Forum:The dilution of the "Notable players" sections

Forums: Index → Watercooler → The dilution of the "Notable players" sections

When these sections on character pages were conceptualized, they were meant to include only "historically significant" players, i.e. the very best players of the characters on a national level, or players who in the past had a huge impact on the character's competitive presence. They were explicitly not to be used to list just any pretty good player who uses the character, nor any big-name player who just occasionally messes around with the character (i.e. stop listing Mew2King on every single character he used once in a tournament). They were to provide a handy reference for readers on the most important players for that character; if readers wanted to see all the other players who competitively used the characters, that is what the character-specific categories were for. When I was around I was strict about enforcing this, but as my activity here wavered, I see these sections have become absolutely bloated, especially on the Smash 4 character articles. I made some attempts here and there when I was around to clean up some of them, but as I see those efforts did not stick and they just bloated back up.

I don't see myself fully inserting my hand into the wiki again anytime soon, but something concrete has to be decided about the exclusivity of these sections, and then proper enforcement must be followed through. Omega Tyrant 10:29, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

Cleanup really does need to happen Oh Jamal, Where art thou Poultry(talk) the Team Liquid 10:50, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

I will try to assist in the cleanup as much as I can, but it's going to be extremely difficult to look through 58 pages. It has definitely gotten out of hand, though. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

Bumping this as it got knocked out of the recent changes pretty quickly. Omega Tyrant 18:37, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

Yes, I too have been trying to keep some of the bloating down by requiring proof of notability for anyone adding smashers to the list, but I don't have the competitive background to properly fact-check any of it (aside from looking at their article if they have one...but as you said, these are supposed to be smashers of the utmost notable). Serpent King 20:48, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

Should we limit it to those whom we consider top professional with the given character? Serpent King 19:59, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

No, what we have listed as the player's skill shouldn't be used as a determining factor, else it just promotes the problem we have now described in my OP.

Example: We have Bloodcross considered a "top professional" in Brawl here, but he doesn't merit being placed in Meta Knight's "notable players" section, as there were always several Meta Knights better than him at any point in time during Brawl's competitive life, and he was never considered among the best Meta Knights nor was he ever responsible for innovating Meta Knight's metagame to new heights. The epitome of "pretty good player with the character, but never historically significant to the character's competitive presence".

Such a criteria would especially harm lower tier characters on the opposite spectrum; many, if not most, of their most significant players wouldn't qualify as "top professional" by our standards. Instead, it would lead to such characters' sections being filled up with the Mew2Kings of the world who occasionally sandbag with the character, all of which will lead to the "notable players" section grossly misrepresenting the playerbase most responsible for the character's competitive presence. Omega Tyrant 21:24, 16 April 2016 (EDT)