MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/18: Difference between revisions
(archiving) |
m (Text replacement - "== ([^=])" to "== $1") |
||
(31 intermediate revisions by 12 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> | ||
=== Different Version Characters === | === Different Version Characters === | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|17-2|support}} | |||
In the Mario film and also in the Mario cartoons, there are versions of characters that are not necessarily the same characters from the character's real media. Such as: | In the Mario film and also in the Mario cartoons, there are versions of characters that are not necessarily the same characters from the character's real media. Such as: | ||
*The princess in the Mario film basically has all of the qualities Peach would have with a few exceptions including her name. | *The princess in the Mario film basically has all of the qualities Peach would have with a few exceptions including her name. | ||
Line 25: | Line 17: | ||
If there's any confusion, ask. This proposal was made from ides of numerous users on the comments of previous confusion from the original proposal made by Redstar. | If there's any confusion, ask. This proposal was made from ides of numerous users on the comments of previous confusion from the original proposal made by Redstar. | ||
'''Proposer:''' [[User:ForeverDaisy09|FD09]]<br> | '''Proposer:''' [[User:ForeverDaisy09|FD09]]<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' 1 December 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' 1 December 2009, 17:00 | ||
Line 77: | Line 68: | ||
:::I love how you say I am so wrong. There are many things that the majority has wanted that hasn't been right. Now, while I will refrain on calling your proposal biased towards your wanting to separate media so much, I will say that we should follow the way that is more in accordance with our rules. Either way, we are making speculation, but what ultimately matters is which side would add more speculation. The way I see it, these characters were given names by the creators. In example, we cannot just go and say that the Bowser from the movie is not Bowser. Although he did not look like Bowser, that is who he is based on. Whether you like it or not, we have been given their names and their characters are in the movie. Princess Daisy, although she may look, act, and appear to be Peach, was given the name Daisy. One major plotline that would support this is that Daisy goes out with Luigi, and although this may be because the writers didn't want to make it look like a creepy old dude going out with a young girl (don't worry Walkazo, I'm not stealing this from you. I'm borrowing the saying), but Nintendo itself added the idea of a possible romance between Luigi and Daisy. It is horrendous to go and say that Daisy ''could'' be the Daisy in the movie, when we are ''told'' it is Daisy. Let me finish with a quote: "Don't know what else to tell ya, guy. Yes it is your OPINION. And here opinion is majority rule. Clearly you are in the wrong." {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | :::I love how you say I am so wrong. There are many things that the majority has wanted that hasn't been right. Now, while I will refrain on calling your proposal biased towards your wanting to separate media so much, I will say that we should follow the way that is more in accordance with our rules. Either way, we are making speculation, but what ultimately matters is which side would add more speculation. The way I see it, these characters were given names by the creators. In example, we cannot just go and say that the Bowser from the movie is not Bowser. Although he did not look like Bowser, that is who he is based on. Whether you like it or not, we have been given their names and their characters are in the movie. Princess Daisy, although she may look, act, and appear to be Peach, was given the name Daisy. One major plotline that would support this is that Daisy goes out with Luigi, and although this may be because the writers didn't want to make it look like a creepy old dude going out with a young girl (don't worry Walkazo, I'm not stealing this from you. I'm borrowing the saying), but Nintendo itself added the idea of a possible romance between Luigi and Daisy. It is horrendous to go and say that Daisy ''could'' be the Daisy in the movie, when we are ''told'' it is Daisy. Let me finish with a quote: "Don't know what else to tell ya, guy. Yes it is your OPINION. And here opinion is majority rule. Clearly you are in the wrong." {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} | ||
:"Don't know what else to tell ya, guy. Yes it is your OPINION. And here opinion is majority rule. Clearly you are in the wrong". Hey look, I'm doing it too! ...? I don't really need to discuss it with you considering your opinion is, as they say, set in stone. [[User:ForeverDaisy09|FD09]] | :"Don't know what else to tell ya, guy. Yes it is your OPINION. And here opinion is majority rule. Clearly you are in the wrong". Hey look, I'm doing it too! ...? I don't really need to discuss it with you considering your opinion is, as they say, set in stone. [[User:ForeverDaisy09|FD09]] | ||
---- | |||
===Merge Traps and Obstacles pages to super-article=== | ===Merge Traps and Obstacles pages to super-article=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-5|no merge}} | |||
These pages are usually quite small and would be better suited if merged to a super-article. This would allow them to be better located as well as cut down on needless articles covering every minor aspect of the games. | These pages are usually quite small and would be better suited if merged to a super-article. This would allow them to be better located as well as cut down on needless articles covering every minor aspect of the games. | ||
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Redstar|Redstar]]<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' December 1, 2009, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' December 1, 2009, 17:00 | ||
Line 121: | Line 112: | ||
::Actually, in an article about a platform, we could list all the different types of platforms that appear in the games. But forget about that. Why can't we merge the obstacle articles into the game they appear in, instead of a "super -article". Or perhaps a sub article about obstacles on a certain game. Like for Yoshi's Island(the game) it could be, Yoshi's Island/obstacles, just like we did for beta stuff. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | ::Actually, in an article about a platform, we could list all the different types of platforms that appear in the games. But forget about that. Why can't we merge the obstacle articles into the game they appear in, instead of a "super -article". Or perhaps a sub article about obstacles on a certain game. Like for Yoshi's Island(the game) it could be, Yoshi's Island/obstacles, just like we did for beta stuff. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | ||
:::Something like that could work, but many platforms, obstacles, and traps make multiple appearances throughout the series. I really just want to get most of these articles placed somewhere where they can provide more general information. I really don't see the point in have them all separated, so alternative proposals are fine by me. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 01:12, 29 November 2009 (EST | :::Something like that could work, but many platforms, obstacles, and traps make multiple appearances throughout the series. I really just want to get most of these articles placed somewhere where they can provide more general information. I really don't see the point in have them all separated, so alternative proposals are fine by me. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 01:12, 29 November 2009 (EST}} | ||
---- | |||
===Category Split=== | ===Category Split=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|15-0|split}} | |||
OK, this proposal is to propose that we split [[:Category:Featured Articles]] into Category:Featured Articles and Category:Featured images. I have no idea why featured ''images'' are categorized as featured ''articles'' but I just have this feeling that they should both get their own individual categories. The only change that would be needed to do this would be a little edit to {{tem|FI}}. This is an easy thing to do and will stop images from being categorized as articles.<br> | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' Friday December 4th, 2009 (8:00 EST) | '''Deadline:''' Friday December 4th, 2009 (8:00 EST) | ||
Line 150: | Line 143: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
---- | |||
===Removal of Support/Oppose Votes Votes=== | ===Removal of Support/Oppose Votes Votes=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
This proposal is to allow two things: | This proposal is to allow two things: | ||
#The removal of votes in the "Removal of Support/Oppose Votes" section. | #The removal of votes in the "Removal of Support/Oppose Votes" section. | ||
Line 160: | Line 152: | ||
Anyhow, here are my points: The Removal of Support/Oppose Votes section is not well-ruled and any vote goes ATM. I propose that we do one of three things, allow any user to create another section to remove that vote OR allow any user to just remove the vote as long as they put a comment in the comments section as to why OR allow admins to remove the votes as long as they put a comment in the comments section. Same thing goes for my second thing that I am proposing because we really need to define some rules for these sections. | Anyhow, here are my points: The Removal of Support/Oppose Votes section is not well-ruled and any vote goes ATM. I propose that we do one of three things, allow any user to create another section to remove that vote OR allow any user to just remove the vote as long as they put a comment in the comments section as to why OR allow admins to remove the votes as long as they put a comment in the comments section. Same thing goes for my second thing that I am proposing because we really need to define some rules for these sections. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' Friday December 11th, 2009 (18:00) | '''Deadline:''' Friday December 11th, 2009 (18:00)<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' December 5, 2009, 04:00 GMT | |||
====Removal of Votes==== | ====Removal of Votes==== | ||
Line 187: | Line 180: | ||
:I don't really understand the proposal (probably because what it's trying to deal with is complete nonsense in itself), but you're right: something needs to be done. However, that something is to merely rewrite Rule 4, and seeing as this issue has destabalized the entire Proposals page, it might be best if the Admins are left to deal with it behind the scenes. This proposal is well-meaning and your desire to right the wrongs is appreciated, but it will make things happen a lot faster if you simply remove it - that way, we won't have to wait a week to take action. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :I don't really understand the proposal (probably because what it's trying to deal with is complete nonsense in itself), but you're right: something needs to be done. However, that something is to merely rewrite Rule 4, and seeing as this issue has destabalized the entire Proposals page, it might be best if the Admins are left to deal with it behind the scenes. This proposal is well-meaning and your desire to right the wrongs is appreciated, but it will make things happen a lot faster if you simply remove it - that way, we won't have to wait a week to take action. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::OK, take it away admins! {{User|Marioguy1}} | ::OK, take it away admins! {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
---- | |||
===Make bestiaries or not?=== | ===Make bestiaries or not?=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|0-12|make bestiaries just for rpg's}} | |||
Ok so users have been arguing on if there should be a bestiary for enemies or not(like a collection of all the enemies from a game in one article). Really, why do we need a bestiary? I'm not the best at explaining, but my reasons on why there shouldn't be a bestiary are below. | Ok so users have been arguing on if there should be a bestiary for enemies or not(like a collection of all the enemies from a game in one article). Really, why do we need a bestiary? I'm not the best at explaining, but my reasons on why there shouldn't be a bestiary are below. | ||
Line 202: | Line 195: | ||
HOWEVER, games in the [[Paper Mario (series)|Paper Mario series]] and [[Super Mario RPG]] SHOULD have bestiaries because their games have psychopath thoughts/tattles and bestiaries. But yeah, no need for bestiaries on those other games. Happy voting! | HOWEVER, games in the [[Paper Mario (series)|Paper Mario series]] and [[Super Mario RPG]] SHOULD have bestiaries because their games have psychopath thoughts/tattles and bestiaries. But yeah, no need for bestiaries on those other games. Happy voting! | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Fawfulfury65}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Fawfulfury65}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' 5, December 2009, 15:00 | '''Deadline:''' 5, December 2009, 15:00 | ||
Line 297: | Line 289: | ||
Ok I agree that it should only be for Paper Mario games and SMRPG, but no other games, so my proposal wa, once again, edited. Hopefully, now I won't have to edit it anymore. So everyone can change their vote or whatever. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | Ok I agree that it should only be for Paper Mario games and SMRPG, but no other games, so my proposal wa, once again, edited. Hopefully, now I won't have to edit it anymore. So everyone can change their vote or whatever. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | ||
---- | |||
===What's a Koopa?=== | ===What's a Koopa?=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-9|do not merge koopa and koopa troopa}} | |||
I think that the pages [[Koopa]] and [[Koopa Troopa]] should be merged together because, frankly, what on earth is a Koopa? The page lists all of the sub-species of Koopa Troopas and that could be done on the page Koopa Troopa or not done at all because it is not necessary. When I think of Koopa, I think of turtle enemy-thing in Mario but this page does not describe the turtle-enemy thing, it describes its sub-species and all of those subspecies descriptions are one sentence long with {{tem|main}}! I think that Koopa=Koopa Troopa and I'm sure you will agree. | I think that the pages [[Koopa]] and [[Koopa Troopa]] should be merged together because, frankly, what on earth is a Koopa? The page lists all of the sub-species of Koopa Troopas and that could be done on the page Koopa Troopa or not done at all because it is not necessary. When I think of Koopa, I think of turtle enemy-thing in Mario but this page does not describe the turtle-enemy thing, it describes its sub-species and all of those subspecies descriptions are one sentence long with {{tem|main}}! I think that Koopa=Koopa Troopa and I'm sure you will agree. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' Friday December 11th, 2009 (8:00 EST) | '''Deadline:''' Friday December 11th, 2009 (8:00 EST) | ||
Line 332: | Line 323: | ||
:::I believe "Koopa", as suggested by the "Koopa tribe", is meant to encompass all the various turtle-races into a singular group. (Though, as far as we know, Piranha Plants could be Koopas as well under the "tribe") Koopa Troopas are just the catch-all, generic Koopa, which is why they can be called just Koopas. (Like in many sci-fi works, humans are so common that they're the "standard" in judging appearance and so on). I always just took the term Troopa, and thought it meant Koopa Troopas were "troopers"... Perhaps it's just a title? They're Koopas, unless they're a member of the Koopa ''Troop'', in which case they're "Troopas". Does that make sense? [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] | :::I believe "Koopa", as suggested by the "Koopa tribe", is meant to encompass all the various turtle-races into a singular group. (Though, as far as we know, Piranha Plants could be Koopas as well under the "tribe") Koopa Troopas are just the catch-all, generic Koopa, which is why they can be called just Koopas. (Like in many sci-fi works, humans are so common that they're the "standard" in judging appearance and so on). I always just took the term Troopa, and thought it meant Koopa Troopas were "troopers"... Perhaps it's just a title? They're Koopas, unless they're a member of the Koopa ''Troop'', in which case they're "Troopas". Does that make sense? [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] | ||
:::As far as I'm aware, "Koopa" in the Japanese games has always been no more than a name; that of [[Bowser]], to be exact. The mention of a "Koopa tribe" and names like "Koopa Troopa" are afaik exclusive to the English localisation (Koopa Troopas for instance are named Noko-Noko in Japan, Koopa Paratroopas are Pata-Pata), and I don't think it has ever been officially stated what a "Koopa" would be according to the translators. The closest information we can get is the Koopa Troopas being referred to as Koopas in SMW's ending, which as Redstar pointed out may just as well mean they are the most common members of a Koopa tribe (which would include other sub-species as well) as it may indicate that Koopa and Koopa Troopa refer to the same thing. No real clarity seems to come from official sources.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] | :::As far as I'm aware, "Koopa" in the Japanese games has always been no more than a name; that of [[Bowser]], to be exact. The mention of a "Koopa tribe" and names like "Koopa Troopa" are afaik exclusive to the English localisation (Koopa Troopas for instance are named Noko-Noko in Japan, Koopa Paratroopas are Pata-Pata), and I don't think it has ever been officially stated what a "Koopa" would be according to the translators. The closest information we can get is the Koopa Troopas being referred to as Koopas in SMW's ending, which as Redstar pointed out may just as well mean they are the most common members of a Koopa tribe (which would include other sub-species as well) as it may indicate that Koopa and Koopa Troopa refer to the same thing. No real clarity seems to come from official sources.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] | ||
Vellidragon: That's what [[Koopa (disambiguation)]] and {{tem| | Vellidragon: That's what [[Koopa (disambiguation)]] and {{tem|about}} are for :P<br> | ||
Redstar: All of that goes under [[Koopa Troop]]. {{User|Marioguy1}} | Redstar: All of that goes under [[Koopa Troop]]. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
:The Koopa Troop is the personal army of Bowser's (hence the "Troopa" part applied to Koopas that fight for him... Not that no Koopa that isn't sided with him has the Troopa part). The Koopa ''tribe'' would be a more broad grouping covering all Koopas regardless of political alignment. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] | :The Koopa Troop is the personal army of Bowser's (hence the "Troopa" part applied to Koopas that fight for him... Not that no Koopa that isn't sided with him has the Troopa part). The Koopa ''tribe'' would be a more broad grouping covering all Koopas regardless of political alignment. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] | ||
Line 338: | Line 329: | ||
:::King Bean: Can you elaborate on that? {{User|Marioguy1}} | :::King Bean: Can you elaborate on that? {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
Okay, how about this: Koopa is the species name for the generic-turtle enemies in the game, namely "Koopa Troopas". "Troopa", however, is a job title or position. Koopa Troopas are members of the Koopa Troop, making them troopers. This is supported by the Koopa Paratroopas, who take their name from paratroopers, or parachuting soldiers. This suggests that normal, wingless "Troopas" are also soldiers... Also take into account the RPG games, where we get most of our information. Enemy Koopa Troopas are specifically said to be working for Bowser. Compare this to Kent C. Koopa, an enemy that works alone, and note that his Tattle information calls him simply a "Koopa". No "Troopa" part. All the non-enemy Koopas in Koopa Village and, later, in Petalburg, are simply called Koopas. It seems highly likely that the difference is Koopa is species, and Troopa is title/position, much like the various "Bros." enemies carry the weapon or technique they use as a sort of job position-title. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] | Okay, how about this: Koopa is the species name for the generic-turtle enemies in the game, namely "Koopa Troopas". "Troopa", however, is a job title or position. Koopa Troopas are members of the Koopa Troop, making them troopers. This is supported by the Koopa Paratroopas, who take their name from paratroopers, or parachuting soldiers. This suggests that normal, wingless "Troopas" are also soldiers... Also take into account the RPG games, where we get most of our information. Enemy Koopa Troopas are specifically said to be working for Bowser. Compare this to Kent C. Koopa, an enemy that works alone, and note that his Tattle information calls him simply a "Koopa". No "Troopa" part. All the non-enemy Koopas in Koopa Village and, later, in Petalburg, are simply called Koopas. It seems highly likely that the difference is Koopa is species, and Troopa is title/position, much like the various "Bros." enemies carry the weapon or technique they use as a sort of job position-title. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] | ||
:Fawfulfury: I have read the articles over again, again and again and, whether you like it or not, Koopas and Koopa Troopas are the same thing; just because the article is a list of different types of the sub-species of Koopa Troopas doesn't make it a valid article in the slightest. I could very well put {{tem| | :Fawfulfury: I have read the articles over again, again and again and, whether you like it or not, Koopas and Koopa Troopas are the same thing; just because the article is a list of different types of the sub-species of Koopa Troopas doesn't make it a valid article in the slightest. I could very well put {{tem|stub}} under almost every single one of those sections! The article has many tiny sections displaying stuff that, if it should be here at all, should be under List of Koopa Troopa Subspecies. If you still believe in your cause; what's a koopa? I'll tell you what it is, it's a Koopa Troopa; that article was obviously made by someone who didn't know we had an article on Koopa Troopas already. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
::What makes that so "obvious"? I'd rather say the article was made by someone who believed "Koopa" to be a collective term for all the turtle-like enemies in the Mario games, which may or may not be true, since the games are rather vague on that.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] | ::What makes that so "obvious"? I'd rather say the article was made by someone who believed "Koopa" to be a collective term for all the turtle-like enemies in the Mario games, which may or may not be true, since the games are rather vague on that.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] | ||
:::Walkazo: Would you consent to having these articles merged but a "List of Koopa Troopa Subspecies" made? Because I think most people that type in "Koopa" are looking for a Koopa Troopa and not a list of their subspecies. We could add the list of subspecies to [[Koopa (disambiguation)]]. {{User|Marioguy1}} | :::Walkazo: Would you consent to having these articles merged but a "List of Koopa Troopa Subspecies" made? Because I think most people that type in "Koopa" are looking for a Koopa Troopa and not a list of their subspecies. We could add the list of subspecies to [[Koopa (disambiguation)]]. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
Line 350: | Line 341: | ||
::::No, "Troopas" ''is'' as meaningless as "Bros." in these respects, so the comparison is valid. As an example, I give you ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]]'': both [[Dark Koopa]]s and [[KP Koopa]]s are described as "Koopa Troopas" in their tattles, yet one is found exclusively in the [[Pit of 100 Trials (Rogueport)|Pit of 100 Trials]] and the other is only encountered in the [[Glitz Pit]], so they're hardly soldiers of the Koopa Troop. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ::::No, "Troopas" ''is'' as meaningless as "Bros." in these respects, so the comparison is valid. As an example, I give you ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]]'': both [[Dark Koopa]]s and [[KP Koopa]]s are described as "Koopa Troopas" in their tattles, yet one is found exclusively in the [[Pit of 100 Trials (Rogueport)|Pit of 100 Trials]] and the other is only encountered in the [[Glitz Pit]], so they're hardly soldiers of the Koopa Troop. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
:::::By the same token, [[Kent C. Koopa]] (an enemy not working for Bowser) is described by his Tattle description to be the "Biggest Koopa ever". The Troopa-nomer is absent. So, really, both our arguments are supported and it's only localization and Nintendo that make it vague. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] | :::::By the same token, [[Kent C. Koopa]] (an enemy not working for Bowser) is described by his Tattle description to be the "Biggest Koopa ever". The Troopa-nomer is absent. So, really, both our arguments are supported and it's only localization and Nintendo that make it vague. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] | ||
---- | |||
===Merge RPG Boss Aspects With Main Boss Articles=== | ===Merge RPG Boss Aspects With Main Boss Articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|blue|invalidated due to breaking rule #11}} | |||
This proposal is for support of moving a particular type of boss minion (as explained below) in the RPG games to their related main boss article. This is because these particular minions are ''only'' encountered in battle alongside bosses, because their Tattle information suggests they are either a part of or actually are the boss, because the main boss article is lacking complete information, and finally, because the splitting of these minions has largely resulted in stubs. | This proposal is for support of moving a particular type of boss minion (as explained below) in the RPG games to their related main boss article. This is because these particular minions are ''only'' encountered in battle alongside bosses, because their Tattle information suggests they are either a part of or actually are the boss, because the main boss article is lacking complete information, and finally, because the splitting of these minions has largely resulted in stubs. | ||
Line 377: | Line 368: | ||
If anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to use the Comments section below. Hopefully I provided enough information to make a decision. If you agree with this proposal in general, but you don't agree with some of the merges or are wary of the reason ''why'', feel free to comment about it and we can discuss it. This is a big proposal and I don't want anyone Opposing if they don't agree with just one aspect. | If anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to use the Comments section below. Hopefully I provided enough information to make a decision. If you agree with this proposal in general, but you don't agree with some of the merges or are wary of the reason ''why'', feel free to comment about it and we can discuss it. This is a big proposal and I don't want anyone Opposing if they don't agree with just one aspect. | ||
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Redstar|Redstar]]<br> | '''Proposer:''' [[User:Redstar|Redstar]]<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' <s>December 8, 2009, 17:00</s> '''Extended:''' December 15, 2009, 17:00 | '''Proposed Deadline:''' <s>December 8, 2009, 17:00</s> '''Extended:''' December 15, 2009, 17:00 | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' December 14, 2009, 20:38 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 490: | Line 481: | ||
@Waluigi Guy: Most of the articles you suggested to merge weren't even stubs... {{User|Lemmy Koopa Fan}} | @Waluigi Guy: Most of the articles you suggested to merge weren't even stubs... {{User|Lemmy Koopa Fan}} | ||
---- | |||
===Make a Limit for the Length of Comments on this page=== | ===Make a Limit for the Length of Comments on this page=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|5-12|leave as is}} | |||
Okay, I know I'm not the only one who's noticed this, but I'm going to be the one to do something about it. The proposal comments have gotten ridiculous. Comments aren't supposed to be these insanely long paragraphs that argue with what the other users may say. It takes a long time to scroll down all the comments, and then it's hard to even find where one proposal starts and one ends (At least that's the impression I get)! And it's just missing the point when half the comments in the section are not even about the said proposal! | Okay, I know I'm not the only one who's noticed this, but I'm going to be the one to do something about it. The proposal comments have gotten ridiculous. Comments aren't supposed to be these insanely long paragraphs that argue with what the other users may say. It takes a long time to scroll down all the comments, and then it's hard to even find where one proposal starts and one ends (At least that's the impression I get)! And it's just missing the point when half the comments in the section are not even about the said proposal! | ||
Here's what I want to do about it: | Here's what I want to do about it: | ||
Line 500: | Line 491: | ||
*Comments that have nothing to do with the proposal should be deleted. This includes arguments about deleting votes. That stuff should be done on Talk Pages. | *Comments that have nothing to do with the proposal should be deleted. This includes arguments about deleting votes. That stuff should be done on Talk Pages. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|FunkyK38}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|FunkyK38}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' Monday, Dec. 14, 2009 (8:00 EST) | '''Deadline:''' Monday, Dec. 14, 2009 (8:00 EST) | ||
Line 537: | Line 527: | ||
Imposing character limits on comments just seems to go too far. My idea for a /Comments page work, but a show/hide tag, as suggested by Tucayo, is quick and easy as well. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 10:28, 8 December 2009 (EST) | Imposing character limits on comments just seems to go too far. My idea for a /Comments page work, but a show/hide tag, as suggested by Tucayo, is quick and easy as well. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 10:28, 8 December 2009 (EST) | ||
The administrative staff will probably make a change to the proposal organization, so this proposal probably isn't necessary. {{User|Knife | The administrative staff will probably make a change to the proposal organization, so this proposal probably isn't necessary. {{User|Knife}} | ||
---- | |||
===Allow Support Votes to be Removed on Nomination Pages?=== | ===Allow Support Votes to be Removed on Nomination Pages?=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|4-6|no removing support votes}} | |||
For this proposal, I think that users should be able to vote for the removal of support votes on FA nomination pages. I mean, we can vote to remove oppose votes, but what about support votes! Users might support articles to become featured because they like that certain character that was nominated or they might not make a good reason on why they supported. Other users should have the right to choose on to delete those or not. | For this proposal, I think that users should be able to vote for the removal of support votes on FA nomination pages. I mean, we can vote to remove oppose votes, but what about support votes! Users might support articles to become featured because they like that certain character that was nominated or they might not make a good reason on why they supported. Other users should have the right to choose on to delete those or not. | ||
So, here's how it would go: Users can vote on if they want to remove a support votes or not. If three users, including an admin, support for the removal of that vote, we can delete it. Good, right? | So, here's how it would go: Users can vote on if they want to remove a support votes or not. If three users, including an admin, support for the removal of that vote, we can delete it. Good, right? | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Fawfulfury65}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Fawfulfury65}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009 (5:00 EST) | '''Deadline:''' Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009 (5:00 EST) | ||
Line 560: | Line 549: | ||
#{{user|Tucayo}} - I think our current policy is fine. | #{{user|Tucayo}} - I think our current policy is fine. | ||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Tucayo. Besides, the oppose votes are really what keep a page from getting features, not support votes. | #{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Tucayo. Besides, the oppose votes are really what keep a page from getting features, not support votes. | ||
#{{User|Time Q}}: I do NOT think our current policy is fine, since the proposal has passed that allowed admins to remove support votes. So of course I don't agree with this proposal either. I explained a thousand of times why removing support votes is pointless, and I'm tired of doing it again and again. Please read my reasons [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 16#Change FA removal of votes rules|here]]. In short: Support votes do no harm, and no, they should NOT be treated the same as oppose votes, since they serve a totally different purpose. Opposers need to state what is wrong about an article, but supporters CANNOT state what is "good" about an article without reciting the [[MarioWiki:Featured Articles#Featured Article Standards|FA requirements]], which would be pointless and redundant. | #{{User|Time Q}}: I do NOT think our current policy is fine, since the proposal has passed that allowed admins to remove support votes. So of course I don't agree with this proposal either. I explained a thousand of times why removing support votes is pointless, and I'm tired of doing it again and again. Please read my reasons [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/16#Change FA removal of votes rules|here]]. In short: Support votes do no harm, and no, they should NOT be treated the same as oppose votes, since they serve a totally different purpose. Opposers need to state what is wrong about an article, but supporters CANNOT state what is "good" about an article without reciting the [[MarioWiki:Featured Articles#Featured Article Standards|FA requirements]], which would be pointless and redundant. | ||
#{{user|Bloc Partier}} -- I can't think of any reason an admin would ever agree to remove a support, but still, the idea behind this proposal is pointless. Oppose votes are really the only ones that matter. Per Time Q. | #{{user|Bloc Partier}} -- I can't think of any reason an admin would ever agree to remove a support, but still, the idea behind this proposal is pointless. Oppose votes are really the only ones that matter. Per Time Q. | ||
#{{User|Redstar}} - If the reasoning Time Q provided, that an article cannot be featured without complete support, then I don't see a reason to change it now. Just make that a bit more clear or obvious. | #{{User|Redstar}} - If the reasoning Time Q provided, that an article cannot be featured without complete support, then I don't see a reason to change it now. Just make that a bit more clear or obvious. | ||
Line 590: | Line 579: | ||
T.c.w7468: I somehow like your idea, since there's indeed no real point in giving a reason when supporting a FA nomination. But I don't know if the reasons are that much of a problem really. {{User|Time Q}} | T.c.w7468: I somehow like your idea, since there's indeed no real point in giving a reason when supporting a FA nomination. But I don't know if the reasons are that much of a problem really. {{User|Time Q}} | ||
:I like it a lot. It does remove more clutter, I think. Perhaps a rule that only the first five supports must have reasons? Since those are the only ones that really ''need'' to count anyway. I dunno, just a suggestion. {{user|Bloc Partier}} | :I like it a lot. It does remove more clutter, I think. Perhaps a rule that only the first five supports must have reasons? Since those are the only ones that really ''need'' to count anyway. I dunno, just a suggestion. {{user|Bloc Partier}} | ||
---- | |||
===Split the colored enemies=== | ===Split the colored enemies=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-10|do not split}} | |||
It has come to my attention that while articles for each of the differently colored Yoshis exist, other colored variations of enemies, such as Toads and Shy Guys, do not. I know there's exeptions, but ignore those. Anyways, I ask this one question: why? For the Yoshis, there is very rarely a difference between them, as with the rest, yet they still get articles. If they get articles, so should the other characters. | It has come to my attention that while articles for each of the differently colored Yoshis exist, other colored variations of enemies, such as Toads and Shy Guys, do not. I know there's exeptions, but ignore those. Anyways, I ask this one question: why? For the Yoshis, there is very rarely a difference between them, as with the rest, yet they still get articles. If they get articles, so should the other characters. | ||
So I'd like to see some character articles be created. | So I'd like to see some character articles be created. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009 (5:00 EST) | '''Deadline:''' Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009 (5:00 EST) | ||
Line 643: | Line 632: | ||
It doesn't make sense. | It doesn't make sense. | ||
{{User|Gamefreak75}} | {{User|Gamefreak75}} | ||
---- | |||
===Rules and Regulations for Specific-Article Proposals=== | ===Rules and Regulations for Specific-Article Proposals=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|0-11-0|link to talk page proposals on mariowiki:proposals}} | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-0|amend rules for talk page proposals}} | |||
Since {{user|Redstar}} has (perhaps unintentionally) brought up the issue of proposals on specific pages (see [[Talk:Earth Crystal]] or [[Talk:Straw]]) and {{user|Walkazo}} has said that "talk page 'proposals' do have a habit of going unnoticed for months," I thought that a specific set of rules and regulations pertaining to talk page proposals. I'll give you a few ideas of what we could do, my solution, and then multiple options for voting. | Since {{user|Redstar}} has (perhaps unintentionally) brought up the issue of proposals on specific pages (see [[Talk:Earth Crystal]] or [[Talk:Straw]]) and {{user|Walkazo}} has said that "talk page 'proposals' do have a habit of going unnoticed for months," I thought that a specific set of rules and regulations pertaining to talk page proposals. I'll give you a few ideas of what we could do, my solution, and then multiple options for voting. | ||
Line 668: | Line 657: | ||
#Eliminate "Splits & Merges" section on [[MarioWiki:Proposals|this page]]. | #Eliminate "Splits & Merges" section on [[MarioWiki:Proposals|this page]]. | ||
#Use "talk page proposals" to split and merge articles. | #Use "talk page proposals" to split and merge articles. | ||
#Have the templates {{tem| | #Have the templates {{tem|merge to}}, {{tem|merge from}} and <nowiki>{{Split}}</nowiki> used on the articles to display a talk page proposal on the article. | ||
As you can see in the voting section, I have given you a few options. Each should be explained sufficiently, but, if it is not, I will try my best to help you understand. | As you can see in the voting section, I have given you a few options. Each should be explained sufficiently, but, if it is not, I will try my best to help you understand. | ||
Line 674: | Line 663: | ||
Note: Only if Part 1 passes will Part 2 be viable. | Note: Only if Part 1 passes will Part 2 be viable. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Bloc Partier}} with additions from {{user|Walkazo}}, {{user|Redstar}}, and {{user|Marioguy1}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Bloc Partier}} with additions from {{user|Walkazo}}, {{user|Redstar}}, and {{user|Marioguy1}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' December 25, 2009, 20:00 | '''Deadline:''' December 25, 2009, 20:00 | ||
Line 703: | Line 691: | ||
#Eliminate "Splits & Merges" section on [[MarioWiki:Proposals|this page]]. | #Eliminate "Splits & Merges" section on [[MarioWiki:Proposals|this page]]. | ||
#Use "talk page proposals" to split and merge articles. | #Use "talk page proposals" to split and merge articles. | ||
#Have the templates {{tem| | #Have the templates {{tem|merge to}}, {{tem|merge from}} and <nowiki>{{Split}}</nowiki> used on the articles to display a talk page proposal on the article. | ||
#I can wire something up that will automatically update the proposals page where you list all of this (no matter where you list it) with all the new talk page proposals. | #I can wire something up that will automatically update the proposals page where you list all of this (no matter where you list it) with all the new talk page proposals. | ||
:::This would format it perfectly. We could replace the Splits & Merges header with either of the options above (Link to "MarioWiki:Proposals/Talk Page Proposals" or put the list right under the header), and it would regulate the practice of S&M's much more. With all this discussion, I'll revise the proposal while I still can. I'd just like to see your thoughts on MG1's stuff first. {{user|Bloc Partier}} | :::This would format it perfectly. We could replace the Splits & Merges header with either of the options above (Link to "MarioWiki:Proposals/Talk Page Proposals" or put the list right under the header), and it would regulate the practice of S&M's much more. With all this discussion, I'll revise the proposal while I still can. I'd just like to see your thoughts on MG1's stuff first. {{user|Bloc Partier}} | ||
::::I like MG1's stuff for some reason :P {{User|Marioguy1}} | ::::I like MG1's stuff for some reason :P {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
As you can see [[User:Twentytwofiftyseven/Test|here]], 2257 has wired up a list of all things with {{tem| | As you can see [[User:Twentytwofiftyseven/Test|here]], 2257 has wired up a list of all things with {{tem|merge to}} and what they are to be merged to {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
:Just for the record, how will these talk page proposals be archived? {{User|Marioguy1}} | :Just for the record, how will these talk page proposals be archived? {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
::Probably how we're already doing it: simply moving the discussion to the new page with notice tags on the top and bottom, as seen on the Elemental Crystals talk page: [[Talk:Elemental Crystals]]. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 01:14, 24 December 2009 (EST) | ::Probably how we're already doing it: simply moving the discussion to the new page with notice tags on the top and bottom, as seen on the Elemental Crystals talk page: [[Talk:Elemental Crystals]]. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 01:14, 24 December 2009 (EST) | ||
Line 774: | Line 762: | ||
Will the proposals concerning merging that were set up before this proposal was created have to be extended another week, or will they occupy a "grandfather's clause" of sorts and be allowed to end as voted? [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 03:59, 26 December 2009 (EST) | Will the proposals concerning merging that were set up before this proposal was created have to be extended another week, or will they occupy a "grandfather's clause" of sorts and be allowed to end as voted? [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 03:59, 26 December 2009 (EST) | ||
---- | |||
===Categories: List of Implied ...=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|16-0|delete categories}} | |||
I propose that the following rategories be removed without replacement: | |||
*[[:Category:List of Implied Characters]] | |||
*[[:Category:List of Implied Entertainment]] | |||
*[[:Category:List of Implied Events]] | |||
*[[:Category:List of Implied Items]] | |||
*[[:Category:List of Implied Locations]] | |||
*[[:Category:List of Implied Organizations]] | |||
*[[:Category:List of Implied People]] | |||
*[[:Category:List of Implied Species]] | |||
Here are my reasons: | |||
#Each of those categories has only one article entry total, the respective [[List of Implied Characters]] etc. It doesn't look like those lists need to have their very own category each. They can just have both [[:Category:Implied]] and [[:Category:Lists]]. | |||
#Some have subcategories. Those subcategories are [[:Category:Implied Characters]] etc. I don't see how those can be categorised as "List of ..." because an implied character is not a list. Just remove the List category and add [[:Category:Implied]], as above. | |||
So overall I see no reason for them to exist. They have no possible entries. If you want to categorize the redirects, [[:Category:Implied Characters]] is the way to go, but this is pointless. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Cobold}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' Saturday, December 26th, 2009, 20:00 EST | |||
====Support Removal==== | |||
#{{User|Cobold}} - per above. | |||
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Per Cobold. I think I understood what the meaning behind this categories is, but I also think that this sort of organization is not necessary. | |||
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - Per all stated above! | |||
#{{User|Dry Paratroopa}} - Oh definitely. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Cobold. Each list does not need a category unto itself, and categorizing the redirects going to that list is equally pointless because the list page's Table of Contents already works as a built-in index to these subjects. | |||
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per Cobold. | |||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Cobold. | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - This is like a merge :D, Per Co-Bald | |||
#{{user|Coincollector}} - since implied elements' info are being gathered into single articles, using these categories is, therefore, unnecessary. | |||
#{{User|Vellidragon}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Ralphfan}} – These implied things are rarely even mentioned; why do we need them? | |||
#{{User|GigaMetalLuigi}} - Support removal of Implied Characters, Entertainment, Items, Locations, People. Honestly, if the main category already has these already mentioned and covers it in the main article then no need to post it again on another page, just a waste of space. | |||
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} PEr Cobold. | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! We are a wiki not a wikia so the categories should be removed and put into one category; there is only one implies location, character, events, etc. Zero signing out. | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|King Bean}} Per all. | |||
====Oppose Removal==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
I'll support this as well, but I also feel we should do an overhaul on the categorization system in general. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 00:01, 20 December 2009 (EST) | |||
:I fully agree, but I've been to busy to concept anything about a new category system lately, while the rest of the staff has been focused on overhauling navigation templates and user pages for now. It's definitely on our list. - {{User|Cobold}} 14:05, 20 December 2009 (EST) | |||
---- | |||
===Change naming convention for power-up form articles=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-5|keep as is}} | |||
Currently, we define the articles for various forms of characters upon power-up with the title of "Form Mario". This is ultimately misleading because many characters besides Mario have been shown to make use of different power-ups and wear the same form, yet we choose to use Mario as the catch-all despite him not being the official name for such a form, only the original user and most widely-known transformer. | |||
While this practice isn't necessarily ''bad'', it has resulted in some confusion on how exactly to merge and split the articles relating to the [[Metal Cap|metal]] [[Power Flower|form]]. For example, [[Metal Wario]] is currently being proposed to merge with [[Metal Mario]] due to the shared nature of those characters under that form. However, the Metal Mario page is also being proposed to be split with information on Metal Mario ''the character'' (as seen in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series and other media as a playable character). The problem resulting from this is that there would be two "Metal Mario" articles, or at least two very similarly named ones, with one being "Metal Mario" and covering the form, and the other being "Metal Mario (character)", which are both too similar to avoid confusion. | |||
Another problem arising from this standard in naming convention is the placement of alternate name tags at the top of the page. While these tags certainly serve their purpose, they are also an eye-sore. Seeing boxy tags of ''any'' kind at any point on a page makes me think the article is incomplete or under construction of some kind. It just pulls me out of the right mindframe of reading and ''enjoying'' an article. | |||
What this proposal is hoping to achieve is to change the current naming standard to one that more clearly and generally explains the contents of an article, as well as remove the need for the above explained tag. Any form a character can become upon use of a power-up, such as [[Frog Mario]], [[Metal Mario]], [[Fire Mario]], etc. will be re-named to "X Form". | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Redstar}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' December 26, 2009, 20:00 | |||
====Change Naming Convention for Forms==== | |||
#{{User|Redstar}} - Per proposal | |||
====Leave Naming Convention as it is==== | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} To be honest, I'd rather have it all x Mario, instead of x Form. I really never minded the templates on the page. Mario is the main character, so he should be the main names of the form. At least in my opinion. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - As vellidragon mentioned in the comments, the games default to "X Mario" even if Luigi (or other characters) can power-up too, and going with actual names is much better than making stuff up ourselves, as would be the case with "X Forms". At least the duality templates don't look as bad as speculation templates gracing our articles. Also, in the ''Wario'' games, only Wario powers-up, so changing those to "X Forms" would be folly, but leaving them as "X Wario" while "X Mario" gets converted would look inconsistent. | |||
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Meh, it sounds weird. How would Fire Form or Fat Form (LOL) sound. Bomb Form, Snowball Form, Burning Form, there's millions. | |||
#{{User|Vellidragon}} Per my comment below. The way it's currently done is the most official. | |||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} — Per Vellidragon. Besides, as long as {{tem|diff}} is used properly, it's easy to keep everything organized. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
What about merging the forms with the items that cause them? That way, we can avoid the unofficial "X Form" names. The only possible problem with this is if different items are used to make the same form in different games. The only example I could think of off the top of my head, however, is [[Dragon Wario]], and I think ''Wario''-series forms should remain unchanged anyway, seeing as those powerups aren't exactly the same as in the core ''Mario'' series (and they're always unique to Wario, so the arguments about duality don't apply to them). - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
:Mario becomes Metal Mario upon use of a [[Metal Cap]], while Wario does so through use of a [[Power Flower]]... While I do support the idea, and have thought about it myself before, I'm not sure if that type of merge would sit well with the majority of people. It does make sense, however to have a single comprehensive on a power-up, followed by a second half detailing its use in different media. Not the most controversial merge-idea, but I'm sure some people wouldn't like it. Discussion, as always, and we'll see. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 00:58, 19 December 2009 (EST) | |||
:I disagree with merging them with the power-ups; like Redstar pointed out, the forms can sometimes be caused by different power-ups. IIRC, the Fire/Super Mario transformation in the cartoons could be triggered by a [[Starman]] or even pasta. Not sure what to think about the renaming atm; it would get rid of the "alternative title" template thingy, but I'm not sure I like the "... Form" title very much. As far as I'm aware, manuals and strategy guides (at least older ones) have always used the "... Mario" naming scheme which we have on the Wiki right now (and if they didn't, they still used "... [character name]"); I'm not sure if "... Form" has ever been used in official sources. Imo, official terms should be used wherever they are known.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 10:44, 19 December 2009 (EST) | |||
::@Vellidragon: I don't like the term Form that much either, but it carries far more general areas than "X Mario", when clearly any number of characters can hold such forms. In any case, we already categorize the forms under [Category:Forms], under sub-category [Category:Mario's Transformations]. The main category at least acknowledges that they're forms, but the sub-category is pretty narrow. Again, Mario isn't the only one to use these forms. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 16:31, 19 December 2009 (EST) | |||
::@Walkazo: The thing is, saying that "Fire Mario" is the proper term is just as much "made-up" as "Fire Form" would be... Fire Mario, Frog Mario, Cape Mario, etc. were never names for the ''form'' itself, but for Mario himself when using the power-up. Assuming the name applies to the form as well is just stretching it too far. If we're going to "make-up" a term, I'd rather it be "form" so we can avoid confusion and using a tag that says "also known as" five times. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 22:27, 19 December 2009 (EST) | |||
:::I disagree: since things like "Fire Mario" appear in games and manuals, I think people will remember that term more easily and use it when they browse the Internet long before "Fire Form" occurs to them. Perhaps regular Users of the Super Mario Wiki will learn to use "X Form", but random guests probably won't, and they're the people we're trying to reach most of all. To the uninitiated, which is more welcoming, the familiar "Fire Mario" or an ambiguous "Fire Form"? That's what I mean my making stuff up: "Fire Mario" is straight from Nintendo, whereas "Fire Form" is taking a step beyond where they have gone, and if it's not canon, it's speculation, which is to be avoided at all costs. Nintendo is fine with using "X Mario" as a catch-all, and so should we. As for the [[template:Diff|Diff template]], I think it's merely a matter of personal opinion on how it impacts the pages; myself, I've always thought it was a nifty way to handle these issues, and if anything, they make me more interested in the following information and its duality. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
::::Well, I agree with "Form" being less official. Personally, I'm fine with the naming convention as it is now, but I was suggested to make this proposal just to get the issue settled so we can continue on with the proposals concerning [[Metal Mario]] and [[Metal Wario]]. I'm just playing Devil's advocate, you realize. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 23:50, 19 December 2009 (EST) | |||
:::::The way I see it, the Metal page issue isn't because of the name, but because of the form vs. character debate. I posted another possible solution on [[Talk:Metal Wario]] to that end. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
::::::Your exact solution is being discussed on the [[Talk:Metal Mario]] page, on whether or not we should split it into "Metal Mario (form)" and "Metal Mario (character)". Feel free to add your opinion there. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 23:57, 23 December 2009 (EST) | |||
:::::::Thanks - I forgot to re-read that discussion before commenting this time around. I'll be glad when we close the deal on these Metal pages: complex issues should not be discussed in three places at once... - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
---- | |||
===Change Gate Keeper back to Piranha Plant in the Generator=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|5-0|change to piranha plant in the generator}} | |||
Somehow, Piranha Plant in the Generator is not the name of the creatures because apparently one person read in some unnamed guide that their name was Gate Keeper so that obviously was their name. This Proposal was made to see if people think the name is Piranha Plant in the Generator or Gate Keeper. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Dry Paratroopa}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' Saturday, December 26th, 20:00 (8:00 pm) | |||
====Change back to Piranha Plant in the Generator==== | |||
#{{User|Dry Paratroopa}} - Per Proposal. | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Although Gate Keeper will be easier to type down, you are right, just because a guide book in one language said Gate Keeper it could be an error or they are called like that in only one language, so that doesn't mean to change the name of the article because of an error or name change. Zero signing out. | |||
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Where the hell did ''Gatekeeper'' come from? It doesn't even guard gates! Per DP and Zero777. | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Redstar}} "Gate Keeper" makes absolutely no sense. Change it back. | |||
====Keep as Gate Keeper==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
If it doesn't cover a general issue, only a singular one, I think this proposal would make more sense on the actual article's Discussion page. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 19:51, 19 December 2009 (EST) | |||
It would, but I'm kind of against talk page Proposals, because no one ever votes to those. For example, in the very talk page we're talking about there's a Proposal there and no one's voted yet as far as I'm aware of. {{User|Dry Paratroopa}} | |||
:If the name "Gate Keeper" is unofficial, there wouldn't even be a need for a vote and we could just move it back to an official name. Not everything needs to be decided by proposals. - {{User|Cobold}} | |||
::Yes I know but I'm not a sysop so I can't delete the pages so I can move it back (You can't move to an existing page). And besides no one else said anything on the talk page about moving it back so I was just checking to make sure I wasn't doing anything illegal. But of course, if I was so was that other guy... {{User|Dry Paratroopa}} | |||
:::You should be able to move over redirects though. But anyway, a proposal doesn't do any harm, it just stresses that everybody has the same opinion in cases like this. - {{User|Cobold}} | |||
::::Nope, it doesn;'t work. i just tried. I guess I'll just do it manually. {{User|Dry Paratroopa}} | |||
---- | |||
===Featured Image Rules=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-4|use current ruleset}} | |||
Many of you may be wondering why I put this in the "New Features" section and that is because we currently have ''no'' rules for Featured Images (except "must be in a mainspace page" and "no fanart". Everything needs rules and FIs are no exceptions. Here is my ruleset: | |||
#No re-nominating an image for a month after it has failed. | |||
#You ''can'' vote for an image to be unfeatured in the new "Unfeatured Image Nominations" section. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' December 27, 2009, 17:00 | |||
====Use this ruleset==== | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Per proposal | |||
#{{User|Ralphfan}} – Per MG1. | |||
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} That sounds fair, FA's and FI's are very alike. The rules stated above partly involve rules like such in FA's. Those two rules are very simple, and can really help the FI nominations... | |||
====Use current ruleset==== | |||
#{{User|Time Q}}: I don't think those rules would be harmful but I don't think they are necessary either. If an image has failed only by a margin of 1 vote, then I see no reason why it shouldn't get nominated again for a month. Also, I really don't think we need to introduce a new Unfeature system for FIs. Once an image was featured, it won't be featured again (which is different from FAs), so no need to worry. | |||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} — Per Time Q. The current system is perfectly fine; there's no need to change it. | |||
#{{User|GalacticPetey}}::Per Time Q and stooben rooben The rules are perfectly fine | |||
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} I could see chaos in the near future...per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
This ruleset should be easy to agree on considering it is composed of rules from the FA system... {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
I dont like rule 3, as it is kinda pointless, why would you remove votes if they dont need to have a valid reason? {{user|Tucayo}} | |||
:You're right, that's redundant and I don't want to create a big ruckus by trying to change the current rules, I have removed it from my proposal. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
Sorry if this is kind of off-topic, but I have a different suggestion for a new rule: If the image with the most "positive" votes (i.e. support votes minus oppose votes) has less than 10 positive votes, it should stay nominated and instead one of the previous FIs should be featured again. Just wanted to throw that in. {{User|Time Q}} | |||
:Good idea but 10 may be a bit too much... {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
Time Q: So what happens when we run out of images to feature? I'm just wondering. | |||
Marioguy1: In your proposal, you wrote "No re-nominating an article for a month after it has failed." Don't you mean "image"? Just to avoid confusion. | |||
{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | |||
:Sorry, you can tell what frame of mind I was writing this in :P {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
---- | |||
===Remove Minus World from Category:Glitches=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-9|keep minus world there}} | |||
While I was looking at [[:Category:Glitches]] I notice [[Minus World]] was in the list. I propose to remove Minus World from that list, reasons: | |||
#It is part of the Super Mario Bros. Glitches. | |||
#It is only one glitch and itself is an article. | |||
#It looks very out of place with it being in that list. | |||
'''Proper:''' {{User|Zero777}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' Monday, December 28th, 17:00 | |||
====Remove Minus World==== | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! The three reasons apply. The real big reason is that it is already part of the Super Mario Bros. Glitches so why does it need to appear twice? Zero signing out. | |||
====Keep Minus World their==== | |||
#{{user|Redstar}} - It's a glitch. Not sure why it shouldn't be in the category for glitches. | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Whether or not it is a glitch in other games, it was a glitch in that game and should stay categorized as one. Just like [[Mario]] is categorized as an enemy thanks to ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]'', this should stay categorized as a glitch thanks to ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'' and should stay that way. | |||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} — Per Redstar. If it's a glitch, it only makes sense to keep it in the glitches category. | |||
#{{User|Ralphfan}} – Per all. | |||
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - A glitch is a glitch. oô | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Reversinator}} A glitch is a glitch. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Can this be removed? We have many, MANY proposals and this one will clearly not pass? Any toughts? {{user|Tucayo}} | |||
Yes it should be removed. It feels more like a joke proposal to me... {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | |||
:No, I don't think it is within the rules to remove it any other way than to veto it...admins can veto it but it is ''not'' a joke proposal; though it is also not a properly thought out one. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
::Even misguided proposal ideas can be valuable archived material: we can point to this in the future if anyone tries to demote Minus World from being a glitch again, saving us the trouble of phrasing out counter-arguments anew, and maybe even making the next proposer back down when they see their effort will be in vain. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
---- | |||
===Allow up to 8 Personal Images=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-12|do not allow 8 pi's}} | |||
Currently, a user is allowed up to four personal images (plus one in their sig). I think it would do no harm to allow a few more. It wouldn't cause users to upload a ridiculous number of pics and turn the site into Photobucket. There aren't many users who even have one PI, so it wouldn't take up a lot of server space. I see no reason not to allow a few more PIs. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Ralphfan}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' December 29, 17:00 | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Ralphfan}} – Per above. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Vellidragon}} - As the proposal states, there aren't many users who even have one PI, so I don't see why anyone would need that many. | |||
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - We are the Mario Wiki, not MySpace. If you are here, your goal should be to improve the content of the site, not to showcase your images. There are enough means around the internet for those purposes. | |||
#{{User|Cobold}} - Per Edofenrir, also you can just hotlink external images if you're in desparate need for them. | |||
#{{user|Bloc Partier}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} — ''Eight?'' That's really excessive. Our current number of allowed PIs is fine. It allows enough room for a user to express themselves on their userpage, and even in their sig. It's no more of a hassle to upload your pictures to Photobucket or whatever and link to them here, than it is to upload your pictures ''here'' and link to them. That's what image-hosting sites are for; that is '''not''' what the Super Mario Wiki is for. | |||
#{{User|GalacticPetey}} WHOA! 8! per Edofenrir | |||
#{{User|Reversinator}} Who'd need eight personal images? | |||
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - You want lots of PIs? Go to userpedia. | |||
#{{User|RAP}} - Per Edo, and Stooben Rooben. Seriously, 8 PIs? :S | |||
#{{User|MATEOELBACAN}} - Per all, who needs 8 Pi's? O_o | |||
====Comments==== | |||
---- | |||
===Merge All Golfers and Tennis Players=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-7|do not merge}} | |||
I propose that all the generic human tennis players and golfers appearing in every Mario Tennis and Mario Golf game should all be merged together. If this proposal does pass the only idea I have to name this new article could be "List of Generic Humans". The reason is that about every single character except for three or four are stubs, being composed of only two to four sentances, some with no images. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Zero777}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' December 31, 2009, 17:00 | |||
====Merge==== | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! This is a wiki, we put full information on every single article, we are not a wikia, only having one to three sentances on one article, so merging would be the best to do now. Zero signing out. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Most of these characters are playable once and have virtually no information surrounding them, so they are neither major aspects of the ''Mario'' series nor can full pages be written about them: there are more substantial entries in [[List of Implied People]]. When we merged the Waffle Kingdom people Luigi spoke of into said page, it did not mean that we valued them any less than before - we merely did it for consistency and organization; similarly, merging the human golfers and tennis players would make navigation faster and easier. Giving pages to everything that has a name has not worked like we hoped it would, and as more named things get added to the ''Mario'' series with each new game, it's doubtful we will ever fully catch up; instead of grasping at straws, perhaps we should try something different. | |||
====Do Not Merge==== | |||
#{{User|Time Q}}: They are rather major characters from a ''Mario''-sub-series. If their articles are too short, expand them rather than merge them. | |||
#{{User|Cobold}} - per Time Q. | |||
#{{User|Grandy02}} - Per Time Q. | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} More can be added, like stats, appearances, or where that character is found. | |||
#{{User|Reversinator}} The reason these articles are short is because nobody adds information to them. [[Max]] and [[Tina]] are examples of what they should look like, while [[Tiny (Mario Golf series)|Tiny]] and [[Putts]] are pretty much a complete article. {{fake link|Tony (golfer)}} was deleted due to its shortness (thanks to Knife), but that doesn't mean they're worhtless. One last thing: What is the Mario Wiki coming to if we need to merge articles on playable characters? | |||
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per Time Q. | |||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} — Per Time Q. There's plenty of info and images to be supplied to those articles, so long as one is knowledgeable and willing enough to do so. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
What about other random human sports players? I'm assuming you'd want to see the tennis players merged as well as the golfers (in a separate list page), for the sake of consistency. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
Hm, I think this proposal is a good example of why we should keep "Splits & Merges" proposals on this page. On which talk page would we put it? {{User|Time Q}} | |||
:When in doubt, put it on here: since it deals with so many pages from so many different games, there is no logical central place for it ({{tem|human}} deals with all the effected pages, but it's sorta removed from the pages itself; same with [[:Category:Humans]]). It's also dealing with MWiki policy as much as straight merging - it's the old "what warrants a page" and "how to deal with stubs" debate - so putting it here in Changes would work. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
I am Zero! The reason I said merge them is that there is really not that much to expand on most of them because they only made one or two appearences (most of them) in the Mario Golf and Mario Tennis series only. Zero signing out. {{User|Zero777}} | |||
Would you mind making a short or complete list of which characters you mean? I did a cursory glance to try to find some of these characters, but didn't really pop up with anything. It'd be easier if you could show us who you mean. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 17:53, 25 December 2009 (EST) | |||
:He means all the characters that you face in the Mario Golf and Mario Tennis games, like [[Sophia]], [[Meg]], [[Mason]], [[Joe]], [[Gene]], or [[Grace]]. Those characters are human characters that you face in some Mario Golf and Mario Tennis games. There's a ton more characters like that. Although, I actually don't see most of those as stubs. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | |||
---- | |||
===Changes to the coverage of Crossover Series=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
The Mario Wiki covers a lot of Super Smash Bros. content quite excessively. We do feature every facet of the games, its characters, stages, items, music, trophies, etc. This is in accordance to [[MarioWiki:Coverage]] and I'm not proposing against this content being on the wiki. However, I feel that a lot of information is on the wiki two or three times. The articles [[Super Smash Bros.]], [[Super Smash Bros. Melee]] and [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]] are all big list articles. They already cover most of everything we could possibly want to know about the games (aside from splits like [[Subspace Emissary]]). | |||
The games' articles already contain information about the playable characters, their bio and their special moves. The articles also explain all the stages, and all the items. The articles for the characters, items and stages are only repeating that information, and add very little to it like the trophy information. But the trophy information for all trophies can already be seen on [[Trophy Descriptions (SSBM)]]. Thus, I think the articles are rendered a little bit superflous, and they would do better if simply merged with the main games' articles. This would not remove any substantial content about Smash Bros. from the wiki, it would just make us not repeat ourselves that often. | |||
I propose the following: | |||
*Merge non-Mario characters into the SSB articles. This includes characters like [[Mewtwo]]. This does not include [[Link]], as he also appeared in a Mario game. But the SSB information on the Link article would be shortened to only say he appeared in the game and link to it. The SSB information in the Mario article would not be removed. | |||
*Merge stages that did not make an appearance in Mario games. This includes [[Mute City]]. It also includes [[Yoshi's Story (stage)]], as it never appeared in a Mario/Yoshi game by itself. | |||
*Merge non-Mario items. Mario items would still contain information about their effects in SSB games. ([[Star Rod]] would have an individual discussion because of its oddity in this case. It is not covered by this proposal.) | |||
Not touched are: | |||
*[[Subspace Emissary]] | |||
*[[Trophy]], [[Trophy Descriptions (SSBM)]], [[Trophy Descriptions (SSBB)]] | |||
*Everything else I didn't mention above. | |||
If any content that is on the individual articles is not featured on the game's articles, it can be added with the merge. This is still a better solution than having huge amounts of duplicate content lying around all over the wiki. If this proposal passes, it will also _not_ change the way we handle Mario & Sonic content. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Cobold}}<br> | |||
'''Proposed Deadline:''' 5 January 2010, 17:00 EST | |||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' January 1, 2010, 14:14 GMT | |||
====Support Changes==== | |||
#{{User|Cobold}} - repeated information doesn't help anybody. | |||
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Per Cobold, repetition is bad... So, Per Cobold. | |||
#{{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} - Per Cobold. | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! That is a good idea, why does information had to repeat several times. Zero signing out. | |||
#{{user|Tucayo}} - I hate me for doing this, and I never thought I would agree on this, as I always opposed it, but in the way Cobold puts it, I think this is the best for the wiki. | |||
#{{user|Bloc Partier}} - Per all. | |||
====Oppose Changes==== | |||
#{{User|Reversinator}} Tons of articles, created throughout years, just merged together? It's a very big shame if this happens. The Super Smash Bros. is a series pertaining to Mario. The Mario series has the most appearing things in this series, and plays a big role. All the items, stages and characters pertain more to Mario than some of the other articles. Also, this doesn't benifit the Mario Wiki and rather detriments it. | |||
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per Reversinator. The only thing I support merging are the stages, but nothing else. It just seems really stupid... | |||
#{{user|Canama}} Per Reversinator. | |||
#{{user|Cookieo}} Per Reversinator. | |||
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} This will break consistency regarding to such characters. Characters like Kirby would still have his own article while characters like Snake are all merged into one article? This applies for everything else regarding Super Smash Bros. too. Better leave it as it is. | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per BLOF. | |||
#{{User|Supermariofan14}} - Per Reversinator. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
When you say "Merge non-Mario characters into the SSB articles" do you mean merging the characters into List of X articles or into the respective game articles?--{{User|Knife}} 20:21, 29 December 2009 (EST) | |||
:Into the respective game articles. - {{User|Cobold}} | |||
I don't really fancy the idea of merging around two to three hundred articles, but if this gets merged, so should other crossover charactersr in other games, no? {{User|Reversinator}} | |||
:It would apply to [[Itadaki Street DS]], [[Tetris DS]], and the likes. Mario & Sonic is a bit different as it has Mario in the name. - {{User|Cobold}} | |||
What makes stages less important than characters? - {{User|Cobold}} | |||
Hm... what are we going to do about SSB-related articles that also have some other interesting info, e.g. [[Blue Falcon|this one]] (cameos in SMRPG and MKWii) or [[Falco Lombardi|that one]] (cameo in Club Nintendo)? {{User|Time Q}} | |||
:This would be a similar situation as with [[Link]], I assume... - {{User|Edofenrir}} | |||
::<s>I'm not sure if Link should really get a separate article just because of this small SMRPG role.</s> (Ignore that part, I didn't notice he appeared in some DK and Wario games as well.) However, he was a major character in a few Club Nintendo comics, so his article will stay anyway. But the articles I've mentioned have only cameo appearances really. {{User|Time Q}} | |||
:::Then we might consider merging it with the List of Cameos... - {{User|Edofenrir}} | |||
::::What about Kirby? He had major role in a Club Nintendo comic. And Samus? She never had a major part in a Club Nintendo comic, but appeared in SMRPG and the ''WarioWare'' games, but don't those count as cameos? --{{User|Grandy02}} | |||
:::::I think the Kirby article would definitely be kept, since he appeared in [[Super Mario: Mario im Wunderland|Mario]] [[Super Mario in Die Nacht des Grauens|comics]] (they could be considered crossover comics, but they are clearly named after Mario, so...). {{User|Time Q}} | |||
::::::Hm, and [[Whispy Woods]]? His role in the Wunderland comic is very minor. --[[User:Grandy02|Grandy02]] 15:11, 30 December 2009 (EST) | |||
I really think you should redefine the proposal. The header is good, but the proposal itself seems to be targeted only towards the SSB series. Since you've included Itadaki Street and Tetris DS, you should probably define what kind of crossover series you are including in this proposal. Mario & Sonic is not affected, but what about Club Nintendo articles or Wario Blast? Will articles on crossover characters like [[Mametchi]] or [[Cactuar]] be effected? Second, shouldn't the character articles be merged elsewhere? The game articles are extremely long as it is.--{{User|Knife}} 12:49, 30 December 2009 (EST) | |||
:I'm confused about the handling of other crossovers, too. Regarding ''Itadaki Street DS'', should it be solely decided on the name "Mario" in the title? It is a crossover between two series, ''Mario'' and ''Dragon Quest'', and not more than a dozen of series like in ''Super Smash Bros.'' --[[User:Grandy02|Grandy02]] 15:11, 30 December 2009 (EST) | |||
::I have to admit that I did not put much thought into other crossover series. It just strikes me that Smash Bros. does not even have a 50% ratio of Mario content, yet we feature it on the wiki for 200% and more. If you have suggestions on how to handle those, I'd appreciate them. We can also delay the decision for further proposals. I feel like the 1 week deadline is a bit short to discuss this properly, especially around New Year. I don't want to hastily decide the fate of a lot of articles. In similar fashion, I think we could have a separate poll/vote on whether the mentioned characters/stages/items should be condensed into just the game articles or be kept in a separate "List of Characters in the Super Smash Bros. Series" and similar articles. - {{User|Cobold}} | |||
Should articles such as [[HAL Laboratory]], [[Sora Ltd.]], and [[Masahiro Sakurai]] be merged into different articles as well, as they were only involved in making the SSB series, and not necessarily Mario? {{User|Garlic Man}} | |||
:Those could be included as well, but they are not a big focus. They can be decided on a case-by-case basis. - {{User|Cobold}} | |||
::Cobold, '''''some''''' of the stages play no role in the Mario series except serving as am arena in Brawl so we should merge them, but the characters are well written and it would be a shame to just merge them all. The only way if this were to work is if you were to delete the info and state something like: '''Olimar is a playable charcter in brawl. His moves are blah, blah, and blah.''' Also some charcters like Ness and Capt. Falcon appear in more than just one game, so that'd be another problem. Some items also appear in all the smash games too.{{User|Gamefreak75}} | |||
@BabyLuigiOnFire & Fawfulfury65: This is not true. Characters such as Kirby would keep their article because they made notable appearances outside the SSB series. Imagine there were no SSB series at all, then Kirby would still have his article (because of his other appearances). So this proposal doesn't break consistency. {{User|Time Q}} | |||
But there is a SSB series, and so every character needs a separate article. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | |||
:But the question is whether we should cover the SSB series as if it was a Mario series, and I think there are good reasons why we shouldn't. {{User|Time Q}} | |||
::Yeah, I agree with that. SSB is a spin-off of the entire Nintendo series, and is not part of the Mario series. It is its own separate series. But since Mario is involved, we have to cover it, right? And the series has more Mario representation than the other series, just like Reversinator said. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | |||
:::Yes, we have to cover it, and this proposal wouldn't change anything about this - we would keep all the information, just merge it (and remove the redundant information). See [[MarioWiki:Coverage|this policy]] - we have to cover content of the crossover series but we're free to merge the information so that we make it apparent that we're still primarily a Mario wiki rather than a crossover wiki. {{User|Time Q}} | |||
Actually, it does break consistency if the proposal isn't expanded to include all crossover series, not only the SSB series.<br> | |||
@Cobold: According to Rule 10, you only have today to rewrite the proposal. I suggest you delete it for now and recreate the proposal once you've planned everything out.--{{User|Knife}} 19:17, 31 December 2009 (EST) | |||
:I agree. {{User|Time Q}} | |||
---- | |||
===Split [[:Category:Special Moves]]=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|12-1|create the category}} | |||
While patrolling, I found that tehre is no such category as "Moves", so all of the things that will clasify as normal moves, are listed as special, so I propose we choose which from the Special Moves are not special, and are just "moves". <br> | |||
Since when is Jump something special? It is the most common and ordinary thing in the Mario series.<br> | |||
You can post in the comments section which Special MOves you dont think are Special.<br> | |||
For example, some things as the [[Baby Drill]] is special, because it is something that is not commonly done, while something as [[Baby Toss]] simply isn't, because it is just throwing the babies.<br> | |||
How will they be separated? I think that most of the SM are found in RPG's, moves like the Green Shell, Copy FLower, and those. Normal Moves are the ones you can "Normally" do, like jumping, baby tossing, high jumping, perhaps. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{user|Tucayo}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' 3 January 2010, 15:00 | |||
====Create the Moves category==== | |||
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per me. | |||
#{{User|Cobold}} - I don't consider [[Jump]] to be a "special" move. | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Yeah I was just thinking about that category today. Jump isn't a special move at all! | |||
#{{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - I just browsed Category:Special Moves, and there seems to be enough material to warrant the creation of a new Category. When splitting however, please take into account what I said in the comment section. | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! I notice that a few months back I didn't really care, but that is a good idea. Since hen jump considered a special? Zero signing out. | |||
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} There's nothing so special about "Jump" and "Gulp" concerning with the main series so why list them under the Special Moves Category? I agree with this proposal, make a normal moves section. Why isn't there a normal moves category yet? | |||
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Supermariofan14}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - So it would be just '''Moves''' and '''Specials''' (or Special Moves)? That sounds excellent and more organzied than the constuction zone we have now... | |||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} — Per all. | |||
#{{User|MATEOELBACAN}} Per All. | |||
====All moves are special==== | |||
#{{User|Fly Guy 2}} I agree completely, but this needs to have 3 or more votes to pass because it has 10 "agree" votes | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Please consider that the term "Special Move" comes directly from gameplay jargon and is not determined by how out-of-the-ordinary the action in question is. Wheter something is a normal move or a special move depends on how it is accessed and executed, not what exactly it is. <br> | |||
In an RPG f.e. special moves are those moves that are an alternative to the plain "attack" command. They usually, but not necessarily, consume a certain source of power, like FP. Basically, everything action different from a character's normal way of attack is a special move. | |||
If we split this category into two, then the [[Jump]] you mentioned would be in both categories. It is Mario's normal way of attack in most games, but in SMRPG gameplay, it qualifies as a special move. Because of this ambiguation, I cannot make my decision solely on the base of Jump. Do you have any other examples? - {{User|Edofenrir}} | |||
:I tried to clarify it :) Feel free to comment. And yes, in the way you put it, i think Jump should be in both. {{user|Tucayo}} | |||
::Reading some of the comments above, one has to wonder if anybody actually reads the comment section... - {{User|Edofenrir}} | |||
:::Um...Shy Guy: Why did you vote oppose without a reason except "I fully support"? {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
I willget to this the 3rd or the 4th, if I cant. [[user:Tucayo]] | |||
::::'''Fly Guy 2''': Proposals with 10 or more votes merely need to pass by a ''margin'' of three - it doesn't mean both sides need at least three votes period. The rule means that a vote of 6-4 couldn't pass (or fail) because it's too close a race - there's only 2 votes separating the two sides; however, 7-4 could pass/fail, because there's a difference of 3. The rule was made for controversial proposals: when you get proposals with over twenty votes, letting them pass by a single vote would be a bad idea, because the community is clearly divided and either outcome would not serve the Wiki; holding out for a difference of three gives us more time to negotiate a solution everyone's happy with. However, ''this'' proposal has a clear majority already, so the rule will not come into play at all when the deadline hits. If you support it, vote "support". - {{User|Walkazo}} |
Latest revision as of 21:14, April 12, 2022
Different Version Characterssupport 17-2
This proposal is to make it so that in the case of characters from the film, we create separate articles for the character that explains them for the film but also makes note of the connections to video game characters. It is also to make it so that just because in some previous media there has been an infant form of a character, does not mean that it is the Baby form of the character from video-games. Infant Princess Daisy from film =/= Baby Daisy from videogames. If there's any confusion, ask. This proposal was made from ides of numerous users on the comments of previous confusion from the original proposal made by Redstar. Proposer: FD09 Support
Oppose
CommentsThis is the result I originally had in mind, but failed to voice that proposal in a clear way. Under this new proposal I think special attention can be paid to both the film characters and their video game-counterparts in an equal way, satisfying all parties and make for a much more informative encyclopedia. Redstar 17:39, 24 November 2009 (EST)
FD09: Where do you plan to put the info about the infant characters from the cartoons? Time Q (talk)
Super Mario Bros.: I don't even see how you see logic in that oppose since it's not about separating media as it is clarifying on specific character's details. Although the information will be getting removed from the babie's page sit is still considered a part of the "actual" character's history. It's not separation of media, it's separation of characters.FD09
Merge Traps and Obstacles pages to super-articleno merge 1-5 Proposer: Redstar SupportOppose
CommentsI fixed up the coding, remember to use the format ===<proposal=== when making a proposal. Marioguy1 (talk)
"Coincollector (Talk) - That's really unnecessary. Not ALL traps-and-obstacles articles are one-sentence long. If they had that size would be rapidly deleted cuz Mariowiki doesn't approve that. Second point, if we have short articles - more than one sentence long, sure, we just add they are stubs and soon these pages can receive more information by a good contributor. "
Despite for being a short article, that doesn't mean it will remain short forever. Anybody can add more info to these articles if they know more of them. Furthermore, we have the pipeproject Unstubify where many users want to remove that (annoying) stub tag to make short articles longer and informative. Coincollector (talk)
Sorry, but your latest comment is forcing to go beyond of a topic that I ain't concerned by now. How can I find more info for a single short article since personally I'm busy for other objectives of my life? I don't know but sometime... Coincollector (talk)
Then if you couldn't find more info, too bad, but even so that doesn't mean the article is and will be stub. I think this proposal something unnecessary just because you think all the obstacles are short, contain the same info (it kills the character and nothing else) and THEY'RE NOT articles - then what they are?. And if you are still thinking so, then think about the one-time appearance characters. Coincollector (talk)
"A platform is an obstacle in almost every adventure video game, and the Super Smash Bros. series. In sidescrollers, the player can jump through platforms (and in Smash Bros' case, drop through as well), but in 3D games, the player would need to get on them as if the game were real life. Some platforms cannot be jumped through in sidescrollers (Mario Bros. for example), but most can. "
Category Splitsplit 15-0 Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk) Split
RemainCommentsRemoval of Support/Oppose Votes Votescanceled by proposer
Anyhow, here are my points: The Removal of Support/Oppose Votes section is not well-ruled and any vote goes ATM. I propose that we do one of three things, allow any user to create another section to remove that vote OR allow any user to just remove the vote as long as they put a comment in the comments section as to why OR allow admins to remove the votes as long as they put a comment in the comments section. Same thing goes for my second thing that I am proposing because we really need to define some rules for these sections. Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk) Removal of VotesThis proposes to remove the votes from that section in three different ways. Vote on RemovalAnyone can RemoveAdmins Only
Removal of SectionsThis proposes three ways to remove the entire section. Vote on RemovalAnyone can RemoveAdmins OnlyCommentsIf you don't get the proposal then don't vote but I think we must quickly define a ruleset for this type of thing. Marioguy1 (talk)
Make bestiaries or not?make bestiaries just for rpg's 0-12
HOWEVER, games in the Paper Mario series and Super Mario RPG SHOULD have bestiaries because their games have psychopath thoughts/tattles and bestiaries. But yeah, no need for bestiaries on those other games. Happy voting! Proposer: Fawfulfury65 (talk) Make Bestiaries for all articlesBestiaries should be developed for RPG game articles only; unnecessary for other genres
CommentsIs this proposal supposed to delete all bestiary articles or only those pertaining the M&L series? Lists of enemies should belong on the game's article (Paper Mario games shouldn't get any special treatment). I'd support preventing all bestiary articles.--Knife (talk) Uhm... Does this Proposal actually intent to change anything? If so, then the header of the second paragraph is misnamed. If not, then what's the point? - Edofenrir (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)
Yes but I honestly doubt we'll have to make any bestiaries. A lot of uses didn't like the idea of bestiaries, but I made this proposal to solve an argument. I hate when people fight on the internet. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
Uhm... I just want to inform you, that, should the Proposal pass in favour of the site who is leading atm, absolutely nothing will happen, because the header says "Keep as is". - Edofenrir (talk)
So do have to change something because the header says "keep as is"? Fawfulfury65 (talk)
There seems to be some confusion as to what a bestiary is. A bestiary is a complete list of all enemies found in a particular game, as well as the places they are located. It has absolutely nothing to do with tattle information, and in no way ends up as a stub. Really, Fawful is misleading you all as he apparently hasn't even read the current bestiary for the Paper Mario page. The intent of bestiaries are to avoid crowding main articles and expand on information that would otherwise be a list. Please, look at all the information before casting your votes. Redstar 22:23, 29 November 2009 (EST)
CoinCollector: Bestiaries are not meant to be simple lists. They are a more thorough amount of information detailing locations in-game found, stats, and in-game tattle or player's guide information. These are things that should be there anyways, but if they were would take up too much room and so are moved. Several articles already do this and it's supposed to be done for all of them, but hasn't already. The only reason this is up for proposal is because Fawful and MATEO don't want to do the necessary work to make their articles worthy of Featuring, so are attempting to side-step it by creating a proposal to undermine current standard. Redstar 02:20, 30 November 2009 (EST)
Fawfulfury65 recently re-wrote his proposal to better explain reasons against forming bestiaries. I will now write a rebuttal to each point explaining why bestiaries are both a good idea, and why his reasons are misinformed. Here we go:
I hope all those points explain why I feel bestiaries are both necessary and logical. Perhaps a few people will change their votes, but if not, I hope you all feel you have the correct facts and are making an informed decision. Thank you.
I changed my vote because I realized this proposal changes nothing already done, and actually agrees with my initial position. It was just so badly presented I had no idea what Fawful was trying to get at, but in the end I realized we can both benefit from this proposal. Redstar 00:55, 1 December 2009 (EST) Half of you need to re-vote, seeing as how this proposal is now changed to remove Paper Mario bestiaries.--Knife (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2009 (EST) I was actually thinking we could change the PM bestiary to Paper Mario/Tattle Information because most of it is tattle info. Then all the hard work going into the sub article wouldn't get deleted if the most users decide to get rid of all bestiaries. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
@Redstar: You can't make a new option without defining it. What exactly are you opposing? Instead, make the header something specific like "Allow RPG bestiaries only". Also, since the proposal has been changed, those votes without valid reasons will be removed. Knife (talk)
No, you misunderstood me. I meant change the title of your section from "oppose" to an option more specific.Knife (talk) Ok I agree that it should only be for Paper Mario games and SMRPG, but no other games, so my proposal wa, once again, edited. Hopefully, now I won't have to edit it anymore. So everyone can change their vote or whatever. Fawfulfury65 (talk) What's a Koopa?do not merge koopa and koopa troopa 2-9 Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk) Merge
No Merge
CommentsI was having a discussion on a similar topic just yesterday, concerning the Hammer Bros. I think the entire thing is sort of speculative since the page amounts to more than a cherry-picked list of various turtle-like enemies, entirely excluding other candidates. If it was truly extensive, it would list a lot more. But by the same token, it'd be speculation because who knows what a "Koopa" really is? The manual says "Koopa tribe", but the term "American" covers a lot of different races and ethnicities. Whether they meant "Koopa race" or "Koopa social-group", who knows. I feel a complete overhaul of the way we classify the enemies is in order. I really don't feel Boomerang Bro., Sumo Bro., Fire Bro., etc. should be considered "sub-species" of Hammer Bro. Related (as in similar, not blood-related) enemies, yes, but the current terms really deliver inaccurate connotations. Care to make this proposal a bit more general, MG1? If so, I'd be happy to support. Redstar
Super Mario World indeed lists Koopa Troopas simply as "Koopas" in the credits, which would suggest that only those are called "Koopas" and the enemies that aren't directly related to the Troopa are not. I don't think the Koopa article can be merged with Koopa Troopa like that however, since the majority of species listed in it are, in fact, quite clearly not Koopa Troopas. What it would need is a title change, or possibly a complete removal in favour of the Koopa Troop article.--vellidragon
Vellidragon: That's what Koopa (disambiguation) and {{about}} are for :P
Okay, how about this: Koopa is the species name for the generic-turtle enemies in the game, namely "Koopa Troopas". "Troopa", however, is a job title or position. Koopa Troopas are members of the Koopa Troop, making them troopers. This is supported by the Koopa Paratroopas, who take their name from paratroopers, or parachuting soldiers. This suggests that normal, wingless "Troopas" are also soldiers... Also take into account the RPG games, where we get most of our information. Enemy Koopa Troopas are specifically said to be working for Bowser. Compare this to Kent C. Koopa, an enemy that works alone, and note that his Tattle information calls him simply a "Koopa". No "Troopa" part. All the non-enemy Koopas in Koopa Village and, later, in Petalburg, are simply called Koopas. It seems highly likely that the difference is Koopa is species, and Troopa is title/position, much like the various "Bros." enemies carry the weapon or technique they use as a sort of job position-title. Redstar
Can we at least establish that Koopa is not a species and that Bowser's article should not be classified as having the species Koopa? That is the real reason I made this proposal anyways...Marioguy1 (talk)
Merge RPG Boss Aspects With Main Boss Articlesinvalidated due to breaking rule #11 The following are a list of which minions are proposed to be merged, to whom, and why.
In summation, here is a quick and easy list of what this proposal will accomplish:
And reasons why:
If anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to use the Comments section below. Hopefully I provided enough information to make a decision. If you agree with this proposal in general, but you don't agree with some of the merges or are wary of the reason why, feel free to comment about it and we can discuss it. This is a big proposal and I don't want anyone Opposing if they don't agree with just one aspect. Proposer: Redstar Support
Oppose
Comments@Tucayo: Lava Piranha before and after becoming covered in fire gets a different Tattle description... Does this make the two different enemies? No, it doesn't, and many other enemies are of the same circumstances. Many of these proposed merges have Tattles that specifically say they are a part of, or the same being as the enemy. The different body parts of Exor aren't divided among different articles, even though they each have different stat-spreads and tattles (Psychopath Thoughts). Likewise, all of these "minions" or extensions of the main boss are fought in the same battle, not different ones. Redstar 16:51, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Quote Edofenrir: "And next we merge Magnus Van Grapple with Lord Crump? It's the same guy, just surrounded by a load of metal." Well, yes. I go to Lord Crump's page and see a section very vague. If I want the whole story, I have to go to the Magnus Van Grapple page. Why do I need to jump around to get all the information? Magnus Van Grapple is not a character, and is not a boss... Lord Crump piloting it is, so the experience should be told from his perspective, not from an inanimate object. This proposal changes little. All it does is move all the information to one place where it is the most productive. Redstar 17:18, 1 December 2009 (EST) Just to be absolutely clear, are you proposing that the 8 cases listed above should be merged, or that those and all similar cases should be merged? Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) BMB: Yea, we dont want stubs, we want artciles, so lets expand those, merging is not a good solution. Tucayo (talk)
@FunkyK38: The line will be drawn quite cleanly. Merges will not occur all over, rendering this Wiki a copy of Wikipedia. There will still be articles dealing with a singular topic, hotlinked from main articles. The only reason these are brought up is because they are all aspects of the same enemy, just different "attack points", so to speak. Dividing them is unnecessary and only serves in spreading information which should be read in one place. Redstar 21:58, 1 December 2009 (EST) After reading over my list of suggested merges, I've decided that Chompy to Tutankoopa and Shy Squad to General Guy could easily be cut. They, to a degree, are individual enemies so are more on-the-fence compared to the other examples. Would anyone change their vote in favor of this proposal if these two were removed? Redstar 22:06, 1 December 2009 (EST) Wait a sec, I'm not understanding. The Proposals page never had a removal of votes section. Why this proposal have? Vini64 (talk) Alright, now you are fighting dirty. The rule you are refering to applies only in case of bad-faith or reasons that are so blatant that the wiki cannot support them. This rule is in no way a green card for expelling other people's opinions of their value. Tucayo's vote is valid, and mine was too! Stop this attempts to rig the Proposal! - Edofenrir (talk)
Walkazo: Until further notice there is not removal of removal of support/oppose votes nominations or comments sections. If you wish to have either of these things done then propose it here or on the admin boards but don't just go ahead and do it. I disagree with the removal of Tucayo's vote but there should be no comments placed there at all. Marioguy1 (talk)
I believe that people should be able to vote about what they think without fear of their votes being rendered, "invalid" and getting removed. The people of this wiki should be free to vote about what they see fit, and neither Tucayo or Edofenrir's votes are invalid. Lemmy Koopa Fan (talk)
In the past, I saw votes saying "Good idea" that were not removed. Why these are being now? Vini64 (talk) How exactly is Tucayo's vote "not specific"? He's stating the fact that they are different enemies, so they get different articles. Just because he didn't write it in a textbook fashion (i.e. "They are different enemies with different tattles, thus they should have different articles") doesn't make the vote invalid. -- Stooben Rooben (talk)
I will not remove neither modify my vote, because I know it is perfectly valid. In the worst of the cases, I can just per Edo ;) Tucayo (talk)
Redstar: I am not an admin of any sort unless you mean on userpedia and could we please, as Edo said, drop this subject? The admins are coming out with an advancement on rule #4 and we just have to trust them on that; wait a couple days until the rule has come out and then propose it. Marioguy1 (talk)
Redstar: as an administrator, i order you to drop this. If you continue this you will get a warning. Thanks and have a nice day. Tucayo (talk)
@luigi-board: Would you mind expanding your reason a little? You're either entirely for it, or entirely against. Any modifications should be handled in the Comments, which I can consider for modifying the proposal. Redstar 15:39, 7 December 2009 (EST)
You can't modify a proposal that's more than 3 days old. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk)
Would anyone be willing to change their vote in favor of this proposal if I were to remove Tubba Blubba's Heart and Bowser??? from this list? Please realize these are only examples, so they're not immediately meant to be put into action if the proposal were to pass anyways. They're only meant to give an impression of what I meant this proposal to accomplish, though I now feel the two above don't meet that standard so I'm willing to cut them. For Edo specifically, this protects from his fear of Magnus Von Grapple and similar being merged. Redstar 22:25, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Redstar: When you type the name of a user space with {{}} then the content of that page is copied onto the page you're editing. Marioguy1 (talk)
Redstar: If you want further information, my talk page is open. Anyhow, back to the proposal - would anybody change their vote now that Redstar has removed Tubba Blubba's Heart and Bowser? Marioguy1 (talk)
@Waluigi Guy: Most of the articles you suggested to merge weren't even stubs... Lemmy Koopa Fan (talk) Make a Limit for the Length of Comments on this pageleave as is 5-12
Proposer: FunkyK38 (talk) Shorten Comments
Leave as is
CommentsHmm... I don't know if limiting the comments to four to six sentences is the right solution... Though I fully agree with you that the comment sections have gotten very long and hard to overlook. I will think about this for a while. - Edofenrir (talk)
I always thought that separate sub-pages were a good idea. I brought it up on the talk page a long time ago, but I guess it fell through. Knife (talk) How about a show/hide tag? Or a scrollbox? Tucayo (talk)
Imposing character limits on comments just seems to go too far. My idea for a /Comments page work, but a show/hide tag, as suggested by Tucayo, is quick and easy as well. Redstar 10:28, 8 December 2009 (EST) The administrative staff will probably make a change to the proposal organization, so this proposal probably isn't necessary. Knife (talk) Allow Support Votes to be Removed on Nomination Pages?no removing support votes 4-6 So, here's how it would go: Users can vote on if they want to remove a support votes or not. If three users, including an admin, support for the removal of that vote, we can delete it. Good, right? Proposer: Fawfulfury65 (talk) Be able to remove support votes
Leave as is
CommentsWell, we already have that rule that the most blatantly annoying votes (aka fan votes) can be removed from the support section. I cannot think of another kind of vote that would be useless enough to justify its removal. I don't think this rule change is necessary, since support votes are basically useless after the nomination got five of them. Can you provide an example of a vote you'd like to remove? - Edofenrir (talk) Well, supports shouldn't be moved for fan votes only. When people oppose and just say something like "this is a terrible article" with no reason why, people can vote to remove that, but if someone supports saying something like "this is a great article!" why can't users vote to remove that? All votes that don't give a reason on why they supported and think the article is great really should be removed... Fawfulfury65 (talk) @Marioguy1: By all admins, you're saying sysops and patrollers, right? I'll change that I guess. I really want this to be like removing oppose votes. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Uh, you know people this days may load up the support with fan votes and we may get into a huge mess just trying to remove one at a time. But I do agree that "this article is good" isn't enough. In that case, some people may think many grammar errors are ok, but others think it is horrible. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Fawful: Yes, that is what I mean - Admins=Sysop, Patroller, Bcrat, that other rank... Marioguy1 (talk)
I vote for the removal of Reversinator's vote since unlike what he says, supporters of an FA nomination are NOT supposed to give reasons for their vote. Time Q (talk)
Ok, I dont plan to argue again :)You can make a proposal to revert that, or even veto it... Tucayo (talk)
T.c.w7468: I somehow like your idea, since there's indeed no real point in giving a reason when supporting a FA nomination. But I don't know if the reasons are that much of a problem really. Time Q (talk)
Split the colored enemiesdo not split 1-10 So I'd like to see some character articles be created. Proposer: Reversinator (talk) Create articles for colored characters
Leave as it is
Comments@BLOF: In the Baseball games, tons of other colored characters appeared, all with different stats, so that's null and void. With Yellow Yoshi, it describes him as brave, but aren't all of them? All right, the hungriness of them is ok, but how about other Yoshi? You know, the ones that don't have any significant differences between them, such as Brown Yoshi, Light Blue Yoshi, Pink Yoshi, Purple Yoshi and Orange Yoshi? Very few differences between them. @GF75: That information can easily be merged with the article. "All the Yoshis in Yoshi's Story posess the ability to eat the food and enemies in its path, although Black Yoshi and White Yoshi are able to eat Spiky Fruits, Peppers and Black Shy Guys". Of course, it'd be a lot more detailed. @MG1: It varies between games. Also, what about the Yoshis I mentioned above? @Redstar: Again, what about the Yoshis I mentioned above? Reversinator (talk)
This proposal is pretty vague. If you give specific examples, it would be much more clear as to which exact articles you want split. Bloc Partier (talk) Reversinator: Yes, the different colored enemies did have different stats, but it's only in the baseball games. Same thing goes for Pink and Light Blue Yoshi, because they have distinguishable stats only in the baseball games as well. However, Red, Blue, and Yellow Yoshi have different stats in other games such as Super Mario World, and all Yoshis have likes and dislikes of fruit in Yoshi's Story. We can't merge just Pink, Brown, Orange, Purple and Light Blue Yoshi because this breaks consistency. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Cyan Shy Guy The Cyan Shy Guy is a cyan colored Shy Guy (obviously) that only appears in Mario Kart Wii as an audience member. Then the stub template will be placed here. It doesn't make sense. Gamefreak75 (talk) Rules and Regulations for Specific-Article Proposalslink to talk page proposals on mariowiki:proposals 0-11-0 We need a specific name for these proposals. I propose (no pun intended... really) "talk page proposals." I am open to other suggestions, but this is the name that I will use. I believe that these talk page proposals should get at least some mention to the whole userbase via this article (MarioWiki:Proposals) or a page linked to it (possibly MarioWiki:Proposals/Talk Page Proposals). This page will link to all pending talk page proposals and explain the rules of talk page proposals. Which leads to the most important part of this proposal: the rules. Now, I will give you all my rules for these pages; in my opinion they are fair and better for their purpose. Here they are:
The format for the listing of talk page proposals should be as Walkazo (talk)'s example below. If you vote to create a specific place for talk page proposals, you are also supporting the following three things:
As you can see in the voting section, I have given you a few options. Each should be explained sufficiently, but, if it is not, I will try my best to help you understand. Note: Only if Part 1 passes will Part 2 be viable. Proposer: Bloc Partier (talk) with additions from Walkazo (talk), Redstar (talk), and Marioguy1 (talk) Part 1: Link to Talk Page ProposalsDo Not Link to Talk Page Proposals on Any Specific PageLink to Talk Page Proposals on MarioWiki:Proposals
Link to Talk Page Proposals on a Sub-page: "MarioWiki:Proposals/Talk Page Proposals"Part 1 Comments@Walkazo: I'm not sure if it would be a sub-page at all. The proposal is still new, so perhaps we could discuss it and Bloc could add a third option? New page, sub-page, and right here on this page... I would prefer the first option, since it would give equal attention to this general proposal page, though you're right. If the list were formatted as you've done (which I think is the best means of presenting the information), it probably wouldn't merit a page of its own, though I'm still wary of how and where it would be placed here without being ignored or taking up too much room. Discussion, I suppose. Redstar 22:07, 18 December 2009 (EST)
As you can see here, 2257 has wired up a list of all things with {{merge to}} and what they are to be merged to Marioguy1 (talk)
Part 2: RulesUse Bloc Partier's Rules
Use MarioWiki:Proposals' Rules (No amendments)Part 2 CommentsCan you elaborate on your second rule? Redstar 19:40, 18 December 2009 (EST)
I may be too late to ask for an addition, but perhaps a rule on "clear majority rule"? If the given two weeks have passed, and no attention has been given to an individual article's proposal save the proposer's vote, that should not be counted as "majority in favor", and the proposer should not be allowed to act under that impression. While I'm not sure how many votes are fair enough to be counted for "significant attention to implement the proposal", three sounds fair because it's the lowest amount of votes needed to arrive at a majority-difference (two-to-one for either support or oppose). Thoughts? Redstar 02:28, 20 December 2009 (EST)
Just create {{User:Bloc Partier/Proposal}} and then use that; it's an easy way to edit forever :P Marioguy1 (talk)
@Cobold: From what I'm reading in Bloc's rules, a three vote-difference is needed to determine a majority-ruling. My previous suggestion seems to have been misinterpreted, but done so in a way that the presumed rule actually kills two birds with one stone. Redstar 06:58, 23 December 2009 (EST)
General CommentsHmmm... This is a bit confusing. Oh well. If anyone needs help, I'd love to assist. Just ask. Bloc Partier (talk) Since Redstar's proposal is gone, here's a version of his list of pages that need attention. It's organized so that all the pages concerned have a bit of background info (except the Merging pages, since we've talked about them to death already and I'm feeling lazy right now; I don't understand the Yoshi baby one, so I couldn't talk about that one either). All the pages concerned are linked to, with the page who's page contains the proposal in bold. In the future, I think it would be best if the proposals were staged on a common page (i.e. Culex instead of one of the Crystals, seeing as they're all going into his page; the major articles' talk pages also have a higher likelihood of getting read than the more minor aspects). There should also be a note in the rules that the proposals shouldn't be staged on redirect talk pages, since they'll never get read in that case (it's a pretty "well, duh" rule, but Bloc Partier was right to make sure we minimize loopholes by stating the obvious as much as possible).
I may be a little late, but I love the format, Walkazo. Also, I edited a new "rule" in. Bloc Partier (talk) NOTICE TO ALL WHO HAVE ALREADY VOTED: I have added a few things to the body of the proposal. Please review these edits and revise your vote if you wish to do so. Thank you. Bloc Partier (talk) Will the proposals concerning merging that were set up before this proposal was created have to be extended another week, or will they occupy a "grandfather's clause" of sorts and be allowed to end as voted? Redstar 03:59, 26 December 2009 (EST) Categories: List of Implied ...delete categories 16-0
Here are my reasons:
So overall I see no reason for them to exist. They have no possible entries. If you want to categorize the redirects, Category:Implied Characters is the way to go, but this is pointless. Proposer: Cobold (talk) Support Removal
Oppose RemovalCommentsI'll support this as well, but I also feel we should do an overhaul on the categorization system in general. Redstar 00:01, 20 December 2009 (EST)
Change naming convention for power-up form articleskeep as is 1-5 While this practice isn't necessarily bad, it has resulted in some confusion on how exactly to merge and split the articles relating to the metal form. For example, Metal Wario is currently being proposed to merge with Metal Mario due to the shared nature of those characters under that form. However, the Metal Mario page is also being proposed to be split with information on Metal Mario the character (as seen in the Super Smash Bros. series and other media as a playable character). The problem resulting from this is that there would be two "Metal Mario" articles, or at least two very similarly named ones, with one being "Metal Mario" and covering the form, and the other being "Metal Mario (character)", which are both too similar to avoid confusion. Another problem arising from this standard in naming convention is the placement of alternate name tags at the top of the page. While these tags certainly serve their purpose, they are also an eye-sore. Seeing boxy tags of any kind at any point on a page makes me think the article is incomplete or under construction of some kind. It just pulls me out of the right mindframe of reading and enjoying an article. What this proposal is hoping to achieve is to change the current naming standard to one that more clearly and generally explains the contents of an article, as well as remove the need for the above explained tag. Any form a character can become upon use of a power-up, such as Frog Mario, Metal Mario, Fire Mario, etc. will be re-named to "X Form". Proposer: Redstar (talk) Change Naming Convention for FormsLeave Naming Convention as it is
CommentsWhat about merging the forms with the items that cause them? That way, we can avoid the unofficial "X Form" names. The only possible problem with this is if different items are used to make the same form in different games. The only example I could think of off the top of my head, however, is Dragon Wario, and I think Wario-series forms should remain unchanged anyway, seeing as those powerups aren't exactly the same as in the core Mario series (and they're always unique to Wario, so the arguments about duality don't apply to them). - Walkazo (talk)
Change Gate Keeper back to Piranha Plant in the Generatorchange to piranha plant in the generator 5-0 Proposer: Dry Paratroopa (talk) Change back to Piranha Plant in the Generator
Keep as Gate KeeperCommentsIf it doesn't cover a general issue, only a singular one, I think this proposal would make more sense on the actual article's Discussion page. Redstar 19:51, 19 December 2009 (EST) It would, but I'm kind of against talk page Proposals, because no one ever votes to those. For example, in the very talk page we're talking about there's a Proposal there and no one's voted yet as far as I'm aware of. Dry Paratroopa (talk)
Featured Image Rulesuse current ruleset 3-4
Use this ruleset
Use current ruleset
CommentsThis ruleset should be easy to agree on considering it is composed of rules from the FA system... Marioguy1 (talk) I dont like rule 3, as it is kinda pointless, why would you remove votes if they dont need to have a valid reason? Tucayo (talk)
Sorry if this is kind of off-topic, but I have a different suggestion for a new rule: If the image with the most "positive" votes (i.e. support votes minus oppose votes) has less than 10 positive votes, it should stay nominated and instead one of the previous FIs should be featured again. Just wanted to throw that in. Time Q (talk) Time Q: So what happens when we run out of images to feature? I'm just wondering. Marioguy1: In your proposal, you wrote "No re-nominating an article for a month after it has failed." Don't you mean "image"? Just to avoid confusion. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) }} Remove Minus World from Category:Glitcheskeep minus world there 1-9
Proper: Zero777 (talk) Remove Minus World
Keep Minus World their
CommentsCan this be removed? We have many, MANY proposals and this one will clearly not pass? Any toughts? Tucayo (talk) Yes it should be removed. It feels more like a joke proposal to me... Fawfulfury65 (talk)
Allow up to 8 Personal Imagesdo not allow 8 pi's 1-12 Proposer: Ralphfan (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsMerge All Golfers and Tennis Playersdo not merge 2-7 Proposer: Zero777 (talk) Merge
Do Not Merge
CommentsWhat about other random human sports players? I'm assuming you'd want to see the tennis players merged as well as the golfers (in a separate list page), for the sake of consistency. - Walkazo (talk) Hm, I think this proposal is a good example of why we should keep "Splits & Merges" proposals on this page. On which talk page would we put it? Time Q (talk)
I am Zero! The reason I said merge them is that there is really not that much to expand on most of them because they only made one or two appearences (most of them) in the Mario Golf and Mario Tennis series only. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk) Would you mind making a short or complete list of which characters you mean? I did a cursory glance to try to find some of these characters, but didn't really pop up with anything. It'd be easier if you could show us who you mean. Redstar 17:53, 25 December 2009 (EST)
Changes to the coverage of Crossover Seriescanceled by proposer The games' articles already contain information about the playable characters, their bio and their special moves. The articles also explain all the stages, and all the items. The articles for the characters, items and stages are only repeating that information, and add very little to it like the trophy information. But the trophy information for all trophies can already be seen on Trophy Descriptions (SSBM). Thus, I think the articles are rendered a little bit superflous, and they would do better if simply merged with the main games' articles. This would not remove any substantial content about Smash Bros. from the wiki, it would just make us not repeat ourselves that often. I propose the following:
Not touched are:
If any content that is on the individual articles is not featured on the game's articles, it can be added with the merge. This is still a better solution than having huge amounts of duplicate content lying around all over the wiki. If this proposal passes, it will also _not_ change the way we handle Mario & Sonic content. Proposer: Cobold (talk) Support Changes
Oppose Changes
CommentsWhen you say "Merge non-Mario characters into the SSB articles" do you mean merging the characters into List of X articles or into the respective game articles?--Knife (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2009 (EST) I don't really fancy the idea of merging around two to three hundred articles, but if this gets merged, so should other crossover charactersr in other games, no? Reversinator (talk)
What makes stages less important than characters? - Cobold (talk) Hm... what are we going to do about SSB-related articles that also have some other interesting info, e.g. this one (cameos in SMRPG and MKWii) or that one (cameo in Club Nintendo)? Time Q (talk)
I really think you should redefine the proposal. The header is good, but the proposal itself seems to be targeted only towards the SSB series. Since you've included Itadaki Street and Tetris DS, you should probably define what kind of crossover series you are including in this proposal. Mario & Sonic is not affected, but what about Club Nintendo articles or Wario Blast? Will articles on crossover characters like Mametchi or Cactuar be effected? Second, shouldn't the character articles be merged elsewhere? The game articles are extremely long as it is.--Knife (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2009 (EST)
Should articles such as HAL Laboratory, Sora Ltd., and Masahiro Sakurai be merged into different articles as well, as they were only involved in making the SSB series, and not necessarily Mario? Garlic Man (talk)
@BabyLuigiOnFire & Fawfulfury65: This is not true. Characters such as Kirby would keep their article because they made notable appearances outside the SSB series. Imagine there were no SSB series at all, then Kirby would still have his article (because of his other appearances). So this proposal doesn't break consistency. Time Q (talk) But there is a SSB series, and so every character needs a separate article. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Actually, it does break consistency if the proposal isn't expanded to include all crossover series, not only the SSB series. Split Category:Special Movescreate the category 12-1 Proposer: Tucayo (talk) Create the Moves category
All moves are special
CommentsPlease consider that the term "Special Move" comes directly from gameplay jargon and is not determined by how out-of-the-ordinary the action in question is. Wheter something is a normal move or a special move depends on how it is accessed and executed, not what exactly it is. If we split this category into two, then the Jump you mentioned would be in both categories. It is Mario's normal way of attack in most games, but in SMRPG gameplay, it qualifies as a special move. Because of this ambiguation, I cannot make my decision solely on the base of Jump. Do you have any other examples? - Edofenrir (talk)
I willget to this the 3rd or the 4th, if I cant. user:Tucayo
|