|
Current time:
Thursday, May 9th, 22:46 GMT
|
|
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
- "Vote" periods last for one week.
- Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
- All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
- For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.
|
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.
How to
Rules
- If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
- Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices.
- Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
- For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
- Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
- Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
- Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
- If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
- No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
- Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
- All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
- If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
- Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
- All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
- If the administrators 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.
- Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
- Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
- Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
- No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
- Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.
Basic proposal and support/oppose format
This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.
===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]
'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "May 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]
====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]
====Oppose====
====Comments====
Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".
Talk page proposals
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.
- For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.
Rules
- All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
- All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
- Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
- For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
- The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
- When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
- Potentially consider the Donkey Konga series, Barrel Blast, or Jungle Beat as related to DKC (discuss) Deadline: May 9th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Replace Princess Peach: Showtime!#Plays with Sparkle Theater (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Bar Spin to Wire Spin (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Consider Beanies and Octoombas to be related to Goombas rather than direct variants of them (for consistency with Galoomba et al.) (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split "Baby Fat" from Baby Yoshi (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- In Template:Species infobox, expand "Relatives" guidelines to include variant-type relationships with significant differences between species (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split Speed Mario Bros. from Ultimate NES Remix (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Arrow Switch with gravity switch (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Re-merge Pixels with List of references in film (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs (discuss) Deadline: May 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Hat trampoline (Cascade Kingdom) to Trampoline (discuss) Deadline: May 15th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
- ^Note: This has yet to be done with with several non–Super Mario fighters who still have their own page; namely, Banjo, Fox, Inkling, Isabelle, Kirby, Link, Mega Man, Pac-Man, R.O.B., Sonic, and Villager.
Talk page proposals
Writing guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Consistent formatting for the Other Languages section
Alright, so since this is starting to get really annoying, I'm going to put this proposal here. Here are two inconsistent ways that the meaning of names in the "Names In Other Languages" section are listed on the wiki:
1. "name" (meaning)
2. name ("meaning")
Now, almost all the pages on the wiki already have Option 1 for their formatting, but for some reason some other users think that they should all be changed to look like Option 2, even though Option 1 already works just fine and there's no point in putting asterisks between one single word if it's already in between paragraphs. But, what do you guys think, which way of displaying the Other Names section do you think would be better?
Proposer: Annalisa10 (talk)
Deadline: February 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Keep the formatting of Option 1
Change all Other Languages sections to Option 2
- Super Mario RPG (talk) I prefer this option so that this way, both languages are formatted and appropriately in a distinct manner from one another.
- Koopa con Carne (talk) Per my vote in this proposal and my general distaste for the “we’ve always done it this way, which automatically makes it the right way” argument.
- PnnyCrygr (talk) Per All. I think, this second option is a more academic style than the first. I like the fact that the foreign name is italicized to make sense that it is foreign.
- Yook Bab-imba (talk) How I've always formatted it, and my preferred style.
- PhGuy12 (talk) Per all.
So, for clarification, what vote is the oppose part of the proposal? 
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:07, January 30, 2024 (EST)
- I'm just writing here because I'm stuck in the middle about this. Keeping the first option would mean that we don't have to go and change the formatting of most "Names in other languages" sections (which would obviously take an incredibly long time), but on the other hand, option 2's formatting style is clearer to read. I will vote later once I decide. --
FanOfRosalina2007
(talk · edits) 22:10, January 30, 2024 (EST)
- I'm more of a "who cares?". It's like hand wringing over if a date in a citation should have parentheses or not. I don't see the point in adopting italics or not. Either way works in this case. Just keep it consistent in one table. But across the wiki? Meh. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:16, January 30, 2024 (EST)
- I'm in the exact same camp. I don't see a problem with either option, so I'm hesitant about having to choose which one we should use. If the proposer won't include a "Do nothing" option here for whatever reason, I would rather abstain from voting.
rend (talk) (edits) 08:37, January 31, 2024 (EST)
- There is, however, a conventional and consistent way to format these things. Doing nothing would just give way to pointless edit wars with users who refuse to acknowledge that. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 08:41, January 31, 2024 (EST)
I'm also far less motivated to vote given that this proposal about a naming style was made way too soon after the creator's block expired, which the block was from edit warring and general hostility to other users on the Wow Bud (history) page over naming style. That this proposal includes taking swipes at users that disputed the edits on that page does not help convince me that this proposal was made in good faith. Please maintain your conduct. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:26, January 30, 2024 (EST)
- Oh, I didn't know that. I'll still consider this, but I may leave it up to everyone else. -- FanOfRosalina2007 (talk · edits) 23:31, January 30, 2024 (EST)
- ...honestly, the fact that this proposal is a follow-up from an edit war that the proposer was responsible for and got blocked for, and being made directly after the block had ended and being made just because they disagreed on a certain thing that made them edit war (and also seems to be a response to a previous proposal they disagreed with and didn't know about until the edit war was escalating)... makes me want to choose a side even less than I already do now (and I didn't want to choose a side to begin with). Where's the "I'm fine with either way" option? rend (talk) (edits) 08:48, January 31, 2024 (EST)
- Aren't proposals with multiple/either-or answers required to have a "do nothing" option, anyways? ~Camwoodstock (talk) 11:25, January 31, 2024 (EST)
- Yep, rule 18 says "Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy." There definitely has to be a "do nothing" option here. MegaBowser64 (talk) 13:34, January 31, 2024 (EST)
- Okay, what should we do about this then? If the proposal setup breaks the rules, then I'm not voting until it's fixed (and honestly, I might not vote anyway, as I never edit the "Names in other languages" sections). A proposal that is set up simply because someone's upset about not getting what they want through an edit war is not something I want to get involved in. -- FanOfRosalina2007 (talk · edits) 20:02, January 31, 2024 (EST)
- Isn't settling disputes like that the whole point of a proposal? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:24, February 1, 2024 (EST)
- Yeah, no harm really in them creating a proposal about the matter. However, they're basically asking "should we carry out my idea in x form or y form" without even giving an option for anyone that disagrees with the idea. Would it be acceptable for a user other than the proposer to create a "do nothing" option, on the grounds that the proposal in its current form goes against the rules? MegaBowser64 (talk) 13:33, February 1, 2024 (EST)
- Proposals are intended to settle disputes but in good faith like "we disagree on this, let's hash out with the community to see which one of us has a stronger stance". The timing of this proposal from the user's history and rhetoric in the proposal don't work in the user's favor, and I really don't want proposals to be a kind of combative medium where you fight "enemies" to "win". Sure, discussions get heated and anxiety inducing and super frustrating. But you really shouldn't be trying to attack users while writing a proposal on heels of a disagreement, it casts perception of good faith in doubt imo. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:28, February 1, 2024 (EST)
- So...couldn't anyone just add the status quo option in for the proposer? I'm pretty sure I've seen that happen before. Sometimes, you know, it slips your mind, or you have other things going on where proposal developments don't have your attention. LinkTheLefty (talk) 06:06, February 2, 2024 (EST)
- I still feel like assuming bad faith in this case is a bit of a stretch when they didn't really "attack" anyone in the proposal, just pointed out the disagreement (and also didn't even vote in the proposal anyway). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:22, February 2, 2024 (EST)
- @LinkTheLefty yeah, I think it would be fine to add the status quo option, stuff like that has been done before. I'd be all for voting for that option when it gets added. MegaBowser64 (talk) 14:30, February 2, 2024 (EST)
I'm just gonna say it again: a "Do Nothing" option would just give way to more pointless edit wars. That concern is also what guided much of the opposition in a previous proposal that sought to loosen restrictions for British English spellings in wiki text. Regarding the subject of the current proposal, there is a conventional, widespread way to format words depending on their nature and purpose: foreign words should be in italics to make it clear they're foreign, and words that are being separated from the rest of the others for an explanatory purpose should be in quotation marks. Regardless of that, the idea that articles can be consistent only within themselves and not across the entire wiki is a questionable point of view to have; having an ambiguous outlook for a medium that's supposed to be encyclopedic is anything but encyclopedic. In the words of 7feetunder (concerning the aforementioned proposal on British English spelling): "how do we decide who's right and who's wrong if we don't have a preference? If the answer is 'first come, first serve', the worst solution ever to anything on a wiki, then no thanks". Let's settle on one formatting option or another. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:06, February 2, 2024 (EST)
Provide more context as to Mario entities' roles in Minecraft
In Minecraft's Super Mario Mashup, which gets (relatively) full coverage here, many familiar Mario entities get appearances replacing traditional Minecraft mobs and items, and their respective pages reflect that. The problem is, they are relegated to what amounts to a footnote of a section and do not provide any further context as to what they replace, which is unhelpful if you do not know what the original thing does in vanilla Minecraft. For example,
- “In the Super Mario Mash-up in Minecraft, Spiders are replaced by Scuttlebugs, using their New Super Mario Bros. 2 appearance.”
- —current Scuttlebug page
Tells us nothing about how they actually act. What this proposal aims to do is, for example, make this one say
- “In the Super Mario Mash-up in Minecraft, Spiders are replaced by Scuttlebugs, using their New Super Mario Bros. 2 appearance. As such, they appear primarily in overworld areas, becoming hostile in darkness. When defeated, they may drop strings or Tarantox's eyes.”
- —my intended Scuttlebug page
This should clear up any confusion readers may have on the subject.
Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: February 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - HI GUYS (V)
- Ray Trace (talk) I've played zero Minecraft and I'm not interested in clicking external wiki links to get information. Context like this should be filled in; you don't need to get into too much detail but a general overview is nice. I've also went out of my way to detail what stats are in playable character pages in the wiki (eg Paratroopa is classified as a technique character, which means that her shots are accurate).
- GuntherBB (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick.
- Waluigi Time (talk) It feels very incomplete to say something appears in a game and then not elaborate any further on its actual role. Sure, it's just a cosmetic change, but I don't think it's horribly out of scope to expand these a little. Regardless of the outcome we at least need to get Minecraft Wiki links in all those sections, though.
- FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. More context is needed in these sections, especially because not everyone who either browses the wiki or is a user on the wiki plays Minecraft (I don't play Minecraft at all). Those people would need more detail as to what the characters do in Minecraft. Besides, this is a Super Mario wiki; we need to cover everything that's Super Mario related in order to keep the wiki up to date.
- Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per proposal and per Waluigi Time. A brief overview of what the role of these Mario-skinned enemies and objects serve in the game is nice to have. I do think the point Camwoodstock has brought up regarding the versatility of Minecraft's elements is a good point and worth considering, but I feel it's entirely possible to keep these descriptions brief. For, say, Spider Eyes, we simply describe them as an item used in various crafting recipes that are dropped by Spiders. That's enough to know, broadly, where they appear and what they do; more in-depth coverage and explanation of mechanics can be saved for another site to cover. Likewise, for blocks with a Mario skin, we simply leave it at something like "Wood planks can be obtained in the overworld or by crafting, and may be placed in the world as a building material or decoration or be used in crafting."
- Ninja Squid (talk) Not adding at least an overview of how they work feels incomplete and ridiculous honestly. Per all.
#Swallow (talk) Per all. It's not like we'd be giving Minecraft full coverage.
Oppose
- Super Mario RPG (talk) - While it's true that the first option does not talk of much, there is little relevance to Super Mario other than what the skins and contents are replaced with. This was one of the main reasons why I wanted to direct people to minecraft.wiki, so that they can read more than just what the Super Mario content replaces. What's described in the second example are not attributes exclusive to the Super Mario Mash-up Pack, except for Tarantox's eyes.
- SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per Super Mario RPG.
- Koopa con Carne (talk) If you want info on how each NPC in Minecraft works, you go to a website that has it. If you're leery to go there, c'est la vie, not our business. A sentence-long overview of what the game itself is about is fine on Mario Wiki's Minecraft article, but further details don't belong here. Those Mario-themed skins don't affect gameplay in any way, so there's nothing worth noting here in that particular regard either; best one can do is link to the relevant NPC's Minecraft Wiki page from the character that inspired its appearance in the Mario texture pack.
- Camwoodstock (talk) Per KCC in particular--we feel like it's probably just more conductive to link to, say, the Minecraft Wiki article for Spider Eyes when mentioning Tantrox's Eyes replace them, than to try and give a brief overview, for one key reason--Minecraft blocks, items, and to a lesser extent even mobs are (usually) incredibly versatile and variable in their use-cases. What we mean by that is that a lot of things in Minecraft are multi-purpose and can be used for a wide variety of different things, especially the older ones. Bringing it back to Tantrox's eyes, Spider Eyes are used in no fewer than 3 crafting recipes themselves and technically count as a food item (and apparently can be used to breed the upcoming Armadillos??? were we just meant to find this out because of this proposal??? what is mojang game design nowadays), and one of those items it crafts is... The Fermented Spider Eye, which gets used in 4 more potion recipes. That's about 4 distinct uses for this one item and 4 uses for an item we'd likely have no other place to mention--even if we forcibly limited the sections to be one sentence per relevant (e.g. all the uses for Spider Eyes are one sentence and all the uses for Fermented Spider Eyes are another sentence), this has the potential to kill a section's pacing stone-cold dead. (Case in point, look at how long this vote is... Oops. ;P) In comparison, a quick link is all the reader needs to learn more if they're just that curious or otherwise aren't familiar with Minecraft; for those who are, then they just need the thing's name, which is presumably provided by the link itself.
- MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all.
- DrippingYellow (talk) Per all, the Mario series content in Minecraft is just limited to the texture pack, skins, and add-on map. There's really no point in going into any further detail for mobs or items. I would even go as far as to say that claiming that Minecraft objects are "replaced" by Mario objects is misleading, as again, the only thing that changes for them is the texture. They're still named "Spider", "Spider Eyes", "Zombie", etc., and they still make their original Minecraft sounds.
- Cadrega86 (talk) per Koopa con Carne and DrippingYellow.
- PnnyCrygr (talk) A something like "Minecraft Wiki article: (link)" right below the section header would fit better than a paragraph that literally and redundantly recaps the behavior of a Minecraft mob.
- Hewer (talk) Per all, but in particular, DrippingYellow brings up a good point - these aren't appearances of the Mario entities so much as design cameos.
- Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all. We'll essentially just be covering how Minecraft works but in Mario terminology, and I don't believe that has a place on this wiki.
@Camwoodstock "this has the potential to kill a section's pacing stone-cold dead" - The Minecraft appearances get their own sections anyway though. I don't think that "In the Super Mario Mash-up in Minecraft, pandas are replaced by Shiverians." has any pacing to kill in the first place. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:20, February 4, 2024 (EST)
- In addition, this is not the level of coverage I was thinking about anyway. I want something a little bit more than "Scuttlebugs replace Spiders" but not to the extent that "spiders can be used as crafting items to spawn a bullshit item or this other bullshit item and they can drop legs that you can make a weapon out of". My sentence here also demonstrates my utter lack of Minecraft knowledge and I have zero desire to hop across external websites just to look up very generic information that can easily be corrected with a little bit more context.
Ray Trace(T|C) 17:34, February 4, 2024 (EST)
- Yes, in some articles, like Shiverians, there is a Minecraft section... But that that's kind of the exception, not the norm. In fact, it currently looks like there is no norm or standard whatsoever. The closest we have is the list on the Minecraft article itself, but not only is that list incomplete, but just a few examples we saw from articles linked on that: In the example we gave for Tarantox (in which we'll likely have to go over the 8 uses for his eyes alone--we didn't even touch on the minutia of the mob itself), Tarantox doesn't have a Minecraft section; it's just in his article opener. Also, because Tarantox is the Cave Spider, we'd likely have to mirror a good portion of that information to Scuttlebug as well, since they replace ordinary spiders and those also drop Spider Eyes--and Minecraft is only mentioned in an "Other appearances" section for Scuttlebugs and shares this section with other games, not a bespoke header of its own; either that needs to get split, or else it will indeed clog that section with the minutia of Minecraft Spider Information. What about Spider Jockeys, just at all--do they go on the article for Scuttlebugs or Dry Bones, and what do we discuss on those articles about Spider Jockeys? What about Nabbit, who lacks any mention of Minecraft on his article because he replaces the Killer Bunny (an otherwise-removed mob only summonable via commands)? Buzzy Beetles lack a section, but replace Endermites, which are used. What about blocks and items? Do we explain how to acquire froglights in the Snake Block article? Do we discuss the Trident in Fauster's article? And then there's the Totem of Undying replacement, which we genuinely aren't even sure where you'd put that short of the Minecraft article itself.
We think what it boils down to is that, since our coverage of Minecraft as it is is already rather dodgy and inconsistent, whole-sale inserting these descriptions without any consideration of where to actually put them is a very poorly thought-out idea (at least in our opinion, natch.) This is the Mario Wiki--we need to consider what information pertaining to Minecraft is actually relevant to the Mario franchise and what is best suited for another wiki, because otherwise, this could get out of hand very fast, and lead to plenty of confusion down the road; and in our humble opinion, a simple acknowledgement of what's what is all that's relevant, as any details about Minecraft's gameplay are better suited for a different wiki.
We guess what we've been trying to say is that we would like to see some clear limit of where the coverage ends be defined, because Minecraft is big, and if unchecked, you get the aforementioned issue with Spider eyes where suddenly what's supposed to be just a sentence could reasonably become much, much larger. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:50, February 4, 2024 (EST)
- For the record, each subject should have a dedicated Minecraft section in their history based on current organization. The inconsistency is mostly due to changes in policy and Minecraft's coverage status over time that haven't really been kept up with. While it's unfortunate and something that should be fixed ASAP, it's not really relevant to this proposal. (Also, I'm fairly certain the aim of this proposal isn't to cover literally everything in Minecraft, but to be more descriptive when we say "this appears in the game". The Trident and Totem examples are moot.) --
Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 18:59, February 4, 2024 (EST)
- We had a feeling at least some of what we were seeing was just kind of the consequence of coverage priority shifting about, so it's good to know we're not going completely nuts
more than we usually are on that regard. Still, it does kind of leave us with a lot of questions seeing as, even after that gets resolved, we're not quite sure where exactly the line is drawn for descriptiveness; as we mentioned, that count range from anywhere to simply listing what a Mario thing is replacing to literally just a full description of the Minecraft mob, and we're honestly a little hesitant to support when there doesn't really seem to be a cleanly defined line for how descriptive we should be aside from kinda "feeling" it based on the provided example--which works fine for mobs, but doesn't quite work good for items or blocks. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 19:06, February 4, 2024 (EST)
This certainly is an interesting proposal. On the one hand, a little more context on how the (Mariofied) mobs act would be nice, so expanding the info a little bit with a short, one-sentence summary would be appreciated... but on the other hand, since the mobs aren't necessarily Mario-related and don't have additional behavioral differences in the Mario Mash-Up pack, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to talk more about regular Minecraft mobs on a Mario wiki, and simply linking to the Minecraft wiki would also solve the issue. I do get Ray Trace's concern though, and since it would make sense to link to the Minecraft wiki anyway, regardless of the proposal's outcome; really, it's boiling down to whether we should add a bit more context on what the Minecraft mobs do on each of our pages, or if it's too irrelevant for this wiki. rend (talk) (edits) 17:07, February 4, 2024 (EST)
This proposal is simple. Twitter has been renamed to "X" several months back, and people have become increasingly adjusted to the change over time. On Wikipedia, it even says that "Twitter" is both the former and the colloquial name.
Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: February 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.
- Somethingone (talk) I don't see why not. Most recent name, becomes current page name.
Oppose
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:07, January 30, 2024 (EST)
