| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 285: |
Line 285: |
|
| |
|
| == The Skill parameter, again == | | == The Skill parameter, again == |
| {{proposal|passed|This proposal has majority support, and the opposition has failed to provide compelling arguments for keeping the Skill parameter.}} | | {{proposal}} |
|
| |
|
| Recently we changed our skill level terminology and introduced a new skill level between "top level and "high level" called "upper high level", to distinguish between the players that are truly a threat to win majors, and the rest of the top 100ish players, while drastically cutting down on the wiki's overuse of labelling players "top level" (or "top professional" as they were called before). However, where the line is drawn for "top level" has been controversial, with frequent edit wars over it and complaints from outside the wiki. With "skill level" being so subjective, there is no remotely universally agreeable answer for it, so no matter where we draw the line for our skill levels, trying to maintain them will continue to be a big headache, especially when people are so invested in seeing themselves, their friends, and their favorite players being called "top level" or whatever the most desirable skill level rating is. There is also the issue between "peak skill level" and "current skill level", where it's not immediately clear what the skill rating in the infobox is for, and trying to maintain them as separate infobox parameters would add another layer of complication with maintaining an already highly contentious infobox parameter. | | Recently we changed our skill level terminology and introduced a new skill level between "top level and "high level" called "upper high level", to distinguish between the players that are truly a threat to win majors, and the rest of the top 100ish players, while drastically cutting down on the wiki's overuse of labelling players "top level" (or "top professional" as they were called before). However, where the line is drawn for "top level" has been controversial, with frequent edit wars over it and complaints from outside the wiki. With "skill level" being so subjective, there is no remotely universally agreeable answer for it, so no matter where we draw the line for our skill levels, trying to maintain them will continue to be a big headache, especially when people are so invested in seeing themselves, their friends, and their favorite players being called "top level" or whatever the most desirable skill level rating is. There is also the issue between "peak skill level" and "current skill level", where it's not immediately clear what the skill rating in the infobox is for, and trying to maintain them as separate infobox parameters would add another layer of complication with maintaining an already highly contentious infobox parameter. |
| Line 301: |
Line 301: |
| :'''Oppose'''. I agree with what a lot of Tacho said about the skill level being a quick shorthand and I don't think the replacements would be nearly as useful or intuitive for readers, especially the "best tournament result" parameter. The vast majority of the debate right now is what is considered "Top level" and I think the parameter is useful enough that that we'd be better off attempting to change it's requirements to match the community's wider interpretation of the term rather than scrapping the whole thing. Something like a blanket top -number- on global PR = Top level I really don't see any issues with and is way easier to point to as objective. Could be top 50, 30, 10, 100, or whatever depending on the game, and could even change based on the year, ex. top 30 SSBBRank 2014 but only top 10 for 2023 -- the "backend" can be as convoluted as it needs to be so long as it makes the actual presentation good. The old requirement would still be used as a default if someone isn't ranked/hasn't been ranked yet. Only problem I could see with this is that the cutoff is arbitrary, but so is the term "top level" itself, and there has to be a cutoff somewhere. [[User:Levii|Levii]] ([[User talk:Levii|talk]]) 03:21, January 27, 2024 (EST) | | :'''Oppose'''. I agree with what a lot of Tacho said about the skill level being a quick shorthand and I don't think the replacements would be nearly as useful or intuitive for readers, especially the "best tournament result" parameter. The vast majority of the debate right now is what is considered "Top level" and I think the parameter is useful enough that that we'd be better off attempting to change it's requirements to match the community's wider interpretation of the term rather than scrapping the whole thing. Something like a blanket top -number- on global PR = Top level I really don't see any issues with and is way easier to point to as objective. Could be top 50, 30, 10, 100, or whatever depending on the game, and could even change based on the year, ex. top 30 SSBBRank 2014 but only top 10 for 2023 -- the "backend" can be as convoluted as it needs to be so long as it makes the actual presentation good. The old requirement would still be used as a default if someone isn't ranked/hasn't been ranked yet. Only problem I could see with this is that the cutoff is arbitrary, but so is the term "top level" itself, and there has to be a cutoff somewhere. [[User:Levii|Levii]] ([[User talk:Levii|talk]]) 03:21, January 27, 2024 (EST) |
| :'''Oppose'''. As much as the skill level parameter has been a headache, a controversial topic that causes multiple discourses I don't believe it should be completely axed. It is still somewhat a quick and easy indicator of sombody's skill at their peak. Is it possible for these new parameters to co-exist with the current skill one? Or maybe we should implement another new label "Botherline top level" to compromise anyone that's barely off but honestly idk at this point. [[File:Grand Dad.png|23x20px]] [[User:NaughtyPigMario|<span style="color: red;">'''NPM'''</span>]] [[User talk:NaughtyPigMario|''<span style="color: blue;">Morr!?</span>'']] [[File:NaughtyPigBoi.jpg|23x20px]] 06:21, January 27, 2024 (EST) | | :'''Oppose'''. As much as the skill level parameter has been a headache, a controversial topic that causes multiple discourses I don't believe it should be completely axed. It is still somewhat a quick and easy indicator of sombody's skill at their peak. Is it possible for these new parameters to co-exist with the current skill one? Or maybe we should implement another new label "Botherline top level" to compromise anyone that's barely off but honestly idk at this point. [[File:Grand Dad.png|23x20px]] [[User:NaughtyPigMario|<span style="color: red;">'''NPM'''</span>]] [[User talk:NaughtyPigMario|''<span style="color: blue;">Morr!?</span>'']] [[File:NaughtyPigBoi.jpg|23x20px]] 06:21, January 27, 2024 (EST) |
| ::SSBWiki has been pretty chaotic these days. With all that said I'm considering abstaining my vote for this proposal. It's not like my "opinions" are ever real or valid anyways. [[File:Grand Dad.png|23x20px]] [[User:NaughtyPigMario|<span style="color: red;">'''NPM'''</span>]] [[User talk:NaughtyPigMario|''<span style="color: blue;">Morr!?</span>'']] [[File:NaughtyPigBoi.jpg|23x20px]] 03:16, January 30, 2024 (EST)
| |
| ::@Tacho: | | ::@Tacho: |
|
| |
|
| Line 346: |
Line 345: |
| ::"''Or maybe we should implement another new label "Botherline top level" to compromise anyone that's barely off but honestly idk at this point.''" | | ::"''Or maybe we should implement another new label "Botherline top level" to compromise anyone that's barely off but honestly idk at this point.''" |
|
| |
|
| ::Adding another skill level, aside from muddling the terminology farther, doesn't address the problems that where the the "line" for each skill level is drawn is so subjective and that people are going to constantly push it to get rated as "top level", "borderline top level" isn't going to satisfy the people who having been causing these edit wars and making complaints over being labelled "upper high level". <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[File: TyranitarMS.png ]] 16:16, January 27, 2024 (EST) | | ::Adding another skill level, aside from muddling the terminology farther, doesn't address the problems that where the the "line" for each skill level is drawn is so subjective and that people are going to constantly push to get rated as "top level", "borderline top level" isn't going to satisfy the people who having been causing this edit wars and making complaints over being labelled "upper high level". <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[File: TyranitarMS.png ]] 16:16, January 27, 2024 (EST) |
| :::I can be convinced that the skill level parameter is arbitrary and has clear downsides. And, while I do think that we should attempt to reform it first, if that isn't going to happen, I'm fine with it going if there is a good replacement. I'm still not really in support of the best tournament result replacement, though. I'll list my main grievances with it.
| |
| | |
| :::Maintaining. Compared to the headache of maintaining people's skill levels, I truly think that maintaining people's best tournament result would be worse. I don't mean just the process of adding these to smasher pages initially, which in and of itself would be a herculean task, but maintaining it over time as new results come in. I could easily see situations where whichever result is added to the infobox just sticks there even if the player has gotten a better result since, due to editors not adding them when they should. I see this as bad as someone wrongfully changing a skill level or adding a character, with the added downside of not being able to be tracked in edits. Also, in many cases a player will have results which are very comparable, and it will essentially be to the editor's discretion to decide which one is best, even if it isn't "correct". Someone could then come and swap it to a different result because they think it's stronger. I see this as as arbitrary as skill levels, and I say this as one of the editors who adds smasher results. I can't imagine the headache if last month when I was going through about 6 months of Melee results I had to also check the smasher's best result and have a debate in my head every time.
| |
| | |
| :::Crowded infobox. I fear that listing someones best result, current ranking, and best ranking for multiple games (3+) would be too much information and could get really crowded to the point where it hurts readability.
| |
| | |
| :::Not indicative of someone's skill. It is true that most competitors will place around the same level over a set period. A competitor's best placement will then likely be an outlier and to an extent I see as meaningless information. Someone may usually place 97th, 65th, etc. at majors but if they go to enough they may eventually get a 13th, either due to bracket luck or simple overperformance. That 13th will stick on their infobox and affect how people perceive their skill.
| |
| | |
| :::The only way I see this paramter being an improvement over skill level if the best ranking parameter is also implemented is if someone is not ranked. Keeping the skill level parameter solves this issue. My current proposition is to change "Top level" to "Globally ranked", or something similar in MOST cases. The exception being that if someone is inarguably Top level according to the current guidelines but has never been globally ranked, they can stay Top level instead of Upper high (this is a very small number of people). This maintains the positives of the skill level paramater for those those who aren't ranked, from Low to Upper high, while avoiding the edit wars around Top level which began this in the first place. (I would also like to change "Skill" to "Peak Skill" on infoboxes since it's not really clear, as an aside.) [[User:Levii|Levii]] ([[User talk:Levii|talk]]) 16:26, January 28, 2024 (EST)
| |
| ::::"''Maintaining.''"
| |
| | |
| ::::This is incredibly simple though? Any new result has to be added to the player's tournament result table in the first place, you can easily take that time to replace the best result listing while doing that, not to mention that standout performances at majors generally get highlighted and so it's not something people will "forget" to do. Compare this to maintaining skill ratings, where aside from the constant edit warring, there is no clear time to "upgrade" a skill level (aside from a player winning a major outright).
| |
| | |
| ::::"''with the added downside of not being able to be tracked in edits.''"
| |
| | |
| ::::What? Edits to this parameter aren't going to be magically hidden in the edit history, they're "trackable" just as much as any other edit.
| |
| | |
| ::::"''Also, in many cases a player will have results which are very comparable, and it will essentially be to the editor's discretion to decide which one is best, even if it isn't "correct".''"
| |
| | |
| ::::People nitpicking about which supermajor win for a few top players was their best is far more preferable to deal with than people constantly bitching and moaning that they or their favorite player aren't labelled "top level" and edit warring us over it. Not to mention that if there are any serious arguments over which result was someone's best, we got the aid of the global ranking algos to give a strong objective basis, and even for tournaments that we don't, you still actually got objective points of arguments to use, whereas the lines of skill classification are inherently completely subjective with no concrete definition.
| |
| | |
| ::::"''Crowded infobox. I fear that listing someones best result, current ranking, and best ranking for multiple games (3+) would be too much information and could get really crowded to the point where it hurts readability.''"
| |
| | |
| ::::Each ranking and result listing only adds a single line or two in an organized manner, and players that played several Smash games at a high level are already going to have large infoboxes, not to mention that Wikipedia has articles with far larger infoboxes than we have without issue (hell the infobox on M2K's Wikipedia article is about as large as the one on his Smasher page despite Wikipedia not covering the indepth information we do). As long as the information isn't being displayed as a big blob of text (like having several "Other characters" does) and the information has merit, I see no issue here. The only thing I'm thinking is the infobox could be modified to have separate headers to separate character information, team information, and ranking/result information into distinct sections for better organization, like how Wikipedia organizes its infoboxes into separate sections.
| |
| | |
| ::::"''Not indicative of someone's skill.''"
| |
| | |
| ::::But that is indication of a player's peak skill? And as stated before and before, best ranking and best result '''''are meant to supplement each other''''', as there are many players that only use one of wouldn't represent the skill level of as well as having both together would. I also rather have some players with fluke major performances look slightly better in their infobox than have major winners that never got properly ranked like Etsuji in Brawl end up looking much worse, as having only best ranking would do.
| |
| | |
| ::::"''My current proposition is to change "Top level" to "Globally ranked", or something similar in MOST cases.''"
| |
| | |
| ::::This is completely redundant with the proposed best ranking parameter, that will already show a player was "globally ranked", and how highly the player was actually ranked.
| |
| | |
| ::::"''The exception being that if someone is inarguably Top level according to the current guidelines but has never been globally ranked, they can stay Top level instead of Upper high (this is a very small number of people).''"
| |
| | |
| ::::This is just introducing inconsistency that is completely unacceptable, and it still is not going to solve the issue of people constantly trying to edit war over who should be labelled "top level" (or even "upper high level" or "high level" for players that were never globally ranked but still want their skill listing to present them as good as possible). <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[File: TyranitarMS.png ]] 19:58, January 28, 2024 (EST)
| |
| :::::What I mean by "not being able to by tracked in edits" is that if someone added a tournament result but didn't change the best tournament result parameter, and the parameter is now wrong, you can't see that it's wrong in the difference between revisions. Unlike if someone changed a skill level, which is an easy check and revert. Also, the whole point of listing "Globally ranked" would be so that it is redundant for ranked players but still a usable parameter for non-ranked players. I also don't see how it would be inconsistent. "Globally ranked" would supersede Top, Upper high, and even High level while they would still exist. So someone could still be any of those if they are not ranked, just "Globally ranked" goes first, which would naturally get rid of most Top level smashers, solving the bulk of the issue IMO. [[User:Levii|Levii]] ([[User talk:Levii|talk]]) 20:52, January 28, 2024 (EST)
| |
| ::::::People not updating skill levels when they actually need to be, or a player's current ranking, or a player's character usage, or anything else on their page is just as "untrackable" in that regard, that is not at all something unique with a best result parameter. And having complete redundancy in the infobox with a skill parameter that only uselessly says "Globally ranked" is what actually bloats an infobox, while having different sets of skill ratings across different Smasher pages (or even on the same Smasher page) depending on if the player was formally ranked or not '''is inconsistency''' (not to mention that keeping around the subjective-based skill parameter system in any capacity '''''is not addressing the problems I brought up here and many others have brought up within the Discord and outside the wiki'''''). <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[File: TyranitarMS.png ]] 19:47, January 29, 2024 (EST)
| |
| | |
| I believe our main issue right now is how to define "top level", and really I think the way the wiki looks at it is different than what the larger ''Smash'' community sees it.
| |
| | |
| At least from my perspective, when the community talks about "top level", it's not necessarily saying "that player's skill is top level" but rather "the player can compete successfully at the top level". That is why the community's range for top level seems to be rather lax compared to the wiki's range: anyone ever ranked in the top 50 can find continuous success at the highest level. On the other hand, the wiki needs to make a distinction between those that can compete successfully at the highest level and those that are the best of the best, and we cannot equate #50's skill to #1's skill (eg for LumiRank, Aaron v acola). That is why we have it separated into "upper high level" -- any player who does well at majors consistently -- and "top level" -- any player that can or comes close to winning majors.
| |
| | |
| I think that's the issue right there: the wiki and the community look at the term "top level" in different perspectives. In that regard I don't believe it's possible to satisfy any side. If we stick with what the community thinks, it removes the separation between the really good players and the best players, which I believe is crucial to list on the wiki so newcomers can have a quick reference to who are the best players of a game. On the other hand, our current system clearly does not align with the rest of the community. For example, just this month alone we had players complain about Ouch!? skill level being changed to "upper high"; an IP arguing why Professor Pro should be top level (although the reasoning isn't necessarily correct, it's still another example as to what the general audience thinks "top level" means); and Stuart, the person behind the LumiRank algorithm, criticizing how our current system does not properly represent what the community thinks. Our explanations don't seem to work as well because it's not how the community sees "top level", and we cannot change how the community thinks.
| |
| | |
| I also don't believe a skill metric is necessarily useful in determining how good a player is especially when you can theoretically separate it into so many sections: even among major winners there's still a noticeable skill gap between players like Quidd and Bloom and players like MkLeo and acola, yet they are all grouped under "top level" just because they all won majors. With this in consideration, it's very possible that a player who just looks at the skill level will fail to capture the skill level difference because all four players were grouped under the same skill level. Even if we create a new parameter like "top top level" we still have to address the same issue in each skill level, and at that point it becomes too messy to deal with. In addition, for games with a much longer lifespan "top level" can also misleading. Can we really equate Ken's peak with Hungrybox's? Is peak PC Chris necessarily on the same skill level as peak moky? The skill level in context to the era a player was competing in is therefore lost.
| |
| | |
| One final thing, although in my opinion not as relevant, is that Liquipedia does not have a skill level parameter either. Of course, we are not Liquipedia, but the fact that they are still doing just fine indicates that skill level isn't necessarily something that is too important to list.
| |
| | |
| I remember a conversation I had with someone in the UltStats Discord in which they question whether the skill level parameter is even necessary if a player could just get that information from the data below, specifically rankings and placements. Funny enough, that general idea is basically what is being proposed by OT. I believe the "best historical ranking" parameter is better in giving context to a player's position at the peak of their game, while the "best tournament result" parameter allows those snubbed by the rankings to have their peak performances properly addressed. There are certainly issues with it and I understand everyone's concerns, but I believe this system, possibly after being refined a bit, is at least better than what we have right now, because right now not only is there no effective compromise between what the wiki needs to report versus what the community thinks, but a simple description like "top level" lacks so much context that it's also ineffective in really determining a player's skill level compared to the rest of the scene. [[User:Cookies and Creme|<span style="font-family: Georgia;color: black;">Cookies</span>]][[File:CnC Signature.png|20px]][[User talk:Cookies and Creme|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: black;">Creme</span>]] 20:38, January 27, 2024 (EST)
| |
| | |
| '''Support''' While I'm not sold on replacing the parameters with new ones, I think it's an improvement and I'm full supportive of removing the skill parameter. [[User:Wiifitkid|Wiifitkid]] ([[User talk:Wiifitkid|talk]]) 12:33, January 28, 2024 (EST)
| |
| | |
| '''Support''' The old skill framework was unworkable in all of its forms. I'm not enamored with the new proposal but it's a big step up. [[User:Stuart98|Stuart98]] ([[User talk:Stuart98|talk]]) 14:32, February 11, 2024 (EST)
| |
| | |
| '''Passive Support''' for either the new framework or scrapping entirely. I am personally ambivalent - on one hand, the current way it works is exceedingly subjective and is vulnerable to becoming outdated, and on the other, the skill evaluation entirely is incredibly subjective and arguably a bit unprofessional. If you think about it, results shoooould speak for themselves, especially with participation counts being accounted for? --[[File:PlagueSigImage.png|20px]][[User:Plague von Karma|<span style="color: #4952eb;">'''Plague'''</span>]][[User talk:Plague von Karma|<span style="color: #4952eb;">''' von Karma'''</span>]][[File:PlagueSigImage.png|20px]] 15:20, February 11, 2024 (EST)
| |
| | |
| '''Support''' It would be interesting to see how this turns out. Rankings/tournaments are more objective than just "high level" or the like. The only issue would be in regards to implementation (there's a lot of smasher pages, "best tournament" could be subjective, but still less so than skill level). It probably would be best to have some policy, such as where majors are favored unless there is a regional that clearly passes them, or something like that. [[User:Ninja1167|Ninja1167]] ([[User talk:Ninja1167|talk]]) 16:22, February 11, 2024 (EST)
| |
| | |
| '''Oppose''' I don't think this will solve our problems and will lead to a lot of subjective arguments in editing. The skill level is a straightforward way for casual readers to know the rough skill level of a player without having to know about tournaments, or how stacked the specific tournament was, so it should at least be kept in the infobox. Trying to determine what a player's best tournament run will be very subjective for a lot of players, and might lead to more arguments than before. Not only do we have to gauge something like if winning a superregional or a certain run at a major is more valuable, we will have to evaluate the best tournament run for several players for every single tournament we add. If a historical ranking or tournament is notable for a player, that can be mentioned in the introduction of the article. Working on the skill level parameter, like introducing borderline top level, would be a better approach. --[[User:Meester Tweester|Meester Tweester]] ([[User talk:Meester Tweester|talk]]) 08:55, February 13, 2024 (EST)
| |
| :So you're opposing because... "too subjective", even though the skill levels are entirely subjective on all facets? Have you actually read what I and Cookies wrote, or even paid attention to all the edit warring and complaints with the skill levels that we have to put up with? How do you quantify "top level" in any sort of objective way that won't have people perpetually edit warring, complaining, and trying to constantly push the line for it? And you seriously want to add '''''more''''' skill levels? You claim simple concepts like "best ranking" and "best result" would be too hard for casuals to grasp, yet introducing more and more cumbersome terminology with skill levels is doing anything but. Nevermind that labelling people "borderline top level" is not going to be doing a damn thing to satisfy the people who want to see themselves or their favorite players be labelled "top level".
| |
| | |
| :If you're going to try delaying this proposal when it's on the edge of passing, provide an argument against it that isn't self-contradictory. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[File: TyranitarMS.png ]] 12:09, February 13, 2024 (EST)
| |
| | |
| == HewDraw Remix mains ==
| |
| | |
| Possible entries for HDR mains like PM?
| |
| [[User:Zrksyd|Zrksyd]] ([[User talk:Zrksyd|talk]]) 02:20, July 10, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :That probably should need a proposal like Smash Remix. If there is enough consensus then the wiki can cover HDR contents. [[File:Grand Dad.png|23x20px]] [[User:NaughtyPigMario|<span style="color: red;">'''NPM'''</span>]] [[User talk:NaughtyPigMario|''<span style="color: blue;">Morr!?</span>'']] [[File:NaughtyPigBoi.jpg|23x20px]] 10:05, July 10, 2024 (EDT)
| |
Log in
