Pikipedia:Proposals

Archived proposals can be found at Pikipedia:Policy/past proposals.

This page is used to propose policy to be put into place at Pikipedia. To make a proposal, create a new section with an appropriate title, followed by a summary of the proposal and your reasons. Next, create 'support', 'oppose' and 'comments' subsections and sign your name under 'support'. Other users can then sign their support or opposition, optionally making extra comments, and the policy will be implemented if it gets enough support.

As well as new policy, you may propose changes to or removal of existing policy in the same manner.

Headers — Styling or Not?

While I know that there has already been a proposal about this, I deem it necessary to re-evaluate the issue. For one, the issue was not thoroughly discussed; for another, no real reasons were provided to back up the claim.

Now, we italicise game titles everywhere and thus we can avoid using 'Pikmin 1' in text because italics make it clear that a game is being referred back to. But not in headers? Why this inconsistency? Furthermore, we do link to the pages that are about the games in the text. Why not in the headers? There they will be more visible and easier to reach for everyone. I also think that, if there is a header with a game's title in it, the header should be the only place the link should be placed in the entire article. This is to, yet again, make sure the link is as visible as possible. Now, I do not want any of this 'because it's bad'-garb. I want actual arguments backing up your claims.

Support

• RandomYoshi^{Talk to me!} Per Proposal.
• — {Espyo^T} I was always in favor of this. Basically agreed with the proposal. Also, it'll help with the "Pikmin 1" vs "Pikmin" thing.
• ~PikFan23 - I've seen several Wikipedia article titles with italicised game names in them (such as Pikmin), so why not follow Wikipedia's example? I approve.
• Miles Because it's bad.

Oppose

• Locke (talk) Italicizing game titles for consistency between Pikmin and Pikmin 1 makes sense, but I think including links in headers is bad from a web design standpoint. First, links look different. Adding green to some headers violates the CRAP principle of repetition. In short, it blurs the identities of both "what is a header" and "what is a link". All headers are black; that's a trait that identifies them as headers. Throw in a few green ones and they'll be unsettling if not confusing. Second, it would confuse efficacy. There's a clear sense of what a reader can do with a header: use it to locate and/or identify the proceeding section of text. If some of these are clickable, it changes the function of a header into something that isn't so clear. Now, I'm not saying that users are stupid and won't be able to figure out what's a link and what's not, but it will be unsettling. I don't think more visibility for some links is worth damaging users' efficacy. Why is it so important to improve link visibility anyway?
• Prez - Would look horrible

Comments

This policy proposal has been up for most of a month now and most of the users have put in their opinion. I say we go ahead and institute it. Besides, more users support it than users who oppose it... ~PikFan23

Hmm, well, I didn't vote yet because, in my opinion, headers with links wouldn't look good, but I can't think of a way to explain why. It seems, though, that everyone (except maybe Prez) agrees with italics in headers, and I'm for it too, so I'm fine with putting that through. PikFan, do you even agree with links? You only mention italics in your support comment.

I take it links and italics are the only styling we would use (bold and underline don't make sense anyway, and we wouldn't use any other styling even in body text (apart from in informal contexts, like strikethrough on Pikipedia: pages)). I'm adding it for italics now, then, but I'll leave links for the moment (5 for, 3 against isn't exactly a consensus). GP 15:21, 21 July 2012 (EDT)