Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removals of previously added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
|
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
Rules
- 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. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and Writing Guideline proposals must include a link to the draft page.
- Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals, which run for two weeks. (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.
- Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with 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. 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.
- 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 "(banned)" 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.
- No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
- 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.
- 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.
- Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
- 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.
- 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 administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that cancelled proposals must also be archived.
- If the administrators 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.
- 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.
- Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
- 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.
Rules
- 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.
- 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. (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.
- 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.
- The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
List of Talk Page Proposals
- Fix Template:Warning. (Discuss) Deadline: December 3, 2011, 23:59 GMT
- Move the Vaporware page. (Discuss) Deadline: December 16, 2011, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Lakitu (character). (Discuss) Deadline: December 18, 2011 23:59 GMT
Writing Guidelines
MarioWiki:Upcoming content
This writing guideline is meant to establish a consistent guideline for how we handle content from unreleased games. The only aspect of upcoming content that is not covered in this guideline are the project articles themselves. This is because I believe they need a separate guideline page due to their complex nature. Most of what's covered in the guideline is already more or less adhered to, except for one thing. If this proposal passes, all information about upcoming projects will need to have a suitable reference. The main reason for this is because information from upcoming projects are at high risk of being false and references improve our credibility. It really shouldn't be too difficult to enforce on a mass scale, today's games have ton of secondary source coverage and it is easy to find something that backs up the information. The process is detailed a little more in the draft page. Comments and suggestions for improvement are always welcome.
Proposer: Knife (talk)
Deadline: December 8, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Draft: User:Knife/Policy
Support
- Knife (talk) – Per proposal.
- coincollector (talk) - Per all. And what per all I mean is Knife.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
- New Super Yoshi (talk) I could actually keep track of new info which I always would want to Per all.
- Jazama (talk) Per all
- Bop1996 (talk) Per proposal.
- RandomYoshi (talk) — Per Knife. We really need this thing.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per Knife.
- B.wilson (talk) - Per proposal.
- Lindsay151 (talk) Per all.
- Tails777 (talk) Per all.
Oppose
Comments
It's just my opinion, but I think it's not by their complex nature but rather by their unique nature. Regarding to the new subjects (articles that talk about new element of the game like enemies, courses, etc. especially those that are introduced in a game) Is it possible to use the infoboxes and make mention of their appearance? I see a problem with this. Usually we don't include the appearance of something of a an upcoming game in the infobox until it is officially released. However, some articles (for example, the racecourses of Mario Kart 7) include their appearance despite the fact that the game has not been released yet which may be incosistent to the guidelines. coincollector (talk)
- That's why those articles have the {{newsubject}} template on them. The information within the articles, as I understand it, is coming from one or more of the official websites, but that doesn't mean the articles aren't subject to revision once the game comes out. Mario4Ever (talk)
Yes, but that doesn't explain the necessity to include an infobox with such information in a upcoming subject, that's what bothers me. Include information to the infoboxes respecting the sources or get the rules of not include information to them until the game is released? Coincollector (talk)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the issue only arises when people try to add appearances in an unreleased game on preexisting subjects (like if someone tried to say that the latest appearance of Maple Treeway is in MK7). There's nothing that says we can't include appearances in infoboxes for subjects (e.g. Melody Motorway) that have yet to appear in the series provided it comes from a reputable source. Mario4Ever (talk)
If that were the case, I think it should be needed to make notice of that, because some people may get that the appearance of a new subject should be applied likewise for another previously released and will make an upcoming appearance as well. Coincollector (talk)
- Maybe the new subject's infoboxes could have "(upcoming)" next to the game's name to set them apart from normal released appearances. I also think it'd be a good idea to have a small section on Infoboxes in the policy page to make the varying use of the "latest appearance" clear. Additionally, I think more emphasis on using references could be made in the "New articles pertaining to upcoming project" and "Previously existing articles in upcoming projects" - nothing major, however, just a short note in each section (leaving the discussion to the section). Like, in the former section one sentence could be expanded to "If an article does have sufficient information backed up by reliable references,", and the latter section could have "as long as the information is not speculation and is accompanied by solid references". Also, "Once information has been rewritten" seems redundant: if the info was well-written from the start, maybe it doesn't need rewriting, just supplementation, and something like "Once the project has been released for a reasonable amount of time and more content has been added" seems like it's giving more bang for the buck (since it's also pointing out that the template can't be removed immediately). - Walkazo (talk)
@ Walkazo: That sounds fine to me. Coincollector (talk)
New Features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
Create articles for Mario Kart Battle Modes and Mario Party Minigame modes
All of these are currently merged with Mario Kart (Series) and In the Mario Party full game articles and I think they deseve their own articles. All the Battle Courses have a page and the Mario Party Boards have one. This should also shorten loading times on pages when doing this and putting them into a full Article. There are no redirects to these pages as well.
Proposer: New Super Yoshi (talk)
Deadline: November 27, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Support
- New Super Yoshi (talk)Per my Proposal.
- Ratfink43 (talk) They seem big enough to deserve their own article
- Toad85 (talk) It couldn't hurt.
Oppose
- BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Actually, I think the modes are fine the way they are. I don't see why Minigame Modes need their own article when they are fine with their respective Mario Party article, while Battle Mode still fits fine in the Mario Kart series. Also, why disregard other modes such as Time Trials? I'm also opposing this because of lack of consistency.
- Coincollector (talk) - If I could oppose twice I would. Per BLOF, and to corroborate her arguments, we had former discussions to merge various sorts of modes to their respective articles (ie: Donkey Kong Country's Time Attack article) because splitting the modes from them would reduce considerably the importance of the games'articles and their content.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per BLOF and Coincollector.
- Bop1996 (talk) Per all.
- Jazama (talk) Per all
- Raven Effect (talk) Per all
- Marwikedor (talk) Per everybody
- Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
- B.wilson (talk) - Weak Oppose per Coincollector, nothing's wrong with doing so, but it's best to leave it the way it is currently.
Comments
@Toad85 Thanks for suporting but you need to have a valid reason for voting. New Super Yoshi (talk)
- The question is, Mr. 85, could it help? Magikrazy51 (talk)