Requesting edits for locked pages.

This is the tobedeleted template

This page is currently pending deletion.
If you do not feel this template should be deleted, please explain on its talk page.


This sounds better:

This page has been proposed for deletion.
To support or oppose, please go the the article's talk page.
 
NSY said:
This is the tobedeleted template

This page is currently pending deletion.
If you do not feel this template should be deleted, please explain on its talk page.

This sounds better:

This page has been proposed for deletion.
To support or oppose, please go the the article's talk page.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think the wording is fine as-is.

The suggested change, with the words "proposed" and "support or oppose" gives the impression that the discussion is a TPP, which may not always be the case. Sometimes, we may be questioning, for example, the legitimacy of the image, or questioning if an image pending deletion should actually be deleted or not. The current wording can apply to both informal discussion and a TPP, and I believe that this is better than just assuming it's going to be a TPP every time.
 
http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Citation_Policy

Super Smash Bros. Brawl ain't new anymore. Someone should remove it. We don't need specific game mentions; I'm sure wikigoers are smart enough to determine what games are newly released or not.
 
Again for Template:Userspace, could someone add (or hint) something like "The Super Mario Wiki is an encyclopedia, and not a social network"?
 
No need.

The wiki is, first and foremost, for mainspace edits related to Mario. However, we do have other community geared channels, such as:

  • The Super Mario Boards
  • The Super Mario Wiki Chat.
  • The user driven community Userpedia.
Click to expand...
 
Baby Luigi said:
http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Citation_Policy

Super Smash Bros. Brawl ain't new anymore. Someone should remove it. We don't need specific game mentions; I'm sure wikigoers are smart enough to determine what games are newly released or not.
Click to expand...
 
Once and Only Once seems kinda outdated (and, in fact, has not been edited since 2007). I'm not exactly sure what specifically could be done to it, but perhaps the policy should be updated with today's rules and common practices in mind.
 
Time Turner said:
Once and Only Once seems kinda outdated (and, in fact, has not been edited since 2007). I'm not exactly sure what specifically could be done to it, but perhaps the policy should be updated with today's rules and common practices in mind.
Click to expand...
I don't find it too outdated. The page explains the concept of "Once and Only Once" fairly well while keeping to the facts, and not going on and on with examples. But if you can suggest something more specific, it will be considered.

BowserJunior said:
Baby Luigi said:
http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Citation_Policy

Super Smash Bros. Brawl ain't new anymore. Someone should remove it. We don't need specific game mentions; I'm sure wikigoers are smart enough to determine what games are newly released or not.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Now this is outdated. The staff are currently discussing changes to the relevant paragraph of the policy.
 
I would like to move Koopa Klaus (episode) to simply Koopa Klaus, but there happens to be a disambiguation page in the way. The second entry in that page (the first is to the episode) is to a redirect (Koopa Klaus (alter ego)), and there's already a convenient link in the episode article, so I don't think the disambiguation page is necessary. Would it be possible for someone to delete it and move the episode so that it doesn't have the subtitle (and perhaps delete the alter-ego redirect while you're at it)?
 
Thanks to Glowsquid to doing what I asked, but I have a question: there are quite a few broken links in the proposals archive (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive). Would it be worth it to eliminate them (possibly by replacing them with fakelinks), or should we just leave the past alone?
 
Standard procedure is to replace redlinks with fakelinks, but scouring archive pages for 'em is not a priority.
 
I ended up removing the redlinks on the current archive as they're fairly recent and shouldn't have been there in the first place, but I feel doing it for the rest isn't worth it.
 
I agree with Glowsquid. The links on archives should remain as they were, and if a page being discussed in the past was deleted, then we shouldn't cover it up with a link that looks legit. And fakelinking prevents users from easily accessing the deletion log through the link, which should be there for historical purposes.
 
This doesn't really belong here but I was wondering, would it be possible to add a link to a user's edit count on this screen (don't know its actual name)

For: Username (talk|block log|uploads|logs)
 
Mario4Ever said:
Why?
Click to expand...

For convenience, I mean, you can't quickly see someone's edit count unless you go to the page.
 
Someone's recent edits are a much better indicator of what they're contributing to the community. After all, someone who started out making way too many userspace edits but then reformed will still have a lot of userspace stuff in their edit count, making them look less productive even if all their recent edits were hard work. Plus, a simple tally won't show whether the edits are all minor gnomework or huge overhauls, so again, it doesn't provide an accurate picture of the user's activity.

Either way, fixating on edit counts isn't a good way to evaluate others' or even your own participation in the wiki. Focus on projects and specific goals and accomplishments, not numbers.
 
Time Turner said:
There are quite a few broken links at MarioWiki:Categories (MarioWiki:Categories). The examples that are provided should probably to categories that currently exist, no?
Click to expand...
I believe so. Unlike the hypothetical categories which are noted on the category web visual, the red linked categories are being annotated within the paragraphs. So I'm very sure that they can be created anytime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back