Category talk:Smashers who participate in SmashWiki

So, uh...

We need to set concrete standards in what is considered "participating in SmashWiki." There's no question that people like Toomai or Omega Tyrant participate in SmashWiki. But what about people who have SmashWiki accounts, but have made a few edits, such as Rickety or Slhoka, or even Mew2King? Should we have something like "more than 100 edits"? Or just "made an account"? Or something entirely different? Discuss. Air Conditioner Goo goo g'joob. 17:57, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

I still disagree that this should exist at all. Why don't "Smashers who participate in SmashBoards", or "...AllIsBrawl"? Because why would we need to make this distinction? Toomai Glittershine The Breegull 18:02, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

+1. There's no reason for this category to exist. It's not notable. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 18:05, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

Due to this, I support deletion on this page. Dots The Kirby 18:06, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

You people have a point, and as I said, there's no concrete standard for getting into this category. Support deletion. Air Conditioner Goo goo g'joob. 18:12, 30 October 2012 (EDT) I'm now not quite sure. Both sides have a point. I withdraw my support of deletion, but do not support keeping the category. Air Conditioner Goo goo g'joob. 19:03, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

I'm not entirely sure on my support of this yet, but I can give responses to some of the things said:

@AC: "Participate in SmashWiki" is clearly different from "Have accounts on SmashWiki". Simply, any user who can be considered an active user on the Wiki for some time would qualify here.

@Toomai: Pretty much every notable smasher out there has been active on those sites and those are the goto sites for the competitive community (it's pretty much necessary to be on one or the other to be active within the competitive community), whereas an extreme minority have been here. A category for smashers on those sites would be pretty much useless when they would have nearly every smasher article in them. Making this comparison is a pretty bad strawman.

As for a "reason" for this category, simply, perhaps users on here are interested in knowing which pros have been active on the site, and what users on the site are notable smashers. I know this applied to me. Omega Tyrant 18:40, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

Indeed, that has applied to me as well, so I support keeping this category. Toast ltimatum 18:47, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

OT: I see what you mean, but we need some concrete standards. How much is considered "participating"? One edit? Ten edits? One hundred? Five hundred? Air Conditioner Goo goo g'joob. 19:03, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

People who had a SmashWiki account since October 2010 are considered participating. ShupaRoeh 19:21, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

Remember what I said back in the VIP category debate how we don't need to be completely objective about every single thing? We have the mental capacities to determine if a smasher was a part of the community, we don't something stating "requires X edits" to tell us if a smasher was a part of our community (not to mention, we can make that determination ourselves better than objective standards would). Omega Tyrant 07:48, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

That would be a pretty silly requirement, ShupaRoeh. What if Brian or Fugudev suddenly became notable smashers? They'd be excluded for no good reason. You may just be putting "October 2010" as the standard because that's what it happens to be, but that should not be the concrete. Toast ltimatum 09:27, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Just ignore that, that's when we made the move and most of the active users here weren't around then. It has no bearing as a "standard" to determine if someone is a part of the Wiki. Omega Tyrant 09:38, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

I think we should keep this. As OT says, a small minority of smashers are or have been active here, while the majority of them participate in other Smash sites like AiB. --RoyboyX Talk 19:49, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Delete, tbh. It seems like it would get a bit complicated in the long run.--Starman125 (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Elaborate on how it would get "complicated". Omega Tyrant 20:07, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Does this mean only users who are in the active user list are considered participating?Brawls of fury (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

No, because RJM/Randall00 has long disappeared from the active user list, and KoRoBeNiKi's probably dropped off it too. Toast ltimatum 09:42, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

Do we even have the concrete standards in what is considered "participating on SmashWiki" yet?Brawls of fury (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2012 (EDT) I'm not sure anymore which I would support. Brawls of fury (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

What is so difficult to understand what constitutes as having been active and a part of the community? Omega Tyrant 10:28, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

There are smashers who occasionally edit this wiki, and there are smashers who have been instrumental in its development. Mew2King, Isai, Simna, and others have occasionally shown up, but myself, Randall, OT, etc. have actually had major impacts on this wiki. That is what this category is for. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 12:26, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

True. Keep in mind however, that this category is not called "Smashers who have had a major impact on SmashWiki." It is only called "Smashers who participate in SmashWiki," which is why we need to set standards as to exactly how much participation counts as eligibility for this category. Air Conditioner Goo goo g'joob. 07:27, 4 November 2012 (EST)

Please read OT's posts up to this point. If you're too lazy to read them, here's the idea in a nutshell: We're smart enough to judge who has participated enough to be in this category. We don't need flippin standards, especially if our brains are more than capable of judging who has participated. You put a standard of anything, and there will be a smasher who just contributed less than that standard requires, yet the contribution is extremely important. MegaTron1XD 09:21, 4 November 2012 (EST)

I have decided that this should be deleted. Smash Wiki is an encyclopedia and having a catagory for smashers who contribute to the wiki would be like having a random page in an encyclopedia about the authours who had "participated" in making that book.Brawls of fury (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Not at all. The authors of the physical encyclopedia simply compile information that they gather from sources. They do not test for most of the information they find. The smashers who contributed to the wiki, on the other hand, had to create the information from scratch. For example, compare a record of world series winners and the forward smash chart. The record was kept track of by a guy, and the authors gathered the info created by that one guy. On the other hand, the forward smash chart info was gathered from the game itself, which is the equivalency of saying that the authors got their info about the winners by being at the games. Perhaps reconsider your analogy. 108.194.146.62 02:50, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps this category could be renamed "Smashers who have participated in SmashWiki", if the category is to be for Smashers who have impacted this site tremendously? --RoyboyX Talk 09:31, 4 November 2012 (EST)

How does this work?

How do notable smashers get on here. Looking at "edit this page", it must be automatic. And why is ZeRo on here? -- Ethan(Discussion) 15:47, 30 January 2016 (EST)

You just add the category to the Smasher pages. And if you look at the edit history for ZeRo, you can see that ZeRo himself created his page. Disaster Flare (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2016 (EST)

You sure KoRoBeNiKi (talk•contribs•logs) is him? Just becuase his name is stylized like that doesn't mean he's him. Ctrl F "zero" doesn't do anything. He looks like a 64 fan. -- Ethan(Discussion) 23:14, 30 January 2016 (EST)

Based on the fact that there's also Smasher:KoRoBeNiKi, I'd say DF's information is wrong. There is CT ZeRo though. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 23:17, 30 January 2016 (EST)

Oh I am become error. I meant that he edited it before. I forgot that he wasn't the one who created the article itself. Disaster Flare (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2016 (EST)

Proof these are actually pro smashers

Are you guys sure most of these actually participate(d) in SmashWiki. Anyone can put the name of a smasher and edit their page to look like they are that person whether or not they are even trying to appear to be them. -- Ethan(Discussion) 12:08, 13 February 2016 (EST)

I think that the users in question confirm that they edited via Smashwiki on YouTube or Twitter. Penro ...that's all. 12:10, 13 February 2016 (EST)

SW:AGF's a thing. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by cupid♥. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 12:16, 13 February 2016 (EST)

...and how does that apply? Penro ...that's all. 12:18, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Assume good faith - assume that they are not lying to us about their identities. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by cupid♥. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 17:43, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Yeah, I said "Whether or not they are even trying to appear to be them" so maybe they just made it be their name because they are a fan of them (they may seem to be trying to impersonate them if they do that though). We can't just blindly assume it's them though so we should probable ask them to confirm. -- Ethan(Discussion) 18:58, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Can we filter this to those who at least dedicated themselves in editing SmashWiki? Dots (talk) The Marine 12:20, 13 February 2016 (EST)

To cite AGF here is to take it wildly out of scope. AGF is supposed to mean "don't take an erroneous edit as vandalism", not "assume they are correct" Serpent King 19:10, 13 February 2016 (EST)

I'm not assuming they're correct, I'm assuming that they are not liars who are trying to fool us. That's kind of the same deal as assuming they are not vandals but just don't know what they're doing. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by cupid♥. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 19:22, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Questioning a lot of the players being in this category

The purpose of this category isn't just to be applied to every player with a smasher article who happens to have an account here, but are actually involved with the wiki to a significant degree. However a lot of the people currently in this category don't really have a lot of edits and never got involved with SmashWiki's community, while their edits also tend to be mostly just to their smasher article and a few other articles related to them or their scene. At worst you have Biddy here, who literally only made just one edit to their smasher article. Maybe people will object to removing players from this category on a subjective basis, but really anyone who isn't at least an established user absolutely should not be in this category. I'll clean it up but I'll wait to see what others here have to say about it first. Omega Tyrant 15:32, February 21, 2021 (EST)

I agree, and I think the wiki could have better handling of covering information regarding the competitive community; I know you've spoken out about the competitive play section for each character not having actually notable players, or characters being listed on smasher pages despite said smasher only using them once or twice. Aidan, the Lovely Rurouni 15:41, February 21, 2021 (EST)

One way of going about this would be just to remove anyone on this list who isn't autoconfirmed and have at least edited a couple articles outside or their own page. I can't imagine anyone arguing those individuals shouldn't be removed. After that, if there are some borderline cases left they could be brought up as a group and discussed. Wiifitkid (talk) 15:49, February 21, 2021 (EST)

Established users should really be the baseline over autoconfirmed, as autoconfirmed status pretty much just means you're confirmed to likely not be a malicious user and so has extremely low requirements to meet, whereas reaching established status does require some sort of actual work, and if you don't have at least 100 edits to reach established status, it's extremely unlikely you would be considered all that participative here. Omega Tyrant 15:58, February 21, 2021 (EST)

I agree that established users should be the baseline, but since there's also the 90 day limit for established users I feel like autoconfirmed users who reach 100 edits can have this category as well. CookiesCreme 16:29, February 21, 2021 (EST)