MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/48: Difference between revisions
Time Turner (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m (Text replacement - "<br/>" to "<br>") |
||
(16 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template | {{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}} | ||
__TOC__ | |||
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | |||
===Is it "Coin" or "coin"?=== | ===Is it "Coin" or "coin"?=== | ||
Line 6: | Line 7: | ||
Currently, the wiki has no set standard for the capitalization of the golden that Mario and co. collect in abundance across the franchise: is it "[[Coin]]", with a capital C, or "[[coin]]", with a lowercase c? This isn't entirely clear-cut: from the games that I've looked at, there are many that do not capitalize it, including most recently ''[[Grabbin' Gold|Mario Party 8]]'', ''[[List of trophies in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U|Sm4sh]]'', and ''[[Coin Rush|New Super Mario Bros. 2]]'', but there are also other games that capitalize it, including ''[[Triple Jump for Coins|New Super Mario Bros. Wii]]'' and ''[[Coin Shower Flower|Mario Party]]'', and there's something odd and inconsistent about listing the [[Red Coin]], the [[Purple Coin]], the [[Blue Coin]], the [[20 Coin]], the [[Key Coin]], and many others as being derivatives of the coin. That lowercase "coin" seems out of place, doesn't it? Lowercasing it just because it's a generic noun doesn't hold either; the [[Mushroom]] is plainly and consistently capitalized in just about every circumstances. If you're going to say it's because the ''Mario'' Mushrooms obviously aren't like the real-life mushrooms, then I'd argue the same goes for the floating, golden, abundant Coins. There ''is'' a precedent for not capitalizing the names of subjects with, for example, [[treasure chest]] (despite there being at least [[Treasure Divers|one in-game source]] that capitalizes them, but that's an issue for another time), but it's a moot point if the subject isn't generic in the first place. | Currently, the wiki has no set standard for the capitalization of the golden that Mario and co. collect in abundance across the franchise: is it "[[Coin]]", with a capital C, or "[[coin]]", with a lowercase c? This isn't entirely clear-cut: from the games that I've looked at, there are many that do not capitalize it, including most recently ''[[Grabbin' Gold|Mario Party 8]]'', ''[[List of trophies in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U|Sm4sh]]'', and ''[[Coin Rush|New Super Mario Bros. 2]]'', but there are also other games that capitalize it, including ''[[Triple Jump for Coins|New Super Mario Bros. Wii]]'' and ''[[Coin Shower Flower|Mario Party]]'', and there's something odd and inconsistent about listing the [[Red Coin]], the [[Purple Coin]], the [[Blue Coin]], the [[20 Coin]], the [[Key Coin]], and many others as being derivatives of the coin. That lowercase "coin" seems out of place, doesn't it? Lowercasing it just because it's a generic noun doesn't hold either; the [[Mushroom]] is plainly and consistently capitalized in just about every circumstances. If you're going to say it's because the ''Mario'' Mushrooms obviously aren't like the real-life mushrooms, then I'd argue the same goes for the floating, golden, abundant Coins. There ''is'' a precedent for not capitalizing the names of subjects with, for example, [[treasure chest]] (despite there being at least [[Treasure Divers|one in-game source]] that capitalizes them, but that's an issue for another time), but it's a moot point if the subject isn't generic in the first place. | ||
This may seem like a trivially minor issue, but at the same time, this is an issue that has yet to reach a decisive conclusion. I fail to see a reason why we shouldn't strive for consistency, especially since [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | This may seem like a trivially minor issue, but at the same time, this is an issue that has yet to reach a decisive conclusion. I fail to see a reason why we shouldn't strive for consistency, especially since [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/28#Minigame_or_Mini-game|we've already had a proposal]] to decide on a set spelling for [[minigame]] (spoilers: we decided on minigame). | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br> | ||
Line 57: | Line 58: | ||
===Include the date a proposal was withdrawn within the proposal (when applicable)=== | ===Include the date a proposal was withdrawn within the proposal (when applicable)=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0|include date}} | {{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0|include date}} | ||
When it comes to the proposal archives, in which we write down the date each proposal ended, it's standard to use the date a proposal was canceled by its proposer or withdrawn for whatever other reason, rather than the proposed deadline ([[Template:PArchive|as documented here]]). This makes sense: it wouldn't be accurate to say that a proposal had concluded a week later than it actually did, and the point of the archives is that we're documenting each proposal exactly as they played out (which is why we make note of proposals that themselves failed but whose proposed changes later passed, and vice-versa). With that in mind, why do we only make note of this in the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|broad]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | When it comes to the proposal archives, in which we write down the date each proposal ended, it's standard to use the date a proposal was canceled by its proposer or withdrawn for whatever other reason, rather than the proposed deadline ([[Template:PArchive|as documented here]]). This makes sense: it wouldn't be accurate to say that a proposal had concluded a week later than it actually did, and the point of the archives is that we're documenting each proposal exactly as they played out (which is why we make note of proposals that themselves failed but whose proposed changes later passed, and vice-versa). With that in mind, why do we only make note of this in the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|broad]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive|archives]] and not within the proposals itself? Sure, it's possible to find the date it was canceled by going through the page's history, in the same way it's also possible to find the original proposer through the history page, but we still make note of it within the proposal itself. Leaving only the proposed deadline by itself is also rather misleading and non-informative, considering that any users reading through the proposal wouldn't be able to obviously tell when it actually closed. Even with the proposal outcome saying it was canceled, that doesn't help people find out ''when'' it was canceled. We should strive for accuracy, especially when all we'd need to do is make note of one more date. | ||
The changes I have in mind would only be applicable to proposals that were canceled before their deadline, obviously. First of all, the '''Deadline''' section would be renamed to '''Proposed Deadline''', with no changes to the date. Secondly, a section called '''Date Withdrawn''' would be placed underneath the Deadline, documenting exactly when the proposal was canceled. Ideally, this would include the time in GMT to match the Deadline, but for simplicity's sake, this proposal will only ask that the day needs to be documented and not the time. The details may be subject to change through future discussions, but the main change is clear: within the proposals, document when they were canceled. | The changes I have in mind would only be applicable to proposals that were canceled before their deadline, obviously. First of all, the '''Deadline''' section would be renamed to '''Proposed Deadline''', with no changes to the date. Secondly, a section called '''Date Withdrawn''' would be placed underneath the Deadline, documenting exactly when the proposal was canceled. Ideally, this would include the time in GMT to match the Deadline, but for simplicity's sake, this proposal will only ask that the day needs to be documented and not the time. The details may be subject to change through future discussions, but the main change is clear: within the proposals, document when they were canceled. | ||
Line 233: | Line 234: | ||
For a related topic, I have been thinking about the 7-day proposal and 14-day TPP should either be all 7 or 14 days for any proposal. Is there any benefit to having this time rule as we currently have it? --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 13:38, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | For a related topic, I have been thinking about the 7-day proposal and 14-day TPP should either be all 7 or 14 days for any proposal. Is there any benefit to having this time rule as we currently have it? --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 13:38, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
:I think that this was discussed at some point in the past, but I can't seem to find any trace of it... At the very least, it's one of those rules that's been around [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | :I think that this was discussed at some point in the past, but I can't seem to find any trace of it... At the very least, it's one of those rules that's been around [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/18#Rules_and_Regulations_for_Specific-Article_Proposals|for a long time]] and nobody has really bothered to question it. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
===Officially repeal the "no support reason" Featured Article nomination rule=== | ===Officially repeal the "no support reason" Featured Article nomination rule=== | ||
Line 372: | Line 373: | ||
:::::That'd be a really odd identifier considering [[Shiny Paper Goomba]] is a different enemy. I wouldn't support it, but I can see this as an option. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 19:15, 14 September 2017 (EDT) | :::::That'd be a really odd identifier considering [[Shiny Paper Goomba]] is a different enemy. I wouldn't support it, but I can see this as an option. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 19:15, 14 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
Also, why is this a talk page proposal? Aren't these bulk changes the kind of thing best suited for the main proposal page, especially when it (potentially) involves merging? [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | Also, why is this a talk page proposal? Aren't these bulk changes the kind of thing best suited for the main proposal page, especially when it (potentially) involves merging? [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/45#Move_Mario_Party_3_Duel_Maps_back_to_their_old_capitalization|One proposal]] was even called out for deciding to rename multiple pages in a talk page proposal. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:19, 14 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
:I thought having two weeks would be enough time for everyone to go over the different options. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 19:22, 14 September 2017 (EDT) | :I thought having two weeks would be enough time for everyone to go over the different options. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 19:22, 14 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
::"Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page [the main proposal page]." I'm pretty sure this qualifies. Besides, how much time is really necessary to understand "create articles and merge other articles", "merge articles", and "create articles"? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:25, 14 September 2017 (EDT) | ::"Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page [the main proposal page]." I'm pretty sure this qualifies. Besides, how much time is really necessary to understand "create articles and merge other articles", "merge articles", and "create articles"? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:25, 14 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
Line 426: | Line 427: | ||
===What is ''Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic''?=== | ===What is ''Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic''?=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-0-0-10-2|part of a group unto itself}} | {{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-0-0-10-2|part of a group unto itself}} | ||
''[[Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic]]'' is, to make a long story short, a game that was altered to become ''[[Super Mario Bros. 2]]''; though it did not originally contain any ''Mario'' subjects, [[Shy Guy]]s, [[Pokey]]s, [[Bob-omb]]s, [[Birdo]], and others all originate from this game. Due to the impact this game had on the ''Mario'' franchise, we cover it on the wiki, and I think we can agree on keeping it that way. At the same time, it currently exists in a limbo where we don't know to what extent we should cover it. There was [[Talk:Yume_Kōjō:_Doki_Doki_Panic#Merge_Imajin.2C_Mama.2C_Lina.2C_Papa.2C_and_Poki_and_Piki_with_this_article|a proposal]] that decided that covering the game's characters was too much, but at the same time, the article is a part of [[:Category:Games not originally in the Mario | ''[[Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic]]'' is, to make a long story short, a game that was altered to become ''[[Super Mario Bros. 2]]''; though it did not originally contain any ''Mario'' subjects, [[Shy Guy]]s, [[Pokey]]s, [[Bob-omb]]s, [[Birdo]], and others all originate from this game. Due to the impact this game had on the ''Mario'' franchise, we cover it on the wiki, and I think we can agree on keeping it that way. At the same time, it currently exists in a limbo where we don't know to what extent we should cover it. There was [[Talk:Yume_Kōjō:_Doki_Doki_Panic#Merge_Imajin.2C_Mama.2C_Lina.2C_Papa.2C_and_Poki_and_Piki_with_this_article|a proposal]] that decided that covering the game's characters was too much, but at the same time, the article is a part of [[:Category:Games not originally in the Super Mario franchise]], with an emphasis on ''not originally''; if it's currently a part of the ''Mario'' franchise, then we should cover it to that extent. [[MarioWiki:Coverage]] doesn't even bring up the game, so there's no help there. Still, if we use the sections of the policy page as a guideline, we may be able to decide for ourselves what is ''Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic''. Here are the logical options: | ||
'''Option 1: It is a full-fledged member of the ''Mario'' franchise.'''<br> | '''Option 1: It is a full-fledged member of the ''Mario'' franchise.'''<br> | ||
Line 523: | Line 524: | ||
===Create articles on all of the Trouble Center missions in ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door''=== | ===Create articles on all of the Trouble Center missions in ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door''=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|5-2|create articles}} | {{ProposalOutcome|passed|5-2|create articles}} | ||
I'm proposing this in light of the comment {{user|Baby Luigi}} made [[MarioWiki:Proposals#Create articles on all of the Lakitu Info Center missions in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam|here]]<sup>[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 48#Create articles on all of the Lakitu Info Center missions in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam|(backup link)]]</sup>. Same deal as the other proposal, except now we're splitting off info on the [[Trouble Center]]. | I'm proposing this in light of the comment {{user|Baby Luigi}} made [[MarioWiki:Proposals#Create articles on all of the Lakitu Info Center missions in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam|here]]<sup>[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/48#Create articles on all of the Lakitu Info Center missions in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam|(backup link)]]</sup>. Same deal as the other proposal, except now we're splitting off info on the [[Trouble Center]]. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Toadette the Achiever}} (original concern voiced by {{User|Baby Luigi}})<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Toadette the Achiever}} (original concern voiced by {{User|Baby Luigi}})<br> | ||
Line 580: | Line 581: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
What strong difference is there between these items and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | What strong difference is there between these items and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/44#Split_the_Mario_.26_Luigi:_Superstar_Saga_and_Partners_in_Time_badges_into_separate_articles|the game's badges]]? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 20:06, 23 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
:The drinks are consumable items in the same vein as Super Mushrooms, Golden Mushrooms, Syrups, etc. They are totally not related to badges at all. For the Special Items, are they even categorized under a specific equipment in the game, or are they just called "Special Items"? I don't know, they all have a unique sprite design from each other, have a specific scene relating to how they're obtained, and have a history of being based off a Nintendo-themed item. I think more information can be said about them than the badges and clothing. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 20:18, 23 September 2017 (EDT) | :The drinks are consumable items in the same vein as Super Mushrooms, Golden Mushrooms, Syrups, etc. They are totally not related to badges at all. For the Special Items, are they even categorized under a specific equipment in the game, or are they just called "Special Items"? I don't know, they all have a unique sprite design from each other, have a specific scene relating to how they're obtained, and have a history of being based off a Nintendo-themed item. I think more information can be said about them than the badges and clothing. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 20:18, 23 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
:The special items are more similar to the equippable Accessories in later Mario & Luigi games, because they have their own equipment slot but don't fit as either clothing or badges. But yeah, I agree that they'd be better standing alone, as this was before accessories were common equipment you could obtain on the field, in battle, etc and were definitely meant to be, well, special. {{User:Yosh Strider/sig}} 12:55, 26 September 2017 (EDT) | :The special items are more similar to the equippable Accessories in later Mario & Luigi games, because they have their own equipment slot but don't fit as either clothing or badges. But yeah, I agree that they'd be better standing alone, as this was before accessories were common equipment you could obtain on the field, in battle, etc and were definitely meant to be, well, special. {{User:Yosh Strider/sig}} 12:55, 26 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
Line 621: | Line 622: | ||
===Colons in navigation templates=== | ===Colons in navigation templates=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|2-10-0|remove colons}} | {{ProposalOutcome|passed|2-10-0|remove colons}} | ||
Here's a simple problem: when it comes to navigation templates for games, some of them include a colon in their name (such as [[Template:ML:SS|Template:ML''':'''SS]] and [[Template:MP:IT|Template:MP''':'''IT]]) and others do not (such as [[Template:PMTTYD]] and [[Template:LMDM]]). Unlike [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | Here's a simple problem: when it comes to navigation templates for games, some of them include a colon in their name (such as [[Template:ML:SS|Template:ML''':'''SS]] and [[Template:MP:IT|Template:MP''':'''IT]]) and others do not (such as [[Template:PMTTYD]] and [[Template:LMDM]]). Unlike [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/47#Standardization_of_Species_Templates.27_Endings|my previous proposal]] about nav templates, this one's more of an issue: it is incredibly annoying for editors when they have to guess whether or not the template they're adding in has a colon or whether the new template they're making should have one in its title. Leaving things as they are just makes things confusingly inconsistent. Given that [[mb:posts/1780440|there's no rhyme or reason for the inconsistency]], it'd be best for this to be settled for prevent any further inconvenience. There are two options for tackling this: applying a colon to every nav template that lacks it (assuming the game it's covering has a colon in its name, naturally), and removing a colon from every template that has it. I'd personally advocate not having them in the titles: though it's a part of the game's name, it doesn't convey any information that would help editors recognize the name, making it effectively wasted space. Since these templates will be constantly used by editors, it also helps to compactify them in any way we can. I also highly doubt that there will ever be a case in the future where the acronyms of two games can only be distinguished by the colon in one of their names. It also doesn't hurt that the majority of the (applicable) templates alreadny don't have a colon in their titles. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br> | ||
Line 679: | Line 680: | ||
**{{tem|WMOD}} | **{{tem|WMOD}} | ||
**{{tem|WWDIY}} | **{{tem|WWDIY}} | ||
**{{tem|WWDIY | **{{tem|WWDIY microgames}} | ||
**{{tem|WWDIYS | **{{tem|WWDIYS microgames}} | ||
**{{tem|WWIMM}} | **{{tem|WWIMM}} | ||
**{{tem|WWIMM | **{{tem|WWIMM microgames}} | ||
**{{tem|WWSM}} | **{{tem|WWSM}} | ||
**{{tem|WWSM | **{{tem|WWSM microgames}} | ||
I can see why there is no colon... for a majority of these without colons. There like one time instances, thus why a colon for these. Exceptions, Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, Paper Mario, and Wario Ware. The 2 Mario Kart are different from the series. Right now, I can see myself going for any of the three options. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 16:49, 1 October 2017 (EDT) | I can see why there is no colon... for a majority of these without colons. There like one time instances, thus why a colon for these. Exceptions, Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, Paper Mario, and Wario Ware. The 2 Mario Kart are different from the series. Right now, I can see myself going for any of the three options. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 16:49, 1 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
Line 761: | Line 762: | ||
@TimeTurner: Thanks for the info. It was really helpful. As for "complete control", I'm saying that the proposer should be able to decide if he/she wants to remove it, and removing rule 4 would restrict them from doing that. If they realized immediately that the said action was done for a reason and that the proposal would go against the action, then they should remove the proposal. If you still don't understand, then do you remember my proposal about merging the Hot Monster article with the Red Monster article that completely failed? I thought they were the same thing, but I immediately learned they weren't. I decided to keep the proposal anyway, because I just wanted to see how it would turn out in the end. {{User:Skuchi037/sig}} 16:09, 8 October 2017 (EDT) | @TimeTurner: Thanks for the info. It was really helpful. As for "complete control", I'm saying that the proposer should be able to decide if he/she wants to remove it, and removing rule 4 would restrict them from doing that. If they realized immediately that the said action was done for a reason and that the proposal would go against the action, then they should remove the proposal. If you still don't understand, then do you remember my proposal about merging the Hot Monster article with the Red Monster article that completely failed? I thought they were the same thing, but I immediately learned they weren't. I decided to keep the proposal anyway, because I just wanted to see how it would turn out in the end. {{User:Skuchi037/sig}} 16:09, 8 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
:There's already a rule that allows you to cancel your proposal without a reason ''early on'', especially with [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | :There's already a rule that allows you to cancel your proposal without a reason ''early on'', especially with [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/48#Double_the_amount_of_time_a_proposer_can_edit_their_talk_page_proposals|this recently passed proposal]]. If you learn "immediately" that your proposed change wasn't a good idea, then you're free to cancel it. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 00:35, 9 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
@Chester: The danger is that this rule could be used to cancel a proposal solely because the proposer doesn't like the outcome, and not because they had any sort of legitimate reason. If they did, they can inform an admin and close it that way. This is not the kind of power that needs to be given to proposers. Besides, spring cleaning is always good; why bog down the list with a pointless rule? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 00:35, 9 October 2017 (EDT) | @Chester: The danger is that this rule could be used to cancel a proposal solely because the proposer doesn't like the outcome, and not because they had any sort of legitimate reason. If they did, they can inform an admin and close it that way. This is not the kind of power that needs to be given to proposers. Besides, spring cleaning is always good; why bog down the list with a pointless rule? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 00:35, 9 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
Line 772: | Line 773: | ||
@Chat Man: You called the rule optional. Rules are not something you can pick and choose from to follow. They are what you must try to follow as best as you can. I say that because we are all human. Sometimes we can't follow the rules. But in no wise it is optional. And if you don't like the rule, then why did you oppose? And you're perring other votes which have things you should read as well. Also, I am just trying to cover all points, but I will let you decide to change it or keep it the same. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 21:54, 15 October 2017 (EDT) | @Chat Man: You called the rule optional. Rules are not something you can pick and choose from to follow. They are what you must try to follow as best as you can. I say that because we are all human. Sometimes we can't follow the rules. But in no wise it is optional. And if you don't like the rule, then why did you oppose? And you're perring other votes which have things you should read as well. Also, I am just trying to cover all points, but I will let you decide to change it or keep it the same. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 21:54, 15 October 2017 (EDT) | ||
===Make a new, separate "delete" template for pages with unique talk pages=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-7|don't make separate template}} | |||
As it stands, our current delete template urges for the talk page to be deleted as well, presumably assuming that it's from a move redirect. However, in the case of merges or outright page deletions, this is a bad thing, as it could cause the loss of why those events occurred in the first place. I propose we make a new, separate one for such eventualities. "deletenottalk" perhaps? I'm not sure if this belongs in "changes" or "new features," so I'm putting it here. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' October 29, 2017, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Mario Kart DS Fan}}Good idea doc. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} I would love to see a mock-up before I even consider supporting this. | |||
#{{user|Time Turner}} Per Wildgoose and Mr. L in the comments. | |||
#{{User|Alex95}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Ultimate Mr. L in the comments. | |||
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per Wildgoosespeeder in the voting section, and Ultimate Mr. L in the comments. | |||
#{{User|Ultimate Mr. L}} Per myself down there. | |||
#{{User|Lcrossmk8}} Per the Green Thunder, and per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
I think we should add an option to the current template that removes that text, something like: <code><nowiki>{{delete|-reason-|talk=no}}</nowiki></code> It may also be a good plan to delete that text altogether and just let the admins decide whether or not to delete the talk page. They know what they're doing.<br> | |||
{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 14:42, 22 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:This is exactly what I was thinking. {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 22:13, 22 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
@Time Turner: Guess what? I don't know ''how'' to make templates, so I can't make an example! But it would be like the current one, but replacing the "Please delete any accompanying talk pages as well" with "please do not delete the accompanying talk page. And @Ultimate Mr. L, the solution ''is not'' "Make your current template convoluted." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:34, 23 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:@Doc von Schmeltick: Yes it is. That's why one user merged {{tem|newsubject-section}} with {{tem|new subject}}. (Well, you have to admit, it '''''is''''' a similar scenario.) {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 02:05, 23 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
::And it has confounded me multiple times, because it doesn't come with a use manual easy at hand, and I have to search for and ''hopefully'' find it within the nightmare that is our "templates" category for any direction at all. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:54, 23 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::If you don't know how to make a template, ask someone to help you. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask to see a mock-up of a new template. Also, I'm perring other people, why are you singling '''me'' out? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 07:21, 23 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
::::Because I was half asleep (and quite frankly you're normally the one who gives me the most resistance it seems, so it's almost reflexive). I meant to @WildGooseSpeeder. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 07:28, 23 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::::You've used the excuse that you're tired on several other occasions. If your level of tiredness affects your editing to the point where your comments can be confused, ''don't edit when you're tired''. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 07:45, 23 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
::::::I needed to answer the question though. And I re-read it several times. The problem was I had skimmed over the list while somewhat tired, so my backup checks didn't work. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 08:02, 23 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::::::There was not an immediate need for you to respond to the opposition votes. Proposals last for a week; you have plenty of time to come back when you're not tired. I'm also going to caution you to actually do that, considering the number of tiredness-based hiccups you've had. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 08:07, 23 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
{| class="delete-notice" style="text-align:justify;margin:.5em 2%;padding:0.5em 1em 0.5em 0.8em;width:96%" | |||
|This {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|Category=category|Template=template|File=file|#default=page}} is currently pending deletion. {{#if:{{{1|}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{1}}}.|}}<br><span style="font-size: smaller">Please do not delete the talk page.</span> | |||
|} | |||
Maybe we could change the outline color to green for quick differentiation. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:20, 23 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
Want to add that deleting talk pages with content is already optional, as per [[MarioWiki:Deletion policy]]. The sysops don't usually delete talk pages if the content there is relevant already, such as a proposal determining the deletion of its main page. The talk page is kept, due to the proposal, but the main page is deleted. However, I will agree to a rewording, such as "Unless there is content that shouldn't be deleted on the talk page, please delete the corresponding talk page as well." {{User:Alex95/sig}} 21:13, 25 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:I got worried on that front after [[Talk:School of Fish]] got deleted...admittedly, it was subsequently restored, but still, if the only reason why the corresponding talk page would be deleted would be for moving pages, why have the template say that at all? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:26, 25 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
===Move "Rewrite-expand" to "Incomplete"=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|0-10|don't move the template}} | |||
I propose we should rename {{tem|rewrite-expand}} for such eventualities. "{{tem|incomplete}}" perhaps? I'm not sure if this belongs in "changes" or "new features," so I'm putting it here. | |||
Perhaps this template should say: | |||
<div class="notice-template" style="text-align:justify;background:#9CF;margin:.5em 2%;padding:0 1em;border:1px solid black;color:black"> | |||
This {{#if: {{{section|}}}|section|article}} is '''incomplete'''. You can help by rewriting and expanding it{{#if:{{{1|}}}|. '''Reason:''' {{{1}}}| to include more information}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|<nowiki> (tagged</nowiki> on {{{2}}}).|.}} | |||
</div> | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Woodchuck}} (blocked)<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' October 31, 2017, 23:50 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Alex95}} - That's just the text for {{tem|stub}}. {{tem|rewrite-expand}} is sort of a mix between stub and {{tem|rewrite}}, the information needs to be rewritten, but also needs to be expanded. Saves having more than one template in a single section. | |||
#{{User|Ultimate Mr. L}} Curse you, edit conflicts! Anyway... I really don't see any benefit to this. {{tem|rewrite-expand}} doesn't necessarily mean that the article is unfinished; more often, means that it doesn't go into enough detail. All this is doing is using more words and being more specific than the template should be. Per Alex95. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Alex95. | |||
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} While I'd consider proposing the making of a new "To do" template like what TCRF has, we don't need to change the name of this one, particularly when what it says doesn't really appear to be any different. | |||
#{{user|Mario jc}} Per Alex. | |||
#{{User|Lcrossmk8}} The {{tem|rewrite-expand}} template is actually specific about how to fix the article other than filling in a bunch of nonsense or just stuff. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} I thought this would get mass opposition. Anyway... Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mario Kart DS Fan}} '''WHY?!''' we have the under construction template, so this will be confusing. | |||
#{{User|BBQ Turtle}} Per all, I think "incomplete" is too vague. It could mean it needs more images, media, rewriting, expansion, completion, cleaning up... it's a hugely long list, and that's why we have lots of separate templates. This one means it needs rewriting and expanding, not anything else, so it needs to stay as is. | |||
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} I agree that our system for tagging articles with various problems is very unintuitive and vague with the tag names. {{tem|construction}}, {{tem|rewrite}}, {{tem|rewrite-expand}}, and {{tem|stub}} need to be rethought. Luckily, {{user|Porplemontage}} agreed with me that {{tem|stub-section}} was not necessary and was merged with {{tem|stub}}. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
@Woodchuck You forgot to Support your own proposal.<br> | |||
{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 20:03, 24 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
Wow, you literally copied the last sentence of my proposal above. Just noting that.... [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:08, 24 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
Hey, hello, did you forget to support your own proposal or are you just doing that on purpose? Please don't take offense if you find this annoying, this is just a simple reminder, because I thought you forgot about it. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 21:19, 24 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
Um, this proposal past a couple days ago. Can someone archive it? IDK how. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯<br> | |||
{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 20:01, 2 November 2017 (EDT) | |||
===Decide if Nintendo Badge Arcade constitutes a guest appearance=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-0|Nintendo Badge Arcade constitutes a guest appearance}} | |||
Following [[MarioWiki:Coverage]], a proposal must be formed before an article can be created for a guest appearance. [[Nintendo Badge Arcade]] already has a page, but better late than never, right? Besides adhering to policy, it's important to decide on this game's coverage status for another reason: the [[Arcade Bunny]]. With every guest appearance on the wiki ([[SSX on Tour]], [[Captain Rainbow]], [[Minecraft]], etc.), only the game itself receives a page, while everything of note is merely inserted onto the page. However, Arcade Bunny flies in the face of that, receiving an individual page even though it hasn't made any substantial appearances within the ''Mario'' franchise itself (and no, [[Costume Mario]] doesn't count, unless you want to have pages about ''Nisekoi'' characters and Babymetal due to what is nothing more than a reskin). The page itself doesn't have anything particularly novel, either, and it could easily be inserted into the game's page. If Nintendo Badge Arcade is considered a guest appearance, then the Arcade Bunny page is deleted and all is resolved. The game is definitely a guest appearance and not a crossover, by the way: though numerous ''Mario'' sections appear, they are 100% superficial, contributing nothing of value to the game itself, no more than the furniture in the ''Animal Crossing'' games. You could have cut-outs of Danny DeVito's head instead of Mario and nothing would be different. There's ''just'' enough ''Mario'' stuff to warrant the game's coverage on the wiki, but at the same time, there isn't enough to call it a crossover. | |||
Let's nip this one in the bud and clean up the conundrums. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': November 4, 2017, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Alex95}} - Per proposal and comments below. | |||
#{{User|Lcrossmk8}} Per all. In all honesty, I don't know. I think this page has ''something'' worth classifying it as more than a guest appearance, but seeing as how the Arcade Bunny gets a page even though he has almost nothing to do with the ''Mario'' franchise, I think this is the logical option. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} I thought long and hard about it, and yeah, creepy rabbit guy's page seems excessive, let's get rid of it. | |||
#{{user|Mario jc}} Per proposal. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
@Lcrossmk8: The "status quo" directly goes against policy and was instated without anything official. We are deciding the status quo now. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:51, 27 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:I am guessing that "support" means it should be constituted as a guest appearance and that "oppose" means it should not be constituted as a guest appearance. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. And anyway, why did nobody take a look at this before? I'm thinking we should just delete the Arcade Bunny article and not constitute ''Nintendo Badge Arcade'' as a guest appearance. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 22:56, 27 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
::If Nintendo Badge Arcade isn't a guest appearance, what is it? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:59, 27 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
Thing is that several different Mario games appear in this. How would we go about listing that? {{User:Alex95/sig}} 23:01, 27 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:What are you referring to? Everything that's related to ''Mario'' is already noted on the game's page. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 23:03, 27 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
::I say that it is a mix between a crossover and a guest appearance. It crosses over multiple games but doesn't really make an impact, or...wait a minute. How in the world does this thing even matter? I don't know. All I know is that something's up with the Arcade Bunny. I don't know why, but he weirdly reminds me of the Energizer rabbit, you know, the one that appears in the commercials. I don't know, but something tells me we should not delete him. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 23:05, 27 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::what {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 23:10, 27 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
::If the Nintendo Badge Arcade article is deleted, would we stick "This game's artwork/sprites/whatever appeared in ''Nintendo Badge Arcade''." in relevant articles? I'll admit the page is excessive, going into detail were it shouldn't really. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 23:07, 27 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::This proposal is not about deleting the Nintendo Badge Article. It is about whether or not the game is a guest appearance. At most, [[Arcade Bunny]] would be deleted. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 23:10, 27 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
::::Ah, I see. Yeah, this and Arcade Bunny can go more in depth on the [[nwiki:Nintendo Badge Arcade|Nintendo Wiki]]. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 23:13, 27 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
@Lcrossmk8: I do not believe you can vote for multiple options if the proposal does not have more than two options. --{{User:TheFlameChomp/sig}} 08:34, 28 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
===Don't Relate ''Mario'' Creatures to real life ones as fact=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-9|no change}} | |||
This is my first proposal, forgive me if it's messed up. Also I couldn't find a good place for a proposal of this fashion, so I placed it here. Unless stated by Nintendo or other first party sources, Mario creatures should NOT be related to real life creatures. A prime example would be [[Koopa Troopa]] which some would call a "Tortoise". Another example would be [[Plessie]] a creature confirmed to be a dinosaur but not a confirmed species. Thus I propose that we can not assume a creature's species and label it as such. A example of why this issue can be false is [[Dorrie]] a creature we related to something in real life, but was confirmed to be something of its own. Also the Mario world is a world where platforms can appear out of thin air, and I think it's best that we try not to apply science to many aspects of the world including the creatures. To fix this I propose that no creature can be primarily labeled as anything it is not refered to (or at least not in the infobox). Any existing pages with this issue should be fixed to only include confirmed information. However a creature can still have it mentioned if they closely resemble something from real life in the Trivia or Physical Description. Also some creatures like Yoshi for example is classified as a yoshi and a dinosaur, so he has multiple species, but the yoshi part takes priority as more specific and direct. [[Wingo]] is my ideal vision, with it being in his physical description (although I would alter it) and his species is inarguably "Bird". I think I'll too in this proposal again some day but reworked. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Chat Man}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': "November 5, 2017, 23:59 GMT" | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Chat Man}} Per Proposal | |||
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} I believe this is what led to the misclassification of [[Rocky Wrench]] to be classified to be a [[Koopa]] when heated debates throughout the years on the Rocky Wrench talk page led to the discovery that the translation was correct about it being a turtle. I think fans made the jump to Koopa when no official source made such a connection between Koopas and turtles. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} I think scientific accuracy and common sense are important. Ergo, this proposal kinda revolts me. | |||
#{{User|Niiue}} A lot of Mario species are clearly based on real world animals, and pretending otherwise feels detrimental to me. | |||
#{{User|Ultimate Mr. L}} There's a difference between speculation and implication. Speculation is theorizing something like Rosalina being Mario & Peach's daughter. Implication is Koopa Troopas' resemblance to turtles. Per Niiue. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mister Wu}} It was Nintendo which started saying that some enemies were real life animals, notably [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/ja/pdf/CLV-P-HAAAJ.pdf Lakitus being turtles in ''Super Mario Bros.'']. What we are doing here by relating to real life animals, when done properly, actually helps us understanding some design choices and is also a fascinating insight into the design of the characters themselves. As an example, did you know that [[Wingo]] has a color pattern (yellow beak, black feathers, orange legs) close to that of an {{wp|alpine chough}}, which is indeed a crow, [http://web.archive.org/web/20160428003856/https://miiverse.nintendo.net/replies/AYMHAAACAAADVHivKowdGg the species mentioned by the developers]? Not to say that these relationships are sometimes so evident that they are even noted by people following Nintendo on social media, [https://twitter.com/knightsenpai/status/916081451480760320 the example of Glydon being relevant]. If you want, we can discuss replacing "is" with "is based on" or even "is likely based on" when Nintendo doesn't directly confirm it or when it is more appropriate, but removing those relationship altogether seems a bit excessive to me. | |||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Although I'm iffy about making definitive statements about a character's species since that veers on heavy speculation and certainty (for example, this: "Wingo is a crow who...") I don't support getting rid of the connection altogether, for reasons people have already stated. I would at least keep "based on *real life animal" or "designed after *real life animal*. Like, "Loftwings are birds that are designed after shoebills..." rather than saying they ARE shoebills. | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per all, especially BL. | |||
#{{User|Lcrossmk8}} The whole ''Mario'' franchise is based off of two Italian plumbers who eat mushrooms to grow big and rescue the princess of a kingdom from a giant turtle dragon. That may sound weird, but everything but the giant turtle dragon, which is Bowser, of course, is more than real. Italians, plumbers, heck, even Italian plumbers for the sake of it, and princesses are most definitely objects that exist in real life. I don't understand why we have to distinguish ''Mario'' creatures from real-life ones if this is the case. And heck, that's not even getting into ''Super Mario Odyssey''. That game literally involves Mario interacting with the ''humans''! I think there is more than enough evidence to prove that ''Mario'' characters and creatures are definitely related to real-life creatures. | |||
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/42#Stop_Listing_Sub-Species_on_Generic_Real-World_Species_Pages|Didn't this proposal already happen?]] {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 02:27, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:Different proposal. This is saying don't note similarities in articles proper. For instance, not be able to say [[Cluckboom]]s look like Roosters in the articles, and also take the category away. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:29, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
How about keeping the information as trivia (ie. so and so creature closely resembles a real-world species), but removing it out of the introductory paragraph? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 13:15, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:Call a spade a spade, I say. We may be overstepping our bounds to definitively say that ''x'' character is literally some real-world species, but it'd be cumbersome and counterproductive to shove any mention of real-world animals to trivia sections, especially when their origins are [[Debull|obvious]]. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:25, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
It would make sense to at least mention it in the physical appearance. Although the main point of the proposal is not to say it isn't a real life creature, but to say that we shouldn't list it as fact. [[User: Chat Man|Chat Man]] 13:40, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:I think we should recheck the proposal and see the main point, we of course tend to use simple wording assuming that readers acknowledge that "is" when talking about ficitonal characters can't be literal - even the "is" of Nintendo when relating to real life animals isn't literal of course. We can discuss being more strict in the wording if you think the current wording could be confusing. The classification is also another beast, as we have to accomodate official information and ease of navigation together. Since the main text of the proposal is rightfully changing - it is allowed and due when the first version didn't catch the actual intention - I would like to know what we are aiming for.--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 13:53, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
@WildGooseSpeeder Again, Turtle '''TRIBE''' refers to Koopas, not just any turtles. Mister Wu proved that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:01, 30 October 2017 (EDT) | |||
:Well, the story is pretty complex, actually, as the wording of the story of ''Super Mario Bros.'' allowed various translations, not all of which were actually consistent with what the following games showed us. This is the actual text:<br> | |||
:<br> | |||
:キノコ達の住む平和な王国に、ある日、強力な魔法を操る大ガメクッパの一族が侵略して来ました。<br> | |||
:<br> | |||
:Essentially, now that we know what are the Japanese naming conventions, we can finally see what the manual said:<br> | |||
:<br> | |||
:''One day, the tribe of the great turtle Koopa who uses powerful magic invaded the kingdom of the mushrooms who live in peace.''<br> | |||
:<br> | |||
:but since 「の」 has various meanings and the translators couldn't simply know what would have been the actual depiction of the various characters, races and so on, this still technically appropriate translation ended being the translation found in the manual:<br> | |||
:<br> | |||
:''One day the kingdom of the peaceful mushroom people was invaded by the Koopa, a tribe of turtles famous for their black magic.''<br> | |||
:<br> | |||
:And so the concept of Koopas being the various turtle-like beings was born. In Japan, they eventually released {{media link|SMCE pages 88 89.png|a diagram explaining more clearly that the turtle-like enemies are referred to as ''turtles'' (「カメ」) or members of the ''Turtle Tribe'' (「カメ族」), and ''Koopa'' (「クッパ」) is indeed the name of Bowser}}, but that was made in 1991 and it was too late for America and Europe. So far, none of these countries even remotely tried to rectify this. The German translation of the ''Encycloepdia Super Mario Bros.'' in the story of ''Super Mario Bros.'' and ''Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels'' even consistenly translated as ''Koopa-Familie'' (''family of the Koopas'') not only 「クッパの一族」, but also 「カメ一族」, ''Turtle Tribe'' (「一族」 is more commonly translated as ''family'')!--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 19:54, 31 October 2017 (EDT) |
Revision as of 12:32, April 1, 2024
Is it "Coin" or "coin"?Template:ProposalOutcome Currently, the wiki has no set standard for the capitalization of the golden that Mario and co. collect in abundance across the franchise: is it "Coin", with a capital C, or "coin", with a lowercase c? This isn't entirely clear-cut: from the games that I've looked at, there are many that do not capitalize it, including most recently Mario Party 8, Sm4sh, and New Super Mario Bros. 2, but there are also other games that capitalize it, including New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Mario Party, and there's something odd and inconsistent about listing the Red Coin, the Purple Coin, the Blue Coin, the 20 Coin, the Key Coin, and many others as being derivatives of the coin. That lowercase "coin" seems out of place, doesn't it? Lowercasing it just because it's a generic noun doesn't hold either; the Mushroom is plainly and consistently capitalized in just about every circumstances. If you're going to say it's because the Mario Mushrooms obviously aren't like the real-life mushrooms, then I'd argue the same goes for the floating, golden, abundant Coins. There is a precedent for not capitalizing the names of subjects with, for example, treasure chest (despite there being at least one in-game source that capitalizes them, but that's an issue for another time), but it's a moot point if the subject isn't generic in the first place. This may seem like a trivially minor issue, but at the same time, this is an issue that has yet to reach a decisive conclusion. I fail to see a reason why we shouldn't strive for consistency, especially since we've already had a proposal to decide on a set spelling for minigame (spoilers: we decided on minigame). Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Use "Coin"
Use "coin"
Do nothing
CommentsIf anyone has any more in-game citations for "Coin" or "coin" from any games that haven't been mentioned, then I'm all-ears. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:16, 26 August 2017 (EDT) @Toadette: I don't see why we should be inconsistent solely because the games also happen to be inconsistent. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:47, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
I say this is as official as you can get. Although, this could be on a game to game basis. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2017 (EDT) @Doc: Why? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 02:54, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
I don't get what's acceptable about setting a standard for "microgame" but not for "coin"? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 17:14, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
Include the date a proposal was withdrawn within the proposal (when applicable)Template:ProposalOutcome When it comes to the proposal archives, in which we write down the date each proposal ended, it's standard to use the date a proposal was canceled by its proposer or withdrawn for whatever other reason, rather than the proposed deadline (as documented here). This makes sense: it wouldn't be accurate to say that a proposal had concluded a week later than it actually did, and the point of the archives is that we're documenting each proposal exactly as they played out (which is why we make note of proposals that themselves failed but whose proposed changes later passed, and vice-versa). With that in mind, why do we only make note of this in the broad archives and not within the proposals itself? Sure, it's possible to find the date it was canceled by going through the page's history, in the same way it's also possible to find the original proposer through the history page, but we still make note of it within the proposal itself. Leaving only the proposed deadline by itself is also rather misleading and non-informative, considering that any users reading through the proposal wouldn't be able to obviously tell when it actually closed. Even with the proposal outcome saying it was canceled, that doesn't help people find out when it was canceled. We should strive for accuracy, especially when all we'd need to do is make note of one more date. The changes I have in mind would only be applicable to proposals that were canceled before their deadline, obviously. First of all, the Deadline section would be renamed to Proposed Deadline, with no changes to the date. Secondly, a section called Date Withdrawn would be placed underneath the Deadline, documenting exactly when the proposal was canceled. Ideally, this would include the time in GMT to match the Deadline, but for simplicity's sake, this proposal will only ask that the day needs to be documented and not the time. The details may be subject to change through future discussions, but the main change is clear: within the proposals, document when they were canceled. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsShould this apply to all cancelled proposals regardless, or all proposals cancelled after September 9? (T|C) 13:46, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
On that note, my plan also involves editing the proposal archives, which I can't actually do since they're protected. Should this proposal pass, the pages' protection restrictions can be temporarily lifted so that I can make the necessary changes, or an admin can make the edits themselves, whichever works best. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 15:23, 3 September 2017 (EDT) Remove letter-number labeling from Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon mission article titlesTemplate:ProposalOutcome Currently, our articles for the missions from Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon include the letter-number labels in their titles (e.g. A-1: Poltergust 5000, A-2: Gear Up, B-1: A Job for a Plumber). Why? We don't do this for New Super Mario Bros. U, Super Mario 3D World, Paper Mario: Sticker Star, or any other game with world-level labeling where the levels also have proper names. I don't see a single reason for this one game to be the sole exception to this. It's just a blatant, glaring inconsistency. Proposer: 7feetunder (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Alex95: No they aren't. The letter-number labels are colored differently than the mission title, and the results screens omit the labels entirely. 16:44, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
It doesn't matter anyway. The levels aren't named Poltergust 5000 or Gear Up or etc, they're named A-1: Poltergust 5000, A-2: Gear Up, etc. It's their official name, and we always use the complete, official name of something. Your proposal is gonna go against that. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2017 (EDT) @7feetunder: Okay, so I played a level. The identifier is just that, an identifier. It also does show at the results screen. They aren't part of the title, but it would be helpful to have these identifiers should something else with the same name show up, like Poltergust 5000 or Sticky Situation. Though the same could be said about adding the identifiers to the other mentioned games... 17:23, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
I ultimately got tired of relying on videos and just whipped out my copy of the game, and here's what I confirmed:
@Doc: By that same token, Road to the Big Windmill isn't called "Episode 1: Road to the Big Windmill". Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:21, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
Add categories for images of charactersTemplate:ProposalOutcome Currently, if one wants to find all the images of a certain character on the wiki, there is no easy way to do so. While galleries might just have all images of a character, it must be remembered that certain images have specific purposes, such as Template:Media link, Template:Media link or Template:Media link. Including all these images without context would likely make the galleries bloated. A simple solution at the moment might be creating categories of images of characters to be added to the images themselves, of the format [[Category:{character} Images]]. With proper maintenance, doing so would allow, in the longer term, to see all images of a character on the wiki, allowing easier maintenance as well as retrieval of images that might have a second purpose on the wiki beyond the original one they were uploaded for, all this without creating bloat on the galleries. Proposer: Mister Wu (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsHow would group images be handled? And would this include literally every image of the character - artwork, sprites, screenshots, et al.? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 16:50, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
I don't get it. What's wrong with the galleries? Yeah, some might be rather large to look through, but categorizing an image based on character would be pretty much the same thing as sticking it in a gallery. Seems redundant to me. Additionally, categories are alphabetized, and some images may not be named based on their relevance. Galleries, however, are sorted based on the type of image, from artwork to sprites to screenshots. Sure, categories show 200 images at a time, which makes loading times easier, but galleries are sorted in a way that makes navigation easier. 13:16, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
I'm on the fence, personally... I don't think it'd be a horrible idea, it'd just take a LOT of weeding out specifics to make it work, and gallery might be used more frequently. ~Camwood777 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2017 (EDT) Also, putting ALL characters will never end, I think only in major characters, minor characters should be out of this category. LED42™ (talk – edits) 13:42, 16 September 2017 (EDT) Double the amount of time a proposer can edit their talk page proposalsTemplate:ProposalOutcome Because talk page proposals are less visible than regular proposals, they are given an extra week for discussion. I'm not going to argue against that; though smaller issues occasionally go on for too long, the extra time is invaluable for when large changes are being discussed. With that in mind, why can they only be edited within three days of the proposal's creation, the same amount of time as a regular proposal? So, we want to give people more time to discuss proposals, but we don't want to give the proposers more time to acknowledge the discussion and make changes as needed? There's a clear discrepancy here. I propose to double the amount of time a proposer can change, delete, or otherwise edit their proposals on talk pages, from three days to six. This lines up with the doubled amount of time they take in the first place. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Support
OpposeComments"Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if each voting option has fewer than five votes." (Closed means the same as delete.) So are you proposing to double this to ten votes too? Because closing date is not dependent on the number of days passed for TPPs. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
@Drago: It's tempting, but I'd rather that it's exactly equivalent to the main proposals. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 13:14, 12 September 2017 (EDT) The problem I'm having with this is that new information can show at any time, even at the final day of the proposal. In which case, a new proposal would be created when able to. There's also the option of getting an admin to cancel the proposal so the new information can be taken into account without actually going through with the current proposal. 13:20, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
For a related topic, I have been thinking about the 7-day proposal and 14-day TPP should either be all 7 or 14 days for any proposal. Is there any benefit to having this time rule as we currently have it? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 13:38, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
Officially repeal the "no support reason" Featured Article nomination ruleTemplate:ProposalOutcome The current rule regarding support votes in our featured articles guidelines goes something like this: "Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes. Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination. If you support, simply sign with your name, without adding a reason (unless you are the first supporter and thus the nominator)." I used to enforce this rule, removing support reasons whenever I come across them, but now, I currently don't, because I've been thinking, seriously, what's the point of spending effort counter-productively removing reasons for support any more, even if the said support vote is actually constructive towards the article and not merely a fan vote as it once was? Fan votes used to be a particular problem in the past, but today, they are not as much as a problem as they once had them, so bending backwards to remove something....doesn't change anything at all and it wastes time expending effort that could go to something far more productive. The rule is also incredibly inconsistent to every other time we vote in MarioWiki, making this one of the reasons that removing support vote reasons used to be a frequent because the rule is convoluted and confusing to new users of MarioWiki and thus make the mistake constantly. Hell, at this point, with me refusing to enforce this rule any more, it seems like no one else even enforces this terrible rule too, so now, I'd like to officially get rid of that parameter from our Featured Article ruleset once and for all, because there's no point to having a rule that no one wants to enforce and this would free up time for users doing other more productive edits, and this is especially true for support votes that actually do say something useful or actually praise editors for their hard work, which would encourage them to work harder and happier. Proposer: Baby Luigi (talk) Support
OpposeComments@Doc von Schmeltwick: I can try to explain. A lot of support reasons back in 2008-2009 used to be nothing more than "I like this guy he should be featured", so it had to be decided somewhere that they wanted to remove the reasons....because...it would...clutter...less space...and it would ... er...discourage fan voters..? I honestly don't see the logic here at all, in hindsight today. What gets accomplished here? Nothing? Just removal of words. That's it. Ray Trace(T|C) 14:58, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
Create articles on all of the Lakitu Info Center missions in Mario & Luigi: Paper JamTemplate:ProposalOutcome We already separate the missions from the world articles in Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario 64 DS, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, and Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, so why don't we do the same for Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam? I can already think of a lot of content to go into these articles, and plus, I can easily create them as well. I also have a draft of one such article that you can view here. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsFeel free to contact me if you want to assist in the project, should the proposal pass. :) (T|C) 23:45, 13 September 2017 (EDT) Before I say anything, are you planning on splitting the Trouble Center info? What makes Lakitu Info Center missions any more deserving than the Trouble Center ones? Ray Trace(T|C) 00:48, 14 September 2017 (EDT) As much as I want to support, I also want to oppose (so I'm not voting atm). It seems like a majority of the missions are repeats: "Find the Toads", "Capture Nabbit", "Capture Toads"... The missions in the 3D titles were more diverse, allowing for more in-depth explanations (though there are shared missions, like the Red Coin ones). How exactly are you planning on expanding the missions? (Also echoing Baby Luigi. Not everything with a name needs to be split.) 00:51, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
The wiki's coverage is a bit confusing on how/why the Lakitu Info Center is required: the Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam article notes that "the player must obtain a certain number of them to progress through the story", but never expands upon this (also it mentions Paper Toads in the story and I have no idea whether that's part of a mission or the game's main story). On the other hand, the Lakitu Info Center article doesn't even mention it being required. So if anything I've said is very wrong then sorry :( MrConcreteDonkey 18:57, 18 September 2017 (EDT)
MrConcreteDonkey 08:53, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
MrConcreteDonkey 15:05, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
What to do about Paper Jam Shiny articlesTemplate:ProposalOutcome Copy/pasted from here with no loss of information: For the Shiny variation of enemies in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, we have them as separate articles from the actual enemies, such as Shiny Paper Dry Bones or Shiny Paper Swoop. TheFlameChomp (talk) and I ultimately found out that the "Shiny" part of their names don't actually exist, the enemies are actually titled "Paper Dry Bones" or "Paper Swoop" and the shiny counterparts are more like how Pokemon is handled; the same enemy, just slightly stronger. We've decided that merging the Shiny variant with the Paper variant would be best, but some don't have pages on their Paper variant either, instead being written into the main article. The main problem here is the nonexistent "Shiny" title, but "Paper" is within the enemy names as well, which gives me three options. Option 1: Create articles for the "Paper" variant of enemies (that don't already have one) and merge the "Shiny" variants into it Continuing with the examples above, the information on Paper Dry Bones would be split from the main Dry Bones article (with a {{main}} in the corresponding section) and the information in Shiny Paper Dry Bones would be merged with Paper Dry Bones. Option 2: Merge the "Shiny" information to the main article with the "Paper" enemies "Paper" is part of the enemy names whereas "Shiny" isn't. Most, if not all, of the "Paper" enemies are currently merged with their main counterpart. This option involves moving the "Shiny" information there as well. For example, Paper Dry Bones and Shiny Paper Dry Bones will both be merged to Dry Bones. Option 3: Split the "Shiny" and "Paper" enemies into separate pages See comments below. Regular enemies, Paper enemies, and Shiny enemies would each have their own page, with the Shiny variant receiving a (Shiny) tagged at the end. Option 4: Do nothing Self explanatory. To clarify, this will not effect the Shiny enemies found in Paper Mario: Sticker Star, as those enemies do have "Shiny" in their title and are considered a separate enemy. Proposer: Alex95 (talk) Option 1
Option 2Option 3
Option 4CommentsIf there is another option I didn't think of, let me know. 17:50, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
Also, why is this a talk page proposal? Aren't these bulk changes the kind of thing best suited for the main proposal page, especially when it (potentially) involves merging? One proposal was even called out for deciding to rename multiple pages in a talk page proposal. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 19:19, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
So, now that we've settled on a location, why do you oppose option 3, Alex? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:16, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
The proposal did pass with Option 1 having majority of voters (8/11). Yoshi the SSM (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2017 (EDT) Arcade Archives pageTemplate:ProposalOutcome With the recent announcement that Nintendo is putting their old Arcade games onto the switch via Arcade Archives, I feel like this is only fair; we gave Virtual Console its own page, and this is pretty similar to that. Proposer: Camwood777 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsDon't think this needs a proposal tbh Ray Trace(T|C) 20:14, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
What is Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic?Template:ProposalOutcome Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic is, to make a long story short, a game that was altered to become Super Mario Bros. 2; though it did not originally contain any Mario subjects, Shy Guys, Pokeys, Bob-ombs, Birdo, and others all originate from this game. Due to the impact this game had on the Mario franchise, we cover it on the wiki, and I think we can agree on keeping it that way. At the same time, it currently exists in a limbo where we don't know to what extent we should cover it. There was a proposal that decided that covering the game's characters was too much, but at the same time, the article is a part of Category:Games not originally in the Super Mario franchise, with an emphasis on not originally; if it's currently a part of the Mario franchise, then we should cover it to that extent. MarioWiki:Coverage doesn't even bring up the game, so there's no help there. Still, if we use the sections of the policy page as a guideline, we may be able to decide for ourselves what is Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic. Here are the logical options: Option 1: It is a full-fledged member of the Mario franchise. Option 2: It is a crossover with the Mario franchise. Option 3: It only contains guest appearances of the Mario franchise. Option 4: It is part of a group unto itself. Option 5: It is perpetually in limbo (do nothing). If you're questioning why we need to decide where this game belongs, then I'll answer that it's better than having a game wrapped up in contradictions, existing someplace where nobody really knows what to do with it. Let's nip this one in the bud, shall we? Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Option 1 (fully part of the Mario franchise)
Option 2 (crossover)
Option 3 (guest appearance)Option 4 (entirely separate)
Option 5 (do nothing)
Comments@Doc: How is it being represented now? There's no consistency to it currently, at least not as far as I can see. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:46, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
The history of this game is very complicated, more complicated than Tetris Attack, which makes it very hard to put that information in a satisfactory spot on Super Mario Wiki. Why isn't this on the article's talk page? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 21:25, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
I agree with the notion that Doki Doki Panic can now be considered a full-fledged member of the franchise (it is Super Mario Bros. 2 and released a mere one year prior with Mario elements and influence already in it), but at the same time, I'd also say the pesky Yume Kōjō branding technically makes it something else. I'm considering taking the crossover option, but I also noticed that Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix isn't considered a crossover despite the DDR title. Is there a reason for that? LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
@Wildgoosespeeder: What is exactly is going to be analyzed during those months? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 23:53, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
@Mister Wu: Except DDP does contain Mario elements, such as Super Stars and POW Blocks. Niiue (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2017 (EDT)
ok, so 1: "insulting the history" of a children's video game is pretty irrelevant to organisational decisions and it's such a bizarre and laughable thing to accuse someone of I couldn't help but chucke while reading it. If someone ever does a This Troper-style series of dramatic readings of mariowiki discussions I'm so telling them to do this. 2: In that Wired interview, Kensuke Tanabe refered to the original prototype as a "Mario-style" platformer, not that it was actually always a fully-fledged game in the Mario universe. Furthermore, going from what we know about Nintendo's development practice, it's possible the prototype was made without any branding in mind and was originally developed as an experiment to see if a platform game that took Super Mario Bros. formula of long scrolling levels and adapting it to a down to up format could be made fun and worth pursuing. It may seem like a nitpick, but considering people are using the prototype's supposed Mario origin as an argument, I think it's a nuance worth emphasizing. --Glowsquid (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
Create articles on all of the Trouble Center missions in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year DoorTemplate:ProposalOutcome I'm proposing this in light of the comment Baby Luigi (talk) made here(backup link). Same deal as the other proposal, except now we're splitting off info on the Trouble Center. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) (original concern voiced by Baby Luigi (talk)) Support
Oppose
CommentsSplit all Starbeans Cafe items from the Starbeans Cafe articleTemplate:ProposalOutcome These items I think deserve a split from this article. They're separate items, the blends are all consumable while the special items equipment could stand on their own and I don't see how these items should be lumped with a specific location. It doesn't help that the names in other languages headers further elongate the article for all separate items you can receive from the cafe. This proposal affects the following items: Blends
Special Items
Proposer: Baby Luigi (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWhat strong difference is there between these items and the game's badges? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 20:06, 23 September 2017 (EDT)
Delete the "List of bonuses for SSB" pagesTemplate:ProposalOutcome This proposal centers on two pages: List of bonuses in Super Smash Bros. and List of bonuses in Super Smash Bros. Melee. When it comes to the pages centered around the Super Smash Bros. series, there's an unwritten compromise between this wiki and the SmashWiki: we do not cover the same information in the same way. This is evident from the different philosophies each wiki takes, for example with the Super Mario Wiki only covering fan content if it is significantly notable or has been acknowledged by Nintendo and the SmashWiki regularly covering every small-scale tournament and professional player, but it extends to each individual article as well. Take any random article and you'll see that the SmashWiki is far more detailed about the technical information, whereas the Super Mario Wiki presents the information in a more streamlined (and accessible) manner. This is the way things are, and this is the way things'll be for the forseeable future. However, this compromise only works if the information is truly being covered differently, and the two lists that are involved in this proposal fully break that. These lists are nothing more than us writing down the information that is already present in-game, with little to no additions on our part. It's necessary to supply the means of unlocking each bonus, sure, but when every bonus can only be obtained in one way, there are only so many ways you can uniquely write about it without lapsing into poor writing. There's no additional flourishes in-game, either, so the most we can do is present it in plain text. Here's the rub: that's exactly how the SmashWiki is presenting this, and there's no other way they could present it. There's an impassable level of redundancy here, and since there's no way around it, I'd much rather that we delegate to the wiki dedicated to the series. Even when it comes to the pages on trophies, at the very least, every series' trophies are split into individual pages on the SmashWiki, whereas this wiki lumps every game's trophies into one article (for each game). Splitting the trophies by series and by game helps with navigation, while having the bonuses on separate pages here only spreads thin the little information that exists. It's not like there's a high demand for the pages on this wiki, if the What Links Here pages for each of the pages is any indication. On the very few moments, should they ever exist, that it is necessary to bring up the templates, all we need to do is link to the SmashWiki, and nothing would be different or loss. As it stands, all we're doing is violating MarioWiki:Once and only once across multiple wikis. The other articles can stand on their own due to the numerous differences between them and their SmashWiki counterparts, but the lists of bonuses have no such luxury. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@BL: There's a flaw in your argument: this wiki isn't currently covering literally every aspect of the Smash games. The Smash Taunt characters all share one page, as do the various stage elements and enemies from each stage. Would you rather that all of them have individual pages? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 15:13, 1 October 2017 (EDT)
Template:ProposalOutcome Here's a simple problem: when it comes to navigation templates for games, some of them include a colon in their name (such as Template:ML:SS and Template:MP:IT) and others do not (such as Template:PMTTYD and Template:LMDM). Unlike my previous proposal about nav templates, this one's more of an issue: it is incredibly annoying for editors when they have to guess whether or not the template they're adding in has a colon or whether the new template they're making should have one in its title. Leaving things as they are just makes things confusingly inconsistent. Given that there's no rhyme or reason for the inconsistency, it'd be best for this to be settled for prevent any further inconvenience. There are two options for tackling this: applying a colon to every nav template that lacks it (assuming the game it's covering has a colon in its name, naturally), and removing a colon from every template that has it. I'd personally advocate not having them in the titles: though it's a part of the game's name, it doesn't convey any information that would help editors recognize the name, making it effectively wasted space. Since these templates will be constantly used by editors, it also helps to compactify them in any way we can. I also highly doubt that there will ever be a case in the future where the acronyms of two games can only be distinguished by the colon in one of their names. It also doesn't hurt that the majority of the (applicable) templates alreadny don't have a colon in their titles. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Apply colons to the necessary templates
Remove colons from the necessary templates
Do nothingComments
I can see why there is no colon... for a majority of these without colons. There like one time instances, thus why a colon for these. Exceptions, Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, Paper Mario, and Wario Ware. The 2 Mario Kart are different from the series. Right now, I can see myself going for any of the three options. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2017 (EDT)
Include the color brown in the general proposal archives for proposals that simply fail to reach a consensus, not just for proposals that end in a tieTemplate:ProposalOutcome I think the details here are sufficient enough. Brown is already the color used for ties, but I don't see why it isn't used for proposals that fail to gain consensus after a third deadline extension. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsFurther information. 16:57, 15 October 2017 (EDT)
Remove rule 4 of the talk page proposalsTemplate:ProposalOutcome 4. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if each voting option has fewer than five votes. ...Why? Why are proposers given the right of closing their proposals based solely on the number of votes? What purpose does this serve when proposers already have the option of closing their proposal within the first six days? If a proposal hasn't received many votes, why is the solution to completely scrap it rather than try to promomte it? What situation would even exist that would require this rule to be invoked (less than five votes on all sides and more than six days have passed), and even then, why not let an admin close it if there's a valid reason for it? If there's no valid reason for closing the proposal, why let proposers close it at any moment they want? Why only five votes in the first place, and not some other arbitrary number? Why do talk page proposals even have a rule that isn't applied to regular proposals? This rule is pointless in all circumstances and should be promptly scrapped. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsOK, can anyone tell me the difference between talk page proposals and regular proposals? I know that one type specializes in game-related information and that one type specializes in regular wiki-related stuff, but can anyone tell me which is which? I'd really like to know. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2017 (EDT)
@Lcross: Can you elaborate on what you mean by "complete control"? Would you allow a proposer to make major changes to their proposal the day that it ends? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 11:56, 8 October 2017 (EDT) @Camwood: Is there a point in keeping it around, then? And keep in mind that a proposal only needs four votes total to go into effect; in theory, a proposer could easily cancel a proposal simply because they don't like that a majority of users are voting for something that they don't want. That really doesn't seem fair to me. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 12:01, 8 October 2017 (EDT)
@TimeTurner: Thanks for the info. It was really helpful. As for "complete control", I'm saying that the proposer should be able to decide if he/she wants to remove it, and removing rule 4 would restrict them from doing that. If they realized immediately that the said action was done for a reason and that the proposal would go against the action, then they should remove the proposal. If you still don't understand, then do you remember my proposal about merging the Hot Monster article with the Red Monster article that completely failed? I thought they were the same thing, but I immediately learned they weren't. I decided to keep the proposal anyway, because I just wanted to see how it would turn out in the end. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2017 (EDT)
@Chester: The danger is that this rule could be used to cancel a proposal solely because the proposer doesn't like the outcome, and not because they had any sort of legitimate reason. If they did, they can inform an admin and close it that way. This is not the kind of power that needs to be given to proposers. Besides, spring cleaning is always good; why bog down the list with a pointless rule? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:35, 9 October 2017 (EDT) @Doc: What gives you the right to decide that nobody cares about your proposal? I'll reiterate that it only takes more than three votes for a proposal to pass, making it possible for you to cancel a proposal even if people are participating in it, but regardless, if nobody participates in your proposal and it ends in a no quorum, then the logical reason for that is because the proposed issue was too complex and wide-reaching or the proposal itself was confusing, and that's valuable information in and of itself. Besides, it's entirely possible to people to join in with new information at any point, and that could easily get the ball rolling. I'll also reiterate that it's possible for admins to close a proposal early if there's a valid reason for it; what are you doing, cancelling a proposal without a valid reason? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 09:20, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
@Wildgoosespeeder: One, that rule doesn't apply to no quorum proposals, and two, the rule exists for a reason. What's the point of rule 7 if it's so easily circumvented? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:32, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
@Chat Man: You called the rule optional. Rules are not something you can pick and choose from to follow. They are what you must try to follow as best as you can. I say that because we are all human. Sometimes we can't follow the rules. But in no wise it is optional. And if you don't like the rule, then why did you oppose? And you're perring other votes which have things you should read as well. Also, I am just trying to cover all points, but I will let you decide to change it or keep it the same. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2017 (EDT) Make a new, separate "delete" template for pages with unique talk pagesTemplate:ProposalOutcome As it stands, our current delete template urges for the talk page to be deleted as well, presumably assuming that it's from a move redirect. However, in the case of merges or outright page deletions, this is a bad thing, as it could cause the loss of why those events occurred in the first place. I propose we make a new, separate one for such eventualities. "deletenottalk" perhaps? I'm not sure if this belongs in "changes" or "new features," so I'm putting it here. Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI think we should add an option to the current template that removes that text, something like: @Time Turner: Guess what? I don't know how to make templates, so I can't make an example! But it would be like the current one, but replacing the "Please delete any accompanying talk pages as well" with "please do not delete the accompanying talk page. And @Ultimate Mr. L, the solution is not "Make your current template convoluted." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
Maybe we could change the outline color to green for quick differentiation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2017 (EDT) Want to add that deleting talk pages with content is already optional, as per MarioWiki:Deletion policy. The sysops don't usually delete talk pages if the content there is relevant already, such as a proposal determining the deletion of its main page. The talk page is kept, due to the proposal, but the main page is deleted. However, I will agree to a rewording, such as "Unless there is content that shouldn't be deleted on the talk page, please delete the corresponding talk page as well." 21:13, 25 October 2017 (EDT)
Move "Rewrite-expand" to "Incomplete"Template:ProposalOutcome I propose we should rename {{rewrite-expand}} for such eventualities. "{{incomplete}}" perhaps? I'm not sure if this belongs in "changes" or "new features," so I'm putting it here. Perhaps this template should say: This article is incomplete. You can help by rewriting and expanding it to include more information. Proposer: Woodchuck (talk) (blocked) SupportOppose
Comments@Woodchuck You forgot to Support your own proposal. Wow, you literally copied the last sentence of my proposal above. Just noting that.... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2017 (EDT) Hey, hello, did you forget to support your own proposal or are you just doing that on purpose? Please don't take offense if you find this annoying, this is just a simple reminder, because I thought you forgot about it. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2017 (EDT) Um, this proposal past a couple days ago. Can someone archive it? IDK how. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Decide if Nintendo Badge Arcade constitutes a guest appearanceTemplate:ProposalOutcome Following MarioWiki:Coverage, a proposal must be formed before an article can be created for a guest appearance. Nintendo Badge Arcade already has a page, but better late than never, right? Besides adhering to policy, it's important to decide on this game's coverage status for another reason: the Arcade Bunny. With every guest appearance on the wiki (SSX on Tour, Captain Rainbow, Minecraft, etc.), only the game itself receives a page, while everything of note is merely inserted onto the page. However, Arcade Bunny flies in the face of that, receiving an individual page even though it hasn't made any substantial appearances within the Mario franchise itself (and no, Costume Mario doesn't count, unless you want to have pages about Nisekoi characters and Babymetal due to what is nothing more than a reskin). The page itself doesn't have anything particularly novel, either, and it could easily be inserted into the game's page. If Nintendo Badge Arcade is considered a guest appearance, then the Arcade Bunny page is deleted and all is resolved. The game is definitely a guest appearance and not a crossover, by the way: though numerous Mario sections appear, they are 100% superficial, contributing nothing of value to the game itself, no more than the furniture in the Animal Crossing games. You could have cut-outs of Danny DeVito's head instead of Mario and nothing would be different. There's just enough Mario stuff to warrant the game's coverage on the wiki, but at the same time, there isn't enough to call it a crossover. Let's nip this one in the bud and clean up the conundrums. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Support
OpposeComments@Lcrossmk8: The "status quo" directly goes against policy and was instated without anything official. We are deciding the status quo now. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:51, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
Thing is that several different Mario games appear in this. How would we go about listing that? 23:01, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
@Lcrossmk8: I do not believe you can vote for multiple options if the proposal does not have more than two options. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2017 (EDT) Don't Relate Mario Creatures to real life ones as factTemplate:ProposalOutcome This is my first proposal, forgive me if it's messed up. Also I couldn't find a good place for a proposal of this fashion, so I placed it here. Unless stated by Nintendo or other first party sources, Mario creatures should NOT be related to real life creatures. A prime example would be Koopa Troopa which some would call a "Tortoise". Another example would be Plessie a creature confirmed to be a dinosaur but not a confirmed species. Thus I propose that we can not assume a creature's species and label it as such. A example of why this issue can be false is Dorrie a creature we related to something in real life, but was confirmed to be something of its own. Also the Mario world is a world where platforms can appear out of thin air, and I think it's best that we try not to apply science to many aspects of the world including the creatures. To fix this I propose that no creature can be primarily labeled as anything it is not refered to (or at least not in the infobox). Any existing pages with this issue should be fixed to only include confirmed information. However a creature can still have it mentioned if they closely resemble something from real life in the Trivia or Physical Description. Also some creatures like Yoshi for example is classified as a yoshi and a dinosaur, so he has multiple species, but the yoshi part takes priority as more specific and direct. Wingo is my ideal vision, with it being in his physical description (although I would alter it) and his species is inarguably "Bird". I think I'll too in this proposal again some day but reworked. Proposer: Chat Man (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsDidn't this proposal already happen? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 02:27, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
How about keeping the information as trivia (ie. so and so creature closely resembles a real-world species), but removing it out of the introductory paragraph? LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
It would make sense to at least mention it in the physical appearance. Although the main point of the proposal is not to say it isn't a real life creature, but to say that we shouldn't list it as fact. Chat Man 13:40, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
@WildGooseSpeeder Again, Turtle TRIBE refers to Koopas, not just any turtles. Mister Wu proved that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
|