Welcome to SmashWiki! Log in or create an account and join the community, and don't forget to read this first! |
Notices |
---|
The Skill parameter has been removed from Smasher infoboxes, and in its place are the new "Best historical ranking" and "Best tournament result" parameters. SmashWiki needs help adding these new parameters to Smasher infoboxes, refer to the guidelines here for what should be included in these new parameters. |
When adding results to Smasher pages, include each tournament's entrant number in addition to the player's placement, and use the {{Trn}} template with the matching game specified. Please also fix old results on Smasher pages that do not abide to this standard. Refer to our Smasher article guidelines to see how results tables should be formatted. |
Check out our project page for ongoing projects that SmashWiki needs help with. |
SmashWiki talk:Featured content
Page Name
Why is this page not named "Featured Articles"? Zixor (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Many wikis also have featured images/media. We might as well, so I wouldn't mess with it. Miles (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Propositions
For the suggestions/proposed FC, must we write it out, or can we simply say something such as Final Destination (SSBB)?Smoreking(T) (c) 16:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Give a detailed explanation for why you think the page is worthy of becoming an FA. Don't give the snippet for Main Page usage. Miles (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Questioning Snake (SSBB) page
If Snake's page is considered a featured article, why is there a comment on the page that clean-up of the trivia page is required? Thought featured articles would be clear of any requests like that. --Aximill (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- It was added after the page was featured. And other than the trivia section, the page is very high-quality. Miles (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Clean Up
This page is a mess. Someone really needs to clean it up and make it look better. Maybe start actual votes on articles and set it up to look nice with a section per article. For example:
== [[Article Name]] == Explain why nominated. === Support === #Why I support it. === Neutral === #Why I think it may or may not be featured. === Oppose === #Why I oppose it.
that will look much better than the current standard it is. Solar Dragon (Talk) 20:14, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
Also, maybe use the month names as well to split it up even more. e.g. Nominations for October. Solar Dragon (Talk) 20:16, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
- i have put an example up on the page if anyone wants to see how effective it is. Solar Dragon (Talk) 20:22, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
- I tried to fix this system before, and to no avail. :/ BTW, Lucario (SSBB) looks pretty good. Miles (talk) 20:54, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe if we were to make this a forum instead, it will be found more easily. Any more nominations should be changed to that format as well. Solar Dragon (Talk) 05:13, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
- I tried to fix this system before, and to no avail. :/ BTW, Lucario (SSBB) looks pretty good. Miles (talk) 20:54, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
Suggestions
Should there be written standards for featured article? Right now, I don't see any sort of base that we can work on. All we have is "accuracy, completeness, and style", which really needs to be defined. Right now, I don't know what makes an article "accurate" and "complete". Also, what is "style"? It is very vague and I wish these terms are more precise.
Also, would it be a good idea to create an option to remove a previously featured article from the list? Standards can change, so a previously featured article might later be seen as a bad article due to increased standards over time.
Green Mario 20:17, 30 October 2012 (EDT)
- Some of the featured articles are indeed bad and shouldn't have been featured in the first place (i.e. Ganondorf (SSBB)). However, they were featured nonetheless, and we shouldn't be rewriting our history.
- As for standards, we can't really write those. What constitutes a featured article is completely subjective, and is up to us on a case by case basis to determine if an article is something we should feature. Omega Tyrant
08:04, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
Name Entry glitch or Master Hand glitch
I'm going to make one of these featured articles, which should be given the nod? Omega Tyrant 17:21, 17 July 2013 (EDT)
- I think you should go with the latter page because I think it's very detailed, especially the "What works" section and it's more detailed than the Name Entry Page ----- Conanshinichi 17:34, 17 July 2013 (EDT)
- Obvious bias here, but I say the latter as well. DoctorPain99 17:38, 17 July 2013 (EDT)
Featured articles on competitive play
We can also propose having competitive play articles and smasher pages such as Mew2King too right? Dots (talk) The Disc 21:25, 19 December 2013 (EST)