SmashWiki talk:User pages

Archives

1. 1
2. 2

BUMP

Kinda an important policy which had near unanimous support at the end. Shouldn't this be passed? Mr. Anon (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Support was far from unanimous, and this policy isn't important anymore as there haven't been user page problems. In short: no. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 22:45, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Fair enough, but we do need some policies covering user pages? Note that this also covers user talk pages, and whether or not comments can be removed will pretty much always come up, and it is better to have a written rule than an unwritten rule. Mr. Anon (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

True. I stick to my earlier stance that if you are going to edit another user's userpage beyond a grammar or coding fix, you should at least give them a talk page message if not have permission before you do it. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 15:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Not very many people opposed, and it was never really settled, so that is why I wish to reopen it. Mr. Anon (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Bump again. This didn't have very many opposes. Mr. Anon (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't see any supports anywhere. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 13:52, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

True, but that is because we never actually got the voting round. The policy was reformed to fit suggestions. We also need a user/user talk page policy, something this wiki lacks. Toomai's proposal here seems like a good policy that includes many of the unwritten rules that remain unopposed. As such, I support this policy. Mr. Anon (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

We have to stop being apathetic

I noticed users running into userpage problems a lot lately. And as such, we need a userpage policy. I strongly support making this an official SmashWiki policy immediately. It covers how we handle userpages now, and I see no problems with it. Omega Tyrant 14:38, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

• Support Blindcolours tappity Tappity TAPPITY 14:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
• yep Miles (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
• Why not? I wonder why there never was a policiy like this before (if there really wasn't :P)...-- PSIWolf (T • C • E) 14:51, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
• Mhm-Ivy73 15:32, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
• Strongest Oppose I can possibly muster: For one reason. It recommends anyone editing another user's page without prior permission to leave a message on the respective user's talk page. It should require it. ƋoӄԏoяΠɛəи99 _{ROLLBACKER} 15:36, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

I see no reason to require that when a user removes a clear violation on their userpage, when the editing summary covers that just fine. Leaving a talk page message is just redundant. Omega Tyrant 15:39, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Let me rephrase. It should be required in all cases except clear violations of policy? For other situations, what if the user misses the edit or objects? ƋoӄԏoяΠɛəи99 _{ROLLBACKER} 15:40, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

The user should pay more attention to pages they watch over then, the watchlist exists for a reason. Do we require users to leave a talk page message whenever they make changes to other pages? We do not, and "requiring" users to do it for some edit to another userpage is unnecessary. Omega Tyrant 15:50, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Yes it is necessary. I suppose I should just go to your user page and change everything? Why should I have to use the watchlist function for my fucking user page when it's some other user who's being an ass about something on there? ƋoӄԏoяΠɛəи99 _{ROLLBACKER} 18:47, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Go ahead, and either I or someone else would revert that, regardless of if you were "required" to leave a talk page message. And if a user was going to vandalise your userpage, you think they would give a shit if they were "required" to leave a talk page message or not? A policy shouldn't attempt to cover your own inability at keeping an eye on your userpage. Omega Tyrant 19:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Btw, threatening to vandalise my userpage is considered a personal attack. Omega Tyrant 19:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

I was not threatening to vandalise your user page. I was simply presenting a situation in a sarcastic sort of way. Your vandalism example fails because they are not following rules in the first place by vandalising, and I am referring to situations where another user changes something they think is a violation of their rights or policy or something. Why is it so hard to require a talk page message? It's not just for me; what if a user is new or rarely active? ƋoӄԏoяΠɛəи99 _{ROLLBACKER} 00:06, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

"I suppose I should just go to your user page and change everything?"

Changing everything for no apparent reason would certainly be vandalism.

"Why should I have to use the watchlist function for my fucking user page when it's some other user who's being an ass about something on there?"

I'm pretty sure a user being an ass on your userpage would be them vandalising your userpage.

"I was not threatening to vandalise your user page. I was simply presenting a situation in a sarcastic sort of way."

Threat or not, you vandalising my userpage is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and had no merit in the argument.

"Your vandalism example fails because they are not following rules in the first place by vandalising, and I am referring to situations where another user changes something they think is a violation of their rights or policy or something."

Your own example was of a user vandalising userpages, and I responded as necessary. In situations where a user removes a policy violation, they can explain it in the edit summary, and a message on the talk page is just redundant as I already explained.

"Why is it so hard to require a talk page message? It's not just for me; what if a user is new or rarely active?"

Regardless of you're active or not, the watchlist still works fine. And why is requiring that talk page message unnecessary for notifying users? There's an option you can check that emails you whenever a page on your watchlist is edited. If you're paranoid over your userpage being edited for whatever reason, put your userpage on your watchlist, and check that option. There you go, you get a direct message whenever your userpage is edited. There's absolutely no need for this policy to force users to leave a redundant talk page message. No matter what this policy says, if you miss an edit to your userpage not made by you, it's your own fault, and the Wiki does not need to cover for you.

In the end, you're arguing over minor semantics, and opposing a perfectly fine policy over it. Policy already suggests users to leave a redundant talk page message, and as I pointed out, you can still get notified of your userpage being edited regardless of if a user leaves that talk page message. Omega Tyrant 01:47, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

• Support Seems like a solid policy, even considering what DP99 said.Vincent Tran Get ready for school ^_^ 15:44, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
• Support A user page policy is needed. Seems to cover all points. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 04:13, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
• Support. Seems reasonable. ^Smiddle 君怒る? 05:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
• Yesh. --HavocReaper48 12:02, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
• Support - Perfectly sensible. All things need a policy. --Pιʀaτзнυητзʀ (Talk•Contribs) 12:04, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

!!!

OK this may sound off topic, but I just missed the entire passing of my proposal. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Really not needed. Blindcolours Stop smiling, it makes me happy. 22:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Recent events shown why this Wiki needs an actual userpage policy, and with the community behind it, I felt there was no need to wait any longer on passing this overdue policy. Omega Tyrant 22:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

BlindColours, I have had enough of this, you cannot tell other users what is not needed when you yourself make such comments like this and this which I find pointless and childish, almost like you are getting the last word in for some reason. Although I did not say anything because I assume good faith and think you are a valuable user like almost everyone in this wiki. But please reframe from doing this, you've basically achieved nothing apart from possibly hurting Anon's feelings, and if Anon would like to post this remark that he has missed HIS proposal which has been up for a while and sped through in one measly day i think he should.--Shaun's Wiji Dodo talk 22:29, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Woah. That's an easy problem to fix. Sorry.Blindcolours Stop smiling, it makes me happy. 22:35, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Subpages

I think we should make it a rule that you must have all of your subpages linked to from your userpage, or have them all linked to from a subpage directory. It would prevent unlinked subpages from being "lost" (which could prove important if we ever have space issues and have to impose hard subpage restrictions, where we would get rid of non constructive subpages from inactive users), and it would make them easier to be kept track of (which will help us monitor users creating excessive subpages). Omega Tyrant 17:21, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Like me? I agree with this btw. Blindcolours TONDA GOSSA. 17:22, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Disagree. I don't think we should force users to have certain content on their userpage (and for someone who has a userpage like mine, implementing this policy would completely change how I want it to look). Mr. Anontalk 17:24, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

All it does it force you to create a link to your subpages, so that they can be kept tracked of and not lost. Having such links won't ruin how your userpage looks. Omega Tyrant 17:28, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Special:Allpages/User:Example naturally lists a user's entire userspace; I don't see how manual linking is required. Toomai Glittershine The Frivolous 17:52, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

I see. While I think it would be ideal for users to link to them from their userpage, that tool makes it not necessary to force. Omega Tyrant 17:54, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

I'd just to point out that Special:PrefixIndex is a better page to use to find out this sort of information. DokteurPain99 18:32, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

This "relationships with other users" thing

This is getting pretty stupid as far as I'm concerned. Rating other users by how much you like them is nothing but trouble and has proved to be such ever since the concept has spread from the userpages of the few to those of the general public. I'd like options on how we can kick it down a notch or seven, maybe even banning the concept (though that's a stretch). Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 22:55, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

I would support banning them. They do nothing but strain relations farther between users, and lead to nonconstructive squabbles between users on talk pages that turn into outright insulting. Knowing what users anyone of nonprominence likes is not interesting in the slightest to begin with. It's just a retarded concept started by egocentric and tactless users, and with mine and RD's mocking of it making it even more popular, the only way to kill the fad is to ban it. Omega Tyrant 23:16, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

I Agree. Support Dots The Safari 23:23, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

Support: Two users have been banned so far, partially due to the relationship charts existing at all. I want to see this come to an end before any more users get banned for this. Bandit 23:50, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

This is too specific of a ban. We can't solve all of our problems by just making a rule that outlaws every little thing that goes bad on the wiki. Policies are supposed to be general rules that help the Wiki function in the long run, not specific rules we implement to solve our the problems of the now that won't be relevant in a week. We either need to ban the concept or just kill the matchup charts in other ways and then let it pass. Also, I would like to point out that if we ban the user matchup charts, it can be argued that it conflicts with the "X bugs me" is not a personal attack and therefore does not break policy provision. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 01:38, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

There's nothing wrong with banning something specific that has no constructive value and only has the potential to cause needless user disputes and disruption on the wiki. This isn't something that "won't be relevant in a week"; these "relationship matchups" have existed for a while now, and are only growing more popular. I'll also point out that saying we should find other ways to kill it without making any actual suggestions is hardly contributing.

"Also, I would like to point out that if we ban the user matchup charts, it can be argued that it conflicts with the "X bugs me" is not a personal attack and therefore does not break policy provision."

This isn't about them being personal attacks, this is about the concept being idiotic, heavily prone to causing needless user disputes, being obvious flame bait in general, while having absolutely no constructive value. Omega Tyrant 02:00, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Banning "lists of how much you like other users" is general enough to cover all the problematic cases while leaving things open to other possible lists of users (matchups, funny stuff, etc). I would like to leave the door open somehow for those like RD's because of how obvious it is they're a parody, but that's probably not feasible.

I should also note that calling these "user matchup charts" is faulty, as the term originally refers to the practice of listing how one fares against others in matches, which is perfectly fine. Toomai Glittershine The SMASH-GINEER 11:00, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

I'm perfectly fine with player matchups; users tend to find them fun, they're interesting as users get to see how they stack up with others, and they have an objectionable basis. I'm referring entirely to "relationship matchups". As for parodies, I'm fine with them, but they just made straight "relationship matchups" more popular, and some users' "parodies" are just terrible and cause issues anyway (see Air Condtioner's "parody" and the subsequent Smash Master dispute). Omega Tyrant 15:34, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

If these do get banned, then alongside that rule on the policy page, I would discourage the basis of these matchup charts, that being "Users I have met on this wiki". We can't ban those, as they do nothing to cause conflict, but they are plain pointless. As if anyone would care if you spoke to a rollbacker once, it's easy enough to just leave something on their talk page. On the same sentence that explains the banning of these matchup charts, I would discourage these too, in the style of a guideline. As for banning these charts in the first place, I'm neutral on that matter. Toast ltimatum 08:09, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

I now have no idea why I even had them in the first place. Smash Master 15:36, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

I Support what Toomai and OT said at the beginning of this discussion. This causes too much uneeded drama. BlindColours 18:34, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Would parodies be considered a bannable offence as well?

Otherwise, I support this.

--- ReiDemon, Author Extraordinaire, 18:38, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

If all lists of how much users are liked are banned, including parodies, are banned, then I will support. But I'm not clear on what it is that's being banned, exactly. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 20:56, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Simply, anything that rates/says how much you like each user, which are usually made as "relationship matchups". Omega Tyrant 21:54, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Alrite; I will retract my opposition. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 23:31, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

I support their removal. Miles (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

Support, with a small condition. If the other user is fine with it, I don't see why you can't describe your relationship with them. Mr. Anontalk 13:05, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

Anything that you would have to "ask" another user to have on your userpage shouldn't on there to begin with. We're removing all of this shit, we're not half assing it. Omega Tyrant 13:10, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

This proposal seems to have unanimous support. Unless someone can put up a strong oppose before Monday night comes around, we'll start enforcing this. Omega Tyrant 00:43, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

I strongly oppose this. The Awesome 15:51, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Provide a well thought-out reason or you're wasting our time. Toomai Glittershine The Non-Toxic 16:11, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

I Strongly Oppose this. I think we should keep them and remove some which cause conflicts, but not all of them. The Awesome 16:15, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

That is a suggested course of action, not a reason. Toomai Glittershine The Undirigible 16:20, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Besides the aforementioned lack of actual reasoning there, I'll briefly say why that's a terrible and half assed way of dealing with this; it makes the Wiki look like tools who are afraid of negativity, and that will still cause problems (for example, someone who thinks they're your bestest friend sees you rated them lower than they like and starts arguing with you on your talk page over it, or someone who thinks you're their friend takes offense when you don't rate them and proceeds to argue about it). Plus, it still has absolutely no potential constructive value nor is of interest to anyone. Omega Tyrant 23:54, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Now that Smashwiki:Ownership is a thing....

What do we do about the ownership section on here? I mean obviously link to the relevant policy but I'm not sure if we can just leave it there or if we have to rewrite it. - EndGenuity (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

Red links policy

I would like to raise the issue of red links appearing on user pages and subpages. Currently, the only restriction on this in place is to not create links to articles that are not intended to be made. However, it has been brought up by users such as Omega Tyrant that linking to wanted pages - pages that are supposed to be made - can also be problematic, as it could serve to artificially inflate the number of red links to a wanted page, pushing it up in the wanted pages cache, which can only display a limited number of pages. Should there be rules in place restricting the ability to link to wanted pages on user pages? And if so, how strict should these restrictions be? Alex the Weeb 19:17, May 27, 2021 (EDT)