MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/31

All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was. Previous proposals Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Remove level articles of levels that have names VETOED BY Template:Color-link-piped Template:Color-link-piped This policy has been declared detrimental to the wiki. If anything, all levels should have their own article regardless of name. There are no level articles for levels named 1-1 and 2-2, but there are articles for levels named Awesome and such. There have been proposals to create articles for the "non-named" levels, but they have been turned down. We want consistency right? So, I say keep consistency and merge, the "named" levels into their world articles. There isn't anything special about "named" levels besides the name. This level deserves an article as much as this one. So, as all else has failed before, neither of them deserve their own page. The only ones that should be kept are, obviously, places that have more than one level/boss fight in 3D platformers such as, Bob-omb Battlefield, Bianco Hills, Good Egg Galaxy, and Bowser in the Dark World. Easy enough to understand right? Proposer: Koopa K (talk) Deadline: September 2, 2012, 23:59 GMT Support Koopa K (talk) It's my proposal, so per myself. Zero777 (talk) Consistency is best in this situation, I see nothing special of the two different level mentioned. Walkazo (talk) - As I've said many times before (1: most recent, 2, 3, 4, 5: earliest), levels should not get separate articles. Putting the level information on the world articles streamlines navigation and it does away with the whole "named vs. no-name" inconsistency. It also means less stubs and walkthroughs alike; the former because they'll be merged (and hopefully the short sections will then be less daunting to expand than a whole page would be), and the latter because there's a lot less pressure to make overviews long if they're sections rather than pages. However, that doesn't mean that being turned into sections will get rid of info: sections can still be nice and juicy - we just don't want the fluff is all. Master R.O.B (talk) Per Walkazo Mario4Ever (talk) Per Walkazo. YoshiKong (talk) Per all Blue CosmicToad (talk) Per Walkazo BoygeyMario (talk) Per Walkazo Technickal (talk) Just because they have names doesn't mean they're special. Also, per Miss Walkazo. Oppose Comments All those areas you mentioned as keeping their articles could actually be considered to be the 3D equivalents of World articles (while the missions/episodes/whatever that happen in them would be the "Levels"), which makes things a lot more straightforward: Worlds get articles, Levels don't. - Walkazo (talk) So you want to merge all of the Super Mario World levels, right? GreenDisaster (talk) Yep. Worlds get Articles, Levels don't. Koopa K (talk) How about Yoshi's Island levels? World10 (talk) Please read my previous comment Worlds get Articles levels DON'T. Koopa K (talk) Puns on the Mario Party articles REMOVE PUNS 11-2 This is something that was briefly discussed on the talk page of Mario Party Advance. On the articles that cover the various Mario Party games (listed in the comments section), there is a "Puns" section that list all the minigames that have puns in their names. The question is, should we remove these sections or should we keep them? In my opinion, they should be removed, because while a few of them are puns on songs and English idioms, most of them are, as one person put it, "so obvious an intoxicated monkey could figure them out". It's crude, but it's true. Not to mention that several of us have been going around to articles and removing obvious trivia pieces, so having entire lists of these seems odd to me. Proposer: GreenDisaster (talk) Deadline: September 3, 2012, 23:59 GMT Remove Puns Section GreenDisaster (talk) Per proposal. Glowsquid (talk) per GreenDisaster. Koopa K (talk) Per GD, but shouldn't this be in removals? Walkazo (talk) - The puns are more appropriately placed on the minigame articles themselves: there's no reason to have them cluttering up the game pages too. (And per Koopa K in regards to the placement of this Proposal.) Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Per Walkazo. Coooool123 (talk) Per all, also, we could just add the info to the trivia sections of the games as well, if it's not there already. Master R.O.B (talk) Per proposal. These sections are pretty pointless in my opinion. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all. Neptune99 (talk) We should just change the title, so per Commander Code-8 (talk) The lists are pretty pointless and the section should just be labelelled 'minigames' anyway Zero777 (talk) At first I was thinking no, but then after looking at the puns they are pretty obvious and are just taking up space. I don't really see anything informative about it that can be helpful to the game or player or can be of any help. I believe this case should be left to the player to decipher it like if their walking along and hear the real world counterpart that pun references to then they connect the logic, so I find no reason to keep it. Keep Puns Section JORDAN DEBONO (talk) Even though some of the puns are plain simple and the less straight forward ones will still be put into the minigame articles, precious work was put into the project, work in which my opinion still doesn't deserve to be deleted. Yes, some are dead obvious, but since the Mario Party series attracts a younger audience, it might not be very obvious to them. EDIT: Per Technickal's comment below. Technickal (talk) Per my comment. Comments And here are the articles that will be affected. Mario Party Mario Party 2 Mario Party 3 Mario Party 4 Mario Party 5 Mario Party 6 Mario Party Advance Mario Party DS Mario Party 7 Mario Party 8 Mario Party 9 GreenDisaster (talk) @JORDAN DEBONO It wouldn't be totally deleted just put into the minigame article. Koopa K (talk) Unless it's one of those obvious ones. And how in the world is the Mario series for ages 3+? Actually, how in the world would a three year-old come onto this wiki? GreenDisaster (talk) Yea, I don't think a 3-year old would be able to type yet. Koopa K (talk) Let alone read what's on the articles. Also, what work? The incredibly obvious ones required no work, and everything else only needed a quick Google search to find out. GreenDisaster (talk) Really obvious ones are like, Bombsketball pun on basketball, duh, Shy Guy Says, pun on Simon Says, again, duh. Koopa K (talk) Ok look the 3+ thing was just an exaggeration ALTHOUGH all those game have 3+ on the box so you never quite know. And where will the pun article go, inside the minigame article? I don't fully understand this. Also @GreenDisaster, I was offline at the time so I couldn't respond anyone. JORDAN DEBONO (talk) Yes. If there is a pun in the name of a minigame, the pun is mentioned in the article of a minigame unless it's one of those really obvious ones. The only thing that will be lost is stuff that we were already trying to lose in the first place. GreenDisaster (talk) Well that does kind of change my initial reasoning although seeing that the odds are against me and Technickal I will continue to support my vote. Thanks anyway, JORDAN DEBONO (talk) If you're going to continue opposing it, you should at least change your reasoning to acknowledge what I've told you. GreenDisaster (talk) All right, if you're going to go with that angle... Currently, several of us on the forums have agreed to remove any pieces of trivia that are speculation, dumb, coincidental, or, most relevantly, obvious. And like I said, the obvious ones required no work, and the others just required a quick Google search. Besides, the point of this proposal is to remove the list of puns from the articles. You can create a separate proposal and argue about the obvious trivia there, but right now, it's irrelevant. GreenDisaster (talk) You know what, this is getting a little too confusing for me. I'll see what Technickal has to say about it. If I like his reasoning, I'll keep my vote. If not, I'll go back to remaining neutral. I just opposed because of all the articles that were going to be affected, and I'm not a fan of huge changes like that. JORDAN DEBONO (talk) But it won't be a huge change at all. Eleven articles are going to lose a relatively small section that was mostly pointless. GreenDisaster (talk) I will see what Technickal has to say, and then I will continue from there. JORDAN DEBONO (talk) I don't see any reason we should delete this. Of course some are ridiculously obvious (Pier Pressure anyone?). But it's fine them being in both articles. I mean, what's the harm? I also agree with Jordan's reasoning, the puns list was part of not one, but ELEVEN articles, and we shouldn't just throw it all away. My point is, the puns list works; there's no point in changing it. Technickal (talk) Technickal, let me ask you a question; What exactly is lost by removing the lists? All the minigame articles already have their respective puns in their articles, as long as they're not obvious ones, so all that's really being lost is bad information that some of us have already removed on several other articles. GreenDisaster (talk) Create a standard on Prima guides DELETED BY THE PROPOSER Aight, I know this is somewhat minor, but it applies to multiple articles on the wiki, so it warrants more than a talk page proposal.. I suggest that we create a standard on whether or not Prima guides should even be mentioned in articles. Prima guides up until Galaxy were all unofficial; instead, Nintendo Power handled the official guides. If I remember correctly, New Super Mario Bros. was the final official guide produced by Nintendo Power. Please correct me if I'm wrong in saying that Galaxy was the first official Prima guide. I want this to be as accurate as possible. But I digress. I believe we should decide whether or not to include Prima's information, prior to Galaxy, in articles on the wiki. For example, on the Gloomba page, it says "In the Prima Super Paper Mario strategy guide, it states that Gloombas have the ability to poison the player, although this is false." This would be deleted, since the Prima guide is unofficial. However, on the Preying Mantas page, it says "In the Prima Official Game Guide for Super Mario Galaxy 2, Preying Mantas are called Jammyfish." This would stay, since that particular Prima guide is the official guide. If anyone wants, I can post a list of current articles that would and would not be affected. It is my opinion that we should omit all of Prima's information (prior to Galaxy). Many a mention of Prima guides on the wiki is something that the company incorrectly stated in their guide. I think it's redundant to state something that an unofficial source got wrong. Of course, if the official source was incorrect, it absolutely should be added, thus the "prior to Galaxy" bit. Proposer: Bloc Partier (talk) Deadline: September 17, 2012, 23:59 GMT Remove Prima Information Prior to Super Mario Galaxy Bloc Partier (talk) - See my statement above. (Note: First, this proposal does not mean I'll become an active user again, so don't ask. Second, I'm going on vacation for a week during this proposal; I won't check on it during that time.) Koopa K (talk) It took me a little while to understand what you were saying. Still, once I realized, I strongly support this. Would we use an unofficial source for games now? No. So why should we use an unofficial source for the games then? Simple, we wouldn't. (BTW, I think Super Paper Mario was last one Nintendo Power did that was official.) Do Nothing Glowsquid (talk) - Some (a lot) of the Prima guides made before 2007 are official-those have "official [something] guide" on the cover (granted, that may be a silly standard, but otoh, Nintendo would have certainly grilled Prima if they were falsely claiming their material as officialy licensed). They're "less" official due to having an additional degree of separation from Nintendo, but stuff from a pre-2007 Prima guide can still be used when Nintendo Power doesn't give anything/nobody on the wiki owns the Nintendo Power guide. For example, the name for the Wario World midbosses come from the prima guide. Raven Effect (talk) Per Glowsquid. JORDAN DEBONO (talk) Per Glowsquid. Walkazo (talk) - Per Glowsquid. MarioSmasher (talk) – Per Glowsquid. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all. MeritC (talk) Per all. Comments @Koopa K: I'll clarify with examples. EDIT: Done. - Bloc Partier (talk) @Glowsquid: I see your point, but I think most of the Prima guides dodge legislation thanks to their claim of "Prima's Official Guide." Anyhow, I totally see your point on the Wario World thing, but that still leaves us with the multitudes of "Prima got this wrong lol" comments. Perhaps this should be a case by case application and not a proposal. In which case I'd rather just delete this than deal with the whole thing. - Bloc Partier (talk)