MarioWiki:Main Page talk archive 27

10,000th article
It's been a long, long time since we attempted to reach for the 10,000th article. Many things have come and went away. The manipulations of the article count... we were supposed to reach this height a rather long time ago ever since I made the 9000th article. That, was until all those Super Smash Brothers series special moves were merged into their character articles, losing around 60 or 80 articles in the result of the merge. Many proposals went by... around 30 of them, or more. And our presence in the wiki grows more and more to other areas of the internet, arising the good, and the bad. Yes. It's time. The 10,000th article is ‎Stalking Piranha Plant, created by ‎ We would like to congratulate the wiki in reaching this milestone after quite a long time. Thanks relatively new user.

However, as a wiki, we still have many things to work on. We still have over 1,000 stubs in the wiki, there are articles that are waiting to be complete with at least a single image, and the maintenance lists must be updated daily so all the information can be heard. Many things indeed, some done, some left unfinished. I suggest that before reaching the 11,000th article, we should reach out and work on older pages and become the most updated wiki in favor of all Mario, Yoshi, DK, and other fans of the series to receive such great information.

Let's make a big improvement in our agendas fellow MarioWikians when reaching the next milestone. MarioWiki... FOREVER!

EDIT: Unfortunately, I actually have no idea what is the 9000th article. o_O 22:07, 16 November 2009 (EST)


 * Maybe this might quit your smile (for a while), but why the Main page says 9.982 articles? Are you counting the redirects or something else?

How so? I am clearly seeing this in the main page. No, I am not counting redirects. Do you have any other evidence? (And if you do, I'll be gone by then, leaving the computer) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (EST)

Oopsie, I saw the problem... Looks like the Main page wasn't refreshed, so it showed me the old results. Now we have 10003 pages and counting...


 * Stubs? Pfft, no problem, I'll take care of them, but I can only do it for games I have, although we could use a few more images...--
 * Taking down one thousand stubs isn't easy, but if you're eager to try It, you might be interested in joining Knife's PipeProject. - 22:45, 16 November 2009 (EST)
 * A stub a day keeps the doctor away? -- 10:47, 17 November 2009 (EST)


 * XD nice phrase Steve. We should get on those things first, and then, we can work onto getting the 11,000th article -- 16:04, 17 November 2009 (EST)


 * Quiet you. And yes, this is a great milestone we've reached. However, instead of rushing to create that 11,000th article, we should focus on the articles we already have. Unstubbing 1,000+ articles is no easy task, but with everyone's help it can be done. Stop creating articles just to get rid of red links. Stop creating articles on extremely minor subjects. Stop creating articles just to raise article count. Find better images and create better templates if you're good at that. Start expanding as many articles as you can. And maybe, just maybe, we'll have no stubs at all by the time we hit 11,000. We still have a lot of work to do.-- 16:19, 17 November 2009 (EST)


 * I will tackle the stubs and new templates!--

Before anyone asks how many days did we reached the next thousand articles, it took like say 300 days to reach such a milestone. From Janurary 4, 2009 (the time we reached 9000 articles), to November 16, 2009, it would've explained why it look a bit longer than reaching from 8000 to 9000 articles, and 7000 to 8000 articles, and probably so on. I predict as we go beyond how articles we have made, typically many more conflicts will arise during this period. Remember the reactions of being a "published source", and the time that someone predicted that we can reach a new milestone by a thousand articles? [This link] will do. However, I can't find that other section. ^_^;; 06:26, 18 November 2009 (EST)

Old proposal
Why does the latest proposal template still have The "Link to Userpedia in Community" proposal? The deadline for that was Nov. 12(last week!) and it's certainly not the latest proposal.

You can change it yourself, you know.  21:20, 21 November 2009 (EST)

Recent Vandal Attacks
First off, I would like to thank all the users that helped fight off that recent vandalism attack. And I do mean everyone, not only the administrators. I saw the recent changes today and saw 100 changes filled with image deletions and blanked articles. In light of these recent events, I need to bring a new issue up.

Back in February 2007, we decided to lock the move feature to new users. This was due to the fact moving pages is easy, but requires a lot more effort to revert. We were skeptical whether it would work or not, since a vandal would only have to wait 4 days to start moving pages. However, it worked out pretty good. In more recent times, vandalism by moved pages is pretty much non-existent.

The most common form of vandalism now is page creation. Recently, vandals been creating pages with spammy or obscene titles. How do we solve this problem? Easy. We simply restrict new page creation and file uploading to new users (accounts registered 4 days or less). The only drawback to this is that new users can't create articles, create talk pages, or create their own user pages until their 4 days have passed. It wouldn't be too detrimental to the wiki since new users can first learn how to create a proper article by editing existing articles. New users can see other user pages and have a good idea on what is allowed and what isn't. Restricting the feature won't completely stop new page vandalism, but it will greatly reduce it. -- 16:48, 23 November 2009 (EST)
 * How can you say that if the biggest vandal attack in recent memory was by moving pages?


 * Anyway, I'm no MediaWiki expert, but maybe it's possible to restrict page creation to specific namespaces. - 16:57, 23 November 2009 (EST)
 * I agree, but "In more recent times, vandalism by moved pages is pretty much non-existent. " Remember WL. We shouldnt restrict it, they can wait to create their userpage :) -- 16:59, 23 November 2009 (EST)
 * @Cobold There is a "createtalk" user right that might override "createpage". Yoshario''' [[Image:Yoshi_wearing_mario's hat.jpg|30px]]
 * I agree with your thoughts Knife, but there's another thing: 4 days? I had to wait for at least a month until I was able to move pages. Sure that this four days info is correct? - 17:02, 23 November 2009 (EST)

In that case, what does a new user do when they find an article does not exist that they know a great deal about? Besides, a spammer could just as easily wait four days to spam, or in the meantime find other ways to spam. The attack last night was successful to the extent that it was because there were few people online during most of it's duration, not because it was hard to change. If there is a major attack in which the spammer simply edits pages, will you disable editing for four days? Uniju :D 17:18, 23 November 2009 (EST)

@Cobold: What attack are you talking about? Did you mean WL's vandalism? @Tucayo: I don't consider WarioLoaf's vandalism as a common vandal attack. When I said that, I meant moving vandalism by common trolls. Sorry for not being clear about that, but the point was that moving page vandalism is much less common now than it was in the past. @Edo: I was sure a new user is defined as four days or less, but you might be right. I thought we went with the limit we decided on two years ago. @Uniju: It's not only last night, the vandalism has been occuring for several days. And editing vandalism is much easier to revert than new page vandalism plus anyone can revert it, not only sysops. -- 17:31, 23 November 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, I was talking about WarioLoaf. Just had to throw that in there because I was one of the guys who had to clean his mess up.
 * Any user can edit newly created spam pages and mark them with though. -  17:34, 23 November 2009 (EST)
 * =/= actually delete. Tagging 500 spam pages is kinda renundant. - 17:38, 23 November 2009 (EST)