User talk:Monsieur Crow/SmashWiki:Neutral Point of View

Uncontested assertations

I disagree with the "Avoid stating facts as opinions" section. To take your example, Meta Knight is not objectively the best character in Brawl, so we shouldn't explicitly say "Meta Knight is the best" in an article, but we can say that overwhelming consensus indicates such. It's an important distinction to make and prevents users from pushing the rule as easily. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 23:05, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

I get what you're saying. I guess the old wording is more applicable to Wikipedia over SmashWiki, so I tried to change it to the best of my ability. I still think we should keep the clause, but I will admit I could've gotten more in-depth. Is it better now or nah?

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 23:26, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

I can accept that. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 20:15, 30 June 2017 (EDT)

Word choice

Can we put something in here about overly-flowery language? It bugs me when I see "X character has gotten incredible results at tournaments" - it's too dramatic and not so incredible when all of the top tiers are described as such. Likewise, when buffs are described as "blessings" it just comes off as weird wording that doesn't fit the context of a wiki about a video game. John HUAH! 14:57, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

I do agree some pages have excessively flowery language, and I did consider trying to include a number of rulings similar to Wikipedia's guidelines on weasel words, puffery, etc., but I feel that ultimately, most of it should apply to SmashWiki:Manual of Style, not so much NPoV. It'll likely be my next project after this.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 15:12, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

We run into the same problem we had last time. People will replace "incredible" with "great" and call it neutral language. Flipping words around like that and using less "strong" words does not make it neutral. Serpent King 15:16, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

I feel that's going to be a pitfall if you use any "positive" or "negative" modifiers. Even if we use arguably weaker words like "good" instead of "incredible", or "poor" instead of "terrible", it still can indicate a non-neutral viewpoint. However, we obviously cannot outright ban such modifier words, since it would make SmashWiki a helluva lot harder to edit.

To that end, NPoV should not be viewed as a style guide, and this is one of my biggest problems with the current Neutral Tone Guide; it should be viewed as a writing guide. Simply saying a character has either "awful rolls" or "bad rolls" is not acceptable; saying a character has "bad rolls because they have significant ending lag and X character lacks fast moves that can create safe options after a roll" is perfectly acceptable. That said, saying a character has "awful rolls because..." would be unacceptable, but not from an NPoV stance. Dig it?

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 15:23, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

Sort of, but to a point. I think that "worst in the game" situations should have stronger descriptors than "slightly bad, but still usable" situations. Serpent King 15:37, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

In response to some of the feelings above, I have preliminarily started working on a Words to Watch proposal that would be added onto our Manual of Style. Thoughts?

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 23:37, 29 June 2017 (EDT)