MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/26: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Rule 10)
m (archiving)
Line 822: Line 822:
:::OK, I misunderstood a bit. REGARDLESS, I think using the concrete names of the mission names would be better than trying to come up with what ultimately is conjecture for planet names. ("Starting Planet" sounds pretty wrong, too, by the way.) {{User|Wayoshi}}
:::OK, I misunderstood a bit. REGARDLESS, I think using the concrete names of the mission names would be better than trying to come up with what ultimately is conjecture for planet names. ("Starting Planet" sounds pretty wrong, too, by the way.) {{User|Wayoshi}}
::::As per Wayo again. {{User|HK-47}}
::::As per Wayo again. {{User|HK-47}}
}}
===Remove categories describing or referencing non-''Mario''-related content from articles===
<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">REMOVE CATEGORIES 12-9</span>
This mainly deals with characters that have made appearances in ''Mario'' series games who also appear in series that are outside of our coverage. These characters are then placed in categories based upon what happens in their respective series. For example, [[Bottles the Mole]] is placed in the Undead category because he dies in ''[[wikipedia:Banjo-Tooie|Banjo-Tooie]]''. Since we cover ''Mario''-related content, what does it matter what happens in an external series that is outside of our jurisdiction?
{{scrollbox|content=
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mario4Ever}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>June 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s> June 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per my proposal.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per M4E! I like this proposal! Believe me, it's true!
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per proposal and my comment below.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - It took me a second to understand what you guys were saying. Although we do have categories, and though they might be that in their series, it doesn't mean that they belong in this category. We take care of Mario, DK, Yoshi, Wario, and some crossovers. If they want to be in those kind of categories, then their individual wikis can do it for them. It's not our responsibility to do it when it doesn't even fit in our genre. Whatever happens in their games stays in their games, and it is not for us to do.
#{{User|Phoenix}} Per all.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per all.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Mario4Ever's proposal and the comments made by Bop1996 and Phoenix. We don't write about aspects of characters that only occur outside their ''Mario'' appearance, so why would we categorize them? If they're not "undead"/whatever in their ''Mario'' appearance, it's misleading to include them in a category of undead ''Mario'' characters. It's also confusing for folks with no knowledge of the parent series: all they will see is the disagreement between the undead categorization and the exposition of the article (which will have no mention of the character's undeathliness).
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all I guess.
#{{User|Koopa K}} Per all especially BMB.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Regardless of whether or not Bottles the Mole was undead in his marioverse appearance, you cannot change the fact that Bottles the Mole ''is'' undead (canonically speaking). Saying otherwise would be giving false information to anybody researching the subject. This applies to every other scenario as well.
#{{User|Glowsquid}} - Per proposal.
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Per all.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} theres a difference between jurisdiction and confirmed fact and if the categories fit they should be in there since its a confirmed fact theres no reason to remove them unless there false
#{{User|Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum}} If a mole died in a Non-Mario game, then that should be included, as that is info on the mole. How about the Sonic and Pokemon characters? Pokemon could be placed in Category:Pokemon Characters and the Sonic characters could be placed in Category:Sonic Characters. So yes, we should keep non-Mario categories as there is content for them.
#{{user|SWFlash}} Per Bjatta.
#{{User|Zero777}} You don't completely specify the categories and per all.
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} I don't understand what categories relate to Mario and what articles do not. Birds are not Mario-related, but some Mario characters are birds, for instance.
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per all.
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per all.
#{{User|Fly Guy 2}} per all
#{{User|Young Master Luma}} The articles about characters should contain information about the characters, so why wouldn't the categories be informative, too? If we were to only have information about the character's appearance in a Mario game, the article shouldn't be called, for example, "[[Olimar]]", but "Olimar as depicted in Mario context".
====Comments====
@Goomba's Shoe15 So you'd be ok with putting [[Conker the Squirrel]] in categories such as Drunkard, Hungover, Profanity User, Murderer, Sex Addict, and Pill Popper? You know, as he's confirmed to be all of those things in ''[[wikipedia:Conker's Bad Fur Day|Conker's Bad Fur Day]]''. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:Yes but those would be pretty limited categories considering he'd be the only one also mario would go under the kidnapper category, /luigi would be in the drug user category, and Bowser well yeah... my point is we have these categories we can confirm that these characters fit the category so theres no reason they cant be in ther {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
::We don't have [[Link]] and [[Zelda]] in a "Heroes of Hyrule" category. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:::We also don't have a Hereos of Hyrule category but we do have a married cateory and Olimar is married so he should go in that category {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
::::Why don't we have a "Heroes of Hyrule" category? Could it be that these are designed to be applied to characters and events relevant to the ''Mario'' series? {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:::::That and it would be two short side note link is in the heroes category, but more to the point you have yet two give a reason why we should not include these characters in the categories when we know they fit in there {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
::::::I did. ''Since we cover ''Mario''-related content, what does it matter what happens in an external series that is outside of our jurisdiction?'' The point of this proposal is that this wiki does not need to concern itself with content outside of its jurisdiction; therefore, a marriage in the ''Pikmin'' series or a death in ''Banjo-Tooie'' is irrelevant. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:::::::But it's part of the characters biography and it's a known fact that they are married so theres no reason for it to be removed {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
::::::::We'll see how things turn out on the 23rd, monsieur. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
Here's my take: Yes, the categories exist for a good reason, and they are used to, well, categorize characters so that they may be grouped according to how they are similar. That's all well and good. Now, we cover other Nintendo series (as well as some elements from Sonic, Metal Gear, Banjo, and Conker) for one reason: they appear in Mario-related media. While I believe that we should be accurate in-universe for those other series (eg, I don't want false info about the LoZ series on [[Link]]), that doesn't mean that we should categorize them in categories only fulfilled outside of the Mario series (inclusive). For example, if Mario were for some weird reason to gain the Triforce and we created a category for that, it wouldn't make sense to place Ganondorf, Zelda, and Link in that category since that fact only matters in LoZ games. {{User|Bop1996}}
:You all make good points, but here's the deal: as established by [[MarioWiki:Coverage]], we only accommodate information from outside series when that information is related to the [[Mario (series)|''Mario'' series]] in some way. This is the reason why (I believe a few months ago) almost the entirety of the [[Banjo]] article was removed; because nearly everything in the article did not pertain to the ''Mario'' series in any way. What information remained in the article after this was kept only because it was relevant to the ''Mario'' series. Because [[Olimar]]'s marital status, as well as the specifics of [[Bottles]]' death and resurrection, is not relevant to the ''Mario'' series at all, we should therefore not concern ourselves with mentioning such information, despite the fact that it may be correct. Long story short; it really doesn't matter what happens with any particular character or characters outside of a strictly ''Mario'' game, the only thing that matters is what happens to them in relation to a ''Mario'' series game / character / item, etc., ergo, if it doesn't have anything to do with the ''Mario'' series, we do not have any business covering it here. {{User|Phoenix}} 14:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
'''@Zero777:''' The reason I don't specify the categories is because they vary among the articles in question. For example, Bottles the Mole is placed in the Undead category because he dies in ''Banjo-Tooie''. Olimar is placed in the Married category because he gets married in the ''Pikmin'' series. Pac-Man is placed in the Parents category because he and Ms. Pac-Man have Pac-Man Jr. The problem with all of these is that they occur in the characters' respective series and are not related to the ''Mario'' series in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, these articles need to be removed from categories that describe non-''Mario''-related events, and the way to do that is to remove those categories from the articles in question. '''@Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum:''' I'm not trying to get rid of categories. I'm trying to stop their misuse. Categories such as Pokemon characters and Sonic characters exist because representatives from those series appear in ''Mario''-related content. The whole point of this proposal is that categories, when used, describe events concerned ''only'' with ''Mario''-related content in some way.  {{User|Mario4Ever}}
'''@LeftyGreenMario''' He's not saying we should remove any categories he's saying we should remove characters with info that only happens in there series from those categories {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:::'''@All Opposers''': Let's look at it this way. Characters in categories via their own game -> Didn't appear in the MarioWiki, so makes people confused -> Many users will then look it up, and find out about it -> Users will add that information randomly to each article - which will ultimately lead to -> Articles have useless information that pertains to nothing dealing with the article. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that if I'm able to predict that far ahead that it won't be bound to happen any time sooner. That is why we need to let this pass, because I rather have a separated article not including what happens in its other appearances outside of the Mario series then having major headaches of reverting many edits because they were just trying to help out. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
'''@Marioguy1''': Just to be clear, I'm not denying the canonicity of the events in question; I'm simply stating that if the events have nothing to do with the ''Mario'' series, we have no business covering them. '''@Young Master Luma''': This is the MarioWiki. Our primary concern is with the ''Mario'' series. This is why we don't cover Link's trials with [[zeldawiki:Ganon|Ganon]] or the events of ''[[metroidwiki:Metroid: Other M|Metroid: Other M]]''. If ever we do need to reference external information, we link to other wikis, and only then to be accurate (withholding information isn't synonymous with inaccuracy). Having categories that reference events outside of the ''Mario'' canon only confuses the reader because we don't provide any information on those events. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
}}
}}

Revision as of 20:04, June 30, 2011


Any proposal decided and passed 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.


All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was.
Previous proposals


Make standard template names for like friend templates instead of always having to type the code

DON'T CREATE 2-17

Hi. Would it be easier if you had just a simple template name. Like for let's say, Johnny 115's friend template, we could move it to Template:Friend Of Johnny 115 in stead of having to type all those codes. Template:Scrollbox

Add Additional Links For Main Characters

DON'T ADD 1-11

Something that I've noticed for a while is that in the characters section of the wiki, links major characters that appear in most of the games look just like those of minor characters that got one game appearance, making them hard to locate. I think additional links to non-generic characters (For example, Goomba would not be counted) that are either playable or major characters in at least fifteen games should be added at the top of the characters page. Template:Scrollbox

Protect all talk archives

DON'T PROTECT 1-12

I think we should protect all the talk archives so no one can edit them ecept sysops. For User talk archives we should only let the user who owns the talk page and sysops. Template:Scrollbox

Merge Game and Non-Game Elements in Games, Characters, Places, Items, Species, Allies, Enemies, and Anything Else I Forgot to Mention

MERGE THE GAME AND NON-GAME CATEGORIES TOGETHER 8-1

What a ridiculously long name.

But what is truly ridiculous is how according to this page, we have to keep non-game stuff and game stuff in the same section, but in the lists like those, it has to be separate? I don't see any coherence. I propose we (insert proposal title) because leaving it separate makes no sense. Template:Scrollbox

Make an article on the Electric Fence.

CREATE ARTICLE 18-6

It appears in all of the stadiums in Super Mario Strikers, Mario Strikers Charged and in the second Bowser Jr. battle New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Why does it still not have an article? It is a gameplay element and it is important in a boss battle. Any other games in which it appears in? Template:Scrollbox

Add a section for Writing Guidelines on this page

ADD SECTION 16-0

Something that really need development on MarioWiki are Writing Guidelines (currently known as Writer Guidelines). First let me explain what they are, since I assume most of you are unfamiliar with this term.

What are Writer Guidelines? Writer Guidelines are pages that belong to this category, with the most notable page being the Manual of Style. Writer Guidelines are enforceable policies to some extent, but with a much lighter enforcement.

You may be wondering what distinguishes Writer Guidelines from Help pages. The difference here is that Writer Guidelines are much more specialized about the subject they pertain to while Help pages just give users a general overview of things. Since this is the case, Writer Guidelines have the ability to be very detailed and specific. This is better explained on my pending policy page, User:Knife/Policy.

What I'm proposing is that we allow regular users join in on developing more Writer Guidelines by making the process much more accessible to them. How do we do this? We should create a page titled "MarioWiki:Writing Guidelines", based off my pending policy page, which explains what Writer Guidelines (henceforth known as "Writing Guidelines") are. As for the nomination process, we can include it to the proposal page in a new section titled "Writing Guidelines". If Writing Guidelines get popular enough we may consider getting a separate page for it, but for now, a section of the proposal page should be sufficient.

Reasons why this system will be beneficial:

  1. Increased user interest in editing.
  2. Better quality articles.
  3. More opportunities for users to get involved in the development of the wiki.
  4. More consistency.
  5. An aid to help users edit.

Things that will be added if this proposal passes:

  1. A section will be added to proposal page for Writing Guidelines
  2. A new rule will be added stating that Writing Guidelines will be given two weeks as opposed to one.
  3. My draft page (User:Knife/Policy) will be created as an actual MarioWiki: namespace page.
  4. Also see User:Knife/Proposal to see what the proposals page will look like.
  5. All mention of Writer Guidelines will become Writing Guidelines (including the category).
  6. Some existing policy pages will turn into Writing Guidelines, like MarioWiki:Naming and MarioWiki:Redirect.

Honestly, this system has no real drawback other than potential lack of use, so why not give it a shot? If it doesn't work out, we can always scrap it later. Template:Scrollbox

Reception, keep or no keep

KEEP RECEPTION 17-0

I just want to resolve this issue since it looks obscure, should we keep or not keep the reception section?

Note: If Keep is chosen then the game articles with no reception section on them will get a reception section. If No Keep is chosen then all the reception sections of every article will be deleted. Template:Scrollbox

Make a new rule for deleting a template

DON'T MAKE NEW RULE 3-10

Look at the proposal here.

I'm making this proposal to change valid reasons of deleting a template. The users there said that the Gone template is useless because "people hardly use it" and "you can just copy the code on your userpage". To me, these are more of excuses than good reasons. What if people hardly know of a template you want to delete? What if copying the code is too hard for some people? What if we have to delete the last warning (or any other) template just because you can copy the code on an user talk page? There are just silly reasons.

I'm not saying that we have to restore the Gone template. I'm just saying that we should not accept reasons like what they did on the template's talk page. These are just silly, and they are more of excuses than good reasons.

P.S. I don't care if the Gone template is restored or not. All I care is that people never use stupid reasons like these anymore. Template:Scrollbox

Make a Rule for Changing Votes

DON'T MAKE RULE 3-16

I'm noticing in a lot of featured articles, talk page, and just regular proposals, people change their votes, a lot. Now I understand if the article has been improved and whatnot so they change their vote, but to me, it seems more like "jumping the bandwagon". Maybe if there are popular people, or good friends, or even related, users always "per" them or acknowledge them. Again, I understand if major, MAJOR, improvements have been made so that user feels like they can change their vote, but again some users tend to "jump the bandwagon". There is going to be two sections. One will be to make new rule, other will be to keep it the same. I think the rule should be to go through a dreadful, life-threatening small process in which it will determine if they can change their vote. It will possibly to tell a sysop and give a sincere reason why, and the admin can decide if their reason is worthy enough of switching. Template:Scrollbox

Make a "List of Blue Coin Locations in Super Mario Sunshine" page

DON'T MAKE LIST 2-15

I thought about this idea, so that's why a set up this proposal. It basically says what it is in the name, make a page of that name, and the layout will be similar to the "List of Quotes" pages, with a new section for each place in the game (Delfino Plaza, Bianco Hills, eta) and each different Blue Coin listed in bullets, not numbered. I believe that this page should be made to make this wiki a lot more extensive.

PS. I will be on hatius by the time this proposal finishes, so I will need someone else to create the page if this proposal succeeds. Use YouTube playthroughs to help make the page. Template:Scrollbox

Add "Status Effect Given" in Recipe Infobox Template

DON'T ADD 2-9

I think it's a good idea for the Recipe Infobox template to have a "Status Given" part in it. It can tell us what status it gives or cures. And the template can have more info if the article about the recipe says it doesn't affect HP, FP, & Damage taken. Template:Scrollbox

Articles regarding levels

DON'T MAKE ARTICLES 3-13

Being new here, Im not sure if this should be a TPP, but whatever. Anyway, I noticed we have articles on Mario worlds (ex. World 1, World 2, World 6), but not individual levels (World 6-4, World 3-1). However, for Donkey Kong levels, we have articles on worlds(Cliff, Jungle, Volcano) but in addition we have articles on individual levels (Prehistoric Path, Jungle Hijinx, Hot Rocket, King of Cling, Weighty way, Cramped Cavern, etc.) I say for consitency we do one or the other. I think Mario levels, especially NSMB and NSMBW levels, have enough contents and secrets to be individual articles. I am simply proposing we either add Articles for Mario levels or delete the articles for DK levels, for consistency.

Template:Scrollbox

Revisit Blocked Users' Votes policy

CHANGE POLICY 13-3

Originally, when I had read this proposal, I did not know which choice to support. Here is what the choices in the original proposal were, just to make sure we have something to reference on this page:

  1. All blocked users' votes are removed; no matter the length of the block.
  2. All permanently blocked users' votes are removed, but if a user's block expires before the end of the proposal, their vote remains.
  3. All permanently blocked users' votes are removed, but if a user's block expires two or more days before the end of the proposal, then their vote remains.

Obviously, if you look at the original proposal, you can see that Option 2 garnered the most support out of the three proposed changes. However, I am asking that we reconsider the first two options:

  1. Option One: If a user makes a vote, and they are subsequently blocked, then their vote is removed regardless of whether their block expires before or after the proposal.
  2. Option Two: If a user makes a vote, and they are subsequently blocked, then there are two things that can happen. If the user's block ends before the end of the proposal, then their vote stays. If the user's block ends after the end of the proposal, then their vote is removed.

I would like to have everybody consider Option One for several reasons. Think about it, why does a user get blocked? Assuming good faith in our administration, it is because the user clearly shows that they do not understand, or outright choose to ignore, Super Mario Wiki policy. Why do we want somebody that lacks understanding (or just outright breaks) our wiki policies influencing wiki policy?

Now, think this even further. Whether a proposal ends before or after a user's block is irrelevant when considering the above point I made. If the user's block ends before the proposal ends, and the user in question decides to return to the wiki, then they will be able to add their vote again. The chances of the formerly blocked user not understanding our policies (or their willingness to purposefully break our policies) after experiencing being blocked is much lower. They served their time for the crime, therefore, they have earned their right to vote on a proposal again. But a vote cast in ignorance of the rules should not be considered acceptable under any circumstances, which is also why an argument based on the user hypothetically not returning is also not really justified: if the user simply doesn't want to participate in this system after being blocked, that is their choice. But their vote was made back at a period of time when they couldn't understand our policies, so it should not be allowed to stay.

So that is why I feel we should change our policy to Option One. Option Two simply rewards and babies users that have no regard for the rules of this site. Option One promotes personal responsibility and promotes a logic that will, perhaps, convince more users not to get themselves blocked.

Template:Scrollbox

Create an article for Reggie Fils-Aime

CREATE ARTICLE 13-0

We have articles on many Nintendo employees, including but not limited to Satoru Iwata, Hiroshi Yamauchi, Shigeru Miyamoto, Takashi Tezuka, and Koji Kondo. I think it only fitting for Reggie Fils-Aime, president of Nintendo of America, to have an article as well. I realize that he hasn't been as involved in Nintendo software as other employees, but he is one of the primary sources of information concerning the goings-on at Nintendo during every E3 since E3 2004, his public debut. A user informed me that the wiki has had an article on Reggie in the past on three separate occasions, and it was deleted on those occasions. However, I find the risk worth taking. The wiki just seems incomplete without information on him.

Template:Scrollbox

Remove unconstructive translations from articles that use the {{foreignname}} template

DELETED

I have not seen this often, but it irks me when I do, and I just want to resolve the issue. To clarify the proposal's title, "unconstructive translations" are those that are not changed either in spelling or in meaning from one language to another. The Goomba article is a great example of what I mean (see Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese). These sorts of translations make me wonder whether or not those who place them there actually speak a language other than English or if they just take the article's subject and run it through Google Translate to get "translations" in as many languages as possible. If these are legitimate translations, what purpose do they serve? It disgusts me (probablement parce que je parle une langue secondaire) that some translations may not be added in order to benefit curious users but may be added just to be added.

Template:Scrollbox

From Three votes to two votes

DELETED

I remember a long time ago (I'm not sure in this page or feature image or poll selection) the proposal or etc. was determined (at its deadline) if it pass or doesn't pass if one side had two more votes then the other side. Really I think three is too much and ends up as a long and annoying war (i.e. either side have equal chances of winning), example The Starter Planet proposal, it has been up too long, extended two or three times. One more vote then the other, in the other hand, is too little and unfair. Two more votes than the other is just more fair and balance, and could avoid unnecessary extends.

P.S.: I should not see any opposers opposing with just saying "What's wrong with this system/It's not too much of a difference."

Template:Scrollbox

No Starting Planet Left Behind!

DON'T MAKE NEW NAMES 29-29

Well, here we are again. It's always such a pleasure. It's been over a month, and my viewpoints in regards to this matter still have not changed. Now, I'll say this yet again: the "Starting Planets" need better names! I don't know how many times I need to say it, but this is not a race; we would not name a planet "Pit Stop Planet" or "Finish Line Planet," so what's the deal with "Starting Planet?" To reiterate what I said a month ago, renaming the "Starting Planets" would prevent a lot of issues, and is overall a much better decision in terms of consistency and accuracy than the way in which they are named currently. Again, I'm proposing that the name of each "Starting Planet" in every galaxy article be changed to "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)." This way, the affected planets are given actual names which coincide with the rest of the planet names in the article as being generally far less confusing and more understandable, though their position as the first planets encountered in a galaxy is simultaneously maintained. As for the galaxies in which there is only one planet to be visited, I'm now proposing that we drop the "Starting Planet" extention altogether, and simply give it a new name in accordance with the aforementioned guidelines (unless people have a drastic problem with that, in which case I could be persuaded to propose otherwise), given that it is, after all, the only planet encountered in the galaxy, and therefore leads absolutely nowhere after Mario lands on it. So, in these situations at least, the name "Starting Planet" is rendered fairly pointless. Because the name "Starting Planet" is already conjectural, nothing will be lost or compromised by renaming them as detailed above. Should anyone wish to view the previous proposal and its respective arguments, etc., please look here. And like I said before, I would be more than happy to make the majority of the resulting changes myself.

Template:Scrollbox

Remove categories describing or referencing non-Mario-related content from articles

REMOVE CATEGORIES 12-9 This mainly deals with characters that have made appearances in Mario series games who also appear in series that are outside of our coverage. These characters are then placed in categories based upon what happens in their respective series. For example, Bottles the Mole is placed in the Undead category because he dies in Banjo-Tooie. Since we cover Mario-related content, what does it matter what happens in an external series that is outside of our jurisdiction? Template:Scrollbox

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/26&oldid=1077062"