MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/51: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(Archiving failed proposal) |
||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
:::Even if it is an editor, we don't just link to policy pages in the body of an article. Special:Categories is a neutral thing that covers the entire wiki. You could be on someone's talk archive, click the Categories link, and it's about mainspace categorization. Doesn't fit in all cases. As editors, you're naturally biased to want to make the site tuned for editors, but the wider audience has no use for our policy pages. Special:Categories at least allows for more exploration of the wiki, which is why they're visiting. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 15:48, 25 February 2018 (EST) | :::Even if it is an editor, we don't just link to policy pages in the body of an article. Special:Categories is a neutral thing that covers the entire wiki. You could be on someone's talk archive, click the Categories link, and it's about mainspace categorization. Doesn't fit in all cases. As editors, you're naturally biased to want to make the site tuned for editors, but the wider audience has no use for our policy pages. Special:Categories at least allows for more exploration of the wiki, which is why they're visiting. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 15:48, 25 February 2018 (EST) | ||
::::Hmm, alright, I guess that make sense. From the reader's point of view, a comprehensive explanation of how categories are set up would make no sense to them. And if you're an editor, chances are you already know of MarioWiki:Categories anyway. I'll cancel this, however, a link between both of them would be helpful to both sides, whether you want to get into editing and want to know more or you need to find the category that needs to be added. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 16:00, 25 February 2018 (EST) | ::::Hmm, alright, I guess that make sense. From the reader's point of view, a comprehensive explanation of how categories are set up would make no sense to them. And if you're an editor, chances are you already know of MarioWiki:Categories anyway. I'll cancel this, however, a link between both of them would be helpful to both sides, whether you want to get into editing and want to know more or you need to find the category that needs to be added. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 16:00, 25 February 2018 (EST) | ||
===Move "proposals" from "community" to "navigation" on the sidebar=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-6|Keep "Proposals" under "community"}} | |||
I was browsing the wiki for the first time for a while and I sawdust Proposals is currently llisted under community alongside the 'Shroom, the chat and Mario Boards. The thing is though those other three things all fall under the social part of this site and less so the wiki part of the site Whilst proposals is less so part of the social aspect and more related into improving the wiki. The Navigation area the other hand has links that is all related to the wiki it's self and many of the links inside it are related to helping improve the wiki. I just think it would make far more sense Proposals was under navigation rather than community. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|NSY}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': March 4, 2018, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|NSY}} Per my proposal. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Alex95}} - The main proposals page is under "community" because it involves the community. Users come here to propose new changes and to vote on said changes. It's as much of a community project as The 'Shroom or the forums. | |||
#{{User|YoshiFlutterJump}} Per Alex95. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Alex95. | |||
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per Alex95. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Alex95. | |||
#{{User|LuigiMaster123}} Per Alex95. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Do have any idea how visually unappealing that would look? Yikes! --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST) | |||
:I hate to question the person who runs the wiki but could you explain why it would be visually unappealing. {{user|NSY}} | |||
::For the reasons Alex95 brought forth, I guess. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 16:00, 26 February 2018 (EST) | |||
You know, you *could* argue that "Featured Articles" are just as "community"-based like proposals are and thus would argue to put that under "community". {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 18:11, 28 February 2018 (EST) | |||
:I would support that. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 20:15, 28 February 2018 (EST) | |||
::So would I. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 22:49, 28 February 2018 (EST) | |||
:FA's are the best articles the wiki has to offer. Sure they're picked by the community, but the final list of articles for people to peruse are just wiki articles, and wiki articles are navigation. Proposals are 100% community input on changes to make. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 14:28, 1 March 2018 (EST) |
Revision as of 09:16, March 5, 2018
Create a template for FA archivescreate template 6-0 Let me know in the comments if there are any issues or possible fixes you have in mind with the templates. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
OpposeComments@YoshiFlutterJump: This was Baby Luigi's intended layout, and I don't see how structuring it the way you suggested is entirely possible anyways. (T|C) 20:15, 11 February 2018 (EST) I suggest putting a few rows as example next time so we can see how the template looks when used properly.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2018 (EST) Add a small link to MarioWiki:Appeals in the reminder/warning/last warning templatesadd link 13-0 Here's an example of what I want these to look like
Any changes to wording or comments, please note. Proposer: Baby Luigi (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsRegarding a rule in MarioWiki: Appeals, (1#: Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator cannot be appealed.), I had challenged it on Discord and I want to see that rule removed, hence why I haven't added an extra line saying that "Keep in mind that X given out by a member of staff cannot be appealed). But I don't know what the staff's official final say on that rule is, so I will edit that line accordingly once I get official confirmation. Ray Trace(T|C) 22:17, 11 February 2018 (EST)
For reference, here’s what the old userspace reminder said:
Delete the articles for Galaxy and Galaxy 2's conjecturally-named "minigames"delete only Bubble Blowing and Star Ball Rolling 2-13-0 But now that I've thought about it, those don't deserve articles either. There exist plenty of nameless minigames, such as the Hoohoo Spirit collecting and Guffawha Ruins platform jumping games from Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, numerous bonus games from the Donkey Kong Country series, and several racing games from Donkey Kong 64, which don't have articles, and I can't think of any that do. In other words, there's no precedent for the existence of articles on nameless minigames. Stuff like "Bob-omb Blasting" and "Crate Burning" can simply be described in the articles for the missions that feature these "minigames", which is how stuff like this is handled for other games (like the Blooper surfing missions or Roller Coaster Balloons from Sunshine), so why should Galaxy and Galaxy 2 be any different? So let's solve this inconsistency. Here are our options:
Proposer: 7feetunder (talk) Delete all of the conjecturally-named minigames
Delete Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing only
Do nothingCommentsChange the link in the Category barcanceled by proposer Here's an example of how this can be helpful. A reader who wants to get into editing is looking over a page as an example, say Goomba's. There's an infobox, article structure, images, etc. At the bottom is a bar with a list of categories. Wanting to know more about how these categories are structured, they may expect the "Categories" link to lead somewhere useful. It doesn't, and now this reader has to search through pages or ask for help on where to go. Even long-time editors, such as myself, would like an quick and easy way to get to the page they're looking for. Rather than go through those steps, the category link should just lead to the page with an explanation. Special:Categories gives a list of what categories are in use, but MarioWiki:Categories actually tells you how to use them. Proposer: Alex95 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI do support the proposal, but your options are rather... biased. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 13:08, 25 February 2018 (EST)
The link is really there for the reader (99% of wiki visitors), not the editors. Your scenario imagines a reader who wants to get into editing, but that is a very low percentage case. The vast majority of our traffic only reads. If they want to get into editing, they will be introduced to our help pages and {{Wikipolicy}} at some point and see the categories link. The target audience of MarioWiki:Categories is the editor and isn't as useful as Special:Categories if your only goal is exploring the site. A reader can use the search box on Special:Categories to check out different categories we have, for example. The info on MarioWiki:Categories about our category structure and where to put categories probably isn't the reading that visitors came to the site for (deep Mario lore). Editors and would-be editors seeking category help will find MarioWiki:Categories through our help pages, where as visitors are not going to know that Special:Categories exists without the link since they're not roaming through Special:SpecialPages. That Categories link appears across the wiki, on every namespace, and it takes you to a page that let's you explore all the wiki's categories (makes sense). Not sure it should take you to a policy page instead! --Steve (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST)
Keep "Proposals" under "community" 1-6 Proposer: NSY (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsDo have any idea how visually unappealing that would look? Yikes! --Steve (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST)
You know, you *could* argue that "Featured Articles" are just as "community"-based like proposals are and thus would argue to put that under "community". Ray Trace(T|C) 18:11, 28 February 2018 (EST)
|