MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/51: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
mNo edit summary
(Archiving)
Line 99: Line 99:
:{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 19:37, 16 February 2018 (EST)
:{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 19:37, 16 February 2018 (EST)
::Yeah, I understand, but you can’t change anything big about how the wiki works unless you’re an admin, and as Alex95 said, the admins are in favor of their own warnings not being appealed...which makes sense because it’s their issued warnings in question.  And while it may not be a technical right of the admins, they have the right to remove ANY warning, without an appeal, even if another admin issued it, so long as they are doing so for good reason. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 20:58, 16 February 2018 (EST)
::Yeah, I understand, but you can’t change anything big about how the wiki works unless you’re an admin, and as Alex95 said, the admins are in favor of their own warnings not being appealed...which makes sense because it’s their issued warnings in question.  And while it may not be a technical right of the admins, they have the right to remove ANY warning, without an appeal, even if another admin issued it, so long as they are doing so for good reason. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 20:58, 16 February 2018 (EST)
===Delete the articles for ''Galaxy'' and ''Galaxy 2'''s conjecturally-named "minigames"===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|2-13-0|delete only [[Bubble Blowing]] and [[Star Ball Rolling]]}}
We currently have articles on four "minigames" from ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'', namely [[ray surfing]], [[Bob-omb Blasting]], [[Bubble Blowing]], and [[Star Ball Rolling]], as well as two more from ''Galaxy 2'', [[Crate Burning]] and [[Fluzzard Gliding]]. However, out of all of these, only ray surfing is officially called that in-game. I slapped {{tem|ref needed}} templates on the other ''Galaxy'' "minigames'" articles, but I'm pretty sure they're outright conjecture. The ones from ''SMG2'', [[Crate Burning]] and [[Fluzzard Gliding]], actually have {{tem|conjecture}} templates. Even worse, "Star Ball Rolling" and "Bubble Blowing" aren't even minigames. The [[Star Ball]] and [[Bubble#Super Mario Galaxy|Bubble]] are just game mechanics that change how Mario or Luigi move through a level, and these "minigames" only exist in this wiki's imagination. The Star Ball Rolling article is completely redundant with the Star Ball article. ''Galaxy'''s bubbles don't have their own article, but even if they ''do'' deserve a separate article, the correct answer would be to simply split them off, not create an article for a nonexistent minigame. Which is why when I brought this up on [[Talk:Super_Mario_Galaxy#The_so-called_.22minigames.22|''Galaxy'''s talk page]] a couple months ago, my thoughts were that these two specifically were the ones that needed to be put down. After all, Bob-omb Blasting, Crate Burning, and Fluzzard Gliding are conjecturally-named too, but at least they're actual minigames, right?
But now that I've thought about it, those don't deserve articles either. There exist plenty of nameless minigames, such as the [[Hoohoo Spirit]] collecting and [[Guffawha Ruins]] platform jumping games from ''[[Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga]]'', numerous [[Bonus Area|bonus games]] from the [[Donkey Kong Country (series)|''Donkey Kong Country'' series]], and several racing games from ''[[Donkey Kong 64]]'', which don't have articles, and I can't think of any that do. In other words, there's no precedent for the existence of articles on nameless minigames. Stuff like "Bob-omb Blasting" and "Crate Burning" can simply be described in the articles for the missions that feature these "minigames", which is how stuff like this is handled for other games (like the Blooper surfing missions or [[Roller Coaster Balloons]] from ''Sunshine''), so why should ''Galaxy'' and ''Galaxy 2'' be any different? So let's solve this inconsistency. Here are our options:
*'''Delete all of the conjecturally-named minigames''': If this option passes, [[Bob-omb Blasting]], [[Bubble Blowing]], [[Star Ball Rolling]], [[Crate Burning]], and [[Fluzzard Gliding]] all go, with only [[ray surfing]] surviving. Any relevant content these articles contain will be merged into other articles.
*'''Delete Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing only''': If you feel that the others should stay, let's at least get rid of the "minigames" that can't even be called that.
*'''Do nothing''': Self-explanatory. Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing continue their meaningless existence.
'''Proposer''': {{User|7feetunder}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 20, 2018, 23:59 GMT
====Delete all of the conjecturally-named minigames====
#{{User|7feetunder}} My preferred option.
#{{User|Owencrazyboy9}} Second preferred choice. After all, we'd basically be the Department of Redundancy if the articles stick around, but I digress. Per 7feetunder.
====Delete Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing only====
#{{User|7feetunder}} Even if my preferred option doesn't win, these ''need'' to go.
#{{User|YoshiFlutterJump}} Yeah, we really need to say bye-bye to these.  Why ''do'' we have these articles anyway?  But I don’t quite agree with deleting the others; they’re minigames, just like ray surfing, and as such need to stay.  The other minigames just need a {{tem|conjecture}} template, not outright deletion, and we do need to give the nameless minigames from other games articles as well.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per YoshiFlutterJump.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per all.
#{{User|Alex95}} - Per all. I always wondered why they were there, but I never bothered to do anything about it :P
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Owencrazyboy9}} Preferred choice. Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing aren't minigames; they're just fancy ways to traverse the galaxies. Per all.
#{{user|Mario jc}} Per all.
#{{User|LuigiMaster123}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwood777}} - Wait, we classed these as ''minigames?'' I didn't even know we did that. While the others are certainly mini-games by some definition, these... Aren't. They need to go.
#{{User|BBQ Turtle}} It's practically the same as riding Plessie, and that doesn't require a separate article, but I think the others should be classed as minigames, per all.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Those two surely aren't minigames, but rather mechanics used in a few galaxies.
#{{User|Ro money}} Per all.
====Do nothing====
====Comments====
<!-- -->

Revision as of 07:50, February 21, 2018

All past proposals are archived here. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.
Previous proposals

Create a template for FA archives

create template 6-0
Baby Luigi's proposed system has been a success so far. However, since we use a template for most archives, why not this one? The table columns are long and repetitive enough to get cumbersome to archive, anyways, so I propose we use a template for archiving featuring (as well as unfeaturing) nominations. I have two drafts, which you can view here and here.

Let me know in the comments if there are any issues or possible fixes you have in mind with the templates.

Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk)
Deadline: February 18, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per proposal.
  2. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per proposal, although I think it should look more like the one used for proposals.
  3. Baby Luigi (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Camwood777 (talk) - A template like this would be more consistent and useful.
  5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Mister Wu (talk) Looks clean enough, and a template should always help with consistency.

Oppose

Comments

@YoshiFlutterJump: This was Baby Luigi's intended layout, and I don't see how structuring it the way you suggested is entirely possible anyways. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 20:15, 11 February 2018 (EST)

I suggest putting a few rows as example next time so we can see how the template looks when used properly.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2018 (EST)

Add a small link to MarioWiki:Appeals in the reminder/warning/last warning templates

add link 13-0
We have an appeal system that is not used a whole lot, and one of the reasons it's not used is simply because it's not that visible; it requires digging around our maintenance and policy pages to find it, so many users may not even know that such a system exists. Some of us do manually link to there when we occasionally hand out the templates, but why not make the process automatic? After all, this system is directly linked to those templates, and I don't see any reason to segregate the two processes entirely.

Here's an example of what I want these to look like

Please stop making unconstructive edits on the Super Mario Wiki. This isn't a warning, and it's possible that you made a mistake by accident or without realizing it; this is simply a reminder for your information. If the action continues, then a warning will be issued. Thanks for reading and keep contributing.
If you feel this reminder has been unfairly given out, you may appeal it.
Warning.svg
 This is a warning to stop your inappropriate behavior on the Super Mario Wiki. Please adhere to the rules or you will be blocked from editing this site.
If you feel this warning has been unfairly given out, you may appeal it.
Lastwarn.svg
 This is your last warning. The next time you break the rules in any way, you will be blocked from editing the Super Mario Wiki.
If you feel this last warning has been unfairly given out, you may appeal it.

Any changes to wording or comments, please note.

Proposer: Baby Luigi (talk)
Deadline: February 18, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Baby Luigi (talk)
  2. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Strong Support: It should be clear for users what to do if they feel they were formally warned for no reason. It just SHOULD be clear, period. I also strongly agree that appeal rule #1 should be repealed, since admins (like any other user) may make mistakes, and appealing a warning issued by an administrator would make zero difference compared to appealing a warning issued by an normal user. Baby Luigi clearly knows what she's doing, and I intend to stand by this proposal by all means.
  3. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Both users have really good points. Per both Toadette the Achiever and Baby Luigi.
  4. 7feetunder (talk) Per proposal. Can't see any reason not to do this.
  5. Time Turner (talk) Per all. Users should be able easily learn about their options.
  6. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all. The only downside is that we’ll get a LOT more bad faith appeals, but that’s not a major issue.
  7. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all, I only found out it existed after someone recommended I used it, so it should be more visible.
  8. Jazama (talk) Per all.
  9. LuigiMaster123 (talk) I didn't even know appealing was a thing until I saw this proposal. Per all.
  10. Niiue (talk) Per all.
  11. Camwood777 (talk) - This is so trivial, I honestly thought we would've done this day one. This gets all my support, and then some.
  12. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per everyone except LuigiMaster123 and especially YoshiFlutterJump.
  13. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) From what I can see, the current way to access it is through a maintenance template....which isn't particularly helpful. In fact, it's a hindrance.

Oppose

Comments

Regarding a rule in MarioWiki: Appeals, (1#: Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator cannot be appealed.), I had challenged it on Discord and I want to see that rule removed, hence why I haven't added an extra line saying that "Keep in mind that X given out by a member of staff cannot be appealed). But I don't know what the staff's official final say on that rule is, so I will edit that line accordingly once I get official confirmation. BabyLuigiFire.png Ray Trace(T|C) 22:17, 11 February 2018 (EST)

I did bring this up in the admin boards like I said I would. I'm honestly not sure where we all stand on the Appeals line, but we've unanimously agreed that admin warnings should not be appealed. Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 23:02, 11 February 2018 (EST)
I like how I don't count. --Glowsquid (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2018 (EST)
...I misread your post, so never mind I guess. Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 23:16, 11 February 2018 (EST)
Two edit conflicts in a row?! Anyway, one reason we have that rule is that admins can already remove warnings without appeals, so what’s the point of appealing an admin warning if you can just personally ask the admin who gave it to you to remove it? Sounds illogical to me. And by the way, we used to have that link on the userspace reminder, but it was removed when the template was repurposed for unknown reasons. -YFJ (talk · edits) 23:19, 11 February 2018 (EST)
I had argued that if that was the case, then why do we even need MarioWiki:Appeals in the first place? Why can't we settle it internally with emails, pm's, DM on chat, etc.? I mean, with this system, there will already be discussion taking place on the staff boards regardless if the administrator themselves issued a warning or not if that was made in bad faith. BabyLuigiFire.png Ray Trace(T|C) 23:31, 11 February 2018 (EST)

For reference, here’s what the old userspace reminder said:
This notice is official and is considered to be a permanent record focusing on the edit history for your account. This notice is not to be removed under any circumstances; any attempt to remove this notice will lead to a warning being issued. If this notice was not issued by an administrator and you feel you have received it in error, you may appeal it.
-YFJ (talk · edits) 11:12, 14 February 2018 (EST)

@YoshiFlutterJump In your first comment, you stated that there is no point in appealing an admin warning because that admin won't let it be removed. There's more than one admin. So the issuer is clearly going to vote for it to stay, but that doesn't mean that the other admins will. It is for this reason that I support an allowance for admin warning appeals. None will probably succeed, and it's not up to me, but that's what I have to say.
Ultimate Mr. L without the emblem behind him (for my signature) Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 19:37, 16 February 2018 (EST)
Yeah, I understand, but you can’t change anything big about how the wiki works unless you’re an admin, and as Alex95 said, the admins are in favor of their own warnings not being appealed...which makes sense because it’s their issued warnings in question. And while it may not be a technical right of the admins, they have the right to remove ANY warning, without an appeal, even if another admin issued it, so long as they are doing so for good reason. -YFJ (talk · edits) 20:58, 16 February 2018 (EST)

Delete the articles for Galaxy and Galaxy 2's conjecturally-named "minigames"

delete only Bubble Blowing and Star Ball Rolling 2-13-0
We currently have articles on four "minigames" from Super Mario Galaxy, namely ray surfing, Bob-omb Blasting, Bubble Blowing, and Star Ball Rolling, as well as two more from Galaxy 2, Crate Burning and Fluzzard Gliding. However, out of all of these, only ray surfing is officially called that in-game. I slapped {{ref needed}} templates on the other Galaxy "minigames'" articles, but I'm pretty sure they're outright conjecture. The ones from SMG2, Crate Burning and Fluzzard Gliding, actually have {{conjecture}} templates. Even worse, "Star Ball Rolling" and "Bubble Blowing" aren't even minigames. The Star Ball and Bubble are just game mechanics that change how Mario or Luigi move through a level, and these "minigames" only exist in this wiki's imagination. The Star Ball Rolling article is completely redundant with the Star Ball article. Galaxy's bubbles don't have their own article, but even if they do deserve a separate article, the correct answer would be to simply split them off, not create an article for a nonexistent minigame. Which is why when I brought this up on Galaxy's talk page a couple months ago, my thoughts were that these two specifically were the ones that needed to be put down. After all, Bob-omb Blasting, Crate Burning, and Fluzzard Gliding are conjecturally-named too, but at least they're actual minigames, right?

But now that I've thought about it, those don't deserve articles either. There exist plenty of nameless minigames, such as the Hoohoo Spirit collecting and Guffawha Ruins platform jumping games from Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, numerous bonus games from the Donkey Kong Country series, and several racing games from Donkey Kong 64, which don't have articles, and I can't think of any that do. In other words, there's no precedent for the existence of articles on nameless minigames. Stuff like "Bob-omb Blasting" and "Crate Burning" can simply be described in the articles for the missions that feature these "minigames", which is how stuff like this is handled for other games (like the Blooper surfing missions or Roller Coaster Balloons from Sunshine), so why should Galaxy and Galaxy 2 be any different? So let's solve this inconsistency. Here are our options:

  • Delete all of the conjecturally-named minigames: If this option passes, Bob-omb Blasting, Bubble Blowing, Star Ball Rolling, Crate Burning, and Fluzzard Gliding all go, with only ray surfing surviving. Any relevant content these articles contain will be merged into other articles.
  • Delete Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing only: If you feel that the others should stay, let's at least get rid of the "minigames" that can't even be called that.
  • Do nothing: Self-explanatory. Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing continue their meaningless existence.

Proposer: 7feetunder (talk)
Deadline: February 20, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Delete all of the conjecturally-named minigames

  1. 7feetunder (talk) My preferred option.
  2. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Second preferred choice. After all, we'd basically be the Department of Redundancy if the articles stick around, but I digress. Per 7feetunder.

Delete Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing only

  1. 7feetunder (talk) Even if my preferred option doesn't win, these need to go.
  2. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Yeah, we really need to say bye-bye to these. Why do we have these articles anyway? But I don’t quite agree with deleting the others; they’re minigames, just like ray surfing, and as such need to stay. The other minigames just need a {{conjecture}} template, not outright deletion, and we do need to give the nameless minigames from other games articles as well.
  3. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per YoshiFlutterJump.
  4. Baby Luigi (talk) Per all.
  5. Alex95 (talk) - Per all. I always wondered why they were there, but I never bothered to do anything about it :P
  6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  7. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Preferred choice. Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing aren't minigames; they're just fancy ways to traverse the galaxies. Per all.
  8. Mario jc (talk) Per all.
  9. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all.
  10. Camwood777 (talk) - Wait, we classed these as minigames? I didn't even know we did that. While the others are certainly mini-games by some definition, these... Aren't. They need to go.
  11. BBQ Turtle (talk) It's practically the same as riding Plessie, and that doesn't require a separate article, but I think the others should be classed as minigames, per all.
  12. Mister Wu (talk) Those two surely aren't minigames, but rather mechanics used in a few galaxies.
  13. Ro money (talk) Per all.

Do nothing

Comments

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/51&oldid=2396885"