Forum:Improvements to the "In competitive play" section of character articles

In our character articles, we have a "In competitive play" section that consists of only their matchups for every character, with the exception of Meta Knight (who has a subsection there on his banning). To improve the information on our character articles and to make this section more worthwhile, I plan to add the following to them:


 * Tournament success


 * For this section, we simply list the amount of money the character has won in tournaments for each year, the data of which can be found in John#s' blog on AiB. I'm not sure where we can find equivalent data for Melee and SSB64 though.


 * Impact in tournament


 * Simply, a section describing the character's historic and overall impact in tournament play, as well as competitive attitudes towards the character.


 * Notable professionals


 * This would be section that would list the most notable players to use the character in tournament, as well as a short description for each describing their notability and success with the character, as well as their own impact on the character's metagame.

So then, any comments before I start adding this stuff in my revision of each character article, as well as suggestions for additional things we could add to improve the competitive information in our character articles? Omega  Tyrant   11:27, 21 August 2012 (EDT)


 * In my eyes, the tournament succes does not rely on the characters, but the players. In that case, it should not go in a character article.-- PSIWolf  The one and only! 11:38, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
 * 1. It's player and character, no matter how much you want to be ignorant about it. 2. You offered no explanation how any of this potential information is not relevant to the character. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 11:49, 21 August 2012 (EDT)


 * 1. How good the character does depends on how the player uses him or her. For example, you have Meta Knight, but someone who can't play Brawl uses him. That won't turn out well.


 * 2. Because it is relevant to the Smasher.-- PSIWolf  The one and only! 11:51, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
 * 1. If it was all player with the character completely irrelevant, why is Meta Knight so dominant and no low/bottom tier characters ever winning? Stop being so ignorant, and read this.


 * 2. That doesn't explain anything about how the character is not relevant to what I'm proposing. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 11:55, 21 August 2012 (EDT)


 * You cannot call me ignorant right away if you asked for comments yourself. But if you want me to GTFO, then you could've just said so.-- PSIWolf  The one and only! 11:57, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
 * Don't want to be called out for your ignorance? Don't make ignorant comments. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 12:01, 21 August 2012 (EDT)


 * Ignorance? I did not say anything you proposed was not true. Does not seem like ignorance. If you do'nt want comments, don't ask for them. I'm sure that, if someone else made a comment, even if it had the same content as mine, you wouldn't have called that one ignorant.-- PSIWolf  The one and only! 12:04, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
 * You objected me adding this information for "tournament succes does not rely on the characters, but the players", under the delusion that character does not play a part at all. That's ignorance.


 * And get out of here with that victim mentality. I don't care who you are, if you're going to object legitimate information being added to the Wiki over ignorant anti-tier stances, I'll say something about it. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 12:12, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

Ladies, please stop provoking each other. You both make very valid points, so stop arguing! ScoreCounter (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
 * Don't make disparaging comments towards others for simply arguing. Debate is a natural part of wikis, and disparaging others for it is never acceptable. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 12:18, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
 * More than one page between only two people? And in no way was I meaning to say that there was little point in it, as I said, you both have a valid statement.ScoreCounter (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
 * The amount of people is relevant how? And "ladies, stop provoking each other" is disparaging, blindly telling people "you both have a valid statement" doesn't make your pointless comment any less disparaging. Now if you don't have anything constructive to say, don't bother commenting at all. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 12:37, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
 * Both of them are also male, not female. Dots The Asian NintenNESsprite.png 13:09, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

I support this. It's important to cover the aspects of a character in theory as well as in effect. —Smiddle my sig is not fancy 12:38, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

Oh, I support By the way, appologies for offence. ScoreCounter (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

Support, what Smiddle said.-- PSIWolf  The one and only! 13:04, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

Also, having only the matchups of the character on the "In competitive play" (except Meta Knight) on their character pages had me change the section title of "In competitive play" into '"Matchups". Should I change it back or we could make another section of the previous title? Dots The Asian 13:16, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
 * Change it back and put matchups as one of the subsections. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 13:21, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

Strong Support:  It'd be cool if SmashWiki had information about characters, their tournament success, their metagame, etc.. I'm suprised there isn't already something like this.--Bandit 21:14, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

I support this. However, something just came to mind about our scope on competitive play: there is very little coverage of doubles matches. While for most characters, this is not very significant, I'm thinking we could have a small section in some character's pages about how they do in variations in competitive play (in other words how they are impacted by additional stages being legal, in doubles matches, etc). Basically this would be an "other" section. Mr.  Anon  talk  22:44, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
 * Just as an example, I've heard Mr. Game and Watch and Ness perform differently in teams, due to their down specials that benefit them in doubles matches. Other competetive info like this could go in its own section. Mr.  Anon Anon.png talk   22:46, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
 * Such information can be included in their attributes section, as well as the "impact in tournament play" section if the character has significantly greater presence in doubles (such as the aforementioned Game & Watch). Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 22:55, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

Support: In addition to all that's been said, I'd also like to suggest we state recent tournament placement statistics. This can be either it's own subsection or included in the "Tournament Success" or "Impact on Tournament" sections. We can get these statistics from bracket data from big tournaments. -- Brian Don't try me! 22:33, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. The "tournament success" section is already going to list tournament statistics of the characters' success. Also elaborate on what you mean with "bracket data". Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 15:08, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
 * Oh sorry about that, I meant to suggest that we add how well characters tend to place. For example, Foxes and Marths usually place in the range of 25 to 9 when it comes to big tournaments. There can be some exceptions for example Javi placing 4th at Apex, and Taj placing 3rd at Genesis 2. 1 small caveat though. I said bracket data because that's where we could get this type of information from.-- Brian Don't try me!Falco.gif 16:09, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
 * Sounds nice, but I find it to be a bit general, and unlike money data for Brawl, there doesn't already exist a nice source with all the info. But if you can gather up all the data, I could take a look at it and see what we can implement. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 00:05, 28 August 2012 (EDT)