MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/41: Difference between revisions
(Archiving) |
m (Text replacement - "[[List of special moves|" to "[[List of moves|") |
||
(31 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template | {{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}} | ||
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | <div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | ||
===Block on wiki = block on forum=== | ===Block on wiki = block on forum=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|vetoed|The wiki administration and forum administration operate independently of each other and have different rules which are not mutually applicable. A ban on the wiki does not equate to a ban on the forum unless the user has broken the rules on both venues and vice versa.}} | |||
(not sure if this belongs in Changes or Miscellaneous; please move if necessary)<br> | (not sure if this belongs in Changes or Miscellaneous; please move if necessary)<br> | ||
Normally, when a user gets blocked on the wiki, nothing happens to their forum account if they have one. Now that most people have both wiki and forum accounts, it should be considered that if a user does something stupid that gets him/her blocked on the wiki, he/she might go straight to the forum and complain about it (which isn't allowed), or do the same thing he/she did on the wiki in the forum, so therefore maybe this policy should be introduced. | Normally, when a user gets blocked on the wiki, nothing happens to their forum account if they have one. Now that most people have both wiki and forum accounts, it should be considered that if a user does something stupid that gets him/her blocked on the wiki, he/she might go straight to the forum and complain about it (which isn't allowed), or do the same thing he/she did on the wiki in the forum, so therefore maybe this policy should be introduced. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Lord Bowser}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Lord Bowser}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': August 10, 2013, 23:59 GMT. | '''Proposed Deadline''': August 10, 2013, 23:59 GMT.<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' August 4, 2014, 03:29 GMT | |||
====Ban on both only when permabanned on wiki==== | ====Ban on both only when permabanned on wiki==== | ||
Line 37: | Line 36: | ||
===Allow the upload of voice clips=== | ===Allow the upload of voice clips=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|14-0|allow}} | |||
So, I am a bit busy, but I will spend more time in the wiki, as how it was...OK, so, I was thinking about uploading some (NOT A LOT!) of voice clips, I mean, voice clips for people hear and see the difference between voice actors. Example: Upload a Peach voice clip from SM64 and one from SMG. | So, I am a bit busy, but I will spend more time in the wiki, as how it was...OK, so, I was thinking about uploading some (NOT A LOT!) of voice clips, I mean, voice clips for people hear and see the difference between voice actors. Example: Upload a Peach voice clip from SM64 and one from SMG. | ||
Line 72: | Line 70: | ||
:If we aren't going to do much of it, then I don't see a point in a major change at all if it isn't going to be actively used. - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 18:08, 19 August 2014 (EDT) | :If we aren't going to do much of it, then I don't see a point in a major change at all if it isn't going to be actively used. - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 18:08, 19 August 2014 (EDT) | ||
::I understand. Maybe upload a few voice clips from alot of games should be better?{{User:Ashley anEoTselkie/sig}} | ::I understand. Maybe upload a few voice clips from alot of games should be better?{{User:Ashley anEoTselkie/sig}} | ||
:::Given the similarity and sometimes out right sharing of sound resources within a given console generation, it'd suggest considering making one long clip per either system or voice actor that includes many/all samples we have. That is, "Mario's Voice, N64" would be the track name with every voice sample from the start of the N64 era to the end, or "Charles Martinet, 1995 - 2000" with same. -- [[ | :::Given the similarity and sometimes out right sharing of sound resources within a given console generation, it'd suggest considering making one long clip per either system or voice actor that includes many/all samples we have. That is, "Mario's Voice, N64" would be the track name with every voice sample from the start of the N64 era to the end, or "Charles Martinet, 1995 - 2000" with same. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 18:46, 19 August 2014 (EDT) | ||
::::Uh that's not a good idea. Mario Kart Wii uses about 100 unique voice clips per character, we're not going to document all of them. Just document one per game, that's the best suited for the character. Ninelevendo, ripping voices is easy depending on the system. For Wii, all you need is BrawlBox and a clean .brsar from an .iso, and you can extract voices from sorts of games (Super Sluggers, Mario Party 8, Mario Kart Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl). {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:32, 20 August 2014 (EDT) | ::::Uh that's not a good idea. Mario Kart Wii uses about 100 unique voice clips per character, we're not going to document all of them. Just document one per game, that's the best suited for the character. Ninelevendo, ripping voices is easy depending on the system. For Wii, all you need is BrawlBox and a clean .brsar from an .iso, and you can extract voices from sorts of games (Super Sluggers, Mario Party 8, Mario Kart Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl). {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:32, 20 August 2014 (EDT) | ||
:::::Too be honest, I was going to further suggest that the entire project be moved to the Mario Wiki Youtube account to save on storage space and to prevent us from having crazy long resource articles. But whatever gets the job done. -- [[ | :::::Too be honest, I was going to further suggest that the entire project be moved to the Mario Wiki Youtube account to save on storage space and to prevent us from having crazy long resource articles. But whatever gets the job done. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 04:48, 22 August 2014 (EDT) | ||
Just so you now, there's already a class of subpages for sound clips: "List of X media" pages ([[List of Mario Tennis Open media|like this]]). Right now, it's only for games and whatnot, but I suppose if enough sound clips of a character are amassed, a subpage could be used for that. However I doubt that would ever be necessary, and it's not very ideal either. Uploading sound clips of voicework in of itself isn't a bad idea, tho: just be choosy about what's worth including. - {{User|Walkazo}} | Just so you now, there's already a class of subpages for sound clips: "List of X media" pages ([[List of Mario Tennis Open media|like this]]). Right now, it's only for games and whatnot, but I suppose if enough sound clips of a character are amassed, a subpage could be used for that. However I doubt that would ever be necessary, and it's not very ideal either. Uploading sound clips of voicework in of itself isn't a bad idea, tho: just be choosy about what's worth including. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
Line 99: | Line 97: | ||
===Create Separate Articles for Smash Fighters=== | ===Create Separate Articles for Smash Fighters=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-10|Don't create}} | |||
This is an idea I had, and it's to cut back on the more lengthy articles like [[Mario]]. The Smash section for him is cluttered with his moves, Solid Snake convo and Subscape Emissary role, and I feel like it's a little too much. The Smash Wiki has an article for Mario in each different Smash Bros., so I kind of had the idea we could create a '''Mario (SSB)''' article where we can go more in depth about just his Smash Bros. roles; moves, trophy, stickers etc. | This is an idea I had, and it's to cut back on the more lengthy articles like [[Mario]]. The Smash section for him is cluttered with his moves, Solid Snake convo and Subscape Emissary role, and I feel like it's a little too much. The Smash Wiki has an article for Mario in each different Smash Bros., so I kind of had the idea we could create a '''Mario (SSB)''' article where we can go more in depth about just his Smash Bros. roles; moves, trophy, stickers etc. | ||
Line 131: | Line 128: | ||
:Okey dokey. Thanks a bunch for the clarement :) Since our policy is different, I then don't see the point of following their. Maybe, if ever Smash Bros. will become complex over years, I will support this. {{User:Tsunami/sig}} | :Okey dokey. Thanks a bunch for the clarement :) Since our policy is different, I then don't see the point of following their. Maybe, if ever Smash Bros. will become complex over years, I will support this. {{User:Tsunami/sig}} | ||
@Randombob-omb4761: I take your point, but our inclusion policy has traditionally been interpreted as "more articles are better than less articles, if we can pull it off." -- [[ | @Randombob-omb4761: I take your point, but our inclusion policy has traditionally been interpreted as "more articles are better than less articles, if we can pull it off." -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 22:05, 18 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
About the special moves, couldn't we just go back to having separate articles for them? A lot of the reason behind the merge was to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | About the special moves, couldn't we just go back to having separate articles for them? A lot of the reason behind the merge was to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/10#Smash_Bros._Moves|minimize Smash Bros. coverage]], and there was also talk of [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/20#Split_all_Super_Smash_Bros._moves_into_separate_articles|stubs]] being created (which used to be a very scary word). The stub argument is tosh for a bunch of reasons, but the coverage of "minor" Smash Bros aspects is an interesting point that I've always wanted to discuss. We have several characters like stage-specific ones ([[Ultimate Chimera]], [[Bulborb]], [[Turtle (Super Smash Bros.)|the Great Bay turtle]]) merged, which is because of their small appearances. At the same time, we have SSB enemies like [[Mite]]s and [[Like Like]]s that also have relatively small appearances but are still given articles because they act as full-fledged enemies. By that same token, the special moves are constantly used and being seen, and the wiki's certainly no stranger to giving articles to [[List of moves|special moves]]. After all, giving them articles would clear up some of the section's clutter. | ||
I've prattled on about a subject that I want to discuss with no real point other than that I want to discuss it. What exactly is and isn't "minor" to the point of not covering it is something that I always wanted to discuss. Anyone else wanna make sense of what I wrote and chime in with their own thoughts? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | I've prattled on about a subject that I want to discuss with no real point other than that I want to discuss it. What exactly is and isn't "minor" to the point of not covering it is something that I always wanted to discuss. Anyone else wanna make sense of what I wrote and chime in with their own thoughts? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | ||
Line 139: | Line 136: | ||
:We used to have separate articles for every individual Smash Bros. move. Sometime during the release of Brawl, something happened that our policy changed, probably a proposal. I'm not exactly sure why though (guessing article lengths?) or if we could change our policy back. Thoughts? {{User:Paper Jorge/sig}} | :We used to have separate articles for every individual Smash Bros. move. Sometime during the release of Brawl, something happened that our policy changed, probably a proposal. I'm not exactly sure why though (guessing article lengths?) or if we could change our policy back. Thoughts? {{User:Paper Jorge/sig}} | ||
::We've overwritten larger polices that have lasted longer in the past. Besides, like Ghost Jam said, our policy has generally been in support of more articles if possible, and it's certainly possible in this case. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | ::We've overwritten larger polices that have lasted longer in the past. Besides, like Ghost Jam said, our policy has generally been in support of more articles if possible, and it's certainly possible in this case. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | ||
:::[http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | :::[http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/10#Smash_Bros._Moves This], guys? {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:06, 20 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
::::''That's the same proposal I linked to in my second sentence''. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | ::::''That's the same proposal I linked to in my second sentence''. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | ||
:::::I don't know, it looks like Paper Jorge overlooked your link. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:18, 20 September 2014 (EDT) | :::::I don't know, it looks like Paper Jorge overlooked your link. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:18, 20 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
Line 147: | Line 144: | ||
===Active rewards === | ===Active rewards === | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|0-13|Don't have}} | |||
Well I was looking around the Pie for everyone joke proposal, and one of the comments said that a reward would be nice,just not pie.So it hit me why not have a rewards program. In witch active users get rewarded for being active, or editing the most or other things. The prizes witch would be given away buy the breuacrats and could be coustom userbok towers,a signiture makeover,and other little goodies.Some stuff would be easy while others chalanging tempting users to go above and beond. | Well I was looking around the Pie for everyone joke proposal, and one of the comments said that a reward would be nice,just not pie.So it hit me why not have a rewards program. In witch active users get rewarded for being active, or editing the most or other things. The prizes witch would be given away buy the breuacrats and could be coustom userbok towers,a signiture makeover,and other little goodies.Some stuff would be easy while others chalanging tempting users to go above and beond. | ||
Line 172: | Line 168: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Truth be told, we tried this more than twice and in various forms. First was an informal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars barnstar-type] system where any users could award something of their choosing to another user they felt was deserving of a more robust thank you (some talk page archives for the oldest users still have a few of these left around, despite our deciding to mass delete them). This ended up creating arguments about who gave who what for what reason and then rivals handing out bad rewards ("You got the Garlic reward cause YOU STINK!" and other crap like that). This tried to evolve into a formal awards system that fell flat on it's face (partly due to left over hostility from the informal system, partly due to apprehension on part of most of the administrative team), which then became version one of the long removed Trouble Center (this one still bugs me, it had so much potential). Other methods have been discussed over the years, on all fronts. One might ask why these attempts keep falling through when larger wikis, such as and pretty much exclusively Wikipedia, don't seem to have this problem, or at least the problem is minor at best. I think it's because of the size of the communities in question. Wikipedia is pretty much a community of communities and, much like what happens in Vegas staying in Vegas, minor award based issues that pop up in various sub-communities are handled by those communities and maybe an ops if it's Friday and Jimbo has had a few. MarioWiki is a much smaller community and intensely more intimate when it comes to it's users. When Martha May Whovier next door gets a shinny new trinket fro her lawn, Betty Lou Who wants one too. But time has proven that we can't play nice about it, so let's just stick with what Walkazo and everyone else said above. -- [[ | Truth be told, we tried this more than twice and in various forms. First was an informal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars barnstar-type] system where any users could award something of their choosing to another user they felt was deserving of a more robust thank you (some talk page archives for the oldest users still have a few of these left around, despite our deciding to mass delete them). This ended up creating arguments about who gave who what for what reason and then rivals handing out bad rewards ("You got the Garlic reward cause YOU STINK!" and other crap like that). This tried to evolve into a formal awards system that fell flat on it's face (partly due to left over hostility from the informal system, partly due to apprehension on part of most of the administrative team), which then became version one of the long removed Trouble Center (this one still bugs me, it had so much potential). Other methods have been discussed over the years, on all fronts. One might ask why these attempts keep falling through when larger wikis, such as and pretty much exclusively Wikipedia, don't seem to have this problem, or at least the problem is minor at best. I think it's because of the size of the communities in question. Wikipedia is pretty much a community of communities and, much like what happens in Vegas staying in Vegas, minor award based issues that pop up in various sub-communities are handled by those communities and maybe an ops if it's Friday and Jimbo has had a few. MarioWiki is a much smaller community and intensely more intimate when it comes to it's users. When Martha May Whovier next door gets a shinny new trinket fro her lawn, Betty Lou Who wants one too. But time has proven that we can't play nice about it, so let's just stick with what Walkazo and everyone else said above. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 14:46, 22 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
:Even when wikis like this become much bigger that its current state, I'd still be against a rewards system of any kind. You still shouldn't expect to edit wikis to get a reward other than just being a help. People who donate or people who volunteer don't do it for a reward, they do it because it's the morally right thing to do and the reward you get isn't material, it's an intrinsic happiness when you did help out. Feeling that the wiki needs you is certainly a rewarding feeling, and I don't want any sort of rewards. It WOULD be nice, I would admit, to have a virtual image of my star in my user page but I can most certainly live without one just as well. Reputation and this good feeling you get when you help out is more of a better reward than a material one. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:46, 22 September 2014 (EDT) | :Even when wikis like this become much bigger that its current state, I'd still be against a rewards system of any kind. You still shouldn't expect to edit wikis to get a reward other than just being a help. People who donate or people who volunteer don't do it for a reward, they do it because it's the morally right thing to do and the reward you get isn't material, it's an intrinsic happiness when you did help out. Feeling that the wiki needs you is certainly a rewarding feeling, and I don't want any sort of rewards. It WOULD be nice, I would admit, to have a virtual image of my star in my user page but I can most certainly live without one just as well. Reputation and this good feeling you get when you help out is more of a better reward than a material one. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:46, 22 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
::If we could get people over the hump, so to speak, this all might have worked out better. There is a certain allure to having a system in place so we can send lighthearted gifts and heartfelt thankyous to different users for different reasons. It shouldn't be the only reason editors edit, but it's ok for a certain level of adulation to be ''a'' reason for doing something, so long as it doesn't become ''the'' reason and that's where our community issues started (or it all went ignored, such as with Trouble Center version 2). I'll be honest, if I could ACTUALLY give ever one of our major editors a piece of pie or a T-shirt, I'd do it. But all I can really give is my thanks and support. -- [[ | ::If we could get people over the hump, so to speak, this all might have worked out better. There is a certain allure to having a system in place so we can send lighthearted gifts and heartfelt thankyous to different users for different reasons. It shouldn't be the only reason editors edit, but it's ok for a certain level of adulation to be ''a'' reason for doing something, so long as it doesn't become ''the'' reason and that's where our community issues started (or it all went ignored, such as with Trouble Center version 2). I'll be honest, if I could ACTUALLY give ever one of our major editors a piece of pie or a T-shirt, I'd do it. But all I can really give is my thanks and support. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 01:05, 23 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
:::Same here. I am doing a quite difficult and long thing because 1) It is important enough to be noted and 2) Since none did it, and I have some free time, '''why not?''' I also do thing for helping out and being rewarded by the nice look of the result, NOT for being recompensed <s>(though Mario T-Shirts are always appreciated ;)</s>. Why did I work to feature Lakitu? 1) It's my fav character, and I promised I would not let the nomination fail 2) Helping out to not make the nomination fail, since the article was in good shape. Aaaand... everything what I could say was already said by Baby Luigi. Speking of rewards, you can customize every template by copypasting and modifing the code. Points (just like reputation in some forums) could be an idea (and is the one that makes most sense), but this way the system would be too difficult to handle (still simpler of Pie for Everyone, how could one get pie if not American?). So, this is why the compliments are '''the best''' way to credit someone for their work, to feel like it's their own day (Baby Luigi's words). My day was Lakitu's Featuration. {{User:Tsunami/sig}} | :::Same here. I am doing a quite difficult and long thing because 1) It is important enough to be noted and 2) Since none did it, and I have some free time, '''why not?''' I also do thing for helping out and being rewarded by the nice look of the result, NOT for being recompensed <s>(though Mario T-Shirts are always appreciated ;)</s>. Why did I work to feature Lakitu? 1) It's my fav character, and I promised I would not let the nomination fail 2) Helping out to not make the nomination fail, since the article was in good shape. Aaaand... everything what I could say was already said by Baby Luigi. Speking of rewards, you can customize every template by copypasting and modifing the code. Points (just like reputation in some forums) could be an idea (and is the one that makes most sense), but this way the system would be too difficult to handle (still simpler of Pie for Everyone, how could one get pie if not American?). So, this is why the compliments are '''the best''' way to credit someone for their work, to feel like it's their own day (Baby Luigi's words). My day was Lakitu's Featuration. {{User:Tsunami/sig}} | ||
@TripleK: You HAVE to add a reason there or else it will be removed {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 14:32, 26 September 2014 (EDT) | @TripleK: You HAVE to add a reason there or else it will be removed {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 14:32, 26 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
Line 181: | Line 177: | ||
===New Article=== | ===New Article=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-8|Don't create}} | |||
I was reading New Super Mario Bros. Wii when it hit me. We should make an Article called New Super Mario Bros. (Series). I mean really, look how muuch installments we have in the series and new ones coming soon. Also, we have Mario & Luigi (series) article, a Mario Kart (series) article and a Mario Party (series) article. So why not we make one for the New Super Mario Bros. Series while it is a popular series. Also, it can provide editorial oppurtunities because millions play it. | I was reading New Super Mario Bros. Wii when it hit me. We should make an Article called New Super Mario Bros. (Series). I mean really, look how muuch installments we have in the series and new ones coming soon. Also, we have Mario & Luigi (series) article, a Mario Kart (series) article and a Mario Party (series) article. So why not we make one for the New Super Mario Bros. Series while it is a popular series. Also, it can provide editorial oppurtunities because millions play it. | ||
Line 203: | Line 198: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Haven't we been through [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | Haven't we been through [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/39#Changes_to_the_sub-series_sections this]? - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 22:22, 22 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
:Yeah, exactly, the problem is that ''NSMB'' isn't actually a standalone series like the examples listed - it's a sub-series of the overall [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]], and thus, giving it a series page is actually something new and has implications for how we deal with the other sub-sets of ''Super Mario'' games. Will the original ''SMB'' games they get a series? What about how ''NSMB'' is basically just a modern continuation of the oldschool sidescrollers - is it really right to split them up? What about the 3D games, or will only the one with "3D" in the title get their own series page? And what are the implications for History section orders, templates and other wiki-wide organizational systems: right now, everything's pretty consistently going by the overall ''Super Mario'' series, and I'm leery of messing around with that. Plus, series pages are currently a mess anyway: I feel like it might be better to focus efforts on fixing up the existing ''Super Mario'' series page rather than making one or more new, smaller series pages that are basically just duplicated subsets of the overall series... - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 22:46, 23 September 2014 (EDT) | :Yeah, exactly, the problem is that ''NSMB'' isn't actually a standalone series like the examples listed - it's a sub-series of the overall [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]], and thus, giving it a series page is actually something new and has implications for how we deal with the other sub-sets of ''Super Mario'' games. Will the original ''SMB'' games they get a series? What about how ''NSMB'' is basically just a modern continuation of the oldschool sidescrollers - is it really right to split them up? What about the 3D games, or will only the one with "3D" in the title get their own series page? And what are the implications for History section orders, templates and other wiki-wide organizational systems: right now, everything's pretty consistently going by the overall ''Super Mario'' series, and I'm leery of messing around with that. Plus, series pages are currently a mess anyway: I feel like it might be better to focus efforts on fixing up the existing ''Super Mario'' series page rather than making one or more new, smaller series pages that are basically just duplicated subsets of the overall series... - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 22:46, 23 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
Well, the Super Mario 3D series and the Super Mario Galaxy series are (currently!) just duos, but I'm curious about this; We don't have a page for this, and yet its amount of games are up to par with [[Super Mario Advance (series)|Super Mario Advance]] if New Super Luigi U isn't counted, and with the current number of [[Mario vs. Donkey Kong (series)|Mario vs. Donkey Kong]] if it is. Is there areason for that? Especially because the SMA games are remakes with Mario Bros. stuck on. So basically, I can't vote yet. {{User:BabyLuigi64/sig}} | Well, the Super Mario 3D series and the Super Mario Galaxy series are (currently!) just duos, but I'm curious about this; We don't have a page for this, and yet its amount of games are up to par with [[Super Mario Advance (series)|Super Mario Advance]] if New Super Luigi U isn't counted, and with the current number of [[Mario vs. Donkey Kong (series)|Mario vs. Donkey Kong]] if it is. Is there areason for that? Especially because the SMA games are remakes with Mario Bros. stuck on. So basically, I can't vote yet. {{User:BabyLuigi64/sig}} | ||
Aside: Sorry for the premature deletion, everyone. Seemed like an open and shut violation to me and it probably would have been if a discussion hadn't broken out between us about this very subject at the same time. -- [[ | Aside: Sorry for the premature deletion, everyone. Seemed like an open and shut violation to me and it probably would have been if a discussion hadn't broken out between us about this very subject at the same time. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 06:32, 24 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
@Mario @GhostJam Erm... you two really have fear of changing some basics? I'm not blaming you at all, but I find it, like, a bit strange. Changing rules is a thing that sometimes in a project (MarioWiki, in this case) happens. By the by, I want to remember proposals can easily change from a win to a lose... {{User:Tsunami/sig}} | @Mario @GhostJam Erm... you two really have fear of changing some basics? I'm not blaming you at all, but I find it, like, a bit strange. Changing rules is a thing that sometimes in a project (MarioWiki, in this case) happens. By the by, I want to remember proposals can easily change from a win to a lose... {{User:Tsunami/sig}} | ||
Line 227: | Line 222: | ||
Just a reminder that new comments always go on the bottom, lest this becomes a total mess. Anyway, as long as a set of games has three or more entries, it can get a series, that's not the problem here: the real question isn't "how much", it's "what". I.e. should a sub-sub-series of the ''Super Mario'' sub-series (of the overall ''Mario'' series) get a series article like its parent sub-series and other sub-series (like ''Mario Kart'' and whatnot), or is that going to cause organizational issues and inconsistencies between articles and series pages, duplication of information, and/or a snowball effect of sub-sub-series pages for increasingly blurry game groupings? I.e. should the original ''SMB'' games get a page too? Should ''SM64'', ''SMS'' and the ''Galaxy'' games be grouped together as the more open-world platformers? Should the ''3D'' games go with them because it's also 3D even if it's a bit more sidescrollery? If they make a third ''Galaxy'' game, will it get a separate series page? If they make a third ''3D Land/World/etc.'' game, will it get a page? If they make a ''3D Galaxy'' game then what do we do? And going outside the ''Super Mario'' games, should the three ''Mario Kart Arcade GP'' games get a page? Or the ''Super Mario Fushigi'' arcade party games? Do we really want to start prying open these cans of worms when the series pages we ''can'' agree on are already in rough shape? Anyway, the points about there already being a [[Super Mario Advance (series)]] are fair, and part of me feels like it'd be easier to just delete that page, but it's a bit different in that it's also got the ''Yoshi's Island'' remake in there, so it's not purely a subset of ''Super Mario''-only games. It might be best to have a separate discussion/proposal about that series page... - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 16:27, 24 September 2014 (EDT) | Just a reminder that new comments always go on the bottom, lest this becomes a total mess. Anyway, as long as a set of games has three or more entries, it can get a series, that's not the problem here: the real question isn't "how much", it's "what". I.e. should a sub-sub-series of the ''Super Mario'' sub-series (of the overall ''Mario'' series) get a series article like its parent sub-series and other sub-series (like ''Mario Kart'' and whatnot), or is that going to cause organizational issues and inconsistencies between articles and series pages, duplication of information, and/or a snowball effect of sub-sub-series pages for increasingly blurry game groupings? I.e. should the original ''SMB'' games get a page too? Should ''SM64'', ''SMS'' and the ''Galaxy'' games be grouped together as the more open-world platformers? Should the ''3D'' games go with them because it's also 3D even if it's a bit more sidescrollery? If they make a third ''Galaxy'' game, will it get a separate series page? If they make a third ''3D Land/World/etc.'' game, will it get a page? If they make a ''3D Galaxy'' game then what do we do? And going outside the ''Super Mario'' games, should the three ''Mario Kart Arcade GP'' games get a page? Or the ''Super Mario Fushigi'' arcade party games? Do we really want to start prying open these cans of worms when the series pages we ''can'' agree on are already in rough shape? Anyway, the points about there already being a [[Super Mario Advance (series)]] are fair, and part of me feels like it'd be easier to just delete that page, but it's a bit different in that it's also got the ''Yoshi's Island'' remake in there, so it's not purely a subset of ''Super Mario''-only games. It might be best to have a separate discussion/proposal about that series page... - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 16:27, 24 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
@TsunamiIt has less to do with fear of change and more to do with apprehension over overhauling an already incomplete system. The fact that we only have one main-sub-series page is endemic of the problem and most of us just aren't comfortable letting it spread without having a discussion about the long reaching effects of such a change. Also, I disagree with this comment at the bottom thing. I can't speak for anyone else, but I find this @[PERSON] crap harder to follow than just having a standard reply indent. -- [[ | @TsunamiIt has less to do with fear of change and more to do with apprehension over overhauling an already incomplete system. The fact that we only have one main-sub-series page is endemic of the problem and most of us just aren't comfortable letting it spread without having a discussion about the long reaching effects of such a change. Also, I disagree with this comment at the bottom thing. I can't speak for anyone else, but I find this @[PERSON] crap harder to follow than just having a standard reply indent. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 20:27, 24 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
@Mario @GhostJam Erm... you two really have fear of changing some basics? I'm not blaming you at all, but I find it, like, a bit strange. Changing rules is a thing that sometimes in a project (MarioWiki, in this case) happens. By the by, I want to remember proposals can easily change from a win to a lose... {{User:Tsunami/sig}} | @Mario @GhostJam Erm... you two really have fear of changing some basics? I'm not blaming you at all, but I find it, like, a bit strange. Changing rules is a thing that sometimes in a project (MarioWiki, in this case) happens. By the by, I want to remember proposals can easily change from a win to a lose... {{User:Tsunami/sig}} | ||
Line 242: | Line 237: | ||
::The thing you don't understand is that the word '''"New"''' doesn't mean that it's a different series, it is still part of the '''Super Mario [Bros.] (series)'''. - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 17:33, 27 September 2014 (EDT) | ::The thing you don't understand is that the word '''"New"''' doesn't mean that it's a different series, it is still part of the '''Super Mario [Bros.] (series)'''. - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 17:33, 27 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
:::We're talking about how we would handle it with other sub-subseries games; we can't make a proposal for one without it affecting similar things. {{User:BabyLuigi64/sig}} | :::We're talking about how we would handle it with other sub-subseries games; we can't make a proposal for one without it affecting similar things. {{User:BabyLuigi64/sig}} | ||
::::Which is why I suggested moving this to the forums where an organized discussion can take place. Bring the results of that discussion back to here and we'll vote on it again. -- [[ | ::::Which is why I suggested moving this to the forums where an organized discussion can take place. Bring the results of that discussion back to here and we'll vote on it again. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 19:27, 27 September 2014 (EDT) | ||
@Ninelevendo | @Ninelevendo | ||
Look there is many differences also note that Super Mario Advance is made into a Series article '''But Wait!''', it is just remakes. Also is it in 2D, do you see it's power ups in the old school version? | Look there is many differences also note that Super Mario Advance is made into a Series article '''But Wait!''', it is just remakes. Also is it in 2D, do you see it's power ups in the old school version? | ||
Line 263: | Line 258: | ||
:1. This has the potential to turn into something bigger than can be contained in a single proposal. It needs to either be split up into a wider discussion or several more proposals. I'd go with the discussion first. | :1. This has the potential to turn into something bigger than can be contained in a single proposal. It needs to either be split up into a wider discussion or several more proposals. I'd go with the discussion first. | ||
:2. You're fighting the proposal process itself, whether you realize it or not, so you pretty much lost this on day one. This relates to the last point pretty heavily. | :2. You're fighting the proposal process itself, whether you realize it or not, so you pretty much lost this on day one. This relates to the last point pretty heavily. | ||
:If you think this change is best for the wiki, address the concerns we've stated and work for an amicable solution. -- [[ | :If you think this change is best for the wiki, address the concerns we've stated and work for an amicable solution. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 01:33, 1 October 2014 (EDT) | ||
::I lost it after a while too. I '''HAVE''' to discuss about this with someone... {{User:Tsunami/sig}} | ::I lost it after a while too. I '''HAVE''' to discuss about this with someone... {{User:Tsunami/sig}} | ||
Line 269: | Line 264: | ||
===Create articles for the assist trophy characters=== | ===Create articles for the assist trophy characters=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-0|Create}} | |||
With the influx of SSB4 articles coming in, it needs to be decided now more than ever what to do with the [[Assist Trophy]] article. There are a lot of new assist trophies in the newest installment, and that's resulting in more names being added to the ever-growing list. It's gotten to the point where having a list covering all of them simply isn't enough. There are so many avenues of information that could be covered: relevant information on their original seires, their trophy and sticker descriptions, more detailed explanations of their abilities and interactions in fights (especially when some of the new ones basically act as CPU fighters)... These are all things that could easily be done if they were given separate articles. Besides that, there's one thing I'd like to mention. | With the influx of SSB4 articles coming in, it needs to be decided now more than ever what to do with the [[Assist Trophy]] article. There are a lot of new assist trophies in the newest installment, and that's resulting in more names being added to the ever-growing list. It's gotten to the point where having a list covering all of them simply isn't enough. There are so many avenues of information that could be covered: relevant information on their original seires, their trophy and sticker descriptions, more detailed explanations of their abilities and interactions in fights (especially when some of the new ones basically act as CPU fighters)... These are all things that could easily be done if they were given separate articles. Besides that, there's one thing I'd like to mention. | ||
To put it succinctly, we're giving articles to nearly every other character in the Smash series: the Adventure Mode enemies like [[Topi]]s and [[Like Like]]s, the Subspace Emissary enemies like [[Mizzo]]s and [[Floow]]s, the Smash Run enemies like [[Cucco]]s and [[Darknut]]s, and pretty much every boss that isn't "this character +1 height" ([[Duon]], [[Giga Bowser]], [[Yellow Devil]], etc). They range from being mindless with a single attack to requiring strategies to dodge around their attacks. The assist trophies, on the other hand, encompass all of that and have the added bonus of being items. If we're going by wiki standard, that's two reasons in one why they should have articles. | To put it succinctly, we're giving articles to nearly every other character in the Smash series: the Adventure Mode enemies like [[Topi]]s and [[Like Like]]s, the Subspace Emissary enemies like [[Mizzo]]s and [[Floow]]s, the Smash Run enemies like [[Cucco]]s and [[Darknut]]s, and pretty much every boss that isn't "this character +1 height" ([[Duon]], [[Giga Bowser]], [[Yellow Devil]], etc). They range from being mindless with a single attack to requiring strategies to dodge around their attacks. The assist trophies, on the other hand, encompass all of that and have the added bonus of being items. If we're going by wiki standard, that's two reasons in one why they should have articles. | ||
Judging by the archive of proposals, there's always been a... worry, for lack of a decent word, about covering Smash Bros. articles. There have been proposals to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | Judging by the archive of proposals, there's always been a... worry, for lack of a decent word, about covering Smash Bros. articles. There have been proposals to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/10#Species_from_Adventure_Mode_In_Melee|merge]] and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/27#SmashWiki|remove]] and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/12#Split_Adventure_Mode_Enemies_.28SSBM.29_and_Subspace_Army_into_individual_articles|split]] and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/10#Removal.2FMerging_of_non-Mario_articles|delete]], all with varying results and decisions, but all arriving to the generally same conclusion: we should cover the Smash series, but within reason. With that said, our standards for what is "within reason" change. There are two proposals up there for not having articles for the Adventure Mode and Subspace Emissary enemies (that have passed, mind you), and yet, there have been [[Talk:Subspace_Army#Create_separate_articles_for_Subspace_Army_enemies|recent]] [[Talk:List_of_Adventure_Mode_enemies#Create_separate_articles_for_the_Adventure_Mode_enemies|proposals]] overriding them. What we can accept for articles has changed, and having articles for the assist trophies is definitely something that we could accept. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br> | ||
Line 320: | Line 314: | ||
===Merge all warioware microgames with their respective List of microgames in ___=== | ===Merge all warioware microgames with their respective List of microgames in ___=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-13|Don't merge}} | |||
Er... Well... I suck at these. But er... [[User:Tsunami]] convinced me to do this. I think that it would be a good idea to get rid of microgame articles because number one: There tiny. Stubs. Honestly, we look for so many stubs, but no one mentions the microgames. And most of them are so minor, all you must do is tap something. It's minor, and minor warrents an article, but there are so many of them they clog the random and take up waaaaay too much space. I'm pretty sure Warioware has more articles than the Mario party and kart series have combined. And I don't think anyone who looked up Paratroopa ment the microgame. | Er... Well... I suck at these. But er... [[User:Tsunami]] convinced me to do this. I think that it would be a good idea to get rid of microgame articles because number one: There tiny. Stubs. Honestly, we look for so many stubs, but no one mentions the microgames. And most of them are so minor, all you must do is tap something. It's minor, and minor warrents an article, but there are so many of them they clog the random and take up waaaaay too much space. I'm pretty sure Warioware has more articles than the Mario party and kart series have combined. And I don't think anyone who looked up Paratroopa ment the microgame. | ||
Line 360: | Line 353: | ||
===Captain Toad vs Toad vs Blue Toad Part Deux: The Toadening=== | ===Captain Toad vs Toad vs Blue Toad Part Deux: The Toadening=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
(Before you go "not this shit again", please make sure to read this thing in full. Yes, this has been discussed a lot. No, thought-terminating clichés are not a substitute for actual discourse.) | (Before you go "not this shit again", please make sure to read this thing in full. Yes, this has been discussed a lot. No, thought-terminating clichés are not a substitute for actual discourse.) | ||
Line 399: | Line 392: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Glowsquid}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Glowsquid}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': December 13, 2014, 23:59 GMT | '''Proposed Deadline''': December 13, 2014, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' December 6, 2014, 14:24 GMT | |||
====Captain Toad is the Toad (move 3D World info to Blue Toad (character)==== | ====Captain Toad is the Toad (move 3D World info to Blue Toad (character)==== | ||
Line 434: | Line 428: | ||
===Split all Smash Bros. special moves into separate articles=== | ===Split all Smash Bros. special moves into separate articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|15-0|split}} | |||
The first article that really brought this to my attention was [[Falco_Lombardi#Special_Moves|Falco Lombardi's section]], because ''jesus'', but with five individual games to grab information and images from, the special moves for the Smash characters are starting to become a bit bloated. Not to Falco's extent, mind you, but nearly all of them have the potential to be as disorganized. The newest installment introduced two variant special moves for every special move as well, which just further stockpiles more words and images to the sections. It's gotten to the point where having individual articles for them is simply better for tidiness, but individual pages will also allow more fleshed-out explanations of the moves, including images from all the games, more detailed explanations of the moves' intricacies (without seeping too much into SSBWiki's level of detail), better explanations of differences between installments... Besides the fact that we're giving articles to every other Smash Bros. element under the sun, and the fact that we are certainly no stranger to [[List of moves|special moves]] (case in point, we've given articles to everyone's individual [[Template:MH3O3|basketball dunks]]), and as mentioned in the [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Crossovers|coverage policy]], ''"everything appearing in the games gets articles"''... This is basically the next step. I'm aware of [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/10#Smash_Bros._Moves|the previous proposal]] to merge them all, but as evidenced by recent proposals, our standards for importance have changed. | |||
The first article that really brought this to my attention was [[Falco_Lombardi#Special_Moves|Falco Lombardi's section]], because ''jesus'', but with five individual games to grab information and images from, the special moves for the Smash characters are starting to become a bit bloated. Not to Falco's extent, mind you, but nearly all of them have the potential to be as disorganized. The newest installment introduced two variant special moves for every special move as well, which just further stockpiles more words and images to the sections. It's gotten to the point where having individual articles for them is simply better for tidiness, but individual pages will also allow more fleshed-out explanations of the moves, including images from all the games, more detailed explanations of the moves' intricacies (without seeping too much into SSBWiki's level of detail), better explanations of differences between installments... Besides the fact that we're giving articles to every other Smash Bros. element under the sun, and the fact that we are certainly no stranger to [[List of | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br> | ||
Line 461: | Line 454: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Split the [[Badge|Badges]] of ''[[Badge#Paper Mario 2|Paper Mario]]'' and ''[[Badge#Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door 2|The Thousand-Year Door]]'' into separate articles=== | ===Split the [[Badge|Badges]] of ''[[Badge#Paper Mario 2|Paper Mario]]'' and ''[[Badge#Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door 2|The Thousand-Year Door]]'' into separate articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-0|split}} | |||
'''Note: This proposal is not advocating to split the lists from the [[Badge]] article into separate articles. It is advocating for every single badge in those lists to have their own, respective articles. This is to prevent any confusion.''' | '''Note: This proposal is not advocating to split the lists from the [[Badge]] article into separate articles. It is advocating for every single badge in those lists to have their own, respective articles. This is to prevent any confusion.''' | ||
Line 493: | Line 484: | ||
===Split the ghosts of [[ScareScraper]] into separate articles=== | ===Split the ghosts of [[ScareScraper]] into separate articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-4|Don't split}} | |||
In recent months the policy of the wiki has changed. We have created a separate articles for all the assistants and the Pokemon ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|Super Smash Bros.]]''. The proposal to create a separate articles for each badge is going well, even [[Alph]] also received their own page in spite of ''Super Smash Bros.'' is a simple alternate costume. So I think every single ghost deserves its own page. | In recent months the policy of the wiki has changed. We have created a separate articles for all the assistants and the Pokemon ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|Super Smash Bros.]]''. The proposal to create a separate articles for each badge is going well, even [[Alph]] also received their own page in spite of ''Super Smash Bros.'' is a simple alternate costume. So I think every single ghost deserves its own page. | ||
Line 526: | Line 516: | ||
===Create separate articles for [[Donkey Kong Country (series)|DKC series]] and [[Donkey Kong Land (series)|DKL series]] boss levels=== | ===Create separate articles for [[Donkey Kong Country (series)|DKC series]] and [[Donkey Kong Land (series)|DKL series]] boss levels=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-1|create}} | |||
Alright, this has bothered me for quite some time, so I'd like to try and change it. | Alright, this has bothered me for quite some time, so I'd like to try and change it. | ||
Line 541: | Line 530: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Aokage}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Aokage}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': January 3, | '''Deadline''': January 3, 2015, 23:59 GMT | ||
====Create==== | ====Create==== | ||
Line 561: | Line 550: | ||
1): The quote-unquote boss levels can be barely called that. They either dump the player directly in the boss fight or (in DKC Returns) consist of a short stretch of land with a DK barrel. Any content they describe would be redundant with the individual boss pages. Standalone pages would be especially problematic for the first DKC's "boss levels", which are flat and (save for the last one) uses the same background graphic. | 1): The quote-unquote boss levels can be barely called that. They either dump the player directly in the boss fight or (in DKC Returns) consist of a short stretch of land with a DK barrel. Any content they describe would be redundant with the individual boss pages. Standalone pages would be especially problematic for the first DKC's "boss levels", which are flat and (save for the last one) uses the same background graphic. | ||
2): The existence of pages for similarly low-content Mario levels is not a strong precedent. An [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | 2): The existence of pages for similarly low-content Mario levels is not a strong precedent. An [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/25#Split_Each_Boss_Level_From_Each_Boss old proposal] established DKC's featureless boss levels shouldn't have a page. Ergo, if the precedent was followed properly, the cited pages should not have been created. | ||
3): The arrow situation sucks, but it's an argument to have the arrow lead to the next "proper" level (something the DKC 3 level pages already do), not create a bunch of useless pages when a simpler solution exist. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 18:08, 27 December 2014 (EST) | 3): The arrow situation sucks, but it's an argument to have the arrow lead to the next "proper" level (something the DKC 3 level pages already do), not create a bunch of useless pages when a simpler solution exist. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 18:08, 27 December 2014 (EST) | ||
Line 576: | Line 565: | ||
I feel that we need to have a formal discussion about how we apply our inclusion policy before this gets out of hand, but that's a debate for another time and a different venue. | I feel that we need to have a formal discussion about how we apply our inclusion policy before this gets out of hand, but that's a debate for another time and a different venue. | ||
-- [[ | -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 20:53, 27 December 2014 (EST) | ||
:If we were talking about overlapping articles about the same (or at least similar) subject ''type'', I'd say not to bother with the extra ones, but something doesn't sit right about substituting boss articles for boss-fight level articles. It breaks the flow and navigation (like, you get to [[Rope Bridge Rumble]], and then the page tells you it's the last level, and the infobox bounces you straight to Oil Drum Alley, and not once does it mention there's a boss fight in between: you have to go down to the nav templates and count to figure out which boss you're at (and hope it's never switched to alphabetical order); then if you ''do'' go to the boss page, you're dead-ended because there's no level template there), and it seems like an easily fixed gap. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :If we were talking about overlapping articles about the same (or at least similar) subject ''type'', I'd say not to bother with the extra ones, but something doesn't sit right about substituting boss articles for boss-fight level articles. It breaks the flow and navigation (like, you get to [[Rope Bridge Rumble]], and then the page tells you it's the last level, and the infobox bounces you straight to Oil Drum Alley, and not once does it mention there's a boss fight in between: you have to go down to the nav templates and count to figure out which boss you're at (and hope it's never switched to alphabetical order); then if you ''do'' go to the boss page, you're dead-ended because there's no level template there), and it seems like an easily fixed gap. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
Line 583: | Line 572: | ||
===Add an Easter Egg section to game articles=== | ===Add an Easter Egg section to game articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|12-0|create}} | |||
A while back, there was a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/40#Create Easter Egg Pages|proposal]] for creating sub pages for game easter eggs. A lot of votes mentioned that A. there aren't really enough easter eggs in a game to earn an full on article for them and B. they'd work better as a section in the game article. Well that's where this comes in. May as well start a proposal for adding an Easter Egg section. Not sure if it really needs a proposal but may as well throw it out there. An easter egg section can also cut down on the amount of Trivia a game article has (such as ''Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon'' for example) | |||
A while back, there was a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 40#Create Easter Egg Pages|proposal]] for creating sub pages for game easter eggs. A lot of votes mentioned that A. there aren't really enough easter eggs in a game to earn an full on article for them and B. they'd work better as a section in the game article. Well that's where this comes in. May as well start a proposal for adding an Easter Egg section. Not sure if it really needs a proposal but may as well throw it out there. An easter egg section can also cut down on the amount of Trivia a game article has (such as ''Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon'' for example) | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Tails777}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Tails777}}<br> | ||
Line 612: | Line 600: | ||
::Ok, that is Toadally Toadiffic. I'm going to stoad making Toad-puns Toaday. How you feel is definetly relaTOADable. But really, you must really, I mean, REALLY like BIS. [[File:Toad-brigade model CTTT.png|35px|]][[User:toadbrigade5|<font color=red><big>'''Toad'''</big></font>]][[User talk:toadbrigade5| <small>and his</small><font color=grey> '''brigade!'''</font>]][[File:Toadette model CTTT.png|35px]] 19:58, 30 December 2014 (EST) | ::Ok, that is Toadally Toadiffic. I'm going to stoad making Toad-puns Toaday. How you feel is definetly relaTOADable. But really, you must really, I mean, REALLY like BIS. [[File:Toad-brigade model CTTT.png|35px|]][[User:toadbrigade5|<font color=red><big>'''Toad'''</big></font>]][[User talk:toadbrigade5| <small>and his</small><font color=grey> '''brigade!'''</font>]][[File:Toadette model CTTT.png|35px]] 19:58, 30 December 2014 (EST) | ||
Didn't we formally decide to move Easter Eggs and trivia sections into the body of articles where able? I seem to recall that. Then again, maybe we were all operating on the assumption that it was a formal decision. -- [[ | Didn't we formally decide to move Easter Eggs and trivia sections into the body of articles where able? I seem to recall that. Then again, maybe we were all operating on the assumption that it was a formal decision. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 00:31, 1 January 2015 (EST) | ||
:Not formally (at least not that I saw), but we had similar conversion when someone wanted to make a list for them. Yeah, Easter Egg page is terrible, so I support this proposal along with getting rid of that page.--{{User:Dashbot/sig}} 13:54, 2 January 2015 (EST) | :Not formally (at least not that I saw), but we had similar conversion when someone wanted to make a list for them. Yeah, Easter Egg page is terrible, so I support this proposal along with getting rid of that page.--{{User:Dashbot/sig}} 13:54, 2 January 2015 (EST) | ||
::Wait, we have an Easter Egg page? I just looked at it, and it's terrible for Super Mario Wiki. It's not Le Miiverse Wiki or Haunted Hathoways Wiki terrible, but for a Mario Wiki, ugh. It's like the Sticker Star of Mario Wiki. [[User:Madz the Penguin|Madz the Penguin]] ([[User talk:Madz the Penguin|talk]]) 14:35, 2 January 2015 (EST) | ::Wait, we have an Easter Egg page? I just looked at it, and it's terrible for Super Mario Wiki. It's not Le Miiverse Wiki or Haunted Hathoways Wiki terrible, but for a Mario Wiki, ugh. It's like the Sticker Star of Mario Wiki. [[User:Madz the Penguin|Madz the Penguin]] ([[User talk:Madz the Penguin|talk]]) 14:35, 2 January 2015 (EST) | ||
:::In that it's decent but doesn't live up to its predecessors? The easter egg page couldn't live up to anything; it's absolutely incomplete if it wants to be a list of easter eggs, and gives such a vague definition to the point where it's confusing and inutile. Still, I think the page could serve as a compilation of easter eggs like [[List of references in the Mario series]] or the various [[Template: | :::In that it's decent but doesn't live up to its predecessors? The easter egg page couldn't live up to anything; it's absolutely incomplete if it wants to be a list of easter eggs, and gives such a vague definition to the point where it's confusing and inutile. Still, I think the page could serve as a compilation of easter eggs like [[List of references in the Mario series]] or the various [[Template:Culture|outside references]] lists. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | ||
::::Are all the things on the list even Easter Eggs? The last one on the list seems like a cool fact rather than an Easter Egg. I've seen worse pages on other wikis, but this is Mario Wiki, also known as one of the best wikis I've seen before. We don't deserve pages like this. [[User:Madz the Penguin|Madz the Penguin]] ([[User talk:Madz the Penguin|talk]]) 18:31, 2 January 2015 (EST) | ::::Are all the things on the list even Easter Eggs? The last one on the list seems like a cool fact rather than an Easter Egg. I've seen worse pages on other wikis, but this is Mario Wiki, also known as one of the best wikis I've seen before. We don't deserve pages like this. [[User:Madz the Penguin|Madz the Penguin]] ([[User talk:Madz the Penguin|talk]]) 18:31, 2 January 2015 (EST) | ||
Line 623: | Line 611: | ||
===Crteate an arcade page === | ===Crteate an arcade page === | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-5|Don't create}} | |||
(UPDATE) | (UPDATE) | ||
Line 639: | Line 627: | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
#{{User|1337star}} I don't agree with the proposal as written. As Mario notes in the comments, "arcade" is not a platform, it's a group of platforms. It would be like us making an article on "video game console" (rather than [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] or [[Wii]]) or "personal computer" (rather than [[MS-DOS]] or Apple II). Now I would support articles on the various different arcade machines that Mario games have been on (in fact, we already have one: [[Nintendo PlayChoice-10]]), so long as it follows the guidelines of [[MarioWiki:New | #{{User|1337star}} I don't agree with the proposal as written. As Mario notes in the comments, "arcade" is not a platform, it's a group of platforms. It would be like us making an article on "video game console" (rather than [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] or [[Wii]]) or "personal computer" (rather than [[MS-DOS]] or Apple II). Now I would support articles on the various different arcade machines that Mario games have been on (in fact, we already have one: [[Nintendo PlayChoice-10]]), so long as it follows the guidelines of [[MarioWiki:New articles#Consoles|SMW:NAP]]. | ||
#{{User|Madz the Penguin}} Per 1337star. Calling something "arcade games" is very vague and unprofessional, and I would rather mention the actual system it's on. Since we don't exactly know the specific name for it, we can't make an article for it, and we must find other ways to mention the system. | #{{User|Madz the Penguin}} Per 1337star. Calling something "arcade games" is very vague and unprofessional, and I would rather mention the actual system it's on. Since we don't exactly know the specific name for it, we can't make an article for it, and we must find other ways to mention the system. | ||
#{{User|Ghost Jam}} Generally, per standard procedure, specifically standard proposal rule 15. Broadly, now that we have some opinions rolling, per 1337star. I see where you're going with this, but it needs to be narrowed down a bit. Generally speaking, "arcade" isn't considered a "system" in the traditional sense, so care needs to be taken in how it's logged in the database. Not against the whole idea, but it requires more discussion than your libel to get in a proposal. | #{{User|Ghost Jam}} Generally, per standard procedure, specifically standard proposal rule 15. Broadly, now that we have some opinions rolling, per 1337star. I see where you're going with this, but it needs to be narrowed down a bit. Generally speaking, "arcade" isn't considered a "system" in the traditional sense, so care needs to be taken in how it's logged in the database. Not against the whole idea, but it requires more discussion than your libel to get in a proposal. | ||
Line 649: | Line 637: | ||
Sorry I wrote it while I was half asleep at 3 Am in the morning. I was planing on writing it earlier but stuff happend. sorry again and if I have the time Ill rewrite it. | Sorry I wrote it while I was half asleep at 3 Am in the morning. I was planing on writing it earlier but stuff happend. sorry again and if I have the time Ill rewrite it. | ||
[[File: | [[File:M&LBIS Sergeant Guy.png|30px]] [[User:Green6017 Guy|<span style="font-fancy:serif;color:#0F3">Green6017 Guy</span>]][[File:M&LBIS Sergeant Guy.png|30px]] | ||
Just a note here on some of the different arcade boards that already have/could have articles: | Just a note here on some of the different arcade boards that already have/could have articles: | ||
Line 666: | Line 654: | ||
===Make a new "Out of date" template=== | ===Make a new "Out of date" template=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
I think we should make a new "this page is out of date" template. To avoid confusion, here is why summed up in three reasons: | I think we should make a new "this page is out of date" template. To avoid confusion, here is why summed up in three reasons: | ||
Line 691: | Line 678: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Andymii}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Andymii}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': February 15, 2015, 23:59 GMT. | '''Proposed Deadline''': February 15, 2015, 23:59 GMT.<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' February 9, 2015, 05:52 GMT | |||
====Support (Version 1)==== | ====Support (Version 1)==== | ||
Line 715: | Line 703: | ||
===Establish a duration rule for music files=== | ===Establish a duration rule for music files=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-8|Don't establish}} | |||
Is this the right place to have unnecessarily long (even 2:00+ long) music samples such as [[:File:SM3DL-Ghost House Theme.ogg|this one]]? The wiki does not focus on game music. They are just ''samples'', so people usually check them out to get an idea of the song, not to listen to them from the start to the end. Besides, shorter samples make the article seem lighter and do not divert attention from the page for much time. I suggest we make all music files between 0:15 and 0:20 long. | Is this the right place to have unnecessarily long (even 2:00+ long) music samples such as [[:File:SM3DL-Ghost House Theme.ogg|this one]]? The wiki does not focus on game music. They are just ''samples'', so people usually check them out to get an idea of the song, not to listen to them from the start to the end. Besides, shorter samples make the article seem lighter and do not divert attention from the page for much time. I suggest we make all music files between 0:15 and 0:20 long. | ||
Line 749: | Line 736: | ||
Dunno if it's outlined in any public places, but Porplemontage once suggested (to the admins) that we aim for '''15 seconds maximum''' of tracks longer than a minute (and 25% max of tracks shorter than a minute), rather than full songs, for the same reason that we don't upload entire comics or make full game scripts anymore. Documenting and providing samples of music, art, etc. is one thing, but we don't want to risk legal crap by reproducing full versions of any sort of content - nor is it our place to be a one-stop shop for ''Mario'' music: that's not what encyclopedias are about. - {{User|Walkazo}} | Dunno if it's outlined in any public places, but Porplemontage once suggested (to the admins) that we aim for '''15 seconds maximum''' of tracks longer than a minute (and 25% max of tracks shorter than a minute), rather than full songs, for the same reason that we don't upload entire comics or make full game scripts anymore. Documenting and providing samples of music, art, etc. is one thing, but we don't want to risk legal crap by reproducing full versions of any sort of content - nor is it our place to be a one-stop shop for ''Mario'' music: that's not what encyclopedias are about. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
:If Steve said that, then this discussion is pretty much over and we need to add shortening sound files to the "to do" list. The idea that someone may "like it" and that's why it's here is irrelevant, we're an encyclopedia, not last.fm. If someone wants to access a full version, it shouldn't be here. Perhaps Youtube or something. -- [[ | :If Steve said that, then this discussion is pretty much over and we need to add shortening sound files to the "to do" list. The idea that someone may "like it" and that's why it's here is irrelevant, we're an encyclopedia, not last.fm. If someone wants to access a full version, it shouldn't be here. Perhaps Youtube or something. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 05:26, 9 February 2015 (EST) | ||
If the Mario Wiki is still sticking to the motto of covering "all things Mario," then personally I think the whole piece should exist. But if Porplemontage suggested it, it's sort of hard to argue. However, the idea doesn't seem very favorable, and (I might be looking too deep into this) Porplemontage after all only meant it as a ''suggestion'', not an order. [[User:Andymii|Andymii]] ([[User talk:Andymii|talk]]) 19:31, 9 February 2015 (EST) | If the Mario Wiki is still sticking to the motto of covering "all things Mario," then personally I think the whole piece should exist. But if Porplemontage suggested it, it's sort of hard to argue. However, the idea doesn't seem very favorable, and (I might be looking too deep into this) Porplemontage after all only meant it as a ''suggestion'', not an order. [[User:Andymii|Andymii]] ([[User talk:Andymii|talk]]) 19:31, 9 February 2015 (EST) | ||
Line 766: | Line 753: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Protect all user talk pages so that only auto-confirmed users can edit them=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
I honestly think that this is something that we need to do. Many forms of abuse of this website are in the form of people harassing other users. There are two major independant reasons why we should be doing this in my opinion. | |||
#Many ips do nothing but harass users and many people create an account just to do the same. At least two particular [[Smashwiki: User: Conny|us]][[User: Scr7|er]]s have tried doing that logged out in a failed attempt to conceal their identities, at least [[User: Pwwnd123|one]] other doing that to continue harassing a user whom their harassment of was what got them banned in the first place. These are just few among many examples. | |||
#Why should we let people who have never contributed positively to the wiki use it to talk to other users? Currently, user talk pages can be edited by anyone for that purpose. In addition, when people edit user talk pages like that, the Mariowiki system '''counts''' that as an edit towards auto-confirmation processes. This means that users could potentially never contribute positively to the wiki and then become auto-confirmed. By doing this, they now have access to the ability to create a userpage. They have effectively been able to create a userpage without contributing towards the wiki ever. That is unfair to the people who ''do'' try to contribute positively towards the wiki for those who don't to be able to have their own userpages just the same way as those who actually earned the privileges. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kart Player 2011}}<br> | |||
'''Proposed Deadline''': March 15, 2015, 23:59 GMT<br> | |||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' March 8, 2015, 23:50 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Kart Player 2011}} per proposal | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} This is kind of like saying people shouldn't have accounts because some of them turn out to be vandals. There are many, ''many'' more IP's that contribute positively than there are that don't, and alienating all of them just because of the vocal minority is pandering to the people we're absolutely not supposed to pander to. Suppose an IP has a question they'd like to ask about editing, or maybe they have an issue with another user's edits but don't want to start an edit war, or maybe there's an issue with their account and they're forced to use an IP. If this proposal passes, tough luck for them, I suppose. There are other avenues for discussion, like [[MarioWiki:FAQ]], but not only is it simply more convenient to directly ask a user, it's also a more obvious solution than heading to a page that's only visible on a tiny header between a bunch of other links. There are too many detriments and not enough benefits to imposing this. If there's a specific user that's a constant target, they should be free to request protection, but enforcing that on everyone simply would not work. | |||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} That would break the point of talk pages. This is absolutely counter-productive and doing this is assuming that all BoNs are bad people. Most of the time, they aren't, they are our reliable gnome editors and fixing up minor problems. And if the few bad apples do show up, it's extremely easy to ban them. Besides, some new users legitimately need help and may need assistance from other users: protecting user talk pages would be a major inconvenience for new editors which is poisonous to the upkeep of this wiki. | |||
#{{User|Pseudo-dino}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Boo4761}} I oppose this proposal strongly, There are some IPs that contribute and don't troll or vandalize and they might want to talk with some of us. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
A lot of stuff Time Turner pointed out I didn't think about. How do I close proposals? {{User:Kart Player 2011/sig}} 17:41, 8 March 2015 (EDT) | |||
So I'm going to start thinking about some ways I can remake this proposal while adding things in it to mitigate some of the problems that Time Turner pointed out in this. I'd like this proposal closed. I might remake this proposal sometime later if I can think of possibilities on additions/changes to this proposal idea to mitigate the flaws Time Turner pointed out. Though I might not be able to figure any way out however in which case this will never be remade. {{User:Kart Player 2011/sig}} 18:09, 8 March 2015 (EDT) | |||
---- | |||
===Remove extraneous ''Super Smash Bros.'' conversations from articles' main body=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|12-0|move}} | |||
The title's unwieldy, but this proposal is specifically covering the [[List of Snake's codec conversations|Snake's codec conversations]] and [[List of Palutena's Guidance conversations|Palutena's Guidance conversations]]. These conversations are charming bits of dialog between Snake/Pit and their advisers, providing tidbits and small background information on whichever character they're talking about. However, these conversations really don't provide anything groundbreaking, usually saying things that aren't relevant or would have already been mentioned, and yet, all articles have the Snake conversations and the Palutena ones are steadily being added as well. There's really nothing substantial that they're adding; right now, all they're doing is contributing to the mass of headers within the Smash sections. At best, they should be relegated to the articles' "Profile and statistics" headers or they should be removed entirely and kept to the lists I linked to above. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': March 9, 2015, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Move convos. to profiles and statistics==== | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} I'd say that the conversations are roughly comparable to the trophies; neat information, but it's probably best to leave it outside of the main body. | |||
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Yeah I was exactly thinking that they should belong under "profiles and statistics" before you mentioned it. I disagree that they "don't provide anything groundbreaking", they're interesting tidbits from an easter egg from the game, they don't necessarily have to be groundbreaking or be relevant or whatever to warrant a space here in MarioWiki. Move them to profiles and statistics, that's what they really are. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} I was about to suggest replacing it with a link, but that would be unnecessary. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. The info's definitely comparable to official bios, and the less SSB subheaders cluttering up the History sections, the better. | |||
#{{User|Toadbrigade5}} - Eh. I don't care as long as the wiki keeps the information somewhere, but I'd rather this than the one below, so I'll support here to just break a tie if there ever is one. | |||
#{{User|Tails777}} I kinda liked them the way they were, but the proposal is a pretty good point and makes sense so per all. | |||
#{{User|Megadardery}} Per all, but not removing them from the article entirely, but move them to the 'Profile and statistics' section. | |||
#{{User|Kart Player 2011}} per all. | |||
#{{User|Stonehill}} Per all. Yes, all. Every single one of them. Not a single one left. However, I'm also suggesting we could move the conversations to their own article and edit other pages accordingly. Per all anyway. | |||
#{{User|Toads Forever!}} Per proposal | |||
#{{User|Yoshi876}} Per all. | |||
====Remove convos.==== | |||
====Keep convos.==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
@Baby Luigi: I'm not saying that they don't have a place on the wiki, I'm just saying that their place isn't necessarily in the articles' main body. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | |||
@Stonehill: I think what you are describing is [[List of Snake's codec conversations|this]] and [[List of Palutena's Guidance conversations|this]]. {{User|Yoshi876}} | |||
---- | |||
===Make a Rule Against Using Too Many Contractions=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-11|keep current rules}} | |||
This proposal is complicated, so please read this carefully so you know exactly what I am proposing. | |||
Ever since I joined this wiki, one thing I always keep an eye out for is contractions (won't, can't, he'll, doesn't, etc.). We are an encyclopedia, so we should be relatively formal; contractions are generally looked upon as colloquial and informal. So what should we do? | |||
Well, first of all, contractions are completely fine in talk and discussion pages, so any rule against contractions should not apply in those pages. And since contractions have become such an important part of English, a person using a few once in a while by accident should not be penalized. However, when people start using them excessively, sentences start to sound like "Mario'll then grab the item. It'll then transform him into Mini Mario, which'll allow him to run up walls he can't run up otherwise." See how informal it sounds? As one of the premier NIWA wikis, this would be unacceptable here on MarioWiki. The unfortunate truth is that this website is ''loaded'' with sentences like these. | |||
So, I propose that contractions in main space pages be generally avoided and using them '''to excess''' be worth a gentle [[Template: Reminder|Reminder]]. It will make things admittedly more difficult, but at the end, it is for the good of the wiki. | |||
Contractions are already technically against our standard style, but it has to be raised a notch due to sheer amount of infractions. Pushing it off to the side will not work. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Andymii}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': March 13, 2015, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Andymii}} Per my own proposal. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Sorry, but the use of contractions is already against standard style; making a rule specifically for contractions is entirely redundant with the general rules for formal and standard writing. Contractions are what they are: a type of slang, and should already be actively discouraged when writing articles on this wiki. | |||
#{{User|Toadbrigade5}} Per Baby Luigi. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Contractions are no more slang than commonplace abbreviations like "etc." (''et cetera''), "a.m./AM" (''ante meridiem''), "CD" (Compact Disc), "i.e." (''id est''), or "laser" (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). There is nothing wrong with using them on the wiki ([[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|check]] the [[MarioWiki:Good writing|policies]]), and rightly so, for it would be an antiquated and pointless waste of time to forbid and remove them. Most users write the way that's familiar to us, and like it or not, contractions are a fixed part of modern language; many outlets of "formal" writing are starting to come around on this matter, and just as we allow users to write according to their different countries' standards of grammar, punctuation and spelling, so too should we allow them to use contractions as they've been taught. Within reason, of course, but [[MarioWiki:Don't shoot your foot off|using common sense]] is a given for all aspects of wiki writing, and the odd contraction here and there doesn't make the place illegible or unsightly in the slightest. | |||
#{{User|Stonehill}} Contractions are already hard not to use for some people (such as me), so even a Reminder would be harsh. | |||
#{{User|Magikrazy}} Per Walky. | |||
#{{User|LudwigVon}} Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} I have to disagree with Walkazo about putting common contractions in the same vein as "etc.", "a.m./AM". "CD". or "laser". This wiki is meant to be as formal as possible, and contractions have a much more breezy tone. If you had to write a term paper or a letter to a company willing to hire you, it's best to avoid the contractions. Contractions are informal and laid-back, so it's probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The contractions Walkazo mentioned have hardly any tonal differences compared with the common contractions; they rose as a condensation on otherwise long terms compared to "can't", "won't", which most likely arose from spoken language. Anyway, this proposal is unnecessary, verging on pedantry that penalizes people for simply writing in an informal tone. I allow contractions on articles, but ideally, there should be ''none''. | |||
#{{User|Boo4761}} Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|Binarystep}} Per Walkazo. Contractions are a common part of the English language, not new slang or something. | |||
#{{User|Ghost Jam}} Per Walkazo. If there is a question of overuse in a particular article or poor writing thereof, bring it to attention on the talk page and standard editor consensus will work it out. Additionally, no examples of articles that would otherwise be changed for the better or are currently suffering from contraction over use have been provided (and given the arguments presented so far, I doubt any examples provided would alter my current stance). | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
I've noticed that you've added a point to your proposal after you voted. Yes, contractions are technically against standardized writing as I had stated (it's not ''our'' rules, it's a general rule in formal English writing that every English major should know). It doesn't necessarily need to be raised a notch any more than the forbidden second person/imperative writing nor as a raised awareness of certain styles and dictions used in a very informal manner in this wiki. I agree that more awareness should be raised about lessening the use of contractions in this wiki but it does not necessarily need to be its own rule since it's already a rule in standard, formal writing. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:04, 5 March 2015 (EST) | |||
---- | |||
===Make notice for animated images=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|5-11|Don't create}} | |||
Seeing how [[bulbapedia:Bulbapedia|Bulbapedia]] does things, I came up with a cool idea. Maybe we should create a template that should state whether this image is animated. It's purpose? To explain that some browsers are limited to viewing only the first frame of animated images ''and'' kindly remind users (especially new users that use old and worn-out browsers) not to change the image, even if it's not moving at all (unless there's really a problem, in which someone good at animated images can help). | |||
A sample of said template can be viewed [[User:Stonehill/Moving image|here]]. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Stonehill}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': <s>March 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT</s> '''Extended''': March 18, 2015, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Stonehill}} Per proposal as this would prevent from cluttered image change logs. | |||
#{{User|BabyLuigi64}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Toads Forever!}} It would mean that Users wouldn't just change (for example) a .gif (animated file) to a .png (solid picture) | |||
#{{User|Andymii}} Sounds nice. Per proposal. This would really be beneficial to people who often edit on mobile devices (like me). "It's a hassle" is NOT a good excuse, as it just sounds like we're being lazy. | |||
#{{User|Toadbrigade5}} Per all. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Mario}} This proposal, since it apparently deals with APNGS (and .gifs in mobile browsers), should be moot, thanks to [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/36#No_APNG_Files this proposal]. Even though it's harmless, creating, maintaining, and implementing this template just piles tedious work with little pay-off. Ideally, every sprite bar animated ones should be in .png, and the the most popular animated format that any browser can read is the .gif. So, I think the template is mostly useless. | |||
#{{User|Vommack}} Per Mario. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Been thinking it over, and yeah, per Mario above and per Lakituthequick and myself in the comments. While mobile devices can't load GIFs, it'd be far more trouble than it's worth to mark them all. (Plus, while the use of animation is relevant, it still seems too gaudy a template design for me in all honesty.) | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Lakituthequick}} As said in comments. | |||
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Megadardery}} Unnecessary, if it was dealing with APNG, then it was already decided that this feature should be replaced with GIFs, so no templates regarding it should exist in the first place. If it was dealing with GIFs, then it is pretty unlikely todays to find a web browser that doesn't support simple GIFs, and Mobile users won't probably even care to update an image over their device (since a device that doesn't support GIFs would have troubles working with actual images and such) . | |||
#{{User|Ghost Jam}} Per Mario and Walkazo, while also noting that it was decided a while ago that MarioWiki wouldn't be purposefully optimized for mobile devices, previous arguments noting a lack of gain and a glut of work. | |||
#{{User|Yoshi876}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Boo4761}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Turboo}} - Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
The idea makes sense, but the template ''must'' be consistent in design with other image notices, such as {{tem|map-image}}, {{tem|Award-image}}, {{tem|BJAODN-image}}, etc. Having the whole "if the Goombas aren't moving" explanation also seems unnecessary: just say something like "This image is animated; please do not reupload it as a static image." and maybe an additional note that some brows might erroneously display it as already being a static image, but either way, be succinct. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
:Thanks for the heads-up. That was a sample, after all. {{User:Stonehill/signature}} 15:19, 4 March 2015 (EST) | |||
::By the way, why not use another animated image? If you look at [[bulbapedia:File:Evotag.png|File:Evotag.png]], you'll understand what I mean. {{User:Stonehill/signature}} 15:35, 4 March 2015 (EST) | |||
:::As long as the image doesn't look like crap, it can be whatever (of the two, I'd say the SMB Goomba looks better). But there should only be one image. And again, I still think the "if the Goombas aren't moving" caveat is unnecessary (and it's unnecessary on Bulbapedia too), since even folks who see movement shouldn't reupload static versions of the image, and either way, simpler is better. The excessive !s are also less than ideal and [[Help:Image]] has nothing to do with the issue so there's no point in linking to it. Right now, I would suggest this as the design: | |||
{| align="center" style="width:80%;background:#f1f1de;color:black;border:2px solid #996;padding:5px;" | |||
|[[File:Goomba2.gif|50px|Animated-image]] | |||
| | |||
|<center>''This is an '''animated image'''. However, it may not display properly on certain browsers and devices. Please be careful to not re-upload it as a static image by mistake.</center> | |||
|} | |||
:::- {{User|Walkazo}}} | |||
::::Yeah, now that I've thought about it in greater depth, I'm pretty sure Walkazo is right. {{User:Stonehill/signature}} 18:13, 4 March 2015 (EST) | |||
:::::You've got your wish, Walkazo. {{User:Stonehill/signature}} 18:17, 4 March 2015 (EST) | |||
"To explain that some browsers are limited to viewing only the first frame of animated images and kindly remind users (especially new users that use old and worn-out browsers) not to change the image" | |||
Which browsers don't support animated images? I think most popular browsers (FireFox and Internet Explorer and maybe Safari) supports the basic animated .gif image. Finally, for the notice template, it would be better if the image included has transparency instead of a white background, but it's just my opinion. {{User:Mario/sig}} 18:30, 4 March 2015 (EST) | |||
:The Evotag example Stonehill provided actually doesn't work on Chrome without an extension (but it works in Firefox; dunno about IE), and afaik mobile devices often can't load GIFs. Anyway, I agree about the image: I couldn't do anything before since I was at school, but now that I'm home, I reuploaded it as a transparent GIF. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
::Walkazo, the gif has an incorrect frame of animation. Just pointing that out for you. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:23, 4 March 2015 (EST) | |||
:::Yeah, sorry, it saved with the wrong layer mode by accident. It should be better now, but the revisions haven't refreshed for me here or on the file page so I can't tell for sure yet. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
::::I see it, it works fine now {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 16:18, 5 March 2015 (EST) | |||
Does this count personal images too? {{User:Boo4761/sig}} | |||
:No one should be reuploading someone else's PIs, so tagging them would be unnecessary. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
This matter itches me because there is a point that is missed here. Animated '''GIF'''s are supported in any browser since the millenium bug (bar early wearables). However, this template is meant for animated '''PNG'''s, which is not supported in all browsers yet, let alone image editors. Bulbapedia uses these APNGs in a manner not crucial to the information, just as eye-candy for those with awesome browsers.<br> | |||
To the matter at hand, the Super Mario Wiki does not have any APNGs at all to my knowledge (a proposal about them even failed a while ago), so while the template and idea are great (my support), no images will have it (my oppose). {{User|Lakituthequick}} 18:06, 5 March 2015 (EST) | |||
:Well, GIFs still break for mobile devices iirc, but the opposite problem you speak of just occurred to me: we have ''lots'' of GIFs, and tagging them all seems like a lot of work for very little gain. After all, for the most part, if somethings uploaded as a GIF, it's ''because'' its animated (and should actually be reuploaded as a PNG if it's static), so the file type alone should let people know it's supposed to be moving - and most folks viewing with a mobile device probably aren't in a position to try reuploading files anyway. The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to feel that it ''is'' unnecessary. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
::When mobile devices don't support GIFs it really is an old device. That aside, I do a lot on my phone but I won't go around and edit GIFs on it, so for those devices we don't need such template.<br>If we ever do things with APNGs (i.e. when browser support is better and when MediaWiki supports thumbnails for then), then sure. Also, [[:File:Dawnrun.png|this PI]] is an APNG, for those interested in it. {{User|Lakituthequick}} 22:16, 6 March 2015 (EST) | |||
::@Walkazo, when you say mobile device users aren't in a position to re-upload files, what do you mean? Because I've ironically uploaded most of my files from an iPad. (BTW, gifs run perfectly fine on it, but I'm not sure if this is the case for other mobile users.) [[User:Andymii|Andymii]] ([[User talk:Andymii|talk]]) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT) | |||
:::I am replying to both your comment and edited vote here.<br>While yes, it very well is possible to upload files to the Wiki using mobile devices, just not all support it. You can't compare it to yourself either, you uploaded just JPGs lately, we're talking GIFs here.<br>Honestly though, this proposal is proposing we add something that is only needed for users of Internet Explorer 4 and phones with green LCDs. The need is just not there. {{User|Lakituthequick}} 17:59, 8 March 2015 (EDT) | |||
::::Yeah, I wasn't thinking iPads. My point was that if your device can't load GIFs, it probably isn't the sort of thing you're going to be uploading files from anyway. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
:Could someone please reword the proposal so that it doesn't deal with animated PNG images? It's just that I didn't know this wiki had a passed proposal removing those kinds of images. {{User:Stonehill/signature}} 14:37, 13 March 2015 (EDT) | |||
::Proposals can only be changed within the first three days of creation: it's too late for this one now. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
:::Oh, well...Could someone please delete this so that I can try again some other time? {{User:Stonehill/signature}} 19:01, 15 March 2015 (EDT) | |||
::::No. "It's going to fail anyway" isn't a valid reason. Just let the proposal fail naturally, and then try again after a month or longer has passed. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
Um... why was this proposal extended? At the time of extension, the vote was 5-10, and proposals should only be extended if the vote is within 3 or less in difference. If no one says anything, I will mark this proposal as failed. [[User:Andymii|Andymii]] ([[User talk:Andymii|talk]]) 21:40, 17 March 2015 (EDT) | |||
:The deadline was March 11; the last edit before that was the 10th, at which point the page [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=1808806 was in this state]: the votes were 6-7, Hence the extension. The proposal is going to die in less than 22 hours anyway: just cool your jets. - {{User|Walkazo}} |
Latest revision as of 15:38, July 29, 2023
Block on wiki = block on forumvetoed by the administrators Proposer: Lord Bowser (talk) Ban on both only when permabanned on wikiBan on both in all instances for same amount of time
Ban only on wiki (do nothing)
CommentsYou forgot a "Do Nothing" section, which would probably be best as there are instances of people being blocked on forum and not on wiki. If the user gets themselves blocked on the wiki, but still acts in a gracious manner on the forums then I don't see why they should be banned there. Yoshi876 (talk)
Allow the upload of voice clipsallow 14-0 My idea is have a small number of voice clips.
useful places to get voices: the sounds resource, the kittycorps meowmix forums, MFGG, youtube.com, ripping (use BrawlBox, SZS modifier, etc) anx trought glitches (MK8) and SSB3DS will have a voice tool like MP games. Proposer: Ashley and Red (talk) Support
OpposeComments@Nineelevndo, I understand your oppose...or the major part it. If ripping is hard, it isn't mybproblem: who want to rip, rip. Who doesn't...doesn't rip. Also, most of them can be downloaded anywhere, you just need to credit the ripper. Also, I said a dmall amount because of PC lags. Got it? ;) User:Ashley anEoTselkie/sig
Just so you now, there's already a class of subpages for sound clips: "List of X media" pages (like this). Right now, it's only for games and whatnot, but I suppose if enough sound clips of a character are amassed, a subpage could be used for that. However I doubt that would ever be necessary, and it's not very ideal either. Uploading sound clips of voicework in of itself isn't a bad idea, tho: just be choosy about what's worth including. - Walkazo (talk) It may be nice to have voice clips, thing is, for all the Mario games that will come, the maximum of 7 is too low. I don't know anything on converting and stuff, but it could be nice to have them as .ogg files, just as musics. This way we could have, just like for the games page, a "List of Mario GFXs" and/or "List of GFXs from Super Mario 64". By the way, another reason for not supporting in Ninelevendo's. Why putting so effort for a such difficult thing to do when not so much people will hear it? But yes, I know that GFXs put a variety at the game and are nice to hear with music. P.S. I found a video glitch of MK8 where the music goes off and all the characters voices can be hearded, the ones when you select it. The link is www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUJH3oTDwbE. Hope I helped you if the proposal pass :) TSUNAMI The majority of the users on this Wiki are on either Windows XP, Vista and 7 or Mac OS X. I'd see a lag if they were on something older let's say like Windows 2000 or Windows Me, 98 and 95 but that's very unlikely since barely anyone uses Windows 2000 or Windows 9X.I'd see that some people would receive a lag but that is if they were using an old piece of shit Windows 2000,9X or NT 4.0 PC.If someone were using Windows 2000 then this site would look all garbled up and shit like that though the chance is very unlikely for someone to use such older outdated and abandoned OSes. - Pwwnd123(talk|contributions)
I like this idea...but having entire pages for this? I don't agree. What I DO agree with is using a selected voice clip to color personality sections with characters, so you know what they sound like. I think one voice clip per character on average would be great detailing personality. Ray Trace(T|C) 20:54, 20 August 2014 (EDT)
Create Separate Articles for Smash FightersDon't create 3-10 This would apply to other Marioverse characters in Smash, and doing this would cut back on the length of these already massive articles. It also allows us to redirect the Smash Bros. section for the Koopalings to Main Article: Bowser Jr. (SSB) without having to go into depth about Ludwig's moveset on his own article. I figure this would only apply to Marioverse characters, as it's not like Link's or Pikachu's article needs to be reduced in size. Proposer: Paper Jorge (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Tsunami We don't really cover the technical things as, for one, it would make the section really long, but most of the terms (such as "Edge-guarding") could be considered "fan-made names". Plus, we don't really cover things like Hitboxes largely because, well, we aren't Smashwiki, our policy is different to theirs. - 01:26, 18 September 2014 (EDT)
@Randombob-omb4761: I take your point, but our inclusion policy has traditionally been interpreted as "more articles are better than less articles, if we can pull it off." -- Ghost Jam 22:05, 18 September 2014 (EDT) About the special moves, couldn't we just go back to having separate articles for them? A lot of the reason behind the merge was to minimize Smash Bros. coverage, and there was also talk of stubs being created (which used to be a very scary word). The stub argument is tosh for a bunch of reasons, but the coverage of "minor" Smash Bros aspects is an interesting point that I've always wanted to discuss. We have several characters like stage-specific ones (Ultimate Chimera, Bulborb, the Great Bay turtle) merged, which is because of their small appearances. At the same time, we have SSB enemies like Mites and Like Likes that also have relatively small appearances but are still given articles because they act as full-fledged enemies. By that same token, the special moves are constantly used and being seen, and the wiki's certainly no stranger to giving articles to special moves. After all, giving them articles would clear up some of the section's clutter. I've prattled on about a subject that I want to discuss with no real point other than that I want to discuss it. What exactly is and isn't "minor" to the point of not covering it is something that I always wanted to discuss. Anyone else wanna make sense of what I wrote and chime in with their own thoughts? Hello, I'm Time Turner.
Active rewardsDon't have 0-13 Proposer: Green 6017 King Of The Slowpoke (talk) (banned) SupportOppose
CommentsTruth be told, we tried this more than twice and in various forms. First was an informal barnstar-type system where any users could award something of their choosing to another user they felt was deserving of a more robust thank you (some talk page archives for the oldest users still have a few of these left around, despite our deciding to mass delete them). This ended up creating arguments about who gave who what for what reason and then rivals handing out bad rewards ("You got the Garlic reward cause YOU STINK!" and other crap like that). This tried to evolve into a formal awards system that fell flat on it's face (partly due to left over hostility from the informal system, partly due to apprehension on part of most of the administrative team), which then became version one of the long removed Trouble Center (this one still bugs me, it had so much potential). Other methods have been discussed over the years, on all fronts. One might ask why these attempts keep falling through when larger wikis, such as and pretty much exclusively Wikipedia, don't seem to have this problem, or at least the problem is minor at best. I think it's because of the size of the communities in question. Wikipedia is pretty much a community of communities and, much like what happens in Vegas staying in Vegas, minor award based issues that pop up in various sub-communities are handled by those communities and maybe an ops if it's Friday and Jimbo has had a few. MarioWiki is a much smaller community and intensely more intimate when it comes to it's users. When Martha May Whovier next door gets a shinny new trinket fro her lawn, Betty Lou Who wants one too. But time has proven that we can't play nice about it, so let's just stick with what Walkazo and everyone else said above. -- Ghost Jam 14:46, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
@TripleK: You HAVE to add a reason there or else it will be removed Ray Trace(T|C) 14:32, 26 September 2014 (EDT) New ArticleDon't create 2-8 Proposer: Iggy Koopa777 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsHaven't we been through this? - 22:22, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
Well, the Super Mario 3D series and the Super Mario Galaxy series are (currently!) just duos, but I'm curious about this; We don't have a page for this, and yet its amount of games are up to par with Super Mario Advance if New Super Luigi U isn't counted, and with the current number of Mario vs. Donkey Kong if it is. Is there areason for that? Especially because the SMA games are remakes with Mario Bros. stuck on. So basically, I can't vote yet. BabyLuigi64 Aside: Sorry for the premature deletion, everyone. Seemed like an open and shut violation to me and it probably would have been if a discussion hadn't broken out between us about this very subject at the same time. -- Ghost Jam 06:32, 24 September 2014 (EDT) @Mario @GhostJam Erm... you two really have fear of changing some basics? I'm not blaming you at all, but I find it, like, a bit strange. Changing rules is a thing that sometimes in a project (MarioWiki, in this case) happens. By the by, I want to remember proposals can easily change from a win to a lose... TSUNAMI
Look we made Subseries into pages such as Mario Kart, Mario Party, etc. and there is enough installments (5) so why oppose?
@Iggy Koopa777 I should also add, Mario Kart and Mario Party are MUCH larger than NSMB, both have hit more than ten titles. The Mario Kart games reach a total of 11 games including arcade titles, meanwhile, Mario Party reaches 16, again including arcade games but discounting MP10. Therefore, the articles can be and are much more expansive.
Just a reminder that new comments always go on the bottom, lest this becomes a total mess. Anyway, as long as a set of games has three or more entries, it can get a series, that's not the problem here: the real question isn't "how much", it's "what". I.e. should a sub-sub-series of the Super Mario sub-series (of the overall Mario series) get a series article like its parent sub-series and other sub-series (like Mario Kart and whatnot), or is that going to cause organizational issues and inconsistencies between articles and series pages, duplication of information, and/or a snowball effect of sub-sub-series pages for increasingly blurry game groupings? I.e. should the original SMB games get a page too? Should SM64, SMS and the Galaxy games be grouped together as the more open-world platformers? Should the 3D games go with them because it's also 3D even if it's a bit more sidescrollery? If they make a third Galaxy game, will it get a separate series page? If they make a third 3D Land/World/etc. game, will it get a page? If they make a 3D Galaxy game then what do we do? And going outside the Super Mario games, should the three Mario Kart Arcade GP games get a page? Or the Super Mario Fushigi arcade party games? Do we really want to start prying open these cans of worms when the series pages we can agree on are already in rough shape? Anyway, the points about there already being a Super Mario Advance (series) are fair, and part of me feels like it'd be easier to just delete that page, but it's a bit different in that it's also got the Yoshi's Island remake in there, so it's not purely a subset of Super Mario-only games. It might be best to have a separate discussion/proposal about that series page... - Walkazo 16:27, 24 September 2014 (EDT) @TsunamiIt has less to do with fear of change and more to do with apprehension over overhauling an already incomplete system. The fact that we only have one main-sub-series page is endemic of the problem and most of us just aren't comfortable letting it spread without having a discussion about the long reaching effects of such a change. Also, I disagree with this comment at the bottom thing. I can't speak for anyone else, but I find this @[PERSON] crap harder to follow than just having a standard reply indent. -- Ghost Jam 20:27, 24 September 2014 (EDT) @Mario @GhostJam Erm... you two really have fear of changing some basics? I'm not blaming you at all, but I find it, like, a bit strange. Changing rules is a thing that sometimes in a project (MarioWiki, in this case) happens. By the by, I want to remember proposals can easily change from a win to a lose... TSUNAMI
Ok. Let's clear up this confusion. I am NOT talking about old school games like SMB or SML. I mean NSMBU, NSMB, NSMBWii, NSMB2 and and NSLU. And Can't anyone notice the title is called New Super Mario Bros. (Series) notice that "New" part there?, yeah, that is what i am talking about. It says it right there New Super Mario Bros. (Series). NOT Super Mario Bros. (Series). Paper Iggy Koopa
@Ninelevendo Look there is many differences also note that Super Mario Advance is made into a Series article But Wait!, it is just remakes. Also is it in 2D, do you see it's power ups in the old school version? Paper Iggy Koopa
@Superfiremario: Size doesn't get factored in as much when it comes to separate series. Mario & Luigi, Mario Strikers, and Mario Baseball have less games than the collective New Super Mario Bros. subseries. Just letting you know. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (EDT) Ok, lets explain something. First, We made Paper Mario into a series page and it has only 4 installments and there is huge differences in this so called "Series". plus the 3DS adaptation is called New Super Mario Bros. 2. Wait wait wait?!, New Super Mario Bros. 2 notice the 2 part there?, it sounds a lot like a series. Paper Iggy Koopa
I doubt this proposal will pass, oh well, at least i tried. Dreams do not come true every day. Paper Iggy Koopa
Create articles for the assist trophy charactersCreate 7-0 To put it succinctly, we're giving articles to nearly every other character in the Smash series: the Adventure Mode enemies like Topis and Like Likes, the Subspace Emissary enemies like Mizzos and Floows, the Smash Run enemies like Cuccos and Darknuts, and pretty much every boss that isn't "this character +1 height" (Duon, Giga Bowser, Yellow Devil, etc). They range from being mindless with a single attack to requiring strategies to dodge around their attacks. The assist trophies, on the other hand, encompass all of that and have the added bonus of being items. If we're going by wiki standard, that's two reasons in one why they should have articles. Judging by the archive of proposals, there's always been a... worry, for lack of a decent word, about covering Smash Bros. articles. There have been proposals to merge and remove and split and delete, all with varying results and decisions, but all arriving to the generally same conclusion: we should cover the Smash series, but within reason. With that said, our standards for what is "within reason" change. There are two proposals up there for not having articles for the Adventure Mode and Subspace Emissary enemies (that have passed, mind you), and yet, there have been recent proposals overriding them. What we can accept for articles has changed, and having articles for the assist trophies is definitely something that we could accept. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Create the articles
Do not create the articlesCommentsThen what about Pokémon? They should be treated the same way as the Assist Trophy characters. Aokage (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
How about special moves? How are we going to deal with the currently spotty coverage of it? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:17, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
This is something I can't decide on. I won't vote (for now) but I'm curious to see how this ends. BabyLuigi64
What would be the point of this? Are we giving any other real information other than who they are and what they do in the game? - 01:26, 13 October 2014 (EDT)
Merge all warioware microgames with their respective List of microgames in ___Don't merge 1-13 So my idea is that we put them all in one article in an organized manor, like the List of implied Characters. We don't need to cut information, we can just copy paste it. Nothing new has to be written. I understand that this will be a MASSIVE merge, something I don't even want to know how to do. But I think it's worth it. Just please, hear me out. And er... don't criticize me for a horrible proposal. Proposer: Toadbrigade5 (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Timeturner Niice Paragraph, but number 1: The massive numbers prove my point. The abundance of nearly identical numbers is clogging the random, and I think having a few giant articles would be easier. It wouldn't be too cluttered, I mean, is the list of implied characters considered cluttered?
@Walkazo: Wow. Can't believe I messed up on the definition of a stub. Thanks for clearing a few things up though. @Toadbrigade5 If you understanded and want to close the proposal since there is no way it can pass/you want to oppose too/other reasons, you can ask to do so, as long it is before November 29 00:00 GMT (if I got it right), to an admin, such as Walkazo. Just saying, since by your comments I realize you realized. TSUNAMI
Captain Toad vs Toad vs Blue Toad Part Deux: The Toadeningcanceled by proposer The previous proposal outcomes regarding if the playable Toad in 3D World is Blue Toad or teh Toad are wrong and I want to reverse them. Since determining the identity of an anthropomorphic fungi in a children's video game series warrants only the highest level of intellectual scrutiny, here's a list of the for and againsts: (Note that in both cases, Captain Toad would still warrant a separate page since he's a separate, distinct persona 'n' shit) The Blue Toad in 3D World is Toad; Captain Toad is a totally new character
Captain Toad is teh Toad; 3D World Toad is Blue Toad
Toad toad toad toad toad toad. Toad. Based on these last two points, it seems fairly obvious to me what the facts are. Deciding what teh truth is by a vote seems dangerously close to the contemptible concept of wikiality to me, but the time-honored Mariowiki tradition is "throw a vote at it"at anything vaguely contentious. So whatever. (*In the interest of transparency, I have to thank Wario Forums user Warelander for bringing these points to my attention.) (P.S: May you burn in hell, Toad.) Proposer: Glowsquid (talk) Captain Toad is the Toad (move 3D World info to Blue Toad (character)
Captain Toad is a Toad (status-quo)
Comments". According to games, there are several Toads that look alike. Have you ever heard of Bowser's Inside Story? That has several blorbed Toads that look and act exactly like "the Toad"." I've posted several sources that hint captain toad = toad. Your tagent does nothing to disprove anything I've written in the main body. "Also, Nintendo didn't say if Captain Toad was Toad" that's exactly what the last point of the 2nd section adress, jesus. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2014 (EST)
I gotta say, I consider the Japanese Mario fans lucky. At least they are not bothered by "character the character" debates. And it shouldn't be a secret that I'm against "character the character" articles. In my eyes, characters that appear as species are all generic unless given specific traits; see Toadette, Toadsworth and most boss enemies, like Kamella. If "the character" articles were merged with their respective "character species" articles, I'm sure we wouldn't have these thousand-times-done deliberations, because then we don't have to complicate things any further than we already have. "In the ending of 3D World, Captain Toad and the Toad Brigade appears, minus the blue Toad. Because their Blue Toad is the one adventuring with Mario. Durrrrrrr." Okay, no. Spoilers for Treasure Tracker, but Blue Brigader Toad can't be 3D World Toad because they appear in separate places with different appearances. He couldn't be in two places at the same time. Also, Blue Brigader Toad makes a reference to having a poor eyesight without his glasses in Super Mario Galaxy 2. -SmokedChili (Talk) (Thoughts) 05:27, 6 December 2014 (EST)
Split all Smash Bros. special moves into separate articlessplit 15-0 Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsSplit the Badges of Paper Mario and The Thousand-Year Door into separate articlessplit 6-0 I'm well aware that I'm going on a bit of a splitting spree with these proposals, but stick with me for a second. Yes, we already have lists on the main Badge page that seemingly sets up all of the badges' info in a tidy manner, but there are quite a few elements that could be added. Names in other languages, in-game descriptions (both on pick-up and in the journal), synergies/conflicts with other badges, better explanations of where they can be found besides "this whole area"... Besides, is there any real reason why they shouldn't have articles besides consistency? I mean, they're basically regular items that have permanent effects instead of one-off effects (there are quite a few that also act as special moves), and we have plenty of articles on items that are basically masquerading as keys to the next level, or even literal keys. I feel like there's certainly enough information to substantiate each and every one of these badges. For this proposal, the badges from Paper Mario and Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door will be the only ones covered (though discussion could lead to changes), since there are notable differences between the PM badges and the M&L badges and I'd like to take baby steps before diving in. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Articles For All
Articles For NoneComments@Baby Luigi: I think you've misread what this proposal wants to do... Hello, I'm Time Turner. Split the ghosts of ScareScraper into separate articlesDon't split 2-4 Proposer: Sonic98 (talk) Articles For All
Articles For None
CommentsCorrect me if I'm wrong, but looking at the Scarescraper page, it looks like each type of Ghost already has its own page. Magikrazy (talk) I also don't understand how Alph has his own page either. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:16, 10 December 2014 (EST)
Are people going to use this "the more the merrier" shit to justify making separate pages for all the Koopa Troopa shell colours next? --Glowsquid (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2014 (EST)
Create separate articles for DKC series and DKL series boss levelscreate 8-1 Currently, the Donkey Kong series's boss levels are merged with their respective boss articles. Apparently this is due to the fact that the levels are pretty much just a boss fight, and thus don't "deserve" sepate articles. I disagree. Here's some reasons as to why I think they should be split: 1. It's wiki policy that all individual levels get separate articles. I'd also like to mention that there's one boss level that actually does feature another section before the actual fight: Tiki Tong Terror. This information is nowhere to be seen, however, because there's no article for the actual level, only Tiki Tong. Proposer: Aokage (talk) Create
Don't createCommentsthis "more the merrier" shit is going too far: 1): The quote-unquote boss levels can be barely called that. They either dump the player directly in the boss fight or (in DKC Returns) consist of a short stretch of land with a DK barrel. Any content they describe would be redundant with the individual boss pages. Standalone pages would be especially problematic for the first DKC's "boss levels", which are flat and (save for the last one) uses the same background graphic. 2): The existence of pages for similarly low-content Mario levels is not a strong precedent. An old proposal established DKC's featureless boss levels shouldn't have a page. Ergo, if the precedent was followed properly, the cited pages should not have been created. 3): The arrow situation sucks, but it's an argument to have the arrow lead to the next "proper" level (something the DKC 3 level pages already do), not create a bunch of useless pages when a simpler solution exist. --Glowsquid (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2014 (EST)
I'm not going to log a formal vote on this, as I'm stuck between what I want to say and the policies I'm sworn to uphold. On the one hand, policy is firmly in favor of this, it falls right into our inclusion policy and standard editing practices. To bring up Glowsquid's points:
On the other hand, Glowsquid has a point. We are stretching the inclusion policy as far is it can go to squeeze out every article we can and I debate the supposed quality or non-stub status some of the results have left us with. Generally speaking, lots of articles are great for a museum, but less helpful for an encyclopedia and/or archive and we qualify more as the later than the former. I feel that we need to have a formal discussion about how we apply our inclusion policy before this gets out of hand, but that's a debate for another time and a different venue. -- Ghost Jam 20:53, 27 December 2014 (EST)
Add an Easter Egg section to game articlescreate 12-0 Proposer: Tails777 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsUgh, @MadzthePenguin, I get that you like M@L:BIS but, why does everything you say need a reference? lol,jk Toad and his brigade! 15:09, 30 December 2014 (EST)
Didn't we formally decide to move Easter Eggs and trivia sections into the body of articles where able? I seem to recall that. Then again, maybe we were all operating on the assumption that it was a formal decision. -- Ghost Jam 00:31, 1 January 2015 (EST)
Crteate an arcade pageDon't create 2-5 Ok, what 1337star said dawned on me as an even better idea. Again as I said in the comments I wrote this at 3 Am and I was so tired I wrote my first idea down without any 2nd thoughts. I don’t know if it’s too late to change but I still am going to change the proposal below to the creation of separate articles on the various different arcade machines that Mario games have been on.
Proposer: Green6017 Guy (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThe proposal is kind of vague when it comes to arcade. Are you talking arcade as a whole or make pages for separate arcade consoles? If the former, then there's the question of consistency: why doesn't handheld get its own page either? If the latter, we might get several articles on arcade consoles, but I'm not sure if that's a good way to do things. For instance, Mario Kart Arcade GP 2 uses the Triforce arcade console. P.S. It's also really difficult to read your proposal; do you need help with grammar and spelling? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 01:42, 21 January 2015 (EST) Sorry I wrote it while I was half asleep at 3 Am in the morning. I was planing on writing it earlier but stuff happend. sorry again and if I have the time Ill rewrite it. Green6017 Guy Just a note here on some of the different arcade boards that already have/could have articles:
These are just the ones I could find from a quick search on Wikipedia (plus other sources when Wikipedia was vague. If you're serious about improving our arcade coverage, doing further research on these five and finding others would be a good start. -- 1337star (Mailbox SP) 15:35, 23 January 2015 (EST) This proposal is somewhat of a mixed idea in my opinion. We should have another option for giving each individual Arcade platform its own article and that is the option I would support and I'd imagine many other people who are currently opposing this proposal would switch their votes to that option too. Individual users are not allowed to edit other users proposals so we'd need Green6017 Guy to rewrite it to continue. 3D Player 2010 17:25, 23 January 2015 (EST) Make a new "Out of date" templatecanceled by proposer
Below are two versions. Personally, I like images on templates because they show creativity, but I understand some people disagree on me about images, so I've included a template without an image as well. Version 1 Version 2 So, what do you guys think? Proposer: Andymii (talk) Support (Version 1)Support (Version 2)Oppose
CommentsCan you direct me to a page that is out of date? And how do you mean "out of date? If it's missing info, then someone should be expected to put that information in, even if it's just one sentence. And if it's using a name that isn't widely used anymore then a simple edit is all that's required rather than some poxy template. Yoshi876 (talk) Take Club Nintendo (rewards program) for instance. The rewards are, well, out of date. Since no one is editing or updating it, this template would fit in perfectly. Andymii (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2015 (EST) What's all this fuss about "instant recognizably", anyways? Is it really that difficult to just read the template? --Vommack (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2015 (EST) You know, I've changed my mind. I agree with the people in the "oppose" section. I've cancelled this proposal; sorry. Andymii (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2015 (EST) Establish a duration rule for music filesDon't establish 1-8 Proposer: Mr. Ice Bro. (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThe ONLY problem we have with our current policy is that we upload like, complete CD rips of game soundtracks when they are clearly copyrighted by Nintendo and are crossing the illegal line. Unlike content here on MarioWiki, on which we use for a clear fair use basic, music is something slightly different; they have soundtracks of it and they WILL mark you for copyright if you upload the complete track on YouTube. Now I'm using YouTube's ----ty copyright claim system but then again, these pieces of music were composed by artists and are copyrighted by Nintendo. Furthermore, our own fair use policy even states that we have only a sample of the soundtrack, like a shorter or a reduced quality version of it. I admit there's a gray line when it comes to soundtracks of games not officially released but something doesn't sit well with me when we upload clean, nice uploads of complete BGMs when a soundtrack CD of the said game DOES exist. And yes, you can use the typical illegal measures of obtaining CD ripped soundtracks on say, you know those sites. It's almost like we just pick apart the original rip from a CD and reupload it on this wiki. I entirely disagree with the proposal, regardless. Many people love certain video game bgms and would probably like to listen to the full version of it, which is what this wiki provides, but I'm still a bit skeptical whether we should still provide the full bgm of a song. Ray Trace(T|C) 15:19, 8 February 2015 (EST)
"say, WarioWare: Twisted, which hasn't received anything officially in regards to its soundtrack and is a decade old now, I'd go for it" No. Fair use doesn't work that way. --Glowsquid (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2015 (EST) Dunno if it's outlined in any public places, but Porplemontage once suggested (to the admins) that we aim for 15 seconds maximum of tracks longer than a minute (and 25% max of tracks shorter than a minute), rather than full songs, for the same reason that we don't upload entire comics or make full game scripts anymore. Documenting and providing samples of music, art, etc. is one thing, but we don't want to risk legal crap by reproducing full versions of any sort of content - nor is it our place to be a one-stop shop for Mario music: that's not what encyclopedias are about. - Walkazo (talk)
If the Mario Wiki is still sticking to the motto of covering "all things Mario," then personally I think the whole piece should exist. But if Porplemontage suggested it, it's sort of hard to argue. However, the idea doesn't seem very favorable, and (I might be looking too deep into this) Porplemontage after all only meant it as a suggestion, not an order. Andymii (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2015 (EST)
This is another topic, but concerning fair use, if we're really going to shorten the music tracks, fine, but we can't leave artworks untouched either due to this line in our fair-use template: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of character artwork for commentary on the character in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:06, 10 February 2015 (EST)
I'd also like to bring up sprites, but those are more acceptable than HD artworks. I recall an admin from Spriters Resource has stated that Nintendo actually acknowledges the site's existence. Prior to Pokemon Black and White's release, Nintendo has realized that people already ripped the sprites of the Pokemon and all, but actually went in and asked them to refrain from uploading the sprites until or after the game has been released. That's another discussion, ultimately, but it's just an FYI that the existence of sprites doesn't fall into legal concerns compared to the HD artwork or songs. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:31, 12 February 2015 (EST) Protect all user talk pages so that only auto-confirmed users can edit themcanceled by proposer
Proposer: Kart Player 2011 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsA lot of stuff Time Turner pointed out I didn't think about. How do I close proposals? 3D Player 2010 17:41, 8 March 2015 (EDT) So I'm going to start thinking about some ways I can remake this proposal while adding things in it to mitigate some of the problems that Time Turner pointed out in this. I'd like this proposal closed. I might remake this proposal sometime later if I can think of possibilities on additions/changes to this proposal idea to mitigate the flaws Time Turner pointed out. Though I might not be able to figure any way out however in which case this will never be remade. 3D Player 2010 18:09, 8 March 2015 (EDT) Remove extraneous Super Smash Bros. conversations from articles' main bodymove 12-0 Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Move convos. to profiles and statistics
Remove convos.Keep convos.Comments@Baby Luigi: I'm not saying that they don't have a place on the wiki, I'm just saying that their place isn't necessarily in the articles' main body. Hello, I'm Time Turner. @Stonehill: I think what you are describing is this and this. Yoshi876 (talk) Make a Rule Against Using Too Many Contractionskeep current rules 1-11 Ever since I joined this wiki, one thing I always keep an eye out for is contractions (won't, can't, he'll, doesn't, etc.). We are an encyclopedia, so we should be relatively formal; contractions are generally looked upon as colloquial and informal. So what should we do? Well, first of all, contractions are completely fine in talk and discussion pages, so any rule against contractions should not apply in those pages. And since contractions have become such an important part of English, a person using a few once in a while by accident should not be penalized. However, when people start using them excessively, sentences start to sound like "Mario'll then grab the item. It'll then transform him into Mini Mario, which'll allow him to run up walls he can't run up otherwise." See how informal it sounds? As one of the premier NIWA wikis, this would be unacceptable here on MarioWiki. The unfortunate truth is that this website is loaded with sentences like these. So, I propose that contractions in main space pages be generally avoided and using them to excess be worth a gentle Reminder. It will make things admittedly more difficult, but at the end, it is for the good of the wiki. Contractions are already technically against our standard style, but it has to be raised a notch due to sheer amount of infractions. Pushing it off to the side will not work. Proposer: Andymii (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsI've noticed that you've added a point to your proposal after you voted. Yes, contractions are technically against standardized writing as I had stated (it's not our rules, it's a general rule in formal English writing that every English major should know). It doesn't necessarily need to be raised a notch any more than the forbidden second person/imperative writing nor as a raised awareness of certain styles and dictions used in a very informal manner in this wiki. I agree that more awareness should be raised about lessening the use of contractions in this wiki but it does not necessarily need to be its own rule since it's already a rule in standard, formal writing. Ray Trace(T|C) 23:04, 5 March 2015 (EST) Make notice for animated imagesDon't create 5-11 A sample of said template can be viewed here. Proposer: Stonehill (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThe idea makes sense, but the template must be consistent in design with other image notices, such as {{map-image}}, {{Award-image}}, {{BJAODN-image}}, etc. Having the whole "if the Goombas aren't moving" explanation also seems unnecessary: just say something like "This image is animated; please do not reupload it as a static image." and maybe an additional note that some brows might erroneously display it as already being a static image, but either way, be succinct. - Walkazo (talk)
15:19, 4 March 2015 (EST)
15:35, 4 March 2015 (EST)
18:13, 4 March 2015 (EST)
18:17, 4 March 2015 (EST) "To explain that some browsers are limited to viewing only the first frame of animated images and kindly remind users (especially new users that use old and worn-out browsers) not to change the image" Which browsers don't support animated images? I think most popular browsers (FireFox and Internet Explorer and maybe Safari) supports the basic animated .gif image. Finally, for the notice template, it would be better if the image included has transparency instead of a white background, but it's just my opinion. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:30, 4 March 2015 (EST)
Does this count personal images too? ~~ Boo4761
This matter itches me because there is a point that is missed here. Animated GIFs are supported in any browser since the millenium bug (bar early wearables). However, this template is meant for animated PNGs, which is not supported in all browsers yet, let alone image editors. Bulbapedia uses these APNGs in a manner not crucial to the information, just as eye-candy for those with awesome browsers.
14:37, 13 March 2015 (EDT)
19:01, 15 March 2015 (EDT) Um... why was this proposal extended? At the time of extension, the vote was 5-10, and proposals should only be extended if the vote is within 3 or less in difference. If no one says anything, I will mark this proposal as failed. Andymii (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2015 (EDT)
|