| Any proposal decided and passed is archived here. Use the scroll box to see votes and comments. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.
|
| All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was.
|
Remove template maps from articles
ADD TO ALL NECESSARY ARTICLES 2-7-1
Before anyone thinks that I'm proposing to remove all maps from the wiki, let me elaborate. On location articles for Paper Mario and the Mario & Luigi series (Toad Town, Hoohoo Mountain, Thwomp Volcano, Cavi Cape, etc.), there is a small map that allows someone to to go from one location to another location in the same game. That is what I'm proposing to remove. Why? One, the map is really small. It's impractical to look for a location since some of the locations are right next to eachother. Two, it's unnecessary. What's wrong with simply searching for the location, or going to the navigation template? Three, it's inconsistent. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and Super Mario RPG, and possibly others, have in-game maps too, yet they don't have a map for all of their location articles.
I'll offer three choices: Remove these maps from the ones that have it, add these maps to the ones that lack it, or leave everything as it is.
Proposer: Reversinator (talk)
Deadline: August 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Remove all maps
- Reversinator (talk) Per proposal.
- Reddragon19k (talk) Reverse is right! We don't need it! Per him!
Add maps
- BoygeyMario (talk) Maps don't harm teh wiki in any way.
- YoshiGo99 (talk) The maps are easy to use. They are quicker and you don't have to find the location in a template or category.
- Baconator (talk) They're very useful, especially for the Bowser's body article. Besides, we can create template maps for other maps.
- Zero777 (talk) I don't think entirely removing it will be the best; a template may be a better solution.
- Bowser's luma (talk) Per all.
- Tails777 (talk) Per all. Like what YoshiGo99 said, they are easy to use. Plus I think that they are helpful templates on pages.
- Superfiremario (talk) Per all.
Do nothing
- Toad85 (talk) I think it's fine the way it is.
While regular navigation templates should be sufficient for navigating the articles, it might be worth keeping these templates on the game and/or world pages at the very least (like Bowser's body or Beanbean Kingdom), since it is much more efficient to show people which names apply to which spot, rather than having to explain it verbally. Granted, most of the time, the explanation's pretty straightforward and a tagged map isn't essential, but there's at least one map I definitely don't want to see eradicated entirely: {{Bowsermap}}. That layout's rather unorthodox and the directions can be quite bad - "large intestine" doesn't direct me to the Trash Pit's location at all, but while "the green circle on the left next to the red elbow circle" does tell me what I want to know, that sort of description doesn't exactly seem like the kind of writing style we want on the articles (imho). If there was an option to remove the template from everywhere but Bowser's body and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story (like a "leave maps on hub pages only" option only, or something), I'd totally vote for it. - Walkazo (talk)
|
Generic Subjects
- Draft: User:Knife/Policy
SUPPORT 11-0
This is the first Writing Guideline and is based on my previous proposal. I think Generic Subjects articles should be regulated a little better, which is why I want to propose a Writing Guideline for it. As it is now, it is a very short Writing Guideline but it has room to grow over the course of this proposal. Even if it doesn't, there isn't that much to say about it without going overboard on examples.
I just want to clarify that the statement under the "Exceptions" header stating "This does not apply to sports games.". The reason I wrote that was because nearly everything in the sports games can be construed as collecting (such a catching a basketball) or significant to gameplay (like a home run). This criteria still works well in almost every other genre.
Finally, if this proposal passes, we will start deleting all generic subject articles which are not protected under the proposed Writing Guideline. This will be a slow campaign because tracking down the generic subject articles and determining whether they fit the criteria is time consuming, especially considering how subjective the criteria is.
Proposer: Knife (talk)
Deadline: September 4, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Knife (talk) – Per my own proposal.
- Walkazo (talk) - Having a way to regulate these pages is a good idea, and the Guideline still leaves enough room to come at it on a case-by-case basis, meaning we shouldn't end up losing any good articles to technicalities.
- Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
- Bowser's luma (talk) You can't argue with a man who has a draft.
- MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all.
- Jazama (talk) Per all.
- Toad85 (talk) I think that this is a good idea, but I think that the restrictions should be somewhat less loose. For example, items like Home Run and Poop could get past, because they are important to the gameplay of the game.
- New Super Yoshi (talk) Per Toad85
- Reddragon19k (talk) Per everyone! I have an article on the Speedometer and it does appear in three Mario Kart games.
- Marwikedor (talk) Per all.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
Oppose
@Toad85: Home Run was already deleted, as per a proposal of which this new policy is an extension. And if that wasn't enough, the policy directly states that sports subjects, like home runs, are given less leeway, so no, it wouldn't "get past". Also, Poop is important to the gameplay of several Wario titles, and so it should stay (as we decided on a TPP a while back); this policy is written in a way that will let that happen, which is a good thing. - Walkazo (talk)
|
Categorization
USE NEW POLICY 20-0
- Draft: User:Walkazo/Essays#MarioWiki:Categories
For years the admins have been talking about creating a proper system for our categories, rather than the unwritten rules and inconsistencies we have now. Well, we've finally come up with a solid idea and a comprehensive (some would say exhaustive) policy page that everyone can follow - should the community at large agree with the admins that this is the way to go, of course.
Basically, the idea is that the articles get the most specific categories possible, which would in turn be categorized under more general categories, leading back to the most basic and fundamental categories - which, altogether, is known as a "Category Tree" (the general category is the root, and the increasingly specific categories are the branches leading to the articles/leaves). For example, Count Bleck would be part of Category:Super Paper Mario Characters, which would be part of Category:Paper Mario Series Characters, which would be part of Template:Fakelink, which, finally, would be part of Category:Characters. This makes navigation easier on many levels: for one thing, the articles have less categories to sift through (i.e. Bleck's currently got all three of the existing categories I've listed here (SPM Char., PM Series Char., Characters)), but the more general categories can still be reached with a couple clicks of the mouse. But rather than having increasingly big lists to comb through when getting more and more general, you're presented with links to various smaller lists, which are easier to sort through. However, if you still want the big lists, there's always Characters, and other such "List Pages", so dividing up the categories with the tree system doesn't deprive anyone of resources - it just provides new, easier ways to read through the same info. Here's some examples of what some trees would look like.
And that's not all. While categories in a tree are all connected, different trees also connect to other trees, forming extensive "Category Webs". For example, cat:SPM Characters isn't just part of cat:PM Series Characters - it's also a subcategory of Category:Super Paper Mario (which is part of Template:Fakelink, which is part of Category:Mario Games, which is part of Category:Games). cat:SPM also contains things like Category:Super Paper Mario Enemies and even Category:Super Paper Mario Images, etc., which all link back to their own trees - and together, the SPM branches of all those trees (leading down from the roots to the SPM pages) forms an overall Super Paper Mario category web. Here's an example of what that web would look like (the second web is just part of the first, reorganized a bit for extra clarity.)
Of course, the branches don't just link to each other down at the most specific level (cat:PM Series Enemies/Characters/etc. are all part of cat:PM Series), and not every step needs a category for every subject of every game (some are just too minor for so much effort, among other reasons explained in the actual policy), and sometimes trees have entirely separate trees branching out of them (again, this is explained in the draft). But it's all very logic-based, and while the webs and trees might seem complicated at times, it's still an improvement over what we have now.
Proposer: Walkazo (talk), with input from Knife (talk), Phoenix (talk), Marioguy1 (talk), Cobold (talk), and the other admins.
Deadline: September 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Walkazo (talk) - Per above, per the other advantages of this system outlined in my policy draft.
- Fawfulfury65 (talk) This is a very well written guideline with a ton of work put into it. It will make categories more consistent and also make it much easier to tell whether a category belongs here or not. This is definitely something we need. Per proposal.
- Phoenix (talk) I have no doubt that this method of category organization will prove to be extremely beneficial, especially when compared with how the categories are organized now. This is long overdue, and should be implemented as soon as possible.
- Reddragon19k (talk) Yes, yes, and triple yes! Per all!
- Bowser's luma (talk) This is a beautiful thing you have here. You can't deny that all the admins put in so much work to make this possible and they deserve to have this pass - it will be a great change for the wiki!
- Jazama (talk) Per all.
- Lindsay151 (talk) It'll be much better method for organizing categories. Per all.
- Knife (talk) – Per all.
- Bop1996 (talk) This strategy is one of the most effective strategies of organization I have seen in a long, long time. It is consistent, reliable, and well-organized. Full agreement on this.
- Glowsquid (talk) Per proposal.
- Zero777 (talk) Giant explanation, but simple to follow, per all.
- MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per proposal.
- MeritC (talk) Per all, especially on the fact that the category system process needs to be better organized.
- Magikrazy51 (talk) Per all, anything that took all the admins to make must be important.
- M&SG (talk) - Per all who support it.
- Lakituthequick (talk) Per all
- Toad85 (talk) Per all.
- RandomYoshi (talk) Per all.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
- Mariomario64 (talk) – This makes perfect sense. Per all.
Oppose
@Walkazo: Ohey, I have an idea. Why don't you make a PipeProject after this wonderous piece of policy goes through? It would greatly reduce the time it takes to get all pages correctly organised. RandomYoshi (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
- To be honest, I really don't want to go to the trouble of setting up a PipeProject: I don't see any benefit of having an arbitrary list of people who want to enact a policy that's already clearly explained, and which everyone will have to obey and employ anyway. I'd rather just get the updating underway as soon as the Proposal passes, and anyone who wants to help can just drop in. If users are unsure about how to proceed with certain categories, they can always come and ask me, or any other admin, for guidance. Users can even ask questions about what is and isn't a good idea for the trees/webs on the policy's talk page: it will be good to have the situations as examples for future reference, as new games necessitate the creation of new webs and branches. If PipeProjects offered more organizational benefits, then yeah, I'd agree that making one would be a good idea, but right now, I feel that everything it has to offer can be done just as easily without all the official trappings. - Walkazo (talk)
- OK. I understand your thoughts perfectly. RandomYoshi (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
|
Minigame or Mini-game
USE "MINIGAME" 16-1-2
Right now we have both spellings on the wiki. The unhyphenated version is being used for the Minigame page and the infobox {{Minigame-infobox}}, while the hyphenated version is used in all the categories; both can be found on articles. Inconsistency is bad, so we should use one or the other, and I think minigame is the better choice - it's more straightforward, it's consistent with the spelling of Microgames and it's even in an official game title: WarioWare, Inc.: Minigame Mania. It's not the end of the world is it takes a while to slowly change the articles to use the unhyphenated version, but what would need to be speedily updated are the categories, to set a precedent. However, the entire categorization system is being revamped anyway if the above Writing Guideline passes, which is actually why I'm proposing this now: so I can kill two birds with one stone next week, and also provide a solid example of how the new Tree system should work by implementing it with the new "Minigame" categories right off the bat.
Proposer: Walkazo (talk)
Deadline: September 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Use "Minigames"
- Walkazo (talk) - Per proposal. Consistency is good, and the simpler, the better.
- Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per Walkazo.
- Jazama (talk) Per proposer
- Reddragon19k (talk) Make it Minigames and that is a Finish on that one so... Beep-beep! (Per all! in Minigame Whistle Form)
- Bop1996 (talk) Per the consistency and official names confirming this.
- Magikrazy51 (talk) Per the everyone.
- Mario Bros.! (talk) Per all.
- Lindsay151 (talk) Per all!
- Lakituthequick (talk) Per Walkazo, the simpler, the better
- M&SG (talk) - This would stop the problems with seeing "minigame" and "mini-game" in the exact same articles.
- RandomYoshi (talk) Per all.
- Vellidragon (talk) - Per all. The official Mario Party 8 website even spells it "minigames", among other sources.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
- Mariomario64 (talk) – This has annoyed me a bit in the past. Per all.
- Bowser's luma (talk) Per all.
Use "Mini-games"
- Toad85 (talk) I think it looks better asthetically.
Do nothing (use both)
- Tails777 (talk) I don't think its a big deal if we leave out the hyphen or not. So I think we should just leave it.
- KaptainK.Kool (talk) I like the idea of using both.
Allow me to demonstrate. I have the Mini-Game Whistle in the wiki so, if the proposal passes, it will take away the hyphen. That is what I thought for when it passes. Do you agree? Reddragon19k 20:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
- Yeah, the hyphen would be removed unless it's explicitly called a "Mini-Game Whistle" in-game, in which case, our hands are tied. Similarly, if in-game modes have hyphenated occurrences of "Mini-Game", we have to use that, since it's not just a term we're using, it's a proper name. That's the only real caveat about this proposal - we can only be consistent in our spelling, but not Nintendo's. So in this case (assuming it is an official name), we could make statements like "the Mini-Game Whistle is used in minigames", but we couldn't change the name itself. - Walkazo (talk)
|
CREATE TEMPLATE 15-1
This template would be similar to this, and has one main use; to anchor a section link to a specific part of a page, without adding it into the table of contents or affecting the table's appearance in any way. For example, linking to [[Badge#Fire Shield]], would go straight to the badge's table entry, without actually changing the appearance of the article as a result of the template. This would also be used on other pages with large lists of entries in tables, such as Pokémon, and any other articles that might benefit from it.
Template:Scrollbox
Animation errors and cartoon episodes pages
CREATE ANIMATION AND CONTINUITY ERROR SECTIONS 21-0
The pages for the individual episodes of the three DIC cartoons and the CGI Donkey Kong Country series often lists the animation goofs (stuff like "Luigi has three eyes in one shot") and minor continuity errors, and due to the shoddy animation of all four shows, the listings can get quite big. However, the way they are organised isn't consistent, with most pages listing the errors in the Trivia section and an handful other putting them in their own separate sections. Either way, it needs to be more consistent.
Template:Scrollbox
Remove customizable infoboxes
SUPPORT 12-0
Yeah, I've noticed a big problem in the past years and I want to stop in this way. Why stop? Because, in general, it's not appropiate. As an student of graphic design and experienced user, I've noticed that customizing some infoboxes like the {{character-infobox}}, the {{item-infobox}} or the {{form-infobox}}, by changing their preset colors for others is annoying because, most of the time users like to add acid or strong colors like red, bright green, purple, blue, etc. The problem of these colors is that hinder the user to read the info contained in the infoboxes and those colors take away totally the template's function and aesthetics. I suggest to remove all those options from the infoboxes to change their colors and customize them in less-useful tools that make the article less formal and consistent visually.
Template:Scrollbox
Allowance of a legitimate alternate account to contribute
DELETED (withdrew by nominator)
As there may be a few editors who edit sparingly from public places, and that some of these places may have password-stealing keyloggers or trojans installed, it would be wise to use one alternate account to prevent the main account, which may have Patroller or Administrator rights, from being harmed. The alternate account should not:
- Hold any user rights
- Be used at all other than at public places
- Have a username much different than the main account
Wikipedia and other sites allows such, and my alternate account there is B.wilson-alt. Is there appropriate consensus to agree with the decision?
Proposer: B.wilson (talk)
Deadline: November 6, 2011 23:59 GMT
Support
- B.wilson (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose
- Mario & Luigi (talk) My "real" answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! Meaning: That is sockpuppeting.
- Nintendo64Fan (talk) What...that' s all that I can say. Just a bad idea. Accounts here are rarely, if ever harmed or used in public places, and an alt account may suffer the same fate.
- Walkazo (talk) - If you're concerned about security, just don't edit. What Wikipedia does is irrelevant: we're not Wikipedia, and a couple extra edits here and there is not worth bending over backwards to accommodate. One account per user, no exceptions.
- Bop1996 (talk) Per Walkazo.
- MeritC (talk) I'm sorry, B.wilson, but I'm going to have to oppose as well. As Walkazo pointed out, we may be a Wiki site, but we're trying NOT to imitate Wikipedia (although some procedures we do somewhat emulate what Wikipedia does). In short, no.
Mario & Luigi: That is NOT sockpuppeting. This proposal is use of a LEGITIMATE account for use at PUBLIC places where trojans are installed, maybe. If you don't UNDERSTAND my proposal then DON'T VOTE at all. Thank you. --B.wilson (talk)
@B.wilson: It IS sockpuppeting. Mario & Luigi (talk)
- But in a LEGITIMATE way. Still a lack of understanding the proposal, your rude failure to understand the point of using a legitimate secondary account. --B.wilson (talk)
- Yeah... I'll forget the password of my secondary account anyways, even if I wanted to create one. I NEVER use a computer in public places. Mario & Luigi (talk)
- So I'm guessing your vote was basically because you don't use a computer in public places... ??? --B.wilson (talk)
- No... IT'S SOCKPUPPETING!!!!!! Mario & Luigi (talk)
- I'm tired of having to respond to your lack of understanding, and even your lack of respect. Sockpuppeting and using an alternate account in a legitimate way are NOT synonymous. Using it in a legitimate way includes using it in public environments where it is not 安全 to use your main account, and using it abusively is to create another one specifically used for vandalism; I will not be responding to any further of your rants on this proposal. I think I have had enough. --B.wilson (talk)
Please, Mario & Luigi, stop with the nonsense. The way you're writing your comments and replies imply you're attempting to be disrepectful with the other user. Consider to valorate other user's comments and find their advantages and disavantages in a more constructive way. Coincollector (talk)
OK. I will change my vote. Mario & Luigi (talk)
Nintendo64Fan: in what way, is it a bad idea ... ??? Thanks. --B.wilson (talk)
Aside from what I think of the proposal, I'm not certain if a community proposal was the right move. If anything like this were to happen, the admins would likely have to approve it first, so I don't think it's up to the community really. Bop1996 (talk)
- Nintendo64Fan, When the alternate account is harmed, it is actually better than to get the main account, most importantly if it holds user rights, harmed, (disaster). --B.wilson (talk)
- Is there a way to prematurely shut down this proposal? --B.wilson (talk)
@Walkazo:What about when one forgets a password (like Stooben Rooben)? Is he a sockpuppet? Magikrazy51 (talk)
- No, he's not. If a user forgets their password, they can make a new account: it's a replacement, not a sockpuppet (and it's for a legitimate reason, unlike users trying to erase a record of misbehaviour by starting over with a new account). In these cases, the user still only has one usable account, so it's not an exception to the rule. B.wilson: you can delete your own proposals within the first three days of their creation if you no longer support the idea. However, please be advised that it has to be properly archived, using a grey "DELETED BY PROPOSER" outcome (like how this TPP used grey). - Walkazo (talk)
|
Starting Planet Stop
OPPOSE 1-16
In Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2, people call the first planet you go into the "Starting Planet". Not surprisingly, people at Mariowiki do the same. But this needs to stop because each planet is different from every other planet in its game. The first planet in a galaxy should be named the same way the others are named. For example, the "starting planet" in Good Egg Galaxy could be called the Dark\Light Planet.
Template:Scrollbox
|
|
