rendered model. So, the legal argument is not a valid point against creating a template and a category, and it fails to address a more immediate problem, which is an organizational one, in this wiki. This proposal aims to remove this disparity by including a licensing template called {{game-3Drender}} and its content will look like this (embedded categories excluded):
This is a 3D render originally from a copyrighted computer or video game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution sprites for identification and critical commentary on the computer or video game in question or the copyrighted character(s) depicted on the 3D render in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to turn a profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Copyrights and fair use rationale.
Again, the legal issue is not the main point I'm going for; we need this so we can organize such images into a convenient category rather than awkwardly lumping them with our sprites. Our current way of doing this violates the policy I've mentioned earlier, so taking a step to include a separate category (which will have more than enough entries) would benefit our wiki.
One possible alternate option would be to rename the category, but it would be an unnecessary hassle to rename all of those categories, and it wouldn't help with our organization at all. Again, we're supposed to treat sprites and renders as two separate and distinct entities as outlined by MarioWiki:Good Writing. Otherwise, you might as well just lump everything under {{game-screenshot}} like it used to be before {{game-sprite}} was created in 2011. I think just creating a new one to cover the renders is a far better and consistent option.
There is also another option to simply add a new category but that doesn't solve the licensing by itself, so you have to edit the licensing template to accommodate 3D renders, making it more convoluted than what's being proposed.
We can also go with "3D model" rather than "3D render", but "3D render" is much more precise and not too jargon-y. If there is a sudden call to change from "render" to "model", please let me know.
If this proposal passes, it will overturn the previous proposal and will give us one more drop-down option under licensing when you upload an image.
Baby Luigi (talk) please for the love of god yes, i keep asking for a licensing template that would differentiate between two clearly-wouldn't-be-more-different things
Tails777 (talk) They are two different things. I agreed to making a separate licensing template back in that previous proposal. So heck yeah this is a per proposal.
Megadardery (talk) Per all. Even though the trouble that will arise from this is not little, it is clear that sprites are not models. "3D render" also sounds a lot better than plain "model".
Megadardery: "Even though the trouble that will arise from this is not little[...]". Elaborate? I don't think this will cause any problems other than a little reorganization, but it's not like we haven't done this before. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:24, 27 September 2015 (EDT)
Pretty much the "surfing the wiki and finding all 3D models" is what comes to my mind. Plus the fact that few users would not notice this proposal, and continue marking models as sprites. Plus the fact that some users would still confuse some 3D renders as sprites (NSMBDS comes to mind). It's an inconvenient to say the least.--
12:00, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
Well, that's not stopping us from at least making an effort to reorganize the renders. We've made drastic wiki organizational changes before, such as removing "beta" and "sub-species" terminology. Sure, users will probably categorize renders from sprites, but it's not different from any other type of bad categorization, poor formatting, or even bad grammar. Hell, it's why we have this section in policy. We can't just leave them like that. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:40, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
Which is basically why I'm supporting.--
12:16, 29 September 2015 (EDT)
I don't even know if nsmbds uses sprites or prerendered models. Some enemies are clearly sprites. Even the player models have frames ripped in the spriters resource. Ray Trace(T|C) 19:22, 29 September 2015 (EDT)
Well, they're still technically renders, but I'll give the benefit of doubt and say that Mayro, Loogie, Pitch, Bowz, and Junior are 3D renders. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:35, 29 September 2015 (EDT)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Make location infoboxes more appropriate for buildings as well
I propose us to make location infoboxes more fitting to articles on buildings. That is because the current one uses the terms greater location, ruler and inhabitants, which seem more suitable/common for regions. We could create a switch to a "building" option, that would switch:
Greater location to Location;
Ruler to Owner;
Inhabitants to Residers.
Proposer: Mr. Ice Bro. (talk) Deadline: October 4, 2015, at 23:59 GMT.
Roy Koopa (talk) Very vague. Good idea, but too vague.
Walkazo (talk) - Simplifying "location" is a good idea, but it would be a mistake to make the other two changes: I'd rather "owner" be added instead of replacing "ruler", and "inhabitants" works perfectly well for both types of places.
Changing "greater location" to "location" would make sense either way, but "inhabitants" already works for buildings, so I think that one should be left alone. Also, while "ruler" indeed doesn't work for buildings, "owner" would sound awkward for countries and whatnot, so why not just make both variables usable? "Ruler" is already optional, so just add "owner" as a different optional variable, and then both types of situations are covered. - Walkazo (talk)
Roy Koopa: If it's too vague, then what parts of the proposal do you think needs elaboration? Also, I agree with Walkazo, just add more if parameters into the infoboxes. This probably doesn't even need a proposal for such an inconsequential change. We don't need a new infobox, just add it to "location". It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:27, 27 September 2015 (EDT)
It's vague because the only reasoning is "this is bad we should change it to this." File:RoyNSMBU.pngRoyKoopa 18:37, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
The propositions seem to be fairly specific though, but I do think elaboration is needed for why these propositions are needed, but inferring from the propositions and proposal titles, it seems to be apparent. That "location" as it's currently used also covers "buildings", which is pretty awkward. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:22, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
I don't know. Some things work in this proposal, others don't. I personally think Walkazo's idea is the best. I'm not voting yet either way as of now. Magikrazy (talk)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:24, 27 September 2015 (EDT)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:40, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
