Editing MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/66
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
This is not related to the proposal itself but I see that you sent the same talk page message to so many users at once, including myself about this proposal. I'm not super skilled with template codes and such, so I won't vote in it. I just thought I'd mention the message. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 21:52, March 30, 2024 (EDT) | This is not related to the proposal itself but I see that you sent the same talk page message to so many users at once, including myself about this proposal. I'm not super skilled with template codes and such, so I won't vote in it. I just thought I'd mention the message. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 21:52, March 30, 2024 (EDT) | ||
{{@|Nintendo101}} I think I know why broadening the scope would be an improvement. It's because of what [[User:Wayoshi|Wayoshi]] said to [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]]: [[User talk:A Link to the Past#About our Standards Here|"We are not Wikipedia."]] | {{@|Nintendo101}} I think I know why broadening the scope would be an improvement. It's because of what [[User:Wayoshi|Wayoshi]] said to [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]]: [[User talk:A Link to the Past#About our Standards Here|"We are not Wikipedia."]] | ||
A bit of clarification on our vote: Just because we are not Wikipedia doesn't mean we '''''have''''' to do things differently from how Wikipedia does them. While we have our petty, personal beef with Wikipedia (mostly about their comically dated "notability" guidelines), they aren't always wrong, and this is one such case where we feel they nailed the Wiki design on the head; for all intents and purposes, {{tem|ref needed}} is better than any of these templates to us. It's more precise, it's more concise, and most importantly, it's what people--both on this wiki and from other wikis--know best. (This is also why we're not updating our vote, though we do appreciate the proposal being made easier to read.) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:28, March 30, 2024 (EDT) | A bit of clarification on our vote: Just because we are not Wikipedia doesn't mean we '''''have''''' to do things differently from how Wikipedia does them. While we have our petty, personal beef with Wikipedia (mostly about their comically dated "notability" guidelines), they aren't always wrong, and this is one such case where we feel they nailed the Wiki design on the head; for all intents and purposes, {{tem|ref needed}} is better than any of these templates to us. It's more precise, it's more concise, and most importantly, it's what people--both on this wiki and from other wikis--know best. (This is also why we're not updating our vote, though we do appreciate the proposal being made easier to read.) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:28, March 30, 2024 (EDT) |