SmashWiki talk:What SmashWiki is not

credit
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. B AL τʀο  [  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. B AL τʀο  [  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.  Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 03:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that CH edited it
I guess this is ready to go up? Smore King  Hap py 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 for this? Smoreking  (T)  (c)  15:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fan stuff stiffening
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  eXemplary Logic  The Stats Guy  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... |undefined
 * Third. 98.111.95.78 03:51, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fanon should be kept on the fanon version of the wiki.  BNK [ E 04:48, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

CHawk's forum idea
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  eXemplary Logic  The Stats Guy  The Table Designer  22:49, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) SUPPORT! It's getting boring and we're losing users.-- Mega  Tron1  XD  Decepticon.png 22:51, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: SmashWiki simply cannot die. Not yet.  --Havoc  Reaper '48  22:54, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) SUPPORT Smashwiki will not die!- Ivy 73 [[Image:002MS.png]] 22:57, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support If we keep up on the mainspace, I'm all for it.  Dr. Pain 99  [[File: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

 * 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  [[File: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

 * 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  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png|25px ]] 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  [[File:dp99.png]]  Talk  02:14, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
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?-- Mega  Tron1  XD   05:22, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Is there any more discussion of this necessary? Toomai Glittershine 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
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

 * 1) Supp0rt: We did start strategy purge. Should become a policy in case any further problems about it arise.  --Havoc  Reaper '48  03:23, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support STRATEGY PURGE (i did it).-- Mega  Tron1  XD  Decepticon.png 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  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png|25px ]] 03:50, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Major Support For the reasons stated above. Dr. Pain 99  [[File:dp99.png]]  Talk  05:10, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Since this seems to be the unwritten rule and everyone agrees it is, I'll just put it in right now. Toomai Glittershine  eXemplary Logic  The Stats Guy  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  [[File:dp99.png]]  Talk  14:59, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair enough.  --Havoc  Reaper '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  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png|25px ]] 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!
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.-- Mega  Tron1  XD   00:28, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Needs to be written. But we shouldn't purge all info or even most. Just the excess.  DP99  (CTE) [[file:dp99.png]] 01:57, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 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  Anon  Sir Anon  the great  22:51, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 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)
 * 1) 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  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png|25px ]] 15:24, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Imo would fit better under formatting guidelines. Shadowcrest  01:24, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. Do I delete this section then?-- Mega  Tron1  XD  Decepticon.png 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"
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  [[Image: 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 [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] 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  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 17:29, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Tier list proposal
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": {|class="wikitable"

SmashWiki is not for competitive debate
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* Roy  boy  X   Talk  18:51, 12 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Support I'm losing brain cells reading the tier list debates here...  --HavocReaper 48  18:53, 12 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Support I have a hard time understanding the long texts... Do  t  s  [[File: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   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.  Anon  talk  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  [[Image: 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 [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] 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 ?:
 * {|class="wikitable"

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 [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] 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   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. DoctorP a i n 9 9  01:33, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Rewrite
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. S c r 7 Wolfsig.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  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 08:30, 18 July 2013 (EDT)

Is the word "crap" allowed?
What I said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.218.64 (talk • contribs) 10:38, October 31, 2014 (EDT)
 * The word f**k is allowed. (talk) PikaSamusSig.png

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. (talk) PikaSamusSig.png 10:47, 31 October 2014 (EDT)
 * Look at this. Nyargleblargle.png Nyargle blargle'''  (Contribs) 15:26, 17 December 2015 (EST)

Suggestion: SW is not live
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  [[Image: 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. Pen  ro  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   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. -- Pen  ro  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   HUAH!  13:26, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Bump -- Pen  ro  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
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. Corrin Fan 14:45, 25 October 2018 (EDT)
 * I don't see a problem with it. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (EDT)

Amendment of censorship rule
There's been a flurry of activity on the Discord server that suggests an appetite for making the following change:

SmashWiki is not censored
Certain crews, smashers, and techniques may have names or contain information that some may find offensive. Because SmashWiki tries to be a complete encyclopedia, information should not be excluded merely because some find it offensive. This rule also applies to talk page discussions; while personal attacks are to be avoided, SmashWiki has no policies that prohibit profanity or language that some people may find vulgar. Attempts to prohibit other users from using such language (such as through self-user talk page rules) is frowned upon, and will not be enforced by the administration if the language is not abusive.

However, there may be times when something is too offensive to be left alone, such as a smasher choosing to tag themselves as a racial slur. In such cases, some form of alternate title or name will be used, decided on a case-by-case basis.

Note that this does not mean that vulgarity should be used in articles simply because it can - it should only be used if no reasonable option is available. Similarly, it does not mean that offensive or otherwise derogatory usernames on this wiki will be allowed, as per our username policy.

We could instead decide to remove this and create a new censorship policy, with hard rules about what is and isn't allowed, but I personally feel this would be a mistake. It's technically on the table though.

Discuss. Toomai Glittershine The Ghostbuster 18:44, March 9, 2021 (EST)
 * Just this will be fine. I've already explained on the Discord, but for those who missed it, enforcing censorship will only serve to create more problems than it will solve, but similarly, we shouldn't just resort to having no censorship at all, as given that could leave the field open to racial slurs, bigotry, etc. - While it's not good for us to be enforcing total censorship, there's a certain point where we have to draw the line. Black Vulpine  of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺.  Furries make the internets go! :3  18:51, March 9, 2021 (EST)

Support, but only for extreme cases. Every policy has certain limitations involved, so I don't think this is necessarily an issue. However, I only support this insofar as the exception is only used in extreme cases, such as this one.  Alex the  Weeb  18:59, March 9, 2021 (EST)

I agree with this: For the most part it should be case-by-case basis, where it can be allowed if no alternative can be used.  Omegα Toαd,  the Toαd Wαrrior.  (BUP)  19:10, March 9, 2021 (EST)

Strong Oppose The second sentence of your policy states "Because SmashWiki tries to be a complete encyclopedia," and your proposal of removing offensive terms for things just because they're offensive goes directly against this goal of completion. In addition, it has been pretty clear that SmashWiki covers things in a neutral manner and does not support or condone the offensive material on the wiki, and attempting to purge "bad thought" from the Internet does not stop individuals from subscribing to those ideas. What if the rank #1 player in the world spent their entire life using an offensive tag? Would it be wrong to avoid mentioning their tag at all on SmashWiki?  Awesome  Cardinal 2000  19:02, March 9, 2021 (EST)
 * I mean, considering the fact that "YouPorn" briefly changed their name to "Yummy Pepporoni" when being broadcasted on live TV, I'm pretty sure the offensive tag would be censored by other news outlets and not just us. Cookies CnC Signature.png Creme  19:17, March 9, 2021 (EST)
 * See also "Dr. PeePee" changing his tag to "PPMD" when he got sponsored. This hypothetical falls apart when you realize how many players with vaguely offensive tags have had to change theirs for the sake of decency. There isn't anything different about this proposal's way of handling it. ~ StrawberryChan  (talk) 19:53, March 9, 2021 (EST)

Support. Since many people don't really consider the Smash community safe after the allegations last year, it's best that we try to keep the very offensive stuff away from the wiki as much as we can. Of course if there are no alternatives then we'll just stick to what we can, but if someone with a racist slur in their tag uses a different tag for streams, then we should use that tag instead. Cookies Creme  19:37, March 9, 2021 (EST)

I also think that it's incredibly inconsistent to support censoring offensive terminology while SmashWiki has countless articles on people who were credibly accused of sexual assault and sexual misconduct. If you support censoring things like "Rapetent" because it's too offensive, I don't understand how you wouldn't also be in favor of deleting all those articles as well. If your argument is that we need to document historical events, well the Smash community has had a long trend of throwing around vulgar terms rather loosely, and deleting "Rapetent" off the wiki isn't going to change that.  Awesome  Cardinal 2000  19:39, March 9, 2021 (EST)
 * Two different scenarios. The controversy sections are actively condemning the Smasher's actions. On the other hand, if we leave "rapetent" on the wiki it's as if we're supporting the use of this phrase. Cookies CnC Signature.png Creme  19:43, March 9, 2021 (EST)
 * There is absolutely a difference between documenting notable people in the Smash community who were accused and confessed to sexual assault as a neutral, objective point of fact, and forcing in a mention of an offensive nickname that maybe a handful of people have ever said aloud. You're really playing bad faith here, Cardinal. ~ StrawberryChan  (talk) 19:53, March 9, 2021 (EST)
 * "The second sentence of your policy states "Because SmashWiki tries to be a complete encyclopedia," and your proposal of removing offensive terms for things just because they're offensive goes directly against this goal of completion."
 * You're not making sense, it's just one nickname with no signifficant usage. No serious player would use "Rapetent" in favor of "Greenhouse combo" in a serious discussion, the only time I would see the former used is in just a casual, and perhaps joke discussion.
 * "I also think that it's incredibly inconsistent to support censoring offensive terminology while SmashWiki has countless articles on people who were credibly accused of sexual assault and sexual misconduct."
 * Now that's just silly. These misconduct articles are documenting the smashers' actions, which had a signifficant impact on the smash community as a whole. "Rapetent" on the other hand is just a dumb nickname given to the Greenhouse combo, which the former term is rarely used anymore. Toad.png  Omegα Toαd,  the Toαd Wαrrior.  <font color="#7B5BEE">(BUP)  19:59, March 9, 2021 (EST)
 * That's nothing but a 'grasping at straws' argument on your part. As Toad has said, there is no valid comparison between the misconduct articles and the "rapetent" nickname. One made a very significant impact on the entire Smash community, while the other is just a dumb nickname that same community is trying to forget about. I'm pretty sure I don't need to tell you which is which. Black Vulpine  of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺.  Furries make the internets go! :3  22:40, March 9, 2021 (EST)
 * Being a dumb nicknames doesn't change the fact that it was at one point the most commonly used word to refer to the place on Hyrule Castle. And trying to forget about something is not a valid reason to delete an article. There are plenty of people who would like to forget that the sexual misconduct allegations of last summer ever happened. And there are plenty of sexual assault survivors who would want people to remember the Smash community's history of using offensive and sexist language. If you truly wish for SmashWiki to support the victims of sexual assault you should be at least willing to note an offensive and formerly widespread name in an article, so that readers can be more informed about the Smash's community's history of sexism, instead of sweeping the issue under the rug like it doesn't exist at all.  Awesome  Cardinal 2000  01:44, March 10, 2021 (EST)
 * "Being a dumb nicknames doesn't change the fact that it was at one point the most commonly used word to refer to the place on Hyrule Castle"
 * You're missing the point. The "once notable, always notable" mindset refers to major instances which made a signifficant impact in smash history (smashers, Project M, etc.). "Rapetent" is just a nickname, what harm is there in deleting it? It's something really minor that hardly anyone knows about, and all serious players would greatly prefer "Greenhouse combo" when referring to the technique professionally.
 * "And there are plenty of sexual assault survivors who would want people to remember the Smash community's history of using offensive and sexist language."
 * I don't get this at all. Do you seriously believe survivors of sexual assault would tell people "Hey! The greenhouse combo was sometimes called rapetent!"?
 * "If you truly wish for SmashWiki to support the victims of sexual assault you should be at least willing to note an offensive and formerly widespread name in an article, so that readers can be more informed about the Smash's community's history of sexism, instead of sweeping the issue under the rug like it doesn't exist at all"
 * This is just complete nonsense. How is mentioning "rapetent" on the Hyrule Castle article supposed to support those who have been in victim of sexual assault? It's just a stupid nickname, it has nothing to do with wave of misconduct which made a signifficant impact in the smash community. Toad.png  Omegα Toαd,  the Toαd Wαrrior.  <font color="#7B5BEE">(BUP)  02:17, March 10, 2021 (EST)

Support, as other people have stated. Again, a case-by-case basis is the best approach, but this'll be a good idea for weeding out bad actors and, as a last resort, at least feeling more neutral and encyclopedic than having offensive terms directly promoted in article titles. I'm reminded of the "Team:MAGA KNIGHTS" page, a totally non-notable group which shouldn't have been documented to begin with, which sparked a discussion about the wiki's censorship rules; we should be harder on hate speech, as the community itself is cracking down on these situations, too. ~ StrawberryChan  (talk) 19:53, March 9, 2021 (EST)

Support. Miles ( talk)   23:34, March 9, 2021 (EST)

It would be entirely counterproductive to make a hard set of rules, because that will lead to more trouble than it's worth. I support this revision to the policy. Aidan, the Rurouni  00:18, March 10, 2021 (EST)

I don't understand why maintaining SmashWiki's reputation is suddenly so important. I can't recall any incident where using an offensive word caused damaged to our reputation, and there's plenty of other content that we get much more flak from, for example, listing people's personal information on smasher articles, or top players complaining about the controversy sections on their articles. For the record, SmashWiki's reputation comes from things like people saying "SmashWiki is unreliable," etc., not someone using the word "Rapetent" in an article. And why should an encyclopedic website be concerned that someone would react negatively to something said in an article? We should be concerning ourselves with the way the facts are presented, not the content of the facts themselves. We are a free to view website, not a corporation, and we should stop treating offensive language like a PR disaster waiting to happen, because this clearly hasn't been the case.  Awesome  Cardinal 2000  01:44, March 10, 2021 (EST)
 * I'm failing to see the relation with the various controversy sections and not using an antiquated barely-used term the 64 community is making an effort to stay away from within the text of a mainspace article, and I don't see how Coney removing his last name as an IP without any sort of conflict about it and people making a fuss about some dubious claims in M2K's controversy section all the way back in 2014 are relevant examples to your point either. I also wouldn't look at this as a case of "preserving SmashWiki's reputation", rather than "not using blatantly inappropriate and outdated terms within mainspace text when more popular alternatives are available". Why are you being so difficult about this? I'm still contemplating if to throw my support behind this proposal or not, but mentioning "Rapetent" within the Hyrule Castle article hardly seems like a hill worth dying on, and even ignoring the offensive connotations, I wouldn't see it as a term worth mentioning nowadays. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 02:07, March 10, 2021 (EST)
 * Part of your argument is that a term like "rapetent" has become heavily outdated and therefore shouldn't on a SmashWiki article. So is the idea here that we should remove it because it's offensive, or remove it because it's not notable enough? If it's due to notability, then this would be an entirely separate issue (though I would argue that historically used terms and documenting the evolution of a phrase counts as notably encyclopedic material). But what if we have a term that's both offensive and highly popular like "sex kick," or what if we were having this conversation ten years ago when "rapetent" was much more widely used? Is the threshold for notability going to be much higher for vulgar content, and is SmashWiki going to be okay with replacing otherwise adequate encyclopedic content just because it's offensive?
 * I still don't understand the reason behind removing offensive content, even as simple as removing one word from a sentence, other than as an attempt to preserve the wiki's reputation. I think this policy would go dangerously into letting users' personal opinions on subjects affect the way that content is displayed, which isn't right for a website trying to be as encyclopedic as possible.  Awesome  Cardinal 2000  03:41, March 10, 2021 (EST)
 * If after all the explanation that’s been offered to you, you still don’t understand, then it’s best you just walk away from this issue. Nobody here agrees with you, and I’m sure you could find better hills to die on than this. Black Vulpine  of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺.  Furries make the internets go! :3  04:48, March 10, 2021 (EST)
 * Wow, so you're just not going to answer any of the questions I offered and just tell me to stop arguing over this? What's the point of having talk pages if people like you are going to be insistent on shutting down any nuanced conversation? FYI there are other people in this thread who aren't fully supporting the policy either, it's possible to be critical of the Smash community's usage of "rapetent" while also being against increased levels of censorship and word policing.  Awesome  Cardinal 2000  17:35, March 10, 2021 (EST)
 * I'd hardly say that any argument you've made in this discussion is "nuanced", but if you want answers to specific questions:
 * "So is the idea here that we should remove it because it's offensive, or remove it because it's not notable enough?"
 * It's partly both, because even if it didn't get gradually phased out due to people saying, "hey, y'know, this term is kinda gross," need I remind you what happened in July of last year?
 * "But what if we have a term that's both offensive and highly popular like "sex kick,""
 * "Sex kick" absolutely doesn't have the same level of offensiveness as "rapetent", so I'm not sure how you're even making that comparison (one's an innuendo and one's directly equating something to a harsh sexual act).
 * "or what if we were having this conversation ten years ago when "rapetent" was much more widely used?"
 * If we assume that this discussion was had ten years ago, with the rest of the timeline remaining the same (i.e., the events of July 2020 still happen in July of 2020 rather than 2010), then yes, it'd probably be a different story, but that was then, and this is now.
 * "Is the threshold for notability going to be much higher for vulgar content, and is SmashWiki going to be okay with replacing otherwise adequate encyclopedic content just because it's offensive?"
 * The point is that this term has been phased out by the community and is extremely vulgar—the two are not mutually exclusive. I'd hope that the community would continue this line of thinking with other offensive terms or terms relating to offensive people so that we don't have to have a separate threshold for notability relating to vulgar content, but in the grand scheme of things, no, that threshold wouldn't change. However, I fail to see how truly offensive content (as in, quite literally using the word "rape" as opposed to retaining the name of the person behind the ESRB leak, which we already do) can be even remotely qualified as "encyclopedic".
 * "I still don't understand the reason behind removing offensive content, even as simple as removing one word from a sentence, other than as an attempt to preserve the wiki's reputation."
 * If you think this is about "preserving the wiki's reputation" and not us making an attempt to keep with the times that the rest of the community is with, you should honestly go and do some self-reflecting and maybe work on keeping with the times yourself. Aidan,  the Rurouni  18:47, March 10, 2021 (EST)
 * "What's the point of having talk pages if people like you are going to be insistent on shutting down any nuanced conversation?"
 * Yep, keep ripping 'em out, mate. I'll tell you that there's no 'nuance' in attempting to repeatedly go over the same tired arguments when every single one of them has already been rebutted, and when literally everyone else is opposing you. Come up with something new, and/or someone who agrees with you (preferably both), and maybe then we'll take you more seriously. Black Vulpine  of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺.  Furries make the internets go! :3  19:38, March 10, 2021 (EST)
 * I fail to believe that any good faith user is in support of keeping such terms up. It is incredibly insensitive to keep it and even the 64 community recognizes this. "Rape" should only be used in contexts where no alternatives would be correct or accurate to use, such as in controversy sections. "Sex kick" on the other hand is completely harmless. Señor Mexicano   (talk)  10:21, March 10, 2021 (EST)
 * I really don't think accusations of bad faith are going to help here. Remember AGF.  Alex the  Weeb  10:27, March 10, 2021 (EST)
 * Yes, the denomination was commonplace in the past, but nowadays people stray from it, and for good reason. Removing explicit mentions of the name "rapetent" seems more tantamount to us removing "category: female smashers" for being a useless and frankly offensive way of separating players. This isn't an issue of notability, nor is it removing information, but an unnecessary effort to preserve the community's mistakes and let those mistakes constantly stare at them in the face. What would be questionable to police for instance is removing all mentions of ZeRo being the best SSB4 player for most of the game's life just because of what he did, or pretending the crew "DBR" wasn't once called "Death By Rape". And even in the hypothetical extreme that the playertag of the GOAT is something like "I hate N-word's", I doubt a player with that name is going to get very far without at least one person objecting to it or a reasonable minded TO refusing to register them. Now that being said, in regards to "rapetent" specifically, OT mentioned that preserving the redirect should be harmless, as those who would put it into the search bar probably wouldn't be offended by it (although we might have to add a notice to the page in case anyone sees that it redirects and tries to add it back). I'm still not fully sure I support this proposal to the letter, but there is a point at which it becomes less about notability and more about random factoids that just editorialize and offend readers. - EndGenuity (talk) 11:26, March 10, 2021 (EST)
 * "I think this policy would go dangerously into letting users' personal opinions on subjects affect the way that content is displayed, which isn't right for a website trying to be as encyclopedic as possible."


 * I understand the concern here, I empathize with this sentiment and I don't like that people have been assuming bad faith on your part for being contrarian here (especially from the other admins). Generally however, slippery slope arguments are fallacious; the administration should be trusted to distinguish between extreme cases that this rewrite is for and when someone lodging a trivial complaint is just being overly sensitive, and not acknowledging "rapetent" in mainspace text does not set a precedent for things like wiping from the the wiki any mention of "sex kick" or whitewashing what DBR used to stand for. We also have to deal with the reality that we are ultimately a wiki for an E10 video game series; while trying to police swearing in talk page discussions is dumb when young kids shouldn't ever be editing in the first place, and community-based articles will naturally cover more heavy-handed subjects when an older audience is involved, there's really no reason to have blatantly derogatory terms be in mainspace articles covering basic game stuff, like using "rapetent" to refer to a stage feature in a stage article. Plus, while I never liked the general argument of "this makes me uncomfortable so we shouldn't have this", I think there's certainly a point to not forcing editors to have to write down tags like the one used by the Zero Suit Samus player that placed 17th at, especially so when crazies could try using that as a reason to slander the editor outside the wiki. Even though I am very anti-censorship, I certainly wouldn't want edits of mine writing that player's tag down instead of a cleaner alternative that couldn't possibly be held against me in the future. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 01:30, March 11, 2021 (EST)

Support per reasons provided by everyone else. Superbound (talk) 07:00, March 10, 2021 (EST)

Support I firmly believe that there is a line. There is such a thing as good censorship. It's not in our best interest to have articles titled with or even mention such serious topics like rape in a completely non-serious context (e.g. "rapetent"). Such things are a product of their time and I don't look down on anyone for having used the term before, but things change.  Serpent   King  07:16, March 10, 2021 (EST)
 * As a general question, do you believe that SmashWiki was correct or incorrect to use the word "rapetent" in the article for the past eight years when it was more popular?  Awesome  Cardinal 2000  17:35, March 10, 2021 (EST)
 * It was a different time then, both for the community and the internet in general, so my opinion one way or the other is irrelevant.  Serpent SKSig.png  King  17:56, March 10, 2021 (EST)

Reluctant Support I've been neutral about this proposal for awhile, but I agree with a lot of what Omega Tyrant said above (@ 01:30, March 11). I am anti-censorship myself too and acknowledge words in of themselves don't have intrinsic meaning; however, I also recognize the slippery slope argument is indeed fallacious and hope that this policy doesn't snowball in the future to other forms of scricter censorship. While I agree in principle with what ac2k is saying about censorship, I guess I don't agree in practice (along with what OT said again).

However, I would also like to add though that I don't think who gets to decide what's "too offensive" should be determined by admins alone, but should be based on a community consensus on a case-by-case basis; if we as a community decide we don't want to include certain language, then I don't see a problem with us not documenting it (as opposed to the musings of a single admin or even multiple admins alone without the rest of the community giving their thoughts).  Voqéo T  08:25, March 11, 2021 (EST)

Support per above. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer (talk) 10:27, March 11, 2021 (EST)

Slight support: As per my responses to Ac2k, this is where I lean as it's the more practical stance, but this is under the assumption that this is as far as the policy revision will go, as I will probably oppose any stricter revisionism to the policy. Omega  Tyrant   01:00, March 12, 2021 (EST)

Alright, I'm going to put up mild support per what Voqéo and Omega Tyrant have said. I abhor censorship and would rather not have to deal with word policing, but given that, aside from cardinal, everyone here with reservations acknowledges that sometimes the line has to be drawn (including myself), it's clear the case for moving away from overly offensive vocabulary and denominations is there. But this is a ruling we have to use very sparingly so it doesn't snowball into removing actually vital information on the Wiki. There's no need for a hard ruling: the acknowledgement is more than enough. - EndGenuity (talk) 12:50, March 12, 2021 (EST)

Okay, I am going to change my opinion to slight support, assuming that the terms stated on this page are as far as things will go. I still don't fully trust the administration to properly decide what counts as too offensive or not, especially since two admins used their "executive authority" to enforce censorship, when, as demonstrated by this talk page, the issue was not a clear open and shut case at all, in addition to how the entire administration except for OT banded together to oppose me when I spoke out about it. I agree with the above posts that administrators alone should not be able to determine what counts as acceptable language. The consensus seems to be that the rapetent case is small enough for us to ignore, and I won't fight against that. However, there is a non-zero chance that an offensive enough term will surface and become too big to ignore, and we need to be careful about applying this policy in those circumstances.  Awesome  Cardinal 2000  22:12, March 12, 2021 (EST)
 * "in addition to how the entire administration except for OT banded together to oppose me when I spoke out about it."
 * It seems you are misinterpreting the opposition towards you—it was more directed towards your refusal to condemn usage of the term "rapetent", rather than any mindset you had on censorship. Quite frankly, I don't think any admin is necessarily "pro-censorship", and I don't think any admin actually commented on you being anti-censorship (besides OT, who was not in opposition). Let the record show that I too am anti-censorship, while still understanding that there are things that flat out shouldn't be said.
 * "I agree with the above posts that administrators alone should not be able to determine what counts as acceptable language."
 * From the start, this was never the idea, so I'm not sure where you got that? SmashWiki has never been "the admins alone make these decisions", even though we, albeit rarely, still might have such cases, but this isn't 1984.
 * Aidan, the Rurouni  14:56, March 13, 2021 (EST)

Parody games
Are games like Nick All Stars Brawl and WB’s Multiversus allowed to have their own official pages or are they not official enough? 174.55.24.64 23:19, May 25, 2022 (EDT)
 * No. They aren't official at all because they aren't made by Nintendo, they are made by other companies. We cover Smash and that's it. --CanvasK (talk) 23:24, May 25, 2022 (EDT)