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

Forums: Index → Watercooler → 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.--File:PSIWolf sig 2.png 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 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.--File:PSIWolf sig 2.png 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 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.--File:PSIWolf sig 2.png 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 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.--File:PSIWolf sig 2.png 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 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 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 12:37, 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)