| 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.
|
Bring back Weekly Polls
DON'T BRING BACK 4-8
We used 0to have weekly polls, and they are very good. We still have this page. But instead of doing only one poll, we will be doing 3 polls. The reason why is because let's say the poll is "What is the easiest stage in Platformer games", and you only own Spinoffs and RPGs, then you can't answer the poll, while if you have 3, then you can at least answer one.
Proposer: KS3 (talk)
Voting start: 25 February 2010, 23:00
Deadline: 4 March 2010, 23:00
Bring them back
- KS3 (talk) Per proposal.
- MATEOELBACAN (talk)- Per Proposal, I mean, They were funny :D.
- Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Although I don't know the reason why it was removed in the first place I will LOVE it if comes back, that what made the SMW fun that time and it will most likely still be fun if this pass (you notice I said love with all capitals, as most people know Zero NEVER used all capitals except for that one). Zero signing out.
- luvluv321 (talk) Per proposal.
Don't bring them back
- Tucayo (talk) - Sorry, but no. Your proposal doesnt propose anything to make them better, they will fall into chaos again. They were rmeoved for a reason.
- Time Q (talk): Per Tucayo.
- Reversinator (talk) Per Tucayo.
- Marioguy1 (talk) - Per Tucayo, you can't force someone to vote on a certain poll, people will vote on any poll they want. The more rules there are, the more they will get broken is my frame of mind - I'm afraid this rule falls right under that category.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per Tucayo.
- Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - I see that you are still partly new. I think you want to see the main page as it was before all that got voted out, yet for good reasoning. The Main Page is better without this since it can be troublesome for updating. Per all.
- Coincollector (talk) - Per Tuck. It was chaotic and the poll system on the main page looked the portal so informal.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Tucko.
It got removed because it was too bustling with activity ONLY with that Poll page. I may be fond of the Poll of the Day, but we don't get it our way all the time. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Maybe if the whole poll process was completely revamped, it would be easier to maintain. But I still think it should stay off the wiki for the time being. -- Stooben Rooben (talk)
- Per Stooby. WHats with all the "bring back" proposals... I think people are getting nostalgic Tucayo (talk)
I am Zero! If this proposal does pass I think all the previous polls should be deleted and the page should start new and fresh. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)
I like the poll, but 3 of them at once is way too much. – Ralphfan (talk)
|
Deciding Birdo's Sex
CALL FEMALE 0-1-15
We had 2 Proposals about deciding Birdo's Sex (here's one) [1]. This is an international wiki, not an American Wiki. In Japan, people call Birdo male, and in the US, people call Birdo female. I propose that we call Birdo he. Don't forget that multiple birdos appeared in crowds and in The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! In the Birdo (species) article, it says that it is common for male birdos to wear ties on top of their head. In Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga, Birdo attempts to be a girl, therefore Birdo is a man. And also per the old reasons.
Proposer: KS3 (talk)
Voting start: 26 February 2010, 23:00
Deadline: 5 March 2010, 23:00
Because this is an international wiki, call Birdo Male
Call Birdo it because of the old proposal
- Raphaelraven497 (talk) If we are having such an argument decideng the sex, just call it it! it makes sense!
Just Call Birdo Female
- Tucayo (talk) - She is a female, if "he" wants to be so, then we call Birdo a female. And no need to remove or move this proposal to the BJAODN, it is valid, I think.
- Reversinator (talk) Per Tucayo.
- Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
- Vellidragon (talk) - Per Tucayo and comment below.
- MATEOELBACAN (talk)- No, Birdo always has been female in mmy opinion, for example if she is "male", why she acts like the girlfriend of Yoshi? Why she uses a ribbon? Why in Super Mario Advance she has feminine voice? , simply the fact that the SMB2 manual, among others called she male; we cannot say that is male, What present game call she male?, also per BabyLuigiOnFire in the comments.
- Mr bones (talk) Ow come on!There's a lot of proofs which makes her female the ribbon,her acting in M&L:SSS,and like MATEOELBACAN said:her acting as Yoshi's girlfriend.
- T.c.w7468 (talk) Oh please. Per all. Oh yeah, aren't the option titles a little biased?
- MeritC (talk) Per all; this case REALLY needs to get closed here, right now.
- Gamefreak75 (talk)...-_-' Per all.
- Supermariofan14 (talk) - Let me think about it... A regular man with a ribbon, a ring, a bow and a pink body?
- Ralphfan (talk) – Per all.
- Edofenrir (talk) - Per my opinion in the old Proposal.
- Redstar (talk) - Again? Per everyone.
- LeftyGreenMario (talk) Birdo looks like a girl, acts a lot like a girl, dresses like a girl... wait, she IS a girl. And I'd hate to be called an "it" if people didn't know what my gender is. Nintendo would never make controversial stuff on purpose. The only quality of a man Birdo has is sounding like one.
- KS3 (talk) Read my comment below.
Another issue dealing with Birdo's gender? Look, Birdo wants to be treated as a female, as she states in her description, so we better call her a "she". Besides, we're dealing with a single Birdo, Birdo, the character who appears as playable in spin-offs. Besides, does she look ANYTHING like a man? She wears a large, red ribbon, has some lipstick, has feminine team names, wears rings, etc? Besides, Nintendo wouldn't make transsexual characters anyway, despite their craziness. They always make genders obvious. Why should Birdo be any different? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
- This is Birdo's Sex, not gender. KS3 (talk)
- Sex and Gender are the same thing. Reversinator (talk)
- No, not necessarily. Time Q (talk)
- It's not
my our fault Nintendo didn't clear things up. The Japanese should start calling Birdo she if this should come up again. KS3 (talk)
On the other proposal we agreed that calling Birdo an it was discriminatory. Tucayo (talk)
This looks like BJAODN material to me. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
"This is an international wiki, not an American Wiki."
No, it's an English wiki (English as in the language, not the country). In all the English games, Birdo is a female. Infact, I think Japan is the only country that calls her a he. Homestar Runner (talk)
What, this proposal again? :\ As I stated the last time this came up, calling a male-to-female transgender person "he" just because they were born male is offensive and nobody profits from it if we start doing that anyway. The gender issue is already being addressed in the article, I don't think there's any need to emphasise it like that. This has nothing to do with the internationality of the Wiki, but simply with what makes sense and what doesn't and what can be taken as offensive and what won't.--vellidragon 10:17, 26 February 2010 (EST)
I don't see the point in this proposal. Proposals made on this issue have turned out in favor of calling Birdo a female consistently in recent times. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
- Can we move this to BJAODN now? I mean, do we really need a whole proposal just for the gender of a character? Reversinator (talk)
- Um...this is the third one of that type...Marioguy1 (talk)
- @Super Mario Bros.: Doesn't this page overlook the no-sig policy??? Your comment says {{User:Super Mario Bros./sig}} KS3 (talk)
Ugh, I wonder how did I make this proposal, but I regret it. Can someone help me move it to the BJAODN??? KS3 (talk)
- This is not BJAODN material. You can remove it if you want to. Tucayo (talk)
If they call her "He" in japan,then we just add that in her gender in the infobox:(In japan:Male,other region female Mr bones (talk)
I am Zero! I think there should be a fourth section for refering Birdo as it or she. Birdo is a species and not all of them are female, but to the point: I think if it refers to Birdo as Yoshi's girlfriend or the game makes it a 100% clear it's female then refer to it as "she", but if it refers to a random Birdo then refer to it as "it", if users aren't sure then they could have a discussion on the talk page to see if Birdo is she or it in that section of the article. I don't think they ever refer to Birdo as male but if it does in the future then refer to it as "he". Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)
Let me just say this. Birdo, specifically Catherine, is a male. But, she is a male in the role of a female. Drag queen, transgender, either way. In Japan Birdo is widely accepted as being male. And Yoshi is widely accepted as being male as well. However, Birdo is referred to as female in America for multiple reasons. Avoiding conservative beliefs, and going with what is simply proper. Regardless of whether Birdo were actually male or not doesn't matter, because she is appearing and acting as a female, therefore that is what you call her. Transgender people, or even a person in drag, is CORRECTLY referred to by what they appear to be, and in this case it is correct to refer to her casually as she and even a female. ForeverDaisy09 21:44, 4 March 2010 (EST)
Y'know, someone on an old proposal made the point that the only English-language game that refers to Birdo as male took place in a dream. :\ Homestar Runner (talk)
- What, Super Mario Bros. 2 (The American one)??? KS3 (talk)
|
Remove Construction template after a certain amount of time
DELETED
Well, the long title says it all. Currently, there are 145 articles with the {{construction}} template on them. As you all know, construction templates are used to signify an article in poor shape, but is being worked on. But for how long do we need these templates, especially if nobody's working on them? Let me use Donkey Kong 64 as an example. The last edit that was made at expanding the article was on December 8, 2009. Since nearly three months have passed since that date, and nobody's working on it, don't you think this template should be removed? So, with my proposal, I want to have the construction template removed after a week.*
*Number up for debate.
Proposer: Reversinator (talk)
Voting start: March 5, 2010, 4:12
Deadline: March 12, 2010, 23:59
Remove template
- Reversinator (talk) Per proposal.
Keep template
- Ralphfan (talk) – Sorry, but this seems like a pretty pointless proposal.
- KS3 (talk) A construction template is a construction template. We need construction templates to improve this wiki. All that you just need to do is notify the person who is working on adding info and ask them if they are still working. and Per Ralphfan.
- Gamefreak75 (talk) If there's an article that's incomplete and crappy, then a template is needed. How would someone react if they see the Luigi's Mansion (which I tend to finish soon) article and notice its waful shape. Per all.
We can't vote here if you don't propose a specific amount of time after which the templates will get removed. Of course we can discuss it, but you should at least propose one. Time Q (talk)
- All right. I'd say a week, since that seems more than enough time to fix up an article. Reversinator (talk)
If we remove it, it will look like it is finished, and it isn't. Tucayo (talk)
- Yes, we should at least replace it with a rewrite tag. Time Q (talk)
I have another suggestion considering the time. The template offers the possibility to enter a date, or a duration. How about we make it mandatory to set a deadline, a date when the construction status expires. After a construction template reaches that date, it can be removed. It would work, but it's also a little strict.
Another, less strict approach: We just use common sense and decide on a case to case basis. If there is a construction template on a page, and the person who placed it there hasn't edited the article for months, it is safe to assume the person stopped working, so the template can be removed. If there are some relatively fresh edits, the template stays. To help people with checking this, the person who places said template on a page should write something like "Construction template" into the edit summary, so you can instantly see who placed it on the article in the history.- Edofenrir (talk)
- I like Edo's idea. And agree with Time Q, we should replace it with {{rewrite}}. Tucayo (talk)
The proposal seems to irrelevant to me. You can actually remove the {{construction}} template if you see there has no progress in the article long enough. Also, the template has an option to set a date - or a deadline, but not many users tend to use... Coincollector (talk)
|
TPP Archiving
KEEP AS IS 0-1-0-6
OK, I was looking at the list of TPPs and I found that the list was taking up about as much space as about two whole proposals and that is way too much space just based on TPPs IMO so I decided that I would make a proposal to shorten it in one of three other options. Now, I heard from Reversinator (talk) that the rules say that TPPs aren't deleted off that list until the appropriate action has been taken (E.g. The articles have been merged) and I think that this idea is keeping it way too long, even if this quiets down another one is bound to arise because nobody is actually merging their proposal articles...
Anyhow, here are my three resolutions (and one non-resolution)
- Move all TPP results to "Mariowiki:Proposals/Talk Page Proposals" and leave them there for all of eternity so that people can easily see where the archives of their TPPs are and not clog up the proposals page (though eventually we'd have to archive that page too after 100 proposals*). The proposals that have not passed/failed yet would stay in the TPP section of the proposals page but there would be a link off of there to the archives.
- The section resolution is to just remove the proposals when they pass and kick them off the proposals page so that they can't clog up space and this is the easiest of the resolutions. It will keep the list short and to the point and people will not be confused about what to do when they archive a TPP.
- The third (and final) resolution is to remove TPPs one week* after the proposals have passed whether or not the action has been taken so as to not leave them sitting for ever and ever. This will not clog up the page (though it will clog it up more than the second option would) and it would give proposers one week to merge their articles and then it is deleted off the page (though after it is deleted they can still merge, the reminder just won't be there). It gives users time to archive but keeps the TPP section short and simple.
- The fourth option (not resolution) is to do nothing, this is most definitely the easiest option but not the most productive...
*These numbers are up to debate in the comments section
Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Voting Opens: March 2, 2010, 06:07
Deadline: March 9, 2010, 23:00
Move to New Page
Kick off Immediately
- Tucayo (talk) - Per my comments. If proposers cared they would do what needed. If they cant, they should ask an admin.
Remove after one Week
Do Nothing
- KS3 (talk) There are only 2 TPP whose articles aren't split/merged/deleted. and Per all.
- Gamefreak75 (talk) Per my comments below. And to the people that say that admins are "good" at merging/splitting, well some aren't. And sometimes the admins aren't usually on, so that's another problem.
- Reversinator (talk) Per my comments below, and per Gamefreak75.
- Time Q (talk): Per Gamefreak75. I don't see a problem with keeping those proposals in the list until they are put into effect, and it's a good reminder.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
- Edofenrir (talk) - If someone feels compelled to complain about the length of that list, he or she could merge some of the articles and reduce the list by themselves. If we remove them, they will just be forgotten. And so will they if we move them to some extra archive.
I'm gonna vote later because I'm currently tied between two of my options. Marioguy1 (talk)
- Hello, it's 30 minutes past voting time and you still haven't voted. KS3 (talk)
If we just remove them, then nobody will merge/split the said articles of the proposal and it will stay like that forever. If we put them all into an archive, then nobody will care about it and the same thing will happen. I could go with removing them after a week, but that doesn't seem long enough. Perhaps two weeks? Reversinator (talk)
- These numbers are up to debate in the comments section...Marioguy1 (talk)
1 week seems enough for me. Why are they delayed anyways??? Its the proposer's responsibility to take action, if they don't we should just remove them, if you need an Admin help, just drop a line in any of their talks (mine if you want to). Tucayo (talk)
- The thing is, they don't take action. And if nobody takes action, and we just delete it, then the whole proposal would of been useless. Reversinator (talk)
- Well, then its their problem. Perhaps an user who took part can also take action. Tucayo (talk)
- In addition, that's exactly what happens on this proposals page. Marioguy1 (talk)
- Well, it shouldn't happen. We don't create proposals to waste people's time, we create them because we want to change something. And if the proposal doesn't take effect, then the whole thing was useless. Reversinator (talk)
Well, if the proposer can't take the time out of their day to follow up with the proposal or can't be bothered to remember the due date, the proposal was a waste from the start. Marioguy1 (talk)
- You know, I'd like to make the proposals take effect, but I suck at merging/splitting. Reversinator (talk)
- Well then you should contact the proposers about it, that could help as a reminder for the...uhhh...less active. Marioguy1 (talk)
- Well, I guess I could. Reversinator (talk)
- There are only 4 proposals that are archived and the articles aren't merged/split/deleted/etc. KS3 (talk)
- I agree with Reversinator. Maybe people know that something has to be merged and make a proposal. The proposal passes, but their is only one problem...they have no idea how they do it. If they were to merge, they have no idea on what the hell they're doing and can actually screw up an article and get blamed for "vandalization". And ridding of talk page proposals is a HUGE waste of time! You see, all these little things add up.Gamefreak75 (talk)
As I said before, in that case they should contact an admin, we are very happy to help. Tucayo (talk)
Revesinator, your saying all this and you still haven't split the SSX on Tour article from the other article. Mine, well Baby Mario Bloops already made this proposal on merging all the SMRPG Mushrooms, and the SMRPG Mushrooms contain how many HP they heal. KS3 (talk)
- One, you didn't see the fact that I suck at merging/splitting, and two, why are you talking about SMRPG mushrooms? Reversinator (talk)
- Has anyone bothered to read my comments? I, like Reversinator, suck at merging/splitting, so I am not even going to merge my proposal. Gamefreak75 (talk)
I think KS3 vote is not valid. It gives no reason as why to do nothing to them. What if in a future we have 10? Tucayo (talk)
- 2 weeks ago there were like 12 of them and why then didn't we make that proposal. Back then, I would be glad to vote support. But now there are only 3, and Redstar is busy merging info from Yellow Toad right now. KS3 (talk)
- So? That doesnt mean we wont get another 12 in a future, and we wont be able to kick them, because of this proposal.
- @GameFreak: I can guarantee you 900% that all admins can merge and split. And most of the time there is someone online. In the worst of cases, you can wait an hour or so to find one. Tucayo (talk)
Anyone else thinks KS3 vote is not valid? @TimeQ: So, you agree that admins lack the basic skills of merging and splitting? Tucayo (talk)
- Yes, I agree that KS3's vote is invalid. It just refers to the current situation, which defeats the point of this proposal. As of your second question: I don't think there are "merging and splitting skills". It all depends on the topic. For example, I (and I'm a bureaucrat) could not have split or merged many of the recently passed proposals, simply because I'm not familiar with the topics in question (there's a lot of games I've never played). Time Q (talk)
- So then it should be removed, I think. Well, in most of the cases it can be easily done by looking at the headers, still I think all admins may be capable of splitting an article. Tucayo (talk)
- Read my vote again. It says Per Gamefreak75. KS3 (talk)
Oh, so easy to per a vote...... Anyways.... again, Gamefreak, please answer, do not avoid the question, I bet in less than an hour, if you ask it, an admin will have done what needed. What can go wrong? Tucayo (talk)
- Well, you gotta take Time Q's comment to mind to, about the games played. Also, I'm pretty sure that not EVERY admin on the wiki can merge/split, but I could be wrong and we wouldn't want an admin's page to be cluttered up with headers saying Please merge'; or anything along those lines. Gamefreak75 (talk)
- Thats what us admins are for, to serve the wiki. It is fine if we get our talks "cluttered" with lines saying "please merge!". And about the games, well, if I got asked, and weren't sure how to do it, I would ask someone else to help me. Tucayo (talk)
- Well Revesinator deleted the SSX on Tour section of Video Game References KS3 (talk)
|
Final Vote
NO FINAL VOTE PROPOSALS 1-11
Recently, there have been a lot of changes to the voting system, and I feel that one more needs to be made. It seems that every couple months, a proposal is made about censoring the Bob Hoskins article or deciding Birdo's gender. There may be a 30-day minimum before a poll can be changed, but I feel more needs to be done. I would like to introduce a new system called final vote. They are just like other proposals, except for the following:
- Once a Final Vote proposal has been voted on, the decision can't be overturned (except by an Admin decision).
- A Final Vote proposal can only be made for a proposal that has already been made three times.
- Final Vote proposals are open for two weeks.
- Final Vote proposals are announced in the announcement bar on the Main Page.
Proposer: Ralphfan (talk)
Voting Opens: March 5, 2010, 2:30 GMT
Deadline: March 12, 2010, 23:59
Support
- Ralphfan (talk) – Per above.
Oppose
- Marcelagus (talk) - I feel like this isn't a very good idea. Not exclusively to the Bob Hoskins or Birdo articles, but some decisions have indeed been overturned by a revisited proposal. One example was when I proposed to use present tense in all articles, which passed. Later, when looking through the archives, I found that Dom had also proposed the same thing months ago, but had been overruled. Some people can explain the essence and benefits of a proposal better, and convince others to agree with their opinions. The "Final Vote" system would deny users of a chance to propose subjects that could be potentially helpful to the wiki.
- KS3 (talk) Per Marcelagus.
- LeftyGreenMario (talk) Right now, what may be considered right may be considered wrong in the future. This proposal won't allow people to change what can be potential mistakes.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
- Edofenrir (talk) - The intention is good, but a rule like that would probably cause more chaos than being actually helpful. What if something is decided with a final vote, but it proves to be horribly wrong after some years (you can't predict such consequences)? Would make the reversion too complicated.
- Homestar Runner (talk) Per all.
- Gamefreak75 (talk) Per all.
- MATEOELBACAN (talk) - Per all.
- Rgarber (talk) Per all.
- Luigi_is_number_one (talk) - Per all.
- 4DJONG (talk) Well, this may have good intentions, but think ahead, what is "right" now might be wrong in the future, and say I have been planing a beneficial proposal, and I can't propose it, that would be simply chaotic.
Having some sort of blanket policy like this is a recipe for disaster. If we were going to do something about the annoying, recurring issues, we'd have to be specific, like back when we had a rule against Banjo and Conker proposals (but we could try to be a bit less obtuse about it this time). The Birdo and Bob Hoskins issues both boil down to censorship and squeamishness, which are fundamentally against what a factual wiki stands for, and so we could probably disallow them for that reason (with a little preliminary paperwork to make it legit). Canonicity and organization issues like Banjo and Conker are a bit harder to deal with: if you make too many policies Admin-only, people will cry foul, no matter how good the intentions may be. - Walkazo (talk)
I think the best choice would be to decide on a case-by-case basis. For instance, if there isn't already, we could add a rule on MOS saying something along the lines that quotes shouldn't be censored because this is an encyclopedia, and such. --Marcelagus (talk)
- Maybe admins can declare a proposal disallowed? Not a three-proposal basis but an admins only type of thing so the admins discuss it on the boards and then say so here (on the talk page). Marioguy1 (talk)
- That's pretty much Rule 14: "If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time." We don't use it very often because we don't want to be power-abusers, and yanking a proposal because it's constant re-emergence is annoying might look dubious to naysayers (even if it was doomed and everyone unanimously hated it anyway). - Walkazo (talk)
|
Recreate Snufit Ball
DELETED
Seeing as this proposal tried to merge it, but failed. Later, it was deleted, and countless proposals trying to bring it back failed. I propose that we bring it back, because it affects gameplay, like Pauline's Items and Cheese. This other proposal states so. So I propose that we create the Snufit Ball article.
Proposer: KS3 (talk)
Voting start: March 15 2010, 3:00
Deadline: March 22 2010, 24:00
Support
- KS3 (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose
|
The "Mario Series Games" Template Revision
NO QUORUM 3-0
That redish colored template that can be seen under various Mario game articles REALLY needs to be cleaned up. First of all, there's too many games in the 2D games section. Does EVERY 2-Dementional game have to be there? Some games, such as the Mario Party series and Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix are NOT 2D. There is also an RPG section, but the same games are also shown in the 2D section. Now I think we should rename the template "Super Mario Series Games," and have only the major platforming Mario games (and its ports and remakes) in the template. We previously had templates for Mario Party games and RPGs (and etc.), and I think we should bring them back. I KNOW it makes the articles bigger, but you could also comment on how we can organize that template better. Basically what I'm saying is, I think we need to organize this portion of Wiki just like we did months ago.
Create Separate Articles for Super Mario Advance Remakes
SEPARATE ARTICLES 14-9
Ok, we seriously need to unmerge the "Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World" and "Super Mario World" articles, as well as the "Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3" articles. First of all, there is plenty of room on this wiki to create a couple new articles to accommodate these SEPARATE games. Second of all, it creates the illusion (or disillusion) to Mario Wiki readers that these are the same games, just different ports. They are NOT the same game! Let's take the former, for instance. The GBA ramake has more levels, updated graphics, play as Luigi, et cetera the list goes on and any honest person knows what it is. The latter, among the updated graphics, how about all those new E-Reader levels? They are not the same game and should not be merged together like that. Why not merge "Super Mario 64" and "Super Mario 64 DS" together then? The status quo with the GBA and NES/SNES games is just as stupid, if not more stupid. A remake isn't the same game. "Super Mario Bros. Deluxe" is NOT "Super Mario Bros.", people! It's NOT the real game! Third of all, tons of younger gamers who were were either pooping themselves or not ever born yet when the original games came out were introduced to the games through these remakes and they deserve articles to read about the games that they were introduced to. I'm not saying the GBA games were bad. I think they were brilliant. Putting nostalgia aside, in all honesty I think they are BETTER than the originals. But they are not the same games! They're different! They need their own articles!
Proposer: [[User:Marwikedor|]] (talk)
Voting start: March 20, 2010, 4:26
Deadline: March 27, 2010, 23:59
Create separate articles for these separate games
- [[User:Marwikedor|]] (talk)- Per above
- KS3 (talk) per proposal. If this stays merged, then Super Mario 64 DS should be merged into Super Mario 64.
- Byllant (talk) - We should, you see, we have the article for Super Mario All-Stars and even Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World and those are compilations of remakes.
- BrickBuster85 (talk) - I agree with the proposer. The way it is now seems very inconsistent.
- Mr.C (talk) - Per all.
- Reversinator (talk) Per all.
- Silver Eevee (talk) Super Mario Advance 3: Yoshi's Island would be better off merged with Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island if anything. I say split 'em.
- Starman125 (talk) I totally agree.
- ToastManAlwaysRingsTwice (talk) Per all.
- Arend (talk) - Yeah, If Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS are split, why don't split these?
- Sonictoast 08:12, 26 March 2010 (EDT) - Indeed, the Mario Advance games are very different from the originals. The sound bites, new items, additional levels bosses and e-reader functions alone should be enough to fill up an article.
- MATEOELBACAN (talk) - Per all.
- Raphaelraven497 (talk) per all.
- Ralphfan (talk) – Per all.
Leave as is
- Fawfulfury65 (talk) I have played three of the SMA games, and they are almost exactly the same as the originals, besides the fact that some things were added. Since they are very similar to the originals, they do not deserve their own article, and would be better off merged with the SMB2, SMW, SMW2, or SMB3 articles (depending on which Super Mario Advance it is).
- Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per FF65 with the facts of that their is not enough differences for them to be their own articles. You will be pretty much copying the original articles themselves, just with the differences added in. It would be more consistant to have them together, since they are big enough to be separate articles.
- Vellidragon (talk) - There is little more to say about the Super Mario Advance games than what Super Mario Advance (series) already covers - that being everything in which the remakes differ from the originals, which is all the unique information we could possibly put into their individual articles. I see no point in splitting that article into four stubs, it works well the way it is.
- Lemmy Koopa Fan (talk) What would we put in the articles of the remakes? The Super Mario Advance (series) article already has a bunch of info on them, like Vellidragon said. Also, per Fawfulfury65 and Baby Mario Bloops.
- Grandy02 (talk) The four Donkey Kong Country remakes have a similar amount of changes, so these would need separate articles as well then. I don't think this is necessary, the changes and the few additions can also be described in the articles of the original games, otherwise it gets redundant and confusing. Especially in the SMW and YI remakes, there are so less changes that they are not worth their own articles.
- Super Mario Bros. (talk) – I agree with Grandy02. Not much else for me to add, since the rest of the opposition has covered what I could have or would have said.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per Fawfulfury65 and Grandy02. The way we deal with remakes needs a little work, but merging the SMA games with the originals, like how the DKC games are covered, would be more efficient than making separate articles.
- Bloc Partier (talk) -- Per all.
- Tucayo (talk) - Per all.
The Super Mario Advance games already have a seperate article (for the whole series, since there's not that much to say about the games that isn't already said in the original game's article): Here. I looked at the Super Mario World article though and it indeed has a "changes in the GBA version" section; how is that necessary with the GBA remake being covered in the other article? Also, some variations of the SMA games' titles still aren't redirecting to the correct article (though I already fixed some of them); I'm guessing that's where the proposer got the idea that they didn't have their own article. I guess it's redirect fixing time again.--Vellidragon (talk)
- Well, each and every SERIES has its own article encompassing the whole series (Such as "Mario Party"). But I still think each GBA game is good enough, unique enough, and different enough to enjoy the benefits of its own article. Think of all the younger gamers introuduced to these games through the GBA. They may want to look up an article for any said individual game. A unique article for, say, "Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3". The status quo is all just really, really confusing for such people. There is plenty different in the different games, plenty plenty plenty. Enough to say that they are not the same games at all. Each of said GBA games should have their own unique article as if the original (S)NES game never existed. I'm not saying don't mention they are remakes in the articles, but you get what I mean. --Marwikedor (talk)
- I would like to point out that the articles were once separate. A proposal decided to make the one page and mention each remake in the NES articles. I would find the proposal, but I'm too lazy at the moment. If you mentioned the other proposal in yours, please excuse my comment. Also, please use ":" when indenting; It makes the page look much cleaner. Thanks. ;) Bloc Partier (talk)
- Where does it say there is a rule against overturning a previously passed proposal? I just want to say that I find it so daft to include blurbs about the GBA remakes in the articles (I do think they should be mentioned and linked to in the NES articles, but they should both have their own articles) for wonderful classics like Super Mario Bros. 3 that essentially made the world love Mario in the first place way back when, and simultaneously neglect to give the awesome GBA remakes their own articles under the pretension that they are the same games when they are different in so many ways. As I mentioned, the graphics are improved in the GBA remakes, among many other things. If, say, Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World had its own article, it would be filled with screen shots unique to that game. That's just one of endless examples and reasons that Mario wiki users should not stand for the status quo. If I mentioned all the reasons it would fill the entire page. --Marwikedor (talk)
- Since the previous proposal was long enough ago, you may now post this proposal to overturn the previous decision. Yes that is correct.
- We would still like to hear all those reasons. I see no problem in having two kinds of screenshots that are of different kind of graphical quality coexisting within the same article - the game Donkey Kong (Game Boy) has two kinds of screenshots, one when played on the Game Boy, the other in color when played on the Super Game Boy. There is no problem with the screenshots there. You shouldn't worry about the length, it's your proposal and you may support it with as many words as you want to.
- What do you think makes the GBA remakes more worthy of an article than New Play Control: Mario Power Tennis? - Cobold (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
- Cobold, I know you did not just compare my proposal to that piece of crap "New Play Control: Mario Power Tennis". The quick answer is that MPT and NPC: MPT and the exact same games, except the latter has crappy controls. MPT was a solid title for the Nintendo GC, and I think Nintendo was just being greedy releasing the so called title which you speak of. The release of the inferior version a short time ago did not just occur by happenstance; it is a clear cut case of avarice. It was a case where the Wii controls just did not work. Other than a new epic phail control scheme, it was the same game etirely. Not a darn thing different about it. Super Mario 64 DS is its own article. Why is that? Because it would be absurd to combine the DS remake with Super Mario 64. And combining the NES and GBA versions of the aforementioned games is every bit as absurd in my humble opinion. Almost every single argument for allowing the DS version of SM64 to have its own article can be made for the NES/SNES games (the GBA/NES games might be even more disparate! The original SNES/NES games didn't have any voice overs! Charles Martinet's voice was added to the characters in the GBA versions) like more playable characters(Luigi in the GBA games), more levels, updated graphics (more so in the GBA games to its NESSNES counterparts, although the DS graphics were slightly better than the 64's in SM64DS), more Dragon coins (and more Stars in 64DS, 150 to the original's 120. and SMA:SMB3 had even more added levels than SMA:SMW with the E-Reader! and they were remarkable levels! Unique levels!). So as you see, the argument for allowing said games to have their own articles is even GREATER than SM64DS having its own article (which it does). CASE CLOSED. --Marwikedor (talk)
- Ah, my apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't continue this proposal. Go right ahead! Bloc Partier (talk)
KS3, the second part of your support vote doesn't seem to make much sense. Why would Super Mario 64 DS need to be merged into Super Mario 64 if these stay merged? The Super Mario Advance games are only merged with one another, not with the games they are remakes of. Super Mario 64 DS can keep its own article as long as the Super Mario Advance games aren't part of the articles on the original games, which they currently are not. Stating the Super Mario Advance (series) article should be split because of Super Mario 64 DS not being part of Super Mario 64 makes no sense to me.--Vellidragon (talk)
- Vellidragon, no one is saying that if this doesn't pass that means SM64 should be merged with SM64DS. Were saying it would be completely stupid to merge 64 with 64DS because they are two totally different games. And if you nay sayers would have read my earlier comments, you'd had seen that there are even MORE reasons to give each GBA remake its own article because they are even more different. If a movie is remade, is the remake of that movie the same movie? NO! Could you play as Wario, Yoshi, or Luigi in the original 64? Nope! God knows, gamers spent until 2004 looking for luigi in the original 64 all in vain! It was all fake! There were no giant turnips in the original American SMB2! I know a lot of people who hated the original and loved the GBA remake (of American SMB2 only, of course. All the other original NES/SNES were remarkable classics). And I never even mentioned Super Mario Adance: SMB2 before, which would be covered by the passage of the proposal. For comments on other games, see above. To say that these new articles would be stubs is absolutely ridiculous! Those wonder GBA games, the finest games to be found anywhere on the Game Boy Advance! Nintendo at its FINEST! You dare insinuate those wonderful classic articles would be stubs? That is an insult to Mario, an insult to Nintendo, and an insult to all Mariowiki users. Is the "Super Mario 64 DS" article a stub? NO! That's a remake! A remake comparable to the original. But its not the original. Its not the same game, and neither is any of the GBA remakes!! --Marwikedor (talk)
- I was replying to KS3's support vote, which clearly states that "If this stays merged, then Super Mario 64 DS should be merged into Super Mario 64", so yes, somebody is saying that :3 I wasn't replying to the proposal itself, sorry.--Vellidragon (talk)
If this proposal passed, would there also be separate articles on DKC GBC, DKC GBA, DKC2 GBA and DKC3 GBA? They have as many or even more differences to the orignal games. Is that really needed? --Grandy02 16:17, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
- Grandy, to answer your question, this proposal's passage will not affect any DKC games. There are not as many differences in those, I think they are more just handheld ports. However, if someone sometime in the future decided it would be best for the wiki that those DKC games get their own articles, I would read the proposal and all the arguments for and against in the comments section, and then ponder my decision, and then, based on which decision I feel is best for the wiki, vote based on that decision. But DKC games are irrelevant. Focus on the issue at hand. Just as SM64DS is different enough to merit its own article, so do these games, as you are aware from what are have said, differ even more rigorously. --Marwikedor
- Well, these are the major changes I remember from the games (excluding visual and acoustical changes):
- SMA: Several new objects, enemies (including one new boss) and areas, score added, Ace Coins and Yoshi Challenge. Game can be saved.
- SMA2: Collecting all Dragon Coins replaces them by Peach Coins, checklist for the levels, Luigi has different abilites.
- SMA3: Six new levels.
- SMA4: e-Reader support for new levels, items and enemies.
- And now in the DKC remakes:
- DKC GBC: One new level, three new mini-games, Game Boy Printer support, collecting hidden stickers for printing.
- DKC GBA: Two new mini-games, behaviour of all bosses changed more or less, collecting photos in an album, time attack mode, "Videogame Hero" mode.
- DKC2 GBA: One new boss, three new mini-games, a feather in every level, collecting photos in an album, time attack mode.
- DKC3 GBA: One entirely new world, one new boss, three new mini-games.
- From what I remember, there are actually more differences in the DKC remakes than in the remakes of SMW and YI. Correct me if I'm wrong. But if it is true, the DKC remakes would need separate articles as well for the sake of consistency. --Grandy02 (talk)
- There's more changes in SMA2; there's a feature for saving anywhere on the overworld, dragon coins can be found in castles, there are new block types (like question blocks which several coins pop out of that fall to the ground) and Yoshi's abilities are changed (he can spit out a lot of enemies which he previously swallowed immediately). There are also some other minor changes in level design (mainly making the levels a tiny bit easier) in SMA2 and in SMA4 as well. Not that it matters much which remake has more changes in comparison to another. Any remake with an amount of changes comparable to the Super Mario Advance games would each need its own article as well if this passes, and the changes in the DKC remakes are quite numerous, so I do agree this would apply to them.--Vellidragon (talk)
Shouldn't this be placed in the Super Mario Advance article??? This only describes stuff on Super Mario Advance games, so why be placed on here??? KS3 (talk)
SonicToast and Starman's votes (number 8 and 9 support) do not have valid reasons. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
- YES THEY DO! How the heck is "I support the proposal" and "I agree totally with the proposal" invalid reasons?!!! And per all is a valid reason?!! They agree with what I am proposing that is their reason! They agree with the platform!!! God! Someone always has to cause trouble! "I support the proposal" and "I totally agree with the proposal" means "Per proposal". It means the exact same thing!!!Marwikedor (talk)
- Number 8 just says "Support," not "I support the proposal". Though I agree on how number 9 says "I totally agree" and that's a reason. Number 8 is as valid as not giving any reason at all, because we basically "support" while being on the "support" section. Just don't make a big fuss over this, ok? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
I hope all supporters keep in mind that this proposal means 9 new articles? Four SMA games, four DKC remakes, and the Wii version of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat (it's not just the control scheme that changed). You can't take account of the SMA series and ignore the DK remakes at the same time. --Grandy02 (talk)
- The proposal is going to pass within only a few hours, and I have a bad feeling about it. Really guys, I think we should leave it as it is. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
- The way we currently cover the remakes isn't very consistent, so leaving it alone isn't actually the best solution. If the proposal does pass (which it probably will), it gives us opposers a month to formulate an even better policy: namely, figuring out what makes a remake deserving of its own game. As we've seen here, some people think SMA have been changed enough to warrant separate articles, while others feel only changes as radical as the new characters, gameplay, levels and plot elements of Super Mario 64 DS require a separate page for their coverage. We've also seen people make value judgements based on nostalgia and other personal opinions ("SMA games are awesome, NPC is crap"), which it 100% NOT how we should be coming at these problems. We just need a good, objective way to decide what gets separate pages and what doesn't, and I imagine we'll be able to (re-)merge the DKC and SMA, no problem. In the meantime, patience is a virtue. - Walkazo (talk)
- Walkazo, I didn't see you opposing my article until a few seconds ago, sweetheart. These 9 new articles this proposal will create will be some of the wikis finest! Like alot of people didn't have a bad feeling about the Universal healthcare in america? Well, 75% of us Americans opposed that, and it passed. Here, the people of Mario wiki have voted for the policy change that all remakes with a reasonable amount of differences deserve their own articles. If there can be so obscure an article as Mario's Sock, why don't these remarkable games that introuduced so many to the Mario fold merit their own? I never said this was going to be easy. But the status quo must die! I can't make them all myself. But I hope allies will arise, ally editors, to help make these as good and unique to their unique games as well, the articles for the original games themselves. I mean I respect your opinions but I disagree and so does the wiki! This is for the good of the wiki, so we disagree here. March 28, it is now over. The proposal has passed!- Marwikedor (talk)
|
Split all Super Smash Bros. moves into separate articles
NO SPLIT 3-13
Before I start, let me say that I am aware of the proposal that merged them. With that said let me continue.
For about two years now, all the moves that belong to a character in the Super Smash Bros. franchise (such as Rollout, Flare Blade and Final Cutter) have been merged to their respective characters. But now I ask this one simple question: Why do we have an article for every single other move and the SSB moves are all merged? All moves are just an major and important as the other, so I don't see why SSB moves have to be merged. The SSB franchise should be treated exactly like the Mario franchise, so I'm proposing to split all the SSB moves into their own articles.
Proposer: Reversinator (talk)
Voting start: 21 March 2010, 14:00
Deadline: 28 March 2010, 24:00
Split Moves
- Reversinator (talk) Per proposal.
- KS3 (talk) Per proposal.
- FD09 Per above. I'm sure they wouldn't be stubs.
Do not Split Moves
- Bloc Partier (talk) -- Please view my first comment below.
- Edofenrir (talk) - Now, I think that's uncalled for. They don't need separate articles, and it was good that they were merged. If this is a consistency issue, then we should take this on the other way around, since many move articles are stubs.
- Tucayo (talk) - Per all.
- Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
- Gamefreak75 (talk) Four words: A crapload of STUBS! and per all.
- 4DJONG (talk) Well, there would be many stubs, and they would have to be remerged together.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
- Yoshario (talk) - Per all.
- MATEOELBACAN (talk) - Per all.
- Ralphfan (talk) – Per Gamefreak75.
- Ratfink43 (talk) The problem with this is like Gamefreak said, their would be too much stubs. I mean, if we create an article about Wario's Down+B move (Wario Waft), what would we write other than "Wario Waft is an attack in which Wario Farts. The longer you wait between using the move, the more powerful it would be." That's a stub right there.
- Fawfulfury65 (talk) Yes, that would be a crapload of stubs. Per all.
- T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all.
And there was a failed attempt here KS3 (talk)
- That wasn't a failed attempt, he just deleted it. Reversinator (talk)
- Well, for at least three of your examples (Twist Dunk, Water Bomb, Splash Bros), I would recommend making a single page for all moves from the same game. Ultra Hammer would be kept separate because it's an item, but having a single page for the other three examples would certainly be better. However, keeping Smash moves on each person's page would be far more efficient since the moves are unique to each character and having one page for all the moves would be just giant. Bloc Partier (talk)
- Wait wait wait! I thought that it says into separte articles! It wouldn't be one page, it would simply be into separate pages. And if you still mean what I just said, they would merely be bigger than most small pages that aren't stubs. That is all I have to say. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
- Calm down. I know what the proposal is for. I'm saying that I do not support because it's more efficient to have them on the character articles, and that my suggestion about his three examples would not work for the Smash moves. It's highly inefficient to have to keep clicking back and forth just to see individual moves. So... I shall continue to oppose. Bloc Partier (talk)
- I'm never angry, I was just making sure that you didn't think of it as one page. Yes, I agree with the facts of merging the pages that should be merged (the offensive moves together, defensive moves together, etc). But, I do like the idea of having them split from the main characters page, since they are so anxious. So, with my thoughts, I'm going to stay neutral. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
Maybe we could just split them into "X's moves in the Super Smash Bros. Series" or something. Homestar Runner (talk)
I wouldn't be against separate articles for the moves of the Mario characters (as their articles are already very long). --Grandy02 (talk)
Okay, the oppose votes are going on my nerve for their reasons. When they mean split the moves into articles, doesn't mean each move, but moves for a character (i.e. - Mario's moves would be a article, including Fireball, Cape, Super Jump Punch, Mario Torando, F.L.U.D.D., and Mario Finale. Those I just listed would not each be a article, but together they would). They would not be stubs, and I just want to clear that for my sanity. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
|
|
|
