SmashWiki talk:What SmashWiki is not

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki

credit[edit]

Loosely based off of Wikipedia:Wikipedia:NOT. Miles (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Psh, hardly needed. C. Hawk tells me this every three days. BALτʀο [ talk ] 00:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
And you clearly aren't getting it, then, aren't you? How about, as my user page says at the top: SmashWiki is not a counseling service for emotionally orphaned youths. Keep your problems away from the keyboard, please. Semicolon (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen that before. And it's hardly my problem, now is it, if it's Clarinet Hawk telling me this. BALτʀο [ talk ] 00:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify things on the forum part? I know what you mean, but it should be clear what you mean. It is going to be a policy, you know. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that CH edited it[edit]

I guess this is ready to go up?SmoreKing Happy Holidays! 20:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If one other sysop (excluding myself, the author) approves of it here, as it is, then yes, it becomes official. Miles (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Not true. I don't constitute a consensus. And I'm not ready to make this an administrative decision. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough; I was merely trying to explain that I alone am not consensus. I was also trying to get people's attention to determine the consensus. I think it's mostly good, but I want to hear the voices of other users too, especially sysops. Miles (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

All that said, if nothing comes up against this soon, I'll make it policy. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's really going to page attention to this policy...Should we use {{Violation}} for this?Smoreking(T) (c) 15:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fan stuff stiffening[edit]

I propose that the section on "SmashWiki is not fanon" be changed to the following:

SmashWiki covers the canon Smash series, not fanon or invented additions. While the existence of things such as fan fiction, machinima, and fan games should not be ignored, articles on specific creations do not have a place here.

Might need another sentence about unofficial terms being covered under SW:OFFICIAL, and not SW:NOT. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png The Table Designer 22:03, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Miles (talk) 23:13, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
I second the motion.L33t Silvie I see wat u did thar...
Third. 98.111.95.78 03:51, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Fanon should be kept on the fanon version of the wiki. BNK [E|T|C] 04:48, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Right then, if no one opposes this before Monday, it's going through. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png The Stats Guy 23:11, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Passed, based on lack of opposition. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png The Stats Guy 13:39, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

CHawk's forum idea[edit]

CHawk had the proposition today on the IRC that we start softening the forum rules, with the idea that giving editors something to do other than make small improvements will help the wiki stay non-stale until the next Smash Bros. game. This would require SW:NOT to be modified. Discuss. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png The Stats Guy 22:49, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. SUPPORT! It's getting boring and we're losing users.--MegaTron1XDDecepticon.png 22:51, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support: SmashWiki simply cannot die. Not yet. --HavocReaper'48 22:54, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
  3. SUPPORT Smashwiki will not die!-Ivy73002MS.png 22:57, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support If we keep up on the mainspace, I'm all for it. Dr. Pain 99 Dp99.png Talk 23:16, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support This is nothing compared to how informal Kirby wiki once was, or the HP wiki. Mr. Anon teh awsome 19:57, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Willing to give it a shot. Shadowcrest 15:10, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Slight Oppose I just realized how stupid my last comment sounded. How many users are gonna stay attracted to the mainspace if we soften our rules on foruming? Probably not very many. It's a cool idea, but forums shouldn't be our main focus which I'm afraid it will become if we make this rule change. Dr. Pain 99 Dp99.png Talk 13:49, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
We will still have those who are currently interested in the mainspace (myself, OT, you, etc.) and even if only one in every ten forum users contributes to the mainspace, we will get 10 new mainspace editors out of a hundred forum posters. As long as we are able to keep the forums from becoming 4chan, I think that's a fair trade-off. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:38, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  1. Neutral leaning towards Oppose I'm not so sure about this. Sure it might encourage new users to stay, but this Wiki is not a forum site. Softening the forum rules could result in even more pointless forums being made (such as "Ike vs. Marth") and bring in a flood of counter productive users. This Wiki is about creating an encyclopedia for Smash Bros., not a place for people to rant on how much they love Pikachu or how much they hate Meta Knight. While I'm not completely oppose to this proposition, we should not tolerate users who do not contribute positively to the mainspace or don't even try to contribute at all. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 12:46, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Barely Leaning Towards Support Sorry I keep changing my point of view. Now that I've seen both sides of the argument, I'm willing to say this is a good idea, and CHawk's comments have helped convince me that we can keep up on the mainspace. However, I still am not totally convinced that many users will use this rule change to the wiki's advantage. My proposition: make the rule change, and if things go bad immidiately change it back. Dr. Pain 99 Dp99.png Talk 02:14, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I'd like to take a moment to elaborate on this. While we would be relaxing the standards for making forums, I would actually support tightening the requirements on good forum posting. For example, people would not be allowed to just post "I like Meta Better ~~~~" but would be required to actually explain why they like Meta Knight and think he is good. This would be especially true for OPs. Threads like this, this, and this would simply be closed for lack of content, and their creators warned, then temp banned for consistently making bad threads. Also, there would be little tolerance for flaming, content-less posting, and needless bumping. Basically, we would run the forum section different from the mainspace. The basic policies I think of come from a site called TeamLiquid, which is considered one of the best gaming forums on the web. I linked people on the IRC to these last night (and Semi linked them while drunk a few months ago...) and I think in principle, they can be applied here. Note that I am only talking about applying them to the forum space. In short, what I am hoping to do with this is to encourage more, thoughtful posting on SmashWiki. My hope is that if people are using the forums, they will at least take a look at the rest of the site and help out. As an example of this, TL uses it's forums to encourage it's users to edit their wiki. While there weren't many edits to be made before StarCraft 2 was coming out, they had the editors ready because they had people on the forums. I honestly think the reason forums have failed on this wiki before is because we have tried to apply wiki editing standards to forum posting, and those don't work perfectly together. I think with revised forum policies (that I will be happy to write and take input on) we can maintain a well edited wiki and good forum site. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

When will the decision be made?--MegaTron1XD:p 05:22, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Is there any more discussion of this necessary? Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png 00:15, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to write up a massive set of forum guidelines in the next week or so, and I say we take it from there. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:09, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

My proposal[edit]

I have an addendum to make to this. I think that the policy should state somewhere that Smashwiki is not a strategy guide. You can go to gamefaqs if you want help with an event or in SSE. Smashwiki is an encyclopedia, not a place for help. If there's something you want help with that you can't find anywhere else, you should bring it up on the forums. Mr. Anon teh awsome 03:21, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Supp0rt: We did start strategy purge. Should become a policy in case any further problems about it arise. --HavocReaper'48 03:23, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support STRATEGY PURGE (i did it).--MegaTron1XD:p 03:31, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support It is better for it to be a written rule rather than an unwritten one. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 03:50, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Major Support For the reasons stated above. Dr. Pain 99 Dp99.png Talk 05:10, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Comments[edit]

Since this seems to be the unwritten rule and everyone agrees it is, I'll just put it in right now. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png The Table Designer 12:15, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above with one stipulation: We should make every effort to link to said guides on GameFaqs etc. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:08, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with CHawk here. Dr. Pain 99 Dp99.png Talk 14:59, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough. --HavocReaper'48 15:19, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
About these guides, do they have to be of a certain criteria or is it acceptable to link to any guide written by anyone for anything SSB related? Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 18:36, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
The guide should obviously be well written enough that it is useful. The guide itself need not meet wiki criteria, but there's also no reason that a link to a bad or redundant guide can't be removed. I'm not saying we link to every shitty guide written by third graders, just that we do link to guides that actually give content. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:54, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

MA PROPOSAL![edit]

For a while, BNK and a few other users have been purging pages of non smash info or non game info for playable characters. It is not a written rule that we don't cover everything. As such, new users might be adding a lot of info about a characters anime appearance and plot about a video game that isn't even about smash games. Smash wiki may be an encyclopedia, but that info can be found in different encyclopedias.--MegaTron1XD:p 00:28, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Needs to be written. But we shouldn't purge all info or even most. Just the excess. DP99 (CTE)Dp99.png 01:57, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. As an encyclopedia, we have to cover the origins of characters, stages, trophies, etc. Thus, we should keep articles on games that heavily influence smash, although I agree that games that only contribute a trophy, for example, should not be kept. Mr. Anon teh awsome 22:51, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  1. Tbh, I think too much has been purged. Instead of (for example) starting each Pokemon article with just "Charmander is a fictional character in the Pokemon universe" it should being with something closer to "Charmander is a fictional Pokemon that first appeared in Pokemon Red & Blue. A fire based Pokemon, Charmander was one of the first Pokemon encountered as it was one of three the player could choose to start the game with. In Super Smash Bros, Charmander appears in Sarffron City as a stage element and also out of Pokeballs." Given the way the page is laid out, this takes up virtually no added room, and gives useful background information on the character. We don't need to give all the information in the world, but there is also no reason to remove everything that isn't absolutely related to Smash Bros. If something gets a page, all key attributes of it should be there, and people shouldn't have to click through links to other sites just to get the most basic information on it. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 12:47, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I will agree with what CHawk said. While we didn't need detailed background information on the pokeball pokemon and other non playable characters, having basic background information on these characters is fine. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 15:24, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Imo would fit better under formatting guidelines. Shadowcrest 01:24, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Do I delete this section then?--MegaTron1XD:p 01:25, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
No... first, comments are almost never deleted, and second, just because I say no doesn't mean it fails automatically... Shadowcrest 01:27, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

"SW is not for loitering"[edit]

I propose that we add a new section (or rewrite/merge other sections?) stating that, while it's okay for a user to not edit, if a user does edit, we expect them to put a reasonable amount of effort into the mainspace. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Hammer 08:06, 29 February 2012 (EST)

We already have this covered in the "SmashWiki is not a personal profile/matchmaking service/messaging service/not just Smash Arena" sections. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 08:39, 29 February 2012 (EST)
Yes, but it doesn't specify that users who edit are expected to contibute. Maybe this isn't the place for it but it should be said somewhere. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Superlative 11:14, 29 February 2012 (EST)
The negatives that occur from such users are covered in those sections already. The section you propose would be redundant. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 17:29, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Tier list proposal[edit]

This particular subject got brought up again recently. Debating about tier lists is a waste of everyone's time here and I think we should disallow it. This is the proposed wording, to be put under "not a forum":

SmashWiki is not for competitive debate[edit]

In the past, several users have attempted to debate subjects such as character matchups, tier list placements, and the validity of the concept of tier lists. This sort of debate does nothing to improve the wiki, as we do not create matchups or tier lists but simply report them, and often wastes contributors' time in replying to such arguments. If you wish to debate these sorts of things, go to SmashBoards.

Toomai Glittershine ??? The Trumpeteer 18:50, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

Support YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES *continues for two minutes every two minutes forever* RoyboyX Talk 18:51, 12 June 2013 (EDT)
Support I'm losing brain cells reading the tier list debates here... --HavocReaper48 18:53, 12 June 2013 (EDT)
Support I have a hard time understanding the long texts... Dots MewtwoMS.png The Zealot 18:54, 12 June 2013 (EDT)
y Miles (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

I would support, except I do have one reservation. We host Semicolon's Treatise, which we use to show why we accept the existence of tiers and report as such on the Wiki, and I feel it would be unfair to disallow any argumentation against it (granted, only one anti-tier ever actually put up some sort of rational argument against it, and we know any future potential arguments against it will be the same old shit, but it would be against our principles to not allow any attempts of argument against it). Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 19:54, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

The problem is, we already have this discussion essentially constrained to the forums, and many users disregard that rule entirely. Ideally, I don't see any problem with discussing this matter in a designated forum, but the problem at hand is that is strays into the talk pages of articles. Mr. AnonAnon.pngtalk 20:03, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

If the wiki is going to support the treatise, then it would be unfair to not allow people to reply and debate it. And the argument "it does nothing to improve the wiki" could be used against other things such as Smash Arena. The only competitive debate that is really problematic is people debating the existence of tiers on the Tier list talk page. To prevent this from happening, I propose we have one of those hovering boxes at the bottom of the page that says "Do not debate the existence of tiers on this talk page unless you wish to present an argument not refuted in the treatise, and if you wish to do so, debate it on the treatise's talk page instead of on this page.". Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:44, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

What if the wording was changed from "don't do this" to "you can do this but we'd prefer you don't"? Toomai Glittershine ??? The Eggster 19:44, 30 June 2013 (EDT)

I was thinking we could do something harsh, that will quell most, if not all, of the tier talk, while still leaving the door opened for the fabled anti-tier to come prove us wrong. This is what I have in mind;
  • We make it clear on the tier list talk page that it is not to be used to talk about how you feel about tiers. Any such posts will be removed on sight, and with the user/IP posting it getting an automatic 1 day ban regardless of their prior history.
    • Additionally, no users are to respond to anyone posting such, and offending users will get their responses removed in addition to the original post and only get one warning. Any subsequent offenses will result in progressively longer blocks.
  • We will however, allow users to debate our stance on tiers. To do so however, they must post on the Treatise's talk page, and not the tier list talk page. Like the above, breaking this rule will result in an automatic 1 day block on sight regardless of history, and the offending post will be removed (the offending user can repost on the Treatise's talk page however if they wish to push the matter when their block is up). Users responding to them will also face the same punishment as previous.
  • On the Treatise's talk page, we make it clear that anyone who tries to argue the nonexistance of tiers cannot spit out the same arguments refuted by the Treatise. Offending users will have their entire post moved to a protected archive (which will be setup to show people the type of arguments they should not be using), receive an automatic 3 day ban, and will be directed to fully read the Treatise before arguing. Repeating this offense after their block will result in a week ban, and the user being forbidden from ever posting on the talk page at all. Trying to after being forbidden will result in their posts being removed (instead of just moved to the archive), and users who seemingly created an account just to argue against tiers will be permabanned (in the event of an established user or IP committing this, they will be faced with a month+ long ban)
    • Related to the above, users who post something that doesn't have a real argument (such as saying how tiers are so gay or they can beat level nine MK with Ganondorf) or is just trollish in general, will be given the above treatment. An example of such posts would be this recent post on the tier list talk page and Alucard's subsequent posts.
    • Also, users who respond to these posts before an admin can get to them will be given the same treatment as previously mentioned.
We can setup additional guidelines on how to argue against tiers. Regarding arguing matchups and tier list positions, it's already an enforced unwritten rule not to try arguing them here, so we should of course make it written. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 01:42, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
While arguably necessary, this is significantly "meaner" than the rest of the wiki's culture, and if implemented would require an extra layer of obvious warnings to guarantee that anyone who skips them deserves what they get. I'll look into the possibility of having something like the mobile browser longpage warning for specific pages. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Inconceivable 11:14, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
Toomai has something of a point here. If you go through the treatise's talk page, and the forums on tiers, and the tier list talk page, the users on this wiki have generally shown a fair bit of hostility to people who disagree with the existence of tiers.
That said, I think we should continue to support debate. We are a separate entity from smashboards, and I don't think we should outsource debate to smashboards, given that it is even more hostile than we are. All points should be open for debate, even if anti-tierists are demonstrably and incredibly wrong.
Because of this, I don't really think we ought to institutionalize a "no debate" policy, since many of the points hosted on this wiki are somewhat debatable. I think instead we should take this in entirely the opposite direction of being very open to debate, but incredibly hostile to ignorance. That is, if anybody posts "tiers r 4 queers" they can an instaban because they are trolls, and it's fairly obvious to spot this sort of baiting.
The issue that I haven't really brought up is that most people who disagree with tiers are trolls and can't sustain argument. This is, to me, somewhat of an ancillary point. Just because they can't argue doesn't mean we have to tell everybody who might have honest misconceptions about tiers no chance to interact with us to see that they're wrong. So, while I get the frustration and the motivation with this proposal, and agree with it to some extent, I must politely not support. Semicolon (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
Would you agree to a wording like this, displayed on certain pages such as Talk:Tier list?:

Notice
If you wish to debate the validity or existance of tiers, do not do so on this page. Instead, read [this treatise] and respond on its talk page if and only if you intend to take part in rational, civil discussion (preferably not involving the repetition of arguments already refuted). Users who do not act rational or civil within reason may be directed to re-read the treatise instead of being responded to, while users who do not appear to be making an attempt to do so may be blocked for disruption.

Then maybe on the treatise's talk page we'd have a similar notice along with a few examples as what not to do and re-iterate that we expect intelligent discussion. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Trumpeteer 16:21, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

@Semicolon: What do you think of implementing my idea to stamp out arguments with the trollish and those who can't read, but keep the door open for the honest but misconceived?

@Toomai: Yeah it is a lot harsher, and as such we definitely need to have a clear warning on both pages about it. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 19:10, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

I agree with Semicolon. This seems to be an unnecessary limitation that punishes the many for the actions of the few (though I will admit that in this case, the "few" is quite a large portion), and doesn't adress the problem of the matter. The problem, as Semi pointed out, is ignorance, not debate. I think Toomai's idea of just blocking people that are disruptive and fail to follow instructions is a good start at least. DoctorPain99 01:33, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Rewrite[edit]

This must be re-written as it is too much like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Don't write this, but I'd like to say that SmashWiki also is not Wikipedia.Captain Cornwall (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

The page serves its intended purpose, and I don't see how this is a problem. - Ceci n’est pas un Smiddle. 06:06, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
Exactly, the page does exactly what it's supposed to. Scr7Wolfsig.png 06:07, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
A bit late on this, but what in the this policy is something that doesn't apply to SmashWiki? Everything written here is something completely relevant to SmashWiki, and is not something copied from Wikipedia that is not relevant to us. A policy based on another wiki's policy is not at all a problem, unless it were to copy things from the other wiki's version of the policy that is not relevant to the wiki (which is obviously not the case here). Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 08:30, 18 July 2013 (EDT)

Is the word "crap" allowed?[edit]

What I said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.218.64 (talkcontribs) 10:38, October 31, 2014 (EDT)

The word f**k is allowed. PikaSamus (talk) PikaSamus

Is offensive swearing allowed or not? 10:41, 31 October 2014 (EDT)

As long as you aren't going around telling people "**** you" or "you're a piece of ****" and whatnot, it's okay. PikaSamus (talk) PikaSamus 10:47, 31 October 2014 (EDT)
Look at this. Nyargleblargle.pngNyargleblargle (Contribs) 15:26, 17 December 2015 (EST)

Suggestion: SW is not live[edit]

The current meta appears to be "add tournament results immediately, as soon as possible". Several users are beginning to believe this is unhealty for both recent changes and page histories. So I propose we codify that:

SmashWiki is not live
While SmashWiki's goal is to be up-to-date, in the case of ongoing tournaments and other live events, it is impractical and potentially disruptive to continuously make small edits every time information changes (such as when every set is completed). Instead, make larger edits after reasonable milestones or periods of time, such as the entire level of a bracket being completed.

Wouldn't mind wording improvement suggestions. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Inconceivable 21:33, 5 November 2017 (EST)

I support the principle behind it, but I'm concerned about enforcing it in practice. If somebody goes ahead and edits in results halfway through a round of the bracket, is that a warning-worthy offense? Is it block-worthy if someone does it more than a few times? I'm just concerned about quantifying the concept in a productive and non-restrictive way. Miles (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2017 (EST)
We handle it just like we do whenever someone makes several successive edits to the same page; we warn them to not do that, with instead of telling them about the preview button, we linked them this section of SW:NOT. Then if they do ignore and continue to do it, yes we would end up blocking. If blocking has to be done, we can limit to just hours after when the tournament should finish by, while then giving longer blocks if they continue to do this afterward.
@Toomai: I support this, and for wording additions, it should be mentioned that a tournament's smash.gg or challonge page are much better places for spectators to keep up with live results as they happen, rather than the wiki, eliminating the need for the wiki to be used as a live resource. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 22:05, 5 November 2017 (EST)
Woah woah hold on. This is one of the last things I would want to call a blockable offense. I support the idea behind it, but I seriously dislike the idea of blocking someone just for live updating tournament results. Serpent SKSig.png King 16:16, 9 November 2017 (EST)
It kinda seems to me like enforcing this rule would be even more impractical than simply letting users update the pages as new results come in. Otherwise we would inevitably have to alienate some of out competitive editors, either by forcing them to have to wait periods of time before they can add more results or straight up blocking valuable contributors, which would ultimately be shooting ourselves in the foot. Furthermore, getting the message out to all competitive editors would not exactly be easy, especially without upsetting/annoying at least a few of them. I get the idea behind this, and it seems like a good idea on paper, but in practise, it really seems like it could backfire, or simply not work very well. Just my opinion though, I'm no competitive expert or anything so take what I say with a grain of salt. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 16:23, 9 November 2017 (EST)
Simply put, how in the world is this unhealthy for page histories and recent changes? Even if so, to alienate competitive players like this with a block seems very unreasonable, like Serpent said. Maybe making them mark it with a minor, or if somwhow this gets very bad, perhaps making something similar to the "this is a minor edit" tab? I don't think it'll be that difficult for Porple, and blocking people for this is a horribe this, as aforementioned. Penro 10:19, 10 November 2017 (EST)
I don't think it alienates users or is impractical to have rules enforced that reduce traffic. If I'm not mistaken, a large volume of edits at a time tampers with the Wiki's functionality (namely speed), so it absolutely is a bannable offense on the grounds that it's disruptive. I think it's reasonable to go with OT's method of issuing a warning and following up with a block if the warning is ignored. Considering the ideal time limit for a ban for this offense, I don't think there's cause for concern, especially since the admins will inform users with details of their block. Based on what I have observed, competitive editors generally come from Smashboards and/or Twitch and use the wiki regularly for data. I think they'd be well-versed enough with Wiki customs to not be put off or annoyed by this policy. Blue Ninjakoopa 20:59, 16 November 2017 (EST)

@SK: Any offense that is repeated should ultimately result in a block if users don't listen to warnings, you can only tell users to not do something so many times without doing anything about it before it becomes clear it's an empty threat, and it's already standard procedure to disallow many frequent minor edits to pages, even if constructive, that could have just been done in one big edit. Tournament results are no different.

@Alex: Talkpages exist, and everytime someone edits them, the user gets a big orange message bar at the top telling them someone has left them a message on their talkpage, and it stays there until they go to their talkpage. Every user who violates can be properly warned with no excuse for missing the warning, it's not at all "impractical" to enforce, and if they ignore their talkpage messages, then that shows a big lack of cooperation or failure to properly understand how the wiki works.

@Penro: It becomes more difficult and cumbersome to catch and review edits when the recent changes are filled up with many minor edits to the same page that could have simply been just one clean edit, increasing the propensity for bad edits and vandal edits to get through without being caught, both to the article with the several minor edits and other edits being drowned out. Then the page history also becomes more cumbersome to use, when you got what was the effect of one edit spread across many different entries. The "they can be marked as minor edits" isn't a valid solution, as besides the concept of what merits being marked as "minor" being subjective to each user, users shouldn't be using the "hide minor edits" option in recent changes, much less forced to, as that otherwise makes them completely miss edits, including potentially bad/vandal edits. And saying it's "horrible" to block them is quite hysteric, when the people being blocked are uncooperative users who repeatedly don't listen and keep on racing to add every single match result that happens at the wiki's detriment, instead of waiting a few more hours to add it all at once. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 00:03, 17 November 2017 (EST)

After reading this a couple more times, thinking of all the worst possiblities they could occur from this, I don't see one. I now fully support this argument and believe it should be enforced as a policy. --Penro 22:37, 18 November 2017 (EST)

Support. Seeing tournament results clog up the Recent Changes is unnecessary and getting old. I think live updates for something like a Smash direct or something like that is a little bit different though. John John3637881 Signature.png HUAH! 13:26, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Bump --Penro 22:00, 3 December 2017 (EST)

My position on this matter has not changed. Recent changes "flooding" isn't a problem except for in cases of high edit traffic, which happens very rarely. Serpent SKSig.png King 22:02, 3 December 2017 (EST)

About the not censored thing[edit]

I know this wiki isn't censored. But I am thinking about adding a song to my userpage titled I Just Don't Give a Damn it isn't a threat or a personal attack and the song has that language in it. I'm not sure if that is allowed on my user page. That is why I asked here. George Jones.jpg Corrin Fan Walls Can Fall.jpg 14:45, 25 October 2018 (EDT)

I don't see a problem with it. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (EDT)