| Any proposal decided and past is archived here. Use the scroll box to see votes and comments. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.
|
| All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was.
|
Insert info from Games
DO NOT INSERT INFO FROM SONIC GAMES 21-5
Alright. I was happening to look through Shadow the Hedgehog's article, and had edited something that was info from the games. I thought maybe, why not put info from the games into the articles (i e. Like add Sonic Rush info in Sonic, Tails, Blaze, Amy, Eggman, Cream, and Knuckles articles). This will also help some stub articles. This is overview, not in-depth. Add information from games, or don't add information from games?
Add Information from Games
- MegaMario9910 (talk) I'm the proposer, so per me.
- Dr. Hammer (talk) It would mean more complete articles for the characters, so I suppose I support. And they technically were in Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games and SSBB, so...
- Walkazo (talk) - A paragraph overview of these series in already existing articles will give people context for what these characters are about. The bare basics are not gonna change us into "Videogame Wiki".
- InfectedShroom (talk) - Per Walkazo.
- MamaLuigi2 (talk)- Agreed. Sure, it's the MARIO wiki, but without Sonic, Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games wouldn't excist.
Don't Add Information from Games
- Purple Yoshi (talk) - Um, no. This isn't a Sonic wiki, or even a third-party wiki. The games have NOTHING to do with Mario.
- Pokemon DP (talk) - No, just no. BRIEF, I repeat, BRIEF descriptions about the characters personality and debut appearance from his/her original series are fine, but no way in HELL should we allow large amounts of outside information. It's just not right. And there are other Wiki's to link to about this stuff, ya know.
- Blitzwing (talk) - This rpoposal has been brought up at least twice before. Per DP.
- Per DP version of Pokemon (heh heh). Toadette 4evur (talk)
- Ninjayoshi - Per Pokemon DP.
- HyperToad (talk) Per DP and PY.
- Bob-omb buddy (talk) - The games aren't even including mario charecters! Only include the first apperance and apperances from mario games.
- Clay Mario (talk) - Per my comment below.
- Starry Parakarry (talk)- Per Purple Yoshi and Pokemon DP.
- Pikax (talk)- Information about the character and his/her appearances in Mario games is enough.
- RedFire Mario (talk) - I am a Sonic the Hedgehog fan, but this isn't a Sonic Wiki, so we shouldn't add any info of games that doesn't have to do anything of Mario. If you want to add Sonic info, go and find a Sonic Wiki like DarkHero Sonic's new one, not here
- Dryest bowser (talk)- This is not a sonic wiki, so shadow should not have info from sonic games. only mario games
- Laebear12 (talk)- agrees with dryest bowser and redfire mario
- Storm Yoshi (talk) Per the DP of Pokemon and Yoshi of Purple
- Tucayo (talk) Per Purple Yoshy. this is a MARIO wiki, not sonic. Everything here must be related to MARIO.
- Alphaclaw11 (talk) If we add info from sonic games we will have to add articles on sonic games, that way it is understandable, but being a Mario(and Mario-related) Wiki we shouldn't even if we could have info from other games. A small note may be able to be added to extra, maybe.
- Iron Maiden (talk) I love that blue hedgie, but things would be much too sonical if we add all that uneeded information. No Super Sonic Wiki here lololol
- Super-Yoshi (talk) - =\ Like DP said, It's just not right.
- Moonshine (talk) Per DP and Dryest Bowser.
- Glitchman (talk) - I thought we had already decided this...no articles concerning the Sonic series (except for what was in Brawl and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games) AT ALL!
- Goomb-omb (talk) Their articles should only extend as far as their involvement in the Marioverse.
This will be my first successful proposal. MegaMario9910 (talk)
- I would agree like this if we're talking about generalities, so like, for Sonic, it would read:
Sonic the Hedgehog is the main character of the Sonic the Hedgehog series of video games. Since the beginning of the series, Sonic has been the champion of peace, risking his life to stop the plots of a variety of violent foes, particularly Dr. Eggman, in order to establish worldwide peace. Along the way, he has been aided by many characters, including his friends Miles "Tails" Prower, Knuckles the Echidna, Amy Rose, and occassionally Shadow the Hedgehog. Sonic's greatest asset is his ability to run at supersonic speeds. However, he is Sonic's fame rivals that of Mario, and like Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog's series has also spawned television shows, comic series, and even original video animations.
I think any more than that make us unfocused the Mario series. However, I've always been one to think that this Wiki should at least provide some background (not a lot) for the chrossover characters. If you could edit your proposal to say that this would be an overview thing rather than an in-depth (ala Sonic News Network) then you'd have my support and doubtless the support of many others. Even if this doesn't go through, you are currently allowed to use information from Mario and Super Smash Bros. games, including trophy information in Brawl, to write about crossover characters. A significant portion of the above example could be compiled based on those. Stumpers (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
- Done. MegaMario9910 (talk)
- At least according to DP, brief information is ok... I think maybe your proposal, with your change, may already be acceptable! Time to get to work, both of us. Stumpers (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
- Hmm... I'm kind of agreeing with the supporters here. But the opposers have a point, as too much info would suck. What would be an example of what you would put in, say, the Sonic article under this new system? InfectedShroom (talk)
- Err... wait, whatta mean, Stumpers? And... maybe some info about his history through the games, and a bit of info about those games, IS. MegaMario9910 (talk)
- I mean that the example I gave is already approved for use in the articles. Stumpers (talk)
- Yay. Now, let's go this work done. MegaMario9910 (talk)
- Oh. Duh. I guess I didn't really read your example. My bad. And yeah, it's a great idea. InfectedShroom (talk)
- Uh... not really has there been two proposals brought up before. One was to make articles for the crossovers, and the other one was to make a list. Care to explain why you said that, Blitz? MegaMario9910 (talk)
- Because both were about to add unrelated info to a specific group of article, duh. Blitzwing (talk)
- Yeesh! Why do proposals always get people riled up? Stumpers (talk)
- If voting to support this proposal will be result in general series/character summaries like your example then you're right, people are getting way too distraught. It's not gonna turn us into Sonic Wiki or whatever, it'll just add to general knowledge of gaming and save our readers the trouble of going elsewhere for the bare basics (and who knows, maybe they'll get preoccupiued wherever they went for further reading and we lose our audience). Being elitist never helped anyone. - Walkazo (talk)
- Thanks, Walkazo. Stumpers (talk)
- "NO PROPOSALS ABOUT HAVING BANJO AND CONKER ARTICLES-- The Management" Hmm... I wonder if this also applies to sonic. There is a sonic wiki. We only have a sonic article because hes included in brawl and Olympic Games. For non-mario brawl characters, don't go to much in-depth. Just give information about them in brawl and Olympic games. Clay Mario (talk)
- That message means that we will not cover all topics in Banjo or Conker games, only those whom have appeared in Mario media. Likewise, we won't be covering Princess Elise or the SatAM TV show from the Sonic series, but we will cover Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, etc. Don't forget: Brawl gives information from the series' too, so that would work as well. Stumpers (talk)
- Do remember that we aren't creating articles, we're just putting info from the games into the character's ARTICLE. Maybe people would like to know some info about Sonic and friends from the games, but the article only covers Olympics and Brawl, which doesn't explain much for the characters, and gives very less of their backstory (what happened in the games; what was the history of Sonic and friends, etc.). And remember that we aren't only covering Sonic, but series that were in the Super Smash Bros. series also (yet, I'm not sure we would add Solid Snake, due to the fact that a lot of his games were rated higher than Mario games). And this part is for Blitzwing: The proposals weren't mained about adding info from games to the articles. One was to create the articles, while the other was to create a crossover list. MegaMario9910 (talk)
We're not trying to cover information from outside series. Only information from Mario-based games. Including a HIGHLY detailed back story on outside characters is just too damn much. There's a borderline to the outside information we can add here; Information on characters from the SSB series and ONLY their appearance in the SSB series is fine; we're detailing information from that one series, since it's linked to the Mario series. That's fine. But including information on, say, what Blaze did in all of Sonic Rush and Sonic the Hedgehog 2006, or what Fox McCloud did in all 5 Star Fox games. That makes us a "Video game Wiki", not a "Mario Wiki". And remember, there's something called "external linking". Pokemon DP (talk)
- DP, I said some, not all. MegaMario9910 (talk)
- I am in agreement with DP. Unless it is a game in which Mario is a significant character, information about it should not be included. Pikax (talk)
- But this doen't mean we're making detailed backstories, look at Stumpers' Sonic example: it's just the bare basics. I.e. for Star Fox it'd be along the lines of: "Fox McCloud first appeared in Star Fox, in which he led his teammates Falco, Slippy and Peppy against the armies of the evil scientist Andross in their Arwings. Later, team Star Fox were shown to drive Landmaster Tanks, and travel by foot, fighting with handheld lasers among other weapons..." It'd also mention his rivalry with Wolf, and his romance with Krystal; but not every little detail of every game (it'd simply state what game introduced what, and only if that "what" was significant, like The Great Fox; etc.). It's just gonna be a synopsis of the series to provide context for things that happen in Brawl and whatnot. - Walkazo (talk)
Brawl features appearances of Wolf, Fox, Slippy, Krystal, and Falco. Brawl is sort of Mario media, but doesn't show Mario as a significant character. We still have articles on Super Smash Bros anyway. We don't have any articles on Sonic characters like Jet the Hawk because he doesn't appear in Mario media. Clay Mario (talk)
- CM: I said we weren't making articles. Walkazo: Thanks, Walkazo. MegaMario9910 (talk)
Sorry. You were only putting information in the articles. But then you should only put information of the characters in mario media to make us stay the MARIO wiki Clay Mario (talk)
In the circumstance that you need to mention a character or place that wasn't in the Smash Bros. games in the overview paragraph, do so. However, someone like Jet the Hawk, who is a rival in a spin-off of the main series, doesn't need to be mentioned. Look at my example: "to stop the plots of a variety of violent foes, particularly Dr. Eggman," I'm not sure if Jet was ever violent, but I think Jet is an example of one of the villains I didn't mention. I also didn't mention Silver, you'll notice, because he's just a cameo. I did mention Shadow because he's an assist trophy. I hope that helps! Stumpers (talk)
Here's my comment: MegaMario9910 himself told me clearly that he doesn't want it to create extra articles, just add tiny bits of info. So listen. -- Dom (talk)
|
Forms
DO NOT MERGE 10-1
I've been wanting to do this for a while, ao I'll be blunt: having articles like Fire Mario is stupuid. It's Mario with a Fire Flower: all of that info belongs in the Fire Flower article. The same goes for all Mario's forms: Ice Mario, Wing Mario, etc., and quite a few "subspecies": Beach Koopas (Koopa's without their shells) and Fishin' Lakitus (lakitus with Fishing Poles). I never did quite understand why these articles were needed. My proposal is that we merge all of these "form" articles with their respective power-up/character.
Please note that full-fledged alter-egos (like Dr. Mario) should certainly stay, as should "forms" that are treated like seperate characters (Dry Bowser and Giga Bowser); but there are limits, people.
Proposer: Ultimatetoad
Deadline: June 19, 2008, 17:00
Support
- Ultimatetoadper proposal
Oppose
- MegaMario9910 (talk) The forms are different from what the main character is. Each form has played a role in a game(s), so its not much minor.
- InfectedShroom (talk) - Per myself in the comments.
- Stumpers (talk) - I could see this maybe for minor transformations, but something like Fire Mario? That's come up in a huge number of games in a huge number of forms... for instance the revival in SMG.
- Per the smart people above me. Toadette 4evur (talk)
- Ninjayoshi - Per all, especially InfectedShroom.
- Goomb-omb (talk) if we can provide separate articles for each, each one providing encyclopedic information, why shouldn't we?
- Clay Mario (talk) - Per all
- Tykyle (talk) - See my comments below.
- Dryest bowser (talk) - Per stumpers
- Bob-omb buddy (talk) - Articles are only merged if they are too similar or are the same thing,Which these are not.
OK, I have two reasons for opposing this proposal. 1) They (they being the other forms) have official names, have long enough articles to be stubs, and are a different part of the Mario Universe. For example, Fishin' Lakitus are more different than one would think. They will not attack Mario unless he grabs the Mushrooom, making them harmless until the player takes action. Also, take the Mario forms thing as an example. Statue Mario would not fit under the Tanooki suit article. This is because the Tanooki Suit article explains what the Tanooki Suit does, while the Statue Mario article explains what Statue Mario is. 2) This proposal is too vague. You did not specify which articles would need this, as some people may agree on some articles but not on others. This must be a long, article by article process if everyone is to agree. Sorry to bore you with such a long explanation, but there's my opinion. InfectedShroom (talk)
Um.... the Statue Mario page is already merged with Tanooki suit. I will reply to both of you'r opposals in order:
1. Statue Mario is.... Mario turned into a statue. If that info does not belong on the Tanooki suit page then at least it can be merged into the Mario page.
2. Which articles am i talking about? well, for a beggining, we could do all of the articles in the Mario Forms template. Those are the ones that this proposal is mainly about. The Beach Koopa and Fishing Lakitu thing is debatable: I might remove them from the proposal, especially after that little tidbit you gace me just now. My real problem with these articles is that, when you get right down to it, whther it behaves differently or not, it is still just a lakitu with a fishing pole. Maybe it does'nt attack Mario because it's hands are full.... - Ultimatetoad
- Ah. Shoulda checked my sources on the Statue Mario thing. My bad. But the point still stands. The "Mario" article tells what it is, and the power-up article tells what it does. And I still don't think that the enemies should be merged simply because they do behave differently... InfectedShroom (talk)
Not all of the power-ups serve only the single purpose of turning Mario into _____-Mario. A good example of this is the Fire Flower. It serves a completely different purpose in some games; in the Paper Mario games it functions as an attack item. Likewise Mario is able to use fireballs without a Fire Flower as in Super Mario RPG.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tykyle (talk).
|
Prevent loss of information (Recipes)
RULE THAT A MERGE OF THE RECIPES ARTICLES CANNOT LEAD TO LOSS OF INFORMATION 4-0
A previously passed proposal (which can be found here) called for the merging of the Recipes articles into one long page. While I'm not particularly bothered about this, I fear the possibility of information (such as notable trivia or complete lists of combinations) being removed so as to avoid an overly long page. (The second sentence of what appears to be Xzelion's page for working on the merge suggests an intention to not include every combination, for instance.) I propose that it be set down that if any merge of the Recipes pages does eventually take place, all possible recipe combinations and all pieces of important trivia must remain somewhere easily accessible on the wiki, such as a separate page for combinations. (The combinations page is only a suggestion and not part of the proposal.) My reasoning is that useful information should not be removed from this wiki for the sake of convenience, that the wiki should be a compendium of all things Mario-related, and that one should not have to visit another fansite to find out recipe combinations.
Proposer: Soler
Deadline: 20:00, Friday June 20, 2008 A.D. (EDT)
Rule that a merge cannot lead to loss of information (Support)
- Soler (talk) (I am the proposer: my reasons are above.)
- Super-Yoshi (talk) Per Soler.
- Bob-omb buddy (talk)-If it is on one page then it should be good enough for the next one.
- Ninjayoshi- Per my comments below.
Allow loss of information (Oppose)
I think that we should have two pages for the Recipes: Recipes and Recipes (Trivia). Recipes (Trivia) will list the Recipe, then game, and finally the trivia. No descriptions on the Trivia page. Ninjayoshi
- No, that'd be too disorganized/disjointed, and too much of a hastle for readers to go flicking back and forth between the two articles. The recipies page should simply be a big table listing all the things that can be baked/cooked, all the different recipies for making each one (with what game they come from indicated somehow), and the effects, etc. of the thing made. A Trivia section could be added at the bottom of the article; but only if it deals with the recipies, because as far as I know most, if not all of the ingrediants and final products have their own articles anyway. - Walkazo (talk)
- Walkazo's idea sounds good to me, but personally I don't mind too much how this is done so long as it's done somehow. Also, the final products won't have their own articles if the project initiated by the previous Recipes proposal is completed. That's why I made this proposal in the first place: to ensure that all the content of the deleted articles will remain on the wiki, in an easily accessible format. —Soler (talk).
- Yeah, didn't think about the flipping back and forth. Maybe, to shorten the page length, we could have two pages (again): Recipes (A-M) and Recipes (N-Z). Go ahead prove me wrong. Ninjayoshi
|
Remove Automatons, Machinations, Ghosts, Ghouls, and Specters from the "Species" Category
KEEP AS SPECIES 11-2
It is true that a species is a group of of living things. It is also true, that undead things, and robotic things, are not living things, and do not constitute a species. Since common sense often fails, I'll included dictionary definitions of a species in my comments below.
Now, many of you who are reading this will think I'm just getting bogged down by semantics, but any errors in the wiki reflect on the wiki (and us, the users) and I think an error as large as this one greatly detracts from the credibility of this wiki.
Proposer: Goomb-omb
Deadline: June 27, 2008, 20:00
Support
- Goomb-omb per my reasoning above and below
- Soler (talk) —Accuracy is key, and "Character Type" (see comment by Goomb-omb below) seems to be an adequate term.
Oppose
- Stumpers (talk) I'm afraid this is nitpicking, but I'm usually all for that. What I'm thinking of is a page like Bow or another notable Boo. What should we put in the species section of the character infobox? If you have another word we should use instead of species, that would help.
- Ninjayoshi Per Stumpers. Also, Boos are a species. Thirdly, if we change 'species' on any robot family and the like, we should change it to something like 'series'.
- InfectedShroom (talk) - Per Stumpers. This seems a bit... Particular... about what we should add to our articles. Also, the Mario Bros. series is not the most scientific series (Being able to float in space? :O), so I think that this would not be necessary.
- Pikax (talk) - "Species" is simple enough to understand and, like Stumpers said, this is nitpicking.
- Blitzwing (talk) - Per Pikax and IS. Mario isn't exactly the most scientifically-correct out there.
- Toadette 4evur (talk) Per all.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
- The.Real.Izkat (talk)-A boo is a speices though. and i mean its really simple anyways. Per Blitzwing about the scientific thing.
- reecer6 (talk) - Why would you take them out? they are a kind of species! all species, NO MATTER WHAT, goes in the species section.
- Tykyle (talk) - Per all above, and a complete lack of evidence for them not being species. A dictionary is not enough when discussing a work of fiction.
- Uniju :D (talk) - Although you might be correct that robots and such are not ACTUALLY a species by our standards in real life, I believe that any sentient beings should be treated equally(by that, I mean that the term "species" should be used to refer to living things, and you can't quite be sentient without being alive), and as you can clearly see just by playing a Mario game, EVERYTHING is sentient in Mario games. And not to start going even more off-topic, but sometime in the future human beings will most likely become beings of data that roam the intahrwebz and such, but I don't think we will stop being considered a species.
Definitions of species according to two credible dictionaries:According to Encarta World English Dictionary a species is ''a subdivision of a genus. . .containing individuals that resemble one another and that may interbreed''
And in Websters New Revised Dictionary of the English Language species is defined as ''A category of animals or plants. . .with the capacity of interbreeding only among themselves.''
I don't think MeowMaids fit any of that criteria.
Goomb-omb (talk)
- Stumpers, I think something along the lines of "Character Type" would be sufficient.Goomb-omb (talk)
- Sorry I didn't respond to your comment sooner! That would be cool... I think there's a pretty clear concensus already, though... :( Stumpers (talk)
Ninjayoshi, the 12:02, 13 June 2008 (EDT) revision of the Boo article quotes Goombario's tattle for Igor thus: " ‘He probably was a merchant before he became a Boo,’ " and goes on to speculate that "Boos may be a species of ghosts [sic—ghosts cannot belong to a species] who were once living." It is therefore possible that Boos are ghosts, and so do not belong to a species. —Soler (talk)
- Should have checked my sources, my bad.-Ninjayoshi
Actually, Soler's quote proves this proposal's wrong: clearly there can be species of ghosts in the Marioverse, or they (the writers) wouldn't've made that tattle. Besides, "Character Type" sounds more like when you say whether or not a player's a Power Character or a Technique Character, etc. in sports/kart racing titles. - Walkazo (talk)
- Er... no, sorry, the quote does nothing of the kind. A ghost, in this context, is "the disembodied spirit of a dead person, supposed to haunt the living as a pale or shadowy vision; phantom." (Collins English Dictionary, third edition). Spirit, for the record, in this context means "the force or principle of life that animates the body of living things". As far as I know, "life forces/principles" can't breed, and according to BOTH of Goomb-omb's dictionaries, members of a species may interbreed. The article, not the tattle, used the word species, and thus contradicted itself: that's why I used "sic" (There is, however, still the possibility that Boos are not ghosts, but a ghost-like species that one can transform into in place of dying; however, in SM64DS, the message "Ghosts don't DIE!" sometimes appears after defeating a Boo, which would seemingly refute this argument.) Perhaps my first comment was ambiguous: I should've probably used single and double quotes on the first quotation, to show a "double quotation", and only used double on the second quote. I'll fix that now. —Soler (talk).
- And about Mario not being scientific, that is completely irrelevant--this wiki should still strive be scientific. Isn't the goal to make an encyclopedic catalog of everything Mario? You can't accomplish that without being scientific, errors like this just make it look like the people who work on the wiki don't actually care enough to make sure that everything is correct (no offense to any one of course!!). Goomb-omb (talk)
- Hear hear. —Soler (talk).
- I object. Since when was a mushroom making Mario grow to double his size (or sometimes even bigger) scientific? Since when was a turtle flying in a cloud, holding a fishing rod and dropping spiked eggs scientific? Since when was racing on a giant pinball table scientific? The Mario Wiki already has plenty of material that isn't scientific, so changing "Species" to something like "Character Type" is going to make hardly any difference at all. Pikax (talk)
- If you read what I wrote, I just said Mario not being scientific is irrelevant. As in, Mario isn't scientific. The goal of a wiki is provide a encyclopedic database, and to be encyclopedic one must scientific cataloging, such as dividing articles into categories, (which we do) and to use proper terminology (which we do not) Goomb-omb (talk)
- Wait, you're saying that we should be scientific about something that isn't scientific? That's like saying we should make a rock solid flannel. Pikax (talk)
- No, it isn't. "Scientific" here refers to a type of accuracy, and inaccuracy borders on giving misinformation. —Soler (talk)
- About the Boo thing, there is multiple kind of Ghost. In a way, the Boos are a "species" of Ghost, uh. Blitzwing (talk)
- The Boos would be a type/form/kind of ghost, rather than a species, unless the Marioverse had the (somewhat disturbing) distinction of allowing its ghosts to breed... —Soler (talk).
If this were a wiki about, oh say, Dora the Explorer, would we write about how Swiper the Fox is a kleptomaniac? I think you're looking at it a bit too hard..... - Ultimatetoad
- If Swiper is a kleptomaniac, why not? —Soler (talk)
You said scientific meant a type of accuracy? Why not just use the word accurate to describe the situation in the first place? Pikax (talk)
- I did. See my vote. Other people started using the word scientific. —Soler (talk).
O.K., lets look at in another way. The mario series exists in a different reality then the one we exist in. Who says the idea of a species in this fictional reality is the same as ours? A lot of fiction represent robots as a type of species: ghost's too, now that I think about it (anyone here read Bruce Coville?). One of OUR dictionaries does'nt have much impact: so the question is, have Boos/Machine-Mades/Meow-Maids ever been reffered to as a species in the Mario series? - Ultimatetoad
- As of yet, no one here has provided evidence that the idea of a species in the Marioverse is any different to ours. Therefore I am assuming that the word "species" means the same thing in the Marioverse as it does on Earth. —Soler (talk)
- As of yet no one here has provided evidence that the idea of a species in the Marioverse is the same as ours.
--Tykyle 17:13, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- One could just as easily say, "As of yet no one here has provided evidence that the idea of a mince pie in the Marioverse is the same as ours. Thererefore I propose that all the recipes in the Paper Mario series be classified as mince pies." —Soler (talk).
...Right... Anyway, just to clarify my earlier post, I thought the second quote was taken from the tattle, but your edited comment is much clearer and I now see that I was mistaken. - Walkazo (talk)
- Well, the whole point of this was to increase accuracy and precision, which no one seems to care about excepting Soler and myself. I'm not going to start debating whether or not Mechakoopas are sapient beings, or whether or not Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species exists in marioverse, because these are things we'll never know. I just wanted to make the terminology correct, but I guess I didn't realize that people felt so passionately about keeping such an insignificant thing the same.Goomb-omb (talk) Again, no offense and no hard feelings to anyone. :)
|
Write Articles in the Same Tense
NO SUCH RULE 6-3
Here I go: I mean tense as in past, present, future. Now, I've been looking at quite a few character articles, but this also applies to game articles, in the Story sections. I've noticed that the older games and characters' articles seem to be written in past tense, as in "Mario then defeated Bowser and then went psycho" - but more recent games/characters (e.g. Rosalina, Super Mario Galaxy...) are in present tense, like "Mario defeats Bowser and returns peace to the kingdom." So, I think it makes sense to have them all in present tense, no matter how old the character/game is. It's all about consistency, if you ask me. This is my first proposal, so I've probably done it wrong and it might get deleted...oh well, I tried.
UPDATE: OK, I'll admit I kind of confused myself with what I wrote at first. OK, after reading the Comments and Oppositions...here's my change:
There should be a rule that determines how to write an article...such as a rule about how old the game/event/whatever is. Or the rule could be that certain Sections, such as Story or History, are always consistent for any article, but that same article may have the more appropriate tense in other sections. Does that make sense?
Proposer:Dom
Deadline: June 27th 20:00 PM.
Support
- Blitzwing (talk) - Per Dom.
- MegaMario9910 (talk) - Per Dom. It would cause confusion if an early game article had the past tense, while the new ones would have the present tense.
- Cobold (talk) - all sections should be in the same time. But for flashbacks within a section, the past tense still should be used. (like explaining the preface of PM:TTYD in Peach's article)
Oppose
- Ninjayoshi - No. Mario does have a timelime. In some games, they even reference back in the timeline.
- Stumpers (talk) - Past tense always sounds better for a history section in an encyclopedia. Also, enforcing this will be very difficult if it is passed -- you've got about 800 pages that will need to be changed.
- InfectedShroom (talk) Yeah, sorry for the vote change. Anyway, Past tense makes things flow more easily. IMO, we should do the lead in Present and the body in Past.
- Per all. Toadette 4evur (talk)
- Per all RedFire Mario (talk)
- Walkazo (talk) - Per IS.
'Wouldn't this cause confusion' if Super Mario World and Super Mario World 2 were written as if they were happening at the same time?Ninjayoshi
- Should this really be generalised for all? For the character bios I wrote, I wrote about story-relevant events in past tense, independent of how new the game is, since these events already passed. I have to agree with Ninjayoshi's demur. --Grandy02 12:11, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
- Ninjayoshi: if you write both sections in the past tense, no, it won't. Stumpers (talk)
Hey, I forgot to say stuff about articles to do with future games or characters...maybe that should also be discussed? Dom (talk)
I'm confused about this proposal. Stumpers wrote in his support vote that past tense should be used for passed events, and I think the same. However, this proposal is about present tense in every case, isn't it? I'm for consistency, but not for present tense everytime. What is it all about now, really?? --Grandy02 07:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
- That was my fault. I misread the proposal and though this was to make all tenses be consistent in each sub-section. Sorry about that. You're going to want to oppose if you want to be allowed to write in the past tense still. Stumpers (talk)
- By the way, I'm really not sure how one would enforce this rule, even after you spend countless hours fixing each tense. I've done some tense fixing before, and let me tell you: its like rewriting the entire thing. It will probably take you one half the time that it took the contributor to write the original text. Let's think about this then: on the first part of the history section for Mario up to Super Mario Bros. 2 USA, it took me probably a total of five hours to write. That means that for one third of one third of one article, (one ninth of an article), you're gonna need roughly 2 hours. As the proposer, you and the other supporters are going to have to put this into effect. Do you really want to be in charge of changing all the past tenses into present and then changing every new edit by a user who doesn't know about this proposal? Stumpers (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Make sure you read my UPDATE before any more comments. Dom (talk)
- I meant that if they were both written in present tense, because I support writing in past tense.-Ninjayoshi
It doesn't take a long time to fix tenses with the ctrl+f function (find). Just type in ed, ing, etc. in the find window. Clay Mario (talk)
- If only English were that simple! Take "is," one of the most common verbs. It's past tense is "was." Don't forget about "are" and "were," too. There are other verbs like that, too. "Run" vs. "ran," for example. The only way to do it right would be to go through line by line and fix it, although yours would work for an initial fix, I have to admit. Stumpers (talk)
- Yo, CM, one more thing. My computer is limited just to finding things outside of the edit box. Which conveniently takes away that option for me and other Mac users. ;) InfectedShroom (talk)
- You'd have to copy it into a word processor and use the find fuction, then, right? Stumpers (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm a Mac user and I made the Proposal...but I never thought of issues related to finding words to change. Dom (talk)
- Just copy and paste the text from the edit box to Word and find it there. That's what I do whenever I have to find something on my cruddy 10-year-old Mac. (Convoluted workarounds/"shortcuts" are my specialty these days.) - Walkazo (talk)
|
|
|
