Forum:Articles on games...

Forums: Index → Watercooler → Articles on games...

It's come to my attention that we have articles on games that have been lingering here for a while and need to be eliminated. Examples: Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Star Fox: Assault. To be honest, these articles, in terms of giving information, are useless. If a character has a move that comes from a game, then that's what should be mentioned in said character's article. If a character appears in Brawl or Melee as a trophy, then the article is thus useless and should not have ever existed. We've been over this with trophy articles (surprisingly, some of them are still here).

Since that (what I said in parentheses) is true, I also propose that all trophies be merged into one article. Trophies, stickers, and games do not merit their own articles. This is why we have "list" pages. For some reason, there is a list page... and still, trophies have articles. This needs to be fixed. If we can go through with this, the Wiki will be less of a pig sty. I told OmegaTyrant this and he suggested to me that I ask for the opinions of the community, so here I am, with the forum. Go! BNK ^[E|T|C] 03:29, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Stickers don't need articles. Trophies that are only trophies don't need articles, but if they are also something else (like a stage element), then they can stay. Trophies Do Certain game articles need to go, but important ones can stay. Dr. Pain 99 Talk 03:37, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I partially agree with you, in that we have too many articles about games. However, games like Kirby and the Amazing Mirror, which have references from Smash, should definitly be kept. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:47, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

More people have to give their opinion on this. We have to set a criteria for game articles, as well as deciding if trophies deserve entire articles and if songs from SSB do as well. Omega Tyrant 03:44, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't really see a need for those articles.--MegaTron1XD 03:49, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. BNK ^[E|T|C] 03:55, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, here's my take on this. Trophies and stickers don't need their own articles for the sake of existing as trophies, stickers or both, since all the information needed on trophies and stickers is present in the trophy and sticker list articles. However, if there is a character or thing that is of significance for other reasons, Roy Campbell, for example, it should have its own article. On these articles, extensive information that doesn't relate to Smash Bros shouldn't be included, because it's not relevant and can be found elsewhere on the internet. If said character or thing also happens to exist as a trophy or sticker, this should be mentioned in its article and a trophy description, if any, included, because that information is relevant.

Songs, with the exception of maybe the main themes of each of the three Smash games, don't need their own articles either, since all the information needed on songs is on the song list articles. However, these articles are poorly organised and badly need a cleanup, in my opinion.

Game articles should stay or go depending on their significance in the Smash Bros games. For example, Super Mario 64 has contributed quite a few different features to the series, including an item, a stage, a number of moves and animations, and, arguably, the metal character fights during classic mode. However, a lot of the article, like the information about its plot, critical reception, camera system and the like are irrelevant and have no reason to exist on the page. Star Fox Assault, on the other hand, has influenced next to nothing and, in my opinion, really isn't worthy of having its own article here. In my opinion, game articles need to be judged in terms of the number, variety and uniqueness of the contributions they have made to the Smash Bros series. This is because:

• Number - a game that has contributed too few features to Smash Bros will have an article that is too small.
• Variety - a game that has contributed features relevant only to something very specific can be covered in the articles that cover those specific things. For example, if a game contributes only to one character's moveset, the relevant information on that game can be included in the character's article.
• Uniqueness - a game that contains many features present in Smash Bros, which are also present in other games, isn't of any significance. For example, Mario Party 5 has the characters Mario, Luigi, Peach and Bowser, and Boo (who appears on the Luigi's Mansion stage), but this doesn't make it significant, because Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser and Boo also appear in a lot of other, more significant games.

Obviously everyone has a different opinion with regards to the importance of game articles, so each game article page should probably be thoroughly discussed before deleting. That's all for now, folks. Mako Shark (talk) 07:40, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oh also, I agree that games that make references to Smash do deserve their own articles. Mako Shark (talk) 07:41, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Here goes:

1. I agree with Mako's idea on game articles. Games who have big contributions (i.e. DKC was the basis for many movement frames of DK and Diddy, a few attacks, some trophies, stickers, music, items, a couple of stages, even taunts...) should stay. (you're talking to the DKC expert here :D)
2. Stickers definitely don't need articles.
3. Really only the main themes of SSB deserve entire articles- DK Rap is not necessary (in more ways than one, lol)
4. Trophies could get there own articles, I mean, if the character also appeared as a sticker I guess that's notable enough. As well on expanding how exactly to get them. --HavocReaper'48 03:43, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Most things that exist just as trophies and stickers will have all their relevant info covered on the trophy and sticker list pages, so I don't reckon they need their own articles, unless they also appear elsewhere in the game. If someone tried to search for say, Midna, we might create a little redirect page that links the reader to both the sticker and the trophy list pages. On the other hand, some people might consider Midna notable enough for her own article anyway. Mako Shark (talk) 07:03, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

It's time I give my opinion on this. I completely agree with what you said about games and music articles. As for trophies, they should not get their own article unless they appear as elsewhere in SSB other than a sticker. In your example, Midna should not get her own article. It doesn't matter if she is an important character in LoZ:TP, she has no relevance to SSB other than a trophy. We are not the Nintendo Wiki, we are the Smash Wiki. We should not have these detailed articles on characters like Midna who only appear as trophies and the only information we need on them is their trophy information, which is already covered in the List of Trophies page. As such, all of these trophy articles are quite pointless to the Smash Wiki. In conclusion, all game articles should be deleted unless they have SSB references in them or have a substantial amount of contributions to SSB and all trophy articles should be deleted unless the character with the trophy has an appearance in SSB other than a sticker. Omega Tyrant 07:20, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, except I think it might be a good idea to turn the trophy and sticker article pages into redirects or tiny disambiguation pages, rather than completely eradicating them. So, if someone searches for one of those things, they get pointed toward the information that we do have. Mako Shark (talk) 07:30, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that. Again, this is an encyclopedia about Smash Bros., not an encyclopedia on every Nintendo character. If someone wants to learn about Midna, they should go to the Zelda Wiki and search her there, not search her here. As such, we do not need hundreds of pointless redirects to the List of Trophies and List of Stickers pages so we can accommodate for those that are too lazy to type in "List of Trophies" in the search bar. Omega Tyrant 08:44, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

I reckon the wiki will be more user-friendly with the redirects; I'm happy to create all of them myself. All of them put together would occupy less space than a single image. Mako Shark (talk) 10:19, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, the redirects would be pointless and unnecessary. Is making a redirect for all these trophies to a single page be of any use? Simply, they will not and as I said before, we do not need hundreds of pointless and unnecessary redirects to a single page. Omega Tyrant 10:27, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Because, say a new reader is interested in finding out how to get the Dark Samus Trophy, and they search for Dark Samus. They'd be redirected to the trophies page and would be able to find the information they need, rather than to the search results page, which almost never shows the trophy list page near the top of the search results. It can't hurt, can it? Mako Shark (talk) 14:16, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

No, Dark Samus isn't mentioned much elsewhere in the Wiki since she isn't relevant to the Wiki and the List of Trophies page would turn up at the top of the search page. Besides, how much readers are going to search one of these characters just for their trophy information? The answer is, not much. While these redirect pages don't take up much space, they are still wasting space. They're unnecessary and rather impractical. No one should waste their time making all of these redirect pages you proposed just so a few lazy readers don't have to type in "List of Trophies" or find the page through the search option. On this Wiki, we do not allow unnecessary redirects and all of these redirects would be what I consider unnecessary. As such, no one should create hundreds of unnecessary and pointless redirects to a single page to accommodate the search needs of the very few. Omega Tyrant 14:58, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that stickers and other games do not merit an article, but I very strongly disagree with the proposal that trophies should be deleted.
Stickers do not merit their own article because there isn't enough for it to merit it's own page. All they could contain is an image, the values from in-game, and the game of origin- all something that can easily be fit into a table. Not worth creating 700 nearly-empty articles.
Other games should not have their own page because they're not relevant to the wiki. This isn't VideoGameWiki, it's SmashWiki- we document things that appear in Super Smash Bros. The only time another game is mentioned is in a trophy description or on the stage list, but that's about it. Super Mario Sunshine doesn't appear except by name in Smash. Delfino Plaza does, but the game it came from does not. Therefore it's not something we should document here.
However, I do not agree with deleting trophies, and many of the arguments on this page against it do not make sense.

• "On these articles, extensive information that doesn't relate to Smash Bros shouldn't be included" How is it not relevant to Smash Bros when the trophy and its entire description appear in the game? Nobody cares if Mario was blamed for Baby Bowser's actions like the Super Mario Sunshine article will tell you, but people do care about reading paragraphs that actually appear in Smash. There are also trophies that are about the Smash games themselves-- how is this information not relevant?
• "can be found elsewhere on the internet." You mean kind of like every bit of information on any wiki ever? If you wanted to avoid redundancy by editing a wiki, you didn't succeed.
• "games that make references to Smash do deserve their own articles." How do external references to the game warrant an article on the wiki? Out of all the things you've deemed relevant and irrelevant, this is the only one that doesn't even appear in Smash. 0/10.
• "Games who have big contributions should stay." How does this make an external game worth keeping? If many of DK's/Diddy's movements were borrowed from DKC, how is this not something that can be noted on DK's/Diddy's pages? Furthermore, how are these external sources more relevant to the wiki than something that's actually in Smash?
• "If someone wants to learn about Midna, they should go to the Zelda Wiki and search her there, not search her here." Poor argument. You might as well just redirect the homepage to google.com. Midna appears in Smash-- even if only a trophy-- and is therefore fair game to be searched on a wiki about things in Smash. Even if the wiki decides to delete all trophy pages, redirects should absolutely be made/kept. And by the way, if you weren't too lazy to actually type in List of trophies, you'd have known that it doesn't link to 65% of the trophies in the game.
• "Is making a redirect for all these trophies to a single page be of any use?" Um... yes. Duh?
• "they are still wasting space." Don't pretend like this is an issue. Wikia has a ton of space for us to use, and I plan on actually, you know, using it. Which is the whole purpose. If you are so upset about the few lost kB, as Mako pointed out, go argue against personal images-- not functional redirects.
• "we do not allow unnecessary redirects and all of these redirects would be what I consider unnecessary." That's nice. Every single one of these redirects is a reasonable search request, and is therefore something we should have a redirect for.

One of the few logical points in the above discussion is that everything a trophy page contains could be feasibly listed in a single page. However, consider these facts: the recommended archive size for a talkpage is 32kb. The list of stickers page isn't even double that-- not an issue. But what is an issue is the ridiculous size of the trophy pages: list of ssbm trophies is 3.61 times the recommended archive size, and the ssbb trophies page is 6.7 times larger than is recommended. Pages of this size can actually break browsers for people-- on GWW we've protected staff members' talkpages because they got so large they broke for many users. These articles are subject to the same concerns, and a very simple way for us to avoid this is to split the information to multiple pages. List of SSBM/SSBB trophies will be what it is intended to be-- an actual list of trophies-- and each trophy page will contain the information that it is actually about. SmashWiki is a Smash encyclopedia, and for some reason that escapes me you all want to stop documenting information contained in the game. Lol? Shadowcrest 23:23, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

As for the redirects, Mako Shark and I did came up with a compromise off Wiki where trophies that had common names such as Samus (Dark Suit) would have redirects, but your argument for them defeats mine. To clarify, I treat this Wiki as my project and as such, I'm trying to complete it utilising the least amount of space possible, which means not including anything that is likely to not get used and that I do not see as necessary. It is in my nature to deem these redirects as not needed, despite space not being an actual issue. But I can't counter your argument for them so I'll move one.

But when it comes to trophy articles, there are only three things that is needed on this Wiki about each trophy, the trophy's description that appears ingame, the trophy's picture, and a note explaining how the trophy is obtained, which is easily covered on the list of trophy page. As such, individual articles for characters that appear just as trophies are unnecessary and we should not have them when the information is easily covered in an existing article. You are right however about the list of trophy pages being far too large. A simple solution for this, instead of creating an individual article for every single trophy, we can instead split the list of trophies article into separate articles based on series, such as having a "List of SSBB Kirby Series Trophies", which are already sub sections in the List of SSBB Trophies article. Such a solution will turn over 400 articles into 22 articles, none of which will be overly large. The same can be done to the List of SSBM Trophies article and the List of Stickers article.

On a final note, you also convinced me that all games article must go, including those that made major contributions and those with references to Smash as this information can be covered in existing articles. Omega Tyrant 19:55, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Okay a few things.

"On these articles, extensive information that doesn't relate to Smash Bros shouldn't be included" How is it not relevant to Smash Bros when the trophy and its entire description appear in the game? Nobody cares if Mario was blamed for Baby Bowser's actions like the Super Mario Sunshine article will tell you, but people do care about reading paragraphs that actually appear in Smash. There are also trophies that are about the Smash games themselves-- how is this information not relevant?

My definition of extensive information that doesn't relate to Smash Bros can be seen in the older version of Roy Campbell's article, which I was referring to. "The trophy and its entire description" don't appear in the game because Roy Campbell is not a trophy. I used it as an example of a character article that should exist, despite disagreeing that individual trophy articles should exist. So if Roy Campbell had a trophy, its description would appear on that page, but the article should only exist because Brawl includes him, not because Brawl has a trophy of him.

"can be found elsewhere on the internet." You mean kind of like every bit of information on any wiki ever? If you wanted to avoid redundancy by editing a wiki, you didn't succeed.

The original statement was "On these articles, extensive information that doesn't relate to Smash Bros shouldn't be included, because it's not relevant and can be found elsewhere on the internet." Please avoid chopping statements up if it distorts their meaning, and please try and be more clear and productive in your responses to statements.

"games that make references to Smash do deserve their own articles." How do external references to the game warrant an article on the wiki? Out of all the things you've deemed relevant and irrelevant, this is the only one that doesn't even appear in Smash. 0/10.

Information about other games' references to Smash are relevant because they document the influence that Smash has had on other games. For example, in Kirby and the Amazing Mirror, Master Hand and Crazy Hand appear as bosses, and an ability called "Smash" can be acquired, through which Kirby is able to use his Smash Bros moveset. It's arguable that the article for Kirby and the Amazing Mirror should be removed, and the information instead placed in Master Hand, Crazy Hand and Kirby's articles. Regardless, the information itself is important and should be kept somewhere on the wiki.

With regards to other game articles, the purpose of a game article is to group the information about that game's contributions to Smash. If the consensus is that the grouping of this information is not of encyclopaedic interest, then care should be taken to ensure that it is kept and placed in appropriate articles.

About trophies, if the trophy list page is too large for some browsers, it can be split into organised parts, either by universe or alphabetically. Having a tiny, individual page for each trophy is impractical when all its information can be grouped with other trophies and made more useful and accessible. Individual redirects should be made for the purpose of searches, I'm happy to do the job myself.

Mako Shark (talk) 23:24, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

I took nothing out of context. Your argument for removing the information was that it can be found elsewhere on the internet, which is a poor reason, and I pointed that out. Clear and productive response was clear and productive.

"Information about other games' references to Smash are relevant because they document the influence that Smash has had on other games." Why is it our job to document that? If we are keeping track of the legacy SSB/M/B have had, why don't we have lists of awards that the games have won, total sales, like and such as? So far our content is based off stuff in the game and the people who play it-- why are we documenting external things that do not affect Smash at all?

About trophies-- I'd be willing to accept splitting the lists into universes. I'd just leave the stickers in one list, though, because the page is small enough that it doesn't matter much. Shadowcrest 18:33, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was, information that doesn't relate to Smash Bros isn't relevant, and that it appears elsewhere on the internet, therefore it can be linked to or referenced instead of being included, for further reading. I wasn't trying to express the idea that information should be removed just because it can be found elsewhere.

With regards to games that Smash has influenced, a number of other people who play Smash and use this wiki find them interesting. I assume these people believe the information should stay, regardless of their disinterest in the awards and such that Smash has won. And so, the consensus is that the information in these articles is to be kept, whether as articles or in the articles of their respective characters - Master Hand, etc. If you disagree, by all means propose to remove the information entirely, but if I were you, I'd make sure the community agrees first. Mako Shark (talk) 14:01, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

So, before I put the consensus of the forum into action, is there anyone who opposes the consensus? Omega Tyrant 07:46, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Can you summarize the consensus first? It's hard to pick out. Toomai Glittershine 12:40, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

The consensus of the forum would be that articles about stickers and songs do not belong (which have been purged already). Game articles do not belong, regardless of how much they contributed to smash, since the relevant information can be covered elsewhere, whether it is on the character articles or as in BNK's proposal below, merging the relevant information into a series page. The consensus of this forum is also that characters that just appear as nothing more than a trophy do not merit their own article as the needed information is covered in the List of Trophies page. But as Salad pointed out, the two List of Trophies pages are far too large. So as I suggested, they will be split into each series, which Mako Shark and Salad agreed with while no one opposed the suggestion. So unless someone opposes this consensus, I'll work to purge the game articles except for those that have contributed significantly (as I'm going to give BNK's proposal some more time). I'll also split the two List of Trophies pages into each series and then work on purging the trophy articles. Omega Tyrant 13:13, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the game/trophy purge in general, but you should ignore it because I don't have a reason other than it's a huge change that will cut almost a quarter of our articles and provide users with even fewer things to do. Toomai Glittershine 15:06, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

@Toomai - There's never too little to be done. The general focus of the community at the moment is improving the quality of existing articles, and removing trophy articles helps direct us toward improving the quality of more useful and important content, so I don't think it's anything to worry over. Mako Shark (talk) 16:08, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Fewer things to do? I agree with OmegaTyrant in that trophies do not deserve their own articles because their information is covered on the list page. People went on to upload official artwork, etc. and the articles became mostly irrelevant information you can find at the character's respective Wiki. As for games, most need to be deleted while others should only be mentioned as trophies, moves, etc. come from them (as OT said, I proposed that said games be mentioned in universe articles). In short, we've gotten rid of sticker articles, but now we need to focus on getting rid of game and trophy articles. As far as trophies go, Jet the Hawk is an example of a completely unnecessary one.

Furthermore, articles like Toad are comprised mostly of unnecessary information (probably copied from the MarioWiki?). There is a Toad (move) article, which is entirely legitimate, but the article for the character himself is not necessary. That was what I'm trying to get the community to agree on. BNK ^[E|T|C] 22:39, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone alright with the idea of tagging unneeded trophy articles starting from now? Mako Shark (talk) 13:25, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would be, but I thought you were going to make them into redirects? Omega Tyrant 13:35, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, wait until the List of Trophies articles are fully split up. Omega Tyrant 13:36, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Mako Shark (talk) 13:36, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Good job on the trophy list articles so far. OT, is it alright if I start tagging game articles for deletion? BNK ^[E|T|C] 21:13, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Would it also be OK if I started tagging lone trophy articles like Toadsworth for deletion? BNK ^[E|T|C] 21:19, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Omega Tyrant 21:30, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Didn't we decide those should be redirected? Shadowcrest 21:35, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, then we will have to wait until Omega Tyrant has completed the task of separating the lists. I'll just start tagging the games instead. BNK ^[E|T|C] 21:43, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that: I'll tag game articles for deletion, and I'll try to make a "Game Origins" section for universe pages. Sound good? BNK ^[E|T|C] 21:46, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

The trophy articles should still be tagged as it will put them in the speedy delete category, which would make them easier for others to find and redirect.

Should the "trophy" and "sticker" categories be deleted, since they only contain elements that exist as both trophies/stickers and appear elsewhere? Mako Shark (talk) 13:27, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to the series specific categories, then they have been already getting deleted. If you're referring to categories SSBM and SSBB trophies, then they should be kept as they can go on any page with trophy information. As for sticker categories, they should be deleted. Omega Tyrant 13:36, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

What about the category "Trophies"? Keep or remove? Mako Shark (talk) 13:42, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Since we already have the SSBM and SSBB trophy categories, the catgory "Trophies" is not needed and will be deleted. Omega Tyrant 13:46, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

New proposal - Stopping the madness

We (well, Omega Tyrant) got rid of game articles with barely any or no relevance, but now it has come to my attention that a good percentage of this Wiki's mainspace articles are games. I propose that we merge all games of a series to one article or on the universe pages. For example, we could have an article called Paper Mario (series) and it will have sections describing Super Paper Mario, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, and Paper Mario and their relevance to the Super Smash Bros. series. I will need the community to agree with me on this movement, and I would also like all of you to help should you agree. BNK ^[E|T|C] 01:33, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Seems poorly designed and unlikely to be of use, especially when there is no series for pages to be contained in. A merge to a universe page could work, but then again, why are we documenting games that don't appear in the game anyway? Shadowcrest 23:23, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with merging with universe pages instead, but in response to your question: I'm not sure, I was suggesting that we merge games like Super Mario 64 to a series page (now a universe page) because the games category is ridiculously long and, to be honest, isn't needed. BNK ^[E|T|C] 00:06, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I just read your above wall, and I have to say I agree with you on the hand of other games. We should not document them, so now I ask what we should do with said game articles: Are we to delete them? I don't think they belong, but I was trying to find a way around conflict and proposed a merge. BNK ^[E|T|C] 00:15, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

The article count doesn't matter TOO much (stickers, member?), but these are games that contribute. Merge all games that have a mention into a page. So, MERGE.--MegaTron1XD 22:01, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we keep masterpieces? --HavocReaper'48 19:11, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HR48, we should keep the masterpieces. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 19:14, July 28, 2010 (UTC)