MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 09:25, January 30, 2024 by Killer Moth (talk | contribs) (→‎Support)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, December 21st, 13:56 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.

How to

If someone has 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 other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  2. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (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 two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  3. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. 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(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. 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 "(blocked)" 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.
  7. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  8. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  9. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  12. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  13. 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.
  14. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  15. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  16. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  17. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  18. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  19. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  20. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Below is an example of what your proposal must look like. If you are unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. When updating the bracketed variables with actual information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary. 

===[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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[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 simply say "Per proposal".

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), Technetium (ended November 30, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Add minecraft.wiki as an interwiki link

This isn't so much a "feature" rather than a simple quality-of-life addition to the wiki. This proposal proposes to add an interwiki link to minecraft.wiki (i.e. [[minecraftwiki:]]), especially considering the multitude of subjects in Minecraft's Super Mario Mash-up pack with Super Mario-themed reskins. At the moment, when linking to articles on a Minecraft wiki, it is the most convenient to do so by means of using the {{Fandom}} template to link to the Fandom wiki when there's a higher quality independent alternative available that a majority of the community has left to. I try to avoid adding direct urls into wiki articles in general. If there was an instance where someone added urls to minecraft.wiki throughout every article where it could apply, this would be a multitude of urls that one would have to manually fix, due to the Super Mario Mash-up pack existing.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.
  2. MegaBowser64 (talk) Couldn't hurt, really. Per proposer.
  3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Hewer (talk) Per proposal
  5. Arend (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) get bent fandom Per all, if they split off from Fandom months ago, we should probably be linking to their independent wiki by now.
  7. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  8. Mario (talk) Considering that interwiki links are generally uncontroversial and I assume most of us hate that x-factorized spillway of an ad-infested radioactive dumpsite, I don't think a proposal is entirely necessary but it's still a valid way to request an added feature like that.
  9. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) This makes a lot of sense to me, as it would let the wiki remain consistent when dealing with subjects that are not Super Mario-related. Per proposal.
  10. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

If this proposal succeeds, I think we could as well try a proposal for adding the RayWiki (e.g. [[raymanpc:]]) next, due to the Rayman series' relevance in Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope via the Rayman in the Phantom Show DLC. Casual reminder that we have interwiki for Kovopedia (even though the Magical Vacation series has little to no relevance to the Super Mario franchise yet, even while taking Super Smash Bros into account) purely because it's a NIWA affiliate, so adding a Rayman wiki as an interwiki link would only be fair, and that's double as much so for adding a Minecraft one. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 11:39, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Yes, I agree with this. Why not make the proposal now or do you want me to do it? Super Mario RPG (talk) 11:43, January 28, 2024 (EST)
I agree as well. We should definitely make a proposal for adding RayWiki interwiki links. It would serve the same purpose as the Minecraft wiki links, so why not? -- Artwork of Rosalina used for her amiibo. Also seen in Mario Party: The Top 100, Mario Kart Tour and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020. FanOfRosalina2007Artwork of Princess Peach for Mario Party: The Top 100 (talk · edits) 14:39, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Create interwiki link for RayWiki

This is similar to, and inspired by the Minecraft.wiki interwiki link proposal above, but with the RayWiki instead. The Rayman series has gotten relevance in the Super Mario franchise thanks to the Rayman in the Phantom Show DLC campaign for Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope. The DLC campaign harbors a multitude of Rayman cameos and references, and currently, we can only link to articles of the most relevant wiki for Rayman using external weblinks, which... doesn't look all too great on an article, IMO.

Since this wiki has interwiki link support to wikis that are part of NIWA, but which series otherwise have little to no relevance to Super Mario in general (e.g. Kovopedia, a Magical Vacation wiki), I think it would be fair to have interwiki link support to wikis about franchises that are relevant to Super Mario in some way.

As for the interwiki link code, it could be something like [[raymanpc:]] (from the URL domain, since the RayWiki is hosted by the Rayman Pirate Community), simply [[raywiki:]] (from the wiki name itself), or both.

Proposer: Arend (talk)
Deadline: February 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Arend (talk) Per proposal
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Arend. There are plenty of Rayman references throughout the DLC. What better way than to link to RayWiki for more information?
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Thank you for making this. I strongly agree to RayWiki being added.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) get bent fandom. again Per proposal--we should be acknowledging these independent wikis whenever possible, and Rayman has a notable enough presence for this template to make sense.
  5. Mario (talk) I like this idea (also again I don't think we absolutely need proposals to effect this but just in case)
  6. Hewer (talk) Per all, and also, RayWiki seems to fully cover the Rabbids series, so this could be useful for other Mario + Rabbids content beyond just that DLC.
  7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per sticking it to Fandom (and per proposal).
  8. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per proposal.
  9. Swallow (talk) Per proposal (though for some reason I'm getting error pages when I try to search anything in that wiki)
  10. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

Make a YouTube Disambiguation(!!!) page

Pictured: How we feel after trying to make a half-comprehensive list of YouTube videos by Nintendo.

Before you hit "Oppose (edit)" and scream "NOT AGAIN", hear us out here.

YouTube, as a whole, almost certainly does not deserve an article to itself. Unless we were to make a sweeping move to create pages for every Social Media page associated with the Mario brand, or every video distribution platform that's released a Mario video on it, it would be very silly to do that... But that's not to say YouTube holds zero relevance to the Mario brand, and that having a page of some sort for it is a doomed concept.

No, what we're thinking is more along the lines of a disambiguation page, a-la our proposal for Starfy. There are some things that we could be linking to via a catch-all YouTube article, and while we don't want to claim this list is comprehensive--Play Nintendo on its own is a massive rabbit hole--we do want to hopefully illustrate roughly what we could do with that, as well as acknowledge a few counter-arguments.

We make no claims that this is comprehensive, we know for a fact we left a few out, be it out of brevity, us not knowing about them, or good ol' fashioned laziness. But this is merely to illustrate just some of the YouTube videos with articles:

...Look, you get the idea. There's a lot of YouTube videos related to Mario that we have articles for, and even more that we, as of proposal, don't. This would be both a good resource for quickly finding these without having to plunder the rat's nest of Play Nintendo articles, as well as hopefully bring more attention to the videos that currently do not have articles. This list isn't even comprehensive, mind you, and the scope itself could honestly be increased to even include various promotional pieces that were hosted on YouTube for games like Wario Land: Shake It! or Super Mario Galaxy 2; though this is definitely something for a future proposal, so let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet and say we'll leave it exclusively to videos made for YouTube, by Nintendo, about Mario.

We're also hoping this could potentially instigate better preservation for these videos; already, stuff like Virus Vid is vanishing from YouTube, only existing via Twitter and unofficial re-uploads since Nintendo privated the videos after Dr. Mario World went belly-up. And on the one hand, we get it--Play Nintendo isn't exactly the zenith of Nintendo's marketing. But it also makes us a little upset knowing we might only have a limited time to cover these things, and what's more is that there's possibly even stuff we've already missed out on that's lost to time.

Addendum: As a few people have pointed out, a category may also suffice--so we've added an option for that as well. We think this'd also suffice, personally.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 4th, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support (make a YouTube disambiguation page)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) - You saw that list. We wouldn't have compiled this if we didn't feel as though there was potential for this to be a disambiguation page.

Support (make a YouTube category)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) - We think this is also fine as well, especially since as people have pointed out, there are a lot of videos that already have articles.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) If the idea is to just have all of this easily accessible from one place, a category makes more sense than a disambig that's not really a disambig.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per Waluigi Time, "disambiguation" feels like a bit of a misnomer here.
  4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  6. Tails777 (talk) This is the truest example of the phrase "Let em cook" I've ever seen. Most of those streaming services kinda felt iffy, but a category for YouTube series feels like a better idea stemming from it all. Per all.

Oppose

Comments

How would this be preferred over, say, creating a category for YouTube? What will this accomplish that Category:Videos cannot? Mario (Santa)'s map icon from Mario Kart Tour Mario-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 16:05, January 28, 2024 (EST)

...Admittedly, we didn't think much of a category, which we realize sounds very unlike us considering recent events--we promise, we had this written before a lot of the category conundrums happened! We could potentially add an option to create a category over a disambiguation page if that'd be appreciated. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 16:06, January 28, 2024 (EST)
I don't think a disambiguation page is a good idea, but I'd be pro-category. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 22:16, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Seconding this. If we were to make a disambiguation page, and then proceed to have every noteworthy Mario-related YouTube video in said page, it would be too big to not be just a category. --OmegaRuby (talk) 09:23, January 29, 2024 (EST)

I understand why a list of videos like this might be useful to have, but I don't get why it's being called a "disambiguation" here. This wouldn't be a list of things that the term YouTube could refer to, it would be a list of YouTube videos. Why not make it an article called "List of official YouTube videos" or something along those lines? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:38, January 28, 2024 (EST)

We're a little less keen on a List article, if for no other reason than a lot of the videos have unique articles; we feel like it'd be a little silly to make a full "List of" article if almost every entry would have a "Main article:" tab at the start of it, y'know? We'd understand it more if these videos didn't already have pre-established articles, but as it stands, we feel a disambiguation just works better for a page. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 16:43, January 28, 2024 (EST)
I was picturing more something like this type of list article, with a table and links to the individual pages. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:47, January 28, 2024 (EST)

I see the new option. How will Category:Videos be affected? Mario (Santa)'s map icon from Mario Kart Tour Mario-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 15:18, January 29, 2024 (EST)

...That's a category??? And we thought we had seen everything. We think there could be potential to rework "video" as a category seeing as that's such a generic term, but also considering the current state of the category as well as the state for other non-web video categories (namely film and television series), we're not sure what the best course of action is. We could maybe convert Video into something like our baseline Games category is at the moment, but we feel like that might start leaving the scope of this proposal... ~Camwoodstock (talk) 16:09, January 29, 2024 (EST)

Removals

Allow staff warnings to be appealed

See MarioWiki:Appeals

Appeals haven't been widely practiced in the wiki lately, but I think it's better to act sooner and also gauge a consensus on this. Rule 1 states: "Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator or patroller cannot be appealed." The rationale behind the rule is likely to focus on admin backrooms to discuss matters pertaining to decisions by admins and minimize drama. However, this runs squarely against the spirit of the wiki. We establish very clearly in MarioWiki:Administrators:

In general, administrators are not imbued with any special authority and are equal to everyone else in terms of editorial responsibility. Staff members' votes and opinions are given equal weight to regular users in proposals, featured article nominations, or any other democratic process or informal discussion.

This sort of rule was likely intended to prevent users from causing a scene (see a discussion questioning the validity of it) but it squarely contradicts the above statement which makes our commitment to valuing all users questionable, if not insincere. This kind of rule instead potentially stifles good faith discussion made by users to staff and might help foster distrust in staff, something that won't work well for a collaborative wiki. Additionally, MarioWiki:Appeals already requires users to keep discussions civil, so possible bad faith appeals are already covered, and lengthy exchanges are already discouraged.

People should be allowed to openly critique our performance in good faith of course (bad faith ones will still be dealt with in our MarioWiki:Courtesy; that being said, I also have my eyes set on rewriting the corresponding policies concerning "undermining admin authority" to encourage constructive criticism). If we're supposed to treat admins as equal to everyone else, at least we should invite good faith criticisms for decisions that staff has made, not make some ultimately arbitrary delineation between who gives out a warning and then also proclaim staff isn't that special.

Affected pages (if there are pages I missed, please mention; they'll likely be dealt accordingly, however, since this is a simple proposed change):

  • MarioWiki:Appeals: Rule 1 will be removed
  • MarioWiki:Administrators: "While warnings given to users by an admin or patroller cannot be appealed, [T]he other staff members additionally have the ability to overturn any unwarranted warnings or blocks if they see fit."
  • Template:Reminder: "If this reminder was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it."
    ⬇️changed to⬇️
    "If you feel this reminder was undeserved, you may appeal it."
  • Template:Warning: "If this warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it."
    ⬇️changed to⬇️
    "If you feel this warning was undeserved, you may appeal it."
  • Template:Lastwarn: "If this last warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it."
    ⬇️changed to⬇️
    "If you feel this last warning was undeserved, you may appeal it."
  • MarioWiki:Warning policy: "If you were given a warning/reminder for discourteous behavior that you feel should have only merited an unofficial notice as outlined above, you can appeal to have the template removed. However, keep in mind that excessive impolite or disruptive behavior may earn you a warning right off the bat; if the administrators feel that you should have known better than to act the way you did even without an unofficial request to stop, your warning will not be removed. You cannot appeal a warning given by an administrator or patroller; if one is deemed inappropriately given, it will be handled within the staff team accordingly."
    • Q. I don't think I deserve my warning. What should I do?
      A. If you feel you don't deserve the warning, you have the option to appeal it as long as the warning in question was not given by an administrator. When appealing warnings, it is best to do so as soon as possible.

Staff will still have the ability to overturn any warning at any notice, and bad appeals toward staff (like any bad appeal in general especially to experienced long-term users who aren't staff) will probably still be archived swiftly and hopefully without too much drama. If this kind of clarification is needed, then please do state it and I'll make the changes.

Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Mario (talk) M.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Yes, THANK YOU. After a certain recent incident, I'm also questioning the "don't give reminders to staff" rule.
  3. Koopa con Carne (talk) I honestly don't recall seeing a (formal) warning issued wrongly by an admin--if that ever happened, it was probably in the very early years of the wiki, when sysop responsibilities weren't outlined as well as today and the young'uns who achieved that position were obviously prone to mishandle it. For the past decade, the admins around here have actually performed their job quite commendably. That said, I very much agree with the principle behind this proposal that the administration shouldn't affect an air of mystique to bar regular users from questioning them; ensuring that users defer to a good conduct and a set of editing rules, a significant part of which was established by the community at large, doesn't mean that your judgement is impeccable and that your word is final.
  4. Swallow (talk) This is certainly a lot more fair.
  5. TheFlameChomp (talk) I do think this is the fairest way to handle formal reminders and warnings.
  6. Axis (talk) Per proposal.
  7. Drago (talk) Blocks can already be appealed to the rest of the staff via e-mail, so it makes sense for admin warnings to also be appealable. I do think successful appeals against admin warnings will be rare though.
  8. MegaBowser64 (talk) Well, you see, I think we should definitely make MarioWiki more equal for everyone. The people will run the wiki, everyone gets equal pay, free healthcare, etc. etc. This will be the way to achieve prosperity and happiness. It will be a people's wiki renowned all over the internet. Per all.
  9. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
  10. Ray Trace (talk) You can guess what my position is considering I was the highlighted comment in this proposal.
  11. Archivist Toadette (talk) Probably for the best, since abuse can and occasionally does happen at any level of the power hierarchy.
  12. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  13. Camwoodstock (talk) How has this not been done already??? Per all, sometimes people get misjudged and sometimes people change, so it's probably for the best we account for that rather than allow one warning to just stick around forever.
  14. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Yes, we absolutely need to do this! Just because a warning is issued by a staff member and not a regular user, it shouldn't mean that you can't appeal said warning. It wouldn't be fair at all! Per all.
  15. Hewer (talk) Per all (this rule is probably a reason why the appeal system doesn't get used much).
  16. PnnyCrygr (talk) Equality counts.
  17. YoYo (talk) any site that has a "staff have final word and you can't say anything about it" rule is always a red flag.

Oppose

Comments

Doc von Schmeltwick: The ability to give these notices to staff will probably require further discussion (this one is a bit more contentious to me). I think situations involving a staff member should be dealt with via civil criticism rather than warning/reminder templates (it's not like blocking can be really enforced on members who have blocking tools, so these warning templates toward staff have little practical use anyway; removing staff tools would require intervention by other staff ultimately). We did say the most appropriate venues for criticizing staff, usually through forum DMs or Discord DMs. You can bring it up in MarioWiki talk:Warning policy or MarioWiki talk:Courtesy. Mario (Santa)'s map icon from Mario Kart Tour Mario-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 14:20, January 27, 2024 (EST)

Koopa con Carne, Drago: Yeah I'm not expecting appeals on these decisions to be successful, since staff members already have good judgement most of the time, but I think it helps to at least signal to users that we give them a chance for a fair hearing first. There is always a chance they have a point or so which would be valuable feedback. We don't want to bar opportunity like that. Mario (Santa)'s map icon from Mario Kart Tour Mario-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 15:04, January 27, 2024 (EST)

You know, it's kinda funny: the policies keep specifying that you cannot appeal a reminder or warning given by patrollers or administrators, but for the longest time, I could've sworn that reminders and warnings could've only been given by patrollers or administrators anyway, because they have been given the authority to block you and thus should also know when someone is breaking the rules. I, at least, hadn't really noticed a time that a normal registered user has given a warning to another normal registered user before, even though the current warning policy states they can do so (a detail, I should stress, I discovered just today). ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 11:55, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Honestly their powers are more limited than you think. Warnings and reminders set a kind of record and then block is the final step. It would be easier for all of us if normal users can help advise others what rules they're breaking. I have noticed a few times normal users given out reminders and warnings, but I suppose some staff members are active really often and are keeping more dibs on other users so probably they're on the scene sooner and more frequently. Mario (Santa)'s map icon from Mario Kart Tour Mario-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 15:52, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Hewer: There actually has been like several attempts from the past couple of years, but have been removed due to rule 1.[1] Sure, they probably should've read the warning templates first before proceeding but it doesn't mean the rule itself is valid IMO. If you were the one issuing the exact same kind of warning and reminder, these cases would've been heard and decided; kind of easily shows the useless distinction. Besides, I add: it would certainly help to get second opinion of another staff member too, like another perspective, so it would still be beneficial for staff if we removed Rule 1. Mario (Santa)'s map icon from Mario Kart Tour Mario-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 15:52, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Changes

Broaden the scope of the {{promo-photo}} template

Currently, the licensing template used for photographs uploaded to the wiki is Template:Promo-photo, henceforth referred to as {{promo-photo}}. All photographs uploaded to the wiki are listed under the template's corresponding category, Category:Promotional photos. This template is supposedly only meant to be used for publicity photos "known to have come from a press kit"; however, a lot of the photos in this category, most commonly images of merchandise, were taken by ordinary people who have no relation to a formal organization for news or media distribution; to put it simply, many images with this template don't come from a press kit.

I'm convinced that {{promo-photo}} is simply the equivalent of Wikipedia's Template:Non-free promotional, which went largely unchanged when it was copied to the Super Mario Wiki. However, the wikis are significantly different in their media policies: Wikipedia is far more strict on usage of copyrighted media than this wiki, which is centered around a copyrighted franchise. More importantly, it just doesn't feel right that {{promo-photo}}'s description doesn't match the majority of images which use it. I was originally thinking of creating a separate template to address this, but I realized that the issue could be entirely solved without needing to update the template used by hundreds of photos: instead, just change the description of the existing template to more accurately describe the images which use it.

This is what the {{promo-photo}} template currently looks like: 

{| class="notice-template copyright"
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is '''known to have come from a press kit''' or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
|}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
Copyrighted promotional photo This work is a copyrighted publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the person, product, or event in question, in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

If this proposal passes, this is what the template would be changed to: 

{| class="notice-template copyright"
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' photograph of a person, product, or event that either '''originates from a press kit''' or similar source for the purpose of reuse by the media, or otherwise '''illustrates a copyrighted work'''. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
|}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
Copyrighted promotional photo This work is a copyrighted photograph of a person, product, or event that either originates from a press kit or similar source for the purpose of reuse by the media, or otherwise illustrates a copyrighted work. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the person, product, or event in question, in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

This description would be substantially broad enough so that the template could continue being used for photos of copyrighted merchandise, as well as photos illustrating miscellaneous copyrighted works that cannot be categorized by other templates, such as this statue of Mario (which is not a product, as it was never for sale), all while describing the content of the images truthfully. Please feel free to comment if you have a better idea for a new description for the template.

Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk)
Deadline: February 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Mario (talk) I like this idea.
  2. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.
  3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  4. LadySophie17 (talk) I've wanted something like this for years.
  5. Hewer (talk) This is more accurate, per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

Don't forget the parameters of you starting the proposal and putting a deadline for it. Mario (Santa)'s map icon from Mario Kart Tour Mario-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 19:38, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Anyway I use promotional photo for some merchandise images because the recent images are official stock photos meant to be put in online storefronts or in catalogues and whatnot, e.g. "promoted". I wasn't aware there was supposed to be a stricter definition applied to it. Mario (Santa)'s map icon from Mario Kart Tour Mario-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 19:40, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Those types of official stock photos do fall under the current description from the template, and in my opinion, they should be used whenever possible; however, take a look at Category:Merchandise images. There's a distinction between promotional photos displayed on online storefronts that have the license to sell the product displayed (such as this photo of a Mario plush), versus a photo of no official capacity taken in someone's house (such as this photo). Sometimes the latter is necessary to use because the former doesn't exist, which is why the aim of the proposal is to broaden the template so it can cover both official and unofficial merchandise photos. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 21:41, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Decide how to format the {{cite}} template and update citation guidelines accordingly

Now that this proposal has instated the creation of a single {{cite}} template for citations, it's time to decide how this template should be formatted.

In my opinion, for this citation template to be the most effective and convenient for users, it should match existing policy on the MarioWiki:Citations page as closely as possible. This is for two reasons:

  • The first reason is to avoid misguided claims of the template including excessive amounts of detail, leading to a feeling that an overly complicated format is being forced onto users.
  • The second reason is so that currently existing citations can remain as they are, without the templates needing to be retroactively applied to them.

Remember, the goal of this template in the first place is to make it more convenient for users to follow citation guidelines. That being said, to do so requires that such guidelines are outlined clearly, and the current state of the MarioWiki:Citations page is highly ambiguous in some places. For example, one significant issue I have with the page is that the first citation of a physical book (which is supposedly from the Super Mario Sunshine manual) is completely different from the later citation of a Super Mario RPG guidebook:

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisici elit, sed eiusmod tempor incidunt ..." ~ Super Mario Sunshine manual, page 9.

Miller, K. 1996. Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide, pg 13.

I see this template as an opportunity to clarify these inconsistenties once and for all, so if this proposal passes, I'm imposing the condition that not only should the MarioWiki:Citations page be updated to include an explanation on how to use the {{cite}} template, but all of the citation examples on that page should be updated to fit the format described below, for consistency's sake.

Here's exactly what I think the templates should look like in MediaWiki code, as well as descriptions of each of the parameters: 

{{cite
| author      =
| date        =
| title       =
| publisher   =
| isbn        =
| page        =
| accessdate  =
| quote       =
| archive	  =
| archivedate =
}}

Parameters for all citations:
These parameters should always be included whenever possible.

  • Author: The full name in (Lastname, Firstname) format or the username of whoever wrote the content of the source. Separate fields for the author's first name and last name are too confusing, since users could easily fill out the template as (Firstname, Lastname) by accident, not to mention the exceptions of a username or if the author is a collective (e.g. the author of an article is listed only as "Nintendo").
  • Date: The date the book or page was published, e.g. "January 1, 2000".
    • If the format "YYYY-MM-DD" is entered, it should be automatically converted to the preceding format, but typing plain text should also work.
  • Title: The title of the source. If citing a web page, this field should also be a link to the page itself.
  • Publisher: The publisher of the book, or the website on which the web page was found.

Parameters for a specific citation type:

  • ISBN: For physical books only, the ISBN of the book.
  • Page: For physical books only, the page number on which the citation was found.
    • Formatted as a number in code, but should be displayed in plain English, i.e. "Page 12.", for simplicity.
  • Access date: For web pages only, the date at which the source was accessed, e.g. "January 1, 2000". This is to preserve the state of the web page at that time, since unlike physical media, web pages can change at any point.

Optional parameters:
These parameters should only be included if relevant to the citation.

  • Quote: A brief excerpt from the book or web page providing more context to the citation. Using quotes should be encouraged because it allows readers to see evidence behind a claim quickly and directly on the wiki itself, rather than needing to seek out the evidence in question in order to prove that it has not been fabricated.
    • I chose to use "–" to separate the quote and the rest of the citation, since I have never seen any quote citation on the wiki use the tilde (~), as is supposedly recommended by guidelines. If there is evidence to support using a different symbol, please let me know in the comments.
    • Also, I was originally under the impression that the excerpted text in the quote should be italicized, but that is seemingly not the case in e.g. the MLA style guide, so currently, the quoted text remains un-italicized. Again, please comment if you disagree.
  • Archive: A link to a web archive of an online source. Must also include the "archive date" field if used.
    • The beginning of the URL should be automatically analyzed to determine which web archive was used (Wayback Machine or archive.today), and accordingly append the archived link with either "via Wayback Machine" or "via archive.today", respectively.
  • Archive date: The date at which the URL was archived.
    • If given in the same format as a Wayback Machine URL (e.g. "20210309100159") or the string of text in the top right corner of an archive.today page (e.g. "13 Aug 2022 13:51:45 UTC"), it should automatically be converted to the correct format, and it should stay that way in wiki code after the page is saved, like the timestamp template ("~~~~").

Here is what the citations on MarioWiki:Citations should look like, with the template code followed by what is displayed on the page (note that an advantage of using a template is that as long as the parameter names are specified, they can be typed in any order): 

{{cite
|date=August 26, 2002
|title=''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'' North American instruction booklet
|publisher=Nintendo
|page=7
|quote=It's up to Mario to clean up the mess on Isle Delfino, solve puzzles, and defeat enemies in order to gather the scattered Shine Sprites.}}

"It's up to Mario to clean up the mess on Isle Delfino, solve puzzles, and defeat enemies in order to gather the scattered Shine Sprites." – (August 26, 2002). Super Mario Sunshine North American instruction booklet. Nintendo. Page 7.

(Note: I updated this specific citation to an actual, verifiable quote from the text, because the irony of using a fabricated quote for citation guidelines doesn't sit right with me.) 

{{cite
|author=Campbell, Evan
|date=July 17, 2014
|title=[http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/17/the-cat-mario-show-announced The Cat Mario Show Announced]
|publisher=IGN
|accessdate=July 22, 2014}}

Campbell, Evan (July 17, 2014). The Cat Mario Show Announced. IGN. Retrieved July 22, 2014.

{{cite
|author=Nintendo
|date=January 14, 2015
|title=[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L69Z39bgdU4 Wii U - Mario Party 10 Trailer]
|publisher=YouTube
|accessdate=April 26, 2015}}

Nintendo (January 14, 2015). Wii U - Mario Party 10 Trailer. YouTube. Retrieved April 26, 2015.

{{cite
|title=[http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Smash Bros. DOJO!!]
|publisher=Nintendo
|accessdate=June 14, 2010}}

Smash Bros. DOJO!!. Nintendo. Retrieved June 14, 2010.

{{cite
|author=Nintendo
|date=1985
|title=[https://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf ''Super Mario Bros.'' Instruction Booklet
|accessdate=July 28, 2021
|archive=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309100159/http://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf
|archivedate=20210309100159}}

Nintendo (1985). Super Mario Bros. Instruction Booklet. Retrieved July 8, 2021. (Archived March 9, 2021, 10:01:59 UTC via Wayback Machine.)

{{cite
|author=Miller, Kent
|date=1996
|title=''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide''
|page=13}}

Miller, Kent (1996). Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide. Page 13.

Here is what a citation that uses the ISBN parameter would look like, with the ISBN placed in between the publisher and the page number, in order to distinguish the book uniquely before stating the page number within that book: 

{{cite
|author=Wessel, Craig
|title=''Warioland 4''
|publisher=Scholastic
|isbn=0-439-36711-5
|page=63
|quote=I hate sand, but what I hate even more was that there was no treasure in sight!}}

"I hate sand, but what I hate even more was that there was no treasure in sight!" – Wessel, Craig. Warioland 4. Scholastic. ISBN 0-439-36711-5. Page 63.

I can think of one exception where standardized formatting beyond this may or may not be optimal, that being citing Twitter / X posts, but that warrants its own proposal; I have such a proposal in the works, but I'll only release it after a consensus is reached here.

When actually using this template in an article, it should be included within the <ref></ref> tags, to ensure that naming the references works as always per the "How to add references" section of the citation guidelines.

Finally, I want to conclude by emphasizing that this is not a required template; it's simply a method of making citations easier and more standardized. If this proposal passes, a disclaimer should be added to MarioWiki:Citations stating that using the {{cite}} template is encouraged, but not required, and if a citation is better expressed without the template, then just manually typing something within the <ref> tags is completely okay.

Please feel free to comment on this proposal if you have any recommendations of your own.

EDIT: Per Super Mario RPG's recommendation, added the ISBN parameter.

Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk)
Deadline: February 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Yes, thank you for making this follow-up proposal.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Mario (talk) I like this idea!

Oppose

Comments

I know it may seem unnecessary, but can an ISBN be added as an (obviously optional) parameter to the template? Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:10, January 29, 2024 (EST)

As an optional parameter, it sounds perfectly applicable - I've added it to the proposal. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 08:34, January 29, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4127899"