MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/13



Mario Kart Name Changes
NO CHANGE 1-12

okay... I have noticed that all the articles on the wii karts all have their european names. Why? What's wrong with the american ones? They used to have american names! and so, I propose we change the article names...

{{scroll box|content= Deadline: March 3, 2009, 17:00 Proposer: {{User|Dryest bowser}}

Change them

 * 1) - per myself

Leave them

 * 1) - Per the recent proposal that just passed changing the names.  Both names are listed at the beginning of the article, and both are even included in the Mario Kart Wii vehicles template.  We are simply using the first English title in order to keep consistency and be fair to our international friends.
 * 2) - See below.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) - Per the First English Artical Name. Everthing was changed to it's first English Name. So Mario Kart Wii Kart and Bike names changed to its first english name. So Nostalgia 1 was Classic Dragster.
 * 5) - I really hate that the European name proposal got through, and I wish we could reverse it, but I have to agree with Stumpers. After 6 months, I hope somebody immediately makes a proposal to reverse it.
 * 6) - Per Zafum.
 * 7) - I asked the same question myself.  Son of Suns mentioned that the reason for the European names is so that we're fair to the European gamers.  Keep note that Mario Kart Wii was released in America AFTER it was released in Europe.  If America got the game first, then the American names would be used instead.
 * 8) - Per SoS. Really. We just had this proposal not a short while ago.
 * 9) - per Zafum.
 * 10) - European names > American names at times.
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) - The Mario Kart Wii names we now use on Mario Wiki arn't just used in Europe, but also in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Japan.

Comments
In accordance with a previous proposal, for six months following a given proposal, no proposals can be made to overturn it. For example, we just had the proposal to use European names for subjects which first appeared in games that were released in Europe first. It passed, and so, for the next six months, we can't make proposals to overturn it. Therefore, this proposal is invalid, but there's no way you could have been expected to know... sorry about this.


 * (Hey Stumpers, have you found a link for that six-month rule? It would be nice if we could point to something in writing.) --


 * I can't remember such a rule, to be honest.


 * Me neither. It's a pretty good-sounding rule to me, though. Although, 6 months is quite a long time.


 * Yeah, we really need to find if such a policy has ever really been established by proposal. And I agree, six months (half a year!) is a long time regardless. --
 * We operated on it - I remember several proposals being shot down because of it, but if no one remembers it, and I can't find it, perhaps we should make a proposal about it. :P
 * If we do, however, it should be a shorter time, like 1-3 months. 6 months is too long.


 * I definitely agree with that. --
 * As do I.
 * Agreed. 3 months tops. Anyone want to make it?
 * Well it was Stumpers' idea. Maybe he wants to make it.

Arend: Those aren't the Japanese names. o_O
 * The PAL version uses more names that are identical with the Japanese names or that are closer to them. For example, the B Dasher Mk. 2 has its original name, and the kart "Hot Rally" is known as Rally Romper in the PAL version. The American version removes the namely references to the B Dasher and to the 3D Hot Rally vehicle Monster by calling them "Sprinter" and "Tiny Titan." --
 * Oicic. That's one of the things I don't like about NoA.

Personally, why the hell was it changed anyways? Doesn't that just screw things up for us Americans? :/ --
 * It was decided in a proposal some days ago. Check the archive.
 * I know that, P_Y. But where did the idea come from in the first place? --
 * In the words of proposer Son of Suns, "This should help us curb American cultural imperialism at the wiki while simultaneously fostering a spirit of internationalism." The proposal passed by one vote after a long discussion with many insults against Americans and no insults sent back (unless "go USA" said once is an insult). :P Go figure, right?  If it's any consolation, Blue, the proposal only affects a handful of titles, so it's not like it even matters that much to us in the US (lol), but, based on what was said during the proposal it apparently means a lot to people in Europe.

}}

Change Six-Month Proposal Reversal Rule to 60 Days
ALLOW REVERSAL OF PROPOSALS AFTER 60 DAYS 18-0

I recently learned of a rule that says proposals cannot be reversed for six months. However, six months seems like a ridiculously long wait, and some of these proposals really do need to be reversed. Simply, it only makes sense to change the limit to 60 days.

{{scroll box|content= Deadline: March 9, 2009, 17:00 Proposer: {{User|Ralphfan}}

Change limit

 * 1) Per above!
 * 2) An actually really great idea. 6 months seens like more than enough of a trial period. 1.5 months is a great trial period!!
 * 3) - Two months sounds good to me.  I'd be up for anything from 2-3 months, but I'm happy as long as we have some policy to go by now. My apologies for propagating something that someone somehow made policy without it really being policy or whatever. (see below) P.S. to Corka: 60 days is 2 months, not 1.5
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) - Per all
 * 6) - Per all; there is a situation that is REALLY nagging to me that I can't mention on this part of the proposal.
 * 7) - Per Ralphfan
 * 8) - Per Stumps
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - Per all. Generally after 6 months the proposals are either forgotten or so deeply entrenched in the way things are run that people just accept them; in the dynamic reality of an Internet community, being stagnant does not fly.
 * 12) - Per all.
 * 13) - I completely agree! 6 months is such a long time, and there are certain proposals which really need to be reversed faster than that.
 * 14) - Change it. 6 months is unnecessarily long. 60 days is good, but I think 30 days would be even better. One month is more than enough time for people to make up their minds about almost any change.
 * 15) I'm in! I just read 6 months and jumped on the bandwagon! NEEDS CHANGING!
 * 16) Per all
 * 17) - Per The Great Gonzales.
 * 18) - 6 months is ridiculously long, but 60 days is approximately two months, which is still an unnecessary amount of time. 30 days (approximately one month) is a neat idea. Per The Great Gonzales.

Comments
Look at the proposal above!
 * There's no actual rule about the time limit to revert a proposal, the sixth month thing is completely made up. So yeah, this proposal should be about setting the rule. --Blitzwing 12:04, 2 March 2009 (EST)


 * Yeah, so if this proposal does not pass, there would be no rule about reverting proposals (as opposed to us "leaving as is" a six month rule, which apparently we never had). --
 * Yeah. And you should put the amount of months, not days. (60 days=2 months)
 * Yup, I was just parroting what I was told by people who were sysops and bureaucrats way before I was, so really there's no weight to the six month rule... I'd like to be able to assume that everything told to me is true, but alas. :3 Blitz, were you a sysop when that idea came about?  You'd probably know more about how the notion came about and why it was used to block some proposals even when it wasn't policy than I would.
 * There was never any real idea of a "time limit" for reverting proposals. If someone saw a proposal didn't quite work out, they would just make another proposition and that's it. --Blitzwing 16:06, 3 March 2009 (EST)
 * Except for the two or so proposals about Banjo and Conker articles that were shot down based on the fact that they were released so shortly after each other. :P Whatever - doesn't matter now.
 * Toadette: "60 days" is far more accurate because months are different amounts of days and if we say "two months from July 22*" that can be interpreted in a few different ways, such as two 30-day periods, two month name-changes, etc. So I'd go for days. *Totally random.

Okay, we'll do it... and then change it back 60 days later! :D }}

Create a Dispute Resolution Committee
DON'T CREATE 0-6

So, I've been browsing Wookieepedia and have noticed they have a sysop's noticeboard. I think we should have something like this to alert sysops of important things and solve disputes between users. We would call this the "Dispute Resolution Committee".

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{user|Yoshario}} Deadline: March 16, 2009 17:00

Oppose

 * 1) - A public record of issues may do more harm than good. Sysops can already discuss things on their forum board.
 * 2) Per YY.
 * 3) - Per YY.
 * 4) - YellowYoshi398 does have a point. So per YY.
 * 5) - Per YY.
 * 6) per YY

Comments
I think we need this so regular users may alert sysops, since regular users do not have access to the sysop boards.
 * I used to and still do use the main talk page when the matter is public, and before I was buro or sysop and I wanted to keep something quiet (like an interuser dispute) I just dropped a note on a sysop's page. If this feature was updated and I had something I didn't want to get full blown I'd probably just use the sysop's talk page anyway... What I want to know is, how would it be different from the main page?  We still have a smallish Wiki so I think we might be able to make do with that. :)

}}

Change Log-In
NO CHANGES 3-8

1 hour ago I just had a horrible experience.My computer had somehow forgot my password for this Wiki,thus I took 1 hour trying to remember it,as I had lost the piece of paper the password was written on.So to stop this experience happening to anyone else,we could maybe have two options,like a question? Instead of a password? Are we allowed this? Do you want it? I'll be waiting!

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Hyper Guy}} Deadline: March 16, 2009, 17:00

Something Different!

 * 1) Huzzah! per above.
 * 2) - SOunds good, maybe adding a security question
 * 3) - I'm Yoshikart, and I've got a severe problem, I entered my password, and IT WOULDN'T LOG ME IN. So I had to resort to my backup account.

Leave as is!

 * 1)  - Um... You guys do realise this will lead to sockpupeting and people being able to log in as other users. So this is one heck of a bad idea.
 * 2) - Umm, no. You can store your passwords in like a secret text document, but losing your password would be kinda silly amirite? If you choose a password that you cant remember well, then choose a password thats both secure and you can remember it from the top of your head. Mistakes happen, I know. I don't think there's a MediaWiki extension for a second log-in thingy.
 * 3) - If someone forgets their password, it's their fault and their problem. If you know you have memory issues (AMNESIA for example...), then save the password in a text document somewhere on your computer. Users must take responsibility for their own account issues.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) - It's better to keep the passwords rather than just add questions, because, as Nerdy Guy said above, this would lead other users into logging onto accounts that don't belong to them, and therefore hacking in to them. Per all.
 * 6) - Per all,We rather have an user who have to make ten accounts because the user forgot the password for the other nine,other then to block an user for what someone else did.
 * 7) - Per all. Even if it is possible to implement something like this, it's too much trouble just to accomodate a few people who can't remember a password. To avoid forgetting, simply choose something easy to remember, and if necessary, store it in multiple places on and off the computer; logging-in shouldn't be a challenge.
 * 8) - Per all.

Comments
Is the password thing something all Wikis HAVE to do? if it is,ignore this.

Hmmm... I'm not entirely sure I understand the proposal. Do you mean two accounts? That's what I think you are saying.


 * No, it means two ways to log in
 * You're going to have to specify that second way. You mentioned security questions as an idea in the proposal, but right now we're just voting for "something" to happen.  You'll need to reword it, otherwise we're voting on whether or not to give you a blank slate to work with as far as log ins are concerned.  22:44, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Ok,I added an example.This IS my first proposal.
 * Much better - and I'm sorry if I came off strict. :)

Woo-hoo! I'm logged in correctly now! }}

Courses based on Courses
MERGE THEM 2-14

Hey everyone it's User:MC Hammer Bro. again. This time I've noticed things like Super Smash Bros. stages and Mario Kart courses that share names with courses in games that they are based off of. Mainly I noticed how Article: Tick Tock Clock, course 14 in Super Mario 64 is seperate from Tick Tock Clock (course) but...Rainbow Ride from Super Mario 64 and Rainbow ride (Rainbow cruise) stage from Super Smash Bros. Melee are in the same articel. So my question is show the articles be merged or seperated?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|MC Hammer Bro.}} Deadline: March 26, 2009, 17:00

Split 'em up

 * 1) Courses of the same name from different games should stay split because, well, they have their own qualities.Besides, SSB stages are usually a "very rough" version of the real stage.
 * 2) - I think it would be crazy to merge these together, because they really are two different things. I mean, wouldn't it be confusing if you clicked rainbow ride on a template trying to get to the ssbm level, but went to the sm64 world instead? Of course you would have it on that page, but not as the main thing, but as a side subject. I say we Split 'em up.

Merge 'em together

 * 1) - I say merge, beacuse they're supposed to be the same place
 * 2) - I would merge article titles that have the same name.  As we now seperate history sections by appearances, articles could have section titles for each game the topic appears in.  For example, Luigi's Mansion could have a section under the title "Luigi's Mansion," then a section titled "Mario Kart series" with the Luigi's Mansion from Mario Kart, which would then state the differences between the original and the MK versions.  Finally, the article could have a "Mario Tennis" section for the mansion's appearance in Mario Power Tennis.
 * 3) - Per SoS.
 * 4) - Per SoS.
 * 5) - Per SoS.
 * 6) - Per SoS.
 * 7) - Per Sos. It's a great idea and I guess there are more articles with this delemas than I though.
 * 8) .-i think merge for the same reasons as SoS but also some articles are very small and even if we merge all of their realated articles it still wont be nealy as song as say... mario's article so yes MERGE!! DEFINATELY MEEEEERRGE!!!
 * 9) - Per SoS.
 * 10) - Per SoS.
 * 11) - I think that we should merge all articles on the same topic. However, we should not go as far as merging Rainbow Ride with Rainbow Road, only articles on things with little to no notable differences, like the Mario Circuits.
 * 12) - Per Son of Suns.
 * 13) - i like sos's idea. per above.
 * 14) - Per SoS.

Comments
Zafum: It will take you to both things, so i dont see whats wrong


 * Also, links can be directed to sections, instead of the top of the article. So say you specifically want to link to the Luigi's Mansion in Super Smash Bros. Brawl.  You simply turn the link into Luigi's Mansion and you will go straight to the Smash Bros. info, passing by the other sections. --

Idk, it just seems......as a "bad example" to new users.Who knows, probanly they'll say, "OMG y don't they put seperate articles 4 it!ZOMG they suck!!!lol.I'm leaving." or something like that.
 * Well that would be their loss, now wouldn't it? You can't always get what you want, and if you storm off just because you disagree with some policy somewhere then you're gonna be unhappy for a very long time; it's better to just be flexible. -

}}

Beta Enemies
MAKE BETA ENEMY PAGE 5-3

I dont know where to put this but here goes.

I propose we create a page for all beta enemies, including stats, behavior, psychopath thoughts etc. and redirect drill bit (the only beta enemy with a page bcause it was accidentaly left in a cutscene (smithy! reember your blood pressure!)) to this page we could add a link 2 drill bit on the page AND if possible, the action replay codes used to access some of these beta enemies. Im sure interested in anything beta. Rite nao, the info is scattered about the beta elements page and pages of similar enemies.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{user|YourBuddyBill}} Deadline: 17:00 Monday, March 31, 2009

Make Beta Enemy Page

 * 1) YourBuddyBill- Ill take out the part about drill bit. we could just add alink to the page to drill bit
 * 2) - per ybb
 * 3) - This can make extra pages.Extra Pages = better example for guests = MOAR users = better articles.
 * 4) - Great idea, but we better put the beta enemies to the Beta Element page. Also, I've recently seen the name of the beta Blooper enemy of Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time on TMK.
 * 5) - Good idea. But it would be better to take out the part about the action replay codes. I have never seen codes on this wiki so it would be best to leave it that way.

Do Not Make Beta Enemy Page

 * 1) - I'd prefer to see Beta Elements sorted by game. To me, it seems a largely arbitrary distinction to separate beta enemies from the rest of the main beta article. Especially so when considering that all the other information on that page would remain as it is. A subsection under the relevant game's section of the page would work equally well.
 * 2) - Per Twentytwofiftyseven. Keeping all the beta information pertaining to each game together in one place is the most effective way at presenting the info to the readers. Also, if the enemies get their own seperate page, why not beta items, beta characters and beta locations? Regardless of how much info there is about them, enemies are no more important than anything else on that beta elements page, so separating them and nothing else seems wrong.
 * 3) Per all Lu-igi board 15:22, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Comments
Fixed. ;) And I would like to know all the stuff about them too, but separate pages for each enemy is rather tedious, in my opinion. Maybe not, but I would like it if we could know more about them.

Did Son of Suns vote in the wrong place? He said he wanted to keep separate pages; yet voted in do not make separate pages. Or am I reading it wrong? --


 * Oh, never mind, I read it twice, and I understand now. =D


 * The proposal states we should create one page for all enemies. Bloc Partier labeled the sections incorrectly.  (Not his fault, original proposer did not format anything right.)  I fixed it--

sorry, the directions are a bit complicated 4 me


 * If you remove the Drill Bit part of proposal, leaving it as its own page and linking to it, I will remove my oppose. --

I do think that YBB has a point, though, since it does have to do with the beta enemy being notable or not. Plus, a list is always good as an easy directory for articles. Then again, a category would do that job also.

thing is, not every one HAS an article. theyre just meshed together on the beta elements page with tidbits on other pages

Yoshario, I believe YBB is proposing to create ONE page to cover all Beta enemies, which right now have content in different places, not their own articles (nor is YBB proposing to give them each articles). Drill Bit is unique for being an enemy that appeared in the game but is also a beta enemy, as it was given stats but never used in battle. Hope that clears things up. --

So its not just a list, but an article that has the information on Beta Enemies instead of separate articles? I think that would be good. But then, would we still cover unused Drill Bit information in that article? --
 * OOps, I did read it wrong. The poor grammar threw me off. :P But yeah, one page sounds great.


 * To Yoshario - yep, one Beta Enemies page (there are no separate articles). Drill Bit would probably have a section with a "main article" link to Drill Bit.  The Drill Bit article should cover everything, while the Drill Bit entry in a proposed Beta Enemies page would give a summary of the subject Drill Bit as related to the article subject - Beta Enemies. --

Alright, I like that idea, better remove my oppose.

Instead of creating another page, how about having a sub section in the Beta Elements page? They would classify in that category, but would things get a little too complicated?


 * Yes, that looks better

Arend: Are you sure you voted under the right header? Supporting means the enemies will get a page separate from the Beta Elements, but it sounds like you want them as part of the main Elements page only (which is the current policy, as far as I know)... -


 * To Arend (and Walkazo as well): There is no policy (I believe) regarding how the Beta Elements page should be organized. Currently it lacks a Beta Enemies section, but that does not mean it can't have one.  This proposal is specifically about creating a separate article about Beta Enemies.  If that's what you want Arend, that's fine, but I think several of us are confused by your vote, which would suggest you don't want this page to be created. --


 * Oh, I thought it was proposed on articles about beta enemies. Ah, well, still great idea. But how is is about Categories?
 * It's not really about categories at all (as far as my understanding goes). Since the beta elemets page is currently listing all the beta stuff by game, I'd assume that's the current "policy". None of the specific types of beta elements have their own sections - they're all spread out amongst their parent games (SMB3 enemies under the SMB3 header, etc.). My argument is that creating a beta elements page would make our coverage inconsistant, as none of the other types of beta elements are organized like that; change them all or change none. -
 * I got it, but why some people are saying that YBB says we sort the beta elements page on ememies. After reading SoS's comment, I looked at the whole proposal, and I understood that the proposal is about just adding a page of the beta enemies. This is a great idea, but still, the categories and so. For that Blooper enemy of PiT, we need to add a category of Bloopers; however, Drill Bit is also a beta foe, which needs a different category than Bloopers. That would be a gigantic problem. Plus, that the name of the article is Beta Enemies. Shouldn't new users be confused about that?

I have AR codes for a beta Red Koopa in Sm64ds!Not to mention beta hat boxes.Too bad my AR broke.... }}

Worlds and levels
MERGE ARTICLES 7-6

YBB again, Im noticing that some games have all of the levels of a world on the world's page, like 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4 are all on the same page as World 7, but with other games, worlds just have links to level pages, like Chocolate Island and Chocolate Secret. Should we merge them all together, or split them apart? Note that this is relevant to pipeprojects.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|YourBuddyBill}} Deadline: April 2, 2009, 17:00

Merge

 * 1) - Yes, one big stub is no better than lots of little stubs, but this isn't about stubs - it's about organization: the real question is whether the same amount of info should be covered by tens of big articles or hundreds of smaller ones. Merging the levels would not cut down on the amount of information that could be included, it just rearranges it. Whether or not an aspect of a game has its own article shouldn't matter to how important it is in the grand scheme of things; not every named thing needs its own article to tell the readers what they need to know. Bloc Partier's Mt. Teapot is a good example of a world article that negates the need for individual level articles because it essentially has all the important information right there (though I'll admit that "importance" is in the eyes of the beholder). Other world articles need work, such as Desert Land, which has around the same amount of info as all of Chocolate Island's subsidiary stubs put together. However, expanding the former as a whole and expanding the latter stub-by-stub would essentially be the same thing, with only the organization differing (as is the inconsistent case now).
 * 2) - Per Walkazo. It is much easier to see all the information on one page than splitting it and needing to click back and forth between pages just to view all the levels and whatnot.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo and Bloc Partier. Plus, one article per world per game is more organized than one article per level.
 * 4) - Per Walkazo. It makes much more sense to have one umbrella world article than a ton of little one-level articles floating around.
 * 5) - I think that we should. It is more organized and efficient to use when some are already meged and some are not.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per all.

Split

 * 1) - Levels are independently named, even if only by number.  Each level contains a WEALTH of information - to cut down on stubs people should actually expand these level articles instead of creating one-sentence articles for the sake of creating one-sentence articles.  Merging the levels doesn't solve the stub problem, as the world article would still lack A LOT of information and would just be a stub of a larger size.  Level articles can then be linked by a profile template similar to the ones already in use by Donkey Kong Country and Yoshi's Island level articles in order to organize the different level articles.
 * 2) Sos has a good point.
 * 3) - Per SoS.
 * Per SoS. We can't just merge all levels into their world articles.
 * 1) Per all Lu-igi board 15:21, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
 * 2) Per SoS.

Comments
Ugh, this would destroy all my hard work to make Mt. Teapot Featured. But unfortunately it's a good idea. Blech. I'm not voting.

I think it is wrong thinking of merging or splitting everything. Like any other section in every page, if a section about a zone is too large, it'll need an article, if it fits well in the page of the world it'll remain a section. It is fool to have lots of stub pages just because we decided to split them all, or to have incredibly large articles just because we decided to merge. I think the only point is how long should a zone section be to become an article?
 * Well, we do need standards...
 * Kombatgod: I don't agree with all of your points, but I definitely do agree that this should be decided on case-by-case basis. While on the one hand Super Mario Land levels could be perfectly placed in world articles (well, except someone would really expand them), on the other hand it makes no sense to me to merge Super Mario World levels into world articles.
 * I definitely agree with Time Q. SMW levels' articles are good enough to stay the way they are. But there are other levels that don't have enough information to have their own articles.


 * Any level has as much or more information than any SMW level. The problem is someone actually has to write down the information and expand the level's article content on the wiki. --

}}