Forum:Amendment to Smasher Policy (names for notable players)

In many places across the wiki, there are lists of smasher names that a particular smasher has taken sets from (X has taken sets off players such as A, B, C, D, etc.). Sometimes, a smasher has so many of these that it can spoil the readability of a section to an unreasonable degree. Until recently, I had been trying to enforce a limit of 10 names, which while still probably not very readable in some circumstances, is still, I believe, a far more reasonable standard. Because I was told to stop doing it, it has since snowballed out of control, to the point where there are some pages that now need cleaning up, such as 's page which, as of this post, has a whopping 23 names in the second paragraph.

I believe the time has come to make an amendment to the Smasher policy to address this issue. Simply put, I propose enforcing a limit of 10 names or less for 'such as' lists on Smasher pages and Notable Players lists on character pages. Alternately, you can probably come up with another way to fix the problem, in which case, post it in the comments, and we can discuss it. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 21:37, 13 May 2018 (EDT)

Support

 * 1) I think that, if we're thinking of it as a "these are super tough players that few have beaten before" kind of thing, then only the really important players should be listed. In the grand scheme of things, that can be a bit vague, especially considering how many people play Smash competitively, but I think that we can figure out guidelines to separate the "won a few tournaments" people from the "won things like EVO on a regular basis" people. Aidan,  the College-Bound Rurouni  22:09, 13 May 2018 (EDT)
 * 2) I agree on this, though I think even 10 is a bit too much. It's ridiculous seeing 23 names on AbsentPage's article. Relevancy of wins should be based on the rankings (SSBMRank, SSBBRank, 64 League Rankings, etc.) of the players during the time of the win. If the #32 highest ranked player beats #87, it's not really that impressive. Meanwhile, if the situation is reversed, the win becomes much more impressive and should be noted. In the event of both players having no rankings, then the dominance of the beaten player in tournament play should be used instead. Examples of this are some of the early Melee players such as, , or . Pokebub (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2018 (EDT)

Oppose

 * 1) We don't need a policy for this If you think that there are too many "defeated player" names listed, just go and clean up some of the less notable ones. This amendment would suggest that once an arbitrary cap is hit, no more names can be added, when the truth is that there should be no such limit, only a bit of common sense should be applied here.  Serpent SKSig.png  King  10:24, 14 May 2018 (EDT)
 * I would like to point out that if this proposal passes, details like that can be easily hashed out while writing it - we could say something along the lines of, "If the limit is reached, only the most notable names should be added in, and the rest removed." Black Vulpine  of the Furry Nation.  Furries make the internets go! :3  10:50, 14 May 2018 (EDT)
 * It's still not worth going through the trouble of writing this out. This is a "just do it" thing.  Serpent SKSig.png  King  11:05, 14 May 2018 (EDT)
 * To be fair, it wouldn't take too long to write out a couple sentences or so. The problem with this being a "just do it" thing is that it isn't explicitly stated anywhere on any policy. You can just say "use common sense", but then there's no set line to stop at. I could add 100 different names to the AbsentPage article and it'd technically be fine since it isn't explicitly stated in any policy that I can't do it. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but the point I'm trying to make is that it'd all just be subjective. Pokebub (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2018 (EDT)
 * 1) oppose, This seems like the kind of thing that it would be better to take on a case-by-case basis.  Alex the  Jigglypuff trainer  12:46, 14 May 2018 (EDT)
 * 2) I'll oppose in my favor and I AGREE WITH THEM! Dragonfirebreath25 (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2018 (EDT)

Comments
I would like to clarify, this is about making an addition to an already existing policy, this is NOT a proposal for an entirely new policy. If this passes, it will involve changing the policy to enforce a maximum number of names for 'such as' lists, to ensure that only the most notable names get used once that limit is reached, with the option of using 'and many more' if there is still a necessity to get a point across. This phrasing should be sufficient. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 00:46, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

I feel the need to bump this - a 3 to 3 stalemate is not going to take this proposal anywhere. For now, I've placed a cleanup tag on AbsentPage's article, but it will do nothing to solve the problem I've outlined here. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 05:57, 27 May 2018 (EDT)

After some thought on the subject, and in light of lack of response to this proposal, I'm going to declared it failed, no quorum. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 03:11, 2 July 2018 (EDT)