I'm just here to ask, can we just say Marceline's Mom is deceased instead of presumably deceased. I'm aware she isn't confirmed to be dead, but how can she not be?
Firstly, she's a normal mortal human that lived 1000 years ago, if the War didn't kill her, old age certainly would have. Whilst I am aware there have been humans from 1000 years ago that made it into present day Ooo (e.g. Simon, Betty, Moe), but if there was a chance she somehow made it to the present like they did, there would have been an episode on it.
Adventure Time has ended and Marceline's Mom is not confirmed to be alive, so it's kind of obvious the creators don't want her to still be alive and for use to just except that she's dead.
Some people say it's speculation to assume she's dead, but for the reasons I've said above, it's realy more speculative to assume she isn't.
To keep the page as factual as possible, keeping her age as 'Unknown' is the best option since her death was never confirmed or denied. It would indeed be speculation to assume she's dead, the same as it would be to assume she's alive.
To be frank, I didn't even think of article histories. Rather, I focused on keeping any current contents under the real article name. If I may ask... What could be the right thing to do during a similar vandal onslaught in which I happen to be the only user around? (Assume I'm Schrödinger's User and I happen to have and don't have rollback/adminship rights.)
Nah man, you did good. Keep fighting the good fight.
Could anyone tell me what to do in order to avoid losing edit histories, please?
It can be tricky for non-admins. For some pages that are wrongly moved, admin can just rename it back, but for normal users this is forbidden sometimes (because "the page already exists"). And it would be better to edit on the moved page instead of the redirect page, because its history also goes with the article with new name.
I suggest that we can now protect all the pages with official names given from being renamed, so this can be avoided.(I don't know how to change such a status all in once for these thousands of pages, though. Perhaps there are scripts for this.)
Doesn't this kid have some fortnite to play or something?
I know staff and VSTF can protect Special:AllPages, but this prevents all pages from being renamed. Not sure if there's a way to pick and choose which ones get protected. Thinking we might need a bot to do it
Edit: after looking around, I think this tool might do the trick
Edit 2: tested it out on a few pages; looks like it works okay, except that it ignores the input reason and expiry time, defaulting to indefinite. Good thing about it is that it can also mass un-protect pages. I guess all we need now, if we decide to go forward with this, is a list of all the pages we want to protect.
I’m all for protecting these pages, these trolls and spammers are really annoying to deal with. If we can protect some if not all the pages than that would save us all a lot of trouble that way we would only have to really focus the new pages they create.
OK, say we protect all mainspace pages. Do we want to change Move protection of the pages to sysop-only or autoconfirmed only? Do we want to also protect the pages from being edited? Not a fan of this since this discourages new users from contributing (even though this ban will be temporary).
Let's think of the downsides of this. One small one is that the protection log will be spammed 1000s of times, making it hard to navigate through. Another might be that the pages that are currently protected will probably lose their protection once we decide to mass un-protect everything.
In my experience, protection can be only restricted to move page (by admin/auto-confirmed only) but the page is still editable. I think this may be favorable (or, does the tool you find can only protect page-editing?)
I feel like since this is a Wikia site, so fully protect for every articles is a violation of the wiki policy itself, but this doesn't mean we can't protect many pages from being renamed, because people can still edit the content inside.
I know I'm but an occasional editor with no idea about how daily adminship on this wiki is like, but... May I give an opinion? I feel that restricting move page tools so that only admins can change their names is a good way to fight against vandalism, at least to an extent. Granted, vandals can still edit article contents, but it'd be just a hassle that could be easily undone.
Hey, bell I don't know if you're up right now but I was really busy over the weekend and I didn't get a chance to edit. As you know I usually do at least 5 edits a day but since I didn't edit over the weekend I made up for it tonight. I just wanted to give you a bit of a heads up so when you wake up, you don't freak out that bmoisawsome is all over. Anyways thanks and have a good morning/ night!
There's an icon on the main page, and it goes to Issue 23. And it appears like related template is outdated since 2014-15. So I have to assume no one updates it anymore. Actually Template:News/Archive is like this too, and it remains the same since 2013.