MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 154: Line 154:
#{{User|Yoshi876}} Per all.
#{{User|Yoshi876}} Per all.
#{{user|driftmaster130}} Great idea for improving organization, per all.
#{{user|driftmaster130}} Great idea for improving organization, per all.
#{{User|Robecuba}} Per Mario and Pinkie


====Oppose====
====Oppose====

Revision as of 11:07, February 2, 2014

Image used as a banner for the proposals page
Current time:
Monday, May 19th, 04:27 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.

How to

If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
  2. A given user may author/co-author a maximum of five total ongoing/unimplemented proposals. Any new proposals over this limit will be immediately canceled.
  3. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  4. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  5. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available. Keep in mind that we use approval voting, so all of your votes count equally regardless of preferred order.
  6. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  7. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  8. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  9. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  10. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  11. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  12. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  13. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  14. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  15. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  16. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  17. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  18. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  19. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  20. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  21. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  22. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary. 

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[your username here]}} at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can simply say "Per proposal."

Poll proposal formatting

As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple subissues that can be resolved independently of each other. Poll proposals concerning multiple pages must have good justification for using the poll proposal format rather than individual talk page proposals or else will be canceled (for example, in the case of the princesses poll proposal, there are valid consistency concerns which make it worthwhile to consider these three articles simultaneously, but for routine article size splits, there is no need to abandon using standard TPPs for each).

In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. A poll proposal can have a maximum of 20 options, and the rules above apply to each option as if it were its own proposal: users may vote on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". 

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}

====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, the proposal author(s), and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Moves

Merges

Splits

Miscellaneous

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title, Hewer (ended March 27, 2025)
Make a page for the Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour, Koopa con Carne (ended April 11, 2025)
Change previous and next entries cell in infoboxes to include actual entry names and change directory link, Bro Hammer (ended April 18, 2025)
Add Play Nintendo games and Super Mario World: Mario to Yoshi no Bōken Land to the list of games, Nelsonic (ended May 3, 2025)
Make a guideline for covering generic subjects that have a recurring and recognizable design in the Mario series, Koopa con Carne (ended May 4, 2025)
Rework "References" sections, EvieMaybe (ended May 5, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)
Merge Mario Party 4 hosts with their species, Kirby the Formling (ended March 23, 2025)
Split Super Luigi subjects into a dedicated list article, EvieMaybe (ended April 3, 2025)
Refocus Papa Mario as "Mario's dad", Superstarxalien169 (ended April 4, 2025)
Merge the list of references to Super Mario Bros. with Super Mario Bros., Waluigi Time (ended April 6, 2025)
Split Hammer (move) from Hammer, Blinker (ended April 10, 2025)
Give Nathaniel's Fun Factory full coverage, Nelsonic (ended April 12, 2025)
Split Kongo Bongo Island and Jungle Kingdom from Donkey Kong Island, Kaptain Skurvy (ended April 20, 2025)
Deciding the fate of the last two episodes of Super Mario Maker 2 Challenges!, Rykitu (ended April 27, 2025)
Split Super Mario Bros. (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) from Super Mario Bros. (film), Kaptain Skurvy (ended May 2, 2025)
Merge Coin Area and Coin Block Area, Altendo (ended May 9, 2025)
Restore general coverage for Pyramid, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 9, 2025)
Split the Story Mode chapters from Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020, Kaptain Skurvy (ended May 13, 2025)
Clean up Prohibited Command, PrincessPeachFan (ended May 13, 2025)
Split the individual Picross NP volumes from Picross NP, Nelsonic (ended May 14, 2025)
Reduce Super Mario Maker info from giant cannon, LinkTheLefty (ended May 15, 2025)
Split VS. Pinball from Pinball, Platform (ended May 17, 2025)

List of Talk Page Proposals

Writing Guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Bowser's Minions-Category

On the left side of the screen Bowser's Minions should be a category instead of enimies because there are so many.

Proposer: bumpynintendo (talk)
Deadline: February 2, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

Oppose

  1. Baby Luigi (talk) No, the purpose of "Browse" section is to be broad. Placing Koopas there is too specific. Just as we don't put humans in there.
  2. Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per Baby Luigi.
  3. Yoshi876 (talk) Unneeded, the category Koopas will suffice.
  4. Icemario (talk) If we were to put Koopas there, then it wouldn't be that logical to put Goombas there, and it'd just escalate until we had a whole bunch of unneeded and as Baby Luigi said too specific subjects in the "Browse" section, making it cluttered, overly lengthy and less helpful.
  5. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
  6. KP (talk) If we put Koopas there, soon there would be a proposal saying we should put Goombas there. This would go on until the browse list reaches 50 entries.
  7. Mario7 (talk) Per all.
  8. Pinkie Pie (talk) Per all.
  9. driftmaster130 (talk) Per all.
  10. Green 6017 King Of The Slowpoke (talk) Per all. This is useless.

Comments

Could you be more specific? I cannot understand the one sentence proposal with spelling and gramatical errors. Mario7 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2014 (EST)

He's talking about the links on the left part of the page, specifically on the section labeled "browse". He wants to add a Koopas link in there. Baby Luigi (talk)

There are more goombas than koopas! I might cancel this now. Bumpynintendo (talk)

Aren't you going to support your proposal? Pinkie Pie (talk)

Create an [unconfirmed glitch] template

Collab Link

While navigating through glitches pages, I came across several glitches which I was unable to perform, nor did I managed to find any proof that this glitch is real or fake. So instead of removing all unsourced glitches, we would simply add a small notice like this[unconfirmed glitch]. This way we will still have the information, while avoiding any bogus glitches (because the reader would be already aware that this glitch was not tested, unproved).

I already aware that there is a template called {{refneeded}}. However this is a different thing: not every glitch need a reference. they need just an screenshot, a video, or in some cases, discussion on the talk page may be very enough if provided with some proof. Also having a different template and a different category is better for organizing, this way we can look in the category to find all glitches pages only which contains glitches need confirmation.

Draft: 

<sup class="noprint">[''unconfirmed glitch'']</sup><includeonly>[[Category:Glithes need confirmation]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Formatting Templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>

Proposer: Megadardery (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Megadardery (talk)
  2. Baby Luigi (talk) Per Meggy
  3. Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per proposal
  4. Mario7 (talk) Per proposal. I think this would be a great idea.
  5. Green 6017 King Of The Slowpoke (talk) Per all. This is a great idea, especialy for a glitch hunter like me.
  6. Robecuba (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. Walkazo (talk) - Just use {{refneeded}}: an unconfirmed glitch is no different from any other unconfirmed bit of info, and needs to be backed up by the exact same kind of sources. Furthermore, the template would just categorize the whole list page, not the specific glitch: in all likelihood, every long page will end up languishing in the category, probably from multiple templates (not that you could tell from looking at the category), which isn't useful: better to just use the collab to keep track of things.
  2. Pinkie Pie (talk) Per all.
  3. Lord Grammaticus (talk) - Per Walkazo, this proposal looks to me like it's basically founded on a bunch of semantic issues.
  4. Mario (talk) Uploading a screenshot and a video should be enough to remove both templates, so the proposed template will be pretty much redundant.
  5. driftmaster130 (talk) Per all.
  6. Yoshi876 (talk) Per all.

Comments

Screenshots and videos are references, and citing discussions isn't ideal even for glitches (although citing discussions beats no citations at all, of course). And what do you mean by "scrawny" "sourcing thing"? Citations are used all over the wiki, and so they should: they lend credibility to the database. Whoever told you references are only for upcoming games and beta elements is grievously mistaken. - Walkazo (talk)

Sorry, I was mistaken. After reading MarioWiki:Citation_Policy in depth again, I knew that information can be taken directly from the game without the need of external resources. Whatever, I guess this proposed feature should be separated from the {{refneeded}}, this way the category will contain all the pages that weren't tested by our users thus they aren't confirmed. About the citing discussion, take Flip'd-up Mario 1 as an example, a user confirmed this on the talk pages even describing it more, another user confirmed the glitch and confirmed his description (both users do not have capture cards), thus the glitch is confirmed, BUT it needs a reference. so replacing the {{UnconfirmedGlitch}} with the {{refneeded}}. Take Bananaport Glitch as an example, it does have an image, however I started a discussion on the talk page saying that it never happened for me, some more users said so. The {{UnconfirmedGlitch}} get added to the glitch, even when it really has an image (a reference. Megadardery (talk)
You can still use {{refneeded}} in cases where some evidence is provided but more is needed. And more than anything, the story about "Flip'd-up Mario 1" just proves that the differences in use between the established template and the proposed addition is splitting hairs and adding unnecessary complications to the straightforward process of confirming glitches (nothingrefneeded -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy). - Walkazo (talk)
A new template sounds redundant, but maybe {{refneeded}} could be modified to read "unconfirmed glitch" or something? driftmaster130 (talk)
Sorry, but I don't quite understand you.Megadardery (talk)
Which part? - Walkazo (talk)
"(nothingrefneeded -> disucssion-but-no-hard-proofcite talk page so readers can decide for themselves if they trust us -> hard-evidencecite that and be happy)"Megadardery (talk)
@Walkazo Like this: [unconfirmed glitch, citation needed]; and it could be modified like {{Userspace}} was for double usage. I don't know if that seems redundant or not but at least it highlights glitches more. driftmaster130 (talk)


Revive featured images.

Featured images should come back. They are fun and interesting. In fact, Baby Luigi (talk) says they are why she joined the wiki! Something this awesome and fun should come back.

Proposer bumpynintendo (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Bumpynintendo (talk)The reason is listed above.

Oppose

  1. Mario (talk) There is a reason featured images are removed, and since this proposal does nothing to address the previous problems the featured images system has, I will oppose.
  2. Yoshi876 (talk) Per the reasons for why it was removed in the first place.
  3. Walkazo (talk) - Per Mario and the old reasons for getting rid of FIs. They just don't add enough substance to the main page, whereas its current design is a good showcase of the wiki's merits as an information resource, and balances that with signs of the wiki's healthy community to boot: best not to change what's working so well.
  4. Pinkie Pie (talk) If we have the Featured Images Back, where would the polls go? This would make the Main Page go ugly. That why we removed the Featured Images, in order to get the polls back. Don't get me started on this lesson. Per all.
  5. Icemario (talk) Per Mario.
  6. driftmaster130 (talk) Per all.
  7. Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Very uneeded.
  8. Green 6017 King Of The Slowpoke (talk) While I liked the featured images they did get rid of it for a reason. Per all.
  9. Iggy Koopa Jr (talk) I don't find it fun, but I do find it rather flawed.

Comments

What was the reason behind its removal, for curiousity's sake? Lord Grammaticus (talk)

The system was highly flawed, governed by fan votes. "There are, from what I've seen from a recent proposal, many repeat nominations. There are also problems with some users about 'fan votes'– that is, people who go voting on an image not for the quality of the image or because they feel it would do the Main Page some justice, but rather because their favorite character is in the image. There are also quite a few users that feel the system itself does not work at all (such as me)." At the time, we were also running out of new images to feature (the system doesn't cycle), so the system just set itself up for a dead end. Mario (talk)

Oh my god, the memories. Baby Luigi (talk)

Well, that explains it well enough. Lord Grammaticus (talk)

Removals

Changes

Move the "List of implied X" articles to "List of mentioned X"

I dislike the title "List of implied X". I see it as violating NPOV, by suggesting that the thing in question may or may not exist, when in many cases, it does. Plus, most other Wikis use the word "mentioned" in this context. And while we're on the subject of these articles, I also think that they should be rewritten to be less obsessive.

Proposer: RickTommy (talk)
Deadline: February 2, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. RickTommy (talk)

Oppose

  1. Megadardery (talk) Does the difference between "implied" and "mentioned" worth all the trouble of updating the links? In addition, "mentioned" gives me the feeling that this item/character/whatever was only mentioned *really?* and it didn't actually appear whilst lots of mentioned/implied whatever already appeared but does not need a full page, just a minor section in this page. On the other hand, "implied" gives me the opposite feeling. I'd rather keep "implied" unless we find a better word.
  2. Pinkie Pie (talk) Per Megadarery
  3. Baby Luigi (talk) Meg's got it
  4. Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per Megadardery.
  5. Walkazo (talk) - "Implied" suits the subject matter perfectly well (stuff that's not directly shown), and is more inclusive (not all implied things are merely mentioned; for example, the Crocuses are also shown in portraits). Either way, its not worth the trouble to change it. Also, proposals shouldn't include secondary purposes as vague as calling for the rewriting of pages to be "less obsessive".
  6. KP (talk) Implied just sounds better than mentioned when you put it in the phrase. Also, we would have to change every single implied into a mentioned. Fixing the links would take days. All that work for one word which is actually worse than the current one.
  7. bumpynintendo (talk) per all.
  8. Iggy Koopa Jr (talk) It's a synonym. I don't think we should change because other wikis do it...
  9. driftmaster130 (talk) The term "implied" sounds more formal in encyclopedic sense.
  10. Robecuba (talk)Per all, there is no need to do this, and it will just waste time.

Comments

List of x's with unproved existences
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bumpynintendo (talk).

What? Baby Luigi (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2014 (EST)
Too wordy for page titles. - Walkazo (talk)

Move substantial "Official profiles and statistics" sections to a separate page

Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Toad, Bowser, Yoshi, Donkey Kong. One thing in common is that their pages are incredibly huge, and loading them may be a chore for the computer. My proposal is to move some information, specifically large "Official profiles and statistics" sections, from these pages to another page, much as how "Gallery" and "Quotes" have their own page. While this may not be a surefire way to get these pages loading a bajillion times quicker, every little bit helps so we can get potential editors rather than having their browsers crash from the immense size.

Baby Luigi and I then decided that we should move the "Official profiles and statistics" section to its own page. Now, just as with galleries and list of quotes, not EVERY article will be affected by it; only articles that have a substantial amount of information (decided by a case-by-case basis) will have the information moved.

Reasonably reducing the strain these pages do on browsers should be a plus for all of us editors here.

Update: In addition, profiles and statistics from RPG games, such as Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi and Super Mario RPG will be moved into these pages as well.

Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: February 9, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Mario (talk) It's a pain in the ass to visit these articles I mentioned. Every little bit of trimming will be highly appreciated, so moving this information to another article will be nice.
  2. Pinkie Pie (talk) In 2006, all the page were short like a daisy. Now, it a garbage dump today. We should move the profiles to another page. Reader could get tired of reading long articles. I said we go back to 2006. Per all.
  3. Walkazo (talk) - YES! I've wanted to see this happen for years, but was always too lazy to to do more than mention it every now and then. As well as shortening the length of the page as a whole, it'll also halve the amount of entries in the Table of Contents for these big pages, making navigation easier (plus, then there won't be so many headers sharing names and potentially complicating section-linking). The articles will also look better without the messy lists dragging along after the prose content.
  4. GBAToad (talk) I strongly support this. Per Mario and Walkazo.
  5. Tails777 (talk) Yes, just yes. Maybe this can also help towards featuring these kinds of articles (maybe). Per all.
  6. Yoshi876 (talk) Per all.
  7. driftmaster130 (talk) Great idea for improving organization, per all.
  8. Robecuba (talk) Per Mario and Pinkie

Oppose

Comments

I think it would be a good idea to also say that all the official profiles and stats should go on the not-subpages - i.e. instead of having some of the RPG infoboxes in the History sections, etc. That way, everything would be in one place, and it would also make the History sections more uniform and less crowded (as they can get when they have multiple boxes in close proximity). One question, tho: what would the new pages be named? "List of profiles and statistics of X" would be consistent with other "subpages", and doesn't see, too wordy after the "official" bit's removed. But I dunno, maybe there's a better choice? - Walkazo (talk)

I added some more provisions, thanks to your suggestions. Also, I think the "profiles and statistics" part can be shortened to just one word, but I'm not exactly sure what single word can replace that lengthy phrase. Maybe "List of data of this guy person" or simply "List of profiles of this guy person". Mario (talk)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=1618922"