Talk:Evo 2017

Untitled July 2017

>A small amount of discussion regarding this article has happened on my talk page in July 2017 (section header 'Evo 2017'). ~Mable (chat) 07:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding the removal of results

This is from my talk page:

I would like to know why you removed the results data from the table. I am aware that the summaries were listing their respective games, but that was raw data. Not all of the data was mentioned in each summary. Is there a way to incorporate each piece of results in each data; you know, like fix the individual summaries to mention player placings (based on sources) but exclude other data unless notable by their backed sources? I know that we here at Wikipedia play by the rules (which unfortunately a lot of IPs don't), but if you go check out my talk page you'll notice that I've received a barnstar for putting a lot of effort in that page. It was no easy task at all. That's all I have to say, and thank you for your time. ULTRA-DARKNESS^{:) 2 CHAT} 02:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@UltraDark: We should strive always to summarize the reliable secondary and independent sources. I am skeptical that any of those tables removed were fully-sourced to such sources. Even if they were, it would be better to integrate them as WP:Prose, especially, perhaps, in the section for each of the games, rather than in a distinct section specifically for the results. The article looks excellent otherwise! --Izno (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Support (keeping material)

• It contains a lot of data not listed in the text
• looking at a table is much faster than reading all that text to get the information
• There's no reason to assume it contains false information, if you are skeptical you can compare it here https://smash.gg/tournament/evo-2017/events
• The other EVO pages have a results section and I think it should be consistent. When all these pages have the same structure, orientation where to find what information is much easier.

88.67.180.162 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not assuming it is false information. I am assuming that a) it is not reliably sourced (it is not) and b) it does not present the correct WP:WEIGHT (as a result of a, it does not). The only reason the other pages also have this material is that they have low quality (no doubt influenced by the crap of our non-e-sports articles in general). Users interested in a full bracket may find that information elsewhere. --Izno (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not had any interest in dealing with those tables whatsoever. They're a hundred times better than the stuff you see in articles like The International 2017 or DreamHack Open Austin 2016, so it didn't seem particularly worrisome to me. Hence why I haven't put any effort into removing such tables, and why I haven't put any effort into creating such table. I wouldn't say that the quality of the articles themselves has anything to do with it, though. Articles like Evo 2016 and The International 2016 are actually pretty good. I'm really just coming out here to defend my work, I guess ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 13:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I find these tables really detract from an understanding of the event as a whole on the quality point. They gloss over the import or impact of a win or a loss at a critical stage of the event (which are usually reported).

They are also rarely reliably sourced for anything except the largest events. --Izno (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Izno:I have inserted back into the article the results section. By doing so I have gone against Izno's previous edits, and therefore must defend the reinsertions against his arguments for removing them. His arguments are "I am assuming that a) it is not reliably sourced (it is not) and b) it does not present the correct WP:WEIGHT (as a result of a, it does not)."

• The information is not reliably sourced: I have added a citation to the results article on Shoryuken.com, the premiere fighting game community news site and partner with the Evo tournament. (The official Evo website is evo.shoryuken.com) I am unfamiliar with the Wikipedia standards for proper sources, and if this is insufficient I would suggest a citation of the Twitch archives of the stream, as every match of every game's Top 8 was broadcast live. Either way, the results as presented are accurate.
• It does not present the correct WP:WEIGHT: In the 12:40 August 24 edit Izno points to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which details that the information being present in similar articles is not merit enough to include it in this article. While the WP:OTHERSTUFF page mainly references new pages being added, in this case Izno seems to be using it to justify not having a detailed non-prose Results section. This is a matter of quality, and as such individuals will have personal opinions that are irrelevant to Wikipedia standards. I freely admit that I am making this change because of my personal opinions that Evo tournament Top 8 results should be present on Wikipedia. To support this, I am indeed going to go against WP:OTHERSTUFF.
  As a counterpoint, I'm going to point to WP:SSEFAR. Every major article on a competitive tournament on Wikipedia has a detailed, non-prose results section, usually in the form of a table like the one removed here. As reference I will point out The International (Dota 2), a larger eSports tournament run by Valve, and the 2014 FIFA World Cup, which is perhaps the largest competitive tournament ever held. I posit that a non-prose results section is an acceptable part of a competitive tournament Wikipedia article, partially by virtue of example of every competitive tournament Wikipedia article present on the site.

This is my first time really going to bat for an edit on Wikipedia, so I apologize for any misconducts or errors. If this edit proves controversial I would like to bring in a mod who will know better than I. Kevinstefanowicz (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kevinstefanowicz: Shoryuken is not reliable as judged by the fine folks who inhabit WP:VG/RS, (and independently) it is not third-party (it is in fact a first-party source as the partner site). Basically, that source is not good enough, not least because (in this case) it is directly related to the tournament itself. Twitch is also not reliable as it is primary -- produced by the very persons running this event. What you need is one of the websites listed on that link there (WP:VG/RS) to have the source in question. (There are other places you can go to find sources, but I would guess you won't find anything outside video game sources).

As for your second paragraph, you need to show WP:RS. You do not get to "just put it on Wikipedia"--you need to back that content up with reliable sources (see point 1). Anything less is assigning it weight it does not deserve and verges into original research. Someone else has to have discussed these things in detail, so that we can summarize their work.

I believe the reason most other tournaments have full brackets is because other domains (notably sports) accept subpar work. I do not know of an article in the WP:FA-class recently-promoted which would have this kind of content. The International might reasonably have the brackets as a result of the tournament's weight in reliable sources, but Evo does not have that kind of coverage. I think it should go in the article regarding The International as well, but right now, I'm talking about this article, not that one (and this is the gist of WP:OSE--we can make comparisons, but we have to be aware of what is different about the different pages--and this page is quite a bit different in its lack of reliable sources relative to The International).

I have invited editors from WT:VG to comment on this discussion. --Izno (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: The following is an annotated list of potential sources for the top 8 results. Again, I am unqualified to judge reliable sources, so I will leave that to those with qualifications.

• EVO 2017 Top 8 Highlights -- Red Bull prose writeup of Sunday Top 8 games (UMvC3, BBCF, T7, Smash 4, SFV.) Already cited in article.
• EventHubs Top 8 Writeup -- EventHubs results reporting through Top 64 for each game plus side tournaments. EventHubs is a similar website to Shoryuken without affiliation to the tournament.
• SSBWiki -- Wiki with Smash 4 results to 65th and Melee results to 49th. Itself references the smash.gg brackets.
• Smash.gg -- Bracketing/organizational tool for tournaments, contains the entire results for every tournament. Probably counts as a first-party source.
• Capcom Pro Tour -- Reporting from Capcom, contains SFV results through Top 256. While not putting on the tournament, both Capcom and the Capcom Pro Tour sponsor the tournament as promotion for SFV.
• Critical Hit -- Prose reporting of all the grand finals.
• Reddit -- Reddit post reporting all Top 8s. It's reddit, so I doubt it's good enough but hey, worth trying :33.
• TeamLiquid Wiki with Smash 4 and Melee results.
• ESPN -- Reporting on Tekken 7 Top 8
• ESPN -- Reporting on UMVC3 Top 8
• ESPN -- Reporting on Melee Top 8
• ESPN -- Reporting on Smash 4 Top 8
• ESPN -- Reporting on Injustice 2 Top 8
• ESPN has more EVO 2017 coverage that I won't list here. They broadcast the Smash 4 and SFV Top 8.
• FGCNow -- Reporting on Top 8 of all games
• AppTrigger -- Reporting on KoF XIV Top 8.
  

As for the quality of non-prose results tables, I leave that to the WT:VG editors to determine. Though I will hazard to posit that if a non-prose results table isn't fit for this article, then they should be removed from all other articles.Kevinstefanowicz (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Eventhubs, ssbwiki, smash.gg, capcomprotour, reddit, TLwiki are all categorically unreliable. I believe critical hit also is unreliable, as is fgcnow. ESPN is good. Redbull is good for events they are not hosting.

As for the results table, let's just talk about this article for now. --Izno (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to highlight a passage from WP:PRIMARY that I believe applies here:

"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."

I believe that in this context the Shoryuken article would be acceptable, as it is a primary source being used to make straightforward statements of facts, i.e. tournament results. Kevinstefanowicz (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)