Talk:Leffen vs. Chillin (Apex 2015)

Merge
Honestly, I think this page should just be about "Respect Your Elders," which is one of the reasons why the set became infamous; most of the information here is the leadup and effect of the diss track. All the stuff on the exhibition set is already covered in their respective pages, so any additional information should be merged to Apex 2015 or their respective Smasher pages. Cookies Creme  11:38, December 6, 2020 (EST)
 * I would be okay with that approach, though I still think that the set overall plus the drama surrounding it is notable enough to deserve its own article.


 * Overall I would like to challenge the merge reason saying that single tournament sets are not notable enough to deserve their own articles. The diss track has over 1.5 million views, and the full set has almost 900k views (the most viewed in Melee history), which is pretty remarkable considering how small competitive Smash is. Not to mention the set + the diss track have spawned tons of highlight compilations, memes, and remixes, which is unprecedented for a Smash competitive set. Plus all the attention that the set has received from non-Smash related media. 1 2 3 Look on any reddit thread and there are so many people saying that this is one of their favorite/most iconic sets of all time. 1 2 3


 * In a fighting game where history is decided by individual matches, I see no reason why an individual match can't be considered notable enough to merit its own article. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about the most famous sporting matches. 1 2 3. A Smash-specific wiki should be willing to write about these historical moments. Plus the Wombo Combo article already exists, and that's just 30 seconds of a set, so there should be no question that an entire set has the potential to be notable enough.


 * Also, I don't think this article fits the traditional usage of a merge. SmashWiki typically merges articles when the split-offs are extremely short articles with little to no relevant encyclopedic content. That's why we have articles for "Lists of trophies" instead of have separate pages for every minor Nintendo character that would take up only a few lines.


 * If this article was a few sentences long while trying to squeeze out information, I think the merge argument would apply here. But this is not the case here. The article is 16 KB long, halfway to the old 32 KB mobile limit, and is longer than most non-top 50 smasher articles. It has a well structured table of contents with clearly defined sections. I spent most of the article talking about the background and aftermath, and barely any time talking about the technical details of the set itself. It has 39 references, which is more than our article on Ultimate.


 * The article Leffen vs Chillin fits the exact purpose of what a wiki is meant to do. If an article has a subtopic that has enough information to stand on its own, you split the page in two, while using a "Main Article" link on the former page. Merging the two pages would inevitably remove some of the relevant content on this article, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.


 * I know that this is the first article of its kind on SmashWiki, but I think it would be more productive to consider writing articles about other famous tournament sets, rather than trying to delete one because "none others exist yet" (SmashWiki is not complete anyways). Of course this could open up a path where short stubs of matches get randomly created, but I think based on that it should be clear if a set has enough content to deserve a standalone page (plus there are probably only a handful of sets that deserve their own article).  Awesome  Cardinal 2000  16:33, December 6, 2020 (EST)
 * This comment isn't about the merge but more about articles like this in the future. This set is notable in that it was the result of beef between two top players and also has a lasting legacy; the same can be said about the Wombo Combo. However, what's the difference between a "notable" set and a "memorable" set? For example, is Nairo v. ZeRo at MLG 2015 considered notable? On one hand, it's the first time ZeRo lost a tournament in Smash 4, but on the other hand it was just that. There wasn't much that built up to it, there's not much legacy, heck this set is probably taboo now because of the recent allegations. But because of that one thing it's considered one of Smash 4's most important sets. Should it get a page? In my opinion, there should be a clear line between the two before creating more pages like this. Cookies CnC Signature.png Creme  17:02, December 6, 2020 (EST)
 * There's nothing inherently wrong with mentions of iconic/notable/memorable sets (Unknown522 vs Mew2King at RoM5 and CaptainZack vs Lima at EVO 2018, both of which are already mentioned on-wiki, come to mind); I just think that there's less incentive to make full pages out of these. Aidan,  the Festive Rurouni  17:17, December 6, 2020 (EST)
 * I think it would be better on a case-by-case basis. Obviously anyone can make an article about any set they want, but if you can't describe it in more than a few sentences, it probably should be merged. Deleting/merging short stubs is normally not great, but for these kinds of articles I think it's okay to merge low-effort pages that worsen the quality of the site (similar to how we don't approve of those "'XXXX' is a smasher from Y state" articles).


 * I think the best policy for now would be to keep memorable sets in the tournament/smasher article, until someone writes a substantial enough article on them, after which they could be split into their own page. Writing about tournament stories (beyond just placings and data points) is something I've always wanted to do more of anyways, and back when I was more active, I added tournament summaries to many articles like here at and .  Awesome   Cardinal 2000  18:32, December 6, 2020 (EST)
 * ...I think it's a poor mindset to think that "anyone can make an article about any set they want," not just because of quality issues (as you mentioned), but because that creates another gray line that has, frankly, already existed for a long time: where is the line drawn between what is and isn't notable?


 * I also think that it is incredibly redundant to make a separate page for a topic that can easily be covered in another; if people are going to look for a set, they would no doubt want to find the tournament it came from, since that is much more specific, right? There's countless numbers of sets had between players (especially now, seeing as how large the community is), so one would want to look for the tournament that the set was in, even if they can't specifically remember the players. People aren't going to look for a page relating to Hungrybox getting carded in his set with SFAT, they'll look for the page on EVO 2017, the tournament where it happened. Aidan,  the Festive Rurouni  18:58, December 6, 2020 (EST)
 * I think we're on the same page here. My thing about how anyone can create their own article was more of an extreme hypothetical case that could change things in the long term, but probably doesn't matter much right now (I guess I shouldn't have brought it up). I agree with the Hungrybox vs. SFAT case that it's better as a subsection of EVO 2017, since I probably couldn't write more than a few sentences about it.  Awesome  Cardinal 2000  19:09, December 6, 2020 (EST)

(reset indent) I guess one way is to see what people remember about the set. When people think of Hbox v. SFAT they think about the stupid EVO ruling. When people think about Zack v. Lima they think about how Bayo ruined the game. In the end they all tie back to the game and tournament. But for Leffen v. Chillin, people remember Respect Your Elders, the trash talk, My B, basically stuff that goes beyond Smash. This is also why I believe this page should be about Respect Your Elders, since when people think about the set that's most likely the first thing they think of. Cookies Creme  20:49, December 6, 2020 (EST)
 * I guess this is a tough case as well, but I think the set + the events surrounding it are notable enough to be their own article, and since the diss track was a part of the buildup, rather than the other way around, it makes more sense for me to have it as a section. And a lot of the trash + My B had nothing to do with the diss track.  Awesome  Cardinal 2000  23:54, December 6, 2020 (EST)