Talk:List of major Super Smash Bros. Melee tournaments

UGC prize pool changes
Do you have a source for the changes to the prize pool amounts you made in this edit? Smash.gg says otherwise and I couldn't find a source that backs up your changes. — zziccardi ( talk ) 21:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Both the SSBWiki page and the Liquipedia page have the said prize pools. You can't really depend on the Smash.gg site for updated details like prize pool, quite frankly. Drwoo217 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the response. As per WP:USERG, we really should not be adding any material sourced from other wikis, as there is no way to verify the accuracy of the information. That said, since there is currently only one citation on the page—the one I added the other day—it would be great if you could at least add citations for the info you're getting from SmashWiki and/or Liquipedia so we can make progress toward satisfying WP:V and WP:N. Thanks. — zziccardi ( talk ) 19:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing for reliable sources covering these tournaments
Using the WP:VGRS custom Google search, I am reviewing to see if these tournaments are verifiable and appropriately weighted toward their appearance in reliable sources. For the following years:
 * 2002: Nothing,
 * 2003: Nothing,
 * 2004: MLG New York may have some weight in RS. Need to be home to review results. Nothing,
 * 2005: MLG DC, San Francisco, Atlanta may have some weight in RS, but appear only to be announcements (rather than information dedicated to results, winners, and critique). Nothing.

I'll keep looking at the rest, but those results are not promising to start for this article. who expressed interest at Talk:Professional Super Smash Bros. competition. I would guess the list for classic Smash probably will look much the same for coverage content. --Izno (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a reason why I haven't written articles on Evolution Championship Series articles before Evo 2012. Sources for 2000s esports are awful at best. I'm surprised you found as much as you did. You're more likely to find articles on the more recent tournaments, but either way, I don't believe this list is very good for an encyclopedia unless it gets completely changed. ~ Mable  ( chat ) 12:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say we'd be in the right for removing everything listed before 2010 outright, if we intend to keep the list similar to what it is now. ~ Mable ( chat ) 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest limiting the scope of this article to tournaments with results reported in reliable sources. If the tournament is only mentioned in brief (no depth), then it would make sense to cover the details at the respective tournament overview article. Few will need their own pages, or have the source depth to warrant it. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  15:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just deleted a few more years, stopping at 2009 because that was the first GENESIS tournament. We really need to figure out a way to get these lists to follow sources or just delete them completely... Shall I just AfD all four of them? I don't believe there's anything in these worth merging into the main Smash Bros. esports article. ~ Mable ( chat ) 17:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Were there no sources of any depth for those years? I only went up to 2005 because those years I was certain did not have RS of which to speak. I have been considering AFD but I don't want to take that step prior to a search of the sources for each of the tournaments, but maybe that's less work than hacking at professional Super Smash Bros. competition, which needs more RS as it is. --Izno (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't done extensive research, but unless there are significant sources that don't get compiled by Google (such as print sources), I am fairly certain that there will be basically nothing until 2010. For example, I can't find anything on Pound 4, APEX, Smash Needs You, or Revival of Melee in 2010. I can't even seem to find anything GENESIS 2 (2011). I just don't know what sources to use here. ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what happened to this post....... ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Took care of the links. --Izno (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are sources for notable tournament series like Genesis, such as this. I'm interested in helping to cite these articles, and actually have a bunch of sources saved… I've been on wikibreak for a few months now, but I should finally have some free time in a week when my semester ends. — zziccardi ( talk ) 07:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This source does discuss the original Genesis tournament to some degree, which is good and may establish 2009 as a possible cut-off point. There were no contemporary news articles on Smash Bros. at the time, but new sources may discuss older tournaments to some degree. I hope we'll find sources on other older tournaments, however. Our article on Genesis (tournament) already goes in detail about all of the Genesis tournaments. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. — zziccardi ( talk ) 20:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We should have no issue citing the winners of major tournaments from recent years, as ESPN, Yahoo, Red Bull, etc. regularly write articles on these events. As for the prize pools and entrant counts, these numbers can be verified via each tourney's Smash.gg page (example from yesterday's event). Smash.gg is the website almost all Smash tournaments use for managing entrants and brackets, so there's no uncertainty here. The big question for me is whether it's worth maintaining these listicles here on Wikipedia. Do these lists fall within our scope, in your opinion? Since at least the recent events can be cited, verifiability isn't a huge problem—it's just a matter of taking the time to source old events. I can't help but wonder why anyone interested in Smash's competitive scene would check Wikipedia for old tourneys' results instead of SmashWiki or Smashboards, though… Thoughts? — zziccardi  ( talk ) 20:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Smash.gg isn't an RS, so V isn't really satisfied all that well (the exceptions for e.g. SELFPUB don't seem to apply reasonably here and certainly don't indicate notability of certain tournaments--which should probably be a listing criterion). Besides that, I agree that there are other places to get information not sourced to already-reliable websites. --Izno (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I of course agree with you about it not being a sufficient reliable third-party source (although it is reliable). I was more trying to suggest that for notable tournaments (those that have already received coverage in RSes), we can get any additional info not specified in RSes from Smash.gg if need be. — zziccardi ( talk ) 20:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

2005-2007 MLG era
, This era was highly documented, MLG NY 2006, MLG Las Vegas, The Hustle, EVO 2007 Results, this is what I was able to find without using wayback machine. All tournament results hosted by Major League Gaming were published, these are corporate sponsored tournaments so I would recommend inclusion back to 2006, but not further. Valoem  talk   contrib  02:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These are all primary sources (or unreliable, for Hustle/MIOM) and thus insufficient for inclusion. --Izno (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.
 * This would suggest using MLG as a primary source is acceptable. Valoem   talk   contrib  03:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the first time I've heard of The Hustle. Looking into it, it seems like it's a community website rather than a news website. It doesn't even have any editors, focusing primarily in PR. link. Major League Gaming would work relatively well as a source, but the thing about primary sources is that they can't suggest notability for a subject. Even if these tournament results can be reliably sourced, they still don't have the kind of notability (yet?) for Wikipedia, I would say... ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's Major League Gaming, we know this is notable. I believe MLG results are important in this list. They are reliable, notable and should be documented as it is the first professional tournaments., do you mind if we readd up to 2006? Wayback Machine should be able to source all MLG results. Valoem   talk   contrib  15:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe it is a logical fallacy to believe these tournament results are worth noting on Wikipedia because they have been covered/sponsored/whatever by a large notable organization. If an even bigger organization, like a government, made an annual list of something (anything really, but let's say "buildings of the year" or something), these lists wouldn't be notable and worth documenting on Wikipedia unless reliable third-party sources also commented upon them. Similarly, we don't make a List of Ava's Demon characters just because Ava's Demon is notable and the website has a list of characters. Major League Gaming alone isn't enough. These results are as verifiable as the character list of some random notable webcomic, and as notable as the character list of some random notable webcomic. If a reliable website like Red Bull or The Daily Dot would do a series of articles on the late 2000s in Smash Bros., things would be different, but until then, this information (or data, really) is not notable. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)