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

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 01:49 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.

Removals
None at the moment.

Move substantial "Official profiles and statistics" sections to a separate page
Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Toad, Bowser, Yoshi, Donkey Kong. One thing in common is that their pages are incredibly huge, and loading them may be a chore for the computer. My proposal is to move some information, specifically large "Official profiles and statistics" sections, from these pages to another page, much as how "Gallery" and "Quotes" have their own page. While this may not be a surefire way to get these pages loading a bajillion times quicker, every little bit helps so we can get potential editors rather than having their browsers crash from the immense size.

Baby Luigi and I then decided that we should move the "Official profiles and statistics" section to its own page. Now, just as with galleries and list of quotes, not EVERY article will be affected by it; only articles that have a substantial amount of information (decided by a case-by-case basis) will have the information moved.

Reasonably reducing the strain these pages do on browsers should be a plus for all of us editors here.

Update: In addition, profiles and statistics from RPG games, such as Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi and Super Mario RPG will be moved into these pages as well.

Proposer: Deadline: February 9, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) It's a pain in the ass to visit these articles I mentioned. Every little bit of trimming will be highly appreciated, so moving this information to another article will be nice.
 * 2) In 2006, all the page were short like a daisy. Now, it a garbage dump today. We should move the profiles to another page. Reader could get tired of reading long articles. I said we go back to 2006. Per all.
 * 3) - YES! I've wanted to see this happen for years, but was always too lazy to to do more than mention it every now and then. As well as shortening the length of the page as a whole, it'll also halve the amount of entries in the Table of Contents for these big pages, making navigation easier (plus, then there won't be so many headers sharing names and potentially complicating section-linking). The articles will also look better without the messy lists dragging along after the prose content.
 * 4) I strongly support this. Per Mario and Walkazo.
 * 5) Yes, just yes. Maybe this can also help towards featuring these kinds of articles (maybe). Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Great idea for improving organization, per all.
 * 8) Per Mario and Pinkie
 * 9) Per all. I think that the "big" pages need to be cleaned up a lot.
 * 10) Per Pinkie Pie
 * 11) This should at least lessen the constipation devices go through when they try loading one of these pages. Per Mario and Walkazo.
 * 12) Per all
 * 13) It hurts trying to read the Mario page.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per all
 * 16) Per all, it is making the page Bowser on the top of the Long Pages list. It makes the page more organized.
 * 17) Definite per all.
 * 18) Per all.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) Great Idea. Pages such Daisy were shorter in some time ago, but now ittakes some minutes to load completely. Also, pages such Peach and Mario doesn't load completely the images, they are very very very large pages. Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - I have no problem loading these pages. And the profiles and statistics are shorter than the history. I don't think removing a small section would help your loading times.

Comments
I think it would be a good idea to also say that all the official profiles and stats should go on the not-subpages - i.e. instead of having some of the RPG infoboxes in the History sections, etc. That way, everything would be in one place, and it would also make the History sections more uniform and less crowded (as they can get when they have multiple boxes in close proximity). One question, tho: what would the new pages be named? "List of profiles and statistics of X" would be consistent with other "subpages", and doesn't see, too wordy after the "official" bit's removed. But I dunno, maybe there's a better choice? -
 * I added some more provisions, thanks to your suggestions. Also, I think the "profiles and statistics" part can be shortened to just one word, but I'm not exactly sure what single word can replace that lengthy phrase. Maybe "List of data of this guy person" or simply "List of profiles of this guy person".
 * SeanWheeler, if we don't move the stat to another page, the reader might rage quit on this wiki. 12:01, 2 February 2014 (EST)
 * That's extreme; the worst I'd do is refuse to click on those specific pages at all.
 * I like "List of {character} profiles and statistics". -
 * Sounds good. -

SeanWheeler, just compare the loading time of Waluigi to Bowser. There is a noticeable difference. In every computer I've used, Bowser takes a painfully longer time to load. Also, you should be more considerate about those with weaker computers than yours. Just because YOU don't have a problem doesn't mean EVERYONE won't. I've also mentioned explicitly that the action will not make the page load a million times faster, but trimming reasonably will improve loading times nevertheless.
 * I think the reason why he said it's fine, is because he has a high-performance PC that load pages faster. Check other computers with low-performance SeanWheeler, the pages take almost 1 minute to load. 18:38, 4 February 2014 (EST)
 * I'm using a computer with an i7 processor and the Mario page still makes my browser hang for 10 seconds. You need a REALLY high-performance PC that doesn't make a difference. SeanWheeler's reasoning is weak: "I don't have problems and it won't reduce loading time drastically, so I will oppose."
 * SeanWheeler might have a REALLY high-performance PC. Also, I'm with Mario: SeanWheeler's oppose is weak. 15:52, 5 February 2014 (EST)
 * It's a quad-core CPU with 1.7 gH I believe. It's not gaming-quality (doesn't run Dolphin Emulator GCN games such as Mario Party at full speed), but it's still decent.
 * Loading a page shouldn't take a $10,000 premium-performance shiny spankin' new computer for goodness sake.

Also, even though the long page load faster, scrolling down is a pain to look at. 16:22, 5 February 2014 (EST)
 * SeanWheeler, just because you said that is fine, it not fine. First, scrolling woud be REALLY hard, second, there is too much lag, and third, the profiles and stats are useless. Maybe we need to make a proposal on removing opposes.
 * One: that'd be extremely unnecessary for these types of proposals, and simply explaining the logical flaws is fine, which two: you seem to have done multiple times already. I'm fairly sure both Sean and anyone else reading gets what you think of their oppose without it having to be repeatedly stated.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.