MarioWiki:Proposals

List of talk page proposals

 * Split Category:Super Mario 64 into Category:Super Mario 64 and (discuss) Deadline: Passed
 * Split Pink Coin into Pink Coin (Super Mario Maker) and Pink Coin (Super Mario Run) (discuss) Deadline: Passed

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

Template
Details here. It explains everything while containing the code used to achieve it. Two articles I can think of that uses the  prefix are Nintendo Switch and Electrodrome.


 * - This page () should show up in the file usage section of the file supplied for the template to the left while still providing a link to the file page

Proposer: Deadline: January 8, 2017 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) – I like this idea; it brings together the benefits of both "File:" and "Media:" links. And I can't think of any potential drawbacks, so per proposal.
 * 3) I definitely can see the benefits of this, as the image's page might have interesting information that is going to be missed when just using the "Media:" links.
 * 4) Per all. I see no problems with implementing this.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per Shokoroach. Also my first impression when I read your page.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
I'm confused... What exactly are you proposing? 19:28, 1 January 2017 (EST)
 * Pretty much a way to add a link to the image's page while having the image indicated as used in the page containing the link. At the moment, the image is indicated as used only if you use the Media link, which directly leads to the image, making it cumbersome to read the additional information contained in the image's page, which might sometime be useful. Hopefully soemone else will be able to explain it in more simple terms than me... I would like to support the idea, but I want to know if this workaround does not go against a deliberate choice made by the Wiki's staff to force the use of the Media link.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2017 (EST)
 * I don't think this goes against sysop wishes. At most, we continue using  as we always had (citations with  ) but this time we use  instead. That way the link generated is something more desired if we click it while making sure that the linked file stays out of Special:UnusedFiles. -- 16:46, 2 January 2017 (EST)

Removals
None at the moment.

Expand the "Outcome template" rule to appeal outcomes
Eight months ago, expressed concern about the misuse of proposal outcome headers. Her rationale was that introducing a template to use in all future proposal outcomes would make implementing the archive much easier, and that the usage of Verdana as a font rather than Comic Sans was important because it was web-friendly, and looked more professional. While the proposal brought up a good, well-thought-out idea, and I would have supported it myself, the thing that still bothers me is, why does it only affect proposals and TPPs? I don’t see why it can’t affect the appeals system at all. I do understand that most appeal headers are seldom improperly formatted, but introducing a template could simplify the archiving of the appeals system, let alone the proposal system. For this reason, I have created a draft template, which you can view here for reference on how the archiving system can work via a template. It's still a start, but let's start keeping the archival systems consistent.

Proposer:  Deadline: January 7, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) The only reason the appeal outcomes haven't been included is that I completely forgot about them, really. Per proposal, and per consistency.
 * 3) per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) This doesn't need a proposal.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Sounds like this is a good idea that was forgotten about in the past proposal. Per all
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) – Looks good to me, per proposal.
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
I just fixed a formatting error in your original proposal text where you linked to your main userpage, instead of the subpage you seem to have intended to link to. 18:17, 31 December 2016 (EST)
 * Thanks for doing that! 18:26, 31 December 2016 (EST)

How funny :) I created a draft for that like 7 months ago for LGM, I didn't notice it wasn't implemented yet.-- 11:13, 1 January 2017 (EST)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.