MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/5: Difference between revisions
m (Inserting horizontal lines in between all archived proposals for improved navigational clarity: admin-approved) |
m (PorpleBot moved page MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 5 to MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/5: Text replacement - "Proposals/Archive " to "Proposals/Archive/") |
||
(9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive | {{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}} | ||
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | <div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | ||
===Backup Ops=== | ===Backup Ops=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|6-9|allow back-up}} | |||
I do not believe many of you are aware, but there has been a practice of "backup-oping" in the chatroom. When it is crowded and people are spamming, or if the only op in the room has to go for awhile, they op '''their friends''' or anyone who claims that they will use their power responsibly. I consider this abuse of power & incapability on part of the current ops. If there really is trouble in the chatroom that often, we need more patrollers (at the time of this posting there was 10 users but 0 ops), and the current ops need to take action and not cower in fear! But one of these days chaos will wreak havoc at the hands of one of these "backups". I'm not saying anyone is not trustworthy, this just isn't smart and things need to return to normal. | I do not believe many of you are aware, but there has been a practice of "backup-oping" in the chatroom. When it is crowded and people are spamming, or if the only op in the room has to go for awhile, they op '''their friends''' or anyone who claims that they will use their power responsibly. I consider this abuse of power & incapability on part of the current ops. If there really is trouble in the chatroom that often, we need more patrollers (at the time of this posting there was 10 users but 0 ops), and the current ops need to take action and not cower in fear! But one of these days chaos will wreak havoc at the hands of one of these "backups". I'm not saying anyone is not trustworthy, this just isn't smart and things need to return to normal. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Wayoshi}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Wayoshi}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' December 2, 2007, 15:00 | '''Deadline:''' December 2, 2007, 15:00 EST | ||
====Only Current Ops==== | ====Only Current Ops==== | ||
Line 62: | Line 60: | ||
===[[MarioWiki:Improvement Drive]]=== | ===[[MarioWiki:Improvement Drive]]=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-0|get rid of it}} | |||
The improvement drive was created a few time ago, even thought simmilar ideas have been tried and all failed miserably, it seemed like a good idea at time. But now, it's barely edited and the creator (Max2) is blocked from editing forever. As of now, the Improvement drive seem like a waste of database space more than anything, I propose we delete it and state somewhere than project like it were tried and failed, so we won't end up with the idea being brought up again, accpeted, and turn out to be a similar fiasco. | The improvement drive was created a few time ago, even thought simmilar ideas have been tried and all failed miserably, it seemed like a good idea at time. But now, it's barely edited and the creator (Max2) is blocked from editing forever. As of now, the Improvement drive seem like a waste of database space more than anything, I propose we delete it and state somewhere than project like it were tried and failed, so we won't end up with the idea being brought up again, accpeted, and turn out to be a similar fiasco. | ||
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]<br> | '''Proposer:''' [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' December 2, 2007, 15:00 | '''Deadline:''' December 2, 2007, 15:00 EST | ||
====Get rid of it==== | ====Get rid of it==== | ||
Line 89: | Line 86: | ||
===Wario Man (character) and Wario Man (Final Smash)=== | ===Wario Man (character) and Wario Man (Final Smash)=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-10|keep 'em merged}} | |||
Um, what can I say? If [[WarioWare, Inc.]] and [[WarioWare (stage)]] are seperate, why not this? It's not like there's a reason not to split them (to my knowledge >_>). | Um, what can I say? If [[WarioWare, Inc.]] and [[WarioWare (stage)]] are seperate, why not this? It's not like there's a reason not to split them (to my knowledge >_>). | ||
'''Proposer''' [[User:Dodoman|Dodoman]]<br> | '''Proposer''': [[User:Dodoman|Dodoman]]<br> | ||
'''Deadline''' December 5, 17:00 | '''Deadline''': December 5, 2007, 17:00 EST | ||
====Split 'em!==== | ====Split 'em!==== | ||
Line 124: | Line 121: | ||
===PAGENAME template=== | ===PAGENAME template=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|9-0|remove <nowiki>{{pagename}}</nowiki> on articles}} | |||
Recently, I've seen theres been some misuse of <nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki> on articles. And its not being used for its real purpose, on Notice Templates and such, instead simply saying "This article", while its sometimes being abused in places like real articles, which in most cases is longer then the Page's name itself. So, I propose that <nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki> be added to Notice Templates and such, and an official rule be passed that its not to be used on articles themselves. | Recently, I've seen theres been some misuse of <nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki> on articles. And its not being used for its real purpose, on Notice Templates and such, instead simply saying "This article", while its sometimes being abused in places like real articles, which in most cases is longer then the Page's name itself. So, I propose that <nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki> be added to Notice Templates and such, and an official rule be passed that its not to be used on articles themselves. | ||
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Uniju :D|Uniju :D]]<br> | '''Proposer:''' [[User:Uniju :D|Uniju :D]]<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' December, 9, 2007, 1:00 | '''Deadline:''' December, 9, 2007, 1:00 EST | ||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 155: | Line 151: | ||
===Individual Stars=== | ===Individual Stars=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|11-2|keep information on individual stars}} | |||
It seems rather cumbersome to me to have information on all the Stars on all the galaxies in Super Mario Galaxy. We don't even have that for Super Mario 64. Yes, some, like [[Bob-omb Battlefield]] have a complete list, but most, like [[Snowman's Land]] cover it only briefly or not at all. Therefore, do we really want a whole bunch of unused space on the Wiki? Or is someone going to step up and flesh them out? Personally, I think having sections for individual Stars is unnecessary, and turns this wiki into more of a game guide. Not a very good thing. But I suppose I shall see what you all think. | |||
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Phoenix Rider|Phoenix Rider]]<br> | '''Proposer:''' [[User:Phoenix Rider|Phoenix Rider]]<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' December, 12, 2007, 21:00 | '''Deadline:''' December, 12, 2007, 21:00 EST | ||
Addendum: One thing, though, if we DO keep these Star lists, we will have to complete the 64 Stars as well. This could turn out to be a big project, and right now it's all a bunch of white space. | Addendum: One thing, though, if we DO keep these Star lists, we will have to complete the 64 Stars as well. This could turn out to be a big project, and right now it's all a bunch of white space. | ||
Line 202: | Line 198: | ||
===Redirects=== | ===Redirects=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|4-9|keep redirects}} | |||
Recently, I've seen that some articles have been turned into redirects because their too short(Like all of the [[Prankster Comet]]s), however, I believe that as a Mario Encyclopedia, we should have a full article on every object, place, and character in the Marioverse, not clutter things into lists to save space. Lists usually tend to compress the information as much as they can, and not include smaller pieces of Information. They also tend to lack an image of each thing in the list, while full articles usually do not. Thus, I propose that any Object, Place, or character in the Marioverse is major enough to have its own article, not simply a redirect to a list. | Recently, I've seen that some articles have been turned into redirects because their too short(Like all of the [[Prankster Comet]]s), however, I believe that as a Mario Encyclopedia, we should have a full article on every object, place, and character in the Marioverse, not clutter things into lists to save space. Lists usually tend to compress the information as much as they can, and not include smaller pieces of Information. They also tend to lack an image of each thing in the list, while full articles usually do not. Thus, I propose that any Object, Place, or character in the Marioverse is major enough to have its own article, not simply a redirect to a list. | ||
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Uniju :D|Uniju :D]]<br> | '''Proposer:''' [[User:Uniju :D|Uniju :D]]<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' December 12 | '''Deadline:''' December 12, 2007, 22:30 EST | ||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 251: | Line 246: | ||
===Merge Cartoon Voice Actors=== | ===Merge Cartoon Voice Actors=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-0|merge}} | |||
Although I recently wrote an [[Andrew Sabiston]] article, I soon afterwards thought that all of the [[List of television series and films|cartoons]]' voice actors were mostly stubs that said "So-and-so voiced Such-and-such in InsertCartoonHere." And that's it! I think these actors are not each worthy of their own articles, with the exception of Lou Albano and... the guy who played Luigi... on TSMBSS, because they were the main live-actioneers. So, I think there should be a '''List of Mario Cartoon Voice Actors''' (with the DKC actors as well). Good? | |||
Although I recently wrote an [[Andrew Sabiston]] article, I soon afterwards thought that all of the [[ | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Dodoman}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Dodoman}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' December 12, 2007, 20:00 | '''Deadline:''' December 12, 2007, 20:00 EST | ||
====Merge 'em, Steve==== | ====Merge 'em, Steve==== | ||
Line 279: | Line 273: | ||
===Music=== | ===Music=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-7|no way}} | |||
Maybe we should have a section where you can hear the original music and how it has changed over the years to the more recent Mario style. This would require the music to play in Super Mario Wiki instead of just linking to it (like galbiana hotel or whatever it is). | Maybe we should have a section where you can hear the original music and how it has changed over the years to the more recent Mario style. This would require the music to play in Super Mario Wiki instead of just linking to it (like galbiana hotel or whatever it is). | ||
I know Wikipedia uses OGG for its music... | I know Wikipedia uses OGG for its music... | ||
Line 288: | Line 281: | ||
'''Proposer''': [[User:Macewindu|Macewindu]]<br> | '''Proposer''': [[User:Macewindu|Macewindu]]<br> | ||
'''Deadline | '''Deadline''': December 24, 2007, 17:00 EST | ||
====Let's try it!==== | ====Let's try it!==== | ||
Line 339: | Line 332: | ||
===Merging Pumpkin Head with Goomba=== | ===Merging Pumpkin Head with Goomba=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-1|merge}} | |||
[[Pumpkin Head]]s are absolutely proven to [[Goomba]]s wearing Pumkins on their heads, so does this make them a new species altogether? No. Listen to the comment I wrote on its talk page over a week ago: ''Should this have its own article? Goombas have worn many things for protection, but wearing a pumpkin head doesn't make one a new species. Its like saying that Mario is another character when he doesn't wear his overalls. And I'm pretty sure Nintendo didn't give it an official name since it wasn't meant to be a new enemy altogether. If you will remember, there were also Goombas with helmets that can be killed almost the same way. I'm sure they wear pumpkins just to give to level a spooky feel.'' It doesn't even have an official name! But I'll leave it up to you guys to decide. | [[Pumpkin Head]]s are absolutely proven to [[Goomba]]s wearing Pumkins on their heads, so does this make them a new species altogether? No. Listen to the comment I wrote on its talk page over a week ago: ''Should this have its own article? Goombas have worn many things for protection, but wearing a pumpkin head doesn't make one a new species. Its like saying that Mario is another character when he doesn't wear his overalls. And I'm pretty sure Nintendo didn't give it an official name since it wasn't meant to be a new enemy altogether. If you will remember, there were also Goombas with helmets that can be killed almost the same way. I'm sure they wear pumpkins just to give to level a spooky feel.'' It doesn't even have an official name! But I'll leave it up to you guys to decide. | ||
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Knife|Knife]]<br> | '''Proposer:''' [[User:Knife|Knife]]<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' December 29, 2007, 20:00 | '''Deadline:''' December 29, 2007, 20:00 EST | ||
====Merge Information==== | ====Merge Information==== | ||
Line 369: | Line 361: | ||
===Galleries=== | ===Galleries=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-2|make gallery pages}} | |||
So I was viewing the site and noticed that a whole bunch the pages (notably [[Wario]]) has a section devoted to images, though recently they've been a little too big. I propose that we create galleries for specific characters and merge the images ove there. For example, maybe we could have a page called "Gallery: Wario" or something similar and merge all of the images over there. Or possibly just make a category called "Category: Wario images" and have all the images there for people to view. It seems like there are over 100 images on the page, and I'm sure many will agree that they should all be merged to their own page. | So I was viewing the site and noticed that a whole bunch the pages (notably [[Wario]]) has a section devoted to images, though recently they've been a little too big. I propose that we create galleries for specific characters and merge the images ove there. For example, maybe we could have a page called "Gallery: Wario" or something similar and merge all of the images over there. Or possibly just make a category called "Category: Wario images" and have all the images there for people to view. It seems like there are over 100 images on the page, and I'm sure many will agree that they should all be merged to their own page. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bentendo}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Bentendo}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline | '''Deadline''': December 31, 2007, 17:00 EST | ||
====Make galleries==== | ====Make galleries==== | ||
Line 416: | Line 407: | ||
===Quotes=== | ===Quotes=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-4|remove quote sections}} | |||
On really long articles such as [[Peach]], one can see that there are dozens of qoutes, and most of them are completely pointless like: | On really long articles such as [[Peach]], one can see that there are dozens of qoutes, and most of them are completely pointless like: | ||
Line 425: | Line 415: | ||
I propose that these either get removed or shortened. I see no promblem with having qoutes, but having so many that arn't even descent (Although that ''is'' a matter of opinion) is pointless. What are your thoughts? | I propose that these either get removed or shortened. I see no promblem with having qoutes, but having so many that arn't even descent (Although that ''is'' a matter of opinion) is pointless. What are your thoughts? | ||
'''Proposer:'''[[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]] <br> | '''Proposer:''' [[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]] <br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' Janurary 5, 2008, 20:00 | '''Deadline:''' Janurary 5, 2008, 20:00 EST | ||
====Remove Them==== | ====Remove Them==== | ||
Line 433: | Line 423: | ||
#{{User|Ghost Jam}} Quotes are fine, but not quote sections. | #{{User|Ghost Jam}} Quotes are fine, but not quote sections. | ||
#[[User:Yoshimon]] I think the quotes that are screaming/laughing/etc. should be removed. | #[[User:Yoshimon]] I think the quotes that are screaming/laughing/etc. should be removed. | ||
#'''[[User:InfectedShroom|InfectedShroom.]]'''[[ | #'''[[User:InfectedShroom|InfectedShroom.]]'''[[File:infectoicon.png]] Shorten them. They take up a ridiculous amount of space. OR, just make a page devoted to quotes of the Mario series. | ||
#{{User|Time Q}} An extra page for important quotes (what is important and what is not, could be decided later) would be good, but they should not clutter up the article. | #{{User|Time Q}} An extra page for important quotes (what is important and what is not, could be decided later) would be good, but they should not clutter up the article. | ||
#[[User:The Legend of Zelda Freak|The Legend of Zelda Freak]] Yep. I got the feeling that sometimes the quotes are longer than the "article itself". | #[[User:The Legend of Zelda Freak|The Legend of Zelda Freak]] Yep. I got the feeling that sometimes the quotes are longer than the "article itself". | ||
Line 464: | Line 454: | ||
===Merge Bird Articles=== | ===Merge Bird Articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|12-6|merge}} | |||
The Other night I was looking through articles and I came across the [[Blue Bird]], [[Green Bird]], [[Yellow Bird]], and [[Red Bird]]. Yellow and Blue barly make any apperances while Red only makes one. I think these are way to insignificent so I say we merge them into on Birds Article Or Minor Speacies of Island Delfino. | The Other night I was looking through articles and I came across the [[Blue Bird]], [[Green Bird]], [[Yellow Bird]], and [[Red Bird]]. Yellow and Blue barly make any apperances while Red only makes one. I think these are way to insignificent so I say we merge them into on Birds Article Or Minor Speacies of Island Delfino. | ||
'''Proposer''': [[User:Luigibros2|Luigibros2]]<br> | '''Proposer''': [[User:Luigibros2|Luigibros2]]<br> | ||
'''Deadline | '''Deadline''': January 5, 2008, 20:00 EST | ||
====Merge them==== | ====Merge them==== | ||
Line 506: | Line 495: | ||
===Merge Classic NES Series Articles=== | ===Merge Classic NES Series Articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-5|merge}} | |||
The other day I was reading through the list of stubs, and I noticed that all three Classic NES Series games, [[Classic NES Series: Donkey Kong|Donkey Kong]], [[Classic NES Series: Dr. Mario|Dr. Mario]], and [[Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros.|Super Mario Bros.]] have their own articles and are all stubs. If we merge these articles, the series will be more organized, complete, and easier-to-read, plus you would not have to move from page to page to read them. | The other day I was reading through the list of stubs, and I noticed that all three Classic NES Series games, [[Classic NES Series: Donkey Kong|Donkey Kong]], [[Classic NES Series: Dr. Mario|Dr. Mario]], and [[Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros.|Super Mario Bros.]] have their own articles and are all stubs. If we merge these articles, the series will be more organized, complete, and easier-to-read, plus you would not have to move from page to page to read them. | ||
'''Proposer''': [[User:Glitchman|Glitchman]]<br> | '''Proposer''': [[User:Glitchman|Glitchman]]<br> | ||
'''Deadline | '''Deadline''': January 11, 2008, 20:00 EST | ||
====Merge them==== | ====Merge them==== | ||
Line 553: | Line 541: | ||
===A Glitch Too Many=== | ===A Glitch Too Many=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-6|leave glitches as they are}} | |||
Whenever I go to the [[List of Glitches]] page, I see a mess. With all those glitches out there, I feel like the page needs help. The only way I can see helping the page out is by weeding out all of the glitches that either: A) Can't be proven or B) Aren't notable. If a glitch meets one of these two requirements, then it would be okay to mention in the article. Remember, we all can claim to have experienced a glitch, but proof is the thing that we need to make sure if the glitch is true. After all, not listing glitches is better than putting down glitches we think happened. | Whenever I go to the [[List of Glitches]] page, I see a mess. With all those glitches out there, I feel like the page needs help. The only way I can see helping the page out is by weeding out all of the glitches that either: A) Can't be proven or B) Aren't notable. If a glitch meets one of these two requirements, then it would be okay to mention in the article. Remember, we all can claim to have experienced a glitch, but proof is the thing that we need to make sure if the glitch is true. After all, not listing glitches is better than putting down glitches we think happened. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Knife}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Knife}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline | '''Deadline''': January, 14, 2008, 17:00 EST | ||
====Glitches Must Be Notable or Proved==== | ====Glitches Must Be Notable or Proved==== | ||
Line 591: | Line 578: | ||
===Conker and Banjo=== | ===Conker and Banjo=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-11|don't add banjo and conker content}} | |||
At first clance, this would seem stupid, but hear me out. Considering we feature things [[Donkey Kong (series)|Not actually part of the Mario series]] (in the sense that no Mario characters aside from DK characters appear) I was thinking we should have [[Banjo]] and [[Conker]] games as well, as they are spinoffs of the DK series, just like DK is a spinoff of Mario. Thoughts? | At first clance, this would seem stupid, but hear me out. Considering we feature things [[Donkey Kong (series)|Not actually part of the Mario series]] (in the sense that no Mario characters aside from DK characters appear) I was thinking we should have [[Banjo]] and [[Conker]] games as well, as they are spinoffs of the DK series, just like DK is a spinoff of Mario. Thoughts? | ||
'''Proposer:''' [[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]]<br> | '''Proposer:''' [[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]]<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' January 17, 2008, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' January 17, 2008, 17:00 EST | ||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
Line 632: | Line 618: | ||
===The [[Cheese]] article=== | ===The [[Cheese]] article=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|14-18|keep it}} | |||
I think we should get rid of this article, but before I explain my reasons for deleting this article, (In my flaming wreck of an opinion, of course) I will explain a few things to those that are new to the Mariowiki lore, because, let's face it, this article only exist because of a fad. | I think we should get rid of this article, but before I explain my reasons for deleting this article, (In my flaming wreck of an opinion, of course) I will explain a few things to those that are new to the Mariowiki lore, because, let's face it, this article only exist because of a fad. | ||
Line 649: | Line 634: | ||
'''Proposer''': [[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]]<br> | '''Proposer''': [[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]]<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': January 17, 2008, 17:00 | '''Deadline''': January 17, 2008, 17:00 EST | ||
==== Delete it ==== | ==== Delete it ==== | ||
Line 732: | Line 717: | ||
===Split up the Quote Sections=== | ===Split up the Quote Sections=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-2|split the quotes}} | |||
As I'm looking around the wiki, I see '''''HUGE''''' quote sections on certain pages (mostly pages on big characters like [[Mario]] and [[Princess Peach]]). I think that we should remove the quotes altogether from these pages and make an entire page devoted simply to quotes from the Marioverse. Yes, it will be a long page, but I think it will be better. What are your thoughts on the matter? | As I'm looking around the wiki, I see '''''HUGE''''' quote sections on certain pages (mostly pages on big characters like [[Mario]] and [[Princess Peach]]). I think that we should remove the quotes altogether from these pages and make an entire page devoted simply to quotes from the Marioverse. Yes, it will be a long page, but I think it will be better. What are your thoughts on the matter? | ||
Line 739: | Line 723: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|InfectedShroom}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|InfectedShroom}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': January 17, 2008, 17:00 | '''Deadline''': January 17, 2008, 17:00 EST | ||
====Split The Quotes!==== | ====Split The Quotes!==== | ||
Line 777: | Line 761: | ||
===Citing Sources=== | ===Citing Sources=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|16-3|start referencing}} | |||
Around the wiki, we have always been quite lazy citing our sources. We do not have any system of giving references like at Wikipedia, and everyone just adds information he has taken from a random site. The best example for this is ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'', which got flooded with information from questionable sites, or the name of the site was not given at all. In order to save our credibility, I suggest that we start to quote our sources, as long as they are not the game (/comic/TV episode/Brawl Dojo) itself, either, if we can get it, by Wikipedia's reference system or by simply by adding an external link like this: [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals]. This should prevent further unsourced speculation in the articles, and also prevent random questionable Trivia items like on [[Princess Rosalina]], as currently, to quote the user, there is "no need to source". | Around the wiki, we have always been quite lazy citing our sources. We do not have any system of giving references like at Wikipedia, and everyone just adds information he has taken from a random site. The best example for this is ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'', which got flooded with information from questionable sites, or the name of the site was not given at all. In order to save our credibility, I suggest that we start to quote our sources, as long as they are not the game (/comic/TV episode/Brawl Dojo) itself, either, if we can get it, by Wikipedia's reference system or by simply by adding an external link like this: [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals]. This should prevent further unsourced speculation in the articles, and also prevent random questionable Trivia items like on [[Princess Rosalina]], as currently, to quote the user, there is "no need to source". | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Cobold}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Cobold}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' January 22, 2008, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' January 22, 2008, 17:00 EST | ||
====Use Reference System==== | ====Use Reference System==== | ||
Line 812: | Line 795: | ||
I know but arent you talking about non-oficail sites. [[User:Alphaclaw11|Alphaclaw11]] 12:09, 15 January 2008 (EST) | I know but arent you talking about non-oficail sites. [[User:Alphaclaw11|Alphaclaw11]] 12:09, 15 January 2008 (EST) | ||
:IGN is an unofficial site. As long as the content we take from unofficial sites is about a Nintendo game, it's Nintendo's intellectual property, not the site's. And Nintendo game information/images are used on the whole wiki already under Nintendo's terms: | :IGN is an unofficial site. As long as the content we take from unofficial sites is about a Nintendo game, it's Nintendo's intellectual property, not the site's. And Nintendo game information/images are used on the whole wiki already under Nintendo's terms: | ||
{{ | {{quote2|All content on this website, including articles, artwork, screen shots, graphics, logos, digital downloads and other files, '''may not be used''' on any other web site, in any publications, in public performances, in connection with any product or service that is not Nintendo's, '''in any manner that is likely to cause confusion among customers, in any manner that disparages or discredits Nintendo, or in any manner that is otherwise exploitative for any commercial purpose or that otherwise infringes Nintendo's intellectual property rights'''.|Nintendo|[http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Smash Bros. DOJO!!]}} | ||
:So as long as these criteria are met and we quote or rephrase other sites, it's perfectly legal to take their information. - {{User|Cobold}} 12:15, 15 January 2008 (EST) | :So as long as these criteria are met and we quote or rephrase other sites, it's perfectly legal to take their information. - {{User|Cobold}} 12:15, 15 January 2008 (EST) | ||
Line 846: | Line 829: | ||
===Outside Info=== | ===Outside Info=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-16|keep super smash bros. content}} | |||
Recently, I've seen a very large amount of Super Smash Bros. content all over the wiki, which includes stages, items, and all sorts of other junk taken from all kinds of other series'. I'll put it plain and simple, I believe that we should removed this immense amount of uneeded Super Smash Bros. series stuff(Including cutting down on the insane page for the game, [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]), since we are the ''Super 'Mario' Wiki'', not the ''Super Smash Bros. Wiki'', and with the amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl content we could even be the ''Super Smash Bros. 'Brawl' Wiki''. I know that this is the exact opposite of a proposal I previously made, but things like this just seem totally wrong how we're doing it... Everyone said no to my last proposal, but after it was archived, the immense amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl info continued to flow in, mostly about the stages, items, and character that where shown on ''Smash Bros DOJO!!'', and it almost seemed like everyone would have liked my proposal if it had instead been "Add more '''Super Smash Bros''' content to the wiki". If you havn't noticed from this whole thing, I am proposing that we shorten, merge, and delete pages relating only to the Super Smash Bros. series, or other series' that where introduced to the Mario Wiki through Super Smash Bros. | Recently, I've seen a very large amount of Super Smash Bros. content all over the wiki, which includes stages, items, and all sorts of other junk taken from all kinds of other series'. I'll put it plain and simple, I believe that we should removed this immense amount of uneeded Super Smash Bros. series stuff(Including cutting down on the insane page for the game, [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]), since we are the ''Super 'Mario' Wiki'', not the ''Super Smash Bros. Wiki'', and with the amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl content we could even be the ''Super Smash Bros. 'Brawl' Wiki''. I know that this is the exact opposite of a proposal I previously made, but things like this just seem totally wrong how we're doing it... Everyone said no to my last proposal, but after it was archived, the immense amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl info continued to flow in, mostly about the stages, items, and character that where shown on ''Smash Bros DOJO!!'', and it almost seemed like everyone would have liked my proposal if it had instead been "Add more '''Super Smash Bros''' content to the wiki". If you havn't noticed from this whole thing, I am proposing that we shorten, merge, and delete pages relating only to the Super Smash Bros. series, or other series' that where introduced to the Mario Wiki through Super Smash Bros. | ||
Line 905: | Line 887: | ||
===Merge the different colored Yoshi articles=== | ===Merge the different colored Yoshi articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-8|keep separate}} | |||
I propose that we merge [[Green Yoshi]], [[Cyan Yoshi]], [[Orange Yoshi]], etc. into one article. I find it unnessacarry to have seperate articles on each color. We can easily merge each color and it's abilities into one article. | I propose that we merge [[Green Yoshi]], [[Cyan Yoshi]], [[Orange Yoshi]], etc. into one article. I find it unnessacarry to have seperate articles on each color. We can easily merge each color and it's abilities into one article. | ||
Latest revision as of 10:21, September 13, 2021
Backup Opsallow back-up 6-9 Proposer: Wayoshi (talk) Only Current Ops
Allow Backups
CommentsIf this proposal fails, I would like a list of official backups current ops can look towards, maybe in Help:Chat, at the very least. Wayoshi (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2007 (EST) There needs to be more active ops. Alphaclaw11 (talk)
Pokemon DP: While Wayoshi motives are indeed dubious, he's right. This whole back-up up thing may make soem of those back-uo operators that they could get promoted to Pattroler status, plus, a back-up operator can only be opped when an actual operator is on the chat, which make the point of their existence kind of moot. Glowsquid I'm going to remain neutral on this, as both sides have a fair point. Plumber (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2007 (EST) Since I don't use the chat I don't think it's my place to go sticking my nose into issues involving it, however I do think we should have more than one Patroller (for the Wiki in general). - Walkazo To Dodoman: Don't pay attention to what DP said, he's just a bit upset he won't be able to op Uniju, LB2, etc. Wayoshi (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Sorry for asking, but who exactly are currently ops in the chat? - Cobold (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Wayoshi: In response to the list of official back-up Ops, I've decided to agree on that. For example, after discussing it with Plumber, Luigibros will NOT be a back-up Op anymore. I'm still thinking about Uniju... Blitzwing seems trustworthy enough. Plumber can act a bit spammy at times, but, I'm sure he wouldn't do anything like what HK did. Pokemon DP (talk) I'll still watch him, just in case. Also, with Ghost Jam on the Chat, I will lower the amount of Back-up Ops in Chat. I've only been using the chat extensively for the last two and a half days. Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Things has been rather silent, with some little discussion here and there, with only a few people who had to be kicked. -- Chris 20:22, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Alpha, if a back-up tells Steve they're a back-up, he'll add them, like he did with me. Plumber (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (EST) MarioWiki:Improvement Driveget rid of it 6-0 Proposer: Glowsquid Get rid of it
Try a comebackCommentsWalkazo: We have that list, it's called Category:Rewrite and Expansion Requested. Oh, okay. Thanks! - Walkazo Wario Man (character) and Wario Man (Final Smash)keep 'em merged 3-10 Um, what can I say? If WarioWare, Inc. and WarioWare (stage) are seperate, why not this? It's not like there's a reason not to split them (to my knowledge >_>). Proposer: Dodoman Split 'em!
Keep 'em merged.
CommentsWarioWare the company and WarioWare the stage are something entirely different. Wario Man is not, he's a form of Wario in both meanings, just the fact that it's classified as a Special Move in Brawl does not change that. As such, F.L.U.D.D. (SSB attack) got merged with the F.L.U.D.D. article because of redundancy. - Cobold (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2007 (EST) I see we have two different articles for Giga Bowser and Giga Bowser Transformation. What's everyone's take on that? Is this any different? We're going to have to decide which to split/merge, IMO. Stumpers (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (EST)
PAGENAME templateremove {{pagename}} on articles 9-0 Proposer: Uniju :D Support
OpposeCommentsWhat are you talking about? --HyperToad 10:41, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Individual Starskeep information on individual stars 11-2 Proposer: Phoenix Rider Addendum: One thing, though, if we DO keep these Star lists, we will have to complete the 64 Stars as well. This could turn out to be a big project, and right now it's all a bunch of white space. Keep them
Get rid of them
CommentsI like the goal of the article (make us an encyclopedia, not a game guide), but here's the thing: you're using a hatchet to remove a fly from the Wiki's forehead. Here's why: you are proposing we remove information about specific events that take place during the actual game play of these two adventures because the player controls Mario during them, and thus they are prone to discrepency and game guide style. However, with those gone, you are left only with cutscenes and actions that happen in the overworlds (castle, observatory). Sure, you have a basic story arc, but that would be like telling the original Star Wars trilogy with only a half hour from each film (and possibly none from the "Empire Strikes Back") because you are missing the events that occured in between. Yes, you'll be able to write that Mario gained at least a certain number of stars before defeating Bowser, but not about how he explored the Hazy Maze Cave, because that exploration was part of a "Star Mission." Additionally, the content the proposal seeks to remove/block is the very content that makes the games so famous (no one mainstream is talking about how Peach was captured in SM64, they're talking about the great gameplay, or the "Star Missions."). Even if you'd like to focus on the story alone, you need the stars and Mario's missions to retrieve them as they integral parts of the story. The fact that the sections are not done when the game has only been out for about a month should not indicate that they will stay that way forever. Now, below I wrote about your concern about looking like a game guide and how to change text from game guide stuff to encyclopedia stuff. Take a look if you're not convinced yet. We'll only look like a game guide if we present our information in such a format. Word choice is crucial here, because the events in these games are customized by the player to a certain extent. We must refrain from addressing the player or you, instead saying "Mario does this." However, that phrase can be tricky, too. Take a look at this faked example from Paper Mario's battle with Tubba Blubba's Heart:
Stumpers (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (EST) I think we should retain those lists, but put them in table form. Section form makes it look a bit messy.SpikeKnifeNeedleSword (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2007 (EST)
How about the tables on the Super Mario 64 DS article? They look pretty good.SpikeKnifeNeedleSword (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Redirectskeep redirects 4-9 Proposer: Uniju :D Support
Oppose
CommentsWhile I do see your reasoning behind the "every aspect deserves an article" approach, the truth is, some articles have very little to say about them. In these cases, it is better to have one page that can give all the information in a group rather than forcing people to go back and forth between bite-sized pages. Simply put, it makes navigation a mite easier. Phoenix Rider (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Although I support this proposal, I think it might be better to do it on a case by case basis. For example, I don't think much more information could be given on each individual Prankster Comet then is given on the current Prankster Comet page, although having each comet have a seperate page would make things cleaner and make the images (if any ever get added) fit better... Maybe I should have just opposed the proposal :P Snack 23:03, 30 November 2007 (EST) Uniju, if you think more information can be put on the page, then you do that. But as it stands, in this case, there's not much to be said. Like Snack said, it should be a case by case basis, and in this case its hard to get enough information short of totally wringing it dry. And that doesn't make for good material. You can tell when articles that have little to say about them are stretched for the point of making them longer. Also, what about users who have slower computers? Wouldn't it be more convenient to have more little sections of information on one page rather than having those same little sections on separate pages, where they would have to wait for each individual page to load? Phoenix Rider (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Uniju: Ok, explain how the guys on the List of Implied Characters are worthy of theirs own articles. Blitzwing
I like Snack's point: determining whether to merge is an article-by-article process. I have had two experiences with this recently:
Really, what you need to do is proove to the Wiki that the page deserves to be separate by writing about it. If the Wiki decides to re-merge, make sure that all your work got merged (and not generalized -- that goes against what we're here for) and look for more information and try again. It seems like a lot of work, but it destroys the possibility of a stub, right? Stumpers (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2007 (EST) Merge Cartoon Voice Actorsmerge 6-0 Proposer: Dodoman (talk) Merge 'em, Steve
Keep 'em, SamCommentsSo, the shows we'll have will be the three American series and also the anime, right? Any others? Stumpers (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2007 (EST) The Donkey Kong Country and The Saturday Supercade voice actors; what about them?. -- Sir Grodus 14:05, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Musicno way 3-7
Proposer: Macewindu Let's try it!
No way!
CommentsDon't forget to vote yourself, Macewindu. Anyway, being able to compare music through the ages does sound like a good idea, but we should stick with links out of the Wiki. It's just like with videos: people with slow computers may encounter difficulties with the extra features. The Wiki's for everyone, after all. - Walkazo I'm supporting because you have to click on it for it to work or not so you know what you're in for. there's galbadia hotel but it's mostly remixes from what I've seen and also vgmusic.com as reliable sources for me. the songs show the depth and evolution of each game and are certainly a landmark to be included. I'm in support as long as each song doesn't try to start automatically.Madhatter9max 01:31, 18 December 2007 (EST) Right on madhatter9max! I will only support it if each song doesnt try to start automatically. This would get kind of annoying (like how all the videos start on youtube every time a window is openned). Also, The format need not be OGG. I said that only because Wikipedia uses that. If we used MP3 or WMA, or both that would be much better. I currently have all Mario Party 7 gamerip music with me in one folder, so we wouldnt have to download EVERY SINGLE ONE from Galbadia. Macewindu 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST) Now that the former questions have been addressed, Pokemon DP and Walkazo, any other concerns or do you agree? Two comments: a) GHotel isn't all remixes, some of them are correctly ripped, b) I am not certain if there is an extension to directly play files internally. Wayoshi (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Nope, you covered everything I didn't DP, but thanks for asking! - Walkazo
Blitzwing I don't think the point about less powerful computers is really right, Wikipedia itself use sound samples in some of their articles, and I am sure they are as cautious as us when it come to low-tech computer.
As far as I know, GH doesn't have any Mario Galaxy tunes at the moment. User:firemario
Merging Pumpkin Head with Goombamerge 8-1 Proposer: Knife Merge Information
Keep Article
CommentsThis can also be applied to Mask Koopas. - Walkazo
Galleriesmake gallery pages 10-2 Proposer: Bentendo (talk) Make galleries
Nah
CommentsKnife: Images in a "Wario Image Category" but not on a page will be marked as unused and destroyed by the devorous Unused Image predators. - Cobold (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2007 (EST) Hmmm, would we keep any images on the page? Dodoman (talk)
As an aside, many wiki will create gallery-lists when images are placed in a gallery. I tried this once before, and it seems that it doesn't work around here. -- Chris 14:46, 24 December 2007 (EST)
So does that mean I don't have to do anything? Bentendo (talk) MiniMariolover10: The problem is: Some article on major characters such as Wario or Luigi have an extensive "gallery" section, which have every artwork/screenshots of the character in question, those pics take up a lot of spaces, but some users are not too happy about removing them. With this proposal, we can cut down the size of some articles while still keeping the images. Blitzwing This would be a huge project for the Sysops and Beuracrats (not one) and our featured articles like the Yoshi one will be reduced.Storm Yoshi (talk) Quotesremove quote sections 8-4
I propose that these either get removed or shortened. I see no promblem with having qoutes, but having so many that arn't even descent (Although that is a matter of opinion) is pointless. What are your thoughts? Proposer: HyperToad Remove Them
Keep Them
CommentsAs you said, deciding what Quotes are decent and which aren,t is purely a matter of opinion. I think we should use a case-by-case procedure, not everything need to be run throught a proposal. Blitzwing already had this prospoal, that one -_-' minimariolover10 (talk)
Although it is a matter of opinion, how the heck is "Help" a descent qoute, I'm sure anybody could agree that it's just stupid. HyperToad
In my opinion, entire sections devoted to quotes are ridiculous. Sure, the quotes at the top and everything are okay, but these quote sections... Let's see. They clutter the article, they're often written in poor grammar, and sometimes they've been added to the article above the quote section. They're trouble in my opinion, and I think that not only should the "small" quotes like Peach screaming for help should be removed, but the entire quote sections. Dodoman (talk) If the quotes sections are being scrapped can we at least make seperate quote pages as InfectedShroom and Time Q suggested? Since that proposal about Gallery pages passed, quotes pages would fit right into the whole idea. Besides, some quotes pages are already being worked on (i.e. Koopalings (quotes)). - Walkazo Merge Bird Articlesmerge 12-6 Proposer: Luigibros2 Merge them
Let there be Bird articles
CommentsHmmm... While the birds are rather insignificant, they are all seperate creatures with different purposes. For now, I'm neutral on this.
Uniju: Yes, but they are all birds. They only have 2 differences; one is their colour s and two is their coin they give out/ minimariolover10 (talk) What about Yoshi's. We have Red Yoshi, Yellow Yoshi etc..... should they be merged? - Ultimatetoad
Merge Classic NES Series Articlesmerge 10-5 Proposer: Glitchman Merge them
Keep them separate
CommentsThey may be different games from their originals, but aside from a few minor graphical improvements, they're complete and utter ports, nothing else. If we have articles on these, we may as well have articles on the Virtual Console versions of games.
How about both? We can have a page about the Classic NES Series as a whole with the re-makes covered in each of their parent articles (the originals). - Walkazo
The articles are officially merged. Dodoman (talk) A Glitch Too Manyleave glitches as they are 2-6 Proposer: Knife (talk) Glitches Must Be Notable or Proved
Leave Glitches As They Are
CommentHow are we supposed to prove the glitches exist? Photos? Acknowledgement from Nintendo? Also, aren't we supposed to have everything we can possibly find about Mario on here? If we strip off the minor glitches we'd be defeating the purpose of Super Mario Wiki. However the page does need to be cleaned up, something that can easily be accomplished in ways other than scrapping a handfull of glitches (i.e. combine the two SMS walking-under-water glitches and scrap the "Requirements"). - Walkazo Generally blanket ideas like this look good in thoery, but you're looking at something as varied as glitches, and plus you have the problem of "notability" arguements. Maybe they're worth it for an article that could be featured, but an individual glitch? Plus, I don't want to see someone put hours of work into something just to have it removed. Stumpers (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2008 (EST) If we only kept the most famous and notable glitches, such as Minus World and Fireless Bowser, the wiki's original purpose would have been replaced to be a video game dictionary instead of a fun and interesting place to learn cheats, gameplay, and of course, glitches. Many people (such as myself) rely on the Wiki to find all of the glitches they can. And like Walkazo said, how would you go about proving their existance? - Glitchman (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (PT)
Hmm... I just looked at the page, and yes, it does need cleaning up. My comment still stands, however. InfectedShroom.
Conker and Banjodon't add banjo and conker content 2-11 Proposer: HyperToad SupportOppose
CommentsActually, we had two proposal on this matter and infact, we used to have article on Banjo and Conker subject. The overal concensus was that Banjo and Conker only had very marginal link to the Marioverse (Not my opinion, thought) and that Conker was too scary for little kids. Just so you know. --Blitzwing 12:36, 10 January 2008 (EST)
--Blitzwing 12:49, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Wait... shouldn't we be making our decisions based on continuity and connection of game universes rather than personal throughts on how far removed a character can be before his series isn't covered by our Wiki? That line of reasoning is a little close to conjecturally determining canon for me. Stumpers (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (EST) Hey, Glitchman, Banjo-Kazooie was in fact an incredible game, and a completely new series made by Rare. However, we already tried adding both those series to this wiki. Everyone remember this summer? They were removed again in about a month. Plus, most of Conker's games are pretty... Innappropriate. I don't want to see that stuff around this wiki. InfectedShroom (talk) True, I don't think we should bother posting them again when they're just going to be deleted...AGAIN. Per everyone else. Glitchman (talk) The Cheese articlekeep it 14-18 During February 2007, two users (Don't remmember who exactly) discussed how tasty cheese is, eventually, other users started putting like "CHESSE IS SO AWESOME! LOL." on their userpages. This eventually culminated in the creation of a mainspace article called "The Cheese Craze of '07", which was nothing more than a thinly veiled place for spam. The Cheese Craze of '07 was deleted and the Cheese fad started to die down, a few months after, this article was created. That's about it for the backstory. Now, why this article should be deleted?: First, the Importance of the item to the Marioverse is dubious: Let's see... it appear in Donkey Kong 64 as something you can climb on. Some places in Super Mario World and the Mario Kart have "Cheese" in their name. It's mentioned in the Paper Mario series and appear as one of the generic food item in the Super Smash Bros. Series. It's only claim to fame is that it might boost (The article write it like you can only see one if you expect a piece of cheese, but that's untrue) the chance of seeing a Gold Mouse in Luigi's Mansion, and I am not even sure it's true, it's said in the Prima Guide, but those aren't official and full of bogus info. An actually notable item called the Sacred Cylinder of Cheese play a major role in one of the Valiant comic story, but I don't think it help Cheese in any case. Look at the Toy Time Galaxy, it's the galaxy as a whole that is notable, we don't have an article on the individual toy-like surface that are in it, the same thing should apply to the Cylinder. Second, If we allow Cheese to have an article, we should also allow a crapload of generic real world items to have their own articles: Let's take the Baozi-like meal found in Young Cricket story in WarioWare: Smooth Moves as an example. It play a major role in Young Cricket story since he's racing to grab some while they're still fresh. They also affect the gameplay, since they also act as a life counter. Lost all of them and it's game over. The Baozi's do everything the Cheese do and more, so why we don't have an article on it? Seriously: If we allow Cheese to have it's own article, we should also allow other generic items to have their articles such as Television, Bridge or the afro-mentioned baozi, why Cheese should have a priority over those other items? I hate when community stuff creep in the encyclopedia, this article is the perfect example of it. Proposer: Blitzwing Delete it
Keep it
CommentsHyperToad: No, we don't have an article on everything. There is nothing special about Cheese, it's only a real world object that sometimes get referenced in the Marioverse, what make it more worthy of it's own article than other generic objects? Some guy here just thought it was tasty and started a fad around it. About your idea of making a list.... it could work, althought I think it would get pretty crowded. Blitzwing Although I agree about it's actual purpose, reworking the article is still an option. It appears in 2 games (at least) and the comics. Are we going to get rid off things that only appear in only one game or take out things that only appear in the comics. Honestly, notabilty arguements could go on forever. HyperToad
Glitchman: What do you mean by "That proposal wasn't long enough."? If you mean that the opening thing is huge... well, I acknowledge I have difficulties abreviaitng my writting. But to make it short, Cheese as of now is too minor of a subject and we don't have "articles on everything" (See my comment.) Blitzwing Blitzy: Cheese does effect gameplay, as confirmed by guidebooks (Prima among others). Yeah, they're not official, but they still are sources that are superior to observations from an individual user, not to put you down or anything. Could you have simply turned on the lights in the room before the mouse appears? I've gone through runs of that game where I haven't seen any mice and others where they appear every time I enter particular rooms. All of this says to me that you'd want to put cheese as a subsection on the Gold Mouse page though, don't you think? To flat out delete the information would be crazy, plus, every edit that every user makes on a Wiki is influenced by his past, sometimes including gags and fads. So... to say that an article shouldn't exist because the user who created it was involved in a running gag that you happened to severely dislike seems very strange to me. Should an article I made about Minor Characters from the Movie be deleted because I happen to love the fact that everyone seems to hate the Mario movie? In other words, because I was interested in the movie because of the "running gag" of mocking the movie, and because I get into the mocking as well, should any edits I do on minor subjects from the movie be removed? But you'll notice that the article example I gave would be a list, right? I'm not advocating the cheese article to be its own necesarily, but that information should remain on the Wiki in some way, shape, or form. No, the types of platforms in Toy Time Galaxy should not have individual articles, but they should be mentioned in the Toy Time Galaxy article, yes? So, what I would do would be to make a list of Real World Subjects that have showed up in the Mario continuity (such as television, for example) and include Cheese in there... and include all of its cross-overs into the Mushroom World. The Real World is as important to the Mario series as someplace like the Land of Ice... actually, it's more important. You'll notice, however, that the Real World is still different from our own (in other worlds, there is no Blitzwing in the Mario interpretation, no?) and so I would say it's important that we note what does exist there, just as we talk about what exists in the Mushroom World. So, cheese should be mentioned, just like everything else from the Real World, right? I usually tend to diviate during my arguments, so please feel free to ask for clarification. But I am on your side that we're probably giving too much relavence to a topic that can be looked up somewhere else... like Wikipedia. Stumpers (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)
The problem with the "It affect Gameplay!" reasoning is, that when you think about it, pretty much everything 'cept for the Mario Kart Sponsor affect gameplay. The bush and other objects you can shake in the Paper Mario series contain valuable items and you kinda interact with them. In the WarioWare series, you have to use a variety of object to get the task done... ect. While affecting the gameplay is a good argument, an article shouldn't be kept merely because it affect a very minor part of the game. About the list idea, while it could work, I think it would just end up as a gigantic list of "(Insert Generic item here) is a real-word object that sometimes appear in the Marioverse, it appear in (Insert Game Name here)" style entries without much info. About the "You only want to delete this because you hate that fad" thing, yes, I hate that fad and want to see it dissapear. However, even if a part of me hate the fad, I still think Cheese isn't worthy of it's own article, maybe as a mention in a list or something. The problem isn't that Cheese have a cult centered around it, it's that Cheese was only created because of it. Do I have to start a fad centered about Snufit Ball to recreate it? Geez. Blitzwing
Fly_Guy_2: Was that a joke or are you threatening? - Cobold (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2008 (EST) If the Cheese article stays then why not make an article about a chair or a coach!Storm Yoshi (talk) Stumpers: You don't need to appologise for changing your mind (at least, you don't need to appologise to me). However, I disagree about your Peach (item) example. The part about its role in Donkey Kong Jungle Beat could easily be merged into the Peach Kingdom article (like we've been saying about the bits of the Cheese article), but the fact that it's a Super Smash Bros. Brawl item makes it "neccesary" for it to have an article, since all the other items do. I personaly don't whole-heartedly agree with that policy, since it does make people wonder why other random items don't get articles if SSB items do. I dunno, I don't really care about this anymore. I'd rather see the Cheese Article gone and thereby set a standard for all random item articles (or lack thereof), but it's never bothered me before, and it won't in the future... I hope. - Walkazo
Split up the Quote Sectionssplit the quotes 8-2
Proposer: InfectedShroom (talk) Split The Quotes!
Keep Them Where They Are.CommentsGhostJam, how so? Stumpers (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2008 (EST) I think we used to have a page about a list of Quotes found in Super Mario 64 and it's remake, althought I can't find it now.... was it deleted? Blitzwing What's the point of this proposal? I mean, we just had a proposal regarding quotes, and we decided to remove those quote sections. Someone just would have to take action. Time Q (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2008 (EST) We JUST had this SAME proposal. Urgh! HyperToad
Hmmm... I'm gonna need help making the pages if this proposal makes it... InfectedShroom (talk) I just thought of something. And it's not good. Splitting the quotes by game would be good for newer games, like Super Mario 64 or Galaxy. But what about games with almost no quotes, like Super Mario Bros.? That would make some pages very small. I think that we should make quote pages for individual characters and then make sections in that character-quote page for individual games/TV series/Movies. This would also make it easier for me in making these quote pages, as all the quotes I need are on one page, so I can easily transfer them to a new one. It could also make it moderatly easier to look for certain quotes. Sooo... your thoughts? InfectedShroom (talk) Meh, forgot the last ~
Citing Sourcesstart referencing 16-3 Proposer: Cobold (talk) Use Reference System
Use not
CommentsAlphaclaw11: It's only illegal when the author holds the right on it. For information about Nintendo video games, you may always use it as a part of press freedom (when new game), and because Nintendo does not mind (obviously). The sites like IGN don't own the right on Brawl information, for example. Only when you copy a text 1:1 (e.g. GameFAQs walkthrough), it's possibly a copyright violation without naming the author. - Cobold (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2008 (EST) I know but arent you talking about non-oficail sites. Alphaclaw11 12:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)
OkayAlphaclaw11 12:20, 15 January 2008 (EST) but still, if it is from a non-offical site then you need to say where you got it in cause it was wrong Citation extensions literally cover MediaWiki.com on sub-pages galore, which I assume is Wikipedia's shortcut <references>. If we really want to go that far, it can be done. Wayoshi (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Stumpers: The current rules of the {{aboutfile}} template say that the source website should indeed be listed as "source". The problem is more that currently, older files didn't get the update, and we don't have a section for the game any more. - Cobold (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2008 (EST) What if we're drawing from our personal experiences, do we cite the games themselves? Cuz that might seem a bit redundant, ex: "In Super Paper Mario, Mario, Luigi, Peach and Bowser are on a quest to stop Count Bleck from destroying all the dimensions [Super Paper Mario, 2007]." (I know it's not a proper citation, but you get the point). Also, what if you see screenshots of a game on a website, which to you cite? - Walkazo
*AHEM* I have one problem with this proposal... Everyone looks at citing sources as just like on Wikipedia, but it's not really, we're about a series of video games, so the source could be the actual game itself. Everyone says things like "We need to know WHERE you FOUND the information" as if the internet is the only thing we have to find information about a series of video games. I don't really see it being easy to just say "I played the game itself" on this place, seeing as how people seem to LOVE arguing about that kind of stuff, and it could be used to back up conjectural information for more minor video games. Of course, I don't really see how this would majorly effect citing sources much, since conjectural information is rarely placed on articles anyway... But, it may still cause conflicts, especially when it comes to obscure games. </pointless rant> Uniju :D (talk)
I think the sourcing system here (If this proposal pass) should perhap be less strict than Wikipedia. There, every bit of cretinous informations like "X organisation is the bad guy of the game" or "X character return from the previous game" require to be sourced, even if the information can be found in the game itself. I think only really obscure info (Like Nastasia having a crush on Count Bleck) or things like the crap about Rosalina being related to Peach in SMG beta should be sourced. --Blitzwing 06:55, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Peachycakes 3. 14:You know, we can alway use the (in)famous "citation needed" tag of Wikipedia if the information isn unsourced. For what we know, the information added could be one of those "I heard somewhere that..." deal whose original meaning get warped over time. Sourcing mean we can verify the credibility of the infos. --Blitzwing 18:16, 16 January 2008 (EST) Alright, I too think we should cite. HOWEVER: I have done many things here that I just pulled out my DS and started looking for info. How the heck are we supposed to cite that? I never even go to other websites for info. I just look it up in the game or the guide. Another thing: how are we supposed to quote Official Guides? it's a bit hard... InfectedShroom (talk)
Well, probably we could do like what Geographers do when the map maps. They write "Field Work" so just replace it with "Own Source" or something... MarioBros777 (talk) Could work...
Outside Infokeep super smash bros. content 3-16 Proposer: Uniju :D Support, we are the Super Mario wiki
Oppose
CommentsDP & Crash(and the rest of the hoard coming to per him): I see where your coming from, but just because there's Mario stuff in it, that doesn't mean we should cover the whole thing. Do we cover all about the TV shows Mario cameos in? And, KingBoo, that's not what everyone said last time, everyone said that we should just link to other sites. Which I now see is the better way to do it. Uniju :D (talk)
King Boo - You just said it yourself, Uniju. We are the MARIO wiki. Therefore we should completely cover every game that has MARIO content.
The proposal is right about one thing. A LOT of emphasis (too much?) goes into the Smash Bros. articles. If something appeared, or is going to appear in a Smash game, it's guaranteed to have proper coverage, and will never be in danger of being a poorly-written stub. Looking at the front page right now, all three news articles are about Brawl. The featured article? Melee. We do look like the Smash Wiki just from glancing at the front page. Too much attention is being given to the Smash Bros. games. I know they're uber popular and everything, but they shouldn't be the center of attention on the Mario Wiki. I'm not saying that we can't have all these articles, but that the people who write them should dip into other subjects when they get the chance. Look at Super Mario Bros. or Super Mario Bros. 3. Landmark games with lousy articles for what they are. -- Booster
As long as we only give a brief background on non-Mario things like in the Link article these articles are fine (because it's still relevant to Mario). As others have said already, these games are Mario games, just like Mario Hoops 3-on-3, only instead of one crossover series there's several. The very name Super Mario Bros. is homage to Mario and Mario being a playable character could make it more of a Mario game in some peoples' eyes than things like Donkey Kong Country or Wario Land 4 that have no sign of Mario at all. Yes, Smash Bros. is a bit over-hyped, but its a good series and with a new instalation about to come out it's bound to get lots of attention. Step back and wait for the game to be released and all the information digested into the Wiki before deciding what should stay and what should be merged... But the proposal probably won't fly then either. - Walkazo
I think that these connections being made between series is getting a little far-fetched. I myself believe the amount of Smash content should be limited, and I have a reason why. I may have a tough time explaining (I might be sounding like I'm being contradicting here and there), so please don't fret if you cannot understand. Alright, the Smash Bros series is closely related to Mario, as some of you argue. But "closely" is not the same as "directly": Smash series did not come straight from Mario. Smash is more like a salad of different Nintendo (and other) series blended together. Mario being mixed with everybody else does not make them all related to Mario. The Yoshi, Wario, and DK series are Mario related, because they stemmed directly from the Mario universe. Diddy Kong, King K. Rool, and everyone else there is Mario related, because they are part of the DK series (stemming from Mario). But, characters like Conker and Banjo did not stem out from Mario, but from DK and thus became a whole different franchise altogether. From this we can conclude we should only cover characters and whatnot that are within the Mario universe and those that stemmed directly from it. But now you all must be thinking "what about Sonic? He and Mario are in a game together!" Mario & Sonic is a Mario game to begin with but had allowed Sonic, a completely different character, to be a guest in the universe. So the Sonic characters that appeared there should be covered on the Wiki as they were directly put within or extremely near the Mario universe for at least a while. The Smash series differs from this situation in that it is several video game universes in one big collage, rather than a direct implementation of one universe into another. It doesn't focus directly at Mario, Sonic, Pokemon, or at Pikmin. All of them are in for it. So, back my first point: the Smash series is a big (mostly Nintendo) video game collage; the series doesn't solely take place in the Mario universe. Several franchises meet together, but doesn't make them related as they didn't originate from one another. Zelda did not come from Mario, and neither did Pokemon, Metroid, Star Fox, etc. Therefore the Mario Wiki is being cluttered with many articles that not even related to Mario: only because Mario is in the game. Sonic is a very loose exception, as he and Mario were the direct focus of the game mentioned earlier-- Well... look, I'm not saying we should simply throw out all things non-Mario, I'm saying that they should be controlled. I myself suggest that we do directly focus on primarily on the Mario components and gameplay of Brawl and Melee while giving mention to the other franchises within. I suggest links to non-Mario Smash articles (Link, Final Cutter, Smashville, End of Day) be replaced with links to those at Smash Wiki's. This way, I believe it does not ignore the majority of Smash itself, but rather lets more appropriate sources fill that void. I hope at least many of you were able to see what I'm saying. --NintendoExpert89 02:07, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Orangeyoshi 17:18, 20 January 2008 (EST) Super Smash Bros. articles are fine. But I don't think those games should be considered part of the main Mario series. They're not even really Mario spin-offs-- they're more like general Nintendo character games. When I read the ESRB article, it said no Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, or Yoshi game had ever been rated EC, M, or AO. That made me curious about what game was rated T. When I found out it was SSB Melee, I was like, "Oh, THAT game." On this wiki, it's considered to much as part of the series. The articles are fine. But that's what I have to say about this matter. Merge the different colored Yoshi articleskeep separate 1-8 Proposer: King Boo Support
Oppose, each color should have it's own article
CommentsCan you expand on your reasoning a little more? I'm not sure which way I want to go yet. Stumpers (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2008 (EST) We had this proposal before, it did not pass. Time Q (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2008 (EST) BlueYoshter, I don't understand what you mean by "THEY MUST STAY." Could you elaborate, please? ChaosNinji (talk) This did fail before. |