User talk:Waluigi Time: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 115: Line 115:
::::I mean, from my perspective - as someone who's been guilty of "drive-by templating" - it's actually been helpful on my end to keep track of things. Seeing those still up after a while aided me in gauging situations, since my theory was that the longer exposure would naturally attract the strongest voices/opinions over time, and if it turned out that it didn't, it sometimes let me know that things were in the clear to proceed whenever I got around to revisiting. I did obviously open discussions when I thought things might have more contention right off the bat, but I suppose I did admittedly treat the template as a buffer between deeper discussion and outright editing. Again, I wasn't aware of the proposal or other discussion, so it is news to me now that it was seen as a problem to be taken care of. I am sorry that a number of users on the other end (over twenty!) viewed it as an eyesore. In fairness, I'll also say that it sometimes slips my mind that the move templates don't allow you to add your reason as a parameter, unlike the rewrite templates, so I would occasionally start to write reasons within the template, only to remember afterwards in preview that it doesn't quite work like that; therefore, I would often be forced to relegate those reasons to the edit summary, where I understand things tend to get buried. Would appending a similar reason parameter to those templates instead have worked to mitigate the issue? It would have made things more in line with the first drive-by proposal. And another thing still doesn't add up to me: like I said, I believe that proposal was made after Porple hid most meta categories/templates from visibility when signed out. I thought that already served to address it? As such, I feel like a proposal/discussion about it came...maybe a little late. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 18:48, July 23, 2023 (EDT)
::::I mean, from my perspective - as someone who's been guilty of "drive-by templating" - it's actually been helpful on my end to keep track of things. Seeing those still up after a while aided me in gauging situations, since my theory was that the longer exposure would naturally attract the strongest voices/opinions over time, and if it turned out that it didn't, it sometimes let me know that things were in the clear to proceed whenever I got around to revisiting. I did obviously open discussions when I thought things might have more contention right off the bat, but I suppose I did admittedly treat the template as a buffer between deeper discussion and outright editing. Again, I wasn't aware of the proposal or other discussion, so it is news to me now that it was seen as a problem to be taken care of. I am sorry that a number of users on the other end (over twenty!) viewed it as an eyesore. In fairness, I'll also say that it sometimes slips my mind that the move templates don't allow you to add your reason as a parameter, unlike the rewrite templates, so I would occasionally start to write reasons within the template, only to remember afterwards in preview that it doesn't quite work like that; therefore, I would often be forced to relegate those reasons to the edit summary, where I understand things tend to get buried. Would appending a similar reason parameter to those templates instead have worked to mitigate the issue? It would have made things more in line with the first drive-by proposal. And another thing still doesn't add up to me: like I said, I believe that proposal was made after Porple hid most meta categories/templates from visibility when signed out. I thought that already served to address it? As such, I feel like a proposal/discussion about it came...maybe a little late. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 18:48, July 23, 2023 (EDT)
:::::That seems reasonable, I certainly wouldn't oppose having an option to include a reason on those templates in lieu of immediately starting a discussion (though if it's something that requires a paragraph to explain, that's probably better on the talk page). As far as I'm concerned, maintenance templates/categories being hidden when logged out is a completely unrelated matter. I was more concerned with keeping the maintenance categories themselves at a reasonable size (the more pages there are, the more overwhelming it is and the less likely it is any individual one will be addressed from there) and ensuring that the reasoning behind a suggestion is easily accessible. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:00, July 23, 2023 (EDT)
:::::That seems reasonable, I certainly wouldn't oppose having an option to include a reason on those templates in lieu of immediately starting a discussion (though if it's something that requires a paragraph to explain, that's probably better on the talk page). As far as I'm concerned, maintenance templates/categories being hidden when logged out is a completely unrelated matter. I was more concerned with keeping the maintenance categories themselves at a reasonable size (the more pages there are, the more overwhelming it is and the less likely it is any individual one will be addressed from there) and ensuring that the reasoning behind a suggestion is easily accessible. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:00, July 23, 2023 (EDT)
:::::::I see. Well, I think it would be a fair compromise. If a "Discourage drive-by templating part 2.5" needs to be made for this parameter, maybe I'm not the one who should do it. Would you like to make it instead? Can you think of any other ways to improve templating before another proposal is written? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 12:09, August 6, 2023 (EDT)
::::::I see. Well, I think it would be a fair compromise. If a "Discourage drive-by templating part 2.5" needs to be made for this parameter, maybe I'm not the one who should do it. Would you like to make it instead? Can you think of any other ways to improve templating before another proposal is written? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 12:09, August 6, 2023 (EDT)
:::::::It probably doesn't need a proposal at all. I don't know why the addition would be controversial, and allowing the parameter to be used instead of a talk page discussion still follows the spirit of the original proposal, if not the letter (which it couldn't have since it wasn't an option at the time). I would suggest also adding a date parameter to go along with it like some of the other maintenance templates have. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:56, August 6, 2023 (EDT)


== Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Revision ==
== Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Revision ==