MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/48: Difference between revisions
(Adding the failed proposal) |
(Archiving) |
||
Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
Also, putting ALL characters will never end, I think only in major characters, minor characters should be out of this category. {{User:LED42/sig}} 13:42, 16 September 2017 (EDT) | Also, putting ALL characters will never end, I think only in major characters, minor characters should be out of this category. {{User:LED42/sig}} 13:42, 16 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
===Double the amount of time a proposer can edit their talk page proposals=== | |||
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 [[Talk:Rocky_Wrench#Rocky_Wrenches_are_a_type_of_Monty_Mole|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''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': September 19, 2017, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Drago}} Per proposal. I think a week might make more sense than six days though; it seems simpler. | |||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} This definitely makes sense to me. If TPPs have an increased amount of time for voting, then so should the time that is allowed to edit them. Though I don't necessarily agree with that "they are less visible" argument. Talk page proposals are about as visible as mainspace proposals, and these days, most editors DO check the list of TPPs regularly and as easily as browsing through this page. If visibility is a problem for TPPs, then measures should be taken to ''be more visible'', since these matters are about as important as main space ones. | |||
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Alex95}} - I may not be 100% on board and can see issues, but they're the same issues we're having currently, so... I'll support the proposed extension. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Since the duration of the time of voting is twice, it makes sense to also allow twice the time to edit. | |||
#{{User|Camwood777}} - This feels the most fair. Double the time to vote, so double the time to edit the proposal. | |||
#{{User|Ultimate Mr. L}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|LED42}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Owencrazyboy9}} Per all, especially Mister Wu and Camwood777. It would only seem fair to allow double the voting and double the changing at once. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
"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. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 13:01, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
:I don't see the relevance. I'm talking about a discrepancy between the rules applied to both regular proposals and talk page proposals, not a rule that applies uniquely to talk page proposals. Besides, that rule says nothing about letting the proposer edit their proposal nor anything about what happens after five votes. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:03, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
::''I don't see the relevance. I'm talking about a discrepancy between the rules applied to both regular proposals and talk page proposals, not a rule that applies uniquely to talk page proposals.'' It is kind of hard to tell the difference between the two statements. What's the difference between them? ''Besides, that rule says nothing about letting the proposer edit their proposal nor anything about what happens after five votes.'' Obviously, otherwise it will fall under "All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows" with the above quote being rule 4 of TPPs. And I know this. Otherwise, I wouldn't make my comment. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 13:10, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::The first statement refers to rules that apply to both kinds of proposals with the only difference being their timespan, whereas the latter statement refers to rules that apply exclusively to one kind of proposal with no parallel for the other kind. Beyond that, what point are you making? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:14, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
::::In either statement, there is this to be considered: | |||
::::"Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks ('''all times GMT'''). | |||
::::*For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT." | |||
::::"Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one ('''all times GMT'''). | |||
::::*For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT." | |||
::::So they will be basically the same design. Unless I am reading this wrong. As for point to this, Isn’t it obvious? I want to know if votes are going to double or not or if canceling is going to change like the other two. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 13:27, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::::This proposal wants to change one thing: the time period in which a proposer can change their talk page proposal should be expanded to six days from the current three days. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:33, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
::::::I know this and I want to support this. But canceling a proposal is already different in TPP than in RP. I just wanting to know if you going to keep this difference, double this number, or change it to six days. In either case, I can easily support this. But I want to know before I do support. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 13:39, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::::::<s>You say that you can easily support this, but then you oppose. Sure. What specifically are you perring about their comments?</s> sorry got the proposals mixed up {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::::::On topic, as I said previously, the ''only'' thing that will be changed is the time limit for editing the talk page proposals. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:56, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
::::::::LOL. Anyways. You seem to imply that canceling will be changed to six days rather than (5) votes. OK. Though I like the 5 vote rule (and theoretically, it could be included as an additional thing to do), I don't know how it came to be. Either way this passes, this will change TPP's rule 4. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 14:04, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
@Drago: It's tempting, but I'd rather that it's exactly equivalent to the main proposals. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 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. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:20, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
:So should we not allow proposers to edit proposals at all and just have them cancel their proposals whenever new information comes up? Giving the proposers more time to effectively respond to others without having the current discussions and votes being entirely cast aside (at the same time, setting a time limit for the changes prevents proposers from changing things at the last minute, but I don't want to give them infinite time). {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:22, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
::I'm not saying that. I'm all for having more time, but at the same time, there is a limitation that can screw with the proposal at the last minute, even if the time limit is extended to anything other than "infinite". Additionally, users may have to reconsider their votes after the change, some of which may not notice it (though the proposer can certainly send a message if they wish). {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:27, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::The same logic can be applied to the current time limit, but I don't think that it pans out in either case. I'm suggesting that, for a 14-day proposal, proposers have the ability to make changes for the first 6 days (ratio of 6/14 or 3/7), to be equal with a 7-day proposal allowing proposers to make changes for 3 days (3/7). The proposer should be motivated to inform voters of any changes, but I don't see what's different between the two kinds of proposals. If anything, you seem to be suggesting that the current time limit should be ''shortened'', if you're that concerned about voters not noticing any changes until it's too late. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:33, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
::::I am concerned that voters may not notice the changes, but I definitely don't want the time to be shortened. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:40, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::::Another option may be to require proposals to notify voters of any changes (barring superfluous stuff like spelling/grammar corrections). {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:53, 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/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) |
Revision as of 22:15, September 19, 2017
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 proposalsBecause 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)
|