Requesting edits for locked pages.

While I wouldn't exactly call "Pauline's lost items" an "official name" seeing as it's really just words plucked out of a sentence, but whatever, I changed the example to "Peach's frying pan" just to make things simple and incontestable.
 
http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Userspace#What_about_user_subpages.3F

Custom Welcome templates (These were allowed in the past and remain intact so as not to disturb talk pages, but new ones should not be created; we have a Bot that automatically welcomes all new users now.)
Click to expand...

We don't. For a while.
 
I don't know. *shrugs*

All I do know is that their talk page is red-linked.
 
http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/Unfeature/N/Honeyhive_Galaxy

This was a mistake, can someone please delete it without archiving? Thanks.
 
Question: is the idea still to remove the nomination to simply strip the FA status without a vote? Because looking at the page and the rules again, I feel like that'd be a bad move too: it's still a decent-sized page thanks to the planets (not that the rules even have a hard cut-off anymore anyway, just ask for "reasonable length and not marked as a stub"), and the content that was moved out was replaced with an okay chart rather than empty "see also" sections, so I can't really find it in violation of any of the requirements (MarioWiki:Featured_Articles#Featured_Article_standards), personally. If folks want to unfeature it, they should go through the process (and come up with better reasons than "we talked about it on the forum but I can't remember species").

But if you want the nomination to be deleted because it's misguided to want the page un-FA'd based on the outdated length limit thinking from earlier, then that'd be fine - pretty sure those sorts of mistakes don't need to get archived either...
 
Per Banon's comment on Caped Mario:

Seems to me like we should move this to "Cape Mario". It's the most recent name.

I'm unable to do this myself as the redirect Cape Mario has an history, of edit warring nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Cape Mario showed up in Super Mario Maker's manual, while Caped Mario showed up in Super Mario World's manual. It's definitely the more recent name.
 
Walkazo said:
Question: is the idea still to remove the nomination to simply strip the FA status without a vote? Because looking at the page and the rules again, I feel like that'd be a bad move too: it's still a decent-sized page thanks to the planets (not that the rules even have a hard cut-off anymore anyway, just ask for "reasonable length and not marked as a stub"), and the content that was moved out was replaced with an okay chart rather than empty "see also" sections, so I can't really find it in violation of any of the requirements (MarioWiki:Featured_Articles#Featured_Article_standards), personally. If folks want to unfeature it, they should go through the process (and come up with better reasons than "we talked about it on the forum but I can't remember species").

But if you want the nomination to be deleted because it's misguided to want the page un-FA'd based on the outdated length limit thinking from earlier, then that'd be fine - pretty sure those sorts of mistakes don't need to get archived either...
Click to expand...
Hm, I just think that the article becomes so stripped off that the nomination is for a run-of-the-mill level article similar to Neo Bowser City's nomination and Baby Donkey Kong's unfeatured nomination. It seems to be an unwritten rule that the article has to look spectacular and lengthy enough rather than meet the bare requirements; i.e. it looks the part. "Reasonable" length is undefined at this point, too, so it can be confusing what makes an article "good" and what makes an article "worthy of main page".
 
Then vote to unFA it like what was done with the Baby DK page. Just doesn't seem like an automatic stripping of the FA status is justified or lawful this time, is all I'm saying.
 
For these pages, it's not so much an identifier as a naming standard (in fact, Mario Kart is also a redirect to "MK (series)", and has been since 2006), and I feel like consistency should win out: it's easier to remember what links to add to pages when they're all the same, rather than having to stop and think which ones don't have a "(series)". Plus, we might risk losing search traffic if we don't have explicitly-titled series pages (is searchers are too lazy to read the little excerpts that come with the Google hits to see that he pages are still series pages).
 
From MW:SIG:
#Your signature must be visible on your [[Special:Mypage/sig|signature subpage]]. Posting signature coding directly onto a page is not allowed, unless your signature is a single, basic link (i.e. <nowiki>[[User:Myname|Myname]]</nowiki>). Raw coding that ''is'' added to talk pages will be stripped down to a basic link, or removed completely and replaced with <nowiki>{{tem|User}}</nowiki>.
#You may only have one signature page. You may use signatures other than the one on your signature page, but they cannot be custom sigs (i.e. only <nowiki>{{Tem|User}}, [[User:Myname|Myname]]</nowiki>, etc.).
Click to expand...
Why does it say <nowiki>{{tem|User}}</nowiki>?
 
Help:Namespaces

Why is the minor template with a questionable existence listed as an example template here?

I'm talking about Template:Babies

Also, there's a red-linked page in there as well.
 
MarioWiki:Maintenance/Main Page
The first line of info should be accompanied with an image, no bigger than 150px thumbnailed. Please link and bold '''bold''' the character or game relating to the subject of each line, so guests & users alike are attracted to see more information in the article itself.
Click to expand...
Suggested removal is in red.

EDIT:

{{Newsimage (Template:Newsimage)}}
<div style="float:right; margin:0 0 0.2em 0.7em; border:1px solid #3B587E; background:#FFFFFF;">
[[Image:{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}|{{{3}}}]]</div>
Click to expand...

I know this is really, really pedantic but changing Image to File would be appreciated.
 
Is there any reason that MarioWiki:Naming specifies the date for the Prima Guide?

Name from a pre-Super Mario Galaxy Prima Games Strategy Guide or any other third-party guide – A name from an officialy-licensed [officially is also misspelled] Prima Games Strategy Guide (when they were published concurrently with Nintendo Power) is also an acceptable alternative, though in case of contradictions, the Nintendo Power name takes priority.
Click to expand...

Prima guides released after Super Mario Galaxy are still officially licensed, if the Tropical Freeze guide I have in front of me is any indication.
 
it's explained right in the part you've quoted. prima guides from the period where nintendo power released guides are official, but the nintendo power names take priority. super mario galaxy is mentioned because it's the first game to not have a nintendo power guide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back