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