Jump to content

Talk:Super Smash Bros. in esports: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
|3=''Smash Planet'', Myers, Andy, [[Nintendo Power]], Vol. 195, September 2005, http://imgur.com/a/ijOxG
|3=''Smash Planet'', Myers, Andy, [[Nintendo Power]], Vol. 195, September 2005, http://imgur.com/a/ijOxG
|4=https://www.thegamer.com/smash-bros-tournament-canceled-nintendo/
|4=https://www.thegamer.com/smash-bros-tournament-canceled-nintendo/
|5=https://pressfire.no/artikkel/ber-regjeringen-svare-etter-pressfire-kronikk (government stepping in)
}}
}}
{{oldafdmulti|date=8 August 2015|result='''no consensus'''|page=Professional Super Smash Bros. competition}}
{{oldafdmulti|date=8 August 2015|result='''no consensus'''|page=Professional Super Smash Bros. competition}}

Revision as of 18:47, 18 December 2022

WikiProject iconVideo games: Esports / Nintendo C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the esports task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Move to Competitive Super Smash Bros.

Very few players are actually professional by any formal definition of the term, and that means that the using that word in the title is a bit of a cliche and peacock term.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • OpposeThese sources here [1], [2], and [3] distinctly mention the term professional, thus the article should be label as such. We can still cover the amateur leagues, as of right now there are players who are sponsored and make a living off the game, in short "professionals". Valoem talk contrib 22:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current format

Drwoo217, the page is unreadable right now. It's impossible to know where you are based on the format. Also you don't need to revert each edit you just go to the last version you want restore that version. I'll correct it to a better format Valoem talk contrib 04:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

Valoem talk contrib 04:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Valoem: OK, thank you

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Professional Super Smash Bros. competition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wavedash

I believe wavedashing and wobbling is probably notable enough for a stand alone article any opinions? User:UltraDark, User:Drwoo217, and User:Prisencolin, I believe both have received enough mainstream coverage. Valoem talk contrib 19:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: Hard to say, since those two topics are Melee-specific rather than Smash in general. I don't want this page to turn into SmashWiki by adding tech skill. Drwoo217 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Drwoo217:, Wavedash and wobbles has received significant mainstream coverage, the game went from being a small competitive game to a game hosted in also every video tournament as a side tournament. Even Hearthstone tournaments have side tournaments for smash and not for other Blizzard games. Valoem talk contrib 02:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Valoem: Let's get the inputs of others first. Not a good idea to add something with only one or two people agreeingDrwoo217 (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is way too long

Thanks to everyone for their hard work on the page, but it's gotten a bit to large. I'm thinkng a split or possibily removal of certain content. Any thoughts?--Prisencolin (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin: Yes please, the page has gotta so long a bot auto tagged it. It is way past the recommended article length. I would split the tournaments into List of Super Smash Bros. Melee tournaments, List of Super Smash Bros. 64 tournaments, List of Super Smash Bros. Wii U and 3DS tournaments and List of Super Smash Bros. Brawl tournaments. (removed major as that is technically undefinable) Valoem talk contrib 03:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up. I've been thinking about this for a while now too, but I tend to stay away from esports pages since they need so much work and are often better described at other wikis and community sites in my opinion. I suggest removing the vast majority of content from the page per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and because much of it is unnecessary for summarizing competitive Smash (and is duplicated from other sources that better handle this content anyway). Specifically, I would suggest the following:
As for the tournament results sections, I don't believe this content should be split into separate list pages, but rather removed completely (or userfied). List of Super Bowl champions and other sports pages refrain from including anywhere near this much information, which, again, is advisable per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thoughts? —zziccardi (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, we should including rankings though the tier lists are a bit excessive. Listing tournament results is considered standard in sports pages on Wikipedia. A major of the information here is what people are looking for, it should be split not removed. Valoem talk contrib 23:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should really wait for further comments to be added and consensus to be reached next time. I had just voiced opposition to splitting the page before you went ahead with it and it hasn't even been 24 hours since you posted your response to Prisencolin. —zziccardi (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page was way too long as it was. I believe that splitting so people can see the final product is better. Keep in mind I was not the one requesting a split, I do however, think this split needed immediate attention. The main issue now is sourcing we should be able to add 10 reliable sources to each list, not all tournaments have secondary sources, but primary should be reliable in this case. Valoem talk contrib 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Prisencolin: Any comments? —zziccardi (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this is alright, although as the scene gets more exposure it might be a good idea to add these back later.
  • The SSBM rankings should probably be kept to 10 or 15 players. Smash 4 rankings probably shouldn't be listed at all because they aren't really authoritative or widely accepted.
  • I'm not sure how you'd represent a tier list in prose to be honest. I think the tables should stay, at least the Melee one.
  • Again, I guess the Melee list is worth mentioning, and probably Smash 4. The rest probably need to go.

--Prisencolin (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

64 should stay, Brawl and PM should be merged into List of Super Smash Bros. tournaments with split article links for Melee, Wii U/3DS, and 64. Valoem talk contrib 07:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind clarifying, are you referring to the lists of tournament results that were split the other day, or to the lists of largest tournaments that are still on this page? As a bit of an aside, Brawl's competitive scene was about the same size as Melee's around the time of its release, while 64's competitive scene has only started to grow again very recently (see this article). —zziccardi (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be in favor of cutting back the Melee player rankings to the top ten. I agree that the Smash 4 rankings should be removed, and I think the Brawl ones should be also since they were last updated in 2014 and therefore aren't that relevant. I didn't mean representing the tier list itself in prose, but rather describing the gameplay characteristics of say the top ten characters, and maybe, for example, explaining why Pichu, Bowser, and Kirby are ranked so poorly (if there are sources to back it, of course). I don't have a problem with keeping one or more of the tier lists, but I think we should explain them, not just show them if we're going to do so. Without context they're not especially useful to a reader. I just reviewed WP:CSC, and I'm thinking keeping the separate lists of tournament results for all the games should be fine if we can cite them. Our biggest concern should probably be that right now, nothing in any of the lists is cited, so we're not satisfying WP:V or WP:N. —zziccardi (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Melee it on Me listed certain tournaments considered "majors" in their SSBMRank last year, so we could go off that to list the tournaments considered majors.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great. Speaking of that, what are the criteria that have been used to determine which tournaments are considered super majors and get the yellow background? —zziccardi (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

Note: Please see the previous section. We started discussing cleaning up this article three months ago and never really got anywhere, but many of these points have already been brought up. Specifics for what might be trimmed and/or removed were also given. Thanks. —zziccardi (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like @Izno: removed some cruft and cleaned the article which I mostly agree, however I think there should be discussion as to what should be removed. I think it is vital that player rankings remain, tier list should definitely go though. Valoem talk contrib 14:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: Are there reliable sources to verify or provide appropriate weight? --Izno (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes absolutely, here is one for power rankings Red Bull and here are a bunch on tier lists Movie Pilot, Shoryuken and BuzzFeed, so absolutely appropriate weight for it to be included. Valoem talk contrib 21:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MoviePilot isn't an RS--it has no editorial review and appears to be entirely user submitted. Red Bull seems okay in this case. Shoryuken might be but it's blocked at work. The Buzzfeed article isn't a tier list. I'll take a second look later at Shoryuken. --Izno (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shoryuken is the organization that runs the Evolution Championship Series, so any information from its site should be perfectly reliable (although that doesn't necessarily mean it provides sufficient weight for inclusion of the player rankings or tier lists or whatnot). —zziccardi (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would not agree they're reliable as a third part then but instead as a first party--good for claims about themself but not much else. (Review WP:SELFPUB.) --Izno (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Shoryuken" is currently classified as "not reliable" per consensus at WP:VG/S, after two separate discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. Any information from the site should be factually accurate, but it should be treated as a first-party source. Third-party publications are of course preferable. —zziccardi (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't even treat them as that though. The writers themselves have no credentials, they're just random gamers/fans/enthusiasts who submit stories for the site, and there doesn't appear to be any sort of editorial oversight from the website itself. They seems to be comparable to IGN or GameSpot user blogs - which we don't allow at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I was under the impression the site has informed staff writers since it's affiliated with Evo. Of course, without an about page of any sort it's a bit difficult to gauge the writers' qualifications. —zziccardi (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, these do not support the content presently in the article. --Izno (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As I stated in the above section, I'm in favor of removing the player rankings section and instead describing notable players in the prose. —zziccardi (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I too support trimming down these ranking lists. They're way too long, and not particularly encyclopedic. If people want to know the rankings, they should go to those particular sites check the charts, not here... Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what the opinions of some of the content editors were, Wikipedia does in fact list sourced rankings such as Pound for pound. These ranking are sourced I believe when viewers look from information regarding Smash Brothers competitive scene ranking are something they are looking for. Valoem talk contrib 02:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the revert--it's clear to me that no reliable sources are forthcoming and the editor desiring to keep the content has been provided a week now. We should strive for prose based on reliable sources. @Valoem: If you think the content is worth keeping, you should perhaps work on a sandbox to get the content into a good shape.

I've also re-redirected Smashboards; while it "survived" an AFD, it did so with a "no consensus" close. If I had fallen on the "delete" side it probably would have been deleted then. As it is now, I'm at the point where it is definitely desirable to merge the reliably sourced content here--the topics match well and it seems to me that Smashboards is indeed something worth talking about, though perhaps in no-great-amount. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion on bottom. Valoem talk contrib 17:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge request for Smashboards

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was a clear consensus for merge. Valoem talk contrib 18:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: has expressed a desire to merge Smashboards with this article. I am wholly against the merge, Smashboards has had a notable influence on the community as documented by sources. The prior AfD was closed as no consensus. I am interested in what editors who actively expand the article opinions are here. I am going to ping some active editors User:Maplestrip, User:Drwoo217, User:Prisencolin and User:UltraDark. I think Professional Super Smash Bros. competition has some excessive information, but I disagree with the removal of player rankings and the merge of Smashboards. Valoem talk contrib 17:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine for you to disagree with the merging of Smashboards into this article—you're right, that wasn't discussed, and reverting Izno's bold merge is acceptable per WP:BRD. However, it does appear that consensus was achieved for removing the player rankings lists in the section above, and you said the "tier list should definitely go". What reason was there for reverting all of Izno's edits (beyond just the merge)? —zziccardi (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that many editors have entered the discussion, also Izno's bold merge is fine until I contested and now we have two people disagreeing. Discussion is required and player rankings are clearly important and a reason why people visit the page. The smash tournament records however, is cruft thought there are multiple sources when a smash tournament breaks records. Valoem talk contrib 17:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If they are clearly important, then you can produce reliable sources indicating their importance, correct? This should not be a difficult request to fulfill if they are indeed "important". --Izno (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's continue the discussion of whether the player rankings and tournament lists should be removed or trimmed in the above section and leave this section for just discussing the Smashboards merge. —zziccardi (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zziccardi: That seems a good idea to me. --Izno (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much disagree with the removal of rankings as well as SmashBoards. Some of the information however has to go. I'm pretty much against the merge. ULTRA-DARKNESS:) 2 CHAT 17:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@UltraDark: Surely you also can produce reliable sources to verify the rankings. Do you have any such? --Izno (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on every corner, MIOM is an unreliable source, as for PG (at least they're actually an organization, XD)... I don't know. The article is pretty excessive though. --ULTRA-DARKNESS:) 2 CHAT 17:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Melee It on Me has received coverage from reliable sources (see here) and is the community leadership group for Melee; in other words, its writers are informed, but the site should be considered a first-party source. Do you think we could continue discussing this in the above section and leave this one for talking about the merge? It's better to keep related discussions together. —zziccardi (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for the SmashBoards merge, given that it is an unreliable source, I'd suggest merging it would be okay, but I feel like there might be backlash in doing so. I don't care if there is backlash, but I support the merge as I don't see much in terms of notability other than a mention from Kotaku.--ULTRA-DARKNESS:) 2 CHAT 17:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Smashboards here. The last AfD did not demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The standard procedure—since the website is best known as a facet of the larger SSB community/professional player community and not necessarily separate from that—is to cover the topic in its own section here, sourced to the few reliable sources we have, and then to expand out to its own article summary style if and only if there is enough coverage to warrant it. czar 18:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Czar and Izno. —zziccardi (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Czar and Izno. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per other users. Since most relable sources that discusss SmashBoards in the context of the competitive smash scene, Smashboards should be redirected here and included as a section om this page. As for the rankings, they should be kepted but probably limited to top 10 or 15.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm personally fairly neutral on the Smashboards situation and have never gotten much of an opinion on it. I do feel that this article still needs a lot of trimming. Moreover, I am way more worried about the myriad of "tournament results" articles (which are all just a series of tables) than an article about a somewhat notable Super Smash Bros. forum. ~Mable (chat) 10:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RFC on inclusion of material in a number of sections

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Although this is an easy close and has a clear consensus, I am closing this as requested at WP:AN/RFC. There is a clear consensus to Remove the lists from the article. Some have mentioned that they would want it removed only until a reliable source is available, however, that is a minority view and there is no consensus for that. The clear consensus for now is to remove the lists. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Clarification (As sought here): This RFC pertained only to the lists which did not have enough reliable sources to be verifiable. As such, the close only means to remove the tables/other content for which verifiable source did not exist. Other parts of the article shall remain unaffected by the close. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, the material in the tier list section, the rankings section, and in the largest tournaments section is not verified by reliable, secondary sources such that the correct weight of those topics is assigned to these sections. The users defending their inclusion have not provided the necessary reliable sources. A previous discussion began at #This page is way too long and continued in #Clean up was not conclusive but appears to indicate that the material should indeed be removed (based on the above-cited policies and guidelines).

Should the content continue to exist as it does in the article at present, or should it be removed until such time as reliable, secondary sources are available? --Izno (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove lists per WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:LISTCRUFT. Its not the job of an encyclopedia to replicate all these stats and details. If readers want to read the websites that host these sorts of lists. If no sources are hosting it, then we shouldn't either. Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove lists. The "largest tournaments" section is already covered by the subarticles on the topic, though those seem very inappropriate too. Honestly, the lists of tournaments probably needs to be reworked entirely, not just from a verifiability perspective, but also from an encyclopedic perspective. The other two lists are clearly inappropriate, as they are only about the most recent developments, rather than showing the historically notable aspects of the rankings or tiers (which would still be crufty). ~Mable (chat) 20:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're in consensus, but I'd also smash the tournament subarticle lists if they can't be sourced. The largest tournament lists are the only tables I could see worth keeping, but only if their info is verified in a reliable, secondary source. If not, then the info wasn't worth mentioning in a secondary source, nevertheless an encyclopedia. czar 00:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the "also" is a separate discussion. There is probably sourcing for some of the tournaments, just a) not all of those presently there nor b) all of the information for each of those tournaments. --Izno (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove lists until there are reliable sources for them. Even with sources, the three sections mentioned in the first sentence of the RfC would still seem to have undue weight at their current size. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Summoned by bot. Until the information/lists can be supported in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these game results sections. If they are posted on an "official" website, that can be an external link at the bottom of the artile. That way anyone interested in the statistics will see up-to-date information. Even if reliable independent sources are discussing the game statistics, this is a reason to describe and/or summarize them, not to compile or replicate them.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of list but not all Some of the information is overkill which I've been in a agreement for sometime, however these tournaments list and results have been documented by reliable sources as have the Power Ranking, which is the core of the information readers are looking for ... the competitive ranking. I think the parts i remove "List of largest tournaments" and "Tier List" is fine. The other part I believe warrants further discussion. Valoem talk contrib 14:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is your opportunity to defend the content that is in the article and listed above. --Izno (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can justify keeping the rankings of the top ten players for Melee and Smash on the Wii U, but anything more than that seems excessive to me. —zziccardi (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you not agree the information a reader would be looking for would most likely be tournament results, rankings, and history. We cover all this on sport articles and smash has grown larger enough that it has similar sources coverage such lists, however we need to start adding sources to the tournament results section. I've found over 100 sources so far everyone has been too lazy to add them. Valoem talk contrib 04:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    information a reader would be looking for is not what Wikipedia is for, for if that were our only goal, we would no doubt necessarily engage in original research, write about fringe topics in great length, and other discussions. "Normal" sports articles being of poor quality (and that poor quality is systemic, regardless of the kind of article you might be reading, whether game, tournament, biography, or team) does not imply that we should be of a similar quality (review WP:OSE). If you have sources which are reliable, by all means, provide them. I might suggest, however, you actually verify them as reliable by using the list provided at WP:VGRS. --Izno (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

I've trimmed down and added sources

I've trimmed to top ten, per discussion and added sources, there are no reliable sources for Brawl, I believe ssbcentral is reliable for 64 rankings, but it does not pass WP:VG/RS. Not sure what to do with those sections, but tournament results and added rankings for Melee and Wii U certainly have sources which pass WP:VG/RS. I started adding sources for tournament results for 2017. There are more sources coming. Valoem talk contrib 18:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blanked the 64 and Brawl rankings pending further discussion. Valoem talk contrib 18:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current version looks much, much better than the last time I looked at this article, that's for sure. I think keeping in mind the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and what Wikipedia is not is the important when it comes to what we do and don't include. ~Mable (chat) 19:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to restore the section for Smash 64 and Brawl, I believe while ssbcentral is not reliable in establishing notability, it should be enough to be used as a primary source for 64 rankings, along with Smashboards final rankings of Smash Brawl. I've also trimmed it to the top 10. Please let me know if there are any issues. Valoem talk contrib 23:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC specifically concluded that information without reliable sourcing -> not in the article. This is not difficult to understand. So yes, I have a problem with that. --Izno (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia allows primary sources to verify certain content, as per WP:PRIMARY, "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Valoem talk contrib 02:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should generally avoid being selective in your choice to reference certain sections of policy and guideline without referencing others in the same policy or guideline. Review the rest of that paragraph: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. (emphasis original). Your viewpoint was neither the majority viewpoint nor is your viewpoint now supported by the closure. There are other places for this material, and those places cover it well. As it is, the sources we are using get eyebrows raised at AFD and elsewhere (ref WP:Articles for deletion/Buck (video game) (2nd nomination)), so we really should attempt to knock primary sources down whenever they pop up in articles on video game-related material. If you've got the secondary source material, let's write a really cool article on what those sources said rather than use these lists to prop the article up. --Izno (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But this article isn't based on primary sources, its two lists which appears to pass A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge, does it not? But I do agree with what you are saying, however I do believe these two lists may in fact be better than a descriptive section. I've also inputted my opinion at the AfD you mentioned. Valoem talk contrib 03:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Professional Super Smash Bros. competition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Professional League of Legends competition which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the sexual abuse allegation wave?

I feel like this is hot right now, and Digital Trends, ESPN, and ShackNews have covered this. Should we add this to the article, while keeping in like with WP:BLP like always? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 04:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too much focus on Melee

Hello! It appears that this article primarily focuses on the history of competitive Smash in Melee, however I feel that this is a bit WP:UNDUE given that the article title is not "Super Smash Bros. Melee in esports" but rather "Super Smash Bros. in esports" referring to the series in general. So I Feel that the section on Melee's history could be slimmed down and all games could be mentioned. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wavedashing" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wavedashing and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 30#Wavedashing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Melee-FC" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Melee-FC and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#Melee-FC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._in_esports&oldid=1128159507"