MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/45: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
m (Archiving.) |
||
Line 231: | Line 231: | ||
EDIT: Wait, I don't even know why are those capitalized, there's no reason they should be. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 20:24, 14 June 2016 (EDT) | EDIT: Wait, I don't even know why are those capitalized, there's no reason they should be. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 20:24, 14 June 2016 (EDT) | ||
:They're all-caps in the game, that's why they're like that in MarioWiki. You can change it to proper caps if you like. You should probably take in account Pac-Man in Smash 4 as well, I remember his stuff was all caps as well. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:07, 14 June 2016 (EDT) | :They're all-caps in the game, that's why they're like that in MarioWiki. You can change it to proper caps if you like. You should probably take in account Pac-Man in Smash 4 as well, I remember his stuff was all caps as well. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:07, 14 June 2016 (EDT) | ||
===Merge M&L and PM Wiggler articles with Wiggler=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
Seeing [[Wiggler (Mario & Luigi: Dream Team)|Wiggly]] and [[Wiggler (Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam)|the Wiggler from M&L PJ]] and the other M&L and Paper Mario Wigglers excluding [[Swiggler]] split makes me question why aren't any of these merged in the proper [[Wiggler]] article. I mean sure they have a different role from other Wigglers but they all have the same name and there really is no real reason to keep these split. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Fawful's Minion}} <br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' June 29 2016 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Fawful's Minion}} Per my reason above 🔼<br/><s>#{{user|Baby Luigi}} per my comments below</s> | |||
#{{user|LudwigVon}} - Per Baby Luigi | |||
#{{User|Tails777}} Until we figure out a solid way of determining which generic enemy characters get articles, I think it's best to merge these Wigglers. | |||
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|BabyLuigi64}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|AfternoonLight}} Per all. This is a very good idea to try! | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|YoshiKong}} The [[Wiggler|Wiggler article]] serves as a species page, which covers each officially recognized appearance of the Wiggler. When a Wiggler is given a specific role in a game or appearance such as appearing as a boss, they are treated as an individual character which is separate from the generic species, such as the Wiggler enemies in Super Mario World. For example, [[Wiggler (Super Mario Sunshine)]] is also a separate article. But it is given a brief section on the Wiggler page to cover a variation or character as part of the species, and then a reference is made to the main article. I believe this should always be done when Wigglers are treated as a character rather than having a common appearance such as an enemy. Sharing the same name isn't a deciding reason to merge two separate articles. | |||
#{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} For now I will oppose. I will give my reasoning below. There is more to this proposal than initially thought by the proposer. | |||
#{{User|7feetunder}} If this proposal included Wiggler from ''Sticker Star'', I'd vote in favor. As I stated below, it and the one from ''Paper Jam'' are extremely similar in terms of both personality and role in the story, so a merge proposal that includes one and not the other is one I can't support. | |||
#{{User|3D Player 2010}} per 7feetunder | |||
#{{User|Ghost Jam}} per BazookaMario's comment bellow: "This proposal doesn't seem well-thought out." It seems pretty clear to me that this isn't going to be sorted out to the satisfaction of all parties in the length of a proposal discussion, particularly when issues that are greater and deeper than the main topic keep cropping up. | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} The proposal seems vague, listing off two Wigglers before stating "and the other M&L and Paper Mario Wigglers," which leaves me worried as to what exactly will happen if this proposal will pass. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} Per Ghost Jam. The main reason for that remark is that we [[Talk:Wiggler (Mario & Luigi: Dream Team)|have had an extensive discussion]] and {{User|Fawful's Minion}} has had very little participation in the thread and has shown very little understanding for the situation, so I concluded that the user had made this proposal in impulse rather than understanding all points and thinking this through. | |||
#{{user|Baby Luigi}} I changed my vote. While I still support the entire premise of it, as others said, I also have to agree it's poorly planned and thought out, so, per Bazooka Mario and Ghost Jam. | |||
#{{user|Megadardery}} Per everyone except YoshiKong. I'd like a proposal to redefine which articles should be split, and which should be merged. | |||
#{{user|Reboot}} Per all | |||
====Comments==== | |||
'''YoshiKong''': So if we give a article for each time Wiggler appears as a boss, should we do the same when Wiggler appears as a playable character and give it a page each appearance of Wiggler as a playable character?--{{User:LudwigVon/sig}} 19:06, 23 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:This issue has been [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_34#Split_characters_like_Koopa.2C_Shy_Guy_and_Wiggler_into_a_character_page_from_the_species discussed] in a past proposal. I agree with the opposing arguments there. {{User|YoshiKong}} 19:41, 23 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::Your decision to oppose goes against a lot of what has been established in the wiki. For example, various Koopa Troopa plays specific roles in Mario Party, especially in ''[[Mario Party 4]]'' where there's an outfitted Koopa Troopa who's the host (there's a [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_44#Create_articles_for_the_hosts_of_Mario_Party_4 proposal that failed to gain traction] because of some dispute, despite that the game clearly intended them to be their own characters). Another example is a single Dry Bones appearing as a boss in ''[[Mario Party DS]]'', where bio descriptions specifically list the Dry Bones as his own character in the game, where they use singular pronouns to describe him. In the ''Mario Baseball'' games, there's a specific Lakitu who plays the role of the referee, complete with his own dialogue and personality, as well as the only Lakitu appearing in the game. There's a single character called [[Pink Boo]] in ''[[Mario Party 5]]'' where she was given her own personality as well as even given a gender pronoun, making her technically separate from her species. Calling to split all generic subjects who have been having a unique role at one point unnecessary complicates piping, and I believe it's better off to have articles such as the Wigglers from the RPGs be merged with the general Wiggler article, as, aside from the personality, the single Wiggler is just as relevant as those aforementioned characters I mentioned, yet I don't see the other enemy characters getting split any time soon. Hell, the playable Lakitu character from ''Mario Kart 7'' doesn't even have [http://www.mariowiki.com/Talk:Lakitu_(character) his own article] because the game bios acknowledge that he's the same guy as the guy who held races in the past despite his different shell color from the Lakitu referee. I know Mario Party is a pretty ubiquitous mention here, but it, alongside the RPGs, are the game series most defined for giving generic enemies specific roles and characters, so, we can't ignore what those two game genres did to the generic characters. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 20:01, 23 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:::Pink Boo's gender and personality were introduced in ''[[Mario Party 6]]'', not ''5''. Nitpicking aside, shouldn't this proposal include the [[Wiggler (Paper Mario: Sticker Star)|Wiggler]] from ''Sticker Star''? It and the one from ''Paper Jam'' are so similar anyway, there's no reason to merge one and not the other.{{User:7feetunder/sig}} 20:45, 23 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::::Yeah, probably. Giving all of the Wigglers their own page also unnecessarily complicates piping and navigation. Keeping those appearances all under one article is sufficient enough. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 20:51, 23 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
My question is, what makes a character a character worthy of an individual article? What is this "specific role"? The example ([[Wiggler (Super Mario Sunshine)]]) provided is a weak one: this one has a drastically different appearance (it also turns into sand when defeated) and has a different Japanese name. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 21:05, 23 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:There's the Mario Party Advance characters... {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:07, 23 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::According to Time Turning ([[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 38#Delete the Mario Party Advance character pages|here]]), they get articles cause "they're found in unique circumstances, interact with the player in a unique manner compared to other games, have unique dialogue, give unique items and quests..." In a sense, I understand that, but at the same time I feel like there are plenty of characters who meet these requirements. Many of the characters in Mario Super Sluggers have unique personalities, outright challenge the player to missions, a few give quests to the player. I'm not fully sure, but do we have a real way of determining which generic characters get articles? I mean characters from most RPGs are exceptions for their more unique designs, actual names and such, but what of the characters who differ very little from their parent species? {{User:Tails777/sig}}23:09, 23 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:::I think for characters that differ very little from their parent species, we just assume they're a member of that species and list information about them in the parent species article. Of course, [[Goombob]], [[Goombetty]], and [[Akiki]] will still keep their own pages, but for the other members, I think they should be remerged. The logic that Time Turner gives can be applied to pretty much anything with a dialogue and a role, including the Wiggler giving out hootenannies in Mario Party 3, the Lakitu in Mario Kart 7, the Bob-omb host for Mario Party 4's duels, the Para-Beetle in [[Super Mario Momotarō]], and a lot of characters in Mario Super Sluggers. Keeping their articles because Goombob, Goombetty, and Akiki have their articles doesn't seem like a great justification for me. There also raises the question for articles like [[Yoshi]], [[Toad]], [[Boom Boom]], and maybe even [[Fry Guy]] but whole confusion about the identities of characters named after their species is a tricky question and frequent contentious issue in this wiki. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 19:49, 24 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::::Honestly, the fact that [[Akiki]], [[Coach (Mario Party Advance)|Coach]], [[Goombetty]], [[Goombob]], and [[Hulu]] have articles should be reason enough for the rest to have articles. The characters with more generic names play exactly the same role as the ones with names, so to sweep them aside solely for their name is incredibly inconsistent. I wouldn't agree with citing other games, either, since, as far as I can tell, this is the only game to give distinct, non-general names to some of its NPC's while also giving general names to other NPC's. This game is the one setting the track record for others to follow. Beyond that, per the stuff I've said [[Talk:Lakitu_(character)#Merge_this_page_with_Lakitu|every]] [[Talk:Wiggler_(Mario_&_Luigi:_Paper_Jam)|other]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_38#Delete_the_Mario_Party_Advance_character_pages|time]] this has been brought up. | |||
::::<small>also it's time turn'''''er''''' </small>{{User:Time Turner/sig}} | |||
:::::The names and appearance make all the difference, though, in the Mario Party Advance case. How do you know that these names are as distinct? [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User:Bazooka_Mario/sandbox&oldid=1978954#Contents What about Rex, Thwomp, and Dino-Torch in ''Super Mario-Kun''] (though I do think the baby Boo, the Thwomp's grandfather, its mother, and the Buzzy Beetle boss should get their own articles)? The Koopa Troopa in [http://www.mariowiki.com/Koopa_Troopa#DIC_Cartoons the Super Show that's in the same group as Mouser and Tryclyde] (Mouser has his own article though)? They are named like that, you think they should get their own articles? The characters are referred to their species name. They also differ very little from their parent species. What's wrong with the alternative to make them a redirect to a section in their parent species's articles? Generic referrals are shaky at best and alleged consistency don't really convince me that much. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 20:25, 24 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::::::@Time Turner: My bad, sorry about the name misspelling there. {{User:Tails777/sig}}21:11, 24 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:I'll admit, you most likely know much more about Super Mario-Kun than I do, but you're contradicting yourself in your own post when you say that you want other generically named characters to receive articles and [[Mouser (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!)|Mouser]] even has his own article. I still haven't been convinced that the MPA characters shouldn't receive articles just because their names happen to be generic. A name shouldn't be the one element that decides whether or not a subject should have an article, especially when other subject have articles when their only difference is a more unique name. I mean, if I go to [[Mushroom Pool]] and I see the article mention [[Coach (Mario Party Advance)|Coach]] and [[Cheep Cheep (character)|Cheep Cheep]], I may want to find out more about the characters; if I click on the link to "Coach", I get a short-but-sweet article, but going by what you're suggesting, if I click on Cheep Cheep, I'd get sent to the main article, where I'd have to sort out the unique Cheep Cheep from the generic Cheep Cheep that appear in minigames and the like. I just don't think that it makes sense. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | |||
::I must be typing it half-asleep, but we have a consistency issue on this wiki, and I'm not sure how to handle it, that's what my questions are, especially why [[Mouser (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!)]] is its own article separate from [[Mouser]] when Mouser is a character too... and noting the inconsistency of that page and Tryclyde and Koopa Troopa. On searching Coach, the redirect anchors are there for a reason; you'll be directed straight to the respective Mario Party Advance section. Anyway, with the logic, should those characters I mentioned have their own pages? What should the line be drawn between a generically-named member of a species compared to a character that happens to share the name of its species? {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 20:02, 25 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:::My point about linking to the Cheep Cheep species page is that MPA features generic Cheep Cheep throughout, albeit in areas that let the notable Cheep Cheep distinguish itself. For example, [[Reel Cheep]] features Cheep Cheeps, [[Chomp Walker]] and [[Barrel Peril]] feature Chain Chomps, [[See Monkey?]] features Ukikis, [[Amplifried]] features Amps, and so on. Also, the Cheep Cheep article doesn't have a specific section for Mario Party Advance, but rather a single section for the entire Mario Party franchise, which would only make directing users to the character more complicated; besides, if we're going to directly send users to the section instead of the general article, why not just send them directly to an article about the character they clicked on? Honestly, the biggest reason I'm fighting for the MPA characters is because of the existence of [[Hulu]] and [[Goombetty]] and [[Goombob]] (this one literally looks like a generic [[Galoomba]]) and the rest: I simply don't see the logic in giving articles to some, but not others. If we wanted to look at which characters deserved articles, their roles in the story, their interactions with the player, and their overall importance should require more attention than anything else, including their name. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 21:14, 26 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
There are many other Wigglers to move. These should be considered for merge as well. | |||
*[[Wiggler (Mario & Luigi: Dream Team)]] | |||
*[[Wiggler (Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam)]] | |||
*[[Wiggler (Paper Mario: Sticker Star)]] | |||
*[[Wiggler (Super Mario Sunshine)]] | |||
*[[Big Wiggler]] (maybe) | |||
Although I agree with the merge, I am going to oppose until we consider the other [[Wiggler]]s I mentioned. If there should be more to consider, refer to [[:Category:Wigglers]]. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 20:49, 24 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:[[Wiggler (Super Mario Sunshine)]] is distinct (note the dramatically different appearance and Japanese name), so it should not be merged. Big Wiggler shouldn't be merged either, otherwise we wouldn't have articles for other giant versions of enemies such as [[Big Boo]] and [[Mega Goomba]]. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 21:03, 24 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::^Yep, literally ''just'' what I was about to say. {{User:Tails777/sig}}21:05, 24 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::Grey areas with that Sunshine Wiggler. Definitely difficult to work with to make a Wiki cohesive. I guess you have a valid point about giant enemies though. What about [[Klamber]]s and [[Scuttlebug]]s? I consider the official Nintendo guides a better source than [[Prima]], if they are both available, which they are for [[:File:SMS ScuttleBug.JPG|this thing]]. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 21:07, 24 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:::For the record, I'm not going to support proposals that start mass-merging articles, such as the larger variants. The wiki has taken on a "more-the-merrier" approach to articles, and I'd generally like to support that. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | |||
::::I'm for creating more articles but I feel that some article creation here is not really called for or feels forced, just to say we have ''x'' amount of articles. I think more effort should be with the creation of [[Special:WantedPages|wanted articles]] than worrying about splits to create more articles. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 23:01, 24 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::::Maybe Fawful's Minion should consider reinstating this proposal so that it includes all the RPG variants of Wiggler instead of those he mentioned? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 21:14, 24 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
@Time Turner I'm not trying to sound rude here but did you vote? {{User:Fawful's Minion/sig}} 21:13, 24 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:For now, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. Besides, someone mentioning Mario Party Advance is basically a cue for me to come in. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 21:14, 24 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
@Baby Luigi Will Do. 🙂 {{User:Fawful's Minion/sig}} 21:17, 24 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:You forgot about [[Wiggler (Paper Mario: Sticker Star)|the one]] from ''Sticker Star''. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 21:30, 24 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::This proposal doesn't seem well-thought out. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 20:02, 25 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:::Also, Time Turner votes when he wants to vote. Simple. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 20:03, 25 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::::@LeftyGreenMario Okay Mario. 😏 {{User:Fawful's Minion/sig}} 00:18, 26 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:Here are my two cents about this: The 'more the merrier' approach the wiki have been slowly taking is not something I support. It feels more organized when all incarnations of a character are in one big article. The only thing that should be split are clearly identified characters, that includes both drastically different designs ([[Wiggler (Super Mario Sunshine)|This]], but not [[Wiggler (Paper Mario: Sticker Star)|this]]) and characters that are identified as characters, maybe by a different name. However, I feel this proposal needs more thought though, so I wish if the admins withdraw the proposal until it's more thought and studied.--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 08:49, 26 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::'''@Ghost Jam''': Not meaning to tell you what you should do or anything, but wouldn't vetoing the proposal be a good idea in that situation?--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 10:20, 28 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:::Nah, I believe proposals with vague and uncertain provisions will eventually be opposed. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 18:54, 28 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::::@LeftyGreenMario I made this proposal because I felt like there was no point in keeping them merged anymore, also if it wins I will merge all the Wiggler articles except [[Swiggler]]. {{User:Fawful's Minion/sig}} 19:57, 28 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:::::@LeftyGreenMario And what do you mean by it isn't though out. {{User:Fawful's Minion/sig}} 20:00, 28 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::::::"all the Wiggler articles" is not a good idea. Does that include the [[Wiggler Family]], or the [[Wiggler Segment]]s or the [[Wiggler (Super Mario Sunshine)|Super Mario Sunshine Wiggler]], or even the [[Fuzzy Wiggler|various]] [[Squiggler|subspecies]]? You need to clearly outline what this proposal will cover. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | |||
:::::::I thought I explained it you, {{User|Fawful's Minion}}, that you can notice: the proposal isn't thorough and you have little involvement in the discussion of the Wiggler; you just came in and said "I'll make a proposal". Sure, we kinda agreed to it, but I don't think you handled it well. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 17:58, 29 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:::'''@LGM''' Sure it may be eventually opposed, but it is still a good idea to cancel it outright. Opposing usually means that the idea is rejected. Vetoing means that the proposal is flawed.--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 21:12, 28 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
::::I agree with {{user|Megadardery}} that a veto is called for here. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:19, 29 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:::::Generally speaking, we only out right veto proposals that are against policy, outright impossible or some rule prevents the proposal from proceeding normally. For general topics like this, we normally let them run their course unless there is a large outcry for early closure (per a lose interpretation of rule 5) or if the proposer requests it (per rule 14). -- {{User:Ghost Jam/sig}} 19:16, 29 June 2016 (EDT) | |||
:Yeah I kinda feel like deleting this proposal thanks. {{User:Fawful's Minion/sig}} 19:43, 29 June 2016 (EDT) |
Revision as of 20:04, June 29, 2016
Vote For More Than One Option On Proposals With More Than Two ChoicesCan vote more than once each proposal 7-3
If this proposal passes, this should allow for fairer voting if there are more than two options to vote for. Proposer: Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI feel like this works better as a case-by-case basis thing rather than a hard, straight rule. Ray Trace(T|C) 16:52, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
@Megadardery (in particular) - One case to consider. 3 is status quo. The vote ends (after extensions):
By the rules, that means 3 de facto prevails. Now, if, say, three people have voted both 1 & 2, do they get to indicate which option they prefer? If they do, do their votes for (e.g.) 2 get knocked out and 1 can go through? - Reboot (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Define strong reason Chocolate Mario (talk). Who is to judge if a reason is strong or not? Also not many people provide much of an explanation with why they are voting a certain way, especially if they say something like per all. Sounds like a stupid rule to have at this point or it needs to be revised. I think that a better term for that would be sensible reason. Not entirely sure how this is more confusing considering that a vote essentially means you are OK with that outcome if it wins. If you place your vote for more than one option, that just means you are OK with any of those outcomes if one of those win. Please elaborate that point. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 15:12, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
@Reboot: I truly don't see how voting for more than one option would cause that to happen more often. It could go either way and that is completely independent of how many options people can vote for. --™ The 'Shroom 16:15, 6 May 2016 (EDT) I agree with Ghost Jam. Rarely, if ever, do proposals have several choices that can combine with each other; i.e. choices are usually mutually exclusive. I don't think this proposal is going to have much an effect if it passes. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:31, 6 May 2016 (EDT) Change rule 9 to centre on voters rather than votesCHANGE RULE 5-3 This proposal would make two changes:
This won't change much, it's more cleanup to reflect the new status quo than a major revision. Proposer: Reboot (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsRe: Wildgoosespeeder. The situation as it stands after your proposal is not an OR gate because of the "majority of all votes" requirement - this proposal would make it more like an OR gate. It would make literally no difference to Yes/No proposals. It can only affect A/B/C(/etc) proposals where enough people have voted more than once to cause a proposal outcome that fulfils every other requirement to get a definitive result to fail purely on majority of votes, while still getting a majority from voters. So that last sentence is irrelevant.
And I see no reason to let a bunch of proposals with popular support fall as inquorate just to prove that the situation after your proposal is flawed - this is the simplest way to patch the main problem without having to overhaul everything. - Reboot (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2016 (EDT)
Until another three plus choice proposal comes along, all of these rule patches are basically conjecture. For the purposes of this discussion, I'd agree to the proposed change if it only applies to the previous rule patch. The current text of this proposal suggests that it's across the board change. -- Ghost Jam 23:26, 28 May 2016 (EDT)
I must not be getting it but can someone explain what this proposal does? I feel that my oppose vote and its explanation are way off the mark and has been that way for several days. If it is just a wording change and that's it, OK, but if this proposal is changing how we determine the winning option, then my oppose vote stands as this proposal could be in violation of rule #7. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 16:07, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
OK, clear something up for me regarding your point #1. For example, we have a proposal with three options. Reboot, Ghost Jam, and myself voted for option #1; Reboot and myself voted for option #2; Ghost Jam and Wildgoosespeeder voted for option #3.
Which one do we prefer? What is better for proposals? --™ The 'Shroom 23:09, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
Okay, it's passed but I can't make the change myself. Ghost Jam, if you want to expand it (without changing the substance), I have no objection. - Reboot (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2016 (EDT) Automatically pass proposals if the outcome is clearly unanimouscanceled by proposer Proposer: Roy Koopa (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsEnforce a timestamp with user signaturesASK USERS TO USE A TIMESTAMP WITH THEIR SIGNATURES 11-1 Proposer: driftmaster130 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI'm also very annoyed by the lack of timestamps in some signatures, but if users do not sign with timestamps, should we fill it in for them or not? Also, should we add a timestamp to {{unsigned}}? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:37, 13 June 2016 (EDT)
Would this be mandatory whenever a signature is used, regardless of whether it's on a user talkpage or a mainspace talkpage? Hello, I'm Time Turner. [No timestamp given]
I think if (when?) this passes, at least three things:
- Reboot (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2016 (EDT)
If a user enters ~~~~, the signature as set in their preferences is automatically inserted, plus timestamp. If they manually enter their /sig as template, or go for {{user}}, they should add ~~~~~ after it, as five tildes only insert the timestamp.
@Time Turner Read my comment in response to Tucayo: the word "enforce" is only used to express the importance of having a timestamp; not having one would be treated like any other minor signature violation and is extremely unlikely to result in a warning being issued. Also I don't see a reason for not having one, as LTQ pointed out you can just type ~~~~~ behind your transcluded signature, or configuring it to automatically display a timestamp in preferences isn't that hard, either. ( • ) 12:01, 16 June 2016 (EDT) Seeing as this will probably pass, the signature policy page and help page should be updated to say that having a timestamp is mandatory (as another signature rule, like I said above). In general, both of them seem poorly written and could use a revamp while we're at it; I tried to rewrite both of them here. ( • ) 12:21, 18 June 2016 (EDT)
Move Mario Party 3 Duel Maps back to their old capitalizationMOVE PAGES BACK 11-2 These names in all-caps (such as GATE GUY) are merely stylizations and do not reflect the actual name of the subject. They are only written once in the manual, and as such this should not reflect how they should be capitalized. Common sense should take precedence here; in all likelihood, the manual is just writing them in all-caps so they stand out. And the game writes the regular boards in all-caps as well and yet we have them as Chilly Waters, so I don't see why we can't have the Duel Maps capitalized the same way; it's also the most consistent thing to do. Hell, if we want to strictly follow the manual, ARROWHEAD should then be renamed to Template:Fakelink([1]). But in all seriousness, these all-caps names don't even look good and the linked TPP should be reverted. I'll address the Mario Party 2 minigames later on. Proposer: Tucayo (talk) Move back
Keep all-caps names
CommentsIn game text also writes the Duel Maps in all caps though. Talking to the Millennium Star on the main menu, he'll give a board suggestion, followed by the character who won the most times on said map. Whenever he mentions a Duel Board map, the title is in all caps. Tails777 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2016 (EDT) For the record, the Prima guide for Mario Party 2 uses the same capitalization as the games (so TOAD in the Box is literally written as "TOAD in the Box"). Not that I necessarily agree with the wiki using this capitalization, but just thought I'd throw that out there. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 16:53, 14 June 2016 (EDT) @Baby Luigi: If this passes I hope this can set a precedent so that they can be changed without the need for another proposal.
Merge M&L and PM Wiggler articles with Wigglercanceled by proposer Seeing Wiggly and the Wiggler from M&L PJ and the other M&L and Paper Mario Wigglers excluding Swiggler split makes me question why aren't any of these merged in the proper Wiggler article. I mean sure they have a different role from other Wigglers but they all have the same name and there really is no real reason to keep these split. Proposer: Fawful's Minion (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsYoshiKong: So if we give a article for each time Wiggler appears as a boss, should we do the same when Wiggler appears as a playable character and give it a page each appearance of Wiggler as a playable character?--(TALK) 19:06, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
My question is, what makes a character a character worthy of an individual article? What is this "specific role"? The example (Wiggler (Super Mario Sunshine)) provided is a weak one: this one has a drastically different appearance (it also turns into sand when defeated) and has a different Japanese name. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:05, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
There are many other Wigglers to move. These should be considered for merge as well.
Although I agree with the merge, I am going to oppose until we consider the other Wigglers I mentioned. If there should be more to consider, refer to Category:Wigglers. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 20:49, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
@Time Turner I'm not trying to sound rude here but did you vote? (talk) (edits) 21:13, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
@Baby Luigi Will Do. 🙂 (talk) (edits) 21:17, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
|