385,026
edits
MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/16: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "[[Mario (franchise)|" to "[[Super Mario (franchise)|"
m (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive moved to MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 16: archive was full) |
m (Text replacement - "[[Mario (franchise)|" to "[[Super Mario (franchise)|") |
||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 12 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> | ||
===User Highlights=== | ===User Highlights=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-8|do not add feature}} | |||
I know Mario Wiki isn't Userpedia, but I feel guilty when I find out somebody's prrromotion to a higher user rank just happened and I didn't congratulate them is an annoyance. The same with birthdays. Yes, I am a Userpedia user, but I'm thinking more about people limited to only Mario Wiki.<br> | I know Mario Wiki isn't Userpedia, but I feel guilty when I find out somebody's prrromotion to a higher user rank just happened and I didn't congratulate them is an annoyance. The same with birthdays. Yes, I am a Userpedia user, but I'm thinking more about people limited to only Mario Wiki.<br> | ||
It could just be a small box showing something, (sorry about putting myself in this, but oh well: "Hyper Guy's Birthday is coming up on___" or "User___ has reached Sysop rank) just a small box with a bit of information about the users, who could be recognized for their efforts on Mario Wiki, might make our community look much, much better by giving users credit, no matter how small the alert is. (NOTE: I'm not talking about edits! Just marking important moments for our brilliant users) THANKS FOR READING THIS! | It could just be a small box showing something, (sorry about putting myself in this, but oh well: "Hyper Guy's Birthday is coming up on___" or "User___ has reached Sysop rank) just a small box with a bit of information about the users, who could be recognized for their efforts on Mario Wiki, might make our community look much, much better by giving users credit, no matter how small the alert is. (NOTE: I'm not talking about edits! Just marking important moments for our brilliant users) THANKS FOR READING THIS! | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Hyper Guy|Hyper Guy}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Hyper Guy|Hyper Guy}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': August 28, 2009, 20:00 | '''Deadline''': August 28, 2009, 20:00 | ||
| Line 34: | Line 25: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
}} | ---- | ||
===Merge Keys Articles=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
Yeah, I was just looking at the articles linked to this [[Template:Key|template]], and most of them are stubs. That is why I am suggesting that the community allows me to go ahead and merge them, as well as turn the original articles into redirects and changing the links so that they lead to the merged article. An example can be found [[User:Super Mario Bros./Key|here]], and the [[User talk:Super Mario Bros./Key|discussion page]] will be a replica at first, but it will be so that users can change it as opposed to suggesting changes to me (such as moving images, sections, fixing links, etc.). So, to reiterate, if you want to suggest a change to my example, do the change on the talk page. If you have other comments, put them below on this page. '''NO COMMENTS GO ON THE TALK PAGE!'''<br> | |||
''Note: A change in the proposed article has been made. See my large comment below.''<br> | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br> | |||
'''Proposed Deadline:''' Saturday, 22 August 2009, 20:00<br> | |||
'''Extended Deadline:''' Saturday, 29 August 2009, 20:00<br> | |||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' August 28, 2009, 21:43 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} I think this will improve the articles. Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - I like your article. It's long and combines a bunch of stubs. To Time Q below, the need would be that there are currently too many stubs. <s>but I saw a problem. There is only supposed to be one image requested tag at the top if you have multiple sections because at the top it says "It has been requested that image'''(s)''' be added to this '''article'''/section" See what I mean (it says image'''s''').</s> | |||
#{{User|Random User}} Per SMB. | |||
#{{User|Vyro}} Yeah, what's with all the keys anyway? The articles are terrible! | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per my comments below. Supplementing the nameless key list in [[Key]] with "List of Keys in the Paper Mario series" and "List of Keys in Super Mario 64 DS" pages in place of numerous stubs seems a more organized way of doing things. Use <nowiki><br clear=all></nowiki> (and {{tem|Main}} in the sections for the few keys who merit full articles) to make the lists presentable. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Time Q}}: I see no need for doing this change. Those keys are unrelated to each other, they all deserve their own articles (or at least some of them, which means we can't merge them all together). If they're stubs, we should expand them rather than cramming them all together in a rather unattractive list. | |||
#{{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}}: Per Time Q. Additionally, as you have it set up, all the categories and navboxes are applied to the article as a whole, which is rather imprecise. To someone who's unfamiliar with what's going on, it may seem that (e.g.) [[:Category:Animate Objects]] applies to ''all'' of the items on that list. In fact, it applies to just two. And having some items under the subheader "key" when the article itself is also called "key" is redundant. | |||
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}: Per All! | |||
#{{user|Yoshario}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Itachi 96}} - Per all | |||
#{{User|Ralphfan}} Per all. | |||
#{{user|Arend}} per all. | |||
#{{user|MechaWave}} - Some keys may need to be merged, but not ''all'' of them, like you suggest. Per Time Q. | |||
#{{User|Alan Warp Zone}} Yes they could be in an "Other Keys" article, but there are some important keys. | |||
#{{User|Vini64}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Randoman123456789}} - Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Marioguy1, I fixed the problem. Does it look good now? {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
:Yup, I was there when you fixed it. I'll <s>strike</s> that point in my article. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
I think the [[Key]] article itself should stay (and the introduction should be expanded a bit to explain more about the essense of ''Mario'' keys), with the rest of the keys going into a "List of Keys" page. [[Yakkey]] should keep his seperate page, since he's a character, not just an item. [[Skeleton Key]] also has enough appearances and information (plus, its animate) to merit its own article as well. The list entries for Key, Skeleton Key and Yakkey would all use {{tem|main}} to link to the separate articles. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
I think Marioguy1's vote is invalid. The only reason he states is "I like your article", which is not enough. Why would it be a change for the better? Please expand your vote, otherwise I vote for its removal. {{User|Time Q}} | |||
Ok, hopefully I fixed most of the problems. The minor Paper Mario keys would all be merged, as well as a few of the other ''[[Super Mario 64 DS]]'' keys ([[Mario Key]], [[Luigi Key]], [[Wario Key]]). The bigger [[Key]] article, as well as the [[Skeleton Key]] article and the [[Yakkey]] article would be left alone as seperate articles. This would allow {{tem|Key}} to stay, and the [[:Category:Keys|Keys category]] to remain as well. Any more suggestions? {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
:That still suggests that (eg) "Wario Key" falls under "Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Special Items," which is wrong. And the fact that there's really no simple way to get to [[Key]], [[Skeleton Key]], or [[Yakkey]] from that article is also inconvenient. {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} | |||
::What? We have the {{tem|Key}} to link to [[Key]], [[Skeleton Key]], and [[Yakkey]]. So, should we split the list into two lists (one for the ''Super Mario 64 DS'' keys and one for the ''Paper Mario'' keys)? We could still have the ''Paper Mario series'' keys on one article, even though they would share categories, I think it would be easy to tell due to the beginning of each paragraph having the game it appears in. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
:::Actually, there's been talk that templates like {{tem|Key}} should be scrapped, seeing as they're just categories in template form, and are often based on "common sense" as opposed to canon (i.e. {{tem|undead}} vs. {{tem|LM}} and {{tem|Boos}}). But that's beside the point: as I said before, those other independent articles should be linked to via {{tem|main}} in the list, though with the two lists idea, that'd only be needed for [[Yakkey]], since [[Skeleton Key]] has a series unto itself (barring the conspicuously pageless [[Bowser Key]]s). Considering how the three ''SM64DS'' Keys can almost be combined as-is, I think the two list idea is good. I'm always a fan of combining stubs and saving space; all that can be done to expand those key articles is writing their ''exact'' locations (Walkthrough fare, IMO) and maybe some more context - but after a point, it starts to look off-topic and/or reachy. Also, the "if it's named it gets an article" mantra seems to be an underlying part of this discussion; to be frank, I've always felt that ideal was misguided. The keys in ''Luigi's Mansion'' essentially play the same role as the [[Fortress Key]]s and [[Ruins Key]]s, except the named ''PM'' keys get stubs while the plain ''LM'' key merely gets a [[Key#Luigi's Mansion|section of the Key article]]. If the "Key"s from ''LM'', ''SMB2'', ''SMW'', ''SMW2:YI'', ''SM64'' and ''SSBB'' are shoved together, why not the "___ Key"s from the ''Paper Mario'' series? It's a double-standard born of the desire to not have dozens of "Key (game X)" pages, which is understandable, but also fixable if we weren't so bent on having dozens of "___ Key" pages instead. The list(s) just needs some fixing-up; with proper retooling, it won't look so bad. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
---- | |||
===Allowing YouTube Videos Outside Userpages=== | ===Allowing YouTube Videos Outside Userpages=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|7-17|no youtube videos in articles}} | |||
Before you all think, "It's been like that for a good while, why should it be changed?!", think about how better articles could look. Sometimes when I make edits, like I've been editing the [[Pyoro]] pages recently, I don't want to keep on writing things I know don't make much sense, but I can't show a viewer of the page an example of how the game would be played, and so that users can check if I'm right or not. It could also encourage people who don't want to read long articles. Instead of sitting on a chair for hours on end, they can scroll down the page until they find a YouTube video explaining it for them.<br> | Before you all think, "It's been like that for a good while, why should it be changed?!", think about how better articles could look. Sometimes when I make edits, like I've been editing the [[Pyoro]] pages recently, I don't want to keep on writing things I know don't make much sense, but I can't show a viewer of the page an example of how the game would be played, and so that users can check if I'm right or not. It could also encourage people who don't want to read long articles. Instead of sitting on a chair for hours on end, they can scroll down the page until they find a YouTube video explaining it for them.<br> | ||
I'm not saying we should stop writing and just spam YouTube videos on the pages, but this idea came to me when a friend asked me the other day, while I was showing him an article so he could see what you can do when you join, he asked "Y'know, I'm not actually reading all this c**p, can you just add a YouTube video on here or something?". After that, I started thinking about other people's opinions on this, and I personally think adding YouTube Videos to pages outside user pages would be like adding pictures to a book! | I'm not saying we should stop writing and just spam YouTube videos on the pages, but this idea came to me when a friend asked me the other day, while I was showing him an article so he could see what you can do when you join, he asked "Y'know, I'm not actually reading all this c**p, can you just add a YouTube video on here or something?". After that, I started thinking about other people's opinions on this, and I personally think adding YouTube Videos to pages outside user pages would be like adding pictures to a book! | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Hyper Guy}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Hyper Guy}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': August 30, 2009, 15:00 | '''Deadline''': August 30, 2009, 15:00 | ||
| Line 89: | Line 123: | ||
If we bring Youtube information into this site we'd be relying on so much another web site. Take wikipedia. We only make few reverences to its articles and place links onto articles with necessary articles rather than copying and pasting everything. | If we bring Youtube information into this site we'd be relying on so much another web site. Take wikipedia. We only make few reverences to its articles and place links onto articles with necessary articles rather than copying and pasting everything. | ||
{{User|MC Hammer Bro.}} | {{User|MC Hammer Bro.}} | ||
---- | |||
===No name, no vote, no creator's username, delete, Version 2=== | ===No name, no vote, no creator's username, delete, Version 2=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-10|do not remove unsigned votes}} | |||
Alright a few months back we had a proposal known as "No name, no vote, no creator's username, deleted poll" which is a small rule for the poll selection page which organized voteing , the proposal pass, but when it pass the poll selection page was no longer used (which sucks because it just happen with no warning and a lot of users like it because it was a lot of fun. I still think the Poll selection page should still be running), so I came up with the idea to apply this rule to the FI and proposal page (I'm not sure if the FA has the support or oppose system, but if it does then it will be apply to that page also.). For all the new users who don't know what I'm talking about it's just basically if you don't put your username under support or oppose then your vote is deleted. '''note: This doesn't apply to the "comments" section but if a user forgot to put his/her name then just let them, you, or someone else put there username in.''' | Alright a few months back we had a proposal known as "No name, no vote, no creator's username, deleted poll" which is a small rule for the poll selection page which organized voteing , the proposal pass, but when it pass the poll selection page was no longer used (which sucks because it just happen with no warning and a lot of users like it because it was a lot of fun. I still think the Poll selection page should still be running), so I came up with the idea to apply this rule to the FI and proposal page (I'm not sure if the FA has the support or oppose system, but if it does then it will be apply to that page also.). For all the new users who don't know what I'm talking about it's just basically if you don't put your username under support or oppose then your vote is deleted. '''note: This doesn't apply to the "comments" section but if a user forgot to put his/her name then just let them, you, or someone else put there username in.''' | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Zero777}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Zero777}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': September 5, 2009, 20:00 | '''Deadline''': September 5, 2009, 20:00 | ||
| Line 142: | Line 175: | ||
I am Zero! *<small>sigh</small>* It was a success last time, so I wonder what did I add or remove to make this one a failure? Zero signing out. {{User|Zero777}} | I am Zero! *<small>sigh</small>* It was a success last time, so I wonder what did I add or remove to make this one a failure? Zero signing out. {{User|Zero777}} | ||
---- | |||
===Create spoiler boxes=== | ===Create spoiler boxes=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-12|do not create spoiler boxes}} | |||
Over on a couple wikis, they have boxes that toggle(show/hide) that contain any information that may give away the ending plot. I propose that we do the same thing. That way, people can't say that they just figured out the entire plot of the game without a warning. Now I know that we already have those warning things, but my eyes tend to linger and other people's probably do too. I would need lots of help to create and place these if this proposal goes through. So if it does, help would be appreciated. | Over on a couple wikis, they have boxes that toggle(show/hide) that contain any information that may give away the ending plot. I propose that we do the same thing. That way, people can't say that they just figured out the entire plot of the game without a warning. Now I know that we already have those warning things, but my eyes tend to linger and other people's probably do too. I would need lots of help to create and place these if this proposal goes through. So if it does, help would be appreciated. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Electrobomber}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': September 7, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline''': September 7, 2009, 17:00 | ||
| Line 177: | Line 210: | ||
::::oh, sorry :embarassed: i didnt understad the proposal ver good :/ {{user|Tucayo}} | ::::oh, sorry :embarassed: i didnt understad the proposal ver good :/ {{user|Tucayo}} | ||
::::: there, is the proposal a little easier to understand now? {{User|Electrobomber}} | ::::: there, is the proposal a little easier to understand now? {{User|Electrobomber}} | ||
---- | |||
===Even Out Removal Votes=== | ===Even Out Removal Votes=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0-0|reduce number of voters required to remove fa vote to three}} | |||
OK, I am very annoyed when I see an inconsistency on a wiki and as I look at the proposals page and the FA page, I notice that there is an inconsistency in the number of votes it takes to remove the invalid votes. On the proposals page, it takes three and on the FA page it takes five, why the two-number difference? If this proposal passes, those numbers will even out so that there is one universal number so that [[User:Marioguy1|someone]] doesn't mess up like that guy :( Anyways, I've created three voting groups just in case someone wants one but not the other. | OK, I am very annoyed when I see an inconsistency on a wiki and as I look at the proposals page and the FA page, I notice that there is an inconsistency in the number of votes it takes to remove the invalid votes. On the proposals page, it takes three and on the FA page it takes five, why the two-number difference? If this proposal passes, those numbers will even out so that there is one universal number so that [[User:Marioguy1|someone]] doesn't mess up like that guy :( Anyways, I've created three voting groups just in case someone wants one but not the other. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' Thursday September 10<sup>th</sup>, 2009 (17:00.00) | '''Deadline:''' Thursday September 10<sup>th</sup>, 2009 (17:00.00) | ||
| Line 211: | Line 243: | ||
:::You can't vote for the removal of FI votes. {{User|Time Q}} | :::You can't vote for the removal of FI votes. {{User|Time Q}} | ||
::::I know, I was just saying, it was the same on the vote page too, before we canned it. I reckon that three is a good number for proposals and FAs. {{User|Timmy Tim}} | ::::I know, I was just saying, it was the same on the vote page too, before we canned it. I reckon that three is a good number for proposals and FAs. {{User|Timmy Tim}} | ||
---- | |||
===Creations & Deletions=== | ===Creations & Deletions=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|no quorum|1-0}} | |||
OK, this proposal is just to test out whether or not this idea is worth proposing. Anyhow, my proposal is to make a section on this page called Creations & Deletions to replace the section Removals. This way there will be more space so that to propose, say a Q&A Page, you won't have to put it under Miscellaneous. This could also help with those old proposals of creating and deleting committees. So that's basically it, vote now! | OK, this proposal is just to test out whether or not this idea is worth proposing. Anyhow, my proposal is to make a section on this page called Creations & Deletions to replace the section Removals. This way there will be more space so that to propose, say a Q&A Page, you won't have to put it under Miscellaneous. This could also help with those old proposals of creating and deleting committees. So that's basically it, vote now! | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' Friday September 11<sup>th</sup>, 2009 (20:00.00) | '''Deadline:''' Friday September 11<sup>th</sup>, 2009 (20:00.00) | ||
| Line 233: | Line 264: | ||
:::I, too, think that Hephaestus's vote is invalid. {{User|Time Q}} | :::I, too, think that Hephaestus's vote is invalid. {{User|Time Q}} | ||
{{User|Itachi 96}} Yes, I think too that Hephaseus's vote is invalid. ''Sure, why not'' is not a strong reason. | {{User|Itachi 96}} Yes, I think too that Hephaseus's vote is invalid. ''Sure, why not'' is not a strong reason. | ||
---- | |||
===Give Patrollers CheckUser=== | ===Give Patrollers CheckUser=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|14-0}} | |||
Before you oppose this, please read it. If I'm correct, we used to have an extension for CheckUser, which means (if we don't have the extension anymore) there is one for our version of MediaWiki. CheckUser would help Patrollers if they are dealing with possible sockpuppets, but they couldn't tell whether they really are. It wouldn't give them major Sysop powers such as '''oversight''', '''deletion''', or '''protect'''ing of pages; which would give the users in the Patroller group more power/responsibilities, while retaining its place as the "in-between" of users and Sysops without it becoming redundant. I feel this would highly benefit Patrollers in the case of huge spam attacks or when suspicious users sign up. | Before you oppose this, please read it. If I'm correct, we used to have an extension for CheckUser, which means (if we don't have the extension anymore) there is one for our version of MediaWiki. CheckUser would help Patrollers if they are dealing with possible sockpuppets, but they couldn't tell whether they really are. It wouldn't give them major Sysop powers such as '''oversight''', '''deletion''', or '''protect'''ing of pages; which would give the users in the Patroller group more power/responsibilities, while retaining its place as the "in-between" of users and Sysops without it becoming redundant. I feel this would highly benefit Patrollers in the case of huge spam attacks or when suspicious users sign up. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' September 13<sup>th</sup>, 2009, 15:00 | '''Deadline:''' September 13<sup>th</sup>, 2009, 15:00 | ||
| Line 269: | Line 299: | ||
:::Actually, a CheckUser is extremely necessary NOW {{user|Tucayo}} | :::Actually, a CheckUser is extremely necessary NOW {{user|Tucayo}} | ||
The proposal must pass in the appointed date. However, if you see any suspicious action (like moving pages into nasty words) don't doubt on giving that guy a permanent ban. {{user|Coincollector}} | The proposal must pass in the appointed date. However, if you see any suspicious action (like moving pages into nasty words) don't doubt on giving that guy a permanent ban. {{user|Coincollector}} | ||
---- | |||
===Delete Genre Articles=== | ===Delete Genre Articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|9-0|delete}} | |||
I have encountered a couple of articles in [[:Category:Game Types]] and have thought that creating an article on each genre is redundant. Has Mario appeared in a lot of genres? Yes. But I hardly think there's a reason to create an article on each one. The only thing that would accomplish is defining what each genre is and what Mario games belong to it. | I have encountered a couple of articles in [[:Category:Game Types]] and have thought that creating an article on each genre is redundant. Has Mario appeared in a lot of genres? Yes. But I hardly think there's a reason to create an article on each one. The only thing that would accomplish is defining what each genre is and what Mario games belong to it. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Knife}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Knife}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' September 15, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' September 15, 2009, 17:00 | ||
| Line 302: | Line 331: | ||
:This seems to be a good solution. {{User|Time Q}} | :This seems to be a good solution. {{User|Time Q}} | ||
::That's what I suggested! {{User|Marioguy1}} | ::That's what I suggested! {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
:::Yeah, but "Game Types" isn't a good name for an article. However, plain "[[Games]]" is already taken, and there's not many other official-sounding names; Wikipedia uses "[[wikipedia:Video_game_genres|Video game genres]]", but that's only a slight improvement over "Video game types". - {{User|Walkazo}} | :::Yeah, but "Game Types" isn't a good name for an article. However, plain "[[List of games|Games]]" is already taken, and there's not many other official-sounding names; Wikipedia uses "[[wikipedia:Video_game_genres|Video game genres]]", but that's only a slight improvement over "Video game types". - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::::I think Video Game Genres or just Genres would be appropriate enough because it is the common term in this jargon and everyone will understand it. {{User|Edofenrir}} | ::::I think Video Game Genres or just Genres would be appropriate enough because it is the common term in this jargon and everyone will understand it. {{User|Edofenrir}} | ||
:::::"Video Game Genres" would be better, since plain "Genres" could apply to movies and TV shows as well. Then comes the question of capitalization... - {{User|Walkazo}} | :::::"Video Game Genres" would be better, since plain "Genres" could apply to movies and TV shows as well. Then comes the question of capitalization... - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
| Line 309: | Line 338: | ||
::::::::I'm not sure, but I was told so by {{User|Tucayo}} when I was new on the wiki. And well, I trust his statement. - {{User|Edofenrir}} | ::::::::I'm not sure, but I was told so by {{User|Tucayo}} when I was new on the wiki. And well, I trust his statement. - {{User|Edofenrir}} | ||
:::::::Well, Wikipedia doesn't capitalize all ''their'' titles, but I think it looks neater (or at least, more uniform, not to mention simpler to remember for linking purposes) if they are uppercase. However, lots of things are capitalized around here that shouldn't be (i.e. Mario and Luigi are referred to collectively as the "Mario bros." - note the lowercase "b", which is often erroneously capitalized like the game title ''[[Mario Bros.]]''). - {{User|Walkazo}} | :::::::Well, Wikipedia doesn't capitalize all ''their'' titles, but I think it looks neater (or at least, more uniform, not to mention simpler to remember for linking purposes) if they are uppercase. However, lots of things are capitalized around here that shouldn't be (i.e. Mario and Luigi are referred to collectively as the "Mario bros." - note the lowercase "b", which is often erroneously capitalized like the game title ''[[Mario Bros.]]''). - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
---- | |||
===Mario Kart Wii competitions=== | ===Mario Kart Wii competitions=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0|allow announcement of competitions on news template}} | |||
Ok, i kinda get annoyed when a new Mario Kart competetion comes out and I haven't taken part so i suggest that we say when a Mario kart comp comes out on the news template to alert everyone. Ans since Nintendo news doesn't do it anymore i thimk it would be useful to know when one comes out. | Ok, i kinda get annoyed when a new Mario Kart competetion comes out and I haven't taken part so i suggest that we say when a Mario kart comp comes out on the news template to alert everyone. Ans since Nintendo news doesn't do it anymore i thimk it would be useful to know when one comes out. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|YellowYoshi127}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|YellowYoshi127}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' September 16, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' September 16, 2009, 17:00 | ||
| Line 340: | Line 368: | ||
:I believe he's talking about [[List_of_Competitions_in_Mario_Kart_Wii|these]]. {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} | :I believe he's talking about [[List_of_Competitions_in_Mario_Kart_Wii|these]]. {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} | ||
::He's proposing to put those competitions in the {{tem|News}} template which should already happen thanks to Timmy Tim's earlier proposal. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ::He's proposing to put those competitions in the {{tem|News}} template which should already happen thanks to Timmy Tim's earlier proposal. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
---- | |||
===Time Limit Before New Game Spoilers Added to Other Articles=== | ===Time Limit Before New Game Spoilers Added to Other Articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-12|no time limit for spoilers}} | |||
First, I hope I've added this proposal correctly; my apologies if I've messed up somewhere. To the point, I'm proposing there be some sort of time limit, a statute of limitations if you will, before spoilers for an as-yet unreleased game begin to filter their way into other articles. For example, Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story is not out in North America yet, but as I was reading over several Partners in Time entries, I came upon numerous spoilers for the unreleased game. I understand if spoilers for BIS would be in the M&L:BIS entry, as that would be a "read at your own risk" situation, but should someone who is just trying to get caught up be forced to find out things they don't want to until they get a chance to play the game? | First, I hope I've added this proposal correctly; my apologies if I've messed up somewhere. To the point, I'm proposing there be some sort of time limit, a statute of limitations if you will, before spoilers for an as-yet unreleased game begin to filter their way into other articles. For example, Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story is not out in North America yet, but as I was reading over several Partners in Time entries, I came upon numerous spoilers for the unreleased game. I understand if spoilers for BIS would be in the M&L:BIS entry, as that would be a "read at your own risk" situation, but should someone who is just trying to get caught up be forced to find out things they don't want to until they get a chance to play the game? | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|LBD_Nytetrayn}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|LBD_Nytetrayn}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' September 20, 2009, 15:00 | '''Deadline:''' September 20, 2009, 15:00 | ||
| Line 386: | Line 413: | ||
We could just do like the ArchieSonicWiki and just add a blanket statement to the Mainpage saying 'Warning: These Wiki Contains Spoilers, Read At Your Own Peril', or something to that effect. -- {{User|Ghost Jam}} | We could just do like the ArchieSonicWiki and just add a blanket statement to the Mainpage saying 'Warning: These Wiki Contains Spoilers, Read At Your Own Peril', or something to that effect. -- {{User|Ghost Jam}} | ||
---- | |||
===New Policy=== | ===New Policy=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
Sometimes, there's an article that is created with one or two lines of text. It starts building up after after a while. When we see these articles, we simply slap a stub template on it in hopes that someone will expand it. This kind of thinking has created more than a 1000 stubs. That means more than 1/10th of all the articles on the wiki are stubbed. We need to fix this proportion for the sake of the wiki. There is no quick fix, but we can reduce this if we add this new policy to the [[MarioWiki: Rules|Rules]]. | Sometimes, there's an article that is created with one or two lines of text. It starts building up after after a while. When we see these articles, we simply slap a stub template on it in hopes that someone will expand it. This kind of thinking has created more than a 1000 stubs. That means more than 1/10th of all the articles on the wiki are stubbed. We need to fix this proportion for the sake of the wiki. There is no quick fix, but we can reduce this if we add this new policy to the [[MarioWiki: Rules|Rules]]. | ||
| Line 405: | Line 433: | ||
If this proposal passes, articles on the wiki will be deleted if they meet these conditions and will become an '''enforced rule''' and a new policy will be added. The editors in no way will be punished for creating an article under these conditions, unless it is vandalism. If you have any suggestions or questions about proposal, please leave them | If this proposal passes, articles on the wiki will be deleted if they meet these conditions and will become an '''enforced rule''' and a new policy will be added. The editors in no way will be punished for creating an article under these conditions, unless it is vandalism. If you have any suggestions or questions about proposal, please leave them | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Knife}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Knife}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' September 22, 2009, 17:00 | '''Proposed Deadline:''' September 22, 2009, 17:00<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' September 22, 2009, 20:53 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
| Line 474: | Line 502: | ||
:Images (The article could be about an implied character important to the plot), the number of contributor (How does that matter?), mainspace categories (Again, what's the point) and the number of links (The subject could be not really linked to anything else). --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] 12:38, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | :Images (The article could be about an implied character important to the plot), the number of contributor (How does that matter?), mainspace categories (Again, what's the point) and the number of links (The subject could be not really linked to anything else). --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] 12:38, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
Well, I couldn't find any "delete new stubs" proposal after all; the closest thing I dug up was [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | Well, I couldn't find any "delete new stubs" proposal after all; the closest thing I dug up was [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/2#Deleting_stubs|this]], which actually ''reverts'' the decision to delete stubs on-sight. However, crappy one-liners have continued to be axed in the two years since that proposal, telling us that whichever way the rules happen to fall, personal discretion has always been the real denominator when it comes to what stays and what goes. That's why all these specific conditions are so unappetizing: they're meant to make it easier to systematically purge the Wiki of stubs, however they tie our hands when it comes to the grey areas. Many page-unworthy stubs will not fit the deletion criteria, so would we ''have'' to let them stay? Any page which already fits all the criteria will probably be deleted anyway, so aside from putting more emphasis on deleting things, this proposal doesn't add much to the Wiki's "unofficial" protocols. Quantifying things is good, but qualitative decisions have a place in the world too. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
... Actually, you do make sense. I was thinking about deleting this proposal before it becomes a long stretch of extended deadlines. Now that I think about it, the conditions hurt more than they help. I'm going to go back to what I was originally doing and just expand stubs. Of course, I'm only human and cannot possibly take care of 1500+ stubs by myself. I encourage you all to help expand them or at least stop creating stub articles. It may take a while, but stubs will eventually be gone. As for many of the wiki's other problems, we still haven't delved into them that well either. - {{User|Knife}} | ... Actually, you do make sense. I was thinking about deleting this proposal before it becomes a long stretch of extended deadlines. Now that I think about it, the conditions hurt more than they help. I'm going to go back to what I was originally doing and just expand stubs. Of course, I'm only human and cannot possibly take care of 1500+ stubs by myself. I encourage you all to help expand them or at least stop creating stub articles. It may take a while, but stubs will eventually be gone. As for many of the wiki's other problems, we still haven't delved into them that well either. - {{User|Knife}} | ||
:Okay. Cancelled proposals are now being archived, so feel free to remove it and archive it whenever you want (I'd do it for you, but my computer can't handle the archive pages and I can't use my brother's laptop right now). Many of the Wiki's policies and rules are sorely neglected, but we're always trying to rectify that. And ya have to admit, as Internet databases go, we could do a lot worse. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :Okay. Cancelled proposals are now being archived, so feel free to remove it and archive it whenever you want (I'd do it for you, but my computer can't handle the archive pages and I can't use my brother's laptop right now). Many of the Wiki's policies and rules are sorely neglected, but we're always trying to rectify that. And ya have to admit, as Internet databases go, we could do a lot worse. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
---- | |||
===Amend FA Size Requirements=== | ===Amend FA Size Requirements=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0|amend requirements}} | |||
Some smaller pages deserve to be recognized, so this proposal will replace the rigid 4000 byte minimum length and the 50+ entries stipulations with a general statement that: "''All articles must have a reasonable size.''" While potential FAs will no longer be automatically rejected based on their byte or header counts, if they are overly short articles, their nomination will surely be rejected on that basis through normal voting procedure. | Some smaller pages deserve to be recognized, so this proposal will replace the rigid 4000 byte minimum length and the 50+ entries stipulations with a general statement that: "''All articles must have a reasonable size.''" While potential FAs will no longer be automatically rejected based on their byte or header counts, if they are overly short articles, their nomination will surely be rejected on that basis through normal voting procedure. | ||
'''Deadline:''' Friday, 25 September 2009, 20:00<br> | '''Deadline:''' Friday, 25 September 2009, 20:00<br> | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Walkazo}} & {{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}} | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Walkazo}} & {{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}} | ||
| Line 517: | Line 544: | ||
::"...or at the very least swiftly crushed by an overwhelming opposition": No, they couldn't. Opposers must have valid reasons, but if we remove that requirement, there wouldn't be any valid reasons they could bring up. Seriously, I think there could be fatal consequences if we let this proposal pass. {{User|Time Q}} | ::"...or at the very least swiftly crushed by an overwhelming opposition": No, they couldn't. Opposers must have valid reasons, but if we remove that requirement, there wouldn't be any valid reasons they could bring up. Seriously, I think there could be fatal consequences if we let this proposal pass. {{User|Time Q}} | ||
:::"It's too short" would still be valid even if there isn't a fixed amount of bytes. Comments like "Section X needs to be longer" or "it still needs more info on Y" are allowed, so opposing because of the overall length should also be acceptable. Also, the 4000 bytes bit could simply be replaced with "The article must have a reasonable size." ("reasonable" is used in two other rules, so why not here as well?). - {{User|Walkazo}} | :::"It's too short" would still be valid even if there isn't a fixed amount of bytes. Comments like "Section X needs to be longer" or "it still needs more info on Y" are allowed, so opposing because of the overall length should also be acceptable. Also, the 4000 bytes bit could simply be replaced with "The article must have a reasonable size." ("reasonable" is used in two other rules, so why not here as well?). - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::::Well, comments like the ones you put are only valid as long as no one suggests to remove them. 'cause actually they don't help. The purpose of oppose votes is to tell the supporters what an article is lacking for FA quality (''"Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources)."'' - from the [[MarioWiki:Featured | ::::Well, comments like the ones you put are only valid as long as no one suggests to remove them. 'cause actually they don't help. The purpose of oppose votes is to tell the supporters what an article is lacking for FA quality (''"Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources)."'' - from the [[MarioWiki:Featured articles|FA guidelines]]). Comments such as "It's too short" don't help if the opposer doesn't explain ''what'' should be expanded; and for articles like [[Trevi Fountain|the one I gave as an example above]] there's no way to explain what should be expanded since the article is already complete (there simply isn't any more info you could add). So if someone nominates an ultra-short article, there is no legitimate way to hinder it from being featured. (It couldn't even be unfeatured, since it'd be a valid FA.) This is a huge problem in my opinion. {{User|Time Q}} | ||
:::::Okay, then would this be a solid opposition: "It's too short to be an FA. Trevi Fountain simply has not played a large enough role in the ''Mario'' series to be considered important enough to showcase on our main page. All the relevant information and images that could be included in the article have been included, but that does not make it an adequate example of what the Super Mario Wiki has to offer."? And if that's not enough, I could go on saying: "While hard work has gone into Trevi Fountain, it pales in comparison to the effort put into larger pages, and would therefore be a misrepresentation of just how much time and commitment the editors have dedicated to this database as a whole." Really, it would be unreasonable for something like [[Trevi Fountain]] to be nominated as an FA, and if we acknowledge that with a "reasonable size" requirement, that should be as easy to police as any nominated pages that don't adhere to the current two "reasonable" stipulations (reasonable amounts of images and red links). - {{User|Walkazo}} | :::::Okay, then would this be a solid opposition: "It's too short to be an FA. Trevi Fountain simply has not played a large enough role in the ''Mario'' series to be considered important enough to showcase on our main page. All the relevant information and images that could be included in the article have been included, but that does not make it an adequate example of what the Super Mario Wiki has to offer."? And if that's not enough, I could go on saying: "While hard work has gone into Trevi Fountain, it pales in comparison to the effort put into larger pages, and would therefore be a misrepresentation of just how much time and commitment the editors have dedicated to this database as a whole." Really, it would be unreasonable for something like [[Trevi Fountain]] to be nominated as an FA, and if we acknowledge that with a "reasonable size" requirement, that should be as easy to police as any nominated pages that don't adhere to the current two "reasonable" stipulations (reasonable amounts of images and red links). - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::::::Okay, you're right in that we already have two requirements that use the word "reasonable", so I could agree on turning the 4,000-character rule into a "reasonable length" rule. However, what is proposed here is to eliminate this rule completely. I can't support this, for the reasons I gave above. SPMB, I'd like to ask you to start this proposal over, proposing to require a "reasonable length" rather than get rid of the requirement completely. {{User|Time Q}} | ::::::Okay, you're right in that we already have two requirements that use the word "reasonable", so I could agree on turning the 4,000-character rule into a "reasonable length" rule. However, what is proposed here is to eliminate this rule completely. I can't support this, for the reasons I gave above. SPMB, I'd like to ask you to start this proposal over, proposing to require a "reasonable length" rather than get rid of the requirement completely. {{User|Time Q}} | ||
:::::::I'm credited as co-creator, so I went ahead and rewrote it. I also incorporated Knife's suggestion. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :::::::I'm credited as co-creator, so I went ahead and rewrote it. I also incorporated Knife's suggestion. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::::::::Okay, thanks. I didn't realize you were the co-author of the proposal. {{User|Time Q}} | ::::::::Okay, thanks. I didn't realize you were the co-author of the proposal. {{User|Time Q}} | ||
---- | |||
===Get Rid of the New Userspace Requirements=== | ===Get Rid of the New Userspace Requirements=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-14|keep requirements}} | |||
A mans userspace is his castle, so why is there so many rules on what should be on it and what shouldn’t. What’s on someone’s userspace is supposed to be like what describes them and if you are not allowed to go out of the lines of the requirements, you simply can’t do that. I think we should get rid of those rules so users can express themselves better. I really just don’t think those new rules are fair at all. Also, it will take a lot of users time a lot of time and effort to change their userspace to fit the requirements. Some of the user space rules I agree with, such as “no illegal game links”, but some like “No discussion not related to the Super Mario Wiki” and “No excessive personal information” are completely unfair. It is like living in a house, but you are only allowed to have stuff from “Home Depot” in it. "Home Depot" doesn’t sell all of life’s necessities, just like Super Mario Wiki doesn’t have all of the information you need. If this Proposal passes, users will be free to use their userspace any way the want to except there will still be no more illeagal game links. | A mans userspace is his castle, so why is there so many rules on what should be on it and what shouldn’t. What’s on someone’s userspace is supposed to be like what describes them and if you are not allowed to go out of the lines of the requirements, you simply can’t do that. I think we should get rid of those rules so users can express themselves better. I really just don’t think those new rules are fair at all. Also, it will take a lot of users time a lot of time and effort to change their userspace to fit the requirements. Some of the user space rules I agree with, such as “no illegal game links”, but some like “No discussion not related to the Super Mario Wiki” and “No excessive personal information” are completely unfair. It is like living in a house, but you are only allowed to have stuff from “Home Depot” in it. "Home Depot" doesn’t sell all of life’s necessities, just like Super Mario Wiki doesn’t have all of the information you need. If this Proposal passes, users will be free to use their userspace any way the want to except there will still be no more illeagal game links. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Egg Yoshi}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Egg Yoshi}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' September 26, 2009, 20:00 | '''Deadline:''' September 26, 2009, 20:00 | ||
| Line 596: | Line 622: | ||
Ok, end of the discussion, Egg Yoshi, You can say in your user page "My survivor moved here" and you can communicate on our chat and our forum. {{user|Tucayo}} | Ok, end of the discussion, Egg Yoshi, You can say in your user page "My survivor moved here" and you can communicate on our chat and our forum. {{user|Tucayo}} | ||
---- | |||
===Merge & Split: Enemies Inside Pages=== | ===Merge & Split: Enemies Inside Pages=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|0-13|no merge}} | |||
Clever title there. Anyway, I was thinking- Instead of having all the enemy names in Bowser's Inside Story on the same page, and then having to click a link to go to the page which turns out being a stub, and then having to click the back button on your browser, wouldn't it be much easier to split the enemies to split the enemies and merge all the enemy articles onto one page? I'll do this myself if there's enough good feedback.<br> | Clever title there. Anyway, I was thinking- Instead of having all the enemy names in Bowser's Inside Story on the same page, and then having to click a link to go to the page which turns out being a stub, and then having to click the back button on your browser, wouldn't it be much easier to split the enemies to split the enemies and merge all the enemy articles onto one page? I'll do this myself if there's enough good feedback.<br> | ||
This saves having to tire yourself by clicking on different links all the time! | This saves having to tire yourself by clicking on different links all the time! | ||
'''Deadline:''' September 27, 2009, 15:00<br> | '''Deadline:''' September 27, 2009, 15:00<br> | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Hyper Guy}} | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Hyper Guy}} | ||
| Line 626: | Line 651: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Split to split to merge? Did you say it twice or something? {{User|Betaman}} | Split to split to merge? Did you say it twice or something? {{User|Betaman}} | ||
| Line 632: | Line 656: | ||
:I say it again: I'd like to vote, but I don't understand what this is about. - {{User|Edofenrir}} | :I say it again: I'd like to vote, but I don't understand what this is about. - {{User|Edofenrir}} | ||
:Basically he wants to merge all the Mario and Luigi Bowsers Inside Story enemies into one article because he doesn't want to keep clicking on links that bring him to stubs. He being the creator. {{User|Luigifreak}} | :Basically he wants to merge all the Mario and Luigi Bowsers Inside Story enemies into one article because he doesn't want to keep clicking on links that bring him to stubs. He being the creator. {{User|Luigifreak}} | ||
---- | |||
===Split Beta Elements into Sub-Articles=== | ===Split Beta Elements into Sub-Articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|31-0|split}} | |||
We all know that the [[Beta Elements]] page is incredibly long...the second-longest page on the wiki — It's chock full of images and good information on a ton of different games, (which isn't a bad thing), but I feel the article would be better off describing what a beta element is, and then having a list at the bottom of the page that lists all of the games we have beta info on. Which leads me to the second part of my proposal. Most of the beta element sections in that page are more than long enough to constitute their ''own'' page. This would make it easier to find a specific beta element in a specific game, and it would also make it much easier to load said page(s). For example, the beta elements for ''[[Super Mario World]]'' could be found at {{fake link|Super Mario World/Beta elements}}. This page could easily be found because there would be a link on [[Beta Elements]] to that page, as well as a link to it on the ''[[Super Mario World]]'' article. | |||
We all know that the [[Beta Elements]] page is incredibly long...the second-longest page on the wiki — It's chock full of images and good information on a ton of different games, (which isn't a bad thing), but I feel the article would be better off describing what a beta element is, and then having a list at the bottom of the page that lists all of the games we have beta info on. Which leads me to the second part of my proposal. Most of the beta element sections in that page are more than long enough to constitute their ''own'' page. This would make it easier to find a specific beta element in a specific game, and it would also make it much easier to load said page(s). For example, the beta elements for ''[[Super Mario World]]'' could be found at {{ | |||
*An example of what the 'new' Beta Elements page would look like can be found [[User:Stooben Rooben/Proposal Example|here]]. | *An example of what the 'new' Beta Elements page would look like can be found [[User:Stooben Rooben/Proposal Example|here]]. | ||
| Line 643: | Line 667: | ||
*To be consistent, the same shall apply to the [[Glitches]] page as well. (Credit to Edofenrir and Walkazo for this idea.) | *To be consistent, the same shall apply to the [[Glitches]] page as well. (Credit to Edofenrir and Walkazo for this idea.) | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Stooben Rooben}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Stooben Rooben}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': October 6, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline''': October 6, 2009, 17:00 | ||
| Line 684: | Line 707: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
I think it would be better to have a catagory with a link to the sub-pages. {{User|Betaman}} | I think it would be better to have a catagory with a link to the sub-pages. {{User|Betaman}} | ||
:It's still necessary for us to describe what exactly a beta element is, though; so the article should stay. That said, we could add a {{ | :It's still necessary for us to describe what exactly a beta element is, though; so the article should stay. That said, we could add a {{fake link|Category:Beta elements}} to those sub-pages. -- {{User|Stooben Rooben}} | ||
Could something similar be done for the [[Glitches]] article? Of course it's only half as big as the Beta elements article, but... that's still big. - {{User|Edofenrir}} | Could something similar be done for the [[Glitches]] article? Of course it's only half as big as the Beta elements article, but... that's still big. - {{User|Edofenrir}} | ||
| Line 692: | Line 715: | ||
:::I totally agree with this proposal but (just throwing this out there)couldn't we just merge the beta elements with the game page (since many glitches and beta elements are strewn about the trivia sections of the games anyways). Just an idea... {{User|MC Hammer Bro.}} | :::I totally agree with this proposal but (just throwing this out there)couldn't we just merge the beta elements with the game page (since many glitches and beta elements are strewn about the trivia sections of the games anyways). Just an idea... {{User|MC Hammer Bro.}} | ||
::::Theoretically, while that ''could'' work, it has been mentioned that for some games, having a section devoted entirely to Beta Elements are several pages long in and of itself. It would simply just be easier to create a separate section completely devoted it per each game if the section of the game was too long. HOWEVER, if the article in question was a ''stub'', then, yeah, I could see the reasoning behind that. {{User|Ben Kitsune}} | ::::Theoretically, while that ''could'' work, it has been mentioned that for some games, having a section devoted entirely to Beta Elements are several pages long in and of itself. It would simply just be easier to create a separate section completely devoted it per each game if the section of the game was too long. HOWEVER, if the article in question was a ''stub'', then, yeah, I could see the reasoning behind that. {{User|Ben Kitsune}} | ||
---- | |||
===Mario Baseball Special swings/pitches=== | ===Mario Baseball Special swings/pitches=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-8|no split}} | |||
The Mario Super Star Baseball special pitches and swings are in the same article (Peach's Heart Swing and Heart Pitch are under [[Heart Ball]] while on the Slugger's page, the character bios list them separately. The Slugger's special pages are being made right now and I'm wondering of the pitches and swings should also be merged into one page like the MSSB ones or if the MSSB's should be split. | The Mario Super Star Baseball special pitches and swings are in the same article (Peach's Heart Swing and Heart Pitch are under [[Heart Ball]] while on the Slugger's page, the character bios list them separately. The Slugger's special pages are being made right now and I'm wondering of the pitches and swings should also be merged into one page like the MSSB ones or if the MSSB's should be split. | ||
'''Propeser''': {{User|MC Hammer Bro.}} <br> | '''Propeser''': {{User|MC Hammer Bro.}} <br> | ||
'''Deadline''': October 7th, 2009 17:00PM | '''Deadline''': October 7th, 2009 17:00PM | ||
| Line 724: | Line 746: | ||
Per FunkyK38. I think we already have a template for every Star Swing name. If there isn't, that should be a new proposal. {{User|Mariofan459}} | Per FunkyK38. I think we already have a template for every Star Swing name. If there isn't, that should be a new proposal. {{User|Mariofan459}} | ||
---- | |||
===Change FA removal of votes rules=== | ===Change FA removal of votes rules=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|14-7|change rules}} | |||
Well, if you have seen the Luigi nomination page, it is full of votes from the kind of "ZOMG LUIGI PWNS!!!" which are not valid reasons, and to remove them, we must go throught the sloooow process of getting 5 votes to remove them, which is as slow as annoying. So I propose any admin has the right to remove those votes who do anything but help. Who supports? | Well, if you have seen the Luigi nomination page, it is full of votes from the kind of "ZOMG LUIGI PWNS!!!" which are not valid reasons, and to remove them, we must go throught the sloooow process of getting 5 votes to remove them, which is as slow as annoying. So I propose any admin has the right to remove those votes who do anything but help. Who supports? | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Tucayo}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Tucayo}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' October 13, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' October 13, 2009, 17:00 | ||
| Line 800: | Line 821: | ||
:That is just to leave me out, right? {{user|Tucayo}} | :That is just to leave me out, right? {{user|Tucayo}} | ||
::No, of course not. It's because ''[[MarioWiki:Administrators|"Administrators are Mario Wiki users who have Sysop rights"]]'' and I just wanted to clarify that. {{User|Time Q}} | ::No, of course not. It's because ''[[MarioWiki:Administrators|"Administrators are Mario Wiki users who have Sysop rights"]]'' and I just wanted to clarify that. {{User|Time Q}} | ||
::TimeQ: see comments like these: "LUIGI ISN'T FEATURED EITHER?! My God! What has come to this world!", "If Luigi isn't Featured then the world has become sick and twisted!!!", "It's Luigi... what else do I have to say? ", Mario has had enough in the spotlight, hand it over to Luigi for once! ", "Hello!!!!!!! its LUIGI!", "Luigi rulzz!! He deserves to be on the main page. He wants to be a hero! Go Luigi", "If Luigi isn't the best then there's no justice in this universe. ", "IT IS LUIGI COME ON", "It's Luigi! Nuff said! ", "How could Luigi, who just so happens to be Mario's brother, not be a featured article?!?! ", "I'D say that Luigi should be a featured article because he is so cool! ", "Luigi deserves some attention, after all...HE'S THE GREEN THUNDER", "We need more Luigi! I support this idea completely! Go Luigi! ", "Go weegie! Go weegie! ", "Luigi is such a good character. Way better than Mario. I mean we had featured articles that were so dumb, like Mama Mario or Teacup Palace or any of that junk. Everyone! Support Weegee", "Luigi is awesome!!! ", "Luigi should be featured because Mario | ::TimeQ: see comments like these: "LUIGI ISN'T FEATURED EITHER?! My God! What has come to this world!", "If Luigi isn't Featured then the world has become sick and twisted!!!", "It's Luigi... what else do I have to say? ", Mario has had enough in the spotlight, hand it over to Luigi for once! ", "Hello!!!!!!! its LUIGI!", "Luigi rulzz!! He deserves to be on the main page. He wants to be a hero! Go Luigi", "If Luigi isn't the best then there's no justice in this universe. ", "IT IS LUIGI COME ON", "It's Luigi! Nuff said! ", "How could Luigi, who just so happens to be Mario's brother, not be a featured article?!?! ", "I'D say that Luigi should be a featured article because he is so cool! ", "Luigi deserves some attention, after all...HE'S THE GREEN THUNDER", "We need more Luigi! I support this idea completely! Go Luigi! ", "Go weegie! Go weegie! ", "Luigi is such a good character. Way better than Mario. I mean we had featured articles that were so dumb, like Mama Mario or Teacup Palace or any of that junk. Everyone! Support Weegee", "Luigi is awesome!!! ", "Luigi should be featured because Mario{{fake link|1}} is. " "Luigi rocks and he has been under the shadow of Mario for to long", "hey guys I have Luigi's Mansion and I like him he's AWESOME!!!!!!!!", "Go Luigi! Green RULES!", "Yeah, I mean cmon it's WEEEEGEEE! Luigi is super-pimp. ", "Cmon everyone vote for weegee because no one pays attention to WEEGEE", "DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT!!!!!!!!!", "WEEGEE WILL STARE AT YOU IF YOU DONT!", "'m-a Luigi Number 1! Luigi rocks! I'm a new Mario Freak and I absolutely think Weegee is AWESOME!", "Luigi's awsome. No questions.", "Luigi's been in his brother's shadow for too long now. MAKE HIM FEATURED!!!". I hope you see my point. {{User|Tucayo}} | ||
Stooben Rooben: Doesn't make much sense to me. How is "Luigi sucks!" harmful, when "Luigi pwns!" is not? They're basically the same, except that one expresses love and the other expresses hate for Luigi. I don't get the fact why people make a distinction there. - {{user|Edofenrir}}<sup>The comment section seems on the verge of explosion with that many comments.</sup> | Stooben Rooben: Doesn't make much sense to me. How is "Luigi sucks!" harmful, when "Luigi pwns!" is not? They're basically the same, except that one expresses love and the other expresses hate for Luigi. I don't get the fact why people make a distinction there. - {{user|Edofenrir}}<sup>The comment section seems on the verge of explosion with that many comments.</sup> | ||
| Line 822: | Line 843: | ||
Yes. Edofenrir nailed it right there. Fan votes are like big useless spaces of text that makes our wiki look BAD (OMG!!!!11!! Luidisug Nesds toa be feautered Y isnt hew feautefd!!???) (I typed that really fast) {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | Yes. Edofenrir nailed it right there. Fan votes are like big useless spaces of text that makes our wiki look BAD (OMG!!!!11!! Luidisug Nesds toa be feautered Y isnt hew feautefd!!???) (I typed that really fast) {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | ||
---- | |||
===Luigi and Boo FAs=== | ===Luigi and Boo FAs=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-9|keep nominations}} | |||
I was on the featured articles page recently and I saw that the [[Luigi]] and [[Boo]] articles are still nominated. You wouldn't ''believe'' how many fan votes there are on the Boo one, and Luigi's has been there for over a year. I propose that the nominations should be deleted because of those things and can be started up again if the articles improve. | I was on the featured articles page recently and I saw that the [[Luigi]] and [[Boo]] articles are still nominated. You wouldn't ''believe'' how many fan votes there are on the Boo one, and Luigi's has been there for over a year. I propose that the nominations should be deleted because of those things and can be started up again if the articles improve. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|McQueenMario}} <br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|McQueenMario}} <br> | ||
'''Deadline''': October 13, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline''': October 13, 2009, 17:00 | ||
| Line 854: | Line 874: | ||
No, wait a minute. You want to delete old nominated FA's, right? Sorry {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | No, wait a minute. You want to delete old nominated FA's, right? Sorry {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | ||
---- | |||
===Change FA rules part 1=== | ===Change FA rules part 1=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|5-8|no removing those votes}} | |||
I have seen many FA rule changing proposals/problems recently so I'd like to clear everything up with some different rules that accommodate almost everyone.<br> | I have seen many FA rule changing proposals/problems recently so I'd like to clear everything up with some different rules that accommodate almost everyone.<br> | ||
'''Rule:''' The rule that states you cannot remove support votes, I propose that rule be changed to "You need five users to agree that this vote is a fan vote before deleting it" so that Tucayo's problem with the fan-votes can be solved. '''Reason:''' Tucayo said it all in his proposal, some of these votes are just wrong. | '''Rule:''' The rule that states you cannot remove support votes, I propose that rule be changed to "You need five users to agree that this vote is a fan vote before deleting it" so that Tucayo's problem with the fan-votes can be solved. '''Reason:''' Tucayo said it all in his proposal, some of these votes are just wrong. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}} (With ideas from {{User|Tucayo}})<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}} (With ideas from {{User|Tucayo}})<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' October 14<sup>th</sup>, 2009 (17:00.00) | '''Deadline:''' October 14<sup>th</sup>, 2009 (17:00.00) | ||
| Line 899: | Line 919: | ||
::Not really, Tucayo. This suggests a different system, and the users are turning ''this'' proposed system, not the one you suggested. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | ::Not really, Tucayo. This suggests a different system, and the users are turning ''this'' proposed system, not the one you suggested. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | ||
::No, actually he's right. This proposal conflicts his proposal. - {{User|Edofenrir}} | ::No, actually he's right. This proposal conflicts his proposal. - {{User|Edofenrir}} | ||
---- | |||
===Change FA rules part 2=== | ===Change FA rules part 2=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|no quorum|0-3}} | |||
Here is the second part of my three part proposal<br> | Here is the second part of my three part proposal<br> | ||
'''Rule:''' The rule that says it will take a month of no editing to remove a nomination, I propose that this is changed to a month of no voting OR three months with no verdict AND more than five users opposing. '''Reason:''' Some nominations have way too many fans that just won't quit so get rid of the votes if there is a REAL reason to delete them (in other words if five people are opposing, they all agree) | '''Rule:''' The rule that says it will take a month of no editing to remove a nomination, I propose that this is changed to a month of no voting OR three months with no verdict AND more than five users opposing. '''Reason:''' Some nominations have way too many fans that just won't quit so get rid of the votes if there is a REAL reason to delete them (in other words if five people are opposing, they all agree) | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}} (With ideas from {{User|McQueenMario}})<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}} (With ideas from {{User|McQueenMario}})<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' October 14<sup>th</sup>, 2009 (17:00.00) | '''Deadline:''' October 14<sup>th</sup>, 2009 (17:00.00) | ||
| Line 913: | Line 933: | ||
====Keep The Long Noms==== | ====Keep The Long Noms==== | ||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} — I personally don't think the wiki needs to be cluttered up with any more dead nomination pages than there are already. I remember when I originally nominated [[Mario ( | #{{User|Stooben Rooben}} — I personally don't think the wiki needs to be cluttered up with any more dead nomination pages than there are already. I remember when I originally nominated [[Super Mario (franchise)|this page]] for FA status. The nomination page was thriving with activity for a while, but after progress on the actual article slowed down, so did the nomination page. Besides, it's not like someone can't re-nominate an article to be featured. | ||
#{{user|Yoshario}} – Per Stooben Rooben. | #{{user|Yoshario}} – Per Stooben Rooben. | ||
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} - Per Stooben. | #{{User|Gamefreak75}} - Per Stooben. | ||
| Line 924: | Line 944: | ||
:I don't know which side to support: Could you explain your proposal in-depth? {{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}} | :I don't know which side to support: Could you explain your proposal in-depth? {{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}} | ||
::Basically, I want to remove all of the nominations like Luigi's that have taken three months to decide. So I am proposing to impose a deadline so that the nominations don't remain on the wiki forever because let's face it, the Luigi nom is never going to be deleted. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ::Basically, I want to remove all of the nominations like Luigi's that have taken three months to decide. So I am proposing to impose a deadline so that the nominations don't remain on the wiki forever because let's face it, the Luigi nom is never going to be deleted. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||