MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/51: Difference between revisions
m (PorpleBot moved page MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 51 to MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/51: Text replacement - "Proposals/Archive " to "Proposals/Archive/") |
m (Text replacement - "({{|[Tt]em\|)[Nn]owrap" to "$1nw") |
||
(8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
===Create a template for FA archives=== | ===Create a template for FA archives=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|6-0|create template}} | ||
[[User:Baby Luigi|Baby Luigi]]'s proposed system has been a success so far. However, since we use a template for most archives, why not this one? The table columns are long and repetitive enough to get cumbersome to archive, anyways, so I propose we use a template for archiving featuring (as well as unfeaturing) nominations. '''I have two drafts, which you can view [[User:Toadette the Achiever/FAArchive|here]] and [[User:Toadette the Achiever/FAArchive/Header|here]].''' | [[User:Baby Luigi|Baby Luigi]]'s proposed system has been a success so far. However, since we use a template for most archives, why not this one? The table columns are long and repetitive enough to get cumbersome to archive, anyways, so I propose we use a template for archiving featuring (as well as unfeaturing) nominations. '''I have two drafts, which you can view [[User:Toadette the Achiever/FAArchive|here]] and [[User:Toadette the Achiever/FAArchive/Header|here]].''' | ||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
===Add a small link to [[MarioWiki:Appeals]] in the reminder/warning/last warning templates=== | ===Add a small link to [[MarioWiki:Appeals]] in the reminder/warning/last warning templates=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|13-0|add link}} | ||
We have an appeal system that is not used a whole lot, and one of the reasons it's not used is simply because it's not that visible; it requires digging around our maintenance and policy pages to find it, so many users may not even know that such a system exists. Some of us do manually link to there when we occasionally hand out the templates, but why not make the process automatic? After all, this system is directly linked to those templates, and I don't see any reason to segregate the two processes entirely. | We have an appeal system that is not used a whole lot, and one of the reasons it's not used is simply because it's not that visible; it requires digging around our maintenance and policy pages to find it, so many users may not even know that such a system exists. Some of us do manually link to there when we occasionally hand out the templates, but why not make the process automatic? After all, this system is directly linked to those templates, and I don't see any reason to segregate the two processes entirely. | ||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
===Delete the articles for ''Galaxy'' and ''Galaxy 2'''s conjecturally-named "minigames"=== | ===Delete the articles for ''Galaxy'' and ''Galaxy 2'''s conjecturally-named "minigames"=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|2-13-0|delete only [[Bubble Blowing]] and [[Star Ball Rolling]]}} | ||
We currently have articles on four "minigames" from ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'', namely [[ray surfing]], [[Bob-omb Blasting]], [[Bubble Blowing]], and [[Star Ball Rolling]], as well as two more from ''Galaxy 2'', [[Crate Burning]] and [[Fluzzard Gliding]]. However, out of all of these, only ray surfing is officially called that in-game. I slapped {{tem|ref needed}} templates on the other ''Galaxy'' "minigames'" articles, but I'm pretty sure they're outright conjecture. The ones from ''SMG2'', [[Crate Burning]] and [[Fluzzard Gliding]], actually have {{tem|conjecture}} templates. Even worse, "Star Ball Rolling" and "Bubble Blowing" aren't even minigames. The [[Star Ball]] and [[Bubble#Super Mario Galaxy|Bubble]] are just game mechanics that change how Mario or Luigi move through a level, and these "minigames" only exist in this wiki's imagination. The Star Ball Rolling article is completely redundant with the Star Ball article. ''Galaxy'''s bubbles don't have their own article, but even if they ''do'' deserve a separate article, the correct answer would be to simply split them off, not create an article for a nonexistent minigame. Which is why when I brought this up on [[Talk:Super_Mario_Galaxy#The_so-called_.22minigames.22|''Galaxy'''s talk page]] a couple months ago, my thoughts were that these two specifically were the ones that needed to be put down. After all, Bob-omb Blasting, Crate Burning, and Fluzzard Gliding are conjecturally-named too, but at least they're actual minigames, right? | We currently have articles on four "minigames" from ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'', namely [[ray surfing]], [[Bob-omb Blasting]], [[Bubble Blowing]], and [[Star Ball Rolling]], as well as two more from ''Galaxy 2'', [[Crate Burning]] and [[Fluzzard Gliding]]. However, out of all of these, only ray surfing is officially called that in-game. I slapped {{tem|ref needed}} templates on the other ''Galaxy'' "minigames'" articles, but I'm pretty sure they're outright conjecture. The ones from ''SMG2'', [[Crate Burning]] and [[Fluzzard Gliding]], actually have {{tem|conjecture}} templates. Even worse, "Star Ball Rolling" and "Bubble Blowing" aren't even minigames. The [[Star Ball]] and [[Bubble#Super Mario Galaxy|Bubble]] are just game mechanics that change how Mario or Luigi move through a level, and these "minigames" only exist in this wiki's imagination. The Star Ball Rolling article is completely redundant with the Star Ball article. ''Galaxy'''s bubbles don't have their own article, but even if they ''do'' deserve a separate article, the correct answer would be to simply split them off, not create an article for a nonexistent minigame. Which is why when I brought this up on [[Talk:Super_Mario_Galaxy#The_so-called_.22minigames.22|''Galaxy'''s talk page]] a couple months ago, my thoughts were that these two specifically were the ones that needed to be put down. After all, Bob-omb Blasting, Crate Burning, and Fluzzard Gliding are conjecturally-named too, but at least they're actual minigames, right? | ||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
===Change the link in the Category bar=== | ===Change the link in the Category bar=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|cancelled}} | ||
In the category bar at the bottom of most pages whenever a category is included on the page is a link that leads to [[Special:Categories]]. This helps absolutely no one. Special:Categories is simply an alphabetical list of every category used on the wiki, but gives no information on how editors, both present and future, should set them up. [[MarioWiki:Categories]] on the other hand gives a comprehensive explanation on how categories should be used, from category trees to the order and specifics of the categories. This proposal is simply meant to see who agrees with changing the link in [[MediaWiki:Pagecategorieslink]] from Special:Categories to MarioWiki:Categories. | In the category bar at the bottom of most pages whenever a category is included on the page is a link that leads to [[Special:Categories]]. This helps absolutely no one. Special:Categories is simply an alphabetical list of every category used on the wiki, but gives no information on how editors, both present and future, should set them up. [[MarioWiki:Categories]] on the other hand gives a comprehensive explanation on how categories should be used, from category trees to the order and specifics of the categories. This proposal is simply meant to see who agrees with changing the link in [[MediaWiki:Pagecategorieslink]] from Special:Categories to MarioWiki:Categories. | ||
Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
:::Ah. I like trying to put a humorous spin on things, but I see what you mean. Corrected. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:22, 25 February 2018 (EST) | :::Ah. I like trying to put a humorous spin on things, but I see what you mean. Corrected. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:22, 25 February 2018 (EST) | ||
The link is really there for the reader (99% of wiki visitors), not the editors. Your scenario imagines a reader who wants to get into editing, but that is a very low percentage case. The vast majority of our traffic only reads. If they want to get into editing, they will be introduced to our help pages and {{tem| | The link is really there for the reader (99% of wiki visitors), not the editors. Your scenario imagines a reader who wants to get into editing, but that is a very low percentage case. The vast majority of our traffic only reads. If they want to get into editing, they will be introduced to our help pages and {{tem|MarioWiki}} at some point and see the categories link. The target audience of [[MarioWiki:Categories]] is the editor and isn't as useful as [[Special:Categories]] if your only goal is exploring the site. A reader can use the search box on [[Special:Categories]] to check out different categories we have, for example. The info on MarioWiki:Categories about our category structure and where to put categories probably isn't the reading that visitors came to the site for (deep ''Mario'' lore). Editors and would-be editors seeking category help will find MarioWiki:Categories through our help pages, where as visitors are not going to know that Special:Categories exists without the link since they're not roaming through [[Special:SpecialPages]]. That Categories link appears across the wiki, on every namespace, and it takes you to a page that let's you explore all the wiki's categories (makes sense). Not sure it should take you to a policy page instead! --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST) | ||
:Would it be beneficial to add a quick explanation of categories at the top of [[MarioWiki:Categories]]? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 15:11, 25 February 2018 (EST) | :Would it be beneficial to add a quick explanation of categories at the top of [[MarioWiki:Categories]]? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 15:11, 25 February 2018 (EST) | ||
::A link to an overall comprehensive list both does and doesn't seem all that useful to me. It really depends on the situation. Is it a reader looking through the categories, or is it an editor trying to figure out how the categories should be placed? If anything, they should lead to each other. | ::A link to an overall comprehensive list both does and doesn't seem all that useful to me. It really depends on the situation. Is it a reader looking through the categories, or is it an editor trying to figure out how the categories should be placed? If anything, they should lead to each other. | ||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
===Move "proposals" from "community" to "navigation" on the sidebar=== | ===Move "proposals" from "community" to "navigation" on the sidebar=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|1-6|Keep "Proposals" under "community"}} | ||
I was browsing the wiki for the first time for a while and I sawdust Proposals is currently llisted under community alongside the 'Shroom, the chat and Mario Boards. The thing is though those other three things all fall under the social part of this site and less so the wiki part of the site Whilst proposals is less so part of the social aspect and more related into improving the wiki. The Navigation area the other hand has links that is all related to the wiki it's self and many of the links inside it are related to helping improve the wiki. I just think it would make far more sense Proposals was under navigation rather than community. | I was browsing the wiki for the first time for a while and I sawdust Proposals is currently llisted under community alongside the 'Shroom, the chat and Mario Boards. The thing is though those other three things all fall under the social part of this site and less so the wiki part of the site Whilst proposals is less so part of the social aspect and more related into improving the wiki. The Navigation area the other hand has links that is all related to the wiki it's self and many of the links inside it are related to helping improve the wiki. I just think it would make far more sense Proposals was under navigation rather than community. | ||
Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
===Make an exception for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series in our coverage policy=== | ===Make an exception for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series in our coverage policy=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|8-0|Make an exception}} | ||
This proposal stems largely from [https://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=39608.0 a discussion thread] started by Blocky, and it's recommended to read that first. | This proposal stems largely from [https://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=39608.0 a discussion thread] started by Blocky, and it's recommended to read that first. | ||
Line 234: | Line 234: | ||
===Pie for Everyone. Pie for EVERYONE. Pie. For. ALL.=== | ===Pie for Everyone. Pie for EVERYONE. Pie. For. ALL.=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|vetoed|Thankfully the alarms Porple set up worked and I wasn't too far away. I've sanitized the proposal list and this archive page, so it shouldn't spread the infohazard. The following is an inoculation counter-meme set up for us via aid from outside sources. Just looking at it should help clear up any further pie-like thoughts. Let me know if there are any further issues, and I am sorry about all this. - Ghost Jam<br> | ||
[[File:Thesolutionissosimple.jpg]]}} | [[File:Thesolutionissosimple.jpg]]}} | ||
Line 324: | Line 324: | ||
===Do not create ''Super Mario Odyssey'' sublocation pages=== | ===Do not create ''Super Mario Odyssey'' sublocation pages=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|cancelled}} | ||
The current [[Template: | The current [[Template:SMO kingdoms|''Super Mario Odyssey'' Kingdom nav-template]] has (mostly red) links for all the named locations within every kingdom in the game. I think each one of these locations getting an article is a bad idea. | ||
While some of these locations are pretty big and unique, like the Deep Woods and Snowline Circuit, most of them are simply extentions of the main world or too small and not so relevant by themselves, and presenting them disconnected from each other would make these pages feel short on content. Island in the Sky (Bowser's Castle), Rocky Mountain Summit (Forgotten Isle), Heliport (New Donk City), Glass Palace (Bubblaine) and Salt-Pile Isle (Mount Volbono) are some examples of locations which are, at most, glorified platforms with a Checkpoint Flag on/near them. There are also three Tostarena Ruins locations, three Water Plaza locations, two Iron Path locations; having an article for each one is unnecessary as they are part of a whole rather than defined places (which is also the case of things like the Waterfall Basin and Stone Bridge in Fossil Falls and the Tostarena Northwest Reaches). | While some of these locations are pretty big and unique, like the Deep Woods and Snowline Circuit, most of them are simply extentions of the main world or too small and not so relevant by themselves, and presenting them disconnected from each other would make these pages feel short on content. Island in the Sky (Bowser's Castle), Rocky Mountain Summit (Forgotten Isle), Heliport (New Donk City), Glass Palace (Bubblaine) and Salt-Pile Isle (Mount Volbono) are some examples of locations which are, at most, glorified platforms with a Checkpoint Flag on/near them. There are also three Tostarena Ruins locations, three Water Plaza locations, two Iron Path locations; having an article for each one is unnecessary as they are part of a whole rather than defined places (which is also the case of things like the Waterfall Basin and Stone Bridge in Fossil Falls and the Tostarena Northwest Reaches). | ||
Line 358: | Line 358: | ||
===Add a section to [[MarioWiki:Naming]] regarding technical restrictions=== | ===Add a section to [[MarioWiki:Naming]] regarding technical restrictions=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|10-1|add section}} | ||
I'm surprised no one has talked in depth about this yet. Sure, we don't have '''''that''''' many technically restricted names, but we still have some, so I think we should set in stone a policy for these titles. Take the castle levels from ''Super Mario World'' as an example. "#1 Iggy's Castle" is located at "Iggy's Castle" rather than "1 Iggy's Castle"; while the former title is fine, it might still cause some initial confusion for the newer readers. Basically, what I'm proposing is that we start officially use closely-matched titles for subjects if the correct title is technically restricted. | I'm surprised no one has talked in depth about this yet. Sure, we don't have '''''that''''' many technically restricted names, but we still have some, so I think we should set in stone a policy for these titles. Take the castle levels from ''Super Mario World'' as an example. "#1 Iggy's Castle" is located at "Iggy's Castle" rather than "1 Iggy's Castle"; while the former title is fine, it might still cause some initial confusion for the newer readers. Basically, what I'm proposing is that we start officially use closely-matched titles for subjects if the correct title is technically restricted. | ||
Line 378: | Line 378: | ||
#{{User|BBQ Turtle}} Per all, this just seems like the sensible thing to do anyway. | #{{User|BBQ Turtle}} Per all, this just seems like the sensible thing to do anyway. | ||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per all. | #{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per all. | ||
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} The proposal is about allowing as many characters in the original title as possible, if the suggested title has technical issues. When such a case occurs, use the <code><nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE}}</nowiki></code> [[ | #{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} The proposal is about allowing as many characters in the original title as possible, if the suggested title has technical issues. When such a case occurs, use the <code><nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE}}</nowiki></code> [[mw:Help:Magic words|MediaWiki Magic Word]] to correct the title. <code>#</code> in URLs are used for linking to headers in a page name, like [[Iggy's Castle#Overview|this example]]. Even forcing URL encoding brings up an error. [https://www.mariowiki.com/%231_Iggy%27s_Castle] I couldn't get MediaWiki to parse this normally, so a forced URL is used to demonstrate. | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
Line 392: | Line 392: | ||
===Give the seven boss Tikis from DKCR their own articles=== | ===Give the seven boss Tikis from DKCR their own articles=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|2-4|don't create articles}} | ||
Because the rest of their official names have just been discovered in a datamine of the original game. | Because the rest of their official names have just been discovered in a datamine of the original game. | ||
Line 425: | Line 425: | ||
===Smash Bros. Articles: What Stays and What Goes?=== | ===Smash Bros. Articles: What Stays and What Goes?=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|12-1|make the changes}} | ||
[[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/51#Make_an_exception_for_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series_in_our_coverage_policy|The previous ''Super Smash Bros.'' proposal]] allowed us to justify previous exceptions to ''Smash'' coverage (i.e. the stage hazards and Smash Taunt characters) and paved a path for future exceptions. After [https://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=39608.0 the discussion on the forums], this proposal will outline exactly what further exceptions will be made, as in which pages will be merged and which pages will remain intact. With that out of the way, let's dive in! | ||
*Fighters: No changes are planned. | *Fighters: No changes are planned. | ||
Line 487: | Line 487: | ||
===Replace all related species/etc lines in infoboxes with a single "See also" line=== | ===Replace all related species/etc lines in infoboxes with a single "See also" line=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|2-6|no change}} | ||
As {{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} has been so energetically pointing out recently, the way we handle "species" bears little-to-no resemblance to reality - an octopus is not a species related to a mushroom, even if an [[Octoomba]] is obviously derived from a [[Goomba]], and trying to justify it is waaay beyond the bounds of a simple infobox list. And the likes of [[Fish Bone|fish]] [[Honebōn|skeletons]] [[Jean de Fillet|for]] [[Honen|one]] [[Sharkbone|example]] aren't even breedable! And, generally, obsessing over taxonomy seems rather misplaced for a Mario fansite. | As {{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} has been so energetically pointing out recently, the way we handle "species" bears little-to-no resemblance to reality - an octopus is not a species related to a mushroom, even if an [[Octoomba]] is obviously derived from a [[Goomba]], and trying to justify it is waaay beyond the bounds of a simple infobox list. And the likes of [[Fish Bone|fish]] [[Honebōn|skeletons]] [[Jean de Fillet|for]] [[Honen|one]] [[Sharkbone|example]] aren't even breedable! And, generally, obsessing over taxonomy seems rather misplaced for a Mario fansite. | ||
This primarily affects {{tem|species | This primarily affects {{tem|species infobox}}. In the immediate aftermath, this proposal will be achieved by putting all three variables in the "See also" line (with appropriate <nowiki>{{#if:*}}s</nowiki> so that they can be stacked vertically), inside a new <nowiki>{{{see also}}}</nowiki> variable, which will be on the documentation and override the older variables if both the new and old variables are used. In the longer term, it may require use of a bot to make wiki-wide changes, especially if full alphabetisation (as opposed to priority-based sorting) is desired. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Reboot}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Reboot}}<br> | ||
Line 524: | Line 524: | ||
===Replace enemy sections with an infobox entry=== | ===Replace enemy sections with an infobox entry=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|failed|2-2-9|no change}} | ||
Add an <code><nowiki>|</nowiki>enemies=</code> section to <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template: | Add an <code><nowiki>|</nowiki>enemies=</code> section to <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Level infobox|level infobox]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> and move "Enemies" sections (like [[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)#Enemies]]) to the infobox. This information doesn't seem like it's worth a whole section since it's already covered in the overview section, and small lists (which is the case in most levels) would fit perfect in an infobox, especially if they were comma separated instead of bulleted. | ||
While it's true that having some level articles with enemies sections and some with enemies in the levelbox would be inconsistent, I think this has to be considered with the usefulness of having sections with small lists of enemies. | While it's true that having some level articles with enemies sections and some with enemies in the levelbox would be inconsistent, I think this has to be considered with the usefulness of having sections with small lists of enemies. | ||
Line 541: | Line 541: | ||
<br><s>#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Per Alex95</s> | <br><s>#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Per Alex95</s> | ||
#{{User|Reboot}} Per | #{{User|Reboot}} Per | ||
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} The concern over a long enemy list isn't a big one because MediaWiki CSS styles we use start the list collapsed (<code><nowiki>mw-collapsible mw-collapsed</nowiki></code>). See [[ | #{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} The concern over a long enemy list isn't a big one because MediaWiki CSS styles we use start the list collapsed (<code><nowiki>mw-collapsible mw-collapsed</nowiki></code>). See [[mw:Manual:Collapsible elements|here]]. Leaving an enemy list as an article section instead of in an infobox makes the specific vital level information look excluded. A level infobox should include basic level information, such as time limit, world-level, music, etc., which I see enemies as that type of information. | ||
====Add enemies to the levelbox, but keep the enemy sections==== | ====Add enemies to the levelbox, but keep the enemy sections==== | ||
Line 605: | Line 605: | ||
::::::But the exceptions wouldn't really be arbitrary, since they could be based off the statistics above. You're welcome to vote how you please, but I think lists under a certain amount of enemies shouldn't be kept in the article body just for the sake of consistency. [[User:The Retro Gamer|<span style="color:red;">--The</span>]] [[User talk:The Retro Gamer|<span style="color:green;">Retro</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/The Retro Gamer|<span style="color:blue;">Gamer</span>]] 23:35, 29 April 2018 (EDT) | ::::::But the exceptions wouldn't really be arbitrary, since they could be based off the statistics above. You're welcome to vote how you please, but I think lists under a certain amount of enemies shouldn't be kept in the article body just for the sake of consistency. [[User:The Retro Gamer|<span style="color:red;">--The</span>]] [[User talk:The Retro Gamer|<span style="color:green;">Retro</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/The Retro Gamer|<span style="color:blue;">Gamer</span>]] 23:35, 29 April 2018 (EDT) | ||
Still thinking over, so I'm not going to vote yet, but keep in mind that a "spoiler box" is a thing as well. Like in [[Template:Species | Still thinking over, so I'm not going to vote yet, but keep in mind that a "spoiler box" is a thing as well. Like in [[Template:Species infobox]]. Perhaps this new section can be coded like that, if space is the main issue. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 00:20, 30 April 2018 (EDT) | ||
:I was not aware of that option. I think that option would be the optimal outcome, solving the space issue completely. I'll add that to the list of options and add my vote to that. [[User:The Retro Gamer|<span style="color:red;">--The</span>]] [[User talk:The Retro Gamer|<span style="color:green;">Retro</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/The Retro Gamer|<span style="color:blue;">Gamer</span>]] 00:36, 30 April 2018 (EDT) | :I was not aware of that option. I think that option would be the optimal outcome, solving the space issue completely. I'll add that to the list of options and add my vote to that. [[User:The Retro Gamer|<span style="color:red;">--The</span>]] [[User talk:The Retro Gamer|<span style="color:green;">Retro</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/The Retro Gamer|<span style="color:blue;">Gamer</span>]] 00:36, 30 April 2018 (EDT) | ||
::The collapsability changes nothing for me, as I still find it looks bad, and is a detrimental change in general. Enemy lists are too ''important'' to be relegated to the small text, particularly that is hidden. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:17, 30 April 2018 (EDT) | ::The collapsability changes nothing for me, as I still find it looks bad, and is a detrimental change in general. Enemy lists are too ''important'' to be relegated to the small text, particularly that is hidden. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:17, 30 April 2018 (EDT) | ||
Line 634: | Line 634: | ||
===Part 2: What should be included in enemies lists?=== | ===Part 2: What should be included in enemies lists?=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|4-0|include counts}} | ||
I think enemy lists should include counts, because that helps define the level: a level with one throwaway enemy is quite different from a level heavily populated by a certain enemy. As a corollary to this point, I have removed my vote from my original main option of the other proposal, since enemy counts as a defining factor in the level means they probably deserve their own section. Obviously, implementing this would be a long-term process, but I think if we're already listing the enemies, it's not too hard to gradually add the counts (and situational specifications, like counts in different versions) as well. | I think enemy lists should include counts, because that helps define the level: a level with one throwaway enemy is quite different from a level heavily populated by a certain enemy. As a corollary to this point, I have removed my vote from my original main option of the other proposal, since enemy counts as a defining factor in the level means they probably deserve their own section. Obviously, implementing this would be a long-term process, but I think if we're already listing the enemies, it's not too hard to gradually add the counts (and situational specifications, like counts in different versions) as well. | ||
Line 654: | Line 654: | ||
===Create a template for reception tables=== | ===Create a template for reception tables=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|no quorum|2-1}} | ||
According to the [[MarioWiki:Reception and sales|reception and sales policy]]: | According to the [[MarioWiki:Reception and sales|reception and sales policy]]: | ||
Line 675: | Line 675: | ||
|-style="background-color:#E6E6E6" | |-style="background-color:#E6E6E6" | ||
|colspan=2|Compiler | |colspan=2|Compiler | ||
|colspan=2|{{ | |colspan=2|{{nw|Platform / Score}} | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan=2|Metacritic | |colspan=2|Metacritic | ||
Line 682: | Line 682: | ||
</pre>''"'' | </pre>''"'' | ||
However, I don't see why this is actually a template yet. It won't really hurt to add one (and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 44#Create a template for proposal outcomes|given the]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 46#Expand the "Outcome template" rule to appeal outcomes|many prior proposals]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 46#Create .7B. | However, I don't see why this is actually a template yet. It won't really hurt to add one (and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/44#Create a template for proposal outcomes|given the]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/46#Expand the "Outcome template" rule to appeal outcomes|many prior proposals]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/46#Create .7B.7BTPP discuss.7D.7D|to templatize certain]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/51#Create a template for FA archives|repetitive features of the wiki]]), hence why I am proposing this. There are still many reviewers and aggregators out there, so it may take a while to add them in, but I've added quite a bit in the meantime. The only real problem is figuring out how to configure the URLs (since some links are inconsistent with others on the same site), but it's also something we can fix as we go on. | ||
One big change that supersedes the original is listing the reviews and aggregators in respective alphabetical order. I think that's a good way to go since none of the other possible methods seem doable. | One big change that supersedes the original is listing the reviews and aggregators in respective alphabetical order. I think that's a good way to go since none of the other possible methods seem doable. | ||
Line 702: | Line 702: | ||
===Move [[:Category:Outer Space Locations]] to [[:Category:Cosmic Locations]], restrict the term "outer space" and other related terms, and add "outer space" to the list of frequently misused terms=== | ===Move [[:Category:Outer Space Locations]] to [[:Category:Cosmic Locations]], restrict the term "outer space" and other related terms, and add "outer space" to the list of frequently misused terms=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|6-0|move the aforementioned category and restrict "outer space"}} | ||
Not too long ago, [[Category talk:Cosmic Locations#Change name to "Cosmic Locations"|a proposal]] was implemented to change the name of [[:Category:Outer Space Locations]] to [[:Category:Cosmic Locations]]. Such proposal was opposed to on the grounds that the term "is synonymous" and "it's a nice umbrella term". | Not too long ago, [[Category talk:Cosmic Locations#Change name to "Cosmic Locations"|a proposal]] was implemented to change the name of [[:Category:Outer Space Locations]] to [[:Category:Cosmic Locations]]. Such proposal was opposed to on the grounds that the term "is synonymous" and "it's a nice umbrella term". | ||
Line 756: | Line 756: | ||
===Change the way that recurring events in the Mario & Sonic series are handled=== | ===Change the way that recurring events in the Mario & Sonic series are handled=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|no quorum|1-2}} | ||
So, now that I've finished with the sponsors I've decided to move onto the Mario & Sonic series, starting with filling in some of the missing events. However, at the moment there isn't really much coverage of the series, and there's a bit of an issue with the way that some of the events are handled. Currently, events which have the same or very similar names are all listed on the same page, despite the fact that they differ significantly between games, and not only between the Wii/Wii U and DS/3DS versions. For example, the Trampoline event in the first DS game required certain patterns to be drawn with the stylus to perform various moves, whereas in the 2012 3DS game moves are performed automatically and the player must use the circle pad to keep their character within a certain area. This means that the infoboxes are overloaded with information and that the articles are just full of lots and lots of headers ([[Archery (event)]] is an example of this, and it still has a considerable amount of information missing). Therefore, I'm proposing that we split each game's version of the event into its own unique article, which only covers the event's appearance in the one game. Only the controls, missions, playable characters, etc. for one version of the event would be included on the page, with the identifier specifying the game if it only appears in one of the instalments for a specific year (Such as "Rings (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic games)", which appears in the 3DS version but not the Wii one), or both the game and console if it appears in both (Such as "BMX (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Nintendo 3DS))" and "BMX (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Wii U))"). The shared name would be turned into a disambiguation page, listing all of the separate articles and any with similar names, such as 100m and 100m Dash, which would be separated as they have different names (This would also apply to any similarly named events, if the names are different they'll use the unique names instead of one with an identifier). An About template would be added to the top of name-sharing articles with a link to the disambiguation page for the other events or the events with a similar name. Events such as Balance Beam that only appear in one game will not be affected by this and will remain at the one name. | So, now that I've finished with the sponsors I've decided to move onto the Mario & Sonic series, starting with filling in some of the missing events. However, at the moment there isn't really much coverage of the series, and there's a bit of an issue with the way that some of the events are handled. Currently, events which have the same or very similar names are all listed on the same page, despite the fact that they differ significantly between games, and not only between the Wii/Wii U and DS/3DS versions. For example, the Trampoline event in the first DS game required certain patterns to be drawn with the stylus to perform various moves, whereas in the 2012 3DS game moves are performed automatically and the player must use the circle pad to keep their character within a certain area. This means that the infoboxes are overloaded with information and that the articles are just full of lots and lots of headers ([[Archery (event)]] is an example of this, and it still has a considerable amount of information missing). Therefore, I'm proposing that we split each game's version of the event into its own unique article, which only covers the event's appearance in the one game. Only the controls, missions, playable characters, etc. for one version of the event would be included on the page, with the identifier specifying the game if it only appears in one of the instalments for a specific year (Such as "Rings (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic games)", which appears in the 3DS version but not the Wii one), or both the game and console if it appears in both (Such as "BMX (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Nintendo 3DS))" and "BMX (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Wii U))"). The shared name would be turned into a disambiguation page, listing all of the separate articles and any with similar names, such as 100m and 100m Dash, which would be separated as they have different names (This would also apply to any similarly named events, if the names are different they'll use the unique names instead of one with an identifier). An About template would be added to the top of name-sharing articles with a link to the disambiguation page for the other events or the events with a similar name. Events such as Balance Beam that only appear in one game will not be affected by this and will remain at the one name. | ||
Line 787: | Line 787: | ||
===Merge golf terms to {{fake link|List of golf terms}}=== | ===Merge golf terms to {{fake link|List of golf terms}}=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|8-0|merge}} | ||
We have a lot of articles from ''Mario Golf'' series that basically amount to [[MarioWiki:Generic subjects|generic subjects]]{{footnote|note|*}}. {{wp|Par (score)|Even Wikipedia doesn't have individual articles for every golf score}}, but we do! They play parts in the games, but pretty much in exactly the same ways as they do IRL. So round them up and stick them all on one page. | We have a lot of articles from ''Mario Golf'' series that basically amount to [[MarioWiki:Generic subjects|generic subjects]]{{footnote|note|*}}. {{wp|Par (score)|Even Wikipedia doesn't have individual articles for every golf score}}, but we do! They play parts in the games, but pretty much in exactly the same ways as they do IRL. So round them up and stick them all on one page. | ||
Line 824: | Line 824: | ||
===Real World Subjects vs. Real World Terms=== | ===Real World Subjects vs. Real World Terms=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|canceled}} | ||
A recurring trend on this wiki is to create articles on real-world terms, such as [[Genre]], [[Level]], and [[Pre-release and unused content]]. I know we've said something like this in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 27#Reality vs. Fiction|the first proposal aimed at reducing ''generic'' subjects]], but allowing these articles as precedents would lead to further unnecessary articles, such as {{fake link|Episode}}, {{fake link|Map}}, {{fake link|Cutscene}}...the list goes on. {{wp|Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary|Keep in mind that wikis are not dictionaries}}, and we don't necessarily ''need'' articles on those subjects, same as the generic subjects. Therefore, in a similar vein to the generic subjects proposal I linked to, I propose that we allow articles on real-world terms '''only if they have a function or purpose that makes them unique and discernible from the way the term is applied elsewhere'''. | A recurring trend on this wiki is to create articles on real-world terms, such as [[Genre]], [[Level]], and [[Pre-release and unused content]]. I know we've said something like this in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/27#Reality vs. Fiction|the first proposal aimed at reducing ''generic'' subjects]], but allowing these articles as precedents would lead to further unnecessary articles, such as {{fake link|Episode}}, {{fake link|Map}}, {{fake link|Cutscene}}...the list goes on. {{wp|Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary|Keep in mind that wikis are not dictionaries}}, and we don't necessarily ''need'' articles on those subjects, same as the generic subjects. Therefore, in a similar vein to the generic subjects proposal I linked to, I propose that we allow articles on real-world terms '''only if they have a function or purpose that makes them unique and discernible from the way the term is applied elsewhere'''. | ||
The following are examples of real-world terms that would be '''allowed''': | The following are examples of real-world terms that would be '''allowed''': | ||
Line 863: | Line 863: | ||
===Add a sentence to {{tem|aboutfile-reminder}} and {{tem|imagecategory-reminder}} stating that if the user ingores them, a warning will be issued=== | ===Add a sentence to {{tem|aboutfile-reminder}} and {{tem|imagecategory-reminder}} stating that if the user ingores them, a warning will be issued=== | ||
{{ | {{Proposal outcome|passed|12-0|change templates}} | ||
Well, i saw a user who got warned because he/she ingored these templates. However, the templates don't say that a user can get a warning for ingoring them; and {{tem|reminder}} has a setence: "If the action continues, than a warning will be issued", so i believe it's acceptable to put this in these two templates as well. | Well, i saw a user who got warned because he/she ingored these templates. However, the templates don't say that a user can get a warning for ingoring them; and {{tem|reminder}} has a setence: "If the action continues, than a warning will be issued", so i believe it's acceptable to put this in these two templates as well. | ||
Latest revision as of 11:26, June 4, 2024
Create a template for FA archivescreate template 6-0 Let me know in the comments if there are any issues or possible fixes you have in mind with the templates. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
OpposeComments@YoshiFlutterJump: This was Baby Luigi's intended layout, and I don't see how structuring it the way you suggested is entirely possible anyways. (T|C) 20:15, 11 February 2018 (EST) I suggest putting a few rows as example next time so we can see how the template looks when used properly.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2018 (EST) Add a small link to MarioWiki:Appeals in the reminder/warning/last warning templatesadd link 13-0 Here's an example of what I want these to look like
Any changes to wording or comments, please note. Proposer: Baby Luigi (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsRegarding a rule in MarioWiki: Appeals, (1#: Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator cannot be appealed.), I had challenged it on Discord and I want to see that rule removed, hence why I haven't added an extra line saying that "Keep in mind that X given out by a member of staff cannot be appealed). But I don't know what the staff's official final say on that rule is, so I will edit that line accordingly once I get official confirmation. Ray Trace(T|C) 22:17, 11 February 2018 (EST)
For reference, here’s what the old userspace reminder said:
Delete the articles for Galaxy and Galaxy 2's conjecturally-named "minigames"delete only Bubble Blowing and Star Ball Rolling 2-13-0 But now that I've thought about it, those don't deserve articles either. There exist plenty of nameless minigames, such as the Hoohoo Spirit collecting and Guffawha Ruins platform jumping games from Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, numerous bonus games from the Donkey Kong Country series, and several racing games from Donkey Kong 64, which don't have articles, and I can't think of any that do. In other words, there's no precedent for the existence of articles on nameless minigames. Stuff like "Bob-omb Blasting" and "Crate Burning" can simply be described in the articles for the missions that feature these "minigames", which is how stuff like this is handled for other games (like the Blooper surfing missions or Roller Coaster Balloons from Sunshine), so why should Galaxy and Galaxy 2 be any different? So let's solve this inconsistency. Here are our options:
Proposer: 7feetunder (talk) Delete all of the conjecturally-named minigames
Delete Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing only
Do nothingCommentsChange the link in the Category barcanceled by proposer Here's an example of how this can be helpful. A reader who wants to get into editing is looking over a page as an example, say Goomba's. There's an infobox, article structure, images, etc. At the bottom is a bar with a list of categories. Wanting to know more about how these categories are structured, they may expect the "Categories" link to lead somewhere useful. It doesn't, and now this reader has to search through pages or ask for help on where to go. Even long-time editors, such as myself, would like an quick and easy way to get to the page they're looking for. Rather than go through those steps, the category link should just lead to the page with an explanation. Special:Categories gives a list of what categories are in use, but MarioWiki:Categories actually tells you how to use them. Proposer: Alex95 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI do support the proposal, but your options are rather... biased. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 13:08, 25 February 2018 (EST)
The link is really there for the reader (99% of wiki visitors), not the editors. Your scenario imagines a reader who wants to get into editing, but that is a very low percentage case. The vast majority of our traffic only reads. If they want to get into editing, they will be introduced to our help pages and {{MarioWiki}} at some point and see the categories link. The target audience of MarioWiki:Categories is the editor and isn't as useful as Special:Categories if your only goal is exploring the site. A reader can use the search box on Special:Categories to check out different categories we have, for example. The info on MarioWiki:Categories about our category structure and where to put categories probably isn't the reading that visitors came to the site for (deep Mario lore). Editors and would-be editors seeking category help will find MarioWiki:Categories through our help pages, where as visitors are not going to know that Special:Categories exists without the link since they're not roaming through Special:SpecialPages. That Categories link appears across the wiki, on every namespace, and it takes you to a page that let's you explore all the wiki's categories (makes sense). Not sure it should take you to a policy page instead! --Steve (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST)
Keep "Proposals" under "community" 1-6 Proposer: NSY (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsDo have any idea how visually unappealing that would look? Yikes! --Steve (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST)
You know, you *could* argue that "Featured Articles" are just as "community"-based like proposals are and thus would argue to put that under "community". Ray Trace(T|C) 18:11, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Make an exception for the Super Smash Bros. series in our coverage policyMake an exception 8-0 If we wanted to change our current coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, our current coverage policy offers two logical options: the series is either a guest appearance or a crossover. Calling it a guest appearance is not that good: there are a notable amount of characters, locations, items, and other elements pulled directly from the Mario franchise, and it figures heavily into the Smash series' promotion, so it doesn't seem particularly right to say that the Mario content is on the same level as Captain Rainbow or SSX on Tour. At the same time, however, calling it a crossover (which is the option that the wiki currently uses) isn't satisfying either: as much as the Mario content factors into the series, it doesn't take up a majority in the slightest, so it's disingenuous to treat it as if its content is equal in stature to Mario & Sonic or Fortune Street. Keep in mind that, as a crossover, every single subject within the series should get an individual page, and there's a certain point where covering every single special move and Smash Run enemy feels like it oversteps a boundary (which is to say nothing of smashwiki:the SmashWiki that already covers these subjects better than we ever could). The wiki already has made judgements about what content shouldn't be given individual pages, mainly with various stage elements, but that completely contradicts our existing policy. If neither option available to us is acceptable, then what should we do? Simple: make a third option. This proposal aims to add an exception to our coverage policy, essentially saying that the Smash series is neither a crossover nor a guest appearance, but something unique unto itself. If it is excluded from the other sections, then it would be entirely possible to come up with systematic changes that wouldn't involve broadly changing how every series is covered. Note that this proposal doesn't say what will change; it merely leaves the door open for changes in the first place. Discussions and proposals about the particulars can take place afterwards. A draft of the proposed section can be found at this link. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) (with input from Superchao (talk)) Support
OpposeCommentsPer what I said in the thread. I see no issue with how we are presently doing things, but I'm also open to a change. Due to that, I can neither support nor oppose, but I'll agree with whatever option goes throughI kinda have to anyway :) 19:43, 23 February 2018 (EST)
Sort of a nebulous proposal. Can't pass this and then make major changes because there's no detail of changes to be made here (other than make Smash its own thing, but we don't know what that really means yet). So then you'd need a new proposal of the changes you'd like to make, but you could have just made that proposal without this one. Anyway, it's a start! --Steve (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST)
Pie for Everyone. Pie for EVERYONE. Pie. For. ALL.vetoed by the administrators I know what you're expecting. It's the first of April, I know many of you hope for one of Ghost Jam's little pie stories. I'm sorry to tell you this, but...this isn't going to be one. Or at least not precisely. If you've jumped straight to this paragraph and didn't look at the proposal title, I'd suggest maybe scrolling down to something else that needs voting on. This is your last chance. Don't look up, don't read on, don't vote. Just either scroll on quickly or close your browser tab.
Anomaly #0103-Wiki This...effect, I guess would be the way to think of it, is a meme of sorts that effects users who take on the title of editor, either granted by others or taken by personal choice, and encourages them to add or otherwise embellish false information articles in a given Wiki's database. In the first stages, this is nearly indistinguishable from standard 'new editor' behavior. As the meme takes hold, however, this escalates into anger and destructive behavior. In several cases I've observed, effected users will continue to add false information and argue the point well past a reasonable point. Eventually, and I don't believe this part is an effect of the meme, rather a result of general human frustration, users will begin to not engage effected users and allow the changes they have forced to stay. The transition between these two states seems to happen fairly quickly and is highly contagious. You see, the third stage starts as soon as the changes made by effected users is no longer disputed. At this point, the article becomes an instance of the meme and is capable to spreading it to others. Infection happens instantaneously to anyone who reads the article. User infected with the meme in this way jump directly to the second stage of infection. Really, the contagious part is what makes this thing so scary. I've seen it jump across a few users all ready, but it seems to be...growing, if that makes sense, with each person. I fear that if this isn't gotten under control soon, it could grow large enough to engulf entire userbases in a matter of minutes. I'll see what I can come up with. Notes - October 2007 Notes - November 2007 Note - April 2014 Note - April 2015 Notes - The Age of Pies Pie help you all. So there you have it. I can already feel the urge to spread this to other places tapering off...but it's still there. Try to resist, that's my only advice. For the love of Pie, you have to. PIE. Proposer: Ghost Jam (talk) Support
SUPPORT
S.U.P.P.O.R.T
Praises for the Word of Pie
Do not create Super Mario Odyssey sublocation pagescanceled by proposer While some of these locations are pretty big and unique, like the Deep Woods and Snowline Circuit, most of them are simply extentions of the main world or too small and not so relevant by themselves, and presenting them disconnected from each other would make these pages feel short on content. Island in the Sky (Bowser's Castle), Rocky Mountain Summit (Forgotten Isle), Heliport (New Donk City), Glass Palace (Bubblaine) and Salt-Pile Isle (Mount Volbono) are some examples of locations which are, at most, glorified platforms with a Checkpoint Flag on/near them. There are also three Tostarena Ruins locations, three Water Plaza locations, two Iron Path locations; having an article for each one is unnecessary as they are part of a whole rather than defined places (which is also the case of things like the Waterfall Basin and Stone Bridge in Fossil Falls and the Tostarena Northwest Reaches). I believe there is enough space for information about these areas in the actual kingdom articles. An overview (what it is, where it is on the map, general layout, what enemies and characters are there) can be written in five lines or so. We do not have articles for Super Mario Galaxy planets, not even for the giant, named ones like the Haunted Mansion in Ghostly Galaxy. Even if (unlike the planets) the SMO locations are named in-game, they are as relevant to their game as planets are to SMG. So, I propose:
Proposer: Shiny K-Troopa (talk) Do not create any Odyssey sublocation article
Create separate articles for notable sublocations only
Leave everything as it is
Comments@TimeTurner, I see where you're going, actually. My problem is with locations that really do not have anything significant happening in them and those that blend in with the kingdom overworld. I was thinking more about how the Super Mario 64 world pages include sub-areas like the Lethal Lava Land volcano and the Snowman's Land igloo. In my perception the Courtyard in the Lake Kingdom is as important as the starting location in Tiny-Huge Island, for example, but I fully understand that the name can make a difference and that people might oppose because of it. About the selection, it might not be 100% complete, I confess. Shiny K-Troopa Talk 19:09, 2 April 2018 (EDT)
Add a section to MarioWiki:Naming regarding technical restrictionsadd section 10-1 A draft of the proposed text can be found here. Also, if you're wondering, Porplemontage green-lighted this proposal. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsSo if this succeeds, what will happen to the Iggy's Castle article? (Also, remind me for when I start my own franchise, to name a character "<[[#klunk]]>''," symbols included, just to mess with the ensuing wiki.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
Just thought about it but how about a notice template for such pages? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 17:00, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
@Reboot: It's not on the "assumption" that "#1" is parsed "Number One", it's about whether or not to use close matches for otherwise technically restricted titles. (T|C) 16:47, 3 April 2018 (EDT) Give the seven boss Tikis from DKCR their own articlesdon't create articles 2-4 Proposer: BooDestroyer (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI forgot to mention, but in order, they're called: Kalimba, Maraca Gang, Gong-Oh, Banjo Bottom, Wacky Pipes, Xylobone, and Cordian. BooDestroyer (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2018 (EDT) @YoshiFlutterJump They are different from the Koopalings in that the Koopalings are:
also, why should Gary or Johnson not have articles? They deserve articles as much as Otto or Heronicus. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2018 (EDT)
I fail to see how character personalities is any sort of viable argument against article creation. I can get on board with their extremely minor role and their appearance, but not their personality. Ray Trace(T|C) 00:54, 31 March 2018 (EDT) I should point out one thing: we don’t even have an article for them as a group. Tiki Tak Tribe just covers every enemy in the game, and is not devoted to the boss Tikis. At the very least, we need an article for them as a group. -YFJ (talk · edits) 13:19, 31 March 2018 (EDT) Smash Bros. Articles: What Stays and What Goes?make the changes 12-1
Note that this proposal isn't completely exhaustive: there are scattered pages like List of Mii Fighter Outfits and List of bonuses in Super Smash Bros. that also deserve scrutiny, but considering the subtle differences between each of them, it'd be best to tackle those individually and not overburden this proposal. Still, there's plenty that's already being covered here. It's a lot to take in, but these are changes that should be taken for all the same reasons as before. It's disingenuous to treat the Super Smash Bros. series as if its Mario content is even close to that of existing crossovers with the franchise like Fortune Street and Mario & Sonic. The wiki should strive to reflect that. Proposer: Time Turner (talk), with input from Superchao (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsDoc von Schmeltwick (talk), if you have problems with malware or whatever on SmashWiki, take it up with Porplemontage (talk), as he is the wiki owner, so that way future malware doesn't spread. Oh yeah, just because the name Super Smash Bros. is one word off from Super Mario Bros. doesn't make it a derivative series. In early development, it wasn't even going to have Nintendo characters.
@Time Turner: Why would we merge all special moves to the character that uses them? Wouldn't that cause inconsistencies? (T|C) 18:33, 2 April 2018 (EDT)
Shouldn't, on this basis, Meta-Ridley be merged with (the due to be kept) Ridley article rather than with a List of bosses article? It's the same character, after all. - Reboot (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2018 (EDT)
no change 2-6 This primarily affects {{species infobox}}. In the immediate aftermath, this proposal will be achieved by putting all three variables in the "See also" line (with appropriate {{#if:*}}s so that they can be stacked vertically), inside a new {{{see also}}} variable, which will be on the documentation and override the older variables if both the new and old variables are used. In the longer term, it may require use of a bot to make wiki-wide changes, especially if full alphabetisation (as opposed to priority-based sorting) is desired. Proposer: Reboot (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsSmall question: You bring up alphabetical ordering vs. priority ordering, but which one is this proposal rolling with? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 13:57, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
This proposal would seemingly have this enemy be in the same nebulous group as this enemy, without listing the steps in between. What we have now makes the most sense to me, and doesn't lump a bunch of stuff into an unworkable mess. (Also, what do you have against obsessing over taxonomy? It's one of the few ways I can distract myself from my bouts of depression...) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
Replace enemy sections with an infobox entryno change 2-2-9 While it's true that having some level articles with enemies sections and some with enemies in the levelbox would be inconsistent, I think this has to be considered with the usefulness of having sections with small lists of enemies. EDIT: Alex95 suggested the enemies levelbox section could be collapsible, solving my main concern with adding enemies sections to the levelbox. I've made an example of how this could look here (any suggestions for changes are welcome). EDIT 2: Proposer: The Retro Gamer (talk) Move all enemies sections to the levelbox, with the enemies section being collapsible.
Add enemies to the levelbox, but keep the enemy sections
Don't add enemies to the levelbox
Comments@Doc von Schmeltwick: Can you provide an example of a level article with a large amount of enemy variation? I'm not trying to doubt you, I just want some context so I can understand better. --The Retro Gamer 20:49, 29 April 2018 (EDT)
Ok, for reference, here's a list of the top 11 most-enemy populated levels:
--The Retro Gamer 21:44, 29 April 2018 (EDT)
Still thinking over, so I'm not going to vote yet, but keep in mind that a "spoiler box" is a thing as well. Like in Template:Species infobox. Perhaps this new section can be coded like that, if space is the main issue. 00:20, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
@Yoshi the SSM: Regarding the amount of work, keep in mind the changes could be implemented smoothly using a bot process with a bit of care (I used the same strategy to count the number of enemies in enemy sections above). --The Retro Gamer 19:34, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
@Wildgoosespeeder What I worry about is how it will look un-collapsed, when the "show" button is clicked. Not to mention that it still starts a slippery slope of what "basic level information" is. Every type of item? Every type of object? Every type of NPC species? Every type of obstacle? Amount of signs? Amount of trees? Amount of butterflies? Note how those got progressively more and more absurd. This is another thing I'm worried about. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
Part 2: What should be included in enemies lists?include counts 4-0 Proposer: The Retro Gamer (talk) Include enemy link and enemy counts
Only include enemy linkCommentsWhat would be listed as the enemy count for enemies that are created infinitely in a level, such as Goombas spawned from Pipes and Spinies thrown by Lakitus, if this proposal passes? --TheFlameChomp (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2018 (EDT) And how about enemies that respawn infinitely when off-camera, like literally everything in DKCTF? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2018 (EDT) Create a template for reception tablesno quorum 2-1 "A review listing template has been created to more efficiently present the information and prevent the summary from being a succession of "so and so said X, while so and so said Y". Here's the code and an explanation of the parameters: {| class="wikitable review_template" style="float:left;border:2px solid black;width:100%;font-size:100%;text-align:center;margin:5px;" cellpadding="4" !colspan="4" style="font-size:120%;text-align:center;background-color:silver"|Reviews |-style="background-color:#E6E6E6" |Release |Reviewer, Publication |Score |Comment |- |LaserActive |Mr. Hands, Mediocre Gamer |21/20 |''"[[Super Mario Bros.]] may lack the cinematic quality of modern games, but its kinetic high-energy charm is visceral enough."'' |- !colspan="4" style="background-color:silver;font-size:120%;text-align:center;"|Aggregators |-style="background-color:#E6E6E6" |colspan=2|Compiler |colspan=2|{{nw|Platform / Score}} |- |colspan=2|Metacritic |colspan=2|3DO ([www.placeholder.com 98%]), LaserActive ([www.placeholder.com 99%]) |}" However, I don't see why this is actually a template yet. It won't really hurt to add one (and given the many prior proposals to templatize certain repetitive features of the wiki), hence why I am proposing this. There are still many reviewers and aggregators out there, so it may take a while to add them in, but I've added quite a bit in the meantime. The only real problem is figuring out how to configure the URLs (since some links are inconsistent with others on the same site), but it's also something we can fix as we go on. One big change that supersedes the original is listing the reviews and aggregators in respective alphabetical order. I think that's a good way to go since none of the other possible methods seem doable. I have an aforementioned draft, which you can view here. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI'm pretty split on this proposal. On one hand, I'm not a huge fan of copying this very specific table with its raw-coding displayed article to article to article but on the other hand, I just don't see too much benefit from creating a template out of this either because of the sheer number of variables this review table has, unlike the proposal outcome template which is far simpler to write out. I don't have particularly strong opinions either way, though I am leaning on support there because I also think displayed the raw coding for this table in our policy page looks really messy from our end. Ray Trace(T|C) 22:43, 6 May 2018 (EDT) move the aforementioned category and restrict "outer space" 6-0 But I argue...not really. The proposer's request was perfectly rational, the rationales provided for the opposition were bad or otherwise not sufficient enough (no offense), and the proposal was overlooked. Here's why:
Basically, I'm proposing that we overturn the decision of the aforementioned proposal, restrict the term "outer space" in favor of "cosmic", and also add "outer space" to the list of frequently misused terms. "Cosmic" refers to something that merely appears to be in outer space but isn't always in outer space, and thus is more well-defined, clear-cut, and appropriate enough for any case. Yes, "cosmic" is clearly not THE perfect alternative, but I have yet to find an even more suitable term that addresses the issues above. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsIf you're wondering, "outer space" won't be restricted in places where it is legitimately referred to, as per the examples I mentioned above (and same as the other misused terms). Also, I'm going to respectfully go through the flaws of each counterargument in the previous proposal:
I would like to expand on this proposal with the analogy I made on Toadette the Achiever's talk page, hoping to further convince people that "Outer Space" is a gross term to use when referring to everything that is outside the planet of reference. (It's slightly edited.)
-- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 09:58, 21 June 2018 (EDT) @Toadette the Achiever Is that snow? Or is that the similar-looking-yet-harder icy crust that always coats the bottom of a deep freeze? I mean, Snowman Wario is there, but that's triggered by stuff falling on him from above, where the ice consistency would probably be different anyways. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (EDT)
Also, I mentioned that this could be renamed to Space Locations. Is Cosmic better than Space? Because if it is, (and I will say this again) that category needs something done too. Although, the names snowscapes, subterrean areas, haunted places, forests and jungles, hotels and inns, and cities and towns are names give for broad terms of what they cover. And if this follows after that, Outer Space or Cosmic (for proposal purposes) can exist with the Space category. But, is Cosmic better than Space? Yoshi the SSM (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2018 (EDT)
Change the way that recurring events in the Mario & Sonic series are handledno quorum 1-2 So, in summary, each version of an event from each game is split and given game-specific identifiers, the shared title is turned into a disambiguation page and About templates are added, events with different names between versions go to the unique names and events that only appear once remain unchanged. Proposer: BBQ Turtle (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThe way I see it, there should only be one page for each event that keeps all game appearances under headers, with separate infoboxes and details for each. I think this unitary management would be a lot tidier--after all, these events read like generic subjects with differing functions from game to game, akin to Frog. Bloating article titles with kilometric identifiers would feel forced and unappealing. This aside, good luck! There's many things to cover and you did a great job so far on those sponsors. -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:56, 2 July 2018 (EDT)
Merge golf terms to List of golf termsmerge 8-0 This would affect Albatross, Birdie, Bogey, Bunker (obstacle), Chip In, Eagle, Fairway, Fast Fairway, Flag Shot, Flower Patch, Green, Hole-in-One, Hole, Nice Shot, Out of Bounds, Par, Pin Shot, Pin, Rough and Tournament Green * - Note: "Generic subjects are worthy of their own article if they meet any of the following criteria...The subject is significant to the gameplay. This does not apply to sports games." Proposer: Reboot (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI am fine with either option. However, I am not voting for either, yet. I want to point out a few problems with the proposal. However, if these are address, then I can easily vote for it.
Wario Land 3 isn't a sports game, but a few of those things exist in it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2018 (EDT) @Owencrazyboy9: It'd probably by "Golf glossary" since it's not meant to be a proper term. (T|C) 22:46, 2 July 2018 (EDT)
Real World Subjects vs. Real World Termscanceled by proposer The following are examples of real-world terms that would be allowed:
The following are examples of real-world terms that would be forbidden:
The targeted pages will be merged into the glossary should this proposal pass. Also if this proposal passes, I will begin drafting some text to add to the generic subjects policy, which I will propose later on. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Doc von Schmeltwick: Like I said, I'm open to simply merging the terms into the glossary, depending on if it would be better. As it stands, the latter terms basically repeat information found elsewhere, and for what it's worth, I wouldn't mind seeing List of minigames as a page. (T|C) 15:51, 9 July 2018 (EDT) I partly agree and partly disagree with this one, so I thought I'd share my thoughts here. I agree that Glitch, Genre and anything similar should go, but I'm not so sure about the other three, particularly Minigame, which, while it needs some work, still contains a lot of valid and Mario-specific content (Especially the Mario Party stuff). I think getting rid of some of the pages like this is the right thing to do, and I'm definitely on board with that, but I don't quite agree on exactly what needs to go, which is why I'm not voting. BBQ Turtle (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2018 (EDT)
Add a sentence to {{aboutfile-reminder}} and {{imagecategory-reminder}} stating that if the user ingores them, a warning will be issuedchange templates 12-0 Here's what i want it to look like:
Support
OpposeCommentsPerhaps {{warning}} can be linked to? 14:52, 13 July 2018 (EDT) |