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 his/her 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 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.
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 be 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
- Merge Mega Mushroom House into Toad's House (Discuss) Deadline: September 27, 2010 23:59 GMT.
New Features
None at the moment
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
Making Articles for Keys
I think we should make articles on different keys in the Mario series. The reason this came to me is because I found an article, Station Key, on a key in Paper Mario: TTYD. Then I thought that if this key article can be made, then we can make a whole bunch of key articles, for example, Pit Key (found in the Pit of 100 Trials) and Dimension Key (found in the Whoa Zone) from Super Paper Mario. I made those redirects to Key for now.
There are 27 key articles.
Proposer: Mileycyrussoulja (talk)
Voting start: 19 September, 2010, 9:00 GMT
Deadline: 26 September, 2010, 23:59 GMT.
Support
Oppose
- MrConcreteDonkey (talk) This will result in many un-needed stubs which will take up space. I don't even know why the Station Key article is there. The information is definitely covered somewhere else. Why else do you think your previous Paper Mario proposal failed?
- Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Yet again, unneeded articles which will end up as stubs. Zero signing out.
- Emperor Yoshi (talk) Well, the keys do not have sufficient information about them to make good articles, also they are not notable enough for it.
- JF (talk) They're just the same thing with a different name.
- Bowser's luma (talk) "List of Keys" would be a good article. The "Station Key" should be merged into "Key".
- Fawfulfury65 (talk) Keys are keys, why give them all their own articles? They are too minor and simply belong in the Key article.
- YourBuddyBill (talk) List of keys should be made, or better yet, just put it all in the keys article. Make sure to merge in all the pics as well, though, as otherwise it's somewhat pointless.
- Smasher 101 (talk)List of Keys is a good idea.Seperate Key articles?Absolutely not.We don't need a lot of useless stubs.
- Mechayoshi (talk) They would just be stubs. Okay idea but not for that.
- Mileycyrussoulja (talk) Changed my mind. Will make list of keys.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all. I'd even like to merge some of the existing key articles into a list (that's been proposed at least once before, though it didn't pass).
- WigglerWhoopin'Warrior135 (talk) Per all.
- Fuzzipede27 (talk) Per all.
Comments
Shouldn't this be a TPP on Talk:Key?Knife (talk)
Another Paper Mario pointless item page creation proposal? Why don't we just make a List of Keys or something? MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
I concur, this proposal should be a Talk Page Proposal, as this obviously does not involve the the Wiki itself. Emperor Yoshi (talk)
- A TPP on Station Key would be concerning the Key article itself, this one is about creating articles that are keys. The badge one is very similar, it would have been a TPP on Badges if we went by what you were saying. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
@Mileycyrussoulja: You oppose your own proposal? Surely this is eligible for deletion. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
- No. Just because he doesn't support doesn't mean the idea no longer has merit; someone, somewhere might think it's a good idea. Lack of support isn't a good enough reason to delete a proposal, and it's actually better if proposals reach the deadline whenever possible - it gives us solid decisions to refer back to if policies or articles are called into question later on. Plus, the archives look better if they're mostly pass/fails, and not a bunch of cancellations. - Walkazo (talk)
The Science of Video Games
I believe that user sub-pages relating to theories and the like should be exempt from the Userspace 'guidelines', as they ought to be put somewhere. If not on sub-pages, then maybe in the talk page or the article itself. See my example on Talk:Ztar. PLEASE LIST WHERE THEY SHOULD GO!
Proposer: YourBuddyBill (talk)
Voting start: 17:11, 22 September 2010
Deadline: 23:59, 29 September 2010
Support
- YourBuddyBill (talk) Please say which space this stuff ought to go in. I think that the science of video games is very underappreciated, and could start much thought-provoking discussion over matters.
- Mechayoshi (talk) Okay now that I can vote. per all.
Oppose
- MrConcreteDonkey (talk) It's opinion and speculation so doesn't belong on the Wiki. Plus, do you think people will read all of that on Talk:Ztar, especially when it's just speculation?
- Fawfulfury65 (talk) Speculation. If you can't share it on the forums, just keep it to yourself. We don't need theories cluttering up talkpages.
- Smasher 101 (talk) Per Fawfulfury and MCD.
- Emperor Yoshi (talk) Well, speculation does not belong on this wiki, this wiki tells factual information about the Mario series, thus we can not have wild theories about Mario, I advise you to go to the Mario fanon wiki to make pages about your theories
- T.c.w7468 (talk) I like science and all, but it is speculation and it doesn't fit this wiki.
- Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Per all. Zero signing out.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
- Tucayo (talk) - Per 22's comment
- BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Mario lives in a different universe from us, so it would be nearly impossible to explain what is happening. All physics, all elements, all matter, everything is different. Per all.
- Gamefreak75 (talk) - Anyone can pull a theory out of their butt and place it on the page, making us look really unprofessional. Per all.
- Reversinator (talk) Per all.
- LeftyGreenMario (talk) I could say that Luigi isn't a human at all! The nose could be a mysterious appendage used to generate electricity and sense where Mario is! No. Most of this would be speculation.
- Booderdash (talk) Mario has NO science in it. WHat are you talking about? Its a game series about MUSHROOMS making people grow larger. You want science, look in a chemistry book. You want fun, play Mario. Also, if you really want sciencecal video games, Resident Evil has it the most, and so does those "virus" games.
- Fuzzipede27 (talk) Per all.
Comments
Well, you need to give a time for the voting to start and end. Emperor Yoshi (talk)
See Mariology, one of our affiliates. It is expressly dedicated to this sort of content. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk)
- Or go to the forums and make a topic called "The Theory of Mario"; that would actually be a pretty funny topic :P Marioguy1 (talk)
Forums tend to glitch up for me, not showing dates of topics or posts, so I usually get in lots of trouble for necroposting. YourBuddyBill (talk)
Votes that were made before the voting period started remain invalid even after it starts. If we allowed anything else, it would defeat the entire purpose of having a "voting period". Twentytwofiftyseven (talk)
Making a Power Glove article
I think we should make a article for the failed accessorie, the power glove. We have a article for the Atari 2600 and the Virtual boy, so why not make a power glove article. I will put in codes the players need to use to play the games.
Proposer: Fuzzipede27 (talk)
Voting start: 25 September, 2010, 10:00 GMT
Deadline: 2 October, 2010, 10:00 GMT.
Support
- Fuzzipede27 (talk) Per proposal
- Tomz123 (talk) What would a Super Mario Wiki without those kinds of stuff?