MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/35

Add all nozzle locations
DELETED BY PROPOSER I have noticed something. We explain locations for Blue Coins, & Fruits on Isle Delfino, but no info for where nozzles are located. Even if they're easy to find, I still think this should be explained. Players have the right to know where nozzle boxes are found. Proposer: Deadline: July 4, 2013, 12:11 GMT

Support

 * 1) It's my own proposal.
 * 2) It's useful information to add. Per proposal.

Comments
I don't think that require a proposal.17:06, 27 June 2013 (EDT)
 * You sure about that?
 * Unless there's been an official mandate to not have the locations of nozzles written, this is simply information that we haven't gotten around to including. There's no need for a full-fledged proposal; you're free to insert the info yourself.
 * Yeah, adding information does not need a proposal (in most cases), but removing them does! As per rule #14 you could cancel this proposal anytime, and archive it. If you can't, just point here.--

Add a spoilers template
DELETED BY PROPOSER I have no idea if this was made before but I did a quick check and did not see it, ahem, to the topic, I think we should add a spoilers template to the wiki because I have seen one page in Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time to check how to solve something (which doesnt really count as story spoilers), but I looked by the story section, and I got completely spoiled on what happened, so what I say is we add a simple spoilers template to warn people of ending story stuff.

Proposer: Deadline: July 5, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - We have gone through this many times. We are a wiki, people must expect spoilers.

Add navigation boxes for games articles and their subpages
DON'T ADD NAVIGATION BOXES 4-13

I propose we make boxes to navigate through games page/subpages, like this example that might be used in the Mario Kart Wii article:  Game • Gallery • Beta Elements • Glitches • Staff • Media These boxes can be placed on top of the pages to make navigation simpler than looking for sections inside the articles (even because in some pages they are spread in a confusing way). With this, we can erase incomplete or empty sections with "Main Article: List of [such game] beta elements" or "Main Article: List of glitches in [such game]" and things like this being all the text in them (like this and this).

As I said with the comment below, the box can sum every of these sections (gallery, beta elements, glitches, media, staff and quotes) in one line, so we won't need the sections just to mention the subpages exist. See this example.

Proposer: Deadline: June 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) My proposal, so I support it.
 * 2) Awesome idea, per proposal.
 * 3) Not just because it's the easiest way to find the subpages (as we have the content table with the use of sections), but also because all those sections can be summed up in one line.
 * 4) I find it very convenient.

Oppose

 * 1) We already have a big list of sections for an article, right near the top. Having a template for it really isn't necessary.
 * 2) Per TT. And I think placing that at the top of the pages would look ugly.
 * 3) - Completely unnecessary. The main article is where the important info is, and the ex-subpages are extra, so why would we advertise them front and center in an ugly box that distracts the readers from the whole reason they came to that main page: to read the article. The TOC will get them down to the sections that link to the ex-subpages, and if it's done right, you should be able to get there using the game's basic category too.
 * 4) Per TT and Walkazo.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per Time Turner and Walkazo.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) Per all; we don't need more templates like that.
 * 9) Per all, these would just take up extra space.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) - I just can't say another word, Walkazo said it. other than that, I think a small entry is better than only a link.
 * 12) Per Walkazo.
 * 13) Per Time Turner and Walkazo.

Comments
But, wait, don't we have the Table of Contents for that?
 * Table of Contents? Where's this?
 * There's a big box at the beginning of an article, after the opening paragraph(s), showing the links to all the headers.
 * Oh, these, okay. But even with this, there are lots of sections to choose and still have the bunch of short sections.
 * I am not entirely sure what you're saying.
 * The sections like this one are just like redirect pages converted into sections, so they are too short. There are also the ones with examples, like this one, but they are kinda useless because there's already the link for those and more images/beta elements/glitches/etc in the section itself. With the box, all of these pages are listed in one single line with no need of sections just to mention they exist.
 * As seen here, empty redirect sections are not actually allowed, and should be replaced by succinct overviews of the pages in question (and not just random samples of the other page, although it's hard to summarize an image gallery). So that's a moot point. -

Ugly? Distracting? In my opinion, it's far better than sections that take unnecessary space.
 * Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. But you're still arguing against an organization standard that is already outdated: once they're updated, those sections won't be wastes of space anymore. -

Create pages "Remake" and "port"
DELETED BY PROPOSER

A lot of users have often asked questions on "what is the difference between a remake and port" or "what is a port" and "what is a remake". Therefore, I think we should create articles on the two terms, briefly describing the definition, and some examples from the Mario series.

Proposer: Deadline: July 5, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per what I said above.

Comments
If we're going to create terms like that, would it be an idea to also create an article 'Game'. It may be obvious to everyone what it is, but still.

In my opinion, having the terms on the Glossary should be enough. --
 * I agree with Tucayo.

It is kind of obvious what the terms mean, but the main reason for creating them would be to list examples from the Mario series.

This poll should be for "port" only, considering there already is a remake page.

Create an archive system for Talk Page Proposals
DELETED BY PROPOSER

Proposal says what it is on the tin. I'm not thinking something radical, I'm thinking more along the lines of the current proposals archive with them listed in order with colours signifying whether it passed, failed etc. Unlike the current proposals system it they wouldn't require subpages as they are already on the talk page. I think this would make finding TPPs easier as the current system doesn't link directly to the proposal and this new system would.

Should this proposal pass then the Category Settled TPPs would be deleted as it would be made redundant.

Proposer: Deadline: July 6, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Have archive system

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.

Keep how it is

 * 1) - A TPP only really matters to a couple pages, and it's always on one of those page's talk pages, so it's not like it's hard to find old TPPs, nor is it really necessary (unlike full Proposals, which often influence overall wiki policies). And if for some reason someone does want to browse the TPP archives, the category means there is a way to get around, so they're not totally scuppered.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo.

Comments
I'm not sure if this is exactly necessary because finding talk page proposals isn't as much as a guessing game as finding main page proposals. The problem with main page proposals archive system is that the archives used to be listed by links to Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, and so on, while talk page proposals can be found on the talk page if you want to refer to them. The changes the talk page proposal require is usually only on the main article related to the talk while main page affects a broader spectrum, which means that it's not that often you have to refer to talk page proposals compared to main page ones. It's nice to have all archives in one spot, but, again, I'm not sure if it's necessary.
 * I mentioned the subpage thing in the proposal as I thought that was unneeded, but I think it's necessary as it makes the wiki look more professional to have a proper archive system for them, like we do with proposals.

@Walkazo Just because it only affects certain pages doesn't make it any less important, I know that's not what you're saying, but still, and the way the category is set up means that a user would have to scroll through the page to find a TPP this makes it easier to find and that and the fact I feel it makes the wiki look a bit more professional is why I don't think it's unnecessary.
 * Making a category would also require scrolling through the page. Your point?
 * Category:Settled TPPs already exists, I'm not proposing a category.
 * Sure it does. Even with regular Proposals, some are way more important than others: that's just how it goes (not that it's necessarily page-number-dependent: it depends on the page(s) and the change(s) involved). Of course, importance and necessity aren't the same thing, and TPPs and minor Proposals are all as worthwhile as the occasional game-changing idea, but that doesn't change the fact that there is very little need to go scrolling through old TPPs, whereas some proposals still get referred back to even years after they ran. Plus there's the issue of how the 400+ TPPs are going to be archived anyway: the only feasible way would be to use the category (which wouldn't be redundant even with an archive system and shouldn't be deleted), but that's alphabetical order: you can't leave it like that because new ones would need to be slotted in, which is a pain and makes manual numbering like the main Proposal Archive impossible - but rearranging everything into chronological order would be a huge pain. Either way, it'd be a lot of work for something of limited usefulness. -

Guidelines for what is a reference and what is not
TOO VAGUE 1-8

Lately I've been seeing a lot of pointless references, such as saying that the appearance of Shy Guys or Pokeys is a reference to Super Mario Bros. 2, even though they've become so mainstream now. I think we should set guidelines for references, i.e. if Albino Dino appeared that could be a reference because it only appeared once, but if Monty Moles appear, that's NOT a reference to Super Mario World.

Proposer: Deadline: July 8, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) My proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I'm not going to pretend anything's perfect, but this sounds way too vague at the moment. Get a draft of the guidelines setup, then we'll see.
 * 2) - Vague calls for regulations are not helpful: better to bring it up in conversation on the forum or on talk pages.
 * 3) I don't see a big problem with references. Plus, the referred guideline doesn't sound like a clear and useful one...
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Make it a bit clearer and i'll change my vote. Per Vommack.

Comments
Please specify your guideline?
 * I think what it would be is 'If an enemy was appeared multiple times then it's not a references i.e. a Goomba appearing in something, but if the enemy has only appeared once i.e. the Albino Dino, then it could be a reference'.
 * A Goomba appearing more than once is a reference, without a doubt —
 * No, as in a Goomba appearing in New Super Luigi U isn't a reference to Super Mario Bros. due to their appearances in all main-series Mario games bar 1.
 * Oh, okay. Currently, we don't cover references inside of the series. We gather information about Mario stuff appearing in non-Mario media. We don't gather information about Mario stuff appearing in Mario media. —
 * I think the proposer means in the References to other games sections in games articles.
 * Oh, that makes a lot more sense. Yeah, a Goomba in NSMBU is not a reference. —

Why is this under "Removals"?
 * I think it's because if it passes then things like 'Shy Guy appearing in here is a reference to this' would be removed though the title does make it sound like it should be somewhere else.

I'll make a draft soon, and then I'll start the proposal again. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Do not allow subpages to be featured
DELETED BY PROPOSER

I can't say much more than that, other than I don't believe that subpages should be featured.

Proposer: Deadline: July 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per me

Oppose

 * 1) - And exactly why do you think they shouldn't be featured? This is far too vague. Give me a better reason and perhaps I'll change my vote.
 * 2) I don't see why not, as long as they meet all the requirements to be an FA they should be an FA.
 * 3) Per all. Your reasoning is far too weak to have subpages unfeatured.
 * 4) Give me a reason as to why I should support what you're saying.
 * 5) Just saying "don't feature subpages" is not enough, people don't even know as to why this idea is being put forward.
 * 6) Why do you want this? I am confused on what the reasoning behind this is. You haven't supported this statement in any way, and you have not told us how this will improve Mario Wiki.

Comments
By subpages do you mean ones like List of Paper Mario beta elements?


 * Subpages: Any glitch page, beta page or gallery.


 * We now officially call them "ex-subpages", becuase they were once subpages of the main articles. But now that they are stand-alone articles in their own right, I don't see why they shouldn't be eligible for feature status if they were of standard... -- 08:49, 12 July 2013 (EDT)
 * Thanks, my only problem with them being featured is a short starting section, but I'm sure that can be cleared up.

Can someone archive this? I'm withdrawing it.

Create policy page for galleries
CREATE POLICY PAGE 16-0


 * Draft: User:GBAToad/sandbox

In regards to consistency, there has been a lot of lenience given to galleries. It was only very recently that we addressed a significant problem with their organisation, but in my opinion, there are multiple other issues with the way galleries are structured and formatted which also need to be fixed.

To clarify, there is a clear difference between newer galleries (such as this and this) and older galleries (such as this and this). Newer galleries seem to follow a much higher standard than their older counterparts, which makes them look better in comparison. Newer galleries are also much more consistent with each other than older galleries are. I believe that this inconsistency between galleries is due to the lack of a detailed gallery policy page with a set of rules that all galleries should follow.

I'm proposing that we enforce this new policy page which will apply a comprehensive standard to all galleries to maintain their appearance and structure. There are some fantastic examples of galleries out there, and these should be used to set the standard for all galleries new and old. Thus, using galleries such as these as a guideline, I have expanded on what is present on the Help:Gallery page (namely just the bottom bit) to include other important formatting rules that (if followed) should keep all galleries looking neat and constant with the majority. Most of what I've mentioned is already standard in most galleries, but having a written outline should make maintaining all galleries much easier.

Some things I've included:
 * The current organisation standard, which includes a new section dedicated to printed media. It also makes it clear that screenshots from animation (such as The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3) should be included on subject galleries as per this proposal.
 * Formatting standards. There needs to be some consistency with the alignment of images and use of headers. Some galleries use and some galleries don't. It is clear that the wiki favours using and Header 2 (==) for sections.
 * Definitions for each section and what it contains. I've also included definitions for the three types of galleries and the differences between them (such as the amount of pictures they need to contain). This will help avoid any confusion when adding images to sections and when creating subsections.

(Note: This policy won't replace the Help:Gallery page, it will be created under the title Galleries.)

Proposer: (with ideas from ) Deadline: July 12, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I'm certainly not saying that enforcing this policy will suddenly make the galleries perfectly consistent, but it should greatly improve the standards of all galleries.
 * 2) Great proposal! I think you already expected me to support it, but yes, this policy will provide a good rule for galleries. Galleries do seem wonky, with a lot of inconsistent coding and formatting. This proposal will clear things up.
 * 3) - Per GBAToad. Having a solid Writing Guideline to refer to when formatting gallery pages will be really helpful.
 * 4) - Yes please! This would make everything way more organized and make the wiki look more professional. Per all.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) — Per all; also, maybe we could write one line or two about the intro? I mean, now we have a kind of standard, so we might as well mention it there.
 * 7) - Too logical to disagree with, per proposal.
 * 8) Looked at the draft and I like what I saw. A great way to organize galleries. Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) A better question: why should we not make a gallery page? Per all.
 * 11) Great policy here. Love it.
 * 12) Yeah, I don't see any reason to oppose this, so that galleries will be all tidy and neat.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per all.
 * 16) Per LGM and Sinanco, the galleries (starts whispering) go a little crazy.

Comments
@Banon It's the first bullet point of the "Proper Formatting" section. 09:08, 29 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Oh, ok, I thought it didn't refer to the intros. —
 * The topic has been discussed on the forum, and we decided we will add a section for the standard to the Subpages Policy. So maybe, you could link there. —
 * Done. Thanks for the tip.

Impose a standard for dates
USE "MONTH DD, YYYY" FORMAT 12-4

Recently, we have no clear standard for dates. Often, we see dates like this: Month DD, YYYY, and other times like this: DD Month YYYY. I think we should have a set standard for imposing dates. So, here are two choices.

Month DD, YYYY TT:TT (GMT) | July 13, 2013 23:59 GMT DD Month YYYY TT:TT (GMT) | 13 July 2013 23:59 GMT

Proposer: Deadline: July 13, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Month DD, YYYY

 * 1) - Starting with the word, having all the numbers together (broken up perfectly well by commas), and then closing with letters seems neater to me than mixing them all together and not using punctuation. It also mirrors how the date's spoken aloud (in my experiences), and from what I understand, MDY's the main format in the US as well; so, going by the same logic as the North American name thing, most editors and readers will have been schooled in MDY notation too - but of course, I can't assert that for sure. It's also been the proposal standard for years (starting with the List of TPP section, iirc), and changing it now seems arbitrary and will require a lot of archives to be fixed if we wanna remain consistent (most of the pre-MDY archives are already inconsistent and need fixing either way - although I've already done a few of them there and there).
 * 2) - Even though I was raised with D/M/Y and have used it all my life, for the sake of consistency the wiki should use the Month DD, YYYY format. Not only that, but, as Walkazo mentioned, it looks much better than having  , and the comma lets it flow easier.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) We are trying to "Americanize" this wiki, so to speak, so having the date format of the US makes sense. Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per TT.
 * 7) Per all; for consistency.
 * 8) DD Month YYYY seem to be confusing to me, so I'll rather stay with Month DD YYYY instead. Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per.
 * 11) The most important part goes first. And this class is neater than the others. It is used in the outer american world. Per Walkazo & Tucayo
 * 12) Per all, though the majority of users here aren't American.

DD Month YYYY

 * 1) This should be the standard date. Signature dates and Featured Article dates already use this format, so it's a wonder how proposal deadlines don't use this format. In fact, I've tried using this standard for proposal deadline dates, but it keeps getting "reformatted" into the first one. The reason this format is so attractive for formal writing is that it is quickly grasped since the figures are separated by word. So, I support using this standard.
 * 2) Per Lefty, I also find it easier to read if it goes day, month, year.
 * 3) Per Lefty and Yoshi.
 * 4) It's standard formatting. Only in the United States are we weird and use the other way.

Comments
Why does the time have to be first in the second option? I prefer DD Month YYYY to Month DD, YYYY, but I'd like the time to be after that because it's always the same and the date is the important part. Aokage (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2013 (EDT)
 * The time is first because it's the way the signature and the featured article is arranged, but the time can go after the date.

Walkazo: The numbers aren't mixed. They're ordered by the the smallest time frame to the largest one without punctuation. I think this notation is preferred in formal works, and I think this reminds me of how the U.S. uses the customary system, but most scientists (including those in the U.S.) prefer metric. According to the article you listed, more and more written works are written as this format as well. This format also eliminates ambiguity, which is the purpose of that format. I'm not calling for an immediate change in the archive system, though, but Walkazo, if you're calling for that first one, you have to change the signature formatting and the FA dates as well. Either way, something's being changed.
 * Graphically, it's mixed. There's no ambiguity as long as the month's written in letters and the year's got all four digits: the ambiguity comes when it's all numbers and 11/12/10 could mean anything (especially in Canada, since we use all three orders, which is just super). If I could change the sigs, I would, and I'd much rather change the FAs to mach the proposals, too. Aokage's point about the time being way less important than the date, and thus, should come last, is valid for FAs as well as proposals: unlike proposals, the times may change, but does it really matter what hour and minute an article becomes an FA? The month and year seems much more important, especially when you consider that histories are navigated using months and years (in case someone ever wants to go see what an article was like when it was featured, like if it since goes downhill and makes them wonder how it was FA'd in the first place, or if they want to just do it out of curiosity, or whatever). -
 * The format we use (the one for writing out the months) works better in day month year since it's cleaner and easier to read, so there wouldn't be any ambiguity in rearranging the dates that way. I'm not asking for all numbers, by the way. I do think the time should go after the dates, though. Still, I'm not sure if DMY format is used in formal spots, much as how metric is used instead of customary in scientific works, even in the U.S.
 * Which method is cleaner and easier to read is subjective: you think DMY is better, but I think MDY is better; there's nothing to debate there, because both are valid opinions and it's just a matter of which opinions is more popular. I didn't think you were arguing for numbers only, I was just using it to show what is ambiguous, because saying DMY "eliminates ambiguity" implies the alternative, MDY, has ambiguity that needs eliminating, which is doesn't - unlike the number method. From my experiences, MDY is used in formal situations all the time, including academia, but either way, I still maintain that concerns about formality should take a backseat to the more important question of which format feels more natural for the users and thus, will be easier to read and use. The subjective, popular vote. -

I'd like to go for ISO 8601: YYYY-MM-DD (hh:mm:ss). I think it's a bit more logical because year < month < day < hour < minute < second. —
 * Never mind. —

@TimeTurner: Please don't bring political agendas into this. The wiki is international, that's why we allow both American and British spelling, among other things. Going with the North American titles and the date format primarily used in the States isn't about "Americanizing" the wiki at all. The former is to make it easier for the most number of potential readers to find us with their Google searchers, and my argument (in addition to the subjective looks call) for this matter is similar: use the date format used by the most editors. Since the bulk of the wiki's userbase and reader traffic is from (North) America, that means the (North) American standards are the ones that will best serve the most people. It's demographics and the popular vote, not political at all, and dragging those sorts of issues into things is nothing but a recipe for disaster. -
 * I... what? You have me completely at a loss, Walkazo.
 * Look up the old First English Name vs. North American Name proposals, or even the comments here. The last thing any objective wiki discussion needs is to get sidetracked by any sort of political chatter, including terms like "Americanization", which can inspire rather strong feelings on either side of the argument. Besides, we're not trying to Americanize the wiki, and so, that's not why anyone should support or oppose the MDY format. -
 * I... didn't realize that "Americanize" is a political term, nor that it would actually cause political arguments. I know next to nothing about anything politics-related, and since I've apparently, I do apologize.
 * No worries: if I hadn't seen arguments flare up over that sorta thing many a time already, I probably wouldn't think it'd be something to avoid either. So no need to apologize - you just might want to rephrase your vote, is all. -