MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Split Densetsu no Stafy 3 from Video game references (Discuss) Passed
 * Move King Koopa's alter egos to "Alter egos of King Koopa" (Discuss) Deadline: June 28, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Goomba (Super Mario World) to or  (Discuss) Deadline: July 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT.

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment

Add no bullet point to any trivia that has only one thing
I don't think we need a bullet if there is only one thing in a list. If there is more then one, then it does need it, but just for one, ii don't think so.

Proposer: Deadline: June 21, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - It'd be inconsistent with the other pages' Trivia sections and it's not like the lone bullet looks horrible or anything. Besides, if there's only one Trivia point, the best thing to do would be to try incorporating it into the body text: problem solved.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per the bureaucrat that voted on this. (A.K.A. Walkazo)
 * 6) Yeah, but that would turn the Trivia into a mess and will vandalize articles. Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per Walkazo.
 * 9) Per everyone.
 * 10) -Per everybody.
 * 11) - Per Walkazo.
 * 12) Per Walkazo.
 * 13) There might be more trivia.

Comments
This proposal is not needed: if there is only one thing in trivia, put it in the main sections where it can go.

This reminded me of a little problem: should we have bullet points in the "List of references" articles? I know it's not really related to the proposal, but since it's about bullet points... —


 * While having the odd one-bullet Trivia section is fine, on the Reference pages, the act of dividing the information into separate points is already accomplished by the headers themselves: bullets would be unnecessary. They'd also be out of place considering that a lot of the sections have full paragraphs containing multiple points (which is preferable to broken-up lists anyway), and they really wouldn't work with the few sections that have multiple paragraphs. -
 * Thanks, I think I'll get rid of those sooner or later. —

Remove conjecture for names of glitches
Honestly, it's pointless and looks sort of bad, and besides, Nintendo probably won't ever release official names for any of these glitches, so what's the point? Also this is my first proposal, so please tell me if I did something wrong.

Proposer: Deadline: June 26, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Horrible idea, dude. Nintendo wouldn't even give out the names of the glitches because Nintendo doesn't develop the glitches.
 * 2) It's the same reason we give conjecture names on subjects that have no official names. As a wiki, we have to cover everything Mario-related; nameless subjects are not exempt from this rule. As Pinkie Pie said, Nintendo usually doesn't find these glitches: if their debugging team did, it would have been fixed by now. Of course, there are some acknowledged glitches such as the Minus World, but the vast majority of glitches are overlooked by the debugging team. A conjecture name is therefore the only way we can name these glitches other than calling it a really wordy and unprofessional "the glitch where the player falls through the bridge in Frappe Snowland".
 * 3) The conjecture templates are not pointless. They tell us that the name of the glitches are not official and that these glitches can fall under any other name. Also, having these silly names without the conjecture titles sound equally silly. The lack of a conjectural title makes it more... formal and official. You ask, "Nintendo probably won't ever release official names for any of these glitches, so what's the point?". Conjecture titles are exactly the point.

Comments
@Pinkie Pie: I know, that's why I proposed to remove the conjecture titles. Why put conjecture on it if it's unofficial (in a way) and therefore, Nintendo won't make an official name for it? -- 19:22, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Because Nintendo doesn't care about glitches' names, so now you can understand.
 * No, that's not what I said. I meant, why bother to put on the conjecture thing if the glitches won't receive an official name anyway. -- 19:35, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Because Unoffical names has to go with the conjecture template.

You're asking why we put conjecture on glitches that will never receive an official name, right? Well, isn't that the point of conjecture templates in the first place?

Change FA size requirement
What I am proposing is simple, we decrease the size an article needs to be to become an FA. Koopa Cape is a quality article, but is too short to become an FA so is Grouchy Possessor. Articles like these are quality articles, but because of the size limit they can't be one, so the size requirement should be lowered so articles like these (as I'm sure there are many others) can be featured.

Proposer:, original idea Deadline: June 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) I liked good articles better, but per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal

Comments
Okay, you want to reduce the size required for the FA. My question is this: what's the new minimum requirement you're asking for? It doesn't have to be specific, sure, but say, what is your view on what article is too short for an FA? Baby Donkey Kong was unfeatured because it's so small. Koopa Cape has a similar size.

By the way, I'm also wondering if we should add some margin of incompleteness to featured articles as well. That is, if the article fails to cover appearances from obscure, difficult-to-obtain sources, we shouldn't unfeature it based solely on that. But that's probably another proposal.


 * I'm thinking of a decrease in maybe character limit i.e. 4000-2500. And I think your idea is probably more suited for another proposal.
 * I don't think character limit is the whole story, though, so that's why we should speak in relative terms. If this proposal passes, how are we going to enforce it? It's already hard enough to draw the line between too short and just right.
 * FA's were always about quality, so that is a hard question and I'm sorry that isn't really specific, but an article where its quality would outweigh its length. But of a reasonable length, my examples provided would probably be the minimum allowed.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.