Inkipedia talk:Policy/Notability

From Inkipedia, the Splatoon wiki
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Latest comment: 1 August 2016 by Slate in topic Players section


This is essentially my proposal for the entire debate on competitive pages. Of course, the exact numbers and details can be tweaked, but does anyone have thoughts on this? Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 22:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bump. Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 00:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...anybody out there? Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 15:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is good. Sorry, I'm just now seeing this. We'd have to talk to Prod to see about adding a new namespace. - 16:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My preference is to avoid creating new namespaces, just in case it conflicts with future extensions. As it is "real world" content, it does somewhat fit within the main scope. However, I'll leave it to the community to decide which direction to go with this. -- Prod (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My general thoughts:

  • Given there's not a consensus about putting articles in a custom namespace yet, I'm leaning towards just putting the meta scene in the main namespace.
  • Tournament section sounds good. Just put values down rather than weasel words -- 32 teams or more and leave out "high participation".
  • Teams section - I would use "top 10% rounded down" as tournaments below 32 teams will not be covered. This gives at least the top 3. 40 or more gives top 4... etc.
  • Players - use a separate section. I don't like the criteria that they must be in multiple teams as some players are notable by guiding a team to victory in a major tournament, then may go on to be a tournament organiser and not a participant.
  • As a general note, I'd like a citation required system -- can the information be found across different sites? For example, if the tournament was hosted by Squid Boards, I'd expect a link back to there but also coverage by say on Reddit. This helps the "National recognition" on the Tournaments section.
Slate Talk Contribs 18:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here for some input: If we are to include teams and tournaments, we should do something like "Ink Squad (Team)" and "Inkipediafest (Tournament)." These pages should also begin with templates that note that they are unofficial and not affiliated with Nintendo or Splatoon.

I'm also really iffy about including players. That seems like it could go south pretty quickly. But great ideas, Nyargle, and thanks for putting so much work into these pages! - 23:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. As for players, I'm trying to find a good balance between avoiding "Oh yeah, I reached A+ rank, Imma make my own article" and not being able to allow profilic, elite players have a page. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 23:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd also like to say that I don't think (tournament) or (team) is needed unless another, official subject shares the same name. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 00:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, use Xyz (Team) or Xyz (Tournament) (using title case) where there is a conflict. We don't need the clarification if there is a notice at the top of the article. Slate Talk Contribs 12:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, I think the draft is just about done. What does everyone think? Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 18:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last bump. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 23:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just one more thing ... OK maybe a few more ...

Ah man, we suck at getting back to you. A few things I'd like to address before the go-ahead:

  • Are we going to put a notice on top of the article to say this is a team/competition? (Or generalise it to "Unofficial Splatoon not affiliated with Inkipedia")
  • If you're going to put "Such as", please link to their articles (The Salty Splatoon, Booyah Battle 2) :P
  • Looking back on the "top 10% (rounded down)" thing I suggested, I would add hover text to avoid confusion: top 10% (rounded down).
  • Players - if a player has genuinely changed the tournament meta for say being a panelist or organiser but not a player, I wonder if they should be covered (I'm not familiar with the competitive space so I don't know if this affects anyone).
  • State that this meta space should still be in the wiki mainspace. Appendices with (Team) or (Tournament) should be title case. Team names should follow their capitalisation (meaning the article may start with a lower case like amiibo does).

A few notes for admins when it gets moved:

Slate Talk Contribs 14:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under General:

  • Articles based on competitive subjects and not endorsed by Nintendo should feature {{competitive}} at the top.
  • These articles should be in the mainspace. Articles should be named with correct casing for the content in question. This may include lower-casing the name (for example if a team was called "Team amiibo", the 'a' would not be capitalized).
    • Where there is a collision with an article already in the mainspace, parentheses and subject will be added, for example "Spyke (Player)".

Slate Talk Contribs 22:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability for non-competitive pages

Not sure if will ever come up, but same we want individual pages for "Woomy". That would be a community page as it's considered fanon. But is it notable? This particular example is - but it doesn't follow the policy as currently laid out because it's not a competition/team/player. Slate Talk Contribs 08:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not really within the scope of this policy. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 11:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate that, but that does mean the policy will be merged into a bigger one at some future point. "Notability" should include content that is notable (i.e. in scope for this wiki in general) and should not be limited to the competitive scene. We could continue anyway and create the more general policy in future, or rename this to Competitive Policy or similar Slate Talk Contribs 12:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the last option is best. I'm not opposed to adding notability criteria for non-competitive subjects, but I do feel they should be separate. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 13:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got cha. In which case we may very well add notability policies for different subjects in future (e.g. memes). In which case, could you edit {{competitive}} to stay in scope? -OR- we could keep a general template and call it "unofficial" instead of competitive. Slate Talk Contribs 13:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a general template would be most convenient. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 14:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last bump before it's hopefully ready to pass. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 15:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...sigh. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 15:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, uh...

Anyone have any more opinions on this? Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 17:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks good to me! One note I think that's worth adding is that a subject (whether it's a player, team, or tournament) could still be considered for an article if they are significant through other means, including getting significant coverage in the media. For example, a player may not meet the criteria listed, but may be significant for other reasons (i.e. popularity, significance in the greater gaming world, charity work, etc.). I propose adding the following as a bullet in the General sectrrion:
The criteria below determine what competitive subjects can be considered notable. However, subjects can still be considered notable if they've gained significance though other means, particularly if they've received significant coverage in the media. In these cases, notability of the subject should be discussed and decided by editors.
The reason I propose this is to give us flexibility to include any subjects we think are notable that are not within the defined notability definitions. Otherwise, I think this looks good and we should move forward with it. Sorry for the lack of responses on this! ~SuperHamster Talk 04:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to be an ass, but since when does Splatoon have tournaments like Smash? Drilly the Hedgehog 23:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, are we still allowed to post here? Drilly the Hedgehog 23:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal template

Thanks for making that: I'm sure that will be useful. Incidentally, {{Proposal}} uses the relevant talkpagename to whatever page it's on using the {{TALKPAGENAME}} keyword. So your draft policy will just {{Proposal}} without the additional parameter or moving the draft.

I'm getting round to moving the policy unless User:SuperHamster does it first. Expect today. Thanks again for the policy and not losing heart :) Slate Talk Contribs 15:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. So, will new policy proposals from now on be in the User or Inkipedia namespace? Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 15:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's like we need another policy on writing proposals lol. I'm sure userspace is fine for now until we have an official request system running like Inkipedia:Requests for Rights for example. Slate Talk Contribs 16:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leagues Under the Ink

How should we handle this if we indeed to cover it? My thoughts are we automatically grant Division A and teams in Division B (and possibly the top X in Division C) that make the playoffs their own pages, as well as list the playoff results (and regular season results in Division A) on pages for each season, as well as a grant the league a general page. Thoughts? Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 19:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bump. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 03:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bump again. If there's no opposition by the end of the month, I'll just go ahead and add it to the policy. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 15:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Games begin on Sunday. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 00:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EndGame Splatoon Premier League

Should we consider teams who get into/participate in the eSPL as notable? As an invite-only league, it can probably be assumed that teams in it are amongst the top teams. --Kaioora (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I'm with EndGame, I'm going to point out that it currently has 7 invited teams and 9 that came in by tournament of some sort, but I'll abstain from offering an opinion as a longtime Wikipedia editor wary of conflicts of interest. Raymie (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Players section

Personally, I believe the rules for a player article made to be reconsidered or removed altogether. One of the points states that if a player has been on two or more teams covered by the wiki, they should have an article, and Penguitt fits that category, but he does not deserve an article of his own. We are completely different to Smash Bros in the sense that Splatoon is a team game, and usually it requires every member of the team for the team to strive. Also those who organised a tournament are definitely not worth an article, and we haven't been giving them one so far. :::Luke Talk Contribs::: 23:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's worth noting that these are minimal guidelines -- there still has to be enough content for it to be a page on its own and just because a player is eligible for a page, does not mean it should be created. Slate Talk Contribs 00:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]