MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/37
Split Nintendo 2DS from Nintendo 3DSDON'T SPLIT 4-10 It's not the same console right? The Nintendo 2DS should have it's own article because it's a video game console. 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 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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) |