MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/29: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 656: | Line 656: | ||
Hm, I'll greatly consider ridding of the old comments too. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | Hm, I'll greatly consider ridding of the old comments too. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | ||
:After having read Walkazo's comment myself, I am also greatly considering removing the old comments, reason being the same Walkazo took up. {{User|RandomYoshi}} | :After having read Walkazo's comment myself, I am also greatly considering removing the old comments, reason being the same Walkazo took up. {{User|RandomYoshi}} | ||
===Dealing with Pipeproject=== | |||
<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">REMOVE PIPE PROJECTS 18-3</span> | |||
What's wrong with Pipeproject? Many things. | |||
*It isn't used as it should, or for anything really. The ostensible goal of the pipeprojects is to help organize discussion and coordinate efforts, but a cursory glance at any Pipeproject pages shows that there's barely any of that. Most users simply create or expand articles on their own, and the impact of a pipeproject is limited to maybe someone putting a template on the talk or users signing-up on a pipeproject page to show that they "care". A great example of this is [[Pipeproject:New Games]], which has a whooping '''116''' users signed up (a ridiculous number of which haven't edited since 2007 or 2008), which would make it a fantastically unreadable mess were it used as it should. Thank [[Poochy|God]] it isn't, eh? | |||
*Nobody uses it. A cursory glance at [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:List_of_PipeProjects&action=history the history of the main pipeproject page] shows that it has been edited since the beginning of the year '''less''' than the proposal page has been edited this month. The "active" individual pages gets at most 2 or 3 edits per month and at least one of them hasn't been edited since close to half-a-year. | |||
*Related to the above, nobody maintains it. The rules says project have two weeks to amass ten supporters, but it can take many months before anybody scrubs it of failed or invalid projects (which is most of them). This shows nobody is interested in making the system work. | |||
'''tl;dr''', Pipeproject as it exists now is an useless, bloated waste of space and the Mariowiki staff unanimously agree it really doesn't deserve to be kept in its current form any longer. Assuming this proposal pass, the existing pages will be locked and have a message (a [[Mariowiki:Poll Selection]]) saying they're archives. as Templates such as http://www.mariowiki.com/Template:Partofpipe might remain for nostalgia, but with a note in small print to the effect of “Pipeprojects have been moved to the forum, this template is kept for historical purpose”. | |||
The forum? Well yeah, we still think there's an use for a space dedicated to discussing wiki editing and the forum provides an environment better suited to discussion than the relative clunkyness of wiki pages. Threads such as [http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=15758.0 this], [http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=10846.0 this] or [http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=17310.0 that] shows that the forum can be used to effectively coordinate and discuss wiki matters and registering on it is free and does not require any more information than a wiki account, so why not use it? | |||
Now here's a few details on how the hypothetical forum board would be set up: | |||
*The board would start as a child board of General Discussion with the possibility of it becoming its own section if it becomes popular enough. | |||
*There would be no requirements for activity or thread creation. As long as more than one user agree on an editing project, they can go ahead and do it as long as the change is not too "big" or potentially controversial (see next bullet point). | |||
*The only "hard" rule would be that new features, removal of long-established content, change to policies or major changes in general should go on the proposal page. However, forum threads can still be used to discuss if there's a problem and how it should be fixed, or if there's a need for a feature. | |||
Keep in mind '''none of this is set in stone''' and that we're more than willing to collect feedbacks from the users (on the forum, the pipeproject talk page, the comments on this proposal, IRC, my talk, you name it.) on how such a board should be implemented. Supposing this proposal pass, there will be a second proposal on a definitive structure. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Glowsquid}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': March 25, 2012, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Scrap the wiki Pipeproject (aggressively) and devise a replacement on the forum==== | |||
#{{User|Glowsquid}} per what i wrote. | |||
#{{User|RandomYoshi}} – I don't see '''any''' point in having a wiki-section that clearly isn't doing what it's supposed to. The supposed pipeprojects also '''never''' get started, making the page a mess of many suggested PPs that never, ever see the light of day. Again, if a wiki-section is useless – remove it! | |||
#{{User|Raven Effect}} Per Glowsquid most that get proposed never get started people join just to join them and never actually do anything to help so there pretty much useless. | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal. This aspect of the community has remained stagnant for far too long. | |||
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} – Per proposal, and per all of the support. It's worth a try, anyway. | |||
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Ghost Jam}}per proposal, see comments as well. | |||
#{{User|Lindsay151}} Per Proposal. | |||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Although I'm not going to be in the forums as much anymore (when's the last time I posted? November 2011?), the PipeProjects for me was VERY unnecessary. The PipeProjects is simply not practical considering the nature of where I want to improve. Sometimes, I want to work on Mario Party 5. Other times, Super Mario Strikers concerns me. Other times, I want to edit the grammar. Other times, I want to upload screenshots for the Mario Kart courses. My interests vary from place to place, but with my shifting hyperfocus, I won't stay in a single "PipeProject" for long, given if I '''ever''' joined one. This is the biggest reason I don't want to join a PipeProject. There is also a reason I don't create PipeProjects because I know how stagnant the progress is. I'm afraid nobody will join it. So, the PipeProjects is useless. If a group of users want to collaborate on a section or category of pages, then they can do it informally, by talk pages. PipeProjects aren't required to make a group of users want to improve an article. | |||
#{{User|MeritC}} Per all; the current PipeProject system on the Wiki itself is completely out of order. Needs to be revamped via the method the proposer is suggesting. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per proposal. In fact, I'd be cool with scrapping the unused and unnecessary system ''without'' replacing it, and instead telling people to just drum up support for their endeavours with ''casual'' forum and talk page conversations, but I suppose making a dedicated place for those sorts of threads is a fair middle ground. Hopefully it'll be used, unlike the old system, but if not, at least we tried. | |||
#{{User|Commander Code-8}} I checked the Pipeprojects the day before this was proposed and nothings happening with it. It's just a waste. | |||
#{{User|Lakituthequick}} Per all and RandomYoshi's idea in the comments. | |||
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all | |||
#{{User|Phoenix}} Per proposal; these have been doing more harm than good for far too long, it's about time we changed 'em up. | |||
#{{User|Super Famicom 64}} - If the new service will not be used, well, it's worth a try, however, I won't go to the forums. By the way, I won't scrap it so aggressively. | |||
#{{User|GreenDisaster}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per all. | |||
====Leave it be==== | |||
#{{User|New Super Yoshi}} Not every user here has a forum account. I would say that all users are all allowed to create new pipe projects and that if there is less than three members in the pipe project after two weeks, the page is deleted. | |||
#{{User|YoshiKong}} NOO! Don't get rid of the Pipeprojects!! It is a great way for peple to see what the Wiki needs, most, and people can work together to get tasks done! And per New Super Yoshi, I rarly go on forums, and I'm sure other people are the same. Leave it here on the Wiki! | |||
#{{User|Arceus79}} Per New Super Yoshi: Not every user has a forum account. This would leave some people who ''want'' to join unable to do so. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
@Super Famicom 64: That's a textbook [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope slippery slope fallacy]. There's no reason to move the Proposals to the forum because they're being used extensively and used as they should. The pipeproject pages as they exist now, though, are not used by anybody and they don't contribute anything substantial to the wiki, so why keep them? | |||
@New Super Yoshi: As I mentioned in the proposal text, registering on the forum is quick, free and does not requires more personal info than the wiki so I have an hard time imagining why anybody would actively refuse it. If for some reason, an user does not want to register onthe forum, they can still help grunt work-style projects on their own or message the involved forum users on their talk. | |||
Reducing the number of supporters required might help an handful of projects, but deal is, even projects that technically meet the requirements don't get made into pages. This show there just isn't any interest in the current system. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] 10:19, 18 March 2012 (EDT) | |||
:It was just an example, I did not mean Proposals is about to be moved too. And hmm… "and it does not require more personal information than a wiki account". I agree, but while registrating it doesn't require you put your real name, surname, age and/or gender. --[[User:Super Famicom 64|Super Famicom 64]] 10:34, 18 March 2012 (EDT) | |||
::Registering on the forum only requires your username/e-mail/password (duh) and answering a captcha and a bunch of very easy questions to deter spambots. No other personal information is required. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] 11:10, 18 March 2012 (EDT) | |||
I just thought of an idea how this board could be implemented, which goes a little something like this: | |||
#Make a thread, title being the title of the project, with the first post explaining what its aims are, and what ways there are to accomplish it. | |||
#When enough editors are willingly participating in it, the topic gets stickied, making it easily visible for everyone. | |||
#As it goes along, its title could be modified, making the title express what articles are currently being worked on, how much of the project is left to do, etc. | |||
#Finally, when the project is considered done by a majority of votes, the thread gets locked and unstickied, making room for more projects. The voters here would be the participating editors, '''disallowing people not participating in the project to vote'''. | |||
#If a project needs to be re-opened, then users may post in an official 'Open A Closed PipeProject'-thread, explaining why they want it re-opened and a vote has been instated, with a majority of the votes deciding whether to open it or close it again. | |||
Is this a good idea, or am I taking this a bit too far? {{User|RandomYoshi}} | |||
:That's more involved and bureaucratic than what I thought of, but it's not bad. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] 11:10, 18 March 2012 (EDT) | |||
I've long thought that the PipeProjects was something in need of being stripped down. Aside from never being used, it's kinda just...not needed. A good chunk of the projects are based around general wiki maintenance, things that are already being taken care of on a daily basis and have been since before the project. The rest are either things that were going to happen anyway in the normal course of article development or are low priority additions that also were going to happen in the normal course of article development. If someone thinks they need help with completing a project or otherwise needs an editor for this or that, a forum topic or a quick trip to the chat are better, faster options. They way PipeProjects stand, they are an unused, unneeded waste of resources. -- [[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]] 1:47, 18 March 2012 (PST) | |||
:'''Super Famicom 64''': No one has "per'd" you, so you can just remove your previous vote. {{User|Mario4Ever}} |
Revision as of 22:06, March 25, 2012
SUPPORT 9-6 The navigation templates have a strange choice of colors. Some are hideous. The Mario Wiki could be more beautiful and organizated by changing game Navigation Templates by series (Super Mario series in red and DK in brown, for example). It will make the Navigation Templates less confusing and easier to understand. See Mario page Navigation Templates: so messy. Proposer: Ultra Koopa (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsActually I think that some of the templates need a better color scheme. Change color scheme because they are colored in a "weird" manner and some whose colors don't allow to read clearly. Fine examples are the {{bee}}, {{MK7}}, {{Fuzzy}}, {{MP3}}, among a vast quantity of others that would make the list considerably long. On the other hand I agree with Knife that the templates require a better maintenace, following a firm writing guideline for the creation of templates. However this is a discussion that has long been even in our discussions in the boards. I suggest some of you to see my past proposal that overlaps with this topic. However, not all templates look so bad as to need a more proper color, like those used for the consoles - which they follow certain guideline to color the template according to the topic, although doesn't work for everything, and some of these really need a better color coding, for example, the Mario series-related templates and the Donkey Kong-related templates. Coincollector (talk)
You didn't link to it in your proposal, as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist. Your first three days are up anyway so it's too late to implement a major change like that. As I said before, you should make a Writing Guideline (with a written policy to complement the template color examples). Even if this proposal passes, you won't really have the ability to do anything since it is so vague.--Knife (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2011 (EST) I'm really wanting to complete this proposals. If I did something wrong, tell me, please. And I can do it in the right way. Ultra Koopa (talk) Star imagesSUPPORT 18-0 Just a small thing, though it covers enough range to be a proposal. Look on the stars in the info boxes at Bob-omb Battlefield and Noki Bay and compare it to the ones at Gusty Garden Galaxy and Melty Monster Galaxy. The first uses star images from Super Mario Galaxy while the second one doesn't even have an star/shine images. The Galaxy ones are right, but not the ones before it. Basically, I want to do is have the stars for each template in everyone world/boss match the game that they are in. Replace the SMG star sprites with SM64 Stars for Super Mario 64-related things; add a shine set for the Super Mario Sunshine areas/bosses. Important, not important, it would make both more sense and more consistency. And if you still don't know what I'm talking about, just look to the right in the character box and scroll down to Stars to find it. Proposer: Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsItalized titlesOPPOSE 1-11 Here with my 2nd proposal: You know, every time I read a game/film/comic article, I feel somewhat confused, in the sense I don't understand why the first word for an article is bolded and italized but the very top word isn't, yes, that's the article's title. Much like Wikipedia has been doing, we should have a template that italizes the title for games/films/comic in order to match how we are doing in the first word, and to recall that article is about of a work, play, etc. Perhaps we don't need the title to be bolded but only italized. I gather these code long ago that actually italizes titles:
The problem here is that it completely italizes the title, while some articles only need some words to be italized (the Mario (series) and Donkey Kong (series) are good examples), so if the proposal passes, we might need to make a code that could italize certain words, that range from the whole title to a single word. Proposer: Byllant (talk) Create a new templateDon't create anything
CommentsDecide if the Yellow and Blue Toad in SM3DL are the same ones from NSMBWDELETED BY PROPOSER There is only one Blue Toad and one Yellow Toad that appear in SM3DL and no other color Toad appears other than the Red Toad apart from Green and Pink Toads in the Title Screen. Proposer: New Super Yoshi (talk) The Toads are the same from NSMBW
The Toads are not the same from NSMBW
CommentsBookmarksOPPOSE 2-19 When a user wants to find an article that they often visit, they would need to type in the searchbar. When an internet user wants to find a website that they often visit, they don't search in a google search bar, they go to Bookmarks in their internet browser and find their favourite websites. It should be the same here on the Super Mario Wiki. For pages and articles that we often visit, there should be a bookmark section for our individual account somewhere on the page, like on the top next to my watchlist or on the side bar under navigation. Here, we should be able to bookmark pages for easy navigation. If you agree, please support me. Proposer:YoshiKong (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsDealing with new stub articles - a better and friendlier waySUPPORT 19-4 Many new short articles are requested for deletion as new stubs instantly after they are created, which is in my opinion, not called for. I propose this should be changed. After a new stub is created, a template explaining that it is a new stub and that it will be deleted in seven days after the template is put on the page is put on the page. Within that one-week period, articles have some time to expand to acceptable article length. If they reach acceptable article length within a one-week period, the article stays, however if they are still stubs after one week, the article is deleted. This process prevents scaring newcomers away (when I was a newcomer, I created an article, it was immediately tagged as a new stub, it was deleted and I was beyond frustrated, as I haven't added all content within that creation), and given the main goal is to expand stubs, not to get rid of them! Addendum: I have created this, which is similar to what should be used to tag new stubs. Addendum (00:49, 10 January 2012 (EST)): This has nothing to do with the already existent construction template. This is "proposing deletion" of new stubs, instead of deleting them without delay. At least a week is given before they are deleted (unless they are expanded to stub length). Thanks for your !votes. Proposer: B.wilson (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsZero777: I must apologize for saying this, but your !vote is not opposing anything clearly explained in the proposal. This is basically "proposing deletion" of new stubs, instead of "pending speedy deletion". It has nothing to do with the construction template. I apologize if I misunderstood your !vote, but I don't really think it's relevant to the proposal's intention. --B.wilson (talk)
I have to say, this isn't a bad idea. During that 1 week waiting period, the user who created the article can also make his case that the article is not a stub if they feel it isn't one. However, I'll support this if you can make a better sample template than that.
--Knife (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2012 (EST)
I think the difference between construction templates and this new template would be that this template would be placed by an enforcing party (which would be the user claiming that the article is a new stub) as opposed to the article creator. Both could also be used together. For example, a user creates an article with {{Construction}} with no defined completion time, but it's a stub, another user could place the proposed template alongside the construction template to remind the user not to forget about the page otherwise his work will be deleted. Also, stub=/=articles under construction. One week should be enough time to expand an article beyond a stub, regardless of whether it's under construction or not. @B.Wilson: The template is a little better, but the gif is a little wacky. I personally prefer a still image for things as serious as deletion templates. Perhaps a Bullet Bill would fit in better since it goes along with our theme of exploding creatures in deletion templates. Also, there's no need for an additional comments section in the template. There's really nothing to comment on if it's a new stub and if it really needs to be said, the user could use the talk page for that purpose. As for what to do after the deadline has been passed ansd the article is still a stub, there's no need to use the same template to notify sysops of it deletion. It should just be replaced with {{Delete}} with the reason being something like "The article is a seven day new stub". There's also something funny about the wording, but I can't put my finger around it. I suppose we can still change that after the proposal.--Knife (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2012 (EST) Speaking of the GIF, why does the construction template get one? I wanted to change the picture to one of those Mario sprites from Wrecking Crew '98, but you know I can't. Sorry if a little off-topic, but the Donkey Kong Mario GIF in the construction template is a little distracting. We can also use a Wrecking Crew '98 sprite for the stub expansion template instead.LeftyGreenMario (talk) I'm going to make this suggestion again: could you change the color of the template so it won't resemble the delete template at a glance? LeftyGreenMario (talk) It is a bit messy to see {{Delete}} in your template, that needs some improvement. Like the template changes appearance at "deadline". Lakituthequick (talk) I'm pretty happy with the changes made to the template, so I'll go ahead and support. There's no way to change the template's appearance automatically at deadline as far as I know and if we manually change it, we might as well replace it with the delete template since that will attract more attention from sysops. I agree though, there no need to include {{Delete}} inside the proposed template, just replace the proposed template with {{Delete}} and be done with it.--Knife (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2012 (EST)
I agree with Walkazo's suggestion for the categorization and the template wording.--Knife (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Enable AutoWikiBrowser for Super Mario WikiWITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER Given that Super Mario Wiki's users are doing tasks that would be easier and quicker to do with AutoWikiBrowser, I propose that we enable AWB for the wiki. What can AWB do? Lots of things that are done manually here! It can remove categories from pages more quickly, it can add templates to articles very quickly (and remove templates from articles), and do lots of other tasks that would be extremely tedious to do manually - that many users are wasting time doing manually! Proposer: B.wilson (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsCould is create slot of mess in articles because we would have to do alot of cleanup which will take forever. Skyward Yoshi (talk)
Preventing sockpuppets of existing accountsWITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER We all know that Mario Wiki is being flooded with vandals, trolls and spammers with consecutive sockpuppets. Proposer: Danimario9 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsCouldn't this prevent people with dynamic ip addresses from signing up Raven Effect (talk)
Allow talk page messages on one's talk page, excluding reminders/warnings, to be removed at the user's discretionWITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER At times, I've been uncomfortable with some of the messages I receive, not because I don't like them, but as if I felt they immediately needed to an archive. On many other wikis, it's okay to remove messages if you feel you don't want them to stay on your talk page. I don't like the fact that we can't remove messages from others on our own talk page. Sometimes you may remove them as acknowledgement that you read them. Of course, if this proposal passes, this will not include official warnings. Proposer: B.wilson (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsA lot of the time, informal messages are given instead of official warning templates, and removing those would make it seem like a user wasn't spoken to when they actually have. Collaboration on projects should also remain because removing messages hides the other user's contributions. Even idle chit-chat should remain because removing it is rude (i.e. their removal could be interpreted as "your messages aren't good enough for my talk page"). Even speedy archiving isn't a welcome practice around here, and the admins have actually been discussing making an official policy against it for weeks before it catches on. A couple sections is not cluttered enough to need to be moved (and certainly not removed altogether), and doing so actually clutters up the page's history with unnecessary userspace edits, making it harder to find anything. Removing messages outright makes it nearly impossible because then you wouldn't even be able to see the end product: if you didn't know it was there, you wouldn't know to look for it, and even if you knew it'd still be way harder to dig up the edit than if the message was just left alone. Plus, immediate archiving is often used as a way to bury unsightly messages as a way to avoid looking bad. Of course, even archiving in chunks like one's supposed to do can be used to hide Warnings and informal wrist-slaps (if they just so happened to archive right after receiving a message), but archiving section-by-section is the epitome of that sort of slate-clearing. Removing stuff would be even worse: as I said before, a lot of stuff is said informally, and pretending like it didn't happen would be just as bad as removing a template. - Walkazo (talk)
Change Special:WhosOnlineDON'T CHANGE 11-2 So I've had this idea in mind about doing major renovations to Who's Online. First things first, I think it should be much similar to the Who's Online of our forums, just without viewing guests. It's quite a hassle to inform someone you replied to their comment on a certain discussion in a talkpage/proposal without having known that he/she has currently been typing up a reply on the talkpage/proposal that you previously mentioned. With a Who's Online like the forums', you could actually know what page he/she is viewing, replying to a comment on a talkpage/proposal, or just generally editing an article without having to have wasted your time of the latter. Also, if you're viewing Who's Online via Recent Changes, there could be a show/hide button for you to click that shows extensive details on what they're viewing or commenting on so you can change it to fit your own preferences. Also, there could be a button like this, just replacing Members with Autoconfirmed Users (I'm not sure if there's a term for users who don't have special ranks like Sysops, Bureaucrats, and Patrollers other than Autconfirmed Users), removing Guests, and adding sections for Sysops, Bureaucrats, and Patrollers. Proposer: UltraMario3000 (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments
I like the idea, but I doubt if such MediaWiki extension exists, if we can make one, or if Steve agrees. Lakituthequick (talk) The forum system and the wiki system AREN'T (notice the caps) good if merged each other. Besides that, I don't like the idea: it makes me feel I'm in a forum with different layout. Danimario9 (talk)
Removal of all non-punctuation redirectsDON'T REMOVE 12-3 While lurking throughout certain articles, I've noticed redirects for article titles that have a punctuation in them that don't include the punctuation, which really bugs me. For example, Super Mario Bros being a redirect of Super Mario Bros. and 9 Volt being a redirect of 9-Volt. It just seems rather unprofessional in my opinion. Proposer: UltraMario3000 (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Opposers: Is it the actual name of the game though? No, it isn't. Abbreviation redirects are an exception though.--UltraMario3000 (talk)
If you wanted to search SMB to get to the article faster, yes, it is. Titles without punctuation aren't exactly faster to type in anyway. Gosh, one character away. It's like making Mari a redirect of Mario. Why? To get to the article faster of course.--UltraMario3000 (talk)
Also, what about removing redirects in game articles that don't use apostrophes?--UltraMario3000 (talk) @NSY:"over 50% of people who use our wiki type in Super Mario Bros not Super Mario Bros."--UltraMario3000 (talk)
From the Spelling section of MarioWiki:Redirect (which also provided Bop's earlier quotation):
Policy pages are here for a reason: read them. - Walkazo (talk)
Change emblem of series in the SSB infoboxes to the latest SSB icon of characterWITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER I think we should change the latest icon of the character. It would be more interesting and would make our wiki better in my opinion. Proposer: Pokémon Trainer Red (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsCan't decide if opposing or supporting. --Danimario9 (Talk) 15:54, 13 February 2012 (EST) Is the current icon the symbol for the character's series? (like a pokeball for the Pokemon, mushroom for the Mario etc.) Tails777 (talk)
List of stats and descriptions in (game title here)DON'T ADD STATS 9-2 So I had this idea of making stat/description lists for certain games. It'd include all of the website bios, in-game descriptions, and stats from (game title here). Proposer: UltraMario3000 (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@SuperPickle: Well, that's kinda the point. It's basically a way to navigate a certain character's stats from whatever game the user searching for without having to scroll through the stats section to look for stats from one specific game.--UltraMario3000 (talk)
Oh yeah, another proposal by you bringing a total of 3. By the way, take for example a Goomba from Super Mario Bros. 3. It doesn't have any stats at all: no HP, no SP nor EXP. If I am correct you pretend to place stats on characters and enemies which don't appear in RPG games. And articles are not restricted to have info from bios. Danimario9 (talk) Sitenotice archivesDELETED BY PROPOSER I think we should archive our sitenotices just as we do with proposals, talkpages, polls, etc. because they'd be a good reference for anyone who missed out on any of our previous sitenotices. They'd also be a reference for users to be up-to-date with any of our sitenotices so they don't mistakenly do something against a previous sitenotice. With a sitenotice archive, users that have returned from a hiatus and/or inactivity won't need to be given a reminder for making edits based on outdated/obsolete rules. Proposer: UltraMario3000 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsInserting e-shop review resultsDO NOT INSERT E-SHOP REVIEW RESULTS 1-8 I think it would be a good idea to put the ratings for games that can be viewed on the eshop to be included in our articles because they show what people think of the games. These results would be put in the article's reception section. The number of people who reviewed the game would not be in the article as they would change reguarly. Proposer: Commander Code-8 (talk) Add the review results
Don't add review results
CommentsBop1996 Reviews on the e shop contain a rating out of five stars, whether the game appeals to games or average people more and if the game should be played intesnly or casually. Also, 3DS users can only review a game if they've played it for a minimum of an hour. That's a bit more than a one-liner that tells you nothing. Commander Code-8 (talk) Wouldn't this proposal be better as a pipe project? YoshiKong (talk)
I like the idea, but there should be a minimum amount of votes (like 100), so the average doesn't change much and we don't need to make much edits to update. Lakituthequick (talk) Template:Media for .OGV and .OGA filesPASSED 3-1 We all know that the Template:Media page is used for audio and video files. But a bad thing about it is: restricted to .OGG files. Proposer: Super Famicom 64 (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@YoshiKong I did not mean to modify the template. I just said to make a copy for both .OGV and .OGA files. Though most guys are uploading only .OGG files, that does not mean everybody does it. And some others use said file extensions. But they can't get to use the template. Super Famicom 64 (talk)
Ah forgot it, this wasn't made because I had problems with it. To all: I made two tries for .OGV which can be found here and here. The first one, I know, is simple - I made it myself (I'm a rookie coder), it needs only 3 parameters. The second one has the code of Template:Media, only supporting only one file per template ( Super Mario Bros. Film Information: Where Should It Go?KEEP THE INFORMATION SPLIT 9-0 Recently, an issue regarding the Super Mario Bros. (film) article has been addressed. I have been here long enough to know that this old proposal stated that the film information that was previously in articles like Mario, Toad, Princess Daisy should be moved in separate articles. This was because that the film is significantly not faithful to the Mario series. However, it's not clear what action should be taken when this later proposalcomes into account. Now, this proposal can be interpreted as an overturn for that aforementioned proposal, giving it a reason for re-addding film information to the articles. However, I interpret the second proposal outcome as "take no action", not a removal of a rule. Now, it's important to know what means what. We have to close this ambiguity so there won't be more confusion. Did the second proposal really overturn the first one, or is it unrelated to the first one? Should we keep the film information split or merge the film information? Proposer: LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Merge the Information (the second proposal overturned the first one)CommentsSo is this proposal saying to create a seperate article for the film characters (Toad, Luigi etc.) instead of having them merged with the actual character's article? Tails777 (talk)
Merge all Super Mario World level articlesDON'T MERGE 1-8 Goomba's Shoe 15 (Raven Effect) said to me that the SMW levels have names so therefore should have articles, but I think he's worng. Firstly the names are very basic (Yoshi's Island 1, Yoshi's Island 2) it just has the name of the world before what number level it is instead of the name of the world and the Castles have the similar names anyway. Then the levels are the same length and have the same style like the games where their levels are merged into their world articles. Lastly the Speical world levels are the only exection to this, as they all have diffrent names but then they are only on word and my point is that they are like World 9 in NSMBW. Proposer: New Super Yoshi (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsNo, the Special World levels don't count as like 9-1, 9-2, 9-3… that's another story. And we don't name for example Yoshi's Island 1 as (likely) "Course 1" then merging it in the world article. Super Famicom 64 (Talk)
Regarding Comments not Pertaining to Improving the ArticleENFORCE NO FORUM TALK RULE 14-0 Users posting comments relating to the game and not the article has always been the norm in the wiki, especially with new games coming out. However, me and several users are tired of constantly reminding users to cease posting comments that belong in the forums. There's a big, green template that reminds users that the talk page is not a forum. There are users out there that constantly remind the violators of the template not to post content that belongs in the forums. Problem is? Many more tend to continue to ignore these firm reminders. Here, I'm proposing that we take a more assertive approach to this. Instead of reminding users not to post comments not pertaining to the article, we should immediately undo such comments. These comments do not take measures to improve the article and if they don't belong there, why are they there in the first place? If a user makes a comment, we should undo it, and tell them on their talk page to not do such things. If they continue doing it (about 3-5 more times, but it's tentative depending on the situation), they will be in grounds for a reminder and so on. Once this proposal (if) passes, we will immediately delete any comments made that belong in the forums. Proposer: BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Support
OpposeComments@Super Famicom 64: It doesn't matter what we do. A big, green, noticeable template at the top of nearly every single talk page still won't deter users from making forum related posts. I feel that no matter how flashy we make it, users will still break the rules and that's that. That's why I'm proposing to enforce it. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Hm, I'll greatly consider ridding of the old comments too. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Dealing with PipeprojectREMOVE PIPE PROJECTS 18-3 What's wrong with Pipeproject? Many things.
tl;dr, Pipeproject as it exists now is an useless, bloated waste of space and the Mariowiki staff unanimously agree it really doesn't deserve to be kept in its current form any longer. Assuming this proposal pass, the existing pages will be locked and have a message (a Mariowiki:Poll Selection) saying they're archives. as Templates such as http://www.mariowiki.com/Template:Partofpipe might remain for nostalgia, but with a note in small print to the effect of “Pipeprojects have been moved to the forum, this template is kept for historical purpose”. The forum? Well yeah, we still think there's an use for a space dedicated to discussing wiki editing and the forum provides an environment better suited to discussion than the relative clunkyness of wiki pages. Threads such as this, this or that shows that the forum can be used to effectively coordinate and discuss wiki matters and registering on it is free and does not require any more information than a wiki account, so why not use it? Now here's a few details on how the hypothetical forum board would be set up:
Keep in mind none of this is set in stone and that we're more than willing to collect feedbacks from the users (on the forum, the pipeproject talk page, the comments on this proposal, IRC, my talk, you name it.) on how such a board should be implemented. Supposing this proposal pass, there will be a second proposal on a definitive structure.
Scrap the wiki Pipeproject (aggressively) and devise a replacement on the forum
Leave it be
Comments@Super Famicom 64: That's a textbook slippery slope fallacy. There's no reason to move the Proposals to the forum because they're being used extensively and used as they should. The pipeproject pages as they exist now, though, are not used by anybody and they don't contribute anything substantial to the wiki, so why keep them? @New Super Yoshi: As I mentioned in the proposal text, registering on the forum is quick, free and does not requires more personal info than the wiki so I have an hard time imagining why anybody would actively refuse it. If for some reason, an user does not want to register onthe forum, they can still help grunt work-style projects on their own or message the involved forum users on their talk. Reducing the number of supporters required might help an handful of projects, but deal is, even projects that technically meet the requirements don't get made into pages. This show there just isn't any interest in the current system. --Glowsquid 10:19, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
I just thought of an idea how this board could be implemented, which goes a little something like this:
Is this a good idea, or am I taking this a bit too far? RandomYoshi (talk)
I've long thought that the PipeProjects was something in need of being stripped down. Aside from never being used, it's kinda just...not needed. A good chunk of the projects are based around general wiki maintenance, things that are already being taken care of on a daily basis and have been since before the project. The rest are either things that were going to happen anyway in the normal course of article development or are low priority additions that also were going to happen in the normal course of article development. If someone thinks they need help with completing a project or otherwise needs an editor for this or that, a forum topic or a quick trip to the chat are better, faster options. They way PipeProjects stand, they are an unused, unneeded waste of resources. -- Ghost Jam 1:47, 18 March 2012 (PST)
|