381,838
edits
MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/42: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "<span +class="?explain"? (style="?color:inherit;?"?)? *title="([^"\n]+)" *>([^<\n]+)<\/span>" to "{{hover|$3|$2}}"
m (Text replacement - "<span +class="?explain"? (style="?color:inherit;?"?)? *title="([^"\n]+)" *>([^<\n]+)<\/span>" to "{{hover|$3|$2}}") |
|||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template}} | {{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}} | ||
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | <div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | ||
| Line 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 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/ | 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 73: | Line 73: | ||
===Set Clear Rules as to What "Species Origin" Means=== | ===Set Clear Rules as to What "Species Origin" Means=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | {{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | ||
To my knowledge, the "species origin" section on [[Template:Species | 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. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | ||
| Line 95: | 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 114: | 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 142: | 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}} | ||
| Line 227: | 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 240: | 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 288: | 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 297: | 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 307: | Line 307: | ||
===Create Template:organization-infobox=== | ===Create Template:organization-infobox=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|no quorum|3-0}} | {{ProposalOutcome|no quorum|3-0}} | ||
I've noticed that pages on organizations or groups either don't use infoboxes, or use [[Template: | 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. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | ||
| Line 320: | 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 373: | Line 373: | ||
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==== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 416: | Line 415: | ||
===Create Template:Organization-infobox=== | ===Create Template:Organization-infobox=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-0|create}} | {{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-0|create}} | ||
I've noticed that pages on organizations or groups either don't use infoboxes, or use [[Template: | 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. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | ||
| Line 443: | Line 442: | ||
===Create Template:Pmitembox=== | ===Create Template:Pmitembox=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-4|Don't create}} | {{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-4|Don't create}} | ||
I've noticed we're using [[Template: | 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. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Binarystep}}<br> | ||
| Line 459: | 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) | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 476: | 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==== | ||
| Line 504: | 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|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 [[ | #{{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 546: | 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 565: | 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 851: | 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 861: | Line 860: | ||
===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}} | {{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0}} | ||
[http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/ | [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". | ||
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 899: | 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) | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 907: | Line 906: | ||
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 913: | 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 926: | 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 1,030: | 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) | ||
---- | ---- | ||