User talk:Miles of SmashWiki/Archive19

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Out of curiosity..

What happens when you hit 20 archives and your current talk page exceeds 32 KB? Ganonmew, The Festive Evil Clone 20:09, 3 December 2015 (EST)

You explode. Serpent King 20:10, 3 December 2015 (EST)

Nah really though. At that point you'd have to make a custom archive box. Serpent King 20:11, 3 December 2015 (EST)

well actually I just took a look at {{archive box}} and there are no technical limits, not sure why the documentation says there are Serpent King 20:19, 3 December 2015 (EST)

1) That first comment confirmed you are probably the only admin with a sense of humor you can laugh because of. 2) Weird... Ganonmew, The Festive Evil Clone 20:26, 3 December 2015 (EST)

I mean, I already have a custom archive box... Miles (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2015 (EST)

Oh...so you do. I can't believe I didn't notice that... Serpent King 20:59, 3 December 2015 (EST)

Yeah. I was just confused because I saw that there was a limit.

Changes from Brawl Entries

I recently received some complaints about me changing certain Changes From Brawl Entries. Here is an Example:

...but so far, your edits on character pages return edits to how they originally looked in the first place. Most notably Kirby's and Zelda's page. I'd like to tell you, I had wrote Kirby's page so it is similar to Diddy Kong's page in that he was significantly nerfed but now is slightly nerfed (which is the contrary with Diddy), but you undid my edit when the other one looked better. And while she can be considered to be nerfed, Zelda did gain some useful buffs that can counter her nerfs, and I consider the Phantom to be one of them. But that's not all. You have undone edits on her page several times, particularly her changes from Brawl, which risks you of violating this policy: it reads "Such revisions should be used only once." I'm just informing you so you don't get warned by an admin to stop. I do think you try to do a good job but your edits sometimes look bad. Try to let other users help you edit "accurate reports on characters", so that the wiki looks better. In the case of Zelda, we could consider she was nerfed but as she has gained useful buffs as well, she shouldn't really be considered nerfed. And in the case of Kirby, he is nerfed from transition, but only slightly nerfed when we take into account balance patches. Whaddya say? Would you like me to help? (keep in mind I'm backed up by popular opinion from the community). Again, I assume good faith, so no worries in my side. --BeepYou (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2015 (EST)

I'm fine with this, as nobody is perfect, and I do make mistakes. I also understand that SW:1RV and SW:AGF are to be respected as well. Be that as it may, I'd like to address something. As i'm sure you know, every now and again a user will change a section to fit their perception of how a certain character is. They will ignore facts and logic, and argue with anyone who disagrees. Specifically, when it comes to Zelda, a character who is considered by top players, local players, casual players, and mostly the vast majority of the fanbase to be one of the worst if not THE worst character in the game, i've seen users present her as better then the facts point her out to be. Even on the talk page for her, there have been numerous debates. She got some serious nerfs in the transition from Brawl (like no longer being able to transform) and her tournament results and representation are virtually nonexistent. I'm not saying that she's THE WORST personally, but she's pretty bad.

I was warned that an Admin might step in, but rather then cower, i'd like to get an Admin's feedback on what should be done. My goal is to have the wiki as accurate as possible, whether my personal opinions are right or wrong. I value this wiki more then I value myself. So what do you think? What's your opinion on the matter? Nightgengale (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2015 (EST)

I'm just trying to talk to you on a calm manner, like you said, "fanboyism be damned". I'm not a Zelda fanboy, not even less, but I'm just saying that Zelda feels better and easier to play due to her flaws becoming slightly smaller -though not perfectly addressed- and gaining noticeable buffs, but her nerfs are on par with her buffs, IIRC. And like I said, I'm backed up by the community. Knowing this is the most balanced roster, many can agree that she's better than in Brawl, but obviously she is still pretty bad, possibly the worst. But I've seen things that Zelda mains do that make me wonder.

I still assume good faith that you want to be accurate but you should also let others help you edit, and not take the whole credit. All the users on this wiki should get along when trying to edit. And I'm sure Miles would say the same about the above statement in this paragraph. --BeepYou (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2015 (EST)

Could I have talk page links here? I don't want to settle this with out of context quotes. Serpent King 23:04, 4 December 2015 (EST)

:v (the emoticon was necessary, sorry) --BeepYou (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (EST)

Mmk let's take this to my talk page so we don't spam Miles. Serpent King 23:15, 4 December 2015 (EST)

This conversation continues here. Serpent King 23:26, 4 December 2015 (EST)

Why

Why did you remind me of Snake, I am sadz. 😭. Anyway...

Nice job. Ganonmew, The Festive Evil Clone 16:41, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Ah, thanks. Miles (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Question

I recently took a bunch of in-game screenshots of the Mii Swordfighter's special moves. Should I replace them all, or just the low-quality gifs? Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2015 (EST)
Oh and, one of the three wanted pages got created. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2015 (EST)

Yeah, the low-quality gifs are the priority when it comes to replacement. Miles (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2015 (EST)

K, I'll get rid of them tomorrow. I'll upload all 12, but if you feel some pages are already set, delete mine. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2015 (EST)

Status

I fully agree that we need to be in red during and after the direct, but shouldn't we hold off until we start actually getting information? Serpent King 21:11, 14 December 2015 (EST)

I see Miles' logic in changing it, but I do agree it might've been a little too quick. (Particularly since I was about to add Ravio's costumes...) ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:13, 14 December 2015 (EST)

Given the apparent nature of the server data, leaked content could show up as soon as somebody with access decides they don't care about spoiling it. Hopefully that won't occur so we can all see it tomorrow as intended, but this is a preemptive measure just in case. That said, it doesn't mean "don't edit your userspace at all", just "try not to focus on it". If you were in the middle of that still, Nutta, finish it up for now. Miles (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2015 (EST)

If there is a leak, can there be a rule in place to prevent people from putting the information on the wiki until after the direct? I don't want it to get spoiled. John PK SMAAAASH!! 21:17, 14 December 2015 (EST)

SmashWiki:What SmashWiki is not#SmashWiki is not spoiler-safe. If you want to avoid spoilers, open the Direct's page and disconnect from everything else. There might not be anything leaked, but it's very possible at any moment now. Miles (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2015 (EST)

I'd like to think they'd be more careful after Royu. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:21, 14 December 2015 (EST)

Fair enough. I'll just try not to go on any sites that could spoil the reveal. Does anyone know where the video can be viewed when the time comes? John PK SMAAAASH!! 21:23, 14 December 2015 (EST)

http://www.nintendo.com/nintendo-direct/12-15-2015/ It was even still in my clipboard ^.^ ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:26, 14 December 2015 (EST)

Thanks for the link! John PK SMAAAASH!! 21:31, 14 December 2015 (EST)

I think it's going on nintendo's twitch too right? Serpent King 21:27, 14 December 2015 (EST)

Probably. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:28, 14 December 2015 (EST)

Guess adding the link to the news template wasn't that helpful huh? :| Anywho, it's cliché at this point to think Nintendo would make the exact same mistake they already made. Why would they literally plant the update there for datamining? RobSirzx

(reset indent) They've made dumber mistakes. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened again. Disaster Flare (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2015 (EST)

Lots of reports it's there, and claims that it isn't evidence of anything yet. Miles (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2015 (EST)

Guess we aren't getting characters tomorrow, or they're just being jerks to the hackers. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 22:00, 14 December 2015 (EST)

For all we know it could be a well-coordinated prank by the datamining community. At this point, not much to do but wait. Personally I hope there's no spoilers, but we'll see. Miles (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2015 (EST)

Update: we have Cloud's clear movie, Midgar + apparently one other new stage, and nothing else of interest has been definitively found. May be safe to relax for now. Miles (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2015 (EST)

And the other "new stage" was an update to Kalos Pokemon League, not anything new. Hopefully just a fix on the omega's wall jump problem. Miles (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2015 (EST)

Dude

The official artwork was added to the website. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 17:52, 15 December 2015 (EST)

I was just hard refreshing the DLC page, my bad. Miles (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2015 (EST)

You planning on sticking around for a bit

Because I very much desire an hour's break. Been at it since an hour before the direct. Serpent King 22:14, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Yep, just finished my break. You're in the clear. Miles (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2015 (EST)

this guy

i dont think this is an acceptable username General lee Nintendofan1653 (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2015 (EST)

Are you saying that on the basis of the historical general? Because he's not exactly an example of "immediately offensive" like a lot of historical figures. Besides, it could just be a pun. Miles (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2015 (EST)

he was the leader of the confederate side of the civil war who wanted slavery for america, so that can be taken as racist Nintendofan1653 (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2015 (EST)

Still wouldn't nearly be as insensitive as some of the other historical figures... Disaster Flare (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2015 (EST)

Yeah, I'm inclined to let it slide. Especially given that it could just be someone named "Lee" making a pun on the word "generally". Miles (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2015 (EST)

ya i let it slide Nintendofan1653 (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2015 (EST)

Since you're online, copy-pasting my message on SK's wall

Could you send out one of those top-of-the-screen messages reminding everyone to use male pronouns for Robin and Corrin, and that there's no colon in Fire Emblem Fates? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by SANTY CLAWS! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 17:28, 18 December 2015 (EST)

Seems excessive to me. I wouldn't bother. Miles (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2015 (EST)

That IP could have been good faith

I don't know how much you know about speed running, but Cosmo is one of the most famous runners. Given that he also plays smash they may have been confused. Serpent King 21:24, 19 December 2015 (EST)

Misgendering a transgirl deliberately is vandalism, and the fact that the IP also changed the category to a non-existent "Male smashers" category makes it seem like deliberate ill intent. I encourage you to be careful with your pronouns as well. Miles (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2015 (EST)

"He" referred to Cosmo, not the IP, if that's what you're talking about. Serpent King 21:30, 19 December 2015 (EST)

Animation

Er what is it called when a character is holding an edge and then a platform goes under them and then they go back to their idle animation? KirbysCrazyAppetite (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2015 (EST)

Patch changes in the "Brawl to SSB4" section.

Why do so many character pages have the patch changes in the "Changes from Brawl" section. I try to fix this but they are so many pages that put the changes in both sections. Why not have our changes in just the patch changes section since we it right below the "Changes from Brawl". It is quite complicated to have the changes match up in both sections and they don't match up perfectly anyways. I think the "Moveset" should be up-to-date but updating "Changes from Brawl" is complicated and doesn't really make since. -- Ethan7 (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2015 (EST)

The whole point is that previous versions do not matter except for historical purposes - if a move does 13% in Brawl, 12% in SSB4-1.0.4, and 13% in SSB4-1.1.3, then as far as the current state of the game goes, it is unchanged from Brawl. Part of the problem is that the update history section really should not be anywhere near the top of the page, and absolutely definitely after the moveset table, but people keep changing it back for whatever never-explained reason. Toomai Glittershine The Hammer 14:14, 27 December 2015 (EST)

So the patch changes section should be below the moveset? But why not have both changelogs right by each other? Thank you for responding for Miles of SmashWiki. So we do have the patch changes in both sections, But then both sections will have the changes mentioning the same thing. If we have some changes updated then we should have all, right? It's not like we are going to update values (like damage % of a move) in the "Changes from Brawl" but not add a new change or it will be confusing. -- Ethan7 (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2015 (EST)

Well it's just my opinion I guess, but I don't understand how a "Brawl to original SSB4" section is useful if you then need to use the "original SSB4 to current SSB4" section to understand the overall picture. Having "Brawl to current SSB4" in the spotlight, and then "old SSB4 to current SSB4" down near the bottom out of the way, seems better to me even though it means more things have to be updated for each update. Toomai Glittershine Da Bess 16:08, 27 December 2015 (EST)

Personally, I think a Brawl to current SSB4 is fine, no old SSB4 needed. All that information can be found in our list of updates articles. Serpent King 16:10, 27 December 2015 (EST)

I guess I just like it as a "timeline" where you can see the history of the character's changes. Plus we would only have to change one changelog each update. If they are both next to each other, than one can see the big picture and see how updates effect that character. -- Ethan7 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2015 (EST)

No, the update history is more convenient where it already is. Also per Toomai and Ryan, it's useless to have a changes from Brawl to original SSB4. Ganonmew, The Festive Evil Clone 16:12, 27 December 2015 (EST)

This is user's preference, but I'm with Toomai, Ganonmew, and SK. We're better off with changes from Brawl to current version. If we were to revert everything that was on the current version on changes from Brawl section to prepatched Smash 4 version, then it would be confusing and inaccurate. I can see some characters with attack damage/knockback/range restored back to Brawl (or beyond Brawl) in the recent version and that could invalidate the buffs/nerfs on the prepatched version. I can only see Update history as a timeline. Luigi540 (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2015 (EST)

And let's not forget: the old versions are never coming back. Listing changes only between Brawl and vanilla Smash 4 is kinda pointless. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2015 (EST)

But how is having only some of the changes not going to be confusing and inaccurate? If a patch lowers the ending lag on a move, then the "Changes from Brawl" would also say the ending lag is reduced. How could one tell if it was reduced twice or once? I mean having "Changes from Brawl" as part of the "timeline". -- Ethan7 (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2015 (EST)

Agreed. Some people don't update, and if Smashwiki is to be a complete wiki, we need all info, and people can just do the work and figure out the data.98.157.202.185 17:25, 27 December 2015 (EST)

And that is exactly where the "Update history" comes in play. If each section has every last bit of information about how the move has changed over time, all changes will be listed, and by reading back until the desired version of the game, one can figure out how this move once was. Besides, your average reader is here to read a section about the current differences between Brawl and Smash 4, not between Brawl and something that no longer exists. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2015 (EST)

But how can one discern between what is mentioned and what ins't mentioned in the "Changes from Brawl"? And what about my second question? I guess it is okay to have the patch changes in the "Changes from Brawl," But if we are going to include some information then we should include all. -- Ethan7 (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2015 (EST)

Also, how come Project M doesn't show the latest revision (3.6)? All versions before are irrelevant. I'm not trying to start an argument or troll, I just think having the revisions only in "Update history" is more simple (the main con seems to be that older versions are irreverent), or at least have all patch changes in "Changes from Brawl" if we are going to have them at all. -- Ethan7 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2015 (EST)

If PM chars have attrs from below 3.6, they are out of date and simply need updated. Serpent King 23:17, 27 December 2015 (EST)

Owait I see what you're saying. The reason for that is that we've decided on no List of updates (PM) pages. Serpent King 23:21, 27 December 2015 (EST)

Oh, but how is this different from SSB4? -- Ethan7 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2015 (EST)

Err because we have the List of update pages for SSB4... Also we are kind of just spamming Miles at this point, This conversation belongs on a relevant talk page. Serpent King 23:28, 27 December 2015 (EST)

Well, Okay. I don't see what that has to do with having the having patch changes in both sections. All revisions before aren't going to really matter and most people are going to want to see the changes to 3.6. Yeah, I wish I would have put this on a different talk page. -- Ethan7 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2015 (EST)

....

Protection was certainly needed, but it's kinda unnecessary to indefinitely block it. Is this until further notice or...? Ganonmew, The Festive Evil Clone 19:04, 28 December 2015 (EST)

I would assume an until further notice, though I do feel an indefinite block was completely unnecessary. Maybe a few months or something. Disaster Flare (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2015 (EST)

It's a huge and constant vandalism target. It's not forever, but it's probably a good idea to leave it protected for a while. Miles (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2015 (EST)

User talk:15DollarsWentSouth.

Could you unprotect it? We found out who vandalized... well, everything of his, and IP's like me can't contact him. 98.157.202.185 14:12, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Bump. 98.157.202.185 11:57, 3 January 2016 (EST)

How do I report a rogue IP/user?

http://www.ssbwiki.com/Special:Contributions/156.39.127.199

This guy keeps "deleting" the content of pages.

This nifty page is the trick, I've already reported them though. Also, remember to sign your comments. Disaster Flare (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Thanks. Sorry I keep forgetting to sign. I wish it was automatic. Unowninator (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2016 (EST)

It would be nice if it were automatic, but I don't see how that'd be possible to be honest. Disaster Flare (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2016 (EST)

...is a three-day ban really sufficient for an IP who is clearly acting in bad faith? They could just come back in three days and do it again, right? John PK SMAAAASH!! 15:34, 1 January 2016 (EST)

I concur. Vandalism should could for a block forever, no matter how small. 98.157.202.185 15:38, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Eh I wouldn't go that far, 98. An infinite block for just a single word change to vandalize seems pretty severe if you ask me, and kind of abusive of admin powers. Not saying all vandals do that, I'm just saying there's a reason they don't always go for an infinite. Disaster Flare (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2016 (EST)

I have to agree with the others, DF. It looks like this is the only thing they intend to do. Unowninator (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2016 (EST)

You're not understanding the point. I'd love to indefinitely block them too, but that's not how we do things. There are rules to how things are done. This isn't some dictatorship, we have to judge the span of the block based on the offense (I do believe that IP Nyargle blocked should've been blocked for longer), but there are some offenses that are so minor that indefinitely blocking them could seem cruel or even power abusive. Disaster Flare (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Ok, that example was obvious, but 3 days for vandalism seems a little bit too soft. 98.157.202.185 16:11, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Okay, fair enough. Unowninator (talk)

@98 I do agree that the IP in question should've been blocked longer, a month or two tops, but some are just so minor that 3 days is just enough for it. They come back and continue to vandalize? They get blocked longer. Simple as that. Disaster Flare (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Welp, you win. 98.157.202.185 16:15, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Question

I've already pointed it out to them, but I'd like to point this out to you: What do you make of this? Disaster Flare (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2016 (EST)

I'll watch for him, but it seems like he probably won't be editing again. Serpent King 13:06, 4 January 2016 (EST)

Four things.

Sorry for the hassle, but there are four things that I think need to be looked at. This, this, and this are the first three. Lastly, I think we need a resolution to this. John PK SMAAAASH!! 19:05, 10 January 2016 (EST)

First one: I'm not going to take a position on that, since I have a different proposition for those pages in the works long-term anyway. Second one: "comprise" is fine, the guy was going overboard and the things he was changing weren't wrong. Third one: the disambig isn't so long that we need to worry about removing things. Fourth one: needs more users' input. Miles (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2016 (EST)

Just remember that, as I see it, our wiki is valuable for covering PM information that is not seen elsewhere. Those Revisions sections, however, are too complicated and unimportant to stay. As for #4, I feel that if more users were interested, they would have probably said something. Should it be put to a vote? John PK SMAAAASH!! 20:29, 10 January 2016 (EST)

It can. Not critical either way, imo. Miles (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2016 (EST)

Tingle

I am finding official art, but I am finding very few screenshots that focus on WW Tingle. Can we settle for the art? Serpent King 15:01, 12 January 2016 (EST)

this is the closest thing I have to his "magic" Serpent King 15:02, 12 January 2016 (EST)

That's actually a very good match for what I was looking for, since it includes the catchphrase, the dance, and the confetti effect. Looks good to me. Miles (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2016 (EST)