Template talk:Construction

This template was originally designed to excuse the incompleteness of a MarioWiki or Help page that was part of a Project (even a PipeProject was tagged for a day). I remember tagging Pipe Plaza, The 'Shroom, Help:Userbox, and one PipeProject before. The category, I agree, we can live without, but this is not for normal articles that are unfinished (and thus stubbed for another contributor to take up). Wayoshi ( T&middot;C&middot;@ ) 02:03, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

Incompleteness
When I look through most of articles with this template on, most say "we hope to have this article completed in no defined time" and some have been left on articles for more than a month. I understand that these kinds of articles take a long time to finish but is it right to leave this template on an article and keep procrastinating about "how you'll do it later"? As Wayoshi said above, maybe we should use this only for MarioWiki pages. What do you guys think? 14:38, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Template Change
The template would look better like this:

 This article or section is under construction. Therefore, please excuse its informal appearance while it's being worked on. We hope to have it completed.

-- Bryce   Wilson  &#124;  talk  05:00, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
 * The two templates are identical...from what I can see, the only difference is that you've edited the image to appear on the left, when appearing on the left is the default anyways (in this case). I don't think this change is necessary.
 * K, thanks for your opinion. -- Bryce   Wilson  &#124;  talk  08:00, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Actually, if your computer screen's narrow and the text doesn't fit in one line, in the current template the next line starts underneath the image, whereas this version has the text line up next to the image, which is an improvement. Of course, I feel like the best thing to do would be to simply remove the image: imo, the gif does nothing but make the template more of a distracting eyesore for the article saddled with it... - 21:17, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

GIF
I think the GIF looked great! I don't see why it was be removed.

Because it was annoying? -- Super FA MI CO M™ 64 (Talk - Contribs) 09:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Quite possibly...

Keeping the Mario hammer gif
OPPOSE 4-14

Forgive me if you don't agree, but I think the Construction Template should be left as it was, with the on the left. The admins has dubbed it unnessesary, but I just don't agree with this particular decision. Yes, it is unnessesary, but it should be left there for purely decorative and nostalgic purposes. I was once viewing an article with a Construction Template, and I was at home. My Dad walked past and looked over my shoulder, and he instantly recognised the gif from the first Mario game Donkey Kong. So, you see, that gif reflects a great part of Mario's history, and whoever originally had the idea to put it on one of the most widly used maintinence template on the Wiki was really smart. so, if you agree, please support me in bringing back the gif so it's there to stay! Thanks :)

Proposer: Deadline: March 5, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal
 * 2) I don't really care what the proposal say, but I do enjoy that gif on the construction template.
 * 3) I liked the gif. It added a Mario touch to the template.
 * 4) It's a good way of saying an article's under construction.

Oppose

 * 1) IMO, I don't really like the GIF. I wouldn't mind if it was a static image, but the GIF is certainly distracting. It also screws up the text in lower resolution computers if the text exceeds to two lines which really bothers me. I have to agree with the administrators that it was an "unnecessary" change and it looks better without the gif.
 * 2) It is an unnecessary image that makes the template look unprofessional. Its removal was a joint decision.
 * 3) - I actually ran removing the GIF by the other admins before I took it off, and I alluded to that in my edit summary, so marketing this TPP as if it was just me deeming it unnecessary and taking it out as I saw fit isn't fair. Multiple admins agreed to removing the GIF, with reasons ranging from "annoying" to "unprofessional" and, of course, the "unnecessary" criticism - all of which I agree with (I just put the one down, assuming that'd be a sufficient summary). Like BLOF, I also find it distracting and have been bothered by the ill-formatted text wrapping for months as well (although to be fair, that could be fixed using the forgotten formatting drafted by B.wilson above, but the issues with the GIF itself still stand). Notice templates are tools, not banners, and the goal is to get the construction template off the article as soon as possible: it's not supposed to be pretty or fun, it's supposed to be a garish orange motivator to get pages written faster.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - I have no problem with having Mario images on wiki templates and such, but I find gifs like that to be gaudy and annoying.
 * 7) Per all, especially Mario4Ever and Walkazo.
 * 8) Per All. I also find it to look ugly.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) It looks dumb and unprofessional on a template that is used as often as this one. Plus, the hammer is bigger than his head. What's up with that? Per all.
 * 11) Per Glowsquid. Have a image, non-animated.
 * 12) I would rather have a picture that is not animated (with my ADHD, the picture is murderous to my focus) than no picture at all (so I disagree with Walkazo somewhat. Hey, I like illustrations. I don't want this wiki to be boring and tasteless.) I want to see if the template I created below is better, though, because we can definitely go with that for those who would love a picture.
 * 13) Per all. It is not needed.
 * 14) It's pretty unnecessary and distracting. It didn't look very good either.

Comments
Since the proposal was reworded, I slashed out the part of my vote that concerned that aspect of the proposal. - 09:49, 21 February 2012 (EST)
 * Awesome!

It's a little late in the proposal, but I hope it wouldn't hurt if we included a properly resized stationary image from the sprite sheet in http://www.mfgg.net/index.php?act=resdb&param=02&c=1&id=4279. I don't see why we have to nix the picture altogether. It's just a little suggestion. 23:30, 22 February 2012 (EST)

http://i925.photobucket.com/albums/ad98/MarioBabyLuigi/overconstruction.png

What do you think? I hope this isn't distracting enough to annoy users but the picture is enough to please those that want a bit of illustration in these templates. And yes, I mentioned a lot earlier that the GIF is a major distraction. 23:42, 22 February 2012 (EST)
 * LGM, I use a higher resolution computer so I don't know what I really looks like but I like it so far. It looks better than the one with the GIF

That one looks better than the current one. I think we should have that one. SuperPaperFan
 * Me to! I actually think that one looks better than the one I am proposing for! --

Nice job LGM, I like it. We should use this one. If there were a third option to use this version, that would be my vote.
 * Good! I've always wanted to use this sprite instead of the current one because I liked it much more. Too bad I don't have the privileges to do so. 21:44, 23 February 2012 (EST)
 * The only problem with that is the Construction template isn't meant to be admired because its sole function is to remind users to finish an article and then remove the template, so there's not much point in adorning it with anything.
 * It doesn't mean we have to nix altogether, though. If you really want it, we can remove the Bob-omb in the delete template, the Mario head in the stub template, the picture in the lastwarn template, etc. What I like about the pictures, though, is that it adds a Mario feel to the templates, and as the lastwarn's case, it just looks better with it. 22:27, 23 February 2012 (EST)

I agree. This is the MARIO wiki after all. That picture is better than no picture at all. SuperPaperFan


 * I've changed stuff in the proposal, so if you like the new design, please vote in the new section!
 * Sorry, but you can't change the proposal at this point, since it's been up for four days, and changes can only happen within the first three days (see Rule 12). Instead, you can wait and make another proposal a month after the end of this one, or you can request for an admin to cancel this proposal so that you can make a new three-option proposal right away. - 09:52, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Create a parameter for "article" and "section"
Honestly (and this is just my opinion), I think there should be a separate parameter for article-wide and section-wide construction. If you don't understand me, please read on.

Like, if the editor just types, it would look like this:

 This article is under construction. Therefore, please excuse its informal appearance while it's being worked on. We hope to have it completed.

Or, if the editor types, it would look like this:

 This section is under construction. Therefore, please excuse its informal appearance while it's being worked on. We hope to have it completed.

Feel free to take a vote as well. SuperLeaf1 ( Raccoon/Fox ) 18:32, 26 January 2014 (EST)


 * Oh yeah, I almost forgot, there also be templates, categories, etc. that fit this proposal. Smb3_super_leaf.png SuperLeaf1 SuperleafNSMB2.png ( Raccoon/Fox ) 18:39, 26 January 2014 (EST)

Proposal: Reconsidering Adding an Image to This Template
DON'T ADD AN IMAGE 14-17

This is my first proposal, so here goes...

Back in 2011-2012, people were considering adding an image to this template, similar to the template. I think this is a great idea, and since the mandatory wait time is over, I wish to bring this topic up again.

Here is what I think should be the new look of the construction template:



I also changed "it's being worked on" to "it is being worked on." Contractions simply are not encyclopedic, though they are great elsewhere.

Proposer: Deadline: January 25, 2015, 23:59 GMT Extended: February 1, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) The image looks great aesthetically, and is not distracting in any way. The Pickaxe also fits the theme of this template. The contraction also deserves to be removed, due to this being an encyclopedia, which requires formal speech. Also, to those who say adding an image is superfluous, I believe a little creativity and style is beneficial for notice templates like these. Just because these templates will be removed soon does not mean they have to look boring. Adding bright images is one way to brighten up these templates. Images make templates instantly recognizable as well; without reading, the moment a person sees the Pickaxe, the reader will know that the page needs construction. It may sound funny, but we are actually simplifying the template by adding a picture to it. There is a reason that literally all the other wikis do it; they must be doing something right, otherwise images would have been long gone. We should be no different than them and add some images to our templates, starting with this one.
 * 2) Per Andymii.
 * 3) Looks pretty nice, not too distracting. Would be a nice thing to add on the template.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Madz makes a good point: Bulbapedia though we are not, the "unprofessional" distinction seems a tad arbitrary to me.
 * 6) It looks awesome. Per All.
 * 7) Per all, it looks better now and I changed my mind.
 * 8) Per Andymii
 * 9) It looks nice. The pickaxe gives it a more current look and it is good that the contraction has been fixed.
 * 10) Per Andymii
 * 11) I realy dont get whats so distracting about this? I mean its just an easier way to signify the heading, what I mean is that whewn someone sese it intead of reading it they se the pick ax and instantly know it means the article is under construction. I know that it doesnt take that long to read and once you se under constructin you know what it means, but our minds like things to always easily represented. Even if you dont like the gif its nice to be able to visualy organize templates.
 * 12) It looks very nice. A fresh new look is always awesome. Per Andymii
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Yes, I see what Walkazo wrote, but we can also make TPPs on the other notice templates after choosing the side image that best suits one template in particular.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't like it.
 * 2) - The image is unnecessary and inconsistent with most other notice templates ( and, , , the  family including , etc.).  works differently (i.e. it's white and goes at the bottom) so it's not fully comparable, and frankly I'd be fine with removing the ill-formatted image from  (and maybe recolouring it red or something as a different way to stand out) if the alternative is superfluous images added everywhere else (like here - inspired by this TPP). As I said in the last proposal, notice templates are tools, not banners: they're not supposed to be fun, they're supposed to be removed as soon as possible. Other wikis may do it, but I still think the templates look better without images, especially when viewed on wider screens, and the fact that not one design manages to look presentable for the various resolutions is all the more reason to keep the template simple and clean for everyone.
 * 3) Poor quality which makes it look unprofessional.
 * 4) Per Walkazo, the improvement tags aren't really meant to be looked at in a "fun" way. Personally I'd be fine with the removal of images on the notice templates that currently have them. And my laptop the image exceeds the boundaries of the template, which makes it look unprofessional.
 * 5) Honestly I think the Pickaxe looks even worse than the Rocky Wrench. Plus it still doesn't match the other templates.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) With Bulbapedia's template, it looks perfect enough to add a Diglett to the template because the template itself is good. But with this template, it just isn't good enough for pictures. I know; it should look ugly so it can be removed. Well, I wouldn't say that because people want to remove perfect characters from their stories, and this is the same. We don't care how perfect it is. We will still remove it anyway. However, a picture in templates like these is like Mario turning into Call of Duty. It just doesn't fit very well.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per myself in the comments section. I also suggest we should remove the other images that cause this much aesthetic ugliness in the delete and new stub templates unless they are formatted in a much more presentable way.
 * 10) I still fundamentally disagree with Walkazo, but the current template's structure needs to be tweaked so it can actually look good in all resolutions. The writing, the length of the box, no we can't really have images without leaving giant spaces or single words hanging on the next line.
 * 11) This actually looks unprofessional after thinking this over properly; the image is too close to the text and there's a gaping hole to the right. In other words, everything's uneven.
 * 12) Per Walkazo.
 * 13) - Per Walkazo.
 * 14) - Not against image on templates, but the proposed illustration clash with the colour scheme of the template and is off-center. Gaudy.
 * 15) arrg, I like the image and the idea, but the new look of the template looks ugly, there are too much empty space to the right thanks to the line-break. The image looks very close to the text, and if padding was increased, it will look like the spaces are uneven. Basically it looks ugly on the left. All these problems are solvable if the image is on the far right, but I guess other users hate it being that way.. ah well.
 * 16) Per Walkazo, but also because the messiness has grown on me.
 * 17) Per all.

Comments
I'm pretty neutral on this, I want an image for this template, but I don't want it a Rocky Wrench.
 * Is there a specific image you'd like to have? Megamario15 - The REAL Mario (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Depending on if this proposal gets passed or not, I might want to later make the contraction problem a proposal of its own. Andymii (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2015 (EST)
 * That's a possibility. Please explain. Megamario15 - The REAL Mario (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2015 (EST)
 * What I mean is that the contraction and the image are technically two separate issues. If this proposal gets passed, both issues will be fixed; if it does not, I want to still give fixing the contraction issue itself a second chance. I hope I was clear with my wording this time. Andymii (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2015 (EST)
 * Just ask a sysop to change the contraction, I guess. Such a minor change doesn't need a proposal, really now. 19:46, 11 January 2015 (EST)

It might be too late in the process, but this might look better than the Rocky Wrench (now I look at it, that picture is somewhat low on quality):



This article or section is under construction. Therefore, please excuse its informal appearance while it is being worked on. We hope to have it completed.

What do you guys think? We might want to consider this one too. Unfortunately, I do not think there is a way to change a proposal at this stage. Andymii (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2015 (EST)

I also really want to get the pick axe a few pixels lower, but do not know how. Andymii (talk)

You just change the 40 with a lower number. At least, that works for me. Just try to experiment on different numbers to get it to fit.

Also, with the pictures in the banners thing, you guys are making little to no sense. The deletion tag has a Bomb-omb, so does that make that tag unprofessional? What about the stub tag with the Mario head on it? What about the wikis that do add pictures to their tags like Bulbapedia, also known as the best website for Pokemon information? Are we calling those unprofessional? I mean, I'm perfectly fine with Bulbapedia's Diglett and Kabuto, so why can't we just change the template so it can fit a picture? Madz the Penguin (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2015 (EST)
 * Even Wikipedia, one of the most professional wikis out there, has images on the majority of its improvement tags. Yeah, the pictures are generic, but Wikipedia is supposed to be as general as it can. Nearly every single wiki has an image on its improvement tag that fits the general theme of the wiki. 16:57, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Thanks. Andymii (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2015 (EST)

You'll have to reformat the construction template as a whole due to my computer's 1280x1024 resolution: the "possible" word hangs at the next line, making it really ugly. I might want to change the border of the construction template to blue to match the color of the pickaxe, though. I have no qualms about images in notice templates, but you should apply images in the rest of them too. As I said, you have to reformat the improvement templates since their layout doesn't lend itself to customization. Also, the image is stretching the construction template vertically as well, not good. 19:03, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Is this better? (I am using an iPad for now, so I may see something different than you.) Andymii (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2015 (EST)


 * You should get it to fit the template.


 * You mean the picture? Yeah, I want to get the picture down a few pixels, but I just do not know how. The only thing I can do is make the box taller, but I do not want to do that. Andymii (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2015 (EST)


 * The text within in the construction template is so long, when you put an image, it shifts the text to the right, and one word begins on the next line. The text below looks like this:


 * This article or section is under construction. Therefore, please excuse its informal appearance while it is being worked on. We hope to have it completed as soon as possible.


 * Hmm, maybe shift the color of blue to a slightly lighter shade? I've shifted the image to a weird spot, right after the "under construction" part of the text, but weirdly, it looks better.

 This article or section is under construction. Therefore, please excuse its informal appearance while it is being worked on. We hope to have it completed.
 * And apply some minor edits maybe, and this is maybe what it should look like. If you don't like the light blue, I'll change it back.

 This article or section is under construction. Therefore, please excuse its informal appearance while it is being worked on. We hope to have it completed.
 * 20:24, 12 January 2015 (EST)

We should use it. Andymii (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2015 (EST)

I actually think people will like the Pickaxe a lot more than the Rocky Wrench; maybe I should overwrite the Rocky Wrench completely and eliminate it as a choice? Andymii (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2015 (EST)
 * Your proposal has changed, tell people that a new option has been added, and they should reconsider their votes, especially some of the opposition. I'm not sure if you're obliged to get their approval that you changed the proposal, but still can make the changes. 20:35, 12 January 2015 (EST)

 This article or section is under construction. Therefore, please excuse its informal appearance while it is being worked on. We hope to have it completed. I've shifted the pickaxe to the right to fill in the empty space in the right, kind of like Bob-omb in the delete template. I'm still not sure if it should be light blue because it looks like the family of templates. Hmm, let's see what other color goes well with the picture. But, which one do you like more, the one with the pickaxe on the left or the one with the pickaxe on the right? 20:39, 12 January 2015 (EST)

I personally like it to the left. By the way, exactly how would I be able to notify everyone? I would not want to personal message every single person. Andymii (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2015 (EST)


 * Go ahead, use the one of the left. Just tell it to Madz the Penguin, Aokage, NSY, and Boo4761. I doubt Walkazo and Yoshi876's stance will change though, but it might be worth a try again. I'm going to be changing my vote on this anyway since I think I'm satisfied with the design. 20:48, 12 January 2015 (EST)


 * It is better orange to prevent from getting confused with rewrite templates. Andymii (talk)


 * Thanks for changing it. I'm still vehemently opposed to a design change at all, but the current draft is a far less distressing prospect than earlier incarnations. - 11:58, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Looks cool, here is a few suggested changes. 

Decreased the padding, centered the image in height.-- 12:28, 13 January 2015 (EST)

I personally like the image on the left, though, but otherwise, it looks improved.Andymii (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2015 (EST)

By the way, I implemented your changes, though moved the image to the left. Andymii (talk)


 * It's way too bunched up on the left, especially for wider screens where the blank space becomes painfully obvious, although the version with it on the right doesn't fare much better once it's stretched out. (the current template for comparison). - 17:09, 13 January 2015 (EST)
 * Just my 20 cents but I absolutely despise having the image all the way to the right. I use a computer that's long in width, so the image there looks ugly and poorly placed. I prefer if the pickaxe was on the left side. 20:10, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Personally, I am in favor of the image being on the right. In regards for the empty space:



I also played around with few numbers. Here is how it looks in 1366px, in 1024px, and in (presumably) 1920px, Just a thought, why exactly did we add the line break again?

Also, I personally oppose the change, if it was on the left.-- 07:52, 15 January 2015 (EST)
 * The link break is to compensate for smaller resolution browsers. I don't know, but in this shape, the "possible" part hangs at the next line. I've said this earlier. 16:05, 15 January 2015 (EST)
 * The 1920px is the one I see and see how it's ALL THE WAY on the freaking right with the gigantic space between it? Coming to a consensus is too much of a hassle and this is probably the primary reason I'll oppose this: the mileage of how it looks appears depends on a computer's resolution. I like images in templates for illustrative purposes and have a bit of style but when they cause this much aesthetic eye-searing and are heavily dependent on browsers, better off without anything at all. It also heavily violates consistency of the other templates. There's a reason they're off to the left; the gigantic space is very ugly when viewed on larger monitors and resolutions. 16:54, 15 January 2015 (EST)
 * Viewed the current templates with images again, no I was wrong. They're just as terrible as this one. 16:57, 15 January 2015 (EST)

Hmm yeah, I remember my earlier comments about how these improvement templates as a whole need to be reformatted to help include images. Right now, their structure isn't friendly to images. In short of an overhaul, the current template is uninviting. 00:37, 16 January 2015 (EST)

I'm generally of the opinion that maintenance templates should be left to plain text unless there is a compelling reason to add an image. The the case of Wikipedia, as alluded to by Mario above, images were initially added to maintenance templates as to help editors distinguish one template from another easily, as it was common in the early days of the project for articles to have a giant ocean of template boxes at the top. It's less useful today and are used more to help people who place the templates identify which kind of template they happen to be looking at on the master list. We have never had either issue, or at least if we did/do, it's never been reported. Mixed with the images size and reformatting concerns listed above along with a complete lack of an actual argument for adding an images besides "it looks cool", I'm against this. -- Ghost Jam 03:31, 16 January 2015 (EST)
 * Also, I do understand the root desire for this change. Namely, all the other fanwiki's do it, and I do mean all. I've always felt that this is a trend that dearly needs to dies out. Adding large images and piles of useless text don't make the template easier to use on either end of the workload. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 03:34, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Just a thought, but it is very impossible to come with a template that has no issues for all people. For instance, the current template has "possible" shifted down to a new line for me in Vector style, adding a line break like that would make people with higher resolutions suffer from the empty space. Also, most of Wikipedia notice templates are a single color, as opposite to our templates which has variety of colors. So "to help people distinguish between templates faster" is not a reason. Bottom line: adding images to any template is unnecessary but maybe ok, removing images from any template is also unnecessary. Besides, I don't really agree with this pickaxe icon being for the construction template 100%. I don't feel like it fits the theme by that much. It's good, but maybe a future image could be better.-- 15:16, 16 January 2015 (EST)
 * My point is that shifting an image all the way to the right creates a bigger problem than having it to the left, thanks to how things are oriented in the wiki. BECAUSE it causes this much discrepancy is a primary reason we shouldn't add anything further than words and different colors. I like the pick-axe theme, personally, but to fit images needs an overhaul of the current template system and I would think it's an unnecessary "infrastructure" change if you get what I mean. Everything is pretty much fine the way it is as of now. 18:18, 16 January 2015 (EST)
 * It's worth noting that while it should be technically impossible to please everyone, no one has outright complained about the current template in the eight or so years we've had it. Yes, we've tweaked it here or there and there have been strong suggestions to add images, but no one has out right said "this is bad". That's about as close to perfect as we're going to get. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 03:49, 17 January 2015 (EST)

@Chocolate Mario: Now that Mario has changed his vote to appose, your 'per' vote is no longer valid. Please alter your vote to one that is valid or it will be removed per rule 4. -- Ghost Jam 05:16, 18 January 2015 (EST)

Not that I am trying to be biased or anything, but Chocolate Mario's vote seems perfectly valid under rule 4. All it says is that all arguments must have a basis. Just because Mario's vote has changed does not mean his old vote suddenly loses all it's meaning and points made; thus, Mario can still be "perred." One's opinion should not change just because someone else changed theirs. Andymii (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2015 (EST)
 * Yeah, that's why if you remove your vote but someone's "per"ing you, you just slash it out, since you might not stand by your reason anymore, but the other person still can, so you retracting your vote doesn't invalidate theirs. Although it's still a good idea for someone "per"ing a striked vote to check back to see if they also might change their mind, or perhaps rewrite their vote. - 12:10, 18 January 2015 (EST)
 * I wasn't aware that striking through in this case was standard procedure. Might be worth making a note about it in the rules. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 03:24, 19 January 2015 (EST)

Well it doesn't matter now, since all the examples of the template (that may be used if the proposal passes) have large, unprofessional empty spaces, mainly on the right. I now oppose this proposal, it looked fine as it was. Chocolate Mario (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2015 (EST)
 * It's in the courtesy policy (and applies to FAs as well as Proposals), but idk, maybe it would be worth adding something to Rule 5 on MW:Proposals (or splitting the rule into two as it's getting fairly long already - we could replace Rule 2, should we decide to leave the page semiprotected indefinitely). - 09:09, 19 January 2015 (EST)
 * Could also add a link to CourtesyGhost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 15:06, 19 January 2015 (EST)

We might have to extend this. This proposal has been ridiculously close, and Rule 10 states that one side has to win by at least three votes for it to pass. Andymii (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2015 (EST)
 * That's exactly what the rules dictate. 22:59, 24 January 2015 (EST)
 * I just extended this proposal by a week. Now the deadline is set at February 1st. It is technically past midnight in GMT, anyway. Andymii (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2015 (EST)

I think to mitigate resolution and text issues, maybe we should squeeze the template and put it to the center like Bulbabedia or Nookipedia's templates so the text doesn't hang off as much, nor is there as much empty space. 15:06, 27 January 2015 (EST)

Much as I want to fix the formatting, I doubt I am allowed to this far into the proposal. If this ends as a tie after a few more weeks and is cancelled, then when reposting it I shall definitely try fix some more things. Andymii (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2015 (EST)


 * But that still begs the question of what width should be used: the limiting factor will be the narrowest screens with an added inch or so cut out to compensate for adds for guests. Pretty narrow, in other words, which will be painfully obvious for wider screens. Now instead of having space inside the templates, you'd have space outside the templates, which would look especially bad for wordier templates (since the templates should all be the same width for consistency), where all the chatter's packed into two or even three lines of a narrow little box surrounded by empty space. And if a page has multiple templates, the waste becomes even worse, whereas now, we get nice, simple, uniform bands of colour. Much more eloquent than gaps of conspicuous empty space around tiny templates cluttered with a hodge-podge of tangential images would be. I've been looking through a few different examples of NIWA notice templates, and I really feel like our current designs are better than all the cramped little boxes most of the others have adopted, and if anything, losing our uniqueness just gives me more reason to not want these changes to happen. - 00:00, 28 January 2015 (EST)

@NSY: Since this proposal has change drastically since your vote (including completely changing the image), I believe your argument of low image quality is no longer valid under rule 4. Maybe you saw the change and still believe the image is low quality, but please confirm your vote of choice or it will be removed. Thanks! Andymii (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2015 (EST)
 * The formatting's still poor quality, so don't remove that vote. Also, in regards to your new support reason, there's more than one way to make templates recognizable. The other wikis use images, but we've been using colours and that's worked completely fine for nine years. That's longer than many of those other wikis have even existed. In no way will adding a pickaxe make the constriction template any more identifiable than its bright orange colouration already renders it (and the more I look at it, the more I feel like muting the orange with the blue border is a step in the wrong direction as well). If it's ain't broke, and it clearly isn't, don't act like it needs fixing. - 20:15, 28 January 2015 (EST)

This may not pass, so if it doesn't, I'm bringing this back to the drawing board and probably re-propose it in four weeks or so (it's within the rules do do so). After all, I'm pretty sure only 2-3 people were blatantly against adding images on templates. The major issue was the formatting, and maybe after I reformat things, the community's opinion will be different. Thank you to everyone who has voted! Andymii (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2015 (EST)

Make Construction templates expire after 3 months
OPPOSE 2-6

Attempt #3 on my heroic quest to improve this template.

In all seriousness, though, the same problems persist as before: pages clearly not under construction anymore still have this template slapped onto them. I say we take a similar path from Category:Unresolved talk pages and set the page to expire if absolutely no one edits the page for 3 months.

After all, if one hasn't "constructed" a page for 3+ months, it's probably because he or she has given up, finished and forgot to remove the template, or forgotten. Even if the constructor is making the page on, for example, Microsoft Word or the Wiki Sandbox, it really shouldn't take any longer than three months. Keeping the template there gives the false illusion that more will quickly be added to the page, when it is not. And if the page is actually incomplete, well, that's a completely different matter than being under construction. Simply put something along the lines of or.

Finally, this won't be easy. There are currently 400+ pages with the construction tag, so a good 200 pages or so should have the template removed if this passes. It's difficult, but that shouldn't be a reason to oppose. If we learn to remove a construction template when we are done constructing a page, this should be a smaller issue in the future.

Proposer: Deadline: November 14, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my reasoning above.
 * 2) Per Andymii.

Oppose

 * 1) I do not support setting an improvement tag to auto-expire. In those 400+ pages with, some need the template, and the ~200 pages that will lack them won't remove the problem. It's better to have a complete page with the tag than an incomplete page without the tag, too, since it's easier to deal with. I understand that  is ideally a temporary tag, but the reality is that it can stick indefinitely without being resolved, so auto-expire is the wrong route to take. If you hate construction templates sticking around, you can set up a collab or any organized and dedicated projects; there were wiki projects that focused on de-stubifying articles. What I recommended is a reiteration of what Walkazo said (which I wrote this before I recalled her comment). Ultimately, I see no worthwhile benefits from this feature.
 * 2) Per BM.
 * 3) - Obviously the goal is already to get rid of  templates ASAP, but that should be done by fixing the pages, not with a rigid rule based on the last edit's date. If a template looks obviously incomplete (missing sections, empty sections, incomplete tables, etc.), it should be able to keep the template that denotes that it's in dire need of improvement, rather than being automatically downgraded to  or  when no one shoulders the task. Those templates are more befitting of pages that need fleshing out but have proper backbones and no other issues, and are therefore in a less sorry state, and so, can be slightly lower priority than the under-construction articles that look like crap and make us look bad. And while there should be an effort to remove  from pages that honestly don't need it anymore (e.g. someone forgot to remove the template after fixing the page), again, doing by the date of the last edit is the wrong approach: judge the situation based on the article's condition. The proposal is vague and the comments contradictory, but if automation is what it wants, that's too bad, because automation is not feasible: too much messing around for too little "gain" (assuming you consider the blanket removal of stale  templates a good thing at all).
 * 4) - Per my comments below, I agree that more attention needs to be paid to how long construction is used on given articles, but putting a hard limit in place doesn't strike me as the best way to go about it. I feel that a better solution (and this stretches to the other fix-it/rewrite templates as well) is to encourage regular sweeps and article building participation as regular editing habits.
 * 5) This would just add to the pile of things we have to maintain if we had to keep track of when every construction template was placed on a page. Per all.
 * 6) Well what if 3 months passes and it's still in need of being under construction? We don't need a limit on it. Per all.

Comments
To be clear, there isn't actually a feasible way to make the template expire automatically, and really, it wouldn't be unreasonable to just go and organizing a Wiki Collab to replace stale construction templates with even without a proposal. A hard cutoff isn't even that necessary, and the "absolutely no one edits" could actually be a hindrance to getting rid of egregious templates, since incidental edits could easily happen even after the dedicated construction has long petered off. I generally feel that is good for pages that have lots of empty sections or partial templates or whatever, and look like absolute shit in general as a result, but once they get some meat on the bones, even if many of the sections are small with further expansion still trickling in gradually, it would just be better to replace it with. - 20:07, 31 October 2015 (EDT)

Of course, this would be volunteer-based. And it's already been used already; it's the current method used at unresolved talk pages. Even with the cutoff, good judgement is the most important at the end of the day, so the cutoff exists solely if absolutely necessary. --Andymii (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2015 (EDT)
 * Technically, you *can* program a bot-user to make construction templates expire "automatically" but yeah, that's far too much work for what it's worth. Just throwing that out there, I know we're not going that route just for this type of maintenance route, unless someone or me gets more programming experience and/or bots become a regular thing, which won't happen in a loooong time, at this rate. 22:44, 31 October 2015 (EDT)

It is possible to make the template hide itself and/or add a category after either three months of addition or simply after the page wasn't edited for three months. can help in that:. No bots required. You could just set it to one month for categories, then use aforementioned judgement on those. 02:06, 1 November 2015 (EST)
 * Still too much screwing around with fancy coding for such a minor thing as a notice template: the last time we tried an automatically-expiring template, it was never used right, and we eventually scrapped it as a bad job. - 10:21, 1 November 2015 (EST)

Even without the coding, I'm pretty sure people will be responsible enough to remove the template when necessary. A bot would be helpful, yes, but it's something perfectly feasible by just paying attention. --Andymii (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2015 (EST)

Even if construction templates stick here for years, even forever (actual websites contain this, typically the badly-designed ones), I don't see any real payoff whatsoever into making templates auto-expire. Not to say that this templates doesn't have its own problems (the time variable is pointless and would be better if we just added a time tag so we know how old a construction template is). 14:20, 1 November 2015 (EST)


 * In all honesty, if we're gonna tweak it, I'd rather get rid of the time stuff altogether and just use this template for pages that have blatant issues that go beyond bad writing or shortness, like numerous empty sections, obviously missing chunks, half-finished charts and lists, etc. That usually comes with the territory of new articles and overhauls, but they could linger longer despite being the sorta thing that really should be dealt with, so why not let the template hang out longer too and continue to flag the improvements as high priority. Then (and/or ) could be reserved for articles (old or new) that just need to expand the text and maybe add a couple sections but are otherwise fully formed, which isn't as obviously bad or in as dire need for fixing. Ideally,  still won't hang around for months and months, but it'd be better to leave on those unloved pages that need it, rather than giving up on fixing them just because no one's tried. -  14:59, 1 November 2015 (EST)
 * I use for articles that have potentially major changes in the future (like my ongoing Mario expansion) though, since construction implies that there may be major changes that may take place, so I like using it for that purpose. I still think we should add a parameter for when the template is added (similar to the  family) rather than awkwardly using that god-forsaken deadline parameter to lump in the tagged time.  15:08, 1 November 2015 (EST)

@Bazooka Mario: I agree. A construction template implies that change is rapidly taking place. Removing the construction template isn't "giving up" on a page.

@Walkazo: I think that and  should be enough to replace an expired Construction template. After all, the existence of those templates was the main reason my proposal of creating failed. --Andymii (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2015 (EST)
 * The biggest problem for me is if the entire thing of replacing the improvement tags is really worth the trouble. After all, an ugly improvement tag is an ugly improvement tag. 20:16, 1 November 2015 (EST)

I really think it'd be better to add a timestamp like what Wikipedia does. EDIT: Especially since the rewrite templates already do this. Niiue (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2015 (EST)
 * This wiki does it too, on and  and a few others. The feature is strangely not on this one.  20:17, 1 November 2015 (EST)
 * Would it be acceptable to add the variable to this template, or would that require a proposal? Niiue (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2015 (EST)
 * I don't think that even requires a proposal since it would make little sense for and so to have a timestamp while this one doesn't. Just ask.  20:25, 1 November 2015 (EST)
 * Eh, sure. I doubt anyone would protest if we add one - and it's not like adding it would interfere with the current "we hope to have it done by X" bit or anything, since it'd simply be a second possible variable. I'd rather hold off on altering the template until after the proposal is done, however. - 20:34, 1 November 2015 (EST)
 * The initial adding of time stamps to rewrite templates was my idea, but I didn't consider Construction to be in need of one because it's inherently meant to be temporary, even more temporary than a rewrite template. Even if this proposal fails, it's still a good idea to run through and removed excessively old tags. I've always assumed that rule of thumb was to remove Construction after a week, ala Don't demolish the house while it's still being built., and I honestly don't see the harm in putting a time limit on when it should be removed/replaced, as that should be a standard editing practice anyway. -- Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 06:55, 2 November 2015 (EST)
 * Ideally, construction should be removed, but the reality is that those templates can stay there for months, if not years; if we had a time tag, we can immediately discern how long the construction template is up there without mulling through revisions in the history tab. I think replacing the tags rather than removing them is a better idea. I'm not sure how relevant is "don't demolish the house", but if something has a sign that says "under construction" and it has this sign for years, we shouldn't remove the sign? 14:01, 2 November 2015 (EST)
 * No, I'm fully for removing them after a time, but putting a hard limit on when doesn't strike me as the right way to go. Yes, it looks good on paper, but in practice it can cause issues. To narrow it down, my position is that we should be focusing on getting articles into a state where 'construction' is removed quickly, but do have articles that have taken months (and in at least one case, years) to work through. For that reason, I feel that it's better to note in the templates description that it's meant to be a temporary tag and that regular sweeps of the associated category should become a maintenance norm. -- Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 02:27, 10 November 2015 (EST)

@Bazooka Mario: you are aware construction templates can simply be replaced by other notice templates (rewrite, expand, etc.), right? We're not "giving up" on articles by any means. --Andymii (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * Yes, but ~200 pages to check where the construction template is removed is no small feat. I suppose we can use an if function to trigger an automated replacement once the time is up, but I don't know if we really should go through the trouble of doing that. 14:38, 6 November 2015 (EST)

I'm willing to do it. Yeah, it'll be a long project, and I'd appreciate some help along the way, but I'm sure it'll be doable- especially if Category: Articles under construction is put under the 'Shroom Spotlight or something. --Andymii (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * Is there a quick way knowing which pages will be affected? And if you really want to get started, why not just do it now and manually replace with a more specific  without resorting to a particular automated system?  19:46, 6 November 2015 (EST)

If could do that, but in a year, this problem will arise again. Plus, think about it. What page "under construction" just takes a 3 month hiatus? Sure, the page may still be incomplete. Sure, the page may still be of low quality. So put a notice template there (just not a "construction" one). --Andymii (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * Yes, so you should just keep track of what pages get a new construction template slapped on it because it's inevitable that we're going to get pages that are under construction. But an automated removal of construction won't remove the problem of an incomplete page, and manually replacing it with is just a load of effort that doesn't really change its overall incomplete state. My biggest issue is that when the template does get removed, you can't tell if a page had a construction template or not unless you look at the page history. The construction template is there to give the readers the impression of a flawed article state, and simply removing it after three months doesn't do them any favors. The wiki is big; some page is going to have  removed and it might be in a bad state without such an important tag for a particular timeframe before being added again. I'd rather if that template just doesn't get removed until actual work comes in and makes a big enough effort to remove it.  21:24, 6 November 2015 (EST)

Unfinished as the page is, having a construction template in those cases simply aren't true. The pages aren't actively being built; in fact, the the construction template tells users to hold off from making major edits to the page, which is, if anything, slowing progress down. --Andymii (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * I view construction templates as a sort of disclaimer as "please excuse its informal appearance". We can add "you can help by making an edit to this page" and I think that will resolve the impression that you shouldn't edit it until it's done. 21:38, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * I'd think that instead of "by making an edit," it should say something like "contributing." Sorry I'm switching topics, I think it would look better this way. 21:40, 6 November 2015 (EST)

That would be a major change to the basic meaning of the template. I know many, many people use the construction template for the reason I gave, and I don't think we need such a change at this point. --Andymii (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * It doesn't have to say exactly that (keyword: like) but I think "by making an edit" is wrong wording, as it seems very...generic. 21:46, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * I use construction for several reasons; people do this too. It's a versatile template and just like other improvement tags, its general purpose is to state that the article is in a incomplete-looking state, and it wouldn't hurt to invite people to help with the construction either, since this is supposed to be a public open-editing wiki that's always under construction. I didn't suspect the one line would be such a major change, though, and I do think that if the construction gave the impression that you shouldn't touch the page, then that's the wrong impression, and that needs to change. 21:48, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * I don't think it means "this is under construction no touching." I think it means there is a lot missing from the article. It has nothing to do with not editing. Like I said, your idea, to me, is too general, mostly because some vandal could come along and say "So they want me to edit? I'll edit!" and then we end up with a vandal on our hands. 21:53, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * Wandals don't care if it's under construction or not and they're our least concern for any given situation anyhow. And my interpretation of construction matches yours. And yeah, we can word it as "you can help by contributing", I think that's better. 21:58, 6 November 2015 (EST)

I'm actually quite split on what path this should go here. I mean, we want this to be versatile, but we don't want this to be vague. I just think that "construction" is the wrong template to use when all your'e trying to say is that the page is of low quality (which is what it's like in about half of the pages "under construction.")
 * Sadly, I'm not sure there is a best of both worlds. It's either vague or versatile. 22:02, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * I think it's vague to be versatile. 22:14, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * Nice pun! But on a serious note, you pretty much hit our point: either vagueness and versatility or one-use-ness and specificality. 22:17, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * A vaguely-worded construction templates won't bait vandals: that's a ridiculous argument. That being said, I also don't like the wording tbh, nor the asking for help premise in general, really: the mere presence of any notice template is implicitly asking for help already. And for that same reason, the earlier comment about people seeing a construction template and thinking "oh, better not edit this" is also a ridiculous argument - I've only seen used to try and rope off an in-progress editing job once in eight years of being an editor here, and it didn't work at all, because everyone interpreted the template as being a signal that the page needed to be fixed asap and pitched in - as they should have, because that's what it's for. -  22:18, 6 November 2015 (EST)

I don't really mind whether we change the wording or not; tbh, I think it's okay the way it is. But it's still a "temporarily under construction" template- not a "this page needs work" template. That's EXACTLY the rewrite and stub template's jobs. --Andymii (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * Edit conflict. Walkazo: This sums my thoughts and my impressions on . I've suggested the invite for an edit because that could be a quick fix if the template really is giving the impression that it shouldn't be edited (and that's not how I think construction should be treated anyway). Roy Koopa, I'm just saying, the template is designed to be vague so it can stand in for cleanup, more images, wording rewrite, upcoming information incompleteness, and other general problems in one package. Andymii: wording is okay for me, but it's not a pressing issue for me. I view the construction template as both a "this page needs work" and "this page is undergoing progress", and I don't see the point in mulling over the super specifics of the template and whenever or  is a better fit. As I said earlier, an improvement tag is an improvement tag and their core functions are the same. One is just a bit more specific than the other in practice.  22:34, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * So you're saying it's supposed to summarize pr'y at least three templates that would be there instead of using all three independently? 22:39, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * Not exactly. It's more like construction is used for articles in general bad shape, upcoming overhaul, a working overhaul, or there is an overhaul taking place due to a recent policy change. 23:45, 6 November 2015 (EST)

I would like to point out that this is actually a system we're already using on other templates, for example this one. So it's not a freakishly large shift. Don't forget the problem also lies within people forgetting to remove the Construction template when they are done, or just forget about the project in general. Construction, I think, implies work is currently getting done really fast on that page, so when the page is dead on recent edits, it shouldn't be on that page. --Andymii (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * IMO, it's misguided to remove legit but unanswered templates too. We should make an effort to answer questions, not sweep them under the rug. -  22:49, 6 November 2015 (EST)

Not to go off topic, but in that case, I think we should definitely let the thing expire. I'm with you when you say don't sweep questions under the rug, but ig you are to bring back an ancient question, you probably should make it as a new header. After all, no one is going to expect an answer to a question they asked in 2013, so they most likely won't check it.

Oh, and Walkazo, how exactly do we solve this problem without some form of automation? I'm sure every everyone agrees at this point that something isn't right, but we haven't agreed on an approach. --Andymii (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2015 (EST)
 * It happens that ancient questions get reexamined or eventually answered (as I did that in Template talk:!) just in case people have similar questions in the future. As I said earlier, it's better to have false positives than false negatives when it comes to construction templates and categorizing. Anyway, we've suggested this a few times as a constructive solution: get working to remove the construction template to ensure articles don't get them, period. This is what 'Shroom Spotlight and Wiki Collabs do, so you can do the same so we can remove improvement tags in general, not just construction templates. 23:45, 6 November 2015 (EST)

Use the template only when pages clearly have an informal appearance
PASSED 14-11

Is the template really necessary for when pages don't have an informal appearance? The template clearly states it apologizes for the informal appearance of the article it's found on, so having it on a page that is visually fine makes no sense at all; it's apologizing for something that is not there. Users can freely work on any articles without the need to slap an ugly template on top of it; if we were to tag with every article someone is working on, our wiki would be full of this template and that is not how this template should be used. As Walkazo said here, the template is best used when: "a page has conspicuously under-construction chunks: empty or missing sections, half-finished tables, etc.", which would be the definition of "informal appearance" here.

Proposer: Deadline: January 15, 2016, 23:59 GMT Extended: January 22, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per proposal.
 * 2) &mdash; Per Tucayo, Walkazo, and all supporters. As has been said before, this template is a "tool" for wiki editing purposes; as with all tools, they should be used responsibly and only when necessary. As information on the wiki is constantly changing, and edits will always need to be made, the use of this template should be employed with proper discretion. Only articles that require major changes and appear disorderly should be tagged as being under construction.
 * 3) – Per all.
 * 4) Per all, all articles in any wiki are constantly being worked on to be made better, so really, the "informal appearance" is the only reason this template should be placed. Otherwise, if the article is skimming info, a more appropriate template (such as ) should be placed instead.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Frankly, I feel this template should only be used if and only if a page is being currently worked on (i.e., there's a major edit being written by a specific person over the course of no more than a matter of hours). If there's no work being done on it, the page simply isn't "under construction". Otherwise, a template like,  or  should be used. Currently, it is HUGELY overused, and anything that cuts back on that is welcome.
 * 7) – Per all. When the informal appearance isn't noticeable, the construction template will only draw more attention to it.
 * 8) - Per proposal and myself as quoted in it. If the article's not conspicuously under construction (numerous missing/blank/one-liner sections, half-finished tables - things that even someone with no knowledge of the subject would pick up on as being in-progress), then the template itself will be the only thing making it look obviously bad: kinda shooting yourself in the foot there, so it seems reasonable to dissuade that kind of usage. It's especially bad on high-profile pages: first impressions are important, so why risk turning off potential readers when the first thing they see after finding us on Google is that we're too incompetent to have a complete Mario article? I don't buy the "using the template to stake out my editing territory" excuse either: if anything, the template will encourage other users to try and help overhaul the page, and either way, edit sniping is more when it's obvious you're in the middle of something and then someone jumps in and starts racing to do things for you, but frankly, if you need a template to ward people off, then it's not actually conspicuous you're doing something, and if someone picks up the job, that's your own fault for being slow to finish. Thems the breaks of community editing: get possessive of specific articles at your own risk. The "but what if a page needs to be overhauled" argument is also faulty: if that's the case, you should already be using  anyway (if even that: if a page does its job in the meantime, why even mark it at all: average readers won't care that it's pending a rewrite due to standards they don't know have changed) - another ugly template, granted, but the point is, shying away from using this specific template for major editing projects on long-established, well fleshed-out pages (which is all this proposal's trying to do) isn't as restrictive to wiki maintenance as opposers are making it out to be.
 * 9) – This site is an online encyclopedia that anyone may edit at any time. By definition, that means all articles are essentially under construction at all times, considering anyone may work on them without notice. This makes the template mostly superfluous, but it may still have its niche on newly created articles, while they aren't fully presentable yet.
 * 10) - what walakzo said.
 * 11) Per all however stand by comment below.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) Comments below. It's the minority opinion, but I'm not liking this proposal.
 * 2) Per Bazooka Mario . Having this template is not completely useless. When a user is presently on a draft of an article expantion, this template is highly useful to add to the place that the user is trying to re-organize, to avoid the project other to be stoled by others users. This is not a Wiki Courtesy rules? Users shoulds not Participate in other users editing projects without first asking them . This template helps to avoid such conflicts. I also noticed that you can if you like, add a date to the template, I think we should necessarily put it if the template is add to a article’s section when a user wants to make the section, his/her project. Thus, the user who add this template will need to work on the section before the date indicated. Otherwise, anyone after this date can work on it.
 * 3) Per Bazooka Mario.
 * 4) Per Bazooka Mario in all her comments below.
 * 5) Per Bazooka Mario.
 * 6) I really think this template should be worked depending on the user operating the template rather than a poorly defined, somewhat subjective, and a completely vague term that this proposal is suggesting. As my twin said, the template is kept vague on purpose so we'd have a more widespread use of it and we can apply it where editors feel like it should be. I don't like to fall back on the grandfather clause on this, but no editor has really abused the template in the past and whenever I see an editor place this up, I feel like they most of the time have good reasons on doing so.
 * 7) Per all. The construction template's use is entirely subjective, and setting rules on use isn't going to help. Plus, the template is sometimes also used to tell others not to steal the project.
 * 8) Specify a reason for why the template is being used, kind of like how you can specify a reason for the  and  templates.
 * 9) If an article is being revamped as part of a project, I say we should use this template; per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.

Comments
Several problems with this proposal.

The proposal pays too much attention to the specific wording, specifically "informal" when I think the wording on the improvement tag is deliberately vague to allow versatile use of the template. The proposal unnecessarily limits this; for instance, an otherwise complete page suddenly has to go through a step-by-step overhaul because of a major proposal, this proposal wouldn't allow it. I assume wiki sandboxes are there for major changes, but it's case-by-case and boils down to user preference to use a sandbox or not to overhauling pages.

The proposal misses out on a potential important function of construction: the template implies major changes due to a project are taking place in the article page, which the rewrite family doesn't accomplish. In the end, it's all up to interpretation, especially when the proposal assumes when the template is "apologizing" (I think it's closer to a disclaimer/warning rather than an apology).

What constitutes as "clearly unfinished" could be vague and up to meaningless, unconstructive debate when the actual problem is an article that could use major improvement, period. For previous states of Equipment, for instance, most information is there, but is missing some details. The proposal may generate arguments and toil over the appropriate template to use for that kind of article even though it looks fully formed, but not quite enough for a rewrite-expand.

The proposal doesn't actually solve anything ultimately other than "it looks bad". It only shifts the burden of carrying these templates to the rewrite templates when our ultimate goal is to remove these templates altogether when far more productive activities can be done to remove this template once and for all. As I said previously, an ugly improvement tag is an ugly improvement tag.

To sum it up, there is no hard written rule on how to implement construction or rewrite and trying to impose one, for me, is very problematic. 18:11, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * If any article can use major improvement, it can be improved regardless of any tag it could have. Having this template on a page that otherwise looks fine accomplishes nothing at all. -- 18:14, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * That's the point of improvement tags: to signal major improvement needed for an article and categorize it as incomplete or needs more major work, and sometimes there are slightly more specific tags you can use like rewrite-expand. I've put the construction tag and left it there on Mario for specific reasons that we've discussed in the forums since I am working on inputting major changes, and it's not practical to use sandbox due to its high-traffic and overall layout of the page. Again, there is really no hard line between construction and rewrite and there is really no point in trying to create one, especially when I feel it's pretty much imposing one interpretation over the other. 18:34, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * @and it's not practical to use sandbox due to its high-traffic and overall layout of the page: I don't see why you couldn't just create or something and work on the article there in peace, where nobody else (except admins, but they won't touch those pages) can edit them, unless that's not the point you're making, in which case please explain which point you're making.  20:09, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * That's what I meant by sandbox, I meant both the wiki-built and user ones. I do have one. I don't see the benefits outsourcing to a sandbox compared to directly editing, in this specific case. I understand complete overhauls and new pages, but I'm expanding the page and I've created a checklist on what I've done so far, and for those not familiar with what I've outlined in my userpage, I've provided a construction template to know that the article is being worked on now and then, and I do make pretty major changes. In fact, I've made major changes today by reorganizing some parts of the history section and incorporating trivia. For my slow, ongoing mostly solo work, I have no plans nor any desire to change the construction template to rewrite or remove it all together because the construction template best illustrates my ongoing work on it. I'm reorganizing the page, expanding it, rewriting it, proofreading it every time I visit it while people are also adding stuff to it, so keeping it to a sandbox feels rather counterproductive compared to just jumping in and adding/rewriting sections. If I haven't explained my situation clearly enough, then maybe my approach is very foreign to editors. 20:39, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * Personal projects to improve articles that are otherwise complete in information do not warrant the use of . If you have your objectives for the page outlined in your userpage, you can work off that list without the tag. -- 20:50, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * Why? And no, it's not, not by MarioWiki quality standards. The project is incomplete, the article is incomplete, the article is being worked on at the moment, users need to know that major changes may be undergoing, what other template best accomplishes this? I remember years ago, we even had users that proposed a notice template that the article is worked on so-and-so. It failed, but I recall because it's mostly redundant or something like that. 20:59, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * All articles could at any given time be under construction. We are a wiki, articles can change drastically without any given notice and regardless, this template does not provide that notice, if you think it's necessary. Again, construction is meant to indicate when an article has an informal appearance, not when it's being improved; articles are always being improved. -- 21:06, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * How does that template not provide that notice? "While it's being worked on" and "We hope to have it completed as soon as possible" suggests that there are major changes on going and "informal" can mean anything from incomplete charts, expanding the article, reorganizing sections, missing details, data needed, sources needed, and rewriting. Yes, this wiki is "always under construction" as we say, but some articles need much more work than others and some users choose to target specific articles and then put up a notice template to suggest that there are changes made. Of course, others don't, but that suddenly doesn't mean users that do are abusing the template as implied here. Major changes are being made fairly frequently, but they're often done in a few edits thanks to sandboxes or gradually over time which calls for construction to show that it's ongoing. 21:37, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * tl;dr . If a user is working on various sections of an article, for instance to rewrite a major part of it or if he has a plan to add a table in the future. The template doesn't seem to fit in the article in that situation. Because the article is good, not incomplete nor missing sections, not poorly formatted or have many red-linked images. The article is in a formal state. The point is, this template serves no purpose other than to address that the reader should excuse the look of the page. Otherwise a more appropriate template (or no templates, case-by-case) should be placed instead. It's the same case as the previous proposal of expiring the construction template, the template is vaguely defined. "Under construction" seems to suggest that the article is crappy, broken and need to be fixed, thus under construction.-- 07:18, 2 January 2016 (EST)

@Wildgoosespeeder: That's not something this template supports and I don't think it should be added to this one. On another note, it's worth noting this TPP won't retroactively apply to the Mario article, as it was deemed the use of the template was not warranted there by several Admins and a Bureaucrat. -- 11:27, 3 January 2016 (EST)

One more thing - everyone seems to be forgetting about, a small template placed at the BOTTOM of an article, which is what most wikis use for "incomplete" articles, which people seem to be arguing for this template to be used for categorising. Not a big orange thing placed at the top which, to use Walkazo's words, is "the first thing they see after finding us on Google [announcing] that we're too incompetent to have a complete Mario article". - Reboot (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2016 (EST)

I do hope that, if this proposal fails, this template will be put on every single unprotected page on the wiki. They're all being worked on right now, after all.

This is not a joke comment, btw. The current parameters of the template allow this. All it'd take is someone with too much time on their hands and the strange desire to pave the wiki in orange textboxes.

This is a potentially unpleasant blindspot of the template and common sense dictates that blindspots should be addressed when they are discovered. If you currently oppose this proposal and the visual wholesomeness of the wiki means anything to you, please reconsider your stance. - 15:19, 3 January 2016 (EST)

I am in full support of doing this, however I think it's better off that the template stated that the article is incomplete rather than under construction. My reasoning for this is that 1. the work could of been abandoned so it's technically not under construction 2. it's easier for the reader to understand and says a lot more about the state of article as it's simpler. Any thoughts on that?

I strongly agree with and. Hypothetically, what happens if we implement a new policy that changes many articles? Are we going to slap on all of them until the edits are made? If the pages present accurate information well enough until the changes are made, then the template only serves to threaten how the reader perceives the wiki as a credible resource (as Walkazo said, the wiki would be unnecessarily "shooting [itself] in the foot"). We could also consider what Gabumon pointed out: that the same "broad" and "vague" nature of the template that the opposition cherishes also allows for the template to be used on practically all 16,000+ articles, and somebody could choose to do that right now with the only consequence being that our website will look awful. Additionally, some have also cited the Courtesy Policy as a justification for the current usage of the template; however, the template was made years before the policy existed and was originally intended for exclusive use in project pages (i.e. MarioWiki: and Help:). It can be argued that its role in preventing editing projects being "stolen" is archaic – perhaps even invented – and that there are better ways to establish such efforts. For example, one could post a collaboration on the forum that would allow them to take charge of revamping an article while having additional input before any huge changes are made. That all being said, it is clear that there are inherent issues with this template that need to be addressed. has proposed a sensible solution that isn't too restrictive and will simply reserve it for pages that have glaring, unprofessional issues that need to be resolved. 17:17, 3 January 2016 (EST)

Given the relatively low usage this template sees mixed with the relatively high number of issues we've had just maintaining it (this is the fourth effing proposal for one damn template), I'd be much more in favor of either modifying the use range of other, similar templates or turning this one into a general, temporary "this article is new, don't ask for deletion just yet" stopgap that it was initially intended to be. -- Ghost Jam 20:26, 8 January 2016 (EST)
 * I think the returning this to its initial use would be the best way to go. -- 11:56, 15 January 2016 (EST)


 * I find this proposal not addressing the root of the problem. Maybe templates, such as, , , and , probably need to be dropped in favor of a whole new set of templates that convey varying levels of urgency what is needed in the article/section. I find that is used for articles that need a lot of work done,  is used for articles that have the right structure but needs tweaks, and / for articles that need more information in a particular section or very short article. I find  and  requesting the same kind of content. There is no reason to have both those two. I find that  should just be . , I find that should be left alone. Ultimately, we need a more robust system. -- 16:03, 15 January 2016 (EST)