| All past proposals are archived here. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.
|
Determine a minimum number of glitches in a game to warrant a separate list article
5 is the mininum number of glitches 0-0-9-0
I've noticed some strange discrepancies regarding how glitches are handled when a game has only 3 or 4 of them documented here. Wario Land 4 has a separate article for its 3 glitches (List of Wario Land 4 glitches), but every other game with 3 glitches simply has those glitches merged with the game's page. Specifically, Mario vs. Donkey Kong, Super Mario Strikers, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), and, most glaringly, Wario Land 3 have sections for glitches rather than separate lists.
More complicated is figuring out how to deal with games with 4 glitches. Of the 6 games with 4 documented glitches:
I put forward this proposal to determine a minimum number of glitches for the creation of "List of glitches" articles. That way, there is consistency between games with the same number of documented glitches. Additionally, if new glitches are documented later that brings the total number over this minimum, a new page can easily be created without the need for a proposal, as the editor can cite this proposal.
- Option 1
- The minimum number of glitches should be 3. "List of glitches" pages would be created for Mario vs. Donkey Kong, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), and Wario Land 3 to match that of Wario Land 4.
- Option 2
- The minimum number of glitches should be 4. List of Wario Land 4 glitches would be deleted and its glitches merged into the main game's article. "List of glitches" pages would be created for Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2, Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, Donkey Kong Land, and Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle.
- Option 3
- The minimum number of glitches should be 5. List of Wario Land 4 glitches, List of Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem! glitches, and List of Super Mario Advance glitches would be deleted, with the glitches merged into each game's main article.
- Do nothing
- There should be no concrete minimum, and whether glitches should be split or not should be discussed on a game-by-game basis.
I could continue with 6, 7, etc., but I feel once this point is reached there is enough to warrant separate "List of glitches" articles, especially since game articles are typically long and images are usually needed to showcase glitches, taking up more space.
Proposer: Technetium (talk)
Deadline: August 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
- Technetium (talk) I am a bit torn between Options 2 and 3, but I prefer this one as I feel 4 glitches can easily fit on a game's page, as seen with the examples above.
- Hewer (talk) I don't particularly mind what the minimum number of glitches is, but I agree that there should be a minimum in order to have some more consistency, and a smaller minimum may cause unnecessary splits of small glitch lists, so I'll go for this option.
- DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
- Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
- FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. (I really love glitches, so I'm glad this is being settled.)
- Jazama (talk) Per all
- ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all; it's good for consistency to have a standard for this.
- Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
- Nintendo101 (talk) Good idea!
Do nothing
From what I can tell, articles on this wiki are usually split based on size, not the number of headings. It's why List of Fortune Street quotes is split into Dragon Quest characters (A-J / K-Z) and Super Mario characters (A-M / N-Z) and why the number of headings in these articles is inconsistent. I think it'd be weird to split lists of glitches based strictly on the number of sections rather than the amount of text since that could lead to very short articles that only list a few very minor glitches that can be described in just a few sentences.  Dive Rocket Launcher 22:50, August 15, 2024 (EDT)
- Yeah, I'm aware of that. It just feels different here because glitch descriptions tend to be around the same length. If you look at the examples I discussed in the proposal, you'll find there really isn't a noticeable size difference between the pages that have their glitches merged vs separate. Truth be told, I was originally going to just make a talk page proposal to merge List of Wario Land 4 glitches, but the discrepancies with the pages with 4 glitches led to me coming up with this. I'd be happy to hear anyone else's ideas on how to make things more consistent, because the way things are currently is frankly bugging me. --Technetium (talk) 23:02, August 15, 2024 (EDT)
Adjust proposal rule 9 to prevent exploitation
canceled by proposer
Put into effect in an alternate solution by proprietor
So I realized an issue with Proposal Rule 9 while I was whinily bitching about a proposal I didn't like passing like the selfish little megalomaniac I am (long story there... at least a good realization came out of it) and that is that, by the current setup, the "difference of three votes" only applies for two-option proposal. If a proposal has more than that many options, it is solely decided by being over 50%... regardless of how many options actually have votes in them. This has the potential for abuse: someone could add in an option no one would vote for to try and work around the "difference" requirement. As such, I propose that the rule be amended so that unless there are three options with at least one vote that isn't the proposer's own, it be treated the same as a two-option proposal.
Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
- Arend (talk) Doc's points in the comments have enlightened me more to understand the necessity of this amendment. Also it makes multi-option proposals where there's really only two options being voted for more consistent with our regular two-option proposals.
- Shoey (talk) Per Doc it's silly that a proposal like https://www.mariowiki.com/Talk:Coin_bag#Split_the_Mario_Party_Coin_Bag_from_the_Super_Princess_Peach_Coin_Bag can pass because of options that have almost no support.
- Mario (talk) Given the confusion time and time again this rule has inflicted on the wiki historically,[1][2] due to going against basic intuition (and relying too much on head spinning percentages) I rather just kill this particular clause of that rule with fire and simply have multioption proposals follow a similar rule to two-option proposals: one option with majority of votes over a 3 vote margin passes, which this proposal is going. If not, extend it. A 6-5-1-0 is NOT a consensus; neither is 9-8. Both of these should've been extended.
- SeanWheeler (talk) Changing my vote because if Super Mario Wiki doesn't allow for an ex post facto law to extend already closed proposals, then there's really nothing to worry about. Doc's right, it's not fair to get arrested for a law change without warning, and the idea of this proposal being used to cheat the previous proposal goes against what this proposal is about. And besides it's better to have more consistent rules on voting.
Oppose
- Super Mario RPG (talk) This has never been an issue for all these years we've had proposals, otherwise the amendment would've been proposed and/or added long ago. There's also the margin-of-three-votes rule for proposals with ten or more votes. Also, keep in mind the user proposing this was vehemently opposed to a proposal that I made that passed with a 9-1-1-8 vote and is trying any means possible to undo it, including the drafting of another proposal in late September that is sneaking in a provision to undo the one that passed yesterday, which is another way of saying "we want Pokemon content back on the wiki despite the Poke Ball lists being removed for the reason of lacking any further connection to Super Mario than any other franchises in the Super Smash Bros. series.
#SeanWheeler (talk) If you want to reverse a recent proposal, you have to wait a month to do so.
Reverse the rule order, change none of the text
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - This is an exaggerated example of what I'm trying to prevent, don't take it seriously.
I'm kinda half-on-half on this. On the one hand, amendments like these to prevent exploiting loopholes like those is always fine, but on the other hand, I wonder if it's even necessary? Proposers can only change and edit their proposals in the first three days since launch (or first six days if it's a TPP). This is just under halfway through the proposal length, which gives other users ample time to consider voting for a new third option if it's being added at the latest time possible. Even when an option has been added in bad faith, users can bring notice to it in the comments or report it to admins. So while I'm not opposed to this amendment, I think I'm more favoring it for the sake of consistency, rather than to combat exploits, since the 3-6-day limit thing already does that as well.
The rules section might need a bit of an overhaul regardless: There's been talks already how Rule 9 sounds a bit confusing due to its wording regarding the required amount of voters, and it's also been stated that the entire section is an unsorted mess with little to no examples for clarity.  rend (talk) (edits) 18:07, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
- It's not about retroactively adding an option. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:25, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
- ...did you misinterpret my whole message or something?
You literally said "This has the potential for abuse: someone could add in an option no one would vote for to try and work around the "difference" requirement." That is LITERALLY "retroactively adding an option", isn't it? And this proposal is about preventing such an exploit, right? As in, what I literally have been talking about as well? rend (talk) (edits) 19:12, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
- You seem to have missed the point. This is about putting in a dummy option in general, not about doing so at a specific time. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:56, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
- So you HAVE misinterpreted my message (at least somewhat), because I AM well aware that this is about putting a dummy option in general. The thing is, as I stated before, proposers can only edit their proposals within the first three days since launch, which is to say, they cannot add a third option like 5 minutes before the deadline to cheat the system. After those three days, they're locked from editing the proposal, and other users have four days to consider voting for that third option (which is more than the 3 days the proposer was allowed to edit their proposal.
All this stuff I said about specific time limits is to say that we already have a method to combat exploits like this, making this extra stipulation for combatting the same exploit kind of redundant, as the most this does is treating multi-option proposals where really only two sides are being voted on, the same as a regular two-option proposal (which admittedly is at least consistent).
If you're worried about people using these exploits within the 3-day limit, that's technically also addressed, as I already stated "Even when an option has been added in bad faith, users can bring notice to it in the comments or report it to admins."
If you're still worried that this doesn't solve your problem, then I think it's better to add a rule to not add (bad-faith) dummy options (or editing proposals in bad faith in general) for the sake of exploiting the rules. I'll admit that your proposed changes will help bring consistency across proposals, and also will help with preventing third-option exploits from being passed so easily, but I don't think it'll prevent proposers from attempting them within those first three days anyway (hoping in the off-chance that someone will vote for that dummy option), so it'd be wise to remind them that editing a proposal in bad faith is against the rules. rend (talk) (edits) 21:16, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
- Where are you getting the "after the proposal is created" part from? This is including if it's made with three options, one of which is valid-but-undesirable-to-anyone-involved. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:22, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
- The statement of yours I quoted before: "This has the potential for abuse: someone could add in an option no one would vote for to try and work around the "difference" requirement.". I interpreted that as someone adding it in later, as opposed to it being already there from the beginning. Thank you for clarifying that you meant both of those instead of only the former, though. rend (talk) (edits) 21:30, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
- ...yes, "add in" as in a synonym to "include." Sorry for the confusion. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:38, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
- It's OK man. Perhaps I was being too pigheaded myself to realize other interpretations.
Anyway, with that in mind, I understand the necessity to add this stipulation a bit more now, because the 3-day edit limit obviously cannot prevent what's there from the beginning, and now there's a 3-day limit to convince the proposer to remove the dummy option instead. rend (talk) (edits) 21:48, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
@Super Mario RPG - You're ignoring that our rules for proposal passing and failing have changed several times over the past few years thanks to various proposals. This is just something that was overlooked (the fact a sysop thanked me for bringing this up initially helps me think this was a good idea). Also, I'm not trying to "undo" your proposal by a retroactive rule change, that's not how amendments work. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:19, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
- If this proposal passes and gets enforced, wouldn't that proposal be affected? Probably should wait four weeks to do make this proposal. Like how I decided to wait after the proposal to move Shadow (character) back to Shadow the Hedgehog to fail before I could start the proposal to move the crossover characters back to their proper names. I could have started that proposal yesterday, but I need to find instances of the Mario & Sonic games referring to the Sonic characters by their full names before I could start that proposal. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:51, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
- No? You can't (and shouldn't) retroactively enforce a rule that did not exist yet, that's not fair (also that would probably affect a lot of other proposals, and I'm not interested in going down that rabbit trail even if it was ethical). That's why when prohibition was passed everyone who had drank alcohol before wasn't arrested. It's the same deal here. While I want to repeal that proposal, I want to do so the fair-and-square way in a month, not through some dirty underhanded trick. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:13, August 30, 2024 (EDT)
I feel like this proposal has actually nothing to do with Rule 9: a margin of votes has nothing to do with majority support. I think we should amend Rule 10 instead to remove the reference to "proposals with only voting options" and extend it to multioption proposals. For example: "Rule 10: If the two most voted options of a proposal gather more than ten votes between them and the vote count difference of those two options is less than three, then the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all." That way, Rule 10 would still work the same as it does now for proposals with only two options, and multioption proposals would need to satisfy both Rule 9 (majority support is needed to ensure that most voters have voted for the winning option) and Rule 10. Jdtendo(T|C) 01:44, August 30, 2024 (EDT)
I agree with Doc and the issue at hand, but I want to update the rule in a slightly more comprehensive way than suggested. I've done that and this is canceled! --Steve (talk)  04:44, August 30, 2024 (EDT)
|
