MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/51

All past proposals are archived here. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.

Previous proposals

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70

Create a template for FA archives

Template:ProposalOutcome 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 here and here.

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)
Deadline: February 18, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per proposal.
2. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per proposal, although I think it should look more like the one used for proposals.
3. Baby Luigi (talk) Per proposal.
4. Camwood777 (talk) - A template like this would be more consistent and useful.
5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
6. Mister Wu (talk) Looks clean enough, and a template should always help with consistency.

Comments

@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 templates

Template:ProposalOutcome 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.

Here's an example of what I want these to look like

Please stop making unconstructive edits on the Super Mario Wiki. This isn't a warning, and it's possible that you made a mistake by accident or without realizing it; this is simply a reminder for your information. If the action continues, then a warning will be issued. Thanks for reading and keep contributing. If you feel this reminder has been unfairly given out, you may appeal it.

This is a warning to stop your inappropriate behavior on the Super Mario Wiki. Please adhere to the rules or you will be blocked from editing this site. If you feel this warning has been unfairly given out, you may appeal it.

This is your last warning. The next time you break the rules in any way, you will be blocked from editing the Super Mario Wiki. If you feel this last warning has been unfairly given out, you may appeal it.

Any changes to wording or comments, please note.

Proposer: Baby Luigi (talk)
Deadline: February 18, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Baby Luigi (talk)
2. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Strong Support: It should be clear for users what to do if they feel they were formally warned for no reason. It just SHOULD be clear, period. I also strongly agree that appeal rule #1 should be repealed, since admins (like any other user) may make mistakes, and appealing a warning issued by an administrator would make zero difference compared to appealing a warning issued by an normal user. Baby Luigi clearly knows what she's doing, and I intend to stand by this proposal by all means.
3. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Both users have really good points. Per both Toadette the Achiever and Baby Luigi.
4. 7feetunder (talk) Per proposal. Can't see any reason not to do this.
5. Time Turner (talk) Per all. Users should be able easily learn about their options.
6. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all. The only downside is that we’ll get a LOT more bad faith appeals, but that’s not a major issue.
7. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all, I only found out it existed after someone recommended I used it, so it should be more visible.
8. Jazama (talk) Per all.
9. LuigiMaster123 (talk) I didn't even know appealing was a thing until I saw this proposal. Per all.
10. Niiue (talk) Per all.
11. Camwood777 (talk) - This is so trivial, I honestly thought we would've done this day one. This gets all my support, and then some.
12. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per everyone except LuigiMaster123 and especially YoshiFlutterJump.
13. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) From what I can see, the current way to access it is through a maintenance template....which isn't particularly helpful. In fact, it's a hindrance.

Comments

Regarding 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)

I did bring this up in the admin boards like I said I would. I'm honestly not sure where we all stand on the Appeals line, but we've unanimously agreed that admin warnings should not be appealed. 23:02, 11 February 2018 (EST)

I like how I don't count. --Glowsquid (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2018 (EST)

...I misread your post, so never mind I guess. 23:16, 11 February 2018 (EST)

Two edit conflicts in a row?! Anyway, one reason we have that rule is that admins can already remove warnings without appeals, so what’s the point of appealing an admin warning if you can just personally ask the admin who gave it to you to remove it? Sounds illogical to me. And by the way, we used to have that link on the userspace reminder, but it was removed when the template was repurposed for unknown reasons. -YFJ (talk · edits) 23:19, 11 February 2018 (EST)

I had argued that if that was the case, then why do we even need MarioWiki:Appeals in the first place? Why can't we settle it internally with emails, pm's, DM on chat, etc.? I mean, with this system, there will already be discussion taking place on the staff boards regardless if the administrator themselves issued a warning or not if that was made in bad faith. Ray Trace^(T|C) 23:31, 11 February 2018 (EST)

For reference, here’s what the old userspace reminder said:
This notice is official and is considered to be a permanent record focusing on the edit history for your account. This notice is not to be removed under any circumstances; any attempt to remove this notice will lead to a warning being issued. If this notice was not issued by an administrator and you feel you have received it in error, you may appeal it.
-YFJ (talk · edits) 11:12, 14 February 2018 (EST)

@YoshiFlutterJump In your first comment, you stated that there is no point in appealing an admin warning because that admin won't let it be removed. There's more than one admin. So the issuer is clearly going to vote for it to stay, but that doesn't mean that the other admins will. It is for this reason that I support an allowance for admin warning appeals. None will probably succeed, and it's not up to me, but that's what I have to say.

Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 19:37, 16 February 2018 (EST)

Yeah, I understand, but you can’t change anything big about how the wiki works unless you’re an admin, and as Alex95 said, the admins are in favor of their own warnings not being appealed...which makes sense because it’s their issued warnings in question. And while it may not be a technical right of the admins, they have the right to remove ANY warning, without an appeal, even if another admin issued it, so long as they are doing so for good reason. -YFJ (talk · edits) 20:58, 16 February 2018 (EST)

Delete the articles for Galaxy and Galaxy 2's conjecturally-named "minigames"

Template:ProposalOutcome 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 {{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 {{conjecture}} templates. Even worse, "Star Ball Rolling" and "Bubble Blowing" aren't even minigames. The Star Ball and 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 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?

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:

• Delete all of the conjecturally-named minigames: If this option passes, Bob-omb Blasting, Bubble Blowing, Star Ball Rolling, Crate Burning, and Fluzzard Gliding all go, with only ray surfing surviving. Any relevant content these articles contain will be merged into other articles.
• Delete Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing only: If you feel that the others should stay, let's at least get rid of the "minigames" that can't even be called that.
• Do nothing: Self-explanatory. Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing continue their meaningless existence.

Proposer: 7feetunder (talk)
Deadline: February 20, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Delete all of the conjecturally-named minigames

1. 7feetunder (talk) My preferred option.
2. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Second preferred choice. After all, we'd basically be the Department of Redundancy if the articles stick around, but I digress. Per 7feetunder.

Delete Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing only

1. 7feetunder (talk) Even if my preferred option doesn't win, these need to go.
2. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Yeah, we really need to say bye-bye to these. Why do we have these articles anyway? But I don’t quite agree with deleting the others; they’re minigames, just like ray surfing, and as such need to stay. The other minigames just need a {{conjecture}} template, not outright deletion, and we do need to give the nameless minigames from other games articles as well.
3. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per YoshiFlutterJump.
4. Baby Luigi (talk) Per all.
5. Alex95 (talk) - Per all. I always wondered why they were there, but I never bothered to do anything about it :P
6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
7. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Preferred choice. Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing aren't minigames; they're just fancy ways to traverse the galaxies. Per all.
8. Mario jc (talk) Per all.
9. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all.
10. Camwood777 (talk) - Wait, we classed these as minigames? I didn't even know we did that. While the others are certainly mini-games by some definition, these... Aren't. They need to go.
11. BBQ Turtle (talk) It's practically the same as riding Plessie, and that doesn't require a separate article, but I think the others should be classed as minigames, per all.
12. Mister Wu (talk) Those two surely aren't minigames, but rather mechanics used in a few galaxies.
13. Ro money (talk) Per all.

Change the link in the Category bar

Template:ProposalOutcome 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.

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)
Deadline: March 4, 2018, 23:59 GMT Cancellation date: February 25, 2018, 21:00 GMT

Support

1. Alex95 (talk) - We strive to be helpful!
2. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
3. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per Alex95.
4. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per proposal.

Comments

I do support the proposal, but your options are rather... biased. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 13:08, 25 February 2018 (EST)

How so? 13:11, 25 February 2018 (EST)

"Keep things unnecessarily complex" is your opinion, and it immediately paints anyone voting for that option in a negative light. "Support/oppose" works fine. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 13:20, 25 February 2018 (EST)

Ah. I like trying to put a humorous spin on things, but I see what you mean. Corrected. 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 {{Wikipolicy}} 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)

Would it be beneficial to add a quick explanation of categories at the top of MarioWiki:Categories? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 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.

...That might be a better idea, actually. 15:24, 25 February 2018 (EST)

Even if it is an editor, we don't just link to policy pages in the body of an article. Special:Categories is a neutral thing that covers the entire wiki. You could be on someone's talk archive, click the Categories link, and it's about mainspace categorization. Doesn't fit in all cases. As editors, you're naturally biased to want to make the site tuned for editors, but the wider audience has no use for our policy pages. Special:Categories at least allows for more exploration of the wiki, which is why they're visiting. --Steve (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2018 (EST)

Hmm, alright, I guess that make sense. From the reader's point of view, a comprehensive explanation of how categories are set up would make no sense to them. And if you're an editor, chances are you already know of MarioWiki:Categories anyway. I'll cancel this, however, a link between both of them would be helpful to both sides, whether you want to get into editing and want to know more or you need to find the category that needs to be added. 16:00, 25 February 2018 (EST)

Move "proposals" from "community" to "navigation" on the sidebar

Template:ProposalOutcome 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.

Proposer: NSY (talk)
Deadline: March 4, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. NSY (talk) Per my proposal.

Oppose

1. Alex95 (talk) - The main proposals page is under "community" because it involves the community. Users come here to propose new changes and to vote on said changes. It's as much of a community project as The 'Shroom or the forums.
2. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per Alex95.
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Alex95.
4. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per Alex95.
5. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Alex95.
6. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per Alex95.

Comments

Do have any idea how visually unappealing that would look? Yikes! --Steve (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST)

I hate to question the person who runs the wiki but could you explain why it would be visually unappealing. NSY (talk)

For the reasons Alex95 brought forth, I guess. ^(T|C) 16:00, 26 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)

I would support that. -YFJ (talk · edits) 20:15, 28 February 2018 (EST)

So would I. ^(T|C) 22:49, 28 February 2018 (EST)

FA's are the best articles the wiki has to offer. Sure they're picked by the community, but the final list of articles for people to peruse are just wiki articles, and wiki articles are navigation. Proposals are 100% community input on changes to make. --Steve (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2018 (EST)

Make an exception for the Super Smash Bros. series in our coverage policy

Template:ProposalOutcome This proposal stems largely from a discussion thread started by Blocky, and it's recommended to read that first.

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))
Deadline: March 9, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
2. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
3. Superchao (talk) Per proposal.
4. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per proposal. I was actually more than ready to tag these pages for deletion anyway.
5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
6. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per proposal.
7. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Sounds good. If someone wants to find out more information about anything in the SSB series, they go to either the Smash Wiki or another Wiki which deals with the character they are looking for. Per proposal.
8. Camwood777 (talk) - Per proposal... I can't say anything else here, it's all been said, weh.

Comments

Per 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)

I find we cover a lot of non-Mario things than Mario things when covering the Super Smash Bros. series, since Time Turner says that Mario content doesn't even come close to the majority of Smash's total content. I am neutral, just like Alex95, but because I don't know what this proposal will imply in the future. My hope is less non-Mario content gets covered on Super Mario Wiki as SmashWiki offers the best coverage and is the most cited source. We should just merely link to SmashWiki for non-Mario things but use {{NIWA}} for Mario game fighters/items/stages/etc., but I realize a lot of people are not on-board with that idea so easily. Don't think of my thoughts as negative. We should take pride in our ability to specialize in the Mario franchise instead of overreaching into other series that those articles end up mostly getting neglected for longer periods of time. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 00:01, 24 February 2018 (EST)

I do agree that our coverage of Smash is probably more comprehensive that necessary, but I don't think that there is really anything wrong with it. Nevertheless, I do see what Time Turner is saying. I would support this, but choose not to until I have some idea of exactly what we are changing. It's not enough for me to decide whether or not to make a change; I need to agree with whatever change is specifically proposed.

Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 14:09, 25 February 2018 (EST)

To be clear, no specific change is being proposed at the moment. This proposal's goal is to allow those future changes, whatever they may be, to occur in the first place. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 14:10, 25 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)

I definitely intend this to be a start. I have thoughts on what should and shouldn't stay, but so does everyone else, and charging forward with "a, b, and d should all be deleted, but not c and e" would be more trouble than its worth (and that'd contradict our coverage policy in the first place, hence this proposal). Hello, I'm Time Turner. 14:46, 25 February 2018 (EST)

Steve's comment is exactly why I'm not voting in this proposal. I've already DM'ed Time Turner how I felt about this and his comment is pretty much my reasons for concern. Ray Trace^(T|C) 18:12, 28 February 2018 (EST)

Exact same reason why I'm neutral myself. ^(T|C) 15:18, 1 March 2018 (EST)