Template talk:Userspace

Should this be protected? I don't want a vandal removing all of the content and replacing it with "(insert username here) is a(n) (insert swear word here)".

15:19, 8 April 2011 (EDT)


 * I totally agree. I shall therefore contact an Admin about this A.S.A.P. 15:10, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

This issue has been resolved months ago. Try not to reply old comments without checking to see if there is still an issue to be resolved.-- 16:00, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Unfair
I think this is unfair. What's the problem of edit our userspace a time more than the wiki? Some time, we will edit the Wiki again. They don't need to worry. 18:51, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
 * But there are people like this, or users who mostly make excessiveness edits to their userpage, and clog recent changes, and who's mainspace are few and often poor. This is not Facebook or whatever, this is the Super Mario Wiki.
 * Who cares about recent changes. It will not change the wiki at all. Soon, we'll be prohibited of even HAVE an userpage, or making a little typo unintentionally. 10:07, 6 November 2011 (EST)

Unfair!!!
I totally agree with Ultra_Fuzzy!!! It's ok when users edit Userspaces twice as Mainspaces, but, it's totally unfair that you receive a warning because you made ONE (Or a few) userspace edit(s) more than Mainspace edits !!! And, don't tell me the wiki would be "poor" if it happens, because a few users editing Userspaces won't ruin the wiki!!! I see that, there are users that seems to edit EVERY single page in the wiki, so, it wouldn't be a problem; Oh, and it doesn't means we're gonna NEVER edit the wiki again! 10:00, 6 November 2011 (EST)
 * The point is, editing your userspace means you are focusing on making your userspace look good, and neglecting the mainspace, which is what we are all here for. Regardless of what you say, editing your userspace does affect the mainspace. In small ways at first, like using up time that could be used doing better things, but sooner or later, more users will start and it will get severe. The focus of the wiki will shift from Mario to userpages. That's why we have these rules.

:)
I understand that, but please take a look at Nintendo64fan's Edit Count! He complains about userspace edits, but, he made 446 User talk edits against 288 normal edits!!! He couldn't even post that comment above!!! 10:40, 6 November 2011 (EST)


 * I agree. 10:42, 6 November 2011 (EST)
 * I fail to see how Nintendo64fan's editcount has anything to do with the validity of this template. Also could you please not create a new header every time you post a comment.

How much is a "large ratio of userspace to mainspace edits"?
What's the ideal ratio for a userspace warning? Something like 2:1/3:1, more, or less? 03:48, 16 March 2013 (EDT)


 * A ratio shouldn't be how you determine whether to issue a userspace or not. Say if a user made excessive userspace for a long period of time, and then began to focus on mainspace, the ratio will still be there but the user would not deserve a userspace. However, if we reversed that situation, and the user made many mainspace edits over a long period of time, and then they began to make a whole lot of userspace edits, then the ratio wouldn't really be there, but they would deserve a userspace to get them back on track. So basically, don't look at the ratio on their edit counts. Look on the user's recent contributions instead.


 * 04:08, 16 March 2013 (EDT)


 * I see, that makes more sense. 04:13, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

Effectiveness
Does this userspace warning actually encourage people to make more edits to the mainspace? I've seen so many users get this warning, it bothers me. I don't think this warning is effective. This, or maybe userspace policy needs to be amended. When people are blocked because they edit their userspace a lot, do they change their behavior or do they tend to continue it? If they change, then the block has done its purpose. If many users have been blocked multiple times simply because of this, then something is not working. After all, a punishment is meant to avert a certain behavior.

Besides, I don't get why people are stressing out over other people's mainspace edit counts when we have a good lot of editors in the first place. I'd be way more concerned if we're a small wiki. Not that I'm discouraging mainspace edits for userspace edits. I just think this "encouragement" is flawed. 17:48, 4 November 2013 (EST)
 * Well, editing just your userpage is not what this wiki is about. Having users who edit their user page is no help to this wiki. However big this wiki is, it still needs a lot of help and having users ignore some of the help it it needs in favor of their userpages isn't right. That's why we have all of those restrictions there. MarioWiki is NOT a place purely to socialize and spend most of your time and effort creating userpages, you're supposed to help out with Mario information.
 * That being said, this template does rarely change user's behaviors but if users continue making userspace edits after the friendly reminder, this puts them on ground for punishment. It's just like some people who keep putting false or misleading information in articles. We HOPE that they may change but this isn't guaranteed, hence why we SHOULD giving them a reminder/warning for blissfully IGNORING what we just notified of them doing. 18:01, 4 November 2013 (EST)
 * I never said that this wiki is about editing one's userspace. It isn't. It's all about getting voluntary contributors. But we also shouldn't be criticizing here and there to people that edit their userspace, especially those that are new to wiki editing. The first rung of the wiki editing experience ladder is perhaps an exciting one, and people may be excited to edit their userspace a lot at first (after all, this is what you and I did in the beginning; we, especially I, would've gotten a userspace warning). As you said, this template in general does nothing to encourage people to make more mainspace edits, so why must we have to take the next step to issue a reminder, a warning, and then a block? This just shows that this template is ineffective. This template is being treated as a reprimanding a user for mainspace edits. And it doesn't work. Ideally, once a user gets this message, the user should NOT get a reminder/warning/block after this, but this often isn't the case. OFTEN is a key word here. Of course there are people that will ignore those kind of things, but this reminder is ineffective, and something needs to be addressed. 18:38, 4 November 2013 (EST)

I agree. A userspace warning doesn't seem like a warning to me, and if a user is committing a userspace violation, they should receive a standard reminder instead. Ztar Power (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2013 (EST)
 * Weird. I've regarded this template as punishment, and it's even dreaded among some users. 18:46, 4 November 2013 (EST)

I like to see input from other users. 18:11, 8 November 2013 (EST)


 * @LeftGreenMario: I don't want to argue (well actually I do), but your argument is lacking in depth. First, you are implying that a block isn't enough, and there should be a greater, more severe plateau of punishment to deter users from excessive userspace edits? I can't think of anything we can do while still remaining as a legal website. Second, you have been making sweeping generalizations that the userspace and warning hierarchy has absolutely no effectiveness on the userbase. If a user chooses to ignore the informative and tailored template which is the Userspace, just like most other offenses the warning hierarchy will come into play and the situation will escalate. And say if a block doesn't work, and they continue to make excessive userpage edits, it is acceptable for a sysop to fully protect their userpage for an amount of time, in order to entice them to go somewhere else. If you are complaining about the lack of user acknowledgement to talk reminders and warnings, why single out the Userspace as the main issue? There are many users out there who ignore and choose to not adhere to regular warnings: that's their problem, not the systems. As well as this, in response to your belief that "this template in general does nothing to encourage people to make more mainspace edits", is a standard any more encouraging? As I stated earlier, the Userspace is perfectly tailored to inform users about why such excessive edits isn't desired, and provides suggestions to how the user in question may be able to positively contribute. How could this be any more encouraging? This is what is lacking about your argument: that fact that you are complaining about something while not providing any solid incentives on how the issue could possibly be addressed.


 * 07:31, 9 November 2013 (EST)

Make a change to the template - idea
I think the template need to change the image. I think that Francis, is not what the template represent. I proposed to change it to Monita if you are agree with me, because Monita appear in Nintendo Land and give some trick and details on the activities of Nintendo Land. This template give details about what the user could make on the Super Mario Wiki and Monita is the character that would best suit this template. What do you think about it?-- 15:45, 2 August 2015 (EDT)


 * Monita really isn't a Mario character though. Perhaps something else can work. 15:47, 2 August 2015 (EDT)
 * Maybe with Toadbert, since he mostly do the same thing has Monita and he's a Mario character. This artwork would be good since he point the sentences with his hand.-- 15:52, 2 August 2015 (EDT)


 * The template's perfectly fine as-is: no need for arbitrary changes. - 16:41, 2 August 2015 (EDT)

Userspace Violation
Lately I've been seen other users get the original Userspace template regardless to whether it was a violation like I saw a user get a Userspace template for making user sub-pages for unconstructive purposes but it was the original, why don't we make use of the other one if it's a violation. (I am referring to this one.)

So if it's a violation then why don't we use this coding instead of the original? 18:57, 20 July 2016 (EDT)
 * That one should be used, yes. There's nothing preventing people from using it other than not knowing it exists, probably. -- 19:22, 20 July 2016 (EDT)

Image
This template has an image, but I think it's the only one (with a Mario-related image at least). None of these far more commonly used templates have images. I think we're doing something wrong if most templates don't have an image, but this one does. Should templates have images or not? I think so, but I want to hear what everyone else has to say. (I have some ideas, in case anyone's interested. If so, ask on my Talk Page, not here, at least until it's decided) 20:25, 17 November 2016 (EST)
 * and used to have images but they were removed upon redesign but yeah other templates should have images as well.  20:27, 17 November 2016 (EST)
 * OK, should I spread this idea to the other templates then?
 * 20:30, 17 November 2016 (EST)
 * It honestly doesn't really matter. The other templates you linked to usually go along the top of the page and are not meant to get in the way of the article. This is a reminder, so it's supposed to be in the way. The image is just a nice touch. 20:52, 17 November 2016 (EST)
 * I thought about that after asking this, but something still doesn't add up. If this is going to have an image, so should these.
 * 21:31, 17 November 2016 (EST)
 * Not everything needs to have an image, you know. Though is there a particular image that comes to mind for the template? Perhaps the admins would take it under consideration. 00:50, 18 November 2016 (EST)
 * Well, the one for should definitely have this image, as it's the one used on the stub template. As for, I was thinking a Bob-omb, maybe this image. You may say that the template doesn't immediately make one think of a Bob-omb, but that would mean Francis didn't fit this template either. Most of the user templates except the two that I listed and the three Reminders. Should the reminders have images too? Maybe not the  and , since those are very big and hard to miss, but what about regular ? Am I going a little overboard here? The only one I'm really sure of is New-stub-reason.
 * 11:13, 18 November 2016 (EST)