MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Peach (item) to Peach Blossom (Discuss) Deadline: November 6, 2014, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Mushroom Retainer to Toad (species). (Discuss) Deadline: November 7, 2014 23:59 GMT
 * Delete the Peach Items category. (Discuss) Deadline: November 9, 2014 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Merge all warioware microgames with their respective List of microgames in ___
Er... Well... I suck at these. But er... User:Tsunami convinced me to do this. I think that it would be a good idea to get rid of microgame articles because number one: There tiny. Stubs. Honestly, we look for so many stubs, but no one mentions the microgames. And most of them are so minor, all you must do is tap something. It's minor, and minor warrents an article, but there are so many of them they clog the random and take up waaaaay too much space. I'm pretty sure Warioware has more articles than the Mario party and kart series have combined. And I don't think anyone who looked up Paratroopa ment the microgame.

So my idea is that we put them all in one article in an organized manor, like the List of implied Characters. We don't need to cut information, we can just copy paste it. Nothing new has to be written. I understand that this will be a MASSIVE merge, something I don't even want to know how to do. But I think it's worth it. Just please, hear me out. And er... don't criticize me for a horrible proposal.

Proposer: Deadline: November 2, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) [As proposer.]

Oppose

 * 1) Regardless of how minor you may consider them to be, and regardless how how many they are, they're still things. That sounds silly, but they are their own individual things with their own individual aspects to them, like their respective designs, their respective music, their respective difficulties, their respective controls, their respective captions, and so on and so forth. I don't see why they should be merged. Besides that, merging them all to giant lists would make them ridiculously cluttered. The largest article with have for implied things has ninety-nine entries, and most of that is usually just a few sentences for each image. The number of microgames per WarioWare series, on the other hand, has a minimum of 177 (for WarioWare: D.I.Y. Showcase) and 223 (for WarioWare: Twisted!). Keep in mind that, once all of these articles are primed for completion, they will all have infoboxes that list an image, its controls, its in-game caption, and its in-game score to beat, as well as an intro sentence and a few more lines dedicated to the differences between difficulty, and that's not including the potential of describing the actual visuals of the microgame. Transferring all of that into a single list would either make the article enormous, to the point where it'd be more practical to have them separate, or some info would need to be trimmed, which would mean that info would be lost and therefore it would be better to keep them separate. Bottom line is, it's harmless to have individual articles for them, and it's a lot better than mashing it all together into a list.
 * 2) - Small pages aren't stubs as long as they have all the info, even if it's a small amount. Many small articles is better than a few large ones: they're easier for loading, especially to lower power or older devices, they're better for navigation, they serve most readers better than single massive pages (i.e. if you only want the one microgame, you an go straight to it), and they bring in the search traffic from Google and whatnot. The wiki's stance has been like this for some time: splits, not merges, is the way to go.
 * 3) Per Time Turner and Walkazo
 * 4) I agree. Also, small articles are not necessarily stubs. Paper Mario ingredient articles don't get merged, but they contain useful information. Now, there can be a page listing every microgame at a glance, but merging all microgames into a super article is not what I'd like to do. Finally, I'm pretty sure WarioWare has less articles than the massive Mario Party and Mario Kart series combined.
 * 5) All mini games, no matter how big or how micro, get their own articles. Per all.
 * 6) Per all. Massive pages are just a nay. And there are some other reasons to not do it, that are already listed. Can't add anything.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) Then we should merge Mario Party minigames, but we don't. Per all.
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
@Timeturner Niice Paragraph, but number 1: The massive numbers prove my point. The abundance of nearly identical numbers is clogging the random, and I think having a few giant articles would be easier. It wouldn't be too cluttered, I mean, is the list of implied characters considered cluttered?
 * "Clogging the random"? Is that really such a crucial thing that needs to be addressed? Besides the fact that a lot of people simply ignore the random button, is the fact that some fraction of our articles is covered by the microgames really something that bad? Also, one of my biggest points was that the implied things and the microgames are not comparable. We can scoot away with having articles like the implied character because the info on them ranges from a sentence to a short paragraph. With the microgames, on the other hand, there is a metric ton more info to cover when compared to them. Having giant articles for everything gave us things like Conker (series) and Banjo (series), which (though they are gone now) were amalgamations of nearly every single aspect from those two series and was recognized by everyone as being a cluttered mess. There was nothing more but more images and more info to deal with (in comparison to the implied characters article, by the way), but it ending up being an untamed beast. Now, add infoboxes to the mix, and you'll see why having one superlist for all of it will simply not work.
 * Yeah I guess your kinda right. I for one often use the random button, and it annoys me when I get a microgame nobody cares about. But I realize it would get cluttered in one page. Toadbrigade5 (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2014 (EDT)

@Walkazo: Wow. Can't believe I messed up on the definition of a stub. Thanks for clearing a few things up though.

@Toadbrigade5 If you understanded and want to close the proposal since there is no way it can pass/you want to oppose too/other reasons, you can ask to do so, as long it is before November 29 00:00 GMT (if I got it right), to an admin, such as Walkazo. Just saying, since by your comments I realize you realized.
 * Yeah, he can remove it himself anytime during its first three days of existence (i.e. between now and Oct. 29, 1:16 GMT, but really, we won't complain if it's later in the day on the 29th), or ask one of us to do it for him after the 29th. It just has to be archived properly, rather than simply removed. -

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.