MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page


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. 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.
  2. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week 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 one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
  3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with 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. Voters can remove or rewrite their 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, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an admin 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 an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  11. There should not be proposals about creating articles on an 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 promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the Administration.
  13. If the admins 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.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format

This is an example of what 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>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, 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 another 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.

For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see here.

How To

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected 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. (All times GMT.)
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time 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

New Features

Require FA Support Reason

Lately, I've seen some supports for FA Nominations where the user accidentally gave a reason. However, some of these have been reasons that are completely unrelated to the quality of the article, such as, "Boo is a main enemy so he should be a FA". Votes like this would be completely invalid if a reason was required. Also, reasons are required for unfeature opposes, which are kind of like feature supports

Proposer: Yoshiwaker (talk)
Deadline: May 14, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Yoshiwaker (talk) This would prevent articles from being featured just because a lot of people liked the character, or something of the like.

Oppose

  1. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Supports USED to have a reason to go along, but we removed them because they are unnecessary. What can you say when you support other than "Per" or "I like this article"? Supports also do no harm at all other than bumping the nomination. Once we have an oppose vote, the article will not be featured or unfeatured until the oppose vote is removed, basically. We might need a rule for nominations that go on for nearly a year (like Luigi, how many fans does he have?), due to fans continuously bumping the nomination but I don't see exactly why we need reason for support. This fan voting controversy has been going on for a a long time, and I think this is the way to go. I will state it again: support votes do not make the article featured. I think it is more of the lack of oppose votes that make an article featured.
  2. Mario4Ever (talk) Per LGM
  3. Superfiremario (talk) Per Lgm.
  4. Magikrazy51 (talk) LGM FTW (for the win). Per her.
  5. Zero777 (talk) Per LGM

Comments

wouldnt it be easier to make it so articles with missing games or improvmant templates were completly banned i mean how many reasons are there to support something Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

A.That would be for a different proposal and B. Most invalid reasons accidentally given are like, "___ is awesome so it should be a FA." or something like that. Yoshiwaker (talk)

i think that Featured article nominations should be removable if they are missing info on games or have those improvment templates ya know fix the article first than nominate it Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

As I said, that's not what this proposal is about. Yoshiwaker (talk)

i understand that im just saying what stops fan boys from just saying per above Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Annoying as it seems, it doesn't really do any harm to the wiki, and anybody can fix to remove those templates any time. Sometimes, I'd like to see nominations as another way to improve articles. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Talk Page Proposal

I have noticed that talk page messages are basically the only edits in the Recent Changes. I now have a rule that will restrict the amount of talk edits you may have. Like user, if you have over 30% of your edits on talk pages, with the exception of users with under 250 edits total, your talk page will be protected and you will be warned by an administrator to not leave messages on other user's talk pages. First offense will result in a one hour block. Next offense one day. Third offense one week. Any further shall be decided by administration. This is so there will be more main edits. I myself have lots of talk edits, and I am trying to edit the mainspace more. Update:With the forums, even if you don't have an e-mail like me, this rule still applies. If you are a talker, and you don't have e-mail, well too bad and sorry.

Proposer: Tom The Atum (talk)
Deadline: May 7, 2011 (23:59 GMT)

Support

  1. Marioguy1 (talk) - Like I said in the comment section, if a user has only 3,000 edits and already has over 1,000 on user talk pages then we have a problem. I have 9,000 edits and just barely over 1,000 on user talk pages. RAP (the user with the most contributions on the wiki) has 1009 edits on user talks. So I find it a really big problem when a user with only 3,000 contributions has over 1,000 on user talk pages while a user with 27,000 contributions only has 1,009.
  2. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) - A user should have to be productive when some one has over 1000 edits and 6% are main space despite countless User Space warnings something has to be there to back up the warning


Oppose

  1. Zero777 (talk) Again, it is taking away a user's freedom. We need to communicate and collaborate with each other to make the wiki better, we're not going anywhere if we have to contribute to the wiki alone.
  2. Superfiremario (talk) Per Zero.
  3. Mario304 (talk) Per all.
  4. Lady Timpani (talk) Per all.
  5. Bloc Partier (talk) - It hasn't become an issue with load times, etc. like it was over at Bulbapedia. If it ever started to overload the servers, we might have a problem. Since we don't have a problem, I see no reason to limit users' rights.
  6. Nicke8 (talk) Per Reversinator's comments.
  7. Edofenrir (talk) - Too inflexible. Also, protecting a user's talk page is utterly pointless, as it would only prevent them from receiving messages, not from sending them. On top of that, other users would be unable to contact that user at all. This is not a rule we should implement.
  8. SWFlash (talk) Per 0.
  9. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) The rule does not specify whether it will count for either idle chit chat or actually helping others to help the wiki. Therefore, this rule may actually hurt other users a lot instead of trying to achieve its purpose.
  10. Mariomario64 (talk) Per all.
  11. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per the Gray Magikoopa and the green-haired purple dragon.
  12. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
  13. MeritC (talk) - Per all.
  14. Luigi is OSAM (talk) I PER THEM ALL
  15. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) per Luigi is OSAM
  16. Bowser's luma (talk) Let's keep it communism-free here folks.
  17. Mario4Ever (talk) After much thought, I've changed my vote. This proposal will be more harmful than beneficial to the wiki and its users if passed, as users could end up being penalized for asking for help via the user talk pages. The idle chit-chat is a relatively recent occurrence, and I think most of us can admit to having some, but overall, the users I've seen have been dedicated to the mainspace in terms of what is posted on talk pages. I think this proposal should have focused more on what users are using the talk pages for, not just the fact that they're being edited to a greater extent than the mainspace; disciplinary action should be taken against those whose userspace edits are not only excessively large but also pertain to idle chit-chat, not against everyone who has a large number of userspace edits.
  18. Bop1996 (talk) Per all. I'm much more concerned about the quality of user talk edits rather than the quantity.
  19. Phoenix (talk) Per todas las personas.
  20. Yoshidude99 (talk) Per all.

Comments

I totally understand what you're saying, but I really don't think a set guideline is necessary. Whenever we want to check up on users who edit their user page too much, we just look at this page. Our current user page protection length is 2 weeks after being warned, though this may be subject extended length depending how severe the offense is (so don't create 50 user sub-pages).--Knife (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

So would this proposal actually make User space warnings mean something Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Goomba:it will hopefully get some users to make more main edits. Tom The Atum (talk)

What talk pages are you talking about? Are you talking about Mainspace or User's? Zero777 (talk)


Zero: user talk. Tom The Atum (talk)

I believe he's talking about the massive amount of edits going on with user talk pages (people asking to be friends, those "shops", one user just started some sort of club where he gives out items every week). Those kinds of edits are all on talk pages and they can pile up. And frankly, when a user has only 3,000 edits and they already have over 1,000 on user talk pages (that's around 30%) then we really have a problem. Marioguy1 (talk)
So I suggest better to make a policy on archiving user talks after a limit is reached. Zero777 (talk)
@Zero: This is not removing people's freedom to express themselves; it's removing their freedom to treat this website like it's facebook. They can still make edits on talk pages, just they can't clog up the entire wiki with those messages. I'd also suggest the forum to those users who can't bear to not talk to eachother. And archiving user talk pages won't help.
Also, @Knife: Protecting user talk pages is never a good idea. Marioguy1 (talk)

@Superfiremario no way would you oppose what with having 6% main space out of 1000 edits despite like 6 warnings that's ridiculous dude so no way would you oppose a proposal that would make you actually do mainspace edits Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

@Goomba:Yeah, he needs to be warned more. I have included a warning when I told him my Mario Kart code, and he just responded with an okay, without a saying[I will try to make more main edits]. Tom The Atum (talk)

We can't ban people from chatting on user talkpages. They are needed to communicate with others. Yes, a lot of people do talk about things unrelated to the Wiki very often on their talkpages, but if we put a limit, it may prevent them from asking important questions and talking about the Wiki and how to improve it. The admins already keep an eye out for the users editing their userspace too much. We can't block them if they talk about the right things on their talkpages. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Let me give you this scenario: Suppose a new user has 300 edits. Out of those edits, 100 of them are made on user talk pages (33%) and 175 of them are on main pages (58%). His edits are actually good and the majority of the edits on user talks are just questions he asked to more experienced users. Should a new user really be banned simply for asking how to do something without screwing it up? Reversinator (talk)

OK, the way I see it, the biggest problem with this proposal is how it is formatted; not the concept of the idea. So if this proposal was changed to be something more (as Edo puts it), "flexible", people would support? Marioguy1 (talk)
Here's my take: The sysops currently look at each user's edit history and see if they are making an exorbitant number of talk page/userspace edits compared to encyclopedia edits. This is done on a case-by-case basis, making it relatively fair. If this proposal is passed, the case-by-case approach that works well is lost. Bop1996 (talk)

@Tom the Atum: You can no longer get warnings, reminders, last reminders and get blocked for userspace. Superfiremario (talk)

@Marioguy: Just to clarify, I was only talking about the user page, not the user talk pages.
@Superfiremario: What makes you say that? Of course you can still get blocked for disregarding userspace warnings.--Knife (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

He got that information from this user. The recent changes was somewhat flooded a few weeks ago by exchanges between Superfiremario, the aforementioned user, and this user. The answer's probably in their talk pages somewhere or on the talk page of a sysop (I remember Glowsquid commenting on how having too many userspace edits was not block-worthy in itself when one of the three complained). Not trying to intrude or anything, just offering information. Mario4Ever (talk)
Like Fawfulfury65 and Reversinator said above, we definitely need to take into account the nature of one's edits to another user's talkpage (i.e. - whether the comments are legitimate questions or if the comments are just them shooting the breeze). If this proposal were to go anywhere at all, it would need to be reworded so that the punishment only affects those users who have an extremely large number of talk page edits that do not pertain to any important wiki issue or question to a more experienced user. Like several people have already said, we cannot punish people for asking too many questions about the wiki (as long as they are legitimate questions or comments). If we did that (even if we unknowingly did that via the passing of a proposal such as this one), new users may become turned off to the wiki for good, and we certainly don't want that. Besides, as it is, if anyone has too many talk page edits and not enough mainspace edits, a sysop will notify them on their talk page, and monitor the situation from there if necessary. They've got it under control, so we don't need to add superfluous additional procedures to a perfectly good system. Phoenix (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Create articles for the multiple Nintendo's development divisions

Long ago, I came to notice we had the article for both Nintendo and Nintendo EAD (which I suggest to change the title into the complete: Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development), but when I checked the last aforementioned, I noticed Mario Sports Mix and many other games were listed there as games created and developed by that division. As long as I know, Mario Sports Mix was co-developed between Square Enix and Nintendo SPD Group 4. In addition, I noticed Nintendo R&D redirects to Nintendo EAD and even though this division no longer exists (as it was merged with EAD), it developed some Mario games, like Super Mario Land, without assistance from EAD (Miyamoto was not involved). Thus, by this proposal, I think we should create articles for the multiple Nintendo division's that have developed at least one Mario game, as well, as sorting every Mario game in the Nintendo EAD's article, into the respective division. In case this proposal passed, I think the articles we would need are:

  • Nintendo Research & Development 1 (Super Mario Land series and Wario Land series)
  • Nintendo Research & Development 2 (Super Mario Advance series)
    • I think these two can be merged in the same article.
  • Nintendo Software Planning & Development (WarioWare series with Intelligent Systems)
  • Nintendo Network Service Development (BS Super Mario USA and Mario Party-e)
  • Nintendo Software Technology (Mario vs. Donkey Kong series)
  • Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development (I added it to remind all this proposal also suggest the name change).

Proposer: Byllant (talk)
Deadline: May 12, 2011 23:59 GMT

Create them

  1. Byllant (talk) - Per my proposal, in case an article is relatively short, I guess we should creat some kind of List of Nintendo's development divisions.
  2. SWFlash (talk) Per proposal
  3. Arend (talk) Per all.
  4. Superfiremario (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Bowser's luma (talk) Per all.
  6. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
  7. Magikrazy51 (talk) Per proposal.
  8. Reddragon19k (talk) - That's awesome! If Nintendo has an article for itself, why not these! So... PER ALL!
  9. M&SG (talk) - Ditto.
  10. Loxo (talk) PER ALL!!!

Keep Nintendo EAD's article the same

Comments

Does this proposal include adding the names of the people that were/are part of a given division, or is it just going as far as "[insert division name here] was involved in the production of [insert game title here]?" Mario4Ever (talk)

Key people maybe added into the page as they are involved, I guess. Byllant (talk)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=1027396"