Template talk:Rewrite

New Template Design!

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

do not make changes 1-7

We can change the color, add an icon for the Rewrite, Rewrite-expand and Rewrite-expand. Which meaning:

New Rewrite Template

New Rewrite-expand Template

New Section-expand Template

Proposer: Megadardery (talk)
Deadline: December 21, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Megadardery (talk) Per my Proposal

Oppose

1. Walkazo (talk) - The icons seem unnecessary and don't really fit how the templates actually work relative to each other. {{Rewrite}} is just about rewriting and not necessarily bringing in new content, but {{Rewrite-expand}} is the template about expanding, which is an extension of rewriting (as reflected by the name) because the content's that already there usually gets rewritten as part of the process of getting added to. (On a side-note, the idea of a plain "Expand" template was always thought of as redundant in the face of "Rewrite-expand", hence it always gets deleted when it's brought back.) {{Section-expand}} is for fixing sections only, hence it's called "section-expand" ("section-rewrite-expand" is more accurate, but it's too long) and has different coding: it's not the third template in a three-piece set (as the icons imply), it's more like an accessory. The colour's also kinda meh, and the current dark blue stands out and alerts editors to the situation perfectly well, so why mess with it?
2. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Your designs look ugly and I much prefer the straight forwardness of the current template design. Also you've given no argument for why we should change the design all you say is that we can and just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
3. BluePiranha (talk) The current designs are better in my opinion. Per Walkazo.
4. YoshiKong (talk) Per all. We shouldn't worry too much about how the templates look. It's the way they are used that matters. Asides from that, I'm happy with the solid colors and design we have at present.
5. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Walkazo.
6. BowserJunior (talk) Per all. This is completely unnecessary.
7. Phoenix (talk) They're fine the way they are. Per Walkazo.

Comments

Why you say this? This is better, at least it has got an image.. i Change the rewrite image to any of this:

• 

If you see that this is better than the dictionary icon please comment here.

New Rewrite Template

There's different colour backgrounds now? No, that's even worse: all three templates are about the same subject matter (fixing up the written content), and they should be the same colour. And whether or not an image is actually an improvement over no image is a subjective choice made by each individual: you think it's better if there's "at least" an image, but I personally think these serious maintenance templates look better without any images. Both are valid stances, so which is ultimately "better" is really a matter of which opinion is shared by the most users. - Walkazo 12:59, 8 December 2012 (EST)

New design

How about this design? Please change…

…to…

Burglar King (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

Editing the template

I am editing this template to add the text below this template (from the template of Donkey Kong Wiki) to make it better. -- New Supermatt Bros. 02:11, 14 December 2013 (EST)

Changed

I added Wario's picture at the right side of the template. This was requested by Burglar King. -- New Supermatt Bros. 03:54, 14 December 2013 (EST)

And I changed it back. There needs to be a proper discussion or even a vote before important templates like this get changed around, and one user's ignored request from a year ago is not a proper discussion. The last attempt (afaik) to add images to templates was about a year ago, and it didn't pass. - Walkazo 10:30, 19 March 2014 (EDT)

Name?

Should we make a section of the template to state who put the template there so they may be contacted to see if the articles good enough? Page history is useless, I had to search for 15 minutes trying to find who tagged Mr. L, and the user was inactive anyway. - 09:40, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

This was posted two years ago, but I'm bringing it back. It seems like a decent idea to me. If someone tags an article, but doesn't add specific info as to what needs to be rewritten, it might be hard for editors to see what exactly needs to be done. If they could immediately see who tagged the article, they could ask them.

Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 14:51, 29 November 2016 (EST)

I'm all for this. Everyone has their own ideas as to how things should be written out, but not everyone vocalizes them or types them out. Including your name would be useful, but I don't see it as exactly mandatory. You can still post on the forums and even the article's talk page itself to see what other users think and form a collaboration. 16:43, 1 December 2016 (EST)

Create a Rewrite-remove template

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

Create 6-0
This proposal is about creating a {{rewrite-remove}} derivative of the template. It's the opposite of the {{rewrite-expand}} template, since it would request certain parts be removed from the page. The reason I'm creating this proposal is because this passed proposal, where special move has to be trimmed from the remaining crossover character articles. Tagging it with the Rewrite template won't work, since it's being removed (and probably condensed to single sentences like other fighter pages), not rewritten. Rewrite-expand would definitely not work, since this is removing, not expanding articles.

On another note, such a template may work is in cases where an article has too much info (everything but the kitchen sink, flowery writing, etc.) and needs to have that information removed (see the the good writing policy). Under such circumstances, the template would be more specific than the standard rewrite template.

My idea of how such a template would look:

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have {{{1}}} removed for the following reason(s): {{{2}}}.

However, such a template could be very destructive if users don't know what needs to be removed, so the thing that's asked to be removed and the reason for doing so will have to be inserted, otherwise the template will not function. Should this proposal pass, the rewrite template should only be used in very few circumstances.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: May 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.
2. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Yeah, sure!
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal; pretty much the only compelling reason we can think of to oppose would be "what if people misuse it?", which is both already accounted for in the design of the template itself, but also is a rather silly concern in our opinion (we should simply punish people if they abuse the template, not punish the template itself).
4. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal.
5. Mario (talk) Per
6. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per proposal; seems convenient enough to be added.

Comments

Could I see an example of where this template can be applied? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 11:59, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

The proposal mentions the pages of non-Mario characters who are in Smash as targets for the template. For example, Isabelle is staying a separate article because of Mario Kart 8, but the information on her special moves needs to be condensed/trimmed per proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:27, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

Ah I see a good use of the template here. I'll support. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:37, May 17, 2024 (EDT)