MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Separate Wii U audio files from the ones on the GBA (Discuss) Passed.
 * Separate the Nintendo eShop paragraph from the 3DS and Wii U pages (Discuss) Passed.
 * Separate the Mario Bros. stage from the Smash Bros. stage of the same name (Discuss) Passed.
 * Create articles for all Mario Maker sub-enemies. (Discuss) Deadline: March 8, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Coin (Diddy Kong Racing DS) to Rareware Coin or Split into Two Articles (Discuss) Deadline: March 9, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Have certain amiibo be "Special Edition" (Discuss) Deadline: March 12, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Create a new article on . (Discuss) Deadline: March 17, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Flopsy Fish with Cheep Cheep. (Discuss) Deadline: March 18, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Workshop Store to Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Tipping Stars. (Discuss) Deadline: March 19, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Protect all user talk pages so that only auto-confirmed users can edit them
DELETED I honestly think that this is something that we need to do. Many forms of abuse of this website are in the form of people harassing other users. There are two major independant reasons why we should be doing this in my opinion. Proposer: Deadline: Closed by propser.
 * 1) Many ips do nothing but harass users and many people create an account just to do the same. At least two particular users have tried doing that logged out in a failed attempt to conceal their identities, at least one other doing that to continue harassing a user whom their harassment of was what got them banned in the first place.  These are just few among many examples.
 * 2) Why should we let people who have never contributed positively to the wiki use it to talk to other users? Currently, user talk pages can be edited by anyone for that purpose.  In addition, when people edit user talk pages like that, the Mariowiki system counts that as an edit towards auto-confirmation processes.  This means that users could potentially never contribute positively to the wiki and then become auto-confirmed.  By doing this, they now have access to the ability to create a userpage.  They have effectively been able to create a userpage without contributing towards the wiki ever.  That is unfair to the people who do try to contribute positively towards the wiki for those who don't to be able to have their own userpages just the same way as those who actually earned the privileges.

Support

 * 1) per proposal

Oppose

 * 1) This is kind of like saying people shouldn't have accounts because some of them turn out to be vandals. There are many, many more IP's that contribute positively than there are that don't, and alienating all of them just because of the vocal minority is pandering to the people we're absolutely not supposed to pander to. Suppose an IP has a question they'd like to ask about editing, or maybe they have an issue with another user's edits but don't want to start an edit war, or maybe there's an issue with their account and they're forced to use an IP. If this proposal passes, tough luck for them, I suppose. There are other avenues for discussion, like FAQ, but not only is it simply more convenient to directly ask a user, it's also a more obvious solution than heading to a page that's only visible on a tiny header between a bunch of other links. There are too many detriments and not enough benefits to imposing this. If there's a specific user that's a constant target, they should be free to request protection, but enforcing that on everyone simply would not work.
 * 2) That would break the point of talk pages. This is absolutely counter-productive and doing this is assuming that all BoNs are bad people. Most of the time, they aren't, they are our reliable gnome editors and fixing up minor problems. And if the few bad apples do show up, it's extremely easy to ban them. Besides, some new users legitimately need help and may need assistance from other users: protecting user talk pages would be a major inconvenience for new editors which is poisonous to the upkeep of this wiki.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) I oppose this proposal strongly, There are some IPs that contribute and don't troll or vandalize and they might want to talk with some of us.

Comments
A lot of stuff Time Turner pointed out I didn't think about. How do I close proposals? 17:41, 8 March 2015 (EDT) So I'm going to start thinking about some ways I can remake this proposal while adding things in it to mitigate some of the problems that Time Turner pointed out in this. I'd like this proposal closed. I might remake this proposal sometime later if I can think of possibilities on additions/changes to this proposal idea to mitigate the flaws Time Turner pointed out. Though I might not be able to figure any way out however in which case this will never be remade. 18:09, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

Make notice for animated images
Seeing how Bulbapedia does things, I came up with a cool idea. Maybe we should create a template that should state whether this image is animated. It's purpose? To explain that some browsers are limited to viewing only the first frame of animated images and kindly remind users (especially new users that use old and worn-out browsers) not to change the image, even if it's not moving at all (unless there's really a problem, in which someone good at animated images can help).

A sample of said template can be viewed here.

Proposer: Deadline: March 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per proposal as this would prevent from cluttered image change logs.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3)  It would mean that Users wouldn't just change (for example) a .gif (animated file) to a .png (solid picture)
 * 4) Sounds nice. Per proposal. This would really be beneficial to people who often edit on mobile devices (like me). "It's a hassle" is NOT a good excuse, as it just sounds like we're being lazy.
 * 5) I don't see why not. Per all.
 * 6) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) This proposal, since it apparently deals with APNGS (and .gifs in mobile browsers), should be moot, thanks to this proposal. Even though it's harmless, creating, maintaining, and implementing this template just piles tedious work with little pay-off. Ideally, every sprite bar animated ones should be in .png, and the the most popular animated format that any browser can read is the .gif. So, I think the template is mostly useless.
 * 2) Per Mario.
 * 3) - Been thinking it over, and yeah, per Mario above and per Lakituthequick and myself in the comments. While mobile devices can't load GIFs, it'd be far more trouble than it's worth to mark them all. (Plus, while the use of animation is relevant, it still seems too gaudy a template design for me in all honesty.)
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) As said in comments.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Unnecessary, if it was dealing with APNG, then it was already decided that this feature should be replaced with GIFs, so no templates regarding it should exist in the first place. If it was dealing with GIFs, then it is pretty unlikely todays to find a web browser that doesn't support simple GIFs, and Mobile users won't probably even care to update an image over their device (since a device that doesn't support GIFs would have troubles working with actual images and such).

Comments
The idea makes sense, but the template must be consistent in design with other image notices, such as, , , etc. Having the whole "if the Goombas aren't moving" explanation also seems unnecessary: just say something like "This image is animated; please do not reupload it as a static image." and maybe an additional note that some brows might erroneously display it as already being a static image, but either way, be succinct. -
 * Thanks for the heads-up. That was a sample, after all. 15:19, 4 March 2015 (EST)
 * By the way, why not use another animated image? If you look at File:Evotag.png, you'll understand what I mean. 15:35, 4 March 2015 (EST)
 * As long as the image doesn't look like crap, it can be whatever (of the two, I'd say the SMB Goomba looks better). But there should only be one image. And again, I still think the "if the Goombas aren't moving" caveat is unnecessary (and it's unnecessary on Bulbapedia too), since even folks who see movement shouldn't reupload static versions of the image, and either way, simpler is better. The excessive !s are also less than ideal and Help:Image has nothing to do with the issue so there's no point in linking to it. Right now, I would suggest this as the design:


 * - }
 * Yeah, now that I've thought about it in greater depth, I'm pretty sure Walkazo is right. 18:13, 4 March 2015 (EST)
 * You've got your wish, Walkazo. 18:17, 4 March 2015 (EST)

"To explain that some browsers are limited to viewing only the first frame of animated images and kindly remind users (especially new users that use old and worn-out browsers) not to change the image"

Which browsers don't support animated images? I think most popular browsers (FireFox and Internet Explorer and maybe Safari) supports the basic animated .gif image. Finally, for the notice template, it would be better if the image included has transparency instead of a white background, but it's just my opinion. 18:30, 4 March 2015 (EST)


 * The Evotag example Stonehill provided actually doesn't work on Chrome without an extension (but it works in Firefox; dunno about IE), and afaik mobile devices often can't load GIFs. Anyway, I agree about the image: I couldn't do anything before since I was at school, but now that I'm home, I reuploaded it as a transparent GIF. -
 * Walkazo, the gif has an incorrect frame of animation. Just pointing that out for you. 23:23, 4 March 2015 (EST)
 * Yeah, sorry, it saved with the wrong layer mode by accident. It should be better now, but the revisions haven't refreshed for me here or on the file page so I can't tell for sure yet. -
 * I see it, it works fine now 16:18, 5 March 2015 (EST)

Does this count personal images too?
 * No one should be reuploading someone else's PIs, so tagging them would be unnecessary. -

This matter itches me because there is a point that is missed here. Animated GIFs are supported in any browser since the millenium bug (bar early wearables). However, this template is meant for animated PNGs, which is not supported in all browsers yet, let alone image editors. Bulbapedia uses these APNGs in a manner not crucial to the information, just as eye-candy for those with awesome browsers. To the matter at hand, the Super Mario Wiki does not have any APNGs at all to my knowledge (a proposal about them even failed a while ago), so while the template and idea are great (my support), no images will have it (my oppose). 18:06, 5 March 2015 (EST)


 * Well, GIFs still break for mobile devices iirc, but the opposite problem you speak of just occurred to me: we have lots of GIFs, and tagging them all seems like a lot of work for very little gain. After all, for the most part, if somethings uploaded as a GIF, it's because its animated (and should actually be reuploaded as a PNG if it's static), so the file type alone should let people know it's supposed to be moving - and most folks viewing with a mobile device probably aren't in a position to try reuploading files anyway. The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to feel that it is unnecessary. -
 * When mobile devices don't support GIFs it really is an old device. That aside, I do a lot on my phone but I won't go around and edit GIFs on it, so for those devices we don't need such template. If we ever do things with APNGs (i.e. when browser support is better and when MediaWiki supports thumbnails for then), then sure. Also, this PI is an APNG, for those interested in it. 22:16, 6 March 2015 (EST)
 * @Walkazo, when you say mobile device users aren't in a position to re-upload files, what do you mean? Because I've ironically uploaded most of my files from an iPad. (BTW, gifs run perfectly fine on it, but I'm not sure if this is the case for other mobile users.) Andymii (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (EDT)
 * I am replying to both your comment and edited vote here. While yes, it very well is possible to upload files to the Wiki using mobile devices, just not all support it. You can't compare it to yourself either, you uploaded just JPGs lately, we're talking GIFs here. Honestly though, this proposal is proposing we add something that is only needed for users of Internet Explorer 4 and phones with green LCDs. The need is just not there. 17:59, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

Make a Rule Against Using Too Many Contractions
This proposal is complicated, so please read this carefully so you know exactly what I am proposing.

Ever since I joined this wiki, one thing I always keep an eye out for is contractions (won't, can't, he'll, doesn't, etc.). We are an encyclopedia, so we should be relatively formal; contractions are generally looked upon as colloquial and informal. So what should we do?

Well, first of all, contractions are completely fine in talk and discussion pages, so any rule against contractions should not apply in those pages. And since contractions have become such an important part of English, a person using a few once in a while by accident should not be penalized. However, when people start using them excessively, sentences start to sound like "Mario'll then grab the item. It'll then transform him into Mini Mario, which'll allow him to run up walls he can't run up otherwise." See how informal it sounds? As one of the premier NIWA wikis, this would be unacceptable here on MarioWiki. The unfortunate truth is that this website is loaded with sentences like these.

So, I propose that contractions in main space pages be generally avoided and using them to excess be worth a gentle Reminder. It will make things admittedly more difficult, but at the end, it is for the good of the wiki.

Contractions are already technically against our standard style, but it has to be raised a notch due to sheer amount of infractions. Pushing it off to the side will not work.

Proposer: Deadline: March 13, 2015 at 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per my own proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry, but the use of contractions is already against standard style; making a rule specifically for contractions is entirely redundant with the general rules for formal and standard writing. Contractions are what they are: a type of slang, and should already be actively discouraged when writing articles on this wiki.
 * 2) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 3) - Contractions are no more slang than commonplace abbreviations like "etc." (et cetera), "a.m./AM" (ante meridiem), "CD" (Compact Disc), "i.e." (id est), or "laser" (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). There is nothing wrong with using them on the wiki (check the policies), and rightly so, for it would be an antiquated and pointless waste of time to forbid and remove them. Most users write the way that's familiar to us, and like it or not, contractions are a fixed part of modern language; many outlets of "formal" writing are starting to come around on this matter, and just as we allow users to write according to their different countries' standards of grammar, punctuation and spelling, so too should we allow them to use contractions as they've been taught. Within reason, of course, but using common sense is a given for all aspects of wiki writing, and the odd contraction here and there doesn't make the place illegible or unsightly in the slightest.
 * 4) Contractions are already hard not to use for some people (such as me), so even a Reminder would be harsh.
 * 5) Per Walky.
 * 6) Per Walkazo.
 * 7) I have to disagree with Walkazo about putting common contractions in the same vein as "etc.", "a.m./AM". "CD". or "laser". This wiki is meant to be as formal as possible, and contractions have a much more breezy tone. If you had to write a term paper or a letter to a company willing to hire you, it's best to avoid the contractions. Contractions are informal and laid-back, so it's probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The contractions Walkazo mentioned have hardly any tonal differences compared with the common contractions; they rose as a condensation on otherwise long terms compared to "can't", "won't", which most likely arose from spoken language. Anyway, this proposal is unnecessary, verging on pedantry that penalizes people for simply writing in an informal tone. I allow contractions on articles, but ideally, there should be none.
 * 8) Per Walkazo.

Comments
I've noticed that you've added a point to your proposal after you voted. Yes, contractions are technically against standardized writing as I had stated (it's not our rules, it's a general rule in formal English writing that every English major should know). It doesn't necessarily need to be raised a notch any more than the forbidden second person/imperative writing nor as a raised awareness of certain styles and dictions used in a very informal manner in this wiki. I agree that more awareness should be raised about lessening the use of contractions in this wiki but it does not necessarily need to be its own rule since it's already a rule in standard, formal writing. 23:04, 5 March 2015 (EST)

Remove extraneous Super Smash Bros. conversations from articles' main body
The title's unwieldy, but this proposal is specifically covering the Snake's codec conversations and Palutena's Guidance conversations. These conversations are charming bits of dialog between Snake/Pit and their advisers, providing tidbits and small background information on whichever character they're talking about. However, these conversations really don't provide anything groundbreaking, usually saying things that aren't relevant or would have already been mentioned, and yet, all articles have the Snake conversations and the Palutena ones are steadily being added as well. There's really nothing substantial that they're adding; right now, all they're doing is contributing to the mass of headers within the Smash sections. At best, they should be relegated to the articles' "Profile and statistics" headers or they should be removed entirely and kept to the lists I linked to above.

Proposer: Deadline: March 9, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Move convos. to profiles and statistics

 * 1) I'd say that the conversations are roughly comparable to the trophies; neat information, but it's probably best to leave it outside of the main body.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Yeah I was exactly thinking that they should belong under "profiles and statistics" before you mentioned it. I disagree that they "don't provide anything groundbreaking", they're interesting tidbits from an easter egg from the game, they don't necessarily have to be groundbreaking or be relevant or whatever to warrant a space here in MarioWiki. Move them to profiles and statistics, that's what they really are.
 * 4) I was about to suggest replacing it with a link, but that would be unnecessary. Per all.
 * 5) - Per all. The info's definitely comparable to official bios, and the less SSB subheaders cluttering up the History sections, the better.
 * 6) - Eh. I don't care as long as the wiki keeps the information somewhere, but I'd rather this than the one below, so I'll support here to just break a tie if there ever is one.
 * 7) I kinda liked them the way they were, but the proposal is a pretty good point and makes sense so per all.
 * 8) Per all, but not removing them from the article entirely, but move them to the 'Profile and statistics' section.
 * 9) per all.
 * 10) Per all. Yes, all. Every single one of them. Not a single one left. However, I'm also suggesting we could move the conversations to their own article and edit other pages accordingly. Per all anyway.
 * 11) Per proposal
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
@Baby Luigi: I'm not saying that they don't have a place on the wiki, I'm just saying that their place isn't necessarily in the articles' main body.

@Stonehill: I think what you are describing is this and this.