MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54: Difference between revisions
m (How did you mess that up?) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 296: | Line 296: | ||
::Yes, that would be a great idea for names. [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 22:22, July 22, 2019 (EDT) | ::Yes, that would be a great idea for names. [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 22:22, July 22, 2019 (EDT) | ||
:::Just remembered that [https://twitter.com/forestillusion Forest of Illusion] has posted lots of obscure ''Mario'' merchandise from Japan, so some of the pages could possibly be sorted by region. [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 23:13, July 22, 2019 (EDT) | :::Just remembered that [https://twitter.com/forestillusion Forest of Illusion] has posted lots of obscure ''Mario'' merchandise from Japan, so some of the pages could possibly be sorted by region. [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 23:13, July 22, 2019 (EDT) | ||
===New template: Alphabetize=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|6-14}} | |||
Historically, lists and galleries have attempted to be alphabetical. For the most part, they have remained somewhat intact in [[List of Super Mario Sunshine glitches|remaining]] [[Luigi's Mansion#Common Ghosts|alphabetical]]. In [[Wario#General information|a]] [[Gallery:Super Mario Galaxy#From Data|lot]] [[Gallery:New Super Mario Bros. 2#Items|of other]] [[List of Super Mario Bros. 2 glitches|cases]], this is not exactly true, which is where this template comes into play. This template, to be used in sections of pages, indicates that a list should be made alphabetical. It is significantly different from <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> because rewriting a page generally adds to or removes content, and requires a type of reactional thinking to form NEW content. To make a section alphabetical, it requires moving around pre-existing content. This should lead to a higher level of consistency among articles, and greater ease for readers to navigate pages. | |||
{{br}} | |||
The template would look like this: | |||
<div class="notice-template" style="display:flex;text-align:justify;background:#BF5FFF;margin:0.375em 2% 0.75em;padding:0 1em;border:2px solid black;color:black"> | |||
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|section}} be '''re-organized to be in alphabetical order'''. {{#if:{{{1|}}}|<nowiki> (tagged</nowiki> on {{{1}}}).|}} | |||
</div><includeonly><nowiki>[[Category:Alphabetize requested]]</nowiki></includeonly><noinclude> | |||
{{br}} | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Trig Jegman}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': August 9, 2019 at 23:59 GMT. | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Trig Jegman}} Per proposal. <small>''Would be weird if the guy that made it didn't support it...''</small> | |||
#{{User|Superchao}} Seems a perfectly reasonable way to call attention to a specific issue to me. | |||
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Not THAT unreasonable. | |||
#{{User|Doomhiker}} Honestly the "we can use the rewrite template" argument seems quite invalid. [[Template:Tense]] exists, even though we technically could just use <nowiki>{{rewrite|Tense}},</nowiki>. [[Template:Trivia]] could just be <nowiki>{{rewrite|Trivia section is too long}}</nowiki>. If we were to not have this template, then those templates would also have to go. Really, with the mentality that "just because another template just be used for the same thing", we should delete most improvement templates and make an issue template were we can do <nowiki>{{issue|rewrite, _ needs to be done to fix it}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{issue|Poor image quality, because _}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{issue|stub}}</nowiki>, etc. However, there is one major benefit in having specific template for specific issues, and sub-templates of those (which is what Template:Tense is and what this template can be) is that when those templates are used specific categories are added to the page. This means that editors can look for specific issues to fix instead of going through all pages marked with a more general template, like the rewrite template. If you want to fix long trivia sections, you can go to [[:Category:Articles with long trivia sections]]. (Unfortunately Template:Tense doesn't have its own category which it should have if you only want to fix tense, but https://www.mariowiki.com/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Tense still can be used). Of course, this template won't always be used, but there still are good uses of it, so I support. | |||
#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Per Doomhiker. Also, rewrite typically implies that an article needs its written content fixed, whereas Alphabetize typically pertains to galleries. Many users tend to focus on either written content or images, but sometimes not both. File maintainers like myself would never find such gallery sort issues in the rewrite category. In fact, I doubt very many people even scroll through that category when looking for articles to rewrite because of how bloated it is due to everyone using the template as a catch-all for any sort of issue with articles. I strongly disagree with the oppose votes here because I feel that sorting of galleries, which [[User:Supermariofan67#Sorting Galleries|can be an automated process]] is vastly different from fixing writing within articles and deserves its own maintenance category and template, and that trying to include this in rewrite contributes to the bloat of the rewrite category, making it more useless. | |||
#{{User|Niiue}} Per Doomhiker. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Alex95}} - I'm going to say the same thing here as I did in our DMs about this. <nowiki>{{rewrite|reason=alphabetized}}</nowiki> does the same thing. We don't need another template for this. Rewriting doesn't always mean adding or removing content, it could mean reorganizing content as well. | |||
#{{User|Lord Grammaticus}} - I know [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=King_Dedede&diff=prev&oldid=2726317 I've griped about something similar to this], but it's ultimately a semantic issue and, at most, a small quibble. Slightly altering the current templates to potentially reflect such cases would work somewhat better than a whole new template that all but says the same thing. Plus Alex makes a good point regarding what a rewrite entails. | |||
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Results May Vary}} - Trig, sorry but I'm going to have to agree with Grammaticus and Alex. Alphabetizing isn't needed in all cases. For instance, with [https://www.mariowiki.com/Mario_Power_Tennis#Characters characters in spin-off titles], Mario should always come first and foremost, as he is the series' titular character. | |||
#{{User|TheDarkStar}} I don't see why we need to make such specific templates. As Alex95 said, <nowiki>{{rewrite|needs alphabetization}}</nowiki> is a perfectly suitable alpabetization notice. | |||
#{{User|Owencrazyboy9}} Actually on second thought, using just the rewrite template works better. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Unnecessary and redundant. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Obsessive Mario Fan}} If we can just use the rewrite template, that makes this redundant and redundant. Per all. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} With the rewrite template being available, this would just be redundant. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Yoshi876}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mari0fan100}} Alphabetical order isn't always the best order... whichever order is best can depend on the content in the article, and it's slightly redundant. Opposing for now. | |||
#{{user|Mario jc}} What Alex said. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
i said that the borders of the template is too thick and it's inconsistent with the rest of the templates in its fashion. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:38, August 1, 2019 (EDT) | |||
:@Owen, I don't think you're supposed to just outright remove your initial vote - to my knowledge it's preferred that you strike through your initial vote and explain why your changed it in your new vote. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 01:42, August 2, 2019 (EDT) | |||
::You can remove your vote if no one is referring to it. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 12:24, August 2, 2019 (EDT) | |||
:::Understood, thank you for clarifying. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 15:03, August 2, 2019 (EDT) | |||
@Doomhiker, Tense can likely go. It's a subsidiary of the Rewrite template, even sharing its category. No mainspace pages are currently using it, possibly using the standard Rewrite template instead. It seems pretty redundant. As for Trivia, it's meant for one specific type of section and has its own category to go with it. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 15:16, August 2, 2019 (EDT) | |||
:Even with Tense having the same category (which is shouldn't), and trivia being used for a specific type of section, more specific categories are useful just for the sake of being easier and quicker to type out. {{User:Doomhiker/sig}} 17:12, August 4, 2019 (EDT) | |||
One suggestion I have would be to add a parameter for the user to specify a request for another sort order other than alphabetical (e.g., "It has been requested that this section be re-organized to be in release-date order." for character screenshot galleries) as other sort orders are common and I have seen many character screenshot galleries that aren't sorted properly. This may address Results May Vary's point. --{{User:Supermariofan67/sig}} 22:53, August 2, 2019 (EDT) |
Revision as of 22:22, August 9, 2019
Add RARS to Template:RatingsTemplate:ProposalOutcome RARS is Russian Age Rating System. There are already Mario games that have been classified by this system. So why not add it to the template? Sorry for my bad English. Update: Looks like we need to add GRAC and GSRR too. Proposer: Revilime (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsHow isn't it distinct from it? --
RARS was created in 2012. So, only games released after that have RARS rating, I think.--
Reviilime (talk · edits) 13:01, July 12, 2019 (EDT) @FanOfYoshi heh I appreciate inputting my name in Cyrillic but ignoring that Baby Luigi is actually called Малыш Луиджи, my name romanized would actually be spelled Бейби Луиджи. It was pretty close though! Create a Mario Party 11 redirectTemplate:ProposalOutcome This may sound kind of stupid, but I'm sure that there are people out there who'll automatically assume that Super Mario Party is called Mario Party 11. Super Mario Party is the eleventh Mario Party title to come out on a home console, and thus, when compared to the overall Mario Party series of 25 games, it's the 11th main game, due to the other 14 installments being either handheld or arcade. Harkening to the Mario Kart games, Super Mario Kart-Mario Kart Wii have redirects numbered 1-6. If the first six Mario Kart games warrant numbered redirects, then I really don't see why Super Mario Party cannot be treated in the same manner. Proposer: MarioManiac1981 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsHere's the proposal in question in case anyone wants to view it before voting here. Super Mario Party does refer to itself as "the 11th party" in-game. Scrooge200 (talk)
Create articles for the worlds in Dr. Mario WorldTemplate:ProposalOutcomeA proposal regarding creation of the levels is still underway. That being said, this is a much more clear-cut situation and does not need a proposal, as the stages would have to be covered somehow. After looking at the above proposal, knowing that Dr. Mario World simply doesn't warrant articles for each of its worlds, we'd might as well get the game's worlds themselves covered. Each of Dr. Mario World's levels don't have much information to about themselves, but the worlds as a whole have a lot more that can be brought up about them. Kinda like five sticks being tied together being stronger than each individual stick. 'Nuff said, the above proposal and the opinions of Toadette the Achiever and Mario JC back this proposal up. Proposer: MarioManiac1981 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThere's absolutely no point in forcing a second proposal, just vote on the appropriate option above and state your reasoning as you did here. The proposal seems to have an overwhelming consensus now, but there's the remote possibility of it changing by the proposal's end. -- Add template for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate's movesTemplate:ProposalOutcomeCreation of such a template does not need a proposal. I've noticed that previous Super Smash Bros. games have templates leading to the characters' special moves, as well as universal techniques like air dodging, footstool jumping, and tether recoveries. It's been more than 7 months since Super Smash Bros. Ultimate - the most recent Smash game - was released, yet we still don't have a templates dedicated to its characters' moves. I'd like to change that. Proposer: MarioManiac1981 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThis really does not need a proposal. All other Smash games have a template like this, and it should automatically should be no different for Ultimate. Doomhiker (talk)
btw opposes mean you don't want the template to exist in the first place, so that's kind of conflicting with your comments. I can probably just cancel this outright, but I want to see what MarioManiac says first.
Add when the Just released and New subject should be removed, while slightly rewording the former templateTemplate:ProposalOutcome Just recently there has been discussion regarding when the {{New subject}} template should be removed. While Alex95 said that the template should be removed after a month, the template, and its own page, says nothing about a date where it should be removed. In fact, it says "When the game is released, or more information about this subject is found, this article may need major rewriting. Remove this only when the changes have been applied.". So basically, it says that as long as the proper changes/info have been added about the new subject, the template can be removed, thus you can technically remove the template day one per the template, and as the template says that the template should only be removed once the changes are made technically the template can be on a page for years, if the changes are not made. So it is very easy to see how users can be confused on how long the template should last, and the current wording for removal should be reworded, as the template should be an alert for new subjects that are longer than one day old, but not years old. Plus it cannot hurt to specify when the template should be removed, to clear confusion. So, I propose to add a sentence and to reword the New subject template to specify when to remove the template, and the specification will also apply to the Just released template. This is how the templates should look like after this proposal passes, if it does: This article is about a game that has just been released. Major changes should be made by a contributor who has a reliable source. This template should be removed after a month has passed since the game was first released. This article is about a subject in an upcoming or recently released game. When the game is released, or more information about this subject is found, this article may need major rewriting. This template should be removed after a month has passed since the game was first released. The templates' pages will also include the date of removal. Proposer: Doomhiker (talk) Support
OpposeComments@FanOfYoshi I done it on this page due to it affecting two templates. I would much rather one proposal then two dealing with near-identical matters. Doomhiker (talk)
Disallow use of "per all" votes on proposals and featured article nominationsTemplate:ProposalOutcome Let's face it, this proposal had to happen. Too many people vote on a proposal just for the sake of voting, and bandwagon on the side with more votes. "Per all" implies that the voter is too lazy to simply point out their reasons or even refer back to specific previous votes. They instead opt to say "per all above reasons", quite possibly because they haven't even read the above reasons and are simply voting just by looking at the voting headers, without looking at the reasons for either side. Worst-case scenario, they see that one of the sides has a lot more votes and they cast a "per all" vote on that side just because. "Per all" is the lamest excuse to vote that ever existed and goes directly against proposal policy of "Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it". "Per all" has some real meaning behind it, but it's rarely used just because the voter agrees with and would otherwise list every single reason posted above it. It's usually just used because the voter hasn't considered the matter carefully and is rushing their vote to the side with more. It's basically putting no reason with your vote other than "you know what just look at the votes above this because I don't feel like typing everything". Therefore, I propose that the use of "Per all" in any proposal or featured article nominations be prohibited, and any votes involving its use are eligible for removal (unless they provide other reasons along with "per all", in which case the "per all" portion of the vote be removed and the rest of the vote stays as-is). "Per proposal" and "Per <user>" votes will still be allowed, but in the case of the latter, voters must list the users they most strongly agree with, one by one. This provides at least some certainty that they have considered the matter carefully, and examined the reasons to see which ones they buy. Proposer: YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsYes, there's an inherent irony in my typing an entire paragraph about how this is going to make people feel compelled to type paragraphs, and no, I don't much care because that's well beside the point. --
I do think that rule of "Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it" is not necessary. Per all and blank votes are simply just reiterating the other positions. To assume the worst from blank votes kinda runs against the whole "assume good faith" sort of thing. Create articles on individual Dr. Mario levelsTemplate:ProposalOutcome I'm specifically referring to the Miracle Cure Laboratory levels in Dr. Mario: Miracle Cure and the story mode stages in Dr. Mario World. It still bothers me that somehow the Dr. Mario series levels aren't explicitly covered by policy, so I propose that we be able to create them. I know that it may be a bit of a stretch to propose this, but I think we have a good precedent to go by: the levels from the Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes of Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey, as even though they aren't really comprehensive levels per se (and thus would technically be in the same boat as the aforementioned Dr. Mario series levels), they still have articles nonetheless. Should this proposal fail for either game, tables on the list of stages in each game will be created instead. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Create articles for both games' levels
Only create articles on the levels from Dr Mario: Miracle Cure
Only create articles on the levels from Dr Mario WorldDon't create any articlesCommentsFor the level layouts, we can show the virus layouts like this: Is it a good idea? TheDarkStar
What about full Worlds in Dr. Mario World? I think those should recieve articles, but probably not the individual levels. --DeepFriedCabbage 17:08, July 21, 2019 (EDT)
there i made an article on one of the worlds from dr mario world Reorganize and split Gallery:Toys and other Merchandise galleriesTemplate:ProposalOutcome Hi, so this is going to be a short, yet complicated proposal. There are two gallery pages, Gallery:Toys and Gallery:Figurines (linked in header), and it's a massive lump of merchandise images, which makes it difficult to actually add information regarding the merchandise. Pikipedia actually manages their merchandise page better in my opinion, as they organize by merchandise type in the mainspace (rather than gallery mainspace), and add some info on the individual merchandise. Part of me thinks that the lack of information on official merchandise (aside from obscurity) is because much of it is listed on a gallery page, rather than designated mainspace article. There is more information to the merchandise than just a picture of galleries. Even if this proposal does pass, we should consider sorting the merchandise into sections or articles, so like Super Mario series merchandise, Yoshi's Island merchandise, Donkey Kong series merchandise, Mario Kart merchandise. There's simply too much merchandise. Mario is one of the biggest gaming franchise of them all and has numerous spinoffs and franchises. The longevity of the franchise makes me think it's the biggest gaming franchise of them all... I'm definitely going to need the community's help on this big proposal. Proposer: Results May Vary (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsSo what are some possible ideas for how we will reorganize the articles into mainspace? What will the titles be? I definitely think doing it by franchise and spinoff series is the way to go. general merchandise (such as generic mario emblem) can be sorted under "general merchandise" or something like that. I want to hear your opinions. Results May Vary (talk) 22:10, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
New template: AlphabetizeTemplate:ProposalOutcome Historically, lists and galleries have attempted to be alphabetical. For the most part, they have remained somewhat intact in remaining alphabetical. In a lot of other cases, this is not exactly true, which is where this template comes into play. This template, to be used in sections of pages, indicates that a list should be made alphabetical. It is significantly different from {{rewrite}} because rewriting a page generally adds to or removes content, and requires a type of reactional thinking to form NEW content. To make a section alphabetical, it requires moving around pre-existing content. This should lead to a higher level of consistency among articles, and greater ease for readers to navigate pages. The template would look like this: It has been requested that this section be re-organized to be in alphabetical order. Proposer: Trig Jegman (talk) Support
Oppose
Commentsi said that the borders of the template is too thick and it's inconsistent with the rest of the templates in its fashion.
@Doomhiker, Tense can likely go. It's a subsidiary of the Rewrite template, even sharing its category. No mainspace pages are currently using it, possibly using the standard Rewrite template instead. It seems pretty redundant. As for Trivia, it's meant for one specific type of section and has its own category to go with it.
One suggestion I have would be to add a parameter for the user to specify a request for another sort order other than alphabetical (e.g., "It has been requested that this section be re-organized to be in release-date order." for character screenshot galleries) as other sort orders are common and I have seen many character screenshot galleries that aren't sorted properly. This may address Results May Vary's point. --Super Mario Fan 67 (T•C•S) 22:53, August 2, 2019 (EDT) |