SmashWiki talk:Creating new articles

Here's a new proposal I've been thinking about for the past few days. I feel this is needed, as people need to know when and what to create pages about. Also note that if this passes, I plan to merge Help:New page with this one. So, what do you think about this new policy; yay or nay? And yes, I did just say "yay or nay". Rtzxy Reflect! 20:25, 15 November 2014 (EST)

Hmmmmmmm. It's not a bad idea to codify in a policy exactly why this page gets deleted while that page gets kept, but I have this nagging feeling we have something similar somewhere already. Toomai Glittershine The Steppin' 22:32, 15 November 2014 (EST)

I checked. I found nothing, but I could've missed something. As of now, however, I found nothing, and this is original. Rtzxy Reflect! 22:34, 15 November 2014 (EST)

I actually checked well before creating this page, so I think we should be fine. Rtzxy Reflect! 22:35, 15 November 2014 (EST)

All right, I checked userpages, official policies, failed and repealed policies, the help pages, and the forums and found nothing similar to this, so your nagging feeling, Toomai, is false. Rtzxy Reflect! 22:45, 15 November 2014 (EST)

Yeah I suspected as much, I found pretty much the same nothing. I'll read it over more carefully in a bit (there are a few wording changes I'm considering), but no reason not to support it. Toomai Glittershine Le Grand Fromage 22:51, 15 November 2014 (EST)

I generally quite like this proposal, but I believe that it would make our policies a bit less cluttered if we somehow merged SW:NOTE into this; I actually intended to put in a request to expand SW:NOTE, but I feel that this does a good job of addressing my main problems with the old policy.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 17:43, 16 November 2014 (EST)

That doesn't sound like a bad idea, actually. I might think about that, and give some updates when I get the chance to. Rtzxy Reflect! 17:52, 16 November 2014 (EST)

All right, Monsuier Crow, I took up your suggestion. How about something like this:

"Articles about competitive smashers and crews: A smasher or crew can only have his/her own article if he or she is notable enough. What considered a "notable smasher/crew" is as follows:

• The smasher or crew participated in or organized an offline tournament that is run by standard tournament rules or a reasonably similar variant, and has some level of regional or national recognition.
• The smasher or crew contributed high-level content to, or administrates at, recognized websites pertaining to Smash Bros. other than this wiki.
• The smasher or crew prove legitimate regional or national fame otherwise not covered by these guidelines.

If a smasher or crew does not follow any of these three guidelines, don't make an article about them. Also note that if a smasher is notable enough, the new article must be put into the "Smasher:" namespace. This does not apply to other competitive articles."

Reword as you please, because I literally just copy-pasted this from SW:NOTE, so if you don't like it, it's not final. Rtzxy Reflect! 18:13, 16 November 2014 (EST)

All right, Monsieur Crow. I added your suggestion to the policy. Thanks for the idea, and reword it if you feel like it needs to be reworded. Rtzxy Reflect! 18:49, 16 November 2014 (EST)

Support. We pretty much enforce this already, so a policy regarding new articles is a good idea. Qwerty (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2014 (EST)

Support for reasons allready put forward. That, and Prevention is better than cure! ScoreCounter 14:46, 17 November 2014 (EST)

I actually like this policy as well. I do think however that this might be unnecessary since maybe new users might already know what to create and not but this policy is something to consider. Dots (talk) The Zerg Rush 19:24, 17 November 2014 (EST)

It's best to have something written down than have nothing at all. Plus, it details things that some might think is acceptable to make when in reality it isn't, so not everyone would know everything about what to make or not. Well, at least thanks for considering this. Rtzxy Reflect! 15:52, 18 November 2014 (EST)

I recommend putting a link to Special:WantedPages somewhere. PikaSamus (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2014 (EST)

Done. It's under "How to make a new article", because that's the only place I can think of to put it. Rtzxy Reflect! 18:11, 20 November 2014 (EST)

I've also been thinking of putting something about article icons on this, but I don't know if I should. Rtzxy Reflect! 22:58, 20 November 2014 (EST)

I put something about redirects on this. Do you like it or would you like me to remove it? Rtzxy Reflect! 20:27, 21 November 2014 (EST)

Any more thoughts on this policy proposal? Rtzxy Reflect! 19:20, 2 December 2014 (EST)

Small problem

Users cannot create pages at all, I can't even edit my user page or talk page, and I am e-mail confirmed.--Richard (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2014 (EST)

You need to be autoconfirmed in order to create new pages; it says it right here, on this page itself by the way. Rtzxy Reflect! 20:53, 28 November 2014 (EST)

What makes an minor character?

It says you shouldn't make pages for minor characters, but what exactly qualifies a character to be minor? Obviously characters like Bronto Burt (pre-Smash Run) are undeserving, because all they do is fly in the background without any effect. But would Kraid and K.K. Slider still be deserving under this policy? Or Nabbit? It should be more specific, otherwise people will decide on their own definitions of "minor character", which will cause arguments. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 23:51, 30 December 2014 (EST)

The current criteria for background characters I'm trying to standardize are:

• Is it a named character that appears on a stage in a role that affects the fighters in the playing area or does something other than just appear in the background visually? Does it possess a trophy or other role (e.g. Smash Run/Tour)? If the answer to both of those is yes, it deserves a page.
• Is it a named character with a notable voice-acting role in Smash that wouldn't qualify under the previous criteria? If so, it deserves a page.
• Is it a named character that is part of a character's moveset? If so, it deserves a page.
• Is it a named character with multiple roles too small to warrant a page (e.g. visual-only background character plus trophy)? If so, it deserves only a disambig page with links to its roles and an interwiki box if appropriate.

Does that clarify things? Miles (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2014 (EST)

All right, I added to this page, and I think I solved a few problems here. I should say, however, that this isn't my page, and I don't give a s—t about you editing this page, so if you think I missed something or you want to add something, feel free to add to this; I'm not stopping you. Rtzxy Reflect! 01:37, 31 December 2014 (EST)

FYI

Facebook is most definitely very relevant to Smash competitive play nowadays, with Facebook groups being the hub for many Smash regions, and it is supplanting Smashboards in that regard. My region for example, primarily interacts and posts/advertise about upcoming tournaments in the region's Facebook groups, while Smashboards is pretty much just used to post tournament results.

As such, Facebook is an example of a relevant Smash site akin to Reddit, than one that isn't, and thus would merit an article. Omega Tyrant 03:27, 31 December 2014 (EST)

I thought of Facebook as a generic social media site, which in itself isn't related to Smash at all, but you bring up a good point as to how much Facebook is actually used in Smash. I'll try to come up with a better example. Rtzxy Reflect! 03:46, 31 December 2014 (EST)

So uh

This proposal has been sitting here abandoned for over two months without any input in opposition or comments, or amendments in general. If no one has anything to say, I think we should pass this as an official policy. (And BTW, I'm neutral leaning towards support.) - EndGenuity (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2015 (EST)

You're right. I'll go on ahead and support this proposal. Hopefully things will move along quicker now.LittleMacmain97, lord of the punch. (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

Articles vs. Disambiguations

So for minor characters, we have disambiguations linking to the lists of trophies and stickers that includes the subject. That isn't what disambiguations are typically used on a wiki. Usually, a disambiguation would be links to subjects of similar names. Amy Rose (disambiguation)? The names "Amy" and "Rose" maybe very common in the real world, but within the context of Smash, Amy Rose is just a pink hedgehog who has appeared as a trophy and a sticker. And those lists don't really say much about her. Azelf is a Pokémon that appears as both a trophy and a stage character. But we have a few non-playable characters who have full articles. At least stage hazards and smash taunt characters have their own pages. But what about characters that just have two trophy appearances, appears as a trophy and a sticker, or appears as both a trophy and a stage character? They get disambiguations to lists that tells little about the character. I would propose to expand those disambiguations into full articles. They would look a bit like Princess Daisy's article. Yeah, Smash Tour somehow earned Daisy an article even though it was mentioned in only one line in her entire article. Well at least it's better than giving her just a disambig page. SeanWheeler (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

As the one behind the inclusion of things like Smash Tour items and Mii costume characters under the umbrella of "you actually get an article", I feel this is where I need to be clear: I specifically made a point of delineating those specific criteria as what earned them a full page as opposed to a pared down list of minor appearances in Smash. It ultimately comes down to the same kind of distinction between what ended up on Template:Universe and what got relegated to List of minor universes; that is, how "major" does something's representation in Smash have to be to merit a full page? The line has to be drawn somewhere, and so far I've been working from a combination of my own common sense and the input of other users on relevant talk pages. Personally, I strongly feel like we shouldn't commit to making pages for things like, say, characters that only appear as collectibles, even in multiple games. That would add a heavy number of new pages with negligible presence, compared to someone like Daisy who at least has an appearance as a type of item. Obviously that's a subjective viewpoint, but the whole process is about determining where the relevance ceases to be of value and there's no objective criteria for that.

Also, technically something like that Amy Rose page is still a disambiguation... between Amy Rose's trophy appearance in Brawl, her sticker appearance in Brawl, and her trophy appearance in SSB4. That's a semantics point of lesser importance, though. Miles (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

Going with what Miles said, I say we keep Mii Fighter costumes based on characters who are in the game, so Mega Man X, Mega Man .EXE., Dunban. LittleMacmain97, the World Circuit is mine! (Talk) 08:51, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

Amy may be a disambiguation between her collectable appearances in Smash, but are the disambiguations really necessary? I mean, the disambiguations each take up a page in our page count (2 if you count redirects). And I think it's okay to have articles on minor subjects as long as they are involved with what we are covering. A lot of wikis have pages about something minor in their universe. But for characters with only one collectible appearance, they could just redirect to the list of collectibles that includes them, but for characters that have multiple collectibles that warrants their own disambiguation page? Just give them their full articles. I mean giving them a disambiguation because we don't know what collectible list to link to? Kinda lame. SeanWheeler (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

I'm not seeing what your point is. If Q is too minor for an article but is a trophy in both games, and the user puts "Q" in the search bar, how are we supposed to point them to the trophy list they're looking for without a disambig page? Toomai Glittershine The Metroid 11:49, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

If anything, the (disambiguation) part feels kind of redundant if the mini-article deals with only one subject, and somewhat out of place if the page is introduced like "A is a character/object from B" (like I've personally been doing when creating such pages). --Menshay (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

My point is that disambiguations shouldn't be just pointing to a character's picture on a table. If it's more than one trophy, he/she/it should have an article. Also, to stay ahead of the Mario Wiki's Smash coverage. SeanWheeler (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

You're missing my point. Why does it deserve an article at that point? Right now it sounds like you're the only one saying it should, and without any apparent basis other than "because I say so". (Also, MarioWiki's coverage is irrelevant to us.) Miles (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

It's been...

Ten months since this policy was created, nine since the last significant edit, and two since the last major objection popped up (which I believe was ended in favor of keeping the page as is). Plus, there's nothing in here that consensus doesn't seem to reflect. I believe that we can implement this policy now. Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 16:30, 19 September 2015 (EDT)

👍 Miles (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2015 (EDT)

Drafts

I think we should mention in "considerations" how one should consider if there is a draft for the article they are trying to make. This happened to me with 1.1.3's page as I didn't know there already was a draft. -- Ethan (Discussion) 23:27, 17 January 2016 (EST)

Personally, I don't think this is necessary. It should be a given not to create an article that's a draft (if you know about the draft). Also, short of checking Category:Drafts it is near impossible to actually check to see if a draft exists. Not all drafts make it there. Serpent King 13:59, 18 January 2016 (EST)

I don't see why we couldn't incorporate this. It seems pretty obvious, yeah, but it's not so huge a change that it would totally mess everything up, right? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 14:08, 18 January 2016 (EST)

Well no...I guess not. But I don't see the point of adding something for the sake of adding it. Serpent King 14:13, 18 January 2016 (EST)

It think anything with {{Draft}} (which any decent draft should have) is going to show up on that list. I am saying this because it seems like something that should be considered. A user may make a page that is just going to get deleted once the draft is mainspaced. It could be mentioned in the first bullet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan7 (talk • contribs) 19:17, January 18, 2016 (EST)

Don't forget to sign, and yeah, I support adding it. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 14:23, 18 January 2016 (EST)

Thanks! I support. -- Ethan (Discussion) 14:29, 18 January 2016 (EST)

May I be permitted to add this?

• Make sure there is not already a draft for the article. Check Category:Drafts to see if there is already a draft for the article.

Or would you like me to mention drafts in the first bullet? -- Ethan (Discussion) 19:54, 18 January 2016 (EST)

IMO there's no need to include something to that effect, since if somebody "beats you to making it" you can just incorporate any differences into the version they made. That's part of the collaborative process on a wiki. Miles (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2016 (EST)

But if they consider this beforehand, they may try to improve the draft rather than making a stub or something. It may also contain the same information but says it differently. -- Ethan (Discussion) 18:06, 20 January 2016 (EST)

Bump. I replied to your opinion. -- Ethan (Discussion) 19:20, 23 January 2016 (EST)

Double Bump. -- Ethan (Discussion) 23:30, 23 January 2016 (EST)

Not needed. And please do not bump discussion that has happened...on the same day. A good rule of thumb on that is a week or so. Serpent King 23:32, 23 January 2016 (EST)

Discussion didn't happen today, but I bumped twice which probably wasn't the best idea. How is this not as needed than any of the other reasons? -- Ethan (Discussion) 23:36, 23 January 2016 (EST)

Other than the above? Nothing, that's all I have Serpent King 23:59, 23 January 2016 (EST)

I hope this isn't annoying people, but what about mentioning it in the first bullet? They are related as they are both about not making a page if it already exists. I'd say it's just as obvious to consider not making a page if there's a draft than to make a page if there's already a mainspace article. -- Ethan (Discussion) 15:59, 24 January 2016 (EST)

Support. SK and Miles, this is needed IMO, as drafts are basically incomplete articles. Penro, the and main. 16:10, 24 January 2016 (EST)

Support Nintendofan1653 (talk) EZMONEY!! 18:32, 24 January 2016 (EST)

I change to neutral, as, to be blunt, I realized that I actually don't care that much. Serpent King 18:33, 24 January 2016 (EST)

Disallowing plagiarism of another user's drafts

Somewhat recently there was an incident on the wiki in which a new user was working on a smasher article in the sandbox (since they did not yet have autoconfirmed status), however another user came and copy-pasted the text into a smasher article and published it themself. The new user was understandably upset, however there is technically no rule against one user copying or plagiarizing another user's draft articles and publishing it as their own. The closest we have is SW:CREATE's "Consider checking whether there is already a draft for the article [...] if there is, you may wish to collaborate with the author(s) of that draft rather than creating an alternate version", which does not cover the issue of publishing another user's work. Given that it's fairly common practice for users to create drafts of articles in their userspace, and the potential harm that plagiarism of this sort can evidently cause, I propose that we add a point which disallows or strongly discourages plagiarism of another user's work. What are your thoughts on the idea? Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 15:57, October 19, 2019 (EDT)

Having been involved in the incident, I fully support this proposal. I know it's common sense to not plagiarize but there are people who'll still do it nonetheless. I believe that plagiarism shouldn't be tolerated at all and should be an instant ban. CookiesCreme 16:02, October 19, 2019 (EDT)

The only problem I can think of, however, is what would happen if, coincidentally, a user writes an article that is very much identical to someone else's draft without knowing. It's a rare case but a case nonetheless. CookiesCreme 16:05, October 19, 2019 (EDT)

I wouldn't oppose amending the policy to say "do not put someone else's draft in its respective page space unless the author has made clear that they are done working on it", but I feel it partially goes against the idea that nothing on the Wiki belongs to any single user. If it's on the Wiki, then it's already liable to be fiddled with even if the draft creator intends to work on it later. Not to mention, we could have the case of a user being forced off the Wiki due to IRL circumstances before they can complete the draft, and the draft would just be stuck there (and if it's really that bad you would have no idea that they cannot go back to working on it). I suppose though in this unlikely situation it would come to the discretion of the community or an admin. Setting that aside, people can still work on it after it's been published; it's just that readers will be seeing a slightly fudged up article first (though this is a case by case thing). Even in the rare event of two different drafts, said two users can still collaborate on the article and potentially merge their drafts together. I don't feel such a ruling would save plagiarism in userspace either (even if it is still pretty dumb): the people doing something like that either didn't read, forgot about, or are flatout ignoring policy. - EndGenuity (talk) 08:49, October 31, 2019 (EDT)

I support this proposal, but do feel that there would need to be policy in to fulfill EndGenuity's very valid grievances. My suggestion would be something like a time limit on how long content is protected from plagiarism or something like that. Perhaps something like 3 months without editing or updates from the page owner? --Plague von Karma (talk) 17:50, December 8, 2019 (EST)

I support the notion that going into another editor's userspace and using their work for mainspace articles without permission should be frowned upon, but after reading further into the points established above, I think it's clear that it would logically require a few policy changes. I'm personally leaning towards Plague's suggestion of creating a "window of control" or something like that. It would set a precedent for editors to actually talk with other users and collaborate on cooperatively bringing drafts to the mainspace, while preventing perfectly good but abandoned drafts from picking up dust. In the relatively short time that I've been editing here, I've noticed that many of our frequent editors are here basically once a day / every two days. A window length of 3 or even 2 months should be more than enough accommodation for less active / temporarily "off-duty" editors that still have good stuff in their userspace. Acgamer28 09:29, May 18, 2020 (EDT)

bumping and supporting because I was involved with a minor act of plagiarism in my ARMS fighters draft but then we merged the page all together.S3AHAWK said ketchup won 01:40, June 4, 2020 (EDT)

Support. Per all. 46.229.158.109 01:58, June 4, 2020 (EDT)

bumping once again. S3AHAWK (talk) 15:19, July 19, 2020 (EDT)

Drafts on specific character moves

I think I may be asking a silly question, but are we allowed to do drafts on a specific character's move such as Peach's forward aerial? --Derekblue1 (talk) 08:18, December 2, 2019 (EST)

Not really my field of expertise here, but I don't see why not? It'll be one thing for a draft to be mainspaced, I'm sure, but if you're just working on what could eventually be an article for a move we don't have yet, I'd say go ahead. That would be comparable to just going in and getting the article made on the spot, if not an entire notch above. Acgamer28 01:14, May 29, 2020 (EDT)