MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 163: Line 163:
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per Cobold, even though I have no idea what happened
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per Cobold, even though I have no idea what happened
#{{User|Red Shell 68066vr}} Sounds like a lot. I do not want other proposals that are going to make this place a better place deleted. Per all.
#{{User|Red Shell 68066vr}} Sounds like a lot. I do not want other proposals that are going to make this place a better place deleted. Per all.
#{{User|GigaMetalLuigi}} - Per Cobold!


====Oppose====
====Oppose====

Revision as of 20:14, February 8, 2010

dessert1.jpg


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. Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
  2. Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
    • Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
    • Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
    • Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
  3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
  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. 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.
  5. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
  6. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
  14. 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.
  15. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), 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 Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

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 you want this Proposal to be like, what changes you would suggest and what this is about]

'''Proposer:''' {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' [insert a deadline here, f.e. "5 January, 2010, 17:00". Rule 2 above explains how to determine a deadline]

====Support====

====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".

CURRENTLY: 05:41, 13 May 2025 (EDT)


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

  1. 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.
  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, 4 and 5, as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one.
  4. Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
  5. After two weeks, a clear majority of three votes is required. Without the majority, the talk page proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM".
  6. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

New Features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Use GMT for all events, deadlines, and dates

Basically, what the proposal title says. The other day, I marked Wii as a featured article, since one week had already passed since the passing of the nomination. Time Q pointed out to me here that we use EST as a reference time. I realized the inconsistency in this, as this proposal page (if you look above), says that EDT should be used as a reference time. If you remember, we have had proposals to allow any kind of English spelling, as well as to use the first official English name for article titles, rather than the American one. These were in effort to maintain the international, non-American biased image that the Wiki strives for. I believe that by using a world-standard time (which happens to be the wiki's default time set in your preferences), there will be less misunderstandings and confusions about deadlines and dates. And most of all, it shows our internationality, rather than being partial to a time zone we are more accustomed to.

Proposer: Garlic Man (talk)
Deadline: 9 February, 2010, 17:00

Support

  1. Garlic Man (talk) - ^Per Proposal
  2. Tucayo (talk) - Per Garlic
  3. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - GWT is the main timezone, so everyone in different areas can at least relate to that.
  4. King Bean (talk) - Per BMB. GMT would solve time problems (if there are any).
  5. MATEOELBACAN (talk) - Per the Garlic Guy
  6. Cobold (talk) - per Garlic.
  7. Randoman123456789 (talk) - per Garlic Man
  8. Red Shell 68066vr (talk) It is used in the preferences.
  9. Supermariofan14 (talk) - Per Garlic Man and BMB.
  10. LeftyGreenMario (talk) I live in California. I don't like or understand those abbreviated time zones. And consistency is golden.
  11. Random User (talk) - Per Garlic.
  12. Gamefreak75 (talk) I understand the time zone(s), live in California, all that good stuff. I have GMT as my set time zone already, so per GM and BMB.
  13. Joltarious (talk) Per Garlic Man!
  14. Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Garlic.
  15. Coincollector (talk) - Agree with ye.
  16. Arend (talk) - I hope this means Europeans can also watch our anniversary later... Oh well, per all.

Oppose

Comments

What is GMT??? Red Shell 68066vr (talk)

Greenwich Meridian Time IIRC --Tucayo (talk)

What is this difference between GMT and EDT? I'm not good at time zones or whatever. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

GMT is the same as UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). It's 6:22 am in GMT right now, while it's 1:22 am in EST. Time Q (talk)
I have Pacific Time Zone, so for me, it's currently 10:56 p.m.Gamefreak75 (talk)
Could anyone tell me what all this EDT thingies mean? LOL, I know I sound n00bish. Supermariofan14 (talk)

Its OK to ask :) Its the time zone. EDT is the Eastern DAYLIGHT Time, which is the time of the east coast (NY, Mia, etc) in summer. UCT and GMT are the times of Greenwich. For example, Mexico is UTC -6, which means you ahev to substract 6 hours to the UCT time :) Tucayo (talk)

Btw, Greenwich is in London. British time is the same as GMT. - Cobold (talk)

OH! OK, thanks, I never knew which one was which. Supermariofan14 (talk)

What is GMT, I never understand these time zones either... Joltarious (talk)

As Tucayo says above, it is Greenwich Meridian Time, AKA Universal Coordinated Time. This happens to be your wiki's default time in preferences. Red Shell 68066vr (talk)

More transparency in discussions

After voting in the unfeaturing for the Princess Daisy article last evening, I came home tomorrow to see the page completely blown up, deleted for having "no supporters". I found this claim to be very wrong, as I was very sure that I myself supported that very nomination just yesterday. Browsing through the deleted page with my sysop powers, I could reconstruct the discussion. Still, absolutely all support and oppose votes have been blanked, and I have no nerves to go through the over 100 revisions that the page got overnight to find the exact changes to find out who removed those votes, why and with what authority.

I find this to be a very intransparent and confusing way of having a discussion. It is very hard to reconstruct the actual positions of the people who did place their vote, but got it removed. It is also impossible for anyone who is not a sysop to even read the page any more. That bears any reason. Every user in the wiki should be allowed to take part in these discussions and should be able to read them when they are over.

Thus, I propose the following changes for the rules of all sorts of discussions (proposals/featurings/unfeaturings):

  • If a vote is determined invalid, whether it is a support vote or an oppose vote, it does not get removed. Instead, it gets striked out with <s></s> tags. Next to the striked out vote, there should be an information of who striked the vote, and why. This could be done with a template similar to {{unsigned}}.
  • Nobody has the right to remove a vote or comment unless it is clearly
    • without any reason
    • offensive or insulting
    • spammy / off-topic
  • All past discussions get archived. That means, all Featured Article nominations and Unfeature nominations get archived - whether they are passed or not, and whether the original proposer removed them or not.
  • Previous passed and not passed feature/unfeature nominations get linked to from the article's talk page for better reference.

None of these changes would change the rules as to why comments or votes can be invalidated. All I want to ensure that the discussion can be easily tracked down and are transparent for everybody on the wiki, not just sysops and those who have the patience to plow through endless numbers of revisions in the history.

Proposer: Cobold (talk)
Deadline: February 15, 2010, 17:00

Support

  1. Cobold (talk) - I want every user on the Mario Wiki to be able to view and understand previously public debates and discussions.
  2. Glowsquid (talk) - Per the proposal and my comment below.
  3. Reversinator (talk) Per Cobold
  4. RAP (talk) - Per Cobold.
  5. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) Per Cobold.
  6. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
  7. Edofenrir (talk) - After what occured yesterday, this change is definitely necessary.
  8. MATEOELBACAN (talk) - Per all.
  9. Tucayo (talk) - Per Cobold, even though I have no idea what happened
  10. Red Shell 68066vr (talk) Sounds like a lot. I do not want other proposals that are going to make this place a better place deleted. Per all.
  11. GigaMetalLuigi (talk) - Per Cobold!

Oppose

Comments

One thing I alway found lolzy is when a page gets immiediatly deleted because it "has" no supporter after the previous votes got deleted.

Well yes, it may not have support right now you dummy, but someone might find the discussion and bring in arguments that'll change the course of the debate. Cheating users out of that is retarded. --Glowsquid 12:00, 8 February 2010 (EST)

I also noticed that. Whether or not there is no vote in the nomination currently, it still has to stay up until the deadline per the rules anyway. - Cobold (talk)

Tucayo, that's the whole point - I also can't really make out what happened. - Cobold (talk)

Change rules for invalidating votes

Currently, the rules for removing support votes from unfeature nomination reads:

Similarly, not only oppose votes, but also support votes can be removed if they are not well-reasoned enough. The agreement of three users, including a sysop, is needed to remove a vote.

This does not, in any way, allow the supporter/opposer to respond to the action taken against his vote. My vote was removed overnight while I was at sleep, giving me no chance to react at all. That is not right. There should be a time window in which the voter is allowed to clarify their statements before it just gets removed while they are away. Especially if the vote was just a "per <other guy>" and the vote of "<other guy>" gets invalidated.

I would suggest that the original voter gets 24 hours to clarify their statement. Any process of featuring /unfeaturing is put on hold during that time window.

Proposer: Cobold (talk)
Deadline: February 15, 2010, 17:00

Support

  1. Cobold (talk) nobody can be online 24/7, so the rules shouldn't expect them to.
  2. RAP (talk) - Per Cobold.
  3. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per Cobold.
  4. Edofenrir (talk) - I agree with Cobold again.
  5. MATEOELBACAN (talk) - Per all.
  6. Tucayo (talk) - Per Cobold
  7. Red Shell 68066vr (talk) That same thing happened to me.

Oppose

Comments

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

 

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=715526"