MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/25



Merge the Minor Voice Actors together
DON'T MERGE 3-16

I noticed that many actors from the cartoons are just stubs. Also, there is a List of Cartoon Voice Actors article, and i was hoping we could merge all of the minor actors into that article, but keep the major ones, such as Lou Albano and Danny Wells. But, on the other hand, actors such as Aron Tager and Damon D'Oliveira, that are very minor, should be merged into that article, since they are just stubs.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} Voting start: 21:39, 26 October 2010 (GMT) Deadline: 23:59 2 November 2010 (GMT)

Merge

 * 1) Per meh.
 * 2) I agree with this. It's the same thing on Bulbapedia. They have a huge table of voice actors that tells who voiced who and so on. It's a lot easier than having a bunch of stubs.
 * 3) Why not make a single page dedicated to voice actors, major or minor? Of course, no one listens to my ideas, so I'll have to say per Mileycyrussoulja

Don't Merge

 * 1) I gave my reasons in the comments, there is no need to repeat.
 * 2) - Per BLOF
 * 3) They're all important, no matter how minor a voice role they have.
 * 4) Voice actors are quite important really, per all.
 * 5) If I was a voice actor, I would appreciate my own article. Per all.
 * 6) Per my comments.
 * 7) - Per FF65 and our policy.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Merge...is not always a good idea. Per all.
 * 10) - Per Count Bonsula. Imagine the mess...(well, in other words, per all)
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) - They deserve their own articles. Per all.
 * 13) – Per all.
 * 14) The merger the maryer? Not this time.XD
 * 15) Ditto to all opposers. ;)
 * 16) Per all.

Comments
I really don't think merging is the solution. We are supposed to expand on the articles rather than merge it. And no matter how minor a person or actor is, I believe that they should still have their own articles, just like the Mario Tennis generic humans.
 * Yeah, we should have an article for all of them because they are all important enough.
 * I'm pretty much neutral on this situation. Though I do see some points brought up on the merging side, though they might not necessarily be the views of the proposer. What if the TV series just randomly comes back up, and they have a bunch of Goombas in one scene, all voiced by different actors, speaking a bunch of indistinct stuff. Would every person voicing said Goomba be noted? What if said person doesn't have a voice acting history, and only voices for this once? The page about them can never go above stub status. Though this is a 1 out of 999999999 situation, it could happen. Like I said, I'm neutral on this situation as I feel my vote might be biased.
 * Well, we just have to trust that Nintendo is not insane and that they will not make a new TV series with different actors for each enemy (what a budget). Also, show me any character that falls under your second thing, "not notable", I wanna remove the immediately.

}}

List of non-Mario game Characters Games
DON'T MAKE LIST 2-12

Make a list of all of the non-Mario games any non-Mario character has appeared in, but has appeared alongside Mario in some game (such as Super Smash Bros. characters).

Setting out:

==Other Games==

(list all of the non-Mario games that particular character appears in to the Wikipedia page in bullet points) {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|SKmarioman}} Voting start: 26 October, 2010, 15:00 Deadline: 2 November, 2010, 23:59

Support

 * 1) This will be useful so that not only readers know what other games a character has appeared in, but they will also have some information on that game.
 * 2) We have the right community for it, I think this is a great idea.  I'm also thinking, if this takes off.  We could even change our name.  The other wikis like BLOF said aren't populated enough.  We should take advantage of the fact that this is most likely the biggest gaming wiki on the internet.

Oppose

 * 1) - This would be expanding way too much our coverage, no.
 * 2) Our current coverage is fine. If you want to learn about Kirby's games, the Legend of Zelda's games, etc., this is the wrong wiki to be in. We have WiKirby, Zelda Wiki, Lylat Wiki, etc. for a reason.
 * 3) - Per BLOF
 * 4) I am Zero! Per first two comments and per all. Zero signing out.
 * 5) This is why we have NIWA...
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - Cameos and that kind are in the reference section and per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) – Per all.

Comments
Wouldn't a extended List of Appearances be enough?
 * Couldn't we just suffice with a "see the article on this subject" (for an example). I don't see the point in adding information that has nothing to do with what we cover. We just link them to another associate of NIWA (or wikipedia) and they can get much more in-depth information there.
 * That's actually what this proposal is about. The idea is that the list of appearences links to the, let's say Pikachu, to all of the Pokémon games he's appeared in, as well as the the Bulbapedia article.
 * So all the games in the lists would be links to the articles for those games on the other wikis? It's too much work for something that will ultimately not be used much: if the reader really wants to read about the characters' influences in the other series in that much detail, they would go to the other wiki, rather than bouncing between the list on our wiki and the info on theirs. -
 * The basic idea of the proposal is so that users and readers can easily navigate around the enitire NIWA (and some other wikis) instead of just getting info from one wiki.

@Beecanoe Take a look around Bulbapedia. They are real big too. Like a Wailord. }}

Remake Exclusive?
DON'T MOVE INFORMATION 0-9

I've noticed on a few pages about games that have remakes, SMB2 for example, have information or even whole sections of stuff that is only in its remakes. Examples are voice acters or on the staff page, there's people who only worked on the remake version.

So I say we move this information from the original game to its respective remake. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|SKmarioman}} Voting Starts: 03:00 December 14, 2010 Deadline: 23:59 21 December, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) - It's better to have all the information about the games on one page: and that means both the originals and the extremely similar GBA remakes. Splitting the remakes from the originals was a bad idea, and two of them should have been re-merged by now anyway, due to a pair of TPPs that were never enacted (their proposer was banned before he could do it, and then they fell through the cracks). This proposal runs counter to the plans to re-merge the remakes, and therefore, I oppose it.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per SMB and Fawfulfury
 * 5) Per all, this is sensible.
 * 6) - Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Remakes, other than few and aesthetics changes, are too similar to their parent game to be warranted a separated article. The remakes are so similar to the original games, that a list can be devised listing changes without heavily expanding the article.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all

Comments
You mean like make a whole new article for remakes?

No, I mean move information about a game's remake, such as the 'Voice Actors (Super Mario Advance)' section on the Super Mario Bros 2 article to the Super Mario Advance article.

I thought a proposal passed to merge the Super Mario Advance series with their original games.


 * Two TPPs passed to merge two of the SMA games. Here's a complete timeline of proposals regarding GBA ports (I'm pretty sure I got them all):
 * Separate pages for the SMA ports - Passed, March
 * Split GBA ports from the SNES DKC games - Failed, July
 * (Merge SMA into SMB2 - Deleted, August)
 * Merge SMA - Improperly cancelled; would have passed otherwise, August
 * Merge SMA2:SMW - Passed, August
 * Merge YI:SMA3 - Passed, August
 * SMA4:SMB3 - No TPP has been made
 * Long story short, it's a pretty big mess: if the two pages are merged, the other two should be merged as well for consistency, but this proposal has confused the issue, and it would be best if it was voted down before any merging occurred. -
 * Well, the SMA one was cancelled because KS3 was banned. I think maybe we should try to merge SMA again, the other games have done the same and it has worked. Otherwise, that would probably render this invalid.
 * There is no policy saying that when someone is banned, their proposals are cancelled. As for whether or not the proposal is invalid, that's hard to say: two of the pairs of pages it deals with shouldn't be separate anymore, but the other two are fair game. Alternatively, this could be interpreted as an attempt to repeal the two TPPs that did go through. In an ideal world, rather than make three TPPs, KS3 would have made one Proposal here about merging all of them, and then the merges would have actually been done, and we wouldn't have this current conundrum. -
 * Really? That's pretty strange, looking back in the proposal archive, things have been removed due to the proposer being blocked, like the proposal to update DYK (did you know) more regularly, and quite a few by NARCE. Surely these shouldn't have been deleted. On topic of the proposal itself, I thought there was a proposal on this page to merge them with their respective remakes...I guess there may not have been. Surely we should create one.
 * Apparently they were deleted because Rule 10 ("The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it.") couldn't be upheld if the proposer was banned. Anyway, once this Proposal ends, TPPs are going to be made about merging SMA and SMA4, and then everything's going to merged once those pass (if SMA2 and SMA3 are merged immediately, there'd be a huge inconsistency in how the remakes are being dealt with in the meantime; doing it all at once will be much neater). -

Change of plans. Seeing as everyone voting on this proposal seems to be fine with merging all the articles, and recalling how the two TPPs that have been made were unanimously approved, odds are no one will take issue to the other two pages being merged. Therefore, we're going to go ahead and merge all four of the SMA pages when this proposal hits the deadline (unless someone does complain on the talk pages in the meantime and talking it out doesn't work). Before TPPs were made, pages were merged, split and deleted without proposals all the time, so this is perfectly legitimate (and much faster and convenient). -
 * Great, this issue has been bugging us for some time and I'm glad it can finally get settled. I don't see why anyone would have a reason to object.

}}

Combine Game Guides
COMBINE GAME GUIDES 19-1

Hi, this is my first time suggesting a proposal, so forgive me if I screw something up.

My proposal is this: the "Super Guide" function has now, to my knowledge, appeared in four games: New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem!, and Donkey Kong Country Returns. It doesn't look like Nintendo is getting ready to stop using this new feature, so I propose we make a "Super Guide" article that will encompass all of the analogous features that count as a "Super Guide" between the Mario series games, with a section for each game, with possible subsections for distinctly different things with similar features in other games (i.e. the Super Play videos and Super Guide Block in NSMBW and the Tip Network and Cosmic Spirit in SMG2, respectively).

Again, sorry if I've gone about this wrong, but I thought it'd be better if I was a little more professional and made a proposal here instead of on a talk page for, say, one of the Super Guide features, since this proposal involves several articles.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Teamrocketspy621}} Voting Starts: 23:59 December 13, 2010 Deadline: 02:57 20 December, 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Good idea. Per proposal.
 * 3) Perchlorate all.
 * 4) Per all too
 * 5) - Sounds like a good idea.  After all, they basically operate in the same manner.
 * 6) Sounds like a great idea
 * 7) Per M&SG
 * 8) That is an excellent idea. Per proposal.
 * 9) Good idea. Per all and proposal.
 * 10) Per proposal.
 * 11) Per Proposal
 * 12) Purrrrrr all.
 * 13) – Per all.
 * 14) Fewer short articles.
 * 15) They have some things that are the same, so why not give all the same page?
 * 16) Sounds good. Per above.
 * 17) Good Idea!
 * 18) A very good idea, makes complete since. Per all.
 * 1) A very good idea, makes complete since. Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - hmmm... I'm not sure really. Is it possible that we should merge every element involved in the super guide? I mean, first, there are articles of them with enough info as to be one on their own. Second,  I see some inconsistency (if that's the word) on gathering elements that are at first sight unrelated. example: the tip network is an object; the cosmic spirit is a character of sorts and so on. I think that is better to add these topics a category and (or) make the article "Super Guide" without removing the others.

Comments
OK, I moved this here from the talk page
 * Thanks, I'm not entirely familiar with the proposal process. Teamrocketspy621 23:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

}}

Allow Youtube Videos on Specific Pages
DELETED BY PROPOSER

I realize no one went for my first proposal on expanding the mainpage, so I'm back with a new one. I know that YouTube videos are for userpages only, but I can think of a few pages that can include such videos. For one, there's the songs. What's the point of making a page for a song when you can't hear it? It really took away from me when I was a non-user browsing the pages on the wiki. Another use for it could be to show an intro to a game to start off the page. If anyone approves and can think of other uses for videos, feel free to put them in the comments section.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer:{{User|Beecanoe}} Voting Starts: 03:45 20 December, 2010 Deadline: 00:00 26 December, 2010

Oppose

 * 1) I am Zero! Per my comment. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Yes, the comments are very valid. I really don't think it is consistent, and many pages could have youtube pages, even if it isn't in that category. But it really degrades our pages, so I am opposing.
 * 3) - Per all (including the comments): embedded videos look sloppy and can make loading times frustratingly long on older computers. If a video is truly necessary, it can be externally linked to, but for the most part, the wiki is fine without them.
 * 4) - YouTube likes to take down its videos spontaneously when there are slight copyright infringements, users who host Mario music might upload other videos that gets their accounts suspended, content gets banned in certain lands, videos vanish, etc etc. We as a wiki have absolutely no say in this. If we put videos on our articles, the videos might get removed and we are left with broken media on our page. Someone would have to watch over all the videos and be ready to replace them. This wastes a lot of resources that can better be used for actual maintenance. tl;dr version: We shouldn't subject our mainspace articles to the mercy of a site we have no control over.
 * 5) - Per everything below the oppose section (and what I said).
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) You know what the problem with YouTube videos are? We don't NEED them. All we need to be a reliable source are the information typed out and some colorful pictures to illustrate. Yes, it could be helpful for certain glitches, but that's it. Besides, if I did upload videos, well, I'd say that my videos are less-than-serious.

Comments
"What's the point of making a page for a song when you can't hear it?" Well...

We don't have articles on songs. And intros are described good enough on the pages, if the person reading it doesn't know it already. We're a Wiki, not a video-showcasing website. And how do you know the owners will give us permission?

Ever been to a wikia site? They do this all the time.
 * Wikia sometimes has separate pages for songs too, but our coverage does not stretch to that. We're not like Wikia. We're different.

I'm sure this won't work. There have been former proposals talking about this and failed...
 * I am Zero! There has already been a proposal about this. The problems of putting youtube videos on an article are, the loading time it takes, and the quality, once that video's embedding has been disable, has been claimed on copyright infringement, or the quality is terrible it will make our wiki look bad. Zero signing out. }}

Autoconfriming Wait Time Cut
KEEP SAME WAIT TIME 0-9

Hi,this is my first proposal too so I apologize for any mistakes.I recently discovered that new users have to be Autoconfirmed In order to edit articles but in order to do that the new user has to wait 1 week and make at least 10 non-article edits.I also discovered that this rule was made to prevent vandals from moving pages.While I understand that there are jerks who want to make peoples lives harder,I feel it is more important to let new users who are probably eager to let their voices be heard edit articles.So it is my proposal that we cut the number of days that a new user has to wait from 7 to say,5.I hope this if this Proposal is passed it will make more people interested in joining Mario Wiki so they can post new information so people who are new to the Mario series may better understand it. Thank you for letting make my Proposal {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Bowwow828}} Voting start: December 20,2010 11:35 Deadline: December 27,2010 23:59

Oppose

 * 1) I am Zero! Per my comment below. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Per all the comments below.
 * 3) - Per the comments below: a week and ten edits isn't asking much.
 * 4) - The rule is fine as it is. Changing it wouldn't bring much benefit, so there's no need.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) No need, and alot of people sometimes just edit there userpage all the time while they are waiting
 * 7) Per everyone.
 * 8) - There's a reason for having the current auto-confirmed rules.  Just refer to the comments.
 * 9) – Per all.

Comments
Non-autoconfirmed users can edit most articles in case you didn't know. They just can't create articles. Besides, new users need to get a little more experience on this Wiki and its rules before they can create pages and upload images.
 * Yes, I agree. 7 days isn't long, and you can have ten edits on any article IIRC.
 * 65: Don't you mean new users? Anyway, what are the pros and cons of reducing the amount of days to 5? Are 5 days enough for a user to learn?
 * I am Zero! I see no difference between 2 days. I think the rule is fine as is. Zero signing out.
 * @LGM: Oh thanks for picking that up. It was a stupid mistake of mine.

@Fawlfulfury65 yeah when you mention it is fine to leave it as it is.Sorry for your trouble

A week and 10 edits isn't long anyway. No need to reinvent the wheel.
 * It seems to me that the creator of this proposal is not autoconfirmed and instead of waiting the duration of the week he's trying to cut the wait.
 * That would be pretty stupid then, since proposals take one week to be concluded anyway. - }}

The TPP Effect
LEAVE IT ALONE 5-15

Third times the charm I hope, but let's not focus on what proposal number this is that I've made. Lately there has been many talk page proposals by the same user that conflict with each or they conflict with past tpps that have already passed. It is quite confusing on how unorderly and how inconsistent it is starting to become.

What I propose is that we have some changes to the Talk Page Proposal rules shown far above this. I say that if a tpp is being runned that conflicts and disagrees with another tpp that one of them has to change in order for consistency to be played out. Now of course some circumstances should be made about that, depending on what it is and the reasons, but if it is for the same reasoning as another, then that rule should change. But it is hard if it conflicts with other proposals from the past. What I say we should do about it is to have that ttp turn into a proposal that will go into misc and deal with all that it effects. Then, depending on whether the proposal passes or fails, shall the pages be changed depending on the outcome.

I believe that all I have said above is very logical, and will solve many issues that we have had here on the MarioWiki with the tpp's going on lately. If you don't quite fully understand my proposal, comment in the comments section. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} Voting start: December 29, 2010 5:16 Deadline: January 4, 2011 23:59

Support

 * 1) - Probably should have done this when I made the proposal, but wanted to see some opinions first. Since this seems to be looking like a good proposal, I support it 100%! Per me!
 * 2) Per guy above
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per Proposal.
 * 5) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - I'm sorry, but this is way too vague to be incorporated in our policies. Maybe if you flesh it out and formulate it into clear, precise paragraphs, we can think about adding something like that. But in this form: Just no.
 * 2) Per Edofenrir. I think it would turn out as a confusing policy.
 * 3) - I like the idea, but I have to agree with Edo, this is vague.
 * 4) Well, I agree with all that oppose this, it's main idea is good, but BMB, you need to make your description less vague. I can personally not see the specifics to this idea, thus, I simply have to oppose this for the time being.
 * 5) - Per Edofenrir: I don't see how we could possibly turn this proposal into some clear, concise rules. Besides, we already aim for consistency and if things really do get out of whack, Rule 13 gives the admins the means to set things straight. The problem is that a lot of the time, comparing TPPs is like comparing apples and oranges, and the whole thing is rather subjective: what's inconsistent for one person might be perfectly fine for another. No rule or policy will ever change that, and trying to shoehorn the TPPs into a strict guideline could actually backfire and make it much more difficult to run and regulate them; having wiggle-room is very useful sometimes.
 * 6) - Per Fawfulfury65. It could get confusing.
 * 7) - Per all, mostly Walkazo and Emperor Yoshi. I don't understand what you want to change, or do differently.
 * 8) I am Zero! Per Edo, way too vague. Zero signing out.
 * 9) - i would support...if i knew what ur talking about here. sorry.
 * 10) - Per Edofenrir, Emperor Yoshi, Tucayo, and Fawfulfury65.
 * 11) Per Edofenrir. Way too much vague.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.It's too vague.
 * 14) Look out: YOU MIGHT BE DOING WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PREVENT.
 * 15) Per the SysOps.

Comments
I like your idea, we do need that. Consistency above all.

Can you clarify what you're saying please?


 * @Bowser's luma: Pretty much I am just solidifing the rules since a lot of agruements and conflicts have been going off in some TPP's. I am just saying to add/change a rule or two in the TPPs so that we can have consistency and to have a more understanding structure. That is about it.
 * Ok. Consistency is good.
 * This seems a little vague, could you be a little more in-depth?
 * Let's see if I can make it fit your idea of "clear". Hmmm...Pretty much if this proposal passes, we will be adding some more rules to TPP's. If a TPP conflicts with another (let's say one is to merge Goomba and Paragoomba, but another at the same time that has Goomba be split to Goomba (species) and Goomba (character)) then one of them has to be deleted or changed so that it doesn't happen like that. But if they interfere with each other, and one is running and another is passing (Example, split M&L series mushrooms apart, and a proposal that passed a few months ago merged them to the Mushroom article), then the current one either has to change the proposal, delete it, or bring it on this page as a main proposal and if passes, then the TPP would say something like "this TPP has changed via ". Its to help put consistency into the TPP's as we have struggled ever since they have been made with what is right and wrong and if this or that conflicts with that or this.

Agree! But that is not consistency, that is preventing conflict.

WAIT! This proposal has already been passed! See the "How to" section above, it has this rule: 8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old. So that means that the proposal made second would have to be deleted to follow this rule so this proposal is unnecessary.
 * Not exactly, it is actually to expand that rule. Because the rule refers to proposals dealing with the same subject, while this proposal talks about proposals that deal with similar circumstances.
 * Well if the circumstances are conflicting, such as in the case of his Goomba/Paragoomba example, one of them would be deleted so either his proposal is unnecessary or his example is faulty. }}

Change to
KEEP THE NAME 1-11

First proposal, I'm sorry if it's n00by. So recently, I found out that the template that has all the courses in the Mario Kart Series is. I think it is a little childish to put in the Race in Racecourses. I can understand if you disagree, but sounds better. Once again, sorry if it's n00by.

Proposer: Voting Start: December 30 2010 22:56 Deadline: January 5, 2010 17:56 {{scroll box|

Oppose

 * 1) There are 2 types of courses,race courses, and battle courses.
 * 2) Per BLOF.
 * 3) Per Nicke8.
 * 4) Per Nicke8.
 * 5) - Per all (including BLOF and what I said about semantics in the comments).
 * 6) I am Zero! Per Nicke8 and BLOF. Zero signing out.
 * 7) Per Nicke8 and BLOF.
 * 8) Per Nicke8
 * 9) Per Nicke8 and BLOF.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.

Comments
I disagree with you. I think the prefix adjective, "race" specifies "course". There are many types of courses out there, such as an obstacle course or battle course (it could even mean a school course), so changing it to "course" would be simply too vague. I don't understand what makes putting in the word "race" makes things childish. It describes the places perfectly, since you definitely (most of the time) are racing in there.
 * I agree. Also, would have to be switched to the new template name on over 60 pages, which seems like a lot of work for mere semantics. -
 * Well if he agrees to do it all himself...
 * I was planning on it. I was also thinking we could put EVERY courseof every kind into one template.
 * Having both types of courses in one navigation template might work, but they're too different to share one style of infobox, so while and  would be merged, you'd still have  on the articles. The infobox doesn't actually say "racecourse" outside of the coding, but neither does the navigation template: it says "Race Courses", like how the other one says "Battle Courses", and even if you merged them, they'd still have to us those terms to differentiate between the two types of courses within the template. The term is not childish or superfluous, it's functional. - }}