MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/31: Difference between revisions
m (Changed protection level for "MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 31": Maintenance done. ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) |
m (Text replacement - "{{[Qq]uote2\|" to "{{quote|") |
||
(9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template}} | {{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}} | ||
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | <div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | ||
===Remove level articles of levels that have names=== | ===Remove level articles of levels that have names=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|gray|VETOED BY {{color-link | {{ProposalOutcome|gray|VETOED BY {{color-link|User:Porplemontage|grey|PORPLEMONTAGE}} {{color-link|User talk:Porplemontage|grey|(<small>Talk</small>)}}}}<small>This policy has been declared detrimental to the wiki. If anything, all levels should have their own article regardless of name.</small> | ||
There are no level articles for levels named 1-1 and 2-2, but there are articles for levels named [[Awesome]] and such. There have been proposals to create articles for the "non-named" levels, but they have been turned down. We want consistency right? So, I say keep consistency and merge, the "named" levels into their world articles. There isn't anything special about "named" levels besides the name. [[World 1 (Super Mario Bros.)#World 1-1|This level]] deserves an article as much as [[Funky (Super Mario World)|this one]]. So, as all else has failed before, neither of them deserve their own page. The only ones that should be kept are, obviously, places that have more than one level/boss fight in 3D platformers such as, [[Bob-omb Battlefield]], [[Bianco Hills]], [[Good Egg Galaxy]], and [[Bowser in the Dark World]]. Easy enough to understand right? | There are no level articles for levels named 1-1 and 2-2, but there are articles for levels named [[Awesome]] and such. There have been proposals to create articles for the "non-named" levels, but they have been turned down. We want consistency right? So, I say keep consistency and merge, the "named" levels into their world articles. There isn't anything special about "named" levels besides the name. [[World 1 (Super Mario Bros.)#World 1-1|This level]] deserves an article as much as [[Funky (Super Mario World)|this one]]. So, as all else has failed before, neither of them deserve their own page. The only ones that should be kept are, obviously, places that have more than one level/boss fight in 3D platformers such as, [[Bob-omb Battlefield]], [[Bianco Hills]], [[Good Egg Galaxy]], and [[Bowser in the Dark World]]. Easy enough to understand right? | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
#{{User|Koopa K}} It's my proposal, so per myself. | #{{User|Koopa K}} It's my proposal, so per myself. | ||
#{{User|Zero777}} Consistency is best in this situation, I see nothing special of the two different level mentioned. | #{{User|Zero777}} Consistency is best in this situation, I see nothing special of the two different level mentioned. | ||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - As I've said many times before ([[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | #{{User|Walkazo}} - As I've said many times before ([[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/30#Oppose_2|1: most recent]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/25#Oppose_7|2]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/28#Oppose_9|3]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/13#Worlds_and_levels|4]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/10#Comments_14|5: earliest]]), levels should not get separate articles. Putting the level information on the world articles streamlines navigation and it does away with the whole "named vs. no-name" inconsistency. It also means less stubs and walkthroughs alike; the former because they'll be merged (and hopefully the short sections will then be less daunting to expand than a whole page would be), and the latter because there's a lot less pressure to make overviews long if they're sections rather than pages. However, that doesn't mean that being turned into sections will get rid of info: sections can still be nice and juicy - we just don't want the fluff is all. | ||
#{{User|Master R.O.B}} Per Walkazo | #{{User|Master R.O.B}} Per Walkazo | ||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo. | #{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo. | ||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
[[User:Koopa K/Draft]] | [[User:Koopa K/Draft]] | ||
I can put a draft in if I want to right? Anyways, I know this was already proposed [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 30|here]] by Super Mario Bros., but I liked the idea and changed his reasoning to hopefully satisfy the opposers. Anyways, I included a draft here to make it more clear what I am trying to say.'''Please read the draft before you make your vote!!!''' I couldn't make that previous statement more clear. "You don't have a reason" is not an acceptable oppose, because I do have a reason inside the draft. I just thought it would make it more clear. So, a brief summary would be proposals may only pass if more than half of the users voting support it. (This only affects proposals with 3 or more options.) Also, no option will be deleted under any circumstances. | I can put a draft in if I want to right? Anyways, I know this was already proposed [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/30|here]] by Super Mario Bros., but I liked the idea and changed his reasoning to hopefully satisfy the opposers. Anyways, I included a draft here to make it more clear what I am trying to say.'''Please read the draft before you make your vote!!!''' I couldn't make that previous statement more clear. "You don't have a reason" is not an acceptable oppose, because I do have a reason inside the draft. I just thought it would make it more clear. So, a brief summary would be proposals may only pass if more than half of the users voting support it. (This only affects proposals with 3 or more options.) Also, no option will be deleted under any circumstances. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Koopa K}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Koopa K}}<br> | ||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
#{{User|Koopa K}} Per the proposal and what's in the draft. | #{{User|Koopa K}} Per the proposal and what's in the draft. | ||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per what I said [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | #{{User|Walkazo}} - Per what I said [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/30#Comments_4|on SMB's old proposal]]: "''it'd be bad if we ever do get a circumstance where something passes without a majority ... It'd be better if the proposal ''[is]'' extended ... In other words ... all proposals ''[should]'' need a majority of the voters to support any one option before a decision is made, regardless of whether the choice is pass-fail, or ''[has more than two options]'' ... The overall gist could even be explained in the top box, rather than the rules ... instead of somewhat-vaguely saying we need a "consensus"''". | ||
#{{User|MarioSmasher}} – Per the people above. | #{{User|MarioSmasher}} – Per the people above. | ||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo. | #{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo. | ||
Line 212: | Line 212: | ||
#{{User|Raven Effect}} Per the arguments made in the thread you posted. | #{{User|Raven Effect}} Per the arguments made in the thread you posted. | ||
#{{User|Koopa K}} LOL, Yoshi's Island and Wario Land aren't in there because THEY AREN'T MARIO GAMES. Just because they have "Super Mario" in the title does not mean its a Mario game. | #{{User|Koopa K}} LOL, Yoshi's Island and Wario Land aren't in there because THEY AREN'T MARIO GAMES. Just because they have "Super Mario" in the title does not mean its a Mario game. | ||
#{{user|Walkazo}} - Per my arguments in the thread ([http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=20682.msg873172#msg873172 starting with this post]), and in the Comments below (which is basically a summary of my posts). Also, this wouldn't just affect [[Super Mario (series)]]: it also affects History sections, navigation template and categorization, [[Super Mario Land (series)]], [[Mario (franchise)]], and anything else that talks about the ''Super Mario'' or ''SML'' subseries - it's not a little change we're talking about here. | #{{user|Walkazo}} - Per my arguments in the thread ([http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=20682.msg873172#msg873172 starting with this post]), and in the Comments below (which is basically a summary of my posts). Also, this wouldn't just affect [[Super Mario (series)]]: it also affects History sections, navigation template and categorization, [[Super Mario Land (series)]], [[Super Mario (franchise)]], and anything else that talks about the ''Super Mario'' or ''SML'' subseries - it's not a little change we're talking about here. | ||
#{{User|RandomYoshi}} – Per Walkazo. | #{{User|RandomYoshi}} – Per Walkazo. | ||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo. | #{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo. | ||
Line 253: | Line 253: | ||
4) Lost in Walkazo's ramblings is that I'm *not* advocating including Wario Land / Yoshi's Island into the Super Mario (series) page. '''Only the first two Super Mario Land games will be added.''' I do wish people would make sure to read the opening post carefully before commenting or voting. {{user|Legault}} | 4) Lost in Walkazo's ramblings is that I'm *not* advocating including Wario Land / Yoshi's Island into the Super Mario (series) page. '''Only the first two Super Mario Land games will be added.''' I do wish people would make sure to read the opening post carefully before commenting or voting. {{user|Legault}} | ||
Just one question: Isn't any criteria we come up with for determining what belongs in the Super Mario series inevitably going to be fan based? I know Nintendo cannot be expected to fill in the gaps every single time, but still it seems like we're just accepting/rejecting things into the Super Mario series based on our personal perceptions of what a Super Mario series game should be. I don't think it's a really important page, it's in that weird zone between [[Mario (franchise)]] and the respective sub-series like the [[Super Mario Bros. (series)]]. I'm not arguing whether or not Nintendo considers Super Mario to be a separate series (because it's pretty clear that they do), but given the ambiguity what belongs in the series, I wouldn't mind if it was scrapped altogether.--{{User|Knife}} 00:53, 12 September 2012 (EDT) | Just one question: Isn't any criteria we come up with for determining what belongs in the Super Mario series inevitably going to be fan based? I know Nintendo cannot be expected to fill in the gaps every single time, but still it seems like we're just accepting/rejecting things into the Super Mario series based on our personal perceptions of what a Super Mario series game should be. I don't think it's a really important page, it's in that weird zone between [[Super Mario (franchise)]] and the respective sub-series like the [[Super Mario Bros. (series)]]. I'm not arguing whether or not Nintendo considers Super Mario to be a separate series (because it's pretty clear that they do), but given the ambiguity what belongs in the series, I wouldn't mind if it was scrapped altogether.--{{User|Knife}} 00:53, 12 September 2012 (EDT) | ||
Line 302: | Line 302: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Maybe it's okay to put quotes on character and item articles, but having them at the top of a game article seems tacky to me IMO. But as far as I know we don't have an enforced policy about it either way.--{{User|Knife}} 09:46, 12 September 2012 (EDT) | Maybe it's okay to put quotes on character and item articles, but having them at the top of a game article seems tacky to me IMO. But as far as I know we don't have an enforced policy about it either way.--{{User|Knife}} 09:46, 12 September 2012 (EDT) | ||
Line 573: | Line 572: | ||
In response to some of the [[Talk:Nintendo_Land#Articles_for_all_atractions|arguments against full coverage]], unlike ''[[NBA Street V3]]'' and ''[[SSX on Tour]]'', the ''Mario'' influence on ''[[Nintendo Land]]'' is huge, just like all the undisputed crossovers (''[[Mario & Sonic (series)|Mario & Sonic]]'', ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|SSB]]'', ''[[Fortune Street]]'' and ''[[Itadaki Street DS]]'', ''[[Mario Kart Arcade GP|Mario Kart Arcade GP]] 1'' and ''[[Mario Kart Arcade GP 2|2]]'', ''[[Wario Blast: Featuring Bomberman!]]'', ''[[Mario Hoops 3-on-3]]'' and ''[[Mario Sports Mix]]'', plus the slightly different case of the ''[[Game_%26_Watch#Game_.26_Watch_Gallery_series|Game & Watch Gallery]]'' series (they're ports of non-''Mario'' games, but with "modern" ''Mario'' versions)). Leaving out the non-''Mario'' stuff would make the coverage of any of these games seem patchy, whereas for ''NBA Street V3'' and ''SSX on Tour'', it's clear we're only bothering with the little slices of ''Mario'' and not the other 95% of the games that are completely unrelated to our series: as I said [[forum:17310.msg718029#msg718029|in this forum post]], these games are more like "guest appearances" than full-on crossovers (same with ''Densetsu no Stafy 3'', which we haven't even made a page for yet). ''[[Captain Rainbow]]'' is more of a crossover than a "guest appearance" given how Birdo's a major character and how there's other series represented in the game, but giving it full coverage would be difficult given the Japan-only nature of the game. Plus, most of the main characters, as well as the plot and setting, are original to the game and factor in much more heavily than the original content in other crossovers (''SSBB'' is the only one that really comes close), which sets it a bit apart from the more standard crossovers - including ''Nintendo Land''. And to be thorough, we also give single-article coverage only to ''[[Tetris DS]]'' and ''[[Art Style: PiCTOBiTS]]'' (and now ''[[Pushmo]]'' too), but given the simple puzzle-game nature of these titles, single articles is all we really ''need'' to cover them. '''The point is,''' ''Nintendo Land'' is much more like the other accepted crossovers than the "guest appearance" games that are only given partial coverage, so as the proposal says, it should get full coverage. - {{User|Walkazo}} | In response to some of the [[Talk:Nintendo_Land#Articles_for_all_atractions|arguments against full coverage]], unlike ''[[NBA Street V3]]'' and ''[[SSX on Tour]]'', the ''Mario'' influence on ''[[Nintendo Land]]'' is huge, just like all the undisputed crossovers (''[[Mario & Sonic (series)|Mario & Sonic]]'', ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|SSB]]'', ''[[Fortune Street]]'' and ''[[Itadaki Street DS]]'', ''[[Mario Kart Arcade GP|Mario Kart Arcade GP]] 1'' and ''[[Mario Kart Arcade GP 2|2]]'', ''[[Wario Blast: Featuring Bomberman!]]'', ''[[Mario Hoops 3-on-3]]'' and ''[[Mario Sports Mix]]'', plus the slightly different case of the ''[[Game_%26_Watch#Game_.26_Watch_Gallery_series|Game & Watch Gallery]]'' series (they're ports of non-''Mario'' games, but with "modern" ''Mario'' versions)). Leaving out the non-''Mario'' stuff would make the coverage of any of these games seem patchy, whereas for ''NBA Street V3'' and ''SSX on Tour'', it's clear we're only bothering with the little slices of ''Mario'' and not the other 95% of the games that are completely unrelated to our series: as I said [[forum:17310.msg718029#msg718029|in this forum post]], these games are more like "guest appearances" than full-on crossovers (same with ''Densetsu no Stafy 3'', which we haven't even made a page for yet). ''[[Captain Rainbow]]'' is more of a crossover than a "guest appearance" given how Birdo's a major character and how there's other series represented in the game, but giving it full coverage would be difficult given the Japan-only nature of the game. Plus, most of the main characters, as well as the plot and setting, are original to the game and factor in much more heavily than the original content in other crossovers (''SSBB'' is the only one that really comes close), which sets it a bit apart from the more standard crossovers - including ''Nintendo Land''. And to be thorough, we also give single-article coverage only to ''[[Tetris DS]]'' and ''[[Art Style: PiCTOBiTS]]'' (and now ''[[Pushmo]]'' too), but given the simple puzzle-game nature of these titles, single articles is all we really ''need'' to cover them. '''The point is,''' ''Nintendo Land'' is much more like the other accepted crossovers than the "guest appearance" games that are only given partial coverage, so as the proposal says, it should get full coverage. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
:Awesome. I'm glad that the decision the proposal will make is off to a good start. Also I'm just wondering, what's the limit we can go for creating articles for guest appearances? I would like to get the article ''Densetsu no Stafy 3'' created eventually, but how notable does the guest appearance have to be to get their own article? Like for example, we have a heap of [[List of | :Awesome. I'm glad that the decision the proposal will make is off to a good start. Also I'm just wondering, what's the limit we can go for creating articles for guest appearances? I would like to get the article ''Densetsu no Stafy 3'' created eventually, but how notable does the guest appearance have to be to get their own article? Like for example, we have a heap of [[List of references in video games|''Mario'' references]] in the game ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening''. Like ''Stafy 3'', could that game also get an article? {{User|YoshiKong}} 22:18, 17 November 2012 (EST) | ||
::What sets ''Stafy 3'' apart from games that merely "reference" ''Mario'' is the fact that Wario's role is fairly important, and not just a cameo that could be totally erased from the game with no effect on its plot or gameplay. Wario's not playable like the ''Mario'' characters in ''NBA Street V3'' and ''SSX on Tour'', but [[Wario#Densetsu no Stafy 3|as his article explains]], he helps the player complete various levels, gives them treasures and teaches them how to use one of Starfy's moves. Wario's not a major part of the game, so it's not a full crossover, but if you take him out, there ''would'' be an effect on the game, so he's more than just a cameo. And unlike something like Mario refereeing in ''Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!'', Wario isn't just a face slapped on what cold easily be a generic role: it's Wario being Wario in ''Stafy 3''. Of course, speaking of ''Punch-Out!!'', the Wii game might be eligible for an article given how [[Donkey Kong#Punch-Out!!|Donkey Kong's featured]] as a bonus opponent: that's less involved than Wario is with ''Stafy 3'', but it's still heftier than your run-of-the-mill cameo. I think the best thing to do would be to make Proposals (like this one) before expanding content for ''Punch-Out!!'' Wii, ''Densetsu no Stafy 3'', or any other intermediate "guest appearance" game: when you're dealing with grey areas like this, case-by-case is always the way to go. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ::What sets ''Stafy 3'' apart from games that merely "reference" ''Mario'' is the fact that Wario's role is fairly important, and not just a cameo that could be totally erased from the game with no effect on its plot or gameplay. Wario's not playable like the ''Mario'' characters in ''NBA Street V3'' and ''SSX on Tour'', but [[Wario#Densetsu no Stafy 3|as his article explains]], he helps the player complete various levels, gives them treasures and teaches them how to use one of Starfy's moves. Wario's not a major part of the game, so it's not a full crossover, but if you take him out, there ''would'' be an effect on the game, so he's more than just a cameo. And unlike something like Mario refereeing in ''Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!'', Wario isn't just a face slapped on what cold easily be a generic role: it's Wario being Wario in ''Stafy 3''. Of course, speaking of ''Punch-Out!!'', the Wii game might be eligible for an article given how [[Donkey Kong#Punch-Out!!|Donkey Kong's featured]] as a bonus opponent: that's less involved than Wario is with ''Stafy 3'', but it's still heftier than your run-of-the-mill cameo. I think the best thing to do would be to make Proposals (like this one) before expanding content for ''Punch-Out!!'' Wii, ''Densetsu no Stafy 3'', or any other intermediate "guest appearance" game: when you're dealing with grey areas like this, case-by-case is always the way to go. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
Line 620: | Line 619: | ||
===Moveto template=== | ===Moveto template=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|gray|WITHDRAWN, AS PROPOSED TEMPLATE {{color-link | {{ProposalOutcome|gray|WITHDRAWN, AS PROPOSED TEMPLATE {{color-link|Template:Move|grey|ALREADY EXISTS}}}} | ||
I think we should have a <nowiki>{{Moveto}}</nowiki> template. As some tpp's are about moving pages, this would let users know. As we want maximum participation, this would help a lot. | I think we should have a <nowiki>{{Moveto}}</nowiki> template. As some tpp's are about moving pages, this would let users know. As we want maximum participation, this would help a lot. | ||
Line 636: | Line 635: | ||
So will you organize a template design during or after the proposal? {{User|YoshiKong}} 22:34, 14 December 2012 (EST) | So will you organize a template design during or after the proposal? {{User|YoshiKong}} 22:34, 14 December 2012 (EST) | ||
:We do have [[Template: | :We do have [[Template:Move|this]]... {{User|Phoenix}} | ||
::Oh, wasn't aware of that one. So... redundant proposal? {{User|YoshiKong}} 23:47, 14 December 2012 (EST) | ::Oh, wasn't aware of that one. So... redundant proposal? {{User|YoshiKong}} 23:47, 14 December 2012 (EST) | ||
Line 791: | Line 790: | ||
===Remove the "Affiliation" parameter from infoboxes=== | ===Remove the "Affiliation" parameter from infoboxes=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|21-0|remove parameter}} | {{ProposalOutcome|passed|21-0|remove parameter}} | ||
{{ | {{quote|What's an "affiliation", anyway? How can you be "affiliated" to your brother? This section should be removed or revised entirely.|Cobold [http://www.mariowiki.com/images/2/26/Mario1c.jpg|here]}} | ||
The "Affiliation" parameter featured in character and enemy infoboxes (such as [[Template:Character | The "Affiliation" parameter featured in character and enemy infoboxes (such as [[Template:Character infobox|this]]) is vaguely defined, useless cruft. The information it conveys can easily be inferred by reading the article and it's frequently filled simply because it's there, leading to nonsense like random enemies being "affiliated" with the levels they appear in, random bosses being "affiliated" with the random enemies found in the same level and characters being affiliated with "him/herself" (lol, what?). | ||
It's useless, frequently gives stupid (as opposed to simply useless) results and artificially fatten up the lead infoboxes. Let's bury it. | It's useless, frequently gives stupid (as opposed to simply useless) results and artificially fatten up the lead infoboxes. Let's bury it. |
Latest revision as of 15:18, May 18, 2024
Remove level articles of levels that have namesVETOED BY PORPLEMONTAGE (Talk) There are no level articles for levels named 1-1 and 2-2, but there are articles for levels named Awesome and such. There have been proposals to create articles for the "non-named" levels, but they have been turned down. We want consistency right? So, I say keep consistency and merge, the "named" levels into their world articles. There isn't anything special about "named" levels besides the name. This level deserves an article as much as this one. So, as all else has failed before, neither of them deserve their own page. The only ones that should be kept are, obviously, places that have more than one level/boss fight in 3D platformers such as, Bob-omb Battlefield, Bianco Hills, Good Egg Galaxy, and Bowser in the Dark World. Easy enough to understand right? Proposer: Koopa K (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsAll those areas you mentioned as keeping their articles could actually be considered to be the 3D equivalents of World articles (while the missions/episodes/whatever that happen in them would be the "Levels"), which makes things a lot more straightforward: Worlds get articles, Levels don't. - Walkazo (talk) So you want to merge all of the Super Mario World levels, right? GreenDisaster (talk) Puns on the Mario Party articlesremove puns 11-2 Proposer: GreenDisaster (talk) Remove Puns Section
Keep Puns Section
CommentsAnd here are the articles that will be affected.
@JORDAN DEBONO It wouldn't be totally deleted just put into the minigame article. Koopa K (talk)
Ok look the 3+ thing was just an exaggeration ALTHOUGH all those game have 3+ on the box so you never quite know. And where will the pun article go, inside the minigame article? I don't fully understand this. Also @GreenDisaster, I was offline at the time so I couldn't respond anyone. JORDAN DEBONO (talk)
Well that does kind of change my initial reasoning although seeing that the odds are against me and Technickal I will continue to support my vote. Thanks anyway, JORDAN DEBONO (talk)
All right, if you're going to go with that angle... Currently, several of us on the forums have agreed to remove any pieces of trivia that are speculation, dumb, coincidental, or, most relevantly, obvious. And like I said, the obvious ones required no work, and the others just required a quick Google search. Besides, the point of this proposal is to remove the list of puns from the articles. You can create a separate proposal and argue about the obvious trivia there, but right now, it's irrelevant. GreenDisaster (talk)
Create a standard on Prima guidescanceled by proposer But I digress. I believe we should decide whether or not to include Prima's information, prior to Galaxy, in articles on the wiki. For example, on the Gloomba page, it says "In the Prima Super Paper Mario strategy guide, it states that Gloombas have the ability to poison the player, although this is false." This would be deleted, since the Prima guide is unofficial. However, on the Preying Mantas page, it says "In the Prima Official Game Guide for Super Mario Galaxy 2, Preying Mantas are called Jammyfish." This would stay, since that particular Prima guide is the official guide. If anyone wants, I can post a list of current articles that would and would not be affected. It is my opinion that we should omit all of Prima's information (prior to Galaxy). Many a mention of Prima guides on the wiki is something that the company incorrectly stated in their guide. I think it's redundant to state something that an unofficial source got wrong. Of course, if the official source was incorrect, it absolutely should be added, thus the "prior to Galaxy" bit. Proposer: Bloc Partier (talk) Remove Prima Information Prior to Super Mario Galaxy
Do Nothing
Comments@Koopa K: @Glowsquid: I see your point, but I think most of the Prima guides dodge legislation thanks to their claim of "Prima's Official Guide." Anyhow, I totally see your point on the Wario World thing, but that still leaves us with the multitudes of "Prima got this wrong lol" comments. Perhaps this should be a case by case application and not a proposal. In which case I'd rather just delete this than deal with the whole thing. - Bloc Partier (talk) Merge the various enemy categories from Super Mario World 2 to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Islanddon't merge 1-7 Proposer: GreenDisaster (talk) Merge
Don't Merge
CommentsNone of the articles are a stub, so why merge? Koopa K (talk)
Proposals must pass by a Majority Rulepassed 8-0 I can put a draft in if I want to right? Anyways, I know this was already proposed here by Super Mario Bros., but I liked the idea and changed his reasoning to hopefully satisfy the opposers. Anyways, I included a draft here to make it more clear what I am trying to say.Please read the draft before you make your vote!!! I couldn't make that previous statement more clear. "You don't have a reason" is not an acceptable oppose, because I do have a reason inside the draft. I just thought it would make it more clear. So, a brief summary would be proposals may only pass if more than half of the users voting support it. (This only affects proposals with 3 or more options.) Also, no option will be deleted under any circumstances. Proposer: Koopa K (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsNice to see this revisited. So would this mean a new bullet points gets added to the top box saying "All proposals must pass by a majority, including proposals with more than two options."? I don't think we'd have to go into detail beyond that up there. Then, we can expand Rule 8 to say that "All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended if any single option does not have majority support: i.e. more than half of all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.", thus making sure we do elaborate on "majority" somewhere on the page. Rule 9 could also be elaborated upon to make sure that 3+ option proposals really do get clear majorities. I.e. "If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. In other words, one option must have 50% + 3 of all votes cast. This means that if a basic two-option proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options require more precise counting of votes to determine if an extension is necessary." - Walkazo (talk) Coming up with a more consistent standard for the Super Mario seriesoppose 2-8 A platformer, either 2D, 3D, or mixed; Made by Nintendo; Features "Super Mario" in the title; Stars Mario as a playable character The major consequence of this new definition would be the inclusion of the first two Land games onto the Super Mario (series) page. Reasons that have been provided against this inclusion have, in my mind, been very weak. Examples would include: "The game just doesn't *feel* like a Mario game." While it's true that the first two Super Mario Land games are unique, the same can be said of Super Mario Bros. 2 and Super Mario Sunshine, both of which are included on the (series) page. "The two Super Mario Land titles were directed by Yokoi, not Miyamoto." Again, while this is true, it's a charge that could also be directed against other games on the (series) page, such as New Super Mario Bros. 2. "The word 'Land' in the title tells us it's a separate sub-series." This isn't tenable for two reasons. First, it would open the door to take off many other games on the list (64, Sunshine, Galaxy) that don't carry the familiar Super Mario Bros. moniker; secondly, Super Mario 3D Land is included on the (series) page, meaning it would need to be removed in the name of consistency. "The two Land games weren't included in the Anniversary Collection Booklet." Not only does the Mario Wiki make clear that the ACB carries no weight as a source for Super Mario canonicity, it would also leave us in the dark regarding later SM games. Should 3D Land be included? NSMB2? Leaning on the ACB defeats the purpose of establishing a clear definition for inclusion on the (series) page down the road. It goes without saying that this isn't the only definition that could be used, but based on discussion with others, it seems to be the most reasonable first step. That said, I strongly encourage a reading of this topic from the Mario Boards, started by myself, which goes into some detailed discussion about the ambiguities on the (series) page and ways to fix it: http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=20682.0 Proposer: Legault (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThis should be a regular proposal not a TPP. Raven Effect (talk) I figured I'd make a mistake like this, although I tried to follow the guidelines as best I could. Moved to where I *believe* is the correct place... fingers crossed. Legault (talk)
1) The ACB booklet is either a) an authoritative source for determining which games are SM games, or b) not an authoritative source for determining which games are SM games. There is no middle ground. Because the Mario Wiki makes clear that no source is more "canon" than any other, the necessary conclusion is that the ACB should be treated as non-authoritative for the purpose of canonized compilation. And again, even if it were treated as authoritative, it would still be silent on later games- meaning we'd need to come up with a clear definition anyway. 2) The rest of your rambling boils down to two points of focus, neither of which are remotely objective: feel and impact. The difference between Super Mario Land and Super Mario Bros. 2, you say, is that the latter introduced new things that became staples of the series; it doesn't matter if SML fits the common-sense criteria for a Super Mario game (name, genre, playable character, developer), since, according to your definition, the game didn't have enough lasting impact to warrant inclusion. If you want to be consistent, however, this feel / impact approach is still going to demand some pretty major changes on the Super Mario (series) page. Take Super Mario Sunshine, for example: doesn't feel a thing like Mario 64, and didn't have a lasting impact on the Super Mario series. Why is it on the series page? Or take a game like Super Mario Land 2: feels very similar to a traditional SM platformer, and did have a lasting impact on the Mario franchise in the form of Wario. Or what about a game like 3D Land? The series has never had a hybrid 2D/3D platformer before, and as the game introduced little new- it was largely a SMB3 homage- those same "feel" and "impact" arguments could be leveled here as well. There's a woeful lack of consistency in your approach. Which brings me to my third point... 3) You continue even now, weeks after our first exchange, to ignore my requests for providing any clear definition for what games to include on the Super Mario (series) page. Leaning on rhetorical flourishes like "Consider all the factors!" may make your arguments persuasive to some, but it also makes them hollow, and if the Mario Wiki values clarity and consistency- and I can't imagine any reason it wouldn't- you need to make your standard clear. Is your standard complicated? That's fine. Is your standard multi-variable? That's fine. Tell us what it is. 4) Lost in Walkazo's ramblings is that I'm *not* advocating including Wario Land / Yoshi's Island into the Super Mario (series) page. Only the first two Super Mario Land games will be added. I do wish people would make sure to read the opening post carefully before commenting or voting. Legault (talk) Just one question: Isn't any criteria we come up with for determining what belongs in the Super Mario series inevitably going to be fan based? I know Nintendo cannot be expected to fill in the gaps every single time, but still it seems like we're just accepting/rejecting things into the Super Mario series based on our personal perceptions of what a Super Mario series game should be. I don't think it's a really important page, it's in that weird zone between Super Mario (franchise) and the respective sub-series like the Super Mario Bros. (series). I'm not arguing whether or not Nintendo considers Super Mario to be a separate series (because it's pretty clear that they do), but given the ambiguity what belongs in the series, I wouldn't mind if it was scrapped altogether.--Knife (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
1) Returning to the ACB, it is not "canon" in the sense that I'm using the word: namely, that it does not operate as an authoritative source on which games are Super Mario titles and which aren't. If it were, then we'd be left in the dark not only regarding the games released after the ACB, but also regarding remakes and ports, which go unmentioned (Super Mario 64 DS, Super Mario Bros. Game & Watch, etc.)- not to mention SMBS and ANNSMB would also find themselves excluded. 2) Your "holistic" approach comes at the price of inconsistency, subjectivity, and lack of clarity / verifiability. I do appreciate your honesty with this last post, because you yourself have now made clear that the Super Mario (series) page is currently organized without clear standards. Never mind arguments that the definition may be complicated or multi-variable; as of right now, a definition doesn't even exist. Though you're free to provide one at any time, it doesn't seem like that's a priority for you. This is where argument ends and where opinion begins: either you opt for a standard that is without clear definition or consistency and operates based on "feel," or else you opt for a standard that sets up some reasonable, but clear and consistent, conditions for being considered a Super Mario game proper. [In other words, this is the main Wikipedia approach vs. the current Mario Wiki approach.] There's nothing else I can add on the matter beyond the observation that many people- much more than I expected- seem content to accept a status quo that lacks any kind of structure. A few days left, so we'll see where people fall on this dispute. Legault (talk)
Seeing as I've been extremely clear as to what I mean by "canon," I doubt anyone is confused. Although since we're on the topic of misleading voters, I should mention that you continue to tiptoe around the fact that you haven't provided a standard. You're right that a complex definition can be made, but you've yet to do so, and this "holistic" approach is a tidy way to dodge the question. As I said before, it seems clear that consistency isn't a priority for this Wiki, which is disappointing to say the least; I'd expect a Wiki dedicated to the Mario games to at least meet the standards of clarity of the official Wikipedia page. As you said, though, this confused approach has been the standard here for quite some time, so it'd make sense that people would be resistant to change; it's just too bad that the change in question is a clear positive. EDIT 2: Just got a moderator warning for something waaaaaaaay less confrontational than my first edit here, so better safe than sorry. Let's just leave my closing thoughts at this: even still, no standard has been provided. Walkazo's argument is as follows: 1. We don't have an explicit standard for what constitutes a Super Mario game, so we'll evaluate things based on "impact" and "feel." 2. What is this standard, you ask? idk lol This particular proposal submission won't go through, but hopefully it will sit with people, get their minds churning a bit, and realize that the current approach is irredeemably flawed. Legault (talk) Allow quotes on non-character articlespassed 10-0 Proposer: YoshiKong (talk) Support (allow quotes in accordance to the described regulations)
Oppose (keep to the current recommendations)CommentsMaybe it's okay to put quotes on character and item articles, but having them at the top of a game article seems tacky to me IMO. But as far as I know we don't have an enforced policy about it either way.--Knife (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
Merge All Game Modes Into Their Respective Game Articles They Appear Inno quorum 0-2-1 Actually a solution, if we can merge the game modes into the game articles is simply rewritng all the section, making it less wordy and keeping the essential to prevent that users consider the game article "just too long". Another solution is to make a new feature to trait game modes, creating a category (clearly called "Category:Game modes") to keep them. However, treating game modes articles in this way may create a radical change over other games that also have game modes, for example, the Mario sport games, Mario Kart games and many other games (modes such as Balloon Battle, Time Trial, Story Mode, etc.). Proposer: Coincollector (talk) Merge all game modesDon't merge game modes
Create Game modes category
Comments@Mariosmasher,
As a general rule, topics should receive their own articles (as long as a decent amount of information can be put together). This is perfect usage of the empty section policy and article size policy that we're not just throwing all that specific info on the page about the game. --Porplemontage (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2012 (EDT) We've always had game modes being merged with the respective game article. @Porplemontage: I don't think that applies to game pages because if you split off the story, game modes, reviews, etc. what you have left is a fancy template page. Even Wikipedia retains some sections on their video game articles and they're all about splitting stuff.--Knife (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2012 (EDT) Overturn Excessive Userspace Regulations and Improve Ability to Log and Enforce Userpage Editing Rulesno quorum 2-0
In addition to the proposed overturns or amendments to those policies, I would like to provide for provisions that increase the transparency of changes made by the administrative team to userspace policies, and also allow for the improvement of being able to track down changes made to the userspace policies.
Finally, for the purposes of simplicity, any current userspace rule that is overturned in this proposal will not be "un-applied" post de facto (which means any changes made under said rules will be kept and not undone- the reversals will simply provide that the rule will no longer be actively enforced). New userspace policies and restrictions proposed can, however, be made to apply to all appropriate situations. Thank you for your time. Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk) (with modifications suggested by Walkazo (talk) and YoshiKong (talk) in the comments section, as well as various changes suggested by the Wiki Administrative Board) Endorse
OpposeCommentsI think the userspace log is a great idea. Perhaps it can be expanded to include all policy in general. I agree with most of the changes to userspace, and that one change to the signature policy. But I feel that we shouldn't be allowed to create userspace templates for just the userpage. Also, excessive swearing shouldn't be allowed, and the need to hide any offensive comments through coding could be frustrating to users new to wiki syntax. YoshiKong (talk)
I don't see the problem with specifically addressing "Pages that do not serve the Super Mario Wiki" in the subpage section in addition to the overall "don't do this" section. Rather than redundancy or repetition, I view it as emphasis, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, the point could be modified to say "see below for the sorts of things you shouldn't be doing here at all" rather than "please restrict these sorts of user-content to your main userpage" (which doesn't work if transcluding subpages are allowed again), and maybe the "err on the side of caution" bit could then say "do not add content or create a subpage". I'm also leery about removing the "excessive swearing" point: just because a lot of it could be covered by the spam and flaming rules, ensuring that nothing undesirable gets through the cracks with a general moratorium is a good thing - although I'd be fine with adding, for example, "(unless a disclaimer is placed at the top of the page)" to the point (not that defending people's right to swear excessively is particularly high on my list of concerns, tbh). I also agree with YoshiKong that specifying limitations on transcluded subpages (and userspace templates, which are basically the same thing anyway) would be a good idea, rather than simply removing the rule outright and opening the system up for abuse: most users will be reasonable on their own, but it's good to have solid ammo to stop the one or two troublemakers. Similarly, rather than removing the "warning templates may not be copied, however" bit, adding "(except for testing purposes restricted to a specific test subpage or section)" to the rule would be better - I'm not sure if that's what you intended all along (the bold is vague), so I'd figure I'd address it specifically, and also add the subpage bit to ensure the wiggle room couldn't be abused. Again, like the transclusion stuff, I'm sure most people will be responsible with the templates, but it never hurts to be sure; imo, the best rules are the ones that only need to be used in emergencies. - Walkazo (talk) I made various changes to the proposal to perhaps make it more acceptable or clear in some cases. Unless I missed something, I tried to meet all of the suggestions in this comments section except for specifying limitations on transcluded userspace pages— this is because I feel that doing so might be more appropriate for another proposal instead (in fact, I decided to include a point specifically suggesting the creation of such a proposal that covers the topic further in depth). Other than that, if there are more comments, keep them coming! :) Super Mario Bros. (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
Hi. I might be thinking ahead here, but I have had an idea as to hide profanity from public view, and to give a choice as to view them. Check it out as User:YoshiKong/Template:Swear, and please tell me what you think. Also, I think it's fair that this proposal be extended for another week, since it has mainly been discussion. - YoshiKong (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2012 (EDT) Flat deadlines for (un)featuring nomination pagestwo month deadline 15-0 1: The stated four month deadline is way too generous for a 5:1 ratio. Invariably, such a large ratio means only the nominator and his sockpuppets are interested in featuring the article and that nothing is being done to improve it. Having a generous time window doesn't change that. 2;The inactivity rule is totally worthless because of how the system works. A nomination that's opposed 32-1 and hasn't been edited for nearly a month can get "reset" and linger on for another (or two, three) month because someone saw fit to add another useless oppose vote. This leads to ridiculous situations like this thing being opposed 10 to 1 for nearly all of its lifetime and yet only being legibly archivable today. Normally I wouldn't care, but this means the targeted articles are adorned with evil, evil eyesores for the entire duration of the bloated process. So what do I propose instead? Quite simply, have a flat, two months deadline that's not influenced by anything. It's a far simpler, less drawn-out process and the deadline doesn't even need to be inputted manually, as the coding for calculating it automatically can be easily added to the FANOMSTAT template. Proposer: Glowsquid (talk) Have a flat, two month deadline for featured and unfeatured articles nominations
Keep system as isCommentsMakes sense if it works like proposals do. Why did we even make it like that in the first place? Coooool123 (talk)
Wait, if the rule is 4 months (soon to be 2) shouldn't this nomination be removed? Yoshi K (talk)
@Tails777: Glowsquid didn't say what you said on the proposal would be changed. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Remove Sprites From Galleriesdon't remove sprites from galleries 1-11 Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk) Remove Sprites From Galleries
Keep Sprites in Galleries
Comments@Hypnotoad, ironically, you said a key word there. Neatly gather images. That's the thing these sprites aren't neat. Their quality is atrocious.
Merge 10-Point Star and 20-Point Star to Point Stardon't merge 2-4 Proposer: Coooool123 (talk) Merge
Don't merge
CommentsThis should be a tpp not a regular proposal. Marshal Dan Troop (talk)
@Cooooool123 if they are merged, the name "Point Star" isn't official DKPetey99 (talk)
I'm at odds with myself on this. One the one hand, the beauty of having a single subject wiki is we can essentially have an unlimited number of single purpose articles about every named thing within the initial single subject. On the other hand, there is the need for efficiency and coherence within the wiki (as an encyclopedic entity). This isn't the first time we've had disagreements about articles concerning items/characters/whatever covering virtually the same information. I've normally come into these topics with a "case to case" type of mentality, some things just should be combined into a single article and some things should not. tl;dr I'm not voting yet because I'd like to see what others have to say first, but I'm noting that I don't find the argument that "They aren't the exact same thing, look at the numbers!" to be very compelling. Ghost Jam (talk) Allow Support Reasoning on Featured Article Nominationsdon't allow support reasoning 2-6 I have heard some users say that sometimes they actually want to write a support vote, but can't because of the rules. I am proposing to allow, but not require, reasoning for supporting a Featured Article nomination. However, votes that say "Per *insert user*" will be removed. Proposer: Yoshi K (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI would support it but Create articles for non-Mario attractionscreate attraction articles 9-4 Proposer: YoshiKong (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Electrical Bowser jr. Thanks for the vote, but providing a reason is mandatory. YoshiKong (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2012 (EST) In response to some of the arguments against full coverage, unlike NBA Street V3 and SSX on Tour, the Mario influence on Nintendo Land is huge, just like all the undisputed crossovers (Mario & Sonic, SSB, Fortune Street and Itadaki Street DS, Mario Kart Arcade GP 1 and 2, Wario Blast: Featuring Bomberman!, Mario Hoops 3-on-3 and Mario Sports Mix, plus the slightly different case of the Game & Watch Gallery series (they're ports of non-Mario games, but with "modern" Mario versions)). Leaving out the non-Mario stuff would make the coverage of any of these games seem patchy, whereas for NBA Street V3 and SSX on Tour, it's clear we're only bothering with the little slices of Mario and not the other 95% of the games that are completely unrelated to our series: as I said in this forum post, these games are more like "guest appearances" than full-on crossovers (same with Densetsu no Stafy 3, which we haven't even made a page for yet). Captain Rainbow is more of a crossover than a "guest appearance" given how Birdo's a major character and how there's other series represented in the game, but giving it full coverage would be difficult given the Japan-only nature of the game. Plus, most of the main characters, as well as the plot and setting, are original to the game and factor in much more heavily than the original content in other crossovers (SSBB is the only one that really comes close), which sets it a bit apart from the more standard crossovers - including Nintendo Land. And to be thorough, we also give single-article coverage only to Tetris DS and Art Style: PiCTOBiTS (and now Pushmo too), but given the simple puzzle-game nature of these titles, single articles is all we really need to cover them. The point is, Nintendo Land is much more like the other accepted crossovers than the "guest appearance" games that are only given partial coverage, so as the proposal says, it should get full coverage. - Walkazo (talk)
Better New improved edit toolbarARCHIVED BEFORE DEADLINE, AS PROPOSED FEATURE HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED Proposer: Megadardery (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWhat could you suggest to improve it? YoshiKong (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2012 (EST)
If you mean this;
...I like it! YoshiKong (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2012 (EST) Ultimately, it's Porple's decision whether or not he wants to change the toolbar. He's the one who has to install the software, so don't be surprised if you find that this proposal is shelved.--Knife (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2012 (EST)
It would appear that this has already be implemented. So, I suppose this proposal should be marked as null, then? -- 1337star (Mailbox SP) 12:06, 12 December 2012 (EST)
Moveto templateWITHDRAWN, AS PROPOSED TEMPLATE ALREADY EXISTS Proposer: BowserJunior (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsSo will you organize a template design during or after the proposal? YoshiKong (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2012 (EST)
Make a bot template to non-users that have made 20 or more edits to encourage them to make an accountPROPOSED ADDITION NOT CURRENTLY FEASIBLE The template should include extra things you can do with an account (like uploading images or removing adverts). The template should also include info about the Super Mario Boards, chat and Userpeadia as well as awards and shroom information. I have yet to create a draft but i'll get other users to help out on that in the near future. If this passes, it should get more people making accounts as therefore we would have bigger commuity and therfore they would be able to do more things to help out. Proposer: New Super Yoshi (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsHey, could I help out with the template draft? It should have a link to MarioWiki:Why create an account? --YoshiKong (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2012 (EST) @Megadadery - Honestly, I don't think we really need to "force" anonymous users to create an account, but we can let them know on the respective "IP talk pages" via a template that YoshiKong is thinking about that they're missing out on other features that are waiting for them on this wiki when they do create a user account. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! User Page | Talk Page 14:45, 27 December 2012 (EST) Are you sure this can be done? I don't know how bots work.--Knife (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2012 (EST)
I crafted a simple draft of how the template could be. Not sure if it's good. --MarioSmasher (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2012 (EST)
You guys know that if a bot can't be created then the proposal can't be enforced right? Marshal Dan Troop (talk)
That would need another proposal. YoshiKong (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2013 (EST) You know we could just info Porple about this Shoey, if you think it won't work just fill your name in the oppose box and by the way there there is one admin vote in the support box so it shows that this does work. New Super Yoshi (talk)
Reverse decision to make pages for the non-Mario attraction in Nintendo Landreverse decision 16-0 A while ago, there was a a proposal about creating articles for all the attractions in Nintendo Land. Said proposal was made before the WiiU (and thus, the game) was released in any territory and was based on the erroneous assumption that the game is a crossover-which it isn't. The attractions themes are strictly separate (so no Mario enemies appear in the Zelda-themed attraction and vice-versa) and there isn't any interaction in the hub. Having a bunch of stuff from multiple franchises doesn't necessarily make something a crossover, there has to be an interaction between those elements, which Nintendo Land lacks. Having individual articles for the Mario-relevant attractions is fine, since they're reasonably long and fully-featured games, but having complete ones for the non-Mario ones is coverage creep, akin to making pages for Duck Hunt and Stadium Events because they were on the same cartridge as the original SMB at one point. Quite tellingly, despite the game being bundled with one WiiU model, only two of the eight non-Mario attractions have pages so far, which shows there isn't much interest in writing about things only marginally related to Mario. So what I propose is simply keep the non-Mario attractions to short (maybe slightly longer than they are now) blurbs on the main Nintendo Land page, and scrap the Octopus Dance and Balloon Trip Breeze pages in the process. Proposer: Glowsquid (talk) Reverse decision
Keep it as isCommentsJust a thought, but what could be done is that on the Nintendo Land page, there be a link to the page on the wiki that centers on said attractions. (i.e Metroid Blast link to the page on Metroid Wiki, if it exists.) --Toad's Pikmin Army (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2013 (EST)
Reduce the Talk Page Proposal deadline to one weekdon't reduce 7-12 If this proposal passes it would only affect TPPs created after the change. Proposer: Aokage (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWell, PTR, if these proposals last one week, then why should TPP's be any different? I'm always looking for proposals wherever they are.--BowserJunior (talk) I'm at odds with this one. On one hand, shortening the proposals would mean less votes... but on the other, it may make people check them more often and take them more seriously if they're only one week...Coooool123 (talk)
I agree with Mario4Ever. --YoshiKong (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2013 (EST)
Remove the "Affiliation" parameter from infoboxesremove parameter 21-0
The "Affiliation" parameter featured in character and enemy infoboxes (such as this) is vaguely defined, useless cruft. The information it conveys can easily be inferred by reading the article and it's frequently filled simply because it's there, leading to nonsense like random enemies being "affiliated" with the levels they appear in, random bosses being "affiliated" with the random enemies found in the same level and characters being affiliated with "him/herself" (lol, what?). It's useless, frequently gives stupid (as opposed to simply useless) results and artificially fatten up the lead infoboxes. Let's bury it. Proposer: Glowsquid (talk) Remove
KeepComments
|