MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 13:31, April 25, 2020 by Yoshi the SSM (talk | contribs) (→‎Comments: fixing this)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, May 22nd, 07:05 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

  1. 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}}.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. 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 22, 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

  1. 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}}.
  2. 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:
  3. 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.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
  5. 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

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Merge the Wrecking Crew and VS. Wrecking Crew phases into list articles, Axis (ended February 24, 2022)
Do not consider usage of classic recurring themes as references to the game of origin, Swallow (ended March 9, 2022)
Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Enforce WCAG Level AA standards to mainspace and template content, PanchamBro (ended May 29, 2022)
Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2022)
Trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters, Koopa con Carne (ended January 30, 2023)
Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Consider filenames as sources and create redirects, Axis (ended August 24, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)
Standardize the formatting of foreign and explanatory words and phrases in "Names in other languages" tables, Annalisa10 (ended February 7, 2024)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Trim Mario Kart course galleries of excess Tour stuff, Shadow2 (ended May 18, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split the various reissues of Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended April 22, 2022)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences, LinkTheLefty (ended January 14, 2023)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Remove the list of Super Smash Bros. series objects, Axis (ended May 10, 2023)
Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)
Change the Super Mario 64 DS level section to include more specific character requirements, Altendo (ended December 20, 2023)
Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge the ghost Bats and Mice from Luigi's Mansion to their respective organic counterparts from the later games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split Strobomb from Robomb, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split the NES and SNES releases of Wario's Woods, SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (ended March 27, 2024)
Merge Mii Brawler, Mii Swordfighter, and Mii Gunner to Mii, TheUndescribableGhost (ended March 28, 2024)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck, DrippingYellow (ended May 4, 2024)
Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs, Blinker (ended May 15, 2024)
Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy), Hewer (ended May 20, 2024)

List of talk page proposals

  • Split Jaxi and Jaxi (dormant) (discuss) Deadline: April 21, 2020, 23:59 GMT
  • Split Brier and Marucchi (discuss) Deadline: April 21, 2020, 23:59 GMT
  • Delete Crocodile (discuss) Deadline: May 4, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

# Proposal User Date
1 Create boss level articles for Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong Land series
Notes: The DK: King of Swing boss levels, while not explicitly covered by this proposal, should receive the same treatment. All Donkey Kong Land boss levels have been created. 		Aokage (talk) January 3, 2015
2 Expand the Behemoth King article Owencrazyboy9 (talk) December 23, 2017
3 Decide how to cover recurring events in the Mario & Sonic series BBQ Turtle (talk) July 17, 2018
4 Reorganize Map LudwigVon (talk) July 17, 2019
5 Split Jump Block (Mario & Wario) from Note Block Alternis (talk) July 21, 2019
6 Reorganize and split Gallery:Toys and other Merchandise galleries Results May Vary (talk) July 30, 2019
7 Split the Ice Skate and Swim Ring variants of the Goomba FanOfYoshi (talk) August 17, 2019
8 Split Buckies from Noki FanOfYoshi (talk) August 28, 2019
9 Create articles on the River Survival routes in Super Mario Party Toadette the Achiever (talk) November 2, 2019
10 Include information on Construction Zone for the rest of the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series Bye Guy (talk) November 24, 2019
11 Split Big/Giant Shy Guy from Mega Guy LinkTheLefty (talk) February 11, 2020
12 Merge Fright Jar and Fright Mask Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) February 26, 2020
13 Split backwards somersault info and merge it to Backflip Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) February 26, 2020
14 Prune White Shy Guy to remove non-Yoshi's Story information Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) February 26, 2020
15 Merge Chain-Link and Fence Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) February 26, 2020
16 Merge Jelly Pop with Jelly Candy and Coco Pop with Coco Candy Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) March 21, 2020
17 Create a "character/species" infobox Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) April 16, 2020

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Create a template for citations

BEFORE YOU READ, KEEP IN MIND THAT I'M NOT PUSHING ANY POLICY. I AM ONLY PROPOSING AN ADDITION THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE CERTAIN FORMATTING CONVENTIONS, BUT IT WOULD BE UP TO EDITORS TO UTILISE.

Go to the list of Yoshi's Island glitches page and scroll down to the bottom. See those huge blue stacks of undefined links? They make me a little uneasy to be honest. Not a great issue, but they certainly would look better if they were formatted more like this, tidy and comprehensive.

When citing a source, some users are careful to note the author, website of origin, and date of retrieval, while others are content with just putting a link forefront. The way citations are currently formatted on the wiki is, therefore, quite arbitrary and unprofessional. Wikipedia has a template specially created to make citing sources tidy and consistent, and I think we should follow their model for the mere sake of professionalism. This also has the advantage of not having to type in every single character and risk omitting a period or a bracket, at least for me, as they would already be a part of the template.

The template can be used to cite virtually anything, from books, magazines and guides to websites, and have their publication date, publisher and other details mentioned as well, provided their corresponding parameters in the code are filled in. If the proposal passes, the following code, which is similar to what Wikipedia has, will be used: 

{{ref
| name       =
| date       =
| url        =
| title      =
| page       =
| source     =
| accessdate =
}}

which, when incorporated, should produce the following line:

Name (Date). [URL Title]. Page. Source. Retrieved Accessdate.

Previously proposed code, modified to the above for brevity: 

{{Citation
| last       =
| first      =
| year       =
| url        =
| title      =
| page       =
| publisher  =
| accessdate =
}}

which, when incorporated, should produce the following line:

last, first (Year). [url Title]. Page. Publisher. Retrieved Accessdate.

where the last and first parameters correspond to the author's last and first name respectively. If the author uses a username instead of their real name, then only the first parameter should be filled in; if neither of those parameters are filled in, the brackets around the publication date are removed.

Proposer: Bye Guy (talk)
Deadline: May 1, 2020, 14:54 GMT

Support

  1. Bye Guy (talk) per proposal.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) This would make references look a lot more professional and consistent, I see no reason not to do this.
  3. Duckfan77 (talk)Per all.

Oppose

  1. Lord Grammaticus (talk) - I understand and agree that reference formatting is something of an issue, but the use of a template to solve the problem strikes me as dubious, especially when numerous resources that show and teach how to use MLA-style citations already exist. It's still on editors to put those resources and knowledge to use, and I feel like this is misguided in that specific sense of providing yet another something that might not be paid attention to.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - First off, the "last" and "first" are automatically flawed since a grand majority of YT videos and the like run on screen names. Furthermore, many of these could be misinterpreted regardless, and this is far less user-friendly than say, our aboutfile template. Furthermore, between MLA and APA, there is no "right" way, and a shocking amount of the resources for those are becoming subscription-only for some bizarre reason. On another note, just having "year" is additionally flawed for video-type sources, and "publisher" is extremely esoteric for a subject like this. We aren't writing scientific journals here.
  3. LinkTheLefty (talk) - We haven't even fully sorted through the wiki's former use of contractions, and that was years ago. It would be a waste of time to expect us to go back to each and every citation and ensure they're all updated to a template standard. As noted, Wikipedia's reference style is more academic, while this is decidedly not, and thus not all of those are going to be applicable and many are going to have incomplete information. If you don't like informal citations, you're free to update them yourself on your own time, but please don't force other users to stop what they're doing and implement a rigid system that'll be more trouble than it's worth.
  4. TheDarkStar (talk) - per all
  5. Yoshi the SSM (talk) - per all especially LinkTheLefty.

Comments

@Lord Grammaticus: The same argument can be made against the analogous template used on Wikipedia, as well as all the formatting templates currently in use on this wiki ({{sic}}, {{wp}} etc.) The fact that someone may not be aware of such template doesn't make it less practical. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:10, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

Mm, fair enough. I'll mull over the vote later today when I have obligations out of the way. --ExdeathIcon.png Lord G. matters. ExdeathIcon.png 14:16, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick: I already addressed the potential issue with run-on names in the proposal:

If the author uses a username instead of their real name, then only the first parameter should be filled in

But I agree that using "last" and "first" parameters is not very user-friendly; however, it can be simplified with ease to something like "name". The "year" parameter can be changed to "date" very easily also, and "publisher" can be changed likewise to something more general like "source" (since YouTube can't be cited as a publisher). A large part of your argument seems to be fixated on easily modifiable details that I didn't bother to adapt here, which I admit is a mistake on my part. The rest, regarding "we're not writing scientific journals"--I'm sorry but it doesn't make sense to me. Does that mean that we shouldn't establish some professional conventions? While we're at it, let's scrap the entirety of our writing guidelines and disregard any past proposals. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:13, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

When I said that I meant, like, why cite things like we're citing a textbook? Additionally, your "Wikipedia uses it" argument is also flawed in that manner, as they have lengthy articles over nuclear physics and paleobiology that actually would warrant a citation in that manner. On another note, if a video is taken down and needs replaced, it'd be much easier to change the url and leave the "video showing glich" text alone rather than alter every bloody parameter. The convention you are attempting to establish is honestly little more than a burden considering the limited scope of what we cover. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:21, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

On another note, if a video is taken down and needs replaced, it'd be much easier to change the url and leave the "video showing glitch" text alone rather than alter every bloody parameter.

Doesn't that mean basically changing the entire source? That kinda has to be done regardless if a template is used or not. And the fact that Wikipedia has a different / much larger scope than us has no relevance to the matter. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:34, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
How? Changing a link is much simpler than changing the entire specific and quite frankly irrelevant extra information about a hobbyist posting a video. And again, the fact that what we cover isn't going to be sourced from things like scientific journals or textbooks has entirely to do with how this is unnecessary. Posting a quick link to Youtube or TCRF with a quick descriptor rather than filling out information that 70% of the time won't even exist offhand is much more efficient. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:46, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
Wait, sorry, now I understand what you are saying. You are against writing citations as per MLA conventions as a whole, and support something simpler instead, like just putting a link. I'm afraid I cannot agree with that; we should strive to look as professional as possible. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:42, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
...No? I'm against unnecessary fluff, which this is. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:46, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
YouTube and Twitter hobbyists have the same weight as an officially-endorsed/published author in this case if the source is relevant to our interests. They all produce or reveal information, and I have a feeling that this is what Wikipedia uses as a basis for citing all of their sources in the way they do. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:52, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
I think "source for official terminology" is a different thing than "verification that something that's not supposed to happen can happen." Attempting to force a style for majority incompatible sources isn't professional and it isn't proficient. What it is is profoundly prolonging profuse peripherals. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:07, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
If a convention is set in a particular area, then everything in there should follow it, even if it sacrifices "efficiency" in some cases. Context is key: it's not efficient to use academic lingo when you communicate with your peers, but it is going to be needed when you write a research paper, with no exceptions. Same here: if particular sources are cited in a way, the others should be cited in the same manner as well with no exceptions. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:19, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
"If a convention is set in a particular area, then everything in there should follow it, even if it sacrifices "efficiency" in some cases." ....you realize that's inherently a bad thing, right? Being inefficient at the "boon" of considering yourself professional in a needless manner is not a good trade-off. I don't intend to be rude, but I can't see this as anything but that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:24, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
You certainly could have worded that remark a little differently but I digress. Let's agree to disagree. Either way this goes, I'll still format YouTube links like how I proposed. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:30, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
...you literally said that you want to encourage the creation of inefficient incompatible rules, while admitting they are as such. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:33, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
Yes, I understood that. My issue was with your tone, but what you said now is perfectly fine. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:40, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
I'm wondering what your motivation for this is? What benefit does it have? "Looking professional" is entirely subjective. ZeldaWiki's source template makes me want to dry heave. A needless obfuscation of a task we want to encourage people to do discourages sourcing or even editing in general. Also, given current social circumstances, my mere bluntness is really acting as nice as feasible. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:46, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
At its core, it's mere preference, backed up by the fact that it's a practice a very regulated place like Wikipedia carries out. What makes me "dry-heave" is the opposite: lack of organisation, just seeing a url slapped under a headline. This template would not be "discouraging other people or forcing it onto them". If someone includes only a link as a source, someone else can format it later in the right way, which is--and excuse my use of italics, but I feel it's warranted here--a thing that is happening currently. A template would make that easier for people like me who want citations to look a certain way, but then I suppose this does not motivate an entire template be put in place as it's subjective. That is why I tried to look up to a website like Wikipedia and try to model my preference after certain criteria. The reason they made this formatting decision is precisely because it looks more organised, which is a sign of professionalism. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:01, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
What that ergo entails is that like aboutfile, it's merely a suggestion. Therefore, the only people who will use/fix them anyways are the ones who specifically like it in spite of its user-unfriendliness (as unlike aboutfile, which shows up every time an image upload is prepared, people would have to go out of their way to remember the specific names for each parameter, itself already a major pain for less-used templates like multiframe and multiple-images). If you want to change how they looks, that's fine, but trying to force it (a template regarding this implies it is intended to be used in a policy-driven manner, and you yourself advocated it should be rigidly followed in a preceding comment) the when so many cases are incompatible isn't "professional." I was gonna append a contextually appropriate snarky comment relating to one of the only good remaining newspaper comments, but decided against it Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:09, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
I would like to back-paddle to the comment you mentioned and withdraw that argument, as the existence of the "aboutfile" example (and to a lesser extent, {{ref quote}}) actually makes my point stronger now. If the template is optional, but some people want to use it, then let it be. Like Waluigi Time said in a comment below, the template wouldn't be forced on anyone. People who won't use it are free to not use it. I'm merely stating arguments to support my proposal, not pushing an addition down people's gastrointestinal tract from the entrance down. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:25, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
But it's unnecessary. If you want to follow MLA, a confusing template does not encourage the use of it, and it would probably be easier to go to whatever MLA generator site is still not subscription-based and use that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:30, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
I'm inclined to agree with you now, but that makes me wonder why Wikipedia even has a template then. Like, what you said now would practically demolish their reasoning. It's probably for more complex citing that requires a lot of things like a book's ISBN and such, but then again they have an individual template for web citation and even for Twitter in particular as far as I know. There must be a reason for the things being the way they are, and if there is, I don't see why we shouldn't follow it as well. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:39, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
Because things like study-based textbooks that otherwise are not mentioned in the wording could lead to plagiarism-based legal problems. Manuals based off some dudes playing a game and having a license to write whatever fanfic they concoct over it and be published as official are not the same as careful scientific observation and investigation, and since this is regarding a fictional series anyways, whoever discovers something means jack diddly squat. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:55, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
Stop being so aggressive. I already said I'm agreeing with you, I just posed a question, in the calmest manner at that. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:02, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
I was not being aggressive, that is literally how licensed game guides work, especially back in the day. You asked why wikipedia would use it when we wouldn't need it, I gave respective accurate examples. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:09, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
Before I stop relying, or start saying things that will guarantee me a warning for that matter, I have to say that "some dudes playing a game and having a license to write whatever fanfic they concoct over it" certainly comes across in a manner that denotes a special kind of attitude that frustrated condescending people have. Most of it is channeled in the irony of the phrase "whatever fanfic", "fanfic" implying something that lacks dignity and taste as the term has become known for. "People officially employed to write manuals" sounds a lot more pristine already without all that, uuh, fluff. It's a cheesy way to explain it but your statements certainly rub me the wrong way most of the time considering the fact that the tone I use in my comments is in now way intended to be flammatory in the slightest. Likewise, since I know that other people have, quote, "expressed displeasure" with this particular tone of yours, I am certain that it is not me who is sensitive. Keep this attitude in other places, on forums, on The Spriters Resource--snarkiness has its place--just not here. Subtly displaying that you think everyone but you is a pushover is, err, not very commendable. Rant over, for this long, probably unecessary piece of text doesn't regard the subject at hand but an older issue. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:31, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
Talk pages are in general relatively laid-back in my experience. What never belongs anywhere is this "holier-than-thou" (or be it "more-professional-than-thou") attitude. Regardless, it is clear we have reached a standstill in this. However, I will not be moved on the fact that licensed guide writing relies heavily on the guide writer's own interpretation of others' creations, which is not the same as (and indeed, is in no way comparable to) someone writing about their discoveries in a scientific field, which would require heavy citation if writing about. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:36, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

I'm going to remain neutral on this, but I'll voice some things anyway. Other wikis use a citation template (Zelda, Fire Emblem, etc.) and it does help make things a little nicer. But they are also kind of big and clunky, and they aren't automatically added or easily accessible like {{aboutfile}}, so users could very easily miss it. Yes, the links should have an identifier to them, but that is an easy fix and we don't really need a template for them. I don't really like using the template, but I also acknowledge its usefulness. Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 16:24, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

When it comes to preference, I must affirm that I don't like it when I see just a link with nothing else. I like seeing where precisely it will lead me to before I hover my cursor over it. The issue of clunkiness can be resolved, I think, by simply orienting the template's code horizontally rather than vertically. Citations are already clunky as they are, taking a lot of space in the middle of text. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:30, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
By clunky, I meant like, it doesn't really do much. It just organizes the text better. It's not like an infobox where a lot of code is necessary, or a citation needed call that points out something is missing. Organization is great and it's nice to have some idea of what to use, don't get me wrong, it just doesn't seem necessary to use to me. Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 17:07, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

@LinkTheLefty: How is this "forcing" anyone to do anything? Like you said, we haven't even cleaned up all the usage of contractions yet - obviously that proposal didn't "force" us to go around fixing every single contraction and neglecting everything else on the wiki. It would be the same here, as a standard going forward and something to clean up as you come across if you want to. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 17:03, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

Methinks that's the rub - beyond adding a somewhat complex template that results in slightly better organized text, it doesn't directly address the "core" issue of users not actively citing things properly to begin with. It doesn't worsen anything at all, far from it, but in practice it seems unlikely to actually provide enough of an incentive or change anything else with regard to user habit, either. --ExdeathIcon.png Lord G. matters. ExdeathIcon.png 17:17, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
That "core" issue does not exist and the proposal doesn't aim to address it in the first place. People are free to format a reference however they want. And I want my citations to follow a template, for reasons I've already stated in the proposal. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:29, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
Then that sounds more like a personal convenience, that's being extended into policy because... question mark? --ExdeathIcon.png Lord G. matters. ExdeathIcon.png 17:51, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
Because "aboutfile" exists for convenience as well. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:02, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
"Aboutfile" is actually conveniently set up, the source code appears whenever one uploads an image, and it arranges it into a table that would otherwise require knowledge of HTML to recreate. This wouldn't do that and merely arranges the words in a specific way with punctuation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:12, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
If "people are free to format a reference however they want," doesn't that defeat the purpose of making a template in the name of professionalism? You can't have it both ways. LinkTheLefty (talk) 19:41, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
Oh, you absolutely can. Some people may use that format and some may not, and that's fine. But then again, some people are more professional than others and may want to use a template. Like Bazooka Mario states below, this practice would accustom other editors to more professional formatting.-- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:52, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
And I can empathize with that, but the "proper" way to do so due to the variety of style manuals is so variant that a template loses all meaning. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:59, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
The template can be adapted to the situation at hand by completing only specific parameters. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 20:18, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
But by saying stuff like "some people are more professional than others," you're inherently suggesting that this will be the new standard; if that isn't your intention, then I feel like this approach will, ironically, look less professional. LinkTheLefty (talk) 20:01, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
That isn't a standard, it's a truth. The site looks unprofessional in some areas because it was handled unprofessionally in those areas. There is no irony/discrepancy involved. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 20:18, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
You are acting as though professionalism is an objectively quantifiable thing, though, and it isn't. People have different standards as to what constitutes that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:34, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
I find it professional to barf in a bag and smack people in the face with it. However, a professional act is something that respects certain conventions to work efficiently for the benefit of others. You could argue that for this reason the code used in this template would not be very professional; however, what matters in the end is the presentation output by the template, a far cry from the raw url's we sometimes see. Professional formatting is different from professional writing; as I told LinkTheLefty below, how well people format their edits doesn't (necessarily) reflect the quality of their writing. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 03:58, April 25, 2020 (EDT)
I'm afraid I still don't completely understand - either you want a template in the hopes that its style supersedes the current implementation (which is the distinct impression I'm getting when the point is to follow the Wikipedia model and you emphasize "professionalism"), or you don't. If it becomes mandatory, then it would be a silly thing to warn a would-be or worthwhile contributor over in addition to the update having a long and messy interim on the wiki, and if it remains optional, then readers would be confused as to why the implementation is sloppy. Also, if someone happens to not want to use the template, then their edits should certainly not be viewed as less professional even if the output is exactly the same as if they had used it. I'll also mention that wikis that use a citation template tend to use in-game citation as well, which is something we already don't do in general. I hope you see where I'm coming from. Either way, there's nothing stopping you right now from taking the examples of bad citation and making them resemble better citation. LinkTheLefty (talk) 20:59, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
It's simple. Like the use of contractions, writing citations without regard to any standard is less desireable when someone raises "professionalism" as an argument, but it's not something worth warning people over. My proposal or any of my arguments here don't mention anything about the template being mandatory; what I said was that if we set a convention, it's better to follow it, but we won't force anyone to. A template such as the one proposed here would be useful to let editors know that there is a standard to follow and encourage them to follow it, and whether they use the professional model or not is not a reflection of the quality of their edits writing. Also, I would find references easier to note with a template, so if it's useful to me then certainly others will find it useful as well. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 03:25, April 25, 2020 (EDT)
The template may look better than raw url code, but what you propose to do would make it look nearly (if not exactly) the same as what we currently have. And what we currently have is already professional. It's just that people use it to put raw url in it. Would the template stop people from putting raw url code for references? See TheFlameChomp's comment below. And without removing what we currently have (which would really be too much work that it wouldn't be worth it), people would want to use both. Simply put, we don't need to create a template that would be easier to note over something that looks just as professional. And unlike contractions, this isn't just one word change, it is converting <> to {{}}, changing ref to citation, adding |s (and maybe even the words like name and =), and adding enters at the end of the lines. And why I am not including changing bad references into good references? Well, we can do that already without the template. And unlike contractions, this template is trying to improve something that is already good looking when done right, whether or not it fully replaces it. Red Yoshi in a construction hat walking Yoshi the SSM (talk) 11:34, April 25, 2020 (EDT)
The template would obviously be put between tags, not replace them. I just changed "citation" to "ref" in my code mock-up so it is more in line with {{ref needed}} and {{ref quote}}. Any template code can be arranged in a single row; switching to a new line between parameters is usually done to keep things more visible. And what is "|s"?
I'll say it again: editors would NOT be forced to use the template in any way. My proposal does not promote policy changes, just a mere convenience for people who want adhere to certain conventions for citing sources. For policy matters, see the discussion initiated by Bazooka Mario below. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:53, April 25, 2020 (EDT)
If I am understanding this correctly, the code will become from top to bottom.

<ref>name. (date). [url title] ''source''. retrieved date2.</ref>

<ref>{{ref|name|date|url|title|source|date2}}</ref>

To use as an example, I copied the 20th reference of List of Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey glitches at time of writing.

<ref>AAWW1010. (February 10, 2019). [https://youtu.be/Jzj7XJx9yvU Mario and Luigi inside bowser story + bowser jr. journey : music glitch] ''YouTube''. Retrieved February 11, 2019.</ref>

<ref>{{ref|AAWW1010|February 10, 2019|https://youtu.be/Jzj7XJx9yvU|Mario and Luigi inside bowser story + bowser jr. journey : music glitch|YouTube|February 11, 2019}}</ref>

Am I understanding this correctly? If so, then it wouldn't solve the issue of people putting raw url in. Red Yoshi in a construction hat walking Yoshi the SSM (talk) 12:55, April 25, 2020 (EDT)
That's right, it doesn't solve the issue of people putting in only URL's. The proposal, I'm saying it yet again, doesn't concern that at all. But you got the hang of how the code would be laid out and, as you can see, it's efficient, harmless and, most importantly, comprehensive--it has everything you need to know about a particular source. And best of all, you wouldn't be forced to use it, unless the policy gets more serious on how we format citations like Bazooka Mario suggests below. Until then, the template would be completely optional and useful for the ones who want references to be written in a certain way. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:18, April 25, 2020 (EDT)
It's probably best to get policy running on proper citations

If we haven't already. Contractions are a matter of prose, but if we're going to be serious on having good and up-to-date sources, it's better we start having people format their sources now so fact-checking in the future is much easier. A template might be used at a later date, but it's better if people just get accustomed to "Name. (Date). "Title". Publisher. Access date" format rather than dropping bare links with raw URLs or worse putting references as a [1] in the section. I don't get the "we're not academic" and "we shouldn't put unnecessary fluff" claims when at the same time we try to get our best information (e.g. Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia debacle). Formatting isn't "fluff", it's a basic part of citation, checking dates, credibility of sources, medium of source, etc. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:45, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

I completely agree. Frankly, I don't necessarily care whether or not a template gets created, I just want more professional and consistent sourcing and I feel giving users a template to easily format them consistently is a good way to do that. Unfortunately the opposition, at least to me, feels like it's based entirely on "too much work" and, even worse, "I don't care", so even getting a policy going for this might be controversial. Just because we aren't "writing scientific journals" there's no reason not to be clear, consistent, and informative. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 18:53, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
When half of the most basic parameters don't exist anyway in a majority of relevant examples, you can't reasonably expect ability to consistently use said formatting, and therefore pushing policy of it is nothing but self-destructive. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:56, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
Thing is, formatting citations properly is, per MarioWiki:Citations, already policy. Anyways, if a parameter doesn't exist (like the author name) for certain citations then it doesn't need to be added, per the policy. This policy has yet to be self-destructive, albeit this policy is often forgotten (not referring to this discussion, it's just that formatting of citations on articles don't often follow this policy, which I am guilty of too). Doomhiker (talk)Artwork of a Topmini from Super Mario Galaxy 19:00, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
A template should be versatile and cover all possible scenarios. Optional parameters exist for a reason. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 19:02, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
Yes, but this template is still very book-centric. Really the only web-based thing on there is url; there is nothing for, say, "platform" (ie YouTube, Twitter, which is in no way the same as a publisher and not really compatible with the "source" one AFAICT) showing just one example of flaws by limitation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:08, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
(ec) Most paramters are covered in the proposal, not "half" as you claim. Only parameter I don't see will have much use as the rest is "page" but the rest you can find in most citations. Referencing Twitter posts? Handle (Date) "Link to post" Twitter Access date. YouTube videos? User name (Date) "[Title of video and link]". YouTube. Access date.. Game guides? Author (Date) Title of book. Publisher. Page numbers. Date accessed.. "Self-destructive"? That's hyperbole. Mario's article: 40+ citations, most properly formatted but even those that are not formatted are doable. Bowser: 30+ citations, most formatted, those aren't formatted can and should be. Mario Sports Superstars: 9 citations, most formatted appropriately (YouTube video should have date name). Even the website links should be changed from a bare link to [Link of title "Title of website"] (last edited if applicable) and be given an access date. If parameters aren't used, they won't be used and won't show up in the template, as with normal.
No, the template is not "book-centric". YouTube and Twitter certainly are publishers; not as curated as a traditional book publisher but they are. Whatever argument you have is just splitting hairs between what a "publisher" is and I think focuses too much on semantics. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:13, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
It's great that policy exists but that has to be more closely vetted. Probably featured articles need to have a provision that sources should be properly formatted. I'm iffy on a new improvement template just for source formatting however. It's good to try to notify users if they aren't formatting sources though. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:16, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
While I too try to use formatting as best as I can, there have been many, many cases when all I have to go off is "off-center (and as such, page-number unknown) scan/photo of a page of an official Japanese guidebook with unknown title, publisher, author, or even scanner." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:29, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
You can proceed without some information but it'll make fact-checking really hard if you don't know what the title of the guidebook is. I guess in those cases you can go with [Japanese guidebook, title unknown, page number unknown, etc.) just so you know the information is incomplete. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:05, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
Side note: we do have a {{page needed}} template that could probably be used more often. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:03, April 24, 2020 (EDT)
I would agree that setting a policy is better. Especially since what we currently have is similar but different to Wikipedia. A policy would help the issue more than a template. Red Yoshi in a construction hat walking Yoshi the SSM (talk) 01:12, April 25, 2020 (EDT)
Hard agree, a policy amendment would go much further towards actually solving the problem than a template that sets an unrealistic goalpost of "one size fits all reference maker". --ExdeathIcon.png Lord G. matters. ExdeathIcon.png 02:24, April 25, 2020 (EDT)
By definition, something versatile like a template is different from one size fits all. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 03:39, April 25, 2020 (EDT)
I personally am neutral on creating a template for this, as I can see how it could potentially be useful, but I could also see users miss it if it isn’t as accessible as the {{aboutfile}}, and I also agree with some of the issues brought up by LinkTheLefty (talk). However, I do strongly agree with better enforcement of MarioWiki:Citations, as I still see many cases where users continue to simply use a url when sourcing, and I feel the policy isn’t made as visible as it should be. --A sprite of a Flame Chomp from New Super Mario Bros. Wii.TheFlameChomp (talk) 11:15, April 25, 2020 (EDT)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

None at the moment.

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=2933562"