MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/38: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Even obscure, one-note games like [[Yoshi's Universal Gravitation]] and [[Wario: Master of Disguise]] have enough stylistic consistency and continuity cues that show they're meant to exist in the same "universe" as other games in their respective franchises, even if they're not referenced later. You can't say the same about the DIC cartoons vs the games. | Even obscure, one-note games like [[Yoshi's Universal Gravitation]] and [[Wario: Master of Disguise]] have enough stylistic consistency and continuity cues that show they're meant to exist in the same "universe" as other games in their respective franchises, even if they're not referenced later. You can't say the same about the DIC cartoons vs the games. | ||
Beside, there is a precedent for splitting other medias: The characters in the 1993 movie [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | Beside, there is a precedent for splitting other medias: The characters in the 1993 movie [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/29#Super_Mario_Bros._Film_Information:_Where_Should_It_Go.3F are considered] to be "different" and indeed, most major elements from the film do have separate pages. If the movie is "too different" to count, then what about the Super Show with its locations that appear nowhere else in the franchise, celebrity guest stars, sizable number of characters that barely resemble their game counterpart… etc?. It takes a lot of mental gymnastic to exclude one but not the other. | ||
Separating the medias isn't saying the comics/cartoons/ovas aren't "canon", "don't count" or something like that – it's simply acknowledging they're separate entries of the greater Mario franchise, which they quite clearly are, methinks. | Separating the medias isn't saying the comics/cartoons/ovas aren't "canon", "don't count" or something like that – it's simply acknowledging they're separate entries of the greater Mario franchise, which they quite clearly are, methinks. | ||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
:::::Can't now, just let it run its course. No one will really think that much less of you for it. {{User|Lord Grammaticus}} | :::::Can't now, just let it run its course. No one will really think that much less of you for it. {{User|Lord Grammaticus}} | ||
::::::Very well, thank you. I still feel like a total idiot now, though. {{User|Coooool123}} | ::::::Very well, thank you. I still feel like a total idiot now, though. {{User|Coooool123}} | ||
:::::::Actually, as per Rule 14, the proposal can be withdrawn or rewritten within the first 3 days of its creation. Seeing as it was created yesterday it can be withdrawn, just make sure to archive it [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 38|here]] and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|here]]. {{User|Yoshi876}} | :::::::Actually, as per Rule 14, the proposal can be withdrawn or rewritten within the first 3 days of its creation. Seeing as it was created yesterday it can be withdrawn, just make sure to archive it [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/38|here]] and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|here]]. {{User|Yoshi876}} | ||
:::Hot dang, I forgot about that rule. Looks like I might need to study a bit. Thanks for the save, 876. {{User|Lord Grammaticus}} | :::Hot dang, I forgot about that rule. Looks like I might need to study a bit. Thanks for the save, 876. {{User|Lord Grammaticus}} | ||
Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
I think it would be a good idea to also say that ''all'' the official profiles and stats should go on the not-subpages - i.e. instead of having some of the RPG infoboxes in the History sections, etc. That way, everything would be in one place, and it would also make the History sections more uniform and less crowded (as they can get when they have multiple boxes in close proximity). One question, tho: what would the new pages be named? "List of profiles and statistics of X" would be consistent with [[MarioWiki: | I think it would be a good idea to also say that ''all'' the official profiles and stats should go on the not-subpages - i.e. instead of having some of the RPG infoboxes in the History sections, etc. That way, everything would be in one place, and it would also make the History sections more uniform and less crowded (as they can get when they have multiple boxes in close proximity). One question, tho: what would the new pages be named? "List of profiles and statistics of X" would be consistent with [[MarioWiki:Lists_Policy|other "subpages"]], and doesn't see, ''too'' wordy after the "official" bit's removed. But I dunno, maybe there's a better choice? - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
:I added some more provisions, thanks to your suggestions. Also, I think the "profiles and statistics" part can be shortened to just one word, but I'm not exactly sure what single word can replace that lengthy phrase. Maybe "List of data of this guy person" or simply "List of profiles of this guy person". {{User|Mario}} | :I added some more provisions, thanks to your suggestions. Also, I think the "profiles and statistics" part can be shortened to just one word, but I'm not exactly sure what single word can replace that lengthy phrase. Maybe "List of data of this guy person" or simply "List of profiles of this guy person". {{User|Mario}} | ||
::SeanWheeler, if we don't move the stat to another page, the reader might rage quit on this wiki. {{User|Pinkie Pie}} 12:01, 2 February 2014 (EST) | ::SeanWheeler, if we don't move the stat to another page, the reader might rage quit on this wiki. {{User|Pinkie Pie}} 12:01, 2 February 2014 (EST) | ||
Line 217: | Line 217: | ||
[http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=28897 Collab Link] | [http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=28897 Collab Link] | ||
While navigating through glitches pages, I came across several glitches which I was unable to perform, nor did I managed to find any proof that this glitch is real or fake. So instead of [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | While navigating through glitches pages, I came across several glitches which I was unable to perform, nor did I managed to find any proof that this glitch is real or fake. So instead of [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34#Remove_all_unsourced_information_from_glitches_and_beta_elements_pages|removing all unsourced glitches]], we would simply add a small notice like this<sup class="noprint">[''unconfirmed glitch'']</sup>. This way we will still have the information, while avoiding any bogus glitches (because the reader would be already aware that this glitch was not tested, unproved). | ||
I already aware that there is a template called {{tem|ref needed}}. However this is a different thing: not every glitch need a reference. they need just an screenshot, a video, or in some cases, discussion on the talk page may be very enough if provided with some proof. Also having a different template and a different category is better for organizing, this way we can look in the category to find all glitches pages ''only'' which contains glitches need confirmation. | I already aware that there is a template called {{tem|ref needed}}. However this is a different thing: not every glitch need a reference. they need just an screenshot, a video, or in some cases, discussion on the talk page may be very enough if provided with some proof. Also having a different template and a different category is better for organizing, this way we can look in the category to find all glitches pages ''only'' which contains glitches need confirmation. | ||
'''Draft:''' | '''Draft:''' | ||
<blockquote><code><nowiki><sup class="noprint">[''unconfirmed glitch'']</sup><includeonly>[[Category:Glithes need confirmation]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Formatting templates | <blockquote><code><nowiki><sup class="noprint">[''unconfirmed glitch'']</sup><includeonly>[[Category:Glithes need confirmation]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Formatting templates]]</noinclude></nowiki></code> | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
Line 259: | Line 259: | ||
::::Which part? - {{User|Walkazo}} | ::::Which part? - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
:::::"(nothingref needed -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy)"{{User|Megadardery}} | :::::"(nothingref needed -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy)"{{User|Megadardery}} | ||
::::::@Walkazo Like this: <sup class="noprint">[[[MarioWiki:Citations|''unconfirmed glitch, citation needed'']]]</sup><includeonly>[[Category:Citation needed]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[:Category:Formatting templates | ::::::@Walkazo Like this: <sup class="noprint">[[[MarioWiki:Citations|''unconfirmed glitch, citation needed'']]]</sup><includeonly>[[Category:Citation needed]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[:Category:Formatting templates]]</noinclude>; and it could be modified like {{tem|Userspace}} was for double usage. I don't know if that seems redundant or not but at least it highlights glitches more. {{user|driftmaster130}} | ||
:::::::But don't you think that's getting a wee bit long and unseemly? Anyway, what I meant was that first, if someone adds a glitch with no refs or anything, you can just label it with {{tem|ref needed}}. Then maybe it gets discussed on the talk page and people convincingly vouch for its existence - then you cite the discussion, and it's up to the readers to look at the citation and decide whether they believe our info despite us not having any hard evidence. Then you ''do'' find some hard evidence and can cite that instead, and when readers see that, they won't have any reason to doubt us (i.e. everybody's happy). No need for a clunky extra template or template parameter: you either have a reference, or ya don't. It also just occurred to me that if you really want to keep track of unconfirmed glitches and don't trust a list on the wiki collabs board, why not use {{tem|talk}} or a template spun off of that to put on the talk pages? You'd still get the useless category problem, but at least the templates will draw attention to the appropriate sections on the talk page once folks wander in. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :::::::But don't you think that's getting a wee bit long and unseemly? Anyway, what I meant was that first, if someone adds a glitch with no refs or anything, you can just label it with {{tem|ref needed}}. Then maybe it gets discussed on the talk page and people convincingly vouch for its existence - then you cite the discussion, and it's up to the readers to look at the citation and decide whether they believe our info despite us not having any hard evidence. Then you ''do'' find some hard evidence and can cite that instead, and when readers see that, they won't have any reason to doubt us (i.e. everybody's happy). No need for a clunky extra template or template parameter: you either have a reference, or ya don't. It also just occurred to me that if you really want to keep track of unconfirmed glitches and don't trust a list on the wiki collabs board, why not use {{tem|talk}} or a template spun off of that to put on the talk pages? You'd still get the useless category problem, but at least the templates will draw attention to the appropriate sections on the talk page once folks wander in. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
Line 324: | Line 324: | ||
Shouldn't this be appeal? {{User|Pinkie Pie}} 20:14, 7 February 2014 (EST) | Shouldn't this be appeal? {{User|Pinkie Pie}} 20:14, 7 February 2014 (EST) | ||
Ashley and Red, you should look how this proposal failed: http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | Ashley and Red, you should look how this proposal failed: http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/37#Allow_Removal_of_Support.2FOppose_in_Proposals {{User|Randombob-omb4761}} | ||
Line 389: | Line 389: | ||
::::::Perhaps it would help if you named some of these 'people' in question. {{User|Lord Grammaticus}} | ::::::Perhaps it would help if you named some of these 'people' in question. {{User|Lord Grammaticus}} | ||
:::::::Here are some examples of what I'm talking about: http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | :::::::Here are some examples of what I'm talking about: http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/13#Merge_or_Delete_Demo_Articles http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/18#Categories:_List_of_Implied_... http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/4#Article_about_.22Implied.22_subject_.282nd_nomination..29 http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/2#Removal:_Glitch_Articles http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/2#Merging_Wario_Treasures | ||
:::::::I just think that it'll cycle in and out of proposals for lists, not technically this in general, and that there will always be proposals about merging items into lists, then separating them, then merging again, then deleting lists, etc. {{User|Coooool123}} | :::::::I just think that it'll cycle in and out of proposals for lists, not technically this in general, and that there will always be proposals about merging items into lists, then separating them, then merging again, then deleting lists, etc. {{User|Coooool123}} | ||
::::::::The most recent proposal that you linked to was from 2009, and even then, it really doesn't have anything to do with what you're talking about. It wanted to delete a set of categories because they literally served no purpose. The articles mentioned in the proposal talking about demo articles wanted to delete them because they were only tangentially related to the Mario series. I'll give you the other ones, sure, but those are from ''2007'', which really doesn't illustrate your point that this kind of thing is a constant cycle. {{User|Time Turner}} | ::::::::The most recent proposal that you linked to was from 2009, and even then, it really doesn't have anything to do with what you're talking about. It wanted to delete a set of categories because they literally served no purpose. The articles mentioned in the proposal talking about demo articles wanted to delete them because they were only tangentially related to the Mario series. I'll give you the other ones, sure, but those are from ''2007'', which really doesn't illustrate your point that this kind of thing is a constant cycle. {{User|Time Turner}} | ||
Line 427: | Line 427: | ||
Old template: | Old template: | ||
{| width="100%" class="mainpagebox" id="niwa" | {| width="100%" class="mainpagebox" id="niwa" | ||
| align="center" rowspan="2" | <div id="mf-niwalogo">[[Image:Niwalogo.png|125px|Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance|link=MarioWiki:Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance]]</div> | | align="center" rowspan="2" | <div id="mf-niwalogo">[[Image:Niwalogo.png|125px|Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance|link=MarioWiki:Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance|class=invert]]</div> | ||
| align="left" colspan="2" | <div id="mf-niwaintro">[[MarioWiki:Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance|NIWA]] is a group of open-content encyclopedias based on Nintendo franchises.</div> | | align="left" colspan="2" | <div id="mf-niwaintro">[[MarioWiki:Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance|NIWA]] is a group of open-content encyclopedias based on Nintendo franchises.</div> | ||
|- style="font-size:smaller;" | |- style="font-size:smaller;" | ||
| align="left" |<div id="mf-niwa1"> | | align="left" |<div id="mf-niwa1"> | ||
{| style="padding-left:2px; background:#F8F8FF;" | {| style="padding-left:2px; background:#F8F8FF;" | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Zelda Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || The Legend of Zelda: [[ZeldaWiki:Main Page|Zelda Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Bulbapedia icon.png|18px|link=]] || Pokémon: [[Bulbapedia:Main Page|Bulbapedia]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Pikipedia icon.png|18px|link=]] || Pikmin: [[Pikipedia:Main Page|Pikipedia]], [[PikminFanon:Main Page|Fanon]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:SmashWiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Super Smash Bros.: [[SmashWiki:Main Page|SmashWiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Donkey Kong Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Donkey Kong: [[MarioWiki:DKWiki portal|Donkey Kong Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Icaruspedia icon.png|18px|link=|class=invert]] || Kid Icarus: [[Icaruspedia:Main Page|Icaruspedia]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File:Tetris | | [[File:Hard Drop Tetris Wiki icon.png|18px|link=|class=invert]] || Tetris: [[HardDrop:Main Page|Hard Drop Tetris Wiki]] | ||
|}</div> | |}</div> | ||
| align="left" |<div id="mf-niwa2"> | | align="left" |<div id="mf-niwa2"> | ||
{| style="background:#F8F8FF;" | {| style="background:#F8F8FF;" | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Metroid Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Metroid: [[MetroidWiki:Main Page|Metroid Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:WiKirby icon.png|18px|link=]] || Kirby: [[WiKirby:Kirby Wiki|WiKirby]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Fire Emblem Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Fire Emblem: [[FireEmblem:Main Page|Fire Emblem Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Lylat Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Star Fox: [[LylatWiki:Lylat Wiki|Lylat Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Nookipedia icon.png|18px|link=]] || Animal Crossing: [[Nookipedia:Main Page|Nookipedia]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File:Golden Sun | | [[File:Golden Sun Universe icon.png|18px|link=]] || Golden Sun: [[GoldenSun:Main Page|Golden Sun Universe]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Dragon Quest Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Dragon Quest: [[DragonQuest:Main Page|Dragon Quest Wiki]] | ||
|}</div> | |}</div> | ||
| align="left" |<div id="mf-niwa3"> | | align="left" |<div id="mf-niwa3"> | ||
Line 466: | Line 466: | ||
| [[File:NintendoWiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Nintendo: [[NWiki:Main Page|NintendoWiki]] | | [[File:NintendoWiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Nintendo: [[NWiki:Main Page|NintendoWiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Starfy Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || The Legendary Starfy: [[StarfyWiki:Main Page|Starfy Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File:WikiBound.png|18px|link=]] || EarthBound: [[WikiBound:WikiBound|WikiBound]] | | [[File:WikiBound icon.png|18px|link=]] || EarthBound: [[WikiBound:WikiBound|WikiBound]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:StrategyWiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Game Guides: [[StrategyWiki:Main Page|StrategyWiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Wars Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Nintendo Wars: [[WarsWiki:Advance Wars Wiki|Wars Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:F-Zero Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || F-Zero: [[FZeroWiki:|F-Zero Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File:Niwalogo.png|18px|link=]] || NIWA: [[NIWA:|Network Hub]] | | [[File:Niwalogo.png|18px|link=|class=invert]] || NIWA: [[NIWA:|Network Hub]] | ||
|}</div> | |}</div> | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 482: | Line 482: | ||
Proposed template: | Proposed template: | ||
{| width="100%" class="mainpagebox" id="niwa" | {| width="100%" class="mainpagebox" id="niwa" | ||
| align="center" rowspan="2" | <div id="mf-niwalogo">[[Image:Niwalogo.png|125px|Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance|link=MarioWiki:Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance]]</div> | | align="center" rowspan="2" | <div id="mf-niwalogo">[[Image:Niwalogo.png|125px|Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance|link=MarioWiki:Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance|class=invert]]</div> | ||
| align="left" colspan="2" | <div id="mf-niwaintro">[[MarioWiki:Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance|NIWA]] is a group of open-content encyclopedias based on Nintendo franchises.</div> | | align="left" colspan="2" | <div id="mf-niwaintro">[[MarioWiki:Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance|NIWA]] is a group of open-content encyclopedias based on Nintendo franchises.</div> | ||
|- style="font-size:smaller;" | |- style="font-size:smaller;" | ||
| align="left" |<div id="mf-niwa1"> | | align="left" |<div id="mf-niwa1"> | ||
{| style="padding-left:2px; background:#F8F8FF;" | {| style="padding-left:2px; background:#F8F8FF;" | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Nookipedia icon.png|18px|link=]] || Animal Crossing: [[Nookipedia:Main Page|Nookipedia]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Donkey Kong Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Donkey Kong: [[MarioWiki:DKWiki portal|Donkey Kong Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Dragon Quest Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Dragon Quest: [[DragonQuest:Main Page|Dragon Quest Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File:WikiBound.png|18px|link=]] || EarthBound: [[WikiBound:WikiBound|WikiBound]] | | [[File:WikiBound icon.png|18px|link=]] || EarthBound: [[WikiBound:WikiBound|WikiBound]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Fire Emblem Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Fire Emblem: [[FireEmblem:Main Page|Fire Emblem Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:F-Zero Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || F-Zero: [[FZeroWiki:|F-Zero Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:StrategyWiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Game Guides: [[StrategyWiki:Main Page|StrategyWiki]] | ||
|}</div> | |}</div> | ||
| align="left" |<div id="mf-niwa2"> | | align="left" |<div id="mf-niwa2"> | ||
{| style="background:#F8F8FF;" | {| style="background:#F8F8FF;" | ||
| [[File:Golden Sun | | [[File:Golden Sun Universe icon.png|18px|link=]] || Golden Sun: [[GoldenSun:Main Page|Golden Sun Universe]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Icaruspedia icon.png|18px|link=|class=invert]] || Kid Icarus: [[Icaruspedia:Main Page|Icaruspedia]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:WiKirby icon.png|18px|link=]] || Kirby: [[WiKirby:Kirby Wiki|WiKirby]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Starfy Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || The Legendary Starfy: [[StarfyWiki:Main Page|Starfy Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Zelda Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || The Legend of Zelda: [[ZeldaWiki:Main Page|Zelda Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Metroid Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Metroid: [[MetroidWiki:Main Page|Metroid Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File:NintendoWiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Nintendo: [[NWiki:Main Page|NintendoWiki]] | | [[File:NintendoWiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Nintendo: [[NWiki:Main Page|NintendoWiki]] | ||
Line 519: | Line 519: | ||
| align="left" |<div id="mf-niwa3"> | | align="left" |<div id="mf-niwa3"> | ||
{| style="background:#F8F8FF;" | {| style="background:#F8F8FF;" | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Wars Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Nintendo Wars: [[WarsWiki:Advance Wars Wiki|Wars Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Pikipedia icon.png|18px|link=]] || Pikmin: [[Pikipedia:Main Page|Pikipedia]], [[PikminFanon:Main Page|Fanon]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Bulbapedia icon.png|18px|link=]] || Pokémon: [[Bulbapedia:Main Page|Bulbapedia]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Lylat Wiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Star Fox: [[LylatWiki:Lylat Wiki|Lylat Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:SmashWiki icon.png|18px|link=]] || Super Smash Bros.: [[SmashWiki:Main Page|SmashWiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File:Tetris | | [[File:Hard Drop Tetris Wiki icon.png|18px|link=|class=invert]] || Tetris: [[HardDrop:Main Page|Hard Drop Tetris Wiki]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File:Niwalogo.png|18px|link=]] || NIWA: [[NIWA:|Network Hub]] | | [[File:Niwalogo.png|18px|link=|class=invert]] || NIWA: [[NIWA:|Network Hub]] | ||
|}</div> | |}</div> | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 655: | Line 655: | ||
Couldn't we actually create a template for all animals and have subsections for different species? {{user|driftmaster130}} | Couldn't we actually create a template for all animals and have subsections for different species? {{user|driftmaster130}} | ||
:Templates are supposed to have specific focuses: having all the animals lumped together would be uselessly broad. Better to just use categories. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :Templates are supposed to have specific focuses: having all the animals lumped together would be uselessly broad. Better to just use categories. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::I just went through the calculations (adding the number of pages in each category for animals), and if I'm not mistaken, such a template would have close to 1500 entries. To compare, [[Template:LMDM]] has around 260 entries, [[Template:PMTTYD]] has around 330, [[Template: | ::I just went through the calculations (adding the number of pages in each category for animals), and if I'm not mistaken, such a template would have close to 1500 entries. To compare, [[Template:LMDM]] has around 260 entries, [[Template:PMTTYD]] has around 330, [[Template:SMRPG]] has around 450, and [[Template:SPM]], which I believe is the largest navigation template ever, has around 510. This template would be astronomical when comparing it to templates about ''games''. It's gonna completely dwarf any other species template that we have. Basically, way too impractical. {{User|Time Turner}} | ||
Also, are people allowed to just make new options in someone else's proposal? {{User|Time Turner}} | Also, are people allowed to just make new options in someone else's proposal? {{User|Time Turner}} | ||
Line 766: | Line 766: | ||
=====Create a Miiverse section with a link to the main article===== | =====Create a Miiverse section with a link to the main article===== | ||
======Support====== | ======Support====== | ||
======Oppose====== | ======Oppose====== | ||
Line 852: | Line 851: | ||
A.K.A. signatures should be allowed in comments section in general. | A.K.A. signatures should be allowed in comments section in general. | ||
Okay okay we had this [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | Okay okay we had this [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/20#Another_No-Signature_Policy_Amendment proposal] way back, which is basically what I'm proposing: we loosen the No-Sig policy by allowing signatures in more places, specifically, the comments section. One of the main reason the proposal failed is that it's "too complicated". Now, I've said approximately one year ago that it's not complicated; it's just poor wording. To sum it up, ''this proposal, if passed, disallows signatures '''only''' in voting''. This is simple and straightforward to follow. With the current ruleset, we can sign in talk page proposal comments, but not comments in Featured Articles and here? THAT'S the more complicated one. | ||
The only valid argument from the opposition, then, is that signatures can increase loading times. While true, the space that is saved is miniscule. MarioWiki project pages (like this one and the Featured Article pages), the pages that disallow signatures, are much smaller than a lot of mainspace talk pages ([[Talk:Mario Kart 8]], [[Talk:Mario]], [[Talk:Bowser]]) which '''do''' allow signatures. I recall that MarioWiki used to run in a MUCH slower server than it is now. Or maybe it's just me. Either way, (for me at least) the main reason a page loads slowly is its size, not from the amount of signatures it has. | The only valid argument from the opposition, then, is that signatures can increase loading times. While true, the space that is saved is miniscule. MarioWiki project pages (like this one and the Featured Article pages), the pages that disallow signatures, are much smaller than a lot of mainspace talk pages ([[Talk:Mario Kart 8]], [[Talk:Mario]], [[Talk:Bowser]]) which '''do''' allow signatures. I recall that MarioWiki used to run in a MUCH slower server than it is now. Or maybe it's just me. Either way, (for me at least) the main reason a page loads slowly is its size, not from the amount of signatures it has. | ||
Line 890: | Line 889: | ||
===Mobile View=== | ===Mobile View=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-7|don't create}} | {{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-7|don't create}} | ||
Quite a while ago the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | Quite a while ago the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/33#Make_an_iPhone.2FiPad_app|following proposal]] was made on the MarioWiki, back then it was denied by most people. Right now I'm proposing a very smiliar but yet '''different''' idea. While I'm not suggesting an iPhone app (that was in the original proposal.) I however do suggest to make a mobile version of the site. Using the [http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:MobileFrontend MobileFrontend] extension it is possible to make a mobile version of the wiki. For an example of how it would look like: Go to [http://en.m.wikipedia.org Mobile Wikipedia] if you want to see how it looks.<br> | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|ExPower}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|ExPower}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2014, 23:59 GMT | '''Deadline''': March 17, 2014, 23:59 GMT |
Latest revision as of 08:54, September 20, 2022
Further separate appearance listing by mediascanceled by proposer
In the early days of the wiki, appearance listing on character pages used to be separated by media (so all games were under a ==Game== header, all comics under a ==Comic== and so on) up until around 2008, where it was proposed to not separate things by media (the ensuing change mostly consisted of terrible attempts to link contradictory medias together), which was further stabilized into the purely date-based listing we have now. I was pretty apathetic about the change, but the quote above made me think. The current system's well-intentioned, but I feel it's misguided and that separating things by media would lead to a more user-friendly browsing experience. Here's why: 1: It's a navigational mess. To take the Mario page for example, the main series platformers and the sports spinoff that most readers would expect to be "logically" close (due to similar styles and being, well, the same format) are separated by a wall of info about the more distant DIC cartoons and obscure OVAs. As a reader, I think it's irritating and a jarring shift. Separating things by media would also have the effect of making the content navbar less bloated, thus making it easier to eyeball and click straight to a specific game/movie/cartoon. If I want to know about how many comics Mario has appeared in or that I want to read about a specific appearance but that I don't remember the name or publication date, it's much easier to find what I'm looking with a separated listing rather than having it lost somewhere in a huge list. It could also have the effect of making sections about obscure installments more noticeable than when they are sandwiched between the better-known and better-documented games. 2: One can peddle the "There's no official canon" line and that is true (and hence why I'm not proposing to give special treatment to Hotel Mario, When I Grow Up, the edutainement games or other oft-disliked installments of the franchise, because that'd be dumb) – but it misses the actual point: the media tie-ins are separate entries of the franchise. Events in the other medias usually happen in their own bubble and are not directly patterned after or "follow" the games. No characters that originated in the comics/cartoons/OVA reappears (with maybe the exception of the Koopa Bros. in a manga, but details are sketchy) appear or are even alluded to in the games. The characters/items that do appear frequently have clear differences in appearance, function, personality and sometimes names (some of that can be chalked up to early-franchise weirdness, but that only goes so far). Even obscure, one-note games like Yoshi's Universal Gravitation and Wario: Master of Disguise have enough stylistic consistency and continuity cues that show they're meant to exist in the same "universe" as other games in their respective franchises, even if they're not referenced later. You can't say the same about the DIC cartoons vs the games. Beside, there is a precedent for splitting other medias: The characters in the 1993 movie are considered to be "different" and indeed, most major elements from the film do have separate pages. If the movie is "too different" to count, then what about the Super Show with its locations that appear nowhere else in the franchise, celebrity guest stars, sizable number of characters that barely resemble their game counterpart… etc?. It takes a lot of mental gymnastic to exclude one but not the other. Separating the medias isn't saying the comics/cartoons/ovas aren't "canon", "don't count" or something like that – it's simply acknowledging they're separate entries of the greater Mario franchise, which they quite clearly are, methinks. …[/Martin Prince voice] Proposer: Glowsquid (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI dunno if the Super Mario-Kun is part of this: what the manga is about is that it adapts events straight out of the game and puts its own twist to it, unlike most other forms of media where they just do their own thing. But otherwise, yeah, I see where you're going with this. Baby Luigi (talk)
So, Glowsquid, what will you propose to do? Split Mario's article into separate articles by media? I'll very much like the idea (I also agree that the History's organization seems sporadic and jarring, especially to readers... and plus, Mario's article gets trimmed even more! YES! Same goes for Luigi, Toad, Bowser, Wario, Boo, etc.), but I also like to see the formatting layouts because that means we can also go into detail about episodes and certain comic volumes and issues without cluttering up the page. A serious flaw from this proposal is the smaller articles. Minor Mario characters such as Tryclyde, Tweeter, Panser, Wanda, Jō, and much more also make appearances in non-game media, yet their articles are smaller than the main ones that really need this solution. Even one-timers such as Lavalava Island and Golden Diva make a non-game appearance from Super Mario-Kun. Even further, we've seen some extraordinary appearances such as Bluster Kong, who made an appearance in Super Mario-Kun, although he originated in a TV show. What may happen from this proposal is separating information from already-small articles into even smaller articles. There isn't anything in your proposal to address that, so... Mario (talk) I brought up the Movie thing to show that the current system is inconsistent rather than to say "That? We should do that for everything". The idea is that currently, all medias are under one header, like this; --History-- With the proposal, the page sections would be formated like this:
Create a Page for the Toadette Speciescanceled by proposer Now, some may argue that there isn't enough information for that, but I do think that there will be plenty of facts to make sure that this article is not a stub. However, I'm also open to the idea, should the community not want to create an entire page, that we add additional information under the Toad (species) segment about the female toad species, of which there is none. There's also the possibility to add this under Toadette. Either one works for me. Proposer: Coooool123 (talk) Create a New Page for the Toadette Species
Create a section in the Toad Species for the female toad counterpart speciesCreate a section under Toadette for the female toad counterpart speciesDon't create anything
Comments@Baby Luigi: True, but the female counterparts aren't even mentioned under the Toad species. There's no pictures, and basically just gives the idea that all the Toads are male, with only one female among them. This should at least be given clarification. Coooool123 (talk)
@Pink, methinks you mean "should not" in this context. Lord Grammaticus (talk) Move substantial "Official profiles and statistics" sections to a separate pagepassed 22-1 Baby Luigi and I then decided that we should move the "Official profiles and statistics" section to its own page. Now, just as with galleries and list of quotes, not EVERY article will be affected by it; only articles that have a substantial amount of information (decided by a case-by-case basis) will have the information moved. Reasonably reducing the strain these pages do on browsers should be a plus for all of us editors here. Update: In addition, profiles and statistics from RPG games, such as Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi and Super Mario RPG will be moved into these pages as well. Proposer: Mario (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI think it would be a good idea to also say that all the official profiles and stats should go on the not-subpages - i.e. instead of having some of the RPG infoboxes in the History sections, etc. That way, everything would be in one place, and it would also make the History sections more uniform and less crowded (as they can get when they have multiple boxes in close proximity). One question, tho: what would the new pages be named? "List of profiles and statistics of X" would be consistent with other "subpages", and doesn't see, too wordy after the "official" bit's removed. But I dunno, maybe there's a better choice? - Walkazo (talk)
SeanWheeler, just compare the loading time of Waluigi to Bowser. There is a noticeable difference. In every computer I've used, Bowser takes a painfully longer time to load. Also, you should be more considerate about those with weaker computers than yours. Just because YOU don't have a problem doesn't mean EVERYONE won't. I've also mentioned explicitly that the action will not make the page load a million times faster, but trimming reasonably will improve loading times nevertheless. Mario (talk)
Also, even though the long page load faster, scrolling down is a pain to look at. Pinkie Pie (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2014 (EST)
@Guye, not that I disagree, but I think you should try to keep your opposes a bit shorter. You can elaborate in the comments like you did with the other one. Lord Grammaticus (talk) I aldo think that the role tables (playable or NPC table) should be in another page too. And nicknames tables in Mario and Luigi should be removed. There is no proof for them. Ashley and Red (talk)
Move glitches on game pages to their respective glitch pagescanceled by proposer Proposer: Demonic KB (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsIn the case that it violates the empty section policy, let's just cancel this proposition because I wasn't paying attention in depth to EVERY SINGLE POLICY. Demonic KB (talk) Create an unconfirmed glitch templatedon't create 7-10 While navigating through glitches pages, I came across several glitches which I was unable to perform, nor did I managed to find any proof that this glitch is real or fake. So instead of removing all unsourced glitches, we would simply add a small notice like this[unconfirmed glitch]. This way we will still have the information, while avoiding any bogus glitches (because the reader would be already aware that this glitch was not tested, unproved). I already aware that there is a template called {{ref needed}}. However this is a different thing: not every glitch need a reference. they need just an screenshot, a video, or in some cases, discussion on the talk page may be very enough if provided with some proof. Also having a different template and a different category is better for organizing, this way we can look in the category to find all glitches pages only which contains glitches need confirmation. Draft:
Proposer: Megadardery (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsScreenshots and videos are references, and citing discussions isn't ideal even for glitches (although citing discussions beats no citations at all, of course). And what do you mean by "scrawny" "sourcing thing"? Citations are used all over the wiki, and so they should: they lend credibility to the database. Whoever told you references are only for upcoming games and beta elements is grievously mistaken. - Walkazo (talk)
The deadline is passed. Isn't the minimum for a proposal to pass a 3 vote margin? Demonic KB (talk) Fanon wiki NOT like Pikipedia Fanonvetoed by the administrators Proposer: Koopa The Quick (talk) SupportOppose
Comments...What? Time Turner (talk) To my knowledge: 1) There is no need for an on wiki proposal for off-wiki content, and 2) such a wiki likely already exists, for all we know. Lord Grammaticus (talk) Shouldn't this be appeal? Pinkie Pie (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2014 (EST)
XX supports Remove XX opposes freelyfailed 1-9 Proposer: Ashley and Red (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsShouldn't this be appeal? Pinkie Pie (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2014 (EST) Ashley and Red, you should look how this proposal failed: http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/37#Allow_Removal_of_Support.2FOppose_in_Proposals Randombob-omb4761 (talk)
The MarioWiki:Featured articles Section "How to Nominate" states:
Objection cannot be 'valid' without reason and and a method of improvement. If nominators, supporters, administration, et cetera are unable to ameliorate whatever obstacle or flaw to satisfy the objector's demands then:
In the case of scenario B, the voters + admin will be more than delighted to remove the objection. For these reasons, I oppose. Mr. Guye (talk)
Merge articles such as Orbs and Hexes into lists with the same informationdon't merge 2-10 I propose the following format, though I'm open to adjustments. Please keep in mind that this is only the prototype format, and if someone would like to suggest changes, I'd love to hear them:
Making separate lists for the separate Mario Party orbs/hexes under one page is also plausible. (Different pages for orbs and hexes, in case that wasn't clear.) Now, while I've only mentioned these two things, if there's something you'd like to see merged as well, please add it in the comments section. Proposer: Coooool123 (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Time Turner - That's not necessarily true. It really depends on the layout of the page. Not to mention, we don't need as much information as we have. I've been told that conciseness is key on this wiki. If I may ask, which articles are you referring to? Most that I see are very short. It's a mess as it is, and more consistent than the method we have now. Coooool123 (talk)
@Coooool, I was hoping you'd understand that was a very general statement, as opposed to a standard to enforce on articles (not that I could plausibly do such here anyway). Lord Grammaticus (talk)
@Randombob-omb4761- Apologies if I wasn't clear. but I said that they would have their own separate lists. I'm not proposing we merge these together. it's 'such as' Orbs and hexes. Both would have their own pages. Coooool123 (talk) It's a bit too late to salvage this discussion, but please remember to out new comments at the bottom, rather than sticking them in the middle using indents. Without time stamps, it really muddles up the history of the discussion. Just use Name: or "@Name:" or whatever to link to a specific comment if there were other things said in the interim. This also potentially avoids having to indent by over a dozen colons, which is less than ideal. - Walkazo (talk)
Change the order of the NIWA Main templatepassed 8-0 Old template:
Proposed template:
Proposer: Mario7 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsMaybe you should ask Steve about this since he mainly manages the template? Baby Luigi (talk)
@Pinkie How do you know we don't want an ABC, most templates follow an ABC order on the wiki. Yoshi876 (talk) At all cases, it is not that major.. just talk to the Minecraft man (a.k.a Porplemontage) and withdraw dis. :) --Megadardery (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2014 (EST) @Pinkie Why is your vote a "stronger oppose" and what do you mean when you say "we don't want a ABC order on the template anyway?" You are not an admin and you also haven't given a strong reason for why it should stay this way. Simply saying that you don't want it is not a strong argument. Mario7 (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2014 (EST)
Create the Category:Files with broken Aboutfile templatecreate the category 8-2 {{#ifeq: {{{1}}}|Subject of the image|[[Category:Files with broken Aboutfile template]]}} {{#ifeq: {{{2}}}|Where you found the image|[[Category:Files with Broken Aboutfile template]]}} {{#ifeq: {{{3}}}|Artist|[[Category:Files with Broken Aboutfile template]]}} {{#ifeq: {{{4}}}|Describe edits, if any|[[Category:Files with Broken Aboutfile template]]}} {{#ifeq: {{{5}}}|Other versions (use file link)|[[Category:Files with Broken Aboutfile template]]}} adding this in the template coding will activate it (may need a cache reset for files pages with already broken Aboutfile), so any page having a misformatted aboutfile template will be automatically added to the category, therefore making it easier to maintenance. Proposer: Dashbot (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI'm not an expert on coding, but wouldn't this code require that all five sections be filled with something? Time Turner (talk) What if users simply format it incorrectly, as with any other template? Mario (talk)
@Iggy, last I recall, the aboutfile template is kinda necessary for image files on this wiki, so... Lord Grammaticus (talk) @Time Turner, first if someone blanked a section, it would disappear. Second, no one blank all the sections, they just leave it as-it. And this proposed feature fixes the "as-it" problem. Dashbot (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2014 (EST) @Iggy Koopa Jr., no offenses, but what does any of that do with the proposed feature? You are just saying that you do not use the template. This fixes a issue (i.e [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5], and even more) by adding the file page to a specified category. Just like any maintenance category. Simply saying that you do not use it, doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Please check your vote, it is lacking a reasonable reason. Dashbot (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2014 (EST) Again, this proposed feature aims to help fixing the issue, exactly like the Category:Articles with broken file links.Dashbot (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2014 (EST) @Pinkie, I don't think it needs to be constantly stated how strong your oppose/anti-oppose is, the reasoning speaks for itself. Lord Grammaticus (talk) What I'm saying is: do we even need the template that badly? --Iggy Koopa Jr (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2014 (EST)
Species Templates for Real-World Animalsdelete 9-0-0 Maybe we just haven't gotten around to creating templates for the other people yet? While creating templates for dogs, cats, rats, et al. would be consistent from a certain point of view, I don't think it's a good idea to start creating navigation templates for these real-world animals. Let me use dogs as an example: the category for dogs lists a whole bunch of things that visually resemble canines, like Fox McCloud, Arfur, Broggy, and much more. As you may have remarked, these three characters are so vastly separate from each other in pretty much every way imaginable. Creating a navigation template for them is like implying that they all have a direct connection to each other, which I just find silly. Plus, think about it from a reader's standpoint: who would read Manager Joe's article, get to the end, and think, "Man, I sure wish that I could go read about Wolf O'Donnell or Poochy with a convenient template"; from where I'm standing, I don't see that happening. In the interest of keeping all options free, I'll leave three options: deleting the two navigation templates that we currently have (the most convenient choice), creating navigation templates for the other animals (could allow for convenience), or doing nothing (true neutrality). Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Delete Templates
Create TemplatesDo NothingCommentsMarioWiki:Navigation templates already says these sorts of templates are bad:
So you don't need a proposal to delete them, really. - Walkazo (talk)
Couldn't we actually create a template for all animals and have subsections for different species? driftmaster130 (talk)
Also, are people allowed to just make new options in someone else's proposal? Time Turner (talk)
Delete the Mario Party Advance character pagescanceled by proposer Proposer: Tails777 (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Time Turner: I understand what your getting at and I can understand that you'd oppose this, seeing as you put a lot of work into creating the articles, which I respect and understand, but is it really necessary to create separate articles for each of them? I mean all that can just be mentioned on the character page. Look at Shy Guy, he is just a train manager and, while he does have a noticeable personality, so did the Blue Shy Guy in Mario Super Sluggers, as his dialogue told us that he was a panicky kinda guy. And the Shy Guy in Mario Party 4 was easily and literally shown to be a shy guy, but he states that he has a love for adventure and created his own board. And lots of characters in the RPG series give "unique" missions and items (though I guess that's the point of an RPG, but my point remains). Tails777 (talk)
Change the identificator for the multiple Mario Kart coursesdon't change 1-0-11
It looks neatier and more professional. Of course, tracks with numbers or an alternate name should not be affected by this. I also suggest that a breif description is added into every main page for the courses, especially the Mario Circuit one, which has a whole large section covering the numbered tracks on Super Mario Kart, but then follows with a bad-looking listing compiling the rest of the tracks, with no mention of how they are or look, not even an image is in there. Proposer: Byllant (talk) Change the identificatorKeep the console name but not using an abbreviationDo nothing
Comments
The rule you cite discourages abbreviating game names as article identifiers, and that's not what's happening with the retro courses. The identifiers used are simply the identifiers provided by Nintendo in the form of console abbreviations (as outlined in rule 2(c) in the link above). When the topic of an article appears in multiple games, the identifier tries to bridge the gap instead of just covering the first appearance. If I'm playing Mario Kart 7 and I want to find out more about this "SNES Rainbow Road" track, I'll search "SNES Rainbow Road" and when "Rainbow Road (SNES)" comes up, that makes sense. "Rainbow Road (Super Mario Kart)" is perfect for the case of Super Mario Kart, but it's less-intuitive when referring to it as a retro course. At least (SNES) applies to both cases and it doesn't require any prior knowledge to match a retro course in a game with its identifier in the article title. --Porplemontage (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2014 (EST)
Merge Pages with Nintendo Networkvetoed by the administrators Proposer: Mario7 (talk) Move PagesMove Miiverse to the Nintendo Network page as a sectionSupportOppose
Move the Nintendo eShop sections to the Nintendo Network page as a single sectionNote: You can support this option as well as the option: Create an eShop section that describe the Nintendo eShop. SupportOppose
Move Virtual Console to the Nintendo Network page as a section nested under the eShop sectionSupportOppose
Create SectionsCreate a Miiverse section with a link to the main articleSupportOppose
Create an eShop section that describe the Nintendo eShopNote: You can support this option as well as the option: Move the Nintendo eShop sections to the Nintendo Network page as a single section. Support
Oppose
Create a Virtual Console section nestled under the eShop section with a link to the main articleSupportOppose
CommentsNo, this kind of voting is unnecessarily complex. You need to reformat this proposal in a way so people like me know how to vote on this. Mario (talk)
Remove fake templatesdon't remove 1-12 e.g. of fake: e.g. of real: All I am requesting is that the 1st example and similar templates shouldn't be allowed to be made anymore, to assist articles, not for humor. Proposer: YoshiToad04 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsDude, fake templates aren't even being used anymore, so I really don't see the point behind this. --KP (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2014 (EST)
Just to be clear, OP, are you suggesting users use "real" rewrite/construction templates for userspace? --Glowsquid (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2014 (EST)
Disallow signatures only in votingpassed 12-0 Okay okay we had this proposal way back, which is basically what I'm proposing: we loosen the No-Sig policy by allowing signatures in more places, specifically, the comments section. One of the main reason the proposal failed is that it's "too complicated". Now, I've said approximately one year ago that it's not complicated; it's just poor wording. To sum it up, this proposal, if passed, disallows signatures only in voting. This is simple and straightforward to follow. With the current ruleset, we can sign in talk page proposal comments, but not comments in Featured Articles and here? THAT'S the more complicated one. The only valid argument from the opposition, then, is that signatures can increase loading times. While true, the space that is saved is miniscule. MarioWiki project pages (like this one and the Featured Article pages), the pages that disallow signatures, are much smaller than a lot of mainspace talk pages (Talk:Mario Kart 8, Talk:Mario, Talk:Bowser) which do allow signatures. I recall that MarioWiki used to run in a MUCH slower server than it is now. Or maybe it's just me. Either way, (for me at least) the main reason a page loads slowly is its size, not from the amount of signatures it has. The biggest reason I'm proposing this, however, is that again and again, people often make comments and sign with their signatures, and somebody else comes in and makes an insignificant change back to {{User|User Person}}. Enforcing the No-Sig policy, in this case, feels so... unproductive. At least, for me. Of course, if there are exceptions, it must be stated (and for a good reason). But that's not the point of a rule. A rule is supposed to help people contribute, not have them waste their time "correcting" one signature in a comment section. After all, signing with ~~~~ after a comment is supposed to be a good habit. Proposer: Mario (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsSorry, but I'm a bit confused, is this proposal allowing people to sign with their signature in the comments of propsals/FA nominations or disallowing it? Tails777 (talk)
Mobile Viewdon't create 3-7 Support
Oppose
Comments@Mario: SILLY!??????!!!! I'm very certain that it's uneeded, do you call that silly!?. Randombob-omb4761 (talk)
Get rid of "AdminIssue-Only" *svetoed by the administrators Proposer: Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Get rid of it
Do Nothing
CommentsNot all of them should go, as users can't identify sockpuppets as we can't see IP addresses which users register with, so if we issued a warning it'd be a speculative one which could potentially scare away an innocent user, which is in no way good. Yoshi876 (talk) Ok, we will leave the * with Sockpuppet on, but the undermining and Abusing Warning privliges have to go. ~~ Boo4761 The Undermining admin authority one should stay, the best one to issue something is one that are directly involved with the thing. You and me aren't admins, we don't know when exactly this becomes an issue.. It is related to admins, so leave it for them. Let admins issue Abusing warning privileges warnings on their own too, they are the ones that can decide whither the warning the user issued is undeserved or no.-- 17:30, 19 March 2014 (EDT)don't create 2-7 Proposer: TVTrash (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsTVTrash, please explain your support, or just say Per Proposal. ~~ Boo4761
I'm talking about a SINGLE page. R O Y
Split caps/emblems articles onto only onedon't merge 3-6 Proposer: Ashley and Red (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@BlueToad63, "headwear" looks better :) User:Ashley and Red/sig Can you provide us the links to the articles in question? I'd like to have a look. So far, Mario, Luigi, and Wario's cap do qualify as individual items. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:42, 24 March 2014 (EDT)
Why is Removal of Opposes here? ~~ Boo4761
|