| All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was.
|
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 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:
- Increased user interest in editing.
- Better quality articles.
- More opportunities for users to get involved in the development of the wiki.
- More consistency.
- An aid to help users edit.
Things that will be added if this proposal passes:
- A section will be added to proposal page for Writing Guidelines
- A new rule will be added stating that Writing Guidelines will be given two weeks as opposed to one.
- My draft page (User:Knife/Policy) will be created as an actual MarioWiki: namespace page.
- Also see User:Knife/Proposal to see what the proposals page will look like.
- All mention of Writer Guidelines will become Writing Guidelines (including the category).
- 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
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:
- All blocked users' votes are removed; no matter the length of the block.
- All permanently blocked users' votes are removed, but if a user's block expires before the end of the proposal, their vote remains.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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
