| 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.
|
MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template
"Bad Jokes and other deleted Nonsense" -style archive
MAKE ARCHIVE 13-9
The English Wikipedia had an archive called "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense", where contributors can archive vandalism or plain bad writing that they consider to be humorous. The French and German Wikipedias still posses such a page, and it's quite possible that other Wikipedias posses such a page, as well. I think we should have a similar page. anything that ranges from Bad Writing to Humorous and non-harmful vandalism should go on there, although only articles stuff should be included. No User-talk things.
What are the gains from creating such a page? Well... This will stop the frequent recreation of deleted nonsense (Such as Mario (Species) and "Snufit Ball") since those pages will be redirected to the Bad Jokes archives and archived in all their glory. And as many users have noted in the votes comments, it would show new user what to not write. This may seem like Troll feeding, but if anything, Trolls are feeds by overreacting to their attacks (For example: Creating the Patroller ranking just to fight them), recording a few vandal edits isn't that big of a feeding in comparison.
Anyone should be able to edit the archive page, and there shouldn’t be any edits war about what to add/remove. Of course, common sense should play a part here. The Mario page being littered with obscenities can't really be considred funny, the Pirate Goomba article stating the obvious can be considered funny. Use your brain!
Proposer: Blitzwing (talk · gnome work)(The idea comes from this message of Cobold (talk)
Deadline: March 21, 2008, 20:00
Support
- Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) Blablabla Me proposer Blablabla Me gaves reasons above Blablabla I need a sandwich.
- Cobold (talk · contribs) - We have so much pages about rules etc., time to show how not to write articles.
- ~Uniju(T-C-E) - Per above. :D
 3D, per all. It should be made part of the Welcome template to show new users how NOT to do things. - BLOC PARTIER. Per all. Um... *Insert funny/interesting/odd comment here*.
 Paper Jorge ( Talk·Contributions)· Yes, per all. Not only would it help some new people who don't know what to write but we can definatly store Snufit Ball in there. That will make the Snufit Ball fans stop all this arguing. Or at least, I hope. Storm Yoshi per all- Walkazo - Per all.
- Wa
 TC@Y – you convinced me, as long as it's clearly stated for a newbie that this is NOT what to do.
- Pokemonfan7002 I agree.
- Per all. SJ derp :P
- Mr.Vruet info|talk|chat Per All
- Stumpers! Well, Blitzwing's a patroller, too, soif there really is a spike in spam, he and I will be right alongside cleaning up the mess. We can always remove it...
Oppose
- Ghost Jam
 - If the point is to help to stop people from recreating deleted articles, it would make more sense to just block creation of said articles than to create another page that's just going to end up being huge and difficult to load.
- My Bloody Valentine - DO NOT FEED THE FREAKIN' TROLLS! We don't need MORE vandalism to come from this. Any User with common sense knows that they shouldn't vandalize, even if they are new; the whole thing seems pointless.
- ~PY
 - Honestly, I think this is WORSE than that Pie proposal. Why would we give spammers their own page! They feed on people being aware of them!
- King Mario
 Per PY and DP
- MarioGalaxy2433g5 {Talk} - This wiki will become an encyclopedia of sillyness
 Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per Stumpers and DP, we have too much user fanon as is.- Per ALL! HyperToad ESPICALLY PY.
- — Stooben Rooben Actually, I'm changing my vote simply because this is only a reason for people to spam the site even more. It'll become like a competition to see who's the "better" spammer, and to see who can get their spamming archived.
- Tykyle It'll only serve to patronize people who are honestly trying and to give the trolls even more attention.
Ghost Jam, I don't think the point is to stop people from making deleted articles, it's just to put vandalism/dumb writing that you found funny on a page people can view. I would have thought that at least you would understand that it's just for fun. <_< ~Uniju(T-C-E) N/O
- Plus, it could help n00bies to learn how not to write. :P 3D, WHOOP DE FRICKIN' DOO
I don't know. At first I thought this sounded silly and unprofessional, but we are a Mario wiki, meaning we don't have to be serious about everything. It would teach new guys how not to write, and it might stop nonsense articles. I'm not sure whether to vote yet, though.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by CrystalYoshi (talk). whoops, forgot to sign again.
*ahem*, have you guys heard the term "Do not feed the trolls"? If we make a page full of vandalized articles, that will only inspire MORE trolls to come which will lead to MORE vandalism. Trolls vandalize as a means of becomming popular on the Wiki; this page is only going to further their goals. My Bloody Valentine
- Hmmm, good point. But isn't most of the stuff just going to be bad User writing? Like the Pirate Goomba thing. I'm no expert, but aren't most Troll edits piles of... er, excraments? Like Willy on Wheels moving everything to _____ on wheels. That's not funny, that's idiotic. - Walkazo
Pokemon DP: If anything, we feed the Trolls by overreacting to their attacks, such as creating a completely new ranking just to fight them, in comparison, having a few humorous vandal edits recorded on a page is rather minor. And beside, why a vandal would vandalize the wiki to "becomes popular"? That's broken logic.
As Walkazo said, the Bad Jokes archive will be mainly filled with bad writing (Ex:The Orange Yoshi article stating that people confuses Brown Yoshi and Orange Yoshi, although the occasional humorous vandalism (Such as the Mama Luigi article) can go in there. --Blitzwing 11:19, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
How about just bad writing, not vandalism? Becuase this would be cool, just it is a good point an archive of vandalism encourages vandalism. So just bad jokes and bad writing go in the archive.  CrystalYoshi  14:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
- Well... Bad Jokes and Funny Vandalism = Pretty much the same thing. Unless that by "Bad Jokes", you mean things like the infamous "Pie for "everyone" proposal. Note that not every vandal edits will be recorded on the page. Things like "Mario (species)" should be archived, things like "Mario is a (insert swear word here)" shouldn't. --Blitzwing 17:06, 16 March 2008 (E ber
Hmmm... people on the opposing side have a good point. But it might help us a bit and... it would be funny. CrystalYoshi 17:42, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Isn't that basely like the Sandbox?? Princess Grapes Butterfly 17:56, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
- No. You can write whatever you want in the Sandbox. In the Bad Jokes archive, you archives edits that were on article, you can't go there and write random crap. --Blitzwing 18:06, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Ohhhhhhhhhh, i understand now. Princess Grapes Butterfly 19:31, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Bad Writing... It seems like you are just insulting the User who wrote the article. Counts as a form of flaming... Does it not? My Bloody Valentine
- Although this might help n00bs with what not to do, they might be encouraged to spam so they can get their "greatness" archived. — Stooben Rooben Gar...
- Maybe whoever wants to archive a sample of bad writing should contact the person who wrote it and get permission first; some will say no, but others might like the opportunity to laugh at their own mistakes/be a "class clown" for the Wiki. - Walkazo
Argh... torn between two sides. The people on the opposing side have such a good point about this would be saying vandalism is cool. And yet having the archive would be so fun. Vandalism is annoying, but it's also funny; on the other hand... ARGH! I just can't decide! CrystalYoshi 19:58, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
SPLIT TEMPLATE 6-0
For those of you who don't know this template, it (presumably) consists of a list of every Koopa species and every character in those species. Most groups of Koopas have smaller templates doing the same thing (i.e. Template:Koopa Paratroopa or Template:Spinies); however, unlike the Koopas Template these lists are small and easy to use. The Koopas Template is used primarily for articles that do not fit into one of the other Koopa groups (i.e. Bowser), most of which are Koopa Troopas and their kin (i.e. Koopatrol). I propose we slim down this bulky template so that it only consists of these "misfit" Koopas; and to cut down on even more of the clutter, I propose we make the much-needed Koopa Troopas Template. Prototype versions of both these templates can be seen here.
Use of the Term "Clone"
DON'T USE THE TERM "CLONE" 12-1
With the release of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, several users have been arguing and editing back and forth regarding the inclusion of the blanket, fan-made term "clone" in the character articles. The opposition argues that it is a fan term of no solid definition. Its use encourages assumptions on the part of both the readers and editors rather than granting support to in-depth discriptions of fighting styles. The support argues that it is legitimate, pervasive term understood by all and applicable as long as characters share special moves.
Food
DON'T MERGE 7-1
Awhile ago, I believe Blitzwing (talk) made a proposal regarding the notabilty of the article: Cheese. Although I agreed with him on some points, my opinion went to keeping the article. Anyway, while giving my opinions, I suggested a List of Real World Foods in the Mario Series article, which, as long as it would be, would probably help this wiki. Chesse, for example could easily be merged into a list, just like any Pokemon could be on the Pokemon article.
Comic Subpages
NO COMIC SIGN-UP USER SUB-PAGES ALLOWED 11-0
Lately, many Users have had a habit of creating sprite comics based on the sprites of other Users. While this, itself, is OK on its own, many Users have also created subpages to have people sign up for these comics. To quote Blitzwing, "I think we should get rid of all those 'SIGN-UP ON MY COMIC!!!!1!' subpages on Mariowiki, that kind of thing just doesn't have a place on an encyclopedia." Therefore, I propose the elimination of these subpages.
Proposer:  Chaos NEEDS MOAR NINJI
Deadline: March 26, 2008, 17:00
Delete Comic Sign Up Subpages
- Chaos NEEDS MOAR NINJI I'm the proposer.
- BLOC PARTIER. Yup. The sign up pages are a waste of time and space. Using the talk pages would be much better. Per above. (And you spelled "place" wrong, so I fixed it. Just so you know.)
 Palkia47  Delete 'em. At least have a type of link to Userpedia to sign up. The sign-ups are kinda annoying going through pages, and so on.- The Mario wiki part of this shouldn't be used for that stuff. It should stay on Userpedia. SJ derp :P
- ~Uniju(T-C-E) This is the MarioWiki, a place for Mario info, not sprite comics based on websites based on video games based on plumbers.
- Wa TC@Y – comic signup should go on the talk page of the comic subpage
- Cobold (talk · contribs) - Per Wayoshi, and only him. Generally, user page content shouldn't have restrictions.
- Marcelagus (T • C • E) - I misunderstood the proposal :P. Per Wayoshi. I thought it was saying to delete comic subpages themselves.
- Jdrowlands (talk) Per Wayoshi.
- — Stooben Rooben As long as it's ONLY for the removal of sign-up pages.
- GreenKoopa - Comments or questions? ·
 Keeping the comic pages is a stretch; the signups being destroyed is a given. Theres a place for wiki fandom; Its a maaaagical place called:USERPEDIA.
Keep Comic Sign Up Subpages
Well, comics are a great part in the MarioWiki. It's fun to create, sign up, and read. I mean, where else would people ask to sign up for their comic? What's the downside of comic subpages? Marcelagus (T • C • E)
- Userpedia and the forums can easily be used for the same purposes. Comics make the Wiki look unprofessional, and, as Blitz said, they just don't belong. Chaos NEEDS MOAR NINJI
- They make the wiki look unproffesional? Couldn't the same thing be said for user pages? I mean, is that really a good reason to get rid of them? And "They Just Don't Belong" is a nonsensical reason. Marcelagus (T • C • E)
- The ``wiki`` part should only be an encyclopedia, not a social network! IT's bad enough that most of the users only do User talk-page edits and don't contribute to the encyclopedia, we don't need to allow these guys even more ways of wasting our database space. Userpage are OK - They are made to makes yourself know and gives info about you and your contribution on the wiki, Comic sub-page are just... pointless. --Blitzwing 20:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
- Blitz, there is no possible way to stop users editing user talk pages. Besides, we have plenty of database space. It's not like "Oh no! Only 14 more pages left!" or anything. Also, Comic pages are to express your creativity in a humorous way, and to have fun with it. I think they are important enough to stay on the wiki. This isn't Wikipedia. It's a wiki about games. It doesn't have to be super-proffesional. But that's just my opinion. Marcelagus (T • C • E)
- Garlic Man has a good point, but I guess having a section in your talk page would also be fine. CrystalYoshi
- Isn't that what Userpedia is for? SJ derp :P
- Yep. --Blitzwing 17:52, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
- Um, not everyone knows about usepedia. I learned about it a day or to ago. It's not in the welcome template or anything. CrystalYoshi
Geez, Blitz, never thought you'd go THAT far in trying to keep us from having fun. Anyway, will COMICS THEMSELVES have to go? Like my MW Alliance page? 3D, dang it's gonna be hard to move my comic article.
- Uh, I didn't make the proposal complain to Ninji.
--Blitzwing 21:01, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
- We're just talkin' about taking the comic stuff off of Mario Wiki, not Userpedia. It should be there anyway. Oh, I've got a question. Could we have a way of telling members about Userpedia? SJ derp :P
- Well, Userpedia is unofficial and unaffiliated to Mariowiki. Maybe it could be linked in the rules for Userspace/user sub-page/whatever. --Blitzwing 21:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
- Userpedia is unaffiliated to the Mariowiki? I thought all long it was... I guess I was wrong :P. Anyway, doesn't this mean we have to get rid of the comics on userpages too? Marcelagus (T • C • E)
- Yes, because that is what Userpedia is for. NOT Mario Wiki. SJ derp :P
- Uh, no. --Blitzwing 13:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
- All this about userpedia! How did all you find out that there is a userpedia? I stumbled upon it by going to InfectedShroom's comic, and I don't really understand what it's about. So if there's no way for users to find out about userpedia, you can't just say "That's what userpedia is for. And Green Koopa's sarcasm "Its a maaaagical place called:USERPEDIA" as if it's so obvious that it exists. But it really isn't. CrystalYoshi 18:47, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
- Generally, you may have on your user page what you want. Wayoshi's solution seems the best - Comic sign up pages should be on the talk pages of the actual comic subpages, not somewhere else. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:05, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
- Sorry, everyone! I totally misunderstood the proposal! I thought it was saying that saying there should be no more comic subpages. So, yes, now that I understand, it's sorta pointless to have a seperate page just to sign up, yes. Marcelagus (T • C • E)
I wonder if all supporters are voting for the same thing. What will happen when the proposal passes? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 14:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
We need to make this more clear. I'm guessing this means:
- All comics still on wiki = deleted.
- All comic sign-ups on wiki = deleted.
I'm not voting; it's already a landslide. Sorry for yelling atcha, Blitz. ._. 3D, HOT BLEEP!
- Well, then it's definitely not what I, Wayoshi and Garlic Man put our votes on the support side for. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 08:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
- Isn't the wording quite clear? "Therefore, I propose the elimination of these subpages." Thus, no deletion of comics, no deletion of comic sign-ups in general, only elimination of sign-up subpages. Time Questions 08:24, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
We add them here so that MW exclusive user can sign up on them. HyperToad It helps them be bigger.
When you have a quote in a quote, you use ' instead of ". I fixed it for you.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shyguy27 (talk).
OK, this proposal is for the removal of ALL comics. ALL OF THEM. INCLUDING things like MW Alliance and Glitchman's series. ChaosNinji, please add a sub-category for keeping comics themselves. 3D, halp halp
- What? Says who? Two days before deadline is a BIT late for such an essential decision anyway. Time Questions 17:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Kay, fine. After this goes through I'm making a proposal to keep COMICS THEMSELVES on the Wiki. 3D, bringing idiotic back.
- We ARE keeping the comic sub-pages. We just want to get rid of comic sign-up sub-pages, since they can stay on the talk page of the comic. SJ derp :P
Repeated Images
IMAGES MAY BE REPEATED ONCE IN AN ARTICLE 8-3
Me and Stumpers discussed about Repeating Images on articles. On the article R.O.B., at one point, there were two Brawl artworks on the same page. That was soon changed by a sysop. However, in picture galleries at the end of the article, as Stumpers said, "is really great for seeing how the character has evolved". I agree with that statement. Since there are yet no official rules about repeating images on a single article, this proposal will hopefully make it clear. However, this means two pictures on one article. Three or more is redundant, and makes the article quality go down.
Proposer: Marcelagus (T • C • E)
Deadline: April 3, 2008, 17:00
Repeated Images on Articles
- Marcelagus (T • C • E) Per what I said above. Sometimes you just need the same pic in two places.
- Time Questions: I don't see a problem with it, and indeed, seeing how the character has evolved is good. And the same picture twice in one article doesn't even take twice the time to load, right?
- Stumpers! Per myself and Garlic Man. That's my understanding, too, Time Q. If this doesn't pass, though, we can alleviate this problem by replacing official art in the biography section with screenshots, moving the artwork to the bottom. That would be more applicable IMO anyway, since the section is on the character's actions rather than his/her appearance.
- Princess Grapes Butterfly Per all I agree!
- — Stooben Rooben Yup. Per all.
- Walkazo - I don't see a problem with reusing images as long as they're in large articles that have enough other images to offset the repetition (otherwise it might look a bit lazy on our part).
- CrystalYoshi No reason not to. It doesn't waste that much space, only a little bit. Plus some images in the gallery also have a place on the page.
- BLOC PARTIER. Per all, and see my comments.
No Repeated Images
- Glitchman (talk · contribs) - Meh, I see your point, but there are probably already too many images on the major pages as it is.
- Fixitup - It's a waste of space, and a waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise.
- As long as I've been here, we've always gone by an image is in an article once and thats it. I also agree with Fixitup said, so per him (or her). SJ derp :P
Wait wait wait... I don't seem to understand the proposal. Do you mean the same pic on, say, the top and then again on the bottom? Or something else...? BLOC PARTIER. Sorry, I may just be an idiot. :P
- Well, anywhere. Including the gallery, the main image, and images throughout the article. Marcelagus (T • C • E)
- Hmm... Then I must disagree. See my reasons above. BLOC PARTIER.
- I don't think we'd ever have an image up three times, though. Stumpers! 23:03, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
- You say it'd be fine if an image was repeated twice at the most. By opposing, however, you say that an image must not appear more than once in an article. It seems to be a contradiction. If you support, you don't support the idea that an image may appear three times in one article, but only that it may be repeated. To make it clearer, perhaps Garlic Man can modify the proposal's description, in the way that even if the supporters' side wins, an image may only appear twice. 'cause three times would definitely be too much imho. Time Questions 07:43, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
- You have a point. I'll remove my vote for now, because there is no place for me to vote. If there ever is, I'll move it there. ;) BLOC PARTIER.
- Sorry, Infected Shroom. You're right, my proposal was not very clear. Twice is the max, and only twice. Three times is over the limit. I have changed the proposal slightly as well. I hope this helped. Marcelagus (T • C • E)
- Alright. Thank you. ;) BLOC PARTIER.
Fixitup: please explain your vote. What do you mean "a waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise"? It's not like an image has a limited number of uses allowed. And Toadette: what's so great about one of the image per page, even it's been that way since you came. CrystalYoshi
20:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
- Well, if we add images twice, the bandwith is slowly depleted away, and that is what keeps the site up. SJ derp :P
- Toadette, "As long as I've been here, we've always gone by an image is in an article once and thats it." is not a valid oppose; if it has been, that's what the proposal is trying to change. Also, it's not a waste of space. It's useful as a visual aid. It's not like we're putting a bunch of images on the page just to make it bigger. Marcelagus (T • C • E)
- I also put "Per Fixitup". =) SJ derp :P
- But Fixitup's vote doesn't make sense either. "A waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise." That makes it sound like the images can only be used a limited number of times. You're not "wasting" the images in any way. They're still good and usable. CrystalYoshi
16:49, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Are we talking about screenshots or artwork? My Bloody Valentine
- Mainly Artwork, I think. Marcelagus (T • C • E) Although screenshots could apply, I guess. Why?
- Because reusing screenshots is overkill. Seeing the same artwork is bearable, but using the same 'shot twice is uncalled for, there's no good reason for it (whereas the "seeing how characters change over the years" example for repeated artwork is perfectly valid). One could argue that sprite evolution could serve a similar purpose, but that's as much a result of technological advancements than the creative process, and there are much better places on the Wiki to illustrate that then the character galleries. - Walkazo
Well, IMO, artwork should go on the top of the page (in the infobox) and in the gallery at the bottom, but not in the article. I believe screenshots should be spread throughout the article, not artwork. Just my opinion. My Bloody Valentine I mean, Artwork merely shows what the character looked like in the game. The screenshots in the article should show what the character did in the game/show/comic/whatever.
I agree that artwork within the article should be used in the gallery again to show the character's development. But I think we should limit the number of artwork per game. For example, Princess Peach's gallery uses 11 (!) pictures from Super Pricess Peach, I don't think that this points the development up. --Grandy02 07:49, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
- Whoa! Once again DP you put my thoughts into words. I wasn't sure how to say that, but you hit it on the head. The artwork doesn't always show the actions being described, right? Grandy02: The proposal won't change that there are still 11 artwork pieces from SPP on Peach's page, but you're absolutely correct. In the future, we may want to limit massive amounts of images like that to the game page itself, but like I said, this proposal isn't going to affect that one way or the other. Stumpers! 14:38, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Great minds think alike, don't they, Stumpers? =P Its why I jokingly stated we were brothers on Userpedia. XP Anyway, I'd really like to see limitations on artwork from the same game. The amount of SPP artwork on Peach's article is... Its overkill, definitely. That artwork belongs on the Super Princess Peach article, IMO. My Bloody Valentine Maybe we could make another Proposal about that...? Oh yeah, I forgot to vote on this one! XP Scratch that, my opinion doesn't fit into either of these choices, sorry...
Poorly Written Articles
KEEP ARTICLES 15-7
Now and then, certain users (usually noobs) will sit down and write up a poorly written article. Sometimes these articles aren't about valid subjects, and get deleted quickly, but what should we do if the subject is valid? Take the article In the Clouds for example. It's a level in Yoshi's Island DS, and qualifies for its own article, but the article itself, while not a stub, is atrocious. It makes the wiki look like a joke, and it amazes me that the author has the reading skills to even navigate the internet and come here (no offense). I can't bear to actually read it, and it's just gonna sit there and rot with a rewrite tag until someone comes along and does a proper write up.
What I'm wondering is if we should delete these poorly written articles. This sort of thing is different from stubs, which may actually contain decent grammar, and may just need expanding. Even if they do get a rewrite, poorly written articles will likely be started over from scratch, and the original context would be lost regardless.
Proposer: Booster
Deadline: April 10, 2008, 17:00
Delete Poorly Written Articles
- Booster: Per my statement above.
- Huntercrunch Per Booster. The articles tagged for a rewrite always rot and no-one ever checks them out/ attempts to make the article look better.
- ~PY -Per all. No one looks at rewrite pages!
- My Bloody Valentine Per Booster. I've always wanted these kinds of articles deleted. About time someone stepped up and said something. No one ever, EVER checks the Rewrite pages, and never even bothers to try and rewrite them... As the above three have already said...
- 3D, yeeeeeaaaah... They're better off in Edit Heaven. Let's let someone CAPABLE rewrite them.
- HemuI Agree someone better should write those articles.
- Glitchman (talk · contribs) - Yeah, nobody's doing anything about the articles in bad shape. Why not just remake them??
Keep Them
- People DO check the rewrite pages, and improve them greatly. Look at Stumpers (talk) edits on Donkey Kong, for crying out loud!
 Plumber 11:46, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
- Stumpers! Way to generic of a proposal for my taste. The point of a proposal is to create a guideline to prevent the problem from coming up again in the future, but this will just lead to more discussion and individual proposals regarding specific arguements, which will happen anyway. This would be much more efficient if you'd had made a series of proposals, each about one article individually. Please give us a list and we can look at each of them.
- BLOC PARTIER. Per Stumpers and Plums. This proposal has too wide of a range. There are a lot of poorly written articles tha are also very long. Do we want those deleted? And I agree, someting that's only one line sucks. But this proposal is including the long articles as well. And anyone can edit those articles if they just get up off their lazy butts and do it. (No offense to anyone in particular. Really.)
- Ghost Jam per my statement below.
- Time Questions: Per Ghost Jam. Who decides what is poorly written? And if we're talking about specific articles, we don't need a proposal.
- — Stooben Rooben Per all. Every article has poor grammar or punctuation at some point which could be considered "poorly written" to some. People (like Stumpers) visit the rewrite categories quite often; a lot of times the articles get awesome rewrites too. There's a reason we have the categories rewrite, rewrite-expand, rewrite-you, rewrite-wikidump, rewrite-biased...do I really need to go on? THEY CAN BE REWRITTEN CORRECTLY!
- Per all. We don't want to lose good articles. -Canama
- Then be a big boy and re-write 'em if you don't like 'em. -Girrrtacos
- Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) - I didn't have an opinion up until I saw that ginornomously stupid "IF YOU OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL, YOU NEED TO REWRITE THOSE ARTICLES OR ELSE YOUR VOTE IS VOID" comment. I do look at the Rewrite page - Infact, I rewrite quite a few articles in need. Anything is salvageable, provided you know the subject.
- Walkazo - Per all, especially Girrtacos.
- Per all SJ derp :P
- Per all Green Guy
- Jdrowlands (talk) - The person who wrote In the Clouds probably spent an hour or two writing it. We don't want to put possible new users off the wiki. Also, Per All.
- Per all.There's actually some articles that are good "poorly written".You're being alittle harsh.
 Goldguy
- Per All HyperToad
I feel that it would be better to delete articles like these on a case by case basis. Many could be saved and many shouldn't be saved.
If there is an issue with the article improvement categories, it might be worth trying to bring more attention to them. -- Chris 01:21, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
- I agree. If this proposal passes, we'd still have to decide for every article individually whether it is "poor enough" to be deleted or not. Plus, some might be poorly written but could contain information which would be missing when the article is deleted and later re-created by someone else. Time Questions 07:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Hmm... I'll have to wait and see where this proposal is going, and I would like to see both sides' main points before I vote. My question is this: How do we decide if an article is "poorly written?" Because Spiny used to be terrible, before I started editing it. But it was big. Would we have deleted it? BLOC PARTIER.
No. I think only small ones, like stubs with bad grammar or that are obviously idiotic, like "world 2-1" which was coposed of simpy "world 2-1". 3D, AND MY HEART IS AS LIGHT AS THE WIND WHICH IN TURN BLOWS THE BROWNED DEAD LEAVES OFF THE TREESES, OOOOOHHH!
- Plumber: The Donkey Kong article isn't exactly a candidate for deletion because it's poor. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, it would have to be a case-by-case basis for this sort of thing. If anyone's unsure about the quality of an article they can always ask. I also think we should also do something about one-sentence stubs, but that's another issue at the moment. -- Booster
- I think there's already an (unwritten) rules for deleting one-liner. Heck, I think there was even a proposal about it. - Blitzwing (talk · gnome work)
- I remember something like this as well, but the only thing I could find in the archives is this one - not about deleting one-liners, but against the deletion of new stub articles. Time Questions 16:27, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Hey, Plumber! I appreciate the support! Cobold: while I'm on the topic he was discussing how it was a long time ago... go check out the history. It was long, but poorly written. Of course, now that the proposer's specified that he only meant short articles I'm not sure if it's a good example, but whatever. Instead of having this generic proposal, I'd rather the proposer come forth with a list of pages he's talking about, and then we can take care of the stinkers one by one. (seriously, who wouldn't vote yes to, "Fix Something Bad" proposals? Only people who don't like the vagueness...) Stumpers! 17:13, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Here's some of the really bad articles (not so much stubs) that I'm referring to. -- Booster
Um, guys, look above... Those are the kinds of articles Booster meant, he didn't mean poorly written articles (like Donkey Kong was) in general. :\ My Bloody Valentine
I don't think I get this proposal. Pages with only "World 2-1" or "Pirate goombas are pirate goombas" should definitely be deleted. Badly written stubs can be deleted. But non-stub articles that are badly written are fine, as long as there's a rewrite tag. What side should I vote on? CrystalYoshi 08:28, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Everyone who is opposing, you need to rewrite all these type of articles, or there's no point putting your name here. And if no one does this, I'm going to bring this up again.~PY
PY has a point. Everyone who is opposing this Proposal automatically has the responsibility of rewriting those poorly written articles. My Bloody Valentine
- What? No. Everyone who is opposing doesn't agree with Booster's proposal. The proposal says to delete poorly written articles. Now my question is what is poorly written. Because if we don't have a clear definition (e.g. a rewrite tag plus bad formatting), this proposal makes no sense imo. Sorry. Time Questions 13:10, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
- Opposing the deletion of the articles doesn't mean we're gonna rewrite them; it merely means that we think they should stay. Users come across these articles and fix them. I'm sure a lot of articles started out like crap and turned out pretty good after a while. — Stooben Rooben Overkill, Mr. Sysop; overkill.
- Woah now, calm down... I see a flame war in the near future if you don't. Anyway, why are we fighting about this? Everyone has the responsibility to rewrite crappy articles. But most of us (me included) are usually just too lazy to do it. So please, stop fighting about something we should all do. :
Mario Kart DS Karts
NO MERGE 2-13
So I've been reading through the after-mentioned articles, and I've noticed that they all read something like "The [insert name here] is [insert character here]'s [availability] kart in Mario Kart DS. [Describes appearance here]. [Describes stats here]." So I propose that we merge these into character aticles such as "Mario's Karts in Mario Kart DS" or something shorter to that effect. Opinions?
Normal Smash Movesets
DON'T ADD 4-3
I have read the Player's Guide to Super Smash Bros Melee, and realized that every character's moves have a different name. I propose to add a list of their move names on each character's page. It would help complete the articles, plus I remember some advice on the talk page of Son of Suns:"If there is any information ina a manual that is not on the wiki, upload it". Guides help you just as much as manuals do, so that's why we should do this. Anyone with me?DarkMario  Hamtaro PWNS|
Trivia Sections
KEEP 12-3
While I'm well aware we are not Wikipedia, I feel that trivia sections detract greatly from the quality of an article. Pieces of information pertaining to topics adressed previously are placed in an unsorted list at the end of the article. Now, I know that we already are against, "overly long" trivia sections, and that's a good thing, but if we allow trivia sections to exist, they'll grow into "overly long" sections. In other words, we can either stop them before they happen, or we can wait until a dedicated user comes along and puts the factoids where they belong in the article. UPDATE: I have clarified the support/oppose headers. Please make sure your vote still applies (they look like it to me).
NOTE: There are a bunch of people doubting this. Give me an example we both know about in the comments section and I'll integrate the trivia for you.
Proposer: Stumpers!
Deadline: April 21, 2007, 17:00
Support (Remove Trivia Sections--Integrate Facts into Article)
- Stumpers! 23:12, 14 April 2008 (EDT) It takes 30 seconds in my experience to find an appropriate section and put a factoid at the end of it instead of making a trivia section. On the other hand, we risk readers not finding information about the subtopic they want to know about. They have to read the appropriate section AND the ENTIRE trivia section, full of unrelated information.
- Glitchman (talk · contribs) While some pieces of trivia information can be useful to the readers, most of what is under the trivia sections is just either an opinion (e.g. Toadsworth is about the same age as E. Gadd) or something found at an untrustworthy source. Better to prevent these sections from being made.
- Per all
 Grapes
Oppose (Keep Trivia Sections--Keep Facts Separate)
- Fixitup Trivia sections exist for information that can't be placed WELL somewhere in another section of the article. Although some people overdo it, they still come of good use when there is such information.
- 3D, per above, plus the fact that there's no place else to PUT trivia.
- Time Questions: I have to agree with Fixitup here. I really don't see how those facts should be integrated into the article. For some it might work, but for most it won't, I believe. See below.
- Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) - Trivia section are exactly what the name implies: Trivial informations that can't be put anywhere in the article. Getting rid of those would just makes some of the Trivia-heavy articles messy.
- Palkia47 Per All. The Trivia section in almost each article is needed. Say for example Super Smash Bros. It has trivias. If it was put into the main part of the article, it'd be useless.
- BLOC PARTIER. Per all. I've tried to put some trivia in other parts of articles, and failed miserably. It is very difficult, as they are just random bits of information. Well, that and I've learned more from trivia sections from the articles themselves. :')
- MisterJaffffey
 G0 Proposals/Archive/7 I always read the trivia sections and they give me fascinating information.
- — Stooben Rooben Per all.
- It would probably make us look stupid if we were the only wiki without trivia sections. Also, where would we put all this trivia. Take the cameo appearances of Mario characters in Kirby Super Star for example. What would we do, make a page about the game and say "Some Mario characters appear in this game as cameos"? SJ derp :P
- Walkazo - Per all. Sometimes you just can't work certain bits of info into the body of the article, see below for an example.
- Ghost Jam - Per all.
 Bob-omb buddy . Without trivia sections everyone might overlook intresting information. Also it keeps articles tidy.
Of course, there's the issue about things such as the "Nintendo Monopoly" characters. Where do you merge them? Into a cameo appearances section. Stumpers! 23:12, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
It's not a good idea to merge such a thing into the cameos section when it would only be one sentence. When you qualify a separate paragraph as one sentence, or even two the page looks like someone's trying too hard. Like I said, sometimes there actually can be a lot of information that shouldn't be crammed somewhere in the article. I would be very disappointed to see such an option to leave my grasp, especially for smaller pages. Come on, people. Fixitup
- Do you have any examples for us? Stumpers! 23:49, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Where would the interesting facts go? What'd we do with the displaced trivia? 3D, III'MMM ACTING AS IF
- First of all, "interesting" is a subjective term, and so I really can't give you an answer. Like I said with Fixitup, do you have an example? Looking at your second sentence, I think you're asking what we'd do as soon as this proposal is passed. We'd integrate the trivia with like information. As a matter of fact, let me clarify that. It's in the proposal, but if you're not clear I'm sure many other people will, too. I'd argue against your point that there's nowhere else to put trivia. Just use your head and sort the points back into the article, or make a new section. You'll also remember that every other Wiki before us that has put its mind to it has been able to remove trivia. Stumpers! 00:50, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, a simple example for a piece of trivia of which I wouldn't know how to integrate it into the article is here. This fact should be mentioned imo, but how should we do that if not in a trivia section? Putting it into the article would clutter things up (no one who reads the plot synopsis wants to know in which other comic DK appeared). Making a new section would be possible, but 1) it is only one cameo (or however you want to call it) and 2) how would that be better than just leaving it called "Trivia"? Time Questions 02:16, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
- Well, first off you've lost some "trivial" (couldn't resist...) infromation by not telling us where DK can be seen--which part of the story? I'm not familiar with Cool Klange in the least, so all I know is that he was in there somewhere. You are assuming that no one would be interested in knowing where he appears because you don't care yourself. As you know, that's not true for everyone. Of course I'm not advocating making a new section for one piece of information like that. I don't care if you call it trivia, cameos, whatever. The problem is that you guys are looking for a one-size-fits-all approach to this, but the fact is there isn't because this is writing, not making a template. Putting information where it's actually applicible rather than off to the side where it is out of context and random is something that must be done differently in each scenario. Yes, I understand the three of you would rather make this easier on yourselves, but focus on the reader here: you want to make this accessable. The easier something is to read or do, you can be someone on the other end had to put in a greater amount of effort. Stumpers! 04:21, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
- No, you got me wrong with my example. Let me shortly explain: At some point in the comic Donkey Kong appears. He is wearing a suit, the same suit he has worn in a different comic. To me, this is worth pointing out, because as far as I know DK doesn't usually wear a suit, and it's also worth pointing out that it was the same one in two different comics. My point now is that this piece of - indeed - trivial information should not be moved to the plot synopsis, because the reader of the plot synopsis, well, wants to know the plot, and surely the fact which suit DK is wearing doesn't belong there. You also say I lost some information by not telling where DK appears, but it reads "in the club [...] at the table", so the reader of the plot synopsis should know what it's about. I absolutely agree with you that some trivia sections are too long or contain facts that should be integrated into the article. But most of them are best kept in a separate section, though the term "Trivia" might be a bit un-encyclopedic. Time Questions 07:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
- IMO, I think getting rid of the Trivia would create a glut of speculation in Trivia-heavy articles, since some writers would go all excited and try to justificate every bit of random trivia as something that is actually really important in the Marioverse. Look at the implied articles to see what I mean. --Blitzwing 07:58, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
- I'm sorry Blitz, but which "Implied" article has a trivia section? As you your concern regarding speculation, preventing speculation has always been part of the Wiki's history. I don't see why you'd want to lower the quality of an article just to prevent someone else from doing it. As to the DK thing, I really can't argue the point because I've never head of that subject before. I'd really like to have us look at a subject that more than, three or five users have personal experience, preferably a subject that I could actually discuss back... does anyone aside from Walkazo have an example we all know about? Stumpers! 00:02, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
- No Implied articles have a Trivia section, yesh. I took them as an example because they're the perfect example of trivial information. I mean, who knew Old Man Skoo existed 'till someone made an article on him? And why the hell do Trivia sections "lower the quality" of the article? If anything, randomly integrating the trivias in the Main article is what lower the quality! And as Toadette4evur said, it would be weird to be the only wiki without trivia. I mean, even Wikipedia have those. --Blitzwing 06:59, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
- There is nothing in the proposal about removing "trivial" articles. Here's Wikipedia's official stance on trivia: clicky. Basically, Wikipedia is recommending what I've been saying all along, but as you've told me before, we're not Wikipedia, so that really doesn't apply whether you want to emmulate what Wikipedia wants done or what is actually done on Wikipedia. Trivia sections lower the quality because they are an excuse to randomly plop down bits of speculation or valid information without regard to actually making a complete article. Just think about it: wouldn't you be frustrated if you thought you knew everything about, say, Wario's laziness (personality section), only to find out that you'd missed something: at the very bottom of the trivia section, there's a note that he exercises in his free time! Not everyone is going to read through a trivia section, especially if they see the random things like references and allergies at the top of it. So, what I'm talking about valid infromation being out of place because someone was too lazy to actually make a good edit. That does hurt an article. Stumpers! 21:28, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Here's another example supporting the Triva section: Mr. Game & Watch (SSBM and SSBB) has a move called Oil Panic, which stems from the game of the same name. That information needed to be in the game's article, but since it wasn't part of the game itself nor any of it's ports, I couldn't fit it in without a Trivia section. If we get rid of the trivia sections we're getting rid of lots of valid information, not just speculations. - Walkazo
- I think what you're forgetting is that some article alteration may be needed. You guys are arguing as though you couldn't rearrange paragraphs and rewrite trivia into the article. Walkazo, in your example, I expanded on the trivia point, turning it into a full comparison of the attack to the game. See if you like it -- it's not my best work, but hopefully it shows you what I mean. The other trivia point which you didn't mention was easily integrated into the main part of the article. Check revision history. Stumpers! 00:02, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
The Luigi's Mansion trivia section points out an allusion to Home Alone on the boxart. There's no "boxart" section in the article and thus no obvious place to put it. I also highly doubt that the article can be rewritten in the way that the fact is integrated into the article without annoying people who don't care about such trivial information, who don't want to read about allusions, but only about the game itself. Your accessibility argument can actually be used against your point. "Super Mario 64" states that in Donkey Kong Country 3, Wrinkly Kong is playing SM64. Valuable information, but certainly nothing to integrate into the main article. I mean, if there were several games which had such references to SM64, we could make an extra section, but that's not the case. Finally, the trivia section of Waluigi has the character's address, according to the Mario Power Tennis website. Again, such a section just seems to be the best place to put this info. Time Questions 04:19, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
- All this goes to show that a blanket proposal for the matter won't work. In my Oil Panic example, both triva points were easily moved into the body text (though I streamlined your work a bit, Stumpers), however the same cannot be said for Time Q's points. In Oil Panic, the bit about Mr. Game & Watch's Oil Panic move was turned into a full sections, which is okay for small artciles and big ideas, but a section about Waluigi's address wouldn't be feasible. If nothing else, we should do this case-by-case. - Walkazo
- Actually, this case-by-case logic is exactly what I've been arguing for the entire time. I want people to gage each article to see where information belongs rather than assuming that there is a quick out, the trivia section, where all information that they deem trivial should go (point of view writing). Stumpers! 21:28, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
- Then I think I agree with you, but why are you making a proposal? You can't force people to "gage each article to see where information belongs" as an outcome of a proposal. Well, what a proposal could do is to lay down a new rule in the guidelines which says to generally avoid trivia sections and only make them if there is no other place in the article to put the info. But I don't think this is what the current proposal says. Time Questions 01:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
- The reason for the proposal is because I didn't want any NEW trivia sections to jump up. I think I can be completely open now, because I'm obviously going to lose: the arguement about "where else will it go" was one that I knew would still plague us because we are a specialty Wiki and there are some really out there references and such. If you can think of a way to stop trivia sections except when no other option is available, that would be perfect, but the reason I chose to deal in absolutes was to avoid that slippery-slope of a user making a trivia section for something that is integrateable and saying, "Well, I couldn't figure out how to put it in..." We'd be exactly where we are now. Tell you what, though: how would you feel about a proposal that created a template for trivia sections asking people to integrate where possible? Not like a blaring, red box or anything, just an italisized notice that says something to the effect of, "This article has a trivia section because there is information regarding the subject that does not apply to the rest of the article. Please integrate the information into the article if possible and avoid adding more trivia." Stumpers! 16:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
- I think we do have such a template, although I can't find it right now. --Blitzwing 17:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
- Is it the one that's on the Wario article's trivia section? We could edit that one I suppose, but it's way to blaring for a notice on an article with the type of trivia TimeQ and Walkazo have been providing me with--it shouldn't be a penalty template, just an advice template, kind of like Wikipedia's "this page is locked" template. Stumpers! 17:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Super Mario Advance series
MERGE 9-0
It has recently come to my attention that there is a page for the original Super Mario Advance, but not for Super Mario Advance 4, which is just included as a remake of SMB3 on that game's page. There is also a separate page for the Super Mario Advance series, which includes information and the cover art of all four games. Having to try to find information about these games on different pages is a hassle, so I propose we delete the Super Mario Advance article and simply expand the page that has to do with the series itself.
Game Systems and Controllers
MERGE 10-7
This wiki has articles on game systems. This wiki also has articles on their corresponding controllers and accessories. The articles on the gaming systems are fairly long and consist of adequate information; however, the articles on the controllers are quite short, containing 1 image usually – they are practically stubs. The articles on the controllers don't consist of much information; in fact, the information on them basically describes the actions of the buttons, and then lists the buttons themselves. To me, this seems completely pointless, for it holds no certain specificity for its own article.
So here's my proposal. We should merge the controllers to their corresponding game system. So there is NO CONFUSION, I will list the controllers and the article they should be merged to.
(THE FOLLOWING ARE ALL CONTROLLERS)
Once the articles are merged to their corresponding game systems, the game system articles will be more complete; there will be less stubs lying around, and things won't be as confusing to find.
Multiple Canon Names
USE OLDER NAMES WHEN TALKING ABOUT OLDER GAMES 15-0
Articles such as Princess Peach's and Bowser's could go under different names - Princess Toadstool and King Koopa respectively. While we're not going to have articles for each of their names, I think we should not discard them completely in the merged article. So, in a text refering to Super Mario RPG, it should be Toadstool and not Peach, and in texts conserning the Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, it should be King Koopa and not Bowser. Minor tweaks could be done with FLUDD<>F.L.U.D.D. and Koopa Paratroopas<>Parakoopas<>Sky Troopas. This way, the wiki is true to the original games which we are talking about.
|
