MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Split Densetsu no Stafy 3 from Video game references (Discuss) Passed
 * Move King Koopa's alter egos to "Alter egos of King Koopa" (Discuss) Deadline: June 28, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Goomba (Super Mario World) to or  (Discuss) Deadline: July 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT.

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment

Add no bullet point to any trivia that has only one thing
I don't think we need a bullet if there is only one thing in a list. If there is more then one, then it does need it, but just for one, ii don't think so.

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

Support

 * 1) Per Proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - It'd be inconsistent with the other pages' Trivia sections and it's not like the lone bullet looks horrible or anything. Besides, if there's only one Trivia point, the best thing to do would be to try incorporating it into the body text: problem solved.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per the bureaucrat that voted on this. (A.K.A. Walkazo)
 * 6) Yeah, but that would turn the Trivia into a mess and will vandalize articles. Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per Walkazo.
 * 9) Per everyone.
 * 10) -Per everybody.
 * 11) - Per Walkazo.
 * 12) Per Walkazo.
 * 13) There might be more trivia.
 * 14) Per Walkazo.
 * 15) Per Walkazo's comment.

Comments
This proposal is not needed: if there is only one thing in trivia, put it in the main sections where it can go.

This reminded me of a little problem: should we have bullet points in the "List of references" articles? I know it's not really related to the proposal, but since it's about bullet points... —


 * While having the odd one-bullet Trivia section is fine, on the Reference pages, the act of dividing the information into separate points is already accomplished by the headers themselves: bullets would be unnecessary. They'd also be out of place considering that a lot of the sections have full paragraphs containing multiple points (which is preferable to broken-up lists anyway), and they really wouldn't work with the few sections that have multiple paragraphs. -
 * Thanks, I think I'll get rid of those sooner or later. —

@PinkiePie I fail to see how it would vandalize articles.

Change FA size requirement
What I am proposing is simple, we decrease the size an article needs to be to become an FA. Koopa Cape is a quality article, but is too short to become an FA so is Grouchy Possessor. Articles like these are quality articles, but because of the size limit they can't be one, so the size requirement should be lowered so articles like these (as I'm sure there are many others) can be featured.

Proposer:, original idea Deadline: June 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) I liked good articles better, but per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal

Comments
Okay, you want to reduce the size required for the FA. My question is this: what's the new minimum requirement you're asking for? It doesn't have to be specific, sure, but say, what is your view on what article is too short for an FA? Baby Donkey Kong was unfeatured because it's so small. Koopa Cape has a similar size.

By the way, I'm also wondering if we should add some margin of incompleteness to featured articles as well. That is, if the article fails to cover appearances from obscure, difficult-to-obtain sources, we shouldn't unfeature it based solely on that. But that's probably another proposal.


 * I'm thinking of a decrease in maybe character limit i.e. 4000-2500. And I think your idea is probably more suited for another proposal.
 * I don't think character limit is the whole story, though, so that's why we should speak in relative terms. If this proposal passes, how are we going to enforce it? It's already hard enough to draw the line between too short and just right.
 * FA's were always about quality, so that is a hard question and I'm sorry that isn't really specific, but an article where its quality would outweigh its length. But of a reasonable length, my examples provided would probably be the minimum allowed.

Semi-protect Glitch List pages
Often, glitch pages have become a target of, , and information, as well as just. And most of this is done by either accounts created very recently or anonymous users. Therefore, I am suggesting that all the glitch list pages be protected (so that only autoconfirmed users can edit them), to prevent this sort of thing.

Proposer: Deadline: June 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my reasoning above.
 * 2) – Strongly agree with the proposed action. If I had a dollar for every time I witnessed an anon writing an unreferenced, slack effort at writing a decently written paragraph, clogged with the usage of second person, I'd have like thirty bucks.
 * 3) It's true some anons add real glitches, but they also add what they want, so per proposal.
 * 4) - Per all, especially YK.
 * 5) Per all. I have to disagree with YoshiKong, though, since I think it's closer to one hundred and thirteen dollars with twenty-two cents.

Comments
Whilst I agree, sometimes anons add valid glitches, so there needs to be someway that they could inform us and it'd also allow us to test it to make sure it isn't false.
 * @Yoshi876: That's true, but see YoshiKong's reasoning above; the probability of anons adding crap to glitch pages is much higher than them adding legitimate glitches.
 * They could ask someone to add the legit glitch, on the talk page, maybe? —
 * @Banon: Are you talking about if this proposal was in effect, anons could request it to be added?
 * I;d say so, because obviously there are anons out there out who do have a valid glitch to add and that would be the only way.
 * Yeah, they could add it in that way if they're actually planning to make constructive edits, but
 * Some anons do actually make constructive edits (such as adding legit glitches), but they reason I'm proposing this is because the vast majority of anons who edit glitch pages vandalize them. So yeah, anyone who wants to add in something would have to request it.

Loosen FA Requirements for Coverage
"This article doesn't cover details from the Super Mario-Kun (both versions). It can't be featured." "It doesn't have details from Super Mario Bros. & Friends: When I Grow Up." "All Night Nippon Super Mario Bros. isn't adequately covered."

Nowadays, our requirements for nominations for Featured Articles have tightened. It's a great thing, since we are following the mantra of "articles that represent the best the Super Mario Wiki has to offer."

I still have a problem, though.

Number 8 on Featured Article requirements state that articles must "have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles." My problem is that we interpret this as including all appearances including from obscure media. The biggest problem is how extremely tough it is to acquire information, especially detailed, adequate information from such media. Lacking detailed information from a few obscure games and comics shouldn't be the difference between a quality article and a crap article.

I'm not saying that we disregard the obscure media. I am suggesting, however, that the obscure media should be treated as the "above and beyond" and the "extra credit". We should at the very least acknowledge such media exists and that the character made an appearance, but if there is anyone out there that is willing to add detailed information to the acknowledgement, more power to the article and the person.

I'm not saying either that we should feature incomplete articles. I'm suggesting instead that if an otherwise excellent article covers the vast majority of information while leaving out some detailed information from obscure "holy grails" out, we should let it be featured. In other words, we shouldn't prevent an article from being featured just because it doesn't have the intricate plot details from Bumm-Badabumm im Urwald. On the other hand, we should prevent an article from being featured if it lacks information from Super Princess Peach and Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix.

Proposer: Deadline: June 26, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) This loosening requirement should help establish a bit more leeway in featuring articles. We also shouldn't attempt to unfeature an article just because the Super Mario-Kun section is a one-liner.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per all; my stance is that as long as all angles of said content in question for the article are covered, length should not be an issue. The professional standards would still be a must for any article to be in featured territory, regardless of size.

Comments
Would this also include very obscure Japan-only games as well?
 * I'd say only if they have an adequate amount of quality information.
 * Yeah. I stated that we should at least mention the game, but when it's extremely difficult to find the details of the said game, it shouldn't be the difference between a featured article and a regular or bad article.

Split characters like Koopa, Shy Guy and Wiggler into a character page from the species
I feel the rule with characters like Koopa and Shy Guy should be a whole species article should change. Characters like them make appearances in spin off titles like the Mario Tennis and Mario Kart series and they shouldn't be in the article of their species. So I think we should split characters like Koopa, Shy Guy, Wiggler and Boo from their species articles and into their own character articles. Because I'm sure the Koopa in the Mario Kart series is a notable one from the Koopa species.

Proposer: Deadline: June 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I normally support my own ideas.

Oppose

 * 1) Nothing suggests that the random playable enemies like Koopa are always the same character. A "Koopa Troopa" character hasn't been established, unlike with Yoshi and Toad for example. Also per Turboo and Yoshi876's comments.
 * No, the method that we're covering these cases are as fine as it is. No need to split them into specificed character articles just because they participated in spinoff installments. I'm sorry, but I say no on this case.
 * 1) Per comments below, I'm sorry but all I see is pages that are completely composed of small sections with minimal detail.

Comments
I don't really get the point of this; I guess you could make an article if you really tried, but... wouldn't it just be simple details of the Koopa's appearance in the games? It doesn't even appear different from a normal green-shelled Koopa. -
 * And wouldn't this make quite small articles that are composed of mostly 1-liners. 'Koopa appeared in the Mario Kart series, his karts are ...'?
 * No cause Koopa appears in multiple Mario Karts, he's a host in Mario Party 4, playable in Mario Party 9, there is plenty of information about these characters because they've made many appearances as either playable characters or important characters in other games. The amount information for the Mario Kart series would be no different than that of any other character.
 * Yeah, a Koopa appears in those games. What makes you think it's always the same one? A Koopa Troopa character named Koopa Troopa hasn't been established. Same thing for Shy Guy, Wiggler and Boo. Aokage (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Then why does the specific Koopa in Mario Party DS get an article? A Wiggler appeared in the same game and didn't get an article.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.