MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/23



Change categories such as "Category:Beta elements" to "".
DELETED &mdash; Proposer was banned

From what I hear, the beta elements pages were created because it was too difficult for the reader to find beta elements unless they were split out. This way, articles can be meatier and less forked, and readers can still find the relevant content. This proposal would affect all related categories and articles related to those categories such as Category:Glitches, and would result in the subpages being merged, such as Mario's Tennis/Beta elements. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|NARCE}} Voting start: 12 July, 2010 21:16 Deadline: 19 July, 2010 21:16

Support

 * 1) As the proposal creator.

Oppose

 * 1) Useless. How can an article have beta elements?
 * 2) Well, there is no point in changing the name by two letters, and merging the "subpages" would cause some pages to double in length with information that works well in separate articles. Also, it would take a good amount of time to move the information, the current setup has worked with new and old users, that is why this proposal lacks a point.
 * 3) - Pointless.
 * 4) - Per all. The current set-up works just fine.
 * 5) It'll just make it longer to tye in. Basically useless
 * 6) Per Baby Mario Bloops' comment.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - This would be completely pointless. Per all.
 * 9) I am Zero! Very pointless and per all. Zero signing out.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - We decided in an earlier proposal that they would have their own pages.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) -Merging the pages is useless. The way the pages are now makes everything more organized and easy to browse through. Per all.
 * 14) - If this had been here when I first got my account, i would support. Now i know more, i've learned enough to know the answer should be no,it works fine. Per Pseudo-Dino, Not Bugsy, and 4DJONG.
 * 15) - Per all. If we made that it would be just history of pages we made.

Comments
Why?
 * This is one of the times I can easily say "Good Point" to you, KS3. We don't need the Articles with part as it is just extra and we don't need the extra.

Well, I concur with you both because the first two words in the proposed name are pointless.
 * Looking at Mario, size doesn't seem to be a problem with MarioWiki articles. To say that there is no point in creating a more concise article is absurd - it would factually improve them, and whatever ones aren't improved by the measure can easily remain split out on a case-by-case basis. The whole reason the split-off sections exist was to more easily categorize them. This, factually, solves the problem of categorization. Is it a problem if a category doesn't sport some amaazingly flashy name? - NARCE 04:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have made your assertion invalid.
 * Actually, it didn't, at all. The assertion was that we had to split these articles out because it was difficult to find such beta content/glitches/etc. This is an acceptable, logical fix to that problem. The proposal is to make articles like Yoshi's Island into a little more than a bunch of lists, which it currently is. Beta elements and glitches are two of the things that, if added, could make that article WAY more interesting. But as it stands, people have to navigate away from the page constantly in order to get a full experience. Splitting these articles out in the first place was pointless - changing categories and merging articles doesn't have to be done overnight, and can be done by multiple people. To the person who said that it would take longer to type in, that's simply not true. As it stands, if one searches for Glitches, they go to Category:Glitches. If one searches for Beta elements, they go to Category:Beta elements. Why would it have to change? If someone searches for Glitches, they can still go to the category. It would be no more difficult than if it stayed at the current title. Basically, the proposal seeks to have more concise articles, rather than have all of the sections forked off. And again, to the point that it would make them too big: I've never seen anywhere where someone would suggest forking an article off because of size. Mario is incredibly large, but no one has said anything. SMW2 is surprisingly small, and could be made larger if relevant content were moved back. However, there is no way to move it back, because of a proposal that argues that because the category is worded that way, content related to glitches or beta elements may not be in the main articles. As opposed to having a strong article, we have a weak article with two subarticles. It's silly. If the amount of effort required is a problem, I can do it all myself. It shouldn't matter if it's pointless if it doesn't affect anyone else, and the amount of time doesn't matter because I'm fine doing it over time. It is not as if the new proposal would confuse readers - they would surely adapt immediately. The only contention is the page length problem, and again, such a thing may be handled on a case-by-case basis. If it does indeed make the article too long, agreed, it should be split out. But for some content where it is just a few sentences, especially when the main article is small, then we ought to definitely merge it back in. As it stands, opposing the measure feels like opposition for the sake of opposition. - NARCE 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second. That doesn't sound right at all... Seriously, ARTICLES can't have beta elements. Name one that does.
 * Mario's Tennis/Beta elements

Well NARCE, there are no short game articles, and the situation with SMG2 could be fixed with adding more content, doesn't have to be Beta elements. Also, this would affect all game pages and glitches, if you merge the beta elements of one game with the games page, you have to do it with all game pages, some of which are rather long pages, and merging long pages with long pages makes monitoring the article a nightmare for Patrollers and Admins. Plus you say "it shouldn't matter if its pointless" but, it does, if you make a moderate article long through pointless measures, it is not necessary. If something is pointless it is not logical.
 * No, we don't HAVE to do it with ALL of them. That is broken logic that has NO place in an argument. If it negatively affects the quality of an article, then it can be avoided. Do you people not have guidelines? Policies and guidelines are two different things. Policies are to be enforced at all times, while guidelines are to be enforced when the situation calls for it. If a guideline would be detrimental to the quality of an article, it is to be ignored. But your stance is that because of the exception of articles, not the majority of them, that it should not be enforced on any articles. Mario's Tennis can use as much content as it gets, and yet we're forking the information off for no reason. And as for your argument that SMW2 [not G2] is not small, yes, it's not small by stub standards. But why is it shorter than the Wikipedia article? Logically, Wikipedia should have less content for its articles than a website that is focused on the related subject, true? - NARCE 02:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well NARCE, we have to do it with all articles because it is one of our policies, ask Steve, and it would be very hard for anyone check for vandalism. Also, we do have guidelines but they are different from what you seem to think they are, I advise you to check over our policies. We can not simply ignore our policies, we have to follow them, and you say that it is "broken logic," then why is it a policy. I can not make this clearer, check over our policies again. }}

Stricter featured article standards.
DELETED &mdash; Proposer was banned

From looking through some of the FACs, as well as some of the articles already featured, I've seen that not one article actually passes the criteria presented in MarioWiki's FA standards. Let's examine them, and let's use the most recent article - Mario Power Tennis - as an example.

  1. …be well-written and detailed. - Not the worst writing, but it could be improved significantly in both flow and how it presents itself. But the problem with this point is that it is not detailed. Gameplay and plot-wise? Yes. But it does not educate the reader of how it came into being, nor does it tell readers how much it sold, or how the critics received it.

  2. …be unbiased, non-point of view. - Not a major problem, but I did notice some instances where the writer[s] give their own POV, such as suggesting that Wario and Waluigi being injured in the commission of their evil scheme was unfortunate [whereas someone may object and say that because they only got injured by their own evil design, they got what they deserved].

  3. …be sourced with all available sources and Mario-related appearances. - And here's the kicker. Some may argue that it is sourced in that it has A source, but that's not acceptable. This criteria clearly expects an article to be fully referenced. As it is, almost every article fails this standard, save for some like the "list of Zess T. recipes", whose source is obviously the game.

  6. …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic and can be used for the front page featured box. - The lead does not mention who created the game [the person, not the company], how well it was received, and mentions the Wii version as an important aspect, when the Wii version should be mentioned at the end, as this article is about the GameCube version.

  8. …have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles. - Aside from development and reception info, it is fairly significant, but it fails this criteria in that it doesn't take from any sources.

Without any criticism of what is there - such as the bloopers, which, as a Wikipedian, I'm not a fan of them being there, but I do understand that this is supposed to be a "complete Wiki", and as such, they should be there - I can say that what isn't there absolutely guarantees that is is not ready for featured status. I think people take it too seriously - first and foremost, writing a quality article is priority over being praised for it. There are rules put in place to prevent people from successfully featuring more than three articles. Seriously - take pride in your work, not the award you get for it.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|NARCE}} Voting start: 12 July, 2010 22:42 Deadline: 19 July, 2010 22:42

Support

 * 1) As the proposal creator.

Oppose

 * 1) Useless, and thats way too strict. That would make us have to unfeature alot of our previous featured articles.
 * 2) - Everything you have proposed just now is basically already in the FA rules. The "problem" here is that FA nominations contain a voting process, and as such, they are subjective. The reason why these articles get featured despite their flaws is because there were, are, and always will be people who just aren't so strict with rules, and as such, are more indulgent with the nominated articles. Your proposal will not change the people's hearts, and therefore, it is pointless.
 * 3) - Nothing is ever perfect to everyone. That is why we have the voting system. If you do this, then it is like impossible for an FA to become a FA.
 * 4) What they're standards are fine.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Per Booderdash.
 * 7) Well, all of it is already in the the FA rules, and there are many people who are not as strict with the rules as you. Also, the rules are subjective with every article in the Wiki, every article has different problems and strengths, some are minor some major, there is a difference between what really needs to be fixed and what you can fix on your own. If there were only strict people running the process, there would be no featured articles, that is why this proposal is useless.
 * 8) The standards are perfectly fine...
 * 9) Per Edofenrir and Gamefreak75.
 * 10) - No featured article is perfect, and just apply these rules only lead that all our articles are horribly made.
 * 11) Per all.

Comments
Man, you make too many proposals x.x
 * You can never have too many legitimate proposals. - NARCE 16:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Legitimate"? What's wrong with the FA standards now? Have you really seen FA's that actually do not follow at least one rule? And of those articles, which of them are currently or have been nominated for unfeaturing? We don't need to expand the rules, we understand the rules, and we have a excellent rule system for FA's.
 * The problem with the FA standards is that people use a case-by-case standard that they wish to apply whenever a favourite game or character or element is up for FA. The FA standards are almost never enforced in any meaningful way. And it's "like impossible"? Why is it impossible, when it frequently works on Wikipedia? The nomination process is basically "do you like this character? y/n" for a lot of people who will vote the worst article FA if they like the subject. And to the notion that there is any problem with the defeaturing of the articles... how are articles helped by keeping them featured? Having such a mediocre standard for featuring encourages mediocrity. The voting system is easily fixed by removing it as an outright vote. I see peoples' opinions being removed by opposition because they argue that it has been already addressed or that their point does not matter. The whole process is ruthlessly stacked in favour of featuring an article. - NARCE 04:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that NARCE has been making a lot of proposals and hasn't actually formatted them right.

I concur, and NARCE some votes are like that but, not all of the votes are like that. Most of the time I see a FA nomination it is full of meaningful votes.
 * Why shouldn't all votes be like that? This isn't a popular vote, it's based on the quality of the article. If we had 100 people vote and say "I sure do like Birdo, she's neat", by the current rules, it would pass, even if the article didn't fulfill any of the criteria once it was examined. The featuring feature will eventually be reformed. Would you rather it happen after we feature many more articles, or would you rather fix it as soon as possible? - NARCE 20:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have one support reason and a group of people who agree with it, and there are no votes against it saying that they hate the object in question, so this proposal is pointless.
 * Yeah. Good point. If more people are against it, then it cannot be enacted into rules. Because if we let the people vote on interracial marriage, I'm sure that the fact that the popular vote was against it wouldn't prevent it from being legalized. Correct?
 * You have a reason - doesn't mean it's a good one. Why don't I go down the list of what people say and I will gladly explain why they do not work in this.


 * "Useless, and thats way too strict. That would make us have to unfeature alot of our previous featured articles." - An emotional response, not a logical one. It is not too strict. It's adhering to the rules of the MarioWiki. This doesn't even need a proposal - it's already how the Wiki is supposed to work. However, because popularity determines quality nowadays, people ignore the rules to see that their favourite article gets featured. As it stands, it's not too strict because the way things are, it's WAY too lenient. To enforce these rules would make the situation exactly how it should be.
 * "Everything you have proposed just now is basically already in the FA rules. The "problem" here is that FA nominations contain a voting process, and as such, they are subjective. The reason why these articles get featured despite their flaws is because there were, are, and always will be people who just aren't so strict with rules, and as such, are more indulgent with the nominated articles. Your proposal will not change the people's hearts, and therefore, it is pointless." - Basically agreeing that the policies are taken into account. The proposal is not pointless, as clearly, if the rules aren't enforced, they aren't rules. All that would have to be done is for the people in charge to say "Hey, this article fails [so and so] rule, it cannot be featured despite votes." In doing so, the proposal is given point.
 * "Nothing is ever perfect to everyone. That is why we have the voting system. If you do this, then it is like impossible for an FA to become a FA." - This is clearly not true. There needs to be more effort in featuring articles. Heck, in looking at the lead for Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story, I notice some immediate flaws with the lead. And it's clearly not impossible by the fact that the MUCH stricter Wikipedia has thousands of featured articles.
 * "What they're standards are fine." - I'm not sure what this means, but I assume it means "What? Their standards are fine." To which I respond with no. I've done a bevy of examining, and I frequently see people defend themselves from criticisms of grammar. People get far too sensitive to criticism, and really should be tougher.
 * "Well, all of it is already in the the FA rules, and there are many people who are not as strict with the rules as you. Also, the rules are subjective with every article in the Wiki, every article has different problems and strengths, some are minor some major, there is a difference between what really needs to be fixed and what you can fix on your own. If there were only strict people running the process, there would be no featured articles, that is why this proposal is useless." - Perhaps there would be some awkwardness in the changeover, but your acts attempt to keep the quality of the articles down. With such low standards for quality - frequently I will see a vast majority of support from people based on the sheer size or number of images, and I will go through and notice typos, grammatical errors, etc. I understand that the editors are young - not to sound critical, as when I used to edit here I remembered there being a lot of people in their tweens/early teens. If we keep with lenient rules, without being more strict about quality, we encourage mediocrity. The harder we are on editors to provide quality in order to achieve something - especially something considered a high honour - the more people will work to improve. Really, in the end, it's the person expecting hard work and not the person protecting them from it that is helping. Improvement can only come from effort. - NARCE 02:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Narce, once again, you're mixing Wikipedia up with Mariowiki. The standards are fine for MARIOWIKI. The standards on wikipedia has to be higher because more people edit it so of course its going to need alot stricter standards. Not Mariowiki, and we don't even have 1/1000th of Wikipedia articles anyways. Our pages are usually shorter. Its like the Kirby wikia. They're featured article standard are MUCH smaller than even ours. Its relative
 * Our standards our excellent here. The problem is that we don't enforce them, at all. In allowing a system that focuses on votes, not actual statements, as well as the popular vote being able to oust the opposition if they so choose, it denies the ability to make a quality article. There is no encouragement to be found for people to improve themselves, merely celebrating mediocrity. Not to suggest that the articles are mediocre, but the fact of the matter is that they are far weaker than they can and should be. - NARCE 06:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"sigh" The popular vote thing. Yeah, thats life. You think I don't know about it? But the good think is that it rarely happens here. Yes it DOES happen but rarely.

I concur, and NARCE, give me an example of a bad FA nomination that didn't take place years ago.
 * Half of the FAs that are going on? I went through the M&LBiS article, and found numerous errors in the first two paragraphs. - NARCE 21:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You edited the part that came directly from the instruction book, that's why.
 * And there was even a typo in that content.
 * Oh, thank you for reminding me. In the first two paragraphs of an article that was very likely to become featured was a copyright violation. - NARCE 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually Booderdash, the Kirby Wikia is going to have much higher standards, but probably a little looser than those of the MarioWiki since we are a smaller wiki.

Really you mean this?: this? That is WAY smaller than the Mariowiki! Or this- wikirby which is SMALLER than the wikia version!


 * Yup, there haven't been many Kirby games, so it's definitely smaller in size. And the first one. --

" And it's clearly not impossible by the fact that the MUCH stricter Wikipedia has thousands of featured articles."

It also is way older, has a much broader scope, is read by about 180+ millions people daily, and has about a million of users. Not exactly the best comparison. --Glowsquid 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)}}