MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/40

Rumors Section
DON'T HAVE 1-13

I believe that we should have a rumors section on articles that include rumors. This section could have a notice in it, stating that all it contains are rumors and have no proof. Some of the more popular rumors (like the DLC characters in Mario Kart 8, or the E3 "leak" in SSB4) could be added. A similar section is used on Zelda Wiki, for theories. The rumors section would allow people to see what may be in the game. While it may not be very encyclopedia-ish, it would be more helpful, which is indeed what MarioWiki is designed to be, right? I doubt I'll win this but you never know unless you try. So yeah.

Proposer: Deadline: June 20, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal. I think it would be useful to know what may or may not be in the game.

Oppose

 * 1) We document on what's confirmed, not on widely circulated unconfirmed, unofficial information. According to the Citation Policy, "Rumours and misleading info is commonplace online, so showing readers that we are not fabricating our info and in turn, letting them evaluate the trustworthiness of our sources is especially important." This policy is there to leave out rumors and keep us as a reputable source. We don't want people taking rumors as true just because they're documented here. Finally, there are countless rumors regarding upcoming games, so having to document all of them is going to be impossible. The only type of rumors that may be covered here are those debunked years ago, and even then, it's a maybe.  I see that you're trying to make sections that already inform the reader that the information is dubious, but why add such information in the first place? I don't really agree with fan "theories" on Link Wiki either, but that's another wiki anyway. Anyhow, the best place to discuss rumors would be the appropriate talk page, so really, nothing is lost if this proposal fails; there's just an equally-valid outlet to put rumors and other information.
 * 2) The internet is a chock full place of rumors. Look at Reddit and 4chan, they're basically "Rumors: The Site". We're not gonna site all rumors, and these are as valid as fan content such as fan games, no matter how popular or how well-documented they are. Well-known rumors like the Sonic and Tails April Fools joke in Super Smash Bros. Melee are more suited for Trivia sections. Also, per Mario.
 * 3) Per both. Though I worry that discussing rumours on the talkpage may qualify as forum talk.
 * 4) Per All.
 * 5) If we had a rumours section, Ridley would be all over the SSB4 page and this would the Fanrio Wiki.
 * 6) Simply allowing rumors to be added may allow people to see what may be in the game as you've said. However, it doubts their mind on if we are really covering things from the game or from randomness. Encyclopedias only contains facts, so that they can be trusted. And as what LGM said, our Citation Policy already shows why rumors are not allowed. The Good Writing disallow speculation, which is the rumors are part of. And I agree with Yoshi876.
 * 7) Sorry, but the wiki covers real and comfirmed things, like an encyclopedia. But I guess everyone else is saying that too, huh?
 * 8) Per policy. However, if you feel that a particular rumor might be useful for a particular article and can make a good case for it, feel free to hit up that articles talk page.
 * 9) Nope... in this way we can add any fan-made information and this wiki will be a fanon (or at least in part).
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Just when I thought we couldent think of a more pointless idea....(Facepalm)
 * 12) Not on the page. Keep that kind of stuff to the talkpage if allowed.
 * 13) Mario Wiki is for confirmed things by Nintendo.

Comments
@Yoshi876, it's not really forum talk, imo. We're talking about improving the article, so bringing up rumors and stuff can help us verify and filter information before it's added. We did allow some Mario Kart 8-related rumors on its talk page, usually the well-circulated ones, so we shouldn't remove those. Forum talk isn't really finely defined, so use your own judgement to see if it pertains to the article or not. 16:52, 13 June 2014 (EDT)

Although I expected this to go rather poorly (as mentioned in my proposal), it appears (at least to me) that you think I'm suggesting putting rumors all over the page (like, in the characters section for SSB4 put Ridley as a rumored character). I was thinking rumors would be limited to just a single section (or possibly a page in a similar vein to SmashWiki). These rumors would make no other appearances on the site (except talk pages). Peanutjon (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Even if it's confined to a single page, it's still opening the floodgates for kiddies to trip themselves over to add low-quality content and obvious nonsense like ~leaked conference listing sheets~ photographed at an odd angle or w/e. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2014 (EDT).

Make a new reference page.
DO NOTHING 4-0-11

Recently I was on the web, and found an article on a Mario reference in Wreck-It-Ralph. However, it was in the Wreck-It-Ralph ride in Disney Land. The Reference was a sign saying SUPER MARIO BROS. PIPES CLOGGED!!! I thought a reference page covering this sort of thing would be a good idea, or the discussions between Disney and Nintendo.

Proposer: Deadline: June 23, 2014, at 23:59 GMT

Make a new reference page

 * 1) If there actually is such a reference, then we make a page entitled something along the lines of . Sure, we have pages of Mario references in many different forms: advertisements, cartoons, films, TV, music, technology, plays, games, and the Internet. Still, good catch,.
 * 2) Now that I think about it, this isn't such a bad idea. Per the hill of stones.
 * 3) – I would have it as something else, but I can't think of one.

Do Nothing

 * 1) Per myself in the comments, as far as this proposal makes it this is the only reference within theme parks, and therefore a page with one thing like that is kind of pointless in my opinion.
 * 2) Put this movie reference in movie references page and on Mario's page. When it's released, of course. No need for a whole new page, like Yoshi876 said.
 * 3) Per my comments below.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) ...No. Per all.
 * 6) Per Yoshi, even if we did make a "references in theme parks" page there would only be one small reference.
 * 7) What do think this page is for? Collecting Cyber dust?
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Ninelevendo (actually there is something from Wrech-it-Ralph)
 * 10) Per all. Why would I say yes?
 * 11) Not exactly "do nothing", but just add it as a asterisk in the appropriate section in "List of Mario references in film".

Comments
Where's the none option, because this proposal needs it? It is covered on List of Mario references in film and according to coverage that's all that needed, if we created a page like you propose then we may as well create a page on every single movie, TV show, song, or internet video that has something related to Mario in it.
 * I agree, basically your proposal forces us to pick something you like. Add a "Do nothing" option please. -- 14:27, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I do agree with SuperYoshiBros to add a stalemate option, but I'm convinced as to whether the two have understood the proposal. It said John G found the reference at the Disney ride,  not  the film itself.  At last, the rock fell.

14:50, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * My apologies I did misread the proposal, but unless there are numerous references, I don't think one amusement park attraction should get a references page. Unless there are numerous references from numerous places, this should just be mentioned as a sidenote on the Wreck-It Ralph section in the film references.

First off, as noted, there needs to be an oppose option. Secondly, this is covered by the various List of Mario references articles we have. Check to make sure what you want added isn't already there and add it to the appropriate list. I doubt you're going to get any support for a formal Wreck-It-Ralph article, as the movie has nothing to do with Mario outside of a few mentions (this stretches to other Ralph related promotional material). -- Chris 14:50, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

"List of Mario references in amusement parks" sounds way too specific to have its own page. 15:53, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Under the note on the references in film page about Mario in Ralph, subnote in about the reference in further promotional adaptions. Serves the purpose without making a throwaway article. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:59, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

I just contacted the proposer on the talk page issue about a "Do Nothing" option. I'm still awaiting a response.  At last, the rock fell. 17:28, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * As this is not a creative change that alters the goal of the proposal, I've went ahead and added an oppose section. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 12:10, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Against the rules, my foot; somebody needs to add an "oppose" section. For the love of god, who cares if it breaks a rule if the proposer doesn't even format it properly? Sheesh. 15:26, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Rules like that are meant to be followed, if the proposer does not add in an oppose within the allowable timeframe, then it'll probably be vetoed for the lack of an oppose section.
 * Rules are just guidelines for bettering the wiki and community. If the user doesn't format a proposal properly, then we should help everyone (including this wiki), rather than hiding behind rulebook and waiting for the proposal to be vetoed. It's better to oppose the proposal so we can resolve it rather than waiting for it to be deleted just because the proposer didn't add a "do nothing" section. If we add an oppose section now, we're breaking the rules properly, and that's what counts. 15:36, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I'm not "hiding behind the rulebook", I want an oppose section in there so I can throw my two cents into the main body of the proposal rather than dilly-dally around saying why I think it's a bad idea in the comments section as it has no outcome on the overall proposal. I think it's better to inform the user that an oppose section is necessary and if they don't and if they do not follow this they face the consequence of their proposal getting vetoed. Hopefully this will get them to learn from their mistakes rather than just thinking that other people will come along and fix what they should do in the first place which would make a better user, and with a better user, the wiki and the community becomes a better place.
 * I don't like assuming this guy has ignored the requests and all; he wasn't active ever since the proposal was made. I don't want to assume it's out of carelessness and he expects us to fix it for him; it sounds unhealthy to make such assumptions. We can oppose the proposal now just so there is a valid reason for it to fail. Sorry, I was just a tad annoyed that people revert (in my opinion) appropriate changes and then cite the rules. don't permaban me and force me to eat chocolate-covered bacon strips . 16:04, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I don't want to assume bad faith in the user, I just cited that reason as it is a common thing, people just being fine with letting others finish what they should have. I'll make you eat normal bacon instead.
 * This is ridiculous. If someone makes a proposal and doesn't make an oppose section, will that proposal get vetoed? no. Adding a "Do Nothing" section is exactly like making an Oppose section someone forgot.  17:12, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * No the proposal would get vetoed, as having something with no oppose section is detrimental to the upkeep of the wiki.
 * Consulted with administrative team over IRC, they agreed that the presence or absence of an 'oppose' selection alters the course of the discussion enough that not having it is detrimental. Additionally, the editing rule relates to proposal itself, not standard procedures of the wiki at large (will request this is made more clear in further rule revisions). -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 17:37, 17 June 2014 (EDT)

Make a Mario Answers page
DON'T HAVE 1-9

Wikipedia has one, many wikis have them. There is no reason for Mario Wiki not to have an Answers page.

Proposer: Deadline: June 23, 2014, at 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) This page? Our forum? Or the talk pages? Whatever use the proposed page may have, don't these already fulfill it?
 * 2) Do you have any idea how many opinions would clash? Certain users wouldn't actually have real or correct answers, and arguments could happen, such as the 3D World Toad issue.
 * 3) Per LGM, If you need anything Mario-related or not, ask them on our help desk on the forums.
 * 4) I feel that our community is robust enough that answers can be more readily found by posting on the forums or asking in chat.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) We can`t just add an entire section because "Wikipedia has one so we should have one." We should add something because it help the wiki not make it look like the others.
 * 7) Per Mario and the second sentence of my comment.
 * 8) If we're asking general things about Mario, use the forum. Pages on the wiki should be used to improve it, and if you think your question will improve a page, then voice it on the respective article's talkpage.
 * 9) We have the forum for that.

Comments
Answers on what? This is a really vague proposal.
 * I agree with Yoshi876. Please tell us what an Answers page is exactly, then we'll know which side we're for. (Oh, and by the way, could you make suggestions and comments? That would help out a ton.)  At last, the rock fell.

14:44, 16 June 2014 (EDT) What is an answer page anyway?! Besides, we can't copy Wikipedia all the time. 15:49, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I think it's a thing in which you ask questions about Mario stuff 21:31, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

@: You are right. @Mario: Check the Wikisimpsons link I left and see how they make answers.
 * If that's the case then, we have it. It's called the forum.

Delete the age-rating companies articles
DELETE 16-0

This has been on my mind for quite a good time. The age-rating companies (I'm referring to ESRB, CERO, ACB, USK, DEJUS, PEGI) are pages that includes information about seriously nothing related to the Marioverse itself, the first also includes some worthless trivia, and overly big tables including rating that the Mario series games fall only in one or two of them by the maximum. Of course, I only propose deleting the page, the rating will be kept in the infobox of the games. Just the links will be changed to wikipedia's. The pages should be eliminated, they do not serve the wiki's purpose other than filling some links, which can be filled by Wikiedia's links. It includes much more information than us on that specific subject anyway.

The page do not provide lists of games with those rating, I guess It doesn't matter since we can look into Rating Image's usage to check this up.. Anyway, I'm thinking about creating a category for each rating, hadn't sorted my mind yet, but that's not what the proposal is about.

Bottom line: It's a media/related page that do not include much needed information, burn it.

Proposer: Deadline: June 23, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) they're about as relevant to Mario as retail outlets and trade shows.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) They won't be missed. Nobody is sane enough to go to a MarioWiki to research ESRB ratings
 * 4) Per all. Agree with the idea of a category. Maybe link the ratings off to relevant sites for more information.
 * 5) Why does it exist in the first place?
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Like E3, and other terms like this, this should only be a note in the glossary.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) What's the point of them here when they're supposed to be Wikipedia articles?? Per all.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) Per all
 * 12) – I don't really want them to be deleted, but they probably should due to the things mentioned above.
 * 13) If we don't get E3, why do we need ESRB...? Plus, it's really just pointless and doesn't have much to do with Mario.
 * 14) Good idea.
 * 15) Great thinking. I mean seriously, why the fuck do we need a ESRB page. It's fucking pointless on the wiki other than for some shits and giggles. Besides I think the links to the ESRB can be filled with Wikipedia links instead just as the proposal says.
 * 1) Great thinking. I mean seriously, why the fuck do we need a ESRB page. It's fucking pointless on the wiki other than for some shits and giggles. Besides I think the links to the ESRB can be filled with Wikipedia links instead just as the proposal says.

Comments
@Pwwnd123 Watch. Your. Language. Please. 19:14, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * He's allowed to swear as long as it's not directed at anyone nor if it's excessive. But, Pwwnd, don't overdo it. 19:16, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Alright but I won't be like the AVGN.

I think to merge all the ratings pages. It's neither support or unsupport
 * I'm not allowed to change the proposal currently, maybe make a proposal about that after this ends. While personally, I don't agree; The pages don't hold useful information to exist here anyway.-- 10:36, 21 June 2014 (EDT)