MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/48: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Time Turner (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
::It's capitalized in the tutorial of Mario Party 2, but not capitalized in the tutorial of Mario Party 3. It's inconsistent between such close games. A better choice would be to capitalize it depending on the game, and have the higher case be more dominant otherwise (because it is a main item), but I feel this is such a minor unnoticeable issue, yet the "do nothing" option does not convince me. --{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 06:30, 27 August 2017 (EDT) | ::It's capitalized in the tutorial of Mario Party 2, but not capitalized in the tutorial of Mario Party 3. It's inconsistent between such close games. A better choice would be to capitalize it depending on the game, and have the higher case be more dominant otherwise (because it is a main item), but I feel this is such a minor unnoticeable issue, yet the "do nothing" option does not convince me. --{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 06:30, 27 August 2017 (EDT) | ||
===Include the date a proposal was withdrawn within the proposal (when applicable)=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0|include date}} | |||
When it comes to the proposal archives, in which we write down the date each proposal ended, it's standard to use the date a proposal was canceled by its proposer or withdrawn for whatever other reason, rather than the proposed deadline ([[Template:PArchive|as documented here]]). This makes sense: it wouldn't be accurate to say that a proposal had concluded a week later than it actually did, and the point of the archives is that we're documenting each proposal exactly as they played out (which is why we make note of proposals that themselves failed but whose proposed changes later passed, and vice-versa). With that in mind, why do we only make note of this in the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|broad]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Talk Page Archive|archives]] and not within the proposals itself? Sure, it's possible to find the date it was canceled by going through the page's history, in the same way it's also possible to find the original proposer through the history page, but we still make note of it within the proposal itself. Leaving only the proposed deadline by itself is also rather misleading and non-informative, considering that any users reading through the proposal wouldn't be able to obviously tell when it actually closed. Even with the proposal outcome saying it was canceled, that doesn't help people find out ''when'' it was canceled. We should strive for accuracy, especially when all we'd need to do is make note of one more date. | |||
The changes I have in mind would only be applicable to proposals that were canceled before their deadline, obviously. First of all, the '''Deadline''' section would be renamed to '''Proposed Deadline''', with no changes to the date. Secondly, a section called '''Date Withdrawn''' would be placed underneath the Deadline, documenting exactly when the proposal was canceled. Ideally, this would include the time in GMT to match the Deadline, but for simplicity's sake, this proposal will only ask that the day needs to be documented and not the time. The details may be subject to change through future discussions, but the main change is clear: within the proposals, document when they were canceled. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': September 9, 2017, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Alex95}} - Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{user|Mario jc}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|7feetunder}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Owencrazyboy9}} Per proposal, especially considering a few recent talk page proposals ended up getting cancelled way earlier than the original deadline. | |||
#{{User|Ultimate Mr. L}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|LuigiMaster123}} Per all. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Should this apply to all cancelled proposals regardless, or all proposals cancelled after September 9? {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 13:46, 3 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
:The plan is to make this retroactive. If the goal is to be accurate, it wouldn't do us much good to ignore ten years of proposals. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:47, 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. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 15:23, 3 September 2017 (EDT) |
Revision as of 22:04, September 9, 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) |