MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/51: Difference between revisions
(Archiving) |
Time Turner (talk | contribs) (Proposal passed.) |
||
Line 422: | Line 422: | ||
I should point out one thing: we don’t even have an article for them as a group. [[Tiki Tak Tribe]] just covers every enemy in the game, and is not devoted to the boss Tikis. At the very least, we need an article for them as a group. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 13:19, 31 March 2018 (EDT) | I should point out one thing: we don’t even have an article for them as a group. [[Tiki Tak Tribe]] just covers every enemy in the game, and is not devoted to the boss Tikis. At the very least, we need an article for them as a group. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 13:19, 31 March 2018 (EDT) | ||
===Smash Bros. Articles: What Stays and What Goes?=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|12-1|make the changes}} | |||
[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_51#Make_an_exception_for_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series_in_our_coverage_policy|The previous ''Super Smash Bros.'' proposal]] allowed us to justify previous exceptions to ''Smash'' coverage (i.e. the stage hazards and Smash Taunt characters) and paved a path for future exceptions. After [https://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=39608.0 the discussion on the forums], this proposal will outline exactly what further exceptions will be made, as in which pages will be merged and which pages will remain intact. With that out of the way, let's dive in! | |||
*Fighters: No changes are planned. | |||
*Stages: No changes are planned. | |||
*Items: No changes are planned. | |||
*Bosses: The inconsequential bosses of Subspace Emissary ([[Duon]], [[Galleom]], [[Porky]], [[Porky Statue]], and [[Rayquaza]]) will be merged to a page specifically for the mode's bosses. [[Tabuu]] and [[Ancient Minister]] remain separate due to significant relevance to the story, with Tabuu also being the final boss. By that same token, [[Crazy Hand]], [[Master Hand]], and [[Master Core]] will remain due to also being final bosses. Separately, [[Ridley]] will stay due to multiple appearances across more than one game. | |||
*Enemies: The [[Talk:List of Adventure Mode enemies#Create separate articles for the Adventure Mode enemies|Adventure Mode]], [[Talk:Subspace Army#Create separate articles for Subspace Army enemies|Subspace Emissary]], and [[:Category:Smash Run Enemies|Smash Run]] enemies will be merged into separate lists (i.e. "List of Smash Run enemies" and so on), exactly like the ones that existed previously. | |||
*Stage hazards: Despite my previous comment about stage hazards being exceptions, there are exceptions to that, including [[Dark Emperor]], [[Flying Man]], [[Metal Face]], and [[Yellow Devil]]. These pages will be merged to the stages that they respectively appear in. | |||
*Assist Trophies: They will be merged to [[Assist Trophy]], as it was previously. | |||
*Pokémon: They will be merged to [[Pokémon]], as it was previously. | |||
*Moves: Special moves will be merged to the character that uses them (e.g. [[Mach Tornado]], [[Drill Rush]], [[Shuttle Loop]], [[Dimensional Cape]], and [[Galaxia Darkness]] will be merged to [[Meta Knight]]; for moves that are used by multiple fighters, the information will be split between them, such as with [[Shield Breaker]]), as it was previously. The exception to this is with moves performed by characters from the ''Mario'' franchise; they will remain separate. | |||
Note that this proposal isn't completely exhaustive: there are scattered pages like [[List of Mii Outfits]] and [[List of bonuses in Super Smash Bros.]] that also deserve scrutiny, but considering the subtle differences between each of them, it'd be best to tackle those individually and not overburden this proposal. Still, there's plenty that's already being covered here. It's a lot to take in, but these are changes that should be taken for all the same reasons as before. It's disingenuous to treat the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series as if its ''Mario'' content is even close to that of existing crossovers with the franchise like ''[[Fortune Street]]'' and ''[[Mario & Sonic (series)|Mario & Sonic]]''. The wiki should strive to reflect that. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}, with input from {{User|Superchao}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': April 9, 2018, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Superchao}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Shiny K-Troopa}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Ultimate Mr. L}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|BBQ Turtle}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} Seems like the proposal is taking baby steps to get closer to the goal of having more limited coverage of SSB series. One day, I hope, it will be just be Mario-related content where the rest of Nintendo content ([[Solid Snake]] and [[Sonic]] too) is linked to either their respective [[NIWA]] wikis or specifically [[smashwiki:Main Page|SmashWiki]]. | |||
#{{User|Yoshi876}} I'm happy with these merges. | |||
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per everyone except Wildgoosespeeder. | |||
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Sounds like a good idea. Per proposal. Although, moves related to Mario characters probably should stay separate. Just a thought. | |||
#{{user|Mario jc}} I'm fine with all of these merges as well. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} The Bosses and enemies should stay separate from each other. Period. I will not be moved on that. They are different things with different biological categories. And why should we merge them? The ''Super Smash Bros.'' series is derivative of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' franchise. It's right there in the name. You want this all on SmashWiki? I've gotten viruses from the site before; I don't trust it. And merging stage hazards with stages makes little sense, as they are under the "Locations" category, and attempting to make an article overviewing two things of fundamentally different gameplay type invariably ends up as a cluttered cluster, because of the aforementioned icompatibility. All I see this doing is costing us a lot of information for arbitrary reasons. All, in all, ''very'' detrimental. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}}, if you have problems with malware or whatever on SmashWiki, take it up with {{user|Porplemontage}}, as he is the wiki owner, so that way future malware doesn't spread. Oh yeah, just because the name ''Super Smash Bros.'' is one word off from ''Super Mario Bros.'' doesn't make it a derivative series. In early development, it wasn't even going to have Nintendo characters. {{unsigned|Wildgoosespeeder}} | |||
:OK, well by that logic we shouldn't cover aspects of ''[[Diddy Kong Racing]]'', since it was, in early development, not going to have any ''Donkey Kong'' influence. I think the idea of "only ''pure'' Mario content" is bad, as it is a rather nebulous franchise, and to be honest a good amount of the other wikis suffer from extremely bad writing. This is, plain and simply, a bad idea, which will only have detrimental effects to the wiki. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:20, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
::Really, Doc, don't insult the wikis that we're partnered with so casually. It's irrelevant to this proposal, and it completely disparages the work that has been put into them, including the work done by several users that write for this very wiki. Making broad generalizations does not help anyone. If you think that a particular page is poorly written, you have the ability to fix it yourself, but not every single page is like that. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 18:31, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
:::Except several of them don't allow IP edits, period, and require making accounts on other sites to have an account on them. And have you seen the ad amounts on many of them? My poor browser will slow even worse than when I had to deal with Norton Security! "A good amount" isn't necessarily "broad," either, it is perhaps the most nonspecific phrase one can use. Anyways, the point is, I find this proposal so fundamentally flawed and misguided that I might give up hope on this place entirely if it goes through. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:36, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
::Why did I forget to sign again? Stupid me. Anyways, I already feel we shouldn't be covering most of Donkey Kong's games since I feel we are robbing [[DKWiki:Main Page|Donkey Kong Wiki]] site traffic, but I don't want to stir up that hive of bees again (*shutters at my talk page*). I've given up that idea and won't push that anymore. Let's try a different game example. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:35, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
:::It works both ways, regardless of your bias. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:36, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
::::The example you gave me was one I would be in support of rather than against, which you were hoping I would be against. Has nothing to do with bias. I merely suggest a different game that I would be against not covering or shifting coverage elsewhere. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:44, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
:::::No, I know fully well about your feelings on the matter. OK, well how about that the original ''Donkey Kong'' was going to be a ''Popeye'' game? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:48, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
::::::[[Donkey Kong (game)|''Donkey Kong'']] should be covered because it aids writing about Mario's rivalry with [[Donkey Kong]] (I am aware of [[Cranky Kong]] unique position, but I digress). Turns out there is an NES {{wp|Popeye (video game)|Popeye}}. Also, can't remember where I said it, but the {{wp|love triangle}} is merely a story telling trope. Any similarities with {{wp|Popeye}} are just products of the trope and not rip-offs or wherever the conversation was going. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:57, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
:::::::That doesn't change the original plan for the game. Yes, they did end up making an arcade ''Popeye'' game after ''Donkey Kong''<'> became successful, but saying "it's different because tropes" is an irrelevant argument. ''Smash Bros.'' has storytelling tropes in the Subspace Emissary, after all. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:06, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
::::::::I never said they were different because tropes, but the point I was trying to make is that the conclusion of DK being a rip-off of Popeye is wrong because it dismisses the love triangle trope being a bigger factor why the game appeared similar to Popeye. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 19:14, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
:::::::::Literally no one but you said "rip-off." The '''''fact''''' is that it was going to be a Popeye game, but was retooled after they weren't given the liscence (though they later were afterwards). It's comparable to ''Mega Man''<'>s relation to ''Astro-Boy''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:22, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
::::::::::My memory is fuzzy on the details, as I remember my general feelings and reaction towards the conversation better, but the vibe that conversation some time ago was making me feel like people were implying rip-off when analyzing Popeye cartoon and Donkey Kong arcade. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 19:26, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
:::@Wildgoosespeeder: [[dkwiki:Forum:Merge_with_Super_Mario_Wiki]] - [[User:Reboot|Reboot]] ([[User talk:Reboot|talk]]) 19:09, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
@Time Turner: Why would we merge ''all'' special moves to the character that uses them? Wouldn't that cause inconsistencies? {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 18:33, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
:If you could clarify, what would be inconsistent? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 18:34, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
::Well, at the very least, shouldn't the special moves performed by ''Mario'' characters stay? {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 18:40, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
:::That slipped my mind. Considering past proposals, I think that it'd make sense to leave the moves performed specifically by ''Mario'' characters. I'll adjust the proposal. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 18:54, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
:I personally would think that the ones with a non-''Smash'' equivalent, like the Fireballs, should probably stay. I personally have no problem with the idea of merging the moves, as those are less concrete and more abstract things than the enemies and bosses. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:42, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
Shouldn't, on this basis, Meta-Ridley be merged with (the due to be kept) Ridley article rather than with a List of bosses article? It's the same character, after all. - [[User:Reboot|Reboot]] ([[User talk:Reboot|talk]]) 19:09, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
:See [[Talk:Ridley#Split_Ridley_into_Ridley_and_Meta_Ridley|this can of worms]] as to why I'm sidestepping the issue. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:16, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
::The basis has been changed though - if this passes, Meta Ridley is Going Away and the examples given (since they're of Mario characters which aren't affected by the change in Mariowiki's scope re: SSB) are invalid, it's just where it goes. And it makes more sense to consolidate it together than split it over a "real" page and a list page. Plus, it's in-line with the way this proposal treats characters' moves. - [[User:Reboot|Reboot]] ([[User talk:Reboot|talk]]) 19:21, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
::(Similarly, I feel Ancient Minister should be merged with [[R.O.B.]], not kept separate) - [[User:Reboot|Reboot]] ([[User talk:Reboot|talk]]) 19:23, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
:::You definitely raise good points, but I do think there's merit in merging Meta Ridley to the more general list. This is certainly a debatable point, though, so Meta Ridley will be removed from this proposal for the moment. The matter can be settled in the future with a talk page proposal, where it can be discussed in more depth; the same applies to Ancient Minister. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 21:50, 3 April 2018 (EDT) |
Revision as of 22:29, April 9, 2018
Create a template for FA archivesTemplate:ProposalOutcome Baby Luigi's proposed system has been a success so far. However, since we use a template for most archives, why not this one? The table columns are long and repetitive enough to get cumbersome to archive, anyways, so I propose we use a template for archiving featuring (as well as unfeaturing) nominations. I have two drafts, which you can view here and here. Let me know in the comments if there are any issues or possible fixes you have in mind with the templates. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
OpposeComments@YoshiFlutterJump: This was Baby Luigi's intended layout, and I don't see how structuring it the way you suggested is entirely possible anyways. (T|C) 20:15, 11 February 2018 (EST) I suggest putting a few rows as example next time so we can see how the template looks when used properly.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2018 (EST) Add a small link to MarioWiki:Appeals in the reminder/warning/last warning templatesTemplate:ProposalOutcome We have an appeal system that is not used a whole lot, and one of the reasons it's not used is simply because it's not that visible; it requires digging around our maintenance and policy pages to find it, so many users may not even know that such a system exists. Some of us do manually link to there when we occasionally hand out the templates, but why not make the process automatic? After all, this system is directly linked to those templates, and I don't see any reason to segregate the two processes entirely. Here's an example of what I want these to look like
Any changes to wording or comments, please note. Proposer: Baby Luigi (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsRegarding a rule in MarioWiki: Appeals, (1#: Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator cannot be appealed.), I had challenged it on Discord and I want to see that rule removed, hence why I haven't added an extra line saying that "Keep in mind that X given out by a member of staff cannot be appealed). But I don't know what the staff's official final say on that rule is, so I will edit that line accordingly once I get official confirmation. Ray Trace(T|C) 22:17, 11 February 2018 (EST)
For reference, here’s what the old userspace reminder said:
Delete the articles for Galaxy and Galaxy 2's conjecturally-named "minigames"Template:ProposalOutcome We currently have articles on four "minigames" from Super Mario Galaxy, namely ray surfing, Bob-omb Blasting, Bubble Blowing, and Star Ball Rolling, as well as two more from Galaxy 2, Crate Burning and Fluzzard Gliding. However, out of all of these, only ray surfing is officially called that in-game. I slapped {{ref needed}} templates on the other Galaxy "minigames'" articles, but I'm pretty sure they're outright conjecture. The ones from SMG2, Crate Burning and Fluzzard Gliding, actually have {{conjecture}} templates. Even worse, "Star Ball Rolling" and "Bubble Blowing" aren't even minigames. The Star Ball and Bubble are just game mechanics that change how Mario or Luigi move through a level, and these "minigames" only exist in this wiki's imagination. The Star Ball Rolling article is completely redundant with the Star Ball article. Galaxy's bubbles don't have their own article, but even if they do deserve a separate article, the correct answer would be to simply split them off, not create an article for a nonexistent minigame. Which is why when I brought this up on Galaxy's talk page a couple months ago, my thoughts were that these two specifically were the ones that needed to be put down. After all, Bob-omb Blasting, Crate Burning, and Fluzzard Gliding are conjecturally-named too, but at least they're actual minigames, right? But now that I've thought about it, those don't deserve articles either. There exist plenty of nameless minigames, such as the Hoohoo Spirit collecting and Guffawha Ruins platform jumping games from Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, numerous bonus games from the Donkey Kong Country series, and several racing games from Donkey Kong 64, which don't have articles, and I can't think of any that do. In other words, there's no precedent for the existence of articles on nameless minigames. Stuff like "Bob-omb Blasting" and "Crate Burning" can simply be described in the articles for the missions that feature these "minigames", which is how stuff like this is handled for other games (like the Blooper surfing missions or Roller Coaster Balloons from Sunshine), so why should Galaxy and Galaxy 2 be any different? So let's solve this inconsistency. Here are our options:
Proposer: 7feetunder (talk) Delete all of the conjecturally-named minigames
Delete Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing only
Do nothingCommentsChange the link in the Category barTemplate:ProposalOutcome In the category bar at the bottom of most pages whenever a category is included on the page is a link that leads to Special:Categories. This helps absolutely no one. Special:Categories is simply an alphabetical list of every category used on the wiki, but gives no information on how editors, both present and future, should set them up. MarioWiki:Categories on the other hand gives a comprehensive explanation on how categories should be used, from category trees to the order and specifics of the categories. This proposal is simply meant to see who agrees with changing the link in MediaWiki:Pagecategorieslink from Special:Categories to MarioWiki:Categories. Here's an example of how this can be helpful. A reader who wants to get into editing is looking over a page as an example, say Goomba's. There's an infobox, article structure, images, etc. At the bottom is a bar with a list of categories. Wanting to know more about how these categories are structured, they may expect the "Categories" link to lead somewhere useful. It doesn't, and now this reader has to search through pages or ask for help on where to go. Even long-time editors, such as myself, would like an quick and easy way to get to the page they're looking for. Rather than go through those steps, the category link should just lead to the page with an explanation. Special:Categories gives a list of what categories are in use, but MarioWiki:Categories actually tells you how to use them. Proposer: Alex95 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI do support the proposal, but your options are rather... biased. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 13:08, 25 February 2018 (EST)
The link is really there for the reader (99% of wiki visitors), not the editors. Your scenario imagines a reader who wants to get into editing, but that is a very low percentage case. The vast majority of our traffic only reads. If they want to get into editing, they will be introduced to our help pages and {{Wikipolicy}} at some point and see the categories link. The target audience of MarioWiki:Categories is the editor and isn't as useful as Special:Categories if your only goal is exploring the site. A reader can use the search box on Special:Categories to check out different categories we have, for example. The info on MarioWiki:Categories about our category structure and where to put categories probably isn't the reading that visitors came to the site for (deep Mario lore). Editors and would-be editors seeking category help will find MarioWiki:Categories through our help pages, where as visitors are not going to know that Special:Categories exists without the link since they're not roaming through Special:SpecialPages. That Categories link appears across the wiki, on every namespace, and it takes you to a page that let's you explore all the wiki's categories (makes sense). Not sure it should take you to a policy page instead! --Steve (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST)
Template:ProposalOutcome I was browsing the wiki for the first time for a while and I sawdust Proposals is currently llisted under community alongside the 'Shroom, the chat and Mario Boards. The thing is though those other three things all fall under the social part of this site and less so the wiki part of the site Whilst proposals is less so part of the social aspect and more related into improving the wiki. The Navigation area the other hand has links that is all related to the wiki it's self and many of the links inside it are related to helping improve the wiki. I just think it would make far more sense Proposals was under navigation rather than community. Proposer: NSY (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsDo have any idea how visually unappealing that would look? Yikes! --Steve (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST)
You know, you *could* argue that "Featured Articles" are just as "community"-based like proposals are and thus would argue to put that under "community". Ray Trace(T|C) 18:11, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Make an exception for the Super Smash Bros. series in our coverage policyTemplate:ProposalOutcome This proposal stems largely from a discussion thread started by Blocky, and it's recommended to read that first. If we wanted to change our current coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, our current coverage policy offers two logical options: the series is either a guest appearance or a crossover. Calling it a guest appearance is not that good: there are a notable amount of characters, locations, items, and other elements pulled directly from the Mario franchise, and it figures heavily into the Smash series' promotion, so it doesn't seem particularly right to say that the Mario content is on the same level as Captain Rainbow or SSX on Tour. At the same time, however, calling it a crossover (which is the option that the wiki currently uses) isn't satisfying either: as much as the Mario content factors into the series, it doesn't take up a majority in the slightest, so it's disingenuous to treat it as if its content is equal in stature to Mario & Sonic or Fortune Street. Keep in mind that, as a crossover, every single subject within the series should get an individual page, and there's a certain point where covering every single special move and Smash Run enemy feels like it oversteps a boundary (which is to say nothing of smashwiki:the SmashWiki that already covers these subjects better than we ever could). The wiki already has made judgements about what content shouldn't be given individual pages, mainly with various stage elements, but that completely contradicts our existing policy. If neither option available to us is acceptable, then what should we do? Simple: make a third option. This proposal aims to add an exception to our coverage policy, essentially saying that the Smash series is neither a crossover nor a guest appearance, but something unique unto itself. If it is excluded from the other sections, then it would be entirely possible to come up with systematic changes that wouldn't involve broadly changing how every series is covered. Note that this proposal doesn't say what will change; it merely leaves the door open for changes in the first place. Discussions and proposals about the particulars can take place afterwards. A draft of the proposed section can be found at this link. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) (with input from Superchao (talk)) Support
OpposeCommentsPer what I said in the thread. I see no issue with how we are presently doing things, but I'm also open to a change. Due to that, I can neither support nor oppose, but I'll agree with whatever option goes throughI kinda have to anyway :) 19:43, 23 February 2018 (EST)
Sort of a nebulous proposal. Can't pass this and then make major changes because there's no detail of changes to be made here (other than make Smash its own thing, but we don't know what that really means yet). So then you'd need a new proposal of the changes you'd like to make, but you could have just made that proposal without this one. Anyway, it's a start! --Steve (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST)
Pie for Everyone. Pie for EVERYONE. Pie. For. ALL.I know what you're expecting. It's the first of April, I know many of you hope for one of Ghost Jam's little pie stories. I'm sorry to tell you this, but...this isn't going to be one. Or at least not precisely. If you've jumped straight to this paragraph and didn't look at the proposal title, I'd suggest maybe scrolling down to something else that needs voting on. This is your last chance. Don't look up, don't read on, don't vote. Just either scroll on quickly or close your browser tab.
Anomaly #0103-Wiki This...effect, I guess would be the way to think of it, is a meme of sorts that effects users who take on the title of editor, either granted by others or taken by personal choice, and encourages them to add or otherwise embellish false information articles in a given Wiki's database. In the first stages, this is nearly indistinguishable from standard 'new editor' behavior. As the meme takes hold, however, this escalates into anger and destructive behavior. In several cases I've observed, effected users will continue to add false information and argue the point well past a reasonable point. Eventually, and I don't believe this part is an effect of the meme, rather a result of general human frustration, users will begin to not engage effected users and allow the changes they have forced to stay. The transition between these two states seems to happen fairly quickly and is highly contagious. You see, the third stage starts as soon as the changes made by effected users is no longer disputed. At this point, the article becomes an instance of the meme and is capable to spreading it to others. Infection happens instantaneously to anyone who reads the article. User infected with the meme in this way jump directly to the second stage of infection. Really, the contagious part is what makes this thing so scary. I've seen it jump across a few users all ready, but it seems to be...growing, if that makes sense, with each person. I fear that if this isn't gotten under control soon, it could grow large enough to engulf entire userbases in a matter of minutes. I'll see what I can come up with. Notes - October 2007 Notes - November 2007 Note - April 2014 Note - April 2015 Notes - The Age of Pies Pie help you all. So there you have it. I can already feel the urge to spread this to other places tapering off...but it's still there. Try to resist, that's my only advice. For the love of Pie, you have to. PIE. Proposer: Ghost Jam (talk) Support
SUPPORT
S.U.P.P.O.R.T
Praises for the Word of Pie
Do not create Super Mario Odyssey sublocation pagesTemplate:ProposalOutcome The current Super Mario Odyssey Kingdom nav-template has (mostly red) links for all the named locations within every kingdom in the game. I think each one of these locations getting an article is a bad idea. While some of these locations are pretty big and unique, like the Deep Woods and Snowline Circuit, most of them are simply extentions of the main world or too small and not so relevant by themselves, and presenting them disconnected from each other would make these pages feel short on content. Island in the Sky (Bowser's Castle), Rocky Mountain Summit (Forgotten Isle), Heliport (New Donk City), Glass Palace (Bubblaine) and Salt-Pile Isle (Mount Volbono) are some examples of locations which are, at most, glorified platforms with a Checkpoint Flag on/near them. There are also three Tostarena Ruins locations, three Water Plaza locations, two Iron Path locations; having an article for each one is unnecessary as they are part of a whole rather than defined places (which is also the case of things like the Waterfall Basin and Stone Bridge in Fossil Falls and the Tostarena Northwest Reaches). I believe there is enough space for information about these areas in the actual kingdom articles. An overview (what it is, where it is on the map, general layout, what enemies and characters are there) can be written in five lines or so. We do not have articles for Super Mario Galaxy planets, not even for the giant, named ones like the Haunted Mansion in Ghostly Galaxy. Even if (unlike the planets) the SMO locations are named in-game, they are as relevant to their game as planets are to SMG. So, I propose:
Proposer: Shiny K-Troopa (talk) Do not create any Odyssey sublocation article
Create separate articles for notable sublocations only
Leave everything as it is
Comments@TimeTurner, I see where you're going, actually. My problem is with locations that really do not have anything significant happening in them and those that blend in with the kingdom overworld. I was thinking more about how the Super Mario 64 world pages include sub-areas like the Lethal Lava Land volcano and the Snowman's Land igloo. In my perception the Courtyard in the Lake Kingdom is as important as the starting location in Tiny-Huge Island, for example, but I fully understand that the name can make a difference and that people might oppose because of it. About the selection, it might not be 100% complete, I confess. Shiny K-Troopa Talk 19:09, 2 April 2018 (EDT)
Add a section to MarioWiki:Naming regarding technical restrictionsTemplate:ProposalOutcome I'm surprised no one has talked in depth about this yet. Sure, we don't have that many technically restricted names, but we still have some, so I think we should set in stone a policy for these titles. Take the castle levels from Super Mario World as an example. "#1 Iggy's Castle" is located at "Iggy's Castle" rather than "1 Iggy's Castle"; while the former title is fine, it might still cause some initial confusion for the newer readers. Basically, what I'm proposing is that we start officially use closely-matched titles for subjects if the correct title is technically restricted. A draft of the proposed text can be found here. Also, if you're wondering, Porplemontage green-lighted this proposal. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsSo if this succeeds, what will happen to the Iggy's Castle article? (Also, remind me for when I start my own franchise, to name a character "<[[#klunk]]>''," symbols included, just to mess with the ensuing wiki.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
Just thought about it but how about a notice template for such pages? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 17:00, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
@Reboot: It's not on the "assumption" that "#1" is parsed "Number One", it's about whether or not to use close matches for otherwise technically restricted titles. (T|C) 16:47, 3 April 2018 (EDT) Give the seven boss Tikis from DKCR their own articlesTemplate:ProposalOutcome Because the rest of their official names have just been discovered in a datamine of the original game. Proposer: BooDestroyer (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI forgot to mention, but in order, they're called: Kalimba, Maraca Gang, Gong-Oh, Banjo Bottom, Wacky Pipes, Xylobone, and Cordian. BooDestroyer (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2018 (EDT) @YoshiFlutterJump They are different from the Koopalings in that the Koopalings are:
also, why should Gary or Johnson not have articles? They deserve articles as much as Otto or Heronicus. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2018 (EDT)
I fail to see how character personalities is any sort of viable argument against article creation. I can get on board with their extremely minor role and their appearance, but not their personality. Ray Trace(T|C) 00:54, 31 March 2018 (EDT) I should point out one thing: we don’t even have an article for them as a group. Tiki Tak Tribe just covers every enemy in the game, and is not devoted to the boss Tikis. At the very least, we need an article for them as a group. -YFJ (talk · edits) 13:19, 31 March 2018 (EDT) Smash Bros. Articles: What Stays and What Goes?Template:ProposalOutcome The previous Super Smash Bros. proposal allowed us to justify previous exceptions to Smash coverage (i.e. the stage hazards and Smash Taunt characters) and paved a path for future exceptions. After the discussion on the forums, this proposal will outline exactly what further exceptions will be made, as in which pages will be merged and which pages will remain intact. With that out of the way, let's dive in!
Note that this proposal isn't completely exhaustive: there are scattered pages like List of Mii Outfits and List of bonuses in Super Smash Bros. that also deserve scrutiny, but considering the subtle differences between each of them, it'd be best to tackle those individually and not overburden this proposal. Still, there's plenty that's already being covered here. It's a lot to take in, but these are changes that should be taken for all the same reasons as before. It's disingenuous to treat the Super Smash Bros. series as if its Mario content is even close to that of existing crossovers with the franchise like Fortune Street and Mario & Sonic. The wiki should strive to reflect that. Proposer: Time Turner (talk), with input from Superchao (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsDoc von Schmeltwick (talk), if you have problems with malware or whatever on SmashWiki, take it up with Porplemontage (talk), as he is the wiki owner, so that way future malware doesn't spread. Oh yeah, just because the name Super Smash Bros. is one word off from Super Mario Bros. doesn't make it a derivative series. In early development, it wasn't even going to have Nintendo characters.
@Time Turner: Why would we merge all special moves to the character that uses them? Wouldn't that cause inconsistencies? (T|C) 18:33, 2 April 2018 (EDT)
Shouldn't, on this basis, Meta-Ridley be merged with (the due to be kept) Ridley article rather than with a List of bosses article? It's the same character, after all. - Reboot (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2018 (EDT)
|