MarioWiki talk:Proposals/Header

Order
Can somebody explain me why is the How to subsection before the table of contents while the Talk page proposals one is after it? I don't want a technical answer, but I'd like to hear the reason, I'm just wondering :) 11:53, 31 May 2013 (EDT)
 * So that all the TPP stuff is grouped together on Proposals. - 20:05, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

Punctuation
Shouldn't there be a closing square bracket somewhere in the "Deadline" row? GBAToad (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Yep, good catch - it's fixed now. Thanks! - 01:51, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

On Rule #16: replace Administrators with Bureaucrats (because Administrators cannot promote or demote)-- 07:04, 4 July 2013 (EDT)
 * But the Admins as a whole decide who gets promoted: the only 'Crat-specific part of the process is pushing the button (and writing the log), but procedure trumps technical details. - 11:32, 4 July 2013 (EDT)

Dates
Can the example dates be updated? It makes this page look really out of date when they're over four years ago (1 Aug 2016 is a Monday again, for simplicity). - Reboot (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2015 (EST)
 * "Outdated" implies the page isn't useful anymore, but the standards have not changed since the example was made, so it's still perfectly accurate and functional - not outdated, and I see no compelling reason whatsoever to arbitrarily change the examples. If anything, having a rules section that's been written solidly enough to not need overhauling for over 4 years is a thing to be proud of. - 00:35, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Minor improvement suggestion on proposal skeleton
May I suggest wrapping this whole block with

It's not a very big change, but it the way the font is rendered in Courier or Courier New instead of Ariel. Seeing this font type rendered like that above reminds you of that same particular font type when trying to edit a wiki page. It's a hint that gives a subtle nudge in the right direction when trying to make a new proposal, especially for newcomers. It would be notably weird to see ===blah BLAH 1234=== in Ariel, and not  in Courier or New Courier when trying to edit a page. 01:04, 12 April 2016 (EDT)


 * No, it should be left as-is. The text which can be copied is already contained within its own space separated by header lines. And the instructions above already invite inexperienced readers to copy from the section below. Most importantly, not all of the section is intended to display an example code: the current instructions provide links to the Writing Guidelines page and the Talk Page Proposals section. It is inconsistent with the rest of the page and looks quite odd to include links while trying to display the same text, just in a way that users would see in their edit box.


 * 05:20, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

Minor Suggestion
I see two. I suggesting using the template that contains the web standard code for CSS floating element breaks. -- 19:42, 26 July 2016 (EDT)


 * The two methods don't seem to be the same thing: replacing the be clear=alls with the template doesn't give the same result. The "current time" box is already perfectly positioned using the tags, why do we need to change the code that no one will ever see?


 * 03:55, 27 July 2016 (EDT)
 * See the talk page of . says the method is obsolete and not HTML5 compliant. He even edited  to not use .  says they are perfectly interchangeable. Aside from those reasons to switch over, using a template containing the code makes maintenance easier. -- 04:08, 27 July 2016 (EDT)


 * Lakituthequick said that only the clear=all part was obsolete. As I can't get the same positioning using the template, would it be acceptable to only use   ?


 * 15:58, 27 July 2016 (EDT)
 * Because there is nothing to clear out in this specific template to begin with, yes, it'd work perfectly. :) 17:55, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

asdf asdf asdf
 * Div test (only one tag in use) :


 * The tag isn't obsolete, although anything before and after   create new lines before and after automatically, which  uses. Just the property part is obsolete . I guess I wasn't clear what  wanted and that was to do the equivalent of pressing return or enter on a keyboard and actually have it display, much simpler than . Hope this clarifies any confusion. -- 20:26, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Improvements
Proposals you have to manually calculate the time. Here's how to make MarioWiki do that for you so all you have to do is copy-paste! This is thanks to MediaWiki Parser Functions. See the source code to find out how it works!

The deadline line can just be updated with the code so you don't have to replace the insert text. The end date will be there automatically. Highlighted in yellow is the code you want to use. Highlighted in green is the current time cached by the software (not live). -- 18:55, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
 * It may be hard to measure exactly to the second...or even to the minute.... - 22:47, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * With the above code I created, that shouldn't be an issue, unless you are referring to manual calculation we do now instead of the automatic calculation I coded. Seems like the cached time refreshes every three or so minutes on its own, whenever the page using the time parser functions is accessed. -- 00:21, 20 November 2017 (EST)
 * Wow, that seems really useful. I wonder why we already don't use something like this.  We need to make the change. - 00:24, 20 November 2017 (EST)

Rule 7 (RP)
"No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old." I think this should be changed to "No proposal can be created to overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.", so that it is clear what is meant by this statement (as a proposal can be created during that time, but ends after the 4 week limit as with what was decided with this). (copied from MarioWiki talk:Proposals, due to it being more relevant here.) 21:08, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

Minor Grammar Issue
This is just very minor. The word "their" is used eleven times in the singular. The first nine times it should be "his", and the last two times it should be "its". Just pointing out this issue. - 12:31, 18 November 2017 (EST)
 * "Their" is used when gender is indeterminable, so there's nothing wrong here. The second to last "their" could be an "its", though. 12:37, 18 November 2017 (EST)
 * Wow, grammar has really changed, hasn't it? In my younger years "his" was the word for the unknown gender.  But the last two instances of "their" do need to be changed to "its". - 13:02, 18 November 2017 (EST)
 * Last one doesn't need to be changed. Makes sense as it is, as "their" is referring to the proposer, not the proposal itself. 13:05, 18 November 2017 (EST)