MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/37: Difference between revisions
m (Archiving) |
mNo edit summary |
||
(17 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template | {{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}} | ||
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | <div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | ||
===Split Nintendo 2DS from Nintendo 3DS=== | ===Split Nintendo 2DS from Nintendo 3DS=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|4-10|Don't split}} | |||
It's not the same console right? The Nintendo 2DS should have it's own article because it's a video game console. | It's not the same console right? The Nintendo 2DS should have it's own article because it's a video game console. | ||
Line 36: | Line 35: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Create writing guideline for reception and sales sections=== | ===Create writing guideline for reception and sales sections=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|12-0|create guideline}} | |||
:'''''Draft:''' [[User:Glowsquid/Brain Palace]]'' | :'''''Draft:''' [[User:Glowsquid/Brain Palace]]'' | ||
Line 78: | Line 76: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Remove coverage of "cameo" puzzle games=== | ===Remove coverage of "cameo" puzzle games=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-1|remove}} | |||
The wiki includes several pages on random puzzle games (''[[Alleyway]]'', ''[[Art Style: PiCTOBiTS]]'', ''[[Tetris DS]]''... etc) which feature ''Mario''-themed puzzles and cameos from the franchise. We do not feel these games are worthy of their own page. | The wiki includes several pages on random puzzle games (''[[Alleyway]]'', ''[[Art Style: PiCTOBiTS]]'', ''[[Tetris DS]]''... etc) which feature ''Mario''-themed puzzles and cameos from the franchise. We do not feel these games are worthy of their own page. | ||
Line 132: | Line 129: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Allow Featuring and Unfeaturing nominations to fail before the deadline=== | ===Allow Featuring and Unfeaturing nominations to fail before the deadline=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-0|allow}} | |||
I think that if an oppose comes up for why the nomination should fail, and the problem is not fixed, or a counter-argument is bought up against the oppose in a way that it cannot then be countered within 1 week the nomination should fail. This is so silly nominations like [[MarioWiki:Featured Articles/Unfeature/N/Kirby]] can fail before the deadline and the article isn't left with an UNFA template when it doesn't deserve it. Under this new system nominations like this can fail long before they should. For the FA system if the flaw is something that cannot be fixed i.e. size, then it should fail after the timeframe. | I think that if an oppose comes up for why the nomination should fail, and the problem is not fixed, or a counter-argument is bought up against the oppose in a way that it cannot then be countered within 1 week the nomination should fail. This is so silly nominations like [[MarioWiki:Featured Articles/Unfeature/N/Kirby]] can fail before the deadline and the article isn't left with an UNFA template when it doesn't deserve it. Under this new system nominations like this can fail long before they should. For the FA system if the flaw is something that cannot be fixed i.e. size, then it should fail after the timeframe. | ||
Line 164: | Line 160: | ||
===Ditch "Full Names" when appropriate=== | ===Ditch "Full Names" when appropriate=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|4-0}} | |||
Usually, when you get to the "Full Name" part, you see a totally unconfirmed, made-up full name. We only need confirmed things, not speculations and ideas. | Usually, when you get to the "Full Name" part, you see a totally unconfirmed, made-up full name. We only need confirmed things, not speculations and ideas. | ||
Line 178: | Line 173: | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Line 197: | Line 191: | ||
===Merge ''Dream Team'' enemies' articles with their "R" version=== | ===Merge ''Dream Team'' enemies' articles with their "R" version=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|6-11}} | |||
Looking at the ''[[Mario & Luigi: Dream Team]]'' enemy articles, I have noticed that the page content of the "original" enemies and the "R" versions of the same enemy are almost identical. What I suggest is to merge the two pages together, not only for the reason that I stated, but also because they have identical behavior, attacks, and appearance, except that they have a color change, exactly like EX versions, which do not have their own page. (See [[Flibbee]] and [[Flibbee R]] to see what I mean, or [[Monolift]] and [[Monolift R]]) | Looking at the ''[[Mario & Luigi: Dream Team]]'' enemy articles, I have noticed that the page content of the "original" enemies and the "R" versions of the same enemy are almost identical. What I suggest is to merge the two pages together, not only for the reason that I stated, but also because they have identical behavior, attacks, and appearance, except that they have a color change, exactly like EX versions, which do not have their own page. (See [[Flibbee]] and [[Flibbee R]] to see what I mean, or [[Monolift]] and [[Monolift R]]) | ||
Line 213: | Line 206: | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
#{{User|Tails777}} I'm gonna have to oppose this one. These types of enemies are stronger variations of previous enemies and they are classified as different enemies, not the same ones. Bringing in [[Talk: | #{{User|Tails777}} I'm gonna have to oppose this one. These types of enemies are stronger variations of previous enemies and they are classified as different enemies, not the same ones. Bringing in [[Talk:Bowser's Big Blast|this proposal]], we split the 2 minigames because they were classified as different minigames, despite having the same rules and essentially being the same minigame. Enemies should be no different. If anything, we should split the X Bosses because they have a slightly different appearance and are all around stronger. | ||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - I've been mulling it over for the past few days, and I'm gonna have to oppose as well. If a variant of an enemy is stronger and has different colours and a different name, saying "well the name's only different by one letter" actually is a bit arbitrary, and opens the door to merges like the [[Behemoth]] / [[Behemoth King]] thing being asked about in the comments. It's a slippery slope, and it'd be much more straightforward and consistent to simply split the articles that have been merged thus far and keep it like that. Plus, it'll make navigation more transparent than burying the extra enemies in other pages, which improves the ease of both reading and searching for those enemies. | #{{User|Walkazo}} - I've been mulling it over for the past few days, and I'm gonna have to oppose as well. If a variant of an enemy is stronger and has different colours and a different name, saying "well the name's only different by one letter" actually is a bit arbitrary, and opens the door to merges like the [[Behemoth]] / [[Behemoth King]] thing being asked about in the comments. It's a slippery slope, and it'd be much more straightforward and consistent to simply split the articles that have been merged thus far and keep it like that. Plus, it'll make navigation more transparent than burying the extra enemies in other pages, which improves the ease of both reading and searching for those enemies. | ||
#{{User|Yoshi876}} Per both. | #{{User|Yoshi876}} Per both. | ||
Line 236: | Line 229: | ||
===Change all Mario power-up transformations from "Mario" to "Form"=== | ===Change all Mario power-up transformations from "Mario" to "Form"=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
Let me explain (as an example): rename [[Fire Mario]] to {{fake link|Fire Form}} | |||
Let me explain (as an example): rename [[Fire Mario]] to {{ | |||
Nintendo has lately stop restricting the use of items to only Mario and Luigi and have allowed other characters, Peach and Red Toad for example, to use them to the exact same effect and use. | Nintendo has lately stop restricting the use of items to only Mario and Luigi and have allowed other characters, Peach and Red Toad for example, to use them to the exact same effect and use. | ||
Line 253: | Line 245: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Zero777}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Zero777}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': December 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT | '''Proposed Deadline''': December 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' December 22, 2013, 22:41 GMT | |||
====Change It==== | ====Change It==== | ||
Line 275: | Line 268: | ||
===Allow Removal of Support/Oppose in Proposals=== | ===Allow Removal of Support/Oppose in Proposals=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-12|don't allow}} | |||
This is in Featured Articles, so why not Proposals? I've seen silly votes on proposals before. | This is in Featured Articles, so why not Proposals? I've seen silly votes on proposals before. | ||
Line 300: | Line 292: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Have "Title reference" in the infobox for ''Mario Party'' minigames=== | ===Have "Title reference" in the infobox for ''Mario Party'' minigames=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
As you may know, most [[minigame]]s from the ''[[Mario Party (series)|Mario Party]]'' series have puns, wordplays or references for their titles, and these are mentioned right on the article. However, the sentence "The name is a pun on..." or similar things are very repetitive, and more like trivia. But instead of asking it to be moved to trivia sections, I think it would be better to have a "Title reference" area in the [[:Template:Minigame infobox|minigame infobox]], like [[Template:SMBSS episode infobox|''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!'' episode infobox]] does. Yes, if we do this we cannot write the meaning of the original term, but the Super Mario Wiki is not a place for learning non-''Mario'' or video game-related terms, and it can be easily found on the internet (if it has a Wikipedia article, we can still link it to there). | |||
As you may know, most [[minigame]]s from the ''[[Mario Party (series)|Mario Party]]'' series have puns, wordplays or references for their titles, and these are mentioned right on the article. However, the sentence "The name is a pun on..." or similar things are very repetitive, and more like trivia. But instead of asking it to be moved to trivia sections, I think it would be better to have a "Title reference" area in the [[:Template:Minigame | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|MegaKoopa}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|MegaKoopa}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': December 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT | '''Proposed Deadline''': December 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' December 27, 2013, 00:45 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 339: | Line 330: | ||
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>''her'' oppose. Also, the excess of obvious name explanations is bad enough, we'd hardly need it in the infoboxes ''and'' the body text, and I fear that having some explanations in one or the other and some boxes left blank without body text info will all just seem woefully inconsistent. As for what should or shouldn't be explained, that can always be decided in the talk pages if there's any disagreement. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :<nowiki>*</nowiki>''her'' oppose. Also, the excess of obvious name explanations is bad enough, we'd hardly need it in the infoboxes ''and'' the body text, and I fear that having some explanations in one or the other and some boxes left blank without body text info will all just seem woefully inconsistent. As for what should or shouldn't be explained, that can always be decided in the talk pages if there's any disagreement. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::Isn't there a way to have the cell in the infobox not appear if the parameter is left blank? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | ::Isn't there a way to have the cell in the infobox not appear if the parameter is left blank? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | ||
:::Yeah, with <nowiki>{{{if}}}</nowiki> stuff, like [[Template: | :::Yeah, with <nowiki>{{{if}}}</nowiki> stuff, like [[Template:SMG boss infobox|here]], afaik. But even so, that wouldn't hide the fact that some infoboxes would have explanations while others wouldn't. Plus, optional lines screw up alternating-bg-colour schemes and the more they can be avoided, the better. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::Aye, my mistake, sorry about that. Regarding consistency: do we give the expressions in every infobox at least, and add more details in the body for the less obvious ones, or did you have.something entirely different in mind? {{User|Lord Grammaticus}} | ::Aye, my mistake, sorry about that. Regarding consistency: do we give the expressions in every infobox at least, and add more details in the body for the less obvious ones, or did you have.something entirely different in mind? {{User|Lord Grammaticus}} | ||
:::I think ''just'' having the explanations in the body text would be ideal. Anyway, the proposer MegaKoopa [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Walkazo&oldid=1597051&diff=cur has asked me on my talk page] to delete the proposal, so archiving now. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :::I think ''just'' having the explanations in the body text would be ideal. Anyway, the proposer MegaKoopa [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Walkazo&oldid=1597051&diff=cur has asked me on my talk page] to delete the proposal, so archiving now. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
Line 346: | Line 337: | ||
===Create disambiguation pages for New Super Mario/Luigi (Bros.) U levels=== | ===Create disambiguation pages for New Super Mario/Luigi (Bros.) U levels=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-0|create the pages}} | |||
Looking at, for example [[Sparkling Waters]], we can see that for example two "Sparkling Waters-1" exist: [[Waterspout Beach]], and [[Huckit Beach Resort]]. I propose to make a disambiguation page showing both levels in both games. | Looking at, for example [[Sparkling Waters]], we can see that for example two "Sparkling Waters-1" exist: [[Waterspout Beach]], and [[Huckit Beach Resort]]. I propose to make a disambiguation page showing both levels in both games. | ||
Line 377: | Line 367: | ||
===Change Record Book References section on the page "List of Mario References in Publications" to a page called List of Mario-related world records=== | ===Change Record Book References section on the page "List of Mario References in Publications" to a page called List of Mario-related world records=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-5|don't split}} | |||
Mentions from World Record books would be contained on that page rather than the other one. | Mentions from World Record books would be contained on that page rather than the other one. | ||
Line 404: | Line 393: | ||
===Semi-protect galleries of high traffic pages=== | ===Semi-protect galleries of high traffic pages=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|4-10|don't protect}} | |||
If popular pages such as [[Mario]] and [[Yoshi]] that are often targets for vandalism are protected, then shouldn't their galleries be as well? Because I've seen them get vandalized enough times and besides, anons/new users can't upload images. | If popular pages such as [[Mario]] and [[Yoshi]] that are often targets for vandalism are protected, then shouldn't their galleries be as well? Because I've seen them get vandalized enough times and besides, anons/new users can't upload images. | ||
Line 431: | Line 419: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
<s>Mixed feelings on this.</s> I haven't seen many galleries targeted by persistent vandals (though that's just personal experience speaking), and in the event such vandalism exists (which it likely does) it's far less frequent then 'attacks' targeting the main page itself. @WooftheChomp, admirable as that sentiment is, a typo is just that: a minor misspelling that someone is due to notice at some point and fix. If the anon's so intent on having it fixed, they could just inform another user or something (since I'm assuming semi-protection also prevents new and unconfirmed users editing the page). [[User:Lord Grammaticus|Lord Grammaticus]] ([[User talk:Lord Grammaticus|talk]]) 13:13, 3 January 2014 (EST) | <s>Mixed feelings on this.</s> I haven't seen many galleries targeted by persistent vandals (though that's just personal experience speaking), and in the event such vandalism exists (which it likely does) it's far less frequent then 'attacks' targeting the main page itself. @WooftheChomp, admirable as that sentiment is, a typo is just that: a minor misspelling that someone is due to notice at some point and fix. If the anon's so intent on having it fixed, they could just inform another user or something (since I'm assuming semi-protection also prevents new and unconfirmed users editing the page). [[User:Lord Grammaticus|Lord Grammaticus]] ([[User talk:Lord Grammaticus|talk]]) 13:13, 3 January 2014 (EST) | ||
:@Yoshi876 Yeah, but what about the reason the {{ | :@Yoshi876 Yeah, but what about the reason the {{plain link|1=[http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34#Semi-protect_Glitch_List_pages glitch pages are semi-protected?]}} While those are a good source, they've also been under heavy vandalism. While I'm not saying that every popular page should be protected to stop vandals, at least the really important ones should. {{user|driftmaster130}} | ||
::Whilst yes they were protected to stop vandalism, it's a bit harder to decide whether certain edits on a glitch page are bad. I could go along and write a perfectly detailed glitch, but make it up. If someone tries it you can just say they didn't do it correctly. {{User|Yoshi876}} | ::Whilst yes they were protected to stop vandalism, it's a bit harder to decide whether certain edits on a glitch page are bad. I could go along and write a perfectly detailed glitch, but make it up. If someone tries it you can just say they didn't do it correctly. {{User|Yoshi876}} | ||
:::Adding to what you said, If I were a vandal, I wouldn't make an account and make 5 edits and wait for 4 days so I can just add a fake glitch. The fact that the Mario article is protected, is mostly because it likes the main cover of our wiki. You know the first page you visit is mostly Mario, you can't find vandalism there.. it just won't be nice :P {{User|Megadardery}} | :::Adding to what you said, If I were a vandal, I wouldn't make an account and make 5 edits and wait for 4 days so I can just add a fake glitch. The fact that the Mario article is protected, is mostly because it likes the main cover of our wiki. You know the first page you visit is mostly Mario, you can't find vandalism there.. it just won't be nice :P {{User|Megadardery}} | ||
Line 440: | Line 428: | ||
===Delete disambig pages for Paper Mario and Paper Mario:TTYD badges=== | ===Delete disambig pages for Paper Mario and Paper Mario:TTYD badges=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-4|don't delete}} | |||
When I click random page I will sometimes get a page like [[Last Stand|this]] that I find to be totally pointless. I think deleting the disambigs and merging the two pages would be logical.<br> | When I click random page I will sometimes get a page like [[Last Stand|this]] that I find to be totally pointless. I think deleting the disambigs and merging the two pages would be logical.<br> | ||
Line 464: | Line 451: | ||
===Proposed Promotions=== | ===Proposed Promotions=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|vetoed}} | |||
I think that users should be able to propose promotions. Here is how the process goes: you put a template similar to the FA template: the UP (user promotion) template. Then, you (obviously) create the page. OK, on to the proposal. To pass, it must have at least twice as many supports than opposes, and a high ranking user (Patroller or above) must support, because what if a bunch of spammers supported? Anyway, the deadline is a biweek. I know, what you're thinking: "It should be up to beaurecrats", but still, sometimes they're too busy blocking trolls to notice good users. That's where we come in. | I think that users should be able to propose promotions. Here is how the process goes: you put a template similar to the FA template: the UP (user promotion) template. Then, you (obviously) create the page. OK, on to the proposal. To pass, it must have at least twice as many supports than opposes, and a high ranking user (Patroller or above) must support, because what if a bunch of spammers supported? Anyway, the deadline is a biweek. I know, what you're thinking: "It should be up to beaurecrats", but still, sometimes they're too busy blocking trolls to notice good users. That's where we come in. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Electrical Bowser jr.}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Electrical Bowser jr.}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' January 29, 2014, 23:59 GMT | '''Proposed Deadline:''' January 29, 2014, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' January 22, 2014, 18:47 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 478: | Line 465: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
If you can think of a way to improve this proposal, please let me know! {{User|Electrical Bowser jr.}} | If you can think of a way to improve this proposal, please let me know! {{User|Electrical Bowser jr.}} | ||
Line 486: | Line 472: | ||
===Split ''Bowser's Inside Story''/''Dream Team'' X Bosses from the original bosses=== | ===Split ''Bowser's Inside Story''/''Dream Team'' X Bosses from the original bosses=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-0|split}} | |||
A while ago there was a proposal to merge the R enemies in Dream Team to their original enemies. It failed for the reason that even if the enemies look the same and only have different colors, they were still different enemies and are to be classified as such. X Bosses in ''Bowser's Inside Story'' and ''Dream Team'' should be no different so they should be split off as well. | A while ago there was a proposal to merge the R enemies in Dream Team to their original enemies. It failed for the reason that even if the enemies look the same and only have different colors, they were still different enemies and are to be classified as such. X Bosses in ''Bowser's Inside Story'' and ''Dream Team'' should be no different so they should be split off as well. | ||
Line 496: | Line 481: | ||
#{{User|Tails777}} Per proposal | #{{User|Tails777}} Per proposal | ||
#{{User|Iggy Koopa Jr}} I'm afraid I have to agree with this. A while ago, I created the merging proposal. It failed, because you said there were different enemies, despite the fact that they only had a color change and attack speed as difference. So technically, X bosses ''should'' be different enemies, for the reasons I stated. So I'm pro splitting this. | #{{User|Iggy Koopa Jr}} I'm afraid I have to agree with this. A while ago, I created the merging proposal. It failed, because you said there were different enemies, despite the fact that they only had a color change and attack speed as difference. So technically, X bosses ''should'' be different enemies, for the reasons I stated. So I'm pro splitting this. | ||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all; per the opposition votes in the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | #{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all; per the opposition votes in the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/37#Merge_Dream_Team_enemies.27_articles_with_their_.22R.22_version|"R" enemies proposal]]. | ||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} I support consistency | #{{User|Baby Luigi}} I support consistency | ||
#{{User|Lord Grammaticus}} Per all | #{{User|Lord Grammaticus}} Per all | ||
Line 506: | Line 491: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Nicknames=== | ===Nicknames=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-10}} | |||
Lazy people, rejoice! Nicknames are redirects to your userpage, so if your name is super-long and you are impatient to get to yours (or someone else's) page, you can just type in the nickname and it'll redirect you there. Ok, everyone keeps opposing, and you have good reason, so limit 3 nicknames. | Lazy people, rejoice! Nicknames are redirects to your userpage, so if your name is super-long and you are impatient to get to yours (or someone else's) page, you can just type in the nickname and it'll redirect you there. Ok, everyone keeps opposing, and you have good reason, so limit 3 nicknames. | ||
Line 543: | Line 526: | ||
===Remove character references from the References to other Games sections in game articles=== | ===Remove character references from the References to other Games sections in game articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
O.K. the title may not really explain much, but what I'm saying is removing references like Rosalina being playable in game from Super Mario Galaxy references. Let me try to explain what I'm getting at. I've looked at a lot of reference to other games sections in game articles and I see things like "Rosalina also appears as a playable character/appears in the game" in Super Mario Galaxy points, mainly in ''Mario Kart Wii'', ''Mario Kart 7'', ''Super Mario 3D World'' and ''Mario Party: Island Tour''. Now Rosalina has become a rather popular character, a bit more popular than Dry Bowser for example and ''New Super Mario Bros'' rarely references him, while ''Super Mario Galaxy'' gets referenced every time Rosalina appears in a game. Now I'm suggesting we remove reference like these because we don't need to reference to a game because a certain character debuted in it. We don't reference to ''Super Mario World'' every time Yoshi appears and we certainly don't reference whenever Dry Bowser appears. | O.K. the title may not really explain much, but what I'm saying is removing references like Rosalina being playable in game from Super Mario Galaxy references. Let me try to explain what I'm getting at. I've looked at a lot of reference to other games sections in game articles and I see things like "Rosalina also appears as a playable character/appears in the game" in Super Mario Galaxy points, mainly in ''Mario Kart Wii'', ''Mario Kart 7'', ''Super Mario 3D World'' and ''Mario Party: Island Tour''. Now Rosalina has become a rather popular character, a bit more popular than Dry Bowser for example and ''New Super Mario Bros'' rarely references him, while ''Super Mario Galaxy'' gets referenced every time Rosalina appears in a game. Now I'm suggesting we remove reference like these because we don't need to reference to a game because a certain character debuted in it. We don't reference to ''Super Mario World'' every time Yoshi appears and we certainly don't reference whenever Dry Bowser appears. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Tails777}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Tails777}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' February 8th, 2014, 23:59 GMT | '''Proposed Deadline:''' February 8th, 2014, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' February 1, 2014, 07:25 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 561: | Line 544: | ||
===Bowser's Minions-Category=== | ===Bowser's Minions-Category=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|0-10}} | |||
On the left side of the screen Bowser's Minions should be a category instead of enimies because there are so many. | On the left side of the screen Bowser's Minions should be a category instead of enimies because there are so many. | ||
Line 589: | Line 571: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Move the "List of implied X" articles to "List of mentioned X"=== | ===Move the "List of implied X" articles to "List of mentioned X"=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-10|don't move}} | |||
I dislike the title "List of implied X". I see it as violating NPOV, by suggesting that the thing in question may or may not exist, when in many cases, it does. Plus, most other Wikis use the word "mentioned" in this context. And while we're on the subject of these articles, I also think that they should be rewritten to be less obsessive. | I dislike the title "List of implied X". I see it as violating NPOV, by suggesting that the thing in question may or may not exist, when in many cases, it does. Plus, most other Wikis use the word "mentioned" in this context. And while we're on the subject of these articles, I also think that they should be rewritten to be less obsessive. | ||
Line 620: | Line 601: | ||
=== Revive featured images.=== | === Revive featured images.=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-9}} | |||
Featured images should come back. They are fun and interesting. In fact, {{user|Baby Luigi}} says they are why she joined the wiki! Something this awesome and fun should come back. | Featured images should come back. They are fun and interesting. In fact, {{user|Baby Luigi}} says they are why she joined the wiki! Something this awesome and fun should come back. | ||
Line 630: | Line 610: | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
#{{User|Mario}} [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | #{{User|Mario}} [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/21#Main_Page_Overhaul There is a reason featured images are removed], and since this proposal does nothing to address the previous problems the featured images system has, I will oppose. | ||
#{{User|Yoshi876}} Per the reasons for why it was removed in the first place. | #{{User|Yoshi876}} Per the reasons for why it was removed in the first place. | ||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Mario and the old reasons for getting rid of FIs. They just don't add enough substance to the main page, whereas its current design is a good showcase of the wiki's merits as an information resource, and balances that with signs of the wiki's healthy community to boot: best not to change what's working so well. | #{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Mario and the old reasons for getting rid of FIs. They just don't add enough substance to the main page, whereas its current design is a good showcase of the wiki's merits as an information resource, and balances that with signs of the wiki's healthy community to boot: best not to change what's working so well. |
Latest revision as of 18:40, April 20, 2022
Split Nintendo 2DS from Nintendo 3DSDon't split 4-10 Proposer: Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Walkazo: The GBA revisions do feature notable hardware differences from the base model (such as a backlighted screen and the removal of backward compatibility in the Mcrio's case) and unlike the GBC or the DSi, the 2ds has no Mario universe-branded games that can't be played on the base model. Making a separate page for it when it has no relevance to Mario as a franchise would be coverage creep. --Glowsquid (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
Create writing guideline for reception and sales sectionscreate guideline 12-0
Another week, another writing guideline! Kids love those, right? Anyway, the few sections about the critical and commercial performance of a given game have no consistent format and they are (as usual for "real world" subjects) rather weak. As such, I think it would be a good idea to create a guideline page to give an idea of how they should be organised and pointers on how to write them. I've made a draft for such a guideline page here. I've been told it looks ok. What do you think? Proposer: Glowsquid (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsMaybe we could use Wikipedia as inspiration as what to the reception section looks like? This looks nicely organized, and it has a great table to boot. Before y'all shoot me down for saying, "WE'RE NOT WIKI PEDIA BLAH BLAH BLAH" at least take my suggestion into consideration: there's a reason they do this and I don't see why not: I like the nicely organized table and I think it would improve the section more. Baby Luigi (talk)
Should we include reception for subjects other than games? Again, looking at Wikipedia, they have reception towards some of the characters and the game consoles. Baby Luigi (talk)
@reception for things that are not games: That's something I didn't think of, and I think it could be workable, but more on a case-by-case basis. The problem with Wikipedia's reception sections for characters and other fictional elements is that they, most of the time, only exist to establish the notability criteria required by Wikipedia policy and thus are little more than a ridiculous collection of inane statements of no use or interest to anybody. However, illustrating Mario's popularity and relevance to pop culture is certainly something that should be done. Additionally, if someone at Nintendo comes out and say something like "We changed Birdo's characters due to the criticism it received" or "We redesigned the Blue Shell due to players feedback", giving exemples of audience reaction to provide context to the statement would also make sense. --Glowsquid (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2013 (EDT) Remove coverage of "cameo" puzzle gamesremove 10-1 To take one example, Pushmo, despite having a page, features a limited amount of Mario references; there is only one Mario puzzle out of the first 100 (not counting the NES controller puzzle), and the remaining levels are found exclusively within two Nintendo-themed puzzle sections towards the end of the game. More to the fact, Mario characters do not make cameos outside of their puzzles, the game does not include any additional Mario themes or sounds, and the game’s story and characters do not reference the Nintendo characters much at all. So covering anything else from the game (story, character artwork, and menu icons) and calling it a crossover is not really justified by the amount of references the game has. The other cameo puzzle games are in a similar bunch; While the ratio of Mario vs non-Mario content may be slightly higher (with Tetris DS, for example, featuring NES Super Mario Bros. sprites prancing around in several modes), the depth of the Mario content featured within is extremely minimal and barely relevant to the actual game. So why are we giving these games crossover coverage? The answer: we shouldn’t be, and we shouldn’t let new users believe that we are. Some of these articles seem more like bloated references than worthy crossovers, so why have these entire content-creeping articles when the actual references, which only take up about a small percent of their article's length, would not be out of place on the references list. In short, we propose that we move the Mario-related information, which is the only thing relevant to the wiki, to the references list, and redirect the articles to that, because the cameo puzzle games simply don't have enough relevant content to be given full crossover coverage. The following games would be affected by this proposal: Proposers: GBAToad (talk) and Glowsquid (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI assume that any sub-pages the games have will also be deleted. Yoshi876 (talk)
What about Captain Rainbow, whilst it has Mario references more frequently than the puzzle games, but they do have a role in the story? Yoshi876 (talk)
I agree with the main bulk of this proposal with one exception that prevents me from supporting it in its current form: Alleyway. As shown on the boxart and apparently in-game, Mario controls the paddle and is thus, in a somewhat indirect fashion, the playable character in this game. Compare to Golf. Other than the fact that you play as a very un-Mario looking Mario (and only in North America, to boot), this game has no connection to the Mario series. Yet it has a full article, as it should. Why is Alleyway any different? I would almost argue for keeping Tetris DS as well due to the depth of content (its Puzzle mode is basically a remake of Yoshi's Cookie, from the sound of things), but I don't have as strong of feelings or support for that objection. 1337star (talk) Allow Featuring and Unfeaturing nominations to fail before the deadlineallow 6-0 Proposer: Yoshi876 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWait, what? I tried reading what you're saying, but I don't understand the gist of it. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
@Lefty In a way that cannot be countered, what I mean by that is a counter-argument for which there is no counter. For example, on the Kirby nomination, the subject has no relevance to the quality, it cannot be countered. And the 1 week timeframe as said only applies to the FAs if the problem is unfixible, the 1 week deadline mainly applies to the unfeaturing because if the problem is fixed there's no point on the article just sitting around for 2 months with the unfeature template on it. Yoshi876 (talk)
The thing is, with SM3DW, all of the oppose votes are simply perring others, and even though it will fail, I don't want to hurt the feelings of the supporting people. Ztar Power (talk)
Ditch "Full Names" when appropriatepassed 4-0 Proposer: Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWhat do you mean by "Full Name"? Yoshi876 (talk) Like, for Bowser Jr, "Prince Bowser Koopa Jr". It's speculative nonsense. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Well, most are. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) @Tails: You have a point, so I changed it a bit. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk)
Doesn't this need to be archived? Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Merge Dream Team enemies' articles with their "R" versionfailed 6-11 Proposer: Iggy Koopa Jr (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsYou know, if we're going through with this, there may as well be proposals to deal with the other identical recolours from the other RPG games with them for consistency. Icemario11 (talk)
If we plan to go with many enemies that are like this, does that mean we'd merge Ember and Phantom Ember with Lava Bubble, just because they are stronger versions of it? Tails777 (talk) Well, if this fails, god do something about the copy-paste. It just ruins both articles. --Iggy Koopa Jr (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2013 (EST) Change all Mario power-up transformations from "Mario" to "Form"canceled by proposer Nintendo has lately stop restricting the use of items to only Mario and Luigi and have allowed other characters, Peach and Red Toad for example, to use them to the exact same effect and use. At first I was okay with the Template:Diff on the top of the article when it says that the power may also extend out to Luigi (only), but now I believe it is looking too cluttered and unprofessional when it lists out that the power-up may extend to not only Luigi but also to Peach, Yellow Toad, Blue Toad, Rosalina, etc. Think about it guys, Nintendo has been innovative and is currently trying out new things that we have never seen before. Who knows, maybe some time in the future we'll see a Fire Daisy, Tanooki Yoshi, Metal Waluigi, and Ice Wario. And I for one do not want to see that Diff template list grow even bigger because of that. The proposal is basically saying that all power-up transformation articles of which the said power-up item is not used exclusively by Mario (or by any other single individual [if one does exist now or in the future]) will be renamed from "Mario" to "Form". (e.g. Ice Form, Penguin Form, Tanooki Form, Shell Form, Invincibility Form, Double Form, Cat Form, etc.) And thus call to delete Template:Diff. It also calls for a change of the info-box photo. The info-box photo will have to be an official Nintendo company artwork (so no screenshots) of the latest exhibition of a group of characters in their power-up form. Example, the group artwork of Mario, Luigi, Peach, and Toad in Cat form for Super Mario 3D World. If a particular power-up form possesses no group artworks, then the latest appearance of the power-up form characters will all have to be pasted onto an artboard and uploaded to the SMW (the artworks all have to be from the same game, and the artboard has needs a transparent background, so it's like a composite). And, I know this part may be the most obvious of all, all of the renamed articles will have a redirect name of its previous name (Fire Mario, Ice Mario, Tanooki Mario, etc.) Proposer: Zero777 (talk) Change It
Don't Change It
CommentsWait! A proposal similar to this existed before? Man I've been gone for so long. In that case, whoever has the power to remove proposals may you please remove it? Zero777 (talk) Allow Removal of Support/Oppose in Proposalsdon't allow 1-12 Proposer: Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsHave "Title reference" in the infobox for Mario Party minigamescanceled by proposer Proposer: MegaKoopa (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Zero777, I replaced "name" with "title". I always used "name", but it really seems that "title" is more correct. MegaKoopa (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2013 (EST) Walkazo brings up a pretty good point in his oppose, what do you suppose we could do with the more obvious references if/when this passes? Lord Grammaticus (talk
Create disambiguation pages for New Super Mario/Luigi (Bros.) U levelscreate the pages 6-0 Proposer: Iggy Koopa Jr (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI don't see the point of this. Specicifally, we can make disambiguations, certainly, though you didn't have to go right to the TPP, I think; a discussion on the talk page would've been a great starting point, and with enough support (I see no reason not to do this really), you can just go right ahead and do it.
@SuperYoshiBros: I think you're mistaken. The point is not to create disambiguation pages for worlds, but for levels. — Banon (talk)
don't split 1-5 Proposer:John G (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsYou forgot to put yourself in support John G. Zero777 (talk)
Semi-protect galleries of high traffic pagesdon't protect 4-10 Proposer: driftmaster130 (talk) Protect
Keep as is
Comments
Delete disambig pages for Paper Mario and Paper Mario:TTYD badgesdon't delete 1-4 Proposer: Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@RB4761: That's what the same page is for so you have two sections that describe both versions of it. Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk)
Proposed Promotionsvetoed by the administrators Proposer: Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsIf you can think of a way to improve this proposal, please let me know! Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) As Per Rule 16: Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration, this proposal is illegal;. Yoshi876 (talk) Split Bowser's Inside Story/Dream Team X Bosses from the original bossessplit 8-0 Proposer: Tails777 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsNicknamesfailed 1-10 Proposer: Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsBTW, no one searches for users via search bar anyway. And even if you do, you have to use the advanced settings, which no one would really user either, except for users...maybe? Baby Luigi (talk) OK. I give up. Cancel this, please. But I have a WAY better proposal coming up. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk)
Don't worry, it isn't. And you guys have a point, so that's why I gave up. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Remove character references from the References to other Games sections in game articlescanceled by proposer Proposer: Tails777 (talk) SupportOpposeCommentsWait, that isn't policy already? Even then, you can use your common sense to remove those references. Those absolutely do not qualify as references, so nobody will object if you remove these statements. At least, I won't object. Mario (talk)
Bowser's Minions-Categoryfailed 0-10 Proposer: bumpynintendo (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsCould you be more specific? I cannot understand the one sentence proposal with spelling and gramatical errors. Mario7 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2014 (EST)
There are more goombas than koopas! I might cancel this now. Bumpynintendo (talk)
Move the "List of implied X" articles to "List of mentioned X"don't move 1-10 Proposer: RickTommy (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsList of x's with unproved existences
Revive featured images.failed 1-9 Proposer bumpynintendo (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWhat was the reason behind its removal, for curiousity's sake? Lord Grammaticus (talk)
Oh my god, the memories. Baby Luigi (talk)
|