MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/66: Difference between revisions
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Advanced mobile edit |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 167: | Line 167: | ||
This is not related to the proposal itself but I see that you sent the same talk page message to so many users at once, including myself about this proposal. I'm not super skilled with template codes and such, so I won't vote in it. I just thought I'd mention the message. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 21:52, March 30, 2024 (EDT) | This is not related to the proposal itself but I see that you sent the same talk page message to so many users at once, including myself about this proposal. I'm not super skilled with template codes and such, so I won't vote in it. I just thought I'd mention the message. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 21:52, March 30, 2024 (EDT) | ||
{{@|Nintendo101}} I think I know why broadening the scope would be an improvement. It's because of what [[User:Wayoshi|Wayoshi]] said to [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]]: [[User talk:A Link to the Past#About our Standards Here|"We are not Wikipedia."]] | {{@|Nintendo101}} I think I know why broadening the scope would be an improvement. It's because of what [[User:Wayoshi|Wayoshi]] said to [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]]: [[User talk:A Link to the Past#About our Standards Here|"We are not Wikipedia."]] {{unsigned|GuntherBB}} | ||
A bit of clarification on our vote: Just because we are not Wikipedia doesn't mean we '''''have''''' to do things differently from how Wikipedia does them. While we have our petty, personal beef with Wikipedia (mostly about their comically dated "notability" guidelines), they aren't always wrong, and this is one such case where we feel they nailed the Wiki design on the head; for all intents and purposes, {{tem|ref needed}} is better than any of these templates to us. It's more precise, it's more concise, and most importantly, it's what people--both on this wiki and from other wikis--know best. (This is also why we're not updating our vote, though we do appreciate the proposal being made easier to read.) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:28, March 30, 2024 (EDT) | A bit of clarification on our vote: Just because we are not Wikipedia doesn't mean we '''''have''''' to do things differently from how Wikipedia does them. While we have our petty, personal beef with Wikipedia (mostly about their comically dated "notability" guidelines), they aren't always wrong, and this is one such case where we feel they nailed the Wiki design on the head; for all intents and purposes, {{tem|ref needed}} is better than any of these templates to us. It's more precise, it's more concise, and most importantly, it's what people--both on this wiki and from other wikis--know best. (This is also why we're not updating our vote, though we do appreciate the proposal being made easier to read.) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:28, March 30, 2024 (EDT) |
Revision as of 12:38, March 31, 2024
Decide what to move Super Mario Galaxy 2 worlds toTemplate:ProposalOutcome The worlds in Super Mario Galaxy 2 have names, but each article for the six main worlds is named "World <#> (Super Mario Galaxy 2)" while the article for the special world is called "World S". The good news is I was wondering if there's a possibility to decide what to rename the worlds. There are four options to choose from:
Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Option 1Option 2Option 3Option 4
CommentsCreate a {{visible anchor}} templateTemplate:ProposalOutcome I've come up with an idea for a sub-template for the {{anchor}} template. A {{visible anchor}} retains its behavior like {{anchor}}, with the only difference being that the first parameter will be visible text on the page. You can go here to read the documentation on Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts that there's a possibility create the {{visible anchor}} template? Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsStop referring to Bowser as "King Koopa" in Japanese mediaTemplate:ProposalOutcome In articles about Japanese Mario media, we typically refer to Bowser as "King Koopa" for some reason. I think that this naming convention is pointless and we should call Bowser by his actual English name. One may argue that "King Koopa" is Bowser's Japanese name and therefore he should be named as such. Actually, Bowser's Japanese name is Kuppa (officially romanized as "Koopa") or Daimaō Kuppa (literally "Great Demon King Koopa"), but he is seldom called "King Koopa" verbatim in Japanese media. Most importantly, when referring to characters or species in articles about Japanese-only media, we typically use the usual English name instead of the Japanese name: "Goomba" instead of Kuribō, "Koopa Troopa" instead of Nokonoko, "Toad" instead of Kinopio, and so on. There is no reason why Bowser should be an exception. One may also argue that the names "Koopa" and "King Koopa" have been used in some English-language Mario media (notably the DIC series). However, the name "Bowser" is overwhelmingly more widespread and was already attested in the original Super Mario Bros. instruction booklet. I hope we can agree that The Super Mario Bros. Super Show is not the highest-priority naming source. Lastly, this "King Koopa" naming convention is not even consistent on the Wiki because many articles about Japanese-only mangas refer to Bowser as "Bowser" rather than "King Koopa". If this proposal passes, mentions of Bowser as "King Koopa" or simply "Koopa" will be replaced with "Bowser" in articles about Japanese media, including:
This renaming will not apply to English-language media in which Bowser is actually called "King Koopa". Proposer: Jdtendo (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWhat about referring to Princess Peach by that name in early Japanese media? If this passes, it would seem more consistent to change those to "Princess Toadstool" since that was her English name at the time. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:43, March 20, 2024 (EDT)
Broaden the scope of the {{unreferenced}} templateTemplate:ProposalOutcome
Like everyone in the Super Mario Wiki said, "We are not Wikipedia." I humbly ask if there's a possibility to broaden the scope of the The template currently reads as follows: <div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22"> This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]'''. Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]]. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. </div> This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations from reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. However, once the proposal passes, the template will read as follows: <div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22"> It has been requested that at least one '''[[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|citation from a reliable source]]''' be added to this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}.<br><small>This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} should not cite any unsourced material. See the [[MarioWiki:Citations|citation policy]] for more information.</small> </div> It has been requested that at least one citation from a reliable source be added to this article. That way, the Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) SupportOppose
Commentsthis might just be one of the most difficult to read proposals i have seen on this site, its a real struggle to look at. is there a chance of tidying it up dramatically - YoYo (Talk) 13:54, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
This is not related to the proposal itself but I see that you sent the same talk page message to so many users at once, including myself about this proposal. I'm not super skilled with template codes and such, so I won't vote in it. I just thought I'd mention the message. Sparks (talk) 21:52, March 30, 2024 (EDT) @Nintendo101 I think I know why broadening the scope would be an improvement. It's because of what Wayoshi said to A Link to the Past: "We are not Wikipedia." A bit of clarification on our vote: Just because we are not Wikipedia doesn't mean we have to do things differently from how Wikipedia does them. While we have our petty, personal beef with Wikipedia (mostly about their comically dated "notability" guidelines), they aren't always wrong, and this is one such case where we feel they nailed the Wiki design on the head; for all intents and purposes, {{ref needed}} is better than any of these templates to us. It's more precise, it's more concise, and most importantly, it's what people--both on this wiki and from other wikis--know best. (This is also why we're not updating our vote, though we do appreciate the proposal being made easier to read.) ~Camwoodstock (talk) 23:28, March 30, 2024 (EDT) |