SmashWiki talk:Post-Merge Cleanup

Project Comments

Post any questions, suggestions, comments, death threats, etc. that you may have for this project below. I'll do what I can to clarify any issues you might run into! --RJM ^Talk 22:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied we finally can get rid of those controversial, heavy opinion based Pros & Cons. With this new attribute or something section, we would need to get sort of the strategy section merged? And wouldn't having it as list form rather than paragraph make it more of a neutral point of view. - Hatake91 (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Strategies don't really have a place in a character article. Valuable information can be pulled from strategy guides and cited as a reference, however these are not supposed to be instructional guides and we don't want to make the mistake of telling people how to play as though there is a right and wrong way to do it. We should be reporting fact not inferences based on fact. As to list form, it's not how the information is presented that makes it neutral or not; it's what is being said. Adding a bullet point beside a biased statement doesn't remove its bias. It's best to use your judgment as writers to present the information fairly and fluidly; the format that it takes is a personal preference, I suppose. --RJM ^Talk 17:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that sentiment (ugh@not having typed for a week) — wikis are the perfect places for guides. They allow for collaboration, or rather, what the community deems the best way to play a character, thusly removing the bias inherent in any one writers' guide. However, I may be on the wrong tack here — you may simply be saying that this information should not be in the main character articles but rather in subarticles, such as Roy strategy guide or Marth guide (SSBM).
Otherwise, looks good. Perhaps a fully drafted manual of style as well as other supporting guidelines, such as the talk page guideline, are in order, rather than the pathetic one currently in place. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Phase 1

There's a lot more work to be done on this project than will ever get done, I know that, but ya gotta start somewhere. I've been fiddling with this project management template for SmashWiki in the hopes of breathing some piping hot life into it. There are several additional phases to be added at a later date as I continue to compile them behind the scenes, but for the moment, we have some information on putting together a proper Character article.

Currently, Brawl is the focus because I expect I'll be able to incite the most interest from editors as well as see tangible results of the work we complete. Melee and 64 sections of the Character "phase" will be coming. In the meantime, please read it over, tell me what you think and maybe poke away at some of the stuff I've outlined--or suggest new stuff! Whateva.

Any questions? --RJM ^Talk 22:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Randal, great ideas here. I've been wanting to get rid of the pros and cons section for characters for months, and I'm glad that we're finally going to do it. That being said, would you have a problem if I added (either to this project or to another area) information on what is considered acceptable names for things? Like you said in the intro, many people are creating pages like "The Sonic Combo on Conveyor Belts" that is just his d-smash that happens to be done on a conveyor belt. I'm equally tiered of these things popping up, but even more tiered of not having a policy or project to point to when the people start bitching on my (or yours, or Rita's etc.) talk page. Would you want something like that added here or on another page? Again, great ideas; I look forward to getting started. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to place conditions and criteria on acceptable names. As sysops, I almost think we need to continue to handle those on a case-by-case basis as Brawl grows in popularity. We'll be able to filter out what's legitimate and what isn't by sourcing out the information. There does need to be some sort of policy that at least offers some guidelines for those writing up stuff about their own techniques and what not. However, that's further down the line in another "phase" of the project. I don't want to get too sidetracked because there's a lot to cover and if we're going to do it, we may as well do at once and do it right. Thanks for the input, though, I'll bear that in mind as I continue to expand this project page. --RJM ^Talk 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

before I do as many as I can

I have a few questions/concerns with the 2 pages that were pointed out to me- Falco/MK (SSBB).

1. Costumes, Idle poses, On-screen appearance, and Victory pose sections were removed. Why?
2. Changes from Melee to Brawl (if applicable) was removed. Why? I found this section informative and interesting.
3. Debut. Is this supposed to be the first game they appeared in or the first game they appeared in with that style? Zelda did most definitely not debut in Twilight Princess.
4. Why were the tilt moves changes to strong side or whatever? The entire SSB community uses the word tilt. Since there's no official name for it afaik, why change it and confuse everyone?
5. Audio section. Was this removed because of the subjectivity? I don't really care about this section (unlike the other4), am just merely inquisitive.

The article I have fixed up to the best of my ability with my limited knowledge can be found at User:Shadowcrest/Zelda. Any suggestions/explanations made either here or on that talk would be great. --Shadowcrest 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You've got some good points. The big reason I got rid of the Special Movements sections for the time being is that part of the point of this was to demonstrate that less is more. The articles were getting too cluttered with lots of random crap that was being added (i.e. Snake's Codec, User:SuperBobWhoCantPlaySmash's combos, etc.). By removing those section, I thought it would be a good way to demonstrate the new ideas. Once the fighter page format is standaradized, I plan to go into the back-logs and reinsert the relevant information that got cut. At the present, I wanted to give the most important information, and as this is a fighting game, attacks and attributes get regulated there. As for the Changes from Melee to Brawl, yes they should be added back in. However, I don't like them at the top of the article. The articles are supposed to deal with the characters as they appear in each game. Opening with discussion of the previous game, then, is counter-productive to the purpose of the article. I would suggest one of two spots for that section: Either at the bottom of the Attributes section (below Taunts) as a level three header (===Changes from Melee to Brawl===) or after the Subspace Emissary section as a level 2 header (==Changes from Melee to Brawl==). Lets get some opinions on this before going any further. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the project page to account for Changes from Melee to Brawl as a sub-section of Attributes. That was just an oversight on my part, I apologize. Clarinet Hawk has got it right about the Special Movements section, especially because the information is already documented elsewhere as a more complete game-related article in victory pose and fanfare. I addressed this with the guy who compiled those sections on my talk page as well.

"Tilts" being changed to "strong" is a product of the influx of Brawl editors that hit this wiki when the game was at the peak of its pre-release hype. The Smash Bros. DOJO!! was deemed the only official source for smash anything when it first debuted and all of a sudden the terminology we knew so well from Melee had all been "officially" changed. I have a bit of a mixed opinion about this and it kind of irks me that Sakurai can single-handedly invalidate terms that have been in popular usage for years just because he happens to be the head developer. I am of the opinion that the fans of the game--the people that fuel its success--have just as much, if not more, authority on what something should be called. That's why wavedash is still wavedash and not "Landing Special," as seen in the Debug menu of Action Replay. But you can bet that there's still thousands of people who will pass off any fan-made terminology as baseless and unofficial until big daddy Nintendo says it's okay. But anyway, to address your point, I think we'll leave them where they are for now just to prevent any of that backlash from the community at large. Luckily, they don't object to having tilt in bold right in the article introduction to add some balance between the "official" stuff for new readers and the terms in use by the active community. The redirects are all in place and the content is there, so there's no reason to do a bunch of work for no real gain when it's really just a technicality about the article title.

"Debut" should be the game that they first appeared in, yes. The Zelda article is probably trying to emphasize the Twilight Princess model, but it should be changed. As to the "Audio" portion, that was just deemed too trivial to be sitting in a fighter info page when most of the information (except perhaps the Wii remote choice audio) is captured elsewhere in the wiki. --RJM ^Talk 21:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)