*Merge [[5 Gold Coin]] and [[50 Gold Coin]] with [[Coin]] ([[Talk:Coin#Merge 5 Gold Coin and 50 Gold Coin with Coin|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': January 13, 2016, 23:59 GMT
*Use {{tem|construction}} only when pages clearly have an informal appearance ([[Template_talk:Construction#Use_the_template_only_when_pages_clearly_have_an_informal_appearance|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': January 15, 2016, 23:59 GMT
*Use {{tem|construction}} only when pages clearly have an informal appearance ([[Template_talk:Construction#Use_the_template_only_when_pages_clearly_have_an_informal_appearance|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': January 15, 2016, 23:59 GMT
*Create the page: Drilldigger ([[Talk:Robo-Drilldigger#Create the page: Drilldigger|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': January 17, 2016, 23:59 GMT
*Create the page: Drilldigger ([[Talk:Robo-Drilldigger#Create the page: Drilldigger|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': January 17, 2016, 23:59 GMT
Revision as of 05:44, January 14, 2016
Current time:
Wednesday, February 12nd, 16:23 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.
Split Template:Fakelink from Rope (Discuss) Deadline:December 29, 2015, 23:59 GMTExtended:January 5, 2016, 23:59 GMT, January 12, 2016, 23:59 GMT, January 19, 2016, 23:59 GMT
Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Require short detail of change in future Support/Oppose/Comment/etc proposal headers
The reason for this is similar to the {{conjecturaltext}} proposal above - when adding a vote or comment on a page that has a prior (usually settled) proposal, you get sent to the equivalent section for the first proposal. Similarly, the section link from RecentChanges will also send you to the wrong section in the same way (in either case, you're sent to, e.g., #Support when the section you're looking for has an anchor along the lines of #Support_2, even though the header is just ====Support====).
It wouldn't have to be long or complicated (e.g., this proposal could have headers of something like "Support/Oppose requiring short detail"/"Comment on requiring short detail"), the point is just for it to be unique on the page (although simplicity of rule-writing means that it would be better to include the first proposal on a page in it). Headers in past proposals wouldn't need to be changed; this would only apply to proposals, including Talk Page Proposals, started after the new policy would come into effect.
Proposer: Reboot (talk) Deadline: January 17, 2016, 23:59 GMT
Walkazo (talk) - Too much screwing around for something as superfluous as where you appear in the page after saving. The Table of Contents brings you to the right header, and when you try to edit, you're in the right section, so there's really no problem. Maybe someday the MediaWiki bug will be fixed, but in the meantime, it's not worth complicating basic header stuff.
Ghost Jam (talk) Aside from per Walkazo, since the page load bug is a bug, it's not something we can really fix.
Roy Koopa (talk) Per Walkazo and the comments below. It's a MediaWiki glitch that most likely won't be fixed in the near future. All this does is add unneeded tedium to the process of proposal creation; even though Andymii (talk) does this, it doesn't mean we should all be required to do this. I get that we're trying to work around something the can possibly get very irritating (I actually talked to Porple about it because at that point, I didn't know it was a well known MediaWiki glitch), but like I said, all this rule (for lack of a better word) would do is add unnecessary and unwanted tedium to creating proposals; and besides, the only thing it would really be absolutely necessary for is TPPs because on this page, it doesn't take much effort to go from one proposal to the next, because scrolling from Proposal A over Proposal B to Proposal C does not take much effort at all. To sum up, it really should just be an option, not a requirement.
Comments
Ghost Jam: Isn't this what this proposal is all about, though? Circumventing a bug? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:05, 11 January 2016 (EST)
Exactly. We can't fix it (it's more or less baked in - the only ways to technologically fix it would be [a] prohibit more than one section with the same name on a page by throwing an error when someone tries to save it as such or [b] make section anchors something like a random alphanumeric code with no connection to the actual header text. The former is a more extreme version of what I'm suggesting, and no-one anywhere wants the latter), but we can work around it. - Reboot (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2016 (EST)
Or just ignore it. It's a minor bug: not worth bending over backwards over and adding another, confusingly fiddly step to proposal-making - one that promotes inconsistency and needless wordiness, at that, which will then look terrible in the archives forever. Both the long-term and short-terms costs far outweigh any benefit from avoiding a glitch that causes a second's worth of inconvenience at a time: we've shrugged and carried on for over 8 years, and we should continue with that path of least resistance. - Walkazo (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2016 (EST)
Miscellaneous
Split the Mario & Luigi and Super Mario RPG consumables into separate articles
Remember back in the day when the word "stub" was thrown around like it was going out of fashion and everything smaller than Bowser's article was a stub? This resulted in a lot of articles being clumped together into one superarticle, which is kind of like Superman if he had to wear Kryptonite. What I want to bring up today involves several articles merged during that period, including Super Syrup, Ultra Syrup, Max Syrup, Super Mushroom, Ultra Mushroom, Max Mushroom, and plenty more (including subjects that were affected long after the merges). Every article that I want to split will be listed in the comments. So, the reason I want to split these articles is because there's no reason for them to be merged in the first place. They're individual items with individual names, individual effects, individual buying/selling prices, and individual locations that the games treat like individuals. In some cases, they even have individual appearances, and no, some items having the same appearance is not enough to keep them merged when everything else about them is different. The clumped articles themselves aren't all that pleasant, trying to hop from several topics in rapid succession when that information would be more easily presented in separate articles. Also, having a bunch of Foreignname templates stacked on top of each other is not good in the slightest. I was one of the people who supported those proposals, but looking back, I simply cannot see how the articles are "clearly not working seperate". In light of the recent splits, I thought this would be appropriate.
Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Deadline: January 17, 2016, 23:59 GMT
Reboot (talk) - Cautious support. I agree with the general thrust of the proposal, but there does have to be a threshold below which two things are similar/minor enough to go on the same page. One-sentence pages, even if notionally complete, don't help anything. (I presume that last sentence doesn't apply to any of these specific splits)
I'm tempted to thrown in the Peppers alongside this proposal, but they're not quite in the same boat as the other ones. There's also the Mushroom that the Triplets give, which has a completely different effect to a regular Mushroom, but I don't know how the article would be properly identified if split. Hello, I'm Time Turner.
It most definitely should be Nut instead of Nuts. It shouldn't be renamed right away, but it should be renamed after you've made the different Nut articles. You're allowed to link to just Template:Fakelink even if that would generate a red link. RandomYoshi(Talk • PMs • C) 20:17, 9 January 2016 (EST)
@Reboot: We're not giving articles to every subject under the angry sun (see: Fan (souvenirs), Lightwand), but the articles that I've listed all have more than enough information to support themselves individually. Hello, I'm Time Turner.
I'm not sure if I understand the plan for the mushrooms. Is the intention to give the Super Mushroom from the various RPGs its own article(s), or merely move the information around to the existing one? Either way, it should be noted that the Mid/Super Mushroom and Max/Ultra Mushroom had identical Japanese names. It would appear to be another example of a translator – Ted Woolsey in this case – providing one-off separate names which would later be changed or reverted. The mushrooms in Super Mario RPG do heal different amounts of health, but those values are also inconsistent within the Mario & Luigi series itself. Mid/Super Mushroom definitely seems straightforward enough, but there is confusion with the Max Mushroom since it was actually introduced separately from Ultra Mushroom in the Mario & Luigi series, and it performs just like the original Super Mario RPG version in Superstar Saga and Partners in Time. That's not even considering Super Shroom and Ultra Shroom from Paper Mario (albeit colored differently). How does that all work out under this proposal? LinkTheLefty (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2016 (EST)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:05, 11 January 2016 (EST)
RandomYoshi( • PMs • ) 20:17, 9 January 2016 (EST)
