MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/27: Difference between revisions
m (Removing unneeded coding as a result of MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Header being merged with MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template: admin-approved) |
m (Text replacement - "Mario" to "Super Mario") |
||
(25 intermediate revisions by 7 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> | ||
{{br}} | |||
===Recipe Images=== | ===Recipe Images=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-7|leave as is}} | |||
I've noticed an inconcistency with the images for the recipes. You can even look now at many of them. Many of them are quite alike, but they are different to the others alike. This has caused not only constant headaches with users like myself, but also more work for every user to do. | I've noticed an inconcistency with the images for the recipes. You can even look now at many of them. Many of them are quite alike, but they are different to the others alike. This has caused not only constant headaches with users like myself, but also more work for every user to do. | ||
Line 46: | Line 45: | ||
===Remove Staff Pages=== | ===Remove Staff Pages=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-16|keep pages}} | |||
The title explains it all. I feel that the staff pages for the games are not needed in the fact that they are not really about "Mario" himself. We talk about Mario here, not about the people who made the games. People who play the games can know who made the game and all of that kind of stuff. But when we're talking about '''Mario''' on the Super '''Mario''' Wiki, these staff pages have no business being created. | The title explains it all. I feel that the staff pages for the games are not needed in the fact that they are not really about "Mario" himself. We talk about Mario here, not about the people who made the games. People who play the games can know who made the game and all of that kind of stuff. But when we're talking about '''Mario''' on the Super '''Mario''' Wiki, these staff pages have no business being created. | ||
Line 58: | Line 56: | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} they should stay give credit is due they made the games so they should be recognized for that. Also per the original proposal that created them here [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | #{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} they should stay give credit is due they made the games so they should be recognized for that. Also per the original proposal that created them here [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/17#Staff_pages] | ||
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per GS15! I like it stood here where it belongs! We need the staff for various games like ''[[Mario Kart Wii]]'', ''[[Super Mario Galaxy 2]]'' and more! | #{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per GS15! I like it stood here where it belongs! We need the staff for various games like ''[[Mario Kart Wii]]'', ''[[Super Mario Galaxy 2]]'' and more! | ||
#{{User|Xzelion}} Per Goomba's Shoe15 and my comments below. | #{{User|Xzelion}} Per Goomba's Shoe15 and my comments below. | ||
Line 104: | Line 102: | ||
===Merge all Donkey Kong sidebar lists with Mario lists=== | ===Merge all Donkey Kong sidebar lists with Mario lists=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-3|merge donkey kong lists}} | |||
This proposal started off as a TPP, which I said the list of Donkey Kong bosses with the Mario bosses list. Goomba's Shoe15 than told me in the comments that we need to merge all other Donkey Kong lists to prevent inconsistency. I liked the idea, and then created this proposal. | This proposal started off as a TPP, which I said the list of Donkey Kong bosses with the Mario bosses list. Goomba's Shoe15 than told me in the comments that we need to merge all other Donkey Kong lists to prevent inconsistency. I liked the idea, and then created this proposal. | ||
Line 123: | Line 120: | ||
#{{User|Superfiremario}} The DK series is not as important as the Mario series, it's a series kind of like a child to the mario series. | #{{User|Superfiremario}} The DK series is not as important as the Mario series, it's a series kind of like a child to the mario series. | ||
#{{User|Koopa K}} Per all. | #{{User|Koopa K}} Per all. | ||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Consistency is necessary, however, like I say in my comment below, consistency with [[Species]] is my ideal set-up, since organization is also important. Having one list is good since you can find everything in one place and it's all equal and whatnot, but using symbols to differentiate the various series (and the alternate media) within that one list is better. | #{{User|Walkazo}} - Consistency is necessary, however, like I say in my comment below, consistency with [[List of species|Species]] is my ideal set-up, since organization is also important. Having one list is good since you can find everything in one place and it's all equal and whatnot, but using symbols to differentiate the various series (and the alternate media) within that one list is better. | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
Line 138: | Line 135: | ||
'''@Plumber''' The point of this proposal was not to merge categories of DK and Mario, and even if they were, I still don't understand your reasoning. Anyway, this proposal was made to merge '''lists''' not categories. {{User|Supremo78}} | '''@Plumber''' The point of this proposal was not to merge categories of DK and Mario, and even if they were, I still don't understand your reasoning. Anyway, this proposal was made to merge '''lists''' not categories. {{User|Supremo78}} | ||
My ideal organization would be everything in one list, but with some sort of legend, since it ''is'' helpful to know which thing came from which series. This is how [[Species]] is set up (although, ever since [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Species&diff=next&oldid=968406 this edit], I only see question marks instead of different shapes, making it rather useless to me, but perhaps I just don't have the right thing installed on my computer). In fact, having another symbol for alternate media might be useful too - they're not less important or anything, but they are different and being able to tell them apart is useful. It's also a bit of a compromise between the folks who want to keep the lists separate and the ones who want to combine them. - {{User|Walkazo}} | My ideal organization would be everything in one list, but with some sort of legend, since it ''is'' helpful to know which thing came from which series. This is how [[List of species|Species]] is set up (although, ever since [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Species&diff=next&oldid=968406 this edit], I only see question marks instead of different shapes, making it rather useless to me, but perhaps I just don't have the right thing installed on my computer). In fact, having another symbol for alternate media might be useful too - they're not less important or anything, but they are different and being able to tell them apart is useful. It's also a bit of a compromise between the folks who want to keep the lists separate and the ones who want to combine them. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
:@Walkazo, Do you mean by that we merge one list into one giant list with species, items, and all of that? {{User|Supremo78}} | :@Walkazo, Do you mean by that we merge one list into one giant list with species, items, and all of that? {{User|Supremo78}} | ||
Line 147: | Line 144: | ||
===Remove Logos from Infobox Titles=== | ===Remove Logos from Infobox Titles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|17-4|remove}} | |||
Quite a few games have logos instead of plain text for their infobox titles, but seeing as the game boxart also contains the logo and is located directly beneath the title, all this really does is show us the exact same graphic twice. This is redundant, and it looks sloppy, especially when the logos are transparent and the background colour interferes with the words. It's also inconsistent, since most games just use good ol' fashioned text. Compare [[Mario Kart DS]] with [[Mario Kart: Double Dash!!]] - there's no question as to which one looks more professional, and by extension, which style we should use. Other games using the superfluous title-logos include [[Super Mario Sunshine]], [[Super Mario Galaxy]], all three [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games]] titles, [[Mario Party 8]], [[Mario Kart Wii]] and both [[Super Smash Bros. Melee]] and [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl|Brawl]], among others. Then you have the occasional ''character'' page with a title-logo, which is completely unnecessary. The only time it makes sense to have logos is for series pages, since a single boxart isn't adequately representative of ''all'' the games involved. Some example of this logo usage are [[Super Smash Bros. (series)]], [[Mario Party (series)]], and [[Mario Kart (series)]] (compare with [[Mario Kart DS]]), but even then, the logos are being used as the infobox ''images'', not the titles. And, while the consoles don't really the logos in their images, the transparency issue is still a problem, and the inconsistency with other types of pages is also undesirable, so it'd be better of the logos were simply used elsewhere. | Quite a few games have logos instead of plain text for their infobox titles, but seeing as the game boxart also contains the logo and is located directly beneath the title, all this really does is show us the exact same graphic twice. This is redundant, and it looks sloppy, especially when the logos are transparent and the background colour interferes with the words. It's also inconsistent, since most games just use good ol' fashioned text. Compare [[Mario Kart DS]] with [[Mario Kart: Double Dash!!]] - there's no question as to which one looks more professional, and by extension, which style we should use. Other games using the superfluous title-logos include [[Super Mario Sunshine]], [[Super Mario Galaxy]], all three [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games]] titles, [[Mario Party 8]], [[Mario Kart Wii]] and both [[Super Smash Bros. Melee]] and [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl|Brawl]], among others. Then you have the occasional ''character'' page with a title-logo, which is completely unnecessary. The only time it makes sense to have logos is for series pages, since a single boxart isn't adequately representative of ''all'' the games involved. Some example of this logo usage are [[Super Smash Bros. (series)]], [[Mario Party (series)]], and [[Mario Kart (series)]] (compare with [[Mario Kart DS]]), but even then, the logos are being used as the infobox ''images'', not the titles. And, while the consoles don't really the logos in their images, the transparency issue is still a problem, and the inconsistency with other types of pages is also undesirable, so it'd be better of the logos were simply used elsewhere. | ||
Line 200: | Line 196: | ||
===Artwork Transparency Issues=== | ===Artwork Transparency Issues=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|25-20|remove bad transparent images}} | |||
During the past set of months, I've been noticing that a good number of JPEG artworks were being replaced by PNG artworks with transparent backgrounds. However, a lot of those images look quite ugly when they're viewed in backgrounds that aren't colored white. I've mentioned this dilemma at the admins boards, and some of the Sysops there do agree with my statement. I propose that any artworks with ugly-looking transparency has to lose the transparency. After all, we shouldn't be modifying the artworks by any means; if the artworks are JPEGs, upload them as JPEGs; if the PNG artworks don't have anything transparent, upload them that way. | During the past set of months, I've been noticing that a good number of JPEG artworks were being replaced by PNG artworks with transparent backgrounds. However, a lot of those images look quite ugly when they're viewed in backgrounds that aren't colored white. I've mentioned this dilemma at the admins boards, and some of the Sysops there do agree with my statement. I propose that any artworks with ugly-looking transparency has to lose the transparency. After all, we shouldn't be modifying the artworks by any means; if the artworks are JPEGs, upload them as JPEGs; if the PNG artworks don't have anything transparent, upload them that way. | ||
Line 264: | Line 259: | ||
:::JPEG and PNG are popular image file formats. PNGs are more easily modifiable than JPEGs in a software such as Fireworks or Photoshop. Most images have backgrounds (generally white), and people can use software to remove them (an image without a background is considered transparent). It can be useful at times, but it is not always done perfectly. Usually, the software will remove most of a background using a tool, leaving the user to remove the rest manually, sometimes pixel-by-pixel depending on the quality wanted. The problem is that it can be a tedious process depending on the size of the image and the quantity of background to be removed, so some of it is likely to remain either unnoticed or unattended. On a white background (or one colored identically to the image background), there's no problem, but other backgrounds reveal these unnoticed or unattended portions and make the image, and by extension, the wiki, look unprofessional. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | :::JPEG and PNG are popular image file formats. PNGs are more easily modifiable than JPEGs in a software such as Fireworks or Photoshop. Most images have backgrounds (generally white), and people can use software to remove them (an image without a background is considered transparent). It can be useful at times, but it is not always done perfectly. Usually, the software will remove most of a background using a tool, leaving the user to remove the rest manually, sometimes pixel-by-pixel depending on the quality wanted. The problem is that it can be a tedious process depending on the size of the image and the quantity of background to be removed, so some of it is likely to remain either unnoticed or unattended. On a white background (or one colored identically to the image background), there's no problem, but other backgrounds reveal these unnoticed or unattended portions and make the image, and by extension, the wiki, look unprofessional. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | ||
:::::I'm really confused on this still. Can you give a few examples to really clear this up? {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} | :::::I'm really confused on this still. Can you give a few examples to really clear this up? {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} | ||
::::::This image [[File: | ::::::This image [[File:BrawlTrophy492.png|100px]] has a background (all of the space surrounding the trophy), while this image [[File:NSMBW Mario Solo Artwork.png|100px]] is transparent (all transparent images have that checkered "background" you see when clicking on it). {{User|Mario4Ever}} | ||
UM: No, the proposer is talking about the bad quality transparent images, not all of the transparent images. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | UM: No, the proposer is talking about the bad quality transparent images, not all of the transparent images. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | ||
Line 278: | Line 273: | ||
:::Look [[User:Xzelion/test|here]]. {{User|Xzelion}} | :::Look [[User:Xzelion/test|here]]. {{User|Xzelion}} | ||
We should upload all artworks as PNG, because when JPG pictures are rescaled ([[File: | We should upload all artworks as PNG, because when JPG pictures are rescaled ([[File:SSBB-Peach Luigi Taunt.jpg|''200px'']]), the they become very artifacted. {{user|SWFlash}} | ||
:Most artworks that can be found on gaming websites are JPEGs however. Besides, you shouldn't replace an HQ JPEG image with a low quality PNG image. {{User|M&SG}} | :Most artworks that can be found on gaming websites are JPEGs however. Besides, you shouldn't replace an HQ JPEG image with a low quality PNG image. {{User|M&SG}} | ||
Line 305: | Line 300: | ||
The chart shows the bad-edited pictures set in a black background, this problem can be seen in any colored bg but white or some white-based color. | The chart shows the bad-edited pictures set in a black background, this problem can be seen in any colored bg but white or some white-based color. | ||
<div style="height: 100%; width: 700px; overflow: scroll;"> | |||
{| style="background:#000000;" | {| style="background:#000000;" | ||
|[[File:MSMart5.png|260px|center]] | |[[File:MSMart5.png|260px|center]] | ||
|[[File: | |[[File:Bowser Art - Mario Kart Wii.png|260px|center]] | ||
|[[File:Bowsersmg2.png|260px|center]] | |[[File:Bowsersmg2.png|260px|center]] | ||
|[[File:BlackMagesportsmix.png|center]] | |[[File:BlackMagesportsmix.png|center]] | ||
|} | |}</div> | ||
It's possible to converse JPEGs into PNG but '''never edit them''' unless it needs so and in this case must be '''well-crafted''', not like this. This is becoming in a trend by many user and shouldn't be atually in the Mariowiki, so think twice before taking a decent decision. | It's possible to converse JPEGs into PNG but '''never edit them''' unless it needs so and in this case must be '''well-crafted''', not like this. This is becoming in a trend by many user and shouldn't be atually in the Mariowiki, so think twice before taking a decent decision. | ||
Line 323: | Line 319: | ||
Okay, I see now what the whole purpose is. You want to delete the PNG's with bad quality of transparency. That is kinda okay, but here comes my opinion. You see, it is kinda good when we're talking about the ones that have some effects that have less to no hardness (like shadows of some people, or fur standing upright, or even fire). However, I think it doesn't make sense at all to delete those of bad quality with 100% hardness (so, for example, no shadows & stuff, no fur standing upright, no fire). An experienced converter or transparency maker could easily take the original file and make the file better transparent. If you don't get what I mean, take a look at these blue dots (the upper ones have no hardness, and the lower ones have a hardness of 100%):<br> | Okay, I see now what the whole purpose is. You want to delete the PNG's with bad quality of transparency. That is kinda okay, but here comes my opinion. You see, it is kinda good when we're talking about the ones that have some effects that have less to no hardness (like shadows of some people, or fur standing upright, or even fire). However, I think it doesn't make sense at all to delete those of bad quality with 100% hardness (so, for example, no shadows & stuff, no fur standing upright, no fire). An experienced converter or transparency maker could easily take the original file and make the file better transparent. If you don't get what I mean, take a look at these blue dots (the upper ones have no hardness, and the lower ones have a hardness of 100%): | ||
<br> | |||
<div style="height: 100%; width: 700px; overflow: scroll;"> | |||
{| style="background:#000000;" | {| style="background:#000000;" | ||
|http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/4282/examplefd.png | |http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/4282/examplefd.png | ||
|}<br> | |}</div><br> | ||
See what I mean? The blue dot with 100% hardness has it's background completely removed, and there's almost no sign of white pixels left around, while there is a whole bunch of white left at the blue dot with no hardness. As with the middle two in the earlier example, it's transparency ''could'' be better. Seeing the Black Mage at the right, that one could also be done better (seriously, there are pixels left behind that ''don't even belong'' to the artwork), but it has a shadow, so we therefor have to wait for an official release of the artwork with no background (though I, unfortunately, think it will never come).<br>So, what I want is that most artwork that has no background nor hardness-less things, such as shadows, should have another re-upload, with original file, with the background removed, making it looking more polished than it first was.<br>{{User|Arend}} - I see, btw, that ''all the examples above'', have at least been upoaded by UltraMario3000 as the latest revision. I suggest for him that he needs a (better) program that removes the background easily, and/or that, if he uses a Magic Wand tool, that he should increase its tolerance, but not too much. Testing the tolerance is always good, too. | See what I mean? The blue dot with 100% hardness has it's background completely removed, and there's almost no sign of white pixels left around, while there is a whole bunch of white left at the blue dot with no hardness. As with the middle two in the earlier example, it's transparency ''could'' be better. Seeing the Black Mage at the right, that one could also be done better (seriously, there are pixels left behind that ''don't even belong'' to the artwork), but it has a shadow, so we therefor have to wait for an official release of the artwork with no background (though I, unfortunately, think it will never come).<br>So, what I want is that most artwork that has no background nor hardness-less things, such as shadows, should have another re-upload, with original file, with the background removed, making it looking more polished than it first was.<br>{{User|Arend}} - I see, btw, that ''all the examples above'', have at least been upoaded by UltraMario3000 as the latest revision. I suggest for him that he needs a (better) program that removes the background easily, and/or that, if he uses a Magic Wand tool, that he should increase its tolerance, but not too much. Testing the tolerance is always good, too. | ||
Line 337: | Line 336: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Merge the non-game lists on the side bar with the video game lists=== | ===Merge the non-game lists on the side bar with the video game lists=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-0|merge sidebar lists}} | |||
I find it very weird that this wiki considers the non-game elements canon but still keeps them separate on the side bar so i think we should merge the two lists together because if everything is official/canon than they should be on the same list. Because right now the two lists separates the game and non-game elements on these lists and i don't think we should do that. Plus we already merged all of the non-game categories so i think it only makes sense to merge the lists two | I find it very weird that this wiki considers the non-game elements canon but still keeps them separate on the side bar so i think we should merge the two lists together because if everything is official/canon than they should be on the same list. Because right now the two lists separates the game and non-game elements on these lists and i don't think we should do that. Plus we already merged all of the non-game categories so i think it only makes sense to merge the lists two | ||
Line 368: | Line 366: | ||
===Reform MarioWiki:Proposals=== | ===Reform MarioWiki:Proposals=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|11-20|leave as is}} | |||
As two old users, we jointly feel that the decision-making system pre-MarioWiki:Proposals was superior to the current system. The current system of MarioWiki:Proposals is based upon popularity contests. The previous system involved discussion on the Community Portal and Talk:Main page. This new proposal would restore any potential problems to be discussed on Talk:Main page, not with "support" and "oppose" columns, but genuine ”bona fide” arguments and discussion. When consensus has been reached, the fate of the "proposal" will be decided. This was the way the system worked before the infamous and perfidious troll {{User|A Link to the Past}} tricked {{User|Porplemontage}} and {{User|Wayoshi}} into creating the proposals (only after his disastrous MarioWiki:Peer Review scheme had failed; Proposals were made largely as a concession to his whining). If this measure passes, it shall go into force July 17, 2011, although any Proposals that still need to expire will be left to expire at their natural time. | As two old users, we jointly feel that the decision-making system pre-MarioWiki:Proposals was superior to the current system. The current system of MarioWiki:Proposals is based upon popularity contests. The previous system involved discussion on the Community Portal and Talk:Main page. This new proposal would restore any potential problems to be discussed on Talk:Main page, not with "support" and "oppose" columns, but genuine ”bona fide” arguments and discussion. When consensus has been reached, the fate of the "proposal" will be decided. This was the way the system worked before the infamous and perfidious troll {{User|A Link to the Past}} tricked {{User|Porplemontage}} and {{User|Wayoshi}} into creating the proposals (only after his disastrous MarioWiki:Peer Review scheme had failed; Proposals were made largely as a concession to his whining). If this measure passes, it shall go into force July 17, 2011, although any Proposals that still need to expire will be left to expire at their natural time. | ||
Line 450: | Line 447: | ||
I would also like to point out that the "per" problems were "solved" by an old Proposal to abolish "per X" as a reason. IIRC, another Proposal brought it back. That's just a good example of the fickleness of the Proposals system. {{User|Plumber}} 01:29, 11 July 2011 (EDT) | I would also like to point out that the "per" problems were "solved" by an old Proposal to abolish "per X" as a reason. IIRC, another Proposal brought it back. That's just a good example of the fickleness of the Proposals system. {{User|Plumber}} 01:29, 11 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
:New comments are actually supposed to go on the bottom, not imbedded between other comments, since that can really muddle things up. Specific comments can be addressed using "@X:" or "'''X:'''", or something like that. Anyway, '''in response to your response to my comment''', I stand by my choice of words, and I wasn't actually talking about any of Son of Suns' proposals in particular. (Although, having gone through the archives, I found that six of his proposals were straightforward votes (half of those were straightforward yes/no decisions, however, so there was nothing that ''could'' be debated), whereas two passed proposals involved lengthy discussions and three others failed after lengthy discussions.) Yes, everybody doesn't care about everything, but it's not reasonable to say that everyone who will vote but not discuss something doesn't care ''at all''. Someone could easily care about an issue to some extent, but not want to get involved in a free-for-all debate on behalf of it, or they might feel that all their points have already been added to the discussion and worry that people won't appreciate them cutting in just to say "I agree with X". On the other hand, perhaps people ''would'' do that, en masse, in which case we're back to a vote, only it'll be a lot messier than proposals and their running tallies. Plus, people could always flock to their friends' aid in discussions just as easily as in proposals, in which case, again, we'd have gained nothing from the change. '''In response to your comment to Yoshiwaker''', just because it worked back then doesn't mean it'll work now, when the community has grown and changed so much over the years. Besides, while there ''were'' lots of good discussions back then, users still resorted to votes on three occasions ([[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_5#Locking_the_Move_Feature_OR_Adding_More_Sysops|1]], [[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_7#Un-_or_Fan-_MarioWiki|2]], [[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_8#Humans|3]]) before the proposal system was brought into existence (first spoken of [[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_10#.22Sudden.22_Change_--_Oligarchy.3F_Rash_movement.3F_I_feel_I_am_to_blame.|on Archive 10]], although obviously you can't get the full story from that section alone), which is rather interesting. And finally, '''regarding your last comment''', I checked the archives and all I found was a ''failed'' attempt to remove "per" votes ([[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | :New comments are actually supposed to go on the bottom, not imbedded between other comments, since that can really muddle things up. Specific comments can be addressed using "@X:" or "'''X:'''", or something like that. Anyway, '''in response to your response to my comment''', I stand by my choice of words, and I wasn't actually talking about any of Son of Suns' proposals in particular. (Although, having gone through the archives, I found that six of his proposals were straightforward votes (half of those were straightforward yes/no decisions, however, so there was nothing that ''could'' be debated), whereas two passed proposals involved lengthy discussions and three others failed after lengthy discussions.) Yes, everybody doesn't care about everything, but it's not reasonable to say that everyone who will vote but not discuss something doesn't care ''at all''. Someone could easily care about an issue to some extent, but not want to get involved in a free-for-all debate on behalf of it, or they might feel that all their points have already been added to the discussion and worry that people won't appreciate them cutting in just to say "I agree with X". On the other hand, perhaps people ''would'' do that, en masse, in which case we're back to a vote, only it'll be a lot messier than proposals and their running tallies. Plus, people could always flock to their friends' aid in discussions just as easily as in proposals, in which case, again, we'd have gained nothing from the change. '''In response to your comment to Yoshiwaker''', just because it worked back then doesn't mean it'll work now, when the community has grown and changed so much over the years. Besides, while there ''were'' lots of good discussions back then, users still resorted to votes on three occasions ([[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_5#Locking_the_Move_Feature_OR_Adding_More_Sysops|1]], [[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_7#Un-_or_Fan-_MarioWiki|2]], [[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_8#Humans|3]]) before the proposal system was brought into existence (first spoken of [[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_10#.22Sudden.22_Change_--_Oligarchy.3F_Rash_movement.3F_I_feel_I_am_to_blame.|on Archive 10]], although obviously you can't get the full story from that section alone), which is rather interesting. And finally, '''regarding your last comment''', I checked the archives and all I found was a ''failed'' attempt to remove "per" votes ([[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/2#Pers.2C_I_agrees...|here]]), and similarly, both times they were were brought up on the talk pages ([[MarioWiki_talk:Proposals#.22Per.22|here]] and [[MarioWiki_talk:Proposals#Per_votes|here]]), they were left alone. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===MLA Format=== | ===MLA Format=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-13|leave as is}} | |||
All articles should be written with the most updated version of MLA Format. This will help in the eternal preservation of ''always citing your sources.'' | All articles should be written with the most updated version of MLA Format. This will help in the eternal preservation of ''always citing your sources.'' | ||
Line 511: | Line 507: | ||
===Cover Mario Knockoffs=== | ===Cover Mario Knockoffs=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-20|don't cover}} | |||
The Super Mario Wiki is a place where everything Mario should be covered. I have checked and we have done well. However, we have only covered the licensed things (as far as I know). The ''un''licensed things have not been touched. I am talking about knockoff games. Games like Mobario, the mobile "Mario" game for phones and the Great Giana Sisters, the peculiar platform game about two punk girls named Giana and Maria. Since we are the Mario wiki, we should cover '''everything''' Mario, licensed or not. | The Super Mario Wiki is a place where everything Mario should be covered. I have checked and we have done well. However, we have only covered the licensed things (as far as I know). The ''un''licensed things have not been touched. I am talking about knockoff games. Games like Mobario, the mobile "Mario" game for phones and the Great Giana Sisters, the peculiar platform game about two punk girls named Giana and Maria. Since we are the Mario wiki, we should cover '''everything''' Mario, licensed or not. | ||
Line 522: | Line 517: | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} no we shouldnt cover anything that wasnt made, licensed, or published by nintendo cause those things are not official also there was a proposal about this exact thing right here [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | #{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} no we shouldnt cover anything that wasnt made, licensed, or published by nintendo cause those things are not official also there was a proposal about this exact thing right here [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/20#Notable_.22Unofficial.22_Games] and it failed miserably so per the arguments in that proposal as well. Also if we cover unlicensed games why not cover flash videos cause they were also based on the mario series. | ||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Including any fanon would undermine our goal of providing our readers with a complete, ''factual'' account of the ''Mario'' series (including its equally official spin-offs and crossovers, and the people and organizations who have made all of that possible). If it's not authorized by Nintendo, we're not writing about it. End of story. | #{{User|Walkazo}} - Including any fanon would undermine our goal of providing our readers with a complete, ''factual'' account of the ''Mario'' series (including its equally official spin-offs and crossovers, and the people and organizations who have made all of that possible). If it's not authorized by Nintendo, we're not writing about it. End of story. | ||
#{{User|Supremo78}} - Like the two above me said, we only talk about the '''officially''' licensed games such as the Banjo series spinned off by Rare. Series that are "knockoffs" we don't cover. If we added them, we really wouldn't be a wiki anymore. | #{{User|Supremo78}} - Like the two above me said, we only talk about the '''officially''' licensed games such as the Banjo series spinned off by Rare. Series that are "knockoffs" we don't cover. If we added them, we really wouldn't be a wiki anymore. | ||
Line 580: | Line 575: | ||
===Change the Gallery pages' names from "Gallery:(page name)" to "(page name)/Gallery"=== | ===Change the Gallery pages' names from "Gallery:(page name)" to "(page name)/Gallery"=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|0-20|leave as is}} | |||
The Gallery pages will look better if are labeled as the glitches, beta elements and staff ones. They look different by their names. | The Gallery pages will look better if are labeled as the glitches, beta elements and staff ones. They look different by their names. | ||
Line 619: | Line 613: | ||
===DK Wiki=== | ===DK Wiki=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|7-44|leave as is}} | |||
Well, I think that there shouldn't be Donkey Kong things here. Why? Beacause its caled Super MARIO wiki, not Super MARIO AND DONKEY KONG Wiki! Right? Yeah, thats right! Another wiki could be made, and it just needs ALOT of copy and pasting. Here, look:<br> | Well, I think that there shouldn't be Donkey Kong things here. Why? Beacause its caled Super MARIO wiki, not Super MARIO AND DONKEY KONG Wiki! Right? Yeah, thats right! Another wiki could be made, and it just needs ALOT of copy and pasting. Here, look:<br> | ||
[http://www.mariowiki.com/List_of_Donkey_Kong_games]<br> | [http://www.mariowiki.com/List_of_Donkey_Kong_games]<br> | ||
Line 654: | Line 647: | ||
#{{User|M&SG}} - The Super Mario Wiki covers the whole Mario Universe, which includes the Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario series'. | #{{User|M&SG}} - The Super Mario Wiki covers the whole Mario Universe, which includes the Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario series'. | ||
#{{User|Goomblob}} - Isn't right delete something about the Mario universe, because, DK is a Mario character. | #{{User|Goomblob}} - Isn't right delete something about the Mario universe, because, DK is a Mario character. | ||
#{{User|Phoenix}} According to [[MarioWiki:Coverage]], information about [[Donkey Kong]] is perfectly acceptable on this wiki. I'll admit that I don't know very much about the ''Donkey Kong'' series aside from its periodic convergence with ''[[Mario ( | #{{User|Phoenix}} According to [[MarioWiki:Coverage]], information about [[Donkey Kong]] is perfectly acceptable on this wiki. I'll admit that I don't know very much about the ''Donkey Kong'' series aside from its periodic convergence with ''[[Super Mario (franchise)|Super Mario]]'' games, but given that [[Mario]]'s first ever appearance was in a ''DK'' game, it wouldn't seem very appropriate to remove all of the ''Donkey Kong'' information from the wiki, even if the presence of the information ''wasn't'' sanctioned by MarioWiki:Coverage. | ||
#{{User|Superfiremario}} The DK Wiki exists. Also, we cover Yoshi and Wario. We would have to delete those too. | #{{User|Superfiremario}} The DK Wiki exists. Also, we cover Yoshi and Wario. We would have to delete those too. | ||
#{{User|Damariogamr}} 1. Donkey Kong is a part of the Mario franchise and 2. Isn't there a DK Wiki already? | #{{User|Damariogamr}} 1. Donkey Kong is a part of the Mario franchise and 2. Isn't there a DK Wiki already? | ||
#{{User|Jjrapper100}} Donkey Kong is part of the mario series he has appeared in a couple of [[Mario ( | #{{User|Jjrapper100}} Donkey Kong is part of the mario series he has appeared in a couple of [[Super Mario (franchise)|Super Mario]] games I consider this failed. | ||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} <sarcasm> Sure, let's delete a major chunk of the wiki </sarcasm> Per all. | #{{User|Bowser's luma}} <sarcasm> Sure, let's delete a major chunk of the wiki </sarcasm> Per all. | ||
#{{User|Byllant}} - Per all, if we applied this, otherwise then we would have to remove Smash Bros., Pokémon, Zelda, etc., from our coverage just because they are external to the Super Mario Wiki. | #{{User|Byllant}} - Per all, if we applied this, otherwise then we would have to remove Smash Bros., Pokémon, Zelda, etc., from our coverage just because they are external to the Super Mario Wiki. | ||
Line 686: | Line 679: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
[[MarioWiki:Coverage]], | [[MarioWiki:Coverage]], SWFlash}} | ||
Another one of these proposals... There's already a DK Wiki out there, and it has separate information than this Wiki. Mario and Donkey Kong have appeared together in games for ages. Both series are extremely close, and even some characters that started out in the DK series have gone into Mario games, such as Diddy, Dixie, and Funky Kong. Also, the Mario and DK series both started with the original ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong | Another one of these proposals... There's already a DK Wiki out there, and it has separate information than this Wiki. Mario and Donkey Kong have appeared together in games for ages. Both series are extremely close, and even some characters that started out in the DK series have gone into Mario games, such as Diddy, Dixie, and Funky Kong. Also, the Mario and DK series both started with the original ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong'' game, which belongs to both series. Removing information that is fine here will simply downgrade the Mario Wiki, and it will make it inconsistent if we still have Yoshi and Wario game info. More information is [[MarioWiki:Coverage|here]]. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | ||
:Steve said we will not change are policy on the NIWA forums there was an agreement prior to the DK Wiki joining NIWA that we would not change are policy {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | :Steve said we will not change are policy on the NIWA forums there was an agreement prior to the DK Wiki joining NIWA that we would not change are policy {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | ||
There are many things I can say about this. One is that we cover all the playable characters in the Smash Bros series. So by the logic of this proposal, we should stop covering all those characters as well because there is already a wiki for them. Second is that Donkey Kong is a major character of the Mario series. Much like Yoshi and Wario, he branched into his own series as well, but he still appears in lots of Mario spin off games. So what I'm saying is that D.K. is a part of the Mario series and should not be removed from this wiki. {{User|Tails777}} | There are many things I can say about this. One is that we cover all the playable characters in the Smash Bros series. So by the logic of this proposal, we should stop covering all those characters as well because there is already a wiki for them. Second is that Donkey Kong is a major character of the Mario series. Much like Yoshi and Wario, he branched into his own series as well, but he still appears in lots of Mario spin off games. So what I'm saying is that D.K. is a part of the Mario series and should not be removed from this wiki. {{User|Tails777}} | ||
Line 704: | Line 697: | ||
{{User|Beecanoe}} | {{User|Beecanoe}} | ||
Honestly, this proposal would not exist if people pay attention to the [[Main Page]]. All you have to do is read the bottom. {{User|MasterToad}} | Honestly, this proposal would not exist if people pay attention to the [[Main Page|main page]]. All you have to do is read the bottom. {{User|MasterToad}} | ||
I think that only pages of Donkey Kong should be made if he is in a Mario Game. E.G we should keep pages like [[Mario vs. Donkey Kong]] but take off [[Donkey Kong Country]] because that doesn't include Mario. {{User|Conanshinichi}} | I think that only pages of Donkey Kong should be made if he is in a Mario Game. E.G we should keep pages like [[Mario vs. Donkey Kong]] but take off [[Donkey Kong Country]] because that doesn't include Mario. {{User|Conanshinichi}} | ||
Line 712: | Line 705: | ||
===New rule for images=== | ===New rule for images=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-19|leave as is}} | |||
As you can see, the PNGs have better quality than JPGs. And I've seen some good quality PNG artwork get replaced with JPGs with worse quality & I think it's best to have images with the best possible quality. So I suggest that we add a new rule. The rule is that we don't allow PNG artwork to be converted to JPGs so that the quality of the images are better. | As you can see, the PNGs have better quality than JPGs. And I've seen some good quality PNG artwork get replaced with JPGs with worse quality & I think it's best to have images with the best possible quality. So I suggest that we add a new rule. The rule is that we don't allow PNG artwork to be converted to JPGs so that the quality of the images are better. | ||
Line 758: | Line 750: | ||
===Delete the Following=== | ===Delete the Following=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|0-21|do not delete}} | |||
*[[MarioWiki:Autoconfirmed users]] | *[[MarioWiki:Autoconfirmed users]] | ||
*[[MarioWiki:Autopatrolled users]] | *[[MarioWiki:Autopatrolled users]] | ||
Line 814: | Line 806: | ||
:They're not hidden. In the case of new users, they're easily accessible via the welcome message (which I'm sure doesn't get deleted at least without being read). Say a user wants to ask a sysop something. He or she clicks the link in the welcome message and is directed to a list of sysops. If he or she does not know what a sysop is, he or she clicks the word ''sysop'' next to the name of a user and is directed to MarioWiki:Administrators, from which most of the other pages can be accessed in the "See Also" section. Alternatively, a user can become familiar enough with one or more users to ask for any information that he or she cannot find on his or her own. It's better to let users ask for help than to force them to find such information such as is in these pages by coincidence and not understand it. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | :They're not hidden. In the case of new users, they're easily accessible via the welcome message (which I'm sure doesn't get deleted at least without being read). Say a user wants to ask a sysop something. He or she clicks the link in the welcome message and is directed to a list of sysops. If he or she does not know what a sysop is, he or she clicks the word ''sysop'' next to the name of a user and is directed to MarioWiki:Administrators, from which most of the other pages can be accessed in the "See Also" section. Alternatively, a user can become familiar enough with one or more users to ask for any information that he or she cannot find on his or her own. It's better to let users ask for help than to force them to find such information such as is in these pages by coincidence and not understand it. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | ||
::You know that the MarioWiki:Admin page doesn't have a list of Sysops, it has a link which redirects to a list that look similar to a watchlist. And everyone else, stop saying that I am ''dumping'', like trash dumping, info into the Userpedia, the respectful articles are barely edit with and the info present in these pages can massively help those individual articles. But really, how can we ''advertise'' these pages more because I don't think the Welcome letter will cut it as Walkazo said. {{User|Zero777}} | ::You know that the MarioWiki:Admin page doesn't have a list of Sysops, it has a link which redirects to a list that look similar to a watchlist. And everyone else, stop saying that I am ''dumping'', like trash dumping, info into the Userpedia, the respectful articles are barely edit with and the info present in these pages can massively help those individual articles. But really, how can we ''advertise'' these pages more because I don't think the Welcome letter will cut it as Walkazo said. {{User|Zero777}} | ||
:::We can link to them whenever the terms come up on MarioWiki and Help pages, like how we link to articles on the wiki. For example, MW:Admins is linked to on this page and both the [[MarioWiki:Blocking | :::We can link to them whenever the terms come up on MarioWiki and Help pages, like how we link to articles on the wiki. For example, MW:Admins is linked to on this page and both the [[MarioWiki:Blocking policy|blocking]] and [[MarioWiki:Warning policy|warning]] policy pages (and the latter also links to the lists of Sysops and Patrollers, as does [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]]). Pertaining to your earlier comment, the questions are only extra content anyway: the main point of the pages is the information - information that users should not have to go to another website to find. Userpedia may be about the users of this wiki, but it is not officially affiliated with us and we do not, and should never, rely on it for anything, least of all administrative material. As for the prospect of the admins forcibly removing the proposal, we'd only do that as a last resort: as explained [[MarioWiki talk:Proposals#New Rule|here]], if something we're not keen on can still be voted down by the community as a whole, we'd rather let the proposal run its course and give ''everyone'' a chance to have their say. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Perrow=== | ===Perrow=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|vetoed|If Steve says "no", the proposal is dead. End of story.}} | |||
In a lot of galleries, people use "<perrow>" Some of the use is necessary because the gallery section has 30+ pictures. Most of it is used for sections with less than fifteen pictures. I think we should make a new rule. This rule would be called "Perrow".<br> | In a lot of galleries, people use "<perrow>" Some of the use is necessary because the gallery section has 30+ pictures. Most of it is used for sections with less than fifteen pictures. I think we should make a new rule. This rule would be called "Perrow".<br> | ||
Here is what the rule would look like:<br> | Here is what the rule would look like:<br> | ||
Line 829: | Line 820: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': August 13, 2011 23:59 GMT | '''Proposed Deadline''': August 13, 2011 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' August 7, 2011, 18:03 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 851: | Line 843: | ||
===Reality vs. Fiction=== | ===Reality vs. Fiction=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|40-0|remove generic items that do not differentiate from their real world counterparts}} | |||
I was going to make this a Writing Guideline, but I figured I'd get some approval via proposal before I created my draft. A new trend on the wiki is to create articles on generic objects, like [[Tennis Ball]], [[Basketball Hoop]], and [[Cage]]. The main problem with this is where does it stop? Allowing these articles could be precedent for a number of useless generic articles being created, such as {{fake link|Mud}}, {{fake link|Tree}}, {{fake link|Soccer Field}}, etc.. MarioWiki is also not a dictionary. We don't need articles on real world objects. I believe we should set a restriction for which of these generic articles can and can't be created. We should only allow articles on generic subjects that '''have a function which is different from the real world counterpart'''. | |||
I was going to make this a Writing Guideline, but I figured I'd get some approval via proposal before I created my draft. A new trend on the wiki is to create articles on generic objects, like [[Tennis Ball]], [[Basketball Hoop]], and [[Cage]]. The main problem with this is where does it stop? Allowing these articles could be precedent for a number of useless generic articles being created, such as {{ | |||
Examples of generic object articles that would be allowed: | Examples of generic object articles that would be allowed: | ||
Line 861: | Line 852: | ||
*[[Spike (obstacle)|Spike]] – Same as Lava. | *[[Spike (obstacle)|Spike]] – Same as Lava. | ||
*[[Virus]] – They are obviously sentient and don't behave as normal viruses do. | *[[Virus]] – They are obviously sentient and don't behave as normal viruses do. | ||
*[[Cart]] – The user can jump with the Cart, a feat that would be impossible in the real world. | *[[Mine Cart]] – The user can jump with the Cart, a feat that would be impossible in the real world. | ||
Examples of generic object articles that would not be allowed: | Examples of generic object articles that would not be allowed: | ||
Line 930: | Line 921: | ||
===Using Another Country's Boxart=== | ===Using Another Country's Boxart=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-31|do not use only american box arts}} | |||
As you can see, many articles such as (''[[New Super Mario Bros. Wii]]'', ''[[Mario Smash Football]]'', ''[[Mario Strikers Charged Football]]'') and many more game articles are using other country's boxart and naming them as in that country such as ''Mario Strikers Charged Football'' even though in America we call it (''Mario Strikers Charged'') '''No Football''' I understand that the first English country goes first but I think we should make it the American verison instead and am not saying that we take off all the information from another country but just to change the name of the game by the American verison and change the boxart of the game to the American verison only not much more if possible. | As you can see, many articles such as (''[[New Super Mario Bros. Wii]]'', ''[[Mario Smash Football]]'', ''[[Mario Strikers Charged Football]]'') and many more game articles are using other country's boxart and naming them as in that country such as ''Mario Strikers Charged Football'' even though in America we call it (''Mario Strikers Charged'') '''No Football''' I understand that the first English country goes first but I think we should make it the American verison instead and am not saying that we take off all the information from another country but just to change the name of the game by the American verison and change the boxart of the game to the American verison only not much more if possible. | ||
Line 980: | Line 970: | ||
@BabyLuigiOnFire<br>Where does it says that we should use the first internationl english boxart? We have no polices about it as far as I know. {{user|SWFlash}} | @BabyLuigiOnFire<br>Where does it says that we should use the first internationl english boxart? We have no polices about it as far as I know. {{user|SWFlash}} | ||
:We take the first English game released to be put up on the template. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | :We take the first English game released to be put up on the template. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | ||
::Well, you (SWFlash) helpfully put it on [[Template: | ::Well, you (SWFlash) helpfully put it on [[Template:Game infobox]] a couple months ago (and I tweaked the wording a bit): "''|image= Box art of the game (take the first released English-language box art)''". Also, when the First English Name proposal was enacted, replacing the images was part of the changes made to the articles that were renamed from NA titles to PAL. I'm not sure if it was said that we ''had'' to do it anywhere, but it made sense for the image to match the title, and for consistency, using the first English language boxart simply became the way things were done even if the names were the same (although I am not aware of how long that took or how many pages were updated and whatnot). - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
In order to be fair to the regions who speak English outside of North America, if a game gets released in the PAL region first, we use the PAL names. If a game gets released in the NTSC-U region first, we use the NTSC-U names. Since ''Mario Kart Wii'' was released in the PAL region first, we use the PAL names and PAL boxarts, while the NTSC-U names are redirects; Ex.: Flame Runner redirects to Bowser Bike. Likewise, ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' was released in the NTSC-U region first, so we use the NTSC-U names and NTSC-U boxarts, while the PAL names are redirects. {{User|M&SG}} | In order to be fair to the regions who speak English outside of North America, if a game gets released in the PAL region first, we use the PAL names. If a game gets released in the NTSC-U region first, we use the NTSC-U names. Since ''Mario Kart Wii'' was released in the PAL region first, we use the PAL names and PAL boxarts, while the NTSC-U names are redirects; Ex.: Flame Runner redirects to Bowser Bike. Likewise, ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' was released in the NTSC-U region first, so we use the NTSC-U names and NTSC-U boxarts, while the PAL names are redirects. {{User|M&SG}} | ||
Line 996: | Line 986: | ||
===SmashWiki=== | ===SmashWiki=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|4-26|leave as is}} | |||
Since the game Super Smash Bros. has a similar name with Super Mario Bros., people thought it was a Mario title. So people created a Super Smash Bros. page on MarioWiki. Then someone created a number of useless articles such as [[Zelda]] and [[Lucario]]. MarioWiki should not have articles about Pokemon and Zelda, that is the work of Bulbapedia and ZeldaWiki. There is even a SmashWiki to hold Super Smash Bros. information. All of the info in MarioWiki on Super Smash Bros. should be about Mario characters only. We should remove all Pokemon and Zelda articles. | Since the game Super Smash Bros. has a similar name with Super Mario Bros., people thought it was a Mario title. So people created a Super Smash Bros. page on MarioWiki. Then someone created a number of useless articles such as [[Zelda]] and [[Lucario]]. MarioWiki should not have articles about Pokemon and Zelda, that is the work of Bulbapedia and ZeldaWiki. There is even a SmashWiki to hold Super Smash Bros. information. All of the info in MarioWiki on Super Smash Bros. should be about Mario characters only. We should remove all Pokemon and Zelda articles. | ||
Line 1,071: | Line 1,060: | ||
===Super Mario Advance=== | ===Super Mario Advance=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-13|leave as is}} | |||
We have articles for [[Super Mario 64 DS]] and [[Super Mario Bros. Deluxe]] and even [[Donkey Kong Original Edition]].But why not any gamein the Super Mario Advance (series). Alot of theses games are alot diffrent than the originals. Espically the 4th.Something nees to be done.Either delete DK:The Original Edition of do whats mentioned above.Thank you. | We have articles for [[Super Mario 64 DS]] and [[Super Mario Bros. Deluxe]] and even [[Donkey Kong Original Edition]].But why not any gamein the Super Mario Advance (series). Alot of theses games are alot diffrent than the originals. Espically the 4th.Something nees to be done.Either delete DK:The Original Edition of do whats mentioned above.Thank you. | ||
Line 1,085: | Line 1,073: | ||
#{{User|Supremo78}} - The only reason we have those is because those games have major changes. For example, SM64DS gained 3 new characters, all new missions, and added minigames. For SMBD, there were all new enemies, and there was a world you went on to go to different different levels, just like SMB3. Super Mario Advance series only has minor differences, and if there was a SMA (series), that would just really make a stub. And honestly, I don't know why DKOE has its own article. | #{{User|Supremo78}} - The only reason we have those is because those games have major changes. For example, SM64DS gained 3 new characters, all new missions, and added minigames. For SMBD, there were all new enemies, and there was a world you went on to go to different different levels, just like SMB3. Super Mario Advance series only has minor differences, and if there was a SMA (series), that would just really make a stub. And honestly, I don't know why DKOE has its own article. | ||
#{{User|Jjrapper100}} Per Supremo78. | #{{User|Jjrapper100}} Per Supremo78. | ||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Supremo78; per the reasons given for merging the pages in the first place, and keeping them that way until now (for reference, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | #{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Supremo78; per the reasons given for merging the pages in the first place, and keeping them that way until now (for reference, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/24#Remake_Exclusive.3F|here's a failed attempt]] to re-split them from last December). Also, ''Donkey Kong Original Edition'' should be merged as soon as this proposal is over. | ||
#{{User|DKPetey99}} Per Supremo78. Also, in the ''Super Mario'' Advance games, many new additions are added. Thus, making the games different. | #{{User|DKPetey99}} Per Supremo78. Also, in the ''Super Mario'' Advance games, many new additions are added. Thus, making the games different. | ||
#{{User|Super Yoshi Bros. 3}} All that changes is a couple of sprites, the fact that it is now a GBA game, and the 2-player Mario Bros that they stick on it. | #{{User|Super Yoshi Bros. 3}} All that changes is a couple of sprites, the fact that it is now a GBA game, and the 2-player Mario Bros that they stick on it. | ||
Line 1,109: | Line 1,097: | ||
===Form Over Sayed=== | ===Form Over Sayed=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|12-0|lose it}} | |||
Almost all the microgame pages from ''[[WarioWare: Smooth Moves]]'' have a section called ''Form''. I think these sections must be delected because the infobox already have the Form description. | Almost all the microgame pages from ''[[WarioWare: Smooth Moves]]'' have a section called ''Form''. I think these sections must be delected because the infobox already have the Form description. | ||
Line 1,147: | Line 1,134: | ||
===DS icons=== | ===DS icons=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|5-14|leave as is}} | |||
As you can see when starting a [[Nintendo DS]] game, every game has an 32×32px icon. I think we should add these to the DS game articles like this: | As you can see when starting a [[Nintendo DS]] game, every game has an 32×32px icon. I think we should add these to the DS game articles like this: | ||
Latest revision as of 16:28, May 28, 2023
Recipe Imagesleave as is 3-7 Just go to here and notice how each image is [[File:PaperMario Items <itemname>.png]] for the most part (as some are like .gif and .jpg). This is a great example - for the most part - of what I am talking about. Now go to here or here, and notice how many images are like [[File:<itemname> PM2.png/PNG]], [[File:<itemname>TTYD.png/PNG]], [[File:<nameitem>TTYD.png/PNG]], [[File:<itemnickname>.png/PNG]], [[File:<itemname> SPM.png/PNG]], and then even images for items that are used for more than one game because there isn't a image found! My point I'm trying to come across is that many of our pages have had major work done on them because of this inconsistency, as well as editing them now being a major pain-in-the-neck. Changing them to something that will work out for all of them ([[File:PaperMario Items <itemname>.png]], [[File:<itemname> PM2.png]], and [[File:<itemname> SPM.png]] are what the ideal file names would be), we'll be able to create these pages more efficently, as well as editing further pages be a lot more smoother and less time-consuming. As an example, this is more efficent way of making images easier, as the template already holds the key factors ([[File:PaperMario Items <itemname>.png]]) in it, which would allow the editor just to simply put in the item name. And for the pages that don't use that template, it will still allow easier editing since they would have to only put the key factors and the item name instead of looking up the image and copying it into a page. The downside to all of this is that many of the pages already having these mix-matched file names would need to be fixed and updated to the latest things. Hopefully it won't take much time, and I already have it planned to quickly update each page before it ends up as a project that will take more than a few days. If the proposal pass, I'll start immediately on working, and hopefully have some help to get it down. That is the only downside I can see to this passing afaik. Even if it takes some work, it is better to have consistency then have all this annoying work done if it could be much simplier. Proposer: Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Have them match
Leave as it is
Comments@MCD: For the viewer, it is pretty much pointless to them. But I'm viewing this to the people that have constantly had to edit the pages full of images. I was editing many yesterday, and I was completely annoyed with all the extra work I had to do. It may not seem like a lot to a viewer, but it's a big difference to thoses that have edited the pages like myself. I for a fact that this isn't the first proposal to deal with editing and consistency. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
Remove Staff Pageskeep pages 2-16 Proposer: Supremo78 (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@GS15 We still talk about Mario here though. If people want to know what the credits are, they can just simply look it up. People are still getting recognized by people playing their games. But like said in the proposal, we talk about Mario here. Supremo78 (talk)
@GS15 I still think we should rethink the idea that we cover Mario here. Supremo78 (talk)
@GS15 You are making me real frustrated. This is the Super Mario Wiki. We cover stuff about Mario. They do get the respect they deserve when the millions of people who buy the Mario games go through the credits, and if people want that very specific info, like stated in the proposal, if people want to find out, they can simply look it up on Google and go to another website. Supremo78 (talk)
@Xzelion, that's a Good point. About your Mario article section of your comment, that's because they're spin-offs of the Mario series that need to be included. I think your comment is correct, but let's see how the proposal goes and see if I'm wrong or not. Supremo78 (talk)
Oh, and if you say They aren't about Mario himself, than we'll have to delete most of the pages. Superfiremario (talk) Keep those pages please! Olors (talk) I think Mario Party DS has its own staff page now. Keep it! Reddragon19k (talk) Merge all Donkey Kong sidebar lists with Mario listsmerge donkey kong lists 10-3 EDIT: Just to clear up some confusion, I mean the side bar lists such as, Games, Characters, Allies, etc. I don't want to merge the categories. Proposer: Supremo78 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsIs it like an article list or a category? Zero777 (talk)
@Superfiremario your wrong if any thing the Mario Series is a spin off of the Donkey Kong series seeing as how Donkey Kong got top billing of the game Donkey Kong which started the Mario series in general Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
@Plumber The point of this proposal was not to merge categories of DK and Mario, and even if they were, I still don't understand your reasoning. Anyway, this proposal was made to merge lists not categories. Supremo78 (talk) My ideal organization would be everything in one list, but with some sort of legend, since it is helpful to know which thing came from which series. This is how Species is set up (although, ever since this edit, I only see question marks instead of different shapes, making it rather useless to me, but perhaps I just don't have the right thing installed on my computer). In fact, having another symbol for alternate media might be useful too - they're not less important or anything, but they are different and being able to tell them apart is useful. It's also a bit of a compromise between the folks who want to keep the lists separate and the ones who want to combine them. - Walkazo (talk)
Remove Logos from Infobox Titlesremove 17-4 In short, I propose we remove all instances where the logos are being used for the infobox titles. The logos can be put into the galleries (or incorporated into the body text, as is the case with the character and console pages), so nothing is being lost. Series pages with logos being used as their images will not be affected. Proposer: Walkazo (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@ Walkazo: Could you include the removal of Logos of the consoles? Just as you said that color interferes with the design of the logos, this problem can also be seen in the Wii U's page and the Wii. The GameCube takes a step further: How do you read a symbol of a game console in the infobox? Coincollector (talk)
Actually, removing the logos are okay, but maybe they should be moved to the subject's gallery. There may be some chance that we want these plain logos. - Akfamilyhome (talk)
@Coincollector: Sorry. SWFlash (talk) If this proposal passes, are we going to remove the logos on games that haven't been released? Tails777 (talk)
@Plumber: We are not getting rid of them, one, the artwork of the title is already in the boxart, and two, they are most likely already located at the gallery. Zero777 (talk) Since some articles don't have logo's in the infobox titles and some do, I wouldn't mind if we remove the logo's from the info box titles. It looks more professional that way. However, we should realize a game logo is one important image of the game. Logo's are used for commercials on TV or advertisements in newspaper. Websites of the game also show the logo big. The logo is also on the box and even in the game itself. I think we should find a more efficient place for the game logo on the article. A game logo is MAYBE even more important then the boxart. Arend (talk)
Artwork Transparency Issuesremove bad transparent images 25-20 Update: To understand what's going on, please look here for examples of good transparency and bad transparency. Proposer: M&SG (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsRecently I've been working with PNG sprite images with white backgrounds that are unnecessary and removing them and reuploading it. I haven't done anything with JPEGs. That's ok, right? Bowser's luma (talk)
UM: No, the proposer is talking about the bad quality transparent images, not all of the transparent images. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) I can see where some people are going by replacing JPEG artworks with PNG artworks. However, if the PNG artworks do not have a transparent background, you should upload them just like that. If a PNG artwork has transparency already when you download it, odds are, it'll probably look good on any kind of background. If that truly is the case, that kind of artwork image can be uploaded; Ex.: File:MASATLOG Tails.png; when I found that image, it already had an Alpha Layer, and it looked good on a black background. Basically, by normal standards, quality > transparency, and transparency should only be implemented if it looks good. - M&SG (talk)
@UltraMario3000: He's not saying that we shouldn't convert from JPG to PNG, but that if someone does that, they shouldn't make it transparent. Yoshiwaker (talk) @Yoshiwaker: I don't see what's wrong with making it transparent though.:/--UltraMario3000 (talk)
We should upload all artworks as PNG, because when JPG pictures are rescaled ([[File:SSBB-Peach Luigi Taunt.jpg|200px]]), the they become very artifacted. SWFlash (talk)
@Goomba's Shoe15: This proposal only applies to bad quality transparency artworks. Artworks such as the one that Xzelion showed would not be affected, since those artworks already had transparency implemented before being uploaded; artworks that already have transparency usually tend to look good on any background color. M&SG (talk)
@M&SG Did I say anything about quantity? Also, PNG is lossless, if you didn't notice it. SWFlash (talk)
Just in case the proposal deadline has to be extended, please refer to here for some examples of acceptable transparency and unacceptable transparency. M&SG (talk) @Arend: You're missing the point. This proposal only applies to artworks that have bad transparency. Please look at my examples, and you'll clearly get the picture. M&SG (talk) @Mario Fan 123: Well it's one thing when you have a white background, but when you put the image on a black background, that's when you'll notice how poorly done the transparency is. M&SG (talk)
@Zero's vote: Most of these "transparent" images don't look good on articlesSuperfiremario (talk) I'd like to point out a png image with awful transparency which should be used as an example for this proposal. Alas, I don't know the file name, but I know the image. It's the Galaxy Airship artwork that was ripped from the boss poster. The image looks fine on a white background, but put against a black background or save it to your computer and open it in MSPaint and it reveals how horrendous the transparency is. Rise Up Above It (talk) IDK, but I'll show directly some examples from MS&G's page to coroborate the problems. Maybe many of you misunderstood this proposal. This is not to kill PNG as many of you think, it's to get rid badly edited or cropped pictures that they turned out be of worse quality than their originals (regardless they were JPEG or PNG or whatever). In a few words, pictures, like artworks Shouldn't be edited. The chart shows the bad-edited pictures set in a black background, this problem can be seen in any colored bg but white or some white-based color. It's possible to converse JPEGs into PNG but never edit them unless it needs so and in this case must be well-crafted, not like this. This is becoming in a trend by many user and shouldn't be atually in the Mariowiki, so think twice before taking a decent decision. @All Opposers What M&SG is trying to say is that we need to remove the transparency from the images that look bad on a different color background than white. Jusy look at the pictures above. The look crappy in a black background. Supremo78 (talk)
@ Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum: You don't get the point. This proposal, again, this is not to remove PNG images, nor saying that JPEG is better than PNG nor something, this proposal is to stop users that believe they can edit or make certain pictures transparent without noticing important details like the chart shown above. Don't think you're becoming experts on this... Coincollector (talk)
See what I mean? The blue dot with 100% hardness has it's background completely removed, and there's almost no sign of white pixels left around, while there is a whole bunch of white left at the blue dot with no hardness. As with the middle two in the earlier example, it's transparency could be better. Seeing the Black Mage at the right, that one could also be done better (seriously, there are pixels left behind that don't even belong to the artwork), but it has a shadow, so we therefor have to wait for an official release of the artwork with no background (though I, unfortunately, think it will never come).
@Super Luigi! Number One!: Do you know how in the simplest way? It's not an easy task as you think. Requires trial and error to get the best quality. Merge the non-game lists on the side bar with the video game listsmerge sidebar lists 8-0 Proposer: Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsSorry, but I don't get what you are saying. Zero777 (talk)
Reform MarioWiki:Proposalsleave as is 11-20 EDIT: MarioWiki:Proposals will still serve as the main place for talk page proposals. Many thanks to Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) for bringing that up. Proposers: Xzelion (talk), Plumber (talk), and Master Crash (talk) Support
Oppose
DebateThis proposal include removing the TPP proposal system and if it does are all the TPP proposals that expire after the deadline of this proposal cancelled Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
Wait what do the peer reviews have to do with proposals i though those were for the FA process Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) What happens if it's a huge proposal with plenty of people with good arguments on both sides? So far, it seems to me that this will create stalemates that eventually stop the wiki from making decisions because of red tape. See the "No starting planet left behind" proposal in the Archives. I do agree that many proposals end up as popularity contests, but at least things happen. Dr Javelin (talk)
Huge proposals actually become smaller because less people are willing to actually write a detailed opinion compared to doing "Per X." Back in the day, things got done and stayed done. If the arguments are good on both sides, generally the sysops step in to referee, which is not the ideal situation, but it's the general solution. They already referee the Proposals enough as it is. Plumber (talk)
In the past, consensus was always able to occur, moreso today with the Sysop Boards. CC: Basically, that's how it was done before. However such things would be done at Talk:Main Page like they were because we have agreed the Proposals is too formulaic to be conductive. Strict deadlines are often too short or too long to be effective as well. If anyone needs more information, Xzelion will be happy to oblige, although I know you, CC, of all people are familiar with the old system :) Plumber (talk) I'm not exactly familiar with the old proposal system, mostly because I never attended many proposals during my earlier wiki days. M&SG (talk) @DKPetey99 and ThirdMarioBro: Well, if that is truly the case, then pretty much nothing we can do will be able to stop that because by this system, they could just "agree" with their friend. Yoshiwaker (talk) I have a question for the proposers: will this effect the proposals box on the Main Page? If so, how do you plan to adapt the Main Page for this change? Super Mario Bros. (talk) So how will the old system work? You didn't necessarily elaborate on that. Zero777 (talk) Hmm. I'm switching back to neutral because of the good opposition arguments, and I'll stay that way unless someone can clearly define the pros and cons of each system in an unbiased manner. Dr Javelin (talk) 2257: NARCE could filibuster the proposed system because at that time executive power was concentrated in Wayoshi and (the aloof) Steve. He just needed to wear down one person. Now this is not the case. Also, the "per alls" are not the central issue here, but the voting patterns themselves. Already a few people have defected from my side to the other side. This just proves my point that the Proposals system leads to "vote trends" where the influence of well-known people convinces unsures to go to that side. This proposal was going to pass for sure until Walkazo made things more exciting. If Walkazo had remained silent, then there is a greater likelihood someone such as Zero or Yoshiwaker would not have their votes / voted for my side. The fact that Xzelion and I and Crash (all-well known people, and all in favor of this measure) backed it was to illustrate the flaws of this system as well. Did I already mention how Son of Suns eloquently confused everyone into destroying something they had just backed in a previous Proposal days earlier? Ever since then, I have been at odds with our current system of Proposals; people who liked Son of Suns voted for him because he was popular or because he wrote all fancy-like and whatever it was, it sounded smart or something. I would go on, but I haven't slept in two days, so I'm a bit worn out. The old version in action can be seen in older Talk:Main page archives, where problems were discussed and solved. Plumber (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
I had to dismiss my vote since I rushed in my decision to retrieve the old proposal's way without looking the drawbacks clearly. I'll stay neutral but I'll go with any absolute conclusion. By the way, would Proplemontage agree to change this proposal for another regarding to these decisions if succeeded? I guess he might have the last word. Coincollector (talk) @Plumber: The "vote trends" you are talking about could very well occur in the proposed system anyways. Somebody could make a good enough argument to convince somebody to change their mind about something. Also, it doesn't matter who makes an argument that could convince others to take their side. If I had made the exact same argument as Walkazo before she did, I doubt that any less people would have opposed this. Also, that argument is similar to the one in this proposal, I find the logic flawed in that it is based off of something that cannot be proven. Yoshiwaker (talk)
I wasn't a user back when the old system was going on. In fact, I wasn't even active until March but I joined on Jan 9 2011. So, i'm not voting. Superfiremario (talk) I would also like to point out that the "per" problems were "solved" by an old Proposal to abolish "per X" as a reason. IIRC, another Proposal brought it back. That's just a good example of the fickleness of the Proposals system. Plumber (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
MLA Formatleave as is 2-13 Proposer:Plumber (talk) Support
Oppose
Debate
Won't this be a massive overhaul of practically every single article on the wiki? Dr Javelin (talk)
It won't be a massive overhaul of the article on the wiki besides making source clarifications more useful. Wikis adhere to a rough version of MLA anyhow. The effects of this proposal are to be minor. Plumber (talk)
I agree with Mario4Ever. We made a proposal to stablish that British English can be used here. Coincollector (talk) Well MLA includes Canada, so I suppose we could grandfather Britain into it. But that's distracting from the main point, which is primarily that of quotation and citation, which so desperately need essential reforms. Plumber (talk) May you please elaborate on that, because I'm still not sure what you trying to do. Zero777 (talk)
Just Google MLA Standards sonny ;) Plumber (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
Cover Mario Knockoffsdon't cover 1-20 Proposer: Magikrazy51 (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Magikrazy51: The first three days of a proposal, you can change things to it. Along with that, you can delete your proposal. If you don't like this proposal, you can delete it. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Why do so many people oppose this when we have this page? - Mas0n 17:38, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
One thing I don't understand is why one opposer is being disrespectful to Magikrazy. You shouldn't be mean to a user just because he has an idea that he thought should be added. Supremo78 (talk)
Actually all of them have the same theme; we don't cover unlicensed games. Other than that, it's a "per all". Supremo78 (talk) Covering bootlegs and ripoffs would either result in 1: a truckload of short articles about crappy Famicom hacks with names like Hyper Mario 3D Blast Z 2 clogging up the wiki or 2: an unholy huge list that nobody would actually read (there a lot of these things). Listing the mind-bending products of Chinese bootleggers is "fun" and "informative" in the same way listing vague storytelling patterns without analysis or context is "fun", but at the end, it's not really useful and after a certain limit, it's just repetitive noise. And that's not getting into fanworks, oooooh boy. That being said, some of the oppose reasons are really petulant. /seriously/. --Glowsquid 18:11, 18 July 2011 (EDT) @Toadbert101: You shouldn't be supporting this proposal then. Your suggesting something else that could far-fetch out shot maybe, probably not possible, but this proposal has a different idea and outcome. Zero777 (talk) Hotel Mario. Nuff said. SWFlash (talk)
@Zero 777: THIS IS THE SUPER MARIO WIKI! Sorry, I just had to get that old joke aside. Anyways, back to my point. @everyone: What inspired me to make this proposal (aside from the sugar rush and tiredness) was this little story. I was searching the Muppet Wiki for reasons unknown when I came across an article wntitled "Blue Big Bird Knockoff Plush Toys". I searched it and wondered if we had any knockoff articles (BTW, the tag on the toy said "Cookie Monster" for some reason). I searched for both Mobario and The Great Giana Sisters, but no results. So basically, a big blue bird named Cookie Monster told me to do this. Magikrazy51 (talk)
Change the Gallery pages' names from "Gallery:(page name)" to "(page name)/Gallery"leave as is 0-20 Proposer: Goomblob (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsShouldn't this be with changes? Superfiremario (talk) DK Wikileave as is 7-44 Proposer: Bjdill (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsMarioWiki:Coverage, SWFlash}} Another one of these proposals... There's already a DK Wiki out there, and it has separate information than this Wiki. Mario and Donkey Kong have appeared together in games for ages. Both series are extremely close, and even some characters that started out in the DK series have gone into Mario games, such as Diddy, Dixie, and Funky Kong. Also, the Mario and DK series both started with the original [[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong game, which belongs to both series. Removing information that is fine here will simply downgrade the Mario Wiki, and it will make it inconsistent if we still have Yoshi and Wario game info. More information is here. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
There are many things I can say about this. One is that we cover all the playable characters in the Smash Bros series. So by the logic of this proposal, we should stop covering all those characters as well because there is already a wiki for them. Second is that Donkey Kong is a major character of the Mario series. Much like Yoshi and Wario, he branched into his own series as well, but he still appears in lots of Mario spin off games. So what I'm saying is that D.K. is a part of the Mario series and should not be removed from this wiki. Tails777 (talk)
Mariofan1222 (talk) I don't like that Idea, Thnaks to DK mario exists So U R being bad with Mario you son of a b**ch I thought Donkey Kong was a Mario game. And why is there name calling? You're only making things worse. >_< LeftyGreenMario (talk)
There already is a Donkey Kong Wiki, so why not just edit that wiki, rather than create a whole new one? Honestly, this proposal would not exist if people pay attention to the main page. All you have to do is read the bottom. MasterToad (talk) I think that only pages of Donkey Kong should be made if he is in a Mario Game. E.G we should keep pages like Mario vs. Donkey Kong but take off Donkey Kong Country because that doesn't include Mario. Conanshinichi (talk)
New rule for imagesleave as is 1-19 Proposer: BoygeyMario (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsIf you look really closely, JPGs have worse quality. BoygeyMario (talk) Yes that is true. Not all the images start with PNG. If we convert them their memory can go past the maximum memory which is bad. We have to keep some images JPG so their memory won't overload. Sprites we can convert to PNG cuz the are small.YoshiGo99 (talk)
@BoygeyMario: There's a 10 MB limit for the files we can upload. While PNG is better than JPG, it uses more memory, which is a major flaw when you want to upload very large images. M&SG (talk) ...isn't this similar to the PNG Images proposal that just happened? Or it could lead to the problem that it dealt with. Rise Up Above It (talk) Delete the Followingdo not delete 0-21
All these pages are rather hidden and very unneeded; for example, the troll page is unnecessary because users will figure out what is a troll if they never heard of one, I have. I stumble across all these pages when I typed down in the search "How can I be an admin?" and it was in a pile of search results, AFTER I tweak the search options a bit. I suggest to copy, paste, and alter the information into Userpedia. A few of those pages have a list of questions, so in this proposal, it proposes to move those questions to the FAQ page. A few of them have a link to the list of current admins, sysops, bureaucrats, etc. I propose to move those links into the welcome letter every user now gets for easy access just in case of a situation of sorts. Note: For all you opposers, what do you propose to do with these pages about the part that they are hidden? Proposer: Zero777 (talk) SupportOppose
CommentAccess to the current lists of patrollers and sysops is in the welcome message already. Mario4Ever (talk) @Walkazo: The FAQ page isn't that big, so users can go there and see the question they are looking for if we put the correct title on it. As mentioned, the list is there in the welcome letter, but if it isn't there is no problem in doing so. If the staff really believe this is for the worst and will be unconstitutional for this proposal to pass, they can remove with a reason. And I suggested to move the words (copy and paste) in the page and move it to the respectful article. I checked out the articles and there won't be a problem because the info has been separated by paragraph that one can obviously tell which one is the real informative one and which paragraph is fanon. Zero777 (talk)
Perrowvetoed by the administrators Perrow
Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI like Perot better. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
I was trying to contact Porplemontage, regarding that, but I got no response. However, it seems that 5 images per row is way too big, especially since guests have to deal with advertisements that'll pop up. Galleries have to be able to support 1024x768 resolution monitors, which heavily explains why only 4 images are seen per row on each gallery. M&SG (talk)
What is perrow anyway? Bowser's luma (talk)
Reality vs. Fictionremove generic items that do not differentiate from their real world counterparts 40-0 Examples of generic object articles that would be allowed:
Examples of generic object articles that would not be allowed:
If this proposal passes I will move on to my next step, creating a Writing Guideline concerning this. Proposer: Knife (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWhat about food items like Peach and Strawberry? Would they be deleted because they don't deviate, at least as far as we know, from the real-world food, other than the fact that they are items to be collected? --The Great Toad85 Is Here. 08:50, 7 August 2011 (EDT) Since both of those items are collectible, usable, and important to the story they won't be going. The Writing Guideline I'm going to propose after this proposal will be much more detailed with all the exceptions. I just wanted people on board with the general idea before I attempted to create a Writing Guideline.--Knife (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2011 (EDT) @YL: While that is a good idea, we should only do it for subjects which readers are not knowledgeable about. For instance, if we start linking Basketball to the Wikipedia article every time it's mentioned, we'd have a ton of unnecessary links for something that nearly everyone knows about. A good place to use a Wikipedia link, for example, would be that link to Pulsar in the trivia section of the Pulsar article.--Knife (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2011 (EDT) Using Another Country's Boxartdo not use only american box arts 3-31 Proposer: Jjrapper100 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI moved this here from talk:SNMBWii because it is, in no way, a TPP: it is proposing we change our naming conventions, which is affects the entire database, not just that one article. I also fixed the deadline (it was originally 10 days, which isn't the proper length for TPPs or normal Proposals). The title should also be changed, since it is a misnomer: this is not just about which boxart we should use, this is about the names of our articles. - Walkazo (talk) @BabyLuigiOnFire
In order to be fair to the regions who speak English outside of North America, if a game gets released in the PAL region first, we use the PAL names. If a game gets released in the NTSC-U region first, we use the NTSC-U names. Since Mario Kart Wii was released in the PAL region first, we use the PAL names and PAL boxarts, while the NTSC-U names are redirects; Ex.: Flame Runner redirects to Bowser Bike. Likewise, Wario Land: Shake It! was released in the NTSC-U region first, so we use the NTSC-U names and NTSC-U boxarts, while the PAL names are redirects. M&SG (talk) People often use the term PAL to refer to both Europe and Australia, because the European game names, boxarts etc. are often the same as the one from Australia, but not always. In the case of WarioWare: Smooth Moves, Europe got a Yellow box and Australia a Pink box. Because it released first in Europe, the European box should be used on top of the page. Don't mix it up with the Australian, just because the box also has the word PAL on it. Also don't forget that terms like PAL and NTSC only occur for home-consoles and not handhelds, since PAL and NTSC are analog television colour encoding systems. Arend (talk) Thanks for "Per-ing" me, TurniPowerup. That was very generous and thoughtful of you. As soon as you have a page, I would like to be friends with you. :) GameZone (talk) We could make the PAL name a redirect to the English page, and just note its PAL name in the first sentence. TyphlosionBlaze (talk)
@TyphlosionBlaze: Confusing to American users? If this proposal passes, imagine how confusing it's going to be to non-American users (which is basically most of the rest of the world). MrConcreteDonkey (talk) SmashWikileave as is 4-26 Proposer: leetc (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsLearn to format proposals correctly, please. - Walkazo (talk) @SFM: What are you talking about? We don't cover Zelda or Pokemon. Yoshiwaker (talk) @Yoshiwakerwaker: Yes we do. We have character articles for characters from those series. Smileymiley5001 (talk)
@GameZone we would still cover information that is about Mario in the Smash series we just wouldn't have articles on characters like Ike or Meta Knight we would keep any article that was impacted by or directly from the Mario series. Also this mans not a troll some people do not believe we should cover the Smash Bros. series and he's got every right to propose we don't with out being called a troll just like how we as a wiki have every right to decide we do want to cover the Smash Bros. series with out being called trolls Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) @Leetc I will not remove Super Smash Bros. info on Mario characters. I will only remove Super Smash Bros. info on Pokemon and Zelda.
And why? DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)
I'm going to quote this comment:
Well that just made this proposal look even worse. You won't remove Metroid series games info, Pikmin info, and F-Zero info. That's very inconsistent. Supremo78 (talk) @Chicken: You don't have to make fun of leetc's idea. He's just trying to express his ideas and you're bringing him down. Shorten it to "per Goomba's Shoe 15" or whatever. Magikrazy51 (talk) The fact still remains that Pokémon and Zelda are in a game that includes the Mario Universe. As a result, we are allowed to have information about their Smash Bros. involvement at the Mario Wiki. Remember, we do cover crossovers and cameos, but we do not cover series' that don't involve Mario, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, or Wario. M&SG (talk) @ Yoshiwaker I meant the smash bros. info. Super Mario Advanceleave as is 2-13 Proposer: Ryandavhet (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentI might be willing to support if the articles you linked to weren't red links. Reversinator (talk) Wait your proposal doesn't give the option to not delete the Donkey Kong Original edition article. Because as you say in your proposal either we delete the Donkey Kong Original Edition article or give the Super Mario Advance series articles, so theirs no option to simply not give the Super Mario Advance series separate articles. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) I've got the Donkey Kong Original edition text saved in a Word document, just in case. Super Yoshi Bros. 3 (talk) Toad85: While Donkey Kong Original Edition can be deleted, Super Mario Bros. Deluxe should be left alone because it is more than a remake, as it includes both SMB and Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, as well as a handful of new features. Similarly, we have an article for Super Mario All-Stars, since it's a collection of four games and can't be placed on any one of the originals' articles, nor split amongst them as that leads to repetitive and/or fragmented coverage of the compilation game. - Walkazo (talk) Form Over Sayedlose it 12-0 Proposer: Goomblob (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI need some more description on why you want to do this to give a vote. Supremo78 (talk) You Haven't got enough detail for me to vote. If you add examples Then I could give you a vote Jman2401 (talk)
Example article: Pest Control. SWFlash (talk)
DS iconsleave as is 5-14 Edit: As most icons are transparant and jpg is low quality, images should be png or gif. Proposer: Lakituthequick (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI don't understand exactly what you want to do. Could you explain a bit more? Yoshiwaker (talk)
I like the idea, but we already have the box cover art, and most articles already have a bunch of pictures. Would these additional images add any value to the pages? Brock1221 (talk)
Maybe to a gallery or something. Baconator (talk)
@Walkazo (talk) If images in topleft corner look sloppy, what about the Wii logo on its page? Lakituthequick (talk) I think they should be uploaded, sure, but I think they should just go in the gallery or something, not have a really prominent place on the page. Yoshiwaker (talk)
|