381,838
edits
MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/23: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "[[List of places|" to "[[List of locations|"
(archiving) |
m (Text replacement - "[[List of places|" to "[[List of locations|") |
||
| (38 intermediate revisions by 15 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> | ||
===Remove Fake Bans/Warnings=== | ===Remove Fake Bans/Warnings=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|30-0|remove fake bans/warnings}} | |||
OK, now that I royally screwed up my last proposal, let's try this again:<br> | OK, now that I royally screwed up my last proposal, let's try this again:<br> | ||
On more than a few userpages, I have seen ban notices saying a user has been blocked by ruling of Wario's Butt or something of that sort. These are immature, a waste of space, and can cause you to do a double-take before reading on and finding out that the user wasn't banned, they are just being extremely immature. So now that I've done this properly, let's get rid of this crap. | On more than a few userpages, I have seen ban notices saying a user has been blocked by ruling of Wario's Butt or something of that sort. These are immature, a waste of space, and can cause you to do a double-take before reading on and finding out that the user wasn't banned, they are just being extremely immature. So now that I've done this properly, let's get rid of this crap. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ralphfan}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Ralphfan}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': | '''Voting start''': September 1, 2010, 24:00 GMT<br> | ||
'''Voting closes''': | '''Voting closes''': September 8, 2010, 24:00 GMT | ||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
| Line 103: | Line 95: | ||
{{User|Papermario97}} I feel stupid but, what does "per all" mean? | {{User|Papermario97}} I feel stupid but, what does "per all" mean? | ||
:It basically means "I agree with everyone supporting/opposing" (whichever applies), but it's much less effort/time to type. {{User|Frostyfireyoshi}} 18:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | :It basically means "I agree with everyone supporting/opposing" (whichever applies), but it's much less effort/time to type. {{User|Frostyfireyoshi}} 18:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
---- | |||
===Making Paper Mario Badge Attack Articles=== | ===Making Paper Mario Badge Attack Articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|9-14|do not create paper mario badge attack articles}} | |||
I think we should make articles on attacks in the first two Paper Marios that you can only use by the use of a badge (i.e. Quake Hammer, Multibounce). It would be necessary to the wiki, since these ARE attacks of Mario's, and even if he needs a badge to use them they still are attacks of his. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': 2 | '''Voting start''': September 2, 2010, 12:00.<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': 9 | '''Deadline''': September 9, 2010, 23:59 GMT. | ||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
| Line 235: | Line 227: | ||
All your doing is nitpicking an issue if your going to create seperat articles for attacks then you need to make seperate articles for everything {{User|mrblob1012}} | All your doing is nitpicking an issue if your going to create seperat articles for attacks then you need to make seperate articles for everything {{User|mrblob1012}} | ||
Well, Read what I said again, you obviously do not know what I mean, and it is one of our policies, not a guideline. Read our policies again and come back after you do so. Also, please speak more clearly. {{User|Emperor Yoshi}} | Well, Read what I said again, you obviously do not know what I mean, and it is one of our policies, not a guideline. Read our policies again and come back after you do so. Also, please speak more clearly. {{User|Emperor Yoshi}} | ||
---- | |||
===Make a "No Spam" Usertalk Page Policy=== | ===Make a "No Spam" Usertalk Page Policy=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|22-0|make a no spam usertalk page policy}} | |||
Recently, a bunch of friends of mine (you know who you are) placed a lot of images in my talk page. Though it was funny at first, it considerably stretched my userpage and extended it, so it gave me really bad loading times. Same goes for copying text from certain articles and placing them into my talk page, which also extends it until the loading server lags extensively just to load up my talk page in case it has new messages. | Recently, a bunch of friends of mine (you know who you are) placed a lot of images in my talk page. Though it was funny at first, it considerably stretched my userpage and extended it, so it gave me really bad loading times. Same goes for copying text from certain articles and placing them into my talk page, which also extends it until the loading server lags extensively just to load up my talk page in case it has new messages. | ||
| Line 245: | Line 238: | ||
I'm also proposing this to be enforced, just in case it happens to any unwary user, ignorant user, or a user who just wants to play around with his/her friends. | I'm also proposing this to be enforced, just in case it happens to any unwary user, ignorant user, or a user who just wants to play around with his/her friends. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': 6 | '''Voting start''': September 6, 2010, 20:33 GMT<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': 12 | '''Deadline''': September 12, 2010, 23:59 GMT | ||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
| Line 293: | Line 286: | ||
::I do think that all those Wario pics were annoying(even though I pasted some on), but why would they be considered spam?{{User|DaisyRox02}} | ::I do think that all those Wario pics were annoying(even though I pasted some on), but why would they be considered spam?{{User|DaisyRox02}} | ||
:::They're not spam as long someone who receives them likes them. I said "spamming", it's not actual spamming :D {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | :::They're not spam as long someone who receives them likes them. I said "spamming", it's not actual spamming :D {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | ||
---- | |||
===Expand Main Page to contain all content=== | ===Expand Main Page to contain all content=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-24|oppose}} | |||
What I liked about the main page was I could discuss featured images and vote on polls and all that stuff. The polls left, I was disapointed. However, they brought the polls back, but my other spot the featured images, was gone. It seems that, for stuff to come in, others must go. The way to solve that problem, expand the main page! We want to fit all the stuff everyone loves onto the first page they see when they enter the wiki. | What I liked about the main page was I could discuss featured images and vote on polls and all that stuff. The polls left, I was disapointed. However, they brought the polls back, but my other spot the featured images, was gone. It seems that, for stuff to come in, others must go. The way to solve that problem, expand the main page! We want to fit all the stuff everyone loves onto the first page they see when they enter the wiki. | ||
Alright, so that idea sucked hard, but would anyone be against adding content that wasn't put on their before? We could have character of the week, user of the week, and new pages on the main page. Plus, we could improve the polls a little bit, I think it changes less often than it used to, as well as not including past polls from the last time they did the polls thing. | Alright, so that idea sucked hard, but would anyone be against adding content that wasn't put on their before? We could have character of the week, user of the week, and new pages on the main page. Plus, we could improve the polls a little bit, I think it changes less often than it used to, as well as not including past polls from the last time they did the polls thing. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Beecanoe}}<br> | |||
'''Proposer''':{{User|Beecanoe}}<br> | '''Voting start''': September 9, 2010, 00:00 GMT<br> | ||
'''Voting start''':9 | '''Voting closes''': September 16, 2010, 00:00 GMT<br> | ||
'''Voting closes''':16 | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
| Line 353: | Line 345: | ||
Personally, would like a page or two just visible to users. I may not be edited as frequently, but that would matter. It would just be people who can change it. I'm not saying bring back featured images, but we could have things like progress on things like pipe projects or something. Maybe even come up with a better way to show good pictures. Some stuff that we as users need/want to see and doesn't concern others. And if that stuff belongs on the forum, I certainly can't find anything. (You can discuss this bunny trail more on my talk page.) Back to the point. I am fine with the main page as it is. Just suggesting a different approach to add more content. {{User|Geniusguy445}} | Personally, would like a page or two just visible to users. I may not be edited as frequently, but that would matter. It would just be people who can change it. I'm not saying bring back featured images, but we could have things like progress on things like pipe projects or something. Maybe even come up with a better way to show good pictures. Some stuff that we as users need/want to see and doesn't concern others. And if that stuff belongs on the forum, I certainly can't find anything. (You can discuss this bunny trail more on my talk page.) Back to the point. I am fine with the main page as it is. Just suggesting a different approach to add more content. {{User|Geniusguy445}} | ||
::Pages not visible to the general public is a bad idea. All of our pages should be viewable by everyone. If it's even possible to do that, it's still a bad idea. Other than that, we don't need to show people "good" pictures - aesthetics is a matter of opinion. We have no standards of what makes a "good" image as seen by the old FI process where you did not require a reason to vote. Some people like pictures, some don't, we can't classify pictures as good and bad. And "progress on PipeProjects" can be noted in an article for the Pipe Project. If the creator of the project does not wish to do that, it's no big deal. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ::Pages not visible to the general public is a bad idea. All of our pages should be viewable by everyone. If it's even possible to do that, it's still a bad idea. Other than that, we don't need to show people "good" pictures - aesthetics is a matter of opinion. We have no standards of what makes a "good" image as seen by the old FI process where you did not require a reason to vote. Some people like pictures, some don't, we can't classify pictures as good and bad. And "progress on PipeProjects" can be noted in an article for the Pipe Project. If the creator of the project does not wish to do that, it's no big deal. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
---- | |||
===Main Page Dilemma=== | ===Main Page Dilemma=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
Lately, we have gotten many proposals dealing with none other than the main page. "Remove FI's.", "Bring back the Polls.", "Fit all content on Main Page." and so on and so forth. Why can't we just settle that and try to please all of them? | Lately, we have gotten many proposals dealing with none other than the main page. "Remove FI's.", "Bring back the Polls.", "Fit all content on Main Page." and so on and so forth. Why can't we just settle that and try to please all of them? | ||
| Line 384: | Line 376: | ||
It would be a MAJOR change for us all, and I wouldn't doubt that it would be hard, but at least picture of such quality and awesomeness we would have for the main page! If we just timed each template correctly, from my calculations, then it should work out perfectly! I know that you all have your opinions about this, so I think I will wrap up this proposal. Just remember that even though it would be some difficult work getting everything started, we could be able to make an outstanding Main Page to satify all!!! | It would be a MAJOR change for us all, and I wouldn't doubt that it would be hard, but at least picture of such quality and awesomeness we would have for the main page! If we just timed each template correctly, from my calculations, then it should work out perfectly! I know that you all have your opinions about this, so I think I will wrap up this proposal. Just remember that even though it would be some difficult work getting everything started, we could be able to make an outstanding Main Page to satify all!!! | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}<br> | |||
'''Proposer''':{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}<br> | '''Voting start''': September 17, 2010, 24:00 GMT<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': | '''Proposed voting close''': September 24, 2010, 24:00 GMT<br> | ||
''' | '''Date Withdrawn:''' September 18, 2010, 01:31 GMT | ||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
| Line 408: | Line 400: | ||
:::Here, why don't I just figure out some other stuff and see if I can make a way for people to like it. I have a feeling that a lot of tests are going to be made... {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} | :::Here, why don't I just figure out some other stuff and see if I can make a way for people to like it. I have a feeling that a lot of tests are going to be made... {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} | ||
Well it's obvious this one isn't working so would you consider it deleting? {{User|Marioguy1}} | Well it's obvious this one isn't working so would you consider it deleting? {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
::::....I guess you're right, maybe I should not embarrass myself any further. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} | ::::....I guess you're right, maybe I should not embarrass myself any further. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} | ||
---- | |||
===Making Articles for Keys=== | ===Making Articles for Keys=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|0-15|don't make articles for keys}} | |||
I think we should make articles on different keys in the Mario series. The reason this came to me is because I found an article, [[Station Key]], on a key in Paper Mario: TTYD. Then I thought that if this key article can be made, then we can make a whole bunch of key articles, for example, Pit Key (found in the Pit of 100 Trials) and Dimension Key (found in the Whoa Zone) from Super Paper Mario. I made those redirects to Key for now. | I think we should make articles on different keys in the Mario series. The reason this came to me is because I found an article, [[Station Key]], on a key in Paper Mario: TTYD. Then I thought that if this key article can be made, then we can make a whole bunch of key articles, for example, Pit Key (found in the Pit of 100 Trials) and Dimension Key (found in the Whoa Zone) from Super Paper Mario. I made those redirects to Key for now. | ||
There are 27 key articles. | There are 27 key articles. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': 19 | '''Voting start''': September 19, 2010, 9:00 GMT<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': 26 | '''Deadline''': September 26, 2010, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
| Line 449: | Line 442: | ||
@Mileycyrussoulja: You oppose your own proposal? Surely this is eligible for deletion. {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} | @Mileycyrussoulja: You oppose your own proposal? Surely this is eligible for deletion. {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} | ||
:No. Just because he doesn't support doesn't mean the idea no longer has merit; someone, somewhere might think it's a good idea. Lack of support isn't a good enough reason to delete a proposal, and it's actually better if proposals reach the deadline whenever possible - it gives us solid decisions to refer back to if policies or articles are called into question later on. Plus, the archives look better if they're mostly pass/fails, and not a bunch of cancellations. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :No. Just because he doesn't support doesn't mean the idea no longer has merit; someone, somewhere might think it's a good idea. Lack of support isn't a good enough reason to delete a proposal, and it's actually better if proposals reach the deadline whenever possible - it gives us solid decisions to refer back to if policies or articles are called into question later on. Plus, the archives look better if they're mostly pass/fails, and not a bunch of cancellations. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
---- | |||
===The Science of Video Games=== | ===The Science of Video Games=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-15|don't make such user subpages}} | |||
I believe that user sub-pages relating to theories and the like should be exempt from the Userspace 'guidelines', as they ought to be put somewhere. If not on sub-pages, then maybe in the talk page or the article itself. See my example on [[Talk:Ztar]]. PLEASE LIST WHERE THEY SHOULD GO! | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|YourBuddyBill}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|YourBuddyBill}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': 17:11 | '''Voting start''': 22 September 22, 2010, 17:11<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': 23:59 | '''Deadline''': 29 September 29, 2010 , 23:59 | ||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
| Line 488: | Line 482: | ||
Forums tend to glitch up for me, not showing dates of topics or posts, so I usually get in lots of trouble for necroposting. {{User|YourBuddyBill}} | Forums tend to glitch up for me, not showing dates of topics or posts, so I usually get in lots of trouble for necroposting. {{User|YourBuddyBill}} | ||
Votes that were made before the voting period started remain invalid even after it starts. If we allowed anything else, it would defeat the entire purpose of having a "voting period". {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} | Votes that were made before the voting period started remain invalid even after it starts. If we allowed anything else, it would defeat the entire purpose of having a "voting period". {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} | ||
---- | |||
===Making a Power Glove article=== | ===Making a Power Glove article=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-12|don't make power glove article}} | |||
I think we should make a article for the failed accessorie, the power glove. We have a article for the Atari 2600 and the Virtual boy, so why not make a power glove article. I will put in codes the players need to use to play the games. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Fuzzipede27}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Fuzzipede27}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': 25 | '''Voting start''': September 25, 2010, 10:00 GMT<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': 2 | '''Deadline''': October 2, 2010, 10:00 GMT<br> | ||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
| Line 530: | Line 521: | ||
I don't even know hat a Power Glove is. Can someone explain it to me? {{User|Commander Code-8}} | I don't even know hat a Power Glove is. Can someone explain it to me? {{User|Commander Code-8}} | ||
:@CC-8: I'm sure that nobody here can explain better than [[wikipedia:Power Glove|wikipedia does]]. {{User|Marioguy1 | :@CC-8: I'm sure that nobody here can explain better than [[wikipedia:Power Glove|wikipedia does]]. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
---- | |||
===And You are.....?=== | ===And You are.....?=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|16-7|use full names}} | |||
I just notice in some sections of articles, they refer to the game by an abbreviation (''SSBB'' is an example) or by another name usually just a shorten version of the game title (''Brawl'' another example). So we should have this settled once and for all, should we refer to Video game titles only by there full name in mainspace or still refer them by their abbreviations? | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Zero777}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Zero777}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': 28 | '''Voting start''': September 28, 2010, 21:30<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': 4 | '''Deadline''': October 4, 2010, 21:30 | ||
====Use Full Names==== | ====Use Full Names==== | ||
| Line 589: | Line 580: | ||
::DaisyRox: Wave over this link ([[SSBB]]) - what does it say? "Super Smash Bros. Brawl"? No, it says "SSBB". And now, wave over this word (''SSBB''), what did that say? Nothing? See there, two examples of when an abbreviation would not be understanded unless you know what "SSBB" means. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ::DaisyRox: Wave over this link ([[SSBB]]) - what does it say? "Super Smash Bros. Brawl"? No, it says "SSBB". And now, wave over this word (''SSBB''), what did that say? Nothing? See there, two examples of when an abbreviation would not be understanded unless you know what "SSBB" means. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
It's a ''redirect''. Okay, fine then. I lose. End of story.{{User|DaisyRox02}} | It's a ''redirect''. Okay, fine then. I lose. End of story.{{User|DaisyRox02}} | ||
---- | |||
===The prefix "List of"=== | ===The prefix "List of"=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|3-11-0|add "list of" to all lists}} | |||
There are 166 lists on the wiki. 105 have the prefix "List of". The rest don't. We need concistency. Either we remove List of, or we add list of. I prefer removing it, because list of is unnecessary. While some of you might argue that people wouldn't know what is a list and what isn't, most of the articles that have list of are articles that people would expect to be lists. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': October 1, | '''Voting start''': October 1, 13:04 GMT<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': October 7, 23:59 GMT | '''Deadline''': October 7, 23:59 GMT | ||
| Line 626: | Line 618: | ||
:However if the article is entitled "List of Games", it is expected that there will be a large list of all games which is what will actually be shown in the article. {{User|Marioguy1}} | :However if the article is entitled "List of Games", it is expected that there will be a large list of all games which is what will actually be shown in the article. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
::Then what about pages like the Bestaries we have for the PM series and SMRPG? I mean, I do like the idea of being all the same, but still, it will be hard with some names to move. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} | ::Then what about pages like the Bestaries we have for the PM series and SMRPG? I mean, I do like the idea of being all the same, but still, it will be hard with some names to move. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} | ||
:::DaisyRox: Of course! It's definitely a no-brainer to know what's a list and what isn't '''without looking at the article'''! How could I possible have overlooked the powers of psychometry :) {{User|Marioguy1}} | :::DaisyRox: Of course! It's definitely a no-brainer to know what's a list and what isn't '''without looking at the article'''! How could I possible have overlooked the powers of psychometry :) {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
---- | |||
===Character Pages Extras=== | ===Character Pages Extras=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-13|don't split other media from character pages}} | |||
Alright, you can even look at the articles of [[Mario]], [[Luigi]], [[Peach]], and so on, to see that the pages are HUGE! In all, that is a very good thing that should be with all the info they have, but then you see the small sections known as the cartoons and comics area. Do we really need them to be on the main characters pages? I mean, we can't just toss it aside, but really... | Alright, you can even look at the articles of [[Mario]], [[Luigi]], [[Peach]], and so on, to see that the pages are HUGE! In all, that is a very good thing that should be with all the info they have, but then you see the small sections known as the cartoons and comics area. Do we really need them to be on the main characters pages? I mean, we can't just toss it aside, but really... | ||
My proposal is not entirely deleting that info about the comics, cartoons, stories, and that stuff, but to move it to a different page. To show an example, for the comics that Mario has been in, we could make a page {{ | My proposal is not entirely deleting that info about the comics, cartoons, stories, and that stuff, but to move it to a different page. To show an example, for the comics that Mario has been in, we could make a page {{fake link|Mario (comics)}} and be able to view all the comics Mario has been in and what his comic-counterpart is like. That will help with all the information from the animated stuff that differs greatly from the character's video game background. | ||
It might sound troubling at first, but think of it as just making another page for the character. We have [[Baby Mario]], [[Baby Luigi]], [[Baby Peach]], and so on, and they are just a younger form of the adult counterparts we have known for awhile. And on that topic, we even had a proposal before that wanted to separate some of the baby info from the video game since the cartoon made it seem like they appeared a lot earlier. | It might sound troubling at first, but think of it as just making another page for the character. We have [[Baby Mario]], [[Baby Luigi]], [[Baby Peach]], and so on, and they are just a younger form of the adult counterparts we have known for awhile. And on that topic, we even had a proposal before that wanted to separate some of the baby info from the video game since the cartoon made it seem like they appeared a lot earlier. | ||
| Line 640: | Line 633: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': 3 | '''Voting start''': October 3, 2010, 0:43 GMT<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': 9 | '''Deadline''': October 9, 2010, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
| Line 684: | Line 677: | ||
::That sounds like a good idea. I was even considering putting all the episodes Mario appeared in somewhere else and put a main summary on another page. There are plentiful episodes, so I don't know why we have to give details on the games, but not on the cartoon episodes. (*blinks*) agghhh too much winking (*explodes*) {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | ::That sounds like a good idea. I was even considering putting all the episodes Mario appeared in somewhere else and put a main summary on another page. There are plentiful episodes, so I don't know why we have to give details on the games, but not on the cartoon episodes. (*blinks*) agghhh too much winking (*explodes*) {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | ||
:::'''@MG1''': I think I understand what you are saying. So it is to have sub-articles of Mario - which was the main goal of the proposal - to put the comics/movie/cartoons on. Then, on the Mario Page, we could just summarize the series into a well-written paragraph, deleting both the stubby sections, yet not making an entire new Mario Page. I like you're thinking btw. It is beyond 3 days, so I can't change it now, but I think I might (*wink*) follow your advice and see if another proposal later will deal with that. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} | :::'''@MG1''': I think I understand what you are saying. So it is to have sub-articles of Mario - which was the main goal of the proposal - to put the comics/movie/cartoons on. Then, on the Mario Page, we could just summarize the series into a well-written paragraph, deleting both the stubby sections, yet not making an entire new Mario Page. I like you're thinking btw. It is beyond 3 days, so I can't change it now, but I think I might (*wink*) follow your advice and see if another proposal later will deal with that. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} | ||
::::OK, I have filled [[User:Marioguy1/Test]] with all the examples you need. I suggest you just get on with the second proposal and ask an admin to delete this one but if you want to see how this one ends off and then propose the second one, I'm fine with that too. In your proposal, you can use my test page as an example (unless that's not what you want). Make sure to stress that this will apply to all characters ''at the user's judgement'' (i.e. if the character makes a cameo in one episode, we don't need to split it off but if they appear in several, well, the user editing the article sets the limit. As long as people use common sense, they won't get it wrong). {{User|Marioguy1}}}} | ::::OK, I have filled [[User:Marioguy1/Test]] with all the examples you need. I suggest you just get on with the second proposal and ask an admin to delete this one but if you want to see how this one ends off and then propose the second one, I'm fine with that too. In your proposal, you can use my test page as an example (unless that's not what you want). Make sure to stress that this will apply to all characters ''at the user's judgement'' (i.e. if the character makes a cameo in one episode, we don't need to split it off but if they appear in several, well, the user editing the article sets the limit. As long as people use common sense, they won't get it wrong). {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
---- | |||
===Showing only passed proposals on the Main Page=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-17|don't show only passed proposals on the main page}} | |||
I've sometimes gone to the wiki and looked at the proposal and seen that the idea looks really weird. I then go onto the Proposals page and find that the proposal only has about 3 supporters and maybe 10 opposers. Seeing something that won't be taken action about on the Main Page seems to make the wiki look bad. | |||
I am proposing that only proposals that have successfully passed be Featured on the Main Page, so that people can log in on the wiki. See what the proposal is and possibly start helping out with it | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Commander Code-8}}<br> | |||
'''Voting start''': October 5, 2010, 5:17 GMT<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': October 12, 2010, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Only Feature passed Proposals on the main page==== | |||
#{{User|Commander Code-8}} Per my proposal | |||
====Keep on showing Proposals that are still in voting time==== | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Per Reversinator's comment. Zero signing out. | |||
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} Per Reversinator's comment. | |||
#{{User|Smasher_101}} Per Revesinator's comment. | |||
#{{User|WigglerWhoopin'Warrior135}} Per all comments. | |||
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Showing active proposals on the main page draws attention to the current changes that are suggested to be made. It convinces people to see what changes are going to be made and what side they should take. Featuring passed proposals seems like a waste of space. There are no functions to a passed proposal and it doesn't look too glamorous, after all. Passed proposals belong in the archive, not in the front page. | |||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} I think that the proposal on the front page is supposed to stir up attention, not say, "Hey look, it passed! Make these changes!" | |||
#{{User|Sgt.Boo}}Per LeftyGreenMario. | |||
#{{User|Garlic Stapler}} Per LGM and Reversinator. Also showing only passed proposals doesn't motivate anyone to try getting involved and they will likely assume that the proposal is already being taken care of. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all, including Reversinator. | |||
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Frostyfireyoshi}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|M&SG}} - Active proposals draw more attention to current changes. If only the winning proposals are displayed, that won't give the active proposals a good look. | |||
#{{User|Emperor Yoshi}} Well, if passed proposals are shown on the main page, it would draw attention away from current proposals, and also make us look unprofessional, also the people that come after something like this proposal were to pass would think that the proposal shown was still active, and they would vote on that proposal, and would mostly stay clear of the other ones. | |||
#{{User|JF}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Ralphfan}} – Per all. | |||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} I approve these words! Hahahaha per all. | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
The main page shows the most recent proposal. It doesn't matter if the proposal in question is failing. And besides, someone could make a vote-shattering comment that causes everyone to support. {{User|Reversinator}} | |||
I don't really know what's the point in this. I thought the proposal on the main page is there to attract attention to the proposal. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
:I think Commander Code-8's point is that passed proposal frequently require a lot of work to actually realise after they have passed, and that this may get people to help with that. Personally though, I sort of doubt anyone is going to help with these things just because they saw that a proposal passed on the main page. The way it's currently handled, the main page directs attention to proposals still in the voting phase, and people are a lot more likely to participate in a proposal by voting than by adjusting articles after it has passed simply because takes much less time and effort.--{{User|Vellidragon}} | |||
Wow, a proposal about proposals. Per all commenting. {{User|WigglerWhoopin'Warrior135}} | |||
---- | |||
===Image Gallery or Gallery=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|0-13|simply "gallery"}} | |||
On some articles, the header that leads to the article subject's gallery either says Image Gallery or Gallery. This doesn't look professional to have one header on one page that says Image Gallery and another header on another page that says Gallery. We need to fix this. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}}<br> | |||
'''Voting start''': October 6, 2010, 8:08 UTC<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': October 13, 2010, 23:59 UTC | |||
====Put Image Gallery on articles==== | |||
====Put Gallery on articles==== | |||
#{{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} I think it should just be Gallery. Image Gallery just sounds too... i don't know. Doesn't sound right. | |||
#{{User|Garlic Stapler}} Gallery, Image Gallery? Let's just leave it at gallery, short and to the point of where it links to. | |||
#{{User|Sgt.Boo}} I don't really think it matters too much, but it should stick to one thing. Gallery is short and simple and hits the nail on the head in terms of what to put. | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} The "Image" part is ''pointless'' and a waste of space. Gallery is best. | |||
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - It would be like saying large big, they literally mean the same thing here. Don't go be like Mario Mario, as we only need 1. Also, it is already Gallery, so lets keep it from being POINTLESS. | |||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Same thing as the term "the reason why...is because...". Too much unnecessary words. | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! What else will you be thinking on a website that says "gallery". Zero signing out. | |||
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} "Image" is kind of obvious. Just "gallery" is good, in this case "Image Gallery" is rather redundant. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Smasher 101}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} Per all those with the word "pointless" on their minds... | |||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Ralphfan}} – Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Guys just a reminder, i'm talking about the headers on articles that link to the subject's gallery, not the actual gallery itself.{{user|Mileycyrussoulja}} | |||
Will this have to be done manually, or can it be done with DPL text replace? {{User|Ralphfan}} | |||
:The text replace function has no DPL in it, and this wiki does not have it so, yes, manually would be a good choice. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
I am Zero! Can somone please archive this. Zero signing out. {{User|Zero777}} | |||
---- | |||
===Move Episodes from Article to Subpage=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-4|put episodes on subpages}} | |||
This proposal is kind of like BMB's last proposal, except it is proposing to move the episodes of appearance of a character, as long as the character has many of these appearances, into a subpage of the article. I'm not going to go in depth in the description but this will save loading time on longer articles for those people who don't want to see every appearance of Character X in Series Y. For the people who do, there will be a link :) | |||
If you don't get it, [[User:Marioguy1/Test]] is my awesome example page :P | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | |||
'''Voting Start:''' October 12, 2010, 22:00 EST<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' October 18, 2010, 23:59 | |||
====Seperate==== | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - This can reduce loading time on many articles without making too many subpages like BMB's former proposal would have. | |||
#{{User|Cosmic Red Toad}} - per BMB's old proposal and this one. i dont care about... episodes or whatever? | |||
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - Well, same as before, yet his is more logical I guess. Also, do realize that the Gallery Proposal is much like this, as it is a sub-page of the character, and we do have to best guess whether it should be a sub-page for some characters. | |||
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{user|Tucayo}} -Per all. | |||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} I was thinking about this when I typed up the Mario episodes. I thought we have to cover every single appearance of Mario, so there, a billion episode descriptions. The making of the subpages will help the loading time greatly. | |||
#{{User|New Super Mario}} Per proposal | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! There are high chances that they're not going to make a new Mario cartoon so putting it in a sub-page will'nt be a bad idea. It can give more room to upcoming game info. Zero signing out. | |||
====Remain in Articles==== | |||
# {{User|Bowser's luma}} If we were to do that, why not make a subpage for game appearances as well? The point of an article is to have a lot of info in one place, not to be a map of subpages. I can understand a subpage for the likes of images, but written information belongs in the article. | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Do we need of ''every'' page a subpage? Galleries were enough for me. Besides, some featured articles have much info ''because'' of the length and inclusion of important sections - Game appearances, personality etc, relations, other info, misc. I bet that those might be unfeatured after this proposal passes. Also, per Bowser's luma. | |||
#{{User|Basurao Pokabu Waribiaru Zeburaika Zuruguu A}} You've got to think of things from a reader's viewpoint. This ruins a reader's ease in reading pages. Let's say they want to read the whole Mario article. Now, they'd have to go to a separate page to see his episode appearances? Not to mention the test page basically shows episode summaries. | |||
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per all | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Well, if we did something like this to Mario, wouldn't it be consistent to do it with every other character from the cartoons? {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | |||
:Yes, pretty much. As long as they appear in multiple episodes, or something like that. It's basically up to the user's best judgement to determine whether or not a sub-page is required. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
::@Bowser's luma: Did I ever say anything about a subpage for games? This proposal is an alternative to the recently failed proposal about making subpages to games. Please don't extend the content of my proposal beyong what I put there, I am opposed and always will be opposed to subpages for games. Yes, articles are meant to cover the content of a character, but we do not need a complete listing of the episodes that the character appeared in, rather a general statement of their overall role in the episodes will suffice and if anyone cares to delve deeper, we have a link for them. It shortens the page for all those who don't want to see every single time '''Mario''' has appeared in a series entitled the Super '''Mario''' Bros. Super Show. Chances are that he appeared in more than a lot of episodes. For those who want to read the article as a whole, we have a paragraph describing how he was the hero in the shows and he fought against Bowser and yadayadayada, we list the abnormal episodes and say how they were abnormal and then the reader moves on, knowing what Mario did in that series. If they want to read about his appearances there and they specifically target that section, we have a link for the odd reader who does want that kind of thing. But for the other two types or readers, who are much more common, we have a general overview. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
:::@Arend: Fed up with subpages? Why? Do you just find them annoying? Personally, I find that subpages help move some of the content that people may not want to see which will take up a very extensive portion of the article, away so that only those who want to see it will see it. And if any FAs were featured because of any good qualities, I would like a list of them so I can create unfeature noms for them all. Perfection is not a representation of how many good things an article has, perfection is a representation of how many bad things it does not. If any articles were featured because they have a "long, descriptive section in the middle" then they should be unfeatured. They are not perfect (or as close to perfect as possible) if they have a big section in the middle and many errors everywhere else. If they have no errors anywhere and a big section in the middle, taking away the section won't do anything bad to them. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
I don't like the idea of only doing this to the main characters' articles. It's much more consistent to do this with all character articles from the cartoons, no matter how minor. Deciding what characters are main and what characters are minor is mostly based on opinions if you ask me. I always thought of [[Oogtar]] as an important and major character, but I'm sure not everyone can agree on that because he doesn't appear in many episodes as far as I know. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | |||
:What I mean by that is for characters like [[Mario]], [[Luigi]], etc. there would be a subpage. Maybe for characters with multiple appearances like [[Mouser]] but for a character like [[Pine]], there is no need to split it into a subpage so it won't be split. Whether there is need or not is up to the user editing the article but I would personally never do it for someone who appeared in only one episode and never anything else. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
::@The guy with the long name: I ''am'' thinking from the typical reader's viewpoint. What you just described was an atypical and less common type of reader. Someone who wants to read the entire Mario article will have to click one link, and all the others who ''don't'' won't have to scroll through 11 paragraphs of text just to skip one section. And if someone wants to know what Mario's appearance in that series is, there is a paragraph describing what he does. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
---- | |||
===Categories on Boss Articles=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-3|use new category system}} | |||
OK, this proposal, obviously, has to do with the categories on the boss articles, something like this was recently stated on the talk of the main page however I think that to be an official policy, it must be proposed and passed by the community. So, currently, ~all (or so I am told) boss articles have three categories in them, Enemies, Bosses and Characters. I propose that we use those categories much more strictly, AKA for the following reasons: | |||
*[[:Category:Enemies|Enemies]] - This category will only be used on characters that are unnamed individually and are simply known as members of a certain species. Like Goombas, not [[Goomboss]], not [[Red and Blue Goomba]], just the members of the species that are generic and anonymous. Examples include [[Goomba]], [[Koopa Troopa]], [[Spiny]] and [[Nitpicker]]. | |||
*[[:Category:Bosses|Bosses]] - This category would only contain enemies with different variants, like different music, different size, solo text where they state they are "superior" or "notable", different coloration, etc. Examples include [[Goomboss]], [[Baron Brrr]], [[Lakilester]] and [[Bowser]]. | |||
*[[:Category:Characters|Characters]] - This category will only contain named characters. If the being in question is named and not just a generic member of a species then it would be considered a character. Examples include [[Mario]], [[Yoshi (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)|Yoshi]], [[Bowser]] and [[Goompapa]]. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | |||
'''Voting Starts:''' October 12, 2010, 21:00 EST<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' October 18, 2010, 23:59 | |||
====Use this Category System==== | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - When looking for enemies, people want to see enemies, i.e. the different species that bosses fall into, not bosses in general. | |||
#{{User|Supershroom}} - I completly agree. What's the point of having a bosses category if they are all found in other categories. However, you suggest that Bowser would be in the Bosses category, when he is a character as well. I mean, if someone was asked to name some major Mario characters, I'm sure they would mention Bowser. So, if they then came here, and wanted to see some Mario characters, they would think that there would be a mistake in the category if they didn't find Bowser there. For most of the other bosses, like those who have been seen once, would be fine in their own Bosses Category. On the other hand, some people might lke to see a page with all the named characters (the lazy blobs could jus click links to other pages though), so this might be why there is so much disagreement about this topic. Oh and what Marioguy1 says. I only really disagree about Bowser, and other important characters like the Koopalings and Kamek (and so on and so forth) only being in the bosses category, when they are charcters too. Take [[Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story]], for example. You fight Bowser (three times, if you count Bowser X as the third), which makes him a boss, yet you also play as him, mking him a character. I could go on for ages, (I aready have XD) but I can't be bothered to type any more. I broke my finger a few days ago, and I think I'm making it worse. Finally, per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Ralphfan}} – Per all. | |||
#{{User|Cosmic Blue Toad}} – Per proposal and myself in the comments. | |||
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Bosses are not enemies, and to be honest I expected that common sense would make that obvious. Both of these terms are distinct roles in video game jargon, and in the usual case they are exclusive to one another. These two categories should never appear on the same article, except in the very specific case that something is encountered as a boss AND a regular enemy. Do not mix this up. | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} I agree with Edo's comment. | |||
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Finally, a comment that helped me decide my vote. Thanks, Edo! Per Edo. | |||
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} Took me a while to decide, but per all. | |||
====Continue Using Current One==== | |||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Bosses are characters as well as enemies. All current categories apply, some of which are just more specific than others. It is like so: Characters>Enemies>Bosses. Bowser is a boss, but that doesn't remove him from the categories of "Enemies" or "Characters." | |||
#{{User|GalacticPetey}} Per Bowsers Luma | |||
#{{User|Fuzzipede27}} Per Bowser's Luma. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
So you are saying Bosses =/= Characters? I would think that characters may be like a "mother category", with many other ones branching out, like Bosses, Enemies, Allies, etc. {{user|Tucayo}} | |||
:Actually, I think most (if not all) boss articles would also be character articles. What I'm saying is that not all character articles would also be boss articles. I'm just trying to set category standards in this small area of the category tree. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
::The boss category is a specific sub-category of "enemies". It applies to those enemies that are fought in a "boss battle", bosses are defined as enemies but you don't meet up with a Bowser on the road and (forgive the Pokemon reference) have "A wild Bowser appeared!" flash onto the screen. He's slightly more sinister than a casual, oh look, it's ''another'' one of those things. And if Bowser is a character AND a boss, he will be categorized as a character AND a boss, I don't see the dilemma with having two categories. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
Look, the branch of "being" categories are kinda like this in my eyes: | |||
*Species - Races of different beings. Some are usually nice (Allies), some are usually evil (Enemies). | |||
*Characters - (Important) members of different species, which usually have a name. | |||
*Heroes - The good guys, who usually save worlds, characters and important items. Mario (a Character) is a Hero, Yoshis (a species) are too. | |||
*Allies - Nice characters or species which help heroes on their way, and are against enemies. The character Toad is an ally, and so are his species. Mario is sometimes an ally too. | |||
*Villains - Usually the bad guys. They usually kidnap certain characters, steal important items and take over worlds. Villains are usually characters, not species. Bowser is a villain | |||
*Bosses - The term "Boss" is used on characters who are need to be fought, or are leaded by a villain, or eventually ARE the leaders of a branch of enemies. Villains can be bosses as well. Bowser is not only a villain, but also a boss. Hammer Bros. (a species) are (mini)bosses too. | |||
*Enemies - This could be anything that is bad. Evil species, villains AND bosses. So Hammer Bros. are also enemies, and Bowser thus too. And so are Goombas. | |||
A little complicated, and maybe a little hard to understand. {{User|Arend}} | |||
:Well, I think of them like this: | |||
*Species - '''All''' different '''races''', ''good or evil'' (such as [[Goomba]]s, [[Bub-ulb]]s, [[Lakitu]]s,and [[Yoshi (species)|Yoshi]]s) | |||
*Enemies - '''Evil''' or mean '''species''' ''that can'' usually ''be fought'' (such as [[Koopa Troopa|Koopa]]s, [[Bombshell Bill]]s, [[Magikoopa]]s, and [[Mawful Mole]]s) | |||
*Allies - '''Good''', supporting, or helpful '''species or''' minor '''characters''' ''that'' usually ''assist you or you'' need to ''rescue'' (such as [[Toad]], [[Toad (species)|Toad]]s, [[Luma (species)|Luma]]s, and [[Luma (character)|Luma]]) | |||
*Characters - '''Anyone''', ''good or bad'', who has been '''specifically named''' (such as [[Fawful]], [[Toadette]], [[Bowser]], and [[Waluigi]]) | |||
*Bosses - '''Evil characters''' who ''you fight in a'' '''boss battle''' (such as [[Red Ninjakoopa]], [[Bowser Jr.]], [[Dark Fawful]], and [[Tatanga]]) | |||
*Heroes - '''Good''', major '''characters''', not allies, ''who'' usually do their best to ''help save the day'' (such as [[Mario]], [[Yoshi]], [[Lakilester]], and [[Rosalina]]) | |||
*Villains - '''Major bosses''', ''usually the final boss''es, which the entire game leads to their defeat (such as [[Dark Fawful Bug]]/[[Dark Bowser]], [[Shadow Queen|The Shadow Queen]], [[Smithy]], and [[Bowser]] | |||
<small>Recap:<br> | |||
'''Species''':''All races'', good or evil ([[Dryite]]s)<br> | |||
'''Enemies''':''Evil species'' that can be fought ([[Octoomba]]s)<br> | |||
'''Allies''':''Good species or characters'' that assist you or you rescue ([[Tayce T.]])<br> | |||
'''Characters''':''Anyone specifically named'', good or bad ([[Starlow]])<br> | |||
'''Bosses''':''Evil characters'' you fight in a ''boss battle'' ([[Kammy Koopa]])<br> | |||
'''Heroes''':''Good characters'' who help save the day ([[Luigi]])<br> | |||
'''Villains''':''Major bosses'', usually the final boss ([[Super Dimentio]])</small> | |||
Well, that's what I think. {{User|Cosmic Blue Toad}} | |||
A boss is an opponent, usually one of a kind, who is fought under special conditions. In action games a boss is usually introduced somehow, commonly with a cutscene, and you fight it in an arena of some sorts. In an RPG those often have their own separate battle theme or something else that sets them appart from the enemies. An enemy on the other hand is one of the many common nuisances you encounter in a level. They are usually not unique or specially introduced, and you often encounter more than one of them in one level. These are set roles in video game jargon, keep that in mind. | |||
So apparently there are people saying the Bowser article should have the Enemy category on it. Now let me ask you a question: Where, even in one single game, has Bowser ever been encountered as a common enemy? In which game did he roam a level like a Goomba, or Koopa, or any other enemy? That's right, never! This is why the Enemy category has no place on the Bowser article, and neither does it have one on any other boss article. | |||
This whole Enemies-Bosses constellation has been formed because of the assumption that most bosses hold a grudge against Mario (read: They are his enemies). However, this is not what the Enemy category is for. It is for common enemies '''only'''! We can't just stretch the scope of a category because of semantics like "You can use the word 'enemy' in a sentence with them, so they have to be enemies". We don't put Category:Bosses on [[Princess Peach]] because she is the ruler (read: the boss) of the Toads. The example sounds ridiculous? Well, the whole argument is the same if you think about it long enough. | |||
The scope of a category needs to be clear and precise. Don't dilute it with semantics that contradict logic and the fundaments of video game principles. - {{User|Edofenrir}} | |||
---- | |||
===Take out Community Polls and Bring back Featured Images=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|vetoed|This is not up to the userbase. The main page is crucial in making a first impression on guests and so we need to make it as impressive as we can.}} | |||
Ok I kind of liked these at the start but now that it has been a while, they get kind of boring. One thing is that there are polls on the forum. If people want to do the polls so bad they can just go on the forum and create polls themseleves or answer polls other people have created. A second reason is that the polls are there too long. I get on and the poll that I vote on is still there. My last reason is that with Featured Images every user can do it and not just people on the poll commitee. With the polls all you do is vote and it is done, nothing else happens. With the FI you can go on time to time more frequently and put images on/vote on them. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|New Super Mario}}<br> | |||
'''Voting Start''': October 18, 2010, 6:20 UTC<br> | |||
'''Proposed deadline''': October 25, 2010, 6:20 UTC<br> | |||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' October 19, 2010, 01:30 GMT | |||
====Bring back FI==== | |||
#{{User|New Super Mario}} Per Proposal | |||
====Keep Polls==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
The Featured Image process does not work, no matter how many rules we add, the physical impossibility of that system prevents it from working. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
---- | |||
===Merge [[Mario Tennis]] Characters=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-11|don't merge mario tennis characters}} | |||
I've been checking the Project Unstubify page and quite a few of the character pages and notice that almost all of them have only one or two setences and a stub template put onto them. I think that they should all be merged as one page since there is literally no one to expand those stubs at all. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Garlic Stapler}}<br> | |||
'''Voting start''': October 13, 2010, 9:15 EST<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': October 20, 2010, 23:59 | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Garlic Stapler}} - Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Beecanoe}} - You know, this could be the start of something new. Not only could we merge the Mario Tennis character articles, but merge articles about other really minor elements, too (such as the Mario & Sonic Olympic events, sure they're not as short as the Mario Tennis characters, but they're stubs, nonetheless). I pity the foos who think that idea is a bad one. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} I oppose because this is the MARIOWIKI and each character is supposed to have their own article. | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} I have both Mario Tennis games for the Game Boy systems and each of those character have a slightly different role and personality (from what I remember). Per all. | |||
#{{User|Ralphfan}} – Per all. | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - We are the mariowiki, we do not limit our content based on our writing capabilities, we wait for someone with better experience with the game and character to come along and do it. We do our best, even if that's not the best. We cannot give up because of a minor impass, take te easy road and limit our content. We must challenge ourselves to make it better and only then can we call ourselves an encyclopedia. For the wiki! | |||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} This is a foo who thinks this idea is a bad idea. Pity her. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Fuzzipede27}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mariomaster228}} Per all. Even if an article is a stub, it still has the potential to grow. Mario and Luigi each have their own articles, so same thing here. | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Specify on who do you mean by "Mario Tennis characters" and I might change my mind. Zero signing out. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Emperor Yoshi}} Well, we should not limit our content on our experience with the game, it would make us look like a amateur encyclopedia, thus, we should wait until someone with more experience with the games to add to the pages. | |||
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Per all. I pity the foos who think that idea is a good one. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
If you don't like the fact that they are stub articles, why not write more? {{User|Bowser's luma}} | |||
:To be honest I've played the games a couple of times, really isn't much more you can write about them to be honest. =[ {{User|Garlic Stapler}} | |||
How about we just don't have those articles at all? No one cares about those characters anyway. {{User|Beecanoe}} | |||
:We are the MarioWiki, we have articles on all characters, major or minor from the Mario series. ESPECIALLY if they are playable. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
Beecanoe: Please don't call other people "foos" just because they have a different opinion than you. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | |||
:Yea, even though I can't expand and I support my own idea, don't call people "foos", kind of demeaning. {{User|Garlic Stapler}} | |||
:::Foos. Is that like foosball? {{User|Bowser's luma}} | |||
::::To be honest, I didn't really call anyone a foo. I just thought my idea was good and that it might work. But if anyone was offended, I apologize. Working with Dry Bowser, his rudeness kind of rubs on to you. | |||
Oh yeah, and "foo" is how Mr. T. says "fool". Hope that clears things up for you Bowser's Luma. {{User|Beecanoe}} | |||
---- | |||
=== The Lists on the Left Side Below Mario Knowledge === | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|7-11|leave lists as they are}} | |||
Pretty simple proposal. You know those lists about [[List of characters|Characters]], [[List of locations|Places]], [[List of items|Items]], etc.? These lists are split into two: game stuff and non-game stuff. Why are they separate? Due to those canon proposals, shouldn't they be one list? I'm proposing that we merge the non-game stuff with the game stuff in those lists. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}<br> | |||
'''Voting start''': October 6, 2010, 21:23 UTC<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': <s>October 13, 2010 23:59 UTC</s> '''Extended:''' October 20, 2010 23:59 UTC | |||
====DO MERGE==== | |||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} This isn't a matter of organization. We're supposed to update the list according to the previous proposal of merging game with non-game stuff. Besides, A-Z is enough organization we need. If you want to separate things as much as possible, fine, split the character articles into more articles. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per LeftyGreenMario: it's policy to list games and alternate media side-by-side, and anything that doesn't do this is merely outdated, with the exception of certain Navigation Templates (i.e. {{tem|Human}}), which ''need'' the differentiate between series and whatnot. The lists don't need to be separated to show what media they are from, however, because the sources are listed right there on the pages. | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - I usually refrain from voting but here I must vote as it seems my cause will lose (plus Walkazo made me rebuke my idea of "not being able to make a difference"). Per me in the comments I guess but to sum it up, there is no reason for characters, all confirmed as Mario characters, to be seperate on a list of Mario characters. | |||
#{{User|JF}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mathew10}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Dry Paratroopa}} It would shorten the pages, and if we really need an indicator, we can add a footnote shape like we did for the Yoshi series in the enemies section. | |||
====DON'T MERGE==== | |||
#{{user|Tucayo}} - I am a firm supporter of separating games and non-games as much as possible, so, naturally, I oppose this proposal. Why? Well, they are different media, and that is enough reason for me. But if it isn't for you, well, then, most of the other media is not even fully made by Nintendo, and most of the characters have completely different roles, appearances, etc. | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! It will be easier and more organized if we didn't merge them. Zero signing out. | |||
#{{User|Commander Code-8}} I'm not sure that merging them would help. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Wayoshi}} - Parsing out stuff into divisions is the best organization. | |||
#{{User|Fuzzipede27}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} In my mind I try to keep things as seperate as possible, and for some things I do, that would impose a major hassle for myself, and others as well. Per all. | |||
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Ralphfan}} – Per all. | |||
#{{User|New Super Mario}} Per all. It's just more work for people to find something in the list | |||
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} Per Tucayo. | |||
#{{User|Cosmic Red Toad}} Per Tucayo | |||
====Important Neutral Stuff==== | |||
I'll say something that is on everybody's mind right now. Huh?!?!? {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
Well, if you see [[List of characters|here]], the characters are divided to two groups: game and nongame. I want to merge the two since, well, because of one question: canon or not? Sorry for presenting an opinion unclearly; I'm notorious for doing that '-_- {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
Otherwise, tell me, why are they separate? Shouldn't the list be one big list? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
: Ah, now I see :) In my personal opinion, the current format is horrible. They should either be split into two lists or merged into one, not semi-merged, semi-split as they currently are. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
:: Yes, these lists should be one, according to this proposal. Remember those canon debates? I think these lists haven't been modified yet. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
::: Yeah, a lot of things regrettably fall through the cracks each time we change the organization standards... - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
Tucayo: Well, they are different media, but I don't see why the two lists are split, yet the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Sections of an Article|Manual of Style]] wants articles to include both game information and other media information in the same section. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
Zero777: The list is organized well enough. What, alphabetically isn't enough? It's slightly harder to navigate because the list is split. Again, this proposal deals mostly with the grouping of game and non-game stuff. The lists are outdated, and we need to change it to the standards. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
Luigi-board: Your vote is invalid. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
I'm neutral for this. This proposal is balanced in advantages (organization) and disadvantages (tons of moved internal links). {{User|Mathew10}} | |||
: It shouldn't be that hard to move the links. It might be tedious, but it isn't hard. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
:: I really hope nobody opposes anything because it is too "hard", obviously the creator is volunteering to do the work themselves so it won't be hard at all for the person opposing. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
Again, it's not like alphabetized isn't organized enough. I can live with only 1 list. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
I don't understand why we should merge the game and non-game things TBH. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | |||
: Previous proposals. We are supposed to place game and non-game things in the same spot so we don't go in this canon debate. I thought we agreed to place non-game things and game things in the same spot, so I don't know why people oppose. This seems logical to me. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
:: Can you at least provide a link for evidence of such? {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | |||
Check [[MarioWiki:Coverage#No Canon|the coverage policy]] and [[MarioWiki:Canonicity|canon policy]]. The split of the lists seems like the games are "more" canon than the nongames. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
---- | |||
===Make a Gallery Template=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|5-0|make a gallery template}} | |||
I just thought how easy it would be to have a Gallery template so new users could easily find more galleries when they access one and even editors could easily access their favorite galleries without having to go through the trouble. We could make a template for Character galleries and a template for Game galleries. Anyone think this is a good idea? I am thinking about making sections for Characters, Species, Bosses, and Games. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}}<br> | |||
'''Voting start''': October 11, 2010, 7:54 UTC<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': <s>October 18, 2010, 23:59 UTC</s> '''Extended:''' October 25, 2010, 23:59 UTC | |||
====Make a Gallery Template==== | |||
#{{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} Per myself. If this proposal passes, then I will truly make a gallery template. | |||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Hey! Here's a good idea! Per Mileycyrussoulja. | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - A navbox sounds like a good idea! It can help navigation around the galleries and it can't hurt, for examples see the staff articles (i.e. [[Super Mario Galaxy/Staff]]) | |||
#{{User|Beecanoe}} Nice idea. It got me thinking of when I was a noob to the wiki. Anything to make things easier, I say. | |||
#{{User|Propeller Toad}} This is a great idea! The galleries really look clustered in the way they are now and if there was a template, I'm sure more people would actually take a chance to look at the galleries rather than having these images just there and having looked like wasted potential. | |||
====Don't make a Gallery Template==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Although we already have links to Galleries within most articles, I notice a few have galleries but don't link to them such as [[Waluigi]] and a few other characters that appear to have no link to their galleries. Although while back on subject, a gallery template on gallery pages would be nice. A segment of the template, for humans, species, bosses.{{User|Garlic Stapler}} | |||
:Do you have any example of this? Examples are commonly needed on this proposals. {{user|Tucayo}} | |||
::This could be difficult...I'll work on something :) {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
Is this proposing to make something like a navigation template for galleries? {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | |||
:From what I understand, yes. Like a big list of galleries. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
::OK. I'd really like to see an example of this, though it sounds pretty good. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | |||
Remember, supporters, saying any variation of "I like this idea!" is not a valid reason to support. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | |||
:I really want to see an example of this, I don't feel comfortable allowing something this difficult to pass. This is something that could actually be pretty hard... {{User|marioguy1}} | |||
::OK, [[User:Marioguy1/Test#Ignore this|is this]] what you're thinking of? I think it looks good...granted it's not in a template but if you want it in a template, I could try that. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
:::I think what he means is one of those little boxes at the bottom of the page. It could group galleries of characters like Bowser, Bowser Jr., etc. or Mario, Luigi, etc. {{User|Bowser's luma}} | |||
::::yes, i do, Bowser's luma. {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} | |||
They're called navboxes. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
:@Propeller Toad: Do you understand what he is proposing? {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
---- | |||
===Grammar Team=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-16|don't form a grammar team}} | |||
Many people have different ways of typing things, most of the time mixing up grammar. I propose that we have a team who will check and edit any grammar mistakes. This may be changing words, adding letters, etc. | |||
Example: | |||
THIS is A ExAMpLE LINE oF TexT Four thiS. | |||
Edit -: This is a example line of text for this. | |||
'''Propser:''' {{User|LuigiMania}} <br> | |||
'''Voting Start''' October 18, 2010, 12:00<br> | |||
'''Deadline''' October 25, 2010, 12:00 | |||
====Make a Grammar Group==== | |||
#{{User|LuigiMania}}: Per my idea. | |||
#{{User|Mileycyrussoulja}}: I love correcting grammar errors and would never get tired of it! Unfortunately, i think we all know which sides gonna win. :( | |||
====Don't make it.==== | |||
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Per comments below. I think that such a group is unnecessary for grammar errors. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per comments below. | |||
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Per comments below. | |||
#{{User|Garlic Stapler}} Not a good idea to make a group about something users correct anyways. | |||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per all. We don't need a group for something as simple as that. | |||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} If I see a grammar error, I'd correct it immediately. If I were forced to search for grammar errors, I would get mighty bored very quickly. I don't think we need a group JUST to correct grammar errors. | |||
#{{User|Beecanoe}} The problem isn't official enough to make a change. It's kind of an amateur thing to fix errors you see while browsing the wiki. If there were a lot of errors on the pages I would say of course. Go for it. But like I said, not a major problem. | |||
#{{User|Count Bonsula}} I don't think that's really needed, editing the wiki is team work, everyone and anyone participate to correct those mistakes. And per LGM. | |||
#{{User|Ralphfan}} – It's unnecessary. Anyone can fix these mistakes. | |||
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|SmileyMiley5001}} - I fix them if I find them, but if I search for them I'd just get bored. Anyway, grammar is not to important, so long as you can understand what the person is saying. | |||
#{{User|Mario Fan 123}} - Per all. Also, YOU need a grammar correction. Use 'an' instead of 'a' there. | |||
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per all. | |||
#{{User|M&SG}} - A grammar group isn't exactly necessary. Not all people follow the same grammar rules anyway. | |||
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} Per all, I do not think a group is necessary for this. | |||
#{{User|JF}} Ahaha no. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
While this seems to be a great policy to have, I have a slight feeling that there may be arguements caused by this over Americanized spellings and non-Americanised spellings. For example, one of my earliest edits was edited, without my knowledge, shortly afterwards to change my English spellings to Americanized spellings: "colour" to "color". And that, frankly, is pointless. {{User|Rise Up Above It}} 13:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:There are a lot of many ways, such as form and forme, colour and color, and so on and so forth. But the proposal is stating that we have just one group of users do all the grammar issues. I don't approve of this idea as there are over 3,000 users that have the job of editing and improving the page, and just limiting the grammar stuff is like taking away nearly all the work needed on this wiki. We can't just have a group of people be in charge of it, as it is too much for just that. If you really want this, I say you should make this a Pipeproject (if there isn't one about this kind of issue). {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} | |||
::I see your point BMB, and I agree with it; however my point was about the possibility of disagreements and edit wars(maybe) over what spelling scheme ought to be used. Because if this proposal did pass, then wouldn't every article have to adhere to one uniform spelling and grammar scheme? {{User|Rise Up Above It}} | |||
::I agree with BMB, we don't need to limit this to certain users, all users should be allowed, and encouraged, to fix grammar mistakes. If you wish to change a policy, do that, but making a specific team won't stop bickering throughout the team. If this proposal does pass, it won't make anything in addition to what we currently have. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
:::Per. This is pointless. Anyone is welcome to fix the grammar mistakes they find. We don't need a team for it. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | |||
People who care about grammar will fix it on their own accord. Creating a silly group monicker that has no pratical tool for the job won't do snuff. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] 11:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
For the record, anyone changing a British spelling to American or vice-versa is in the wrong, as both are allowed on the wiki to reflect the international nature of the wiki. (In fact, if I catch someone changing a word, I revert it, even if they were changing it to my country's spelling; if the change was part of an overall rewrite, it's fine, imho.) - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
This could make a good BJAODN bad proposal section, aside from that this is probably one of the worst and poorly done proposals so far. Also per all above and what they have said. {{User|Garlic Stapler}} | |||
:You don't really have to belittle people, you know. Ideas are ideas, and we appreciate ideas. Anyway, although we can have both British and American spelling in articles, I think we should to one type of spelling in one article (if an article has mainly British spelling, then it should be British spelling, e.g.). Not that I'm right, but I do love consistency. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
::We should the British spelling only for articles where the stuff gets released in Europe first, and American if it gets released in North American first. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | |||
:::I am Zero! Then that will confuse the visitor when jumping from article to article and great grammar LGM. Zero signing out. {{User|Zero777}} | |||
::::I concur, BLOF sounds like he has a nice idea going on. D: {{User|Garlic Stapler}} | |||
:::::But that's a pain to keep track of. I also like the mix inside the articles; just think of them as synonyms giving the pages variety, rather than inconsistencies in spelling. - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
*Proper grammar can vary between people. For one instance, you may see people use the term "colour" instead of "color". Likewise, comma usage can vary as well.<br><br>Example 1: Apple and Banana (no commas used)<br>Example 2: Apple, Banana, and Grape (two comma used)<br>Example 3: Apple, Banana and Grape (a comma is missing after Banana)<br><br>Basically, various countries are different in their ways of proper grammar. {{User|M&SG}} | |||