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. Pages archived after 25 messages or 35,000 bytes.

Current page size is bytes.

Consensus template
With the recent difficulties of getting formal consensus to make decisions, I'd like to suggest that we make a template that can be used to mark a major discussion. Pages with the template could be linked to on Recent Changes via a category or something. 20:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need clear guidelines on what makes a major discussion, and what is a consensus. A lot of decisions are made off-site now on Discord simply because it's real time chat and those on the server get notifications about it. Is a major discussion one that is time-pressured? Site-wide change? Site-interface change? Affects some (but not all) users, such as mobile? As for consensus--Sigma   talk 04:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)... perhaps a time limit and if no-one bothers to vote then the motion is passed as a "not enough care one way or another".
 * We can certainly add more quick links to the top of Recent Changes via MediaWiki:Recentchangestext and to Inkipedia:Maintenance with the number of ongoing discussions (pages in the category). Perhaps make a quick filter list for recent discussions, though I don't think you can filter by multiple namespaces?
 * We could make use of the MediaWiki:Sitenotice for really important discussions.
 * 11:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made a consensus policy based on SmashWiki's to address your concern. 13:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea. Many discussions never get anywhere because people don't have easy access to them. Making them accessible on the recent changes list would solve that. Heddy (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Bump now that INK:CONSENSUS has been passed. 22:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what the link would look like (I also added some other maintenance links beside it). 20:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Splatoon 2 Hero Mode Placement
The placement of the Sardinium looks absolutely ridiculous (e.x Return of the Octarians), it should be placed after the Sunken Scroll information. When compared to the original Hero Mode Information (e.x Octotrooper Hideout) it looks sloppy and disorganized. --Snowwarrior92 04:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I only did that because Sardinium appeared before the Sunken Scroll in the infobox. And on that note, shouldn't "scroll" be lowercase in the infobox as it was for the Octo Valley pages? Sigma   talk 04:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand the confusion, but we should try to keep to the original format from Splatoon 1. On another note we should change the scroll to lowercase to keep with the original format.--Snowwarrior92 04:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Sardinium wasn't in Splatoon. Sigma   talk 04:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand where you are coming from and maybe we should try to work together. It might prevent stepping on eachother's toes.--Snowwarrior92 04:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove recommendations from weapon articles
It's time to overhaul the weapon articles! But before we do that, can we get consensus to remove the recommended abilities and recommended gear sections from weapon articles? These are the reasons:
 * Consistency. Many articles do not have these sections, so removing them altogether will make the wiki more consistent.
 * Conflict. One editor may believe that Ninja Squid helps a Carbon Roller player due to the stealth effect. Another editor may believe that the ability is a bad choice for a Carbon Roller player because of the -10% swim speed penalty. Who is right? Well they're both right about any facts they provide, but their opinions don't really belong here. The objective facts should be stated, on the Ninja Squid article and not the Carbon Roller article:
 * Ninja Squid helps players by providing for stealthy movement.
 * Ninja Squid hurts players by slowing down their movement.
 * Workload. This ties in with consistency. If one article has a section but another does not, work has to be done to give the latter article the needed content. This has proven to be too much work: the second game in the series came out, but these sections were still not present in articles for the first game's weapons. Let's reduce the workload so we can focus on more important things. Heddy (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest reformatting the sections to take a more fact-based angle ("major users of this weapon, such as so and so, generally utilize these abilities"), but I think the competitive meta should still be discussed somewhere on this wiki until we finally get the Competitive namespace. 15:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is subjective and should have no place in the main article space. Inkling luke.png Inkling talk.png 15:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What I want to do is make a new Competitive: namespace for all the strategy/metagame content and leave all subjective material out of Main: entirely. The biggest obstacle to that is compelling Prod to add the namespace. (-: GuyPerfect (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What do we do in the meantime? Perhaps drafts? 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the namespace should be called competitive. Some strategy content is on articles about a cooperative game type, Salmon Run. Why not "strategy"? The content we are wanting to move all fits the definition of the word strategy: "a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim." Heddy (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the content being moved is team/tournament pages. Inkling luke.png Inkling talk.png 18:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would that stuff be moved too? I thought we were talking about banishing subjective content from mainspace. Teams are not subjective, and according to the inkipedia policy they belong on mainspace as long as they meet an eligibility criteria, and they should be a separate discussion anyways. "strategy" is soooo much better than "competitive" for the type of content I'm talking about moving. Heddy (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there should still be a mention in the main weapon pages to abilities that benefit from weapon's weakness spot such as slow movement for Splatlings and the strong point of having Run Speed up against that weapon's weak spot of slow movement while charging and firing. 16:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Gear Article placement
Looking at Gear articles of clothes that appear in Splatoon 1 and 2, The info for Splatoon 2 is listed first, than Splatoon 1. Is this the decided format, because honestly I'm not a fan and I believe that it should be listed chronologically. KingAwesome467 (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They are listed chronologically, just in reverse for the convenience of readers. What benefit is there to not having it reversed? Heddy (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it just looks tacky to me, and I'm used to so many other Wikis (including other NIWA Wikis listing things chronologically going down), as it's like showing the history and evolution of this item clothing throughout the games and time.I mean Wiki's are basically encyclopedia's, meant to inform and tell history, and while I don't know much about actually encyclopedias, I'm sure most don't start from the present and work backwards. Would it really kill them to scroll down for half a second or use the table of contents? I know it's just my opinion and it doesn't really matter, but it really rubs me the wrong way. KingAwesome467 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

bump? KingAwesome467 (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess it would be okay for the gear articles. I just want articles like Splatfest and List of updates in Splatoon 2 to always have the most relevant info at the top. I am interested in hearing others' opinions on this topic. Heddy (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Weapon page format
Regardless of the earlier split discussion, I feel the current layout of multi-game weapons and gear is absolutely unacceptable. It's effectively a soft page split with everything about the items (even what their iterations have in common!) segregated by game and infoboxes deep within the page. Therefore, I suggest two alternatives: Anyone object to either of these? Have a better suggestion? 19:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Rewrite the pages to use a single infobox for both games and combine redundant information.
 * 2) While this was very divisive earlier, I think splitting by game basically has the same result as the current system, but is easier to navigate.
 * I agree that I'm not a fan of this new format adds alot of unnecessary length to the articles with 2 very similiar infoboxes, and I prefer the previous infobox format. I'm also personally strongly against putting things in reverse chronological order. KingAwesome467 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The first thing you see in the infobox is the image of the weapon/gear, which looks slightly different in each game. Unless you are proposing having both images in the infobox, which would bloat it considerably, combining the infoboxes doesn't seem like a good idea. There is usually enough info that is different anyways. Heddy (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)