MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65

All past proposals are archived here. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page. Previous proposals Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Rewrite cited quotes into a new style Do not change 4-7 It's been two years since the {{ref quote}} was deleted. This time, I was wondering if there's a possibility to rewrite the cited quotes into a new style to match the Wikipedia citation templates {{Cite video game}}, {{Cite episode}}, and {{AV media}}. Here are some examples: <ref>[[Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development|Nintendo EAD Tokyo]] (November 1, 2007). ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' ([[Wii]]). [[Nintendo]]. Level/area: [[Bubble Blastoff]]. "'''[[Captain Toad]]''': 'That Undergrunt Gunner is keeping us from exploring the area!'"</ref> = Nintendo EAD Tokyo (November 1, 2007). Super Mario Galaxy (Wii). Nintendo. Level/area: Bubble Blastoff. "Captain Toad: 'That Undergrunt Gunner is keeping us from exploring the area!'" <ref>Shelly, Bruce; Shelly, Reed (September 8, 1990). "[[Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas]]". ''[[The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3]]''. Episode 1. "'''Royal Parrot''': 'You can't evict me! Braw! I'm the Royal Parrot!'"</ref> = Shelly, Bruce; Shelly, Reed (September 8, 1990). "Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas". The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. Episode 1. "Royal Parrot: 'You can't evict me! Braw! I'm the Royal Parrot!'" <ref>Coffin, Pierre; Balda, Kyle Balda (director) (June 14, 2017). ''{{wp|Despicable Me 3}}'' (Motion picture). "'''Bratt''': 'It's on like Donkey Kong!'"</ref> = Coffin, Pierre; Balda, Kyle Balda (director) (June 14, 2017). Despicable Me 3 (Motion picture). "Bratt: 'It's on like Donkey Kong!'" Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Deadline: January 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT Support GuntherBB (talk) Per proposal Koopa con Carne (talk) standard good, disorder bad Super Mario RPG (talk) Per both, especially if this allows us to have citation templates. Camwoodstock (talk) Y'know? Now that it's been brought up, it is kinda weird we just lack a template for stock citations... at all. We have a template for consistent inter-wiki links, a template for consistent ways to depict controller buttons, a template for consistent ways to put dividing dots into navboxes, but a template for consistent citations is just Not A Thing. This would certainly make it easier to create new citations for people not as involved in the process if nothing else, and so long as the template follows our citation guidelines (which, it looks like they do), there isn't really any harm in having a bespoke template for these. #Hewer (talk) As long as it stays optional, per all. Oppose PnnyCrygr (talk) As User:Wayoshi puts it, "We are not Wikipedia." Also, unnecessary. YoYo (talk) per PnnyCrygr. DrippingYellow (talk) I had to think about it, but I'll have to oppose. I'm OK with books, magazines, and external websites getting sufficient citations, but going this in-depth for quoting a Mario game just seems redundant. And yes, I'm aware this isn't a requirement, but why would I support the addition of a template for an extravagant style of references I don't think are necessary most of the time? Ahemtoday (talk) I'm in an awkward situation here, because I do support having a more solid guideline for citations, but I feel like these specific guidelines are awkward for our purposes, especially the video game one. This level of depth makes sense for a generalist wiki that will usually be citing research papers and occasionally cites media, but we're a media-focused wiki. Half the time, the stuff we'll be citing will have its own article, so things like listing the publisher and developer of a video game just to cite it doesn't feel like it makes sense to me. Hewer (talk) On second thought, per DrippingYellow and Ahemtoday. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Normally, I'd be all for standardization, but implementing guidelines for citations is a delicate balance between the level of detail of the citation and the ease at which a user can add such a citation to an article. These citation formats are simply too complex for the narrower context of this wiki, and they include an unnecessary amount of arbitrary information beyond the quote itself, which is by far the most important part of the citation. Mario (talk) Proposal hasn't clearly outlined the issue nor does it explain how the effected changes will be an improvement. See comment. Comments Will this proposal allow for the aforementioned citation templates to be created? I'm not completely clear on what this proposal is aiming to accomplish, but I would support citation templates, to help create a consistency around the use of the references tags. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:39, January 20, 2024 (EST) Last time a template was proposed for citations (by some bloke named Bye Guy, I wonder how he's doing today), people were strongly (and I mean, strongly) against it for a reason I can't, to this day, grasp. It might have to do with the fact that people somehow misinterpreted that proposal as "let's make *this* layout a policy" when it was more so "let's make a template that could aid in making citations more consistent and allow for quick mass modifications if the used format is ever codified or changed". Someone even accused me of wanting to "enforce policy" because of personal convenience, even though the very point of templates is to make editing more convenient, but I digress--my points weren't too articulate either, so I have my share of blame. Problem was, I couldn't have proposed a template without a given format, so I guess my mistake was the misplaced priority: some standard formats should have been discussed first, perhaps leading to a proposal specific to that topic, and only when an agreement was reached between users would I have followed up with a template proposal. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:10, January 20, 2024 (EST) There is a frightening amount of times when random users try to co-opt a template convenience into a requirement. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:15, January 20, 2024 (EST) Looking at the revision history of MarioWiki:Citations, it seems a format had already been imposed by the time of that proposal. I still don't see how a template would've been such a bad idea. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:08, January 21, 2024 (EST) I don't even think it is a bad idea on its own, it's just that the templates being proposed here are copy-pasted from Wikipedia, rather than being based on the sufficient citation standards we already have. To be fair, we don't yet have a standard (in the rules) for in-game and film quotes, but if there was ever going to be one, this is certainly not it. DrippingYellow (talk) 13:43, January 21, 2024 (EST) The idea of making citations of all kinds more streamlined and standardized has actually been on my mind for a while now, but I haven't made a proposal yet because I don't know exactly how to go about it. Like I said in my reasoning for opposing this proposal, some citation formats are just too complicated for most users to bother following them, which is why finding the right format for a citation can make all the difference towards that format being agreed upon collectively as an improvement; that's why this proposal failed and this one unanimously succeeded. ThePowerPlayer 20:52, January 21, 2024 (EST) So, why this proposal? Citations should follow a certain standard, which I believe is illustrated in MarioWiki:Citations ("What to put as references") but perhaps not clearly, due to information on how citations should be formatted just mushed in a paragraph with no citation templates to work off, only examples. That being said, the proposal aims to change the citation style for quotes, referencing a talk page proposal for a deleted template, see Template talk:Ref quote; why was this deleted? Some people interpreted this as a proposal to create a general citation template, which I don't believe so since this proposal seems to strictly concern with quotations from fictional characters. If so, the comment by Ahemtoday is a reason to oppose: the stuff we'll be citing will have its own article, so things like listing the publisher and developer of a video game just to cite it doesn't feel like it makes sense to me." That being said, I think it's appropriate to cite some direct gameplay videos for evidence of claims in the articles. I've done this for Metal Mario's page, particularly the part where Wario yells when falling underwater; it's for my own sake in properly recalling something trivial (but amusing) and possible to forget later on. But this proposal aims to cite video games themselves for quotes, which I don't even think it's the best way to do it versus a time stamped video. If not, questions remain. What's the issue with the old system? Are we currently not even citing quotes? How are we doing citations for quotes currently? What's even the scope of this proposal, is it fictional characters or quotations from publications? What examples are there to show issues of the current citation method that led to the creation of this proposal? What do the changes even look like; what's "before" and "after"? Why should we match Wikipedia's system? It's not clear from this proposal. I've re-read the thing a few times carefully. I'm still left with confusion. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:57, January 22, 2024 (EST) Create two specific citation templates Create one template for all types of citations 3-5-1 This proposal similarly deals with citation templates, but proposes the creation of a few not covered within the scope of a different currently active proposal. I've seen inconsistently formatted citations all over the wiki (e.g. some add a comma, followed by "pg. 7" when it should be a period, followed by "Page 7.") and templates would be perfect for making sure the citations are formatted consistently all over the wiki. I'm proposing the two following citation templates for the following purposes: {{cite web}} - for anything that links to someplace else on the web, including PDF and digital documents. {{cite book}} - for any books, including magazines and manga. {{cite document}} - for any digital documents, such as PDFs, should there ever be a need to cite from those. (Edit: merged option into cite web) I don't expect them to be strictly enforced, but should this proposal pass, MarioWiki:Citations and probably the Manual of Style should be updated accordingly. Edit: Added an option for a single citation template (i.e. {{cite}}) that would cover for web links and publications alike, though I personally still prefer the two separately. Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) Deadline: January 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT Create both Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal PnnyCrygr (talk) Supporting this because of greater convenience and in order to allow for less inconsistencies with citing references. DrippingYellow (talk) Per all! #Hewer (talk) Although I don't see how optional templates that aren't strictly enforced are meant to make references more consistent (feels like they'd do the opposite if anything), I don't care much about consistency of reference formatting so I don't mind this being an option to potentially make it easier. Create one citation template for all types of citations Super Mario RPG (talk) Secondary choice. ThePowerPlayer (talk) After dwelling upon this for a while, I've realized that citations for books and web pages ultimately share so many of the same parameters that different citation templates would be redundant. The easiest way to create a single template for both citation types is to include optional parameters, which I am confident that MediaWiki can support. On my sandbox, I've created an idea of what the template should look like in the editor, as well as explanations of each field. If either this option or the above option passes, I will make a proposal of my own with further details. Hewer (talk) Per ThePowerPlayer. Jdtendo (talk) Per ThePowerPlayer. Besides, I think one singular template would be easier to deal with. Camwoodstock (talk) We feel like this is probably simplest; besides, as people have pointed out, there aren't really that many differences between web and print citations as-is. Oppose LadySophie17 (talk) Even if I would agree with the idea, I can't approve the creation of a template when I don't know what it will look like. I'm open to changing my vote if that changes. Comments One template for all citations would do just fine, no need for three. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:04, January 21, 2024 (EST) Wikipedia has them separate. I'm not sure how one template would work conveniently for all instances of citations. Super Mario RPG (talk) 06:56, January 21, 2024 (EST) Okay, well I added a separate option for those who prefer a single citation template. Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:29, January 21, 2024 (EST) I would like to know what each template would look like before voting on it. I'm confused by what the document one means, for example. — Lady Sophie (T|C) 07:10, January 21, 2024 (EST) Yeah i think cite web can cover for digital documents, come to think of it. I'll strike it out. These templates would probably be the same as what we have, only in template form. Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:29, January 21, 2024 (EST) As Sophie asked, what will these templates look like? Are we going to use content from Wikipedia? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:03, January 22, 2024 (EST) No, it's going to be the same way we already cite links, just in template format. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:17, January 22, 2024 (EST) What will the contents of {{cite}} look like? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:42, January 22, 2024 (EST) It would somehow integrate the functionality of the two templates. I made that option because Koopa con Carne said that only a single citation template should suffice. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:46, January 22, 2024 (EST) My question was not answered. What will you write in the template page to integrate this functionality? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:51, January 22, 2024 (EST) Truth be told, I don't know. I originally intended the proposal to have only separate templates as an option or opposition, but since a user said there could be one that suits all, i added as an option. i wouldn't know how to design a template for all types of citations, as the coding, switch, and if expressions for that could be too complex, so if that option passes, I'll probably need someone to help. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:04, January 22, 2024 (EST) Though I do know that consistent parameters would be like |last= (for author last name), |first= (first name), |title= (the work being cited). Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:26, January 22, 2024 (EST) I agree with Sophie and Mario. At this point, it looks like the "Create both" option will pass, and two citation templates will be created; however, these templates will only be used if they're formatted in an easily accessible way, and the proposal currently provides almost no details about what the templates would actually look like if they were implemented. For this proposal to actually take effect, there needs to be consensus on how the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates are implemented and used, not just the existence of the templates themselves. That means that this proposal either needs to be updated with specific formatting guidelines for the templates, or it must be followed up by another proposal detailing such guidelines. If you don't know exactly what the templates would look like, I'm willing to make a follow-up proposal of my own to settle that issue. ThePowerPlayer 10:45, January 23, 2024 (EST) Sure Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:58, January 23, 2024 (EST) The proposal is probably going to pass but I'm going to abstain from opposing because at least the community seems to agree on creation of the thing. The design of the thing is definitely another issue for another day, and it's something I think we can work with after the proposal. That being said, if you want more confidence for a support of your proposal, illustrate praxis. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:16, January 28, 2024 (EST) That's exactly what I'm planning on doing the minute this proposal ends, but before that, I want consensus to be reached on making a template at all (and how many templates to make). ThePowerPlayer 17:27, January 28, 2024 (EST) Add minecraft.wiki as an interwiki link Add 11-0 This isn't so much a "feature" rather than a simple quality-of-life addition to the wiki. This proposal proposes to add an interwiki link to minecraft.wiki (i.e. [[minecraftwiki:]]), especially considering the multitude of subjects in Minecraft's Super Mario Mash-up pack with Super Mario-themed reskins. At the moment, when linking to articles on a Minecraft wiki, it is the most convenient to do so by means of using the {{Fandom}} template to link to the Fandom wiki when there's a higher quality independent alternative available that a majority of the community has left to. I try to avoid adding direct urls into wiki articles in general. If there was an instance where someone added urls to minecraft.wiki throughout every article where it could apply, this would be a multitude of urls that one would have to manually fix, due to the Super Mario Mash-up pack existing. Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) Deadline: February 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT Support Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer. MegaBowser64 (talk) Couldn't hurt, really. Per proposer. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal. Hewer (talk) Per proposal Arend (talk) Per proposal. Camwoodstock (talk) get bent fandom Per all, if they split off from Fandom months ago, we should probably be linking to their independent wiki by now. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. Mario (talk) Considering that interwiki links are generally uncontroversial and I assume most of us hate that x-factorized spillway of an ad-infested radioactive dumpsite, I don't think a proposal is entirely necessary but it's still a valid way to request an added feature like that. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) This makes a lot of sense to me, as it would let the wiki remain consistent when dealing with subjects that are not Super Mario-related. Per proposal. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal. OmegaRuby (talk)Per proposal. Oppose Comments If this proposal succeeds, I think we could as well try a proposal for adding the RayWiki (e.g. [[raymanpc:]]) next, due to the Rayman series' relevance in Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope via the Rayman in the Phantom Show DLC. Casual reminder that we have interwiki for Kovopedia (even though the Magical Vacation series has little to no relevance to the Super Mario franchise yet, even while taking Super Smash Bros into account) purely because it's a NIWA affiliate, so adding a Rayman wiki as an interwiki link would only be fair, and that's double as much so for adding a Minecraft one. rend (talk) (edits) 11:39, January 28, 2024 (EST) Yes, I agree with this. Why not make the proposal now or do you want me to do it? Super Mario RPG (talk) 11:43, January 28, 2024 (EST) I agree as well. We should definitely make a proposal for adding RayWiki interwiki links. It would serve the same purpose as the Minecraft wiki links, so why not? -- FanOfRosalina2007 (talk · edits) 14:39, January 28, 2024 (EST) Allow staff warnings to be appealed Template:Proposal Outcome See MarioWiki:Appeals Appeals haven't been widely practiced in the wiki lately, but I think it's better to act sooner and also gauge a consensus on this. Rule 1 states: "Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator or patroller cannot be appealed." The rationale behind the rule is likely to focus on admin backrooms to discuss matters pertaining to decisions by admins and minimize drama. However, this runs squarely against the spirit of the wiki. We establish very clearly in MarioWiki:Administrators: In general, administrators are not imbued with any special authority and are equal to everyone else in terms of editorial responsibility. Staff members' votes and opinions are given equal weight to regular users in proposals, featured article nominations, or any other democratic process or informal discussion. This sort of rule was likely intended to prevent users from causing a scene (see a discussion questioning the validity of it) but it squarely contradicts the above statement which makes our commitment to valuing all users questionable, if not insincere. This kind of rule instead potentially stifles good faith discussion made by users to staff and might help foster distrust in staff, something that won't work well for a collaborative wiki. Additionally, MarioWiki:Appeals already requires users to keep discussions civil, so possible bad faith appeals are already covered, and lengthy exchanges are already discouraged. People should be allowed to openly critique our performance in good faith of course (bad faith ones will still be dealt with in our MarioWiki:Courtesy; that being said, I also have my eyes set on rewriting the corresponding policies concerning "undermining admin authority" to encourage constructive criticism). If we're supposed to treat admins as equal to everyone else, at least we should invite good faith criticisms for decisions that staff has made, not make some ultimately arbitrary delineation between who gives out a warning and then also proclaim staff isn't that special. Affected pages (if there are pages I missed, please mention; they'll likely be dealt accordingly, however, since this is a simple proposed change): MarioWiki:Appeals: Rule 1 will be removed MarioWiki:Administrators: "While warnings given to users by an admin or patroller cannot be appealed, [T]he other staff members additionally have the ability to overturn any unwarranted warnings or blocks if they see fit." Template:Reminder: "If this reminder was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it." ⬇️changed to⬇️ "If you feel this reminder was undeserved, you may appeal it." Template:Warning: "If this warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it." ⬇️changed to⬇️ "If you feel this warning was undeserved, you may appeal it." Template:Lastwarn: "If this last warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it." ⬇️changed to⬇️ "If you feel this last warning was undeserved, you may appeal it." MarioWiki:Warning policy: "If you were given a warning/reminder for discourteous behavior that you feel should have only merited an unofficial notice as outlined above, you can appeal to have the template removed. However, keep in mind that excessive impolite or disruptive behavior may earn you a warning right off the bat; if the administrators feel that you should have known better than to act the way you did even without an unofficial request to stop, your warning will not be removed. You cannot appeal a warning given by an administrator or patroller; if one is deemed inappropriately given, it will be handled within the staff team accordingly." Q. I don't think I deserve my warning. What should I do? A. If you feel you don't deserve the warning, you have the option to appeal it as long as the warning in question was not given by an administrator. When appealing warnings, it is best to do so as soon as possible. Staff will still have the ability to overturn any warning at any notice, and bad appeals toward staff (like any bad appeal in general especially to experienced long-term users who aren't staff) will probably still be archived swiftly and hopefully without too much drama. If this kind of clarification is needed, then please do state it and I'll make the changes. Proposer: Mario (talk) Deadline: February 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT Support Mario (talk) M. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Yes, THANK YOU. After a certain recent incident, I'm also questioning the "don't give reminders to staff" rule. Koopa con Carne (talk) I honestly don't recall seeing a (formal) warning issued wrongly by an admin--if that ever happened, it was probably in the very early years of the wiki, when sysop responsibilities weren't outlined as well as today and the young'uns who achieved that position were obviously prone to mishandle it. For the past decade, the admins around here have actually performed their job quite commendably. That said, I very much agree with the principle behind this proposal that the administration shouldn't affect an air of mystique to bar regular users from questioning them; ensuring that users defer to a good conduct and a set of editing rules, a significant part of which was established by the community at large, doesn't mean that your judgement is impeccable and that your word is final. Swallow (talk) This is certainly a lot more fair. TheFlameChomp (talk) I do think this is the fairest way to handle formal reminders and warnings. Axis (talk) Per proposal. Drago (talk) Blocks can already be appealed to the rest of the staff via e-mail, so it makes sense for admin warnings to also be appealable. I do think successful appeals against admin warnings will be rare though. MegaBowser64 (talk) Well, you see, I think we should definitely make MarioWiki more equal for everyone. The people will run the wiki, everyone gets equal pay, free healthcare, etc. etc. This will be the way to achieve prosperity and happiness. It will be a people's wiki renowned all over the internet. Per all. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal. Ray Trace (talk) You can guess what my position is considering I was the highlighted comment in this proposal. Archivist Toadette (talk) Probably for the best, since abuse can and occasionally does happen at any level of the power hierarchy. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal. Camwoodstock (talk) How has this not been done already??? Per all, sometimes people get misjudged and sometimes people change, so it's probably for the best we account for that rather than allow one warning to just stick around forever. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Yes, we absolutely need to do this! Just because a warning is issued by a staff member and not a regular user, it shouldn't mean that you can't appeal said warning. It wouldn't be fair at all! Per all. Hewer (talk) Per all (this rule is probably a reason why the appeal system doesn't get used much). PnnyCrygr (talk) Equality counts. YoYo (talk) any site that has a "staff have final word and you can't say anything about it" rule is always a red flag. Glowsquid (talk) Per. Oppose Comments Doc von Schmeltwick: The ability to give these notices to staff will probably require further discussion (this one is a bit more contentious to me). I think situations involving a staff member should be dealt with via civil criticism rather than warning/reminder templates (it's not like blocking can be really enforced on members who have blocking tools, so these warning templates toward staff have little practical use anyway; removing staff tools would require intervention by other staff ultimately). We did say the most appropriate venues for criticizing staff, usually through forum DMs or Discord DMs. You can bring it up in MarioWiki talk:Warning policy or MarioWiki talk:Courtesy. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:20, January 27, 2024 (EST) Koopa con Carne, Drago: Yeah I'm not expecting appeals on these decisions to be successful, since staff members already have good judgement most of the time, but I think it helps to at least signal to users that we give them a chance for a fair hearing first. There is always a chance they have a point or so which would be valuable feedback. We don't want to bar opportunity like that. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:04, January 27, 2024 (EST) You know, it's kinda funny: the policies keep specifying that you cannot appeal a reminder or warning given by patrollers or administrators, but for the longest time, I could've sworn that reminders and warnings could've only been given by patrollers or administrators anyway, because they have been given the authority to block you and thus should also know when someone is breaking the rules. I, at least, hadn't really noticed a time that a normal registered user has given a warning to another normal registered user before, even though the current warning policy states they can do so (a detail, I should stress, I discovered just today). rend (talk) (edits) 11:55, January 28, 2024 (EST) Honestly their powers are more limited than you think. Warnings and reminders set a kind of record and then block is the final step. It would be easier for all of us if normal users can help advise others what rules they're breaking. I have noticed a few times normal users given out reminders and warnings, but I suppose some staff members are active really often and are keeping more dibs on other users so probably they're on the scene sooner and more frequently. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:52, January 28, 2024 (EST) Hewer: There actually has been like several attempts from the past couple of years, but have been removed due to rule 1.[1] Sure, they probably should've read the warning templates first before proceeding but it doesn't mean the rule itself is valid IMO. If you were the one issuing the exact same kind of warning and reminder, these cases would've been heard and decided; kind of easily shows the useless distinction. Besides, I add: it would certainly help to get second opinion of another staff member too, like another perspective, so it would still be beneficial for staff if we removed Rule 1. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:52, January 28, 2024 (EST)