MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/47: Difference between revisions
m (PorpleBot moved page MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 47 to MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/47: Text replacement - "Proposals/Archive " to "Proposals/Archive/") |
m (Text replacement - "Mario (franchise)" to "Super Mario (franchise)") |
||
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
'''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 [[ | 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 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 [[ | ::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 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 [[ | 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 [[ | #{{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: | #{{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 239: | Line 239: | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
#{{user|Shokora}} – Per the arguments in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | #{{user|Shokora}} – 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 282: | 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: | 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 297: | 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: | #{{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 323: | 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| | ===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 330: | Line 330: | ||
'''Deadline:''' June 3, 2017, 23:59 GMT | '''Deadline:''' June 3, 2017, 23:59 GMT | ||
====Merge {{tem| | ====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| | #{{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 339: | 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| | #{{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| | #{{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 366: | 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/ | 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 440: | 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 464: | 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 | :::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 527: | Line 527: | ||
**{{tem|Lava Bubbles}} | **{{tem|Lava Bubbles}} | ||
**{{tem|Magikoopas}} | **{{tem|Magikoopas}} | ||
**{{tem| | **{{tem|Yoshi forms}} | ||
**{{tem|Mushrooms}} | **{{tem|Mushrooms}} | ||
**{{tem|Octoombas}} | **{{tem|Octoombas}} | ||
Line 632: | Line 632: | ||
===The Usage of Old Names in Articles=== | ===The Usage of Old Names in Articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-8|use 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/ | 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''': | '''Pros''': | ||
Line 689: | Line 689: | ||
===Create an archive system for talk page proposals=== | ===Create an archive system for talk page proposals=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|13-0|create}} | {{ProposalOutcome|passed|13-0|create}} | ||
[[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | [[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. | 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. | ||
Line 896: | Line 896: | ||
====Option 2: They are people==== | ====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|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 | #{{User|3D Player 2010}} per all | ||
Line 911: | Line 910: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Articles that will be affected: | Articles that will be affected: | ||
*[[Abraham Lincoln]] | *[[Abraham Lincoln]] | ||
Line 966: | Line 964: | ||
<!-- --> | <!-- --> | ||
===Encourage patrollers and administrators to check [[:Category: | ===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.}} | {{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: | 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> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Toadette the Achiever}}<br> |
Revision as of 15:29, May 28, 2023
Merge Redundant Paper Mario ItemsTemplate:ProposalOutcome There are several items from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door which are clearly intended to return in Super Paper Mario, but have different pages due to having different English names. Considering that they look identical and usually have the same name in every country except the US, they should probably be merged as per the precedent set by more proposals than I can count. As for the items having slightly different effects between games, that happens all the time. Here's a list of the proposed changes:
If there are any I missed, let me know. Proposer: Niiue (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsAllow users to make a user subpage for 'Shroom sectionsTemplate:ProposalOutcome I made a proposal that would allow users to make a sub page filled with all of their 'Shroom sections. (See the proposal archives) Only I voted so it was 'NO QUORUM'. I am asking for more users to vote, not just me. In the page, users would copy their section from an issue of The 'Shroom and paste it onto their page (unless if there is a way to translude it). Users can choose what sections to put in it. They can put either all of their sections, their favourite ones, or have one section and replace it each time they write for The 'Shroom. Users can slo choose to link sections if they want to. This would make it easier to find sections made by a certain user without wasting time looking through the archives. This page will also make it easy to count how many sections a particular user has written. Proposer: Mr Squid (talk) SupportOppose
Comments
I want to point out, regarding the "make it easy to count how many sections a particular user has written", we do have this. --™ The 'Shroom 03:52, 31 March 2017 (EDT) Repurpose {{userspace}}Template:ProposalOutcome As highlighted by Magikrazy (talk) in this forum post, the necessity of the {{userspace}} template has come under question. His main concerns are that it seems redundant to hand out when a user overly edits in their userspace, and that the template itself is too wordy and takes too long to get to the point. Baby Luigi (talk) also mentioned that many users with high userspace edits often have it due to experimentation with wiki coding, which is a productive use of editing if it is meant to go onto official articles. These two reasons is why I propose a restructuring of the userspace template; removing the too many userspace edits reason, and just sending out (in)formal reminders for that instead on a case-by-case basis. I also propose reformatting the template so that it only covers genuine violations of the userspace policy and gets to the point faster. This way, the template won't need to be handed out so liberally, and it will better get the attention of those in violation of the policy. Proposer: Lord Bowser (talk) Repurpose the template
Leave as is
Comments@Toadette the Achiever - I don't propose removing it entirely, since it can still serve a legitimate purpose. I just wanted to retool and rewrite it so that it would only be issued in the case of userspace policy violations, and informal reminders being sent out in the case of excess unproductive userspace edits. This would increase to formal reminders and warnings if it persists, similar to the current policy in place. LB (talk • edits • forum) 19:02, 5 April 2017 (EDT) Something lacking is the link to Special:Editcount. This is clearer than Special:Contributions because one page keeps count of edits while the other lists each edit made by the user. Here's me: For new users, Special:Editcount is more useful while for long time users or frequent editors, Special:Contributions is more useful. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 19:10, 5 April 2017 (EDT) @Wildgoosespeeder - It is important to remember that many users, including yourself and myself, have their own personal sandboxes under userspace, used for things such as template drafts, policy drafts, experimentation, and so on. All of these edits add up on Special:Editcount under the User row. Encouraging people to use the wiki sandbox when you have your own personal one is contradictory and borderline hypocritical. LB (talk • edits • forum) 04:15, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
If anyone was curious, I've created a potential new userspace template on my sandbox. Feel free to comment on anything that should be changed within it. LB (talk • edits • forum) 04:48, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
I think that number of user space edits alone does not determine whether a user is editing their user space too much. For example, a user may use a sandbox to work on a very big project. This would not be in violation of policy because it is helpful to the wiki. What is not allowed is making a very large number of edits on pages that are not helpful to the wiki, such as a main userpage, while making little to no mainspace edits. I think that the template cloud be rewritten to make that clear, as well as adding detail about other types of userspace violation. --Super Mario Fan 67 (T•C•S) 08:56, 6 April 2017 (EDT) Discourage OGG Extension (Not Format)Template:ProposalOutcome
The *.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 Xiph.Org Foundation, the developers of OGG, recommend the extensions I am proposing[1]. VLC Media Player already registers all known extensions of this standard. My guess is back in the day, OGG was just audio (such as 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 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 Pywikibot can do this stuff automatically.
Proposer: Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsSort of related...do we still need {{requirescortado}}? I thought browsers supported this by default. --Super Mario Fan 67 (T•C•S) 17:43, 25 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. LB (talk • edits • forum) 03:01, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
Yoshi the Space Station Manager (talk), this is just a browser issue. Chrome supports MP4, WebM, and OGG/OGV/OGA. Internet Explorer just MP4 (automatically) and WebM (with a 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 VLC Media Player. Applications? You mean like *.exe, *.zip, *.rar, *.7z? That's Porplemontage (talk)'s decision and I don't blame him for it. 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. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 18:21, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
Xiph.Org Foundation recommends the extensions I am proposing. [2] --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 18:56, 26 April 2017 (EDT) Again, I'll be doing the work to get things up to standards. It's a one time deal. Title changed so the file extension is acceptable but should be moved to a better extension. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 20:39, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
Baby Luigi (talk), you don't even need to do it through Audacity. You can just use 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 *.jpeg because File:New Nintendo 3DS and New Nintendo 3DS XL.jpg can exist separately. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 21:09, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
Create Template:Pmitem-infoboxTemplate:ProposalOutcome 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. Here's the current draft in my sandbox, which is mostly incomplete at the moment. Proposer: Niiue (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI think it should really be called Template:RPGiteminfobox, since I don't see why this can't include the Mario & Luigi series as well. (T|C) 20:28, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
@Wildgoosespeeder: I wouldn't worry about that too much at the moment, considering that the Stickers/Battle Cards don't currently have their own pages. Niiue (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
New {{spoileralert}} templateTemplate:ProposalOutcome Like many other readers of Super Mario Wiki, I have made the big mistake of reading the "Story" sections of game pages. This section gives spoilers that don't make the game as fun. I propose that we make a {{spoileralert}} template that warns users for spoilers. This template would go directly beneath the "Story" heading in game articles. Also, if this proposal is successful, I would like to know how to make this template, so please post here on my talk page. Proposer: YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Niiue: We are not every other wiki, though. Every wiki has their own rules. 12:22, 5 May 2017 (EDT) Create templates for the Super Smash Bros. head imagesTemplate:ProposalOutcome I've noticed looking though Equipment#Equipment list that all of the head images for the characters in Super Smash Bros. look kind of tedious to type out. So, I thought it'd be easier and more efficient to have templates for the heads instead. The code would be like {{SSBMMario}} for the Mario image from Super Smash Bros. Melee, which would turn out like this: . Currently, it's all linking to the image itself and, again, is rather tedious to type out: [[File:Mario SSBM.png|link=Mario|Mario]]. Codes would be as follows for each game (and just substitute "Mario" for the character):
In many cases, like the linked Equipment page above, these would be great to have. They're quick, efficient, and consistent. Unlike how the Equipment page is set up, where the coding is everywhere... These can be useful in several charts, either already created or could be created, where we would need to show only the head of the character for easy reference. Proposer: Alex95 (talk) SupportOpposeCommentsI don't understand why this would be only for Super Smash Bros. characters. In the wiki, multiple instances of this is already used, like in Mario Kart 8, Mario Kart 7, Superstar Challenge. I personally don't see much benefit for this template. Ray Trace(T|C) 00:03, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
New Notice Template: refrequestTemplate:ProposalOutcome
Currently, there is only one template dedicated to pages that have unsourced information, which is {{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 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 here. Proposer: TheDisneyGamer (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWikipedia has a different policy than us when it comes to creating citations though. We're far more lenient with trusting the userbase on information they have gained from playing video games. The only articles this would be really useful in are articles dealing with real world matters, like reception sections, development, rarely trivia sections, legacy, etc which are very few articles on this wiki. I don't think this template would be as useful as it is in other wikis and having just ref needed actually works (and most of the time when we come across that, we usually just outright delete it if people can't source their claims). Ray Trace(T|C) 14:14, 29 April 2017 (EDT)
My only concern with an additional template is we already have {{ref needed}} and we could do something more clever with it. Is there any way to put an alert at the top of the page automatically by editing the already existing template? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 18:55, 1 May 2017 (EDT) @Yoshi876: The point of a "garish" template is to direct editors to the main problem of the article, as being unsourced is clearly not fine. If it is being "garish", it's doing its job exactly as it is intended of informing readers of bad problems. In fact, I think it's even uglier on the flipside to what we're currently doing seeing the {{ref needed}} all over the place in the article (some articles can be mostly devoid of necessary cited sources) instead of all of those issues being congested into one template that does its job of immediately pointing out readers that a good chunk of statements that isn't sourced. It immediately notifies the reader, rather than the less apparent {{ref needed}} template. But this is an argument from an aesthetics point of view, which is, in itself, fallacious; we intentionally designed those templates to be hideous, garish, and ugly in the first place, you can't really fault it when we designed it that way to begin with. Though the new category proposed isn't such a great idea that I pretty much agree with. Ray Trace(T|C) 15:38, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
Either merge {{Yoshi forms}} into {{Yoshis}}, or remove the transformation section from {{Yoshis}}Template:ProposalOutcome 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. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Merge {{Yoshi forms}} into {{Yoshis}}Remove the transformation section from {{Yoshis}}
Do nothingComments@Alex95: ...Then why not vote for that option? Niiue (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2017 (EDT)
@Wildgoosespeeder: I... really don't see how that's similar at all. Niiue (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2017 (EDT)
Remove the eleventh featured article/list standardTemplate:ProposalOutcome "11. [An article must] be of reasonable length and not marked as a stub." 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, 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 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: Time Turner (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsSo, to confirm, articles of any size would be able to become featured as long as they meet the other ten requirements, right? --™ The 'Shroom 21:46, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
@YoshiFlutterJump: The proposal linked to is referring to decreasing the the size an article needs to be to become an Featured Article, not about removing the rule, so this proposal still is necessary in order to remove the rule. Also, stubs cannot become featured articles, as a featured article cannot be tagged with any sort of improvement tags, which includes {{stub}}. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2017 (EDT) @Supermariofan67: Why can't a short article be the best? If it follows all of the other standards to a T, I frankly don't see why the content should be outright ignored. What about its length says anything about the article itself? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 16:27, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
If that were the case, the Featured Article nomination would easily fail because it doesn't pass the "well-written" rule that is put up there easily for that reason, and therefore, would not be fit as a Featured Article. This is a strawman of imposing a minimum size guideline, and obviously, we're not going to feature articles that are flowery or padded out just for the sake of meeting just one rule out of the rest of rules that are there to keep things in check. It's like badly formatting images just so the article can meet the image requirement. A minimum size requirement rule assumes that the article is already well-written and covers everything about the subject. My idea is to make it, y'know, a guideline. Have say 2,000 words give or take 100 or 50 or whatever.
I'd argue that length is an element of quality for an article to be featured on MarioWiki, just like how something should be well-written or something should have high quality images to be considered to be featured. We feature articles because they provide meaningful, detailed content, they represent the best MarioWiki has to offer. The best means that all factors have to be taken into account, and for this, we're not looking at just its length as you're implying. Many articles have barriers to prevent them from passing to be featured on the main page, even if they're written the best they could. If they lack images because they're too obscure to be found, they can't be featured. Shorter articles have their length as their barrier of entry, and this barrier prevents us from calling any article the "best" on MarioWiki. There's plenty of fish in the sea for MarioWiki, and having a minimum size limit rule picks out only the best and biggest fish, which is supposed to be the Featured Article's original purpose. There's a huge reason that most Featured Articles are long and detailed, it's because they provide content in both size and quality, and there's a reason shorter articles like Culex are in the vast minority. And finally, this argument fails because it's a false dichotomy. This is not a binary problem, an article can be BOTH large and have quality content, it's what separates the longer FAs from the very, very short ones, and what I think is a huge quality difference between the two. The proposal Time Turner linked to looks really flimsy to my eyes today, I really wouldn't cite it for serious reasons. Also, in my thread, most responses were against the Good Articles idea, and no one has bothered even refuting my comments on how quantity can be linked to quality if you think about it. I'd also per Glowsquid's comment in that thread, "It's like, if you think there's a minimum length needed for front page exposure, that's fine, and it's a principle nearly every print media operates on, but "featuring" content will always be exclusionary in nature." Removing a minimum word limit is not how print media operates on and we shouldn't ignore why they have a minimum word count, aside from using false dichotomy arguments that quality and quantity have to be separate qualities of an article. Ray Trace(T|C) 16:59, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
I think the "stub" part could be removed, as that seems to also fall under Rule 5.
I am going to bring up the Bible. I know not every one believes it, but it is one of the largest books and it is considered one of the bests. So, this does show quality and quantity to be near equal. But, let me show you two different things. The first is the incomplete Bible. This Bible is a little less than the Bible, but you wouldn't know that unless you compared them. This incomplete Bible drops in quality, too. The second is child Bible. This may sound like an incomplete Bible, but the difference is it is meant for children. It has the quality of the Bible it comes from without the quantity. The only time quality and quantity aren't related. Now to translate this to articles. There will be long articles with good quality, and long articles with no good quality. If we bring in short articles of good quality, they won't make much difference. And, by the way, there would be an indirect length standard. Why? We would not want a whole article or a lot of it on the front page, which would only happen if it is just an intro. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
Ray Trace(T|C) 15:34, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
@Wildgoosespeeder: That's what the opposing side is arguing. (T|C) 08:52, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
I will not vote so as to keep discussion flowing for another week or so, but I don't think outright removing the rule is a good idea. Length isn't a factor in quality of an article, but we shouldn't just throw around the Featured Article status to any Kart article just because it's well written. I don't like the idea of a set in stone "it must be this long or absolutely no feature", but not having a length rule will just oversaturate the Featured Article list with well written but tiny articles about Paper Mario NPCs and Mario Party items. How will that make us look? Really, I think the best thing to do when it comes to article length is use your common sense. If it doesn't look too short to you, go ahead and nominate it. The worst that can happen is it's not featured. Yeah, this rule ends up excluding some well written articles. Oh well. If your goal when writing articles is only to get them featured, then you're wasting your time. Magikrazy (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
People throw around feel-good statements like "Length shouldn't a factor as long as the article is well-written", and to be honest, I think it's kind of, for a lack of a better word, deluded. If you're going to focus all eyeballs on a specific page for a week of time, length *absolutely* does matter. The Featured Article spot is basicallly marketing for the wiki. It exist to retain new readers and fidelize existing ones. People who nominate articles may have a different agenda for doing so (likely vindicating their efforts on writing a page or to publicize their favourite character), but even there's an underlying goal of having an article exposed to as many people as possible because someones want to. You impress people by having up-to-date information on the latest games, with fancy and creative ways of presenting statistics lsited or unlisted, or having an exhaustive and accurate description of every media a 20-years old character has appeared in. You don't impress people with three-paragraph articles about Paper Mario NPCs. Ultimately I agree with Baby Luigi's statement that articles being well written (... and accurate) should be the baseline expectation, not something to throw a shiny sticker at. A page like Goombob is fine. Indeed it may be "better" that a bloated article that looks superficially "big" and "impressive" at a first skimming, but reveals itself to have clumsy writting and poorly-organized information. But a page like that isn't what you use to show you're the definitive Mario fansite out there. --Glowsquid (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
Also it seems my commen went over your head because I never implied articles should artificially be padded or that being more lengthy is innherently "better". The opposite even. My point is that a page specifically linked to the front page for its quality should be both "big" and good. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2017 (EDT) I posted all this in Discord, so I'm just gonna copy/paste what I said there (save typos and whatever): "I think this sort of thing would be decided on a case-by-case basis, like what LB said on his oppose. If it's well written and has enough detail to adequately state what the subject is, then great. But we probably wouldn't nominate articles like Bumble V or whatever. The current issue with Culex is, I think, probably a good representation here. It has solid information, describes what the subject is, and the history around him. It is also of considerable length, imo. Whereas Bumble V is well written (from what I can tell, anyway), but is rather short as it really only appeared in one game (though so did Culex), so there isn't much about it. All in all, the ultimate decision would boil down to the nomination process itself and what other users would have to say about it. I do think the stub thing in rule 11 should be removed, as I think that's covered in rule 5. As for rule 11 itself, I'm not so sure... "Point I'm trying to make is: Length should be considered, but the size of the article should be taken with some common sense, you know? If it's a well-written article, but only one paragraph long, it probably won't be nominated. Whereas if the article is over 30,000 bytes long, but is a complete mess and info is jumbled, it wouldn't be nominated either. I feel like this proposal is a waste of time, tbh. Everyone has different opinions over what counts as a "long article", that it should be decided on the proposal pages itself." I would vote to support the removal of the rule, but at the same time, I feel the rule should be rewritten. 00:29, 12 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. Magikrazy (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2017 (EDT) Standardization of Species Templates' EndingsTemplate:ProposalOutcome This is a simple issue: when it comes to navigation templates based on species, some are pluralized (e.g. {{Boos}} and {{Koopa Troopas}}), and some are singularized (e.g. {{Human}} and {{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: Time Turner (talk) Pluralize
SingularizeDo nothingCommentsFull list of covered templates:
@Alex: The plan is to have a bot take care of the dirty work. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:25, 31 July 2017 (EDT) Do Something With Game-Specific Species CategoriesTemplate:ProposalOutcome So, Time Turner 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-Plants, Humans, Piantas, and the like. Use species categories only for non-hostile species: Similar to the previous option, except it would also include things like Fire Flowers and Beanstalks. 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: Niiue (talk) Use species categories only for non-hostile, non-item, non-object species
Use species categories only for non-hostile speciesDelete species categoriesDo nothingCommentsObligatory list of affected categories: Category:Donkey Kong 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: wut Niiue (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2017 (EDT) The Usage of Old Names in ArticlesTemplate:ProposalOutcome 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 "Bloober" 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 [[Blooper|Bloober]], always maintaining the old name. Though this isn't outlined in the policy pages, as far as I can tell, there was a proposal that set out to outline this exact issue, and ultimately decided to use old names when relevant (thank you Alex95 (talk). However, I'm not entirely in agreement with the outcome.. To outline the pros and cons of the current situation: Pros:
Considering that these names were consistently used until they happened to be changed, it naturally follows that our articles reflect that.
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:
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.
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. 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 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: Time Turner (talk) Use new names for articles
Use old names for articles
CommentsI 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. 00:25, 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." Shokora (talk · edits) 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 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". 01:59, 1 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)". SmokedChili (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2017 (EDT)
Create an archive system for talk page proposalsTemplate:ProposalOutcome 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 (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 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 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. 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: Time Turner (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI 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. Ray Trace(T|C) 22:50, 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). Hello, I'm Time Turner. 11:02, 5 August 2017 (EDT)
Merge Super Mario Sunshine sub-level articles into their missions' articlesTemplate:ProposalOutcome 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:
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: 7feetunder (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsDelete the RPG Item categoriesTemplate:ProposalOutcome (borrowing my argument from 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: Time Turner (talk) Delete
Don't deleteCommentsChange the sentence about the About template on MarioWiki:NamingI 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:
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:
In short, use common sense and don't shoot your foot off. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsLet's take the navigation template by the same reasoning:
Expand proposal rule 10 to apply to proposals with more than two optionsTemplate:ProposalOutcome Just look at the example 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: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
Oppose
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 peopleTemplate:ProposalOutcome (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, {{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 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 {{Humans}}, placing them on {{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 {{People}}. This also involves making the same adjustments as in the second option, though without any potential removals. (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) 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: Time Turner (talk) Option 1: They are characters
Option 2: They are people
Option 3: They are characters and people
CommentsArticles that will be affected:
Future articles that will be affected:
Encourage patrollers and administrators to check Category:Talk pages with unresolved issues on a regular basisTemplate:ProposalOutcome The {{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 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: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsYou really can't force people to answer questions, least of all because they may not even have any answers. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 01:57, 2 September 2017 (EDT)
I agree partially. Some unresolved talk pages are just policy issues. One question on the 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 some 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. -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE And what are you going to do about the them? (Just out of curiosity.) Yoshi the SSM (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2017 (EDT) 1. 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. 12:32, 2 September 2017 (EDT) |