Category talk:Female smashers

---

Of what use is this category? It does not seem useful or relevant.

Mako Shark (talk) 20:20, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Umm, it lists the female professional smashers. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:18, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I know this may be outdated, since MLG now holds Brawl events, but I'm assuming this is the true definition of a professional smasher as per the article: "One who regularly makes money off of the game and/or one who is recruited and sponsored by a notable organization, such as MLG. Due to MLG and other major gaming corporations not sponsoring smash anymore, a professional is usually considered the person at the top of the metagame of that said character."

The majority of the smashers in the category do not fall under this description, as they are either not ranked as professionals, or do not show evidence of notable tournament placements or performance at 'the top of the metagame'. As such, there are very few of them who qualify as professionals, which reduces the number of members in this category to less than five, maybe. It doesn't seem appropriate for a category to exist if it accommodates such a small number.

Also, in terms of the Smash scene, of what significance and relevance are peoples' genders, anyway? Is there any reason the female players are grouped into their own category? Mako Shark (talk) 05:17, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Nuking aside, does anyone disagree with my assertion that this category is not needed? If not, is it possible to delete it? Mako Shark (talk) 06:35, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I completely disagree with this category being removed. First, most of the people in this are "professionals" and/or otherwise notable. Second, while gender is not important per se, the number of female smashers is disproportionally low so as to merit special mention about the exceptional female smasher. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:42, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

So, what qualifies as notable? Helping organise and advertise local tournaments? Showing some degree of skill at the competitive level? Beating high level competitive players in friendly matches? Just being part of a minority, despite gender being unimportant (what about transsexuals)? Mako Shark (talk) 08:38, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

(1) We're not deleting this category because aside from their notability, and our interest in having complete information, a community that is predominantely male is very interested in the few members who of the opposite sex for very predictable and cliche reasons (2) the population of transsexual smashers is likely so infinitesimal that not even they would register objection to their lack of inclusion. Semicolon (talk) 20:58, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

I know there are probably no transsexuals, I was just being an ass. So one of the reasons the girls are singled out is because boys are interested in them? While I'm no longer against the existence of this category, that just seems uncalled for. Mako Shark (talk) 04:05, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I take that back, no hard feelings. In reference to "very predictable and cliche reasons", at least you admitted the truth :D Mako Shark (talk) 05:08, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

"What qualifies as notable" is covered over here. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 13:17, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I never knew that page existed. I've also learned that I should actually be one of the players in this category. Thanks, Toomai. Mako Shark (talk) 13:33, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

I still have reservations about this category

I still think it shouldn't exist. I don't see any relation between gender and notability as a Smasher, just as I see no relation between sexual orientation, hair colour or chosen religion and notability as a smasher. I am aware that the number of female smashers is significantly small in comparison to that of males, and that, in general, girls rarely show interest in video games, but I do not understand why these qualify as reasons for the category to exist. The strongest arguments for the continuation of its existence are "our interest in having complete information; a community that is predominantely male is very interested in the few members who of the opposite sex for very predictable and cliche reasons".

The information won't be any more or less complete without the category, since the female smashers' articles will still indicate that they are female. As far as 'predictable and cliche reasons' go, I should remind people that this is a Wikia, and that it does not exist to serve such purposes. Sites like AllisBrawl, which have groups that female players may voluntarily join, are equally as, if not more effective. I also know that there are girls out there who would prefer to be looked upon as regular players, not 'girl players'. This is the only page I have reservations about. Mako Shark (talk) 18:27, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

So you don't object to having female smashers marked on their pages, but you object to them being collected in a category? Categories are superficial representations of clusters of related data. How is that objectionable? These data are related in a significant and interesting way. I see no compelling reason to eliminate it. Semicolon (talk) 04:26, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need this category. Do we need a "Category:Black smashers"? (Not the best example but an example nevertheless.) Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 19:15, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

I perfectly agree here. I never did thought this category should belong and people shouldn't be categorized based on their sex. Just like Toomai said, we don't categorized smashers based on race and this should be no different. Omega Tyrant 19:22, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

And the only justification I see against having this category is that you don't see a reason for it to exist. How is that a good reason to delete it? Semicolon (talk) 00:46, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Why should a article/category exist that doesn't have a valid objective reason to belong on this Wiki? Omega Tyrant 01:19, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Because it does have a "valid objective reason" to be on this wiki. It documents the existence of a minority of players. I will also point out that this has been here for years without complaints; in fact, this was made by a female smasher herself. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:31, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a female smasher created this category is completely irrelevant to whether or not this category is valid. The fact that it been on this Wiki for years is also irrelevant. Smashtasm been on this Wiki for years and was even a featured article. Yet when it was decided that Smashtasm no longer belonged, it was deleted regardless. If the only reason this category exists because it represents a minority, why not create a category for every other minority? Omega Tyrant 03:17, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

It exists because it's clustering data. It's a category. Categories cluster data. Imagine a newbie to the Smash scene coming here, boy or girl, really doesn't matter. S/he looks for Mew2King because his friend says he looks like a jackass, and discovers that indeed, Mew2King does strongly resemble to typical profile of a child molester. This individual then looks up more information on Mew2King and sees that Mew2King (for the sake of this example) played and won a series against Marin, a member of What Are the Oddz. That's interesting, the individual says, and wonders what other girls play smash. This category is a convenient representation of information that is curious. There is no compelling reason to delete it. Semicolon (talk) 04:26, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I know what a category is and what their purpose is for. In all due respect, I really don't see how your example justifies the existence of this category. I really don't see the significance of M2K, one of the most known and best smashers in the world, defeating Marin, someone who is largely unknown and is certainly well below his skill level. I also don't see the significance of her being a member of What Are the Oddz. While you see no compelling reason to delete, I really don't see a compelling reason that this category should be kept. As mentioned before, if we are going to keep this category, we might as well categorize every other minority. Omega Tyrant 05:09, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Semicolon, in response to your first comment, no, I do not object to having female smashers "marked" on their pages, because it's not really possible to write an article about a person without distinguishing his or her gender. The purpose of a Wikia is to provide useful information, not to sate the curiosity of people who are interested in learning about female smash players. As I mentioned before, there are active groups on AiB and other appropriate places for those people. If they find a smasher there who interests them, they can look that person up here.

Categories cluster relevant data, and there is no relation between gender and notability as a smasher. It is unreasonable for this category to document a minority whose characteristics have no relation to their notability as smashers, when there are other such minorities that aren't documented. For example, there is no "Category:Christian Smashers", or "Category:Gay Smashers", although there are likely others interested in learning the identities of such people. Mako Shark (talk) 07:55, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not indenting because indents are on strike and I don't like scabs. And oh, how I disagree. Wiki's are precisely about curiosity. Nobody comes here hoping not to learn something. We have trivia sections galore expressly for fulfilling the curiosities of our readers. And I'm telling you, whether you like it or not, female smashers are of far greater interest to a predominantely male community than are other minorities. The reason female smashers are more notable is because there are fewer of them. Were the community nearly entirely Asian, the smattering of white smashers would be interested in each other, and would be a curiosity for the Asians. The fact is that likely 95% of the community is male, and so 5% is very clearly unusual in comparison to the rest and thereby quite important to document. I would imagine that the proportion of gay smashers may or may not be similar but seeing as peoples' sexual orientation literally does not and never will belong on our pages, we'll not be documenting them for that reason precisely. If you want to mark African American smashers or some other minorities, be my guest. They're not nearly as notable as female smashers because the population of African American smashers, is, last I checked, rather high compared to the general population, but I could be completely wrong because I'm not sure my source is reliable. But if you want to do that, have at it, but don't mark 'Christian Smashers' because religion is not salient and does not belong on a wiki page. We go for two things here: salient and interesting. Religion, sexual orientation, and yeah I think race too but I'm not willing to argue this one to the grave, are not interesting. Playing video games competitively and indeed playing video games is an unusual activity for females, and I'd like to see you try and deny that with something other than anecdotes. That is why it's notable. It's anomalous, and thereby worthy of us documenting it. It's also awesome to see girls that could kick my ass at smash. Semicolon (talk) 15:48, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did overlook the fact that it's unusual for females to play games. Might have something to do with the fact that all of my female friends are gamers. Anyway, you're definitely correct that it's unusual for girls to compete, which somehow didn't cross my mind in the right way. That point alone seems good enough of a reason to keep the category, and I'm sorry for being stubborn and chewing up your time. My reservations stemmed from the fact that, like a lot of girls and a lot of minorities, female gamers often get singled out, looked down upon, and treated like crap by the guys. Being part of this minority, I know that from personal experience, and I know that I'd prefer not to be categorised for this reason. Anyway, you've made your point; the category itself seems harmless; I'll stop bothering with it, thanks for all the fun. Mako Shark (talk) 16:17, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Nominating this category for deletion is fucking ridiculous

For starters, if anyone who tagged for deletion actually read the above, they would see that this discussion has been done over and over again. This category exists for the same reason why Category:Smashers who participate in SmashWiki exists: it's an extreme minority, and it is of interest to others. If there was anything else I would have to say, I would just be rehashing what has already been said above. Air Conditioner is a Mr. Saturn. 19:23, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Support for deletion

Weak support leaning towards neutral. While the logic is right and it's useless, there's not many female smashers, so it's just as a point of interest to see which smashers were female and professional at some point or still are. I don't see a point to have it, while I mostly don't see a point to remove it as it's not a useless category. F0rZ3r0F0r (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2015 (EST)

I agree above, because I also see it is a point of interest, though my stance is oppose deletion, with support for adding a category for male Smashers. That'd make it fair/equal whatever, though that might take more work. Aardvarkian (Talk • Contributions) 16:02, 8 November 2015 (EST)

Weak support. I can see some value in this category, but it doesn't seem quite relevant enough to Smash Bros. or the competitive scene. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 16:49, 9 November 2015 (EST)

A category that would categorize 99% of pages is a useless category. I don't care for this category and I would not mind seeing it gone, but creating a "Male smashers" category that would have absolutely no organizational worth is not an appropriate response to this category's existence. Omega Tyrant 07:35, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Yeah, I gotta agree with that. Shifting to Support. Aardvarkian (Talk • Contributions) 16:09, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Weak opposition It's a break of the routine and is an interesting novelty, but, like Nyargleblargle said, not much value outside of that. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Shifting to support because the article is kinda redundant at this point. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2015 (EST)

Strong support. A useless, unproductive category whose effects would be nothing special. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 08:56, 11 November 2015 (EST) Weak support Unique category, but what gender a smasher is is not important. Dots (talk) The Wii U 16:12, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Support: Do I even need to say it??? MeatBall104 16:42, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Support for deletion. As per the deletion tag, unnecessary. John PK SMAAAASH!! 16:51, 15 November 2015 (EST)

Neutral. Just as a suggestion, if this category gets deleted we could have a "List of Smashers" that links to their individual pages, while having their names, locations, perhaps their mains, and gender, etc. That way everyone would be happy, I guess... --Gabo 2oo (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2015 (EST)

Weak support. Possibly useful if we want to know about any female smasher, but useless outside of that. --BeepYou (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2015 (EST)

VERY strong support: Why should we even care about sex across subjects? It's absolutely pointless considering the general sex imbalance amongst smashers (male ratio is FAR LARGER than female ratio), and having a Male smashers category does not contradict this, because of what I said about ratio. Besides, having this category around sounds pretty sexist anyways, again because of what I said regarding ratio (my toe!). R.I.P. Sergeant Gary "Roach" Sanderson - Drilly the Hedgehog 02:13, 18 November 2015 (EST)

Support I have to agree with the deletion for two reasons: 1: Because gender is not exactly the reason people would want to see these articles, and 2: Because there's a huge difference between the amount of male smashers there are and the amount of female smashers. Also, like Drilly said, it could be perceived by some as sexist and not being treated equal. Disaster Flare (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2015 (EST)

Women are a minority here. Then again, that's not all that interesting. Weak support. Papayazzi (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2015 (EST)

Although, I wish people based their views of this more on common sense, not on this whole fear of appearing sexist bullshit. Papayazzi (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2015 (EST)