MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Separate Wii U audio files from the ones on the GBA (Discuss) Passed.
 * Split the level 75m from Donkey Kong from the Smash Bros. stage of the same name (Discuss) Passed.
 * Separate the Nintendo eShop paragraph from the 3DS and Wii U pages (Discuss) Passed.
 * Separate the Mario Bros. stage from the Smash Bros. stage of the same name (Discuss) Deadline: March 7, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Create articles for all Mario Maker sub-enemies. (Discuss) Deadline: March 8, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Coin (Diddy Kong Racing DS) to Rareware Coin or Split into Two Articles (Discuss) Deadline: March 9, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Have certain amiibo be "Special Edition" (Discuss) Deadline: March 12, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Create a new article on . (Discuss) Deadline: March 17, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Flopsy Fish with Cheep Cheep. (Discuss) Deadline: March 18, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Make notice for animated images
Seeing how Bulbapedia does things, I came up with a cool idea. Maybe we should create a template that should state whether this image is animated. It's purpose? To explain that some browsers are limited to viewing only the first frame of animated images and kindly remind users (especially new users that use old and worn-out browsers) not to change the image, even if it's not moving at all (unless there's really a problem, in which someone good at animated images can help).

A sample of said template can be viewed here.

Proposer: Deadline: March 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per proposal as this would prevent from cluttered image change logs.
 * 2) Per proposal.

Comments
The idea makes sense, but the template must be consistent in design with other image notices, such as, , , etc. Having the whole "if the Goombas aren't moving" explanation also seems unnecessary: just say something like "This image is animated; please do not reupload it as a static image." and maybe an additional note that some brows might erroneously display it as already being a static image, but either way, be succinct. -
 * Thanks for the heads-up. That was a sample, after all. 15:19, 4 March 2015 (EST)
 * By the way, why not use another animated image? If you look at File:Evotag.png, you'll understand what I mean. 15:35, 4 March 2015 (EST)
 * As long as the image doesn't look like crap, it can be whatever (of the two, I'd say the SMB Goomba looks better). But there should only be one image. And again, I still think the "if the Goombas aren't moving" caveat is unnecessary (and it's unnecessary on Bulbapedia too), since even folks who see movement shouldn't reupload static versions of the image, and either way, simpler is better. The excessive !s are also less than ideal and Help:Image has nothing to do with the issue so there's no point in linking to it. Right now, I would suggest this as the design:


 * - }
 * Yeah, now that I've thought about it in greater depth, I'm pretty sure Walkazo is right. 18:13, 4 March 2015 (EST)
 * You've got your wish, Walkazo. 18:17, 4 March 2015 (EST)

"To explain that some browsers are limited to viewing only the first frame of animated images and kindly remind users (especially new users that use old and worn-out browsers) not to change the image"

Which browsers don't support animated images? I think most popular browsers (FireFox and Internet Explorer and maybe Safari) supports the basic animated .gif image. Finally, for the notice template, it would be better if the image included has transparency instead of a white background, but it's just my opinion. 18:30, 4 March 2015 (EST)


 * The Evotag example Stonehill provided actually doesn't work on Chrome without an extension (but it works in Firefox; dunno about IE), and afaik mobile devices often can't load GIFs. Anyway, I agree about the image: I couldn't do anything before since I was at school, but now that I'm home, I reuploaded it as a transparent GIF. -
 * Walkazo, the gif has an incorrect frame of animation. Just pointing that out for you. 23:23, 4 March 2015 (EST)

Remove extraneous Super Smash Bros. conversations from articles' main body
The title's unwieldy, but this proposal is specifically covering the Snake's codec conversations and Palutena's Guidance conversations. These conversations are charming bits of dialog between Snake/Pit and their advisers, providing tidbits and small background information on whichever character they're talking about. However, these conversations really don't provide anything groundbreaking, usually saying things that aren't relevant or would have already been mentioned, and yet, all articles have the Snake conversations and the Palutena ones are steadily being added as well. There's really nothing substantial that they're adding; right now, all they're doing is contributing to the mass of headers within the Smash sections. At best, they should be relegated to the articles' "Profile and statistics" headers or they should be removed entirely and kept to the lists I linked to above.

Proposer: Deadline: March 9, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Move convos. to profiles and statistics

 * 1) I'd say that the conversations are roughly comparable to the trophies; neat information, but it's probably best to leave it outside of the main body.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Yeah I was exactly thinking that they should belong under "profiles and statistics" before you mentioned it. I disagree that they "don't provide anything groundbreaking", they're interesting tidbits from an easter egg from the game, they don't necessarily have to be groundbreaking or be relevant or whatever to warrant a space here in MarioWiki. Move them to profiles and statistics, that's what they really are.
 * 4) I was about to suggest replacing it with a link, but that would be unnecessary. Per all.
 * 5) - Per all. The info's definitely comparable to official bios, and the less SSB subheaders cluttering up the History sections, the better.
 * 6) - Eh. I don't care as long as the wiki keeps the information somewhere, but I'd rather this than the one below, so I'll support here to just break a tie if there ever is one.
 * 7) I kinda liked them the way they were, but the proposal is a pretty good point and makes sense so per all.
 * 8) Per all, but not removing them from the article entirely, but move them to the 'Profile and statistics' section.
 * 9) per all.
 * 10) Per all. Yes, all. Every single one of them. Not a single one left. However, I'm also suggesting we could move the conversations to their own article and edit other pages accordingly. Per all anyway.

Comments
@Baby Luigi: I'm not saying that they don't have a place on the wiki, I'm just saying that their place isn't necessarily in the articles' main body.