MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Delete Door. (Discuss) Deadline: March 25, 2014 23:59 GMT
 * Delete Sun. (Discuss) Deadline: March 26, 2014 23:59 GMT
 * Delete Planet. (Discuss) Deadline: March 29, 2014, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete Pasta. (Discuss) Deadline: March 29, 2014, 23:59 GMT
 * Split from Super Star (power-up) (Discuss) Deadline: April 5, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Change the Signature rules

 * See: Draft

I'm proposing a change to the current Signature policy, the changes help reading and reduce the distracting signature does. The following are the rules that got changed, all other rules are unchanged..

First of any thing: Reduce the height of the signatures, The current signature is awfully very tall (See this for example: User:Dashbot/Sandbox). I'm proposing this for multiple reasons, the strongest reason is that signatures higher than 20px in height disrupt the normal spacing between rows of text. Adding ugly unnecessary spacing. This applies for text and images, thus you cannot use any html tags that increase the text size, including but not limited to,   and. The second reason I'm proposing this is that the bigger the signature is, the much more it would be disruptive catching the eye out of the message itself.

Second: You want to use image, as you wish.. but don't use mainspace images, simple! Just use any external or any personal image. That is because the unnecessary linking in the file page.

Third: Use whichever font you want, as long as it is not higher than normal font. It must be easily readable, also.

Fourth: A minor change, you are now required to link to your talk page, instead of requiring you to link to your userpage. 98% of the time I click on a signature is to visit the talk page. You still can have links to your userpage, contributions, etc

Fifth: Another minor change, You are no longer allowed to link to real articles directly.. Most of you guys are already not doing that, just adding that for the record. If you really must link to a real article, use an external link.

Sixth: No External Links such as advertising or any other websites are allowed, Use your userpage for such things. Like the current system, you are allowed for maximum of five word links.

Last and most importantly: Don't make your signature very disruptive.

You can use disruptive, long, anything signature as raw code in other user's talk pages, ONLY if they say okay. If this passes, there will be a week-to-month time until get issued.

Proposer: Deadline: April 5, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) We are an encyclopedia, we don't host fancy signatures. Signature should only be used for personality identifications, However, you can still have some good designs, if you adhere to those rules.

Oppose

 * 1) I'm fine with everything except the height rule; it seems okay as it is and you would hardly be able to see the pictures of Rosalina in my signature if you made the height requirement tighter.
 * 2) I don't think this would be great, many people will receive a sigfix warning. Per Epic Rosalina.
 * 3) I think the rules are fine the way they are.
 * 4) - While I am somewhat irritated by how spacing gets screwed up by sigs, I just shrug it off as something that can't be helped. Making images (and text) no taller than 12pt font is too draconian, and given how long the old dimensions have been established for, it's a bit late to try and change them now. Besides, we're an encyclopedia: messy talk pages aren't the end of the world as long as the mainspace and policy pages are solid. And on that note, the proposed MW:SIG draft is way too bulky; even if some things get changed to the policy down the road, the page should stay nice and compact like it is now.
 * 5) Awful. The rules are good as they are. Also, why not use mainspace images?
 * 6) Per Why Bother.
 * 7) Per all, it would be a hassle to get everyone to fix their signatures quickly.
 * 8) I strongly disagree with the second rule. I like the appearance of my signature very much, and I don't want to waste potential personal image slots and possible go over it just because of that rule. And using external links is not the best idea because you can't resize them. In all, this proposal creates more problems than it solves, I don't really hate the spacing and such. I just kind of ignore it.
 * 9) I think the current rules are fine and I don't see any problems with the spacing.
 * 10) I personally thought they were too strict as they are at one point. Per all.
 * 11) This crap is WAYYY freaking stringent for my tastes. Per all.
 * 12) No no no, absolutely not. There's no reason we can't have these. Per all.

Comments
I agree with parts, but I see no reason for why mainspace images can't be used.

I agree that our current signature policy could probably stand a to be reviewed in some parts, and I do like some of your suggestions. However, this isn't like moving an article or banning something everyone is sick of, this is a site wide policy that a large section of our userbase takes advantage of. I feel that the proposals section is the wrong venue for this, you're not going to get the level of discussion really needed for a change of this scale here. More likely, it's going to fail because it only has a week get it's point across (and this is a fairly involved point) and proposals function less like discussions and more like "yes or no" affairs. My suggestion? Move this to the General Discussion forums (perhaps even the Wiki Collaborations sub-forum), get a discussion rolling. Once it's been narrowed down what people like, don't like and the compromises therein, bring it back to proposals as "yes or no" type of thing. --
 * Actually, writing guideline proposals last for two weeks, however, seeing as they can only be rewritten within the first three days and there are probably a few points that need to be ironed out and as Ghost Jam said the discussion for that probably wouldn't happen within that timeframe it would probably be best to discuss then propose.
 * Even at two weeks, I'd put money on this snowballing to the "nope" side.

I don't see why we can't use Mainspace Images, i don't see anything wrong with them.
 * Look at the file usage for File:Booboo.gif, you can still normally use an external link by using something like  http://www.mariowiki.com/images/a/ad/Booboo.gif -- 04:59, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

@Ghost Jam: That's a pretty good idea, I think.. When this proposal reaches the deadline, We will have four weeks to discuss and settle this.. @Epic Rosalina: If you used another image, maybe this, this, if cropped, or this. It would appear better. @Walkazo: The draft can be changed anytime. While it can be too draconian as you said, the talk pages are pretty disrupting, catching my eye out of the main message. The spacing looks ugly, I can't just throw this idea out myself.
 * -- 04:59, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Changes
None at the moment.

Split caps/emblems articles onto only one
Articles like "Mario Cap", "Luigi Cap", "Wario Cap", "Peach Crown", "Daisy Crown, and similar articles should be listed in only one article called "Cap"/"Hat". The same applies to emblems from sports games. In case of other character's using the emblems of another ones (e.i Toads using Peach's crown as an emblem in SMG), should be listed in trivoa of the charcter's theirselves. I also suggests that an gallery shoild be created. It would do the article better.

Proposer: Deadline: March 30, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Proposal.
 * 2) How about "Headwear"? (Per proposal)

Oppose

 * 1) As for hats: I normally support efforts to reduce low content articles to lists or broad subject articles, but this one is a tad trickier. Of the seven articles I found, two are fairly low content, the rest I feel meet our standards. I don't feel that merging the lot will be a benefit, rather I find expanding the two stragglers to be a better division of resources. I would further suggest the creation of a template or category (perhaps both) for hat articles to be sorted under. As for emblems: I'd need to see individual examples of why the current system is a problem. Just running an open search lead me to two lists, so I'd say they are already regulated. Anything that missed the lists or otherwise has it's own article can be looked at on a case by case basis. I further mirror my suggestion from above, maybe an emblems category would be a good idea.
 * 2) The 3 hats all serve a different purpose (turning you into a different character) so in a sense they are all separate power ups and therefore shouldn't be merged.
 * 3) Per Marshal Dan Troop.
 * 4) Per MDT.

Comments
@BlueToad63, "headwear" looks better :)

Can you provide us the links to the articles in question? I'd like to have a look. So far, Mario, Luigi, and Wario's cap do qualify as individual items. 15:42, 24 March 2014 (EDT)
 * The seven article I mentioned: Mario's Cap, Wario's Cap, Luigi's Cap, Metal Cap, Vanish Cap, Wing Cap andPrincess Peach's Crown. Haven't found any others (Daisy's Crown doesn't seem to exist). The two I mentioned that could probably be expanded upon were Vanish and Metal, but the others seem to meet our standards. Additionally, I found a generic Cap lead article. Perhaps it can be expanded to include links to the other cap articles.
 * Princess Peach's Crown seems to be a pretty stupid article, but the rest are one of the many collectible items. I do agree that Cap can be expanded, though. 16:30, 24 March 2014 (EDT)

Why is Removal of Opposes here?
 * Fix it instead of waiting for me to do it. 16:30, 24 March 2014 (EDT)
 * I always put Removal of Opposes...IDK why... Ah, and Peach's Crown & King Boo's Crown should be deleted/expanded then, acordding to @GhostJam.
 * King Boo's Crown is also another collectible, unlike Princess Peach's Crown. :P 17:08, 24 March 2014 (EDT)
 * Mario's Cap and Mario's Shoe are a **** too. (I've censored it). Scarf don't looks to fit well, as far as these ones I've cited doesn't have... Special purposes/proof to have articles. Mario's Cap and Luogi's Cap (including Wing Cap, and the other ones GhostJam cited should stay then). But the generixc Cap  should be removed, or just be an redirect page. Articles that just describe clothing of characters should be deleted or expanded than. Items that have purposes in games, such Mario's Cap (again!) And Pauline's Items should stay, IMO. If Peach's crown doesn't be expanded, at least, move the page to Crown and cite there all crown that appeared as items in RPG's Games and cite important character's crown (e.i Peach's Crown, King Boo's Crown, Daisy's Crown...). Any suggestions??Because my comment is...huge! :P
 * IMO, evem.if King Bo's crown and Mario's shoes are collectibles in Luigi's Mansion, i think that theu should be mentioned in cap/headwear, and shoes in the game's/cahracter articles
 * @bluetoad63: That is not a valid support reason. Please make clear why you support the proposal.
 * Ok, Marashal dan Troop and GhostJam, if only the Peach's Crown, King Boo's Crown, Daisy's Crown, Wart's Crown, Rosalina's crown, and similarlies be listed in only one article?? And I suggest to delete Mario's Shoes and Mario's Gloves.
 * Princess Peache's crown plays an important role in both an issue of the Nintendo Comic System and the game Super Mario RPG therefore I see no reason to delete it's article. And Mario's shoe and Glove both play an important part in the game in Luigi's mansion as does King boo's crown which serves as the games final treasure therefore I believe that all 3 deserve articles due to their importance to the plot of Luigi's mansion. None of the other crowns do anything besides exist so I don't think mentioning them is necessary outside of the character who wears them's article.