SmashWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 1

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Discussion

Few things. First off, you still put Characters in the Characters section and Items in Items section too as long with the subcategories... Second off, how do you get a page that you moved off the Category screen? (Such as, I moved Party Balls to Party Ball but it still says Party Balls on the Items category screen and it redirects me to Party Ball.) -- Blaiken 13:34, July 26, 2006 (GMT)

Another thing; why are pages all of a sudden getting deleted? -- Blaiken 22:53, July 26, 2006 (GMT)

I don't know which pages you're talking about. Here's the deletion log. It explains why most pages are deleted, but there haven't been too many yet. If you need me to clarify any of them go ahead and ask and I'll do my best. --Kirby King 23:05, July 26, 2006 (GMT)

No, it was a category that somehow got deleted, pehaps in the site transition. -- Blaiken 19:28, July 29, 2006 (GMT)

I changed a few pages that had "ADA" to dair or d-air. Dair is what it says on this wiki's moves page so calling it ADA might confuse people.-ender

Ender - it might be benificial to have both available. Some people like to use SHABAFFL for SHFFL B-air, so I think we should make B-air standard lingo, but having definitions for ABA, ANA, AFA, and AUA that either redirect or have something that says "another way to say B-air. Short for (A)erial (B)ackward (A)ir."--Technomancer 08:29, August 6, 2006 (GMT)

Techs → Techniques

I changed all links to the 'Techs' category and 'Techs (SSBM)' to 'Techniques' and 'Techniques (SSBM)' respectivly. I did it so it is not confused with (a) tech/teching/wallteching/techrolling, and so it looks more professional. I also noticed that sometimes people link to 'Techs' instead of 'Techs (SSBM)'. Please link to the correct category and/or sub-category, and please use the updated names (Techniques vs. Techs). Thanks. Lanowen 16:30, July 28, 2006 (GMT)

"Universe"

I was wondering if anyone had any input about the idea of using the word "universe" to describe the "world" or franchise from which various elements (stages, characters, items, etc.) originate. Mainly, does anyone think we should be using a word other than "universe," and does anyone have any suggestions on what we should name the various universes (or worlds, or franchises, etc.)? I don't know that Nintendo has any offical term to discriminate between the different call signs of each character, but that's why we have Unofficial lingo. --Kirby King 23:00, July 29, 2006 (GMT)

Maybe we should just call them franchises.Iggy K 07:31, August 7, 2006 (GMT)

Universe seems fitting. "The Mario universe" simply sounds much better than "The Mario franchise," in my opinion.
Schweppes 04:20, January 7, 2007 (GMT)

General Structure of SmashWiki

Well we've been testing things for a fair while now, and (hopefully) soon we can post an announcement and officially "open" the wiki to the public. Before we do, though, I'd like to know what people think about the way things are working around here in general. I'm most concerned with features like this portal (does it seem we're even using it for the right purpose? Wikis were never really specific when it came to that...), the various nodes we have on the main page, the basic structure and layout of things... stuff like that. Also, is there anything that seems to be a glaring omission at this point (other than actual content) or things we might want to more clearly spell out for users before we open the floodgates (I'm considering making up a list of goals, and things we should be aiming to accomplish, so that we keep them in mind when making decisions in the future). Simply, it's easier to change these types of things now than it will be when a whole bunch of people are just trying to get accustomed to them all. So feel free to share your thoughts. --Kirby King 03:15, July 30, 2006 (GMT)

I think a good plan would be to browse the wikis for other game sites (SWG, WoW, GW to name a few) and check out how they organize things. We should also plan out the templates and categories we'll need througout the site; doing so beforehand will make things much easier to manage in the future (speaking from personal experience). --nealdt 03:20, July 30, 2006 (GMT)

Use of abbreviations (SSB, SSBM, SSBB)

I'm thinking that for the sake of readability, it might be beneficial to change the abbreviations we use for each of the games. Right now we use SSB/SSBM/SSBB, which is a bit hard to distinguish on sight (not impossible, but as long as they're all Smash games they're all going to start with the same thing). What if we changed that to SSB/Melee/Brawl instead? --Kirby King 17:05, July 30, 2006 (GMT)

I like this idea. We should update category names to match this change, as well (see Category:Techniques (SSBM), which IMO should be changed to [:Category:Melee techniques]]. --nealdt 04:00, August 2, 2006 (GMT)

I dunno about the rename. I'd rather have any sort of disambiguatory note to be standardized, and tacking on "(Melee)" to a generic category like techniques seems to make more sense to me, anyway. --Kirby King 22:57, August 2, 2006 (GMT)

It's an idea. We should have a format doctorine made up before the release. Another idea could be to move all things oldsmash into an overhead category called Super Smash Bros (orig), and all things Melee into an overhead categoriy called Super Smash Bros Melee.

I'd just like to point out that all three of those games fit under SSB, so SSB64/Melee/Brawl or even simply 64/Melee/Brawl might make more sense than SSB/Melee/Brawl. --Schweppes 04:23, January 7, 2007 (GMT)

Huge balance column on Final Destination

I put one on there because the previous editor had an unprofessionalism that caught my eye (I think he said something like tournies instead of tournaments), and a passage on the balance of the stage. After about 10 seconds of editing, I realised that I had just typed alot of stuff, and moved it to a sub-section, and then typed alot more stuff... but I couldn't think of anything to remove... and I think it's fairly well written and objective... but I dunno. I don't want to delete it because I wrote quite a bit, but I think alot of non-pro smashers have an issue with it (alot of them are kinda scrubby)... seems like I should just make it into an article on SWF or something. I dunno, I'd like to keep that sort of thing out of the wiki, but I read it again, and I'm like, well that's pretty good and covers the issue...

Linking to Categories

Is there a way to link to a category without making that page an article of the category? For example I want a link to the Acronym category page from a page that isn't an acronym, and if I just link normally it registers that page as an acronym. --Gideon 16:46, August 12, 2006 (GMT)

Use this: [:Category:Acronyms]] --> [:Category:Acronyms]] --Kirby King 17:22, August 12, 2006 (GMT)

Thanks --Gideon 06:07, August 13, 2006 (GMT)

HMMM... now how do you delete an article automatically added by the wiki? Before I knew how to link to categories, I made the page [Acronyms]] into a redirect, which automatically became part of the Acronym Category. So now "Acronyms" shows up on the category page as an article... hope that wasn't too confusing :P --Gideon 06:11, August 13, 2006 (GMT)

Changed a lot of article names

I took the liberty to rename every attack article by the attack's full name (neutral aerial) instead of its abbreviation (n-air or nair - which are now redirects). I'm also considering creating articles about throws and B attacks, and perhaps giving redirects for references to "strong attacks" (which describe tilts) and other Nintendo-based terms that have become obsolete. --MaskedMarth 01:19, September 14, 2006 (GMT)

Personal Websites?

Is it acceptable to place links to personal webpages under the external links section? For example a link to a blog? Only speaking of appropriate material of course... --Delphiki 11:18, October 22, 2006 (GMT)

Deleting articles

I think it would be very helpful to write a template for speedy deletion, deletion, good article, and the like. Since I'm not knowledgeable about how to write one (I guess I could filch a template from Wikipedia and change a few of the words and colors, but I'd rather not), I ask for somebody experienced with Wiki code to please write a few essential templates.

Also, perhaps we could nominate one or two more administrators to permanently delete (instead of blank) articles that deserve it. Of course, I'm saying this in reference to [Snex's compendium of wisdom], which is funny but doesn't belong in the main namespace. I'm not sure I would want to be an admin myself, but Simna or Delphiki or OddEven or nealdt would be excellent choices. I'm aware I'm mostly talking to you three in the first place, but....ehh. We've come to the point where we have many articles but not enough focus, and I think one of the first steps to improving this Wiki to the status of others would be to cut the crap. --MaskedMarth 19:53, November 17, 2006 (GMT)

I could maybe write some template like thingy. – Smiddle / talk 18:52, November 20, 2006 (GMT)

I'm surprised at the nomination, I haven't been here very long. I would accept, but if Simna is willing he would be a better choice, as he has more experience editing this wiki. Although there is a good amount of cleanup needed on this site that I would be willing to help with. -- Bean 09:28, November 21, 2006 (GMT)

Well none of us has been around too long, the Wiki is only a few months old. I was just thinking it would be nice to have one or two more active admins so that we can delete stuff, protect pages, conduct policies with authority, and all that. --MaskedMarth 15:27, December 15, 2006 (GMT)

Yes, I agree, I want more admins. – Smiddle / talk 16:18, January 7, 2007 (GMT)

Policies

Should we start having these? --MaskedMarth 19:59, November 17, 2006 (GMT)

Broken InterWiki link

Look at this [[Wikia:]] there's a /index.php/ where it shouldn't be. Or you can check here for downloading the interwiki manager, a simple way to create/edit interwiki links. – Smiddle / talk 21:30, November 25, 2006 (GMT)

Just a general note

The nice thing about Wikis is that anybody can edit anybody else's errors! So, you don't need to apologize for mistakes on talk pages and whatnot. I've seen a bunch of "sorries" on talk pages, and methinks it's unnecessary. We all make mistakes, and we support each other by fixing them. --MaskedMarth 15:24, December 15, 2006 (GMT)

Smasher categories

Maybe we could categorize smashers after country, e.g. Category:German smashers, Category:American smashers, Category:Swedish smashers, etc. – Smiddle / talk 09:48, December 30, 2006 (GMT)

Check out what's been going on in the Talk:Professionals page. Give us your input there. Bean 19:37, December 31, 2006 (GMT)

BtT stages

it might be better if the BtT stages was put as a different page, not the character's page, as things such as Mismatched BtT and Riddle don't belong on the character's page. Typh 19:08, January 17, 2007 (GMT)

This page should be moved

Community portal page should be used to link to such pages as this one, not to be it. I suggest we move this to SmashWiki:Village tournament or something. (lol, pun on village dump) – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 20:11, January 30, 2007 (GMT)

Ummm....*a little embarrassed* then a move is in order. "Forum" sounds nice. "Village" does too, but "tournament" sounds weird with it. Village tournament? – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 20:14, January 30, 2007 (GMT)

I moved it. Move it elsewhere if a better name hits. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 20:16, January 30, 2007 (GMT)

A similar page like this on Wikipedia is called the village pump, because in older times, the village pump were a place where averyone met blah blah. A tournament is also where everybody meets, so, um... yeah. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 20:20, January 30, 2007 (GMT)

The problem is a tournament implies a competition, which this page certainly isn't. "Village" sounds a little to Wikipedia-esque though. I might move this page if a better name comes to my head. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 20:34, January 31, 2007 (GMT)

We could always call it the Pool Room. :P --Kirby King 20:52, January 31, 2007 (GMT)

Haha! I like it! – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 20:55, January 31, 2007 (GMT)

We've got a problem

Anything with "Shell" in it seems to cause problems for internet browsers on this website. On Internet Explorer, it causes a 403 - Forbidden error when you search for something that has "Shell" in it, or go to an article that has it in it. In Safari, you can search for it, but the articles themselves still cause problems. Is there some sort of coding error that made this happen? If not, and it can't be fixed (Or we don't know how), we could at least create a temporary fix by doing what happened to the G&W article when the & was giving it problems: just have it be permanently redirected from another name. Green Shell would probably be redirected from Green or GS, and Red Shell would be redirected from Red or RS. Also, could people with other internet browsers, like Opera or Firefox, try it and see if they have problems, too? WaluigiIsAwesome 14:20, February 6, 2007 (GMT)

Ouch, you're right! I'll try it on FireFox when I get home from work, but this is really bug that should have been worked out of the wiki software with a patch or something. -- Randall00 16:55, February 7, 2007 (GMT)

The same error occurs on the Yahoo browser.

On Firefox, too. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 22:32, February 7, 2007 (GMT)

I just made Green and Red redirects, and they work, because Shell doesn't appear in the URL. Until we find out how to fix the problem, use Green and Red for links. WaluigiIsAwesome 19:55, February 12, 2007 (GMT)

Small problem

When creating a new page there are a couple messed up links in the text above the sandbox area. Could a mod fix this? See [[this]] for an example. -- Bean 22:20, February 7, 2007 (GMT)

AltAcnt and I have been fiddling with that text for the past day or so (see MediaWiki:Newarticletext). It looks OK now, per Alt's latest fix. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 22:37, February 7, 2007 (GMT)

Sidebar

Throw any ideas for improving the sidebar here. As you see on the left, it's changed a few times (notably, it's now two boxes), and I like this organization a little better. Perhaps we can spaz up the first "navigation" with some more features, though. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 22:46, February 7, 2007 (GMT)

Uh-huh...

The statistics page claims that we have two users, of which six are admins. <_< Something tells me that's not right. WaluigiIsAwesome 19:43, February 11, 2007 (GMT)

It's wrong, and I already knew it was wrong, but it doesn't really matter because it doesn't affect anything. It has to do (I guess) with our registration system and how we have vB accounts tied into MediaWiki accounts. I'm not really sure how to fix it, nor am I terribly concerned with it. But thanks for being alert. ;) --Kirby King 20:08, February 11, 2007 (GMT)

GAH-HA-HAH! That's hilarious. Really, though, it seems none of the statistics pages for Wikis that I've seen tally correctly, other than Wikipedia's own page. Erik the Appreciator 04:52, February 13, 2007 (GMT)

Template:Box and its uses

I've seen some of the uses of the box template, and while I think it's a good idea I think it would make sense if we standardized its use a bit more. The main idea I have here is to tidy up some of the templates that use it (like Template:Merge and Template:Delete) and create some standard colors for the backgrounds of each of these templates, to keep their importance clear. Here are some ideas of how we could distinguish importance:

Warning: could be if an article may contain inaccurate information, factual errors; if an article is subject to deletion or other imminent change (probably red)
Advisory: less severe: an article may need cleanup/be poorly written (but not necessarily inaccurate); someone suggested a merge or move or something less permanent
Information: something that doesn't necessarily have to do with an article's quality but is still relevant to the reader

Right now it's a pretty vague idea, but I think it's important to have consistency. I also plan on working on the process for nominating articles for deletion and how to recommend merges/moves "properly". I'm thinking it would be best to have a centralized place to deal with proposed deletions, lest they just fall through the cracks. --Kirby King 18:08, February 20, 2007 (GMT)

Userboxes

Should we start having those? – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 20:40, February 21, 2007 (GMT)

I'm not a huge fan of them, but I guess I'm not going to do anything to prohibit them (at least as long as they don't intrude on things.) --Kirby King 01:13, February 22, 2007 (GMT)

I have made a page for them, and a custom userbox template. Can we add multiple boxes, e.g. a template named tl|user Luigi for those who main Luigi, tl|user Sheik for those who main Sheik, and so on? – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 10:21, February 23, 2007 (GMT)

Smasher/crew banners

I think we need a new image policy. There are too many people uploading banners of themselves and the characters they play, which is totally unnecessary. It goes hand in hand with a lot of the inflated importance that a lot of Smashers and crews are giving themselves to begin with, and I think it should be addressed. Are there any thoughts before I write something up?

By the way, I'm feeling a launch could be coming in the next couple days... I haven't been able to make any headway on the shell/ampersand problems, but I think it's something we can work past.... --Kirby King 16:21, February 22, 2007 (GMT)

I would disallow them completely, no question, but that sounds like the negative end of an argument whose solution lies somewhere in-between. It's not as though there aren't already enough people who never turn off their signatures on the boards (digression: in fact, signature OFF by default would be a lovely bandwidth-saving SWF policy) and freely spam up the topics by posting one line of text and a stylized version of the same Falco image that everyone else pulled off of Google Image Search.

With regards to the "shell" issue, is there any way to customize the error pages that are shown when searching or no? Even if you were stuck with the error but could at least add a link to Red Shell and Green Shell it would be helpful. -- Randall00 21:06, February 22, 2007 (GMT)

I think each crew should be allowed no more than one picture, and only prominent community members should be allowed a picture. We can't have a picture on every single Smasher page, I'm sure that would take up way too many resources. -- Bean 23:23, February 22, 2007 (GMT)

I don't care about pictures right now, I care about the dumb banners people keep posting. If you want that sort of thing on your sig on SWF that's one thing, but it's totally inappropriate for here. Same goes for any of those other "ha-ha funny" pictures people are using as their actual pictures (I don't mean any picture that seems humorous, I mean the ones that are over-the-top [[SmashWiki:Ridiculousness|ridiculous]]. --Kirby King 04:05, February 23, 2007 (GMT)

What problems, exactly, are you having? I haven't seen any thing like that, do you have some examples that haven't been edited yet? -- Bean 06:44, February 23, 2007 (GMT)

[Smasher:Levi|Levi]], [[Smasher:Crimson Silence|Crimson Silence]], [[Smasher:Ring Master 1337|Ring Master 1337]] are the ones I know off the top of my head, and that's just smashers local to me. I've found a pile of others as I go through and add template:smasherbeta to each of them as well. --Randall00 07:57, February 23, 2007 (GMT)

Just a question, I think each user (maybe, I'm not sure how many there are here, since at the statistics it says 2...) whould be allowed one image. So if they want an image for their crew, one person must be without it or something. Perhaps? – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 10:19, February 23, 2007 (GMT)

Images can be used tastefully in larger numbers as seen in articles like chesterr01, but when it comes to banners, it might even be best to quarter off a whole section just for the banner, like this. How's that ya think? -- Randall00 14:15, February 23, 2007 (GMT)

No banners. The stuff in the MICH article is the kind of stuff I want to ban, and it's actually relatively harmless compared to some of the other ones I've come across. --Kirby King 16:44, February 23, 2007 (GMT)

Nice, that's the response I was hoping for. *begins to purge* -- Randall00 22:02, February 23, 2007 (GMT)

I think an image policy would be helpful. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 22:55, February 23, 2007 (GMT)

What about these: DBR, FTA, Nova Complex? Are crew banners permitted? -- Bean 03:04, February 24, 2007 (GMT)

I don't find them useful or necessary. --Kirby King 00:54, February 25, 2007 (GMT)

Now this page needs some plowing-thru... – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 18:02, February 26, 2007 (GMT)

Yes, and that's just the beginning of crew banner purgery. A NEW record! :^) -- Randall00 18:08, February 26, 2007 (GMT)

Double Redirects

I've just been fixing all the double redirects, and I notice most of them come from two things:

1.) Pages that have been moved.

It is the responsibility of the user who moves the page to find all links and redirect them, to avoid double redirects. Use the "What links here" button to the left to do this, and please fix redirects to go straight to the new page.

2.) Capitalization

This one is weird. A page entitled The Kamikaze Glitch is not the same and The kamikaze glitch. Shouldn't these pages be one in the same? If that can be done, I think it should be so. This isn't a cause of the double redirects, but I think it should be addressed. Making the pages automatically the same would cause a lot less double redirects in the future. Also, it would allow poeple to find pages easier.

-- Bean 01:58, February 25, 2007 (GMT)

This is true of the English Wikipedia (and presumably other languages), as well. It only applies to words other than the first word of the article, so steppe redirects to Steppe and vice-versa, however Pontic Steppe is an article that doesn't exist, yet can still be found under Pontic steppe.

All that said, pontic steppe redirects to Pontic steppe as it should. *shrug* There's probably a good reason that it's set up this way, actually. It doesn't seem like the kind of oversight you would find on Wikipedia.

-- Randall00 16:07, February 26, 2007 (GMT)

List of SmashWikiers

I think we could write some SmashWiki:List of SmashWikiers|list of SmashWikiers]], with various sections, such as "experienced MediaWiki users", or "Users who speak ___" for translation help, and so on. Agree? – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 17:56, February 26, 2007 (GMT)

Well, I couldn't make up any better word than "SmashWikier" – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 17:56, February 26, 2007 (GMT)

Hmm...SmashWikidians? SmashWiksters...? Err...SmashWikontributors? ...SmashWikiPeopleWhoWriteStuff? It's a tough portmanteaux no matter which way you look at it. That's an a-okay idea, though. Anything to help expand the sub-community of SmashWikinators and get this thing off the ground is good with me. -- Randall00 18:05, February 26, 2007 (GMT)

I like SmashWikidian... ^_^ -- Bean 01:06, February 27, 2007 (GMT)

I think you're right, that's about as good as it'll get. -- Randall00 13:38, February 28, 2007 (GMT)

What about WikiSmasher, SmashWikian? But let's talk about if you agree. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 18:20, February 27, 2007 (GMT)

I like SmashWikian. WaluigiIsAwesome 12:10, February 28, 2007 (GMT)

But seriously. Let's just vote here below. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts )

Meh, I'll just create the page as list of SmashWiki users then. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 11:38, March 3, 2007 (GMT)

Voting for the page

For – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 14:44, February 28, 2007 (GMT)
For -- Bean

Voting for the name of people who contribute

SmashWikier

For--either this or SmashWikian. Easy to pronounce and remember! And per se Andy 04:51, March 1, 2007 (GMT)
Against -- I'd like something catchy, this is just bland. -- Bean 05:34, March 1, 2007 (GMT)
For – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 14:56, March 1, 2007 (GMT)

SmashWikidian

For, by a long shot. -- Randall00 14:49, February 28, 2007 (GMT) 14:49, February 28, 2007 (GMT)
For, this is by far the best one. Catchy and easy to remember, and it perfectly describes what we do. -- Bean 00:24, March 1, 2007 (GMT)
Against--where did that D even come from??? And I am not sure how to pronounce it, but any way I try it sounds quite odd. And per se Andy 04:50, March 1, 2007 (GMT)
Against, why the "d"? – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 05:27, March 1, 2007 (GMT)
Smaswikidian is derived from 'encyclopedian.' I.e., a person who edits an encyclopedia. If you can pronounce encyclopedian you can pronounce Smashwikidian. -- Bean 05:34, March 1, 2007 (GMT)
- Encyclopedia's not in our name though. People would be scratching their heads, wondering where the "d" comes from. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 05:47, March 1, 2007 (GMT)
- Perhaps if it were Smashwikipedian that argument would work, but since the PED syllable has the emphasis in the word encyclopedian and that's the one you got rid of, it makes the pronunciation awkward. You're left with 4 unstressed syllables in a row--try to think of another English word like that. And if you stress a different syllable, well, then it doesn't sound like encyclopedian at all, so don't even try it! And per se Andy 14:51, March 1, 2007 (GMT)
- For consistency I stress the last 'ki-', just before '-dian.' I see your point, but I still like it best. -- Bean 16:45, March 1, 2007 (GMT)
- I think the problem is that "SmashWiki" has a stress on the "wi" in wiki, and using this instead of SmashWikian or SmashWikier requires that that be changed. Even "SmashWikipedian" keeps the original stress (but I'm not advocating that name by any means). Plus I'm not sold that SmashWikidian is easier to spell, or recognize for what it is, than some of the other choices. --Kirby King 22:04, March 1, 2007 (GMT)

SmashWikipedian
SmashWikian

Weak For, of the one-word choices. Is closer to the intended meaning than SmashWikier (is SmashWiki something you do?), but "SmashWiki user" is closer still. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 05:27, March 1, 2007 (GMT)

SmashWikster
WikiSmasher
SmashWiki user

For. Otherwise SmashWikian. Either way I'd like to be able to pronounce and/or spell it. --Kirby King 19:57, February 28, 2007 (GMT)
Weak For. It's the clearest and the most functional, though a shorter form would be a little less cumbersome. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 05:27, March 1, 2007 (GMT)
Against -- I'd like something catchy, this is almost as uninteresting as Smashwikier. -- Bean 05:34, March 1, 2007 (GMT)

Any final opinions? "SmashWikier", "SmashWikian" and "SmashWiki user" seem to be the winners so far. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 04:29, March 7, 2007 (GMT)

Nevermind. Lemme put this eyesore of a discussion in the archive, K? ^^; – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 05:16, March 7, 2007 (GMT)