MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/46

Split all remaining courts/boards based on recurring places from their parent articles
There's big inconsistently going on around the wiki partially revolving around stages in the sports games as well as Fortune Street that articles based on new places would be allowed their own article but those based on recurring locations will be forced to share an article (Bowser's Castle and Luigi's Mansion (place) amount the biggest offenders). What I don't get is that if they happen to stages from more popular games such as Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros., they get their own articles which isn't really fair. So I propose that all these sports courts and party boards are split from their parent article as I think the wiki is better off that way.

I was oringnally going to have this as a TPP on Bowser's Castle but I realised this issue was much present outside the article.

Proposer: Deadline: September 24, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per what I said above.
 * 2) That's a great idea! Per NSY!
 * 3) Per all
 * 4) per all. By the way, this proposal can be used for finding out which people are willingly wanting to be involved. If there is someone who is determined not to do it, that person would most likely oppose; but not all opposes (in theory) will be from people who are that way; there could be some who just don't want those to split but would do it if this passes.

Comments
I like the proposed idea, but only if someone were willing to take the responsibility of making sure that the splitted sections do not become stub articles. For example, the Mario Hoops section in Luigi's Mansion (place) is severely lacking in information, and if that area in the game isn't very unique as it sounds (I know nothing about Mario Hoops 3 on 3), then it would turn out to be an awful article.
 * I can ensure that those sections that are currently in states that would result in them benign stuby would be expanded to contain enough information. All the other courts from Mario Hoops 3 on 3 have enough info on them so it shows that it can be expanded to a decent length.

NSY, there is nothing that has "forced" the merge with the main place articles. Nor does it depend on how "popular" games are. New articles already states that all individual stages (including SSB stages, party boards, racing and other kinds of sports stages) be given a stand-alone article. Most splits should be done immediately due to the acceptable size of the article sections. Some still require a "layout" section (such as the Fortune Street series boards which are still merged), which would guarantee an acceptable size according to the policy. The article identifiers would need to be determined, I suggest these for all the boards/sports courts.


 * Bowser's Castle (Fortune Street series)
 * Bowser's Castle (Mario Sports Mix)
 * Bowser's Castle (tennis court)
 * Bowser's Castle (basketball court)
 * Luigi's Mansion (Mario Sports Mix)
 * Luigi's Mansion (basketball court)
 * Luigi's Mansion (baseball field)
 * Peach's Castle (Fortune Street series)

I think these titles would be acceptable. The bottom line is, you don't actually need to pass a proposal to split these articles; we just need users who are willing to do so. This proposal should best be withdrawn. – 04:05, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

Pixl Queen, Waffle Kingdom, and Croacuses (rulers)
It may seem like common sense to do right now the first two, but the third one wasn't mentioned in the passed proposal. The Pixl Queen story had a major part of the story before Super Paper Mario happened. The Waffle Kingdom has many characters from it. As for the Croacuses, they are former rulers of Floro Sapiens. I would like all three (more like 6 because the croacuses rulers are four, but I could do just the actual three rulers not the prince. Either way, the Croacuses are together.) be split from the respective articles, yet still have some kind of a mention in them. Because how this proposal is set up, only one choice can be chosen by a voter.

Proposer: Deadline: October 8, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Do all three

 * 1) I want to do all three.

Do only two
If you vote here, please say which two. The 2 highest will be chosen.

Do only one
If you vote here, please say which one. The highest will be chosen.
 * 1) Of all the three listed, the Croacus family are the only ones who are physically seen in some way. While they are just photos, having info on their pasts as well as an idea of what they look like puts them at more of an advantage against the Pixel Queen and the Waffle Kingdom. So if I'm gonna pick and choose, I'd say that the Croacus family should get separate articles, mainly since they have a bit more to work off of.

Do none of them

 * 1) I want to say I will oppose!

Comments
Alright, the options in this proposal are a mess. You can't have specific conditions on each option, options need to be absolute and clear. And you can't make the proposal ignore a rule (saying users can only vote for one option). To be honest, this feels like three proposals crammed into one. Either split this into three TPP's in List of implied characters our outright remove this proposal. -- 22:45, 1 October 2016 (EDT)
 * Ok, I will let the proposal run during the weekend and sometime on Monday or early Tuesday, I will move it over to a more clear proposal(s) or cancel it all together. It all depends on the votes cast during this time. All those who do cast votes during this time will be talked to get them to vote in the proposal(s) if I do move it.

Create or delete categories about an area's citizens
As far as I know, there are only two categories that catalogue every inhabitant of an area: Category:Rogueport Denizens (for Rogueport) and Category:Glitzville Denizens (for Glitzville). It seems rather inconsistent for these two areas, densely populated as they are, to be the only ones to group an area's characters together. Such a category wouldn't be necessary for a lot of locations, but there are at least a few others, such as Toad Town, Flipside, Flopside, Shroom City (although that's a near-perfect overlap of Category:Mario Party Advance Characters), and possibly others. Since MarioWiki:Categories has a minimum amount of only five entries for a category to be created, this could theoretically get out of hand quickly, but there's nothing that's stopping us from moving the goalposts ourselves. At the same time, though, it's not as if the subcategories are all that necessary, since both the Rogueport and Glitzville citizens have a home in Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Characters, and they don't offera. So, let's put it to a vote: either we create new categories for other cities (within reason, unless it's discussed otherwise), delete the two categories that currently exist, or leave everything as it is and say that these are the only two areas that deserve categories.

Proposer: Deadline: October 2, 2016, 23:59 GMT Extended October 9 2016 23:59 GMT

Create categories

 * 1) This is my primary choice. If I had the Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, I would be an actual helper rather than just a supporter.
 * 2) My primary choice. It makes a lot more sense to create than delete, even if it does take more work.

Delete categories

 * 1) The characters that live in a given area can be listed on said area's article, and they can be included in a table that gives information about them; one example of this in action is this table on Goomba Village created by A gossip-loving Toad. Having these categories just doesn't seem beneficial to me.
 * 2) I agree with him! So, let's get rid of it and per him!
 * 3) I think we should do something for consistency, but I do not care what course of action we take.
 * 4) - A table would work much better. Per TT.
 * 5) The table look way better for this than category. So, per Time Turner.
 * 6) Per all

Do nothing

 * 1) This is my second choice. This wiki shouldn't just delete categories just because there is not enough of that category to make 5. If there is less then five areas in a game, would it make sense to delete those categories? The answer, unless they have no problem being with the game's characters.
 * 2) This is my second choice.
 * 3) My second choice, I just don't think deleting is a good idea.

Comments
Just to clarify what the proposal is this effecting, which category? Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door characters, area characters, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door area charcters or another?


 * It's referring to Category:Rogueport Denizens and Category:Glitzville Denizens, concerning whether they should be merged with the overall Category:PMTTYD Characters, and the "inhabitants" be listen on the area articles instead of having a category.


 * I'm quite neutral about it. 31 and 34 pages in the "denizens" categories would make a very large list, unlike the example that MW:CAT gives on Aquatic Attackers, which is a very small list and already makes navigation with a category unnecessary. This is why we have "[game] Levels" categories, and "[game] Bosses". Sure, they could already be listed on the game article (with the table that you suggested). But since there's already a lot of other kind information on the game page, relying on a long and detailed page list could become quite exhaustive to navigate with. That's why we have "levels" and "bosses" categories for games. – 03:11, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
 * I didn't mean that the game's article would have a giant table; that would easily become way too big. I was suggesting that every location would have a table that lists the NPCs in that location. 18:26, 25 September 2016 (EDT)

@Yoshi the SSM: By voting for the "Do nothing" option, you're saying that the Rogueport and Glitzville categories are the only two that should exist, and that no other will be created. Since you seemed confused about the proposal's intentions, I wanted to make that clear. 18:26, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
 * Let me remind you that it is the second choice I am taking, not the first. It means that I would rather have nothing done than a deletion. I also rather create categories rather than doing nothing. Also, it is fact that people don't become leaders in most situations. 23:23, 25 September 2016 (EDT)

I don't see what's wrong with with having a category for the citizens as well as a table on the locations' articles. The Donkey Kong Country article has a list of all the levels and the game also has a category for its levels. One is a list of links and the other is a list of information. The categories for the Mario Party Advance characters wouldn't be too small, either. There are several locations in every city with many characters. Same for Paper Mario places.
 * I just find it to be a needless division that makes it harder to find certain information without offering much in return (as per Categories, only the lowest subcategory is placed on an article; anything higher isn't used). I don't think it's particularly beneficial to have a category for a given location's characters when those characters are already listed on the location's article. Anyone looking for its inhabitants would already go to the location's article, so the category doesn't offer any added convenience. 23:22, 28 September 2016 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure if I really like the "anyone looking for its inhabits would already go to the location's article". Wouldn't this be akin to saying that we have a list of all Goombas in the infobox of the Goomba article; therefore, we don't need a Goomba category? Or we have a giant list of enemies, we don't need Category:Enemies? And so forth. I myself don't exactly see the harm in including a category like this, which does add one layer of organization without being frivolous. The rules say, if the area is too small to have enough characters for a category, let common sense dictate that case and don't create the category. That doesn't seem that hard to me. 14:29, 29 September 2016 (EDT)
 * The Goomba article, at best, only has an undetailed list of species and characters in the infobox and a brief description of each of them smushed between the actual Goombas. A simple list alone is not what I want, but the table that I had suggested would be more helpful than the category. It's hardly unreasonable to say that someone who doesn't know the name of a character would go to the article of the location in which they appear, which is something that a category cannot do. The harm that I see in these categories is that the sky can actually be the limit: as I said, a category technically only needs a minimum of five entries to be accepted, and there are plenty of locations with more than five characters; common sense as to what the limit should be or which locations should or shouldn't get articles can vary wildly between people. Even if there's a rigid system that works perfectly and logically, the end result will be that there's a main category which contains the bulk of the characters and then a bunch of smaller categories that needlessly disperses a handful of other characters, making it harder for navigation. I do not see the benefit in having that. 14:44, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

Move Yoshi, Donkey Kong and Wario (series) pages to * (franchise) and retool
This has been bugging me for a bit, and looking at the series pages (which are, in general, a fully acknowledged mess) while tidying up the tables over the past day or two hammered that these three are simply not series - for DK and Yoshi in particular, the only commonality between them is that they feature the named character to some degree, usually in the title, being motley mixes of platformers, puzzles and "other". In addition, there are a bunch of series-within-these-series (including Wario) that get their own pages with nigh-identical content based on a subset of the page, in clear violation of Once and only once (compare Donkey Kong (series) to Donkey Kong Country (series), for instance).

What I'm proposing is that we retool along these lines. Not deleting or merging anything for now, just splitting a couple of things and reducing duplication on the basis that this'll be enough to be getting on with, since the series pages have long been a triumph of ambition over accomplishment...:

Nearly everything is already on a (sub-)series page anyway. Complete the job, remove the MW:O&OO-violating material and look to make a proper overview
 * Donkey Kong
 * - overview page. Initially this will probably be fairly short, but the ultimate goal is to have something along the lines of 's reworking of Mario (franchise)
 * Donkey Kong (series) - basically, this becomes everything based on the original arcade game and the sequels thereof (so the arcade games and their ports, Game & Watches, Donkey Kong GB)
 * Donkey Kong Country (series) - in the short-term, not terribly different from now. (Currently includes DK64, and I would keep that. Indeed, I would merge...)
 * Donkey Kong Land (series) - frankly, I think this should be merged with the DKC series page, which it has to be viewed in the context of, but unless there's heavy support for that, keep it as it is for now
 * Diddy Kong Racing (series)
 * Donkey Konga (series)
 * Mario vs. Donkey Kong (series)
 * DK (series)
 * The remainder remain on Donkey Kong (franchise) for now


 * Yoshi:
 * - overview page. As above
 * - all the Yoshi+Baby Mario(/etc) games
 * - could use a better name, but Yoshi, Yoshi's Cookie, Tetris Attack
 * The remainder remain on Yoshi (franchise) for now


 * Wario:
 * - overview page. As with DK, almost all of the games are on the (sub-)series pages anyway, it's just enforcing MW:O&OO
 * Wario Land (series)
 * WarioWare
 * The remainder remain on Wario (franchise) for now

Proposer: Deadline: 17 October 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per above
 * 2) Have those three as franchises? Yes. Have Donkey Kong Land part of the Donkey Kong Country? Best to keep them separate. How to do the franchises? Just like Mario (franchise). Why do I support the idea of making like the Mario (franchise)? Franchises must be similar in appearance. Series can be better, but I don't care much what happens to them. Also, they are more than just series. If you were to look at Super Smash Bros. (series), you will find out that their symbol is the franchise they are from. How long this will take to get completely done? Quite a while. 5th year of the Nintendo Direct will come before this is completed and probably the NX will come before this is 100% completed, but this last one is a bit of a stretch since the official date isn't known and this should take more than a month to do. Short answer is, I support the decision to do the proposal.
 * 3) This sounds like a good idea to me. About merging the DKC series and the DKL series, it sounds like a good idea because they are so similar, but I'm not sure because of the name difference.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Mario series = Mario franchise! So, let's try it!
 * 6) Per above. Also, I want to comment that I understand the reasoning behind wanting to merge the DKC and DKL series, even though I don't like the idea. While it's true that the DKL games are in no way remakes of the DKC games, they do have the same protagonists and antagonists, which make up the main bulk of the Donkey Kong Country (series) article. If we put that info in the DKL article, which is awfully short without it, the information would be repeated.

Comments
3D Player 2010: I genuinely don't think you understand what I'm suggesting. RIGHT NOW, "the Arcade based Donkey Kong games including the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series" are "lumped" "in with the more standard Donkey Kong series". I am not suggesting getting rid of, e.g., Mario vs. Donkey Kong (series) - note the words "not deleting or merging anything" as part of the proposal. Indeed, I'm suggesting creating a page JUST for "the Arcade based Donkey Kong games" at Donkey Kong (series), which is currently the "lump everything in" page. If this passes, there will be more pages, not fewer, but with less duplication [compare Donkey Kong (series) and Donkey Kong Country (series) as they presently stand). The retooling of what was "Mario (series)" and is now Mario (franchise) did not obliterate, for instance, the list of games on Super Mario (series). - Reboot (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2016 (EDT)

@Reboot: If it is okay with you, I will get to work on changing the Yoshi series to the Yoshi franchise as soon as this proposal passes. This would include creating two pages, so I have to ask. 10:18, 17 October 2016 (EDT)
 * Okay. I want to do DK first anyway. - Reboot (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2016 (EDT)
 * Okay. I will get the first part done as soon as possible. 17:24, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

Change the rules of BJAODN
I think that we should change 5 rules of BJAODN to allow things even funnier to happen.

Proposed Rule Changes:


 * 1) 00ff00


 * 1) ff0000

The bad jokes and other deleted nonsense archive is the fun and controversy archive on the super #ff0000#00ff00 wiki. Its purpose? To have the most bad works documented. for fun!

On a more serious note, this archive was created to store vandalism and poor writing that users consider to be humorous. The archive is for anyone to edit, as long as the added content satisfies one condition: it must be funny.

Before editing, please read the following rules:


 * This is not a general vandalism archive.
 * While it is true that what may be considered "humorous" is fairly subjective, common sense should play a part here. The Mario article being replaced with something along the lines of "MARIO IS A [insert swear word here]" is not funny; it is childish and obnoxious.
 * Do not add impertinent content to the archive.
 * As stated above, information containing vandalism and poor writing is the only type of content that is acceptable to add here. Such content may include entire articles, sections of articles, or "joke" proposals, but may only be taken from valid wiki articles or Proposals. Content derived from user talk pages or any other namespace is not allowed under any circumstances and will be removed on sight.
 * Users reserve the right to remove content which they wrote.
 * The focus of this archive is to store vandalism and poorly written material deemed to be humorous. However, there is an exception: if something you wrote happens to be archived here, you have the right to remove it if you wish for it not to be there (this obviously does not apply in the case of blatant vandalism). For this reason, there should not be any edit warring between users over any specific section being removed.
 * Newbie bashing is not tolerated.
 * There is a difference between poorly written articles that new users may be susceptible to creating and something so confusing and devoid of information that you become suspicious of the writer's sanity. We accept only the latter variety in this archive. #00ff00
 * Don't write badly on purpose.
 * ff0000#00ff00 create all-new material just to add to the archives, #00ff00 don't alter existing material to "make it funnier" #00ff00, and definitely don't vandalize actual articles in order to get them into BJAODN, because you will be punished.

Here are a few tips for organizing BJAODN pages:
 * Entries should be placed in alphabetical order.
 * Entries that have obviously bogus Red Links should be replaced with the template,.
 * Commentary is permitted, but users should show restraint in this matter. Commentary should make the entries funnier, and commenting just for the sake of commenting will be removed#ff0000.
 * You don't need to ask permission to add something.

Summary of ideas:


 * The first rule change is basically fixing a typo in the page.
 * The second rule change creates an exception to a rule. I understand why that rule exists, as we are trying to not offend people, but if someone thinks that something they wrote in the past when they themselves were a newbie, deserves to be added, why not? If having it added would truly offend them, then they would not add it.  It's that simple.
 * Some people might have a desire to be creative with BJAODN entries. Currently, the rules do not allow that.  The third rule change allows users to be creative, and expands what can be added to BJAODN, which would make BJAODN even funnier.
 * Sometimes BJAODN content is written with minor errors added onto the existing nonsense. I think we should cut out the minor errors, and simply leave only the nonsense remaining.  The fourth rule change does just that, allowing users to fix spelling and wiki formatting errors in BJAODN entries, so that the entries become entirely nonsense.
 * The fifth rule change allows users to start conversations about how they feel about BJAODN entries. Having such conversations would make things funnier, by allowing users to talk about the nonsense, in addition to the nonsense already being there.

If necessary, we can implement a rule similar to the Userspace policy where excessive BJAODN editing is a warnable offense, so that people do not overdo it, or create an account just to participate.

Proposer: Deadline: October 27, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) per proposal

Oppose

 * 1) My reasoning below.
 * 2) Per Glowsquid.
 * 3) Per Glow!
 * 4) Per Glowsquid.
 * 5) Having a huge all-or-nothing proposal to "fix" some of BJAODN's "flaws" is not the right way to go: for example, the first change you proposed was fixing the intentionally misspelled "mairo", so that's something I'm already against as it goes against the point of that sentence. Another thing is, we strictly forbid the creation of new content to go into this page for a reason: people will end up vandalizing pages and writing poorly on purpose just to get an entry on this page because they think they're "funny XD", as opposed to unintentionally funny content due to the result of genuine intentions but terribad bad execution. A lot of these fixes are just not suitable for proposal format, and they're better off with a regular discussion on the BJAODN's talk page. In my opinion, none of these changes would be beneficial to the BJAODN and they add several layers of unnecessary complexity to what should be an easy-to-understand thing: just take badly written stuff that made you laugh and at it on there.
 * 6) Ninja: Very bad idea. I see the BJAODN rules as is as fine. One, the misspelling of "Mario" is intentional, as inferred from the bad grammar. We also have had a proposal that wanted to allow users to write badly on purpose, which massively failed. The reasons I'm opposing are the same as that one: allowing users to intentionally create content for BJAODN defeats the entire purpose of its humor. It exists to surprise and amuse users that someone had written a part and had the poor judgement to believe that it is acceptable. This proposal promotes bad edits, which is goes against the core of what this wiki is supposed to be about. Sure, maybe some of the stuff in BJAODN are Poe's Law in action, but this proposal would just open the floodgates and, in my opinion, ruin BJAODN since the surprise is gone. There is nothing to gain from this proposal except allowing users to have a reason to write badly. Anyhow, there isn't a rule against people adding their own poor writing from years ago, as it still retains BJAODN's purpose. The conversations about BJAODN should also be short and sweet or else they'll just be a stick in the mud and weaken the effect of the entry itself. There isn't a subjective rule, but conversations go on other venues. Same thing for writing bad on purpose.
 * 7) Per all oppose.
 * 8) – Per everyone.

Comments
Arght, so:

-The typo is intentional. -If someone wants to add their own contributions to the archive, of course they can do that. It's an obvious exception that does not need to be said. -BJAODN's whole point is showcasing well-meaning errors along with the rare bit of clever vandalism. When I proposed the page in like... 2009, I think?... one of my argument is that it could even be faintly educational by showing people what not to do. Just allowing anyone to shit up the page not only defeats any pratical purpose it might have, but also open the floodgates for unfunny monkeycheese; to recycle what I said in an earlier proposal, past attempts to add original material on BJAODN were less funny than a documentary on Darfur war refugee camps. -BJAODN is meant to be an archive of crap. Allowing people to fix errors runs counter to its whole point. -Excessive conversations were agreed to be removed in forum discussions because they were unfunny and made navigation more tedious.

I do not agree with any of the changes proposed. --Glowsquid (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2016 (EDT)


 * I probably did not think through the full effect of the changes I am suggesting would entail. Under normal circumstances, I would withdraw this proposal.  However, this is not a normal circumstance.  Since so many oppose votes have already been cast, I cannot withdraw this proposal, due to rule 4 "Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes."  20:17, 19 October 2016 (EDT)
 * Your quote literally has the term "talk page proposals" in it. This is not a talk page proposal. 20:18, 19 October 2016 (EDT)