39,611
edits
Template talk:Warning: Difference between revisions
→Why does it say this?
| (36 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Proposal: Addressing the template's issues == | == Proposal: Addressing the template's issues == | ||
{{SettledTPP}} | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|blue|cancelled by administrator}}<small>As requested by proposer.</small> | |||
This template has some issues, and the point of this proposal is to address them. | This template has some issues, and the point of this proposal is to address them. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 22: | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|B.wilson}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|B.wilson}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': December 3, 2011, 23:59 GMT | '''Deadline''': <s>December 3, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s> '''Extended''': <s>December 10, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s>, <s>December 17, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s>, December 24, 2011, 23:59 GMT | ||
====Change==== | ====Change==== | ||
<s>{{User|Marioguy1}} - I agree that there is no problem with the current template, but if it's going to come down to which of these two templates is better, I am going to have to say the new one. It is indeed more clear, as he said. I think that this whole thing is overrated, but if B.wilson went through the work of creating the new template, I think that it wouldn't be much of a stretch for someone to just copy/paste it over.</s> | |||
#{{User|Glowsquid}} - I'm not sure about linking to the blocking policy, but the other proposed changes make sense. | #{{User|Glowsquid}} - I'm not sure about linking to the blocking policy, but the other proposed changes make sense. | ||
#{{User|ThePremiumYoshi}} - Per Marioguy1. The new version of the template is more clear and the link to the Blocking Policy would lead the user to know what it is specifically. | |||
#{{User|Ultra Koopa}} - Per [[User:ThePremiumYoshi|ThePremiumYoshi]]. | |||
====Semi-Change==== | ====Semi-Change==== | ||
| Line 31: | Line 35: | ||
#{{User|Knife}} – I support 1, 2, and 4. I oppose 3 because "may" just seems like wimpy wording and even if their next warning won't get them blocked, it does describe the ultimate consequence for their subsequent actions. | #{{User|Knife}} – I support 1, 2, and 4. I oppose 3 because "may" just seems like wimpy wording and even if their next warning won't get them blocked, it does describe the ultimate consequence for their subsequent actions. | ||
#{{User|Magikrazy51}} Per Knife. | #{{User|Magikrazy51}} Per Knife. | ||
#{{User|New Super Yoshi}}I only agree with rule 4. | |||
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per Knife | |||
#{{User|Phoenix}} I'm gonna say yes to unlinking the image, no to changing "Inappropriate behavior" to "Disruptive behavior", no to changing "Will be blocked" to "May be blocked", and honestly I don't really care if the "blocked from editing" is bolded or if the "blocked" links to the [[MarioWiki:Blocking policy|blocking policy]]. | |||
#{{User|Awesome12456}} per knife | |||
#{{User|Luigirules9898}} all | |||
#{{User|Mr.C}} Per Knife. | |||
====Don't Change==== | ====Don't Change==== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 46: | ||
#{{User|Raven Effect}} Per the words above | #{{User|Raven Effect}} Per the words above | ||
#{{User|Mario & Luigi}} Per Mario4Ever | #{{User|Mario & Luigi}} Per Mario4Ever | ||
#{{user|Walkazo}} - Unlinking the image and linking to the Blocking Policies are good, but I don't agree with the other changes. "''May'' be blocked" doesn't seem like strong enough wording: blocking ''is'' the ultimate fate of rule-breakers if they don't cut it out, so we should tell it like it is (plus, the other templates use "will" too when discussing future consequences). On the other hand, Warnings are a step removed from blocking, so bolding that part seems unnecessary at this point: leave it for {{tem|Lastwarn}}. Also, I don't follow your logic on #2 (or perhaps it's your definition of "inappropriate that's the issue), since it seems more like it's the other way around; not all inappropriate behaviours are disruptive - which makes the current wording more general, which is more desirable. For example, if all someone does is edit their userpage, but they don't do it in massive floods of edits, that's not disrupting RecentChanges or anything else, but it's still against the rules. A lot of the other Level 1 offences are like this too. Finally, what's with the use of <nowiki>{{SITENAME}}</nowiki>? There's no reason to use that instead of simply typing "Super Mario Wiki"... | #{{user|Walkazo}} - Unlinking the image and linking to the Blocking Policies are good, but I don't agree with the other changes. "''May'' be blocked" doesn't seem like strong enough wording: blocking ''is'' the ultimate fate of rule-breakers if they don't cut it out, so we should tell it like it is (plus, the other templates use "will" too when discussing future consequences). On the other hand, Warnings are a step removed from blocking, so bolding that part seems unnecessary at this point: leave it for {{tem|Lastwarn}}. Also, I don't follow your logic on #2 (or perhaps it's your definition of "inappropriate" that's the issue), since it seems more like it's the other way around; not all inappropriate behaviours are disruptive - which makes the current wording more general, which is more desirable. For example, if all someone does is edit their userpage, but they don't do it in massive floods of edits, that's not disrupting RecentChanges or anything else, but it's still against the rules. A lot of the other Level 1 offences are like this too. Finally, what's with the use of <nowiki>{{SITENAME}}</nowiki>? There's no reason to use that instead of simply typing "Super Mario Wiki"... | ||
#{{User|M&SG}} - I really don't see any reason to change the <nowiki>{{warning}}</nowiki> template. Per the things that Mario4Ever and Walkazo stated. | #{{User|M&SG}} - I really don't see any reason to change the <nowiki>{{warning}}</nowiki> template. Per the things that Mario4Ever and Walkazo stated. | ||
#{{User|MeritC}} - Per all; it's fine as it is. Besides, as others said, this simply says that the offending user that breached certain rules needs to reconsider their actions and comply after the warning itself has been issued. | #{{User|MeritC}} - Per all; it's fine as it is. Besides, as others said, this simply says that the offending user that breached certain rules needs to reconsider their actions and comply after the warning itself has been issued. | ||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - I still support making these changes over not making them, however Walkazo's comment about deleting this proposal and then starting over with a half-half scenario seems like the best idea of all to me. And since it appears there will be no canceling the proposal, it failing is the next best thing. | |||
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per Walkazo and Mario4Ever. | |||
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} There is no significent difference. They both clearly state what it is enforcing, and are both formatted correctly. There is nothing wrong with the current one. | |||
#{{User|B.wilson}} - To withdraw this proposal | |||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
| Line 51: | Line 66: | ||
::::::::Does the format at [[User:B.wilson/proform]] do a favor? Because there are four points to change, and there is a section for each one of them --{{User|B.wilson}} | ::::::::Does the format at [[User:B.wilson/proform]] do a favor? Because there are four points to change, and there is a section for each one of them --{{User|B.wilson}} | ||
:::::::::That's way too involved, especially considering that this is a pretty minor change. Just decide on one intermediate step. The image de-linking is a no-brainer technical fix and I doubt anyone would oppose that, so adding the Blocking Policy link (plus that) is the most logical intermediate step between changing nothing and changing content (i.e. working and emphasis via. boldface). Just don't change the proposal, because that runs afoul of Rule 12, and even just changing this technical aspect is pushing it... And now that someone's voted in the semi-option with their own set of supports and oppositions, it just makes things even messier. Actually, by this point it might be easier to just cancel and start again with fully outlined options. Or just cancel it and let us make the technical changes informally and ''then'' revisit the content issue by itself. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 09:37, 22 November 2011 (EST) | :::::::::That's way too involved, especially considering that this is a pretty minor change. Just decide on one intermediate step. The image de-linking is a no-brainer technical fix and I doubt anyone would oppose that, so adding the Blocking Policy link (plus that) is the most logical intermediate step between changing nothing and changing content (i.e. working and emphasis via. boldface). Just don't change the proposal, because that runs afoul of Rule 12, and even just changing this technical aspect is pushing it... And now that someone's voted in the semi-option with their own set of supports and oppositions, it just makes things even messier. Actually, by this point it might be easier to just cancel and start again with fully outlined options. Or just cancel it and let us make the technical changes informally and ''then'' revisit the content issue by itself. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 09:37, 22 November 2011 (EST) | ||
== Why does it say this? == | |||
[[User:Bowser201|Bowser]][[User talk:Bowser201|201]] It says "This is a warning to stop your inappropriate behavior on the Super Mario Wiki (reason)". Shouldn't it say, "This is a warning to stop (reason) on the Super Mario Wiki" instead? | |||
:It actually says "This is a warning to stop your inappropriate behavior (''reason'') on the Super Mario Wiki." So it already says what you are suggesting. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 11:36, March 18, 2019 (EDT) | |||