Editing Template talk:Construction
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This template was originally designed to excuse the incompleteness of a ''MarioWiki'' or ''Help'' page that was part of a Project (even a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|''PipeProject'']] was tagged for a day). I remember tagging [[MarioWiki:Pipe Plaza|Pipe Plaza]], [[The 'Shroom | This template was originally designed to excuse the incompleteness of a ''MarioWiki'' or ''Help'' page that was part of a Project (even a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|''PipeProject'']] was tagged for a day). I remember tagging [[MarioWiki:Pipe Plaza|Pipe Plaza]], [[MarioWiki:The 'Shroom|The 'Shroom]], [[Help:Userbox]], and one PipeProject before. The category, I agree, we can live without, but this is not for normal articles that are unfinished (and thus stubbed for another contributor to take up). <span style="font-family:Kunstler Script; color:#006633;"><font size="5">'''[[User:Wayoshi|W]]'''ayoshi</font></span><small> ( [[User talk:Wayoshi|T]]<tt>·</tt>[[Special:Contributions/Wayoshi|C]]<tt>·</tt>[[Special:Emailuser/Wayoshi|@]] )</small> 02:03, 27 August 2006 (EDT) | ||
== Incompleteness == | == Incompleteness == | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
== Keeping the Mario hammer gif == | == Keeping the Mario hammer gif == | ||
{{ | {{SettledTPP}} | ||
<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">OPPOSE 4-14</span> | |||
Forgive me if you don't agree, but I think the Construction Template should be left as it was, with the [[File:Mario hammer.gif|Mario Hammer gif]] on the left. The admins has dubbed it ''unnessesary'', but I just don't agree with this particular decision. Yes, it ''is'' unnessesary, but it should be left there for purely decorative and nostalgic purposes.<br> | Forgive me if you don't agree, but I think the Construction Template should be left as it was, with the [[File:Mario hammer.gif|Mario Hammer gif]] on the left. The admins has dubbed it ''unnessesary'', but I just don't agree with this particular decision. Yes, it ''is'' unnessesary, but it should be left there for purely decorative and nostalgic purposes.<br> | ||
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
==Proposal: Reconsidering Adding an Image to This Template == | ==Proposal: Reconsidering Adding an Image to This Template == | ||
{{ | {{SettledTPP}} | ||
<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">DON'T ADD AN IMAGE 14-17</span> | |||
This is my first proposal, so here goes... | This is my first proposal, so here goes... | ||
| Line 141: | Line 142: | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
#{{User|Aokage}} I don't like it. | #{{User|Aokage}} I don't like it. | ||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - The image is unnecessary and inconsistent with most other notice templates ({{tem|Image}} and {{tem| | #{{User|Walkazo}} - The image is unnecessary and inconsistent with most other notice templates ({{tem|Image}} and {{tem|MoreImages}}, {{tem|Empty}}, {{tem|Trivia}}, the {{tem|rewrite}} family including {{tem|Tense}}, etc.). {{tem|stub}} works differently (i.e. it's white and goes at the bottom) so it's not fully comparable, and frankly I'd be fine with removing the ill-formatted image from {{tem|delete}} (and maybe recolouring it red or something as a different way to stand out) if the alternative is superfluous images added everywhere else ([[Template_talk:Empty#Add_an_image_to_the_template|like here - inspired by ''this'' TPP]]). As I said in the last proposal, notice templates are tools, not banners: they're not supposed to be fun, they're supposed to be removed as soon as possible. Other wikis may do it, but I still think the templates look better without images, especially when viewed on wider screens, and the fact that not one design manages to look presentable for the various resolutions is all the more reason to keep the template simple and clean for everyone. | ||
#{{User|NSY}} Poor quality which makes it look unprofessional. | #{{User|NSY}} Poor quality which makes it look unprofessional. | ||
#{{User|Yoshi876}} Per Walkazo, the improvement tags aren't really meant to be looked at in a "fun" way. Personally I'd be fine with the removal of images on the notice templates that currently have them. And my laptop the image exceeds the boundaries of the template, which makes it look unprofessional. | #{{User|Yoshi876}} Per Walkazo, the improvement tags aren't really meant to be looked at in a "fun" way. Personally I'd be fine with the removal of images on the notice templates that currently have them. And my laptop the image exceeds the boundaries of the template, which makes it look unprofessional. | ||
| Line 295: | Line 296: | ||
==Make Construction templates expire after 3 months== | ==Make Construction templates expire after 3 months== | ||
{{ | {{SettledTPP}} | ||
<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">OPPOSE 2-6</span> | |||
Attempt #3 on my heroic quest to improve this template. | Attempt #3 on my heroic quest to improve this template. | ||
In all seriousness, though, the same problems persist as before: pages ''clearly'' not under construction anymore still have this template slapped onto them. I say we take a similar path from [[:Category: | In all seriousness, though, the same problems persist as before: pages ''clearly'' not under construction anymore still have this template slapped onto them. I say we take a similar path from [[:Category:Unresolved talk pages]] and set the page to expire if absolutely ''no one'' edits the page for 3 months. | ||
After all, if one hasn't "constructed" a page for 3+ months, it's probably because he or she has given up, finished and forgot to remove the template, or forgotten. Even if the constructor is making the page on, for example, Microsoft Word or the Wiki Sandbox, it really shouldn't take any longer than three months. Keeping the template there gives the false illusion that more will quickly be added to the page, when it is not. And if the page is actually incomplete, well, that's a completely different matter than being under construction. Simply put something along the lines of {{tem|stub}} or {{tem|rewrite-expand}}. | After all, if one hasn't "constructed" a page for 3+ months, it's probably because he or she has given up, finished and forgot to remove the template, or forgotten. Even if the constructor is making the page on, for example, Microsoft Word or the Wiki Sandbox, it really shouldn't take any longer than three months. Keeping the template there gives the false illusion that more will quickly be added to the page, when it is not. And if the page is actually incomplete, well, that's a completely different matter than being under construction. Simply put something along the lines of {{tem|stub}} or {{tem|rewrite-expand}}. | ||
| Line 324: | Line 325: | ||
To be clear, there isn't actually a feasible way to make the template expire automatically, and really, it wouldn't be unreasonable to just go and organizing a Wiki Collab to replace stale construction templates with <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}} even without a proposal. A hard cutoff isn't even that necessary, and the "absolutely no one edits" could actually be a hindrance to getting rid of egregious {{Construction}} templates, since incidental edits could easily happen even after the dedicated construction has long petered off. I generally feel that {{Construction}} is good for pages that have lots of empty sections or partial templates or whatever, and look like absolute shit in general as a result, but once they get some meat on the bones, even if many of the sections are small with further expansion still trickling in gradually, it would just be better to replace it with {{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki>. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 20:07, 31 October 2015 (EDT) | To be clear, there isn't actually a feasible way to make the template expire automatically, and really, it wouldn't be unreasonable to just go and organizing a Wiki Collab to replace stale construction templates with <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}} even without a proposal. A hard cutoff isn't even that necessary, and the "absolutely no one edits" could actually be a hindrance to getting rid of egregious {{Construction}} templates, since incidental edits could easily happen even after the dedicated construction has long petered off. I generally feel that {{Construction}} is good for pages that have lots of empty sections or partial templates or whatever, and look like absolute shit in general as a result, but once they get some meat on the bones, even if many of the sections are small with further expansion still trickling in gradually, it would just be better to replace it with {{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki>. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 20:07, 31 October 2015 (EDT) | ||
Of course, this would be volunteer-based. And it's already been used already; it's the current method used at [http://www.mariowiki.com/Category: | Of course, this would be volunteer-based. And it's already been used already; it's the current method used at [http://www.mariowiki.com/Category:Unresolved_talk_pages unresolved talk pages]. Even with the cutoff, good judgement is the most important at the end of the day, so the cutoff exists solely if absolutely necessary. --[[User:Andymii|Andymii]] ([[User talk:Andymii|talk]]) 20:16, 31 October 2015 (EDT) | ||
::Technically, you *can* program a bot-user to make construction templates expire "automatically" but yeah, that's far too much work for what it's worth. Just throwing that out there, I know we're not going that route just for this type of maintenance route, unless someone or me gets more programming experience and/or bots become a regular thing, which won't happen in a loooong time, at this rate. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:44, 31 October 2015 (EDT) | ::Technically, you *can* program a bot-user to make construction templates expire "automatically" but yeah, that's far too much work for what it's worth. Just throwing that out there, I know we're not going that route just for this type of maintenance route, unless someone or me gets more programming experience and/or bots become a regular thing, which won't happen in a loooong time, at this rate. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:44, 31 October 2015 (EDT) | ||
| Line 376: | Line 377: | ||
::::::::Not exactly. It's more like construction is used for articles in general bad shape, upcoming overhaul, a working overhaul, or there is an overhaul taking place due to a recent policy change. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 23:45, 6 November 2015 (EST) | ::::::::Not exactly. It's more like construction is used for articles in general bad shape, upcoming overhaul, a working overhaul, or there is an overhaul taking place due to a recent policy change. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 23:45, 6 November 2015 (EST) | ||
I would like to point out that this is actually a system we're already using on other templates, for example [[:Category: | I would like to point out that this is actually a system we're already using on other templates, for example [[:Category:Unresolved_talk_pages|this one]]. So it's not a freakishly large shift. Don't forget the problem also lies within people forgetting to remove the Construction template when they are done, or just forget about the project in general. Construction, I think, implies work is currently getting done really fast on that page, so when the page is dead on recent edits, it shouldn't be on that page. --[[User:Andymii|Andymii]] ([[User talk:Andymii|talk]]) 22:43, 6 November 2015 (EST) | ||
:IMO, it's misguided to remove legit but unanswered {{tem|talk}} templates too. We should make an effort to answer questions, not sweep them under the rug. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 22:49, 6 November 2015 (EST) | :IMO, it's misguided to remove legit but unanswered {{tem|talk}} templates too. We should make an effort to answer questions, not sweep them under the rug. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 22:49, 6 November 2015 (EST) | ||
Not to go off topic, but in that case, I think we should definitely let the thing expire. I'm with you when you say don't sweep questions under the rug, but ig you are to bring back an ancient question, you probably should make it as a new header. After all, no one is going to expect an answer to a question they asked in 2013, so they most likely won't check it. | Not to go off topic, but in that case, I think we should definitely let the thing expire. I'm with you when you say don't sweep questions under the rug, but ig you are to bring back an ancient question, you probably should make it as a new header. After all, no one is going to expect an answer to a question they asked in 2013, so they most likely won't check it. | ||
| Line 384: | Line 385: | ||
==Use the template only when pages clearly have an informal appearance== | ==Use the template only when pages clearly have an informal appearance== | ||
{{ | {{TPP}} | ||
Is the template really necessary for when pages don't have an informal appearance? The template clearly states it apologizes for the informal appearance of the article it's found on, so having it on a page that is visually fine makes no sense at all; it's apologizing for something that is not there. Users can freely work on any articles without the need to slap an ugly template on top of it; if we were to tag with {{tem|construction}} every article someone is working on, our wiki would be full of this template and that is not how this template should be used. As Walkazo said [[forum:29237.msg1799965#msg1799965|here]], the template is best used when: "a page has conspicuously under-construction chunks: empty or missing sections, half-finished tables, etc.", which would be the definition of "informal appearance" here. | |||
Is the template really necessary for when pages don't have an informal appearance? The template clearly states it apologizes for the informal appearance of the article it's found on, so having it on a page that is visually fine makes no sense at all; it's apologizing for something that is not there. Users can freely work on any articles without the need to slap an ugly template on top of it; if we were to tag with {{tem|construction}} every article someone is working on, our wiki would be full of this template and that is not how this template should be used. As Walkazo said [[ | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Tucayo}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|Tucayo}}<br> | ||
| Line 406: | Line 405: | ||
#{{User|Roy Koopa}} Per all. | #{{User|Roy Koopa}} Per all. | ||
#{{User|Lakituthequick}} Per all. | #{{User|Lakituthequick}} Per all. | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
| Line 419: | Line 417: | ||
#{{User|3D Player 2010}} If an article is being revamped as part of a project, I say we should use this template; per all. | #{{User|3D Player 2010}} If an article is being revamped as part of a project, I say we should use this template; per all. | ||
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all. | #{{User|Niiue}} Per all. | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
| Line 435: | Line 432: | ||
:If any article can use major improvement, it can be improved regardless of any tag it could have. Having this template on a page that otherwise looks fine accomplishes nothing at all. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 18:14, 1 January 2016 (EST) | :If any article can use major improvement, it can be improved regardless of any tag it could have. Having this template on a page that otherwise looks fine accomplishes nothing at all. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 18:14, 1 January 2016 (EST) | ||
::That's the point of improvement tags: to signal major improvement needed for an article and categorize it as incomplete or needs more major work, and sometimes there are slightly more specific tags you can use like rewrite-expand. I've put the construction tag and left it there on [[Mario]] for specific reasons that we've discussed in the forums since I am working on inputting major changes, and it's not practical to use sandbox due to its high-traffic and overall layout of the page. Again, there is really no hard line between construction and rewrite and there is really no point in trying to create one, especially when I feel it's pretty much imposing one interpretation over the other. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 18:34, 1 January 2016 (EST) | ::That's the point of improvement tags: to signal major improvement needed for an article and categorize it as incomplete or needs more major work, and sometimes there are slightly more specific tags you can use like rewrite-expand. I've put the construction tag and left it there on [[Mario]] for specific reasons that we've discussed in the forums since I am working on inputting major changes, and it's not practical to use sandbox due to its high-traffic and overall layout of the page. Again, there is really no hard line between construction and rewrite and there is really no point in trying to create one, especially when I feel it's pretty much imposing one interpretation over the other. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 18:34, 1 January 2016 (EST) | ||
:::@'''and it's not practical to use sandbox due to its high-traffic and overall layout of the page''': I don't see why you couldn't just create {{ | :::@'''and it's not practical to use sandbox due to its high-traffic and overall layout of the page''': I don't see why you couldn't just create {{fakelink|User:Bazooka Mario/work}} or something and work on the article there in peace, where nobody else (except admins, but they won't touch those pages) can edit them, unless that's not the point you're making, in which case please explain which point you're making. {{User:RandomYoshi/sig}} 20:09, 1 January 2016 (EST) | ||
::::That's what I meant by sandbox, I meant both the wiki-built and user ones. [[User:Bazooka_Mario/sandbox|I do have one]]. I don't see the benefits outsourcing to a sandbox compared to directly editing, in this specific case. I understand complete overhauls and new pages, but I'm expanding the page and I've created a checklist on what I've done so far, and for those not familiar with what I've outlined in [[User:Bazooka_Mario#Mario|my userpage]], I've provided a construction template to know that the article is being worked on now and then, and I do make pretty major changes. In fact, I've made major changes ''today'' by reorganizing some parts of the history section and incorporating trivia. For my slow, ongoing mostly solo work, I have no plans nor any desire to change the construction template to rewrite or remove it all together because the construction template best illustrates my ongoing work on it. I'm reorganizing the page, expanding it, rewriting it, proofreading it every time I visit it ''while'' people are also adding stuff to it, so keeping it to a sandbox feels rather counterproductive compared to just jumping in and adding/rewriting sections. If I haven't explained my situation clearly enough, then maybe my approach is very foreign to editors. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 20:39, 1 January 2016 (EST) | ::::That's what I meant by sandbox, I meant both the wiki-built and user ones. [[User:Bazooka_Mario/sandbox|I do have one]]. I don't see the benefits outsourcing to a sandbox compared to directly editing, in this specific case. I understand complete overhauls and new pages, but I'm expanding the page and I've created a checklist on what I've done so far, and for those not familiar with what I've outlined in [[User:Bazooka_Mario#Mario|my userpage]], I've provided a construction template to know that the article is being worked on now and then, and I do make pretty major changes. In fact, I've made major changes ''today'' by reorganizing some parts of the history section and incorporating trivia. For my slow, ongoing mostly solo work, I have no plans nor any desire to change the construction template to rewrite or remove it all together because the construction template best illustrates my ongoing work on it. I'm reorganizing the page, expanding it, rewriting it, proofreading it every time I visit it ''while'' people are also adding stuff to it, so keeping it to a sandbox feels rather counterproductive compared to just jumping in and adding/rewriting sections. If I haven't explained my situation clearly enough, then maybe my approach is very foreign to editors. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 20:39, 1 January 2016 (EST) | ||
:::::Personal projects to improve articles that are otherwise complete in information do not warrant the use of {{tem|construction}}. If you have your objectives for the page outlined in your userpage, you can work off that list ''without'' the tag. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 20:50, 1 January 2016 (EST) | :::::Personal projects to improve articles that are otherwise complete in information do not warrant the use of {{tem|construction}}. If you have your objectives for the page outlined in your userpage, you can work off that list ''without'' the tag. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 20:50, 1 January 2016 (EST) | ||
| Line 455: | Line 452: | ||
I am in full support of doing this, however I think it's better off that the template stated that the article is incomplete rather than under construction. My reasoning for this is that 1. the work could of been abandoned so it's technically not under construction 2. it's easier for the reader to understand and says a lot more about the state of article as it's simpler. Any thoughts on that? {{user|NSY}} | I am in full support of doing this, however I think it's better off that the template stated that the article is incomplete rather than under construction. My reasoning for this is that 1. the work could of been abandoned so it's technically not under construction 2. it's easier for the reader to understand and says a lot more about the state of article as it's simpler. Any thoughts on that? {{user|NSY}} | ||
I strongly agree with {{User|Walkazo}} and {{User|Gabumon}}. Hypothetically, what happens if we implement a new policy that changes ''many'' articles? Are we going to slap {{tem|Construction}} on ''all'' of them until the edits are made? If the pages present accurate information well enough until the changes are made, then the template only serves to threaten how the reader perceives the wiki as a credible resource (as Walkazo said, the wiki would be unnecessarily "shooting [itself] in the foot"). We could also consider what Gabumon pointed out: that the same "broad" and "vague" nature of the template that the opposition cherishes also allows for the template to be used on practically all 16,000+ articles, and somebody could choose to do that right now with the only consequence being that our website will look awful. Additionally, some have also cited the Courtesy Policy as a justification for the current usage of the template; however, the template was made years before the policy existed and was originally intended for exclusive use in project pages (i.e. ''MarioWiki:'' and ''Help:''). It can be argued that its role in preventing editing projects being "stolen" is archaic – perhaps even invented – and that there are better ways to establish such efforts. For example, one could post a [[ | I strongly agree with {{User|Walkazo}} and {{User|Gabumon}}. Hypothetically, what happens if we implement a new policy that changes ''many'' articles? Are we going to slap {{tem|Construction}} on ''all'' of them until the edits are made? If the pages present accurate information well enough until the changes are made, then the template only serves to threaten how the reader perceives the wiki as a credible resource (as Walkazo said, the wiki would be unnecessarily "shooting [itself] in the foot"). We could also consider what Gabumon pointed out: that the same "broad" and "vague" nature of the template that the opposition cherishes also allows for the template to be used on practically all 16,000+ articles, and somebody could choose to do that right now with the only consequence being that our website will look awful. Additionally, some have also cited the Courtesy Policy as a justification for the current usage of the template; however, the template was made years before the policy existed and was originally intended for exclusive use in project pages (i.e. ''MarioWiki:'' and ''Help:''). It can be argued that its role in preventing editing projects being "stolen" is archaic – perhaps even invented – and that there are better ways to establish such efforts. For example, one could post a [[Forumboard:57.0|collaboration]] on the forum that would allow them to take charge of revamping an article while having additional input before any huge changes are made. That all being said, it is clear that there are inherent issues with this template that need to be addressed. {{User|Henry Tucayo Clay}} has proposed a sensible solution that isn't too restrictive and will simply reserve it for pages that have glaring, unprofessional issues that need to be resolved. {{User:Super Mario Bros./sig}} 17:17, 3 January 2016 (EST) | ||
Given the relatively low usage this template sees mixed with the relatively high number of issues we've had just maintaining it (this is the fourth effing proposal for one damn template), I'd be much more in favor of either modifying the use range of other, similar templates or turning this one into a general, temporary "this article is new, don't ask for deletion just yet" stopgap that it was initially intended to be. -- [[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 20:26, 8 January 2016 (EST) | Given the relatively low usage this template sees mixed with the relatively high number of issues we've had just maintaining it (this is the fourth effing proposal for one damn template), I'd be much more in favor of either modifying the use range of other, similar templates or turning this one into a general, temporary "this article is new, don't ask for deletion just yet" stopgap that it was initially intended to be. -- [[User:Ghost Jam|Ghost Jam]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 20:26, 8 January 2016 (EST) | ||
| Line 461: | Line 458: | ||
:I find this proposal not addressing the root of the problem. Maybe templates, such as {{tem|construction}}, {{tem|rewrite}}, {{tem|rewrite-expand}}, and {{tem|stub}}, probably need to be dropped in favor of a whole new set of templates that convey varying levels of urgency what is needed in the article/section. I find that {{tem|construction}} is used for articles that need a lot of work done, {{tem|rewrite}} is used for articles that have the right structure but needs tweaks, and {{tem|rewrite-expand}}/{{tem|stub}} for articles that need more information in a particular section or very short article. I find {{tem|rewrite-expand}} and {{tem|stub}} requesting the same kind of content. There is no reason to have both those two. I find that {{tem|rewrite-expand}} should just be {{tem|expand}}. {{tem|image}}, I find that should be left alone. Ultimately, we need a more robust system. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 16:03, 15 January 2016 (EST) | :I find this proposal not addressing the root of the problem. Maybe templates, such as {{tem|construction}}, {{tem|rewrite}}, {{tem|rewrite-expand}}, and {{tem|stub}}, probably need to be dropped in favor of a whole new set of templates that convey varying levels of urgency what is needed in the article/section. I find that {{tem|construction}} is used for articles that need a lot of work done, {{tem|rewrite}} is used for articles that have the right structure but needs tweaks, and {{tem|rewrite-expand}}/{{tem|stub}} for articles that need more information in a particular section or very short article. I find {{tem|rewrite-expand}} and {{tem|stub}} requesting the same kind of content. There is no reason to have both those two. I find that {{tem|rewrite-expand}} should just be {{tem|expand}}. {{tem|image}}, I find that should be left alone. Ultimately, we need a more robust system. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 16:03, 15 January 2016 (EST) | ||
