MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Move Knight Greenie to and add information (Discuss) Deadline: August 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Create a separate page for (Discuss) Deadline: August 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Venus Fire Trap to (Discuss) Deadline: August 29, 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

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

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: (banned) 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

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) -

Removals
None at the moment

Changes
None at the moment

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.