MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/13: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Text replacement - "== ([^=])" to "== $1") |
||
(29 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}} | |||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template}} | |||
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | <div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | ||
===Mario Kart Name Changes=== | ===Mario Kart Name Changes=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-12|no change}} | |||
okay... I have noticed that all the articles on the wii karts all have their european names. Why? What's wrong with the american ones? They used to have american names! and so, I propose we change the article names... | okay... I have noticed that all the articles on the wii karts all have their european names. Why? What's wrong with the american ones? They used to have american names! and so, I propose we change the article names... | ||
'''Deadline:''' March 3, 2009, 17:00<br> | '''Deadline:''' March 3, 2009, 17:00<br> | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Dryest bowser}} | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Dryest bowser}} | ||
Line 62: | Line 53: | ||
::I know that, P_Y. But where did the idea come from in the first place? --{{User|The Blue Dragon}} | ::I know that, P_Y. But where did the idea come from in the first place? --{{User|The Blue Dragon}} | ||
:::In the words of proposer Son of Suns, "This should help us curb American cultural imperialism at the wiki while simultaneously fostering a spirit of internationalism." The proposal passed by one vote after a long discussion with many insults against Americans and no insults sent back (unless "go USA" said once is an insult). :P Go figure, right? If it's any consolation, Blue, the proposal only affects a handful of titles, so it's not like it even matters that much to us in the US (lol), but, based on what was said during the proposal it apparently means a lot to people in Europe. {{User|Stumpers}} | :::In the words of proposer Son of Suns, "This should help us curb American cultural imperialism at the wiki while simultaneously fostering a spirit of internationalism." The proposal passed by one vote after a long discussion with many insults against Americans and no insults sent back (unless "go USA" said once is an insult). :P Go figure, right? If it's any consolation, Blue, the proposal only affects a handful of titles, so it's not like it even matters that much to us in the US (lol), but, based on what was said during the proposal it apparently means a lot to people in Europe. {{User|Stumpers}} | ||
---- | |||
===Change Six-Month Proposal Reversal Rule to 60 Days=== | ===Change Six-Month Proposal Reversal Rule to 60 Days=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|18-0|allow reversal of proposals after 60 days}} | |||
I recently learned of a rule that says proposals cannot be reversed for six months. However, six months seems like a ridiculously long wait, and some of these proposals really do need to be reversed. Simply, it only makes sense to change the limit to 60 days. | I recently learned of a rule that says proposals cannot be reversed for six months. However, six months seems like a ridiculously long wait, and some of these proposals really do need to be reversed. Simply, it only makes sense to change the limit to 60 days. | ||
'''Deadline:''' March 9, 2009, 17:00<br> | '''Deadline:''' March 9, 2009, 17:00<br> | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Ralphfan}} | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Ralphfan}} | ||
Line 96: | Line 86: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Look at the proposal above! {{User|Ralphfan}} | Look at the proposal above! {{User|Ralphfan}} | ||
:There's no actual rule about the time limit to revert a proposal, the sixth month thing is completely made up. So yeah, this proposal should be about ''setting'' the rule. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 12:04, 2 March 2009 (EST) | :There's no actual rule about the time limit to revert a proposal, the sixth month thing is completely made up. So yeah, this proposal should be about ''setting'' the rule. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 12:04, 2 March 2009 (EST) | ||
Line 108: | Line 97: | ||
Okay, we'll do it... and then change it back 60 days later! :D {{user|DoctorWho 1995}} | Okay, we'll do it... and then change it back 60 days later! :D {{user|DoctorWho 1995}} | ||
---- | |||
===Create a Dispute Resolution Committee=== | ===Create a Dispute Resolution Committee=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|0-6|don't create}} | |||
So, I've been browsing Wookieepedia and have noticed they have a [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Administrators%27_noticeboard sysop's noticeboard]. I think we should have something like this to alert sysops of important things and solve disputes between users. We would call this the "Dispute Resolution Committee". | So, I've been browsing Wookieepedia and have noticed they have a [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Administrators%27_noticeboard sysop's noticeboard]. I think we should have something like this to alert sysops of important things and solve disputes between users. We would call this the "Dispute Resolution Committee". | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{user|Yoshario}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{user|Yoshario}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' March 16, 2009 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' March 16, 2009 17:00 | ||
Line 132: | Line 120: | ||
I think we need this so regular users may alert sysops, since regular users do not have access to the sysop boards. {{user|Yoshario}} | I think we need this so regular users may alert sysops, since regular users do not have access to the sysop boards. {{user|Yoshario}} | ||
:I used to and still do use the main talk page when the matter is public, and before I was buro or sysop and I wanted to keep something quiet (like an interuser dispute) I just dropped a note on a sysop's page. If this feature was updated and I had something I didn't want to get full blown I'd probably just use the sysop's talk page anyway... What I want to know is, how would it be different from the main page? We still have a smallish Wiki so I think we might be able to make do with that. :) {{User|Stumpers}} | :I used to and still do use the main talk page when the matter is public, and before I was buro or sysop and I wanted to keep something quiet (like an interuser dispute) I just dropped a note on a sysop's page. If this feature was updated and I had something I didn't want to get full blown I'd probably just use the sysop's talk page anyway... What I want to know is, how would it be different from the main page? We still have a smallish Wiki so I think we might be able to make do with that. :) {{User|Stumpers}} | ||
---- | |||
===Change Log-In=== | ===Change Log-In=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-8|no changes}} | |||
1 hour ago I just had a horrible experience.My computer had somehow forgot my password for this Wiki,thus I took 1 hour trying to remember it,as I had lost the piece of paper the password was written on.So to stop this experience happening to anyone else,we could maybe have two options,like a question? Instead of a password? Are we allowed this? Do you want it? I'll be waiting! | 1 hour ago I just had a horrible experience.My computer had somehow forgot my password for this Wiki,thus I took 1 hour trying to remember it,as I had lost the piece of paper the password was written on.So to stop this experience happening to anyone else,we could maybe have two options,like a question? Instead of a password? Are we allowed this? Do you want it? I'll be waiting! | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Hyper Guy}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Hyper Guy}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' March 16, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' March 16, 2009, 17:00 | ||
Line 170: | Line 157: | ||
Woo-hoo! I'm logged in correctly now! {{User|Yoshikart}} | Woo-hoo! I'm logged in correctly now! {{User|Yoshikart}} | ||
---- | |||
===Courses based on Courses=== | ===Courses based on Courses=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-14|merge them}} | |||
Hey everyone it's [[User:MC Hammer Bro.]] again. This time I've noticed things like Super Smash Bros. stages and Mario Kart courses that share names with courses in games that they are based off of. Mainly I noticed how Article: [[Tick Tock Clock]], course 14 in ''Super Mario 64'' is seperate from [[Tick Tock Clock (course)]] but...[[Rainbow Ride]] from ''Super Mario 64'' and Rainbow ride (Rainbow cruise) stage from Super Smash Bros. Melee are in the same articel. So my question is show the articles be merged or seperated? | Hey everyone it's [[User:MC Hammer Bro.]] again. This time I've noticed things like Super Smash Bros. stages and Mario Kart courses that share names with courses in games that they are based off of. Mainly I noticed how Article: [[Tick Tock Clock]], course 14 in ''Super Mario 64'' is seperate from [[Tick Tock Clock (course)]] but...[[Rainbow Ride]] from ''Super Mario 64'' and Rainbow ride (Rainbow cruise) stage from Super Smash Bros. Melee are in the same articel. So my question is show the articles be merged or seperated? | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|MC Hammer Bro.}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|MC Hammer Bro.}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': March 26, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline''': March 26, 2009, 17:00 | ||
Line 208: | Line 194: | ||
Idk, it just seems......as a "bad example" to new users.Who knows, probanly they'll say, "OMG y don't they put seperate articles 4 it!ZOMG they suck!!!lol.I'm leaving." or something like that.{{User|Ninja Yoshi}} | Idk, it just seems......as a "bad example" to new users.Who knows, probanly they'll say, "OMG y don't they put seperate articles 4 it!ZOMG they suck!!!lol.I'm leaving." or something like that.{{User|Ninja Yoshi}} | ||
:Well that would be ''their'' loss, now wouldn't it? You can't always get what you want, and if you storm off just because you disagree with some policy somewhere then you're gonna be unhappy for a very long time; it's better to just be flexible. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :Well that would be ''their'' loss, now wouldn't it? You can't always get what you want, and if you storm off just because you disagree with some policy somewhere then you're gonna be unhappy for a very long time; it's better to just be flexible. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
---- | |||
===Beta Enemies=== | ===Beta Enemies=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|5-3|make beta enemy page}} | |||
I dont know where to put this but here goes. | I dont know where to put this but here goes. | ||
I propose we create a page for all beta enemies, including stats, behavior, psychopath thoughts etc. <s>and redirect drill bit (the only beta enemy with a page bcause it was accidentaly left in a cutscene (smithy! reember your blood pressure!)) to this page</s> we could add a link 2 drill bit on the page AND if possible, the action replay codes used to access some of these beta enemies. Im sure interested in anything beta. Rite nao, the info is scattered about the beta elements page and pages of similar enemies. | I propose we create a page for all beta enemies, including stats, behavior, psychopath thoughts etc. <s>and redirect drill bit (the only beta enemy with a page bcause it was accidentaly left in a cutscene (smithy! reember your blood pressure!)) to this page</s> we could add a link 2 drill bit on the page AND if possible, the action replay codes used to access some of these beta enemies. Im sure interested in anything beta. Rite nao, the info is scattered about the beta elements page and pages of similar enemies. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{user|YourBuddyBill}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{user|YourBuddyBill}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': 17:00 Monday, March 31, 2009 | '''Deadline''': 17:00 Monday, March 31, 2009 | ||
====Make Beta Enemy Page==== | ====Make Beta Enemy Page==== | ||
#YourBuddyBill- Ill take out the part about drill bit. we could just add alink to the page to drill bit | #YourBuddyBill- Ill take out the part about drill bit. we could just add alink to the page to drill bit | ||
#{{user|Yoshario}} - per ybb | #{{user|Yoshario}} - per ybb | ||
Line 273: | Line 257: | ||
::::I got it, but why some people are saying that YBB says we sort the beta elements page on ememies. After reading SoS's comment, I looked at the whole proposal, and I understood that the proposal is about just adding a page of the beta enemies. This is a great idea, but still, the categories and so. For that Blooper enemy of PiT, we need to add a category of Bloopers; however, Drill Bit is also a beta foe, which needs a different category than Bloopers. That would be a gigantic problem. Plus, that the name of the article is Beta Enemies. Shouldn't new users be confused about that? {{User|Arend}} | ::::I got it, but why some people are saying that YBB says we sort the beta elements page on ememies. After reading SoS's comment, I looked at the whole proposal, and I understood that the proposal is about just adding a page of the beta enemies. This is a great idea, but still, the categories and so. For that Blooper enemy of PiT, we need to add a category of Bloopers; however, Drill Bit is also a beta foe, which needs a different category than Bloopers. That would be a gigantic problem. Plus, that the name of the article is Beta Enemies. Shouldn't new users be confused about that? {{User|Arend}} | ||
I have AR codes for a beta Red Koopa in Sm64ds!Not to mention beta hat boxes.Too bad my AR broke....{{User|Ninja Yoshi}} | I have AR codes for a beta Red Koopa in Sm64ds!Not to mention beta hat boxes.Too bad my AR broke....{{User|Ninja Yoshi}} | ||
---- | |||
===Worlds and levels=== | ===Worlds and levels=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-6|merge articles}} | |||
YBB again, Im noticing that some games have all of the levels of a world on the world's page, like 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4 are all on the same page as World 7, but with other games, worlds just have links to level pages, like Chocolate Island and Chocolate Secret. Should we merge them all together, or split them apart? Note that this is relevant to pipeprojects. | YBB again, Im noticing that some games have all of the levels of a world on the world's page, like 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4 are all on the same page as World 7, but with other games, worlds just have links to level pages, like Chocolate Island and Chocolate Secret. Should we merge them all together, or split them apart? Note that this is relevant to pipeprojects. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|YourBuddyBill}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|YourBuddyBill}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': April 2, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline''': April 2, 2009, 17:00 | ||
Line 310: | Line 293: | ||
:::Any level has as much or more information than any SMW level. The problem is someone actually has to write down the information and expand the level's article content on the wiki. -- {{User|Son of Suns}} | :::Any level has as much or more information than any SMW level. The problem is someone actually has to write down the information and expand the level's article content on the wiki. -- {{User|Son of Suns}} | ||
---- | |||
===Change Calendar to Featured Images on Main Page=== | ===Change Calendar to Featured Images on Main Page=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|18-2|change to featured images}} | |||
Of all the sections on the main page, I find the Calendar to be the least useful, so I am proposing to replace it with a Featured Image section. The Featured Image would highlight high quality, interesting, witty, provocative, rare, and important images that can be found in articles on the Mario Wiki. The Featured Image would be selected by a vote just like the Featured Poll. The image would be updated every week and would be selected by the wiki's users. On a new Featured Image Selection page, users could nominate an image (probably just linking to the page instead of putting the image on the selection page), give some reasons for the nomination if they want to (i.e., let us know what makes this image so special) and users can then Support or Oppose. The Featured Image of the week will be decided by subtracting the number of opposes from the number of supports - the image with the most "points" will be featured. Any image with negative points (that is a majority of opposes) after a week will be removed from the selection process. The only condition for images that can be nominated is that they must be in an actual mainspace article in the wiki. No personal images or others; only images that can actually be found in the wiki's articles will be allowed. | Of all the sections on the main page, I find the Calendar to be the least useful, so I am proposing to replace it with a Featured Image section. The Featured Image would highlight high quality, interesting, witty, provocative, rare, and important images that can be found in articles on the Mario Wiki. The Featured Image would be selected by a vote just like the Featured Poll. The image would be updated every week and would be selected by the wiki's users. On a new Featured Image Selection page, users could nominate an image (probably just linking to the page instead of putting the image on the selection page), give some reasons for the nomination if they want to (i.e., let us know what makes this image so special) and users can then Support or Oppose. The Featured Image of the week will be decided by subtracting the number of opposes from the number of supports - the image with the most "points" will be featured. Any image with negative points (that is a majority of opposes) after a week will be removed from the selection process. The only condition for images that can be nominated is that they must be in an actual mainspace article in the wiki. No personal images or others; only images that can actually be found in the wiki's articles will be allowed. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Son of Suns}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Son of Suns}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': April 9, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline''': April 9, 2009, 17:00 | ||
Line 368: | Line 350: | ||
'''Corka Cola''': Perhaps for this month's issue you can add some info from the Main Page's calendar {{User|Tucayo}} | '''Corka Cola''': Perhaps for this month's issue you can add some info from the Main Page's calendar {{User|Tucayo}} | ||
---- | |||
===Let Members Go Through Main Page To Eliminate Unwanted Sections=== | ===Let Members Go Through Main Page To Eliminate Unwanted Sections=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-8|no voting}} | |||
The proposal above by {{User|Son of Suns}} got me thinking, how many sections are unwanted or useless to the Main Page? All Members of any rank will be worth 1 Point for every positive vote, -1 for negative vote. I'll change it if complained. If approved, I'll see if we can get individual pages for voting for each section that will last 1 week. Most likely, it'll go in order based on their location on the Main Page. Anytime during the week after approval, anyone may voice new Section Ideas on this Proposals page. Let's begin voting and see change!! | The proposal above by {{User|Son of Suns}} got me thinking, how many sections are unwanted or useless to the Main Page? All Members of any rank will be worth 1 Point for every positive vote, -1 for negative vote. I'll change it if complained. If approved, I'll see if we can get individual pages for voting for each section that will last 1 week. Most likely, it'll go in order based on their location on the Main Page. Anytime during the week after approval, anyone may voice new Section Ideas on this Proposals page. Let's begin voting and see change!! | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User| Corka Cola}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User| Corka Cola}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': April 12, 2009, 15:00 | '''Deadline''': April 12, 2009, 15:00 | ||
Line 399: | Line 380: | ||
::::Also, lots of members are just as (if not more) active as many of the Admins, so weighting votes differently based on rank would be even more unfair for them. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ::::Also, lots of members are just as (if not more) active as many of the Admins, so weighting votes differently based on rank would be even more unfair for them. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
:::::Changed it so everyone is equal. Sorry, just didn't understand!!{{User| Corka Cola}} | :::::Changed it so everyone is equal. Sorry, just didn't understand!!{{User| Corka Cola}} | ||
---- | |||
===Change 60-Day Rule to One Month=== | ===Change 60-Day Rule to One Month=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-0|change rule}} | |||
I think that the 60-day minumum for waiting to overturn proposals is a bit of a long to to wait. What if a proposal is passed and it lowers the quality of the wiki extremely? Or what if a majority of people who voted in favor of the original proposal want to overturn it? I believe that one month is neither too short nor too long. | I think that the 60-day minumum for waiting to overturn proposals is a bit of a long to to wait. What if a proposal is passed and it lowers the quality of the wiki extremely? Or what if a majority of people who voted in favor of the original proposal want to overturn it? I believe that one month is neither too short nor too long. | ||
* By "month" I mean 4 weeks, or 28 days. Thank you Ralphfan for helping me decide. | * By "month" I mean 4 weeks, or 28 days. Thank you Ralphfan for helping me decide. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': April 13, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline''': April 13, 2009, 17:00 | ||
Line 434: | Line 414: | ||
::Not saying that you're wrong, but couldn't one apply that logic in a way that circumvents the "60 day" rule totally? Plus, didn't [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive#Mario_Kart_Name_Changes|this proposal]] get shot down when it could have passed by similar logic? (Actually, I'm glad it did, but I want to be fair.) | ::Not saying that you're wrong, but couldn't one apply that logic in a way that circumvents the "60 day" rule totally? Plus, didn't [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive#Mario_Kart_Name_Changes|this proposal]] get shot down when it could have passed by similar logic? (Actually, I'm glad it did, but I want to be fair.) | ||
::And on the subject of the proposal I linked, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | ::And on the subject of the proposal I linked, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/12#Use_First_Official_English_Title_for_Articles|the proposal that it would have half-overturned]] was quite the hotly contested issue, yes? It just barely passed, and if it came up again, it might be overturned. Seeing as it affected quite a few articles, this would necessitate a lot of reversions. And then what would happen if it came up ''again'' in 30 more days? | ||
::I'm not sure what to do about that, so I thought I'd bring it up. Who knows, maybe nobody will care enough to keep proposing it. But it ''will'' be allowed for reconsideration if this passes. (Or five days after it fails.) | ::I'm not sure what to do about that, so I thought I'd bring it up. Who knows, maybe nobody will care enough to keep proposing it. But it ''will'' be allowed for reconsideration if this passes. (Or five days after it fails.) | ||
Line 449: | Line 429: | ||
'''Tucayo''', this is {{user|Super Mario Bros.}}. I am letting your vote count. I am sorry I kept on pestering you to take it down. I decided to let your vote count because I saw some of your votes on other proposals and I think you have a good voting record, and I feel like a jerk trying to insist to take your vote away. Besides, you are the only one at this point that opposes my proposal, so I guess it would be ok to let your vote count. Also, nobody besides myself has really made this thing a big ordeal, so I am retracting my argument. Once again, I am sorry for making a huge thing out of something little. | '''Tucayo''', this is {{user|Super Mario Bros.}}. I am letting your vote count. I am sorry I kept on pestering you to take it down. I decided to let your vote count because I saw some of your votes on other proposals and I think you have a good voting record, and I feel like a jerk trying to insist to take your vote away. Besides, you are the only one at this point that opposes my proposal, so I guess it would be ok to let your vote count. Also, nobody besides myself has really made this thing a big ordeal, so I am retracting my argument. Once again, I am sorry for making a huge thing out of something little. | ||
---- | |||
===Clear Majority Rule=== | ===Clear Majority Rule=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|14-0|set "clear majority" rule}} | |||
I was looking at the comments of my last proposal and noticed that the proposal itself is a bit controversial. That is why I, [[User:Super Mario Bros.|Super Mario Bros.]] am '''organizing''' this proposal, which was originally voiced by [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]. If it were to pass, this proposal would create a rule that in order to pass or fail, the "winning side" of a proposal (with 10 votes or over) needs to beat the "losing side" of the same proposal by at least ''3'' votes in order to pass or fail. If it wins or fails with ''2 votes or less'' or ends in a tie, then the deadline will be extended for another week. | I was looking at the comments of my last proposal and noticed that the proposal itself is a bit controversial. That is why I, [[User:Super Mario Bros.|Super Mario Bros.]] am '''organizing''' this proposal, which was originally voiced by [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]. If it were to pass, this proposal would create a rule that in order to pass or fail, the "winning side" of a proposal (with 10 votes or over) needs to beat the "losing side" of the same proposal by at least ''3'' votes in order to pass or fail. If it wins or fails with ''2 votes or less'' or ends in a tie, then the deadline will be extended for another week. | ||
'''Proposers''': {{User|Walkazo}} and {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br> | '''Proposers''': {{User|Walkazo}} and {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': April 14, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline''': April 14, 2009, 17:00 | ||
Line 498: | Line 477: | ||
I like the idea, but I see a potential failing: if the proposal is consistently supported by only a one or two vote margin, then it will be hopelessly deadlocked, which is pretty much the same as failing. But that doesn't make sense, because it did get a favorable majority. In this situation, perhaps we could (and I know that this won't always be possible) try to reach some sort of compromise on the issue to circumvent potential logjams. -- {{User|The Great Gonzales}} | I like the idea, but I see a potential failing: if the proposal is consistently supported by only a one or two vote margin, then it will be hopelessly deadlocked, which is pretty much the same as failing. But that doesn't make sense, because it did get a favorable majority. In this situation, perhaps we could (and I know that this won't always be possible) try to reach some sort of compromise on the issue to circumvent potential logjams. -- {{User|The Great Gonzales}} | ||
:If an issue is deadlocked, wouldn't it be better to see it rethought than to slip by because of a single vote? If the community is so divided on an issue, there is no right answer. The proposer can take down the proposal and retool it to work for more people, so it'd be more like a rough draft than a failure; the buffer zone is itself a compromise. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :If an issue is deadlocked, wouldn't it be better to see it rethought than to slip by because of a single vote? If the community is so divided on an issue, there is no right answer. The proposer can take down the proposal and retool it to work for more people, so it'd be more like a rough draft than a failure; the buffer zone is itself a compromise. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
---- | |||
===Merge or Delete Demo Articles=== | ===Merge or Delete Demo Articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|5-2-1|merge}} | |||
I am proposing that we delete or merge articles like [[The Legend of Zelda: Orcarina of Time]]. I think that if we keep this article as it is, there will be a whole bunch of Kirby, Zelda, and Metroid game articles. Therefore I am proposing to either merge or delete demo articles. | I am proposing that we delete or merge articles like [[The Legend of Zelda: Orcarina of Time]]. I think that if we keep this article as it is, there will be a whole bunch of Kirby, Zelda, and Metroid game articles. Therefore I am proposing to either merge or delete demo articles. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshario}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshario}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': April 17, 2009, 20:00 | '''Deadline''': April 17, 2009, 20:00 | ||
Line 528: | Line 506: | ||
"...they appear in SSBB, so theyre part of the Marioverse..." Please explain this assertion. {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} | "...they appear in SSBB, so theyre part of the Marioverse..." Please explain this assertion. {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} | ||
:As we have articles for trophys and stickers, we should have an article for those {{user|Tucayo}} | :As we have articles for trophys and stickers, we should have an article for those {{user|Tucayo}} | ||
---- | |||
===DKC T.V. Show Episodes=== | ===DKC T.V. Show Episodes=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-5|don't merge}} | |||
Okay, I was looking through the episodes of the old Donkey Kong Country TV series, and 27 out of 40 of the episodes were stub articles. In other words, about 67% of the episodes list were stubs, 33% were '''exceptional''' articles (and of that 33%, I think more could qualify for stub articles). | Okay, I was looking through the episodes of the old Donkey Kong Country TV series, and 27 out of 40 of the episodes were stub articles. In other words, about 67% of the episodes list were stubs, 33% were '''exceptional''' articles (and of that 33%, I think more could qualify for stub articles). | ||
What I am proposing is that we merge all the articles into one (of course, the articles that aren't stubs would just be linked to). That would reduce many of the stub articles and boost the quality of Super Mario Wiki up. | What I am proposing is that we merge all the articles into one (of course, the articles that aren't stubs would just be linked to). That would reduce many of the stub articles and boost the quality of Super Mario Wiki up. | ||
Line 538: | Line 516: | ||
* I have created a PipeProject that will deal with these types of articles. If this proposal is passed, and I get enough support for my PipeProject, I will work on condensing the episodes lists for '''all''' the T.V. shows into articles accordingly with their own shows. | * I have created a PipeProject that will deal with these types of articles. If this proposal is passed, and I get enough support for my PipeProject, I will work on condensing the episodes lists for '''all''' the T.V. shows into articles accordingly with their own shows. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2009, 15:00 | '''Deadline''': April 19, 2009, 15:00 | ||
Line 559: | Line 536: | ||
::::: What do you mean, inconsistent? {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | ::::: What do you mean, inconsistent? {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | ||
:Don't think that note will get more voters on the supporting side. Just look at my vote on the opposing side. {{User|Arend}} | :Don't think that note will get more voters on the supporting side. Just look at my vote on the opposing side. {{User|Arend}} | ||
---- | |||
===Add a script project=== | ===Add a script project=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-0|add script project}} | |||
Since we already have a [[:Category:Staff|Staff list project]], why not do something similar by transcribing scripts? [http://www.themmnetwork.com/wiki/index.php?title=Mega_Man_%28Series%29 The Mega Man Network does scripts], so why shouldn't we? | Since we already have a [[:Category:Staff|Staff list project]], why not do something similar by transcribing scripts? [http://www.themmnetwork.com/wiki/index.php?title=Mega_Man_%28Series%29 The Mega Man Network does scripts], so why shouldn't we? | ||
Line 586: | Line 563: | ||
So what do you think? Should we allow transcripts, and if we do, find ways to translate any kind of emphasis into the format? | So what do you think? Should we allow transcripts, and if we do, find ways to translate any kind of emphasis into the format? | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|NES Boy}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|NES Boy}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': April 22, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline''': April 22, 2009, 17:00 | ||
Line 608: | Line 584: | ||
I don't know if there would be problems with copyright and stuff, but apart from that it sounds like a great idea that could be useful for the wiki. I'm actually already working on a script of ''[[Mario is Missing!]]''. {{User|Time Q}} | I don't know if there would be problems with copyright and stuff, but apart from that it sounds like a great idea that could be useful for the wiki. I'm actually already working on a script of ''[[Mario is Missing!]]''. {{User|Time Q}} | ||
---- | |||
===Make an Official Stance On Ties=== | ===Make an Official Stance On Ties=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|5-0|extend deadline}} | |||
I think that we need an official stance on ties '''completely'''. We already have a rule about ties, but it only applies to proposals with 10+ votes. So that is why this proposal is here. If passed, it would create a new rule about all ties in general. <s>Voting is set up a bit oddly, but I have it detailed to make it easier to vote.</s> | I think that we need an official stance on ties '''completely'''. We already have a rule about ties, but it only applies to proposals with 10+ votes. So that is why this proposal is here. If passed, it would create a new rule about all ties in general. <s>Voting is set up a bit oddly, but I have it detailed to make it easier to vote.</s> | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' 28 April, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' 28 April, 2009, 17:00 | ||
Line 632: | Line 608: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
But, {{User|Tucayo}}, on the other hand, if a lot of people vote ''against'' a proposal and that means it is a bad proposal; a lot of people vote ''for'' a proposal, it must have a good idea/rule to implement. So that is where I say that there is no definition of a "good" or "bad" proposal is, as whether it is good or bad is a matter of opinion. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | But, {{User|Tucayo}}, on the other hand, if a lot of people vote ''against'' a proposal and that means it is a bad proposal; a lot of people vote ''for'' a proposal, it must have a good idea/rule to implement. So that is where I say that there is no definition of a "good" or "bad" proposal is, as whether it is good or bad is a matter of opinion. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | ||
:I believe the past past rule said that any proposal with 3 opposes lost, that was because some users think itll be a bad idea, maybe talking with them would be better to decide {{User|Tucayo}} | :I believe the past past rule said that any proposal with 3 opposes lost, that was because some users think itll be a bad idea, maybe talking with them would be better to decide {{User|Tucayo}} | ||
Line 638: | Line 613: | ||
:::You see? Like now, you convinced me {{User|Tucayo}} | :::You see? Like now, you convinced me {{User|Tucayo}} | ||
::::Cool... Thanks! {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | ::::Cool... Thanks! {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | ||
:: To expand on the 'part part rule', when proposals were first introduced, three No votes with exceptionally good reasons would auto-reject a proposal. I wasn't very active at the time, so I don't know the exact reasoning for the change. -- [[ | :: To expand on the 'part part rule', when proposals were first introduced, three No votes with exceptionally good reasons would auto-reject a proposal. I wasn't very active at the time, so I don't know the exact reasoning for the change. -- {{User|Ghost Jam}} | ||
}} | |||
---- | |||
===Add a character battle=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-7|no character battle}} | |||
Recently, I had nothing to do, so I decided to stop by in Zeldawikia and I discovered an awesome community article called the Temple of Courage.[http://zelda.wikia.com/wiki/Zeldapedia:Temple_of_Courage] In this article, two Zelda characters were put to "fight". People, including those who are not users, voted for their favorite, and the one with the most votes won (obviously :P). | |||
Naturally, I didn't lose time and created and account to vote for my favorite participant. | |||
As I already told you, I liked that, so, I was wondering if we, here in the Mariowiki, could *ehem ehem* create an article like this. | |||
I gave you the link so that you can visit it in Zeldapedia. | |||
So...........what do you think? Should we create our on Mario character battle or not? Any special questions in my talk. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Supermariofan14}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': April 29, 2009, 17:00 | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Supermariofan14}} I really want to have this in the wiki. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Super Mario Wiki articles are for the cold, hard facts only; save this sort of thing for a [[MarioWiki:Poll_Selection|Poll]]. | |||
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per Walkazo. Actually, there was a Character Battle in the Shroom, but it was ignored. | |||
#{{User|Time Q}}: Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} -- Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|JerseyMarioFreak}} -- Yeah per everybody | |||
#{{User|Yoshario}} - Per Walkazo. This seems more of a forum-related thing. | |||
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Per Walkazo and all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Perhaps this idea could be incorporated into the 'Shroom? {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
:That idea ''was'' in the 'Shroom. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 19:39, 25 April 2009 (EDT) | |||
Actually, Walkazo has a decent idea there. A bracket of sorts could be placed on the forums while the actual voting could be held via the Poll, kind of like the GFAQs Character Battles. Might be a fun little time waster. -- {{User|Ghost Jam}} | |||
---- | |||
===Policy on Soundtracks=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|2-0-6-0|no coverage}} | |||
Looking through the Wiki, I've noticed that we have very inconsistent coverage of soundtracks. This is because we have no policy on soundtracks. Our current soundtrack coverage consists of [[List of albums|Music]] and subpages, and [[Template:Media table]]. As it is, these pages are maintained according to the standard of "whatever we felt like at the time." Many of them include unofficial track names and links to full tracks from the games. I believe this system is unacceptable for several reasons: | |||
#In linking the soundtracks, we might inhibit Nintendo's ability to make a profit, as game soundtracks are often sold as standalone products or promotional merchandise. | |||
#Most songs from games are not officially named. Therefore, they all fall under the categories of conjectural info and fanon. | |||
#Relating to #1 above, their inclusion may put the wiki in a questionable legal situation. | |||
Therefore, I propose we instate one of the following alternative policies: | |||
#''Cropped Soundtracks:'' Include soundtracks, but ONLY as clips of the first, say, 30 seconds of each song. | |||
#''Degraded Quality:'' Include soundtracks at a low bitrate, so the clips will be undesirably to people looking to pirate the soundtrack. | |||
#''No Coverage:'' Do not cover game soundtracks. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' 2 May, 2009, 20:00 | |||
====Cropped Soundtracks==== | |||
#{{User|Zafum}} - I think that if we are to do something about soundtracks, it shouldn't be to get rid of them completely. I do agree with 2257, but when I finish my pipeproject, we can at least try to start adding soundtracks. I do not see why we have to stop making soundtracks when we have barely started putting them on the wiki, and voting ''No Coverage'' though it isn't getting rid of much we currently have, it will get rid of what could be coming eventually. I think 2257 is right so i'll vote for ''Cropped Soundtracks'', but ''No Coverage'' is really not necissary. | |||
#{{User|Dark boo}} the mariowiki is supposed to cover everything mario which includes soundtracks, and as for piracy a person who wants to pirate the song isnt going to get all they want out of 30 seconds | |||
====Degraded Quality==== | |||
====No Coverage==== | |||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per 2257. I find that no coverage should be made on songs featured in ''Mario'' games for all the reasons 2257 mentioned. It's an unnecessary risk that the wiki should not take. | |||
#{{User|Yoshario}} - Per 2257. There is no reason to keep these pages, and we don't want to make Nintendo not able to make money! | |||
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per 2257, thats piarcy | |||
#{{User|Neurario}} - Per, See discussion. | |||
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Per all, and I think we should only have the best quality here on the wiki, or nothing at all. Besides, I have to say this would be piracy. | |||
#{{user|Castle Toad}} Well, my last comment in this page was erased by previous wiki dificulties (hacking) but, i say that piracy, and i'm not by piracy side! | |||
====Leave as-is==== | |||
====Discussion==== | |||
degraded copies make the wiki look degraded. [[User:Lu-igi board|Lu-igi board]] 10:08, 26 April 2009 (EDT) | |||
'''Lu-igi board:''' It's what Wikipedia does, that's really why I suggested it. | |||
'''Zafum:''' What do you plan to do about the tracks with no names, and how do you plan to solve the copyright issue? | |||
{{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} | |||
I'm a little divided on the subject. I can understand the issue about MP3s on the wiki, however I'm not sure that removing the soundtrack pages altogether would be beneficial. (I'm mainly divided because I think I might be able to help contribute, meaning supply things like album covers and possibly some corrections on track details.) I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this, and thereafter I will make a decision. {{User|Neurario}} | |||
:I guess the database was reverted for some reason, (Was it Rudniki? O_o) (The database was reverted ''because'' of Rudnicki, not by him. {{User|Neurario}})because I actually already talked about this. Anyway, when a soundtrack is released by Nintendo separately from a game, it would still be covered under official merchandise. {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} | |||
::I see, thanks for clearing it up. {{User|Neurario}} | |||
While I have no opinion on including or excluding samples of tracks, I feel that we DO need to expand our OST sections a bit, particularly to try and fill out the merchandise categories. --{{User|Ghost Jam}} | |||
---- | |||
===Make rules for Poll Selection=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-0|make rules}} | |||
The poll page is really falling apart, little by little. So I've come up with some rules that we could make that would eliminate unwanted, or repeated polls, and would make the page look much more formal: | |||
#No signatures | |||
#All polls with 2 more opposers than supporters will be deleted | |||
#All repeated polls will be deleted | |||
#All non mario polls will be deleted | |||
#All polls that have over 10 options will be deleted | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Zafum}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' 4 May, 2009, 17:00 | |||
====Make Rules==== | |||
#{{User|Zafum}} - Per me. | |||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - The polls page needs some support. I've been thinking of some new rules since the duty was just passed to me, and these look just fine. | |||
#{{user|Dark boo}} The polls really need these rules | |||
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Per all, Zafum does have a few points. | |||
#{{User|Tucayo}} Though i rarely agree with Zafum, this time i have to, Per | |||
#{{User|Paper Yoshi}} - OMG THANKS ZAFUM!!!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS PROPOSAL WAS MADE!!! *realizes he's shouting* Ahem, I really wanted a proposal like this one. I've been posting messages in the Poll Selection talk page to make people (and specially Sysops) enforce some rules. Once again, great job, Zafum. I'm glad you took some minutes of your precious time to type this. :awesome: | |||
#{{user|Coincollector}} - Right to the nail. This surely will work. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. | |||
====Leave As Is==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
---- | |||
===New User Ranking=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-8|do not add new user ranking}} | |||
I am proposing that a new ranking should be added added (the current rankings are Patroller, Sysop, and Bureaucrat) for a few reasons. | |||
# I feel that the Wiki has been kind of lagging per say lately. In example, the proposals section sometimes has proposals a day past deadline. The New Proposals section, unless it is updated by another user who has started a new proposal changes it, will often sit not being updated for a few '''days''' (not day, day'''s''') before being updated. These are only a few examples out of many I could point out. | |||
# Some users deserve promotions, but may or may not be ready for the current rankings. | |||
# The Patrollers, Sysops, and Bureaucrats would probably like more help. <br> | |||
The rank, if this proposal passes, would probably be called '''Assistant-Patrollers''' or '''Monitors''' and would be ranked below Patrollers but above regular users. This ranking would bring minor things on the wiki up to date and help Patrollers with their duties. | |||
For more information on the proposed position, please [[User:Super Mario Bros./Monitor|check this page]]. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': 5 May 2009, 17:00 | |||
====Create New Ranking==== | |||
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Per my reasons above (and below) and Stooben Rooben's below. | |||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per the comments above, and my comments below. There are several wikis that have a ranking strictly with the 'rollback' power. While a lot of arguments went on over the Patrollers position's "usefulness", I honestly see no problem adding a rank with the ability to rollback. Sure, any user can revert an edit by clicking 'undo' and saving the page, but having the ability to 'rollback' makes that rank all the more useful. I remember when I was a standard user and I could only revert spam by clicking 'undo' and saving. It took a long time and the odds were that more damage was being done while I was reverting. A few seconds may not seem like a long time, but on the wiki, a lot can happen in a short amount of time. | |||
#{{User|dark boo}} I think this could get some users more active if they know that there is yet another rank that they can strive for which could leave the wiki in a better situation | |||
====Don't Create New Ranking==== | |||
#{{User|Blitzwing}} - Considering Patrollers were once removed not having ''enough'' power, a ranking whose only power is a souped up version of something normal users can already do (Anyone can undo an edit) seems incredibly pointless. | |||
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per Blitz | |||
#{{User|Time Q}}: Per Blitzwing. There's no need for another rank. If we need more "higher-privileged" people, they can be perfectly patrollers. | |||
#{{User|Grapes}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. Rollback is handy, but normal users can still revert a bunch of edits at the same time by going into the History and clicking "Edit" on the last revision before the bad edits were made (admins still have to do that if other people have edited in the interim). The whole process takes a minute or so, as opposed to the seconds used for Rollback, but really, that's too small a change to justify all the hastles of installing a new rank. | |||
#{{User|Zafum}} - There is no reason we need a new rank. Per All. | |||
#{{user|Coincollector}} - I disagree in response for all. I don't think that another new rank should be set here. In that case, you have decided to create some of the other ranks seen in Wikipedia (checkusers, stewards, oversighters, etc), which they have a more specific action to do, but resulting more complicated to add these restricted features here to an user who is going to be promoted basically. | |||
#{{User|Yoshario}} - Per Blitz and Coincollector. There is no reason why a normal user couldn't just undo an edit. Promotions aren't a "title" but rather a set of tools experienced users use, and it does seem incredibly pointless to make porple go through the work to make another usergroup that can virtually do the same thing normal users can do. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
I am not sure if this falls under the promotions rule of proposals, I do remember a proposal about Patrollers, though. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
:Okay, a few notes here. | |||
*First and foremost, once this clears, we must inform {{User|Porplemontage}} about the changed that need to be made. (If they can be.) | |||
*Secondly, what kind of powers would this ranking have? Patrollers have the ability to Block, Patrol, and Rollback, so this ranking would have to have even less powers. | |||
*Third, the proposals page does not need to be updated by a Sysop. Any user can archive proposals. | |||
-- {{User|Stooben Rooben}} | |||
::To respond to your notes: | |||
*I will make sure that {{User|Porplemontage}} knows about this. He seems to have been offline lately, if he is when we tell him, and he doesn't respond, I won't know what to do then. | |||
*This new ranking would have the powers of Rollback and Patroling, not much less than a Patroller, but they are basically Patrollers in training. | |||
*I know, I have archived proposals before, but a lot of users who see proposals just sitting there and don't do anything about it. This could possibly be a part of the new position, making sure that everything is up to date. This would help keep the flow of Wiki going. | |||
I hope that explains everything. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
Cool, thanks for elaborating. | |||
*Porplemontage was recently on a short hiatus, but he returned last night. He'll be active daily, likely. | |||
*Okay. This is merely my thoughts on a Monitor's power, but I believe they should only have the ability to Rollback. There are several wikis that have a rank just for rolling back, so I think that would be a good idea. But, since this is ''your'' proposal, I'm not forcing my opinions on you. | |||
*Alright, that sounds fair. | |||
-- {{User|Stooben Rooben}} | |||
:Well, now that I look at what you said, I think you are correct. I think the Moniter would be too similar to Patrollers with both powers, they should only have Rollback. Thank you for pointing that out. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
::Alright, then. You have my support! {{User|Stooben Rooben}} | |||
:::Thank you for your support and help with the proposal itself. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
But, what I am saying, is that the Wiki has been slow, and that a new ranking could possibly help. Some users might think that they shouldn't do stuff if they don't have a fancy title (which I think would be dumb, but very well might be true). Some users who qualify for Patroller never get promoted, (and one user, who's name I will not state, was never promoted, did a lot on the wiki. He has retired and considered himself a failure). Besides, as I said, even a tiny position such as the proposed Monitor can have a big effect on the wiki. If the Patroller ranking was deleted, then why was it added back to the wiki? It was considered a small position to the wiki, but when it was deleted, people realized that change. So, ''yes'', even a minor position can have a '''big effect''' . {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
:And besides, think about it. Do we have a need for Sysops? If you think about it, we could just break up the position and give more duties to the Bureaucrats and Patrollers. A Sysop can be compared, in a sense, to a Patroller with a few more duties or a Bureaucrat with less duties, so it can easily be done. If the Sysops group was broken up right now, those in the group who are not Bureaucrats can either be promoted to Bureaucrat or demoted to Patroller. Right? So, the proposed Monitor can be thought of as a user with a little extra power or Patrollers with a little less power. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
::The Patroller rank was gone for a long time and the wiki was just fine; it was brought back because the place became all the more active and we could justify having Patrollers around again. Also, promotions aren't just about power, but responsibility; even if someone is really active, they may not be ready for the ability to block or promote people. There's much more to Wiki politics than meets the eye, so having Bureaucrats (executive decisions), Sysops (rule enforcement and content regulation) and Patrollers (monitoring) does make sense. Some Wikis ''do'' skip Sysops, but their user population dynamics are different than ours, and can therefore be handled differently; what works for them might be disasterous for us. Also, your "Sysop is just a less powerful 'Crat/more powerful Patroller" logic is flawed: ''all'' ranks can be seen as "just" more or less powerful than the others. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
:::Ok, a few things to you, Walkazo: | |||
*I understand what you said about the Patrollers being removed and reinstated, and wouldn't another rank be good, then? This could give the wiki a better chance to have more activity among the users. | |||
*Did you even look at the link I added on the proposal? I listed some of the powers ''and'' responsibilities of this proposed promotion. | |||
*The monitor position would be kind of like training for Patroller. Not all users are ready for promotions, and this position can help shape some of the users into better candidates for promotion. | |||
*I was only using the "Sysop is just a less powerful "Crat/more powerful Patroller" as an example, I beleive in Sysops, and could not imagine what horrors could happen without them. Also, I was using it to prove wrong the quote below. | |||
*The Sysops thing I mentioned was also not ''my'' logic, but {{User|Blitzwing}}'s | |||
*Here is the quote: "{{User|Blitzwing}} - Considering Patrollers were once removed not having ''enough'' power, a ranking whose only power is a souped up version of something normal users can already do (Anyone can undo an edit) seems incredibly pointless" - It also may seem pointless, to some users, to have Sysops or Patrollers. Also, why do we have rollback? If ''any'' user can undo an edit, then I guess the Patrollers, Syops, or 'Crats don't need rollback either, am I correct? And, if Patrollers boosted activity, then couldn't the proposed Monitors, too? It can, in fact, train people for Patroller-hood while still retaining some of their "regular" user features. So that above statement by {{User|Blitzwing}} can also be considered "incredibly pointless" also, right? | |||
{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
:Patrollers have something of an ''actual, clearly defined role''. Your proposed rank can... revert stuff faster (And even there, most trolls only vandalize a page once. the only difference rollback has with undo is that it removes all edits by one user instead of the last). While a Patroller could at least ''block'' the vandal, a monitor would be stuck reverting the vandal's edit up until an higher rank comes. And the "It will increase activity!" argument is very flawed, if anything, chances are anyone that have an interesting thing to bring have already edited. | |||
I'd also like to point out you simple can't create a new rank out of the blue, you need a plugin for that. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 07:08, 30 April 2009 (EDT) | |||
::Blitzwing, I can understand your point, but this rank would be a little more than just a rank... As I have said before, it could help train users who have the potential to be Patrollers, but are not yet just ready. And I said it ''could'' increase activity, I never said it definitely would. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
:::The Patrollers themselves are supposed to be a "training" for sysop, having another rank to "train" is very redundant, especially since such a small rank could easily lend itself to a mass of Biased, not well thought out promotions. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 17:24, 30 April 2009 (EDT) | |||
The extension is right [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:GiveRollback here]; it's still compatible with our version of MediaWiki. Personally, I doubt that activity will increase because of a new rank. But, I do believe that it will 1) Give users something even more to look forward to, and 2) it will make vandalism easier to revert for some users. Sure, it may only be a few seconds' difference, but the shortest amount of time seems to make all the difference at times. -- {{User|Stooben Rooben}} | |||
:Now that I think about it, the rank may not increase activity, and I agree with Stooben Rooben. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
{{user|Dark boo}} As I said above this could really inprove the wiki by making more active users. | |||
:It could possibly make more active users, it actually may, it may not. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
{{user|Dark boo}} yea it may not make more active users its just I personilly think that it has a good chance of makeing users more active, just my oppion. | |||
:Okay {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
Despite I'm opposing the proposal, it's possible you might refer to an user who can be under the rank of a patroller, but higher than a normal user, able to get some new features, and the best fitting would be the rollback feature. Users sometimes consider that undoing a revision is a bit cumbersome, specially when the article is long, and requires a lot of time to save the undone work. The disadvantage of using the undo option is that only appears when you compare the two last revisions, and sometimes the info contained in an article is really long and it takes long time waiting to undo the las revision. Still, we have the rollback feature which is faster, and doesn't require to compare the latest revisions, because you can "undo" all the revisions made by an user. In wikipedia, those users that have this action are known as '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rollback_feature Rollbackers]''', and perhaps it can be implemented here for those active users who are always checking the history of pages. {{user|Coincollector}} | |||
:That is basically what I was proposing, only I wanted to rename the position to Monitor because I thought it would fit with the name of the Patroller ranking. I intended the proposed ranking to give some active users who are not yet ready for the Patroller rank, who deserve the title and are responsible enough to use the rollback correctly. Also, because it is not too different to the Patroller ranking, the users who would be Monitors can be considered "Patrollers in Training" or back-up to Patrollers if things get out of control. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
However, going to my comment (why I'm opposing) is that I'm not pretty sure if many active users should deserve this special ranking (specially if they gain faith from administrators and bureaucrats, beacuse maybe we are giving those privileges to the wrong hands); while sometimes, patrollers claim that their rank status is boring, giving a response that another specific rank shouldn't be set here. By the way, how could consider {{user|Porplemontage}} if we need another new ranking? {{User|Coincollector}} | |||
:Well, from the sound of his reply, Porplemontage doesn't seem against adding a new rank, but I had only told him that there was a proposal on the subject. He said, "Sounds good". I asked him if he would be ok with the new ranking if the proposal were to pass; I am waiting for a response and will post what he says here. And simply, if a user does not deserve a promotion, they would not get one. I would say that the qualifications of the proposed monitor rank are: | |||
*Active users | |||
*Serious about the wiki, and not taking it for a joke | |||
*Would do good as a monitor. | |||
And besides, you mentioned that some Patrollers find their job boring. Does that mean that we should exclude that ranking? I think that, though some users would not like being a monitor and find the position boring, it can still help the wiki. Some people, if the proposal passes and monitors are appointed, might think that the position is fun. I think it is definitely more efficient. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
::And Porplemontage said that he would add the ranking if the proposal passed on his talkpage. {{unsigned|Super Mario Bros.}} | |||
---- | |||
===Creating Pages for Galleries=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-0|move large galleries to sub-pages}} | |||
Going to the point, I see that certain pages have a lot of pictures in their gallery sections, especially in the characters' pages. My proposal consists if we can create a page for those big galleries, while a small part of such gallery can be seen in the original page. This is simple, and can reduce the loading time for the pictures, setting them in an independent page (in a subpage attached to the article's page, exactly); similar to the quote pages, but using images. I have a small proof where this game's artwork was set [http://www.mariowiki.com/Category:New_Super_Mario_Bros._artwork here]. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{user|Coincollector}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': 7 May 2009, 17:00 | |||
====Agree==== | |||
#{{user|Coincollector}} - Said above. | |||
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Per Coincollector, I think this would be a good idea, my computer is slow even loading a short page! | |||
#{{user|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Coincollector. | |||
#{{User|Zafum}} - Though the loading time on my computer is really not that bad, if it helps others with their comps, I guess it's worth a try. | |||
#{{User|Time Q}}: Per Coincollector. | |||
#{{User|Grandy02}}: Per Coincollector and Time Q's comment. | |||
#{{User|MeritC}}: Per all; I'm definitely for this. Would be a great help. | |||
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per Coincollector | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Yoshi96}} - I think that would be a great idea. It would help clean out pages and more pictures could also be added to the page than the character's page. | |||
====Disagree==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
I think it would make sense to make those gallery pages sub-pages of the article where the images were taken from. For example, Luigi's gallery should be put on a page called "Luigi/Gallery". {{User|Time Q}} | |||
:OK, let's do it. {{user|Coincollector}} | |||
Oh happy me! Someone used my left-out and obscure idea for this freaking proposal! XD (with the exception of St00bs) A question or two, is it categories or pages? Categories...? Images would be marked as if they have no article to attach to. ;o And then... I would cry and say, HOW COULD YOU?!!!!?! </being dramatic because of his work of uploading images> So... any questions? :) {{user|RAP}} | |||
:The images would go in a gallery. I think the category linked to in the proposal is just an example of which images would be in a NSMB Gallery if one were made; the category is an example of the same style of organization (but I'm not Coincollector, so I could be wrong). And yeah, we definitely don't want the images to appear "unused", as that gets confusing and makes it hard to spot ''actual'' unused images. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
::I actually think it must be a subpage. That doesn't have to get more pages, and official names of characters or games can be added. You can't edit galleries to categories, and you can't move images to different names. Also, you can click on the link to go to that specefic character or game's page if you can edit. That would not happen in a category, because of the reason that you can't edit galleries in categories, as earlier said. That's why I think it must be a subpage. {{User|Arend}} | |||
I just have one question. Would you do the same for screenshots or only artwork?If you do would they have sepreate galleries or be part of the same? I guess it matters on the amount of artwork and screenshots. - {{User|Yoshi96}} | |||
:By the sounds of it, all the galleries would go on one gallery sub-page. The galleries for artwork and screenshots and whatnot could be given seperate headers and galleries within the page, like how they're set up on the pages themselves now. Also, you're right in that it would matter on the amount of images: if a page only has a four-image gallery, making a subpage would be a bit silly; likewise, if there's five screenshots and three pieces of artwork, segregating them wouldn't look organized, just overly spaceous. - {{User|Walkazo}} |
Latest revision as of 20:59, April 12, 2022
Mario Kart Name Changesno change 1-12 Deadline: March 3, 2009, 17:00 Change them
Leave them
CommentsIn accordance with a previous proposal, for six months following a given proposal, no proposals can be made to overturn it. For example, we just had the proposal to use European names for subjects which first appeared in games that were released in Europe first. It passed, and so, for the next six months, we can't make proposals to overturn it. Therefore, this proposal is invalid, but there's no way you could have been expected to know... sorry about this. Stumpers (talk)
Arend: Those aren't the Japanese names. o_O ToadetteAnime4evur (talk)
Personally, why the hell was it changed anyways? Doesn't that just screw things up for us Americans? :/ --The Blue Dragon (talk)
Change Six-Month Proposal Reversal Rule to 60 Daysallow reversal of proposals after 60 days 18-0 Deadline: March 9, 2009, 17:00 Change limit
Leave as isCommentsLook at the proposal above! Ralphfan (talk)
Okay, we'll do it... and then change it back 60 days later! :D DoctorWho 1995 (talk) Create a Dispute Resolution Committeedon't create 0-6 Proposer: Yoshario (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsI think we need this so regular users may alert sysops, since regular users do not have access to the sysop boards. Yoshario (talk)
Change Log-Inno changes 3-8 Proposer: Hyper Guy (talk) Something Different!
Leave as is!
CommentsIs the password thing something all Wikis HAVE to do? if it is,ignore this.Hyper Guy (talk) Hmmm... I'm not entirely sure I understand the proposal. Do you mean two accounts? That's what I think you are saying. Bloc Partier (talk)
Ok,I added an example.This IS my first proposal.Hyper Guy (talk) Woo-hoo! I'm logged in correctly now! Yoshikart (talk) Courses based on Coursesmerge them 2-14 Proposer: MC Hammer Bro. (talk) Split 'em up
Merge 'em together
CommentsZafum: It will take you to both things, so i dont see whats wrong Tucayo (talk)
Idk, it just seems......as a "bad example" to new users.Who knows, probanly they'll say, "OMG y don't they put seperate articles 4 it!ZOMG they suck!!!lol.I'm leaving." or something like that.Ninja Yoshi (talk)
Beta Enemiesmake beta enemy page 5-3 I propose we create a page for all beta enemies, including stats, behavior, psychopath thoughts etc. Proposer: YourBuddyBill (talk) Make Beta Enemy Page
Do Not Make Beta Enemy Page
CommentsFixed. ;) And I would like to know all the stuff about them too, but separate pages for each enemy is rather tedious, in my opinion. Maybe not, but I would like it if we could know more about them. Bloc Partier (talk) Did Son of Suns vote in the wrong place? He said he wanted to keep separate pages; yet voted in do not make separate pages. Or am I reading it wrong? --Yoshario (talk)
sorry, the directions are a bit complicated 4 me YourBuddyBill (talk)
I do think that YBB has a point, though, since it does have to do with the beta enemy being notable or not. Plus, a list is always good as an easy directory for articles. Then again, a category would do that job also. Yoshario (talk) thing is, not every one HAS an article. theyre just meshed together on the beta elements page with tidbits on other pages YourBuddyBill (talk) Yoshario, I believe YBB is proposing to create ONE page to cover all Beta enemies, which right now have content in different places, not their own articles (nor is YBB proposing to give them each articles). Drill Bit is unique for being an enemy that appeared in the game but is also a beta enemy, as it was given stats but never used in battle. Hope that clears things up. -- Son of Suns (talk) So its not just a list, but an article that has the information on Beta Enemies instead of separate articles? I think that would be good. But then, would we still cover unused Drill Bit information in that article? --Yoshario (talk)
Alright, I like that idea, better remove my oppose. Yoshario (talk) Instead of creating another page, how about having a sub section in the Beta Elements page? They would classify in that category, but would things get a little too complicated? Super-Yoshi (talk) Arend: Are you sure you voted under the right header? Supporting means the enemies will get a page separate from the Beta Elements, but it sounds like you want them as part of the main Elements page only (which is the current policy, as far as I know)... - Walkazo (talk)
I have AR codes for a beta Red Koopa in Sm64ds!Not to mention beta hat boxes.Too bad my AR broke....Ninja Yoshi (talk) Worlds and levelsmerge articles 7-6 Proposer: YourBuddyBill (talk) Merge
Split
CommentsUgh, this would destroy all my hard work to make Mt. Teapot Featured. But unfortunately it's a good idea. Blech. Kombatgod (talk) I think it is wrong thinking of merging or splitting everything. Like any other section in every page, if a section about a zone is too large, it'll need an article, if it fits well in the page of the world it'll remain a section. It is fool to have lots of stub pages just because we decided to split them all, or to have incredibly large articles just because we decided to merge. I think the only point is how long should a zone section be to become an article?
Change Calendar to Featured Images on Main Pagechange to featured images 18-2 Proposer: Son of Suns (talk) Change to Featured Images
Keep Calendar
CommentsWhy don't do BOTH? there's enough space when you see it on my webbrowser. Arend (talk)
While we're on the subject of the main page, should we consider removing the QOTD? It's not even a QOTD, just a random quote generated each time. We could also do something like change the coding and add an actual quote, rather than DPL. Super-Yoshi (talk)
I do the Calendar of Events for the Shroom, which was released last month. I could edit it, because I'd love to bring some peace to editing the Main Page!! Check out my Proposal below!! Corka Cola (talk)
Corka Cola: Perhaps for this month's issue you can add some info from the Main Page's calendar Tucayo (talk) Let Members Go Through Main Page To Eliminate Unwanted Sectionsno voting 1-8 Proposer: Corka Cola (talk) Let Voting Take Place
Leave As Is
CommentsI am seeing disorganizatiopn in editing the Main Page, disgust in Members based on what it contains. Let's just see what the people want.Corka Cola (talk)
Change 60-Day Rule to One Monthchange rule 6-0
Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk) Change to One Month
Keep at 60 DaysCommentsThis is not overturning the decision made about a month ago to make a rule to make the limit 60 days. The original intent of that proposal was to change the limit from 6 months to 60 days. This is only changing the limit, and not making it 6 months again. - Previously unsigned comment signed by Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Thank you SoS. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Yep, the Mario Kart naming proposal was shot down because it did not offer an alternative policy to the previous proposal. The previous was not simply about changing the name of articles, but established a policy about how all current and future articles should be named. As there was no rule before (I think...I'm not sure), someone could propose a policy to replace it at anytime, but it would need to be a clear system or policy, not simply change article title X to Y (i.e., overturn the previous decision for a small class of articles). A new policy would not overturn the previous proposal and can be issued if need be - to overturn it would mean a proposal calling for the elimination of standard naming conventions (which the Mario Kart proposal was essentially calling for by upsetting the standard). -- Son of Suns (talk) Tucayo, this is Super Mario Bros. (talk). I am letting your vote count. I am sorry I kept on pestering you to take it down. I decided to let your vote count because I saw some of your votes on other proposals and I think you have a good voting record, and I feel like a jerk trying to insist to take your vote away. Besides, you are the only one at this point that opposes my proposal, so I guess it would be ok to let your vote count. Also, nobody besides myself has really made this thing a big ordeal, so I am retracting my argument. Once again, I am sorry for making a huge thing out of something little. Clear Majority Ruleset "clear majority" rule 14-0 Proposers: Walkazo (talk) and Super Mario Bros. (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWhat happens if it is still tied or there is no clear majority after another week? -- Son of Suns (talk)
"It seems ridiculous that a change that big passed by a single vote. I've been meaning to propose a new rule saying that if a proposal has more than 10 votes, it can only pass or fail by some sort of margin (maybe by 3 or 5 votes) so that only clear majorities result in changes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and it's a close race (i.e. 13 vs. 14) then the proposal would be extended a few more days (again, 3 might be a good number). That way, we won't have to worry about flip-flopping on issues every month; it also deals with ties, which we don't have any official stance on at the moment." - If you're gonna use my idea, Super Mario Bros., at least have the decency to give me credit, because otherwise it's intellectual theft and if you do it in real life you can get in serious trouble (for example, if you're caught plagiarizing in University you get expelled). - Walkazo (talk)
Son of Suns: The official stance would be to extend the deadline by another week, but the practical thing to do would be that the proposer remove the proposal and rework it, taking into consideration all the arguments for and against it so that they could find a way to appease more Users and reach a clear majority next time (which, as the proposal was removed and not passed or failed, could come at any time without a 30/60 day buffer period). I've found turning all the arguments for and against the proposal into a chart and matching points and counter-points/rebuttals makes it easier to get a clearer idea of which of those arguments are strong and which are weak, and how to address the entire thing more effectively. I know I don't need to tell you how to reason, SoS, but I just thought I'd put my strategy out there anyway. - Walkazo (talk)
Just to be clear, does it need ten votes total, or ten votes for just one side? Twentytwofiftyseven (talk)
I like the idea, but I see a potential failing: if the proposal is consistently supported by only a one or two vote margin, then it will be hopelessly deadlocked, which is pretty much the same as failing. But that doesn't make sense, because it did get a favorable majority. In this situation, perhaps we could (and I know that this won't always be possible) try to reach some sort of compromise on the issue to circumvent potential logjams. -- The Great Gonzales (talk)
Merge or Delete Demo Articlesmerge 5-2-1 Proposer: Yoshario (talk) Merge them into one Article
Keep as it is
Delete
CommentsZafum: Thats why they should be merged in 1 article, because they appear in SSBB, so theyre part of the Marioverse, the articles dont give complete info as if it were a Mario game, its just saying what appears in the demo, have you seen them? Tucayo (talk) "...they appear in SSBB, so theyre part of the Marioverse..." Please explain this assertion. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) DKC T.V. Show Episodesdon't merge 1-5
Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk) Merge
Leave As Is
CommentsI added a note on my proposal above. Besides, the articles for the episodes are not supposed to tell a whole story, but rather give a brief summary, which is why most of the articles are stubs. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Add a script projectadd script project 10-0 I know we've already got quotes all over the wiki, but this is where it all comes together, in order of context and such. This would be a useful resource for Mario fans to follow storylines, find their favorite jokes, etc. This would be especially handy for the more text-heavy games like the RPG games or Super Mario Sunshine. However, games that ultilise extensive emphasis methods may be a bit tricky, as do situations where the current character in control affects the dialogue. As an example of a script format, I've written up a full transcript of Thudley's dialogue when you first meet him in Super Paper Mario, complete with character-specific variants (dialogue following character names in brackets are specific to the character that the dialogue is directed at). The italicised text were presented in the game as shaky text, and the bold are text where the letters jump out at you when written out in the game. Here is my example:
So what do you think? Should we allow transcripts, and if we do, find ways to translate any kind of emphasis into the format? Proposer: NES Boy (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsAs you said, it would be dificult to transcript those that involve character decisions, so that will make some scripts to be missing Tucayo (talk) I don't know if there would be problems with copyright and stuff, but apart from that it sounds like a great idea that could be useful for the wiki. I'm actually already working on a script of Mario is Missing!. Time Q (talk) Make an Official Stance On Tiesextend deadline 5-0 Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk) Let Ties Pass ProposalsLet Ties Fail ProposalsLet Deadline Be Extended
Against Creating New RuleCommentsBut, Tucayo (talk), on the other hand, if a lot of people vote against a proposal and that means it is a bad proposal; a lot of people vote for a proposal, it must have a good idea/rule to implement. So that is where I say that there is no definition of a "good" or "bad" proposal is, as whether it is good or bad is a matter of opinion. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Add a character battleno character battle 1-7 As I already told you, I liked that, so, I was wondering if we, here in the Mariowiki, could *ehem ehem* create an article like this. I gave you the link so that you can visit it in Zeldapedia. So...........what do you think? Should we create our on Mario character battle or not? Any special questions in my talk. Proposer: Supermariofan14 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsPerhaps this idea could be incorporated into the 'Shroom? Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Actually, Walkazo has a decent idea there. A bracket of sorts could be placed on the forums while the actual voting could be held via the Poll, kind of like the GFAQs Character Battles. Might be a fun little time waster. -- Ghost Jam (talk) Policy on Soundtracksno coverage 2-0-6-0
Therefore, I propose we instate one of the following alternative policies:
Proposer: Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) Cropped Soundtracks
Degraded QualityNo Coverage
Leave as-isDiscussiondegraded copies make the wiki look degraded. Lu-igi board 10:08, 26 April 2009 (EDT) Lu-igi board: It's what Wikipedia does, that's really why I suggested it. Zafum: What do you plan to do about the tracks with no names, and how do you plan to solve the copyright issue? Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) I'm a little divided on the subject. I can understand the issue about MP3s on the wiki, however I'm not sure that removing the soundtrack pages altogether would be beneficial. (I'm mainly divided because I think I might be able to help contribute, meaning supply things like album covers and possibly some corrections on track details.) I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this, and thereafter I will make a decision. Neurario (talk)
While I have no opinion on including or excluding samples of tracks, I feel that we DO need to expand our OST sections a bit, particularly to try and fill out the merchandise categories. --Ghost Jam (talk) Make rules for Poll Selectionmake rules 8-0
Proposer: Zafum (talk) Make Rules
Leave As IsCommentsNew User Rankingdo not add new user ranking 3-8
The rank, if this proposal passes, would probably be called Assistant-Patrollers or Monitors and would be ranked below Patrollers but above regular users. This ranking would bring minor things on the wiki up to date and help Patrollers with their duties. For more information on the proposed position, please check this page. Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk) Create New Ranking
Don't Create New Ranking
CommentsI am not sure if this falls under the promotions rule of proposals, I do remember a proposal about Patrollers, though. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
-- Stooben Rooben (talk)
I hope that explains everything. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Cool, thanks for elaborating.
-- Stooben Rooben (talk)
But, what I am saying, is that the Wiki has been slow, and that a new ranking could possibly help. Some users might think that they shouldn't do stuff if they don't have a fancy title (which I think would be dumb, but very well might be true). Some users who qualify for Patroller never get promoted, (and one user, who's name I will not state, was never promoted, did a lot on the wiki. He has retired and considered himself a failure). Besides, as I said, even a tiny position such as the proposed Monitor can have a big effect on the wiki. If the Patroller ranking was deleted, then why was it added back to the wiki? It was considered a small position to the wiki, but when it was deleted, people realized that change. So, yes, even a minor position can have a big effect . Super Mario Bros. (talk)
I'd also like to point out you simple can't create a new rank out of the blue, you need a plugin for that. --Blitzwing 07:08, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
The extension is right here; it's still compatible with our version of MediaWiki. Personally, I doubt that activity will increase because of a new rank. But, I do believe that it will 1) Give users something even more to look forward to, and 2) it will make vandalism easier to revert for some users. Sure, it may only be a few seconds' difference, but the shortest amount of time seems to make all the difference at times. -- Stooben Rooben (talk)
Dark boo (talk) As I said above this could really inprove the wiki by making more active users.
Dark boo (talk) yea it may not make more active users its just I personilly think that it has a good chance of makeing users more active, just my oppion.
Despite I'm opposing the proposal, it's possible you might refer to an user who can be under the rank of a patroller, but higher than a normal user, able to get some new features, and the best fitting would be the rollback feature. Users sometimes consider that undoing a revision is a bit cumbersome, specially when the article is long, and requires a lot of time to save the undone work. The disadvantage of using the undo option is that only appears when you compare the two last revisions, and sometimes the info contained in an article is really long and it takes long time waiting to undo the las revision. Still, we have the rollback feature which is faster, and doesn't require to compare the latest revisions, because you can "undo" all the revisions made by an user. In wikipedia, those users that have this action are known as Rollbackers, and perhaps it can be implemented here for those active users who are always checking the history of pages. Coincollector (talk)
However, going to my comment (why I'm opposing) is that I'm not pretty sure if many active users should deserve this special ranking (specially if they gain faith from administrators and bureaucrats, beacuse maybe we are giving those privileges to the wrong hands); while sometimes, patrollers claim that their rank status is boring, giving a response that another specific rank shouldn't be set here. By the way, how could consider Porplemontage (talk) if we need another new ranking? Coincollector (talk)
And besides, you mentioned that some Patrollers find their job boring. Does that mean that we should exclude that ranking? I think that, though some users would not like being a monitor and find the position boring, it can still help the wiki. Some people, if the proposal passes and monitors are appointed, might think that the position is fun. I think it is definitely more efficient. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Creating Pages for Galleriesmove large galleries to sub-pages 10-0 Proposer: Coincollector (talk) Agree
DisagreeCommentsI think it would make sense to make those gallery pages sub-pages of the article where the images were taken from. For example, Luigi's gallery should be put on a page called "Luigi/Gallery". Time Q (talk)
Oh happy me! Someone used my left-out and obscure idea for this freaking proposal! XD (with the exception of St00bs) A question or two, is it categories or pages? Categories...? Images would be marked as if they have no article to attach to. ;o And then... I would cry and say, HOW COULD YOU?!!!!?! </being dramatic because of his work of uploading images> So... any questions? :) RAP (talk)
I just have one question. Would you do the same for screenshots or only artwork?If you do would they have sepreate galleries or be part of the same? I guess it matters on the amount of artwork and screenshots. - Yoshi96 (talk)
|