SmashWiki talk:Notability/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:04, December 21, 2015

Some old stuff

Should this become an actual policy, it would definitely cut down on the number of people who simply come here, make a smasher/crew article about themselves, then do nothing but talk the rest of the time on SW...such as this guy. These people generally don't even compete at all, making the articles really not worth more than joke pages. However, the one thing that does slightly bother me is the "regional tournament" thing. I understand that if someone competes in NO tournaments (maybe just 1 or 2), then they shouldn't have an article. But really, must the tournament be on such a large scale? I've been in about 5 tournaments so far and I'm probably gonna enter one this week, but since I can't travel and these tournaments are online, does that make my smasher article invalid? What about my crew article? We are competitive, and while it's on a smaller scale then, say, Combo Status, we are competitive nonetheless. I just wanna know where the "in-between" Smashers like myself would stand in this scenario. Shade 487 z 08:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If your crew's article does end up deleted (which I highly doubt), you could put the information on your own smasher page. Much like Rollback, people seem to think that they can do this without being familiar with what is really required. Blue Ninjakoopa^Talk 10:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Certain crews might be a bit more troubled should this become a policy though... Code Blue too. Shade 487 z 10:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised those articles haven't been deleted already, tbh. :| Blue Ninjakoopa^Talk 10:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Over at FFXIclopedia, where I'm a Jr. Admin, we have a policy of no pages based on players aside from their own user pages. Letting people make their own pages about themselves, even people of significant note leads to insufferable epeen contests that detract from the professionalism a wikia wiki should have. So, I guess I support and don't support this idea. I support the part about not letting smashers and crews of no note have a page, but, I don't support the part where players of the game get a page. Lordshadow (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, guess what. I'm the equivalent of a senior admin on this wiki, where we have always allowed smasher and crew pages about important players. You see, unlike in an MMORPG, there is an actual competitive scene outside of the regular "game world" if you will. People that are professionals should get pages as they are absolutely instrumental in the creation of many of the techniques and strategies that are used by all players. We are not going to get rid of the smasher pages for the legit smashers; the discussion is what to do about the obscure and/or irrelevant ones. I thank you for trying to contribute, but please understand that your situation on FFXIwhatever is not the same as it is here where we have different standards. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 06:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I resent that. :( There are competitive scenes in MMORPGs, and specifically in WoW. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll admit that I'm biased against MMOs. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What's that? I heard a ring. Sounds like the pleasant sound of me, your resident Guru/Troll, about to chime in. See, this project was started by SmashBoards, and its purpose is to serve as the concrete source for all things Smash Brothers, including professional players. We understand that this breaks traditionally with what many other gaming Wikias include as content. Frankly, we don't care. The Smasher pages are an important part of our content here, as there is an active and popular competitive scene. Now, I understand your concern about professionalism. That is precisely the motivation of this policy. The inclusion of an independent Smasher namespace created an influx of Smasher pages created without legitimate content. This was not remedied by the standing administration, and I've had it in my crosshairs for a long time. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you have no analogue to our professionals, and including prominent players on your wiki would not serve your content. This wiki serves both content on the game and the burgeoning scene, its major players, and its progress and history, which we here look upon as a noble and legitimate pursuit. We don't have problems with 'E-penis' contests because everything is independently verifiable. The other resources for competitive Smash Brothers keep records on the professionals, so unverified data, up until the creation of the namespace, was filtered out. Now, we have several policies in need of approval that would return 'professionalism' as the standard of our pages. With that in mind, I would recommend rephrasing your last sentence thusly: 'So, I guess I support ~~and don't support~~ this idea. I support the part about not letting smashers and crews of no note have a page ~~, but,~~ and I ~~don't~~ support the part where players of the game get a page.' Semicolon (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a few more that I'm wondering about

How about guide makers on SmashBoards? As well, what of those who are listed in the power rankings, such as NCPR or SCPR? Or are those considered of reasonable regionality (consider how big CA is)? --Sky (t · c · w) 03:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that faq writers and appearances on power rankings count. The faq writers fall under 'has contributed content to websites pertained to Super Smash Bros' and the power rankings falls under 'Can prove legitimate regional or national notoriety otherwise not covered by these guidelines.' Semicolon (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for expansion

Could this page be expanded to include notability requirements for technique/combo articles? Miles (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It could but I don't see that as that much of a problem right now. At some point, it may be wise to expand this to include both the factors which you have mentioned and glitches, terms etc. Semicolon (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrates line

Given that the "contributes to a smash site" specifically excludes SmashWiki, I personally would assume that provision also extends to include the administrators of sites line. (Smasher:FyreNWater|relevance.) Other thoughts? --Shadow crest 02:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Administrates at websites pertaining to Super Smash Brothers. This and the below guideline are meant to document individuals that may not be associated with competitive Smash Brothers but otherwise have influence and notoriety over the community." and "Has contributed content to recognized websites pertaining to Super Smash Brothers. This does not include forums or SmashWiki." directly contradict each other -- saying that these people are allowed but then making exceptions that break the prior rule. Hence the problem. IMO, the other guidelines (tournament/power ranking notability) are much more important in determining notability. Miles (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to express a specific intent of this policy. It is my philosophy that the people who contribute to Smash Bros knowledge are just as important to the community as the players themselves, if not more so because they are the ones who will be encountered by casual visitors. Because of this in large part, I consider contributions and administration to be of markedly different importance. The point is that you don't get a Smasher page for making edits to Jigglypuff (SSBB) on SmashWiki a couple of times, and that you get a page if you assist in running the concrete source of Smash Bros knowledge. Semicolon (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So is the final ruling that SmashWiki's admins are entitled to a smasher page if they desire one? I don't want one myself, but it's important to set these rules in stone and not leave this issue hanging. Miles (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If that is so then we need to ask Rita if she wants her page restored. --Shadow crest 22:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Amendment Proposition

I move to strike the clause that allows ladder participants to receive pages. In the time that I have been marking and deleting pages, it has not once been relevant, and I find its relevance even now to be suspect, as I know several individuals who compete on a ladder, and none of them are themselves notable. I would like some input from the community before I strike the clause, but I do not see this being particularly contentious. Semicolon (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.Smoreking^(T)_(c) 02:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Miles (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite first bullet

From

Has participated in a tournament that is run by SBR rules (or a low-tier tournament) and has some level of regional or national recognition.

to

Has placed highly in a tournament that is run by SBR rules (or a low-tier tournament) and has some level of regional or national recognition.

Does the consensus support? Miles (talk) 03:11, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

This makes complete sense. I could go to a tournament and not get any KOs, yet by the rules as written now I would therefore be notable (whereas it's quite obvious I shouldn't be). There will probably be arguments over what consititues "placed highly", though. Toomai Glittershine

The Stats Guy 12:33, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Sensible. But, as Toomai said, "highly" could cause problems. Maybe "highly" --> "got within X rounds of the final"? Penguin of Death 14:18, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping for some flexibility in the rule while still shaping it in the right direction. Miles (talk) 22:56, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Flexibility --> ambiguity --> trouble. The wording needs to be rigid, or else people (most importantly, the Admins who have to decide whether or not a smasher is notable) will get confused. Penguin of Death 23:36, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

You're trying to make an objective rule based on a subjective premise, which isn't going to work. As for admins getting confused, don't speak for all of the admins, if you would. If you meant you, say yourself. If you have examples of confused admins that couldn't rectify the situation [of being confused] by discussion via IRC or wiki, feel free to bring them forth; otherwise, that's not much of a point... --Sky (t · c · w) 00:04, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I think all smasher pages should be protected. As they're actual people we have to be careful about not being Libelous. 98.117.158.220 02:48, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

An interesting request... --Sky (t · c · w) 19:28, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of pages on actual people, and as far as I know they aren't protected any more often than the average page. I fail to see the point here. Toomai Glittershine

The Stats Guy 21:12, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I believe the IP's point is that it is very difficult to verify the information on Smashers as compared to the people on Wikipedia. Still, I don't think we should protect the Smasher pages unless it does become a major problem, which it isn't; most of the misinformation people add to articles are clear vandalism, so it isn't a massive dilemma right now. R A N1 21:20, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

No, but things like character mains are hard to tell. Also, some people may be entirely made up. 98.117.158.220 00:41, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

That's really cool and all, but protection would solve absolutely nothing. If you wish to propose a change to the entire smasher namespace, you are welcome to do that instead, but this proposal is not a solution to the problems you're presenting. Shadowcrest 20:07, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think it would be near impossible to win a libel suit against SmashWiki. One, we're not a published document. Two, proving that we intentionally misrepresented someone would be virtually impossible (even if we ever did such a thing, which I can't say I have seen). Three, I don't think any of this information could be damaging enough to cause any form of restitution to be ordered even if the case was won. Libel isn't a concern of ours. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:02, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean its OK for us to state false and hurtful info about actual people? 98.117.158.220 00:37, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Some people will be jerks and post crap, and it's the job of the smart people to purge the nonsense. Besides, if you're old enough to be notable here, you should be old enough to stomach (and stomp) any false or mean stuff. Toomai Glittershine

The Stats Guy 01:36, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Awesome straw man there, good sir. Nobody said it's ok to post libel, we just said that protection solves nothing and that the chances of a lawsuit are 1/29015923857108423910483. Shadowcrest 02:48, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Everyone: It's rather easy to tell whether content is libel or not. Protecting the pages doesn't help much at all, it just about defeats the purpose of a wiki, and vandalism on Smasher pages occurs just as often as on mainspace pages. Despite the fact that they're harder to spot, it's a risk we took in letting people create Smasher articles. Unless you have other reasons for protecting the Smasher pages, I don't see any point.

As for the "lawsuit" comments: Um…I don't believe anybody started talking about suing until CHawk's post. The comments about the lawsuit are kind of pointless…how many times have Wikipedia have had lawsuits over its head about how vandalism was caught on one of its articles? 2.718281828 * 0, I'm certain, for the sheer fact that it would sound like whining. Fortunately, the word libel can be used outside of lawsuits, so I don't see the reason for talking about lawsuits in any case. R A N1 05:19, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you directed that at everyone when it's mostly a reply to 98.117.158.220 and a restatement of what has already been said. Shadowcrest 21:02, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Either all smasher pages should be protected, or all info should be sourced. And its not just about whether they can stomach it. Say someone edited C-Hawk's page and said that he lost 99% of tournys he entered. Then, some guy who is interested in famous smashers (such as I) would get the impression that C-Hawk is not a good player, which is not the case. We need proper sourceing for statements about people. If you think that they're all mature enough to allow that kind of trash than why have a policy about PAs at all? 98.117.158.220 05:25, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Arg! edit conflict! Thanks for bringing up the point about suing, RAN. As I said, sourcing could be an alternative. There are some kinds of statements that are dificult to verify, which is what I mean when I say "Libel". I hope you guys understand. 98.117.158.220 05:28, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

For the third time, protection does not solve the issue, and stop presenting fallacious statements. Shadowcrest 21:02, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Not only does protection not really help, but where are we going to get any sources from? Smash Bros. isn't exactly the kind of thing people write reputable articles about. I think the IP is being too paranoid. Toomai Glittershine

The Stats Guy 21:15, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of the smasher content was created by Randall, who knows the smash scene as well as anyone does. Beyond that, we can look at things on a case by case basis. There is not sufficient information available for sources in the traditional sense, nor will protection help. If we semi-protected, all people will have to do is wait four days, and I'm not going to deal with full protection. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:41, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Smasher skill

The article does not make very clear how a person must fare in tourneys to be considered a smasher. Thus, I propose that one of the qualifications to be a smasher is, instead of simply competing in a tourny, to have ranked highly in it (top third). The reason for this policy proposal is that, as disscussed on the IRC with OT, someone who has competed in many tournaments but has never ranked highly would still warrant a smasher page. This proposed policy is meant to replace the first qualification on the article. Anon 19:10, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Comments

It's a good concept, but for now, I'm 'neutral leaning towards oppose due to the size of EVO and APEX. Common sense dictates that someone placing 325th in a tournament probably doesn't deserve an article. Maybe the top third or top 128, whichever is higher? Nyargleblargle (Talk) 17:20, 1 June 2015 (EDT)

Truncation

Toomai, why was this truncated? I would add that it was truncated perhaps necessarily but without discussion and without notification. Semicolon (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

I figured that the truncation did not actually change anything about the policy and so did not really need discussion or notification. If you think something did change then bring it up. Toomai Glittershine

The Metroid 09:08, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Notable players section

There have been quite a few IPs lately adding largely unknown Smashers to the notable players list. Would it be worth it to include a section such as:

In order to be added to the Notable Players section of a character page, the Smasher must meet the following criteria:

Place highly in multiple tournaments largely using the character in question.
Must be relatively well-known for their usage of the character outside of sandbagging.
Must be largely considered one of the most skilled players with the character in question and/or made significant contributions to the character's meta.

Thoughts? This is just a proposal and I'm fairly tired right now. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 21:26, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Would we also want a limit on Notable Players for each page? Nyargleblargle (Talk) 21:37, 19 August 2015 (EDT)

None of these are bad ideas, but you should be aware that all of these are subjective to a point (as in I don't think there's a reliable, quantifiable way of demonstrating "relatively well-known"). That aside, a hard, limited number of players is a questionable proposal given that some pages will obviously have more than others. Miles (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2015 (EDT)

I'd also like to mention, "Place highly in multiple tournaments largely using the character in question" would mean that all low tier mains that don't place too high are not notable. The other 2 points work well I suppose, but if such a thing goes into effect (i.e Must be considered one of the..), lots of players who are known yet don't have as much skill as others may not be classified notable among this classification. F0rZ3r0F0r (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2015 (EDT)

Pretty much my handling of these are, when the character is talked about, is the player often brought up as one of the character's best players, and is known for remarkable tournament results with the character (and is not just a high level player that occasionally sandbags with the character?). Or, if the player is no longer among the best players of the characters, do they have historical significance with the character and/or are largely responsible for innovating the character's metagame?

Any sort of limit is a bad idea, as it'll be completely arbitrary; they're not "top 5", "top 10", "top whatever" lists, they're just a listing of particularly notable players of the character to ease reference for readers interested in looking up stuff about the character's competitive players.

Of course, standards should be held a lot stricter among higher tier characters; a Melee Fox or Brawl Meta Knight or Smash 4 Sheik that gets merely good results isn't anything particular special among those characters' playerbases, while a bottom tier player that can get into top 64 at a national would be a pretty big deal. With lower tier characters though, there are still standards, and people shouldn't be listed just to fill the list out; the low tier player needs to actually have done noteworthy stuff and is known beyond their region. I remember a while back there was a user who kept adding any player he could find that played a low tier character to their "notable players" section, just for the sake of filling them up, which should always be reverted and not tolerated. If a character really only has one or two standout players, then that's fine, we shouldn't be resorting to adding players just for playing the character. In fact if the character really has no such players, then the section for them should remain empty until such a player emerges (though a note should be made in such a case).

If needed, I could draft some guidelines up, just so users have something to reference during disputes of these. Omega Tyrant 08:20, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

Okay, I've drafted up a tweaked version:

In order to be added to the Notable Players section of a character page, the Smasher must meet the following criteria:

Place highly in multiple tournaments largely using the character in question compared to other mains of the character.
Must have national recognition for their usage of the character outside of sandbagging and/or must have made significant contributions to the character's meta.

Does that address most concerns? Nyargleblargle (Talk) 13:02, 31 August 2015 (EDT)

Bump. Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 16:50, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

Any input? Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 14:20, 10 October 2015 (EDT)

One final bump. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 20:03, 4 November 2015 (EST)

Support, I had to have an edit war with an IP last night about this. Gets tiresome after a while. Disaster Flare (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2015 (EST)

I'm not opposed to this, but as I said in the below section I feel as if we are to make changes to this policy we should do it in SW:CNA which was to address some of the problems with this policy as seen in the top section (by basically making this a part of a broader, more relevant policy). - EndGenuity (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2015 (EST)

Um

With Smashwiki:Creating new articles now an official policy that has this policy transcluded inside it, do we really need this? - EndGenuity (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

I think we might want to repurpose this for mentions of smashers, like the notable players sections of character pages. _{(Also stealth bump for my proposal)}

Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 08:48, 8 November 2015 (EST)

That would pretty much be the only reason this policy would even continue to exist if the notability standard is moved to CNA. - EndGenuity (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Amendment for character pages

So I am noticing a trend that a lot of newer users are adding non-notable smashers to our character pages. To prevent this, I would like to amend the following section: