MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Move Blue Lava Bubble to (Discuss) Deadline: August 16, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete Category: RPG Characters (Discuss) Deadline: August 19, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete Template:Sprite gallery (Discuss) Deadline: August 22, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Knight Greenie to and add information (Discuss) Deadline: August 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Create a separate page for (Discuss)

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: Deadline: August 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Create The License and the category

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) They aren't sprites so a separate template for models seems like a good idea to me. Per proposal.
 * 3) If they're different, have different templates. Per proposal.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) I strongly agree with this. BTW, there is a clear-cut difference between pre-rendered sprites and 3d models.

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.

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) -

Make "List of Quotes by Character" Pages
I think we should make "List of Quotes by Character" pages (with "Character" being replaced by the name of a specific character). All the information will go onto a Writing Guideline eventually, but in the mantime, I'll just provide the main ideas here for reference...

These pages would only be for recurring characters, as oneshot characters already have complete quote lists on their parent games' pages. Discretion should also be used when determining what recurring characters should get quotes pages. If a character is major in one game, but only has a few lines in another game or two, there is no point giving them a quote page either: just give them a Quotes section with to the major appearance, as well as some choice quotes from that and all the quotes from the minor appearance. Similarly, if a character appears in many games, but they only have a couple lines in each one, just compile them into a small list that fits in a single Quotes section (like how no separate list pages are needed when there's only one or two glitches or beta elements). Character with quotes list pages should also get Quotes sections linking to the lists with, with a small sample of notable or characteristic (oft-repeated) quotes (in accordance with Empty Section Policy).

Each quote page will have a standardized header: " " (this will be added to Subpages Policy). The first section will be "General", and list quotes that appear in more than one appearance; if they only occur a couple times, the appearances can be listed (put these quotes at the bottom), but otherwise, just leave them. Try to put the most stereotypical quotes at the top (i.e. "Mama Mia" for Mario, "Help me, Mario!" for Peach, etc.), and remember that generic quotes are allowed here - just not things like screams ("ahhh"), nonsense and other stuff that sheds absolutely no light on the character ("hi", "okay", etc.); when in doubt, or when there's disagreement, take it to the talk page. After that section, go by genre/media type: Platformers first, since they usually have less quotes, and after that comes Sports, then Spinoffs (including all the random things), then the RPGs (since these are likely to be the big, hefty sections), then the "Non-game appearances", and finally, a Misc. section for commercials ("Mario, Mario, Mario ja nai!" - Peach, NSLU), websites, and other things like that.. Specific series may be given headers, and specific games too, if they produce a large amount of quotes (typically, games sections will be reserved for the RPGs; spinoffs and sports will at least get series headers often, I suspect); otherwise, just put what game each quote is from following the quote All sections should follow the "unsorted" quotes; use chronological order for everything at every level as much as possible. For the non-game appearances, sections can be given for the different shows, movies, publications, etc., or just list them "unsorted" like the games/series with few quotes.

Pretty sure that's everything. But again, the real proposal part's the first paragraph, so if that's all you read, you got the idea.

Proposer: (prompted by  and ) Deadline: August 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per me. I've had this idea for years and have been mulling it over in earnest since this proposal happened...
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Seems like a pretty solid proposal. I'll support it! It's a good idea to have a separate page for that because putting a large list on the parent article clutters the place up and takes up too much space which can be bad for people with low bandwidth.
 * 4) Huh, I always thought why didn't we have a separate page of quotes for characters like Mario. That should've been a standard years ago.
 * 5) It's a pain in the ass to look for specific quotes by a certain character by looking in the games. This proposal solves this problem.
 * 6) I was thinking about this myself and I feel it would be better to find quotes if one wanted to find one for a specific character. Per all.
 * 7) - Per Walkazo.
 * 8) - Exactly Per Walkazo, I thought about this idea when I saw all those construction templates on all quotes pages for many and many years. But she seems that she organized this idea more than me.
 * 9) 100% agree with this, makes it easier to find certain quotes if you don't remember the game, but remember the character.
 * 10) Per proposal.
 * 11) Per Yoshi876.
 * 12) – Per all, I'm sure a lot of people have had this idea in the past.

Comments
Excuse me, but what about quotes like those? -
 * They should stay in the article. As for Mario characters, you should add the quotes into their page.
 * Cool, should we make a Collab on the forum? -

Disallow Usage of "Per All"
My proposal is simple. It is the disallow of "Per All" sentence in proposal. Instead The voter will need a few seconds to specify the the users.

Example:

1. Users should atleast have sometime reading the proposal before voting. 2. Per User1 3. Some Users may just want to vote, so they be called a participant in proposals.

Instead of: 4. Per All He would say: 4. Per User1 and User3 He doesn't need to say Per User2, because User2 opinion is the same as User1

Proposer: Deadline: August 20, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Above

Oppose

 * 1) I don't see a good reason for it to be gotten rid of, and it'd be incredibly annoying if lots of users contribute to a proposal each with their own reasons for (dis)agreeing with something and you having to go, Per: User 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. if you agree with all of them.
 * 2) &mdash; Per all... uh, I mean, this is completely unnecessary. Per the user above.
 * 3) per all.
 * 4) If the per all thing is removed, then people who's reason for agreeing/disagreeing with something is already mentioned, those people either can't vote or need to come up with a whole new reason. Agreeing with someone else just makes it easier.
 * 5) This seems to be a needless hassle to be specific on who you're perring when you per all.
 * 6) This is Ridiculous.
 * 7) - Per all. Having to list individuals is tedious and unnecessary, especially if lots of users make points you agree with. "Per all" isn't a cop-out, it's a perfectly valid vote.
 * 8) – The current system is fine, per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.

Comments
Most votes are 'Pers' after all. - @Tail777 They can say Per someone -
 * True, but agreeing with many people isn't a bad thing.
 * Alright, I got it now. I'll withdraw the proposal by tomorrow. Keeping it wouldn't hurt -

Moving pages like "Cat Mario" to "Cat Form" and so
Well this is my first proposal so I am going to attempt. I was linked here. I think that pages for Mario's forms (Raccoon, Cat etc.) should be renamed to like "Raccoon Form", putting the word "Form" at the end of Mario's form articles. Because some characters (like in SMB2 or NSMW) can also achieve the form, not just Mario. It would make more sense to just put for example "Cat Form" instead of "Cat Mario", since all the chars in NSMW can go Cat form. (that is an example, I mean for all of Mario's forms, even if it is only Mario that ever achieves them).

Proposer: Deadline: August 16, 2013 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) I was actually thinking about this recently. Per all.
 * 3) I agree, Mario isn't the only one who can obtain the powers of the fire flower. Plus that template at the top of those articles that say that it may also apply to a Luigi form is really ugly-looking, and, to me, unprofessional.

Oppose

 * 1) Since nobody has answered my question about this making more conjectural names, I've decided to oppose any changes until Megadardery's and my question is cleared. Is Fire Form ever used?
 * 2) - Per LGM: the forms always defaulting to "X Mario" has always bugged me a little, but conjecture is best avoided. Besides, afaik, the manuals all use "X Mario" as the term for the forms with the understanding that players know it applies to any other playable characters too - just as we know that these pages apply to all the characters. There's also the matter of Google traffic: folks are more likely to search "Fire Mario" than generic "Fire from", and searching for things like "Invincible Wario" or "Penguin Luigi" still bring our "X Mario" pages up as the top hits (with those non-Mario names in the  template getting the boldface); maybe it'd still work with "X form", but maybe not.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) I'd like to have them like that, but they are conjecture.
 * 5) Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per Dardery.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) – Per all.

Comments
If this passes, will have to be deleted?
 * It'd be unneeded, so I'd say yes.
 * No, it is necessary for other uses. like this -

Stupid question, but is the name "Tanooki form" and "Fire form" ever used?

I won't vote now, but isn't "Fire form" a conjecture name? -
 * I was asking that...
 * Sorry, I didn't understand you. better contact an admin before this proposal pass -

Little note: I had to edit the way the proposer put his username so there was a link to his user talk page. If you must, change it back, but I'm pretty sure that's the rules.

Semi-Protect templates
Recently I have noticed that anons have done stupid things in the templates. Take [|this, for example]. We don't want anons putting fake things in the templates. Or [|what about that?] We don't want them putting DS games in the Wii template either. It may not happen a lot, but it still happens and we don't want it.

Proposer: Deadline: August 21, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal. I still feel stupid I didn't do this earlier...

Oppose

 * 1) - Per Megadardery in the comments. A couple bad edits is no reason for blanket protection of the templates: we're more likely to prevent good edits than bad edits from happening.
 * 2) Per Megadardery's comment.

Comments
I got this idea in my mind before, but it is unbelievable to protect all the templates. If we have to protect some, we would protect high usage/complicated templates, mostly like Formatting Templates, Media Templates and Internal Link Templates. However, Navigation Templates, and Infobox Templates should never be protected, because maybe anonymous user finds a problem and tries to fix it. Beside all that, it is still easy to revert any vandal edit, other than complicated templates, because a vandal may make an edit, and another user fix a code somewhere else in the template. So it become hard -but not impossible- to revert it. This is nothing like the last proposal of semi-protecting the Glitches pages, because a vandal may add unreal glitch, which doesn't become hard but almost impossible because we wouldn't know if it is real or not, that is the reason our admins protected them in the first place. -
 * I agree with Megadardery. The glitch lists were protected because they are often a target for vandalism and false info. It's true that anyone can add false information to templates as well, but it only happens once in a while (much less frequently than glitch pages), and are easy enough to revert. –

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.