MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/25: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Text replacement - "Mario" to "Super Mario") |
||
(41 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}} | |||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template}} | |||
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | <div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | ||
{{br}} | |||
===Allow autoconfirmed users edit other users' userpages=== | ===Allow autoconfirmed users edit other users' userpages=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-34|don't allow}} | |||
Recently I have seen red links, redirect links, etc. on other peoples userpages along with deleted images and I was wondering if us autoconfirmed users can edit their userpages for errors, etc. It really doesn't make sense that only sysops get to edit this so I set up this proposal. Also, on Wikia we get to edit others' userpages along with most other wikis. | Recently I have seen red links, redirect links, etc. on other peoples userpages along with deleted images and I was wondering if us autoconfirmed users can edit their userpages for errors, etc. It really doesn't make sense that only sysops get to edit this so I set up this proposal. Also, on Wikia we get to edit others' userpages along with most other wikis. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain K. Rool}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain K. Rool}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': March 19, 2011 14:30 GMT<br> | '''Voting start''': March 19, 2011 14:30 GMT<br> | ||
Line 87: | Line 77: | ||
::::Guys, please don't leave anymore comments about an insubstantial comment. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | ::::Guys, please don't leave anymore comments about an insubstantial comment. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | ||
:::::The third line of text [[MarioWiki:Protected page|here]] pretty much makes this entire proposal invalid... {{User|Phoenix}} 05:25, 27 March 2011 (EDT) | :::::The third line of text [[MarioWiki:Protected page|here]] pretty much makes this entire proposal invalid... {{User|Phoenix}} 05:25, 27 March 2011 (EDT) | ||
---- | |||
===Merge all of [[King Koopa's alter egos]] into one article=== | ===Merge all of [[King Koopa's alter egos]] into one article=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|20-3-0|merge to king koopa's alter egos}} | |||
On ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'' King Koopa has many alter egos. These alter egos are just him in a different costume. The costumes don't give him any extra abilities, they are only seen for one episode, and while wearing the costumes, King Koopa is no different from when he's not wearing the costumes. Thus, I propose to merge the alter-egos of King Koopa that currently have an article ([[Al Koopone]], [[Captain Koopa]], [[Emperor Augustus Septemberus Octoberus Koopa]],[[Kid Koopa]], [[Koopa Khan]], [[Koopa Klaus (alter ego)]], [[Moon Man Koopa]], and [[Robo Koopa (alter ego)]]) into a single article. I'd prefer merging them to [[King Koopa's alter egos]], but I'll also add a section to merge them to [[Bowser]]. | On ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'' King Koopa has many alter egos. These alter egos are just him in a different costume. The costumes don't give him any extra abilities, they are only seen for one episode, and while wearing the costumes, King Koopa is no different from when he's not wearing the costumes. Thus, I propose to merge the alter-egos of King Koopa that currently have an article ([[Al Koopone]], [[Captain Koopa]], [[Emperor Augustus Septemberus Octoberus Koopa]],[[Kid Koopa]], [[Koopa Khan]], [[Koopa Klaus (alter ego)]], [[Moon Man Koopa]], and [[Robo Koopa (alter ego)]]) into a single article. I'd prefer merging them to [[King Koopa's alter egos]], but I'll also add a section to merge them to [[Bowser]]. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': March 20, 2011, 15:50<br> | '''Voting start''': March 20, 2011, 15:50<br> | ||
Line 151: | Line 140: | ||
I think Robo Koopa should keep its own article, and FA status - if it's long enough and good enough, what's the point of merging and losing a great article. Instead, we can just use <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki>. If we merge it, we're bound to lose some information and that's not good for the Wiki. {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} | I think Robo Koopa should keep its own article, and FA status - if it's long enough and good enough, what's the point of merging and losing a great article. Instead, we can just use <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki>. If we merge it, we're bound to lose some information and that's not good for the Wiki. {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} | ||
:But that would be inconsistent. Besides, all the information can easily be saved. [[Robo Koopa (episode)]] already has a complete record of events, so shortening the alter ego's History into a summary isn't an issue. The Trivia about the ''RoboCop'' and ''Terminator'' reference can also go into the episode page, and the Powers and Abilities chart can go into [[Robo Suit]] (along with the other Trivia point about the "destroy you miserable little meddlers" button). So the only thing we'd be losing is an entry in out list of FAs, but that's a small price to pay for a much more efficient and consistent organization of Koopa's 30+ alter egos. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :But that would be inconsistent. Besides, all the information can easily be saved. [[Robo Koopa (episode)]] already has a complete record of events, so shortening the alter ego's History into a summary isn't an issue. The Trivia about the ''RoboCop'' and ''Terminator'' reference can also go into the episode page, and the Powers and Abilities chart can go into [[Robo Suit]] (along with the other Trivia point about the "destroy you miserable little meddlers" button). So the only thing we'd be losing is an entry in out list of FAs, but that's a small price to pay for a much more efficient and consistent organization of Koopa's 30+ alter egos. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
---- | |||
===Merge Minor NPCs with their location=== | ===Merge Minor NPCs with their location=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-16|don't merge}} | |||
There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article. I believe we should merge them with the location where they are, so they can be found easily. Also, many of these articles are stubs anyway, so it would also get rid of some stubs. | There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article. I believe we should merge them with the location where they are, so they can be found easily. Also, many of these articles are stubs anyway, so it would also get rid of some stubs. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshiwaker}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshiwaker}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': March 27, 1:00 GMT<br> | '''Voting start''': March 27, 1:00 GMT<br> | ||
Line 201: | Line 189: | ||
At least my proposal to merge all generic humans into one article had more good reasons then just they're all small/stubs and it will look good. Merging them all into a location article is as random as that TPP that wanted to merge Bozzo with Watchitt and NO it will not make the articles nicer, it will make it look cluttered-up, unorganized, and unprofessional. And plus, WE ARE USERS, NOT AMERICANS, what do we do when we notice a list of related articles are stubs, we either add information to expand it or do something to them (like merging) with very good logic and support, we don't lazily decide let's merge them all because I don't know a thing about about the article or I'm too lazy so I'll do the easiest thing that comes to mind without thinking over it. (P.s. No offense, and this wasn't directed only towards the proposer.) {{User|Zero777}} | At least my proposal to merge all generic humans into one article had more good reasons then just they're all small/stubs and it will look good. Merging them all into a location article is as random as that TPP that wanted to merge Bozzo with Watchitt and NO it will not make the articles nicer, it will make it look cluttered-up, unorganized, and unprofessional. And plus, WE ARE USERS, NOT AMERICANS, what do we do when we notice a list of related articles are stubs, we either add information to expand it or do something to them (like merging) with very good logic and support, we don't lazily decide let's merge them all because I don't know a thing about about the article or I'm too lazy so I'll do the easiest thing that comes to mind without thinking over it. (P.s. No offense, and this wasn't directed only towards the proposer.) {{User|Zero777}} | ||
::::"working together on it together"... yeaaah, I was ''really'' tired when I wrote that last comment: I'm just glad that was the ''only'' mistake ^_^; Anyway, in its strictest sense, I'd say a minor NPC is a character who you don't ever need to interact with in order to complete a game, including side-quests. For example, almost everyone in [[:Category:Flip- | ::::"working together on it together"... yeaaah, I was ''really'' tired when I wrote that last comment: I'm just glad that was the ''only'' mistake ^_^; Anyway, in its strictest sense, I'd say a minor NPC is a character who you don't ever need to interact with in order to complete a game, including side-quests. For example, almost everyone in [[:Category:Flip-Flop Folk]] is a "minor NPC", with exceptions like [[Red and Green (Super Paper Mario)]], [[Saffron]], [[Old Man Watchitt]], [[Pook]], etc. However, this is just a very basic definition: there's probably lots of exceptions, and any single blanket statement probably isn't the way to go about this; a list in MarioWiki namespace might be a more solid approach, but I don't really see any benefits of it: so we'd know they're "minor NPCs", so what? A basic knowledge of the games should tell people whether or not the pages are lacking info or not and should or shouldn't be labeled as Stubs, so a list isn't needed for that (for example); if we were going to delete all the pages and wanted to show people what not to write about, an inventory would make sense, but if the proposal fails, that's obviously not a factor. A category would not be a good idea, since labeling things as "minor NPCs" is a value judgement; that's okay for deciding what we do behind-the-scenes, but that sorta thing shouldn't go into mainspace: it's akin to speculation. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
:::::That was the point I was trying to make. The term "Minor NPCs" is so subjective, there would have to be one concise definition used if we pass this proposal. {{User|Bop1996}} | :::::That was the point I was trying to make. The term "Minor NPCs" is so subjective, there would have to be one concise definition used if we pass this proposal. {{User|Bop1996}} | ||
::::::I think my definition was quite concise. I also clarified/changed the proposal to make it easier to show that the main purpose isn't because of them being stubs.{{User|Yoshiwaker}} | ::::::I think my definition was quite concise. I also clarified/changed the proposal to make it easier to show that the main purpose isn't because of them being stubs.{{User|Yoshiwaker}} | ||
:::::::You might want to put your definition right in the proposal itself (so readers don't have to comb through the comments to figure out what exactly will be merged). You should also explain ''why'' you think they're too minor for articles: simply saying "''There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article[s].''" is rather tautological, leaving the "they're stubs" argument as the only thing to go on (the bit about finding things more easily doesn't relate to the "they're too minor for pages" aspect). - {{User|Walkazo}} | :::::::You might want to put your definition right in the proposal itself (so readers don't have to comb through the comments to figure out what exactly will be merged). You should also explain ''why'' you think they're too minor for articles: simply saying "''There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article[s].''" is rather tautological, leaving the "they're stubs" argument as the only thing to go on (the bit about finding things more easily doesn't relate to the "they're too minor for pages" aspect). - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
If I'm right on the definition, you want Culex, Jinx and Monstermana merged with Monstro Town, Toadofsky merged with Tadpole Pond and The Sunglasses Salesman and Doot-Doot Sisters merged with Isle Delfino? They have nothing to do with the main plot. {{User|Magikrazy51}} | If I'm right on the definition, you want Culex, Jinx and Monstermana merged with Monstro Town, Toadofsky merged with Tadpole Pond and The Sunglasses Salesman and Doot-Doot Sisters merged with Isle Delfino? They have nothing to do with the main plot. {{User|Magikrazy51}} | ||
---- | |||
===Input new rules for name changing=== | ===Input new rules for name changing=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-19|don't input}} | |||
I used up my 2 chances to change my name, but I find my current name to be too long. I say to increase the number of times we can change our names to three, and place a limit on how many letters, numbers, spaces, etc. to 20. It saves users from making their second (and last) name change, then realizing that the username is too long. | I used up my 2 chances to change my name, but I find my current name to be too long. I say to increase the number of times we can change our names to three, and place a limit on how many letters, numbers, spaces, etc. to 20. It saves users from making their second (and last) name change, then realizing that the username is too long. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}}<br> | |||
'''Voting start''': March 29, 2011 at 21:30 GMT <br> | '''Voting start''': March 29, 2011 at 21:30 GMT <br> | ||
'''Deadline''': April 6, 2011 at 21:30 GMT | '''Deadline''': April 6, 2011 at 21:30 GMT | ||
Line 272: | Line 260: | ||
:If the number of characters is ever a problem, we will fix it. {{User|Marioguy1}} | :If the number of characters is ever a problem, we will fix it. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
Pokémon Trainer Mario, a really easy way to get that "é" in Pokémon is to google "pokemon". The first entry has the word Pokémon with an "é". Just copy and paste it. [[User:Volatile Dweevil|Volatile Dweevil]] | Pokémon Trainer Mario, a really easy way to get that "é" in Pokémon is to google "pokemon". The first entry has the word Pokémon with an "é". Just copy and paste it. [[User:Volatile Dweevil|Volatile Dweevil]] | ||
---- | |||
===Make an Article for AR games=== | ===Make an Article for AR games=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|15-0|make an article for ar games}} | |||
I think AR games needs a page on here.It has a lot of Mario characters in it | I think AR games needs a page on here.It has a lot of Mario characters in it | ||
*[[Mario]] | *[[Mario]] | ||
Line 284: | Line 274: | ||
*[[Green Shell]](item) | *[[Green Shell]](item) | ||
No other wiki has a page for AR games,and it's Mario related,so it should have an article. | No other wiki has a page for AR games,and it's Mario related,so it should have an article. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': April 2, 5:30 GMT<br> | '''Voting start''': April 2, 5:30 GMT<br> | ||
Line 317: | Line 307: | ||
I still don't know what's an AR game because the website is too vague on what it specifically is. {{User|Zero777}} | I still don't know what's an AR game because the website is too vague on what it specifically is. {{User|Zero777}} | ||
:AR stands for [[ | :AR stands for [[wikipedia:Augmented reality|augmented reality]]. The second image in the Wikipedia article is (in my opinion) the best way to describe it. {{User|Mariomario64}} | ||
On the 3ds,there are these special cards,and you look at them in the camera and it makes it look like things are appearing wherever you have the camera.its kind of like virtual reality,but the opposite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FZP2jvNljs {{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} | On the 3ds,there are these special cards,and you look at them in the camera and it makes it look like things are appearing wherever you have the camera.its kind of like virtual reality,but the opposite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FZP2jvNljs {{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} | ||
Line 326: | Line 316: | ||
:I'd be happy with having them in the 3DS article or their own article, but there are a bunch of Mario-related minigames in there, and they need to be mentioned. {{User|Bop1996}} | :I'd be happy with having them in the 3DS article or their own article, but there are a bunch of Mario-related minigames in there, and they need to be mentioned. {{User|Bop1996}} | ||
::I'd go with both and use the <nowiki>{{main|Article Name}}</nowiki> template. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | ::I'd go with both and use the <nowiki>{{main|Article Name}}</nowiki> template. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | ||
---- | |||
===Remove certain entries in "References in Other Games" sections=== | ===Remove certain entries in "References in Other Games" sections=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|14-0|remove entries}} | |||
On most of the articles about games, there is a "References in Other Games" section that lists games that reference that game. What's the problem? If an enemy is introduced in one game, and then that enemy is used in a future game, it is considered a reference to the former game. May I ask why? If an enemy appears in another game, that means it is a recurring enemy. The first game just introduced it. | On most of the articles about games, there is a "References in Other Games" section that lists games that reference that game. What's the problem? If an enemy is introduced in one game, and then that enemy is used in a future game, it is considered a reference to the former game. May I ask why? If an enemy appears in another game, that means it is a recurring enemy. The first game just introduced it. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': 5 April, 2011, 10:15<br> | '''Voting start''': 5 April, 2011, 10:15<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': 12 April, 2011, 23:59 GMT. | '''Deadline''': 12 April, 2011, 23:59 GMT. | ||
====Delete those entries==== | ====Delete those entries==== | ||
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per proposal. | #{{User|Reversinator}} Per proposal. | ||
Line 358: | Line 346: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
But it technically could be a reference to the game since it debuted in an earlier game {{User|Iggykoopa}} | But it technically could be a reference to the game since it debuted in an earlier game {{User|Iggykoopa}} | ||
Line 371: | Line 358: | ||
References are not that simple; if they were, a concise rule set would be developed already. But as we do not know what Nintendo was thinking, we can't do this. I ''definitely'' don't think that every game with a Goomba in it is a reference to SMB, or that every game with Mario is a reference to the original DK. But sometimes when enemies appear, it is a reference (i.e. Dino Piranha in SMG is referenced by Peewee Piranha in SMG2 (sorry, couldn't think of anything better)). So it's complicated. And ''then'', to make matters more complicated - music. Sometimes music is remixed music from another game, sometimes it's the same, sometimes it's different, but we can't be sure whether music that sounds like it's from SMB3 is actually a reference to SMB3 or they just ran out of sound files so they remixed something. Like I said, the references to other games sections are very complicated. {{User|Marioguy1}} | References are not that simple; if they were, a concise rule set would be developed already. But as we do not know what Nintendo was thinking, we can't do this. I ''definitely'' don't think that every game with a Goomba in it is a reference to SMB, or that every game with Mario is a reference to the original DK. But sometimes when enemies appear, it is a reference (i.e. Dino Piranha in SMG is referenced by Peewee Piranha in SMG2 (sorry, couldn't think of anything better)). So it's complicated. And ''then'', to make matters more complicated - music. Sometimes music is remixed music from another game, sometimes it's the same, sometimes it's different, but we can't be sure whether music that sounds like it's from SMB3 is actually a reference to SMB3 or they just ran out of sound files so they remixed something. Like I said, the references to other games sections are very complicated. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
:I agree with Marioguy. Nintendo seems to love including nostalgic references to other games, and then not specifying whether it is a reference or not. Where does that leave us? It seems that this is going to be a case-by-case situation. However, I feel that this discussion is clouding the issue a bit. {{User|Bop1996}} | :I agree with Marioguy. Nintendo seems to love including nostalgic references to other games, and then not specifying whether it is a reference or not. Where does that leave us? It seems that this is going to be a case-by-case situation. However, I feel that this discussion is clouding the issue a bit. {{User|Bop1996}} | ||
---- | |||
===Split <nowiki>Category:Donkey Kong Levels</nowiki> into Separate Categories=== | ===Split <nowiki>Category:Donkey Kong Levels</nowiki> into Separate Categories=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|21-24|don't split}} | |||
This is my first proposal. There are many games in the [[Donkey Kong series]]. The category, Donkey Kong Levels, there is too much content. It has about 5 different games in one category. I think we should make categories for each game. For example, '''<nowiki>Category:Donkey Kong Country Levels</nowiki>''', etc. It would be easier to find levels and it wouldn't take up 2 pages! We should make one for every game such as [[Donkey Kong Country 2]], [[Donkey Kong Country 3]], [[DK: King of Swing]], etc. It just seems easier to navigate levels. We should also delete the original one if we make other categories. I will add a section for making new categories and I will add one for keep the original one as is. | This is my first proposal. There are many games in the [[Donkey Kong series]]. The category, Donkey Kong Levels, there is too much content. It has about 5 different games in one category. I think we should make categories for each game. For example, '''<nowiki>Category:Donkey Kong Country Levels</nowiki>''', etc. It would be easier to find levels and it wouldn't take up 2 pages! We should make one for every game such as [[Donkey Kong Country 2]], [[Donkey Kong Country 3]], [[DK: King of Swing]], etc. It just seems easier to navigate levels. We should also delete the original one if we make other categories. I will add a section for making new categories and I will add one for keep the original one as is. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br> | |||
'''Voting start''': March 23, 2011 20:51<br> | '''Voting start''': March 23, 2011 20:51<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': <s>March 31, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s> '''Extended''': <s>April 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s>, April 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT | '''Deadline''': <s>March 31, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s> '''Extended''': <s>April 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s>, April 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT | ||
Line 473: | Line 459: | ||
D'oh. Got the date mixed up, thought it was over. (Mortified expression) {{User|Bop1996}} | D'oh. Got the date mixed up, thought it was over. (Mortified expression) {{User|Bop1996}} | ||
---- | |||
===Apply new procedures for naming Starting Planets=== | ===Apply new procedures for naming Starting Planets=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|11-14|don't apply}} | |||
I apologize in advance to those of you who disapprove of this proposal, but it's my humble opinion that the Starting Planets in all the [[galaxy]] articles need actual names besides, well, "Starting Planet." From my standpoint, giving them all the name of "Starting Planet" is needlessly pigeonholing 91 different planets for the galaxy articles, when they could all be named something much better. In fact, I have already been to several galaxy articles where I found that this trend wasn't being followed anyway, as some are completely lacking planets that are referred to as the "Starting Planet," and others simply refer to the first planet encountered as "________ Planet (Starting Planet)." In addition, on the [[Melty Molten Galaxy]] article, we've got the main planet marked as the Starting Planet, and then five lines down where the other areas embedded in the main planet are discussed, it is now referred to as the "Lava Planet!" Therefore (as somewhat of a remedy to such inconsistencies and confusion), I propose that we keep the planets labeled as Starting Planets, but do so in such a way that we also give them names as well; i.e., label them all as "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" on every article. I mean, really, there's no reason why we can't do both, right? Thus, nothing important will actually be taken out of the article, and the only thing that ''should'' happen will be that the names of all the starting planets in each galaxy become clearer and easier to understand. If this proposal does pass, I will personally take it upon myself to go around to each of the Starting Planets and implement the necessary changes. | I apologize in advance to those of you who disapprove of this proposal, but it's my humble opinion that the Starting Planets in all the [[galaxy]] articles need actual names besides, well, "Starting Planet." From my standpoint, giving them all the name of "Starting Planet" is needlessly pigeonholing 91 different planets for the galaxy articles, when they could all be named something much better. In fact, I have already been to several galaxy articles where I found that this trend wasn't being followed anyway, as some are completely lacking planets that are referred to as the "Starting Planet," and others simply refer to the first planet encountered as "________ Planet (Starting Planet)." In addition, on the [[Melty Molten Galaxy]] article, we've got the main planet marked as the Starting Planet, and then five lines down where the other areas embedded in the main planet are discussed, it is now referred to as the "Lava Planet!" Therefore (as somewhat of a remedy to such inconsistencies and confusion), I propose that we keep the planets labeled as Starting Planets, but do so in such a way that we also give them names as well; i.e., label them all as "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" on every article. I mean, really, there's no reason why we can't do both, right? Thus, nothing important will actually be taken out of the article, and the only thing that ''should'' happen will be that the names of all the starting planets in each galaxy become clearer and easier to understand. If this proposal does pass, I will personally take it upon myself to go around to each of the Starting Planets and implement the necessary changes. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Phoenix}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Phoenix}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': April 7, 2011, 06:00 GMT.<br> | '''Voting start''': April 7, 2011, 06:00 GMT.<br> | ||
Line 638: | Line 623: | ||
::::@Marioguy1 - Gotcha. {{User|Phoenix}} 01:44, 17 April 2011 (EDT) | ::::@Marioguy1 - Gotcha. {{User|Phoenix}} 01:44, 17 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
---- | |||
===Split the [[:Category:Implied]] pages into sections based on the game in which it is implied.=== | ===Split the [[:Category:Implied]] pages into sections based on the game in which it is implied.=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-9|don't split}} | |||
I think that the implied pages should be split into sections in-page that allow the viewer to quickly jump to the list in a certain game. | I think that the implied pages should be split into sections in-page that allow the viewer to quickly jump to the list in a certain game. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|JayRed2486}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|JayRed2486}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': April 15, 2011, 17:00 GMT<br> | '''Voting start''': April 15, 2011, 17:00 GMT<br> | ||
Line 667: | Line 651: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Here's my thought, I don't think it's a good idea for several reasons. 1: Categories were meant to be titled vaguely to have dozens of articles linked up to it. 2: it is made vaguely for easy navigation. 3: And the only specification of that category should be implied location, characters, etc., but we already have an article on those so Category:Implied should be left alone. {{User|Zero777}} | Here's my thought, I don't think it's a good idea for several reasons. 1: Categories were meant to be titled vaguely to have dozens of articles linked up to it. 2: it is made vaguely for easy navigation. 3: And the only specification of that category should be implied location, characters, etc., but we already have an article on those so Category:Implied should be left alone. {{User|Zero777}} | ||
---- | |||
===Split the level articles from the world articles and delete the world articles=== | ===Split the level articles from the world articles and delete the world articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-14|don't split}} | |||
I think it is a good idea to make articles for levels for example an article named [[World 1-1]]. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Superfiremario}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Superfiremario}}<br> | ||
'''Voting Start''': April 16, 2011, 20:40 GMT<br> | '''Voting Start''': April 16, 2011, 20:40 GMT<br> | ||
Line 704: | Line 688: | ||
::Let me rephrase it the way I see it. "Currently all articles on levels are included in a general world; for example, all levels from [[World 1 (Super Mario Bros.)|World 1]] are in the same article. I propose that these articles be split off to instead create "World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", "World 2-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", etc." {{User|Marioguy1}} | ::Let me rephrase it the way I see it. "Currently all articles on levels are included in a general world; for example, all levels from [[World 1 (Super Mario Bros.)|World 1]] are in the same article. I propose that these articles be split off to instead create "World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", "World 2-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", etc." {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
:::When put that way, the phrasing makes more sense, though the action proposed isn't any more useful. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | :::When put that way, the phrasing makes more sense, though the action proposed isn't any more useful. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | ||
---- | |||
===Split Each Boss Level From Each Boss=== | ===Split Each Boss Level From Each Boss=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|6-17|don't split}} | |||
I notice that most of the bosses in the ''[[Donkey Kong (series)|Donkey Kong'' series]] are merged with the levels. The article says how to defeat them in the level, but one of the contents is a boss and the other is a level. To me, those are very different! For example, [[Congazuma's Castle]] and [[Ruined Roost]]. They are redirected to different contents. Even the [[K. Rool Duel]] which is a final boss battle! I was going to do a talk page proposal, but then I realized how many bosses were merged with their levels. It also seems bad because levels in the ''[[Yoshi (series)|Yoshi'' series]], such as [[Gilbert the Gooey's Castle]] are split from their boss, which is [[Gilbert the Gooey]]. I will make a split and a keep section for voting. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': April 16, 2011, 4:00 GMT<br> | '''Voting start''': April 16, 2011, 4:00 GMT<br> | ||
Line 727: | Line 711: | ||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per myself and Bop1996. This will create dozens of two-liners. | #{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per myself and Bop1996. This will create dozens of two-liners. | ||
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per both and myself. Too many articles to create. | #{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per both and myself. Too many articles to create. | ||
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - It's like splitting [[Reznor]] and {{ | #{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - It's like splitting [[Reznor]] and {{fake link|Reznor Arena}}. Per all | ||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Bop1996 and FF65. | #{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Bop1996 and FF65. | ||
#{{User|Glowsquid}} - Per all. | #{{User|Glowsquid}} - Per all. | ||
Line 764: | Line 748: | ||
{{User|Fawfulfury65}} | {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | ||
---- | |||
===Remove Banjo and Conker from our coverage policy and delete Banjo (series) and Conker (series)=== | ===Remove Banjo and Conker from our coverage policy and delete Banjo (series) and Conker (series)=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|31-2|delete}} | |||
Before I start, I'll point out that [https://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=10846.0 a few others have already made comments on this situation], all of them wanting to get rid of the articles with some good reasons attached, so go look at their reasons. With that said, let me continue. | |||
Before I start, I'll point out that [ | |||
The articles we have on Banjo's and Conker's series, respectively, are horrible. They are cluttered up with every single enemy, item, location, character, and other stuff from the two series, making it pratically unreadable. But that's not why I'm proposing this. I assume that we have those articles due to [[Banjo]]'s and [[Conker]]'s appearance in [[Diddy Kong Racing]]. But from what I can understand, both Conker's and Banjo's series were planned before-hand, but due to Banjo-Kazooie's release being delayed, both him and Conker were put in as a sort of early bird cameo. In other words, they are not sub-series of the Mario series and should be treated like other crossover games; whoever appeared in the crossover game gets an article, and nothing more. | The articles we have on Banjo's and Conker's series, respectively, are horrible. They are cluttered up with every single enemy, item, location, character, and other stuff from the two series, making it pratically unreadable. But that's not why I'm proposing this. I assume that we have those articles due to [[Banjo]]'s and [[Conker]]'s appearance in [[Diddy Kong Racing]]. But from what I can understand, both Conker's and Banjo's series were planned before-hand, but due to Banjo-Kazooie's release being delayed, both him and Conker were put in as a sort of early bird cameo. In other words, they are not sub-series of the Mario series and should be treated like other crossover games; whoever appeared in the crossover game gets an article, and nothing more. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | ||
Line 780: | Line 764: | ||
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per my proposal and the comments made by Edo, Fawful, and others. | #{{User|Reversinator}} Per my proposal and the comments made by Edo, Fawful, and others. | ||
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per my comment and Reversinator!! | #{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per my comment and Reversinator!! | ||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Look at my post in the MarioWiki forum [ | #{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Look at my post in the MarioWiki forum [https://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=10846.0 here]. My username is Scrub Jay. | ||
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Per what I said [ | #{{User|Edofenrir}} - Per what I said [https://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=10846.msg329644#msg329644 here]. Listen to our reasoning before you oppose casually. | ||
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - For those that are opposing, I want to tell you guys, it is completely off topic with Mario! They have only appeared in one game, and barely any detail on their pages has to do with that game! They are not a side-series you guys, they are just two random characters that were put in the game because their games were delayed! Most of their article is about their other games, which has absolutely nothing to do with Mario, DK, Yoshi, or Wario! All it is really is a very minor character that has 1% of actually related info and 99% of their mario-less games and then a series to act as a storage home for the extra stuff of random junk that is cluttering the wiki! | #{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - For those that are opposing, I want to tell you guys, it is completely off topic with Mario! They have only appeared in one game, and barely any detail on their pages has to do with that game! They are not a side-series you guys, they are just two random characters that were put in the game because their games were delayed! Most of their article is about their other games, which has absolutely nothing to do with Mario, DK, Yoshi, or Wario! All it is really is a very minor character that has 1% of actually related info and 99% of their mario-less games and then a series to act as a storage home for the extra stuff of random junk that is cluttering the wiki! | ||
#{{User|Castle Toad}} Per Edofenrir | #{{User|Castle Toad}} Per Edofenrir | ||
Line 842: | Line 826: | ||
:::@Edofinrir - Okay, after carefully reviewing your arguments both here and on the forums, I can see what you’re talking about now. However, the main question that came to mind when reading your argument was (and please don’t think I’m insulting anyone when I say this), why did no one foresee this problem when the compromise was created in the first place? I'm honestly not trying to patronize you, but I just find it interesting that you're supporting this proposal if you think it would be more worthwhile to expand our coverage of the games with multiple articles instead of having only two articles. I mean, why not simply make a proposal to do one of those two things instead (i.e. – "having none of those monstrosities" or "having a full coverage of both series with separate and readable articles"), even if you just partly prefer that the articles be expanded or split into multiple better articles? This proposal is in-between, and as you said, "if this proposal fails, none of these things will happen, and we will be stuck with those cluster articles...forever," so why not make a completely different proposal that ''does'' do one of those two things? | :::@Edofinrir - Okay, after carefully reviewing your arguments both here and on the forums, I can see what you’re talking about now. However, the main question that came to mind when reading your argument was (and please don’t think I’m insulting anyone when I say this), why did no one foresee this problem when the compromise was created in the first place? I'm honestly not trying to patronize you, but I just find it interesting that you're supporting this proposal if you think it would be more worthwhile to expand our coverage of the games with multiple articles instead of having only two articles. I mean, why not simply make a proposal to do one of those two things instead (i.e. – "having none of those monstrosities" or "having a full coverage of both series with separate and readable articles"), even if you just partly prefer that the articles be expanded or split into multiple better articles? This proposal is in-between, and as you said, "if this proposal fails, none of these things will happen, and we will be stuck with those cluster articles...forever," so why not make a completely different proposal that ''does'' do one of those two things? | ||
:::Also, you mentioned that these two articles are "a giant slap in the face" to fans of the games, which I can understand, given that I fall into that category with one of the games myself, but won't said fans be ten times more exasperated to have no coverage on the games at all than to have some coverage, even if it is flawed (because in the case of the latter, it can always be made better, with the former, it's gone for good)? Personally, I had previously wondered about the excessive length of the articles somewhat, but I guess I had rationalized it by viewing the pages as synonymous with the format of the page for any ''[[Mario ( | :::Also, you mentioned that these two articles are "a giant slap in the face" to fans of the games, which I can understand, given that I fall into that category with one of the games myself, but won't said fans be ten times more exasperated to have no coverage on the games at all than to have some coverage, even if it is flawed (because in the case of the latter, it can always be made better, with the former, it's gone for good)? Personally, I had previously wondered about the excessive length of the articles somewhat, but I guess I had rationalized it by viewing the pages as synonymous with the format of the page for any ''[[Super Mario (franchise)|Super Mario]]'' franchise game on this wiki; really long (but because it needs to be to encompass all the necessary information, not because it was forced to be so) and displaying every facet of the game on the page, including general information on the game, the plot, the gameplay, the characters (to a certain extent), power-ups, extra lives, etc. Overall, I just feel that these articles do not necessarily pose any immediate problems for those who would not even think to search for either of these games on this wiki in the first place. It's not as if we've gotten piles of hate mail from guests because we refuse to delete these articles. {{User|Phoenix}} 15:56. 20 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
:::::@Phoenix: I think the entire point is to get rid of the junk of the articles. Yes, fans will be upset that we are doing it, but give me one real reason why we should keep this junk and expand it? Deleting it is the best option, and I'll give you a comparison to help you out. [[Sonic]] as someone mentioned before has appeared along with Mario in a few things. Now, take that and view the the fact that we have no coverage of his series. Banjo and Conker have only appeared in one game with anyone with Mario, and even if it was their first appearance, they have NEVER made another appearance in the DK series, and vise versa with DK and Banjo/Conker. If we keep this proposal, it would be sort of unfair for the Zelda Series, Sonic Series, Metal Gear Series, just because they appeared in a spin-off. Deleting Banjo/Conker, who I disagree with the people that it is a sub-series with DK even though they haven't appeared in any of their games, is better than expanding and adding series for all the people that have appeared in a Mario game that isn't from Mario. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} | :::::@Phoenix: I think the entire point is to get rid of the junk of the articles. Yes, fans will be upset that we are doing it, but give me one real reason why we should keep this junk and expand it? Deleting it is the best option, and I'll give you a comparison to help you out. [[Sonic]] as someone mentioned before has appeared along with Mario in a few things. Now, take that and view the the fact that we have no coverage of his series. Banjo and Conker have only appeared in one game with anyone with Mario, and even if it was their first appearance, they have NEVER made another appearance in the DK series, and vise versa with DK and Banjo/Conker. If we keep this proposal, it would be sort of unfair for the Zelda Series, Sonic Series, Metal Gear Series, just because they appeared in a spin-off. Deleting Banjo/Conker, who I disagree with the people that it is a sub-series with DK even though they haven't appeared in any of their games, is better than expanding and adding series for all the people that have appeared in a Mario game that isn't from Mario. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} | ||
::::::Just as a sidenote, this proposal will not delete [[Banjo]], [[Bottles]], [[Conker]], and [[Tiptup]]. This is only to delete them from our coverage and delete the cluttred series articles. {{User|Reversinator}} | ::::::Just as a sidenote, this proposal will not delete [[Banjo]], [[Bottles]], [[Conker]], and [[Tiptup]]. This is only to delete them from our coverage and delete the cluttred series articles. {{User|Reversinator}} | ||
Line 855: | Line 839: | ||
::::::::Secondly, please just let me ask this last question: So if Banjo and Conker (and possibly their respective co-characters) had at some point been in a ''[[Super Smash Bros.]]'' game, or any other legitimate crossover game, they would be eligible to remain here? Well, no, actually, I guess I just answered my own question, because even if that were the case, we would still only have information about the ''characters'' from the other series that appeared in the game (and perhaps items, as necessary), and not about the characters' entire series, right? In that case, I now understand what this proposal is truly trying to do, and have therefore had a change of heart of sorts; from this point on I will be voting in favor of this proposal's intentions. | ::::::::Secondly, please just let me ask this last question: So if Banjo and Conker (and possibly their respective co-characters) had at some point been in a ''[[Super Smash Bros.]]'' game, or any other legitimate crossover game, they would be eligible to remain here? Well, no, actually, I guess I just answered my own question, because even if that were the case, we would still only have information about the ''characters'' from the other series that appeared in the game (and perhaps items, as necessary), and not about the characters' entire series, right? In that case, I now understand what this proposal is truly trying to do, and have therefore had a change of heart of sorts; from this point on I will be voting in favor of this proposal's intentions. | ||
::::::::Thirdly, if this proposal was going to pass (and it doesn't take a team of mathematicians to tell me that, at this point, it probably will), I just want to ensure that the [[Bottles]] article will still remain unscathed, because taking [http://www.mariowiki.com/File:Mariocomicbn7-1-.png this] into account, I'm pretty sure it should be apparent that he is at least somewhat related directly to the ''[[Mario ( | ::::::::Thirdly, if this proposal was going to pass (and it doesn't take a team of mathematicians to tell me that, at this point, it probably will), I just want to ensure that the [[Bottles]] article will still remain unscathed, because taking [http://www.mariowiki.com/File:Mariocomicbn7-1-.png this] into account, I'm pretty sure it should be apparent that he is at least somewhat related directly to the ''[[Super Mario (franchise)|Super Mario]]'' franchise, apart from the whole ''[[Diddy Kong Racing]]'' cameo (or appearance, or spin-off, or whatever) thing. | ||
::::::::Finally, I have seen fit to reconsider my position in this matter (as I've previously established above). I think, in the back of my mind, I immediately disliked this proposal right from the get-go. I believe I subconsciously opposed it simply because of my extreme affinity for the ''Banjo-Kazooie'' series, using that as the basis of my original argument, and then used my arguments about expanding articles to mask the true reasons for my opposition (I'm not trying to say that I lied, I do believe that deleting should always be used as a last resort over expanding, I think I just finally realized that I was opposing for all the wrong reasons, if you know what I mean). However, having thought about this for a great deal of time, I have subsequently come to this conclusion, and I now realize that that was wrong of me to do. Though it will pain me to see a great deal of this information go, feel that I must disregard my personal opinions for the time being, and do what is best for the wiki. :) {{User|Phoenix}} 23:05, 20 April 2011 (EDT) | ::::::::Finally, I have seen fit to reconsider my position in this matter (as I've previously established above). I think, in the back of my mind, I immediately disliked this proposal right from the get-go. I believe I subconsciously opposed it simply because of my extreme affinity for the ''Banjo-Kazooie'' series, using that as the basis of my original argument, and then used my arguments about expanding articles to mask the true reasons for my opposition (I'm not trying to say that I lied, I do believe that deleting should always be used as a last resort over expanding, I think I just finally realized that I was opposing for all the wrong reasons, if you know what I mean). However, having thought about this for a great deal of time, I have subsequently come to this conclusion, and I now realize that that was wrong of me to do. Though it will pain me to see a great deal of this information go, feel that I must disregard my personal opinions for the time being, and do what is best for the wiki. :) {{User|Phoenix}} 23:05, 20 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
Line 895: | Line 879: | ||
:Because it's part of our [[MarioWiki:Coverage|Coverage]]. {{User|Marioguy1}} | :Because it's part of our [[MarioWiki:Coverage|Coverage]]. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
:Because the ''[[Mario ( | :Because the ''[[Super Mario (franchise)|Super Mario]]'' franchise is a spin-off of the original game ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]'', so mentioning aspects of the ''Donkey Kong'' series is legitimate. Also, characters from the ''Donkey Kong'' series have many times made crossover appearances in some ''Mario'' games, so we need to discuss them here. {{User|Phoenix}} 18:43, 27 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
::So...why is there a DK Wiki if everything DK is in Mario Wiki? Sorry, but it seems weird to have the same exact info in two different Wikis.{{User|MarioMaster15}} | ::So...why is there a DK Wiki if everything DK is in Mario Wiki? Sorry, but it seems weird to have the same exact info in two different Wikis.{{User|MarioMaster15}} | ||
:::But everything DK isn't on the Super Mario Wiki; we only cover the information required to reference their series and characters in relation to their appearance in the ''Mario'' series. I have never been on the DK Wiki, but I'm sure they have articles on [[Mario]], and some other ''Mario'' characters, because they crossover in many games, like ''[[Mario Kart Wii]]'' or ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'' to name a few. Do you see what I'm saying? That's why this proposal was made in the first place; to get rid of the extraneous information about the ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' series that is currently cluttering up the Wiki and retain only what is necessary, like the character pages for [[Banjo]] and [[Bottles]]. {{User|Phoenix}} 19:16, 27 April 2011 (EDT) | :::But everything DK isn't on the Super Mario Wiki; we only cover the information required to reference their series and characters in relation to their appearance in the ''Mario'' series. I have never been on the DK Wiki, but I'm sure they have articles on [[Mario]], and some other ''Mario'' characters, because they crossover in many games, like ''[[Mario Kart Wii]]'' or ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'' to name a few. Do you see what I'm saying? That's why this proposal was made in the first place; to get rid of the extraneous information about the ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' series that is currently cluttering up the Wiki and retain only what is necessary, like the character pages for [[Banjo]] and [[Bottles]]. {{User|Phoenix}} 19:16, 27 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
---- | |||
===Remove Voting Start Rule=== | ===Remove Voting Start Rule=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|18-4|remove rule}} | |||
This rule was meant to encourage discussion. It wants to prevent people from voting so much that the proposal is already decided. However, I do not see how this can majorly impact proposals. I think all it does is create a major annoyance for most users, since most people overlook this rule and we have to remove the vote and say, "VOTING STARTS AT BLAH BLAH". Even I overlook this rule, and I don't bother to pay attention if a voting user broke this rule or what. Besides, we get a WEEK of discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion only. | This rule was meant to encourage discussion. It wants to prevent people from voting so much that the proposal is already decided. However, I do not see how this can majorly impact proposals. I think all it does is create a major annoyance for most users, since most people overlook this rule and we have to remove the vote and say, "VOTING STARTS AT BLAH BLAH". Even I overlook this rule, and I don't bother to pay attention if a voting user broke this rule or what. Besides, we get a WEEK of discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion only. | ||
Line 915: | Line 899: | ||
I propose to remove this rule because it makes everything unnecessarily complicated, it is useless for those who aren't online every day, it is impractical for those who are online every day, and it is not present in all types of proposals. | I propose to remove this rule because it makes everything unnecessarily complicated, it is useless for those who aren't online every day, it is impractical for those who are online every day, and it is not present in all types of proposals. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': April 21, 18:22 GMT<br> | '''Voting start''': April 21, 18:22 GMT<br> | ||
Line 1,044: | Line 1,027: | ||
::I think a week or two is enough for people to correct their mistakes, but yes, I'm pretty sure there are people out there who just cast their vote and never change it again. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | ::I think a week or two is enough for people to correct their mistakes, but yes, I'm pretty sure there are people out there who just cast their vote and never change it again. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | ||
---- | |||
===Merge the special shots of Mario Power Tennis (Gamecube) into one article=== | ===Merge the special shots of Mario Power Tennis (Gamecube) into one article=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|8-12|no merge}} | |||
This situation is just like the Super Strikes from Mario Smash Football. All the power shots don't need their own articles, they just creat stubs. | This situation is just like the Super Strikes from Mario Smash Football. All the power shots don't need their own articles, they just creat stubs. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Tails777}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Tails777}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': <s>April 23, 2011</s> '''Extended''': April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT<br> | '''Deadline''': <s>April 23, 2011</s> '''Extended''': April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
Line 1,093: | Line 1,076: | ||
@Tails777 Fire Breath has it's [[Fire Breath|own article]]. Besides, every Power Shot is different enough. {{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} | @Tails777 Fire Breath has it's [[Fire Breath|own article]]. Besides, every Power Shot is different enough. {{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} | ||
}} | |||
---- | |||
===Less Merging and Unmerge some merged Articles=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-18|don't stop merging}} | |||
*Do not merge or Propose to merge non-stub articles.Especially [[List of enemies|Enemies]] | |||
*Un-merge Previously merged non-stub articles such as [[Lava Bubble]] and [[Pale Piranha]] | |||
*The 1st rule do not apply to Administrators | |||
I think most of the time, Merging Hurts the Wiki. For Example, Merging [[Lava Bubble]] and [[Podoboo]] | |||
deleted most of the information on Lava Bubble. I propose that there should be less suggestions of merging stuff, especially with good articles. Just because something looks similar or the "japanese names are the same" doesnt mean that one of the articles should be ruined. | |||
(If merging prevents '''stubs''',then it is OK) | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': May 4, 2011, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}Per My Proposal | |||
#{{User|Holyromanemperortatan}} Per Proposal. Side note: if this will help the wiki by not having important info removed then sure. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per my comment. I don't see what this proposal is based off of, except one example where, if my memory serves, there was a good reason for merging. | |||
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} We already have a system for this it's called the talk page proposal | |||
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} Per my comment. | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} You're taking away the common user's free speech and replacing it with a communism-esque replacement with this proposal. Also, it states in your proposal ''" I think most of the time, Merging Hurts the Wiki. For Example, Merging [[Lava Bubble]] and [[Podoboo]] deleted most of the information on Lava Bubble."'' So what do you think you should do, A) Report this to a staff in their talk page or chat OR B) Start editing the freaking article!! Don't just sit around and complain that some info was taken out of the article. Also I'm getting the feeling that you assumed what "stub" means. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Merging is not harmful if it's done right; perhaps mistakes ''are'' made sometimes, but they can be fixed with subsequent edits or new TPPs if re-splitting them is necessary. Merging is a case by case process: general statements like "merging hurts the wiki" or assumptions like non-stubs all deserve to stay is going completely against how the wiki is run; sometimes, larger articles just need to be merged - it's not based on size, but on content. Also, there is no good reason for limiting merge proposals to admins only: everyone should always be able to make suggestions and TPPs. | |||
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per Walkazo. *sniffle* Oh my, that was a beautiful speech. I loved it.;~; | |||
#{{user|Xzelion}} Per Walkazo! | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - You cannot subdue suggestions, intended for the wiki's improvement, through a proposal. I won't stand for this. | |||
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} - Leave it! Per Walkazo! I love this speech, it's so beautiful! I'm going to cry. (Crying in tears) | |||
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per my comments below. | |||
#{{User|Phoenix}} Per everyone. | |||
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} Per Walkazo. (Nice speech! It rocked) Since when does merdging HURT the WIki? It helps it! Walkazo | |||
#{{User|redyoshi911}} Per Walkazo | |||
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|MeritC}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Magikrazy51}} Per Zero. He said what I wanted to say (although longer). And also Walkazo (excellent speech). | |||
====Comments==== | |||
first things first which articles are to be un-merged is that up to you or who is that going to be decided by also your starting time is wrong and so is your end time | |||
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | |||
We can't put a limit on how many things can be merged. If something needs to be merged, we have to merge it. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | |||
Plus isnt that why we have talk pages to determine whether or not we need an article {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | |||
From what I understand, you want to make sure merging is a last resort because the articles we're merging are good? We merge articles for various reasons. Some of those reasons could be considered invalid today, but you can't put a limit on merging. Suppose someone makes lavish articles for all the trophies in the Super Smash Bros. series. If this proposal succeded, we wouldn't be able to merge them because it would merge too much and the articles are too good to merge, which, if you didn't realize yet, are not good reasons. {{User|Reversinator}} | |||
First of all, this proposal is vague. You do not specify which types of articles you want merged; instead, you make some vague reference to an article that is "good enough." | |||
Second, you don't mention what type of limit is being enforced, only that one needs to be. | |||
Third, sometimes merging is necessary. It's important to look at all the evidence and make a rational decision based off all the evidence. | |||
Fourth, what articles are you planning on un-merging? | |||
All in all, I see no reason whatsoever to support this, or to even have it proposed... {{User|Bop1996}} | |||
@bop1996 I plan on having articles such as [[Lava Bubble]] and [[Pale Piranha]] unmerged.Also,the [[Badge]] page needs to be broken up by game,or by badge. | |||
I think Stubs still need to be merged though. | |||
@Reversinator I think good articles should remain independent.but stubs should be merged together. {{user|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} | |||
@Yoshiyoshiyoshi What constitutes a good article? As for Badges, a single comprehensive article is, in my opinion, more beneficial than a series of short ones. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | |||
And you still haven't explained who get's to decide what articles get to be un-merged or why we need to change the system when we have talk pages for this | |||
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | |||
@Yoshiyoshiyoshi Question what doesnt apply to Admins and another Question why not just make talk page proposals about this | |||
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | |||
@goombasshoe Only Administrators get to make merging TTPs,but anyone can vote on them.And most of the Non-Stub articles that were previously merged get un-merged | |||
{{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} | |||
Then make a TPP if you want that. The badge page works very well with the current situation, no need to mess it up. If you think stubs need to be merged, then look at the power shot proposal below, in the comments. I.e. Marioguy's comment. Also, you still are using the ambiguous term "good article." {{User|Bop1996}} | |||
and who gets to decide what get unmerged also why should admins be the only people to be able to make merging proposals | |||
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | |||
This whole proposal is based on your opinion that merging is always bad. Basically, you are just trying to impose ''your'' will on the whole wiki. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with GS15. Just because some people are admins does not mean that they are the only people who can make good decisions regarding splitting and merging.{{User|Yoshiwaker}} | |||
All of the Non-Stub Articles that were merged get un-merged.And I think Admins should only get to make Merging TTPs because it would make less unnecesary merging{{user|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} | |||
@yoshiwalker Merging isnt always bad.I think that Meging things that dont need to be merged is though{{user|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} | |||
If a proposal was made for an unnecessary merge, it would be opposed. As a reply to your second comment, you said yourself that "Merging hurts the wiki". {{User|Yoshiwaker}} | |||
well i meant stuff like the Lava Bubbe thing.Read the talk on Lava bubble to know what i mean {{user|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} | |||
all i see is that 13 people said yes and 5 said no which makes me believe they should be merged | |||
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | |||
In japan,all magikoopas are called kamek.Does this mean kamek should be merged with magikoopa?i think not | |||
'''@Holyromanemperortatan:''' That will actually hurt the wiki. {{User|Zero777}} | |||
@Zero777 yeah prolly since it will cause confusion as to what articles should be merged and which ones shouldnt | |||
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | |||
What are you trying to say?! This proposal is way to vauge. {{User|Superfiremario}} | |||
:@Yoshiyoshiyoshi - On the contrary, merging is often used to ''help'' the Wiki, not to hurt it; we wouldn't be merging as many things as we do as often as we merge them if it wasn't completely necessary. Any merges that are unnecessary are usually obvious and will most likely not be enacted anyway, so this proposal is kind of pointless... {{User|Phoenix}} 19:07, 28 April 2011 (EDT) | |||
---- | |||
===Blocked Users' Votes=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-16-1|use option 2}} | |||
Ach, headache. A headache is whatever I get when there is something on the wiki that does not fall under any policies. In this case, that thing would be the votes pertaining to blocked users. In the past, I have seen blocked users with their votes removed for being blocked, they have kept their votes there, I've even seen several times where the procedure was changed depending on the length of the block. I'm here to set something in stone about blocked users; specifically, how their votes are treated. | |||
Now I have several options that I would consider accurate so let me explain them all: | |||
#All blocked users' votes are removed; no matter the length of the block. | |||
#All permanently blocked users' votes are removed, but if a user's block expires before the end of the proposal, their vote remains. | |||
#All permanently blocked users' votes are removed, but if a user's block expires <u>two or more days before</u> the end of the proposal, then their vote remains. | |||
All three options have their pros and cons; the first option will simplify things greatly, but it will unfairly treat users who are blocked for (hypothetically) one day. The second option will fairly treat everyone, isn't too complicated, but if a user is unblocked an hour before the proposal ends, will they really have time to change their vote (if they want to change it)? | |||
Finally the third point covers all possible problems and fairly treats all users, but it is very complicated. It depends what kind of balance we want. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' May 5, 2011 (23:59 GMT) | |||
====Option 1==== | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} If a user has committed an offense that results in his or her being blocked, I see no reason for said user's votes to remain on proposals under any circumstances (except for ones that pass/fail prior to the blocking). In the user's absence, he or she is unable to communicate with other users, so any issues brought up during the time the user is blocked until his or her return can't be addressed. Even if the user's block expires before a proposal passes/fails, I do not believe the user should have the privilege to re-add/change his or her vote. | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} They chose to break the rules and that will not be tolerated, per my comment, why should we make it convenient for punished users? Even if the user was blocked for less then seven days, I don't see what's the big deal on just putting back your vote. | |||
#{{User|Mario304}} Per all. If a user is blocked, then he can't vote on proposals. That can serve as punishment for the blocked user. | |||
#{{User|ThirdMarioBro}} If a user is bad enough to get blocked, chances are that the user does not have a reasonable vote. | |||
#{{User|MarioMaster15}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per Mario4Ever. | |||
====Option 2==== | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - I think this option represents an accurate balance between the other two; and the chance of the blocked user being blocked until right before a proposal passes AND THEN wanting to change their vote are very minimal. | |||
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - Per MG1. | |||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} There is really no point to remove a user's vote if his or her blocktime expires before his or her proposal's deadline. If the user gets unblocked, he or she will just vote again. I will support, but I hope to see a rule added regarding a user getting blocked in an old FA nomination that is about to die. | |||
#{{User|New Super Mario}} Per MG1 | |||
#{{User|Al24136}} Well, if somebody unintentionally causes harm to this wiki and gets a minor-scale block, I see no reason in removing their votes. That just seems a bit unjustified, and could alter the success of the proposal, which wouldn't be fair toward the proposer. | |||
#{{user|SWFlash}} Per MG1. | |||
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Per LGM. | |||
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} Per all | |||
#{{User|redyoshi911}} Per all | |||
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} - Per all! | |||
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per all above me. | |||
#{{User|PoisonMushroom}} Agree with the option entirely | |||
#{{User|Mariomario64}} Per all. (Ignore my comment below) | |||
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} (singing like a maniac) Per all! | |||
====Option 3==== | |||
====Do not delete vote==== | |||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Everyone's vote counts, and before they're blocked, they are equal to everyone else IMO. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
If anybody has any suggestions for options 4 and 5, I'd be glad to add them in any time in the next three days. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
:I respect what you're proposing here, but what I think you would need to do is to to set procedures in stone depending on the length of the block, and then go from there, if you know what I mean. So, for instance: | |||
*24 hour block = Vote is not removed. | |||
*24 hour block - 1 week block = Vote is not removed ''unless'' block expires after proposal ends. | |||
*1 week block and higher = Vote is removed. | |||
*Infinite block = Vote is always removed under any circumstances (unless for some reason the user's block expires while the proposal is still active, but again, this would have to be in accordance with the "24 hour block - 1 week block" policy). | |||
This isn't a perfect procedure by any means, but food for thought at any rate, right? {{User|Phoenix}} 18:28, 27 April 2011 (EDT) | |||
::But if we have a TPP which just begun and then a voter is blocked for one week, one week later the TPP will only be half-done and his vote will have been removed. That seems like a big waste of time; my way, his vote won't be removed unless his block is obviously going to exceed the ending of the proposal. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
:::"...one week later the TPP will only be half-done and his vote will have been removed." Well, yes, but I said that in the case of a block lasting for 1 week, the vote is not removed unless the block expires ''after'' the proposal ends. Since the block, in this case at least, will expire within the time limit of the proposal (TPP), then it should be fine, because by the time the proposal ends, the user will be unblocked, and will regain their credability as a legitimate voter... {{User|Phoenix}} 18:51, 27 April 2011 (EDT) | |||
We should also take other circumstances into consideration, such as the reason for the user's block. For example, if the user was banned for sockpuppeting or vandalism, his/her vote will probably be removed, but if the user was banned for editing a page multiple times, his/her vote probably won't be removed. {{User|ThirdMarioBro}} | |||
:Well, okay, but if we do that, then are we going to take those factors into consideration in conjunction with the length of the block, or independent of the block length...? {{User|Phoenix}} 19:02, 27 April 2011 (EDT) | |||
:@Phoenix: So what you're saying is that a user who's block is over one week long yet still expires during the voting period would have to re-add their vote? Wouldn't that just be redundant? | |||
:@ThirdMarioBro: Not really, a block is a block, if user is blocked for three weeks for sockpuppeting then their vote is invalid; they have no ability to change the vote or remove it. The same goes for a block of the same length but for editing multiple times (which is not a blockable offense). {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
I really believe that the first option should be chosen because I'm the kind of person who expects people to follow the rules or else they'll have to face the consequences, since staff unofficially and officially warn users of their actions on not to do them, they get the consequence of not following directions. {{User|Zero777}} | |||
:Actually Zero, you have a point there...I just might change my vote to that...if a user did something wrong, anything worthy of a block, why should we care about making things convenient for them? {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
I have a suggestion; instead of doing anything above, we could wait until the ''end'' of the proposal. Then, we could check each user to see whether they are blocked and remove blocked users' votes then. {{User|Mariomario64}} | |||
What about blocked user's proposals? Will they be deleted or kept? {{user|SWFlash}} | |||
:Deleted. Rule 10 states that the proposer must take action as soon as their proposal passes: they can't do that if they're blocked. They also can't participate in the discussions and address users' concerns during the proposal, which is not good. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
::What about 24-hour ban? {{user|SWFlash}} | |||
What happens if a user made an FA nomination that didn't get edited for nearly a month, and got blocked? This would unnecessarily "bump" the nomination. I think you should add a rule. Something like, "Within x days in an FA nomination, if users get blocked, their vote will remain until somebody bumps the nomination." {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
'''@LGM''' We could have a notice placed on the user's talk page upon his/her return with something along the lines of "''Due to your recent blocking, you have lost the privilege to vote on the '''insert name''' proposal. Thank you for your consideration''," couldn't we? {{User|Mario4Ever}} | |||
'''@AI21436''': Blocks are never given for unintentional actions that harm the wiki. Generally, people get reminders and are only blocked if the action continues deliberately. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | |||
:@Mario4Ever: 24-hour bans are given out whenever a user is being a blockhead and won't listen but isn't necessarily hurting anybody. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
::Are users who act as blockheads doing so unintentionally? {{User|Mario4Ever}} | |||
:::Why should users who can't follow the rules be allowed to help us make them? {{User|Xzelion}} | |||
::::@Xzelion: That's very good logic, and I honestly do not oppose it, options 1 and 2 both look appetizing to me, but I am obliged by my contract to play the devil and annoy the hell out of that logic. So imagine this scenario: a new user who does not know the first thing about sentence formation. Does not capitalize words, does not use proper punctuation/spelling/spacing/etc. - this user is told to stop making spelling mistakes and to double-check his work. But he is really bad at English so he continues messing up. Eventually he is given a day-long block for ignoring warnings and refusing to listen to admins. Would this user's vote be removed? Because he couldn't speak proper English, his votes are now invalid? I agree that in this scenario a block might seem a bit unfair; but think of other scenarios, like a user who continuously adds information that he believes is true, but it isn't and he is blocked for that. You, and Mario4Ever, are looking at one side of things; the malicious/intentional crimes that are committed where the user ''wants'' to do bad. But there's the other side too, where they can't help but do something bad. Is a user's inadequacy at something really an accurate measurement of their worth? So if a user can't spell properly, do we remove their rights for it? These questions are not rhetorical; they are for everybody to answer in their own opinion. Like I said, I'm playing the devil, how you see my performance is based on you. I am not stating my opinion anywhere in this post. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
:In those situations, the harm to the wiki is unintentional on the user's part, and in my opinion, actions done unintentionally should get reminders, not get blocked. If someone is bad at English, it's not a big deal in this case for someone proficient in the language to fix whatever mistakes there may be as a result of this inadequacy. One's inadequacy is not a measure of one's worth. Rather, a user's worth should be determined by his or her intent. If there is any doubt as to what the user's intent may be in a given situation, it should be brought up on his/her talk page before giving out reminders, warnings, etc. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | |||
::I think that's pretty accurate... I don't think people usually get blocked for grammar mistakes, but I have seen a bunch of reminders and warnings because of minor things like that. If someone is blocked, it probably means they sockpuppeted or vandalised or behaved poorly in language... That being said, however, I have not been around terribly long, and it's possible that someone has been blocked for those types of things. {{User|Bop1996}} | |||
:::So what you guys are saying is that we should continue just reminding and warning them, wasting our time correcting their errors when they could just as easily re-read their work to make sure it's right? There are tons of ways that one could use their time and effort to fix spelling/grammar problems but the user in question is choosing to make us use our time and effort to do it. And all we are going to do about it is use even more time and effort to give them countless reminders? There eventually has to be a block. But their intents weren't bad. But they still got blocked. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
::::No, I don't think there should be a continuous cycle of reminders and warnings, but you said yourself (or rather, the devil's advocate did, since you're not giving your opinion), that blocking someone for ignoring warnings given because of his/her inadequacy in English seemed a bit unfair. We have no way of knowing if this inadequacy is due to the user's age or if the user is a relatively new speaker of English and therefore does not have a grasp of basic grammatical structure. Either way, blocking the user isn't going to rectify the problem; a user can't improve his or her proficiency in English if he or she doesn't know how. As imposing age limits would be an impractical way of doing things, perhaps something could be added to the registration process (like a sentence to type or something) to avoid having a problem like this altogether. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | |||
'''@ThirdMarioBro:''' Your vote is invalid, what the heck are you trying to say? You don't get blocked from having a bad reasoning on your vote! {{User|Zero777}} | |||
: I believe this user is saying that the user getting blocked probably doesn't have a good reason in the vote anyway; I think that is a bad assumption. People like KS3 have mostly good intentions, for instance, and he is (still?) blocked.{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
::Again, my question was, sorry, the person who responded to me, you didn't understand, that we have to bump a nomination for an FA to delete the blocked user's vote. If the FA is very old, is deleting a blocked user's vote considered necessary?{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
:::If you're referring to me, I wasn't addressing FAs in my reply. I was addressing your vote (''There is really no point to remove a user's vote if his or her blocktime expires before his or her proposal's deadline. If the user gets unblocked, he or she will just vote again''). Anyway, concerning FAs, I think that if an article is featured or unfeatured in part because of a blocked user's vote, I think that vote should be removed because the featuring/unfeaturing of the article is then unfair. Why should a blocked user's vote have equal merit (or any at all) to that of a non-blocked user in the period of time that a block is in effect? {{User|Mario4Ever}} | |||
'''@Bowser's Luma''' If a person is employed for a company but decides to leave for three months, is he or she still considered a valid member of the workforce upon returning? Same situation here, except no one gets paid. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | |||
---- | |||
===Merge all of [[Wario|Wario's]] Transformations Into one Article=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-0-15|do not merge to either}} | |||
This is similar to King Koopa's alter egos. I'm not talking about [[Tiny Wario]] and those transformations from the ''[[Wario Land]]'' series. I'm talking about transformations from ''[[Wario: Master of Disguise]]'' such as [[Thief Wario]] and [[Sparky Wario]]. Like the page, [[King Koopa's alter egos]], I think we should make a page called "Wario's Transformations" or just merge them to [[Wario]], or keep them. Three options I'll make. <br> | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': May 6, 2011 23:59 GMT | |||
====Merge to Wario's Transformations==== | |||
#{{User|DKPetey99}} I think it will be better to make one article instead of the 8 disguises he has. I meant to title this header, "Wario's Disguises", meaning we should make a page called Wario's Disguises. | |||
====Merge to Wario==== | |||
====Keep it the Same==== | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} Per Reversinator. | |||
#{{user|SWFlash}} Transformations and power shots are ''not'' the same! They should be splitted. | |||
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per Reversinator... Trying to add something on.. can't think of anything to add to that. | |||
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per Revrsinator nothing left to add | |||
#{{User|Tom The Atum}} I mean, I don't know if there is a Mario Transformations article, and Wario isn't as "important" as Mario, no offense to Wario worshipers. | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per those who per Reversinator. | |||
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per Reversinator's comments. | |||
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} Per Tom The Atum and Reversinator | |||
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per myself. | |||
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per everyone. | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Per Reversinator. Plus the fact that a lot of Wario's power-ups are Transformations. People get confused and will merge every single Transformation to that page that [the proposer] wants to create, while he only wants to merge the ones from ''Wario: Master of Disguise''. | |||
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} - Leave it the way as it is! Per all! | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Reversinator's comment. | |||
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per the dark Kirby. | |||
#{{User|Magikrazy51}} Per Reversinator. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
The reason I proposed to merge King Koopa's alter egos was because it was literally just King Koopa in a costume. This costume didn't grant him any special powers or anything even similar to that, so they got merged. These forms, on the other hand, all have distinct powers, like [[Fire Mario]], [[Metal Mario]], or [[Ice Mario]]. Also like those forms, these powers are obtained by obtaining a specific item. Yes, you can choose that power from anywhere after getting the item, but that doesn't make them any different than the other powers. Also, can you give a reason as to why you want them merged? Simply that they are similar to the alter egos of King Koopa, which is not true as I explained, is not a substantial reason. Bottom line, they should be kept separate. {{User|Reversinator}} | |||
---- | |||
===Talk Page Proposal=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-20|don't implement a talk page rule}} | |||
I have noticed that talk page messages are basically the only edits in the Recent Changes. I now have a rule that will restrict the amount of talk edits you may have. Like user, if you have over 30% of your edits on talk pages, with the exception of users with under 250 edits total, your talk page will be protected and you will be warned by an administrator to not leave messages on other user's talk pages. First offense will result in a one hour block. Next offense one day. Third offense one week. Any further shall be decided by administration. This is so there will be more main edits. I myself have lots of talk edits, and I am trying to edit the mainspace more. '''Update:With the forums, even if you don't have an e-mail like me, this rule still applies. If you are a talker, and you don't have e-mail, well too bad and sorry.''' | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Tom The Atum}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' May 7, 2011 (23:59 GMT) | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Like I said in the comment section, if a user has only 3,000 edits and already has over 1,000 on user talk pages then we have a problem. I have 9,000 edits and just barely over 1,000 on user talk pages. RAP (the user with the most contributions on the wiki) has 1009 edits on user talks. So I find it a really big problem when a user with only 3,000 contributions has over 1,000 on user talk pages while a user with 27,000 contributions only has 1,009. | |||
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} - A user should have to be productive when some one has over 1000 edits and 6% are main space despite countless User Space warnings something has to be there to back up the warning | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} Again, it is taking away a user's freedom. We need to communicate and collaborate with each other to make the wiki better, we're not going anywhere if we have to contribute to the wiki alone. | |||
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per Zero. | |||
#{{User|Mario304}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Lady Timpani}} Per all. | |||
#{{user|Bloc Partier}} - It hasn't become an issue with load times, etc. like it was over at Bulbapedia. If it ever started to overload the servers, we might have a problem. Since we don't have a problem, I see no reason to limit users' rights. | |||
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per Reversinator's comments. | |||
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Too inflexible. Also, protecting a user's talk page is utterly pointless, as it would only prevent them from receiving messages, not from sending them. On top of that, other users would be unable to contact that user at all. This is not a rule we should implement. | |||
#{{user|SWFlash}} Per 0. | |||
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} The rule does not specify whether it will count for either idle chit chat or actually helping others to help the wiki. Therefore, this rule may actually hurt other users a lot instead of trying to achieve its purpose. | |||
#{{User|Mariomario64}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per the Gray Magikoopa and the green-haired purple dragon. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|MeritC}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} I PER THEM ALL | |||
#{{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} per Luigi is OSAM | |||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Let's keep it communism-free here folks. | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} After much thought, I've changed my vote. This proposal will be more harmful than beneficial to the wiki and its users if passed, as users could end up being penalized for asking for help via the user talk pages. The idle chit-chat is a relatively recent occurrence, and I think most of us can admit to having some, but overall, the users I've seen have been dedicated to the mainspace in terms of what is posted on talk pages. I think this proposal should have focused more on what users are using the talk pages for, not just the fact that they're being edited to a greater extent than the mainspace; disciplinary action should be taken against those whose userspace edits are not only excessively large but also pertain to idle chit-chat, not against everyone who has a large number of userspace edits. | |||
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per all. I'm much more concerned about the quality of user talk edits rather than the quantity. | |||
#{{User|Phoenix}} Per todas las personas. | |||
#{{User|Yoshidude99}} Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
I totally understand what you're saying, but I really don't think a set guideline is necessary. Whenever we want to check up on users who edit their user page too much, we just look at [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?namespace=2&title=Special%3ARecentChanges this page]. Our current user page protection length is 2 weeks after being warned, though this may be subject extended length depending how severe the offense is (so don't create 50 user sub-pages).--{{User|Knife}} 18:42, 30 April 2011 (EDT) | |||
So would this proposal actually make User space warnings mean something | |||
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | |||
Goomba:it will hopefully get some users to make more main edits. {{User|Tom The Atum}} | |||
What talk pages are you talking about? Are you talking about Mainspace or User's? {{User|Zero777}} | |||
Zero: user talk. {{User|Tom The Atum}} | |||
:I believe he's talking about the massive amount of edits going on with user talk pages (people asking to be friends, those "shops", one user just started some sort of club where he gives out items every week). Those kinds of edits are all on talk pages and they can pile up. And frankly, when a user has only 3,000 edits and they already have over 1,000 on user talk pages (that's around 30%) then we really have a problem. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
::So I suggest better to make a policy on archiving user talks after a limit is reached. {{User|Zero777}} | |||
::@Zero: This is not removing people's freedom to express themselves; it's removing their freedom to treat this website like it's facebook. They can still make edits on talk pages, just they can't clog up the entire wiki with those messages. I'd also suggest the forum to those users who can't bear to not talk to eachother. And archiving user talk pages won't help. | |||
::Also, @Knife: Protecting user talk pages is never a good idea. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
@Superfiremario no way would you oppose what with having 6% main space out of 1000 edits despite like 6 warnings that's ridiculous dude so no way would you oppose a proposal that would make you actually do mainspace edits | |||
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | |||
@Goomba:Yeah, he needs to be warned more. I have included a warning when I told him my Mario Kart code, and he just responded with an okay, without a saying[I will try to make more main edits]. {{User|Tom The Atum}} | |||
We can't ban people from chatting on user talkpages. They are needed to communicate with others. Yes, a lot of people do talk about things unrelated to the Wiki very often on their talkpages, but if we put a limit, it may prevent them from asking important questions and talking about the Wiki and how to improve it. The admins already keep an eye out for the users editing their userspace too much. We can't block them if they talk about the right things on their talkpages. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | |||
Let me give you this scenario: Suppose a new user has 300 edits. Out of those edits, 100 of them are made on user talk pages (33%) and 175 of them are on main pages (58%). His edits are actually good and the majority of the edits on user talks are just questions he asked to more experienced users. Should a new user really be banned simply for asking how to do something without screwing it up? {{User|Reversinator}} | |||
:OK, the way I see it, the biggest problem with this proposal is how it is formatted; not the concept of the idea. So if this proposal was changed to be something more (as Edo puts it), "flexible", people would support? {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
::Here's my take: The sysops currently look at each user's edit history and see if they are making an exorbitant number of talk page/userspace edits compared to encyclopedia edits. This is done on a case-by-case basis, making it relatively fair. If this proposal is passed, the case-by-case approach that works well is lost. {{User|Bop1996}} | |||
@Tom the Atum: You can no longer get warnings, reminders, last reminders and get blocked for userspace. | |||
{{User|Superfiremario}} | |||
@Marioguy: Just to clarify, I was only talking about the user page, not the user talk pages.<br> | |||
@Superfiremario: What makes you say that? Of course you can still get blocked for disregarding userspace warnings.--{{User|Knife}} 17:35, 1 May 2011 (EDT) | |||
:He got that information from [[User:DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.|this user]]. The recent changes was somewhat flooded a few weeks ago by exchanges between Superfiremario, the aforementioned user, and [[User:DKPetey99|this user]]. The answer's probably in their talk pages somewhere or on the talk page of a sysop (I remember Glowsquid commenting on how having too many userspace edits was not block-worthy in itself when one of the three complained). Not trying to intrude or anything, just offering information. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | |||
::Like Fawfulfury65 and Reversinator said above, we definitely need to take into account the nature of one's edits to another user's talkpage (i.e. - whether the comments are legitimate questions or if the comments are just them shooting the breeze). If this proposal were to go anywhere at all, it would need to be reworded so that the punishment only affects those users who have an extremely large number of talk page edits that do not pertain to any important wiki issue or question to a more experienced user. Like several people have already said, we cannot punish people for asking too many questions about the wiki (as long as they are legitimate questions or comments). If we did that (even if we unknowingly did that via the passing of a proposal such as this one), new users may become turned off to the wiki for good, and we certainly don't want that. Besides, as it is, if anyone has too many talk page edits and not enough mainspace edits, a sysop will notify them on their talk page, and monitor the situation from there if necessary. They've got it under control, so we don't need to add superfluous additional procedures to a perfectly good system. {{User|Phoenix}} 14:07, 6 May 2011 (EDT) | |||
---- | |||
=== Create articles for the multiple Nintendo's development divisions === | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|14-0|make pages}} | |||
Long ago, I came to notice we had the article for both [[Nintendo]] and [[Nintendo EAD]] (which I suggest to change the title into the complete: '''Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development'''), but when I checked the last aforementioned, I noticed ''[[Mario Sports Mix]]'' and many other games were listed there as games created and developed by that division. As long as I know, ''Mario Sports Mix'' was co-developed between Square Enix and Nintendo SPD Group 4. In addition, I noticed Nintendo R&D redirects to Nintendo EAD and even though this division no longer exists (as it was merged with EAD), it developed some ''Mario'' games, like ''[[Super Mario Land]]'', without assistance from EAD (Miyamoto was not involved). Thus, by this proposal, I think we should create articles for the multiple Nintendo division's that have developed at least one ''Mario'' game, as well, as sorting every ''Mario'' game in the Nintendo EAD's article, into the respective division. In case this proposal passed, I think the articles we would need are:<br> | |||
*Nintendo Research & Development 1 (''Super Mario Land'' series and ''Wario Land'' series) | |||
*Nintendo Research & Development 2 (''Super Mario Advance'' series) | |||
**I think these two can be merged in the same article. | |||
*Nintendo Software Planning & Development (''WarioWare'' series with Intelligent Systems) | |||
*Nintendo Network Service Development (''BS Super Mario USA'' and ''Mario Party-e'') | |||
*Nintendo Software Technology (''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' series) | |||
*Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development (I added it to remind all this proposal also suggest the name change). | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Byllant}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': May 12, 2011 23:59 GMT | |||
==== Create them ==== | |||
#{{User|Byllant}} - Per my proposal, in case an article is relatively short, I guess we should creat some kind of '''List of Nintendo's development divisions'''. | |||
#{{user|SWFlash}} Per proposal | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Magikrazy51}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} - That's awesome! If Nintendo has an article for itself, why not these! So... PER ALL! | |||
#{{User|M&SG}} - Ditto. | |||
#{{User|Loxo}} PER ALL!!! | |||
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Paperphailurethemariomonster99}} Per all! If you keep them all the same, it would be like not having seperate articles for the many types of [[Shy Guy]], which I know because I am a Shy Guy. BTW, did I say PER ALL!? | |||
#{{User|Master Koopakid}} More articles=Awesomer wiki | |||
#{{User|MeritC}} Per all. | |||
==== Keep Nintendo EAD's article the same ==== | |||
==== Comments ==== | |||
Does this proposal include adding the names of the people that were/are part of a given division, or is it just going as far as "<nowiki>[insert division name here]</nowiki> was involved in the production of <nowiki>[insert game title here]</nowiki>?" {{User|Mario4Ever}} | |||
:Key people maybe added into the page as they are involved, I guess. {{User|Byllant}} | |||
---- | |||
===Require FA Support Reason=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-8|don't require}} | |||
Lately, I've seen some supports for FA Nominations where the user accidentally gave a reason. However, some of these have been reasons that are completely unrelated to the quality of the article, such as, "Boo is a main enemy so he should be a FA". Votes like this would be completely invalid if a reason was required. Also, reasons are required for unfeature opposes, which are kind of like feature supports. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshiwaker}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': May 14, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} This would prevent articles from being featured just because a lot of people liked the character, or something of the like. | |||
#{{User|DKPetey99}} Per Yoshiwaker. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Supports USED to have a reason to go along, but we removed them because they are unnecessary. What can you say when you support other than "Per" or "I like this article"? Supports also do no harm at all other than bumping the nomination. Once we have an oppose vote, the article will not be featured or unfeatured until the oppose vote is removed, basically. We might need a rule for nominations that go on for nearly a year (like Luigi, how many fans does he have?), due to fans continuously bumping the nomination but I don't see exactly why we need reason for support. This fan voting controversy has been going on for a a long time, and I think this is the way to go. I will state it again: support votes do not make the article featured. I think it is more of the lack of oppose votes that make an article featured. | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per LGM | |||
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per Lgm. | |||
#{{User|Magikrazy51}} LGM FTW (for the win). Per her. | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} Per LGM | |||
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per LGM. | |||
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} Per LGM. (Luigi has tons of fans...like me!) | |||
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per LGM. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
wouldnt it be easier to make it so articles with missing games or improvmant templates were completly banned i mean how many reasons are there to support something {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | |||
:A.That would be for a different proposal and B. Most invalid reasons accidentally given are like, "___ is awesome so it should be a FA." or something like that. {{User|Yoshiwaker}} | |||
i think that Featured article nominations should be removable if they are missing info on games or have those improvment templates ya know fix the article first than nominate it {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | |||
:As I said, that's not what this proposal is about. {{User|Yoshiwaker}} | |||
i understand that im just saying what stops fan boys from just saying per above {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | |||
::Annoying as it seems, it doesn't really do any harm to the wiki, and anybody can fix to remove those templates any time. Sometimes, I'd like to see nominations as another way to improve articles. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} |
Latest revision as of 17:48, May 28, 2023
Allow autoconfirmed users edit other users' userpagesdon't allow 1-34 Proposer: Kaptain K. Rool (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Yoshiwaker: We can revert vandalism if they do put junk on our userpages and we do need to help the community too. Kaptain K. Rool (talk)
I think we would need to talk to Steve about this even if the proposal did pass... Marioguy1 (talk)
Imagine a vandal coming onto your userpage and replacing all of your personal information with fake, unnecessary and inappropriate information that could be offensive to you. This. What if people go to my user page and say "I hate (insert any Nintendo character here)!"? It offends me a lot when Kirby or Diddy Kong gets insulted. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Basically, if a user page has any red links, let the Sysops handle that stuff. That's why the Sysops are here; if you want a user page fixed, just contact me or any other Sysop. M&SG (talk) @Kaptain K. Rool - Adding on to what I said above: you say we need to "help out the community" by "removing red links, redirect links...along with deleted images," but technically, userpages are not really part of the community in this context. Pretty much the whole point of it being your userpage is that it's, well, your userpage. If other people start editing it left and right, then it's not really just yours anymore is it? That's the one thing that sets userpages apart from every other article on this wiki. In your argument, it seems to me that you're almost saying that the prospect of complete (and possibly recurring) userpage obliteration is better than some of the fairly minor problems you list above. Long story short: the only part of the wiki that we are responsible for improving is the articles. Phoenix (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
I can see it possibly working if you could lock off sections of a page. Which would be FANTASTIC! for many articles. E.g. All of the stuff like release dates for past games that aren't going to change could be locked off. But until then...No. Geniusguy445 (talk)
Merge all of King Koopa's alter egos into one articlemerge to king koopa's alter egos 20-3-0 Proposer: Reversinator (talk) Merge to King Koopa's alter egos
Merge to Bowser
Leave them splitCommentsI agree. Just as how the Super Strikes and Mega Strikes were merged together, these alter egos should be merged together. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) How are you planning on merging? Are you going to add a new column to the table, or do something altogether different. Bop1996 (talk)
Before merging King Koopa, I suggest that you merge Robo Koopa to Robo Suit, because I feel that information belongs there rather than being deleted. Also, what are we going to do with the Featured Article status on Robo Koopa if this proposal passes? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Although I believe the pages have enough information to stand by themselves, I'll stay open to any opinions before voting, as I never watched The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!. Paper Yoshi (talk)
While this is going on, how about merging all of the pages on the (sort of borrowing my brother's idea here, please don't add a megabyte of protests to my userpage, again) Super Paper Mario people, and other single-appearance things? Mpeng (talk)
I think Robo Koopa should keep its own article, and FA status - if it's long enough and good enough, what's the point of merging and losing a great article. Instead, we can just use {{main}}. If we merge it, we're bound to lose some information and that's not good for the Wiki. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
Merge Minor NPCs with their locationdon't merge 1-16 Proposer: Yoshiwaker (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI hate the trigger-happy people on this wiki that shout "MERGE!" to all stubs. First of all, at least three hundred articles on this wiki, if not more, are minor characters. That's a lot of articles. Second, while they are minor, they are still characters, and they are officially named, and thus, they deserve an article. Third, how would this be better? I mean, a lot of the minor character articles are actually decently sized, and merging them would require some trimming, thus reducing quality. Fourth, why their location? Considering the amount of minor NPCs in a town, the articles would look cluttered. Reversinator (talk)
@Reversinator: It's not just because they're stubs, but also that they are EXTREMELY minor. Most of them just say a couple of lines and do nothing else. Yoshiwaker (talk)
@MG1: I considor "Minor NPC"s to be characters who do not help you in any way and have no relevance to the plot. Yoshiwaker (talk)
At least my proposal to merge all generic humans into one article had more good reasons then just they're all small/stubs and it will look good. Merging them all into a location article is as random as that TPP that wanted to merge Bozzo with Watchitt and NO it will not make the articles nicer, it will make it look cluttered-up, unorganized, and unprofessional. And plus, WE ARE USERS, NOT AMERICANS, what do we do when we notice a list of related articles are stubs, we either add information to expand it or do something to them (like merging) with very good logic and support, we don't lazily decide let's merge them all because I don't know a thing about about the article or I'm too lazy so I'll do the easiest thing that comes to mind without thinking over it. (P.s. No offense, and this wasn't directed only towards the proposer.) Zero777 (talk)
If I'm right on the definition, you want Culex, Jinx and Monstermana merged with Monstro Town, Toadofsky merged with Tadpole Pond and The Sunglasses Salesman and Doot-Doot Sisters merged with Isle Delfino? They have nothing to do with the main plot. Magikrazy51 (talk) Input new rules for name changingdon't input 1-19 Proposer: DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsSo you're basically making this proposal to help yourself change your username? Users shouldn't have to change their username at all, and changing it just causes confusion. Users should know that they should avoid changing their username to something long and that they only have two times to change it. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
I find two changes to be too short. Three should be enough. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)
Ya know if you just got rid of your first account and made a new account that would settle that matter easily instead of changing the rules Iggykoopa (talk)
My username is long and has the symbol é. That means I can't go here on my laptop and it takes me a little longer to type my name at certain times. Pokémon Trainer Mario (talk) Just a thought, but maybe you could type your username in a blank word document, save it, and just copy and paste it into the login page each time you go to log in. That would be easier. Tails777 (talk)
When you make your name, shoundn't you choose a shorter one? And at Pokémon Trainer Mario, You can click "Remember me on this computer" BTW I'm laptopin, and I Wrote your name! Luigi is OSAM (talk) I'd also like to mention that if we use the 20 character limit mentioned in the proposal, a lot of users will need their usernames to be changed. This just gives bureaucrats a lot of worthless work to do, and it would cause a lot of problems. Fawfulfury65 (talk) You should of been wiser for your username. Superfiremario (talk) It would be worth considering to have a character limit for new users. Old users may keep theirs, and this could prevent problems like this or even some name changes in the first place. But that's only if it is possible. Cacciaguida (talk) Pokémon Trainer Mario, a really easy way to get that "é" in Pokémon is to google "pokemon". The first entry has the word Pokémon with an "é". Just copy and paste it. Volatile Dweevil Make an Article for AR gamesmake an article for ar games 15-0 No other wiki has a page for AR games,and it's Mario related,so it should have an article. Proposer: yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWhat the heck is an AR game? Zero777 (talk)
Fishing is highly Mario related(you can catch Mario stuff)
and Star Pics has Mario in it so i think we should make an article on AR games itself and those 2
I still don't know what's an AR game because the website is too vague on what it specifically is. Zero777 (talk)
On the 3ds,there are these special cards,and you look at them in the camera and it makes it look like things are appearing wherever you have the camera.its kind of like virtual reality,but the opposite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FZP2jvNljs yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) Oh now I know what you are talking about. I think it's best to make one article for this, because the cards are too simple for them to have their own separate articles. Zero777 (talk) If there aren't more AR cards coming, maybe it would be best to have them in the 3DS article? Fawfulfury65 (talk)
Remove certain entries in "References in Other Games" sectionsremove entries 14-0 Proposer: Reversinator (talk) Delete those entries
Keep those entriesCommentsBut it technically could be a reference to the game since it debuted in an earlier game Iggykoopa (talk) Um, I don't think this warrants a proposal. I've seen people deleting those entries lately such as Marioguy1 in something about Freezies and stuff. I've deleted several of these myself. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
@Reversinator: Which types of entries are you proposing to delete? You mentioned one example, and while it makes sense, you have not specified which sections specifically you want deleted. Bop1996 (talk)
References are not that simple; if they were, a concise rule set would be developed already. But as we do not know what Nintendo was thinking, we can't do this. I definitely don't think that every game with a Goomba in it is a reference to SMB, or that every game with Mario is a reference to the original DK. But sometimes when enemies appear, it is a reference (i.e. Dino Piranha in SMG is referenced by Peewee Piranha in SMG2 (sorry, couldn't think of anything better)). So it's complicated. And then, to make matters more complicated - music. Sometimes music is remixed music from another game, sometimes it's the same, sometimes it's different, but we can't be sure whether music that sounds like it's from SMB3 is actually a reference to SMB3 or they just ran out of sound files so they remixed something. Like I said, the references to other games sections are very complicated. Marioguy1 (talk)
Split Category:Donkey Kong Levels into Separate Categoriesdon't split 21-24 Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk) Make a New Category
Keep Original Category
CommentsWe shouldn't delete the Donkey Kong levels category because it can be useful in finding many DK levels. Also, if we really want to find information about a Donkey Kong Country 2 level or something, why can't we just look in Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, or the category for any other game? There's also templates that you can use to easily find levels in one of those games. Fawfulfury65 (talk) MS&G: You know your vote is invalid. You can't simply say, "Good idea" if you want to support. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) BabyLuigionfire why can't you just because you have nothing new to add doesnt mean it isnt valid other wise like 20 votes from other propsals that say per all Iggykoopa (talk)
Baby luigi on fire the rules state that Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.Iggykoopa (talk)
Like I, Magikrazy51 (talk) said in the opposing section, "WE DONT HAVE ALL THE MARIO
@Babyluigionfire how is saying per all not the same as saying good idea #Iggykoopa (talk)
Babyluigionfire how is saying per all any different than saying good idea when your agreeing with a proposal Iggykoopa (talk)
im confused are there votes invalid are not? Iggykoopa (talk)
Speaking of that... @Lucas777123: You vote is invalid. Please add a reason on why you think this is a good idea, or I'll remove your vote. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
I think to split the category, because to those who oppose, and this is soley my thought, but: It's like saying let's merge all of the Mario series levels into one category, and list all of them in one category. Then, we list all hte levels, under one category. Boowhoplaysgames (talk)
And you gotta support me, too! It seems like some people are supporting this just because they were asked to. That's just what it looks like to me. Yoshiwaker (talk)
I greatly discourage anyone to tell another user to vote on a certain side. Supporting a proposal because someone told you to is a horrible idea, but I do feel that some users have been doing this, since a lot of the supporters have been asked to support it. I hope that all of the voters have read through the proposal, thought about it, and have read through the opinions of others, because if not, we may not have what's best for the Wiki. Asking them to vote for the proposal is OK, though, as they might not feel forced to vote on the side they were told. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
I agree with this, and Im all for FF65. I think it isn't a good thing, that you vote on a certain side, because someone told you; DKPetey99 has done a good job not telling other people to vote support: Me and my bro. both got messages saying to vote on his proposal, but didn't say which side. We both simply voted support, because we had a discussion on what we think is best. I greatly discourage any favors, or things a sysop, or anyone, to do so they get the most support/no support. This is a fair Proposal, if the issue with the one sysop wasn't happening with this proposal that is...Boowhoplaysgames (talk) D'oh. Got the date mixed up, thought it was over. (Mortified expression) Bop1996 (talk) Apply new procedures for naming Starting Planetsdon't apply 11-14 Proposer: Phoenix (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThis will create conjectural titles for the planets, no? LeftyGreenMario (talk)
@Phoenix I see. Sorry about the confusion. Mario4Ever (talk)
Replying to his comment? Are you talking about me? LeftyGreenMario (talk) ...uh...yes...you're not a boy, are you? Phoenix (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
I'm wondering, but are there any levels that go in a slightly different sequence of planets? Then, the names for the planets (planet 1, planet 2, etc.) would get messed up. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
@Phoenix: I'm not using that as my basis, my main point here is that this proposal will do absolutely nothing except remove the shred of consistency that remains in these galaxy articles. I have never had a problem with you renaming planets to give them "cool" names; I sure did say that that's horrible reasoning, but I've never said that's why I'm opposing. I'm opposing because this proposal will kill what consistency there is in the articles. And could you please tell me your points? I don't see a place where this proposal would be useful... Marioguy1 (talk)
@Bop1996 The right name of this planet is "Tall Trunk Planet," thus the name of the galaxy. SWFlash (talk)
Not sure if this was answered already, but for galaxies that only consist of one planet, we merely split it up into sections, as shown on the Flip-Swap Galaxy and Beat Block Galaxy. Gamefreak75 (talk)
Disclaimer: I am not trying to be rude by butting in to this discussion, but I had an idea that might solve this problem. @Phoenix: That argument isn't necessarily true, you gave a worst-case scenario for how we could do it if we had no planet sections. @Walkazo: That sparked my curiosity, so I made an edit to my work page seeing how the levels section of the Tall Trunk Galaxy would look without the planets section. I wasn't as descriptive as possible, but that would seem to be the only way to pull it off. I was actually a little confused when I saw your vote, because I remember everyone voting down a proposal to change the planet names to sequential order, but I never heard of removing the planets section altogether. Maybe a proposal after this one is over would be in order. Bop1996 (talk)
I agree that is off topic... I was mostly trying to figure out what she was suggesting we do, and how it possibly could be done without being ambiguous or non-descriptive... As such, unless someone makes a proposal to get rid of the planets section, I'm not really into debating this now, unless there really are a lot of people out there who want the planets section removed... Bop1996 (talk)
I think that since all planets (apart from the starting planet) in most galaies have conjectural names anyway that the starting planet should have a name as well. JayRed2486 (talk)
I really don't think the amount of work should matter. Our job is to improve the wiki as much as possible. If this proposal will help the wiki (which I personally think it will), then we should pass it, regardless of how much extra work you happen to think it will cause. If this passes, I plan to help with the articles. Ultrahammer5365 (talk)
Split the Category:Implied pages into sections based on the game in which it is implied.don't split 2-9 Proposer: JayRed2486 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsHere's my thought, I don't think it's a good idea for several reasons. 1: Categories were meant to be titled vaguely to have dozens of articles linked up to it. 2: it is made vaguely for easy navigation. 3: And the only specification of that category should be implied location, characters, etc., but we already have an article on those so Category:Implied should be left alone. Zero777 (talk) Split the level articles from the world articles and delete the world articlesdon't split 1-14 Proposer: Superfiremario (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThe dates were all done wrong: this was proposed on the 15th (at 20:43 GMT), so voting starts on the 16th, and ends at 23:59 GMT on the 23rd. I had to remove the opposing votes because voting hasn't actually started yet. Please read the rules before making proposals: Rule 2 explains exactly how to do the dates. - Walkazo (talk) What are you trying to say? This proposal is WAY TOO VAGUE. Zero777 (talk)
Split Each Boss Level From Each Bossdon't split 6-17 Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk) Split Boss From Level
Keep Boss and Level Together
CommentsWhat is the procedure that is taken with all non-boss levels in that game? Marioguy1 (talk)
The reason why those Yoshi's Island boss levels are separate from the bosses is because those are actual levels that you have to complete before reaching the boss. In the Donkey Kong games, the boss levels are simply you fighting the boss in a small area. If we were to split Congazuma's Castle from Congazuma, the article would be two sentences long. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
We could make a level page for Tiki Tong Terror and have info about him on his page. That is one of the pages that could do with this proposalYoshidude99 (talk) @DKPetey: I would like you to point out which part of the Ruined Roost level has information that isn't only important in the boss fight with Stu. Bop1996 (talk) @DKPetey: Yes, Ruined Roost is the level, but it is simply a stretch of land with a few pillars in it. The important part of the level is that you get to fight Stu in it. If we split the bosses and the levels, they would both end up describing how the boss is fought, since fighting Stu, as I said, is the main part of that level. Like Bop1996 said, this proposal would cause short articles with little and unimportant information, or it will cause repeating information. I'm not sure if you've played the Donkey Kong games, but if you have, you know how empty and bland the boss levels are. @Yoshidude99: Like the Yoshi levels, the Galaxy bosses are split because you have to travel through the level they are in to reach them. In the Donkey Kong games, the levels are simply a small, unimportant area that you fight the boss in. Everyone, please read these comments carefully before voting. Remove Banjo and Conker from our coverage policy and delete Banjo (series) and Conker (series)delete 31-2 The articles we have on Banjo's and Conker's series, respectively, are horrible. They are cluttered up with every single enemy, item, location, character, and other stuff from the two series, making it pratically unreadable. But that's not why I'm proposing this. I assume that we have those articles due to Banjo's and Conker's appearance in Diddy Kong Racing. But from what I can understand, both Conker's and Banjo's series were planned before-hand, but due to Banjo-Kazooie's release being delayed, both him and Conker were put in as a sort of early bird cameo. In other words, they are not sub-series of the Mario series and should be treated like other crossover games; whoever appeared in the crossover game gets an article, and nothing more. Proposer: Reversinator (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsFinally! That is a removal proposal! Since I'm not going to vote until Wednesday, I'll just make a comment. This is the MarioWiki not the BanjoWiki so, lose it!Reddragon19k (talk) Phoenix: This isn't proposed simply to remove bad articles. It's the relevance to the Mario series that mostly matters (in my perspective anyway). We do not need to cover Banjo and Conker as a series, but we can cover them as a character since they DID appear in Diddy Kong Racing. But that's about it. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Phoenix, I think you're gravely underestimating and over-simplifying the situation. The reason these articles are so unnavigable is because they are a pile of information pasted together. It is impossible to improve them in any way because, due to the bizarre stalemate situation, the rules of this wiki requires them to stay like that. There is no legal way for us to make these articles not horrible, and therefore, your argument becomes invalid. - Edofenrir (talk)
also whats the legal situation got to do with this Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) not to add fuel to the fire but conker is related to mario since they were both characters in the club nintendo comic Freeze Frame. oh that makes sense also i remeber this issue back when i first started in 07 Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
What I'm saying is to keep the Banjo and Conker articles, but delete the series articles. Banjo and Conker appear in Diddy Kong Racing so they should have thier own articles. It's just like the Super Smash Bros series characters. Tails777 (talk)
Dude the difference is that Banjo and Conker are spin offs of DK not cross overs like Sonic or Link thats the difference Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
A cameo really a cameo is when a character makes a brief appearence in a game Banjo and Conker were stars/ playable characters in there debut appearence which makes them spin offs Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
So there the first ever cross over game to feature characters from franchises that didnt exist yet cause developent and release are 2 different things Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) a cameo as defined is a brief appearance of a known person in a work of the performing arts, such as plays, films, video games[1] and television. These roles are generally small, many of them non-speaking ones, and are commonly either appearances in a work in which they hold some special significance (such as actors from an original movie appearing in its remake), or renowned people making uncredited appearances. Oh and the Conker Series was no delayed considering that in order for it to be delayed it would have had to be in development for at least 3 years for a game boy game that was as simple as that no. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
no it can not be considered brief if you star in your first game also no conker game was in development untill after Diddy Kong Racing and your thinking of a cross over
im going to do something i hate to do but the show Maude is a spin off of all and the family but no characters from all in the family appear. Good times was a spin off from maude but no characters from maude other than Florida ever appeared. the facts of life was a spin off of different strokes no characters from that appear. Buddies was a spin off from Home Improvement no characters from Home improvement appeared on buddies Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
Banjo and Conker are both the property of Rare, which left Nintendo. Now, since their games are not part of the Mario Universe, it's quite senseless to cover their series'. Also, while the Banjo and Conker articles can stay, any details not involving crossovers get the boot; basically, only the Diddy Kong Racing details stay. M&SG (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2011 (EDT) Wait...Isn't there a Donkey Kong Wiki? Why is everything related to DK in a Mario Wiki? MarioMaster15 (talk)
Remove Voting Start Ruleremove rule 18-4 All this rule, I think it does, is to make voting more complicated, and it pretty much accomplished that, since so many people break it. While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided". Besides, no other proposal gets this rule; not the featured articles and not the Talk Page Proposals, so I see no reason we need this. I propose to remove this rule because it makes everything unnecessarily complicated, it is useless for those who aren't online every day, it is impractical for those who are online every day, and it is not present in all types of proposals. Proposer: LeftyGreenMario (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsIt's somewhat amusing how I want to support this proposal right now. - Edofenrir (talk) LGM, I had this exact idea to start this proposal too. Now I'm going to support it. The idea of it at first sounds great, but in reality, it does not help anything at all but create a nuisance. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) I'm really pulled on both sides of this proposal. I want to oppose because it gives time for some users to accept the fact this is for good and let it sink in to their minds. It will also give time to the proposer to make any error corrections and alterations to the proposal. Also, yes it is true people aren't online every day, but they'll be online eventually, if they don't, then they miss to vote on a proposal..... oh well. But I am questioned on why isn't this applied to FA or TPP; well I guess because the proposal for that was meant only for the proposals and nobody bothered to extend the rule to FA and TPP's. BUT here's my thought on supporting this: the proposal lasts for a week, there will be enough time for anybody to counter anybody's vote and for users to change their minds. It was made to give time to the proposer to check for errors, but the rules say that the proposer has three days to make alterations and error checks on the proposal, so I guess it is unnecessary, I'm going to support. Zero777 (talk)
While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided". How does allowing voting to take place immediately after the proposal is posted rectify this problem? What difference does it make whether or not there is a 24-hour delay between the proposal's posting and voting start time if there are people who aren't online constantly and are unable to vote immediately anyway? While I'm thinking of it, what difference does it make when someone votes if the proposal is on the page for a week? Surely, no one is busy to the extent that spending five minutes reading a proposal and typing {{User|Username}} in the appropriate section strains his or her schedule. Mario4Ever (talk) Yes, and also I think the rule of Voting Start should be backfired. Nice job, LeftyGreenMario buddy! Superfiremario (talk) Hmmm, as for why we don't do this on TPPs and FA nominations, I happened to see an explanation for that. The TPPs and FA nominations are more out of the way and don't usually get jumped on as soon as they are proposed (although this may vary due to how many people are online when the action is proposed). Also, just because removing the vote is an annoyance doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, unless it gets really out of hand sometime in the future. I prefer the voting delay because, even if no one is there to read the comments, I'd rather comment on a proposal when the voting period hasn't started yet, and have that be more likely to influence the debate. Take, for instance, the DK series boss level split, I wasn't there when the proposal was proposed, and yet I was able to comment on the situation before the voting period started. I don't find it inconvenient either, but that may just be me. </long-winded ramble> Bop1996 (talk)
Besides, when I am ready to vote, 20 people already voted after voting start. This rule doesn't help me or the wiki greatly in my opinion. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
"Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins?" No, but I am not in the wiki everyday. There might be days where I revolve around the wiki the entire day, and some days where I am not there at all. There is no way of knowing when someone is going to propose something new. And I'm the impatient type and I like to vote to get things over with. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
I made the mistake of voting too early twice now, once on a proposal I made and once now on this proposal. I think its really annoying so I'm supporting this proposal.Tails777 (talk)
This is a GREAT idea, because when I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke the rule and voted. It's POINTLESS!!!!!!! On the forst day, over 9000 people aren't gonna vote on it! Luigi is OSAM (talk)
@Kaptian K. Rool: What the heck are you trying to say?? Zero777 (talk) @Kaptain K. Rool: Are you sure you understand what's being proposed? Fawfulfury65 (talk)
Merge the special shots of Mario Power Tennis (Gamecube) into one articleno merge 8-12 Proposer: Tails777 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThe dates were all wrong. Voting start is a day after the proposal was made, which means it starts on the 16th, not the 15th; you also forgot to convert the time from EST to GMT (or incorrectly converted from some other time zone). And finally, mainspace proposals only go for one week, so this ends on the 23rd, not the 29th. How to format these dates and times is clearly explained in Rule 2: I encourage everyone to read it before making proposals. - Walkazo (talk) I hate when I have to say this, but a stub is not a short article. A stub is an article that, regardless of length, lacks information. If a short article does have all its information, it is not a stub. Get it right, people. Reversinator (talk)
I don't find this to be useful. If this proposal passes, what will happen to Fire Breath? It appears in Smash Bros. as well. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) @DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.: If Fire Breath appears in Smash Bros Brawl, it would be in Bowser's article. All characters special attacks are on their own articles. Tails777 (talk) @Tails777 Fire Breath has it's own article. Besides, every Power Shot is different enough. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Less Merging and Unmerge some merged Articlesdon't stop merging 2-18
I think most of the time, Merging Hurts the Wiki. For Example, Merging Lava Bubble and Podoboo deleted most of the information on Lava Bubble. I propose that there should be less suggestions of merging stuff, especially with good articles. Just because something looks similar or the "japanese names are the same" doesnt mean that one of the articles should be ruined. (If merging prevents stubs,then it is OK) Proposer: yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) Support
Oppose
Commentsfirst things first which articles are to be un-merged is that up to you or who is that going to be decided by also your starting time is wrong and so is your end time Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) We can't put a limit on how many things can be merged. If something needs to be merged, we have to merge it. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Plus isnt that why we have talk pages to determine whether or not we need an article Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) From what I understand, you want to make sure merging is a last resort because the articles we're merging are good? We merge articles for various reasons. Some of those reasons could be considered invalid today, but you can't put a limit on merging. Suppose someone makes lavish articles for all the trophies in the Super Smash Bros. series. If this proposal succeded, we wouldn't be able to merge them because it would merge too much and the articles are too good to merge, which, if you didn't realize yet, are not good reasons. Reversinator (talk) First of all, this proposal is vague. You do not specify which types of articles you want merged; instead, you make some vague reference to an article that is "good enough." Second, you don't mention what type of limit is being enforced, only that one needs to be. Third, sometimes merging is necessary. It's important to look at all the evidence and make a rational decision based off all the evidence. Fourth, what articles are you planning on un-merging? All in all, I see no reason whatsoever to support this, or to even have it proposed... Bop1996 (talk) @bop1996 I plan on having articles such as Lava Bubble and Pale Piranha unmerged.Also,the Badge page needs to be broken up by game,or by badge. I think Stubs still need to be merged though. @Reversinator I think good articles should remain independent.but stubs should be merged together. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) @Yoshiyoshiyoshi What constitutes a good article? As for Badges, a single comprehensive article is, in my opinion, more beneficial than a series of short ones. Mario4Ever (talk) And you still haven't explained who get's to decide what articles get to be un-merged or why we need to change the system when we have talk pages for this Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) @Yoshiyoshiyoshi Question what doesnt apply to Admins and another Question why not just make talk page proposals about this Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) @goombasshoe Only Administrators get to make merging TTPs,but anyone can vote on them.And most of the Non-Stub articles that were previously merged get un-merged yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)
and who gets to decide what get unmerged also why should admins be the only people to be able to make merging proposals Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) This whole proposal is based on your opinion that merging is always bad. Basically, you are just trying to impose your will on the whole wiki. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with GS15. Just because some people are admins does not mean that they are the only people who can make good decisions regarding splitting and merging.Yoshiwaker (talk) All of the Non-Stub Articles that were merged get un-merged.And I think Admins should only get to make Merging TTPs because it would make less unnecesary mergingyoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) @yoshiwalker Merging isnt always bad.I think that Meging things that dont need to be merged is thoughyoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) If a proposal was made for an unnecessary merge, it would be opposed. As a reply to your second comment, you said yourself that "Merging hurts the wiki". Yoshiwaker (talk) well i meant stuff like the Lava Bubbe thing.Read the talk on Lava bubble to know what i mean yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) all i see is that 13 people said yes and 5 said no which makes me believe they should be merged Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) In japan,all magikoopas are called kamek.Does this mean kamek should be merged with magikoopa?i think not @Holyromanemperortatan: That will actually hurt the wiki. Zero777 (talk) @Zero777 yeah prolly since it will cause confusion as to what articles should be merged and which ones shouldnt Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) What are you trying to say?! This proposal is way to vauge. Superfiremario (talk)
Blocked Users' Votesuse option 2 6-16-1 Now I have several options that I would consider accurate so let me explain them all:
All three options have their pros and cons; the first option will simplify things greatly, but it will unfairly treat users who are blocked for (hypothetically) one day. The second option will fairly treat everyone, isn't too complicated, but if a user is unblocked an hour before the proposal ends, will they really have time to change their vote (if they want to change it)? Finally the third point covers all possible problems and fairly treats all users, but it is very complicated. It depends what kind of balance we want. Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk) Option 1
Option 2
Option 3Do not delete vote
CommentsIf anybody has any suggestions for options 4 and 5, I'd be glad to add them in any time in the next three days. Marioguy1 (talk)
This isn't a perfect procedure by any means, but food for thought at any rate, right? Phoenix (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
We should also take other circumstances into consideration, such as the reason for the user's block. For example, if the user was banned for sockpuppeting or vandalism, his/her vote will probably be removed, but if the user was banned for editing a page multiple times, his/her vote probably won't be removed. ThirdMarioBro (talk)
I really believe that the first option should be chosen because I'm the kind of person who expects people to follow the rules or else they'll have to face the consequences, since staff unofficially and officially warn users of their actions on not to do them, they get the consequence of not following directions. Zero777 (talk)
I have a suggestion; instead of doing anything above, we could wait until the end of the proposal. Then, we could check each user to see whether they are blocked and remove blocked users' votes then. Mariomario64 (talk) What about blocked user's proposals? Will they be deleted or kept? SWFlash (talk)
What happens if a user made an FA nomination that didn't get edited for nearly a month, and got blocked? This would unnecessarily "bump" the nomination. I think you should add a rule. Something like, "Within x days in an FA nomination, if users get blocked, their vote will remain until somebody bumps the nomination." LeftyGreenMario (talk) @LGM We could have a notice placed on the user's talk page upon his/her return with something along the lines of "Due to your recent blocking, you have lost the privilege to vote on the insert name proposal. Thank you for your consideration," couldn't we? Mario4Ever (talk) @AI21436: Blocks are never given for unintentional actions that harm the wiki. Generally, people get reminders and are only blocked if the action continues deliberately. Mario4Ever (talk)
@ThirdMarioBro: Your vote is invalid, what the heck are you trying to say? You don't get blocked from having a bad reasoning on your vote! Zero777 (talk)
@Bowser's Luma If a person is employed for a company but decides to leave for three months, is he or she still considered a valid member of the workforce upon returning? Same situation here, except no one gets paid. Mario4Ever (talk) Merge all of Wario's Transformations Into one Articledo not merge to either 1-0-15 Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk) Merge to Wario's Transformations
Merge to WarioKeep it the Same
CommentsThe reason I proposed to merge King Koopa's alter egos was because it was literally just King Koopa in a costume. This costume didn't grant him any special powers or anything even similar to that, so they got merged. These forms, on the other hand, all have distinct powers, like Fire Mario, Metal Mario, or Ice Mario. Also like those forms, these powers are obtained by obtaining a specific item. Yes, you can choose that power from anywhere after getting the item, but that doesn't make them any different than the other powers. Also, can you give a reason as to why you want them merged? Simply that they are similar to the alter egos of King Koopa, which is not true as I explained, is not a substantial reason. Bottom line, they should be kept separate. Reversinator (talk) Talk Page Proposaldon't implement a talk page rule 2-20 Proposer: Tom The Atum (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI totally understand what you're saying, but I really don't think a set guideline is necessary. Whenever we want to check up on users who edit their user page too much, we just look at this page. Our current user page protection length is 2 weeks after being warned, though this may be subject extended length depending how severe the offense is (so don't create 50 user sub-pages).--Knife (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2011 (EDT) So would this proposal actually make User space warnings mean something Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) Goomba:it will hopefully get some users to make more main edits. Tom The Atum (talk) What talk pages are you talking about? Are you talking about Mainspace or User's? Zero777 (talk)
@Superfiremario no way would you oppose what with having 6% main space out of 1000 edits despite like 6 warnings that's ridiculous dude so no way would you oppose a proposal that would make you actually do mainspace edits Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) @Goomba:Yeah, he needs to be warned more. I have included a warning when I told him my Mario Kart code, and he just responded with an okay, without a saying[I will try to make more main edits]. Tom The Atum (talk) We can't ban people from chatting on user talkpages. They are needed to communicate with others. Yes, a lot of people do talk about things unrelated to the Wiki very often on their talkpages, but if we put a limit, it may prevent them from asking important questions and talking about the Wiki and how to improve it. The admins already keep an eye out for the users editing their userspace too much. We can't block them if they talk about the right things on their talkpages. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Let me give you this scenario: Suppose a new user has 300 edits. Out of those edits, 100 of them are made on user talk pages (33%) and 175 of them are on main pages (58%). His edits are actually good and the majority of the edits on user talks are just questions he asked to more experienced users. Should a new user really be banned simply for asking how to do something without screwing it up? Reversinator (talk)
@Tom the Atum: You can no longer get warnings, reminders, last reminders and get blocked for userspace. Superfiremario (talk) @Marioguy: Just to clarify, I was only talking about the user page, not the user talk pages.
Create articles for the multiple Nintendo's development divisionsmake pages 14-0
Proposer: Byllant (talk) Create them
Keep Nintendo EAD's article the sameCommentsDoes this proposal include adding the names of the people that were/are part of a given division, or is it just going as far as "[insert division name here] was involved in the production of [insert game title here]?" Mario4Ever (talk) Require FA Support Reasondon't require 2-8 Proposer: Yoshiwaker (talk) Support
Oppose
Commentswouldnt it be easier to make it so articles with missing games or improvmant templates were completly banned i mean how many reasons are there to support something Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
i think that Featured article nominations should be removable if they are missing info on games or have those improvment templates ya know fix the article first than nominate it Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
i understand that im just saying what stops fan boys from just saying per above Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
|