MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Rename World 8-Bowser's Castle (Super Mario 3D Land) to (Discuss) Deadline: September 28, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Rename Category:Rodents‎ to (Discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT

A writing guideline for Image Maps

 * see here for the draft.

This Writing Guideline is meant to clear thing of when and how an Image Map page should be created. It will be created under the name Image Maps. These rules only apply to real articles.

All information are present in the draft, description is present here:

The Map Images must be a map sprite from the game, screenshot, or an official map artwork because it makes the Image Map looks professional. Fan-made will make the Image Map looks fake, unofficial nor professional

Templates are only for real articles, no templates for Policy pages, Help pages, or Userpages.. However, coding can go in any other page.

Image Maps are meant only for locations, or levels. It is not good to have an Image map for characters, even if the artwork was official, it won't look neat.

Image Maps are meant to help with navigation. If image is less than 8 links, it could be embedded in the page with caption description the links. Example on the right.

The Image Map's any dimension must not exceed 400 pixels, and the other one must not exceed 200 pixels. The Image Map's width in the template must never exceed 300 pixels. I specified the sizes depending on medium sized screens, so it does not look very small, or very big. Reason includes that if maps were larger than that then the page would look very crowded.

If the map isn't going to be put into the Worldbox template, then the map should be classed as a  and aligned to the right. However, If the map is only going to be put in the Worldbox template, it must be classed as  and it must be aligned in the center. Otherwise a variable must be declared; so if it is set to ,it would be aligned in the center and it would be classed as. And if it is not set, it would be classed as a  and it would be aligned to the right.

In other word, templates like are put inside the  and never outside, so it is classed as   and it is aligned in the center, so it looks centered and without borders in the template. Templates like are put outsise the Worldbox template and never inside, so it is classed as   and aligned to the right. However templates like are put both inside and outside, so there is a variable defining if it would be put in the Worldbox template, or would be put outside.

The template must only be put where it links to (i.e If the template only links to and, it must never be put on ). That's because it is unneeded on an unrelated page.

If the article is about a subject that only appeared in the Image Map's game, the template should be put under the info-box. Otherwise the template should be put as the first line in the game's section on the article.

Explaining: links to X-Naut Fortress and The Moon.. Since X-Naut Fortress only appeared in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, the template is put under the infobox, However The Moon appeared in multiple games, so the template is put in the game's section.

For the Platformer games: in the Worlds pages, the template should be put in the  parameter of the  template (using the code  ). Reason includes it unneeded to crowd the page with a template, which can be put inside the infobox template.

Last three sections describe basics of creating the template.

Use the comments section below for comments and suggestions.

Proposer: Deadline: September 30, 2013 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal. Should help those new to image maps as well.
 * 2) per proposal... I don't see anything bad about this, and it'd be helpful to a lot of people.
 * 3) Per all
 * 4) ImageMaps will come in the future (until something renders it deprecated), and once more people know how to do it, the better. Knowledge is power.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) I think it's a good idea, per all.
 * 1) I think it's a good idea, per all.

Oppose

 * 1) I personally find it unneeded.
 * 2) I think it is fine the way it is, and we don't need to change anything.
 * 3) Per Mario7.

Comments
@Iggy Koopa Jr Why? Image maps are kinda complicated, they need several rules, so it does not look messy when created.

It is because not many image maps are made on this wiki(because unneeded), and not everyone knows how to make one. I have myself not stumbled on a messy Map, so I think rules for something already done well is unneeded.


 * The reason of not too many ImageMaps are made on wiki mostly because people don't know how to make one, hopefully this writing guideline will put standards for making the Imagemap, that's why I made it in the first place, With many games (specially 3DS games) new today, the ImageMaps will help a lot in navigation. And I can guess that's lot of ImageMaps are coming in near future.

Make a template encouraging non-users that have made 20 or more edits to make an account
The Idea was very good. It was thrown away and forgotten just because the automatic process won't work. But we can issue the template manually. Thankfully, User:NewSMBU created a draft, with minor changes, I created another draft. While this proposal is going, changes can be done to the draft.

Proposer: Deadline: September 25, 2013 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per old proposal
 * 2) Will help get more contributive members, per proposal.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Great idea, per all.
 * 5) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) – This proposal would require somebody or several people to keep track of the changes that all anonymous editors make, which is not feasible. It is too likely to overwhelm one person that even attempts it or lead to coordination problems with multiple people that attempt it. If the process were able to be automated and could be decently implemented by having a bot add the template, that would be good to consider, but I don't think this idea is sustainable in the long-term as suggested by this proposal.
 * 2) - I wasn't keen on the idea last time, but I didn't vote because it was impossible either way. Anyway, if someone wants to register, they'd register - I highly doubt a boilerplate message would change their mind either way. If anything, they might find it irritating to be pestered like that when they just want to be anonymous for one reason or another. Plus, while automation could create a one-time message like the current Welcome setup (afaik), manually making talk pages will result in stuff lying around dormant long after the anon's joined or moved on, which is simply a waste of space.
 * 3)  - Generic nag messages, automated or not, are horripilating and a waste of time for everyone involved.
 * 4) - If a user is going to create an account, they'll do so, and a useless template won't stop them from it. Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - I think a little incentive to encourage anons to create an account is good, and what we have now is probably enough. Per Walkazo on the "waste of space" part.
 * 7) I've hated this idea the first time it came up and my opinions haven't changed on the matter since. Anons should be able to edit as they please with out being pestered into creating an account.
 * 8) Per Glowsquid
 * 9) Per all.

Removals
None at the moment.

Stop Considering Amps as Chain Chomps
I have done a fair amount of research on this, I've discussed this with a handful of users, and I've come to the conclusion that there's really no reason for Amps to be considered Chain Chomps. I believe everything started when it was stated that Amps were mistakenly placed in the "Chain Chomp" category of enemies in the strategy guide of New Super Mario Bros.. After that, a user named RedStar wrote that Amps were called Electro-Chomps in the New Super Mario Bros. Wii guide. As far as I can tell, this has been the entire basis for considered Amps as Chain Chomps, since, after this name was added, everyone accepted that Amps are Chain Chomps as if it was fact. If you noticed, though, there was no source for it, and he eliminated the mention of Amp being wrongly placed in the NSMB guide. What's even more interesting, though, is that Redstar fully admitted to that being nothing more than a joke, meaning that "Electro-Chomp" is 100% false.

Heck, "Electro-Chomp" is only mentioned on that very article: outside of the Amp article, no other article even mentions that, and outside of this wiki, there is no mention of "Electro-Chomp" outside of a YouTube video for an unrelated matter and a litter of usernames. There's really no other sources that point to them being connected. Thus, the only real connection Amps and Chain Chomps have are their appearance. However, the very vague description "black sphere" isn't enough to say that the two are part of the same species. So, now that I've essentially proven that Amps and Chain Chomps have very few points in common, should we really keep considering Amps as a sub-species of Chain Chomps?

Proposer: Deadline: September 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Amps are not Chain Chomps

 * 1) I support my proposal.
 * 2) I blinked when I first saw that Bowser amps are listed under "chomps" and "chain chomps". They bear little to no relation to each other, too, and I decided to talk about it in Bowser Amp's talk page. Then, I discovered that since Bowser amp is an amp, and amps are supposedly "chomps", then Bowser amps are chomps and thus, Chain Chomps. That's what made me blink. Again, the only thing that calls these amps "chomps" is Prima, which also has a knack for misnaming enemies. That being said, it's easier to say what it's not than what it is, too, so if we're unsure about the status of the Amp, we assume that it's not a chomp, chain chomp, or whatever. My sister Baby Luigi insists that I'm missing the point, that I keep confusing "Chain Chomp" with "Chomp", but she misses my broader point that amps aren't chomps at all and, therefore, should not be categorized as "chain chomps". I might sound all over the place, but my point in the talk page is that the placement of amps in "chomps"/"chain chomps" is incorrect mainly because of a lack of ingame description and frank official sources. Adding to that the whole thing is joke only reinforces my point.
 * 3)  Per all.
 * 4) Per LGM
 * 5) I agreed with it on the forums, I agree with it here.
 * 6) Per all. Amps = Chain Chomps? really? ._.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Yeah, per all.
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
I think this is small enough to be a TPP
 * It's a change that's gonna require editing many articles. Doesn't that make it worthy of a full-fledged proposal?
 * Updating links and lists and whatnot isn't the same thing as making major changes to a swathe of articles. This is a pretty specific topic, but it does affect a couple kinds of Amps, I suppose, so while a TPP would have been okay, a full Proposal isn't exactly wrong, either. -

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.