Update the proposal archives

Status
Not open for further replies.

Walkazo

Thou liest!
Wiki Bureaucrat
As discussed here (MarioWiki_talk:Proposals#Proposal_Archives), there have been plans to improve the system we use to archive proposals for years, however they've never fallen through. This changes now.

As you can see, MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive ("MW:P/A" for short) has changed from simply being the latest depository of passed proposals to a directory of all proposals, taking the form of massive colour-coded tables divided by year and made up of countless iterations of this template (Template:PArchive). From now on, when you archive a proposal, you simply put it on the latest numbered archive (right now, that's MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_33) as you would have put it on MW:P/A; when the archive hits 20 entries, a new archive will be created (i.e. Archive 34), and both the directory at the top of MW:P/A and MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_Template will be updated to have the new link. You'll also notice that Archive 33 has "{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template|current=yes}}" at the top, while all the other archives are missing the "current=yes" bit; this slightly changes the wording of the template at the top of the page, and when Archive 33 is replaced by Archive 34, the "current" line must be removed form 33 and included in 34's archive template.

Hopefully this system will prove straightforward and easy to use. The instructions on how to use the templates in the blocks are on the template page itself (Template:PArchive), but if you're still not sure, the easiest thing to do would be to watch another user archive a proposal and copy them. As for the slightly more complex process of switching the current archive (i.e. going from 33 to 34), this will probably be done by admins more often than not (we have to be the ones to update "MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_Template" and protect the old archive anyway) so it's not something most folks have to worry about, but hopefully the explanation is easy enough to follow for everyone anyway. If you have any questions, by all means, ask away.


Now, this new system is all well and great, but it will take some effort to implement, since we have a lot of old proposals. Last time the admins looked at upgrading the archive system (late 2011 / early 2012), Knife coded all the proposals up until mid-2009. Before that, RAP coded everything until mid-2010, however when RAP was doing it, the plan was to make separate pages for each proposal, and since then we've decided against doing that (all the pages that have been created will be deleted after the more pressing task of updating MW:P/A has been completed); the coding used in the template was also different then than it is now, so all those entries need to be updated.

I plan to pick up where Knife left off and finish the 2009 archives; Glowsquid has already started on the 2013 proposals. However this is by no means an admin-only project: anyone can feel free to give us a hand and code some proposals. Just post here and say which archives you're about to do (i.e. "I'll code everything on Archive 27", etc.), to make sure no one doubles up. Also, if you do a block that's not right before or after another block of archives that's already been done, leave a blank (i.e. if you do Archive 27 and Archive 29 is the next block that's been done, leave a blank between your block and the next group of templates). Also, unless you're working from the start of a year, leave the number field as "#": the actual number can be added later.

Again, if you have any questions, just ask.
 
So which is the earliest archive that hasn't been done?
 
I added the remainder of the 2013 stuff, but I'm having trouble linking to #35.
 
Orphaned proposals can just be stuffed into whatever archive they should have been in all along. It won't be the end of the world if the odd archive has 21 proposals instead of 20.

Hobbes said:
Another question. For proposals with two or more proposers, what should we do?
Put down the primary proposer, I guess. Like in science writing.

Glowsquid said:
I added the remainder of the 2013 stuff, but I'm having trouble linking to #35.
I used an anchor to get around the screwy formatting.

Time Turner said:
I've been working on updating the proposals that RAP didn't code to today's rules.
I already said I'm doing 2009, and Tucayo's doing 2010 up until whatever's in Archive 19.

Everyone needs to pay attention to what others are doing or edit conflicts are going to get in the way.
 
I could help with the 2012 proposals; is that okay? I have a bunch of time in my hands.
 
Ah thanks for bringing this back to light. To be honest, I had pretty much given up on doing this since it was so tedious.


I was also trying to overcome one problem in regards to users who color-blind/color-impaired. I was thinking about adding a text indicator about the result of the proposal and use the color as a supplement, but doing so would require a whole lot of double working. The right side of the template has a lot of empty space and a small abbreviation could be used to indicate the result (such as PE for Passed and Enforced). If you all don't think this is a big deal, then we can ignore it.


I don't intend on coming back to work on this, however I will be watching this thread if anyone has any questions, especially regarding the way I archived.


For those of you who are participating in the project and are confused about whether a proposal is currently enforced or not, you should just ask here to make sure. Some proposals have passed, but only not all of proposed changes have gone through. Likewise, some proposals have failed, but some proposed changes went into effect anyway.


You might also be confused on what is considered a passed proposal and what is a failed proposal. The proposer's position does not matter when it comes to classifying these.


A passed proposal is when a change is made as a result regardless of the proposer's position. For example, a proposal that proposes consistency in article organization one way or the other is will always be considered passed (though not necessarily currently enforced).


A failed proposal is whenever a decision has been made to keep everything exactly the same, as if the proposal made no impact at all.


Regarding the date: For the sake of simplicity, always use the deadline date listed in the proposal, even if the proposal was removed/withdrawn earlier than that. You don't want to waste time looking at the recent changes for when exactly the proposal ended. The general timeframe is accurate enough.
 
I still say you're worrying too much about the colour-blindness: my colour-blind dad could tell all the colours apart just fine when I made him look at the old drafts, after all. And if someone really can't see, they can just go to the archived proposal itself to check - it's still way more convenient than having to take stabs in the dark in guessing which archive might hold the proposal you're looking for. Symbols would just clutter up the tables. The system we have now is great; let's not muck around with it.

We shouldn't use the planned deadline for proposals that were closed early because then the dates and the order in which the proposals appear in the archives (and in the numbered charts) will disagree, and this could cause confusion. We can use the deadlines in the meantime, but eventually we should aim to get the proper dates.
 
I'll do 2011. Shouldn't that be added before 2012?
 
It doesn't matter.

However, be aware that this takes a lot of time. It'd be wiser to only call dibs on a couple archives at a time, rather than pledging to do a whole year. That way, others can get in on the editing too, and the page can be completed faster.
 
Just wondering: shouldn't we move" MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive" to "MarioWiki:Proposals/Archives"?
 
Why? It works perfectly fine as it is now. Besides, virtually all archives are in the singular form: it's better to stay consistent, even if we're using this archive a different way. All in all, it just seems like it'd be an unnecessary move: don't fix what isn't broken.
 
My point was that, since it's a list of archives, it should be in the plural form. And we can enhance what isn't broken, right? :p
 
I have a question: what about proposals with more than two options?
 
They can be treated as separate proposals in the table: I came across a couple like that in the stuff RAP did back in the day, and it seemed to be effective. For example, #126 and #127 of the 2009 proposals both link here (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_18#Rules_and_Regulations_for_Specific-Article_Proposals) - a proposal with two verdict lines. (Regular multi-option proposals that still end in one decision being made can just be treated like normal two-option proposals.)


Banon said:
My point was that, since it's a list of archives, it should be in the plural form. And we can enhance what isn't broken, right? :p
I'd actually argue that it's the archive of the archived proposals. If it was just a list of the archive subpages, I'd agree that maybe plural would be better (although I stand by my consistency point), but MW:P/A is an archive in and of itself.
 
Okay, I'm unsure of what to do in the case of these (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_30#The_Redirects_to_Trophy_and_its_subpages) proposals (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_30#The_Redirects_to_Trophy_and_its_subpages_2). It has three options: "Create Redirects", "Delete Redirects" and "Do Nothing". It was classified as a No Quorum because it only had three votes, and it was re-proposed a few days later with the same options; this time, the "Delete Redirects" option won. What should I do in this case?
 
Wow, now applying it with wiki collaboration does wonders. It really gets users to work together and finish it. Thanks Walkazo for making this happen.

Suggested changes on the proposal entry template:
  • Add a way for color blind users to distinguish proposal templates by adding symbols (particularly Mario icons). I know User:Stooben Rooben is a color-blind user. Welp, didn't bother to read the discussions regarding this, disregard this entry.
  • Space the info within the entries out. I actually tried experimenting and hacking my way to make that work back in 2010, but failed to execute that correctly. Here's the mockup what the proposal entry is supposed to look like and when there are a set of entries: User:RAP/test5 Compare my test page to the current template, and it doesn't look very good in comparison to the mockup.
  • Soften the following colors: red, green, yellow, purple, and orange. I felt it was too bright to look at and doesn't look good as a result.
 
ThePremiumYoshi said:
Okay, I'm unsure of what to do in the case of these (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_30#The_Redirects_to_Trophy_and_its_subpages) proposals (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_30#The_Redirects_to_Trophy_and_its_subpages_2). It has three options: "Create Redirects", "Delete Redirects" and "Do Nothing". It was classified as a No Quorum because it only had three votes, and it was re-proposed a few days later with the same options; this time, the "Delete Redirects" option won. What should I do in this case?
First one is No Quorum (orange), second one is Failed (red) :)
 
Hobbes said:
ThePremiumYoshi said:
Okay, I'm unsure of what to do in the case of these (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_30#The_Redirects_to_Trophy_and_its_subpages) proposals (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_30#The_Redirects_to_Trophy_and_its_subpages_2). It has three options: "Create Redirects", "Delete Redirects" and "Do Nothing". It was classified as a No Quorum because it only had three votes, and it was re-proposed a few days later with the same options; this time, the "Delete Redirects" option won. What should I do in this case?
First one is No Quorum (orange), second one is Failed (red) :)
Wait, but the second one was proposing to delete redirects in the proposal itself. How did it fail...?
 
Morgan said:
Hobbes said:
ThePremiumYoshi said:
Okay, I'm unsure of what to do in the case of these (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_30#The_Redirects_to_Trophy_and_its_subpages) proposals (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_30#The_Redirects_to_Trophy_and_its_subpages_2). It has three options: "Create Redirects", "Delete Redirects" and "Do Nothing". It was classified as a No Quorum because it only had three votes, and it was re-proposed a few days later with the same options; this time, the "Delete Redirects" option won. What should I do in this case?
First one is No Quorum (orange), second one is Failed (red) :)
Wait, but the second one was proposing to delete redirects in the proposal itself. How did it fail...?
I derped. It's Passed and Enforced (green)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back