MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Make its own page (Discuss) Deadline: January 31, 2014, 23:59 GMT. Passed.
 * Delete the Mushroom Universe page (Discuss) Deadline: February 04, 2014, 23:59 GMT
 * Change the board table layout for Mario Party: Island Tour back to the original one (Discuss) Deadline: February 5, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Stop considering Mattermouths as Dry Bones (Discuss) Deadline: January 16, 2014, 23:59 GMT Extended: January 23, 2014, 23:59 GMT, February 6, 2014, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Bat (Luigi's Mansion) with Bat (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) (Discuss) Deadline:: February 10, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

Bowser's Minions-Category
On the left side of the screen Bowser's Minions should be a category instead of enimies because there are so many.

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

Oppose

 * No, the purpose of "Browse" section is to be broad. Placing Koopas there is too specific. Just as we don't put humans in there.
 * 1) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 2) Unneeded, the category Koopas will suffice.
 * 3) If we were to put Koopas there, then it wouldn't be that logical to put Goombas there, and it'd just escalate until we had a whole bunch of unneeded and as Baby Luigi said too specific subjects in the "Browse" section, making it cluttered, overly lengthy and less helpful.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) If we put Koopas there, soon there would be a proposal saying we should put Goombas there. This would go on until the browse list reaches 50 entries.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
Could you be more specific? I cannot understand the one sentence proposal with spelling and gramatical errors. 19:42, 26 January 2014 (EST)
 * He's talking about the links on the left part of the page, specifically on the section labeled "browse". He wants to add a Koopas link in there.

There are more goombas than koopas! I might cancel this now.
 * Aren't you going to support your proposal?

Create an [unconfirmed glitch] template
Collab Link

While navigating through glitches pages, I came across several glitches which I was unable to perform, nor did I managed to find any proof that this glitch is real or fake. So instead of removing all unsourced glitches, we would simply add a small notice like this &#91;unconfirmed glitch&#93;. This way we will still have the information, while avoiding any bogus glitches (because the reader would be already aware that this glitch was not tested, unproved).

I already aware that there is a template called. However this is a different thing: not every glitch need a reference. they need just an screenshot, a video, or in some cases, discussion on the talk page may be very enough if provided with some proof. Also having a different template and a different category is better for organizing, this way we can look in the category to find all glitches pages only which contains glitches need confirmation.

Draft: &#91;unconfirmed glitch&#93;

Proposer: Deadline: February 3, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Meggy
 * 2) Per proposal
 * 3) Per proposal. I think this would be a great idea.
 * 1) Per proposal. I think this would be a great idea.

Oppose

 * 1) - Just use : an unconfirmed glitch is no different from any other unconfirmed bit of info, and needs to be backed up by the exact same kind of sources. Furthermore, the template would just categorize the whole list page, not the specific glitch: in all likelihood, every long page will end up languishing in the category, probably from multiple templates (not that you could tell from looking at the category), which isn't useful: better to just use the collab to keep track of things.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo, this proposal looks to me like it's basically founded on a bunch of semantic issues.
 * 4) Uploading a screenshot and a video should be enough to remove both templates, so the proposed template will be pretty much redundant.
 * 5) Per all.

Comments
Screenshots and videos are references, and citing discussions isn't ideal even for glitches (although citing discussions beats no citations at all, of course). And what do you mean by "scrawny" "sourcing thing"? Citations are used all over the wiki, and so they should: they lend credibility to the database. Whoever told you references are only for upcoming games and beta elements is grievously mistaken. -
 * Sorry, I was mistaken. After reading Citation_Policy in depth again, I knew that information can be taken directly from the game without the need of external resources. Whatever, I guess this proposed feature should be separated from the, this way the category will contain all the pages that weren't tested by our users thus they aren't confirmed. About the citing discussion, take Flip'd-up Mario 1 as an example, a user confirmed this on the talk pages even describing it more, another user confirmed the glitch and confirmed his description (both users do not have capture cards), thus the glitch is confirmed, BUT it needs a reference. so replacing the with the . Take Bananaport Glitch as an example, it does have an image, however I started a discussion on the talk page saying that it never happened for me, some more users said so. The  get added to the glitch, even when it really has an image (a reference.
 * You can still use in cases where some evidence is provided but more is needed. And more than anything, the story about "Flip'd-up Mario 1" just proves that the differences in use between the established template and the proposed addition is splitting hairs and adding unnecessary complications to the straightforward process of confirming glitches (nothingrefneeded -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy). -
 * A new template sounds redundant, but maybe could be modified to read "unconfirmed glitch" or something?

Revive featured images.
Featured images should come back. They are fun and interesting. In fact, says they are why she joined the wiki! Something this awesome and fun should come back.

 Proposer Deadline: February 3, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) The reason is listed above.

Oppose

 * 1) There is a reason featured images are removed, and since this proposal does nothing to address the previous problems the featured images system has, I will oppose.
 * 2) Per the reasons for why it was removed in the first place.
 * 3) - Per Mario and the old reasons for getting rid of FIs. They just don't add enough substance to the main page, whereas its current design is a good showcase of the wiki's merits as an information resource, and balances that with signs of the wiki's healthy community to boot: best not to change what's working so well.
 * 4) If we have the Featured Images Back, where would the polls go? This would make the Main Page go ugly. That why we removed the Featured Images, in order to get the polls back. Don't get me started on this lesson. Per all.
 * 5) Per Mario.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Very uneeded.

Comments
What was the reason behind its removal, for curiousity's sake?
 * The system was highly flawed, governed by fan votes. "There are, from what I've seen from a recent proposal, many repeat nominations. There are also problems with some users about 'fan votes'– that is, people who go voting on an image not for the quality of the image or because they feel it would do the Main Page some justice, but rather because their favorite character is in the image. There are also quite a few users that feel the system itself does not work at all (such as me)." At the time, we were also running out of new images to feature (the system doesn't cycle), so the system just set itself up for a dead end.

Oh my god, the memories.
 * Well, that explains it well enough.

Removals
None at the moment.

Move the "List of implied X" articles to "List of mentioned X"
I dislike the title "List of implied X". I see it as violating NPOV, by suggesting that the thing in question may or may not exist, when in many cases, it does. Plus, most other Wikis use the word "mentioned" in this context. And while we're on the subject of these articles, I also think that they should be rewritten to be less obsessive.

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

Oppose

 * 1) Does the difference between "implied" and "mentioned" worth all the trouble of updating the links? In addition, "mentioned" gives me the feeling that this item/character/whatever was only mentioned *really?* and it didn't actually appear whilst lots of mentioned/implied whatever already appeared but does not need a full page, just a minor section in this page. On the other hand, "implied" gives me the opposite feeling. I'd rather keep "implied" unless we find a better word.
 * 2) Per Megadarery
 * 3) Meg's got it
 * 4) Per Megadardery.
 * 5) - "Implied" suits the subject matter perfectly well (stuff that's not directly shown), and is more inclusive (not all implied things are merely mentioned; for example, the Crocuses are also shown in portraits). Either way, its not worth the trouble to change it. Also, proposals shouldn't include secondary purposes as vague as calling for the rewriting of pages to be "less obsessive".
 * 6) Implied just sounds better than mentioned when you put it in the phrase. Also, we would have to change every single implied into a mentioned. Fixing the links would take days. All that work for one word which is actually worse than the current one.
 * 7) per all.
 * 8) It's a synonym. I don't think we should change because other wikis do it...
 * 9) The term "implied" sounds more formal in encyclopedic sense.

Comments
List of x's with unproved existences


 * What? 15:53, 26 January 2014 (EST)
 * Too wordy for page titles. -

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.