MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54: Difference between revisions
Power Flotzo (talk | contribs) (Minor fix.) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 406: | Line 406: | ||
I also think appearances in board games, card games, etc. based on the Mario series should go in other appearances. {{User:Obsessive Mario Fan/sig}} 17:11, August 20, 2019 (EDT) | I also think appearances in board games, card games, etc. based on the Mario series should go in other appearances. {{User:Obsessive Mario Fan/sig}} 17:11, August 20, 2019 (EDT) | ||
===Create a DYK Committee=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|cancelled}} | |||
Recently, I have noticed a lot of edits made to [[Template:DidYouKnow]] that were, to the most part, kinda bad. They were either unsourced in their original article, poorly-written, or just not notable enough for a section on interesting stuff (there was one that treated bomb cars exploding like something amazing).<br> | |||
But don't fear: this proposal will set things straight.<br> | |||
The '''DYK Committee''' (tentative) will update the template every week, adding interesting facts.<br> | |||
Of course, there is the dreaded '''drawback.''' | |||
*Not everyone will be able to edit it anymore; only members of the DYK Committee will. | |||
And this was brought up by Lord Bowser on the boards; we could also turn the Poll Committee into a Main Page Committee and let them do all the Main Page updating. | |||
'''Drawbacks:''' | |||
*More workload for the PC. | |||
*Possible stagnance. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|TheDarkStar}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' September 28, 2019, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Create a DYK Committee==== | |||
<s>#{{User|TheDarkStar}} Per proposal.</s> | |||
====Make the Poll Committee a Main Page Committee==== | |||
====Do nothing==== | |||
#{{user|7feetunder}} I completely fail to see the point of this. All I see is you complaining about bad edits, which are easily reverted and not a cause for alarm. DYK is a simple list of random trivia facts; there is no reason it needs to be entrusted to some elite group of editors. Anyone interested in regularly updating DYK can just do so of their own free will without being part of a committee. Furthermore, only allowing a few people to edit a fact list for such a large franchise means there will be fewer ideas of what to put on the template, as well as fewer people who are tasked with updating the thing every week. I've updated DYK a few times myself, and if I ever feel like doing it again, I should not have to be part of a committee to do so. Nor should I have to contact a committee member if a catch a mistake, as opposed to just correcting it myself like I would any other page. If you notice some bad edits being made to a featured article, what are you going to do? Propose that we only allow committee members to edit featured articles? Just revert the bad edits and move on. | |||
#{{User|Lord Grammaticus}} I admittedly like the idea and sympathize with the desire for quality presentation and quality control thereof. We should ideally strive to a decently high standard of presentation - and that's exactly why there ''shouldn't'' be a committee. As this is a wiki that can be freely edited, mistakes on the DYK template can thus be corrected by anyone - as they should be - and with that in mind, the cons weigh a bit more heavily in this scenario. I also have to admit that this proposal does seem rather reactive in its nature. In any case it'd just lead to more potential obstructions - in addition to 7feet's cited lack of parity in presentation, it speaks to this apparent need to bureaucratize every single wiki process when said need... doesn't really exist. Even ignoring my personal opinion that most wikis are ideally best left open to edit, with standards being established through example rather than committee or administrative fiat, it's just not on and isn't in the spirit of what MarioWiki seeks to accomplish. Gonna be a no from me. | |||
#{{user|MrConcreteDonkey}} - You don't need a huge amount of effort and sophistication to go into just finding four random facts from the Trivia section of any odd articles. What would a committee on this even do, debate how interesting they find random Mario facts? That's surely just subjective, as is the initial assertation that it's currently "bad". If you need anything, Perch's suggestion in the thread of one person looking over it is... more than enough. But there's no harm in letting anyone who wants to contribute add to it, and if anything's unacceptably bad (which it very rarely is) just edit it out. | |||
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} I fail to see why would we do this. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} I don't really see the need for an entire committee for this. Bad edits can easily be replaced/reverted. If it's a single user consistently making those bad edits, they can be told to back off and potentially face punishment if they continue. | |||
#{{User|TheDarkStar}} - Yeah, this was incredibly overreactive on my part. Opposing my own proposal. | |||
#{{User|Obsessive Mario Fan}} I waited a bit to see if someone would give a good reason for supporting, but I guess not. Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
On the [[Template talk:DidYouKnow|talk page]] for the template, I suggested that the Did You Know committee could also be in charge of the Featured Article and News sections on the Main Page as well. What are your thoughts on this? {{User:Obsessive Mario Fan/sig}} 12:04, September 21, 2019 (EDT) | |||
:FA may need a committee, because we don't want bad grammar on the ''featured'' section. News doesn't, because it's just that: news about the Mario series. Anything there doesn't reflect poorly on the wiki. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 12:51, September 21, 2019 (EDT) | |||
I suggest reading [https://www.marioboards.com/threads/41540/ this thread]. Some ideas were thrown around. LudwigVon is open to expanding thee pc to include DYK too. {{User:Doomhiker/sig}} 12:56, September 21, 2019 (EDT) | |||
:<s>You mean {{user|Lord Bowser}}.</s> I personally don't see the reason in giving the Poll Committee more of a workload, but I'll add it as an option. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 12:59, September 21, 2019 (EDT) | |||
::I did mean LudwigVon, on the polls section of the Discord server (Only the Poll Committee can access it, though). {{User:Doomhiker/sig}} 13:01, September 21, 2019 (EDT) | |||
:::Just for clarification, I did say that I was open to expanding the Poll Committee's tasks, but if the proposal passed with giving the workload to the Poll Committee, the final decision will be made by all the members of the current Poll Committee. This means that I am not sure we will really go ahead with that (this will also need some planning to implement that). My vice-chairperson is actually opposing to the idea by giving valid reasons. So, just to make everyone know that this isn't something concrete right now. {{User:LudwigVon/sig}} | |||
@7feetunder: There is a point to this. If bad edits are consistently being made to the template, along with its bursts of inactivity, why would a few users in a committee working on it be a problem? You can't just block one or two users from editing for something as small as that. DYK, as minor as it is, is on the Main Page. If something is consistently being badly written, you find a solution. These edits weren't vandalism or something, they were adding facts to the DYK template... that happened to be non-notable, but facts nonetheless. Anyone can add facts to it, yes, but this includes everyone who considers stuff like lit bombs exploding or save data descriptions notable. I'm rather skeptical about people having "less ideas" for DYK, when we literally work on a massive Mario database filled with interesting facts. If they're really idea-starved, they can just hit "Random page" until they find something interesting. Besides, three or four people would be an upgrade, compared to the two who regularly update it. Either way, it is perfectly fine to contact a committee member that something isn't alright; heck, you could just contact an admin, since the template would likely be admin-protected. If I noticed bad edits being made to a featured article, I would revert them, since they, unlike DYK, are not meant to be updated every week with interesting info. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 10:48, September 22, 2019 (EDT) | |||
:Consistent bad edits? The bad edits you're complaining about came from a single user. A lone editor's poor contributions do not justify everyone else paying the cost. I am fully aware that DYK suffers from occasional inactivity, and an increase in people monitoring it would be a plus. But again, what's preventing anyone interested in being a part of this committee from doing that now? Why do they need exclusive access to it? They don't. This is just an overreaction to a single editor's mistakes. Not needed. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 15:06, September 22, 2019 (EDT) | |||
@TheDarkStar: You can ask for the proposal to be cancelled if you want, IIRC. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 12:17, September 25, 2019 (EDT) | |||
:I knew that, I was just waiting in case someone actually makes a good point. I would honestly be fine if it was cancelled. Thanks. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 12:21, September 25, 2019 (EDT) |
Revision as of 13:39, September 25, 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) Ban friend userboxesTemplate:ProposalOutcome No, not discourage. Ban. I've seen users giving each other friend userboxes after a "friend request" (a talk page message). Thing is, this is not a social media site. There is no reason to keep around a relic from the past that should have been removed years ago. Proposer: TheDarkStar (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsYes, i'm aware that this is not a social media, but as long as they are not too frequent, they can stay. I oppose. -- @Niiue: I'm pretty sure that one of the MarioWiki pages said "this is not a social media site" somewhere, but I'll remove the misinformation. Friend userboxes don't positively impact the wiki either. No reason to keep something that doesn't do anything besides look nice. TheDarkStar
Determine how to handle unused appearancesTemplate:ProposalOutcome Many times, a subject appears only in the files of a game, as unused content. Should this kind of appearance be covered in an article's history section, be kept in the trivia section, or just stay in the game's pre-release and unused content section? If it is included in an article's history section, it doesn't have to have its own subsection, it can be covered in an "other appearances" section. In a game appearances list, I do think unused appearances should not be included. Proposer: Obsessive Mario Fan (talk) Keep in pre-release and unused content sections onlyKeep in the trivia sectionInclude in the history section in "Other appearances"
Include in the history section as its own subsectionCommentsOn a similar note, if we're going to be moving "actual" (so-to-speak) appearances of subjects to an other appearances section, can we move sections that consist of "this subject doesn't appear in this game but something similar does" to other appearances or remove them entirely? It's always bothered me looking over history sections and seeing sections for games those subjects never appeared in just because of the appearance of a subspecies or similar concept, i.e. Dry Bones in 3D World and Odyssey. --
@Mario Sakuraba I think minor cameos should be included as their own subsections as long as they still remain in the Mario series. For example, a Koopa Shell making a small appearance in Kirby Super Star would go in other appearances, but Yoshi in SM64 would get its own section. --DeepFriedCabbage 17:10, August 20, 2019 (EDT) I also think appearances in board games, card games, etc. based on the Mario series should go in other appearances. --DeepFriedCabbage 17:11, August 20, 2019 (EDT) Create a DYK CommitteeTemplate:ProposalOutcome
Recently, I have noticed a lot of edits made to Template:DidYouKnow that were, to the most part, kinda bad. They were either unsourced in their original article, poorly-written, or just not notable enough for a section on interesting stuff (there was one that treated bomb cars exploding like something amazing).
And this was brought up by Lord Bowser on the boards; we could also turn the Poll Committee into a Main Page Committee and let them do all the Main Page updating. Drawbacks:
Proposer: TheDarkStar (talk) Create a DYK Committee
Make the Poll Committee a Main Page CommitteeDo nothing
CommentsOn the talk page for the template, I suggested that the Did You Know committee could also be in charge of the Featured Article and News sections on the Main Page as well. What are your thoughts on this? --DeepFriedCabbage 12:04, September 21, 2019 (EDT)
I suggest reading this thread. Some ideas were thrown around. LudwigVon is open to expanding thee pc to include DYK too. Doomhiker (talk)
@7feetunder: There is a point to this. If bad edits are consistently being made to the template, along with its bursts of inactivity, why would a few users in a committee working on it be a problem? You can't just block one or two users from editing for something as small as that. DYK, as minor as it is, is on the Main Page. If something is consistently being badly written, you find a solution. These edits weren't vandalism or something, they were adding facts to the DYK template... that happened to be non-notable, but facts nonetheless. Anyone can add facts to it, yes, but this includes everyone who considers stuff like lit bombs exploding or save data descriptions notable. I'm rather skeptical about people having "less ideas" for DYK, when we literally work on a massive Mario database filled with interesting facts. If they're really idea-starved, they can just hit "Random page" until they find something interesting. Besides, three or four people would be an upgrade, compared to the two who regularly update it. Either way, it is perfectly fine to contact a committee member that something isn't alright; heck, you could just contact an admin, since the template would likely be admin-protected. If I noticed bad edits being made to a featured article, I would revert them, since they, unlike DYK, are not meant to be updated every week with interesting info. TheDarkStar
@TheDarkStar: You can ask for the proposal to be cancelled if you want, IIRC. -- |