MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/17

Any proposal decided and past is archived here. Use the scroll box to see votes and comments. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page. Change FA rules part 3 NEEDS ALL MARIO APPEARANCES 10-0 And finally, I'll finish off my proposals with this Rule:Change the rule that says needs all appearances of the character to needs all mario appearances of the character. Reason: This rule is redundant with another rule that states that articles cannot have any unmario appearances, if this rule stays; it will cancel about the featurability of the non-mario articles even if they are the best articles on the wiki! Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk) (With ideas from Time Q (talk)) Deadline: October 14th, 2009 (17:00.00) Needs All "Mario" Appearances Marioguy1 (talk) - Proposal LeftyGreenMario (talk) Just making the MarioWiki only have Mario stuff (plus Yoshi and DK parts) and ONLY the Mario stuff makes MarioWiki look like a "one trick pony". Time Q (talk): I'm copying this from the FA talk page: "What is wrong with the current rule in my opinion is that since we're the Mario Wiki, nobody expects to read non-Mario content here. If people come here to read an article about, say, Kirby, they don't expect any information that has nothing to do with Mario. There are other sources of information then. See: Kirby's or Ganondorf's role in the Marioverse is bigger than some original Mario character's. It would be unfair to reject FA status for characters like Ganondorf when the only reason is that they originated from a different series. Articles should cover Mario content, that's our task. And any article that meets this requirement should get the chance to become featured." Castle Toad (talk) Per all Stooben Rooben (talk) — Per all. Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk) Per all. Ihadchortles47 (talk) Per all Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Okay, now I see your point. As long as there is a short background section included, I agree with this! T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all. Gamefreak75 (talk) Per all. Single Out Some Articles Comments BMB: What do we care about wikia wikis? We're the mariowiki and if our content is good, who cares what zeldapedia thinks? We care about the community, our community, not zeldapedia's, not Kirby Wiki's and not Wikipedia's Marioguy1 (talk) MG1: Think about the first sentence I said, "What if you were in their shoes?" I'm surprised you even say that about other Wiki's! The way you stated that was very cruel, because I help out with other Wiki's along with other users on this Wiki, and they would probaly agree with me on this. Our community has many things to do with Kirby, Zelda, Samus, and all the other characters. That's why we need them to stay in this wiki, they are very important to our Wikia!!! Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Just to add, there is a DK, Wario, and Yoshi Wikia, so, in your words, your saying we should get rid of them because they are techically non-mario. Is that what you want? Baby Mario Bloops (talk) I'm sorry if I add more confusion-spice to this stew of discussion, but isn't MG1s point just to lighten the requirements for an article to become an FA? To me it sounds like he's just saying "An article can become a FA, even if the article cannot contain all the infos related to the chara (such as Ganondorf)". Am I misinterpreting things? - Edofenrir (talk) Thank you edo, you hit the nail on the head! BMB: Sorry, I shouldn't have been so strict, what I meant was I think that we should not discriminate, this is just racism in another form. No matter how you put it this is like gamism, very very bad :( Stop the gamism, feel the power!!! Marioguy1 (talk) Yeah, I thought for a sec a read it wrong. Sorry! Yes, lets stop the Wikism here (just made it up). Probaly should change my vote a little bit (talk to Dim. Kn. (he probaly just agreed with what I said)). I'm sorry, but I am still opposing this. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Time Q, there is mostly Mario content on the non-mario articles! We need to balance it out a little by adding some information about them being non-mario. Seriously, you got to admit that we do need to balance stuff out by adding a little bit of themself, read the above, and you'll see my reasons... Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Hm, no, the characters' roles outside the Marioverse simply don't matter for our wiki. It can shortly be mentioned in the introductory sentence, but not more. Actually, I don't really understand why you're opposing this proposal. Your reason sounds like you would support it... Time Q (talk) Well, what do you mean by that! I don't really understand what you telling me! I love other series! They have a right to be here, because that is what a wikia is! It shows all the stuff included in it. Yes, they should not have too much stuff about there origin, but at least a background section, about a paragraph (maybe two at most), be added to their article!!! Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Um, some characters like Ganondorf only appeared alongside with Mario exclusively in the Super Smash Bros. series, which I don't really consider it to be part of the Mario series. The Donkey Kong series and the Yoshi series are branches off the Mario series, but Super Smash Bros. isn't from what I assume. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) "Mario appearances" means everything that our wiki covers. This includes Super Smash Bros. as well (no matter if you consider it part of the Mario series or not). Time Q (talk) Whoa, looks like one of my proposals is going to pass, one is going to fail and one is going to end up in no quorum. Those are the only three possible results for a proposal except for deletion and trust me, I could make a random proposal and then delete it :P Marioguy1 (talk) Did You Know... CHOOSE TRIVIA FROM ANY ARTICLE 9-0 ...that there are quite a lot of proposals here at the moment? This one's the seventh one, so lets hope that lucky 7 will guide this proposal on its way to a good decision. Anyway, you all know the "Did You Know" section of the main page. This page is currently updated by me and it shows three more or less interesting facts from recently created articles. However, some voices have arisen, claiming that it might be better to change the sources of info for this section. That would mean that the trivia in there could be from every article that was ever created here, regardless of age. Using this policy would make room for witty, interesting trivia in that section, but it would also rob recently created articles of their base to be showcased. This proposal's purpose is to give those arisen voices a chance to be heard, as well as potential opposing voices to arise as well. Proposer: Edofenrir (talk) (Inspired by Stooben Rooben (talk) and Walkazo (talk)) Deadline: October 17. 2009, 8:00 pm. Put trivia from every article ever created in that section FunkyK38 (talk) I think this is a good idea. Making the trivia section longer will help the main page to be less lopsided (Every time we switch featured articles, or get a new piece of recent news, it looks weird.) I'm all for beefing up the main page. Monteyaga (talk) - Per Funky. Stooben Rooben (talk) — As I said on this page, all articles (whether they're old or new) have interesting content that users may not even be aware of. Marioguy1 (talk) - I'm trying to make a point against discrimination here. On the FI page with that SMB nom, in my above proposal with the allow non-mario characters thing and now here. I can not take some articles being singled out from other articles and I won't. Edofenrir (talk) - Ok, here goes my vote. I want the trivia in that template to be wittier, therefore a bigger source might be helpful. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all. Walkazo (talk) - As I said in the original discussion, old subjects still have lots of interesting trivia to offer. New subjects get enough press without Did You Know?, so using the template to unearth obscure facts would be more worthwhile an endeavour. Gamefreak75 (talk) - Per all. Mario64fanatic (talk)-Per all Put only trivia from recently created articles in that section Comments I will leave this proposal here first and vote later on. - Edofenrir (talk) FunkyK38: You know that this proposal just deals with where the trivia parts will be taken from, do you? The change will not affect how long the main page will be. Maybe I should rewrite that part. It's misleading... - Edofenrir (talk) Well, that does help, but the main page does look a bit lopsided. Maybe you could make the trivia a bit longer, too? Just for when we are lacking in information on one side. To make it look better. I'm still behind you on this, though. FunkyK38 (talk) I could try to adjust it within my possibilities, but the mainpage's appearance also depends on the five other templates. If one of these template gets changed, the adjustment will be in vain again... Edofenrir (talk) Well, if we need to fix it, we can. I'm only saying we put more trivia in to even things out. FunkyK38 (talk) I like the idea of using only the most recent articles as a source for the Did You Know section. However, I think that if there's really not enough notable facts in the most recent articles, we should take them from other articles as well. But the main focus should still lie on our new articles, in my opinion. Time Q (talk) Edofenrir: If this proposal passes, could you (or whoever is going to update the section) still prefer more recent articles over older ones? That would be cool. But that's just my opinion and it's your job, so it's your decision of course. Time Q (talk) I could of course check the newest articles for witty trivia, before checking older ones, if that is wished. - Edofenrir (talk) Definition of "Administrators" PATROLLERS ARE ADMINISTRATORS 10-0 I feel this is an important matter, due to a recent debate that a few of our users are having, I feel it is time to redefine the term "administrators". Some are saying that Administrators are confined to Sysops, Bureaucrats, and Stewards. Others are saying that Patrollers should be included as well. I am in support of the latter, since our Patrollers help with the clean-up and organization of the wiki as well as helping the Sysops in decisions that we can only make. The Patrollers are given extra powers to help keep the wiki in order, they also have access to a "secret" board in the forum so that we can discuss issues among ourselves. I feel that we should redefine our official meaning of Administrators (Sysops, Bureaucrats, and Stewards) to a more moderate meaning to include the Patrollers (those who have the necessary powers to bring trolls to justice and enforce the rules). Proposer: super Mario Bros. (talk) Deadline: Tuesday, 20 October 2009, 17:00 Support Super Mario Bros. (talk) Per me. Knife (talk) That page is pretty outdated. Anyone committed to helping the wiki is an admin in my eyes. Patrollers are trusted users with the responsibility to protect the wiki from vandalism. How can I not think of them as admins? Edofenrir (talk) - In my opinion, patrollers are semi-admins, which makes them basically admins too, even if just lower-ranked ones. Marioguy1 (talk) - Lemme show you my views: Admin = Patroller, Sysop, Bureaucrat, Steward . Patroller = Patroller . Sysop = Sysop . Bureaucrat = Bureaucrat + Sysop . Steward = Interwiki, Steward, Widget Editor, Mayor. See how that works out? Ralphfan (talk) – Per all. Stooben Rooben (talk) — Per SMB. Patrollers are users that are trusted enough to block vandals on the wiki. I see no harm in allowing them free reign to remove unnecessary support votes. (Though, I still think removing support votes is rather silly.) If anything gets too out of hand, it can be taken care of. Walkazo (talk) - Per all. "Sysop" can already be used to describe Sysops and up (since all the higher ranks keep their Sysop rank, they still count as Sysops), so "Administrator" is just a superfluous synonym as it is now. Marwikedor (talk) - Per all. Randoman123456789 (talk) - Per all. Monteyaga (talk) - Per all Oppose Comments I would support that, but what I don't like about this proposal is that it has quite a huge impact on a previous one. It said that any admin is allowed to remove support votes from FA nominations they think are "invalid". In the comments section of said proposal, Marioguy1, Edofenrir and I agreed that admins are sysops and bureaucrats only, excluding patrollers. Who knows how many people who supported that proposal did so because they believed only sysops and bureaucrats would get the privilege? If the definition of "admin" is immediately changed now, that's hardly fair. I know it sounds like I'm just annoyed by the proposal's outcome, but I hope you see my point. Time Q (talk) I see your point, indeed, but I doubt it would make any difference if only sysops could enforce that removals, or if patrollers could do that as well. If I recall correctly, Stooben Rooben said something about that even regular users should be allowed to do that, something I would encourage as long as someone looks over. As ordered by the page Knive posted, sysops are urged to not place themselves too high above regular users, so they shan't place themselves over patrollers as well. Therefore I see no problem in this proposal, even if it minorly affects a previous one. - Edofenrir (talk) My philosophy has always been that users should have equal rights to that of the Administrators. (As long as it doesn't pertain to Administrative matters, of course.) -- Stooben Rooben (talk) The FA policy should actually be updated to reflect the new terminology if this passes: just say "Sysops" instead of "Administrators" and it'll mean the same thing. Personally, I'm neutral as to whether patrollers should or shouldn't be allowed to remove FA votes (though I am leaning towards Stooben's equal rights mantra), but I do feel that granting them that ability based on a terminology quibble is a tad slimy; the honest thing to do would be to decide "yes" or "no" in a discussion that is separate from any naming pretenses. - Walkazo (talk) This is actually based on a trivial argument that was between Time Q and Tucayo, whether Patrollers are considered Administrators and are allowed the same editing rights as Sysops. I meant no sliminess when I posted this proposal (I'm sure you don't think that I meant to), and I actually wanted a direct way to deal with the situation as I understood it. Super Mario Bros. (talk) This is an interesting topic, especially considering the fact that the term "Administrator" is used to describe Sysops on most other wikis that don't have the rank of Patroller. The latest MediaWiki version doesn't say "Sysop", it says "Administrator", and that can be an issue when we upgrade. I believe that patrollers should be allowed the same editing rights as sysops, but to avoid confusion, I think we should refer to them as "Junior Administrators" or something along those lines. Thoughts? --Yoshario (talk) Sounds good to me. It would clear up confusion, and Junior Administrator sounds more official than Patrollers in my opinion (Patroller is also a misnomer of sorts, we also have Blocking and Rollback). Also, an issue that I will bring up on the Talk:Main Page will need to be addressed as well (about a possible glitch with Patrolling). Super Mario Bros. (talk) Personally, I'd hate to be labeled a "Junior" anything: to me, it sounds like it's devaluing the rank (being a Patroller is more than almost being a Sysop). I also think "Patroller" sounds more official (and I think "Sysop" sounds better than "Administrator" too...). And to make this paragraph worth-while, in response to your your earlier post, SMB, yes, I didn't mean that you were being slimy, I meant that people with a grudge about the other proposal's passing might take this proposal the wrong way and try to make something of it. I just don't want to see any fights breaking out over misunderstandings. - Walkazo (talk) Platformer levels articles KEEP AS IS 4-0-9 Some platforming levels (like Super Mario World articles) has whole article. Some has section in world (like SMB3). These in articles aren't short, but they sound like walkthroughs (Donut Ghost House). Also they contain basic errors (for example in Iggy's Castle we hear "Hitting the Yellow P-Switch will cover up some of the holes in the ground."). Where is yellow P-Switch? SMW has only Blue and Gray P-Switches. Propeser: era64 (talk) Deadline: October 14th, 2009 17:00PM Extended: October 21st, 2009 17:00PM Each world article contains all levels in world Walkazo (talk) - Merging the levels into the worlds would streamline navigation and cut back on stubs and red links. Yes, there are many good level articles, and yes, with enough effort they can all be good, but that's a long way away, and in the meantime, the case-by-case policy isn't cutting it: it just looks sloppy. Merging would not remove any information from the Wiki or undo what hard work has been done - it would simply move the level pages in their entirety (templates and all) to sections of the world articles. There shouldn't be a stigma about whether or not something gets a page: the important thing is the information, not the presentation. Also, I personally disagree with the name-vs-number rationale: just because a level (or anything else, for that matter) has a name shouldn't mean it is any more pageworthy than one which happens to be identified with numbers instead of words: that merely reflects the arbitrary style the designers decided to go with for that particular title. In a perfect world everything (both named and numbered) would have an article, but we're not there yet, and merging would make that less apparent. Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk) Walkazo's sounds more reasonable. If we expand these sections, they can end up being split later. Phoenix Rider (talk) As Walkazo said it is about the information. If the levels have little information on them it's much easier to read a comprehensive list than to have to click on each one individually. Knife (talk) - I'm going to have to agree that we are getting biased about articles with names vs. numbers. Every level has article about it Continue like is actually Time Q (talk): Probably this isn't the best solution actually, but IMO it's the best we can do now. Even if I'd love to see in-depth articles on Mario levels, I guess it's okay to merge some of them in world articles (as we do with the Super Mario Bros. games and probably more). But levels in more recent games are often complex enough to give them separate articles (especially if they are named, not just "World 1-2", but actual names. Those in Super Mario World are actual names for me as well). To sum it up: I think "case by case" is the solution here, rather than a general decision. Marioguy1 (talk) - Sorry but as another user said before me: If something 'aint broken, don't fix it! These articles just need some help. Edofenrir (talk) - Aside from the fact that I created about 60 articles for Wario Land 2 levels and worlds, and I would be really annoyed if they were all merged: I concur with Marioguy1. I am currently at it to revamp the articles for SMB3, and once I'm finished with that, I will take a look at SMW. These articles just need some maintenance/rewrites. Perhaps making a PipeProject would be meaningful, but don't make the situation more complicated with rashly decided merges/splits/etc. Gamefreak75 (talk)Per all. Stooben Rooben (talk) — I think the original reason we kept things this way is because those levels didn't have a 'name' per se, like Super Mario World's levels did. Either way, per all. Yoshario (talk) – Per all. Ralphfan (talk) – It would be way too much work. Plus, the system we currently have appears to be working. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per Time Q. Also, I'd like the Yoshi's Island levels kept separate. Super-Yoshi (talk) - Per all. Comments I abstain from voting on this proposal. I feel that we need a uniform way to have these articles, but we would end up with many more stubs, which would take up space on our server as well as make us look unorganized. I feel before any action is taken, we need to expand these little stub sections. After that, we can reconsider making it with each article. Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk) I change my mind. I think Walkazo has a point. Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk) Walkazo: "Merging would not remove any information from the Wiki" - Yes, it would. For example, we could not categorize the levels separately. Time Q (talk) I concur here. I can tell that I constructed my Wario Land 2 level articles as independant articles. If they are simply tacked together, they will get stupid and repetative. And if they are rewritten to be less stupid and repetative, then it can no longer be said that my work wasn't reverted in any way. I can also see that parts of my articles get ripped apart and re-combined with other parts, and... I just don't think that's necessary :/ - Edofenrir (talk) Time Q: Good point. The only solution I can think of is to include raw lists of applicable levels in the category summaries themselves; it might not be conventional categorization, but in the end, the readers will be presented with all the pages/sections that they're looking for, so it'll still get the job done - and it could even do it better than the straight categories, as we'll have more control on the organization of the data. Instead of having the levels all mixed up, as they are now, we could subdivide the list of levels into their parent games. See here for an example of what I mean and some more justification. Edofenrir: it's more like it would be forcing you (or someone else) to rewrite all your hard work - but infoboxes and much of the text will stay, as will the information itself - which is the biggest part of anyone's contributions. Rewrites are a way of life on any database, as is trimming back on repetition; it's painful, but it's necessary if it'll present the info in an clearer, more concise way. I also thought of two more arguments for merging. The first is minor: in plot-driven games, the story would flow much better if it were all on one page, whereas there has to be short recaps on the individual level pages (at times). The second is also about continuity between articles: none of the missions or episodes ("levels" by any other name) of the 3D titles (Super Mario 64 etc.) have individual pages - a point always seems to be ignored when these debates comes up. The only difference is that the 3D episodes take place in exactly the same area of a world (give or take enemies and interchangeably reachable/unreachable obstacle courses, platforms, planets - and other things like that), whereas the 2D games are spread out in different areas of a world. Is that enough of a difference to continue splitting one genre while merging the other? - Walkazo (talk) I actually think that 2D platformers and 3D platformaers are hard to compare. I disagree with the comparison "Course = World" and "Mission = Level" for different reasons. The first one is the one you mentioned already: The setting in a course is always the same, while only the objectives differ. A level is an independant instance. You can f.e. not play two levels at once. In Super Mario 64 however, you enter a course and have access to the objectives of every mission from the start. If you compare missions with levels, that would mean you play six levels at once in that game. The second reason is: Take a look at Super Mario World. The game is notable for it's branching level system, and many levels have more than one exit, hence you can complete them in more than one way, which gains you different results. If we regard your objection here (different missions throughout an instance equals different levels), that would mean we have to split many of the SMW level articles, just because you can complete them in two ways. I think that would not be meaningful. - Edofenrir (talk) Bloc Partier: If you vote for the third option, all Wario Land world articles would be kept as well. May I ask why you prefer the first option? Time Q (talk) Hmmm true. I just now thought about the Yoshi's Island levels. I would definitely like those separate. Thanks for the clearing up there. -- Bloc Partier (talk) Ah, something that popped into my mind just now. Merging levels into the world article isn't always a warrant for good, non-gameguidish articles. Look at this one for example. It shows us the same flaws the proposal tries to attach with single articles. One of the main reasons for merging this articles, the improvement of quality, seems to be forfeit with this. Please take this into account before giving a final vote. - Edofenrir (talk) That is a pretty heinous world article... While it's true that bad writing can crop up at every level, at least on world articles, the re-writers won't be as pressured to keep the sections as long as if an entire article depended on it (no matter how you justify it, halving an page is still halving a page, and a lot of people balk at that prospect). Like Bloc Partier, I'm basing my opinions mostly on what I've seen with Yoshi's Island: half five-page walkthroughs, half five-line stubs, both of which require hours of work to fix-up. Rewriting each and every YI page is even more daunting a task than fixing Pipe Land; the difference is, Pipe Land can be trimmed at first to make it less of an eyesore and re-expanded/expanded at a later date whereas the individual pages will not stand up on their own if they're stripped down to stubs and left for a few days. The obvious solution is to do your research before even trying to tackle the pages, but unfortunately, only the really dedicated writers will do that sort of thing (plus, doing things in steps is simply easier, no matter how good an editor you are). As for your earlier point about the SMW levels, you do have a point - I was just saying how, superficially, someone might think "mission = level" and wonder why only one gets pages; from that perspective, merging would seem more consistent. The question is, which way of thinking will be more prevalent. Our goal should be to make navigation as easy as possible for the largest number of people, and I feel that means merging certain groups of pages. - Walkazo (talk) FA Vote Margin and Requirements KEEP AS IS 1-7 Some of the FA rules seem like they need work. I think an article needs at least 25 total votes, and at least 60% of those votes need to be to feature the article. This way, not only does an article need a large number of votes to feature it, it also needs a large number of voters altogether. Proposer: Ralphfan (talk) Deadline: Wednesday, 21 October 2009, 17:00 Add vote rules Ralphfan (talk) – Per above. Keep as is Edofenrir (talk) - The system we have may have some flaws, but it is fine the way it is now. I think that new rule would invoke more chaos than it would get rid of. Also: Please change the oppose sections header; It is heavily biased! Time Q (talk): Per Edo. The FA system works perfectly. If it ain't broke... Tucayo (talk) - ...don't fix it. Per Edo T.c.w7468 (talk) Per Edo. Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Edo. Marioguy1 (talk) - Well, it seems we're keeping a trend here so...per Edo Yoshario (talk) – Per all. Comments Uhm, there's no rule that says how many votes are required for an article to become FA? Sorry but... AFAIK yes, there is. An article becomes featured when five people give their support and noone opposes. - Edofenrir (talk) I changed the oppose header to a non-biased one. Time Q (talk) Good, thank you. - Edofenrir (talk)