MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Bat (Luigi's Mansion) with Bat (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) (Discuss) Deadline: February 10, 2014, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete List of Adventure Mode enemies (Discuss) Deadline: February 20, 2014, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete Holerö. (Discuss) Deadline: February 24, 2014, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Fly with Fly (move). (Discuss) Deadline: February 24, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

Create an [unconfirmed glitch] template
Collab Link

While navigating through glitches pages, I came across several glitches which I was unable to perform, nor did I managed to find any proof that this glitch is real or fake. So instead of removing all unsourced glitches, we would simply add a small notice like this &#91;unconfirmed glitch&#93;. This way we will still have the information, while avoiding any bogus glitches (because the reader would be already aware that this glitch was not tested, unproved).

I already aware that there is a template called. However this is a different thing: not every glitch need a reference. they need just an screenshot, a video, or in some cases, discussion on the talk page may be very enough if provided with some proof. Also having a different template and a different category is better for organizing, this way we can look in the category to find all glitches pages only which contains glitches need confirmation.

Draft: &#91;unconfirmed glitch&#93;

Proposer: Deadline: February 3, 2014, 23:59 GMT, Extended: February 10, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Meggy
 * 2) Per proposal
 * 3) Per proposal. I think this would be a great idea.
 * 4) Per all. This is a great idea, especialy for a glitch hunter like me.
 * 5) Per proposal
 * 6) Per all. I couldn't mind that :)
 * 1) Per all. I couldn't mind that :)

Oppose

 * 1) - Just use : an unconfirmed glitch is no different from any other unconfirmed bit of info, and needs to be backed up by the exact same kind of sources. Furthermore, the template would just categorize the whole list page, not the specific glitch: in all likelihood, every long page will end up languishing in the category, probably from multiple templates (not that you could tell from looking at the category), which isn't useful: better to just use the collab to keep track of things.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo, this proposal looks to me like it's basically founded on a bunch of semantic issues.
 * 4) Uploading a screenshot and a video should be enough to remove both templates, so the proposed template will be pretty much redundant.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all
 * 10) Per all

Comments
Screenshots and videos are references, and citing discussions isn't ideal even for glitches (although citing discussions beats no citations at all, of course). And what do you mean by "scrawny" "sourcing thing"? Citations are used all over the wiki, and so they should: they lend credibility to the database. Whoever told you references are only for upcoming games and beta elements is grievously mistaken. -
 * Sorry, I was mistaken. After reading Citation_Policy in depth again, I knew that information can be taken directly from the game without the need of external resources. Whatever, I guess this proposed feature should be separated from the, this way the category will contain all the pages that weren't tested by our users thus they aren't confirmed. About the citing discussion, take Flip'd-up Mario 1 as an example, a user confirmed this on the talk pages even describing it more, another user confirmed the glitch and confirmed his description (both users do not have capture cards), thus the glitch is confirmed, BUT it needs a reference. so replacing the with the . Take Bananaport Glitch as an example, it does have an image, however I started a discussion on the talk page saying that it never happened for me, some more users said so. The  get added to the glitch, even when it really has an image (a reference.
 * You can still use in cases where some evidence is provided but more is needed. And more than anything, the story about "Flip'd-up Mario 1" just proves that the differences in use between the established template and the proposed addition is splitting hairs and adding unnecessary complications to the straightforward process of confirming glitches (nothingrefneeded -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy). -


 * A new template sounds redundant, but maybe could be modified to read "unconfirmed glitch" or something?


 * Sorry, but I don't quite understand you.
 * Which part? -
 * "(nothingrefneeded -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy)"
 * @Walkazo Like this: &#91;unconfirmed glitch, citation needed&#93;   ; and it could be modified like  was for double usage. I don't know if that seems redundant or not but at least it highlights glitches more.
 * But don't you think that's getting a wee bit long and unseemly? Anyway, what I meant was that first, if someone adds a glitch with no refs or anything, you can just label it with . Then maybe it gets discussed on the talk page and people convincingly vouch for its existence - then you cite the discussion, and it's up to the readers to look at the citation and decide whether they believe our info despite us not having any hard evidence. Then you do find some hard evidence and can cite that instead, and when readers see that, they won't have any reason to doubt us (i.e. everybody's happy). No need for a clunky extra template or template parameter: you either have a reference, or ya don't. It also just occurred to me that if you really want to keep track of unconfirmed glitches and don't trust a list on the wiki collabs board, why not use or a template spun off of that to put on the talk pages? You'd still get the useless category problem, but at least the templates will draw attention to the appropriate sections on the talk page once folks wander in. -

XX supports= Remove XX opposes freely
While I did my first Feature Nomination, I discovered that to remove opposes we need three users' votes and one from an admin. I think that this is an injustice. If an FA (or even a Proposal) have, for example, 10 supports, and only one oppose, then the rule should be different. Using the same sample: By each 10 supports, one ( or more,maybe) should be ignoted/ removed. I mind that, at least, by each 7 supports, we can remove one( the first) oppose freely.

Proposer: Deadline: February 15, 2014 23:59 GMT

Oppose

 * 1) Especially when it comes to articles featuring prominent characters, there are always quite a few users who flood a nomination with support votes simply due to the fact that they like the character while ignoring any flaws that the article actually has. If this proposal were to pass, this could, in turn, lead to featured articles being more of a popularity vote than anything else, which is completely against the spirit of featured articles. Though there certainly isn't a guarantee that this will occur, I do not want to take the chance of it happening.
 * 2) Only Featured Articles' votes can be removed, not the proposal. Proposals' votes can't be removed. Per Time Turner.
 * 3) Per Pinkie Pie
 * 4) While the current system of requiring a patroller or higher to remove an oppose vote is flawed (often, they simply don't vote), this proposed rules will create much more problems than it solves. We do not feature on the quantity of votes, but rather, no oppose votes. If there is a single oppose vote that is isn't disputed, then it should remain.
 * 5) Per TT and Mario.
 * 6) My case is in the comments section of this proposal.

Comments
Shouldn't this be appeal? 20:14, 7 February 2014 (EST)

Ashley and Red, you should look how this proposal failed: http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_37#Allow_Removal_of_Support.2FOppose_in_Proposals

The Featured Articles Section "How to Nominate" states:


 * If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so and how it can be improved [emphasis mine]. Please cite which rule your objection falls under. Failure to do so will result in your objection being considered invalid. Users may vote for the removal of an oppose vote if they feel it is invalid or not specific enough, but have to give reasons for their choice. Three users, including an administrator, are required for the removal of an oppose vote.

Objection cannot be 'valid' without reason and and a method of improvement. If nominators, supporters, administration, et cetera are unable to ameliorate whatever obstacle or flaw to satisfy the objector's demands then:


 * A) the article should not have been nominated in the first place because it does not meet the previously written standards, or
 * B) the objector's arguments are fallacious and the three user + one administrative vote will quickly dispatch of the objection.

In the case of scenario B, the voters + admin will be more than delighted to remove the objection. For these reasons, I oppose.
 * Good oppose :)

Removals
None at the moment.

Changes
None at the moment.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.