Requesting edits for locked pages.

Walkazo said:
I don't like leaving jobs half-finished.
Click to expand...
I'm more than willing (and honestly hoping) to do the job for you.

In any case, Stu redirects to Strollin' Stu, even though Stu (boss) is also in existence, and moving shenanigans have happened. If a mod would do the honors, please?

edit: Thank you, Glowsquid!
 
You asked for the "necessary changes" to be made, and I made them: keeping on top of the resulting link messes as soon as they're made is as important to wiki upkeep as making the moves and deletions in the first place - it's called being thorough.
 
Sometimes I wonder if hiding the revisions just gives the vandals more jollies for making us go through an extra step, since they can still see the stricken edits in the histories, and but on the other hand, why look at shit when we don't have to - even if it is just stupid, juvenile antics and not actually that disturbing (like, graphic stuff is bad, threats are bad, but these edits in question were really just dumb, distracting eyesores).
 
I wouldn't mind going through extra hurdles to hide shit, if I hypothetically had those powers. Actually, I will find it cathartic. Besides, hiding it makes it easier to ignore these types of edits.
 
Walkazo said:
Sometimes I wonder if hiding the revisions just gives the vandals more jollies for making us go through an extra step
Click to expand...

my stance.
 
Template:Construction

A time variable can be added to the template to replace "as soon as possible", i.e. i.e. {{construction|in two weeks}} or {{construction|by September 28}} (or {{construction|in two weeks|section=yes}} for section-specific uses).
Click to expand...

I don't think that's how you use "i.e.". i.e. = "in other words" not "for example". Much less twice. :O

Not that the time variable replacing "as soon as possible" has a whole lot of use for me (I find it highly irritating that I can't tag the template instead) but meh, instructions should at least look good.
 
Derp. Thanks for noticing that - it's fixed now.

Glowsquid said:
Walkazo said:
Sometimes I wonder if hiding the revisions just gives the vandals more jollies for making us go through an extra step
Click to expand...
my stance.
Click to expand...
I'd be better if the edits just vanished altogether, since then it's like, no record at all of their antics. I feel like the old oversight stuff worked that way, but idk, it's been a while.
 
MarioWiki:New Articles Policy seems to be either outdated or plain wrong:
[wiki=MW:NAP#Level_articles]In general, all individual game levels and stages should have a dedicated article. This includes game levels, 3D game missions/episodes, Mario Kart courses, Super Smash Bros. stages, sports courts and stadiums, etc.[/wiki]

It then goes on to list Petey Piranha Strikes Back as an example... except that link currently redirects to a section in Bianco Hills, and its history page shows that it never had a separate article. I'm aware of a failed proposal to split missions, but if there was a recent move to make articles for the missions, it slipped past me.
 
Porplemontage unilaterally wrote that policy in 2012 (the failed proposal was from 2009), after killing this attempt to merge the level articles (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_31#Remove_level_articles_of_levels_that_have_names), since it's actually better for the wiki to have more pages for search traffic reasons, lower loading times, easier inter- and intra-article navigation, and whatnot. Before that, merges were all the rage and the ill-fated proposal was the epitome of the movement, but Porple's intervention and MW:NAP marked the end of that era of thinking and the start of "the more the merrier" pro-splitting approach that we still use today. He went over it with the admins, but I can't remember if there was a public thing about it, or if he just started splitting MK courses or whatever and people caught on and eventually followed suit. Anyway, the rollout was pretty slow-paced iirc, but eventually everything got caught up to speed with the policy - except the 3D missions/episodes, but that's an oversight, and rather than updating the page, I'd say it'd be better to make a collab to split them.

As for why the missions should get separate pages besides "because we said so", well, same reasons as all the ret of the things in the list: namely, it's better for search traffic, better for navigation (no more section-links), and means less clutter of the world pages (so easier organization of the info both on and off the world articles, and lower loading times for every individual page). For instance, the galaxy pages are already pretty long thanks to all the planet entries - its actually to the point where ; are being used instead of subheaders for the "enemies" "galaxies visited" and "names" aspects of the mission entries (examples (Toy_Time_Galaxy#Heavy-Metal_Mecha_Bowser)) just to keep the pages' TOCs manageable - this is a bad thing, and it would be much better to split these missions into healthy, standalone articles with proper subheaders. SMS and SM64 aren't as bad, but they're still pretty cluttered with the foreignname templates alone - "one infobox per page" was the in-a-nutshell idea that Porplemontage told the admins when he made the policy, but I'd say it could easily be expanded to be "one foreignname per page" too (not counting things with multiple names and whatnot, anyway, but you get the point).
 
Page for SMS and SMG missions are fine since the level layout and enemy placement is frequently overhauled from mission to mission, but I doN,t feel Super Mario 64's stars have enough material for pages that make sense.
 
Walkazo said:
Porplemontage unilaterally wrote that policy in 2012 (the failed proposal was from 2009), after killing this attempt to merge the level articles (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_31#Remove_level_articles_of_levels_that_have_names), since it's actually better for the wiki to have more pages for search traffic reasons, lower loading times, easier inter- and intra-article navigation, and whatnot. Before that, merges were all the rage and the ill-fated proposal was the epitome of the movement, but Porple's intervention and MW:NAP marked the end of that era of thinking and the start of "the more the merrier" pro-splitting approach that we still use today. He went over it with the admins, but I can't remember if there was a public thing about it, or if he just started splitting MK courses or whatever and people caught on and eventually followed suit. Anyway, the rollout was pretty slow-paced iirc, but eventually everything got caught up to speed with the policy - except the 3D missions/episodes, but that's an oversight, and rather than updating the page, I'd say it'd be better to make a collab to split them.
Click to expand...
I remember that proposal... I wasn't a fan of it, but everyone else seemed to support it and I didn't have a good reason for opposing it, so I kept silent. I didn't realize Porple made that whole policy as a response to that.
Glowsquid said:
Page for SMS and SMG missions are fine since the level layout and enemy placement is frequently overhauled from mission to mission, but I doN,t feel Super Mario 64's stars have enough material for pages that make sense.
Click to expand...
That seems rather inconsistent; though Super Mario 64 allows for relative freedom in stages, there are still usually notable differences from mission to mission. Even if, say, Behind Chain Chomp's Gate can be done on whatever star, that doesn't hold true for Big Bob-omb on the Summit, Footrace with Koopa the Quick, Five Silver Stars!, or Big Bob-omb's Revenge, and all of them affect the stage in various ways. If we're giving articles to them, I don't see the harm in giving articles to the others. In any case, making a collab page is a good start; I'll set up a fancy table for the four games (SM64[DS], SMS, SMG, and SMG2).
 
Template:Aboutfile has Image Use Policy on the bottom right, when it's not used just for images, but any sort of media on the wiki, including sound clips.

Also Special:Upload seems to regard only images, when we should add a link to a, wait, do we even have an audio policy page on this wiki?
 
No, but I can't think of anything that isn't already covered in the Image Use Policy (a.k.a. "MW:UPLOAD"), really (or common sense). I suppose a bit could be added to the opening line about how the naming and proper aboutfile usage stuff also applies to audio files and movies, and then add OGG to the file type lineup, but seeing as 99% of files on the wiki are images, I wouldn't go crazy with changing the title or making a separate page or whatever.
 
I took it off; someone just seemed to add it with no rhyme or reason a couple years back. Unless anyone notices any specific issues that DO need fixing, but otherwise, just skimming it over, it seems pretty solid (but keep in mind that I'm not a css buff by any means).
 
There are a lot of entries in tables that have no explanation whatsoever. Furthermore, explaining things as 'self-explanatory' is kind of bad when it comes to any programming language. If we could get some CSS buff to look over that page, then that would be perfect.
 
Bomberman is a disambiguation page that has two links: one to Bomberman (character), the protagonist of his titular franchise, and Madbomber, an enemy species similar to Bomberman except for the fact that they're only referred to as "Bomberman" outside of the Mario series. Disambiguating Bomberman seems odd to me; it'd make more sense to give the character priority and then maybe an articleabout template, no?
 
Would it be wise to unprotect a portion of MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Header, particularly the archive page numbers, to allow new archives being created and make them get updated in time? Since most users can archive in the first place, it would make sense that in cases where new archives are created, users can also add a new number. Or should archiving in general be left to staff members?
 
No, just get an admin to update it, although a lot of the time, we notice on our own anyway (not this time, tho, argh).

EDIT: Also,

Time Turner said:
Bomberman is a disambiguation page that has two links: one to Bomberman (character), the protagonist of his titular franchise, and Madbomber, an enemy species similar to Bomberman except for the fact that they're only referred to as "Bomberman" outside of the Mario series. Disambiguating Bomberman seems odd to me; it'd make more sense to give the character priority and then maybe an articleabout template, no?
Click to expand...
I moved the page accordingly, and changed some of the links, but feel free to continue with the rest if you want (Special:WhatLinksHere/Bomberman_(character)), since I won't have time to finish for a couple hours at most (had I known there were so many, I would've waited until after I got home, rather than right before leaving school). But I can finish later if you don't want to; just gotta get home and eat dinner n' stuff first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back