MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/29: Difference between revisions
m (Robot: Automated text replacement (-Category:Requested for Deletion +Category:Deletion requested)) |
m (Text replacement - "[[Mario (franchise)|''Mario''" to "[[Super Mario (franchise)|''Super Mario''") |
||
(13 intermediate revisions by 4 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> | ||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Line 87: | Line 86: | ||
<code><nowiki><includeonly>{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{NAMESPACE}}:}}{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{#ifexpr:{{#rpos:{{PAGENAME}}|{{{1|}}})}} > 1|''{{#sub:{{PAGENAME}}|0|{{#expr:{{#rpos:{{PAGENAME}}|(}} - 1}}}}''<span class="dim-brackets">{{#sub:{{PAGENAME}}|{{#expr:{{#rpos:{{PAGENAME}}|(}} - 1}}|0}}</span>|''{{PAGENAME}}''}}|''{{PAGENAME}}''}}}}</nowiki></code> | <code><nowiki><includeonly>{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{NAMESPACE}}:}}{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{#ifexpr:{{#rpos:{{PAGENAME}}|{{{1|}}})}} > 1|''{{#sub:{{PAGENAME}}|0|{{#expr:{{#rpos:{{PAGENAME}}|(}} - 1}}}}''<span class="dim-brackets">{{#sub:{{PAGENAME}}|{{#expr:{{#rpos:{{PAGENAME}}|(}} - 1}}|0}}</span>|''{{PAGENAME}}''}}|''{{PAGENAME}}''}}}}</nowiki></code> | ||
The problem here is that it completely italizes the title, while some articles only need some words to be italized (the '''[[Mario (franchise)|''Mario'' (series)]]''' and '''[[Donkey Kong (series)|''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. | The problem here is that it completely italizes the title, while some articles only need some words to be italized (the '''[[Super Mario (franchise)|''Super Mario'' (series)]]''' and '''[[Donkey Kong (series)|''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''': {{User|Byllant}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Byllant}}<br> | ||
Line 109: | Line 108: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Line 117: | Line 115: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|New Super Yoshi}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|New Super Yoshi}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': January 5, 2012, 23:59 GMT | '''Proposed Deadline''': January 5, 2012, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' December 31, 2011, 09:31 GMT | |||
====The Toads are the same from NSMBW==== | ====The Toads are the same from NSMBW==== | ||
#{{User|New Super Yoshi}} Per my Proposal | #{{User|New Super Yoshi}} Per my Proposal | ||
Line 222: | Line 221: | ||
#The same template you gave is too similar to {{Tem|Delete}} (perhaps by intention, but I don't want this proposal to bind us to that design). Make it a little more unique, we don't want a clone of the same template. | #The same template you gave is too similar to {{Tem|Delete}} (perhaps by intention, but I don't want this proposal to bind us to that design). Make it a little more unique, we don't want a clone of the same template. | ||
#There's no need to mention that middle sentence, "New stubs are not allowed by Super Mario Wiki policy." It's just a waste of space to explain policy in templates. | #There's no need to mention that middle sentence, "New stubs are not allowed by Super Mario Wiki policy." It's just a waste of space to explain policy in templates. | ||
#You need to offer a link to the talk page (like {{Tem| | #You need to offer a link to the talk page (like {{Tem|delete-request}}) in case users want to argue that the article not a stub or want feedback on how to expand the article. | ||
#Allow a variable which users can input the expected date of deletion. You could replace the small text line with "The article may be deleted if it cannot be expanded beyond stub length by [sample date].", sample date being 7 days after the date of stub creation (it doesn't have to get more specific than the date, hours just make things complicated). | #Allow a variable which users can input the expected date of deletion. You could replace the small text line with "The article may be deleted if it cannot be expanded beyond stub length by [sample date].", sample date being 7 days after the date of stub creation (it doesn't have to get more specific than the date, hours just make things complicated). | ||
Line 242: | Line 241: | ||
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 {{Tem|Delete}} inside the proposed template, just replace the proposed template with {{Tem|Delete}} and be done with it.--{{User|Knife}} 11:05, 11 January 2012 (EST) | 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 {{Tem|Delete}} inside the proposed template, just replace the proposed template with {{Tem|Delete}} and be done with it.--{{User|Knife}} 11:05, 11 January 2012 (EST) | ||
:I also think it'd look better with just the delete template, rather than nesting it inside the other template. If it has to be changed manually anyway, as Knife said, just replace it, and if it's done automatically, maybe make it so that the entire template is changed (i.e. if it's not expired, it looks like the Bullet Bill template, and if it's expired, it switches to the Bob-omb design mirroring the normal Deletion template). Also, if we're worried about stubs falling through the cracks even with this template, perhaps the articles marked with this pending-deletion template could be put into the [[:Category: | :I also think it'd look better with just the delete template, rather than nesting it inside the other template. If it has to be changed manually anyway, as Knife said, just replace it, and if it's done automatically, maybe make it so that the entire template is changed (i.e. if it's not expired, it looks like the Bullet Bill template, and if it's expired, it switches to the Bob-omb design mirroring the normal Deletion template). Also, if we're worried about stubs falling through the cracks even with this template, perhaps the articles marked with this pending-deletion template could be put into the [[:Category:Pages pending deletion|Requested for Deletion category]]. Things in that category aren't deleted outright, and using it for this as well as its [[Template:delete-request|original template]] might help bring attention to the new stubs before their time is up and they join the real deletion queue. '''@LeftyGreenMario''' I forget why we added the gif in the first place - it's maybe because it's ugly and distracting and should therefore motivate people to want to fix the article just to get rid of it. Personally, I think we'd be better off just getting rid of the gif... - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::Hi folks. I've tweaked the template a little to address the {{tem|Delete}} template concern. After seven days, the template will ''automatically'' be replaced with the {{tem|Delete}} template. See [[User:B.wilson/Testing facility/Stub/Article2]]. Best, {{User|B.wilson}} 00:02, 12 January 2012 (EST) | ::Hi folks. I've tweaked the template a little to address the {{tem|Delete}} template concern. After seven days, the template will ''automatically'' be replaced with the {{tem|Delete}} template. See [[User:B.wilson/Testing facility/Stub/Article2]]. Best, {{User|B.wilson}} 00:02, 12 January 2012 (EST) | ||
:::I've also written a documentation (which will have to be significantly altered if moved to template space). Please remember that this template must be [[wikipedia:WP:SUBST|substituted]] or it will not work. --{{User|B.wilson}} 06:02, 12 January 2012 (EST) | :::I've also written a documentation (which will have to be significantly altered if moved to template space). Please remember that this template must be [[wikipedia:WP:SUBST|substituted]] or it will not work. --{{User|B.wilson}} 06:02, 12 January 2012 (EST) | ||
Line 260: | Line 259: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|B.wilson}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|B.wilson}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': January 24, 2012, 23:59 GMT | '''Proposed Deadline''': January 24, 2012, 23:59 GMT <br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' January 18, 2012, 01:45 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 283: | Line 283: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Danimario9}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Danimario9}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': January 27, 2012, 23:59 GMT. | '''Proposed Deadline''': January 27, 2012, 23:59 GMT.<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' January 20, 2012, 21:41 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 312: | Line 313: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|B.wilson}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|B.wilson}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': February 2, 2012, 23:59 GMT | '''Proposed Deadline''': February 2, 2012, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' January 27, 2012, 02:00 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 431: | Line 433: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Pokémon Trainer Red}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Pokémon Trainer Red}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': February 20, 2012, 23:59 GMT | '''Proposed Deadline''': February 20, 2012, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' February 14, 2012, 01:20 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 491: | Line 494: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|UltraMario3000}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|UltraMario3000}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': February 28, 2012, 23:59 GMT | '''Proposed Deadline''': February 28, 2012, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' February 21, 2012, 22:19 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 501: | Line 505: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Line 543: | Line 546: | ||
===Template:Media for .OGV and .OGA files=== | ===Template:Media for .OGV and .OGA files=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|3-1}} | {{ProposalOutcome|passed|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'''.<br>I, and some others, upload .OGV and .OGA files (if you don't know .OGV files are videos while .OGA have the same purpose as .OGG files) but can't use this template with them. So we are restricted to use .OGG files or embed the .OGV and .OGA files with <nowiki>{{File:<insert name here>}}</nowiki>. I think there should be a similiar template only compatible with .OGV and .OGA files, or a template per each file extension. | We all know that the [[Template:Media table]] page is used for audio and video files. But a bad thing about it is: '''restricted to .OGG files'''.<br>I, and some others, upload .OGV and .OGA files (if you don't know .OGV files are videos while .OGA have the same purpose as .OGG files) but can't use this template with them. So we are restricted to use .OGG files or embed the .OGV and .OGA files with <nowiki>{{File:<insert name here>}}</nowiki>. I think there should be a similiar template only compatible with .OGV and .OGA files, or a template per each file extension. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Super Famicom 64}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Super Famicom 64}}<br> | ||
Line 572: | Line 575: | ||
===Super Mario Bros. Film Information: Where Should It Go?=== | ===Super Mario Bros. Film Information: Where Should It Go?=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|9-0|keep the information split}} | {{ProposalOutcome|passed|9-0|keep the information split}} | ||
Recently, an issue regarding the [[Super Mario Bros. (film)]] article has been addressed. I have been here long enough to know that [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | Recently, an issue regarding the [[Super Mario Bros. (film)]] article has been addressed. I have been here long enough to know that [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/18#Different_Version_Characters 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 [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | However, it's not clear what action should be taken when this [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/23#Character_Pages_Extras later proposal]comes 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? | 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? | ||
Line 593: | Line 596: | ||
====Merge the Information (the second proposal overturned the first one)==== | ====Merge the Information (the second proposal overturned the first one)==== | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Line 677: | Line 679: | ||
What's wrong with Pipeproject? Many things. | 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 | *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. | *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. | *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 | '''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? | 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? | ||
Line 725: | Line 727: | ||
====Comments==== | ====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? | @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? | ||
Latest revision as of 16:25, May 28, 2023
support 9-6 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 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
The problem here is that it completely italizes the title, while some articles only need some words to be italized (the Super 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 NSMBWcanceled by proposer Proposer: New Super Yoshi (talk) The Toads are the same from NSMBW
The Toads are not the same from NSMBW
CommentsBookmarksoppose 2-19 Proposer:YoshiKong (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsDealing with new stub articles - a better and friendlier waysupport 19-4 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 Wikicanceled by proposer 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 accountscanceled by proposer 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 discretioncanceled by proposer 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 2-11 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 3-12 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 charactercanceled by proposer 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 2-9 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 archivescanceled by proposer Proposer: UltraMario3000 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsInserting e-shop review resultsdo not insert e-shop review results 1-8 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 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 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 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 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 Pipeprojectmove pipeprojects to the forum 18-3
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)
|