MarioWiki:Main Page talk archive 10

New Features
So much to say! I'll add more as I see them. 18:53, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Special:EditCount – available to everyone and counts all edits, giving a breakdown by namespace.
 * Special:Patrol – Only to sysops & patrollers, goes through an edit diff one by one and gives you the options to accept, revert, or skip it.
 * Special:Chat – The biggie. The chat is now accessed through the wiki. It's on the sidebar if you haven't noticed yet.
 * MediaWiki Version: 1.8.2 &rarr; 1.10.0. New features:
 * On recent changes, +/- # of bytes that were added or removed to the size of the page is now seen. Total size of article in each revision seen in history page.
 * When protecting a page (sysops only), option to make the protection expire at a certain point, or use "cascading protection": all pages linked to the protected page will also be protected.
 * When a new article is created, and an edit summary is not specified, the default is the first 100 or so characters of the article.

Cool. Not that I can use Special:Patrol....grumble....grumble....


 * Teh new features are FTW! Great Gonzo

Yup. Except the chat is stupid now. 22:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)


 * How is it stupid, its more under control.

A chat under control is stupid. Chats were made to be free.


 * Then make a seprate room... Great Gonzo

So, Special:Patrol just takes the most recent page edited and let you see the difference? Is there a way to choose which pages you wish to see? -- Chris 01:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
 * So far I don't think you can control what pages are seen, and I got pages starting from May 9th. 18:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I understand what the practical use of such a feature is, I just don't understand how we are to utilize it. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 20:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Short Articles
Um can't we merged short articles to longer articles such as Apple For example?Cause with short articles like this it doesn't look good.

FAs
Uh,I dont like the idea of cancelling the FAs and I dont care if the new enforced article standard will be, but I liked it better when we had FAs nomination,Then who's idea is to cancelled it?Any comments?
 * Mine and Wayoshi. Apparently, no one was following the standards set up on THIS Wiki. - A Link to the Past 14:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

What does it mean by peer review?--

You know what Mr.Past? you simply irritate me.

And not only that, but your negative comments here annoy me as well.
 * Does it look like I care? You're complaining because articles not up to THIS Wiki's standards were labelled as such. Get over it. - A Link to the Past 15:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I'll cite one thing. Standard #3 on the FA list says "no point of view". All the FA articles had a biased POV. 15:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Meh,you dont simply understand do you?But do this all have to go your way?
 * I do. A featured article implies that the article follows all criterias, and is great as a result. None do. - A Link to the Past 15:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Alttp about the FA nomination. Every article about a somehat major specie/character was nominated, even thought they we're far from being up to FA standard. iit was like everyone looked at the number of paragraph and picture, rather than the content itself. Gofer

Okay fine then arguments over and case closed.


 * There was alot bias votes, that I've noticed.

That for sure, most vote were'nt because of the quality itself, but rather because the voter liked/disliked the character, argument we're mostly ignored. Gofer


 * Yes, not to point fingers, but many were bias and we did nothing about it. Great Gonzo