MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
< MarioWiki:Proposals‎ | Archive
Revision as of 13:00, June 5, 2013 by Yoshi876 (talk | contribs) (Archiving)
Jump to navigationJump to search
All past proposals are archived here. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.
Previous proposals

Remakes

WITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER

I think something needs to be done about the way we treat remake games. We have articles for games such as Super Mario 64 DS and Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D, but the whole Super Mario Advance series are all merged with their original games. While those remakes aren't nearly as different as their original games, they still have their differences and should still be treated as other remakes are in the wiki. I propose that we either split all remakes from their original games and give them their own articles or merge all remakes into their original games.

Proposer: Tails777 (talk)
Deadline: June 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Split all remakes into individual articles

  1. Tails777 (talk) I say split

Merge all remakes into their original game articles

Do nothing

Comments

Sorry, it's already an official policy. It just hasn't been enforced everywhere yet. --YoshiKong (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2013 (EDT)

So remakes already get their own pages? Tails777 (talk)

Yes, they should. But not all of them have as of yet, as there's quite a bit of work involved. Splitting the article does not just mean to create a separate page. There are individual categories that need to be created, character/enemy history entries to add, templates and (many) links to update. And the article can't just be a cut-paste of the "#Remakes" section of the original article. --YoshiKong (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2013 (EDT)

Alright, then I guess I should withdrawal this proposal since there's already the policy. Tails777 (talk)

Note that SMA games are more ports than remakes. A general term would be "reissues" (but that doesn't really matter). Banon (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, withdrawing would be best: it's early enough that you can remove/archive it yourself. - Walkazo (talk)

Write "Glitches" Section for levels

DON'T WRITE SECTION 1-10

I think that if a person knows of a level glitch, but forgot how to do it, they should not have to go down an incredibly long list to find it. This would make the process a lot less tedious as well.

Proposer: MegaDigga3 (talk)
Deadline: May 28, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. MegaDigga3 (talk) Per reasons above.

Oppose

  1. Baby Luigi (talk) Why is this restricted only for levels? Doing so breaks consistency for the rest of the articles. Besides, if they're searching for a glitch, they should use Crtl + F and keywords. All glitches should stay on their respective pages.
  2. Mariotime11 (talk) That would be pointless; there are already glitch pages for almost every game, and as Baby Luigi said, you can just user the "Find" tool to look for certain glitches.
  3. YoshiKong (talk) Per all. And what if a particular glitch appears in many levels, not just one?
  4. BowserJunior (talk) Per all.
  5. Yoshi876 (talk) Per all.
  6. King Pikante (talk) Per all.
  7. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per all.
  8. NewSMBU (talk) • Just type "Glitches of <game name>" in the serch box and click Search. It's not that hard.
  9. Megadardery (talk) Per MarioWiki:Once and Only Once it will be found on the level and on the glitches page, and per Baby Luigi.
  10. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.

Comments

I have to say I am in no sides on this one, it sounds like a great idea, but baby luigi IS right, every computer can use ctrl+f to find glitches. Robecuba (talk)

@YoshiKong: Then it would be put in as ex.: this glitch also appears in [insert level(s) where glitch appears here]. MegaDigga3 (talk)

We can add a "See [insert glitches link here] for glitches" or something like that.--Megadardery (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2013 (EDT)

Change Main page rotation to Mondays

LEAVE THE ROTATION DAY AS SATURDAYS 1-7

The Main Page is very important on the wiki, so why is it that we rotate every Sat.? Mondays are better I think because of the fact it's the beginning of the week. This makes for easier remembering to rotate items.

Proposer: MegaDigga3 (talk)
Deadline: May 31, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. MegaDigga3 (talk) Per above.

Oppose

  1. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) How do you think people remember stuff better on Mondays? Kinda unnessecary (tell me if I misspelled that.)
  2. Baby Luigi (talk) This change is unnecessary and the reasoning for the change is pretty weak. It all boils down to preference, and I don't think we need to change anything here. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday...it doesn't matter at all.
  3. King Pikante (talk) And what's the difference? Unnessecary.
  4. Yoshi876 (talk) I see no logical reason for this, it is perfectly fine the way it is.
  5. Mariotime11 (talk) No point.
  6. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Well, I don't think it would make that much of a difference, so yeah, per all.
  7. Prince Bowser Junior (talk) I don't think it matters.

Comments

It's Unnecessary so I wouldn't even vote Megadardery (talk)17:09, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

Merge the DK: Jungle Climber navigational templates

MERGE TEMPLATES 9-0

Merge all of the DK: Jungle Climber navigational templates into one template (with a separate template for the levels)

The way that the templates for DK: Jungle Climber are set up is just... odd. The characters, the minigames, the worlds, and the levels in each world all have templates made specifically for them, and I am just confused as to why. There are only nine characters in the game (including major and minor) seven minigames, six worlds, and thirty levels in this game, and that's not including the enemies that we never decided to list and the items that were haphazardly listed. At most, we have (or at least should have) an individual template for anything that has a lot of entries for it (levels, minigames, items, etc.), and then one for everything else. However, the individual templates usually have around 50 or more entries in them, whereas here, we have at most, nine, and that's for the characters. So, I propose to merge all of these templates (Jungle Climber for the characters, DKJC-Minigames, Worlds in DKJC, Sun Sun Island, Lost Island, and Chill 'n' Char Island) into two templates; one for the six worlds and thirty levels, and one for all the other templates, as well as including any other elements that are not included in any of these templates, such as enemies and items. Since I'm only able to work with what the wiki currently has (and I'll presumably be the one creating this all-inclusive template), the template might not be entirely complete, but in my opinion, it'll look a lot better than what we currently have.

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: June 2, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Merge templates

  1. Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Yoshi876 (talk) Per proposal, and if I'm correct all the games do this anyway so it keeps it consistent.
  3. MegaDigga3 (talk) Per Yoshi876.
  4. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
  5. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) — Per all.
  6. King Pikante (talk) Per all.
  7. YoshiKong (talk) Per policy.
  8. NSY (talk) Per all.
  9. ParaLemmy1234 (talk) Per all.

Keep split

Comments

I think put in "DK: Jungle Climber Places" for the first of two templates mentioned. MegaDigga3 (talk)

You don't need a proposal for this: policy already states that games should only get single all-inclusive templates (although they can leave levels separate, as well as other sprawling groups of pages that will make the template unwieldy if they're included). - Walkazo (talk)

Delete quote sections/articles that don't have any meaningful quotes

DELETE PAGES 8-1

Delete quotes articles and sections in the sporting games and Mario Party series, if they are composed of meaningless ones i.e. "Hooray"

These sections/pages are not needed. People do not need to read "Let's-a-go" or "Congratulations" as these are just simple words. The quotes sections should be for character development not "Here I go!". And most of these have been under construction for many years, List of quotes in the Mario Kart series has been under construction since 2008, so people aren't contributing to it. I think these pages are unneeded should therefore be deleted.

Proposer: Yoshi876 (talk)
Deadline: June 3, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Delete pages

  1. Yoshi876 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. MegaDigga3 (talk) Per proposal. No-one needs to read short and stupid things like "congratulations" or even Lakitu signs.
  3. YoshiKong (talk) Per proposal. This has been on the back of my mind for a while.
  4. Tails777 (talk) I look at the list of Mario Kart Quotes and under Mario's section for Mario Kart 64, it lists what he says on the main menu. Him saying "Data" or "Options" don't really count as quotes. In short per all, we don't need quotes of characters saying what mode your in.
  5. King Pikante (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Tucayo (talk) - Per all.
  7. A Paragoomba and the Koopa Bros. (talk) -- Per all, people don't need to reading short and dumb things like "Peach!".
  8. ParaLemmy1234 (talk) Per all.

Keep the pages

  1. Baby Luigi (talk) This isn't the right decision. While most of these quotes are inane and pointless, we should delete the inane and pointless quotes instead of deleting the entire page. Believe it or not, some sporting and Mario Party games DO contain meaningful quotes (see: List of quotes in Mario Super Sluggers) and therefore, if this proposal passes, we delete not only the short, pointless ones, but also the ones where the proposal EXPLICITLY STATES that it should support. So it's very contradictory.
  2. Banon (talk) They are quotes nonetheless. It's not because it's not very meaningful that it's less canon or something. However I think we should add specifications (i.e.: when they say the quotes; some articles already do this)

Comments

@BabyLuigi I see your point, and that was one thing that worried me, so I'll change it to the ones that are entirely composed of stupid "Yahoos" and so on. Yoshi876 (talk)

Shouldn't we reset votes? Because this proposal got altered, making my oppose vote pointless Baby Luigi (talk)

I did, but Walkazo said that even though it's been changed, I can't remove the votes. You might be able to remove your oppose, or you'll just have to put the line through it. Yoshi876 (talk)
Yeah, you can't remove comments and votes like that - although if the users don't check back in on their own, you can contact them and let them know the proposal changed and their votes are no longer applicable. Also, since Baby Luigi's original vote was addressed in the comments, it would be best if she'd slash it out, rather than remove it - and then re-cast or rewrite her vote, if she so chooses, of course. - Walkazo (talk)
My only concern with getting rid of those two, is that they'd probably still agree. I mean the proposal only changed to keep the meaningful quotes and so I highly doubt they'd say 'No, let's get rid of those ones as well'. Yoshi876 (talk)
Well, you don't have to let the users know there was a slight change: it's ultimately up to a voter to check back in even after they vote. If a proposer wants to let them know, they can, but if they don't, they don't; like you said, they'll probably keep supporting, so if you want to just leave it, that's perfectly fine. If there was a major change, it'd be best to archive and restart the proposal, that way the voting is reset, but that'd be unnecessary here. Don't be concerned about something you don't have to do anyway. - Walkazo (talk)

Empty sections templates

We have the MarioWiki:Trivia page, and the Template:Trivia page to warn contributors about overly long trivia sections. Since we have the MarioWiki:Empty Section Policy page, I think we should create a Template:Empty page. It would look like something like this:

This section is empty. Please add a short description of the main article.

We would also:

  • add this template in every empty section;
  • create a category to find every empty section in an easy way;
  • add this category in the MarioWiki:Maintenance page.

Proposer: Banon (talk)
Deadline: June 4, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Banon (talk) This is my proposal.
  2. Megadardery (talk) From what I understand, I think it is a good idea.
  3. Yoshi876 (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Baby Luigi (talk) Per proposal, except make the template a different color than the trivia one.
  5. Mr. Game & Watch (talk) Per Baby Luigi.
  6. MegaDigga3 (talk) Per Baby Luigi. I also think that it should be just a tad more descriptive.
  7. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) — Per Baby Luigi and MegaDigga3.
  8. King Pikante (talk) Per all.
  9. GBAToad (talk) Per Banon and Baby Luigi.
  10. ParaLemmy1234 (talk) Per all. A different colour would be better though, like maybe a dark blue or purple.
  11. Mariotime11 (talk) Per proposal.
  12. NSY (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Comments

I agree for your criticisms about the template. Feel free to make your own version of the template! — Banon (talk)

What about this:

This section linking to another article is empty. Please add a short description of the main article.

Also, I'm not very good at coding so someone should probably look at it... Banon (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2013 (EDT)
It looks too much like the image template. I suggest

This section linking to another article is empty. Please add a short description of the main article.

Baby Luigi (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2013 (EDT)
That one looks similar to Template:MoreImages. Also, I'm pretty sure you can't use your custom sigs here. Time Turner (talk)
Yeah yeah, I'll change my sig. It's a nasty habit I have. But thanks for notifying me of that. I'll think of another color:

This section linking to another article is empty. Please add a short description of the main article.

Baby Luigi (talk)
Black... I believe no other template uses that color. That could work, but how about we just give it the same/similar colors to Template:Trivia?

This section linking to another article is empty. Please add a short description of the main article.

Time Turner (talk)
I agree that it would be best to make it look like {{Trivia}}. This is dealing with the same sorta issue as Trivia (a section of the page needs work because it's not up to current standards), so consistency makes sense. Plus it's not a huge, pressing issue, so brightly coloured templates would be unnecessarily eye-catching; they're also a bit of an eye-sore, and if anything, might make the page look worse than it would with latent empty sections. - Walkazo (talk)
I dunno why, but I like black for referencing something empty. But whatever floats your boat. Baby Luigi (talk)

Hey, why do you absolutely want that this template be different than any other? I think consistency is best. Actually I think every notice or navigation template should be of the same color (maybe it's worth a proposal, I don't know). Banon (talk)

That would cause more confusion than it's worth. Time Turner (talk)
Consistency shouldn't apply to notice templates. It would be pretty confusing to see all templates as a different color. A standard may be all right, but not making them all the same color. Baby Luigi (talk)
I don't get it: you say it's confusing if they're all in a different color, but then you say you don't want them to be all the same color. Banon (talk)
Sorry for the contradictory statement. I meant it would be confusing if it was all in the same color. I don't know how that ended up on the screen. Baby Luigi (talk)

Mostly, all those sections with each other in one page are empty.. I mean probably no one fix a single section without fixing the other. The trouble is: We will need to put the template everywhere on the page.. and one page would have up to 5 of the same templates. I really know this template is Important but before we do anything we have to discuss this problem first. Probably changing the wording (for ex: The following sections are linking to other article are empty. Please add a short description of the main article ) or something like that, and then add the template to the top of all the sections. Here is an example image see here.Megadardery (talk)04:26, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

You're right, but I think we should do it anyway. We can't just add one template if there are five empty sections. IMO we should add the template everywhere, and then a category in the Maintenance page. If we do this, there would probably be a fewer number of templates soon (contributors would most likely write short descriptions and remove the templates). Banon (talk)
We can also change it to "The page contains Empty Sections. Please add a short description of the main article" so only one can be incorporated. Baby Luigi (talk)

Y'know, instead of many templates, or one template, one could always simply add stuff to the empty sections... You're already seeking them out, so why not just fix them as you go instead of adding ugly templates and coming back "later"; at least when the sections are simply empty, random readers won't know that's a bad thing, whereas they'll certainly notice the template(s). I've been mulling it over since the proposal was first made, and I am still failing to see how this is the best way to go about the issue... - Walkazo (talk)

The only problem I have with this is that not everyone knows about the Empty Sections Policy, and putting a hideous template there notifies them about the problem Baby Luigi (talk)
What about this:

This article contains one or several empty sections. Please add a short description of the respective main articles.

— Banon (talk)
I agree with you, except that your point is valid for every notice template, as Trivia, Construction, Image, or Image-quality. The only difference would be that it's shorter, but it's still long in the long run. The point of these templates is to seek them out for us and other contributors. — Banon (talk)
I have the same issue with the Trivia template, tbh: just take an extra couple minutes to remove or incorporate some stuff, rather than slapping on a template and hoping someone else does the dirty work. Construction (and Rewrite) is for pages that require a lot of work and will obviously look incomplete in the meantime, so that template makes sense; Image is also a bit more involved, especially if the images need uploading, which not everyone can do anyway, hence the validity of using Image-quality to try to get the attention of someone who can improve the image. However, removing Trivia, adding a sample image gallery, or making a quick blurb about beta elements or glitches or whatever is something that anyone should be able to do in a reasonably short amount of time. As for the draft, the second sentence might be better if it read: "Please add short previews of the separate pages that are linked to by these sections." ("previews" seems more accurate to what we want than "descriptions", afaik). - Walkazo (talk)
Agreed. So maybe I should withdraw my proposal and replace it by a collab thread on the forum? Banon (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
There actually is a collab thread for this issue, it's just dead - but you can bump it if you want, I suppose. Whatever you feel is best: it's your proposal, after all. - Walkazo (talk)

Uh... Is it too late to withdraw my proposal? I should have done it yesterday but I couldn't. — Banon (talk)

It has already passed. Yoshi876 (talk)
Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34&oldid=1482660"