SmashWiki talk:Notability

Archive

1. 1

Here we go again

This is a closed discussion about an accepted proposed change on SmashWiki. It remains for archival purposes.

So it is clear to me that our current restrictions and messages for the notable players sections on character pages are just not working, so I have a new idea: instead of having people prove notability in the edit summary, why not have them do it right on the article. This would apply to all smashers listed on each character page, and it would have to be something like:

(on Fox (SSBM))

• Mango - Ranked 4th on the 2015 SSBMRank and known as one of the best Fox main in the world.

The idea here is to make it obvious to new contributors that this is what we want done, so hopefully they follow suit. Thoughts welcome. Serpent King 20:41, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

Support

1. Support. I think it's safe to say we're all getting really sick of this. There's always the possibility people will ignore this too, but I can foresee the amount ignoring policy being greatly reduced because of this. Disaster Flare (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
2. Support. Honestly, this is the way to separate facts from vanity. Aidan, the Spooky Dragon Warrior 20:49, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

   Yeah that's another thing: this will make it way easier to detect BS entries (like having a smash themed YT channel or something) Serpent King 20:50, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

3. Might as well; it would clarify the setup and criteria by a lot, although it most certainly won't stop people from adding "NoNamePlayer: Ranked #1 on the Nowheresville PR" and such. Still not a bad idea. Miles (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2016 (EDT)
4. Weak support. It won't stop people from adding them, but it will make it easier to identify pointless entries. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 18:26, 15 October 2016 (EDT)
5. Slight support. As others have stated, it likely won't stop people from continuing to add players who are not notable enough, but at the moment, it's better than nothing. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2016 (EDT)
6. Strong support. Very, very useful. (claps) Serps, this is the best piece of knowledge that could potentially be on this site. It even strengthens the information of what player notability on character pages does. This is knowledge at its fullest, and knowledge is power. -- Spooky Falcon (Haunted Mansion) 14:36, 21 October 2016 (EDT)

Oppose

1. I think this is the first time I ever write in this section, so... here I go. I oppose to this. There are some smashers I could add notability reasons for being on their character pages, due to my knowledge on their metagames (though without adding additional smashers to the character pages) and I feel it would be a great idea to keep novice users and IPs from adding smashers here and there. But when it comes to finding many other results and page sizes... I'm honestly not liking this... Not only the following applies me, but other users would have to not only search for notability on some smashers rather obscure and unknown to us. "So what if they're not notable in terms of results, we just erase them"? And what about the huge size of bits we're going to have to add? Apart from that, we would be making the page look crowded due to the possibly large number of reasons why the smashers deserve their notability on the character pages. Last but not least, we would be creating another problem, which is that the novice users and IPs that do want to add notability for each smasher, would do it in a lousy way. And I don't like that part of the story in all honesty...
   As a side note, a fair share of users know me for often commentating on ideas that could change the wiki, most of the time supporting them and sometimes being neutral. But this time I just had to oppose to it, because of the problems it would cause. So yeah... if you liked this idea, I'm sorry for opposing to it. I know probably no one will agree with me either.
   -- Merry Christ... I mean, Happy Halloween from BeepYou... (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

   I feel it would be a great idea to keep novice users and IPs from adding smashers here and there

   The idea isn't to keep users and IPs from adding them, it's to keep the BS smashers off.

   but other users would have to not only search for notability on some smashers rather obscure and unknown to us

   Which they are supposed to do anyway, plus obscure smashers are not supposed to be on the lists anyway

   So what if they're not notable in terms of results, we just erase them

   I mean yeah...if they fail the notability test then they get the boot.

   And what about the huge size of bits we're going to have to add? Apart from that, we would be making the page look crowded due to the possibly large number of reasons why the smashers deserve their notability on the character pages

   Not that big an issue, and I am not expecting every reason to be specified.

   Last but not least, we would be creating another problem, which is that the novice users and IPs that do want to add notability for each smasher, would do it in a lousy way

   They already do...but giving us crap smashers in these sections without proving their notability Serpent King 05:27, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

2. It probably won't help very much and it would be quite an undertaking to add summaries for every notable player. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 01:48, 15 October 2016 (EDT)

   Could you explain why you don't think it will help? The whole reason that it isn't getting done correctly now is because of ignorance of the policy. If all the other entries are the way we want them, other people will follow that lead. Serpent King 01:52, 15 October 2016 (EDT)

   I didn't think of it like that. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 18:26, 15 October 2016 (EDT)

Neutral

1. Mmm... I guess SK roasting me for being a whinner was well deserved. I talked to him after he wrote that, and he convinced me that most of the flaws I wrote about this proposal aren't that bad. So I suppose I am more neutral about it now. So like I said before, there are some smashers I could add notability reasons for being on their character pages, due to my knowledge on the SSB4 metagame (though without adding additional smashers to the character pages), and I feel it would be a great idea to keep novice users and IPs from adding smashers here and there. I still think, however, that while it would downsize the list of other character's notable player (which is actually something I am willing to see), some could stay if we talked about it. I guess Jamal, Hmm, Piledrivaaa and others would take some kind of place into the discussion, too... I also think that it would still increase the page's size moderately, but if that's the least of our concerns, then there's nothing I can really discuss about it.
   If I could John about what I wrote previously too, I blame my sleepy and grumpy nature at that moment...
   -- Merry Christ... I mean, Happy Halloween from BeepYou... (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2016 (EDT)
2. I feel it is unneeded Poultry(talk) the God-Slayer 07:05, 17 October 2016 (EDT)

   Er, care to explain why? This is supposed to be a debate. "I feel it is unneeded" doesn't tell us anything in a debate. If you don't have a solid reason why you feel that way, you shouldn't be voting in the first place. Disaster Flare (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2016 (EDT)

   The system we have now just requires one or two clicks, I think were okay using the system we have now Poultry(talk) the God-Slayer 16:13, 17 October 2016 (EDT)

   Except it doesn't work. Serpent King 20:51, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

Comments

Adding something to this, would it be good to include an immediate revert clause for any additional smasher (regardless of page/notability/whatever) who is not given a description? Serpent King 14:32, 16 October 2016 (EDT)

That'd be wise, that way if people come to us and ask why we're being "unfair", we can link them straight to that. Disaster Flare (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2016 (EDT)

Oh and of course, the smashers on the current lists would be exempt. Serpent King 14:39, 16 October 2016 (EDT)

Aight guys last chance to oppose this. Serpent King 15:36, 23 October 2016 (EDT)

Potential revision/addendum

This is a closed discussion about an accepted proposed change on SmashWiki. It remains for archival purposes.

I think in light of the three pages currently tagged for notability deletion-- Ubisoft, Facebook, and Choice Provisions-- I think that there needs to be additional clarity about this policy. It's clear that those pages are tagged for deletion of the standard English definition of "notability", i.e. they are not centrally relevant to the game and thus the wiki, but the text of this policy explicitly covers "notability" exclusively in the context of competitive smash. I believe that either (1) this page should continue to refer exclusively to competitive smash, and use of the notability deletion template should be used exclusively in that context, or (2) this page should be broadened to discuss the issue of general relevance to smash as well as the competitive smash scene, to reflect the seeming culture shift in how this policy is understood and approached by the community. If there is enough support for #2, I will try to submit a draft for consideration. – Emmett 18:13, 29 September 2018 (EDT)

Contain to competitive smash There is a clear difference between deciding if a website or company is notable to the smash series and deciding if a player is notable to competitive smash, so they should be debated differently as well. Serpent  King 19:27, 29 September 2018 (EDT)

Contain to competitive Smash. Per Serpent King. John HUAH! 17:06, 16 October 2018 (EDT)

Contain to competitive Smash. Also per Serpent King. Corrin Fan 17:40, 16 October 2018 (EDT)

Barring any opposing comments in the next day or two I'd like to move to accept this change, given it's been around unopposed for nearly a month. – Emmett 17:28, 22 October 2018 (EDT)

Revision to the "Most historically significant players" guidelines

This is a closed discussion about an accepted proposed change on SmashWiki. It remains for archival purposes. The closing administrator adds: "No opposition."

Something I've been thinking about is changing the time limit for when these sections can be added to newly released characters and then expanded, as I believe the current time limit of six months before the sections can be created and one year before their limit is expanded to ten players is too lenient. It has been over two years since Ultimate's DLC concluded, yet of the 12 DLC characters, only Joker, Min Min, and Steve even have more than five players, and none are at the ten player limit, while only Steve would threaten to hit that limit anytime soon. Additionally when observing these sections getting revised, I have repeatedly noticed how players that predominantly got their results pre-Covid are determined to not be historically significant and so are cut from these sections, even without necessarily having new players taking their spots, while players that were only playing a character for the first few months of Ultimate almost never stick after these revisions (with only extreme examples like MKLeo remaining in Ike's MHSP section). Seeing how the competitive history of Ultimate is shaping up, and how the userbase has appropriately embraced the higher standards these sections demanded after the initial hesitance when cutting these sections down, I want to better future proof for when the next Smash game (and its DLC) inevitably arrives by proposing the following revisions:

• "Most historically significant players" sections cannot be created until a year after the game is officially released in all major regions (or after the character's release for DLC), after which every character will have a default five player limit.

• These sections' player limit will be expanded to ten players two years after the game is officially released in all major regions (or after the character's release for DLC).

As a bonus, this change will also make that initial rush to create these sections easier to manage (especially if the next Smash game is even bigger than Ultimate). Let me know if you support or oppose this revision, and if you got anything more to add. Omega Tyrant 09:38, January 25, 2024 (EST)

Support. As one of the people who has been dealing with these since day 1 of the change, I think it's safe to say that this wouldn't really change much, but in turn makes it easier to manage and hopefully kill off some recency bias, especially amongst newer users. CookiesCreme 11:20, January 25, 2024 (EST)

Support. Yeah once again idk how much this will impact the future inclusions but sounds good to me I guess. NPM Morr!? 06:25, January 27, 2024 (EST)

Support - As I've said elsewhere, this will make these sections easier to maintain. Wiifitkid (talk) 12:32, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Support with revisions - I think the proposed time tables are too long, I think the sections should be created after six months (perhaps with only a three or four player limit?) and the player limit gradually expanded afterwards rather than being limited to two players for a full two years. Stuart98 (talk) 14:38, February 11, 2024 (EST)

I think you misread; after a year when the sections are opened up, it would be a limit of five players until the two year mark, not two players. As for doing "six months but a limit of three or four players", I would rather not still; seeing how few players from the very early meta actually stick around on these sections, and with how low sample and highly volatile early meta results are, it would be easier for everyone to wait a year for the meta to settle somewhat before creating these sections and debating which players have already established historical significance. Omega Tyrant 18:57, February 11, 2024 (EST)

Support per above, recency bias is very counter-intuitive when evaluating "historically significant" players. --Plague von Karma 15:17, February 11, 2024 (EST)

Support, It’s kinda redundant for it to be made when a character is just add or new game release so it makes sense. Thegameandwatch The Nerd 01:17, February 12, 2024 (EST)