MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/41

Block on wiki = block on forum
VETOED BY THE ADMINISTRATORS The wiki administration and forum administration operate independently of each other and have different rules which are not mutually applicable. A ban on the wiki does not equate to a ban on the forum unless the user has broken the rules on both venues and vice versa.

(not sure if this belongs in Changes or Miscellaneous; please move if necessary) Normally, when a user gets blocked on the wiki, nothing happens to their forum account if they have one. Now that most people have both wiki and forum accounts, it should be considered that if a user does something stupid that gets him/her blocked on the wiki, he/she might go straight to the forum and complain about it (which isn't allowed), or do the same thing he/she did on the wiki in the forum, so therefore maybe this policy should be introduced.

Proposer: Deadline: August 10, 2013, 23:59 GMT.

Ban on both only when permabanned on wiki

 * 1) Sounds fair to me.

Ban on both in all instances for same amount of time

 * 1) Per proposal.

Ban only on wiki (do nothing)

 * 1) I think it'd be better to go for a case-by-case standard for something like this. If the user was trolling the wiki, then sure a ban on the forum as well would probably be the best course of action seeing as they'll likely do the same on the forum. However, if it's something like adding false information repeatedly or using edit summaries in a non-constructive manner then I think it'd be pretty mean to bar them for all corners of the wiki.
 * 2) Per Yoshi876; if someone's not doing anything wrong on the forum they shouldn't be banned there for malicious wiki activity.

Comments
You forgot a "Do Nothing" section, which would probably be best as there are instances of people being blocked on forum and not on wiki. If the user gets themselves blocked on the wiki, but still acts in a gracious manner on the forums then I don't see why they should be banned there.
 * The "ban only on wiki" section is pretty much the "do nothing" section; sorry if that wasn't clear. 03:39, 3 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Okay, thanks :)
 * It would probably be better if there was something like "Ban if they were using excessive language on the wiki", because that's the only way I see it working. - 04:37, 3 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Or like I said, trolling, especially seeing as there is no rule against swearing on the forum so it'd be stupid to ban them because of that.
 * I meant excessive excessive swearing on the wiki. - 07:34, 3 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Still no rule against it on the forum, so it'd be pretty mean to ban them from that for it. Only way swearing would get banned from both is through flaming.
 * I guess I should of just said flaming. But the "Do nothing" still doesn't work, as it says "Only on Wiki", when they could of been banned from the forums. - 08:23, 3 August 2014 (EDT)

I think that kind of discussion should be left to the admins themselves. You should have PMed an admin telling him the idea, and left the final decision to them instead of jumping into an open proposal.-- 05:28, 3 August 2014 (EDT)

Allow the upload of voice clips
ALLOW 14-0

So, I am a bit busy, but I will spend more time in the wiki, as how it was...OK, so, I was thinking about uploading some (NOT A LOT!) of voice clips, I mean, voice clips for people hear and see the difference between voice actors. Example: Upload a Peach voice clip from SM64 and one from SMG.

My idea is have a small number of voice clips.


 * Voice clips may be with.no background GFX/SFX.

useful places to get voices: the sounds resource, the kittycorps meowmix forums, MFGG, youtube.com, ripping (use BrawlBox, SZS modifier, etc) anx trought glitches (MK8) and SSB3DS will have a voice tool like MP games.

Proposer: Deadline: August 26, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Per proposal. It is a an awesome idea. It'll be convenient. For instance we could cover most of Jen Taylor's voice clips for Peach and Samantha Kelly's Peach voice clips.
 * 3) Yeah, I think it might be nice. It's not really that big a thing, but then again wynaut?
 * 4) Now that the proposal changed, I agree with this. Sound clips are a good idea to include.
 * 5) Mmmm, yeah, why not. It's a good idea to supplement those quote pages with some voices.
 * 6) Per 'Shroom64, now that the limit is gone, I agree. 7 in total was too low.
 * 7) Next time, overhaul the proposal and start again instead of changing it without anyone knowing. Per all.
 * 8) Per proposal. Though SZS Modifier CANNOT rip SFX as far as I'm concerned.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) We should do what we did with quotes. List a few in the article itself, and link to the main voice/sound clip page.
 * 13) That's actually a great addition, and will benefit the change of voice actors during the years.
 * 14) Per all.

Comments
@Nineelevndo, I understand your oppose...or the major part it. If ripping is hard, it isn't mybproblem: who want to rip, rip. Who doesn't...doesn't rip. Also, most of them can be downloaded anywhere, you just need to credit the ripper. Also, I said a dmall amount because of PC lags. Got it? ;)
 * If we aren't going to do much of it, then I don't see a point in a major change at all if it isn't going to be actively used. - 18:08, 19 August 2014 (EDT)
 * I understand. Maybe upload a few voice clips from alot of games should be better?
 * Given the similarity and sometimes out right sharing of sound resources within a given console generation, it'd suggest considering making one long clip per either system or voice actor that includes many/all samples we have. That is, "Mario's Voice, N64" would be the track name with every voice sample from the start of the N64 era to the end, or "Charles Martinet, 1995 - 2000" with same. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 18:46, 19 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Uh that's not a good idea. Mario Kart Wii uses about 100 unique voice clips per character, we're not going to document all of them. Just document one per game, that's the best suited for the character. Ninelevendo, ripping voices is easy depending on the system. For Wii, all you need is BrawlBox and a clean .brsar from an .iso, and you can extract voices from sorts of games (Super Sluggers, Mario Party 8, Mario Kart Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl). 22:32, 20 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Too be honest, I was going to further suggest that the entire project be moved to the Mario Wiki Youtube account to save on storage space and to prevent us from having crazy long resource articles. But whatever gets the job done. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 04:48, 22 August 2014 (EDT)

Just so you now, there's already a class of subpages for sound clips: "List of X media" pages (like this). Right now, it's only for games and whatnot, but I suppose if enough sound clips of a character are amassed, a subpage could be used for that. However I doubt that would ever be necessary, and it's not very ideal either. Uploading sound clips of voicework in of itself isn't a bad idea, tho: just be choosy about what's worth including. -
 * OK!

It may be nice to have voice clips, thing is, for all the Mario games that will come, the maximum of 7 is too low. I don't know anything on converting and stuff, but it could be nice to have them as .ogg files, just as musics. This way we could have, just like for the games page, a "List of Mario GFXs" and/or "List of GFXs from Super Mario 64". By the way, another reason for not supporting in Ninelevendo's. Why putting so effort for a such difficult thing to do when not so much people will hear it? But yes, I know that GFXs put a variety at the game and are nice to hear with music. P.S. I found a video glitch of MK8 where the music goes off and all the characters voices can be hearded, the ones when you select it. The link is www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUJH3oTDwbE. Hope I helped you if the proposal pass :)
 * I would support if it was just "let voice file be uploaded", however, a subpage and limit makes lets this proposal down. - 02:25, 20 August 2014 (EDT)
 * In fact, it would be nice to have them, but per Ninelevendo, I'm neutral. Opposing would mean no clips at all.

The majority of the users on this Wiki are on either Windows XP, Vista and 7 or Mac OS X. I'd see a lag if they were on something older let's say like Windows 2000 or Windows Me, 98 and 95 but that's very unlikely since barely anyone uses Windows 2000 or Windows 9X.I'd see that some people would receive a lag but that is if they were using an old piece of shit Windows 2000,9X or NT 4.0 PC.If someone were using Windows 2000 then this site would look all garbled up and shit like that though the chance is very unlikely for someone to use such older outdated and abandoned OSes.
 * What has the majority of users using according to some random survey that you made up got to do with why we should allow voice clips that deserve a separate page? And Tsunami, opposing wouldn't mean that, it just means that it won't happen in the same detail given as the proposal states. I'm all for letting voice clips in, but a separate page, I'm not. -  07:48, 20 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Well, the title says "Allow the upload of voice clips"... I thinked that support means can upload and oppose means can't upload. I probabily get it wrong.
 * The title states that, but the rules in the actual proposal say some things that I wouldn't agree with. -
 * @Ninelevendo and 'Shroom 64, What I mean by my point is that if someone were to be using an older PC with an outdated abandonware OS like say Windows 2000 or NT 4.0 and Windows 9X then it may be a problem since they could barely even browse the Wiki or have trouble with clip playback or something. Besides that will all depend on their internet connection and how shitty their PC is. This is barely the case since almost everyone uses a modern OS like Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8 or Mac OS X versions 10.6 to 10.9 or any Linux distro. You see this lag thing would make perfect sense if someone were using Windows 2000, Me, 98 and NT 4.0 or 95. So is my point very clear. It think allowing voice clips on here wouldn't be a problem.
 * I agree, but the proposal states more than just allowing them. The idea of separate pages and a 2 second rule makes this proposal fail, but otherwise the idea behind it is great. - 08:34, 20 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Well, OK, aside from the fact that I didn't see your comments before I wrote my oppose, assuming they were there, I get your point there, and I guess it won't inconvenience most if not all of our viewers and users. But as Ninelevendo just said, subpages aren't a good idea still. Having maybe a few on the main pages like we do with various soundtracks seems better of an idea to me.
 * OK. If we just change the rules and just allow the upload (no subpages) at all?

I like this idea...but having entire pages for this? I don't agree. What I DO agree with is using a selected voice clip to color personality sections with characters, so you know what they sound like. I think one voice clip per character on average would be great detailing personality. 20:54, 20 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Makes sense. As for showing voices changing throughout the years, which also seems like a worthwhile reason to have them, I like Ghost Jam's suggestion of splicing many little clips together into a smaller number of more substantial clips that can all fit on the main page, once more avoiding the need for subpages. -
 * You know, I don't think it's too late to rewrite the proposal, since it's the third day. If you can, modify the rules to include the suggestions Baby Luigi and Walkazo put, remove the subpages and 2-sec limit, and then I'll move my vote.

Yeah, per Baby Luigi and Walkazo, but I think more than just one is better, like ~10 and also I guess they can be put in a place like for example: In Mario's article, in section "Media", have a subsection "Voice clips", or maybe a subsection to "Portrayals" or whatever and add several ogg files: "Tōru Furuya *insert years here*", "Lou Albano *also insert years here*", and so...-- 18:23, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Create Separate Articles for Smash Fighters
DON'T CREATE 3-10

This is an idea I had, and it's to cut back on the more lengthy articles like Mario. The Smash section for him is cluttered with his moves, Solid Snake convo and Subscape Emissary role, and I feel like it's a little too much. The Smash Wiki has an article for Mario in each different Smash Bros., so I kind of had the idea we could create a Mario (SSB) article where we can go more in depth about just his Smash Bros. roles; moves, trophy, stickers etc.

This would apply to other Marioverse characters in Smash, and doing this would cut back on the length of these already massive articles. It also allows us to redirect the Smash Bros. section for the Koopalings to Main Article: Bowser Jr. (SSB) without having to go into depth about Ludwig's moveset on his own article.

I figure this would only apply to Marioverse characters, as it's not like Link's or Pikachu's article needs to be reduced in size.

Proposer: Deadline: September 24, 2014 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) It'd offer a much neater look to the Mario, Bowser, Peach articles. I'd say it's worth a try.
 * 2) It seems like a useful idea to save on space, and we already have things like gallery and quotes spun off into their own pages.
 * 3) that seems legit :/

Oppose

 * 1) Very pointless, they are the same thing.
 * 2) Most characters' sections aren't even that large, comparatively or otherwise. Besides, what about non-Marioverse characters who've appeared in other media, like Link or Kirby or Samus Aran? Where will you draw the line to say which articles deserves to be split and which don't?
 * 3) This sort of thing is best kept on Smashwiki, and by going into more smash related stuff some characters would have hardly any info on them because they only appear in a smash game. Creating one article for all four smash games also isn't that great of an idea, as all the different games would have their information cluttered and split, making it confusing for readers. Also, the name Mario (SSB) would be going against the rule of not using abbreviations.
 * 4) I don't understand why exactly the Smash Bros. series needs the split. The Codec part can probably be split from its main article, each special move can go further into detail in another article. There's no need to split off Smash Bros. Smash Wiki splits the articles because the wiki goes far into depth about character move properties, how effective the character is overall, and other technical stuff we don't cover. We cover the basic stuff, and that's not so much we need to split it.
 * 5) The Mario article is inevitably huge; but as Time Turner said, we have non-Mario articles like Link, R.O.B. and others that would be comparatively weird to have an unnecessary other article for SSB. But why does Ludwig (and the other Koopalings, I guess) have his own section? It is really Bowser Jr., right? Per all.
 * 6) I know Smash wiki does it, but hey, its still the same charecter and who cares if the article is huge!
 * 7) Per all. And I would like to remember we already have links to every SmashWiki page, so they can be checked. And why can't you go depth directly in the article?
 * 8) I agree that some of our more popular articles could stand a trim here or there, but I'm not sure splitting articles up into smaller articles is the way to go about it, especially considering the snowball effect it will create. If it's simply a matter of trying to shorten articles and save space, I would think cutting down the offending sections and truncating sentences when able (both of which are supposed to be standard editing practices) would be a more succinct way of doing that, and that's the method I favor.
 * 9) - The SSB clutter has always irked me to an extent, but it would be better to just move the Codec and Special Attacks sections to the "List of Profiles and Statistics" subpages that we've already created for the longer articles.
 * 10) Per all. Again.

Comments
@Tsunami We don't really cover the technical things as, for one, it would make the section really long, but most of the terms (such as "Edge-guarding") could be considered "fan-made names". Plus, we don't really cover things like Hitboxes largely because, well, we aren't Smashwiki, our policy is different to theirs. - 01:26, 18 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Okey dokey. Thanks a bunch for the clarement :) Since our policy is different, I then don't see the point of following their. Maybe, if ever Smash Bros. will become complex over years, I will support this.

@Randombob-omb4761: I take your point, but our inclusion policy has traditionally been interpreted as "more articles are better than less articles, if we can pull it off." -- Ghost Jam 22:05, 18 September 2014 (EDT)

About the special moves, couldn't we just go back to having separate articles for them? A lot of the reason behind the merge was to minimize Smash Bros. coverage, and there was also talk of stubs being created (which used to be a very scary word). The stub argument is tosh for a bunch of reasons, but the coverage of "minor" Smash Bros aspects is an interesting point that I've always wanted to discuss. We have several characters like stage-specific ones (Ultimate Chimera, Bulborb, the Great Bay turtle) merged, which is because of their small appearances. At the same time, we have SSB enemies like Mites and Like Likes that also have relatively small appearances but are still given articles because they act as full-fledged enemies. By that same token, the special moves are constantly used and being seen, and the wiki's certainly no stranger to giving articles to special moves. After all, giving them articles would clear up some of the section's clutter.

I've prattled on about a subject that I want to discuss with no real point other than that I want to discuss it. What exactly is and isn't "minor" to the point of not covering it is something that I always wanted to discuss. Anyone else wanna make sense of what I wrote and chime in with their own thoughts?


 * We used to have separate articles for every individual Smash Bros. move. Sometime during the release of Brawl, something happened that our policy changed, probably a proposal. I'm not exactly sure why though (guessing article lengths?) or if we could change our policy back. Thoughts?
 * We've overwritten larger polices that have lasted longer in the past. Besides, like Ghost Jam said, our policy has generally been in support of more articles if possible, and it's certainly possible in this case.
 * This, guys? 15:06, 20 September 2014 (EDT)
 * That's the same proposal I linked to in my second sentence.
 * I don't know, it looks like Paper Jorge overlooked your link. 15:18, 20 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Yeah, missed it.