This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index Watercooler Smasher namespace

This is kind of a continuation of the "Merging Problems" Help Desk topic. First I'd like to say I'm pleased with the main page merge and the count down timer on it. It looks like people are merging templates too so thats good. But still my biggest concern is the Smasher articles. It is evident that these aren't going to be merged with user pages or become redirects. So I'd like to have a vote to decide whether we make a Smasher namespace to separate these pages from the rest of our content.

In defense of this idea the casual gamers and Wikia users will benefit by viewing articles about the smash bros. games when they click the random page button. Our article count will no longer be misleading since over 1300 articles are about Smashers. In some rare instances Smasher names take up the namespace for things in the games. For example: SmashWiki:Merge/Wario Bros. compare to Wario Bros. And lastly it was never the SSB Wiki's intent to document players at all so this would be a good compromise. Bonko24 23:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


The result was to move the pages to the Smasher namespace.


  1. Bonko24 23:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Richard 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Logan 00:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Erik Jensen (Appreciate me here!) 20:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Charitwo 21:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Wildfire393 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Dig Dug 16:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Marth117 22:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Kaz (TalkContributions ) 16:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. EP (TalkEdits) 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Earthere 21:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Madd74 04:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Max2 (Talk) 00:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Alexander Vince 00:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Dogman15 00:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. FyreNWater - (TalkContributions ) 07:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Tino768 08:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oxico 10:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. DragonBallZ 18:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  20. W.i.l 04:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. Metal Sonic 14:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  22. King Dedede Kirby 01:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  23. Kperfekt722 4:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


  1. RJM Talk 19:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. ~Crystal_Lucario 13:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC) It is fine lets leave it.
  3. ElbridgeGerry 22:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Lord Ryu 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Yeah I'd like to see the Smasher articles in their own namespace. That way they won't get in the way of content and they can still keep their category.--Richard 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If this happens, I intend to remove my contributions, as they were written for a Smash Bros. encyclopedia, which (btw) encompasses the game, the people who play it and therefore the sporting community that the combination of those two factors makes. I imagine I'm going to have to do this anyway so the internet doesn't lose a proper repository of info about the smash community, but amidst the "competitively disconnected" players of the Wikia community, I felt it was worthwhile to have at least one comment from the opposition. It's clearer than ever that it won't make much of a difference, even coming from the guy who wrote practically half the articles in Category:Smashers. Sigh. --Randall00 21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For related discussion which should be linked, see SmashWiki:Pool Room#Extension requests, Forum:Merging problems, and User talk:Charitwo#Gonko.
I note the wordage "never SSB Wiki's intent to document players at all". Guess what: it was SmashWiki's. This is a merge; don't turn it into a hostile takeover by saying they shouldn't be considered at all. SmashWiki's brought the content, and it obviously needs cleaning, but you need to be nice (I'm not assuming bad faith, but this annoys me that this discussion has been strewn about without links to appropriate places.). I find it strange now after being convinced by Randall that these pages have a place here that article count is being considered; it is content, whether you want it or not, and thus can not be considered misleading with regard to the page. As well, assuming Wikia users don't want to view random smasher articles is a rather convenient assumption for your argument. I could make much the same against it.
As for your specific instance, the in-game term should take precedence of course. Any such need for disambiguation should always default to the in-game term.
I cannot make a case against a separate namespace, as it does have merit. However, I would rather see something like a merge of all the lesser known into a List of smashers with a small blurb on the items in T:Smasherbeta, as well as other information such as how they've done at tournaments. Obviously, 1300 would be a great deal to merge into one list, so disambig every 3 letters of the alphabet as needed. --Sky (t | c | w) 22:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't see what Randall00 is so concerned about. It's not as if the pages will be gone. However the great majority of the smasher articles I've seen do not qualify as Smasher articles at all according to the "Professionals" article "A professional gamer is one who regularly makes money off of the game and/or one who is recruited and sponsored by a notable organization, such as MLG." Now can you say that even 1/5 of those articles meet those qualifications or can be verified in any way? I can see that Randall00 is upset since you wrote many of these pages but the existence of these pages is an easy door for spammers to leave their mark permanently. Browsing through Smashers here are two examples of why I consider the article count misleading: LIBF LuisP. One is a 13 year old and another is well, LIBF. Kiddies and Crews aren't pros and ff you want me to find more examples I will. That's a real good 1300 pages, isn't it. So something must be done. Sky made a good suggestion. The point is it can't be left the way it is now so tell us what to do. Bonko24 04:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This merge happened well before the articles relating to the competitive community were up to a standard that I was proud of and am well aware of how many of the articles still need a lot of work (for instance, it was my intention to delete the absolutely atrocious Professionals article, so that's about the worst basis of comparison). Not my fault. There's a misconception that I'm upset because I wrote a lot of the articles which although true, is not the basis of my protest. My contributions are and always have been done in the best interest of the community at large. --Randall00 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd first draft up a policy (I know just what to steal from =) before starting any of this. All wikis need a strong backbone of policy to enforce decisions; that is another issue which should be settled with SmashWiki, but not right now.
Bonko, all smashers are listed here that have taken the time to add a page, not just of professionals. A "smasher" by definition is just somebody who plays the game, like you and me (you do play, right? :). This misunderstanding may be part of your concern =). As to 13 year olds, it's a game that all ages can play, and a lot of those at young age get good at it (they usually have a lot of time on their hands...). Of course, your point is who are these people? Which I'll respond with a rather generalized statement: Smashers. Randall does have a legit concern in that he's done a lot of work, and we don't really want to see that shoved under the table, if we can avoid it. Again, I stress the need for a policy regarding all of this, if not a guideline.
I think I might collate what has been said for and against in conversations prior. --Sky (t | c | w) 05:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You are industrious, what can I say... --Randall00 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess for information's sake I should post an example of a prolific Wikia wiki that has tons of pages that are like our own Smasher articles: The Warcraft wiki. Just click this link to see that it fully gives in-game guilds of players of World of Warcraft their full article-namespace treatments, and it must not be a problem for them to have it like that. So maybe it actually doesn't matter much if we do the same by having Smasher articles in article mainspace. Erik Jensen (Appreciate me here!) 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It's ridiculous that egomaniac player articles have the same if not more priority than Masahiro Sakuria. The smasher articles indeed have more priority than game articles because they must be constantly monitored and fixed to fit standards. Articles that normally would be deleted are just slapped with a cleanup template and rot until someone like Randal00 fixes it. I can understand your obsession considering you guys have wrote many of them and you originate from Smashworld which hosts tournaments but your closing out the casual player. Randal007 calls us the "competitively disconnected" for making all the articles readable to casual players. However concentrating on the competitive community is shunning the casual players and more importantly content on the actual games. Back when we were rivals I noticed that some of our pages on game content were beefier than yours which was absurd since your wiki had been around years longer. But smasher articles eat up your edits. Once again it can't be left the way it is or you'll lose the casual audience which is going to be our largest audience in 2 days. Bonko24 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, that definitely's a message that makes a lot of sense to me. The casual audience is exactly what we'd be catering to and should be catering to, which makes me think that if SmashWiki was a wikia wiki from the start, articles on players of the game below Ken Hoang in fame would probably have never existed/been started (and perhaps rightfully so). Having Smasher pages separate from game articles seems an excellent compromise compared to outright deleting all the Smasher pages. (Or you could have a separate wiki that focuses strictly on smashers and link that wiki to the Forums... but that's just a wild thought.) Erik Jensen (Appreciate me here!) 22:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is there such an intense focus on a target audience here? I'm not calling you guys "competitively disconnected for making all the articles readable to casual players." I'm calling you competitively disconnected because you shun the competitive community intentionally to make the articles readable to a select audience. Is this a smash encyclopedia or not? Are you telling the complete story or not? Isn't this supposed to be a vast repository of smash information? Or is it? I don't know, that was the goal at SmashWiki, but I haven't even begun to wade through the policies here. The notion that we'll "lose the casual audience" based on smasher articles in the main namespace and users being frustrated with the relevance of the Random Page button is giving the casual user far too much credit in quality control. --Randall00 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are you fighting this? The articles will still be there, just in a different namespace, they'll have their own tab. It's not like we're petitioning to delete them all. --Charitwo 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to weigh in and say that Smasher (and "Crew") pages should be in their own namespace. It is IMPOSSIBLE to use the Random Page function to browse items/techniques/other random things of interest, because 95% of the pages you get are smashers and crews, generally ones with ZERO actual rep. Players like Ken, M2K, Isai, Bombsoldier, etc, that have actual notoriety might be justifiable here, but your average run-of-the-mill smahsers should be separate.--Wildfire393 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm done talking. We'll let the community decide whether to move the pages or not. Keep in mind too that Smash Wiki's community was monumentally larger than the SSB Wiki's user base at the point of the merge. I hope you will reconsider reverting yoour contributions Randell00. Bonko24 01:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
SmashWiki was kept something of a secret to the entire Smash World Forums community only up until recently so we would have the opportunity to establish some sort of structure before opening up to the entire Smash World user base. When the floodgates were open, users began trickling in and that side of the community began to take on a life of its own. Even now, there are thousands of registered SmashBoards members who don't know about SmashWiki, so SWF (such that it is) won't be properly represented on these discussion pages. I must stress how incredibly poor the timing of this merge is. I still can't believe that just as we were getting on our feet and getting news about SmashWiki out to the rest of Smash World's members, that they would go and do something like this. --Randall00 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Erik: Actually, Guild: is a true namespace, and we disallow even redirects out of the main space and into the Guild / Server namespaces.

Bonko: I will draft up a policy regarding this. Unlike WoWWiki, I believe smashers here should have redirects, wherever they end up (whether on lists or in a separate namespace). I will, however, pull directly from WoWWiki... I do have some experience there. ;) --Sky (t | c | w) 04:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Get them out of the main namespace. Wikia is not the place for vanity pages that have next to nothing to do with the game. The vast majority of users who visit the wiki are here for actual information, not subculture cruft written by egotistical self promoters and/or fanboys. I would prefer if these were moved to userspace, but a separate mainspace would be okay (though not preferable). Just get them away from the main focus of our project. Dtm142 18:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that it's no longer your project and that's neither the fault of the competitive community or Wikia. --Randall00 20:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It never was "my project", nor was it "your project". I said "our project". However, the project is currently a mess and is in desperate need of a manual of style. Dtm142 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, yep, that part is certainly true. --Randall00 21:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy draft

User:Sky2042/Sandbox has a draft of a policy regarding this. Thoughts? I especially welcome yours Randall, as you essentially represent the minority view. I deliberately did not address crew pages, as I feel there is less a need for those to be relocated. The draft was essentially copied from the Guild policy there, with what I thought were acceptable changes in context. Of course, this can also be written as if there is no smasher namespace, which I will be happy to accommodate for if needed. --Sky (t | c | w) 02:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well nothing will convince me that it's a good idea to move smasher articles out of the main namespace. As you know, I'm more about buildling a strong front end presentation than I am about creating even more restrictions on what can and cannot be created in the back end. Especially when it comes to telling someone who is interested in the competitive game that their interest doesn't deserve a place among other tournament-goers. I don't know why something like this would be put in place that essentially discourages people from participating in the side of a community that really needs all the help it can get in garnering interest from casual gamers. --Randall00 04:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, ok, we get that. Again, it can be written from a non-namespace PoV if need be; is there anything other than that which you disagree with in the body of the text? --Sky (t | c | w) 04:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd merge some of the useful info from Smasher Project into it as they seem to serve a similar purpose in the context of not taking them out of the main namespace but it's fine otherwise. --Randall00 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


So it seems like most people agree on adding a Smasher namespace to the wiki. This is everyone's last chance to voice their opinion on it, as I plan on asking for the namespace within the next few days (I could even do it now if you guys want).--Richard 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I just thought of a new idea: What about a separate wiki? Several of Wikia's gaming communities, such as Halopedia, have a separate fanon Wiki. I think that this could be a good thing for the Super Smash Bros. Wiki. Not only could it have information on competitive gamers, but it could also include custom stages, etc. Just some food for thought. Dtm142 21:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Werd, dawg. --Randall00 03:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit hesitant to create a new namespace for several reasons. Firstly, we only get three custom namespaces and as far as I know, their creation cannot be reversed. If we ever decide to reverse this decision, it might be impossible. Secondly, the pages attract the wrong type of attention for the wiki. They encourage people to make vanity pages as opposed to actual content. Our aim should be to create a reliable, professional wiki that is written from a neutral point of view. We had similar discussions on the RuneScape Wiki a while back about forum usage and personal images. The forums then were largely used for personal clan recruitment and trades as opposed to discussions on actually improving the site. Clearly that is what the forums are meant to be.
If you look at Special:Webtools, you'll see a list of the most common keywords that are searched for on our wiki. Not one of them is a smasher article. Very few readers visit our wiki for that type of material. Special:Top/most_visited will tell you the same thing. Overall, our community should be attempting to create articles that will actually interest the readers. Wikia should be a professional, collaborative effort. It should not be for pages that will only interest a very limited number of readers. Dtm142 23:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The 3 custom namespace limit is just so people don't request several, pointless namespaces. Uncyclopedia somehow got away with having 5. I'm all for having the smasher articles in there own namespace. --Charitwo 23:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is on a separate domain and has separate user accounts. Physically, it is about as affiliated with us as Wikipedia is. It is one of Wikia's sista projects, but the rules there seem to be slightly different... Dtm142 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
i cant think of any more off the top of my head, but only because i havent looked, but the best example of a Wikia wiki having more then 3 is yugioh --Uberfuzzy 23:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note from the sidelines: if it would make reaching consensus any easier, just assume that the Smasher namespace would not count against your three namespace limit. The three additional namespace restriction is a policy restriction rather than a technical one, and because the need for the Smasher namespace would have arisen because of a merge, we wouldn't hold that against you if it ever became an issue. --KyleH@fandom (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they should go. I used to prefer the old SSB Wikia simply because it didn't have articles on random people, and I'm sure there are others who agree. You guys have to remember, this was a MERGE. Not moving Smashwiki here. Besides, it creates to many problems. When you search pages on events, moves and such, occasionaly they have to have (move) behind 'em so the "smashers" get there glory. Look at Wario Bros.! And that page is linked by the events template! Max2 (Talk) I hope I've made my point to everybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max2 (talkcontribs) 00:11, 30 March 2008} (UTC)

I've completely replaced that article with a redirect to the event match. That type of ambiguity is completely unacceptable. Dtm142 03:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Any idea when we're getting the namespace created? Btw, we only need Smasher:. Smasher talk: isn't needed I wouldn't think. --Charitwo 22:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just contacted Wikia about it now. Smasher talk will automatically come with the namespace, and it'd be nice to keep in case people want to talk about that article. So the namespace should be in place within the next 3 days. I'll be sure to help out with the page moves to the namespace.--Richard 04:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, Smasher shows up in Special:Allpages and Special:Prefixindex now Logan - (Talk · Contributions) 12:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Smasher namespace is now here!

The Smasher namespace is now here. You guys can start whenever, though I'll help moving the pages tomorrow for sure.--Richard 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's going to need to be a handful of people which remain in the main space. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
why? and who? and what of the pages in Category:Smashers that are on User: pages? I was going to offer to bot this whole thing if no one objected. would save tremendous amounts of time. just need to know what you dont want moved. --Uberfuzzy 10:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So how this is gonna work is Uberfuzzy is going to have his bot, FzyBot, to do all the moves. There might be some errors, such as a user page being moved to the Smasher namespace, though this can be easily fixed. The crew articles will also have a Smasher namespace, though we could add a Crew namespace if you guys want.--Richard 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Uberfuzzy: Ken, for one; there are a half dozen others I would name. Ken's even notable enough for his own wikipedia article. ;p --Sky (t · c · w) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot is running (sorta). We're hitting some problems because of today's "session loss" problems (the bot software really doesnt like that), so its going to take a couple passes to do this. As for the ones you want to be kept in the mainspace, just move the pages back, theres even a "revert" link in the move log. --Uberfuzzy 20:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

oh, and dont panic about them being sorted all under S for "Smasher:" that will go away and fix its self overnight, the server has to recompile the category listing, and it doesnt do that with pagemoves right away. --Uberfuzzy 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

please wait until i let you know i'm "done" before moving any pages back into other namespaces, its hard to tell what is staying in ns:0 and what the bot skipped because of session problems. --Uberfuzzy 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, done. sorry if theres anything majorly bad, just check the Special:Log/move for what got moved. --Uberfuzzy 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Automatic fail. --Randall00 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And [1] failed, too. That never used to happen. Looks like I've got my work cut out for me. --Randall00 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can clear the redirects in a jiffy. As for the search, try searching for that in the smasher namespace. I doubt that will work either, because, last I checked, we have no such article. =) --Sky (t · c · w) 01:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Jiff away, if you like. But we definitely did have that article. --Randall00 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That was the appearance of his name, rather than his actual article location. It was a template. Check the redirects. There's no article at =] redirecting to him, is there? --Sky (t · c · w) 02:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There used to be. I wonder what happened there... --Randall00 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What the...

What does for and against mean? Zmario 23:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Never Mind Zmario 23:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Why am I searching for mich and getting double redirects? Clean those up, please. Finish what you started. If you're going to come to a consensus to do something wrong, at least have the decency to do it right. --RJM Talk 19:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, this is a bug. -_- Clean them up as you go along. --Sky (t · c · w) 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Pardon? --RJM Talk 00:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, for some reason nobody aside from one passerby responded to my last comment on the Crew namespace forum here, even though with that comment I was effectively inviting a discussion on the concept of reverting the Smasher namespace. Erik Jensen (Appreciate me here!) 05:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The entire operation has become such a mess, I apologize for not following up on your comment. I just don't imagine that it will carry much weight. I've become quite disenfranchised with the hostile attitudes coming from new Brawl players and a significant majority of the Wikia community is a direct representation of that new influx of people. The competitive Melee community has taken an incredible amount of completely unjustified backlash on the forums simply for purporting that it's a better game (see this thread if you want an incredible headache) and it seems that we can't set foot in any public message board without some nub Brawl player chiming in to tell us what we're doing right and what we're doing wrong. The movement here post-merge is a reflection of that attitude and I don't need to cite examples. Granted, wiki writers tend to be more coherent than forum trolls, but just as Sakurai himself shafted the competitive community in his development of the new game, so too has this merge. And you can't convince anyone of that because the vast majority of the involved parties have no concept of a real competitive following and the numbers are so large that no matter how good of a case you have, it inevitably gets washed out by the sheer volume of people who don't know what they're talking about. Take a look at this vote! How many of those people in the "For" category have ANY idea what it's like to attend a REAL regional tournament and know the kind of effort that goes into fueling that community. Never mind the lack of foresight involving creating random new namespaces for no good reason beyond further segregating competitive and casual players. I welcome the discussion about a reversion, but considering the job was never finished properly in the first place, I'm not sure we'll see a whole lot of rational support. Nobody likes to hear "I told you so." --RJM Talk 18:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The articles are still on the wiki, just not in the main namespace. So really nothing has changed. And rather than complaining about the double redirects, why not help out and fix them? I'm gonna contact Wikia right now about it and hopefully they'll fix the bug with the special page. As for reverting the namespace, that won't happen. The consensus was to move the smasher articles to the Smasher namespace, and that's done and over with.--Richard 23:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, a consensus that has been arrived at by a popular vote of people who have no concept of what competitive smash is. I've put in an awful lot of effort proving that I am more than willing to invest time and effort into improving the repository of information that was SmashWiki and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I should be working to clean up a mess that was caused as a result of a movement that I never supported from the very beginning. It's very easy to say "well instead of bitching, maybe you should do something about it" but when it surrounds a completely useless, bureaucratic relocation of information that I had nothing to do with and vehemently opposed from the start, it carries no weight with me whatsoever. Why not help out and fix them?? Seriously?? Not my job. I'm interested in making a real encyclopedia, not some convoluted sloppy-ass presentation of double redirects and curiously segregated information trying to assert what is notable and what isn't without having a clue as to what the articles stand for. You said it yourself: "the articles are still on the wiki, so really nothing has changed." Then why the hell did you move them out of the main namespace in the first place? The only thing that has changed is your precious Random Page button and a long series of sloppy web presentation issues that include not only the double redirect issue, but a significant number of tournament and community-related articles sitting in the main namespace that link to articles both in and out of the Smasher namespace in a confusing mess of double standards that doesn't make sense to a reader on the front end of this wiki. It was a waste of time right from the beginning. I know that and apparently I can't do anything about it, but FINISH YOUR JOB and don't tell me that I'm the one that should be cleaning up your mess. --RJM Talk 06:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I REALLY appreciate your comment there, Randall; it explains a lot. =D Now, I believe that the main reason the job was never finished in the first place is because a lot of people still are on the rope and/or are mixed about which approach is best, and keep in mind that when I voted in favor of a Smasher namespace, it didn't occur to me then that there would be a question about a Crew namespace that would be surprisingly tough to cleanly answer. What there needs to be somewhere is a new focused discussion about the merits of reverting the Smasher namespace versus the merits of adding a crew namespace in addition to the smasher one; that should probably take place on the Crew namespace forum. Erik Jensen (Appreciate me here!) 00:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the fact that related articles like crews, tournaments, videos, etc. were not considered at the outset of the vote is just a testament to how unqualified the voters were in making their decision on this issue. That was supposed to be the intent of this entire page--a "focused" discussion, but it's pretty clear that majority rules around here, not reason. I apologize for being so cynical and negative about this issue, I really don't mean to and I would hope that my comments are more of a reflection of how much I care about this information being presented properly, as opposed to being a bunch of pissy emo ranting--I'm only human and when you spend hundreds (maybe thousands) of hours helping to build a sand castle with your friends and then Mom comes along and says "hey, you guys should play with these other kids too" so they join in and end up tearing your sand castle down...well, you're damn right I'm mad about it. I'm not blaming individuals here. It's not Wikia's fault that they want to build a different sand castle then me, but Mommy said we have to be fair and play with everyone and all of a sudden, so many new friends show up that they wanna change the game and what am I gonna do about it?
I appreciate your continued input on this issue, Erik. :^) Though it seems to sway curiously in and out of my favour, the mere fact that you're willing to put thought into its implications is a testament to your strong merit as a contributor in general, whether you agree or not. --RJM Talk 06:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I officially have a lot of spare time to waste and I can waste it in one of two ways. Come to a consensus on this issue, THINK about what the right decision really is and then I will decide how I choose to waste my time--constructive repair, or destructive reversion. This has been sitting too long; you get no more than a week. --RJM Talk 07:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.