MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/7

All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to preserve the discussions as they were.

"Bad Jokes and other deleted Nonsense" -style archive

make archive 13-9
The English Wikipedia had an archive called "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense", where contributors can archive vandalism or plain bad writing that they consider to be humorous. The French and German Wikipedias still posses such a page, and it's quite possible that other Wikipedias posses such a page, as well. I think we should have a similar page. anything that ranges from Bad Writing to Humorous and non-harmful vandalism should go on there, although only articles stuff should be included. No User-talk things.

What are the gains from creating such a page? Well... This will stop the frequent recreation of deleted nonsense (Such as Mario (Species) and "Snufit Ball") since those pages will be redirected to the Bad Jokes archives and archived in all their glory. And as many users have noted in the votes comments, it would show new user what to not write. This may seem like Troll feeding, but if anything, Trolls are feeds by overreacting to their attacks (For example: Creating the Patroller ranking just to fight them), recording a few vandal edits isn't that big of a feeding in comparison.

Anyone should be able to edit the archive page, and there shouldn’t be any edits war about what to add/remove. Of course, common sense should play a part here. The Mario page being littered with obscenities can't really be considred funny, the Pirate Goomba article stating the obvious can be considered funny. Use your brain!

Proposer: Blitzwing (talk)(The idea comes from this message of Cobold (talk)
Deadline: March 21, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Support

1. Blitzwing (talk) Blablabla Me proposer Blablabla Me gaves reasons above Blablabla I need a sandwich.
2. Cobold (talk) - We have so much pages about rules etc., time to show how not to write articles.
3. Uniju :D (talk) - Per above. :D
4. 3dejong (talk) per all. It should be made part of the Welcome template to show new users how NOT to do things.
5. InfectedShroom (talk) Per all. Um... *Insert funny/interesting/odd comment here*.
6. Paper Jorge (talk) Yes, per all. Not only would it help some new people who don't know what to write but we can definatly store Snufit Ball in there. That will make the Snufit Ball fans stop all this arguing. Or at least, I hope.
7. Storm Yoshi (talk) per all
8. Walkazo - Per all.
9. Wayoshi (talk) – you convinced me, as long as it's clearly stated for a newbie that this is NOT what to do.
10. Pokemonfan7002 I agree.
11. Toadette 4evur (talk) Per all.
12. Mr.Vruet (talk) Per All
13. Stumpers (talk) Well, Blitzwing's a patroller, too, soif there really is a spike in spam, he and I will be right alongside cleaning up the mess. We can always remove it...

Oppose

1. Ghost Jam (talk) - If the point is to help to stop people from recreating deleted articles, it would make more sense to just block creation of said articles than to create another page that's just going to end up being huge and difficult to load.
2. Pokemon DP (talk) - DO NOT FEED THE FREAKIN' TROLLS! We don't need MORE vandalism to come from this. Any User with common sense knows that they shouldn't vandalize, even if they are new; the whole thing seems pointless.
3. Purple Yoshi (talk) - Honestly, I think this is WORSE than that Pie proposal. Why would we give spammers their own page! They feed on people being aware of them!
4. King Mario (talk) Per PY and DP
5. MarioGalaxy2433g5 - This wiki will become an encyclopedia of sillyness
6. Glitchman (talk) Per Stumpers and DP, we have too much user fanon as is.
7. Per ALL! HyperToad ESPICALLY PY.
8. Stooben Rooben (talk) Actually, I'm changing my vote simply because this is only a reason for people to spam the site even more. It'll become like a competition to see who's the "better" spammer, and to see who can get their spamming archived.
9. Tykyle It'll only serve to patronize people who are honestly trying and to give the trolls even more attention.

Comments

Ghost Jam, I don't think the point is to stop people from making deleted articles, it's just to put vandalism/dumb writing that you found funny on a page people can view. I would have thought that at least you would understand that it's just for fun. <_< Uniju :D (talk) N/O

Plus, it could help n00bies to learn how not to write. :P 3dejong (talk) WHOOP DE FRICKIN' DOO

I don't know. At first I thought this sounded silly and unprofessional, but we are a Mario wiki, meaning we don't have to be serious about everything. It would teach new guys how not to write, and it might stop nonsense articles. I'm not sure whether to vote yet, though. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by CrystalYoshi (talk). whoops, forgot to sign again.

*ahem*, have you guys heard the term "Do not feed the trolls"? If we make a page full of vandalized articles, that will only inspire MORE trolls to come which will lead to MORE vandalism. Trolls vandalize as a means of becomming popular on the Wiki; this page is only going to further their goals. Pokemon DP (talk)

Hmmm, good point. But isn't most of the stuff just going to be bad User writing? Like the Pirate Goomba thing. I'm no expert, but aren't most Troll edits piles of... er, excraments? Like Willy on Wheels moving everything to _____ on wheels. That's not funny, that's idiotic. - Walkazo

Pokemon DP: If anything, we feed the Trolls by overreacting to their attacks, such as creating a completely new ranking just to fight them, in comparison, having a few humorous vandal edits recorded on a page is rather minor. And beside, why a vandal would vandalize the wiki to "becomes popular"? That's broken logic.

As Walkazo said, the Bad Jokes archive will be mainly filled with bad writing (Ex:The Orange Yoshi article stating that people confuses Brown Yoshi and Orange Yoshi, although the occasional humorous vandalism (Such as the Mama Luigi article) can go in there. --Blitzwing 11:19, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

How about just bad writing, not vandalism? Becuase this would be cool, just it is a good point an archive of vandalism encourages vandalism. So just bad jokes and bad writing go in the archive. CrystalYoshi (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Well... Bad Jokes and Funny Vandalism = Pretty much the same thing. Unless that by "Bad Jokes", you mean things like the infamous "Pie for "everyone" proposal. Note that not every vandal edits will be recorded on the page. Things like "Mario (species)" should be archived, things like "Mario is a (insert swear word here)" shouldn't. --Blitzwing 17:06, 16 March 2008 (E ber

Hmmm... people on the opposing side have a good point. But it might help us a bit and... it would be funny. CrystalYoshi (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Isn't that basely like the Sandbox?? Princess Grapes Butterfly 17:56, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

No. You can write whatever you want in the Sandbox. In the Bad Jokes archive, you archives edits that were on article, you can't go there and write random crap. --Blitzwing 18:06, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Ohhhhhhhhhh, i understand now. Princess Grapes Butterfly 19:31, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Bad Writing... It seems like you are just insulting the User who wrote the article. Counts as a form of flaming... Does it not? Pokemon DP (talk)

Although this might help n00bs with what not to do, they might be encouraged to spam so they can get their "greatness" archived. Stooben Rooben (talk) Gar...

Maybe whoever wants to archive a sample of bad writing should contact the person who wrote it and get permission first; some will say no, but others might like the opportunity to laugh at their own mistakes/be a "class clown" for the Wiki. - Walkazo

Argh... torn between two sides. The people on the opposing side have such a good point about this would be saying vandalism is cool. And yet having the archive would be so fun. Vandalism is annoying, but it's also funny; on the other hand... ARGH! I just can't decide! CrystalYoshi (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

---

Template:Koopas

split template 6-0
For those of you who don't know this template, it (presumably) consists of a list of every Koopa species and every character in those species. Most groups of Koopas have smaller templates doing the same thing (i.e. Template:Koopa Paratroopa or Template:Spinies); however, unlike the Koopas Template these lists are small and easy to use. The Koopas Template is used primarily for articles that do not fit into one of the other Koopa groups (i.e. Bowser), most of which are Koopa Troopas and their kin (i.e. Koopatrol). I propose we slim down this bulky template so that it only consists of these "misfit" Koopas; and to cut down on even more of the clutter, I propose we make the much-needed Koopa Troopas Template. Prototype versions of both these templates can be seen here.

Proposer: Walkazo
Deadline: March 21, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Two Smaller Templates

1. Walkazo - Being the Proposer, my opinions are stated above.
2. CrystalYoshi (talk) Makes sense. Per Walkazo. As long as you're not planning to make a "Dragon Koopa" template. (kidding)
3. InfectedShroom (talk) Tahts a big template. Per the azo that Walks. Or Walkazo, if you're boring. :P JK
4. Stooben Rooben (talk) Gotta agree with Walkazo here. Navigation templates are supposed to make traveling from page to page easier, and it can't be easier when the template's as long as that.
5. Blitzwing (talk) Huge Templates makes things hard to distinguish because they are overcrowded. I think we should also split the Yoshi Enemies template, that one is freakin' HUMONGOUS.
6. MegaMario9910 (talk) Too many Koopas. It overfills the old template, so making a second is better, so it doesn't overfill the first one. Heck, a lot of other templates go this way. (Like Blitz said).

Comments

We can't use yours, it breaks the page up. <_< I suggest you try fixing that before you try to get it used. Uniju :D (talk)

It doesn't on my computer, but I use hexadecimal workarounds and they go screwy a lot so I'll look into that. - Walkazo

Concerning Blitzwing's comment, there are many ways to deal with the Yoshi Enemies Template than splitting it, such as organizing it so all the enemies are divided into sections based on the Enemy Classes, sorta like how I made this species-only Koopa Template I made in my spare time (if it doesn't work again blame my ancient computer). - Walkazo

Hmm... That's a good template. Still very large, but much easier to find stuff. That should be what the YI one should be like, cuz that one is really crowded. InfectedShroom (talk)

---

Use of the Term "Clone"

don't use the term "clone" 12-1
With the release of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, several users have been arguing and editing back and forth regarding the inclusion of the blanket, fan-made term "clone" in the character articles. The opposition argues that it is a fan term of no solid definition. Its use encourages assumptions on the part of both the readers and editors rather than granting support to in-depth discriptions of fighting styles. The support argues that it is legitimate, pervasive term understood by all and applicable as long as characters share special moves.

Proposer: Stumpers (talk)
Deadline: March 25, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Remove "Clone" From Articles

1. Stumpers (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2008 (EDT) The use of a fan term on a Wiki that prides itself on using only official sources is questionable. Additionally, there is no set definition that all fans agree on. One can see this by looking at the SSB Wikia, our Wiki, and the Smash Wiki... but that's been merged wtih SSB Wikia now. If you click the links, you'll see that some sources (us!) only consider it to be a clone if the character is exactly the same while others (them) consider a character to be a clone if they are neaerly identical. Therefore, the use of the term brings misinformation, as what the writer intends by using it is not going to be what the reader interprets it as. Also, no character has ever been "exactly the same" -- so our definition is wrong to begin with.
2. InfectedShroom (talk) Yeah, per Stumpers. "Clone" is not a good term, unless it has been officially stated by Nintendo or The makers of the game.
3. Pokemon DP (talk) Its not official, its meaning is debatable, it just shortens the articles. Its worthless.
4. Jaffffey (talk) Per everyone.
5. HyperToad Per Stumpers. Not only is it a fan-made term, but Wolf ang Luigi and a few others' status as "clones" are debatable.
6. Blitzwing (talk) Per everyone. Heck, I was the first user to point out that Clone is unofficial.
7. Booster -- Purely a fan-made term. Get rid of it.
8. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per Stumpers. And, it's no different than a conjectural term.
9. Walkazo - Per all.
10. Princess Grapes Butterfly Per Stumpers I agree with him.
11. Wayoshi (talk) – Per all, it's not big deal, fan terms often sneak their way in.
12. Jdrowlands (talk) Per everyone.

Include "Clone"

1. Trogga - It's much easier to say "Y is a clone of X" than "Y has a similar moveset to X's".

Comments

I'm not sure on which side to take on this one just yet. There is a debate about whether it is a genuine fan-term or not. Some say that Sakurai said something of the sort, specifically describing the characters that were very similar. Hard to say, though. Garlic Man (talk)

One of the most confusing clone acts is with Mario and Fox. According to fan base, they each have 2 clones. These are Dr. Mario, Luigi, Falco, and Wolf. They are all diffrent, but people consider them to be clones. The answer? They're not clones! They're distinctly diffrent, so they shouldn't be labeled "clones". Jaffffey (talk)

Sorry, but wolf is not a clone. McDimentio (talk)

Hey, Stumpers, you spelled "legitimate" wrong. I corrected it. ;) InfectedShroom (talk)

Thanks. I expanded on my vote (didn't touch the proposal!), btw, so make sure you're still "per Stumpers"! Stumpers (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Looks good. I'm even more "Per Stumpers" now! :P InfectedShroom (talk)

All right! Stumpers (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Trogga: I'd hope you'd go more in-depth about what was the same and what was different regardless. Stumpers (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

---

Food

don't merge 1-7
Awhile ago, I believe Blitzwing (talk) made a proposal regarding the notabilty of the article: Cheese. Although I agreed with him on some points, my opinion went to keeping the article. Anyway, while giving my opinions, I suggested a List of Real World Foods in the Mario Series article, which, as long as it would be, would probably help this wiki. Chesse, for example could easily be merged into a list, just like any Pokemon could be on the Pokemon article.

Proposer: HyperToad
Deadline: March 26, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Merge Them

1. HyperToad My reasons given above.

Keep Them

1. Time Q (talk): So this proposal would merge all "Real World food" into one article, regardless of its importance in the Marioverse? I'm against that; you have to decide about each article separately.
2. Stumpers (talk) Definately not. Then, Peach, Banana, Melon, etc, etc, etc would also be merged. Can you give us a list beyond "cheese" that you're thinking of?
3. Cobold (talk) - I don't think it makes sense making a general decision like that just to eradicate the cheese article. There is much different food in the Paper Mario series and in Super Mario Sunshine which has its right to their own article, just because cheese is controversial, it doesn't mean that we should get rid of something else.
4. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per Stumpers and Cobold. It just seems like too much effort for something that'll make things more confusing.
5. Booster - Not a good idea. Many Real World foods serve as actual items with their own legit pages. Besides Cheese, what foods are you thinking of?
6. Snack (talk) - Per Booster.
7. Princess Grapes Butterfly Per all

Comments

HyperToad, please explain your proposal. As Stumpers said, according to your current explanation, we'd also need to remove articles like Watermelon, which makes no sense at all. Time Q (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... The opposers have a point... Someone convince me one way or the other. InfectedShroom (talk)

Ok, I'll try! I think the thing with the lists was that all the articles were stubs. Now, compare that with Cheese, Banana, Peach (item). Stumpers (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Maybe there could be "list of minor real world foods in the marioverse. CrystalYoshi (talk)

Maybe, but then you get into how you define minor, etc. The reason I'm okay with all of the "implied" pages is that the subject in question is never seen, so it's a clear boundry. What definition would you like to use? Stumpers (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I suppose a Bananna has usefulness. To tell the truth, I knew there were others out there (foods), but I couldn't think of any. Pretty stupid to make a proposal then, huh? Anyway, I think articles just as Melons, despite having a role in the Marioverse, could still be merged. We don't give sperate pages for Ashley and Red, (not trying to argue about that) despite the fact that they are inportant character, just not enough for two articles. In addition, I agree with Blitzwing consearing inplied characters. HyperToad

But we do have enough to say about Melons. There's no point in merging it. (Perhaps we could merge all those differently-colored Watermelons, but this is not the place to discuss that, I think. (And HyperToad, please check your links, "Bananna" leads to nowhere.)) Time Q (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

The thing is, there might be a few foods that belong in a list, but we can't make the list because of all the important ones. I'm not sure what the best solution is. CrystalYoshi (talk)

HyperToad, this definately wasn't a dumb proposal. The only dumb proposals are, IMO, those that are used for a political motive (ie, when the proposer thinks his/her side isn't legit from the get-go) rather than for the betterment of the Wiki. So don't be hard on yourself. Stumpers (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Nah, of course it's not dumb. Just in case you think that's what I was trying to say. Time Q (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

---

Comic Subpages

no comic sign-up user sub-pages allowed 11-0
Lately, many Users have had a habit of creating sprite comics based on the sprites of other Users. While this, itself, is OK on its own, many Users have also created subpages to have people sign up for these comics. To quote Blitzwing, "I think we should get rid of all those 'SIGN-UP ON MY COMIC!!!!1!' subpages on Mariowiki, that kind of thing just doesn't have a place on an encyclopedia." Therefore, I propose the elimination of these subpages.

Proposer: ChaosNinji (talk)
Deadline: March 26, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Delete Comic Sign Up Subpages

1. ChaosNinji (talk) I'm the proposer.
2. InfectedShroom (talk) Yup. The sign up pages are a waste of time and space. Using the talk pages would be much better. Per above. (And you spelled "place" wrong, so I fixed it. Just so you know.)
3. MegaMario9910 (talk) Delete 'em. At least have a type of link to Userpedia to sign up. The sign-ups are kinda annoying going through pages, and so on.
4. Toadette 4evur (talk) The Mario wiki part of this shouldn't be used for that stuff. It should stay on Userpedia.
5. Uniju :D (talk) This is the MarioWiki, a place for Mario info, not sprite comics based on websites based on video games based on plumbers.
6. Wayoshi (talk) – comic signup should go on the talk page of the comic subpage
7. Cobold (talk) - Per Wayoshi, and only him. Generally, user page content shouldn't have restrictions.
8. Garlic Man (talk) - I misunderstood the proposal :P. Per Wayoshi. I thought it was saying to delete comic subpages themselves.
9. Jdrowlands (talk) Per Wayoshi.
10. Stooben Rooben (talk) As long as it's ONLY for the removal of sign-up pages.
11. GreenKoopa Keeping the comic pages is a stretch; the signups being destroyed is a given. Theres a place for wiki fandom; Its a maaaagical place called:USERPEDIA.

Comments

Well, comics are a great part in the MarioWiki. It's fun to create, sign up, and read. I mean, where else would people ask to sign up for their comic? What's the downside of comic subpages? Garlic Man (talk)

Userpedia and the forums can easily be used for the same purposes. Comics make the Wiki look unprofessional, and, as Blitz said, they just don't belong. ChaosNinji (talk)

They make the wiki look unproffesional? Couldn't the same thing be said for user pages? I mean, is that really a good reason to get rid of them? And "They Just Don't Belong" is a nonsensical reason. Garlic Man (talk)

The ``wiki`` part should only be an encyclopedia, not a social network! IT's bad enough that most of the users only do User talk-page edits and don't contribute to the encyclopedia, we don't need to allow these guys even more ways of wasting our database space. Userpage are OK - They are made to makes yourself know and gives info about you and your contribution on the wiki, Comic sub-page are just... pointless. --Blitzwing 20:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Blitz, there is no possible way to stop users editing user talk pages. Besides, we have plenty of database space. It's not like "Oh no! Only 14 more pages left!" or anything. Also, Comic pages are to express your creativity in a humorous way, and to have fun with it. I think they are important enough to stay on the wiki. This isn't Wikipedia. It's a wiki about games. It doesn't have to be super-proffesional. But that's just my opinion. Garlic Man (talk)

Garlic Man has a good point, but I guess having a section in your talk page would also be fine. CrystalYoshi (talk)

Isn't that what Userpedia is for? Toadette 4evur (talk)

Yep. --Blitzwing 17:52, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Um, not everyone knows about usepedia. I learned about it a day or to ago. It's not in the welcome template or anything. CrystalYoshi (talk)

Geez, Blitz, never thought you'd go THAT far in trying to keep us from having fun. Anyway, will COMICS THEMSELVES have to go? Like my MW Alliance page? 3dejong (talk) dang it's gonna be hard to move my comic article.

Uh, I didn't make the proposal complain to Ninji.

--Blitzwing 21:01, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

We're just talkin' about taking the comic stuff off of Mario Wiki, not Userpedia. It should be there anyway. Oh, I've got a question. Could we have a way of telling members about Userpedia? Toadette 4evur (talk)

Well, Userpedia is unofficial and unaffiliated to Mariowiki. Maybe it could be linked in the rules for Userspace/user sub-page/whatever. --Blitzwing 21:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Userpedia is unaffiliated to the Mariowiki? I thought all long it was... I guess I was wrong :P. Anyway, doesn't this mean we have to get rid of the comics on userpages too? Garlic Man (talk)

Yes, because that is what Userpedia is for. NOT Mario Wiki. Toadette 4evur (talk)

Uh, no. --Blitzwing 13:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

All this about userpedia! How did all you find out that there is a userpedia? I stumbled upon it by going to InfectedShroom's comic, and I don't really understand what it's about. So if there's no way for users to find out about userpedia, you can't just say "That's what userpedia is for. And Green Koopa's sarcasm "Its a maaaagical place called:USERPEDIA" as if it's so obvious that it exists. But it really isn't. CrystalYoshi (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Generally, you may have on your user page what you want. Wayoshi's solution seems the best - Comic sign up pages should be on the talk pages of the actual comic subpages, not somewhere else. - Cobold (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, everyone! I totally misunderstood the proposal! I thought it was saying that saying there should be no more comic subpages. So, yes, now that I understand, it's sorta pointless to have a seperate page just to sign up, yes. Garlic Man (talk)

I wonder if all supporters are voting for the same thing. What will happen when the proposal passes? - Cobold (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

We need to make this more clear. I'm guessing this means:

• All comics still on wiki = deleted.
• All comic sign-ups on wiki = deleted.

I'm not voting; it's already a landslide. Sorry for yelling atcha, Blitz. ._. 3dejong (talk) HOT BLEEP!

Well, then it's definitely not what I, Wayoshi and Garlic Man put our votes on the support side for. - Cobold (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Isn't the wording quite clear? "Therefore, I propose the elimination of these subpages." Thus, no deletion of comics, no deletion of comic sign-ups in general, only elimination of sign-up subpages. Time Q (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

We add them here so that MW exclusive user can sign up on them. HyperToad It helps them be bigger.

When you have a quote in a quote, you use ' instead of ". I fixed it for you. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shyguy27 (talk).

OK, this proposal is for the removal of ALL comics. ALL OF THEM. INCLUDING things like MW Alliance and Glitchman's series. ChaosNinji, please add a sub-category for keeping comics themselves. 3dejong (talk) halp halp

What? Says who? Two days before deadline is a BIT late for such an essential decision anyway. Time Q (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Kay, fine. After this goes through I'm making a proposal to keep COMICS THEMSELVES on the Wiki. 3dejong (talk) bringing idiotic back.

We ARE keeping the comic sub-pages. We just want to get rid of comic sign-up sub-pages, since they can stay on the talk page of the comic. Toadette 4evur (talk)

---

Repeated Images

images may be repeated once in an article 8-3
Me and Stumpers discussed about Repeating Images on articles. On the article R.O.B., at one point, there were two Brawl artworks on the same page. That was soon changed by a sysop. However, in picture galleries at the end of the article, as Stumpers said, "is really great for seeing how the character has evolved". I agree with that statement. Since there are yet no official rules about repeating images on a single article, this proposal will hopefully make it clear. However, this means two pictures on one article. Three or more is redundant, and makes the article quality go down.

Proposer: Garlic Man (talk)
Deadline: April 3, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Repeated Images on Articles

1. Garlic Man (talk) Per what I said above. Sometimes you just need the same pic in two places.
2. Time Q (talk): I don't see a problem with it, and indeed, seeing how the character has evolved is good. And the same picture twice in one article doesn't even take twice the time to load, right?
3. Stumpers (talk) Per myself and Garlic Man. That's my understanding, too, Time Q. If this doesn't pass, though, we can alleviate this problem by replacing official art in the biography section with screenshots, moving the artwork to the bottom. That would be more applicable IMO anyway, since the section is on the character's actions rather than his/her appearance.
4. Princess Grapes Butterfly Per all I agree!
5. Stooben Rooben (talk) Yup. Per all.
6. Walkazo - I don't see a problem with reusing images as long as they're in large articles that have enough other images to offset the repetition (otherwise it might look a bit lazy on our part).
7. CrystalYoshi (talk) No reason not to. It doesn't waste that much space, only a little bit. Plus some images in the gallery also have a place on the page.
8. InfectedShroom (talk) Per all, and see my comments.

No Repeated Images

1. Glitchman (talk) - Meh, I see your point, but there are probably already too many images on the major pages as it is.
2. Fixitup - It's a waste of space, and a waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise.
3. Toadette 4evur (talk) As long as I've been here, we've always gone by an image is in an article once and thats it. I also agree with Fixitup said, so per him (or her).

Comments

Wait wait wait... I don't seem to understand the proposal. Do you mean the same pic on, say, the top and then again on the bottom? Or something else...? InfectedShroom (talk) Sorry, I may just be an idiot. :P

Well, anywhere. Including the gallery, the main image, and images throughout the article. Garlic Man (talk)

Hmm... Then I must disagree. See my reasons above. InfectedShroom (talk)

I don't think we'd ever have an image up three times, though. Stumpers (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

You say it'd be fine if an image was repeated twice at the most. By opposing, however, you say that an image must not appear more than once in an article. It seems to be a contradiction. If you support, you don't support the idea that an image may appear three times in one article, but only that it may be repeated. To make it clearer, perhaps Garlic Man can modify the proposal's description, in the way that even if the supporters' side wins, an image may only appear twice. 'cause three times would definitely be too much imho. Time Q (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

You have a point. I'll remove my vote for now, because there is no place for me to vote. If there ever is, I'll move it there. ;) InfectedShroom (talk)

Sorry, Infected Shroom. You're right, my proposal was not very clear. Twice is the max, and only twice. Three times is over the limit. I have changed the proposal slightly as well. I hope this helped. Garlic Man (talk)

Alright. Thank you. ;) InfectedShroom (talk)

Fixitup: please explain your vote. What do you mean "a waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise"? It's not like an image has a limited number of uses allowed. And Toadette: what's so great about one of the image per page, even it's been that way since you came. CrystalYoshi (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, if we add images twice, the bandwith is slowly depleted away, and that is what keeps the site up. Toadette 4evur (talk)

Toadette, "As long as I've been here, we've always gone by an image is in an article once and thats it." is not a valid oppose; if it has been, that's what the proposal is trying to change. Also, it's not a waste of space. It's useful as a visual aid. It's not like we're putting a bunch of images on the page just to make it bigger. Garlic Man (talk)

I also put "Per Fixitup". =) Toadette 4evur (talk)

But Fixitup's vote doesn't make sense either. "A waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise." That makes it sound like the images can only be used a limited number of times. You're not "wasting" the images in any way. They're still good and usable. CrystalYoshi (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Are we talking about screenshots or artwork? Pokemon DP (talk)

Mainly Artwork, I think. Garlic Man (talk) Although screenshots could apply, I guess. Why?

Because reusing screenshots is overkill. Seeing the same artwork is bearable, but using the same 'shot twice is uncalled for, there's no good reason for it (whereas the "seeing how characters change over the years" example for repeated artwork is perfectly valid). One could argue that sprite evolution could serve a similar purpose, but that's as much a result of technological advancements than the creative process, and there are much better places on the Wiki to illustrate that then the character galleries. - Walkazo

Well, IMO, artwork should go on the top of the page (in the infobox) and in the gallery at the bottom, but not in the article. I believe screenshots should be spread throughout the article, not artwork. Just my opinion. Pokemon DP (talk) I mean, Artwork merely shows what the character looked like in the game. The screenshots in the article should show what the character did in the game/show/comic/whatever.

I agree that artwork within the article should be used in the gallery again to show the character's development. But I think we should limit the number of artwork per game. For example, Princess Peach's gallery uses 11 (!) pictures from Super Pricess Peach, I don't think that this points the development up. --Grandy02 07:49, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Whoa! Once again DP you put my thoughts into words. I wasn't sure how to say that, but you hit it on the head. The artwork doesn't always show the actions being described, right? Grandy02: The proposal won't change that there are still 11 artwork pieces from SPP on Peach's page, but you're absolutely correct. In the future, we may want to limit massive amounts of images like that to the game page itself, but like I said, this proposal isn't going to affect that one way or the other. Stumpers (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Great minds think alike, don't they, Stumpers? =P Its why I jokingly stated we were brothers on Userpedia. XP Anyway, I'd really like to see limitations on artwork from the same game. The amount of SPP artwork on Peach's article is... Its overkill, definitely. That artwork belongs on the Super Princess Peach article, IMO. Pokemon DP (talk) Maybe we could make another Proposal about that...? Oh yeah, I forgot to vote on this one! XP Scratch that, my opinion doesn't fit into either of these choices, sorry...

---

Poorly Written Articles

keep articles 7-15
Now and then, certain users (usually noobs) will sit down and write up a poorly written article. Sometimes these articles aren't about valid subjects, and get deleted quickly, but what should we do if the subject is valid? Take the article In the Clouds for example. It's a level in Yoshi's Island DS, and qualifies for its own article, but the article itself, while not a stub, is atrocious. It makes the wiki look like a joke, and it amazes me that the author has the reading skills to even navigate the internet and come here (no offense). I can't bear to actually read it, and it's just gonna sit there and rot with a rewrite tag until someone comes along and does a proper write up.

What I'm wondering is if we should delete these poorly written articles. This sort of thing is different from stubs, which may actually contain decent grammar, and may just need expanding. Even if they do get a rewrite, poorly written articles will likely be started over from scratch, and the original context would be lost regardless.

Proposer: Booster
Deadline: April 10, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Delete Poorly Written Articles

1. Booster: Per my statement above.
2. Huntercrunch Per Booster. The articles tagged for a rewrite always rot and no-one ever checks them out/ attempts to make the article look better.
3. Purple Yoshi (talk)-Per all. No one looks at rewrite pages!
4. Pokemon DP (talk) Per Booster. I've always wanted these kinds of articles deleted. About time someone stepped up and said something. No one ever, EVER checks the Rewrite pages, and never even bothers to try and rewrite them... As the above three have already said...
5. 3dejong (talk) yeeeeeaaaah... They're better off in Edit Heaven. Let's let someone CAPABLE rewrite them.
6. HemuI Agree someone better should write those articles.
7. Glitchman (talk) - Yeah, nobody's doing anything about the articles in bad shape. Why not just remake them??

Keep Them

1. Plumber (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2008 (EDT) People DO check the rewrite pages, and improve them greatly. Look at Stumpers (talk) edits on Donkey Kong, for crying out loud!
2. Stumpers (talk) Way to generic of a proposal for my taste. The point of a proposal is to create a guideline to prevent the problem from coming up again in the future, but this will just lead to more discussion and individual proposals regarding specific arguements, which will happen anyway. This would be much more efficient if you'd had made a series of proposals, each about one article individually. Please give us a list and we can look at each of them.
3. InfectedShroom (talk) Per Stumpers and Plums. This proposal has too wide of a range. There are a lot of poorly written articles tha are also very long. Do we want those deleted? And I agree, someting that's only one line sucks. But this proposal is including the long articles as well. And anyone can edit those articles if they just get up off their lazy butts and do it. (No offense to anyone in particular. Really.)
4. Ghost Jam (talk) per my statement below.
5. Time Q (talk): Per Ghost Jam. Who decides what is poorly written? And if we're talking about specific articles, we don't need a proposal.
6. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per all. Every article has poor grammar or punctuation at some point which could be considered "poorly written" to some. People (like Stumpers) visit the rewrite categories quite often; a lot of times the articles get awesome rewrites too. There's a reason we have the categories rewrite, rewrite-expand, rewrite-you, rewrite-wikidump, rewrite-biased...do I really need to go on? THEY CAN BE REWRITTEN CORRECTLY!
7. Canama - Per all. We don't want to lose good articles.
8. Girrrtacos Then be a big boy and re-write 'em if you don't like 'em.
9. Blitzwing (talk) - I didn't have an opinion up until I saw that ginornomously stupid "IF YOU OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL, YOU NEED TO REWRITE THOSE ARTICLES OR ELSE YOUR VOTE IS VOID" comment. I do look at the Rewrite page - Infact, I rewrite quite a few articles in need. Anything is salvageable, provided you know the subject.
10. Walkazo - Per all, especially Girrtacos.
11. Toadette 4evur (talk) Per all
12. Green Guy Per all
13. Jdrowlands (talk) - The person who wrote In the Clouds probably spent an hour or two writing it. We don't want to put possible new users off the wiki. Also, Per All.
14. Goldguy Per all.There's actually some articles that are good "poorly written".You're being alittle harsh.
15. HyperToad Per All

Comments

I feel that it would be better to delete articles like these on a case by case basis. Many could be saved and many shouldn't be saved.

If there is an issue with the article improvement categories, it might be worth trying to bring more attention to them. -- Chris 01:21, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree. If this proposal passes, we'd still have to decide for every article individually whether it is "poor enough" to be deleted or not. Plus, some might be poorly written but could contain information which would be missing when the article is deleted and later re-created by someone else. Time Q (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... I'll have to wait and see where this proposal is going, and I would like to see both sides' main points before I vote. My question is this: How do we decide if an article is "poorly written?" Because Spiny used to be terrible, before I started editing it. But it was big. Would we have deleted it? InfectedShroom (talk)

No. I think only small ones, like stubs with bad grammar or that are obviously idiotic, like "world 2-1" which was coposed of simpy "world 2-1". 3dejong (talk) AND MY HEART IS AS LIGHT AS THE WIND WHICH IN TURN BLOWS THE BROWNED DEAD LEAVES OFF THE TREESES, OOOOOHHH!

Plumber: The Donkey Kong article isn't exactly a candidate for deletion because it's poor. - Cobold (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it would have to be a case-by-case basis for this sort of thing. If anyone's unsure about the quality of an article they can always ask. I also think we should also do something about one-sentence stubs, but that's another issue at the moment. -- Booster

I think there's already an (unwritten) rules for deleting one-liner. Heck, I think there was even a proposal about it. - Blitzwing (talk)

I remember something like this as well, but the only thing I could find in the archives is this one - not about deleting one-liners, but against the deletion of new stub articles. Time Q (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Hey, Plumber! I appreciate the support! Cobold: while I'm on the topic he was discussing how it was a long time ago... go check out the history. It was long, but poorly written. Of course, now that the proposer's specified that he only meant short articles I'm not sure if it's a good example, but whatever. Instead of having this generic proposal, I'd rather the proposer come forth with a list of pages he's talking about, and then we can take care of the stinkers one by one. (seriously, who wouldn't vote yes to, "Fix Something Bad" proposals? Only people who don't like the vagueness...) Stumpers (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Here's some of the really bad articles (not so much stubs) that I'm referring to. -- Booster

• Island of Peril
• Tap-Tap's Sunken Cave
• Number Ball Special
• Hunky Chunky Barrel
• 4-Castle (NSMB)
• Astro Goomba
• World 7 Mini-fortress 1
• Parachute

Um, guys, look above... Those are the kinds of articles Booster meant, he didn't mean poorly written articles (like Donkey Kong was) in general. :\ Pokemon DP (talk)

I don't think I get this proposal. Pages with only "World 2-1" or "Pirate goombas are pirate goombas" should definitely be deleted. Badly written stubs can be deleted. But non-stub articles that are badly written are fine, as long as there's a rewrite tag. What side should I vote on? CrystalYoshi (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Everyone who is opposing, you need to rewrite all these type of articles, or there's no point putting your name here. And if no one does this, I'm going to bring this up again.Purple Yoshi (talk)

PY has a point. Everyone who is opposing this Proposal automatically has the responsibility of rewriting those poorly written articles. Pokemon DP (talk)

What? No. Everyone who is opposing doesn't agree with Booster's proposal. The proposal says to delete poorly written articles. Now my question is what is poorly written. Because if we don't have a clear definition (e.g. a rewrite tag plus bad formatting), this proposal makes no sense imo. Sorry. Time Q (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Opposing the deletion of the articles doesn't mean we're gonna rewrite them; it merely means that we think they should stay. Users come across these articles and fix them. I'm sure a lot of articles started out like crap and turned out pretty good after a while. Stooben Rooben (talk) Overkill, Mr. Sysop; overkill.

Woah now, calm down... I see a flame war in the near future if you don't. Anyway, why are we fighting about this? Everyone has the responsibility to rewrite crappy articles. But most of us (me included) are usually just too lazy to do it. So please, stop fighting about something we should all do. :| InfectedShroom (talk)

Yeah, you're right IS. Didn't mean to get so worked up. Stooben Rooben (talk)

Well, the articles we are talking about are articles that hardly make any sense whatsoever. Articles that look like they were written by a two-year old. The articles Booster showed as an example. Not articles like Spiny or Donkey Kong before their rewrite, those were at least written in a way that could be understood, it was just the way the article was organized that was the problem. Pokemon DP (talk)

And how do you define "articles that look like they were written by a two-year old"? That's my problem with this proposal, basically. Time Q (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

For the last freakin' time, look at Booster's examples! Pokemon DP (talk)

I can't derive a definition of "poorly written" from the examples. The proposal says to delete "poorly written" articles. It does not say to remove the articles Booster listed, which would indeed make sense as a proposal. But automatically deleting articles through a rule does not make sense if there is no definitions we can use for deciding whether an article is poorly written or not. Time Q (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Uh, the "Hunky Chunky Barrel" article in Booster example doesn't appear to be "written by a 2-years old". Sure, it's full of unnecessary details and the past tense is quite annoying, but it's still perfectly understandable. --Blitzwing 06:42, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Then that's what I'd define as poorly-written - an article that is hard to understand. --Pikax 16:46, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

That's no proper definition, there can be different opinions on what is hard to understand. Plus, very well-written texts can also be hard to understand, if they're complicated. Time Q (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I was thinking hard to understand because of silly things such as spelling and grammar errors. Still, if that won't do for a definition, I guess badly-written is just an opinion, so what can you do? --Pikax 17:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, we actually could lay down some "reqirements" for a new article to become "officially poorly-written"; see my example above, a rewrite tag plus bad formatting (no bold text or no links). That's only an example. If a new article meets these "requirements", it could be deleted. This could be discussed in a proposal, because it wouldn't be a matter of opinion. Time Q (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Umm someone should remove In The Sky or something like that off the poor list in been rewrite to a beautiful article. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk)

---

Mario Kart DS Karts

no merge 2-13
So I've been reading through the after-mentioned articles, and I've noticed that they all read something like "The [insert name here] is [insert character here]'s [availability] kart in Mario Kart DS. [Describes appearance here]. [Describes stats here]." So I propose that we merge these into character aticles such as "Mario's Karts in Mario Kart DS" or something shorter to that effect. Opinions?

Proposer: huntercrunch
Deadline: April 20, 2008, 15:00 EDT

Merge Kart articles

1. huntercrunch My reasons are given above.
2. Incrobe The karts aren't a very important part of the game, and it would save having to add info to heaps of different articles if one needed to if the articles were merged.

Keep articles seperate

1. Time Q (talk): They're all officially named and major enough to have their own articles. Appearance, stats, and maybe some trivia make enough info for an article.
2. RedFire Mario: They're different things so they have to be seperate
3. Pikax: Per Ti