Forum:General proposals/Archive 2

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Gallery page?

With the way the character gallery is being cluttered with Pics of the Day, I think there should a gallery page either for all of SSB4 or for each character article. That is, if we're not going to cut them after SSB4's eventual release. Magiciandude (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2013 (EDT)

If you mean having separate gallery pages, I don't see why this is necessary, as the galleries on the articles are fine. Scr7(talk · contribs) 16:27, 24 September 2013 (EDT)

At the least, maybe have a show/hide option to not clutter the page with images. Magiciandude (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2013 (EDT)

Character professionals categories

Should the categories of character professionals be split into professionals of game-specific characters? Scr7(talk · contribs) 12:32, 30 September 2013 (EDT)

This was supposed to be done at some point and never ended up happening. Toomai Glittershine The Pan-Galactic 13:30, 30 September 2013 (EDT)

Was there a discussion about it? Scr7(talk · contribs) 13:44, 30 September 2013 (EDT)

Here I think. Toomai Glittershine The Brass 13:46, 30 September 2013 (EDT)

I will support this proposal. Awesome Cardinal 2000 16:55, 30 September 2013 (EDT)

Bump. I support as well for splitting the character professionals categories to make this specific. Dots The Achiever 16:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)

Professionals

Should there be professionals categories for PM characters? Scr7(talk · contribs) 04:23, 30 November 2013 (EST)

Maybe at some point, but I don't know about how you'd define that right now. Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 09:13, 30 November 2013 (EST)

With PM having a tournament scene as active as Melee and Brawl's, plus every character in the game having a sizable amount of players (due to every character aimed at being tournament viable), I don't see why they shouldn't be created shortly. Scr7(talk · contribs) 09:24, 30 November 2013 (EST)

Saying PM has as big of a scene as Melee and Brawl is an exaggeration, when it's still very much a side event and does not have its own tournies. Omega Tyrant 09:33, 30 November 2013 (EST)

Bump I guess. Scr7(talk · contribs) 18:13, 21 January 2014 (EST)

Project M tournaments, I feel, is just a niche compared to Melee and Brawl tournaments. I don't know how much we must extend Project M's coverage in this wiki. I mean, Brawl- and Balanced Brawl both have competitive merit as well. Green Mario 21:31, 21 January 2014 (EST)

PM has had a far more notable tournament scene than the other brawl mods recently, it was even included as one of the games at Apex 2014 and many tournament series (KTAR, Pound, etc.) have added PM to the list of events in their most recent respective tournaments. Scr7(talk · contribs) 01:35, 25 January 2014 (EST)

At Apex 2014, PM had significantly more entrants than Brawl. Not really a niche. Same goes for all of the tournaments I've been to, though they were just locals. Ryxis (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2014 (EST)

Bumping this. PM's scene definitely isn't nearly as big as Melee's, but I'm sure many people agree that it's on par with Brawl's. Any objections to making these categories? Scr7(talk · contribs) 15:34, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

I'll make these categories tomorrow if no one objects. Scr7(talk · contribs) 17:29, 1 May 2014 (EDT)

Assist Trophy Template

I was thinking about adding "Console of Origin" and "Most Recent Appearance" to the {{AssistTrophy}} template. These are 2 pieces of info that are commonplace to have on character pages, and having it on the Assist Trophy pages would be nice. What do you think? ChuckNorris 14:01, 6 January 2014 (EST)

Bump. ChuckNorris 09:29, 7 January 2014 (EST)

Bump again. ChuckNorris 10:21, 8 January 2014 (EST)

Support I don't see why not. Scr7(talk · contribs) 18:13, 21 January 2014 (EST)

I'll go update it. ChuckNorris 10:01, 28 January 2014 (EST)

History of the competitive Smash scene

I noticed that while the wiki has information on the history of individual characters and tier lists, it doesn't have any article on the competitive scene as a whole. In an effort to increase the wiki's coverage of the competitive scene, I propose creating an article called "History of the competitive Smash scene" that covers in detail the major events and phenomena of Smash's competitive scene from Smash 64's release up to today. We already have an article called History of the Midwest Smash Scene (that hasn't been updated in over seven years). Some ideas I have include: covering things such as the nature of tournaments, major tournaments hosted (such as MLG, Apex or Revival of Melee, metagame changes, dominant players at the time, big events (such as the creation of Smashboards, release of the SSBPD and the MLG bracket splitting incident, and more "broader" types of events, such as Melee''s decline after Brawl was released, the advancement of technology used at tournaments, or Project M's rapid increase in popularity. There could be more types of things there as well. However, it would be difficult to organize this properly, determine what gets included, and find information to include (especially before Brawl), and the page would likely be extremely large. The article could be divided by game, or into "time periods" (such as The "First Golden Age of Melee", etc.). Please give me your suggestions below. Awesome Cardinal 2000 22:11, 15 January 2014 (EST)

Bump. Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:51, 19 January 2014 (EST)

Support This seems like a really good idea. People who are new to competitive play (like me) or are interested in competitive play would probably want to find out the origins of it. I also like the idea of each section being a different time period of professional play, that would probably be the simplest way of organizing the article. That's all I have to say. 70.15.29.127 19:02, 19 January 2014 (EST)

I'm not sure if the history will be coherent (since it takes place in different parts of the world), but I would like to see a blueprint of the thing before I support it. I have no clue about the competitive scene, so giving it a brief overview can be helpful for those that want to learn more. Green Mario 17:58, 21 January 2014 (EST)

It seems kinda tricky to do in my opinion. The earliest start of competitive play that I know was Tournament Go. in Melee competitive play, while Smash 64 competitive play may have came later. Its nice to have a history of things but like you said, its either going to be for separate sections of each Smash game's history (which could be confusing for readers) or by chronological means (I prefer this method). Dots (talk) The Saxaphone 18:08, 21 January 2014 (EST)

This seems like a nice idea, especially listing major metagame changes and events, though since major events and incidents at tournaments are already listed on their respective pages, it would be slightly redundant to list them on a separate page in addition to where one would expect to find it more (the tournament's respective page). I don't have too much to say about this atm. Scr7(talk · contribs) 18:13, 21 January 2014 (EST)

Tournaments are a big part of the Smash scene's history, and if an event was really big it should be mentioned in the article. There should be at least some way to integrate major tournaments in the article. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:54, 24 January 2014 (EST)

"

AI Intelligence Reorganization

Artificial intelligence is a really messy list. We can reorganize it as I did in the sandbox: by subsections of each character. I've made a suggestion in the talk page, but I've gotten no response; I don't want this page to be cluttered up, but I also don't want to make major changes without some consent from users.

What I don't want is this page to remain in that state. There's even a ruleset within the page, so the reorganization should make things more self-explanatory rather than complicate them. I am willing to do the work once people O.K. it. Green Mario 18:02, 21 January 2014 (EST)

Support That example in the sandbox looks great, and the character-specific flaws listed on the current article seem to be in no particular order (other than being listed in conjunction with each other), making it pretty inconsistent. Scr7(talk · contribs) 18:13, 21 January 2014 (EST)

Partially Support. I want different pages for AI, such as Mario (SSBB)/AI or such. If we can't do that, then whatever, support, cuz I like what I'm seeing in the sandbox.Qwerty the lord 15:07, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

Competitive namespace

The smasher namespace keeps a boundary between the competitive scene and information directly about the games and how they're played. This is good, in my opinion. It sets a line between how we've interacted with the game and the game itself. So, why are crews out in the mainspace? We have individual players in their own namespace, but groups of players are in the mainspace? In addition, why are tournaments in the mainspace? I feel that there should be a new namespace for all things competitive. It would have crews, smashers, and tournaments, but not competitive techniques, as these are in the game, not outside of it like players, crew, and tournaments are. Ryxis (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2014 (EST) Don't think anyone saw this, so bump. Ryxis (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2014 (EST)

This is really late, but I support doing this in some way per what you said. Scr7(talk · contribs) 15:34, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

Removing Trivia

Many wikis have taken this step already, I feel that a lot of the "information" in trivias is kindof pointless (e.g. "link's green team's color is his default skin") and a lot of other information can end up being incorporated into the article itself. For example, "The wind that Whispy Woods produces is strong enough that it can blow characters off the two lower soft platforms, which can be used for spamming Taunt cancels in Smash 64", this could be said in the main information about the stage, not needing a spot in trivia. Another example is on the pitfall page, where there's only one phrase under trivia saying "If Wario strikes a buried Pitfall while riding on his Wario Bike (and is not wheelieing or taunting), he will be sent flying for an instant KO. This is due to how Wario is considered grounded despite being unable to be buried or plunged, and so he feels the full force of the planted Pitfall's fixed knockback value of a ludicrous 300 (designed for a long bury time)." This can easily be mentioned in the section talking about the damage, or can be mentioned in the Wario page itself.

A lot of trivia is just unneeded and has nothing to do with smash. On the Elec Man page, the one line of trivia is "Elec Man is Keiji Inafune's favorite Robot Master from the first game, because he was the first robot he ever designed.", this has no significance to Smash Bros. and hardly to Mega man. A lot of times Trivia takes away from the article itself to where it could be condensed further. The article for the SSB page, for example, looks extremely thin and skinny at parts yet it's an article for a game. The Characters section has only one line of text and some saving grace from a table and two thumbnails, yet over half of the trivia talks about characters and can be included in that particular section. The rest can even be included in other sections or is unneeded.

So, to help keep the articles on topic and full of content without adding unnecessary sections for scanty or unneeded information, I say we remove trivia sections and stop adding them, and incorporate current trivia into articles where it can be. Nullatrum • ノラトラーン - Talk • タック 13:50, 6 June 2014 (EDT)

Strong Oppose The Trivia section is needed in case there's interesting info that can't go in the main section. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is a never lover boy 14:10, 6 June 2014 (EDT)

This isn't on the table. We have a trivia policy, and trivia sections you think are too large can be tagged. There's no need to remove trivia sections entirely. Miles (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2014 (EDT)

Don't you feel like most of the information in trivia can be said somewhere in the article itself though? And whatever doesn't fit can probably also be incorporated into the article, anything left over probably wasn't needed in the first place, it just seems like a lack of information when so many things are put at the bottom of an article because people would find it easier to mark it as trivia than try to enhance the main article. Nullatrum • ノラトラーン - Talk • タック 14:42, 6 June 2014 (EDT)

"Trivia should only go under a trivia section if it doesn't belong in any other category of data within the article."

Quoted from SW:TRIVIA. How is this not sufficient as a rule? Miles (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2014 (EDT)

Most of the trivia here breaks that rule, though. I can already see a lot of pages that can be revamped with most of the trivia moved to the article itself Nullatrum • ノラトラーン - Talk • タック 14:55, 6 June 2014 (EDT)

There's nothing wrong with incorporating trivia content into the main article, so long as you aren't doing just because you have a personal distaste for trivia sections. If the content is relevant enough to merit inclusion in the article but doesn't belong in a main section of the article, a trivia section is a completely appropriate place to put it. Miles (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2014 (EDT)

Okay, sorry if I came off as rude or abrasive, I just personally think Trivia sections aren't the best for wiki articles but I see how it's used here and understand now. I hope you can see some of my points though and I still do think a lot can be changed, but I'll probably just stay away from editing trivia for now due to my biases on the matter haha. Hopefully I didn't get off on the wrong foot or anything like that. Nullatrum • ノラトラーン - Talk • タック 15:08, 6 June 2014 (EDT)

No harm done. Just wanted to make sure the status of trivia on this wiki was clarified, that's all. Miles (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2014 (EDT)

Character page overhauls

So, the character descriptions are a mess. There is no set standard what so ever for the character descriptions, which allows for short personality descriptions like the one on Sonic to massive summaries of games on character pages like Snake. It'd be a lot better to establish a standard so that the character descriptions don't get too in depth about stuff and so that there's a guideline for all the character pages to follow.

Personal suggestion:

• Mention the debuting game of the character and the major games that have defined or redefined the character in ways relevant to their appearance, personality, or abilities with respect to the Smash games. Summaries on a character's game franchise are unnecessary for our scope.
• Mention basic personality traits and appearances of the character, but don't go to in depth about those. Personality should mention their key defining traits while the appearances shouldn't go into specifics. We have images of the characters for a reason.
• Mention any iconic traits of the character, such as Sonic's super speed, Samus' hand cannon, or even Wolf's rivalry with Fox. Major character relationships are iconic traits.

Thoughts and/or suggestions? MegaTron1XD 22:42, 14 June 2014 (EDT)

As co-writer of this proposal, I support this proposal.

And while we're at it, can we get this forum to be placed on the "Participate" sidebar? It sure is hard to find...

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 22:57, 14 June 2014 (EDT)

Support Awesome Cardinal 2000 08:46, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

Missing/Limited Origin sub-template

What with all the new enemies for smash run, and later assist trophies and other minor characters, loads of pages are being created with no origin section and a plain old stub-template. I'm just thinking... would it be a good idea to have a separate template for a missing/incomplete origin section? Or would it be too short lived? ScoreCounter 09:31, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

Items Section's on SSB Game Pages (per Byllant)

Byllant has designed some quality tables that document each of the items in each SSB game. I quite like the idea, and his tables look good and match the style of the rest of the page (see this edit). As these pages are meant to be comprehensive, I find that such an addition is quite welcome. Miles has previously reverted these edits because "Items are an optional component of the game." I do not find this to be a legitimate argument, as we could just as easily not cover the Subspace Emissary on the Brawl page under that standard. Regardless of their use in competitive play, or their modular nature, items are indeed coded as a major part of the games, and as such should be covered in a comprehensive dossier. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 10:08, 11 July 2014 (EDT)

To clarify, I only said that their significance was more ambiguous relative to characters and stages. I'm not averse to having an item table on the game pages. That said, if we do so, we need a significantly more compact layout than Byllant's design, since there are many more items than characters or stages which are already listed in similar tables. Miles (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2014 (EDT)

Demo, Merchandise, and Interview pages

Team Lightning Super Smash Bros. diecast car, boxed.

The above diecast car, unboxed.

Separated into three points for convenience.

• OK, so the main one I would want to make is a demos page, since we've had three for Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS, one for Super Smash Bros. for Wii U (Likely to get one or two more for this one as well), two or so for Brawl, and two for Melee. I think the page itself would be a nice way to article the differences from them to release and just about their general features (a lot of these demos are now unavailable so it's gonna be a bit harder to do the page now than, say, back when SmashFest was going on, but hindsight is 20/20), I really don't know why we have a page for them already.
• As for merchandise, there isn't a ton that I know about, but I think there's a decent amount for a page (especially since I know there's more than this), there's the Smash Sticker, Button, and Choice cards from Smashfest and the invitational, respectively, the UK pre-order shirt and wristband, amiibos of course, and the little toy car that was on the Smash Bros. page (Seen to the right). I think there is more though, but I'm not really sure where I saw them.....
• Finally, for an Interviews page, I'm not feeling all too strongly about, but a friend wanted me to recommend it. Basically it'd be a collection of interviews of the Super Smash Bros. series (From important people, not just any interview willy-nilly that mentions Smash Bros.), while it seems like a good idea on paper, it seems like it'd be a lot of work and might require multiple pages (e.g. Interviews (1999-2004), Interviews (2005-2009), etc. I don't know what exact ranges they'd be though), the pay-off of this though, is having a source that's right at are finger tips for articles, a more "complete" feel to the wiki, and an easy way to track beta elements.

So, what do you think? Do these pages deserve articles? I think the most worthy is the top one, but that's just me. I wanted to bring them up here before making articles on them, since it seems odd that we don't have an article yet on any of these, and there may be a good reason for that. Laikue (talk|contribs) 14:51, 17 October 2014 (EDT)

Merchandise, definitely. Demos, potentially. Interviews, definitely not. Miles (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2014 (EDT)

Merchandise and demos are all right, because they are important to the Smash community. Interviews, however, shouldn't get their own article(s). They don't seem that important to me, and are anyways unneeded and unnecessary. Rtzxy Smashing! 15:09, 17 October 2014 (EDT)

Like I said, I wasn't feeling strongly about an interviews page, I've already started collecting info on different merchandise and demos though. Laikue (talk|contribs) 15:14, 17 October 2014 (EDT)

You can continue collecting info for merchandise and demos, but not interviews. Rtzxy Smashing! 15:17, 17 October 2014 (EDT)

If we make a merchandise article, I can add the Smash Bros. keyring that was given away at EGX to it, if we are adding all of those Smashfest giveaway items. They were also giving away some weird black boxes with the game's logos on it at the same place (maybe a cartridge holder?), but I sadly wasn't able to get one. Toast ltimatum 16:21, 17 October 2014 (EDT)

That would be great! If you could get some pictures of them, I'm compiling a page on my sandbox which, for right now, is just a compilation of different pieces of merchandise. It would be really helpful if you could edit the page with the items once you get pictures of them. (I myself am working on getting pictures of a few other things.) Laikue (talk|contribs) 16:28, 17 October 2014 (EDT)

Glossary

I've been developing a glossary for Smashwiki for some time now, and I'd like to see it finally get somewhere. I realize it isn't necessarily a policy or guideline, so I was thinking of adding it to the "Help" pages, but still, I'd like some feedback on it: Is it good enough, where does it fit on the wiki, what it would take to get it places. --HavocReaper48 20:01, 23 January 2015 (EST)

As the original progenitor of this idea, I suggest [[SmashWiki:Glossary]] should be a help page, and approve of its current state. Toomai Glittershine The Incomperable 21:18, 23 January 2015 (EST)

I feel like that this is a pretty neat terms dictionary. I would personally agree on having this. Dots (talk) The Gangnum Style 00:23, 24 January 2015 (EST)

Franchise (Universe) pages all unorganized

All Franchise (Universe) pages are unorganized. When talking about what each franchise has in each Smash game, they are never globally organized. Some have Trophies before Music, some have Common Enemies before Stages, Mii Costumes are placed randomly, etc. I thought it would be a good idea to establish to some kind of guideline for each page. Maybe we can follow the in-game trophy organization: Characters > Items > Assists > Enemies > Stages > Misc. GmanSir (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2016 (EST)

If they are not uniform, then they need to be fixed. I would say the order should go like this: Characters > Assists > Items > Enemies > Stages > Music > Trophies > Misc. To me, this seems like the most rational order. John PK SMAAAASH!! 17:11, 8 January 2016 (EST)

Where should Mii Costumes go? After trophies or earlier? Also, does it matter at all that the templates at the bottom of the pages are in a different order, or could we try to make the page match the order of said templates?? GmanSir (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2016 (EST)

Everything should be matched and consistent. I don't really know where to put the Mii Costumes. We should ask the others for their input and then implement the changes. John PK SMAAAASH!! 14:06, 9 January 2016 (EST)

This might seem crazy...

I think the IRC should be entirely replaced by Discord. The main reasoning for one to shoot this down would most likely be "why?" or "unnecessary.". However, there are several solid reasons as to why I think this should be done. I am very well aware that IRC is the traditional, most accepted form of communication outside of talk pages on most wikis. But simply put: Discord does it better, easier, and is more user friendly in my opinion. This is a video game wiki, and having general or off topic discussion related to games on Discord is precisely what it's designed for. The fact that it has such an intuitive channel system makes it so certain topics can be sorted in different channels. It doesn't need a client side download since it's just a website and, as emphasized before, is more user friendly. I could come up with different examples to convey why this is a good proposal but I'll leave it at this for now. I'd appreciate any wiki staff to create a discord for SmashWiki and see how it goes. If people show up there to converse then the IRC's existence is somewhat irrelevant. RobSir zx 00:15, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

-_- Strong Oppose I can't access discord at school, because of the firewalls. I can access the IRC however, because I have an app that lets me do so. Making the chat Discord would prevent me from using it at all while I am at school. Also, Safari on iPad. It reloads a page every 10 seconds. DekZek 11:20, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

"An app that lets me do so".

Well ok then. MegaTron1 12:35, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Would one need to create an account to use it? Why don't we remove Special:WebChat then? -- Ethan(Discussion) 11:25, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

See below. MegaTron1 12:35, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

...What? Absolutely not. Serpent King 11:39, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Very meaningful contribution to the discussion, I'm sure. MegaTron1 12:35, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Oppose I would support this....but there is nothing wrong with our current system whatsoever. To top it off, you also have to create an account on Discord and I think you have to be invited or something like that. Bottom line is, moving to Discord will create more problems than it'll solve. Disaster Flare (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

You don't have to create an account, and you can get into the channel with just a link. I don't know where you're getting this information from. There's nothing really wrong with IRC as is, I'll give you that. MegaTron1 12:35, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

NO IRC is a very easy, free, and useful way to interact. Discord being nothing new to the table that's actually needed. We are fine. Penro 12:23, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

I mean, there are people (such as myself) who have no access to the IRC, but that's what WebChat is for. So really, I don't see a need for change. Aidan, the Wandering Dragon Warrior 12:26, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Discord is just as easy to access, honestly. I don't see what your point is besides the lack of need to change. MegaTron1 12:35, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Lack of need to change. Exactly. Penro 12:40, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Discord brings with it the complete chat history and instant-displays of images and videos (which you can disable), while also allowing you to create separate chat rooms for each server. This would have been hella useful back when the IRC area led to conflicts and DANK MEME wars, but from what I gather, just about all of you are boring as hell good users that don't start conflicts. MegaTron1 12:45, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Ok, ok. Nobody panic. If a lot of people are clearly against this idea, how about a discord for the wiki on the side to see how it is. The IRC can stay. When I have ample time I plan to make some solidified arguments to prove my point. Mega made a few already. RobSir zx 13:36, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

No. There is no need to do this, period. There is nothing wrong with our current system whatsoever. I stand corrected about what I said about account creation and stuff, but there is no need to make a change at all if there's nothing that calls for said change. That's how the wiki's always functioned. Disaster Flare (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Opposition. Why fix what isn't broken, especially when it's far from being broken? BaconMaster 15:43, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

No no no no no no no no no. Dots (talk) The Beagle 15:50, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

The oppose reasons here are bad. Legitimate reasons were brought up on why Discord would be better, and all of you opposing are just saying "whats wrong with IRC", "no need", or even just "no". Actually refute the points brought up in Discord's favor, sticking to something inferior for the sake of tradition/familiarity is holding yourself back in the face of progress. Omega Tyrant 17:05, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

I agree with you 100%. Some of this discussion almost seems like political arguing. Just black and white, reasoning not given. Everyone is jumping to conclusions and dismissing this because they probably don't know much about Discord, although I could be wrong. Regardless, let me say something here: If bringing up new ideas and proposals should only be done if something needs "fixed" and not for the sake of better change (even if the benefits are minuscule in your own opinion) is against the policies or rules here then that should be plainly stated somewhere. Otherwise, I don't have any clue as to why even the admins responded the way they did. It was just a simple suggestion, don't throw up pitchforks. RobSir zx 17:53, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

We aren't throwing pitchforks; we're simply saying we don't like the idea. Penro 18:00, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

By my understanding, the current culture of our IRC channel (loose shenanigans with relaxed structure) does not translate well to what Discord is. There wouldn't be funny name changes, joke kicks, bot interaction, etc. I think that's the true reason people don't like the idea. Toomai Glittershine The Sharp 18:19, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Or better yet we are not comfortable to change considering that we been using IRC as our interaction site for years. Dots (talk) The SNES 18:48, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Appeal to tradition

"We don't want change" is an awful reason to oppose something that's potentially for the better of everyone. Come up with actual reasons on why sticking to IRC would be better. Omega Tyrant 19:48, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

The only comfortable change that I would probably want is if this channel switched over to the Fastlizard server but bleh, it didn't go through. Dots (talk) The Belmont 19:54, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Alright. I don't want Discord just because it's new. Likewise, I would like to think that most of you don't want to keep the IRC just because of nostalgia. I looked into the IRC. I looked into and also actively use Discord because of how, simply put, amazing it is (when people are active, anyway). If some of you could look deeper into it or even find a channel to join then come back and tell what you thought, that'd be great. If you think it would be pointless and still prefer the IRC, cool. Looks like the general consensus is that this proposal isn't going to happen at the moment. So I'll leave it at that. RobSir zx 20:00, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Adding "Tournaments and/or "Smashers" to the sidebar

This is a rather simplistic and self-explanatory proposal. The specifics can be discussed, as I really have no opinion on what exactly to add to the sidebar. All I know is that competitive play to some extent should be referenced in navigation. I have brought this up already here but it was kinda forgotten, so consider this a bump of sorts. RobSir zx 23:04, 17 June 2016 (EDT)

Adding PAL tier standing to Template:Infobox Character.

Yes.

(There really shouldn't be any opposition to this.)

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 01:42, 21 June 2016 (EDT)

Agree completely. I suggested it a while back but it got shot down for some reason. However, it would only really be relevant on Melee pages, but that's the only place it would need to be anyway. While we're at it, a Japanese tier list position for the Smash 64 characters would be nice too. John PK SMAAAASH!! 22:48, 21 June 2016 (EDT)

Bump. John PK SMAAAASH!! 10:25, 1 July 2016 (EDT)

SUPPORT and bump —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poultry (talk • contribs) 17:16, September 7, 2016 (EST)

This proposal was already accepted. Dots (talk) The Planet 19:22, 7 September 2016 (EDT)

Creating a general competitive page creation style guideline page

Looking around at tournament pages on the wiki, I've noticed some inconsistencies that could be avoided if general and specific guidelines were put out defining how these pages should be created. I felt like Miles' ideas Here were some good topics that could be built upon (just including this as a point of information). I have some more specific positions on them, but those can be discussed later. (The title might be oddly stated, my bad) Diamond444 (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

What else apart from noting specific characters used in a tournament would go in the page? —S+ Tier (List) | 15:10, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Take a look at Miles' ideas. That's the reason why I put the link there. There are probably more things, but they would be debated after the proposal is passed. Diamond444 (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Support Per Serpent's talk page. Also, we could add how to properly write a smasher article (seriously, add results, people) and tournament pages as well. Penro 15:29, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Support Also, results, results, results. That way credit goes where it's due. —S+ Tier (List) | 02:51, 25 April 2017 (EDT)

It should be mentioned that we do have this. Thing is, the scope is centered only on the Smasher articles. Serpent King 20:33, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Adding Success/Failure conds. to Event Match infoboxes

Today I came up with the idea of displaying event match conditions for success and failure in their infoboxes. At the moment, for pretty much all of our event match articles, the success/failure conditions are buried in the body text. We already have this list, which does kinda explain success conditions, but says almost nothing about failure conditions, and any wiki visitor would have to do a bit of clicking to find this list.

I would propose modifying the {{Infobox Event}} template so that the success and failure conditions of each event match can be put into their respective infoboxes. If this proposal passes, I am prepared to make all the changes myself if desired. Black Vulpine (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2017 (EDT)

Dead neutral. While it would be convenient to have this in our infobox, I feel like too many event matches are won just by winning the match and lost just by losing it. Serpent King 01:14, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Adding this to this page here, since my original page has dropped off the main list for some unknown reason. Black Vulpine (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Bumpity-bump. Black Vulpine (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

Neutral, leaning toward oppose. While this would be a nice convenient thing to have, it's superfluous to have it for every single event per Serpent King. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 18:19, 2 July 2017 (EDT)

As long as there's traffic to this page, I want to call attention to this proposal as well. Remember, if it passes, I will be happy to do all the work myself. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the Internets go! :3 08:34, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

Tech data category

I'm thinking that maybe we should have a category for technical data, containing subcategories by character, as a way of organising technical pages all into one place. The current method for finding tech data is to flick from fighter page to fighter page, and from game to game looking for the right page in the movesets list, which can be inefficient and annoying to do. Obviously, someone would have to go around adding the correct category to each page, but I would be happy to do it myself if no one else wants to. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 11:13, 30 July 2017 (EDT)

If no one's going to respond to this, should I just do it? Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 18:22, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

Starting a proposal and then going through with it without consensus is against the rules. I'd recommend advertising this on Discord where people will easily see it. Disaster Flare (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

Do you mean the moveset subpages? Since those are already linked by a nav template, it wouldn't be a bad idea to make the nav template categorize pages as many others do. Miles (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

I agree with Miles here. If we want to make it really distinctive, maybe something like Category: <fighter> attacks (<game>)? Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 18:49, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

I was thinking something along the lines of Category:Attacks, containing subcategories of Category:Attacks <fighter>, then 5 subcategories for each game, but maybe we could just compound it to Category:Attacks having subcategories of Category:Attacks <fighter> (<game>). My only concern is that may be a bit messy having all those subcategories on one category page. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 18:55, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

We already have categories such as Category:Down tilts and Category:Up special moves; the top-level category contains the general pages, while the per-game subcategories contain the technical data subpages. There aren't categories for grouping technical data subpages by character, but they're all linked by the navigation templates already, and having both isn't strictly necessary. Does that cover what you think there's a problem with? Toomai Glittershine The Quiet 06:37, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

I just don't think it's particularly neat or organized, and could be improved if the by character/by game data was collected all under one big technical attack data category. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 06:40, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

Non-bracketed redirects

Ok, I tried doing something like this a while back, but it was promptly halted by Disaster Flare, but I really think we should have non-bracketed redirects to pages like Mario (SSB4), where "Mario SSB4" would redirect to the page. I'm aware of SW:NOT, but I think it's worth noting that many other wikis, such as Bulbapedia, do do this, and it is kinda inconvenient at times to search for things like this, especially since with some articles, such as the Mario (SSB4) one, the correct article is not the first one to come up in the search results, and it being the first thing in search results was an argument Disaster Flare gave for not having the redirects. I really think it would be a good idea to have them. Ultimately, us not having them makes our wiki less user friendly, and probably makes it look bad in comparison to others. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 14:00, 28 August 2017 (EDT)

I personally think it's fine as it is, and sure while it would make it more user friendly, I don't think it will kill someone to have to search for it a bit after putting "Mario (SSB4)" in the search bar. Even if someone is a bit lazier than most, they can just go to the "Mario" page and hit one of the fighter info links up above. F0rZ3r0F0r (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

Official Power Ranking Policy/Style Guide

This is an issue that's been bothering me for a while now. Every power rankings page seems to take a different approach at it's style and format. I'd like to propose a universal style/format guide that all Power Rankings should follow.
The format itself is on my sandbox page.

The most important things are:

• Having a link to whatever group/company/people that make the rankings (ex: Regional Facebook group)
• Adding an accompanying PR image and/or video above the rankings itself (These should always be hosted externally)
• Honorable mentions or panelists should always be below the rankings and shouldn't warrant a new section (ex: Michigan's May 2016 rankings)
• There should be no citations in the section name (ex: some of the earlier SoCal Melee PRs)
• There shouldn't be any "current rankings" or "past rankings" sections as it's somewhat redundant and anyone can easily deduce that the top most rankings are the current ones. (ex: Georgia Power Rankings)

I'd really like to see this become an official format policy, but I'd also like to hear some thoughts on this. This would fix a lot of the inconsistencies between rankings. -Pokebub (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2018 (EST)

Fine by me. Serpent  King 15:40, 9 January 2018 (EST)

Help Desk Overhaul

A recent forum creation brought to my attention an issue we have on the site. Simply put: I believe the current help desk system we have is inefficient and needlessly resource-heavy. The current system, from what I understand, is that a user who has a question will create an entire forum dedicated to asking 1 question. Ignoring for a moment the fact that this results in a bunch of inactive forums that will never be deleted due to archive purposes, this seems like a long way out of your way to have to go to have to ask a simple question. But of course, a more pressing issue is the surplus of inactive forums that are building up on the wiki, many of which have just 2 or 3 posts in them answering the question. This is a problem considering that archive space isn't free, and entire new forums being created takes up more room than the method I am about to propose. Finally, and this is not a flaw with the help desk itself, the help desk isn't exactly easy to find. The "help" option on the subnavigation bar redirects you to a completely different page, which on it has a link to the help desk. I think there should be an easily locatable like on the "participate" section of the subnav bar clearly named "help desk", or "questions", or something along those lines which redirects you directly to the help desk. This will make it much easier to find, and will therefore be more helpful for new users.

Now for my proposed redesign: I think the help desk forum should function like an ordinary forum, rather than a means of creating an entirely separate forum for the sake of one question. That is, I believe it should be designed more like a talk page, where questions can be asked via creating a new section, titled with the question (and additional info can be provided underneath as usual). I believe this design would work better for 3 reasons:

• Firstly, I think this will be much more user friendly, as being forced to create a new page could be quite intimidating to a new user.
• Secondly, it will be a more efficient method of conducting question-and-answers, in the sense that it will function like an ordinary talk page, making it quick and easy to use, unlike the current "Create a new forum" technique
• Finally, it will be less taxing on archive-space, as a single section on a forum/talk page does not need to take up much room at all, especially if it is a simple question that requires a simple answer.

Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 16:49, 12 January 2018 (EST)

I agree that our current helpdesk system is a bit unorthodox, but...honestly most people go to admin talk pages with questions and I don't see that changing any time soon. Serpent  King 17:21, 12 January 2018 (EST)

Ok, I kind of see what you are saying, but I strongly disagree with your mentality. That statement is highly unreliable. It is impossible to measure the number of people who would benefit from a new help desk, as you cannot count the number of people who need help but don't ask, since they don't know how. Many new users and IPs may not think to/realize that they can use admin talk pages to ask questions as well. Finally, effectively saying "our system isn't very good, but let's not fix it because users can find a way around it", does not really seem like a great argument against this change. If there is something on our site that needs improving, I feel it should be improved, even if there is a workaround that users can figure out, as we should never require users to find workarounds for features on our site that simply don't work very well. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 17:38, 12 January 2018 (EST)

I would think that we have to make decisions based on current trends. In the 8 months I’ve been here, I’ve only seen 3 of these kind of forums being created, including the one you just linked. Many new users do seem to realise that they can ask an admin for help, and given how little time anyone spends in the forums, I see little need to fix a system that hardly ever gets used. “But Black,” you may ask me, “I literally just said that creating an entirely new page can be daunting for a new user. That will contribute to the lack of activity on this forum, won’t it?” Yes, it probably does. However, it’s precisely because of that that I would rather just go leave messages on an admin’s talk page, and in fact, this new system that you propose is really no different to that. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 18:28, 12 January 2018 (EST)

Inclusion of ssf2 pages

This is just me, but I think there should be some pages on ssf2. All I think there really needs to be on the wiki is:

• A main page for the game
• A page for each character
• A page for each item and stage that doesn't appear in an official smash game
• A page based on the competitive scene and a few top players

The idea for this is from the inclusion of Project M in the wiki. I don't think any games like ssbc (smash bros crusade) or rivals of aether should be included because they aren't well known and don't have any direct relation with any smash bros characters, respectively.

Ahem. Disaster Flare (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

The reason we cover Project M is because of the sheer size of the competitive scene rivalling that of Melee's. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 12:10, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

I know, but we still acknowledge other fan games such as Melee SD and Brawl +\-, so I don't see a reason not to include a page, or at least minor recognition to the game. UltraNessDX (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

Because those are popular mods (or, at the very least, popular enough to warrant a page). If you really want wiki pages for SSF2, you should really do some research on the internet. Aidan, the College-Bound Rurouni 17:11, 24 April 2018 (EDT)