|
Current time:
Monday, December 23rd, 02:19 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
Below is an example of what your proposal must look like. If you are unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. When updating the bracketed variables with actual information, 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 header, 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
- Move Shadow (character) to Shadow (Sonic the Hedgehog) (discuss) Deadline: December 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move "Rare Ltd." to "Rareware" or "Rare" (discuss) Deadline: December 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters (discuss) Deadline: December 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Tighten Category:Deceased characters (discuss) Deadline: December 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Cascading Stone, vanishing platform, and moon platform with Falling Platform (discuss) Deadline: December 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Add to-do tasks on the Main Page (discuss) Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Rename the NES Template (discuss) Deadline: January 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Merge the list of show hosts in All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros. (discuss) Deadline: January 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Split the theme songs from the list of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs (discuss) Deadline: January 5, 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
List of Talk Page Proposals
- Move Knight Greenie to Template:Fakelink and add information (Discuss) Deadline: August 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT
- Create a separate page for Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: August 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT
- Move Venus Fire Trap to Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: August 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Template:WarioWareChar (Discuss) Deadline: August 31, 2013, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Nimbus Person to Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: September 3, 2013, 23:59 GMT
Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
Since there is really many 3D games.. and there is too much models on this wiki that is classed as a sprite. So I porpose we create a template for them. I'm not so good with copyrights, but here is an almost a copy from {{game-sprite}}
|
This is a model originally from a copyrighted computer or video game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution models for identification and critical commentary on the computer or video game in question or the copyrighted character(s) depicted on the screenshot in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to turn a profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Copyrights and fair use rationale.
|
Proposer: Megadardery (talk) (banned)
Deadline: August 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT Extended: August 25, 2013, 23:59 GMT, September 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT
Create The License and the category
- Tails777 (talk) They aren't sprites so a separate template for models seems like a good idea to me. Per proposal.
- Yoshi876 (talk) If they're different, have different templates. Per proposal.
- Madikoopa (talk) Per all.
- LeftyGreenMario (talk) Models aren't used very often, but it never hurts to have this template. I also disagree with YoshiKong. Creating this template will NOT be redundant and a waste of effort because these licensing templates also create a category for these images to go in. Lumping sprites and models in one category is messy, so this template can solve that problem too.
- Baby Luigi (talk) I strongly agree with this. BTW, there is a clear-cut difference between pre-rendered sprites and 3d models.
- Mario7 (talk) Per LGM
Rename the category to Game Sprites and Models
Do not create the License nor the category
- YoshiKong (talk) – I have regarded this idea with distaste in the past, where it was first brought up as an idea on a wiki collaboration forum thread. The idea of acknowledging the two kinds within image galleries, I'm completely fine with, mainly because it's a notion which is only needing to be changed once per gallery page, to comply with our policy. However, the fact that y'all are hoping to introduce a copyright license which is already legally covered by {{game-sprite}}, the only difference is a slight nameswap makes this template seem completely redundant, and a waste of effort to incorporate. And I don't agree that every user should be expected to correctly license every sprite/model which gets uploaded, and telling them off/continually correcting them would get excessively pedantic. It would be a lot more logical and save us all this unneeded hassle if we just modified our current sprite template to mention these fancy fashion models. And legally, we'd still be safe (which remember, is the whole point of driving licenses), not exactly keeping up with the latest rad words.
- GBAToad (talk) Per YoshiKong, he has a valid point. The obvious differences between sprites and models are regardless if they can both be legally classified under the same license. Creating another license to acknowledge these differences is highly superfluous and modifying the existing licence to accompany both sprites and models is the more logical thing to do.
- Tucayo (talk) - Per YoshiKong, the purpose of licenses is simply to be legally correct.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
- Iggy Koopa Jr (talk)Per all
- Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - I agree with YoshiKong and Tucayo.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
- Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Per all.
- Icemario (talk) Per YoshiKong.
What changes would you suggest to {{game-sprite}} - Megadardery (talk)
- @YoshiKong: It's not the legal part I'm concerned about. Creating game-model also creates and automatically places a category that neatly places all game models into one page. We could manually add a game model category, but we still have this licensing thing that will lump models with sprites. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
- Or we could call the category "Sprites and Models" but that still requires a ton of work. Baby Luigi (talk)
- Yeah, Lot of unneeded work plus it would be still mess. A separate category plus a separate license is the best way to go (in my opinion) - Megadardery (talk)
Removals
None at the moment
Changes
None at the moment
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
