SmashWiki talk:Smasher Project

I'm unblanking this project....it's well written, and any problems can be ironed out pretty easily. 15:03, February 16, 2007 (GMT)
 * Works for me. There's more I intend to add. Oddly, I get more done on SmashWiki at work than I do at home. :^) -- Randall00 18:25, February 16, 2007 (GMT)

Brawl hopefuls
What's the policy on people posting their character predictions for Brawl on their smasher pages [Error alt delete|here] is an example)? --YodaMasterZ 01:41, December 24, 2007 (EST)

Skill levels
In my recent edits, I have been removing skill levels for the reason of them being biased. However, there has been some controversy over that, so I propose to remove skill levels from the smasher project. Mr. Anon teh awsome Anon  Sir Anon  the great  17:58, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Major Support: Reason stated above.  DP99  (CTE) [[file:dp99.png]] 18:19, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strong Oppose Are you kidding me?  Seriously, people, stop just trying to remove everything from everything on this wiki.  Skill levels are absolutely vital as we use them.  If you want, I'll entertain the notion of changing it from "skill" to "status," but we will keep using the same things.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 19:43, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because you seem dense in this matter, I will continue it. We can measure skill level.  We measure it in terms of top-professional, professional, semi-professional, and amateur.  These are verifiable terms.  Top-professionals are people who consistently compete and win in the highest level tournaments (i.e. Ken, Azen, M2K).  Professionals are those who routinely play in significant tournaments and make consistent money playing the game (i.e. Caveman, t!mmy).  Semi-professionals are mostly local players who occasionally compete in larger tournaments and/or rank among the the top in their region.  Amateurs basically don't make any kind of significant money playing the game, and as such rarely play in major tourneys or even win in local ones.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 19:50, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, Amatures (given by your definition) should not have articles in the first place. Secondly, please define "the highest level tournaments". Mr. Anon teh awsome  Anon  Sir Anon  the great  19:57, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, certain amateurs get pages because of other contributions to the smash community that make them notable. Second, if you don't even know what the high-level tourneys are, you are way out of your element even being in this discussion.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:59, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose For the reasons I told you on the IRC. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png|25px ]] 20:12, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Major Oppose: Thought we settled this in IRC. DP99  (CTE) [[file:dp99.png]] 20:14, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * We had not settled this in the IRC. Instead, I proposed another policy to add to NOTE. Mr. Anon teh awsome  Anon  Sir Anon  the great  20:30, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no point in getting rid of the skill levels, it's useful info to have, and it's a stupid waste of time to continue arguing about this. They're being kept, and that's final unless someone else has a better reason that explains why should get rid of them. DP99  (CTE) [[file:dp99.png]] 20:35, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for getting rid of skill levels is because it's not a useful thing to have, and it's pretty biased to say that some people are better than others. Furthermore, there is little difference between "Top pro" and "pro Am", and (as in my other proposal) there is no need for articles about people who don't rank highly in tournaments, so if you define "top pro" as someone who ranks highly in tournys, than most (if not all) smashers would qualify as "top pro" (except for people who have smasher pages for reasons other than tourny results, such as reaserch). Mr. Anon teh awsome  Anon  Sir Anon  the great  20:40, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) What are you talking about? Have you never watched a single pro match?  You honestly think that there is little difference between me (a semi-pro) and Ken?   It is incredibly useful in the context of an encyclopedia to know which players are at what level of play.  And who cares if it's "biased?"  It's also true.  If people can't get over the fact that there are players who are better than them, they need to grow up, not come crying to this wiki to stop talking about it.  We're not talking about giving a complete list of who's better than who in what order, simply grouping players into four categories based on their skill level as empirically demonstrated.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:59, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is not biased at all. Biased means we can't make an unpredjudice decision, and we are not biased for or against any of these players. Second, there is a difference between top pro and pro am, there are definitions for these terms. Lastly, the other policy you proposed has not passed yet, so we can still have articles of smashers of various skills. Now we have already reached a consensus; we are keeping the skill levels on the articles. So why don't you accept it already? Oh, and behavior like this will harm future RfAs. DP99  (CTE) [[file:dp99.png]] 20:57, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly 3 people is not a consensus. Secondly, with the given definition of "pro am", nobody with that skill level warrants a smasher article. Thirdly, how is proposing a policy harming future RFAs? Mr. Anon teh awsome  Anon  Sir Anon  the great  21:02, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * @1. No, but it's getting close.  @2.  Yes they do if they make other notable contributions to the smash community.  @3.  It's harming your RfAs because you are doing it completely wrong.  You do not just start implementing it without discussion and when you propose it, you should do more than just say "I propose ..."  You need to actually give a lot of evidence for why we should change the policy as such.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:05, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was gonna say everything CHawk said, plus the fact that this hurts future RfAs because you are so adamant about this that you are breaking policies to get what you want. Notably 1RV DP99  (CTE) [[file:dp99.png]] 21:11, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * @Anon, while this is taking place, leave skill levels on pages just in case. DP99  (CTE) [[file:dp99.png]] 18:19, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you allowed to edit proposals during voting? Mr. Anon teh awsome  Anon  Sir Anon  the great  02:33, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Skill Levels 2
OK, it's agreed upon that skill levels are relevent, but I have a new proposal on them. I propose that for skill levels to be included, citation of the tournies they have won must be included in an article. I also propose that definitions of the different skill levels be written down.

Amature = has never participated in a real tourny, or has always ranked lowly in them. The only reason why we should include pages of smashers in this category is if they have contributed to smash in another manner, such as in research.

Semi-Pro = Has ranked highly in local tournies and/or done fairly in regional tournies.

Pro = Has ranked highly in regional tournies and/ or done fairly in national tournies.

Top Pro = Has consitantly ranked highly in proffesional tournies.

Obviously, skill levels such as "Expert" will be removed. Mr. Anon teh awsome Anon  Sir Anon  the great  22:21, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support - I agree that sources should be requisite for skill-level to be mentioned. Before, it was "yeah I saw him on U2b hes good" or "I saw him at a tournament". Links to sources is something necessary regardless. I'm sure SmashBoards has information on tournaments, etc.  BNK [ E 21:42, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * This isn't a policy. Needing for the information to be verifiable is a standard for anything on this wiki.  Yes, the links should be there, but exactly what is the recourse if they are not?  If the recourse is to remove the skill level, then this is actually bad for the wiki as it encourages removing possible valuable information instead of encouraging research into the said information.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:23, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but what about my definitions for the various skill levels? Mr. Anon teh awsome  Anon  Sir Anon  the great  21:25, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * If by "your definitions" you mean the ones you copied from my earlier post, then yes, they are good. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:25, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Oh, and I don't like using Pro-am to define a person. Pro-am is usually used in the context of talking about a tournament that pairs both professional and amateur players. Think a golf tournament where you can donate $50,000 to charity to play with Tiger Woods. Basically, Pro-am is a designation of a type of event, not a status of a player in said event. Semi-pro is more correct in describing said types of players. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:31, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I didn't say we should remove skill levels if we don't have citation, we could put a note saying that the articles requires sources, similar to what Wikipedia does. Mr. Anon teh awsome  Anon  Sir Anon  the great  21:28, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Mr. Anon teh awsome  Anon  Sir Anon  the great  21:33, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Before I vote, may I ask what the point is? Doctor Pain 99 ( C  T  E ) [[file:dp99.png]] 22:32, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well this is to prevent people from just making entries of their friends and ranking them as proffesionalls. Mr. Anon teh awsome  Anon  Sir Anon  the great  23:12, August 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * CHawk and OT are good at catching stuff like that. I'm not sure this needs to become a policy. Doctor Pain 99 ( C  T  E ) [[file:dp99.png]] 23:50, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but we need some way of ensuring whether the skill of a smasher. Someone could, for example put "Pro" into the skill section when the smasher should be classified as "semi pro". This is also defining the terms, which hasn't yet been done. Mr. Anon teh awsome  Anon  Sir Anon  the great  05:05, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Bumping as nobody has voted. Mr. Anon teh awsome Anon  Sir Anon  the great  18:52, August 22, 2010 (UTC)