Replacement filing cabinet

0 1 2 3 4 5

Information icon This is the general discussion page for the wiki! Feel free to post in the forums as well!

content appropriateness

How do we feel about the level of appropriateness of our content? (swearing, nudity, etc.) Zixor (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Swearing is discouraged. Cafinator (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I ask because of a picture of someone flipping the bird. I'd say this doesn't belong on the wiki. Zixor (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide the link? It would have been helpful if you had done that in the first place. --Kirby King 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My question remains valid regardless of its intent.
In any case: here is the link:
Zixor (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So, what exactly is our policy? Zixor (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of like the Supreme Court of the U.S.A.'s ruling on obscenity: We'll know it when we see it. At least, that's how it goes for images like the one you posted before. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 00:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So there's no documentation for this anywhere? -I'm of the mind that certain levels of content should never be used in any context. Zixor (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, considering that the game itself is rated 'T' by the ESRB, our content should probably not exceed this level of appropriateness. Zixor (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Open Letter: An Outsider Looking In

Preface: Although I'm an avid SSB player, I'm not a contributor on SmashWiki. However, I do have quite a bit of experience editing and managing wikis, having been involved on both GuildWiki and GuildWarsWiki and having helped to found PvXwiki (where I'm currently a Bureaucrat), and, when it comes to wikis, my primary focus/interest tends to be policy-related and managerial. As such, it should come as no surprise that my interest was piqued when someone on an IRC said, in regard to SmashWiki: "there's one sysop who thinks literally permabanning people is a way to resolve the issue and refuses to acknowledge that half the problem is backlash against his bannings." The discussion that followed (along with another, related discussion on SmashWiki's IRC channel) prompted me to write this "letter." However, before I begin in earnest, I'd like to make it clear that what follows is purely from the perspective of an outsider looking in and, as such, it may not reflect the "whole picture." Thus, if I've neglected anything that could potentially mitigate the following, please, by all means, spell it out for me if necessary.


The links above, taken as a whole, even assuming good faith, i.e. that the bans were deserved, etc. -- which, based on the Block log, may very well not be the case, paint a disturbing picture, especially when examined by someone who, all self-aggrandizement aside, knows quite a bit about what it takes to administrate a wiki. I’m sure that Randall, etc. are excellent contributors and maybe Galaxia, etc. were really poor faith editors, I don’t really know, nor do I care. Being a good contributor is not anywhere near the same as being a good administrator, and, no matter how bad those bad faith editors were, there’s no question in my mind that the administrators handled themselves poorly, to say the least! I really don’t mean to pick on Randall, but, for example, when you’ve got a sysop who is willing to ban users based on evidence of sockpuppetry that turns out to be faulty, and that same sysop is willing to (from everything I can infer) ban people for disagreeing with him, there’s a problem. When, on top of that, you have permanent bans being thrown about more liberally than I have ‘’ever’’ seen, there’s a ‘’big’’ problem. It’s not even so much the permabans themselves, either, it’s the rapid escalation to permabanning coupled with the fact that permabans have apparently been deemed necessary for, as near as I can tell, rather minor offences (if repeated ones). And another thing, maybe I’m just reading a bit too much into this phenomenon, but it seems like the sysops feel obliged to, when banning someone for, say, a personal attack, specify that the attack was against a sysop as if the mere fact that the recipient of the sysop made a difference. Assuming I’m not merely making mountains out of molehills, so to speak, that trend is perhaps equally disturbing since it runs entirely contrary to the intrinsic nature of wikis.

And it’s not only the bans, themselves, that have me worried, it’s the way the sysops are handling themselves with respect to those bans. I’ve seen statements like (these are not quotes), “oh well, he wasn’t a major contributor anyway” or “oh well, the wikidrama that followed sysop x’s ban really wasn’t necessary” used to defend certain administration actions that, if nothing else, toed the line between good faith and outright abuse, and the backlash that inevitably followed. Such statements reflect a horrendous understanding of the way wikis work, particularly the second type which, astoundingly, seems to essentially discount the sysop’s potential culpability for having been the source of the wikidrama. And the “us (sysops) vs. them (the users at large)” mentality that such statements foster and that seems to run rampant throughout SmashWiki is, as near as I can tell, at the heart of most of the problems I’ve noticed. Heck, some of the sysops have seemingly dropped even the façade of civility; I expect to see block caps from trolls, not from sysops. And banning people when they disagree with you (again, that’s how it seems looking at some of these situations from an outsider’s perspective) makes the situation all that much worse. As a very wise person once said, “inability to discuss and reach consensus is a scary thing indeed, especially when the alternative is banbanban.” Indeed, that uncompromising attitude makes it all the more likely that people will disagree, and, even if they do so in a manner that ‘’does’’ deserve a ban, that doesn’t excuse the culpability of the sysop, and it is certainly cause for concern.

If the above represented isolated events, that would be one thing, but I have a nagging feeling that there’s a lot more where that came from (and I could have written quite a bit more simply about the things I’ve listed in a great more detail, but, alas, I’ve other things that I need to get done). Equally disturbing is that when I sought answers from an active bureaucrat -- quite possibly the only active bureaucrat -- the responses were vague at best and often seemed designed to exculpate the sysops as much as possible (again, that’s just a perception). I have no stake in the success (or lack thereof) of this wiki; indeed, I sought out answers for no better reason than my own edification. However, whatever comes of this (and, most probably, nothing will), I felt compelled to post; hopefully I’ve given at least some of you cause to pause and reflect on what I’ve said; to be blunt for a moment, a number of other experienced wikieditors and I, were nothing short of astounded by what was going on here, and that opinion reflected the consensus of more than a half-dozen "outsiders," that alone should (hopefully) say something. Regards. Defiant Elements 04:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and maintain a theme here that I tried to observe in the IRC channel: I can only reach conclusions based on what I see, and I'm not inclined to made declarations on behalf of other people who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. I'm sorry if that meant that you felt I was only offering vague and defensive responses, but bureaucrat or not, I'm not omniscient. Carrying on that theme, then, I'm going to restrict myself in what I respond to in your post; other people can respond to explain their own actions, and I won't try to speak on their behalves. If this makes my response unsatisfying, so be it.
To respond to a paraphrased quote of mine: saying that drama wasn't warranted after a block is put in place isn't an attempt at indemnifying a sysop for an improper block. Rather, it's a comment that just because a community (or, in this case, a segment thereof) reacts negatively to a block, the block is not necessarily wrong. People get angry if their friends get blocked regardless of whether it's warranted, but that doesn't speak to the validity of the block. In order to conclude that a block is unjustified, I need to see more than a list of "supporters" of a blocked user; since a list of names doesn't convince me that the action was unjustified, I think such a list ("drama") unnecessary. The same effort would be better spent explaining why the action may not have been justified, rather than just waving one's hands in the air. So I still think that was a fair statement.
Since you don't have much of a history around here, you may not be entirely aware that I have not been particularly active; the fact that I'm even a bureaucrat here is really just the result of some combination of peculiarities and fanciful timing. You have noticed some things that you believe to be astray on this wiki, and you have responded by raising a red flag, acknowledging that you may be impaired by your admittedly limited perspective. I don't consider myself to be in too dissimilar a position to you, but I am more willing to put my trust in the hands of people who have been more active than me. I certainly don't think all the sysops are corrupt, and I've seen certain administrative actions reviewed and revised, so I'm inclined to defer to process there.
But again, if my attempts at explanations to you seemed vague and exculpatory, it would be because they were simply my attempts at explanations--my observations and inferences--which is all I can offer. There are other users who are more qualified to explain their own actions, and other users who are more qualified to offer their own running observations of fact. So with that said, I do look forward to reading those accounts and perhaps enriching my own understanding of events. Until then, however, I'll continue to withhold judgment, because I don't consider myself active or informed enough to do otherwise. --Kirby King 06:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for the clarification. I'd been told that you were one of the only "semi-active Bureaucrats," and with nothing else to go on, it was hard to put your responses in their proper context. As to your second paragraph, I believe you've somewhat confused cause and effect in this instance. I would certainly not expect a ban to be overturned on the basis of a simple petition created and populated by the banned user's friends and I am not arguing that the existence of those petitions is proof, in of itself, that the bans weren't justified. The problem, as I see it, is that there are some cases in which the sysop is responsible for causing the petition to exist either through administrative action which was unjustified in the first place (and there are examples of that, of that I have no question) or by the manner in which the sysop justified his actions and/or responded to queries regarding his actions. The nature of the petition and the lack of the desired effect (from the petitioners' point of view) is irrelevant in this case, it's existence, however, is, if the causal link is impropriety from a sysop. As to "I certainly don't think all the sysops are corrupt." I certainly don't think that either. To base that assumption on the actions of a few sysops would be a biased sample indeed! (I hate fallacious logic, if you haven't realized that already.) Could you define the process by which an administrative action is "reviewed and revised?" Are you referring to informal review (i.e. by another sysop) or formal review (i.e. by Wikia or by a consensus, e.g. a no-confidence poll)? Similarly, does the aforementioned "revision" refer to one sysop overturning another or say, Wikia demoting a sysop? Thanks again. Defiant Elements 06:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as cause/effect goes, I'm not sure how much we're really disagreeing--I'm not dismissing the possibility that unjustified actions can lead to reactions, I just suspect that the ensuing response is likely to illustrate whatever improprieties might exist. If they do exist, they should be pointed out; if they don't exist, the energy spent complaining over the actions is wasteful. In the event improprieties exist but aren't pointed out in the ensuing ruckus, then it's up to the observant to chime in, and as I think I've established I can't put myself in that camp. As a general principle I think it's pretty reasonable; whether these particular cases were actually the third case rather than the second, I can't definitively say. Re: all sysops are not corrupt, I didn't mean to imply you thought that. But assuming that several (active) sysops are not corrupt, they should be in a position to monitor any inappropriate actions and take action of their own. Specifically, I was referring to the reversal of blocks by other sysops (and in other cases, the implicit and explicit affirmation of other blocks by other sysops, based on block logs and talk page comments). --Kirby King 07:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm... I think the problem is less that we're disagreeing, per se, and more that we're using dissimilar emphasis (not to mention language). I will say, however, that although the petition, in of itself, isn't proof, the offhanded dismissal of said petition on the basis of presumed bias is not a proper response, not to mention potential bias on the part of the sysop, but, for the moment, that is neither here nor there (I'm too tired to go into more intricate distinctions at the moment, however). Similarly, I'll respond to your point about unbiased ("uncorrupted") admins tomorrow (i.e. later today). For now, I need to get some sleep. Defiant Elements 07:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Unbiased ("uncorrupted") sysops; Although I'm a huge proponent of admin discretion (one glance at PvX:ADMIN should convince you of that) there are a coupla problems I see with your logic.
  • Although there will inevitably be situations in which a ban or other administrative action is somewhat questionable and although most actions are easily remedied/undone, if the Sysops find themselves needing to revert each other more often than "infrequently" and/or if the Sysops find themselves reverting actions because they are more than questionable, there's a problem. Heck, one person told me that, although the ban policy seems to suggest that most bans should be ~ 24 hours, one anonymous contributor was banned for a week on the basis of a single edit which was construed as vandalism. Unfortunately, I've not yet had time to verify that story, but, even if it's only a rumor, that rumor, because it reflects a perception of the Sysops is disturbing in of itself. Yes, the other Sysops can very probably "handle" that problem in one way or another, but there shouldn't need to be a problem.
  • The manner in which Sysops are handling themselves and responding to queries is at least as important as the bans themselves. As I said in my first post, I'm willing to entertain the notion that every single one of those bans was fully justified. In fact, we can start with that as a premise if you'd like, but when I start seeing threats, etc. like the ones found in the references above, I can't help but find fault with their manner of conduct. Furthermore, although, as per my first point, an unjustified ban may be overturned, it's much more difficult to "undo" the damage done by simple conduct, and that conduct is much more likely to reflect a deep seated attitudinal problem that's equally difficult to "fix."
  • Given that a) my second point is valid and b) in order for any formal review (i.e. from Wikia) to occur, a consensus is required -- this based on what you told me in IRC -- I'm not sure how I would go about raising a red flag and/or making a vote of "no confidence." On, say, PvX, I'd expect that if someone took issue with a Sysop, they'd contact a Bureaucrat (off-wiki more likely than not), and that Bureaucrat would then discuss the matter with the other Bureaucrats and, if appropriate, demote the Sysop in question. However, when you've got Sysops saying not to piss 'em off if you want to stay on their good side and when discussion is met with such fierce resistance as is, and when the Bureaucrats do not provide the outlet for no confidence, to whom are people supposed to turn? I'm really not sure? The tendency seems to be that regardless of whether a particular ban was justified or not (it's immaterial in this case), anything approaching a "complaint" is tossed aside as "biased" or whatnot. Not to sound too alarmist (I know that I hate it when people on PvX post conspiracy theories about admin collusion), but there is a tendency among sysops to defend each other's actions when they feel like they're "under fire" and/or when they feel that a comment made against one Sysop reflects poorly on all of 'em. That's what I've observed anyway, maybe it's not true here. Either way, as per my quote above, “inability to discuss and reach consensus is a scary thing indeed, especially when the alternative is banbanban,” and I'm seeing much too much banbanban and much too little discussion. Which is, in fact, why I'm posting; I'm hoping that some decent discussion will come of this, even if nothing else does.
Defiant Elements 18:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

non-game articles through random page

When using the random page function, I'm really not interested in seeing articles relating to smashers, crews, and the like. I want to learn about the games, not the culture. As it stands, I frequently do get linked to a page of this kind, which I dislike. Obviously, I could simply try again, or stop enjoying this feature altogether, but there are certainly better solutions. I'm sure there are others who feel this way as well. Zixor (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree!! I frequently look for something interesting with the random page function and end up on some crew from Delaware or a one-time tournament in central Tennessee. Can't we limit it to more game-related articles than people-related ones? 5280s (talk · contributions) 20:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree. Most crews are completely irrelevant to the worldwide smasher community. Unless it's of national or at least regional importance (for example, an entire time zone, or a major tournament), I really don't think many people care. - Gargomon251 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, we had the namespace debate once, and no one seemed thrilled with the idea of a crew namespace. And I'm really not sure if we can make some kind of ruling on importance; what's important to me in Iowa City is unimportant to someone in LA. Besides going namespace crazy, we have no way of filtering the random page function. And as most people have resisted other namespaces (for quite obvious reasons), I think this is how things are going to be. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
See Forum:Crew namespace. What it comes down to (in my mind, anyway) is this: one, the random page argument is pretty silly (I posted why in that discussion). Two, let's say we move crew stuff into a new namespace. Keep in mind we already have a "Smasher" namespace, and we're limited in the number of namespaces we're allowed to have. (Merging crew articles into the Smasher namespace doesn't make sense, since crews are not Smashers.) Now what about tournaments? Tier lists? Advanced techniques? Community sites? Flash games? All of these things are only relevant in terms of the "culture" of the game. Do you also propose that they all be moved into a separate namespace as well, or do you have some other criteria that you'd base this decision on? --Kirby King 23:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly the problem is more complicated than it seems; why can we not simply classify the smasher and crew pages as smasher and crew pages, respectively,(there should be no diffuiculty in determining this classification) and filter the random page function not to include these two? These, at least can be easilly classified and dealt with. The classification issue is most definitely larger than this, but at least in regard to these two kinds of articles, I can't see who could disagree to their being classified as such. -Whether or not to classify or filter any of the other various types of pages is not currently my concern. This is a good step to take now, and it should be taken. Zixor (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Randompage, unfortunately, does not work like that. I would suggest submitting it as a feature request by using Special:Contact (which will reach Wikia), or by going to WikiMedia's BugZilla and asking there. The chances of seeing that implemented I would guess are small, however. --Sky (t · c · w) 23:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's too bad. I thought it was a simple problem with a simple solution. :( Zixor (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

-It's been a few months, so I just thought I'd check back in to reiterate my concern, and to ask if there've been any new developments. Zixor (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

old talk page info

When is it appropriate to remove outdated or no longer relevant information from a talk page? I ask because I feel that my recent edit on Talk:Crowd Favorite was wrongly reverted. Zixor (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Never, it should be kept as reference.Smoreking(T) (c) 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? There is absolutely and conceivably no instance where this should be done? Much of the discussion on this page is of a social nature (not something that even belongs on a talk page). Additionally: hypothetically, if a thread is extremely simple in nature, what real value does it's reference offer? (Example):

User 1: Can someone please correct the spelling error on line 5 for me?

User 2: ....Ok, I've done it.

User 1: Thanks. -Oh hey, are we Brawling later?

As admittedly silly and virtually unrealistic as this example is, it illustrates my point very well. Why must we clutter an otherwise useful portal with non-sense? -Perhaps most importantly, one can always access the history of a page to view it's deleted content ("as reference"), correct? (Note: my questions apply to all talk pages in general, not only this one specifically.) Zixor (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, does anyone have any thoughts? Zixor (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are very, very few talk pages which are so cluttered so as to be less than readable. That said, as a general rule of thumb, it's always better to archive old, unneeded threads than to simply remove them. As you, yourself, point out, the example you've provided is exceedingly unrealistic, and, besides, archival costs you nothing more than a moment of your time. – Defiant Elements +talk 19:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If an entire thread is conversational in nature, has no referential value, and clutters the page, it should be removed. Think about this. Why in the world should this not be true in certain cases? People take their time and energy reading these threads (which may or may NOT be "a moment"), which could be much better spent on actual unresolved issues.

At the very least, am I able to move this useless drivel to the bottom of the page? -or perhaps archive only the "completed" threads? -Could I put in parentheses next to the heading "reference", or "conversational"?, or anything to denote its status?

There is a better solution here than fairly pointless clutter, of that I am certain. Can we please explore it? Zixor (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of article talk pages, selective archival is usually okay (in my opinion, anyway), so long as what you're archiving is unquestionably "complete." – Defiant Elements +talk 20:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What about this example? Zixor (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also this one, titled "Starting" Zixor (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are droves of examples out there; probably one on most every page. -I'm currently completely unconvinced that predominantly useless information should not be removed from talk pages. Zixor (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

While Help:Talk page suggests archiving talk pages when they grow to long, it mentions nothing (against or in favor) about moving or removing misplaced or unhelpful information. Where have people gotten the notion that all information is valuable and should always remain intact? Unless it's policy or something, and considering that no one seems to be upholding the opposing argument anymore, I'm definitely going to start doing things my way soon. Zixor (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Our content based on "Random page"

  1. Music
  2. Strong side
  3. Linkology
  4. Louie
  5. Louie (yes, twice in a row)
  6. Lightning Hookers
  7. Infinite Dimensional Cape
  9. Fireball
  10. Power Underwhelming
  11. Hinawa
  12. Palette swap (SSB)
  13. Global Smasher Compendium/français
  14. Red Shell
  15. Princess Zelda
  16. Robo Beam
  17. 10-Man Melee and Brawl
  18. Barrel cannon glitch
  19. ZERO-ONE
  20. F.T.A.
  21. Mid-South Brawl Power Rankings
  22. Box glitch
  23. Gliding
  24. Event 13: Yoshi's Egg
  25. Star Fox Adventures

I'm interested in what other people think of these results. Miles (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What conclusions are you figuring to draw? Semicolon (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Are most of our pages:
  • Well written, or are they stubs, or do they need images or a cleanup?
  • Smash-relevant, or are they not really on topic to Smash?
  • Sufficiently notable to warrant an article?
And the like. Miles (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if what you are positing is what I think it is, and that the content needs a MAJOR ASS overhaul, then I'd basically agree. We put cleanup and stub templates on the pages...but nobody ever cleans them up, or expands them. It's the equivalent of one pompous asshole walking into every room of a proverbial giant ass house of the world and going 'This room needs to be cleaned up' over, and over, and over, and over, and then somebody saying to this pompous asshole 'Dude...why don't you do it?' and him going, 'Oh, I'm not doing this (e.g oh, we're not drinking these circa Johnny Xtreme). We're working on the notable thing right now. We'll get to the cleanup later, I imagine. Semicolon (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't really think this is the best method to determine those conclusions. Zixor (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
What would be your recommendation, then, for determining such conclusions? Miles (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't really know what tools we have at our disposal, though those conclusions are indeed important. For the most part I'd say it simply needs to be looked at on an article to article basis. For my part, I do what I can. If I know anything about a subject in need; I'll do my best to word it better, trim it, add info, etc. Unfortunately, there's a lot that I don't know about the many MANY facets of the game, or wikis in general. If I've never even heard of a technique, and I can't even understand what it is or how to use it based on how it's written (videos and pictures help a lot), I'm hard pressed to clean it up. I usually point out exactly this, and any other potential helpful wants, on the talk page. Baring some kind of increase in education, or call to arms, I'd say that the people most responsible for the work are those who are able or adept to do so. I don't know what else could be done. Zixor (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


So, no admins think this widget could be a positive resource? Zixor (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What kind of tips have other wiki's put here? Zixor (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Smasher namespace... What's it for, in exact terms?

capefeather (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Informing about all of the most noteworthy of smashers, as defined by SmashWiki:Notability. Miles (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope to have it eliminated once we've finished combing through them. I think I might do an alphabetical purge over spring break, or otherwise when I have time... --Sky (t · c · w) 02:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel the same way about getting rid of it. Really, once the purge is done, the only argument for it is that "smash bros was never meant to be a competitive professional game" and SmashWiki is not official takes that one out the window. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

common terms

I think that we should have a page defining commonly used terms on the wiki, such as troll, flame, etc. I realize that many people already may know what these things mean (and that one could always find out elsewhere), but in an environment where virtually every unfamiliar term is linked to for further explanation, it seems foolish not to do so in this instance as well (even though it may not be strictly Smash Bros. or SmashWiki related). Zixor (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

-The abbreviation, RfA, for example. I was unable to determine what this was by typing it into the search bar, or on Google. I understand that it is certainly possible to find the definition somewhere, but not neccesarily with ease. Zixor (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Stating that characters are fictional is completely unnecessary, for a wealth of reasons. Currently there are many instances of things being described as "fictional", when this fact is certainly implicit in any reasonable context. Can anyone offer a thorough counter argument, please? Zixor (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that someone would have a problem with me going through and removing all instances of the word from articles. This is, however, what I'd plan to do, if without opposition. Zixor (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

World Records

For things like HRC or Event Matches, should he world records for some things be placed on the page or on a separate page? Example, the fastest time for clearing event match 51. {{subst:User:I Am Jebus/Sig6redirect}} 04:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Both, I'd say. Zixor (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
World records should go on the page for the event in question. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
A concise reference page would also be helpful. Zixor (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta Opening


...for SSBM, found on YouTube. Many differences exist, so I chose to post here, somewhere general. My question for the community: what content should be mentioned from it, and where? Miles (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's pretty detailed information about for the SSE videos, right? The Melee intro could easily be its own article. -Zixor (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree in theory, but Subspace Cutscenes hasn't worked out great... Miles (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
-Looks pretty great to me. -Zixor (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.