Template talk:Infobox Smasher

Archive

1. 1

The top-level smasher category

In the same way that we don't put someone in both Category:American smashers and Category:New York smashers, why should we automatically put every smasher into Category:Smashers? It's basically a category containing the entire namespace (plus images, those are fine). I propose we delete the auto-inclusion of the top-level smasher category. Toomai Glittershine The Celeritous 17:58, 18 October 2013 (EDT)

Support for removal of the Category:Smashers on the smasher pages With the smasher pages already having the title, Smasher:X person, the Smashers category is redundant on their page as well. Dots The Meta Knight 18:41, 18 October 2013 (EDT)

So that if someone's looking for articles on a bunch of smashers, they can find them. I don't see what's wrong with a category containing every single smasher article just for organization purposes. Awesome Cardinal 2000 00:15, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

Assuming that every smasher page has the top-level smasher category (which is clearly the intent of having it in the template), the category pretty much becomes a duplicate of Special:AllPages for the Smasher: namespace in addition to being a parent category. It might have been useful before the namespace was added; it certainly isn't now. Toomai Glittershine The Brass 00:43, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

Having a category for the smasher articles is simpler and easier to find than using AllPages. Awesome Cardinal 2000 13:52, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

That's like saying it's okay to have a page called "Characters (SSBB)" that contains all the info found on every Brawl character page. Toomai Glittershine The Irrepressible 17:40, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

The Smashers category does not contain full information on every smasher, it just lists them. I don't see why every character can be categorized into Category:Characters, but smasher articles cannot be categorized into Category:Smashers. If someone wanted to find a page listing all the characters that appear in Smash, they could go to the category, and if someone wanted to find a list of every smasher, they could go to Category:Smashers. Awesome Cardinal 2000 19:40, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

Fixing Category:Characters is the next step then. Toomai Glittershine The Sharp 22:07, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

Would you mind giving a reason or two why you think having the categories there is harmful? Awesome Cardinal 2000 23:32, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

1. Having both "New York smashers" and "Smashers" (or "Characters (SSBB)" and "Characters", etc) in the categories list of a page is redundant. This is hopefully obvious.
2. Bots don't care either way, as long as they're smart enough to recurse (XL is).
3. We don't have to do things just because Wikipedia does, but for the record, they say pages should only be in both a category and a subcategory when the subcategory is not part of a group of mutually-exclusive sets.
4. We currently list all smashers in three ways: everyone in one namespace, everyone in one category, and everyone split into regional subcategories. Usually if you're doing one thing in multiple ways you're doing it wrong. The namespace is kind of a historical artifact that would probably be extremely tedious/difficult to remove. Having regional subcategories is common sense. What's the odd one out here? Toomai Glittershine The Metroid 00:31, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

Support for removal of the Category:Smashers on the smasher pages There's no reason for them to be there when they're /automatically included/. Scr7(talk · contribs) 04:15, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

I hope you understand the idea here is to delete both the manual inclusion and the automatic inclusion. Toomai Glittershine The Golden 09:12, 19 October 2013 (EDT)

Anybody else want to say something about this before I remove the Smasher category include on the smasherbeta? Going to do it in like a few hours if no one else opposes, not to be jumping the gun but. Dots The Arceus 18:32, 24 October 2013 (EDT)

Adding a Project M mains to the template

Something I'd like to propose, as many Smashers play different characters in Project M than in Melee or Brawl. --Timson622222 (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2013 (EST)

Former mains

Some pro players drop notable characters such as UmbreonMow dropping Mewtwo --TheLegendaryKRB (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2014 (EST)

Skill level field

We used to document as many smashers as possible, but now we're more specific and only cover notable players. Is this field really needed if it's always going to say "professional" or a variant thereof? - Ceci n’est pas un Smiddle. 12:38, 19 February 2014 (EST)

Yes it's needed, we're still covering players of varying skill, and it serves as a nice shorthand for the player's particular level at each game they play. Omega Tyrant

March

March doesnt work in the template. Look at my page. Its proof. --TheLegendaryKRB (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2014 (EST)

If you actually look at the template, you'll see that it uses numbers instead. Scr7(talk · contribs) 13:14, 2 March 2014 (EST)

ok --TheLegendaryKRB (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Years Active?

Would it make sense to add a section in the Smasher Template about a Smasher's Activity in the Smash Scene, or is it just really unneeded? I can understand by the fact you can just put retired in parenthesis or mention that they are retired in the body of the article itself, but think we'd be able to give the readers an idea of when they were active? ~C_Mill24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎C Mill24 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 March 2014 (EST)

This seems to me like the kind of thing that is fine in the article body, since it tends to be more complex than just a range of years. Toomai Glittershine The Irrepressible 22:11, 7 March 2014 (EST)

Other Doubles Characters

Since we have other characters for everything else why not for Doubles players? JCaesar could use it for Wario. Also even if you have one doubles main it will still say Doubles Mains. Just saying. --TheLegendaryKRB (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2014 (EDT)