leave as is 3-7
I've noticed an inconcistency with the images for the recipes. You can even look now at many of them. Many of them are quite alike, but they are different to the others alike. This has caused not only constant headaches with users like myself, but also more work for every user to do.
Just go to here and notice how each image is [[File:PaperMario Items <itemname>.png]] for the most part (as some are like .gif and .jpg). This is a great example - for the most part - of what I am talking about. Now go to here or here, and notice how many images are like [[File:<itemname> PM2.png/PNG]], [[File:<itemname>TTYD.png/PNG]], [[File:<nameitem>TTYD.png/PNG]], [[File:<itemnickname>.png/PNG]], [[File:<itemname> SPM.png/PNG]], and then even images for items that are used for more than one game because there isn't a image found!
My point I'm trying to come across is that many of our pages have had major work done on them because of this inconsistency, as well as editing them now being a major pain-in-the-neck. Changing them to something that will work out for all of them ([[File:PaperMario Items <itemname>.png]], [[File:<itemname> PM2.png]], and [[File:<itemname> SPM.png]] are what the ideal file names would be), we'll be able to create these pages more efficently, as well as editing further pages be a lot more smoother and less time-consuming.
As an example, this is more efficent way of making images easier, as the template already holds the key factors ([[File:PaperMario Items <itemname>.png]]) in it, which would allow the editor just to simply put in the item name. And for the pages that don't use that template, it will still allow easier editing since they would have to only put the key factors and the item name instead of looking up the image and copying it into a page.
The downside to all of this is that many of the pages already having these mix-matched file names would need to be fixed and updated to the latest things. Hopefully it won't take much time, and I already have it planned to quickly update each page before it ends up as a project that will take more than a few days. If the proposal pass, I'll start immediately on working, and hopefully have some help to get it down. That is the only downside I can see to this passing afaik. Even if it takes some work, it is better to have consistency then have all this annoying work done if it could be much simplier.
MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - I think I understand this one. My point is that this is rather pointless. Nobody is going to see the filenames if they don't want to, and, even so, they're there to see the recipes, not the filenames or the pictures. The names wouldn't bother someone who went to the page for its purpose. And if that's completely irrelevant, then, again, I don't understand what you're proposing.
@MCD: For the viewer, it is pretty much pointless to them. But I'm viewing this to the people that have constantly had to edit the pages full of images. I was editing many yesterday, and I was completely annoyed with all the extra work I had to do. It may not seem like a lot to a viewer, but it's a big difference to thoses that have edited the pages like myself. I for a fact that this isn't the first proposal to deal with editing and consistency. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
What about the extra work this will bring across for the Sysops? That will be much more tedious. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
I never said anything about sysops. Yes, images would have to be deleted, but its no different from any other image deletions. It's not like there are over 100 (maybe even less than 50) that don't follow this rule. Likewise, 1/3 of them are already completed, and another 1/4 of the remainder are already in the correct category. That leaves about less than half that are already done. I do feel bad that some would do that, but I'm looking at the long run, and I see this as something that will help us with less work than extra work. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
Well, then why is it a huge problem? Any amount of deleting takes time away from the sysops. And all of the image adding for those three pages is already done. "Constantly had", not "constantly do". MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
Forgive me for saying this, but you're annoyed by all the extra work you had to do...so you wanna make the Sysops do the work instead? o_0 Xzelion (talk)
I don't think he meant it that way, Xze. But the idea makes sense if it was properly implemented, as the filenames would be more consistent which would be easier for when other users link one or more of those files to another page. It could apply to all images/sprites of recurring objects/enemies/items etc in a series, not just the Paper Mario series. I think that that's what BMB is trying to get at. Although I do see the point made by MCD, that the viewer won't really be bothered by erroneous naming of files. Rise Up Above It (talk)
Yeah, sometimes I have trouble really saying what I mean. Thanks RUAI. I hate having that main problem with the extra work having to be done for this, and I hate that I can't do all of it myself, and that is why this proposal is very well-sided. Xzelion, I don't want to make you or another sysop do the work, but I also want some consistency on editing things. MCD makes a great point with the fact that this is not that important, but I would rather try for some consistency instead of just doing nothing and leave it for it to just get worst. I wish that this could have happened while the file were beginning to form, but that was my ignorance about the topic. Rise Up Above It: That would be really good to do it with more than just recipe images, but I'm just doing this since this is a real dead-give-a-way to the inconsistency to the images. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
To clarify, I have no problem doing more work, should this proposal come to pass. I'd be more than happy to help. But I have to agree with MCD here. I'd like to add that I feel it;d be too much work and in the end the Wiki hasn't entirely benefited from. The work outweighs the worth. Although, I do think we'd be better off enforcing this rule for new game images, but that just may be me. Xzelion (talk)
Remove Staff Pages
keep pages 2-16
The title explains it all. I feel that the staff pages for the games are not needed in the fact that they are not really about "Mario" himself. We talk about Mario here, not about the people who made the games. People who play the games can know who made the game and all of that kind of stuff. But when we're talking about Mario on the Super Mario Wiki, these staff pages have no business being created.
Nicke8 (talk) The people who made the games are Mario-related. Technically.
Walkazo (talk) - Per Xzelion. Besides, the wiki isn't actually about Mario, it's about the Mario series, both the in-universe and real life aspects of it, and that certainly includes the people who made the games/shows/comics/etc.
Mario Fan 123 (talk) "We talk about Mario here, not about the people who made the games." Sure, what about this guy? He created Mario, how about this one? Even if the staff list may have minor people, they deserve a place here. If you were a person in that list and they just ignored you, wouldn't that make you angry? Per all...
Arend (talk) You gave a bad reason to support your proposal. If we would talk only about Mario, then we would delete a LOT of pages, and perhaps all the games too. Leaving on like that, we would have only Mario's article left. Also, Staff credits are also an important element, like the games itself. They won't get made by themself! So, per all.
@GS15 We still talk about Mario here though. If people want to know what the credits are, they can just simply look it up. People are still getting recognized by people playing their games. But like said in the proposal, we talk about Mario here. Supremo78 (talk)
A lot of the times the credits appear in the games themselves in fact NSMB Wii allows the credits to be played as a level also we have articles on voice actors and other people who never appear in the mario series but played a part in it so why not keep the credits Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
By credit pages, do you mean the staff pages? Xzelion (talk)
@GS15 I still think we should rethink the idea that we cover Mario here. Supremo78 (talk)
Oh and also, that's just making them subpages into the game articles, which the proposal is not really about here. Supremo78 (talk)
Ok but we also cover the people that made mario and with out these people the mario series would not exist those people deserve to be mentioned for all the work they put in the games Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
@GS15 You are making me real frustrated. This is the Super Mario Wiki. We cover stuff about Mario. They do get the respect they deserve when the millions of people who buy the Mario games go through the credits, and if people want that very specific info, like stated in the proposal, if people want to find out, they can simply look it up on Google and go to another website. Supremo78 (talk)
I don't see the problem with them. The staff played an important role and helped bring us the game we all enjoyed (hypothetically). At the "they can just look it up" comment, you mean go to another site, right? Do we really want to be less detailed about Mario-information then other sites? Because while you don't see it as Mario related, not everyone is going to see it that way, we should never encourage people to go to another website to find this kind of information. As Goomba's Shoe15 pointed out, we have articles for voice actors, do they get deleted? I'd go as far as to say that the staff is just as important as console articles. And yes, we cover Mario articles here, but we also cover the Wario, Yoshi, and Donkey series information here, and some of them aren't about "Mario" himself. At your "people who played the game"...comment, how exactly should they know? I mean I don't memorize the credits as roll down the screen... Xzelion (talk)
people should be able to find all mario related info on this site that includes the people who made the game especially since those credits are part of the game itself Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
@Xzelion, that's a Good point. About your Mario article section of your comment, that's because they're spin-offs of the Mario series that need to be included. I think your comment is correct, but let's see how the proposal goes and see if I'm wrong or not. Supremo78 (talk)
That's true, but in your comments about why it should be removed, you point out that the staff pages aren't really "about "Mario" himself", well nether are these spin-offs? And your comment about how my comment is correct, confuses me... Xzelion (talk)
Yeah I'm weird like that :) Anyway the reason why we talk about Donkey Kong, Wario, and Yoshi series is because their based off of Mario. Also, because all three of those characters appear in Mario series games. Yes, these credits are based off of the Mario series considering they were made by those people, but are not a main part. Donkey Kong, Wario, and Yoshi as the characters and their own series are. Supremo78 (talk)
I disagree without them, we wouldn't even have these games to play. That's major enough for me. Xzelion (talk)
Oh, and if you say They aren't about Mario himself, than we'll have to delete most of the pages.
Merge all Donkey Kong sidebar lists with Mario lists
merge donkey kong lists 10-3
This proposal started off as a TPP, which I said the list of Donkey Kong bosses with the Mario bosses list. Goomba's Shoe15 than told me in the comments that we need to merge all other Donkey Kong lists to prevent inconsistency. I liked the idea, and then created this proposal.
EDIT: Just to clear up some confusion, I mean the side bar lists such as, Games, Characters, Allies, etc. I don't want to merge the categories.
Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) the reason we should do this is because it is inconstant to have the Donkey Kong related thing on there own list while not giving the wario or yoshi series things there own list so i think we should merge them all into one list for consistency so per my idea
Zero777 (talk) Yoshi and Wario don't have a list of their own bosses, so I don't get what makes DK so different; categories are fine, but articles, read the first part of my support.
Walkazo (talk) - Consistency is necessary, however, like I say in my comment below, consistency with Species is my ideal set-up, since organization is also important. Having one list is good since you can find everything in one place and it's all equal and whatnot, but using symbols to differentiate the various series (and the alternate media) within that one list is better.
Plumber (talk): These categories serve as a historical record to the old DKWiki, and as a lover of history, I would like them preserved as such. We can easily create Wario series categories, etc. for the secondary and tertiary realms (though these terms have fallen into disuse, I dare say). In any case, I expect my opposition to indeed fail, and dreadfully, so, but this opposition will put in the history of the ill-conceived Wikipedia-driven (or A Link to the Past-manipulated, dare I say) drivelish proposals the remembrance that there was indeed a DKWiki that closed shortly when I joined, and this fact should be preserved to history. Thank you kindly.
Super Mario Bros. (talk) – I honestly agree with Plumber, and I also feel that Wario and Yoshi categories should be made to further classify and categorize each page for those series. For both historical and organizational purposes.
Is it like an article list or a category? Zero777 (talk)
the big lists on the main page the categories are fine since all the other series have them Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
Remember, one week for normal proposals, two weeks for TPPs! Reddragon19k 08:27, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
@Superfiremario your wrong if any thing the Mario Series is a spin off of the Donkey Kong series seeing as how Donkey Kong got top billing of the game Donkey Kong which started the Mario series in general Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
@Plumber You keep saying categories nobodies talking about categories just the sidebar lists Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
@Plumber The point of this proposal was not to merge categories of DK and Mario, and even if they were, I still don't understand your reasoning. Anyway, this proposal was made to merge lists not categories. Supremo78 (talk)
My ideal organization would be everything in one list, but with some sort of legend, since it is helpful to know which thing came from which series. This is how Species is set up (although, ever since this edit, I only see question marks instead of different shapes, making it rather useless to me, but perhaps I just don't have the right thing installed on my computer). In fact, having another symbol for alternate media might be useful too - they're not less important or anything, but they are different and being able to tell them apart is useful. It's also a bit of a compromise between the folks who want to keep the lists separate and the ones who want to combine them. - Walkazo (talk)
@Walkazo, Do you mean by that we merge one list into one giant list with species, items, and all of that? Supremo78 (talk)
No i think she means keep the separate lists but make a key that shows you which items comes from which series Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
What Goomba's Shoe said. I just used singular "list" to avoid confusion with the separate series lists that were being merged, and hoped my Species page reference and the context of the proposal's suggested merges would make it clear I was doing a "one represents all" kinda thing. - Walkazo (talk)
Remove Logos from Infobox Titles
Quite a few games have logos instead of plain text for their infobox titles, but seeing as the game boxart also contains the logo and is located directly beneath the title, all this really does is show us the exact same graphic twice. This is redundant, and it looks sloppy, especially when the logos are transparent and the background colour interferes with the words. It's also inconsistent, since most games just use good ol' fashioned text. Compare Mario Kart DS with Mario Kart: Double Dash!! - there's no question as to which one looks more professional, and by extension, which style we should use. Other games using the superfluous title-logos include Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, all three Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games titles, Mario Party 8, Mario Kart Wii and both Super Smash Bros. Melee and Brawl, among others. Then you have the occasional character page with a title-logo, which is completely unnecessary. The only time it makes sense to have logos is for series pages, since a single boxart isn't adequately representative of all the games involved. Some example of this logo usage are Super Smash Bros. (series), Mario Party (series), and Mario Kart (series) (compare with Mario Kart DS), but even then, the logos are being used as the infobox images, not the titles. And, while the consoles don't really the logos in their images, the transparency issue is still a problem, and the inconsistency with other types of pages is also undesirable, so it'd be better of the logos were simply used elsewhere.
In short, I propose we remove all instances where the logos are being used for the infobox titles. The logos can be put into the galleries (or incorporated into the body text, as is the case with the character and console pages), so nothing is being lost. Series pages with logos being used as their images will not be affected.
Proposer:Walkazo (talk) Deadline: July 12, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Walkazo (talk) - Using text instead of logos is neater, simpler, clearer, more concise and less redundant, and it will make all the game pages consistent.
Phoenix (talk) Couldn't have said it better myself. I support this 100%.
Zero777 (talk) I found those incredibly hideous, per Walkazo.
Coincollector (talk) - I always wondered where it came the tendency to put the game logo in the game infoboxes. Per proposer.
Reddragon19k (talk) I'm going to agree with Walkazo on this one. We don't need logos on infoboxes, we already have some in the gallery section. Take Mario Kart Wii for example. The logo is on the article and the gallery for the game. If we lose it, then it can only be seen in the gallery page for that game. So, per Walkazo!
Plumber (talk) Why must art be destroyed in the name of conformity?
@ Walkazo: Could you include the removal of Logos of the consoles? Just as you said that color interferes with the design of the logos, this problem can also be seen in the Wii U's page and the Wii. The GameCube takes a step further: How do you read a symbol of a game console in the infobox? Coincollector (talk)
Well, this proposal is already about removing all logo-titles, but I agree that adding consoles to the explicit list of what shouldn't have them is a good idea; thanks for pointing it out! - Walkazo (talk)
Actually, removing the logos are okay, but maybe they should be moved to the subject's gallery. There may be some chance that we want these plain logos. - Akfamilyhome (talk)
I think you missed a couple lines of the proposal: I am suggesting that they be moved to the galleries (and they can even be incorporated into the body text, in some cases). They're not being removed from the articles, just from the infoboxes. - Walkazo (talk)
@Plumber: We are not getting rid of them, one, the artwork of the title is already in the boxart, and two, they are most likely already located at the gallery. Zero777 (talk)
Since some articles don't have logo's in the infobox titles and some do, I wouldn't mind if we remove the logo's from the info box titles. It looks more professional that way. However, we should realize a game logo is one important image of the game. Logo's are used for commercials on TV or advertisements in newspaper. Websites of the game also show the logo big. The logo is also on the box and even in the game itself. I think we should find a more efficient place for the game logo on the article. A game logo is MAYBE even more important then the boxart. Arend (talk)
Fortunately, the logo is in the boxart, so it's not really being removed from the article. If there was a logical place to put the stand-alone logo further down the page (rather than just putting it on the gallery), that'd be great, but very few articles have sections where it would make sense (i.e. Development or Reception sections). I'm planning on putting a few logos in the introductions of pages where the image itself doesn't have the logo (i.e. the consoles and the Mii), but for the most part, the logos are gallery-bound, I'm afraid. - Walkazo (talk)
Artwork Transparency Issues
remove bad transparent images 25-20
During the past set of months, I've been noticing that a good number of JPEG artworks were being replaced by PNG artworks with transparent backgrounds. However, a lot of those images look quite ugly when they're viewed in backgrounds that aren't colored white. I've mentioned this dilemma at the admins boards, and some of the Sysops there do agree with my statement. I propose that any artworks with ugly-looking transparency has to lose the transparency. After all, we shouldn't be modifying the artworks by any means; if the artworks are JPEGs, upload them as JPEGs; if the PNG artworks don't have anything transparent, upload them that way.
Update: To understand what's going on, please look here for examples of good transparency and bad transparency.
Proposer: M&SG (talk) Deadline: June 30, 2011 23:59 GMTJuly 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT July 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Supremo78 (talk) - As I hear a lot, we strive to make this wiki better and better, and if images that don't make the wiki look well, it brings down the wiki's quality. Sometimes it's just better to leave small things alone to make bigger things better.
SWFlash (talk) "If the artworks are JPEGs, upload them as JPEGs." PNG. Even if not transparent, always upload PNG.
Coincollector (talk) - Per proposer. Actually I don't see the necessity to converse JPEG files into PNG: there is no real difference in a picture when converting a JPEG into PNG, and the transparency thing is more of an excuse to say that the PNG is better than JPEG, never noticing the size of the picture wich is a lot heavier in PNG files. This is one of the various causes that retouching official artworks really bothers me. That and the user's less knowledge about a in-game model and a (very bad) cropped screenshot.
Dr Javelin (talk) As far as I can tell, transparency doesn't need to be added and makes many images look terrible. Per all.
Magikrazy51 (talk) Per UhHuhAlrightDaisy who tried to rid the Black Mage artwork of transparency (sorry Ultramario, but our princess is in another castle transparency isn't always better). Also per everyone else who supports this proposal.
Superfiremario (talk) Okay, I get this now. Your saying you want bad transparency removed, right? I support now. If you didn't see this you should.
Gigaremo (talk) Per all. If transparency makes some images look bad, then it should be removed on those images.
Boowhoplaysgames (talk) Per all, and, who the hayfidget thought of making transparency for the Mario Sports Mix anyway? the shadows of them make one know that they shouldn't make transparency. leaving white in for thee shadows to be shown is just goofy, and puts this wiki [to me] to shame.[“why, why must this wiki have good info with bad quality?”]
BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) What we're proposing is that we delete images of bad quality, not remove it all together! Most of the opposers misunderstood this proposal. And I completely agree with this proposal. If it looks crappy, it's better if it's not transparent.
UltraMario3000 (talk) I disagree with this proposal as PNGs are usually better then JPGs and the conversion from JPG to PNG is rather good because the images that I did in that way always looked more clear quality-wise.
Zero777 (talk) Per UM3000 and comment below. Just let users have the freedom to do whatever they want with the image as long it will look good on and make the article better in quality.
Hypnotoad (talk) Per all, and as someone who works with these images, I find PNG images easier to use, and maintain a better quality post-process.
Koopa K (talk) Per all. #Arend (talk) What the heck, you want to get rid of all the transparent PNGs because they get a checkered background when you're viewing them in their file page? That's ridiculous. Per all.
Mario Fan 123 (talk) Per all and Arend. This community is sort of annoying sometimes, when they make dumb proposals 'because transparent images look ugly'. Come on, transparent PNGs are way better than plain white background JPGs! And some of the JPG images come with a background, so that's annoying too.
Not Bugsy (talk) Per all, and also, PNGs are good for saving space and keeping quality. You can compress them fine without losing quality, but if you compress JPGs, you get artifacts which lower image clarity.
Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum (talk) I'm neutral. JPG is horrendous, while PNG is amazing. JPG does not work with transparency, so... I'm just doing it here to make it tied on votes.
Super Luigi! Number one! (talk) JPEGs are for photographs and realistic images. PNGs are for line art, text-heavy images, and images with few colors.Btw, We can "correct" the bad images, making it completly tranparent.
Recently I've been working with PNG sprite images with white backgrounds that are unnecessary and removing them and reuploading it. I haven't done anything with JPEGs. That's ok, right? Bowser's luma (talk)
I think the proposal is saying that we should stop making non-transparent images transparent because if you put them behind a background that is a color other than white, you can still see some of the white around the picture. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
I don't understand the difference between a JPEG a PNG or transparency all i ever see are pictures Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
JPEG and PNG are popular image file formats. PNGs are more easily modifiable than JPEGs in a software such as Fireworks or Photoshop. Most images have backgrounds (generally white), and people can use software to remove them (an image without a background is considered transparent). It can be useful at times, but it is not always done perfectly. Usually, the software will remove most of a background using a tool, leaving the user to remove the rest manually, sometimes pixel-by-pixel depending on the quality wanted. The problem is that it can be a tedious process depending on the size of the image and the quantity of background to be removed, so some of it is likely to remain either unnoticed or unattended. On a white background (or one colored identically to the image background), there's no problem, but other backgrounds reveal these unnoticed or unattended portions and make the image, and by extension, the wiki, look unprofessional. Mario4Ever (talk)
I'm really confused on this still. Can you give a few examples to really clear this up? Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
This image has a background (all of the space surrounding the trophy), while this image is transparent (all transparent images have that checkered "background" you see when clicking on it). Mario4Ever (talk)
UM: No, the proposer is talking about the bad quality transparent images, not all of the transparent images. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
I can see where some people are going by replacing JPEG artworks with PNG artworks. However, if the PNG artworks do not have a transparent background, you should upload them just like that. If a PNG artwork has transparency already when you download it, odds are, it'll probably look good on any kind of background. If that truly is the case, that kind of artwork image can be uploaded; Ex.: 100x100px; when I found that image, it already had an Alpha Layer, and it looked good on a black background. Basically, by normal standards, quality > transparency, and transparency should only be implemented if it looks good. - M&SG (talk)
I have noticed that some users don't know how to keep the quality when changing it to a transparent image. When they upload the image it is smaller than the JPEG file was and so some users who know how to keep the quality and have it transparent have to fix the image. Also JPEG files has little dots that are hard to see that surround the image and they blend in with the white. We don't want to see that because it makes the image look like it has bad quality and that is probably why we make images transparent. - YoshiGo99 (talk)
Regardless, if the original artwork doesn't have transparency, do not alter it. At times, adding transparency to artwork will make it look much worse, due to the pixelated edges that can be seen. I learned that the hard way when I modified some Mario Super Sluggers artworks. - M&SG (talk)
@UltraMario3000: He's not saying that we shouldn't convert from JPG to PNG, but that if someone does that, they shouldn't make it transparent. Yoshiwaker (talk)
@Yoshiwaker: I don't see what's wrong with making it transparent though.:/--UltraMario3000 (talk)
Take an image and put it behind a black background. You'll see. Xzelion (talk)
We should upload all artworks as PNG, because when JPG pictures are rescaled ([[File:SSBB-Peach Luigi Taunt.jpg|200px]]), the they become very artifacted. SWFlash (talk)
Most artworks that can be found on gaming websites are JPEGs however. Besides, you shouldn't replace an HQ JPEG image with a low quality PNG image. M&SG (talk)
@Goomba's Shoe15: This proposal only applies to bad quality transparency artworks. Artworks such as the one that Xzelion showed would not be affected, since those artworks already had transparency implemented before being uploaded; artworks that already have transparency usually tend to look good on any background color. M&SG (talk)
@M&SG Did I say anything about quantity? Also, PNG is lossless, if you didn't notice it. SWFlash (talk)
I didn't say quantity. Also, I didn't say that you shouldn't replace JPEG artworks with PNG artworks. You can still do that, but if the PNG artworks have no transparency, don't make them transparent. M&SG (talk)
Just in case the proposal deadline has to be extended, please refer to here for some examples of acceptable transparency and unacceptable transparency. M&SG (talk)
@Arend: You're missing the point. This proposal only applies to artworks that have bad transparency. Please look at my examples, and you'll clearly get the picture. M&SG (talk)
@Mario Fan 123: Well it's one thing when you have a white background, but when you put the image on a black background, that's when you'll notice how poorly done the transparency is. M&SG (talk)
Okay, basically you want to remove transparency? Guys, they're saying they want bad transpaprensy removed.
@Mario Bros.! I'm supporting now.Superfiremario (talk)
@Zero's vote: Most of these "transparent" images don't look good on articlesSuperfiremario (talk)
I'd like to point out a png image with awful transparency which should be used as an example for this proposal. Alas, I don't know the file name, but I know the image. It's the Galaxy Airship artwork that was ripped from the boss poster. The image looks fine on a white background, but put against a black background or save it to your computer and open it in MSPaint and it reveals how horrendous the transparency is. Rise Up Above It (talk)
IDK, but I'll show directly some examples from MS&G's page to coroborate the problems. Maybe many of you misunderstood this proposal. This is not to kill PNG as many of you think, it's to get rid badly edited or cropped pictures that they turned out be of worse quality than their originals (regardless they were JPEG or PNG or whatever). In a few words, pictures, like artworks Shouldn't be edited.
The chart shows the bad-edited pictures set in a black background, this problem can be seen in any colored bg but white or some white-based color.
It's possible to converse JPEGs into PNG but never edit them unless it needs so and in this case must be well-crafted, not like this. This is becoming in a trend by many user and shouldn't be atually in the Mariowiki, so think twice before taking a decent decision.
@All Opposers What M&SG is trying to say is that we need to remove the transparency from the images that look bad on a different color background than white. Jusy look at the pictures above. The look crappy in a black background.
Well, just like Supremo above, I don't think it means ALL jpg to png images are really going to be undone, as I know many of them that are amazing that had that happened. I think that the proposal is just to have some quality better. I really don't understand why a jpg image is just tossed out there like it is trash when many amazing images have been uploaded by jpg. Png's might be really good as well, but if you try to put a jpg into a png and it doesn't work out, then you might as well just leave it as in instead of trying to continue with what you are doing. But...I still am trying to decide which side I should support, because I can see it - through the opposers' eyes - as to why this shouldn't pass as well, and what the outcome of all this change could lead to. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
@ Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum: You don't get the point. This proposal, again, this is not to remove PNG images, nor saying that JPEG is better than PNG nor something, this proposal is to stop users that believe they can edit or make certain pictures transparent without noticing important details like the chart shown above. Don't think you're becoming experts on this... Coincollector (talk)
Okay, I see now what the whole purpose is. You want to delete the PNG's with bad quality of transparency. That is kinda okay, but here comes my opinion. You see, it is kinda good when we're talking about the ones that have some effects that have less to no hardness (like shadows of some people, or fur standing upright, or even fire). However, I think it doesn't make sense at all to delete those of bad quality with 100% hardness (so, for example, no shadows & stuff, no fur standing upright, no fire). An experienced converter or transparency maker could easily take the original file and make the file better transparent. If you don't get what I mean, take a look at these blue dots (the upper ones have no hardness, and the lower ones have a hardness of 100%):
See what I mean? The blue dot with 100% hardness has it's background completely removed, and there's almost no sign of white pixels left around, while there is a whole bunch of white left at the blue dot with no hardness. As with the middle two in the earlier example, it's transparency could be better. Seeing the Black Mage at the right, that one could also be done better (seriously, there are pixels left behind that don't even belong to the artwork), but it has a shadow, so we therefor have to wait for an official release of the artwork with no background (though I, unfortunately, think it will never come). So, what I want is that most artwork that has no background nor hardness-less things, such as shadows, should have another re-upload, with original file, with the background removed, making it looking more polished than it first was. Arend (talk) - I see, btw, that all the examples above, have at least been upoaded by UltraMario3000 as the latest revision. I suggest for him that he needs a (better) program that removes the background easily, and/or that, if he uses a Magic Wand tool, that he should increase its tolerance, but not too much. Testing the tolerance is always good, too.
@ Arend: There is no problem to upload high quality transparent images, specially those that are 2D artwork that have plain effects and the tolerance is reliable. The problem comes when you try to make the artwork transparent. If you find a picture with no transparency, keep the image unaltered. If you find a transparent image of quality (of tolerable size, not too smaller than the original and the alpha is smooth) keep the image unaltered. If you find or make a transparent image and has bad quality in transparency and the alpha is not smooth, then undo it. By the way, just a 2D artwork is transparent doesn't mean will be 100% good: For example, look at the history hereCoincollector (talk)
@Coincollector: I actually meant all art, not just 2D. I thought anyone would get it, then someone thinks I only talked about 2D, though I never said it was about 2D. I only used a simple example. Anyways, people who make things transparent can try to make things transparent, but should notsave directly. They first need to test the transparency, by adding, for example, a black background as a new layer, if possible. If the art's transparency's not good (enough), they have to undo the action of making it transparent, change the tolerance, select the unwanted things, and try it again. Then they have to test it again, and, if needed, repeat the whole thing, until it is finally good enough. About the 2D art you showed me, it is because the uploader (who seems to be the same person who uploaded the LQ transparency pics above), did not care about the tolerance. Eventually, he should resize the picture a little to make the black lines smoother. To keep a higher quality, shrinking is suggested. I think you skimmed my whole lecture-thing (or whatever it could be described the best) and thought I talked about that transparent 2D art is always good quality, but I never said that. Arend (talk)
@ Arend: I see your point and is right. In fact you've expandend one of my statements in bold of the comment with the pictures. I have other things to support this. As you said, making a transparent image requires much more time than somebody can think. You may get a whole day dealing with a single image to make it ransparent, testing how will look and undoing it over 100 times if there is a noticeable mistake. The thing gets more complicated when you're playing with the alpha where the colors blend with the background (if you don't what alpha is, is the opacity's bearing of every pixel in a picture, for example the diffuse blue in black bg). Some of the pics above have alpha that the user overlooked and left them in white patches, which makes these pictures unsettling when you look over a background of another color... even more, the white's presence and that dithering ruin the pictures' aesthetics. As I said, the pictures should remain unaltered if they don't need. Making oneself a picture transparent is not easy actually and, these are the mistakes that one can get if they don't this work in a professional way: if you'll do it, do it well and if you didn't well, undo it. Consider my last comment but one as a consequence of this explanation. Also, there are more tools to use than a "magic wand" Coincollector (talk)
@Super Luigi! Number One!: Do you know how in the simplest way? It's not an easy task as you think. Requires trial and error to get the best quality.
Merge the non-game lists on the side bar with the video game lists
merge sidebar lists 8-0
I find it very weird that this wiki considers the non-game elements canon but still keeps them separate on the side bar so i think we should merge the two lists together because if everything is official/canon than they should be on the same list. Because right now the two lists separates the game and non-game elements on these lists and i don't think we should do that. Plus we already merged all of the non-game categories so i think it only makes sense to merge the lists two
Super Mario Bros. (talk) – Yes. Our wiki establishes games and other media as being equal in how we should cover it and not being in separate canons. So it would make sense for us to merge these lists. Per proposal.
Walkazo (talk) - See my comment on the series proposal above. Having one list is best since you can find everything in one place and it's all equal and whatnot, but I also think we should use symbols to differentiate the various series and the alternate media within that unified list. The more organization, the better.
Sorry, but I don't get what you are saying. Zero777 (talk)
You see those lists on the side bar well currently there separated into game and non-game i'm proposing we merge them together like we did with the categories Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
By "non-game" do you mean beta? Can you please clarify what the non-game stuff is? I don't know what it is. Supremo78 (talk)
Non-game stuff is things from the cartoons and the comics and according to the mario wiki canon policy they are supposed to be on considered on the same level of canon as the games. However, for some reason they are split on the big lists on the side bar and i'm proposing that they be merged together like how the non-game categories and game categories were merged together Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
leave as is 11-20
As two old users, we jointly feel that the decision-making system pre-MarioWiki:Proposals was superior to the current system. The current system of MarioWiki:Proposals is based upon popularity contests. The previous system involved discussion on the Community Portal and Talk:Main page. This new proposal would restore any potential problems to be discussed on Talk:Main page, not with "support" and "oppose" columns, but genuine ”bona fide” arguments and discussion. When consensus has been reached, the fate of the "proposal" will be decided. This was the way the system worked before the infamous and perfidious troll A Link to the Past (talk) tricked Porplemontage (talk) and Wayoshi (talk) into creating the proposals (only after his disastrous MarioWiki:Peer Review scheme had failed; Proposals were made largely as a concession to his whining). If this measure passes, it shall go into force July 17, 2011, although any Proposals that still need to expire will be left to expire at their natural time.
EDIT: MarioWiki:Proposals will still serve as the main place for talk page proposals. Many thanks to Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) for bringing that up.
SWFlash (talk) I have to agree with this proposal. Supporting the proposal without describing why does one thinks it should be so is just bumps it and, sometimes, the wiki may end up to be in even worser situation than it was before the proposal. The good proposals may be unresolved just because one have said the good option to sage the proposal and everyone're just agreeing with him/her. But, of course, some users may be not creative enough to think about their options and they just want the proposal to be settled, but, I think, it's their problems.
Reddragon19k (talk) I love this proposal! This is my favorite time to per all for this one! Seriously, that is my favorite kind! So... PER EVERYONE!!!
DKPetey99 (talk) Per all does seem to be used a lot. Mostly it's used for friendship. I was actually goanna make this proposal myself, but I didn't think people would approve of my idea. Per all
ThirdMarioBro (talk) Per DKPetey99. I am getting tired of people just "going with the flow" and labeling their vote as "per all".
Super Mario Bros. (talk) – Making decisions through intelligent discussion, rather by a simple vote count restricted by time limits, seems much more understandable. Per the proposers.
LeftyGreenMario (talk) This makes sense. I think some people put "per all" in their votes, but they don't really understand what they are voting for.
Mariomario64 (talk) – Per proposal and everyone else's comments. In my opinion, this is a much better way to decide on proposals.
Walkazo (talk) - What worked in the old days doesn't necessarily translate to how things work now: the community and its dynamics have changed a lot over the years. There are a lot more users now, meaning discussions could potentially be dragged on forever: that's the advantage of deadlines (and the Clear Majority rule makes sure things that aren't settled by the deadline don't just pass). Popularity-based voting is bad, but it's not necessarily the driving force between "per"s, and if someone says everything that needs to be said, it is completely fine for others to per them. Even if all the people on the one side have something to add to the argument, ultimately, if more people agree with one person's idea (which they "per"), that idea should be used. To quote Star Trek, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Besides, debates already happen in proposals, and proposals can be changed and replaced if better courses of action are identified. While free-flowing discussion might make this a little more natural-feeling, the lack of rules and structure could easily backfire, and will certainly be harder to archive. And who's to say popularity won't still be a factor in discussions: paraphrasing is just as easy as "per"ing.
Zero777 (talk) Oh the reform proposal is to debate until a decision is reached whenever (not by a deadline). Walkazo is right, that will drag on longer then the Starting Planet Proposal, per. And since were proposals popularity contests?
Edofenrir (talk) - I pretty much agree with Walkazo on this one, but I'd like to go into something in conjunction with what she said towards the end of her comment. A lot of the supporters here seem to support solely to get rid of "Per" votes. However, those who do should stop and think about this for a moment. Specifically: How is this proposed system going to do anything about that? Counting arguments instead of heads? Is that going to fix it? Not at all. It is very, very easy to take an argument and rephrase it in a way that makes it appear like an entirely new argument. This older system will be just as exploitable than the one we are currently using. "Per" votes will not be eliminated by this change; they will just resurface in a different form. And then we will have to deal with those.
Yoshiwaker (talk) - I'm changing my vote. There is nothing wrong with the current system. It's more like a democracy, which it should be when making decisions like this. Also I agree with Zero that if we had to have full consensus then it would take forever to make a decision. Also, per Edofenrir.
twentytwofiftyseven (talk) Hahaha. Ironically, one guy like NARCE could filibuster the proposed system forever. Per all.
Supremo78 (talk) - Simply, the argument can still continue in the proposal still having the phrase "Per all". All it is is agreeing, which is what commonly people use. While I realize some people may just put it there just to vote with their friends, is this proposal really going to change that? A continuing argument is like court, which is not what we do here. Making decisions should be simpler than "court". However, some people who want to agree aren't just voting with their friends, may not have something to say, but: I agree (what Per is). People will never know which one the user is trying to do, so just leave it alone all together. Also, like Walkazo said, proposals may go so long, it may be over 2 times of that that the proposal Phoenix (talk) did (No Starting Planet Left Behind!) will last over 2 months. That's just not a good way to reach consensus.
Glowsquid (talk) I'm not convinced an argument-only system would be that preferrable. One thing endemic to e-arguments is that they are frequently "won" not by the actual merits of the position presented, but rather by sheer repetition, as one or more participants repeat their stances ad-nauseum up until the other side gets bored or tired (and I was going to use the example of our friend ALinkToThePast/NARCE, but 2257 beat me to it). Of course the matters can be ultimately decided by the administrators - but then that kind of defeat the point of changing the system. I won't deny the current system is sometimes victim of the Popularity Contest/Sheep mentality phenomenom, but strong arguments can and often do change the tides of adebate, and I think the proposal as they are now have worked reasonably well. Also, per everything Walkazo said.
Phoenix (talk) There is nothing whatsoever drastically wrong with the system we use currently, and I very highly doubt that the proposed system will make anything any better than it is now, even if it happened to work out well in the past. If I could see it improving the overall decision making process, I would support, but I honestly cannot see it turning into anything less than a travesty. As it is, I seriously doubt that the majority of users are so lazy or shortsighted that they would ignore the important issues at hand and only per the arguments of their friends or per arguments without fully realizing what it is that they are doing. Does that have the potential to happen? Possibly. Does that mean that the entire system is ineffective and detrimental? I don't think so.
Hypnotoad (talk) As much as I'd like to avoid a simple "per" reasoning, pretty much everything I can think about has been said, so per all.
Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) per Walkazo after reading her comments i find the proposal system to be just as good if not better than the old system.
Gamefreak75 (talk) Even though the "per" reasoning can be annoying at times, it is even more annoying and redundant to restate the exact points that have already been said. So in general, per all.
Fawfulfury65 (talk) I agree with the opposers. Also, there are too many users to settle proposals in the way they used to be settled. The arguments would become extremely long and last forever. The current way makes everything more organized, and it helps you tell who is on what side more easily. Some people may vote on a side just because their friend is voting there, but they are outnumbered by the number of users who vote on the side they are sure is best.
Bop1996 (talk) Even though I'm still on hiatus, I think that this is such an important issue that I needed to vote anyway. I don't want to argue about what may or may not have happened in the past with User A or User B. That being said, the current system works quite well as it is imho, and the new system wouldn't work better as per everyone above, so per all.
Young Master Luma (talk) The system currently used is much simpler than the one proposed, which (in my opinion) attracts more people to vote. On a wiki with so many users, it would be mildly chaotic to let all the users argue about something just to often come to a quite ambiguous conclusion.
MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - The "”bona fide” arguments and discussion" is the "comments" section of the proposals. Support and oppose columns are much more organised and simple than just cluttered argument. It's easier to find out the end result, too. If we reform this page, how will we know when a proposal has passed? Who will check, and when? And would there be debate even after the end result? If most of the supporters are voting to get rid of the "Per" system, it's quite ironic they're doing it themselves. Per all, especially Walkazo and Edofenrir.
Rise Up Above It (talk) Although I joined in 2007, I assume that that event you mentioned took place before I jooined, for in the two weeks I was active after joining, I voted in some proposals that seem to have the same basic formula as the ones today (One of my main memories of late 2007 MW is Stumpers' tirades on the Proposals page). I have no idea then of the changes you propose, so I shall agree with all these good arguments.
Coincollector (talk) Per [Insert anything from the oppose list here]. The current system ain't perfect at all as the per thing may become pretty ambiguous and even users just want to skim specific ideas, but is the most accessible. Using the other way would restrict users that are only especialized in this kind of issues and close the doors to the others to see what's going on and the cosequent changes that a new proposal will grant and then we have to deal with. At least, those that say "per whoever" is that they try to explain the same thing in favor to the proposer.
Dr Javelin (talk) After much thought, I've finally decided to choose the opposing side for two main reasons. 1. As brought up my many users (and myself in the comments below), the lack of a time limit could lead to major issues. It may have worked in the past when there were fewer users, but with so many opinions, proposals could drag on forever. In fact, the Starting Planets Proposal would have dragged on forever. I believe one of the admins created a rule preventing proposals from being extended more than two times. 2. When you boil both sides down, the lack of being able to vote with "per" will not deter many voters. If you're on this wiki, it means you know about Mario and care enough to make an account and actually contribute to this database. If all you wanted to do was to vote for your friends, then you likely would not be here. Walkazo and Edofenrir have already covered the rest of my complaints with the new system, and have done it better than I can. The old system worked great for the old wiki with fewer users. The current system works well for the current wiki with more users.
This proposal include removing the TPP proposal system and if it does are all the TPP proposals that expire after the deadline of this proposal cancelled Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
The Talk Page Proposals are not affected by the system, so they'll still be here. No worries.Plumber (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
What about any proposals proposed before this proposal ends but that expire after the dead line are they cancelled to Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
Wait what do the peer reviews have to do with proposals i though those were for the FA process Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
What happens if it's a huge proposal with plenty of people with good arguments on both sides? So far, it seems to me that this will create stalemates that eventually stop the wiki from making decisions because of red tape. See the "No starting planet left behind" proposal in the Archives. I do agree that many proposals end up as popularity contests, but at least things happen. Dr Javelin (talk)
Well i think what would happen is they would debate until one side wins cause even now a proposal can only be extended so many times until it fails. And i'm sorry if this doesn't answer your question or is wrong cause i wasn't around during the day and age when they used the talk main page Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
Huge proposals actually become smaller because less people are willing to actually write a detailed opinion compared to doing "Per X." Back in the day, things got done and stayed done. If the arguments are good on both sides, generally the sysops step in to referee, which is not the ideal situation, but it's the general solution. They already referee the Proposals enough as it is. Plumber (talk)
It still seems like it might take longer than the current proposal system. And what happens if the sysops have differing opinions? I am in no way supporting the current proposal system, but as far as I can tell, things still happen. Articles get merged, split, edited, and changed, all according to the proposals. I agree that people should be required to give detailed arguments for or against proposals, but people shouldn't have to wait for a consensus. A time limit might still be needed to make sure that things still happen. Dr Javelin (talk)
In the past, consensus was always able to occur, moreso today with the Sysop Boards.
CC: Basically, that's how it was done before. However such things would be done at Talk:Main Page like they were because we have agreed the Proposals is too formulaic to be conductive. Strict deadlines are often too short or too long to be effective as well. If anyone needs more information, Xzelion will be happy to oblige, although I know you, CC, of all people are familiar with the old system :) Plumber (talk)
I'm not exactly familiar with the old proposal system, mostly because I never attended many proposals during my earlier wiki days. M&SG (talk)
@DKPetey99 and ThirdMarioBro: Well, if that is truly the case, then pretty much nothing we can do will be able to stop that because by this system, they could just "agree" with their friend. Yoshiwaker (talk)
I have a question for the proposers: will this effect the proposals box on the Main Page? If so, how do you plan to adapt the Main Page for this change? Super Mario Bros. (talk)
So how will the old system work? You didn't necessarily elaborate on that. Zero777 (talk)
Hmm. I'm switching back to neutral because of the good opposition arguments, and I'll stay that way unless someone can clearly define the pros and cons of each system in an unbiased manner. Dr Javelin (talk)
2257: NARCE could filibuster the proposed system because at that time executive power was concentrated in Wayoshi and (the aloof) Steve. He just needed to wear down one person. Now this is not the case. Also, the "per alls" are not the central issue here, but the voting patterns themselves. Already a few people have defected from my side to the other side. This just proves my point that the Proposals system leads to "vote trends" where the influence of well-known people convinces unsures to go to that side. This proposal was going to pass for sure until Walkazo made things more exciting. If Walkazo had remained silent, then there is a greater likelihood someone such as Zero or Yoshiwaker would not have their votes / voted for my side. The fact that Xzelion and I and Crash (all-well known people, and all in favor of this measure) backed it was to illustrate the flaws of this system as well. Did I already mention how Son of Suns eloquently confused everyone into destroying something they had just backed in a previous Proposal days earlier? Ever since then, I have been at odds with our current system of Proposals; people who liked Son of Suns voted for him because he was popular or because he wrote all fancy-like and whatever it was, it sounded smart or something. I would go on, but I haven't slept in two days, so I'm a bit worn out. The old version in action can be seen in older Talk:Main page archives, where problems were discussed and solved. Plumber (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
The funny part is that Son of Suns got just as peeved whenever I threw spanners in his proposals. But on a serious note, demonizing a retired user who did much more good than harm to the wiki isn't a very fair argument, especially when half of his battles were waged in the comments sections of the proposals anyway: cutting out the voting part wouldn't have stopped him. Straightforward issues are votes, but anything more in-depth already turns into a debate; the voting part is just so we can keep track of who's winning the argument. Fan votes happen, but it's unreasonable to act like every person's change of heart here is because of a reputation showdown - you can't know that for sure, and assumptions do not make for good arguments. The origins of the system is also a moot point: it has worked just fine for four years (during which the community has changed its face multiple times over); since we've added the Clear Majority and emergency Admin Veto rules, I can't recall any cases where I felt a proposal passed that shouldn't have, and before those rules were made, I can think of only one. Even if you can dredge up a few other mistakes, there will still be hundreds more that came to a just outcome. And really, had this been a discussion, it would have become just as "exciting" before long: an idea is proposed suggested, people like it, but then someone points out some flaws and more people join in (maybe because the first person is well-known, maybe because simply having someone else cast the first stone makes it easier to speak up, or maybe because they simply happened to get there after the first person). The only difference is that maybe we would have less people involved in between the major point-makers, but I don't think that's actually a desirable thing at all: the few people who actually get involved with intimidating, time-consuming discussions aren't necessarily representative of the community as a whole. - Walkazo (talk)
Demonizing? Harsh words. That particular proposal was a very lengthy description with little comments at all IIRC. The only people who I think would be less involved would be people who don't care at all and are just voting for their friend or the cool kid or something. Most of the community doesn't care about every little single issue, or else everyone would always vote on every proposal unless they were unable to due to RL concerns. Plumber (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
I had to dismiss my vote since I rushed in my decision to retrieve the old proposal's way without looking the drawbacks clearly. I'll stay neutral but I'll go with any absolute conclusion. By the way, would Proplemontage agree to change this proposal for another regarding to these decisions if succeeded? I guess he might have the last word. Coincollector (talk)
What do you mean? That seems unclear. Plumber (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
@Plumber: The "vote trends" you are talking about could very well occur in the proposed system anyways. Somebody could make a good enough argument to convince somebody to change their mind about something. Also, it doesn't matter who makes an argument that could convince others to take their side. If I had made the exact same argument as Walkazo before she did, I doubt that any less people would have opposed this. Also, that argument is similar to the one in this proposal, I find the logic flawed in that it is based off of something that cannot be proven. Yoshiwaker (talk)
Cannot be proven? Have you looked at the archives of Talk:Main page? There's old evidence there. Reasonable debate unfettered by random votes by people who don't care. Plumber (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
I wasn't a user back when the old system was going on. In fact, I wasn't even active until March but I joined on Jan 9 2011. So, i'm not voting.
I would also like to point out that the "per" problems were "solved" by an old Proposal to abolish "per X" as a reason. IIRC, another Proposal brought it back. That's just a good example of the fickleness of the Proposals system. Plumber (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
New comments are actually supposed to go on the bottom, not imbedded between other comments, since that can really muddle things up. Specific comments can be addressed using "@X:" or "X:", or something like that. Anyway, in response to your response to my comment, I stand by my choice of words, and I wasn't actually talking about any of Son of Suns' proposals in particular. (Although, having gone through the archives, I found that six of his proposals were straightforward votes (half of those were straightforward yes/no decisions, however, so there was nothing that could be debated), whereas two passed proposals involved lengthy discussions and three others failed after lengthy discussions.) Yes, everybody doesn't care about everything, but it's not reasonable to say that everyone who will vote but not discuss something doesn't care at all. Someone could easily care about an issue to some extent, but not want to get involved in a free-for-all debate on behalf of it, or they might feel that all their points have already been added to the discussion and worry that people won't appreciate them cutting in just to say "I agree with X". On the other hand, perhaps people would do that, en masse, in which case we're back to a vote, only it'll be a lot messier than proposals and their running tallies. Plus, people could always flock to their friends' aid in discussions just as easily as in proposals, in which case, again, we'd have gained nothing from the change. In response to your comment to Yoshiwaker, just because it worked back then doesn't mean it'll work now, when the community has grown and changed so much over the years. Besides, while there were lots of good discussions back then, users still resorted to votes on three occasions (1, 2, 3) before the proposal system was brought into existence (first spoken of on Archive 10, although obviously you can't get the full story from that section alone), which is rather interesting. And finally, regarding your last comment, I checked the archives and all I found was a failed attempt to remove "per" votes (here), and similarly, both times they were were brought up on the talk pages (here and here), they were left alone. - Walkazo (talk)
leave as is 2-13
All articles should be written with the most updated version of MLA Format. This will help in the eternal preservation of always citing your sources.
Proposer:Plumber (talk) Deadline: July 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Walkazo (talk) - Regulating our reference formatting is a good idea, but I feel like it would be better to go about this by drafting a policy page with our own structure (based on MLA, but tailored to our specific needs) and then making a proposal. A vague, one-sentence statement (with a one-sentence justification) is far to little to go on, especially when hundreds of pages will be effected by the unspecified changes.
Supremo78 (talk) Like MM64 said, it doesn't need to be directly used. Per Walkazo too.
MeritC (talk) Per all; and besides, the citing sources on this wiki is strict enough (and if I'm not mistaken, strictly enforced as well, especially on game articles in which the game in question is still under development stages.
Okay, that is seriously freaky, I was just gonna link to that... :O Phoenix (talk)
Won't this be a massive overhaul of practically every single article on the wiki? Dr Javelin (talk)
I CAN READ YOUR MIND, PHOENIX! I've never found a better source on MLA, so I figured that if I didn't link to it, someone inevitably would. @Dr Javelin: That depends on what exactly needs changing. On that note, Plumber, would you mind clarifying exactly what you propose to do? Mario4Ever (talk)
@Mario4Ever - Yeah, my last two college English teachers practically forced us to use that when typing our assignments, so, needless to say, that was the first thing that popped into my head... Phoenix (talk)
It won't be a massive overhaul of the article on the wiki besides making source clarifications more useful. Wikis adhere to a rough version of MLA anyhow. The effects of this proposal are to be minor. Plumber (talk)
Basically this only changes citations and maybe quotations (like where the periods go and stuff, not the actual templates). Also standardizes the English to American English, but that's already done on the wiki as a whole. Plumber (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Standardizing the English doesn't make sense if the article is already written in British English (or vice-versa). As this is an international wiki, both variations are allowed, and changing one to the other is actually a warnable offense. It sort of operates on a first-come, first-served basis. Mario4Ever (talk)
I agree with Mario4Ever. We made a proposal to stablish that British English can be used here. Coincollector (talk)
Well MLA includes Canada, so I suppose we could grandfather Britain into it. But that's distracting from the main point, which is primarily that of quotation and citation, which so desperately need essential reforms. Plumber (talk)
May you please elaborate on that, because I'm still not sure what you trying to do. Zero777 (talk)
I don't really understand what is going to happen. Could you show us some examples? LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Hello Plumber, are you there? May you please answer our questions? Zero777 (talk)
Just Google MLA Standards sonny ;) Plumber (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
All that does is inform people what MLA is; it does nothing to explain exactly what you plan to do according to its standards (there's quite a lot of info, as you can see when clicking on the above link of mine). Mario4Ever (talk)
Cover Mario Knockoffs
don't cover 1-20
The Super Mario Wiki is a place where everything Mario should be covered. I have checked and we have done well. However, we have only covered the licensed things (as far as I know). The unlicensed things have not been touched. I am talking about knockoff games. Games like Mobario, the mobile "Mario" game for phones and the Great Giana Sisters, the peculiar platform game about two punk girls named Giana and Maria. Since we are the Mario wiki, we should cover everything Mario, licensed or not.
Toadbert101 (talk) I really dont see what the harm in giving them a short paragraph or so on a page called "Mario knock offs" or something would do. And quite honestly, why are people in oppose so angry? Really, its not going to harm anything. Its getting more information on mario-related things that exists out there for the MARIO DATABASE here.
Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) no we shouldnt cover anything that wasnt made, licensed, or published by nintendo cause those things are not official also there was a proposal about this exact thing right here  and it failed miserably so per the arguments in that proposal as well. Also if we cover unlicensed games why not cover flash videos cause they were also based on the mario series.
Walkazo (talk) - Including any fanon would undermine our goal of providing our readers with a complete, factual account of the Mario series (including its equally official spin-offs and crossovers, and the people and organizations who have made all of that possible). If it's not authorized by Nintendo, we're not writing about it. End of story.
Supremo78 (talk) - Like the two above me said, we only talk about the officially licensed games such as the Banjo series spinned off by Rare. Series that are "knockoffs" we don't cover. If we added them, we really wouldn't be a wiki anymore.
MeritC (talk) - No, no, no, no, no, and a million times NO. I don't get upset like this, but this is the Super Mario Wiki for a reason. Knockoffs would ruin the main puropse of why this place is here. So, I say this once again -- NO. And of course, per what the others above me said.
Magikrazy51 (talk) Per all, I was on a serious ice cream sugar rush when I thought up this. Plus it was 2:00 in the morning and I was very tired.
Zero777 (talk) Really? Is this real! How can I say this without being offensive or politically incorrect....... I can't... this is just plain idiotic. Really, just delete this, this will cause chaos. THIS IS MADNESS!! Policy state specifically against this sort of action, so this can be considered unconstitutional.
Shadow34 (talk) – NonononoNO. This isn't the Mario Fanon Wiki, it's for OFFICIAL, CANON, and LICENSED material.
BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Per my opinion on the link Goomba's Shoe gave. Besides, this is so broad, that even if I made a cruddy game, it would have to be covered. There's millions of fan games based on Mario out there, and it would be pointless to cover them all. This is for official stuff only. Cover fan made stuff and etcetera in other wikis. This isn't the place to do it.
Reddragon19k (talk) - Although this is indeed a bad idea to propose this but this is a... PER EVERYONE!!!
Rise Up Above It (talk) No. Thirty-six times no. There are too many random, crappy and/or obscure fanon games lurking around. This is definitely a proposal that is very untenable. But what about the possibility of adding sections for fan-made products like the stuff found on Etsy under the Merchandise page? Nah, that'll get shot down with just as much vigour as this proposal.
Bowser's luma (talk) If we do that, there would be tons of arguments about what is "worthy" of being covered and what is not. People will be like "oh, I wrote a story about Mario. Let's make an article." We don't need that - anyway we only cover canon stuff to begin with. If I typed something uncanon in an article, it would be reverted. It's the same type of thing, just with a whle article.
ThirdMarioBro (talk) If we did this, we would have articles on inappropiate games and animations, like Mario Hardcore and Dumba** Mario, and, therefore, doing this would be detrimental for the wiki. Per all.
Superfiremario (talk) Seriously, this is a wiki on OFFICIAL Mmario things lisenced by Nintendo. NOT a fanon wiki.
@Magikrazy51: The first three days of a proposal, you can change things to it. Along with that, you can delete your proposal. If you don't like this proposal, you can delete it. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
Why do so many people oppose this when we have this page? - Mas0n 17:38, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
Those are references to legitimate characters and games, which is different from, say, Super Mario Bros. Z, which uses a hodge-podge of Nintendo and Sega sprites to create an unofficial series. Mario4Ever (talk)
One thing I don't understand is why one opposer is being disrespectful to Magikrazy. You shouldn't be mean to a user just because he has an idea that he thought should be added. Supremo78 (talk)
Something else ive noticed is that most of the opposer's reasons for opposing are all terrible and make no sense.toadbert
@Supremo78:If you mean Zero, his criticism is not an ad hominem attack; he just disapproves of the proposal. @Toadbert101: How is saying we only cover Nintendo-licensed content a terrible and nonsensical reason, for that is more or less what everyone is saying thus far. Mario4Ever (talk)
Actually all of them have the same theme; we don't cover unlicensed games. Other than that, it's a "per all". Supremo78 (talk)
Covering bootlegs and ripoffs would either result in 1: a truckload of short articles about crappy Famicom hacks with names like Hyper Mario 3D Blast Z 2 clogging up the wiki or 2: an unholy huge list that nobody would actually read (there a lot of these things). Listing the mind-bending products of Chinese bootleggers is "fun" and "informative" in the same way listing vague storytelling patterns without analysis or context is "fun", but at the end, it's not really useful and after a certain limit, it's just repetitive noise. And that's not getting into fanworks, oooooh boy.
That being said, some of the oppose reasons are really petulant. /seriously/. --Glowsquid 18:11, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
@Toadbert101: You shouldn't be supporting this proposal then. Your suggesting something else that could far-fetch out shot maybe, probably not possible, but this proposal has a different idea and outcome. Zero777 (talk)
Philips was given the rights to use Mario for that game. It doesn't qualify as a Mario knockoff, if that's what you're implying. Mario4Ever (talk)
Yeah Hotel Mario is an official game that was created with the permission of Nintendo Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
@Zero 777: THIS IS THE SUPER MARIO WIKI! Sorry, I just had to get that old joke aside. Anyways, back to my point.
@everyone: What inspired me to make this proposal (aside from the sugar rush and tiredness) was this little story. I was searching the Muppet Wiki for reasons unknown when I came across an article wntitled "Blue Big Bird Knockoff Plush Toys". I searched it and wondered if we had any knockoff articles (BTW, the tag on the toy said "Cookie Monster" for some reason). I searched for both Mobario and The Great Giana Sisters, but no results. So basically, a big blue bird named Cookie Monster told me to do this. Magikrazy51 (talk)
The SMW shows info on every official thing about the Marioverse, not some knock-offs; I can make a broken program for the crappiest Super Mario Bros. knockoff and it will still be here, that will make it look childish and bad. Chances are that this Muppets Wiki is infact a Wikia, Wikias have a reputation for being unprofessional, unorganized, and straight out dumb looking (no offense to anyone who is a user in one). Zero777 (talk)
Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - We have had a past proposal dealing with the issue. In that proposal, we decided to change it to how it currently is. Beta Elements and Quotes and those other pages are Pagename/(BE or Quote) strictly because Gallery is more universal. Galleries can involve a character, a game, a comic, etc., while Beta Elements and Quotes are really just for games.
leave as is 7-44
Well, I think that there shouldn't be Donkey Kong things here. Why? Beacause its caled Super MARIO wiki, not Super MARIO AND DONKEY KONG Wiki! Right? Yeah, thats right! Another wiki could be made, and it just needs ALOT of copy and pasting. Here, look:    
Proposer: Bjdill (talk) Deadline: August 2, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Kirbyftw28 (talk) That would be awesome. DK has had enough games of his own. He was even an unlockable character in one of the "Punch Out" games. Was Mario? No! DK even has his own category for the SSB series. Also, DK never appears in any major mario games. So why should he appear on this wiki. MAKE A DONKEY KONG WIKI!
Mpeng (talk)Mario and DK started out in the same game, so that should stay, but now DKCR has about as much to do with Mario as Gran Turismo.
Solar Dragon (talk)There is a DK wiki out there so the content should be exclusively there. All this wiki is doing is taking the focus away from DK wiki. I feel the same for the Super Smash Bros. content.
Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) per my comments below and Donkey Kong is a parent series with Mario much like how we cover Yoshi and Wario despite the fact that both of them have branched off into there own franchises so Donkey Kong should be no different. And as Steve and Tucayo said here  we will no change are policy.
BoygeyMario (talk) Per GS15. Donkey Kong does appear in the Mario series. So we should have DK info on this wiki.
Magikrazy51 (talk) In the words of Sam Beckett, "oh, boy". In the words of many Wiki users, "Per all". In the words of Homsar, "DaAaAaAaA I'm the human wedgie".
Zero777 (talk) This is as ridiculous as the Mario Knockoffs proposal, per all. But to be serious or respectful with a reason, there are too many tie-ins and loops in, around, and out of the two characters.
Toad85 (talk) Donkey Kong is part of the Mario series, if you hadn't noticed. We can discuss a Donkey Kong wiki if Donkey Kong is also kept in the Mario wiki, and Mario has a place in the Kong wiki. Yoshi and Luigi have their own games, should they have seperate wikis? Of course not, and even if they did, Mario would still be there.
Marwikedor (talk) Um, how about NOOOOOOOO! Donkey Kong is a MARIO character. Everything that happens in games of his franchise is also canonical to Mario's universe, and must have full coverage. Mario Wiki is not only the world's greatest database for Mario information, it is also the world's greatest database for DK information, Wario information, Luigi, Peach, Waluigi, Daisy information, and every character that exists in his universe. By the same stupid argument, because Wario has his own franchise he should not be covered here. Idiotic nonsence!
M&SG (talk) - The Super Mario Wiki covers the whole Mario Universe, which includes the Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario series'.
Goomblob (talk) - Isn't right delete something about the Mario universe, because, DK is a Mario character.
Phoenix (talk) According to MarioWiki:Coverage, information about Donkey Kong is perfectly acceptable on this wiki. I'll admit that I don't know very much about the Donkey Kong series aside from its periodic convergence with Mario games, but given that Mario's first ever appearance was in a DK game, it wouldn't seem very appropriate to remove all of the Donkey Kong information from the wiki, even if the presence of the information wasn't sanctioned by MarioWiki:Coverage.
Superfiremario (talk) The DK Wiki exists. Also, we cover Yoshi and Wario. We would have to delete those too.
Damariogamr (talk) 1. Donkey Kong is a part of the Mario franchise and 2. Isn't there a DK Wiki already?
Jjrapper100 (talk) Donkey Kong is part of the mario series he has appeared in a couple of Mario games I consider this failed.
Bowser's luma (talk) <sarcasm> Sure, let's delete a major chunk of the wiki </sarcasm> Per all.
Byllant (talk) - Per all, if we applied this, otherwise then we would have to remove Smash Bros., Pokémon, Zelda, etc., from our coverage just because they are external to the Super Mario Wiki.
yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) Are you forgetting where Mario came from?This is Mario Wiki,not just Super Mario Bros wiki.It covers everything related to mario.
SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per all. Also, Donkey Kong appears in many Mario games, as well as many of the Kongs. King K. Rool and the Kritters even appeared in Mario Super Sluggers, a MARIO game, so why shouldn't we have them here?
Tails777 (talk) D.K., I believe, is part of the Mario series. In fact, it was both Mario AND D.K. that started the Mario series and Donkey Kong series. Plus there are a lot of Donkey Kong articles on this wiki, that is a lot of work to delete them all.
MasterToad (talk) On the main page It lists the Nintendo Wikis the 5th one is DK wiki
SKmarioman (talk) There's already a DK wiki. Besides, if this proposal passed, then we'd have to make a Yoshi Wiki and Wario Wiki wouldn't we?
SuperLuigiBros. (talk) Per all. Think back to Donkey Kong in 1981. You could think of it as a Mario game with Donkey Kong, or a Donkey Kong game with Mario. There is NO reason to move all of this info. By the way, there already is a Donkey Kong Wiki, also in NIWA.
Super Waluigi (talk) - YOU CRAZY? HE IS AN OFFICIAL CHARACTER OF TEH Mario series... What? Are we going to say no DK in Mario Kart 64? No so :p.
Cobold (talk) - We did have a Donkey Kong wiki in the early days of the Super Mario Wiki, and it failed because of lack of activity.
EmperorYoshi (talk) Well, the Donkey Kong series and Mario series are closely tied together, and we cover information on characters in the "Smash Bros." series. Also, Donkey Kong appears in Mario games from time to time, how do you suggest we go about that? I really don't see a reason to create another Wiki and post all the Donkey Kong information there.
MarioComix (talk) Firstly, there is already a DK Wiki. Donkey Kong has appeared in many games with Mario, in almost every spin-off, and now even more DK characters (Diddy Kong, Dixie Kong, Tiny Kong, Funky Kong, King K. Rool, Kritter) are appearing in the Mario spin-offs. And so what if Donkey Kong did not appear in a mainstream Mario game (excluding Donkey Kong)? Waluigi never did either. Nor did Toadette or Baby Daisy. And even if Donkey Kong cameoed in Punch-Out!! Wii, Mario cameoed in the same series even before that. Per all, especially EmperorYoshi.
Rise Up Above It (talk) Hmmm. Nothing left to do but say "Per all" since all possible arguments have been used up. This is an awful idea. Per all.
Supremo78 (talk) Like the person above me said, this was a horrible idea. Per all.
Twentydragon (talk) In recent years, the Mario and Donkey Kong series have been re-merging, to the point where Diddy, Dixie, Funky, Kritters, and even Tiny have all now appeared in Mario games (see MarioComix's comment above). For all intents and purposes, the Donkey Kong "series" is more a subseries, akin to MarioKart and the Yoshi series. There's already a DK Wiki, too, but in the interest of succinctness and clarity, I'd even be in favor of moving the contents of that wiki into this one.
Another one of these proposals... There's already a DK Wiki out there, and it has separate information than this Wiki. Mario and Donkey Kong have appeared together in games for ages. Both series are extremely close, and even some characters that started out in the DK series have gone into Mario games, such as Diddy, Dixie, and Funky Kong. Also, the Mario and DK series both started with the original [[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong game, which belongs to both series. Removing information that is fine here will simply downgrade the Mario Wiki, and it will make it inconsistent if we still have Yoshi and Wario game info. More information is here. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
Steve said we will not change are policy on the NIWA forums there was an agreement prior to the DK Wiki joining NIWA that we would not change are policy Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
There are many things I can say about this. One is that we cover all the playable characters in the Smash Bros series. So by the logic of this proposal, we should stop covering all those characters as well because there is already a wiki for them. Second is that Donkey Kong is a major character of the Mario series. Much like Yoshi and Wario, he branched into his own series as well, but he still appears in lots of Mario spin off games. So what I'm saying is that D.K. is a part of the Mario series and should not be removed from this wiki. Tails777 (talk)
I completely disagree with you there. Donkey Kong Island is part of the Mushroom World, just like Yoshi's Island and Diamond City. For characters like Banjo, Link, and Kirby though, they're not Mario Universe characters, nor are their home locations (Spiral Mountain, Hyrule, and Dream Land respectively), so only their crossover information is accepted on the Mario Wiki. M&SG (talk)
New rule for images
leave as is 1-19
As you can see, the PNGs have better quality than JPGs. And I've seen some good quality PNG artwork get replaced with JPGs with worse quality & I think it's best to have images with the best possible quality. So I suggest that we add a new rule. The rule is that we don't allow PNG artwork to be converted to JPGs so that the quality of the images are better.
Walkazo (talk) - We should use the image that has the better quality. Usually it's a PNG, but sometimes it's a JPG, so saying one is always preferable to the other is a bad idea: it's better to be flexible and come at these things on a case-by-case basis.
LeftyGreenMario (talk) I don't like JPG sprites, but I believe this rule is too inflexible. The main reason people convert PNG to JPG is to save space while making the colors less precise. You can notice the difference if you load a JPG image compared to a PNG image of the same size.
Mpeng (talk)If you take a bad PNG and convert it to a JPG, the result is still a bad image file.
GameFreak2600 (talk) JPG does not necessarily mean worse quality. The source online is usually what renders bad quality, and attempting to convert it to PNG won't magically fix JPG noise. JPG noise is usually induced by lossy quality compression from programs such as MSPaint. Adobe Photoshop and other highend programs have relatively lossless compression. If JPG meant bad quality, high end DSLR cameras would not utilize the format.
Yes that is true. Not all the images start with PNG. If we convert them their memory can go past the maximum memory which is bad. We have to keep some images JPG so their memory won't overload. Sprites we can convert to PNG cuz the are small.YoshiGo99 (talk)
@BoygeyMario: Even if that is the case in some instances, it's not something with which everyday readers are going to be concerned. Mario4Ever (talk)
Look, I didn't say we're gonna get rid of all JPGs. We just need to keep PNGs for their good quality. BoygeyMario (talk)
@BoygeyMario: There's a 10 MB limit for the files we can upload. While PNG is better than JPG, it uses more memory, which is a major flaw when you want to upload very large images. M&SG (talk)
...isn't this similar to the PNG Images proposal that just happened? Or it could lead to the problem that it dealt with. Rise Up Above It (talk)
All these pages are rather hidden and very unneeded; for example, the troll page is unnecessary because users will figure out what is a troll if they never heard of one, I have. I stumble across all these pages when I typed down in the search "How can I be an admin?" and it was in a pile of search results, AFTER I tweak the search options a bit.
I suggest to copy, paste, and alter the information into Userpedia.
A few of those pages have a list of questions, so in this proposal, it proposes to move those questions to the FAQ page.
A few of them have a link to the list of current admins, sysops, bureaucrats, etc. I propose to move those links into the welcome letter every user now gets for easy access just in case of a situation of sorts.
Note: For all you opposers, what do you propose to do with these pages about the part that they are hidden?
Proposer:Zero777 (talk) Deadline: August 5, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Walkazo (talk) - All the pages have the potential to be informative (like MarioWiki:Autoconfirmed users). Why force people to dig through the FAQ when we can have specific pages they can go to? Having lots of pages link to the lists is better than just the Welcome letter, which some people never really pay much attention to (I've seen lots of people simply remove it). The wiki's policy pages are largely a work in progress: it's better to let the admins deal with them, rather than forcing things to happen with a Proposal. And whatever happens, linking to Userpedia for basic information about how the wiki is set up is a VERY bad idea: we're running the risk of dealing with fanon-strewn pages like this, whereas we can ensure that our pages are professional and authoritative.
Phoenix (talk) None of the above pages are really unneeded: they're there for a reason, and each one of them serves a purpose. If and when (new) users need information on certain things, it's important that we have pages where they can go to find out what they need to know quickly and easily. Saying that users will be able to figure something out on their own is not really a good reason to delete them. While that may be true for some, it may not necessarily be true for others, and a new user who may never have used a wiki before in their life shouldn't have to witness their talk page being mercilessly vandalized by a troll to figure out what one is if the same end result can be achieved by reading a page about trolls instead.
M&SG (talk) - Those pages exist to help users know what their status abilities are. After all, if any user gets promoted to an administrator ranked status (Patroller, Sysop, Bureaucrat), that user has to follow ALL the rules, regardless of experience.
Super Mario Bros. (talk) – To quote somebody, "This is as ridiculous as the Mario Knockoffs proposal, per all." Also, stop suggesting we move things to Userpedia. That comment is directed at everybody. The Userpedia staff should be consulted on anything of that sort, and the suggestion is haphazardly thrown around without a bit of thought behind what Userpedia is going through, how much Userpedia is trying to fix up, and how ridiculous dumping stuff from here is. And we need these pages anyway, so yeah.
MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all, mostly Walkazo and SMB. Userpedia isn't just a dump for this information.
Not Bugsy (talk) - Per all. You never know when a user might need these pages, so it's best to have these on hand.
MeritC (talk) Forgive me if I'm sounding crazy on this vote, but if this gets removed, it's going to do nothing but create a WHOLE LOT OF CONFUSION about which users belong to which group. The layout we have here is fine as it is. So IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE CHANGED. Period.
Mpeng (talk) I actually found some of those pages really useful when I made my account here a while ago. Don't fix something that's not broken.
Jjrapper100 (talk) Those pages are useful for beginners you never know when you need it.
Access to the current lists of patrollers and sysops is in the welcome message already. Mario4Ever (talk)
The deadline was wrong. Wrong day, wrong time. - Walkazo (talk)
@Walkazo: The FAQ page isn't that big, so users can go there and see the question they are looking for if we put the correct title on it. As mentioned, the list is there in the welcome letter, but if it isn't there is no problem in doing so. If the staff really believe this is for the worst and will be unconstitutional for this proposal to pass, they can remove with a reason. And I suggested to move the words (copy and paste) in the page and move it to the respectful article. I checked out the articles and there won't be a problem because the info has been separated by paragraph that one can obviously tell which one is the real informative one and which paragraph is fanon. Zero777 (talk)
They're not hidden. In the case of new users, they're easily accessible via the welcome message (which I'm sure doesn't get deleted at least without being read). Say a user wants to ask a sysop something. He or she clicks the link in the welcome message and is directed to a list of sysops. If he or she does not know what a sysop is, he or she clicks the word sysop next to the name of a user and is directed to MarioWiki:Administrators, from which most of the other pages can be accessed in the "See Also" section. Alternatively, a user can become familiar enough with one or more users to ask for any information that he or she cannot find on his or her own. It's better to let users ask for help than to force them to find such information such as is in these pages by coincidence and not understand it. Mario4Ever (talk)
You know that the MarioWiki:Admin page doesn't have a list of Sysops, it has a link which redirects to a list that look similar to a watchlist. And everyone else, stop saying that I am dumping, like trash dumping, info into the Userpedia, the respectful articles are barely edit with and the info present in these pages can massively help those individual articles. But really, how can we advertise these pages more because I don't think the Welcome letter will cut it as Walkazo said. Zero777 (talk)
We can link to them whenever the terms come up on MarioWiki and Help pages, like how we link to articles on the wiki. For example, MW:Admins is linked to on this page and both the blocking and warning policy pages (and the latter also links to the lists of Sysops and Patrollers, as does MarioWiki:Courtesy). Pertaining to your earlier comment, the questions are only extra content anyway: the main point of the pages is the information - information that users should not have to go to another website to find. Userpedia may be about the users of this wiki, but it is not officially affiliated with us and we do not, and should never, rely on it for anything, least of all administrative material. As for the prospect of the admins forcibly removing the proposal, we'd only do that as a last resort: as explained here, if something we're not keen on can still be voted down by the community as a whole, we'd rather let the proposal run its course and give everyone a chance to have their say. - Walkazo (talk)
vetoed by the administrators If Steve says "no", the proposal is dead. End of story.
In a lot of galleries, people use "<perrow>" Some of the use is necessary because the gallery section has 30+ pictures. Most of it is used for sections with less than fifteen pictures. I think we should make a new rule. This rule would be called "Perrow".
Here is what the rule would look like:
If galleries have less than twenty images, no perrow.
If galleries have more than twenty-five images, perrow can be used.
Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk) Proposed Deadline: August 13, 2011 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: August 7, 2011, 18:03 GMT
DKPetey99 (talk) It's kind of annoying me how people use perrow for every gallery. Even sections with exactly five pictures.
I was trying to contact Porplemontage, regarding that, but I got no response. However, it seems that 5 images per row is way too big, especially since guests have to deal with advertisements that'll pop up. Galleries have to be able to support 1024x768 resolution monitors, which heavily explains why only 4 images are seen per row on each gallery. M&SG (talk)
Got no response? Anyway, you are correct. We can't use more than 4 per row, so this proposal is worthless. --Porplemontage (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
Coding. Basically, it changes the number of images per row to whatever number you input, rather than the default of 4. See here to see how it works, but remember that only perrow=3 or less is allowed now (that perrow=5 has since been removed). - Walkazo (talk)
Reality vs. Fiction
remove generic items that do not differentiate from their real world counterparts 40-0
I was going to make this a Writing Guideline, but I figured I'd get some approval via proposal before I created my draft. A new trend on the wiki is to create articles on generic objects, like Tennis Ball, Basketball Hoop, and Cage. The main problem with this is where does it stop? Allowing these articles could be precedent for a number of useless generic articles being created, such as Mud, Tree, Soccer Field, etc.. MarioWiki is also not a dictionary. We don't need articles on real world objects. I believe we should set a restriction for which of these generic articles can and can't be created. We should only allow articles on generic subjects that have a function which is different from the real world counterpart.
Examples of generic object articles that would be allowed:
What about food items like Peach and Strawberry? Would they be deleted because they don't deviate, at least as far as we know, from the real-world food, other than the fact that they are items to be collected? --The Great Toad85 Is Here. 08:50, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Since both of those items are collectible, usable, and important to the story they won't be going. The Writing Guideline I'm going to propose after this proposal will be much more detailed with all the exceptions. I just wanted people on board with the general idea before I attempted to create a Writing Guideline.--Knife (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
@YL: While that is a good idea, we should only do it for subjects which readers are not knowledgeable about. For instance, if we start linking Basketball to the Wikipedia article every time it's mentioned, we'd have a ton of unnecessary links for something that nearly everyone knows about. A good place to use a Wikipedia link, for example, would be that link to Pulsar in the trivia section of the Pulsar article.--Knife (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
Using Another Country's Boxart
do not use only american box arts 3-31
As you can see, many articles such as (New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Mario Smash Football, Mario Strikers Charged Football) and many more game articles are using other country's boxart and naming them as in that country such as Mario Strikers Charged Football even though in America we call it (Mario Strikers Charged) No Football I understand that the first English country goes first but I think we should make it the American verison instead and am not saying that we take off all the information from another country but just to change the name of the game by the American verison and change the boxart of the game to the American verison only not much more if possible.
BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Our policy states that we take the first, English boxart released, which could even mean in Australia or Europe. I don't think there's anything wrong with that policy. It's not like the USA is the only English speaking country you know?
ThirdMarioBro (talk) Per BLOF. By the way, this proposal is better off on the Mariowiki: Proposals page. Never mind, Walkazo fixed that.
BoygeyMario (talk) Per All. This wiki has a lot of European users & guests.
Jazama (talk)Per all. I have seen attempts like this at other wikis and they always fail because people from from around the world use the internet.
Mario4Ever (talk) Per all. If you want a wiki based solely on North American naming and writing standards, go elsewhere.
Walkazo (talk) - While there are organizational pros to only using one region for naming stuff, the issue keeps being turned into a political one, which just makes me shake my head. In my opinion, both Americanism and Anti-Americanism should be kept off the wiki; a purely International approach (including how we use both American and British spelling, grammar and punctuation conventions) is, plain and simply, the best way to keep things nice and unbiasedly inclusive towards everyone. So, in the absence of any strong organizational/comprehensiveness-based reasoning behind such a controversial and major upheaval of our fundamental policies (as is the case here), it's best to adhere to that Internationalism - that status quo that has been serving us perfectly well for years.
GameZone (talk) I have two questions about this proposal. One: Why on earth would you want those names changed, as all countries are different? Two: No one other than you would post an proposal like this. Are you against other countries? AND I shall Per Toad85.
TurniPowerup (talk)Um... This wiki is international, and let's keep it that way. Per all, especially Walkazo,Toad85,BLOF,Game Zone and BogeyMario!
Mechawave (talk) - We had a proposal talking about this. It was decided which region the game was released in first determines its title. I find this reasonable and not everyone abides by American English.
I moved this here from talk:SNMBWii because it is, in no way, a TPP: it is proposing we change our naming conventions, which is affects the entire database, not just that one article. I also fixed the deadline (it was originally 10 days, which isn't the proper length for TPPs or normal Proposals). The title should also be changed, since it is a misnomer: this is not just about which boxart we should use, this is about the names of our articles. - Walkazo (talk)
@BabyLuigiOnFire Where does it says that we should use the first internationl english boxart? We have no polices about it as far as I know. SWFlash (talk)
Well, you (SWFlash) helpfully put it on Template:Game infobox a couple months ago (and I tweaked the wording a bit): "|image= Box art of the game (take the first released English-language box art)". Also, when the First English Name proposal was enacted, replacing the images was part of the changes made to the articles that were renamed from NA titles to PAL. I'm not sure if it was said that we had to do it anywhere, but it made sense for the image to match the title, and for consistency, using the first English language boxart simply became the way things were done even if the names were the same (although I am not aware of how long that took or how many pages were updated and whatnot). - Walkazo (talk)
In order to be fair to the regions who speak English outside of North America, if a game gets released in the PAL region first, we use the PAL names. If a game gets released in the NTSC-U region first, we use the NTSC-U names. Since Mario Kart Wii was released in the PAL region first, we use the PAL names and PAL boxarts, while the NTSC-U names are redirects; Ex.: Flame Runner redirects to Bowser Bike. Likewise, Wario Land: Shake It! was released in the NTSC-U region first, so we use the NTSC-U names and NTSC-U boxarts, while the PAL names are redirects. M&SG (talk)
People often use the term PAL to refer to both Europe and Australia, because the European game names, boxarts etc. are often the same as the one from Australia, but not always. In the case of WarioWare: Smooth Moves, Europe got a Yellow box and Australia a Pink box. Because it released first in Europe, the European box should be used on top of the page. Don't mix it up with the Australian, just because the box also has the word PAL on it. Also don't forget that terms like PAL and NTSC only occur for home-consoles and not handhelds, since PAL and NTSC are analog television colour encoding systems. Arend (talk)
Thanks for "Per-ing" me, TurniPowerup. That was very generous and thoughtful of you. As soon as you have a page, I would like to be friends with you. :) GameZone (talk)
We could make the PAL name a redirect to the English page, and just note its PAL name in the first sentence. TyphlosionBlaze (talk)
@TyphlosionBlaze: Confusing to American users? If this proposal passes, imagine how confusing it's going to be to non-American users (which is basically most of the rest of the world). MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
leave as is 4-26
Since the game Super Smash Bros. has a similar name with Super Mario Bros., people thought it was a Mario title. So people created a Super Smash Bros. page on MarioWiki. Then someone created a number of useless articles such as Zelda and Lucario. MarioWiki should not have articles about Pokemon and Zelda, that is the work of Bulbapedia and ZeldaWiki. There is even a SmashWiki to hold Super Smash Bros. information. All of the info in MarioWiki on Super Smash Bros. should be about Mario characters only. We should remove all Pokemon and Zelda articles.
Proposer: leetc (talk) Deadline: August 19, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Jman2401 (talk) Up to a point I agree anything not Mario releated should be taken off. But I think stats should be left on
wildgoosespeeeder (talk) I agree with that argument only to some point. Articles that contain cameos from game series not from the Mario universe link to their designated Wiki. SSB articles should link SSB-specific characters/items to SmashWiki. Keep the games SSB, SSBM, and SSBB because they contain Mario characters/items but the contents of those games should be linked to SmashWiki.
Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) We have these articles cause their mandated by are coverage policy which i believe calls the Super Smash Bros. series a spin off of the Mario Series. And we've had this conversation before both on this wiki and on the NIWA forums themselves and we always come to the same decision so per those fights and per our coverage policy
Zero777 (talk) One, offensive, two, I think the Smash Wiki copied and altered the info originally from the Mario Wiki, and your proposal isn't done right, and three, Per Goomba's Shoe15.
Lakituthequick (talk) The Super Smash Bros. series are sort of spin off, and for that reason all the characters have to be on THIS site too. Per first two.
Super Mario Bros. (talk) – To remove our Super Smash Bros. content is to remove our status as a wiki aiming to completely cover the Mario franchise. The Super Smash Bros. series is a crossover of many games: we do not have complete coverage on the characters that are not a part of the general Mario series, but our Coverage Policy clearly dictates that we cover crossover games that feature Mario, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and/or Wario characters in them. SmashWiki is likely to cover Super Smash Bros. far more in-depth than we do, and we even link to them in our articles (and will continue to link to them as they are a Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance member). There is then no need to remove our coverage, as we do reference a better source for the series throughout our wiki, yet that does not compromise our mission to completely cover our stuff. It has worked fine, and will continue to work fine.
Reddragon19k (talk) I'm going with SMB on this one. If we remove that, it is all gone so, let's keep it there!
Walkazo (talk) - Per SMB. Crossovers count as Mario games; we have to talk about their non-Mario content as it pertains to those crossover games or we'd be missing valuable information about our series' subjects. We don't write about what goes on in the non-Mario subjects' parent series (that's what interwiki linking and NIWA is for), so that shouldn't be a problem to start with. Organization-wise, I personally don't consider crossovers to be on the same tier as the overall Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong or Wario series, but the individual crossover series are just as important as the sub-series that come from these "big 4", just as alternate media is as important as games. It doesn't matter if it's a Super Smash Bros. game or a Paper Mario game or an episode of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!: if it involves Mario content, it's part of our content.
Knife (talk) – We treat the SSB series just like we do the the other crossover games, which all have their own character articles as well (see: Knuckles and Slime). We can't not cover something just because we are affiliated with other wikis that cover the same subjects.
GameZone (talk) Um... this would be saying that we would have to remove Mario's, Dr. Mario's, Luigi's, Peach's, Donkey Kong's, Diddy Kong's, Bowser's, Yoshi's, Wario's, Mr. Game Watch's, and Sonic's Super Smash Bros. information, which all 11 characters are part of this wiki. We would also have remove stage information about (Princess) Peach's Castle, (Super Mario World:) Yoshi's Island(: Yoshi's Story), Kongo Jungle, Mushroom(y) Kingdom (II), Rainbow Cruise, Jungle Japes, Flat Zone (2), Delfino Plaza, Mario Circuit, Rumble Falls, WarioWare Inc., Smashville, PictoChat, Luigi's Mansion, 75m, Mario Bros., and Green Hill Zone, which are also important to this wiki. Oh, and we would have to remove Smash Bros. item info about Bob-ombs, Fire Flowers, Green Shells, Hammers, Red Shells, Starmen, Barrel Cannons, Flippers, Freezies, Metal Boxes, Poison Mushrooms, Super Mushroom, Bike Pieces, Golden Hammers, Hotheads, Lightning, Pitfall Seeds, Soccer Balls, Springs, and Super Scopes, as they are just as important, too. Oh, and, we would have to remove the Smash Bros. information on the Assist Trophies: Hammer Bro., Kat and Ana, Lakitu and Spinies, Little Mac, Nintendog, Shadow the Hedgehog, Stafy, and Waluigi, which are ALSO important to this wiki. So, that "upgrade" would ruin the wiki. If you want to troll, go to the StrategyWiki.
Propeller Toad (talk) The Smash Bros. series is a franchise that is directly linked to the Mario Bros. franchise. All of the characters from Smash Bros. have interacted with the Mario characters in the series and thus should be mentioned in this wiki as they have interacted with the Mario series at one or more points of time.
Jjrapper100 (talk) Per all. The Smash Bros. series are all Nintendo characters such as Pokemon, Zelda, Samus and more every Smash Bros character are Nintendo and Mario related
Geniusguy445 (talk) We're supposed to cover the info that relates to Mario in any way. And as far as I can tell, we've done that. There are even links, I believe, on the crossover articles to where users can get more information on those characters outside SSB. Sooo per all, including those opposing on every other proposal that's cover this same thing.
Chicken (talk) that is a stupid idea per Goomba's shoe 15
Learn to format proposals correctly, please. - Walkazo (talk)
@SFM: What are you talking about? We don't cover Zelda or Pokemon. Yoshiwaker (talk)
@Yoshiwakerwaker: Yes we do. We have character articles for characters from those series. Smileymiley5001 (talk)
We have articles for the characters who appear in the SSB games, but covering a series means having extensive information on them, like Bulbapedia and Zeldawiki with Pokemon and Legend of Zelda. Yoshiwaker (talk)
@GameZone we would still cover information that is about Mario in the Smash series we just wouldn't have articles on characters like Ike or Meta Knight we would keep any article that was impacted by or directly from the Mario series. Also this mans not a troll some people do not believe we should cover the Smash Bros. series and he's got every right to propose we don't with out being called a troll just like how we as a wiki have every right to decide we do want to cover the Smash Bros. series with out being called trolls Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
@Leetc I will not remove Super Smash Bros. info on Mario characters. I will only remove Super Smash Bros. info on Pokemon and Zelda.
You know, that's an even worse idea than removing SSB from our coverage. If we're going to cover SSB in the character articles, we'd then make the game article, then we'd make articles for the other playable characters. Yoshiwaker (talk)
I'm going to quote this comment:
@Leetc I will not remove Super Smash Bros. info on Mario characters. I will only remove Super Smash Bros. info on Pokemon and Zelda.
Well that just made this proposal look even worse. You won't remove Metroid series games info, Pikmin info, and F-Zero info. That's very inconsistent. Supremo78 (talk)
@Chicken: You don't have to make fun of leetc's idea. He's just trying to express his ideas and you're bringing him down. Shorten it to "per Goomba's Shoe 15" or whatever. Magikrazy51 (talk)
The fact still remains that Pokémon and Zelda are in a game that includes the Mario Universe. As a result, we are allowed to have information about their Smash Bros. involvement at the Mario Wiki. Remember, we do cover crossovers and cameos, but we do not cover series' that don't involve Mario, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, or Wario. M&SG (talk)
leave as is 2-13
We have articles for Super Mario 64 DS and Super Mario Bros. Deluxe and even Donkey Kong Original Edition.But why not any gamein the Super Mario Advance (series). Alot of theses games are alot diffrent than the originals. Espically the 4th.Something nees to be done.Either delete DK:The Original Edition of do whats mentioned above.Thank you.
Toad85 (talk) Per proposal. There's enough different about the games that should guarantee their own pages. If not, who's up for deleting Super Mario Bros. Deluxe and Donkey Kong: Original Edition? Oh, and how about we delete Wii Family Edition or Blue Toad?
Supremo78 (talk) - The only reason we have those is because those games have major changes. For example, SM64DS gained 3 new characters, all new missions, and added minigames. For SMBD, there were all new enemies, and there was a world you went on to go to different different levels, just like SMB3. Super Mario Advance series only has minor differences, and if there was a SMA (series), that would just really make a stub. And honestly, I don't know why DKOE has its own article.
Walkazo (talk) - Per Supremo78; per the reasons given for merging the pages in the first place, and keeping them that way until now (for reference, here's a failed attempt to re-split them from last December). Also, Donkey Kong Original Edition should be merged as soon as this proposal is over.
DKPetey99 (talk) Per Supremo78. Also, in the Super Mario Advance games, many new additions are added. Thus, making the games different.
Super Yoshi Bros. 3 (talk) All that changes is a couple of sprites, the fact that it is now a GBA game, and the 2-player Mario Bros that they stick on it.
I might be willing to support if the articles you linked to weren't red links. Reversinator (talk)
Wait your proposal doesn't give the option to not delete the Donkey Kong Original edition article. Because as you say in your proposal either we delete the Donkey Kong Original Edition article or give the Super Mario Advance series articles, so theirs no option to simply not give the Super Mario Advance series separate articles. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
lose it 12-0
Almost all the microgame pages from WarioWare: Smooth Moves have a section called Form. I think these sections must be delected because the infobox already have the Form description.
Proposer: Goomblob (talk)
Deadline: August 24, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Zero777 (talk) Screw the examples, I looked it up myself to see if he was right and he is. This thing I believe can be swung by the staff, but proposals are good ways. So I find the form section useless also.
Wait a second, but what about the "Forms" article itself? I'm a bit confused here... is that article going to stay (because it's fine as it is). MeritC (talk)
No he's only referring to the forms section in the microgame articles. Zero777 (talk)
leave as is 5-14
As you can see when starting a Nintendo DS game, every game has an 32×32px icon. I think we should add these to the DS game articles like this:
The Super Mario Wiki is a wiki about the Mario series and its related series, Wario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, and Super Smash Bros. It has many articles, such as Super Mario Bros., Super Mario World, New Super Mario Bros., Bowser, Extra Life, Goomba and much more. In most of these games, such as New Super Mario Bros., the plumber Mario saves Princess Peach from Bowser, who is the main antagonist. ...
Edit: As most icons are transparant and jpg is low quality, images should be png or gif.
Walkazo (talk) - It would be inconsistent with the games from every other console (which don't have icons). Also, having images in the top left corner as well as the one in the infobox to the right looks sloppy, imho (it's not so bad if there's a quote above the paragraph, but while this is common with the consoles and their slogans, it's not really a solution for game pages). It'd be good to have the icons on the pages - just not in the introduction.
I don't understand exactly what you want to do. Could you explain a bit more? Yoshiwaker (talk)
As you see when you startup a DS game, it has an icon. My plan is to add those icons to the topleft corner of the pages the icon belongs to: New Super Mario Bros. gets the yellow square with Mario's face on it. Lakituthequick (talk)
I like the idea, but we already have the box cover art, and most articles already have a bunch of pictures. Would these additional images add any value to the pages? Brock1221 (talk)
We want to cover everything about Mario (licenced), that icon is part of the game it belongs to. I never saw one on any page on this wiki. Lakituthequick (talk)
I think they should be uploaded, sure, but I think they should just go in the gallery or something, not have a really prominent place on the page. Yoshiwaker (talk)
@Lakituthequick: like I said in my vote, having a quotation above the paragraph (as with most, if not all the consoles) negates the sloppy appearance, seeing as the image isn't actually in the corner anymore, it's buffered by text. Also, the logo's a lot more self-explanatory than a DS icon, and not all icon designs loan themselves to simply floating frameless on the page, unlike the backgroundless logos; trying to ameliorate that with thumbnails and explanations would clutter the introductions up way too much. Furthermore, having the logo and the slogan up at the top across from a picture of the console and the infobox filled with the basic information is an efficient way to get the fundamental info to the readers; by contrast, the icon is neither fundamental nor essential to comprehending the article's subject matter at a glance, which is the point of introductions. - Walkazo (talk)