MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/43: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
m (Archiving) |
||
Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
::Okay, fine. Could we end this early? I actually like our Smash articles anyway. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 21:20, 23 June 2015 (EDT) | ::Okay, fine. Could we end this early? I actually like our Smash articles anyway. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 21:20, 23 June 2015 (EDT) | ||
:::Okay, you can archive it and mark it as deleted by proposer. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 21:29, 23 June 2015 (EDT) | :::Okay, you can archive it and mark it as deleted by proposer. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 21:29, 23 June 2015 (EDT) | ||
---- | |||
===Change intro standards for mainspace ex-subpages=== | |||
<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">DON'T CHANGE 1-7</span> | |||
[http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_34#Intro_standards_for_subpages See this proposal for some background]. | |||
This proposal seems a bit minor, but as a Mario Wiki, we strive to inform, not point out the obvious. That being said, the intros for the gallery space and other subpages are very unprofessional, as their only purpose, aside from stating the obvious, serves as filler text (seriously, one big reason we have such text is that "blank space is kind of an eyesore"). The most useful thing it does is provide a link to its main article. Now, I recall [[MarioWiki talk:Galleries|proposing]] replacing the intro text and turning gallery space into subspace, but I wasn't aware that it would violate [[MarioWiki:Subpages Policy|our subpages policy]], and I'm not willing to drastically alter an established policy just for the sake of changing the intro text a bit. | |||
One solution is to replace the current intros with a simple {{tem|main}}. As for related ex-subpages, we can use {{tem|articleabout}}. Articleabout, however, is less than ideal, but there's nothing in the way of creating a new template that link to related ex-subpages without saying that a page of images of Mario is a page of images of Mario. Not only does it seem more professional, it simplifies our introductions so users don't have to continuously refer to a policy that specifically outlines how each intro should be worded. Besides, our Subpages Policy is ''outdated'', since galleries now include a few media files (see [[Gallery:Baby Mario|Baby Mario]]). | |||
Anyway, another solution is to create an entirely new template which focuses on ex-subpages and links to related ex-subpages only when the related parameters are used. This would make it a combination of {{tem|main}} and {{tem|articleabout}}, but altering it to make it more presentable. The new template would be something like this: | |||
''Main article: {{fakelink|Mario}}''<br> | |||
''For information about {{fakelink|Baby Mario}}, see {{fakelink|here}}.'' | |||
Further suggestions and alterations to this template would be appreciated, as it's only a prototype and I suppose more seasoned template makers can have a hand on this, provided they support, of course. | |||
So, to sum it up, the advantages of using a template would be replacing filler text with a more useful and simple link, and it would simplify our Subpages Policy, the intro aspect. | |||
Finally, this applies to mainly the mainspace ex-subpages, which is what this whole Subspaces Policy is about in the first place. Of course, exceptions apply, but if they're rare and not intrusive, the proposed changes wouldn't undermine the wiki. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bazooka Mario}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': July 1, 2015, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} It's simpler than memorizing a bunch of one-liner intros that point out the obvious, thus making it look more professional. If there are any major flaws I've overlooked, please state so and we'll see what we can do about those. Any refinements is highly encouraged as I do feel there are some ruffles than can be easily worked here and there. After all, these are just prototypes, but I hope you get the basic premise of the idea. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - In all honesty, I don't have a problem with the one-liners: unlike articles, there's nothing really ''to'' say besides what it is (with maybe an extra link to a port/remake or whatever), and yeah, something ''is'' better than nothing or a bare {{tem|main}} or an equivalent, so whatever. It's not like readers will notice or care either way anyway. Plus, no one ''needs'' to memorize what to put since the policy page is set up for copypasta ease. I'd rather just update the policy page than worry about having to fix this non-issue in all the subpages. Don't fix what isn't broken. | |||
#{{User|Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness}} - I don't really get why we need to do this. Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|LudwigVon}} Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|Ghost Jam}} Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|Lumastar}} Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|Pyro Guy}} Per Walkazo. | |||
#{{User|Marshal Dan Troop}} Per Walkazo. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Huh, I'd expect someone to say "there's no problem with it, so no change". I think a little change goes some way, though, and my proposal is changing just for the sake of concision and trimming out filler text. As for the copy-paste thing, it's still more of a hassle to access these pages to copy-paste them than inputting a template that generates automated text anyhow. I really don't find those intro texts necessary other than providing a link to the main page, hence this proposal. It's not "fixing what isn't broken", it's improving/refining what we have right now, even if "readers won't care anyway". {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 22:02, 23 June 2015 (EDT) | |||
---- | ---- |
Revision as of 03:03, July 2, 2015
Change the way rule number 9 of the proposal system worksDELETED BY PROPOSER So, another proposal to remove this rule was made that was just now vetoed by an administrator. The idea in this proposal is not to remove the rule but instead change the way it works to make it more fair and less objectionable. So as of now, this rule is in effect:
I think that the rule could use a few changes that could keep much of its original intent intact while making it more accurate towards what the majority of users want. So I propose we replace that rule with this new rule:
I think the changed rule would be better than both the original rule and just flat out deleting the rule for the following reasons:
Proposer: Kart Player 2011 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWait, in proposals with three choices or more, if their deadlines are extended, do you propose removing the option with the least amount of votes? That sounds so convoluted. Even the wording in that is hard to read. The bolded part is one sentence! Anyhow, if there are two change options clashing and rivaling each other in terms of votes, proceeding with one change or the other will displease a sizeable group and that's not democratic. Having the proposal fail after breaking through several extended deadlines definitely means "no consensus has been reached, so no changes will be made". It's a failsafe measure at this point, and it gives the opportunity for further discussion and refining the proposal further. Not to mention, it wears on people's patience to see a proposal get extended, like, three times, so casting it off is good, elaborated previously. In super drawn-out proposals, it's safer to kill them eventually than to take questionable and controversial action even if the outcome is dead tied. It's the reason FAs have a time limit, too. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:17, 21 June 2015 (EDT) @Ghost Jam: I tried my best to remove the objectionable pieces of the other proposal that caused it to be vetoed and take into consideration things said by Walkazo in my discussion with her in the other proposal to make it not fall into any objections that she made there. @Bazooka Mario, I specifically said in the proposal that the do nothing option would stay to the final two no matter what and before then, only options suggesting change could be removed so if there is a case of two change options clashing and rivaling each other in terms of votes, and people voting for one of the changes would rather have nothing done, they will always have the chance to just move their votes towards doing nothing. - Kart Player 2011 (talk) @Walkazo, just veto it now then in this case to get it over with. I tried my best to fix the problems that got the other proposal vetoed but I guess in this case, I didn't do enough so I guess you should just veto this proposal now. I'll talk about it more with you in user talk page if I feel the need to. I'm sorry for my mistake. - Kart Player 2011 (talk)
Lessen Crossover CoverageDELETED BY PROPOSER According to the current Coverage rule, crossover games like Super Smash Bros. and Mario & Sonic have full coverage. However, this means that we have to cover all of the content from Super Smash Bros., which can cause us to compete with our NIWA Affiliate Smash Wiki. Look at all the Smash content. Shouldn't we focus more on Mario? So I have a proposal:
Proposer: SeanWheeler (talk) Support
Oppose
Revise another wayCommentsSo how do you suggest those percentages are calculated..? --Glowsquid (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
@SeanWheeler, SmashWiki also is very technical about the Smash content. They have tier lists, tourneys, professional smash players, project m, advanced techniques, how viable a character is...etc. If like to learn what wave-dashing, star kos, wall of pains, etc. are, then SmashWiki covers it very well. We don't go that far. We cover like only the official thingamabobs. Ray Trace(T|C) 03:37, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
"Shouldn't we focus more on Mario?" is a moot point. 5 Smash Bros. games and 9 Mario & Sonic games out of the hundreds of other pure Mario games. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 16:06, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
Change intro standards for mainspace ex-subpagesDON'T CHANGE 1-7 See this proposal for some background. This proposal seems a bit minor, but as a Mario Wiki, we strive to inform, not point out the obvious. That being said, the intros for the gallery space and other subpages are very unprofessional, as their only purpose, aside from stating the obvious, serves as filler text (seriously, one big reason we have such text is that "blank space is kind of an eyesore"). The most useful thing it does is provide a link to its main article. Now, I recall proposing replacing the intro text and turning gallery space into subspace, but I wasn't aware that it would violate our subpages policy, and I'm not willing to drastically alter an established policy just for the sake of changing the intro text a bit. One solution is to replace the current intros with a simple {{main}}. As for related ex-subpages, we can use {{articleabout}}. Articleabout, however, is less than ideal, but there's nothing in the way of creating a new template that link to related ex-subpages without saying that a page of images of Mario is a page of images of Mario. Not only does it seem more professional, it simplifies our introductions so users don't have to continuously refer to a policy that specifically outlines how each intro should be worded. Besides, our Subpages Policy is outdated, since galleries now include a few media files (see Baby Mario). Anyway, another solution is to create an entirely new template which focuses on ex-subpages and links to related ex-subpages only when the related parameters are used. This would make it a combination of {{main}} and {{articleabout}}, but altering it to make it more presentable. The new template would be something like this: Main article: Template:Fakelink Further suggestions and alterations to this template would be appreciated, as it's only a prototype and I suppose more seasoned template makers can have a hand on this, provided they support, of course. So, to sum it up, the advantages of using a template would be replacing filler text with a more useful and simple link, and it would simplify our Subpages Policy, the intro aspect. Finally, this applies to mainly the mainspace ex-subpages, which is what this whole Subspaces Policy is about in the first place. Of course, exceptions apply, but if they're rare and not intrusive, the proposed changes wouldn't undermine the wiki. Proposer: Bazooka Mario (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsHuh, I'd expect someone to say "there's no problem with it, so no change". I think a little change goes some way, though, and my proposal is changing just for the sake of concision and trimming out filler text. As for the copy-paste thing, it's still more of a hassle to access these pages to copy-paste them than inputting a template that generates automated text anyhow. I really don't find those intro texts necessary other than providing a link to the main page, hence this proposal. It's not "fixing what isn't broken", it's improving/refining what we have right now, even if "readers won't care anyway". It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:02, 23 June 2015 (EDT) |