SmashWiki talk:Neutral tone guide

Looks good. A few questions though

Looks real good, and makes sense. But a few things...

1. A character being considered good or bad = being used/not used and good/bad in tournaments?

2. "Good" adjectives = "useful"

3. "Bad" adjectives = "poor"

Is 1 really how it's supposed to be? Also, I want to clarify that 2 and 3 capture the essence of "neutrality." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashedpotatoes (talk • contribs) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

To clarify, we shouldn't be describing a character "good" or "bad" in general. A statement to the effect of "Rosalina is considered to be one the best fighters in the game" is pretty much out of the question in my mind. I changed the statement to one about competitive play not because that is "how it's supposed to be", but to convey the idea of the character's competitive success in a more direct fashion. That is, she isn't "one of the best" but "successful competitively" because I think that was the intent of the original, non-encyclopedic statement.

As for your statements 2 and 3, you have the general idea correct. The goal is to provide a non-opinionated, neutral presentation of a character's strengths and weaknesses as best we can. That said, this isn't a 1:1 word swap thing. Sometimes you'll have to rework one or more sentences completely, as I tried to demonstrate. I will be adding more examples, if that would help. Miles (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

Cool, that all makes sense to me! You should spread this like crazy, people need to read it. Smashedpotatoes (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

Hmm... most of this seems fair to me, but would it be possible to reword Rosalina's entry to capture more of the original intent (i.e. add "above-average successes" or something to that effect), or would that be inherently subjective? Nyargleblargle (Talk) 19:52, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

That would be fine; "notable" was my attempt at that although I realize why it could be read otherwise. "Above-average", "significant", etc. would be fine as long as they're used objectively (i.e. look at Dabuz's tourney placings). Miles (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

Despite my beef with you on subjectivity...

Mostly, it looks fantastic (sorry..), especially your Mega Man and Bowser Jr. pages. One thing to note is that your desire on the Bowser Jr, Mewtwo, and Donkey Kong has already been done. Ganonmew (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

I have finished the Jigglypuff page. I feel like you should remove examples already taken care of: they are outdated. Ganonmew (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

This isn't a to-do list, it's a reference point of "here is stuff to avoid" with examples. I'm not actively updating it. Miles (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

Oh, that makes sense. Ganonmew (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

A small tweak in wording

Ness' proposed wording sounds a bit wonky IMO, I'd say it should be more along the lines of Overall, Ness has seen much more success in tournaments than in previous Super Smash Bros. games. Not sure if I should just add it because it's basically removing pluralization or suggest it here, but better safe than sorry. Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 13:13, 15 October 2015 (EDT)

I see the two as equivalent, so either way is fine. Miles (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2015 (EDT)

Not a single example from the Marth (SSB4) page...

So it went from being by far the most subjective SSB4 page to one of the least? What do you think of its current state? Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 17:27, 17 October 2015 (EDT)

Again, the examples are from one point in time. There are a few problems on the current page but it's a lot more encyclopedic in tone than it used to be. Miles (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2015 (EDT)

Yeah, let's just hope someone doesn't make Brian angry again. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 17:31, 17 October 2015 (EDT)

Ew

So shitty guidelines like these are being enforced nowadays. Omega Tyrant 08:57, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Please elaborate, unless this is Miles bias. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 09:00, 11 November 2015 (EST)

In short, completely unnecessary for the wiki, and it just serves to soften up the facts or make them more unclear/less direct. Omega Tyrant 09:23, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I mean, SmashWiki is an encyclopedia, so why should it be filled with a bunch of subjective, biased, and opinionated "facts"? Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 09:24, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Do you have to be this hostile to Miles all the time? These guidelines aren't completely bad. Dots (talk) The Knee 09:29, 11 November 2015 (EST)

@Aidan: Brawl Ganon being a dreadful character in Brawl isn't a mere "opinion", Smash 4 Bowser having terrible rolls isn't a mere "opinion", Smash 4 Sheik being regarded by the majority as the best character isn't a mere "opinion", tiers existing isn't an "opinion". The wiki always documented observable facts, and supported the views of the competitive community to give the most useful information.

@Dots: How is Miles relevant here? If you're going to white knight, do it on a relevant page. Omega Tyrant 09:34, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I'm aware, and I share similar opinions, but we can't really make it sound like it's worse than it needs to be. Yes, Ganondorf sucks ass in Brawl, Sonic has horrible KOing abilities, and Sheik is as overpowered as she once was, but you can't make everything sound biased. Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 09:37, 11 November 2015 (EST)

And also, Miles is relevant here, as he was the one who drafted this whole thing. Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 09:38, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Well Miles was the person who was concerned about this in the first place so... Dots (talk) The Kirby's up tilt 09:39, 11 November 2015 (EST)

That's not bias, that's the simple facts, and they shouldn't be danced around. And no, Miles isn't relevant when nothing I said here has anything to do with him. "Don't be mean to Miles!" is completely needless dramatization. Omega Tyrant 09:51, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I want to point out that most of the problems in enforcing the neutral tone guide have actually come from the Project M pages. In a game/mod without a tier list, what's been happening is people using terms like "his buffs overpower his flaws" for characters that others may consider low tier. I know you're not a fan of Project M, but the tone guide certainly has uses. John PK SMAAAASH!! 09:41, 11 November 2015 (EST)

If you got some people stating things that aren't factual and aren't supported by the mass view, then you simply remove them, you don't soften up the wiki in a weak attempt to be "neutral". Omega Tyrant 09:51, 11 November 2015 (EST)

If I were to be quite honest with you, Project M doesn't really exist in my book. Dots (talk) The Arwing 09:43, 11 November 2015 (EST)

So you still do that irrelevant comments thing you been told not to do so many times, in addition to all the dramatization? Omega Tyrant 09:51, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Fine, I'm staying out of it anyways. I don't give a shit about PM anyways so your right. Dots (talk) The Engineer 09:55, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I know you're not a fan of Project M, and I won't waste time talking about why I like it. But the point remains that some of the most subjective stuff being written on the wiki is on the Project M pages, and that's where the tone guide comes in handy - curbing personal opinions of the characters. On the official Smash game pages, it still comes in use. Rather than saying "Bowser has terrible rolls", which is subjective, we can say "Bowser's rolls are the slowest in the game", which is not subjective and means the same thing. Readers will still realize that Bowser's rolls are bad without the wiki being unencyclopedic about it. John PK SMAAAASH!! 09:50, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Exactly. I wouldn't mind Project M being on this wiki but I'm staying out of it. However, don't let the biased PM extremist players get a hand on them. Dots (talk) The Melee 09:54, 11 November 2015 (EST)

So OT, you probably weren't informed of this, but hear me out. We aren't sugarcoating it, we're an encyclopedia. We aren't saying Brawl Sonic isn't a character with an awful, awful moveset. We aren't saying Brawl Ganon doesn't blow. We're just saying there are more encyclopedic ways of saying it. While there are some issues with it (i.e. saying "worsen" is unacceptable), I think it is a solid guideline. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 09:48, 11 November 2015 (EST)

"To further compound this, Bowser has possibly the worst set of rolls in the game; while most fighters have rolls that excel in speed/distance to make up for the lack of the other, Bowser has no such advantage, having rolls that travel minimal distance without having low endlag or a short duration to compensate."

To:

"Bowser's rolls are less useful than those of other characters, as they give Bowser less distance across the ground than other characters, without having lower endlag or a shorter duration to compensate."

Yeah it is sugercoating. Omega Tyrant 10:03, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Regardless of whether or not you take this as "sugarcoating" or not, both statements say the same thing. Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 10:04, 11 November 2015 (EST)

They do not; the former makes it clear how lacking Bowser's rolls are, while the latter makes them sounds merely below-average. Omega Tyrant 10:07, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Omega Tyrant, point made. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 10:15, 11 November 2015 (EST)

To be fair, the meta of Smash 4 isn't quite as set in stone as Melee or Brawl. I'm fine with stronger wording, though. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 10:26, 11 November 2015 (EST)

And there's a point for that, but that doesn't mean the wiki shouldn't use definitive wording where applicable, and not shy away from reporting the majority-held views. Omega Tyrant 10:37, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Fair enough. How about wording the Bowser's roll description, for example, like "Bowser's rolls are significantly less useful than those of most characters"? Does that make it clearer while still being objective? Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 10:43, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I don't want to get involved in this tone debate, but perhaps the bigger issue here is that we're not doing enough to ensure we are reporting the majority-held views. Smash 4 pages can become unstable or inaccurate when users add their own opinions to the article and then argue about who's right without making an effort to find if a consensus exists outside of the wiki. I feel that some of the stuff on our character pages is out of touch with the competitive community. What can we do to improve this? Zyrac (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2015 (EST)

@Nyargle: Stronger words just aren't inherently "less objective" and shouldn't be seen by the wiki as such.

@Zyrac: Following the Smash Reddit and the competitive threads on Smashboards will help keep you up to date on that stuff. Smashboards even have "competitive impressions" threads that will give you direct feedback on common views and the such, and help filter out the fringe views/statements. Omega Tyrant 11:28, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I'm certainly aware that the two have no correlation. I was trying to fix the problems in the sentence that the changes caused while not undoing the whole point. Sorry if I didn't communicate that clearly enough. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 11:41, 11 November 2015 (EST)

You can make a point without dropping an anvil on somebody's head with your wording. Miles (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2015 (EST)

*Drops anvil on a vandal's head* INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 10:29, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Please make an attempt to keep your discussion on-topic, thank you. Miles (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I agree that this policy is tripe, and I wish I noticed when it was being introduced. ZeRo's YouTube videos aren't proving popular because he says "Rosalina has enjoyed more success than other characters", people want to hear him say "Rosalina is top tier, one of the best characters in the game". If I were interested in picking up a new main, I'd want to be told straight up if there's a glaring flaw. Indeed, I didn't realise that Bowser's rolls were slower than most, and I'd prefer to be told directly. If this is an effort to be more encyclopedic, why do we have contrasting policies like SW:OFFICIAL? Good grief, just get this revoked. Toast ltimatum 11:12, 11 November 2015 (EST)

SW:OFFICIAL doesn't directly contrast with this policy. We're not changing the wording to avoid conflicting with Nintendo, we're changing it because it's considered subjective. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 11:16, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Pretty much. Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 11:16, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Um, I just wanna point out that the Bowser example you guys are arguing over is not what's actually on the page. It currently reads: "Bowser's rolls are among the least useful. While most fighters have rolls that excel in speed or distance to make up for the lack of the other, Bowser has no such advantage, having rolls that travel a short distance and having more ending lag than most others." Zyrac (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2015 (EST)

See the examples section of the guidelines page. Omega Tyrant 11:31, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I realise that's what you were quoting, yeah. Just wanted to make everyone's clear on it. Zyrac (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Sorry I'm late, but I wanted to put my 2 cents in here. I have been opposed to this guideline since its inception. I just felt...very alone on that front, so I didn't bother arguing against it, only to have it jammed down my throat anyways. I do not have a problem with sounding more encyclopedic...but the examples given here are just...well...bad.

Example: I have a problem with saying "Fox is the best character in Melee because X, Y, and Z" but I do not have a problem with saying "Fox is at the top of the tier list and X, Y, and Z". This guideline's examples are not that. I agree in full that this guideline exists only to sugarcoat the truth. It does not need deleted, it needs rewritten. Serpent King 23:56, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I have been in the matter for sometime, and this policy has been proven very effective and is definitely required. However. Just like OT and SK stated, this article could certainly do with some rewording and some lenience. I mean, denying Dedede's terrible mobility and Palutena's super slow moveset IS sugarcoating. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2015 (EST)

How many of these are violated?

Search "fantastic" and you will find tons of character pages with the word. Others words that should be avoided work too. -- Ethan (Discussion) 19:03, 18 January 2016 (EST)

Not all instances of these words are violations. Most are, but not all. Saying that Sheik has fantastic combo ability in Melee is probably ok because it's 100% true. Although perhaps "above average" would be better in that case. Serpent King 19:07, 18 January 2016 (EST)

"Significantly above average" seems more comparable to fantastic. If her combo ability was outclassed by several other fighters, than fantastic may not be the best word and not 100% true. "Above average" seems like a positive of "sub-par". -- Ethan (Discussion) 19:20, 18 January 2016 (EST)

Rewriting this.

As some users may have noticed, I have begun drafting a policy similar to this. Would the userbase prefer if this new draft replaced Neutral Tone Guide entirely, or would it prefer if this new draft coexisted with Neutral Tone Guide?

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 21:26, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

This has been collecting dust for over a year and yours is vastly different while tackling the same prospect: this is an absolutely unnecessary page as a result. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 21:29, 2 July 2017 (EDT)