MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Shroom Fry with Fried Shroom Plate. (Discuss) Passed.
 * Re-organise the Boom Boom and Boom Boom (species) pages. (Discuss) Deadline: November 28, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Create a New Super Mario Bros. (series) article. (Discuss) Deadline: November 28, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

Create an "Experienced User" panel
This is an idea I've wanted to carry out for a while: New users tend to ask a lot of questions, so I thought there should be an experienced user rank. So I PMed Steve, and he said it would be better as a panel in which people nominate themselves (or others) for this panel. There would be some requirements: This panel would mostly be for two purposes: 1) Give new users a place to go to ask a question. 2) Give the admins some knowledge of the best candidates for patroller (there wouldn't be any admins on the panel).
 * 1) The user must have been a user for at least three years.
 * 2) The user must have at least one thousand edits.
 * 3) The user must pass a "test" to prove they are worthy of this panel.

In case you're wondering, Steve said he is ok with this.

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

Support

 * 1) My proposal

Oppose

 * 1) Why would admins themselves be ineligible?  aren't they technically the most experienced users and therefore the users who would be best for this.  I know that there are some non-admins that would be eligible but still, almost all if not all admins are super experienced.
 * 2) I'd rather have the new users go through the many channels we already have (talk pages, forum, chat, user talk pages) and potentially get them to learn more than they were expecting than for a system that bases their decision on time and edits rather than content. The "test" is way too vague for my liking, as well.
 * 3) - We already have a list of users who have been vetted as being knowledgeable, experienced and available to new users for providing help and guidance: the staff members. We're even colour-coded so users can simply look on RecentChanges (or anything else with Special:WhosOnline embedded in it) to find someone - or page histories, for that matter, as well as policy pages, Special:ListUsers and even Special:ActiveUsers (although this last one requires sifting through, but with everything else available, users really have no excuse for being unable to track down an admin). We don't need some additional list of self-appointees/nominees who passed arbitrary edit and tenure milestones and some random "test": it'd be way more trouble than it'd be worth for helping newbies, and will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on who gets made into Patrollers, since the staff already keeps an eye on the community and picks out potential candidates perfectly well on our own.
 * 4) This is pretty useless. Unlike the actual staff, this doesn't provide with any extra tools aside from a shiny badge to give yourself to that all it mostly does is boost your ego. This is not a substantial title in the slightest. And per all.
 * 5) Hopping on-board with the increasing opposition, but I think my sister (Baby Luigi) is most succinct with this, so per her.
 * 6) Per all. Plenty of good options already exist.
 * 7) There are already options for new users to ask questions about the wiki, so per all.
 * 8) What's even the point? If you have a question, just ask a mod. There's plenty of them. It just seems like a way for normal users to feel special. Per all.
 * 9) These rules are too black and white. For example, I consider myself to be an experienced user (I'm a 'Shroom writer, the Poll Committee Vice-Chairsperson, and as of now having nearly 2,000 edits, which isn't too shabby). But just because I've been here less than three years, I don't qualify as "experienced." If such rules are imposed, I'm sure many other perfectly "experienced" users will not be able to qualify because of such technicalities. A "test" is difficult to pull off for these same reasons; for example, I'm not so good at HTML, but I still edit quite a lot on this wiki. Overall, it's actually not a bad idea, but the design can be greatly improved to avoid being so systematic.
 * 10) Per all. Everything was said, but in addition, the Welcome template that welcome the new users to the wiki inform the rules and information about the Wiki for them to learn more and experienced themself. I also think that one thousand edit, is not a lot, I have more than one thousand edit and I don't qualify myself as a experienced user.
 * 11) – This is incredibly poorly defined and even if the definition was more rigorous, it still does not leave out the fact that this is an incredibly poor idea. Essentially, per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all of the above. A test seems really unnecessary, and we already have enough options for new users to ask things anyways.

Comments
We could also design the autopatrol rank to differentiate which user is trusted/experienced or not (as it was before, I still wonder why it was changed in the first place). I myself find it kind of pointless; I don't know if it's immediately apparent that I'm considered "experienced", but I don't know if a panel is going to let users know or not, and newer users are probably still going to ask the super janitors staff members anyway. 14:58, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * Oh, and one more thing, there will always be users that are held back from being given a bigger toolbox despite their experience because they probably cannot maintain composure in a sticky situation, so it might be a good panel for them, but again, it might not be. 15:03, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * It was changed because here. 15:32, 21 November 2015 (EST)

3D Player: Because admins are already admins. An admin doesn't really need to be considered a candidate for admin. What I meant for this was a group of normal users (meaning non-admins) that are very knowledgeable about syntax, rules and policies, etc. 15:01, 21 November 2015 (EST)

Seems to me that if a new user needs more help than our on-wiki help guide provides, they should be directed to either the forums (for discussion and helpful topics) or chat (for live responses). -- Ghost Jam 15:07, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * I think user talk pages are the best since they're a good place for new users and experienced users to directly provide them with wiki syntax (not to mention, experienced users can fix the syntax on the spot and explain it), and it's also easier to link to helpful pages like Sandbox and the specifics of the help pages if a new user doesn't understand. Nobody really uses our forums for help on how to, say, create a signature. 15:13, 21 November 2015 (EST)

I'd like to add that experienced users (and I know the definition of an experienced user considering I'm erhm, one myself) already tend to answer questions left by users like those in MarioWiki talk:FAQ, so this is pretty much redundant? 15:43, 21 November 2015 (EST)

Even though I'm opposed to this, I'm interested in what this so-called test would consist of.
 * It would mostly be about syntax and rules/policies, not trivial things like "How many admins are there." 21:00, 21 November 2015 (EST)

Removals
None at the moment.

Split Badge and Clothing by game
Badge and Clothing are currently long articles with several different lists; in Badge's case, you have both Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi games lumped in there. I think these lists, when split by game, are more manageable and serviceable when they are separate articles. In navigation templates, readers can look up the appropriate section rather than have their browser load a huge page with several irrelevant games. It would also be consistent to split them by game, since we already have other charts split by game. Finally, in Badge, while Dream Team and Bowser's Inside Story sections are rather small, I think it's still doable to leave them separate for consistency sake they can work if they get merged to their parent page, which is also consistent in other cases, which Walkazo has pointed out in her support.

Both will still stay as a lone article, but it's there to link all the badge/clothing lists by game into one article, and, at least in Badge's case, it will retain its history section.

Finally, the List of badge names in other languages (and clothing, if it has one; as far as I know, it doesn't) can be merged into these split articles, so it also eliminates an odd page that was created due to the badly-organized nature of those pages.

Proposer: Deadline: November 30, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) I think these two pages are better off split by game. Yeah, Badge is probably not going to remain featured, but that shouldn't be a reason against the merge, IMO. Featured articles were unfeatured as a result of organization and deletion proposals before, so that reason in of itself isn't good.
 * 2) - I supported the idea on the forum, and I support it here too. Except the part about splitting the BIS and DT badges: I disagree that it needs to be done for consistency, since we have plenty of cases where something split for one game remains merged in another (usually merged to the parent game article, rather than a separate page, but whatever, close enough).
 * 3) – Per Walkazo, especially about leaving the Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story and Mario & Luigi: Dream Team Bros. information already present on the article as is.
 * 4) - Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per proposal but not Walkzao, I think everything should be separated for both consistency and because it's still two separate games.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
RandomYoshi: I think what Walkazo is trying to say is that the small information in Bowser's Inside Story and That Other Game can be just moved to a subsection in their parent articles. E.g. we remove Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story in Badge and add this same section under "Items" in Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story. 17:47, 24 November 2015 (EST)
 * If this is what was meant, then I understand the situation better. In fact, it's way better that way, so yay. 14:42, 26 November 2015 (EST)
 * I was actually advocating to leave the badges where they are, but moving them to the game pages makes more sense, and is more in line with existing coverage practices (which I was referring to as being similar to my original idea). -
 * I myself thought your implications (along with the "whatever, close enough" at the end) were that the moving method is the preferred and usual method. 16:15, 26 November 2015 (EST)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.