MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Power Flotzo (talk | contribs) (Proposal is now archived.) |
||
Line 368: | Line 368: | ||
@Niiue: I'm pretty sure that one of the MarioWiki pages said "this is not a social media site" somewhere, but I'll remove the misinformation. Friend userboxes don't positively impact the wiki either. No reason to keep something that doesn't do anything besides look nice. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 11:04, August 10, 2019 (EDT) | @Niiue: I'm pretty sure that one of the MarioWiki pages said "this is not a social media site" somewhere, but I'll remove the misinformation. Friend userboxes don't positively impact the wiki either. No reason to keep something that doesn't do anything besides look nice. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 11:04, August 10, 2019 (EDT) | ||
:Then why not ban userboxes entirely? Or custom signatures? Or personal images? There are a lot of things on the wiki that technically serve no purpose, and there's nothing wrong with that. The wiki isn't ''supposed'' to be serious business 24/7. {{User:Niiue/sig}} 11:33, August 10, 2019 (EDT) | :Then why not ban userboxes entirely? Or custom signatures? Or personal images? There are a lot of things on the wiki that technically serve no purpose, and there's nothing wrong with that. The wiki isn't ''supposed'' to be serious business 24/7. {{User:Niiue/sig}} 11:33, August 10, 2019 (EDT) | ||
===Determine how to handle unused appearances=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|include in the history section in other appearances|0-0-13-0|add}} | |||
Many times, a subject appears only in the files of a game, as unused content. Should this kind of appearance [[Bull's-Eye Bill#Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island / Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3|be covered in an article's history section]], [[Big Steely#Trivia|be kept in the trivia section]], or just stay in the game's pre-release and unused content section? If it is included in an article's history section, it doesn't have to have its own subsection, it can be covered in an "other appearances" section. In a game appearances list, I do think unused appearances should not be included. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Obsessive Mario Fan}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': August 26, 2019, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Keep in pre-release and unused content sections only==== | |||
====Keep in the trivia section==== | |||
====Include in the history section in "Other appearances"==== | |||
#{{User|Obsessive Mario Fan}} I don't think appearances as unused content are major enough to have a whole subsection. | |||
#{{User|YoshiFlutterJump}} Sounds like the best way to go. Their appearance in the game code is still more noteworthy than a random point in the trivia section, but there isn't a whole lot of info available to necessitate its own subsection. Other appearances will cut it just fine. | |||
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per YFJ. | |||
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Agreed. | |||
#{{User|Doomhiker}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Alex95}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Even though they didn't make it to the game, it should still be covered on those individual subjects' pages. Say, for example, Waluigi was originally planned to appear as a playable character in 3D World but only his model was left in the game. If it wasn't on his page, you'd have no way of knowing unless you went to 3D World's pre-release section/page specifically. I'm not a fan of bogging down trivia with all these appearances, but full sections for a game they never actually appeared in seems a bit overblown. This seems the most logical. | |||
#{{User|Lord Grammaticus}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mario Sakuraba}} Per all. Could do this sort of thing with minor cameos too. | |||
#{{User|1337star}} Per all for the majority of cases, but I'd like to note I think we should make special case-by-case exceptions where mentioning something in the main part of the History section would make more sense. I can't recall any specific examples off the top of my head, but I'm talking about things like, say, if an enemy type was cut from ''Paper Mario'' and then added in ''Thousand-Year Door'', it might flow better to mention that fact in the ''Paper Mario'' series section rather than other appearances. Or if something was cut from a game and then implemented in a remake or release, that fact should just be mentioned in the section for that game. | |||
====Include in the history section as its own subsection==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
On a similar note, if we're going to be moving "actual" (so-to-speak) appearances of subjects to an other appearances section, can we move sections that consist of "this subject doesn't appear in this game but something similar does" to other appearances or remove them entirely? It's always bothered me looking over history sections and seeing sections for games those subjects never appeared in just because of the appearance of a subspecies or similar concept, i.e. Dry Bones in 3D World and Odyssey. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 13:43, August 20, 2019 (EDT) | |||
:Yeah, I agree. It's not an actual appearance, and should stay in the variant's article. It might be able to be moved to "Other appearances", but I'm not sure. I'm thinking we should remove them entirely. {{User:Obsessive Mario Fan/sig}} 13:58, August 20, 2019 (EDT) | |||
::I think at the very least the debuts of those variants could potentially stay, but I don't think we'd need to mention every time that happens. So for example, going back to Dry Bones, the debut of Parabones in 3D World could be mentioned in other appearances, but we wouldn't need to mention Odyssey. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:03, August 20, 2019 (EDT) | |||
:::Depends on how big the article is. If the article is huge, this could be included within its own section in History. If it's not too big, Trivia is probably the best place, and if its really small, could just be in the main article (like with Dark Paratroopas in the Paper Mario series). [[User:Mario Sakuraba|Mario Sakuraba]] ([[User Talk:Mario Sakuraba|talk]]) 20:40, August 20, 2019 (UK Time) | |||
@Mario Sakuraba I think minor cameos should be included as their own subsections as long as they still remain in the Mario series. For example, a Koopa Shell making a small appearance in ''Kirby Super Star'' would go in other appearances, but Yoshi in ''SM64'' would get its own section. {{User:Obsessive Mario Fan/sig}} 17:10, August 20, 2019 (EDT) | |||
I also think appearances in board games, card games, etc. based on the Mario series should go in other appearances. {{User:Obsessive Mario Fan/sig}} 17:11, August 20, 2019 (EDT) |
Revision as of 20:19, August 26, 2019
Add RARS to Template:RatingsTemplate:ProposalOutcome RARS is Russian Age Rating System. There are already Mario games that have been classified by this system. So why not add it to the template? Sorry for my bad English. Update: Looks like we need to add GRAC and GSRR too. Proposer: Revilime (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsHow isn't it distinct from it? -- FanOfYoshi 12:12, July 12, 2019 (EDT)
RARS was created in 2012. So, only games released after that have RARS rating, I think.-- Reviilime (talk · edits) 12:36, July 12, 2019 (EDT)
Reviilime (talk · edits) 13:01, July 12, 2019 (EDT) @FanOfYoshi heh I appreciate inputting my name in Cyrillic but ignoring that Baby Luigi is actually called Малыш Луиджи, my name romanized would actually be spelled Бейби Луиджи. It was pretty close though! Ray Trace(T|C) 14:09, July 16, 2019 (EDT) Create a Mario Party 11 redirectTemplate:ProposalOutcome This may sound kind of stupid, but I'm sure that there are people out there who'll automatically assume that Super Mario Party is called Mario Party 11. Super Mario Party is the eleventh Mario Party title to come out on a home console, and thus, when compared to the overall Mario Party series of 25 games, it's the 11th main game, due to the other 14 installments being either handheld or arcade. Harkening to the Mario Kart games, Super Mario Kart-Mario Kart Wii have redirects numbered 1-6. If the first six Mario Kart games warrant numbered redirects, then I really don't see why Super Mario Party cannot be treated in the same manner. Proposer: MarioManiac1981 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsHere's the proposal in question in case anyone wants to view it before voting here. (T|C) 00:08, July 14, 2019 (EDT) Super Mario Party does refer to itself as "the 11th party" in-game. Scrooge200 (talk) 00:14, July 14, 2019 (EDT)
Create articles for the worlds in Dr. Mario WorldTemplate:ProposalOutcomeA proposal regarding creation of the levels is still underway. That being said, this is a much more clear-cut situation and does not need a proposal, as the stages would have to be covered somehow. After looking at the above proposal, knowing that Dr. Mario World simply doesn't warrant articles for each of its worlds, we'd might as well get the game's worlds themselves covered. Each of Dr. Mario World's levels don't have much information to about themselves, but the worlds as a whole have a lot more that can be brought up about them. Kinda like five sticks being tied together being stronger than each individual stick. 'Nuff said, the above proposal and the opinions of Toadette the Achiever and Mario JC back this proposal up. Proposer: MarioManiac1981 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThere's absolutely no point in forcing a second proposal, just vote on the appropriate option above and state your reasoning as you did here. The proposal seems to have an overwhelming consensus now, but there's the remote possibility of it changing by the proposal's end. -- Lord G. matters. 23:29, July 21, 2019 (EDT) Add template for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate's movesTemplate:ProposalOutcomeCreation of such a template does not need a proposal. I've noticed that previous Super Smash Bros. games have templates leading to the characters' special moves, as well as universal techniques like air dodging, footstool jumping, and tether recoveries. It's been more than 7 months since Super Smash Bros. Ultimate - the most recent Smash game - was released, yet we still don't have a templates dedicated to its characters' moves. I'd like to change that. Proposer: MarioManiac1981 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThis really does not need a proposal. All other Smash games have a template like this, and it should automatically should be no different for Ultimate. Doomhiker (talk) 19:36, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
btw opposes mean you don't want the template to exist in the first place, so that's kind of conflicting with your comments. I can probably just cancel this outright, but I want to see what MarioManiac says first. 21:13, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
Add when the Just released and New subject should be removed, while slightly rewording the former templateTemplate:ProposalOutcome Just recently there has been discussion regarding when the {{New subject}} template should be removed. While Alex95 said that the template should be removed after a month, the template, and its own page, says nothing about a date where it should be removed. In fact, it says "When the game is released, or more information about this subject is found, this article may need major rewriting. Remove this only when the changes have been applied.". So basically, it says that as long as the proper changes/info have been added about the new subject, the template can be removed, thus you can technically remove the template day one per the template, and as the template says that the template should only be removed once the changes are made technically the template can be on a page for years, if the changes are not made. So it is very easy to see how users can be confused on how long the template should last, and the current wording for removal should be reworded, as the template should be an alert for new subjects that are longer than one day old, but not years old. Plus it cannot hurt to specify when the template should be removed, to clear confusion. So, I propose to add a sentence and to reword the New subject template to specify when to remove the template, and the specification will also apply to the Just released template. This is how the templates should look like after this proposal passes, if it does: This article is about a game that has just been released. Major changes should be made by a contributor who has a reliable source. This template should be removed after a month has passed since the game was first released. This article is about a subject in an upcoming or recently released game. When the game is released, or more information about this subject is found, this article may need major rewriting. This template should be removed after a month has passed since the game was first released. The templates' pages will also include the date of removal. Proposer: Doomhiker (talk) Support
OpposeComments@FanOfYoshi I done it on this page due to it affecting two templates. I would much rather one proposal then two dealing with near-identical matters. Doomhiker (talk) 13:22, July 17, 2019 (EDT)
Disallow use of "per all" votes on proposals and featured article nominationsTemplate:ProposalOutcome Let's face it, this proposal had to happen. Too many people vote on a proposal just for the sake of voting, and bandwagon on the side with more votes. "Per all" implies that the voter is too lazy to simply point out their reasons or even refer back to specific previous votes. They instead opt to say "per all above reasons", quite possibly because they haven't even read the above reasons and are simply voting just by looking at the voting headers, without looking at the reasons for either side. Worst-case scenario, they see that one of the sides has a lot more votes and they cast a "per all" vote on that side just because. "Per all" is the lamest excuse to vote that ever existed and goes directly against proposal policy of "Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it". "Per all" has some real meaning behind it, but it's rarely used just because the voter agrees with and would otherwise list every single reason posted above it. It's usually just used because the voter hasn't considered the matter carefully and is rushing their vote to the side with more. It's basically putting no reason with your vote other than "you know what just look at the votes above this because I don't feel like typing everything". Therefore, I propose that the use of "Per all" in any proposal or featured article nominations be prohibited, and any votes involving its use are eligible for removal (unless they provide other reasons along with "per all", in which case the "per all" portion of the vote be removed and the rest of the vote stays as-is). "Per proposal" and "Per <user>" votes will still be allowed, but in the case of the latter, voters must list the users they most strongly agree with, one by one. This provides at least some certainty that they have considered the matter carefully, and examined the reasons to see which ones they buy. Proposer: YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsYes, there's an inherent irony in my typing an entire paragraph about how this is going to make people feel compelled to type paragraphs, and no, I don't much care because that's well beside the point. -- Lord G. matters. 19:02, July 27, 2019 (EDT)
I do think that rule of "Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it" is not necessary. Per all and blank votes are simply just reiterating the other positions. To assume the worst from blank votes kinda runs against the whole "assume good faith" sort of thing. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:37, July 27, 2019 (EDT) Create articles on individual Dr. Mario levelsTemplate:ProposalOutcome I'm specifically referring to the Miracle Cure Laboratory levels in Dr. Mario: Miracle Cure and the story mode stages in Dr. Mario World. It still bothers me that somehow the Dr. Mario series levels aren't explicitly covered by policy, so I propose that we be able to create them. I know that it may be a bit of a stretch to propose this, but I think we have a good precedent to go by: the levels from the Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes of Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey, as even though they aren't really comprehensive levels per se (and thus would technically be in the same boat as the aforementioned Dr. Mario series levels), they still have articles nonetheless. Should this proposal fail for either game, tables on the list of stages in each game will be created instead. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Create articles for both games' levels
Only create articles on the levels from Dr Mario: Miracle Cure
Only create articles on the levels from Dr Mario WorldDon't create any articlesCommentsFor the level layouts, we can show the virus layouts like this: Is it a good idea? TheDarkStar 15:37, July 21, 2019 (EDT)
What about full Worlds in Dr. Mario World? I think those should recieve articles, but probably not the individual levels. --DeepFriedCabbage 17:08, July 21, 2019 (EDT)
there i made an article on one of the worlds from dr mario world Ray Trace(T|C) 17:51, July 25, 2019 (EDT) Reorganize and split Gallery:Toys and other Merchandise galleriesTemplate:ProposalOutcome Hi, so this is going to be a short, yet complicated proposal. There are two gallery pages, Gallery:Toys and Gallery:Figurines (linked in header), and it's a massive lump of merchandise images, which makes it difficult to actually add information regarding the merchandise. Pikipedia actually manages their merchandise page better in my opinion, as they organize by merchandise type in the mainspace (rather than gallery mainspace), and add some info on the individual merchandise. Part of me thinks that the lack of information on official merchandise (aside from obscurity) is because much of it is listed on a gallery page, rather than designated mainspace article. There is more information to the merchandise than just a picture of galleries. Even if this proposal does pass, we should consider sorting the merchandise into sections or articles, so like Super Mario series merchandise, Yoshi's Island merchandise, Donkey Kong series merchandise, Mario Kart merchandise. There's simply too much merchandise. Mario is one of the biggest gaming franchise of them all and has numerous spinoffs and franchises. The longevity of the franchise makes me think it's the biggest gaming franchise of them all... I'm definitely going to need the community's help on this big proposal. Proposer: Results May Vary (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsSo what are some possible ideas for how we will reorganize the articles into mainspace? What will the titles be? I definitely think doing it by franchise and spinoff series is the way to go. general merchandise (such as generic mario emblem) can be sorted under "general merchandise" or something like that. I want to hear your opinions. Results May Vary (talk) 22:10, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
New template: AlphabetizeTemplate:ProposalOutcome Historically, lists and galleries have attempted to be alphabetical. For the most part, they have remained somewhat intact in remaining alphabetical. In a lot of other cases, this is not exactly true, which is where this template comes into play. This template, to be used in sections of pages, indicates that a list should be made alphabetical. It is significantly different from {{rewrite}} because rewriting a page generally adds to or removes content, and requires a type of reactional thinking to form NEW content. To make a section alphabetical, it requires moving around pre-existing content. This should lead to a higher level of consistency among articles, and greater ease for readers to navigate pages. The template would look like this: It has been requested that this section be re-organized to be in alphabetical order. Proposer: Trig Jegman (talk) Support
Oppose
Commentsi said that the borders of the template is too thick and it's inconsistent with the rest of the templates in its fashion. Ray Trace(T|C) 23:38, August 1, 2019 (EDT)
@Doomhiker, Tense can likely go. It's a subsidiary of the Rewrite template, even sharing its category. No mainspace pages are currently using it, possibly using the standard Rewrite template instead. It seems pretty redundant. As for Trivia, it's meant for one specific type of section and has its own category to go with it. 15:16, August 2, 2019 (EDT)
One suggestion I have would be to add a parameter for the user to specify a request for another sort order other than alphabetical (e.g., "It has been requested that this section be re-organized to be in release-date order." for character screenshot galleries) as other sort orders are common and I have seen many character screenshot galleries that aren't sorted properly. This may address Results May Vary's point. --Super Mario Fan 67 (T•C•S) 22:53, August 2, 2019 (EDT) Ban friend userboxesTemplate:ProposalOutcome No, not discourage. Ban. I've seen users giving each other friend userboxes after a "friend request" (a talk page message). Thing is, this is not a social media site. There is no reason to keep around a relic from the past that should have been removed years ago. Proposer: TheDarkStar (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsYes, i'm aware that this is not a social media, but as long as they are not too frequent, they can stay. I oppose. -- FanOfYoshi 10:47, August 10, 2019 (EDT) @Niiue: I'm pretty sure that one of the MarioWiki pages said "this is not a social media site" somewhere, but I'll remove the misinformation. Friend userboxes don't positively impact the wiki either. No reason to keep something that doesn't do anything besides look nice. TheDarkStar 11:04, August 10, 2019 (EDT)
Determine how to handle unused appearancesTemplate:ProposalOutcome Many times, a subject appears only in the files of a game, as unused content. Should this kind of appearance be covered in an article's history section, be kept in the trivia section, or just stay in the game's pre-release and unused content section? If it is included in an article's history section, it doesn't have to have its own subsection, it can be covered in an "other appearances" section. In a game appearances list, I do think unused appearances should not be included. Proposer: Obsessive Mario Fan (talk) Keep in pre-release and unused content sections onlyKeep in the trivia sectionInclude in the history section in "Other appearances"
Include in the history section as its own subsectionCommentsOn a similar note, if we're going to be moving "actual" (so-to-speak) appearances of subjects to an other appearances section, can we move sections that consist of "this subject doesn't appear in this game but something similar does" to other appearances or remove them entirely? It's always bothered me looking over history sections and seeing sections for games those subjects never appeared in just because of the appearance of a subspecies or similar concept, i.e. Dry Bones in 3D World and Odyssey. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 13:43, August 20, 2019 (EDT)
@Mario Sakuraba I think minor cameos should be included as their own subsections as long as they still remain in the Mario series. For example, a Koopa Shell making a small appearance in Kirby Super Star would go in other appearances, but Yoshi in SM64 would get its own section. --DeepFriedCabbage 17:10, August 20, 2019 (EDT) I also think appearances in board games, card games, etc. based on the Mario series should go in other appearances. --DeepFriedCabbage 17:11, August 20, 2019 (EDT) |