MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/33

Automatically Removing Fan Votes from FA Nominations

AUTOMATICALLY REMOVE FAN VOTES 7-0

There have been far too many times where I have seen someone support or oppose the nomination or denomination of a featured article simply because of the fact that they like the character or enjoy the game or whatever. These kinds of votes have no place here, where articles are featured based on their ability to represent the best that the wiki has to offer, not on any personal preference. However, we still have to go through the process of getting three people, at least one of which has to be an admin, to vote to remove his vote and then waiting 24 hours before finally being able to remove it. Enough of these votes can stall either kind of nomination until they have no way of passing when they shouldn't even be there in the first place. So, what I propose is to outright disallow these kinds of votes from being used. If they are used, they're to be removed without going through the longer removal process (for unfeature nominations) or deleting the reasons and leaving the vote (for feature nominations).

Proposer: GreenDisaster (talk)
Deadline: March 30, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GreenDisaster (talk) Supporting.
2. Yoshi876 (talk) Per proposal, this should hopefully get rid of the fanvote stopping Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time getting unfeatured. EDIT: Articles should be featured/unfeatured on (lack of) quality, not I like this
3. Goomba (talk) but i liek dat game hav it feachured rite nao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Support; that example is not a vote, just pure bias.
4. King Pikante (talk) Per proposal.
5. LeftyGreenMario (talk) This proposal is made by my favorite color! It should pass! But really, those types of votes do nothing other than unnecessarily slow the FA process. We should remove them on site. Per proposal.
6. BowserJunior (talk) Per all.
7. newSMBU (talk) — Here's what it is up to today (no user cited is real, just examples):

   "mariofan3718429 (talk) Plz feature this game cuz i liek it!!!!! PLZ!!!!!!"

   "wiiu4ever (talk) its an awsome charcter so it shuld be fetured"

   "koopaling (talk) i hate gombas so it must be unfetured"

   "yoshi2001 (talk) yoshi is so cute he must be fetured he is sooooo cute!!!"

   Things like these should definitely be cleared out. Per all.

---

Make an iPhone/iPad app

DO NOT CREATE APP 1-14

My idea is to make an app for the iPhone or iPad that links you straight to the wiki. Since not entirely nessecary, it should be free. I got this idea because Khan Academy has the exact same thing as I'm suggesting. What's more, we'll be the FIRST wiki to do this!

Proposer: Electrical Bowser jr. (talk)
Deadline: April 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Make an app

1. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Per proposal.

Don't make an app

1. RandomYoshi (talk) — You yourself state that creating an app is unnecessary. Why would the Wiki garner from a completely unnecessary addition that isn't even provided by the Wiki itself, but some other second-party or alternatively third-party management getting in the way? I just don't see it improving the Wiki at all.
2. GreenDisaster (talk) It's impractical, it'll be annoying to create in the first place, and it's simply unnecessary for both the average wiki visitor and the average wiki editor.
3. BowserJunior (talk) Per all, completely unneccesary.
4. Wintermelon43 (talk) Like what the other's said
5. King Pikante (talk) That is just useless.
6. YoshiKong (talk) Like Phoenix said somewhere other than here, why would we need an app when a home screen shortcut does the job?
7. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
8. Turboo (talk) - Per all.
9. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per all.
10. Blue CosmicToad (talk) Per all.
11. Prince Bowser Junior (talk) Per all.
12. Goomba (talk) Unnecessary, waste of money. Per all.
13. newSMBU (talk) — "…What's more, we'll be the FIRST wiki to do this!". …You probably ignored that Wikipedia has an indipendent iOS app, too. And there's Wikipanion, still for iOS, that did the already done job: you can have more than one wiki in the same app, you can jump to a specific section without going up the page, and several more features… Per all.
14. Mariotime11 (talk)Like RandomYoshi said, the proposer himself stated that an app is unnecessary. Per all.

Comments

@MortonBoo99--You can view and edit the wiki from those devices. In fact, I'm writing this from my iPod.--BowserJunior (talk)

Even though I oppose the app, I think a mobile site might have some use (makes it easier to edit from mobile devices). I don't know though, you'll have to bring up anything like that with Porplemontage (talk).--Mariotime11 (talk)

I agree with Mariotime11 Kamek the magikoopa (talk)

---

Spoiler Template

DO NOT ADD SPOILER TEMPLATES 1-15

I think we should use a template for articles that states that the page contains spoilers, a lot of other wikis have them. Like for example, what if someone was thinking of buying Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon and skimmed the article to read about it a little? The article has spoilers such as the game's ending right out in the open, so at least we should have a template we can put on SECTIONS that contain spoilers.

Proposer: Mariotime11 (talk)
Deadline: April 8, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Mariotime11 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. YoshiKong (talk) I'm opposing for the reason that users shouldn't have to manage Spoiler templates and decide when they should be added or removed. And when people visit this site to read our articles, they don't want to see distracting notices littered around. Pages here are to be written and upheld in an encyclopedic view, and we shouldn't bend our standards and consistency just to suit certain individuals.
2. Toomai (talk) Take pages such as Bowser, which scatters spoilers amongst non-spoilers like salt and pepper and blurs which is which (for example, in this day and age, is it really a spoiler that the final boss is Yoshi's Island is Giant Baby Bowser?). Take pages such as Doopliss or Shadow Queen, where the title or even mere existance of the page is a spoiler.
3. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Definitely per YoshiKong. I was going to write a small text explaining the reasonings, but he said it the best.
4. Walkazo (talk) - Per all, and per the proposal that got rid of our original spoiler templates. There are spoilers everywhere, as is to be expected of a Mario encyclopedia; we have a disclaimer about it, but beyond that, it's the reader's responsibility to avoid spoilers, because marking them is way too much trouble and looks like crap.
5. Tucayo (talk) - Per all.
6. Banon (talk) It's funny, I had the same thought a couple of days ago. But we shouldn't do that, because the wiki would be full of templates otherwise. If somebody doesn't want to read spoilers, he should not go to the page that will obviously contains spoilers (Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon as in your example)
7. Super Mario Bros. (talk) – Per all. As has been said time and time before, complete coverage of the Mario series implies that we will cover spoilers.
8. BowserJunior (talk) Per all.
9. Zero777 (talk) Per Walkazo and SMB
10. World10 (talk) Per all.
11. King Pikante (talk) Per all.
12. MortonBoo99 (talk) Per all. Thought it was a regular template though.
13. Turboo (talk) - Per all.
14. The Zombie Bros. (talk) - Per all.
15. Tails777 (talk) I'm pretty sure if people didn't want to give any part of the game away, they wouldn't read the article.

Comments

@MortonBoo99: I don't think you grasped the basic idea of the proposal. --YoshiKong (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2013 (EDT)

---

Tell non-trolling IPS when their edits are undone

OPPOSE 1-15

I think that when we undo an edit from an anonymous IP that they should be notified, unless they are obviously a troll. This should happen because it means when they find out their edit has been undone they will have reasoning for why and so they'll know not to just add it back in. For example, today on the Yoshi's Island DS page, in the babies section, an IP address replaced the Yoshi Island DS Baby Mario and Baby Bowser sprite with their respective Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island sprites, this was undone and then a few minutes later they put it back and it had to undone again, if they told that their edit had been undone and were told why then it is likely that they would not have done it again. If the IP address is obviously just a troll then will not need to be notified about this, but for the honest people who just help out they do need to be notified.

Proposer: Yoshi876 (talk)
Deadline: April 15, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Yoshi876 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Tucayo (talk) - I personally feel it's unnecessary to force everyone into following this procedure. If you want to, you can always let them now, but enforcing it with a proposal feels too much to me. Plus, if you provide a good edit summary when reverting edits, it's possible they'll see it and know why their edit was reverted.
2. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per Tucayo.
3. King Pikante (talk) Per Tucayo.
4. Walkazo (talk) - Per Tucayo.
5. The Zombie Bros. (talk) - Per Tucayo.
6. BowserJunior (talk) If you want to do it, do it. I like the idea. But this shouldn't be a policy, that's taking it too far. Per Tucayo.
7. LeftyGreenMario (talk) It has good intentions, but I fear that it's going to be more trouble than it's worth. True, some I.P. addresses are unaware that a recent changes page exists (I didn't know about them prior to my joining the wiki), but I feel what you want to enforce is already practiced as courteous common sense, something we should already do anyway, and it shouldn't need enforcing.
8. YoshiKong (talk) Per Tucayo.
9. Mariotime11 (talk) Per Tucayo.
10. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Tucayo.
11. MeritC (talk) Per Tucayo.
12. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per Tucayo.
13. newSMBU (talk) • per all.
14. A Paragoomba and the Koopa Bros. (talk) I feel like this is unnecessary, so I agree with Tucayo and everyone else.
15. Phoenix (talk) Per Tucayo.

Comments

You could be more specific about what exactly will happen should this proposal pass. I mean, you are saying they should be notified, but how? If it is through normal messages on their talk pages, then I'm fairly sure this doesn't warrant a Proposal, but you could tell exactly what method should be used to notify them. --- ThePremiumYoshi (talk)

Talkpage is my only thought, how else can we tell them? I'd say it does warrant a proposal, because I can't just force everyone into doing this, unless the proposal passes Yoshi876 (talk)

Even if this passes, you can't force people to tell the IP every time they make a mistake.--BowserJunior (talk)

You know, if someone doesn't bother to create an account in the first place, chances are their interest in the wiki is already fleeting enough that they won't even care that their edit was undone. There's no need to bother these people with what they will most likely think is spam. - Kibago (talk)

---

Notification for when watched pages are edited

DON'T NOTIFY 5-15

You know how there's a banner that is on every page of the wiki whenever your talk page is edited, right?
Well, this is basically the same thing, just for when something else is edited; the pages that are on your watchlist. This way, we don't have to keep on checking Recent Changes or our watchlist several times a day. The banner should look something like this;

(the Mario article was used as an example)

The "here" part would take you to the comparison window between the most recently-made edit and the edit right before it.

Proposer: Goomba (talk)
Deadline: April 22, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Goomba (talk) Per proposal; this will make it much easier to keep track of watchlists.
2. Sonic98 (talk) Per proposal and per Goomba.
3. Blue CosmicToad (talk) Per proposal.
4. Kamek the magikoopa (talk) Per proposal.
5. Banon (talk) This allow us to keep track of our watched pages. If people have too many pages or find that distracting, I think there should be a option to disable it.

Oppose

1. Mario4Ever (talk) I don't see this as being more convenient than just checking the watchlist.
2. Mariotime11 (talk) A lot of people find those templates that follow you around kind of annoying. Also, what if your watchlist is crammed with a lot of pages? I check my watchlist whenever I'm waiting for someone to reply on a talk page, or tracking changes to articles I often edit, etc.
3. King Pikante (talk) Per all.
4. Tucayo (talk) - That would be incredibly annoying, per all.
5. NSY (talk) That would just be annoying as shit. Per all.
6. newSMBU (talk) - Let's say you have many watched pages. And magically they get instantly changed in a range of a minute. It would cram all the page as heck with lots of notices like this one.
7. World10 (talk) Per all.
8. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) I don't think we really need this. You really shouldn't compare this to talk pages since they're two completely different things.
9. MortonBoo99 (talk) Per all.
10. Walkazo (talk) - It's unnecessary, annoying, unattractive and most importantly, impossible (see Comments).
11. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Per Walkazo.
12. BowserJunior (talk) Per Walkazo.
13. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per all.
14. Tails777 (talk) That seems a bit unnecessary to me. Per all.
15. Zero777 (talk) Rather unnecessary, kinda annoying (imagine users who watch 100's of pages), someone will have to make the code but they'ren't forced to, and finally just have a habit to check the watchlist.

Comments

What would be displayed if several pages which are on your watchlist have been changed since your last visit, rather than just one? Would it just show the most recent? --YoshiKong (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

"A page" would turn into "Pages", and it would say "Click here to see the most recent changes on [name of article here], [name of article here], etc." Goomba (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

Okay so what if you had a whole list of articles which were edited since your last visit. What would the maximum amount of pages which would be displayed on the notice? Also, it might be best to ask Porplemontage about this idea. --YoshiKong (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, I'll notify him soon. As for the limit, I'd probably say about 10 or so. Goomba (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

Porple said that it's not feasible, so I think this should be withdrawn. --YoshiKong (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

@NSY I think profanity is not allowed here. Or am I wrong? newSMBU (talk)

It is allowed, but discouraged. From the Courtesy Policy: "The occasional use of profanity is allowed as long as it is not directed at another user, but it should generally be avoided.". -- Tucayo (talk)

I think it'll become a distraction. MortonBoo99 (talk)

Allow Featuring/Unfeaturing Article Nominations to pass by majority

DO NOT ALLOW FEATURING/UNFEATURING ARTICLE NOMINATION BY MAJORITY 5-28

I'm pretty sure there has been several near-successful featuring or unfeaturing article nominations over the years that are unanimous, but right at the last moment, someone opposes it, and because of just one user, the entire thing fails. I wanted to change that by adding a rule that featuring/unfeaturing articles nominations must pass by 50% of the votes plus one. (i.e. 5 to 2, 7 to 3, etc.) It will be a better system and also show that more articles are in really good quality or that more articles need a dusting.

Proposer: Goomba (talk)
Deadline: April 28, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Goomba (talk) Per proposal.
2. A Paragoomba and the Koopa Bros. (talk) Per Goomba.
3. Rpg gamer (talk) Per Goomba.

Oppose

1. Yoshi876 (talk) No, if we allow this then we are basically allowing fan votes to decide. I've seen archives of Mario for being featured and it was tonnes of supports because everyone likes him. If we allow this then it means some articles like Nintendo 3DS can be featured and at its current state we can't allow that due to a rewrite template and bad images. And also lots of people could support the unfeaturing of an article and then someone could come along and fix it up, but not be able to remove all the supports and a so a perfectly good article gets unfeatured.
2. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) No articles should only be fa's when they are perfect and everybody agrees to that if an article has votes against it it means that the article is flawed and the flaws should be fixes (or that the votes are outdated in which case ask an admin) allowing articles to be fa'd when they have valid oppose votes on them will only lead to bad articles being featured because they are major characters.
3. King Pikante (talk) Per all.
4. Baby Luigi (talk) I would like to add to Marshal Dan Troop's vote (which I per with) that should an article's flaw is incorrect is fixed, we can always vote to remove it (and chances are, the oppose vote will get removed in time). So I think the current system is as fine as it is.
5. Yoshi K (talk) Per all.
6. Super Mario Bros. (talk) — Per all, especially Marshal Dan Troop and Baby Luigi.
7. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Super Mario Bros.
8. YoshiKong (talk) Per King Pikante.
9. Tucayo (talk) - Per all.
10. BowserJunior (talk) Per all.
11. MortonBoo99 (talk) Per all.
12. MeritC (talk) Per all.
13. World10 (talk) Per all.
14. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per Marshal Dan Troop.

Comments

@Yoshi876 Fan votes are automatically removed now, so that isn't a problem anymore. Goomba (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

But reasons for supporting when featuring an article aren't allowed, so one person could say 'I think the Mario article is good because it has detail and images' and the all the fans would vote and it'd be impossible to see if they were fan votes because they can't leave a comment saying 'I love Mario'. Yoshi876 (talk)

Yeah, I think that it's still a problem: there are still fan votes. Banon (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

It's not much of a problem when one valid oppose vote just tips the side of the FA nomination. Baby Luigi (talk)