MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Move Knight Greenie to and add information (Discuss) Deadline: August 31, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete Template:WarioWareChar (Discuss) Deadline: August 31, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Rename Nimbus Person to (Discuss) Deadline: September 3, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Create a page for (Discuss) Deadline: September 12th, 2013, 23:59 GMT

A writing guideline for Image Maps

 * See here for the draft.

This writing guideline is meant to clear everything about Image Maps, when to create them, and basic rules. Everything of what are written in the draft are rules which are already known. A help page will be probably drafted, proposed and created as soon as possible. It will be created under the name Image Maps. Use the comments section below for comments and suggestions.

Proposer:  (lots of help from  appreciated) Deadline: September 13, 2013 23:59 GMT

Make template
Since there is really many 3D games.. and there is too much models on this wiki that is classed as a sprite. So I porpose we create a template for them. I'm not so good with copyrights, but here is an almost a copy from Proposer: Deadline: August 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT Extended: August 25, 2013, 23:59 GMT, September 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Create The License and the category

 * 1) They aren't sprites so a separate template for models seems like a good idea to me. Per proposal.
 * 2) If they're different, have different templates. Per proposal.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Models aren't used very often, but it never hurts to have this template. I also disagree with YoshiKong. Creating this template will NOT be redundant and a waste of effort because these licensing templates also create a category for these images to go in. Lumping sprites and models in one category is messy, so this template can solve that problem too.
 * 5) I strongly agree with this. BTW, there is a clear-cut difference between pre-rendered sprites and 3d models.
 * 6) Per LGM
 * 7) Per proposal

Do not create the License nor the category

 * 1) – I have regarded this idea with distaste in the past, where it was first brought up as an idea on a wiki collaboration forum thread. The idea of acknowledging the two kinds within image galleries, I'm completely fine with, mainly because it's a notion which is only needing to be changed once per gallery page, to comply with our policy. However, the fact that y'all are hoping to introduce a copyright license which is already legally covered by, the only difference is a slight nameswap makes this template seem completely redundant, and a waste of effort to incorporate. And I don't agree that every user should be expected to correctly license every sprite/model which gets uploaded, and telling them off/continually correcting them would get excessively pedantic. It would be a lot more logical and save us all this unneeded hassle if we just modified our current sprite template to mention these fancy fashion models. And legally, we'd still be safe (which remember, is the whole point of driving licenses), not exactly keeping up with the latest rad words.
 * 2) Per YoshiKong, he has a valid point. The obvious differences between sprites and models are regardless if they can both be legally classified under the same license. Creating another license to acknowledge these differences is highly superfluous and modifying the existing licence to accompany both sprites and models is the more logical thing to do.
 * 3) - Per YoshiKong, the purpose of licenses is simply to be legally correct.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) - I agree with YoshiKong and Tucayo.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per YoshiKong.
 * 10) Per the above :P

Comments
What changes would you suggest to -
 * @YoshiKong: It's not the legal part I'm concerned about. Creating game-model also creates and automatically places a category that neatly places all game models into one page. We could manually add a game model category, but we still have this licensing thing that will lump models with sprites.
 * Or we could call the category "Sprites and Models" but that still requires a ton of work.
 * Yeah, Lot of unneeded work plus it would be still mess. A separate category plus a separate license is the best way to go (in my opinion) -

No APNG Files
My proposal is simple, getting rid of APNG files (animated PNG files) and replace them with GIF files.

Reasons:
 * The APNG does not show on all browsers (at least without a specific plugin).
 * The APNG editing is harder and request a special program to edit.
 * The APNGs takes more time loading than GIFs
 * Thumbnails of APNGs are not animated.
 * Replacing them with GIFs is easy, and won't loss quality.

Stuff that will get changed/deleted by the passing of this proposal: Proposer: Deadline: September 6, 2013 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Per proposal
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Well if it doesn't work for all browsers... obviously yeah.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Until we get the technology available to make non-indexed animated pictures without some sort of special plugin or program, I vote per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't see anything wrong with them, i think they are helpful sometimes.

Comments
@Randombob-omb4761 Like what?

Changes
None at the moment

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.