MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/16: Difference between revisions
Time Turner (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
m (Text replacement - "([Pp]roposal|[Ss]ettled)(Outcome|TPP)" to "$1 $2") |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template}} | {{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}} | ||
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | <div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | ||
===User Highlights=== | ===User Highlights=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|1-8|do not add feature}} | ||
I know Mario Wiki isn't Userpedia, but I feel guilty when I find out somebody's prrromotion to a higher user rank just happened and I didn't congratulate them is an annoyance. The same with birthdays. Yes, I am a Userpedia user, but I'm thinking more about people limited to only Mario Wiki.<br> | I know Mario Wiki isn't Userpedia, but I feel guilty when I find out somebody's prrromotion to a higher user rank just happened and I didn't congratulate them is an annoyance. The same with birthdays. Yes, I am a Userpedia user, but I'm thinking more about people limited to only Mario Wiki.<br> | ||
It could just be a small box showing something, (sorry about putting myself in this, but oh well: "Hyper Guy's Birthday is coming up on___" or "User___ has reached Sysop rank) just a small box with a bit of information about the users, who could be recognized for their efforts on Mario Wiki, might make our community look much, much better by giving users credit, no matter how small the alert is. (NOTE: I'm not talking about edits! Just marking important moments for our brilliant users) THANKS FOR READING THIS! | It could just be a small box showing something, (sorry about putting myself in this, but oh well: "Hyper Guy's Birthday is coming up on___" or "User___ has reached Sysop rank) just a small box with a bit of information about the users, who could be recognized for their efforts on Mario Wiki, might make our community look much, much better by giving users credit, no matter how small the alert is. (NOTE: I'm not talking about edits! Just marking important moments for our brilliant users) THANKS FOR READING THIS! | ||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Merge Keys Articles=== | ===Merge Keys Articles=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|canceled}} | ||
Yeah, I was just looking at the articles linked to this [[Template:Key|template]], and most of them are stubs. That is why I am suggesting that the community allows me to go ahead and merge them, as well as turn the original articles into redirects and changing the links so that they lead to the merged article. An example can be found [[User:Super Mario Bros./Key|here]], and the [[User talk:Super Mario Bros./Key|discussion page]] will be a replica at first, but it will be so that users can change it as opposed to suggesting changes to me (such as moving images, sections, fixing links, etc.). So, to reiterate, if you want to suggest a change to my example, do the change on the talk page. If you have other comments, put them below on this page. '''NO COMMENTS GO ON THE TALK PAGE!'''<br> | Yeah, I was just looking at the articles linked to this [[Template:Key|template]], and most of them are stubs. That is why I am suggesting that the community allows me to go ahead and merge them, as well as turn the original articles into redirects and changing the links so that they lead to the merged article. An example can be found [[User:Super Mario Bros./Key|here]], and the [[User talk:Super Mario Bros./Key|discussion page]] will be a replica at first, but it will be so that users can change it as opposed to suggesting changes to me (such as moving images, sections, fixing links, etc.). So, to reiterate, if you want to suggest a change to my example, do the change on the talk page. If you have other comments, put them below on this page. '''NO COMMENTS GO ON THE TALK PAGE!'''<br> | ||
''Note: A change in the proposed article has been made. See my large comment below.''<br> | ''Note: A change in the proposed article has been made. See my large comment below.''<br> | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br> | ||
'''Proposed Deadline:''' Saturday, 22 August 2009, 20:00<br> | '''Proposed Deadline:''' Saturday, 22 August 2009, 20:00<br> | ||
'''Extended Deadline:''' Saturday, 29 August 2009, 20:00 | '''Extended Deadline:''' Saturday, 29 August 2009, 20:00<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' August 28, 2009, 21:43 GMT | '''Date Withdrawn:''' August 28, 2009, 21:43 GMT | ||
Line 74: | Line 73: | ||
===Allowing YouTube Videos Outside Userpages=== | ===Allowing YouTube Videos Outside Userpages=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|7-17|no youtube videos in articles}} | ||
Before you all think, "It's been like that for a good while, why should it be changed?!", think about how better articles could look. Sometimes when I make edits, like I've been editing the [[Pyoro]] pages recently, I don't want to keep on writing things I know don't make much sense, but I can't show a viewer of the page an example of how the game would be played, and so that users can check if I'm right or not. It could also encourage people who don't want to read long articles. Instead of sitting on a chair for hours on end, they can scroll down the page until they find a YouTube video explaining it for them.<br> | Before you all think, "It's been like that for a good while, why should it be changed?!", think about how better articles could look. Sometimes when I make edits, like I've been editing the [[Pyoro]] pages recently, I don't want to keep on writing things I know don't make much sense, but I can't show a viewer of the page an example of how the game would be played, and so that users can check if I'm right or not. It could also encourage people who don't want to read long articles. Instead of sitting on a chair for hours on end, they can scroll down the page until they find a YouTube video explaining it for them.<br> | ||
I'm not saying we should stop writing and just spam YouTube videos on the pages, but this idea came to me when a friend asked me the other day, while I was showing him an article so he could see what you can do when you join, he asked "Y'know, I'm not actually reading all this c**p, can you just add a YouTube video on here or something?". After that, I started thinking about other people's opinions on this, and I personally think adding YouTube Videos to pages outside user pages would be like adding pictures to a book! | I'm not saying we should stop writing and just spam YouTube videos on the pages, but this idea came to me when a friend asked me the other day, while I was showing him an article so he could see what you can do when you join, he asked "Y'know, I'm not actually reading all this c**p, can you just add a YouTube video on here or something?". After that, I started thinking about other people's opinions on this, and I personally think adding YouTube Videos to pages outside user pages would be like adding pictures to a book! | ||
Line 128: | Line 127: | ||
===No name, no vote, no creator's username, delete, Version 2=== | ===No name, no vote, no creator's username, delete, Version 2=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|2-10|do not remove unsigned votes}} | ||
Alright a few months back we had a proposal known as "No name, no vote, no creator's username, deleted poll" which is a small rule for the poll selection page which organized voteing , the proposal pass, but when it pass the poll selection page was no longer used (which sucks because it just happen with no warning and a lot of users like it because it was a lot of fun. I still think the Poll selection page should still be running), so I came up with the idea to apply this rule to the FI and proposal page (I'm not sure if the FA has the support or oppose system, but if it does then it will be apply to that page also.). For all the new users who don't know what I'm talking about it's just basically if you don't put your username under support or oppose then your vote is deleted. '''note: This doesn't apply to the "comments" section but if a user forgot to put his/her name then just let them, you, or someone else put there username in.''' | Alright a few months back we had a proposal known as "No name, no vote, no creator's username, deleted poll" which is a small rule for the poll selection page which organized voteing , the proposal pass, but when it pass the poll selection page was no longer used (which sucks because it just happen with no warning and a lot of users like it because it was a lot of fun. I still think the Poll selection page should still be running), so I came up with the idea to apply this rule to the FI and proposal page (I'm not sure if the FA has the support or oppose system, but if it does then it will be apply to that page also.). For all the new users who don't know what I'm talking about it's just basically if you don't put your username under support or oppose then your vote is deleted. '''note: This doesn't apply to the "comments" section but if a user forgot to put his/her name then just let them, you, or someone else put there username in.''' | ||
Line 180: | Line 179: | ||
===Create spoiler boxes=== | ===Create spoiler boxes=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|2-12|do not create spoiler boxes}} | ||
Over on a couple wikis, they have boxes that toggle(show/hide) that contain any information that may give away the ending plot. I propose that we do the same thing. That way, people can't say that they just figured out the entire plot of the game without a warning. Now I know that we already have those warning things, but my eyes tend to linger and other people's probably do too. I would need lots of help to create and place these if this proposal goes through. So if it does, help would be appreciated. | Over on a couple wikis, they have boxes that toggle(show/hide) that contain any information that may give away the ending plot. I propose that we do the same thing. That way, people can't say that they just figured out the entire plot of the game without a warning. Now I know that we already have those warning things, but my eyes tend to linger and other people's probably do too. I would need lots of help to create and place these if this proposal goes through. So if it does, help would be appreciated. | ||
Line 215: | Line 214: | ||
===Even Out Removal Votes=== | ===Even Out Removal Votes=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|11-0-0|reduce number of voters required to remove fa vote to three}} | ||
OK, I am very annoyed when I see an inconsistency on a wiki and as I look at the proposals page and the FA page, I notice that there is an inconsistency in the number of votes it takes to remove the invalid votes. On the proposals page, it takes three and on the FA page it takes five, why the two-number difference? If this proposal passes, those numbers will even out so that there is one universal number so that [[User:Marioguy1|someone]] doesn't mess up like that guy :( Anyways, I've created three voting groups just in case someone wants one but not the other. | OK, I am very annoyed when I see an inconsistency on a wiki and as I look at the proposals page and the FA page, I notice that there is an inconsistency in the number of votes it takes to remove the invalid votes. On the proposals page, it takes three and on the FA page it takes five, why the two-number difference? If this proposal passes, those numbers will even out so that there is one universal number so that [[User:Marioguy1|someone]] doesn't mess up like that guy :( Anyways, I've created three voting groups just in case someone wants one but not the other. | ||
Line 248: | Line 247: | ||
===Creations & Deletions=== | ===Creations & Deletions=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|no quorum|1-0}} | ||
OK, this proposal is just to test out whether or not this idea is worth proposing. Anyhow, my proposal is to make a section on this page called Creations & Deletions to replace the section Removals. This way there will be more space so that to propose, say a Q&A Page, you won't have to put it under Miscellaneous. This could also help with those old proposals of creating and deleting committees. So that's basically it, vote now! | OK, this proposal is just to test out whether or not this idea is worth proposing. Anyhow, my proposal is to make a section on this page called Creations & Deletions to replace the section Removals. This way there will be more space so that to propose, say a Q&A Page, you won't have to put it under Miscellaneous. This could also help with those old proposals of creating and deleting committees. So that's basically it, vote now! | ||
Line 269: | Line 268: | ||
===Give Patrollers CheckUser=== | ===Give Patrollers CheckUser=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|14-0}} | ||
Before you oppose this, please read it. If I'm correct, we used to have an extension for CheckUser, which means (if we don't have the extension anymore) there is one for our version of MediaWiki. CheckUser would help Patrollers if they are dealing with possible sockpuppets, but they couldn't tell whether they really are. It wouldn't give them major Sysop powers such as '''oversight''', '''deletion''', or '''protect'''ing of pages; which would give the users in the Patroller group more power/responsibilities, while retaining its place as the "in-between" of users and Sysops without it becoming redundant. I feel this would highly benefit Patrollers in the case of huge spam attacks or when suspicious users sign up. | Before you oppose this, please read it. If I'm correct, we used to have an extension for CheckUser, which means (if we don't have the extension anymore) there is one for our version of MediaWiki. CheckUser would help Patrollers if they are dealing with possible sockpuppets, but they couldn't tell whether they really are. It wouldn't give them major Sysop powers such as '''oversight''', '''deletion''', or '''protect'''ing of pages; which would give the users in the Patroller group more power/responsibilities, while retaining its place as the "in-between" of users and Sysops without it becoming redundant. I feel this would highly benefit Patrollers in the case of huge spam attacks or when suspicious users sign up. | ||
Line 304: | Line 303: | ||
===Delete Genre Articles=== | ===Delete Genre Articles=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|9-0|delete}} | ||
I have encountered a couple of articles in [[:Category:Game Types]] and have thought that creating an article on each genre is redundant. Has Mario appeared in a lot of genres? Yes. But I hardly think there's a reason to create an article on each one. The only thing that would accomplish is defining what each genre is and what Mario games belong to it. | I have encountered a couple of articles in [[:Category:Game Types]] and have thought that creating an article on each genre is redundant. Has Mario appeared in a lot of genres? Yes. But I hardly think there's a reason to create an article on each one. The only thing that would accomplish is defining what each genre is and what Mario games belong to it. | ||
Line 343: | Line 342: | ||
===Mario Kart Wii competitions=== | ===Mario Kart Wii competitions=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|11-0|allow announcement of competitions on news template}} | ||
Ok, i kinda get annoyed when a new Mario Kart competetion comes out and I haven't taken part so i suggest that we say when a Mario kart comp comes out on the news template to alert everyone. Ans since Nintendo news doesn't do it anymore i thimk it would be useful to know when one comes out. | Ok, i kinda get annoyed when a new Mario Kart competetion comes out and I haven't taken part so i suggest that we say when a Mario kart comp comes out on the news template to alert everyone. Ans since Nintendo news doesn't do it anymore i thimk it would be useful to know when one comes out. | ||
Line 373: | Line 372: | ||
===Time Limit Before New Game Spoilers Added to Other Articles=== | ===Time Limit Before New Game Spoilers Added to Other Articles=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|3-12|no time limit for spoilers}} | ||
First, I hope I've added this proposal correctly; my apologies if I've messed up somewhere. To the point, I'm proposing there be some sort of time limit, a statute of limitations if you will, before spoilers for an as-yet unreleased game begin to filter their way into other articles. For example, Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story is not out in North America yet, but as I was reading over several Partners in Time entries, I came upon numerous spoilers for the unreleased game. I understand if spoilers for BIS would be in the M&L:BIS entry, as that would be a "read at your own risk" situation, but should someone who is just trying to get caught up be forced to find out things they don't want to until they get a chance to play the game? | First, I hope I've added this proposal correctly; my apologies if I've messed up somewhere. To the point, I'm proposing there be some sort of time limit, a statute of limitations if you will, before spoilers for an as-yet unreleased game begin to filter their way into other articles. For example, Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story is not out in North America yet, but as I was reading over several Partners in Time entries, I came upon numerous spoilers for the unreleased game. I understand if spoilers for BIS would be in the M&L:BIS entry, as that would be a "read at your own risk" situation, but should someone who is just trying to get caught up be forced to find out things they don't want to until they get a chance to play the game? | ||
Line 418: | Line 417: | ||
===New Policy=== | ===New Policy=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|canceled}} | ||
Sometimes, there's an article that is created with one or two lines of text. It starts building up after after a while. When we see these articles, we simply slap a stub template on it in hopes that someone will expand it. This kind of thinking has created more than a 1000 stubs. That means more than 1/10th of all the articles on the wiki are stubbed. We need to fix this proportion for the sake of the wiki. There is no quick fix, but we can reduce this if we add this new policy to the [[MarioWiki: Rules|Rules]]. | Sometimes, there's an article that is created with one or two lines of text. It starts building up after after a while. When we see these articles, we simply slap a stub template on it in hopes that someone will expand it. This kind of thinking has created more than a 1000 stubs. That means more than 1/10th of all the articles on the wiki are stubbed. We need to fix this proportion for the sake of the wiki. There is no quick fix, but we can reduce this if we add this new policy to the [[MarioWiki: Rules|Rules]]. | ||
Line 435: | Line 434: | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Knife}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Knife}}<br> | ||
'''Proposed Deadline:''' September 22, 2009, 17:00 | '''Proposed Deadline:''' September 22, 2009, 17:00<br> | ||
'''Date Withdrawn:''' September 22, 2009, 20:53 GMT | '''Date Withdrawn:''' September 22, 2009, 20:53 GMT | ||
Line 503: | Line 502: | ||
:Images (The article could be about an implied character important to the plot), the number of contributor (How does that matter?), mainspace categories (Again, what's the point) and the number of links (The subject could be not really linked to anything else). --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] 12:38, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | :Images (The article could be about an implied character important to the plot), the number of contributor (How does that matter?), mainspace categories (Again, what's the point) and the number of links (The subject could be not really linked to anything else). --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] 12:38, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
Well, I couldn't find any "delete new stubs" proposal after all; the closest thing I dug up was [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | Well, I couldn't find any "delete new stubs" proposal after all; the closest thing I dug up was [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/2#Deleting_stubs|this]], which actually ''reverts'' the decision to delete stubs on-sight. However, crappy one-liners have continued to be axed in the two years since that proposal, telling us that whichever way the rules happen to fall, personal discretion has always been the real denominator when it comes to what stays and what goes. That's why all these specific conditions are so unappetizing: they're meant to make it easier to systematically purge the Wiki of stubs, however they tie our hands when it comes to the grey areas. Many page-unworthy stubs will not fit the deletion criteria, so would we ''have'' to let them stay? Any page which already fits all the criteria will probably be deleted anyway, so aside from putting more emphasis on deleting things, this proposal doesn't add much to the Wiki's "unofficial" protocols. Quantifying things is good, but qualitative decisions have a place in the world too. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
... Actually, you do make sense. I was thinking about deleting this proposal before it becomes a long stretch of extended deadlines. Now that I think about it, the conditions hurt more than they help. I'm going to go back to what I was originally doing and just expand stubs. Of course, I'm only human and cannot possibly take care of 1500+ stubs by myself. I encourage you all to help expand them or at least stop creating stub articles. It may take a while, but stubs will eventually be gone. As for many of the wiki's other problems, we still haven't delved into them that well either. - {{User|Knife}} | ... Actually, you do make sense. I was thinking about deleting this proposal before it becomes a long stretch of extended deadlines. Now that I think about it, the conditions hurt more than they help. I'm going to go back to what I was originally doing and just expand stubs. Of course, I'm only human and cannot possibly take care of 1500+ stubs by myself. I encourage you all to help expand them or at least stop creating stub articles. It may take a while, but stubs will eventually be gone. As for many of the wiki's other problems, we still haven't delved into them that well either. - {{User|Knife}} | ||
Line 511: | Line 510: | ||
===Amend FA Size Requirements=== | ===Amend FA Size Requirements=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|11-0|amend requirements}} | ||
Some smaller pages deserve to be recognized, so this proposal will replace the rigid 4000 byte minimum length and the 50+ entries stipulations with a general statement that: "''All articles must have a reasonable size.''" While potential FAs will no longer be automatically rejected based on their byte or header counts, if they are overly short articles, their nomination will surely be rejected on that basis through normal voting procedure. | Some smaller pages deserve to be recognized, so this proposal will replace the rigid 4000 byte minimum length and the 50+ entries stipulations with a general statement that: "''All articles must have a reasonable size.''" While potential FAs will no longer be automatically rejected based on their byte or header counts, if they are overly short articles, their nomination will surely be rejected on that basis through normal voting procedure. | ||
Line 554: | Line 553: | ||
===Get Rid of the New Userspace Requirements=== | ===Get Rid of the New Userspace Requirements=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|2-14|keep requirements}} | ||
A mans userspace is his castle, so why is there so many rules on what should be on it and what shouldn’t. What’s on someone’s userspace is supposed to be like what describes them and if you are not allowed to go out of the lines of the requirements, you simply can’t do that. I think we should get rid of those rules so users can express themselves better. I really just don’t think those new rules are fair at all. Also, it will take a lot of users time a lot of time and effort to change their userspace to fit the requirements. Some of the user space rules I agree with, such as “no illegal game links”, but some like “No discussion not related to the Super Mario Wiki” and “No excessive personal information” are completely unfair. It is like living in a house, but you are only allowed to have stuff from “Home Depot” in it. "Home Depot" doesn’t sell all of life’s necessities, just like Super Mario Wiki doesn’t have all of the information you need. If this Proposal passes, users will be free to use their userspace any way the want to except there will still be no more illeagal game links. | A mans userspace is his castle, so why is there so many rules on what should be on it and what shouldn’t. What’s on someone’s userspace is supposed to be like what describes them and if you are not allowed to go out of the lines of the requirements, you simply can’t do that. I think we should get rid of those rules so users can express themselves better. I really just don’t think those new rules are fair at all. Also, it will take a lot of users time a lot of time and effort to change their userspace to fit the requirements. Some of the user space rules I agree with, such as “no illegal game links”, but some like “No discussion not related to the Super Mario Wiki” and “No excessive personal information” are completely unfair. It is like living in a house, but you are only allowed to have stuff from “Home Depot” in it. "Home Depot" doesn’t sell all of life’s necessities, just like Super Mario Wiki doesn’t have all of the information you need. If this Proposal passes, users will be free to use their userspace any way the want to except there will still be no more illeagal game links. | ||
Line 627: | Line 626: | ||
===Merge & Split: Enemies Inside Pages=== | ===Merge & Split: Enemies Inside Pages=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|0-13|no merge}} | ||
Clever title there. Anyway, I was thinking- Instead of having all the enemy names in Bowser's Inside Story on the same page, and then having to click a link to go to the page which turns out being a stub, and then having to click the back button on your browser, wouldn't it be much easier to split the enemies to split the enemies and merge all the enemy articles onto one page? I'll do this myself if there's enough good feedback.<br> | Clever title there. Anyway, I was thinking- Instead of having all the enemy names in Bowser's Inside Story on the same page, and then having to click a link to go to the page which turns out being a stub, and then having to click the back button on your browser, wouldn't it be much easier to split the enemies to split the enemies and merge all the enemy articles onto one page? I'll do this myself if there's enough good feedback.<br> | ||
This saves having to tire yourself by clicking on different links all the time! | This saves having to tire yourself by clicking on different links all the time! | ||
Line 652: | Line 651: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Split to split to merge? Did you say it twice or something? {{User|Betaman}} | Split to split to merge? Did you say it twice or something? {{User|Betaman}} | ||
Line 662: | Line 660: | ||
===Split Beta Elements into Sub-Articles=== | ===Split Beta Elements into Sub-Articles=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|31-0|split}} | ||
We all know that the [[Beta Elements]] page is incredibly long...the second-longest page on the wiki — It's chock full of images and good information on a ton of different games, (which isn't a bad thing), but I feel the article would be better off describing what a beta element is, and then having a list at the bottom of the page that lists all of the games we have beta info on. Which leads me to the second part of my proposal. Most of the beta element sections in that page are more than long enough to constitute their ''own'' page. This would make it easier to find a specific beta element in a specific game, and it would also make it much easier to load said page(s). For example, the beta elements for ''[[Super Mario World]]'' could be found at {{fake link|Super Mario World/Beta elements}}. This page could easily be found because there would be a link on [[Beta Elements]] to that page, as well as a link to it on the ''[[Super Mario World]]'' article. | We all know that the [[Beta Elements]] page is incredibly long...the second-longest page on the wiki — It's chock full of images and good information on a ton of different games, (which isn't a bad thing), but I feel the article would be better off describing what a beta element is, and then having a list at the bottom of the page that lists all of the games we have beta info on. Which leads me to the second part of my proposal. Most of the beta element sections in that page are more than long enough to constitute their ''own'' page. This would make it easier to find a specific beta element in a specific game, and it would also make it much easier to load said page(s). For example, the beta elements for ''[[Super Mario World]]'' could be found at {{fake link|Super Mario World/Beta elements}}. This page could easily be found because there would be a link on [[Beta Elements]] to that page, as well as a link to it on the ''[[Super Mario World]]'' article. | ||
Line 721: | Line 719: | ||
===Mario Baseball Special swings/pitches=== | ===Mario Baseball Special swings/pitches=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|1-8|no split}} | ||
The Mario Super Star Baseball special pitches and swings are in the same article (Peach's Heart Swing and Heart Pitch are under [[Heart Ball]] while on the Slugger's page, the character bios list them separately. The Slugger's special pages are being made right now and I'm wondering of the pitches and swings should also be merged into one page like the MSSB ones or if the MSSB's should be split. | The Mario Super Star Baseball special pitches and swings are in the same article (Peach's Heart Swing and Heart Pitch are under [[Heart Ball]] while on the Slugger's page, the character bios list them separately. The Slugger's special pages are being made right now and I'm wondering of the pitches and swings should also be merged into one page like the MSSB ones or if the MSSB's should be split. | ||
Line 752: | Line 750: | ||
===Change FA removal of votes rules=== | ===Change FA removal of votes rules=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|14-7|change rules}} | ||
Well, if you have seen the Luigi nomination page, it is full of votes from the kind of "ZOMG LUIGI PWNS!!!" which are not valid reasons, and to remove them, we must go throught the sloooow process of getting 5 votes to remove them, which is as slow as annoying. So I propose any admin has the right to remove those votes who do anything but help. Who supports? | Well, if you have seen the Luigi nomination page, it is full of votes from the kind of "ZOMG LUIGI PWNS!!!" which are not valid reasons, and to remove them, we must go throught the sloooow process of getting 5 votes to remove them, which is as slow as annoying. So I propose any admin has the right to remove those votes who do anything but help. Who supports? | ||
Line 849: | Line 847: | ||
===Luigi and Boo FAs=== | ===Luigi and Boo FAs=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|1-9|keep nominations}} | ||
I was on the featured articles page recently and I saw that the [[Luigi]] and [[Boo]] articles are still nominated. You wouldn't ''believe'' how many fan votes there are on the Boo one, and Luigi's has been there for over a year. I propose that the nominations should be deleted because of those things and can be started up again if the articles improve. | I was on the featured articles page recently and I saw that the [[Luigi]] and [[Boo]] articles are still nominated. You wouldn't ''believe'' how many fan votes there are on the Boo one, and Luigi's has been there for over a year. I propose that the nominations should be deleted because of those things and can be started up again if the articles improve. | ||
Line 880: | Line 878: | ||
===Change FA rules part 1=== | ===Change FA rules part 1=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|5-8|no removing those votes}} | ||
I have seen many FA rule changing proposals/problems recently so I'd like to clear everything up with some different rules that accommodate almost everyone.<br> | I have seen many FA rule changing proposals/problems recently so I'd like to clear everything up with some different rules that accommodate almost everyone.<br> | ||
'''Rule:''' The rule that states you cannot remove support votes, I propose that rule be changed to "You need five users to agree that this vote is a fan vote before deleting it" so that Tucayo's problem with the fan-votes can be solved. '''Reason:''' Tucayo said it all in his proposal, some of these votes are just wrong. | '''Rule:''' The rule that states you cannot remove support votes, I propose that rule be changed to "You need five users to agree that this vote is a fan vote before deleting it" so that Tucayo's problem with the fan-votes can be solved. '''Reason:''' Tucayo said it all in his proposal, some of these votes are just wrong. | ||
Line 925: | Line 923: | ||
===Change FA rules part 2=== | ===Change FA rules part 2=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|no quorum|0-3}} | ||
Here is the second part of my three part proposal<br> | Here is the second part of my three part proposal<br> | ||
'''Rule:''' The rule that says it will take a month of no editing to remove a nomination, I propose that this is changed to a month of no voting OR three months with no verdict AND more than five users opposing. '''Reason:''' Some nominations have way too many fans that just won't quit so get rid of the votes if there is a REAL reason to delete them (in other words if five people are opposing, they all agree) | '''Rule:''' The rule that says it will take a month of no editing to remove a nomination, I propose that this is changed to a month of no voting OR three months with no verdict AND more than five users opposing. '''Reason:''' Some nominations have way too many fans that just won't quit so get rid of the votes if there is a REAL reason to delete them (in other words if five people are opposing, they all agree) | ||
Line 935: | Line 933: | ||
====Keep The Long Noms==== | ====Keep The Long Noms==== | ||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} — I personally don't think the wiki needs to be cluttered up with any more dead nomination pages than there are already. I remember when I originally nominated [[Mario (franchise)|this page]] for FA status. The nomination page was thriving with activity for a while, but after progress on the actual article slowed down, so did the nomination page. Besides, it's not like someone can't re-nominate an article to be featured. | #{{User|Stooben Rooben}} — I personally don't think the wiki needs to be cluttered up with any more dead nomination pages than there are already. I remember when I originally nominated [[Super Mario (franchise)|this page]] for FA status. The nomination page was thriving with activity for a while, but after progress on the actual article slowed down, so did the nomination page. Besides, it's not like someone can't re-nominate an article to be featured. | ||
#{{user|Yoshario}} – Per Stooben Rooben. | #{{user|Yoshario}} – Per Stooben Rooben. | ||
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} - Per Stooben. | #{{User|Gamefreak75}} - Per Stooben. |
Latest revision as of 16:33, May 31, 2024
User Highlightsdo not add feature 1-8 Proposer: Hyper Guy (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsMerge Keys Articlescanceled by proposer Support
Oppose
CommentsMarioguy1, I fixed the problem. Does it look good now? Super Mario Bros. (talk) I think the Key article itself should stay (and the introduction should be expanded a bit to explain more about the essense of Mario keys), with the rest of the keys going into a "List of Keys" page. Yakkey should keep his seperate page, since he's a character, not just an item. Skeleton Key also has enough appearances and information (plus, its animate) to merit its own article as well. The list entries for Key, Skeleton Key and Yakkey would all use {{main}} to link to the separate articles. - Walkazo (talk) I think Marioguy1's vote is invalid. The only reason he states is "I like your article", which is not enough. Why would it be a change for the better? Please expand your vote, otherwise I vote for its removal. Time Q (talk) Ok, hopefully I fixed most of the problems. The minor Paper Mario keys would all be merged, as well as a few of the other Super Mario 64 DS keys (Mario Key, Luigi Key, Wario Key). The bigger Key article, as well as the Skeleton Key article and the Yakkey article would be left alone as seperate articles. This would allow {{Key}} to stay, and the Keys category to remain as well. Any more suggestions? Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Allowing YouTube Videos Outside Userpagesno youtube videos in articles 7-17 Proposer: Hyper Guy (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsAn external link would work fine in your example. Right now we host all our content when it comes to articles--the text and images. Embedding videos and making them part of the actual article means we are outsourcing content which relies on YouTube and their servers, as well as the user who uploaded the video. Having embedded Flash in the articles looks sloppy. Most everything can be described in words and if videos are an option we could rely on them too much; "This video shows how the gameplay works." Blah Blah Porplemontage (talk)
It's a wiki, it's supposed to have content in usually a text form, a reference to an external link TO a YouTube video is better. The video would extend loading time, like on Peach's page mainly, and content and formatting may be harder to replicate. Also, just a little off-topic note, I hate it when someone says "Per all." MechaWave (talk) I'd say it might be useful in some points but it should be handeled VERY careful so that this feature is not overused or the Wiki will be overrun by Youtube-Videos, rendering the articles useless. I think we need seperate pages for youtube videoes for example: Luigi's Mansion cutscenes would be nothing but youtube videos of cutscenes for the said game. Or Glitch videos would be a good page! Lu-igi board 05:05, 29 August 2009 (EDT) If we bring Youtube information into this site we'd be relying on so much another web site. Take wikipedia. We only make few reverences to its articles and place links onto articles with necessary articles rather than copying and pasting everything. MC Hammer Bro. (talk) No name, no vote, no creator's username, delete, Version 2do not remove unsigned votes 2-10 Proposer: Zero777 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI am Zero! Oh ya, I forgot that part, I was thinking of the poll selection page. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk) I agree with the no name no vote part but I dont think the no username of creator is pointless. Don't most creators vote after they already have published it? Betaman (talk)
What happened to the other votes? Itachi 96 (talk) I am Zero! I altered the proposal so much I have to delete the votes and start all over, because some people aren't getting the picture. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk) I struck my vote and those that are "per-ing" me for now. Anyone of the users concerned feel free to replace your striked votes with a valid one. Time Q (talk) I am Zero! Well if you put it that way, well ya it's stupid, but overall is good. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk) I have to say that I don't really get the point (what keeps me from voting). So an unsigned vote will be deleted, but another one can fill in your username and then it's fine? Wouldn't it be easier to just tell the person that he/she forgot to sign the vote? I don't understand it. To me it seems like the bold text and the rest contridict each other. Someone please enlighten me. Edofenrir (talk) Marioguy1 (talk) - Sorry Time Q but you crossed out your vote and your vote has no logic. Plus, your vote is messing up the number system, it looks like there are seven people yet there are only four.
I am Zero! *sigh* It was a success last time, so I wonder what did I add or remove to make this one a failure? Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk) Create spoiler boxesdo not create spoiler boxes 2-12 Proposer: Electrobomber (talk) Support
Oppose
Commentswe already have them :) {{spoiler}} Tucayo (talk)
Even Out Removal Votesreduce number of voters required to remove fa vote to three 11-0-0 Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk) Change FA Number
Change Proposal NumberDon't Change NumbersComments@T.c.w7468: I think the proposer splitted the support section into two to avoid problems with this question. You just voted for decreasing both numbers of neccessary removal votes to 3. If you had picked the other support category, you would have voted for increasing both numbers of necessary removal votes to five ;3 - Edofenrir (talk)
Creations & Deletionsno quorum 1-0 Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk) Create SectionDon't Create SectionCommentsCouldn't the "New Features" section be used for creating something? –Yoshario (talk) Itachi 96 (talk) Yes, I think too that Hephaseus's vote is invalid. Sure, why not is not a strong reason. Give Patrollers CheckUserpassed 14-0 Proposer: Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk) Give Them CheckUser
Don't Give Them CheckUserComments
The proposal must pass in the appointed date. However, if you see any suspicious action (like moving pages into nasty words) don't doubt on giving that guy a permanent ban. Coincollector (talk) Delete Genre Articlesdelete 9-0 Proposer: Knife (talk) Delete Articles
Keep ArticlesCommentsUh, why keep "Three-Dimensional Game"? --Glowsquid 06:56, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
Why not just merge them together? Timmy Tim (talk)
Mario Kart Wii competitionsallow announcement of competitions on news template 11-0 Proposer: YellowYoshi127 (talk) Allow the MKWii comps
DisallowCommentsIs this for competitions among the wiki community or something more official? If it's for competitions organized by the wiki, that's what the MarioWiki Community box is for. It would only make the News box if, say, Nintendo was organizing something. The English here seems pretty bad. --Porplemontage (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
Time Limit Before New Game Spoilers Added to Other Articlesno time limit for spoilers 3-12 Proposer: LBD_Nytetrayn (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI agree with TimeQ, but i HATE spoilers. Tucayo (talk) Is there a way to add a spoiler tag or something, then? Again, not saying no spoilers at all, but spreading them throughout to articles only slightly related seems a bit like overdoing it. If I just want to learn more about Partners in Time, is it really necessary that the first piece of trivia I see in one entry spoils a game that's not even out yet before I even read the more relevant info? And Marioguy1, would that info not be in the SMG article? That would be a different situation from what I'm speaking of.LBD_Nytetrayn (talk)
As far as I understand a major concern of this proposal is that spoilers are available outside of the respective game article, and I can perfectly understand that. Spoilers belong to the game's article or paragraphs in other articles that deal with that game. What situation would rectify it to post a spoiler outside of an article or paragraph of the respective game? Are there examples? - Edofenrir (talk)
We could just do like the ArchieSonicWiki and just add a blanket statement to the Mainpage saying 'Warning: These Wiki Contains Spoilers, Read At Your Own Peril', or something to that effect. -- Ghost Jam (talk) New Policycanceled by proposer Any article two complete sentences or less is subject to deletion under the following conditions:
So basically, any two sentence article that fits under ALL these conditions is deleted. If an article has sentence fragments or redundant sentences, they will not be counted. An article like "Goomba Pirates are Goomba pirates. There are lots of Goomba Pirates. They appear in Mario Party 8. They are found on (whatever board that was). They throw players into a cannon and shoot them to the start if they land on a ! Space." will not work. If this proposal passes, articles on the wiki will be deleted if they meet these conditions and will become an enforced rule and a new policy will be added. The editors in no way will be punished for creating an article under these conditions, unless it is vandalism. If you have any suggestions or questions about proposal, please leave them Proposer: Knife (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWhat rule says that this proposal can be given a long deadline? Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) @Marioguy1: Actually he says that there have to be at least 19 links TO the page, not FROM the page. - Edofenrir (talk) @Ralphfan: I loosened up the rules a little, but I think 2 categories instead of 1 is a better fit since we have so many categories. It still has to pass all those conditions before being deleted anyway, so I don't think it is too strict. I thought we could manipulate the deadline. Sorry for assuming that.Knife (talk) All rules are enforceable, so if you see someone creating a one-liner (to fill a red link, or for whatever other motivation) you can stop them. The old no-new-stubs rule also lets you delete new stubs; I think the problem has been that we don't always catch them right when they're made and later assume they were there all along (granted, that's what checking the History is for). Personally, I always worry about removing what little information the stub does provide: there should be more emphasis that when you delete a stub, you have to make sure the info goes somewhere else (i.e. delete a Level page and the info gets pasted on the World article instead). - Walkazo (talk) The no-new stubs rule. If you could point out where it was passed, I would have a better understanding of it. Even if it was passed, why isn't it on any policy page? While this proposal is also supposed to cut down on stubs, it has two major differences. The first being that new stubs are still allowed if any of the conditions don't fit. The second being that existing stubs can still be deleted. You are also worried about valuable information being lost. Don't fret. If a user creates an article with only two sentences, there are two conclusions:
I can't think of any two sentence article with information so valuable that it needs to be merged/stay as an article. I wish we had an extended deadline so that we can discuss this further, but we only have 3 days left.Knife (talk)
(Chat log)
20:36 Tucayo when i was a n00b I'm really torn on this proposal. As incredibly annoying as it is to see well over 1,000 stubs on the wiki that either haven't been edited in so long because it's such an obscure subject, because so few actually can find information on it, or even because of pure laziness, I still feel that all articles should be given a chance. If an article is just one line, then yeah, it's likely to be deleted as soon as a Sysop finds it, because there's always enough information for at least two well-detailed sentences, but just completely ridding all small stubs of having the chance to become a really impressive page seems rather extreme. Stooben Rooben (talk)
I don't know... I really like the idea of getting rid of some of our stubs, since they are annoying and reflect badly on the wiki (and we really shouldn't worry about "losing info" when deleting such stubs; articles like "X is the Yth level in the Zth world of game W" have no info, and if they have, that info can be usually found on other pages as well). But on the other hand, I don't think I can agree with the rules you're proposing. As Glowsquid said, many of them are arbitrary, plus I don't think many articles would be affected at all. It just all seems to be a very specific rule of which many parts can be questioned and that wouldn't be of that much use. -- BTW, it does look like the deadline is going to be extended (this happens if there's more than 10 votes on a proposal but one side has a margin of less than 3 votes). Time Q (talk) What conditions should be changed?--Knife (talk)
Well, I couldn't find any "delete new stubs" proposal after all; the closest thing I dug up was this, which actually reverts the decision to delete stubs on-sight. However, crappy one-liners have continued to be axed in the two years since that proposal, telling us that whichever way the rules happen to fall, personal discretion has always been the real denominator when it comes to what stays and what goes. That's why all these specific conditions are so unappetizing: they're meant to make it easier to systematically purge the Wiki of stubs, however they tie our hands when it comes to the grey areas. Many page-unworthy stubs will not fit the deletion criteria, so would we have to let them stay? Any page which already fits all the criteria will probably be deleted anyway, so aside from putting more emphasis on deleting things, this proposal doesn't add much to the Wiki's "unofficial" protocols. Quantifying things is good, but qualitative decisions have a place in the world too. - Walkazo (talk) ... Actually, you do make sense. I was thinking about deleting this proposal before it becomes a long stretch of extended deadlines. Now that I think about it, the conditions hurt more than they help. I'm going to go back to what I was originally doing and just expand stubs. Of course, I'm only human and cannot possibly take care of 1500+ stubs by myself. I encourage you all to help expand them or at least stop creating stub articles. It may take a while, but stubs will eventually be gone. As for many of the wiki's other problems, we still haven't delved into them that well either. - Knife (talk)
Amend FA Size Requirementsamend requirements 11-0 Deadline: Friday, 25 September 2009, 20:00 Amend Size Requirements
Don't Amend Size RequirementsCommentsThe last proposal I made was starting to fail, so I rewrote it. Common sense can be used for the size, if it is a well-written article and meets all of the requirements except for the current size-limit, it would still deserve to be featured, except in the case of stubs. As I said, common sense can be used. Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2009 (EDT) For the record, this was originally my idea (made in response to SPMB's original proposal):
Credit is as credit does... Or however that expression goes. - Walkazo (talk)
Maybe you should also remove the rule that says the article must have 50 entries.Knife (talk)
Get Rid of the New Userspace Requirementskeep requirements 2-14 Proposer: Egg Yoshi (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI don't know wether to suport or oppose, because it's true that rules are rules but I'm afraid the "only talk about MarioWiki-related stuff" rule is somewhat...strict, but I completely understand the "no excessive personal info" because there are some not-nice people out there, but I'm not gonna take sides for this one. Lemmy Koopa Fan (talk) I don't see the problem with this. The rules were created to disburden the server and it is necessary if you look at how slow it gets from time to time. There's still the forum, the chat and userpedia left for personal discussions and contents. But sacrificing the whole wiki for the sake of self-portrayal? I doubt that's in your interest as well. - Edofenrir (talk) THATS IT! I AM RETIREING FROM THE WIKI! I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT DOING IT, BUT NOW ITS OFFICIAL! wWHO WOULD BE STUPID ENEUGH TO MAKE A WIKI WHERE YOU CAN ONLY TALK ABOUT THINGS ON THE WIKI! I will still rwrite my 'shroom articles and survivor, though... Egg Yoshi (talk)
*sigh* WE ARE NOT GETTING RID OF USER PAGES, BUT OF USER SUB PAGES Tucayo (talk)
I've had it up to here with this stupid wiki and its excessive rules. Therefore, I am retireing. Cherrybomb444 (talk)
FunkyK38: Users are strongly advised NOT to move all their content to subpages and delete their main userpage because it makes navigating the information harder than it needs to be (even if they have a directory, one-stop-shopping is still the way to go: it's faster and takes up less space). - Walkazo (talk) hey, everyone has opinions. And anyone has the right to feel a rule is stupid. my entire wiki life is ruined with this rule, therefor, i quit. its not that hard to understand. Egg Yoshi (talk)
OK, so maybe it dosn't have a complete affect on my wiki life, but I have a question. How does qriting about something that dosn't have to do with the wiki affect the surver? Egg Yoshi (talk)
Why can't they just say "no more talking about stuff that dosn't have to do with the wiki? Egg Yoshi (talk) NoT EVERYONE HAS A USERPEDIA ACCOUNT! Egg Yoshi (talk) Not everyone on super mario wiki has one. i won't be able to reach some people Egg Yoshi (talk)
NO! I mean people won't be able to read it! Besides, i won't be able to talk to people about stuff that dosn't have to do with the wiki. Egg Yoshi (talk)
you are still not understanding. Barely anyone I know here knows userpedia exists. Egg Yoshi (talk)
Ok, end of the discussion, Egg Yoshi, You can say in your user page "My survivor moved here" and you can communicate on our chat and our forum. Tucayo (talk) Merge & Split: Enemies Inside Pagesno merge 0-13 Deadline: September 27, 2009, 15:00 SupportOppose
CommentsSplit to split to merge? Did you say it twice or something? Betaman (talk) You want to split the enemy articles, split them again and then merge them all together? If you want to merge them, why splitting them in the first place? There's clarification needed here. - Edofenrir (talk)
Split Beta Elements into Sub-Articlessplit 31-0
Proposer: Stooben Rooben (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI think it would be better to have a catagory with a link to the sub-pages. Betaman (talk)
Could something similar be done for the Glitches article? Of course it's only half as big as the Beta elements article, but... that's still big. - Edofenrir (talk)
Mario Baseball Special swings/pitchesno split 1-8 Propeser: MC Hammer Bro. (talk) Split
Continue like the other pages
CommentsThe pages have already been made, and someone made a really nice template for them (I think it might've been Edofenrir), but the Super Sluggers Star Swings are just as important as the Mario Power Tennis Power Shots. I made almost all of them, and they are good pages, in my opinion, and they haven't been deleted or made fun of, so I think they should stay. FunkyK38 (talk) Mario Power Tennis has a set of offensive shots and defensive shots as well, but the differences are much greater. Mario's offensive power shot uses a hammer while his defensive shot is a spin jump. Just compare each character's shots and you'll note the difference. However the pitches and swings are not so different. Mario fires up the ball and speeds it up in both, Peach turns the ball temporarily invisible in both, etc..--Knife (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2009 (EDT) We don't need to have separate articles for the pitches, those were already in the first Mario baseball game. I'm just saying that the swings are different, and they have different effects. FunkyK38 (talk) Per FunkyK38. I think we already have a template for every Star Swing name. If there isn't, that should be a new proposal. Mariofan459 (talk) Change FA removal of votes ruleschange rules 14-7 Proposer: Tucayo (talk) Get rid of those votes
Keep those votes
CommentsIs it even allowed to remove supporting votes? The last time I tried that, SPMB reverted my removal votes and said it isn't valid. - Edofenrir (talk) I'm just wondering, but what happens if you had a valid reason to vote, but the administrators removed it anyway? - BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Pie Shroom: You're right, it did. However only for oppose votes (support votes still can't be removed). Time Q (talk) Time Q: That's what I meant. Pie Shroom (talk) Who and why were my headers changed Tucayo (talk)
TQ and Mg1: Do you know how many users join just to vote and never come back?Tucayo (talk)
TimeQ, if someone says that "LUigi PWNSSS!!!!" it sounds very much like the person loves Luigi. If he/she likes the article, he/she should specify it. Besides, like I said, fan votes are no way going to make a nominated FA an FA, but they take up tons of space. Besides, a lot of those fan votes (e.g. Luigie PWNZ!) doesn't make our Wiki sound very, uh "professional"? - LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Cobold: Now you voted on both sides :) Time Q (talk) TimeQ: use your common sense! Many of the users dont even care about the wiki, they dont even know the FA standards, they dont know what are they voting for, as we are not proposing the character to become an FA, we are proposing the article. Tell me why they dont do that in articles list List of Shops in Super Mario RPG, becuase they dont know about that. Tucayo (talk)
OK guys-- This is what I think-- Since support votes don't matter enough, esp. with the case with Luigi, I don't think we should remove the fan votes entirely. Instead, I think we should remove the vote description of these votes, because these get emotional and very annoying. I think sysops should be able to remove the vote description, however retaining the vote (leaving only the voter's name on but nothing else). This will keep the FA page looking decent while preventing anger from people who put their fan votes one. However, I strongly support removing the descriptions, often they are emotional, redundant, and unappealing. T.c.w7468 (talk)
Just to clarify-- with "admins", you mean sysops and bureaucrats, right? Time Q (talk)
Stooben Rooben: Doesn't make much sense to me. How is "Luigi sucks!" harmful, when "Luigi pwns!" is not? They're basically the same, except that one expresses love and the other expresses hate for Luigi. I don't get the fact why people make a distinction there. - Edofenrir (talk)The comment section seems on the verge of explosion with that many comments. Time Q: The definition of "Administrator" actually varies: It depends on interperatation. I personally feel that "Administrator" is a blanket-term for Patroller, Sysop, or Bureaucrat. Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk)
Edofenrir: Because the oppose votes are the ones that...er, I can't think of the right word, so for right now, I'll use "matter". If you have 20 support votes for the Luigi article that are all detailed and actually support the article's quality (not the character), but you have just one oppose vote with valid reasoning, that oppose vote will keep that article from being featured until someone changes the article to meet the opposer's requirement. Opposers don't have to meet the requirements of a supporter's vote because they see nothing wrong with the article. That said, the exact same would apply if all 20 of those support votes were "I like Luigi" votes. And I don't really like the fact that the Admins are going to be taking action over something the entire community can handle; the only time Admins (solely) should handle something, is if it is an Administrative matter or is pivotal to the wiki in some way. (Ex: De/promotions, some policies, etc.) Administrators are no better than a normal user, nor are they more valuable. So why should it be up to them if a fan-based support vote gets removed? That makes it seem like the Admins are the only people whose opinions matter in an FA nomination. Stooben Rooben (talk)
Ok, I really don't understand why you feel the need to delete these fan votes when there are already the necessary number of legit votes. On the Luigi page, there are at least 5 thoughtful, useful votes. The other votes are absolutely not harming the nomination in any way. If you want to delete the votes for cleanup of the page, then by all means say so. However, your current arguments are quite faulty; you seem to be arguing for a simple triviality. I am not trying to make anyone angry, and am simply attempting to prove a point. It's probably already been said anyway... Bloc Partier (talk)
Luigi and Boo FAskeep nominations 1-9 Proposer: McQueenMario (talk) Remove Luigi and Boo FAs
Keep Luigi and Boo FAs
CommentsNote that this happened a while ago for the Bowser FA. McQueenMario (talk)
You saw Tucayo's proposal yet? Unless this is something different. LeftyGreenMario (talk) No, wait a minute. You want to delete old nominated FA's, right? Sorry LeftyGreenMario (talk) Change FA rules part 1no removing those votes 5-8 Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk) (With ideas from Tucayo (talk)) Allow Support Vote Removal
Keep All Support Votes
CommentsThe reason why we can remove oppose votes, but can't remove support votes is simple. There are requirements that FAs must meet. Any article that meets all these requirements is of FA quality, but any article that fails to meet at least one of the requirements should not be an FA. So opposers of a nomination have to show which requirement is not met (i.e. they need a valid reason). Oppose votes that do not have such a valid reason can (and should) be removed. But how could support votes be reasoned? The only way to have a really "valid" support vote would be to list all the criteria, with comments like "fulfilled", "fulfilled", etc. Since this doesn't make sense, support votes don't really need reasons. Thus, they can't be removed either. Time Q (talk)
On the point about server space: Those comments create such a minimal amount of space, that the server probably doesn't even notice enough of a change to merit concern. (IMO, if you disable the comments allowed on BJAODN, you might as well make it a rule that people can't talk to each other casually on their talk pages.) But that's a different subject altogether, so I'll stop. Stooben Rooben (talk)
Sorry, but that "reverts" my proposal Tucayo (talk)
Change FA rules part 2no quorum 0-3 Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk) (With ideas from McQueenMario (talk)) Delete Noms After 3 MonthsKeep The Long Noms
CommentsMaybe it's just me, but I don't quite understand this one... what do you mean by, "with no verdict"? Time Q (talk)
|