User talk:PragmaticOddies

MHSP limit

Just a heads up, while most MHSP limits are set to 10, it does not mean that they have to be filled up to the 10 player limit, and there are certainly sections that have not reached the limit but have several players that should be looked at and/or removed. I think the Mario section is overall fine, though there will likely need to be a few more cuts as I agree with Rick that a character rare in competitive play having 7 players in MHSP certainly should have eyebrows raised. CookiesCreme 09:43, September 16, 2025 (EDT)

Cody/Jmook vs Plupbox

Just noticed your edit on the page for Cody Schwab, and I don't really agree with your take. While I do agree Plupbox was especially dominant when they were active, the issue was that they also did not attend that many events in the post-pandemic metagame, and they only won 5 major doubles events total (granted over the span of 2 years), and only one of them had a very large doubles entrants count (GENESIS 9). Conversely, Cody/Jmook has attended many more majors and have won 14 major doubles events in the span of 3 years; that includes an ongoing 6-major streak and wins at DPOTG and GENESIS X2, two events with very large doubles entrants counts. I believe it's pretty safe to say that Cody/Jmook is the best doubles team in the current metagame because their dominance is longer and they have a greater presence, which is what usually matters in these "greatest" discussions. I would mention that Melee Stats ranked Cody/Jmook as the #1 doubles team today, with the paragraph also saying they are arguably a top 5 team of all time, and could eventually be in contention for the greatest of all time. Granted, this is still just one person's opinions, but it at least further reflects supports that the two are considered the greatest in the current metagame. CookiesCreme 04:31, October 3, 2025 (EDT)

Yea Plup/Box limited tournaments attendance is a issue. Though in 2023 Plup/Box won two major doubles tournaments(the only tournaments they attended in 2023), GENESIS 9(235 teams) and MAJOR UPSET(57 teams). While Cody/Jmook won Tipped Off 14: Resurgence(79 teams), Battle of BC 5(81 teams), Collision 2023(93 entrants), placed high in a few doubles majors and won a couple regionals. Notable the only time they faced off Hbox/Plup won, and very convincingly. Genesis 9, was by far the largest doubles tournament that year, and basically the only double's equivalent to a super Major. I believe there is a reasonable argument to be made that Hbox/plup were the best team in 2023. They won the only supermajor equivalent, They beat Cody/Jmook the one time they faced each other, and didn't lose any tournaments. In addition Hbox/Plup Won every tournament they attended until 2024.

I'm not arguing that Hbox/Plup secretly the best team post slippi, but someone to state, without a source, that Cody/Jmook are unambiguously defacto best team during the entirety of post slippi, is not accurate. The way the article is worded should be changed. Just even changing it from "post slippi" to "current metagame" would be better wording. In addition that source you cited here should be added to the article as well.

Also we are using too much original research, which is bad practice. Unless there is yearly double rankings list i'm unaware of, double is oddly not tracked as much as it should be. So as consequence we are using too much original research instead of citing sources, as there is ambiguity that results if who would be ranked 1st in 2023 change depending on the perspective of the person deciding. Especially since doubled can't really be quantified in the same way as singles. But again, the wording should be changed, and there should to be citations. Who is making the argument as written now? Otherwise it's arguably a SW:NPOV violation "Avoid stating opinions as facts". The claim being made is a big claim, it deserves better wording and citations. PragmaticOddies(talk) 02:00PM, October 3, 2025 (EDT)

"Also we are using too much original research, which is bad practice"

I should note that we are mainly an unofficial (as in, not affiliated with Nintendo), fan-run wiki and not Wikipedia; otherwise, we'd be removing our trivia sections, several fan-made terms like the "perfect attendance crew", or easily observable statements that has not been explicitly stated by others, such as the largest tournaments in each region. Heck, the wiki has been deciding what events should be considered majors for a very long time, even in spite of TTSs such as LumiRank. While I agree too much original research is detrimental and can create bias, especially for controversial topics, for the most part a reasonable extent of original research should still be expected.

"Otherwise it's arguably a SW:NPOV violation "Avoid stating opinions as facts""

There's a big difference between adding one's opinions onto the wiki and adding a statement that has been pretty clearly represented by the data on the wiki. The data strongly supports Cody/Jmook as the best doubles team in the post-pandemic metagame; it does help that others such as Edwin can also come to this conclusion, but those really serve to reinforce rather than be used as a citation. It's the same as saying that "MkLeo is the greatest Ultimate player of all time" or that "Glutonny is the greatest European Ultimate player of all time." Both these statements are big yet widely-held beliefs even before SchuStats released his rankings, because people observed the data and came to that conclusion; would we really say that those statements require citations when it's pretty blatantly obvious? Conversely, it would be a different case if we said that Cody/Jmook were the greatest doubles team of all time, since that is something that would require a lot more analysis that can't easily be made on wiki information. CookiesCreme 16:11, October 3, 2025 (EDT)