MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/48: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(Archiving) |
||
Line 234: | Line 234: | ||
For a related topic, I have been thinking about the 7-day proposal and 14-day TPP should either be all 7 or 14 days for any proposal. Is there any benefit to having this time rule as we currently have it? --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 13:38, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | For a related topic, I have been thinking about the 7-day proposal and 14-day TPP should either be all 7 or 14 days for any proposal. Is there any benefit to having this time rule as we currently have it? --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 13:38, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
:I think that this was discussed at some point in the past, but I can't seem to find any trace of it... At the very least, it's one of those rules that's been around [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_18#Rules_and_Regulations_for_Specific-Article_Proposals|for a long time]] and nobody has really bothered to question it. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | :I think that this was discussed at some point in the past, but I can't seem to find any trace of it... At the very least, it's one of those rules that's been around [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_18#Rules_and_Regulations_for_Specific-Article_Proposals|for a long time]] and nobody has really bothered to question it. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
===Officially repeal the "no support reason" Featured Article nomination rule=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0|repeal}} | |||
The current rule regarding support votes in [[MarioWiki:Featured articles|our featured articles guidelines]] goes something like this: | |||
"Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes. Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination. '''If you support, simply sign with your name, without adding a reason (unless you are the first supporter and thus the nominator).'''" | |||
I used to enforce this rule, removing support reasons whenever I come across them, but now, I currently don't, because I've been thinking, seriously, what's the point of spending effort counter-productively removing reasons for support any more, even if the said support vote is ''actually constructive towards the article'' and not merely a fan vote as it once was? [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Featured_articles/N1/Boo&oldid=680671 Fan votes used to be a particular problem in the past], but today, they are not as much as a problem as they once had them, so bending backwards to remove something....doesn't change anything at all and it wastes time expending effort that could go to something far more productive. The rule is also incredibly inconsistent to every other time we vote in MarioWiki, making this one of the reasons that removing support vote reasons used to be a frequent because the rule is convoluted and confusing to new users of MarioWiki and thus make the mistake constantly. | |||
Hell, at this point, with me refusing to enforce this rule any more, it seems like no one else even enforces this terrible rule too, so now, I'd like to officially get rid of that parameter from our Featured Article ruleset once and for all, because there's no point to having a rule that no one wants to enforce and this would free up time for users doing other more productive edits, and this is especially true for support votes that actually do say something useful or actually praise editors for their hard work, which would encourage them to work harder and happier. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Baby Luigi}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': September 20, 2017, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} | |||
#{{User|Owencrazyboy9}} Heck, even I support featured articles with a reason. Per Baby Luigi's reasoning. | |||
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} ''Why'' is that even a rule? | |||
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} This rule is outright broken. It overcomplicates the voting process '''''and''''' has no clear reason for its inclusion. Heck, it might even defeat the very ''purpose'' of FAs, for the very reasons Baby Luigi mentioned. If fan votes ever do become a problem again, we can just scratch them out, since the "removal of opposes" rule didn't exist before the aforementioned proposal, so, in other words, per proposal! | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Giving a reason for the support is definitely nice and actually tends to prevent otherwise unseen fan votes since it "exposes" them, in my opinion. | |||
#{{User|Camwood777}} - This feels pretty obvious at this point. | |||
#{{User|Alex95}} - Sure, per all. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
@Doc von Schmeltwick: I can try to explain. A lot of support reasons back in 2008-2009 used to be nothing more than "I like this guy he should be featured", so it had to be decided somewhere that they wanted to remove the reasons....because...it would...clutter...less space...and it would ... er...discourage fan voters..? I honestly don't see the logic here at all, in hindsight today. What gets accomplished here? Nothing? Just removal of words. That's it. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 14:58, 13 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
:That logic makes the defining premise behind the movie make sense by comparison. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:33, 13 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
::I think part of it was that almost everyone, in essence, was just saying "Per the first guy who already wrote about why the article's good," and they got rid of the support reasons to eliminate the redundancy. This also prevents people from including anything that the nominator missed and allows people to support nominations for entirely personal reasons, so I'm all for requiring support reasons. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 16:38, 13 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
:@Baby Luigi: I think you accidentally forgot to provide the "Per proposal" reason with your vote. Could you do that please? Thanks! {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 19:17, 13 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
::tbh, I don't think it's necessary, since I'm the original proposer so you kinda know what my intents are. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 00:44, 14 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::Eh, the rules say that every vote needs a strong reason. It's not necessary here, but it's useful for, say, proposals with multiple options. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 12:30, 14 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
::::You know, I've been thinking. Why exactly do we need a strong reason for voting in the first place? A vote is a vote. It has the same power regardless if there's a paragraph attached to it or if it contains only two words. Hell, the usage of "Per all" pretty much circumvents the "strong reason" rule most of the time it's used, sometimes even as veil to hide laziness or going with the popular side. I mean, fishing for votes is already strongly discouraged in the first place, so it's not like we can easily rig votes in our favor and if there is malicious intent, that's why we have admins (people can also rig proposals and circumvent things with "per all" too, but at least people aren't terrible enough for this to be a huge problem in this wiki). {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 18:02, 16 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::::I think it's just a catch-all clause to prevent people from giving insane or nonsensical reasons for voting. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 18:09, 16 September 2017 (EDT) |
Revision as of 20:29, September 20, 2017
Is it "Coin" or "coin"?Template:ProposalOutcome Currently, the wiki has no set standard for the capitalization of the golden that Mario and co. collect in abundance across the franchise: is it "Coin", with a capital C, or "coin", with a lowercase c? This isn't entirely clear-cut: from the games that I've looked at, there are many that do not capitalize it, including most recently Mario Party 8, Sm4sh, and New Super Mario Bros. 2, but there are also other games that capitalize it, including New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Mario Party, and there's something odd and inconsistent about listing the Red Coin, the Purple Coin, the Blue Coin, the 20 Coin, the Key Coin, and many others as being derivatives of the coin. That lowercase "coin" seems out of place, doesn't it? Lowercasing it just because it's a generic noun doesn't hold either; the Mushroom is plainly and consistently capitalized in just about every circumstances. If you're going to say it's because the Mario Mushrooms obviously aren't like the real-life mushrooms, then I'd argue the same goes for the floating, golden, abundant Coins. There is a precedent for not capitalizing the names of subjects with, for example, treasure chest (despite there being at least one in-game source that capitalizes them, but that's an issue for another time), but it's a moot point if the subject isn't generic in the first place. This may seem like a trivially minor issue, but at the same time, this is an issue that has yet to reach a decisive conclusion. I fail to see a reason why we shouldn't strive for consistency, especially since we've already had a proposal to decide on a set spelling for minigame (spoilers: we decided on minigame). Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Use "Coin"
Use "coin"
Do nothing
CommentsIf anyone has any more in-game citations for "Coin" or "coin" from any games that haven't been mentioned, then I'm all-ears. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:16, 26 August 2017 (EDT) @Toadette: I don't see why we should be inconsistent solely because the games also happen to be inconsistent. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:47, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
I say this is as official as you can get. Although, this could be on a game to game basis. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2017 (EDT) @Doc: Why? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 02:54, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
I don't get what's acceptable about setting a standard for "microgame" but not for "coin"? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 17:14, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
Include the date a proposal was withdrawn within the proposal (when applicable)Template:ProposalOutcome When it comes to the proposal archives, in which we write down the date each proposal ended, it's standard to use the date a proposal was canceled by its proposer or withdrawn for whatever other reason, rather than the proposed deadline (as documented here). This makes sense: it wouldn't be accurate to say that a proposal had concluded a week later than it actually did, and the point of the archives is that we're documenting each proposal exactly as they played out (which is why we make note of proposals that themselves failed but whose proposed changes later passed, and vice-versa). With that in mind, why do we only make note of this in the broad archives and not within the proposals itself? Sure, it's possible to find the date it was canceled by going through the page's history, in the same way it's also possible to find the original proposer through the history page, but we still make note of it within the proposal itself. Leaving only the proposed deadline by itself is also rather misleading and non-informative, considering that any users reading through the proposal wouldn't be able to obviously tell when it actually closed. Even with the proposal outcome saying it was canceled, that doesn't help people find out when it was canceled. We should strive for accuracy, especially when all we'd need to do is make note of one more date. The changes I have in mind would only be applicable to proposals that were canceled before their deadline, obviously. First of all, the Deadline section would be renamed to Proposed Deadline, with no changes to the date. Secondly, a section called Date Withdrawn would be placed underneath the Deadline, documenting exactly when the proposal was canceled. Ideally, this would include the time in GMT to match the Deadline, but for simplicity's sake, this proposal will only ask that the day needs to be documented and not the time. The details may be subject to change through future discussions, but the main change is clear: within the proposals, document when they were canceled. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsShould this apply to all cancelled proposals regardless, or all proposals cancelled after September 9? (T|C) 13:46, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
On that note, my plan also involves editing the proposal archives, which I can't actually do since they're protected. Should this proposal pass, the pages' protection restrictions can be temporarily lifted so that I can make the necessary changes, or an admin can make the edits themselves, whichever works best. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 15:23, 3 September 2017 (EDT) Remove letter-number labeling from Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon mission article titlesTemplate:ProposalOutcome Currently, our articles for the missions from Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon include the letter-number labels in their titles (e.g. A-1: Poltergust 5000, A-2: Gear Up, B-1: A Job for a Plumber). Why? We don't do this for New Super Mario Bros. U, Super Mario 3D World, Paper Mario: Sticker Star, or any other game with world-level labeling where the levels also have proper names. I don't see a single reason for this one game to be the sole exception to this. It's just a blatant, glaring inconsistency. Proposer: 7feetunder (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Alex95: No they aren't. The letter-number labels are colored differently than the mission title, and the results screens omit the labels entirely. 16:44, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
It doesn't matter anyway. The levels aren't named Poltergust 5000 or Gear Up or etc, they're named A-1: Poltergust 5000, A-2: Gear Up, etc. It's their official name, and we always use the complete, official name of something. Your proposal is gonna go against that. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2017 (EDT) @7feetunder: Okay, so I played a level. The identifier is just that, an identifier. It also does show at the results screen. They aren't part of the title, but it would be helpful to have these identifiers should something else with the same name show up, like Poltergust 5000 or Sticky Situation. Though the same could be said about adding the identifiers to the other mentioned games... 17:23, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
I ultimately got tired of relying on videos and just whipped out my copy of the game, and here's what I confirmed:
@Doc: By that same token, Road to the Big Windmill isn't called "Episode 1: Road to the Big Windmill". Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:21, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
Add categories for images of charactersTemplate:ProposalOutcome Currently, if one wants to find all the images of a certain character on the wiki, there is no easy way to do so. While galleries might just have all images of a character, it must be remembered that certain images have specific purposes, such as showing a specific animation, showing the personality of a character through poses and lines of dialogue or showing certain features of the physical appearance such as the eyelids . Including all these images without context would likely make the galleries bloated. A simple solution at the moment might be creating categories of images of characters to be added to the images themselves, of the format [[Category:{character} Images]]. With proper maintenance, doing so would allow, in the longer term, to see all images of a character on the wiki, allowing easier maintenance as well as retrieval of images that might have a second purpose on the wiki beyond the original one they were uploaded for, all this without creating bloat on the galleries. Proposer: Mister Wu (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsHow would group images be handled? And would this include literally every image of the character - artwork, sprites, screenshots, et al.? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 16:50, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
I don't get it. What's wrong with the galleries? Yeah, some might be rather large to look through, but categorizing an image based on character would be pretty much the same thing as sticking it in a gallery. Seems redundant to me. Additionally, categories are alphabetized, and some images may not be named based on their relevance. Galleries, however, are sorted based on the type of image, from artwork to sprites to screenshots. Sure, categories show 200 images at a time, which makes loading times easier, but galleries are sorted in a way that makes navigation easier. 13:16, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
I'm on the fence, personally... I don't think it'd be a horrible idea, it'd just take a LOT of weeding out specifics to make it work, and gallery might be used more frequently. ~Camwood777 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2017 (EDT) Also, putting ALL characters will never end, I think only in major characters, minor characters should be out of this category. LED42™ (talk – edits) 13:42, 16 September 2017 (EDT) Double the amount of time a proposer can edit their talk page proposalsTemplate:ProposalOutcome Because talk page proposals are less visible than regular proposals, they are given an extra week for discussion. I'm not going to argue against that; though smaller issues occasionally go on for too long, the extra time is invaluable for when large changes are being discussed. With that in mind, why can they only be edited within three days of the proposal's creation, the same amount of time as a regular proposal? So, we want to give people more time to discuss proposals, but we don't want to give the proposers more time to acknowledge the discussion and make changes as needed? There's a clear discrepancy here. I propose to double the amount of time a proposer can change, delete, or otherwise edit their proposals on talk pages, from three days to six. This lines up with the doubled amount of time they take in the first place. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Support
OpposeComments"Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if each voting option has fewer than five votes." (Closed means the same as delete.) So are you proposing to double this to ten votes too? Because closing date is not dependent on the number of days passed for TPPs. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
@Drago: It's tempting, but I'd rather that it's exactly equivalent to the main proposals. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 13:14, 12 September 2017 (EDT) The problem I'm having with this is that new information can show at any time, even at the final day of the proposal. In which case, a new proposal would be created when able to. There's also the option of getting an admin to cancel the proposal so the new information can be taken into account without actually going through with the current proposal. 13:20, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
For a related topic, I have been thinking about the 7-day proposal and 14-day TPP should either be all 7 or 14 days for any proposal. Is there any benefit to having this time rule as we currently have it? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 13:38, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
Officially repeal the "no support reason" Featured Article nomination ruleTemplate:ProposalOutcome The current rule regarding support votes in our featured articles guidelines goes something like this: "Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes. Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination. If you support, simply sign with your name, without adding a reason (unless you are the first supporter and thus the nominator)." I used to enforce this rule, removing support reasons whenever I come across them, but now, I currently don't, because I've been thinking, seriously, what's the point of spending effort counter-productively removing reasons for support any more, even if the said support vote is actually constructive towards the article and not merely a fan vote as it once was? Fan votes used to be a particular problem in the past, but today, they are not as much as a problem as they once had them, so bending backwards to remove something....doesn't change anything at all and it wastes time expending effort that could go to something far more productive. The rule is also incredibly inconsistent to every other time we vote in MarioWiki, making this one of the reasons that removing support vote reasons used to be a frequent because the rule is convoluted and confusing to new users of MarioWiki and thus make the mistake constantly. Hell, at this point, with me refusing to enforce this rule any more, it seems like no one else even enforces this terrible rule too, so now, I'd like to officially get rid of that parameter from our Featured Article ruleset once and for all, because there's no point to having a rule that no one wants to enforce and this would free up time for users doing other more productive edits, and this is especially true for support votes that actually do say something useful or actually praise editors for their hard work, which would encourage them to work harder and happier. Proposer: Baby Luigi (talk) Support
OpposeComments@Doc von Schmeltwick: I can try to explain. A lot of support reasons back in 2008-2009 used to be nothing more than "I like this guy he should be featured", so it had to be decided somewhere that they wanted to remove the reasons....because...it would...clutter...less space...and it would ... er...discourage fan voters..? I honestly don't see the logic here at all, in hindsight today. What gets accomplished here? Nothing? Just removal of words. That's it. Ray Trace(T|C) 14:58, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
|