MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/38

Further separate appearance listing by medias
DELETED BY PROPOSER

In the early days of the wiki, appearance listing on character pages used to be separated by media (so all games were under a ==Game== header, all comics under a ==Comic== and so on) up until around 2008, where it was proposed to not separate things by media (the ensuing change mostly consisted of terrible attempts to link contradictory medias together), which was further stabilized into the purely date-based listing we have now. I was pretty apathetic about the change, but the quote above made me think.

The current system's well-intentioned, but I feel it's misguided and that separating things by media would lead to a more user-friendly browsing experience. Here's why:

1: It's a navigational mess. To take the Mario page for example, the main series platformers and the sports spinoff that most readers would expect to be "logically" close (due to similar styles and being, well, the same format) are separated by a wall of info about the more distant DIC cartoons and obscure OVAs. As a reader, I think it's irritating and a jarring shift.

Separating things by media would also have the effect of making the content navbar less bloated, thus making it easier to eyeball and click straight to a specific game/movie/cartoon. If I want to know about how many comics Mario has appeared in or that I want to read about a specific appearance but that I don't remember the name or publication date, it's much easier to find what I'm looking with a separated listing rather than having it lost somewhere in a huge list. It could also have the effect of making sections about obscure installments more noticeable than when they are sandwiched between the better-known and better-documented games.

2: One can peddle the "There's no official canon" line and that is true (and hence why I'm not proposing to give special treatment to Hotel Mario, When I Grow Up, the edutainement games or other oft-disliked installments of the franchise, because that'd be dumb) – but it misses the actual point: the media tie-ins are separate entries of the franchise. Events in the other medias usually happen in their own bubble and are not directly patterned after or "follow" the games. No characters that originated in the comics/cartoons/OVA reappears (with maybe the exception of the Koopa Bros. in a manga, but details are sketchy) appear or are even alluded to in the games. The characters/items that do appear frequently have clear differences in appearance, function, personality and sometimes names (some of that can be chalked up to early-franchise weirdness, but that only goes so far).

Even obscure, one-note games like Yoshi's Universal Gravitation and Wario: Master of Disguise have enough stylistic consistency and continuity cues that show they're meant to exist in the same "universe" as other games in their respective franchises, even if they're not referenced later. You can't say the same about the DIC cartoons vs the games.

Beside, there is a precedent for splitting other medias: The characters in the 1993 movie are considered to be "different" and indeed, most major elements from the film do have separate pages. If the movie is "too different" to count, then what about the Super Show with its locations that appear nowhere else in the franchise, celebrity guest stars, sizable number of characters that barely resemble their game counterpart… etc?. It takes a lot of mental gymnastic to exclude one but not the other.

Separating the medias isn't saying the comics/cartoons/ovas aren't "canon", "don't count" or something like that – it's simply acknowledging they're separate entries of the greater Mario franchise, which they quite clearly are, methinks.

…[/Martin Prince voice]

Proposer: Deadline: February 19, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Seem to be a good idea. Per proposal and all.
 * 2) Per Squidy
 * 1) Per Squidy

Oppose

 * 1) - The current form has worked for years and keeping everything on equal footing in the Histories is the strongest way to shut down thorny canon debates. The large pages will be cluttered no matter what we do, and adding a new intermediate level of headers will just add to the mess and force the games' headers to be Lv. 5 (i.e. nothing but bold text, which barely stands out and is next to useless). Having all the shows and comics and stuff back-to-back might be desirable in some ways, but on the other hand, you'd be lumping things which have even less to do with each other as they do with the games. In the end, is it really worth changing the entire wiki for? Haters are gonna hate no matter what we do, so I say don't fix what isn't broken.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.

Comments
I dunno if the Super Mario-Kun is part of this: what the manga is about is that it adapts events straight out of the game and puts its own twist to it, unlike most other forms of media where they just do their own thing. But otherwise, yeah, I see where you're going with this.
 * The Super Mario-Kun is probably part of it because it also follows a slightly different story that no other games gave a nod to, and the characters are given distinct personalities never seen in the games. You'll probably never catch Mario cross-dressing or molding a Star to the shape of a revolver, do you? Nevertheless, Super Mario-Kun's character designs are usually spot-on with their video game counterparts, even getting the details correct (while adapting its own style)

So, Glowsquid, what will you propose to do? Split Mario's article into separate articles by media? I'll very much like the idea (I also agree that the History's organization seems sporadic and jarring, especially to readers... and plus, Mario's article gets trimmed even more! YES! Same goes for Luigi, Toad, Bowser, Wario, Boo, etc.), but I also like to see the formatting layouts because that means we can also go into detail about episodes and certain comic volumes and issues without cluttering up the page.

A serious flaw from this proposal is the smaller articles. Minor Mario characters such as Tryclyde, Tweeter, Panser, Wanda, Jō, and much more also make appearances in non-game media, yet their articles are smaller than the main ones that really need this solution. Even one-timers such as Lavalava Island and Golden Diva make a non-game appearance from Super Mario-Kun. Even further, we've seen some extraordinary appearances such as Bluster Kong, who made an appearance in Super Mario-Kun, although he originated in a TV show. What may happen from this proposal is separating information from already-small articles into even smaller articles. There isn't anything in your proposal to address that, so...

I brought up the Movie thing to show that the current system is inconsistent rather than to say "That? We should do that for everything". The idea is that currently, all medias are under one header, like this;

--History-- ---Main Platformers--- ---Super Mario Land--- ---DIC Cartoons--- ---Obscure OVAs--- ---Educational Games---

With the proposal, the page sections would be formated like this: -History- --Games-- ---Main Platformers--- ---Super Mario Land--- ---Educational Games--- --Animation-- ---DIC Cartoons--- ---Obscure OVAs--- I'm not saying the DIC, Valiant... etc portrayals of Mario should get separate pages, though for what it's worth, Steve wants the detailled episode-by-episode summaries to be on separate pages (like this), so for major characters, the main page could have a general description of their portrayal and general storyline, with the individual episode summaries being linked via. The idea could be extended to other long-running medias like Super Mario-kun and the Valiant comics. And of course secondary characters shouldn't be split, that'd be dumb. --Glowsquid (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2014 (EST)
 * Huh, I had the wrong idea, then. It must've been that "separate" word that gotten to me.
 * Where would spinoffs go? Right after educational games or after Super Mario Land? Because spinoffs at least show continuity (many characters' current appearances are derived from Mario Party 4) and some get referenced even in the mainstream games (Mario Kart).
 * No, spinoffs are games so they'd stay right where they are: Glowsquid just listed them (represented by "educational games" for lulz or something) coming after the main platformers because that's usually ow the History sections work out. At least, I think that's what he's done. Anyway, there's a major flaw in the proposed reorganization, and that is that we'd be getting into Lv. 5 headers if we need one more subheader step in Histories (since the major headers are Lv. 2, not 1) and Lv. 5 headers are next to useless: they're nothing more than bolded text, the same size as the body text - they don't stand out at all, and are best avoided. Plus having too many nested layers starts to look sloppy, especially when one of the intermediate steps (i.e. the media type) is used very little. Also, unlike current History setups that can skip the series intermediate step for single-game appearances to keep down the clutter and superfluous organization, it'd be harder to do that with something that appears in one TV series or one comic (i.e. most things), since unlike the current mixed-usage series/standalone intermediate level, it seems the proposal if for the Lv. 3 header to become media-only.


 * In other words, current is this:
 * --History-- ---Super Mario series--- Super Mario Bros. Super Mario 64 ---Super Mario DIC cartoons--- The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 ---Super Mario Land--- ---Super Mario-kun--- ---Super Mario Amada---


 * And proposed is this:
 * --History-- ---Games--- Super Mario series -Super Mario Bros.- -Super Mario 64- Super Mario Land ---Animation--- Super Mario DIC cartoons -The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!- -The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3- Super Mario Amada ---Print--- Super Mario-kun


 * So in reality, this is adding more navigational clutter, not less. Plus, it's inviting canon discussion even if you try and say it's not. Even here, within a day of the proposal going up, there's speculation about the Super Mario-kun story in relation to games and confusion about separating spinoff games: not good. It's a slippery slope, especially when you consider how some game series portray the Mario world just as disparately as some of of the alternate media portrayals. And on that note, the comparisons between the Mario series and Sonic or Transformers are poor fits, and poorer still as arguments here. If you want to talk about keeping unrelated branches of the franchise separate, as you'd keep those different cartoons (and one film series) separate, you'd have to blast the entire History apart, not just the alternate media; but this proposal (purportedly) isn't about timelines, it's about media types, so you see my problem with the quote's apples and oranges approach to trash talkin' our wiki. -

Create a Page for the Toadette Species
DELETED BY PROPOSER

It's been shown within games such as Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story and Super Mario Galaxy that there are multiple female toads. These should be appropriately called Toadettes. (Kind of like Smurfs and Smurfettes. It's a stupid comparison, I know...) Therefore, I propose that, since there is a page for the Toad species, there should likewise be one for the Toadette species.

Now, some may argue that there isn't enough information for that, but I do think that there will be plenty of facts to make sure that this article is not a stub.

However, I'm also open to the idea, should the community not want to create an entire page, that we add additional information under the Toad (species) segment about the female toad species, of which there is none. There's also the possibility to add this under Toadette. Either one works for me.

Proposer: Deadline: February 13, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Create a New Page for the Toadette Species

 * 1) Per proposal

Don't create anything

 * 1) A different gendered entity doesn't make the character a different species from the male character. It doesn't make sense. It's better if both male and female Toads are represented under a Toad species. We don't separate women and men from each other, we represent them in a Human article. The same should be said with Toads. The term is unofficial anyway, as the only times Toadette was used was as a name for a character. All other Toad characters are just referred to as "Toads".
 * 2) A female Toad has been never called a "Toadette". Also, the human, Koopa Troopa, and Yoshi (species) don't have their own section for a female counterpart. Plus, the only difference between a female Toad and a male Toad is their hairstyle. That may deserve a mention, but it needs hardly its own section.
 * 3) Per Baby Luigi, this is grasping at straws in a very confusing way.
 * 4) Toadette isn't a species, she's a character and the female Toads are just Toads. Per Baby Luigi.
 * 5) Yuck! Toadette is a charcater, and she's not a species. Toads are LIKE human, because they both have gender. Just like Baby Luigi said, you shouldn't separate man and woman. Per all.
 * 6) Per all. Those female Toads only really appear in the RPG series (and the intro to Mario Galaxy I think) and I don't recall them even being called Toadettes.
 * No, absolutely no. As Mario's said, the only difference is the hairstyle. And as Tails777 said: they appeared only in more or less 2 or 3 games. One as NPCs and the others as cameos
 * 1) No way. How can a gender be considered another species?
 * 2) Really!? Toadette doesn't have any species members, there's no reason to do this.

Comments
@Baby Luigi: True, but the female counterparts aren't even mentioned under the Toad species. There's no pictures, and basically just gives the idea that all the Toads are male, with only one female among them. This should at least be given clarification.
 * Well, there aren't many female Toad characters in the Mario series to begin with, so....
 * I don't know, I just saw that the female toads weren't getting any mentions on any pages, so I thought I would bring this up. but... this was a dumb idea from the start, wasn't it? :/
 * Well, the page describes Toads as a whole species. The only pronouns used are "they", "their" and the like. The reasons female Toads aren't brought up because they're sparse in the Mario series. Actually, excluding from the television show, movie, RPGs, Mario Party, and Toadette, female Toads are nonexistent.
 * Alright then. Since it's obvious what the decision is, and I'd rather not see tons of 'opposed' piling up, do you think I should just delete this entirely?
 * Can't now, just let it run its course. No one will really think that much less of you for it.
 * Very well, thank you. I still feel like a total idiot now, though.
 * Actually, as per Rule 14, the proposal can be withdrawn or rewritten within the first 3 days of its creation. Seeing as it was created yesterday it can be withdrawn, just make sure to archive it here and here.
 * Hot dang, I forgot about that rule. Looks like I might need to study a bit. Thanks for the save, 876.

@Pink, methinks you mean "should not" in this context.

Move substantial "Official profiles and statistics" sections to a separate page
PASSED 22-1

Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Toad, Bowser, Yoshi, Donkey Kong. One thing in common is that their pages are incredibly huge, and loading them may be a chore for the computer. My proposal is to move some information, specifically large "Official profiles and statistics" sections, from these pages to another page, much as how "Gallery" and "Quotes" have their own page. While this may not be a surefire way to get these pages loading a bajillion times quicker, every little bit helps so we can get potential editors rather than having their browsers crash from the immense size.

Baby Luigi and I then decided that we should move the "Official profiles and statistics" section to its own page. Now, just as with galleries and list of quotes, not EVERY article will be affected by it; only articles that have a substantial amount of information (decided by a case-by-case basis) will have the information moved.

Reasonably reducing the strain these pages do on browsers should be a plus for all of us editors here.

Update: In addition, profiles and statistics from RPG games, such as Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi and Super Mario RPG will be moved into these pages as well.

Proposer: Deadline: February 9, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) It's a pain in the ass to visit these articles I mentioned. Every little bit of trimming will be highly appreciated, so moving this information to another article will be nice.
 * 2) In 2006, all the page were short like a daisy. Now, it a garbage dump today. We should move the profiles to another page. Reader could get tired of reading long articles. I said we go back to 2006. Per all.
 * 3) - YES! I've wanted to see this happen for years, but was always too lazy to to do more than mention it every now and then. As well as shortening the length of the page as a whole, it'll also halve the amount of entries in the Table of Contents for these big pages, making navigation easier (plus, then there won't be so many headers sharing names and potentially complicating section-linking). The articles will also look better without the messy lists dragging along after the prose content.
 * 4) I strongly support this. Per Mario and Walkazo.
 * 5) Yes, just yes. Maybe this can also help towards featuring these kinds of articles (maybe). Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Great idea for improving organization, per all.
 * 8) Per Mario and Pinkie
 * 9) Per all. I think that the "big" pages need to be cleaned up a lot.
 * 10) Per Pinkie Pie
 * 11) This should at least lessen the constipation devices go through when they try loading one of these pages. Per Mario and Walkazo.
 * 12) Per all
 * 13) It hurts trying to read the Mario page.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per all
 * 16) Per all, it is making the page Bowser on the top of the Long Pages list. It makes the page more organized.
 * 17) Definite per all.
 * 18) Per all.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) Great Idea. Pages such Daisy were shorter in some time ago, but now ittakes some minutes to load completely. Also, pages such Peach and Mario doesn't load completely the images, they are very very very large pages. Per all.
 * 21) I agree with you even though my computer and the current browser I am using loaded these pages fine. The data of the actual article would not be a problem, but the advertisements contribute the most to agony when I used my old tablet to load REGULAR pages, mainly on this wiki and Bulbapedia. But I believe that we should do more, and establish what a character article ought to be which is an extensive coverage on the general character, which I believe (in the context of the characters you mentioned) ought to include:
 * A)an introduction (which reveal too much information during the status quo;
 * B)physical appearance and typical outfits;
 * C)back-stories, occupations, personality;
 * D)frequent character roles, recurring abilities, catchphrases, running gags,etc;
 * E)relationships with other characters;
 * F)a list of game appearances (not a list with a paragraph per appearance) with links to main articles of them for information, portrayals outside of Nintendo;
 * G)controversy, trivia, notes, names in other languages, name origins;
 * H)"See also", related topics;
 * I)sources, references, citations;
 * J)external links, extra templates.
 * That way, we can place stuff like some of the "History" sections and even more of your section of issue as "Main Articles" which will allow even more information and coverage on those topics! I support, per Iggy Koopa Jr. and myself.
 * 1) – Per everybody, especially Mario and Walkazo.

Oppose

 * 1) - I have no problem loading these pages. And the profiles and statistics are shorter than the history. I don't think removing a small section would help your loading times.

Comments
I think it would be a good idea to also say that all the official profiles and stats should go on the not-subpages - i.e. instead of having some of the RPG infoboxes in the History sections, etc. That way, everything would be in one place, and it would also make the History sections more uniform and less crowded (as they can get when they have multiple boxes in close proximity). One question, tho: what would the new pages be named? "List of profiles and statistics of X" would be consistent with other "subpages", and doesn't see, too wordy after the "official" bit's removed. But I dunno, maybe there's a better choice? -
 * I added some more provisions, thanks to your suggestions. Also, I think the "profiles and statistics" part can be shortened to just one word, but I'm not exactly sure what single word can replace that lengthy phrase. Maybe "List of data of this guy person" or simply "List of profiles of this guy person".
 * SeanWheeler, if we don't move the stat to another page, the reader might rage quit on this wiki. 12:01, 2 February 2014 (EST)
 * That's extreme; the worst I'd do is refuse to click on those specific pages at all.
 * I like "List of {character} profiles and statistics". -
 * Sounds good. -

SeanWheeler, just compare the loading time of Waluigi to Bowser. There is a noticeable difference. In every computer I've used, Bowser takes a painfully longer time to load. Also, you should be more considerate about those with weaker computers than yours. Just because YOU don't have a problem doesn't mean EVERYONE won't. I've also mentioned explicitly that the action will not make the page load a million times faster, but trimming reasonably will improve loading times nevertheless.
 * I think the reason why he said it's fine, is because he has a high-performance PC that load pages faster. Check other computers with low-performance SeanWheeler, the pages take almost 1 minute to load. 18:38, 4 February 2014 (EST)
 * I'm using a computer with an i7 processor and the Mario page still makes my browser hang for 10 seconds. You need a REALLY high-performance PC that doesn't make a difference. SeanWheeler's reasoning is weak: "I don't have problems and it won't reduce loading time drastically, so I will oppose."
 * SeanWheeler might have a REALLY high-performance PC. Also, I'm with Mario: SeanWheeler's oppose is weak. 15:52, 5 February 2014 (EST)
 * It's a quad-core CPU with 1.7 gH I believe. It's not gaming-quality (doesn't run Dolphin Emulator GCN games such as Mario Party at full speed), but it's still decent.
 * Loading a page shouldn't take a $10,000 premium-performance shiny spankin' new computer for goodness sake.

Also, even though the long page load faster, scrolling down is a pain to look at. 16:22, 5 February 2014 (EST)
 * SeanWheeler, just because you said that is fine, it not fine. First, scrolling woud be REALLY hard, second, there is too much lag, and third, the profiles and stats are useless. Maybe we need to make a proposal on removing opposes.
 * One: that'd be extremely unnecessary for these types of proposals, and simply explaining the logical flaws is fine, which two: you seem to have done multiple times already. I'm fairly sure both Sean and anyone else reading gets what you think of their oppose without it having to be repeatedly stated.

@Guye, not that I disagree, but I think you should try to keep your opposes a bit shorter. You can elaborate in the comments like you did with the other one.

I aldo think that the role tables (playable or NPC table) should be in another page too. And nicknames tables in Mario and Luigi should be removed. There is no proof for them.
 * There is: afaik, the nicknames are all directly from games or the shows; if they were unofficial, they wouldn't be up there. As for the charts, a subpage for them would be a bit much, and it's not like on section with a table of links is going to drag down load times or clutter up the TOC. -
 * I already made a template on Profiles and Stats; go on the wiki's sandbox to see it
 * Last I checked, this was only about characters, not games. -

Move glitches on game pages to their respective glitch pages
DELETED BY PROPOSER

I noticed on some pages, in the glitches section, there are several glitches that could just go on the glitches page, which is linked right there, allowing room on the large page to be saved.

Proposer: Deadline: February 16, 2014, at 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) If there is a link to the glitches page in the article, what's the point of having a few listed on the non-glitch page itself?

Oppose

 * 1) - In those cases, either there's too few glitches to justify making whole separate pages or they're following Empty Section Policy and including a couple sample glitches as previews of the full subpages. Either way, it's being done properly according to current policy, and the policy shouldn't change because it makes sense.
 * 2) Walkazo correct. Only if there are too many glitches, we can move it to it's respective glitch page. Per all.

Comments
In the case that it violates the empty section policy, let's just cancel this proposition because I wasn't paying attention in depth to EVERY SINGLE POLICY.

Create an unconfirmed glitch template
DON'T CREATE 7-10

Collab Link

While navigating through glitches pages, I came across several glitches which I was unable to perform, nor did I managed to find any proof that this glitch is real or fake. So instead of removing all unsourced glitches, we would simply add a small notice like this &#91;unconfirmed glitch&#93;. This way we will still have the information, while avoiding any bogus glitches (because the reader would be already aware that this glitch was not tested, unproved).

I already aware that there is a template called. However this is a different thing: not every glitch need a reference. they need just an screenshot, a video, or in some cases, discussion on the talk page may be very enough if provided with some proof. Also having a different template and a different category is better for organizing, this way we can look in the category to find all glitches pages only which contains glitches need confirmation.

Draft:

Proposer: Deadline: February 3, 2014, 23:59 GMT, Extended: February 10, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Meggy
 * 2) Per proposal
 * 3) Per proposal. I think this would be a great idea.
 * 4) Per all. This is a great idea, especialy for a glitch hunter like me.
 * 5) Per proposal
 * 6) Per all. I couldn't mind that :)
 * 1) Per all. I couldn't mind that :)

Oppose

 * 1) - Just use : an unconfirmed glitch is no different from any other unconfirmed bit of info, and needs to be backed up by the exact same kind of sources. Furthermore, the template would just categorize the whole list page, not the specific glitch: in all likelihood, every long page will end up languishing in the category, probably from multiple templates (not that you could tell from looking at the category), which isn't useful: better to just use the collab to keep track of things.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo, this proposal looks to me like it's basically founded on a bunch of semantic issues.
 * 4) Uploading a screenshot and a video should be enough to remove both templates, so the proposed template will be pretty much redundant.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all
 * 10) Per all

Comments
Screenshots and videos are references, and citing discussions isn't ideal even for glitches (although citing discussions beats no citations at all, of course). And what do you mean by "scrawny" "sourcing thing"? Citations are used all over the wiki, and so they should: they lend credibility to the database. Whoever told you references are only for upcoming games and beta elements is grievously mistaken. -
 * Sorry, I was mistaken. After reading Citation_Policy in depth again, I knew that information can be taken directly from the game without the need of external resources. Whatever, I guess this proposed feature should be separated from the, this way the category will contain all the pages that weren't tested by our users thus they aren't confirmed. About the citing discussion, take Flip'd-up Mario 1 as an example, a user confirmed this on the talk pages even describing it more, another user confirmed the glitch and confirmed his description (both users do not have capture cards), thus the glitch is confirmed, BUT it needs a reference. so replacing the with the . Take Bananaport Glitch as an example, it does have an image, however I started a discussion on the talk page saying that it never happened for me, some more users said so. The  get added to the glitch, even when it really has an image (a reference.
 * You can still use in cases where some evidence is provided but more is needed. And more than anything, the story about "Flip'd-up Mario 1" just proves that the differences in use between the established template and the proposed addition is splitting hairs and adding unnecessary complications to the straightforward process of confirming glitches (nothingrefneeded -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy). -


 * A new template sounds redundant, but maybe could be modified to read "unconfirmed glitch" or something?


 * Sorry, but I don't quite understand you.
 * Which part? -
 * "(nothingrefneeded -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy)"
 * @Walkazo Like this: &#91;unconfirmed glitch, citation needed&#93;   ; and it could be modified like  was for double usage. I don't know if that seems redundant or not but at least it highlights glitches more.
 * But don't you think that's getting a wee bit long and unseemly? Anyway, what I meant was that first, if someone adds a glitch with no refs or anything, you can just label it with . Then maybe it gets discussed on the talk page and people convincingly vouch for its existence - then you cite the discussion, and it's up to the readers to look at the citation and decide whether they believe our info despite us not having any hard evidence. Then you do find some hard evidence and can cite that instead, and when readers see that, they won't have any reason to doubt us (i.e. everybody's happy). No need for a clunky extra template or template parameter: you either have a reference, or ya don't. It also just occurred to me that if you really want to keep track of unconfirmed glitches and don't trust a list on the wiki collabs board, why not use or a template spun off of that to put on the talk pages? You'd still get the useless category problem, but at least the templates will draw attention to the appropriate sections on the talk page once folks wander in. -

The deadline is passed. Isn't the minimum for a proposal to pass a 3 vote margin?

Fanon wiki NOT like Pikipedia Fanon
CANCELLED BY THE ADMINISTRATORS This isn't something that can be created via Proposal.

I love mario fanon, and the sure is a lot of it! I wish there was a wiki for fangames/romhacks like SMBX. sorry, I meant a NIWA wiki, not this one

Proposer: Deadline: February 17, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Oppose

 * 1) I don't get what's the point of this proposal. We're a Mario encyclopedia that has policies strictly against having fanon content. You'll have to make a really convincing argument to include fangames and romhacks in this wiki. So far, there's nothing convincing.
 * 2) So what? You are creating a proposal for having fanon content on the wiki, and every second there is something new in Mario fanon. We are not a wiki for fanon content, and we never will be. If we were, we would have more articles than Wikipedia, that is scary. It would be utter chaos here.
 * 3) STRONGER OPPOSE : Why? Just why? The wiki isn't a fanon wiki. If you want a fanon wiki, go to a fanon wiki. Per all. See that is the kind of silliness for a proposals. Proposals are suppose to improve the wiki, the writing, and the content. Plenty of users can vote and they can agree or disagree.
 * 4) You're in the wrong site if you're expecting Mario fanon, buddy. Leave your fan stuff to your own pages.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) This is not a place for fanon, go to Fantendo if you want fanon. Or put it on your userpage.
 * 8) Fanon should be separate from official content, otherwise we would confuse people and this site would be the most unreliable Mario site. Bad to add fanon to the coverage of a wiki that used information from the official games for years. Very. Strongly. Oppose.
 * 9) If you want to make a Mario fanon wiki, go right ahead. This isn't that wiki, though. This wiki is for official stuff. Per the rest.

Comments
...What?

To my knowledge: 1) There is no need for an on wiki proposal for off-wiki content, and 2) such a wiki likely already exists, for all we know.

Shouldn't this be appeal? 20:47, 10 February 2014 (EST)
 * Yes, this should

XX supports Remove XX opposes freely
FAILED 1-9

While I did my first Feature Nomination, I discovered that to remove opposes we need three users' votes and one from an admin. I think that this is an injustice. If an FA (or even a Proposal) have, for example, 10 supports, and only one oppose, then the rule should be different. Using the same sample: By each 10 supports, one ( or more,maybe) should be ignoted/ removed. I mind that, at least, by each 7 supports, we can remove one( the first) oppose freely.

Proposer: Deadline: February 15, 2014 23:59 GMT

Oppose

 * 1) Especially when it comes to articles featuring prominent characters, there are always quite a few users who flood a nomination with support votes simply due to the fact that they like the character while ignoring any flaws that the article actually has. If this proposal were to pass, this could, in turn, lead to featured articles being more of a popularity vote than anything else, which is completely against the spirit of featured articles. Though there certainly isn't a guarantee that this will occur, I do not want to take the chance of it happening.
 * 2) Only Featured Articles' votes can be removed, not the proposal. Proposals' votes can't be removed. Per Time Turner.
 * 3) Per Pinkie Pie
 * 4) While the current system of requiring a patroller or higher to remove an oppose vote is flawed (often, they simply don't vote), this proposed rules will create much more problems than it solves. We do not feature on the quantity of votes, but rather, no oppose votes. If there is a single oppose vote that is isn't disputed, then it should remain.
 * 5) Per TT and Mario.
 * 6) My case is in the comments section of this proposal.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Mario.

Comments
Shouldn't this be appeal? 20:14, 7 February 2014 (EST)

Ashley and Red, you should look how this proposal failed: http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_37#Allow_Removal_of_Support.2FOppose_in_Proposals

The Featured Articles Section "How to Nominate" states:


 * If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so and how it can be improved [emphasis mine]. Please cite which rule your objection falls under. Failure to do so will result in your objection being considered invalid. Users may vote for the removal of an oppose vote if they feel it is invalid or not specific enough, but have to give reasons for their choice. Three users, including an administrator, are required for the removal of an oppose vote.

Objection cannot be 'valid' without reason and and a method of improvement. If nominators, supporters, administration, et cetera are unable to ameliorate whatever obstacle or flaw to satisfy the objector's demands then:


 * A) the article should not have been nominated in the first place because it does not meet the previously written standards, or
 * B) the objector's arguments are fallacious and the three user + one administrative vote will quickly dispatch of the objection.

In the case of scenario B, the voters + admin will be more than delighted to remove the objection. For these reasons, I oppose.
 * Good oppose :)

Merge articles such as Orbs and Hexes into lists with the same information
DON'T MERGE 2-10

Most notably, I've seen large amounts of very small pages about things such as orbs and hexes. I think it would be more useful to merge these pages together into one large, easy to read list, as opposed to having tons of smaller pages. I believe that this will create consistency and simplicity for those who wish to view an entire page of all the orbs/hexes, and their effects, as well as compare them depending on the game. The orb list would be found on the orb page, and the hex list would be found under the hex page, etc. I think it'll be less daunting and time consuming as well.

I propose the following format, though I'm open to adjustments. Please keep in mind that this is only the prototype format, and if someone would like to suggest changes, I'd love to hear them:

Making separate lists for the separate Mario Party orbs/hexes under one page is also plausible. (Different pages for orbs and hexes, in case that wasn't clear.)

Now, while I've only mentioned these two things, if there's something you'd like to see merged as well, please add it in the comments section.

Proposer: Deadline: February 17, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) That sounds like a good idea

Oppose

 * 1) Doing this would be far from consistent, will be trimming far too much information, especially when considering that a lot of the orbs require extra explanations for their uses, and really, most of the orbs/hexes don't even have small articles, unless you wanna compare them to Bowser or something. Also, these are items. They have unique descriptions, and unique appearances, and unique uses, and everything that's needed for them to be considered items. What, exactly would be consistent about merging all of the orbs and not, say, all of the RPG items? Bottom line is, nothing good will come of this.
 * 2) Per Time Turner.
 * 3) Dr. Whooves got it. Per all.
 * 4) - Per Time Turner: this would be inconsistent and/or lead to more merges, but the philosophy these days is that more little pages are better than a few big lists (such as for search traffic and whatnot). Plus, lists with too much info aren't necessarily easy to use, and can be particularly troublesome for narrow screens.
 * 5) The orbs and hexes are from completeley different games.
 * 6) I prefer if we have a little bit of both: for example, the GCN Mario Party articles list the orbs and whatnot into a list and has a short blurb of them. If you want full information on them, well, that's what the articles are for. These orbs also can work differently in each game: ie the Goomba Capsule in Mario Party 5 switches coins while the Goomba Orb in Mario Party 6 makes the victim give coins to the person who set the orb down. It's more convenient this way, and I think it works better.
 * 7) Per TT lord of time.
 * 8) Per Time Turner.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per Time Turner, I don't see why this is necessary.

Comments
@Time Turner - That's not necessarily true. It really depends on the layout of the page. Not to mention, we don't need as much information as we have. I've been told that conciseness is key on this wiki. If I may ask, which articles are you referring to? Most that I see are very short. It's a mess as it is, and more consistent than the method we have now.
 * Paper Mario items, for starters. It's inconsistent. We don't merge power shots from Mario Power Tennis nor Captain Abilities from Mario Strikers Charged either.
 * Then don't merge those ones. This isn't about paper Mario items. this is about tons of tiny articles that will suffice under one page.
 * That's exactly what's wrong with your proposal: you're proposing something that will break consistency in this wiki. Another great example is Mario Kart Arcade GP items. Merge those too? No.
 * But see, the problem with that, Baby Luigi, is that it's just going to get re-proposed later to delete it. I've seen this before, where people create lists in addition to the regular pages, and they just get deleted awhile later, then re-created. It's a vicious cycle. Whereas if we just have the one list page for orbs, they'll all be together and it'll be easier to go through them.


 * I have been here for nearly five years, and I can say that I honestly don't remember anything like that happening, especially in relation to orbs. Could you provide an example of this, preferably with a link?
 * It's not the orbs. It's the lists that are the problem. People don't like having lists and individual pages. But, lists are easier to go through compared to 50 little pages with not much variation besides effect.
 * That doesn't address my question.
 * Perhaps it would help if you named some of these 'people' in question.


 * Here are some examples of what I'm talking about: http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_13#Merge_or_Delete_Demo_Articles http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_18#Categories:_List_of_Implied_... http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_4#Article_about_.22Implied.22_subject_.282nd_nomination..29 http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_2#Removal:_Glitch_Articles http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_2#Merging_Wario_Treasures
 * I just think that it'll cycle in and out of proposals for lists, not technically this in general, and that there will always be proposals about merging items into lists, then separating them, then merging again, then deleting lists, etc.
 * The most recent proposal that you linked to was from 2009, and even then, it really doesn't have anything to do with what you're talking about. It wanted to delete a set of categories because they literally served no purpose. The articles mentioned in the proposal talking about demo articles wanted to delete them because they were only tangentially related to the Mario series. I'll give you the other ones, sure, but those are from 2007, which really doesn't illustrate your point that this kind of thing is a constant cycle.
 * I'm worried that it's going to come to that. Maybe I'm wrong. But I think that people will constantly do this.
 * ...Even though you've demonstrated that people haven't done this since 2007, 2009 if I'm been generous?
 * It's true I haven't seen much of it. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.
 * That's a fallacious argument. If I say that the wiki will be suddenly shut down in the next five minutes, I can't back it up with "Well, it could happen." That's not even close to actual proof.
 * I suppose so. Still, I like my list idea, I think it'll be useful and leave less stubs behind, even if they aren't officially stubs.
 * Stubs are not short articles. Some stubs are short articles, but not all short articles are stubs. Stubs, by wiki definition, are articles that are lacking information, and that's the only definition that should be used here. If they aren't "officially" stubs, they are not stubs.
 * I feel like the only reason this whole argument has started in the first place was lack of clarity on my part regarding what I'm proposing.


 * Hmm, I've created some of the orb lists in the Mario Party articles, like, since 2010 and it still stands to this day. So what's this deletion you speak of?
 * Delete the orb pages, and merge all of the information under 'Orbs', making a sort of table for them.
 * That's where I disagree. Orbs are official, named items and get an article in the wiki. I oppose deleting them at all, and they also vary game from game.
 * And I respect that, but they're so small that it's just more convenient for them to be together.

@Coooool, I was hoping you'd understand that was a very general statement, as opposed to a standard to enforce on articles (not that I could plausibly do such here anyway).
 * Nope. Apparently not. But why shouldn't we be concise under such matters? We don't need all these pages when one will do.
 * I think Baby Luigi explained well enough to start.
 * I don't agree. It'll just get deleted later.
 * The orb/capsule/item lists in the Mario Party articles have been there since nearly 2010 and are not going anywhere any time soon.
 * http://www.mariowiki.com/Category:Orbs_and_Capsules I'm just saying we take this and make it into a page, and delete the useless information.
 * Why delete it? What's the point? The category does its job, the orb/capsules/item lists in the respective Mario Party articles do their job. Making a list like that would be redundant.
 * It's only redundant if we keep them both.

@Randombob-omb4761- Apologies if I wasn't clear. but I said that they would have their own separate lists. I'm not proposing we merge these together. it's 'such as' Orbs and hexes. Both would have their own pages.

It's a bit too late to salvage this discussion, but please remember to out new comments at the bottom, rather than sticking them in the middle using indents. Without time stamps, it really muddles up the history of the discussion. Just use Name: or "@Name:" or whatever to link to a specific comment if there were other things said in the interim. This also potentially avoids having to indent by over a dozen colons, which is less than ideal. -
 * Sorry, Walkazo. I'll try to clean this up...

Change the order of the NIWA Main template
PASSED 8-0

Change Template:NIWA Main (which is the last block on the main page) so that it lists the wikis in alphabetical order. This would make it easier to find a certain wiki, it would be more organized, and it would not be "favoring" one wiki.

Old template:

Proposed template:

Proposer: Deadline: February 20, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per Proposal. It would be a lot easier to navigate.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) Per all, it's a small improvement, but substantial nonetheless.
 * 4) Looks good. And ABC order is very organizated.
 * 5) ABC order is better than a bunch of random links. This will be easier to navigate.
 * 6) On other wikis, it's on alphbetical.
 * 7) I was wondering if the current order is based on the recency of each alliance, but seeing Hard Drop Tetris Wiki (the latest member) on a random spot makes me want to support this.
 * 8) Per proposal.

Comments
Maybe you should ask Steve about this since he mainly manages the template?
 * I just want to see what everyone else thinks first, but thanks! 16:30, 13 February 2014 (EST)

@Pinkie How do you know we don't want an ABC, most templates follow an ABC order on the wiki.

At all cases, it is not that major.. just talk to the Minecraft man (a.k.a Porplemontage) and withdraw dis. :) -- 08:32, 14 February 2014 (EST)

@Pinkie Why is your vote a "stronger oppose" and what do you mean when you say "we don't want a ABC order on the template anyway?" You are not an admin and you also haven't given a strong reason for why it should stay this way. Simply saying that you don't want it is not a strong argument. 16:32, 14 February 2014 (EST)
 * Fine, but remember, I have my eye on you.
 * Not really sure what that means, but OK.
 * Have to admit, that comment throws me as well...

Create the Category:Files with broken Aboutfile template
CREATE THE CATEGORY 8-2

Most new users break the Aboutfile template, The worst thing about it, that it cannot be easily detected. I propose the following code to be added to the template. Each line of the following add the category "Category:Files with broken Aboutfile template" (to be created) to the File page if the respective variable has the default value. (i.e, the variable has a value of "Subject of the image").

adding this in the template coding will activate it (may need a cache reset for files pages with already broken Aboutfile), so any page having a misformatted aboutfile template will be automatically added to the category, therefore making it easier to maintenance.

Proposer: Deadline: February 21, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) This issue has been annoying me forever, it has to go.
 * 2) - Sounds good. And if it doesn't work after all, it can always be removed.
 * 3) This seems good, and it seems like an issue that need to be fixed, Per all.
 * 4) Good, so any files that don't get fixed immediately can be fixed when people look at this category.
 * 5) – This would be forking amazing.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Awesome idea. It's always a pain in the azz finding and fixing incomplete aboutfile templates.

Oppose

 * 1) I oppose, because I don't like the aboutfile template. I always remove the whole thing.
 * 2) Per Iggy.

Comments
I'm not an expert on coding, but wouldn't this code require that all five sections be filled with something?
 * Nope, any section filled with it's default value will add the category.

What if users simply format it incorrectly, as with any other template?
 * If a user formatted the incorrectly, the category is added to the file page automatically.
 * Could you demonstrate what an incorrect formatting of the template would look like?
 * Dis
 * So... all your code does is check to see if someone didn't fill a section in. So, if someone were to simply blank all the sections, would there be any problems?

@Iggy, last I recall, the aboutfile template is kinda necessary for image files on this wiki, so...

@Time Turner, first if someone blanked a section, it would disappear. Second, no one blank all the sections, they just leave it. And this proposed feature fixes the "as-it" problem. 11:51, 17 February 2014 (EST)

@Iggy Koopa Jr., no offenses, but what does any of that do with the proposed feature? You are just saying that you do not use the template. This fixes a issue (i.e,  ,  ,  , , and even more) by adding the file page to a specified category. Just like any maintenance category. Simply saying that you do not use it, doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Please check your vote, it is lacking a reasonable reason. 11:51, 17 February 2014 (EST)

Again, this proposed feature aims to help fixing the issue, exactly like the Category:Articles with broken file links. 11:51, 17 February 2014 (EST)

@Pinkie, I don't think it needs to be constantly stated how strong your oppose/anti-oppose is, the reasoning speaks for itself.

What I'm saying is: do we even need the template that badly? -- 12:05, 21 February 2014 (EST)
 * We do! It is very recommend, it shows all information of the file in an originated way.
 * I've seen wikis live without one...
 * Still, your vote doesn't deal with what the proposal is about, just make another proposal with our opinion, and wait for some input.

Species Templates for Real-World Animals
DELETE 9-0-0

Currently, we have several articles on real-world animals, such as Bee and Pig. These articles have their own host of problems that will be dealt with in due time, but for now, I want to discuss Template:Pigs and Template:Bee. Is is because there happen to be a lot of them? Well, if that's the case, then how come dinosuars, rodents, dogs, or cats don't have templates, even though they have about the same number of them? Is it because they're more notable than the others? Regardless of the fact that notability tends to be subjective, from my point of view, neither pigs nor bees have ever been especially prominent in games.

Maybe we just haven't gotten around to creating templates for the other people yet? While creating templates for dogs, cats, rats, et al. would be consistent from a certain point of view, I don't think it's a good idea to start creating navigation templates for these real-world animals. Let me use dogs as an example: the category for dogs lists a whole bunch of things that visually resemble canines, like Fox McCloud, Arfur, Broggy, and much more. As you may have remarked, these three characters are so vastly separate from each other in pretty much every way imaginable. Creating a navigation template for them is like implying that they all have a direct connection to each other, which I just find silly. Plus, think about it from a reader's standpoint: who would read Manager Joe's article, get to the end, and think, "Man, I sure wish that I could go read about Wolf O'Donnell or Poochy with a convenient template"; from where I'm standing, I don't see that happening.

In the interest of keeping all options free, I'll leave three options: deleting the two navigation templates that we currently have (the most convenient choice), creating navigation templates for the other animals (could allow for convenience), or doing nothing (true neutrality).

Proposer: Deadline: February 28, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Delete Templates

 * 1) Per myself.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) i agree.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) There's no need to have a template for only two things that fall under one category and then ignore the rest. Per proposal.
 * 6) Meh, they're pretty useless. Better to have categories.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) We can have a template, or a category, but both is pretty redundant. Plus categories are more suited for this type of thing anyway. So delete the templates.

Comments
Navigation Templates already says these sorts of templates are bad:

"if a group of species only has a few members, a template might be excessive, especially if it is only a minor assortment of species and characters. Conversely, very loose (and often large) groupings such as Fish or Undead should be saved for categories, not templates, as the need for such templates is far less than for specific species groupings like or [or ], and creating too many overlapping templates can clutter up pages."

So you don't need a proposal to delete them, really. -
 * Still, if the templates were created in the first place, there was at least someone who thought it was a good idea/it was necessary to create them. I assumed that there would be others with the same opinion

Couldn't we actually create a template for all animals and have subsections for different species?
 * Templates are supposed to have specific focuses: having all the animals lumped together would be uselessly broad. Better to just use categories. -
 * I just went through the calculations (adding the number of pages in each category for animals), and if I'm not mistaken, such a template would have close to 1500 entries. To compare, Template:LMDM has around 260 entries, Template:PMTTYD has around 330, Template:Super Mario RPG has around 450, and Template:SPM, which I believe is the largest navigation template ever, has around 510. This template would be astronomical when comparing it to templates about games. It's gonna completely dwarf any other species template that we have. Basically, way too impractical.

Also, are people allowed to just make new options in someone else's proposal?
 * "Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation." I'm pretty sure that counts options as well.
 * Yeah, no, random folks can't mess with others' proposals. I removed Mario7's additions. -