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.
|
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
- Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
- 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).
- Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
- 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 their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
- All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
- 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.
- 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.
- No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
- The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
List of Talk Page Proposals
- Split Template:Fakelink from Star Hill. (Discuss) Passed
- Split the weekly microgames from NinSoft and contests in WarioWare: D.I.Y. into separate pages. (Discuss) Overtime
- Split 1-Up Super from 1-Up Mushroom. (Discuss). Deadline: July 10 2010, 24:00
- Merge Giant Spiked Ball into Spiked Ball. (Discuss). Deadline: July 19, 2010, 23:59
- Merge Mad Big Boo into Mad Boo. (Discuss). Deadline: July 19, 2010, 23:59
- Split Template:Fakelink/Template:Fakelink from Goomba. (Discuss). Deadline: July 17, 2010, 03:09
New Features
Wiki welcome template
I noticed some users (including me) having welcome templates with links to the help section, rules, etc... New users are supposed to get those. However, only some of them do. You see, some new users get reminders for not reading the rules. But if they're new, how are they supposed to know where the rules are without a welcome template. I don't know if this is possible, but I propose we make a wiki welcome template, that will be automatically on the new user's talk page. Like the one in zeldawiki, just with more details. This may reduce the reminders and all the misunderstandings.
Proposer: Mr bones (talk)
Voting Start: 08:58, 10 July 2010
Deadline: 23:59, 16 July 2010
Support
- Mr bones (talk) Per proposal.
- Frostyfireyoshi (talk) This seems a much better idea than having a bunch of users going round and only welcoming certain users, as this will make sure every new user knows the rules and has useful links for whenever they may become confused.
- MrConcreteDonkey (talk) Per all. I didn't get one - :'(
- LeftyGreenMario (talk) Everyone should get these. I mean, I'm in the same boat as MrConcreteDonkey! One downside might be the lack of unique welcome templates created by users, though.
Oppose
Comments
That would probably work if new users were actually reading their welcome templates. Practice has shown that most of them just skip and delete them. Doing this will just result in additional work for almost no gain at all. - Edofenrir (talk)
- If a welcome template appears on new users' talkpages automatically, wouldn't that mean user-made welcome templates like User:Fawfulfury65/Welcome would have to be deleted? Fawfulfury65 (talk)
@Edofenrir You're right, some users don't read their welcome templates, and they face the consequences. However, some other users do not have a welcome template, so they can't read one.
@FF65 Yes, they'll be deleted, however, like FFY said, this is the only way to make sure every user has his/her welcome template. We can use some examples like your editing tips though.Mr bones (talk)
I didn't have a welcome template and yet, my sister had one. :( Had to resort to the Help page. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Will this be like how Wikia welomes everyone after they make one edit? BluePikminKong497 (talk)
Removals
Remove the fake "New Messages" boxes.
Yes, I know this was said before, but it was never inforced. You know how sometimes onuserpages there are fake "new messages" boxes? Well, they annoy me, and ot just me. Like once, we had to babysit our neighbor, and, when i clicked on the link on Hatena Kid (talk)'s page, a loud, annoying video popped up, resulting in the baby crying from its nap, and having a fit. Another one had a disturbing picture of a camel that was innapropriatte for little kids. Since nobody did anything about, and for the other stuff I said, i think we should take some action.
Proposer: BluePikminKong497 (talk)
Voting Start: 21:11, 10 July 2010
Deadline: 23:59, 16 July 2010
Support
- BluePikminKong497 (talk) Per proposal.
- Edofenrir (talk) - I think the proposal description explains perfectly why this is not just a stupid joke. It tricks users by messing with basic wiki mechanics. These pranks can break people's trust in the page mechanics, and this is where it stops being funny, and just becoes a nuisance. Per the proposal.
- Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all. Per the old proposal.
- Mr bones (talk) Althrough I don't get angry when I get tricked and rick rolled, if this makes most users angry, then it's a wise thing to support. Also, per Edo, using the wiki tools for pranks is kinda destrubing.
- MrConcreteDonkey (talk) Per all. It's very annoying. If they want to include them, then they should put it somewhere else on the page.
- LeftyGreenMario (talk) Fake messages are easy to identify (never got tricked), but it's annoying. If someone must have a fake message box, at least he/she should alter it so people can easily distinguish it. (I.e. You DO NOT have a new message) or something like that.
Oppose
- NARCE (talk) - Stupid, annoying, pointless. But that's never been a great reason to remove something.
Comments
I just went under the the tedious procedure of digging through all our proposal archives to find the proposal that addressed this issue earlier. It can be found here. This new proposal might be a good way to double-check if the points made in the past still are valid in the eyes of today's userbase. - Edofenrir (talk)
It should be called "Enforce the Rule" proposal, like how there is the "Enforce the No-Sig policy" proposal. Anyway, it's easy to tell between a fake message box and real ones, but fake message boxes are annoying still. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
I saw a TON of sysops with them though. Tucayo for one, but there was alot more "contributive" people who had them. Booderdash (talk)
- @Booderdash: Sorry to say this, but try to get your facts straight before saying that. First of all, Tucayo is not a Sysop anymore. Second, not a single Sysop or Patroller has that up on their User Page, as I just went through the list. And, I mean, the more contributive people that have it, it goes to like "Special:Mypage" to where it is not as bad as other things it could be. BTW: My opinions are made clear in the proposal before that Edo linked. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
- Baby Mario Bloops, he had it when he was STILL a sysop though. ANd I remember some other people who had it.
Changes
None at the moment
Miscellaneous
Replace Super Mario Wiki's Logo
Since the Logo is viewable from every page of the entire wiki, I think it should be replaced by something better. No offense to whoever created the current picture, but for me, it just doesn't fit. So, I created a possible alternative to it which you can see here: [1] It's a mix between Wikipedia's logo and Mario's head. I'm not saying that the current logo has to be replaced with my version, just that it has to be replaced. But if you all like my new logo, I wouldn't mind seeing it on the wiki.
Proposer: Nelde (talk)
Voting start: 4 July, 2010, 16:10
Deadline: 23:59, 13 July, 2010
Support
- Nelde (talk) Per my proposal.
- Nerfman2227 (talk) I think the new logo is genius, and, personally, I don't think people would see the logo and say that we are affiliated w/ Wikipedia. Most people should immediately recognize Mario's trademark moustache.
- Damariogamr (talk) Not bad, but it looks a little more like Starship Mario. But that's not a complaint.
- Iamthedude (talk) This looks good. It may not get chosen, looks like we are a bit outnumbered. However, that logo up there has simply been there a little too long. Every company or website should change their logo at least once in their lifetime. Infact, I wonder if it is even necessary to put the words underneith it, this logo is so well made it describes what the site is without them- a version of wikipedia dedicated to Mario knowledge. Though I oppose the old logo, I give kudos to whoever made it. The background scenes combined with the logo in front is pretty genious.
- Lu-igi board per all. also, wikipedia's logo isn't copyrighted. the simpsons wiki for example uses it humourously.
- Platitudinous (talk) The old logo is kind of boring. I like the idea of a new logo.
- Legendkid48 (talk) I agree with Platitudinous (talk), the old one WAS dull!
Oppose
- Commander Code-8 (talk) I think the current logo is fine. And Per the users in the comments who believe that the new image basically copies Wikipedia.
- Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) We're not affiliated with Wikipedia. This logo will likely make many people new to the wiki think the opposite.
- Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! I get where you're comming from but even though the logo is original the current one we have is fine and original also. Zero signing out.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all. Also, since our logo is used in NIWA affairs, changing it requires a fair bit of effort all over the place, so unless something is so great that it just has to be our new logo, it would be best to stick with the current design.
- Edofenrir (talk) - Per 2257, per Walkazo, and per myself in the comments section.
- LeftyGreenMario (talk) Sadly, per all. "Wiki" itself is enough to make new people assume we are affiliated with the wiki. The logo looks nice, but it looks too similar to the Wikipedia logo.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per all, including myself in the comments section below.
- KS3 (talk) Per everyone and everyone in the comments.
- BluePikminKong497 (talk) Per Stoob.
- 4DJONG (talk) Well, we are not affiliated with Wikipedia, and it looks somewhat like what would happen if Mario received a head-cracking head shot. Plus, we are not a ripoff of Wikipedia.
- Alexfusco5 (talk) Maybe a new logo wouldn't be a terrible idea but the Wikipedia one is not a good alternative and I'm pretty sure its a copyvio
- LuigiMania (talk) Per all.
- Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
- MeritC (talk) Per all. That logo itself that I see wouldn't be one that I'd recommend using.
- Mario jc (talk) Per all. Nice logo, Nelde, but the original is fine.
- M&SG (talk) – Image might look good, but there will be copyright issues if it gets used; logo is the property of Wikipedia, which the Mario Wiki isn't affiliated with.
- (Green Falcon) The current logo is too beautiful to be replaced.
- It's a tough desicion, but I'm going for the first logo.
- GalacticPetey (talk) per all, I don't like copycats. Its a cool image but per M&SG
- Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per all.
- Mario Fan 123 (talk) - Great work! But... per all.
- Pseudo-dino (talk) - Per Mario Fan 123.
- Gruffen (talk)- I am defenetly not against the logo but there will probably be a copyright lawsiut filed by Wikipedia since we are copying the logo.
- ChillGuy (talk) We do need a new logo but that one is a little bland.
- Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Lets not steal from Wikipedia. Also, I'm pretty sure that we changed the logo a few years ago. Anyways, I think this logo is fine for another year.
- Gamefreak75 (talk) Per all.
- Mr bones (talk) This is just a matter of taste. Per all.
- Frostyfireyoshi (talk) Why, just why? As far as I know, the Wiki IS NOT related to Wikipedia, plus I'm sure that proposed logo is copyright infringement. Per all.
Comments
This was really a hard one to decide on. I personally am in favor of the idea of replacing the logo but not with the proposed logo. Gruffen (talk)
I like originality, though. I think the current logo is fine too. But, it's a matter of taste, not objective facts. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Personally, I don't like borrowing logos. I mean, the logo you created was borrowed from wikipedia and Mario's face was borrowed from Starship Mario. Besides, that Mario head is creepy, in my opinion. Make the Mario head a mushroom, and I'll be happy! LeftyGreenMario (talk)
- The whole logo is Mario's head with pieces flying away at the top. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
It reminds me of the logo of Earthbound Wiki (anyone at NIWA should know this)
The preceding unsigned comment was added by KS3 (talk).
Er... is it just me or does the lower left of the picture have the Pikmin logo from brawl? LuigiMania (talk)
I am Zero! @LuigiMania: That is Daisy's emblem. At first I thought this was a joke proposal, but I like the originality also, but that logo will do better if when you enter the SMW it will be similar to Wikipedia, instead of the main page, a page with nothing but that logo and a search bar if you understand. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)
- @Zero: So basically this? BTW, I like the logo but the current logo is just as good - logos are logos; they all depict different things but pretty much all work. May I also suggest that if this proposal does not pass, you make a personal Monobook.css page and then implement your logo? Marioguy1 (talk)
It's a fine logo - I personally like it - but I agree with LeftyGreenMario. I think we should run this by Porplemontage/Steve - the wiki's creator. Bowser's luma (talk)
I don't really have a problem with our old logo. 'tis fine. A logo is a statement about a website, and your logo basically states "Look here, we are a rip-off of Wikipedia!". I don't want to be a rip-off of Wikipedia, though. - Edofenrir (talk)
You know, if you don't like the logo, you can just change it in your monobook. -- Stooben Rooben (talk)
His logo is freaking awesome. Booderdash (talk)
Well, @Edofenrir: I agree, and I still think this logo is inappropriate because there are 5 year olds on the wiki, the proposed logo looks like Mario is receiving a head-cracking head-shot with no blood. 4DJONG (talk)
It looks like Starship Mario, Earthbound Wiki's logo, and Wikipedia's logo combined.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by KS3 (talk).
I feel that the image should be replaced, but not with that. The current one feels cluttered and unfocused, yet the proposed one looks awkward and unMario-like. I would think that it would be nice to see a cycling main image, such as cycling between various identifiable protagonists and antagonists - ie, Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, Luigi, DK, Yoshi, Wario, Waluigi, Toad, and Daisy. - NARCE 05:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
@Baby Mario Bloops, the logo was changed sometime during 2008-2009. It can be found on Mariowiki:Userbox, as the "Nostalgic user" userbox created by Tucayo. Frostyfireyoshi (talk)
You guys, this is not a proposal about replacing our current logo with that potatoman (no offense to whoever made it on the potatoman part), this is a proposal about replacing the logo in general. For example, I whipped up this monstrosity. Homestar Runner (talk)
Hi everyone. I am WarioSuperstar (brother of patroller Arend) and I created our logo, but I don't think it is a perfect logo. I have only one reason for my opinion, because our logo is not a really logo. It is just a picture with Super Mario Wiki on it. All the other NIWA wikis have real logos. A logo has to be simple, functional and timeless. Our logo isn't perfect so I made a new logo for our wiki. What do you think about this? I think it is simple, functional and it's a real logo.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arend (talk).
- Dude, that logo ROCKS. BluePikminKong497 (talk)
For some reason, I just don't think it looks good in the corner there. I don't know why. I might just need to get used to it... Fawfulfury65 (talk)
- Well, my logo does have a really red colour. That may be the reason why you think it doesn't look good. Also I used Internet Explorer in this screenshot, but in Firefox or Google Chrome it would probably look better because of the rounded boxes. I also recommend looking at the full size of the picture if you only watched the small preview. It will look a bit different. EDIT: I toned down the (dark) red colour of the logo. Signed by WarioSuperstar, brother of Arend (talk)
TPPs on Main Page
A week or two ago their were no proposals up so nothing appeared on the proposal box on the main page, so I propose when that happens then we should put the TPPs into the proposal box on the main page when no proposals are made. See when their are no proposals then the box is blank with nothing in it except "No proposals at the time", to a visitors point of view a blank box only saying that looks obscure and unprofessional, it make it look like if we don't do that much to better improve the SMW.
Proposer: Zero777 (talk)
Voting start: 6 July, 2010 15:30
Deadline: 13 July, 2010 15:30
Support
- Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Per proposal. Zero signing out.
- Commander Code-8 (talk) Per the proposal.
- KS3 (talk) Per proposal and Coincollector's comment.
- Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - I like the idea, and it will show us the TPP's that are currently out. That will be a lot easier than having to go to here just to click the link to the talk page.
- Pseudo-dino (talk) - Per proposal.
Oppose
Comments
I'd vote and support but I'm not to sure about the time as I'm Austraian. I'll wait till tomorrow. Commander Code-8 (talk)
I'm not entirely sure if switching back and forth between two different topics depending on if there is a current proposal or not will make us look any more professional. It might seem random and confusing to guests to see a proposal on one day, and a list of things on the other. Maybe that's just me, tough, I probably need to see it in practice. - Edofenrir (talk)
- Maybe we should have a section underneath the proposal about the TPPs. KS3 (talk)
- No, that would add needless clutter to have Proposals and TPPs on the Main Page. Maybe we should just choose one TPP (the one ending soonest) and make a blurb about it on the main page as if it were a regular proposal: then the template would be consistent and almost always in use: everyone gets what they want. - Walkazo (talk)
Erm... what ARE TPPs? LuigiMania (talk)
- Milk shake those abbreviations. It's Talk Page Proposals. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Do you ever remember that I had the same idea before? [2] For some reason Steve removed it despite the question. Coincollector (talk)
- And if you click "Older revision" it still has it? Coincollector, it's been on there for a long time.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by KS3 (talk).- @KS3: Well, duh, everything that has been changed on any article is in "Older revision" no matter if it is removed later. It is an edit, not an entire page removable and then recreated. If Porple deleted it, then he had a reason for it. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
