MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/23



Remove Fake Bans/Warnings
Remove Fake Bans/Warnings 30-0

OK, now that I royally screwed up my last proposal, let's try this again: On more than a few userpages, I have seen ban notices saying a user has been blocked by ruling of Wario's Butt or something of that sort. These are immature, a waste of space, and can cause you to do a double-take before reading on and finding out that the user wasn't banned, they are just being extremely immature. So now that I've done this properly, let's get rid of this crap. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Ralphfan}} Voting start: 2 September 2010, 00:00 GMT Voting closes: 9 September 2010, 00:00 GMT

Support

 * 1) – Per proposal.
 * 2) - *sigh*, here we go again. Anyways, those templates are annoying. They are warnings and are not to be toyed with.
 * 3) - These make sysops job much more difficult.
 * 4) - Per all
 * 5) get in my way. Per Proposal
 * 6) I agree. They are official templates and even if the wording and terms are changed, it could still easily confuse new users if they get one of those templates.
 * 7) – Per Tucayo, and Marioguy1.
 * 8) Well, if it's about warnings and bans, then per all!
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Well; reminders, warnings, and bans are not playthings, if you play with them, it could result in several users thinking they are Banned. Some people simply look, they do not always read the content of the template. Also, they are very immature due to the problems I said previously, and that their content contains utter gibberish in templates that are supposed to be very serious.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) I say per all.
 * 13) Per all and I recommend MCD to stop assuming.
 * 14) I disagree on your definition of "immature", but I'm still supporting. SYSOPs do not need to spend unnecessary amounts of time searching for warnings.
 * 15) No more Wario's butt nonsense. Per all.
 * 16) Per everybody. Yes, everybody.
 * 17) - Per all.
 * 18) - Ditto here.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) Per Lefty Green Mario.
 * 21) Per all.
 * 22) - Per all.
 * 23) - Per all, let's try not to make life miserable for the Sysops.
 * 24) - Per all.
 * 25) I agree.
 * 26) Per all. Stupid people spamming with templates. I really agree with the immature part, obviously, too.
 * 27) - Per all.
 * 28) - Those are annoying and when you actually do have a block template up it confuses you.
 * 29) - I agree, I feel all bad for that user that they were blocked, and then I read and think, ohhhh... jerks.
 * 30) People that do that are jerks.Per all.

Comments
Now that I've realized the full effects of my other one, let's just get on with this.


 * I'm not sure navboxes are covered under this either, since they aren't an imitation of any real template. Actually, what exactly is the definition of a fake template? That doesn't seem to be clarified anywhere in this proposal.

This only covers ban notices and warning notices. Navboxes are OK.


 * Yeah, I tried to write that in the original version of this and it didn't work right >_>

So, will the other one get deleted?

Once enough admins agree, I guess.

@2257: To answer your question, a fake template is when a user uses the HTML code for the template rather than the template itself. That way, you don't see the list of pages that links to it on the bottom.

Can this include fake maintenance templates too?
 * Except the Under Construction, because users usually don't finish everything at once.

@MrConcreteDonkey: isn't allowed in userpace.
 * BLOF: No, nothing uses HTML code on a wiki, it all uses wikicode. HTML code is kind of the same yet very different. Anyways, yes, that is a fake template. No, that does not include userboxes due to which is a real template with parameters. However it does include all fake construction templates, fake infobox templates and fake warnings.
 * Oh, and I thought this wiki uses HTML the ENTIRE time x_X

@MG1: Construction templates aren't fake, they just aren't allowed in userspace.
 * "However it does include all fake construction templates". *sigh*

@Ralphfan: I'll support if you add fake maintenance templates on since they have as much significanse as the fake warnings and tal pages. Also, can fake talk page proposals on user talks be banned too?

@MrConcreteDonkey: Yes, yes they are. :)
 * Sorry for being a little harsh, but I get irritated REALLY easily. I can't help it. Please, STOP IT. It makes us look bad.
 * Agreed, putting people down isn't nice. Anyways, I don't really think the fake maintenance templates are that much of a bad thing. They're immature but they don't hurt anyone.
 * I hope MrConcreteDonkey changes his vote. He's the one that look bad right now :P

I don't know what's the big issue on fake construction templates. They are on user pages. What makes you think a USERpage needs rewrite or more images uploaded? I think the people who put fake templates on their page just have some sense of humor, not a sense of immaturity. Of course, opinions differ for each person. Bottom-line: fake rewrites do no harm at all.
 * Mainly because new users tend to place real templates into their pages when they see we had done it and we have to go through the issue of notifying them or removing them. Other than that, there is no harm done.

Alright, sorry LGM and BLOF. I guessed since you opposed the last one immediately, but I guessed wrong and forgot that the 1st one was for all fake templates.
 * It's ok. I first started shouting at you, but then, I removed my comment because I got over it. I accept your apology.

Do you think anyone will fall for this???:

(Removed, due to its contents altering the scrollbox template)


 * No, but it does take up space and ultimately is pointless.

OH, PLEASE! Who in the right mind would agree with that hacked template? Also, Per MrConcreteDonkey. Takes up space and is worthless.
 * Me, in my left, evil mind, cuz I created them :(. It is pointless, but it does show a little of your personality.
 * Next time, make your own template or ask the person before putting it on comments. Thank you.

I feel stupid but, what does "per all" mean?
 * It basically means "I agree with everyone supporting/opposing" (whichever applies), but it's much less effort/time to type. 18:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

}}

Making Paper Mario Badge Attack Articles
Do not create Paper Mario Badge Attack Articles 9-14

I think we should make articles on attacks in the first two Paper Marios that you can only use by the use of a badge (i.e. Quake Hammer, Multibounce). It would be necessary to the wiki, since these ARE attacks of Mario's, and even if he needs a badge to use them they still are attacks of his. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} Voting start: 2 September, 2010, 12:00. Deadline: 9 September, 2010, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) I support this proposal and I agree that these attacks should get their own articles.
 * 2) They're ATTACKS. The partner's attacks like Multibonk has seperate articles. So we're saying Mario is LESS important than his allies that appear in one game? Also the other badges aren't needed because they only have effects which will be stubs. This is an ATTACK, and will definitly have more info.
 * 3) Per Booderdash.
 * 4) I taught you meant badges. If it's about attacks, then per booderdash.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Booderdash.

Oppose

 * 1) I am Zero! Oppose to the reasoning of that will be an unprofessional idea to only make all the attack-type badges into articles and not the other badges into articles. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Too minor to have an article, belong in the badge's article.
 * 3) - Per all
 * 4) Well, most of the attack badges would not warrant a description longer than a few sentences, they are not more notable than the other badges, just because they are attacks does not mean they have long descriptions. Not to mention, most of the badge attacks are alterations of Mario's pre-badge attacks, thus the do not deserve articles.
 * 5) Badges =/= Attacks. Many short and crappy articles will be created with this. No, just no.
 * 6) Badge attacks are not permanent attacks, unlike the partner attacks. When you get them (if you get them, that is), you can unequip them. Anyway, almost all of them are just souped up versions of Mario's regular attacks, with maybe a different side-effect here and there. Per all.
 * 7) - I mean with a few of them you could, but this proposal is all of them, and not all of them will be necessary articles. Rather have the badge page longer than have like 30+ stubs.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Per GF75.
 * 10) - You can't make a long-worthy article for just a badge, It'll be a lot of space and people could get a harder/complex navigation over the site
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Imagine all the stubs there would be. Also not enough info to give each badge specific attack an article.
 * 14) Per all.

Comments
Wouldn't this be better as a Pipe Project?

Agreed.

Couldn't this be done by making an article that contains all the Badge Effects (if such an article doesn't exist already)?

Its already done in the Badge article. But the MOVES need seperate articles because they're MOVES.
 * What, so an article describing what happens when you use Move Badges?

@Booderdash: Do you realize how many stubs we're gonna have here?

@Frosty, no like how Multibonk has an article, we make articles for Tornado Jump, Power Jump, Power Smash, Ice Smash etc. @FF65, I don't see how we're going to have that many stubs. I mean they're as important as the special moves for Mario Power Tennis. And the moves can be explained in detail. They're also better than Plane Mario.

Well, if all attack badges are given their own articles, shouldn't ALL badges have separate articles?

Why? All other badges only give effects that can be explained with one line. In attacks, many sentences can be written, and it won't be a stub All the other badges will be stubs.

Well, you can not always "write many sentences" for every attack badge, most of them do things that warrant only a sentence or two.

Not the attack BADGE, but the ATTACK. Like Power Bounce. I don't see how thats less of an importance than Multibonk.

Well, I fail to see how that would work with any positive affects.

Then explain why Multibonk, Kiss Thief, Power Lift etc. has articles, because they're just attacks too.

Um..., Gamefreak, I think you're misunderstanding us. We DON'T want to create articles for BADGES, we want to create articles for ATTACKS like Tornado Jump, Ice Smash, and Power Bounce.

Well, two of those three you said should not have articles, If a certain type of badge has an article, they all must, it is one of are policies. Making an article on a badge attack but not the badge itself, that would simply not work.

Look, you probablt don't even have the game. The badge only ALLOWS you to use the attack, but we want to make an article ON the attack. Like Kiss Thief, and Power Lift. So that is ok.

Well, me having the game has nothing to do with this wiki, the badge is functionally what you need to use the attack, thus if the attack deserves a page, the Badge does too. What I mean is, the badge page is created, with the attack in it, if it is created at all, wich it should not.

No, the BADGE name is the EXACT same as the attack so Tornado Jump the badge would be the same thing as the attack. You would need the game to understand, thats why I mentioned it.

Well, I can not under stand you reasoning, what I meant to say was to make a page of the BADGE not the ATTACK, if make the pages at all.

The proposal is about making the attack! Not the badge! Badges only invoke the attacks.

Well, I know that, the pages badge or Attack should not be created, they would cause many stubs, just because they are attacks does not mean they are notable enough for a page.

Any badge attack is notable like any other one. That's why Booderdash said that you should have the game!

Well, any badge is as important as it's own attack are each other. Also, The fact about me not having has no say in the matter.

Yes it does. It means you don't understand the concept of the attack. You NEED the game to understand or maybe just the original Paper Mario. And the badge isn't important, which you'll clearly know if you have the game, its the ATTACK that is.

Well, the badge and the attack it causes have functionally the same notability, the attacks are are slightly altered versions of Mario's normal attacks.

Is it? Multibonk is the exact same as Headbonk, but repeated alot of times, and Power Bounce is a jump repeated alot of times.

Booderdash, It sounds like you are agreeing with me, the pages you want to be made should not be made because they are not notable enough. The attack badges attacks simply alter Mario's (or his partner's) by adding an effect.

Aha! But you see thing thing is they DO have articles, and for THIS consistency to work, we need to make articles for this, since I doubt many people will agree on deleting those articles anways.

Booderdash, the badges nor their effects do not have articles, they are not notable enough for their own articles.

All, the badges are merged together, so why on earth can't we just merge all the attacks?

Agreed, but the badge attacks are already merged.

I guess we could just merge them all. But I just have a feeling not man people would agree on it. I don't know, I guess we can try. (We need to mae a proposal about it first though.) But another thing to note, none of the moves like Multibonk are stubs, so I don't see how Power Bounce will be a stub either.

Baby Mario Bloops, there are only 10ish attacks in Ttyd, and I doubt all of them are going to be stubs.

Well, there is not sufficient proof that the pages would be long enough not to be stubs, not to mention, the badges(and/or their effects) are not notable enough anyway for pages.

They wouldn't be stubs because Multibonk isn't a stub, and Power Bounce is practically the same thing. Plus things like Ice Smash has even MORE detail (like Freezeing) to be put into the article.

Well, Multibonk is not a badge attack, and powerbounce equals Multibonk, Ice smash has little information that could be produced about it. The badge attacks are only the effects the badge has on Mario's (or his partner's) attacks.

Thats my POINT. How comes MULTIBONK gets an article, while Power Bounce doesn't? Its basically just Partner's attacks VS Mario's attacks.

Why does everyone keep on thinking we're making the article about the badge? We're making it about the ATTACK.

Well, how many time do I have to tell you; the badge causes the "attack," and the "attacks" are simply effects on Mario's (or his partner's) attacks, nothing more nothing less. This is why the do well as a list, they do not have that much information about them that is different from the normal attacks.

I don't care about that, I mean practically everyone else thinks that we're making it ON the badge.

Well, You do not care, not they do not, they think (hopefully) that the badge is equal to the attack, neither of them deserves an article.

Well, if they have the game, they would know that it wasn't. Btw, I think MCS made the description rather misleading and I bet is confusing people...

You are getting of topic, enough about having the game, it does not always matter, in terms of what you are trying to do. I do not have the game and I understand completely what you are trying to do.

No, you don't understand. Its because you don't have the game. I mean so according to your logic, if FPS fanboys say Mario is for kiddy wimps and that they understand that, that means they're right. Its because they never played the game! You always need to either watch the movie, read the book, or play the game before you understand things about it.

I can understand giving a few of the badge specific attack their own articles but there probably won't be enough there to make a good article. A couple probably might if they appeared in more than just one of the Paper Mario games.

Well Booderdash, lets get back on topic, what do you mean "It's because they never played the game," you can understand the game if you read it's own article on this wiki. Also Stapler, we can not give just give a few of them pages, we have to give all of them pages or none of them, it is one of our policies.

All your doing is nitpicking an issue if your going to create seperat articles for attacks then you need to make seperate articles for everything

Well, Read what I said again, you obviously do not know what I mean, and it is one of our policies, not a guideline. Read our policies again and come back after you do so. Also, please speak more clearly. }}