Forum:Console Articles

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Forums: Index Watercooler Console Articles

Are they really necessary? Looks like a bunch of unneeded information on top of a chart that could otherwise be explained on character articles. Only three consoles hosted Super Smash Bros. games (N64 - SSB, GCN - SSBM, Wii - SSBB), and even they hold little relevant information other than the charts on their pages. Blue Ninjakoopa(Talk) 23:22, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

I agree. Having articles about key games is one thing, but the console articles are just lists of characters that appeared. Honestly I think the Wii is the only necessary one, as all three games are available on it. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Bump. Blue Ninjakoopa(Talk) 15:14, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
Guys. Blue Ninjakoopa(Talk) 21:13, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
^ Mr. Anon (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

There's really no need to be impatient enough to bump something after 6 hours.

As for my opinion, while I agree the possible information is limited, I find it hard to imagine a game-based wiki that lacks articles on the platforms its games are on. Despite the articles' rather limited usefulness, they're most likely expected by the public. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Honcho 21:51, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

I'd like to think that waiting six hours is anything but impatient. :/ Your reasoning only justifies the GCN, N64, and Wii articles, but the others are still useless (information on them can be found on character and universe articles respectively). Sooooooo yeah. Blue Ninjakoopa(Talk) 00:02, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Like Toomai said, I agree in keeping the articles of consoles that had a Smash Bros. game. But for the other consoles, I do agree with BNK that they are rather useless for a Smash Bros. Wiki. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 01:54, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Per Omega Tyrant. -- 09:40, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Looks like there's an agreement. Much thanks to all who agree with me. Blue Ninjakoopa(Talk) 17:57, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
We currently have 4 people for, 0 against. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Like Anon said, we have 4 people in support of deleting irrelevant articles like Game Boy, and in a year, nothing has been done. I'm tagging the unneeded articles for deletion. blue ninjakoopa 16:47, 20 December 2012 (EST)
So we're going to sacrifice completion of a logical set for a very strict cutoff of relevancy? And how is the NES (for example) not relevant if Brawl has a Masterpiece of one of its games? Toomai Glittershine ??? The Sharp 18:11, 20 December 2012 (EST)
"Strict cutoff"? Everything should have relevance; otherwise we might as well redirect SmashWiki to Google or Wikipedia. The cutoff is very reasonable; what, pray tell, does the Game Boy have to do with any of the Super Smash Bros. games? A character came from there? OK, well in that case, let's make an article for the Sega Genesis; Sonic's first game was on that console. But why stop there? We'll need articles on the PC/MSX2 since Snake's first game launched on those consoles. Do you see how that works? We're not the Game Console Wiki. The NES is not notable even if it has ties to Brawl's Masterpieces because that's still a very, very small amount of information not worthy of a full article. This is the logic that brought about those worthless articles on games like Sonic Adventure 2. blue ninjakoopa 18:48, 20 December 2012 (EST)
I am okay with potential Genesis and MSX2 articles. I am not okay with having a Smash Bros. wiki that has articles for some Nintendo systems and not others. If you want these articles deleted I'm not going to do it. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Different 19:04, 20 December 2012 (EST)
I'm not OK with that, because those articles wouldn't at all be relevant. I was using those examples to show how flawed this logic is. I would like to see the articles deleted but I'm not in charge, and I lack the tools necessary to delete them myself. blue ninjakoopa 19:07, 20 December 2012 (EST)
I'm ok with those articles since they would serve the same pupose as these articles. In fact I might encourage it because when someone reads what console a character originated from they might want to read an article like that. For aricles like NES instead af a reader having trouble find what characters came from NES they are all listed there which is a difference however between Sega Genesis and PC/MSX2 since our current articles on consles list several character origins which is why I have these articles like NES under a higher priority. Brawls of fury 19:25, 20 December 2012 (EST)
I understand where you're coming from but those articles would be so small that they would better fit on something like a "console origins list." It would be better just to link to Wikipedia rather than having those insignificant single-sentence on this wiki. What reader is going to try and find out where the characters came from? These readers certainly exist, which is why we have the universe articles, which list games that the Super Smash Bros. universe draws elements from. They'd also look for something the lines of "[this character] first appeared in X for the Nintendo Y" which, if not already present, should be put in place. The "Y" as I said could link to Wikipedia (as many other things do as well as to other NIWA wikis; I expect no one to act appalled at such a suggestion). Console articles are irrelevant, especially in regards to origins because they don't explain anything besides what games they hosted, which is insignificant data. blue ninjakoopa 19:35, 20 December 2012 (EST)
Yes but then where is the limit to what we should link to other wikis and what is relevant? Your main arguement is on the irrelevance of these articles. Does this mean that any articles with sections that have to much on stuff outside Smash Bros. should just have links to other wikis such as articles like this and this because it would save data and have much better descriptions? Brawls of fury 20:05, 20 December 2012 (EST)
Pretty much. We have no business venturing out like that in the first place. blue ninjakoopa 23:15, 20 December 2012 (EST)
Earlier above you said in parenthesies "information on them can be found on character and universe articles respectively" but now you say "We have no business venturing out like that in the first place" does this mean you have changed your mind on something? Brawls of fury 00:23, 21 December 2012 (EST)
I'm afraid you're not grasping the context; the information on universe articles isn't "venturing out" as I described. It's actually relevant since it states influences on elements in the Super Smash Bros. games. "Venturing out" would be information on consoles, whose elements are real-world, which don't influence the games at all. blue ninjakoopa 00:52, 21 December 2012 (EST)
But what is this you meant with the character articles that doesn't contradict with the "venturing out" rule ? Brawls of fury 19:51, 21 December 2012 (EST)
What? blue ninjakoopa 22:00, 21 December 2012 (EST)
Actually, disregard what I said because I have come to a conclusion. But yeah I see what you mean. Brawls of fury 01:17, 22 December 2012 (EST)
Actually I still have a question; you said "Venturing out would be information on consoles, whose elements are real-world" does this mean "venturing out" would also be anything thats real world about the game such as game ratings? Brawls of fury 23:16, 22 December 2012 (EST)
And any other games on the wiki for that mater such as masterpieces? Brawls of fury 23:20, 22 December 2012 (EST)
No. Consoles have real-world elements and are about as relevant as having an article on Saturn. Since Smashers play Super Smash Bros., they are relevant, and since ratings on Super Smash Bros. games are just that: ratings on relevant games, they are relevant. blue ninjakoopa 23:44, 22 December 2012 (EST)
Not all of the real world elements of consoles are irrelevant however; take the Backwards compatibility of the Wii for example. A reader reading Wii will learn that the Wii is backward compatible and learn that this means Melee and Brawl are playable on the Wii because the Wii is backwards compatible with the GCN which was the host of Melee, which they would also learn if they never played Melle. These articles also show what generation the systems are so any games originally released on them are part of that generation. Brawls of fury 00:20, 23 December 2012 (EST)
I don't see how your example justifies other console articles, it just justifies having an article on the Wii, which BNK already supports since the console is actually relevant to Smash rather than just having games that characters from Smash were in. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 05:39, 23 December 2012 (EST)
The generation part for any games on the wiki so not just Smash. Besides we have articles on the controllers, if we delete GCN and N64 why don't we delete their controller articles? BRAWLS BoFSig.png OF BoFSig.pngFURY 15:28, 23 December 2012 (EST)
Don't strawman, BNK never said anything about deleting articles for consoles the Smash games have been on (if you actually payed attention to what he said, he supports keeping articles for consoles that have had Smash games, and deleting those who only have articles because characters from Smash were in nonSmash games on them). Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 15:35, 23 December 2012 (EST)
"Only three consoles hosted Super Smash Bros. games (N64 - SSB, GCN - SSBM, Wii - SSBB), and even they hold little relevant information other than the charts on their pages."-BNK said this on the top of the page and what is "strawman"? BRAWLS BoFSig.png OF BoFSig.pngFURY 17:41, 23 December 2012 (EST)
Given those quotes, you still can't prove that I support those consoles' deletion from the mainspace. Those consoles are relevant because they hosted Super Smash Bros. games, and their information (such as how much memory they hold which is relevant because the SSB games take up a certain amount of memory and so do certain hacks if I can recall correctly, and I can go on and on) is relevant because it ties into things like hacking (a good portion of the mainspace), controllers (used by smashers and needed to explain how moves are performed, etc.), and other soft/hardware. I'm convinced you're not taking this discussion seriously, and this is a straw-man. You straw-manned by assuming that since I want to delete actual irrelevant console articles like Game Boy and NES as I've explicitly outlined above, I also somehow want to have articles like the N64, GCN, and Wii deleted, which I never supported. Try thoroughly reading my words. blue ninjakoopa 17:57, 23 December 2012 (EST)
When you said "Only three consoles hosted Super Smash Bros. games (N64 - SSB, GCN - SSBM, Wii - SSBB), and even they hold little relevant information other than the charts on their pages" I thought you wanted them for deletion because irrelevance was the same reasoning you used here and you were acussing them of having more irrelevance than relevance. And of course I took this disscusion seriously; there was just a misunderstanding is all. Sorry for the misinterpretation. BRAWLS BoFSig.png OF BoFSig.pngFURY 18:42, 23 December 2012 (EST)
I have taken your advice on thoroughly reading your words and I can't find where you said you don't support deletion of host game consoles. In fact when you say "[Console Articles] Are they really necessary? Looks like a bunch of unneeded information on top of a chart that could otherwise be explained on character articles. Only three consoles hosted Super Smash Bros. games (N64 - SSB, GCN - SSBM, Wii - SSBB), and even they hold little relevant information other than the charts on their pages." you are saying that the information could be explained on character articles which implies you would support deletion. In this quote you even say information on host console articles could be found on character pages Your reasoning only justifies the GCN, N64, and Wii articles, but the others are still useless (information on them can be found on character and universe articles respectively)." BRAWLS BoFSig.png OF BoFSig.pngFURY 01:22, 24 December 2012 (EST)
I don't support deletion of N64, GCN, or the Wii. I can see how you'd think I'd want some information removed (which is no longer my stance in regards to the mentioned consoles which host Super Smash Bros. games), but you've still, overall, failed to grasp the context. blue ninjakoopa 02:06, 24 December 2012 (EST)

(reset indent) Strawmanning means to give really weak arguments because they're the only arguments that one can think of. Air Conditioner AC.png wants money 17:45, 23 December 2012 (EST)

The Game Boy was never up for deletion but just a split, so I think the d tag might not be very appropriate. Brawls of fury 18:44, 20 December 2012 (EST)
If we get rid of the articles what do you propose we do with all the information in them? Surley we do something with the relevant information, other than poorly integrate them into other articles were they have even less relevance. Brawls of fury 18:55, 20 December 2012 (EST)
I don't think integration would go as poorly as you imagine. There isn't any relevant information in these articles besides character origins (what games they debuted in and what console they were for, which doesn't merit these consoles an article besides the ones that hosted/will host Super Smash Bros. games), which can be mentioned on the characters' articles. blue ninjakoopa 19:00, 20 December 2012 (EST)

Keep These articles should be kept since they somewhat appear in SSB games. The Awesome 19:27, 20 December 2012 (EST)

I think we should redirect them to something, because they do make cameos in the SSB games, although I'm not sure what to redirect it to. Nintendo, perhaps? Air Conditioner AC.png My contributions 14:12, 23 December 2012 (EST)

I agree. Nintendowiki, Super Mario Wiki, and Wikipedia have good articles to redirect to. BlueRidiculous (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2012 (EST)

This has gone on long enough, I'll go through with this and get rid of these articles if no strong objections can be put forward by tonight. For those that may oppose (especially new users), remember we're a Smash Bros. Wiki and not a Nintendo Wiki. While something like the NES has utmost importance to Nintendo, it has barely any relevancy, if any, to the Smash Bros. series. Also remember this proposal does not include getting rid of articles for consoles that had/will have Smash games on them (N64, GCN, Wii, 3DS, WiiU). Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 07:03, 26 January 2013 (EST)

I'll have you know I object to this more strongly than anything since the userpage deletion discussion. Unfortunately I don't have a reasonable argument. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Spark 12:38, 26 January 2013 (EST)
If you admittedly don't have a reasonable argument for it, why object at all? What exactly relevant in these articles merits an entire article to themselves? Questionable trivia (which characters' "origin game" was released on the console) and very minor information containable elsewhere (cameo information) are not grounds for entire articles. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 13:06, 26 January 2013 (EST)

Are you deleting the N64, Gamecube, and Wii articles too? Because those have revelance to the Smash Bros. Series (console limitations, frame data, what-have-you). BlueRidiculous 14:42, 26 January 2013 (EST)

He just said that above ("Also remember this proposal does not include getting rid of articles for consoles that had/will have Smash games on them (N64, GCN, Wii, 3DS, WiiU)."). --RoyboyX Talk 14:49, 26 January 2013 (EST)
Oh. Since the info on them are explained in the universe articles, I agree they're pointless. BlueRidiculous 14:53, 26 January 2013 (EST)

Okay, I know this is rather late but I agree with getting rid of the unnecessary console articles. Dots NintenNESsprite.png The Doctor 20:44, 28 January 2013 (EST)

How about creating an article called "List of Nintendo consoles," with a brief description of each, along with a picture and their appearances/game appearances in theSuper Smash Bros. series? Also, the ones that host Smash games would say Main Article: xxxxxxx. Ac2k 22:01, 11 February 2013 (EST)
Great idea. I agree. Red (Talk) Special:Contributions/Red 11:33, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Bump. --RoyboyX Talk 12:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Collateral damage[edit]

The irrelevant-to-Smash pages are dead, but they've unleashed an even larger problem: the trophy game template. They will now be linking to dead articles unless some way around it is found. --RoyboyX Talk 18:55, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

You could just, I don't know, remove the link? Toomai Glittershine ??? The Loony 18:58, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
Didn't know that at the time I wrote this. --RoyboyX Talk 19:00, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
What I'm saying is I'm not sure I can remove the link to the page on the template w/o screwing it all up everywhere else. --RoyboyX Talk 19:01, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
We'll probably have to rewrite the coding. If you think you could do that, its here: Template:Trophy games. Also, better than removing the link is a link to Nintendo Wiki by doing [[nwiki:Game Boy|Game Boy]]. Wecould also do this for the trophy templates. Awesome Cardinal 2000 19:11, 12 March 2013 (EDT)