MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/29

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

The problem here is that it completely italizes the title, while some articles only need some words to be italized (the Mario (series) and Donkey Kong (series) are good examples), so if the proposal passes, we might need to make a code that could italize certain words, that range from the whole title to a single word.

Proposer: Deadline: December 20, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Create a new template

 * 1) - I kinda like the idea.

Don't create anything

 * 1) Per this.
 * 2) Per that
 * 3) Per Bop1996.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) I agree with the rest (essentially per Bob1996). This feature is unneeded on this Wiki.
 * 6) - It's not really needed, since you only need to input two apostrophes to enable italics.  No need to go more advanced than that.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) – Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Creating a template for just italicizing is an excuse for laziness.  Per all who agree with me.
 * 11) - Yeah, it would be actually more complicate, when you can just use two apostrophes. Per M&SG.

Decide if the Yellow and Blue Toad in SM3DL are the same ones from NSMBW
DELETED BY PROPOSER There is only one Blue Toad and one Yellow Toad that appear in SM3DL and no other color Toad appears other than the Red Toad apart from Green and Pink Toads in the Title Screen. Proposer: Deadline:January 5th, 2012, 23:59 GMT

The Toads are the same from NSMBW

 * 1) Per my Proposal

The Toads are not the same from NSMBW

 * 1) I think it's more likely to be a Toad Brigate
 * 2) Unless and until there is an official source connecting the two games' Toads, any claims that they are one and the same are speculation.
 * 3) Per Mario4Ever.
 * 4) The 2 Toads appear seperate from all other Toads (except the ones that need saving within levels) while the Yellow and Blue Toads in 3D Land appear with 3 other Toads. We have no proof that the ones from NSMBW and SM3DL are the same. In other words, per Mario4Ever.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) Per all; in my opinion, this is under the "species" case here for this installment.
 * 8) And the proof is... ?

Comments

Bookmarks
OPPOSE 2-19

When a user wants to find an article that they often visit, they would need to type in the searchbar. When an internet user wants to find a website that they often visit, they don't search in a google search bar, they go to Bookmarks in their internet browser and find their favourite websites. It should be the same here on the Super Mario Wiki. For pages and articles that we often visit, there should be a bookmark section for our individual account somewhere on the page, like on the top next to my watchlist or on the side bar under navigation. Here, we should be able to bookmark pages for easy navigation. If you agree, please support me.

Proposer: Deadline:January 11, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) I totally agree with Yoshi Kong. I've actually been wanting something like that since I joined the wiki.

Oppose

 * 1) - On this wiki, the articles themselves have internet links to them. If you feel like you visit the page quite often, then bookmark it like you would with any other site. There is no reason to add a feature that you can already do.
 * 2) Per BMB. Also, it's not hard to find an article using the search bar at all, and the watchlist feature helps you keep tabs on important pages, so there's really no need for it.
 * 3) Per both.
 * 4) This proposal is redundant to the watchlist and to the bookmarks that comes with all browsers.
 * 5) Per All
 * 6) This seems a bit pointless. Per all.
 * 7) - Per BMB and Bop1996.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) Per Baby Mario Bloops and Bop1996
 * 10) Assuming everyone who visits the wiki has more than one finger and can use a keyboard easily, searching in the search bar isn't hard at all. It's so easy, 2 stalks of celery and a paper towel could do it. Per all.
 * 11) We have a contents page on are articles. Per All.
 * 12) - Per all.
 * 13) It's simple enough to search.
 * 14) Per all. You can just bookmark it using your browser.
 * 15) – Like others have been saying, this is kinda useless because we can either use the watchlist or bookmark it on our browsers. If we can do those things, I don't see the point in adding this.
 * 16) Creating a JS (.js) file is required for a feature such as this. If creating the JS file wasn't too overly complicated, I would probably support this decision; however making this "bookmark" feature is way too complicated. You could possibly consider trying to make a .js file of your own. Re-propose once it's done so we could consider moving it to MW space. I'm sorry.
 * 17) This additional feature would be unnecessary, especially since the watchlist already does this.
 * 18) Per all.
 * 19) Per all.

Comments

Dealing with new stub articles - a better and friendlier way
SUPPORT 19-4

Many new short articles are requested for deletion as new stubs instantly after they are created, which is in my opinion, not called for. I propose this should be changed.

After a new stub is created, a template explaining that it is a new stub and that it will be deleted in seven days after the template is put on the page is put on the page. Within that one-week period, articles have some time to expand to acceptable article length. If they reach acceptable article length within a one-week period, the article stays, however if they are still stubs after one week, the article is deleted.

This process prevents scaring newcomers away (when I was a newcomer, I created an article, it was immediately tagged as a new stub, it was deleted and I was beyond frustrated, as I haven't added all content within that creation), and given the main goal is to expand stubs, not to get rid of them!

Addendum: I have created this, which is similar to what should be used to tag new stubs.

Addendum (00:49, 10 January 2012 (EST)): This has nothing to do with the already existent construction template. This is "proposing deletion" of new stubs, instead of deleting them without delay. At least a week is given before they are deleted (unless they are expanded to stub length). Thanks for your !votes.

Proposer: Deadline: 16 January 2012 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal. I hope I will be more respectful with the users who !vote 'oppose' this time.
 * 2) - Great ideia. I agree with your words: We should expand stubs, not just simply get rid of them because they are stubs. I always wondered why are new stubs requested for deletion, if we can simply expand them. Per B.wilson
 * 3) As long as you have enough rubies we can tell the difference between a stub and a short article. Per B.Wilson.
 * 4) This does seem to be a more efficient way of dealing with the stub articles. Additionally, this would also raise awareness of the stub articles as they can be fixed before immediate deletion. Per B.Wilson.
 * 5) I agree with most of but i feel that one line articles that can be expanded should be deleted because I think its unfair to let somebody who didn't  do any work get credit for making an article
 * 6) Per all. It gives newly created stub articles a chance to be improved.
 * 7) This is a much better way of having less stubs rather than just deleting them.
 * 8) Although there is a construction template, I'm skeptical that new users even know a construction template exists. For the more experienced users, they can implement the construction template easily, but based on the aforementioned  situation, they don't do it. I think this proposal can help this problem. If not, at least the wiki isn't harmed.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) – Per all
 * 12) - Per all.
 * 13) Per all
 * 14) - Stubbed articles do need a chance to be improved before being subject to deletion.  Per all.
 * 15) - Exactly the same as M&SG.
 * 16) Makes sense. Per all.
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) Per all.
 * 1) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't disagree with the premise, but the situation is easily rectifiable with a construction template (though ideally, one would, when creating an article, make sure it is of sufficient length before stopping his or her work for a given period of time).
 * 2) Per Mario4Ever. Also, there's a certain amount of admin discretion involved in whether the articles are deleted. For example, if an article is on a subject like a racecourse in an upcoming Mario Kart installment, chances are the article won't be expanded for a while, especially if it's just one user adding some details and leaving it. However, if a game was just released, and the article is being worked on by many people, the article is not deleted.
 * 3) I find unnecessary. That's what basically a construction template is for. It's a red flag saying, "DO NOT DELETE, IT NEEDS SOME WORK!!"
 * 4) - Construction templates tell the user that work needs done. As a person that has spent many edits unstubifying, I know it is very tedious and hard. However, deleting the page will just create more red links, and from basic experience, will cause even more trouble to create that page later on than to unstubify it later on.

Comments
Zero777: I must apologize for saying this, but your !vote is not opposing anything clearly explained in the proposal. This is basically "proposing deletion" of new stubs, instead of "pending speedy deletion". It has nothing to do with the construction template. I apologize if I misunderstood your !vote, but I don't really think it's relevant to the proposal's intention. --
 * Now I really don't understand what you are saying here. The quotation marks are confusing me.
 * Your !vote is basically thinking that this idea is like the construction template, in which it is not. --
 * I see it basically like the same and I don't think it's too much of a hassle to just slap on the construction template next time.

I have to say, this isn't a bad idea. During that 1 week waiting period, the user who created the article can also make his case that the article is not a stub if they feel it isn't one. However, I'll support this if you can make a better sample template than that.


 * 1) The same template you gave is too similar to (perhaps by intention, but I don't want this proposal to bind us to that design). Make it a little more unique, we don't want a clone of the same template.
 * 2) There's no need to mention that middle sentence, "New stubs are not allowed by Super Mario Wiki policy." It's just a waste of space to explain policy in templates.
 * 3) You need to offer a link to the talk page (like ) in case users want to argue that the article not a stub or want feedback on how to expand the article.
 * 4) Allow a variable which users can input the expected date of deletion. You could replace the small text line with "The article may be deleted if it cannot be expanded beyond stub length by [sample date].", sample date being 7 days after the date of stub creation (it doesn't have to get more specific than the date, hours just make things complicated).

-- 15:55, 10 January 2012 (EST)
 * I like the idea too. A construction template can be used instead, but some new users may not know they can use it and have their articles deleted for being too short. Also, it sometimes occurs that an article is put under construction, and then ignored for months or even years. Having a separate sort of construction template that says that the article must be expanded in a week would prevent someone from making a small article, sticking a construction template on it, and then never coming back to the article again.
 * Hi Knife and Fawfulfury, I've tweaked User:B.wilson/Testing facility/Stub to reduce resemblance to the delete template, and I've also addressed all of Knife's concerns. I've given two examples of articles in which template is used: User:B.wilson/Testing facility/Stub/Article (pending deletion on 18 January) and User:B.wilson/Testing facility/Stub/Article2 (tagged on 3 January and currently pending deletion) - both examples are meant to be humorous. I'd appreciate !votes if you think I've addressed your concerns! -- 21:17, 10 January 2012 (EST)
 * I suggest that you change the color of the template to avoid resemblance to the delete template.

I think the difference between construction templates and this new template would be that this template would be placed by an enforcing party (which would be the user claiming that the article is a new stub) as opposed to the article creator. Both could also be used together. For example, a user creates an article with with no defined completion time, but it's a stub, another user could place the proposed template alongside the construction template to remind the user not to forget about the page otherwise his work will be deleted. Also, stub=/=articles under construction. One week should be enough time to expand an article beyond a stub, regardless of whether it's under construction or not.

@B.Wilson: The template is a little better, but the gif is a little wacky. I personally prefer a still image for things as serious as deletion templates. Perhaps a Bullet Bill would fit in better since it goes along with our theme of exploding creatures in deletion templates. Also, there's no need for an additional comments section in the template. There's really nothing to comment on if it's a new stub and if it really needs to be said, the user could use the talk page for that purpose. As for what to do after the deadline has been passed ansd the article is still a stub, there's no need to use the same template to notify sysops of it deletion. It should just be replaced with with the reason being something like "The article is a seven day new stub". There's also something funny about the wording, but I can't put my finger around it. I suppose we can still change that after the proposal.-- 23:20, 10 January 2012 (EST)

Speaking of the GIF, why does the construction template get one? I wanted to change the picture to one of those Mario sprites from Wrecking Crew '98, but you know I can't. Sorry if a little off-topic, but the Donkey Kong Mario GIF in the construction template is a little distracting. We can also use a Wrecking Crew '98 sprite for the stub expansion template instead.

I'm going to make this suggestion again: could you change the color of the template so it won't resemble the delete template at a glance?
 * Done. 01:40, 11 January 2012 (EST)

It is a bit messy to see in your template, that needs some improvement. Like the template changes appearance at "deadline".

I'm pretty happy with the changes made to the template, so I'll go ahead and support. There's no way to change the template's appearance automatically at deadline as far as I know and if we manually change it, we might as well replace it with the delete template since that will attract more attention from sysops. I agree though, there no need to include inside the proposed template, just replace the proposed template with  and be done with it.-- 11:05, 11 January 2012 (EST)
 * I also think it'd look better with just the delete template, rather than nesting it inside the other template. If it has to be changed manually anyway, as Knife said, just replace it, and if it's done automatically, maybe make it so that the entire template is changed (i.e. if it's not expired, it looks like the Bullet Bill template, and if it's expired, it switches to the Bob-omb design mirroring the normal Deletion template). Also, if we're worried about stubs falling through the cracks even with this template, perhaps the articles marked with this pending-deletion template could be put into the Requested for Deletion category. Things in that category aren't deleted outright, and using it for this as well as its original template might help bring attention to the new stubs before their time is up and they join the real deletion queue. @LeftyGreenMario I forget why we added the gif in the first place - it's maybe because it's ugly and distracting and should therefore motivate people to want to fix the article just to get rid of it. Personally, I think we'd be better off just getting rid of the gif... -
 * Hi folks. I've tweaked the template a little to address the template concern. After seven days, the template will automatically be replaced with the  template. See User:B.wilson/Testing facility/Stub/Article2. Best,  00:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * I've also written a documentation (which will have to be significantly altered if moved to template space). Please remember that this template must be substituted or it will not work. -- 06:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * @Knife: "There's also something funny about the wording, but I can't put my finger around it." Maybe the part that says: "This newly created article appears to be stub length."? Perhaps if it were to be changed to something like: "The current length of this newly created article appears to indicate that it is a stub."... 10:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * Or just "This newly-created article is a stub. If it cannot be expanded within seven days, this article will be deleted." The fine print could also lose the "beyond stub length" bit too, since there isn't really a length below which an article is a stub anyway: it's more about how much info is lacking. Maybe the fine print could be more like "This article may be deleted if a sufficient amount of information cannot be added by [Date]", which is more useful than only using jargon like "stub" and "expanded". -

I agree with Walkazo's suggestion for the categorization and the template wording.-- 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 * Done. -- 01:08, 13 January 2012 (EST)