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. 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

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

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 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 eXemplary Logic 23:11, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Passed, based on lack of opposition. Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 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 The Table Designer 22:49, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. SUPPORT! It's getting boring and we're losing users.--MegaTron1XD 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!-Ivy73 22:57, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
4. Support If we keep up on the mainspace, I'm all for it. Dr. Pain 99 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 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 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 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?--MegaTron1XD 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. --HavocReaper'48 03:23, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
2. Support STRATEGY PURGE (i did it).--MegaTron1XD 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 03:50, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
4. Major Support For the reasons stated above. Dr. Pain 99 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 The Stats Guy 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 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 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.--MegaTron1XD 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) 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. Sir Anon the great 22:51, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

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 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?--MegaTron1XD 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 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 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":

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* 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 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. Anontalk 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 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)