Inkipedia talk:Ink Pump

The Ink Pump Welcome to the Ink Pump. Similar to Wikipedia's village pump, the Ink Pump serves as a general place for the Inkipedia community to discuss the wiki as a whole, whether it be ideas, proposals, technical issues, or notices.

Remember to put new discussion sections at the bottom of the page.

You may also wish to view recent talk page discussions.

Archives available here. Inactive topics should be archived when this page reaches 25 topics or 60,000 bytes. Any Inkipedia user can archive the page.

Current page size is bytes.

Proposing the Proposals Proposal with the Proposals Proposal Proposal
Hello gang. I am suggesting that Inkipedia implements a Proposal system similar to Wikipedia, MarioWiki, Pikipedia, and WiKirby. This will allow easier, consistent site changes to the site viewable in one place. It can be found at the following Proposals Proposal Proposal page—voting is available on this page. Trig - 23:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

There are a few things I think need discussing regarding this, the first is: do we need a new policy page for this? Why not modify the voting and consensus policies? Heddy (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: before we can vote on implementing Trig's proposed system for proposals, we have to make Inkipedia policy compatible with it. Specifically, Inkipedia's policy of requiring consensus but not clearly defining what consensus is, and allowing a single staff member to shoot down proposals, is what must be changed first. I will create an Ink Pump vote for this, in a new section. Heddy (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Make a Main Page/Challenge tab
The Challenge mode tab for the wiki should be added soon. Limited-time events like this usually come up on the Main Page, and it should be added there too soon. KPOfficial26 (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah I feel like it should too! I'll ask someone who can edit the page if they can add it! *aggressive introverting* Marie dance.gif Sideorderfan 15:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like these ltms like these might be main-page worthy only when they are available. I'll put some options in another reply. -Xando (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Challenges have a similar status to Eggstra Work and should therefore be on the Main Page. At least the New Season Challenge should be added there. Whether other Challenges will be added to the schedule would depend on their frequency. 15:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Assesing some options to put Challenges on main page. Please note YOU ARE NOT VOTING ON THIS. This is just something I put together to assess options. Reply to talk about the options.

1: Similar to splatfests, add challenges as soon as they are announced and keep them until another challenge is announced One might like option one due to staying in-the-know at all times for upcoming and concluded challenges. 2: Add challenges only a day or so before they start, and take them down about a day before they end There's a lot of stuff on the main page, but it's main page worthy enough.
 * 2a Add another widget in and extend the page


 * 2bi: Replace big run widget


 * 2bii: Replace splatfest widget


 * 2biii: Replace whichever is older/not ongoing at the moment.

3: Don't add them onto main page at all This might be because there's too much stuff on the main page already, and what's there already should stay there.

-Xando (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not yet know the frequency of challenges, if they are more frequent than once per month or something, we should create a different widget to not obstruct the schedule for less frequent events. If they are around once a month, I think it is fine to implement a Challenge schedule the same way as Big Run/Splatfest/Eggstra Work schedules. 15:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Pages for major minor musicians
So this is a topic that's been on my mind a bit after the addition of Yoko & the Gold Bazookas in the latest update. As it currently stands, I really like the system we have in place for handling lore for minor band members. Most of them don't have enough information to warrant getting their own pages, and given most of these characters are only ever seen in the context of their respective bands, it makes sense to handle the information this way. I feel like making dedicated pages for most of these characters would only lead to a lot of unnecessary clutter more efficiently conveyed in a single page.

That being said, in Splatoon 3, we've been seeing many more instances of musicians featuring in multiple bands, which has me questioning how we should handle these characters. Previously, Quinn was the only example of this, and while splitting his information across two pages felt somewhat awkward, it made more sense than making an exception for a single musician. But with characters like Ichiya and Yoko (and to a lesser extent, Nami and Murasaki) getting similar treatments, I feel it may be worth re-evaluating how we handle them. I still feel like these characters may be too minor to warrant their own pages, but at the same time, I feel it'd be nice to have all the information on them in one place rather than splitting it up somewhat arbitrarily, and it'd be useful for handling minor factoids unrelated to either of their bands (e.g. Beika mentioning Ichiya growing up in the Splatlands).

(For clarification, I'm solely considering this for characters that have been in multiple bands. For characters like the Bottom Feeders, I still feel like just putting all their information on the band page is the right call, given there's not really any reason to handle it otherwise.)

I'm genuinely not sure where I fall on this myself, so I'd love to hear how others think we should address this. WayslideCool (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that it makes more sense to have separate pages for some of the musicians in multiple bands. I agree with the reasons you mentioned. I think there is enough information about Quinn and Ichiya for them to have their own pages, as well as possibly Yoko. I don't think there is enough information about Nami and Murasaki for them to have their own pages. I am concerned that the new pages will be very short, but it will make information about them easier to find, as well as making it possible to add information such as the things from the Splatune 3 booklet.  06:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I feel about the same way, I only brought up Nami and Murasaki because they've also been in multiple bands, but given they're barely mentioned in the Splatune 3 booklet, I'm not sure if they really deserve pages of their own. I feel like if we're going to go through with this, however, we'd need to decide on some parameter that defines whether a character "deserves" their own page or not. I decided to write a rough draft of what a Quinn page could look like in my sandbox, and I'm not honestly sure if it's swung me either way on this proposal. I think it feels really nice to have all this information in one place rather than needing to look around multiple pages to get the full picture, but I also kinda feel like it's just restating a lot of information that may fit better elsewhere. I don't think the article feels too short though, I feel like our articles on a lot of the shopkeepers are of a similar length. I'm personally always gonna be a little biased in favor of the bands, but that's no way to run a wiki, is it? WayslideCool (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this is written badly. I am slightly tired right now since it is late.
 * Your draft is great. It definitely has enough information. I agree that it is nice to have all the information on one page.
 * If we do make these pages, could the parameter for deciding whether a character gets one possibly be currently having a significant amount of information about them on multiple pages? For example, Quinn has information in both Squid Squad and Diss-Pair, and Ichiya has information in Squid Squad along with being mentioned in the Splatune 3 booklet. I am still not sure about whether Yoko needs a page, since there isn't a lot of information about her. However, the information about her on the Ink Theory page that is still relevant now, so it seems strange for it to all be there.
 * Maybe we should create pages for any member in multiple bands? The issue then is that there will be some short pages without much information, but maybe that is better than having information about characters on multiple pages. For example, someone reading Front Roe would find out very little about the members unless they also look at Squid Squad. If there were pages for Nami and Murasaki, then I think it is more likely that people reading the Front Roe page would also look at those pages than the Squid Squad page, since the links to them will be in the Members section.  14:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm on board with the idea of dedicated musician pages if they are members of multiple groups. Trig - 18:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

New stage dialog.
Is adding the new stage specific dialog from the splatcast to stages quote pages on the to do list? Mrawesome1010 (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Some editors are already working on this, feel free to add missing quotes if you find any, especially in other languages! Thanks!  Eminence    Talk  16:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a database I found with the stage quotes. Go to this database, then use the Find Text feature to find News_VersusStage and find the stage's codename. For now, we don't know who is speaking in the game. KPOfficial26 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 6 day difference, but I think it would be a good idea to add Deep Cut's dialogue to the to do list as it is a major project— though if we had more people working on quotes for Deep Cut, this would be a piece of cake.. 15:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Multiple accounts policy proposal
Trig Jegman's proposal is here. The proposed multiple accounts policy takes a firm stance against multiple accounts, whereas the current policy in some ways implies that multiple accounts are allowed. There are other minor changes.

Please vote by signing your name below. If there are no oppose votes two weeks from now, the vote will be closed at that point on 2023-06-22. Otherwise, the vote will end 4 weeks from now, on 2023-07-06. Heddy (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Heddy (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Magewalrus  S2 Icon Sanitized Octoling.png (talk) S2 Icon C.Q. Cumber.png 22:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)   22:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) I mean, I made the thing. Trig Jegman - 23:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Xevsplatoon (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) GloverMist (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  01:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Six-claws (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) Arceusgjengen (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 10)  22:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 11)  16:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 12) S3 Tableturf Card Toni Kensa.png ℂ𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕖𝕥.𝕠𝕔𝕥𝕠 S3 Tableturf Card Annaki.png ( ℙ𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕥𝕝𝕖 ) 20:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 13)   14:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 14)  16:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments
Sorry if I'm missing something, but abusing multiple accounts is not the same thing as having multiple accounts, so perhaps the policy could be edited to reflect that. It should mention something about why having multiple accounts, but not abusing them, is still problematic, because right now the policy only discusses abuse of multiple accounts while trying to ban ALL multiple accounts. Eminence   Talk  01:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I support it generally, but I have a concern about one sentence in it, which is "Users found to be using multiple accounts may face an IP block". I think that should be changed to be users abusing multiple accounts instead of using multiple accounts, since it might scare users who create new accounts because they cannot access their old account. 03:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I said, punishments for using multiple accounts should only be a block on the second account, which is the current policy. IP bans should only be used for people abusing multiple accounts.  Eminence    Talk  11:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Have made a few small tweaks to the language to be clearer, let me know what you think. Trig - 17:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Does this new rule affect users who create secondary accounts for reasons like being locked out of their original account, or they cannot use their original account on the device they signed in on because it is simply not convenient? 12:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have left that policy pretty much the same—if you're locked out of an account because you've forgotten a password and no form of retrieval will work, create a new account and inform an administrator. The old account will be locked. I am a bit confused as to what  is supposed to mean. Users should not have different accounts for different devices, per se. Only one account a person. Trig - 13:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw a user had created a new account because they could not use their account on their phone, and so they created an account on a new device. 13:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's something to bring up to an administrator (hello) on a talk page with links to the two accounts. Users are not permitted to do this both under this updated policy and the existing policy prior. Trig - 13:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Why did I get banned on Discord?
I'm sorry if I got banned, please put back up the invite link. I won't image spam anymore. KPOfficial26 (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello KPOfficial26. If you were banned solely for image spamming, you likely ignored many warnings to stop. That doesn't happen very often, so you may have performed more severe actions than that.
 * In any case, bans on the Discord server are not hugely common and there's generally good reasons for such measures. You may want to think about any actions you could have taken as of late that caused disruption or friction within the server, especially if other users have reacted negatively to such actions. Ballistik57 (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Image spam is the least of your worries. From frequently ignoring moderation team asking you to stop doing things like micromanaging, being wildly off-topic, and generally just kind of annoying to broadly making the server uncomfortable whether thats by streaming awkwardly showing your face, making racially insensitive comments, or pissin' on VC. You very clearly have zero understanding of cyber-security or image, and while everyone does need to start somewhere, Inkipedia will not be that place. In an indeterminately long time from today if you believe you have matured significantly from where you are now, you are free to appeal this decision with me (this means many months, minimum) in private. Trig - 17:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus policy proposal
This is a vote regarding the future of voting itself on Inkipedia.

Me and Trig Jegman are proposing changes to Inkipedia's consensus policy: (1) use simple majority as the standard for determining when consensus has been achieved, and (2) remove the role of adjudicator, and (3) require three admins to veto (stop) the proposal. This proposal, if passed, will pave the way for an easier to understand process for deciding on changes to Inkipedia. If passed, a 51% support vote would always be considered a consensus favoring the proposed change. In addition, by requiring 3 admins for a veto to be executed, it would no longer be possible for one person to control Inkipedia's fate.

Please sign your name in the relevant section below to support or oppose this proposal. If there is no opposition, the vote will end at the end of 2023-07-02 (UTC time). Otherwise, the vote will end at the end of 2023-07-16.

If you want more information on this proposal, read the comparison table and background information below.

Background:

Trig Jegman wanted to create a dedicated proposal submission page with clear rules, but Slate and I have found that Inkipedia's policy is not compatible with Trig's suggested system. So, the changes we are voting on now would make Inkipedia's consensus policy compatible with such a system, and if this vote is successful then there will be another vote to set up Trig's proposed dedicated proposal submission page.

Inkipedia has always operated on consensus, meaning that there must be a general agreement, and relying on an "adjudicator" (usually an admin) to judge whether a consensus has occurred in a discussion or vote, meaning that one person could shoot down a proposal for not having a strong-enough support or for being harmful or undeveloped. In practice, most discussions and votes on Inkipedia have operated as if simple majority is already in place, but it is possible for one person to invoke the consensus policy and decide the outcome, and some Inkipedians have expressed confusion over that system. That consensus system may work for the large communities like Wikipedia that use it, but I believe that a smaller community like Inkipedia needs an simple way to determine consensus: simple majority.

Heddy (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2023‎ (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Trig Jegman - 02:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  02:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)   03:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  14:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)   14:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) -Xando (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  17:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 8)  18:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 9)  18:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 10) GloverMist (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)