1,233
edits
User talk:Porplemontage: Difference between revisions
→Citation templates: Reply
Derekblue1 (talk | contribs) (→Citation templates: Reply) |
|||
| Line 456: | Line 456: | ||
:Hey. '''Citation templates''' is certainly a good category name if we were to have at least a few of them (if it's just one it could probably be tossed in [[:Category:Formatting templates|formatting templates]]), but that template would go against [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/55#Create a template for citations|this proposal]], so you'd need to do a new proposal to overturn that one before the template could be moved to the template namespace or used. | :Hey. '''Citation templates''' is certainly a good category name if we were to have at least a few of them (if it's just one it could probably be tossed in [[:Category:Formatting templates|formatting templates]]), but that template would go against [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/55#Create a template for citations|this proposal]], so you'd need to do a new proposal to overturn that one before the template could be moved to the template namespace or used. | ||
:While I have you here: Note that the changes to [[MarioWiki:Article size]] were designed to make it ''less'' definitive and ''more'' discussion-based: 150 kB is simply when split consideration starts, but if it's decided to keep an article larger than that, that's allowed. That's not to say an article like [[Toad (species)]] couldn't be split into '''History of Toads''' just above 150K - [[Yoshi]] was actually split just ''under'' 150K months ago without complaint (so that's why the threshold was increased to 150K, since splitting at or around 100K didn't feel right to a lot of users while a 150K split was seemingly non-controversial, but in addition to the increase it's now meant to be an open discussion rather than a hard and fast rule). Thanks! --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 10:08, December 13, 2023 (EST) | :While I have you here: Note that the changes to [[MarioWiki:Article size]] were designed to make it ''less'' definitive and ''more'' discussion-based: 150 kB is simply when split consideration starts, but if it's decided to keep an article larger than that, that's allowed. That's not to say an article like [[Toad (species)]] couldn't be split into '''History of Toads''' just above 150K - [[Yoshi]] was actually split just ''under'' 150K months ago without complaint (so that's why the threshold was increased to 150K, since splitting at or around 100K didn't feel right to a lot of users while a 150K split was seemingly non-controversial, but in addition to the increase it's now meant to be an open discussion rather than a hard and fast rule). Thanks! --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 10:08, December 13, 2023 (EST) | ||
::Oh. Thank you for telling me about the failed proposal of citation templates. Let us see how the future proposal goes, but I will accept the fate if it does not come through. | |||
:: For the article size question response, it took me a few hours to understand what you meant but I finally understand you are saying that splitting articles is meant to be an open discussion; that should show why [[Template:Split]] is there in the first place. I was excited to split pages straight away because they fit the 100kB threshold. That is when I ended up splitting up a few articles that have not been discussed in the first place until Mario reminded me on the wall that I stopped. Now I understand, for the Toad species, it is better to put a Split template and discuss user thoughts of splitting this. {{User:Derekblue1/sig}} 19:23, December 13, 2023 (EST) | |||