Forum:Character articles protection list

This discussion is in regards to a proposed change on SmashWiki. The discussion must first meet with a consensus before it is implemented.

In lieu of recent misinformation being added to our character articles, we've come up with the idea of restricting edits to these articles to autoconfirmed status. This is too big a change to simply implement without a consensus though, so please do voice any comments, questions, and concerns below. SerpentKing 09:48, December 17, 2019 (EST)

Support

1. Full support. The SSBU pages are edited by IPs pretty much on a daily basis, and they keep worsening the quality of the article (particularly the changelists) by either repeatedly adding misinformation, worsening their readability by bloating up paragraphs with information that is already organized properly, or putting their bias in those articles by either sugarcoating or exaggerating the characters' flaws (here's an example of such). At this point, it's getting tiring to have other users constantly revert them. If you look at most SSBU character pages' edit histories, particularly Kirby, Zelda, and Mario, these IPs seem to follow a constant pattern (edit change sections, do any of those three aforementioned actions), even after every revert, and don't leave these pages alone; in the former two, the edit warring got so bad that they have been already protected multiple times, and ever since, they have mantained a much more consistent quality. There seems to be an IP in particular that keeps changing their IP number and range, and goes specifically to SSBU pages to submit these unconstructive edits, seemingly never listening to anyone else even after I've tried to contact them, and also insisting on having their way after the pages in question get protected. Then there's another IP that keeps tampering with the update history changelogs, likewise worsening their redaction and even removing a large chunk of information in the process.
   
   It's really hard to keep track of the specific users, which is what would be done in other cases (Toomai even did a range block once, and that didn't help at all), and I think these SSBU pages need a lot of quality checking; they're currently among our most relevant pages, people constantly gather information about the game (it's also been datamined for months now), and the changelists entail detailed and technical information that few users understand properly (much less casual editors without accounts), so allowing misinformation in these pages to still be repeatedly added on the fly is very detrimental. I firmly believe this proposal would improve the wiki.
   
   Also, for the record, I agree with this specifically in regards to the changelists (Changes from SSB4 and update history). I don't think it's too necessary for moveset subpages either (though they fall under a similar category). I would prefer to still keep other parts of the pages edit-able, since there's not nearly as much trouble there, but the wiki doesn't have per-section protection, and I don't know if such thing can be achieved. DracoRex, Creator of the Land 10:26, December 17, 2019 (EST)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose. For some time now I've been dissatisfied with the direction the Wiki has been moving in. SmashWiki, like all Wikis, is intended to be a community effort, so when we continue to increasingly alienate a significant proportion of our editor base, we consequently move further and further away from the spirit of what a Wiki is. I understand that certain character articles may need to be semi-protected for a period of time, but the proposal here is to semi-protect every single Ultimate character article and all their related subpages, which I believe is a step too far. By doing so, we are causing multiple issues, including:

   • Cutting off a significant number of helpful IP editors from a large number of articles, including many who for one reason or another do not wish to make an account, which is very much understandable.
   • Making the Wiki much less open to new users on the site, potentially discouraging them from becoming long-time editors.
   • Reducing the number of routes to autoconfirmation that new users have, by preventing them from making contributions on the newest, and therefore most needing of attention, character articles, making the already potentially daunting task to some users of making 10 contributions even more difficult.

   For these reasons, I am very strongly against the idea of taking such a drastic step, especially since I am very skeptical about whether these articles will ever end up being unprotected again, as I have seen an increasing trend in articles being left protected long after the issue that caused the protection in the first place has gone away. Please do not do this. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 10:06, December 17, 2019 (EST)

   I think that your point is valid but also that you are overblowing its proportion. Character pages might be the most obvious "newest" pages, but there's also special moves, stages, items, bosses, and such. Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 10:13, December 17, 2019 (EST)

   That may be true, but the character articles are much larger in comparison to the other articles, and thus require significantly more contributions. Regardless, this is still a step in the wrong direction, and one I doubt will be undone any time soon if it passes, therefore adding another large log to the fire as it were. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 10:18, December 17, 2019 (EST)

Neutral

1. I was always of the opinion that allowing IPs/newbies to edit the technical data pages was a bit...counterproductive, for lack of a better word. But when the main character pages are brought into it, I'm not a fan of the idea. This is mostly because the main character pages have a mix of technical info (e.g. changelists) and general info (e.g. taunt descriptions). Maybe for them, a better answer is splitting out some stuff into protected subpages for transclusion. Toomai Glittershine The Superlative 10:07, December 17, 2019 (EST)

   Maybe templating them up like what we did with SSB4? SerpentKing 10:17, December 17, 2019 (EST)

   ...Great idea, actually. It worked for the update histories in SSB4, and it's more in line with why I'm supporting the proposal (I'd like to have IPs restricted from the changelists, not the entire pages). Maybe re-focus it towards this instead? DracoRex, Creator of the Land 10:37, December 17, 2019 (EST)