|
|
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
| |
|
| ==Changes== | | ==Changes== |
| ===Create articles for the assist trophy characters===
| | ''None at the moment.'' |
| With the influx of SSB4 articles coming in, it needs to be decided now more than ever what to do with the [[Assist Trophy]] article. There are a lot of new assist trophies in the newest installment, and that's resulting in more names being added to the ever-growing list. It's gotten to the point where having a list covering all of them simply isn't enough. There are so many avenues of information that could be covered: relevant information on their original seires, their trophy and sticker descriptions, more detailed explanations of their abilities and interactions in fights (especially when some of the new ones basically act as CPU fighters)... These are all things that could easily be done if they were given separate articles. Besides that, there's one thing I'd like to mention.
| |
| | |
| To put it succinctly, we're giving articles to nearly every other character in the Smash series: the Adventure Mode enemies like [[Topi]]s and [[Like Like]]s, the Subspace Emissary enemies like [[Mizzo]]s and [[Floow]]s, the Smash Run enemies like [[Cucco]]s and [[Darknut]]s, and pretty much every boss that isn't "this character +1 height" ([[Duon]], [[Giga Bowser]], [[Yellow Devil]], etc). They range from being mindless with a single attack to requiring strategies to dodge around their attacks. The assist trophies, on the other hand, encompass all of that and have the added bonus of being items. If we're going by wiki standard, that's two reasons in one why they should have articles.
| |
| | |
| Judging by the archive of proposals, there's always been a... worry, for lack of a decent word, about covering Smash Bros. articles. There have been proposals to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_10#Species_from_Adventure_Mode_In_Melee|merge]] and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_27#SmashWiki|remove]] and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_12#Split_Adventure_Mode_Enemies_.28SSBM.29_and_Subspace_Army_into_individual_articles|split]] and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_10#Removal.2FMerging_of_non-Mario_articles|delete]], all with varying results and decisions, but all arriving to the generally same conclusion: we should cover the Smash series, but within reason. With that said, our standards for what is "within reason" change. There are two proposals up there for not having articles for the Adventure Mode and Subspace Emissary enemies (that have passed, mind you), and yet, there have been [[Talk:Subspace_Army#Create_separate_articles_for_Subspace_Army_enemies|recent]] [[Talk:List_of_Adventure_Mode_enemies#Create_separate_articles_for_the_Adventure_Mode_enemies|proposals]] overriding them. What we can accept for articles has changed, and having articles for the assist trophies is definitely something that we could accept.
| |
| | |
| '''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br>
| |
| '''Deadline''': October 18, 2014, 23:59 GMT
| |
| | |
| ====Create the articles====
| |
| #{{User|Time Turner}} I support my proposal..
| |
| #{{User|Tsunami}} Per proposal. I know we have SmashWiki and stuff, but all those elements appeared at least once in the Mario series: because of this, they need coverage. What about items then? I remember when I linked the page to another wiki to not display a red link, but got changed because there was need of a page. Why items get this nice treatment and Assist Trophies not? Having info about them is good, especially because some of them may have got a strange behavior (I didn't understand Kawashima at all). Also, per policy, thus Walkazo and Yoshi876 in the comments, plus Time Turner.
| |
| #{{User|Sonic98}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Toadbrigade5}} Finally. Yeah. I want this since they appear in mario game, and I don't care how minor they are. Many, like Mother Brain, already recieved mentions in mario series, like samus's qoute from SMRPG and Woster's list of people who think mushroom king is idiot. So this is good idea.
| |
| #{{User|Randombob-omb4761}} Per Proposal.
| |
| #{{User|The Mario Gamer}} Per proposal.
| |
| #{{User|Superfiremario}} Per Proposal.
| |
| | |
| ====Do not create the articles====
| |
| | |
| ====Comments====
| |
| Then what about Pokémon? They should be treated the same way as the Assist Trophy characters. [[User:Aokage|Aokage]] ([[User talk:Aokage|talk]]) 14:38, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
| |
| :The Assist Trophies alone are a huge step, after many proposals have tussled about it. We'll start off here and then, depending on how this goes, we can move on to the Pokemon. {{User:Time Turner/sig}}
| |
| ::I highly dunno: however, I still think they should get the same treatment of everthing else. {{User:Tsunami/sig}}
| |
| | |
| How about special moves? How are we going to deal with the currently spotty coverage of it? {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:17, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
| |
| :One major issue about a crossover series that's been argued about for years at a time, please. {{User:Time Turner/sig}}
| |
| ::This is SmashWiki stuff in my opinion. Unless we don't merge it with MarioWiki (very likely it will never happen) we should have the basic coverage about it and lead to SmashWiki. {{User:Tsunami/sig}}
| |
| | |
| This is something I can't decide on. I won't vote (for now) but I'm curious to see how this ends. {{User:BabyLuigi64/sig}}
| |
| | |
| :::What other NIWA wikis cover doesn't really matter: all our DK info's also being covered by the DK Wiki, but that doesn't mean we should chop it out of our coverage. In fact, according to [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Crossovers|our coverage policy]]:
| |
| :::<blockquote>''even series that can stand alone as their own series ('''i.e. SSB''') are considered to be partner series of the Mario games. Therefore, all these crossovers are given full coverage: '''everything appearing in the games gets articles'''.''</blockquote>
| |
| :::Bolded for emphasis to show that, technically, the Assist trophies already could (should?) be given pages within the wiki's official coverage scope. We just haven't gotten around to it yet for one reason or another, but now's as good a time as ever to address the issue, and doing it by proposal is the best way to make a solid decision on it given the back-and-forth history we've had with our ''SSB'' content. - {{User|Walkazo}}
| |
| ::::Again, another subject, but what about something more abstract, like special moves? {{User:Mario/sig}} 18:41, 12 October 2014 (EDT)
| |
| :::::What did we do with moves? If we start making moves articles, we should make some for knockback, shield... doing so means we would include '''everything''' in SmashWiki. And SmashWiki's method to explain things is different from ours: SmashWiki '''really looks like a straegy guide''', while MarioWiki '''is againist looking like a guide'''. I find good what we're doing already: give some coverage on the moves and giving the main link to SmashWiki. {{User:Tsunami/sig}}
| |
| | |
| What would be the point of this? Are we giving any other real information other than who they are and what they do in the game? - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 01:26, 13 October 2014 (EDT)
| |
| :Looks like not making them is breaking policy. This is the point of making them: they appear in Mario media, and we must cover them. Those info are enough. {{User:Tsunami/sig}}
| |
| ::But what he's saying is that they're very minor. Just saying "Oh, they appear in games that prominently enough feature Mario, so let's make an article" isn't good enough. {{User:BabyLuigi64/sig}}
| |
| :::And? Certain enemies in the ''Mario'' series are minor, should we delete them? No, policy states that the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series gets full coverage, which would mean making articles for things relevant to it, like the Assist Trophies. {{User|Yoshi876}}
| |
| ::::I'm... not exactly sure what part of this you're questioning. I already gave plenty of examples about what could be included in their articles, and they'd follow the standard used for nearly every other Smash-centric character, which I also mentioned. Who they are and what they do is also the kind of information we would include in any other article, regardless of who the character is, so... help me out here, Ninelevendo. {{User:Time Turner/sig}}
| |
| :::::@BabyLuigi64 '''Minor?''' Wait, what? They're not minor at all. The only circumstance where something is minor enough to not deserve an article is [[List of Super Mario Sunshine beta elements#Unused Hirokuri enemy|a beta SMS enemy]]: it never appeared anywhere but in a beta. In my opinion, everything that has a relevance higher than never appeared/not-Mario element that only made 1-3 cameos deserves an article: basically, everyone ever appeared prominently enough in a Mario game. Assist Throphies are prominent enough, or I'm totally wrong? {{User:Tsunami/sig}}
| |
| ::::::What I mean is, these are trophies that you pick up, throw, and then summon some random who-knows-what that attacks for a few seconds, and then vanishes. How isn't it? These also aren't enemies ([[Waluigi|in]] [[zeldawiki:Tingle|many]] [[zeldawiki:Skull Kid|cases]], they're not items (they spawn from). They're minor for Smash Bros. at least to me. {{User:BabyLuigi64/sig}}
| |
| :::::::That's the definition of at least half of the wiki's items and special moves (hyperbole, but it's not far off), and no matter how obscure the character itself may be, and most of them are certainly ''not'', and no matter how much of an actual enemy they still are, they are still there, doing things, and because they have a presence and they do things, they deserve articles. Look at the NPCs frolicking around in [[Flipside]] like [[Harold]] or [[Puck]]. These guys do absolutely nothing but act as background, scenery so that the player doesn't think the area looks bare. Yet, they have names, so they have articles. Here, the assist trophies are individually collected and activated, all have varied and practical uses, and all make a difference in the fight. Yet, we don't have articles for them. Even in the grand scheme of Smash Bros., they are certainly not minor, and I could point you to a thousand examples of what is truly minor. {{User:Time Turner/sig}}
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Miscellaneous== | | ==Miscellaneous== |
| ''None at the moment.'' | | ''None at the moment.'' |
|
Current time:
Tuesday, May 21st, 17:38 GMT
|
|
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
- "Vote" periods last for one week.
- Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
- All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
- For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.
|
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.
How to
Rules
- If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
- Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
- 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.
- Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
- Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
- Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
- If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
- No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
- Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
- All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
- If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
- Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
- All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
- If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
- Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
- Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
- Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
- No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
- Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.
Basic proposal and support/oppose format
This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.
===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]
'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "May 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]
====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]
====Oppose====
====Comments====
Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".
Talk page proposals
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.
- For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.
Rules
- All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
- 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:
- 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.
- The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
- When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
- Delete Memory Card (discuss) Deadline: May 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- In Template:Species infobox, expand "Relatives" guidelines to include variant-type relationships with significant differences between species (discuss) Deadline:
May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to May 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to May 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Add a Composers Subsection to Template:Themes (discuss) Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Include Rainbow Coaster & Rainbow Downhill back in the Rainbow Road article (discuss) Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split the contents of the blimp page (discuss) Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Create a Rewrite-remove template (discuss) Deadline: May 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Decide whether to redesign the Main Page (discuss) Deadline: June 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
- ^Note: This has yet to be done with with several non–Super Mario fighters who still have their own page; namely, Banjo, Fox, Inkling, Isabelle, Kirby, Link, Mega Man, Pac-Man, R.O.B., Sonic, and Villager.
Talk page proposals
List of Talk Page Proposals
None at the moment.
Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
