MarioWiki:Proposals

List of talk page proposals

 * Split Densetsu no Stafy 3 from Video game references (Discuss) Passed
 * Split ghosts from game page (Discuss) Deadline: June 17, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Make a separate subpage for places (Discuss) Deadline: June 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Remove all unsourced information from glitches and beta elements pages
This was first discussed here.

It is extremely easy to put a glitch or a beta element on it's corresponding page without providing any proof. Therefore, I am suggesting that we remove all unsorced information from these pages, though they can be brought back if someone gives actual proof about these (an image, a source from a reliable external site, or a YouTube video is enough), because these "glitches" or "beta elements" can just be a random user typing random things.

Proposer: Deadline: June 8, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Remove unsourced information

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal, but I also want to add that sourcing the glitch from an external, but reliable site will suffice as well.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) I've seen extremely absurd glitches (such as ), which could provide false information. Having to provide a reliable reference will ensure that the glitch is real. Per proposal.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all, we don't need stuff like "There was gonna be a portrait ghost who was removed in the final product because he would have had frightening dialogue" that isn't sourced
 * 7) Per all.

Keep unsourced information

 * 1) I agree that some glitches are ridiculous, however sometimes contributors add a real glitch but can't provide a source. If we got rid of all the unsourced glitches, we would lose these glitches.
 * 2) Yes, well some glitches are completly bogus, there is a very small amount of bogus glitches in pages. Also, I have tested unsourced glitches that work, making no sense to remove all unsourced glitches. If I can, I would help to get a reference for them.
 * 3) – I believe that removing unsourced glitches would mean that their would be less than half left over. Not all unsourced glitches are bogus: instead of removing potentially legitimate information, we should add a request for reference tag. I strongly disagree with this proposal.
 * 4) - Much better than outright than removing them.
 * 5) Per Tucayo's comments below
 * 6) Per All
 * 7) This seems like a very extreme way to go about this. Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all: removing them is shooting first and asking questions later. It's always best to avoid scrapping potentially good info, and until we find the desired proof, we can just use  to let readers know that stuff's unverified.
 * 10) &mdash; Actually, Tucayo does have a good point, so per him.
 * 11) Per all
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per Walkazo.
 * 14) When I think about this, this would remove a crapload of info here. Per all.

Comments
@Baby Luigi; I added your suggestion to the proposal.

Actually, how about requiring a reference for every glitch?
 * Isn't removing unsourced material basically already covering that?
 * I can't imagine all those unconfirmed sources to be thrown away at all. Some of the glitches may have legitimate results if inputted correctly. I suggest creating a group that dedicated to: confirming the glitches by providing references found on the internet, or reproducing them on their on and making references of their own. Of course, it'll be tedious for everyone involved because it requires someone to play the game in it's original fashion, and that the former is probably more easier to do than the latter in terms of time commitment. 22:28, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
 * @RAP, some people may need help from a youtube video or image and couldn't understand the inputted text without it, or the image/video could be used as proof to the glitch. I don't think we need a group based on glitches.
 * This is just like confirming elements for an upcoming game: you can't prove it exists without a reliable source, and too many of these entries are questionable. It's like saying I work for Nintendo.
 * I forgot to insert that I would prefer implementing a group dedicating to this task if this proposal passes. So far the majority of the tally votes oppose this proposal.

I'm really torn about this. I do feel we have to remove unsourced content, but I feel it would be far better to add a template similar to the one the Fallout Wikia uses on unverified glitches/bugs. It's simple; when a bug hasn't got a source, they add the template, indicating a four week period in which a source for the bug should be mentioned. If the four weeks pass and no source was indicated, the template will indicate the verification is overdue. I feel that's a good compromise, as we wouldn't be outright deleting stuff that could be valid, but we wouldn't be keeping unsourced glitches. --


 * If this passes, I'm going to try my very best to overturn it. The proposed action really isn't the right way to go. -- 09:49, 3 June 2013 (EDT)


 * Or a template like the Wikipedia one? 16:48, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

I agree with YoshiKong, this proposal is outrageous, it makes no sense, no one here seems to me that adds fake glitch has never happened and never will happen to me, even if there was a low probability to happen it would not be a drama I think it's that easy to recognize a true glitch a glitch invented on the spot, and then there are numerous glitch without sources, but that can be easily found on youtube. --Sonic98 16:54, 3 June 2013 (EDT)


 * @Banon: We already have such a template: . -

Intro standards for subpages
This has been discussed here and here.

First of all, when I say "subpages", I mean pages that were previously subpages, and current subpages. This includes the glitches, media, quotes, staff, beta elements pages, as well as galleries.

So basically this proposal is "let's have a standard for subpages intros!". Why?

There are so many variations in how the intro is worded: a standard write-up would be great. — YoshiKong

I would also like to add a clarification:

''It's still a good idea to have a slug line up there, rather than leaving the top of the page blank.

''Consistency is good, but the intro could be changed up a little for different types of galleries - to provide a little variety.

''Like "This is a gallery of images pertaining to the game ." (which could, when applicable, be followed by "For a gallery of images pertaining to the remake,, see .") for games, and then substitude "show"/"movie"/whatever if it's part of another media. Then "This is a gallery of images featuring (the) X(s)." for specific subjects (characters/species/items/forms/gaming systems). Specialized subjects may also need specialized intros to work (i.e. "This is a gallery of the images from Rosalina's Storybook, featured in Super Mario Galaxy.").'' — Walkazo

Proposer: Deadline: June 8, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) This is my proposal.
 * 2) – Per Banon.
 * 3) &mdash; Per proposal.
 * 4) Per Banon.
 * 5) Per proposal
 * 6) Per Banon.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) - Per me, per proposal.

Comments
Just to be clear, are you proposing we have something along the lines of Walkazo's example or something else entirely?
 * I think the Walkazo's example is great. —

So are we going to create templates for intros of each type of page, or do users have to write it themselves?
 * Unless we can get the templates to cover every potential difference in wording for a type of page, manual write-ups would probably be easier. -

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.