| Any proposal decided and past is archived here. Use the scroll box to see votes and comments. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.
|
| All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was.
|
Siblings Template
COMBINE 13-0
I've noticed that the Siblings template, though useful, is in need of a change, notably, the fact that, on looking, one cannot actually tell which characters are, in fact, siblings. For example, Mario has two characters between him and Luigi, or on a much more dramatic scale, Dixie Kong and Tiny Kong are on complete opposite ends of the template. Some characters, like Kat and Ana, have this remedied with the word "and" in some form. My proposal, in order to clean this template up, is to do that with all characters with an unlinked 'and' between them, for example, Mario and Luigi. Naturally, this wouldn't apply to, say, the Jellyfish Sisters, as they don't have an and in their name, or to, say, Kat and Ana, who already have an and which is a part of the page name. They would be arranged alphabetically by first character's name, so it would be, say, Mario and Luigi after Baby Mario and Baby Luigi, but before Punio and Petuni.
Proposer: Shrikeswind (talk)
Deadline: October 18, 2008, 20:00
Combine
- Shrikeswind (talk) Per above.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) I had actually thought about doing this, but I was too lazy. :P Per Shrikeswind.
- Dodoman (talk) Whoa, great idea. That'd definitely organize it a little more.
- InfectedShroom (talk) - Per all. I don't think a proposal was necessary, however...
- Walkazo (talk) - I thought about colour-coding this template a few months back, and even came up with the organizing principle; but I never proposed it because it looked bad. This idea blows mine out of the water!
- Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) ~Per all.
- Super-Yoshi (talk) - Per All. This is gonna help s stay organized, too :P.
- Stumpers (talk) - This is actually a very well done proposal, especially for a first. Anyway, this would increase the usefulness of the template, and as Walkazo showed us, is plausible and aesthetically pleasing.
- Mateus 23 (talk) - Per all.
- Phailure (talk) - Always those little bitty things... anywho, per all.
- Dom (talk) - Moo. That's Cow for 'per all'.
- iggykoopa (talk) - per all.
- Tucayo (talk) - Per all, its easier to look that way
Leave Seperate
Jeez, I hope I did this right. My first proposal and I feel like an idiot doing it. Any help would be much appreciated. - Shrikeswind (talk)
- You did a good job. ;) Kudos. Stooben Rooben (talk)
Er... Could you link to the template, please? :') I'll go find it myself, but it would be nice for people who newly see the proposal. InfectedShroom (talk)
- Here ya go. Stooben Rooben (talk)
As I said in my vote, I already did the research and came up with divisions for the siblings a while ago. I saved my work, and just went through and converted it to this idea, and this is the result. If you like it, Shrikeswind, perhaps we can use it as the new Sibling's Template if (or rather, when) this proposal passes? If there's anything amiss, please tell me. - Walkazo (talk)
- Nice template! :) It's very well organized. I might have an idea for an even more well organized version of it though. Stooben Rooben (talk)
- I was thinking the template could look like a cross between this, and what you have as a prototype, but the outcome wasn't real good. So, your way is definitely the better way. Stooben Rooben (talk)
- Thanks! I was thinking of dividing it up a bit like that too; but yeah, there were too many single siblings, one-link pairs, and small families to make it worthwhile... - Walkazo (talk)
- That's almost exactly what I was thinking, and no less that's a better way to do it, especially considering, for example, the Koopalings. Thank you Walkazo. Shrikeswind (talk)
- My pleasure :) I love template work. - Walkazo (talk)
- Should this be archived? Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk)
|
L Block
DON'T MERGE 1-8
I was stopping by to check on blocks recently, and I saw that L Block had almost no info. I have a feeling L Block should be merged with M Block.
Proposer: Pink Boozooka (talk)
Deadline: October 23, 2008, 17:00
Merge
- Paperphailurethemariomonster99 (talk) - I'm Paperphailurethemariomonster99, and I think M Blocks and L Blocks are the same!!!!
Don't Merge
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - I have 3 reasons why it shouldn't be merged. 1) It is officially named, 2) It affects gameplay differently, no matter how slight a difference it has from the M Block, 3) It is almost the same length as the M Block. With an expansion, the articles will be fine separate.
- Stumpers (talk) - I agree with Stooben's third point. Plenty of articles on this Wiki are short and would, in their current states, be better merged, but there's so much potential for those articles that it would be a waste. I'm thinking of minor characters from Mario Tennis: Power Tour for example. Yeah, I know that after I voted for the merging levels into world articles it probably seems weird that I'm opposing this, but that was a presentation thing, whereas this is not.
- Super-Yoshi (talk) - Per all.
- iggykoopa (talk) - No way there two differnt boxes.
- InfectedShroom (talk) - Ay. Per all. L Block can be expanded into a good-sized article. And iggykoopa, I do believe you are voting in the wrong section.
- Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) *sigh* There are different blocks that are officaly named. They can't be merge those blocks aren't the same.
- Dom (talk) - Yep, Stooben Rooben 'nuff said. Read my comment below.
- Tucayo (talk) - Per stooben, they are 2 different things
I don't like blocks. Dom (talk)
- now thats ugly :( (lol jk) Super-Yoshi (talk)
Well, Dom, blocks happen to be a major part of the Mario series. Deleting these articles would get you immediately stripped of your powers if you had them. Blocks are awesome. No questions asked. We're done here. *closes briefcase and walks out the door* R.O.B 128 (talk)
Hey, ROB128 - I've noticed that everyone on the Wiki hates my opinions no matter what I say. I feel even more worthless now. But seriously, BLOCKS. What could be less interesting? I wouldn't truly consider deleting the block articles - but maybe merging them all into a Blocks article - but since everyone hates my ideas - there was no point in saying that. Oh, and Super-Yoshi - are you calling me ugly? Oh yeah, and ROB - I don't exactly have any powers to be stripped of - I'm a useless contributor with no special rank like Sysop or anything. I probably never will be due to life circumstances. Dom (talk)
|
Mame Block and Bagubagutchi
SPLIT 6-5
I recently passed by Mametchi's page and found a user had merged Bagubagutchi and Mame Block in to the one article. We need the pages as someone might need the info.
Proposer: BeeBop! (talk)
Deadline: October 24, 2008, 20:00
Split
- BeeBop! (talk) Per my proposal
- iggykoopa (talk) -per all
- Paperphailurethemariomonster99 (talk) Per BeeBop!
- Blitzwing (talk) - Look at my comment below.
- Stumpers (talk) - The reason we're merging things from Super Smash Bros. is because it isn't a spin-off from the Super Mario series, but features Mario. However, that doesn't mean that a crossover subject in a Mario game should be merged and such. If that was the case, we're looking at merging together the moves, etc. from the Final Fantasy characters in Mario Hoops 3-on-3 as well. Is this really something we want? To simply say that this one character in Mario Kart GP is a "special case" is bogus. If this proposal fails, we'll have to merge Mario Hoops topics accordingly, etc. As I stated below, this proposal is invalid to begin with: BeeBop! is asking for us to vote on whether we should be able to enforce the fact that the previous proposal was inconclusive. I could take action on this proposal right now. In fact, I should - it's my duty as a sysop to see that users don't act on failed or null proposals.
- Dodoman (talk) Per Stumps.
Keep it Merged
- InfectedShroom (talk) - Fine. I didn't want to do this, but I oppose because there was already a proposal about this last month, and it merged the two.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per IS. Besides, the more stubs we have on this site, the less professional it looks.
- Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) Per all. Ugh we have a past proposal to merge then because they're stubish. And stub aren't good for this wiki.
- Super-Yoshi (talk) - Per All.
- Walkazo (talk) - Information from series other than Mario aren't this Wiki's focus, so lumping the corresponding Stubs together into presentable articles is perfectly reasonable.
Umm I think they have a proposal to merge all those items together since they're stubish. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk)
- Yes. And it passed. Besides, you can find all the info... In the one article. This proposal is not necessary. InfectedShroom (talk)
I was looking over the archived proposals and there is no one up there about these two items but i know there was a proposal but to your point InfectedShroom it did not pass i know that for a fact because i lead the charge ageinst it i belive win it dissaberd the tally was 11-8. iggykoopa (talk)
- Ever heard of using periods? And it seems that the fact that a proposal passed or not is irrelevant, because the proposal was deleted without being archived. I'm looking for a history now, though... InfectedShroom (talk)
- Here. The proposal was removed, but it was not decided. I guess this proposal is valid. InfectedShroom (talk)
- If this is the case, doesn't that mean that a lone user acted on a failed proposal? Stumpers (talk)
So that means somebody merged the items together after the propasal falied. iggykoopa (talk)
- Yeah, so if the proposer just cancels this proposal, no action is taken, just like the previous proposal. In short, the proposer could have just undone the user's edits instead of making another proposal and gotten what (s)he wanted. Stumpers (talk)
- So, perhaps the proposer should just do that? Stooben Rooben (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
- Exactly, if (s)he pulls the proposal right now, (s)he wins the proposal. So, continuing this proposal just gives him/her the chance of losing. Stumpers (talk)
- But it tied. 3 and 3? Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk)
- Essentially what is going on is this. (1) 1st proposal to merge the subjects was pulled by the proposer, who changed his mind and wanted the subjects to remain separate. (2) A user merged the subjects anyway, breaking policy. (3) Therefore, had someone brought this to our attention, the sysops would be obligated to undo those edits. Instead, the new proposer created a proposal, asking the Wiki to do what the sysops would have had to do in the first place. (4) Thus, the issue is back out into the open, and could swing either in this proposer's favor or not. Stumpers (talk)
Walkazo: But, this article is about the mario series. The character and the item appeared in Mario Kart GP 2. It makes no sense to merge the item with the character while leaving all the other Mario Kart GP Item intact. Blitzwing (talk)
- They may be in a Mario game, but the blocks are essentially items from Tamagotchi. Personally, I'd be perfectly happy seeing all the Mario Kart GP items merged (it'd beat the slew of the red links and stubs by a long-shot); and for that matter, I'd be fine with the non-Mario content of Mario Hoops 3-on-3 merged as well (though I'll admit my Mario elitism is probably unreasonable by most standards). This is the second proposal in a row where an issue brought up over one game is really a matter of Mario Wiki Policy; this time, the proposal's foundings are already questionable, so perhaps it would be best to just remove it (as Stumpers has been advocating) and prevent any confusion, hastles, and/or double-standards. - Walkazo (talk)
- Walkazo, I agree that the MKGP items would be better merged. The ones that appear in other MK or Mario games could have links to their greater articles, but as it stands there are, what, 200 of them? All very minor, kind of like the badges or recipes in Paper Mario. What I don't want to have happen is to see all other series that cross-over with Mario get lackadaisical coverage. We set out to cover all aspects of the Mario series and many aspects of the Smash series, so I feel that what we do for cross-over content in Smash should not necessarily be applied to the Mario series. So, I'd be up for merging ALL MKGP items together because they are minor, but I wouldn't be up for merging some of them because they are minor in relation to the Mario series. In any case, we shouldn't be dealing with this on a point-by-point basis. Just like we didn't merge, say, Sonic and Snake's special moves a while back, I don't think we should merge just Tamogotchi (especially when the Pac articles are still unmerged). Stumpers (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Sounds good; as long as the horrendous amount of stubs and non-articles goes down, I'm happy. But wouldn't we need another proposal to merge all the MKGP items? Come to think of it, it'd probably be easier if these sort of proposals dealing with individual articles could automatically be replaced with proposals concerning the underlying problems which the case-by-case instances bring to light... - Walkazo (talk)
Oh my god you guys are such hypocrites manily you super yoshi you dont souporte the merge of minor paper mario items but you do support the merge of these items why is that? is because they are not in america and the stubish thing all minor items are stubish Iggykoopa (talk)
- ...You do realize that proposals are about what other users think about the idea. I've been here longer than you, don't call me a hypocrite. If you don't like us, then we aren't forcing you to stay. All I said was Per All, because I thought everyone was correct on the merge side. Super-Yoshi (talk)
- Oh I just realizzed that was my old proposal, lol. Super-Yoshi (talk)
|
|
|
