SmashWiki talk:Notability/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Shadowcrest (talk | contribs) (→Administrates line: new section) |
|||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
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. [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 02:53, 9 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. [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk: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? --<span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadow</span>]][[User talk:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4;">crest</span>]]</span> 02:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:56, February 11, 2009
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. Shade487z 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 NinjakoopaTalk 10:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Certain crews might be a bit more troubled should this become a policy though...them too. Shade487z 10:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm surprised those articles haven't been deleted already, tbh. :| Blue NinjakoopaTalk 10:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Certain crews might be a bit more troubled should this become a policy though...them too. Shade487z 10:27, 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)
- Hey, I resent that. :( There are competitive scenes in MMORPGs, and specifically in WoW. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:41, 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 supportthis idea. I support the part about not letting smashers and crews of no note have a page, but,and Idon'tsupport 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. (relevance.) Other thoughts? --Shadowcrest 02:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)