MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/16

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
< MarioWiki:Proposals‎ | Archive
Revision as of 16:48, September 22, 2009 by Knife (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search
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.
Previous proposals

User Highlights

DO NOT ADD FEATURE 1-8

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.
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: Hyper Guy (talk)
Deadline: August 28, 2009, 20:00

Support

  1. Hyper Guy (talk)

Oppose

  1. Super Mario Bros. (talk) If you mean a box on the Main Page, it isn't necessary. For the promotion issue you stated, the promotion is usually listed in the Pipe Plaza, usually as, "*Insert User Name Here* has been promoted to *insert rank here*! Congratulations!" And the problem with the birthdays can be solved with the 'Shroom (we have the calendar, one of the sections is for birthdays). If anybody is not content with what we have, then that is too bad for them.
  2. Cobold (talk) The wiki isn't a forum, so we will not have a database for something like birthdays - creating an automatic system or handling it manual sounds like too much work for me. If you want to congratulate certain users, write down those users' birthdays on your own list. SysOp promotions are noted on the Pipe Plaza.
  3. Yoshario (talk) – Per Cobold
  4. Time Q (talk): Per all.
  5. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
  6. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all.
  7. MechaWave (talk) - It's simple, not a forum, there's already one that exists for the site. Per Cobold.
  8. Luigi 128 (talk)Per all the Main page is for the wiki not the users

Comments

Allowing YouTube Videos Outside Userpages

NO YOUTUBE VIDEOS IN ARTICLES 7-17

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.
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: Hyper Guy (talk)
Deadline: August 30, 2009, 15:00

Support

  1. Hyper Guy (talk) - Per above.
  2. Clyde1998 (talk) - Why Not, per Hyper Guy!
  3. Booman (talk) Per all.
  4. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! It depends on what video, it's quality, is proffesionally done, and how small is the article, because, if the article is big then it will take a longer time to load. Zero signing out.
  5. YellowYoshi127 (talk) Yoshi! I think they should extend it to Shroom pages.
  6. RKOSpriteYoshi (talk)Per HG
  7. Electrobomber (talk) Hmmmm... yes, this proposal makes sense. I mean, if the youtube video is properly sized (and agreeing with zero) and professionally done, this proposal is a reasonable one. Also, on the Zelda Wiki they have youtube videos on their pages and honestly, their pages don't take that long to load.

Oppose

  1. Itachi 96 (talk) Some pages, like Mario's, and really big, and, for some computers, are long to load. With Youtube videos, these pages will be extremely long to load.
  2. Yoshario (talk) – Per Itachi 96. We can always external link to YouTube videos.
  3. Cobold (talk) see comment section
  4. Dark Lakitu 789 (talk) Per all
  5. Tucayo (talk) - Per Steve comments
  6. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
  7. T.c.w7468 (talk) - Per all.
  8. Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per Itachi 96 and Steve's comment below.
  9. MechaWave (talk) - Itachi 96, your reason is invalid to me. Per my reasons below.
  10. Alan Warp Zone (talk) Per Itachi... (about the comment about "per all"...) Yes It´s true some old computers and the memory fulled this would be a nightmare.
  11. Ralphfan (talk) - Per all!
  12. Edofenrir (talk) - The way the proposal puts it, I oppose. Youtube-Clips should not be added to replace text ("Just put a youtube video on here")! This is an online-dictionary and dictionaries are things to be read, so people saying they "won't read through all this c**p" are no valid reason to change something. At least that's my oppinion!
  13. Coincollector (talk) - Using youtube videos on articles would make them less professional besides stealing words from text.
  14. Marioguy1 (talk) - Couldn't we use references for that? That is what is currently happening is it not? Why change tradition if it is not necessary? These are all rhetorical questions by the way. Per Yoshario.
  15. Time Q (talk): Per Itachi, Cobold, Edofenrir, and Coincollector.
  16. Pie Shroom (talk) This is why not. Yeah, this link.
  17. MC Hammer Bro. (talk) Per Itachi, Cobold and see comment

Comments

An external link would work fine in your example. Right now we host all our content when it comes to articles--the text and images. Embedding videos and making them part of the actual article means we are outsourcing content which relies on YouTube and their servers, as well as the user who uploaded the video. Having embedded Flash in the articles looks sloppy. Most everything can be described in words and if videos are an option we could rely on them too much; "This video shows how the gameplay works." Blah Blah Porplemontage (talk)

I agree. YouTube videos would also take away content from the article, as people might say they don't need to describe what is shown in the video. - Cobold (talk)
Seconded! And think about all the stubs that would be created by just having articles with one single video and the comment "Watch the video" below it. Edofenrir (talk)

It's a wiki, it's supposed to have content in usually a text form, a reference to an external link TO a YouTube video is better. The video would extend loading time, like on Peach's page mainly, and content and formatting may be harder to replicate. Also, just a little off-topic note, I hate it when someone says "Per all." MechaWave (talk)

I'd say it might be useful in some points but it should be handeled VERY careful so that this feature is not overused or the Wiki will be overrun by Youtube-Videos, rendering the articles useless.
Edofenrir (talk)

I think we need seperate pages for youtube videoes for example: Luigi's Mansion cutscenes would be nothing but youtube videos of cutscenes for the said game. Or Glitch videos would be a good page! Lu-igi board 05:05, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

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. MC Hammer Bro. (talk)

No name, no vote, no creator's username, delete, Version 2

DO NOT REMOVE UNSIGNED VOTES 2-10

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: Zero777 (talk)
Deadline: September 5, 2009, 20:00

Support

  1. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! (creator) The last one pass very successfully, because think about it why make a section if you are not going to support it yourself? There's no reason to oppose since if it pass then it will make a turn for the better for everybody. This proposal will make the pages I just said more organized. Zero signing out.
  2. YellowYoshi127 (talk) Yoshi! I don't like it when a niminator doesn't support it himself but I see no real reason to have to add creator after your user name as above it usually says nominated by.

Oppose

  1. Tucayo (talk) - So... If i dont say who i am when i vote, my vote gets deleted..... Stupid.
  2. Luigifreak (talk) - Per all. We dont need to delete those right off the bat, it's often just a misunderstanding and once the user is told, he/she will almost always change it.
  3. Yoshario (talk) - If this doesn't apply to the comments section, and a user could fill their username in there, then why not in the Support/Oppose section? There seems to be no need to remove a user's vote because they didn't sign it, someone else could for them.
  4. Itachi 96 (talk) Per all except Time Q.
  5. Marioguy1 (talk) - Just add {{unsigned}}, yeash. No need to make someone worry about not having their vote there like someone did to me.
  6. Randoman123456789 (talk) - Per all.
  7. Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk) No. Just no. I don't vote on some of my proposals (such as the recent amendment to the No-Signature policy that requires coding). Sometimes the proposer might understand the reasoning of both sides, and can't make up their mind. So, as I said, I oppose this.
  8. Time Q (talk): Per Yoshario. This is a rule that probably wouldn't do much harm, but it wouldn't make sense either.
  9. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Per all.
  10. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all

Comments

I am Zero! Oh ya, I forgot that part, I was thinking of the poll selection page. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)

we already use that... Tucayo (talk)

I agree with the no name no vote part but I dont think the no username of creator is pointless. Don't most creators vote after they already have published it? Betaman (talk)

The no name rule already exists with the no-sig policy. I don't think we have to rewrite it. Marioguy1 (talk)
Time Q: Have you noticed that the top six votes all per you in a way? Marioguy1 (talk)
Yeah, hehe. I guess that either that means my reasons are really good, or they're all just lazy. :P Time Q (talk)

What happened to the other votes? Itachi 96 (talk)

The proposer unwarrantedly deleted them. Time Q (talk)
I'm kinda confused too oO - Edofenrir (talk)

I am Zero! I altered the proposal so much I have to delete the votes and start all over, because some people aren't getting the picture. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)

I struck my vote and those that are "per-ing" me for now. Anyone of the users concerned feel free to replace your striked votes with a valid one. Time Q (talk)

I am Zero! Well if you put it that way, well ya it's stupid, but overall is good. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)

I have to say that I don't really get the point (what keeps me from voting). So an unsigned vote will be deleted, but another one can fill in your username and then it's fine? Wouldn't it be easier to just tell the person that he/she forgot to sign the vote? I don't understand it. To me it seems like the bold text and the rest contridict each other. Someone please enlighten me. Edofenrir (talk)

Marioguy1 (talk) - Sorry Time Q but you crossed out your vote and your vote has no logic. Plus, your vote is messing up the number system, it looks like there are seven people yet there are only four.

I know it has no logic (anymore), that's why I crossed it out >.< But there are still some people per-ing me, so I left it there for now. I'll remove it soon, but I wanted to give the other users the chance to update their votes. By the way, you're vote has no reason and thus is invalid. Time Q (talk)
The "per all" votes still count, since they support other voters' opinions, not just your defunct vote. - Walkazo (talk)

I am Zero! *sigh* It was a success last time, so I wonder what did I add or remove to make this one a failure? Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)

Create spoiler boxes

DO NOT CREATE SPOILER BOXES 2-12

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: Electrobomber (talk)
Deadline: September 7, 2009, 17:00

Support

  1. Electrobomber (talk) Per above
  2. Arend (talk) I actually think it's a good idea, and have no idea why people oppose for this. Per Electrobomber.

Oppose

  1. Walkazo (talk) - It's too much hassle. Really, people should expect spoilers if they read anything on the Internet; the fact that we even bother warning them puts us ahead of the vast majority of websites out there (not to mention people who troll forums just to spoil plots). Our job is to deliver all the facts we can, and bending over backwards to accommodate people who don't want all the facts is counter-productive.
  2. Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Walkazo.
  3. Yoshario (talk)}: Per Walkazo
  4. Marioguy1 (talk) - Wow, Walkazo's making a lot of sense today, first that comment and now this. Per Her.
  5. Time Q (talk): Per Walkazo. To be honest, even the spoiler templates we have seem sort of unnecessary to me. I mean, we're an encyclopedia trying to cover all Mario-related stuff, and of course this includes spoilers as well. Putting those templates in articles seems unencyclopedic to me. Just my two cents... anyway, no need for even more spoiler warnings.
  6. Grandy02 (talk): Per all. I also agree with Time Q, I don't find those spoiler templates useful, either.
  7. Itachi 96 (talk): Per all.
  8. Pie Shroom (talk) Per Azzy.
  9. P. Trainer (talk) Per Walkazo
  10. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per Walkazo.
  11. Betaman (talk) Per Walkazo.
  12. FunkyK38 (talk) Sorry, Electrobomber, but we already have a spoiler template, and what you're suggesting sounds like a lot of work to do.

Comments

we already have them :) {{spoiler}} Tucayo (talk)

So, if the wiki has them... are they in use? Sorry, i checked. They are.- Edofenrir (talk)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's not talking about the {{spoiler}}-thingies, but about something that hides the spoiling contents from the visitors eyes and reveals it when clicked on. - Edofenrir (talk)
Yes, you're exactly right, Edofenrir. The spoiler template is "those warning things", as mentioned in the proposal; Electrobomber is suggesting we put the spoiling information in show/hide boxes. - Walkazo (talk)
oh, sorry :embarassed: i didnt understad the proposal ver good :/ Tucayo (talk)
there, is the proposal a little easier to understand now? Electrobomber (talk)

Even Out Removal Votes

REDUCE NUMBER OF VOTERS REQUIRED TO REMOVE FA VOTE TO THREE 11-0-0

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 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: Marioguy1 (talk)
Deadline: Thursday September 10th, 2009 (17:00.00)

Change FA Number

  1. Marioguy1 (talk) - The FA Number is higher so making it lower would help to squish out those fan-votes because people love someone. On the proposal page I doubt there would be fan-votes. Oh yes and when this proposal ends, if even one of the numbers changes, I want it marked as a success (you know green).
  2. Edofenrir (talk) - I support this, but only if the removal-votes have to be accompanied by a strong reason to be valid (like it is now). I think three strong reasons are enough.
  3. Tucayo (talk) - Per, though i am of the idea that we should delete ALL fan votes without going through this....
  4. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all. But what are we going to change the number to? Four? Oh okay. I'm keeping this vote though. Three sounds more reasonable than five. And Per Time Q, too.
  5. Pie Shroom (talk) Per MG1.
  6. Timmy Tim (talk) Sounds fair. FIs need two, but that's too little in my opinion.
  7. Randoman123456789 (talk) - Per Marioguy1.
  8. Time Q (talk): There's no reason for having two different numbers, so it's a good idea to even them out. Three seems like a reasonable number: experience has shown that there are hardly ever 5 users that vote for the removal of an FA vote. Oh, and just to clarify: Current rules state that one sysop must be among the voters that vote for the removal of an FA vote. This, of course, should stay the same.
  9. P. Trainer (talk) Per all.
  10. Yoshario (talk) – Per all
  11. Dark Bowser (talk) Per All.

Change Proposal Number

Don't Change Numbers

Comments

@T.c.w7468: I think the proposer splitted the support section into two to avoid problems with this question. You just voted for decreasing both numbers of neccessary removal votes to 3. If you had picked the other support category, you would have voted for increasing both numbers of necessary removal votes to five ;3 - Edofenrir (talk)

Unless I wrote to change the rule it won't be changed. Marioguy1 (talk)
Timmy Tim: I would of included FIs but do you know how many headers that would take? Marioguy1 (talk)
You can't vote for the removal of FI votes. Time Q (talk)
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. Timmy Tim (talk)

Creations & Deletions

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!

Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Deadline: Friday September 11th, 2009 (20:00.00)

Create Section

  1. Marioguy1 (talk) - OK, I think I made my point clear...

Don't Create Section

Comments

Couldn't the "New Features" section be used for creating something? –Yoshario (talk)

And removals for deletes Tucayo (talk)
Just to make things clear, Hephestus vote is not valid according to our rules, so currently, the proposal would be listed as "No Quorum" (The first of those if I am correct) Tucayo (talk)
I, too, think that Hephaestus's vote is invalid. Time Q (talk)

Itachi 96 (talk) Yes, I think too that Hephaseus's vote is invalid. Sure, why not is not a strong reason.

Give Patrollers CheckUser

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 protecting 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: Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk)
Deadline: September 13th, 2009, 15:00

Give Them CheckUser

  1. Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk) My proposal. Also, see my comment below about the extension information.
  2. Tucayo (talk) - I would find this very useful
  3. Marioguy1 (talk) - So if it wouldn't do anything bad for the wiki then why not?
  4. Timmy Tim (talk) If there's no harm in it, why not?
  5. FunkyK38 (talk) This would make it easier for the patrollers to do their job.
  6. Edofenrir (talk)- If it helps to keep this site safe from trolls, then I second.
  7. Coincollector (talk) - It seems reasonable to me and fair for patrolles to use this page.
  8. Hyper Guy (talk)- Mah boi, I am seeing exactly where your coming from! If I were a patroller, I'd want a bit more power than the current things available for the patrollers. MORE POWER FOR THEM!
  9. T.c.w7468 (talk) Why not? It won't harm the wiki and it'll keep spammers out. Per all.
  10. Walkazo (talk) - Per all. It takes too long when the Patrollers have to go and ask Sysops to CheckUser for them.
  11. Jdrowlands (talk) - If you are giving them block, give them checkuser. Simple as that.
  12. Randoman123456789 (talk) - Power to the Patrollers! This thing will sure reduce the number of spammers.
  13. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per all, I think this is a good thing!
  14. Dry Luigi (talk) Great idea per all.

Don't Give Them CheckUser

Comments

Here is a link to the extension: [1]. It is also listed in our version information, so I guess we have it. Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk)
How would you go about getting this, would you just ask and Mediwiki gives it or would it be more complicated? Marioguy1 (talk)
That is classified, I will note here though that Porple (the founder and owner of the Wiki) gave his approval for giving CheckUser to them (if this passes). Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk)
As of now, 21:54, 7 September 2009 (EDT), WarioLoaf has created a sockpuppet and has also trolled Userpedia. I feel this incident furthers the fact that it would be very useful for Patrollers to have CheckUser. It would further protect us from trolls like these. Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk)
Actually, a CheckUser is extremely necessary NOW Tucayo (talk)

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. Coincollector (talk)

Delete Genre Articles

DELETE 9-0

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: Knife (talk)
Deadline: September 15, 2009, 17:00

Delete Articles

  1. Knife (talk) – I am the proposer.
  2. Marioguy1 (talk) - Maybe we could merge them all into the article "Game Types"...besides, the majority of those articles are stubs!
  3. Edofenrir (talk) - Agreed! I would even say that these articles are superfluous, because all the contents actually belong to the respective game-articles. A short summary of the genre can be given at the top of every game article.
  4. Itachi 96 (talk) Per all.
  5. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Why need a separate article for each when we can just merge them to one article?
  6. Paper Boo Guy (talk) Per all.
  7. Dry Luigi (talk) Per BabyLuigiOnFire good good proposal.
  8. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all.
  9. Vini64 (talk) Per Marioguy1.

Keep Articles

Comments

Uh, why keep "Three-Dimensional Game"? --Glowsquid 06:56, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

I was just about to ask the same question :D Time Q (talk)
I noticed that it is the only one of those articles that isn't a stub Marioguy1 (talk)
Well, if this is the reason, I'm against the proposal - keeping this one article while deleting all the others is just inconsistent. I'll wait for Knife's explanation though. Time Q (talk)
When I think about it, you guys are right. I thought we should keep that since technically it wasn't a genre. I retract that statement. And yes Marioguy, I noticed them because they were stubs. Many of these stubs need to be deleted though.--Knife (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Why not just merge them together? Timmy Tim (talk)

This seems to be a good solution. Time Q (talk)
That's what I suggested! Marioguy1 (talk)
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 "Video game genres", but that's only a slight improvement over "Video game types". - Walkazo (talk)
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. Edofenrir (talk)
"Video Game Genres" would be better, since plain "Genres" could apply to movies and TV shows as well. Then comes the question of capitalization... - Walkazo (talk)
"Video Game Genres"... The rules state that all titles must be capitalized, so there's little choice. Edofenrir (talk)
Oops, 'guess I missed that rule (note to self: review policy pages). - Walkazo (talk)
I'm not sure, but I was told so by Tucayo (talk) when I was new on the wiki. And well, I trust his statement. - Edofenrir (talk)
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.). - Walkazo (talk)

Mario Kart Wii competitions

ALLOW ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMPETITIONS ON NEWS TEMPLATE 11-0

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: YellowYoshi127 (talk)
Deadline: September 16, 2009, 17:00

Allow the MKWii comps

  1. YellowYoshi127 (talk) Yoshi! Per Me.
  2. Tucayo (talk) - Per YY127
  3. Itachi 96 (talk) Per Yellow Yoshi. And why do not put back the tourney template then?
  4. Marioguy1 (talk) - This was actually made official in Timmy Tim's proposal earlier but what's a second opinion going to do, per my reasoning in the proposal to put minor news into the template.
  5. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! I like the idea to post it on the main page but it would be better to post it on the competition template, and it would be a great idea to also do this with SSBB. Zero signing out.
  6. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) I'm always curious, so I'll be going for it
  7. PT PRANA (talk) I don't even have Wi-Fi - I'm totally gutted!
  8. LeftyGreenMario (talk) I don't really care about the tournaments, but why not?
  9. T.c.w7468 (talk) I don't even have wifi, but this proposal is helpful for those who do and are interested, and it's something to refresh the news :)
  10. Timmy Tim (talk) Per Marioguy1, this was the kind of thing I was refering to.
  11. Ralphfan (talk) YY, you make a great point.

Disallow

Comments

Is this for competitions among the wiki community or something more official? If it's for competitions organized by the wiki, that's what the MarioWiki Community box is for. It would only make the News box if, say, Nintendo was organizing something. The English here seems pretty bad. --Porplemontage (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

I believe he's talking about these. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk)
He's proposing to put those competitions in the {{News}} template which should already happen thanks to Timmy Tim's earlier proposal. Marioguy1 (talk)

Time Limit Before New Game Spoilers Added to Other Articles

NO TIME LIMIT FOR SPOILERS 3-12

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: LBD_Nytetrayn (talk)
Deadline: September 20, 2009, 15:00

Support

  1. Edofenrir (talk) - I am aware, that this is of little point, but anyways... My opinion is, that spoilers are something one has to expect on a wiki. But major spoilers should only be found on the respective games article or in a paragraph dealing with that game on another article. That means, a spoiler about M6L:BiS on the M6L:PiT is fine, as long as the paragraph it is in is concerning BiS in general. That would not just increase user-friendlyness, it would also make the wiki more orderly and more structured.
  2. LBD_Nytetrayn (talk) - As per Edofenrir. Looking back, it seems the bigger issue is more with the nature of the Trivia sections as a conduit for such spoilers to appear in other unrelated articles. It's one thing to go into Bowser's entry and know which section to avoid, but another to look up a form of his from one game and see "guess what?"
  3. Mariofan459 (talk) - Per all

Oppose

  1. Time Q (talk): We're not a random fan site, but an encyclopedia, and as such are our task is to cover everything Mario-related in the most objective and neutral way possible. Thus, hiding information from our readers, no matter for what reason, is bad. If someone doesn't want to know something about Mario, they shouldn't read this wiki, it's as simple as that.
  2. Yoshario (talk) – Per Time Q
  3. Stooben Rooben (talk) – Per Time Q. He said everything I wanted to.
  4. Marioguy1 (talk) - This is censoring Bob Hoskins all over again, no, no and no again! Besides, if SMG had just come out two days ago and I somehow got it at that early date and got as far as I am in it now, how would I have figured out how to beat Bowser?
  5. T.c.w7468 (talk) - Per Time Q.
  6. Dry Luigi (talk) Per Time Q
  7. Walkazo (talk) - Per Time Q. We should just get rid of the Spoiler templates and say the entire site's a "read at your own risk" database (like everything else on the Internet).
  8. Vini64 (talk) Per Time Q and Walkazo.
  9. Ralphfan (talk) - There's a warning. If you ignore it, that's your fault.
  10. Dark Bowser (talk) Per Walkazo.
  11. Ben Kitsune (talk) Per all.
  12. Master Lucario (talk) - Per all.

Comments

I agree with TimeQ, but i HATE spoilers. Tucayo (talk)

Is there a way to add a spoiler tag or something, then? Again, not saying no spoilers at all, but spreading them throughout to articles only slightly related seems a bit like overdoing it. If I just want to learn more about Partners in Time, is it really necessary that the first piece of trivia I see in one entry spoils a game that's not even out yet before I even read the more relevant info? And Marioguy1, would that info not be in the SMG article? That would be a different situation from what I'm speaking of.LBD_Nytetrayn (talk)

No actually, how to beat a boss is a spoiler :). BTW, you cannot propose to hide the spoilers from view in some kind of template that says "Click for Spoilers" as it hasn't been a month since Electrogoomba tried the same thing. Marioguy1 (talk)
It is, but a Super Mario Galaxy spoiler in a Super Mario Galaxy article makes sense. What I'm talking about is akin to putting a Super Mario Galaxy endgame spoiler in an article about Super Mario 64 or Sunshine.LBD_Nytetrayn (talk)

As far as I understand a major concern of this proposal is that spoilers are available outside of the respective game article, and I can perfectly understand that. Spoilers belong to the game's article or paragraphs in other articles that deal with that game. What situation would rectify it to post a spoiler outside of an article or paragraph of the respective game? Are there examples? - Edofenrir (talk)

Ah, you get what I mean. As noted, why am I being spoiled for Bowser's Inside Story when I'm just trying to read about Partners in Time?LBD_Nytetrayn (talk)
How about some specific examples (i.e. individual pages)? I can think of many reasons for PiT articles to have M&L3 spoilers: one of the Super Mario Wiki's aims is to identify and present common themes running through series, and plots are an integral part to any RPG coverage, spoilers and all. Character articles are guaranteed to have spoilers, as will prominent items, enemies and areas is many cases. Granted, some editors might go overboard and spill the beans where a page could be perfectly complete without the spoilers, but other times omitting the spoiler would be denying the unconcerned (spoiler-wise) readers all the information we could give them, which goes against everything the Wiki stands for. - Walkazo (talk)
Yes, in many cases, spoilers have to be pointed out for the sake of being informative. I won't argue that. But is there a reason why spoilers have to be given outside of a respective paragraph? I mean, there may be f.e. paragraphs like "Role in BiS" on a character article and putting spoilers in there would be fine. What I wouldn't understand is, when someone would put spoilers outside of an existing BiS paragraph. I mean, that would not just be unnecessary, but make the article itself appear less structured. - Edofenrir (talk)
All bets are off when it comes to Introductions, Trivia sections (which are discouraged, as they do make the page look disorganized), and other little bits like "Personality", "Powers and Abilities" or "Relationships with Character X" (another defunct section, by the way). The writers could be more discrete about the ending details, but I doubt more anti-spoiler rules will change that (we tell people to use proper grammar, but a lot of crud still gets posted day in and day out). - Walkazo (talk)
Examples. The main one which led me to this was the first trivia item here: here. Various Shroob entries also reference a battle in the latest game, though those seem relatively minor by comparison. I suppose this may act as much as a discouragement to the Trivia sections lamented above. - LBD_Nytetrayn (talk)
That Bowsletta/Shrowser/Dark Bowser point is perfectly reasonable, as it is undeniably true that Bowser's essence is combined with that of the main villain of all three Mario & Luigi titles; not mentioning the trend would be a grievous omission. The fact that the Shroobs appear later also has to be included, as it is part of the history - the backbone of almost every page on the Wiki - of these characters; just as we mention every game Mario appears in, so too must the Shroob cameos be noted. - Walkazo (talk)
But must it be put out there before the game is even out here? Can it not at least wait until the game ships? I understand why you'd want the stuff to be there, but is it really that crucial that it be up here before the game even comes out? And I know it's out in Japan, but are that many users going to be importing it first? - LBD_Nytetrayn (talk)

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. -- Ghost Jam (talk)

New Policy

CANCELLED 8-8
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 Rules.

Any article two complete sentences or less is subject to deletion under the following conditions:

  • The article is linked to from 9 or less mainspace articles. Links from a template page are acceptable.
  • The article has no images.
  • The article belongs to 2 mainspace categories or less.
  • The article has 4 or less different contributers, not including edits by sockpuppets or trolls.
  • The article is at least a week old.
  • The article is not a disambiguation page.

So basically, any two sentence article that fits under ALL these conditions is deleted. If an article has sentence fragments or redundant sentences, they will not be counted. An article like "Goomba Pirates are Goomba pirates. There are lots of Goomba Pirates. They appear in Mario Party 8. They are found on (whatever board that was). They throw players into a cannon and shoot them to the start if they land on a ! Space." will not work.

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: Knife (talk)
Deadline: September 22, 2009, 17:00

Support

  1. Knife (talk) My support is a given.
  2. Tucayo (talk) - Per Knife. We have many stubs, quality before quantity.
  3. Marioguy1 (talk) - This rule is actually pretty good! It should be easy to attain it. Per Knife.
  4. Dry Luigi (talk) Great proposal there are much too many stubs and it needs to stop.
  5. Mariofan459 (talk) Per Knife and Tucayo. There are too many stubs that are sometimes poorly written and need to be expanded/marked for deletion by patrolers/sysops. There are about 1500+ Stubs and that needs to be fixed!
  6. Edofenrir (talk) - I think every article that happens to meet ALL the conditions mentioned above could be considered very extreme, even for a stub. Removing those shouln't be harmful.
  7. Super Paper Mario Bros. Per all. Good idea, we need less pointless articles that don't help.
  8. Ralphfan (talk) - He did what I suggested; now the limits are good.

Oppose

  1. Walkazo (talk) - There was a (largely ignored) rule created over a year ago (I think) against creating new stubs, but as for existing short pages, it really has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Putting more emphasis on merging short pages and deleting unnecessary stubs would be beneficial to the Wiki, but that's more PipeProject fare than Proposal.
  2. Uniju :D (talk) - A little picky, aren't we? Just because an article doesn't have as much information as your picky standards dictate it should, that doesn't mean you should remove perfectly valid articles.
  3. Ace Reporter Kylie Koopa (talk) - Per all.
  4. Master Lucario (talk) - Per all.
  5. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) - I don't really understand how cutting down on stubs helps the wiki in the first place. Even if that was desirable, very, very few articles would fit under these rules.
  6. Yoshario (talk) – Per all.
  7. Glowsquid (talk) - A lot of these "requirements" are arbitrary. Per Walkazo.
  8. Stooben Rooben (talk) — the overall concept is nice, but I just don't agree with it. Every article deserves a chance, and that's what we should be giving them. Per all.

Comments

What rule says that this proposal can be given a long deadline? Twentytwofiftyseven (talk)

None, so I corrected it. Time Q (talk)

@Marioguy1: Actually he says that there have to be at least 19 links TO the page, not FROM the page. - Edofenrir (talk)

@Ralphfan: I loosened up the rules a little, but I think 2 categories instead of 1 is a better fit since we have so many categories. It still has to pass all those conditions before being deleted anyway, so I don't think it is too strict.
@Walkazo: That is exactly what I have been doing. If we deal with these case-by-case, we will get nowhere. Stubs are created much faster than they are fixed/deleted. It has gone far beyond Pipeproject repair. This is more of a deterrent for future stubs and hopefully will encourage users to not to make short articles for the sake of filling a red link (the manual of style has that bolded, but that isn't an enforcable rule).

I thought we could manipulate the deadline. Sorry for assuming that.Knife (talk)

Knife, may I add a suggestion? If the article has an image in it, it passes. Marioguy1 (talk)
Good idea.Knife (talk)

All rules are enforceable, so if you see someone creating a one-liner (to fill a red link, or for whatever other motivation) you can stop them. The old no-new-stubs rule also lets you delete new stubs; I think the problem has been that we don't always catch them right when they're made and later assume they were there all along (granted, that's what checking the History is for). Personally, I always worry about removing what little information the stub does provide: there should be more emphasis that when you delete a stub, you have to make sure the info goes somewhere else (i.e. delete a Level page and the info gets pasted on the World article instead). - Walkazo (talk)

The no-new stubs rule. If you could point out where it was passed, I would have a better understanding of it. Even if it was passed, why isn't it on any policy page? While this proposal is also supposed to cut down on stubs, it has two major differences. The first being that new stubs are still allowed if any of the conditions don't fit. The second being that existing stubs can still be deleted. You are also worried about valuable information being lost. Don't fret. If a user creates an article with only two sentences, there are two conclusions:

  • The user doesn't know enough about the article and probably shouldn't be creating an article on it.
  • The subject in the article does not have enough information that can be written about it and should not have its own article.

I can't think of any two sentence article with information so valuable that it needs to be merged/stay as an article. I wish we had an extended deadline so that we can discuss this further, but we only have 3 days left.Knife (talk)

I'll search the archives for the no-new-stub proposal tomorrow (I can't tonight because of time and computer constraints) - regrettably, most policies that pass via Proposals can only be found there (people love making new ideas, but if implementing them is hard, they don't always follow through). For some examples of informative 2-liner stubs (albeit ones that have images and templates) see Chocolate Islands 1 and 3, and to a lesser extent, Chocolate Secret. Some of the other Chocolate Island levels have a decent amount of writing to their name, but I think the whole lot could be merged into Chocolate Island quite handily. (I'll admit, that's more relevant to the old "should every level get a page" debate, but it's the only example I could come up with off the top of my head.) - Walkazo (talk)
Those examples don't work for me. The first one has no important text and wouldn't be deleted under this new rule. The second one has 4 sentences (the sentences in the level template), therefore is not relevant at all. I believe the old proposals should be better organized instead of just archiving them by date, but that's a different issue. Let me know when you find the old proposal.Knife (talk)

(Chat log) 20:36 Tucayo when i was a n00b
20:36 Tucayo and searched for a random article
20:36 Tucayo i saw it didnt exist
20:36 Tucayo and created it myself

Tucayo (talk)

I'm really torn on this proposal. As incredibly annoying as it is to see well over 1,000 stubs on the wiki that either haven't been edited in so long because it's such an obscure subject, because so few actually can find information on it, or even because of pure laziness, I still feel that all articles should be given a chance. If an article is just one line, then yeah, it's likely to be deleted as soon as a Sysop finds it, because there's always enough information for at least two well-detailed sentences, but just completely ridding all small stubs of having the chance to become a really impressive page seems rather extreme. Stooben Rooben (talk)

I understand. You're thinking about each stub having potential to be a great article. But as time passes, those stubs are less likely to be expanded. In general, older subjects often have less information. The potential is still there of course. Why does it hurt the wiki? We currently have 9500+ articles (as displayed on the Main Page). 1500+ of those articles are stubs (not two sentences). How is that anything but bad? Why are stubbed articles bad for the wiki? Because they mean the articles are incomplete and are under some kind of construction (I realize no article is really complete since this is a wiki). Why is page count important anyway? Because we seem to boast that statistic to all our visitors who go through the Main Page. I simply want to get rid of stubs to make that statistic more accurate.
Now some of you may be confused about how this proposal will help get rid of stubs. It is true that this proposal will affect only a few stubs. The main purpose is to cut down newer stubs from forming and encouraging users to provide a more complete article before creating it. When is the most information added? Usually when the article is created. We could just start enforcing the no-new stubs rule. However, that rule is also flawed. Users can simply not mark the subject as a stub or a good 4 sentence stub could be deleted. Even if a stub is deleted, it can always be recreated as a better article. Not all stubs are bad. It's the shorter ones with little hope of being expanded that need to be deleted.Knife (talk)

I don't know... I really like the idea of getting rid of some of our stubs, since they are annoying and reflect badly on the wiki (and we really shouldn't worry about "losing info" when deleting such stubs; articles like "X is the Yth level in the Zth world of game W" have no info, and if they have, that info can be usually found on other pages as well). But on the other hand, I don't think I can agree with the rules you're proposing. As Glowsquid said, many of them are arbitrary, plus I don't think many articles would be affected at all. It just all seems to be a very specific rule of which many parts can be questioned and that wouldn't be of that much use. -- BTW, it does look like the deadline is going to be extended (this happens if there's more than 10 votes on a proposal but one side has a margin of less than 3 votes). Time Q (talk)

What conditions should be changed?--Knife (talk)

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). --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 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. - Walkazo (talk)

... 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. - Knife (talk)

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. - Walkazo (talk)
Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/16&oldid=629278"