MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Separate Wii U audio files from the ones on the GBA (Discuss) Passed
 * Separate the Nintendo eShop paragraph from the 3DS and Wii U pages (Discuss) Passed
 * Separate the Mario Bros. stage from the Smash Bros. stage of the same name (Discuss) Passed.
 * Move Fire Chomp Super Mario 64 DS info over to Kuromame page or Merge the articles. (Discuss) Deadline: May 1, 2015, 23:59 GMT Extended: May 8, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Split from Chomp. (Discuss) Deadline: May 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Bouncing Note from Music Park. (Discuss) Deadline: April 22, 2015, 23:59 GMT Extended: April 29, 2015, 23:59 GMT May 6, 2015, 23:59 GMT May 13, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Split the Paper Mario boos from Big Boo into a separate article. (Discuss) Deadline: May 16, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Parabuzzy with Para-Beetle. (Discuss) Deadline: May 19, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

Make Template:Questionable-source
I've noticed a lot of pages with names that are technically sourced, but use unreliable sources like the Super Mario Daijiten (see: Most Wario Land enemies/bosses). Since putting a citation and marking it with refneeded could look confusing, my solution is an easy-to-understand template at the top of the page, something like this.

Proposer: Deadline: May 11, 2015 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my reasons stated above.

Oppose

 * 1) - It would be better to just have something like Wikipedia's "better source" template to flag iffy refs: then it could be used for situations besides just the ones affecting article titles, like how the new  template can be used for too-vague print refs.

Comments
I have another idea for the template that says something to the effect of "Some of the sources cited on this page are unreliable, replace them with better ones if possible", would that be better? Binarystep (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
 * Like a -style notice template? That idea has a bit more merit, but I feel like it's better just sticking with the system flagging the specific problems: no need to advertise twice over that we suck at citing our sources for the most part. -
 * I suppose, but refneeded implies a lack of a source, while this is more "better source needed". Binarystep (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2015 (EDT)
 * Like I said in my vote, we should just make more templates like refneeded (rather than banner notice templates) for flagging both less-than-ideal sources and broken links, hence "refneeded system". -
 * Ah, alright then. Binarystep (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2015 (EDT)

Removals
None at the moment.

Changes
None at the moment.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.