MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/43

Change the way rule number 9 of the proposal system works
DELETED BY PROPOSER

So, another proposal to remove this rule was made that was just now vetoed by an administrator. The idea in this proposal is not to remove the rule but instead change the way it works to make it more fair and less objectionable. So as of now, this rule is in effect:
 * All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.

I think that the rule could use a few changes that could keep much of its original intent intact while making it more accurate towards what the majority of users want. So I propose we replace that rule with this new rule:
 * All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options, with the change option with the lowest amount of votes and all votes put into it removed each time that happens, and the people who made those removed votes given the opportunity to make a new vote for one of the other options until there is only one change option and the do nothing option remaining when the rules for the proposal basically revert to what the rules for one change vs do nothing proposals are.

I think the changed rule would be better than both the original rule and just flat out deleting the rule for the following reasons:
 * There isn't really that much of a difference in the end than if the original proposal was just between the two options that would have been the last two options in this case.
 * This way, there won't be bogus scenarios where nothing is done because two different change options were both preferable than doing nothing to a majority of people but the majority couldn't agree on which one was the better change option.
 * Since there is always a do nothing option left in the final two, there won't be any problems where two changes both with a different direction in mind that both have more support than doing nothing when both change sides would rather just do nothing than support the other change.
 * Therefore, this only really has the potential to do anything when both changes are ideas for a similar direction that the same users would rather have either of the changes over having nothing done.

Proposer: Deadline: June 28, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1)  Generally, rules function as intended. Proposed change reads like over complicating an already simple system to me. Additionally, per standard proposal rule 7: "No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old." A proposal about a change to the proposal system was closed as "no" less than two hours ago. Further, as precedent was set, I call for administrative veto.
 * 2) The problem with this proposal is that it operates on the assumption that once failed, a proposal cannot be redone or there cannot be a later, related discussion that may refine and better compromise to address the needs for disputing sides. Finally, the proposed rule is difficult to read and understand. Further comments are also included. See below section.
 * 3) - Aping a ranked ballot system, as is being proposed here, is way to complicated and problematic. Also, it's frankly ridiculous that this proposal even exists in the first place, not only because it's unlawfully trying to overturn the "proposal rule changes can't be forced through by proposals" ruling on the last proposal, as Ghost Jam pointed out, but because it's blatantly ignoring that ruling. It wasn't "an" administrator who vetoed the last proposal: it was a decision made by multiple admins, and it'll happen to this one too, sooner than later. Maybe then the message will sink in. The system is fine: drop it and leave it alone already.
 * 4) – Interestingly enough, the current system we have now is a modification of this proposal. I had actually suggested this exact idea in April 2012 and it failed, but  suggested a refined version of it in September 2012 based on Walkazo's suggestions. The current rule works, and requires those that want to make a change to compromise in order to provide a clear path of action.

Comments
Wait, in proposals with three choices or more, if their deadlines are extended, do you propose removing the option with the least amount of votes? That sounds so convoluted. Even the wording in that is hard to read. The bolded part is one sentence! Anyhow, if there are two change options clashing and rivaling each other in terms of votes, proceeding with one change or the other will displease a sizeable group and that's not democratic. Having the proposal fail after breaking through several extended deadlines definitely means "no consensus has been reached, so no changes will be made". It's a failsafe measure at this point, and it gives the opportunity for further discussion and refining the proposal further. Not to mention, it wears on people's patience to see a proposal get extended, like, three times, so casting it off is good, elaborated previously.

In super drawn-out proposals, it's safer to kill them eventually than to take questionable and controversial action even if the outcome is dead tied. It's the reason FAs have a time limit, too. 14:17, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

@Ghost Jam: I tried my best to remove the objectionable pieces of the other proposal that caused it to be vetoed and take into consideration things said by Walkazo in my discussion with her in the other proposal to make it not fall into any objections that she made there. @Bazooka Mario, I specifically said in the proposal that the do nothing option would stay to the final two no matter what and before then, only options suggesting change could be removed so if there is a case of two change options clashing and rivaling each other in terms of votes, and people voting for one of the changes would rather have nothing done, they will always have the chance to just move their votes towards doing nothing. -

@Walkazo, just veto it now then in this case to get it over with. I tried my best to fix the problems that got the other proposal vetoed but I guess in this case, I didn't do enough so I guess you should just veto this proposal now. I'll talk about it more with you in user talk page if I feel the need to. I'm sorry for my mistake. -


 * No, I didn't mean that. During a hotly contested proposal, there has to be a time limit for how long a proposal runs, and once that time limit is exceeded, it is canceled, period. The proposal is done, but the discussion can continue since the canceling suggests more discussion needs to be made before putting it "to the floor". People that vote for change don't like to have nothing done, but "do nothing" is the least of the evils when two votes are hotly contested and the time limit is reached. 14:51, 21 June 2015 (EDT)


 * @Kart Player 2011: Feel free to cancel it yourself, if you now understand that it was an ill-advised move. Just be sure to archive it properly, rather than deleting it outright. - 15:08, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

Lessen Crossover Coverage
DELETED BY PROPOSER

According to the current Coverage rule, crossover games like Super Smash Bros. and Mario & Sonic have full coverage. However, this means that we have to cover all of the content from Super Smash Bros., which can cause us to compete with our NIWA Affiliate Smash Wiki. Look at all the Smash content. Shouldn't we focus more on Mario? So I have a proposal:


 * Games that are 0%-5% Mario: CAMEO - No coverage except for on a list of references.
 * 5%-20% Mario: GUEST - just a page on the game and mentions on Mario pages.
 * 20%-70% Mario: CROSSOVER - All playable characters, original content and Mario based content get pages. However, content from other franchises other than playable characters will not be covered.
 * 70%-100% Mario: MARIO GAME Everything in the game will be covered, no matter what.

Proposer: Deadline: June 30, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) As proposer.

Oppose

 * 1) Regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter, your method of deciding whether or not a game should be covered is really off. How is it decided which games have "5%" Mario or "25%" Mario and so on and so forth? It's incredibly vague and I'm not comfortable with it.
 * 2) - Even if the proposal was suggesting something that was actually usable, the current coverage policy is fine.
 * 3) Umm what? Do we cover all 719 species of Pokémon? Do we cover all of Pikachu's apparences in the trading card game, anime, and whatnot? Do we cover all of Kirby's copy abilities in his games? No. All we cover are Smash Bros. apparences. I don't really get this proposal.
 * 4) Per Time Turner.
 * 5) Our coverage policy is fine and all the NIWA wikis know about it so it's not a problem.
 * 6) Per Time Turner and Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness.
 * 7) Per all. Every single time anyone's asked to reduce coverage, it always gets shot down, this would be no exception. For a good reason too. I see no good reason to reduce our coverage and I feel it's counterproductive to our goal. We even link to SmashWiki in the end of Smash pages anyway so....
 * 8) Per all. The current policy was written with the goal of making the process as inclusive as possible while not going overboard or otherwise becoming too fiddly. I'm not in favor of anything outside of a justified tweak here or there, this proposal goes will beyond that.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per Pokémon XD and Time Turner.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Strong Oppose. As stated in this proposal: "We cover Smash Bros. fully. We should cover all special moves and Final Smashes, especially since all are major aspects of Smash Bros. that are given a name. Hell, Air Dodge, Shield, and Footstool Jump all have articles.[...] Also, for those who think we're becoming SmashWiki 2.0, actually, that's a slippery slope argument. SmashWiki talks about strategies, character viability, move viability, combo potential, DACUS, wave-dashing, SHFFL, famous competitive players, famous tourneys, palette swaps, Sakurai angles, and a ton other Smash Bros. jargon and nitty bitty mechanics we won't even breahte[sic] on.[...]". Finally, the percentage points defined in the proposal is ridiculous, as if there is a hard-defined method to tell whenever a game is a crossover or guest appearances or cameo and each "element" is treated equally (for example, using these percentage points, Mario being a playable character in a 100-character roster in a Dynasty Warriors game would be deemed less significant than a Mario costume in a Marvel vs. Capcom game of 10 characters, each getting one alternate costume).
 * 13) What is this? The way we do it is fine. We're not competing with SmashWiki, and your calculation system makes no sense. Could you please give an example in the comments? What percent is Super Smash Bros Melee?

Comments
So how do you suggest those percentages are calculated..? --Glowsquid (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Also Smash Wiki's coverage is far more technical and fandom-heavy (pages on tournaments, tourney players, memes, using the technically unofficial name "Smash 4" as the default way to refer to the latest installment... etc), so the "we're competing with them!" argument doesn't hold much water. --Glowsquid (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Just count how much Mario content is in the game. For a Super Smash Bros. game, count the fighters, stages, music, items, etc. marked with mushrooms, eggs, DKs and Ws and count the total content in the game. Make a fraction with the Mario points on top and the total points on the bottom and divide, and convert the decimal into a fraction. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
 * are you fucking serious --Glowsquid (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
 * And just because they have fandom-based articles doesn't justify us having a lot of content they have. Do we really need all the Pokémon? That's something for Bulbapedia. And I think on the codec conversations and Palutena's guidence, we should just do the conversations about the Mario characters. And the list of trophies should only include the Mario, DK, Wario and Yoshi trophies. Well, at least we'll still have the playable Link, Samus and Pikachu. But I don't think we'll need Ridley, Chansey or Tingle.SeanWheeler (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Oh yeah, I'm serious. But if you don't want to do calculations, you can just estimate. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
 * We don't have "all the Pokémon" though, we have a small table that briefly describes each Poké Ball Pokémon in the context of its Smash appearance alone, and short pages for the Pokémon fighters in Smash that give a very brief description of the Pokémon's concept, and then a brief description of its appearance in Smash, nothing more. The article does not describe the concepts of the individual Pokémon in any detail at all as Bulbapedia would (and does), nor does it describe or even mention Pokémon that appear outside of Smash. Pseudo-dino (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2015 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler, SmashWiki also is very technical about the Smash content. They have tier lists, tourneys, professional smash players, project m, advanced techniques, how viable a character is...etc. If like to learn what wave-dashing, star kos, wall of pains, etc. are, then SmashWiki covers it very well. We don't go that far. We cover like only the official thingamabobs. 03:37, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Well, when I said "all the Pokémon" I wasn't talking about all the Pokémon in the National Dex. I mean all the Poké Ball Pokémon like Chansey, Blastoise and Fletchling. Do we seriously need these Pokémon? SeanWheeler (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
 * It's better to have individual articles on them rather than keeping them stuffed all into one page and only that page (along with trophy information). Much akin to putting all Yoshi Eggs in one basket and then eating them, balut style . 17:43, 23 June 2015 (EDT)

"Shouldn't we focus more on Mario?" is a moot point. 5 Smash Bros. games and 9 Mario & Sonic games out of the hundreds of other pure Mario games. -- 16:06, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
 * And that's only if you count the games that have both a handheld and console version, which have a lot of the same content anyway. -- 16:07, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Okay, fine. Could we end this early? I actually like our Smash articles anyway. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Okay, you can archive it and mark it as deleted by proposer. 21:29, 23 June 2015 (EDT)

Change intro standards for mainspace ex-subpages
DON'T CHANGE 1-7

See this proposal for some background.

This proposal seems a bit minor, but as a Mario Wiki, we strive to inform, not point out the obvious. That being said, the intros for the gallery space and other subpages are very unprofessional, as their only purpose, aside from stating the obvious, serves as filler text (seriously, one big reason we have such text is that "blank space is kind of an eyesore"). The most useful thing it does is provide a link to its main article. Now, I recall proposing replacing the intro text and turning gallery space into subspace, but I wasn't aware that it would violate our subpages policy, and I'm not willing to drastically alter an established policy just for the sake of changing the intro text a bit.

One solution is to replace the current intros with a simple. As for related ex-subpages, we can use. Articleabout, however, is less than ideal, but there's nothing in the way of creating a new template that link to related ex-subpages without saying that a page of images of Mario is a page of images of Mario. Not only does it seem more professional, it simplifies our introductions so users don't have to continuously refer to a policy that specifically outlines how each intro should be worded. Besides, our Subpages Policy is outdated, since galleries now include a few media files (see Baby Mario).

Anyway, another solution is to create an entirely new template which focuses on ex-subpages and links to related ex-subpages only when the related parameters are used. This would make it a combination of and, but altering it to make it more presentable. The new template would be something like this:

Main article:  For information about, see .

Further suggestions and alterations to this template would be appreciated, as it's only a prototype and I suppose more seasoned template makers can have a hand on this, provided they support, of course.

So, to sum it up, the advantages of using a template would be replacing filler text with a more useful and simple link, and it would simplify our Subpages Policy, the intro aspect.

Finally, this applies to mainly the mainspace ex-subpages, which is what this whole Subspaces Policy is about in the first place. Of course, exceptions apply, but if they're rare and not intrusive, the proposed changes wouldn't undermine the wiki.

Proposer: Deadline: July 1, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) It's simpler than memorizing a bunch of one-liner intros that point out the obvious, thus making it look more professional. If there are any major flaws I've overlooked, please state so and we'll see what we can do about those. Any refinements is highly encouraged as I do feel there are some ruffles than can be easily worked here and there. After all, these are just prototypes, but I hope you get the basic premise of the idea.

Oppose

 * 1) - In all honesty, I don't have a problem with the one-liners: unlike articles, there's nothing really to say besides what it is (with maybe an extra link to a port/remake or whatever), and yeah, something is better than nothing or a bare  or an equivalent, so whatever. It's not like readers will notice or care either way anyway. Plus, no one needs to memorize what to put since the policy page is set up for copypasta ease. I'd rather just update the policy page than worry about having to fix this non-issue in all the subpages. Don't fix what isn't broken.
 * 2) - I don't really get why we need to do this. Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Per Walkazo.

Comments
Huh, I'd expect someone to say "there's no problem with it, so no change". I think a little change goes some way, though, and my proposal is changing just for the sake of concision and trimming out filler text. As for the copy-paste thing, it's still more of a hassle to access these pages to copy-paste them than inputting a template that generates automated text anyhow. I really don't find those intro texts necessary other than providing a link to the main page, hence this proposal. It's not "fixing what isn't broken", it's improving/refining what we have right now, even if "readers won't care anyway". 22:02, 23 June 2015 (EDT)