MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/33: Difference between revisions
(maybe an anchor will work) |
(archiving) |
||
Line 437: | Line 437: | ||
===Filter=== | ===Filter=== | ||
<span style="color:grey;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">WITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER</span> | <span style="color:grey;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">WITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER</span> | ||
Line 466: | Line 465: | ||
#{{User|King Pikante}} Per all. | #{{User|King Pikante}} Per all. | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
---- | |||
===Make a list page for ripoff/bootlegs that have been acknowledged by Nintendo.=== | |||
<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">MAKE THE LIST 19-0</span> | |||
There's [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_20#Notable_.22Unofficial.22_Games been] [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_27#Cover_Mario_Knockoffs various] proposals about covering knockoff. They've failed in part because of the community's kneejerk reaction to anything "unofficial" and also because while listing every random Hong Kong bootleg is entertaining, it's neither all that informative or useful. | |||
Maybe so, but what about the times where Nintendo has legally pursued the producer of such products? Legally dubious knockoffs are part of the life of any big media franchise, and covering them is as essential to establishing Mario's global popularity and influence as [[MarioWiki:References|random pop culture references]] are. And if Nintendo has acknowledged these things exist (however how quietly), why shouldn't we? | |||
Of course, the page would require some proof that the things listed were c&d or otherwise acknowledged by Nintendo to prevent the page from being flooded by random Chinese bootlegs. Example of stuff that would be elligible for inclusion on such a page: | |||
*[http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Giana_Sisters Great Giana Sisters] (devs were pressured by Nintendo to pull out the game from shelves) | |||
*[http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/mole-kart-iphone-trailer-looks-familiar Mole Kart] (videos of it get copyright claim from NOA) | |||
*[http://www.destructoid.com/yoshi-shoots-atomic-snot-in-this-android-rip-off-247243.phtml Era's Adventure 3D] (idem+ the game was briefly pulled from Google Play) | |||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hornio_Brothers Super Hornio Brothers] (:lol:) | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Glowsquid}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': May 12, 2013, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Create page==== | |||
#{{User|Glowsquid}} - What I wrote above. | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Mariotime11}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|BowserJunior}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{user|newSMBU}} per all. | |||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per Glowsquid. | |||
#{{User|Turboo}} - Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per Glowsquid. | |||
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} — Per Glowsquid. | |||
#{{User|Binarystep}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|GBAToad}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|ThePremiumYoshi}} - Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|ParaLemmy1234}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|King Pikante}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|MeritC}} Per proposal; a case like this would make sense in terms of the details that are described in this proposal. | |||
#{{User|Freakworld}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|MegaKoopa}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Banon}} I thought about that the other day... Since Nintendo apparently bought the rights of Super Hornio Brothers (to prevent it from being sold)... doesn't that make it kinda official ? | |||
====Don't==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Do we have to cover Super Hornio Brothers? {{User|Time Turner}} | |||
:I think it's at least worth a mention as long as we avoid coverage of actual pornographic content, which I don't think even the Wikipedia article discusses. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | |||
:It's legally owned by Nintendo. It's not like the page would describe the content in more details than "It's a porno parody", anyway. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 13:16, 5 May 2013 (EDT) | |||
How do we know if a bootleg or knockoff is acknowledged by Nintendo? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
:Press/independant reports and other signs. For example, if you click a youtube link and get a message among the lines of "This video was removed due to a copyright claim by Nintendo of America", there's a tacit acknowledgement by NOA that the thing exists. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 12:32, 6 May 2013 (EDT) | |||
---- | |||
===Warning for editing large pages for mobile users=== | |||
<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">NO SPECIAL WARNING 2-15</span> | |||
So, I was roaming around SmashWiki, and I was about to edit a page, when I saw this at the top of the editing window; | |||
http://i.imgur.com/dZ6EqwS.png | |||
I was thinking, "That's a great idea for the MarioWiki to use as well!" Because, lately, I've seen some revisions of pages where, by accident, users deleted massive amount of content from pages when only they are adding something in good faith, because their mobile browsers can't handle all of that text. What I am proposing is making a MediaWiki page having a template that is similar, but not exactly like the image, that automatically adds itself to large pages; pages that are 32 KB or more, as seen in the image. If SmashWiki could do it, so could we. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Goomba}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': May 13, 2013, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Goomba}} Per proposal | |||
#{{User|Pokebub}} Per Goomba. Also it could be useful for 3DS browsers. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|YoshiKong}} – Even though the issues described within the template could occur, I don't think this it's necessary to have a distracting notice which users are forced to look at as a precaution. Any mistakes can easily reverted, and it's just as easy to let users know when something does happen. | |||
#{{User|Marshal Dan Troop}} Per Yoshikong. | |||
#{{User|GBAToad}} Per YoshiKong. Users should be competent enough to know not to edit large pages on mobile browsers. If the problem is major, maybe it needs a note in the policies, but certainly not its own template. | |||
#{{User|Yoshi876}} Per YoshiKong. | |||
#{{User|ThePremiumYoshi}} - Per all. | |||
#{{user|NewSMBU}} - per all. | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per YoshiKong. | |||
#{{User|ParaLemmy1234}} Per YoshiKong. | |||
#{{User|King Pikante}} Per YoshiKong. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per YoshiKong. | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per all. Besides, the template here actually ''overlaps'' the actual screen on my phone, so unless you change it, it's not going to work out. | |||
#{{User|MeritC}} - Per YoshiKong and GBAToad. | |||
#{{User|BowserJunior}} Per GBAToad. | |||
#{{User|Mariotime11}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
There is not way we are allow to have that template on. That could disrupt users on a mobile phone. Beside, Tucayo is editing on a mobile phone, and if you did that, he would be disrupted by that message. {{User|Pinkie Pie}} | |||
Although I oppose the template, maybe we could do this, so it shows up only when editing the page and we don't have to see notices littered around: | |||
<pre><!-- WARNING: This page contains a large amount of content and may not be suitable for mobile browsers. Please take note of this before editing.--></pre> | |||
Or should I split this to a separate proposal? {{User|Mariotime11}} | |||
---- | |||
===User shops=== | |||
<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">BAN USER SHOPS 26-11</span> | |||
Many years ago, users started spending inordinate amounts of time and edits on comics and stories based on their fellow users, so much so that Userpedia was created and it was decreed that all fiction must get off this main wiki and onto that database. (Or something like that.) Now, users have been spending inordinate amounts of time and edits on fictional "shops" that they run out of their userspace (messing about with stock, hiring other users, advertising, giving stuff away, etc. etc.). However, the Super Mario Wiki is NOT a social website, and these shops do NOT help us document all things ''Mario'' - rather, they distract folks from editing, clutter up the recent changes, and eat up our server space. Just as works of fiction were removed all those years ago, and just as user subpages "that do not serve the Super Mario Wiki" are not allowed, I am proposing that we bring the user shop phenomenon to an end. In other words, a bullet along the lines of "''fake businesses (stores/shops, etc.)''" would be added to the [[MarioWiki:Userspace#What_should_I_avoid.3F|"What should I avoid? section of MW:Userspace]]. There are plenty of outlets for socializing: setting up shops on the wiki instead of editing is not one of them. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Walkazo}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': May 13, 2013, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per my proposal. Hate to be a killjoy, but this trend has gotta stop. | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} I never really liked the idea of imaginary commerce. I've never engaged in a shop myself, but I do think messages such as "Your Chance Orb has arrived! Transaction of 20 coins has been made." feel distracting and (I daresay) pointless. It might be fun, I guess. Having fun uplifts morale and it should be encouraged, but there is a line we should draw between having fun and being productive. Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Turboo}} - Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Phoenix}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} User shops probably violate the userspace policy anyway (though not explicitly), so even if we made a new guideline that might overlap, it wouldn't hurt to make a point devoted to the shop. Per all. | |||
#{{User|King Pikante}} Shops and user-related stuff needs to be ON USERPEDIA. This is an encyclopedia about Mario, not a userspace-based wiki. Plus, there would be much more productive edits, without the shops. Comments like I want to buy a Yoshi, or Can I work in your shop? are UNPRODUCTIVE and very distracting and hide the primary purpose of this wiki:an encyclopedia about our favorite plumber. This is needed. And what's worse, shops are getting more and more common and more unproductive edits are being made. I've never liked the shop idea, and it's just distracting and a waste of time. | |||
#{{User|GBAToad}} Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|MeritC}} - Per Walkazo; I never liked this kind of idea in the first place. This needs to cease. | |||
#{{User|Glowsquid}} - Mariowiki isn't a social network, and that includes not being a venue for ''off-topic'' inanity. I hardly see how removing them is "removing fun", anyway, as the wiki is far more (too) lax than every other large wikis in existence when it comesto userspace and socializing, anyway. | |||
#{{User|BowserJunior}} The' unnecessary subpages' rule is there for a reason. Shops only get away because they're on the main userpage. And we're not 'outlawing fun', we have the forums and userpedia for messing around. Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|YoshiKong}} The shops shall go bankrupt, per all! | |||
#{{User|ParaLemmy1234}} Unnecessary. They belong on Userpedia. | |||
#{{User|ThePremiumYoshi}} - Per all. I definitely agree that they distract users from editing the wiki. | |||
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Mariotime11}} - When I first saw shops on the wiki I was like, "Are you serious"? And I don't mean to pick on anyone, but the majority of users I've seen who operate shops have more edits to userspace. If you want to do this, the wiki is not a suitable place for it, start a thread on the forums or do it on Userpedia. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Freakworld}} Although I kind of agree with Time Turner, I also have to say that we are NOT outlawing fun because fun just moved to Userpedia. Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Yoshi876}} Shops always seemed pointless to me, and I do see many users just editing talkpages asking for this, that and the other; so per proposal. | |||
#{{User|SuperMario150}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Tails777}} I'm gonna have to agree with this. First of all per Walkazo's reason and second, there is no real gain out of this, you're just getting pictures for your user page/talk page that you could just put there yourself. | |||
#{{user|NewSMBU}} HECK, this decision should have been bringed up a lot of time ago. These shops are just tables with "cute" pics and "prices", and many users fill up someone's talk page for something like "There Is A New Thing At The Shop Go Buy It!!" or "Please Buy This And I Mark You As Best Friend!!". Like Glowsquid said, MarioWiki isn't like Facebook or any other type of social network and removing these shops isn't "removing fun"; plus making shops, adding new "items" and even adding a list of who "bought", causes an abnormal increase of unnecessary userspace edits and is counterproductive to the site. When I first saw these "shops" I thought it was something fun, but then I realized all those stuff in shops were just pointless. And unnecessary. To close this, per all. | |||
#{{user|Ultra Koopa}} Per all. | |||
#{{user|UltraMario3000}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Banon}} Does the Encyclopædia Britannica have crosswords and funny pictures at the end? | |||
#{{User|NSY}} Per all. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Electrical Bowser jr.}} The wiki is doing just fine in this state. Besides, without any shops, this wiki could stop having as many users as it does now. | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} I don't want to engage in a slippery slope argument, but it really does feel like we're outlawing fun. The shops may be pointless, but at the same time, they're harmless. They do nothing to undermine the quality of the mainspace articles, and are used as nothing more than a fun side-activity for most users. They don't distract users from editing and polishing the articles, they're simply something that they do for their own entertainment. I just don't see the point in disallowing them. | |||
#{{User|Goomba}} Per Time Turner, plus, I have one of those shops, and it doesn't make up most of my edits, and no one's complained about the messages. | |||
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} Per Time Turner. Let them have their fun. Now if, say people start putting ads on mainspace articles, then I'd say otherwise. | |||
#{{User|A Paragoomba and the Koopa Bros.}} Goomba only updates his shop at times, and thus the wiki won't become a social network. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Pokebub}} Per Electrical Bowser Jr. | |||
#{{User|Iggy Koopa Jr}}The shops are harmless. I am sure that any shop owner does not spend the entire time on it. I edit mainspace articles, upload files, click on "Random Page" to see if an easy to find mistake is on that; so I think that they are not distracting. You cannot just abolish anything fun that is the moment's trend, people are only trying having fun. | |||
#{{User|Kingfawful4321}} Per Iggy Koopa Jr. | |||
#{{User|Wintermelon43}} per electrical bowser jr it's all fine. | |||
#{{User|Rpg gamer}} Per all! It's not on mainspace it's not doing anyone any harm, it's just a little bit of fun! | |||
#{{User|Gary koopa}} Shops aren't bad for the wiki, they might be silly, but they're not on mainspace, and as long as they don't take too much time, they're good fun! | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Wouldn't this "user shop" business violate some pats of the Userspace policy anyway? {{User|Baby Luigi}} | |||
If you remove my oppose, can't we just have one big, official shop? {{User|Electrical Bowser jr.}} | |||
:No matter how much we disagree with your oppose vote, it's still valid so no, it won't get removed. And having an official shop is highly unlikely as it serves the exact purpose and it gives the same reasons that Walkazo is trying to remove. You can always set up a fictional shop where appropriate; here is not the right place. {{User|Baby Luigi}} | |||
::To answer your question, Baby Luigi, it probably does, but rather than try and classify it as something already in the list of things to avoid, we thought it would be easier for it to have its own point given how widespread it is (feel free to correct me if that's inaccurate, Walkazo). {{User|Mario4Ever}} | |||
Goomba: it's not necessarily your shops that make you unproductive (in which you are productive in mainspace). I think it's the other users being engaged in the shops. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
:If that's the case... why not directly confront the people that you feel are being unproductive? The shops aren't the problem here, it's the people running the shops. {{User|Time Turner}} | |||
::Agreed with Time Turner, just let the users know that their shop is distracting other users, and they should take it down. {{User|Goomba}} | |||
@KP: Removing the shops isn't automatically going to convert every edit that could have been used on a user shop message into a mainspace edit, though... people being distracted is one thing, edits magically becoming productive is another. - {{User|Turboo}} | |||
:Yeah, but I mean by that that there will be fewer userspace based edits. Sorry if that wasnt unclear to you. {{User|King Pikante}} | |||
I apologize if this sounds somewhat biased, but I believe if every single shop on the wiki was removed, several users may get disappointed or angered, and they may wish to overturn this proposal if it passes. I know, we aren't a social network, but at least allow users to have some fun. {{User|Goomba}} | |||
:Maybe some will get angered at first, like some policy changes that happened to me several times in the past (Featured Images ;(), but eventually, they'll get used to it being gone. And any attempt to overturn it will probably be futile without a decent reason to put it back. If you want to have fun on a scale like this, another site can do (you can even PM each other on the forums, or maybe start a topic there or something). {{User|Baby Luigi}} | |||
::The other site would have to get some publicity, and even if it's popular like Facebook, people will have to know your account name, and then you may not want to share too much personal info. And I don't see how the forums are going to work out very well, IMO. {{User|Goomba}} | |||
:::Which is why we have Userpedia for this. Userpedia is made for all user-related stuff. You can have as much fun as you want there, provided you follow their rules of course. And I can imagine it working it out in the forums. Typing a PM is not that much different than leaving a message on the user page. And you can make the shop a forum game or something. Be creative. PS Facebook is terrible. {{User|Baby Luigi}} 20:32, 6 May 2013 (EDT) | |||
::::Actually, not very many people I know have even heard of Userpedia; I myself just found out about it a month ago. {{User|Goomba}} | |||
:::::Is it possible to actually put an image '''''from Mario Wiki''''' onto Userpedia? If so, then I will support. {{User|ParaLemmy1234}} | |||
::::::No, it's not, you'll have to upload it. {{User|Goomba}} | |||
:::::::You can if you hotlink it, I guess, but I'm pretty sure just uploading is preferred. - {{User|Turboo}} | |||
Might as well blank my userpage soon as there isn't much use for it when this passes. {{User|Goomba}} | |||
Thus, if we had no shops, the wiki would lose popularity. and thus moving them to the forum only gets ideas. {{User|A Paragoomba and the Koopa Bros.}} | |||
:The wiki ''shouldn't'' be popular for userspace distractions in the first place: losing users who don't care for editing the mainspace is no loss at all. Now to respond to earlier questions, '''@Baby Luigi:''' The "keep non-encyclopedic material to a minimum" vibes that permeate [[MarioWiki:Userspace]] ''dissuade'' this sort of userspace-focused project but as long as there's no subpages involved, it's not against any hard rule; I suppose you ''could'' say that shops are already technically disallowed via the "no fiction" point, but that was intended to stop stories, not elaborate role playing, and it'd be a bit of a cheap shot to suddenly say it has all these other meanings too. Which brings me to my next point, '''@Time Turner:''' since there ''is'' no official legislature against shops, it' be better to change that ''before'' we start confronting users about them. Besides, if we want to get rid of them and stop them from coming back, a rule is more effective than doing it case-by-case. We're also hoping most users will see the new rule (either here, or via the planned SiteNotice should this Proposal pass) and get rid of the shops ''without'' us having to directly tell them to: the less confrontational this change can be, the better. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
::Still, I just don't see the harm in keeping the shops. What's wrong with letting people have their fun? It's not undermining anything nor distracting anyone, is it? {{User|Time Turner}} | |||
:::I'm pretty sure the entire point of this proposal is that they ''are'' distracting people - people are spending all their time on the shops instead of doing other things, is the issue. {{User|Superchao}} | |||
@Paragoomba: This proposal is directed towards every shop and not just Goomba's, so I don't really get what you're trying to say...? - {{User|Turboo}} | |||
@Pinkie Pie: <i>Really</i>? You should vote based on your personal beliefs, not whether you'll disappoint admins or not. After all, this proposal carries the same weight as a proposal made by any other user. It's not anything special; if it was, the policy would be changed without us voting on it. {{User|Baby Luigi}} | |||
:Exactly. The proposal was made because we wanted the users to have ''their'' voice in the matter, and either way, being a sycophant is not going to earn you any brownie points with anyone, admin or otherwise. '''@Time Turner:''' User pages were never meant to be the staging area for fake shops, and that abuse of user rights is what's wrong: shops ''are'' a distraction to editing and that ''does'' undermine the wiki's primary function as a community-driven ''Mario'' encyclopedia. That's the harm, that's why they gotta go. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
I've noticed that most users having the "Your edits are mainly userspaces" template added on their talk do not own any shops. They are just not contributing enough to the Wiki. Removing the shops will not make the edits magically be contributive. Also, people are not a infinite well of information, as we own limited a limited amount of games. And if you think people are being unproductive because of this, go tell them. Put that template I so often see on Talkpages of users who don't even own a shop, or never purchased anything. And mabye, even if you did abolish shops, what tells you that people are going to be magically active on needed pages? {{User|Iggy Koopa Jr}} | |||
:Nothing says that they are magically going to be active in mainspace, but as someone above me somewhere has said losing these users isn't going to be a big deal. {{User|Yoshi876}} | |||
@EBJr.: What does the amount of users on the wiki have to do with anything? We aren't judging our success based on a number of people. - {{User|Turboo}} | |||
:Also if someone is going to quit over something as silly as User shops do we ever really want them here? {{User|Marshal Dan Troop}} | |||
Banon: You're not making a good analogy here. See, this wiki is about a relatively silly subject. Encyclopaedia Britannica covers more broadly and formally, so of course it should be formal. The outcome of this proposal is clear, but I just want to point that out. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
---- | ---- |
Revision as of 21:42, May 13, 2013
Automatically Removing Fan Votes from FA NominationsAUTOMATICALLY REMOVE FAN VOTES 7-0 There have been far too many times where I have seen someone support or oppose the nomination or denomination of a featured article simply because of the fact that they like the character or enjoy the game or whatever. These kinds of votes have no place here, where articles are featured based on their ability to represent the best that the wiki has to offer, not on any personal preference. However, we still have to go through the process of getting three people, at least one of which has to be an admin, to vote to remove his vote and then waiting 24 hours before finally being able to remove it. Enough of these votes can stall either kind of nomination until they have no way of passing when they shouldn't even be there in the first place. So, what I propose is to outright disallow these kinds of votes from being used. If they are used, they're to be removed without going through the longer removal process (for unfeature nominations) or deleting the reasons and leaving the vote (for feature nominations). Proposer: GreenDisaster (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsMake an iPhone/iPad appDO NOT CREATE APP 1-14 My idea is to make an app for the iPhone or iPad that links you straight to the wiki. Since not entirely nessecary, it should be free. I got this idea because Khan Academy has the exact same thing as I'm suggesting. What's more, we'll be the FIRST wiki to do this! Proposer: Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Make an app
Don't make an app
Comments@MortonBoo99--You can view and edit the wiki from those devices. In fact, I'm writing this from my iPod.--BowserJunior (talk) Even though I oppose the app, I think a mobile site might have some use (makes it easier to edit from mobile devices). I don't know though, you'll have to bring up anything like that with Porplemontage (talk).--Mariotime11 (talk) I agree with Mariotime11 Kamek the magikoopa (talk) Spoiler TemplateDO NOT ADD SPOILER TEMPLATES 1-15 I think we should use a template for articles that states that the page contains spoilers, a lot of other wikis have them. Like for example, what if someone was thinking of buying Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon and skimmed the article to read about it a little? The article has spoilers such as the game's ending right out in the open, so at least we should have a template we can put on SECTIONS that contain spoilers. Proposer: Mariotime11 (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@MortonBoo99: I don't think you grasped the basic idea of the proposal. --YoshiKong (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2013 (EDT) Tell non-trolling IPS when their edits are undoneOPPOSE 1-15 I think that when we undo an edit from an anonymous IP that they should be notified, unless they are obviously a troll. This should happen because it means when they find out their edit has been undone they will have reasoning for why and so they'll know not to just add it back in. For example, today on the Yoshi's Island DS page, in the babies section, an IP address replaced the Yoshi Island DS Baby Mario and Baby Bowser sprite with their respective Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island sprites, this was undone and then a few minutes later they put it back and it had to undone again, if they told that their edit had been undone and were told why then it is likely that they would not have done it again. If the IP address is obviously just a troll then will not need to be notified about this, but for the honest people who just help out they do need to be notified. Proposer: Yoshi876 (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsYou could be more specific about what exactly will happen should this proposal pass. I mean, you are saying they should be notified, but how? If it is through normal messages on their talk pages, then I'm fairly sure this doesn't warrant a Proposal, but you could tell exactly what method should be used to notify them. --- ThePremiumYoshi (talk)
You know, if someone doesn't bother to create an account in the first place, chances are their interest in the wiki is already fleeting enough that they won't even care that their edit was undone. There's no need to bother these people with what they will most likely think is spam. - Kibago (talk) Notification for when watched pages are editedDON'T NOTIFY 5-15 You know how there's a banner that is on every page of the wiki whenever your talk page is edited, right? (the Mario article was used as an example) The "here" part would take you to the comparison window between the most recently-made edit and the edit right before it. Proposer: Goomba (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWhat would be displayed if several pages which are on your watchlist have been changed since your last visit, rather than just one? Would it just show the most recent? --YoshiKong (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2013 (EDT)
@NSY I think profanity is not allowed here. Or am I wrong? newSMBU (talk)
I think it'll become a distraction. MortonBoo99 (talk) Allow Featuring/Unfeaturing Article Nominations to pass by majorityDO NOT ALLOW FEATURING/UNFEATURING ARTICLE NOMINATION BY MAJORITY 3-14 I'm pretty sure there has been several near-successful featuring or unfeaturing article nominations over the years that are unanimous, but right at the last moment, someone opposes it, and because of just one user, the entire thing fails. I wanted to change that by adding a rule that featuring/unfeaturing articles nominations must pass by 50% of the votes plus one. (i.e. 5 to 2, 7 to 3, etc.) It will be a better system and also show that more articles are in really good quality or that more articles need a dusting. Proposer: Goomba (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Yoshi876 Fan votes are automatically removed now, so that isn't a problem anymore. Goomba (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
Promotion/Demotion templatesDO NOT USE TEMPLATES 3-15 I think that we should have templates to alert a user that they have been promoted/demoted; it provides a quick reference on their talk page when they were changed. (Note that this is not changing the criteria for promotion in any way) The templates would look something like this:
Proposer: Mariotime11 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsEven though I supported, I know this will fail.
I actually wouldn't be opposed to this sort of thing. Then again I am kind of a sucker for tackiness (in moderation). - Kibago (talk) Delete Links to Passed Talk Page Proposals ONLY Until Action Has Been TakenLEAVE THE LINKS UP 10-0 Normally, when a talk page proposal passes, we delete the link to the talk page proposal in this page. The problem is that this may leave settled talk page proposals not done because the settled proposal basically is out of sight for many users. I remember one talk page proposal settled a long time ago and no action has been taken until years later; it may have been forgotten. Just recently, few users have taken action in splitting enemies in the Subspace Army article, and I'm wondering if people don't realize it or if they are too busy doing something else. My proposal is this: if a talk page proposal has passed, we should leave the link on the main proposal page until action has been taken according to the talk page proposal. And once the action has followed, then we can remove the link. That way, we know if action has been taken on that proposal or not. This is necessary so we ensure appropriate action has been taken when a talk page proposal has settled. This can also apply to more major proposals, but talk page proposals are the ones that need more awareness. Of course, exceptions can apply. Proposer: LeftyGreenMario (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsIsn't this what we normally do, anyways? That was the way it was at least a few months ago. GreenDisaster (talk)
For the bigger proposals, perhaps we could have a page where the passed proposals are moved to an archive specifically for proposals that haven't been taken into action yet? After whatever the proposal wanted to do has been done, it can be moved to the standard proposal archive. It would bring attention to proposals that haven't been put into effect, and wouldn't cause much cluttering. It's just a thought. GreenDisaster (talk)
Accurate titles for filesCHANGE TITLES 22-0 I have noticed files with undescriptive names, inappropriate names, and deliberately misspelled and practically unreadable ones. Not only does this decrease professionalism and violate the image policy, but it also makes it more difficult to search for files (e.g. a search for filenames containing "toad" would leave out results if an undescriptive title was used). Even if these images are "only used once or twice", a descriptive title is still more useful. I am proposing that we go back and rename files used in mainspace/gallery/etc. ('Shroom and userspace would be exempt from this, basically) articles that are breaking the policy, as well as enforcing a standard based and possibly expanding on what is written in the image policy I linked beforehand. I would not be opposed to going back and helping with the work, assuming this proposal passes. Proposer: Turboo (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsAt PidgiWiki, we have a standard which works well. What we do is put the subject of the image first, followed by a hyphen, and then the game/event is comes from. For example: "Bowser Artwork - Super Mario Bros." If there is an alternative image, we use "Bowser Artwork (alt) - Super Mario Bros.", "Bowser Artwork (alt 2) - Super Mario Bros.", etc. This could be a good way to go.--YoshiKong (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
If we were the impose the standard, we should eliminate the "having fun part" since there is a degree where you may have fun uploading images, and it all depends on the user's personal idea what "fun" is. I know I might sound a wee bit sarcastic here since I did this crap in the past, but if we were to have more functional image files, we need to be as serious as writing articles on this. Baby Luigi (talk)
At the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, they also don't use names like File:HappyFatty 9.png. At that wiki, they use descriptive names for photos like this Pinkie Pie (talk)
Add {{Plainlink}} to Help:LinkWITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER, DISCUSSED ON FORUM I think we should include Plainlinks here. I mean, there's every other kind of link, so why not include that? Proposer: Mariotime11 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI don't think this warrants a proposal (here, at least). LeftyGreenMario (talk)
CREATE NEW ARTICLE 18-0 After extensively searching both the Wiki and the Forums, I've concluded that the Wiki does not include a page that lists controversies that involve the Mario series, nor has any proposal been made towards creating one. Being Nintendo's flagship franchise, it is apparent that the series has dealt with controversy, with examples such as the Mario Party 8, Tanooki Suit and Ashley's Song controversies coming to mind. Should these issues be detailed in their own article akin to the one on Bulbapedia, or should they continue to be listed in separate articles as sections? The new article would also allow for expansion on these topics, and the inclusion of additional controversies related to Mario that are unmentioned on the Wiki (such as PETA's recent KFC campaign). Proposer: GBAToad (talk) Support
OpposeComments" I also believe that this article could include smaller examples such as the satanic references in Super Mario Bros. 3" is that a joke.--Glowsquid (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
FilterWITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER I think we should have swear filters that censor profanity in userspace, like the forum does. Even though the Courtesy Policy states that "The occasional use of profanity is allowed as long as it is not directed at another user, but it should generally be avoided. You are free to use profanity in moderation in your own userspace, but if it is decided that you have overstepped the boundaries of good taste, you may be asked to tone it down.", there are users who do not want to see it while letting other users do what they want, such as me. therefore, I think the wiki should have a swear filter, which can be enabled/disabled and censors profanity on user pages and talk pages. Proposer: Mariotime11 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsMake a list page for ripoff/bootlegs that have been acknowledged by Nintendo.MAKE THE LIST 19-0 There's been various proposals about covering knockoff. They've failed in part because of the community's kneejerk reaction to anything "unofficial" and also because while listing every random Hong Kong bootleg is entertaining, it's neither all that informative or useful. Maybe so, but what about the times where Nintendo has legally pursued the producer of such products? Legally dubious knockoffs are part of the life of any big media franchise, and covering them is as essential to establishing Mario's global popularity and influence as random pop culture references are. And if Nintendo has acknowledged these things exist (however how quietly), why shouldn't we? Of course, the page would require some proof that the things listed were c&d or otherwise acknowledged by Nintendo to prevent the page from being flooded by random Chinese bootlegs. Example of stuff that would be elligible for inclusion on such a page:
Proposer: Glowsquid (talk) Create page
Don'tCommentsDo we have to cover Super Hornio Brothers? Time Turner (talk)
How do we know if a bootleg or knockoff is acknowledged by Nintendo? LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Warning for editing large pages for mobile usersNO SPECIAL WARNING 2-15 So, I was roaming around SmashWiki, and I was about to edit a page, when I saw this at the top of the editing window;
I was thinking, "That's a great idea for the MarioWiki to use as well!" Because, lately, I've seen some revisions of pages where, by accident, users deleted massive amount of content from pages when only they are adding something in good faith, because their mobile browsers can't handle all of that text. What I am proposing is making a MediaWiki page having a template that is similar, but not exactly like the image, that automatically adds itself to large pages; pages that are 32 KB or more, as seen in the image. If SmashWiki could do it, so could we. Proposer: Goomba (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsThere is not way we are allow to have that template on. That could disrupt users on a mobile phone. Beside, Tucayo is editing on a mobile phone, and if you did that, he would be disrupted by that message. Pinkie Pie (talk) Although I oppose the template, maybe we could do this, so it shows up only when editing the page and we don't have to see notices littered around: <!-- WARNING: This page contains a large amount of content and may not be suitable for mobile browsers. Please take note of this before editing.--> Or should I split this to a separate proposal? Mariotime11 (talk) User shopsBAN USER SHOPS 26-11 Many years ago, users started spending inordinate amounts of time and edits on comics and stories based on their fellow users, so much so that Userpedia was created and it was decreed that all fiction must get off this main wiki and onto that database. (Or something like that.) Now, users have been spending inordinate amounts of time and edits on fictional "shops" that they run out of their userspace (messing about with stock, hiring other users, advertising, giving stuff away, etc. etc.). However, the Super Mario Wiki is NOT a social website, and these shops do NOT help us document all things Mario - rather, they distract folks from editing, clutter up the recent changes, and eat up our server space. Just as works of fiction were removed all those years ago, and just as user subpages "that do not serve the Super Mario Wiki" are not allowed, I am proposing that we bring the user shop phenomenon to an end. In other words, a bullet along the lines of "fake businesses (stores/shops, etc.)" would be added to the "What should I avoid? section of MW:Userspace. There are plenty of outlets for socializing: setting up shops on the wiki instead of editing is not one of them. Proposer: Walkazo (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWouldn't this "user shop" business violate some pats of the Userspace policy anyway? Baby Luigi (talk) If you remove my oppose, can't we just have one big, official shop? Electrical Bowser jr. (talk)
Goomba: it's not necessarily your shops that make you unproductive (in which you are productive in mainspace). I think it's the other users being engaged in the shops. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
@KP: Removing the shops isn't automatically going to convert every edit that could have been used on a user shop message into a mainspace edit, though... people being distracted is one thing, edits magically becoming productive is another. - Turboo (talk)
I apologize if this sounds somewhat biased, but I believe if every single shop on the wiki was removed, several users may get disappointed or angered, and they may wish to overturn this proposal if it passes. I know, we aren't a social network, but at least allow users to have some fun. Goomba (talk)
Might as well blank my userpage soon as there isn't much use for it when this passes. Goomba (talk) Thus, if we had no shops, the wiki would lose popularity. and thus moving them to the forum only gets ideas. A Paragoomba and the Koopa Bros. (talk)
@Paragoomba: This proposal is directed towards every shop and not just Goomba's, so I don't really get what you're trying to say...? - Turboo (talk) @Pinkie Pie: Really? You should vote based on your personal beliefs, not whether you'll disappoint admins or not. After all, this proposal carries the same weight as a proposal made by any other user. It's not anything special; if it was, the policy would be changed without us voting on it. Baby Luigi (talk)
I've noticed that most users having the "Your edits are mainly userspaces" template added on their talk do not own any shops. They are just not contributing enough to the Wiki. Removing the shops will not make the edits magically be contributive. Also, people are not a infinite well of information, as we own limited a limited amount of games. And if you think people are being unproductive because of this, go tell them. Put that template I so often see on Talkpages of users who don't even own a shop, or never purchased anything. And mabye, even if you did abolish shops, what tells you that people are going to be magically active on needed pages? Iggy Koopa Jr (talk)
@EBJr.: What does the amount of users on the wiki have to do with anything? We aren't judging our success based on a number of people. - Turboo (talk)
Banon: You're not making a good analogy here. See, this wiki is about a relatively silly subject. Encyclopaedia Britannica covers more broadly and formally, so of course it should be formal. The outcome of this proposal is clear, but I just want to point that out. LeftyGreenMario (talk) |