MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
< MarioWiki:Proposals‎ | Archive
Revision as of 01:40, October 10, 2024 by Windy (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template

Overturn the proposal that resulted in the deletion of Category:User eo (category for speakers of Esperanto)

Overturn 20-0
Myself, I don't care about this language, and needless to say, neither do most people on the planet, but I take issue with the proposal that had it removed in the first place for a few reasons.

  • The proposal argues that this language "is not a real language", that "nobody really picked it up", and likens it to the fictional language of Klingon. Despite its status as a constructed language, it is, in fact, very much a real language intended and created to be functional. It has a(n admittedly small) number of speakers across the planet, some of whom may well be potential editors on this wiki for all we know. The comparison to Klingon, which was created with an artistic purpose, is misleading.
  • The proposer was outed as an extremist (read up on the details at your own risk) who seemingly was planning to have other language-based user categories removed, as he followed up with another proposal targeting the Georgian user category. The wiki's policies outline that we shouldn't assume bad faith in users, but given the circumstances here, I hope you'll allow me the assumption that this user had ulterior motives in their little curatorial project, namely in altering the wiki ever so slightly according to their outlooks. Proposal failed and the user was banned for their concerning behavior, preventing further such proposals from being made.

Now, as you'd expect, the Esperanto user category certainly never saw much use--in fact, only one user employed it as of 2014 (archive.org) and even then only listed Esperanto as a second language (archive.org) (though, the very point of Esperanto was to be an auxillary language between people who don't speak the same native language). That user, who goes by Pakkun (talk), has since taken the category off their page, so you could argue that this proposal lacks a tangible purpose as "User eo" would be dead on arrival should it be recreated.

The point of this proposal, however, isn't to recreate this language immediately; it is to negate the proposal that currently prevents its creation if someone ever considers they'd derive some use from it. This community should be open to anyone regardless of their cultural background. The previous proposal is contrary to that.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: October 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) per proposal.
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly, we would be down for more Conlangs to have user categories. We can't imagine the overlap of, say, Vötgil speakers to Mario Wiki users is very large, but like, in regards to a strictly English wiki, the Conlang categories in particular are just for-fun categories at the end of the day, and who the hey are we to expressly prohibit other people's fun? And even in the most generous reading of the events, it still feels like a bit of warped priorities when some categories have been in need of reforms for awhile now (sorry about the Thieves category thing, we're still thinking of that and honestly at this point we wouldn't mind someone else chipping in with that) and haven't gotten them, but we have an entire proposal dedicated to... Deleting a category for Esperanto speakers??? (And for the record, this was back when Category:Canines was called Dogs--something something, obligatory mention of Penkoon.)
  4. Shadow2 (talk) We DID this? wtf??
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  6. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per proposal.
  7. Hewer (talk) Per proposal.
  8. Arend (talk) With the provided context, something about Trig Jegman's proposals rubs me the wrong way. If it's true that he was trying to gradually remove other languages, where would he stop? He stated that Esperanto and Gregorian are languages not supported by Nintendo (a weak argument IMO, as Nintendo =/= this wiki), and not widely spoken, so would he first try to get all small-spoken languages removed? Would he eventually try to get larger languages removed just because Nintendo doesn't support these languages? Would he eventually go even further and get even languages that are supported by Nintendo removed because they're not as widely spoken as other languages? Would he eventually make it so that English is the only language remaining? Would he then remove that category too because if that's the only language category for users, then what's the point of keeping it? Or worse, is this a ploy to recognize who is native to other languages and would he try to get non-English users banned so only English-speaking users have access to the wiki (and then remove the English category)? ...Uh...fearmongering aside, per all.
  9. Waluigi Time (talk) No harm having it if people want to use it.
  10. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  11. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  12. Axii (talk) Per all.
  13. Mario (talk) The more the Marior. That older proposal was dumb.
  14. Jazama (talk) Per all
  15. SeanWheeler (talk) I'm not a fan of banning users for off-site drama, especially when it's political. But if his proposal was bigoted, then maybe it should be overturned.
  16. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all, especially Sean. This proposal was asinine at best, in retrospect, and harmful at worst. And that's coming from a man who doesn't have full context as to what happened.
  17. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all. That category never hurt nobody.
  18. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  19. Pseudo (talk) Per all. This is a really gross thing to delete.
  20. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. That was just mean to delete a language category. People still speak this language, so we should represent it!

Oppose

Comments

The real question is if we can have a Klingon category (as a certain other editor who is no longer with us due to concerning behavior mentioned on that proposal). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:11, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

Up for debate whether user categories can have some basis in fiction. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:16, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
We think that Conlangs in general should just be allowed, just because it both feels really, really weird to try to police what Conlangs "count" as languages, and because the idea of focusing even more proposals on such a for-fun topic feels.... A little too much, when that effort is best used elsewhere. ;P Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:14, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

We should be open for Inklingese and Smurf. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 20:24, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

Per Arend. --Green Yoshi FanOfYoshi at 05:50, September 30, 2024 (EDT)

@FanOfRosalina2007's vote reminded me of a point I wanted to add to the proposal within its first three days, but forgot: there is a category for speakers of Latin, a dead language, so that old proposal's argument that "Esperanto is spoken by too few people to be relevant" is bust as long as the wiki supports Latin. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:29, October 4, 2024 (EDT)

Should we add an Occitan category, perhaps? It's a near-dead language that has actual historical significance in certain areas, unlike Esperanto's status as a conlang with "official" linguistic status. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:56, October 5, 2024 (EDT)

Lower the requirement for a disambiguation page from 5 to 4

Lower requirement to 4 7-0
As of now, the requirement for a disambiguation page's creation is five pages:

"If there are five or more pages which could be reasonably associated with a given name, then a disambiguation page must be created" (MarioWiki:Naming)

This rule feels needlessly restrictive, considering the amount of clutter links make at the very top of the page. "For a minigame in the WarioWare series, see X. For an object in Super Mario Odyssey found in the Luncheon Kingdom, see Y. For an underwater enemy from...", you get the idea. If this proposal passes, the threshold on MarioWiki:Naming will be lowered from 5 to 4.

Proposer: Axii (talk)
Deadline: October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Axii (talk) ^
  2. ThePowerPlayer (talk) One or two other articles are fine, but having three separate articles in the {{about}} template at the top of the page is the point where a disambiguation page is ideal.
  3. SeanWheeler (talk) We don't need to clutter the {{About}} template.
  4. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Pseudo (talk) Frankly, I'd support bringing the requirement as low as 3. Per proposal.
  6. Mariuigi Khed (talk) I too I'd go with 3. Per proposal
  7. Dine2017 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

Do you have any examples of how many subjects would be affected by this change? — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 10:52, September 29, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think there's an easy way to tell, but I can't imagine it being too many. Axii (talk) 12:05, September 29, 2024 (EDT)

Character gallery division by each generations

canceled by proposer
The character gallery proposal was passed a month ago, but I failed to add new suggestion to proposal before passed. Sometimes the Japanese and oversea release dates are different when classified by decade. If the Japanese release date is 2009 and the North American release date is 2010, the division will be different. However, if it divided by generations, this problem disappears.

Mario's gallery page is still long sized despite divided by each decade. Some characters' gallery are short and can be merged with the previous ones without any problems. Since Donkey Kong didn't have his own series in 2020s and only appeared in Mario spinoffs, so it's fine to merge it with the 2010s. If there is no proper appearance for a long time, it can last more than 15 years.

I offer the following options:

Option 1
Divide by 6-8 years for Mario by each mainline, and every almost a decade from the year of most important work for other characters. If the proposal fails, split only to Princess Daisy.
Option 2
Divide for Mario by one console generation, and two console generations for other characters.
  • Mario
    • Mario (1981-1994) (2nd/3rd; Until NES)
    • Mario (1989-1998) (4th; SNES/GB)
    • Mario (1996-2001) (5th; N64/GBC)
    • Mario (2001-2005) (6th; NGC/GBA)
    • Mario (2004-2012) (7th; Wii/DS)
    • Mario (2011-2018) (8th; Wii U/3DS)
    • Mario (2017-present) (8.5th; Switch)
  • Luigi
    • Luigi (1983-1998) (3rd/4th; NES/SNES)
    • Luigi (1996-2005) (5th/6th; N64/NGC)
    • Luigi (2004-2018) (7th/8th; Wii/Wii U)
    • Luigi (2017-present) (8.5th; Switch)
  • Princess Peach
    • Princess Peach (1985-1998) (3rd/4th; NES/SNES)
    • Princess Peach (1996-2005) (5th/6th; N64/NGC)
    • Princess Peach (2004-2018) (7th/8th; Wii/Wii U)
    • Princess Peach (2017-present) (8.5th; Switch)
  • Princess Daisy
    • Princess Daisy (1989-2018) (4th to 8th)
    • Princess Daisy (2017-present) (8.5th)
  • Yoshi
    • Yoshi (1990-2001) (3rd/4th/5th)
    • Yoshi (2001-2012) (6th/7th)
    • Yoshi (2011-present) (8th/8.5th)
  • Toad
    • Toad (1988-2001) (3rd/4th/5th)
    • Toad (2001-2012) (6th/7th)
    • Toad (2011-present) (8th/8.5th)
  • Wario
    • Wario (1992-2001) (4th/5th)
    • Wario (2001-2012) (6th/7th)
    • Wario (2011-present) (8th/8.5th)
  • Donkey Kong
    • Donkey Kong (1981-1996) (2nd/3rd/4th; Until SNES)
    • Donkey Kong (1996-2012) (5th/6th/7th; N64/NGC/Wii)
    • Donkey Kong (2011-present) (8th/8.5th; Wii U/Switch)
  • Bowser
    • Bowser (1985-1998) (3rd/4th; NES/SNES)
    • Bowser (1996-2005) (5th/6th; N64/NGC)
    • Bowser (2004-2018) (7th/8th; Wii/Wii U)
    • Bowser (2017-present) (8.5th; Switch)

Proposer: Windy (talk)
Deadline: October 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1 (Split by each mainline)

Option 2 (Split by console generation)

Not change

  1. Hewer (talk) The obvious subjectivity of "important works" makes these divisions feel unhelpfully arbitrary. Also, you can't say "if the proposal fails, split only to Princess Daisy" (assuming I'm understanding that correctly), proposals need an option that results in no changes being made.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) A good organizational scheme is intuitive, and both options seem to require completely different rules for each character. This is what I said about console generations in the proposal that had passed, "Not all of the material in these galleries come from video games, and it is inherently more intuitive for viewers not very versed in gaming culture to use the same dates they use in their everyday lives. There are also some disagreements on which consoles belong to which generations. So while there are certainly other ways this material can be subdivided, the Gregorian calendar is the simplest."
  3. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  4. OmegaRuby (talk) While I get what you're going for as someone who is very passionate about the design evolution of Super Mario series characters over the years and console generations, the design of this just feels too convoluted and confusing to maintain especially as we move forward and go into new console generations and design changes. Per all.
  5. YoYo (talk) per all.
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Hewer; this is way too subject to, well, subjective opinion as to who's important enough, as evidenced by the fact the "oppose" option was originally "no matter what, we're doing this to Princess Daisy anyways".
  7. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per all, also you were warned before for enacting a proposal that failed.
  8. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.

Comments

What about, instead, dividing it per series? Like, one for the mainline games, the Advances, the Parties, the Karts, just to be more coherent, 'cause... take a look at Mario: first a 9-years span, then 5-year span, again a 5-year span, then an 8-year span... doesn't really look that organized/coherent: if we instead divide it by series, it would be more coherently grouped. --My avatar's face to use in the signature Mariuigi Khed 05:03, October 8, 2024 (EDT)

The "important works" is renamed as "each generations". We should divide it into approximately 7-year units based on the year the Mario mainline was released. Without a proper standard, there were many cases where it ended in failure. Windy (talk) 05:44, October 8, 2024 (EDT)

If this proposal fails, I would like to merge some characters so that they allow to have more than 15 years since their debut (example: Gallery:Bowser (1985-1999)), as less than 10 years from their debut is too insufficient. (less than 10,000 bytes) Windy (talk) 10:38, October 8, 2024 (EDT)

@Windy you cannot execute changes from a failed proposal, per rule 18 above, which states:

Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

- Nintendo101 (talk) 13:38, October 8, 2024 (EDT)

I do think the "by decade" approach has an issue in that it assumes the person looking for an image knows which decade something released, which can be especially hard to remember even for experts in years that are near the turn of the decade. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:06, October 8, 2024 (EDT)

There's this tho -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:41, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
I agree with you, Doc. But why doesn't anyone agree to change the classification? Windy (talk) 14:25, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
I'd suggest looking at their reasoning in opposition. It may not be a perfect system now, but they clearly feel your proposed alternative isn't better. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:32, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
I understand you. Gallery:Mario is still a long sized even when it divided by 10 years. The others are small enough that the first few years can be merged into the next decade. As time goes by, it may become difficult to find the game without knowing the platform or decade. We need to distinguish between 2D and 3D. Windy (talk) 14:48, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
Which can be annoying to have to flip to (and I currently have five tabs open for this site specifically lol) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:32, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70&oldid=4392139"