MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/25: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
m (Undo revision 1017148 by Reversinator (talk)35 minutes left)
Line 900: Line 900:


:::But everything DK isn't on the Super Mario Wiki; we only cover the information required to reference their series and characters in relation to their appearance in the ''Mario'' series. I have never been on the DK Wiki, but I'm sure they have articles on [[Mario]], and some other ''Mario'' characters, because they crossover in many games, like ''[[Mario Kart Wii]]'' or ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'' to name a few. Do you see what I'm saying? That's why this proposal was made in the first place; to get rid of the extraneous information about the ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' series that is currently cluttering up the Wiki and retain only what is necessary, like the character pages for [[Banjo]] and [[Bottles]]. {{User|Phoenix}} 19:16, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
:::But everything DK isn't on the Super Mario Wiki; we only cover the information required to reference their series and characters in relation to their appearance in the ''Mario'' series. I have never been on the DK Wiki, but I'm sure they have articles on [[Mario]], and some other ''Mario'' characters, because they crossover in many games, like ''[[Mario Kart Wii]]'' or ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'' to name a few. Do you see what I'm saying? That's why this proposal was made in the first place; to get rid of the extraneous information about the ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' series that is currently cluttering up the Wiki and retain only what is necessary, like the character pages for [[Banjo]] and [[Bottles]]. {{User|Phoenix}} 19:16, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
}}
===Remove Voting Start Rule===
<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">REMOVE 18-4</span>
This rule was meant to encourage discussion. It wants to prevent people from voting so much that the proposal is already decided. However, I do not see how this can majorly impact proposals. I think all it does is create a major annoyance for most users, since most people overlook this rule and we have to remove the vote and say, "VOTING STARTS AT BLAH BLAH". Even I overlook this rule, and I don't bother to pay attention if a voting user broke this rule or what. Besides, we get a WEEK of discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion only.
All this rule, I think it does, is to make voting more complicated, and it pretty much accomplished that, since so many people break it.
While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided".
Besides, no other proposal gets this rule; not the featured articles and not the Talk Page Proposals, so I see no reason we need this.
I propose to remove this rule because it makes everything unnecessarily complicated, it is useless for those who aren't online every day, it is impractical for those who are online every day, and it is not present in all types of proposals.
{{scrollbox|1=
'''Proposer''': {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}<br>
'''Voting start''': April 21, 18:22 GMT<br>
'''Deadline''': April 28 23:59 GMT.
====Support====
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Let's delete this useless, unnecessary, and somewhat complicated rule that doesn't even apply to all proposals! I hope you guys agree on me on this.
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} YES YES YES! Esptaily since I don't go by GMT, I never know when to start. IT STUPID
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all and my comment.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Per proposal
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per all!
#{{User|Zero777}} Per comments, especially mine.
#{{User|SWFlash}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} I don't go by GMT. I go by Easern Standard Time. (EST). I think this is the best proposal eva!
#{{User|Phoenix}} Yes! Yes! Yes! 1000x yes! I was actually going to make a proposal about this myself, but since you beat me to it, I'm all for it! :D
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Gah! I hate having to wait to vote! Per LunaticGreenMalleo!:D
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; I myself have seen several proposals actually ignore this rule, and I agree with the fact that this policy complicates the voting process.
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Per Super Mario Bros.
#{{User|Glowsquid}} The idea behind the rule was supposedly to prevent a proposal from being swayed by a "flood" of votes in one direction, but from what I've seen, the rule simply moves the problem from the voting sections to the comments. It doesn't fix anything and add a new irritant, so yeah, get rid of it.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} I never really liked this rule, anyways. Per all.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - The delay needlessly complicates things with no real benefit to show for it.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - I completely forgot about this proposal. >_> Ironically, I would have supported it much earlier if I had been allowed to do it at the time I made that comment below. You see where I'm getting with this.
#{{User|Count Bonsula}} Per all.
#{{User|MarioMaster15}} Per all.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Je regrette, mais c'est necessaire. Per my comments below.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per what ever he said up there and down there
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per Mario4Ever in the comments and myself. The only answer I saw to my objections was one from BLOF that I chalk down to a matter of disagreement. I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
#{{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}Per Mario4ever
====Comments====
It's somewhat amusing how I want to support this proposal right now. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
LGM, I had this exact idea to start this proposal too. Now I'm going to support it. The idea of it at first sounds great, but in reality, it does not help anything at all but create a nuisance. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
I'm really pulled on both sides of this proposal. I want to oppose because it gives time for some users to accept the fact this is for good and let it sink in to their minds. It will also give time to the proposer to make any error corrections and alterations to the proposal. Also, yes it is true people aren't online every day, but they'll be online eventually, if they don't, then they miss to vote on a proposal..... oh well. But I am questioned on why isn't this applied to FA or TPP; well I guess because the proposal for that was meant only for the proposals and nobody bothered to extend the rule to FA and TPP's. BUT here's my thought on supporting this: the proposal lasts for a week, there will be enough time for anybody to counter anybody's vote and for users to change their minds. It was made to give time to the proposer to check for errors, but the rules say that the proposer has three days to make alterations and error checks on the proposal, so I guess it is unnecessary, I'm going to support. {{User|Zero777}}
:@Zero777 - But if you think it's unnecessary, why would you oppose...? {{User|Phoenix}} 17:45, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
::Fix'd {{User|Zero777}}
''While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided"''. How does allowing voting to take place immediately after the proposal is posted rectify this problem? What difference does it make whether or not there is a 24-hour delay between the proposal's posting and voting start time if there are people who aren't online constantly and are unable to vote immediately anyway? While I'm thinking of it, what difference does it make when someone votes if the proposal is on the page for a week? Surely, no one is busy to the extent that spending five minutes reading a proposal and typing <nowiki>{{User|Username}}</nowiki> in the appropriate section strains his or her schedule. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
Yes, and also I think the rule of Voting Start should be backfired. Nice job, LeftyGreenMario buddy!
{{User|Superfiremario}}
Hmmm, as for why we don't do this on TPPs and FA nominations, I happened to see an explanation for that. The TPPs and FA nominations are more out of the way and don't usually get jumped on as soon as they are proposed (although this may vary due to how many people are online when the action is proposed). Also, just because removing the vote is an annoyance doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, unless it gets really out of hand sometime in the future. I prefer the voting delay because, even if no one is there to read the comments, I'd rather comment on a proposal when the voting period hasn't started yet, and have that be more likely to influence the debate. Take, for instance, the DK series boss level split, I wasn't there when the proposal was proposed, and yet I was able to comment on the situation before the voting period started. I don't find it inconvenient either, but that may just be me. </long-winded ramble> {{User|Bop1996}}
:I've been here before this rule got initiated and the voting start rule makes no difference whatsoever in opinions first made about the proposal. It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is. Besides, I'm not the only one who dislikes this rule and having a voting start only for this, no matter how major it is, seems inconsistent along with other proposal-like stuff. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
:Mario4Ever: Look, we're better off without it. It doesn't fix the problem, but the rule is useless for people that are not online every day and it punishes those that are online everyday. It started out with good intentions, but nowadays, I find it more of a hassle than a help. One week is enough for discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion. Besides, the comments people make during the one-day delay is sometimes just, "Good idea! I will support this proposal!" or something like that. Really, we're better off without it. Besides, it complicates the process. By allowing users to vote after a proposal is created means that we do not have to check if they are within voting start. Voting start period is annoying for me, and no matter how much we remind them, users STILL break the rule. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
::I do have to admit that the voting start period is irritating on occasion, but to me, that's not reason enough to dispose of it. I think the one-day discussion is useful for allowing users to wrap their heads around the proposal, so to speak, enabling their votes to be based upon their reasoning and not on what the majority thinks. Users who come to these proposals and see a large number of support votes or oppose votes may be discouraged from voting because their opinions may do nothing to affect the results (though this is not always the case, as I was the sole opposer of {{User|Booderdash}}'s TPP to merge Ashley and Red), or they may pick whichever side has more votes, giving no thought to the proposal's potential benefit/harm to the wiki. The rule would be easier to follow if it were implemented on TPPs and FAs, but I realize that it is more difficult to get that approved than to get this removed.
::'''BabyLuigiOnFire''': ''It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is. '' Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins? {{User|Mario4Ever}}
::: The delay is unnecessary, though. I don't see why we ''need'' this. It already proved to be more of a hassle than a help. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
Besides, when I am ready to vote, 20 people already voted after voting start. This rule doesn't help me or the wiki greatly in my opinion. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
:I understand that, but removing the rule doesn't really do anything to fix that. Most people aren't ready to vote immediately after a proposal is posted, and regardless of whether the rule is in place or not, people are going to swarm the support and oppose sections once allowed, though I feel as if removing the rule would only decrease the amount of time in which this happens. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
::Again, I'm not intending to fix this problem. The voting start, I believe, creates more problems than remedies them. I'm not in the wiki every day, and when I log in, I see a proposal that is already voted. This rule assumes that ''every'' user is logged in every day, but for a big deal of us, this is not the case. The rule wants to encourage discussion (I saw the proposal for this), but it doesn't really help the problem. I have not seen a major change after this rule was initiated, and ever since, I am getting more and more irritated by the problems it creates instead of fixes. I am now cracking from frustration this rule gives me (and possibly other users), and this is how I proposed this.{{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
"''Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins?''" No, but I am not in the wiki everyday. There might be days where I revolve around the wiki the entire day, and some days where I am not there at all. There is no way of knowing when someone is going to propose something new. And I'm the impatient type and I like to vote to get things over with. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
:I'm not here on a daily basis, either, but (and not to be rude) I usually just check the recent changes (depending on how long I've been gone, I'll check the last 50 or the last 500) to see if there is a new proposal. The only time the voting start thing is an issue for me is when a proposal is posted in which I have a great deal of interest, though this is rare. I understand where you're coming from, though. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
I made the mistake of voting too early twice now, once on a proposal I made and once now on this proposal. I think its really annoying so I'm supporting this proposal.{{User|Tails777}}
:Oh, but you can vote in your own proposal whenever you want. The rule stated that. Anyway, feel my frustration :( {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
:''I do have to admit that the voting start period is irritating on occasion, but to me, that's not reason enough to dispose of it.'' Of course that's not reason enough, Mario4Ever! I have other reasons to delete this rule too! Sort of late reply, but please read my proposal more carefully! {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
::I am going to barge in here; I still have no opinion on this, but that would be because I am evaluating the situation in my head using my logic. If I were using your proposal's logic to decide my opinion, I would be opposing as every point in your proposal is flawed.
::Your first point, that the rule is too complicated, is the only coherent point there. There's not much to say in opposition to it, taking into consideration that the complexity of a rule is an opinionated factor of a decision, is that the workload placed on a user with inadequate knowledge of the rules and guidelines for proposals is very minimal - if you don't know how the rule works, the people who do know how will fix your mistakes for you. This means that, while for some this rule may be complicated (me, I understand it perfectly), the others who do understand it can fix mistakes made.
::Your second point is referring to a minority of the general population of users who actually vote on proposals. As this point is pointing out disadvantages only for those users who are not online every day, which a large amount are, the point is moot. ADDITIONALLY I'd like to point out that it doesn't take more than one user to find a flaw with a proposal and point it out in the comments because after all, everyone (or I should hope everyone) is reading the comments section before voting.
::Finally your last point, which I find rather amusing. Your point, reworded, is "this rule is not present in other forms of proposals, and therefore it should not be present in this one" - you know, the FA process involves creating a subpage for every article - maybe we should get rid of that, because that's not part of the proposals process. Or maybe we should invoke a one-week duedate on all FAs; that'll match them up with proposals! Now, what I'm trying to point out here is not that I can make a mockery of a situation, but that the rules for all of our different proposals are ''different''. In Featured Articles, it can only pass if the score is 5-0, with proposals the score can pass by any margin greater than three. There are tons of different circumstances that take place which invalidate this statement even further.
::So now, going back to my point of you really having only one point, your only point here is that the rule is too complicated; a point which I put up a strong argument against - this proposal's basis is not very sturdy and could crumble at any time. I'm not gonna vote now but if I don't see a more intelligent reason, I may vote later on.
::'''tl;dr:''' Your proposal really only does have one point, that it is too complicated - being too complicated is a very weak point as multiple users ''do'' get it and those users can fix the mistakes of the users who don't. So really this proposal has <u>one, weak, point</u> supporting it. I don't find that to be adequate and I hope those reading this comment don't either. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:Look, why are you assuming I do not know this rule? I KNOW how it works, many people KNOW how this works, and I don't make proposals too often However, I am becoming increasingly disenchanted with this rule. Rules were created to prevent chaos and stuff like that, but I do not know how this rule helps proposals in any way possible. This rule was meant to encourage discussion, but for some reason it's only discussion here. You are making a bad analogy here. Maybe I didn't get my point straight, but at least I don't understand why Talk Page Proposals don't get this rule. They are different, but they still do not get some form of delay. Maybe people access it less often? I didn't see any reason for this when Talk Page Proposals were created. Maybe they should get this rule too? I fix people's mistakes frequently, due to their breaking the rule, and I wish that I don't have to do this. Same thing with supporters in FA nominations, but at least the rule sort of "removes" fan votes.
:You overlooked my point how I say, "It is useless and it proved to be more of a hassle than a help." I found this rule to be useless too, plus all my points. If it is really useful, it should be be at least present in Talk Page Proposals in some shape and form. Again, I KNOW the rule, and just because I know how it works doesn't mean I have to like it. ''Just because it is complicated doesn't mean I don't know how to do it''. I said that it makes the voting process more complicated, but you just dismiss this as, "Oh, but most of us know how to do it!". And complexity can be an objective thing. The more rules, the more complex, the more sophisticated. Now, most of our rules ARE necessary, so we don't have flame wars and undesirable stuff like that. However, when we can be a bit simpler, I suggest that we go simpler, so more people understand, more people don't break it, and it is less work for us.
:I don't even understand your argument of my second point. I said that people who are online every day get a delay and those who aren't will be in the same situation of 20 users already voting.
:And you are making a mockery using bad analogy. How nice of you. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
This is a GREAT idea, because when I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke the rule and voted. It's POINTLESS!!!!!!! On the forst day, over 9000 people aren't gonna vote on it! {{User|Luigi is OSAM}}
:Rephrased: "This is a great idea, because when I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke a rule and voted. It's pointless! On the first day, over 9000 people aren't gonna vote on it!"
:Rephrased with all insubstantial/unreasoned parts removed: "When I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke the rule and voted."
:Rephrased with a different context: "When I made a proposal, I actually had to read the rules to know how to do it. Then I accidentally voted on a proposal before voting start!"
:I would like to point out the last rephrase; when making a proposal you should be totally informed on everything, read the rules even if you do know how to do everything. And you accidentally voting before is not a crime; someone removed it and we went on with our days. Hardly worth all of the pain and suffering we will have if we pass an invalid proposal. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::OMG I didn't see this! I'll respond now.
::I never assumed you don't know the rule, I never said you don't, I said people don't know how the rule works. This rule helps proposals by calling out the hidden flaws in proposals; multiple times people have been gung-ho about a proposal before realizing that it won't really help the wiki, just because you haven't seen these occasions does not mean they don't happen. And I don't recall making an analogy in the first paragraph, the only analogy I can find is a vague one; my references to the FA processes in the third paragraph.
::Secondly, I don't know why Talk Page Proposals don't get this rule, maybe we should go add that rule to talk page proposals. Maybe it's because TPPs get two weeks discussion, maybe it's because they're considered "less notable", I don't know, but that shouldn't be a reason to take out the rules in this thing; as I mentioned, the two things are different, we can't compare one with the other.
::I never overlooked any of your points; usefulness is not a set amount, you saying useless (and you saying it's more of a hassle than a help) is your opinion, and should not reflect any facts. And that was exactly how I dismissed your point; most of us know how to do it (though I don't recall using the word most) - the ones who do know can fix it; and if you're too tired to fix it yourself, leave it for someone else who's not too tired.
::Finally when you say that when we have a rule that's not helping, we can make everything easier, yet you also admit that most rules are there for a reason - those aren't technically contradicting points, but they sure are close. Insert my point about uselessness being an opinion and not a fact and then that really doesn't make sense. Can we establish, for the length of this proposal, that, while the use may not be apparent to you, this rule ''does have a use?'' Or do you think that the rule has no use at all and could never help anything?
::To clarify my argument to your second point. I am saying that while there may be a few users who don't come on daily, there are some users who are. And those users will find the flaws and the flaws will be there, in the comments section, the next day when the users who don't come on daily come on.
::Finally, I see no mockery and no analogy in my comments and I think you're just feeling sentiments that are not there. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::@ Marioguy1 I knew the rules of proposals, I just didn't know the rules of GMT. Good day to you all {{User|Luigi is OSAM}}
::::Ugh, I hate arguing with people. I am sorry, but I am a very sensitive person. Analogies are comparisons, and I believe you are using a bad analogy. You think that because voting start is not in other proposals, so it shouldn't be in other proposals; BUT if that is the case, should we make proposals similar to FA's? Sorry if I'm not getting my point straight (I have a lot of trouble with this). Anyway, I'm not merely stating that just because Talk Page Proposals don't have this rule, so this rule should be taking out. It's either both have this rule in some shape or neither or else something seems strange and inconsistent. I think neither is the better choice.
::::: I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying that the more rules we have, the more complex the process is, but most of them are necessary. If we have unnecessary rules, that just adds to the complexity, and if we can go simple, then let's go for it. I don't see any nearly-contradicting points there. And I believe voting start is useless, and it proved itself to be useless and annoying for most people (or so it seems). I groan in frustration every time someone breaks the rule or if I want to vote. Subjective it may be, but I never saw how this rule impacted proposals majorly.
::::: Besides, proposals are not irreversible. If we get a proposal that passes, but we despise it later on, we can make another one. Well, I'm not intending to refer to this rule, but again, this rule doesn't want a glut of users voting on a proposal so it might show undesirable results, but hey, let's just make another one and see how the results go! So why we have this rule? I don't know. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
'''@Kaptian K. Rool:''' What the heck are you trying to say?? {{User|Zero777}}
'''@Kaptain K. Rool:''' Are you sure you understand what's being proposed? {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:It's no problem, just think of this as a discussion; we are discussing the best course of action. And what I am trying to point out is that talk page proposals and proposals have different rules, for example, Talk Page Proposals take two weeks to complete. Maybe the one week extension to the deadline makes the voting start rule meaningless? Either way, the rules of proposals and talk page proposals are not the same, so we cannot accurately compare them to eachother. The same goes for proposals and Featured Articles.
:What I am trying to point out with the "contradictory" point, is that saying this rule is useless is an opinion; some people see use for it, some people don't. I'm sure people have reason to see both ways, but the fact the remains that it is one person's word against another's as to whether the rule is useless or not.
:And I realize that you could always make a proposal to fix the mistake that was made, I just finished doing that with [[Talk:Gnat Attack|Gnat Attack]] and yoshiyoshiyoshi is doing it now with [[Talk:Pale Piranha|Pale Piranha]], but the process will always take over a month to complete; which is a long amount of time for something that could have been corrected with only one day extra in voting time. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::*breathes in relief* I got a little stressed before. The processes between Talk Page Proposals and Proposals are similar, but not the same (well, they feel similar). I never saw the reason for Talk Page Proposals not receiving a delay, but the similar-Proposals did. The two are similar enough to compare at least.
::Users are allowed to have their own opinions. However, within my experience, I have never seen an instance where the delay made a huge impact on proposals. Again, this is what I think of voting delay. I want to see if more people agreed with me or not. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
::I think a week or two is enough for people to correct their mistakes, but yes, I'm pretty sure there are people out there who just cast their vote and never change it again. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
}}
}}

Revision as of 19:27, April 28, 2011


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.
Previous proposals


Allow autoconfirmed users edit other users' userpages

DON'T ALLOW 1-34

Recently I have seen red links, redirect links, etc. on other peoples userpages along with deleted images and I was wondering if us autoconfirmed users can edit their userpages for errors, etc. It really doesn't make sense that only sysops get to edit this so I set up this proposal. Also, on Wikia we get to edit others' userpages along with most other wikis.

Proposer: Kaptain K. Rool (talk)
Voting start: March 19, 2011 14:30 GMT
Deadline: March 26, 2011 3:30 GMT

Support

  1. Kaptain K. Rool (talk) - Because I made this proposal.

Oppose

  1. Yoshiwaker (talk) Sysops only edit userpages if they need to. This would let almost anybody put anything on your user page. It's just pointless anyway.
  2. M&SG (talk) - I agree with Yoshiwaker.
  3. Ultrahammer5365 (talk) - Per all. You shouldn't be allowed to mess with other people's userpages.
  4. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Per all. Zero signing out.
  5. Tails777 (talk) Per all
  6. Bowser's luma (talk) Yes, let us support vandalism.
  7. Super Mario Bros. (talk) - Ask a sysop to fix it. I believe the "Keep Your Hands to Yourself" extension was added to the wiki by Porple because vandals were messing with user pages. It makes complete sense that only sysops and the user that owns the user space gets to edit it. And nobody cares if you can edit others' user pages on Wikia, as we aren't Wikia.
  8. Phoenix (talk) No way, I'm sorry, but there's really no reason...
  9. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Imagine a vandal coming onto your userpage and replacing all of your personal information with fake, unnecessary and inappropriate information that could be offensive to you. This is why only sysops can edit other peoples' userpages. If there's a problem with a userpage, you are expected to ask a sysop to remove it. It only takes a minute to ask.
  10. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all. Only Sysops can be trusted with these powers. In my opinion, you've made just another proposal to suit your personal wants.
  11. Bop1996 (talk) Per all. I like how you have control of your userspace and I don't want a vandal messing up my page, even if I can revert it later.
  12. Yoshidude99 (talk) I don't want some random person editing my userpage.
  13. Reversinator (talk) Per all.
  14. Ralphfan (talk) - Per all.
  15. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all.
  16. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Ummmm editing another person's page? Most users are autoconfirmed, and you never know when someone could VANDILIZE!
  17. Edofenrir (talk) - None of your points is significant enough to outweight the benefits this extention provides.
  18. SWFlash (talk) I've just imagined how my userpage was edited…that's……:(
  19. Pokémon Trainer Mario (talk) I think once a vandal moved a sysops userpage.
  20. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
  21. Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per all.
  22. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) - Per Bowser's luma and Yoshidude99.
  23. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all.
  24. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Only if we autoconfirmed users can ONLY have the ability to remove fake new message boxes, but this is all or nothing, so I say nothing. Per all.
  25. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Where to begin...hmmm...oh yes, no! There is too much vandals around the wiki to even let this happen. Not only that, but some users don't want other users putting crap on their page.
  26. Gamefreak75 (talk) - Per my comment below and the rest above.
  27. Mariomario64 (talk) - Per all. Plus, why give normal "everyday" users (I guess you could say that) access to editing other users' own pages? If you ask me, that makes no sense.
  28. New Super Mario (talk) I like my userpage and don't want anyone editing my page.
  29. Magikrazy51 (talk)Okay, so if your proposal passes, I'll erase everything and put on it "?". You could lose a lot of data that way. Per all.
  30. Geniusguy445 (talk) Aren't talk page messages enough to offer help? "Your link to [Mario]] should really be [[Mario]]. Glad I could help." Or would it be better to have your entire user page destroyed except for that one correct Mario link.
  31. Count Bonsula (talk) - Per all.
  32. Iggykoopa (talk) per all
  33. Akfamilyhome (talk) Definitely opposing. Having people wreck up your own userpage isn't fun. Why don't inform them about the error on their talk page instead?
  34. Superdaisygirl (talk)I hardly have anything on my page but I still don't want someone making changes to it.

Comments

@Yoshiwaker: We can revert vandalism if they do put junk on our userpages and we do need to help the community too. Kaptain K. Rool (talk)

@Kaptain: Is there ever any really good reason to edit someone else's userpage? Yoshiwaker (talk)
Err yes... to replace images and fix red links. Kaptain K. Rool (talk)
I don't think that's a very good reason, but I'll just stop arguing because this would go on forever. Yoshiwaker (talk)
@Kaptain K. Rool - Well, that may be true, but what happens when some vandal whams your userpage? I mean, do you really want to be constantly looking over your shoulder and reverting edits every other day...? Phoenix (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

I think we would need to talk to Steve about this even if the proposal did pass... Marioguy1 (talk)

Also, on Wikia we get to edit others' userpages along with most other wikis
How many of these edits are actually good edits? About 1 in 10, I say. Judging from my userpage at Kirby Wikia, those who have edited it besides me have only inserted derogatory remarks or just complete rubbish on it. Gamefreak75 (talk)

Imagine a vandal coming onto your userpage and replacing all of your personal information with fake, unnecessary and inappropriate information that could be offensive to you.

This. What if people go to my user page and say "I hate (insert any Nintendo character here)!"? It offends me a lot when Kirby or Diddy Kong gets insulted. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)

Basically, if a user page has any red links, let the Sysops handle that stuff. That's why the Sysops are here; if you want a user page fixed, just contact me or any other Sysop. M&SG (talk)

@Kaptain K. Rool - Adding on to what I said above: you say we need to "help out the community" by "removing red links, redirect links...along with deleted images," but technically, userpages are not really part of the community in this context. Pretty much the whole point of it being your userpage is that it's, well, your userpage. If other people start editing it left and right, then it's not really just yours anymore is it? That's the one thing that sets userpages apart from every other article on this wiki. In your argument, it seems to me that you're almost saying that the prospect of complete (and possibly recurring) userpage obliteration is better than some of the fairly minor problems you list above. Long story short: the only part of the wiki that we are responsible for improving is the articles. Phoenix (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

Look you're just embarrassing yourself with this proposal. It's not going to pass by any means. M&SG (talk)

I can see it possibly working if you could lock off sections of a page. Which would be FANTASTIC! for many articles. E.g. All of the stuff like release dates for past games that aren't going to change could be locked off. But until then...No. Geniusguy445 (talk)

Once upon a time, I used Wikia. And a tale from my past would have to be when I was trolled there. How was I trolled? Well, a user went to my userpage and repeatedly replaced it with insults. Marioguy1 (talk)

Caw? Iggykoopa (talk)

Spam? Reversinator (talk)
Confused? Magikrazy51 (talk)
Without a reason for existence? Bop1996 (talk)
Guys, please don't leave anymore comments about an insubstantial comment. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
The third line of text here pretty much makes this entire proposal invalid... Phoenix (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Merge all of King Koopa's alter egos into one article

Merge to King Koopa's alter egos 20-3-0

On The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! King Koopa has many alter egos. These alter egos are just him in a different costume. The costumes don't give him any extra abilities, they are only seen for one episode, and while wearing the costumes, King Koopa is no different from when he's not wearing the costumes. Thus, I propose to merge the alter-egos of King Koopa that currently have an article (Al Koopone, Captain Koopa, Emperor Augustus Septemberus Octoberus Koopa,Kid Koopa, Koopa Khan, Koopa Klaus (alter ego), Moon Man Koopa, and Robo Koopa (alter ego)) into a single article. I'd prefer merging them to King Koopa's alter egos, but I'll also add a section to merge them to Bowser.

Proposer: Reversinator (talk)
Voting start: March 20, 2011, 15:50
Deadline: March 27, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Merge to King Koopa's alter egos

  1. Reversinator (talk) Per my proposal.
  2. Walkazo (talk) - Per Reversinator.
  3. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per above.
  4. Reddragon19k (talk) - Per all!
  5. SWFlash (talk) Per Bloc Partier.
  6. Bop1996 (talk) Per all.
  7. Mariomario64 (talk) If they give no special powers and only appear in one episode, then why have separate articles in the first place?
  8. New Super Mario (talk) Per Reversinator
  9. M&SG (talk) - Alter egos really don't need their own articles.
  10. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Per Mariomario64.
  11. Luigi is OSAM (talk) PER ALL
  12. Magikrazy51 (talk) MergemergemergemergemergemergeMERGE! Per all (merge).
  13. Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per Reversinator's comment below (the one after mine).
  14. Geniusguy445 (talk) good idea. per all. Because they were a separate article to begin with. We can do this now, and then allow another proposal if people really want the page to be part of Bowser.
  15. Mpeng (talk) D'accordo
  16. Iggykoopa (talk) per all
  17. TheBreakshift (talk) Per all.
  18. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! what the heck happen to my original vote Per all. Zero signing out.
  19. DKPetey99 (talk) Per all except M&SG
  20. Lu-igi board (talk) per all

Merge to Bowser

  1. Pokémon Trainer Mario (talk) I honestly think this idea is better. Per a- There's no one above me!
  2. DKPetey99 (talk) Bowser is no different than the alter egos, thus, it should merge to Bowser.
  3. Akfamilyhome (talk) Per all? Yeah... but even better you can just add a link that redirects to the alter ego page.

Leave them split

Comments

I agree. Just as how the Super Strikes and Mega Strikes were merged together, these alter egos should be merged together. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)

How are you planning on merging? Are you going to add a new column to the table, or do something altogether different. Bop1996 (talk)

I was planning on adding a new column and giving a short description of the alter-ego's role. Reversinator (talk)

Before merging King Koopa, I suggest that you merge Robo Koopa to Robo Suit, because I feel that information belongs there rather than being deleted. Also, what are we going to do with the Featured Article status on Robo Koopa if this proposal passes? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

The powers of the suit should go there, and like I said before, I'll give a brief summary on King Koopa's alter egos. And if it's merged, there's no point in keeping the FA status. Reversinator (talk)

Although I believe the pages have enough information to stand by themselves, I'll stay open to any opinions before voting, as I never watched The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!. Paper Yoshi (talk)

Most of the info is basically the plot of the episode. Reversinator (talk)
Will this proposal unfeature Robo Koopa? I'm not sure the articles that will be merged will be the same quality. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

While this is going on, how about merging all of the pages on the (sort of borrowing my brother's idea here, please don't add a megabyte of protests to my userpage, again) Super Paper Mario people, and other single-appearance things? Mpeng (talk)

@Mpeng What the heck are you even talking about? King Koopa (Or just Bowser) has nothing to do with Super Paper Mario.UltraMario3000 (talk)
@UltraMario3000 - Didn't say he was. I guess this isn't the time or place. Mpeng (talk)

I think Robo Koopa should keep its own article, and FA status - if it's long enough and good enough, what's the point of merging and losing a great article. Instead, we can just use {{main}}. If we merge it, we're bound to lose some information and that's not good for the Wiki. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)

But that would be inconsistent. Besides, all the information can easily be saved. Robo Koopa (episode) already has a complete record of events, so shortening the alter ego's History into a summary isn't an issue. The Trivia about the RoboCop and Terminator reference can also go into the episode page, and the Powers and Abilities chart can go into Robo Suit (along with the other Trivia point about the "destroy you miserable little meddlers" button). So the only thing we'd be losing is an entry in out list of FAs, but that's a small price to pay for a much more efficient and consistent organization of Koopa's 30+ alter egos. - Walkazo (talk)

Merge Minor NPCs with their location

DON'T MERGE 1-16

There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article. I believe we should merge them with the location where they are, so they can be found easily. Also, many of these articles are stubs anyway, so it would also get rid of some stubs.

Template:Scrollbox

Input new rules for name changing

DON'T INPUT 1-19

I used up my 2 chances to change my name, but I find my current name to be too long. I say to increase the number of times we can change our names to three, and place a limit on how many letters, numbers, spaces, etc. to 20. It saves users from making their second (and last) name change, then realizing that the username is too long.

Template:Scrollbox

Make an Article for AR games

Make an Article for AR games 15-0

I think AR games needs a page on here.It has a lot of Mario characters in it

No other wiki has a page for AR games,and it's Mario related,so it should have an article. Template:Scrollbox


Remove certain entries in "References in Other Games" sections

Remove Entries 13-0

On most of the articles about games, there is a "References in Other Games" section that lists games that reference that game. What's the problem? If an enemy is introduced in one game, and then that enemy is used in a future game, it is considered a reference to the former game. May I ask why? If an enemy appears in another game, that means it is a recurring enemy. The first game just introduced it. Template:Scrollbox


Split Category:Donkey Kong Levels into Separate Categories

DON'T SPLIT 21-24

This is my first proposal. There are many games in the Donkey Kong series. The category, Donkey Kong Levels, there is too much content. It has about 5 different games in one category. I think we should make categories for each game. For example, Category:Donkey Kong Country Levels, etc. It would be easier to find levels and it wouldn't take up 2 pages! We should make one for every game such as Donkey Kong Country 2, Donkey Kong Country 3, DK: King of Swing, etc. It just seems easier to navigate levels. We should also delete the original one if we make other categories. I will add a section for making new categories and I will add one for keep the original one as is.

Template:Scrollbox

Apply new procedures for naming Starting Planets

DON'T APPLY 11-14

I apologize in advance to those of you who disapprove of this proposal, but it's my humble opinion that the Starting Planets in all the galaxy articles need actual names besides, well, "Starting Planet." From my standpoint, giving them all the name of "Starting Planet" is needlessly pigeonholing 91 different planets for the galaxy articles, when they could all be named something much better. In fact, I have already been to several galaxy articles where I found that this trend wasn't being followed anyway, as some are completely lacking planets that are referred to as the "Starting Planet," and others simply refer to the first planet encountered as "________ Planet (Starting Planet)." In addition, on the Melty Molten Galaxy article, we've got the main planet marked as the Starting Planet, and then five lines down where the other areas embedded in the main planet are discussed, it is now referred to as the "Lava Planet!" Therefore (as somewhat of a remedy to such inconsistencies and confusion), I propose that we keep the planets labeled as Starting Planets, but do so in such a way that we also give them names as well; i.e., label them all as "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" on every article. I mean, really, there's no reason why we can't do both, right? Thus, nothing important will actually be taken out of the article, and the only thing that should happen will be that the names of all the starting planets in each galaxy become clearer and easier to understand. If this proposal does pass, I will personally take it upon myself to go around to each of the Starting Planets and implement the necessary changes.

Proposer: Phoenix (talk)
Voting start: April 7, 2011, 06:00 GMT.
Deadline: April 14, 2011 April 21, 2011, 23:59 GMT.

Support

  1. Phoenix (talk) Per myself.
  2. Nicke8 (talk) Per Phoenix.
  3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Zero777 (talk) Per all
  5. Ultrahammer5365 (talk) Per Phoenix.
  6. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) I like this Per all.
  7. Reddragon19k (talk) - Per Phoenix!
  8. SWFlash (talk) Per Fenix Phoenix.
  9. JayRed2486 (talk) Per Phoenix. I am willing to help modify the articles.
  10. Superfiremario (talk) Per all.
  11. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Per all

Oppose

  1. Marioguy1 (talk) - Per me in the comments section. This proposal will help a grand total of two galaxy articles; while it will hinder all the rest of them. I think that the bad outweighs the good in this situation.
  2. Iggykoopa (talk) I don't see the need for this change
  3. Bop1996 (talk) After watching the back and forth in the comments section, I decided on which side was right. Per Marioguy. Whenever I read a galaxy article, as soon as I see the name "Starting Planet" I know exactly which planet it is, and where in the galaxy it appeared. Starting Planet is a perfectly good name, except in the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies. Imagine, if this proposal passes, the starting planet for the Tall Trunk Galaxy could be named "Giant Tree Planet {Starting Planet}," and this name does a much worse job than just "Starting Planet." To summarize, the name change is unnecessary, and would only help two articles, whereas we have a perfectly good name for the starting planet on 95% of the galaxy articles.
  4. Magikrazy51 (talk) Per Bop. His speech deserves this.
  5. Bowser's luma (talk) Per Marioguy1.
  6. LeftyGreenMario (talk) I have to say, even though I do not lurk in the Galaxy level articles too much, if this proposal only helps a meager 2 articles while giving us more work overall, then the proposal should apply to the two articles, not all of them.
  7. Gamefreak75 (talk) Even though I see this proposal has good intentions, I just don't see it working out. Per all.
  8. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all the ranting of MG1 in the comments. ;)
  9. Walkazo (talk) - Per all. However, truth be told, I'd rather just see all the planet sections removed, and their info folded into the missions. I think the articles would look better without 'em: no conjectural headers at all, less repetition, less clutter in the TOC, etc. Besides, we don't bother making sections for every little bit of the SMS Isle Delfino levels or SM65 painting worlds: unnamed chunks of space rock vs. unnamed geographical features - what's the difference?
  10. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per all, it is just too much of an hassle to do it for like two articles.
  11. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all.
  12. SuperYoshiBros (talk) - Per Marioguy1.
  13. Yoshiwaker (talk) - Per all.
  14. Reversinator (talk) Per all.

Comments

This will create conjectural titles for the planets, no? LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Well yes, but we've already got conjectural names for all the other planets in every galaxy (which collectively greatly outnumber the total of Starting Planets for each galaxy), why should this be any different? That's what we've got {{conjecturaltext|____}} for. Also, calling them "Starting Planet" is still technically giving them a conjectural name anyway. So, since all the planet names are already conjectural, we can do whatever we want with them, u know? It's not like the names of the planets in question have all been confirmed as "Starting Planet" and we're changing them just to change them... Phoenix (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
Does it matter? Almost every planet mentioned in the articles on the various galaxies has a conjectural name. Mario4Ever (talk)
The comment wasn't directed toward you or to the proposal. It's a reply to LGM's question, essentially stating that whether or not renaming the Starting Planets makes their names conjectural doesn't matter, since almost every other planet has a conjectural name. I've got no problems with this proposal. Mario4Ever (talk)
No no no, you misunderstood me: I wasn't talking to you, I was replying to his comment as well, I actually started typing it in before ur comment was there, but that's just how it appeared when I saved the page... :) Phoenix (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
Conjectural titles are...well, just that! Conjectural. Conjecture means that the title is not officially confirmed and is what we are using to help people identify the object/place/character/whatever. Which means that, naturally, we need to be as accurate as possible. What seems like a "cool name" or what is "consistent" doesn't really apply in this scenario as we are trying to be as descriptive as possible in as few words as possible. Naturally this applies to the term "Starting Planet" - it contains two words and if anyone could please show me one instance where it could possibly apply to more than one planet (AKA not be specific), then I would love to see it (aside from comets; which bend reality to make it more convenient for the challenge at hand). But since there is only one planet that you start on, I'd say that the term "starting planet" pretty much narrows it down perfectly... Marioguy1 (talk)

@Phoenix I see. Sorry about the confusion. Mario4Ever (talk)

@Marioguy1 - Well, actually, that happens in the second mission of the Honeyhop Galaxy ("The Chimp's Score Challenge"), in which the player begins the mission on the "Queen Bee Planet" as opposed to the so-called "Starting Planet." Although this level does involve The Chimp challenging the player, it is not a Prankster Comet mission. This is also true in the Space Junk Galaxy: the player starts the first mission on the "Starting Planet," and starts the next two missions on a yellow Starshroom. None of these missions involve Prankster Comets either. Lastly, there's the Dreadnought Galaxy, where the player actually starts on three different planets, one for each of the galaxy's three main missions. Only one planet in the article is marked as the starting planet, and it's none of these three...
Anyway, I'm not making this proposal just so that every planet will have a cool name just for the sake of having a cool name; I just think that we've become too wrapped up in our own policies and classifications. I mean, what about galaxies like the Flipswitch Galaxy, the Drip Drop Galaxy, the Bigmouth Galaxy, and the Stone Cyclone Galaxy, all of which only consist of one accessible planet? The accessible planets in these galaxies are all called the "Starting Planet," which is all well and good, until one considers the fact that it's the only planet in the entire galaxy, so though one starts there in the mission(s), there are no other planets to go to after it, so where does it lead? For all intents and purposes, one may now call it the "Ending Planet" instead.
Then there are galaxies like the Throwback Galaxy, that use "Starting Planet" to describe the first planet, when a perfectly acceptable name has already been given to it previously (Whomp's Fortress). In this case, we've actually got a conjectural name where a confirmed name could easily be implemented instead. If this proposal did pass, we could now get rid of at least one conjectural name in favor of one that we know for a fact is correct.
Then we've got galaxies like the Beat Block Galaxy and the Rolling Coaster Galaxy. The former deals with more of a starting path than a starting planet, and the latter is just one big long track leading to a very small separate planet at the end. Are we really going to classify something that comprises 99% of the entire galaxy as the "Starting Planet" just because the whole thing is connected? Normally, when Mario leaves the "Starting Planet" of a galaxy, he is at least relatively close to the beginning of a mission. When the player leaves the "Starting Planet" in this galaxy, they are essentially already at the end of the mission! Anyone else see a problem here?
This is why the amount of space in a galaxy that is implied by the term "Starting Planet" is far too narrow, and can be extremely misleading; the first planet or area encountered in a galaxy could be anything from the smallest possible planet you could think of to something that takes up almost the entire galaxy. It would therefore be inappropriate to describe the first planet or area encountered in every galaxy as the "Starting Planet" or "Starting Area." Normal planet names do not imply anything about the amount of space taken up in the area in which they are positioned, they simply state what is there. The passing of this proposal will prevent problems such as long paths or other areas with long expanses in certain galaxies being incorrectly labeled as the "Starting Planet." Phoenix (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Replying to his comment? Are you talking about me? LeftyGreenMario (talk)

...uh...yes...you're not a boy, are you? Phoenix (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

First off, I see what you mean in the cases of the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies (however in the Honeyhop one, the Chimp's mission would fall under what I was implying by "prankster comet") and I think possible exceptions could be made for those galaxies. However what this proposal will do is (a) legitimize and (b) encourage users to change the names of the beginning planets on all other 40 or so galaxies which do no follow that standard. That will cause confusion as to which planet is which. Having a consistent, accurate, precedent will allow all people surfing the galaxy articles to identify the planets labeled "starting planet" with much less difficulty than if we were to use a randomized system of people selecting the most accurate name they can think of; an action that this proposal will inevitably cause.
Second, in the case of the Galaxies with only one planet, we could choose one of either two things. The common, aforementioned, precedent of "starting planet" would be most convenient due to the aforementioned points of consistency, accuracy, etc.. However if you really wish to press forward with the point that the only planet in the galaxy does not require any form of identification as it is one of a kind (which really only eliminates the point of accuracy, consistency and ease of location still remain), then I would consider supporting a proposal which is worded so that it achieves that purpose. However this proposal is generalizing all galaxies, not just the ones with one planet or multiple starting planets (of which, only the cases where there are multiple starting planets require a different name for planets where Mario begins).
Third, the meaning of "starting planet" is irrelevant to the percentage of the galaxy/mission that it comprises. If people wish to have a stereotypical mindset that the starting planet must be near the beginning of the level, then so be it. However that does not make it true; the starting planet could refer to any amount of space in a level - up to the end of the level in fact!
In conclusion, there are very few cases in which the term "starting planet" would actually fail to achieve the goals that a conjectural title should wish to achieve (accuracy in identification of the character, location or object). So far you have only presented two galaxies where this proposal would improve the quality of the articles, Space Junk Galaxy/Dreadnought Galaxy, and on the contrary, this proposal will decrease the quality of all other galaxy articles. If you can prove that there is any trouble identifying a "starting planet" in a majority of galaxies then I would support this proposal. As is, I will only support if this proposal is reworded to only refer to those galaxies where there are multiple starting planets OR, possibly, the galaxies where there is only one planet total.
tl;dr: You have only shown two examples of where this proposal will help us more accurately define a planet (the Dreadnought and Space Junk galaxies) and if you read the long post above, you will see the reasons why I say that it does the opposite to all other planets. So if you reword the proposal to only affect those two planets, I will support. I am also willing to negotiate the galaxies with only one planet in them. Marioguy1 (talk)
Assuming that's not directed at me... Marioguy1 (talk)
It isn't. Phoenix thought LGM was a boy. Mario4Ever (talk)
@Marioguy1 (again) - Okay, I'll admit that you make a lot of valid points, but you also say that "this proposal will inevitably cause" people to "...use a randomized system of people selecting the most accurate name they can think of..." While this may partly be true, I'm also proposing that we leave (Starting Planet) next to the new names of the planets in addition to the name change. Also, I don't really think that anyone will have to go through too much trouble to "identify the planets labeled 'starting planet' with much less difficulty," as these planets are always the first planet that is seen in the list of planets for a galaxy, so it should be pretty easy to spot. This fact, together with the (Starting Planet) that I'm proposing we leave there, should make these planets relatively obvious.
In addition, you also say that the proposal will "encourage users to change the names of the beginning planets on all other 40 or so galaxies which do no follow that standard. That will cause confusion as to which planet is which." It seems to me that no greater confusion will arise as a result of the passing of this proposal than has already been caused by the continual name-changing of almost every planet on the majority of the galaxy articles by users. That is to say, users often take it upon themselves to randomly change the names of many of the other planets in galaxy articles without warning regardless. These sporadic decisions are often based, at least from my perspective, solely on the decision that a new name would better describe the planet than the previous one. Though this is seemingly helpful to the article in the long run, when the names of many planets on galaxy articles are constantly changing, it can be extremely confusing to readers. My point is that users are going to be constantly changing the names of planets or areas in galaxies regardless of whether this proposal passes or not, simply because one may invent a better or more-fitting title as time goes on. I'm sure that the passing (or lack thereof) of this proposal will not in any way encourage users to change the names of planets more frequently than they already have in the past, and are currently. Phoenix (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
@Phoenix (encore): Adding the (Starting Planet) in brackets just seems like we are putting the other name of the planet there to make the planet's name sound cool - the "Starting Planet" is the only part that is necessary, and when writing conjectural titles, useless fluff that "sounds cool" is not included. And the list order helps, but sometimes editors to the article may become confused while editing when the planet is not clearly labeled.
As to your second point, maybe this proposal should be changed to reflect a solution to that problem. As what you are proposing will definitely not fix that problem - it might even do the opposite (in giving users another planet to enact their constant renaming of planets on). Maybe this proposal should be "lock all conjectural titles until an agreement is reached on the talk page" - I would support that. But as is, all your proposal does, which I repeat from above, is help identify the planets in the Space Junk and Dreadnought galaxies. Marioguy1 (talk)
How come the other planets have "fluff" names then? Couldn't they just be called "second planet" and "third planet" and so on? Volatile Dweevil
That's exactly my point! If the other planets all have "actual" names, then why not the "Starting Planets" as well? But to maintain their given position as the first planets in a galaxy, we leave (Starting Planet) next to their new name...simple. Phoenix (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

I'm wondering, but are there any levels that go in a slightly different sequence of planets? Then, the names for the planets (planet 1, planet 2, etc.) would get messed up. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

@Volatile Dweevil: Because almost no galaxies actually have that linear format. Most galaxies begin on only one planet, there only being ~2/40 exceptions. However if we make it Planet 1, Planet 2, Planet 3, we will have the naming conflict problem with ~30/40 galaxies; which is a significantly greater percentage (5% < 75%). If it were possible to have Planet 1, Planet 2, Planet 3, etc. in a non-confusing way then I'd be all for it! Unfortunately here the con outweighs the pro (the opposite of the scenario with "starting planet").
@Phoenix: So you want us to go through all the galaxies in the entire two games and rename all of them, taking time and arguing choices for names, causing a loop of people changing the names to what they feel would be best (which you have already complained about) just because you want the names to sound cool? Is that really why you are causing such major changes? Because I see no other points to the positive. Marioguy1 (talk)
@Marioguy (redux) - Well, no. If you review my prior arguments, I have never once actually used the word "cool." I am not proposing 91 name changes so that every planet will have a cool name as opposed to "Starting Planet." I'm doing this because I feel that we could maintain some semblance of order while simultaneously giving the planets names that will not completely ostracize them from the rest of the planets in the article. I mean, if all we're going to do here is name planets for where they are in the galaxy and what they do for the particular mission they are encountered in, we may as well count the number of planets in each mission, and then give the name "Middle Planet" to whatever planet happens to be in the middle, or give the name "Ending Planet" to the last planet encountered in the galaxies in which missions always end on the same planet.
Regarding the part about "causing a loop of people changing the names to what they feel would be best," what I was trying to say yesterday was that if this was to pass, we would not be creating a whole new set of problems; people are already erratically changing planet names as they see fit and would still be doing so daily even if this proposal had never existed. It would be a very different scenario if I had proposed, for instance, that the conjectural names of all the glitches for several games be immediately changed, which may cause users to flock to those articles and repeatedly change every name to what each one personally desired them to be, thereby creating a whole new cycle of name changes where there had been none before. I highly doubt that changing the name of one planet per each individual galaxy article will draw an overabundance of attention, let alone create a major disturbance across every article. The end justifies the means. Phoenix (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
@Phoenix: OK, so if the "cool name" thing is false, then I see absolutely no points for enacting this change. And I would not have any problem with "Ending Planet" - however the "Middle Planet" would have to be the middle of the level which could be complicated to find.
And regarding the "loop" again, what I am trying to say is that this will cause a commotion while users are trying to find new names for the previously-named "Starting Planets". I think this will just be a useless change, will give no benefit and will just cause confusion in the one part of the galaxy articles that is actually static. Marioguy1 (talk)
@Marioguy - Wait a minute though, why are you using the fact that I don't want every Starting Planet to have a "cool" name as the basis for your reasoning that the proposal is now invalid? I thought one of the biggest problems that you had with this proposal in the first place was that I was only renaming the planets to give them "cool" names. If that's the case (the second paragraph about name-changing commotion aside), why are you still saying that you "see absolutely no points for enacting this change" even after I've said otherwise? Phoenix (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

@Phoenix: I'm not using that as my basis, my main point here is that this proposal will do absolutely nothing except remove the shred of consistency that remains in these galaxy articles. I have never had a problem with you renaming planets to give them "cool" names; I sure did say that that's horrible reasoning, but I've never said that's why I'm opposing. I'm opposing because this proposal will kill what consistency there is in the articles. And could you please tell me your points? I don't see a place where this proposal would be useful... Marioguy1 (talk)

Okay, when you say "...tell me your points...", are you asking that I reiterate the ultimate goal of my proposal or that I tell you which areas of the galaxy articles I think this proposal would be useful in improving? Phoenix (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2011 (EDT)
As long as you mention more than just the dreadnought and Space Junk galaxies, that may be the only way you can convince me. Marioguy1 (talk)
@Bop1996 - Okay, but even if this proposal did pass, you'd still see the name "Starting Planet" when you went to a galaxy article, just in parentheses (not brackets) next to its new name. In response to "know[ing] exactly which planet it is, and where in the galaxy it appeared," I, personally, usually use the picture of the planet next to the name to identify it more than the conjectural name of the planet anyway, and in addition, the name "Starting Planet" really does not describe any particular unique features of the planets to which they apply, like every other planet name does (this is part of the reason why I made this proposal in the first place, because I felt that the "Starting Planets" are as such not easily identified by comparison), which actually makes it harder for readers to know exactly which planet it is, and giving them another name like the other planets helps to describe where it is and what it does, as such names are 1,000x more specific and descriptive than just "Starting Planet." For this reason, I would actually have no problem with the "Starting Planet" in the Tall Trunk Galaxy being named "Giant Tree Planet (Starting Planet)," which actually suits it pretty well (unless someone could possibly think of a better name at some point in the future), and ultimately does a much better job of clarification than just "Starting Planet."
Like I was saying in a previous argument of mine (though I'm not really sure I made it that clear), just giving planets names like "Starting Planet," "Middle Planet," or "Ending Planet" does absolutely nothing but describe where it is encountered in a particular mission or galaxy, and at the end of the day just makes is that much harder for people to identify which planet in a galaxy it actually is. Finally, you say that "just because you have conjectural names for eighty percent of the planets in each galaxy doesn't mean that removing the non-conjectural names is a good idea." Well actually, "Starting Planet" is a conjectural name just like all the other planet names that we currently have; if you check, you'll see that the name of every "Starting Planet" is marked with {{conjecturaltext_____|planet}} just like every other planet name. So, by the passing of this proposal, we won't be removing any "non-conjectural names," because every planet name is conjectural. We also won't be adding any more conjectural names, and for that matter, we will not be subtracting any conjectural names either; ergo, the number of conjectural names will stay right where it is. Phoenix (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2011 (EDT)
@Phoenix: Let me discriminate for a minute here. The term "Starting Planet" is a conjectural name. However, it, unlike at least one title of a planet out there, describes its respective planet perfectly, without any confusion, except in the aforementioned cases of the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies. Relegating it to parentheses and placing a "more descriptive" name in front of it does not help the article in any way that I can see. As for my example, why change the title to "Giant Tree Planet (Starting Planet)," when the planet's section could mention that there is a giant tree on the planet, and the current title describes the planet without any ambiguity whatsoever. Please do not go to the "Well, if mentioning a planet's appearance in the planet's section, not title is fine for Starting Planets, why not do that for all the planets?" argument, as that is easily refuted: Starting Planet is the best conjectural title there is for the starting planet, but since you proved that adding such a title to the rest of the planets does not work, the adjective conjectural names do the best job describing the rest of the planets. Bop1996 (talk)

@Bop1996 The right name of this planet is "Tall Trunk Planet," thus the name of the galaxy. SWFlash (talk)

I don't really want to discuss which name we would use, that's just an example of how I see that sort of title to do a worse job describing the starting planet only. Not the other planets, just the starting one... Bop1996 (talk)

Not sure if this was answered already, but for galaxies that only consist of one planet, we merely split it up into sections, as shown on the Flip-Swap Galaxy and Beat Block Galaxy. Gamefreak75 (talk)

@Gamefreak75 - Right, I understand that...what I was talking about when I said "galaxies with one planet" was like the Bigmouth Galaxy, the Drip Drop Galaxy, the Flipswitch Galaxy...you know? I had previously brought up galaxies featuring planets or areas that are extremely long and expansive as a completely separate issue... Phoenix (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
@LeftyGreenMario - Sigh...I rue the day I ever made the argument proving that there are galaxies in which "Starting Planet" would be ineffective. Truthfully, this will help a great deal more than just two articles, but I think, at this point, what's been said has been said, and that ship has sailed in the eyes if the opposers...anyway, the proposal wouldn't be "giving us more work overall," because really, when put in perspective, the amount of the articles that I'm proposing be changed is a relatively small percentage of the entire information of the article, and also, like I said in my original argument, I would be going around to all of the affected articles and making the necessary changes personally (unless of course someone wanted to help me, which I would never discourage), so I would be taking full responsibility for enacting my proposal, and no one else would even be forced to take part in making changes, unless of course they want to... Phoenix (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
@Walkazo - I see where you're coming from, but in regards to your argument, therein lies the problem, so to speak; if we had no planet names, each mission section would be, "To start, Mario begins on the first chunk of space rock. Next, he must make his way to the slightly larger chunk of space rock that looks like a castle..." and no one would know what we're talking about... Phoenix (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

Disclaimer: I am not trying to be rude by butting in to this discussion, but I had an idea that might solve this problem. @Phoenix: That argument isn't necessarily true, you gave a worst-case scenario for how we could do it if we had no planet sections. @Walkazo: That sparked my curiosity, so I made an edit to my work page seeing how the levels section of the Tall Trunk Galaxy would look without the planets section. I wasn't as descriptive as possible, but that would seem to be the only way to pull it off. I was actually a little confused when I saw your vote, because I remember everyone voting down a proposal to change the planet names to sequential order, but I never heard of removing the planets section altogether. Maybe a proposal after this one is over would be in order. Bop1996 (talk)

@Bop1996: If it was put in the comments section, anybody can comment on it.
@Phoenix: In relation to your comment on LGM's "work" comment; making the edits is only half the work. There are then the people who are going to have to put up with the arguing on what name is "right", there's the admins who are going to have to patrol every single one of these edits, and if it ever expands into an edit war over names, we're going to have ten times as much work cut out for us. Making the edits is definitely not the hardest part. Marioguy1 (talk)
That's good, just thought it was better to ask permission than forgiveness... Bop1996 (talk)
@Bop1996 - Well, respectfully, it's not exactly a worst-case scenario. Granted, I may have exaggarated slightly to make my point, but the basis of the argument is solid. Giving the planets names does more than just describe them and tell where they are and what they look like, it gives us a solid foundation from which to base the rest of the information in the entire article. Otherwise, in what way are readers supposed to continuously reference at what point the player is in a galaxy? Extrapolation? Just imagine, for a second, if every time a user wished to add an article to any various category, they had to insert the category name on the bottom of the page, and it wouldn't automatically appear in the list of pages for that category, so they would have to manually go to the category page and add it to the list themselves instead. Just imagine how much extra work this would cause as a result. Well, abolishing the planet names leaves us in much the same predicament with every galaxy article.
If we have no planet names, there are no planet sections, and so every time a planet is mentioned in the description of a mission / level, the planet must be described all over again (i.e. - continually saying things like "the base of an enormous tree" or "a large log" time and time again instead of just simply saying the "Starting Planet" or the "Log Planet," which are perfectly acceptable planet names that have already been established and need not be eliminated). Not only does this make the descriptions of the missions extremely repetitive, it also makes them needlessly lengthy, especially for missions which involve returning planets or areas from previous missions. Naturally, this entails the galaxies in which every mission starts on the same planet, and since, (as had been repeated many times in the preceding comments) only two galaxies out of the total 91 do not start on the same planet, the other 89 galaxy articles would suffer.
If we give each planet a name and a short section describing it, it saves us from having to re-describe each planet every time we mention them in mission descriptions. In this way (I'm just using the red coloring here to keep the words together and make it less confusing), giving planets names is to articles automatically appearing in the list on a category page as referencing planets (and by extention their descriptions at the top of the page as well) in mission descriptions is to putting the category name at the bottom of any page (because if we have planet names and planet descriptions, all we have to do is say the planet name in mission descriptions and everything in the planet's description is automatically implied (and does not need to be explained again), so in effect we are using the planet names in mission descriptions to reference the planet's description, much like one would use the action of putting a category name at the bottom of a page to reference its specific characteristics as being a part of that particular category), which I think we all could agree is considerably easier than having to type out the same information over and over again to achieve exactly the same ends.
But I digress; all that now being said, I feel that we're getting way too off topic here...after all, the proposal is about naming the Starting Planets, not about whether or not the planet names should stay... Phoenix (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
@Marioguy1 - I wasn't trying to say that making the changes are the hardest part, in fact, I believe quite the opposite. I was merely trying to convey to LGM that this proposal is not as negative as people are saying it is, and like I said before, I really don't think, given that the proposal ever passes, that people will be so prone to "jump all over" the galaxy articles the second that the planets have new names, I mean, how many people are that unhappy with the way planets are named to begin with? Plus, lately I haven't seen planet names being changed around nearly as much as they used to be...believe me when I say that I have the utmost respect for the hard work that admins, sysops, bureaucrats, and patrollers successfully do on a daily basis, but respectfully, we can't write off a proposal simply because it has the potential to cause problems, because it also may not cause any problems at all, and how will we know unless we try...? Phoenix (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

I agree that is off topic... I was mostly trying to figure out what she was suggesting we do, and how it possibly could be done without being ambiguous or non-descriptive... As such, unless someone makes a proposal to get rid of the planets section, I'm not really into debating this now, unless there really are a lot of people out there who want the planets section removed... Bop1996 (talk)

I was just pointing out there is a way to get rid of the entire "starting planet" vs. "unique names for all" debate. Anyway, I don't see the category analogy at all, and just because we don't have sections for each planet doesn't mean we can't "unofficially" call them descriptive names: I just think having sections for each one is a bit too much. I.e. for the Tall Trunk Galaxy example, it could be said that Mario goes to "a planet shaped like a log" in the first mission, but from then on, it could just be called "the log planet" and people would understand what you're talking about. SMS and SM64 don't have any problems with missions written in that sorta style. It's just a thought: I'm not up to debating it right now either. - Walkazo (talk)
@Walkazo - Well, regarding the comparison to categories, I was just trying to say that naming and describing planets and then referencing the names and descriptions of the planets later on in the mission descriptions is essentially the equivalent of creating a various category, and then later referencing the name of the category at the bottom of an article which the category applies to. In both situations, a larger body of information is referred to via a much smaller word or phrase (i.e. - a category name or a planet name), thereby reducing the need for repetitive and inconsistent information while simultaneously retaining the same amount of source information efficiently (I probably should have worded it like that in the first place, and it might not have been half as confusing, but hopefully that's a little clearer). Phoenix (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

I think that since all planets (apart from the starting planet) in most galaies have conjectural names anyway that the starting planet should have a name as well. JayRed2486 (talk)

@Phoenix: I don't believe that you think the edits are the hardest part, I'm pretty sure that you're one of the few people who can actually see how hard an admin's job is; that's exactly why I had to mention it, for all the people who didn't realize that.
But aside from that, on the topic of your comment, I think that this propose will cause people to start up in a rage. The rage was quieting down because nobody was paying any attention to the galaxy articles; this proposal will cause 80+ changes to be made to those articles (never mind to the names of planets), drawing in mountains of attention and starting up the process again.
Finally I would like to point out that in normal cases, the potential for good would outweigh the bad. But in this case it seems like a whole lot of work to fix up two articles. Marioguy1 (talk)

I really don't think the amount of work should matter. Our job is to improve the wiki as much as possible. If this proposal will help the wiki (which I personally think it will), then we should pass it, regardless of how much extra work you happen to think it will cause. If this passes, I plan to help with the articles. Ultrahammer5365 (talk)

@Ultrahammer5365: The thing is, it won't. It will just cause extra work, possibly create a lot of articles, ruin the consistency sequence of articles and possibly come up with names that make me laugh (that's not a good thing). The only good things that will come out of it will be in the Space Junk and Dreadnought galaxy articles; two articles which I am planning to fix up as soon as this proposal is over. Marioguy1 (talk)
@Marioguy1 - Well, actually, I was thinking about fixing those (seeing that I discovered that in the first place), but if you want to, I won't object... Phoenix (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
@Phoenix: I said that to express a point, I really don't care what happens with them; as long as they're fixed. Marioguy1 (talk)
@Marioguy1 - Gotcha. Phoenix (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

Split the Category:Implied pages into sections based on the game in which it is implied.

DON'T SPLIT 2-9

I think that the implied pages should be split into sections in-page that allow the viewer to quickly jump to the list in a certain game.

Proposer: JayRed2486 (talk)
Voting start: April 15, 2011, 17:00 GMT
Deadline: April 22, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. JayRed2486 (talk) I made this propsal so I am supporting it.
  2. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Per Preposal!

Oppose

  1. Zero777 (talk) Per my comment
  2. Walkazo (talk) - Per Zero.
  3. Reddragon19k (talk) Per both!
  4. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per the seven-hundred and seventy seven number zeros.
  5. SWFlash (talk) There's so many people to per…per 0777's comments.
  6. Mario4Ever (talk) Per the Catholic "Code Geass" fan (Zero).
  7. Superfiremario (talk) Per all.
  8. Yoshiwaker (talk) Most game sections would just have one implied anyway.
  9. Bowser's luma (talk) I am implying to leave it be.

Comments

Here's my thought, I don't think it's a good idea for several reasons. 1: Categories were meant to be titled vaguely to have dozens of articles linked up to it. 2: it is made vaguely for easy navigation. 3: And the only specification of that category should be implied location, characters, etc., but we already have an article on those so Category:Implied should be left alone. Zero777 (talk)

Split the level articles from the world articles and delete the world articles

DON'T SPLIT 1-14

I think it is a good idea to make articles for levels for example an article named World 1-1. Template:Scrollbox

Split Each Boss Level From Each Boss

DON'T SPLIT 6-17

I notice that most of the bosses in the Donkey Kong series are merged with the levels. The article says how to defeat them in the level, but one of the contents is a boss and the other is a level. To me, those are very different! For example, Congazuma's Castle and Ruined Roost. They are redirected to different contents. Even the K. Rool Duel which is a final boss battle! I was going to do a talk page proposal, but then I realized how many bosses were merged with their levels. It also seems bad because levels in the Yoshi series, such as Gilbert the Gooey's Castle are split from their boss, which is Gilbert the Gooey. I will make a split and a keep section for voting. Template:Scrollbox

Remove Banjo and Conker from our coverage policy and delete Banjo (series) and Conker (series)

Delete 31-2

Before I start, I'll point out that a few others have already made comments on this situation, all of them wanting to get rid of the articles with some good reasons attached, so go look at their reasons. With that said, let me continue.

The articles we have on Banjo's and Conker's series, respectively, are horrible. They are cluttered up with every single enemy, item, location, character, and other stuff from the two series, making it pratically unreadable. But that's not why I'm proposing this. I assume that we have those articles due to Banjo's and Conker's appearance in Diddy Kong Racing. But from what I can understand, both Conker's and Banjo's series were planned before-hand, but due to Banjo-Kazooie's release being delayed, both him and Conker were put in as a sort of early bird cameo. In other words, they are not sub-series of the Mario series and should be treated like other crossover games; whoever appeared in the crossover game gets an article, and nothing more. Template:Scrollbox

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/25&oldid=1017150"