Talk:Rules

Attention!

Old talk is archived on 2012-10.
Please continue discussion on this page. Sign your posts with --~~~~.

• There is also a Talk about Wiki Extensions.
• There is also a Moderators only talk.

Rules Discussion

• Custom Tracks articles without download links that have been on the Wiiki for more than 2 months but do not have any sign of progress are not permitted.

I always think, our wiki is a little bit like an encyclopedia. So articles for old tracks, where the download is lost, must be held in the wiki.

Wiimm 20:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess your are misinterprenting this rule a bit. There are plenty of (short) pages which don't show any screenshot or a download link. These pages don't provide any relevant information and therefor not true encyclopedia articles.

kHacker35000vr 20:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have understood your position, but I wanted to make it clear, the old tracks with complete pages but lost downloads are not affected by this rule.

Wiimm 20:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you here, Wiimm - although I'm not sure if my current CT, which I have still yet to get help with making, would still be a valid article. - Ah2190, the Master of Nitrous, (Talk page) posted at 21:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This modified rule now has the strangest wording I've ever seen for a rule. "Sign of progress" implies that the track is still being worked on which automatically applies to hundreds of tracks that the author has "finished" for the time being. Add in the 2 months and you've filtered to all articles whose progress has no longer changed in 2 months without a download link. You also neglected to change the rule to apply to not just Custom Tracks but all Custom Modifications as well such as Texture Hacks and Custom Characters. If I were to seriously start marking violations using this new rule I would probably find one hundred or so pages. However, I will hold off for the time being because the rule is worded so ridiculously that I can't take the rule seriously. And please, next time you wish to change a rule, at least consult the rest of us before you do so and get a native English speaker to word it so that I don't have to bash my head against the desk every time I read it. --Torran 01:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have changed it because the previous rule was just nonsense. Tracks that are in progress don't have an in game picture and if there is enough information or a download it can still be deleted for the lack of ingame pictures? I have modified this rule a bit just because many in progress track pages are violating this rule. I am aware that it is incomplete but that previous rule was just horrible an I wonder how it ever got trough.

kHacker35000vr 09:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You could also change it to: Articles about unfinished files that are on the wiiki for more than two months, but show no sign of progress can and will be deleted without warning.

Not updating a page isn't really something you should be banned for, what "not permitted" does imply. But it could get your page deleted. This way all the old articles about finished CT's are not affected either. --Vulcanus2 11:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about the "without warning" part - I would say to give at least a week's notice and, if they don't make an update, then delete them. - Ah2190, the Master of Nitrous, (Talk page) posted at 12:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't work either. What defines a file as "finished" and what defines it as "unfinished"? All of my tracks are currently "unfinished" and I'm guessing that a good part of the Wiiki hosts files that are still "unfinished" to this day. Only the creator of the file can judge whether or not a file is "finished" or "unfinished" anyway and there's no way that I am going to confront every single creator and ask them to label their files as such or if said creator is even around anymore. --Torran 13:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This whole rule is either subjective or complete bullshit, the best thing is to just remove it in general. --Vulcanus2 13:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If that's what the rule actually means then I'm gonna have a field day with this one, especially if I apply it to texture hacks. Still, your rule counts any track that's shown no signs of progress, which is pretty much every old track. If MediaFire suddenly decides to mass delete our links (which they have been doing), suddenly every single one of those pages become violations. The only thing copyright holders can't delete are the videos, especially if there are so many of them. --Torran 13:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This is what the rules used to say:

Custom Tracks, that are for longer than 2 month not released and don't have any Wii Ingame Video/Pictures, will be removed from this Wiki.

I changed the wording to this a few months ago:

Custom Tracks articles that have been on the Wiiki for more than 2 months but do not have any in-game video or pictures will be deleted.

That's pretty simple. If someone is working on a track, the least they can do is post a screenshot when they make a page for their track. That's a simple request, and anyone can do it without special software, just press print screen, paste into an image program, save the file, then upload. If a page for an unreleased track gets deleted, that's not a huge loss.

If a track has been released, people almost always make videos of the newest tracks. Although the rules say a page without images or video will be deleted, if there's a working track download, that shouldn't happen. In the unlikely case that someone doesn't make a video, the very least we can do as moderators of the wiki is open the track with CTools and take a screenshot. That only takes a couple of minutes, solves the problem, and doesn't needlessly remove a track page.

I prefer that we take a constructive approach to problems like this rather than a punitive approach. Accordingly we should not "delete without warning." A lot of track makers are very young and have never used a wiki before, while many others are not fluent in English. Warnings serve to inform them of the rules and give them a chance to fix things. Again, it's better to be constructive, and always give simple, informative warnings.

Now about the new version of the rule:

Custom Tracks articles without download links that have been on the Wiiki for more than 2 months but do not have any sign of progress are not permitted.

This completely changes the meaning of the rule, which was about images, not downloads. Adding a preview of a level entices people to download it, and makes the article more informative. A good rule.

Downloads get removed over time. It's a simple fact. Sites close and links expire. This doesn't mean that we should remove articles without working downloads. That's very counter-productive. It's better for us to reupload files if we have them, and if not, we should attempt to contact the authors of the tracks. Additionally, as worded, this article prohibits many articles about unfinished tracks. This is not a helpful rule and should be changed back to the previous version. --Jefe 14:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Track Rating

Don't you think it's better if we exclude the Track Rating from the unfinished custom track pages? Before tracks are finished, people already bring out their vote for that track. It's always either a really good score, or a really bad one. It affects the real rating of tracks. It's actually pretty foolish that people start voting before tracks are released. --MrKoeikoei (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%. That is why I disable track rating on unfinished custom tracks whenever I can, but you are asking for the template to be changed? Not everyone knows about <!--comments like these or how to get them to show up on the preview--> and some pages are created when the track is actually finished, so that's why I haven't changed the template yet.

ZillaSpaz (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the rating at all. It give no info about the track and does not help anybody. It's only a gimmick. And for every second Wiki software update, I must edit the rating software again (it is not supported for a long time).

But If used, it should only used for *released* tracks/characters/....

Wiimm (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

More and more pages starting as work in progress and not release are being made, so I think it might be best to disable track rating as default. I can edit the template to look like this:
<!--{{track rating}}--><!--This adds a rating. Delete the arrows around this on release day.-->

I won't do this immediately though. Is this a good idea to prevent premature ratings?

ZillaSpaz (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's a bit undue if we make a new template for unfinished CT's because of the track rating. ZillaSpaz' solution is good, but I understand what Wiimm says. The track rating is mostly only misleading, and high scores are mainly caused by a kind of nepolism. If it is also annoying to update the rating software, it could be better if it gets removed.

--MrKoeikoei (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I know! Let's do what YouTube did and replace it with a Like/Dislike Bar! No, seriously. Oh, and require users to be logged in to rate. That should filter out most of the spammy votes. --Torran (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent idea in my opinion! --MrKoeikoei (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Like/Dislike sounds good. Until we can find a plugin for that, I like Zilla's suggestion. --Jefe (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This should work, with some modifications to the source code. --Torran (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I really gotta agree that you should only be able to vote if you're a user. I noticed that all my tracks get votes from 7-10 and some fools rate it with 1. This way rating is absolutely unnecessary anyways, as results won't be reliable. Voting from 1-10 is fine though, because there are some tracks which are just okay or not that good, where I wouldn't want to use the like/dislike button. Tracks in developement should be excluded from rating, changing the template as ZillaSpaz suggested is probably the best solution! -- NiAlBlack (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted Materials

What exactly does the "Copyrighted Materials" section mean? Sonic's image & likeness is copyrighted, does that mean his download must be taken off? I believe that the 2nd rule should also be in some disclaimer, which we do not have yet... --SuperMario64DS 02:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright is a very tricky thing. I think we can all agree that unaltered materials taken from games (game files) and ROM images should not be posted here. Custom characters or game modifications using the designs of copyrighted characters is generally ok, as long as it's partially or mostly the work of a user of the wiki. I just changed the wording of the rule to reflect this stance. --Jefe 23:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Versions of the Same Track

I think it's time to reevaluate the current policy. Wiimm posted an opinion poll to determine the policy last year which set our policy of combined pages.

The problem is they are cluttered at best.

There's simply too much going on in those pages. Two user links and two or three info boxes, along with multiple ratings. Add to that you have at least two people claiming "ownership" over the page, which can create edit wars and other conflicts.

I think the best thing is to have a main page with a basic description of the course that links to each version of the track. --Jefe 01:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Will there be another poll? Or are you guys going to skip it this year?

Zilla 01:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a poll is particularly informative in this case. While polls can be a good way to gather informal data, they don't allow users to argue their positions. Also how a poll question is constructed can greatly influence the result; not that it was a problem in the previous poll. From a moderator's perspective these cluttered pages are a lot harder to maintain. It's also harder for new users to edit; many of them have trouble with basic editing without adding an existing page to the mix. --Jefe 01:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I thing, we (some interested people) must decide it. The many issue is to have a clear page and link layout:

• The reader must find the searched info easy and fast.
• It must be easy to link to the general track information and also to a specific implementation of the track.

Wiimm 08:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of splitting up pages. When this Wiiki was in its early days, this was done a lot, but somewhen Wiimm (I think) introduced shared pages, which are better, in my opinion. I think it should be up to the publisher of a CT if he creates a new page or if he shares a page with the old version -- NiAlBlack 16:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is where shared pages were introduced. -- NiAlBlack 16:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It probably is up to CT makers, but some people tend to edit pages anyway. It is a wiki, after all. Don't forget about this message that appears when making new pages:
If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.

ZillaSpaz 16:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The main advantage for having multiple tracks on a single page is that you don't have to click more links, it's all displayed together, at a glance.

But, as I commented before, shared pages have several disadvantages. Clutter is a big problem. Some pages have 3 different version of a track, I'd imagine it won't be long before others have 4 or more. That makes the pages much more confusing to read and to edit, especially when each track has a different version history table and one or more user links for each author. This is problematic, especially for people new to the wiki. There is a much higher probability of another author removing information about a track, on purpose or unintentionally, or creating an edit war.

Individual pages have the advantage of being simpler, making them easier to read. Individual pages share the same look as other track pages, making the wiki more consistent. They also have only one author, so there is no chance for conflict in edit style, who gets the top of the page, etc.

I think the policy should be consistent. That's why I recently updated Help:Custom_Track with naming guidelines for multiple track pages. --Jefe 16:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Page Deletion Policy

I think we need a formal page deletion policy. I see too many paged deleted because the download link was removed. "The purpose of the Custom Mario Kart Wiiki is to catalog user-made content for Mario Kart Wii." Accordingly, we should not be deleting pages unless absolutely necessary.

Here is my proposal. By "item" I mean Custom Track, Texture Hack, Characters, etc.

Under what circumstances should a page be deleted?

• Item is unreleased, has no image or video, and has been on the wiki for more than 2 months.
• Page is a duplicate of another page, has no content, is spam, etc.
• Item is plagiarism (unaltered or minimally altered and does not credit the actual author.)
• Item has pornographic or similarly unacceptable content.
• The author has requested deletion.

Under what circumstances should a page not be deleted?

• Item contains unauthorized content, such as content (textures, objects etc.) from another item used without permission or an ISO. The download link should be removed and the author given a chance to fix the problem.
• Item previously had a working download, but it no longer exists.
• Item previously had a working video or image, but it no longer exists.
• Page is not up to wiki standards, but is a released item.

As I have stated before, if a page is missing something, we should try to fix it. Deleting pages for old tracks and texture hacks does nothing to improve the site. We should try to contact the author if the download is missing or upload it ourselves. If a page is simply missing downloads or media, I propose that we add them to a new category, Missing Content. Pages in the Missing Content category are not to be deleted if they have no other issues. The Violation category can still be used in addition to Missing Content, but being in the category Violation should not be construed as an automatic reason for deletion.

If there is a potential reason for deletion, a message should be posted on the user's talk page, when the problem is discovered so the user is aware of the problem and has a chance to take action. Pages should not be deleted if there isn't a message on the user's page regarding the problem. When deleting a page, moderators should always fill out the summary to explain the reason for deletion.

Feel free to suggest changes or improvements to this policy. --Jefe 18:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jefe over all. This Wiki should collect information about custom objects, and not destroy the infos.

Wiimm 00:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Video Colors

Back before Wiimm added extra colors, I put red as the color for old videos on the rules page, more than anything because red, green and blue were the only options.

Here are my thoughts on the subject: Blue should remain the default color for current/updated tracks. White, gray or black seems more appropriate than red for original versions. Red, orange or yellow could be the "bug video" color. Green or yellow could be used for tutorial videos. Brown and purple weren't added, but they could also work. Brown for old videos, purple for bugs, perhaps.

To narrow things down, I suggest a vote. My entries are:

• Default:Blue
• Original Version: Gray
• Bugs: Red
• Tutorials: Green

I chose these because they are all short words (easy to type/spell), they're all distinctive and stand out.

Here are the various color options. I think this is all of them, anyway.

White

Gray

Black

Yellow

Orange

Red

Green

--Jefe (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above except that I prefer Black over Gray as it matches better with YouTube's window in my opinion. --Torran (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think, it is better to add other css class names: Instead of using color names, we use for example: "" (none for normal videos) and bug, tutorial, original as keywords

Wiimm (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is it (without real videos for timing optimization; don't forget to reload with F5):

Standard

bug

original

tutorial

I'm about to let my bot do the pages from the Disambiguation category, but the others have to be changed manually. Until then all youtube boxes are blue, there should be a solution for that.

kHacker35000vr (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, this looks good. --Jefe (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Video Wars

Because there were some video wars recently, I want to suggest a new rule for adding videos:

8. Everyone is allowed to add a video to a page if one is required. However, you are not allowed to replace a good video, only the track author may.

It would avoid video wars in future, so what do you think about that?
NiAlBlack (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a rule should be added, since it is not always clear at which moment a new video is better than the old one. But it's good to make an engagement about videos To me the author's video always gets priority, Dolphin or not. This video can only be replaced if there is a big quality advantage or when Dolphin handles the track completly different than the Wii does.

kHacker35000vr (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I think, the video rules are already clear. But some (young) people want to push their own videos and ignore the rules. Perhaps we must allow special video sub-pages for tracks with up to 5 (*) videos.

Hanno (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Special Characters

Rule for new accounts having special characters, also explaining why: Difficult to link to pages. Maybe the first offense: a simple request to change the name...ignored and/or second offense...block...further...your choice...? --Michael (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It might be easier to say that your username should only contain letters or numbers (alphanumeric), or anything you can actually type on a keyboard without using alt codes or alternate language packs. Characters with accents (á, ç, ñ, etc) should be okay, but it would be better to make that just on your signature. --ZephyrNidorino (Guilmon35249vr) 20:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Can that be included in that rule...? "Special characters are allowed in signatures?" --Michael (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't affect linking, so it shouldn't be an issue.

--Have a nice day, from ZillaSpaz 01:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Great to see we have a new rule added. --Michael (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

After seeing that Atlas blocked a lot of users recently, I started to think the rule is a bit too strict. I think all ANSI characters that don't interfere with the wiki code should be allowed.
--maczkopeti (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I would allow characters like . , * ! ? _ - = and all latin letters with their variants, cyrillic alphabets and Greek alphabet letters. Feel free to tell me wether to remove the block of these users and I'll do that then. —Atlas (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember (and I won't lookup) who added this rule "only alphanumeric". But I can't see any disadvantage of using special characters in user names. Maybe some control characters and also characters usually not part of the fonts will be forbidden.

A general note: I see rules more as directives than a s strict rules: For example, if a users edits an article 4 times in a row as an exception, it is ok. Also, if a new complex article is created. The idea of the rule is to minimize the patrolling activities by reducing minimal edits, but not to avoid large edits and good edits because of time limitations.

-- Wiimm (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Photo Uploads

Something to add to photos that are on the site. How about photos uploaded have to be related to the Wiiki...? User pages are expections...? Anything unrelated ask a staff member...? --Michael (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If an image isn't used on a page on the wiki, we delete it. If it's used on the wiki, then presumably it is used in an article, talk page or a user page. If it's inappropriate, it falls under the content rules. If we see someone using images irresponsibly, we will deal with it. Don't need a new rule for that. --Jefe (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Flooding and Patrolling Edits

When a regular user (non-moderator) decides to make a change to a template, or some other change affecting many pages, it can take a long time to patrol these edits. This has happened several times in the last week or so, in particular by Horsti (he decided to change the capitalization on user links so that the work 'Link' is always capitalized) and by Maczkopeti (he decided that we should use "youtube" instead of "youtube-box" on videos, which would affect the majority of pages on this wiki.) Neither change was proposed or discussed on the wiki, nor were they particularly critical. They had some merit, I suppose, but the pages in question worked fine before they took on the task of changing these templates.

Ideally before any sweeping change (30 or more pages) is made, it should be discussed on an appropriate talk page on the wiki. First propose the change, and if no one objects after a day or two, then go ahead. Bots can automate many tedious changes, and should be employed in cases like this.

One of the duties of moderators is to patrol edits - for regular edits, we must read and approve each item we patrol. That takes time. But that's not the only issue. This is a collaborative wiki, meaning that we must give some warning to others and work together before making large scale changes.

As such, I think we need to add a short statement to the rules to that effect.--Jefe (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Video Guidelines Suggestion - Disallow looking behind the player too frequently

Occasionally a video will overuse the 'Look behind yourself' feature in Mario Kart Wii. If done rapidly, it can cause eyestrain (Especially on smaller screens) and makes it difficult to actually see the course. One such page with videos like this would be Castle of Time, in which both videos feature the player looking behind themselves so frequently that it's difficult to see the track, and at long intervals too rapidly (They wound up hurting my eyes). Can we make it so that videos found to be doing this excessively are not allowed? --SuperMario64DS (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at one of the videos in question, and I saw a lot of very rapid pressing of the rear view button. It certainly doesn't help show off the course, and I think in this case it may even be bad enough to trigger epileptic seizures in people who are sensitive to flashing lights. We probably don't need a rule specifically for this, but maybe something about excessive flickering would be appropriate. --Jefe (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think too, that no rule is needed. There are so many ways to make a bad video. Simply replace or remove bad videos.

-- Wiimm (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

new rules

About Do not create Custom Track, Texture Hack or Character/Vehicle Hack pages without giving a download link. If there is no download provided with a reason, the page will be deleted very soon.

This rules is very bad. It avoids to create a page about a comming track. Better is the old method to watch new pages and to delte it after months without progress.

-- Wiimm (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That rule should prevent people from creating articles with no download that won't be released. New pages about commming tracks should be allowed. I think the rule should be rewritten so that pages about upcoming released are allowed.
--Wexos (Talk | Contribs) 13:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The decision, if a page is vaporware or not, can be done a while after the page creation. And if an author needs 15 months to complete his tracks and writes rarely progress messages, it is ok for me. Remember, ct creators should use this wiki as help and information exchange. So the moderators are always friendly to the new members.

In general, our rules are a kind of etiquette, that should make the Wiki live easier, but not a strict law. And if anyone edits a page 4 times in 10 minutes and does it very rarely, it is ok.

-- Wiimm (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Atlas added that rule because there was a guy who created a lot of new pages with old texture hacks that didn't have a download. I agree with you, a page could be created even if it takes years to complete it. But that was no the purpose of the rule. The purpose was to prevent people from creating new pages with finished tracks that didn't have a download.
--Wexos (Talk | Contribs) 15:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand his reasons, but you can't avoid such doings with rules. Rules have to lead the many people in the correct way and should *not* an reaction of a malpractice of a single person.

-- Wiimm (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

So, how would you prevent people to stop creating pages of texture hacks that don't have a download link and never will have? —Atlas (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Wiimm. The wiiki has a long tradition of people announcing tracks by creating a page. --Jefe (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Atlas: by conversation, warnings and finally bans. But the questions is: How and when do you know, that an article will never have a download?

-- Wiimm (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It was in this case, that the guy had written in one of the pages that there was no download link for the texture hack. —Atlas (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The I would: mark the page for deletion + ask, if he means "never" | do something dependent of his answer. (=conversation)

-- Wiimm (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki rule "Custom tracks articles that have been on the Wiiki for more than 2 months but do not have any pictures or in-game video will be deleted."

Never noticed this rule before. But this contradicts the idea of the Wiki to inform about all tracks. I don't see any reason to delete a track page about a released track with no imeages, especially if a download link is available. I will suspend this rule for a discussion period. -- Wiimm (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I knew about it but the rule is misleading. Of course, a released track don't need media in order to be on the wiiki. I have always thought it said custom tracks which never had an download.... Just add the download part and I think it should be fine. So this rule is only for custom tracks which never was finished.
--Wexos (Talk | Contribs) – CT/MK8 Wiki Admin 10:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It was a wrong edit by me in 2012 when I restructured the page. I think, I would delete the image+video part of the sentences, but by accident I deleted the download part.

-- Wiimm (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

About "unofficial updates"

I dislike all the unofficial updates. The info box at top right doesn't inform about the most current version. But this is the sense for the box.

I think about the following rule:

• An unofficial update can be claimed only by an original author (and then we follow his wish).

Otherwise old tracks of authors, that gone, will never get an real update and the info box is never updated.

-- Wiimm (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

For clearness: I like the updates, but I don't like the name "unofficial" in conjunction with not updating the info box. -- Wiimm (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This contradicts the fifth rule of the Published Works Policy:
If you are editing another author's work, first contact the author of the original content. If he officially allows you to edit his work, do so and release it as update. If the author claims he will do an update himself, give him a reasonable amount of time to do so. If the author disagrees with your edit, you can still edit the content and post it as an update, but you must leave a download link to the last official version of the original creator on the page, too.
We already edited many pages that leave the unofficial updates only in the version history.
—Atlas (talk) – CT/MK8 Wiki Admin 16:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Late answer, But I was very busy in the last days (Now I have holidays)

We have to distinguish 2 things: Netiquette and Info-System using a Wiki. At the beginning of the Wiiki, the rules split into these 2 parts to reflect it.

Netiquette/Etiquette

The rules of this kind describes, how the people of the community with interact. This can't be hard rules, because everyone have the freedom to to it in another way. Another way is, that no one can claim any rights of a remade track of Nintendo. THis is different for real custom tracks.

In general I like the rules of of asking and waiting.

Info-System (Wiki)

The general intention of a Wiki is, that everyone can edit every page to update information. And in my opinion, the CT-Wiiki must follow this intention. So no one is the owner of a page, but in the special case of our wikis, I'll like to give authors of tracks, fonts, software,... additional rights. And as result of this, all updates has a right to be noticed in our wiki, even if not following our Netiquette.

Unofficial Updates

The differentiation between official and unofficial updates is ok. The workflow is essential

• (A) An updater adds his update to history and info box. The the author(s) have a chance, to downgrade the update as unofficial.
• (B) An updater adds his update only to the history. The the author(s) have a chance, to mark the update as official later.

I prefer clearly variant (A) for different reasons:

• There are many authors, that are not interested into their tracks any longer. So step 2 of (B) will never happen the the list of unofficial updates becomes longer and longer.
• With (B), the moderation part of the Wiikis grows, because the mods have to manage old unofficial updated (raise them to official) and to edit not allowed official updates).
• The moderator don't know, if a updates is allowed by the authors.
• (A) has no real disadvantage against (B), except some hours/days the unofficial update has the unwanted status of official.

-- Wiimm (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Mistakes

It should be “but have never had any download link,”, not “but never had any download link,”. Enjoy Funky Kong dancing and peace! (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it is a "mistake" if "have" was already used within the same sentence. --KantoEpic (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I still think you should add it because it’s grammatically more correct, but if you don’t want to, you don’t have to. --Unsigned comment by AlmostTWD98 (talk).

This

# If videos on a user page are privated or deleted, it is up to their user to remove them or not.

should be changed to this

# If videos on a user page are privated or deleted, it is up to their user whether to remove them or not.

or this

# If videos on a user page are privated or deleted, it is up to their user to remove them.

. Enjoy Funky Kong dancing and peace! 02:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It is fine the way it is. Also, those spoilers are just annoying and not good for anything. Krummers(#1936) (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)