MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/5



Backup Ops
ALLOW BACK-UP 9-6

I do not believe many of you are aware, but there has been a practice of "backup-oping" in the chatroom. When it is crowded and people are spamming, or if the only op in the room has to go for awhile, they op their friends or anyone who claims that they will use their power responsibly. I consider this abuse of power & incapability on part of the current ops. If there really is trouble in the chatroom that often, we need more patrollers (at the time of this posting there was 10 users but 0 ops), and the current ops need to take action and not cower in fear! But one of these days chaos will wreak havoc at the hands of one of these "backups". I'm not saying anyone is not trustworthy, this just isn't smart and things need to return to normal.

{{scroll box|content = Proposer: {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} Deadline: 15:00, Dec 2

Only Current Ops

 * 1) – one of these days a proclaimed backup will disrupt the chat, I guarantee it. We need more capable ops, that's the problem!
 * 2) Glowsquid Even thought I am one of those back-up operators, I agree with what Wayoshi said. I am too not against the idea of having more pattrolers, I mean, currenlty, we have at least 10 sysops and one pattroller... what the heck?
 * 3) ChaosNinji I agree wholeheartedly that we need more patrollers and less Back-up ops. At the time of my writing this, the chatroom is being flooded and spammed, as it has been all day, and not a one op has appeared throught the day to stop it!
 * 4) Dannyboy: Agreeing with the person with the title of Wayoshi.
 * 5) Per Wayo
 * 6) With the current inconsistencies with the rules, it's hard enough for the official ops team. I can't imagine it being any better for someone else.

Allow Backups

 * 1) Even as I write this, Wayoshi is spamming the Chat. Do you see why he wants to get rid of Back-up Ops?
 * 21:37, 25 November 2007 (EST) I would remain neutral on this, but I don't think people will be promoted solely to watch over a chatroom, so there would be even less of a solution than there is now.
 * 1) Per all
 * 2) I thought Wayoshi was being reasonable, until I read Pokemon DP's vote.
 * 3) Changed from support, Per Dodoman.
 * 4) Per DP
 * 5) Per DP
 * 6) – There has to be a few backup OPs when NO op is on. Which Steve can do. I vote no backup Ops if this won't happen.

Comments
If this proposal fails, I would like a list of official backups current ops can look towards, maybe in Help:Chat, at the very least. 12:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

There needs to be more active ops.
 * One thing you guys are forgetting, is that most of the current Sysops are trapped in their personal lives at the moment and, I don't know if school is on in America, but, if it is, that is a distraction as well. And, the reason I'm not on all the time, is because I have a life to live, as well as sleep I need! And, are you sure we should be listening to Wayoshi? He spams the most in the Chat when there are no Ops. Additionally, we should not make Patrollers just to save the Chat. Patrollers have to fight off vandalism on the Wiki, not JUST protect the Chat. If this is such a big deal, why don't you just remove the Chat for good?

Pokemon DP: While Wayoshi motives are indeed dubious, he's right. This whole back-up up thing may make soem of those back-uo operators that they could get promoted to Pattroler status, plus, a back-up operator can only be opped when an actual operator is on the chat, which make the point of their existence kind of moot. Glowsquid

I'm going to remain neutral on this, as both sides have a fair point. 21:05, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Since I don't use the chat I don't think it's my place to go sticking my nose into issues involving it, however I do think we should have more than one Patroller (for the Wiki in general). - Walkazo

To Dodoman: Don't pay attention to what DP said, he's just a bit upset he won't be able to op Uniju, LB2, etc. 18:51, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Can we get a solid definition of spam up in here? I know DP is more strict about it than some other moderators, for example.  That might help clear up some of the bad feelings that are going around right here.  18:54, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Most of the spam happening is indeed spam, not DP over-reacting. 20:35, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Sorry for asking, but who exactly are currently ops in the chat? - 11:07, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * DP, Phoenix Rider, RAP, Porplemontage, KPH2293, YellowYoshi398, Ghost Jam, and Myself. However only RAP, DP, and I are on everyday.
 * And how do you decide who becomes Op? All you listed are also Sysops on the wiki. - 15:01, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Wayoshi: In response to the list of official back-up Ops, I've decided to agree on that. For example, after discussing it with Plumber, Luigibros will NOT be a back-up Op anymore. I'm still thinking about Uniju... Blitzwing seems trustworthy enough. Plumber can act a bit spammy at times, but, I'm sure he wouldn't do anything like what HK did. I'll still watch him, just in case. Also, with Ghost Jam on the Chat, I will lower the amount of Back-up Ops in Chat.

I've only been using the chat extensively for the last two and a half days. Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Things has been rather silent, with some little discussion here and there, with only a few people who had to be kicked. -- Chris 20:22, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * And now I do see what all the fuss is about. -_- -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:27, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Alpha, if a back-up tells Steve they're a back-up, he'll add them, like he did with me. 22:30, 27 November 2007 (EST) }}

Improvement Drive
GET RID OF IT 6-0

The improvement drive was created a few time ago, even thought simmilar ideas have been tried and all failed miserably, it seemed like a good idea at time. But now, it's barely edited and the creator (Max2) is blocked from editing forever. As of now, the Improvement drive seem like a waste of database space more than anything, I propose we delete it and state somewhere than project like it were tried and failed, so we won't end up with the idea being brought up again, accpeted, and turn out to be a similar fiasco.

{{scroll box|content = Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: 15:00, Dec 2

Get rid of it

 * 1) Glowsquid
 * 2) – I knew this wouldn't work. We are a big community, yes, but it seems mainspace contributors don't work together, as our knowledge is spread out, not concentrated on a particular area (I myself have never played the original SMB). This just won't work consistently.
 * 3) It's a trainwreck, and a waste of our Wiki's space.
 * 12:58, 27 November 2007 (EST) Per All
 * 1) Walkazo - I think we should still have a plain old list of bad articles, that way any old user can see what they can do, and then do it without having all the hooplah about a "weekly collaboration drive" wasting their time along the way.
 * 22:25, 27 November 2007 (EST) Per my original opposition of the project in the first place

Comments
Walkazo: We have that list, it's called Category:Rewrite and Expansion Requested.

Glowsquid

Oh, okay. Thanks! - Walkazo }}

Wario Man (character) and Wario Man (Final Smash)
KEEP 'EM MERGED 10-3

Um, what can I say? If WarioWare, Inc. and WarioWare (stage) are seperate, why not this? It's not like there's a reason not to split them (to my knowledge >_>).

{{scroll box| content = Proposer Dodoman Deadline December 5, 17:00

Split 'em!

 * 1)  I am the proposer and I like pie.
 * 2) -One's a move, one's a character. Merging them is unnessesary
 * 3) Theryguy They are two different topics!!!!!

Keep 'em merged.

 * 1)  - See my comment below.
 * 2)  per Cobold
 * 3) Walkazo - Per Cobold.
 * 4) Per Cobold;
 * 5) Per The Bold Company
 * 6) I was originally neutral on this Proposal, but, after hearing Cobold's comment, I saw the flaws in spliting them.
 * 7) - per Cobold.
 * 8) User:Girrrtacos - Per Cobold
 * 9) - Per Cobold
 * 10) - per cobold

Comments
WarioWare the company and WarioWare the stage are something entirely different. Wario Man is not, he's a form of Wario in both meanings, just the fact that it's classified as a Special Move in Brawl does not change that. As such, F.L.U.D.D. (SSB attack) got merged with the F.L.U.D.D. article because of redundancy. - 09:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)

I see we have two different articles for Giga Bowser and Giga Bowser Transformation. What's everyone's take on that? Is this any different? We're going to have to decide which to split/merge, IMO. 22:07, 4 December 2007 (EST)


 * Nice spotting! We should merge the Giga Bowser articles and leave the Wario Man article alone. - Walkazo
 * Thank you! We should still wait to see how the vote turns out, of course, but I'm fine as long as we act for consistency.  19:15, 5 December 2007 (EST)

}}

REMOVE ON ARTICLES 9-0

Recently, I've seen theres been some misuse of on articles. And its not being used for its real purpose, on Notice Templates and such, instead simply saying "This article", while its sometimes being abused in places like real articles, which in most cases is longer then the Page's name itself. So, I propose that be added to Notice Templates and such, and an official rule be passed that its not to be used on articles themselves.

{{scroll box| content = Proposer: Uniju :D Deadline: 01:00 9th Dec

Support

 * 1) People are gonna get mad at me for making so many proposals when I never edit... Then maybe they'll make a proposal saying that you need to edit to make proposals, and that edits are kinda like currency to do things on the wiki... Oh yeah, reasons given above, ^^SO READ THEM^^
 * 2) I agree, aka, per Uniju. =P
 * 3) -  should not be used in articles.
 * 4) Per Uniju
 * 22:31, 4 December 2007 (EST) The less we use templates in the body of the articles the better. However... I love templates at the start and end and off to the side, but that doesn't apply here.
 * 1) Walkazo - Using the template is lazy and/or plain stupid.
 * 2) per Stumpers.
 * 3) Glitchman - per Walkazo.
 * 4) User:ND_IRISH_ROCK! Walkazo has a point. If you're going to be lazy, bug some other wiki.

Comments
What are you talking about? --HyperToad 10:41, 6 December 2007 (EST)
 * If you place on an article, it will put the Page's name. Its there for templates and such, but isn't used on them. And lately I've seen people adding it to articles, mostly on images. Thats what we're talking about.
 * What is the harm in using it in articles? -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 19:24, 6 December 2007 (EST)
 * Good point, Chris. Sorry I forgot to mention this: (1) page moves, particularly ones such as "Toad" to "Toad (character)" or articles that cover multiple topics being limited to one. (2) If the template ever changes, it will take a lot more work to change the articles back to the old method.  When I say changes I'm thinking about if we wanted to have it link to both the page and the talk page.  Very unlikely, I know, but it's my concern.  Oh... vandalism, too unless the page is locked.  Really, though, all of this is very unlikely.  23:12, 6 December 2007 (EST)
 * Ghost Jam: It usually takes more space then the article's name, and thats not what its there for. Also, Stumpers:... Are you even talking about the pagename thing? :\
 * If it's the template that places the name of the article in place of, then yes.  Think: what if you put that one a page like Ashley, now merged as Ashley and Red?  "When Ashley combed her hair she accidently hit Red with her fist" (yes, it's a fake example) now, that page is called "Ashley and Red", so it would read "When Ashley and Red combed her hair she accidently hit Red with her fist." There you go.  Only careful reading of the article would find that error.  23:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)

}}

Individual Stars
KEEP INFORMATION ON INDIVIDUAL STARS 11-2

It seems rather cumbersome to me to have information on all the Stars on all the galaxies in Super Mario Galaxy. We don't even have that for Super Mario 64. Yes, some, like Bob-omb Battlefield have a complete list, but most, like Snowman's Land cover it only briefly or not at all. Therefore, do we really want a whole bunch of unused space on the Wiki? Or is someone going to step up and flesh them out? Personally, I think having sections for individual Stars is unnecessary, and turns this wiki into more of a game guide. Not a very good thing. But I suppose I shall see what you all think. Proposer: Phoenix Rider Deadline: 12 December, 21:00 (EST)

Addendum: One thing, though, if we DO keep these Star lists, we will have to complete the 64 Stars as well. This could turn out to be a big project, and right now it's all a bunch of white space.

{{scroll box|content =

Keep them

 * 1) Please see my first comment below.
 * 2) User:ImperialscoutsI'm with Stumpers here. btw Stumper, nice analogies.
 * 3) - Per everything Stumpers said below.
 * 4) Walkazo - Per Stumpers. I also agree with what Phoenix said about needing to flesh out articles like Snowman's Land.
 * 19:11, 7 December 2007 (EST) - I'll help out with SM64 stars, but not Galaxy stars.
 * 1) Vadahata2-per stumpers.
 * 2) Litnin200 - I say keep them. You know, the same thing is currently being done for Donkey Kong 64 (Golden Banana Guide), so if we get rid of these, we'll also have to get rid of those. Oh, and if we do get rid of them here, could we at least put them up somewhere else, like at StrategyWiki?
 * 3) They're very helpful. User:Fly Guy 2
 * 4) Keep them in. The more articles the better! Once I get this game, I will try to give better details on the stars.
 * 5) User:ND_IRISH_ROCK! We need to keep them for completeness, but they shouldn't be too long (my two cents anyhow).
 * 6) Lemonface I think they should stay. The more articles on the MW, the better. If anything we can start making articles on the Mario 64 stars. It'd only be fair.

Get rid of them

 * 1) - Per Above.
 * 2) Glitchman - I believe Phoenix Rider was right, having all of the Mario gaming guides you could ever want on one site would be great, we need to add information.

Comments
I like the goal of the article (make us an encyclopedia, not a game guide), but here's the thing: you're using a hatchet to remove a fly from the Wiki's forehead. Here's why: you are proposing we remove information about specific events that take place during the actual game play of these two adventures because the player controls Mario during them, and thus they are prone to discrepency and game guide style. However, with those gone, you are left only with cutscenes and actions that happen in the overworlds (castle, observatory). Sure, you have a basic story arc, but that would be like telling the original Star Wars trilogy with only a half hour from each film (and possibly none from the "Empire Strikes Back") because you are missing the events that occured in between. Yes, you'll be able to write that Mario gained at least a certain number of stars before defeating Bowser, but not about how he explored the Hazy Maze Cave, because that exploration was part of a "Star Mission." Additionally, the content the proposal seeks to remove/block is the very content that makes the games so famous (no one mainstream is talking about how Peach was captured in SM64, they're talking about the great gameplay, or the "Star Missions."). Even if you'd like to focus on the story alone, you need the stars and Mario's missions to retrieve them as they integral parts of the story.

The fact that the sections are not done when the game has only been out for about a month should not indicate that they will stay that way forever. Now, below I wrote about your concern about looking like a game guide and how to change text from game guide stuff to encyclopedia stuff. Take a look if you're not convinced yet.

We'll only look like a game guide if we present our information in such a format. Word choice is crucial here, because the events in these games are customized by the player to a certain extent. We must refrain from addressing the player or you, instead saying "Mario does this." However, that phrase can be tricky, too. Take a look at this faked example from Paper Mario's battle with Tubba Blubba's Heart:
 * Suitable:"Bow can protect/protected Mario from Tubba Blubba's Heart's special attack by using her Outta Sight ability. After taking extensive damage, the heart bounced away out of the windmill, where he reunited with his body.  Mario and his party members gave chase before running into Blubba, who they engaged in battle."
 * Game Guide: "The player/you/Mario (choose one, even saying Mario can't save this example) should have Bow out for this battle to block against Heart's attack. When the heart charges up during it's turn, have Mario attack before Bow on the allied turn, then have Bow use Outta Sight.  The heart's attack will go through the transparent characters, allowing Mario to keep more HP for the next battle with Tubba Blubba.  However, should his HP fall, Mario will have a chance to use restoritive items in his inventory before leaving the Windmill to face the beast.  There is no Save Block between these battles.  To finish off the heart, Mario should continue attacking normally until the heart charges up again, at which point he should repeat the process.

22:08, 5 December 2007 (EST)

I think we should retain those lists, but put them in table form. Section form makes it look a bit messy. 17:30, 8 December 2007 (EST)
 * Yeah, like in the Donkey Kong 64 article.

Blitzwing
 * Actually, looking at that article, the chart squishes the discriptions too much unless you have a 1600width screen with the window taking up all of the space, and then it's still cramped. How about using the third header for the level and then bolding the mission name and a colon, then the discription?  Yes, I know that with only one character we'll have more room, but generally charts aren't good for discriptions IMO b/c of small screens.  17:45, 8 December 2007 (EST)

How about the tables on the Super Mario 64 DS article? They look pretty good. 23:49, 8 December 2007 (EST)
 * Those are really good! I'd be happy with more like 'em.  01:22, 9 December 2007 (EST)

}}

Redirects
KEEP REDIRECTS 9-4

Recently, I've seen that some articles have been turned into redirects because their too short(Like all of the Prankster Comets), however, I believe that as a Mario Encyclopedia, we should have a full article on every object, place, and character in the Marioverse, not clutter things into lists to save space. Lists usually tend to compress the information as much as they can, and not include smaller pieces of Information. They also tend to lack an image of each thing in the list, while full articles usually do not. Thus, I propose that any Object, Place, or character in the Marioverse is major enough to have its own article, not simply a redirect to a list.

{{scroll box|content = Proposer: Uniju :D Deadline: 22:30 12 dec

Support

 * 1) I agree with myself.
 * 22:36, 30 November 2007 (EST) I agree with myself, who is agreeing with you.
 * 1) Snack 22:59, 30 November 2007 (EST) See comments below.
 * 2) --HyperToad 10:20, 1 December 2007 (EST) Per Uniju

Oppose

 * 1) - See Comments below
 * 2) -We don't need one-line articles. In real encyclopedias, it would say something like "See (other article)".
 * 3) Per Purple Yoshi.
 * 4) Walkazo - It sounds good in theory, but some things just don't have enough information for a full article.
 * 5) Blitzwing - Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Per Walkazo
 * 7) - per Purple Yoshi.
 * 8) - Per Walkazo
 * 9) User:ND_IRISH_ROCK! Sections seem to be good enough for many topics.

Comments
While I do see your reasoning behind the "every aspect deserves an article" approach, the truth is, some articles have very little to say about them. In these cases, it is better to have one page that can give all the information in a group rather than forcing people to go back and forth between bite-sized pages. Simply put, it makes navigation a mite easier. 23:02, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 * Almost any article can have more information than you seem to think. Also, I don't see how going between articles is hard or annoying in any way.

Although I support this proposal, I think it might be better to do it on a case by case basis. For example, I don't think much more information could be given on each individual Prankster Comet then is given on the current Prankster Comet page, although having each comet have a seperate page would make things cleaner and make the images (if any ever get added) fit better... Maybe I should have just opposed the proposal :P Snack 23:03, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Uniju, if you think more information can be put on the page, then you do that. But as it stands, in this case, there's not much to be said. Like Snack said, it should be a case by case basis, and in this case its hard to get enough information short of totally wringing it dry. And that doesn't make for good material. You can tell when articles that have little to say about them are stretched for the point of making them longer. Also, what about users who have slower computers? Wouldn't it be more convenient to have more little sections of information on one page rather than having those same little sections on separate pages, where they would have to wait for each individual page to load? 23:13, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 * Purple Yoshi: In real encyclopedias there would be an article on everything the encyclopedia would cover. Also, like I said, most one line articles are only one line articles because people where too lazy to make them any larger. It makes the place look sloppy of you are simply told to go to another article because someone was too lazy to write a new one. And, Rider: I never said I have a fast computer. Also, I never said this was only about that article, I said its about the whole wiki, and other Redirect-to-list articles. These articles make people not care about expanding the article, instead it doesn't really need to be expanded. Thats the problem with this place, things that either have small articles, or aren't "major" enough, will simply be either redirected to a list, or deleted.
 * Redirects are annoying, but I'd rather read one big page about Prankster Comets than six little ones: Either way I'd get the same amount of info, only one way is fast, and the other makes my computer bleat about how it's running low on system memory after fifteen minutes of tedious bouncing from article to article. As for the encyclopedia not looking profesional because of redirects, I disagree; it's stubs that are unprofessional. Also, PY's right about how some encyclopedias and dictionaries use "redirects" and clump similar information together, whether it's to save paper for hard copies, or time and server space for online resources (i.e. us). Still, I'm going to agree with Phoenix about taking things case by case; it seems the most sensible course of action consering this whole "delete/create-stubs-debate" doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon... - Walkazo

Uniju: Ok, explain how the guys on the List of Implied Characters are worthy of theirs own articles. Blitzwing
 * What about this article too, there isn't much to say about them
 * Xzelion: It seems that those Boos are a lot less major then things like the Prankster Comets, for them it would be like having an article for each Silver Star in Super Mario 64 DS. And, Blitzwing: Many of those characters seem to have enough information to have an article, and all are either notable enough to have a full article, or not notable enough even to be on that stupid list.
 * The only character on the Implied list that seem to have enough info for an article is the Bog Monster, all the others are simply thrownaway, one-time mention in a line of dialogue, the only reason most implieds are more than stub-size is that they are filled with ridiculous speculation based on their names, I agree we should have an article on every named things and all, but frankly, having an article on guys like Old Man Skoo is ridiculous. They do exist in the Marioverse, but something like WIN-tendo isn't worthy of it's own article, only a mention.

Blitzwing

I like Snack's point: determining whether to merge is an article-by-article process. I have had two experiences with this recently: Really, what you need to do is proove to the Wiki that the page deserves to be separate by writing about it. If the Wiki decides to re-merge, make sure that all your work got merged (and not generalized -- that goes against what we're here for) and look for more information and try again. It seems like a lot of work, but it destroys the possibility of a stub, right? 22:29, 4 December 2007 (EST) }}
 * 1) Ashley and Red: I tried writing the article for Red. When there was not enough information I could say about him individually (ie events not involving Ashley), I realized the merged page was fine.
 * 2) Super Star: This was a redirect to the Star page. Realizing that Super Star is the title the characters in MP1 are fighting for, I fleshed it out.