MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Tags: Mobile edit Advanced mobile edit
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>[[File:Proposals.png]]</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear=all>
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{User|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>.


This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==New features==
#If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used.
===Create articles for Glohm enemies or merge them with their normal counterparts===
#The voting period begins 24 hours after the proposal is posted (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed). Proposers are allowed to support their proposal immediately, but all other users may only edit the Comments section during that initial 24 hours. Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. ('''All times GMT.''')
{{early notice|November 28}}
#*For example, if a proposal is added on Monday, August 1, 2011, at 22:22 GMT, the voting starts at 22:22, 22:00 or 23:00 on Tuesday, August 2, and the deadline is one week later on Tuesday, August 9, at 23:59 GMT.
I'm currently contributing to ''[[Mario & Luigi: Brothership]]'' content, and I'm currently creating articles for enemies in the game. It has been brought to my attention that [[Glohm]] enemies are basically stronger versions of preexisting enemies, although they have unique characteristics.
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
#Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may '''not''' remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administrators]].
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
#If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of '''three''' votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an [[MarioWiki:Administrators|admin]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
#All proposals are archived. The original proposer must '''''take action''''' accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There should not be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|PipeProject]].
#Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administration]].
#If the admins deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
#No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.


<h3 style="color:black">Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format</h3>
This proposal aims to determine whether or not Glohm enemies get their own articles. So, there are two choices for when Glohm enemy coverage eventually occurs:
This is an example of what your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to <u>replace the whole variable including the squared brackets</u>, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]".
-----
<nowiki>===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>[describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]</nowiki>


<nowiki>'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br></nowiki><br>
1. '''Glohm enemies get their own articles.''' They get their own dedicated pages.
<nowiki>'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "January 1, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.]<br></nowiki><br>
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]</nowiki>


<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
2. '''Glohm enemy coverage is limited to the articles for their normal counterparts.''' This means all Glohm related information for them is explained for the normal versions of the enemies.
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>


<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
Let's see what happens!


<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Sparks}}<br>
-----
'''Deadline''': December 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.


To support, or oppose, just insert "<nowiki>#{{User|[add your username here]}}</nowiki> at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".
====Create new articles for Glohm enemies====
#{{User|Sparks}} My preferred choice. Sure it could get repetitive and redundant, but it's worth it to document the abilities of these Glohm enemies.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We give articles to [[Elite Dry Bones|other stronger]] [[Shy Guy R|RPG enemy]] [[Antasma X|and boss variants]], so why should Brothership be any different?
#{{User|Tails777}} They are stronger variants with different stats to their originals, no different from every example Camwoodstock gave. Per proposal.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
#{{User|Zootalo}} The Shiny Paper versions of enemies from Paper Jam have their own articles as well; this is no different. Per all.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Probably best for overall consistancy with a game like this one.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Cheat-master30}} Given that some of them have specific differences in attack patterns, it seems like they should probably get unique articles.


__TOC__<!--
====Include Glohm enemy coverage on their normal counterparts' articles without creating new articles for them====


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>
====Comments====
{{@|Zootalo}} The Paper Jam shiny enemies are not split, but the Sticker Star ones are. {{Unsigned|Nightwicked Bowser}}


Kinda torn to be honest. I voted yes because some of them have specific differences from their regular counterparts (Glohm Floopfly Rs and Glohm Soreboars always explode once defeated for example), but then we've got the weird situation of trying to figure out what exactly you'd include on a page for the enemies without these things, like the Glohm Palookas (which as far as I know, look and act almost identically to their standard counterparts). --[[User:Cheat-master30|Cheat-master30]] ([[User talk:Cheat-master30|talk]]) 22:30, November 23, 2024 (EST)
:In fairness, this could also be said about many other stronger variants of enemies. The only real difference between a Goomba and Gloomba are the color schemes, in a similar way to how the only difference between a Palooka and a Glohm Palooka is the darker coloration and Glohmy aura. It's kinda just a natural thing for most stronger variants (not all mind you, but most). {{User:Tails777/sig}}


===Create a template to crop images on-the-fly without having to tamper with the base file's dimensions===
So {{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} shared this nifty template that TCRF has: [[tcrf:Template:CSS image crop]], which allows images to be displayed in mainspace at a cut-out size from how they are on the image files themselves. This has two utilities: one is shrinking to a relevant entity in group textures such as {{file link|M&SatL2012OG Wii audience.png|this one}}, and the other is to avoid blank space without having to crop the raw graphic parameters - thus allowing best-of-both-worlds for the previous proposal I attempted (and failed), as it satisfies the OCD itch of avoiding bad and/or inconsistent crops on the base files without taking up unnecessary space where the images are actually used. It also removes a lot of unnecessary work actually cropping/uncropping images since you don't have to save them to a machine/web address to upload a new version - you can just put in the parameters you want and go from there.


<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
-->
'''Deadline''': December 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT


<h2 style="color:black">Talk Page Proposals</h2>
====C-S-Yes====
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Goes without saying I think this is a good idea.
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} Sounds like a reasonable compromise.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} It's better to crop an existing image programmatically than having to upload a cropped version for a specific use case.


:''For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see [[:Category:Settled Talk Page Proposals|here]].''
====No new template====


<h3 style="color:black">How To</h3>
====Comments on CSS image crop====
#All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the ''brief'' description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "({{fakelink|Discuss}})". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{tem|fakelink}} to communicate its title. The '''Deadline''' must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{tem|TPP}} under the heading.
This appears to be similar to [[Template:Squared icon|a template I have made]] in order to crop images to perfectly squared off icons for uses on pages such as [[Pipe Frame]] (e.g. displaying Mii Racing Suit icons in the same table as other character icons); however, the version you're presenting seems to include more options. I'm not gonna vote yet, but so far I don't see the harm to have this other template too. {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:42, November 27, 2024 (EST)
#All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
#Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting, so no "Voting Start" line is needed. ('''All times GMT.''')  
#*For example, if a proposal is added any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, voting starts immediately and ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
#Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support ''and'' the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
#The talk page proposal '''must''' pertain to the article it is posted on.


===List of Talk Page Proposals===
*Split all enemies from [[Gnat Attack]] ([[Talk:Gnat Attack|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Merge [[Nintendo DSi]] with [[Nintendo DS]] ([[Talk:Nintendo DSi|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 25, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Adventure Tours]] with [[Mario %26 Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games]] ([[Talk:Adventure Tours|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Co-Star Mode]] to [[Super Mario Galaxy]] and [[Super Mario Galaxy 2]] ([[Talk:Co-Star Mode|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Multi-Man Brawl]] to [[Super Smash Bros. Melee]] and [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]] ([[Talk:Multi-Man Brawl|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Adventure Mode: The Subspace Emissary]] with [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]] ([[Talk:Adventure Mode: The Subspace Emissary|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Lemon Drop]] with [[Salvo the Slime]] ([[Talk:Lemon Drop|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Red Spike Buzzy]] with [[Spike Top]]. ([[Talk:Spike Top|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Double Dash!!]] to [[Rocket Start]] ([[Talk:Double Dash!!|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Spike Top]] with [[Spiny]] ([[Talk:Spiny|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Spike Blop]] with [[Spiny]] ([[Talk:Spike Blop|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split then Merge Voice Cast and Music Staff, from [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], into the staff  sub-article ([[Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Merge|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': May 1, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Kraid]] with [[Brinstar Depths]] ([[Talk:Kraid|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': May 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT
==New Features==
==Removals==
==Removals==
===Remove Banjo and Conker from our coverage policy and delete [[Banjo (series)]] and [[Conker (series)]]===
''None at the moment.''
Before I start, I'll point out that [http://forum.mariowiki.com/index.php?topic=10846.0 a few others have already made comments on this situation], all of them wanting to get rid of the articles with some good reasons attached, so go look at their reasons. With that said, let me continue.


The articles we have on Banjo's and Conker's series, respectively, are horrible. They are cluttered up with every single enemy, item, location, character, and other stuff from the two series, making it pratically unreadable. But that's not why I'm proposing this. I assume that we have those articles due to [[Banjo]]'s and [[Conker]]'s appearance in [[Diddy Kong Racing]]. But from what I can understand, both Conker's and Banjo's series were planned before-hand, but due to Banjo-Kazooie's release being delayed, both him and Conker were put in as a sort of early bird cameo. In other words, they are not sub-series of the Mario series and should be treated like other crossover games; whoever appeared in the crossover game gets an article, and nothing more.
==Changes==
 
===Tag images of bind-posing models for reuploading===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br>
It's been two years since [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69#Do not use t-posing models as infobox images|the previous proposal]] had passed. Now let's talk about tagging images of bind-posing models for reuploading. Take [https://www.models-resource.com/resources/big_icons/4/3950.png?updated=1673644745 this image] for example. As you can see, this image is a bind-posing model. Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to tag every bind-posing model with this:
'''Voting start''': April 20, 2011, 00:40 GMT<br>
'''Deadline''': April 27, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per my proposal and the comments made by Edo, Fawful, and others.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per my comment and Reversinator!!
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Look at my post in the MarioWiki forum [http://forum.mariowiki.com/index.php?topic=10846.0 here]. My username is Scrub Jay.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Per what I said [http://forum.mariowiki.com/index.php?topic=10846.msg329644#msg329644 here]. Listen to our reasoning before you oppose casually.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - For those that are opposing, I want to tell you guys, it is completely off topic with Mario! They have only appeared in one game, and barely any detail on their pages has to do with that game! They are not a side-series you guys, they are just two random characters that were put in the game because their games were delayed! Most of their article is about their other games, which has absolutely nothing to do with Mario, DK, Yoshi, or Wario! All it is really is a very minor character that has 1% of actually related info and 99% of their mario-less games and then a series to act as a storage home for the extra stuff of random junk that is cluttering the wiki!
#{{User|Castle Toad}} Per Edofenrir
#{{User|Tails777}} I was just thinking the same thing today. This is MARIO Wiki. In other words per Baby Mario Bloops.
#{{User|Zero777}} Per all
#{{User|Turboo}} per edofenrir
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per all.
#{{User|SWFlash}} We don't have Sonic games on our wiki so why do we have Banjo with Conker? Per proposal.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per Edofenrir and Reversinator.
#{{User|Mariomario64}} I remember when I first came across these articles, I said to myself "Why are these here?" Per all.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} My reaction to those articles: WTH they're huge and unecessary and unprofessional. Per all.
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Per all. [http://www.therwp.com/wiki/Main_Page The Rare Witch Project Wiki] should have the coverage responsibility, not us!
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per the forum comments by Edo and LGM.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Ok.-.-. I guess I'm changing my vote. However, how will we clear all those articles with Banjo and Conker information?
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per all.
#{{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} Per all.
#{{User|Phoenix}} Per all.
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} Per all. We could add their apearances to some sort of DK article
#{{User|Mario304}} Per all, this is the MARIO wiki anyway.
#{{User|Kaptain K. Rool}} - Yep. Too cluttered together. Per Reversinator's opinion.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per Baby Mario Bloops. This is ''Mario'' Wiki!
#{{User|Lu-igi board}} per all. these series are Spin offs from Donkey Kong if anything and so not directly affiliated with Mario in my opinion.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} here's how i see it Donkey kong is the parent series to Mario and Conker and Banjo are spin offs of it which would make them nephews or as some might put it very...very distant cousins to the Mario Series
#{{User|Doopliss101}} Per all.
 
====Comments====
Finally! That is a removal proposal! Since I'm not going to vote until Wednesday, I'll just make a comment. This is the MarioWiki not the BanjoWiki so, lose it!{{User|Reddragon19k}}
 
Phoenix: This isn't proposed simply to remove bad articles. It's the relevance to the Mario series that mostly matters (in my perspective anyway). We do not need to cover Banjo and Conker as a series, but we can cover them as a character since they DID appear in Diddy Kong Racing. But that's about it. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
 
Phoenix, I think you're gravely underestimating and over-simplifying the situation. The reason these articles are so unnavigable is because they are a pile of information pasted together. It is impossible to improve them in any way because, due to the bizarre stalemate situation, the rules of this wiki '''requires them to stay like that'''. There is no legal way for us to make these articles not horrible, and therefore, your argument becomes invalid. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
:@Edofenrir - Okay...would you mind if I politely asked you what you mean by "bizarre stalemate situation"...? {{User|Phoenix}} 21:58, 19 April 2011 (EDT)
 
::I'll try. This conflict is actually really old and horribly complicated. Basically, for years, there have been two general sides: One that wants full coverage of those series, and one that wants to get rid of them. There have been countless proposals to settle the conflict between both sides, but we could never reach a definite decision. Both sides are locked in a stalemate, so to say. Because there could be no decision, a compromise was developed. This compromise allowed Banjo-Kazooie/Conker content to be on this wiki, but they all had to be on one giant, cluttered article per series. There is basically nothing we can do with these articles, except maybe shift its individual sections around, but none of that will improve the general situation. The way we have to treat these series is really awful. Please look at those articles.
::I would much rather prefer having none of those monstrosities, or having a full coverage of both series with separate and readable articles. But if this proposal fails, none of these things will happen, and we will be stuck with those cluster articles, probably forever. Please read what we have to say.  - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
also whats the legal situation got to do with this {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:I meant legal in relation to the rules on this wiki. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
not to add fuel to the fire but conker is related to mario since they were both characters in the club nintendo comic Freeze Frame. oh that makes sense also i remeber this issue back when i first started in 07
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:Conker may be related to Mario somehow, and if he appeared in a Club Nintendo comic, he will certainly keep an article on this wiki even if this proposal passes. What you need to think about, however, is this: Is Greg the Grim Reaper related to Mario? Are The Tediz? Random enemy number five? Is The cow that gives you a Jiggy in the first world of Banjo Tooie related to the Mario series? Those are the questions you should ask yourself. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
::You guys, I read the title wrong, as many also probably did as well. It is not deleting their pages also, but just removing all the mess that has no relation to Mario or DK. It is not getting rid of the small tidbit of information on their pages that is actually reasonable! Everyone that is opposing, read this message: It is to remove all the stuff that has nothing to do with Mario or DK, and ''keep'' the stuff that does! Even if I am still wrong, well...all or nearly all of their information is already in DKR, so it will suffice to remove their articles. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
 
What I'm saying is to keep the Banjo and Conker articles, but delete the series articles. Banjo and Conker appear in Diddy Kong Racing so they should have thier own articles. It's just like the Super Smash Bros series characters. {{User|Tails777}}
:Yes, that is exactly what this proposal is about. - {{user|Edofenrir}}
 
::@Baby Mario Bloops and Tails777 - Well, in that case, perhaps the title of the proposal should be altered slightly, as it is a tad misleading... {{User|Phoenix}} 15:01, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
 
:::@Edofinrir - Okay, after carefully reviewing your arguments both here and on the forums, I can see what you’re talking about now. However, the main question that came to mind when reading your argument was (and please don’t think I’m insulting anyone when I say this), why did no one foresee this problem when the compromise was created in the first place? I'm honestly not trying to patronize you, but I just find it interesting that you're supporting this proposal if you think it would be more worthwhile to expand our coverage of the games with multiple articles instead of having only two articles. I mean, why not simply make a proposal to do one of those two things instead (i.e. – "having none of those monstrosities" or "having a full coverage of both series with separate and readable articles"), even if you just partly prefer that the articles be expanded or split into multiple better articles? This proposal is in-between, and as you said, "if this proposal fails, none of these things will happen, and we will be stuck with those cluster articles...forever," so why not make a completely different proposal that ''does'' do one of those two things?
 
:::Also, you mentioned that these two articles are "a giant slap in the face" to fans of the games, which I can understand, given that I fall into that category with one of the games myself, but won't said fans be ten times more exasperated to have no coverage on the games at all than to have some coverage, even if it is flawed (because in the case of the latter, it can always be made better, with the former, it's gone for good)? Personally, I had previously wondered about the excessive length of the articles somewhat, but I guess I had rationalized it by viewing the pages as synonymous with the format of the page for any ''[[Mario (series)|Mario]]'' series game on this wiki; really long (but because it needs to be to encompass all the necessary information, not because it was forced to be so) and displaying every facet of the game on the page, including general information on the game, the plot, the gameplay, the characters (to a certain extent), power-ups, extra lives, etc. Overall, I just feel that these articles do not necessarily pose any immediate problems for those who would not even think to search for either of these games on this wiki in the first place. It's not as if we've gotten piles of hate mail from guests because we refuse to delete these articles. {{User|Phoenix}} 15:56. 20 April 2011 (EDT)
:::::@Phoenix: I think the entire point is to get rid of the junk of the articles. Yes, fans will be upset that we are doing it, but give me one real reason why we should keep this junk and expand it? Deleting it is the best option, and I'll give you a comparison to help you out. [[Sonic]] as someone mentioned before has appeared along with Mario in a few things. Now, take that and view the the fact that we have no coverage of his series. Banjo and Conker have only appeared in one game with anyone with Mario, and even if it was their first appearance, they have NEVER made another appearance in the DK series, and vise versa with DK and Banjo/Conker. If we keep this proposal, it would be sort of unfair for the Zelda Series, Sonic Series, Metal Gear Series, just because they appeared in a spin-off. Deleting Banjo/Conker, who I disagree with the people that it is a sub-series with DK even though they haven't appeared in any of their games, is better than expanding and adding series for all the people that have appeared in a Mario game that isn't from Mario. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::::::Just as a sidenote, this proposal will not delete [[Banjo]], [[Bottles]], [[Conker]], and [[Tiptup]]. This is only to delete them from our coverage and delete the cluttred series articles. {{User|Reversinator}}
:::::::@Phoenix: First of all I have to admit that "Why did nobody foresee these complications" is certainly a justified question. A question I cannot answer at that. I was not here back then when this decision was made, so I hardly could have taken any action. If I had been here already when this was still in the debate, I would have utilized every possible means to stop this "solution" from being made.
:::::::Also, you seem to confuse something there. As I said on the forums, amending our policies to allow full coverage of this material on separate articles is only my '''second''' choice. My '''primary''' concern is to remove the material from our coverage.
:::::::Over the years I have been a part of this encyclopedia, I believe I have grown somewhat accustomed to our policies. One virtue we hold high here is creator intent. A significant deal of decisions here are made by carefully analyzing what the creators of a piece of work had in mind, and acting in accordance to that. And I furthermore believe that this problem can also be solved by acting in accordance with creator intent. Let's take the Banjo-Kazooie series for example. Rare created the base concept of the series back then during the SNES era as an independent project: ''Project Dream''. ''Project Dream'' has a rich history. At no point of this history was ''Project Dream'' ever developed as a spin-off of anything. It was Rare's own project. The project went through a lot of changes, but its independence always remained above. Now look at the finished product. Nothing in this game suggests that it is to be directly tied to the Mario series. Sure, there are a few references here and there, but they are all the kind of reference you find in every other game this wiki doesn't cover. Now look at the other series we cover. Series like ''Wario Land'', or the ''Yoshi'' series. All of these series are much closer to the Mario series, and they show it. Characters from these series appear in spin-offs like ''Mario Kart'' or ''Mario Party'' together, repeatedly, all the time. Banjo and Conker on the other hand... they do neither of those things. The series keep to themselves. Whenever they engage in crossovers, it is exclusively among themselves and other Rare projects, like ''Jet Force Geminy'', or ''It's Mr. Pants''. For me, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that Rare never intended their series to be part of the Mario franchise. They make it very clear that these series belong to themselves and themselves alone. I want to pay respect to Rare's intention. Therefore I believe it is wrong to chalk these up as mere spin-offs of the overall Mario franchise. I believe it is wrong to keep these series on our coverage against all reasoning. And because I believe this, I am supporting this proposal, thoroughly and entirely.
:::::::"Won't said fans be ten times more exasperated to have no coverage on the games at all than to have some coverage, even if it is flawed?" This question addresses the feelings of the fans. I can say: I am a fan, and I support the proposal. Those games are a part of my childhood, and I hold them very dear. And I can give you my word: The treatment these series receive on this wiki are genuinely appalling to me. It is not just about the content of the articles themselves, but also the policies regulating them. This situation cannot be improved by merely giving the article contents a cosmetic makeover. So, to finally answer your question: I, as a fan of Rare's work, consider the circumstances surrounding this situation hideous, and it is my sincere belief that "no coverage" is a better option than the current solution. I have talked to several of my acquaintances, all of whom I know to be Rare fans as well, and they do share my concerns and agree with me. That is all I need to know to realize there is a problem, and that action has to be taken.
:::::::I apologize, Phoenix, but this is all I can tell you. I would be very happy if you could take a look at all of this and find it in you to reconsider your standing. You are, however, entitled to your own opinion, and if you choose to discard my points as irrelevant, I will respect your decision, as I hope you respect mine. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I appreciate it. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
::::::::@Edofenrir - Well, first of all, allow me to assure you that I would '''''never ever''''' discard anyone's points or arguments as irrelevant, as I, personally, believe that everyone, no matter what side of any particular issue they may be on, has substantial viewpoints to contribute to the matter at hand. I would never attempt to detract from someone else's personal feelings or beliefs about an issue by turning the other cheek (as long as the argument is relatively within reason and isn't completely "out there"), even if I do happen to be on the opposing side, because this is just disrespectful and counterproductive to both the user and the wiki. That being said, I most definitely respect your decision, even though I may not necessarily agree with it. After all, this is a free world, and it's not my responsibility to dictate what everyone else decides (not that I would want to anyway).
 
::::::::Secondly, please just let me ask this last question: So if Banjo and Conker (and possibly their respective co-characters) had at some point been in a ''[[Super Smash Bros.]]'' game, or any other legitimate crossover game, they would be eligible to remain here? Well, no, actually, I guess I just answered my own question, because even if that were the case, we would still only have information about the ''characters'' from the other series that appeared in the game (and perhaps items, as necessary), and not about the characters' entire series, right? In that case, I now understand what this proposal is truly trying to do, and have therefore had a change of heart of sorts; from this point on I will be voting in favor of this proposal's intentions. 
 
::::::::Thirdly, if this proposal was going to pass (and it doesn't take a team of mathematicians to tell me that, at this point, it probably will), I just want to ensure that the [[Bottles]] article will still remain unscathed, because taking [http://www.mariowiki.com/File:Mariocomicbn7-1-.png this] into account, I'm pretty sure it should be apparent that he is at least somewhat related directly to the ''[[Mario (series)|Mario]]'' series, apart from the whole ''[[Diddy Kong Racing]]'' cameo (or appearance, or spin-off, or whatever) thing.
 
::::::::Finally, I have seen fit to reconsider my position in this matter (as I've previously established above). I think, in the back of my mind, I immediately disliked this proposal right from the get-go. I believe I subconsciously opposed it simply because of my extreme affinity for the ''Banjo-Kazooie'' series, using that as the basis of my original argument, and then used my arguments about expanding articles to mask the true reasons for my opposition (I'm not trying to say that I lied, I do believe that deleting should always be used as a last resort over expanding, I think I just finally realized that I was opposing for all the wrong reasons, if you know what I mean). However, having thought about this for a great deal of time, I have subsequently come to this conclusion, and I now realize that that was wrong of me to do. Though it will pain me to see a great deal of this information go, feel that I must disregard my personal opinions for the time being, and do what is best for the wiki. :) {{User|Phoenix}} 23:05, 20 April 2011 (EDT)


:::::::::Ok, thank you for keeping an open mind about this. :) To answer the question from your third paragraph, yes, Bottles will retain his article since he made a legitimate appearance outside of the material that is contested here. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
{{tem|image-quality|Bind-posing model; should be replaced with a rendered game model}}


Dude the difference is that Banjo and Conker are spin offs of DK not cross overs like Sonic or Link thats the difference {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
That way, if a bind-posing model is reuploaded as a rendered game model that serves as a replacement, we'll be able to reuse it as an infobox image.
:They're not DK spin-offs; they had cameos in Diddy Kong Racing. {{User|Mario4Ever}}


A cameo really a cameo is when a character makes a brief appearence in a game Banjo and Conker were stars/ playable characters in there debut appearence which makes them spin offs {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
:No, a cameo is when a character makes an appearance in a game that is from a different series from that in which the character is generally located. Neither Banjo nor Conker are part of the DK series, while Diddy Kong Racing is. A spin-off is a game related to a series but is not a continuation of that series. An example of a spin-off would be ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'', which is part of but not a continuation of the ''Mario'' series. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
'''Deadline''': November 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
:Read the second paragraph of my proposal. Basically, Banjo-Kazooie was delayed, so Banjo and Conker were put in Diddy Kong Racing as a bonus. In other words, they are not sub-series, they are crossover series. Thus, they deserve the same treatment as other cross-over series; articles of the characters who appeared in DKR, and nothing more. {{User|Reversinator}}
 
So there the first ever cross over game to feature characters from franchises that didnt exist yet cause developent and release are 2 different things {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
 
a cameo as defined  is a brief appearance of a known person in a work of the performing arts, such as plays, films, video games[1] and television. These roles are generally small, many of them non-speaking ones, and are commonly either appearances in a work in which they hold some special significance (such as actors from an original movie appearing in its remake), or  renowned people making uncredited appearances. Oh and the Conker Series was no delayed considering that in order for it to be delayed it would have had to be in development for at least 3 years for a game boy game that was as simple as that no.
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:Their appearance in DKR can be considered brief, as they have not been in any other non-Banjo/Conker games on any Nintendo console since. Anyway, for a game to be delayed simply means that it is not released on the original date announced. It doesn't have to be in development for a certain period of time. If memory serves, Brawl was delayed two or three times, and development time was relatively short (Sakurai at first did not want to make it), but this is off-topic. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
 
no it can not be considered brief if you star in your first game also no conker game was in development untill after Diddy Kong Racing and your thinking of a cross over
::Goomba's Shoe15: The fact is that it doens't include any DK characters! If it was a sub-series of the DK series, they would need to have characters from DK appearance maybe once in their games! The fact of matter is that they don't, and that is why I made the comparison to Sonic! It doesn't matter if this is their debut, or if they were already planning the games before, to be a sub-series should be if it actually has elements from their parent series!!!! {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
 
im going to do something i hate to do but the show Maude is a spin off of all and the family but no characters from all in the family appear. Good times was a spin off from maude but no characters from maude other than Florida ever appeared. the facts of life was a spin off of different strokes no characters from that appear. Buddies was a spin off from Home Improvement no characters from Home improvement appeared on buddies {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
 
:@Reversinator (above) - Okay, but it would really help my brain if you would please use different terminology, because when you say "delete them from our coverage," I perceive that as being exactly the same as "delete every single article on this entire wiki that even ''relates'' to either of these games"... {{User|Phoenix}} 20:21, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
 
::@Baby Mario Bloops (above) - I was never really a big fan of expanding the articles or creating more articles with additional expanded information either; in the huge chunk of text above, I was merely asking Edofenrir why he was supporting this particular proposal instead of making different proposal to expand the articles, because he had said that he was partially in favor of doing something like that before... {{User|Phoenix}} 20:31, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
:::@Phoenix: When I say "delete them from our coverage", I mean "delete them from [[MarioWiki:Coverage]]". {{User|Reversinator}}
 
::::@Reversinator - Okay, wait, so then what is this: (from MarioWiki:Coverage) "...we cover all franchises, series, games, etc. that have emerged from or spun-off from the original Donkey Kong arcade game, Mario's first appearance in any media. This includes all Nintendo-authorized video games about Mario, Donkey Kong, Wario, Yoshi, '''''Banjo''''', '''''Conker''''', Pyoro, etc. '''''All content''''' from games in these series is allowed on the wiki." I mean, apparently, they're both an "Authorized Spin-Off of ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]''." Or is that what you were referring to when you say "remove them from our coverage," because without that caveat it seems to invalidate the entire proposal...don't get me wrong, I'm still on the side of the supporters, I'm just asking... {{User|Phoenix}} 19:44, 23 April 2011 (EDT)
:::::[[Diddy Kong Racing]] is '''crossover''' game like [[SSB]], [[MASATOG]], [[ISDS]], [[NBA Street V3]], [[MH3O3]], and others. But do we make the ''series'' artcles for every character from thses crossovers? No! {{User|SWFlash}}
 
===Remove Voting Start Rule===
This rule was meant to encourage discussion. It wants to prevent people from voting so much that the proposal is already decided. However, I do not see how this can majorly impact proposals. I think all it does is create a major annoyance for most users, since most people overlook this rule and we have to remove the vote and say, "VOTING STARTS AT BLAH BLAH". Even I overlook this rule, and I don't bother to pay attention if a voting user broke this rule or what. Besides, we get a WEEK of discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion only.
 
All this rule, I think it does, is to make voting more complicated, and it pretty much accomplished that, since so many people break it.
 
While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided".
 
Besides, no other proposal gets this rule; not the featured articles and not the Talk Page Proposals, so I see no reason we need this.
 
I propose to remove this rule because it makes everything unnecessarily complicated, it is useless for those who aren't online every day, it is impractical for those who are online every day, and it is not present in all types of proposals.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}<br>
'''Voting start''': April 21, 18:22 GMT<br>
'''Deadline''': April 28 23:59 GMT.


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Let's delete this useless, unnecessary, and somewhat complicated rule that doesn't even apply to all proposals! I hope you guys agree on me on this.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} YES YES YES! Esptaily since I don't go by GMT, I never know when to start. IT STUPID
<s>#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Like I said in the other proposal, T-poses are generally not how characters are supposed to look. If [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots|this]] is any indication, the wiki should favor game accuracy in images.</s>
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all and my comment.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Per proposal
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per all!
#{{User|Zero777}} Per comments, especially mine.
#{{User|SWFlash}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} I don't go by GMT. I go by Easern Standard Time. (EST). I think this is the best proposal eva!
#{{User|Phoenix}} Yes! Yes! Yes! 1000x yes! I was actually going to make a proposal about this myself, but since you beat me to it, I'm all for it! :D
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Gah! I hate having to wait to vote! Per LunaticGreenMalleo!:D
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; I myself have seen several proposals actually ignore this rule, and I agree with the fact that this policy complicates the voting process.
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Per Super Mario Bros.
#{{User|Glowsquid}} The idea behind the rule was supposedly to prevent a proposal from being swayed by a "flood" of votes in one direction, but from what I've seen, the rule simply moves the problem from the voting sections to the comments. It doesn't fix anything and add a new irritant, so yeah, get rid of it.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} I never really liked this rule, anyways. Per all.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Je regrette, mais c'est necessaire. Per my comments below.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think it is great when users replace images of bind-posed (or "t-posed") models with organically rendered ones. It is a practice I personally encourage and welcome. However, I do think there [[:File:PiantissimoUnmasked.png|can be educational and illustrative purposes to bind-posed models]], and I think a blanket rule would put unnecessary pressure on the users of this site to render models when a bind-posed one can be more than serviceable, and may even discourage the cataloging of 3D assets in the future if a user cannot render them. Rendering models is a very time-consuming process, and I think it is healthier to just allow users to replace the bind-posed images we have ''if'' they can. Not require them to. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per what ever he said up there and down there
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this seems better handled on a case-by-case basis rather than a full sweep
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per Mario4Ever in the comments and myself. The only answer I saw to my objections was one from BLOF that I chalk down to a matter of disagreement. I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|Kaptain K. Rool}} - How will we know when the proposal starts if we cannot read the history properly if we want to see which date the proposal starts because someone forgot the summary for when the proposal starts e.g. on SSBB talk page with many revisions. My answer is no.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, a hard rule isn't necessary here.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Nintendo101. Given there ''are'' scenarios where bind-posed/T-posed models are actually more illustrative than properly rigged alternatives, we should probably handle these on a case-by-case basis.
#{{User|Mario}} Tag them if they're bad quality, not because they're t-posed.


====Comments====
====Comments====
It's somewhat amusing how I want to support this proposal right now. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
Wording should be changed to "bind pose" since not all characters are T-posed, especially non-bipeds ([https://www.models-resource.com/resources/big_icons/4/3950.png?updated=1673644745 like Yoshi from Super Smash Bros. Melee or Brawl], Wiggler, Buzzy Beetles, Piranha Plants, and more) and A-pose exists as a default pose too. In addition, models technically aren't "t-posing", they're modeled this way before animations and a rig are applied to them, the wording makes them look like they're animating when they're not. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:36, November 15, 2024 (EST)
 
LGM, I had this exact idea to start this proposal too. Now I'm going to support it. The idea of it at first sounds great, but in reality, it does not help anything at all but create a nuisance. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
 
I'm really pulled on both sides of this proposal. I want to oppose because it gives time for some users to accept the fact this is for good and let it sink in to their minds. It will also give time to the proposer to make any error corrections and alterations to the proposal. Also, yes it is true people aren't online every day, but they'll be online eventually, if they don't, then they miss to vote on a proposal..... oh well. But I am questioned on why isn't this applied to FA or TPP; well I guess because the proposal for that was meant only for the proposals and nobody bothered to extend the rule to FA and TPP's. BUT here's my thought on supporting this: the proposal lasts for a week, there will be enough time for anybody to counter anybody's vote and for users to change their minds. It was made to give time to the proposer to check for errors, but the rules say that the proposer has three days to make alterations and error checks on the proposal, so I guess it is unnecessary, I'm going to support. {{User|Zero777}}
:@Zero777 - But if you think it's unnecessary, why would you oppose...? {{User|Phoenix}} 17:45, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
::Fix'd {{User|Zero777}}
 
''While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided"''. How does allowing voting to take place immediately after the proposal is posted rectify this problem? What difference does it make whether or not there is a 24-hour delay between the proposal's posting and voting start time if there are people who aren't online constantly and are unable to vote immediately anyway? While I'm thinking of it, what difference does it make when someone votes if the proposal is on the page for a week? Surely, no one is busy to the extent that spending five minutes reading a proposal and typing <nowiki>{{User|Username}}</nowiki> in the appropriate section strains his or her schedule. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
 
Yes, and also I think the rule of Voting Start should be backfired. Nice job, LeftyGreenMario buddy!
{{User|Superfiremario}}
 
Hmmm, as for why we don't do this on TPPs and FA nominations, I happened to see an explanation for that. The TPPs and FA nominations are more out of the way and don't usually get jumped on as soon as they are proposed (although this may vary due to how many people are online when the action is proposed). Also, just because removing the vote is an annoyance doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, unless it gets really out of hand sometime in the future. I prefer the voting delay because, even if no one is there to read the comments, I'd rather comment on a proposal when the voting period hasn't started yet, and have that be more likely to influence the debate. Take, for instance, the DK series boss level split, I wasn't there when the proposal was proposed, and yet I was able to comment on the situation before the voting period started. I don't find it inconvenient either, but that may just be me. </long-winded ramble> {{User|Bop1996}}
:I've been here before this rule got initiated and the voting start rule makes no difference whatsoever in opinions first made about the proposal. It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is. Besides, I'm not the only one who dislikes this rule and having a voting start only for this, no matter how major it is, seems inconsistent along with other proposal-like stuff. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
 
:Mario4Ever: Look, we're better off without it. It doesn't fix the problem, but the rule is useless for people that are not online every day and it punishes those that are online everyday. It started out with good intentions, but nowadays, I find it more of a hassle than a help. One week is enough for discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion. Besides, the comments people make during the one-day delay is sometimes just, "Good idea! I will support this proposal!" or something like that. Really, we're better off without it. Besides, it complicates the process. By allowing users to vote after a proposal is created means that we do not have to check if they are within voting start. Voting start period is annoying for me, and no matter how much we remind them, users STILL break the rule. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
::I do have to admit that the voting start period is irritating on occasion, but to me, that's not reason enough to dispose of it. I think the one-day discussion is useful for allowing users to wrap their heads around the proposal, so to speak, enabling their votes to be based upon their reasoning and not on what the majority thinks. Users who come to these proposals and see a large number of support votes or oppose votes may be discouraged from voting because their opinions may do nothing to affect the results (though this is not always the case, as I was the sole opposer of {{User|Booderdash}}'s TPP to merge Ashley and Red), or they may pick whichever side has more votes, giving no thought to the proposal's potential benefit/harm to the wiki. The rule would be easier to follow if it were implemented on TPPs and FAs, but I realize that it is more difficult to get that approved than to get this removed.
::'''BabyLuigiOnFire''': ''It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is. '' Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins? {{User|Mario4Ever}}
::: The delay is unnecessary, though. I don't see why we ''need'' this. It already proved to be more of a hassle than a help. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
 
Besides, when I am ready to vote, 20 people already voted after voting start. This rule doesn't help me or the wiki greatly in my opinion. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
:I understand that, but removing the rule doesn't really do anything to fix that. Most people aren't ready to vote immediately after a proposal is posted, and regardless of whether the rule is in place or not, people are going to swarm the support and oppose sections once allowed, though I feel as if removing the rule would only decrease the amount of time in which this happens. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
::Again, I'm not intending to fix this problem. The voting start, I believe, creates more problems than remedies them. I'm not in the wiki every day, and when I log in, I see a proposal that is already voted. This rule assumes that ''every'' user is logged in every day, but for a big deal of us, this is not the case. The rule wants to encourage discussion (I saw the proposal for this), but it doesn't really help the problem. I have not seen a major change after this rule was initiated, and ever since, I am getting more and more irritated by the problems it creates instead of fixes. I am now cracking from frustration this rule gives me (and possibly other users), and this is how I proposed this.{{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
 
"''Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins?''" No, but I am not in the wiki everyday. There might be days where I revolve around the wiki the entire day, and some days where I am not there at all. There is no way of knowing when someone is going to propose something new. And I'm the impatient type and I like to vote to get things over with. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
:I'm not here on a daily basis, either, but (and not to be rude) I usually just check the recent changes (depending on how long I've been gone, I'll check the last 50 or the last 500) to see if there is a new proposal. The only time the voting start thing is an issue for me is when a proposal is posted in which I have a great deal of interest, though this is rare. I understand where you're coming from, though. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
 
I made the mistake of voting too early twice now, once on a proposal I made and once now on this proposal. I think its really annoying so I'm supporting this proposal.{{User|Tails777}}
:Oh, but you can vote in your own proposal whenever you want. The rule stated that. Anyway, feel my frustration :( {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
 
:''I do have to admit that the voting start period is irritating on occasion, but to me, that's not reason enough to dispose of it.'' Of course that's not reason enough, Mario4Ever! I have other reasons to delete this rule too! Sort of late reply, but please read my proposal more carefully! {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
::I am going to barge in here; I still have no opinion on this, but that would be because I am evaluating the situation in my head using my logic. If I were using your proposal's logic to decide my opinion, I would be opposing as every point in your proposal is flawed.
 
::Your first point, that the rule is too complicated, is the only coherent point there. There's not much to say in opposition to it, taking into consideration that the complexity of a rule is an opinionated factor of a decision, is that the workload placed on a user with inadequate knowledge of the rules and guidelines for proposals is very minimal - if you don't know how the rule works, the people who do know how will fix your mistakes for you. This means that, while for some this rule may be complicated (me, I understand it perfectly), the others who do understand it can fix mistakes made.
 
::Your second point is referring to a minority of the general population of users who actually vote on proposals. As this point is pointing out disadvantages only for those users who are not online every day, which a large amount are, the point is moot. ADDITIONALLY I'd like to point out that it doesn't take more than one user to find a flaw with a proposal and point it out in the comments because after all, everyone (or I should hope everyone) is reading the comments section before voting.
 
::Finally your last point, which I find rather amusing. Your point, reworded, is "this rule is not present in other forms of proposals, and therefore it should not be present in this one" - you know, the FA process involves creating a subpage for every article - maybe we should get rid of that, because that's not part of the proposals process. Or maybe we should invoke a one-week duedate on all FAs; that'll match them up with proposals! Now, what I'm trying to point out here is not that I can make a mockery of a situation, but that the rules for all of our different proposals are ''different''. In Featured Articles, it can only pass if the score is 5-0, with proposals the score can pass by any margin greater than three. There are tons of different circumstances that take place which invalidate this statement even further.
 
::So now, going back to my point of you really having only one point, your only point here is that the rule is too complicated; a point which I put up a strong argument against - this proposal's basis is not very sturdy and could crumble at any time. I'm not gonna vote now but if I don't see a more intelligent reason, I may vote later on.
 
::'''tl;dr:''' Your proposal really only does have one point, that it is too complicated - being too complicated is a very weak point as multiple users ''do'' get it and those users can fix the mistakes of the users who don't. So really this proposal has <u>one, weak, point</u> supporting it. I don't find that to be adequate and I hope those reading this comment don't either. {{User|Marioguy1}}
 
:Look, why are you assuming I do not know this rule? I KNOW how it works, many people KNOW how this works, and I don't make proposals too often However, I am becoming increasingly disenchanted with this rule. Rules were created to prevent chaos and stuff like that, but I do not know how this rule helps proposals in any way possible. This rule was meant to encourage discussion, but for some reason it's only discussion here. You are making a bad analogy here. Maybe I didn't get my point straight, but at least I don't understand why Talk Page Proposals don't get this rule. They are different, but they still do not get some form of delay. Maybe people access it less often? I didn't see any reason for this when Talk Page Proposals were created. Maybe they should get this rule too? I fix people's mistakes frequently, due to their breaking the rule, and I wish that I don't have to do this. Same thing with supporters in FA nominations, but at least the rule sort of "removes" fan votes.
 
:You overlooked my point how I say, "It is useless and it proved to be more of a hassle than a help." I found this rule to be useless too, plus all my points. If it is really useful, it should be be at least present in Talk Page Proposals in some shape and form. Again, I KNOW the rule, and just because I know how it works doesn't mean I have to like it. ''Just because it is complicated doesn't mean I don't know how to do it''. I said that it makes the voting process more complicated, but you just dismiss this as, "Oh, but most of us know how to do it!". And complexity can be an objective thing. The more rules, the more complex, the more sophisticated. Now, most of our rules ARE necessary, so we don't have flame wars and undesirable stuff like that. However, when we can be a bit simpler, I suggest that we go simpler, so more people understand, more people don't break it, and it is less work for us.
 
:I don't even understand your argument of my second point. I said that people who are online every day get a delay and those who aren't will be in the same situation of 20 users already voting.
 
:And you are making a mockery using bad analogy. How nice of you. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
 
This is a GREAT idea, because when I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke the rule and voted. It's POINTLESS!!!!!!! On the forst day, over 9000 people aren't gonna vote on it! {{User|Luigi is OSAM}}
:Rephrased: "This is a great idea, because when I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke a rule and voted. It's pointless! On the first day, over 9000 people aren't gonna vote on it!"
 
:Rephrased with all insubstantial/unreasoned parts removed: "When I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke the rule and voted."
 
:Rephrased with a different context: "When I made a proposal, I actually had to read the rules to know how to do it. Then I accidentally voted on a proposal before voting start!"
 
:I would like to point out the last rephrase; when making a proposal you should be totally informed on everything, read the rules even if you do know how to do everything. And you accidentally voting before is not a crime; someone removed it and we went on with our days. Hardly worth all of the pain and suffering we will have if we pass an invalid proposal. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::OMG I didn't see this! I'll respond now.
 
::I never assumed you don't know the rule, I never said you don't, I said people don't know how the rule works. This rule helps proposals by calling out the hidden flaws in proposals; multiple times people have been gung-ho about a proposal before realizing that it won't really help the wiki, just because you haven't seen these occasions does not mean they don't happen. And I don't recall making an analogy in the first paragraph, the only analogy I can find is a vague one; my references to the FA processes in the third paragraph.
 
::Secondly, I don't know why Talk Page Proposals don't get this rule, maybe we should go add that rule to talk page proposals. Maybe it's because TPPs get two weeks discussion, maybe it's because they're considered "less notable", I don't know, but that shouldn't be a reason to take out the rules in this thing; as I mentioned, the two things are different, we can't compare one with the other.
 
::I never overlooked any of your points; usefulness is not a set amount, you saying useless (and you saying it's more of a hassle than a help) is your opinion, and should not reflect any facts. And that was exactly how I dismissed your point; most of us know how to do it (though I don't recall using the word most) - the ones who do know can fix it; and if you're too tired to fix it yourself, leave it for someone else who's not too tired.
 
::Finally when you say that when we have a rule that's not helping, we can make everything easier, yet you also admit that most rules are there for a reason - those aren't technically contradicting points, but they sure are close. Insert my point about uselessness being an opinion and not a fact and then that really doesn't make sense. Can we establish, for the length of this proposal, that, while the use may not be apparent to you, this rule ''does have a use?'' Or do you think that the rule has no use at all and could never help anything?
 
::To clarify my argument to your second point. I am saying that while there may be a few users who don't come on daily, there are some users who are. And those users will find the flaws and the flaws will be there, in the comments section, the next day when the users who don't come on daily come on.
 
::Finally, I see no mockery and no analogy in my comments and I think you're just feeling sentiments that are not there. {{User|Marioguy1}}
 
:::@ Marioguy1 I knew the rules of proposals, I just didn't know the rules of GMT. Good day to you all {{User|Luigi is OSAM}}
 
'''@Kaptian K. Rool:''' What the heck are you trying to say?? {{User|Zero777}}
 
==Changes==
 
===Merge the special shots of Mario Power Tennis (Gamecube) into one article===
This situation is just like the Super Strikes from Mario Smash Football. All the power shots don't need their own articles, they just creat stubs.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Tails777}}<br>
'''Voting Start''': April 16, 2011, 22:30 GMT<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>April 23, 2011</s> '''Extended''': April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT<br>
 
====Support====
#{{User|Tails777}} Per me.
#{{User|SWFlash}} <s>First!</s> Per proposal.
#{{User|Zero777}} They are not stubs, but per my reason in the Super Strike Merge proposal.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per all and myself! If the Super Strikes are merged, so does this!
#{{User|Joeypmario}}Per all.
#{{User|Doopliss101}} Per all
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per comments.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Comparing differences between two Power Shots gives a bigger difference than comparing two Super Strikes/Mega Strikes to each other. So for example, [[Koopa Troopa]]'s [[Water Bomb]] is '''always''' a drop shot and it slows the opponent down, while [[Koopa Paratroopa]]'s [[Energy Ball]] is '''always''' a lob shot and it spins the opponent around. Besides, there are 14 characters in [[Mario Power Tennis (Nintendo GameCube)|Mario Power Tennis]], and each character has '''both''' an offensive power shot and a defensive power shot. That would merge 28 shots into one article. The difference between [[Super Strike]]s and [[Mega Strike]]s are just aesthetic, they're no different to each other besides the way they look. This is why they were merged.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per all
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per all.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all.
#{{User|MeritC}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per the user with the ridiculously long username.
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} Per DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.
#{{User|Kaptain K. Rool}} - Short articles. Case closed.
 
====Comments====
The dates were all wrong. Voting start is a day after the proposal was made, which means it starts on the 16th, not the 15th; you also forgot to convert the time from EST to GMT (or incorrectly converted from some other time zone). And finally, mainspace proposals only go for one week, so this ends on the 23rd, not the 29th. How to format these dates and times is clearly explained in Rule 2: I encourage everyone to read it before making proposals. - {{User|Walkazo}}
 
I hate when I have to say this, but '''a stub is not a short article'''. A stub is an article that, regardless of length, lacks information. If a short article does have all its information, it is not a stub. Get it right, people. {{User|Reversinator}}
:I seriously have to get a hammer and pound that sentence into people's heads >_>
 
:A long time ago, we thought that all stubs were bad. We decided to merge all stubs into bigger articles; thinking that it would be great and we'd have no stubs. You know what resulted? Stuff like [[Gnat Attack#Watinga|this]]. Seriously, a boss of a game is merged into the game that it appears in! If the Shadow Queen article was a stub, would we merge that into PM:TTYD? I mean, honestly, sometimes stubs can be tolerated, but if you go overboard and constantly think "stubs = death" then you are bound to make [[Gnat Attack|mistakes]]. {{User|Marioguy1}}
 
::Well sorry, I just don't understand these things, I didn't know what stub means and I only say it on small articles/short sections of articles so I assumed they were small articles. {{User|Tails777}}


I don't find this to be useful. If this proposal passes, what will happen to [[Fire Breath]]? It appears in Smash Bros. as well. {{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}}
Does this proposal advocate replacing these ripped models with ones that are posed from a screenshot or posed in a 3d program with ripped animation files? Not all models are ripped with animations, so it's a bit of a task to undertake if you really want models with animations AND a rig (let's not get started in lighting, which is a separate skillset that's demanded from renderers; not many people get the lighting very good, no offense!); a chunk of models tend to not have a rig, much less an animation. Additionally, some t-posed models are great to use when comparing models or viewing models ''as they are''. [[:File:MLNPC.png]] is an example where it's easy to compare the proportions of Mario, PC Luigi, and NPC Luigi. Sure, you can probably put them all in a orthographic lineup in the same keyframe of a shared animation, but due to the arms, legs, spine, and head all straightened out, it's better to illustrate in T-pose imo. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:00, November 15, 2024 (EST)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment''.
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 12:03, November 27, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, November 27th, 21:05 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  2. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  3. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  8. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  9. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  12. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  13. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  14. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  15. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  16. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  17. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  18. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  19. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  20. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

  • Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) (discuss) Deadline: November 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge False Character and the Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams to List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses (discuss) Deadline: December 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Move Kolorado's father to Richard (discuss) Deadline: December 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Create articles for "Ashita ni Nattara" and "Banana Tengoku" or list them in List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs, Starluxe (ended November 23, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Create articles for Glohm enemies or merge them with their normal counterparts

Based on the early vote, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on November 28 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

I'm currently contributing to Mario & Luigi: Brothership content, and I'm currently creating articles for enemies in the game. It has been brought to my attention that Glohm enemies are basically stronger versions of preexisting enemies, although they have unique characteristics.

This proposal aims to determine whether or not Glohm enemies get their own articles. So, there are two choices for when Glohm enemy coverage eventually occurs:

1. Glohm enemies get their own articles. They get their own dedicated pages.

2. Glohm enemy coverage is limited to the articles for their normal counterparts. This means all Glohm related information for them is explained for the normal versions of the enemies.

Let's see what happens!

Proposer: Sparks (talk)
Deadline: December 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Create new articles for Glohm enemies

  1. Sparks (talk) My preferred choice. Sure it could get repetitive and redundant, but it's worth it to document the abilities of these Glohm enemies.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) We give articles to other stronger RPG enemy and boss variants, so why should Brothership be any different?
  3. Tails777 (talk) They are stronger variants with different stats to their originals, no different from every example Camwoodstock gave. Per proposal.
  4. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
  5. Zootalo (talk) The Shiny Paper versions of enemies from Paper Jam have their own articles as well; this is no different. Per all.
  6. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Probably best for overall consistancy with a game like this one.
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  8. Cheat-master30 (talk) Given that some of them have specific differences in attack patterns, it seems like they should probably get unique articles.

Include Glohm enemy coverage on their normal counterparts' articles without creating new articles for them

Comments

@Zootalo The Paper Jam shiny enemies are not split, but the Sticker Star ones are.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightwicked Bowser (talk).

Kinda torn to be honest. I voted yes because some of them have specific differences from their regular counterparts (Glohm Floopfly Rs and Glohm Soreboars always explode once defeated for example), but then we've got the weird situation of trying to figure out what exactly you'd include on a page for the enemies without these things, like the Glohm Palookas (which as far as I know, look and act almost identically to their standard counterparts). --Cheat-master30 (talk) 22:30, November 23, 2024 (EST)

In fairness, this could also be said about many other stronger variants of enemies. The only real difference between a Goomba and Gloomba are the color schemes, in a similar way to how the only difference between a Palooka and a Glohm Palooka is the darker coloration and Glohmy aura. It's kinda just a natural thing for most stronger variants (not all mind you, but most). Sprite of Yoshi's stock icon from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Tails777 Talk to me!Sprite of Daisy's stock icon from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate

Create a template to crop images on-the-fly without having to tamper with the base file's dimensions

So Wildgoosespeeder (talk) shared this nifty template that TCRF has: tcrf:Template:CSS image crop, which allows images to be displayed in mainspace at a cut-out size from how they are on the image files themselves. This has two utilities: one is shrinking to a relevant entity in group textures such as this oneMedia:M&SatL2012OG Wii audience.png, and the other is to avoid blank space without having to crop the raw graphic parameters - thus allowing best-of-both-worlds for the previous proposal I attempted (and failed), as it satisfies the OCD itch of avoiding bad and/or inconsistent crops on the base files without taking up unnecessary space where the images are actually used. It also removes a lot of unnecessary work actually cropping/uncropping images since you don't have to save them to a machine/web address to upload a new version - you can just put in the parameters you want and go from there.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: December 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT

C-S-Yes

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Goes without saying I think this is a good idea.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Sounds like a reasonable compromise.
  3. Jdtendo (talk) It's better to crop an existing image programmatically than having to upload a cropped version for a specific use case.

No new template

Comments on CSS image crop

This appears to be similar to a template I have made in order to crop images to perfectly squared off icons for uses on pages such as Pipe Frame (e.g. displaying Mii Racing Suit icons in the same table as other character icons); however, the version you're presenting seems to include more options. I'm not gonna vote yet, but so far I don't see the harm to have this other template too. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 06:42, November 27, 2024 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Tag images of bind-posing models for reuploading

It's been two years since the previous proposal had passed. Now let's talk about tagging images of bind-posing models for reuploading. Take this image for example. As you can see, this image is a bind-posing model. Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to tag every bind-posing model with this:

{{image-quality|Bind-posing model; should be replaced with a rendered game model}}

That way, if a bind-posing model is reuploaded as a rendered game model that serves as a replacement, we'll be able to reuse it as an infobox image.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: November 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

#ThePowerPlayer (talk) Like I said in the other proposal, T-poses are generally not how characters are supposed to look. If this is any indication, the wiki should favor game accuracy in images.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) I think it is great when users replace images of bind-posed (or "t-posed") models with organically rendered ones. It is a practice I personally encourage and welcome. However, I do think there can be educational and illustrative purposes to bind-posed models, and I think a blanket rule would put unnecessary pressure on the users of this site to render models when a bind-posed one can be more than serviceable, and may even discourage the cataloging of 3D assets in the future if a user cannot render them. Rendering models is a very time-consuming process, and I think it is healthier to just allow users to replace the bind-posed images we have if they can. Not require them to. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) this seems better handled on a case-by-case basis rather than a full sweep
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  4. Hewer (talk) Per all, a hard rule isn't necessary here.
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nintendo101. Given there are scenarios where bind-posed/T-posed models are actually more illustrative than properly rigged alternatives, we should probably handle these on a case-by-case basis.
  7. Mario (talk) Tag them if they're bad quality, not because they're t-posed.

Comments

Wording should be changed to "bind pose" since not all characters are T-posed, especially non-bipeds (like Yoshi from Super Smash Bros. Melee or Brawl, Wiggler, Buzzy Beetles, Piranha Plants, and more) and A-pose exists as a default pose too. In addition, models technically aren't "t-posing", they're modeled this way before animations and a rig are applied to them, the wording makes them look like they're animating when they're not. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 20:36, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Does this proposal advocate replacing these ripped models with ones that are posed from a screenshot or posed in a 3d program with ripped animation files? Not all models are ripped with animations, so it's a bit of a task to undertake if you really want models with animations AND a rig (let's not get started in lighting, which is a separate skillset that's demanded from renderers; not many people get the lighting very good, no offense!); a chunk of models tend to not have a rig, much less an animation. Additionally, some t-posed models are great to use when comparing models or viewing models as they are. File:MLNPC.png is an example where it's easy to compare the proportions of Mario, PC Luigi, and NPC Luigi. Sure, you can probably put them all in a orthographic lineup in the same keyframe of a shared animation, but due to the arms, legs, spine, and head all straightened out, it's better to illustrate in T-pose imo. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:00, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4445613"