MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 231: Line 231:
::[http://twitter.com/SMWikiOfficial/status/915759780354052096 Official content is official content], no matter what form it takes. What should be debated here is whether or not it should be covered in full. For the moment, I'm leaning towards giving it a separate page, simply because it ''was'' bought by Nintendo and is therefore an official product. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 01:20, 12 November 2017 (EST)
::[http://twitter.com/SMWikiOfficial/status/915759780354052096 Official content is official content], no matter what form it takes. What should be debated here is whether or not it should be covered in full. For the moment, I'm leaning towards giving it a separate page, simply because it ''was'' bought by Nintendo and is therefore an official product. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 01:20, 12 November 2017 (EST)
:::Legal definitions are messy. I mean, the Mario IP was licensed to those who made the [[:Category:Edutainment Games]] for DOS, PC, NES, and SNES, but that doesn't mean that the games are owned by Nintendo are official. Maybe I am wrong about that. The point is the original author isn't Nintendo and yet giving credit to them as if they were because they bought the film rights isn't quite right to then label it as "official". Legalities isn't the only measure of being official. I think that Nintendo has long since forgotten those licensed instances of the Mario franchise. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 01:34, 12 November 2017 (EST)
:::Legal definitions are messy. I mean, the Mario IP was licensed to those who made the [[:Category:Edutainment Games]] for DOS, PC, NES, and SNES, but that doesn't mean that the games are owned by Nintendo are official. Maybe I am wrong about that. The point is the original author isn't Nintendo and yet giving credit to them as if they were because they bought the film rights isn't quite right to then label it as "official". Legalities isn't the only measure of being official. I think that Nintendo has long since forgotten those licensed instances of the Mario franchise. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 01:34, 12 November 2017 (EST)
::::Yeah TT the only way it's official is that Nintendo literally owns it and tell me what does that really mean? {{User|Chester Alan Arthur}}
@TimeTurner: Oh. My bad. I had no idea. I should probably think twice before I start shooting my mouth off for no reason. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 18:35, 12 November 2017 (EST)
@TimeTurner: Oh. My bad. I had no idea. I should probably think twice before I start shooting my mouth off for no reason. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 18:35, 12 November 2017 (EST)

Revision as of 22:16, November 12, 2017

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, May 20th, 04:30 GMT
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

  1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
  2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
  10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
  12. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "May 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
  5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Merge the Wrecking Crew and VS. Wrecking Crew phases into list articles, Axis (ended February 24, 2022)
Do not consider usage of classic recurring themes as references to the game of origin, Swallow (ended March 9, 2022)
Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Enforce WCAG Level AA standards to mainspace and template content, PanchamBro (ended May 29, 2022)
Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2022)
Trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters, Koopa con Carne (ended January 30, 2023)
Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Consider filenames as sources and create redirects, Axis (ended August 24, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)
Standardize the formatting of foreign and explanatory words and phrases in "Names in other languages" tables, Annalisa10 (ended February 7, 2024)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Trim Mario Kart course galleries of excess Tour stuff, Shadow2 (ended May 18, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split the various reissues of Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended April 22, 2022)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences, LinkTheLefty (ended January 14, 2023)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Remove the list of Super Smash Bros. series objects, Axis (ended May 10, 2023)
Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)
Change the Super Mario 64 DS level section to include more specific character requirements, Altendo (ended December 20, 2023)
Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge the ghost Bats and Mice from Luigi's Mansion to their respective organic counterparts from the later games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split Strobomb from Robomb, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split the NES and SNES releases of Wario's Woods, SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (ended March 27, 2024)
Merge Mii Brawler, Mii Swordfighter, and Mii Gunner to Mii, TheUndescribableGhost (ended March 28, 2024)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck, DrippingYellow (ended May 4, 2024)
Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs, Blinker (ended May 15, 2024)

List of talk page proposals

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Create a template for proposer and deadline parameters

Yet another measure intended to improve how proposals are added to pages. You can find the details here. Basically, my proposal is that we change the parameters for the "Proposer:" and "Deadline:" parameters from hardcoding into a template. This will also (quite obviously) mean that previous archives must be temporarily unprotected to enforce these changes. Proposals like these have received near-unanimous support in the past; we have all of these, to name a few, so how does this fare?

Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk)
Deadline: November 14, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Templates are for reducing redundant and common markup into an easy-to-use code. We went through it once before.

Oppose

  1. Time Turner (talk) Why? This just seems like it unnecessarily complicates the whole process. It's perfectly readable as-is and doesn't take up a notable amount of space.
  2. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per Time Turner. This seems to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
  3. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Templates are annoying to use as-is, and what I saw when I viewed the source of that example didn't make me particularly welcoming of this idea. It's just easier to do it the way we've been doing it.
  4. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per all. I don't see how this makes things any easier.
  5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  6. Tucayo (talk) - Per all.

Comments

@MrConcreteDonkey: The problem is that I have seen countless poorly formatted proposer/deadline parameters. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 17:30, 7 November 2017 (EST)

I haven't noticed anything like that, and even still it's much less hassle to just fix them separately, rather than editing every proposal in every archive. FakeIco MCD.png MrConcreteDonkey 17:39, 7 November 2017 (EST)
Your argument is still flawed; all of these, to name a few. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 17:52, 7 November 2017 (EST)
But this doesn't make things any more convenient, and it doesn't provide any added insight for future readers. How is this better than manually inputting it? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:24, 7 November 2017 (EST)
It's been fixed. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 18:44, 7 November 2017 (EST)
It has not. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2017 (EST)
You've only added the list from your most recent comment to the proposal, and haven't addressed our concerns. How is introducing more complicated formatting going to combat poor formatting? FakeIco MCD.png MrConcreteDonkey 19:46, 7 November 2017 (EST)

Somewhat related, but I have had a way to streamline calculating proposal deadlines 1 or 2 weeks in advance, but no one responded: MarioWiki talk:Proposals/Header#Improvements It won't go into the template, but it will replace [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "August 8, 2011, 23:59 GMT"], found in MarioWiki:Proposals (MarioWiki:Proposals/Header). --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs)

@Wildgoosespeeder: Is our current system not easy-to-use? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 09:43, 8 November 2017 (EST)

Replacing text is kind of a hassle because trying to preserve formatting. That's why I proposed the {{TPPDiscuss}} template a while ago. Also don't forget {{ProposalOutcome}}. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 00:32, 9 November 2017 (EST)
What text is being replaced? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:45, 9 November 2017 (EST)
'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "August 8, 2011, 23:59 GMT"]

This is what Toadette the Achiever (talk) is looking to replace with User:Toadette the Achiever/PParameter as a sandbox template.
Test:

Proposer: Wildgoosespeeder (talk)

Deadline: some date, 23:59 GMT


Seems to be working OK. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (EST)
But is too complicated for the purpose it's trying to fill. The current formula can at least be realistically remembered without copypasting from a different tab. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2017 (EST)
But the parameters still need to be explained. Nothing is actually being replaced here. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:21, 10 November 2017 (EST)
Too complicated? Does that mean that {{TPPDiscuss}} and {{ProposalOutcome}} are too complicated as well Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)? It's not hard. The sandbox template has documentation how to use Time Turner (talk). If you want the code to be {{User:Toadette the Achiever/PParameter|Wildgoosespeeder|some date}} instead of {{User:Toadette the Achiever/PParameter|proposer=Wildgoosespeeder|deadline=some date}}, just let Toadette the Achiever (talk) know. Also the name of the template can change later. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 00:27, 10 November 2017 (EST)
It's complicated because there's like 3-4 separate blanks on there, which in my opinion is too many. And again, there is no point to it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2017 (EST)
Template coding is possible to make two of the four parameters optional to specify (proposer and deadline mandatory, start and withdrawn optional). I think that the template is like that already. Only thing left to do is to simplify the code by using {{{1}}}, {{{2}}}, etc.. See {{TPPDiscuss}} or {{ProposalOutcome}} for exact code how things are achieved. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 00:56, 10 November 2017 (EST)
It doesn't matter what's possible for the system what matters is human limitation for a thing that gets used like 3 times per week. And again, it is completely unnecessary. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2017 (EST)
I think you are making it more complicated than it actually is. What you will be typing is {{PParameter|Doc von Schmeltwick|August 8, 2011}} (if the template is coded to use {{{1}}}, {{{2}}}, etc. instead). The proposed template page doesn't make it clear what the effects are compared to what I did when {{TPPDiscuss}} was first proposed. Maybe that is what you are concerned about? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 01:24, 10 November 2017 (EST)
And this is simpler than what we have in place currently how? And why on earth would it be "PParameter?" Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2017 (EST)
Replacing text of the hard-coded copypasta version is a hassle. That's why templates are a thing. Also templates formalize and standardize things. For the name, I said that it can be changed later. Nothing is absolute. That's what a proposal is for. What would you call this template? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 01:34, 10 November 2017 (EST)

Removals

Delete the categories for the levels that an Animal Friend appears in

The title's a bit unwieldy, but it's a good way of describing the categories I'm talking about, like Category:Levels with Parry and Category:Levels with Winky. Why do we have these categories? It's not like we have categories for every level featuring Orange Yoshi or Goombas or 1-Up Mushrooms or anything else apart from Animal Friends. It's not even all of them: the animals from Donkey Kong Jungle Beat are completely absent from the category deal. If you want to know every level that a certain Animal Friend appears in, their pages already list them. Although the lists are a bit unwieldy, especially when multiple of them are on the same page, the solution is not to make categories. Who would actually benefit from these categories in the first place? Who requires a compact list of every level that an Animal Friend appears in, especially when some of them have less than five entries? As I said with the proposal to delete Category:New Levels, we shouldn't need to cater to every single remote possibility.

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: November 17, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Mario jc (talk) Per proposal; just having the Animal Buddy pages list the levels is good enough.
  3. Alex95 (talk) - Per proposal.
  4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
  5. 7feetunder (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

Affected categories:

Changes

Make "Bestiary" its own namespace

Sure, we have a namespace for galleries, but I don't see why we can't do the same for bestiaries. It's the same kind of "special" article that I would define galleries as as well. Therefore, I propose that we rename every instance of [XX] bestiary to Bestiary:[XX].

Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk)
Deadline: October 26, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 2, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 9, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 16, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Niiue (talk) Per proposal.
  4. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per proposal. Why not?
  5. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) This is (similar to?) one of the things Zeldawiki does that I think we should too.
  6. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
  7. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per all.
  8. Eldritchdraaks (talk) Switch sides again, Per Toadette's comment.
  9. Camwood777 (talk) - Just because we've got fewer bestiaries than galleries doesn't really give much an excuse. This helps keep the wiki more organized than it would be, and that's more than a good enough reason IMO.

Oppose

  1. Tucayo (talk) - For galleries it made sense because most major articles had one (there are currently 319); for bestiaries, I don't see the point at all. There are 12 proper bestiaries, I don't think this warrants a namespace by any means.
  2. Time Turner (talk) Per Tucayo. I also don't see the benefit of this; it seems like more hassle then it's worth for little payoff when considering the few bestiaries on the page.
  3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Tucayo.
  4. Alex95 (talk) - Originally supported, but considering the number of bestiaries there are, per Tucayo.
  5. Lcrossmk8 (talk) I don't think we have enough pages of this thing to make it into a separate namespace. Per all.
  6. NSY (talk) Per my comment below and Tucayo.
  7. Ghost Jam (talk) Per all. I see what's trying to be done here, but it seems overly fiddly considering what is being effected, making this extra work for little reward.
  8. Shokora (talk) Per all.
  9. Mario Kart DS Fan (talk)Really?! Per all.
  10. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all. At least for now I don't see why this is needed.
  11. Baby Luigi (talk) Per all.
  12. Yoshi876 (talk) Per all.

Comments

I might just be a bit dumb, but I don't fully understand what this means or what the difference is. Could you give an example?--EldritchdraaksSig1.pngEldritchdraaksSig2.png 12:15, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
For example, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga bestiary would become Bestiary:Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga if this were to pass. --A sprite of a Flame Chomp from New Super Mario Bros. Wii.TheFlameChomp (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
I can only see one problem with this. On every enemy page where the enemy template is placed, transcluding its info from the bestiary page, they look like this:
{{:Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga bestiary|transcludesection=Bowser|align=horizontal|image=[[File:BowserRoarSmallAni.gif]]}}
The bolded part is where we're going to get into some issues. It'll be a simple fix, but we'd have to change the link for EVERY page with an enemy template.--EldritchdraaksSig1.pngEldritchdraaksSig2.png 12:54, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
Sounds like bot work. Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 12:56, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
Could we keep the current names as redirects until all of the transclusions are fixed?
Ultimate Mr. L without the emblem behind him (for my signature) Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 14:05, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
@Ultimate Mr. L: Isn't that a standard measure? @Alex95: That was my exact plan for fixing those pages. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 17:37, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

@Tucayo: "There's too little" is not an argument in and of itself. It's so that normal readers don't get confused into thinking it's an actual article. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 18:00, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

They are articles, though?? What makes them any different from quote pages, lists of badges, recipes, assist trophies, etc.? Bold + italics doesn't make it true. --TucayoSig.png™ The 'Shroom 22:01, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
Those are actual list articles. Bestiaries are not technically list articles; they are rather pages that are there to have individual sections be transcluded onto actual articles. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 22:07, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
But they are still articles by themselves. I truly fail to see the point here. --TucayoSig.png™ The 'Shroom 22:09, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
Again, why do you think that they're actual articles? They are not meant to be. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 08:25, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

If we gonna have them as separate namespaces I honestly think the category should expand to all list articles since they are the very similar to bestiaries. I honestly think having a separate namespace for just 12 pages for something very specific is inconsistent and unprofessional. NSY (talk)

@NSY: Again, bestiaries ARE NOT technically list articles; they are relevant sections of a page transcluded onto other articles, and having too few does not make too much of a difference. Also, could you please elaborate on the "inconsistency" argument? I understand it less so than Tucayo's arguments. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 15:10, 24 October 2017 (EDT)
Well according to dictionary.com a list is defined as "a series of names or other items written or printed together in a meaningful grouping or sequence so as to constitute a record". Pretty certain an article that has a record of every enemy and their stats falls under that. It's inconsistent because these would the only list articles that got their own namespace, what about the articles listing all the mini games in a Mario Party game, would they also get their own namespace. NSY (talk)
No, because that's an actual list:
  • Balloon Burst
  • Bombs Away
  • Crazy Cutter
Where as the bestiaries are tables:
Name Location HP Items
Bowser Castle 100 Key
Goomba Plains 3 Mushroom
Koopa Troopa Mountains 12 N/A
We don't list out the enemies on a bestiary like we do for every single list on this site. The lists are spilt up into categories, like the Species list, and they only have a name that links to it's main article, ONLY. Nothing else about that link exists on the page.--EldritchdraaksSig1.pngEldritchdraaksSig2.png 17:32, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
However, there are some "list" articles such as List of enemy formations in Paper Mario that are tables, so the lists are not always simply just a name that links to its main article. I agree that bestiaries are like list articles. --A sprite of a Flame Chomp from New Super Mario Bros. Wii.TheFlameChomp (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
Didn't know that existed. Is that article necessary? If so, seems like that should be integrated into the Paper Mario bestiary.--EldritchdraaksSig1.pngEldritchdraaksSig2.png 17:40, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
I feel that there is enough information for it to remain separate (a proposal to merge it could be created though). Even if that and the Thousand-Year Door version were merged with their bestiaries, there are still other list articles that are more than just simply names (see Category:Lists for more examples). --A sprite of a Flame Chomp from New Super Mario Bros. Wii.TheFlameChomp (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
There is also List of Sammer Guys. The only reason why it is kept separate from Super Paper Mario bestiary is that it is a list of Sammer Guys fought in an optional thing (though the first 20 are required) and they are too similar to each other. As for another this bestiaries are, they are compendiums which is "a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject, especially in a book or other publication(not really relevant to these bestiaries, but I am quoting this word for word)" -- definition found by searching compendiums on Bing. The list of enemy formations and others listed here may be the only exceptions, though.

Okay, this just doesn't make any sense at all. How and why in the world would we make this thing its own namespace if there are only twelve of it on the market right now? I don't get it. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

Because it's not really an article. Its main purpose is infoboxes to transclude onto articles. Because it is more than just an article, I feel it warrants its own namespace. It doesn't matter how few of them there are.
Ultimate Mr. L without the emblem behind him (for my signature) Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 19:48, 28 October 2017 (EDT)
But why does it need a separate namespace to exemplify that fact? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 20:00, 28 October 2017 (EDT)
Are you suggesting that the Template namspace might be the ideal home for them? (Yeah, it just now occurred to me.) Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 13:25, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
...No? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:11, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

Improve rewrite-expand template

I propose that the {{rewrite-expand}} needs improved. 

<div class="notice-template" style="text-align:justify;background:#9CF;margin:.5em 2%;padding:0 1em;border:1px solid black;color:black">
It has been requested that this {{#if: {{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded'''{{#if:{{{reason|}}}|. '''Reason:''' {{{reason}}}| to include more information}}{{#if:{{{1|}}}| (tagged on {{{1}}}).|.}}
</div>

Proposer: Woodchuck (talk)
Deadline: November 18, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Woodchuck (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

  1. Lcrossmk8 (talk) Once again, per last time and then some. I don't get it, what is so wrong with the rewrite-expand template anyway? It does the job just fine.
  2. Alex95 (talk) - Other than moving the word "to", there's no difference being made here.
  3. Time Turner (talk) Why?
  4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  5. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) You can already add specifics if any are needed. This change is nothing but busywork. Per all.
  6. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) The proposal is still failing to reconsider other templates, from last time. Stop pushing this proposal until you "do your homework", for a lack of a better phrase.
  7. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) There's no point, we might as well be moving it to "not dun yet lol."
  8. BBQ Turtle (talk) Can't see the difference or any worthwhile or significant impact it may have, per all.
  9. 7feetunder (talk) Why do you keep trying to fix something that isn't broken?

Comments

Miscellaneous

Super Hornio Bros Page

This is a bit of a controversial one, but here it goes. I think we should incorporate a full page on both Super Hornio films for preservation purposes instead of a mere description. I would like to do this, as the film is owned by Nintendo themselves, and the history behind them are extremely interesting. I've written a draft here: User:Howzit/Sandbox. We have so many other Mario knockoffs properly documented, why not this one?

Proposer: Howzit (talk)
Deadline: November 19, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Howzit (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. Lcrossmk8 (talk) Okay, since this has absolutely no relation to the Mario franchise whatsoever, I don't think this is a good idea at all.
  2. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) This is a place that kids visit. We have nothing in place to stop people underage from accessing adult only content, even if it is appropriately censored. Swearing is one thing (Bob Hoskins for example), but pornography is just a big no-no for a kid-friendly franchise and an unofficial wiki that is also kid-friendly.
  3. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) The reason this is owned by Nintendo is that they bought it out to prevent more entries coming out, as they apparently hadn't discovered that wonderful "sue" button they've used to take down far more quality-controlled fan games ever since.
  4. Magikrazy (talk) Not gonna lie, I would love if we had an article on that. It would be pretty funny and interesting. But it's not an official Mario product, despite Nintendo themselves owning the distribution rights. As such, I don't feel it deserves its own article. Rather, just a section in the bootlegs and knockoffs page we already have.
  5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  6. Glowsquid (talk) - I'm going to oppose on the ground that from my understanding, Nintendo only bought the distribution rights and not the actual Super Hornio property (of course in practice, this is not that relevant of a distinction because only Nintendo has controls over wheter that is released). Because of that technicality, I think the way it's currently covered on the knockoffs page is the best (btw "Think of the children!" is a totally invalid reason)
  7. BBQ Turtle (talk) I think the brief description's enough, it is just a rip off and isn't part of the Mario series, so it definitely doesn't deserve an article of its own.

Comments

@Wildgoosespeed: We already cover it on the wiki. Also, the subject matter is irrelevant, as we're a wiki first and foremost (as the point was made on Bob Hoskin's page; we're not about to censor anything). Besides, have you read the draft? It's purely professional. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 01:12, 12 November 2017 (EST)

The more you know, am I right? Still, I consider such coverage questionable. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 01:14, 12 November 2017 (EST)
Official content is official content, no matter what form it takes. What should be debated here is whether or not it should be covered in full. For the moment, I'm leaning towards giving it a separate page, simply because it was bought by Nintendo and is therefore an official product. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 01:20, 12 November 2017 (EST)
Legal definitions are messy. I mean, the Mario IP was licensed to those who made the Category:Edutainment Games for DOS, PC, NES, and SNES, but that doesn't mean that the games are owned by Nintendo are official. Maybe I am wrong about that. The point is the original author isn't Nintendo and yet giving credit to them as if they were because they bought the film rights isn't quite right to then label it as "official". Legalities isn't the only measure of being official. I think that Nintendo has long since forgotten those licensed instances of the Mario franchise. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 01:34, 12 November 2017 (EST)
Yeah TT the only way it's official is that Nintendo literally owns it and tell me what does that really mean? Chester Alan Arthur (talk)

@TimeTurner: Oh. My bad. I had no idea. I should probably think twice before I start shooting my mouth off for no reason. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2017 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=2335477"