Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee/Archive 4

Reception

The reception section is really short and doesn't seem to be very comprehensive. It consists of two paragraphs, a huge reviews table, and a laundry list of awards that it has won. Was this game really lavishly priased like it seems? There had to be some criticism somewhere. I cited the GameSpot review that said that it thought the controls were hyper sensitive, but it was removed, apparently because of WP:WEIGHT. That was probably all I could find on it... hbdragon88 (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Another is that the lead is excessively detailed and not really a summary...it goes into too much detail, IMO. But that's for the GA reviewer to decide, as I have made major edits to this article, not just any for a long time... hbdragon88 (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you've noticed, I've revived the rest of the sections execpt Reception. As I've stated, I will get round to it but my school work must take priority over this factor. Once I've rewritten the Reception section, I will reference fully and then submit to FA. As for the lead, that's a maater of opinion; I just think that people are too accustomned to the usual VG articles with leads that are too short. But again, that's my opinion. Remember, the lead by itself should give a very good idea of the content of the rest of the article. Thanks for the comments though. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

GA!!!!

Why has this been nominated for GA!!! It is nowhere near where it needs to be and now is a state that will bely the effort that I have put into it. I can't believe that a user has nominated this, especially without consulting any user on the discussion. I advice somebody body to withdraw it because it will get failed outright; I haven't finished working on it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it for GA to get some eyes from WP:GA to take a look at the article. Peer reviews seem to generate little reviewing other than automatic ones; hence the GA nom. Additionally, it was up for discussion over at Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl. --Son (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the GA nom. --Son (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

FA!!!!

This article isn't even GA-Class! --Son (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not GA-class, but it's easily GA quality. If the article fails FA, then I'll nominate for GA, in which it will surely pass. By the way, you shouldn't expect too much from peer review—it isn't uncommon for an review to get closed without a single comment from another user. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, hence my above comment about why I initially nominated it for GA before withdrawing it. --Son (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have opposed the GA had it been ready at the time, but it wasn't. By taking it to FA we can have the best of both worlds, because it will generate and feedback and we can always submit for GA if it fails. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a very old discussion, and this talk page should be archived soon anyway, but hasn't SandyGeorgia been saying about how FAC isn't supposed to be used as a Peer Review? --haha169 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. At the time, any request for a copyeditor fell on deaf ears and peer review was a waste of time because of a lack of activity. However, my words above expressed ignorance to the FAC process; amazing how far you can come in seven/eight months isn't it? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Criteria

Although it is currently nominated, I thought I would still post the GA Criteria:

Wikipedia:What is a good article?

A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

   (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and

   (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

   (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

   (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and

   (c) contains no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

   (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and

   (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. In this respect:

   (a) all images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for any non-free content; and

   (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Post what changes you feel should be made and we will start working on them. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that some of the grammar and wording of the sentences is kind of.....um.... awkward. I've been trying to proof it a little. Jareds2007 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahg! Why is this a Redirect from Wire Frames?

Nothing in this article mentions wire frames, and the article does not seem to relate to web site development, the subject area where I would expect to find some explanation of what a wire frame is and why people care. I will investigate. Jimgettman (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's because there are things in this game called "Wire Frames". But...I think it's be better is we re-direct FIGHTING Wire Frames rather then Wire Frames, because Wire Frames COULD be something else entirely un-related. :edit:...Ahem. It seems Fighting Wire Frames already redirects here. But the Ridirect on Wire Frame should not be there. :Edit again: And Wire Frames seems to be a DOUBLE Redirect. I'm taking it to AfD.Dengarde ► Complaints 00:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Scratch this, lemme try something...Dengarde ► Complaints

Okay done. It was being double re-directed. Fixed it. Dengarde ► Complaints 00:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Clones

I bought this up, and one person said he's looking into it. I still don't see it up. I would like to learn what the page said about the clone characters in a form of English that's not Babel Fish jargon. — NES Boy (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I did look into it, but I can't get a decent translation to make sense of it all. A proper Japanese translation is needed. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's what Sakurai is saying:

The default 14 characters and the hidden 5 are the basis, but there are variations of the six characters on the edges of the character selection screen. Their squares exceed the framework. [referring to how the clone's icons are indented]

While developing, we persevered to make a high amount of playable characters, and 16 wasn't enough. The players want a lot of characters to be in.

Then, we saved time by re-using special moves and motions of other characters to create new characters. Like what we did with Mario and Luigi in the previous installment.

Then he goes on to talk about how it's not easy to just make new characters from scratch and make sure all the fighters are balanced, etc. Then he changes subject a little. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 02:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Advanced Techniques and Tournaments

I think this game has garnered enough attention over the years, that things like wave dashing, L-cancels, and the like should be added into the article SOMEWHERE. The game has also become huge tournament game in MLG. Please contact me if anyone approves, and I'll happily write it up sometime soon. -IH Flametiger67@aol.com/ThekolIH@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.7.129 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The MLG info is already up. As for the rest, you'll have to show multiple reliable sources to justify its relevance and verifiability. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Smashwiki or Smashboards will do it either. I haven't seen any news sources talking about shffling or chain grabbing, but go ahead and give it look. I always like new citable info.--CM (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these techniques need to be included, as they are a part of the game that is unique. If I were to read a Wiki article on a video game, I would like to know some of these things. Maybe just a mention that these techniques exist in the tournament section, but I would like to see them included. FlamingZelda (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, WIkipedia is not a guide. We give a general overview and leave the specific, nitty-gritty knowledge for other places, like the FAQs on GameFAQs, or other things. hbdragon88 (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on tournament content

Look IP, I've removed content that has absolutely no relevance to the article. A boy setting up a forum isn't relevant, and information relating to a frequent winner of contests should be restricted to that person's articles. I don't know your motives, but please discuss here as opposed to edit waring. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The information in the tournament section has been removed and the reinstated repeatly. All information has been cited by NON-TRAVIAL sources. I am a former wikipedia editor I retired from editing due to time consumption. The vandalised IP edit are not done by me. I was formerly valoem.

Previous discussion has kept the tournament section in it's current state. Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Melee/Archive3#To_keep_or_not_to_keep_the_tournament_section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Melee/Archive3#The_tournament_section_is_written_like_an_advertisement.

If you want to start another tournament discussion war be my guest however it would only be wasting both our times. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a dispute about whether to keep the tournament section, just to have your version, which includes irrelevant information. A while ago, I deleted useless content to form a much more concise and necessary section (in my opinion). Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To keep a track of the information, please can we keep the discussion on this page? It's just easier this way as having it on my talk page discourages other people from joining. As for Ken Hoang, that info is relevant to him and not the game in itself; keep the information on his article, because individual success has nothing to do with the game in itself. Is there anything else on the previous version that you feel should be in this one? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As the winner of major tournaments and the rank best player i find it hard to believe he does belong in the article. Also Smashboards which is cited as the founding source of tournament should be in the article as well. I'm readding as concise as possible. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please; consensus hasn't been reached. This is at FAC!! What's up there has errors and reads like an advertisement! I'm reverting; I suggest that you make changes in a sandbox or something before changing them. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What ever errors are involved are not from the tournament section which is the only section I look after. Also I would like to state that you mentioned smashboards:

"In two separate issues, Nintendo Power covered the independent and corporate Smash scenes, including Smashboards, Major League Gaming, and FC3".

without previously mentioning what smashboards was which could lead to confusion. Do not remove information which I have cited. If you see any information that is not verifable please state it before changing. Both smashboards and Ken are verfiable. Keep in mind that I am the one that has discussed the tournament section in the past. My original version is the accepted version if you want to make changes you are the one that need to bring up this debate again. In fact I could revert to the previous version if needed however I feel that this new version is in fact the better written one. Do not change without discussion. Thank you. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Accepted by whom? The only person who accepts this is you. Both Smashboards and Ken aren't relevant. I've gone through this article and removed al the minutiae, nonsense, and OR to take it to a GA standard at least. Please don't readd it. The only thing that you feel needs mentioning is Ken and Smashboards, neither of which are relevant or require an explanation. By the way, your citations are invalid—you need a proper template, not just the URL. If you desperately feel indignant about it, alert somebody else so the discussion isn't confined to us two. I'm reverting your edit. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

By whom? Hows this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Melee/Archive3#To_keep_or_not_to_keep_the_tournament_section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Melee/Archive3#The_tournament_section_is_written_like_an_advertisement.

By the way wikipedian06 is deemed bad faith edit. This is the last time. I will come on my retired name if I must. I dont understand what you have to gain from removing information that is not cruft. If you want to open another discuss feel free, but removing cited information is vandalism, now im warning you (I wasn't before). 63.76.234.250 (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Also "isn't relevent" is your opinion. How is the best tournament player (who is deemed notable) not relevent to a section that discusses tournaments? 63.76.234.250 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

By the sounds of it, that was a discussion about whether to keep a tournament section, and not a dispute about different versions. So you shouldn't really use that to assert consensus about a different issue. As I said, the info probably is irrelevant and cruft, but if you feel that it isn't, represent the changes in a sandbox or on a talk page before you add anything. The only changes that you are presenting are Ken and Smashboards; these are probably irrelevant, but nothing's stopping you from arguing their case. Please don't accuse me of vandalism; with the risk of sounding arrogant, I've turned a very poor article into something that is at least GA-class. As for the above comment, please remember that this article discusses tournaments in relation to SSBM; Ken's success is not related to SSBM in itself. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I said if you make changes without discussion it would be vandalism. The second argument The_tournament_section_is_written_like_an_advertisement was a discussion of rewriting the section which failed because of NPOV. I do agree that this section is better written more concise and includes all previous information. This section is most certainly still GA material as it was previously. Also you should take your own advice, keep in mind you changed the previous version without discussion. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you that no one here is committing vandalism. It's a simple case of edit warring, by you Valoem. Reverting other users edits on the simple unproven (not even accused) basis that they are sockpuppets is not a valid reason for removal (as I noticed in your edit summary). From my understanding, the Tournament section is supposed to cover official or officially sanctioned tournaments. Not random forum tournaments. .:Alex:. 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've recently investigated the edits in question. This information does seem irrelevant and the revisions without these edits look much better than your revisions, Valoem. Also, don't try to accuse someone of vandalism because they wouldn't discuss it when you very well did the same thing and blatantly sockpuppeted, which you also tried to accuse someone else of doing. You very well could have initiated discussion before Ashnard did, yet you persisted to add your contested edits to the article. Don't try to get "holier than thou" when you've committed the crimes you're accusing people of doing. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ironic had I immediately followed up these changes when Ashnard made the changes initially then would he not be the one acting in a edit war? Yet somehow I was accused. I do not understand how the initial arguments concluded in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Melee/Archive3#The_tournament_section_is_written_like_an_advertisement.

suddenly holds no grounds.. Perhaps there is a mis I am the one with the previous version therefore his edits are the contested one please check previous edits. If you want to remove information you do not feel is relavent please explain why. Without Smashboards there would be no tournament. It is a reason and source of tournament therefore it is notable. It was mentioned in Nintendo power and MLG prehaps you should check your sources. Also I have defended this article twice in the past and done so sucessfully he edited the article first from my original version. Ken Hoang is a notable person within the since he is a driving force and the most famous smasher please refer to precedence. - Starcraft#Legacy. I never have bad faith so please dont accuse my name you can accuse this ip if you want. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Had I been the one removing the information when there was clear opposition in the beginning, I would have tried to reach a resolution before reverting my edition, instead of your actions. As a matter of whose onus it is to argue their case, what you had done had entered info that violated MoS and had trivia inside—that shouldn't remain when this is at FAC. When I had entered the current information, nobody contested, which has left this revision for over a month now. Secondly, "From my original own"; please read up on WP: OWN. Also, this is not a matter of whether Ken is notable, just whether he is relevant to SSBM, which he isn't. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic here, but please tell me how Smashboards are relevant. I'm willing to listen. If they're nothing more than a forum operating competitions then it won't be included. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to listen you would have just read everything above. It is all explained. Is smashboards relevent? Of course it is. Without smashboards the tournament scene would not exist. Also I have left smashboards out for now. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have two words for the statement you've just given: Original Research. .:Alex:. 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You certainly are quick to jump to conclusions. It was cited in Nintendo power and MLG Pro. MLG states that smashboards created much of the competitive community through discussion of advance techniques. If it is not OR it most certainly would be relevent to the tournament section. Ken is relevent to the article just as Boxer is relevent to Starcraft. I didnt write Ken's biography I only mentioned him. Now you must ask yourself, would a person reading about the tournament section of SSBM be interested in Ken or Smashboards? Of course they would. What is wikipedia for if not for information and its amazing ability to link related topics? 63.76.234.250 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC. Ashnard has been WP:BOLD, nobody has objected until now. If an MLG press release actually states that Smashboards was instrumental to the tournament community, that wasn't cited until Ashnard outright removed it. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"MLG states that smashboards created much of the competitive community through discussion of advance techniques". Find me a quote that indicates that, please. Ken is related to tournaments, and thus only indirectly to SSMB; he isn't relevant to the article. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Without smashboards the tournament scene would not exist". Unless you prove otherwise, this is an assertion that you have made from a particular quote, which would be Original syntehsis/research. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just ran through your source and there's only two brief references to Smashboards: one a reference to their forums and the other a slight thing about their rules. Sorry, but unless you prove otherwise, your claims are unjustified. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

On Smashboards: There was a 4 page article in Nintendo power, in which Smashboards is discussed in detail. If you need relevance for why Smashboards is important, you need look no further than there. The problem of course is that it is an in print source. I have copies of the two issues that covered Smash tournaments, but I won't be able to provide the text until I return home from college in March (the copies, obviously, I don't take with me everywhere I go). If you need a textual support of Smashboards revelence that is also online, MLG is a series on the "greatest competitive games of all time". Here is the article for SSBM: http://www.mlgpro.com/?q=node/165239&query=node/165239&pagenumber=1. The following quotes are from the article: "Going over to smashboards.com gives one an idea of Smash’s influence; a thriving community continues to innovate and develop the game years after its release. In fact, Smash Bros. Melee is one of the few surviving competitive games played on an older-generation console system."

"Backed by Nintendo, it is no surprise that Smash was the most successful competitive fighter in Major League Gaming history. The top Smasher of all time, Ken, even went to Japan to compete in a tournament, linking the competitive communities together." "Smashboards is the place to go for Smash information, whether you are a new player with some basic questions or a rising competitor looking to amp up your game." Another quote from another article - http://www.mlgpro.com/?q=node/44016 "The Smash Tier List has been around for years, during which it has been subjected to a number of updates and revisions. Its origin is the Smash Back Room at Smashboards, the members of which are all highly knowledgeable tournament players" The next quote is from: http://www.mlgpro.com/?q=node/43951 "Wavedashing has become so influential in defining competitive play that even the writers at Nintendo Power know of its existence." Wavedashing is known to tons of non-competitive gamers because of the prevalence of Smashboards and the tournament scene (which is why the tournament section, and thus Smashboards, are relevant to the article). Thinking that the tournament section is only for tournament players doesn't take into the account that its influence is felt by almost anyone who owns the game. Here at college I run into casual players all the time in the dorms and almost all of them know about wavedashing (they are simply unable to do it, for lack of care, trying, what have you). Some notes: The IV whatever tournament isn't THAT notable. It was a large payout for its time, but the reality was it was too early to get much coverage. The 2006 MLG championship in Las Vegas gave out $36,000 in prizes. Ken took home $11,000 alone from the tournament ($4,000 was for winning the season points race, which I did not include in the $36,000, he took third at the tournament in singles for $3,000 and split his $10,000 first place doubles prize with Isai). The 2006 New York Playoffs for MLG had a similary high payout, with $5,000 for first place and roughly $22,000 in prizes. Regular season events all had about $8,000 in prizes in 2006. MLG's 2005 championship had about $15,000 in prizes. This year, the highest paying tournaments were: FCD with over $10,000 in prizes, EVO World with about $10,000 in prizes (can't remember if it was slightly over or under). SCC with about $8,000 in prizes. Pound 2 with about $7,000 in prizes. I don't think all these things should be mentioned in the article, I'm merely pointing out that that one tournament back in 2003 is pretty pointless, few people even remember it and the winner (Recipherus if memory serves) was regarded as the player to beat of the time period but hasn't made an impact since Ken began dominating the scene in 2004. I can provide sources from MLG for the prize payouts of FCD and all the 2006 events, and for the prize payouts of EVO World. I've spent some time compiling information for my own work, information which can't be used for this article (yet, we'll see if things ever get published) but you may think is interesting: I took 25 notable tournaments, in these tournaments, over $100,000 was given out as prizes (some of the tournaments were also small events, like the Midwest Circuit Championship that had a prize payout of about $1300 and only 41 attendants, it was only notable, for me, because it was the circuit championship). There were roughly 500 tournaments held through Smashboards in 2007, this exceeds the number of tournaments for every other game, in these if I had to GUESS about a quarter million - a half million in prizes were on the line, I'm going to start working with an actuary to get better estimates, this number is in no way scientific other that $500 over 500 tournaments (the average payout for the 25 tournaments I do have data for was about $4,000). MLG has now partnered with the Smashboards community in what it officially calls "The 2007 MLG Underground Smash Series" (this is cite able). Basically, MLG takes events that are run by Smash members, give these events a few staff members and some monetary support, and viola, the Underground Smash Series is born. As for MLG's relevence, it is THE most successful tournament organization in the country, and the world if you exclude PC gaming (and thusly SC). Most importantly though, it is the only gaming competition that is broadcast on standard cable networks (USA in 2006, G4 in 2007). Now MLG only broadcasts their Halo events, so this shouldn't be mentioned in the article, it is only important back here in discussion because, I would assume, some question the importance and validity of using MLG resources for information. Simply put, they are the official and one of the most important sources for competitive gaming. Sorry about the wall of text, I'm not very good with wikis. Alphazealot (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Information overload; it may take a while for me to make sense of it. Firstly, I need to know about who said what, specifically if you've got anything from Nintendo Power. Are any of the above quotes from Nintendo Power, as they are definitely reliable? By the way, the Smashboards is mentioned next to Nintendo Power, but only that they reported Smashboards. Secondly, it seems that all the sources and quotes up there are written by you, Alphazealot. Who exactly are you? Are you a member of this website who posts or what? I'm just trying to measure the reliability of this website and how the information is operated. Of course, we've already got an MLG citation up there, so we need to know about this. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, what I'm saying is that if they're blog posts from site members, then these can't really be used for anyhting. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Each of the quotes that I put in the previous post was from a feature article on Major League Gamings website (none of the quotes are from Nintendo Power, I need to reread the NP article and find quotes, which won't be possible for several months unless I decide to track down the old scan ins from 2005, which will be tedious). Do not confuse the feature articles on MLG with blog posts--feature articles have to go through MLG's editor before they get put on the website and I am paid for the work. I work as a journalist for MLG, specifically as their expert on Smash, for this I'm paid to write about the game and to travel to tournaments run by MLG to give first hand recaps (post event articles), its the same job as a journalist who would work for NBA.com. Some of the quotes are not from my own work, specifically the quotes from the "greatest competitive games of all time" are from a different writer for MLG (Brick). If you don't view MLG has a credible source for information then there isn't much I can do for you other than provide you reasons why that conclusion is inaccurate (mainly that MLG has sponsorship deals with: Red Bull, Boost Mobile, The Navy, Gamestop, and Old Spice. There have been other sponsors in the past and this may not be all of them, but these are the biggest sponsors. This, along side MLG having a TV show and having the largest and most professional tournaments in the country, should be reason enough to trust MLG, and thusly my writing in MLG's feature articles, as a reliable source). I don't consider blog posts or forum posts to be reliable and I know they should not be used for wikipedia entries. This is also important, because I don't care as much about the quality of my writing in blog/forum/wiki discussions (someone a year or so back tried to use a forum post I made as evidence in a wiki, much to my displeasure). As for me, personally, I've been to the following states for tournaments: Texas, Virginia, California, Nevada, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. I've been playing Smash competitively since 2003 and I've been writing for MLG since 2005. Along side this my writing has also been featured on a few other websites, mainly blogs, but also www.getyourtournament.com, a site which essentially only covers the Cali competitive gaming scene. Aside from all of this I'm also a moderator for the tournament forum of Smashboards and the Melee discussion forum there.

"By the way, the Smashboards is mentioned next to Nintendo Power, but only that they reported Smashboards." Not sure what you mean by this.Alphazealot (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"In two separate issues, Nintendo Power covered the independent and corporate Smash scenes, including Smashboards, Major League Gaming, and FC3". Sorry for lack of clarity, I was just referring to that sentence in the article. Right, thanks for clearing that up; I've explained the situation at Wikiproject Videogames for advice on what to do. The posts seem more credible than I first though, but I have a big reservation about neutrality and bias. I may be proven wrong, but how can I cite a reliable and unbiased source about Smashboard's relevance from a person who—self admittedly—is a moderator on their forum? I really think your best bet is them Nintendo Power issue. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should note that I worked for MLG as a writer before I became a moderator at Smashboards. My moderator job there, specifically in the tournament section, is actually largely because of the work I did with MLG. I'm considered an expert in my field (the field being Smash), citing the writing that is on MLG would, again, be no different then citing any other sports/esports website that is credible (and again, MLG is a credible organization, considering it holds the largest tournaments in the USA). If you want to point out statements, specifically the quotes I mentioned, that show bias, then please do so. I highly doubt you will be able to though, at least not towards Smashboards. In the 50+ articles I've written for MLG over the last 2 years I think I've mentioned Smashboards a TOTAL of 4 times. I write about Smash, the players who compete in tournaments, and about MLG (given that I work for the company and cover their tournaments). The slight bias you may be able to find is toward MLG, yet the articles that I took quotes from contain no such bias. In other words then: The articles meet verifiability standards, if you don't think so, please explain why. Also, even though I defended the moderator comment, the comment itself is pretty unnecessary, Smashboards operates completely independent of any other site, moderators are mostly chosen based on knowledge, and considering the vast knowledge I have of the game and constant exposure I have with the community and players who at the peak of the meta-game, then it makes sense that I be a moderator. Its like blaming a sportswriter who also contributes to voting for the Heisman candidate. They are more knowledgeable than just about anyone and it makes sense that they have a say in the voting, just as it makes sense that I help run and moderate a community of tournament players. I accidentally wrote over your last comment...not sure how to get it back... Alphazealot (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk: Verifiability#Need to know whether a source should be used. Take a look there. I've never pretended to have full knowledge of the policies, so I've seeked external advice. Feel free to argue your case there. Also, it's not a matter of whether you show bias, but your speaking from a position that needs to be relaible for an encyclopaedia. Being the moderator of that site—in my eyes—jeopardises the reliability. But who knows. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I want to point to, again, is that several of the quotes I listed were NOT written by me, instead, it was written by another writer for MLG. The position I speak from, in this talk page right now, has no bearing, the position that is spoken from in the articles that I've cited on MLG, are of a paid writer who is an expert on the game of Smash. I think, considering you are trying to edit this page, and in particular the tournament section, that you need to educate yourself a little more on eSports, both in America and around the world. It should help your understanding of just what tournaments are and what sort of influence they have. The problem now, and I totally understand this, is that the idea of eSports is still somewhat in its infancy. That being said, I decided to annoy myself and dig up the old NP article, which I will copy the text from now (actually I'm C/P the text of someone who took the time to write down the entire article, so keep in mind there are some mistakes with spelling/punctuation, this is merely for your own reference), keep in mind this is missing the text for captions, and in one of the captions Ken Hoang is mentioned.

"The Smash Circuit

Though much can be said about the game's bells and whistles, Smash is what it is partly because of its rabid fan base. Smash players comprise a passionate, community-oriented array of gamers that spans the globe. They all have their own nicknames, rules, and strong opinions about how the game should be played. And though Smashers are generally very competitive, the community thrives because of the excitement and good nature of its members. "Smashers approach the game seriously but with a healthy amount of humor and goodwill," notes Jason Rice, a Smash vet and tournament organizer for Major League Gaming. "Because of SSBM and Smash Boards, I've got friends all over the country that otherwise I would have never met and I'm very grateful to be a part of it."

Most Smash players consider smashboards.com - an unofficial website started in 1999 by a 13-year-old fan named Ricky Tilton - the hub of the community. Today, the site has almost 20,000 registered users and receives millions of hits each month. "I still remember the first person who tried advertising his tournament on the forums a few years ago," recalls Tilton (known in the Smash community as Gideon). "I simply glanced over his post thinking, 'Yeah, right, people are going to trust some random user on Smash Boards and fly across the country to a video game tournament!' Amazingly, however, it succeeded!"

Smash tournaments were born out of the desire of fans not only to show off their skills, but to see what other players around the world were doing in the game. During the early days of Smash tournaments in the US, the competitions were conceived and organized unofficially, using the smashboards.com forums to promote the events. Today, larger organizations such as Major League Gaming have included Melee in their offerings, and Smashers can now play for big prize money all around the world. The competition can be fierce, but those involved in the Smash community know that it's all in good fun. And it should be. How seriously can you take yourself when you're pooping Kirby off the edge of Mushroom Kingdom in a Yoshi egg? Fun is the nature of the game, and the affectionate fans know this well. "We're Nintendo fan," exlpains [sic] Rice. "We love the characters in the game and the individual gaming worlds that each of them has come from.... In comparison to other gaming franchises and companies that are relative newbies, we're players who were raised on Nintendo characters."

Not to say that Smash players are softies - hardcore Smashers are capable of feats in the Melee world that can blow the minds of even the game's creators. And it doesn't matter how long you've been playing Smash - there's always something new to see. "Playing in tournaments and being involved in a sommunity that loves the game as much as I do keeps the game fresh," explains Rice. "There's always someone showing up to tournaments with a new trick to learn or tactic to master." SSBM continues to evolve as players explore its deepest secrets. As Tilton puts it: "[SSBM] is never the same, no matter how many times you play it. There are always new situations and variables to deal with each time you play."

That isn't the full article, here are the scans that someone made, you may need a mirror to read the second page...don't know how that happened: Page 1- http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/8113/ssbm16jm.jpg Page 2- http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/8256/ssbm21wp.jpg Page 3- http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/1577/ssbm36nr.jpg Page 4- http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/8365/ssbm41jb.jpg

At this point I've shown you WAY more than should have been required for good faith, especially if you consider that I haven't edited the Smash tournament section here(at least significantly) in years. I've given you articles, written by me and others, and just because I'm talking to you right now doesn't make the articles I have written carry any less weight, nor does my position as a moderator on Smashboards effect my articles on MLGpro.com, considering, again, that I've mentioned Smashboards maybe a total of 4 times in 50+ articles. More importantly, the type of cross checking you're doing to my work is almost never applied to other writers who are known as authorities on their material. The problem just seems to be the simple fact that Smashboards is the hub for Smash, and for some reason when that gets mentioned *some* people think its advertising for the site, when in reality Smashboards needs no advertisement. In the NP article it mentions that there were 20,000 users on Smashboards. When that article was written Smashboards was the largest site for Smash, this is even more true now that the number of users has balooned to 80,000. Alphazealot (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson—consider me educated. By the way, where has this article came from? What publisher do them images relate to? I need to know. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind about the above question; Iknow it's Nintendo Power now. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 23:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus, where are you getting the idea that being a moderator of a site doesn't make you biased. This is an encyclopaedia! Whatever you say, whether you believe yourself to be impartial or not, your position inhibits the comments from being considered neutral. Don't take this as a prsonal attack on your journalism—it has nothing to do with that. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Power is a decent source, so if you want to mention something about Smashboards based from Nintendo Power with a proper citation, then I won't object. That's all I wanted—a reliabke source. Finally, I hope nobody minds if I omit the reference to Ken—he is relevant to the tournaments in themselves and not directly to SSBM. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel your trying to use my position as moderator for Smashboards as a way to dis include EVERYTHING I've written for MLG. Its like saying that the commissioner for the NBA is not allowed to say things ABOUT basketball and the NBA, when he actually has more credibility than just about anyone else, yes he is BIASED toward the NBA, but you can't say that just because he is biased that he is LYING or UNTRUTHFUL or UNRELIABLE when he says the NBA is the largest and most professional basketball organization in the world. Again, why is MLG a bad source? Consider, again, that both Smashboards and MLG are mentioned in the Nintendo Power article when it comes to community and to tournaments. Why would something written by MLG not be a valid source? This is the...I don't even know how many times I've asked. More imporantly though, why would these two quotes, that weren't written by me, be invalid? "Backed by Nintendo, it is no surprise that Smash was the most successful competitive fighter in Major League Gaming history. The top Smasher of all time, Ken, even went to Japan to compete in a tournament, linking the competitive communities together."

"Smashboards is the place to go for Smash information, whether you are a new player with some basic questions or a rising competitor looking to amp up your game."Alphazealot (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Disincluded? ...I'm sorry if I've offended you; I think you've seriously misinterpreted what's been said and are gauging meaning from the semantics alone. When I say something's unreliable, I just mean unreliable in this context, which it is, because of issues I've discussed. As for the NBA analogy—which you seem to love—if we were to measure the relevance of basketball by quotations, then a reliable source outside the basketballing profession will always be preferable. I realise that some quotes aren't attributed to you, but considering the strong links between both sites, I'm far more comfortable as a Wikipedian using Nintendo Power as a source. Also, please understand what the section's about; it's not a feature on the history of tournaments, but only the tournaments in relation to SSBM. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You dodged the question. Why is an article, written on a third parties website (MLG) an unreliable source? If you feel you've already explained it, could you please do so again so I could better understand. I feel you are holding this information to a standard rarely seen or used in wikipedia (IE performing, what amounts to background checks. I could have easily pretended to be a different person and just pointed to MLG as a source, and I believe you would probably have arrived at a different conclusion than you have. I'm arguing back here because I believe what you have done for this wiki entry is actually GOOD, which is why I'm not editing entries myself yet simply trying to convince you of the relevency of a source. I would also suggest you check the Basketball wiki page, as they discuss in it at length the professional leagues (the NBA, MLG is the NBA of US video gaming competition).)Alphazealot (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought I indicated that the main objection was your link to Smashboards, not the site's. As for the "Brick", I don't think I've said that his sources are unrelaible, just that Nintendo Power is preferable. NP are preferable because they are totally external from the Smashboards altogether; as you've said, MLG is linked with Smashboards in some new tournament, and many of the workers there are members at Smashboards (assumption). Please note, this doesn't make MLG unreliable, just NP preferable. Secondly, using real names is perferable in citations to aliases. Of course, all of this is under the assumption that "Brick" isn't another member at Smashboards. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the basketball page, that's barely cited, and the NBA is only used to verify rules. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Might as well throw in some third party sources on MLG, though they may not all be relevant to Smash (Halo 2 is the biggest game for MLG), but to the validity and importance of MLG:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12353167/ http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/071008 http://www.gamespot.com/news/6163418.html http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152992.html http://www.gamespot.com/news/6147757.html http://www.gamespot.com/news/6153008.html In the previous link, there is a quote that says: "Ken and Isai haven't lost a Smash Brothers match in years, it sometimes seems. We are pretty broad and deep when it comes to talent" http://www.gamespot.com/news/6110888.html EGM (Electronic Gaming Magazine) also did a print article on Ken, calling him one of the top 5 most deadly gamers in the world and the best Smash player on the planet. I'll have to find the article and scan it so you can believe me, but know that outside sources, that aren't just online, exist. Alphazealot (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just remembered a very nice news article written about Smash, probably one of the more incitement ones, its a good read: http://thephoenix.com/Article.aspx?id=28078&page=1 Alphazealot (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry, but what's your point here? I haven't disputed the importance of MLG. As for Ken, I don't doubt that he's notable; his article survived an AfD, but that doesn't make him relevant to SSBM. I'm sure he's a big guy in tournaments, but that's got nothing to do with what the section in the article's about. Oh yeah, please don't try to wipe over my posts. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You've disputed quotes from articles written on MLG's website. If I wiped over your post it was an accident, if you think, after all this time, I actually care enough to wipe over a post or unfairly edit this wiki or anything of that nature than I apologize, but it should be obvious based on the content I've already posted that I clearly have good intentions (even if you think they are biased) and not malicious ones. If I understand correctly then, the best tournament player has nothing to do with the tournament subsection of this wiki? Alphazealot (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is I'm provided you a wealth of knowledge in third party sources at this point yet you still dispute everything I've said as biased, when in reality I haven't even said anything, I'm merely arguing over the validity of using my writing as a source, for articles here or anywhere. Part of making the succesful argument for my writing as a source is showing MLG as an authority on video gaming, which I did in my previous post with...what? 8 links to outside articles from major news sources.Alphazealot (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I now it was an accident. You're correct, the best player has nothing to do with this section. His link to SSBM is only indirect. This section doesn't document the history of tournaments; it's just a brief mention of the relation of SSBM to tournaments. We don't need to mention the winner of the tournaments, because it's beyond the meaning of the section. By the way, I don't see how these sources have any effect on your neutrality towards Smashboards. As a matter of semantics, when I say bias, I don't mean a conscious intention to embellish the truth, I'm referring to your position on the subject. I've never disputed that MLG is an authority. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't dispute MLG as a valid source than any of my writing found on MLG's website that is or once was a feature article is also a valid source as it is paid for and edited (by MLG) material. That is all I am saying. Alphazealot (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your detailing it as if you and MLG are the same entity—you're not. You can't say that MLG's reputation as an organisation negates your involvement with Smashboards. In the broad sense of journalism, there's nothing wrong with that involvement; it's just that I don't think I should use your evidence to assert the impact of Smashboards because of this. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I need to go offline now for about an hour, so don't expect any quick responses. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Once MLG publishes anything I write it is an endorsement of truth by the company (as in it supports the writing as fact). It would be the same thing of any author for any publication, this is the point I think your missing. Bias, while it may exist within the writing, has no effect on the writings validity as a source once it is reviewed and published on a credible website. Alphazealot (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The point you are missing is that it isn't being endorsed as a Wikipedia source. As it's own, I assume that it's assessed on the merits of the journalistic point it is trying to project. Whether you are a mod at Smashboards doesn't really have any bearing (I assume) at MLG in what you are reporting, and the objective in the journal. Plus, to say that calling you biased is simultaneously an attck on MLG doesn't hold weight. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an entity doesn't decide what sources are legitimate and which ones aren't, its up to the users to decide. MLG is an authority on professional gaming, as I've shown through third party sources from major news sites. You are saying an article written for a an authority on professional gaming is inadmisable as a source. I want to know why. I'll bring this up on the video game talk page. I'm also unsure about what you mean, I didn't say you attacked MLG, I'm saying you discrediting an article on an authority on professional gaming simply because you believe the author is biased is not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazealot (talk • contribs) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to ascertain MLG's notability? It's outside the issue. I don't know what else to say because I've said everything, but it somehow always comes round to me discrediting MLG's notability, whoch I haven't done. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough. There are many citations about ken and smashboards being relevent. I kept it professional I didnt put smashboards in the article when I couldnt find the excat quote from MLG (because I could not remember the page) relating tournaments to Smashboards, but now there are citations for both therefore both should be in the article. Many games on wikipedia have linked to top players. Quake has a mentioning Johnathan Wendal, Starcraft's legacy section mentions two of the top starcraft players because people are interested. Nintendo power mentions Smashboards so now I could even put smashboards in the article. Stop trying to discredit me because now your taking your personal views into a matter that should remain professional. People are interested in reading about Ken therefore do not remove him I will just put it back. Honestly, I don't feel like checking wikipedia every hour to see if you removed information that you feel is not relevent. First go on Starcraft's entry and remove those players then Quake and other games and do the same. When the precedence in game articles do not mention players, then we can remove Ken. Please just drop this. This article remains a solid and strong candidate for FAC so I dont see what you are trying to achieve. (note: This is not alphazealot) 71.245.204.75 (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Also I am surprised when you told Alphazealot "You're correct, the best player has nothing to do with this section. His link to SSBM is only indirect.". Not to sound abrasive, but you nor I for that matter is in any position to make such statements. That is your opinion there is no argument against this. You agreed with him on several points yet continued to remove information that we are fighting to keep. Note: I still have not added smashboards yet because I consensus has not been reached. The only way is to see precedence. Starcraft for example has an entire article StarCraft professional competition based solely on the competitive scene. Also Counter-strike makes mentions of top clans in the section Counter Strike#culture. 71.245.204.75 (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that both of you are holding off until we reach consensus. As for Ken, I've said everything I need to say on the matter; I've never doubted his relevance. As for Starcraft, just because they have it doesn't automatically validate its inclusion in this article. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source for adding something about Smashboards to the articles, it should be added, as it is an integral part of Melee history. If the statements made by MLG are true (and assuming good faith they are) there should be no reason not to add them, especially if the website has had such an impact as the article says. It's cutting Jacky Robinson from the Major Lead Baseball article in a sense. If they have a profound impact on a famous element of Melee (which can be sourced as previous stated) you have no choice but to accept that it can be added. In fact, it would appear an article on competetive Melee would be able to survive given perfectly acceptable sources. MLG is just that, MAJOR LEAGUE, if you don't accept content from that source, might as well delete any reference, mention or otherwise noted link to the NFL and MLB from the football and baseball articles. It doesn't matter who the author is, currently is, was, will be, used to be in a former life. A published article is a published article, there shouldn't even be a debate. It's like saying that IGN can't be used because the people who write the articles play video games... Balladofwindfishes (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

...Read the discussion before making such comments. What you have said has nothing to do with the argument. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I did read the discussion, every last post, and the discussion at hand is whether A. Tournament info should be added or not and B. Is the site at hand reliable. I put my answers to those two questions at hand. What exactly do you believe this discussion is about, as I might have missed something? Balladofwindfishes (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The only tournament we should mention are the ones that involve e-sports. RC-0722 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

At the current state, it's a dispute about whether Alphazealot's moderatorship at Smashboards invalidates the source, and whether Ken should be in the article. They've proved that the tournament info is relevant, and I've already said that it should be included. It's not about the reliability of MLG—I don't know where people have got this idea from. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand that a published article is a published article and usable as a source, regardless of what your opinion of the writer is. Alphazealot (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Figured I'd provide this quote from the video game wiki project after we brought this debate there "Judge the source on its own merits, which are quite solid in this case, I think." You need to understand that my association with Smashboards has nothing to do with validating or invalidating the source of an article on MLG. You've already agreed that MLG is a valid and credible source, this debate should be over.Alphazealot (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it should be over aswell. A published article is just that. A heart doctor publishing an article on the heart doesn't make him bias, he's just an expert in his field. If it has a source, I see no reason to not be added, as the fact at hand is relevent. I think that would be a fine addition to the article. Actually, I think there might be enough sources availible to make a whole article to Melee competetive play, but I'll leave that argument for another day Balladofwindfishes (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a quote from one user, who seemingly misunderstood the debate about citing one's self, which isn't the case. As for the heart doctor analogy—which everyone can't live an argument without—it's inaccurate, beacuse the doctor is offering expertise on a particular case, whereas this source is supposed to be measuring relevance from an external viewpoint. Not to say that AZ isn't an expert, but the analogy just doesn't work. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

He commented on the validity of the source and thought the merits of the source to be "quite solid". The debate is irrelevent because that comment was specifically in regards to the strength of the source. Your only position for stating its invalidity is that I'm a moderator at Smashboards, a website my articles rarely, if ever, even mention. Its been shown already that mentioning Smashboards is in line with what someone who is reporting on competitive Smash would do (NP article, and others). Please, bring up some sort of example that invalidates the article on MLG's website, because you are invalidating PUBLISHED material, you can't simply attack the author of the material, you need to attack the PUBLISHED work, which is something I don't think you understand. You are supposed to be judging material, substance, content, reliability, all of which articles on MLG pass. You are not supposed to be judging the source based on the an authors: gender, political party, membership of certain groups (Smashboards), sexual preference, you name it. Invalidating this source starts a terrible precedence, maybe we should look up the backgrouds of every author of every source and not even worry about the article he wrote. I'm sure I could invalidate just about every article ever linked to through wikipedia. Alphazealot (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Look; what do you want me to do? You're just taking everything to offence. What you have said above shows me just that you haven't grasped anything of what I have said and are just failing to reason at all. I can't even say anything because you just won't listen—everything you have said above I have explained why there is a misunderstanding and the errors in your argument. I don't want to be held accountable for your sensitivity. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the argument has been going in a loop it seems. You bring up only one real point though (that pertains to me) and its simply that articles published by MLG (and authored by me) aren't valid sources. Any sort of retort I've made to this point has always looped back to you saying a phrase that looks like this: "At the current state, it's a dispute about whether Alphazealot's moderatorship at Smashboards invalidates the source". I've said it doesn't. Numerous others have said it doesn't. You keep looping back to this though despite all the examples and evidence we've shown. Your retorts are all based on saying the same thing, roughly 'author is biased, his work can't be used'. Meanwhile I and others have provided plenty of reasons why bias alone does not invalidate a source, to which your responses are similar to "who seemingly misunderstood the debate about citing one's self", in other words, retorts that basically say other peoples conclusions are invalid simply and only because they don't understand the entire argument. You brought third parties into this, and when things didn't sway your way you looped back to "At the current state, it's a dispute about whether Alphazealot's moderatorship at Smashboards invalidates the source". In other words, you're willing to ask for help, but only when such help validates your own point. 164.107.47.157 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Read up on Wikipedia: Assuming Good Faith. Several people haven't supported your argument; as it stands only Krator has advocated your argument, while User: Marc Shepherd said that it did invalidate the source. Nobody else has expressed any real judgement. So that's pretty much even stephens. Not that Wikipedia is a democracy. Instead of stating how bad my arguments, please, try to find a flaw in what I'm saying, because none of you have done that. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's forget old latecommer Ballad who's also backing Alpha :P. I belive you're... misunderstanding assuming good faith, and in of its self you contridicted yourself. Assume good faith, meaning, assume the published source is valid because it is published on a reliable site/ He isn't calling you out, he's trying to reason with you. Infact, I'm interested in hearing your reasons why Smashboards can't be mentioned, even with many valid sources and actual relevence to the article? And yes, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but it does use sources that are valid, if it didn't it wouldn't exist and we'd have mudkip jokes on every pokemon page. This is a valid source... Balladofwindfishes (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time following what's going on in the above ~40k of text. It seems pretty simple to me -- if there's a way to establish notability of the subject being added, and it's relevant to the article, there's nothing stopping it from being added. A sentence or two on tournaments is all that's really necessary here, as the article is about the game -- but as much as I dislike Smash tournament players, and the folks who frequent Smashboards in particular, I can't rule it out as not notable. Reading the article again, there's already a section that is seven sentences long with five sources. Two are from a very well known source (Nintendo Power), one is from MLG which has been established as notable, and the other two are accurate as well. So...what's the problem? Isn't the section fine the way it is? It seems to me that you two are way off track now. You're totally misunderstanding each other, and this stopped being about the article a long time ago. If you really do want the section changed, be bold! If you're afraid that your changes will be reverted, and you want to get consensus, write out the section (with sources) and paste it in a sandbox, or here on the talk page. (That IS what it's here for.) We'll discuss, and add as necessary. Fair? Coreycubed (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this discussion is way of topic. Personally, I think that some information about ssbm in tournaments is needed if we are to have a featured article. RC-0722 (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Read the discussion. I have agreed to use include Smashboards, just not using AZ as a source. Seriously, how difficult can this be to follow. As for Ballad, you've expressed that you basically don't have a clue what the arguments about; to be honest, hardly anybody has. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knows what this argument is about because this is getting way out of control! If you two want bicker, take it to your talk pages; not here. We are discussing whether or not info on tournaments is needed. And if you had agreed on a source, then why are we still fighting? RC-0722 (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We agreed to use the info because a source had verified that the info was relevant. I don't think it's even a dispute about content any more—just principles. I've deemed sources written by AZ as invalid fpr reasons stated above. This has been misinterpreted as an edit war, and a supporting user at the FAC has switched to oppose because of supposed lack of stability. So I'm getting annoyed because this very discussion is hindering the chances of this article getting FA. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Than solve the debate? It isn't going to just end because someone wants a FA. A FA needs stability, and this will onyl continue until a real resolution is made. At this point, there are more questions made than answered when reading the tournment section. What is Smashboards? and all thos appreviations may lead to some confusion. I think the tournament section needs to be expanded or given its own article, preferably the latter with the many plausible sources. And I don't think you can deem a source instantly unuseable, especially when multiple other people suggest using it, as your excuse for it not being reliable is rather weak. Balladofwindfishes (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ashnard, you know people can be arbitrary when supporting or opposing FAC (or RfA, or AfD, or hell, even rollback). That being said I'm gathering that AZ wants to use an article he wrote for MLG as a source...? Only problem I see there is COI. If the article remains NPOV, it should be fine. Let's try to leave Smashboards out of this as much as possible though. Remember, Melee is relevant to Smashboards, not the other way around. An article about the game stands just fine on its own without it. Coreycubed (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And Smashboards is relevent to Melee. We have sources that prove that Smashboards started Melee as a competetive tournement game, that IS relevant as tournaments are already mentioned in the article, how they started should be mentioned. I don't like the amount of buzz words in the tourney section either. 69.207.174.162 (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the last part, which is why I have contested the addition of Ken Hoang. The section should briefly mention tournaments relative to Melee, not document the whole history of tournaments. Although this may seem a Conflict of interest, it actually doesn't seem so because that revolves around the user's contributions. This is not the case as the issue is about the neutrality of the source, making it fall in the realm WP: Verifiability. I've looked over the guidelines, and from what I recall, none of them even touch this particular aspect but just constantly use the word "reliable" quite vaguely. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I'm wholeheartedly against expanding the section as doing so will lose sight of the objective of the ssection. The section is there only to explain things in relation to Melee, and does that more than sufficiently now. I don't want to deviate from that. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure it was ever a dispute of content either, considering the MLG article titled "MLG's Greatest Competitive Games of All Time", authored by Brick, contains the same information on Smashboards that you would have gotten out of any of my own published work on MLG. In other words this whole dispute really should have no effect on the actual wiki article itself, I just don't like the idea of setting a precedent that Ashnard is setting, because pretty soon I plan on looking in depth at every author of every source for this article, just to point out how terrible an idea it is.Alphazealot (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ensuring that the encyclopaedia uses reliable sources—what a poor precedent to set. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm more so talking about the precedent of ignoring reliable sources.164.107.47.144 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What? Who are you anyway? If that there were the case, then the last sentence of AZ's post wouldn't make sense. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Its AZ, just on a diff computer and not logged in. I simply plan to apply the logic you've done to my work to other peoples and see if, in the end, anything is reliable. I can tell before I even go through an analysis that we'll have to throw out a lot of the reviews based on the authors of each reviews bias toward whichever of the big three they like the most (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo). Is it fair to include a positive review of Smash from an author who is known or claims to be biased towards Nintendo, and is it fair to include a negative review from an author who claims or is biased toward Xbox (or some other competing game/company). All I'll be doing is discrediting the sources that are already included in the wiki by using the SAME logic you're using to discredit my work. I hope other people are starting to understand what I mean by seeting a precedent.164.107.47.144 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite other flaws, the review analogy fails because they are not trying to assert the relevance of something to be stated outside of a section on subjective views. "Reception" is not regarded as anything other than an individual's opinion of a game. Of course, the sites that they represent still should be reliable. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, why is the reception and sales section so big, anyways? Also, take for example this from the article:being the best-selling game that has been released for the GameCube with six million units sold worldwide.[11] Then check out source number 11. Its titled: OPINION: Wii Won't Rock You. Its an opinion article where the writer within the article mentions that 6 million units were sold. The author doesn't even reference where he got this number (and he is certainly not a person who tabulates such numbers, we would need a source like the NPD group). Its funny that it took me just a few seconds to point out that source [11] shouldn't be used for what its referencing (SSBM sales number), yet you took no time to cross reference any source other than the ones I've provided to you and information I've given you. Show the same rigor for testing every source, not just my work. 164.107.47.144 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The reception's so big because a user requested an expansion at FAC, which I thought was justified. As for source, that is not a matter of neutrality like your source, although it doesn't excuse the points. The point is that it's supporting a well-known fact, it's just that that it is the only site verifying it to my knowledge, so there is no other alternative. If there was a better source, then I would use it. So that does actually prove that I check things besides your source. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But you seem to believe this article is yours. Yes, you did contribute a lot to it, but it isn't in your justification to have the ultimate word of what goes in or not. It seems to me that if you don't believe it should be in the article, it isn't. Personally, I think more discussion needs to be made about an actual smash bros tournament article. I believe that will ultimately be the best way to solve this, and there are enough sources (4 or 5 at least) to justify a good, well written article on Melee tournaments. Balladofwindfishes (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're serious about a separate page, make sure it satisfies WP:N, contemplate what it really could become and set up a separate topic to gauge people's thoughts on the matter, because that's kind of off this topic. As for the accusation of WP:OWN, I'm always prepared to listen to people, and will change my view if they can justify a flaw in my argument. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To ashnard:No. Actually, it proves quite the opposite because I've seen over the years several sites the state Smash's sales numers, you just simply haven't looked (and I don't plan to look anymore because I've noticed very little work on your part for tracking down sources, as every source essentially for the tournament section has been suggested/provided/pointed out by me or was already previously provided. I do plan to remove that sentence in a little while, regarding source 11). The statement "well known fact" is completely arbitrary the way you are using it ("well known fact"s usually refer to things like: water = h2o, or President Bush is the current president of the US, or People are bipeds). A person with no video game knowledge viewing this page would have little knowledge about the number of copies sold for SSBM (IE it doesn't fit within the boundary of things that actually are well known enough facts that they don't need reference), just as most people who own SSBM probably has little knowledge about Smashboards and its influence on tournaments. Essentially, another "well known fact" is that Smashboards is the most influential site in regards to Smash tournaments (ask any tournament player). This is a terrible source and I think you know it, it shouldn't have any place in this article.164.107.47.144 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I assure you that I couldn't find another pertinent source, but I may not have looked properly. The sites that you are referring to may not be a global number of sales, and if they are, please direct me to them. The claim is made all around the media, and is needed for the article to remain comprehensive. As I've said, there's no other alternative, and to lose the source is to lose the statement. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're claiming to be upholding rigor when evaluating sources that should be used then this is not one that should have passed your test. As you've noted before, if the numbers are as widely claimed as you say then there should be a better source. I don't see how you can validate this source as being OK to use but outright denying any use of material that has been published by MLG that I have authored. It seems hypocritical to me, but I could be wrong. 164.107.47.144 (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you are. You're judging the sources as if the same circumstances apply. The only disadvantage against this source is that they don't source their claim. However, if the site itself is deemed reliable by their own merits then we could trust the source. For example, if IGN made the same claim, would you discount it? I'm assuming that you're now thinking, "why discriminate against MLG then?" I'm not, it's just relating to your position, and my stance would be the same if you worked for IGN or Gamespot. As for the widely claimed sources, most say that Melee is the best selling, but this is the only site that I can find that gives figures. Of course, the sources isn't perfect, but it shouldn't be discounted with no alternatives at the moment. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Circumstances? The author claims SSBM sold 6 million. This isn't referenced at all within his article and it isn't his first hand knowledge, more over its an OPINION piece, meaning claims within the article were probably not cross referenced by the editor of that website (the article was probably just spell/grammer/syntax/whatever checked). You are using a website with no authority on that claim as the chief source on a very important piece of information. Its better that the claim not exist than it exist with the current source and we later uncover that SSBM has only sold 4.5 million or that it has sold 8 million. Again, repeating something I already said, if this is as widely known as you claim you can find a much better source for this information. 164.107.47.144 (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should also point out that anything contained within an "opinion" piece should not be used as a source for factual information. A published opinion piece is not the same as an actual published article because rarely does the site endorse and back statements made within the piece. Pick up any newspaper and check out their opinion section and you'll often run across a note from the editor that each opinion piece is the sole perspective of the person who writes it and the newspaper has absolutely no backing behind the piece other than publishing it.22:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.47.144 (talk)

No. The figures aren't widely commented on, just the fact that it is the best selling. I know that the source is imperfect. The source is from a reliable website, so there is an element of trust that we can have with the claim, although it is imperfect. If you really indignantly feel that the facts are being misrepresented, find some sources to disprove it. At the moment, I don't feel that there is enough against the source to discount it amid no alternatives. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything. They can speculate about consoles but they aren't permitted to publish speculation presented as fact. The statement isn't an opinion, nor does the context in which it is presented invalidate it. I'm off to bed now. Bye. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One of your statements violates a common law of logic, in that the burdan of evidence to prove existance lies with the person making the claim (IE you want to claim that SSBM sold 6 million copies, it is up to you to prove this claim, not up to me to disprove, at current and by your own admittance the source is at least "imperfect", I argue that it shouldn't be used at all and the claim should be striken until we find an adequate source). Your evidence doesn't support your claim (or rather, your evidence is very poor and cannot for this reason support your cliam), you cannot deny you are relying on an opinion piece to generate factual material. As I said before, that website does not back statements that the author makes within the article, because, again, it is an opinion piece, this means that the websites credibility has no bearing on using that piece as a source. Someone can write an opinion piece claiming that the holocaust did not occur and it could be published by reliable papers. The publishing of an opinion piece is not an endorsement of fact. I can very much see how that statement is an opinion to, following SSBM as much as I do I've seen people claim it has sold as many as 8 million copies, it would be in the best interest of someone who wants to promote SSBM to embelish the number of sales for the game.164.107.47.144 (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What? Even if it is an opinion piece, they can't post spurious information, so that doesn't make it any less reliable if it was in a different context. As for the logic thing, a relaible site has made the claim, and you are questioning its veracity. I'm merely suggesting that you find a source to further your argument because there's mot enough to discount the source. You are making the assumption that it is an opinion. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And now to loop the argument back. You are willing to stand behind an unsourced figure from a "reliable" website but not willing to admit published articles from Major League Gaming. Considering I'm their Smash writer, you're essentially striking all possible Smash related content that will come out of MLG (save maybe an article or two a year). You DO NOT have the authority based on your sole opinion (of bias that doesn't even effect content, Smashboards is part of competitive Smash, it will be mentioned as shown through Brick's MLG piece and Nintendo Power) to strike sources like that, especially when you are willing to allow such a poor source for such an important figure (the 6 million figure). I'll repeat what I said again, if the figure is as widely known as you claim you should certainly be able to find a more reliable source. You made this claim about my work, and you know what? I went and found you tons of sources. I don't need to find a source to show that figure is inaccurate, just as you didn't strive to find any evidence that anything written withing any of my articles on MLG was inaccurate. Apply your arguments to everything equally or don't apply them at all. 164.107.47.144 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Please remember WP: CIVIL. I find it unbelievable that you find it impossible to absorb opinions that aren't your own. Look at my above posts—all of your answers are answered there, from my perspective that is. I find the number of misconceptions you make laughable. Have fun. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't that I can't absorb opinions (and your most recent comment goes against WP: CIVIL, making it quite ironic you link me there), its your opinion that my articles shouldn't be used at all for sources, its the opinions of myself, and others it appears, that it can. I know wikipedia is not a democracy, yet multiple people have weighed in, mainly in this talk page and you seem to be the only one who believes using articles written by me and published by MLG are not sources. I know you have one supporter in the WP: V, yet there have been no responses over there since I made my contributions to the debate. Meanwhile, over at the video game project talk page, while initially the person who commented there was inconclusive, after we BOTH weighed in he arrived at the conclusion that the source linked to (my article) appeared to have good merits. To review...

Positives

-Published by an authority on professional gaming (MLG). MLG is a reliable source. -Author has been playing SSBM competitively for almost 5 years and was hired by MLG and has been working for them since 2005. -Author is not adding his own material to the wiki.

Negatives

-Author is a moderator at Smashboards. Rebuts of Negatives: -Articles in question were written prior to author becoming a moderator at Smashboards. -Other articles (NP and MLG) by different authors have mentioned Smashboards. -Position at Smashboards, or even membership there, doesn't effect the content of articles paid for by MLG. -Everyone is biased, being biased in itself does not invalidate a source. -Sources should be judged as per this comment: "Judge the source on its own merits" (user: krator). -Krator also found the merits to be "quite solid". I don't claim to be taking anything personally nor do I think you can find any aggressive comments towards yourself beyond my statement of hypocrisy, to which it was phrased "It seems hypocritical to me, but I could be wrong". The most aggressive comment between us seems to be this one: "you find it impossible to absorb opinions" and "I find the number of misconceptions you make laughable". You were the one who just elevated the conversation to personal. Show me quotes where I did the same. 164.107.47.144 (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"You made this claim about my work, and you know what?" I found this to be pretty offensive. I've never claimed authority on a subject—you make a claim, I respond to what I believe to be true. Please also be reminded that I've agreed that a statement about Smashboards seems okay. I've already explained above how I disagree with your negatives. The argument is becoming really circular now, so maybe we could try Wikipedia: Request for mediation or Wikipedia: Request for arbitration. But you'd have to check whether this type of discussion is within their scope. For people who've supported your claim, I think just about everyone has expressed a misunderstanding about the argument in some way. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe the sentence "you made this claim about my work, and you know what?" to be as offensive as your sentence: "you find it impossible to absorb opinions". Also, its odd that any comment made about this argument by anyone other than us must be someone who is "misunderstanding". 164.107.47.144 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I never claimed that. Calling them "misunderstandings" is not some subjective statement—most if not all have misinterpreted it in some way, and then expect me to accept an opinion, even though it is unrelated to what this is about. This in itself is interpreted by some as me ignoring opposing comments, for some reason. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems possibly you don't know what's being discussed, as everyone except you is in the same argument, and you yourself are in the argument. If it isn't the topic at hand, than why is 99% of the discussion about it? I don't think you're ignoring opinions so much as mis understanding the exact point being made that you need to either accept MLG as a real site, or stop using sources that are less reliable than something someone was paid for and is published. Balladofwindfishes (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That probably couldn't have been more ironic if you tried. "accept MLG as a real site" has nothing to do with it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ashnard you need to stop. We have discussed this with good intentions. We have pulled citations and Wikipedia precedences. Ken is a vital part of tournaments. You even agreed with us. Everyone in this discussion not only believes that ken should be in the article, but so should more information about Smashboards. You agreed with us on my points and yet remove the information the instant someone agrees with your former opinoin. There is no need to discuss this further. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking it out on Ashnard? Ken may be relevant to tournaments, but they are a minor part of the larger picture of Melee's significance and certainly not relevant in a large way to the article. You say that everyone in this discussion believes that Ken should be added? I refute this, and any further mention of Smashboards. It's all fan content, and the only relevance it has is through tournaments, which are notable and are already mentioned with enough depth -- and Smashboards is referenced in this context. Coreycubed (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Im not taking anything out Ashnard he is the one removing cited relavent information, please read the entire discussion before jumping to conclusions. What is wikipedia if not for linking information? Ken is relavent so is smashboards, neither is fan content. I guess according to you Roger Federer should not be mentioned in the tennis article and neither should the other pro mentioned there. Also Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus and Annika Sorenstam should not be mention in the golf article according to your logic right? What about Chris Moneymaker's reference in poker? Goodness look at all that fan content in those articles! In fact why not go directly into the field of video games, Starcraft, which might I add is a Featured Article, has and legacy section which mentions Lim Yo-Hwan (known in-game as SlayerS `BoxeR`). So please spare me the dramatic speech about "fan content". 63.76.234.250 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No surprises here, but I think Corey's right. Ken is only relevant to the tournaments in themselves and thus only indirectly related to the subject of the article, SSBM. Ken is relevant in his own right, but I've never agreed that he's relevant to this article. The section does not document the history of tournaments at all, but briefly expresses the link between SSBM and tournaments. I'm also confused as to what you believe that I have agreed to, too. If my memory serves me, I've only agreed to something along the lines of "rising popularity of tournaments, which can be attributed to Smashboards (source)". Corey's correct, it's not necessary—the tournament section's fine as it is. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're analogies fail again—this is not an article on the tournaments but a short section. The above comparisons would only make sense if this was an article on tournaments. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> I'm aware of the status of professional players of nationally recognized sports, and also of the status of StarCraft's legacy in Korea. Melee tournaments are not in the same category as Wimbledon, the PGA Tour or even the World Series of Poker. Even if they were, the main article for poker has one sentence in reference to Chris Moneymaker, and those tournaments are nationally televised. The other celebrities referenced only appear briefly in the source article, and only when in reference to something relevant to the article. Even so, Tiger Woods is a household name; the same standards don't apply to Ken Hoang. Coreycubed (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No actually my analogies prove the point that notable tournament players are notable in an article revolving around the game. Tiger Woods' relavence to golf is the same as Ken relevance to smash, therefore I do not see the point of your argument. This is not an AfD no one is question now notable one is. In fact if you going to bring up Ken is comparison to Tiger Woods the notability guidlines state that notability is achieved whenever the person is notable within a field and is cover by multiple non travial independent sources which Ken IS. The argument against the inclusion of Ken hardly holds any ground. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be an AfD for its notability to be questioned; see WP:N. Furthermore, Woods' relevance to golf is far greater than that of Hoang's to Smash. Finally, I question Hoang's notability within the field (in this case I assume you're relating "field", or profession, to "Smash player") given that Hoang is not a celebrity outside of the tournament scene, and little relevance to the game itself, which is the subject of the article. Coreycubed (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to look at it in that light, then yes Tiger Woods' contributions are far greater than that of Ken. However, Lim Yo-Hwan has made no contributions beyond his field, Chris Moneymaker may have changed the face of poker, however he has done little non-poker related activities. In fact the poker article even mentions Greg Raymer who is far less notable than moneymaker. The point is that people related to the field are points of interest for any causal reader of wikipedia. There are hundreds of articles about fields of interest which link to notable people within the field. In fact you said it yourself "Even if they were, the main article for poker has one sentence in reference to Chris Moneymaker". Excatly there is one line mentioning Ken Hoang. It is sad that there is a 3 page debate over the inclusion of one sentence. The article has nothing to benefit from the removal of Ken, but it does have something to gain with his inclusion. Once again, what is wikipedia for if not for information? 63.76.234.250 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Tiger Woods' relavence to golf is the same as Ken relevance to smash,". But the article isn't on the Smash tournaments. Your analogies fail. Plus, the relationship between these tournaments and sports is very different to that of the Smash tournaments to a video game. Don't compare the two as if the same circumstances apply. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, your counter argument is completely irrational, what are you even suggesting? The Golf article is not on golf tournaments. The Starcraft article is not on Starcraft tournaments, the poker article is not on poker tournaments. And who are you to say "Don't compare the two as if the same circumstances apply". It is the same thing, your opinions are becoming increasingly irrational and bias. You as stubborn as a mule its like trying to convince you that Marlon Brando was in The Godfather and your only response is "No, no, his not, i dont believe you." This conversation isnt going anywhere. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for leaving the matter alone -- now we can get back to editing the article. Coreycubed (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is called "Super Smash Bros. Melee not Tournaments pertaining to Super Smash Bros. Melee or Smash Tournaments. Don't blame me because you can't understand logic. Yet again, irony reigns. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(this is AZ) I think the problem is that, when arguing with you, your responses are often just rephases of the initial argument, you offer nothing new or no counter retorts, just merely another paraphrase of your initial stance. For example, the poker argument or golf argument: They are both games in a fundamental form. Smash is the same in this concept. Golf and Poker each have tournaments for the game. Smash is also the same in this instance (so far all things share very common traights). Golf and Poker mention players who do well in tournaments or are otherwise noteworthy in their wiki articles. This is noted, yet even though the similarities are glaringly obvious you make a special point to note that "This article is called "Super Smash Bros. Melee not Tournaments pertaining to Super Smash Bros. Melee" which only ignores the actual argument and the presidence already set in multiple articles, to which you respond "Don't blame me because you can't understand logic. Yet again, irony reigns." You actually don't have a solid counter point when arguing against this presendence beyond saying that the scale of Ken Hoang's influence isn't as large as say, Tiger Woods. The reality though is that in proportion, Ken Hoang is at least in the same realm of influence at Moneymaker from poker. Anyone who plays Smash competitively knows about Ken Hoang, not to mention the thousands of competitive Halo players that know about him simply because Smash was a part of MLG. Then, not to mention the numerous articles and youtube videos of him that get read and watched by both casual and competitive players. Within the spectrum of Melee, Ken is about as important as you can get. That said, your argument is simple: This article is on Melee, not Melee tournaments. The counter argument is: The Poker article is on Poker, but it also mentions Poker tournaments, and within Poker tournaments it mentions X persons. To this, your counter argument was just a restatment of your initial argument, something along the lines of: No, this article is about Melee. 164.107.47.144 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I rephrase my arguments because they still apply as before. The main reason rephrasing is necessary is because the previous user misunderstood some content, and the statement is still pertinent as a counter argument. If you want me to delve deeper, I'll say this: a video game and a sport are not the same and the analogies are broken under this misconception. Video games are developed privately by a set company and have a set ownership—sports do not. All official tournaments to a sport are inextricable to that sport and encompass that sport. The FA Cup is a tournament in English Football, organised by an official body, the FA. If you like, the tournaments are a component of the sport. Videogames are just that—videogames with a set fanbase. Videogame tournaments have been organised independent to the entity of the game itself and its production team. The tournaments themselves are relevant to all participants and viewers of it but not of matters of the game itself since they are independent. What I'm getting that is that the relationship is very different. Please, if you need further clarification or explanation, then just ask. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So, would people still object if I were to omit the reference to Ken? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashnard i care about the removal of ken. Im not going to argue with you anymore, the points have been made. You need to see someone because there is clearly something you need to work out. You have nothing to gain from the removal of ken. This article remains strong with him included. Just stop, dont let you ego get in the way of what is good for Wikipedia. Sometimes people lose arguments, it takes the bigger man to understand that and step down. This is the final answer to your stubborn argument. You said:

This article is called "Super Smash Bros. Melee not Tournaments pertaining to Super Smash Bros. Melee or Smash Tournaments.

Response: There is a section called tournaments therefore important information regarding tournaments should be included. Ken Hoang is statistically the best player in tournament history therefore one line mentioning him should be included. Also if you see the any other article about a competitive game you will see that the legacy section always mentions the top player. This is a clear and concise answer to your dilemma. You should ask outside opinion if this were a debate with an unbias judge my answer would dispell your counter argument please dont mention that again. Thank you. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Also in response to your repharased argument im sorry, I can feel the sweat on your OCD fingers as you desperately try to prove a point which you know is incorrect, but we have already mentioned that Smash is on the same level of poker and starcraft. Your argument of sports is extremely opinionated and completely incorrect. MLG is not an independent organization and IS corporately sponsored. And what!!

Video games are developed privately by a set company and have a set ownership—sports do not. All official tournaments to a sport are inextricable to that sport and encompass that sport.

Are you suggesting that sports were developed for tournaments? Wait so people can't play sports for fun? FACT: Sports were developed for personal entertainment not tournaments. Also MLG focused on Smash and Halo for 3 years. WHAT ABOUT poker? WSOP host many types of poker not just texas holdem. That is the equivalent to hosting many types of video games. In fact EVO only focus on fighting games. But this has all been said. The fact that you on purposely overlooked this (repeatly might I add) only shows that you are bias and is unfit to edit the tournament section of SSBM. You have maintain an argument over a one line statement. Stop, this is a waste of time. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't help your case that you are attacking an editor. Logan GBA (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's set a few things straight here:

• "Im not going to argue with you anymore, the points have been made." So what, you're going to engage in an edit war?
• "You have nothing to gain from the removal of ken." I'm a Wikipedian—I try to make articles of my concern the best they can be.
• "You need to see someone because there is clearly something you need to work out." ...Excuse me? Are you implying what I think you are? And for what, because I won't let you propogate needless information and use a bogus reference? Please, read up upon WP: Civility and WP: No Personal Attacks.
• "Just stop, dont let you ego get in the way of what is good for Wikipedia." Don't lecture me about what's good fro Wikipedia— you watch over a page solely to see if some bloke can grab a mention on a popular page.
• "Sometimes people lose arguments, it takes the bigger man to understand that and step down." I agree, so why don't you follow your advice?
• "There is a section called tournaments therefore important information regarding tournaments should be included." Only content relative to SSBM in itself. Ken is only indirectly related. The only response you have is the sports analogy; I've told you why this is broken. If you disagree, then find a flaw in the argument.
• "I can feel the sweat on your OCD fingers as you desperately try to prove a point which you know is incorrect". Wow, your incivility is extending to a large number of people who haven't contributed to the discussion. You're just being rude now.
• "Smash is on the same level of poker and starcraft." This has nothing to do with it.
• "Are you suggesting that sports were developed for tournaments?" No. I don't know where you got that idea from
• "Wait so people can't play sports for fun?" Nope; what's your point?
• "FACT: Sports were developed for personal entertainment not tournaments." Wow, you're on fire today. Have you been eating your Weetabix?
• "MLG is not an independent organization and IS corporately sponsored." I never suggested otherwise. I said that MLG is independent to the videogame, not as a company itself.
• "unfit to edit the tournament section of SSBM". I turned this into this. Who are you to say that?

Thanks.Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• No one said were unfit to edit to edit the tournament section. I said you are as you are currently acting irrationally and not giving us credit where it is due. This is a clear sign of bias. I am only making the most logically assumption as to your reasons. I apologize if this isnt some personal vendetta against the pro touranment editer, but it certainly seems that way. When you edited the section formerly you did a great job in condensing information. However you over did it and when this was mentioned you refused to accept that your point of view was at least somewhat opinioned. You have not given us credit where it is due and it is no doubt that we would be irritated when you suddenly remove information against the general consensus just because we did response immediately. Right now it is 3-1 in favor of retaining Ken. Honestly ask yourself this question would people be interested in reading about Ken and how does removing him benefit the article? Do you think someone is going to read the tournament section and say "How dare they mentioning Ken? I did not want to know that information." Please drop this discussion. Please do not remove Ken anymore. We have proven his relavence. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for being blunt, but credit for what, exactly? As for "I apologize if this isnt some personal vendetta against the pro touranment editer, but it certainly seems that way.", Assume good faith; I have given you this courtesy. "Right now it is 3-1 in favor of retaining Ken.", please WP:Not#Democracy, and anyway, what about User: Coreycubed? For the point of relevance, no you haven't proven why he should be mentioned. I'd also appreciate it if you would stick with the discussion, and not just return whenever I omit the reference to Ken. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Coreycubed's stated that Tigers contribution to golf is far greater than Ken to smash. This statement is incorrect because coreycubed does not know the smash community. He also said he was going to drop this issue. Secondly we all assumed good faith (repeatedly) in fact Alphazealot wrote almost 5 pages citing Ken relevence. Your only response is "ken is not relevent to ssbm" if you can cite 5 pages why then maybe you can persude us fairly. Secondly I do not have time to follow this discussion. However if I see Ken is removed then of course I will come back and dispute this. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What, I should be grateful to Alphazealot because he argued his case? Plus what are you saying, that the length of my posts must equal his to validate it? The thing is, you can afford not to follow this discussion because it's your preferred version that's currently up there—no discussion or resolution only means the continuation of the current version. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am still here, but I'm not going to try and make a case for something if I don't feel I can back it up. I do know the Smash community, though in all fairness I don't know it intimately; however, I've been playing it just as long as anyone else. You're arguing against something I said, though, and I do wish to back my statement up. Just because Hoang is notable among Smash players does not necessarily satisfy WP:N. Woods' notability as a golf player is undeniable; however, I am sure that a large portion of people who play games in the Smash series are unaware of Hoang's prowess or even of his existence. For the record, I am still against a mention of Ken Hoang in the article, but I can live with it the way it is. I do agree with what Ashnard's saying, though. If it must be made into a "for" or "against", then I am against. Coreycubed (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to receive your input. However I on the other hand feel that Ken inclusion satisfies the article and does improve it. Also Ken influence has been cited [1]. Woods' influence expand for beyond golf. I think Chris Moneymaker is a much better analogy. Not everyone that plays poker knows about Chris Moneymaker. Starcraft is an even better example. I'm sure you can agree that people are interested in reading about the top player of any game. Also I thank you for staying unbias and giving me credit. I hope you could be for his inclusion that would be a great help to this article. Ashnard you state that Ken is not apart of melee, however I have not seen one response about the tournament section. Can you honestly say that Ken is not relavent to the tournament section?

and for the note this is not a for or against situation. Ashnard inforced that and he has no jurisdiction to do so. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"and for the note this is not a for or against situation. Ashnard inforced that and he has no jurisdiction to do so." Excuse me? I did no such thing; you were the one tallying up votes. "I thank you for staying unbias and giving me credit"—he never gave you credit. What are you talking about? As for your question, I think you've shown a misunderstanding of what the "Tournament" section is about. It is there to briefly mention numerous tournaments based on SSBM and that is basically it. The section is not supposed to document anything beyond the general impact. To mention things that are not relevant to the game itself is to deviate from what the sections supposed to be about. Relevance to a particular section is determind by relevancve to the overall subject of the article. Any reference to Ken adds no information about Melee in itself—it would just be the article going off on a tangent. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This debate's goping nowhere, and I can't nominate this for FA until the dispute is resolved. Wikipedia: Request for comment seems to be the logical answer. Agree? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I'd love to see this reach FA, but it barely made GA because of the disagreement here. Maybe with more than just two or three editors working on consensus, we'll be able to come to a resolution. Coreycubed (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the article's FA, there were four supports and three opposes. The FAC then failed after a user switched from "support" to "oppose" because of this debate. Plus, two of the original opposes were basically non-actionable—one opposed because he thought the article was boring. So when this debate is resolved, this should make FA. At this point, requesting an external editor to reach consensus seems the only way. I must say though, after being at Wikipedia for a year now, I think this aspect is probably the worst and most disheartening thing about Wikipedia. It's been aggrovating to say the least, but hopefully the Request for Comment will put an end to it. If nobody objects, I'll make the request today. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold

• "is a popular crossover action game" - is "popular" necessary here? (POV etc.)
• "The game received a generally positive reception from the media,[4][5][6] as well as awards and acknowledgements from well-known gaming publications.[7][8][9]" - you don't need the cites here, save them for the reception section.
• "being the best-selling game that has been released for the GameCube" - the tense is odd here, try "being the GameCube's highest selling game (at the time (if appropriate))"
• "so sufficient damage must be accumulated before attempting a "KO"" - if it's anything like SSB (which I remember better than this one, despite playing both) you can knock a player off (with some items) even on low damage. That would make this statement incorrect. Best to remove it rather than have POV allegations...
• "with a Home Run Bat" - note that it's an item
• "All twenty-five characters. - may wish to note that it's from the opening screen (isn't it?)
• "(the game is paused)." - what impact does this have on the image, if any?
• "such as a Triforce symbol behind Link's damage meter and a mushroom behind Mario's" - wikilink Link and Mario here
• you reference Link thrice in the "Playable characters" section (triforce, Ganon, weapons). Try and keep the variety - eg. no Pokemon reference, despite it being major too.
• "Sakurai stated that the development team had suggested four other games" - games, or characters?
• "followed this trend with Super Smash Bros Brawl, in which" - remember the italics
• "magazine Famitsu reported that" - same again
• "with the GameCube for $99.99." - what currency?
• "gameplay features from Super Smash Bros.[4][5][6]" - you don't need these refs here. Save them for the actual review discussion.
• It's OK now, but if you want to go for FAC you'll need to expand receptoin a bit more.
• "yet its "hyper-responsiveness" has" - what does this mean? Clarify/expand
• First and 3rd reception paras contradict a bit. One says "heaps of new stuff", the other says "not much changed". ALso "The media has criticized Melee" only has one ref that goes with this statement, so you can't say "the media" per se.
• "and a Nintendogs puppy" - game = italics
• "IVGF gave out $US 12,500 for the top" - curency formatting --> $ (etc.)

Leave a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Passed. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Legacy Picture

In the Leagacy section depicting there is a picture depicting Diidy Kong, Bowser,& Wario fighting, this is obviously fake/fromBrawl and should be deleated imideatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaconBoy914 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What's fake about it? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What is fake about it is that it is NOT from this game, so it is TRASH in this article. I am deleting it. -- User:MKalv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.85.237 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the misinterpretation here: you think it's supposed to show Melee. Well, it isn't; it's supposed to portray Brawl in the "sequel" section. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am soooo sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.85.237 (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No problemmo ;). Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Smashing live merger here

It's such a short stubby article that probably wont grow, it would bolster this article and help it on it's way to Featured status and then one less article for a featured topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with that. I'm all for the merge, although I don't want any miuntiae being brought into this article. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 23:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll merge a trimmed version, feel free to trim more. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to come in here kind of late, but I think that Smashing... Live! should probably be its own separate article. It doesn't make much sense to put it on here. Even though the album came around as part of the game, it has nothing to do with the actual game. The tracks in the album are not the same recordings that appear in the game. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment: Disputed reference to Ken Hoang in the article

Should Ken be included?Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 14:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ken should be referenced The reasons have all been mentioned above. Ken has been dubbed "The King of Smash" by MLG and the smash community. He is directly related to tournaments because of his cited (from multiple independent sources) dominance. There is no rule on Wikipedia about this exact situation so precedence is a good form of support. In the poker article Chris Moneymaker and Greg Raymer have been reference. A better example would be another FAC article Starcraft#Legacy. That article mentions:

Lim Yo-Hwan (known in-game as SlayerS `BoxeR`),[56] to gain a fan club of over half a million people.[3] Professional gamers dedicate a lot of time playing StarCraft to prepare for the highly competitive leagues. Lee Yun-Yeol.

Tennis article also makes references to their top players. The quake 3 article links to Jonathan Wendel. The precedence has been set this article should be no different. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, this is to discuss what a third-party thinks. Reiterating your statement before anyone comments is worthless. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 14:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ken would be better included in specific articles about those tournaments. At present, that section only calls out one person, yet there's a number of tourneys and years listed, so why not list out all the winners. If Ken's achievements are highly specific to SSBM, then those need to be specifically called out. Otherwise, that section should appropriately mention SSBM is a game used there, but should not give any specific winner unless there is more to that in regards to SSBM. If Ken is the "King of Smash" by a reliable source, then he may be mentioned, but only in this context, not because his won a tourney. --MASEM 15:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Masem, I really appreciate the input. I've alerted the IP on the talk page to let hom know what he thinks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Masem and Ashnard on this one. That's really great that he's been so successful at doing this, but that doesn't mean they belong in the article. Yes the content of a well known player can be mentioned in a related article, but his mention seems out of place compared to the rest of the paragraph. It's not as important as mentioning that there were tournaments. Going into details is best avoided on a subject like this. Depending on the source, he maybe able to be briefly mentioned. But the source given for the content does not seem mention the content currently in the article. The video wouldn't load for me, so I can't say for sure. As it is right now, I'd say mention of the player should be removed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

The video wouldn't load for me too, so whatever happens, that has to be removed. Thanks for the input, Guy. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also agree with not including the reference. If there was a dedicated entry on the tournament that lists the winners, it would be reasonable to include it. As this is an article about the computer game, I don't feel that it is appropriate to include it. I also agree that if Ken has been specifically named as King of Smash by a reliable source, then I'm happy to reassess my viewpoint. Gazimoff (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, but I think "King of Smash" means leader of the tournaments known as Smash tournaments, and not leader of the game in itself. I may be wrong, though. Thanks, Gazimoff. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ken should be reference. Whst seems to be the issue with one line mention him. He is the most consisent player and the best ranked by MLG. This is why he has precedence over other winners. Also many other video game article reference top players. No one is write a biography about him it is just one line mention his success. Also the "King of Smash" has a relible reference. http://www.mlgpro.com/?q=node/43972 204.52.215.128 (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ken Hoang already does have a biography of sorts. There are several problems with the article, however. Two are links to posts on fansite forums, four are links to Major Leauge Gaming (wkere Ken has won tournaments) and one links to an NBC article that doesn't explicitly name him as featuring in an as yet unreleased MTV series. I know Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of publishing material that isn't independantly verifiable, isn't notable and isn't a forecast or prediction (crystal ball). In my humble opinion this fails all three of the above. Gazimoff (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Though it can't be denied that there is a connection to the "Tournament" section, the level of specific detail and relevance doesn't seem to warrant mention. The section is meant to describe the legacy Melee has achieved, not the legacy Ken has achieved. Thus mentioning Ken seems out of place there. Though, some of the references listed seem suitable to source and expand his biography article. Regarding the precedent of other similar articles, I'm inclined to have the same stance. Their legacy should remain on their biography pages, not the game articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

People just agreed that if Ken was named the King of Smash by an independent source he would deem mentioning. I just proved that point. MLG is a notable unbias source. See the discussion above. Now that the proof is there it seems people are retracking their statements. Can someone please explain why Starcraft, poker, and sports can mention their top players, but not the article on ssbm? Remember that this is not a vote it is based on the strength of the argument. Finally on a much more universal level, what is wikipedia for if not for linking information? Is there some form belief that mentioning Ken in the tournament section is negative for this article? Are people going to be disappointed when they read about Ken? If people read the ssbm article would they not be interested in reading about the best player? 204.52.215.128 (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask if in this case MLG was an independant and reliable source for the comment, as his achievements and associated praise has only been published by the people who organised the tournaments he's won. The NBC article is irrelevant as it doesn't mention Ken by name. The Phoenix article that mentions Ken on page 5 of a 5 page article about MLG in general. I still don't feel that he has achieved notability or independant verifiability to warrant inclusion, but that's my opinion. Gazimoff (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've said why the sports analogies fail, if you want to dispute that then try it. I'll copy-and-paste the paragraph, if you want. About "King of Smash", I think there was a misinterpretation of what this means. All it means (I think) is leader of a set type of tournaments, and not leader of the game. Whether the other users knew this, I don't know. The last section of your argument doesn't really mean anything except "it doesn't hurt". Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't agree to the inclusion based on an independent source. I said, "...his mention seems out of place compared to the rest of the paragraph. It's not as important as mentioning that there were tournaments... Depending on the source, he maybe able to be briefly mentioned." I'm sorry if a different impression was gathered from it, but I was more on the fence than anything else. After giving it some more thought, I came to the conclusion that the content should be focused on the game itself, not the players. And I'd be willing to take the same stance on the Starcraft game as well. I'm sorry, but articles about games come under a good deal of scrutiny at WP:FAC, and it is best to sharpen the article by removing excess details that don't help the reader gain a better understanding of the subject. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 09:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

I totally agree with Guy, and have given similar reasons to him in that lengthy debate above. My stance is that Ken is indirectly related to the game, and to mention him is to deviate from the purpose of the section, which is to establish context in relation to Melee, and not document any other details. If you're so bothered, put the info in his article. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you could please elaborate on "I think there was a misinterpretation of what this means. All it means (I think) is leader of a set type of tournaments, and not leader of the game." that would be helpful. What is the "leader" of the game? No game or sport has a leader. I would say that you would be correct he is the leader of tournaments. He is therefore indirectly related to the legacy of ssbm and directly related to tournaments. An analogy here would be that Chris Moneymaker changed the face of poker merely by winning the 2003 WSOP, therefore Moneymaker is indirectly related to poker and was mentioned in the poker article. Chris Moneymaker accomplishments in poker are not even close to Ken's accomplishments in smash, therefore Ken desearves at least one line of mention in the article. 204.52.215.128 (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I just meant that, for those who don't know, "King of Smash" could be interpreted as "King of Melee" as opposed to leader of the Smash tournaments, as Smash could be perceived to be the game and not the tournament. About Moneymaker, I'd prefer it if you discussed the merits of this particular case instead of WP: OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Doing so makes the assumption that Moneymaker should have been mentioned. These analogies don't really mean anything, I'd just prefer if you kept the debate about this particular instance instead of referring to instances where the circumstances are not the same, and there's no assurance that they should be there in the first place. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The King of Smash is in reference to his achievements in Smash tournaments. This proves his relevence to smash tournaments which is what this section focuses on. Also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is used for AFD and has no merit in this discussion. If one line were included suggesting that Ken is "The King of Smash", then you would be right, one could misinterpret, however, nowhere in this article do I see him being proclaimed in King of Smash. The argument was used to prove his notability in the smash community.MASEM said that Ken does not warrent mention in this article if he merely won a tournament. However, if the community believes that he is notable because of his achievements i.e. "being proclaimed the King of Smash" then he is notable enough to be mentioned. "The King of Smash" reference is stated in his own article and directly mentions that he is the king of tournaments and not of the game itself.

On a side note: WP: OTHERCRAPEXISTS is use in context with the fact that just because something else exists does not mean this article is notable solely because of the other article. It is used to encourage people to look for reliable sources as oppose to precedences. It has no context out of AfD. Ken notability is proven and so is his relavence to this article. 204.52.215.128 (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP: OTHERCRAPEXISTS was a reference to you constantly referring to sections in other articles that mention prolific players. It's relevance is most certainly not confined to AfD. All "King of Smash" means is that he won the Smash tournaments, which everybody already knew. It doesn't mean that there's been any impact on Ken on the legacy of the game in itself. Please, consensus is against you; there isn't a consensus to keep him. Accept the judgement and let this article go to FA. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not arguing Ken's notability. We're arguing that his relevance to Melee's legacy is not notable enough to be included in the article. If this were an article focused on the Smash tournaments, then it would be another story. I'm sure everything you've said is very true, and is applicable to certain topics. Though the tournament community may consider him notable, that does not make his achievement a part of Melee's legacy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Ironically the consensus was formerly against you and you mentioned that this is not a vote (which you are correct). Wikipedia is not a vote and my arguments have not been disproven. Starcraft remains a FAC that mentions top players because top players are an influence on the community and the legecy of the game. Poker players are as well and it is the same with sports. I only mentioned his inclusion with tournaments because that is the section in question. My argument is plane and simple. Ken has a heavy influence on tournaments and tournaments are directly related to the legecy of many games. If you want to go deeper beyond tournaments, Ken is involved with the development of the meta game itself which include many innovative techniques that are used in the gameplay itself. The most notourious is the "Ken Combo". During an AfD, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is used against someone who says that article A should exist because article B does. The reason why this argument is flawed is because it hinders better ways to define notability. With this current discussion, there are no other policies on such a situation therefore precedence is the best form of defense. Please allow me to use Wikipedia:Defending article quality to back my views. Starcraft has passed WP:FAC and is therefore the highest article quality. Starcraft mentions top players as a part of its legecy, therefore, in order to maintain SSBM's article quality Ken should be mentioned as well. Also in response to Gazimoff I have another indepedent reliable source (even though MLG and the pheonix are reliable as well I would say that MLG may not be independent but pheonix certain is) Please look at http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/32773/?spage=2 this article is about the future of fighting games and not about MLG. It mentions three other fighting games, other fighting game tournaments, and their players as well. It mentions Ken as the "the undisputed king of SSBM" but does not say other tournament winners are the crown of their games. GotFrag is as reliable and independent as it gets. I understand that Ashnard is strictly against Ken inclusion for some reason, but I ask other editor to please look at the merits of my arguments and hopefully understand my views on his necessity to this article. Thank you. 204.52.215.128 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) While I can understand your reason for wanting to add the content, I still have to disagree with it. The section should include information about how Melee has created a legacy for itself. Mention of a successful player is how this specific person has benefited from that game's legacy, not how the game's legacy was built because of this person. After reading the sources you provided, there is only mention on how the tournaments have affected Ken, not how Ken winning the tournaments has added to Melee's legacy. I'm sorry, but your argument does not explain that. There is, however, ample amount to build up Ken's biography article. There's no reason why such an article can't be built up, maybe even to GA or FA if enough content and sources can be found. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Is a sucessful player that spawned from tournaments not a part of the legacy of the game? Tournaments itself is apart of the legacy of a game, not every game for example is tournament viable. I am just confused to your counter-argument, for example I have brought sources and other WP FAC article to back up my views including various articles from seperate sources. It just seems to me that "Mention of a successful player is how this specific person has benefited from that game's legacy, not how the game's legacy was built because of this person. After reading the sources you provided, there is only mention on how the tournaments have affected Ken, not how Ken winning the tournaments has added to Melee's legacy" is more of an opinion than a fact. I do not mean to sound abrasive by any means with that statement but I if you could bring up some sources as to why you feel Ken should not be included and how being the best at game is not apart of the game legacy, it would help me greatly in understanding your view point. I have a few more source from MLG which other players state Ken influence if you interested in reading it. 204.52.215.128 (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ironically the consensus was formerly against you and you mentioned that this is not a vote (which you are correct)." No, but consensus is built on strength of argument. Myself, Guy, Masem and Gazimoff have that. The others' arguments amounted to "Ken's notable, really". "Ken won most of tournaments, he needs to be done", "Starcraft done it", "Sports analogy FTW". None of these are sufficient. "if you could bring up some sources as to why you feel Ken should not be included". What, you want sources that report on absence? You want an IGN page saying that Ken's leagcy is separate to Melee's? WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does apply outside of AfD, more specifically to Starcraft. As for that article, not only do different circumstances apply, but it became an FA in 2005. Standards have changed now. Look, The original discussion was going in circles; an external view has been requested and thus provided. What do you want? Why can't you be content with taking his info to his article and leave us to it. I know I sound acrimonius at this point, but please understand how frustrating this three-month argument has been. The article's at a standstill until you accept judgement. I'm off to school. Bye. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

While you have shown the information is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, there is a proper place for it, Ken's biography. The way I see it, Ken's legacy is the result of Melee's legacy; a legacy of another legacy. Though it is related, his legacy does not overshadow Melee's. Because of that, I categorize the information as a level of detail not necessary to convey the idea that "Super Smash Bros. Melee has been the subject of several high-profile gaming tournaments." Mentioning Ken does not significantly add to this idea. His fame may change over time in ways we can't predict now, and that could change my viewpoint. But as it stands right now, his mention is not directly and significantly related to the content. Sorry.
In regard to this being at a stand still. You have not presented a strong enough argument to sway consensus. I feel it fair to warn you that any further editing to include Ken in this article can and probably will be considered vandalism. Such edits can lead to your IP being blocked. You don't want that, and neither do we. That's why we've expressed our viewpoints to you several times over. I honestly suggest focusing you time and energy on Ken Hoang's biography or other related articles, as you're obviously very passionate about helping to improve their quality. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

As always, your input is deeply appreciated. With the request for comment at a judegment (which it is), I think it's fair that the statement should be removed. Hopefully, the article should stabilise and this can go to FAC!! Thanks everybody for taking the time to get involved. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Guyinblack25 was unbias, but the fact that you threatened to warn a good faith editor show that you are. I dare you to warn me as my edits have been constructive. It is your opinion that Ken is not directly related to tournaments. There is no doubt about that. I however have use precedence and fact to show his influence on the community. This is the reason why I quit editing WP on my user name because it was too time consuming. However if you force me to come on as my former user name I will. My argument is simple I will state it once more. Based on Wikipedia:Defending article quality Starcraft is an article that mentions the top players therefore SSBM should mention Ken since his influence in SSBM rivals that of Red Nada to Starcraft. Your opinoin have no ground. If you can find a discussion in Wikipedia on a FAC where the top player was removed then you have a counter argument. If you warn me I will bring an admin into this. I would also like you to know I have been editing this article before both of you were even Wikipedia members. I will do you a favor I will reword Ken in the article so he has more to do with the legacy section. I will also personally remove Ken from the article if this article does not pass FAC because of Ken as along as the review is unbias i.e. no one mentions this disagreement to sway his exclusion. 204.52.215.128 (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Guyinblack came to the disucussion without bias; he was actually doing you a favour about telling you about reverts because your reaction was predictable, but I guess you've interpreted it the other way. Reverting against consensus is not constructive but disruptive to the project. The only argument you're clinging to is Starcraft, but again that's OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You have not gave an argument on the basis of these circumstances but are relying on precedence that may not be well based, nor compatible with these circumstances. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Im counter arguing with Wikipedia:Defending article quality which applies more in this situation. Also Masem's arugment is pro his inclusion now that more sources have been mentioned. 204.52.215.128 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree with your interpretation of Masem's comments, but I can't speak for Masem. You may want to ask him to clarify his position, but please don't misrepresent the views. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec many times) My suggestion is that trying to include Ken as it has been tried is putting too much bias on one person and not on the game itself; if Ken is to be included, it should be as an example of what type of championship and earnings people have won for being good at the game. The Starcraft article somewhat takes this approach, though can be rewritten slightly to state that the two mentioned are examples of the top players (and money earners) for Starcraft; however, the article certainly does not try to place those two people above the game itself (partially as there's links to the player's bio articles). If that approach is taken here, not to necessarily single out Ken as the King of Smash but that he is an example player that has won $xx,000 amount of money for being good, that demonstrates the monetary value of what these SSMB tourneys are like; in other words, the focus is on the game and its legacy, not on who is playing it. --MASEM 18:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for your input. Ill reword it some more please tell me what you think. :) 204.52.215.128 (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I reworded it a little better now. Please tell me what you think. I think this put more emphysis on tournaments than it does Ken. This also mirrors the wording of the Starcraft article a little more. 204.52.215.128 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In the interest of full disclosure, 204.52.215.128 asked me for some input. Anyways, I don't see any problem with mentioning Mr. Ken Hoang in the article.

• If he didn't have an article, that would be a problem.
• If we didn't have three separate references for him (I see a lot of discussion of those references above, and I'm assuming they're vetted), that would be a problem.
• If the SSBM article didn't have a section on tournaments, that would be a problem.
• If somebody wanted to write a paragraph or more on Hoang's accomplishment minutiae, that would be a problem.

I believe that the coverage of Mr. Hoang as is is appropriate in the context of the article; that is, less than a sentence. --Merovingian (T, C) 18:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Masem's suggestion seems like a suitable compromise. Though I may not agree with it completely, in the interest of compromise I'm willing to support it as it fits in more with illustrating the legacy Melee has established. A few comments on the current wording "Ken Hoang the statistically best and most famous player..." still seems to push the fact that he's the "King of Smash", which I believe has little relevance to the section. May I suggest "Ken Hoang, a well known competitor,..." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

(ec) Yes, that sounds fine to me. Without reading the articles that mention him, I'm willing to say that the "statistically best and most famous player..." part may be a stretch. --Merovingian (T, C) 18:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against adding him, I just want 204.52.215.128 to wait until there is a consensus to add it. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not attacking anybody, I just wanted to add my own assessment of the situation. --Merovingian (T, C) 18:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think RC was referring to my revert of his edit. I understand RC, I just wanted him to have a chance edit the statement according to the possible new consensus we're reaching. Sorry for the misunderstanding and I hope there's no hard feelings. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Okay, well none here.  :) --Merovingian (T, C) 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input I think that would be a better way to put it. I think referencing him as "The King of Smash" should be saved for his article. Guy I do feel your wording is a little better. 204.52.215.128 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess we're back to the "it does no harm" argument. To Masem, I know what you're saying, but why have an example when such things as the prize money can be written without the use of Ken? Also, to even list Ken as an example is to single him out, as the example isn't exactly random, is it? Does it add anything about the leagcy of the game? No. Do you know what, I totally disagree, but I am prepared to reach a compromise with some new wording beacuse I'm getting past caring. I'll get working on the rewording, beacuse it's worse than the original. Thanks, all. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont worry I've reworded it for you. Ken should be mentioned because he adds to the legacy of the game. In many words the game created him. I feel that not mentioning ken is worse than mentioning him. 204.52.215.128 (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that everone is at least in partial agreement with this solution. Unless there are anymore complaints or comments, I'd say consensus has been reached and the RfC tag can be removed. I hope no further edit wars will be waged so this article go to FAC. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Sorry 'bout that; I had a chem class. In reply to the above comments, no there are no hard feelings. And yes I would say that consensus has been reached again. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 19:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess so; I'd say what I feel right now, but I guess that would be "assuming bad faith". I've begrudgingly fixed the refs. IP, don't take this the wrong way, but I hope I never have to communicate with you again. If everybody's in agreement, I'll nominate this for FA in about 1/2 hour. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the rework and echo sentiments of consensus.Gazimoff (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the IP editor (from different computer) and I am in agreement with the current revision. 165.230.74.140 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick comment, a discussion as lengthy and as minute in scope as this might be a suitable candidate for WP:LAME. But as this helps to establish some rules of thumb for adding in similar content, I'm reluctant to add to WP:LAME. My unsolicitated two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Sorry I didnt mean to wipe that out. I well be more careful next time. 165.230.74.140 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Just try not to wipe the intermediate edits. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of it, when he was named one of the "Top 5 deadlist gamers" on the planet by EGM, in the article it also called him the King of Smash. Also, "King of Smash" has no meaning of leadership, Ken was a mod briefly on Smashboards but lost his position. Other than organizing OC, OC2, and OC3, he has otherwise shy'd away from leadership. He is "King" because he is/was so dominant over the competition, he won the 2004, 2005, and 2006 point titles in MLG and won the 2007 EVO World Championship. All this alongside wins in over 100 other non-professional tournaments. 164.107.46.44 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I, honestly, can NOT believe you added Ken Hoang to this article. If this is kept, perhaps we should start putting tournament winners names on all the video game articles on WP? Please rethink this addition as it has nothing to do with the game. If someone is infatuated with Ken Hoang so much, perhaps he should have his OWN page (maybe he already does... I'm too scared to look). Ctolson (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but consensus is consensus, and it cannot be removed without the edit being deemed disruptive. He does have his own article, by the way. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note:

Two users have kindly responded to a query I've made and have placed suggestions on how improve the article on my talk page. If anyone wants to help out making these amendments, then feel free. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Predecessor/Successor

Why can't I add the predecessor (Super Smash Bros.) or the successor (Super Smash Bros. Brawl)? I did edit it on the page and saved it, but it doesn't show up. Cheesefee (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That is because "Predecessor" and "Successor" not defined in Template:Infobox VG, see VG Talk: Preceded By and Folowed By if you want to get that kind of stuff in it. Logan GBA (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

diambiguation

free-for-all needs disambig

Done. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 14:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Smashboars reference

Its needed in the legacy section. If anyone picked up the Prima's Official Stategy Guide for Brawl Smashboards is referenced as the place to go for more information on the game. This should be the nail in the coffin for the debate about whether smashboards should be mentioned as this cements the arguments made earlier that were for its inclusion. 164.107.46.20 (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything in the leagcy section is already referenced. If you feel really badly that it needs to be in, please can you wait until the end of FAC? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeap, if something was added it wasn't by me. But, again, I hope this will settle some debate about Smashboards relevence.164.107.46.20 (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

I've copyedited the majority of the article. I didn't touch the reception area as I've reviewed that too extensively in the past. Hope this helps. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Toad and Sonic

Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article of the many false claims of Toad being in the game and the false magazine claim of Sonic being a character in the game? It was no minor event; many people believed that they were in the game. I posted about that in the article and it my post was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It used to be in the article, but they were removed. They're frankly uncyclopedic. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Luigi's mention in SM64 article is forgiveable becuase he was searched for years, IGN eeven offered a cash prize for proof. That was a big thing, this is not, they are small short lived pranks that were quickly disproved. Not at all relevant to this article.→041744 13:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

EDGE (UK) Review

Should Edge's review be included in the reception section? You have the scores from Famitsu, IGN etc. just wondering why Edge hasn't been included? As far as I remember they gave it 6/10, which is quite significant due to it being such a low score and from a respected publication. I'll try and find the issue and post some of the good/bad points listed in the review. Congrats on reaching FA status btw! Darrek Attilla (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it should as it is included in most other articles, there is no reason to including it, those who say otherwise are biased. Yes they usually give harsh reviews and thats why they've become notable to be mentioned many times. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you coukd that, then that would be great. As of now, neither Gamerankings or Metacritic have listed Edge's score, so we'll need that issue for the score to be put in the table. Thanks for the heads up. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the Melee review is in Issue 106. I can't find my copy but I found the score on the edge review database (http://www.edge-online.co.uk/edgedb/index.php). If I do find the issue I'll post some info here. (Darrek Attilla (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I've put the score up on the table. Cheers. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In case you can't find it, I've placed a request for the review at the Magazine project. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As seen in the article, I found the info. Thanks for raising this, Darrek. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Brawl Pic

I wanted pose a brief discussion on the Brawl picture noted in the legacy section. In it's current context the picture appears to illustrate Smash Bros tourney, which would be inappropriate as the tourney listed are Melee tourney's not Brawl. I assume it is being use to illustrate the sequel; however, the cover art or rather than a screen capture would better reflect the "legacy" aspect for a new user looking on the page, as a brief battle seen of a "returning" stage is bit too focused of a reference and decreases on accessibilty. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC).

Its sole prupose is to depict the sequel and not the tournaments listed. That image was chosen primarily becuase it represents the enhanced graphics and the returning stages, a factor listed in the prose. I don't see any problems with accessibility—anybody who will actually read the caption will know what it's supposed to depict. Similarly, I don't see how a cover art can have the same informative value as the screenshot, or how it "would better reflect the "legacy"". Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A person unfamiliar with the characers of the game may not understand that Wario and Diddy are new, and graphic quality in my opinion is moot unless juxtapose against the previous version. Though, the caption points to the succession by Brawl, I would suggest that the picture speaks better than a caption ever will, and the alignment of the pic with the sequel would provide better context. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The image can't be aligned to the sequel as it will cut on to the next line, giving poor presentation. If people get confused about the image then that really is tough—it's not the fault of the article that people don't actually read the caption beneath an image. To replace the image would actually be for the benefit of people who don't read the article. About the juxtaposition, a screenshot of Melee is provided further up on the article for graphical comparison, so this would be superfluous and against fair-use criteria. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wavedashing: Reliability, information and sources finally provided

http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=162416 -- I don't think I need to post much more than that, since it comes straight from the developers' mouth. --Antoshi~! ^{T | C} 02:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

THe links seems to be not working, and please post a more offical link than a fan fourm site. BEsides, this isn't relivant to the article.→041744 03:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll just echo what 041744 said; it falls under WP:GAMEGUIDE too. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The text reads as follows:

"Dispute Ended: New Sakurai intervew - Wavedashing was intentional

Go to page 62 of your new May issue of Nintendo Power and read the second paragraph, which says...

Nintendo Power: This is one that a lot of hardcore Smash Bros. fans have long wondered about. Was the ablility to "Wavedash" in Melee intentional or a glitch?

Sakurai: Of course, we noticed that you could do that during the development period. With Super Smash Bros. Brawl, it wasn't a matter of, "OK, do we leave it in or do we take it out?"

We really just wanted this game, again, to appeal to and be played by gamers of all different levels. We felt that there was a growing gap between beginners and advanced players, and taking that out helps to level the playing field. It wasn't a big priority or anything, but when we were building the game around the idea of making it fair for everybody, it just made sense to take it out. And it also goes back to wanting to make something different from Melee and giving players the opportunity to find new things to enjoy." Therefore, I feel it falls under WP:NOTABILITY, and not WP:GAMEGUIDE, as it has nothing to do with "how to" perform the maneuver, simply shedding insight on it. --Antoshi~! ^{T | C} 11:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. You've confused WP:WEIGHT with notability, which is a mistake. WP:GUIDE isn't just applicable to how-tos, but minutiae and other unnecessary information. The info is of no use to anybody but die-hard fans. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And to that I say the majority of players are die-hard fans. Wavedashing was not a particularly difficult maneuver to perform, but it had plenty of buzz surrounding it, particularly in Smash Bros forums, and video hosting sites. I believe that many players know or have heard of Wavedashing, as the topic has come up in the past here, and, as the designer himself has publicly stated, Wavedashing was known and acknowledged by them, thereby making it Notable. Plenty of other articles have minutiae information (WP:Trivia), but they still add to the topic in question. --Antoshi~! ^{T | C} 16:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So what? By the way, notability pertains to the the article subject only and not its content. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should be avoided too. This encyclopaedia is for the general audience and thus should be written with that in mind. Wavedashing is trivia that could only be of use to hardcore fans of the game. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue of Nintendo Power can be used as a source - a link to a site about the interview is unnecessary. This interview did indeed happen, and the fact that both Nintendo Power and Sakurai acknowledge its existence (without NP having to explain to Sakurai what it means) proves that it's worth noting in the article. The interview, I do not think plainly states that he intended it to be in, they just noticed you could do it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just what is wavedashing? Darrek Attilla (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. It's only of relevance to fans. To Link, I didn't dispute its existance. The fact that Sakurai and NP mentioned doesn't make it relevant; all that does is provide us with a reliable source if we wanted to mention it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To be mentioned by the creator of the game means it's worth mentioning, no less than any game mode in the series. Wavedashing is very well-discussed. It was well-known enough for the biggest Nintendo magazine ever made to know it, as well as the creator. The fact of the matter is that just because Wavedashing is a fan-only thing doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. Are you saying there is no verifiable source to establish that Wavedashing is worth noting? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wavedashing is a technique used to make your character harder to hit during a fight. There is no reason that wavedashing is notable, because in the article, we don't discuss all of the different techniques. Wavedashing would be too small of a topic to put in the article. How long would that section be? Mynameisnotpj (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Um? Who even asked for a section about it? You don't even want it mentioned in the article. Just because Wavedashing is a fan-technique doesn't mean it's not notable. Show me a single notability guideline that even suggests that a fan-made discovery (albeit a discovery made by the developers beforehand) is non-notable solely for it being a fan-made discovery. The technique is hardly minor - if it was minor, why would NP consider it significant enough to ask Sakurai about? Simply put, NP realized that the lack of Wavedashing was well-noticed by the community. If they thought it was minor, they wouldn't even ask about it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, how hard would it be to mention Wavedashing in the Tournaments section? You're confusing the Gameguide guideline. Mentioning a game technique is not a gameguide. Explaining it? Yes. Acknowledging its existence is not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it really fit into tournaments though? Surely that is just there to highlight the fact that SSM has been popular enough to warrant large-scale tournaments. If anything it should go into gameplay as its a control technique but then there are dozens of other techniques included in melee (not included in the manuals but well-known/used by higher level players) that hold the same level of notability - would we need to include those as well? It's nice that Sakurai and NP have actually acknowledged its existence (and absence from Brawl) but its hardly notable enough to be included in the article is it? Can we get a show of hands (or just a post!) from those that think it should be in? I'd personally say no but then what do I know!Darrek Attilla (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's notable because Nintendo Power AND Sakurai thought that it was notable enough that its absence and the response to its absence were worth mentioning. And why would we have to include all techniques just because the most notable one is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop talking about notability—that pertains to the article's topic only. I never suggested that there wasn't a reliable source to verify its existance. NP asked Sakurai a question about it, which he answered. We should not conclude from this that this is relevant to the article, or that it is a factor that will help the general audience understand gameplay. From my understanding of it, this feature is a small and insignificant one that won't elucidate anything to anybody except the hardcore. Maybe it is important to the "community", but so what? Wikipedia does not cater to the "community". I will also argue that the notion that, because a well-known article mentioned it, that it's automatically suitable for the article. It isn't for the reasons explained above, in my opinion. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not also cater AGAINST the community. Logically, tournaments cater to the community, but it's in the article anyway. Wavedashing is "community information", and because NP and Sakurai both knew enough about Wavedashing to comment on it, that's proof that it's notable. All ORLY Owl has is the exact same thing, and it gets its own article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the owl. Your comment about catering against the community does not make sense. "Tournaments" doesn't cater to the community—it is a very brief explanantion of the game's legacy in reagrds to this, even if many of its subjects comprise the community, or even define it. I personally didn't agree with the inclusion of the statement about Ken, but consensus, or even "compromise" went against me. Another thing I'll also say is that Sakurai was always bound to answer the question. Saying that Sakurai mentioned it is immaterial, because that outcome was set as soon as that question was set, if that makes sense. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If Sakurai knows what Wavedashing refers to - newsflash - he knows what Wavedashing means. This means that he understands what this FAN-MADE TERM means. It's the only technique Nintendo Power bothered asking about, and yet it's not that much more notable than any other fan-made techniques?

It doesn't matter. Under your logic, tournaments are a community thing. I hope you have some sort of guideline that says "community stuff and junk shouldn't be in". Being community content or non-community content literally changes its notability not even one single one hundredth of a percentage. All that matters is that it fulfills basic notability guidelines. Does the creator of the product acknowledge that it is worth mentioning? Yes. Is it a technique that Sakurai disapproves of? No. Is it a subject that Nintendo Power is aware of? Yes. Is it a subject that Nintendo Power considers the exclusion of warranting mention? Yes. Your literally ONLY argument is "if it's a community thing, it's non-notable", which is patently untrue. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that wasn't my argument—I understand the guidelines and know when not to confuse notability with relevance to the article. For your first statement, well, I don't know what you're trying to say. Sakurai knows what wavedashing means: nice one, but I'm not seeing any meaning from this. I didn't define tournaments as a community thing solely, only that the players may comprose and define the "community". My argument is against a piece of information that is only of use or relevance to the fringe minority which are the hardcore, be it the community or not. Basically, it's fancruft; the fact that Sakurai is aware if its existance barely changes anything. From my perspective, your point amounts to "NP said; Sakurai said it, so it must be notable". Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah, from what I recall, the developer and the biggest Nintendo magazine in the world = notable. If you trim my argument down to "they SAID it", then yes. However, if you stop ignoring what the sources actually say - namely, that it was something Sakurai was aware of, that it was not an unintentional thing, that it was included in the game - then I guess your argument kind of shrivels up and dies. I've verified that Sakurai understands perfectly well what Wavedashing is - NP did not have to explain what it is. If Wavedashing is minor, then NP wouldn't have mentioned them as if they were major. If it's minor, then the reason for Nintendo Power or Sakurai to even mention it at all is absolutely non-existent. At least my argument is that I actually have a source to say that Nintendo and Sakurai both consider it the most notable "advanced technique". All you've ever said is "so what if Nintendo and Sakurai mentioned it? If it's community-related, it must be non-notable, because I said so!!". If there exists any reason to suggest why NP would even bring it up that doesn't establish it as being notable, by all means, show me. If you can't, then at what point can you claim that them mentioning it is not notable? The only possible reason to mention it is because Nintendo Power considered it worth noting. Funny how that switching them around can create "Noteworthy". It's not like they mentioned every single advanced tech - they announced only ONE. That establishes it as the most notable advanced technique. So far, the only thing you've done is said that being community-based makes it non-notable, and saying NP mentioning its disappearance is not notable, despite never having explained why. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Please, try not to misinterpret my arguments and present them incorrectly. You're obviously running out of a clear justification for your argument, so are trying to compensate that by reiterating it again in a huge post of nothingness. How does you having a source justify that feature's relevance to this article? I never said anything about it being non-notbale—I know the policies. Notability has nothing to do with this so please stop using the word or look over Wikipedia: Notability. If you want to represent my argument, do it properly by actually reading and understanding what I am saying. I don't have enough time to debunk all of your flawed statements, but I'll return. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 06:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If my one argument is from the creator of the entire series, I think I'll live with having only one. If it's notable, then *drumroll* it's relevant. And let me correct your last statement - you surely have enough time to debunk my so-called false statements, you simply have shown throughout this entire discussion that you do not have the ability to debunk the simplest of my statements in any dimension. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Link, bless you, but why do you get so fired up about such small things buddy? Can we nip this matter in the bud before its gets as convoluted as some of the other 'discussions' you've participated in? Ashnard, I'd suggest letting this go, for the record i'm with you on this but trying to change Link's mind about something is like trying to convince Jack Thompson about the merits of Video Games! :) Darrek Attilla (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry if it's difficult to convince me that Sakurai's a bad source, and that community content is magically non-notable. It's more a situation of "trying to change Link's mind about something is like trying to convince Columbus that the Earth is a triangle." How in the world can someone claim that I'm being stubborn for not conceding to a flat-out falsity? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're saying Darrek and wish I could just walk away. In real life, I would, but when this person wants to put trivia in an FA, I guess I can't bring myself to. About JT, I'd probably say Link is more stubborn than him;-). Anywho, to Link:

• "the developer and the biggest Nintendo magazine in the world = notable". Notability applies to the subject's topic only. To indiscriminately post anything spouted from NP is nonsense—we must judge its relevance to the article and to the reader. This does not add anything to why it should be included.
• "However, if you stop ignoring what the sources actually say - namely, that it was something Sakurai was aware of, that it was not an unintentional thing, that it was included in the game - then I guess your argument kind of shrivels up and dies." It does not do this in anyway. These do not justify why it should be included into the article. We can't use something's existance, confirmed by a reliable source, as a definite basis of inclusion into the article. These points don't negate my arguments what-so-ever.
• "I've verified that Sakurai understands perfectly well what Wavedashing is - NP did not have to explain what it is." Hmm, As I understand, they've been running a feature dedicated to the Smash scene and tournaments. So I'd expect them to know what it is. Regardless, I don't see any feasible point you're making by this statement.
• "If Wavedashing is minor, then NP wouldn't have mentioned them as if they were major." You can't correlate the relevance to a Nintendo-based magazine for gamers to a Wikipedia article. The context for inclusion is totally different, so you can't make these comparisons like this. What is a bid deal to the "community" means nothing to the average reader, or to even the average SSBM player. Plus, its inclusion in a single question does not represent a major component of gameplay.
• "If it's minor, then the reason for Nintendo Power or Sakurai to even mention it at all is absolutely non-existent." As above. Plus, stop putting all this weight on Sakurai. He was merely replying to a question, your conclusion is set as soon as the question was set. Sakurai can hardly say "I refuse to mention it because it's not relevant enough" is he?
• "At least my argument is that I actually have a source" And? What do you want me to do, get an ONM article saying that Wavedashing isn't relevant? You want me to get a source confirming it's irrelevance to this article. This means nothing.
• "The only possible reason to mention it is because Nintendo Power considered it worth noting." As above. When are you going to start explaining how the feature merits inclusion in this article.
• "If you can't, then at what point can you claim that them mentioning it is not notable?" Hmmm. Mainly that the basis of inclusion for NP is not the same as with the basis of inclusion for Wikipedia. You need to explain why it should be in, except because "NP knows it exists".

All the other stuff seems a mere reiteration of what is above, so I won't repeat myself. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why won't you give any explanation why NP would mention it besides it being noteworthy? Please, walk away. Your unintelligible drivel is kind of painful to read. I guess being stubborn is okay, when you also know that the person you're arguing with argues as if he just graduated from the first grade.

You provide nothing to explain why NP knowing what it is is "not good enough". You can't just say "omg you gotta give me MORE". Why is NP, a magazine officially sponsored by Nintendo, suddenly not good enough?

If your response doesn't answer my first question, I must ask you to stop wasting Wikipedia bandwidth. All you care about is reducing "community" content, and I'm tired of you acting as if your argument, which is backed by a whole zero guidelines, while I actually have sources to establish the notability of what I wish to add (why would NP pick trivia to ask the developer of the moment about if it's so trivial?). If NP's inclusion criteria being different from Wikipedia, then that would mean if it's the only source for a statement in the article, that it cannot be used, for whatever reason. Almost every single source has a different criteria for inclusion than Wikipedia, and now it's magically a problem when one of them acknowledges Wavedashing?

I am very, very tired of your worthless posts that don't actually rebut anything argued against you. You demand I provide "additional sources" (conveniently not explaining why), saying that Nintendo can't establish notability of a subject (even though you already admitted it is notable), I actually collect information and provide it, you say "no u cant do dat u gota give me MOAR".

If not admitting defeat to someone who can't argue his way out of a wet paper bag means I'm stubborn, then I guess I'm stubborn. Better than being incapable of presenting any evidence whatsoever. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And to your original statement, gameguide? Is mentioning what Coin Battles are a "game guide"? Is mentioning what a Final Smash a "game guide"? Can you provide a noticeable difference between Wavedashing and Final Smashes? And no, being "fan-made" doesn't count at any point in time. There is no guideline that makes fan-made content necessarily not worth mentioning. We can verify that Nintendo acknowledges the existence of Wavedashing, which makes it notable. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I can verify that a reputable source mentions wavedashing as if it is a noteworthy subject. If you can't show NP to not be a reputable source, then you have no point in arguing this. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is laughable. I've said everything that needs to be said and have already answered your guestions; it's just a shame that you haven't got the capacity to understand them. I've got better things to do than repeat myself and tell you where you've gone wrong. Again, if you care to say anything, please try not to misrepresent what I'm saying to support your viewpoint. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If only God didn't give you hands, then this discussion wouldn't exist, and your utter wrongness wouldn't have to occur. I'm sorry if I can't understand your mongoloid speak (what the heck is a "guestion"?), but you have to deal with that.

The fact of the matter is that you never explained what reason NP would mention Wavedashing if it wasn't notable and was, in fact, trivia. But hey, miracles don't happen very often, eh? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What is relevant to a magazine could almost be anything, and is not automatic justification for its inclusion in Wikipedia. You have gave no reason as to why it should be included, except the notion that NP and Sakurai acknowledge its existance. Obviously, "guestion" is a typo. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If that were true, NP would not be able to establish notability. But no one with any sense in their right mind considers it not so. What is relevant to a web site could be almost anything, but web sites are able to establish notability. You give no reason why it shouldn't, all you say is "no, one piece of proof is not enough! I need multiple proofs, for no good reason!!" You never show why NP is not able to establish notability, and yet you're magically able to declare it in this case? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for insults Link... Ashnard isn't denying the reliability of the Nintendo Power or Sakurai as a source, just whether mentioning wavedashing adds anything to an already good article. Any average WikiUser wanting to know about Melee's gameplay will get a good idea how it's played from the article as it stands at the moment.

If its mentioned anywhere at all on Wiki (and I personally don't think advanced game techniques are necessary in articles, would Mario Galaxy's article be improved by mentioning the homing butt-stomp move, for example?)it should be on brawl's page, under development, as it's something Sakurai intentionally removed (for balance judging by the interview), but even then its not as significant as other things taken out of the game (like individual 'break the targets' levels and the scoring system in single-player) that aren't mentioned in either article. Darrek Attilla (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since you are the one who initiated the insults in the first place, I think you've forgone the ability to tell anyone that there's "no need for insults". To say I'm stubborn because I won't give up after providing evidence, but you two aren't despite you never providing any evidence supporting your side, is pretty hypocritical, JT.

Being an Advanced Technique is NOT a criteria for exclusion. And why do you keep comparing Wavedashing to ANY advanced technique? Yeah, I guess it's no different. I guess it doesn't count that it's the only one that has any notability, at all. Mario Galaxy's Butt Stomp is NOT covered at all, nor is it particularly notable.

If Wavedashing's exclusion is relevant to Brawl, it's relevant to Melee, because the source discusses Wavedashing in a SERIES. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How could you get evidence to say that WD is irrelevant to a Wikipedia article? Why say these things? Your sole point that you think should warrant its inclusion is only the fact that NP mentioned. You have done nothing to explain why it should be in. Finally, I don't think being called stubborn qualifies as a personal insult. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So that's my problem now, that you not good enough of a Wikipedian to counter a single source we provided, which you claim isn't "enough" (compared to your whopping "nothing at all"). All we had to do was give a source that establishes its notability, and all you've EVER done is complain that it's not enough, conveniently never explaining why that doesn't also make every single web site and news magazine a bad source as well. We won this debate, because we fulfilled OUR end of the bargain. You've done nothing but crap on our evidence as if it is magically bad all of a sudden, citing nothing to explain why it could ever be considered bad.

Yeah, I'm sure you were being so polite when you attributed a negative term to me, and compared me to an intolerant, bolstering, right-wing republican nut-job. The fact that you are calling me, who actually uses sources and cites guidelines (unlike you, apparently), stubborn, even though you never supplied ANYTHING to even suggest that my source is bad. So let's see...

• Ashnard: Doesn't have evidence.
• JT: Doesn't have evidence.
• Ashnard: Declares his opinion fact without anything to substantiate it.
• JT: Declares his opinion fact without anything to substantiate it.
• Ashnard: Declares any evidence against him wrong because it makes him cry.
• JT: Declares any evidence against him wrong because it makes him cry.

So, Jack Thompson, can I politely ask you to be quiet until you can use Wikipedia bandwidth for anything that isn't your nonsense? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sifting through that, I've never said that "it isn't enough" as if I require more. I'm saying that you have yet to justify its inclusion, as that source does not say anything about why it should be in this article. I'm saying that the source by no means warrants automatic inclusion into this article, as you think it does. I don't know why you're taking refuge in the sources—for me to have evidence to say that a feature is not irrelevant to an article is beyond logic. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Being a reputable source is the only thing it needs to be. "Verifiability, not fact", pal. The fact that NP considers it important enough to mention is more than enough. The fact that you argued that NP having different inclusion criteria than Wikipedia is enough to make it not good enough shows your desperation. ALL sources have different criteria than Wikipedia, and all of a sudden, it's a problem? NP acknowledging its importance is enough to establish why Wavedashing should be importance. Why do I have to prove something that's common sense, and yet you don't have to explain why NP acknowledging its importance isn't good enough? If something NOT being in Brawl is worth noting on Brawl's page, why in the world is it not worth noting on the article of the game it IS in? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I take back any negative comments that may have offended you. As a means to concluding this debate can I ask you to jot down here what sentence/paragraph you propose to add, then get any regular editors/users to decide on whether they think it should be added. I won't add my vote as firstly I'm not a regular editor (I'm more of a browser) and secondly I had no idea what wavedashing was before it was mentioned above. I play the game a lot but I'm not heavily involved in the smash community and therefore have no real idea if it makes a major difference to matches. My POV was that I didn't regard an advanced technique (not wavedashing in particular) to be a necessary addition, as (again, just my opinion) the gameplay section already gives a good insight into how the game works for any wikiuser interested.

I'll leave you to write down your addition and happy voting everyone! Your friend, JT ;)

Darrek Attilla (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think its worth adding it - the articles fine without it.212.64.224.241 (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Being a reputable source is the only thing it needs to be. "Verifiability, not fact", pal." No, you've got this confused. The source is evidence that Sakurai said what he said, which I don't dispute. It doesn't contribute any to the argument for its inclusion here. Your only claim, I feel is that what is relevant to a popular magazine must be relevant enough to be in this article, which I've said is baseless. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashnard, as usual, you contribute nothing to this conversation besides the incredible humor that is your stance. Wow, so NP, like EVERY SOURCE IN THE HISTORY OF TIME, has a different criteria for what is relevant, huh? If that's true, and if that makes it unusable as a source, then it means NP is NEVER a good source to say that ANYTHING in the entire world is relevant, because their criteria for inclusion is different! Anyone with any common sense will tell you that a source having a different criteria for inclusion is a fact of life, all web sites and magazines include things for a different reason than Wikipedia. Can we verify that NP is a magazine of great significance? Yes. Nintendo.com has a different standard to what is relevant than Wikipedia does. Is the official web site, maintained by Nintendo employees, not verifiable? If you say it's not, then you're a laugh and a half. If you say it is, then it becomes a magical exception to the rule of "different standard of relevance means it doesn't matter". If Nintendo.com had the interview as opposed to NP, would it be good enough? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As before, you've got it confused about the actual purpose of a source. A source is used either to verify a statement, or establish notabiltiy about an article topic. You are using, as a basis for inclusion, NP's source that includes wavedashing in a question. Your justification only is the presence of the source as a means of establishing relevance to this article. Without sayinhg what it contributes to this article, which you haven't, the only possible way in which you could be vindicated would be the a circumstance in which NP's criteria for inclusion is the same Wikipedia's. Of course this obviously isn't the case, but I pointed this out as you seem to have the reasoning that a source from NP is automatic justification for the information's inclusion into this article. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what ash is saying is whether it contributes to the article in anyway? I.e does it improve the article by being included (is that right??)81.159.17.146 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. That's what I've been trying to get at the whole time. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My God, will you be quiet? You're making up all this bull crap that doesn't actually cite any single Wikipedia guideline that would even remotely suggest that having the same criteria as Wikipedia is necessary for anything! If NP thought it was important to ask about Wavedashing, at what point aren't they establishing notability of the technique? And yes, I have. It contributes to the article as much as anything in the game does! What does describing the gameplay do for the article? It expands it with an important fact. If NP considers it important, then why isn't it? The only criteria demanded of a source is a criteria, period. It does not have to have the same criteria for inclusion as Wikipedia! No site does! IGN doesn't, GameSpot doesn't, Nintendo Power doesn't, but guess what? They're used regardless! I don't know what crack you've been smoking to make you think NP magicalyl stops being a good source because it, like every source used on Wikipedia, has a different criteria for inclusion.

Let me just point out one fact - you completely ignored the entire fact of everyone has a different criteria. If IGN said it, would they not be able to be used? Even though they can be used anywhere else, they suddenly cannot be used in this case.

If you show me a guideline that says that a source has to have the same criteria as Wikipedia to establish notability of what they mention, then you win. But if you can't, how can you demand that NP needs to have the same criteria?

And what did it contribute to the interview? Plenty, if NP considers it important enough. It would expand on the Tournament section, because advanced play is the center of tournament play. The only reason you oppose Wavedashing is because it's community. That was one of the very first arguments you ever presented - "Wikipedia is not for the community." You have to get over your bias. Wikipedia is not for the community, but it's not against the community. You can't exclude content because of what it is. "Wikipedia is not censored." What does the tournament section add to the article? If Wavedashing adds nothing, Tournament adds nothing. However, it's painfully obvious that it does add to the article. If it didn't, it wouldn't be there in the first place. And may I add that the section mentions NP covering a tournament? Under your logic, that can't be in, because NP has a different criteria. And what are you talking about, that's what you're saying? Am I to understand that "NP can't be used because it has a different criteria" means "how does it improve the article?". The simple fact of the matter is that you never asked what it would contribute, you decided it WOULDN'T contribute based on nothing but your laughably blatant bias against the Smash community. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"One of the most popular tournament techniques is a technique called "wave dashing," which was introduced in this game. It was not an official technique, although the developers were aware of its existence. However, in an effort to balance out the gameplay between tournament players and casual players, Masahiro Sakurai removed the technique from Super Smash Bros. Brawl." The simple fact is that it is plenty relevant to the article, and expands it ever so slightly. Being the most well-known advanced technique, as well as a subject which has been covered by a reputable source, is relevant to the article. I've established why it is and gave a proper paragraph to it that does not have any unsourced statements or guide content. If you're going to reply to this, I expect it to actually explain why instead of saying "lol not good enough". I've actually been doing work, providing sources, citing guidelines, and you're making up your own rules for Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Link, Link, Link, I'm sick of wasting my time with you because it's like talking to a brick wall. Yet again, you fail to comprehend even the basics of what I'm trying to say. I'll come back with a lengthy reply when I have time. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashnard, may I ask what limits that you have imposed on you? I don't need a single source, all I need is a guideline! If you can't even give me that much, how does that make me the brick wall? I'm sorry for not giving up, what with "only" presenting actual reasoning unlike you, whose only contribution is "NO I HAET COMMUNITY". One guideline that says why Wavedashing can't be in. Your lack of evidence is the fact that your evidence doesn't exist. A single guideline that says I'm wrong would be enough to win this argument. If it exists, show it. If it doesn't, be quiet and go ruin another article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruin the article? Please, I turned to this FA, and I find that offensive. I will get back to you later. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats pretty harsh Link to the Past, Ash has done some good work on this article. Whether its in or not it doesn't really make a difference to the article, on one hand its only a few sentances so won't be harm in adding; on the other hand is it really beneficial to the article? Instead of going round and round with the same argument Link why not cite other articles as precedents? I'm not agreeing with you as i think there guff, but similar advanced moves/techniques/whatever can be found in F-zero GX, Mario kart (both snaking) and Super Metroid (shinesparking), which make quite a good comparisons. Especially the f-zero one as it was a technique born from hardcore community players taking advantage of the games control mechanisms and brought a comment from the developers (who like the WD said it was intentional) and all three are in their respective articles... 81.159.17.146 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you want a guideline to support myself: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information. Discussion ended? Knowing you I am not hopeful.

• "that having the same criteria as Wikipedia is necessary for anything!". You fail again. I was remarking about your distorted reasoning that what NP deems is reliable must be reliable for Wikipedia. This is absurd.
• "If NP thought it was important to ask about Wavedashing, at what point aren't they establishing notability of the technique?" As I've said countless times, notability pertains to the article's topic. The source in no way provides evidence to say what contribution its inclusion would make.
• "What does describing the gameplay do for the article?" This is a niche gaming factor and is only of use to the hardcore. It goes no way to help explain gameplay in the general sense.
• "If NP considers it important, then why isn't it?" Sources are used to verify facts and establish notability. NP does not establish waht is relevant to this article.
• "you think NP magicalyl stops being a good source". Absolutley got nothing to do with it. No onus has been placed on the credibility of the source.
• "If you show me a guideline that says that a source has to have the same criteria as Wikipedia to establish notability of what they mention, then you win." You really have got this horribly wrong, haven't you? I've explained this countless times earlier. If you can't understand, then that's your problem.
• Wikipedia is written for the general audience. This means things that are only of value to the hardcore should not be covered. You can't say that about tournaments. This provides general context of the game's impact and thus is of relevance to any audience.

Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I don't speak your intelligible little language, but I don't think anything you've said counts as an argument (or words). That guideline proves that you should be banned from Wikipedia, in fear that you'll continue to degrade it. Where in the entire paragraph that I provided was there anything even resembling a guide?

If something is notable, being of relevance only to fans is of utter irrelevance. The rumors of SM64 are relevance only to people who know the game, but they're included because they are notable. Okami's box art featuring an IGN watermark is only of relevance to those who bought it, but it's still included because it's notable. It was widely covered by multiple news sources. Do you want me to make a list of featured articles that feature content of relevance to ONLY those who have played/owned the game? Being notable means that no matter what kind of content it is, that doesn't mean it's suddenly not notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like WP: OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I can't speak for other articles. If you have any sort of reasonable basis to the argument, then you'll argue by factor of guidelines and reasoning. If you can't grasp what I'm saying, then that's just tough for you. Considering I've written a Featured article and seven Good Articles, your claim of me degrading the project is plainly wrong. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the guideline says: "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." Here's what you say: "If something is notable, being of relevance only to fans is of utter irrelevance.". Hmmm, which is more credible? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's evidence that being of relevance only to fans doesn't cancel out any notability.

And when have I ever been shown to be unsure? I have one of the most well-known game magazines in the country saying it is notable. There is no "uncertainty" besides people who don't WANT there to be a source. You've jumped through hoops to find reasons why NP isn't good enough, and any guideline explaining why either doesn't exist, or is hidden deep within the recesses of Wikipedia. You seem to be the one who could never comprehend anything higher than baby speak, my friend. You've never given any guideline that even begins to rebut my claims. I want a guideline explaining why NP has to have the same criteria of inclusion to be used as a source. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true." Taken from Wikipedia:Verifiability. That covers this entirely. NP is reliable, it is published, and it is most definitely a source. Whether or not Wavedashing is well-known is of no importance. The fact of the matter is that a reliable published source established its notability. No guideline or policy says a source has to have a specific criteria, but this policy says that what it is does not matter, as long as a a reliable published source covers it. I've provided one policy, you've provided one guideline that doesn't even apply to anything being discussed (considering you never once even addressed the paragraph provided - to say Wavedashing is inherently guide content is POV and you would be hard pressed to establish such a thing). I would think that you're the one being stubborn - at least my argument has substance to it. All you've got are made-up, personal policies and guidelines. Now, I want an explanation why this NP interview, which mentions Wavedashing in respect to both Melee and Brawl, does not verify its notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You know that your argument's getting slimmer. The guide I linked to, if you had read it applies to cruft and information that is of no use, per: "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." You have contradicted this guideline, yet you fail to comment on this because you know you're wrong. For verifiability, again, you've got the whole purpose of a source terribly confused. A source does not determine how or whether something is relevant to this article. Its relevance is left to discretion of the editors who must determine consensus. You have contributed nothing to say why wavedashing should be in this article. "NP is reliable, it is published, and it is most definitely a source." What are you talking about, as if I doubt its credibility. We are not debating the factual accuracy, just whether the content has any place in the article. "what it is does not matter, as long as a a reliable published source covers it." No, no, no. That's like saying we should upload the info from IGN's guide here, just because it was published by a reliable source. "NP interview, which mentions Wavedashing in respect to both Melee and Brawl, does not verify its notability." Notability pertains to the article's topic only. Sources solely do not determine whether something is relevant, as described above. "You seem to be the one who could never comprehend anything higher than baby speak, my friend." If that is to be true, then you must be speaking baby-speak beacuse I understand what you're saying, just not why you're doing this. Link, you've got it all wrong. Try to retain some dignity and admit it. I've provided a guideline with the applicable quotes. I've shown how you blatantly contradict it. All you've done is misinterpret one of the fundamental policies in Wikipedia. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I only have a policy on my side, while you have that amazing pile of nothingness.

The fact that it was covered by a reliable published source means I have enough evidence to suggest it's not trivial cruft and that it is not of no use. I really doubt that there's any one single article that excludes content only important to people who have played the game. Wikipedia NEVER EVER says, in any single guide EVER, that content only important to people who have played the game is not allowed under any circumstances, regardless of how notable it may be. And no, it's not our discretion! There's no guideline that says that editors can go "okay, hey, this source says this, but we still don't want to cover this information despite the fact that there's nothing wrong with the source". We can verify that it's not trivial cruft. There's something wrong when you say that it is trivial cruft, but never once explain why it was in the NP interview that doesn't make it notable. And no, it's not. A guide is created to help people learn how to play the game. NP's interview was created at no point for that purpose. There is no attempt at teaching people how to play the game at any point in that interview. And may I ask, at what point does a subject being mentioned in a reliable published source in the context of Melee and Brawl not make it on-topic?

That's surprising, Ashnard. I'm proud that you've manage to exceed baby speak in some freak display of intelligence. Too bad it was only for a nanosecond, then you reverted to the drooling mess that you always are. You provided a guideline that you cannot prove applies to this! A guideline that affects cruft, and you've never proven that it's cruft! I've provided a policy that says all it has to be is verifiable, not true. I never ever ever have to prove that it's not cruft, because I can verify that Nintendo doesn't just ask the creator of a video game about trivial cruft. You have never once in this entire discussion, ever, explained anything about your argument. Your argument is basically "This is how it is, and I won't prove it. But I will also denounce everything you say." All you do is take guidelines and try to apply them with your incompetent logic, or just make up your own guidelines. Whatever happened to the "oh, a source has to have the same inclusion criteria as Wikipedia to be used as source"? All you do is argue something, then when it turns out to be laughably false, you never mention it again. The fact that you are so inconsistent with your arguments that you drop one at the drop of a hat shows that you don't know anything of what you're talking about. I want you to prove that that guideline applies to this subject. Lucky for me, because I've already proven that NP is a reliable published source, and Hell, even though I don't even have to establish that it was said in an important context, they DID. They asked the creator of the Smash series about it, and he knew full well what they were talking about. All I have to do is provide a reliable published source, and I win. You've failed left and right at establishing what wavedashing is. You tried to say it can't be in because it'd be guide content, never once explaining why the article would HAVE to teach people what wavedashing is. And then you accused it of being trivial cruft; and let's say it was. It stopped being trivial cruft when Nintendo's official American magazine mentioned it in an interview (way different from a guide, because it makes no attempt at teaching players how to do the technique). They didn't mention it amongst a slew of other related topics, it was the only mention of anything related to tournaments. Explain why it's guide content, and explain why it's trivial cruft. You can't just throw out guidelines and say "these apply, don't ask me why, it's just the truth alright?" - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, you use the length of posts as a somkecreen for the vacuum that is your argument.

• "The fact that it was covered by a reliable published source means I have enough evidence to suggest it's not trivial cruft and that it is not of no use." Reread the policies. This is not what they are used for. Under no circumstances does being part of a reliable source grant automatic inlusion into the article.
• "I really doubt that there's any one single article that excludes content only important to people who have played the game." A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. This is from a guideline. You cannot deny this.

Got things to do. Will resume this later. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me establish one thing - you never have ever answered ANY questions I've asked. Did you answer me when I asked why being mentioned in NP doesn't make it trivial cruft? Your reason used to be "it has different criteria than Wikipedia so NP doesn't count!", and that's gone into the pile with your other laughably awful arguments. I don't want you saying "it's trivial cruft", I want you to prove it's trivial cruft. I've already given proof it's not, by the fact that they picked only ONE advanced play subject and discussed it with the creator of the game in question. You can't just tell me that it's not enough, and yet never provide anything why. I shouldn't have to give something on TOP of the reliable published source I provided. YOU should have to establish it as being trivial cruft. Being mentioned prominently in a magazine is enough to argue that it's not, but you argue it is based on nothing! All you do is say it is and decide that it is, and that you don't have to provide anything even remotely resembling an explanation. And to your second guideline? What you you have to say we're unsure? I'm not unsure, because I actually REALIZE that there's no guideline that creates exceptions in reliable published sources. Under your argument, wavedashing being mentioned in NP would never be good enough, because if being mentioned in an interview with an important figure is not enough, what is? We're not unsure. A policy is always, always more important than a guideline. A guideline says that a reliable published source mentioning it is good enough to include it, and you provide a guideline that says if we're unsure, to exclude it. Why should we be unsure? Is being mentioned in an interview not enough? Is being in a reliable published source not enough? Is the fact that the creator of the game was fully aware of the technique, that he knew the fan-made name of the technique, not enough? Is the fact that I provided a paragraph for it that doesn't violate any guideline unimportant? The only uncertainty lies in your bias against the Smash community. It's not our job to pick and choose when a source is good or not at random. Unless you have evidence that NP is known for including trivial subjects, particularly in important interviews, then we can't exclude this. You have to have a REASON to be uncertain besides your own opinion. We have a good source, and we don't have anything from you explaining why this good source can't be used in this case. Guideline would apply if you provided such a thing - you only say that if we're uncertain, to exclude it. But we need a legitimate reason, not your opinion, as to why we would be unsure. What reason do we have to believe that NP would include trivial cruft?

There's only two scenarios. One, NP included something that could once be called trivial cruft, but now that it was mentioned in an important context, it is of importance now. Or, it's two, where NP would be inclined to include something not worth including, with precedence to suggest such a thing. The only way scenario two works is if you showed anything to say that they are notorious for mentioning irrelevant pieces of discussion in something as important as an interview. I've provided a reliable published source that suggests it's important, but you denounce it without ever explaining why, just saying "if we're unsure, we should exclude!" But the only reason we would have to be unsure is if NP wasn't reliable. Orly owl was once considered a trivial Internet fad, but now we can see that it's a well-sourced article and a well-referenced Internet meme (having been mentioned in Apollo Justice, a Mega Man Battle Network game, Blitz: The League, World of Warcraft, YTV, The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, and others. The fact of the matter is that what it is does not matter. It's something only the community cares about? That's completely irrelevant. It's still of importance. Just like the Orly Owl is only important on the Internet, it's still of importance, because it's NOTABLE. And no, it's not other crap exists, it's "this policy applies to both these articles." Verifiability only requires a reliable published source. What reasoning can you provide for us to be unsure of this usage of NP as a source to establish Wavedashing's importance that doesn't also negate all sources provided for Orly Owl's importance? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You should have let me finish. Instead, you've wasted your time. Okay, responses:

• "Did you answer me when I asked why being mentioned in NP doesn't make it trivial cruft?" There is nothing to establish why it should be in here. I gave you a chance to negate this assertion by asking you what it would contribute to the article. After several times asking, I was met with the nonsense that it could be used to expand "Tournamnets".
• "Your reason used to be "it has different criteria than Wikipedia so NP doesn't count!", and that's gone into the pile with your other laughably awful arguments." No it hasn't. Me not mentioning for a what, three posts, is no indication that I have abandoned the notion. This statement was a reference to your belief that whatever is said in NP should be in this article. It is only under this assertion that this could ever be true. Of course, this is nonsense.
• "I don't want you saying "it's trivial cruft", I want you to prove it's trivial cruft." From my understanding, it is merely a minor gameplay technique in a game, observed only by fans, thus making it trivia. I've gave you the chance to "educate" me if I'm wrong. You've failed to prove otherwise.
• "I've already given proof it's not, by the fact that they picked only ONE advanced play subject and discussed it with the creator of the game in question." And? This does not put any weight among why it should be in here. At the very best, all that would say is that, for some reason, it is more popular than other advanced techniques. So what?
• "I shouldn't have to give something on TOP of the reliable published source I provided." I haven't asked for this. I've asked why, in regards to the aforementioned guideline, that it should be in the article. You've failed to give a valid response.
• "Being mentioned prominently in a magazine is enough to argue that it's not, but you argue it is based on nothing!" Again, the only possible way in which this could be valid if NP's criteria for inclusion was the same as Wikipedia's. That's not the case.
• "A policy is always, always more important than a guideline." You don't have a policy. You have your understanding of a policy, which as a user who's been here a while, is an embarrassment.
• "The only uncertainty lies in your bias against the Smash community." The fact that you're making such claims shows a weakness in your argument, does it not?

I can't be be bothered wading through the rest of your nonsense. If there's anything particular, just ask—I'll be happy to respond to that in particular. I see that you refuse to respond to my question. Desperation, no? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU KEEP MENTIONING A NEED FOR A SIMILAR CRITERIA AS IF IT'S A LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT? IF YOU CAN'T PROVIDE ANY SINGLE GUIDELINE, THEN WHY SHOULD YOU BE ALLOWED TO CONSTANTLY ADVOCATE IT?!

Christ, do us all a favor and stop pretending you're a competent Wikipedian. You're a troll, and a crappy editor. All you care about is enforcing ownership of this article and trying to keep out anything you don't like.

Where is the guide content in the paragraph provided?

Where is the uncertainty? You've never proven that NP is privvy to including trivial cruft in an important interview, so you can't enforce that guideline. What is wrong with my factual interpretation of official Wikipedia policy? I say that something must be verifiable to get in, it does not have to be true. If it's ACTUALLY non-notable, that's completely irrelevant, because a reliable published source covered it. Not in passing, not in a guide, but in a discussion with the creator of the game it is in. And why did you just ask me to answer a question of your before ever answering any of mine? You bring up guidelines, and give no information to explain their relevance. Your first attempt at providing a guideline is "it's game guide content, and even though there's no guide information in the paragraph provided, it is!", rendering that guideline irrelevant. You then say "if there's uncertainty, we should exclude." You've never provided a reason to be uncertain of the source, and the only way to do that is to establish that NP is notorious for mentioning trivial cruft in articles of importance. If it's not of importance, then prove it. You can't just say that it's not good enough "because". And no, you are not allowed to use that argument of "same criteria". Name a single source on Wikipedia that has the same criteria. We use IGN, 1UP, GameSpot, EGM, GameSpy, NP (oh noes!), GamePro, CNN, News Corp., MSNBC, and none of them have the same criteria. Should we remove all sources from Wikipedia, because none of them have the same criteria?

Just give it up. You're talking about me being stubborn because I won't give up to someone who argues that NP has to be the one and only source in the entire world to have the same criteria as Wikipedia. God forbid that, huh?

Don't respond if you don't answer the following:

1. Why should we be uncertain of NP mentioning it?
2. Where on Wikipedia is there a guideline that requires sources to have the same criteria as Wikipedia?
3. Where is the guide content in the paragraph I provided for Wavedashing?

If you can't do something as simple as answer that list of three questions, just leave. If you want me to answer any of your questions, respond to these, and provide a list of questions for me. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In no way do you have the authority to set such limitations. However, your questions are so laughable I'll answer them anyway.

1. I'm not uncertain of NP mentioning it. I know that they mentioned it. I'm adamant about its irrelevance though. You have yet to say why it is relevant, so there's nothing left to say.
2. You've got this wrong. This statement was made in resonse to your flawed argument saying that anything that is in Ninetndo Power is automatically relevant to Wikipedia. This comment was made in opposition to that. It really is just common sense. As I said before, it's like adding the content of IGN's guide in this article on the basis that IGN wrote it.
3. I didn't say it was gameguide content. I said it was irrelevant as explained in my posts above. As in, it's only of use to the hardcore, and shouldn't be included per the bolded statement above.

If you need clarification. I'll be happy to ask. Now, return the courtesy and answer my question. "I really doubt that there's any one single article that excludes content only important to people who have played the game." A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. How is this guideline wrong? Please, in what way can you get around this? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Um, yes I am? I question your argument, and if you can't give any reason to use the argument based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it can't be used!
2. So basically, you thinking it's irrelevant is enough to cancel out NP disagreeing? Nintendo Power mentioned it in an important context. There were a number of things they could have said instead of that, and you've never once explained why they would mention a trivial, crufty, minor gameplay technique if it were trivial, crufy, or minor!
3. You can't compare a freaking interview to a strategy guide! If an interview is comparable to a strategy guide, why isn't every single letter, number, symbol, or image ever printed in Nintendo Power comparable to IGN's strategy guide as well? For Christ's sake, just STOP comparing two completely different types of articles! The only reason it would be mentioned in IGN's guide is to teach the player how to do it. The official Nintendo magazine mentioning it in a context that does not attempt at any point in teaching people how to use it is not the same freaking thing, which you seem completely unable to grasp.
4. So why did you mention the game guide guideline if you weren't saying it was? It's not irrelevant by the fact that NP and Sakurai spoke of it as if it were. You can't say something is irrelevant ONLY because of what category it falls under. Internet memes are irrelevant, but several have gotten their own articles!
5. It's not wrong, you're just misusing it. You have no right to use that guideline if you can't give any reason to be unsure! What reason is there to be unsure? What reason is there to assume NP would mention a trivial, minor, crufty gameplay feature in an interview with the creator of one of the most significant video game series Nintendo's ever made? If Nintendo Power knew what wavedashing was, if Sakurai knew what wavedashing was just by hearing the name, then it's relevant. I've established that the creator of the move knows exactly what it is. How does that not establish its relevance? I know, it sounds silly to suggest that Sakurai wouldn't know some trivial crufty minor gameplay feature by its fan name, but let's just go to Candyland for a while.

Why don't you ever explain why NP's interviews are not reliable sources for this? Your comparison of IGN and NP is bunk. NP should be relied upon UNLESS, not doubted UNLESS. There's no reason to assume that they'd mention something so minor, and yet you demand we place doubt on NP's interview? The only proper comparison is IGN's interviews to NP's interviews. The burden's on you to explain why we should doubt them in this instance, not me to explain why we should stop believing them for this one instance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the big picture. We already know that Nintendo Power is a reliable published source. The only reason NP would ask Sakurai something in an interview is if they considered it an important question to ask. You say that a reliable published source thinking something's important to ask in an interview doesn't prove relevance, but it does. It's YOUR burden to explain why NP is not a usable source for this discussion. The number one question is, why would NP mention Wavedashing? It's not for game guide reasons like IGN's guide is for.

Summary:

1. NP is considered a reliable published source.
2. NP considered Wavedashing an important thing to ask Sakurai about.
3. It's your job to show that this question, which they considered important, is not important at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to your claim that I'm not using WP:V properly, how am I doing such a thing?

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true." - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, NOT truth. That's exactly what I'm telling you. It specifically states that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "can it be attributed to a reliable published source?", not "is it true?". Wavedashing's notability CAN be attributed to a reliable published source, as one exists. Because it can be attributed to a reliable published source, this means that the source fulfills WP:V. WP:V, at no point, puts any burden of proof on the person arguing for something to prove that what the source says is true. All I have to do is provide the source. Sources have been used that don't even establish relevance - all they do is reference the subject. Orly Owl has never had a single source establishing its relevance, but rather establishing that people are aware of it, and that the awareness is enough to give it its own article. And Rickroll? The only reason it has its own article is because Youtube took notice of it and used it as an April Fool's joke. That is what NP did, save for the joke. However little-known the subject may or may not have been is irrelevant now that a reliable published source has covered it. There exists no guideline suggesting that relevance must be proven. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeating myself is getting kind of tedious—you seem to enjoy it though. Not suere what you're talking about relating to the first point.

1. "you've never once explained why they would mention a trivial, crufty, minor gameplay technique if it were trivial, crufy, or minor!" That's the whole underlying problem. You assume with certainty, that what is relevant to NP is relevant to Wikipedia. What is worthy of inclsuion in an interview is worthy of inclusion in an article. It may not be trivial to the magazine, but that doesn't mean it isn't to Wikipedia. From what I can tell, this your only justification. Of course, such assumptions shouldn't be place, and such parallels shouldn't be drawn.
2. "You can't compare a freaking interview to a strategy guide!" You've missed point. My point is comparable to anything published by a reliable source. I'm saying that, by your arguments, anything should be included in the article as long as it's from a reliable source. I'm merely pointing the flaw of your arguiment. It doesn't have to be a strategy guide—it could be anything.
3. "It's not irrelevant by the fact that NP and Sakurai spoke of it as if it were." I've told you what's wrong with this assertion. I'm not going to repeat that.
4. "You have no right to use that guideline if you can't give any reason to be unsure!" What so, if you're sure it doesn't apply, then the guideline doesn't count. Ha! Think about this logically. This is a simple rule to use for people who are unsure. Having this certainty does not negate this guidelien. It still counts, yet you're negating on the basis of that word, even though it has no bearing in this context. This is a pathetic wriggle out of a desparate situation.
5. "Why don't you ever explain why NP's interviews are not reliable sources for this?" reliability has nothing to do with it so don't know why you raise this.
6. "The only reason NP would ask Sakurai something in an interview is if they considered it an important question to ask." But that's ypur problem right there. I bold this for you: What is reasonable as a question in an interview for Sakurai isn't automatically reasonably as a piece of information to explain gameplay.

For someone who has been here since 2004 your understanding of WP:V is shocking. What you are saying would apply if I were to say something along the lines of "I don't believe; I refuse to believe that WD exists or that Sakurai acknowledges its existance". This is not the case. This whole case is about wheter such a feature should be included in the article, not whether the source is telling the truth. WP:V doesn't even apply here. I am frankly shocked that you think it does. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability is more important than truth. I've verified that NP acknowledges it in a context of IMPORTANCE.

Whether or not it is trivial is irrelevant. Give any evidence to establish that it's trivial. ANY. If it's trivial, prove it. I've given reason to believe that it's not trivial, you've never given reason to believe that it is besides your own POV. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense. I've already said why that is a misuse of WP:V. I've gave you the direct quote from the direct guideline that discounts your claim, but you fail to acknowledge it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Because I follow it? It SAYS that the threshold of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Read much?

And how are you not misusing your guideline? It discounts them, huh? I didn't realize that a guideline which you can't actually establish its relevance can discount anything. You never provide ANY reason to assume that Nintendo's criteria for inclusion is low, and yet you insist we be unsure. Logically, the only thing to do at THAT point is to be unsure of all things Nintendo Power EVER says, or be sure about NP's statements UNLESS.

How many times must I repeat the simple fact that reliable published sources are to be trusted UNLESS there's reason to not use them? Not the other way around, where you insist that they be mistrusted unless. As there's no reason to assume that their criteria is weak, there's no reason to be unsure that the source is good enough, and no reason to use that guideline, and no reason to exclude the information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You've got it confused about the what the source actually does and what it verifies. The source verifies the statement, its credibility has never been in doubt. You've confused this as a verification of the source's relevance to this article, which is where you've gone wrong. Sources have never been used in this way, so I don't know how you've came to this conclusion. As I said, it's like saying anything written by a relaible source should be in this article. I've provided a quote from a relevant guideline; your denial of this is a failure at logic. So, let me get this right: if one is sure about whether it is relevant or not, then that guideline no longer applies? You and I know that that's nonsense. Try to salvage some dignity while you can and admit it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, I guess it makes sense to be unsure of a reliable published source. THERE'S NO REASON TO BE UNSURE. All you've ever said is "if we're unsure, we should exclude! And I'm unsure, which means I win!" You never provide any reason to be unsure of NP's criteria being of an appropriate level, and yet you attempt to enforce some right to be unsure? The very notion of the idea of being unsure of something Nintendo said in an INTERVIEW is just a laughable notion. If your argument were true in ANY way, it would mean that NP can never be used as a source, ever. You give no evidence of the content being trivial or irrelevant. The fact that NP mentioned adds to its relevance, what do you provide to detract from its relevant?

Oh, I know! Nothing. You act like you reserve the right to provide no evidence at all of anything you ever say. "NP has to have the same criteria?" Because all sources do! Oh, wait, none do. Guide content? I don't remember any guide content being mentioned. And no shit that "not everything a reliable published source says should be in this article." However, they gave it significant mention. WHY WOULD NP MENTION SOMETHING IF IT'S IRRELEVANT? And before you give the same stupid answer you've been giving, that because NP has a different criteria for inclusion it doesn't matter, all they need to have is a sizable criteria for inclusion - it DOESN'T have to be the same. There's no reason to assume they would mention something trivial in an important interview, so logically, you assume exactly that? I'm sure Nintendo would bother to ask that instead of asking something more important if they felt it was trivial.

Give any evidence that it's trivial. ANY. I've already given evidence of its relevance, and all you've done is made imaginary guidelines to argue against it. You've never actually established its irrelevance. The fact of the matter is that NP mentioning it DOES boost its relevance and notability. How do you think Internet memes, characters, etc. get major articles? It's not "because they're relevant/notable enough", it's "they were mentioned by a reliable published source in a context of significance." That is EXACTLY what happened here. I mean FFS, just because "not everything" needs to be included doesn't mean you can pick something that was mentioned prominently in an interview (a single question about it raises its relevance significantly) and say it's not good enough.

FFS, I am really tired of you hiding behind a guideline. You're not sure, but conveniently, never ever ever give any reason to be unsure. It wasn't a minor mention, NP is not notorious for mentioning trivial stuff in something as important as an interview, NP is not unreliable. So what reason is there to be unsure? What reason is there to assume it's trivial cruft? What reason is there to assume it's irrelevant? Why can't you ever give a reason to be unsure? All you say is "the guideline says this, discussion over". You can't just randomly throw guidelines at the wall and hope they stick, you have to establish WHY the guideline applies. Hell, the guideline isn't even discussing "irrelevant or relevant content", it's discussing game guide content. It says, right at the very top of it, "this guideline in a nutshell: Wikipedia is not a game guide." It never mentions content that has no game guide content in it.

So, hey, I'm just gonna go ahead and not assume there's any reason to be unsure of Wavedashing's relevance. If you actually established anything that would call it irrelevant, or refute my claims, that'd be something. But the only way we could be unsure of its relevance is if you established that NP was UNABLE to establish relevance. They included an entire question about Wavedashing in an interview. It wasn't mentioned in passing, or in a guide, it was mentioned in an interview, where NP would be asking questions which they considered important to ask. It's all logic and common sense, which you fail to grasp. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Being unsure has nothing to do with it. It was merely part of the sentence that I wished to use. I've never said that I was unsure. You, in some state of desperation say the guideline doesn't apply merely because we are not unsure. The guideline doesn't matter whether one is sure or unsure, it's just been simplified for people who haven't in that sentence. By the very simplist of logic, it still applies. Here's another from the same guideline: Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture. What display are you going to pull to dodge this one, Link? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that that guideline condition is not the end all be all of Wikipedia isn't enough, huh? Show me a line that says "content only known to people who have played this game should not be included." It says it should be readable to non-gamers, it NEVER says that it has to include the most basic of information. Hell, want me to give information in this article that violates your guideline?

1. "The trophies range from the well-known to the obscure, and even characters or elements that were only released in Japan." What relevance does being only released in Japan have to non-gamers?
2. "One more trophy is in the Japanese version of the game." - Pretty irrelevant to me.
3. Hell, sales figures aren't relevant at all to non-gamers, there's no denying this. However, it's accepted that all articles on video games need sales figures.
4. "References are made throughout the game to the relationship between characters of the same universe; in one of the events from "Event mode", Mario must defeat his enemy Bowser to rescue Princess Peach." Specifying a reference seems pretty irrelevant.

That's four examples of similar content to Wavedashing, that simply violates your rule of "anything not relevant to a non-gamer is not allowed", which simply isn't true. Wavedashing IS relevant. It's information. It does not serve to teach people how to Wavedash, at no point does it do anything for gamers, the sole purpose is to educate the reader more about advanced play in the series. At what point is anything in the paragraph I provided going to serve people who already know Melee? It doesn't even offer any links on how to wavedash. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I showed you the guideline earlier, but you discounted it for no valid reason. To your points:

1. That part was used to establish that obscure remnants of Nintedno's history that were included in the game. The fact that they were only released in Japan establishes this, and provides more context about the game in an encyclopaedic manner.
2. This shows that that the content differed between versions, which is relevant. I may have been violating that if I had detailed which trophy did that, but I haven't done that.
3. I don't see why sales figures aren't relevant to non-gamers. It's needed to establish the general response to the game beyond the critical in an encyclopaedic context.
4. This factor of including franchises is one of the fundamental features of the game. I used an example to clarify the previous clause so the reader would know what is meant.

None of those are similar to wavedashing in the slighest. The fact that you fail to answer my questios shows a weak argument. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your guideline is about game guide content. It has nothing to do with "content only relevant to people who have played the game". Why would non-gamers care about a missing trophy? The section wasn't even about "how the content differed between versions", it was about trophies. It doesn't even discuss that the game has differences, the only thing mentioned is one specific difference. And I discounted it because you're enforcing it without ever giving any real reason to enforce it. It doesn't take a Wikipedia genius to realize that not all content only relevant to gamers is necessarily irrelevant to the article. Why do non-gamers care about how well it sold or rated? Why do non-gamers care about a single difference between the versions? I've shown several examples of content of relevance only to gamers in several featured articles, and you repond by citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which is not only not a guideline or policy, but is not even related to content inclusion, it's only about deletion nominations. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You know full well that that guideline isn't just about gameguide content; I cited from a guideline: A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. You've dicounted this for no valid reason, except the fallacy that it doesn't apply if we are sure. Yes, the content was under the "trophies" section; the information expressing the change was based on trophies. There's no where better to place it. I'm hardly going to create a separate heading for it. To this question "Why do non-gamers care about how well it sold or rated?", I want confirmation that it's a serious one before I answer, becasue it's so stupid. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Shrug, wavedashing probably shouldn't be mentioned, I mean, shuffling was sooooo much cooler anyways. That said, the whole trophies thing is also meaningless. I own the game, play it all the time, and I could care less about trophies and I think this sentiment is felt by everyone posting here, almost no one cares about trophies and certinaly someone who doesn't own the game would have a similar sentiment. It deserves a brief mentions, maybe: "during the single player mode and other areas of the game, players can acquire trophies, there are x number of trophies". -aZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.189.191 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

aZ..Does that mean? Anywho, I understand what you're saying, but the trophies are given slighlty extra weight because they're more than just a gameplay feature as they are the prime example of how Nintendo's heritage is displayed in the game. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wavedashing is a prime example of the open-ended nature of the game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as 071744 and Ashnard have stated, this is game guide material (at best), and does not warrant mention within this article. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on? You can't just decide that because it's advanced play, it's by default game guide content. This article is FULL of game guide content - and it's included because it's notable. I've already established that it does not have to be game guide content, and yet it is regardless of actual reality? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's only of use to gamers, expressed in the guideline that I linked to. The assertion that this article is full of game guide content is as baseless as your previous claims, as I have explained. If you're trying to use that claim to consolidate your argument, which was originally based on Wavedashing not being unsuitable, then that really does say something. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Tournaments are only of interest to gamers, that little Tamagon trophy is only of interest to gamers, but Wavedashing is excluded because it's only of interest to gamers supposedly? There is no such thing as a guideline that overrides notability. The only thing that is ever said is "if unsure". If notability is established, then there's no reason to BE unsure. There was evidence provided at the VERY BEGINNING of the discussion, which you try to discount by saying "NP magically is not usable because it has a different criteria!". There's no reason to assume they have a weak criteria. All that matters is that they have a GOOD criteria. It doesn't have to be "the same as Wikipedia's". There's no legitimate reason to exclude the source, and the fact that you're so desperate to do so says a lot about your argument.

Um, I guess that information about how to play the game isn't found in guides? Since you and PeanutCheeseBar consider Wavedashing guide content even though it doesn't need to be guide content, that logically means that anything that could be guide content is guide content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Tournaments establish this game's relevance beyond the conventional sense, and is part of a legacy useful to non-gamers. It is no less broad in its appeal than "Development" or "Reception". The article doesn't specify which trophy is missing, and is a brief note to express that there are differences between the NA and Japanese versions only. Your understanding of the sentence used from the guideline is beyong belief. The word "unsure" is meaningless in this context, yet you've used it as an escape route for the inadequacies of your argument. Tp your other stuff, well, I've already replied to them but you fail to acknowledge/comprehend any of it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"One of the more advanced techniques in the game has actually been met with such success and controversy that its existence is known not only to the competitive Smashing crowd, but to the casual Smasher as well. Wavedashing has become so influential in defining competitive play that even the writers at Nintendo Power know of its existence. Given this, Wavedashing seems to be the appropriate place to start." Taken from MLG's page. The only sources provided for Tournaments are MLG and NP. Are you going to tell me that it's not good enough in this case? Hell, now I have a source to define how influential it is, and that it's known to the casual Smash community as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to remove that addition but I thought it best to explain my reasons for doing so here. Irrespective of my views on whether Wave-dasing warrants inclusion, adding it to the Tournament section is not necessary. As I said before, and Ashnard has said above, the tournament section should be there to indicate to users that Melee's popularity was high enough for large-scale tournaments to be held. I'd suggest popping any mention of WD into Gameplay instead, as its not a move exclusively used in tournaments nor was it born from tournament play (from what i've looked into on smashboards it was popularised in a tournament but was widely used before hand).

After looking at some other pages that do mention advanced techniques I'd say mentioning the fact Melee has them won't ruin the article per se, Mariokart, F-zero GX and Quake mention some of their own (although I don't consider WD to be as notable as snaking or Rocket-jumping, but then that's just personal opinion) and it doesn't get in the way. I've jotted down a paragraph which you may like (or not) to use as a guide. I don't like it much personally but maybe it can lead to a compromise...

"As with other high-profile multiplayer-orientated games such as Mariokart and Quake, Smash Bros Melee contains several advanced control techniques that have become popular within the gaming community. The most notable of these techniques, Wave-Dasing, which allows higher skilled players to avoid attacks easier, was acknowledged by creator Sakurai in an interview with Nintendo Power following the release of the sequel Super Smash Bros Brawl. However it was removed from this game in order to retain a better balance between players of different skill levels"Darrek Attilla (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Link, I've reverted your edit since there is no consensus to have it. I see you've provided a source as if I was asking for one, even though that has never been the case. It doesn't negate any of the aforementioned issues, nor say why it has any use in the article, except to gamers. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So basically, if it were the most notable thing ever, and yet only notable to people who have played the game, it is magically not notable? Do you ever pay attention to the magic little fact:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus.

Is above every guideline page. Guidelines are NEVER supposed to be followed as if they're policies, a piece of logic you seem to be unable to grasp. The exception to YOUR guideline is a piece of information that, despite being only of interest to people who have played Smash, it's still widely known. I've given TWO sources, both used in this very same article, that establish this, the more recent one BLATANTLY establishing it. The reason to be unsure is based on nothing. All you've said is "oh, you misinterpreting the guidelines!" How? It says, if unsure. Yes, if we don't have two reliable published sources establishing a subject's notability, then we should keep it out. But *gasp*! We DO have two reliable published sources establishing notability. Your attempt at discrediting the sources has been all but nonexistent, and yet you act as if you reserve some right to refuse them. Saying it's not notable at this point would be a boldfaced lie, and notability is never ever ever trumped by a simple guideline that is not necessarily enforceable.

It is not inherently guide content, it is not non-notable, it is not little-known. I've verified EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT IT, therefore fulfilling WP:V, and yet you still refuse it.

Here's the nutshell of the biggest inclusion guideline on Wikipedia:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."

I've obtained multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (all NP editors are employees of Future US), so we should presume the subject is notable. And the reasons for including the topic in both sources is because they considered them worthy of being noted. MLG particularly, since they go out of their way to flat-out state that it's notable.

If you want a list of policies and guidelines I'm standing on, here you go.

1. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, not for personal purpose, but to establish that no rule is enforceable 100% of the time.
2. Wikipedia:Verifiability, for having verified the topic's importance by citing multiple reliable, secondary sources.
3. Wikipedia:Notability, for having verified the topic's notability on Wikipedia by citing multiple reliable, secondary sources.
4. Wikipedia:Cite sources, for the fact that any statement that exists in the paragraphs provided has a source to back them up.

All you've got is a guideline that plainly states that it's not a rule, but a guideline - literally a guiding line. It is not set in stone, it is not enforceable in all cases, using Snaking from MKDS as an example - exactly the same situation, no different at all, not an official move (hell, it wasn't even intended in any way, shape, or form), and Miyamoto was fully aware of its existence and knew what snaking was. THAT'S why it was covered. What is different in this case? The content is fully cited, showing both Nintendo Power and the person who created the unofficial move acknowledging it, and a professional gaming league that was already used as a source flat-out declaring its notability, and establishing that it's the most popular advanced technique in Melee history. Seeing as how all guidelines are open to interpretation, especially the less significant ones, how in the world are you allowed to tell me I'm misinterpreting the guideline? It plainly states "if unsure" you may remove the aforementioned content, not "if you damn well feel like it". You never give any reasonable argument to explain why we should be unsure of the topic's notability, and yet you demand it anyway because of what category it falls under. I don't accept your guideline, because you only follow half of it. If you can't explain why a source used on THIS VERY PAGE is not able to establish notability by flat-out saying it's notable, then you're not allowed to just be sure for the Hell of it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And JT, you're the one blatantly misreading the guideline. It says IF UNSURE you can remove it. If content only known to gamers isn't supposed to be on articles, why would they even bother with the "if unsure" part? The presence of that indicates that being only known to gamers is not a reason to exclude content, and I have no idea where you get this idea that such content is patently bad for the article based on nothing but a blatant misinterpretation of your one and only guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but I didn't remove it, I took it the issue to the talk page first, which is good wiki etiquette is it not? And tried to explain why I didn't think it should be in the Tournament section. Then I even tried to offer a compromise. Plus I've never once mentioned guidelines (nor accused you of not going by guidelines) because quite frankly i'm not interested in that sort of thing; i'm only on here to read up on stuff and occassionally remove vandalism or sort out spelling mistakes etc. If you read my post you'll see that I was offering up examples to support your argument, despite personal preference, but if you don't want that support then fair enough mate. Isn't it time to call a vote or get some admin involved cos this has gone on for a week now. Ta-ra fellas, hope you sort this out soon. Darrek Attilla (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you, Darrek. I call Ashnard JT now. But yeah, I prefer your version to mine. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok, my bad... Darrek Attilla (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Have a go at reading the post this time:

• "So basically, if it were the most notable thing ever, and yet only notable to people who have played the game, it is magically not notable?" Have you got the capacity to realise that notability isn't the same as relevance? Really? If it is only of use tf people playing the game, then it shouldn't be in generally.
• "Guidelines are NEVER supposed to be followed as if they're policies, a piece of logic you seem to be unable to grasp." This is against your interpretation of the policies, which is an incoherent mess. By this, are you accepting that the guideline contradicts you?
• "using Snaking from MKDS as an example" I'm not going to comment on content on other articles, as one: the same circumstances cannot truly be the same and two: they will probably be of lower quality, meaning there's no assurance that that's correct.
• "It plainly states "if unsure" you may remove the aforementioned content, not "if you damn well feel like it". By what form of logic does actually being sure negate that principle? This "unsure" thing means nothing, yet you deny lofic and dwell on it, ignorant to its meaning.
• "The exception to YOUR guideline is a piece of information that, despite being only of interest to people who have played Smash, it's still widely known." Widely known to whom? Where's your proof? How does this establish that it's of use beyong gamers?
• "The reason to be unsure is based on nothing." Why can't you simply understand that certainty doesn't mean anything in this context.
• "I've given TWO sources, both used in this very same article, that establish this, the more recent one BLATANTLY establishing it." They establish exactly the same thing: NP mentioned Wavedashing. Shock horror, the creator knows that it exists in the game he created. How does ever support its inclusion in this article? The sources verify existance, and show that gamers acknowledge its existance. Nothing more.
• "Saying it's not notable at this point would be a boldfaced lie, and notability is never ever ever trumped by a simple guideline that is not necessarily enforceable." Hmmmm.... how can simplify this one so you don't understand? NOATBILITY IS ABOUT THE ARTICLE'S TOPIC. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
• "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Okay, brightspark, spot your mistake? Topic, not information. As in, the article's topic.
• "MLG particularly, since they go out of their way to flat-out state that it's notable." So? MLG considering it relevant does not automatically warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia unless you prove otherwise. As in, what use still is it to the reader?
• " If you can't explain why a source used on THIS VERY PAGE is not able to establish notability by flat-out saying it's notable, then you're not allowed to just be sure for the Hell of it." You've been here since 2004 and you don't know how sources work. Unbelieveable. Sources verify things. Your source has verified the claim. This is not the same as providing evidence that it is of any use, or negates the guideline mentioned above.

Link, don't throw out policies that you can't understand. I seriously never thought that I would be stating the most simplistic things to somebody who has been here so long. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"It says IF UNSURE you can remove it. If content only known to gamers isn't supposed to be on articles, why would they even bother with the "if unsure" part?" It's the simplest of logic. How the could the principle ever be maintained if it was dependent on being sure? All it is is a simplified explanation in one simple rule, for people not sure about the explanation in the previous paragraph. As in, "if you don't understand or are unsure, follow this rule..". Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• So basically, you establish that exceptions exist. But magically, this can't be the exception because the Lord Jesus "Ashnard" Christ decreed it so.
• It only contradicts me if it's RELEVANT. If something is notable, in no universe, at no point in the history of space and time will being only known by people who play the game trump notability.
• The article is well-sourced. You've basically decided that the "exception" RULE (guidelines aren't rules, but the one rule that governs them all is that they aren't rules) does not apply in this case for whatever reason. If the guideline does not cover it, then it can't be used! The exception lies in the freaking "if unsure" text! IF we're unsure of its notability or relevance, then yes, we can remove. But the idea of being unsure of it ceases to exist when we get proper sources! You can't enforce ANY guideline on me because no guideline is enforceable. It's a suggestion, not a rule. It's YOUR job to explain why the guideline applies. Why does the guideline cancel out two reliable sources, one which verifies that the creator of the game was well aware of its existence and understood what the fan term meant, and the other saying that it is the most well-known "advanced technique" in Melee, known by competitive gamers and casual gamers alike. The only thing you EVER do is say "no, that's NOT enough", because all you have is "not enough". You bank on the idea that you have some God-given right to give nothing and demand far more than necessary. I've given more than enough proof of its notability and relevance. Are you saying that having two reliable secondary third-party published sources explaining its notability and relevance doesn't explain its notability and relevance? Yeah, I guess being a very well-known move in Melee is just not relevant enough TO MELEE. The only way you can say that MLG is not able to assert relevance or notability is to say that they can't be used as a source, which means that you supported a bad source in the first place. You have no right to pick and choose when a source is reliable. If it's reliable for the content YOU picked, it's reliable for the content I picked.
• And way to strengthen your argument - I should have thought to ignore your blithering crap a while back, it seems to work okay for you ignoring all reality around you. Yeah, my source says NP mentioned it. That's true. I guess you didn't lie about that. You conveniently ignored the statement that I POSTED RIGHT ON THIS FREAKING PAGE THAT SAID, FROM THEIR WORDS, THAT WAVEDASHING IS THE MOST NOTABLE ADVANCED TOURNAMENT TECHNIQUE AND THAT IT'S WELL-KNOWN TO COMPETITIVE AND CASUAL SMASHERS ALIKE. Hope you can read that, I know you seem to have a bit of trouble with reading.
• Do you even read? It verifies the claim? I see, I forgot, an article from 200 freaking 5 can verify an article made in 2008. This is an article that's three years old, when SSBM was only four years old.

If you READ the article provided, you would actually notice that it's written in 2005, and it calls it influential to competitive play, which seems to be notable enough to mention. MLG describes Wavedashing with the following terms:

1. Influential
2. Successful
3. Controversy
4. Defining

Do those words mean nothing now? You ignored everything but them mentioning that NP acknowledged it. So not only did NP acknowledge it in an interview, not only did the official tournament host for Melee mention it (going as far as calling it influential, successful, controversial, and having defined competitive play all the way back in 2005), but NP actually mentioned it years before this issue. And considering it was a completely different editorial team, that counts as THREE different sources. Why are MLG's words all of a sudden irrelevant?

If articles should never have content only known to gamers, it wouldn't be a guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"*It only contradicts me if it's RELEVANT. If something is notable, in no universe, at no point in the history of space and time will being only known by people who play the game trump notability." I'll tell you what link. I'll draw a big, nice, pretty picture with loads of bright colours saying that notability applies to an article's topic only, and then I'll e-mail it over. Do you think you'll quite grasp that then?

• "IF we're unsure of its notability or relevance, then yes, we can remove." Really, please. Read it. If you don't understand how you're wrong, you're either deluded or mentally challenged.
• "It's YOUR job to explain why the guideline applies." Hmmm... Let's rack my brain here. Maybe because, self-admittedly, the feature is only known by and of use to gamers, and not the general audience.
• "Why does the guideline cancel out two reliable sources," It doesn't. I don't deny what the sources claim. The sources don't say what this info contributes to the article, and how it is of use to anybody who doesn't play the game. There is no conflict here.
• ""no, that's NOT enough"". I've never said or meant this.
• "Are you saying that having two reliable secondary third-party published sources explaining its notability and relevance doesn't explain its notability and relevance?" I don't deny what they assert. The fact that a source acknowledges doesn't mean it should automatically be in the article. The sources don't prove relevance to the article in any way.
• "WAVEDASHING IS THE MOST NOTABLE ADVANCED TOURNAMENT TECHNIQUE AND THAT IT'S WELL-KNOWN TO COMPETITIVE AND CASUAL SMASHERS ALIKE. "And? This was established by the other sources. Gamers know what a gaming technique is! No way?

Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And may I ask why you've never explained why the following are on a featured article?

1. Metroid Prime's mention of it being notable for its speedruns, and mentioning sequence breaking as well.
2. Super Mario 64's several rumors of content that was rumored to have to have been in.

Two featured articles that have content of only use to people who have played the game. That's precedence that including such content is not going to "harm" the article. Since the guideline you cite is exactly that - a guideline - it's NOT enforceable. It is a guideline because exceptions exist.

And may I ask why tournaments are of interest to people who haven't played the game?

And I like how you simplify the statement to "omg gamers know what a gaming technique is!", when it was discussing how an advanced technique, meaning it's less likely to be known than most techniques, is known to many people who have played Smash Bros. And, just for fun, let's, oh, say, try to explain why this guideline is enforceable 100% of the time, unlike every guideline ever made. You CONSTANTLY ignore the simple fact that exceptions exist, and that at no point in this discussion have you explained why this is not an exception. Give me a single piece of evidence that even SUGGESTS that no exception exists for this little guideline. If exception exists, you can't hide behind it like you've been. You have to explain why this is not an exception. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's summarise this: I gave you relevant reasons why this shouldn't be in the article. Then, you demand a guideline to corroborate my claims. I provided what you requested, yet you can only say that it's not enforcable, even though you asked for it! Firstly, you discount it under the logical fallacy that "being sure" negates the comment. Now that you've realised this, this case is miraculously an exception to that guideline. Plus, even though you claim it's an exception, I have to prove why it isn't. To Metroid Prime, I reviewed it at FAC and stated that "speedrunning" shouldn't be in, yet they decided to keep it in. If you want something to use this against me, find their rationale so we can establish context. To SM64, I haven't read the article—show me the relating statements. Tournaments establishes this game's legacy beyond the normal sense, and have led to professional players and events. I don't see how this is of no kore use to the general audience than Reception or Development. Please, if you are claiming that it is an exception, then the onus is on you to prove why. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't enforce a guideline because no guideline is enforceable. That's why they are guidelines, not policies. And miraculously? No, it just IS the exception to this guideline.

And the sources I've provided show that it is very widely known. A fact which you seem to ignore. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

But why ask me for a guideline in the first place if you are going to respond in such a way? Any chance of saying why it's an exception? Saying that the creator, a magazine, and gamers does not define "very widely known" by any means. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because I didn't have some plan to dismiss the guideline? If an exception exists, I'm not going to ignore it. I've never once claimed that the guideline is wrong, the only thing I've ever said was that it's not necessarily enforceable. And the reason it is a guideline and not a policy is because exceptions do exist. Being only known to gamers is not an argument to exclude, as shown by the fact that all content in the guideline is not a rule.

And it is true that Notability only applies to articles. However, Notability ONLY says that they are not required to do so, not that they are unable to fulfill Notability. It's true that it's not relevant, but it's true that it does fulfill it. Regardless, Verifiability does apply. Verifiability is stated in WP:N as being the "WP:N of content inclusion". Verifiability stands in this case. It's an exception because it fulfills Verifiability in every sense of the policy. No guideline or policy suggests that being content only known to gamers is necessarily bad. In this case, it does not attempt to teach people how to use the technique, and every statement is sourced. We can verify its relevance to the article, and there's no reason to assume it's little-known. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability says we trust the views given in a reliable source. I do not deny the info in the source. Verifying what it is saying and providing proof that it is relevant to Wikipedia are two entirely separate things, which is where I think you've confused it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

But again, being only known to gamers has not been established as a reason for something to not be relevant. The guideline exists to keep guide content and other such information off. However, notability can apply to content in articles and not just articles themselves. The only thing it says about content in articles is that it doesn't have to fulfill Notability, but it never says they can't. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't misuse policies in this way though. Notability aplies to article's topic only. I know you know this, but you can't criss-cross info in this way to support the claim. Being of use to gamers only has been expressed drirectly as irrelevance. You haven't explained why this is an exception. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How am I misusing it? It never once states that it doesn't apply to article content, not once. All that is ever said is that article content does not HAVE to fulfill notability. However, there's no reason why article content cannot apply to it. If it applies to it, what it is is irrelevant. There is precedence in content only known to gamers. You can't just say that such examples of content being used does not count by saying the articles are inferior. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I hate to follow your contributions, but I'm going to use an example from something you've said earlier on the talk page of Galaxy. You, quite rightly, rejected the inclusion of U R MR GAY, although you shouldn't have used the word "notable". Now, reliable sources, including Joystiq and Kotaku have commented on this. This means a reliable source has mentioned something as if it were relevant. By your own definition stated earlier, this would make it worthy of inclusion, since they are reliable sources. By your interpretation of WP: V, this would be relevant, as multiple reliable sources have reported, and, we can't deny the sources, can we? Finally, this would qualify in your interpretation of WP:N, in which there's no reason why it can't apply to article content. It's covered by multiple reliable sources, so...why not? Of course, this should never be in the Galaxy article, but by the stances of your argument, then it should. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Kotaku and Joystiq have a poor criteria. Kotaku once did an article about FFVII hentai and the existence of an Ocarina (the latter article was many years after OoT's release). - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's immaterial as WP:VG lists both as reliable sources. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Many disagree with that listing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What, and [GamesRadar] too, which is written by professional editor, not that your claim detracts from my argument in any way. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Kotaku has no criteria to exclude trivia. Just because Kotaku mentions it doesn't mean it's all of a sudden not trivia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And Gameradar? You don't see, my argument is that it is trivia, but your argument for wavedashing was flawed because I was using your reasoning. Anyway, it's still a reliable source, and I highly doubt that no trivia has ever been in NP. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Those sources are not usable for random trivial content. And NP does have trivia. But they don't do a whole question in an interview about one piece of trivia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses. Who are you determine that the interview relevance is the same as the relevance criteria for Wikipedia? This is as baseless if not exactly the same as the previous that whatever is in a reliable source should automatically go in the article. With all due respect, I've shown how you've misniterpreted/misused WP:V and WP:N to support your claims. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuses? There's no such guideline or policy that ever says that a source has to have the same or better criteria for inclusion. There's no reason to believe that NP's criteria would allow something irrelevant into an article of significance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So what, NP won't but Kotaku, Joystiq and Gamesradar will? Can't you see the hypocrisy? But still, this is not the central point; you cannot say, without further explanation, that just because it's in NP it should be in Wikipedia. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said Kotaku, Joystiq, or Gamesradar would. They didn't. They made articles about trivia. Nintendo didn't make an article about trivia, they included a question in an important interview. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems dead, I will suggest that Wavedashing be mentioned, by the fact that is sourced, and all sources included establish its relevance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't find your arguments to be plausible. If you want it in, then a consensus will have to be reached, so you probably should go to WP:VG if you want a response besides one from myself. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I know there's a lot of discussion that's gone on here, but here's my two cents based on what I know: Wavedashing is a positioning technique; it moves you forward and backwards. While wavedashing gives a character more options and makes them more mobile, I think the only reason people make such a stink about it is because its inclusion and/or effects on game balance may or may not have been intentional. Roll Cancelling it ain't, and L-cancelling is probably a more important "undocumented feature" of the game anyway. Nifboy (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm? Just because it's less "important" than L-cancelling does not mean that it's not important enough. It doesn't matter WHY they give it a stink, they simply give it a stink that significant sources responded to. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; I feel wavedashing does not have any due weight. There's no reason to mention it beyond the facts that it exists and there was this minute question about its origins. Nifboy (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it minute? Like, the one and only thing in its category being asked of in an interview, among only a handful of questions. Are you saying that the fact that Sakurai felt it necessary to remove the technique, on the grounds that it unbalanced the game enough to warrant doing so? And how is a reliable, secondary published source calling it one of the most influential aspects of competitive play, known to competitive players and casual players alike not enough either? - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you'll allow me to contribute my two cents: I personally feel that wavedashing falls under the category of "unofficial/advanced/metagame techniques". These techniques, as a whole, are almost invariably at the core of competitive play, due to the advantages that come with their utility. Thus, if sources for their existence and worth can be found, I think it's suitable to include a sentence or two about the techiques as a whole (not singular techniques such as wavedashing or l-cancelling) under the Tournaments section to add depth.76.214.133.172 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The section establishes the link between Melee and the development of tournaments in relation to Melee's legacy. To "add depth" is to deviate from the purpose of the section and lose focus. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My god, to long, you could fit the whole article in this section; WP:LAME. From just a standby-er's and semi competive player's perspective I will give my opinion (2 cents is overused). Wavedashing an almost exclusivly competive techineque that is mostly in tornuments. That being said I have no shame in saying that the reader with no knowlage of the game might not fully understand the topic. Also this small technuique in NO way proves the overall games's legacy, or tornument links. Those two sections have done fine without this small detail. However on the flip side, Mario Kart DS does mention the technuque "snaking" (read up in the article), also almost exclusivly pro. Still I do not see how this can improve the article, it does not ratify legacy devolopment or gameplay for that matter, All I can see this being is WP:Cruft, only noteable to people who avidly played the game.→041744 11:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was talking more about the collection of unorthodox techniques, in which wavedashing is one of the most prominent members. I will agree, though, that the average reader (and probably a majority of Melee players) won't know what "advanced techniques" and "wavedashing" means. Best to leave it out of the main article. What about a link to SmashBoards in the external links section? 76.214.133.172 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I disaprove of a fan-fourm link on Wikipedia.→041744 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're the boss :) 76.214.133.172 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how wavedashing could be considered not important enough to the game when the fact that a nintendog is an assist trophy in brawl is mentioned. Wavedashing is definitely way more important to melee's gameplay than an assist trophy. Memeligutsa (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That comparison doesn't work—the assist trophy acts an example to establish a broader concept; it's not like it exists on the sole merit of being a minor reference to Nintendogs. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just describing the trailer, not establishing a broader concept. I don't really want a specific mention of wavedashing in the article. I'd prefer a sentence stating that in a tournaments a variety of techniques are used to expand the options available to players at the time or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memeligutsa (talk • contribs) 10:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't describing the trailer. The Nintendogs trophy is used as an example to express the idea that franchises that debuted after the release of Melee are included in Brawl. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I have decided to record this article (see Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia), and I have a few questions about pronunciation which I would like to have cleared up. The following are phrases/words/names mentioned in the article which I don't know how to pronounce:

• Masahiro Sakurai
• Hideo Kojima
• Famicom
• Famitsu
• $99.99 (99 dolars and 99 cents US, 99 99 US, or what?)
• Philharmonic
• Fran Mirabella III
• Matt Casamassina
• Mike Sklens
• Greg Kasavin
• Clark Nielsen
• “Best. Game. Ever” (Should I metion the quotation marks (i.e. "quote" and "end quote"), and should I treat the periods like periods, commas, or just ignore them?)
• Ken Hoang

(some of the items on this list may seem obvious, but hey, better safe than sorry, right?) If anyone knows how to pronounce any of these items, please tell me! (you can use this page for help) You're dreaming eh? 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you can go here to check on my progress. You're dreaming eh? 23:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. You're doing a great job. I'll try to get back to you on the pronunciations when I've got more time. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are two as best I could do:

• Philharmonic = pronounced /ˈfhilharˌmɑːnik/
• Clark Nielsen = pronounced /klark ˈniːlsin/ --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let the battle begin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I predict this article will not only be attacked by the regular vandals but also the uptight users who disregard anything game related. Good luck tonight. 24.250.154.28 (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts. As soon as I saw the feature, I immediately expected this article to have like hundreds of edits. (how long has this been featured? It's 7:41pm US Central Time... I looked and there's barely any edits so far). But I was thinking, if it's featured, it must be good obviously, which naturally calls for less edits. Again though, I agree, this article should be one to watch for a bit. Sporlo (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't realy deserve to be a featured article, Nahuatl is hundreds of years old yet is still spoken to this very day, I doubt anyone will care about your favorite toy a hundred years from now. --71.254.193.207 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about Nahuatl. Oh, and good luck to the editors for combating this kind of ignorance! 76.236.235.84 (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Games are of a MUCH higher importance than "Nahuatl". NOBODY cares about Nahuatl, what a load of uninteresting rubbish. Whereas games are a worldwide phenomemum:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that there should be more articles about your fancy 3d toys then stuff that's actually notable? People like you are why Wikipedia will be doomed to forever be a pop culture encyclopedia. --71.254.193.207 (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Super Smash Bros. Melee article. It's not a forum for arguing over the importance of unrelated topics. If you have issues with the selection of this article or are concerned about future main page featured articles, please take it to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article --Onorem♠Dil 12:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

headline image on main page

I understand this is not to place to address this; however, why do the majority of featured articles have headline images on the main page that do not directly correlate with the topic of the article itself?

Shouldn't we have a picture of Super Smash Bros. Melee instead of a Game Cube picture? Another example is Dookie... there was a picture of Billy Joe instead of the album cover when it was featured. Is this sort of thing standard protocol for featured articles? -tbone (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia aims to be a "free" encyclopedia, the content on it must also be free. Since video games and songs are copyrighted material, we can only use copyrighted images if they fall under fair use. And even though there are some fair use images of Dookie and SSBM, Wikipedia's Main page has voluntarily been put under a much stricter guideline of image use than regular articles. In a nutshell, the normal fair use images that you'd probably find in the article are not "free" enough to put there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Which is the result of ridiculous copyright paranoia and WP:JIMBO. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt Nintendo(c)(r)(tm) will sue Wikipedia because a picture of their game was shown on the front page of a website viewed by millions of people. Nintendo pays websites for that kind of publicity! Pokeman (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but Wikipedia is trying to establish itself as a high quality, yet free, encyclopedia. To do that, they need to adhere to strict guidelines. And you never know which company may or may not sue. Sony, Nintendo, Square Enix, and many others have been involved in some lawsuits that some fans thought were not necessary at all. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC))