|
|
| Line 38: |
Line 38: |
| #{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} per all the users who interacted with me previously in one way or another. | | #{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} per all the users who interacted with me previously in one way or another. |
| #{{user|7feetunder}} Possibly out of the scope of this proposal, but I also think that [[:Template:split|split]] and [[:Template:merge to|merge]] [[:Template:merge from|request]] templates without a discussion tied to them (I've seen several) should be removed for the same reason. | | #{{user|7feetunder}} Possibly out of the scope of this proposal, but I also think that [[:Template:split|split]] and [[:Template:merge to|merge]] [[:Template:merge from|request]] templates without a discussion tied to them (I've seen several) should be removed for the same reason. |
| | #{{user|Lord Grammaticus}} Absolutely on board. |
|
| |
|
| ====Keep things as they are==== | | ====Keep things as they are==== |
|
Current time:
Monday, January 13rd, 23:26 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.
- For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.
|
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 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}}}} [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 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 {{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
- Tighten Category:Thieves (discuss) Deadline: January 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Merge individual Special Shots from Mario Hoops 3-on-3 into Special Shot (Mario Hoops 3-on-3 and Mario Sports Mix) (discuss) Deadline: January 16, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Split Nintendo DSi Metronome, Swapdoodle, and each of the Pushmo games from the List of references in Nintendo video games into their own articles (discuss) Deadline: January 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Robo Kikki to "Robo Monchee" (discuss) Deadline: January 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Move or Split id's Super Mario Bros. 3 Tech Demo (discuss) Deadline: January 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Comet Luma to Lumacomète (discuss) Deadline: January 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Poltergust 3000, Poltergust 5000 and Poltergust G-00 (discuss) Deadline: January 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Replace Welcome to Greedville with its Flash programs (Wario's Grab Bag, Greed $chool Test, Wario's Dunk Tank, Wario's Crazy Caps) (discuss) Deadline: January 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Add the Nintendo Kids Club games to the list of games (discuss) Deadline: January 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Move NES Classics, Mario Power Tennis - Hammer Power, and the computer version of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door to the "Windows" section of the list of games (discuss) Deadline: January 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Split F-Zero X (discuss) Deadline: January 24, 2025 23:59 GMT
- Remove The Lab from the list of games and replace it with the activities it contained (discuss) Deadline: January 24, 2025 23:59 GMT
- Delete Template:PM recipe infobox (discuss) Deadline: January 25, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Flash game) to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Macromedia program) (discuss) Deadline: January 25, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Rename NES Classics (Flash game) to NES Classics (Macromedia program) (discuss) Deadline: January 25, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Spiky Tom and Spiky John (discuss) Deadline: January 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- What is the scope of the Goal Pole article? (discuss) Deadline: January 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Clawing for More (WarioWare Gold) with Clawing for More (WarioWare: Touched!) (discuss) Deadline: January 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
- ^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
- ^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Talk page proposals
Writing guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Discourage drive-by templating
Improvement templates are a necessary, or at least beneficiary, eyesore but they can be subject to degenerate editing behaviours. Namely, it's very easy (and common) for editors to just slap improvement templates on pages with no or vague reasons and then leave (Template:Rewrite-expand in particular is subject to this). Not only can it be Kind of Rude when it's slapped on a recently-created article, the resulting eyesores stay on pages for years, as it's not clear to anyone but the editor who added the template what needs to be done - the Donkey Kong page has had a Rewrite-Expand notice since 2017 for vague "bad writing" and it's hard to tell what's so awful about the existing writing or what content must be added.
Through conversations on our Discord server, I've found other editors share my frustration with this behaviour. Fortunately, I believe there's an easy fix. Most improvement templates have parameters to explain in the template text why the template was added to a page, and any improvement template that currently does not incorporate this can be easily modified to have it. As such I propose, should this pass, that from this point, any improvement template added to a page must have its reason parameter filled with specific, actionable points. Emphasis on the "specific" - just saying a page has "bad writing" or "is missing images" without specifically saying what is bad about the writing or what images are missing won't cut mustard. Any currently-used instances that do not have their parameter filled (or only give a vague reason) will be removed, although it does not mean the templates can't be readded if specific reasons are listed.
Proposer: Glowsquid (talk)
Deadline: March 6, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Require improvement templates to have their reason parameter filled, remove unfilled/vague notices on mainspace articles
- Glowsquid (talk) ^^
- Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
- Swallow (talk) Per proposal.
- RHG1951 (talk) Per proposal.
- Koopa con Carne (talk) was always bothered by this
- Somethingone (talk) I don't see any reason why we should not do this.
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per (also the reason parameter should be the second one, not date or user or whatever irrelevant garbage)
- Bazooka Mario (talk) per. Also we should encourage going on talk page or linking to an existing talk page discussion, which can also serve to elaborate on points being made that can't fit on a rewrite template.
- Spectrogram (talk) per Bazooka Mario (talk).
- Platform (talk) Per proposal.
- Killer Moth (talk) Per all. I remember doing some edits to the Donkey Kong page and having trouble finding what was being considered "bad writing". So I ended up mostly just removing false information and fixing the formatting on the page.
- LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal, (maybe without the Trivia template).
- Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
- 1468z (talk) Per proposal.
- Tails777 (talk) Per proposal.
- SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) per all the users who interacted with me previously in one way or another.
- 7feetunder (talk) Possibly out of the scope of this proposal, but I also think that split and merge request templates without a discussion tied to them (I've seen several) should be removed for the same reason.
- Lord Grammaticus (talk) Absolutely on board.
Keep things as they are
This is probably a given already, but will this also apply to "more image" templates? Again, what kind of images required should be stated as well. 
Nightwicked Bowser 
21:42, February 27, 2023 (EST)
- Yeah, I think in spirit, this should apply.
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 01:54, February 28, 2023 (EST)
Two questions: Specifically what templates would be covered under this proposal? And what would happen to existing examples of unhelpful templates on the wiki already? (i.e.: Donkey Kong's page, Kamek's page) Will they just be removed (per proposal) with no discussion (if so I do agree)? — Lady Sophie 
(T|C) 11:17, February 28, 2023 (EST)
- The proposal does say that any templates that either don't have any reasoning or are too vague will be removed from articles. I'm assuming templates like Template:Rewrite, Template:More images etc will be the ones affected. Nightwicked Bowser 11:37, February 28, 2023 (EST)
So the templates covered would be the following:
"Will they just be removed (per proposal) with no discussion?"
Yes. --Glowsquid (talk) 12:41, February 28, 2023 (EST)
- Are you sure including the trivia template for this proposal is a good idea? Spectrogram (talk) 12:53, February 28, 2023 (EST)
- I almost put "Maybe it could be an exception? idk" next to it. It already identifies a specific problem so I guess it can be excluded. --Glowsquid (talk) 13:04, February 28, 2023 (EST)
- Seconding this question. The community has already discussed specific criteria for trimming improper trivia, so any problems signalled by this tag are often easy to detect and fix, even without providing specifics in said tag. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:06, February 28, 2023 (EST)
- That makes sense. You have my vote, although I believe Trivia template should not be included. — Lady Sophie (T|C) 13:36, February 28, 2023 (EST)
- The trivia template probably could be reworked some way, maybe agree on how many trivia points in a trivia section there should be before the template becomes warranted (I'd often say about five or six). Nightwicked Bowser 16:00, February 28, 2023 (EST)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
(T|C) 11:17, February 28, 2023 (EST)
