MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/42: Difference between revisions
m (Changed protection level for "MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 42": Changes need to be made per recent proposal. ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 20:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 20:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)) |
m (Text replacement - "<span +class="?explain"? (style="?color:inherit;?"?)? *title="([^"\n]+)" *>([^<\n]+)<\/span>" to "{{hover|$3|$2}}") |
||
(36 intermediate revisions by 6 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> | ||
===Stricter Guidelines for "References to Other Games" and "References in Later Games" Sections=== | ===Stricter Guidelines for "References to Other Games" and "References in Later Games" Sections=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
Not sure where to put this or if it even needs a proposal, but I've noticed way too many times that the "References in Other Games" and "References in Later Games" sections are used for extremely minor things (especially characters/enemies reappearing) that are probably coincedental. After all, where do we draw the line? Is every appearance of Mario a direct reference to Donkey Kong? Is every appearance of "256" a Super Paper Mario reference? Wait, what's that? The Paper Mario: Sticker Star page says it is? Uh-oh: | Not sure where to put this or if it even needs a proposal, but I've noticed way too many times that the "References in Other Games" and "References in Later Games" sections are used for extremely minor things (especially characters/enemies reappearing) that are probably coincedental. After all, where do we draw the line? Is every appearance of Mario a direct reference to Donkey Kong? Is every appearance of "256" a Super Paper Mario reference? Wait, what's that? The Paper Mario: Sticker Star page says it is? Uh-oh: | ||
Line 13: | Line 12: | ||
''[[New Super Mario Bros.]]'': | ''[[New Super Mario Bros.]]'': | ||
*''[[Super Mario Bros. 2]]'' - Just like in this game, [[Small Mario]] can crouch. | *''[[Super Mario Bros. 2]]'' - Just like in this game, [[Small Mario]] can crouch. | ||
*''[[Super Mario World]]'' - an item is stored on the touchscreen, and can be summoned at any time during each level. This derives directly from Super Mario World. A Monty Mole, which first appeared in this game, appears as a boss called Monty Tank. Wigglers also appeared. [[Grinder | *''[[Super Mario World]]'' - an item is stored on the touchscreen, and can be summoned at any time during each level. This derives directly from Super Mario World. A Monty Mole, which first appeared in this game, appears as a boss called Monty Tank. Wigglers also appeared. [[Grinder]]s don't appear in ''New Super Mario Bros.'', but spiked balls appear in the game, having the same function. [[List of items|Items]] can be held in a level, just like in the aforementioned game. Also this game features [[Cannon Pipe|Warp Pipe]]s that can shoot the player into the air like [[Cannon]]s. | ||
*''[[Mario Party 4]]'' - [[Mini Mushroom]] and [[Mega Mushroom]] return with the same function as in this game. | *''[[Mario Party 4]]'' - [[Mini Mushroom]] and [[Mega Mushroom]] return with the same function as in this game. | ||
Line 32: | Line 31: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': April 1, 2015, 23:59 GMT | '''Proposed Deadline''': April 1, 2015, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' March 27, 2015, 1:33 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
#{{User|Toadbrigade5}} I couldn't disagree more. Reading these, minor, but interesting things were always one of my favorite things to do on this wiki. Listing references and allusions is part of the flavor and actually the mood of the original Mario game. Removing all of these would be uninformative of the rapid usage of numbers like "64", "128", and "256" in games, alongside wonderous references. This things you listed were some of the most interesting things of all about the games, how they tie into eachother. This is something a database cannot disacknowledge. These should stay. | #{{User|Toadbrigade5}} I couldn't disagree more. Reading these, minor, but interesting things were always one of my favorite things to do on this wiki. Listing references and allusions is part of the flavor and actually the mood of the original Mario game. Removing all of these would be uninformative of the rapid usage of numbers like "64", "128", and "256" in games, alongside wonderous references. This things you listed were some of the most interesting things of all about the games, how they tie into eachother. This is something a database cannot disacknowledge. These should stay. | ||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - As I've said in the comments twice already, a proposal vaguely calling for [[MarioWiki:References#References_to_other_games_and_references_in_later_games|rules that already exist]] is unnecessary. Remove the proposal and just start enforcing the policy (and/or make [[ | #{{User|Walkazo}} - As I've said in the comments twice already, a proposal vaguely calling for [[MarioWiki:References#References_to_other_games_and_references_in_later_games|rules that already exist]] is unnecessary. Remove the proposal and just start enforcing the policy (and/or make [[mb:forums/57|a collab thread on the forum]] instead to get help with that and raise awareness). | ||
#{{User|LudwigVon}} Per all. | #{{User|LudwigVon}} Per all. | ||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
:Disallowing examples that are basically "[character/enemy/item] appeared again", along with things that are probable coincedences anyway because of how obscure they are. [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 08:52, 25 March 2015 (EDT) | :Disallowing examples that are basically "[character/enemy/item] appeared again", along with things that are probable coincedences anyway because of how obscure they are. [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 08:52, 25 March 2015 (EDT) | ||
This isn't a [[MarioWiki:Writing | This isn't a [[MarioWiki:Writing guidelines|Writing Guideline]] proposal so I moved to to "Changes" for now, but it should actually be removed anyway because what you want [[MarioWiki:References#References_to_other_games_and_references_in_later_games|already exists]], having been proposed and accepted [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/36#Guideline_section_for_.22References_to_other_games.22.2F.22References_in_later_games.22|via an October 2013 WG Proposal]] (after [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/35#Guidelines_for_what_is_a_reference_and_what_is_not|a vague proposal like this one]] was voted down as being useless, I might add). But like so many quality control measures around here, people don't know about it and the "references to other games" sections have become crap-filled again. While another proposal is unnecessary, making a [[mb:forums/57|collaboration thread]] on the forums would probably be a good idea to try and fix this issue across the wiki. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
I definitely think stuff like Shy Guys, Pokeys, Monty Moles etc. are no longer references to their debut games because they have appeared so many times. Perhaps the limit should be five times, and if it reappears again it shouldn't be a reference to the debut anymore? --{{User:SuperYoshiBros/sig}} 11:53, 25 March 2015 (EDT) | I definitely think stuff like Shy Guys, Pokeys, Monty Moles etc. are no longer references to their debut games because they have appeared so many times. Perhaps the limit should be five times, and if it reappears again it shouldn't be a reference to the debut anymore? --{{User:SuperYoshiBros/sig}} 11:53, 25 March 2015 (EDT) | ||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
Okay, can this be removed since the guideline already exists? [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (EDT) | Okay, can this be removed since the guideline already exists? [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (EDT) | ||
---- | |||
===Set Clear Rules as to What "Species Origin" Means=== | ===Set Clear Rules as to What "Species Origin" Means=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
To my knowledge, the "species origin" section on [[Template:Species infobox]] is for the main species a subspecies is descended from (e.g. [[Shy Guy]] being the species origin for [[Snifit]]), but I keep seeing it used to mean "looks like" or "type of thing" (e.g. "Bottle" being the species origin for [[PET Bottom]]), which would be like labeling [[Dry Bones]] as a subspecies of "Skeleton" or "Turtle". And while I think this section could have a use if defined better, I'm sure some would say it could just be removed altogether, or replaced with something clearer. It's starting to look like the old "Affiliation" section of [[Template:Character infobox]], unrelated things are being put in it just to make the infobox slightly bigger. This may not need a proposal, in which case I'll gladly delete it, but to my knowledge, there isn't anything on the wiki actually defining what that section is ''supposed'' to be used for. | |||
To my knowledge, the "species origin" section on [[Template:Species | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': April 2, 2015, 23:59 GMT | '''Proposed Deadline''': April 2, 2015, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' April 2 | |||
====Make a Clear Definition of What "Species Origin" is For==== | ====Make a Clear Definition of What "Species Origin" is For==== | ||
Line 93: | Line 95: | ||
This is partly due to the over use of sub-species with little forethought into how it actually applies to subjects broadly or if it's even practical to call something that looks slightly different than something otherwise identical a "subset of the species. If we're being literal with the term, there should only be a handful of subspecies and it would flow counter to how we generally list things (as an example, a [[Paragoomba]] wouldn't be a subspecies of [[Goomba]], as the wings denote an evolutionary advancement and both species are frequently found in the same regions, whereas [[Galoomba]] would be more of regional cousin). However, we use the term in such away that French Canadian's are a subspecies of both Canadians and the French. Sadly, there probably isn't easy or adequate way to solve this issue this late into the game. And let's all give a big hand to the idiot who first added the term on a whim to the wiki! I'm such a damn asset, aren't I! | This is partly due to the over use of sub-species with little forethought into how it actually applies to subjects broadly or if it's even practical to call something that looks slightly different than something otherwise identical a "subset of the species. If we're being literal with the term, there should only be a handful of subspecies and it would flow counter to how we generally list things (as an example, a [[Paragoomba]] wouldn't be a subspecies of [[Goomba]], as the wings denote an evolutionary advancement and both species are frequently found in the same regions, whereas [[Galoomba]] would be more of regional cousin). However, we use the term in such away that French Canadian's are a subspecies of both Canadians and the French. Sadly, there probably isn't easy or adequate way to solve this issue this late into the game. And let's all give a big hand to the idiot who first added the term on a whim to the wiki! I'm such a damn asset, aren't I! | ||
What the hell were we talking about again? -- [[ | What the hell were we talking about again? -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 03:23, 27 March 2015 (EDT) | ||
:Wings aren't necessarily an evolutionary advancement. Going off-topic, but technically, if wings weren't evolutionary advantageous, they wouldn't be considered "better". {{User:Mario/sig}} 19:51, 28 March 2015 (EDT) | :Wings aren't necessarily an evolutionary advancement. Going off-topic, but technically, if wings weren't evolutionary advantageous, they wouldn't be considered "better". {{User:Mario/sig}} 19:51, 28 March 2015 (EDT) | ||
::For the sake of argument, I'd say it counts as an advancement in so far as video game logic is being applied, but not in reality of course. -- [[ | ::For the sake of argument, I'd say it counts as an advancement in so far as video game logic is being applied, but not in reality of course. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 01:47, 1 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
Not really important, but here are some things I found on that section: | Not really important, but here are some things I found on that section: | ||
Line 112: | Line 114: | ||
::'''@Mario (and Ghost Jam):''' If something's not "better" it's usually selected against and erased from populations, rather than leading to specialization - unless it's being dragged along with a good adaptation (due to the genes being close on the chromosomes), or something that started out good and only became bad after it was fixed due to new changes or changes in the environment, etc. Anyway, it doesn't matter if differences are good or bad when determining the taxonomy of a species, just that there are differences, and Ghost Jam's completely right in that the way we use "subspecies" around here is ''completely wrong''. Aside from some RPG enemy sets that only differ in colour, strength and attack strategy, things we call "subspecies" should simply be recognized as full species, and in the interest of uniformity and not making subjective judgment calls, it would be better to even call the biologically similar-enough things "species" too. After all, the wiki's current mix of "species" and "subspecies/sub species/sub-species" is both inconsistent (in many ways) and often just speculating about what's a full species and what's a subspecies, which, as Ghost Jam also pointed out, is frequently done wrong, and periodically leads to rather messy situations. (I.e. is a [[Shady Paratroopa]] a [[Shady Koopa]] "subspecies" or a [[Koopa Paratroopa]] "subspecies", or neither, or both, given how Shady Koopas and Koopa Paratroopas are already "subspecies" of [[Koopa Troopa]]s?) As a zoologist by trade, it makes me ''cringe'' to see the word splattered around the wiki, and it is honestly on my (very long) "to do" list to see it wiped out someday, including replacing the "subspecies" header of the infoboxes with "derived species"/"descendents"/etc. But for now, to make this more on-topic, '''@Binarystep:''' imo, what you're looking for for the vague "species origin" header is "''parent species''" - the species that directly gave rise to a given species (in RL it refers to evolution, but here it's from a game development POV - however the idea's the same: from X came Y, by adding wings/changing the colour/etc.). I also recommend making only one rename/redefine voting header (alongside the removal and leave-it-be options) as you're potentially splitting the vote and the basic idea that it's potentially a useful header if it's fixed is pretty much the same for both options anyway. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ::'''@Mario (and Ghost Jam):''' If something's not "better" it's usually selected against and erased from populations, rather than leading to specialization - unless it's being dragged along with a good adaptation (due to the genes being close on the chromosomes), or something that started out good and only became bad after it was fixed due to new changes or changes in the environment, etc. Anyway, it doesn't matter if differences are good or bad when determining the taxonomy of a species, just that there are differences, and Ghost Jam's completely right in that the way we use "subspecies" around here is ''completely wrong''. Aside from some RPG enemy sets that only differ in colour, strength and attack strategy, things we call "subspecies" should simply be recognized as full species, and in the interest of uniformity and not making subjective judgment calls, it would be better to even call the biologically similar-enough things "species" too. After all, the wiki's current mix of "species" and "subspecies/sub species/sub-species" is both inconsistent (in many ways) and often just speculating about what's a full species and what's a subspecies, which, as Ghost Jam also pointed out, is frequently done wrong, and periodically leads to rather messy situations. (I.e. is a [[Shady Paratroopa]] a [[Shady Koopa]] "subspecies" or a [[Koopa Paratroopa]] "subspecies", or neither, or both, given how Shady Koopas and Koopa Paratroopas are already "subspecies" of [[Koopa Troopa]]s?) As a zoologist by trade, it makes me ''cringe'' to see the word splattered around the wiki, and it is honestly on my (very long) "to do" list to see it wiped out someday, including replacing the "subspecies" header of the infoboxes with "derived species"/"descendents"/etc. But for now, to make this more on-topic, '''@Binarystep:''' imo, what you're looking for for the vague "species origin" header is "''parent species''" - the species that directly gave rise to a given species (in RL it refers to evolution, but here it's from a game development POV - however the idea's the same: from X came Y, by adding wings/changing the colour/etc.). I also recommend making only one rename/redefine voting header (alongside the removal and leave-it-be options) as you're potentially splitting the vote and the basic idea that it's potentially a useful header if it's fixed is pretty much the same for both options anyway. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
:::Ooo, yeah, but my point is that wings don't necessarily denote an advancement, which implies it's "better" somehow. But anyhow, what about "related species" rather than "subspecies"? You can put the alleged "parent species" on top and put all the related ones underneath without actually assuming the Paragoomba came before the Paragloomba or something like that. I mean, creation-wise, that would make sense, but it seems to be assuming that one form chronologically came before the other. Or, maybe I'm just bringing up arguments that aren't there. {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:49, 31 March 2015 (EDT) | :::Ooo, yeah, but my point is that wings don't necessarily denote an advancement, which implies it's "better" somehow. But anyhow, what about "related species" rather than "subspecies"? You can put the alleged "parent species" on top and put all the related ones underneath without actually assuming the Paragoomba came before the Paragloomba or something like that. I mean, creation-wise, that would make sense, but it seems to be assuming that one form chronologically came before the other. Or, maybe I'm just bringing up arguments that aren't there. {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:49, 31 March 2015 (EDT) | ||
::::I knew that wing thing was wrong when I typed it, but it was the only thing think of to get the point across (I was also going under the assumption most people get all the things involved in the species/subspecies selection process, hell I only have a cursory understanding of it). Regardless, I like the idea of the mass correction of terms and Walkazo's suggestion of derived species (or similar). -- [[ | ::::I knew that wing thing was wrong when I typed it, but it was the only thing think of to get the point across (I was also going under the assumption most people get all the things involved in the species/subspecies selection process, hell I only have a cursory understanding of it). Regardless, I like the idea of the mass correction of terms and Walkazo's suggestion of derived species (or similar). -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 01:45, 1 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
::::To be honest, I don't think "Related Species" would work for that, I think it'd be better for ''similar'' species (e.g. [[Li'l Sparky]]s are similar to [[Spark]]s, but not a subspecies). [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 04:08, 1 April 2015 (EDT) | ::::To be honest, I don't think "Related Species" would work for that, I think it'd be better for ''similar'' species (e.g. [[Li'l Sparky]]s are similar to [[Spark]]s, but not a subspecies). [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 04:08, 1 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
:::::Perhaps, but I think related is just specific enough to group Paragoomba and its variants or something like that. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:55, 1 April 2015 (EDT) | :::::Perhaps, but I think related is just specific enough to group Paragoomba and its variants or something like that. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:55, 1 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
Line 119: | Line 121: | ||
:A vote would still be good in the long run, but if you want to have a forum discussion in the meantime, okay (I'll remove the proposal for you later, or maybe tomorrow, but as the discussion's still in progress here, hence I haven't yanked it yet; plus I've been really busy or the last few days). Also, keep in mind that I might just make that "no more subspecies" proposal in the meantime (if I can make the time to write, run and start enforcing it), thus forcing some name changes in the template either way, but no promises. Anyway, I feel it's worth having a specific section for the parent species that the developers spun the later species off of, since the tendency is to make longer lists alphabetical so any nested nuances would be easily lost, and in general, it's best to specifically say "this is x" instead of assuming everyone will understand that the first thing in list y is x. "Derived species" can be the counterpart that's exclusivity used for species that were based on the focal species (such as [[Colossal Koopa Paratroopa]] for [[Gargantua Koopa Troopa]]), while "related species" (or perhaps "similar species") header can be used for things that are morphologically similar to the species in question, rather than simply listing all other derivative species: we have nav templates for that. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :A vote would still be good in the long run, but if you want to have a forum discussion in the meantime, okay (I'll remove the proposal for you later, or maybe tomorrow, but as the discussion's still in progress here, hence I haven't yanked it yet; plus I've been really busy or the last few days). Also, keep in mind that I might just make that "no more subspecies" proposal in the meantime (if I can make the time to write, run and start enforcing it), thus forcing some name changes in the template either way, but no promises. Anyway, I feel it's worth having a specific section for the parent species that the developers spun the later species off of, since the tendency is to make longer lists alphabetical so any nested nuances would be easily lost, and in general, it's best to specifically say "this is x" instead of assuming everyone will understand that the first thing in list y is x. "Derived species" can be the counterpart that's exclusivity used for species that were based on the focal species (such as [[Colossal Koopa Paratroopa]] for [[Gargantua Koopa Troopa]]), while "related species" (or perhaps "similar species") header can be used for things that are morphologically similar to the species in question, rather than simply listing all other derivative species: we have nav templates for that. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::To be honest, I think the Species Origin section could be fixed, just not with that name, which is too confusing (a lot of people seem to think it means "based on", probably because of how on a lot of game wikis, "Origin" refers to a real life thing being referenced). I actually have an idea for a remade species infobox, but I don't know enough about coding to make an example on my sandbox, unfortunately. Also, in response to Mario, I actually have a WIP [[User:Binarystep/sandbox|species chart]] in my sandbox, showing the most logical (based on appearances, names, behavior, and ingame/manual/guide info if available) species/subspecies relations, I'd like some feedback on it. [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 20:35, 1 April 2015 (EDT) | ::To be honest, I think the Species Origin section could be fixed, just not with that name, which is too confusing (a lot of people seem to think it means "based on", probably because of how on a lot of game wikis, "Origin" refers to a real life thing being referenced). I actually have an idea for a remade species infobox, but I don't know enough about coding to make an example on my sandbox, unfortunately. Also, in response to Mario, I actually have a WIP [[User:Binarystep/sandbox|species chart]] in my sandbox, showing the most logical (based on appearances, names, behavior, and ingame/manual/guide info if available) species/subspecies relations, I'd like some feedback on it. [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 20:35, 1 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
---- | |||
===Merge the X bosses from [[Mario & Luigi: Dream Team]]=== | ===Merge the X bosses from [[Mario & Luigi: Dream Team]]=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
We have done similar things with the X bosses from [[Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story]]. I don't see a reason why these bosses should get serparate page when the X bosses from [[Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story]] don't receive said treatment. So what should we do? Should we keep them merged or should we separate them? | We have done similar things with the X bosses from [[Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story]]. I don't see a reason why these bosses should get serparate page when the X bosses from [[Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story]] don't receive said treatment. So what should we do? Should we keep them merged or should we separate them? | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|ExPower}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|ExPower}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': April 12, 2015, 23:59 GMT. | '''Proposed Deadline''': April 12, 2015, 23:59 GMT.<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' April 7, 2015, 00:02 GMT | |||
====Merge==== | ====Merge==== | ||
Line 138: | Line 142: | ||
For clarification, are you referring to pages like [[Big Massif X]], [[Grobot X]], and [[Mammoshka X]] (for ''Dream Team''), and [[Durmite X]], [[Wisdurm X]], and [[Dark Satellmite X]] (for ''Bowser's Inside Story'')? You're talking about a discrepancy between the two games' bosses, but they seem to be treated the same way to me. Do you want to merge them, or split them? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | For clarification, are you referring to pages like [[Big Massif X]], [[Grobot X]], and [[Mammoshka X]] (for ''Dream Team''), and [[Durmite X]], [[Wisdurm X]], and [[Dark Satellmite X]] (for ''Bowser's Inside Story'')? You're talking about a discrepancy between the two games' bosses, but they seem to be treated the same way to me. Do you want to merge them, or split them? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | ||
: I'm talking about pages like Antasma X and the Giant Bossses whom are currently merged, unlike those pages you mentioned earlier. [[File:Koopatrol sign.gif]][[User:ExPower|ExPower]][[File:Koopatrol sign.gif]] [[User talk:ExPower|talk]] 08:34, 6 April 2015 (EDT) | : I'm talking about pages like Antasma X and the Giant Bossses whom are currently merged, unlike those pages you mentioned earlier. [[File:Koopatrol sign.gif]][[User:ExPower|ExPower]][[File:Koopatrol sign.gif]] [[User talk:ExPower|talk]] 08:34, 6 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
::In that case, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | ::In that case, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/37#Split_Bowser.27s_Inside_Story.2FDream_Team_X_Bosses_from_the_original_bosses|we already have a proposal]] that allows them to be split. If they haven't been split, it's simply because nobody's gotten around to them yet. Having a second proposal is simply redundant. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} | ||
:::That means that I'm deletibg this proposal. Any admin, feel free to archive this. (Thats how you delete a proposal right?) I will split them tomorrow. (For my timezone it is late and I need some sleep). [[File:Koopatrol sign.gif]][[User:ExPower|ExPower]][[File:Koopatrol sign.gif]] [[User talk:ExPower|talk]] 16:59, 6 April 2015 (EDT) | :::That means that I'm deletibg this proposal. Any admin, feel free to archive this. (Thats how you delete a proposal right?) I will split them tomorrow. (For my timezone it is late and I need some sleep). [[File:Koopatrol sign.gif]][[User:ExPower|ExPower]][[File:Koopatrol sign.gif]] [[User talk:ExPower|talk]] 16:59, 6 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
::::Just so you know, users can cancel and archive their own proposals within the first three days of creation, but I'll still archive it for you: it's no problemo. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ::::Just so you know, users can cancel and archive their own proposals within the first three days of creation, but I'll still archive it for you: it's no problemo. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
---- | |||
===Pie For Everyone (revist redux)=== | ===Pie For Everyone (revist redux)=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|vetoed|After much deliberation, we feel that while it's technically a pass, such a wonderful idea needs to be embraced wholeheartedly by the community before it can be enacted, so until more of you wise up and vote smart, there shall continue to be pie for no one.}} | |||
Over the last year, since we last came together to discuss the often mentioned and regularly requested "pie button" feature, I've been submerging myself into the community to find what you, the users, actually want. More than that, I've been practically pestering my fellow admins on what they actually think of the my suggested pie creation and distribution system, why they felt it wouldn't work, the possible benefits and long term costs of such a system and how we can bring it all to the people. | Over the last year, since we last came together to discuss the often mentioned and regularly requested "pie button" feature, I've been submerging myself into the community to find what you, the users, actually want. More than that, I've been practically pestering my fellow admins on what they actually think of the my suggested pie creation and distribution system, why they felt it wouldn't work, the possible benefits and long term costs of such a system and how we can bring it all to the people. | ||
Line 223: | Line 227: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
This is purely a joke, like the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 4#Pie For Everyone|last]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 39#Pie for Everyone (revisit)|two]] proposals just like them. {{User:Stonehill/signature}} | This is purely a joke, like the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/4#Pie For Everyone|last]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/39#Pie for Everyone (revisit)|two]] proposals just like them. {{User:Stonehill/signature}} | ||
:What made you guess that, eh? {{User:Mario/sig}} 14:52, 1 April 2015 (EDT) | :What made you guess that, eh? {{User:Mario/sig}} 14:52, 1 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
::I think it's for real {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 15:04, 1 April 2015 (EDT) | ::I think it's for real {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 15:04, 1 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
Line 236: | Line 240: | ||
@Baby Luigi: A sprinkles option could easily be worked in. :D<br> | @Baby Luigi: A sprinkles option could easily be worked in. :D<br> | ||
@Kart Player 2011: While pie is the focus of the proposal, it's not the only thing we'll be offering. Check point number one of concerns.<br> | @Kart Player 2011: While pie is the focus of the proposal, it's not the only thing we'll be offering. Check point number one of concerns.<br> | ||
-- [[ | -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 20:18, 1 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
:If it's not worked in and if it's not guaranteed I will not change my vote. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 16:03, 3 April 2015 (EDT) | :If it's not worked in and if it's not guaranteed I will not change my vote. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 16:03, 3 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
Line 247: | Line 251: | ||
===New way to cite YouTube videos=== | ===New way to cite YouTube videos=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-0|accepted}} | |||
There are many YouTube citations in the wiki that are displayed just like an URL or a "[1]" or something like that. I propose we adopt a way to cite YouTube videos in "References" sections, apart from the external website citation covered by the [[MarioWiki:Citations|Citation Policy]]. | |||
There are many YouTube citations in the wiki that are displayed just like an URL or a "[1]" or something like that. I propose we adopt a way to cite YouTube videos in "References" sections, apart from the external website citation covered by the [[MarioWiki: | |||
As {{user|Walkazo}} suggested, it would work as follows: | As {{user|Walkazo}} suggested, it would work as follows: | ||
Line 285: | Line 288: | ||
If it's taken down, shouldn't we add a notification that the link isn't working anymore rather than remove it? {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:07, 3 April 2015 (EDT) | If it's taken down, shouldn't we add a notification that the link isn't working anymore rather than remove it? {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:07, 3 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
:Hmmm, maybe a <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[ | :Hmmm, maybe a <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[wikipedia:Template:Dead link|deadlink]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template ''would'' be a good idea to add, rather than just removing things and replacing them with {{tem|ref needed}} - at least that'd show there ''used'' to be a concrete reason for why we say what we say. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::We probably need that template prior to this proposal since I came across a few dead links in the references, and I didn't want to remove them, but I had no other way of notifying that the link is dead. {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:10, 3 April 2015 (EDT) | ::We probably need that template prior to this proposal since I came across a few dead links in the references, and I didn't want to remove them, but I had no other way of notifying that the link is dead. {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:10, 3 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
Line 294: | Line 297: | ||
::::That's frustrating, but shouldn't you be able to change the channel name? [https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2657964?hl=en Stuff online seems to say you can...] - {{User|Walkazo}} | ::::That's frustrating, but shouldn't you be able to change the channel name? [https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2657964?hl=en Stuff online seems to say you can...] - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
If we have dead videos or region-locking issues, we could always abuse the exemptions we have as an encyclopedia to reupload the videos to the official MarioWiki account. -- [[ | If we have dead videos or region-locking issues, we could always abuse the exemptions we have as an encyclopedia to reupload the videos to the official MarioWiki account. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 20:46, 3 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
Here's my example if it passes: If I want to see the trailer for 200cc in ''[[Mario Kart 8]]'', then it will look like this: | Here's my example if it passes: If I want to see the trailer for 200cc in ''[[Mario Kart 8]]'', then it will look like this: | ||
Line 303: | Line 306: | ||
===Create Template:organization-infobox=== | ===Create Template:organization-infobox=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|no quorum|3-0}} | |||
I've noticed that pages on organizations or groups either don't use infoboxes, or use [[Template:Species infobox]] ([[Snowmad]] and [[Tiki Tak Tribe]] were the pages I first noticed this on), listing species employed by the organization as ''sub-species'', which looks...odd. Besides, we have infoboxes for other things, like [[Template:Location infobox|locations]], organizations aren't any less important. | |||
I've noticed that pages on organizations or groups either don't use infoboxes, or use [[Template: | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | ||
Line 318: | Line 320: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
[[Template:Company | [[Template:Company infobox|We already have one.]]--[[User:Vommack|Vommack]] ([[User talk:Vommack|talk]]) 17:18, 16 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
:That's for RL companies, so it wouldn't be an even worse fit. Although in all honesty, as long as people aren't stupid and only use the "first/latest appearances" and "notable members" headers and not the ones that make no sense, {{tem|species | :That's for RL companies, so it wouldn't be an even worse fit. Although in all honesty, as long as people aren't stupid and only use the "first/latest appearances" and "notable members" headers and not the ones that make no sense, {{tem|species infobox}} works fine. But I also suppose a different template wouldn't hurt, seeing as we also have {{tem|character infobox}}, {{tem|item infobox}}, {{tem|location infobox}} and even {{tem|form infobox}}, [[:Category:Infobox templates|among others]]. But what exactly do you (Binarystep) want as the new template? It's not good enough to just ask us to approve something without even a vague clue about what you have in mind. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 17:23, 16 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
::Oh. Yeah, that makes more sense than what I was thinking. The species infobox still work alright though.--[[User:Vommack|Vommack]] ([[User talk:Vommack|talk]]) 17:24, 16 April 2015 (EDT) | ::Oh. Yeah, that makes more sense than what I was thinking. The species infobox still work alright though.--[[User:Vommack|Vommack]] ([[User talk:Vommack|talk]]) 17:24, 16 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
::Maybe we should use the same template as the one which is used by the [[Koopalings]] for the [[Tiki Tak Tribe]], but for the snowmad, I'm not sure...--{{User:LudwigVon/sig}} 17:27, 16 April 2015 (EDT) | ::Maybe we should use the same template as the one which is used by the [[Koopalings]] for the [[Tiki Tak Tribe]], but for the snowmad, I'm not sure...--{{User:LudwigVon/sig}} 17:27, 16 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
Line 339: | Line 341: | ||
===Merge post-Special Zone enemies or Split Goomba (''SMW:SMA2'') and Pokey (''SMW:SMA2'')=== | ===Merge post-Special Zone enemies or Split Goomba (''SMW:SMA2'') and Pokey (''SMW:SMA2'')=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|5-0|merge}} | |||
It seems a little incongruous that the ''Super Mario World'' enemy skins are split but the ''Super Mario Advance 2''-exclusive ones are not. At the same time, besides the alternate names in the SNES version, there isn't any real sign to consider these different enemies. I think the case for merging is stronger, but I'll leave the option to instead split the rest of them. | It seems a little incongruous that the ''Super Mario World'' enemy skins are split but the ''Super Mario Advance 2''-exclusive ones are not. At the same time, besides the alternate names in the SNES version, there isn't any real sign to consider these different enemies. I think the case for merging is stronger, but I'll leave the option to instead split the rest of them. | ||
Line 369: | Line 370: | ||
===Use "wide image" templates for level maps and the like=== | ===Use "wide image" templates for level maps and the like=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|5-0|create}} | |||
In pages about levels or worlds such as [[World 1 (Super Mario Bros.)|this]], [[Birabuto Kingdom|this]] and [[Tokyo|this]], since the images showing the maps are wide, they are displayed in a very small size, making them hard to see clearly unless you click the image. | In pages about levels or worlds such as [[World 1 (Super Mario Bros.)|this]], [[Birabuto Kingdom|this]] and [[Tokyo|this]], since the images showing the maps are wide, they are displayed in a very small size, making them hard to see clearly unless you click the image. | ||
Well, Wikipedia has a <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[ | Well, Wikipedia has a <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[wikipedia:Template:Wide image|Wide image]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template, which can be useful for cases like these. We could use both the 100% wide and 45% (or another size) wide variations, depending on the case. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}}<br> | ||
Line 388: | Line 388: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Stop Listing Sub-Species on Generic Real-World Species Pages=== | ===Stop Listing Sub-Species on Generic Real-World Species Pages=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|5-0}} | |||
I've noticed that a lot of species pages (like [[Cooligan]] or [[Snaps]] to give two examples) are listed as "sub-species" of generic real-world species (e.g. [[Bee]], [[Crab]], [[Penguin]]), instead of being labeled independent species. At first, this makes sense, as they're clearly based on said species, but if you consider that we don't call Koopas a sub-species of [[Turtle]] or Goombas a sub-species of [[Mushroom]], it starts to look inconsistent. I've also noticed the reverse happening, where real-world species articles have long sub-species sections consisting of every species that resembles it, even though that is ''literally not what "sub-species"/"species origin" means at all''. While I'm not saying we should delete all real-world species pages (though the ones that consist of "background thing what looks like species" should probably be removed), I don't think we should list species from the games as being ''directly related to them'', as there's a difference between a ''real-life inspiration'' and an ''in-universe relation''. | I've noticed that a lot of species pages (like [[Cooligan]] or [[Snaps]] to give two examples) are listed as "sub-species" of generic real-world species (e.g. [[Bee]], [[Crab]], [[Penguin]]), instead of being labeled independent species. At first, this makes sense, as they're clearly based on said species, but if you consider that we don't call Koopas a sub-species of [[Turtle]] or Goombas a sub-species of [[Mushroom]], it starts to look inconsistent. I've also noticed the reverse happening, where real-world species articles have long sub-species sections consisting of every species that resembles it, even though that is ''literally not what "sub-species"/"species origin" means at all''. While I'm not saying we should delete all real-world species pages (though the ones that consist of "background thing what looks like species" should probably be removed), I don't think we should list species from the games as being ''directly related to them'', as there's a difference between a ''real-life inspiration'' and an ''in-universe relation''. | ||
Line 416: | Line 414: | ||
===Create Template:Organization-infobox=== | ===Create Template:Organization-infobox=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-0|create}} | |||
I've noticed that pages on organizations or groups either don't use infoboxes, or use [[Template:Species infobox]] ([[Snowmad]] and [[Tiki Tak Tribe]] were the pages I first noticed this on), listing species employed by the organization as sub-species, which looks...odd. Besides, we have infoboxes for other things, like [[Template:Location infobox|locations]], organizations aren't any less important. The last proposal was a vote short of passing, so I'm reposting this to get more attention. | |||
I've noticed that pages on organizations or groups either don't use infoboxes, or use [[Template: | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | ||
Line 444: | Line 441: | ||
===Create Template:Pmitembox=== | ===Create Template:Pmitembox=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-4|Don't create}} | |||
I've noticed we're using [[Template:PM recipe infobox]] for ''Paper Mario'' series items, which leads to saying things like that Repel Gel or Yellow Berries are "Made by Tayce T.", which looks weird. Besides, a ''Paper Mario'' item infobox would give us a convenient place to list the non-HP/FP-related effects of some items, maybe even what enemies drop them, etc. | |||
I've noticed we're using [[Template: | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | ||
Line 462: | Line 458: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Not voting -yet- but you know that the "Made by" parameter is optional. I would prefer if we used that Recipe- | Not voting -yet- but you know that the "Made by" parameter is optional. I would prefer if we used that Recipe-infobox template for all the items in the PM series with a few more tweaks (ignore the name of the template), like adding a description parameter. And potentially adding a "Gotten from" (seriously don't have a clue on what to name this, as this should fit both cases: the item being dropped by an enemy, or being bought from a shop) as another parameter. What I am getting at is that instead of a new template -especially because it is already used in many non-recipes items-, we can use the existing template but with a few modifications (again, ignore the name of the template.) If you want to know how it would look like, I can make a draft. But again, not all the information should be in the infobox, some can be left to the article.--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 19:50, 25 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
:Even another look into this, makes me feel that dropped by, or bought from is unnecessary. In extreme cases, he article should have covered that. Many Items can be dropped, or bought from various enemies or shops respectively. This could become a clutter if every single instance is put into the infobox, and if not, and simply listed as "Various", it becomes very unneeded. So, I think {{tem| | :Even another look into this, makes me feel that dropped by, or bought from is unnecessary. In extreme cases, he article should have covered that. Many Items can be dropped, or bought from various enemies or shops respectively. This could become a clutter if every single instance is put into the infobox, and if not, and simply listed as "Various", it becomes very unneeded. So, I think {{tem|PM recipe infobox}}, should be used instead for this purpose, with little to no modifications. (Maybe only the description)--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 08:44, 28 April 2015 (EDT) | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Make Template:Questionable-source=== | ===Make Template:Questionable-source=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|no quorum|1-1}} | |||
I've noticed a lot of pages with names that are ''technically'' sourced, but use unreliable sources like the Super Mario Daijiten (see: Most Wario Land enemies/bosses). Since putting a citation and marking it with ref needed could look confusing, my solution is an easy-to-understand template at the top of the page, something like [[User:Binarystep/sandbox#Questionable-source|this]]. | |||
I've noticed a lot of pages with names that are ''technically'' sourced, but use unreliable sources like the Super Mario Daijiten (see: Most Wario Land enemies/bosses). Since putting a citation and marking it with | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | ||
Line 480: | Line 475: | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - It would be better to just have something like [[ | #{{User|Walkazo}} - It would be better to just have something like [[wikipedia:Template:Better source|Wikipedia's "better source" template]] to flag iffy refs: then it could be used for situations besides just the ones affecting article titles, like how the new {{tem|page needed}} template can be used for too-vague print refs. | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
I have another idea for the template that says something to the effect of "Some of the sources cited on this page are unreliable, replace them with better ones if possible", would that be better? [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 15:54, 4 May 2015 (EDT) | I have another idea for the template that says something to the effect of "Some of the sources cited on this page are unreliable, replace them with better ones if possible", would that be better? [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 15:54, 4 May 2015 (EDT) | ||
:Like a {{tem|Rewrite}}-style notice template? That idea has a bit more merit, but I feel like it's better just sticking with the {{tem| | :Like a {{tem|Rewrite}}-style notice template? That idea has a bit more merit, but I feel like it's better just sticking with the {{tem|ref needed}} system flagging the specific problems: no need to advertise twice over that we suck at citing our sources for the most part. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::I suppose, but | ::I suppose, but ref needed implies a lack of a source, while this is more "better source needed". [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 16:36, 7 May 2015 (EDT) | ||
:::Like I said in my vote, we should just make more templates like | :::Like I said in my vote, we should just make more templates like ref needed (rather than banner notice templates) for flagging both less-than-ideal sources and broken links, hence "ref needed ''system''". - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::::Ah, alright then. [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 16:55, 7 May 2015 (EDT) | ::::Ah, alright then. [[User:Binarystep|Binarystep]] ([[User talk:Binarystep|talk]]) 16:55, 7 May 2015 (EDT) | ||
Line 492: | Line 487: | ||
===Stop Using the "Super Mario Daijiten" as a Source=== | ===Stop Using the "Super Mario Daijiten" as a Source=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-5|keep}} | |||
Let me preface this by saying that the "Super Mario Daijiten (Big Dictionary)" has proved to be correct on [[Talk:Wario_Land_4#Names_of_the_Enemies|some]] [http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=27067.msg1261245#msg1261245 other] [[User_talk:Time_Turner/Archive_7#Sources_2|occasions]] in the past. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day. | Let me preface this by saying that the "Super Mario Daijiten (Big Dictionary)" has proved to be correct on [[Talk:Wario_Land_4#Names_of_the_Enemies|some]] [http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=27067.msg1261245#msg1261245 other] [[User_talk:Time_Turner/Archive_7#Sources_2|occasions]] in the past. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day. | ||
Line 509: | Line 503: | ||
====Do not remove it==== | ====Do not remove it==== | ||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - It would be a waste to wholesale dismiss the Daijitan as a resource and potentially move countless pages away from legitimate names to pure conjecture (and scrap dozens if not hundreds more {{tem| | #{{User|Walkazo}} - It would be a waste to wholesale dismiss the Daijitan as a resource and potentially move countless pages away from legitimate names to pure conjecture (and scrap dozens if not hundreds more {{tem|foreign names}} entries) just because it's been wrong a few times. We're no better than them when it comes to making periodic mistakes, rampant eschewing of citations, and the occasional rogue user just making stuff up: we might as well tell people to ignore us as a resource too. It would be better to simply be transparent by citing them whenever we use them and marking those citations as less-than-ideal with [[wikipedia:Template:Better source|a "better source" template]], the same as we would with Wikipedia references or any other iffy, yet better-than-nothing references. The anti-Japanese arguments are meaningless: we will ''always'' have Japanese and other non-English names to deal with, mixed in with the made-up English names (and/or in the foreignname templates). Redirects get around the macrons without any grief for searchers or editors who don't want to bother copy and paste a macron from somewhere else for the link, and [[MarioWiki:Japanese#Subjects_with_Japanese_names|policy actually says redirects ''should'' be created for that reason]]: any macron-bearing pagename ''without'' a redirect is an oversight. | ||
#{{User|Binarystep}} Changing my vote, per Walkazo. Removing names that are ''possibly'' correct and replacing them with names we made up is a horrible idea. | #{{User|Binarystep}} Changing my vote, per Walkazo. Removing names that are ''possibly'' correct and replacing them with names we made up is a horrible idea. | ||
#{{User|1337star}} Per all. | #{{User|1337star}} Per all. | ||
Line 521: | Line 515: | ||
Just noting here that I retracted my vote in favor of removing it. I agree with Walkazo's argument enough to change my mind, but not enough to fully cast a vote either direction now, as it hinges on a type of template that we currently (to my knowledge, at least) do not employ. -- [[User:1337star|1337star]] <sup>([[User talk:1337star|Mailbox SP]])</sup> 14:51, 11 May 2015 (EDT) | Just noting here that I retracted my vote in favor of removing it. I agree with Walkazo's argument enough to change my mind, but not enough to fully cast a vote either direction now, as it hinges on a type of template that we currently (to my knowledge, at least) do not employ. -- [[User:1337star|1337star]] <sup>([[User talk:1337star|Mailbox SP]])</sup> 14:51, 11 May 2015 (EDT) | ||
:[[Template: | :[[Template:better source|The template exists now]], for the record. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::Neat. -- [[User:1337star|1337star]] <sup>([[User talk:1337star|Mailbox SP]])</sup> 16:28, 13 May 2015 (EDT) | ::Neat. -- [[User:1337star|1337star]] <sup>([[User talk:1337star|Mailbox SP]])</sup> 16:28, 13 May 2015 (EDT) | ||
Line 528: | Line 522: | ||
===Stop using the "''Names in other languages''" on this wiki=== | ===Stop using the "''Names in other languages''" on this wiki=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|cancelled}} | |||
First of all, I don't think the "''Names in other languages''" is very useful. It just lists the names in different languages. Second of all, you can change the language on the wiki (I've done it before). And third of all, a lot of users just focus on this section of every article. What I think is the "''Names in other languages''" should only be on articles of games. Why can't you just change the language on the wiki and see everything in that language? I think it should'nt be on articles that are subjects to games, I think it should only be on articles on games (''Mario Kart 8'', ''Paper Mario'', etc.) | First of all, I don't think the "''Names in other languages''" is very useful. It just lists the names in different languages. Second of all, you can change the language on the wiki (I've done it before). And third of all, a lot of users just focus on this section of every article. What I think is the "''Names in other languages''" should only be on articles of games. Why can't you just change the language on the wiki and see everything in that language? I think it should'nt be on articles that are subjects to games, I think it should only be on articles on games (''Mario Kart 8'', ''Paper Mario'', etc.) | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|ShyGuy8}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|ShyGuy8}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': June 15, 2015, 23:59 | '''Proposed Deadline''': June 15, 2015, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' June 8, 2015, 17:58 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 551: | Line 545: | ||
[[User:ShyGuy8|<span style="font:serif;color:#3CF">ShyGuy8</span>]] | [[User:ShyGuy8|<span style="font:serif;color:#3CF">ShyGuy8</span>]] | ||
([[User talk:Jacob Lott|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ShyGuy8|contribs]]) | ([[User talk:Jacob Lott|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ShyGuy8|contribs]]) | ||
[[File: | [[File:MP9 Shy Guy Artwork.png|40px]] 00:39, 8 June 2015 (EDT) | ||
:You can delete the proposal if you want; just remember to archive it. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :You can delete the proposal if you want; just remember to archive it. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
Line 558: | Line 552: | ||
===Stop using the term "sub-species" on the wiki=== | ===Stop using the term "sub-species" on the wiki=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|14-0}} | |||
For pretty much the wiki's entire run, "sub-species" (or "subspecies") has been used as shorthand to denote species like [[Gloomba]] or [[Fire Bro]] from the more basic species they're derived from (i.e. [[Goomba]] and [[Hammer Bro]]), but it's high time we put and end to it, and here's why: | For pretty much the wiki's entire run, "sub-species" (or "subspecies") has been used as shorthand to denote species like [[Gloomba]] or [[Fire Bro]] from the more basic species they're derived from (i.e. [[Goomba]] and [[Hammer Bro]]), but it's high time we put and end to it, and here's why: | ||
Line 571: | Line 564: | ||
*Remove all occurrences of "subspecies", "sub-species" or "sub species" from the articles. Instead, everything should be called plain "species", and described informally as being based on and/or related to other species with words like "type", "variety", "kind", etc. | *Remove all occurrences of "subspecies", "sub-species" or "sub species" from the articles. Instead, everything should be called plain "species", and described informally as being based on and/or related to other species with words like "type", "variety", "kind", etc. | ||
*Delete [[:Category:Sub-Species]], [[:Category:Yoshi Sub-Species]], [[:Category:Donkey Kong Sub-Species]] and [[:Category:Wario Sub-Species]]. The equivalent "Species" categories exist [[:Category:Species|for]] [[:Category:Yoshi Species|all]] [[:Category:Donkey Kong Species|four]] [[:Category:Wario Species|cases]], but ideally, ''game-specific'' "Species" categories should be used to replace everything (but that's another kettle of fish altogether). | *Delete [[:Category:Sub-Species]], [[:Category:Yoshi Sub-Species]], [[:Category:Donkey Kong Sub-Species]] and [[:Category:Wario Sub-Species]]. The equivalent "Species" categories exist [[:Category:Species|for]] [[:Category:Yoshi Species|all]] [[:Category:Donkey Kong Species|four]] [[:Category:Wario Species|cases]], but ideally, ''game-specific'' "Species" categories should be used to replace everything (but that's another kettle of fish altogether). | ||
*Replace the "sub_species" variable in {{tem| | *Replace the "sub_species" variable in {{tem|species infobox}} with "derived_species". At the same time, "species_origin" should be replaced with "parent_species", for the sake of uniformity (there's already a "related species" variable for similar species not directly based on or providing the basis for the subject in question) and killing two birds with one stone since we'll have to fix the infoboxes anyway; this second change is from [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/42#Set_Clear_Rules_as_to_What_.22Species_Origin.22_Means|this cancelled proposal]] and its [[mb:threads/34578|corresponding forum thread]] (both of which debate the use of "subspecies"). | ||
*Add "subspecies" to [[MarioWiki:Good_Writing#Frequently_misused_terms|the list of frequently misused terms]]. | *Add "subspecies" to [[MarioWiki:Good_Writing#Frequently_misused_terms|the list of frequently misused terms]]. | ||
Line 608: | Line 601: | ||
===Change the main series to include Super Mario Land 1 and 2=== | ===Change the main series to include Super Mario Land 1 and 2=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-9}} | |||
For years it has been debated whether Nintendo considered the Super Mario Land games apart of the main Mario series or not. Super Mario Wiki, and rightfully so, chose that the Super Mario Land games are not apart of the main Mario series but rather considered its own series most likely because of the Nintendo sources below. | For years it has been debated whether Nintendo considered the Super Mario Land games apart of the main Mario series or not. Super Mario Wiki, and rightfully so, chose that the Super Mario Land games are not apart of the main Mario series but rather considered its own series most likely because of the Nintendo sources below. | ||
Line 858: | Line 850: | ||
:''There is no reason you should feel guilty about this, honestly, but you should consider it as a learning experience.'' If I could offer some advice on this point, go read the proposal archives, both community proposals and talk page proposals. You'll start to see that, as the years have past and people have come and gone, everyone who is likely to vote has developed a particular response to particular topics and a voting style thereof. A proposal, especially one that is going to have far reaching implications, has to be tailored in such a way that you're going to get everyone reading to the end and productively thinking about the topic, otherwise you'll be fighting the proposal process itself. Using this one as an example, I knew two sentences in who of the usual voters were going to oppose because I have a feel for the people as well as the topic. This isn't to imply that you don't (or can't) have an understanding of our community, just that actively editing within it and simply reading along are going to yield different perspectives. Don't be discouraged though, this understanding won't be gained over night and I feel you're well on your way to becoming a valuable editor. | :''There is no reason you should feel guilty about this, honestly, but you should consider it as a learning experience.'' If I could offer some advice on this point, go read the proposal archives, both community proposals and talk page proposals. You'll start to see that, as the years have past and people have come and gone, everyone who is likely to vote has developed a particular response to particular topics and a voting style thereof. A proposal, especially one that is going to have far reaching implications, has to be tailored in such a way that you're going to get everyone reading to the end and productively thinking about the topic, otherwise you'll be fighting the proposal process itself. Using this one as an example, I knew two sentences in who of the usual voters were going to oppose because I have a feel for the people as well as the topic. This isn't to imply that you don't (or can't) have an understanding of our community, just that actively editing within it and simply reading along are going to yield different perspectives. Don't be discouraged though, this understanding won't be gained over night and I feel you're well on your way to becoming a valuable editor. | ||
:I swear I'm going to organize my thoughts more on the proposal system one of these days. Perhaps an essay. -- [[ | :I swear I'm going to organize my thoughts more on the proposal system one of these days. Perhaps an essay. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 03:57, 12 June 2015 (EDT) | ||
what the fuck happened here --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 19:20, 9 June 2015 (EDT) | what the fuck happened here --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 19:20, 9 June 2015 (EDT) | ||
Line 867: | Line 859: | ||
===Ban the term beta<nowiki>*</nowiki> and rename pages in the Beta namespace=== | ===Ban the term beta<nowiki>*</nowiki> and rename pages in the Beta namespace=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0}} | |||
[http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/36#Correct_use_of_the_term_.22Beta.22 There was a proposal] suggesting to change the name of the "beta elements" page to something more accurate. Despite being close to succeeding, it was vetoed by the admins with the reason being that "it's not meant to be taken literally" and "it works". | |||
[http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | |||
Except. no. The suggestion was perfectly cogent, the rationale provided for the veto was bad and the proposal should never have been reversed. Here's why | Except. no. The suggestion was perfectly cogent, the rationale provided for the veto was bad and the proposal should never have been reversed. Here's why | ||
Line 893: | Line 884: | ||
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} "Beta" probably could be validated ''if'' it was actual developer terminology that refers to a specific point of development or build, but since Nintendo doesn't and won't do that publicly, I am completely okay with Beta banning for those reasons. Per proposal. | #{{User|LinkTheLefty}} "Beta" probably could be validated ''if'' it was actual developer terminology that refers to a specific point of development or build, but since Nintendo doesn't and won't do that publicly, I am completely okay with Beta banning for those reasons. Per proposal. | ||
#{{User|PowerKamek}}I am okay with this. Beta is a bad term and I think that term may be better. It's a little long, but I like it. Per [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]. | #{{User|PowerKamek}}I am okay with this. Beta is a bad term and I think that term may be better. It's a little long, but I like it. Per [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]. | ||
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} Okay, I'll let it out: I felt cheated when I saw that veto and I agree that it should've never happened, and ''it should not happen again''. This poorly-handled veto deserves ''all'' the criticism it gets for using administrative powers to shut down legit debate. Anyhow, nonstaff user's opinions aside, by keeping the term "beta" as "a-okay", we're contradicting our own policy, the [[MarioWiki:Good | #{{User|Bazooka Mario}} Okay, I'll let it out: I felt cheated when I saw that veto and I agree that it should've never happened, and ''it should not happen again''. This poorly-handled veto deserves ''all'' the criticism it gets for using administrative powers to shut down legit debate. Anyhow, nonstaff user's opinions aside, by keeping the term "beta" as "a-okay", we're contradicting our own policy, the [[MarioWiki:Good writing#Frequently misused terms|Good writing's frequently misused terms]]. This policy will cause confusion for newer users by saying it's not okay to use "beta" while in the same time, using that term in the same way. Now, I'm feeling confident to lambast the staff team's reasoning and decision, hear me out. This is the reasoning: ''"'Beta' was never meant to be taken literally as the specific beta version, but as a convenient umbrella term synonymous with 'pre-release'. It works perfectly well as-is; there is no need to change the name.''" This reasoning has several problems. "It's never meant to be taken literally" is dodging the basic argument, that "the terminology has never been a problem in the first place" when that there was an entire proposal about it that garnered massive support (only to be shut down by a handful of people) about the usage of that term. It doesn't matter if we "intended" the term to be "taken literally"; this term certainly confuses, misleads, and misinforms our readers, just as how "subspecies", apparently, is never meant to be taken literally in this wiki. The usage of "beta" as a convenient umbrella term ''is'' the entire problem with that forsaken word. We have a much better umbrella term "pre-release and unused elements" that is not only far superior, but does not flirt with the line into pedantry. *breathes* Okay, pardon my bitter tone, I'm still a bit miffed over that, but I support this proposal as much as the subspecies eradication proposal. They're both about precise and accurate word usage and so the reasoning behind the two should be reasonably similar. | ||
#{{User|Gabumon}} Glowsquid's reasoning makes sense and the proposed change sounds agreeable. | #{{User|Gabumon}} Glowsquid's reasoning makes sense and the proposed change sounds agreeable. | ||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} There's a fine line of difference between being "pedantic" and being "outright wrong" when it comes to terminology, and this clearly falls in the latter case by the reasoning Glowsquid provided. Per Glowsquid and Mario, they've already stated what I was going to say. | #{{User|Baby Luigi}} There's a fine line of difference between being "pedantic" and being "outright wrong" when it comes to terminology, and this clearly falls in the latter case by the reasoning Glowsquid provided. Per Glowsquid and Mario, they've already stated what I was going to say. | ||
Line 907: | Line 898: | ||
:That's true. :) However, I feel like if ''I'' attempted a redux like, it might get vetoed. Oh well, I guess you can't win by doing nothing. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:51, 8 June 2015 (EDT) | :That's true. :) However, I feel like if ''I'' attempted a redux like, it might get vetoed. Oh well, I guess you can't win by doing nothing. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:51, 8 June 2015 (EDT) | ||
@Glowsquid, you should probably correct your support header, "prelease" to "prerelease" {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 15:17, 8 June 2015 (EDT) | @Glowsquid, you should probably correct your support header, "prelease" to "prerelease" {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 15:17, 8 June 2015 (EDT) | ||
:It makes for a terrible pun though. | :It makes for a terrible pun though. https://www.marioboards.com/Smileys/default/dk.gif {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT) | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Use explanation text to explain pronouns and whatnot in quotes=== | ===Use explanation text to explain pronouns and whatnot in quotes=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-7}} | |||
Let's take a look, for example, in [[List of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door quotes#TEC-XX|this section of the List of ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' quotes]]. I see that, since [[Princess Peach]] is referenced many times, there are many "you"s linking to her article, and this is ''just'' to indicate that she is the one being referenced. But it doesn't seem right to use links for this purpose, because for what I know they are supposed to support navigation. Plus, since regular articles usually use only one link to some subject (on the first mention), it would be nice to do the same with quotes. | Let's take a look, for example, in [[List of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door quotes#TEC-XX|this section of the List of ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' quotes]]. I see that, since [[Princess Peach]] is referenced many times, there are many "you"s linking to her article, and this is ''just'' to indicate that she is the one being referenced. But it doesn't seem right to use links for this purpose, because for what I know they are supposed to support navigation. Plus, since regular articles usually use only one link to some subject (on the first mention), it would be nice to do the same with quotes. | ||
So, I propose that, whenever a subject must be identified in a quote (except on the first mention), we use | So, I propose that, whenever a subject must be identified in a quote (except on the first mention), we use {{hover|This kind of explanation|Subject}}<noinclude> to identify it. | ||
So, this quote from ''[[Super Paper Mario]]'': | So, this quote from ''[[Super Paper Mario]]'': | ||
Line 922: | Line 912: | ||
Would become: | Would become: | ||
*"''If | *"''If {{hover|he|Merlon}}<noinclude> thinks {{hover|you|Mario}}<noinclude> are the hero, {{hover|you|Mario}}<noinclude> probably are. I think...''" | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}}<br> | ||
Line 935: | Line 925: | ||
#{{User|PowerKamek}} That would make sense, but the problem is that the links are showing what characters they mean. In the game, it doesn't show the characters names, but since this is the Mario Wiki, it has more information on everything. I would say, "per all". | #{{User|PowerKamek}} That would make sense, but the problem is that the links are showing what characters they mean. In the game, it doesn't show the characters names, but since this is the Mario Wiki, it has more information on everything. I would say, "per all". | ||
#{{User|Boo4761}} People would like to know what characters the quote is referring to. Per all. | #{{User|Boo4761}} People would like to know what characters the quote is referring to. Per all. | ||
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} I wouldn't support outright banning the span stuff, but there's no point in using it when it's a pain to implement it (I use it for [[ | #{{User|Bazooka Mario}} I wouldn't support outright banning the span stuff, but there's no point in using it when it's a pain to implement it (I use it for [[wikipedia:Furigana|furigana]] inputting). I understand how this alternative is attractive rather than redundant links, but I'd stick with the simpler brackets. | ||
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} It's literally almost the same thing, except with more wikicode. I don't really see the point of this. | #{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} It's literally almost the same thing, except with more wikicode. I don't really see the point of this. | ||
#{{User|Andymii}} While I sort of disagree with the other people and believe this can be a great timesaver, it unfortunately can also be very confusing. Assuming you did not know to hover over the text (which is probably going to be most people), then, well... it just doesn't work anymore, does it? | #{{User|Andymii}} While I sort of disagree with the other people and believe this can be a great timesaver, it unfortunately can also be very confusing. Assuming you did not know to hover over the text (which is probably going to be most people), then, well... it just doesn't work anymore, does it? | ||
Line 952: | Line 942: | ||
::Yeah, it's mostly about common sense, though, since manual of style is a guideline anyway. If the linking looks excessive on lists, feel free to remove them. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 12:54, 13 June 2015 (EDT) | ::Yeah, it's mostly about common sense, though, since manual of style is a guideline anyway. If the linking looks excessive on lists, feel free to remove them. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 12:54, 13 June 2015 (EDT) | ||
:::The point I was trying to make is: The fact that the rules themselves acknowledge links like these as clutter lends validity to complaints about the same clutter being allowed in lists. Claims of "this is not a problem" do not hold water because the rules definitely recognize it as a problem in other parts of the wiki already. It is more accurate to say "this is kind of a problem, but we really haven't found an efficient alternative yet". This is what I think this proposal is trying to do: Find an alternative. Whether it is efficient enough is up to everyone's personal judgment, but the core thought behind it is perfectly valid. - {{User:Edofenrir/sig}} 03:13, 14 June 2015 (EDT) | :::The point I was trying to make is: The fact that the rules themselves acknowledge links like these as clutter lends validity to complaints about the same clutter being allowed in lists. Claims of "this is not a problem" do not hold water because the rules definitely recognize it as a problem in other parts of the wiki already. It is more accurate to say "this is kind of a problem, but we really haven't found an efficient alternative yet". This is what I think this proposal is trying to do: Find an alternative. Whether it is efficient enough is up to everyone's personal judgment, but the core thought behind it is perfectly valid. - {{User:Edofenrir/sig}} 03:13, 14 June 2015 (EDT) | ||
---- | |||
===Change the proposal system=== | ===Change the proposal system=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
I have heard quite a few users describe the proposal system as "''flawed''", particularly with the voting. I was thinking that we could change it so that, instead of a majority opinion based on votes, we could create a system where any user can post a ''reason'', not a vote, as to why they think that they should have their changes done. Then, after the 1 or two week deadline, a proposal team could get together and decide the verdict on the matter. For instance, on this proposal, there would be a group of users giving arguments for me, and there would also be, naturally, a group of users against me. But what makes this different is that there would be no "''per all''"s to support the case without a proper reason. | I have heard quite a few users describe the proposal system as "''flawed''", particularly with the voting. I was thinking that we could change it so that, instead of a majority opinion based on votes, we could create a system where any user can post a ''reason'', not a vote, as to why they think that they should have their changes done. Then, after the 1 or two week deadline, a proposal team could get together and decide the verdict on the matter. For instance, on this proposal, there would be a group of users giving arguments for me, and there would also be, naturally, a group of users against me. But what makes this different is that there would be no "''per all''"s to support the case without a proper reason. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Pyro Guy}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Pyro Guy}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': Saturday 27th June, 2015 at 29:59. | '''Proposed Deadline''': Saturday 27th June, 2015 at 29:59.<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' June 20, 2015, 18:14 GMT | |||
====Change the system==== | ====Change the system==== | ||
Line 979: | Line 971: | ||
===Remove four proposal rules=== | ===Remove four proposal rules=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|vetoed|The admins have the final say in proposal procedures and there is no way we're getting rid of these basic, well-thought-out rules: they all have a purpose, and there will be problems without them.}} | |||
Four rules for a proposal seem unneccessary and I think they should be removed. Here are the four rules to keep or remove. | Four rules for a proposal seem unneccessary and I think they should be removed. Here are the four rules to keep or remove. | ||
Line 993: | Line 983: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': June 26, 2015, 23:59 GMT. | '''Proposed Deadline''': June 26, 2015, 23:59 GMT.<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' June 21, 2015, 17:07 GMT | |||
====Remove one rule and keep three==== | ====Remove one rule and keep three==== | ||
Line 1,038: | Line 1,029: | ||
@Ghost Jam: Bazooka Mario is female. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 15:04, 20 June 2015 (EDT) | @Ghost Jam: Bazooka Mario is female. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 15:04, 20 June 2015 (EDT) | ||
:No one every tells me anything. :/ -- [[ | :No one every tells me anything. :/ -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 08:12, 21 June 2015 (EDT) | ||
---- | ---- |
Latest revision as of 09:33, September 16, 2022
Stricter Guidelines for "References to Other Games" and "References in Later Games" Sectionscanceled by proposer
Proposer: Binarystep (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsSo what ideas do you have with stricter guidelines? Pease give a few examples. Andymii (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2015 (EDT)
This isn't a Writing Guideline proposal so I moved to to "Changes" for now, but it should actually be removed anyway because what you want already exists, having been proposed and accepted via an October 2013 WG Proposal (after a vague proposal like this one was voted down as being useless, I might add). But like so many quality control measures around here, people don't know about it and the "references to other games" sections have become crap-filled again. While another proposal is unnecessary, making a collaboration thread on the forums would probably be a good idea to try and fix this issue across the wiki. - Walkazo (talk) I definitely think stuff like Shy Guys, Pokeys, Monty Moles etc. are no longer references to their debut games because they have appeared so many times. Perhaps the limit should be five times, and if it reappears again it shouldn't be a reference to the debut anymore? -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 11:53, 25 March 2015 (EDT)
Beyond that, the idea is that people should use common sense to tell the difference between recurring enemies or whatever and conscientious callbacks. Of course, many editors don't conduct themselves so selectively and just dump every possible recurrence or coincidence into the Ref and Trivia sections. Just because they do doesn't mean they should, however, and other users are already well within their rights to step in and removing all the non-references. I say again: this proposal is unnecessary. - Walkazo (talk) Toadbrigade5, I think you misunderstood the proposal, it's not saying not to mention arc numbers and things like that on the wiki, it's saying that "references" like "Shy Guys appearing for the millionth time is a reference to Super Mario Bros. 2", "The number 256 appearing at all anywhere for any reason is a direct Super Paper Mario reference" or "Mentioning flipped-over turtles is a reference to the original Mario Bros." are not actually references to specific games. Binarystep (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2015 (EDT) Okay, can this be removed since the guideline already exists? Binarystep (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (EDT) Set Clear Rules as to What "Species Origin" Meanscanceled by proposer Proposer: Binarystep (talk) Make a Clear Definition of What "Species Origin" is For
Remove the Section Altogether
Rename Section
Leave As IsCommentsThis is partly due to the over use of sub-species with little forethought into how it actually applies to subjects broadly or if it's even practical to call something that looks slightly different than something otherwise identical a "subset of the species. If we're being literal with the term, there should only be a handful of subspecies and it would flow counter to how we generally list things (as an example, a Paragoomba wouldn't be a subspecies of Goomba, as the wings denote an evolutionary advancement and both species are frequently found in the same regions, whereas Galoomba would be more of regional cousin). However, we use the term in such away that French Canadian's are a subspecies of both Canadians and the French. Sadly, there probably isn't easy or adequate way to solve this issue this late into the game. And let's all give a big hand to the idiot who first added the term on a whim to the wiki! I'm such a damn asset, aren't I! What the hell were we talking about again? -- Ghost Jam 03:23, 27 March 2015 (EDT)
Not really important, but here are some things I found on that section:
Binarystep (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2015 (EDT) My idea of a "clear definition" is basically obvious, confirmed subspecies only, like how it was originally used before people felt the need to add it to everything, not things that just look kind of similar or are that type of thing. It also means broad terms like "Bee", "Pig", etc. would not be allowed under that section, for the same reason why Goombas aren't a subspecies of Mushroom or something. To be honest, I think a lot of problems would be fixed if it was renamed to "Subspecies Of", which is a lot more clear than "Species Origin". In fact, I'll change my vote. Binarystep (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2015 (EDT)
You know, I'm going to withdraw this, since it doesn't really need a proposal, I'll try my luck with a forum thread instead. Binarystep (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2015 (EDT)
Merge the X bosses from Mario & Luigi: Dream Teamcanceled by proposer Proposer: ExPower (talk) MergeSerparate the bosses into sub-pages
Do nothingCommentsFor clarification, are you referring to pages like Big Massif X, Grobot X, and Mammoshka X (for Dream Team), and Durmite X, Wisdurm X, and Dark Satellmite X (for Bowser's Inside Story)? You're talking about a discrepancy between the two games' bosses, but they seem to be treated the same way to me. Do you want to merge them, or split them? Hello, I'm Time Turner.
Pie For Everyone (revist redux)vetoed by the administrators Taking all the feedback into account and reviewing the results of the past proposals, here are what I have identified as the key concerns:
I've crunched the numbers, looked over our resources and I think I've found a solution for all of these points that I hope will quill any further concerns. Now, before we get into this, let's be clear that this is an early draft of ideas for a work in progress. Positive feedback would be the most helpful in rearing the project to it's full potential. Here is what has been carried over from the previous two proposals, with edits to match current ideas:
And to the concerns listed above: 1. I don't think it would be that much of an issue to expand out selection to cover other pastries, perhaps even instituting a "pay for custom" type system in case someone wants something we either don't offer by default or just never thought to add to the list. For this tentative list, it has been suggested that we offer:
This list is likely to change as the project matures and actual prices are worked out, but I feel this is a good start. 2. To the point of difficulty, I fully accept that the "pie haxoring" method was a bad idea, both for reasons of assuming wiki syntax is stable enough to do anything beyond confusing new editors and for the need to trust Wayoshi to do anything that would be classified as "not ticking off half the wiki staff" (paraphrasing). I have since Rube Goldberg'd a new creation and delivery system that I think makes full use of our resources while also not overtaxing our administrative team.
3 & 4. For both the naysayers and generally negative people in the community, I say the following: I hear you. I hear your complaints, your detraction's and your concerns. Perhaps we don't see eye to eye, but I am here for you. I've been here for you for years and I know how to help you fully understand the untapped potential pie presents for us. Out in NIWA square (so that our brother and sister wiki's can make use of it as well), I am having a small, four foot high by four foot wide pole installed. This part is rather complicated and full of jargon, but a sign will be installed next to said pole so that those who are otherwise concerned with how "dumb" this idea is can present their opinion via an open forum method I'm calling the "sit and spin".
My friends, my family, let me be clear. This is no vanity project. I really feel that the power presented by a full stomach will allow us to reach higher than ever before, to become one of the most powerful wiki's on the internet and to truly reward those among us honestly deserve it. I ask you to think of your fellow editors when voting. I ask you to think of what you want out of the wiki when voting. I ask you to think....of pie. Proposer: Ghost Jam (talk) Pie For Everyone
Pie For No One
CommentsThis is purely a joke, like the last two proposals just like them. STONE-HILL!!! At last, the rock fell.
Chocolate Mario's head looks delicious, by the way. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:22, 1 April 2015 (EDT) @Super-Yoshi: It is my understanding that pie is vindictive and doesn't like being voted against. Just saying.
As an add-on to this proposal, I suggest we round up all the non-patriots who oppose this proposal, and therefore the growth of the wiki, and ban/execute them. --Vommack (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
New way to cite YouTube videosaccepted 10-0 As Walkazo (talk) suggested, it would work as follows:
Example:
Proposer: Mr. Ice Bro. (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsGood idea to set a specific standard for YouTube videos, and suggesting we include the channel and post date, although for consistency, I think the overall citation should be a bit more in line to our current desired format for websites:
Also, if a video's taken down, it's of no more use to us and needs to be replaced as a citation. If it's region-blocked, that might be worth noting before the retrieval date, although even then, it'd be more ideal to find a reference everyone can see. - Walkazo (talk)
If it's taken down, shouldn't we add a notification that the link isn't working anymore rather than remove it? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:07, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
What if I don't want to have a channel name displayed as a reference on this wiki? Because I made one reference where I directly recorded the damn thing and it has my name as a channel name in it. Ray Trace(T|C) 16:06, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
If we have dead videos or region-locking issues, we could always abuse the exemptions we have as an encyclopedia to reupload the videos to the official MarioWiki account. -- Ghost Jam 20:46, 3 April 2015 (EDT) Here's my example if it passes: If I want to see the trailer for 200cc in Mario Kart 8, then it will look like this:
That will happen! - Burningdragon25 (talk) Create Template:organization-infoboxno quorum 3-0 Proposer: Binarystep (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWe already have one.--Vommack (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
I'm not good enough at HTML to make an example, but here are the parameters I'd want it to have:
Binarystep (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
Merge post-Special Zone enemies or Split Goomba (SMW:SMA2) and Pokey (SMW:SMA2)merge 5-0 Proposer: LinkTheLefty (talk) Merge post-Special Zone enemies to original enemy articles
Split Goomba (SMW:SMA2) from Galoomba and Pokey (SMW:SMA2) from PokeyLeave aloneCommentsExactly how many articles are being affected here? Merging a lot of uniquely-titled and different-looking things could potentially lose us search traffic... And please provide links, instead of expecting everyone to run around searching for the relevant pages and sections themselves: it's literally part of Rule 1 at the top of the page. - Walkazo (talk)
Staying neutral for now... On one hand, they look different and are officially named. On the other hand, the guide that named them is the same guide that acted like every behavior of Chargin' Chuck was its own species. If these are going to be merged, shouldn't the different types of Boo Buddies (except Block, as it does something other than move differently) be merged as well? Binarystep (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
Use "wide image" templates for level maps and the likecreate 5-0 Well, Wikipedia has a {{Wide image}} template, which can be useful for cases like these. We could use both the 100% wide and 45% (or another size) wide variations, depending on the case. Proposer: Mr. Ice Bro. (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsStop Listing Sub-Species on Generic Real-World Species Pagespassed 5-0 tl;dr not everything has to be a subspecies of something, infoboxes don't have a minimum length. Proposer: Binarystep (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsNote that real-world species could still have "Related Species" sections, and list species based on them there. Binarystep (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2015 (EDT) Create Template:Organization-infoboxcreate 7-0 Proposer: Binarystep (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsFor reference, the parameters (aside from the obvious ones included in every infobox) would be:
Binarystep (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2015 (EDT) Create Template:PmitemboxDon't create 2-4 Proposer: Binarystep (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsNot voting -yet- but you know that the "Made by" parameter is optional. I would prefer if we used that Recipe-infobox template for all the items in the PM series with a few more tweaks (ignore the name of the template), like adding a description parameter. And potentially adding a "Gotten from" (seriously don't have a clue on what to name this, as this should fit both cases: the item being dropped by an enemy, or being bought from a shop) as another parameter. What I am getting at is that instead of a new template -especially because it is already used in many non-recipes items-, we can use the existing template but with a few modifications (again, ignore the name of the template.) If you want to know how it would look like, I can make a draft. But again, not all the information should be in the infobox, some can be left to the article.-- 19:50, 25 April 2015 (EDT)
Make Template:Questionable-sourceno quorum 1-1 Proposer: Binarystep (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI have another idea for the template that says something to the effect of "Some of the sources cited on this page are unreliable, replace them with better ones if possible", would that be better? Binarystep (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
Stop Using the "Super Mario Daijiten" as a Sourcekeep 1-5 So, what is this "Big Dictionary"? To put it simply, it is us, but in Japanese: it's a compilation of everything in the Mario series (and the Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario series) with some information about them. Naturally, this includes all of those obscure enemies from the older platformers, like Scubi, Bībī, Sutāzu, and many more, though these names were either taken from or changed to ones from the Daijiten. One immediate problem is noticeable: Japanese names are hard to search for. Names taken from Japanese sources are (supposed to be) written out not with a translation, but with the romanization, avoiding the problem of subjective translations. This also includes any special characters with macrons above them, and this results in links being difficult to use with them, for the simple reason that a very large portion of readers wouldn't be able to type these letters, and the wiki isn't able to recognize substitute letters, so "Sutazu" would not work as a link or a search term for "Sutāzu", and it's a tedious process to get to the article of relevance. There's also the point of English and Japanese names looking rather messy side-by-side, though that's mostly personal preference. Of course, these points are completely ignored if they're the only official names that we can find, and therein lies the problem. As mentioned above, the site is basically us with a different language, and that includes the fact that it is a fan site, subject to all of the follies that editors can employ. If it doesn't explicitly display that the name is from an official source, listed here, it cannot be used since it could easily just be a made-up name. Even if other similar sites share the name with the Daijiten, if they don't have an official source, it doesn't count: they could have easily taken the name from each other, validating the name by virtue of lazy editing. Even besides that, however, there's no reason for all of the names for a certain game to be correct if a few of them turn out to be correct. For example, I've picked up the Prima guide for Yoshi's Island DS, and it turns out that most of the enemies from that game (on this wiki, at least) take their names from this guide - emphasis on most. Scorchit, originally "Zeus Guy", and Toober Guy, originally "Tube Guy", went under different names between the guide and the wiki, but since some of the other names were backed up with "is good is from book", all of them were thought to come from the book. This is faulty logic and using such a broad generalization really can't be healthy for the wiki. While I understand that some of the conjectural names weren't very descriptive (Dōryī, for example, was "Plant"), I'd rather have a million "Birds" and "Crabs" than a name that is not only hard to link to and search for, but a name that has a good chance of being just as conjectural as the other names. Even for a site that's had a good track record, I feel like allowing the site to be used for all names is just opening the floodgates for name-related debacles, and I'd rather avoid that. Note: this proposal, if it succeeds, would involve removing all names that are currently "sourced" with the Daijiten, as well as renaming articles with those names to English variants. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Remove it
Do not remove it
CommentsAs passing this proposal would mark many of our articles as conjectural titles, one strategy we could employ is to see the references of each page on the Super Mario Daijiten (if there is one). That way, we can see still use the Daijiten to indirectly get official information, which we can in turn cite. Andymii (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
Unfortunately, no. I guess it is up to our Japanese-fluent users to help us out now. However, there is a function though on Google Translate that translate whole entire websites, so that might be useful in getting the general idea, maybe even enough so we can get official information accurately without knowing much of the language. Andymii (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2015 (EDT) Just noting here that I retracted my vote in favor of removing it. I agree with Walkazo's argument enough to change my mind, but not enough to fully cast a vote either direction now, as it hinges on a type of template that we currently (to my knowledge, at least) do not employ. -- 1337star (Mailbox SP) 14:51, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
Stop using the "Names in other languages" on this wikicanceled by proposer Proposer: ShyGuy8 (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsWhy remove content from the wiki? Are you saying that direct translations are an ideal replacement, even when we have translation variations within languages (differences between French Nintendo of Europe and French Nintendo of America? Translations might help more international readers and also provides information for the curious and those playing games in other languages. It's removal of meaningful content for no gain specified, so I don't think this proposal will go anywhere. This is a pretty big change, so you need very strong reasons if you expect people (like me) to support. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 00:03, 8 June 2015 (EDT) 1) ...What?! 2) If you're referring to the affiliated German and Italian wikis as "changing the language", they're not the same thing as the English wiki and there are a bunch of other languages that the section template includes (not to mention it seems there's more of a conscious effort here to strictly archive the official). 3) This would be damaging. If enough users find the translation/localization process interesting, why take a big part of that away? The section is there to relegate foreign names, so why go through the monumental effort to censor an important piece of series history? If all these articles rely on foreign names, do you suggest only using foreign names whenever it's convenient? Etc. LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT) OK, I don't think this will work out. I just thought it was'nt that useful. Okay, I regret making this proposal. I am truly sorry, I just changed my mind on this. I just figured out that if this proposal won, it would be VERY damaging. I don't know what else to say. ShyGuy8 (talk|contribs) 00:39, 8 June 2015 (EDT) Stop using the term "sub-species" on the wikipassed 14-0
Between the disconnect with how the real world uses the word, and the different definitions, applications and spellings throughout the wiki, there is really only one way to sum up the use of "subspecies" around here: it's confusing, and we should get rid of it. Specifically, we should do the following:
This will affect A LOT of articles and will take time to gradually roll out, but I think it's worth doing. There is no good reason why we need to stay inconsistent, confusing and misinformed about how we go about defining the species of the Mario series. Proposer: Walkazo (talk) Support
OpposeComments@SmokedChili: We can make an exception, but it's going to break consistency, and it won't be unreasonable to assume it's another species (just how people assumed all those dark-eyed juncos were separate species), and, besides, Nintendo was very wrong about terminology before (most blatantly, the most egregious and irresponsible usage of "remix" I've ever seen in official media: Super Smash Bros. 4). It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:09, 5 June 2015 (EDT) Commenting on the Shady Paratroopa part, I think we should just use the most basic enemy and say its a derivative (or whatever word we decide on using) of Koopa Troopa. Magikrazy (talk)
Change the main series to include Super Mario Land 1 and 2failed 3-9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzERrLY-_9s As one can see, Nintendo did not include the land games as part of the main Mario series titles during Mario's 25th anniversary 5 years ago. This has lead people such as myself to believe that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of their own series. However, as of May 29, 2015. Nintendo has updated Mario's 30th anniversary site to include all the main series Mario titles. In this list is Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. As shown, this is included in both the American and Japanese versions of the site. http://www.nintendo.co.jp/mario30th/index.html#/history/ Due to this confirmation by Nintendo, all articles on Super Mario Wiki should be changed to fit this new information. Such articles as the Super Mario Series articles should be changed to add the two Land games, and articles such as Super Mario Land Series articles should most likely be deleted entirely due to their interference of the first two Super Mario Land games being apart of the main Mario series. Other changes being the chronological order of Mario titles. An example being, changing "New Super Mario Bros. is the eighth installment in the Super Mario series." To. "New Super Mario Bros. is the tenth installment in the Super Mario series." These things might change from time to time, but it's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. This is why the Super Mario Land games should now officially be considered apart of the main Mario series by Super Mario wiki. Proposer: thenintendostooge (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Walkazo. Potential change does not warrant the act of keeping something the same. The wiki is to be based on current viewpoints of Nintendo which is the lore creator. It's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. If we were to not follow Nintendo's viewpoint, any viewpoint could be established based on the person's own imagination. "What if Nintendo decides to officially change Birdo to Ostro to avoid confusion?" This is irrelevant as it is based on what Nintendo finds true and not true. "If" cannot be a factor of whether or not we apply the land games or not. That would be based on our own assumptions and our assumptions are endless. We must use Nintendo's current viewpoint to stay relevant in the Mario franchise. If not the wiki becomes outdated with old information.
Whether Nintendo cares about the Mario canon or not is not for us to decide. We can mention how Nintendo used to not consider the Land games being apart of the main series, but we must also tell the reader Nintendo's current stand point. An example being starwars. The lore is changing all the time, however, the star wars wiki does not keep the old lore as canon. It mentions how it used to be canon, but supports the current standpoint of lucas film if we like it or not. There is much Mario lore that Nintendo has dropped that has been official in the past. This is not a situation like the koopalings where the creator of Mario says they are not Bowsers kids, but this is the whole company of Nintendo saying that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of the main series. Both in Japan, and all over the World. I know it sounds like a lot of work for us to have to update so many articles. If there is official information with no way to disprove it, it CANNOT be denied. All official Mario information must be used in Mario wiki. One could argue that the past has more info, but that does not make it relevant. Over time things become outdated and it is Nintendo that updates it. We must accept what Nintendo updates. Thenintendostooge (talk) @Walkazo - I'm not completely confident in either choice right now, but remakes/rereleases were never a necessary mention in official celebrations since it's understood that they're not exactly the original titles (we certainly don't count them as such, either), so I'm not sure why they're factored in the counter-argument... (I must say, Super Mario 3D Land makes sense with its namesake included.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2015 (EDT) @LinkTheLefty- Indeed, the remakes have never been mentioned to be apart of the main Super Mario titles. As we all know, Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not remakes of any main series Mario game. Unless someone has any evidence to prove that Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not apart of the main series, and since Nintendo has stated they are apart of the main series as of now, it is only right to have Super Mario wiki state the same. Thenintendostooge (talk)
Then when do you propose is the right time? Nintendo did say that they would talk more about Mario's 30th anniversary during E3 2015, so maybe till then? I do not think we should wait to long on this. We cannot wait another 10 years to see if Nintendo still counts the land games as apart of the main series because that would make this wiki outdated. Although it is very understandable to be questioning if Nintendo will keep it apart in the future or not, it is very important to keep the wiki up to date on Nintendo's standpoint. We must focus the wiki on Nintendo's understanding. If not we would not have a wiki based on Nintendo's Mario, but rather a wiki based on what we want Mario to be. I know it is a lot of work and a huge overhaul for the wiki. Though it is very important for the readers to know about this information Nintendo has provided us. To ignore it based on our assumptions is not fair. The sooner we start editing, the more our readers know more about this information. Thenintendostooge (talk)
Obscurity is not an excuse and can be subjective based on the person. One could argue that Super Mario bros 2 (U.S.A) is too obscure to be considered a main series Mario title, though we all know it is. Another example being Super Mario Sunshine. Very different environment, no standard Mario enemies (Koopas, Goombas, etc), and a very different gameplay mechanic involving F.L.U.D.D. Although these two games are very different from other main series Mario titles, they are still apart of the main series. Even with their mass differences, they all keep the same design, they are platformers. Super Mario land 1 and 2 are both platformers that follow heavily on the 2d Mario aspect. Mario still grabs mushrooms, still defeats enemies, still fights bosses, and completes levels in similar manner to the other Mario games. This is not a simple anniversary game, this is an entire celebration recognizing that the Super Mario Land games are apart of the main Super Mario series. Posters, commercials, and celebration videos will all recognize this. For Nintendo to recognize these games for Mario's 30th anniversary celebration is huge. Saying it is all apart of one small game is a little extravagant. Please don't take this as rude in anyway, as I don't want to offend anyone, but fear of a lot of work shows laziness. Although it is a lot of work, it is our job to tell our readers. If it will take 1-2 years to tell our readers. We can at least delete absolutes, such as "Super Mario Land is not considered apart of the Super Mario series." As shown on the Super Mario Land (series) article. "not ten, where did you get that figure from?" What I said was not actually sarcasm. My estimates are based on when Mario's 40th anniversary occurs. As Nintendo will most likely bring back up the main series on Mario's 40th anniversary, it makes sense for me to think that the wiki would wait that long to see if Nintendo confirmed it again. You could argue that I could have just said 5 years based on Mario's 35th anniversary. But the chances of Nintendo celebrating this big again are more low and is not as big as a 40th anniversary. Thenintendostooge (talk)
Although Super Mario Land 1 and 2 have had less of an impact with less references, to say the Land games did nothing to add on to the Super Mario series in the future is false. Such example as the director of Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Super Mario 3D Land, in an interview with IGN. Koichi Hayashida (the director) said that when Mario shoots a fireball in Super Mario 3D Land it bounces off the wall. He said this was taken from Super Mario Land as he had so much fun having the "Super Ball" bounce off the wall in the game. Interview can be read below. http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/12/making-mario-magic-the-interview Even easter eggs have occurred from Super Mario Land. An example being in Super Mario 3D Land, one can see a flying saucer believed to be Tatanga flying through the sky. Easter egg can be seen in video below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smwnedFs8I8 Impact cannot be a factor whether or not the Land games are included. If Nintendo refers to the Land games as part of the main series then it should be so. Development team can also not be used as a counter argument because many other Nintendo franchises have done the same. Although the Land games were not made by EAD, that is not a counter argument. The Legend of Zelda games oracle of ages and oracle of seasons were made by Capcom, yet Nintendo refers to them as apart of the main Zelda series. If one could use the argument of impact, then oracle of ages and seasons should not be apart of the main Zelda series because it has had little to no references in future games. Another example being Metroid. Many teams have worked on Metroid such as EAD, Retro Studios, and Team Ninja. Many of these arguments cannot be used against why the Land games should not be included.Thenintendostooge (talk) btw, @Walkazo- I can already tell we are going to be big rivals on this wiki XD.
I should be in bed, but I love my Mario talk so here comes another novel XD. Once again, influence is subjective. How much we say somthing influences something else to determine if it fits with something is always debatable. Either way, influence should not be a counter argument. Something could be influential or not at all, but that does not make it any less relevant. Yes the Land games have many elements that are different. But at it's core it still plays very much like any standard Mario game. "The Legend of Zelda games have an established canon, and the Oracle of Ages and Seasons games are included within the official timeline; all Mario games are ambiguously canon." This is not true if Nintendo themselves say Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are canon. Which they are. According to the Hyrule historia, it says that Nintendo may change the Zelda timeline at any time. So Zelda does not have a completely established canon either. As for a solution for Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3. We can treat it like we do with Yoshi's island : Super Mario world 2. We obviously do not have a "Super Mario World series" article. We have a Yoshi series article and "Super Mario World 2" is in it. We can just leave Super Mario Land 3 (Wario Land) in the Wario Land series article and delete the Super Mario Land Series article to put the Super Mario Land games in the main series article. There would be no need for their own section as other main series Mario titles are series with in themselves as well. The Super Mario Galaxy series, the New Super Mario Bros series, the Super Mario Bros series, the 3D series, etc. Despite these all being a series with in a series, there is no need for a "Super Mario Galaxy" series article because it is apart of the main series. Glad you like having me debate. If there is no one to challenge anything, things don't always progress. That is why I, the biggest Mario nerd is here. Thenintendostooge (talk)
Though let us not forget that influence is not only the use of future elements, but also by the influence of the player. I could argue that the impact and influence of Super Mario Land 1 and 2 have been huge on players across the world. In fact, you say they're so obscure, yet Super Mario Land is the 4th best selling Mario game of all time selling a whopping 18.14 million copies and the sequel being the 10 best selling at a huge 11.18 million. If we were to use the argument of impact (which I argue there is none), Super Mario Land is still regarded among millions of people and still remembered and being bought to this day via 3ds e-shop. If the land games were indeed so obscure... 1. No one would remember them (though millions including us do) 2. It would not have sold very much at all (18 million is huge) 3. People would not be buying it today (yet thousands still do via eshop) So I find the value argument invalid because the Land games have a huge influence on gamers and Nintendo alike. You may argue that the impact of the games have worn off and not as many people remember it, however, this is not true as modern videos such as bentalfloss's have shown that videos on Super Mario Land gets millions of views even to this day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAtWQ_xn0kI
You are contradicting yourself. Your counter argument for why the Super Mario Land games should not be apart of the main series, despite what Nintendo says, was that it is not relevant (or not relevant enough) through influences to count. That is what you said correct? Then if I am not mistaken, when I proved that the Super Mario Land games do have enough impact, you counter by saying Dr. Mario is also relevant. Dr. Mario is never referred to Nintendo as being apart of the main series at all (as we know very well). Since I proved that Super Mario Land has enough impact, and since we know Nintendo says they are apart of the main series. You are now saying they can't because of organization? I believe I gave a solution to the organization problem. If you want to use organization as a counter argument, you must counter my solution and why my solution does not work. If not, then you have nothing to counter with, which in turn means you have no means of viable information to argue with. If I am able to completely and successfully counter you, then that means you do not have a good reason to vote. I may be mistaken but according to the rules, if you do not have a good reason, your vote does not apply. And all those saying "per Walkazo" do not have a vote either because they do not have a good reason (if your reason is not good that is). Once again, I believe if I am able to counter all of your arguments, then your, and everyone else's vote that applies to you, does not count. Please address me if I am mistaken by this rule. Thenintendostooge (talk)
File:PowerKamekSig.jpg (talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 14:20, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
I find the comment "whining" to be inappropriate for this situation. Whether I contradict your arguments is not up to you or me, but up to an administrator. If an administrator finds that I do indeed disprove your argument, then it will have to be accepted (according to rule 5). Although right now you do have the more popular vote, that is true, ideas of popularity does not make the idea right. An example when everyone once thought the world was flat. You have also been on this wiki as opposed to me who is new, which could in turn give a biasness to your character rather then the problem at hand. "They're an important part of the overall Mario franchise/series, but not the specific, central Super Mario series." Tell me, how are they not apart of the Main Super Mario series? Thenintendostooge (talk)
(talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 15:29, 9 June 2015 (EDT) I am a Mario nerd. That is what we do, over care about Mario :p. You have no opposition to deny my reason. Since you don't, I have every reason to continue. That is how proposals work. One proposes, one denies, one challenges the denied with a counter to move forward their proposal, and if one finds a problem with their counter, they counter back. This continues until the opposed or the proposed is proven wrong, or until the time for debate is expired. As far as I know the talk for this proposal has not expired. I still await my counter. So I ask specifically, how are Super Mario Land 1 and 2 not apart of the Main Super Mario series? Thenintendostooge (talk) @PowerKamek Fair enough on the world is flat analogy, I should have used another example. But to continue the overall debate. "I thought we explained to you how it's deviant from the Super Mario series and hasn't been referenced. The overall Mario franchise means the entire Mario series while the "Super Mario" series refers to the platformers such as Super Mario Bros., Galaxy, etc." According to my counter I have proved that it is referenced. I have also countered that references do not qualify it being apart of the main Mario series. Could you reiterate why these arguments of mine are wrong? Thenintendostooge (talk)
@Baby Luigi- (btw, it is going to take a while to respond to all of you if you all respond at once so be patient ok? :) "Nintendo put it in their anniversary game". Wrong, I did not argue that. The games are not appearing in any anniversary game AT ALL. It is on the official Super Mario bros 30th anniversary website, not a game. http://www.nintendo.co.jp/mario30th/index.html#/history/ "Every single game in the Mario series except for Super Mario Land has referenced each other at least once." Please tell me why it is required for there to be an reference if Nintendo says it is official on their website? Thenintendostooge (talk)
@Walkazo- "To add to the last "reference" bit, plenty of inarguably non-SM games are referenced by the main series too, so the existence of SML refs, while worth considering, doesn't automatically invalidate the opposition position at all." How is it fair to say it needs relevance, but to criticize me when I try to prove its relevance by saying non confirmed games are relevant as well? The difference between the games you are trying to list is that the relevance is not used by Nintendo. Super Mario Land is. "stop making new arguments and resort to ignorant and insulting gambits like "well, you're just wrong and everyone who mindlessly agrees with you should have all their votes removed too", all the while moaning in the edit summaries about how it's taking so long and gonna be so hard for them to win, then yes, it is "whining"..." First off, it is wrong to quote what I never quoted such as "well, you're just wrong and everyone who mindlessly agrees with you should have all their votes removed too". I never said that. Second, I never insulted anyone, I am trying to have a fun clean debate here. Third off, I am not making new arguments to avoid other ones. As you can see, all of my counters have been to counter your ideas, not to start new ideas. Fourth off, I am not moaning, I am countering which I have every right to do. Fifth, I never "whined" how about how long for this debate to go on. Honestly I find it fun. I find that you are being very hurtful so lets go on a good note and debate over the proposal at hand. :) Thenintendostooge (talk)
File:PowerKamekSig.jpg (talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 16:38, 9 June 2015 (EDT) @Everyone I have noticed some people have gotten a little upset with me (as most people do). Sorry if I offended you in any way. I am just trying to defend my proposal. I am new to this site and I feel rather hurt right now (I am a touchy guy). I just want to improve this wiki. So don't feel like I am against you. If there are too many people who do not like me I will delete my account. ;-; Thenintendostooge (talk)
I just suppose I am a little disappointed and sad. I have been reading this wiki since I was 12 (I am 17 now). I thought when I joined this wiki I would make friends, that's all. I thought I could find others like me that love the Mario franchise so much that they would talk about anything Mario. I just feel I am turning you against me. I don't want to be hated or seen as stupid because someone disagrees with me. I want to make friends and have fun. I just feel... really hurt right now and I don't know if I belong here :(. Thenintendostooge (talk) If anyone would still like to debate, I am open but it seems I can't sway anyone. When the proposal expires I will wait 4 weeks repurpose it (I think that is the amount of time you have to wait to repropose right?) Because I am such a stupidly touchy person, I would rather not have any mean arguing and hurtful comments. Thank you. Thenintendostooge (talk)
@BabyLuigi- I believe that if Nintendo confirms it is should. I suppose we will have to wait until the idea of the Land game being in the main series list become more apparent. Not today, but some day the wiki will place the land games in the main series list. This might have come up really suddenly by Nintendo. So it might take the wiki a couple of years to change enough for the wiki grasp the task. Slowly but surely. I just made enemies out of Mario players like me. That is really hurtful to me for some reason. Maybe I am overreacting but I just feel so sad right now. Thenintendostooge (talk)
I don't want your contempt, and I don't want to be friends with you, but I do not want to be your enemy either. I can tell people like you and I are very different. Having very different ideas of when something should be considered. That does not put you any more above or below me. That makes us equal. And as such I think you should treat my, and everyone else's argument as equal to yours. I think I know why I got sad. I got sad because I thought I would find people who thought of me as their equals. Mario fans talking about Mario stuff. Though when I felt you turned against me, I felt my fellow brethren were looking down on me. I don't want to be friends simply because I have a similarity with someone, but because I enjoy expressing my similarity with that person. I don't get that with you and I can tell you don't like me very much. That is life, and I should just man up. I have been criticized many times on the internet very harshly without feeling a thing. Though when I felt like a fellow Mario fan offended me, that really hurt me and that never happens. I don't think you can understand and that is ok (I am a very weird individual :p). Honostly, talking personally to a guy I just met is weird. Do something new everyday. Thenintendostooge (talk)
File:PowerKamekSig.jpg (talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 17:55, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
File:PowerKamekSig.jpg (talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 18:07, 9 June 2015 (EDT) "I just suppose I am a little disappointed and sad. I have been reading this wiki since I was 12 (I am 17 now). I thought when I joined this wiki I would make friends, that's all. I thought I could find others like me that love the Mario franchise so much that they would talk about anything Mario. I just feel I am turning you against me. I don't want to be hated or seen as stupid because someone disagrees with me. I want to make friends and have fun. I just feel... really hurt right now and I don't know if I belong here :(." It wasn't my intention to sound unwelcoming and mean. I freaking love the Mario franchise too, why was I here for, like, 5 years still going by silly Mario-related monikers? You got to remember though, don't take this debate personally. Please don't lose sleep over this. We can still be friends. Remember, nobody is perfect and I'm not trying to attack you as a person. I'm only going after your argument and nothing else on this whole matter. See, we agree on the beta nomenclature on another proposal. I myself have made and supported proposals that have miserably failed before, and as I said, it feels bad to lose, but it's all part of getting the experience and the learning process. You're not a stupid person, and I do understand the whole premise of this argument, which is why I used qualifiers a few times. The act of starting a discussion like this is considered a good thing since it gets our thinking caps going. If I was harsh on you, then I'm sorry. I don't want to lose any new potential editors over a silly, convoluted debate like this. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:21, 9 June 2015 (EDT) Thank you so much. This made me feel a whole lot better. I just want to be in a place where I can share my Mario knowledge from the franchise I love so much. And if there are people like you that are willing to have me, I will be happy to stay. :) I don't know what came over me, I just felt a little sad that is all. Thenintendostooge (talk)
"I don't want your contempt, and I don't want to be friends with you, but I do not want to be your enemy either. I can tell people like you and I are very different. Having very different ideas of when something should be considered. That does not put you any more above or below me. That makes us equal. And as such I think you should treat my, and everyone else's argument as equal to yours. I think I know why I got sad. I got sad because I thought I would find people who thought of me as their equals. Mario fans talking about Mario stuff. Though when I felt you turned against me, I felt my fellow brethren were looking down on me. I don't want to be friends simply because I have a similarity with someone, but because I enjoy expressing my similarity with that person. I don't get that with you and I can tell you don't like me very much. That is life, and I should just man up. I have been criticized many times on the internet very harshly without feeling a thing. Though when I felt like a fellow Mario fan offended me, that really hurt me and that never happens. I don't think you can understand and that is ok (I am a very weird individual :p). Honostly, talking personally to a guy I just met is weird. Do something new everyday." Nobody is feeling contempt for you. There is no reason you should feel guilty about this, honestly, but you should consider it as a learning experience. We're not attacking you as a person. We're disagreeing with your reasoning. You need to learn that the Mario fanbase is a very diverse group, which means very diverse viewpoints. Frankly, it's naïve to assume we're going to agree with each other on all issues, but you know what they say? Variety is the spice of life. It's great to have dissenting viewpoints and a civil discussion on how the Mario series should be organized because that leads to a better understanding of the Mario series for the both of us. Also, the reality is that not all arguments are equal. Some carry more weight than others, and some people can word what they're arguing much better than others. Creating balance for the sake of balance is a fallacy. That arguments aren't equal, that's the heart of the debate. If both of our sides are equal, then we shouldn't be arguing in the first place. Instead we're arguing and trying to convince one side is superior to the other. It hurts to be criticized, as you feel ostracized, stupid, and generally disliked, so it's understandable to be frustrated. Don't be so hard on yourself, though, because that's what you're doing. You're not stupid, acting maliciously, or being hated. As I said, losing a debate is hard, but don't lose sleep over this and instead learn from your mistakes. It's not about winning or losing the debate, it's ultimately about improving the quality of information we Mario fans convey and enjoy, and if it leads to a better understanding for both our viewpoints, then it's a good debate. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:42, 9 June 2015 (EDT) Very true, but I do find it possible for two people arguments to be equal if both cannot completely prove the point, thus creating an endless debate. Either way, it does not matter. What matters is moving on and expanding the wiki for the good of the readers. Sorry for being such a soft spot earlier. It just came over me and it was weird. Once again, thanks a lot for the help, friend. Thenintendostooge (talk)
Oh my Gosh you're right XD. Thenintendostooge (talk)
what the fuck happened here --Glowsquid (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
Ban the term beta* and rename pages in the Beta namespacepassed 11-0 Except. no. The suggestion was perfectly cogent, the rationale provided for the veto was bad and the proposal should never have been reversed. Here's why 1: It's a bad, innacurate term: "Beta" in programming language refers to a specific state of development, a prerelease build that's feature-complete and is being bugtested. It's not even a particularly representative term: the beta period happens near the end of development, long after ideas suggested in pre-production are shot down, games are overhauled, unique characters and objects are removed... etc, which is what the "beta" pages usually cover. Some may argue that "language evolves" and that "beta as it is used here is not meant to be taken literally", but I don't think it's a strong arguments. Sites focused on the documentation of unused/prelease content such as Unseen 64 and TCRF have mocked the usage of "beta" as a catch-all term and lower-quality ressources that use it that way. Other fan wikis like SegaRetro also do not use "beta" as a generic term. Fact is, "beta" is nowhere near accepted in professional circles and that's what the wiki claims to be - a professional ressource. Furthermore, why would you use an inacurate and potentially misleading term when dozens of accurate, non-misleading alternatives exist? 2: It leads to muddy, vague writing. Whenever you see "beta" used on other pages, its catch-all nature muddies the information. "Dread Kong did not exist in the beta version of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat" - nevermind that referring to a singular "beta version" betrays a gross ignorance of how game development works, what's the "beta" in question? A preview in a magazine? A proto leaked on the internet? Something suggested in pre-production that was rejected and never programmed into the game? Banning the generic beta and forcing editors to be more specific (as opposed to the current wishy-washy stance that "we know it's bad, but we still use it because reasons I guess") will improve the quality of the information. 3: The "grandfather clause" is never a good excuse: Similar to this case, "sub-species" is a long-used term that was found to be innacurate and cause inconsistencies, and the current community concensus is that it should be replaced despite its longstanding nature. "It's what we've always used" is not a good refutation when the usage of a term is proven to lower the credibility and quality of the information, as is the case here. As a replacement, I propose beta pages to be renamed List of prerelease and unused content. "Prelease" perfectly encansuplates the varieties of content that's not present in the final code, and it's wordier, yes, but not overly so. Generic mention of "beta" should not be robotically replaced with a generic "In prelease/unused content of [game]", but rather with a specific term ("magazine preview", "prototype", "unused"), with a piped link to the "List of..." pages. (*: This of course doesn't apply to actual beta builds, but as none of the specific builds documented here are specifically said to be real betas, that precision is kinda irrelevant.) Proposer: Glowsquid (talk) Move beta pages to "List of prerelease and unused content" and ban the generic "beta" in mainspace articles
OpposeComments@Mario - I agree with practically everything that has been said on the matter so far, and there's not much for me to add besides the fact that using the term as loosely as Mario Wiki does is definitely looked down upon in certain circles (and indeed, there is still quite a lot of rogue instances of "beta" that require cleaning up regardless of this); however, while I don't feel your sentiments are wrong, it's worth acknowledging that it was a bureaucrat who decided to initiate this second proposal. I believe that counts for something! LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
@Glowsquid, you should probably correct your support header, "prelease" to "prerelease" Ray Trace(T|C) 15:17, 8 June 2015 (EDT) Use explanation text to explain pronouns and whatnot in quotesfailed 1-7 So, I propose that, whenever a subject must be identified in a quote (except on the first mention), we use This kind of explanation to identify it. So, this quote from Super Paper Mario: Would become:
Proposer: Mr. Ice Bro. (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsPerhaps we can compromise by replacing all first instances (in general) with links and then making repeated instances with the explanation text fields? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:48, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
There isn't really a major problem with using links, but I think it is worth to point out that the article rules say "In general, only the first occurrence of a subject in an article should be linked to, with all subsequent occurrences in the body text written as plain text only, to avoid redundancy and clutter.". If excessive linking on article pages is recognized as clutter, then logically it should also be considered clutter on quote pages. Forbidding it in one place and making it standard protocol in another is inconsistent, and the proposal is correct in attempting to address this. - Gabumon(talk) 02:51, 13 June 2015 (EDT)
Gabumon(talk) 03:13, 14 June 2015 (EDT) Change the proposal systemcanceled by proposer Proposer: Pyro Guy (talk) Change the systemDo not change the system
CommentsShouldn't something intending to make a complex change require a writing guideline? Hello, I'm Time Turner. I think you should have made a discussion on the proposal talk page instead of making a proposal about this. But I think this isn't the best way since most users "per" other users reasoning anyway and that's what proposals already sorta do. Yeah you have people jumping on the bandwagon because another user says something long without reading previous discussion and deciding what to do but it's not that much of a huge problem since it could be considered reasonable. Using "per" is just a convenient way to say that one user said one thing better than I did. I understand where this is coming from but I really don't think it'll fix the people who simply jump on the bandwagon rather than actually reading discussion and it will create more problems on its own such as no discussion at all and stagnation. Ray Trace(T|C) 13:47, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
Remove four proposal rulesvetoed by the administrators -Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion. If this was a soccer match, does the game go to extra time (or end in a draw) just because the score is 1-0, the winning team not winning by three goals? No. The team that scored the goal wins. Why does this have to apply to proposals? Proposer: Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness (talk) Remove one rule and keep three
Remove two rules and keep the other twoRemove three rules and keep oneRemove all four rules
Keep all four rules
CommentsI will outline the rules that you have problems with and explain why these rules should be in place. -Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
-If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
-Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
-Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
The voting process does have its problems, but what you're proposing is simply erasing the essential margin for a majority, and that's very problematic, especially when proposal decisions are quantified here. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:46, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
@Ghost Jam: Bazooka Mario is female. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:04, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
|