SmashWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 6
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
NIWA Forums
Hey all! I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this (and if it isn't, then my apologies :P), but since I had seen someone ask if there was a NIWA IRC in porple's talk page, I figured I would post this: while we do not have a NIWA IRC, we do have the forums. If there are any questions, comments, or whatever, then the fellow NIWA members would love to help out. See you guys around! Dany36 16:39, 30 September 2010 (EDT)
Does this wiki not support ampersands in titles correctly?
That may be the reason the G&W universe icons are glitching... Miles (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2010 (EDT)
Delete the Smasher namespace and start it again from scratch
I recommend doing so. Miles (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
- Not having looked at anything in particular, does there appear to be a technical reason why? Or are you just saying it'll be easier to get rid of the crud? Toomai Glittershine
17:56, 7 October 2010 (EDT) - Wouldn't that make it much harder for us?Mr. Anon (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
- It would a) get rid of crud we don't want, b) we can re-write anything that's relevant at a much higher level of quality than the current version, and c) it makes our lives easier because then notability is not such a massive task to try and define/contain. Miles (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
- I am of the opinion that this would not help us in the short or even medium term. People will come here from the old wiki and go "oh look there are no/few smasher articles I'm going to stick with the old wiki because they have them", or "oh look this article wasn't imported I better put it up". Toomai Glittershine 22:18, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
- I'll assume you'll leave articles like M2K alone. Again, users will see that so and so isn't on the wiki and import it anywho.--MegaTron1XD
22:36, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
- @Toomai: If the only reason someone's on a SmashWiki is for the Smasher articles... I just am thinking to myself: do we really want that to be the emphasis?
- @Megatron: He'd be one of the ones we remade from scratch, plus others who are without any doubt notable (Ken, Isai, Ally, etc.) Miles (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
- I am strongly against doing this. I agree with the points Toomai made and as I see it, most of the top smashers have articles that are good enough and are no need of being rewritten. Some need updates, yes, but a rewrite, no. A majority of the smasher articles are articles of smashers that fulfill our notability guidelines. One more thing I would like to ask, who is going to go through and unnecessarily rewrite all these smasher articles? I sure as hell don't want to when there are more important things I could work on and I highly doubt you will. As for your statement against Toomai, there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone being primarily on this Wiki for smasher articles as long as they're not constantly creating articles of non notable smashers. It was decided long ago on the Wiki that the competitive scene would be covered, which includes covering the smashers that make up the scene. As such, these smasher articles are legitimate content. It would simply be much better to get rid of the crud manually instead of nuking the entire smasher namespace, as it would cause us to lose legitimate content and put this Wiki behind in progress, which to me, is absolutely unnecessary. Omega Tyrant
00:51, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
- Miles, I like this idea, but I don't think it jives with the notability guidelines we have at the moment. Firstly, like OT said, some of the most notable smasher articles are well written enough to be worth keeping without the need for a complete rewrite. Secondly, while I believe our current smasher notability guidelines are a bit too lenient, they are still in effect and we're still obliged to follow them. This means that technically, most of the smasher articles from the old wikia are legit and do belong here. You don't need to delete an article to rewrite it. Also if now's the time to complain about stuff from the old wiki that we don't want anymore, I call omitting the Female Smashers category. I don't like that category. Shark (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
- Honestly, who will actually go through and revive everything? Notable smasher articles are well written enough to be kept and if Mako belives that they are legit articles, they are legit articles. You can manually delete one if you feel it is not notable, but nuking a whole category is just impractical.--MegaTron1XD 10:26, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
- Honestly, who will actually go through and revive everything? Notable smasher articles are well written enough to be kept and if Mako belives that they are legit articles, they are legit articles. You can manually delete one if you feel it is not notable, but nuking a whole category is just impractical.--MegaTron1XD
- Miles, I like this idea, but I don't think it jives with the notability guidelines we have at the moment. Firstly, like OT said, some of the most notable smasher articles are well written enough to be worth keeping without the need for a complete rewrite. Secondly, while I believe our current smasher notability guidelines are a bit too lenient, they are still in effect and we're still obliged to follow them. This means that technically, most of the smasher articles from the old wikia are legit and do belong here. You don't need to delete an article to rewrite it. Also if now's the time to complain about stuff from the old wiki that we don't want anymore, I call omitting the Female Smashers category. I don't like that category. Shark (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
- I am strongly against doing this. I agree with the points Toomai made and as I see it, most of the top smashers have articles that are good enough and are no need of being rewritten. Some need updates, yes, but a rewrite, no. A majority of the smasher articles are articles of smashers that fulfill our notability guidelines. One more thing I would like to ask, who is going to go through and unnecessarily rewrite all these smasher articles? I sure as hell don't want to when there are more important things I could work on and I highly doubt you will. As for your statement against Toomai, there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone being primarily on this Wiki for smasher articles as long as they're not constantly creating articles of non notable smashers. It was decided long ago on the Wiki that the competitive scene would be covered, which includes covering the smashers that make up the scene. As such, these smasher articles are legitimate content. It would simply be much better to get rid of the crud manually instead of nuking the entire smasher namespace, as it would cause us to lose legitimate content and put this Wiki behind in progress, which to me, is absolutely unnecessary. Omega Tyrant
- I'll assume you'll leave articles like M2K alone. Again, users will see that so and so isn't on the wiki and import it anywho.--MegaTron1XD
- I am of the opinion that this would not help us in the short or even medium term. People will come here from the old wiki and go "oh look there are no/few smasher articles I'm going to stick with the old wiki because they have them", or "oh look this article wasn't imported I better put it up". Toomai Glittershine
- It would a) get rid of crud we don't want, b) we can re-write anything that's relevant at a much higher level of quality than the current version, and c) it makes our lives easier because then notability is not such a massive task to try and define/contain. Miles (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
indent reset I just thought it would be easier to, instead of trying to examine every single smasher article one by one for notability, rewrite the articles of notable smashers and delete the rest. Miles (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2010 (EDT)
- With that though, while "easier", we lose a good deal of legitimate content just to remove a few crap articles, and there are a good amount (especially among the top smashers) of smasher articles that don't need any rewrites/revisions at all. While a rewrite/revision can always improve, it isn't necessary to keep the article at an acceptable level. All in all, this just seems lazy when it's really not too hard to search for the crud manually and is just overall unnecessary. You also have to consider the fact that most of the active editors here barely contribute to the smasher namespace, so if we were to go through with your plan, it would take far too long for the smasher namespace to be restored to the level it is at now to make up for all that time without the content that was being restored and was legitimate to begin with. Omega Tyrant 18:12, 9 October 2010 (EDT)
Community portals
There are two: SmashWiki:Community Portal and SmashWiki:Community portal. What should we do with them? Miles (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2010 (EDT)
