#{{User|Glowsquid}} - It's April Fools. Having to preface it's a joke, kills the joke.
====Comments====
====Comments====
Revision as of 18:00, February 25, 2024
Current time:
Thursday, February 6th, 01:34 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.
Fix the Donkey Kong identity chaos (discuss) Deadline: February 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Split Toad wearing headphones off from Jammin' Toad (discuss) Deadline: February 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Split Donkey Kong Jr. (Game & Watch) into Donkey Kong Jr. (New Wide Screen) and Donkey Kong Jr. (Table Top) (discuss) Deadline: February 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Remove information of Golf* for the Virtual Boy from Mario Golf (series) (discuss) Deadline: February 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Trim or remove various Smash franchise-specific subcategories
This is what I'd consider part one to a few proposals I'd like to hopefully make later down the road. This is about the following categories, and if you'd like to humor us for a second, pick one of these at random and take a look at them:
If you played along with our request up above, odds are, unless you picked Rhythm Heaven specifically, you picked a category that has a large amount of Smash-related redirects and occasional disambiguation pages cluttering them--and potentially, if you clicked a category like Bayonetta or Tekken, you just saw a category with only redirects or disambiguation pages--literally zero unique articles to their name. The real loser has to be Pokemon, who not only has only a few disambiguation pages (that all only lead to redirects) to its name once all the redirects are pruned, but it has twosubcategories that are literally all redirects--and the only relevant information to the Mario series is provided not by the wiki, but via a now dead external-link in the main category's description that currently leads to a domain registration page.
So... Genuine question; who do the majority of these categories help? These are all vestiges of an era of the wiki that has long since passed where Smash was given its own coverage; nowadays, in the era of merged list articles and the dedicated Smash wiki, these are all just kind of linking to the same couple of articles. And on the off-chance you're looking for actual information related to non-Smash crossovers, the redirects completely flood those out.
Now, that's not to say every one of these categories is entirely worthless and without merit. We vaguely alluded to Rhythm Heaven in the opening, but in specific, here are a few exceptions to potentially retain (albeit after pruning their various Smash redirects), rather than deleting them:
Duck Hunt, Fire Emblem, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, and Star Fox all have the same reason--they make regular enough appearances (e.g. 3 or more) in WarioWare microgames.
Ice Climber not only has the WarioWare microgames, but Nitpickers make an appearance in that game.
The Legend of Zelda has the most compelling argument to exist, in our eyes--not only does Mario regularly reference it leading to another Mario Kart track, the Zelda series regularly references the Mario series; this culminates in stuff like the two Thwomps exclusiveto Zelda games.
Pac-Man makes sense because of the crossovers in the Mario Kart Arcade GP games.
Rhythm Heaven has probably the most spotless track record; we give Rhythm Heaven Megamix coverage, it has a WarioWare minigame, and alien bunnies and Cicada both appear in Rhythm Heaven alongside their WarioWare appearances; in fact, the latter is a character who started out as a Rhythm Heaven character before becoming a WarioWare character later on.
Sonic the Hedgehog makes sense because of the various Olympic Games games.
When all that's said and done, we can think of three main things to do here:
Prune all Smash-related redirects, and then delete categories that don't have enough articles left afterwards: For the sake of argument, let's say the cutoff is that you need 3 articles; thusly, Mega Man would stay for Dr. Light, Dr. Wily, and Mega Man, whereas Minecraft is deleted because its presence is just the video game itself. As a warning, this could result in weirdness--for instance, we saw that the Kirby category could stay because of Kirby, Star Rod (Kirby), and Whispy Woods.
Prune all Smash-related redirects, and delete all categories except for our previously-stated exceptions: Pretty self-explanatory. If we didn't decide personally it was good to keep, it gets deleted outright; and then we remove the redirects. We think our judgements were fair enough, but if push comes to shove, we could re-instate a category after the proposal--after all, it's happened before with these Smash proposals.
NUCLEAR OPTION: DELETE ALL THE SMASH SERIES SUBCATEGORIES: The obligatory extreme option, but as we've mentioned, while the state these are in is very suboptimal, there are at least some categories here that have merit and could be used for non-Smash purposes.
Do nothing: We're obligated to include this, and while we are strictly opposed to keeping stuff like the Fatal Fury category around, we aren't going to exclude this just because we personally dislike this choice.
Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Deadline: February 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Prune all Smash-related redirects, delete categories that have 0-2 articles left
Camwoodstock (talk) Our secondary option. While we're a little put-off by the idea of a category with only 3 articles, it doesn't hurt as much as these categories in their current state.
Prune all Smash-related redirects, delete all categories except for the exceptions mentioned above
Camwoodstock (talk) This is our preferred choice. We think these categories all have merit due to their aforementioned non-Smash crossovers, and have all got substantial enough appearances to merit keeping their respective categories. While we understand potentially wanting to retain a few more, that can come in a future proposal--for now, we'd like to just keep these ones and work off of that.
NUCLEAR OPTION: Delete all the Smash series subcategories, period
Do nothing
Hewer (talk) Smash is still given its own coverage. It's in the form of list articles now, but we are still dedicating articles to talking about subjects that only cross over with Mario in Smash, so having categories reflect that feels fine. I agree with deleting the two Pokémon subcategories since a list of redirects that all go to the same list page is pretty useless, but the others I feel like can be kept for as long as we're still covering Smash stuff.
Comments
Changes
Reserve April Fools' joke proposals to a new section
I'm working on the assumption that joke proposals aren't actually banned entirely and are allowed on April Fools.
I'm not against the concept, however, I feel like there should be a specialized area for these things. Easy as it may be to tell such jokes from serious matters (ymmv on how serious of a pursuit you find editing a Mario fansite to be), the fact of the matter is that they have no business mingling with each other. April Fools content, at large, is already being separated from the rest of the wiki, albeit seamlessly so (it's being directly presented on the home page, but not linked from the mainspace), and you're still not allowed to vandalize actual articles on that day--shouldn't a similar restriction be applied to proposals? This here proposal aims to introduce a brand-new section on this very page (alongside "Writing guidelines", "New features" etc.) that will only be instated on April Fools day and will be reserved for joke proposals. (To clarify: it won't be a permanent part of this page, just on that day of the year.)
Option 1 of this proposal is to name this section the "April Fools' Day proposals" section. Prim, proper, self-explanatory. Option 2 is to give it a more jokey title, to which I raise "Extremely important proposals". Option 3 is to not add a section and let joke proposals wander about the page.
BMfan08 (talk) While the other option does make more logical sense, I think this option would be fitting for the joke-filled nature of the proposals. Now can someone help me with my comic project on N Gang and Club Nintendo?
Option 3 (do nothing)
Glowsquid (talk) - It's April Fools. Having to preface it's a joke, kills the joke.
