|
|
| Line 220: |
Line 220: |
|
| |
|
| ==Miscellaneous== | | ==Miscellaneous== |
| ===Change Proposal Archives===
| | ''None at the moment.'' |
| Our current method of archiving gets the job done, but it isn't very efficient when we want to look back and find a specific proposal. You might need to look through 15 archives (which take a long time to load) to find the proposal you're looking for. When the proposal archiving method started, we didn't feel the need to create separate sub-pages for each proposal. Now we have 18 archives and growing, so I feel that we need to create a new system before the number of archives grows too big and it becomes virtually impossible to find a specific proposal.
| |
| | |
| Things that would change if this proposal passes:
| |
| | |
| *Each proposal would have its own subpage which would be linked as something like {{Fakelink|MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/2009/1}}. That link is supposed to link to the first proposal that '''ended''' in 2009. This is to prevent extremely long titles and allow two different proposals of the same name to have different pages.
| |
| *Sub-proposals will be split into regular proposals. For example, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_18#Rules_and_Regulations_for_Specific-Article_Proposals|this proposal]] would be split into two different sub-pages since the results are different. Since the second part is not given a formal title, a new title will be created for it like "Rules for Talk Page Proposals".
| |
| *Repeated, overturned, and amended proposals would link to each other. For instance, a page for "Bring back Banjo & Conker" will link to other "Bring back Banjo & Conker" proposals.
| |
| * Scroll boxes would be removed since they are unnecessary on separate pages.
| |
| *Extremely long, erratic, and misleading proposal titles will renamed to something shorter or more appropriate.
| |
| *Proposal archive pages themselves will be deleted, leaving only one centralized archive page which links to multiple sub-pages.
| |
| *The main archive page will remain unprotected and the proposal sub-pages will be unprotected. This is so that relevant information about the proposal (such a recently passed proposal overturning an older proposal) can be added by regular users.
| |
| | |
| Things that would not change if this proposal passes:
| |
| | |
| *No content about the proposals will be altered in any way. The only thing about a proposal that can be changed is the title itself (which only happens if there is a good reason for the title change).
| |
| *Results will not be changed and all results (if applicable) will still be in effect.
| |
| | |
| Finally, look at [[User:RAP/test4|this]] template created by {{User|RAP}}. The template will be used to list Proposal entries. This is how the each proposal will be linked from the main archive page. All the parameters are described on the page itself.
| |
| | |
| '''Proposer:''' {{User|Knife}} and {{User|RAP}}<br>
| |
| '''Deadline:''' 21 February, 2010, 2:00
| |
| | |
| ====Support====
| |
| #{{User|Knife}} – Per proposal.
| |
| #{{User|Reversinator}} Per Knife.
| |
| #{{User|RAP}} - Per Knife, and proposal.
| |
| #{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per Knife.
| |
| #{{user|Coincollector}} - Ditto
| |
| #{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Don't you hate you try to search for a past proposal, but have to search through all the archives!? I agree with the proposal.
| |
| #{{User|MATEOELBACAN}} - Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Edofenrir}} - Per Proposal.
| |
| #{{User|Ralphfan}} – Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Knife (mostly: see comment below).
| |
| #{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Knife.
| |
| #{{User|Red Shell 68066vr}} It takes a long time to search for a particular past proposal.
| |
| | |
| ====Oppose====
| |
| | |
| ====Comments====
| |
| I have to make some things clear.
| |
| #Will there be something like Archive/2009 that links to all 2009 proposals, or will all of them be cluttered in a yet huge page?
| |
| #It may be hard to numer all proposals sonce 2005 or 2006 i dunno, so I suggest numbers are something like #09001 09 for 2009 and 001 because it is the first proposal.
| |
| #Protect old archives and proposals such as the main archive page. {{user|Tucayo}}
| |
| | |
| | |
| #No, every single proposal will have its own sub-page. The year is simply there to organize proposal pages by year. Notice the /1 after 2009.
| |
| #It shouldn't be too hard. Even the earliest proposals had deadlines, so we can easily number them chronologically.
| |
| #I'd rather leave all the pages unprotected so that regular users can update the pages as necessary.
| |
| | |
| {{User|Knife}} 22:57, 12 February 2010 (EST)
| |
| | |
| 1 and 2: Ok. 3, update as what? We can protect 2005-2009 archives, and each individual proposal, there wont be any need to edit them. {{user|Tucayo}}
| |
| | |
| The pages are supposed to dead and all the discussions shouldn't be edited. However, there are certain things that need to be continually updated. For instance, if a "Bring back Banjo & Conker" proposal actually passes, all previous "Bring back Banjo & Conker" would need a note at the top the page stating that the decision was overturned by a more recent proposal. Protecting pages is more retroactive than proactive. Sure, we may be protecting pages to prevent vandalism, but it also means sysops have more duties and responsibilities.--{{User|Knife}} 23:17, 12 February 2010 (EST)
| |
| :We'll already have to keep an eye on these pages, and updating a handful of recurring issues is a small price to pay for security; it'd be more trouble for the Sysops if someone goes around changing old, unprotected proposals, forcing us to clean up ''everything'' afterwards. Also, wouldn't it be better to simply put related proposals on ''one'' page? (I.E. all the "Banjo & Conker" proposals go on the original's page, with the later archive pages being redirects, or bypassed altogether by simply linking to the original page in the main archive entries.) That way, all the information can be viewed at once, without having to bounce between different pages, making it easier to fully understand these often complex issues. Finally, I think your original design for the archive page looks better than RAP's (no offence): the background colour seems like overkill, and the fact that the proposers' names and dates don't line up looks unprofessional, as opposed to the chart design that can be seen [[User:Knife/Draft#Galleries|at the bottom of this page]]. My only quibble with the chart is that the "Creator(s)" column's width should be decreased to make more room for the dates, but overall, I think it's the better of the two choices. - {{User|Walkazo}}
| |
| :Would it be possible to use DPL coding to update that list thing? I think there's a way... {{User|Marioguy1}}
| |
| | |
| #From what I've seen, sub-pages rarely get vandalized. Even if they do, users can easily intercept it. An edit on archive page seems pretty suspicious. It is not really necessary to protect over 300 pages for potential vandalism. However, if this does become an issue, we could always change this rule.
| |
| #It doesn't seem right to have one page for similar proposals. Even though the proposals concern the same subject, everything else might be different. For example, one of the Banjo & Conker proposals contains a third option which is a compromise to keep the content, but cover less of it. The same option is not present in the other Banjo & Conker proposals. Other major differences include the date, the users, and the arguments. We might also have problems classifying a proposal by similarity. No proposal is the same and grouping them on one page would imply that they are.
| |
| #This is more of a matter of opinion. I personally like RAP's template over mine. My template was just supposed to be a prototype. I kinda like the color coding backgrounds, it makes it easier to distinguish between passed and failed proposals. BTW, I just kinda copied the template coding from the games page.
| |
| #Concerning 1 & 2: I don't think I could make those major changes if I wanted to anyways. Today is this proposal's last day and Rule 10 forbid me from making any major changes to my proposal. 3 is a different story: You can always bring up issues about the template itself.
| |
| | |
| @Marioguy: It shouldn't be too hard to update manually. --{{User|Knife}}
| |
| ::Like I said in my edit summary, I should have voiced my concerns earlier (dang life - it's always getting in the way); fortunately, like you said, the rules can always been changed down the line if need be (for both points 1 and 2). Point 3 is more of a now-or-never issue, though, since it'd be rather pointless to code all the archives one way initially and then change it all around just because of aesthetics. As long as it works, I'm not inclined to create a huge fuss over it this late in the game. - {{User|Walkazo}}
| |
|
| |
|
| <!-- Please do not remove, archive or place comments below this message. --> | | <!-- Please do not remove, archive or place comments below this message. --> |
| | | |
