MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions
RubberLuigi (talk | contribs) m (→Oppose) |
BabyLuigi64 (talk | contribs) (→Oppose) |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
#{{User|Roy Koopa}} Per TT's comment. | #{{User|Roy Koopa}} Per TT's comment. | ||
#{{User|BabyLuigi64}} Per Time Turner's comment; We already have templates that serve this purpose. | |||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== |
Revision as of 08:06, October 24, 2015
|
Sunday, September 8th, 11:19 GMT |
|
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
|
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}}.
How to
Rules
- 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 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}}.
- Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
- 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.
- 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 administrators.
- 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 "(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.
- No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
- 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% support to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% support to win. If the required support threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
- Use the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
- Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
- 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.
- 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.
- Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by an administrator 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. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
- 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 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. 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|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "September 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]
====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
Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.
Rules
- 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. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
- 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:
- 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.
- The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
- When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
- Merge Super Blooper (boss) to Big Blooper (discuss) Deadline: September 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Only use Dr. Mario World in-game artwork in infoboxes as a last resort (discuss) Deadline: September 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Party Tent into Mario Party 8 (discuss) Deadline: September 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move TEC-XX to TEC (discuss) Deadline: September 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split Bowser's Flame from Fire Breath (discuss) Deadline: September 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split Banana Peel from Banana (discuss) Deadline: September 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Consider the "Blurp" and "Deep Cheep" in the Super Mario Maker games an alternate design of Cheep Cheep with the former twos' designs as a cameo rather than a full appearance of the former two, in line with the game's own classification (discuss) Deadline: September 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split truck into cargo truck and pickup truck (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split the navigation template for Donkey Kong between arcade and Game Boy versions (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64) to Crocodile Isle (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Prune "sports" games from Black Shy Guy in line with White Shy Guy and Red Boo (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Determine what to do with the feather item from Super Mario 64 DS (currently on Wing Cap) (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022) |
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023) |
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024) |
Split Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels, GuntherBayBeee (ended July 2, 2024) |
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024) |
- ^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder
Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024) |
Remove excessive Pokémon lists and images, Super Mario RPG (ended August 28, 2024) |
- ^ NOTE: Proposal is requesting image deletions, which require admins
Do not use t-posing models as infobox images, Nightwicked Bowser (ended September 1, 2024) |
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) |
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) |
List of Talk Page Proposals
- Merge Cactus King and Ghastly King. (Discuss) Passed.
- Delete List of cartoon voice actors. (Discuss) Passed.
- Recreate Junior (II). (Discuss) Passed.
Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
Create Template: Unfinished
While going through a few random pages recently, I noticed that many unfinished pages have the Construction template, so I decided to check the page history on them. Oddly enough, many of these supposedly "under construction" pages haven't been edited for years.
In these cases, the pages aren't under construction (at least not anymore, if the page was under construction at some point. You can't just trust the original "constructors" to come back and complete the page suddenly after three years.) Therefore, such a template doesn't make sense. We need a separate template to tell editors that the page is unfinished, and that help is needed to help complete the page to a satisfactory level.
Just to make the distinction, something "under construction" is incomplete, but actively being edited towards completion. Something "unfinished" is incomplete, but not being actively edited towards completion. In other words, it's unfinished and forgotten.
Here is what the template can look like. I deliberately made it look similar to the construction template, since they are relatively similar:
This article is unfinished. Please try adding as much information as you can to complete this page.
Proposer: Andymii (talk)
Deadline: October 31, at 23:59 GMT
Support
Oppose
- Roy Koopa (talk) Per TT's comment.
- BabyLuigi64 (talk) Per Time Turner's comment; We already have templates that serve this purpose.
Comments
So... basically {{stub}} and/or {{rewrite-expand}}? They're both used to signify articles that are in need of more information. Hello, I'm Time Turner.
- This. If you find an article with a construction template past a reasonable amount of time and the article still needs work, mark it for rewrite, as a stub or for deletion. It'll be looked at one way or another. -- Ghost Jam
06:28, 24 October 2015 (EDT)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Do not consider ports for an article's most recent name
At the moment, there are a few articles that have had their names changed due to rereleases, including Super Mario Bros. 3's worlds, which was put into place due to a proposal held on a single talk page, and Spiky Gloomba (to Spiked Gloomba), which was put into place after citing SMB3 as precedence (there are likely other examples, but I can't recall them at the moment). To use the Gloomba as an example, it was "Spiked" in Paper Mario, but was renamed to "Spiky" in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and the article followed suite. However, with the Virtual Console release of Paper Mario, the article changed names once again. The logic behind it is that, since the re-release is technically the most recent game, the names of our articles should reflect that. I don't agree with that.
First of all, it'd be incredibly off to only apply this to names, and there are quite a few other aspects that would have to be changed, namely the general order of the games in history sections and every article's latest appearance. It's seems odd to arbitrary exclude everything but the names in our changes. Also, how surreal would it be to see an article with their first appearance listed as "Super Mario Bros. 2 (1988)" and then its latest appearance listed as "Super Mario Bros. 2 (2012)"? It presents the idea that there's a whole new game called SMB2, but it's really the exact same game with minimal differences (I'm not exaggerating). This idea of being misleading is another reason I dislike the idea: having a game carry the same name as it did twenty years ago is not a change; it's an example of preservation. If a museum was commissioning a replica of the Mona Lisa, with the intent of presenting it as it was originally depicted, would you want them to paint a giant clown nose on it? While it'd be a bit funny, it'd completely lose the intent and disappoint a large amount of people looking forward to it. With that said, preserving something is not the same thing as presenting it as something new. Attitudes at Nintendo have not changed by re-releasing an old game, and the wiki's attitude should likewise not change. It's not even as if they're a "new" game; for all intents and purposes, these games are the same games that were once available a few years ago, just for a different platform.
In the case of the Super Mario Land enemies whose names were changed in the Virtual Console, those are different to what's being discussed here. Those names were changed with the re-release itself; it's not a matter of the same name popping up again and clashing with a later game, it's a matter of the same game containing different names than it did previously. One is about staying true to the source, while the other is about a clear change in though. Basically, per what was said by me and Walkazo on the forums.
This proposal intends to revert the Lands proposal and the Gloomba move (and any other ones that may be out there), as well as set a precedent for the future.
Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: October 28, 2015, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
- SuperYoshiBros (talk) Definitely, this makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why they were renamed back to the old ones in the first place.
- BabyLuigi64 (talk) Per proposal.
- Megadardery (talk) Per proposal, Especially because re-releases' modifications are kept to a minimum. The name could have been changed from one game in the series to another, but the developers didn't modify the original game for a re-release. If it was modified to a new name, then this name automatically becomes the newest.
- Magikrazy (talk) I never even knew this was an issue. Per all.
- Niiue (talk) Per all.
- Roy Koopa (talk) PP.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per proposal and per myself on the forums. If stuff in a a re-release was actively changed to be different from the original (like the SML names), we should update our titles accordingly - like how we'd update the body text to mention the changes between versions. However, if the differences from current names derived from subsequent games are only because the re-release is being authentic to the original, then we shouldn't use the antiquated name, like how we don't mention over and over in the body text how Goombas are the same in every port of SMB, etc. The infobox "appearance" lines are best saved for original games too, since re-releases aren't new appearances by the subjects at all, just the same old original appearances. We also don't make new History sections for re-releases unless there's major differences involved, so again, leaving the names be would be most consistent with how we handle all other aspects of re-releases.
- Warioad (talk) Per all.
- Bazooka Mario (talk) I think it's dumb to rename a recurring entity only because the predecessor the entity appeared in was released in Virtual Console or as a remake. If I'm correct into thinking this is what the proposal is about, then I agree.
Oppose
Comments
I think it's dumb a name from a re-release of a predecessor has replaced the sequel's name, but I'm not extremely sure about standalone games, so I'm still iffy on applying a blanket standard to disregard all ports. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:23, 22 October 2015 (EDT)
- Could you give an example of what you're talking about? Usually, the newer game would take precedence over the older one, so I'm not sure what it being standalone has to do with. it Hello, I'm Time Turner.
- I was thinking about something like one-off enemies in a game getting a rename in the port version. Or the lands in the proposal getting a rename in the port version. But maybe I'm not clear in this whole issue.
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:27, 23 October 2015 (EDT)
- I think I had the Super Mario Land issue in mind, but the proposal title seems like applying a blanket standard when it really isn't.
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:35, 23 October 2015 (EDT)
- If a change is made from the original in the port/remake/whatever, then we would reflect that in the page title/etc. (like the SML names). This is just about not reverting to old names simply because remakes were eventually released with the outdated names preserved for authenticity despite later games (or even different remakes released in the meantime, like SMA4 and SMAS) updating the names. - Walkazo 16:25, 23 October 2015 (EDT)
- I was thinking about something like one-off enemies in a game getting a rename in the port version. Or the lands in the proposal getting a rename in the port version. But maybe I'm not clear in this whole issue.
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.