User talk:Serpent King/Sandbox/List of glitches (SSB)
So I wanted to get y'all's opinion on the keep/delete decisions[edit]
The idea behind this page (and those who will soon be created for the other games) is to minimize minor glitch stubs in our mainspace, more or less merging them here. Some glitch pages should be kept, but some shouldn't. I want to know what you guys think. Here are my stances on each:
- Green Shell glitch: Delete; Just a small stub article.
- Blast through: Delete; Once the Brawl page is made, pretty much all content can exist on just these pages. Plus, the glitch isn't really that notable as it only happens in extreme circumstances.
- Double jump cancel: Keep; No questions asked.
- Fake ledge jumping: Delete; Another small stub article.
- Invisibomb glitch: Delete; Seemingly pointless glitch.
- Momentum slide: Delete; Stub article without any images or video.
- Superjump: Delete; Another small stub article.
- Teleport (SSB): Keep; Well documented and it has other-game counterparts.
- Ultimate glitch: Delete; Already suggested for a merge.
Any glitch that exists in more than one game will not be deleted until each games' List of glitches (SSB_) page is done.
Feel free to let me know what you think. Please format your response similar to the above so I can keep track somewhat (although, probably unnecessary to relink to all of those pages). Serpent∞King (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
- I'd be fine with this arrangement.
Aidan, Master of Speed and Aura
21:18, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
Most of these shouldn't even be mentioned at all on this wiki. I do believe that other than the ones you said to keep, Green Shell glitch and Superjump (which I think we could expand or merge with something else) should be kept. Dots (talk) 
The Five by Five 22:04, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
- The thing is, I wanted this article (and its counterparts) to encompass and replace all but the most noteworthy of glitches, Like Master Hand glitch, Name Entry Glitch, Black Hole Glitch, etc. Green Shell and Superjump just don't make the bar for me. Serpent∞King (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
- I would agree with you that the former isn't all that too famous of a glitch (since it is 64 that wasn't obviously as popular as its sequels), but Superjump is a major aspect in all four games. Or otherwise, you would probably say that Jigglypuff's shield jump is the only notable superjump and the page could simply be redirected to Shield jump. Dots (talk)
The Scientist 22:15, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
- Sounds good to me. Serpent∞King (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
- Well, minor rewording for that last part I said. It appears that Jigglypuff's shield jump is not a glitch and it is natural for it to do that when its shield breaks. In addition, I question if all that other Superjump variations are page worthy either. Dots (talk) The Doc 22:20, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
- I would agree with you that the former isn't all that too famous of a glitch (since it is 64 that wasn't obviously as popular as its sequels), but Superjump is a major aspect in all four games. Or otherwise, you would probably say that Jigglypuff's shield jump is the only notable superjump and the page could simply be redirected to Shield jump. Dots (talk)
You say the goal of this page is to minimize "minor glitch stubs"? I think that's a flawed premise. A small page is not at all a bad thing if it covers its notable subject fully and consicely. I see absolutely zero practical advantage to merging these all into a single list page. Toomai Glittershine 
The Boss 22:21, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
- But a lot of them don't, and are not notable. Serpent∞King (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
- Then do the research to prove they're not notable, and tag them for notability deletion. Having a page just to list all the glicthes not notable enough for articles...isn't that just admitting they aren't notable enough to be on the wiki at all? Toomai Glittershine The Free 22:28, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
- But I mean, look at Momentum slide. It's a train wreck, and if I were to clean it up, we would have yet another stub. Serpent∞King (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
- If it's a stub after you clean it up, you didn't clean it up properly. Articles are not stubs just because they are short; they are stubs because they are short compared to how big they should be. An article on a character would be a stub even at like 2,000 words if it's still missing important sections; a complete article on a notable glitch may not be a stub even at 250 words. Toomai Glittershine The Dispenser 22:43, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
- If it's a stub after you clean it up, you didn't clean it up properly. Articles are not stubs just because they are short; they are stubs because they are short compared to how big they should be. An article on a character would be a stub even at like 2,000 words if it's still missing important sections; a complete article on a notable glitch may not be a stub even at 250 words. Toomai Glittershine
- But I mean, look at Momentum slide. It's a train wreck, and if I were to clean it up, we would have yet another stub. Serpent∞King (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
- Then do the research to prove they're not notable, and tag them for notability deletion. Having a page just to list all the glicthes not notable enough for articles...isn't that just admitting they aren't notable enough to be on the wiki at all? Toomai Glittershine
Any other suggestions? (before I'm forced to trash this) Serpent∞King (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2015 (EDT)
