Editing Template talk:Warning
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 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Proposal: Addressing the template's issues == | == Proposal: Addressing the template's issues == | ||
This template has some issues, and the point of this proposal is to address them. | This template has some issues, and the point of this proposal is to address them. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 18: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|B.wilson}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|B.wilson}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': | '''Deadline''': December 3, 2011, 23:59 GMT | ||
====Change==== | ====Change==== | ||
#{{User|B.wilson}} - Per my proposal. | |||
#{{User|New Super Yoshi}}I agree with everything you say. | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - I agree that there is no problem with the current template, but if it's going to come down to which of these two templates is better, I am going to have to say the new one. It is indeed more clear, as he said. I think that this whole thing is overrated, but if B.wilson went through the work of creating the new template, I think that it wouldn't be much of a stretch for someone to just copy/paste it over. | |||
#{{User|Glowsquid}} - I'm not sure about linking to the blocking policy, but the other proposed changes make sense. | #{{User|Glowsquid}} - I'm not sure about linking to the blocking policy, but the other proposed changes make sense. | ||
====Semi-Change==== | ====Semi-Change==== | ||
<!-- Please list votes that are supporting the idea of changing some things described above, while opposing some changes as well, in this section. --> | <!-- Please list votes that are supporting the idea of changing some things described above, while opposing some changes as well, in this section. --> | ||
#{{User|Toad85}} I agree with 2 and 4, but not wih 1 and 3. 1 is kinda unnecessary, and 3 is way too lenient. Saying "may" opens a possibility that you might not be blocked, even if your wrongfulbehaviour continues. | #{{User|Toad85}} I agree with 2 and 4, but not wih 1 and 3. 1 is kinda unnecessary, and 3 is way too lenient. Saying "may" opens a possibility that you might not be blocked, even if your wrongfulbehaviour continues. | ||
====Don't Change==== | ====Don't Change==== | ||
| Line 46: | Line 34: | ||
#{{User|Raven Effect}} Per the words above | #{{User|Raven Effect}} Per the words above | ||
#{{User|Mario & Luigi}} Per Mario4Ever | #{{User|Mario & Luigi}} Per Mario4Ever | ||
#{{user|Walkazo}} - Unlinking the image and linking to the Blocking Policies are good, but I don't agree with the other changes. "''May'' be blocked" doesn't seem like strong enough wording: blocking ''is'' the ultimate fate of rule-breakers if they don't cut it out, so we should tell it like it is (plus, the other templates use "will" too when discussing future consequences). On the other hand, Warnings are a step removed from blocking, so bolding that part seems unnecessary at this point: leave it for {{tem| | #{{user|Walkazo}} - Unlinking the image and linking to the Blocking Policies are good, but I don't agree with the other changes. "''May'' be blocked" doesn't seem like strong enough wording: blocking ''is'' the ultimate fate of rule-breakers if they don't cut it out, so we should tell it like it is (plus, the other templates use "will" too when discussing future consequences). On the other hand, Warnings are a step removed from blocking, so bolding that part seems unnecessary at this point: leave it for {{tem|Lastwarn}}. Also, I don't follow your logic on #2 (or perhaps it's your definition of "inappropriate that's the issue), since it seems more like it's the other way around; not all inappropriate behaviours are disruptive - which makes the current wording more general, which is more desirable. For example, if all someone does is edit their userpage, but they don't do it in massive floods of edits, that's not disrupting RecentChanges or anything else, but it's still against the rules. A lot of the other Level 1 offences are like this too. Finally, what's with the use of <nowiki>{{SITENAME}}</nowiki>? There's no reason to use that instead of simply typing "Super Mario Wiki"... | ||
#{{User|M&SG}} - I really don't see any reason to change the <nowiki>{{warning}}</nowiki> template. Per the things that Mario4Ever and Walkazo stated. | #{{User|M&SG}} - I really don't see any reason to change the <nowiki>{{warning}}</nowiki> template. Per the things that Mario4Ever and Walkazo stated. | ||
#{{User|MeritC}} - Per all; it's fine as it is. Besides, as others said, this simply says that the offending user that breached certain rules needs to reconsider their actions and comply after the warning itself has been issued. | #{{User|MeritC}} - Per all; it's fine as it is. Besides, as others said, this simply says that the offending user that breached certain rules needs to reconsider their actions and comply after the warning itself has been issued. | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
| Line 65: | Line 48: | ||
:::::::Awesome, but can you explicitly state what the "Semi-Change" vote covers in the proposal? Simply saying it's for "some" things to be changed is too vague, since voters might want ''different'' parts of the proposal changed, so a grab-all header for anyone who doesn't completely support or oppose doesn't work. Explaining that the option's specifically for adding a blocking policy link and delinking the image leaves no room for misunderstandings, but having it in the comments isn't central enough, and it's too wordy to make into the header itself. - {{User|Walkazo}} | :::::::Awesome, but can you explicitly state what the "Semi-Change" vote covers in the proposal? Simply saying it's for "some" things to be changed is too vague, since voters might want ''different'' parts of the proposal changed, so a grab-all header for anyone who doesn't completely support or oppose doesn't work. Explaining that the option's specifically for adding a blocking policy link and delinking the image leaves no room for misunderstandings, but having it in the comments isn't central enough, and it's too wordy to make into the header itself. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
::::::::Does the format at [[User:B.wilson/proform]] do a favor? Because there are four points to change, and there is a section for each one of them --{{User|B.wilson}} | ::::::::Does the format at [[User:B.wilson/proform]] do a favor? Because there are four points to change, and there is a section for each one of them --{{User|B.wilson}} | ||
:::::::::That's way too involved, especially considering that this is a pretty minor change. Just decide on one intermediate step. The image de-linking is a no-brainer technical fix and I doubt anyone would oppose that, so adding the Blocking Policy link (plus that) is the most logical intermediate step between changing nothing and changing content (i.e. working and emphasis via. boldface). Just don't change the proposal, because that runs afoul of Rule 12 | :::::::::That's way too involved, especially considering that this is a pretty minor change. Just decide on one intermediate step. The image de-linking is a no-brainer technical fix and I doubt anyone would oppose that, so adding the Blocking Policy link (plus that) is the most logical intermediate step between changing nothing and changing content (i.e. working and emphasis via. boldface). Just don't change the proposal, because that runs afoul of Rule 12; the only reason this is okay is because the option was added before the 3-day deadline so this is more like semantics than a "rewrite"; but do it before it gets ''too'' late... - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 09:37, 22 November 2011 (EST) | ||
