Talk:Smosh Games

Notability of Smosh Games

This article was originally in a 2014 AfD where the consensus was to redirect to Smosh. I decided to revive the article because since then, multiple new sources have emerged that confirm notability per WP:WEB. Polygon, Bleeding Cool, The Hollywood Reporter, Kotaku, and WarGamer have covered the channel enough that it merits its own split from the Smosh article. Plus, as a recipient of multiple awards, it meets the second point of WP:NWEB. Some of the info may be slightly outdated owing to its lengthy time as a redirect, but its notability is definitely not temporary. Coupled with the other sources in previous revisions, they should prove without any doubt that the channel is notable. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@PantheonRadiance I'm going to suggest to you that this get closed as a redirect again and you work on this further as a draft before returning it to main space. Unfortunately, as you yourself are aware, much of this article is incredibly out of date and therefore inaccurate.

Just as examples:

- The article creates the impression all bar one of these people still work at Smosh, when in fact all bar three of those named have since left (many years ago).

- The article creates the impression that the channel makes the Honest Game Trailers content when that was sold some years ago.

- The reception section makes statements that are obviously out of date by a decade or more such as 'one of Youtube's most popular gaming channels' when let's be honest the channel hasn't been video game oriented for many years now.

While yes it is all cited to sources, it is very easy to discover that it is factually incorrect to a high-degree and needs more time in Draft. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Rambling Rambler:

1: Again, notability is not temporary; the fact this article has been the subject of ongoing coverage throughout the years already indicates it's not only notable but that it doesn't need to continuously be covered (although multiple recent articles are already sourced). Pages on historical topics are included on Wikipedia regardless of the lack of recent coverage, so long as they demonstrably meet a WP:N guideline. That same principle applies here because it's still verifiable info, even if aspects of it could be updated (although your examples are frankly quite trivial). Also, please see WP:VNT. Believe it or not, something can be outdated yet true at the same time; it just means it was true at one point. Pluto was a planet.

2: There are already articles indicating the departure of several members: "Boze", "Mari", and "Jovenshire". Plus the article lists the original members of the group, indicating that they were at one point affiliated with the channel. So this is a non-issue that can easily be remedied with sources.

3: Honest Game Trailers was still formed as a joint venture by Smosh, was already established as essentially a spin-off of Honest Trailers, and up to 2018 was still credited as Smosh. It may not be a Smosh Games series anymore, but that doesn't indicate this article is "factually incorrect to a high-degree" as a whole.

4: They still do gaming-related content, and even otherwise, it doesn't negate the claim that at one point they were one of the most popular in their field, which is the type of significant coverage that merits an article on the site (not to mention, tabletop and card games still count as gaming too).

These just seem like a bunch of completely minor complaints that fail to negate their notability, considering all of this information is not only verifiable, but is (or at least was mostly) true. Obviously passes GNG and WEB, and does not merit drafting in the slightest. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@PantheonRadiance you don't seem to getting the point. I'm not doubting that these thing were true. It's the fact the article, which you've single-handedly decided to undo the redirect of still reads in present tense so it doesn't make it clear that they were true and are not current.

This is a problem with what you've added both here and on the Smosh article proper, you write in constant present tense which creates a bunch of inaccuracies that are rendering the information added unencyclopaedic. To use your example, we wouldn't write the article for Pluto considering Pluto to currently be a planet. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Rambling Rambler Pardon me, but what? In what aspect is this article written in present tense? Much of the info here reads as a timeline but summarized in an encyclopedic manner. Not once did I use present-coded text to indicate they're still ongoing, outside of Sword AF. Much of the statements here consist of "In X year, they released...", or "In Y year, they announced", which insinuates they were events that already transpired. There may not be another source indicating that a certain series ended or a cast member left, but again with VNT: "Sometimes we know for sure that the reliable sources are in error, but we cannot find replacement sources that are correct."

I'm genuinely sorry, and I'm saying this with as much good faith as possible. But if you feel it isn't clear that "they were true", that seems to be on your end rather than mine (or any other potential reader). The ones to target are those who neglected to revive the article sooner when more coverage of them came out. Regardless, this topic clearly has received sustained coverage that meets GNG as reiterated. PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

In what aspect is this article written in present tense?

Aspects, for example, the lead where it states "In 2020, they began live streaming on Twitch" despite the fact they stopped that around two years ago now, or the general mentions of Honest Game Trailers that never clarifies that it was sold in 2018. Simply saying the year things started doesn't denote when they ended and instead suggests a present nature to what you've written.

But if you feel it isn't clear that "they were true", that seems to be on your end rather than mine (or any other potential reader).

When you're the one who unilaterally undid the redirect, it's certainly on your end. This is a problem with this and on Smosh. I'm not disputing that the subject demonstrates notability, I'm disputing whether it was entirely ready to be put back into main or if it would've been better for you to draft it, then put it through the standard review process so issues like this could've been fixed already. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This is my final reply to you on the matter; I've done enough bludgeoning and I want to drop the stick. So far you've yet to provide a single policy-based guideline for any of your claims, which indicates to me that your subjective arguments are not worth entertaining any further.

Nothing about this article confirms or denies that any of the series they've made is currently ongoing or ended, just that their creation was documented at one point in time. See this example from MOS:RELTIME, a guideline I followed - "Alberto Fernández became president in 2019". The article also follows MOS:CURRENT. The implication that these series is ongoing is a misguided perception which lacks nuance, especially when Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. If it hasn't been recorded in reliable sources, the article should focus on describing said series rather than its timing or ending, and we should trust readers to grasp this context. It's one thing to update articles with current info. But when sources with updated info is non-existent, it's much better to leave intact and treat as historically noted, rather than bloat the article with unsourced claims even if true.

Also, no, it's not on my end. The point of this article is to document the formation and significance of the group along with the content they've made. Again, outdated doesn't necessarily mean untrue, especially when you can't uncreate a series. I did my due diligence in confirming that the article not only meets WP:N, but that the coverage was sustained and accurate to its time period, which is why I went bold. It was more than ready for a separate article years ago, both in sourcing and award wins.

Regardless, I just added information clarifying several aspects of their career with reliable sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Nah mate, you can drop the Wikilawyering. It's blatantly just a case of WP:OWN, as shown by your vindictive removing of all changes. You aren't even sticking to policy as you claim, as shown by your diffs where you remove primary sources for no reason and relevant information (like cast departures or the fact they don't do Twitch streaming anymore).

You can claim you want to bring this and Smosh to GA level all you want, but a completely inaccurate article with impeccable citing to out of date secondary sources is still just a bad article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I know I said this is my final reply, but I do wish to apologize to you for what you interpreted as my ownership of this article. I do not claim ownership of anything here, but I will edit when I see questionable changes that dubiously follow the policies and guidelines. However, I should've reached an adequate compromise with you. I decided to keep the primary sources you added to the article while adding the secondary sources I found. Although primary sources shouldn't be the basis for any article here, in certain cases primary doesn't equal bad. The reason why I'm strict on primary sources is to address the ongoing issue with internet culture articles often overusing them, and the potential these sources have to introduce WP:FANCRUFT. In my view, it's much better for an article to be based on secondary than primary ones, even if the secondary ones may be outdated. And as I pointed out, it's a view derived directly from Wikipedia's rules. However, primary sources can be useful in certain instances, and some of them are used appropriately here.

Also, please keep in mind WP:PROSELINE and MOS:SMALLSECTIONS. Smaller paragraphs should be avoided whenever possible, and some of the revisions made the article flow a bit choppier. I also copy-edited several typos and repetition found in recent edits to the article. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I do accept your apology.

I do agree that the use Primary Sources should be limited in scope to only that which is necessary, especially when it comes to Self-Published ones. I think my recent contribution history culling and cutting down articles on British Trotyskist groups that are overwhelmingly based on Primary and Self-Published speaks for itself on that matter. However I do believe that you will have to compromise on them more than usual when it comes to Smosh and Smosh Games, in part due to the unfortunate fact that they are a "legacy" group that didn't get much RS coverage in the period between their heyday and when Padilla came back (and the level of coverage has dropped again since) so there are pertinent facts needed to present a fuller, more accurate picture that are only found in less perfect sources.

I do believe however that the cast list in lead is a case of WP:UNDUE at this point, in part because many have been off the channel longer than they were on it (feel old yet). Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)