MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/21



Replace Featured Images with the 'Shroom.
DELETED

What I am about to propose is that we put the FI on hiatus and replace the template on the Main Page with a 'Shroom template. The reason why is because there have been many proposals on altering the FI. And Tucayo made a very good point. Any more alters to the FI will put the FI on hiatus. And when I made an proposal on removing the Did You Know section, Tucayo suggested a Shroom template to be put on the Main Page. So I propose that we will replace the Featured Images with the Shroom.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|KS3}} Voting start: 22:32, 28 April 2010 Deadline: 23:59, 5 May 2010

Support

 * 1) per myself

Oppose

 * 1) - Per my past comments and my comment below.
 * 2) Per every single reason and every single comment throughtout all the FI-removal proposals that want to keep it.
 * 3) - Per me. Shroom will replace Community.

Comments
It has been decided between admins, and Steve aproved, that The 'Shroom will replace the Community box :)


 * How many times is this stupid thing going to come up?! The only reason that there are so many proposals for the alteration of the FIs is that people keep on bringing it up! How about we stop bringing this up. Anyways, if Tucayo is right, then this proposal sems pretty worthless now. Three or four of those proposals were made by you, for your information. Do you want the Featured Images to go on hiatus. Do you want the main page to be filled with mindless text. And don't say that the logo and ads count as pics because we've discussed this already. If I wanted to read all text and no pictures, I'd just plop open my U.S. Literature and U.S. History book and read.
 * Most of the proposals that you listed weren't for putting Featured Images on hiatus, so they don't apply. Counting this one, there are three proposals for getting rid of Featured Images; one by Time Q, two by you. Once voting starts, I'll just state every reason to keep it like with the past three proposals. And besides, your proposal is invalid, since Tucayo stated that The 'Shroom will replace the Community box.

Can we just delete this then?
 * I guess we can. Do you want to delete it, or should I do it?
 * Go ahead if you wish.

}}

Image Standard for "World" Articles
USE LEVEL SCREENSHOTS 0-10-0

I was breezing through the (lovely) "world"-type articles recently (World 8 (Super Mario Bros.), Mt. Teapot, World 5 (New Super Mario Bros.)), and I noticed two types of images used for levels in the articles. The first, seen to the side, shows the level in its entirety, sprite-mapper and all.

The second shows a simple screenshot of the game, in the level. Two examples can be seen to the side.

I propose that we make a standard to use one or the other in all world/level articles. Please note that this only applies to the images attached to the "level" sections of the "world" articles.

(Side note: this is not an attack on the work of any user; it was simply something I noticed while I browsed the wiki.)

{{Scroll box|content= Proposer: {{user|Bloc Partier}} Voting Start: 00:33, 28 April 2010 Deadline: 23:59, 5 May 2010

Use Image Type 2

 * 1) -- I believe this is more official-looking and less like a strategy guide. We are not a guide, and simply must give information about each level. A screenshot can easily be used to show a specific part of the level mentioned in the description. It also makes for a nicer compliment to the text, as it can easily be viewed without clicking on the image to see the whole of the level. Lastly, many spritemaps are made by non-wiki users who put their name on the map; this looks very unprofessional and is, if copyrighted, illegal.
 * 2) Per BP.
 * 3) Per F65.
 * 4) Per PB, my comment and also they are nicer to look at.
 * 5) The entire map layout looks like a real mess and it's as ugly as Baby Luigi's face. The other one, however, is basically more efficient and it doesn't look like it got screwed up and whatever.
 * 6) - Per BP and because nobody likes having to click on an image (and wait for it to load) and then having to click again to view it in full size just to find out what is going on in it. Readers should be able to see what's in an image while reading the article it is used in, which is simply not possible with giant images with impractical dimensions.
 * 7) - Having a standard is always a good thing. I choose this variant because I think it is more representative.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
I don't see how this is going to work out. I think that the first image should be used in the infobox right now and the latter should be used in the level descriptions. Take the worlds of NSMB right now, they look perfectly fine and use both types of images.
 * What the NSMB articles use in the infoboxes are pictures of the map screens of the respective worlds. This is about maps of individual level layouts being used in the world articles rather than unmodified in-game screenshots (like the NSMB articles also use).--
 * D'oh. There goes me misunderstanding a proposal...again. I don't know, as long as the map images aren't stolen, I see no problem.

I think that both images can be used, one in infoboxes and the other one in the article, but as BP said, some of the full-level images may even be copyrighted, we don't want to use copyrighted content without permission, do we?

So the proposal is saying that we should have either a screenshot or a map for the images in all the world articles? If that's what it means, than I think we should have a map for the first image in all the world articles. Problem is, what if we can't find an image of the map?
 * The proposal is saying that the individual levels in the World articles should either consistently use screenshots from the respective level or complete layout maps of the levels. The first image (used in the world's infobox) could still be an overworld map in either case, if that's what you mean with "map"; as I understand the proposal, this is solely about the images used for the individual levels listed in a world article, as the articles are currently inconsistent on whether they use screenshots or layout maps to go with the level descriptions. If you mean the first level listed should have a complete layout and the rest only screenshots, I don't really understand how that would make sense.--
 * Oh I get it now. Thanks.
 * @Vellidragon: You've got it perfect. I edited the proposal to make it more clear.

So...to put it nice and short...you are proposing the images in the article all be of one type. The other ones can still be located in the gallery section, correct?
 * Well... I don't like the copyrighted level maps on the articles at all. I would propose to delete them entirely. However, this proposal does not discuss what to do with the leftover images, so I suppose that they would, indeed, be put in a gallery at the bottom.

I like how type 2 give you a better idea of how the level looks "in play", but the maps could be useful. Although, we aren't a walkthough site. Is there possible a walkthrough site in need of some nice maps? It would be a shame to remove them and make them inaccessible (and isn't being an encyclopedia all about making information accessible?), but I can see how they don't belong. I guess, perhaps, if the images were "donated" to a separate level maps project we could just get rid of them.
 * Technically, we don't even own the maps. They've mostly been made by other people not even affiliated with this site who made the maps for places like vgatlas.com. We don't have the power to "donate" them, like you say, and they are still accessible on the mapping sites, as far as I know. We're not removing any original information by removing the maps.
 * I didn't think the wiki did really "own" them at all (which is why I didn't bother asking for permission to archive them). I guess there are enough map sites already, and game guides are pretty accessible and often include maps anyway. Although I think there are a few cases where maps might show something better to show an area, this is mostly for larger areas in the RPG games and not the platforming games this proposal seems to be dealing with.

@KS3: Did you even read the whole conversation? This proposal will not change anything about either comment you're referencing. >_>

I am Zero! I'll like one where if it is possible to make both of those types appear on the page; this might prevent stubs. Zero signing out.
 * It won't cause stubs. It would just be replaced by the second type.
 * Uh... how is changing an image supposed to cause stubs?
 * I am Zero! No I'm saying why don't we put both the screenshot of the level and the image of the whole level on articles. I'm not saying changing an image will create stubs I'm saying if there are some level articles that are stubs adding two images of the level may not make them stubs anymore. Zero signing out.
 * Adding images to an article is a very poor way to expand stubs... Besides, look at some of those world articles. There's not enough room on each level to add two images to each section.

The image of the whole level is shrunk drastically, making it nearly impossible to see it clearly without enlarging it. However, I don't like Image 2. Even though we are not a strategy guide, most people are visual learners. Most descriptions of levels are pointless to me if I can't see the picture of it. }}

Items and enemies order
ABC 7-0

I noticed a lot of items and enemies in articles like Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy 2 are just ordered randomly, which it a pain in the ass to navigate. We already has a proposal on the list of character relationships, and it won ABC. We pretty much are going to do the same thing with the items and enemies.

ABC is that we order the items and enemies in alphabetical format

Chronological is which appears first. The ones that appear first goes first, and the ones that appear last appears last in the article. If 2 appear at the same time, then it will be organized in alphabetical.

Importance is how important that item/enemy is. The most important item/enemy goes first and the least important one goes last.

EDIT: It won't affect bosses, in case if you don't know

{{Scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|KS3}} Voting start: 23:10, May 2 2010 Deadline: 23:59, May 9 2010

ABC

 * 1) most convenient, and few other games' enemies are organized ABC
 * 2) I am Zero! ABC order will be the easiest way to navigate for those who don't know much of the Mario series. Zero signing out.
 * 3) - Per comment below. Really the only way that makes sense, and it's already being done like this in various places.
 * 4) I agree.The ABC is the best order I can thik of.
 * 5) - ABC order is pretty much the only way, chronological is just too hard to memorize and you can never tell what's more important - a Goomba or a Koopa Troopa.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) Neither of the others seem to make sense.

Comments
As I have stated on the characters proposal, sorting anything by "importance" is extremely subjective. Chronological seems overly complicated and isn't even possible for non-linear games. Alphabetical order is basically the order used for pretty much anything except appearances in a History section (as they can easily be arranged chronologically just by looking at the release dates of individual games/other media). The navigation templates already put these things in alphabetical order in fact, and some articles, like the Super Mario Galaxy article (at least the "Returning Enemies" section of it) attempt an alphabetical order as well (though parts of it apparently got messed up here). I would like to know though, would the outcome of this proposal would affect bosses as well?--
 * It will affect bosses as well.
 * I'm tempted to oppose because of this. Bosses should be listed in the order they appear in the game. There is a very clear boss order in most games, and this order would be far easier to navigate than alphabetical.
 * There is a less clear boss order in other games, however, like in Wario Land II, so those would probably have to be listed alphabetically. If the bosses with a clear order were listed in order of appearance and those without listed alphabetically, there'd be inconsistencies, which may not be the best thing either :\--
 * I knew someone would bring up this one. I'm pretty sure it's clearer than you think; if you look on the game's article, the levels are lined up very orderly. The bosses could be lined up equally to the level layout. Also, the fact that there is a clear "main" route in the game means that there is also a clear "main" boss encounter order. The other bosses are lined up with another chapter and should be included in the same order as the chapters above. If that makes sense.

Uhm... I don't know why they weren't in alphabetical order... They're supposed to be. They are in almost every other game. }}

Splitting Final Smashes
NO SPLIT 1-5

Yes, i know very recently we tried to split ALL the SSB moves, but i am proposing we split ONLY the SSBB Final Smashes to separate pages. They wont be stubs, since they have a trophy, foriegn name, and a large description. Does anyone agree?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Raphaelraven497}} Voting start: 18:23, May 6 2010 Deadline: 23:59, May 13 2010

Split

 * 1) Per me.

No Split

 * 1) Why split the page? It's nice to look at all in one page without having to constantly click on the links. Besides, Super Smash Bros. Brawl's Final Smashes are technically moves too. It makes no sense to split a move from a move article.
 * 2) I am Zero! Per LGM (that doesn't stand for Little Green Men). Zero signing out.
 * 3) - We dedicate enough space to SSB information; separate pages for each Final Smash is excessive, and as LeftyGreenMario pointed out, navigation is easier using the current setup.
 * 4) - I agree with Walkazo.
 * 5) Per LGM.

Comments
Urk, wrong section? This should be in a talk page proposal.
 * It is not in the wrong section. It is proposing the final smashes to be split from the character articles into separate articles.

Btw, i am not going to vote on it because if we split the final smashes, we'll have to split all the rest of the moves, which would result in a lot of stubs, and if we don't, then we'll have to merge all the rest of the moves into the articles.


 * "All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page." This is dealing with a specific group of articles.
 * There are a lot of recent proposals which deal with a specific group of articles that are still on here (the FI ones, the one on the Catch Cards, the Super Mario Advance one, the Main Page ones, etc.)
 * Those proposals all deal(t) with "massive amounts" of changes, as does this one, so this is/was the most appropriate location for them. -

}}

Critical Reception
NO CHANGE 2-0-5

I noticed something when I was browsing some articles about games. Some articles have a "critical reception" section while others do not. These sections do not describe the content about the game, but they do include how well the game did. My question is, what should we do with this section? It breaks the consistency of the game articles, and it is not a requirement on the articles. Should we remove this section, add this section to all game articles, or should we do nothing?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Voting starts at: 1:00, May 7 2010 Deadline: 23:59, May 14 2010

Add them!

 * 1) I am Zero! Doesn't sound like a bad idea, in fact, we need those. Zero signing out.
 * 2) - Per Grandy02's comment too, I think that this could be good for the wiki.

Do nothing!

 * 1) - If a game garnished some sort of noteworthy reception, odds are it already has a Critical Reception section, or will eventually be given one. Not all games merit one of these sections, however, so adding them to all the pages wouldn't really accomplish anything; meanwhile, removing them from the articles that do need them would be stripping the wiki of valuable information. Therefore, it would be best to do nothing as far as a blanket policy goes: instead, take the middle-road and deal with the sections on a case-by-case basis.
 * Per Walkazo.
 * Per Walkazo; Was originally going to vote this way. If there's something special to say about the critic's reception, then someone will think to add it. Wikipedia already has sections (and charts) on this for many (if not all) games.
 * 1) - Per Walkazo.
 * 2) Per Walkazo and Grandy02's comment.

Comments
I don't know. Though we are supposed to list information concerning game, we aren't a gaming site either that lists what other people think. Sure, I asked that question before in Mario Party 8 and the guys said it was fine, but the other articles don't use it either, and I'm not 100%. I'll wait and see what these administrators will say.
 * When an article doesn't have a reception section, it's just because nobody has added it yet. That something is not in all articles doesn't mean that it should be removed. It's not just what "other people" think - we don't cover fan opinions, but how people of professional media saw the game - media that have connections to the gaming industry and are officially given copies by the companies to review them prior to the release. --
 * Absolutely. Per Grandy02.

I really think we should only have them where there is something noteworthy to say about it. Most games eventually turn into a mixed bag. Some people like it, some don't. More often now people are reviewing classic / retro / older games. Sometimes they do better later, as the player did not expect anything from the hype. Sometimes they do worse. I think we would need to have a strict definition of "critic". I dislike Super Mario 64, I could go post a video on YouTube right now about everything I dislike about it, use my own video as a source and then post that it became one of the games future games were compared to despite being unoriginal, uninspired dreck. I think it would become too difficult to police.
 * Also I would like to add that The Sims 2: Pets got a horrible critic reception because it was difficult to actually kill your pets, which really just shows critics kinda missed the whole point (although I would give it a bad review for other reasons...)
 * Using your video as a source wouldn't work. As said, things that were simply brought up by fans aren't covered. And many games I know of haven't turned into a "mixed bag." For example, most games of the Super Mario Bros. series, the 3D Mario platfomers, the Wario Land and WarioWare series have almost only received favourable reviews by the major (English-language) sites and magazines (of course, there will always be some critics who disagree). I think the list at Wikipedia is a good reference on what can get in and what not. If there is a lack of the sources mentioned there, most notably for classic games, it can always be decided on a case-by-case basis. --
 * Well it isn't part of the proposal itslef, and for some reason I keep reading proposals as though they are what we should do and how we should do it (which most aren't). Anyway, I guess if someone feels and article would be improved by having this section, there's no reason not to have it. I am against adding it just because it's on a template though. I'm not really sure this would need a proposal, anyway.

A lot of reviews from the "professional media" people are (very) flawed and maybe even biased (according to a lot of people).
 * That's not ours to judge. Reviews from official sources sort of belong to a game's history, and it doesn't matter how such a review is written (If I could just go around and strike subjects I don't like here because I deem them unprofessional, there wouldn't be much left of this wiki). Also "a lot of people" doesn't sound like a very objective source to me either. -

}}

List of Appearances
NO QUORUM 2-0-0

Several articles such as Princess Daisy, Dixie Kong and Bowser Jr. have a list of Appearances. These should be in all character articles (except characters who only appear once) or not there at all.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Commander Code-8}} Voting starts at: May 8, 2010, 22:35 Deadline: May 15, 2010, 23:59 2010

Add Lists In

 * 1) Per my Proposal.
 * 2) Per Commander-Code 8.

Comments
Once again, just like Critical Reception, nobody has bothered to add the sections to the article. It isn't inconsistency, it's laziness or just that people don't know every appearance.


 * I read the manual of style and I've seen no critical reception section listed there. Well, it doesn't matter, there are a lot of other common sections not listed there. The more, the merrier! (I guess :P)

Don't worry guys, I'll be more than happy to add the lists in.
 * Then do so, I don't think you need a proposal to do something that is already being done...
 * I just wanted to see how many people agreed.

}}

Limit Number of Articles Any Given User Can Nominate for FA Status
SET LIMIT 9-0

I propose we limit the number of articles that a user can nominate at one time. When a user is able to nominate as many articles as he or she wishes, the articles often end up neglected and contain many opposes that never end up being fixed. The newly added feature to quickly delete nominations is helpful, but we have far too many nominations from the same users that end up never being featured because the user gives up on the article they nominated. I propose that this limit be three (3) articles at one time. As soon as an article passes or fails, the user can nominate another article.

Some examples of these nominations are: Featured Articles/N/World 5 (New Super Mario Bros.), Featured Articles/N/Princess Peach, Featured Articles/N/Donkey Kong Country.

{{scroll box|content= Nominator: {{user|Bloc Partier}} Voting Start: May 9, 2010, 00:29 Deadline: May 16, 2010, 23:59

Support

 * 1) - I am the proposer. As such, my reasons are above.
 * 2) Per BP. This makes the system a lot less cluttered.
 * 3) - Per BP
 * Per BP's reasons.
 * 1) Per BP.
 * 2) Per all. (I'm fine as long as it doesn't affect past nominations.)
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - I'd even go as far as saying that one nominated article per person is sufficient, but well... I'm satisfied with this, because it is a step in the right direction.
 * 5) Per all.

Comments
@KS3: When you read this, please don't take it personally. There have been plenty of instances in the past where people nominated a ton of articles and then failed to support them. It was just now that I decided to make a proposal about it. I'm so sorry if I offend you, but I really feel that a limit should be created.

@Everyone: I feel that you might not like the low limit of three articles. I'll be willing to negotiate something else if you would like, but act fast. I only have about a day to change the proposal.

Bloc Partier, I think you should change the proposal. Maybe you should make it so when a nominated article is opposed a lot more than supported by a variable amount and if it never gets bumped again (unless it's for more opposing) for a variable amount of days, the nomination should get archived. Maybe I should explain it in fewer words? I put a variable because I'm not sure what's the correct amount.
 * Well, that doesn't even pertain to anything I'm already trying to do here. There already is the two-month deletion rule. I'm trying to get rid of the frustration that occurs when a user nominates a ton of articles and then never sees them through to their featured status. The nominator should be responsible for getting the article featured, and if they are unable to see it through, then they shouldn't be able to nominate so many articles.

Does it affect previous nominations or from this point on??
 * From this point on.

Let's say I make three nominations. How long will I have to wait?
 * "As soon as an article passes or fails, the user can nominate another article." – On a different note, I just thought about making exactly such a proposal. We so need it.

Another question. This doesn't affect Unfeature nominations in any way, right? (In my opinion it shouldn't, since you can't just nominate tons of articles to be unfeatured, because you need valid reasons.)
 * I agree with Time Q.
 * Yeah, it won't affect Unfeaturing. If we need a rule to affect it, we can do it later.

@KS3: I feel like I should mention that if this passes, you won't be able to nominate anything until you only have two active pending nominations... Only until the rest are gone will you be able to nominate once again. }}

Make Main page's changes in one day
KEEP OLD ROUTINE 4-6

I'll explain clearly: We know we change the information shown in the Main Page periodically (specially for the featured article, image and DYK), but I see a small problem in that we make this in different days (FA for saturdays, FI for thursdays and DYK for - what day?) and sometimes we ignore the time for the change. In this proposal I want to Make the habit to change some things in the Main page on the same day. Considering that...


 * 1) All the rutinary changes should be applied on the same day, preferably, starting on saturday, where we make the changes for the Featured Article, Image and DYK zones.
 * 2) Changing in this way would give an advantage for a more reliable habit, and also make an active contribution for the so-questioned "Did You Know..." box.

Sure, this won't apply for the other boxes of the page (Pipe Plaza, Proposals and News) since those changes depend on what's going from the sources.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Coincollector}} Voting start: May 9, 2010, 18:12 Deadline: May 16, 2010, 23:59

Change Routine

 * 1) - Per my prop.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) Per all, what else to say? Uhhhh...
 * 4) - I need to support because Coin' is right, per all.

Keep Old Routine

 * As commented below, I don't think this is necessary. I like the fact that the Main Page is updated at least twice a week rather than just once, and there have never really been any problems with this.
 * 1) - Per Time Q.
 * 2) Luigi=awesome - Per users above.
 * 3) - Basically per Time Q, but there's another thing: Updating those sections on a more or less regular basis is far more stressful than someone who never did it can imagine. If you now force a tight schedule on these persons, this will mean even more stress and, as a result of this, a much higher quit rate. Risky proposal is risky, so no.
 * 4) It would be very stressful to the people who edit it plus it would dramatically increase the quit rates, so this proposal is very illogical.
 * 5) Per all.

Comments?
I don't think this is necessary. We have never "ignored" the time for updating the templates (well, never for FIs, and once for FAs in... how many years?).


 * Neither me (well, just I can't make the updates regularly cuz my connection is down or I have another important bussiness). I think that was from my thoughts. Just look my two considerations and think is this could work or not.

}}

Limit the number of times a talk page proposal can be extended
NO LIMIT 2-7

Currently, the rules state that a talk page proposal can be extended by it's proposer at the end of it's deadline if neither sides exceed the other in three votes. This mean, though, that the proposal can be extended an infinite number of times, so long the proposer is attentive. I propose that a talk page proposal can only be extended two times before it's archived as No Quorum.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Reversinator}} Voting start: May 9, 2010, 21:00 Deadline: May 16, 2010, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per myself.
 * 2) Per Reversinator.

Oppose

 * 1) – I disagree with your proposal. Did you even stop to think why we extend proposals and talk page proposals if they tie or there is no majority? We extend them so a solution can be found. The proposer should have the choice to keep the proposal up. Some proposals actually bring up good arguments or cover highly debated issues. If a solution cannot be come to via the voting part of the proposal, then the comments section can be used as a structured and organized way to state opinions or attempting to reach a compromise; which the talk page proposal could be archived then or be rewritten to reflect the changes to reach a solution/compromise. Putting a limit on how long it can stay will not help with anything.
 * 2) - Per SMB. Removing the TPPs won't remove the problem they were trying to solve.
 * 3) - Agreeing with SMB here. This procedere would only lock out the people who see a problem and doesn't affect the problem itself other than blocking it from view. Shoving a smelly pile of dirt under a carpet won't make it any less smelly.
 * 4) Sure, the TPP section is getting kinda cluttered, but that's the (rather small) price to pay for a better wiki.
 * 5) ––  Per all.
 * 6) - Per SMB.
 * 7) - Per all. Wouldn't someone just re-propose them anyway?

Comments
Does it affect past TPPs?
 * It is just about TPPs --

Can't they just re-propose it later then? I think the idea was to keep one copy until it was finally eventually entirely resolved.
 * But technically, the proposal could stay on the wiki indefinitely, meaning that the Proposals page will look pretty stretched.


 * SMB: How about the Shooting Star Summit, Sherbet Land, and WarioWare:D.I.Y. proposals that have been up forever and are reaching another extension?
 * Those need to be dealt with... There is obviously a disagreement about the article/talk page proposals, so a compromise needs to be reached, as opposed to jusat killing whatever discussion has already gone on.

}}