Forum:Crew namespace

Forums: Index → Watercooler → Crew namespace

Archive 1

I opt to re-open this discussion, as many crews have been formed, and they are taking up much of the main namespace. I believe they should get their own namespace, that way 40% of the time I hit random page, it won't be a crew.UP/T/O 19:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, too many random crews are being formed to be in the main namespace.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 21:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we don't. It's been argued before, and yes, we have a lot of random crew pages. Instead of enabling people to create more articles about crews we don't need, how about we delete those random crew articles? How about people need notoriety in order to have a crew? I've really wanted to go on a anti-crappy crew page rampage for some time now, but I think that a namespace is a bit of a drastic step. Too many namespaces is sloppy...if we get a crew namespace, there is no grounds of which a Universe namespace (or even a Mario/Zelda/Kirby namespace) can't exist. The Smasher namespace exists because professionals are a category that many gaming wikias don't have, and this still is technically a a semi-Smashboards project. Semicolon (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Then people get angry because their page got deleted, but I do believe deleting would be the only good option.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Code Blue might be the first to go, since there isn't really any kind of competition here. Hosting these SW tourneys is a bit iffy for me... Blue Ninjakoopa^Talk 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I like Semicolon's option. We can get rid of the ones that haven't been updated in a long time or worth enough notability (famous enough). Many of these are crews that needs to be axed. Friedbeef1 1/26/09! 23:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with Semicolon.

I believe we should have a crew namespace for crews that have insufficient notability, such as the Aftermath Dynasty and Code Blue(and the others that SK mentioned), while notable crews can go in the main namespace. The whole thing would be similar to the Smasher Namespace, and Ken Hoang not being in it.UP/T/O 01:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing about having insufficient notability, cause, see, SmashWiki is a place for notable things to be recorded, and only those things. Lately, those standards have taken a beating, and they need to be returned to. You don't even need much to be considered 'notable.' Papercut would have their page stay because they actually host some tournaments, even if they are online. Some crews, like CTTS, which I do not paraphrase in quoting "CTTS is a crew located in Georgetown, Ontario. Both members attend CTK High School. They hope to attend a tournament soon," need to be deleted. The only content-ful edits to it were the first two edits it received, recorded at the same time. This crew is not active, it's not even a crew. It's two guys, who I suppose like to play Smash Bros, but I can't even be sure of that. They are not notable, they don't deserve an article. SmashWiki does not need a namespace to harbor drivel like this. In essence, I'm saying SmashWiki doesn't need more pages like this; it needs fewer, far fewer. I would like to propose some guidelines for what defines 'notability.' I'm going to get working on that. Semicolon (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand your point. I also agree notability is very subjective, so do we need to achieve a universal consensus of notable, or simply define it right now and see if it is agreed?Smoreking^(T) _(c) 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have defined it here. Semicolon (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and agreed.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 02:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Policy under SmashWiki namespace now.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 02:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)