Super Mario Wiki

MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/47: Difference between revisions

Project page Discussion

MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/47 (view source)

Revision as of 15:29, May 28, 2023

52,741 bytes added ,  1 year ago
m
Text replacement - "Mario (franchise)" to "Super Mario (franchise)"
(Archiving)
m (Text replacement - "Mario (franchise)" to "Super Mario (franchise)")
(35 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template|current=yes}}
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}}


<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div>
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div>
Line 114: Line 114:
===Discourage OGG Extension (Not Format)===
===Discourage OGG Extension (Not Format)===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-0|Discourage OGG extension (but not OGA and OGV)}}
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-0|Discourage OGG extension (but not OGA and OGV)}}
The [[Wikipedia:Ogg|*.ogg extension]] is a generic extension to describe the *.ogv and *.oga file formats. To put that into perspective, that would be like clumping all <s>*.jpg, *.png, and *.gif file extensions to be under *.img or something</s>*.html, *.xml, and *.rtf formats to be included with what we expect of the *.txt extension. Yes, those files all contain easily readable text if opened in [[Wikipedia:Microsoft Notepad|Notepad]], but it would be very hard to tell each file apart if all HTML, XML, and RTF files all had the TXT extension instead. To make things more easily identifiable on MarioWiki, I propose that *.ogg be a discouraged extension for a file of this type when [[Special:Upload|uploading]]. Sure, MediaWiki can detect the MIME type regardless of extension, but that's not immediately clear when sifting through [[:Category:Media by game|categories]].
The [[wikipedia:Ogg|*.ogg extension]] is a generic extension to describe the *.ogv and *.oga file formats. To put that into perspective, that would be like clumping all <s>*.jpg, *.png, and *.gif file extensions to be under *.img or something</s>*.html, *.xml, and *.rtf formats to be included with what we expect of the *.txt extension. Yes, those files all contain easily readable text if opened in [[wikipedia:Microsoft Notepad|Notepad]], but it would be very hard to tell each file apart if all HTML, XML, and RTF files all had the TXT extension instead. To make things more easily identifiable on MarioWiki, I propose that *.ogg be a discouraged extension for a file of this type when [[Special:Upload|uploading]]. Sure, MediaWiki can detect the MIME type regardless of extension, but that's not immediately clear when sifting through [[:Category:Media files by game|categories]].


'''Xiph.Org Foundation''', the developers of OGG, recommend the extensions I am proposing<sup>[https://wiki.xiph.org/MIME_Types_and_File_Extensions]</sup>. [[Wikipedia:VLC media player|VLC Media Player]] already registers all known extensions of this standard. My guess is back in the day, OGG was just audio (such as [[Wikipedia:DX-Ball 2|DX-Ball 2]]) but things were getting more complex so they needed to have a better extension to represent the complexities of the standard and discourage the old extension.
'''Xiph.Org Foundation''', the developers of OGG, recommend the extensions I am proposing<sup>[https://wiki.xiph.org/MIME_Types_and_File_Extensions]</sup>. [[wikipedia:VLC media player|VLC Media Player]] already registers all known extensions of this standard. My guess is back in the day, OGG was just audio (such as [[wikipedia:DX-Ball 2|DX-Ball 2]]) but things were getting more complex so they needed to have a better extension to represent the complexities of the standard and discourage the old extension.


To be clear, I am not looking to discourage the format, just the one extension of the format. OGV and OGA are perfectly safe. There are around [[Special:MediaStatistics|1,000 files]] to check and move. Let's get them changed before we end up with a insurmountable amount of files to make changes to. I think [[mediawiki.org:Manual:Pywikibot|Pywikibot]] can do this stuff automatically.
To be clear, I am not looking to discourage the format, just the one extension of the format. OGV and OGA are perfectly safe. There are around [[Special:MediaStatistics|1,000 files]] to check and move. Let's get them changed before we end up with a insurmountable amount of files to make changes to. I think [[mw:Manual:Pywikibot|Pywikibot]] can do this stuff automatically.


;Files tested to be [[Special:Log/move|moved successfully]]:
;Files tested to be [[Special:Log/move|moved successfully]]:
Line 135: Line 135:


;Related proposals:
;Related proposals:
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 29#Template:Media for .OGV and .OGA files]]
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/29#Template:Media for .OGV and .OGA files]]


'''Proposer''': {{User|Wildgoosespeeder}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Wildgoosespeeder}}<br>
Line 163: Line 163:
And what exactly is the difference between .oga and .ogv? Is it really significant enough to warrant banning the .ogg extension? This should really be further elaborated upon for those less experienced. {{User:Lord Bowser/sig}} 03:01, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
And what exactly is the difference between .oga and .ogv? Is it really significant enough to warrant banning the .ogg extension? This should really be further elaborated upon for those less experienced. {{User:Lord Bowser/sig}} 03:01, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
:Technically, no difference between *.ogg, *.oga, and *.ogv. They are all defined by one standard, as I linked at the very beginning of the proposal. For MarioWiki, it would make maintenance easier by making all files by the standard easily identifiable by file extension rather than by MIME type. We should assign *.og'''<u>a</u>''' for '''<u>a</u>'''udio, assign *.og'''<u>v</u>''' for '''<u>v</u>'''ideo, and forbid *.ogg rather than use the extensions interchangeably with audio and video data streams. By posing these restrictions, we can integrate {{tem|media table/OGA}} and {{tem|media table/OGV}} better than what is currently being done with the restrictive {{tem|media table/row}} for *.ogg files only. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 04:33, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
:Technically, no difference between *.ogg, *.oga, and *.ogv. They are all defined by one standard, as I linked at the very beginning of the proposal. For MarioWiki, it would make maintenance easier by making all files by the standard easily identifiable by file extension rather than by MIME type. We should assign *.og'''<u>a</u>''' for '''<u>a</u>'''udio, assign *.og'''<u>v</u>''' for '''<u>v</u>'''ideo, and forbid *.ogg rather than use the extensions interchangeably with audio and video data streams. By posing these restrictions, we can integrate {{tem|media table/OGA}} and {{tem|media table/OGV}} better than what is currently being done with the restrictive {{tem|media table/row}} for *.ogg files only. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 04:33, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
::No article editing required because the templates force .ogg, .ogv, and .oga for {{tem|media table/row}}, {{tem|media table/OGV}}, and {{tem|media table/OGA}} respectively. Only one edit will take place, on {{tem|media table}}. The rest is [[Special:Log/move|moving]]. You don't specify the extension if you use the template. Not sure why but OK. All that needs to be done is the move bot work, which I have my credentials hooked to, so this work is all me. I have done thousands of edits before at a time with [[:Category:Beta Images]] by moving the remaining hundreds of images to [[:Category:Pre-release and unused images]]. It got done in two hours or so. If a vandal runs rampant during the transition, I immediately stop the bot so that way [[Special:RecentChanges]] doesn't render the vandal unnoticed. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 17:33, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
::No article editing required because the templates force .ogg, .ogv, and .oga for {{tem|media table/row}}, {{tem|media table/OGV}}, and {{tem|media table/OGA}} respectively. Only one edit will take place, on {{tem|media table}}. The rest is [[Special:Log/move|moving]]. You don't specify the extension if you use the template. Not sure why but OK. All that needs to be done is the move bot work, which I have my credentials hooked to, so this work is all me. I have done thousands of edits before at a time with [[:Category:Beta Images]] by moving the remaining hundreds of images to [[:Category:Pre-release and unused content images]]. It got done in two hours or so. If a vandal runs rampant during the transition, I immediately stop the bot so that way [[Special:RecentChanges]] doesn't render the vandal unnoticed. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 17:33, 26 April 2017 (EDT)


{{User|Yoshi the Space Station Manager}}, this is just a browser issue. Chrome supports MP4, WebM, and OGG/OGV/OGA. Internet Explorer just MP4 (automatically) and WebM (with a [https://tools.google.com/dlpage/webmmf codec installation by Google]). For some reason, Internet Explorer forces you out of being able to play OGG/OGV/OGA. Just open up the file in an external application, such as [[Wikipedia:VLC media player|VLC Media Player]].
{{User|Yoshi the Space Station Manager}}, this is just a browser issue. Chrome supports MP4, WebM, and OGG/OGV/OGA. Internet Explorer just MP4 (automatically) and WebM (with a [https://tools.google.com/dlpage/webmmf codec installation by Google]). For some reason, Internet Explorer forces you out of being able to play OGG/OGV/OGA. Just open up the file in an external application, such as [[wikipedia:VLC media player|VLC Media Player]].


Applications? You mean like *.exe, *.zip, *.rar, *.7z? That's {{user|Porplemontage}}'s decision and I don't blame him for it.
Applications? You mean like *.exe, *.zip, *.rar, *.7z? That's {{user|Porplemontage}}'s decision and I don't blame him for it.
Line 171: Line 171:
People have brought up to flag my account as a bot temporarily but I don't use the bot often enough for it to be worth it. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:21, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
People have brought up to flag my account as a bot temporarily but I don't use the bot often enough for it to be worth it. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:21, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
:When I say applications, I am referring to something else the OGG covers which can be viewed on the Wikipedia site provided. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 18:26, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
:When I say applications, I am referring to something else the OGG covers which can be viewed on the Wikipedia site provided. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 18:26, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
::I'm not entirely sure how MarioWiki can take advantage of those added perks of the OGG standard. Because of how the four media templates are coded, we just create additional templates for each extension and amend the [[mediawiki.org:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##Switch|switch]].
::I'm not entirely sure how MarioWiki can take advantage of those added perks of the OGG standard. Because of how the four media templates are coded, we just create additional templates for each extension and amend the [[mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##Switch|switch]].


::*<s>.ogg
::*<s>.ogg
Line 188: Line 188:
:Yeah...dissuasion is usually better than an outright ban. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 21:02, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
:Yeah...dissuasion is usually better than an outright ban. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 21:02, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
::@Wildgoosespeeder, I've read everything, and I understand what you want to do, but I don't entirely understand why. First, you mention that "it would make maintenance easier by making all files by the standard easily identifiable by file extension rather than by MIME type." From an organizational standpoint, it makes sense, but what do you mean by "maintenance," and how does keeping the .ogg extension currently complicate things? Second, you said that "by posing these restrictions, we can integrate {{tem|media table/OGA}} and {{tem|media table/OGV}} better than what is currently being done with the restrictive {{tem|media table/row}} for *.ogg files only." Is there only an organizational benefit here, or am I missing the bigger picture? {{User|Mario4Ever}}
::@Wildgoosespeeder, I've read everything, and I understand what you want to do, but I don't entirely understand why. First, you mention that "it would make maintenance easier by making all files by the standard easily identifiable by file extension rather than by MIME type." From an organizational standpoint, it makes sense, but what do you mean by "maintenance," and how does keeping the .ogg extension currently complicate things? Second, you said that "by posing these restrictions, we can integrate {{tem|media table/OGA}} and {{tem|media table/OGV}} better than what is currently being done with the restrictive {{tem|media table/row}} for *.ogg files only." Is there only an organizational benefit here, or am I missing the bigger picture? {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:::Proposal now has a reason to move over each file to the extension based on standards by Xiph. Consider each subcategory of [[:Category:Media by game]]. They contain a mixture of audio and video under the extension OGG in most cases (only five uploaded files are up to Xiph's extension standards). I also explain a better example with text files why keeping the OGG extension is a bad idea. Right now, {{tem|media table}} is calling {{tem|media table/row}} only 30 times. With the switch code I can implement very easily, {{tem|media table}} could call {{tem|media table/row}}, {{tem|media table/OGA}}, or {{tem|media table/OGV}} depending on the <code>type</code> specified. The OGA and OGV templates were proposed, passed, and created, just never properly implemented. Also, [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Media table/OGA|Media table/OGA]] and [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Media table/OGV|Media table/OGV]] isn't transcluded very much compared to [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:media table/row|media table/row]]. The special thing about templates and categories is that if you edit the template to change its category, it affects all places it is transcluded, autosorting everything in [[:Category:Pages with media files]] to go into [[:Category:Pages with audio files]] and [[:Category:Pages with video files]]. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 21:55, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
:::Proposal now has a reason to move over each file to the extension based on standards by Xiph. Consider each subcategory of [[:Category:Media files by game]]. They contain a mixture of audio and video under the extension OGG in most cases (only five uploaded files are up to Xiph's extension standards). I also explain a better example with text files why keeping the OGG extension is a bad idea. Right now, {{tem|media table}} is calling {{tem|media table/row}} only 30 times. With the switch code I can implement very easily, {{tem|media table}} could call {{tem|media table/row}}, {{tem|media table/OGA}}, or {{tem|media table/OGV}} depending on the <code>type</code> specified. The OGA and OGV templates were proposed, passed, and created, just never properly implemented. Also, [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Media table/OGA|Media table/OGA]] and [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Media table/OGV|Media table/OGV]] isn't transcluded very much compared to [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:media table/row|media table/row]]. The special thing about templates and categories is that if you edit the template to change its category, it affects all places it is transcluded, autosorting everything in [[:Category:Pages with media files]] to go into [[:Category:Pages with audio files]] and [[:Category:Pages with video files]]. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 21:55, 26 April 2017 (EDT)


{{user|Baby Luigi}}, you don't even need to do it through [[Wikipedia:Audacity (audio editor)|Audacity]]. You can just use [[Wikipedia:Windows Explorer|Windows Explorer]] (or equivalent file manager) to change the extension or redlink with the OGA/OGV extension and upload the source file that kept OGG. File contents doesn't change. Just the file name extension. This is similar to how you can upload a file with the *.jpg extension onto a file using [[:File:New Nintendo 3DS and New Nintendo 3DS XL.jpeg|*.jpeg]] because [[:File:New Nintendo 3DS and New Nintendo 3DS XL.jpg]] can exist separately. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 21:09, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
{{user|Baby Luigi}}, you don't even need to do it through [[wikipedia:Audacity (audio editor)|Audacity]]. You can just use [[wikipedia:Windows Explorer|Windows Explorer]] (or equivalent file manager) to change the extension or redlink with the OGA/OGV extension and upload the source file that kept OGG. File contents doesn't change. Just the file name extension. This is similar to how you can upload a file with the *.jpg extension onto a file using [[:File:New Nintendo 3DS and New Nintendo 3DS XL.jpeg|*.jpeg]] because [[:File:New Nintendo 3DS and New Nintendo 3DS XL.jpg]] can exist separately. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 21:09, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
:Just as I suspected. So it's just like changing a notepad file to a .bat file, nothing would really change if I edited the extension. Thanks for clearing that up. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:55, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
:Just as I suspected. So it's just like changing a notepad file to a .bat file, nothing would really change if I edited the extension. Thanks for clearing that up. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:55, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
::Exactly. To make it even more clear, MediaWiki would have thrown an error if I were to move an PNG image to a page with a JPEG extension for example. I tested OGV and OGA moves with two OGG files, described in the proposal, and MediaWiki didn't throw any errors. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 02:14, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
::Exactly. To make it even more clear, MediaWiki would have thrown an error if I were to move an PNG image to a page with a JPEG extension for example. I tested OGV and OGA moves with two OGG files, described in the proposal, and MediaWiki didn't throw any errors. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 02:14, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
Line 196: Line 196:
===Create Template:Pmitem-infobox===
===Create Template:Pmitem-infobox===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|12-0|create template}}
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|12-0|create template}}
I've noticed that pages for ''Paper Mario'' series items don't really have a consistent format, usually having either [[:Template:Item-infobox]] or [[:Template:Recipe-Infobox]]. The problem is, neither template works very well, especially in terms of documenting the items' descriptions between games (the item infobox looks bad with multiple descriptions stacked on each other, and the recipe infobox doesn't even ''have'' a description field). Because of that, I propose that we create a new infobox for Paper Mario items, that way it's easier to document series-specific info in a convenient way.
I've noticed that pages for ''Paper Mario'' series items don't really have a consistent format, usually having either [[Template:Item infobox]] or [[Template:PM recipe infobox]]. The problem is, neither template works very well, especially in terms of documenting the items' descriptions between games (the item infobox looks bad with multiple descriptions stacked on each other, and the recipe infobox doesn't even ''have'' a description field). Because of that, I propose that we create a new infobox for Paper Mario items, that way it's easier to document series-specific info in a convenient way.


[[User:Niiue/sandbox4|Here's]] the current draft in my sandbox, which is mostly incomplete at the moment.
[[User:Niiue/sandbox4|Here's]] the current draft in my sandbox, which is mostly incomplete at the moment.
Line 207: Line 207:
#{{User|Yoshi the Space Station Manager}} Sure, but we would have to get rid of recipe-info box because it repeats everything already mentioned, while what is proposed will bring new info as well. I also like the proposed name better than the recipe one.
#{{User|Yoshi the Space Station Manager}} Sure, but we would have to get rid of recipe-info box because it repeats everything already mentioned, while what is proposed will bring new info as well. I also like the proposed name better than the recipe one.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Sounds like a good idea to me. Per proposal.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Sounds like a good idea to me. Per proposal.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. Would the [[:Template:Recipe-Infobox]] be necessary anymore? All of the pages it is used on are ''Paper Mario'' items, and the new infobox would repeat certain information.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. Would the [[Template:PM recipe infobox]] be necessary anymore? All of the pages it is used on are ''Paper Mario'' items, and the new infobox would repeat certain information.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} That definitely sounds fine to me. I also agree that [[Template:Recipe-Infobox]] would no longer be needed should this proposal pass. However, I wonder if we can do the same to the [[Mario & Luigi (series)|''Mario & Luigi'' series]], since the items listed are also in need of an infobox. Nonetheless, it's a good idea, and I see no reason to oppose in the long run.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} That definitely sounds fine to me. I also agree that [[Template:PM recipe infobox]] would no longer be needed should this proposal pass. However, I wonder if we can do the same to the [[Mario & Luigi (series)|''Mario & Luigi'' series]], since the items listed are also in need of an infobox. Nonetheless, it's a good idea, and I see no reason to oppose in the long run.
#{{User|Alex95}} I don't know why we don't have this already. Per all.
#{{User|Alex95}} I don't know why we don't have this already. Per all.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
Line 232: Line 232:


'''Proposer''': {{User|YoshiFlutterJump}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|YoshiFlutterJump}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 12, 2017, 23:59 GMT  
'''Proposed Deadline''': May 12, 2017, 23:59 GMT <br>
'''Date Withdrawn:''' May 5, 2017, 19:29 GMT
====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|YoshiFlutterJump}} Per my proposal.
#{{User|YoshiFlutterJump}} Per my proposal.
Line 238: Line 239:


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{user|Shokora}} &ndash; Per the arguments in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_24#Remove_Spoiler_Templates|this proposal]]. Essentially, entire articles could be spoilers. And as an encyclopedia, we should be presenting information as professionally and candidly as we can.
#{{user|Shokora}} &ndash; Per the arguments in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/24#Remove_Spoiler_Templates|this proposal]]. Essentially, entire articles could be spoilers. And as an encyclopedia, we should be presenting information as professionally and candidly as we can.
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} Spoilers in general, why are people so picky with plot details being revealed, even to the point of trying to get others to censor their own material? Also, how much time must pass for it to not be considered a spoiler anymore? Oftentimes, reveals are out of context. Reading text isn't as compelling as playing the game itself or watching someone else play. It's much more fun wondering how the conclusion is reached rather than seeing what the conclusion is. With something like the Mario games, we all know how things go. When has there ever been a plot twist? Spoilers are a mess that observers created and is out of control. In the context of a wiki, too much editing with little pay-off.
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} Spoilers in general, why are people so picky with plot details being revealed, even to the point of trying to get others to censor their own material? Also, how much time must pass for it to not be considered a spoiler anymore? Oftentimes, reveals are out of context. Reading text isn't as compelling as playing the game itself or watching someone else play. It's much more fun wondering how the conclusion is reached rather than seeing what the conclusion is. With something like the Mario games, we all know how things go. When has there ever been a plot twist? Spoilers are a mess that observers created and is out of control. In the context of a wiki, too much editing with little pay-off.
#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Almost the whole wiki contains spoilers. This would mean that almost all pages would require the template. Instead of doing this, it would make more sense to put a message on the front page (if we should do anything at all).
#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Almost the whole wiki contains spoilers. This would mean that almost all pages would require the template. Instead of doing this, it would make more sense to put a message on the front page (if we should do anything at all).
Line 267: Line 268:


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Alex95}}<br>
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Alex95}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' May 18, 2017, 23:59 GMT
'''Proposed Deadline:''' May 18, 2017, 23:59 GMT<br>
'''Date Withdrawn:''' May 12, 2017, 19:29 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
Line 280: Line 282:
===New Notice Template: refrequest===
===New Notice Template: refrequest===
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|5-10|No new template}}
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|5-10|No new template}}
Currently, there is only one template dedicated to pages that have unsourced information, which is {{tem|ref needed}}. However, this template is meant for tagging singular, specific instances of uncited facts in a page. My proposal is that we create a new notice template to tag articles that, in general, have multiple instances of unsourced information throughout and need citations added to them. The tag would have the tag date added to it with <code><nowiki>{{refrequest|April 29, 2017}}</nowiki></code> and could be added to a specific article section with <code><nowiki>{{refrequest|section=yes}}</nowiki></code>, similar to {{tem|rewrite}} and {{tem|rewrite-expand}}, and the tag would also add the article to a category, probably [[:Category:Citation Needed]]. For example, the article on [[Nintendo]] literally has absolutely ''no'' references/citations in the article at all; rather than adding {{tem|ref needed}} after every single individual unsourced piece of information, it would be much easier to add a notice to the top of the page indicating that the page as a whole is in need of citations. It's worth mentioning that Wikipedia itself has [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Refimprove#Usage 2 notice templates][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unreferenced just like this], as ''well'' as a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed ref needed template].
Currently, there is only one template dedicated to pages that have unsourced information, which is {{tem|ref needed}}. However, this template is meant for tagging singular, specific instances of uncited facts in a page. My proposal is that we create a new notice template to tag articles that, in general, have multiple instances of unsourced information throughout and need citations added to them. The tag would have the tag date added to it with <code><nowiki>{{refrequest|April 29, 2017}}</nowiki></code> and could be added to a specific article section with <code><nowiki>{{refrequest|section=yes}}</nowiki></code>, similar to {{tem|rewrite}} and {{tem|rewrite-expand}}, and the tag would also add the article to a category, probably [[:Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]. For example, the article on [[Nintendo]] literally has absolutely ''no'' references/citations in the article at all; rather than adding {{tem|ref needed}} after every single individual unsourced piece of information, it would be much easier to add a notice to the top of the page indicating that the page as a whole is in need of citations. It's worth mentioning that Wikipedia itself has [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Refimprove#Usage 2 notice templates][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unreferenced just like this], as ''well'' as a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed ref needed template].


I actually attempted to create this template last night, but it was deleted since it was created without permission. You can see what the notice would look like [[User:TheDisneyGamer/Sandbox|here]].
I actually attempted to create this template last night, but it was deleted since it was created without permission. You can see what the notice would look like [[User:TheDisneyGamer/Sandbox|here]].
Line 295: Line 297:


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Yoshi876}} I'm sure no one else will join me, but I really think this is unnecessary. I do agree that pages like Nintendo should have more sources, although mainly just in the history section, but I don't think a garish template at the top of the page is best for an otherwise fine article. Same with the glitch pages, in all honesty I see no issues with the {{tem|ref needed}} being used in relevant areas. Also, should the proposal pass, I massively oppose the creation of a new category for it. It's asking for the exact same thing as [[:Category:Citation needed]], just on a more large-scale situation.
#{{User|Yoshi876}} I'm sure no one else will join me, but I really think this is unnecessary. I do agree that pages like Nintendo should have more sources, although mainly just in the history section, but I don't think a garish template at the top of the page is best for an otherwise fine article. Same with the glitch pages, in all honesty I see no issues with the {{tem|ref needed}} being used in relevant areas. Also, should the proposal pass, I massively oppose the creation of a new category for it. It's asking for the exact same thing as [[:Category:Articles with unsourced statements]], just on a more large-scale situation.
#{{User|Alex95}} Per Yoshi876. I held off on voting for a while, but I really don't see the need for more than one template calling for the same thing. {{tem|ref needed}} asks for a specific source, whereas this would cover the whole page, which I can see getting confusing as it wouldn't be clear exactly what needs to be sourced. And having both templates on the page would just look terrible and be redundant.
#{{User|Alex95}} Per Yoshi876. I held off on voting for a while, but I really don't see the need for more than one template calling for the same thing. {{tem|ref needed}} asks for a specific source, whereas this would cover the whole page, which I can see getting confusing as it wouldn't be clear exactly what needs to be sourced. And having both templates on the page would just look terrible and be redundant.
#{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} See my reason below.
#{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} See my reason below.
Line 321: Line 323:
::::::I'll have to abstain, since I'm really not sure how useful the template will be. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 18:48, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
::::::I'll have to abstain, since I'm really not sure how useful the template will be. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 18:48, 8 May 2017 (EDT)


===Either merge {{tem|Morphs}} into {{tem|Yoshis}}, or remove the transformation section from {{tem|Yoshis}}===
===Either merge {{tem|Yoshi forms}} into {{tem|Yoshis}}, or remove the transformation section from {{tem|Yoshis}}===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|0-15-0|remove the transformation section from {{tem|Yoshis}}}}
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|0-15-0|remove the transformation section from {{tem|Yoshis}}}}
These two navigation templates always confused me, and I'm not sure which one is better over the other. Therefore, I propose that we discuss the purpose of these two templates before any action is taken regarding them.
These two navigation templates always confused me, and I'm not sure which one is better over the other. Therefore, I propose that we discuss the purpose of these two templates before any action is taken regarding them.
Line 328: Line 330:
'''Deadline:''' June 3, 2017, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline:''' June 3, 2017, 23:59 GMT


====Merge {{tem|Morphs}} into {{tem|Yoshis}}====
====Merge {{tem|Yoshi forms}} into {{tem|Yoshis}}====


====Remove the transformation section from {{tem|Yoshis}}====
====Remove the transformation section from {{tem|Yoshis}}====
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} To be honest, this is my preferred option. It seems that {{tem|Yoshis}} is mainly focused on providing navigation between different-colored Yoshis, not necessarily different Yoshi transformations. {{tem|Morphs}}, on the other hand, is long enough, and navigates between enough Yoshi transformations to warrant its own template. Of couse, we ''could'' merge the templates, but that seems pointless, considering {{tem|Morphs}}'s sheer size. Per proposal.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} To be honest, this is my preferred option. It seems that {{tem|Yoshis}} is mainly focused on providing navigation between different-colored Yoshis, not necessarily different Yoshi transformations. {{tem|Yoshi forms}}, on the other hand, is long enough, and navigates between enough Yoshi transformations to warrant its own template. Of couse, we ''could'' merge the templates, but that seems pointless, considering {{tem|Yoshi forms}}'s sheer size. Per proposal.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per proposal.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
Line 337: Line 339:
#{{User|Ultimate Mr. L}} Per all.
#{{User|Ultimate Mr. L}} Per all.
#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Per all.
#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Per all.
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} Thought this was a two options vote. This option seems to be moving transformations from {{tem|Yoshis}} to {{tem|Morphs}}. I support this if that is the case. Makes way more sense that way.
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} Thought this was a two options vote. This option seems to be moving transformations from {{tem|Yoshis}} to {{tem|Yoshi forms}}. I support this if that is the case. Makes way more sense that way.
#{{User|YoshiFlutterJump}} Per all. We have a {{tem|Morphs}} template for a reason.
#{{User|YoshiFlutterJump}} Per all. We have a {{tem|Yoshi forms}} template for a reason.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Agreed, it's better to have a more complete list of morphs in a dedicated template.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Agreed, it's better to have a more complete list of morphs in a dedicated template.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per proposal
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per proposal
Line 364: Line 366:
This is the eleventh and final standard that must be followed for featured articles and featured lists, as described on [[MarioWiki:Featured articles]], and it is completely unnecessary. For starters, it is too vague to be of any practical use, and it would be difficult to use our current featured articles for comparison since they have wildly different sizes. [[Mt. Teapot]], [[Mystic Forest]], [[Mario Kart: Double Dash!!]], and [[Mario Sports Superstars]] clearly all have different lengths, and yet they're all featured articles. If we tried to be strict and set a minimum character count or word count, then we're only going to promote articles that have been stretched and padded out solely to meet the minimum count. Needless to say, that is bad. With that in mind, why should we look at the length of an article to judge its quality? There are plenty of articles that are long, but they haven't been featured because they're missing information or their writing isn't good or their images are blurry or they have an improvement tag or for a myriad of other reasons based directly on the article's content, all of which are already covered by the other featured article standards. An article's length has next to nothing to do with its content and quality, so why should it be used to judge articles that, and I quote, "represent the best the Super Mario Wiki has to offer"?
This is the eleventh and final standard that must be followed for featured articles and featured lists, as described on [[MarioWiki:Featured articles]], and it is completely unnecessary. For starters, it is too vague to be of any practical use, and it would be difficult to use our current featured articles for comparison since they have wildly different sizes. [[Mt. Teapot]], [[Mystic Forest]], [[Mario Kart: Double Dash!!]], and [[Mario Sports Superstars]] clearly all have different lengths, and yet they're all featured articles. If we tried to be strict and set a minimum character count or word count, then we're only going to promote articles that have been stretched and padded out solely to meet the minimum count. Needless to say, that is bad. With that in mind, why should we look at the length of an article to judge its quality? There are plenty of articles that are long, but they haven't been featured because they're missing information or their writing isn't good or their images are blurry or they have an improvement tag or for a myriad of other reasons based directly on the article's content, all of which are already covered by the other featured article standards. An article's length has next to nothing to do with its content and quality, so why should it be used to judge articles that, and I quote, "represent the best the Super Mario Wiki has to offer"?


Finally, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_34#Change_FA_size_requirement|there's already a proposal]] that discusses lowering the size requirement for featured articles (which was also my original idea apparently although I genuinely don't remember it), ''and it passed''. Since the proposal was four years ago, it's hard to see how much of it is still in effect today, but my proposal clearly hasn't come from nowhere, and this is to say nothing of the [[forum:38624.0|recent forum post]] and the replies therein that inspired me to make this proposal. Simply put, the eleventh standard is too vague to be useful and is redundant with the other standards, and that is why I want it to be removed.
Finally, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34#Change_FA_size_requirement|there's already a proposal]] that discusses lowering the size requirement for featured articles (which was also my original idea apparently although I genuinely don't remember it), ''and it passed''. Since the proposal was four years ago, it's hard to see how much of it is still in effect today, but my proposal clearly hasn't come from nowhere, and this is to say nothing of the [[mb:threads/38624|recent forum post]] and the replies therein that inspired me to make this proposal. Simply put, the eleventh standard is too vague to be useful and is redundant with the other standards, and that is why I want it to be removed.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br>
Line 396: Line 398:
So, to confirm, articles of any size would be able to become featured as long as they meet the other ten requirements, right? --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 21:46, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
So, to confirm, articles of any size would be able to become featured as long as they meet the other ten requirements, right? --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 21:46, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
:[https://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=38624.msg1934027#msg1934027 I'll agree with Steve] on this point. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:00, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
:[https://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=38624.msg1934027#msg1934027 I'll agree with Steve] on this point. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:00, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
::From experience writing essays in high school and college, word count and character count is in no way an indication of quality because I could ramble on about something instead of writing something that actually says something accurate and straight forward. As the saying goes, ''less is more''. I mean I ''really'' stretched to meet minimum requirements. For a real life example, most politicians don't even read [[Wikipedia:Bill (law)|bill]]s before they vote on them because they are ridiculously long! As of right now, I am neutral and not voting. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 23:13, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
::From experience writing essays in high school and college, word count and character count is in no way an indication of quality because I could ramble on about something instead of writing something that actually says something accurate and straight forward. As the saying goes, ''less is more''. I mean I ''really'' stretched to meet minimum requirements. For a real life example, most politicians don't even read [[wikipedia:Bill (law)|bill]]s before they vote on them because they are ridiculously long! As of right now, I am neutral and not voting. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 23:13, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Our featured articles guidelines already discourage padding to meet out minimum requirements. Again, if an article was padded out only to give the false impression that it is sophisticated it easily fails. My argument is that writing should definitely be focused on quality, but the quantity of the quality is also something that should be taken into account when it comes to designating articles as the "best" in MarioWiki. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:22, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Our featured articles guidelines already discourage padding to meet out minimum requirements. Again, if an article was padded out only to give the false impression that it is sophisticated it easily fails. My argument is that writing should definitely be focused on quality, but the quantity of the quality is also something that should be taken into account when it comes to designating articles as the "best" in MarioWiki. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:22, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
::::In general, I find the whole system biased trying to showcase articles because we the contributors are biased liking Mario games. I don't really consider MarioWiki literature but rather a database of knowledge. [[MarioWiki:Featured articles|Featured articles]] do nothing to enhance the database. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 23:28, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
::::In general, I find the whole system biased trying to showcase articles because we the contributors are biased liking Mario games. I don't really consider MarioWiki literature but rather a database of knowledge. [[MarioWiki:Featured articles|Featured articles]] do nothing to enhance the database. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 23:28, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
Line 438: Line 440:
#an article you feel is very short, but meets the rest of the rules
#an article you feel is very short, but meets the rest of the rules
#an article you feel is very short, and breaks at least one of the other rules.
#an article you feel is very short, and breaks at least one of the other rules.
:#[[King K. Rool]], [[Goomba]], [[King Boo]], [[Mario Kart DS]], [[Super Smash Bros. Melee]], [[Hammer Bro]]. [[Mario Strikers Charged]], [[Baby Peach]], [[Baby Luigi]], [[Baby Mario]], [[Super Smash Bros.]], [[Dixie Kong]], [[Petey Piranha]], [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], [[Super Mario Bros. Deluxe]], [[List of Collectibles from Mario Party DS]], [[Mario Kart: Double Dash!!]], [[Sticker (Super Smash Bros. Brawl)]], [[WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!]], [[Super Mario 64 DS]], [[Mario Super Sluggers]], [[Diddy Kong Racing]], [[Assist Trophy]], [[Paper Mario]], [[Wario Land II]], [[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)]], [[Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time]], [[List of Bonuses in Super Smash Bros. Melee]], [[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]], [[Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!]], [[Chain Chomp]], [[List of Tayce T. Recipes]], [[Donkey Kong Country]], [[Mario Kart: Super Circuit]], [[Toadette]], [[Mario Sports Mix]], [[Mario Superstar Baseball]], [[Coin Rush]], [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]], [[Mario Party DS]], [[Mario Kart 7]], [[Super Mario Bros. 2]], [[Super Duel Mode]], [[Ashley and Red]], [[WarioWare: Smooth Moves]], [[Pauline]], [[Mario vs. Donkey Kong]], [[Mario Tennis Open]], [[Mona]], [[Blooper]], [[Iggy Koopa]], [[Donkey Kong Jungle Beat]], [[Dr. Mario]], [[List of Zess T. recipes]], [[Donkey Kong 64]], [[WarioWare: Twisted!]], [[WarioWare: Touched!]], [[Mario Kart 8]], [[Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash]], [[Mario (franchise)]], [[Wiggler]], [[Mario Party: Star Rush]], [[Equipment]], [[Donkey Kong (franchise)]], [[Super Mario 3D World]], [[Koopa Paratroopa]], [[Mario Sports Superstars]], [[Donkey Kong Barrel Blast]], [[Banzai Bill]]
:#[[King K. Rool]], [[Goomba]], [[King Boo]], [[Mario Kart DS]], [[Super Smash Bros. Melee]], [[Hammer Bro]]. [[Mario Strikers Charged]], [[Baby Peach]], [[Baby Luigi]], [[Baby Mario]], [[Super Smash Bros.]], [[Dixie Kong]], [[Petey Piranha]], [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], [[Super Mario Bros. Deluxe]], [[List of Collectibles from Mario Party DS]], [[Mario Kart: Double Dash!!]], [[Sticker (Super Smash Bros. Brawl)]], [[WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!]], [[Super Mario 64 DS]], [[Mario Super Sluggers]], [[Diddy Kong Racing]], [[Assist Trophy]], [[Paper Mario]], [[Wario Land II]], [[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)]], [[Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time]], [[List of Bonuses in Super Smash Bros. Melee]], [[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]], [[Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!]], [[Chain Chomp]], [[List of Tayce T. Recipes]], [[Donkey Kong Country]], [[Mario Kart: Super Circuit]], [[Toadette]], [[Mario Sports Mix]], [[Mario Superstar Baseball]], [[Coin Rush]], [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]], [[Mario Party DS]], [[Mario Kart 7]], [[Super Mario Bros. 2]], [[Super Duel Mode]], [[Ashley and Red]], [[WarioWare: Smooth Moves]], [[Pauline]], [[Mario vs. Donkey Kong]], [[Mario Tennis Open]], [[Mona]], [[Blooper]], [[Iggy Koopa]], [[Donkey Kong Jungle Beat]], [[Dr. Mario]], [[List of Zess T. recipes]], [[Donkey Kong 64]], [[WarioWare: Twisted!]], [[WarioWare: Touched!]], [[Mario Kart 8]], [[Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash]], [[Super Mario (franchise)]], [[Wiggler]], [[Mario Party: Star Rush]], [[Equipment]], [[Donkey Kong (franchise)]], [[Super Mario 3D World]], [[Koopa Paratroopa]], [[Mario Sports Superstars]], [[Donkey Kong Barrel Blast]], [[Banzai Bill]]
:#[[Lakitu]], [[Kamek]], [[Dry Bones]], [[Mama Mario]], [[Mt. Teapot]], [[Nintendo DS]], [[Wii]], [[Rice Beach]], [[Bramble Scramble]], [[Yoshi's Island DS]], [[Mystic Forest]], [[Mario Party 9]]
:#[[Lakitu]], [[Kamek]], [[Dry Bones]], [[Mama Mario]], [[Mt. Teapot]], [[Nintendo DS]], [[Wii]], [[Rice Beach]], [[Bramble Scramble]], [[Yoshi's Island DS]], [[Mystic Forest]], [[Mario Party 9]]
:#[[Ganondorf]], [[Badge]] (this article was featured for completely different reasons than it looks today), [[Miracle Book]], [[Rosalina's Storybook]]
:#[[Ganondorf]], [[Badge]] (this article was featured for completely different reasons than it looks today), [[Miracle Book]], [[Rosalina's Storybook]]
Line 462: Line 464:
:To a degree, length matters (such as making sure statements are detailed enough), but there does come a point where there are too many words and you lose your audience's attentiveness (TMI), which is often why we split articles. Strive for quality over quantity. I think word count falls on a bell curve to determine effectiveness of the article's ability to convey information. The right amount of words varies from article to article. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 20:14, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:To a degree, length matters (such as making sure statements are detailed enough), but there does come a point where there are too many words and you lose your audience's attentiveness (TMI), which is often why we split articles. Strive for quality over quantity. I think word count falls on a bell curve to determine effectiveness of the article's ability to convey information. The right amount of words varies from article to article. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 20:14, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:: "but there does come a point where there are too many words and you lose your audience's attentiveness (TMI), which is often why we split articles." This is blatantly, hilariously wrong and I have no idea how you came to reason this is the reason articles are split. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 20:33, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:: "but there does come a point where there are too many words and you lose your audience's attentiveness (TMI), which is often why we split articles." This is blatantly, hilariously wrong and I have no idea how you came to reason this is the reason articles are split. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 20:33, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Many [[galaxy]] pages are getting split into mission subpages. I figure the reasoning is to separate missions from what is found in the galaxy. Same thing is happening to ''[[Super Mario 64]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'' places and missions. Other kinds of splits include [[List of Mario references in video games]], which a proposal passed to split them into 1st and 3rd party. We have a [[MarioWiki:Article size|policy page]] how to tell us if an article needs to be split. That just means there are too many words on the article page and needs to be split into digestible chunks. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 20:58, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Many [[galaxy]] pages are getting split into mission subpages. I figure the reasoning is to separate missions from what is found in the galaxy. Same thing is happening to ''[[Super Mario 64]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'' places and missions. Other kinds of splits include [[List of references in video games]], which a proposal passed to split them into 1st and 3rd party. We have a [[MarioWiki:Article size|policy page]] how to tell us if an article needs to be split. That just means there are too many words on the article page and needs to be split into digestible chunks. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 20:58, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:::: The mission pages are split by site owner's edict they should be (for more ad revenues, consistency with level pages for the 2D games , etc etc.). The reference pages and 99% of page splits on the wiki are done because the uncropped page is Too Big to comfortably load on low and mid-range computer rigs. No pages were split "to hold the audience's attention" as you claimed. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 21:10, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:::: The mission pages are split by site owner's edict they should be (for more ad revenues, consistency with level pages for the 2D games , etc etc.). The reference pages and 99% of page splits on the wiki are done because the uncropped page is Too Big to comfortably load on low and mid-range computer rigs. No pages were split "to hold the audience's attention" as you claimed. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 21:10, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::But there are splits that are occurring on pages that can load on low to mid range computers. Take [[Skeeter]] and [[Skeeter (New Super Mario Bros.)]]. They were split because the attack changed. That would be like creating an article for [[Ukiki]] holding a cactus thing and an Ukiki holding a bomb. Ad revenue, well, you kind of got me there, except why not split the long articles so you can make more ad revenue? More page navigation means more ad revenue, which seems to be against the interest of long articles. Do you have hard data to support that readers aren't overwhelmed? From my experiences, people in general often complain about having to read walls of text and would rather have a shorter version of what they are reading. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 21:26, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::But there are splits that are occurring on pages that can load on low to mid range computers. Take [[Skeeter]] and [[Skeeter (New Super Mario Bros.)]]. They were split because the attack changed. That would be like creating an article for [[Ukiki]] holding a cactus thing and an Ukiki holding a bomb. Ad revenue, well, you kind of got me there, except why not split the long articles so you can make more ad revenue? More page navigation means more ad revenue, which seems to be against the interest of long articles. Do you have hard data to support that readers aren't overwhelmed? From my experiences, people in general often complain about having to read walls of text and would rather have a shorter version of what they are reading. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 21:26, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
Line 480: Line 482:


Since it looks like we're gonna get another extension, I'd like to re-iterate that Featured Articles are only a showcase of our best articles, not our whole enchilada. [[User:Magikrazy|Magikrazy]] ([[User talk:Magikrazy|talk]]) 10:09, 19 June 2017 (EDT)
Since it looks like we're gonna get another extension, I'd like to re-iterate that Featured Articles are only a showcase of our best articles, not our whole enchilada. [[User:Magikrazy|Magikrazy]] ([[User talk:Magikrazy|talk]]) 10:09, 19 June 2017 (EDT)
===Standardization of Species Templates' Endings===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|12-0|pluralize all species templates}}
This is a simple issue: when it comes to navigation templates based on species, some are pluralized (e.g. {{tem|Boos}} and {{tem|Koopa Troopas}}), and some are singularized (e.g. {{tem|Human}} and {{tem|Koopa Paratroopa}}). A majority of them are already plural, but most of the singular templates are for the well-known species. There's no reason why we shouldn't have consistency, so enough's enough. I personally think that it makes much more sense to pluralize all of them, but considering the number of templates that are singular, I'm including both options for fairness. Obviously, this is not even close to a major issue, but at the same time, for such a minor issue, it has yet to be cleared up, and having a uniform system makes the wiki seem all the more professional.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 7, 2017, 23:59 GMT
====Pluralize====
#{{User|Time Turner}} Makes the most sense to me.
#{{User|Alex95}} Per. I assume a bot will take care of this. If not, I'm willing to help.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} Having them in singular at all is confusing, and there's only a few singular as it is, instead of the large amount of plurals there is. Less bot work.
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} The templates that are singular have plural names on their headers. Also, I should point out that you didn't include an oppose. Which, I would have chosen if I didn't look at the templates.
#{{User|Ultimate Mr. L}} Singular just sounds wrong.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|YoshiFlutterJump}} Per all.
#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Per all.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} I see no reason not to do this, so per all.
#{{User|Tails777}} I mean we're mostly covering multiple subjects so... yeah, per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
====Singularize====
====Do nothing====
====Comments====
Full list of covered templates:
*Already plural:
**{{tem|Bandits}}
**{{tem|Barrels}}
**{{tem|Blarggs}}
**{{tem|Blocks}}
**{{tem|Bloopers}}
**{{tem|Boos}}
**{{tem|Buzzy Beetles}}
**{{tem|Chain Chomps}}
**{{tem|Cheep Cheeps}}
**{{tem|Doors}}
**{{tem|Flowers}}
**{{tem|Goals}}
**{{tem|Hammer Bros.}}
**{{tem|Koopa Troopas}}
**{{tem|Kremlings}}
**{{tem|Lava Bubbles}}
**{{tem|Magikoopas}}
**{{tem|Yoshi forms}}
**{{tem|Mushrooms}}
**{{tem|Octoombas}}
**{{tem|People}}
**{{tem|Piranha Plants}}
**{{tem|Shamans}}
**{{tem|Shy Guys}}
**{{tem|Snifits}}
**{{tem|Spikes}}
**{{tem|Spinies}}
**{{tem|Stars}}
**{{tem|Toads}}
**{{tem|Wigglers}}
**{{tem|Yoshis}}
*Already singular:
**{{tem|Bob-omb}}
**{{tem|Bullet Bill}}
**{{tem|Fuzzy}}
**{{tem|Goomba}}
**{{tem|Human}}
**{{tem|Kong}}
**{{tem|Koopa Paratroopa}}
**{{tem|Lakitu}}
**{{tem|Little Mouser}}
**{{tem|MontyMole}}
**{{tem|Pianta}}
**{{tem|Pokey}}
**{{tem|Thwomp}}
@Alex: The plan is to have a bot take care of the dirty work. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 00:25, 31 July 2017 (EDT)
===Do Something With Game-Specific Species Categories===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-0|use species categories for non-hostile, non-item, non-object species}}
So, Time Turner [[Category talk:Super Mario Bros. 3 Species|noticed a while back]] that [[:Category:Super Mario Bros. 3 Species]] (and most games' species categories as a whole) are basically duplicates of their enemy categories, with maybe one or two different pages. Overall, species categories as they currently stand are useless and redundant. I've included a few options on how to fix this:
'''Use species categories only for non-hostile, non-item, non-object species:''' This would redefine species categories to only count creatures that aren't enemies, aren't items, and aren't objects. In other words, they'd only be for things like [[Egg-Plant]]s, [[Human]]s, [[Pianta]]s, and the like.
'''Use species categories only for non-hostile species:''' Similar to the previous option, except it would also include things like [[Fire Flower]]s and [[Beanstalk]]s. The problem I see here is that items and objects already have their own categories, so we'd just end up with another set of redundancies.
'''Delete species categories:''' One of the simpler options. Just get rid of every game-specific species category on the wiki, and leave articles like [[Bird (Super Mario Sunshine)]] in categories like [[:Category:Real World Animals]].
'''Do nothing:''' The simplest option. As this would involve not changing anything, I feel it'd be the most detrimental option.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Niiue}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 8, 2017, 23:59 GMT
====Use species categories only for non-hostile, non-item, non-object species====
#{{User|Niiue}} Per proposal.
#{{User|3D Player 2010}} per all.
#{{User|Time Turner}} I think this is the best option. It gives a home to a small, but well-defined, group of articles that wouldn't otherwise have a place in one of the [[:Category:Main|main categories]], while also ensuring that there's little to no overlap.
#{{User|Alex95}} Woo boy, this looks messy. Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Sure. Per all.
====Use species categories only for non-hostile species====
====Delete species categories====
====Do nothing====
====Comments====
Obligatory list of affected categories:
[[:Category:Donkey Kong Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Donkey Kong 64 Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country Returns Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Mario Power Tennis Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Mario Strikers Charged Species]]<br>
[[:Category:New Super Mario Bros. Species]]<br>
[[:Category:New Super Mario Bros. 2 Species]]<br>
[[:Category:New Super Mario Bros. U Species]]<br>
[[:Category:New Super Mario Bros. Wii Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Paper Mario Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Paper Mario: Color Splash Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Paper Mario Series Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Paper Mario: Sticker Star Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Super Mario 3D Land Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Super Mario 3D World Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Super Mario 64 Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Super Mario Bros. Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Super Mario Bros. 2 Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Super Mario Bros. 3 Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Super Mario Galaxy Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Super Mario Galaxy 2 Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Super Mario Strikers Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Super Mario Sunshine Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Super Mario World Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Super Paper Mario Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Super Smash Bros. Series Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Wario Species]]<br>
[[:Category:WarioWare Series Species]]<br>
[[:Category:Yoshi Species]]
A lot of these could probably be deleted, since a lot of them (especially platformer ones) have pretty much 100% overlap with their games' respective enemy categories.
Also: [http://i.imgur.com/MKNi8ki.png wut] [[User:Niiue|Niiue]] ([[User talk:Niiue|talk]]) 20:44, 31 July 2017 (EDT)
===The Usage of Old Names in Articles===
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-8|use old names in articles}}
Currently, it's standard practice to use the old name of a subject while writing about in at a point in time where that old name was in use. For example, [[Blooper]] was called "Bloo'''b'''er" in ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'', so "Bloober" would be used when talking about ''Super Mario Bros.'' instead of the more recent name. If a link is involved, it would be coded as <nowiki>[[Blooper|Bloober]]</nowiki>, always maintaining the old name. Though this isn't outlined in the policy pages, as far as I can tell, there ''was'' [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/7#Multiple_Canon_Names|a proposal]] that set out to outline this exact issue, and ultimately decided to use old names when relevant (thank you {{User|Alex95}}. However, I'm not entirely in agreement with the outcome.. To outline the pros and cons of the current situation:
'''Pros''':
*'''It's historically accurate.'''
Considering that these names were consistently used until they happened to be changed, it naturally follows that our articles reflect that.
*'''It's what people familiar with the old names would look for.'''
To use the cartoons as an example, they regularly and consistently refer to [[Princess Peach]] as "Princess Toadstool". Anyone who is familiar with the cartoons would be looking for the name Toadstool and not Peach. This extends to any of the old names, really: whether it was in the cartoons, the manuals, or the guides, these names were prominent.
'''Cons''':
*'''It's not currently accurate.'''
Regardless of how consistently the old names were used, these are not the names being used today. For an encyclopedia, using the old names in articles and templates without so much as a note seems misleading.
*'''It's confusing, especially for newcomers.'''
Not everyone knows that [[Princess Peach]]'s old name was "Princess Toadstool". The similarities in the names are there, but it's certainly not a given that these two names refer to the same subject. To use the cartoons as an example, someone with little knowledge of the series may read one of its pages and leave without realizing that Princess Toadstool actually refers to Princess Peach.
<hr>
To me, it makes more sense to keep articles up-to-date rather than potentially mislead readers, though I'm giving each option equal opportunity. (For the record, the [[MarioWiki:Naming#Name changes|MarioWiki:Naming]] does state that "the newer name will replace the older one" while using Blooper as an example, but as far as I can tell, that hasn't been put into effect beyond the article's name and usage in modern games.)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 8, 2017 23:59
====Use new names for articles====
#{{User|Time Turner}} My personal preference.
#{{User|Niiue}} As much as I dislike certain new names (looking at you, Bull's-Eye Bill), standardization is best.
====Use old names for articles====
#{{User|Alex95}} - I'm leaning towards to result of the original proposal. While yes, some readers may get confused, the purpose of the wiki is to display and show information as accurately as possible.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Fire Chomp, Podoboo, Grand Goomba, Venus Fire Trap, and Missile Bill for life!
#{{User|7feetunder}} - Per my comments below.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per all.
#{{User|LuigiMaster123}} Per all.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Since ultimately the links then reveal what the current name of the subject is, I think that using the modern names can be extremely confusing in the case of games where the old name is showed by the game itself, especially for bestiaries where we are supposed to show the actual name used by the game. As an example, we just discovered in the 30th anniversary books that the bats of ''Super Mario Galaxy'' games have the same Japanese name of [[Enigma]]s and are thus very likely to be those bats, but there they are known in English as ''Bats''. What would happen if we ended up using the new name also in the pages and tables related to ''[[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars]]'' ?
#{{User|Chester Alan Arthur}} Gonna have to agree with Alex since those were the names at the time.
====Comments====
I know I helped you find some of the information, but I'm voting against. Blooper's name in ''Super Mario Bros.'' was "Bloober", for example, so it makes sense to call it by that name where relevant. If readers end up trying to correct the name to its modern variant, we can always revert it; posting something in the edit summary or their talk page if needed. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 00:25, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
:Not every user is an editor who plans on changing the wiki. The average person wouldn't know about the name change, so they'd fully believe that the white squid enemy from ''Super Mario Bros'' was a Bloober, and not a Blooper. It seems rather disingenuous to use old names without ever mentioned that they've changed names. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 00:28, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
Why can't we just advise users to say "Bloober, later known as Bloopers, appear in ''Super Mario Bros.''. Bloobers blob around in water levels, etc." {{User:Shokora/sig}} 01:53, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
Definitely opposing this. While I can ''kind of'' see the benefit to enacting this change for franchise mainstays with a "dominant" new name, like Peach and Blooper, for less prominent stuff, it's just confusing and awkward. For example, Goomba King/Goomboss. He only appears in three games. His article uses "[[Goomboss]]" because that's his most recent name, but people looking up information on ''[[Paper Mario]]'' are going to be annoyed/confused if we call him "Goomboss" even on those articles. His name in that game is clearly "Goomba King", so that's what articles relating to ''PM'' call him. I see no reason to change this. Or, for another example, the Sluggish/[[Slow 'Shroom Orb]], an item only appearing in two games within the [[Mario Party (series)|same series]]. ''[[Mario Party 6]]'' calls it a Sluggish 'Shroom, ''[[Mario Party 7]]'' calls it a Slow 'Shroom. Neither name is more "correct" than the other, so ''MP6'' articles use "Sluggish" and ''MP7'' articles use "Slow". {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 01:59, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
:On one hand, it's somewhat retroactive to apply the newer names to certain articles; on the other hand, it's more consistent, is already noted just fine in the body of their own articles, and there have been official cases where more recent names were used in re-releases in favor of the older ones (like in remakes and some Virtual Console digital manuals; for example, mushroom retainers are called Toads in the 3DS Virtual Console and Wii ''Super Mario All-Stars'' manuals for ''Super Mario Bros.'', and "Magic Mushroom" completely fell by the wayside). Then there are others like Blooper and Nipper Plant that ''were'' in use in strategy guides, or instances where a given subject was only named in foreign content at times and its newer English name is preferred instead. We're specifically talking about video games, right? It would be iffy to use Peach and Bowser when referring to the DIC cartoons when they were nothing but Toadstool and Koopa during the entire run. It'd also be confusing to do this for the RPG bestiaries and info boxes, if that's considered under this proposal. What about obvious misspellings like Racoon Mario and pirana plant? Are we sticking to those just because they were contemporary? I feel like there should be a middle ground: in-game and manual elements could use whatever name they had at the time (universally preserving the very well-known changes of Peach/Toadstool, Bowser/Koopa, Starman/Super Star, RPG name changes, etc.), but names that only came from old guides are most probably obscure enough to be standardized with the more recent material. Basically, make it into a source hierarchy like the naming policy. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 02:40, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
:@Mister Wu: This is just an aside, but I very much doubt that Enigma example is intentional because Square/Square Enix most likely holds the copyright for it. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 10:46, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
::I definitely concede that mass-changing every name would do more harm than good, but at the same time, I agree with LTL in that there should be some sort of hierarchy or a well-defined system for deciding how names should be used in articles. Your point about "pirana plant" is good too: why does [[Super Mario Bros.]] uses "Bloober" for [[Blooper]] but not "pirana plant" for [[Piranha Plant]]? I'm not sure if manuals should take the same precedence as games, though, especially since most games don't require the use of the manual. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 16:27, 2 August 2017 (EDT)
I think the old names should be kept for the games where they were used, while including notes of the names that are currently used. For example, "Princess Toadstool (early name of Princess Peach until ''Super Mario 64'')" or "Flopsy Fish (the name used of Cheep Cheep in this game)". [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 05:20, 4 August 2017 (EDT)
:What do you mean by "the games where they were used"? Are manuals and official guides also counted under that? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:17, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
::I was thinking "a game and its manual and possibly a guide", although I could have worded that better like "material where they were used". I wrote that comment rather roughly at the time. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 13:50, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
===Create an archive system for talk page proposals===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|13-0|create}}
[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/35#Create_an_archive_system_for_Talk_Page_Proposals|Once more, with feeling]]. I'm aware of the previous failed proposal, but frankly, I don't agree with the opposition. Yes, talk page proposals don't affect as many pages as regular proposals ([[Talk:Dark_Land#Revert_the_SMB3_worlds_to_their_.22Land.22_names|usually]]), but at the same time, they're still affecting pages, and that can easily have repercussions as well as set a precedent for the future. If a user is unsure if there's anything to support something that they want to do, they can look through the archive of proposals and see if any similar proposals have happened as well as their outcomes. That's certainly something I've done with the regular proposals, so I don't think it's unreasonable to do the same for talk page proposals. To use a concrete example, for my proposal on [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/45#Allow_certain_implied_sections_to_be_split_from_the_.22List_of_implied_....22_articles|implied subjects]], I had to dig through history pages and rely on my terrible memory to find talk page proposals that were relevant to my own; why not make the process simpler? Also, pointing people to the [[:Category:Settled talk page proposals|category]] as a suitable substitute when it gives no details about the content of the proposals, when they happened, what their outcome was, or even if multiple proposals happened on the same page is not satisfactory for me. [[Talk:Banana|Banana's talk page]] has ''six'' separate proposals (and it's hardly the only one of its kind), but that fact becomes completely obfuscated if we only use the category. Also, if we relied on categories for everything, we wouldn't have navigation templates. Besides, this only requires a single page.
Like the original proposal, I'm not planning on literally making an archive that houses every talk page proposal: I want to create a page that emulates [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive]], but instead of linking to subpages with every proposal, I would be simply linking to the original talk pages. This gives added clarification and convenience, and I really don't see why we shouldn't have it.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 11, 2017, 23:59 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Alex95}} - I was thinking about making a proposal like this myself, but I wasn't sure how to go about it. I get lost looking for TPPs, especially if it's one I wasn't aware existed in the first place (and there have been a few occasions where finding a past TPP would've help me, but I just couldn't find it). A condensed page similar to the main proposal archive can work, so I support.
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} I really see the benefit of this. Per all.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Per all.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} I don't like the argument that "it's not hard to find TPPs" which was the primary reason to oppose in the previous proposal. History has shown and some users stated, yes, it IS harder to find the proposals by browsing through an endless assortment of pages listed by categories. And I don't understand why we can't take the time and effort to improve navigation and organization of these things: depending on your perspective, TPPs can be more major than main space proposals, and it has spawned paragraphs and paragraphs of discussion. Plus, I don't see how lesser importance means that we should completely ignore still facets that have an influence in changing around policy, regardless of scale. I say, the correct move is to take effort and organize them better and it'd would benefit pretty much everyone in the long-term.
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} {{tem|SettledTPP}} with its category [[:Category:Settled talk page proposals]] is insufficient compared to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive]].
#{{User|Chester Alan Arthur}} I agree from a navigational perspective this would be much better.
#{{User|Ghost Jam}} Per all.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per TT.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per all, especially Baby Luigi.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
====Oppose====
====Comments====
I think you should have drafted a sandbox page for this before you made a proposal out of it, see what it looks like before we cast a vote on this. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:50, 4 August 2017 (EDT)
:It's ostensibly going to be the same as [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive]], just with different links. Still, I can try to quickly whip something up. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:52, 4 August 2017 (EDT)
:I have a ''very'' rough draft [[User:Time_Turner/unfinished#Proposal_Mock-Up|here]]: it'll obviously be increased and adjusted as time goes on. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 23:56, 4 August 2017 (EDT)
Now that I'm going through the talk page proposals, I'm noticing that there are a few proposals that are canceled and then immediately put into effect, usually because the proposed change is valid but the whole proposal process is unnecessary. Would anyone object if I added a color for these situations? I'm thinking mauve would look alright (and it's on the mock-up; search for Axem or Gargantua). {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 11:02, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
:I think white would be better, as mauve might be confusing for color-blind people (like me) with purple. I think blue is what's normally used in this case, though. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 11:42, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
::Blue is meant for proposals that fail, but whose proposed changes are later implemented anyways. A canceled proposal is different from a failed proposal - that's why we have both red and pink. I can definitely change the color, but since white is also what generically appears if a color hasn't been inputted correctly, I think that might be confusing. EDIT: Actually, if we're concerning ourselves with colorblindness, then [https://www.toptal.com/designers/colorfilter?orig_uri=https://www.mariowiki.com/User:Time_Turner/unfinished#Proposal_Mock-Up&process_type=protan the current color system has its own issues]. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 11:46, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
:::Here is a suggestion. If a proposal was cancelled but changes took place after the proposal, than it would be light blue. It's not much of a difference, but a difference nevertheless. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 17:39, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
::::It'd be hard to distinguish between light blue and regular blue at a glance, especially since our current blue is already fairly light. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 17:41, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
:::::We could use black, but then the text would have to change accordingly. As for blue, apparently the color we're using is lighter than the #0000FF code for standard blue. So with that in mind, maybe dark blue? {{User:Alex95/sig}} 17:50, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
::::::If the blue's too dark, then we come to the same issue as using black (and in fact, the standard "DarkBlue" or "Navy" is definitely too dark). The template also isn't currently set up for changing the text color, and in any case, I think that it'd be best to keep the text uniform. For now, I've thrown more colors onto the table at the top for demonstrative purposes. If you have a particular color in mind, [http://allenk.home.infionline.net/testcolors.html this website] works well for testing how it would like against black text. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 18:11, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
::::::::The problem I think we're having is we've used all the basic colors; any others we chose aside from a very light or a very dark color will end up looking close to ones we're already using. Dark blue doesn't look too bad, imo, though ivory, light yellow, slate, and chartreuse (as ugly as that is) are some other possible options. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 18:23, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::It'd be more convenient if you could provide hex color codes that show exactly what you're talking about, if you don't mind. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 18:32, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
::::::::::Ivory: #FFFFF0, Light yellow: #FFFFE0, Slate: #708090, and Chartreuse: #7FFF00. The dark blue I was thinking of was actually Dark cyan, my mistake there: #008B8B. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 18:41, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
:Threw all of those colors up there for good measure. Now that they're all up there, I'm partial to dark cyan. Everything else is either illegible or too similar to another (established) color. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 18:47, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
::darkcyan looks the best out of them all, imo. Is there a chance this new parameter could be added to main proposals as well, just in case something like that happens here in the future? {{User:Alex95/sig}} 18:51, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
:::I'll start using that for now, then (although I'll call the parameter "teal" for convenience). I'll leave the discussion of implementing it with the main proposals to you administrators. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:00, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
===Merge ''Super Mario Sunshine'' sub-level articles into their missions' articles===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-1|merge}}
We currently have articles for various sub-levels from ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'' (e.g. [[Sand Portal]], [[Bottle]]). These are obviously just artifacts from before the game's missions were split off. Now that we have the mission articles, the sub-level articles themselves are completely obsolete; we now have several pairs of articles covering the exact same thing. Some of them even have conjectural names derived right from the mission names ([[Hotel Lobby's Secret]], [[Shell's Secret]]), which not only emphasizes the redundancy but adds confusion. So any relevant content on these articles not already on the mission articles should just be moved to those. It's not like we generally have separate articles for sub-levels anyway; we don't have articles for [[Shifting Sand Land]]'s pyramid or [[Lethal Lava Land]]'s volcano.
Here are what the results of this proposal will be if it passes:
*[[Hillside Cave]] --> [[The Hillside Cave Secret]]
*[[Cliff Spring Cave]] --> [[The Secret of the Dirty Lake]]
*[[Ricco Tower]] --> [[The Secret of Ricco Tower]]
*[[Sand Portal]] --> [[Dune Bud Sand Castle Secret]]
*[[The Yoshi-Go-Round]] --> [[The Yoshi-Go-Round's Secret]]
*[[Hotel Lobby's Secret]] --> [[The Hotel Lobby's Secret]]
*[[Bottle]] --> [[Red Coins in a Bottle]]
*[[Shell's Secret]] --> [[The Shell's Secret]]
The secret levels in [[Delfino Plaza]] ([[Super Slide]], [[Pachinko Game]], [[Lily Pad Ride]], [[Turbo Track]], [[Red Coin Field]]) are not affected by this proposal. They fall under the same category as levels like [[The Princess's Secret Slide]] and [[The Secret Under the Moat]], and should stay.
'''Proposer''': {{User|7feetunder}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 12, 2017, 23:59 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|7feetunder}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per Proposal
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Some of these names aren't even "names" per se, they're just descriptive locations, like hillside cave. Anyway, most of these are pretty much the equivalent of our planet sections in the Super Mario Galaxy articles, so I think a merge is sufficient.
#{{User|Alex95}} - The mission articles go into detail about the secret areas anyway. Support.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} If we can indeed cover the sub-levels in the mission pages without losing any amount of relevant detail and without creating pages that are too long and difficult to browse, I definitely support the idea of writing everything in one page.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} So long as mission/episode articles are not affected (which looks like ''they'll'' stay), per proposal!
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Megadardery}} Per proposal, those pages are better fit as redirects to the mission pages.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} I think the Episode description should describe the entire mission, including getting to the secret, but not getted bogged down with every geographical detail of said secret level's layout, which the article for the secret area should have instead.
====Comments====
===Delete the RPG Item categories===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-0|delete}}
(borrowing my argument from [[:Category talk:RPG Items - General|here]])
Both [[:Category: RPG Items - General]] and [[:Category:RPG Items - Special]] are inconsistent with the rest of the wiki. We don't have categories for platformer items or sports items, nor do we have broad RPG categories for characters or enemies or any other subject. At best, we only have categories that encompass a series (for example, [[:Category:Mario & Luigi Series Enemies]] branches off into the game-specific enemy categories), but nothing that's solely based on genre. Every item in these categories already has a home in another, more specific and more helpful item category. Nothing is gained from having them, and nothing would be lost if they were deleted.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 16, 2017, 23:59 GMT
====Delete====
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per my proposal.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Chester Alan Arthur}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Why do we have this? I know RPGs are special because they give meaning to items, but a wiki shouldn't just put them all together in one category and call it a day. Even look at [[Category talk:Hostages#Delete this category|this]] if you want to know why. Per proposal
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Also take a look at [[Superboss|this page]].
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
====Don't delete====
====Comments====
===Change the sentence about the About template on MarioWiki:Naming===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-1|change the sentence}}
<blockquote>
[[MarioWiki:Naming#Shared titles|When disambiguation pages are used, the articles should link to them in <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki>, but if a disambiguation page is not used, the articles can merely link to the other same-named page.]]
</blockquote>
I find the first part, about articles needing to link to the disambiguation page, to be unnecessary, for the simple fact that the about template is almost always unnecessary in these situations. Let me use [[Stamp (Mario's Time Machine)]] as my example:
#If a reader ends up there by chance (say, by using [[Special:Random]]), they weren't interested in a particular stamp in the first place and there's no need to point them to the disambiguation page.
#If a reader ends up there through [[Stamp (disambiguation)]], then they were already at the disambiguation page. It's redundant to link to it again.
#If a reader ends up there through a link within the body of another article, then the context should be enough to let them know where they're going, and failing that, "Mario's Time Machine" is right in the title. They clicked on the link because they wanted more information about the subject discussed within the article, and even if they had another Stamp in mind, the article quickly shows what it's about.
#If a reader searches for "Stamp", they'll first see the most prominent [[Stamp]] and then [[Stamp (disambiguation)]]. Even if they go to "Stamp" first and that's ''not'' what they wanted, that page already links to the disambiguation page, which goes back to the second point.
I used the Stamps for my example, but this extends to all similar pages. I simply cannot think of a situation where someone would end up at the page while thinking that they were going to end up somewhere else, and then being confused or disappointed about where they ended up. In these circumstances, the about template is a piece of fluff that doesn't help readers and distracts from the rest of the article. It shouldn't be a requirement to use it on every article when disambiguation pages are involved. It's not as if the about template is useless in all circumstances - for example, [[Stamp]] should link to its corresponding disambiguation page, as mentioned above - but it's hardly a necessity for all pages.
I am not proposing to outright remove the about template; I propose to make the following change to the sentence:
<blockquote>
When disambiguation pages are used, the articles should '''only''' link to them in <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki> '''when necessary''', but if a disambiguation page is not used, the articles can merely link to the other same-named page.
</blockquote>
In short, use common sense and [[MarioWiki:Don't shoot your foot off|don't shoot your foot off]].
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 23, 2017, 23:59 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|Time Turner}}
#{{User|Niiue}} Per TT.
#{{User|Alex95}} - I've sort of been doing this myself already anyway
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Sure. I have never really used those pages when I wrote articles of the ''[[Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS]]'''s levels. I only started using the about template when it was just either ''[[Super Mario Maker]]'' or the remake that had this set of numbers. Even then, I use this to send the reader to the other place, not the one that had both. In general, the only times that they need to be link the one to the one with many uses is on the most commonly used the most often. Which means that it is in ()s. And if your wondering why I haven't said the name even once, the reason is I don't know the name well enough to type it out very easily. This doesn't mean I don't know what it does. Per proposal.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} I have my doubts, but I think maybe this should specifically apply in certain cases where there aren't enough disambiguated pages (like cases where there are only two pages to be disambiguated). Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
====Oppose====
#{{User|Megadardery}} Redundancy when comes to linking is a delicate matter. If it makes sense to link to other pages similar to the current page, the reader might be interested in reading more. It's not like we are linking a completely irrelevant page. This is especially true for the first case, if the reader stumbled upon this page by pure chance, they are willing to read more, and expanding the number of rational links to similar and related topics is helpful. If the reader reached the specific page he wanted, a million links to other articles will never stop them from reading, so regarding that as a distraction is a poor reason. Also my comment
====Comments====
Let's take the navigation template by the same reasoning:
#If a reader ends there by chance, they weren't interested in any particular page, and there is no need to point them to many other articles that just share the same game.
#is a moot point
#If a reader ends up there through a link within the body of another article, then unless they blindly clicked a link (brings us back to point 1) or they reached the article they wanted to read (sends us to point 4)
#If a reader searches for any article, they'll arrive at it. So? Why even direct them at potential reads?--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 18:46, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
:Pardon, but I'm not sure I understand the relevance to this proposal. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 18:47, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
::I was trying to illustrate that redundancy when it comes to linking is not enough reason to remove the link.--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 18:58, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
:::Don't we already remove redundant links per the [[MarioWiki:Manual_of_Style#Critical_criteria|Manual of Style]]? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:03, 17 August 2017 (EDT)
::::If you mean reoccurring links, that's a different situation, as it is already linked once in the same article. {{unsigned|Megadardery}}
I'm going to butt in here and say that one of the reasons why it's not ''entirely'' necessary to use {{tem|about}} on pages with identifiers is because the reader might search for the same page title and possibly look for different identifiers. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 22:43, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
===Expand proposal rule 10 to apply to proposals with more than two options===
{{ProposalOutcome|cancelled}}
Just look at the example [[Talk:Coin Bag#Split the Mario Party Coin Bag from the Super Princess Peach Coin Bag|here]]! Although I feel that the move was warranted and compliant with policy, I also feel that the outcome was too close to actually warrant the move. Therefore, I propose that rule 10 of the proposal system apply to proposals with additional options as well.
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Toadette the Achiever}}<br>
'''Proposed Deadline:''' September 5, 2017, 23:59 GMT<br>
'''Date Withdrawn:''' August 29, 2017, 19:52 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per proposal.
====Oppose====
#{{User|3D Player 2010}} technically, that proposal only had 9 voters.  Also, I feel that rule 10 is very arbitrary and I would personally prefer to simply get rid of that rule instead.
#{{user|Shokora}} &ndash; Applying rule 10 to proposals with more than two options isn't easy or practical. For example, if most people kept voting for both the first and second option, it would take a large number of voters to even gain a majority of more than three votes. Hence why for such proposals, we instead count the total number of individual ''voters'', and find which option has gained favour from a majority of voters. In the case of the coin bag proposal, the first option was selected by six of the ten voters, and that's a majority.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Shokora.
====Comments====
@Shokora: Yeah, you bring up a good point. It's more complex than I thought. I guess I'll cancel this proposal then.
===Decide if the ''Mario's Time Machine'' historical figures are characters and/or people===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|1-2-8|they are characters and people}}
(for the purposes of the wiki and as it is used in this proposal, a "character" is someone fictional while a "person" is someone real)
This proposal, stemming from a discussion on [[Template talk:People]], primarily centers around the numerous historical figures that appear in ''[[Mario's Time Machine]]''. Note that this proposal currently does not cover the game's developers who inserted themselves into the game while directly using their names, faces, and voices, but that's a can of worms that I'll set aside for the moment. When it comes to the actual historical figures themselves, everyone from the game (who has an article) was a real, breathing person who impacted the course of history. They aren't just satirical or obviously fictionalized versions of the actual people: in the context of the game, Mario is traveling back in time and meeting the real people themselves. We also have a template, {{tem|People}}, that lists the real people that have contributed to the ''Mario'' franchise. With that in mind, should these historical figures be listed in this template? There are other ramifications as well, but this is the most obvious example of what will be changed.
To some extent, these characters are similar to some of the guest stars of ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]''. [[Ernie Hudson]], for example, is a real, living person (who happens to still be alive!), but at the same time, he's not literally himself in the show, but rather a fictionalized version of himself based on the role he played in the fictional film ''Ghostbusters''. Even with more mundane examples like [[Nicole Eggert]], there's still a quirk or an oddity about them that obviously only exists because they're characters. Due to this, they, along with several others like [[David Horowitz]], [[Shabba-Doo]], [[Jim Lange]], and others, are currently being treated as both characters and people.
However, there's a notable difference: in the show, these real characters are being portrayed by the actual people, whereas the historical figures in ''Mario's Time Machine'' are, obviously, not portrayed by their real life counterparts. Ernie Hudson the character is played by Ernie Hudson the actor. Thus, merely being based on a real person isn't necessarily enough to be considered as an actual person. For example, [[Cher]], while being a real person, is not played by the real {{wp|Cher|Cherilyn Sarkisian}}, so she is only treated as a character. The historical figures are simply blobs of pixels played by a random voice actor, and not a real person portraying a live-action character directly based on themselves while also having the same name as themselves. However, at the same time, the historical figures ''are'' literally supposed to be the real people, and they are presented to the player as such (ignoring the odd joke or historical inaccuracy). Even if the literal real-life Marco Polo isn't playing himself in the game, is it still fair to describe the in-game Marco Polo as not being real?
There's perhaps also an argument to be made about including Cher and similar subjects in the People template or not including the guest stars at all, but for now, this is the way things are. In short, there are three options for dealing with this:
'''Option 1: They are characters.'''
This is currently how the characters are treated on the wiki. Essentially, this is the "do nothing" option. The historical figures will be treated as purely fictional characters, and no categories or templates will be updated.
'''Option 2: They are people.'''
They will be treated as though they are the real historical figures and not as fictional characters. This involves removing them from {{tem|Humans}}, placing them on {{tem|People}}, and adjusting the categories on their page so that they're treated as real people (for example, [[:Category:Deceased People]], would be applied to the vast majority of them).
'''Option 3: They are both.'''
Following the guest stars from ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'', this involves leaving them in their current templates and categories while also placing them on {{tem|People}}. This also involves making the same adjustments as in the second option, though without any potential removals.
<small>(technically, there's a fourth option in which they're neither characters nor people, but that's silly and won't be taken into account)</small>
After going through all of this, I personally think that the historical figures are too separated from their real life counterparts to be exclusively considered people, but consideration should also be given to the fact that they ''are'', to some extent, their real life counterparts. Still, this is meant to be decided by the users of the wiki. With all of this information having been presented, what do you think?
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 1, 2017, 23:59 GMT
====Option 1: They are characters====
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per proposal.
====Option 2: They are people====
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} They are real people. Since most of them are dead, they wouldn't have their real life counterpart for them to be portrayed. It may seem weird to list them with the video game developers, but this then again, these people are listed in the template, humans, weirdly. I mean, who wants Abraham Lincoln, Henry Ford, and Mozart with Ace, Alex, Mario, Luigi, Peach, Daisy, and the last four's baby counterparts. They should be removed from that section. Preferably by outright removing them.
#{{User|3D Player 2010}} per all
====Option 3: They are characters ''and'' people====
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per what I said in the above option, but with some added stuff besides what is mentioned in the proposal. If this option is taken, however, the human template should be updated to have those in Mario's Time Machine separated from Mario franchise, but near it. Although this is just a suggestion, this is what I recommend.
#{{User|Alex95}} - They appear(ed) in both reality and the games, so it makes sense to me that they would be classified as both.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Alex95.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Portrayals of real life characters in fictional narratives undertake a lot of different artistic interpretations to alter them in an environment they are worth suited for, and therefore would be considered fictional in a way, and therefore, called a "character". Unlike our articles here that deal with real people, which has their biographies and their roles down, the characters in the Mario is Missing game and other titles are definitely altered from their nonfictional environment to be considered fictional to an extent, and they are NPCs in a game that have the same level as interaction as all other NPCs in other video games. It is worth noting that these people are still direct inspirations from actual living people and retains a lot of traits that are common knowledge to them, so they should definitely be also classified as people as well, unlike parodies of people like those with slightly different names than the ones they are based off of. I'm also not opposed to a creation of a new category dedicated to this hybrid, "Characters directly based off real people" or something like that, my wording is terrible. Bottom line is, this is the most attractive option for me.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all.
#{{user|Shokora}} &ndash; This makes the most sense to me. Per all.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Changing my vote, per Baby Luigi.
====Comments====
Articles that will be affected:
*[[Abraham Lincoln]]
*[[Albert Einstein]]
*[[Anne Hathaway]]
*[[Aristotle]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]]
*[[Catherine Dickens]]
*[[Charles Dickens]]
*[[Charles-Gaspard de la Rive]]
*[[Cleopatra]]
*[[Deborah Read]]
*[[Duke of Alençon]]
*[[Edmund Halley]]
*[[Ferdinand Magellan]]
*[[Francis Drake]]
*[[Frederick Douglass]]
*[[Galileo Galilei]]
*[[Ho Ti]]
*[[Isaac Newton]]
*[[Joan of Arc]]
*[[Johann Gutenberg]]
*[[Juan Sebastian Del Cano]]
*[[Julius Caesar]]
*[[Kublai Khan]]
*[[Leonardo da Vinci]]
*[[Louis Pasteur]]
*[[Ludwig van Beethoven]]
*[[Mahatma Gandhi]]
*[[Marco Polo]]
*[[Mary Todd Lincoln]]
*[[Michael Faraday]]
*[[Michelangelo Buonarroti]]
*[[Minamoto no Yoritomo]]
*[[Pierre Paul Emile Roux]]
*[[Plato]]
*[[Queen Elizabeth I]]
*[[Raphael Sanzio]]
*[[Richard Burbage]]
*[[Royal Society]]
*[[Sarah Barnard]]
*[[Thomas Edison]]
*[[Thomas Jefferson]]
*[[Ts'ai Lun]]
*[[William Shakespeare]]
Future articles that will be affected:
*[[Booker T. Washington]]
*[[Constanze Mozart]]
*[[George Washington Carver]]
*[[Henry Ford]]
*[[Joseph Haydn]]
*[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]]
<!-- -->
===Encourage patrollers and administrators to check [[:Category:Talk pages with unresolved issues]] on a regular basis===
{{ProposalOutcome|vetoed|It is not up to the users to decided what the staff can and can't do.}}
The {{tem|talk}} template is extremely useful, but the issues brought up often remain neglected, or answered when the questioner had already forgotten about it. Receiving a relevant answer, no matter what the answer is ("IDK"s count), might take a week to a month. There is even [[Talk:Yoshi's Safari|one issue that has been left unattended to for over a year now]]! I think it's about time we ask certain users to answer certain questions, even if their answers don't quite help the questioner or are even just a matter of "I don't know". Which brings me here. I propose that patrollers and administrators alike potentially add [[:Category:Talk pages with unresolved issues]] to their list of administrative categories to check on a regular basis, and set it in stone as official policy.
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Toadette the Achiever}}<br>
'''Proposed Deadline:''' September 9, 2017, 23:59 GMT<br>
'''Date Withdrawn:''' September 2, 2017, 17:18 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Let's bring this neglected category back into the ''real'' spotlight! Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Radio}} Per proposal
====Oppose====
====Comments====
You really can't force people to answer questions, least of all because they may not even have any answers. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 01:57, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
:I'm not really forcing questions to be answered, I just want the category checked periodically for new questions. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 02:30, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
::And what do you want them to do after they see that a new question has appeared? If all they're doing is looking at it, then what's the point? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 02:44, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
:::It's to see if they can easuly answer it or not. If not, they can try to contact another user who might know or answer that they don't know the answer. Really, I'm not asking for admins to be able to answer questions; rather, I'm asking for admins to make an '''effort''' to answer questions. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 02:52, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
::::It's not as if admins have an intuitive awareness of who is particularly familiar with certain games, and again, there's no guarantee that they'll know the answer. Even if the admin knows the answer, they may be working on another project already or they're preoccupied with any number of admin tasks or they simply do not have the proper opportunity to give a satisfactory answer to the question. Requiring them to keep up with the category, even if they're not required to answer any questions, is simply an unnecessary burden. In short, let them do it of their own free will on their own free time. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 03:02, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
:Let's not forget the fact that I intentionally left out the time frame for that reason. Yes, it's obviously '''''not''''' going to be a '''''daily''''' basis, but I think it might be either weekly or biweekly, and yet this also depends for each individual admin. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 03:11, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
::Changed the proposal to address your concern. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 03:13, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
:::I never said it was daily, but the timeframe does not matter, especially if you expand if to the point where it becomes trivial. Why do you want to give admins more busywork that they may not even be able to complete in any satisfactory manner? And if this isn't mandatory, this is simply a request and something for the admins to consider doing every once in a while, why require them to follow it? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 03:14, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
I agree partially. [[Talk:Black Shy Guy|Some]] [[Talk:Pyrobot|unresolved]] [[Talk:Naval Bud|talk]] [[Talk:Donkey Kong Jungle Beat|pages]] [[Talk:Lumacomète|are]] just policy issues. One question on the [[Talk:Snapjaw|Snapjaw talkpage]] has already been answered, it just hasn't got the ball rolling. These examples, among many others, should definitely be checked by some administerial figure. Though I also agree that [[Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle#Models|some]] [[Talk:Mario Party: Island Tour#PAL minigame rules|questions]] would require someone to be able to obtain or perform something outside the wiki space or the virtual world of the Internet, which isn't always possible. -- {{User:Super Radio/Sig}}
And what are you going to do about the them? (Just out of curiosity.) {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 10:42, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
1. [https://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=38962.0 There was a discussion about this on the forums]. May want to look more into that. 2. From what I've read about before in the past, proposals that affect how the administrative team works is usually frowned upon. Stuff like this is usually brought up internally, or privately. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 12:32, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/Special:MobileDiff/2230074...3924394"