MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/23: Difference between revisions
Fawfulfury65 (talk | contribs) m (archiving) |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 818: | Line 818: | ||
::::To be honest, I didn't really call anyone a foo. I just thought my idea was good and that it might work. But if anyone was offended, I apologize. Working with Dry Bowser, his rudeness kind of rubs on to you. | ::::To be honest, I didn't really call anyone a foo. I just thought my idea was good and that it might work. But if anyone was offended, I apologize. Working with Dry Bowser, his rudeness kind of rubs on to you. | ||
Oh yeah, and "foo" is how Mr. T. says "fool". Hope that clears things up for you Bowser's Luma. {{User|Beecanoe}}}} | Oh yeah, and "foo" is how Mr. T. says "fool". Hope that clears things up for you Bowser's Luma. {{User|Beecanoe}}}} | ||
===Move Episodes from Article to Subpage=== | |||
<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">PUT EPISODES ON SUBPAGES 8-4</span> | |||
This proposal is kind of like BMB's last proposal, except it is proposing to move the episodes of appearance of a character, as long as the character has many of these appearances, into a subpage of the article. I'm not going to go in depth in the description but this will save loading time on longer articles for those people who don't want to see every appearance of Character X in Series Y. For the people who do, there will be a link :) | |||
If you don't get it, [[User:Marioguy1/Test]] is my awesome example page :P | |||
{{scroll box|content= | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | |||
'''Voting Start:''' October 12, 2010, 22:00 EST<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' October 18, 2010, 23:59 | |||
====Seperate==== | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - This can reduce loading time on many articles without making too many subpages like BMB's former proposal would have. | |||
#{{User|Cosmic Red Toad}} - per BMB's old proposal and this one. i dont care about... episodes or whatever? | |||
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - Well, same as before, yet his is more logical I guess. Also, do realize that the Gallery Proposal is much like this, as it is a sub-page of the character, and we do have to best guess whether it should be a sub-page for some characters. | |||
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{user|Tucayo}} -Per all. | |||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} I was thinking about this when I typed up the Mario episodes. I thought we have to cover every single appearance of Mario, so there, a billion episode descriptions. The making of the subpages will help the loading time greatly. | |||
#{{User|New Super Mario}} Per proposal | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! There are high chances that they're not going to make a new Mario cartoon so putting it in a sub-page will'nt be a bad idea. It can give more room to upcoming game info. Zero signing out. | |||
====Remain in Articles==== | |||
# {{User|Bowser's luma}} If we were to do that, why not make a subpage for game appearances as well? The point of an article is to have a lot of info in one place, not to be a map of subpages. I can understand a subpage for the likes of images, but written information belongs in the article. | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Do we need of ''every'' page a subpage? Galleries were enough for me. Besides, some featured articles have much info ''because'' of the length and inclusion of important sections - Game appearances, personality etc, relations, other info, misc. I bet that those might be unfeatured after this proposal passes. Also, per Bowser's luma. | |||
#{{User|Basurao Pokabu Waribiaru Zeburaika Zuruguu A}} You've got to think of things from a reader's viewpoint. This ruins a reader's ease in reading pages. Let's say they want to read the whole Mario article. Now, they'd have to go to a separate page to see his episode appearances? Not to mention the test page basically shows episode summaries. | |||
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per all | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Well, if we did something like this to Mario, wouldn't it be consistent to do it with every other character from the cartoons? {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | |||
:Yes, pretty much. As long as they appear in multiple episodes, or something like that. It's basically up to the user's best judgement to determine whether or not a sub-page is required. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
::@Bowser's luma: Did I ever say anything about a subpage for games? This proposal is an alternative to the recently failed proposal about making subpages to games. Please don't extend the content of my proposal beyong what I put there, I am opposed and always will be opposed to subpages for games. Yes, articles are meant to cover the content of a character, but we do not need a complete listing of the episodes that the character appeared in, rather a general statement of their overall role in the episodes will suffice and if anyone cares to delve deeper, we have a link for them. It shortens the page for all those who don't want to see every single time '''Mario''' has appeared in a series entitled the Super '''Mario''' Bros. Super Show. Chances are that he appeared in more than a lot of episodes. For those who want to read the article as a whole, we have a paragraph describing how he was the hero in the shows and he fought against Bowser and yadayadayada, we list the abnormal episodes and say how they were abnormal and then the reader moves on, knowing what Mario did in that series. If they want to read about his appearances there and they specifically target that section, we have a link for the odd reader who does want that kind of thing. But for the other two types or readers, who are much more common, we have a general overview. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
:::@Arend: Fed up with subpages? Why? Do you just find them annoying? Personally, I find that subpages help move some of the content that people may not want to see which will take up a very extensive portion of the article, away so that only those who want to see it will see it. And if any FAs were featured because of any good qualities, I would like a list of them so I can create unfeature noms for them all. Perfection is not a representation of how many good things an article has, perfection is a representation of how many bad things it does not. If any articles were featured because they have a "long, descriptive section in the middle" then they should be unfeatured. They are not perfect (or as close to perfect as possible) if they have a big section in the middle and many errors everywhere else. If they have no errors anywhere and a big section in the middle, taking away the section won't do anything bad to them. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
I don't like the idea of only doing this to the main characters' articles. It's much more consistent to do this with all character articles from the cartoons, no matter how minor. Deciding what characters are main and what characters are minor is mostly based on opinions if you ask me. I always thought of [[Oogtar]] as an important and major character, but I'm sure not everyone can agree on that because he doesn't appear in many episodes as far as I know. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | |||
:What I mean by that is for characters like [[Mario]], [[Luigi]], etc. there would be a subpage. Maybe for characters with multiple appearances like [[Mouser]] but for a character like [[Pine]], there is no need to split it into a subpage so it won't be split. Whether there is need or not is up to the user editing the article but I would personally never do it for someone who appeared in only one episode and never anything else. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
::@The guy with the long name: I ''am'' thinking from the typical reader's viewpoint. What you just described was an atypical and less common type of reader. Someone who wants to read the entire Mario article will have to click one link, and all the others who ''don't'' won't have to scroll through 11 paragraphs of text just to skip one section. And if someone wants to know what Mario's appearance in that series is, there is a paragraph describing what he does. {{User|Marioguy1}}}} | |||
=== The Lists on the Left Side Below Mario Knowledge === | |||
<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">LEAVE LISTS AS THEY ARE 7-11</span> | |||
Pretty simple proposal. You know those lists about [[Characters]], [[Places]], [[Items]], etc.? These lists are split into two: game stuff and non-game stuff. Why are they separate? Due to those canon proposals, shouldn't they be one list? I'm proposing that we merge the non-game stuff with the game stuff in those lists. | |||
{{scroll box|content= | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}<br> | |||
'''Voting start''': Wednesday 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC) <br> | |||
'''Deadline''': <s>Wednesday 23:59 13 October 2010 (UTC)</s> '''Extended:''' Wednesday 23:59 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
==== DO MERGE ==== | |||
# {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} This isn't a matter of organization. We're supposed to update the list according to the previous proposal of merging game with non-game stuff. Besides, A-Z is enough organization we need. If you want to separate things as much as possible, fine, split the character articles into more articles. | |||
# {{User|Walkazo}} - Per LeftyGreenMario: it's policy to list games and alternate media side-by-side, and anything that doesn't do this is merely outdated, with the exception of certain Navigation Templates (i.e. {{tem|Human}}), which ''need'' the differentiate between series and whatnot. The lists don't need to be separated to show what media they are from, however, because the sources are listed right there on the pages. | |||
# {{User|Marioguy1}} - I usually refrain from voting but here I must vote as it seems my cause will lose (plus Walkazo made me rebuke my idea of "not being able to make a difference"). Per me in the comments I guess but to sum it up, there is no reason for characters, all confirmed as Mario characters, to be seperate on a list of Mario characters. | |||
# {{User|JF}} Per all. | |||
# {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Per all. | |||
# {{User|Mathew10}} Per all. | |||
# {{User|Dry Paratroopa}} It would shorten the pages, and if we really need an indicator, we can add a footnote shape like we did for the Yoshi series in the enemies section. | |||
==== DON'T MERGE ==== | |||
# {{user|Tucayo}} - I am a firm supporter of separating games and non-games as much as possible, so, naturally, I oppose this proposal. Why? Well, they are different media, and that is enough reason for me. But if it isn't for you, well, then, most of the other media is not even fully made by Nintendo, and most of the characters have completely different roles, appearances, etc. | |||
# {{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! It will be easier and more organized if we didn't merge them. Zero signing out. | |||
# {{User|Commander Code-8}} I'm not sure that merging them would help. Per all. | |||
# {{User|Wayoshi}} - Parsing out stuff into divisions is the best organization. | |||
# {{User|Fuzzipede27}} - Per all. | |||
# {{User|Bowser's luma}} In my mind I try to keep things as seperate as possible, and for some things I do, that would impose a major hassle for myself, and others as well. Per all. | |||
# {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} Per all. | |||
# {{User|Ralphfan}} – Per all. | |||
# {{User|New Super Mario}} Per all. It's just more work for people to find something in the list | |||
# {{User|T.c.w7468}} Per Tucayo. | |||
#{{User|Cosmic Red Toad}} Per Tucayo | |||
==== Important Neutral Stuff ==== | |||
I'll say something that is on everybody's mind right now. Huh?!?!? {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
Well, if you see [[Characters|here]], the characters are divided to two groups: game and nongame. I want to merge the two since, well, because of one question: canon or not? Sorry for presenting an opinion unclearly; I'm notorious for doing that '-_- {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
Otherwise, tell me, why are they separate? Shouldn't the list be one big list? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
: Ah, now I see :) In my personal opinion, the current format is horrible. They should either be split into two lists or merged into one, not semi-merged, semi-split as they currently are. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
:: Yes, these lists should be one, according to this proposal. Remember those canon debates? I think these lists haven't been modified yet. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
::: Yeah, a lot of things regrettably fall through the cracks each time we change the organization standards... - {{User|Walkazo}} | |||
Tucayo: Well, they are different media, but I don't see why the two lists are split, yet the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Sections of an Article|Manual of Style]] wants articles to include both game information and other media information in the same section. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
Zero777: The list is organized well enough. What, alphabetically isn't enough? It's slightly harder to navigate because the list is split. Again, this proposal deals mostly with the grouping of game and non-game stuff. The lists are outdated, and we need to change it to the standards. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
Luigi-board: Your vote is invalid. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
I'm neutral for this. This proposal is balanced in advantages (organization) and disadvantages (tons of moved internal links). {{User|Mathew10}} | |||
: It shouldn't be that hard to move the links. It might be tedious, but it isn't hard. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
:: I really hope nobody opposes anything because it is too "hard", obviously the creator is volunteering to do the work themselves so it won't be hard at all for the person opposing. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
Again, it's not like alphabetized isn't organized enough. I can live with only 1 list. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
I don't understand why we should merge the game and non-game things TBH. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | |||
: Previous proposals. We are supposed to place game and non-game things in the same spot so we don't go in this canon debate. I thought we agreed to place non-game things and game things in the same spot, so I don't know why people oppose. This seems logical to me. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
:: Can you at least provide a link for evidence of such? {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} | |||
Check [[MarioWiki:Coverage#No Canon|the coverage policy]] and [[MarioWiki:Canonicity|canon policy]]. The split of the lists seems like the games are "more" canon than the nongames. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}}} | |||
===Categories on Boss Articles=== | |||
<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">USE NEW CATEGORY SYSTEM 8-3</span> | |||
OK, this proposal, obviously, has to do with the categories on the boss articles, something like this was recently stated on the talk of the main page however I think that to be an official policy, it must be proposed and passed by the community. So, currently, ~all (or so I am told) boss articles have three categories in them, Enemies, Bosses and Characters. I propose that we use those categories much more strictly, AKA for the following reasons: | |||
*[[:Category:Enemies|Enemies]] - This category will only be used on characters that are unnamed individually and are simply known as members of a certain species. Like Goombas, not [[Goomboss]], not [[Red and Blue Goomba]], just the members of the species that are generic and anonymous. Examples include [[Goomba]], [[Koopa Troopa]], [[Spiny]] and [[Nitpicker]]. | |||
*[[:Category:Bosses|Bosses]] - This category would only contain enemies with different variants, like different music, different size, solo text where they state they are "superior" or "notable", different coloration, etc. Examples include [[Goomboss]], [[Baron Brrr]], [[Lakilester]] and [[Bowser]]. | |||
*[[:Category:Characters|Characters]] - This category will only contain named characters. If the being in question is named and not just a generic member of a species then it would be considered a character. Examples include [[Mario]], [[Yoshi (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)|Yoshi]], [[Bowser]] and [[Goompapa]]. | |||
{{scroll box|content= | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br> | |||
'''Voting Starts:''' October 12, 21:00 EST<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' October 18, 23:59 | |||
====Use this Category System==== | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - When looking for enemies, people want to see enemies, i.e. the different species that bosses fall into, not bosses in general. | |||
#{{User|Supershroom}} - I completly agree. What's the point of having a bosses category if they are all found in other categories. However, you suggest that Bowser would be in the Bosses category, when he is a character as well. I mean, if someone was asked to name some major Mario characters, I'm sure they would mention Bowser. So, if they then came here, and wanted to see some Mario characters, they would think that there would be a mistake in the category if they didn't find Bowser there. For most of the other bosses, like those who have been seen once, would be fine in their own Bosses Category. On the other hand, some people might lke to see a page with all the named characters (the lazy blobs could jus click links to other pages though), so this might be why there is so much disagreement about this topic. Oh and what Marioguy1 says. I only really disagree about Bowser, and other important characters like the Koopalings and Kamek (and so on and so forth) only being in the bosses category, when they are charcters too. Take [[Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story]], for example. You fight Bowser (three times, if you count Bowser X as the third), which makes him a boss, yet you also play as him, mking him a character. I could go on for ages, (I aready have XD) but I can't be bothered to type any more. I broke my finger a few days ago, and I think I'm making it worse. Finally, per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Ralphfan}} – Per all. | |||
#{{User|Cosmic Blue Toad}} – Per proposal and myself in the comments. | |||
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Bosses are not enemies, and to be honest I expected that common sense would make that obvious. Both of these terms are distinct roles in video game jargon, and in the usual case they are exclusive to one another. These two categories should never appear on the same article, except in the very specific case that something is encountered as a boss AND a regular enemy. Do not mix this up. | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} I agree with Edo's comment. | |||
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Finally, a comment that helped me decide my vote. Thanks, Edo! Per Edo. | |||
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} Took me a while to decide, but per all. | |||
====Continue Using Current One==== | |||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Bosses are characters as well as enemies. All current categories apply, some of which are just more specific than others. It is like so: Characters>Enemies>Bosses. Bowser is a boss, but that doesn't remove him from the categories of "Enemies" or "Characters." | |||
#{{User|GalacticPetey}} Per Bowsers Luma | |||
#{{User|Fuzzipede27}} Per Bowser's Luma. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
So you are saying Bosses =/= Characters? I would think that characters may be like a "mother category", with many other ones branching out, like Bosses, Enemies, Allies, etc. {{user|Tucayo}} | |||
:Actually, I think most (if not all) boss articles would also be character articles. What I'm saying is that not all character articles would also be boss articles. I'm just trying to set category standards in this small area of the category tree. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
::The boss category is a specific sub-category of "enemies". It applies to those enemies that are fought in a "boss battle", bosses are defined as enemies but you don't meet up with a Bowser on the road and (forgive the Pokemon reference) have "A wild Bowser appeared!" flash onto the screen. He's slightly more sinister than a casual, oh look, it's ''another'' one of those things. And if Bowser is a character AND a boss, he will be categorized as a character AND a boss, I don't see the dilemma with having two categories. {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
Look, the branch of "being" categories are kinda like this in my eyes: | |||
*Species - Races of different beings. Some are usually nice (Allies), some are usually evil (Enemies). | |||
*Characters - (Important) members of different species, which usually have a name. | |||
*Heroes - The good guys, who usually save worlds, characters and important items. Mario (a Character) is a Hero, Yoshis (a species) are too. | |||
*Allies - Nice characters or species which help heroes on their way, and are against enemies. The character Toad is an ally, and so are his species. Mario is sometimes an ally too. | |||
*Villains - Usually the bad guys. They usually kidnap certain characters, steal important items and take over worlds. Villains are usually characters, not species. Bowser is a villain | |||
*Bosses - The term "Boss" is used on characters who are need to be fought, or are leaded by a villain, or eventually ARE the leaders of a branch of enemies. Villains can be bosses as well. Bowser is not only a villain, but also a boss. Hammer Bros. (a species) are (mini)bosses too. | |||
*Enemies - This could be anything that is bad. Evil species, villains AND bosses. So Hammer Bros. are also enemies, and Bowser thus too. And so are Goombas. | |||
A little complicated, and maybe a little hard to understand. {{User|Arend}} | |||
:Well, I think of them like this: | |||
*Species - '''All''' different '''races''', ''good or evil'' (such as [[Goomba]]s, [[Bub-ulb]]s, [[Lakitu]]s,and [[Yoshi (species)|Yoshi]]s) | |||
*Enemies - '''Evil''' or mean '''species''' ''that can'' usually ''be fought'' (such as [[Koopa Troopa|Koopa]]s, [[Bombshell Bill]]s, [[Magikoopa]]s, and [[Mawful Mole]]s) | |||
*Allies - '''Good''', supporting, or helpful '''species or''' minor '''characters''' ''that'' usually ''assist you or you'' need to ''rescue'' (such as [[Toad]], [[Toad (species)|Toad]]s, [[Luma (species)|Luma]]s, and [[Luma (character)|Luma]]) | |||
*Characters - '''Anyone''', ''good or bad'', who has been '''specifically named''' (such as [[Fawful]], [[Toadette]], [[Bowser]], and [[Waluigi]]) | |||
*Bosses - '''Evil characters''' who ''you fight in a'' '''boss battle''' (such as [[Red Ninjakoopa]], [[Bowser Jr.]], [[Dark Fawful]], and [[Tatanga]]) | |||
*Heroes - '''Good''', major '''characters''', not allies, ''who'' usually do their best to ''help save the day'' (such as [[Mario]], [[Yoshi]], [[Lakilester]], and [[Rosalina]]) | |||
*Villains - '''Major bosses''', ''usually the final boss''es, which the entire game leads to their defeat (such as [[Dark Fawful Bug]]/[[Dark Bowser]], [[Shadow Queen|The Shadow Queen]], [[Smithy]], and [[Bowser]] | |||
<small>Recap:<br> | |||
'''Species''':''All races'', good or evil ([[Dryite]]s)<br> | |||
'''Enemies''':''Evil species'' that can be fought ([[Octoomba]]s)<br> | |||
'''Allies''':''Good species or characters'' that assist you or you rescue ([[Tayce T.]])<br> | |||
'''Characters''':''Anyone specifically named'', good or bad ([[Starlow]])<br> | |||
'''Bosses''':''Evil characters'' you fight in a ''boss battle'' ([[Kammy Koopa]])<br> | |||
'''Heroes''':''Good characters'' who help save the day ([[Luigi]])<br> | |||
'''Villains''':''Major bosses'', usually the final boss ([[Super Dimentio]])</small> | |||
Well, that's what I think. {{User|Cosmic Blue Toad}} | |||
A boss is an opponent, usually one of a kind, who is fought under special conditions. In action games a boss is usually introduced somehow, commonly with a cutscene, and you fight it in an arena of some sorts. In an RPG those often have their own separate battle theme or something else that sets them appart from the enemies. An enemy on the other hand is one of the many common nuisances you encounter in a level. They are usually not unique or specially introduced, and you often encounter more than one of them in one level. These are set roles in video game jargon, keep that in mind. | |||
So apparently there are people saying the Bowser article should have the Enemy category on it. Now let me ask you a question: Where, even in one single game, has Bowser ever been encountered as a common enemy? In which game did he roam a level like a Goomba, or Koopa, or any other enemy? That's right, never! This is why the Enemy category has no place on the Bowser article, and neither does it have one on any other boss article. | |||
This whole Enemies-Bosses constellation has been formed because of the assumption that most bosses hold a grudge against Mario (read: They are his enemies). However, this is not what the Enemy category is for. It is for common enemies '''only'''! We can't just stretch the scope of a category because of semantics like "You can use the word 'enemy' in a sentence with them, so they have to be enemies". We don't put Category:Bosses on [[Princess Peach]] because she is the ruler (read: the boss) of the Toads. The example sounds ridiculous? Well, the whole argument is the same if you think about it long enough. | |||
The scope of a category needs to be clear and precise. Don't dilute it with semantics that contradict logic and the fundaments of video game principles. - {{User|Edofenrir}}}} |
Revision as of 16:29, October 21, 2010
MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template Remove Fake Bans/WarningsRemove Fake Bans/Warnings 30-0 OK, now that I royally screwed up my last proposal, let's try this again: Proposer: Ralphfan (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsNow that I've realized the full effects of my other one, let's just get on with this. Ralphfan (talk)
This only covers ban notices and warning notices. Navboxes are OK. Ralphfan (talk)
So, will the other one get deleted? Tucayo (talk) Once enough admins agree, I guess. Ralphfan (talk) @2257: To answer your question, a fake template is when a user uses the HTML code for the template rather than the template itself. That way, you don't see the list of pages that links to it on the bottom. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Can this include fake maintenance templates too? Booderdash (talk)
@MrConcreteDonkey: {{construction}} isn't allowed in userpace. Ralphfan (talk)
@MG1: Construction templates aren't fake, they just aren't allowed in userspace. Ralphfan (talk) @Ralphfan: I'll support if you add fake maintenance templates on since they have as much significanse as the fake warnings and tal pages. Also, can fake talk page proposals on user talks be banned too? Booderdash (talk) @MrConcreteDonkey: Yes, yes they are. :) Bowser's luma (talk)
I don't know what's the big issue on fake construction templates. They are on user pages. What makes you think a USERpage needs rewrite or more images uploaded? I think the people who put fake templates on their page just have some sense of humor, not a sense of immaturity. Of course, opinions differ for each person. Bottom-line: fake rewrites do no harm at all. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Alright, sorry LGM and BLOF. I guessed since you opposed the last one immediately, but I guessed wrong and forgot that the 1st one was for all fake templates. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
Do you think anyone will fall for this???: (Removed, due to its contents altering the scrollbox template)
OH, PLEASE! Who in the right mind would agree with that hacked template? Also, Per MrConcreteDonkey. Takes up space and is worthless. Sacorguy79 (talk)
Papermario97 (talk) I feel stupid but, what does "per all" mean?
Making Paper Mario Badge Attack ArticlesDo not create Paper Mario Badge Attack Articles 9-14 I think we should make articles on attacks in the first two Paper Marios that you can only use by the use of a badge (i.e. Quake Hammer, Multibounce). It would be necessary to the wiki, since these ARE attacks of Mario's, and even if he needs a badge to use them they still are attacks of his. Proposer: Mileycyrussoulja (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWouldn't this be better as a Pipe Project? MrConcreteDonkey (talk) Agreed. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Couldn't this be done by making an article that contains all the Badge Effects (if such an article doesn't exist already)? Frostyfireyoshi (talk) Its already done in the Badge article. But the MOVES need seperate articles because they're MOVES. Booderdash (talk)
@Booderdash: Do you realize how many stubs we're gonna have here? Fawfulfury65 (talk) @Frosty, no like how Multibonk has an article, we make articles for Tornado Jump, Power Jump, Power Smash, Ice Smash etc. @FF65, I don't see how we're going to have that many stubs. I mean they're as important as the special moves for Mario Power Tennis. And the moves can be explained in detail. They're also better than Plane Mario. Booderdash (talk) Well, if all attack badges are given their own articles, shouldn't ALL badges have separate articles? Emperor Yoshi (talk) Why? All other badges only give effects that can be explained with one line. In attacks, many sentences can be written, and it won't be a stub All the other badges will be stubs. Booderdash (talk) Well, you can not always "write many sentences" for every attack badge, most of them do things that warrant only a sentence or two. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Not the attack BADGE, but the ATTACK. Like Power Bounce. I don't see how thats less of an importance than Multibonk. Booderdash (talk) Well, I fail to see how that would work with any positive affects. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Then explain why Multibonk, Kiss Thief, Power Lift etc. has articles, because they're just attacks too. Booderdash (talk) Um..., Gamefreak, I think you're misunderstanding us. We DON'T want to create articles for BADGES, we want to create articles for ATTACKS like Tornado Jump, Ice Smash, and Power Bounce. Booderdash (talk) Well, two of those three you said should not have articles, If a certain type of badge has an article, they all must, it is one of are policies. Making an article on a badge attack but not the badge itself, that would simply not work. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Look, you probablt don't even have the game. The badge only ALLOWS you to use the attack, but we want to make an article ON the attack. Like Kiss Thief, and Power Lift. So that is ok. Booderdash (talk) Well, me having the game has nothing to do with this wiki, the badge is functionally what you need to use the attack, thus if the attack deserves a page, the Badge does too. What I mean is, the badge page is created, with the attack in it, if it is created at all, wich it should not. Emperor Yoshi (talk) No, the BADGE name is the EXACT same as the attack so Tornado Jump the badge would be the same thing as the attack. You would need the game to understand, thats why I mentioned it. Booderdash (talk) Well, I can not under stand you reasoning, what I meant to say was to make a page of the BADGE not the ATTACK, if make the pages at all. Emperor Yoshi (talk) The proposal is about making the attack! Not the badge! Badges only invoke the attacks.Mr bones (talk) Well, I know that, the pages badge or Attack should not be created, they would cause many stubs, just because they are attacks does not mean they are notable enough for a page. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Any badge attack is notable like any other one. That's why Booderdash said that you should have the game!Mr bones (talk) Well, any badge is as important as it's own attack are each other. Also, The fact about me not having has no say in the matter. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Yes it does. It means you don't understand the concept of the attack. You NEED the game to understand or maybe just the original Paper Mario. And the badge isn't important, which you'll clearly know if you have the game, its the ATTACK that is. Booderdash (talk) Well, the badge and the attack it causes have functionally the same notability, the attacks are are slightly altered versions of Mario's normal attacks. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Is it? Multibonk is the exact same as Headbonk, but repeated alot of times, and Power Bounce is a jump repeated alot of times. Booderdash (talk) Booderdash, It sounds like you are agreeing with me, the pages you want to be made should not be made because they are not notable enough. The attack badges attacks simply alter Mario's (or his partner's) by adding an effect. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Aha! But you see thing thing is they DO have articles, and for THIS consistency to work, we need to make articles for this, since I doubt many people will agree on deleting those articles anways. Booderdash (talk) Booderdash, the badges nor their effects do not have articles, they are not notable enough for their own articles. Emperor Yoshi (talk) All, the badges are merged together, so why on earth can't we just merge all the attacks? Fawfulfury65 (talk) Agreed, but the badge attacks are already merged. Emperor Yoshi (talk) I guess we could just merge them all. But I just have a feeling not man people would agree on it. I don't know, I guess we can try. (We need to mae a proposal about it first though.) But another thing to note, none of the moves like Multibonk are stubs, so I don't see how Power Bounce will be a stub either. Booderdash (talk) Baby Mario Bloops, there are only 10ish attacks in Ttyd, and I doubt all of them are going to be stubs. Booderdash (talk) Well, there is not sufficient proof that the pages would be long enough not to be stubs, not to mention, the badges(and/or their effects) are not notable enough anyway for pages. Emperor Yoshi (talk) They wouldn't be stubs because Multibonk isn't a stub, and Power Bounce is practically the same thing. Plus things like Ice Smash has even MORE detail (like Freezeing) to be put into the article. Booderdash (talk) Well, Multibonk is not a badge attack, and powerbounce equals Multibonk, Ice smash has little information that could be produced about it. The badge attacks are only the effects the badge has on Mario's (or his partner's) attacks. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Thats my POINT. How comes MULTIBONK gets an article, while Power Bounce doesn't? Its basically just Partner's attacks VS Mario's attacks. Booderdash (talk) Why does everyone keep on thinking we're making the article about the badge? We're making it about the ATTACK. Booderdash (talk) Well, how many time do I have to tell you; the badge causes the "attack," and the "attacks" are simply effects on Mario's (or his partner's) attacks, nothing more nothing less. This is why the do well as a list, they do not have that much information about them that is different from the normal attacks. Emperor Yoshi (talk) I don't care about that, I mean practically everyone else thinks that we're making it ON the badge. Booderdash (talk) Well, You do not care, not they do not, they think (hopefully) that the badge is equal to the attack, neither of them deserves an article. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Well, if they have the game, they would know that it wasn't. Btw, I think MCS made the description rather misleading and I bet is confusing people... Booderdash (talk) You are getting of topic, enough about having the game, it does not always matter, in terms of what you are trying to do. I do not have the game and I understand completely what you are trying to do. Emperor Yoshi (talk) No, you don't understand. Its because you don't have the game. I mean so according to your logic, if FPS fanboys say Mario is for kiddy wimps and that they understand that, that means they're right. Its because they never played the game! You always need to either watch the movie, read the book, or play the game before you understand things about it. Booderdash (talk) I can understand giving a few of the badge specific attack their own articles but there probably won't be enough there to make a good article. A couple probably might if they appeared in more than just one of the Paper Mario games. Garlic Stapler (talk) Well Booderdash, lets get back on topic, what do you mean "It's because they never played the game," you can understand the game if you read it's own article on this wiki. Also Stapler, we can not give just give a few of them pages, we have to give all of them pages or none of them, it is one of our policies. Emperor Yoshi (talk) All your doing is nitpicking an issue if your going to create seperat articles for attacks then you need to make seperate articles for everything mrblob1012 (talk) Well, Read what I said again, you obviously do not know what I mean, and it is one of our policies, not a guideline. Read our policies again and come back after you do so. Also, please speak more clearly. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Make a "No Spam" Usertalk Page PolicyMake a No Spam Usertalk Page Policy 22-0 Recently, a bunch of friends of mine (you know who you are) placed a lot of images in my talk page. Though it was funny at first, it considerably stretched my userpage and extended it, so it gave me really bad loading times. Same goes for copying text from certain articles and placing them into my talk page, which also extends it until the loading server lags extensively just to load up my talk page in case it has new messages. What I'm proposing is a new policy to prevent "spamming" user talk pages with images or text (this also includes friendly encounters). "Spamming" the talk pages with a load of images and text not only gives it a big deal to load up a page and stretches it horizontally, it also gives users like me a hard time to navigate through them to find any new messages a user might put. Plus, we are forced to make another archive as soon as this occurs. I know I can just remove them myself, but it is much easier if the "spamming" is prevented in the first place. Any "spamming" of the past will be kept, but any future "spamming" will get immediately deleted in user talk pages. I do not think that spamming" improves talk pages in any way. Talk pages are supposed to be used for chatting with other users, rather than fill it up with useless content. It also makes it harder for the administration and others to work through the pages if they want to drop a comment or something. I'm also proposing this to be enforced, just in case it happens to any unwary user, ignorant user, or a user who just wants to play around with his/her friends. Proposer: BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWouldn't it be much easier if you just added a rule about this in your talk page? LeftyGreenMario (talk)
The problem is, people tend to ignore rules. I want to enforce that specific rule about spamming. Besides, when people do that anyway, it just takes up server stress and it's harder for other users to leave a message, or the owner of the talk page to find his/her message BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
IMO this classifies as common sense, do not spam. If people don't follow it, they should get warned. Tucayo (talk)
Expand Main Page to contain all contentOppose 1-24 What I liked about the main page was I could discuss featured images and vote on polls and all that stuff. The polls left, I was disapointed. However, they brought the polls back, but my other spot the featured images, was gone. It seems that, for stuff to come in, others must go. The way to solve that problem, expand the main page! We want to fit all the stuff everyone loves onto the first page they see when they enter the wiki. Alright, so that idea sucked hard, but would anyone be against adding content that wasn't put on their before? We could have character of the week, user of the week, and new pages on the main page. Plus, we could improve the polls a little bit, I think it changes less often than it used to, as well as not including past polls from the last time they did the polls thing. Proposer:Beecanoe (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThe problem is not space, the problem is the system behind the FI's, it was a total fail. Tucayo (talk)
Well, maybe this should just be for the 'Projects Seeking Contributors' and maybe a 'Quote of the Day'. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
yeah and the polls are useless to since they really dont do anything by take up space mrblob1012 (talk)
Gargantuan lecture...sorry, I'm not accusing you of anything but should I make my future arguments shorter? I don't know if you prefer a more detailed version which will be very long or a short simple overview of my points...I personally like the longer paragraphs because they cover every (or almost every) objection that anyone could make but more people are likely to read something short and sweet...anyways, which do you (in general) like better? Marioguy1 (talk)
Personally, would like a page or two just visible to users. I may not be edited as frequently, but that would matter. It would just be people who can change it. I'm not saying bring back featured images, but we could have things like progress on things like pipe projects or something. Maybe even come up with a better way to show good pictures. Some stuff that we as users need/want to see and doesn't concern others. And if that stuff belongs on the forum, I certainly can't find anything. (You can discuss this bunny trail more on my talk page.) Back to the point. I am fine with the main page as it is. Just suggesting a different approach to add more content. Geniusguy445 (talk)
Main Page DilemmaDELETED BY PROPOSER Lately, we have gotten many proposals dealing with none other than the main page. "Remove FI's.", "Bring back the Polls.", "Fit all content on Main Page." and so on and so forth. Why can't we just settle that and try to please all of them? FI's and the calendar that told of interesting facts of that month was personally one of my favorite MP templates, but now they are deleted. We have Polls and now the 'Shroom template, which is also good, yet I really missed some of them that have faded into obscurity. What I propose is that we feature all those templates we all love and enjoy their presence on the main page! Before you go thinking that I am the fit all content on MP proposal, well read on. We don't need to have all of them on all at once, or else an overload of data would constantly cause a big list of problems. My proposal here is to make a schedule and trade places with the Main Page! To help you understand what I am aiming at, let me describe it for you. Week 1 -
Week 2 - This is just an example of what we could change. Not saying this would be the exact change.
Week 3 - Back to Week 1. It would be a MAJOR change for us all, and I wouldn't doubt that it would be hard, but at least picture of such quality and awesomeness we would have for the main page! If we just timed each template correctly, from my calculations, then it should work out perfectly! I know that you all have your opinions about this, so I think I will wrap up this proposal. Just remember that even though it would be some difficult work getting everything started, we could be able to make an outstanding Main Page to satify all!!! Proposer:Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsNo. Having a differentiating main page is a bad idea. When someone comes to look for FAs, they'll find FIs. When someone looks for the calendar, they will find the polls. The calendar has to be a month-long thing if it is there at all, stuff doesn't just stop because we remove it from the main page. Furthermore, the FI template was removed from the main page because the process was shut down for a reason. Not to clear up the main page; the FI process is not good enough. And quotes will have the same problems. This proposal is just too inconsistent, we need to have some of those things for a month-long period or not at all. Other things will have bad nomination processes because they are matters of opinions. Sorry but this proposal is not a good idea in my opinion. Marioguy1 (talk)
This will just end in a chaotic mess. The inconsistency will reflect badly on our website. Sorry, but no. - Edofenrir (talk)
Well it's obvious this one isn't working so would you consider it deleting? Marioguy1 (talk)
Making Articles for KeysDon't make articles for Keys 0-15 I think we should make articles on different keys in the Mario series. The reason this came to me is because I found an article, Station Key, on a key in Paper Mario: TTYD. Then I thought that if this key article can be made, then we can make a whole bunch of key articles, for example, Pit Key (found in the Pit of 100 Trials) and Dimension Key (found in the Whoa Zone) from Super Paper Mario. I made those redirects to Key for now. There are 27 key articles. Proposer: Mileycyrussoulja (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsShouldn't this be a TPP on Talk:Key?Knife (talk) Another Paper Mario pointless item page creation proposal? Why don't we just make a List of Keys or something? MrConcreteDonkey (talk) I concur, this proposal should be a Talk Page Proposal, as this obviously does not involve the the Wiki itself. Emperor Yoshi (talk)
@Mileycyrussoulja: You oppose your own proposal? Surely this is eligible for deletion. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
The Science of Video GamesDon't make such user subpages 2-15 I believe that user sub-pages relating to theories and the like should be exempt from the Userspace 'guidelines', as they ought to be put somewhere. If not on sub-pages, then maybe in the talk page or the article itself. See my example on Talk:Ztar. PLEASE LIST WHERE THEY SHOULD GO! Proposer: YourBuddyBill (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWell, you need to give a time for the voting to start and end. Emperor Yoshi (talk) See Mariology, one of our affiliates. It is expressly dedicated to this sort of content. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk)
Forums tend to glitch up for me, not showing dates of topics or posts, so I usually get in lots of trouble for necroposting. YourBuddyBill (talk) Votes that were made before the voting period started remain invalid even after it starts. If we allowed anything else, it would defeat the entire purpose of having a "voting period". Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) Making a Power Glove articleDon't make Power Glove article 2-17 I think we should make a article for the failed accessorie, the power glove. We have a article for the Atari 2600 and the Virtual boy, so why not make a power glove article. I will put in codes the players need to use to play the games. Proposer: Fuzzipede27 (talk) Support
Support
Oppose
CommentsDid the Power Glove have any Mario games made for it period? I don't care about new ones, were any games made for the power glove that featured Mario or one of the Mario characters? Marioguy1 (talk)
I don't even know hat a Power Glove is. Can someone explain it to me? Commander Code-8 (talk)
And You are.....?Use Full Names 16-7 I just notice in some sections of articles, they refer to the game by an abbreviation (SSBB is an example) or by another name usually just a shorten version of the game title (Brawl another example). So we should have this settled once and for all, should we refer to Video game titles only by there full name in mainspace or still refer them by their abbreviations? Proposer: Zero777 (talk) Use Full Names
Keep Using Abbreviations
CommentsFull names in articles, abbreviations on talk pages. Marioguy1 (talk)
I won't be voting in this because my view is that something should only be shorted/abbrieviated if it's already been mentioned. Commander Code-8 (talk)
MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Naming an Article - look at the last paragraph. So now shouldn't we all be using full names to begin with? Fawfulfury65 (talk) I am Zero! @ChillGuy Writing down the game's name is your own personal thing to do but nothing will change on the search, you can still type down "SSBB" and still be redirected to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article if this proposal pass, so your vote is invalid. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk) Who cares if it's been a propsosal before. Maybe the outcome will be different. Like I said above, who the heck wants to make an incredibly long link every time they create the link?DaisyRox02 (talk)
It's a redirect. Okay, fine then. I lose. End of story.DaisyRox02 (talk) The prefix "List of"Add "List of" to all lists 3-11-0 There are 166 lists on the wiki. 105 have the prefix "List of". The rest don't. We need concistency. Either we remove List of, or we add list of. I prefer removing it, because list of is unnecessary. While some of you might argue that people wouldn't know what is a list and what isn't, most of the articles that have list of are articles that people would expect to be lists. Proposer: Reversinator (talk) Remove "List of" from all lists
Add "List of" to all lists
Leave the list titles aloneCommentsImo, the "list of" parts make sense as a means of justifying the use of the plural in the article title, which is not normally allowed. It also makes it clear that the article doesn't just explain the concept of something; e.g. a "List of Games" lists games instead of just describing what games are; if it didn't have the "list of" part, a logical assumption would be that it does the latter.--Vellidragon (talk)
Character Pages ExtrasDon't split other media from character pages 3-18 Alright, you can even look at the articles of Mario, Luigi, Peach, and so on, to see that the pages are HUGE! In all, that is a very good thing that should be with all the info they have, but then you see the small sections known as the cartoons and comics area. Do we really need them to be on the main characters pages? I mean, we can't just toss it aside, but really... My proposal is not entirely deleting that info about the comics, cartoons, stories, and that stuff, but to move it to a different page. To show an example, for the comics that Mario has been in, we could make a page Template:Fakelink and be able to view all the comics Mario has been in and what his comic-counterpart is like. That will help with all the information from the animated stuff that differs greatly from the character's video game background. It might sound troubling at first, but think of it as just making another page for the character. We have Baby Mario, Baby Luigi, Baby Peach, and so on, and they are just a younger form of the adult counterparts we have known for awhile. And on that topic, we even had a proposal before that wanted to separate some of the baby info from the video game since the cartoon made it seem like they appeared a lot earlier. Alright, I think I talked quite enough for the proposal statement, so just vote on what you think would be best for this wiki. I'm just saying though, that the pros are more pleasant and outnumbering than the cons for the benefits to the wiki. Proposer: Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsHas anyone else here seen the DC wiki? They have a similar thing that this proposal's talking about. There's one article for the mainstream comics character, and another for that character in a TV Show, Parallel universe etc. and it works pretty well. It wouldn't hurt to have the same thng happen here, Especially since we don't have much on the comics/cartoons. Commander Code-8 (talk) One other thing is that we might have to create some disambiguation pages so that these new articles can actually be found. Eg: The Mario disambiguation might have about 5, which could include the Cartoon, the comics and a seperate one for each film. My point is that we need to be able to make disambiguation pages. But it shouldn't be to much of a problem. Commander Code-8 (talk) The DC Wiki may do this, but at the same time, DC comics are much heavier on continuity than Mario, and some "alternate universe" versions are considered characters in their own right. It's not rare for Superman to meet one of his alternate-univere self, for one. And the reason we have separate pages for the babies is that they're often seen at the same time as their adult counterparts (ex: The sport games, M&L: Pit) and thus are different characters. The proposer says the character pages are huge, and while our amount of content certainly plays a part in that, the main reason is that they're honestly terribly written, filled to the brim with wordcruft, tangents about the IRL impact of the games and summarising entire plot including the parts that aren't relevant to the character. Even the cartoon sections have that problem, describing damn near every episodes Mario appeared in, even though most of it is not relevant. And though that's a silly reason, I'd like to avoid the inevitable headache if either Stumpers or Son of Suns come back, both of which were senior sysops really, really opposed to separating the cartoons and comics from the games. --Glowsquid 12:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Geez, Superboo. You don't have to be so harsh about Baby Mario Bloops' proposal. At least he tried.DaisyRox02 (talk) MarioGuy1:You're acting as though we would have about 25 Mario articles if this proposal passes. All you need is a disambiguation page and it shouldn't be too hard finding them all. Commander Code-8 (talk)
Showing only passed proposals on the Main PageDon't show only passed proposals on the main page 1 - 17 I've sometimes gone to the wiki and looked at the proposal and seen that the idea looks really weird. I then go onto the Proposals page and find that the proposal only has about 3 supporters and maybe 10 opposers. Seeing something that won't be taken action about on the Main Page seems to make the wiki look bad. I am proposing that only proposals that have successfully passed be Featured on the Main Page, so that people can log in on the wiki. See what the proposal is and possibly start helping out with it Proposer: Commander Code-8 (talk) Only Feature passed Proposals on the main page
Keep on showing Proposals that are still in voting time
CommentsThe main page shows the most recent proposal. It doesn't matter if the proposal in question is failing. And besides, someone could make a vote-shattering comment that causes everyone to support. Reversinator (talk) I don't really know what's the point in this. I thought the proposal on the main page is there to attract attention to the proposal. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Wow, a proposal about proposals. Per all commenting. WigglerWhoopin'Warrior135 (talk) Image Gallery or GallerySIMPLY "GALLERY" 0-13 On some articles, the header that leads to the article subject's gallery either says Image Gallery or Gallery. This doesn't look professional to have one header on one page that says Image Gallery and another header on another page that says Gallery. We need to fix this. Proposer: Mileycyrussoulja (talk) Put Image Gallery on articlesPut Gallery on articles
CommentsGuys just a reminder, i'm talking about the headers on articles that link to the subject's gallery, not the actual gallery itself.Mileycyrussoulja (talk) Will this have to be done manually, or can it be done with DPL text replace? Ralphfan (talk)
I am Zero! Can somone please archive this. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)
Take out Community Polls and Bring back Featured ImagesREMOVED. Ok I kind of liked these at the start but now that it has been a while, they get kind of boring. One thing is that there are polls on the forum. If people want to do the polls so bad they can just go on the forum and create polls themseleves or answer polls other people have created. A second reason is that the polls are there too long. I get on and the poll that I vote on is still there. My last reason is that with Featured Images every user can do it and not just people on the poll commitee. With the polls all you do is vote and it is done, nothing else happens. With the FI you can go on time to time more frequently and put images on/vote on them. Proposer: New Super Mario (talk) Bring back FI
Keep PollsCommentsThe Featured Image process does not work, no matter how many rules we add, the physical impossibility of that system prevents it from working. Marioguy1 (talk) Merge Mario Tennis CharactersDon't merge Mario Tennis characters 2-11 I've been checking the Project Unstubify page and quite a few of the character pages and notice that almost all of them have only one or two setences and a stub template put onto them. I think that they should all be merged as one page since there is literally no one to expand those stubs at all. Proposer: Garlic Stapler (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsIf you don't like the fact that they are stub articles, why not write more? Bowser's luma (talk)
How about we just don't have those articles at all? No one cares about those characters anyway. Beecanoe (talk)
Beecanoe: Please don't call other people "foos" just because they have a different opinion than you. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Oh yeah, and "foo" is how Mr. T. says "fool". Hope that clears things up for you Bowser's Luma. Beecanoe (talk) Move Episodes from Article to SubpagePUT EPISODES ON SUBPAGES 8-4 This proposal is kind of like BMB's last proposal, except it is proposing to move the episodes of appearance of a character, as long as the character has many of these appearances, into a subpage of the article. I'm not going to go in depth in the description but this will save loading time on longer articles for those people who don't want to see every appearance of Character X in Series Y. For the people who do, there will be a link :) If you don't get it, User:Marioguy1/Test is my awesome example page :P Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk) Seperate
Remain in Articles
CommentsWell, if we did something like this to Mario, wouldn't it be consistent to do it with every other character from the cartoons? Fawfulfury65 (talk)
I don't like the idea of only doing this to the main characters' articles. It's much more consistent to do this with all character articles from the cartoons, no matter how minor. Deciding what characters are main and what characters are minor is mostly based on opinions if you ask me. I always thought of Oogtar as an important and major character, but I'm sure not everyone can agree on that because he doesn't appear in many episodes as far as I know. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
The Lists on the Left Side Below Mario KnowledgeLEAVE LISTS AS THEY ARE 7-11 Pretty simple proposal. You know those lists about Characters, Places, Items, etc.? These lists are split into two: game stuff and non-game stuff. Why are they separate? Due to those canon proposals, shouldn't they be one list? I'm proposing that we merge the non-game stuff with the game stuff in those lists. Proposer: LeftyGreenMario (talk) DO MERGE
DON'T MERGE
Important Neutral StuffI'll say something that is on everybody's mind right now. Huh?!?!? Marioguy1 (talk) Well, if you see here, the characters are divided to two groups: game and nongame. I want to merge the two since, well, because of one question: canon or not? Sorry for presenting an opinion unclearly; I'm notorious for doing that '-_- LeftyGreenMario (talk) Otherwise, tell me, why are they separate? Shouldn't the list be one big list? LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Tucayo: Well, they are different media, but I don't see why the two lists are split, yet the Manual of Style wants articles to include both game information and other media information in the same section. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Zero777: The list is organized well enough. What, alphabetically isn't enough? It's slightly harder to navigate because the list is split. Again, this proposal deals mostly with the grouping of game and non-game stuff. The lists are outdated, and we need to change it to the standards. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Luigi-board: Your vote is invalid. LeftyGreenMario (talk) I'm neutral for this. This proposal is balanced in advantages (organization) and disadvantages (tons of moved internal links). Mathew10 (talk)
Again, it's not like alphabetized isn't organized enough. I can live with only 1 list. LeftyGreenMario (talk) I don't understand why we should merge the game and non-game things TBH. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
Check the coverage policy and canon policy. The split of the lists seems like the games are "more" canon than the nongames. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Categories on Boss ArticlesUSE NEW CATEGORY SYSTEM 8-3 OK, this proposal, obviously, has to do with the categories on the boss articles, something like this was recently stated on the talk of the main page however I think that to be an official policy, it must be proposed and passed by the community. So, currently, ~all (or so I am told) boss articles have three categories in them, Enemies, Bosses and Characters. I propose that we use those categories much more strictly, AKA for the following reasons:
Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk) Use this Category System
Continue Using Current One
CommentsSo you are saying Bosses =/= Characters? I would think that characters may be like a "mother category", with many other ones branching out, like Bosses, Enemies, Allies, etc. Tucayo (talk)
Look, the branch of "being" categories are kinda like this in my eyes:
A little complicated, and maybe a little hard to understand. Arend (talk)
Recap: Well, that's what I think. Cosmic Blue Toad (talk) A boss is an opponent, usually one of a kind, who is fought under special conditions. In action games a boss is usually introduced somehow, commonly with a cutscene, and you fight it in an arena of some sorts. In an RPG those often have their own separate battle theme or something else that sets them appart from the enemies. An enemy on the other hand is one of the many common nuisances you encounter in a level. They are usually not unique or specially introduced, and you often encounter more than one of them in one level. These are set roles in video game jargon, keep that in mind. So apparently there are people saying the Bowser article should have the Enemy category on it. Now let me ask you a question: Where, even in one single game, has Bowser ever been encountered as a common enemy? In which game did he roam a level like a Goomba, or Koopa, or any other enemy? That's right, never! This is why the Enemy category has no place on the Bowser article, and neither does it have one on any other boss article. This whole Enemies-Bosses constellation has been formed because of the assumption that most bosses hold a grudge against Mario (read: They are his enemies). However, this is not what the Enemy category is for. It is for common enemies only! We can't just stretch the scope of a category because of semantics like "You can use the word 'enemy' in a sentence with them, so they have to be enemies". We don't put Category:Bosses on Princess Peach because she is the ruler (read: the boss) of the Toads. The example sounds ridiculous? Well, the whole argument is the same if you think about it long enough. The scope of a category needs to be clear and precise. Don't dilute it with semantics that contradict logic and the fundaments of video game principles. - Edofenrir (talk) |