MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/28

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

but in order to prevent errors in the format (which can be made by many), I created a template, drafted at User:B.wilson/ref. Using the draft template here, placing

produces:

And for articles with too many of these naughty plain references, I also drafted User:B.wilson/Plainrefs.

I think this will make our references filled even more quickly. I doubt that anyone would oppose such a great idea.

Proposer: Deadline: November 11, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - Except for upcoming info, it's almost a miracle when we get people bothering to cite their sources at all, and you want to make it more complicated? There's nothing wrong with plain tags: raising awareness about using them and regulating what needs to go into them (page number and possibly quotes from instruction manuals; link, name, access date for websites; etc.) would be a much more fruitful endeavour than trying to redo it all from scratch (and even then, we can't be too exacting: most of the info is taken straight from the games and is added by kids - not the best circumstances for citations).
 * 2) Per Walkazo's reasoning, even though it seemingly contradicts the Citation Policy. Also, I'd like to say that while I greatly enjoy reading something rife with direct citations from the game on Zelda or Metroid Wiki, I believe our current policy works best for our situation.

Comments
Walkazo - You may say that plain tags have no problems, as I agree with that, but it just doesn't look professional. If there are filled, they will look better, because it will help others. I know I wasted a lot of time doing this yesterday because you are refusing the support the idea. Of course, the KIDS don't have to fill them in, if there are plain links added, then we can fill them in. It would make the wiki look a lot more professional. If you want the wiki to be the best database and reference source about our favorite plumber, why are you against making it more professional?

New Super Mario Bros. Wii Level Split
DON'T SPLIT 1-12

For levels in New Super Mario Bros. Wii, people keep them all in an article depending on their world.Why? This doesn't give the wiki a chance to give an overview of the levels, like how to get the Star Coins or how to reach the secret exit. The purpose of this proposal is to split all levels in New Super Mario Bros. Wii so each level has its own article.

Proposer: Deadline: November 5, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal. This would be an awesome improvement, and it would give Mariowiki more information.

Oppose

 * 1) We already voted a proposal down that was similar to this here. Per Mario4Ever and Walkazo in that archived proposal.
 * 2) - We don't need to create more articles; that doesn't give us more information, it just moves the information to harder-to-reach pages so that people searching for it will have to click through several more links to get to it.
 * 3) Per Marioguy1.
 * 4) - Per Marioguy1.
 * 5) Per Bop1996 and MG1.
 * 6) I don't know what to say other than "I agree with the users above". :/
 * 7) - I can't really explain this.  Therefore, per Marioguy1.
 * 8) - Per Bop1996. I still think merging levels into worlds across the wiki would be the best option: it'd streamline navigation, save space, and avoid both stubs and attempts to make pages much longer than they need to be (using wordy, walkthrough-like level summaries).
 * 9) Info on "star coin get" should be dealt with our couleagues at the Strategy Wiki (assuming they have an article on such a game). Per all.
 * 10) – I am against the idea of gaming the article count of this site.
 * 11) Per all
 * 12) - IIRC, we had a proposal about this way back when I was active and editing the Wario Land 1 worlds. Whatevs, world articles are way better. They supply way more information for way less clicking. Besides, one can still write in-depth descriptions of the levels (without them becoming walkthroughs) in one article.

Comments
Bop1996, you are trying to prevent my proposals from working! Also, my proposal is nothing like the one you showed me. The articles will be named like "Word 1-1 (New Super Mario Bros. Wii)".
 * That's illogical. If you want me to support your proposals, you might try proposing something I didn't vote against the last times we voted on it. And actually, the proposal in the archives wanted an article on each level in all the 2D games, but the reasoning applies to the NSMBW levels as well, minus the long list of redirects and disambiguation pages that would have been created in the previous proposal.
 * Wildgoose: Please don't confuse users like me by removing all the oppose votes. Just because people have different views from you doesn't mean that they're wrong or silly.

Come on, can't I have just one support comment? No one ever agrees with me.
 * There's no need to complain. The proposal's got some time left, so who knows, you might get some before the deadline.

What's wrong with disambiguation pages anyway? They have always been a part of the wiki, they always will be. This will add more information, the articles would be similar to articles about Donkey Kong Contry levels.
 * Just like MG1 said, making separate pages for each level won't make them any more detailed; it's just how much is put into each section.
 * @Wildgoose: I understand why you want to have another support with you, but you really need to do some research before doing proposals. Your SMG proposal has already been tried multiple times, and this one is similar to when a user wanted to split all Super Mario Bros. levels into separate pages. Bop is not causing you to lose this proposal, nor is it preventing people from supporting it. If you want a proposal to pass, you got to have strong evidence as well as strong reasoning for why it is being done. You also have to look at both sides, especially the side-effects. For example, if this was to pass, then many other things would have to be split to keep consistency on the wiki.

Blacklisting inappropriate titles
OPPOSE 1-11

Over the past few weeks, I've noticed disproportionately inappropriate usernames being created. Such as "Stop blocking my socks", and other usernames, such as a username insulting another user on the site.

Suppose that someone creates an account called "GGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRR B.wilson's A RETARD!!!!" How is the thing prevented from happening the next time?

If we insert the following Regex:

If they create an account again that contains B.wilson (even with alterations, such as B.Wilson or Bwilson) the text in errmsg will be displayed: This username has been identified as harmful, and has bene blacklisted from creation. Please choose a different username.

This can also prevent inappropriate page moves, edits, and page creations. Do you think it's a great idea? This Regex should be stored on MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. I made this proposal due to the fact that the page is empty.

Proposer: Deadline: November 8, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) What would not make it a good idea?

Oppose

 * 1) - These accounts are all caught and blocked very quickly and if the name's really bad, we can suppress them from view. And even before this new suppression feature, we easily dealt with inappropriate names by renaming the accounts. But most of the time, they're just stupid names and they're just not worth any trouble or concern at all. Our system works perfectly fine: we don't need some fancy new blacklist feature. Don't fix what isn't broken.
 * 2) - Per Walkazo.
 * 3) - Per MeritC and Walkazo.
 * 4) AFAIK, this wouldn't really affect most of the users except admins, so if the admins would prefer to keep things the way they are, I don't see any reason to change it. Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per Walkazo, though if we didn't have as awesome admins as we do here, I would probably support it.
 * 6) Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Per Walkazo.
 * 8) Per all
 * 9) Per Walky.
 * 10) Per Walkazo. Also it just seem to me (maybe just right now) that anybody will have ownership of their username and cannot be used by another person, even a part of it.
 * 11) Per Walkazo and Marioguy1's comment.

Comments
Oh, okay, it seems that the admins here at are too passionate... ;) --
 * No, given opposals on ALL OF MY proposals, and that only the proposals made by admins pass...I so did not mean that. --
 * I meant, the only problem with a part of the community here is that they simply lack any good taste. I am not attacking anyone for the most part, nor am I saying this place is a bad place - this place has great administrators and a great community. But the only problems are that only proposals made by admins or a group of them pass (any newcomer can see the archive), or made by extremely trusted contributors who have been on the site for some time. I only have been here for a month, but that doesn't increase any chance that this proposal should fail. So the point of the proposal is to blacklist inappropriate usernames, so they cannot be created. So time to hide mentioning of them from edit summaries (which can take a lot of time if lots of edits), blocking them, and cleaning up after them can be replaced by contributions that will benefit from this wiki. I am actually trying to help you guys help benefit the wiki by more mainspace contributions, but it seems like... -- 03:56, 6 November 2011 (EST)
 * In the nearly a year I've spent here, plenty of regular users have made successful proposals, even if they aren't highly experienced or knowledgeable. The reason it looks like your proposals are just an admin bandwagon is because your proposals affect admins the most, and the vast majority of our community defers to what the admins prefer to do in these cases, as it'd be highly counterproductive to take an action changing how the admins do things if the admins would prefer not to change it.
 * That may be correct, but this doesn't affect administrators much. All this is is discouragement of adding plain references, using a simple template for filling them in easier, and tags on pages for experienced users to drop by and fill em in. -- 09:01, 6 November 2011 (EST)
 * In the case you mentioned, Walkazo pointed out that simply raising awareness about a better way to reference would work better, and to be honest, if you spend enough time here with a big release coming up, it's pretty hard not to notice that people sometimes have a hard time referencing just with a link. As for your other two proposals, those would have mostly just affected the admins, so it's no wonder that if the admins voted it down, the rest of the community followed.

The point of the matter is, B.wilson, this proposal will be work for us - every time the trolls find a new user to troll, we will have to add another title to the blacklist. Even then, a troll will either find a way around it or move on to another user. It is a waste of time hankering ourselves to find a way to stop the trolls when the damage they do is extremely minimal as is.

As for your comments that only proposals by administrators pass, I think you are misreading the data. For example, if you looked at data for any country in the world of human activity, you'd find that when the sun goes down, people go inside. When the sun comes back up, people come back outside. So a proper analysis of that would be that the sun causes people to come inside and go back out. And that analysis would be wrong. If you look at the archives for the proposals, you'd find that when a respected user makes a proposal, it passes. When a newer user makes a proposal, it fails. There are several exceptions in each scenario. Your analysis is that only respected users' proposals pass, but that analysis is also wrong. Going on with the sun-example, people find it convenient to go inside when the lights and warmth are gone and then find it convenient to come back outside when they are back. The sun in no way forces them to do this. Similarly, proposals made by respected users are usually well-thought-out and well-proposed - with proper research done beforehand. Proposals done by newer users are usually not well-thought-out and they are formatted badly so that they don't draw people's attention. The fact that the user is "new" or "old" has nothing to do with whether they make good proposals or not.

A final point I'd like to make would be that there is a reason administrators are allowed to vote on proposals - because they usually know what they are doing. If an administrator opposes a proposal, they will usually have a good reason to do it. In saying that your proposal is failing because everyone is following an administrator, you are disregarding the opinion of that administrator; and if everyone is following that administrator, their opinion is probably an intelligent one. The point is, the admins usually know what they're doing, they're not perfect, but we trust them enough to make proper decisions for the betterment of the wiki.
 * You may be right, I was not attacking Walkazo's opinion. But the only thing I find kind of - not what I expected - is that the entries following Walkazo's oppose just basically said nothing but "Per Walkazo" or "per all", which may be... --
 * Ah, so you don't really like the "per" votes. Well, I could have typed out everything Walkazo said as my vote, or just "per'd" her. Either way, I'm basically voting for oppose based off her vote, the only difference is that in the case of the latter, none of the content is lost, but it takes a lot less time to just basically say "I agree with Walkazo" or something like that.
 * I feel it is more polite to give out my real reasons for votes for consensus, even if it's just a rephrase or paraphrase of another's vote - and then give my original reasons. Best,
 * Aside from it being redundant to rephrase or paraphrase another user's vote, more often than not, as a proposal approaches deadline, there are going to be fewer and fewer original reasons, simply because initial votes in either direction require a reason, and the users that follow won't come up with a new reason if they agree with one already present.

Create articles for media with several references
OPPOSE 1-7

There are some TV shows/Internet stuff/Movies/Anything else with many references. Some with enough to qualify for their own page. This makes the references pages very long. I feel that doing this would cut back on the references pages. I see many other wikis do it. Some prime contenders would be Futurama and Homestar Runner among others.

Proposer: Deadline: November 13, 2011 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per the words above me.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't really see the point for new pages full of references, and besides, it doesn't belong to the Mario series and is not licenced by Nintendo.
 * 2) — Per Lakituthequick.
 * 3) – Weak Oppose. I don't really understand the full meaning of the proposal, but if I'm not mistaken, here's my opinion of what I think about the proposal. Some of the references may not be reliable sources (blogs aren't reliable, while news sources are). Furthermore, if Lakituthequick says it doesn't belong to the Mario series (I will trust their opinion) why do you want to game the article count with articles non-Mario?
 * 4) If it's not official, it shouldn't belong here.  I strongly oppose this.
 * 5) per all
 * 6) - Our wiki is about official Mario appearances; the References are just examples of the cultural impact of the series, and aren't a major focus at all. While some shows/websites/whatever do have a lot of Mario references, creating separate pages for them still seems like an unnecessary step. Futurama doesn't actually seem that bad anyway, and Homestar Runner can easily be streamlined by discussing multiple minor appearances in broad paragraphs, rather than having one-liner sections for every single individual toons.
 * 7) Per all

Comments
Sorry, but I cannot understand your proposal.


 * I think that he means that the Video game references page has some entries that are big enough to be considered to be put into a list - he wants the big entries to have pages created for them. That's what I am getting from his proposal, that is. I might be mistaking.
 * Hmmm....if that's the case, I am neutral. Wish there would be a "neutral section" :P --

So let me get this straight. You want there to be a page like "List of Mario references in *insert other media here*" for certain media with large amounts of Mario references. My main beef with this is the fact that your qualifications for splitting them into a new page are very vague, so I'd rather see a kb limit or something before supporting.

Other wikis I go to have separate pages for a certain TV show or anything else with enough references to qualify for a page. I think the same could be done here. Homestar Runner, for example, has more than enough references. Futurama, possibly. The Mad TV series seems to be getting there as it's only in its second season with many references (although it would be a bit of a stretch right now). I'm defiantly not saying to make pages for everything that referenced Mario, just the specific shows/bands/video game series/etc that have referenced Mario multiple times.
 * Still I'm neutral. Doesn't allow me to vote :P --
 * So you'd want an article named Homestar Runner devoted to the Mario references in that show? If that's the case, you still haven't said what makes the number of references in a media qualified to be split.
 * Per what Bop thinks about what the proposal is about, I weakly Oppose.
 * The article would probably be called "Online references/Homestar Runner".

English vs. Japanese names
LEAVE IT AS IS 0-2-8

I think this needs to be settled once and for all.

Countless pages has been under controversy dealing with their names. Just go to Lava Bubble, Shooting Star Summit, Pale Piranha/Piranha Plant (TTYD), Yo'ster Isle, and many others. When released in English (American and Europe), they use those names stated above. However, from Japanese names, they share the name as Podoboo, Star Hill, Piranha Plant/Pale Piranha (respectively), Yoshi's Island, and other similar things/places. There has been many arguments dealing with it, and it gets more and more annoying to watch.

So, what I'm proposing is just have it set in stone, so that we don't have to be doing multiple TTP's that are really becoming really controversial. We either use English or Japanese in these cases.

Currently, we have been moreover to Japanese since that is where the games usually come out at first. It does make since as that is where Nintendo is. Also, sometimes Nintendo of America/Europe make translation errors when it comes to those situations. However, it might not be the best system. With English names, it makes more since, since this entire site is ENGLISH! Not only that, but we do find English names to make more since at times. Manyt places/enemies do not appear as they do as they are being merged with.

Right now, our consistency about this is pretty split even. We have many articles being merged, yet, we have pages that have the same name in different games, but are split. How we are apporaching Japanese style, then we might as well merge Special Attack (Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story) and Special Attack (Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games). They are completely different in multiple ways, but the same name, much like many of the articles merged listed in the beginning.

My point is, agruing about it in TTP's is not going to help. We simply need to just decide what we are going to choose to decide names about articles that have different English names but same Japanese names. And yes, there are some exceptions to this, but not many.

Proposer: Deadline: Novemeber 17, 2011 23:59 GMT

Use English names

 * 1) Becasue of using the Japanese names, all previously said places or enemies are merged with other places or enemies that are similar, but might be slightly different. (But in some cases, they are the same.) A good and obvious example is Pale Piranha and Piranha Plant. They are different, but are still merged. So I say go by the English names.
 * 2) Well if the Wiki is in English, it's best to have English. Per All.

Leave it as is

 * 1) Per Walkazo's entire line of reasoning in the TPPs alluded to here, including here, here, and many others I forget the exact placement of.
 * 2) per bop
 * 3) - I can't really explain this, so I'm just going with what Bop1996 said.
 * 4) – Per Bob1996/Walkazo
 * 5) - Like Bop1996, I'm gonna per all my old TPP comments/votes. The Boomerang Bro. TPP (the first link in Bop's vote) probably has the most exhaustive arguments, and this has a more succinct statement. Really, it boils down to one simple idea: use whatever official name makes sense based on the context. If two things look, act or are otherwise arguably different things, and at least one region gives them different names to reflect those differences, we can also assert that they are different things by giving them different pages. Conversely, if two things look the same and one of the regions says they are the same thing, we can also say they're the same thing by putting them on the same page. It's not inconsistent if we're using the same reasoning for all the splits and merges, and doing this on a case-by-case basis is certainly better than insisting that one language is always right when that's obviously not the case.
 * 6) Per Walkazo and her referenced line of reasoning.
 * 7) Normally I am the kind of person that says that the original language supersedes all others, but Walkazo's reasoning convinced me otherwise. So, per Walkazo.
 * 8) — Per all.

Comments
@Tails777: While we're splitting the Pale Piranha (or trying to anyway) on the basis of its English name, the logic is coming mostly from behavior; it behaves like it's a different species, and while the Japanese names may be the same, our equally valid English source has confirmed them to be different species, so that's where the split is coming from.
 * Well, behaviour and appearance. Pale Piranhas are pale, unlike normal Piranha Plants, so NOA is right in giving them a unique English name. However, the other TYD species, "Killer Piranhas" are explicitly said to be stronger than "normal" Piranha Plants, even in the English version, and so NOA was wrong to simply call them "Piranha Plants", but since they have unique names in Japan and at least a couple European translations, we're not stuck abiding by this lapse in judgement and are able to split them. The language doesn't matter: it's all coming from Nintendo so it's all official, and so, fair-game for us to use. -

Bringing the "Spoiler" template back
DELETED BY PROPOSER

I think we used to have a Spoiler template,I don't see why it was removed/deleted but me thinks we need it again,especially with all the upcoming games,those articles are ALL spoilers, a reader will take an interest but they may not want to know Everything,plus with all the info we look for and add to the articles sometimes i can't see us without one,and if this passes I can wip one up pretty quick if someone gives an appropriate image.

Proposer: Deadline: November 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT.

Oppose

 * 1) We voted this down here with a pretty significant margin. Here are some of the reasons why this happened: we had virtually no consistency, which was highly problematic. We also mostly agreed that almost everything is a spoiler, so making off specific portions as "Spoilers" isn't usually necessary. We agreed that mentioning it on About was good enough to warn people that spoilers are unmarked here. All in all, I see no reason to bring it back, since this does nothing to refute the previous arguments.
 * 2) Per Bop.
 * 3) Per Bop

Create articles for Mario Kart Battle Modes and Mario Party Minigame modes
OPPOSE 3-10

All of these are currently merged with Mario Kart (Series) and In the Mario Party full game articles and I think they deseve their own articles. All the Battle Courses have a page and the Mario Party Boards have one. This should also shorten loading times on pages when doing this and putting them into a full Article. There are no redirects to these pages as well.

Proposer: Deadline: November 27, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my Proposal.
 * 2) They seem big enough to deserve their own article
 * 3) It couldn't hurt.

Oppose

 * 1) Actually, I think the modes are fine the way they are. I don't see why Minigame Modes need their own article when they are fine with their respective Mario Party article, while Battle Mode still fits fine in the Mario Kart series. Also, why disregard other modes such as Time Trials? I'm also opposing this because of lack of consistency.
 * 2) - If I could oppose twice I would. Per BLOF, and to corroborate her arguments, we had former discussions to merge various sorts of modes to their respective articles (ie: Donkey Kong Country's Time Attack article) because splitting the modes from them would reduce considerably the importance of the games'articles and their content.
 * 3) Per BLOF and Coincollector.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) Per everybody
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Weak Oppose per Coincollector, nothing's wrong with doing so, but it's best to leave it the way it is currently.
 * 10) — per BLOF.

Comments
@Toad85 Thanks for suporting but you need to have a valid reason for voting.
 * The question is, Mr. 85, could it help?

Music files
DELETED BY REQUEST

I have noticed that certain pages have music files on them, such as Paper Mario:TTYD and Mario Kart Wii. But I ask this: Why do we have those music files on the game's article? Wouldn't it be better to put the music on the article it is from. An example for those who don't understand: Instead of putting the music for Luigi Circuit from Mario Kart Wii on Mario Kart Wii's article, why not put all the Luigi Circuit themes on the Luigi Circuit article? The same for bosses from the RPGs, Mario Party boards. If you don't completely understand, see here

Proposer: Deadline: December 9, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal
 * 2) Putting the music from Luigi Circuit in the article about Luigi Circuit makes more sense than putting it in the article about Mario Kart Wii, definitely.
 * 3) Makes sense to me. Per Mpeng and Tails777.
 * 4) Per Tails777.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) Per proposal

Comments
This does sound like it would work a little, but wouldn't it also make it harder to search for a collection of music from a certain game? For example, if you want to find music from Mario Kart Wii, you would probably look for it on the Mario Kart Wii article. However, if this proposal were to pass, you wouldn't find a lot of music because most of it would be scattered throughout other articles. Basically, it could potentially make it harder to find the music you want.

I think a good idea would be to have all of the music in the game's article, and then have links in other articles that would lead you to the section in the game's article with the music file in it. So, let's say you want to listen to music from Luigi's Circuit in Mario Kart Wii, and you went on the Luigi's Circuit article to find it. Instead of having all the music files in that article, there would instead be a link to here, where you can find other MKW music too. I'll try to explain more if it doesn't make sense.

@Fawfulfury65 The reason we shouldn't put the music on the game's article is that some articles will have too much music. For example the Paper Mario series. That would be one for each boss and location and character theme when it's easier to put the music on the character's or location's page. If we put all the music on one page, that would make it looked cramped. I understand for the Mario Kart series and your idea there might be better than mine, but I am focusing more on the games with more music than the Mario Kart series such as the Paper Mario series and both Super Mario Galaxies.
 * If the media sections get excessively long, couldn't we just use a scrollbox?
 * Either that or on a separate subpage, like Galleries sometimes are.
 * It hasn't been three days since I created this proposal. Can I change it up a little? Cause Bop1996's idea of creating a sub page for music is way better than my idea.
 * Now you'd have to request a deletion by an admin, then recreate it with the changes you need.
 * Do I have to wait to restart the proposal or can I recreate it right away?
 * After it gets deleted, you can recreate it right away if you wish.
 * Alright, I'm now requesting that this proposal gets deleted please.

MarioWiki:Upcoming content
SUPPORT 17-0

This writing guideline is meant to establish a consistent guideline for how we handle content from unreleased games. The only aspect of upcoming content that is not covered in this guideline are the project articles themselves. This is because I believe they need a separate guideline page due to their complex nature. Most of what's covered in the guideline is already more or less adhered to, except for one thing. If this proposal passes, all information about upcoming projects will need to have a suitable reference. The main reason for this is because information from upcoming projects are at high risk of being false and references improve our credibility. It really shouldn't be too difficult to enforce on a mass scale, today's games have ton of secondary source coverage and it is easy to find something that backs up the information. The process is detailed a little more in the draft page. Comments and suggestions for improvement are always welcome.

Proposer: Deadline: December 8, 2011, 23:59 GMT Draft: User:Knife/Policy

Support

 * 1) – Per proposal.
 * 2) - Per all. And what per all I mean is Knife.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) I could actually keep track of new info which I always would want to Per all.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) — Per Knife. We really need this thing.
 * 8) - Per Knife.
 * 9) - Per proposal.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) I don't know what to say other than Per All, and that's a bad thing. However, this proposal is a good thing.
 * 13) Per Knife! Great idea!
 * 14) Per proposal.
 * ok
 * 1) I thought this was already in effect - a definite Yes.
 * 2) Per proposal

Comments
It's just my opinion, but I think it's not by their complex nature but rather by their unique nature. Regarding to the new subjects (articles that talk about new element of the game like enemies, courses, etc. especially those that are introduced in a game) Is it possible to use the infoboxes and make mention of their appearance? I see a problem with this. Usually we don't include the appearance of something of a an upcoming game in the infobox until it is officially released. However, some articles (for example, the racecourses of Mario Kart 7) include their appearance despite the fact that the game has not been released yet which may be incosistent to the guidelines.
 * That's why those articles have the template on them. The information within the articles, as I understand it, is coming from one or more of the official websites, but that doesn't mean the articles aren't subject to revision once the game comes out.

Yes, but that doesn't explain the necessity to include an infobox with such information in a upcoming subject, that's what bothers me. Include information to the infoboxes respecting the sources or get the rules of not include information to them until the game is released?
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the issue only arises when people try to add appearances in an unreleased game on preexisting subjects (like if someone tried to say that the latest appearance of Maple Treeway is in MK7). There's nothing that says we can't include appearances in infoboxes for subjects (e.g. Melody Motorway) that have yet to appear in the series provided it comes from a reputable source.

If that were the case, I think it should be needed to make notice of that, because some people may get that the appearance of a new subject should be applied likewise for another previously released and will make an upcoming appearance as well.
 * Maybe the new subject's infoboxes could have "(upcoming)" next to the game's name to set them apart from normal released appearances. I also think it'd be a good idea to have a small section on Infoboxes in the policy page to make the varying use of the "latest appearance" clear. Additionally, I think more emphasis on using references could be made in the "New articles pertaining to upcoming project" and "Previously existing articles in upcoming projects" - nothing major, however, just a short note in each section (leaving the discussion to the section). Like, in the former section one sentence could be expanded to "If an article does have sufficient information backed up by reliable references,", and the latter section could have "as long as the information is not speculation and is accompanied by solid references". Also, "Once information has been rewritten" seems redundant: if the info was well-written from the start, maybe it doesn't need rewriting, just supplementation, and something like "Once the project has been released for a reasonable amount of time and more content has been added" seems like it's giving more bang for the buck (since it's also pointing out that the template can't be removed immediately). -

@ Walkazo: That sounds fine to me.

@Stuff regarding infobox usage: I'm not going to include that into this Writing Guideline since that is a rule that deals with the template specifically. Such rules of usage should be mentioned on the template page itself. The only reason why I mention how to use the Newsubject templates is because those template are specifically for this purpose. @Walkazo's suggestion to the wording: I'll amend all the changes you suggested except for the "Once the project has been released for a reasonable amount of time and more content has been added" suggestion. I don't think either case is necessary to do a rewrite. Sometime the amount of content is fine as it is and asking for more can sometimes prove to be difficult. Using the words "reasonable time" is unnecessarily restrictive. If the article has all the information it needs, then why wait longer to remove the template? Plus what defines a "reasonable" amount of time? I should clarify though; rewrite in cases like this only refers to changing future tense in present tense (will appear>appears in) and removing unneeded references. I will expand on this more when I make the amendments.-- 11:16, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Okay, made some changes. Supporters, please review them. I basically just differentiated vaporware and cancelled games (based on Glowsquid's proposal) and added a section for revision help.-- 23:56, 29 November 2011 (EST)


 * The changes are good, but I disagree with your decision to not include anything about the infoboxes. While the infoboxes do have their own sets of rules on the pages, this particular aspect of their use is directly related to upcoming/new releases. Dealing with infoboxes (or leaving them alone) is part of writing about upcoming games, and since different things are being done regarding the infoboxes, an outline for those specific procedures would be handy on a Writing Guideline. Why hope that users will happen to visit infobox pages and find out what to do when you could easily present them the info in a couple lines of text, laid out nice and simple? There's no rule against only describing writing policies in one page and no where else - on the contrary, many policy pages have overlapping content, and that's a good thing. It's not like it'll be a huge essay about general infobox usage, so what's the harm? -
 * A specific suggestion regarding infoboxes: we would probably benefit from a note somewhere about changing the images on infoboxes after the games release, as I don't believe that's official policy, and it could use some clarification.
 * Again I agree with Walkazo. Abstain from this suggestion means you're leaving this in half-way, Knife. This is also part of the upcoming project, And I'm not talking the infobox itself, it's the information of the infobox that likewise is part of the context. At Bop1996, what do you mean exactly? In my experience, I see that some pictures are changed often when a new game is released. But not always... For example, Princess Daisy's picture has been never changed to this point, similar to Waluigi's. Additionally, I dunno really, but it seems there is a rule about not adding pictures of characters alongside other objects that may distract the prime subject... for example: the picture of Metal Mario of Mario Kart 7 which is new but it cannot be used by these circumstances.
 * Recently, when we've had new high-quality artworks of characters like, Peach, Mario, Toad, etc, people seem to just replace the artwork when they feel like it. MeritC, I believe, has been reverting these changes until the games release, and I started doing the same for the same reasons. However, this isn't in any policy currently, but since we're discussing infoboxes and upcoming content, I figured it would be a good idea to mention that we aren't supposed to change the infobox images until the game they come from has released. We don't have to change it when the game releases if the artwork isn't better, but if we agree to change it, it should wait until after the game releases, basically.
 * Hmmm... MeritC told me the same thing and apparently that discussion came from the forums (Again I'm not sure). Going to your point, I guess it needs to be applied but looking how we are currently with the images, I think we should clarify that a bit more. But, again it can be done - At least if Knife approves this or else we have to do this by ourselves.

Sorry for the late response. If you all really feel it's necessary to mention it here, that's fine. However, I'm not 100% sure what you want me to put in. It would probably be best for someone who is more familiar with the userbox usage to write that section of the guideline. You can either add a section for it on draft or post raw coding into this comments section (for non-sysops). If no one comes up with a draft by then, we can put in later assuming no one opposes adding this information.-- 20:24, 4 December 2011 (EST)

Music Files
SUPPORT 8-2

I read one of Bop1996's comments in the previous proposal of mine and he had a better idea, to make a sub page for music files. (So credit to him for the idea). So I decided to delete the other proposal and restart it and going with his idea instead.

Proposer: Deadline:December 10, 2011 23:59 GST

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) If you say the music would be located at a subpage named Music, like for the article Mario, Mario/Music, I'd say it's an adequate idea.
 * 3) It would cut down on clutter in the music sections, just like having huge Galleries on separate pages does.
 * 4) Pages would load faster. A yes from this impatient user.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Good idea, we can ask Porplemontage to create a namespace for music (like we have a gallery namespace)
 * 7) — Per all.
 * 8) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) I think just having a list of music is a bad idea. People can look it up on YouTube and people need a player to listen to these and it would be easier to find the song they are looking for on YouTube anyway and it would take a lot of work to upload every Mario song in the series.
 * 2) Per NSY.

Comments
For the record, the previous proposal about Music Files can be found here. -

@ Tails777: Can you specify the title of your proposal? It's about the Sound files, but what's exactly the matter about them?

@Coincollector Nothing is wrong about them, I just find it would be better to put the music on a sub page rather than the game's page. Like what others have said, like gallery pages.

I would only support this if we use YouTube Videos not Music Files because more people like me can listen to the music.-- 11:37, 7 December 2011 (EST)


 * @ New Super Yoshi: The wiki doesn't use Youtube videos for the articles. See Help for the reason.

I don't see a good reason. Anyway music and video flies are taken from YouTube so what is the point. -


 * We had various proposals talking about inserting Youtube videos to articles, which all of them failed, mostly because Youtube videos are very informal and because of that contrast greatly with the articles' essential function.