Template talk:Significant events

"Not appropriate to structure this as such"

@Miles, if your reason for deletion is "Not appropriate to structure this as such," why didn't you instead offer your own alternative solution to fix the situation? If you feel that there's a better way, you should be working together with the user who made the template instead of immediately trying to get it deleted.

Honestly, when you instantly put a deletion tag on things like this without even bothering with another option, it reeks of you trying to get rid of content that you don't like with as little resistance as possible (especially given your historic biases against the competitive community, when SmashWiki has clearly decided that competitive content is allowed here). It also calls to mind deletionism, where people think that deleting content is the best mindset to run a wiki. If you're really editing in good faith, a deletion tag should not be the first thing that comes to your mind when you see something like this. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:40, December 7, 2020 (EST)

1. Competitive content shouldn't be in the mainspace whenever possible. We have multiple other established namespaces for it.
2. What goes on this template will, unavoidably, be subjective and open to endless disagreement and debate.
3. Putting something on this template would flavor readers' impressions of what is and isn't "signifcant", which is generally not our call to make.

There's several good reasons not to have this; pick your favorite. Miles (talk) 21:47, December 7, 2020 (EST)

1. Where in SmashWiki's policies does it say that competitive content shouldn't be in the mainspace whenever possible? Also what does "whenever possible" mean? Do you think it means "delete if it's not a smasher, tournament, or team?" I don't understand why you're going back to arguments that have been thoroughly decomposed numerous times for you already.

2. SmashWiki is a representation of the Smash community, and SW:NPOV makes it pretty clear that covering subjective material is allowed as long as it's of significance to the Smash community.

3. Again, we have an entire policy dedicated to this at SW:NOTABLE. We already have categories like Category:VIP players. SmashWiki users have, for the past ten years, used talk pages to discuss about how significant things are, and there's no indication that this template would create the problems that you insist it will. Again, going back to deletionism, if people argue that there are events missing, articles for those events should be created, instead of deleting what's already there. SmashWiki is not complete. Awesome Cardinal 2000 22:08, December 7, 2020 (EST)

Pretty much entirely agree with Ac2k. I can't say I really agree with any of the points Miles made. I don't see any issue with overlap of competitive articles within the mainspace and no policies seem to suggest otherwise. As far as determining what is notable or not, we can easily make an amendment to the Notability policy determining what is and isn't impactful to the scene. I'd definitely argue that these three events in particular have deeply impacted the scene. Señor Mexicano (talk) 22:16, December 7, 2020 (EST)

I agree with Ac2k as well. S3AHAWK The Festive One 22:49, December 7, 2020 (EST)

Well first I'll get my opinion out of the way: This template groups together all the articles I don't want us to have because their content is covered just fine on the relevant pages. Grouping them on their own pages causes information duplication, and by their very nature they'll be constant targets - I don't really mean vandalism targets because we can use protection for that, I mean "pages that make it a lot easier for people to give the wiki negative publicity".

Now the template itself: I think it is naturally much harder to define what makes an "event" notable compared to a player or tournament. Players have results that can be compared to some reasonable baselines; tournaments have things like number of entrants or prize money. But events by their very nature cannot be compared to each other in such a way, which is how we would decide which ones are notable and which are not. In addition, I do not think any event classified as "ongoing" can have its notability determined fairly without a large amount of recency bias; it would have to be considered "over" for a few months first. Toomai Glittershine The Emissary 22:56, December 7, 2020 (EST)