MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54

Add RARS to Template:Ratings
RARS is Russian Age Rating System. There are already Mario games that have been classified by this system. So why not add it to the template? Sorry for my bad English. Update: Looks like we need to add GRAC and GSRR too.

Proposer: Deadline: July 19, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * Да, we already cover other age ratings, why not this one?
 * 1) Also  (S. Korea) and  (Taiwan) should be added.
 * 2) no reason not to, methinks
 * 3) Since we already cover many age ratings, it makes sense to cover this one as well
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) За все, especially Delfino4.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Ладно, почему бы и нет.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Пер Бейби Луиджи.
 * 15) Per all.
 * 16) Per all.  There isn't any real reason to include the ratings of some countries but not others.
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) Per all.

Comments
How isn't it distinct from it? -- 12:12, July 12, 2019 (EDT)
 * Also, this is going to be very very hard to do, heres a list, don’t get mad if I miss anything or get it out of order, I am doing my best..., no dk on this list:


 * Donkey kong
 * Donkey Kong Jr.
 * Mario Bros.
 * Super Mario Bros.
 * Super Mario Bros. 2: The Lost Levels
 * (Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic) Super Mario Bros. 2
 * Super Mario Bros. 2 USA
 * Super Mario Bros. 3
 * Super Mario Land.
 * Super Mario World
 * Super Mario Kart
 * Super Mario Land 2. 6 Golden Coins
 * Super Mario RPG
 * Super Mario 64
 * Paper Mario
 * Mario Kart 64
 * Mario Party
 * Mario Party 2
 * Mario Party 3
 * Luigi’s Mansion
 * Etc...
 * Do you get the point??? But, I am Joining because we need all ratings. 12:21, July 12, 2019 (EDT)

RARS was created in 2012. So, only games released after that have RARS rating, I think.-- 12:36, July 12, 2019 (EDT)
 * Moreover, Nintendo didn't actually localize any games into Russian until the release of the Switch. Also, the specific RARS you refer to doesn't have its own Wikipedia article, so how do you plan to rectify that issue? 12:41, July 12, 2019 (EDT)
 * 1. Nintendo started localizing into Russian after 3DS release (SM3DL was first)
 * 2. There's only article in Russian language. Also, in Microsoft Store you need to write rating in RARS too . Xbox page - -- 13:01, July 12, 2019 (EDT)

@FanOfYoshi heh I appreciate inputting my name in Cyrillic but ignoring that Baby Luigi is actually called Малыш Луиджи, my name romanized would actually be spelled Бейби Луиджи. It was pretty close though! 14:09, July 16, 2019 (EDT)

Create a Mario Party 11 redirect
This may sound kind of stupid, but I'm sure that there are people out there who'll automatically assume that Super Mario Party is called Mario Party 11. Super Mario Party is the eleventh Mario Party title to come out on a home console, and thus, when compared to the overall Mario Party series of 25 games, it's the 11th main game, due to the other 14 installments being either handheld or arcade. Harkening to the Mario Kart games, Super Mario Kart-Mario Kart Wii have redirects numbered 1-6. If the first six Mario Kart games warrant numbered redirects, then I really don't see why Super Mario Party cannot be treated in the same manner.

Proposer: Deadline: July 20, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - Per proposal.
 * 3) - Per proposal
 * 4) Per proposal, especially Scrooge200's findings.
 * 5) I don't see why not. There was a counterproposal to restore the fan-made Mario Party redirects.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) per all
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Sure, per all.
 * 12) Per all, this makes sense.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all above votes and my proposal about the Mario Kart redirects.
 * 15) - I was initially against it, having had to delete the redirect when it was initially created. But since Birdo actually calls it the eleventh party in-game, per proposal.
 * 16) I tried to do this before, but since I saw this, I am happy the redirect will return. Per proposal.
 * 17) Per all.

Comments
Here's the proposal in question in case anyone wants to view it before voting here. 00:08, July 14, 2019 (EDT)

Super Mario Party does refer to itself as "the 11th party" in-game. 00:14, July 14, 2019 (EDT)
 * Does someone know what is the corresponding Japanese text, by the way?--Mister Wu (talk) 11:32, July 14, 2019 (EDT)

Create articles for the worlds in Dr. Mario World
A proposal regarding creation of the levels is still underway. That being said, this is a much more clear-cut situation and does not need a proposal, as the stages would have to be covered somehow.

After looking at the above proposal, knowing that Dr. Mario World simply doesn't warrant articles for each of its worlds, we'd might as well get the game's worlds themselves covered. Each of Dr. Mario World's levels don't have much information to about themselves, but the worlds as a whole have a lot more that can be brought up about them. Kinda like five sticks being tied together being stronger than each individual stick. 'Nuff said, the above proposal and the opinions of Toadette the Achiever and Mario JC back this proposal up.

Proposer: Deadline: June 28, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal, Toadette the Achiever, and Mario jc.

Oppose

 * 1) This is using an unresolved proposal to force through a secondary decision, and thus I have to oppose it on principle (elaborated on below).

Comments
There's absolutely no point in forcing a second proposal, just vote on the appropriate option above and state your reasoning as you did here. The proposal seems to have an overwhelming consensus now, but there's the remote possibility of it changing by the proposal's end. -- 23:29, July 21, 2019 (EDT)

Add template for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate's moves
Creation of such a template does not need a proposal.

I've noticed that previous Super Smash Bros. games have templates leading to the characters' special moves, as well as universal techniques like air dodging, footstool jumping, and tether recoveries. It's been more than 7 months since Super Smash Bros. Ultimate - the most recent Smash game - was released, yet we still don't have a templates dedicated to its characters' moves. I'd like to change that.

Proposer: Deadline: July 29, 2019, 23:59 (GMT)

Support

 * 1) Per proposal. Just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention.

Oppose

 * 1) - Per Doomhiker's comment.
 * 2) - This proposal is completely unnecessary. The other games have a template like this, so why should it be any different here?

Comments
This really does not need a proposal. All other Smash games have a template like this, and it should automatically should be no different for Ultimate. 19:36, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Seconded - This is s the sort of thing you bring up on a talk page before forcing yet another proposal. -- 19:51, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yeah, the template can just be made. 19:52, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Agreed, this proposal is completely unnecessary. 20:23, July 22, 2019 (EDT)

btw opposes mean you don't want the template to exist in the first place, so that's kind of conflicting with your comments. I can probably just cancel this outright, but I want to see what MarioManiac says first. 21:13, July 22, 2019 (EDT)


 * More of an opposition to the proposal itself than the proposed move - which, as you mentioned, can be made or at least discussed without a proposal. -- 21:17, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * You would not even need to discuss it, as it is like giving new games nav templates once they have enough subjects: it is something that is traditionally done so it should be automatically done without discussion or proposal. 21:36, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Which is me point, yes. -- 21:52, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yes, just cancel it. MarioManiac1981 (talk) 8:45, July 23, 2019 (EST)

Add when the Just released and New subject should be removed, while slightly rewording the former template
Just recently there has been discussion regarding when the template should be removed. While Alex95 said that the template should be removed after a month, the template, and its own page, says nothing about a date where it should be removed. In fact, it says "When the game is released, or more information about this subject is found, this article may need major rewriting. Remove this only when the changes have been applied.". So basically, it says that as long as the proper changes/info have been added about the new subject, the template can be removed, thus you can technically remove the template day one per the template, and as the template says that the template should only be removed once the changes are made technically the template can be on a page for years, if the changes are not made. So it is very easy to see how users can be confused on how long the template should last, and the current wording for removal should be reworded, as the template should be an alert for new subjects that are longer than one day old, but not years old. Plus it cannot hurt to specify when the template should be removed, to clear confusion. So, I propose to add a sentence and to reword the New subject template to specify when to remove the template, and the specification will also apply to the Just released template.

This is how the templates should look like after this proposal passes, if it does:  This is about a  that has just been released. Major changes should be made by a contributor who has a reliable source. This template should be removed after a month has passed since the game was first released.  This subject in an upcoming or recently released '''. When the is released, or more information about this subject is found, this  may need major rewriting. This template should be removed after a month has passed since the game was first released. The templates' pages will also include the date of removal.

Proposer: Deadline: July 24, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Agreed, although, that could be done on the template's talk page.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) I always confused these. Per proposal.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Strong support as another obstacle in the policy's elaborate reasoning to clear up.
 * 7) Don't see why not. Per all.
 * 8) Makes perfect sense to me. Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) - Per my current understanding of this template.

Comments
@FanOfYoshi I done it on this page due to it affecting two templates. I would much rather one proposal then two dealing with near-identical matters. 13:22, July 17, 2019 (EDT)
 * Ok. -- 13:26, July 17, 2019 (EDT)
 * I always remove these templates two weeks after a game is first released, but OK. MarioManiac1981 (talk) 0:08, July 18, 2019 (EST)

Disallow use of "per all" votes on proposals and featured article nominations
Let's face it, this proposal had to happen. Too many people vote on a proposal just for the sake of voting, and bandwagon on the side with more votes. "Per all" implies that the voter is too lazy to simply point out their reasons or even refer back to specific previous votes. They instead opt to say "per all above reasons", quite possibly because they haven't even read the above reasons and are simply voting just by looking at the voting headers, without looking at the reasons for either side. Worst-case scenario, they see that one of the sides has a lot more votes and they cast a "per all" vote on that side just because. "Per all" is the lamest excuse to vote that ever existed and goes directly against proposal policy of "Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it". "Per all" has some real meaning behind it, but it's rarely used just because the voter agrees with and would otherwise list every single reason posted above it. It's usually just used because the voter hasn't considered the matter carefully and is rushing their vote to the side with more. It's basically putting no reason with your vote other than "you know what just look at the votes above this because I don't feel like typing everything".

Therefore, I propose that the use of "Per all" in any proposal or featured article nominations be prohibited, and any votes involving its use are eligible for removal (unless they provide other reasons along with "per all", in which case the "per all" portion of the vote be removed and the rest of the vote stays as-is). "Per proposal" and "Per " votes will still be allowed, but in the case of the latter, voters must list the users they most strongly agree with, one by one. This provides at least some certainty that they have considered the matter carefully, and examined the reasons to see which ones they buy.

Proposer: Deadline: August 3, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.  (Just watch how even in this proposal a bunch of "per all" votes get cast out of sheer spite just because)

Oppose

 * 1) Per all simply means you agree with the points others have already made. Do some people abuse it? Probably, but we have no way of knowing whether they have or not, and neither do you. I see no reason to disallow it, otherwise you'll just have everyone beating a dead horse, or worse, actively discourage users from participating in proposals. This proposal also seems pointless as you could easily get around it by just writing a laundry list of everyone else who has voted prior. If anything, I'd rather see casting blank votes as an implied "per all" being allowed.
 * 2) In my opinion, there's no good reason to force people to give longer responses to proposals. I use "per all" because I don't want to just repeat the same points that everyone else already made. Honestly, I'd support just eliminating the need for vote reasons in the first place since an empty vote is just another way of saying "per all".
 * 3) ...Yeah no. Per all is used mostly because if one was to write out the same points again as vote number twelve (or even three), it would just waste both that users time and just be frustrating to read for other people. It's not going to prevent anything either, as Waluigi Time stated above. This proposal really seems to serve no use other than ''Well, I don't like seeing the words per all so let me just get rid of it."
 * 4) ""Per all" implies that the voter is too lazy to simply point out their reasons or even refer back to specific previous votes."" There are a lot of reasons for me to oppose this, but I think this assumption seals it. Do you really want there to be no alternative or shorthand for people whose reasoning is ultimately the same as someone else's, either because it was more compelling to them or because their own stance is similar enough to another voter's that it would genuinely make little difference? Because all this is going to result in, among other things, is people struggling to word their opinions in as obtuse a way as possible just to avoid accusations of "not considering the matter carefully" or not meeting some arbitrary level of originality in their statements. I for one would rather not be mandated to type out whole lines and paragraphs in order to satisfy some random person's perception of my understanding, especially not when a "per all" would suffice - if someone really wants to "test" my understanding of a matter, they are free to ask me for an in-depth opinion. And let it be reiterated that it is the attempt to seemingly mandate a perceived laziness away - and perceived is the key word here - that rubs me the wrong way infinitely more than any other aspect (e.g. the presumption of voter motivations, for one). And there's a huge overlap with that example, likely because the entire notion of this proposal is founded on assumptions, and ones that would easily be proven wrong were one to actually engage with the voters and see what guides their thought process, instead of trying to force their hand via such an overt attempt to try and finagle their personal opinion into an enforceable guideline.
 * 5) honestly i say we're far better off getting rid of the reason required rule to begin with: a reasonless vote is pretty much just a stealth "per all". a vote is a vote. i still have the same power regardless if i write two words due to bandwagoning or type a 1000 word essay.
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
Yes, there's an inherent irony in my typing an entire paragraph about how this is going to make people feel compelled to type paragraphs, and no, I don't much care because that's well beside the point. -- 19:02, July 27, 2019 (EDT)
 * And for further commentary, I peeked at the history in Recent Changes, and apparently this is a means of dealing with "bandwagon voting". If ever a statement begged a question, this is it: what exactly is the definition of "bandwagoning" being used here, and what are actual examples of votes that meet said definition without careening down the obvious slippery slope of "X more or less agrees with something Y said"? Because again, and let's face it, sometimes someone says it better than you could. -- 19:07, July 27, 2019 (EDT)
 * if he's talking about soliticing votes from other users, that's already forbidden to begin with. really it assumes a lot of bad faith in users when that's what we shouldn't do 19:28, July 27, 2019 (EDT)

I do think that rule of "Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it" is not necessary. Per all and blank votes are simply just reiterating the other positions. To assume the worst from blank votes kinda runs against the whole "assume good faith" sort of thing. 19:37, July 27, 2019 (EDT)