MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Power Flotzo (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 549: | Line 549: | ||
I'm just gonna say it again: a "Do Nothing" option would just give way to more pointless edit wars. That concern is also what guided much of the opposition in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/59#Remove_the_15th_infraction_for_why_a_reminder_can_be_issued_.28changing_American_spellings_and_grammar_conventions_to_British_standards.29|a previous proposal]] that sought to loosen restrictions for British English spellings in wiki text. Regarding the subject of the current proposal, there is a conventional, widespread way to format words depending on their nature and purpose: foreign words should be in italics to make it clear they're foreign, and words that are being separated from the rest of the others for an explanatory purpose should be in quotation marks. Regardless of that, the idea that articles can be consistent only within themselves and not across the entire wiki is a questionable point of view to have; having an ambiguous outlook for a medium that's supposed to be encyclopedic is anything but encyclopedic. In the words of 7feetunder (concerning the aforementioned proposal on British English spelling): "how do we decide who's right and who's wrong if we don't have a preference? If the answer is 'first come, first serve', the worst solution ever to anything on a wiki, then no thanks". Let's settle on one formatting option or another. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:06, February 2, 2024 (EST) | I'm just gonna say it again: a "Do Nothing" option would just give way to more pointless edit wars. That concern is also what guided much of the opposition in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/59#Remove_the_15th_infraction_for_why_a_reminder_can_be_issued_.28changing_American_spellings_and_grammar_conventions_to_British_standards.29|a previous proposal]] that sought to loosen restrictions for British English spellings in wiki text. Regarding the subject of the current proposal, there is a conventional, widespread way to format words depending on their nature and purpose: foreign words should be in italics to make it clear they're foreign, and words that are being separated from the rest of the others for an explanatory purpose should be in quotation marks. Regardless of that, the idea that articles can be consistent only within themselves and not across the entire wiki is a questionable point of view to have; having an ambiguous outlook for a medium that's supposed to be encyclopedic is anything but encyclopedic. In the words of 7feetunder (concerning the aforementioned proposal on British English spelling): "how do we decide who's right and who's wrong if we don't have a preference? If the answer is 'first come, first serve', the worst solution ever to anything on a wiki, then no thanks". Let's settle on one formatting option or another. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:06, February 2, 2024 (EST) | ||
===Provide more context as to ''Mario'' entities' roles in ''Minecraft''=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|7-13|do nothing}} | |||
In ''[[Minecraft]]''{{'}}s ''Super Mario Mashup'', which gets (relatively) full coverage here, many familiar ''Mario'' entities get appearances replacing traditional ''Minecraft'' mobs and items, and their respective pages reflect that. The problem is, they are relegated to what amounts to a footnote of a section and do not provide any further context as to what they replace, which is unhelpful if you do not know what the original thing does in vanilla ''Minecraft''. For example, | |||
{{quote2|In the Super Mario Mash-up in Minecraft, Spiders are replaced by Scuttlebugs, using their New Super Mario Bros. 2 appearance.|current Scuttlebug page}} | |||
Tells us nothing about how they actually act. What this proposal aims to do is, for example, make this one say | |||
{{quote2|In the Super Mario Mash-up in Minecraft, Spiders are replaced by Scuttlebugs, using their New Super Mario Bros. 2 appearance. As such, they appear primarily in overworld areas, becoming hostile in darkness. When defeated, they may drop strings or [[Tarantox]]'s eyes.|my intended Scuttlebug page}} | |||
This should clear up any confusion readers may have on the subject. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': February 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - [[Piranha Plant|HI GUYS (V)]] | |||
#{{User|Ray Trace}} I've played zero Minecraft and I'm not interested in clicking external wiki links to get information. Context like this should be filled in; you don't need to get into too much detail but a general overview is nice. I've also went out of my way to detail what stats are in playable character pages in the wiki (eg Paratroopa is classified as a technique character, which means that her shots are accurate). | |||
#{{user|GuntherBB}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} It feels very incomplete to say something appears in a game and then not elaborate any further on its actual role. Sure, it's just a cosmetic change, but I don't think it's horribly out of scope to expand these a little. Regardless of the outcome we at least need to get Minecraft Wiki links in all those sections, though. | |||
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all. More context is needed in these sections, especially because not everyone who either browses the wiki or is a user on the wiki plays Minecraft (I don't play Minecraft at all). Those people would need more detail as to what the characters do in Minecraft. Besides, this is a ''Super Mario'' wiki; we need to cover everything that's ''Super Mario'' related in order to keep the wiki up to date. | |||
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per proposal and per Waluigi Time. A ''brief'' overview of what the role of these Mario-skinned enemies and objects serve in the game is nice to have. I do think the point Camwoodstock has brought up regarding the versatility of Minecraft's elements is a good point and worth considering, but I feel it's entirely possible to keep these descriptions brief. For, say, Spider Eyes, we simply describe them as an item used in various crafting recipes that are dropped by Spiders. That's enough to know, broadly, where they appear and what they do; more in-depth coverage and explanation of mechanics can be saved for another site to cover. Likewise, for blocks with a Mario skin, we simply leave it at something like "Wood planks can be obtained in the overworld or by crafting, and may be placed in the world as a building material or decoration or be used in crafting." | |||
#{{User|Ninja Squid}} Not adding at least an overview of how they work feels incomplete and ridiculous honestly. Per all. | |||
<del>#{{User|Swallow}} Per all. It's not like we'd be giving Minecraft full coverage.</del> | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} - While it's true that the first option does not talk of much, there is little relevance to ''Super Mario'' other than what the skins and contents are replaced with. This was one of the main reasons why I wanted to direct people to minecraft.wiki, so that they can read more than just what the ''Super Mario'' content replaces. What's described in the second example are not attributes exclusive to the ''Super Mario'' Mash-up Pack, except for Tarantox's eyes. | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per Super Mario RPG. | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} If you want info on how each NPC in Minecraft works, you go to a website that has it. If you're leery to go there, c'est la vie, not our business. A sentence-long overview of what the game itself is about is fine on Mario Wiki's [[Minecraft]] article, but further details don't belong here. Those Mario-themed skins don't affect gameplay in any way, so there's nothing worth noting here in that particular regard either; best one can do is link to the relevant NPC's Minecraft Wiki page from the character that inspired its appearance in the Mario texture pack. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per KCC in particular--we feel like it's probably just more conductive to link to, say, the Minecraft Wiki article for Spider Eyes when mentioning Tantrox's Eyes replace them, than to try and give a brief overview, for one key reason--Minecraft blocks, items, and to a lesser extent even ''mobs'' are <small>(usually)</small> incredibly versatile and variable in their use-cases. What we mean by that is that a lot of things in Minecraft are multi-purpose and can be used for a wide variety of different things, '''''especially''''' the older ones. Bringing it back to Tantrox's eyes, Spider Eyes are used in no fewer than 3 crafting recipes themselves and technically count as a food item (and apparently can be used to breed the upcoming Armadillos??? <small>were we just meant to find this out because of this proposal??? <small>''what is mojang game design nowadays''</small></small>), and one of those items it crafts is... The Fermented Spider Eye, which gets used in ''4 more potion recipes''. That's about 4 distinct uses for this one item and 4 uses for an item we'd likely have no other place to mention--even if we forcibly limited the sections to be one sentence per relevant (e.g. all the uses for Spider Eyes are one sentence and all the uses for Fermented Spider Eyes are another sentence), this has the potential to kill a section's pacing stone-cold dead. (Case in point, look at how long this vote is... Oops. ;P) In comparison, a quick link is all the reader needs to learn more if they're just that curious or otherwise aren't familiar with Minecraft; for those who are, then they just need the thing's name, which is presumably provided by the link itself. | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Per all, the ''Mario'' series content in Minecraft is just limited to the texture pack, skins, and add-on map. There's really no point in going into any further detail for mobs or items. I would even go as far as to say that claiming that Minecraft objects are "replaced" by Mario objects is misleading, as again, the ''only'' thing that changes for them is the texture. They're still named "Spider", "Spider Eyes", "Zombie", etc., and they still make their original Minecraft sounds. | |||
#{{User|Cadrega86}} per Koopa con Carne and DrippingYellow. | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} A something like "''Minecraft Wiki article: (link)''" right below the section header would fit better than a paragraph that literally and redundantly recaps the behavior of a ''Minecraft'' mob. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, but in particular, DrippingYellow brings up a good point - these aren't appearances of the Mario entities so much as [[Talk:Blurp#Consider the Super Mario Maker games a design cameo rather than a full appearance|design cameos]]. | |||
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. We'll essentially just be covering how Minecraft works but in Mario terminology, and I don't believe that has a place on this wiki. | |||
#{{User|Nintenboi1}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. All the Mario content in Minecraft are just skins and retextures. | |||
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all. This is a Mario wiki, not a Minecraft wiki. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
@Camwoodstock "this has the potential to kill a section's pacing stone-cold dead" - The Minecraft appearances get their own sections anyway though. I don't think that "''[[Shiverian#Minecraft|In the Super Mario Mash-up in Minecraft, pandas are replaced by Shiverians.]]''" has any pacing to kill in the first place. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:20, February 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
:In addition, this is not the level of coverage I was thinking about anyway. I want something a little bit more than "Scuttlebugs replace Spiders" but not to the extent that "spiders can be used as crafting items to spawn a bullshit item or this other bullshit item and they can drop legs that you can make a weapon out of". My sentence here also demonstrates my utter lack of Minecraft knowledge and I have zero desire to hop across external websites just to look up very generic information that can easily be corrected with a little bit more context. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 17:34, February 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
:Yes, in some articles, like Shiverians, there is a Minecraft section... But that that's kind of the exception, not the norm. In fact, it currently looks like there ''is'' no norm or standard whatsoever. The closest we have is the list on the Minecraft article itself, but not only is that list incomplete, but just a few examples we saw from articles linked on that: In the example we gave for Tarantox (in which we'll likely have to go over the 8 uses for his eyes alone--we didn't even touch on the minutia of the mob itself), Tarantox doesn't ''have'' a Minecraft section; it's just in his article opener. Also, because Tarantox is the ''Cave'' Spider, we'd likely have to mirror a good portion of that information to [[Scuttlebug]] as well, since they replace ordinary spiders and those also drop Spider Eyes--and Minecraft is only mentioned in an "Other appearances" section for Scuttlebugs and shares this section with other games, not a bespoke header of its own; either that needs to get split, or else it ''will'' indeed clog that section with the minutia of Minecraft Spider Information. What about Spider Jockeys, just ''at all''--do they go on the article for Scuttlebugs or Dry Bones, and what do we discuss on those articles about Spider Jockeys? What about [[Nabbit]], who lacks any mention of Minecraft on his article because he replaces the Killer Bunny (an otherwise-removed mob only summonable via commands)? [[Buzzy Beetle]]s lack a section, but replace Endermites, which are used. What about blocks and items? Do we explain how to acquire froglights in the [[Snake Block]] article? Do we discuss the Trident in [[Fauster]]'s article? And then there's the Totem of Undying replacement, which we genuinely aren't even sure where you'd put that short of the Minecraft article itself.<br>We think what it boils down to is that, since our coverage of Minecraft as it is is already rather dodgy and inconsistent, whole-sale inserting these descriptions without any consideration of where to actually put them is a very poorly thought-out idea (at least in our opinion, natch.) This is the '''Mario''' Wiki--we need to consider what information pertaining to Minecraft is actually relevant to the Mario franchise and what is best suited for another wiki, because otherwise, this could get out of hand very fast, and lead to plenty of confusion down the road; and in our humble opinion, a simple acknowledgement of what's what is all that's relevant, as any details about Minecraft's gameplay are better suited for a different wiki.<br>We guess what we've been trying to say is that we would like to see some clear limit of where the coverage ends be defined, because Minecraft is ''big'', and if unchecked, you get the aforementioned issue with Spider eyes where suddenly what's supposed to be just a sentence could reasonably become much, much larger. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:50, February 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
::For the record, each subject should have a dedicated Minecraft section in their history based on current organization. The inconsistency is mostly due to changes in policy and Minecraft's coverage status over time that haven't really been kept up with. While it's unfortunate and something that should be fixed ASAP, it's not really relevant to this proposal. (Also, I'm fairly certain the aim of this proposal isn't to cover literally everything in Minecraft, but to be more descriptive when we say "this appears in the game". The Trident and Totem examples are moot.) --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 18:59, February 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::We had a feeling at least ''some'' of what we were seeing was just kind of the consequence of coverage priority shifting about, so it's good to know we're not going ''completely'' nuts <s>more than we usually are</s> on that regard. Still, it does kind of leave us with a lot of questions seeing as, even after that gets resolved, we're not quite sure where exactly the line is drawn for descriptiveness; as we mentioned, that count range from anywhere to simply listing what a Mario thing is replacing to literally just a full description of the Minecraft mob, and we're honestly a little hesitant to support when there doesn't really seem to be a cleanly defined line for ''how'' descriptive we should be aside from kinda "feeling" it based on the provided example--which works fine for mobs, but doesn't quite work good for items or blocks. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:06, February 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
This certainly is an interesting proposal. On the one hand, a ''little'' more context on how the (Mariofied) mobs act would be nice, so expanding the info a little bit with a short, one-sentence summary would be appreciated... but on the other hand, since the mobs aren't necessarily Mario-related and don't have additional behavioral differences in the Mario Mash-Up pack, it doesn't really make a ''lot'' of sense to talk more about regular Minecraft mobs on a Mario wiki, and simply linking to the Minecraft wiki would also solve the issue. I do get Ray Trace's concern though, and since it would make sense to link to the Minecraft wiki anyway, regardless of the proposal's outcome; really, it's boiling down to whether we should add a bit more context on what the Minecraft mobs do on each of our pages, or if it's too irrelevant for this wiki. {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:07, February 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
Maybe a "if it can be neatly summarized" should've been a key qualifying part. Linking to the wiki shouldn't be a crutch to being opaque about information. If something like a Scuttlebug can be like "Replaces spiders. They make webs and scare Steve." go for it. I kind of doubt ALL replaced assets in Minecraft are so incredibly complex affairs that we have to link to a wiki to satisfactorily cover all bases. {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:27, February 7, 2024 (EST) | |||
:The point isn't that Minecraft assets are too complex to explain, it's the principle of the matter that information peculiar to a non-Mario subject, in a non-Mario game, is best left in the hands of a website dedicated to that game. The Mario textures applied to existing assets are in the same realm as cameos and don't affect gameplay per se, i.e. the "Scuttlebug-skin" spider doesn't do anything different from the default-skin spider. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:36, February 9, 2024 (EST) |
Revision as of 18:56, February 12, 2024
Rewrite cited quotes into a new styleDo not change 4-7 <ref>[[Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development|Nintendo EAD Tokyo]] (November 1, 2007). ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' ([[Wii]]). [[Nintendo]]. Level/area: [[Bubble Blastoff]]. "'''[[Captain Toad]]''': 'That Undergrunt Gunner is keeping us from exploring the area!'"</ref> = Nintendo EAD Tokyo (November 1, 2007). Super Mario Galaxy (Wii). Nintendo. Level/area: Bubble Blastoff. "Captain Toad: 'That Undergrunt Gunner is keeping us from exploring the area!'" <ref>Shelly, Bruce; Shelly, Reed (September 8, 1990). "[[Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas]]". ''[[The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3]]''. Episode 1. "'''Royal Parrot''': 'You can't evict me! Braw! I'm the Royal Parrot!'"</ref> = Shelly, Bruce; Shelly, Reed (September 8, 1990). "Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas". The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. Episode 1. "Royal Parrot: 'You can't evict me! Braw! I'm the Royal Parrot!'" <ref>Coffin, Pierre; Balda, Kyle Balda (director) (June 14, 2017). ''{{wp|Despicable Me 3}}'' (Motion picture). "'''Bratt''': 'It's on like Donkey Kong!'"</ref> = Coffin, Pierre; Balda, Kyle Balda (director) (June 14, 2017). Despicable Me 3 (Motion picture). "Bratt: 'It's on like Donkey Kong!'" Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWill this proposal allow for the aforementioned citation templates to be created? I'm not completely clear on what this proposal is aiming to accomplish, but I would support citation templates, to help create a consistency around the use of the references tags. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:39, January 20, 2024 (EST)
The idea of making citations of all kinds more streamlined and standardized has actually been on my mind for a while now, but I haven't made a proposal yet because I don't know exactly how to go about it. Like I said in my reasoning for opposing this proposal, some citation formats are just too complicated for most users to bother following them, which is why finding the right format for a citation can make all the difference towards that format being agreed upon collectively as an improvement; that's why this proposal failed and this one unanimously succeeded. ThePowerPlayer 20:52, January 21, 2024 (EST) So, why this proposal? Citations should follow a certain standard, which I believe is illustrated in MarioWiki:Citations ("What to put as references") but perhaps not clearly, due to information on how citations should be formatted just mushed in a paragraph with no citation templates to work off, only examples. That being said, the proposal aims to change the citation style for quotes, referencing a talk page proposal for a deleted template, see Template talk:Ref quote; why was this deleted? Some people interpreted this as a proposal to create a general citation template, which I don't believe so since this proposal seems to strictly concern with quotations from fictional characters. If so, the comment by Ahemtoday is a reason to oppose: the stuff we'll be citing will have its own article, so things like listing the publisher and developer of a video game just to cite it doesn't feel like it makes sense to me." That being said, I think it's appropriate to cite some direct gameplay videos for evidence of claims in the articles. I've done this for Metal Mario's page, particularly the part where Wario yells when falling underwater; it's for my own sake in properly recalling something trivial (but amusing) and possible to forget later on. But this proposal aims to cite video games themselves for quotes, which I don't even think it's the best way to do it versus a time stamped video. If not, questions remain. What's the issue with the old system? Are we currently not even citing quotes? How are we doing citations for quotes currently? What's even the scope of this proposal, is it fictional characters or quotations from publications? What examples are there to show issues of the current citation method that led to the creation of this proposal? What do the changes even look like; what's "before" and "after"? Why should we match Wikipedia's system? It's not clear from this proposal. I've re-read the thing a few times carefully. I'm still left with confusion. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:57, January 22, 2024 (EST) Create two specific citation templatesCreate one template for all types of citations 3-5-1 I've seen inconsistently formatted citations all over the wiki (e.g. some add a comma, followed by "pg. 7" when it should be a period, followed by "Page 7.") and templates would be perfect for making sure the citations are formatted consistently all over the wiki. I'm proposing the two following citation templates for the following purposes:
I don't expect them to be strictly enforced, but should this proposal pass, MarioWiki:Citations and probably the Manual of Style should be updated accordingly. Edit: Added an option for a single citation template (i.e. {{cite}}) that would cover for web links and publications alike, though I personally still prefer the two separately. Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) Create both
Create one citation template for all types of citations
Oppose
CommentsOne template for all citations would do just fine, no need for three. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:04, January 21, 2024 (EST)
I would like to know what each template would look like before voting on it. I'm confused by what the document one means, for example. — Lady Sophie (T|C) 07:10, January 21, 2024 (EST)
As Sophie asked, what will these templates look like? Are we going to use content from Wikipedia? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:03, January 22, 2024 (EST)
The proposal is probably going to pass but I'm going to abstain from opposing because at least the community seems to agree on creation of the thing. The design of the thing is definitely another issue for another day, and it's something I think we can work with after the proposal. That being said, if you want more confidence for a support of your proposal, illustrate praxis. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:16, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Add minecraft.wiki as an interwiki linkAdd 11-0 Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsIf this proposal succeeds, I think we could as well try a proposal for adding the RayWiki (e.g. [[raymanpc:]]) next, due to the Rayman series' relevance in Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope via the Rayman in the Phantom Show DLC. Casual reminder that we have interwiki for Kovopedia (even though the Magical Vacation series has little to no relevance to the Super Mario franchise yet, even while taking Super Smash Bros into account) purely because it's a NIWA affiliate, so adding a Rayman wiki as an interwiki link would only be fair, and that's double as much so for adding a Minecraft one. rend (talk) (edits) 11:39, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Allow staff warnings to be appealedAllow 18-0 Appeals haven't been widely practiced in the wiki lately, but I think it's better to act sooner and also gauge a consensus on this. Rule 1 states: "Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator or patroller cannot be appealed." The rationale behind the rule is likely to focus on admin backrooms to discuss matters pertaining to decisions by admins and minimize drama. However, this runs squarely against the spirit of the wiki. We establish very clearly in MarioWiki:Administrators:
This sort of rule was likely intended to prevent users from causing a scene (see a discussion questioning the validity of it) but it squarely contradicts the above statement which makes our commitment to valuing all users questionable, if not insincere. This kind of rule instead potentially stifles good faith discussion made by users to staff and might help foster distrust in staff, something that won't work well for a collaborative wiki. Additionally, MarioWiki:Appeals already requires users to keep discussions civil, so possible bad faith appeals are already covered, and lengthy exchanges are already discouraged. People should be allowed to openly critique our performance in good faith of course (bad faith ones will still be dealt with in our MarioWiki:Courtesy; that being said, I also have my eyes set on rewriting the corresponding policies concerning "undermining admin authority" to encourage constructive criticism). If we're supposed to treat admins as equal to everyone else, at least we should invite good faith criticisms for decisions that staff has made, not make some ultimately arbitrary delineation between who gives out a warning and then also proclaim staff isn't that special. Affected pages (if there are pages I missed, please mention; they'll likely be dealt accordingly, however, since this is a simple proposed change):
Staff will still have the ability to overturn any warning at any notice, and bad appeals toward staff (like any bad appeal in general especially to experienced long-term users who aren't staff) will probably still be archived swiftly and hopefully without too much drama. If this kind of clarification is needed, then please do state it and I'll make the changes. Proposer: Mario (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsDoc von Schmeltwick: The ability to give these notices to staff will probably require further discussion (this one is a bit more contentious to me). I think situations involving a staff member should be dealt with via civil criticism rather than warning/reminder templates (it's not like blocking can be really enforced on members who have blocking tools, so these warning templates toward staff have little practical use anyway; removing staff tools would require intervention by other staff ultimately). We did say the most appropriate venues for criticizing staff, usually through forum DMs or Discord DMs. You can bring it up in MarioWiki talk:Warning policy or MarioWiki talk:Courtesy. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:20, January 27, 2024 (EST) Koopa con Carne, Drago: Yeah I'm not expecting appeals on these decisions to be successful, since staff members already have good judgement most of the time, but I think it helps to at least signal to users that we give them a chance for a fair hearing first. There is always a chance they have a point or so which would be valuable feedback. We don't want to bar opportunity like that. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:04, January 27, 2024 (EST) You know, it's kinda funny: the policies keep specifying that you cannot appeal a reminder or warning given by patrollers or administrators, but for the longest time, I could've sworn that reminders and warnings could've only been given by patrollers or administrators anyway, because they have been given the authority to block you and thus should also know when someone is breaking the rules. I, at least, hadn't really noticed a time that a normal registered user has given a warning to another normal registered user before, even though the current warning policy states they can do so (a detail, I should stress, I discovered just today). rend (talk) (edits) 11:55, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Hewer: There actually has been like several attempts from the past couple of years, but have been removed due to rule 1.[1] Sure, they probably should've read the warning templates first before proceeding but it doesn't mean the rule itself is valid IMO. If you were the one issuing the exact same kind of warning and reminder, these cases would've been heard and decided; kind of easily shows the useless distinction. Besides, I add: it would certainly help to get second opinion of another staff member too, like another perspective, so it would still be beneficial for staff if we removed Rule 1. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:52, January 28, 2024 (EST) Create interwiki link for RayWikicreate 11-0 Since this wiki has interwiki link support to wikis that are part of NIWA, but which series otherwise have little to no relevance to Super Mario in general (e.g. Kovopedia, a Magical Vacation wiki), I think it would be fair to have interwiki link support to wikis about franchises that are relevant to Super Mario in some way. As for the interwiki link code, it could be something like Proposer: Arend (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsMake a YouTube Disambiguation(!!!) pageCreate YouTube category 1-8-0 Before you hit "Oppose (edit)" and scream "NOT AGAIN", hear us out here. YouTube, as a whole, almost certainly does not deserve an article to itself. Unless we were to make a sweeping move to create pages for every Social Media page associated with the Mario brand, or every video distribution platform that's released a Mario video on it, it would be very silly to do that... But that's not to say YouTube holds zero relevance to the Mario brand, and that having a page of some sort for it is a doomed concept. No, what we're thinking is more along the lines of a disambiguation page, a-la our proposal for Starfy. There are some things that we could be linking to via a catch-all YouTube article, and while we don't want to claim this list is comprehensive--Play Nintendo on its own is a massive rabbit hole--we do want to hopefully illustrate roughly what we could do with that, as well as acknowledge a few counter-arguments. We make no claims that this is comprehensive, we know for a fact we left a few out, be it out of brevity, us not knowing about them, or good ol' fashioned laziness. But this is merely to illustrate just some of the YouTube videos with articles:
...Look, you get the idea. There's a lot of YouTube videos related to Mario that we have articles for, and even more that we, as of proposal, don't. This would be both a good resource for quickly finding these without having to plunder the rat's nest of Play Nintendo articles, as well as hopefully bring more attention to the videos that currently do not have articles. This list isn't even comprehensive, mind you, and the scope itself could honestly be increased to even include various promotional pieces that were hosted on YouTube for games like Wario Land: Shake It! or Super Mario Galaxy 2; though this is definitely something for a future proposal, so let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet and say we'll leave it exclusively to videos made for YouTube, by Nintendo, about Mario. We're also hoping this could potentially instigate better preservation for these videos; already, stuff like Virus Vid is vanishing from YouTube, only existing via Twitter and unofficial re-uploads since Nintendo privated the videos after Dr. Mario World went belly-up. And on the one hand, we get it--Play Nintendo isn't exactly the zenith of Nintendo's marketing. But it also makes us a little upset knowing we might only have a limited time to cover these things, and what's more is that there's possibly even stuff we've already missed out on that's lost to time. Addendum: As a few people have pointed out, a category may also suffice--so we've added an option for that as well. We think this'd also suffice, personally. Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Support (make a YouTube disambiguation page)
Support (make a YouTube category)
OpposeCommentsHow would this be preferred over, say, creating a category for YouTube? What will this accomplish that Category:Videos cannot? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:05, January 28, 2024 (EST)
I understand why a list of videos like this might be useful to have, but I don't get why it's being called a "disambiguation" here. This wouldn't be a list of things that the term YouTube could refer to, it would be a list of YouTube videos. Why not make it an article called "List of official YouTube videos" or something along those lines? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:38, January 28, 2024 (EST)
I see the new option. How will Category:Videos be affected? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:18, January 29, 2024 (EST)
Broaden the scope of the {{promo-photo}} templateBroaden the scope 7-0 I'm convinced that {{promo-photo}} is simply the equivalent of Wikipedia's Template:Non-free promotional, which went largely unchanged when it was copied to the Super Mario Wiki. However, the wikis are significantly different in their media policies: Wikipedia is far more strict on usage of copyrighted media than this wiki, which is centered around a copyrighted franchise. More importantly, it just doesn't feel right that {{promo-photo}}'s description doesn't match the majority of images which use it. I was originally thinking of creating a separate template to address this, but I realized that the issue could be entirely solved without needing to update the template used by hundreds of photos: instead, just change the description of the existing template to more accurately describe the images which use it. This is what the {{promo-photo}} template currently looks like: {| class="notice-template copyright" | [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]] | This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is '''known to have come from a press kit''' or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]]. |}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
If this proposal passes, this is what the template would be changed to: {| class="notice-template copyright" | [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]] | This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' photograph of a person, product, or event that either '''originates from a press kit''' or similar source for the purpose of reuse by the media, or otherwise '''illustrates a copyrighted work'''. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]]. |}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
This description would be substantially broad enough so that the template could continue being used for photos of copyrighted merchandise, as well as photos illustrating miscellaneous copyrighted works that cannot be categorized by other templates, such as this statue of Mario (which is not a product, as it was never for sale), all while describing the content of the images truthfully. Please feel free to comment if you have a better idea for a new description for the template. Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsDon't forget the parameters of you starting the proposal and putting a deadline for it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:38, January 28, 2024 (EST) Anyway I use promotional photo for some merchandise images because the recent images are official stock photos meant to be put in online storefronts or in catalogues and whatnot, e.g. "promoted". I wasn't aware there was supposed to be a stricter definition applied to it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:40, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Is there a possibility to rename the template from
Decide how to format the {{cite}} template and update citation guidelines accordinglyUpdate citation guidelines 7-0 In my opinion, for this citation template to be the most effective and convenient for users, it should match existing policy on the MarioWiki:Citations page as closely as possible. This is for two reasons:
Remember, the goal of this template in the first place is to make it more convenient for users to follow citation guidelines. That being said, to do so requires that such guidelines are outlined clearly, and the current state of the MarioWiki:Citations page is highly ambiguous in some places. For example, one significant issue I have with the page is that the first citation of a physical book (which is supposedly from the Super Mario Sunshine manual) is completely different from the later citation of a Super Mario RPG guidebook:
I see this template as an opportunity to clarify these inconsistenties once and for all, so if this proposal passes, I'm imposing the condition that not only should the MarioWiki:Citations page be updated to include an explanation on how to use the {{cite}} template, but all of the citation examples on that page should be updated to fit the format described below, for consistency's sake. Here's exactly what I think the templates should look like in MediaWiki code, as well as descriptions of each of the parameters: {{cite | author = | date = | title = | publisher = | isbn = | page = | accessdate = | quote = | archive = | archivedate = }} Parameters for all citations:
Parameters for a specific citation type:
Optional parameters:
Here is what the citations on MarioWiki:Citations should look like, with the template code followed by what is displayed on the page (note that an advantage of using a template is that as long as the parameter names are specified, they can be typed in any order): {{cite |date=August 26, 2002 |title=''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'' North American instruction booklet |publisher=Nintendo |page=7 |quote=It's up to Mario to clean up the mess on Isle Delfino, solve puzzles, and defeat enemies in order to gather the scattered Shine Sprites.}}
(Note: I updated this specific citation to an actual, verifiable quote from the text, because the irony of using a fabricated quote for citation guidelines doesn't sit right with me.) {{cite |author=Campbell, Evan |date=July 17, 2014 |title=[http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/17/the-cat-mario-show-announced The Cat Mario Show Announced] |publisher=IGN |accessdate=July 22, 2014}}
{{cite |author=Nintendo |date=January 14, 2015 |title=[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L69Z39bgdU4 Wii U - Mario Party 10 Trailer] |publisher=YouTube |accessdate=April 26, 2015}}
{{cite |title=[http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Smash Bros. DOJO!!] |publisher=Nintendo |accessdate=June 14, 2010}}
{{cite |author=Nintendo |date=1985 |title=[https://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf ''Super Mario Bros.'' Instruction Booklet |accessdate=July 28, 2021 |archive=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309100159/http://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf |archivedate=20210309100159}}
{{cite |author=Miller, Kent |date=1996 |title=''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide'' |page=13}}
Here is what a citation that uses the ISBN parameter would look like, with the ISBN placed in between the publisher and the page number, in order to distinguish the book uniquely before stating the page number within that book: {{cite |author=Wessel, Craig |title=''Warioland 4'' |publisher=Scholastic |isbn=0-439-36711-5 |page=63 |quote=I hate sand, but what I hate even more was that there was no treasure in sight!}}
I can think of one exception where standardized formatting beyond this may or may not be optimal, that being citing Twitter / X posts, but that warrants its own proposal; I have such a proposal in the works, but I'll only release it after a consensus is reached here. When actually using this template in an article, it should be included within the <ref></ref> tags, to ensure that naming the references works as always per the "How to add references" section of the citation guidelines. Finally, I want to conclude by emphasizing that this is not a required template; it's simply a method of making citations easier and more standardized. If this proposal passes, a disclaimer should be added to MarioWiki:Citations stating that using the {{cite}} template is encouraged, but not required, and if a citation is better expressed without the template, then just manually typing something within the <ref> tags is completely okay. Please feel free to comment on this proposal if you have any recommendations of your own. EDIT: Per Super Mario RPG's recommendation, added the ISBN parameter. Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI know it may seem unnecessary, but can an ISBN be added as an (obviously optional) parameter to the template? Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:10, January 29, 2024 (EST)
Just realized that perhaps this template also state the language of the source if, let's say, we're citing Japanese websites. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:25, February 5, 2024 (EST) Consistent formatting for the Other Languages sectionSecond option 0-5 1. "name" (meaning) Now, almost all the pages on the wiki already have Option 1 for their formatting, but for some reason some other users think that they should all be changed to look like Option 2, even though Option 1 already works just fine and there's no point in putting asterisks between one single word if it's already in between paragraphs. But, what do you guys think, which way of displaying the Other Names section do you think would be better? Proposer: Annalisa10 (talk) (banned) Keep the formatting of Option 1Change all Other Languages sections to Option 2
CommentsSo, for clarification, what vote is the oppose part of the proposal? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:07, January 30, 2024 (EST)
I'm also far less motivated to vote given that this proposal about a naming style was made way too soon after the creator's block expired, which the block was from edit warring and general hostility to other users on the Wow Bud (history) page over naming style. That this proposal includes taking swipes at users that disputed the edits on that page does not help convince me that this proposal was made in good faith. Please maintain your conduct. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:26, January 30, 2024 (EST)
I'm just gonna say it again: a "Do Nothing" option would just give way to more pointless edit wars. That concern is also what guided much of the opposition in a previous proposal that sought to loosen restrictions for British English spellings in wiki text. Regarding the subject of the current proposal, there is a conventional, widespread way to format words depending on their nature and purpose: foreign words should be in italics to make it clear they're foreign, and words that are being separated from the rest of the others for an explanatory purpose should be in quotation marks. Regardless of that, the idea that articles can be consistent only within themselves and not across the entire wiki is a questionable point of view to have; having an ambiguous outlook for a medium that's supposed to be encyclopedic is anything but encyclopedic. In the words of 7feetunder (concerning the aforementioned proposal on British English spelling): "how do we decide who's right and who's wrong if we don't have a preference? If the answer is 'first come, first serve', the worst solution ever to anything on a wiki, then no thanks". Let's settle on one formatting option or another. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:06, February 2, 2024 (EST) Provide more context as to Mario entities' roles in Minecraftdo nothing 7-13 Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Camwoodstock "this has the potential to kill a section's pacing stone-cold dead" - The Minecraft appearances get their own sections anyway though. I don't think that "In the Super Mario Mash-up in Minecraft, pandas are replaced by Shiverians." has any pacing to kill in the first place. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:20, February 4, 2024 (EST)
This certainly is an interesting proposal. On the one hand, a little more context on how the (Mariofied) mobs act would be nice, so expanding the info a little bit with a short, one-sentence summary would be appreciated... but on the other hand, since the mobs aren't necessarily Mario-related and don't have additional behavioral differences in the Mario Mash-Up pack, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to talk more about regular Minecraft mobs on a Mario wiki, and simply linking to the Minecraft wiki would also solve the issue. I do get Ray Trace's concern though, and since it would make sense to link to the Minecraft wiki anyway, regardless of the proposal's outcome; really, it's boiling down to whether we should add a bit more context on what the Minecraft mobs do on each of our pages, or if it's too irrelevant for this wiki. rend (talk) (edits) 17:07, February 4, 2024 (EST) Maybe a "if it can be neatly summarized" should've been a key qualifying part. Linking to the wiki shouldn't be a crutch to being opaque about information. If something like a Scuttlebug can be like "Replaces spiders. They make webs and scare Steve." go for it. I kind of doubt ALL replaced assets in Minecraft are so incredibly complex affairs that we have to link to a wiki to satisfactorily cover all bases. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 23:27, February 7, 2024 (EST)
|