MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/25: Difference between revisions
m (Protected.) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Recently I have seen red links, redirect links, etc. on other peoples userpages along with deleted images and I was wondering if us autoconfirmed users can edit their userpages for errors, etc. It really doesn't make sense that only sysops get to edit this so I set up this proposal. Also, on Wikia we get to edit others' userpages along with most other wikis. | Recently I have seen red links, redirect links, etc. on other peoples userpages along with deleted images and I was wondering if us autoconfirmed users can edit their userpages for errors, etc. It really doesn't make sense that only sysops get to edit this so I set up this proposal. Also, on Wikia we get to edit others' userpages along with most other wikis. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain K. Rool}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain K. Rool}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': March 19, 2011 14:30 GMT<br> | '''Voting start''': March 19, 2011 14:30 GMT<br> | ||
| Line 87: | Line 86: | ||
::::Guys, please don't leave anymore comments about an insubstantial comment. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | ::::Guys, please don't leave anymore comments about an insubstantial comment. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | ||
:::::The third line of text [[MarioWiki:Protected page|here]] pretty much makes this entire proposal invalid... {{User|Phoenix}} 05:25, 27 March 2011 (EDT) | :::::The third line of text [[MarioWiki:Protected page|here]] pretty much makes this entire proposal invalid... {{User|Phoenix}} 05:25, 27 March 2011 (EDT) | ||
===Merge all of [[King Koopa's alter egos]] into one article=== | ===Merge all of [[King Koopa's alter egos]] into one article=== | ||
| Line 94: | Line 92: | ||
On ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'' King Koopa has many alter egos. These alter egos are just him in a different costume. The costumes don't give him any extra abilities, they are only seen for one episode, and while wearing the costumes, King Koopa is no different from when he's not wearing the costumes. Thus, I propose to merge the alter-egos of King Koopa that currently have an article ([[Al Koopone]], [[Captain Koopa]], [[Emperor Augustus Septemberus Octoberus Koopa]],[[Kid Koopa]], [[Koopa Khan]], [[Koopa Klaus (alter ego)]], [[Moon Man Koopa]], and [[Robo Koopa (alter ego)]]) into a single article. I'd prefer merging them to [[King Koopa's alter egos]], but I'll also add a section to merge them to [[Bowser]]. | On ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'' King Koopa has many alter egos. These alter egos are just him in a different costume. The costumes don't give him any extra abilities, they are only seen for one episode, and while wearing the costumes, King Koopa is no different from when he's not wearing the costumes. Thus, I propose to merge the alter-egos of King Koopa that currently have an article ([[Al Koopone]], [[Captain Koopa]], [[Emperor Augustus Septemberus Octoberus Koopa]],[[Kid Koopa]], [[Koopa Khan]], [[Koopa Klaus (alter ego)]], [[Moon Man Koopa]], and [[Robo Koopa (alter ego)]]) into a single article. I'd prefer merging them to [[King Koopa's alter egos]], but I'll also add a section to merge them to [[Bowser]]. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': March 20, 2011, 15:50<br> | '''Voting start''': March 20, 2011, 15:50<br> | ||
| Line 151: | Line 148: | ||
I think Robo Koopa should keep its own article, and FA status - if it's long enough and good enough, what's the point of merging and losing a great article. Instead, we can just use <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki>. If we merge it, we're bound to lose some information and that's not good for the Wiki. {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} | I think Robo Koopa should keep its own article, and FA status - if it's long enough and good enough, what's the point of merging and losing a great article. Instead, we can just use <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki>. If we merge it, we're bound to lose some information and that's not good for the Wiki. {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} | ||
:But that would be inconsistent. Besides, all the information can easily be saved. [[Robo Koopa (episode)]] already has a complete record of events, so shortening the alter ego's History into a summary isn't an issue. The Trivia about the ''RoboCop'' and ''Terminator'' reference can also go into the episode page, and the Powers and Abilities chart can go into [[Robo Suit]] (along with the other Trivia point about the "destroy you miserable little meddlers" button). So the only thing we'd be losing is an entry in out list of FAs, but that's a small price to pay for a much more efficient and consistent organization of Koopa's 30+ alter egos. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :But that would be inconsistent. Besides, all the information can easily be saved. [[Robo Koopa (episode)]] already has a complete record of events, so shortening the alter ego's History into a summary isn't an issue. The Trivia about the ''RoboCop'' and ''Terminator'' reference can also go into the episode page, and the Powers and Abilities chart can go into [[Robo Suit]] (along with the other Trivia point about the "destroy you miserable little meddlers" button). So the only thing we'd be losing is an entry in out list of FAs, but that's a small price to pay for a much more efficient and consistent organization of Koopa's 30+ alter egos. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
===Merge Minor NPCs with their location=== | ===Merge Minor NPCs with their location=== | ||
| Line 158: | Line 154: | ||
There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article. I believe we should merge them with the location where they are, so they can be found easily. Also, many of these articles are stubs anyway, so it would also get rid of some stubs. | There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article. I believe we should merge them with the location where they are, so they can be found easily. Also, many of these articles are stubs anyway, so it would also get rid of some stubs. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshiwaker}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshiwaker}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': March 27, 1:00 GMT<br> | '''Voting start''': March 27, 1:00 GMT<br> | ||
| Line 206: | Line 201: | ||
:::::::You might want to put your definition right in the proposal itself (so readers don't have to comb through the comments to figure out what exactly will be merged). You should also explain ''why'' you think they're too minor for articles: simply saying "''There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article[s].''" is rather tautological, leaving the "they're stubs" argument as the only thing to go on (the bit about finding things more easily doesn't relate to the "they're too minor for pages" aspect). - {{User|Walkazo}} | :::::::You might want to put your definition right in the proposal itself (so readers don't have to comb through the comments to figure out what exactly will be merged). You should also explain ''why'' you think they're too minor for articles: simply saying "''There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article[s].''" is rather tautological, leaving the "they're stubs" argument as the only thing to go on (the bit about finding things more easily doesn't relate to the "they're too minor for pages" aspect). - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
If I'm right on the definition, you want Culex, Jinx and Monstermana merged with Monstro Town, Toadofsky merged with Tadpole Pond and The Sunglasses Salesman and Doot-Doot Sisters merged with Isle Delfino? They have nothing to do with the main plot. {{User|Magikrazy51}} | If I'm right on the definition, you want Culex, Jinx and Monstermana merged with Monstro Town, Toadofsky merged with Tadpole Pond and The Sunglasses Salesman and Doot-Doot Sisters merged with Isle Delfino? They have nothing to do with the main plot. {{User|Magikrazy51}} | ||
===Input new rules for name changing=== | ===Input new rules for name changing=== | ||
| Line 213: | Line 207: | ||
I used up my 2 chances to change my name, but I find my current name to be too long. I say to increase the number of times we can change our names to three, and place a limit on how many letters, numbers, spaces, etc. to 20. It saves users from making their second (and last) name change, then realizing that the username is too long. | I used up my 2 chances to change my name, but I find my current name to be too long. I say to increase the number of times we can change our names to three, and place a limit on how many letters, numbers, spaces, etc. to 20. It saves users from making their second (and last) name change, then realizing that the username is too long. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}}<br> | |||
'''Voting start''': March 29, 2011 at 21:30 GMT <br> | '''Voting start''': March 29, 2011 at 21:30 GMT <br> | ||
'''Deadline''': April 6, 2011 at 21:30 GMT | '''Deadline''': April 6, 2011 at 21:30 GMT | ||
| Line 272: | Line 266: | ||
:If the number of characters is ever a problem, we will fix it. {{User|Marioguy1}} | :If the number of characters is ever a problem, we will fix it. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
Pokémon Trainer Mario, a really easy way to get that "é" in Pokémon is to google "pokemon". The first entry has the word Pokémon with an "é". Just copy and paste it. [[User:Volatile Dweevil|Volatile Dweevil]] | Pokémon Trainer Mario, a really easy way to get that "é" in Pokémon is to google "pokemon". The first entry has the word Pokémon with an "é". Just copy and paste it. [[User:Volatile Dweevil|Volatile Dweevil]] | ||
===Make an Article for AR games=== | ===Make an Article for AR games=== | ||
| Line 285: | Line 279: | ||
*[[Green Shell]](item) | *[[Green Shell]](item) | ||
No other wiki has a page for AR games,and it's Mario related,so it should have an article. | No other wiki has a page for AR games,and it's Mario related,so it should have an article. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': April 2, 5:30 GMT<br> | '''Voting start''': April 2, 5:30 GMT<br> | ||
| Line 327: | Line 321: | ||
:I'd be happy with having them in the 3DS article or their own article, but there are a bunch of Mario-related minigames in there, and they need to be mentioned. {{User|Bop1996}} | :I'd be happy with having them in the 3DS article or their own article, but there are a bunch of Mario-related minigames in there, and they need to be mentioned. {{User|Bop1996}} | ||
::I'd go with both and use the <nowiki>{{main|Article Name}}</nowiki> template. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | ::I'd go with both and use the <nowiki>{{main|Article Name}}</nowiki> template. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | ||
| Line 335: | Line 328: | ||
On most of the articles about games, there is a "References in Other Games" section that lists games that reference that game. What's the problem? If an enemy is introduced in one game, and then that enemy is used in a future game, it is considered a reference to the former game. May I ask why? If an enemy appears in another game, that means it is a recurring enemy. The first game just introduced it. | On most of the articles about games, there is a "References in Other Games" section that lists games that reference that game. What's the problem? If an enemy is introduced in one game, and then that enemy is used in a future game, it is considered a reference to the former game. May I ask why? If an enemy appears in another game, that means it is a recurring enemy. The first game just introduced it. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | ||
| Line 372: | Line 364: | ||
References are not that simple; if they were, a concise rule set would be developed already. But as we do not know what Nintendo was thinking, we can't do this. I ''definitely'' don't think that every game with a Goomba in it is a reference to SMB, or that every game with Mario is a reference to the original DK. But sometimes when enemies appear, it is a reference (i.e. Dino Piranha in SMG is referenced by Peewee Piranha in SMG2 (sorry, couldn't think of anything better)). So it's complicated. And ''then'', to make matters more complicated - music. Sometimes music is remixed music from another game, sometimes it's the same, sometimes it's different, but we can't be sure whether music that sounds like it's from SMB3 is actually a reference to SMB3 or they just ran out of sound files so they remixed something. Like I said, the references to other games sections are very complicated. {{User|Marioguy1}} | References are not that simple; if they were, a concise rule set would be developed already. But as we do not know what Nintendo was thinking, we can't do this. I ''definitely'' don't think that every game with a Goomba in it is a reference to SMB, or that every game with Mario is a reference to the original DK. But sometimes when enemies appear, it is a reference (i.e. Dino Piranha in SMG is referenced by Peewee Piranha in SMG2 (sorry, couldn't think of anything better)). So it's complicated. And ''then'', to make matters more complicated - music. Sometimes music is remixed music from another game, sometimes it's the same, sometimes it's different, but we can't be sure whether music that sounds like it's from SMB3 is actually a reference to SMB3 or they just ran out of sound files so they remixed something. Like I said, the references to other games sections are very complicated. {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
:I agree with Marioguy. Nintendo seems to love including nostalgic references to other games, and then not specifying whether it is a reference or not. Where does that leave us? It seems that this is going to be a case-by-case situation. However, I feel that this discussion is clouding the issue a bit. {{User|Bop1996}} | :I agree with Marioguy. Nintendo seems to love including nostalgic references to other games, and then not specifying whether it is a reference or not. Where does that leave us? It seems that this is going to be a case-by-case situation. However, I feel that this discussion is clouding the issue a bit. {{User|Bop1996}} | ||
| Line 380: | Line 371: | ||
This is my first proposal. There are many games in the [[Donkey Kong series]]. The category, Donkey Kong Levels, there is too much content. It has about 5 different games in one category. I think we should make categories for each game. For example, '''<nowiki>Category:Donkey Kong Country Levels</nowiki>''', etc. It would be easier to find levels and it wouldn't take up 2 pages! We should make one for every game such as [[Donkey Kong Country 2]], [[Donkey Kong Country 3]], [[DK: King of Swing]], etc. It just seems easier to navigate levels. We should also delete the original one if we make other categories. I will add a section for making new categories and I will add one for keep the original one as is. | This is my first proposal. There are many games in the [[Donkey Kong series]]. The category, Donkey Kong Levels, there is too much content. It has about 5 different games in one category. I think we should make categories for each game. For example, '''<nowiki>Category:Donkey Kong Country Levels</nowiki>''', etc. It would be easier to find levels and it wouldn't take up 2 pages! We should make one for every game such as [[Donkey Kong Country 2]], [[Donkey Kong Country 3]], [[DK: King of Swing]], etc. It just seems easier to navigate levels. We should also delete the original one if we make other categories. I will add a section for making new categories and I will add one for keep the original one as is. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br> | |||
'''Voting start''': March 23, 2011 20:51<br> | '''Voting start''': March 23, 2011 20:51<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': <s>March 31, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s> '''Extended''': <s>April 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s>, April 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT | '''Deadline''': <s>March 31, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s> '''Extended''': <s>April 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s>, April 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT | ||
| Line 474: | Line 465: | ||
D'oh. Got the date mixed up, thought it was over. (Mortified expression) {{User|Bop1996}} | D'oh. Got the date mixed up, thought it was over. (Mortified expression) {{User|Bop1996}} | ||
===Apply new procedures for naming Starting Planets=== | ===Apply new procedures for naming Starting Planets=== | ||
| Line 481: | Line 471: | ||
I apologize in advance to those of you who disapprove of this proposal, but it's my humble opinion that the Starting Planets in all the [[galaxy]] articles need actual names besides, well, "Starting Planet." From my standpoint, giving them all the name of "Starting Planet" is needlessly pigeonholing 91 different planets for the galaxy articles, when they could all be named something much better. In fact, I have already been to several galaxy articles where I found that this trend wasn't being followed anyway, as some are completely lacking planets that are referred to as the "Starting Planet," and others simply refer to the first planet encountered as "________ Planet (Starting Planet)." In addition, on the [[Melty Molten Galaxy]] article, we've got the main planet marked as the Starting Planet, and then five lines down where the other areas embedded in the main planet are discussed, it is now referred to as the "Lava Planet!" Therefore (as somewhat of a remedy to such inconsistencies and confusion), I propose that we keep the planets labeled as Starting Planets, but do so in such a way that we also give them names as well; i.e., label them all as "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" on every article. I mean, really, there's no reason why we can't do both, right? Thus, nothing important will actually be taken out of the article, and the only thing that ''should'' happen will be that the names of all the starting planets in each galaxy become clearer and easier to understand. If this proposal does pass, I will personally take it upon myself to go around to each of the Starting Planets and implement the necessary changes. | I apologize in advance to those of you who disapprove of this proposal, but it's my humble opinion that the Starting Planets in all the [[galaxy]] articles need actual names besides, well, "Starting Planet." From my standpoint, giving them all the name of "Starting Planet" is needlessly pigeonholing 91 different planets for the galaxy articles, when they could all be named something much better. In fact, I have already been to several galaxy articles where I found that this trend wasn't being followed anyway, as some are completely lacking planets that are referred to as the "Starting Planet," and others simply refer to the first planet encountered as "________ Planet (Starting Planet)." In addition, on the [[Melty Molten Galaxy]] article, we've got the main planet marked as the Starting Planet, and then five lines down where the other areas embedded in the main planet are discussed, it is now referred to as the "Lava Planet!" Therefore (as somewhat of a remedy to such inconsistencies and confusion), I propose that we keep the planets labeled as Starting Planets, but do so in such a way that we also give them names as well; i.e., label them all as "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" on every article. I mean, really, there's no reason why we can't do both, right? Thus, nothing important will actually be taken out of the article, and the only thing that ''should'' happen will be that the names of all the starting planets in each galaxy become clearer and easier to understand. If this proposal does pass, I will personally take it upon myself to go around to each of the Starting Planets and implement the necessary changes. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Phoenix}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Phoenix}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': April 7, 2011, 06:00 GMT.<br> | '''Voting start''': April 7, 2011, 06:00 GMT.<br> | ||
| Line 639: | Line 628: | ||
::::@Marioguy1 - Gotcha. {{User|Phoenix}} 01:44, 17 April 2011 (EDT) | ::::@Marioguy1 - Gotcha. {{User|Phoenix}} 01:44, 17 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
===Split the [[:Category:Implied]] pages into sections based on the game in which it is implied.=== | ===Split the [[:Category:Implied]] pages into sections based on the game in which it is implied.=== | ||
| Line 646: | Line 634: | ||
I think that the implied pages should be split into sections in-page that allow the viewer to quickly jump to the list in a certain game. | I think that the implied pages should be split into sections in-page that allow the viewer to quickly jump to the list in a certain game. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|JayRed2486}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|JayRed2486}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': April 15, 2011, 17:00 GMT<br> | '''Voting start''': April 15, 2011, 17:00 GMT<br> | ||
| Line 668: | Line 655: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Here's my thought, I don't think it's a good idea for several reasons. 1: Categories were meant to be titled vaguely to have dozens of articles linked up to it. 2: it is made vaguely for easy navigation. 3: And the only specification of that category should be implied location, characters, etc., but we already have an article on those so Category:Implied should be left alone. {{User|Zero777}} | Here's my thought, I don't think it's a good idea for several reasons. 1: Categories were meant to be titled vaguely to have dozens of articles linked up to it. 2: it is made vaguely for easy navigation. 3: And the only specification of that category should be implied location, characters, etc., but we already have an article on those so Category:Implied should be left alone. {{User|Zero777}} | ||
===Split the level articles from the world articles and delete the world articles=== | ===Split the level articles from the world articles and delete the world articles=== | ||
| Line 674: | Line 660: | ||
I think it is a good idea to make articles for levels for example an article named [[World 1-1]]. | I think it is a good idea to make articles for levels for example an article named [[World 1-1]]. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Superfiremario}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Superfiremario}}<br> | ||
'''Voting Start''': April 16, 2011, 20:40 GMT<br> | '''Voting Start''': April 16, 2011, 20:40 GMT<br> | ||
| Line 705: | Line 691: | ||
::Let me rephrase it the way I see it. "Currently all articles on levels are included in a general world; for example, all levels from [[World 1 (Super Mario Bros.)|World 1]] are in the same article. I propose that these articles be split off to instead create "World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", "World 2-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", etc." {{User|Marioguy1}} | ::Let me rephrase it the way I see it. "Currently all articles on levels are included in a general world; for example, all levels from [[World 1 (Super Mario Bros.)|World 1]] are in the same article. I propose that these articles be split off to instead create "World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", "World 2-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", etc." {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
:::When put that way, the phrasing makes more sense, though the action proposed isn't any more useful. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | :::When put that way, the phrasing makes more sense, though the action proposed isn't any more useful. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | ||
===Split Each Boss Level From Each Boss=== | ===Split Each Boss Level From Each Boss=== | ||
| Line 711: | Line 696: | ||
I notice that most of the bosses in the ''[[Donkey Kong (series)|Donkey Kong'' series]] are merged with the levels. The article says how to defeat them in the level, but one of the contents is a boss and the other is a level. To me, those are very different! For example, [[Congazuma's Castle]] and [[Ruined Roost]]. They are redirected to different contents. Even the [[K. Rool Duel]] which is a final boss battle! I was going to do a talk page proposal, but then I realized how many bosses were merged with their levels. It also seems bad because levels in the ''[[Yoshi (series)|Yoshi'' series]], such as [[Gilbert the Gooey's Castle]] are split from their boss, which is [[Gilbert the Gooey]]. I will make a split and a keep section for voting. | I notice that most of the bosses in the ''[[Donkey Kong (series)|Donkey Kong'' series]] are merged with the levels. The article says how to defeat them in the level, but one of the contents is a boss and the other is a level. To me, those are very different! For example, [[Congazuma's Castle]] and [[Ruined Roost]]. They are redirected to different contents. Even the [[K. Rool Duel]] which is a final boss battle! I was going to do a talk page proposal, but then I realized how many bosses were merged with their levels. It also seems bad because levels in the ''[[Yoshi (series)|Yoshi'' series]], such as [[Gilbert the Gooey's Castle]] are split from their boss, which is [[Gilbert the Gooey]]. I will make a split and a keep section for voting. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': April 16, 2011, 4:00 GMT<br> | '''Voting start''': April 16, 2011, 4:00 GMT<br> | ||
| Line 765: | Line 750: | ||
{{User|Fawfulfury65}} | {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | ||
===Remove Banjo and Conker from our coverage policy and delete Banjo (series) and Conker (series)=== | ===Remove Banjo and Conker from our coverage policy and delete Banjo (series) and Conker (series)=== | ||
<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">DELETE 31-2</span> | <span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">DELETE 31-2</span> | ||
| Line 772: | Line 757: | ||
The articles we have on Banjo's and Conker's series, respectively, are horrible. They are cluttered up with every single enemy, item, location, character, and other stuff from the two series, making it pratically unreadable. But that's not why I'm proposing this. I assume that we have those articles due to [[Banjo]]'s and [[Conker]]'s appearance in [[Diddy Kong Racing]]. But from what I can understand, both Conker's and Banjo's series were planned before-hand, but due to Banjo-Kazooie's release being delayed, both him and Conker were put in as a sort of early bird cameo. In other words, they are not sub-series of the Mario series and should be treated like other crossover games; whoever appeared in the crossover game gets an article, and nothing more. | The articles we have on Banjo's and Conker's series, respectively, are horrible. They are cluttered up with every single enemy, item, location, character, and other stuff from the two series, making it pratically unreadable. But that's not why I'm proposing this. I assume that we have those articles due to [[Banjo]]'s and [[Conker]]'s appearance in [[Diddy Kong Racing]]. But from what I can understand, both Conker's and Banjo's series were planned before-hand, but due to Banjo-Kazooie's release being delayed, both him and Conker were put in as a sort of early bird cameo. In other words, they are not sub-series of the Mario series and should be treated like other crossover games; whoever appeared in the crossover game gets an article, and nothing more. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br> | ||
| Line 901: | Line 885: | ||
:::But everything DK isn't on the Super Mario Wiki; we only cover the information required to reference their series and characters in relation to their appearance in the ''Mario'' series. I have never been on the DK Wiki, but I'm sure they have articles on [[Mario]], and some other ''Mario'' characters, because they crossover in many games, like ''[[Mario Kart Wii]]'' or ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'' to name a few. Do you see what I'm saying? That's why this proposal was made in the first place; to get rid of the extraneous information about the ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' series that is currently cluttering up the Wiki and retain only what is necessary, like the character pages for [[Banjo]] and [[Bottles]]. {{User|Phoenix}} 19:16, 27 April 2011 (EDT) | :::But everything DK isn't on the Super Mario Wiki; we only cover the information required to reference their series and characters in relation to their appearance in the ''Mario'' series. I have never been on the DK Wiki, but I'm sure they have articles on [[Mario]], and some other ''Mario'' characters, because they crossover in many games, like ''[[Mario Kart Wii]]'' or ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'' to name a few. Do you see what I'm saying? That's why this proposal was made in the first place; to get rid of the extraneous information about the ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' series that is currently cluttering up the Wiki and retain only what is necessary, like the character pages for [[Banjo]] and [[Bottles]]. {{User|Phoenix}} 19:16, 27 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
===Remove Voting Start Rule=== | ===Remove Voting Start Rule=== | ||
| Line 916: | Line 899: | ||
I propose to remove this rule because it makes everything unnecessarily complicated, it is useless for those who aren't online every day, it is impractical for those who are online every day, and it is not present in all types of proposals. | I propose to remove this rule because it makes everything unnecessarily complicated, it is useless for those who aren't online every day, it is impractical for those who are online every day, and it is not present in all types of proposals. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}<br> | ||
'''Voting start''': April 21, 18:22 GMT<br> | '''Voting start''': April 21, 18:22 GMT<br> | ||
| Line 1,045: | Line 1,027: | ||
::I think a week or two is enough for people to correct their mistakes, but yes, I'm pretty sure there are people out there who just cast their vote and never change it again. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | ::I think a week or two is enough for people to correct their mistakes, but yes, I'm pretty sure there are people out there who just cast their vote and never change it again. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | ||
===Merge the special shots of Mario Power Tennis (Gamecube) into one article=== | ===Merge the special shots of Mario Power Tennis (Gamecube) into one article=== | ||
| Line 1,052: | Line 1,033: | ||
This situation is just like the Super Strikes from Mario Smash Football. All the power shots don't need their own articles, they just creat stubs. | This situation is just like the Super Strikes from Mario Smash Football. All the power shots don't need their own articles, they just creat stubs. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Tails777}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Tails777}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': <s>April 23, 2011</s> '''Extended''': April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT<br> | '''Deadline''': <s>April 23, 2011</s> '''Extended''': April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT<br> | ||
| Line 1,095: | Line 1,075: | ||
@Tails777 Fire Breath has it's [[Fire Breath|own article]]. Besides, every Power Shot is different enough. {{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} | @Tails777 Fire Breath has it's [[Fire Breath|own article]]. Besides, every Power Shot is different enough. {{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} | ||
===Less Merging and Unmerge some merged Articles=== | ===Less Merging and Unmerge some merged Articles=== | ||
| Line 1,107: | Line 1,086: | ||
(If merging prevents '''stubs''',then it is OK) | (If merging prevents '''stubs''',then it is OK) | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': May 4, 2011, 23:59 GMT | '''Deadline''': May 4, 2011, 23:59 GMT | ||
| Line 1,200: | Line 1,178: | ||
:@Yoshiyoshiyoshi - On the contrary, merging is often used to ''help'' the Wiki, not to hurt it; we wouldn't be merging as many things as we do as often as we merge them if it wasn't completely necessary. Any merges that are unnecessary are usually obvious and will most likely not be enacted anyway, so this proposal is kind of pointless... {{User|Phoenix}} 19:07, 28 April 2011 (EDT) | :@Yoshiyoshiyoshi - On the contrary, merging is often used to ''help'' the Wiki, not to hurt it; we wouldn't be merging as many things as we do as often as we merge them if it wasn't completely necessary. Any merges that are unnecessary are usually obvious and will most likely not be enacted anyway, so this proposal is kind of pointless... {{User|Phoenix}} 19:07, 28 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
===Blocked Users' Votes=== | ===Blocked Users' Votes=== | ||
| Line 1,216: | Line 1,193: | ||
Finally the third point covers all possible problems and fairly treats all users, but it is very complicated. It depends what kind of balance we want. | Finally the third point covers all possible problems and fairly treats all users, but it is very complicated. It depends what kind of balance we want. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 5, 2011 (23:59 GMT) | '''Deadline:''' May 5, 2011 (23:59 GMT) | ||
| Line 1,303: | Line 1,280: | ||
'''@Bowser's Luma''' If a person is employed for a company but decides to leave for three months, is he or she still considered a valid member of the workforce upon returning? Same situation here, except no one gets paid. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | '''@Bowser's Luma''' If a person is employed for a company but decides to leave for three months, is he or she still considered a valid member of the workforce upon returning? Same situation here, except no one gets paid. {{User|Mario4Ever}} | ||
===Merge all of [[Wario|Wario's]] Transformations Into one Article=== | ===Merge all of [[Wario|Wario's]] Transformations Into one Article=== | ||
| Line 1,310: | Line 1,286: | ||
This is similar to King Koopa's alter egos. I'm not talking about [[Tiny Wario]] and those transformations from the ''[[Wario Land]]'' series. I'm talking about transformations from ''[[Wario: Master of Disguise]]'' such as [[Thief Wario]] and [[Sparky Wario]]. Like the page, [[King Koopa's alter egos]], I think we should make a page called "Wario's Transformations" or just merge them to [[Wario]], or keep them. Three options I'll make. <br> | This is similar to King Koopa's alter egos. I'm not talking about [[Tiny Wario]] and those transformations from the ''[[Wario Land]]'' series. I'm talking about transformations from ''[[Wario: Master of Disguise]]'' such as [[Thief Wario]] and [[Sparky Wario]]. Like the page, [[King Koopa's alter egos]], I think we should make a page called "Wario's Transformations" or just merge them to [[Wario]], or keep them. Three options I'll make. <br> | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': May 6, 2011 23:59 GMT | '''Deadline''': May 6, 2011 23:59 GMT | ||
| Line 1,338: | Line 1,313: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
The reason I proposed to merge King Koopa's alter egos was because it was literally just King Koopa in a costume. This costume didn't grant him any special powers or anything even similar to that, so they got merged. These forms, on the other hand, all have distinct powers, like [[Fire Mario]], [[Metal Mario (form)|Metal Mario]], or [[Ice Mario]]. Also like those forms, these powers are obtained by obtaining a specific item. Yes, you can choose that power from anywhere after getting the item, but that doesn't make them any different than the other powers. Also, can you give a reason as to why you want them merged? Simply that they are similar to the alter egos of King Koopa, which is not true as I explained, is not a substantial reason. Bottom line, they should be kept separate. {{User|Reversinator}} | The reason I proposed to merge King Koopa's alter egos was because it was literally just King Koopa in a costume. This costume didn't grant him any special powers or anything even similar to that, so they got merged. These forms, on the other hand, all have distinct powers, like [[Fire Mario]], [[Metal Mario (form)|Metal Mario]], or [[Ice Mario]]. Also like those forms, these powers are obtained by obtaining a specific item. Yes, you can choose that power from anywhere after getting the item, but that doesn't make them any different than the other powers. Also, can you give a reason as to why you want them merged? Simply that they are similar to the alter egos of King Koopa, which is not true as I explained, is not a substantial reason. Bottom line, they should be kept separate. {{User|Reversinator}} | ||
===Talk Page Proposal=== | ===Talk Page Proposal=== | ||
| Line 1,344: | Line 1,318: | ||
I have noticed that talk page messages are basically the only edits in the Recent Changes. I now have a rule that will restrict the amount of talk edits you may have. Like user, if you have over 30% of your edits on talk pages, with the exception of users with under 250 edits total, your talk page will be protected and you will be warned by an administrator to not leave messages on other user's talk pages. First offense will result in a one hour block. Next offense one day. Third offense one week. Any further shall be decided by administration. This is so there will be more main edits. I myself have lots of talk edits, and I am trying to edit the mainspace more. '''Update:With the forums, even if you don't have an e-mail like me, this rule still applies. If you are a talker, and you don't have e-mail, well too bad and sorry.''' | I have noticed that talk page messages are basically the only edits in the Recent Changes. I now have a rule that will restrict the amount of talk edits you may have. Like user, if you have over 30% of your edits on talk pages, with the exception of users with under 250 edits total, your talk page will be protected and you will be warned by an administrator to not leave messages on other user's talk pages. First offense will result in a one hour block. Next offense one day. Third offense one week. Any further shall be decided by administration. This is so there will be more main edits. I myself have lots of talk edits, and I am trying to edit the mainspace more. '''Update:With the forums, even if you don't have an e-mail like me, this rule still applies. If you are a talker, and you don't have e-mail, well too bad and sorry.''' | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Tom The Atum}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Tom The Atum}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 7, 2011 (23:59 GMT) | '''Deadline:''' May 7, 2011 (23:59 GMT) | ||
| Line 1,412: | Line 1,386: | ||
::Like Fawfulfury65 and Reversinator said above, we definitely need to take into account the nature of one's edits to another user's talkpage (i.e. - whether the comments are legitimate questions or if the comments are just them shooting the breeze). If this proposal were to go anywhere at all, it would need to be reworded so that the punishment only affects those users who have an extremely large number of talk page edits that do not pertain to any important wiki issue or question to a more experienced user. Like several people have already said, we cannot punish people for asking too many questions about the wiki (as long as they are legitimate questions or comments). If we did that (even if we unknowingly did that via the passing of a proposal such as this one), new users may become turned off to the wiki for good, and we certainly don't want that. Besides, as it is, if anyone has too many talk page edits and not enough mainspace edits, a sysop will notify them on their talk page, and monitor the situation from there if necessary. They've got it under control, so we don't need to add superfluous additional procedures to a perfectly good system. {{User|Phoenix}} 14:07, 6 May 2011 (EDT) | ::Like Fawfulfury65 and Reversinator said above, we definitely need to take into account the nature of one's edits to another user's talkpage (i.e. - whether the comments are legitimate questions or if the comments are just them shooting the breeze). If this proposal were to go anywhere at all, it would need to be reworded so that the punishment only affects those users who have an extremely large number of talk page edits that do not pertain to any important wiki issue or question to a more experienced user. Like several people have already said, we cannot punish people for asking too many questions about the wiki (as long as they are legitimate questions or comments). If we did that (even if we unknowingly did that via the passing of a proposal such as this one), new users may become turned off to the wiki for good, and we certainly don't want that. Besides, as it is, if anyone has too many talk page edits and not enough mainspace edits, a sysop will notify them on their talk page, and monitor the situation from there if necessary. They've got it under control, so we don't need to add superfluous additional procedures to a perfectly good system. {{User|Phoenix}} 14:07, 6 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
=== Create articles for the multiple Nintendo's development divisions === | === Create articles for the multiple Nintendo's development divisions === | ||
| Line 1,427: | Line 1,400: | ||
*Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development (I added it to remind all this proposal also suggest the name change). | *Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development (I added it to remind all this proposal also suggest the name change). | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Byllant}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Byllant}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': May 12, 2011 23:59 GMT | '''Deadline''': May 12, 2011 23:59 GMT | ||
| Line 1,452: | Line 1,424: | ||
Does this proposal include adding the names of the people that were/are part of a given division, or is it just going as far as "<nowiki>[insert division name here]</nowiki> was involved in the production of <nowiki>[insert game title here]</nowiki>?" {{User|Mario4Ever}} | Does this proposal include adding the names of the people that were/are part of a given division, or is it just going as far as "<nowiki>[insert division name here]</nowiki> was involved in the production of <nowiki>[insert game title here]</nowiki>?" {{User|Mario4Ever}} | ||
:Key people maybe added into the page as they are involved, I guess. {{User|Byllant}} | :Key people maybe added into the page as they are involved, I guess. {{User|Byllant}} | ||
===Require FA Support Reason=== | ===Require FA Support Reason=== | ||
| Line 1,459: | Line 1,430: | ||
Lately, I've seen some supports for FA Nominations where the user accidentally gave a reason. However, some of these have been reasons that are completely unrelated to the quality of the article, such as, "Boo is a main enemy so he should be a FA". Votes like this would be completely invalid if a reason was required. Also, reasons are required for unfeature opposes, which are kind of like feature supports. | Lately, I've seen some supports for FA Nominations where the user accidentally gave a reason. However, some of these have been reasons that are completely unrelated to the quality of the article, such as, "Boo is a main enemy so he should be a FA". Votes like this would be completely invalid if a reason was required. Also, reasons are required for unfeature opposes, which are kind of like feature supports. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshiwaker}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshiwaker}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': May 14, 23:59 GMT | '''Deadline''': May 14, 23:59 GMT | ||
| Line 1,483: | Line 1,453: | ||
i understand that im just saying what stops fan boys from just saying per above {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | i understand that im just saying what stops fan boys from just saying per above {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} | ||
::Annoying as it seems, it doesn't really do any harm to the wiki, and anybody can fix to remove those templates any time. Sometimes, I'd like to see nominations as another way to improve articles. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | ::Annoying as it seems, it doesn't really do any harm to the wiki, and anybody can fix to remove those templates any time. Sometimes, I'd like to see nominations as another way to improve articles. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | ||
Revision as of 16:14, December 28, 2011
MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template
Allow autoconfirmed users edit other users' userpagesDON'T ALLOW 1-34 Recently I have seen red links, redirect links, etc. on other peoples userpages along with deleted images and I was wondering if us autoconfirmed users can edit their userpages for errors, etc. It really doesn't make sense that only sysops get to edit this so I set up this proposal. Also, on Wikia we get to edit others' userpages along with most other wikis. Proposer: Kaptain K. Rool (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Yoshiwaker: We can revert vandalism if they do put junk on our userpages and we do need to help the community too. Kaptain K. Rool (talk)
I think we would need to talk to Steve about this even if the proposal did pass... Marioguy1 (talk)
Imagine a vandal coming onto your userpage and replacing all of your personal information with fake, unnecessary and inappropriate information that could be offensive to you. This. What if people go to my user page and say "I hate (insert any Nintendo character here)!"? It offends me a lot when Kirby or Diddy Kong gets insulted. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Basically, if a user page has any red links, let the Sysops handle that stuff. That's why the Sysops are here; if you want a user page fixed, just contact me or any other Sysop. M&SG (talk) @Kaptain K. Rool - Adding on to what I said above: you say we need to "help out the community" by "removing red links, redirect links...along with deleted images," but technically, userpages are not really part of the community in this context. Pretty much the whole point of it being your userpage is that it's, well, your userpage. If other people start editing it left and right, then it's not really just yours anymore is it? That's the one thing that sets userpages apart from every other article on this wiki. In your argument, it seems to me that you're almost saying that the prospect of complete (and possibly recurring) userpage obliteration is better than some of the fairly minor problems you list above. Long story short: the only part of the wiki that we are responsible for improving is the articles. Phoenix (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
I can see it possibly working if you could lock off sections of a page. Which would be FANTASTIC! for many articles. E.g. All of the stuff like release dates for past games that aren't going to change could be locked off. But until then...No. Geniusguy445 (talk)
Merge all of King Koopa's alter egos into one articleMERGE TO KING KOOPA'S ALTER EGOS 20-3-0 On The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! King Koopa has many alter egos. These alter egos are just him in a different costume. The costumes don't give him any extra abilities, they are only seen for one episode, and while wearing the costumes, King Koopa is no different from when he's not wearing the costumes. Thus, I propose to merge the alter-egos of King Koopa that currently have an article (Al Koopone, Captain Koopa, Emperor Augustus Septemberus Octoberus Koopa,Kid Koopa, Koopa Khan, Koopa Klaus (alter ego), Moon Man Koopa, and Robo Koopa (alter ego)) into a single article. I'd prefer merging them to King Koopa's alter egos, but I'll also add a section to merge them to Bowser. Proposer: Reversinator (talk) Merge to King Koopa's alter egos
Merge to Bowser
Leave them splitCommentsI agree. Just as how the Super Strikes and Mega Strikes were merged together, these alter egos should be merged together. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) How are you planning on merging? Are you going to add a new column to the table, or do something altogether different. Bop1996 (talk)
Before merging King Koopa, I suggest that you merge Robo Koopa to Robo Suit, because I feel that information belongs there rather than being deleted. Also, what are we going to do with the Featured Article status on Robo Koopa if this proposal passes? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Although I believe the pages have enough information to stand by themselves, I'll stay open to any opinions before voting, as I never watched The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!. Paper Yoshi (talk)
While this is going on, how about merging all of the pages on the (sort of borrowing my brother's idea here, please don't add a megabyte of protests to my userpage, again) Super Paper Mario people, and other single-appearance things? Mpeng (talk)
I think Robo Koopa should keep its own article, and FA status - if it's long enough and good enough, what's the point of merging and losing a great article. Instead, we can just use {{main}}. If we merge it, we're bound to lose some information and that's not good for the Wiki. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
Merge Minor NPCs with their locationDON'T MERGE 1-16 There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article. I believe we should merge them with the location where they are, so they can be found easily. Also, many of these articles are stubs anyway, so it would also get rid of some stubs. Proposer: Yoshiwaker (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI hate the trigger-happy people on this wiki that shout "MERGE!" to all stubs. First of all, at least three hundred articles on this wiki, if not more, are minor characters. That's a lot of articles. Second, while they are minor, they are still characters, and they are officially named, and thus, they deserve an article. Third, how would this be better? I mean, a lot of the minor character articles are actually decently sized, and merging them would require some trimming, thus reducing quality. Fourth, why their location? Considering the amount of minor NPCs in a town, the articles would look cluttered. Reversinator (talk)
@Reversinator: It's not just because they're stubs, but also that they are EXTREMELY minor. Most of them just say a couple of lines and do nothing else. Yoshiwaker (talk)
@MG1: I considor "Minor NPC"s to be characters who do not help you in any way and have no relevance to the plot. Yoshiwaker (talk)
At least my proposal to merge all generic humans into one article had more good reasons then just they're all small/stubs and it will look good. Merging them all into a location article is as random as that TPP that wanted to merge Bozzo with Watchitt and NO it will not make the articles nicer, it will make it look cluttered-up, unorganized, and unprofessional. And plus, WE ARE USERS, NOT AMERICANS, what do we do when we notice a list of related articles are stubs, we either add information to expand it or do something to them (like merging) with very good logic and support, we don't lazily decide let's merge them all because I don't know a thing about about the article or I'm too lazy so I'll do the easiest thing that comes to mind without thinking over it. (P.s. No offense, and this wasn't directed only towards the proposer.) Zero777 (talk)
If I'm right on the definition, you want Culex, Jinx and Monstermana merged with Monstro Town, Toadofsky merged with Tadpole Pond and The Sunglasses Salesman and Doot-Doot Sisters merged with Isle Delfino? They have nothing to do with the main plot. Magikrazy51 (talk) Input new rules for name changingDON'T INPUT 1-19 I used up my 2 chances to change my name, but I find my current name to be too long. I say to increase the number of times we can change our names to three, and place a limit on how many letters, numbers, spaces, etc. to 20. It saves users from making their second (and last) name change, then realizing that the username is too long. Proposer: DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsSo you're basically making this proposal to help yourself change your username? Users shouldn't have to change their username at all, and changing it just causes confusion. Users should know that they should avoid changing their username to something long and that they only have two times to change it. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
I find two changes to be too short. Three should be enough. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)
Ya know if you just got rid of your first account and made a new account that would settle that matter easily instead of changing the rules Iggykoopa (talk)
My username is long and has the symbol é. That means I can't go here on my laptop and it takes me a little longer to type my name at certain times. Pokémon Trainer Mario (talk) Just a thought, but maybe you could type your username in a blank word document, save it, and just copy and paste it into the login page each time you go to log in. That would be easier. Tails777 (talk)
When you make your name, shoundn't you choose a shorter one? And at Pokémon Trainer Mario, You can click "Remember me on this computer" BTW I'm laptopin, and I Wrote your name! Luigi is OSAM (talk) I'd also like to mention that if we use the 20 character limit mentioned in the proposal, a lot of users will need their usernames to be changed. This just gives bureaucrats a lot of worthless work to do, and it would cause a lot of problems. Fawfulfury65 (talk) You should of been wiser for your username. Superfiremario (talk) It would be worth considering to have a character limit for new users. Old users may keep theirs, and this could prevent problems like this or even some name changes in the first place. But that's only if it is possible. Cacciaguida (talk) Pokémon Trainer Mario, a really easy way to get that "é" in Pokémon is to google "pokemon". The first entry has the word Pokémon with an "é". Just copy and paste it. Volatile Dweevil Make an Article for AR gamesMAKE AN ARTICLE FOR AR GAMES 15-0 I think AR games needs a page on here.It has a lot of Mario characters in it No other wiki has a page for AR games,and it's Mario related,so it should have an article. Proposer: yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWhat the heck is an AR game? Zero777 (talk)
Fishing is highly Mario related(you can catch Mario stuff)
and Star Pics has Mario in it so i think we should make an article on AR games itself and those 2
I still don't know what's an AR game because the website is too vague on what it specifically is. Zero777 (talk)
On the 3ds,there are these special cards,and you look at them in the camera and it makes it look like things are appearing wherever you have the camera.its kind of like virtual reality,but the opposite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FZP2jvNljs yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) Oh now I know what you are talking about. I think it's best to make one article for this, because the cards are too simple for them to have their own separate articles. Zero777 (talk) If there aren't more AR cards coming, maybe it would be best to have them in the 3DS article? Fawfulfury65 (talk)
Remove certain entries in "References in Other Games" sectionsREMOVE ENTRIES 13-0 On most of the articles about games, there is a "References in Other Games" section that lists games that reference that game. What's the problem? If an enemy is introduced in one game, and then that enemy is used in a future game, it is considered a reference to the former game. May I ask why? If an enemy appears in another game, that means it is a recurring enemy. The first game just introduced it. Proposer: Reversinator (talk) Delete those entries
Keep those entriesCommentsBut it technically could be a reference to the game since it debuted in an earlier game Iggykoopa (talk) Um, I don't think this warrants a proposal. I've seen people deleting those entries lately such as Marioguy1 in something about Freezies and stuff. I've deleted several of these myself. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
@Reversinator: Which types of entries are you proposing to delete? You mentioned one example, and while it makes sense, you have not specified which sections specifically you want deleted. Bop1996 (talk)
References are not that simple; if they were, a concise rule set would be developed already. But as we do not know what Nintendo was thinking, we can't do this. I definitely don't think that every game with a Goomba in it is a reference to SMB, or that every game with Mario is a reference to the original DK. But sometimes when enemies appear, it is a reference (i.e. Dino Piranha in SMG is referenced by Peewee Piranha in SMG2 (sorry, couldn't think of anything better)). So it's complicated. And then, to make matters more complicated - music. Sometimes music is remixed music from another game, sometimes it's the same, sometimes it's different, but we can't be sure whether music that sounds like it's from SMB3 is actually a reference to SMB3 or they just ran out of sound files so they remixed something. Like I said, the references to other games sections are very complicated. Marioguy1 (talk)
Split Category:Donkey Kong Levels into Separate CategoriesDON'T SPLIT 21-24 This is my first proposal. There are many games in the Donkey Kong series. The category, Donkey Kong Levels, there is too much content. It has about 5 different games in one category. I think we should make categories for each game. For example, Category:Donkey Kong Country Levels, etc. It would be easier to find levels and it wouldn't take up 2 pages! We should make one for every game such as Donkey Kong Country 2, Donkey Kong Country 3, DK: King of Swing, etc. It just seems easier to navigate levels. We should also delete the original one if we make other categories. I will add a section for making new categories and I will add one for keep the original one as is. Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk) Make a New Category
Keep Original Category
CommentsWe shouldn't delete the Donkey Kong levels category because it can be useful in finding many DK levels. Also, if we really want to find information about a Donkey Kong Country 2 level or something, why can't we just look in Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, or the category for any other game? There's also templates that you can use to easily find levels in one of those games. Fawfulfury65 (talk) MS&G: You know your vote is invalid. You can't simply say, "Good idea" if you want to support. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) BabyLuigionfire why can't you just because you have nothing new to add doesnt mean it isnt valid other wise like 20 votes from other propsals that say per all Iggykoopa (talk)
Baby luigi on fire the rules state that Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.Iggykoopa (talk)
Like I, Magikrazy51 (talk) said in the opposing section, "WE DONT HAVE ALL THE MARIO
@Babyluigionfire how is saying per all not the same as saying good idea #Iggykoopa (talk)
Babyluigionfire how is saying per all any different than saying good idea when your agreeing with a proposal Iggykoopa (talk)
im confused are there votes invalid are not? Iggykoopa (talk)
Speaking of that... @Lucas777123: You vote is invalid. Please add a reason on why you think this is a good idea, or I'll remove your vote. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
I think to split the category, because to those who oppose, and this is soley my thought, but: It's like saying let's merge all of the Mario series levels into one category, and list all of them in one category. Then, we list all hte levels, under one category. Boowhoplaysgames (talk)
And you gotta support me, too! It seems like some people are supporting this just because they were asked to. That's just what it looks like to me. Yoshiwaker (talk)
I greatly discourage anyone to tell another user to vote on a certain side. Supporting a proposal because someone told you to is a horrible idea, but I do feel that some users have been doing this, since a lot of the supporters have been asked to support it. I hope that all of the voters have read through the proposal, thought about it, and have read through the opinions of others, because if not, we may not have what's best for the Wiki. Asking them to vote for the proposal is OK, though, as they might not feel forced to vote on the side they were told. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
I agree with this, and Im all for FF65. I think it isn't a good thing, that you vote on a certain side, because someone told you; DKPetey99 has done a good job not telling other people to vote support: Me and my bro. both got messages saying to vote on his proposal, but didn't say which side. We both simply voted support, because we had a discussion on what we think is best. I greatly discourage any favors, or things a sysop, or anyone, to do so they get the most support/no support. This is a fair Proposal, if the issue with the one sysop wasn't happening with this proposal that is...Boowhoplaysgames (talk) D'oh. Got the date mixed up, thought it was over. (Mortified expression) Bop1996 (talk) Apply new procedures for naming Starting PlanetsDON'T APPLY 11-14 I apologize in advance to those of you who disapprove of this proposal, but it's my humble opinion that the Starting Planets in all the galaxy articles need actual names besides, well, "Starting Planet." From my standpoint, giving them all the name of "Starting Planet" is needlessly pigeonholing 91 different planets for the galaxy articles, when they could all be named something much better. In fact, I have already been to several galaxy articles where I found that this trend wasn't being followed anyway, as some are completely lacking planets that are referred to as the "Starting Planet," and others simply refer to the first planet encountered as "________ Planet (Starting Planet)." In addition, on the Melty Molten Galaxy article, we've got the main planet marked as the Starting Planet, and then five lines down where the other areas embedded in the main planet are discussed, it is now referred to as the "Lava Planet!" Therefore (as somewhat of a remedy to such inconsistencies and confusion), I propose that we keep the planets labeled as Starting Planets, but do so in such a way that we also give them names as well; i.e., label them all as "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" on every article. I mean, really, there's no reason why we can't do both, right? Thus, nothing important will actually be taken out of the article, and the only thing that should happen will be that the names of all the starting planets in each galaxy become clearer and easier to understand. If this proposal does pass, I will personally take it upon myself to go around to each of the Starting Planets and implement the necessary changes. Proposer: Phoenix (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThis will create conjectural titles for the planets, no? LeftyGreenMario (talk)
@Phoenix I see. Sorry about the confusion. Mario4Ever (talk)
Replying to his comment? Are you talking about me? LeftyGreenMario (talk) ...uh...yes...you're not a boy, are you? Phoenix (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
I'm wondering, but are there any levels that go in a slightly different sequence of planets? Then, the names for the planets (planet 1, planet 2, etc.) would get messed up. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
@Phoenix: I'm not using that as my basis, my main point here is that this proposal will do absolutely nothing except remove the shred of consistency that remains in these galaxy articles. I have never had a problem with you renaming planets to give them "cool" names; I sure did say that that's horrible reasoning, but I've never said that's why I'm opposing. I'm opposing because this proposal will kill what consistency there is in the articles. And could you please tell me your points? I don't see a place where this proposal would be useful... Marioguy1 (talk)
@Bop1996 The right name of this planet is "Tall Trunk Planet," thus the name of the galaxy. SWFlash (talk)
Not sure if this was answered already, but for galaxies that only consist of one planet, we merely split it up into sections, as shown on the Flip-Swap Galaxy and Beat Block Galaxy. Gamefreak75 (talk)
Disclaimer: I am not trying to be rude by butting in to this discussion, but I had an idea that might solve this problem. @Phoenix: That argument isn't necessarily true, you gave a worst-case scenario for how we could do it if we had no planet sections. @Walkazo: That sparked my curiosity, so I made an edit to my work page seeing how the levels section of the Tall Trunk Galaxy would look without the planets section. I wasn't as descriptive as possible, but that would seem to be the only way to pull it off. I was actually a little confused when I saw your vote, because I remember everyone voting down a proposal to change the planet names to sequential order, but I never heard of removing the planets section altogether. Maybe a proposal after this one is over would be in order. Bop1996 (talk)
I agree that is off topic... I was mostly trying to figure out what she was suggesting we do, and how it possibly could be done without being ambiguous or non-descriptive... As such, unless someone makes a proposal to get rid of the planets section, I'm not really into debating this now, unless there really are a lot of people out there who want the planets section removed... Bop1996 (talk)
I think that since all planets (apart from the starting planet) in most galaies have conjectural names anyway that the starting planet should have a name as well. JayRed2486 (talk)
I really don't think the amount of work should matter. Our job is to improve the wiki as much as possible. If this proposal will help the wiki (which I personally think it will), then we should pass it, regardless of how much extra work you happen to think it will cause. If this passes, I plan to help with the articles. Ultrahammer5365 (talk)
Split the Category:Implied pages into sections based on the game in which it is implied.DON'T SPLIT 2-9 I think that the implied pages should be split into sections in-page that allow the viewer to quickly jump to the list in a certain game. Proposer: JayRed2486 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsHere's my thought, I don't think it's a good idea for several reasons. 1: Categories were meant to be titled vaguely to have dozens of articles linked up to it. 2: it is made vaguely for easy navigation. 3: And the only specification of that category should be implied location, characters, etc., but we already have an article on those so Category:Implied should be left alone. Zero777 (talk) Split the level articles from the world articles and delete the world articlesDON'T SPLIT 1-14 I think it is a good idea to make articles for levels for example an article named World 1-1. Proposer: Superfiremario (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThe dates were all done wrong: this was proposed on the 15th (at 20:43 GMT), so voting starts on the 16th, and ends at 23:59 GMT on the 23rd. I had to remove the opposing votes because voting hasn't actually started yet. Please read the rules before making proposals: Rule 2 explains exactly how to do the dates. - Walkazo (talk) What are you trying to say? This proposal is WAY TOO VAGUE. Zero777 (talk)
Split Each Boss Level From Each BossDON'T SPLIT 6-17 I notice that most of the bosses in the Donkey Kong series are merged with the levels. The article says how to defeat them in the level, but one of the contents is a boss and the other is a level. To me, those are very different! For example, Congazuma's Castle and Ruined Roost. They are redirected to different contents. Even the K. Rool Duel which is a final boss battle! I was going to do a talk page proposal, but then I realized how many bosses were merged with their levels. It also seems bad because levels in the Yoshi series, such as Gilbert the Gooey's Castle are split from their boss, which is Gilbert the Gooey. I will make a split and a keep section for voting. Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk) Split Boss From Level
Keep Boss and Level Together
CommentsWhat is the procedure that is taken with all non-boss levels in that game? Marioguy1 (talk)
The reason why those Yoshi's Island boss levels are separate from the bosses is because those are actual levels that you have to complete before reaching the boss. In the Donkey Kong games, the boss levels are simply you fighting the boss in a small area. If we were to split Congazuma's Castle from Congazuma, the article would be two sentences long. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
We could make a level page for Tiki Tong Terror and have info about him on his page. That is one of the pages that could do with this proposalYoshidude99 (talk) @DKPetey: I would like you to point out which part of the Ruined Roost level has information that isn't only important in the boss fight with Stu. Bop1996 (talk) @DKPetey: Yes, Ruined Roost is the level, but it is simply a stretch of land with a few pillars in it. The important part of the level is that you get to fight Stu in it. If we split the bosses and the levels, they would both end up describing how the boss is fought, since fighting Stu, as I said, is the main part of that level. Like Bop1996 said, this proposal would cause short articles with little and unimportant information, or it will cause repeating information. I'm not sure if you've played the Donkey Kong games, but if you have, you know how empty and bland the boss levels are. @Yoshidude99: Like the Yoshi levels, the Galaxy bosses are split because you have to travel through the level they are in to reach them. In the Donkey Kong games, the levels are simply a small, unimportant area that you fight the boss in. Everyone, please read these comments carefully before voting. Remove Banjo and Conker from our coverage policy and delete Banjo (series) and Conker (series)DELETE 31-2 Before I start, I'll point out that a few others have already made comments on this situation, all of them wanting to get rid of the articles with some good reasons attached, so go look at their reasons. With that said, let me continue. The articles we have on Banjo's and Conker's series, respectively, are horrible. They are cluttered up with every single enemy, item, location, character, and other stuff from the two series, making it pratically unreadable. But that's not why I'm proposing this. I assume that we have those articles due to Banjo's and Conker's appearance in Diddy Kong Racing. But from what I can understand, both Conker's and Banjo's series were planned before-hand, but due to Banjo-Kazooie's release being delayed, both him and Conker were put in as a sort of early bird cameo. In other words, they are not sub-series of the Mario series and should be treated like other crossover games; whoever appeared in the crossover game gets an article, and nothing more. Proposer: Reversinator (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsFinally! That is a removal proposal! Since I'm not going to vote until Wednesday, I'll just make a comment. This is the MarioWiki not the BanjoWiki so, lose it!Reddragon19k (talk) Phoenix: This isn't proposed simply to remove bad articles. It's the relevance to the Mario series that mostly matters (in my perspective anyway). We do not need to cover Banjo and Conker as a series, but we can cover them as a character since they DID appear in Diddy Kong Racing. But that's about it. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Phoenix, I think you're gravely underestimating and over-simplifying the situation. The reason these articles are so unnavigable is because they are a pile of information pasted together. It is impossible to improve them in any way because, due to the bizarre stalemate situation, the rules of this wiki requires them to stay like that. There is no legal way for us to make these articles not horrible, and therefore, your argument becomes invalid. - Edofenrir (talk)
also whats the legal situation got to do with this Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) not to add fuel to the fire but conker is related to mario since they were both characters in the club nintendo comic Freeze Frame. oh that makes sense also i remeber this issue back when i first started in 07 Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
What I'm saying is to keep the Banjo and Conker articles, but delete the series articles. Banjo and Conker appear in Diddy Kong Racing so they should have thier own articles. It's just like the Super Smash Bros series characters. Tails777 (talk)
Dude the difference is that Banjo and Conker are spin offs of DK not cross overs like Sonic or Link thats the difference Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
A cameo really a cameo is when a character makes a brief appearence in a game Banjo and Conker were stars/ playable characters in there debut appearence which makes them spin offs Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
So there the first ever cross over game to feature characters from franchises that didnt exist yet cause developent and release are 2 different things Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) a cameo as defined is a brief appearance of a known person in a work of the performing arts, such as plays, films, video games[1] and television. These roles are generally small, many of them non-speaking ones, and are commonly either appearances in a work in which they hold some special significance (such as actors from an original movie appearing in its remake), or renowned people making uncredited appearances. Oh and the Conker Series was no delayed considering that in order for it to be delayed it would have had to be in development for at least 3 years for a game boy game that was as simple as that no. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
no it can not be considered brief if you star in your first game also no conker game was in development untill after Diddy Kong Racing and your thinking of a cross over
im going to do something i hate to do but the show Maude is a spin off of all and the family but no characters from all in the family appear. Good times was a spin off from maude but no characters from maude other than Florida ever appeared. the facts of life was a spin off of different strokes no characters from that appear. Buddies was a spin off from Home Improvement no characters from Home improvement appeared on buddies Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
Banjo and Conker are both the property of Rare, which left Nintendo. Now, since their games are not part of the Mario Universe, it's quite senseless to cover their series'. Also, while the Banjo and Conker articles can stay, any details not involving crossovers get the boot; basically, only the Diddy Kong Racing details stay. M&SG (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2011 (EDT) Wait...Isn't there a Donkey Kong Wiki? Why is everything related to DK in a Mario Wiki? MarioMaster15 (talk)
Remove Voting Start RuleREMOVE RULE 18-4 This rule was meant to encourage discussion. It wants to prevent people from voting so much that the proposal is already decided. However, I do not see how this can majorly impact proposals. I think all it does is create a major annoyance for most users, since most people overlook this rule and we have to remove the vote and say, "VOTING STARTS AT BLAH BLAH". Even I overlook this rule, and I don't bother to pay attention if a voting user broke this rule or what. Besides, we get a WEEK of discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion only. All this rule, I think it does, is to make voting more complicated, and it pretty much accomplished that, since so many people break it. While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided". Besides, no other proposal gets this rule; not the featured articles and not the Talk Page Proposals, so I see no reason we need this. I propose to remove this rule because it makes everything unnecessarily complicated, it is useless for those who aren't online every day, it is impractical for those who are online every day, and it is not present in all types of proposals. Proposer: LeftyGreenMario (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsIt's somewhat amusing how I want to support this proposal right now. - Edofenrir (talk) LGM, I had this exact idea to start this proposal too. Now I'm going to support it. The idea of it at first sounds great, but in reality, it does not help anything at all but create a nuisance. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) I'm really pulled on both sides of this proposal. I want to oppose because it gives time for some users to accept the fact this is for good and let it sink in to their minds. It will also give time to the proposer to make any error corrections and alterations to the proposal. Also, yes it is true people aren't online every day, but they'll be online eventually, if they don't, then they miss to vote on a proposal..... oh well. But I am questioned on why isn't this applied to FA or TPP; well I guess because the proposal for that was meant only for the proposals and nobody bothered to extend the rule to FA and TPP's. BUT here's my thought on supporting this: the proposal lasts for a week, there will be enough time for anybody to counter anybody's vote and for users to change their minds. It was made to give time to the proposer to check for errors, but the rules say that the proposer has three days to make alterations and error checks on the proposal, so I guess it is unnecessary, I'm going to support. Zero777 (talk)
While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided". How does allowing voting to take place immediately after the proposal is posted rectify this problem? What difference does it make whether or not there is a 24-hour delay between the proposal's posting and voting start time if there are people who aren't online constantly and are unable to vote immediately anyway? While I'm thinking of it, what difference does it make when someone votes if the proposal is on the page for a week? Surely, no one is busy to the extent that spending five minutes reading a proposal and typing {{User|Username}} in the appropriate section strains his or her schedule. Mario4Ever (talk) Yes, and also I think the rule of Voting Start should be backfired. Nice job, LeftyGreenMario buddy! Superfiremario (talk) Hmmm, as for why we don't do this on TPPs and FA nominations, I happened to see an explanation for that. The TPPs and FA nominations are more out of the way and don't usually get jumped on as soon as they are proposed (although this may vary due to how many people are online when the action is proposed). Also, just because removing the vote is an annoyance doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, unless it gets really out of hand sometime in the future. I prefer the voting delay because, even if no one is there to read the comments, I'd rather comment on a proposal when the voting period hasn't started yet, and have that be more likely to influence the debate. Take, for instance, the DK series boss level split, I wasn't there when the proposal was proposed, and yet I was able to comment on the situation before the voting period started. I don't find it inconvenient either, but that may just be me. </long-winded ramble> Bop1996 (talk)
Besides, when I am ready to vote, 20 people already voted after voting start. This rule doesn't help me or the wiki greatly in my opinion. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
"Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins?" No, but I am not in the wiki everyday. There might be days where I revolve around the wiki the entire day, and some days where I am not there at all. There is no way of knowing when someone is going to propose something new. And I'm the impatient type and I like to vote to get things over with. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
I made the mistake of voting too early twice now, once on a proposal I made and once now on this proposal. I think its really annoying so I'm supporting this proposal.Tails777 (talk)
This is a GREAT idea, because when I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke the rule and voted. It's POINTLESS!!!!!!! On the forst day, over 9000 people aren't gonna vote on it! Luigi is OSAM (talk)
@Kaptian K. Rool: What the heck are you trying to say?? Zero777 (talk) @Kaptain K. Rool: Are you sure you understand what's being proposed? Fawfulfury65 (talk)
Merge the special shots of Mario Power Tennis (Gamecube) into one articleNO MERGE 8-12 This situation is just like the Super Strikes from Mario Smash Football. All the power shots don't need their own articles, they just creat stubs. Proposer: Tails777 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThe dates were all wrong. Voting start is a day after the proposal was made, which means it starts on the 16th, not the 15th; you also forgot to convert the time from EST to GMT (or incorrectly converted from some other time zone). And finally, mainspace proposals only go for one week, so this ends on the 23rd, not the 29th. How to format these dates and times is clearly explained in Rule 2: I encourage everyone to read it before making proposals. - Walkazo (talk) I hate when I have to say this, but a stub is not a short article. A stub is an article that, regardless of length, lacks information. If a short article does have all its information, it is not a stub. Get it right, people. Reversinator (talk)
I don't find this to be useful. If this proposal passes, what will happen to Fire Breath? It appears in Smash Bros. as well. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) @DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.: If Fire Breath appears in Smash Bros Brawl, it would be in Bowser's article. All characters special attacks are on their own articles. Tails777 (talk) @Tails777 Fire Breath has it's own article. Besides, every Power Shot is different enough. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Less Merging and Unmerge some merged ArticlesDON'T STOP MERGING 2-18
I think most of the time, Merging Hurts the Wiki. For Example, Merging Lava Bubble and Podoboo deleted most of the information on Lava Bubble. I propose that there should be less suggestions of merging stuff, especially with good articles. Just because something looks similar or the "japanese names are the same" doesnt mean that one of the articles should be ruined. (If merging prevents stubs,then it is OK) Proposer: yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) Support
Oppose
Commentsfirst things first which articles are to be un-merged is that up to you or who is that going to be decided by also your starting time is wrong and so is your end time Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) We can't put a limit on how many things can be merged. If something needs to be merged, we have to merge it. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Plus isnt that why we have talk pages to determine whether or not we need an article Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) From what I understand, you want to make sure merging is a last resort because the articles we're merging are good? We merge articles for various reasons. Some of those reasons could be considered invalid today, but you can't put a limit on merging. Suppose someone makes lavish articles for all the trophies in the Super Smash Bros. series. If this proposal succeded, we wouldn't be able to merge them because it would merge too much and the articles are too good to merge, which, if you didn't realize yet, are not good reasons. Reversinator (talk) First of all, this proposal is vague. You do not specify which types of articles you want merged; instead, you make some vague reference to an article that is "good enough." Second, you don't mention what type of limit is being enforced, only that one needs to be. Third, sometimes merging is necessary. It's important to look at all the evidence and make a rational decision based off all the evidence. Fourth, what articles are you planning on un-merging? All in all, I see no reason whatsoever to support this, or to even have it proposed... Bop1996 (talk) @bop1996 I plan on having articles such as Lava Bubble and Pale Piranha unmerged.Also,the Badge page needs to be broken up by game,or by badge. I think Stubs still need to be merged though. @Reversinator I think good articles should remain independent.but stubs should be merged together. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) @Yoshiyoshiyoshi What constitutes a good article? As for Badges, a single comprehensive article is, in my opinion, more beneficial than a series of short ones. Mario4Ever (talk) And you still haven't explained who get's to decide what articles get to be un-merged or why we need to change the system when we have talk pages for this Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) @Yoshiyoshiyoshi Question what doesnt apply to Admins and another Question why not just make talk page proposals about this Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) @goombasshoe Only Administrators get to make merging TTPs,but anyone can vote on them.And most of the Non-Stub articles that were previously merged get un-merged yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)
and who gets to decide what get unmerged also why should admins be the only people to be able to make merging proposals Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) This whole proposal is based on your opinion that merging is always bad. Basically, you are just trying to impose your will on the whole wiki. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with GS15. Just because some people are admins does not mean that they are the only people who can make good decisions regarding splitting and merging.Yoshiwaker (talk) All of the Non-Stub Articles that were merged get un-merged.And I think Admins should only get to make Merging TTPs because it would make less unnecesary mergingyoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) @yoshiwalker Merging isnt always bad.I think that Meging things that dont need to be merged is thoughyoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) If a proposal was made for an unnecessary merge, it would be opposed. As a reply to your second comment, you said yourself that "Merging hurts the wiki". Yoshiwaker (talk) well i meant stuff like the Lava Bubbe thing.Read the talk on Lava bubble to know what i mean yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) all i see is that 13 people said yes and 5 said no which makes me believe they should be merged Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) In japan,all magikoopas are called kamek.Does this mean kamek should be merged with magikoopa?i think not @Holyromanemperortatan: That will actually hurt the wiki. Zero777 (talk) @Zero777 yeah prolly since it will cause confusion as to what articles should be merged and which ones shouldnt Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) What are you trying to say?! This proposal is way to vauge. Superfiremario (talk)
Blocked Users' VotesUSE OPTION 2 6-16-1 Ach, headache. A headache is whatever I get when there is something on the wiki that does not fall under any policies. In this case, that thing would be the votes pertaining to blocked users. In the past, I have seen blocked users with their votes removed for being blocked, they have kept their votes there, I've even seen several times where the procedure was changed depending on the length of the block. I'm here to set something in stone about blocked users; specifically, how their votes are treated. Now I have several options that I would consider accurate so let me explain them all:
All three options have their pros and cons; the first option will simplify things greatly, but it will unfairly treat users who are blocked for (hypothetically) one day. The second option will fairly treat everyone, isn't too complicated, but if a user is unblocked an hour before the proposal ends, will they really have time to change their vote (if they want to change it)? Finally the third point covers all possible problems and fairly treats all users, but it is very complicated. It depends what kind of balance we want. Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk) Option 1
Option 2
Option 3Do not delete vote
CommentsIf anybody has any suggestions for options 4 and 5, I'd be glad to add them in any time in the next three days. Marioguy1 (talk)
This isn't a perfect procedure by any means, but food for thought at any rate, right? Phoenix (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
We should also take other circumstances into consideration, such as the reason for the user's block. For example, if the user was banned for sockpuppeting or vandalism, his/her vote will probably be removed, but if the user was banned for editing a page multiple times, his/her vote probably won't be removed. ThirdMarioBro (talk)
I really believe that the first option should be chosen because I'm the kind of person who expects people to follow the rules or else they'll have to face the consequences, since staff unofficially and officially warn users of their actions on not to do them, they get the consequence of not following directions. Zero777 (talk)
I have a suggestion; instead of doing anything above, we could wait until the end of the proposal. Then, we could check each user to see whether they are blocked and remove blocked users' votes then. Mariomario64 (talk) What about blocked user's proposals? Will they be deleted or kept? SWFlash (talk)
What happens if a user made an FA nomination that didn't get edited for nearly a month, and got blocked? This would unnecessarily "bump" the nomination. I think you should add a rule. Something like, "Within x days in an FA nomination, if users get blocked, their vote will remain until somebody bumps the nomination." LeftyGreenMario (talk) @LGM We could have a notice placed on the user's talk page upon his/her return with something along the lines of "Due to your recent blocking, you have lost the privilege to vote on the insert name proposal. Thank you for your consideration," couldn't we? Mario4Ever (talk) @AI21436: Blocks are never given for unintentional actions that harm the wiki. Generally, people get reminders and are only blocked if the action continues deliberately. Mario4Ever (talk)
@ThirdMarioBro: Your vote is invalid, what the heck are you trying to say? You don't get blocked from having a bad reasoning on your vote! Zero777 (talk)
@Bowser's Luma If a person is employed for a company but decides to leave for three months, is he or she still considered a valid member of the workforce upon returning? Same situation here, except no one gets paid. Mario4Ever (talk) Merge all of Wario's Transformations Into one ArticleDO NOT MERGE TO EITHER 1-0-15 This is similar to King Koopa's alter egos. I'm not talking about Tiny Wario and those transformations from the Wario Land series. I'm talking about transformations from Wario: Master of Disguise such as Thief Wario and Sparky Wario. Like the page, King Koopa's alter egos, I think we should make a page called "Wario's Transformations" or just merge them to Wario, or keep them. Three options I'll make. Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk) Merge to Wario's Transformations
Merge to WarioKeep it the Same
CommentsThe reason I proposed to merge King Koopa's alter egos was because it was literally just King Koopa in a costume. This costume didn't grant him any special powers or anything even similar to that, so they got merged. These forms, on the other hand, all have distinct powers, like Fire Mario, Metal Mario, or Ice Mario. Also like those forms, these powers are obtained by obtaining a specific item. Yes, you can choose that power from anywhere after getting the item, but that doesn't make them any different than the other powers. Also, can you give a reason as to why you want them merged? Simply that they are similar to the alter egos of King Koopa, which is not true as I explained, is not a substantial reason. Bottom line, they should be kept separate. Reversinator (talk) Talk Page ProposalDON'T IMPLEMENT A TALK PAGE RULE 2-20 I have noticed that talk page messages are basically the only edits in the Recent Changes. I now have a rule that will restrict the amount of talk edits you may have. Like user, if you have over 30% of your edits on talk pages, with the exception of users with under 250 edits total, your talk page will be protected and you will be warned by an administrator to not leave messages on other user's talk pages. First offense will result in a one hour block. Next offense one day. Third offense one week. Any further shall be decided by administration. This is so there will be more main edits. I myself have lots of talk edits, and I am trying to edit the mainspace more. Update:With the forums, even if you don't have an e-mail like me, this rule still applies. If you are a talker, and you don't have e-mail, well too bad and sorry. Proposer: Tom The Atum (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI totally understand what you're saying, but I really don't think a set guideline is necessary. Whenever we want to check up on users who edit their user page too much, we just look at this page. Our current user page protection length is 2 weeks after being warned, though this may be subject extended length depending how severe the offense is (so don't create 50 user sub-pages).--Knife (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2011 (EDT) So would this proposal actually make User space warnings mean something Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) Goomba:it will hopefully get some users to make more main edits. Tom The Atum (talk) What talk pages are you talking about? Are you talking about Mainspace or User's? Zero777 (talk)
@Superfiremario no way would you oppose what with having 6% main space out of 1000 edits despite like 6 warnings that's ridiculous dude so no way would you oppose a proposal that would make you actually do mainspace edits Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) @Goomba:Yeah, he needs to be warned more. I have included a warning when I told him my Mario Kart code, and he just responded with an okay, without a saying[I will try to make more main edits]. Tom The Atum (talk) We can't ban people from chatting on user talkpages. They are needed to communicate with others. Yes, a lot of people do talk about things unrelated to the Wiki very often on their talkpages, but if we put a limit, it may prevent them from asking important questions and talking about the Wiki and how to improve it. The admins already keep an eye out for the users editing their userspace too much. We can't block them if they talk about the right things on their talkpages. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Let me give you this scenario: Suppose a new user has 300 edits. Out of those edits, 100 of them are made on user talk pages (33%) and 175 of them are on main pages (58%). His edits are actually good and the majority of the edits on user talks are just questions he asked to more experienced users. Should a new user really be banned simply for asking how to do something without screwing it up? Reversinator (talk)
@Tom the Atum: You can no longer get warnings, reminders, last reminders and get blocked for userspace. Superfiremario (talk) @Marioguy: Just to clarify, I was only talking about the user page, not the user talk pages.
Create articles for the multiple Nintendo's development divisionsMAKE PAGES 14-0 Long ago, I came to notice we had the article for both Nintendo and Nintendo EAD (which I suggest to change the title into the complete: Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development), but when I checked the last aforementioned, I noticed Mario Sports Mix and many other games were listed there as games created and developed by that division. As long as I know, Mario Sports Mix was co-developed between Square Enix and Nintendo SPD Group 4. In addition, I noticed Nintendo R&D redirects to Nintendo EAD and even though this division no longer exists (as it was merged with EAD), it developed some Mario games, like Super Mario Land, without assistance from EAD (Miyamoto was not involved). Thus, by this proposal, I think we should create articles for the multiple Nintendo division's that have developed at least one Mario game, as well, as sorting every Mario game in the Nintendo EAD's article, into the respective division. In case this proposal passed, I think the articles we would need are:
Proposer: Byllant (talk) Create them
Keep Nintendo EAD's article the sameCommentsDoes this proposal include adding the names of the people that were/are part of a given division, or is it just going as far as "[insert division name here] was involved in the production of [insert game title here]?" Mario4Ever (talk) Require FA Support ReasonDON'T REQUIRE 2-8 Lately, I've seen some supports for FA Nominations where the user accidentally gave a reason. However, some of these have been reasons that are completely unrelated to the quality of the article, such as, "Boo is a main enemy so he should be a FA". Votes like this would be completely invalid if a reason was required. Also, reasons are required for unfeature opposes, which are kind of like feature supports. Proposer: Yoshiwaker (talk) Support
Oppose
Commentswouldnt it be easier to make it so articles with missing games or improvmant templates were completly banned i mean how many reasons are there to support something Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
i think that Featured article nominations should be removable if they are missing info on games or have those improvment templates ya know fix the article first than nominate it Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
i understand that im just saying what stops fan boys from just saying per above Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
|
