MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Tag: Mobile edit
Line 98: Line 98:
#{{User|Swallow}} Subpages should be for userspace only.
#{{User|Swallow}} Subpages should be for userspace only.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{user|Axis}} I never liked the idea of subpages in (Main). They're always more difficult to find, and the title doesn't look as good. Linking to them always felt off.


====Comments====
====Comments====

Revision as of 01:43, November 26, 2023

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, November 9th, 20:01 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.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • 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.

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

  1. 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}}.
  2. 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.
  3. Proposals end 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. 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.
  9. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  10. 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 the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  11. 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 can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first six days of their creation. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. 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, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 9, 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

  1. 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}}.
  2. 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:
  3. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
  4. 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

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)
Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 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)

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)
Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Rename pages with the full Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars title

Now that the Nintendo Switch remake is out I think it would be a lot easier for pages like Spikey, Pinwheel and many other like them to have their page titles to be shortened down to just Super Mario RPG. I think it would not only make navigation much easier but would also look a lot nicer.

Proposer: Annalisa10 (talk)
Deadline: November 25, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Rename the pages

  1. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Game Gear (talk) Definitely sounds reasonable to me.
  3. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
  4. LadySophie17 (talk) Easier, prettier, more recent and therefore more accurate.
  5. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per all. I don't think anyone takes or should take "Super Mario RPG" to refer strictly to the remake just because it lacks a subtitle, especially since the phrase had been used for almost three decades as a shorthand for the original game. In fact, Nintendo themselves have referred to the two versions fully interchangeably (nintendo.com: "the Paper Mario™ and Mario & Luigi™ series of games drew some inspiration from Super Mario RPG!")
  6. Arend (talk) Per all; besides, the Japanese version for either game had always been called just "Super Mario RPG", without any subtitles.
  7. Cadrega86 (talk) Per all.
  8. YoYo (talk) per all

Do nothing

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) As someone who's disappointed that Ted Woolsey, Aiko Ito, Rika Maruya and Noriko Wada were not directly credited in the remake despite the text largely being their handiwork (though it was to be expected that something like "Based on the Work of the Original Development Staff" would cover it) - I prefer keeping the originating version's subtitle, as we do with other identifiers. Removing the subtitle is more concise, but now, it can easily be confused with the remake of the same name, and give the wrong impression that the subject name originated there. (Of course, we could go the other direction per KCC's latest suggestion here, but that's out of this proposal's scope.)
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) For whatever reason, Nintendo seems keen to use simply Super Mario RPG to refer to the new Switch remaster, and the subtitle is stuck on the original release on SNES. To be honest, we're not quite sure what is best to do in this case, since no matter what it's likely going to sound at least a little clumsy. In lieu of a more elegant solution for disambiguating what belongs to the game as a whole and what's remaster-exclusive beyond simply putting a "(Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch)" in the page title, like what we do for the aforementioned scrapbook article, we feel like we should probably just stick with that, as even if it is a little tacky, it's at least up-front and easily understood.
  3. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per
  4. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per all. I think we should address the way KCC suggested at the same time as this.

Comments

So if this passes, would it also be applied to Donkey Kong Country 2 and 3? They similarly have subtitles for their original releases that later got ditched for their remakes. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:02, November 23, 2023 (EST)

I suppose it would make sense to do it for those as well. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 11:43, November 24, 2023 (EST)
No, because this proposal does not cover or even mention those games, and they're not the exact same case. Super Mario RPG is a Japanese-made game that had a subtitle tacked on for it's English release, while DKC2 and 3 are English-made games that had their subtitles from the start. That would require a separate proposal. Dark BonesSig.png 13:55, November 24, 2023 (EST)
I was wondering if they could be changed because of the precedent that this would set without requiring their own near-identical proposal, which I don't think is unreasonable. And I'm not sure why language of origin matters here - as far as article titles are concerned, English names are always prioritised anyway. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:12, November 24, 2023 (EST)
Precedents established by a single proposal generally are not sufficient to justify making similar changes without so much as even a discussion. I've lost count of how many near-identical proposals we've had for merging Mario Party minigame modes. That's an extreme case that probably could have been handled more efficiently, but this is just a single proposal with a relatively small scope. Dark BonesSig.png 15:44, November 24, 2023 (EST)
I'm gonna echo Hewer and ask you to argue how language of origin is relevant here. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:57, November 24, 2023 (EST)

Move certain articles and galleries to subpages and create new disambiguation pages consisting of subpages

The Super Mario Wiki needs subpage articles and subpage galleries. I was wondering if there's a possibility to move certain articles and galleries into subpages. Here are some good examples:

Affected articles
Affected galleries

Proposer: GuntherBB (talk)
Deadline: December 2, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBB (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ <- What's the difference? Slashes are always more trouble than they're worth. Just like this change.
  2. YoYo (talk) talk about overcomplicating things. not just is this an issue that doesn't need fixing, but the solution is also not that much more efficient. Also define "certain" because that heavily implies only some articles would be affected by this - creating an inconsistency as well. in the end, this creates more problems than it fixes.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per YoYo. The oddly specific applications across only a few articles makes this extremely confusing, especially since it seems like this will only cover the aforementioned articles, rather than just all bestiaries, or all lists of music, or all lists of glitches, or all history articles (haven't those things suffered enough naming issues??), or all pre-release content, or... well, you get the point. And, on top of that, the fact that some of the examples, such as the Mario Artwork ones, require nested slashes, is... Grody, to say the least.
  4. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per everyone, and myself: "There is no point in change for the sake of change."
  5. Mario jc (talk) Per MarioWiki:Lists: "The Super Mario Wiki does not use subpages in the main article namespace. This is because: Article titles should be as natural and readable as possible. Articles should be able to exist on their own merit and not just as an extension of an existing page."
  6. Swallow (talk) Subpages should be for userspace only.
  7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  8. Axis (talk) I never liked the idea of subpages in (Main). They're always more difficult to find, and the title doesn't look as good. Linking to them always felt off.

Comments

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4064343"