Revision as of 06:03, January 4, 2024 by MarioKartFan4863927(talk | contribs)(Added reason to why we need the list of television networks article here on the wiki.)
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."
Poll proposal formatting
As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple sub-issues that can be resolved independently of each other. In a poll proposal, each option is its own mini-proposal with a deadline and Support/Oppose subheadings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were a its own two-option proposal: users may vote Support or Oppose on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then "Oppose" wins for that option by default. A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.
To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines 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]".
===[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}}}}
====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
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.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
Move Kutlass to Kutlass (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: February 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT
The wiki's policy on official name priority seems to suggest that they are only to be used if there is a distinct lack of official English names. However, there's a notable grey area in this policy: what are we intended to do when the internal names are derived from Japanese words, but typed out in English letters? There are a few article titles that come to mind where the official Japanese name is used instead of the internal name: several Super Mario Bros. Wonder enemies, including Suppoko (formerly "Uminoko"), and a few Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat enemies such as Gōrumondo (known as "Garigari" in the files). Uminoko and Garigari are clearly derived from Japanese words, so the question is: should we consider these kinds of internal names Japanese names, or English names?
Consider them Japanese names, use names in official material over internal names
DrippingYellow (talk) I don't think we should consider these English names, even if they are written in English characters for the purposes of file organization.
Jdtendo (talk) I would even say that "English letters" is a misnomer: those are actually Latin letters, and they are used to write numerous languages besides English. Just because a word is written in Latin script does not mean that it is in English.
FanOfYoshi (talk) I've never been a fan of this, tbh. Per my stance, my Hatopop proposal, and all.
Consider them English names, use internal names over Japanese official material
Comments
This proposal passing wouldn't really change how we generally do things. Is this just to establish something more formal? LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:11, December 31, 2023 (EST)
Indeed, I'm pretty sure we've HAD a proposal on this very subject before. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:03, January 1, 2024 (EST)
I'm not sure it would. This proposal does not specify whether it would apply to internal names containing both Japanese and English words. Jdtendo(T|C) 05:57, January 4, 2024 (EST)
New features
Create a article for List of television networks
Hi, i was wondering if a article can be made listing all the television networks that the Mario and Donkey Kong TV Shows and Movies aired on.
The reason we need this article on the wiki is i want to document the networks that aired the shows in every region in a list so that it can be well-documented here on the wiki and also preserved for the future for anybody that wants to know what networks aired the shows on in other regions such as Jetix for example.
An illustration of a video game controller with the words "Image not available" overlaid above it, used as an image placeholder in the Super Mario Wiki
To see what I am talking about, check out Mario's history article. There are a bunch of white/transparent backdropped promotional artwork thumbnails spread across the whole article. They are pointless, why such? Such these mainly pad the article and serve no purpose other than to ornament the section with color or illustrations. Worse, some have captions that state the obvious or lack thereof. In History of Mario (example again) there is a picture of Mario jumping in Super Mario Bros. Wonder section, only for the caption to say: "Mario in Super Mario Bros. Wonder". Others like the images in article's sections for Dr. Mario World and Super Mario-kun lack captions and are just promotional art.
There should be a rule in the (MarioWiki) name space that should probably state that
In the character's respective "History" section, images should have a useful purpose to exist in the section (e.g. clearly explain the role of the character in the game) rather than merely illustrating or decorating the section. Promotional images depicting the character's appearance only are discouraged in order to prevent padding.
This proposal concerns image use in history sections, NOT every section in the character articles. If this proposal wins, these transparent image thumbnails in history sections should be replaced with screencaps, have some sort of plot device depicted concretely, or be captioned usefully. How would it feel?
Proposer: PnnyCrygr (talk) Deadline: January 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Sparks (talk) Per PnnyCrygr. Showing screenshots definitely beats past artwork without gameplay.
Oppose
Koopa con Carne (talk) not all promo artwork illustrates a character's appearance in a game the best it can, but that doesn't invalidate the ones who do. Case in point, the Super Mario Wonder render very concisely shows how Mario was also subjected to that game's unique aesthetic direction; an entire screenshot with various extraneous elements wouldn't communicate that as efficiently. The choice of a particular image for a section should fall under the editors' discretion and, at most, be discussed individually among users.
Biggestman (talk) Per Koopa con Carne. also it's just more fun to read something if there are images.
Waluigi Time (talk) While I can agree that these are overused and that screenshots from the game may sometimes be better for illustration than promotional artwork, a full ban from using them for history sections at all is overkill and probably going to do more harm than good. If a piece of artwork isn't illustrating something well, then it can just be replaced, that's the collaborative nature of the wiki.
FanOfYoshi (talk) This doesn't sit well with me. Per all.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per KCC--in plenty of games, screenshots can generally end up super noisy with other elements to them; not just UI, but entire enemies, other items, other characters... A screenshot is only as clear as it is focused on exactly one element, and if literally anything else is in frame, it kinda falls flat. While we can understand maybe replacing, say, Super Mario-kun's image with a scan from the manga itself, there's no real reason in the case Super Mario Bros. Wonder to force a screenshot of Mario in that game, when a render that is very specifically of Mario in that game would do the trick just as well.
Sparks (talk) Changing my vote to oppose. The characters' artwork does show how the character has evolved over the years as well. Per all.
Mario (talk) In Mario's page, I did look over the images used in the history section and Ive personally justified their inclusion. We should be trimming images on these longer pages though. We don't need a promo render for every New Soupy Goomba in the history section when Goomba hasn't changed in the slightest.
Hewer (talk) Per all, this would be a pretty pointless limitation that would hardly solve anything.
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. Having those images does show how a character has evolved over the years, which is an important feature to have. It makes sense as it's supposed to be a history page, and images are history too.
Fine. I consider now that images should be in the history section to illustrate a characters evolution over the games, with one subsection having a promo art for that. Proposal shall be failed inevitably and shall keep all those images. it isn't ripe for cancelling PnnyCrygr 18:17, December 29, 2023 (EST)
Okay, so I'm really not a fan of infoboxes that are solely focused on one game, considering how we had the Super Mario RPG bestiary infoboxes, but when the remake was announced, those suddenly had to be done away with. The 3DS version of Luigi's Mansion is faithful to the original, so there isn't as much infobox clutter, but its purpose, if anything, feels similar to those vertical bestiary infoboxes, like the Super Mario RPG ones that had to be done away with.
If this passes, all instances of the portrait ghost infobox will be replaced with the standard character infobox. My idea is that we convert it into a horizontal infobox (which should be fine, considering pages like Gobblegut do this), but I'll also leave an option for those who want to vote for its deletion entirely.
Super Game Gear (talk): Actually, this option is preferable over deleting it outright.
Leave as-is
Hewer (talk) I don't really get what the benefit is of removing an infobox designed to convey the information as efficiently as possible. The only argument given by the proposal is that an infobox specific to Super Mario RPG got removed, despitetherestillbeingseveralothergameandseries-specificinfoboxes (that wasn't even all of them). Also, as an aside, if your plan is to change the design/layout of the infoboxes, why not just make that this proposal instead of needlessly splitting it up?
Camwoodstock (talk) - Per Hewer, especially on that last point; we'd get it if this was a general "convert game-specific infoboxes to horizontal templates, and then introduce more standardized infoboxes for these articles in the future" proposal, but to change only one of those infoboxes feels... A little silly, right?
Swallow (talk) It is better than adding a lot of parameters to a standard infobox that would only be relevant to one game.
You should make horizontalizing an option, then. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:49, January 2, 2024 (EST)
I don't know how to do that, and even if we were to make something consistent across all 23 portrait ghosts (i.e. horizontal infobox in a statistics section), that would eliminate its purpose of being a vertical infobox. I'll let this proposal run its course, but would we still get consensus on converting the portrait ghost infobox into a horizontal infobox? Super Game Gear (talk) 12:31, January 3, 2024 (EST)
As long as it's within three days of the proposal's creation, you can edit it to add another option in addition to the current support and oppose options. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:45, January 3, 2024 (EST)
PnnyCrygr 
18:17, December 29, 2023 (EST)
