MarioWiki:Proposals

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action(s) are done. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!" "Vote" periods last for one week. All past proposals are archived.

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}}.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To

1. Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
2. Users then start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
4. 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. The voter can remove or rewrite his/her own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
5. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
6. If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
7. Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
9. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
10. 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 a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
11. There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
12. Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
13. If the Sysops 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. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in GMT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is 23:59 PM of the Wednesday of the next week, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format

This is an example how your proposal should 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]".

---

===[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>
'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.]<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 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 anoother user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".

Talk Page Proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.

How To

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "(Template:Fakelink)". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{fakelink}} to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. 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 heading.
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. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
4. Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
5. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

• Merge Puzzle Panel into Puzzle Panic. (Discuss). Failed on: August 11, 2010, 24:00
• Merge Offensive Power Shots into Offensive Power Shot and Defensive Power Shots in Defensive Power Shot. (Discuss). Failed on: August 11, 2010, 24:00
• Merge all of the fields in Super Mario Strikers into one article. (Discuss). failed on: August 11, 2010, 24:00
• Merge Save Album into Save Block (Discuss). Failed on: August 11, 2010, 24:00
• Delete Plane Mario (Discuss) Deadline: August 14 2010 24:00
• Merge 5-Volt into List of Implied Characters (Discuss) Deadline: August 14 2010
• Merge Memory Master with Memory Match (Discuss) Deadline: 15 August 2010, 24:00
• Merge Pair-a-Gone with Pair-a-Gone and On (Discuss) Deadline: August 16, 2010 at 24:00 GMT.
• Merge Coincentration into Intense Coincentration (Discuss) Deadline: August 20, 2010 at 24:00 GMT.
• Split Template:Fakelink from Dark Fawful (Discuss) Deadline: August 24, 2010 at 24:00 GMT.
• Merge Cheep-Cheep School into Cheep-Cheep (Discuss) Deadline August 25, 2010 at 23:59 GMT.
• Merge Lakitu Travel into List of Implied Organizations (Discuss) Deadline August 26, 2010 at 24:00 GMT.
• Split Ashley and Red (Discuss) Deadline August 26 2010 at 24:00 GMT
• Merge Spookum and Snifit (disscuss) Deadline August 29th, 2010 at 24:00 GMT

New Features

None at the moment

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

FA Archiving Policy

OK, there's been some confusion over the archiving policy of articles...anyways, I want to get a system down. I think we had one before but then there were several people doing the system differently and now I have three seperate versions of how to archive. In all three versions when a proposal passes it is moved to MarioWiki:Featured Articles/A/Article but when it fails one of these three options happen...

1. Move them to MarioWiki:Featured Articles/N1/Article and then, after one month, delete them.
2. Move them to MarioWiki:Featured Articles/A/Article and never delete them.
3. Same thing as #2 but instead of MarioWiki:Featured Articles/A/Article, move them to MarioWiki:Featured Articles/N1/Article and then /N2/Article and then /N3/Article and so on...

And then of course there's the leave as is option.

Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Voting Start: August 3rd, 2010 (19:43)
Deadline: August 17th, 2010 (24:00)

Use Option 3

1. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) Per Tucayo's comment below. And mine as well.
2. Blue Toad (talk) – the pros for this sound like a logical reason
3. Tucayo (talk) - Per me. Also, there is no sense in deleting them. They are archives
4. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Per Tucayo. They are archives anyway. It's like a record of what happened.
5. Marioguy1 (talk) - I remember a long time ago when I opposed a proposal because of that same reason...Per Tucayo.
6. Fuzzipede27 (talk) - Per all.
7. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per the comments of Tucayo Below. I guess an archive is just an archive, and records do can handy. Also I didn't switch because I was outnumbered, I haven't looked at the Proposal page in awhile...
8. Mario4Ever (talk) - After reconsidering the pros and cons of each option as presented to me in the comments below, this seems like the best of the three.

Comments

Right now even I'm indecisive. All the options look good to me (except #2)...anyways, I'll probably vote soon but right now I'm leaning towards #1. Marioguy1 (talk)

I'm more or less new to being involved in the wiki. What's the current procedure? Mario4Ever (talk)

Try seeing here for the stuff you want. It might not have everything, though. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

@Mario4Ever: That's the problem, we don't seem to have one. We definitely have no written policy and I have seen several users archiving with different methods. That's what I'm trying to change. @LGM: Trust me, I've read that page over and over and it has nothing on archiving at all. If this proposal passes, I'm probably going to add a paragraph on archiving to that thing. Marioguy1 (talk)

I agree we should have one of those 3, but I'm sure that not many fails will be appearing anytime soon. KS3 has been blocked for 3 months, so I bet it will be calm with the FA stuff. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

Even if it's unlikely that many articles nominated for Featured status will fail, we should still have a system in place. @Marioguy1, what are the pros and cons of the above proposed methods? I'm just asking since I can't vote on any of these until I understand them. Mario4Ever (talk)

We use #3 now and it works fine. Tucayo (talk)

Well, if that is so, we should remove option number 3 from the option choices. Emperor Yoshi (talk)

Tucayo: Some people use #3, this will help combine together all of the options. Mario4ever: Well, pros for #1 are having the articles moved to the tentative title for the one month that they have to be, and then removing them so that people know they can nominate again. Cons however are losing the past information. #2: Pros: It will have a definite article set in history and easily accesible to find people's past arguments. Cons: There can only be one at a time... #3: Pros: Basically all of the pros of number 2 except for "easily accessible" and there can be multiple at once. Cons: It would be pretty hard to 1. Know where to search for the information and 2. Know what number we're at to archive it. Marioguy1 (talk)

Well, I think we should keep the failed nominations so if anyone else wants to nominate them they can look at that and perhaps see why it wasn't such a good idea. Also, people could keep voting to unfeature the same article, for example, if a unfeature nomination failed due to the nominator not seeing something, someone could try to unfeature it for the same reason again and again. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)

Actually, the pages will be cluttered, and most of the failed nominations were made by KS3, and were very foolish. Once we get rid of all the bad ones he had, I don't really think there will be many failed nominations to be in truth. Also, you should always start of with a clean. If we don't, then people won't really have good votes since it is swayed by what happened last time, and it will more than likely fail again. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

Option 3 will clutter the wiki up with all the many failed nominations. Option 2 will have only one article and it will contain the entire history of that thing (found in the "history" link). Option 1 will be the least cluttered as we will have the articles for only as long as they are needed as placeholders. However, the more cluttered it gets, the more archives we have on the wiki. Granted a sysop could still view the deleted revisions of the articles but other than that Option 3 will have no referencing past nominations. Option 2 will be able to if you know the date of the nomination and you use the history link. Option 1 however will have them all, you'll just have to try out the N1, the N2, the N3...Marioguy1 (talk)

Well, this could result in other, new people nominating articles again and again, which will more likely clutter up the Wiki. It's only the FA nominations. It's not going to clutter up the Wiki when it makes about 1 percent of it. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)

Hm...it seems this will be a tie...extend it another week when it's tied for me, kk? I'll be back on the 12th to check it out. Marioguy1 (talk)

@Supporters: Could you add reasons to your votes? You are currently "per"ing Baby Mario Bloops' vote which he moved to the other section. Marioguy1 (talk)

Crossover policy

Mariowiki's intention is to cover as much information as possible regarding the Mario series. For the most part, there is no disagreement about this. However, there is disagreement about what constitutes as the "Mario series". Spin offs, like Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario obviously belong, but what about crossovers? Especially regarding the Super Smash Brothers series. Should we include information about that? The following is my proposal. Information directly relating to the Mario elements of the series should be kept, such as information about Mario's Final smash, etc. Information regarding the series plot should be put on on the article about the series. Information about enemies in the series should be placed into one article, as with items and bosses. Information about other characters in the game should be grouped into articles regarding each series. For example, we could merge all the articles concerning the Zelda Series into one article about the series, and then list all it's relevence to Mario and it's crossovers on that page. With these changes, we can keep up Mariowiki's reputation of being one of the most detailed wikis, yet also keep all information relevent to Mario.

Proposer: Mr. Anon (talk)
Voting Start: August 15, 2010 (16:37)
Deadline: August 21, 2010 (24:00)

Oppose

1. Lu-igi board nope terrible idea. per Marioguys comment.
2. Mr bones (talk) Per Marioguy's comment bellow.
3. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) Per all.
4. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Got to admit, It wasn't that bad of an idea, but Marioguy is right. Articles for stuff like that is much more better than one huge list.
5. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Well, the current system works fine, and there is too much information in those articles to work well in a list.
6. Blue Toad (talk) Per Emperor Yoshi, Baby Mario Bloops, and Marioguy's comment below.

Comments

You mean you want to create more articles like Conker (series) or Banjo (series)? Because I really don't think we need one of those for other series like Zelda or Super Smash Bros. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

I think the current coverage policy is good. Long lists of content is not as good as seperate pages for it because in a long list, you have to scroll all the way down to the part you want to read meanwhile in an article, it's all nicely grouped together under an easily-recognized title. Marioguy1 (talk)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment