Requesting edits for locked pages.

[Time Turner]

I don't like leaving jobs half-finished.

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!

 

[Walkazo]

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.

 

[Time Turner]

I suppose I'm just used to the other folk: they delete the redirect, maybe make the move, and then I clean up behind them.

 

[Time Turner]

There are a series of edits made by an IP (and round two) that are rather profane and kind of disturbing. Could a mod hide the changes?

Edit: Thanks Walkazo and Glowsquid!

 

[Walkazo]

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).

 

[Xiahou Ba]

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.

 

[Glowsquid]

Sometimes I wonder if hiding the revisions just gives the vandals more jollies for making us go through an extra step

my stance.

 

[Xiahou Dun]

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).

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.

 

[Walkazo]

Derp. Thanks for noticing that - it's fixed now.

Sometimes I wonder if hiding the revisions just gives the vandals more jollies for making us go through an extra step

my stance.

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.

 

[Time Turner]

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.

 

[Walkazo]

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).