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]], [[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) | |||
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 | |||
== Incompleteness == | == Incompleteness == | ||
| Line 29: | 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 104: | 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 142: | 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 296: | 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 325: | 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 377: | 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 385: | 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> | ||
'''Deadline''': | '''Deadline''': January 15, 2016, 23:59 GMT | ||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per proposal. | #{{User|Tucayo}} - Per proposal. | ||
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} — Per Tucayo | #{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} — Per Tucayo. As has been said before, this template is a "tool" for wiki editing purposes; as with all tools, they should be used responsibly and only when necessary. As information on the wiki is constantly changing, and edits will always need to be made, the use of this template should be employed with proper discretion. Only articles that require major changes and appear disorderly should be tagged as being under construction. | ||
#{{User|RandomYoshi}} – Per all. | #{{User|RandomYoshi}} – Per all. | ||
#{{User|Megadardery}} Per all, all articles in any wiki are constantly being worked on to be made better, so really, the "informal appearance" is the only reason this template should be placed. Otherwise, if the article is skimming info, a more appropriate template (such as {{tem|rewrite-expand}}) should be placed instead. | #{{User|Megadardery}} Per all, all articles in any wiki are constantly being worked on to be made better, so really, the "informal appearance" is the only reason this template should be placed. Otherwise, if the article is skimming info, a more appropriate template (such as {{tem|rewrite-expand}}) should be placed instead. | ||
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per all. | #{{User|Time Turner}} Per all. | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
| Line 417: | Line 406: | ||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} I really think this template should be worked depending on the user operating the template rather than a poorly defined, somewhat subjective, and a completely vague term that this proposal is suggesting. As my twin said, the template is kept vague on purpose so we'd have a more widespread use of it and we can apply it where editors feel like it should be. I don't like to fall back on the grandfather clause on this, but no editor has really abused the template in the past and whenever I see an editor place this up, I feel like they most of the time have good reasons on doing so. | #{{User|Baby Luigi}} I really think this template should be worked depending on the user operating the template rather than a poorly defined, somewhat subjective, and a completely vague term that this proposal is suggesting. As my twin said, the template is kept vague on purpose so we'd have a more widespread use of it and we can apply it where editors feel like it should be. I don't like to fall back on the grandfather clause on this, but no editor has really abused the template in the past and whenever I see an editor place this up, I feel like they most of the time have good reasons on doing so. | ||
#{{User|Andymii}} Per all. The construction template's use is entirely subjective, and setting rules on use isn't going to help. Plus, the template is sometimes also used to tell others not to steal the project. | #{{User|Andymii}} Per all. The construction template's use is entirely subjective, and setting rules on use isn't going to help. Plus, the template is sometimes also used to tell others not to steal the project. | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
| Line 436: | Line 421: | ||
: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 443: | Line 428: | ||
:::::::::How does that template not provide that notice? "While it's being worked on" and "We hope to have it completed as soon as possible" suggests that there are major changes on going and "informal" can mean anything from incomplete charts, expanding the article, reorganizing sections, missing details, data needed, sources needed, and rewriting. Yes, this wiki is "always under construction" as we say, but some articles need much more work than others and some users choose to target specific articles and then put up a notice template to suggest that there are changes made. Of course, others don't, but that suddenly doesn't mean users that do are abusing the template as implied here. Major changes are being made fairly frequently, but they're often done in a few edits thanks to sandboxes or gradually over time which calls for construction to show that it's ongoing. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 21:37, 1 January 2016 (EST) | :::::::::How does that template not provide that notice? "While it's being worked on" and "We hope to have it completed as soon as possible" suggests that there are major changes on going and "informal" can mean anything from incomplete charts, expanding the article, reorganizing sections, missing details, data needed, sources needed, and rewriting. Yes, this wiki is "always under construction" as we say, but some articles need much more work than others and some users choose to target specific articles and then put up a notice template to suggest that there are changes made. Of course, others don't, but that suddenly doesn't mean users that do are abusing the template as implied here. Major changes are being made fairly frequently, but they're often done in a few edits thanks to sandboxes or gradually over time which calls for construction to show that it's ongoing. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 21:37, 1 January 2016 (EST) | ||
:<s>tl;dr</s>. If a user is working on various sections of an article, for instance to rewrite a major part of it or if he ''has a plan'' to add a table in the future. The template doesn't seem to fit in the article in that situation. Because the article is good, not incomplete nor missing sections, not poorly formatted or have many red-linked images. The article is in a formal state. The point is, this template serves no purpose other than to address that the reader should excuse the look of the page. Otherwise a more appropriate template (or no templates, case-by-case) should be placed instead. It's the same case as the previous proposal of expiring the construction template, the template is vaguely defined. "Under construction" seems to suggest that the article is crappy, broken and need to be fixed, thus under construction.--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 07:18, 2 January 2016 (EST) | :<s>tl;dr</s>. If a user is working on various sections of an article, for instance to rewrite a major part of it or if he ''has a plan'' to add a table in the future. The template doesn't seem to fit in the article in that situation. Because the article is good, not incomplete nor missing sections, not poorly formatted or have many red-linked images. The article is in a formal state. The point is, this template serves no purpose other than to address that the reader should excuse the look of the page. Otherwise a more appropriate template (or no templates, case-by-case) should be placed instead. It's the same case as the previous proposal of expiring the construction template, the template is vaguely defined. "Under construction" seems to suggest that the article is crappy, broken and need to be fixed, thus under construction.--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 07:18, 2 January 2016 (EST) | ||
