SmashWiki talk:Notability

Archive

1. 1

Here we go again

This discussion is in regards to a proposed change on SmashWiki. The discussion must first meet with a consensus before it is implemented.

So it is clear to me that our current restrictions and messages for the notable players sections on character pages are just not working, so I have a new idea: instead of having people prove notability in the edit summary, why not have them do it right on the article. This would apply to all smashers listed on each character page, and it would have to be something like:

(on Fox (SSBM))

• Mango - Ranked 4th on the 2015 SSBMRank and known as one of the best Fox main in the world.

The idea here is to make it obvious to new contributors that this is what we want done, so hopefully they follow suit. Thoughts welcome. Serpent King 20:41, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

Support

1. Support. I think it's safe to say we're all getting really sick of this. There's always the possibility people will ignore this too, but I can foresee the amount ignoring policy being greatly reduced because of this. Disaster Flare (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
2. Support. Honestly, this is the way to separate facts from vanity. Aidan, the Spooky Dragon Warrior 20:49, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

   Yeah that's another thing: this will make it way easier to detect BS entries (like having a smash themed YT channel or something) Serpent King 20:50, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

3. Might as well; it would clarify the setup and criteria by a lot, although it most certainly won't stop people from adding "NoNamePlayer: Ranked #1 on the Nowheresville PR" and such. Still not a bad idea. Miles (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2016 (EDT)
4. Weak support. It won't stop people from adding them, but it will make it easier to identify pointless entries. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 18:26, 15 October 2016 (EDT)
5. Slight support. As others have stated, it likely won't stop people from continuing to add players who are not notable enough, but at the moment, it's better than nothing. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2016 (EDT)

Oppose

1. I think this is the first time I ever write in this section, so... here I go. I oppose to this. There are some smashers I could add notability reasons for being on their character pages, due to my knowledge on their metagames (though without adding additional smashers to the character pages) and I feel it would be a great idea to keep novice users and IPs from adding smashers here and there. But when it comes to finding many other results and page sizes... I'm honestly not liking this... Not only the following applies me, but other users would have to not only search for notability on some smashers rather obscure and unknown to us. "So what if they're not notable in terms of results, we just erase them"? And what about the huge size of bits we're going to have to add? Apart from that, we would be making the page look crowded due to the possibly large number of reasons why the smashers deserve their notability on the character pages. Last but not least, we would be creating another problem, which is that the novice users and IPs that do want to add notability for each smasher, would do it in a lousy way. And I don't like that part of the story in all honesty...
   As a side note, a fair share of users know me for often commentating on ideas that could change the wiki, most of the time supporting them and sometimes being neutral. But this time I just had to oppose to it, because of the problems it would cause. So yeah... if you liked this idea, I'm sorry for opposing to it. I know probably no one will agree with me either.
   -- Merry Christ... I mean, Happy Halloween from BeepYou... (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

   I feel it would be a great idea to keep novice users and IPs from adding smashers here and there

   The idea isn't to keep users and IPs from adding them, it's to keep the BS smashers off.

   but other users would have to not only search for notability on some smashers rather obscure and unknown to us

   Which they are supposed to do anyway, plus obscure smashers are not supposed to be on the lists anyway

   So what if they're not notable in terms of results, we just erase them

   I mean yeah...if they fail the notability test then they get the boot.

   And what about the huge size of bits we're going to have to add? Apart from that, we would be making the page look crowded due to the possibly large number of reasons why the smashers deserve their notability on the character pages

   Not that big an issue, and I am not expecting every reason to be specified.

   Last but not least, we would be creating another problem, which is that the novice users and IPs that do want to add notability for each smasher, would do it in a lousy way

   They already do...but giving us crap smashers in these sections without proving their notability Serpent King 05:27, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

2. It probably won't help very much and it would be quite an undertaking to add summaries for every notable player. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 01:48, 15 October 2016 (EDT)

   Could you explain why you don't think it will help? The whole reason that it isn't getting done correctly now is because of ignorance of the policy. If all the other entries are the way we want them, other people will follow that lead. Serpent King 01:52, 15 October 2016 (EDT)

   I didn't think of it like that. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 18:26, 15 October 2016 (EDT)

Neutral

1. Mmm... I guess SK roasting me for being a whinner was well deserved. I talked to him after he wrote that, and he convinced me that most of the flaws I wrote about this proposal aren't that bad. So I suppose I am more neutral about it now. So like I said before, there are some smashers I could add notability reasons for being on their character pages, due to my knowledge on the SSB4 metagame (though without adding additional smashers to the character pages), and I feel it would be a great idea to keep novice users and IPs from adding smashers here and there. I still think, however, that while it would downsize the list of other character's notable player (which is actually something I am willing to see), some could stay if we talked about it. I guess Jamal, Hmm, Piledrivaaa and others would take some kind of place into the discussion, too... I also think that it would still increase the page's size moderately, but if that's the least of our concerns, then there's nothing I can really discuss about it.
   If I could John about what I wrote previously too, I blame my sleepy and grumpy nature at that moment...
   -- Merry Christ... I mean, Happy Halloween from BeepYou... (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2016 (EDT)
2. I feel it is unneeded Poultry(talk) the God-Slayer 07:05, 17 October 2016 (EDT)

   Er, care to explain why? This is supposed to be a debate. "I feel it is unneeded" doesn't tell us anything in a debate. If you don't have a solid reason why you feel that way, you shouldn't be voting in the first place. Disaster Flare (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2016 (EDT)

   The system we have now just requires one or two clicks, I think were okay using the system we have now Poultry(talk) the God-Slayer 16:13, 17 October 2016 (EDT)

   Except it doesn't work. Serpent King 20:51, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

Comments

Adding something to this, would it be good to include an immediate revert clause for any additional smasher (regardless of page/notability/whatever) who is not given a description? Serpent King 14:32, 16 October 2016 (EDT)

That'd be wise, that way if people come to us and ask why we're being "unfair", we can link them straight to that. Disaster Flare (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2016 (EDT)

Oh and of course, the smashers on the current lists would be exempt. Serpent King 14:39, 16 October 2016 (EDT)