SmashWiki talk:New game procedure

Support

Support, as nom.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 17:22, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

As the original author of the policy this is rewriting, I generally support it. If I were to add something, it would be to point out that singular sources may be considered legitimate if there is unambiguous proof that it is legitimate. This is what occurred with the ESRB leak when the "Izat True" videos went up - namely, the moveset videos of Shulk and Bowser Jr., both of which were complex enough in-game footage and couldn't be explained away as sophisticated Brawl mods or image edits. This is distinct from something like Artsy Omni's Rayman hoax because that did not actually contain gameplay, only a mockup of the menu. If, hypothetically, there was a new Smash character leaked with clear in-battle footage that well surpasses what is reasonably possible through hacking or video editing, then that's very probably legitimate. I do agree, however, that in general including such information would involve coming to consensus; nevertheless, I don't want this distinction completely lost. Miles (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

I attempted to address your criticism in my most recent addition to the page. Let me know if you think it rocks or sucks.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 20:00, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Yep, that more or less covers it. Miles (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Weak support. Some parts are a tad difficult to read, but the guidelines are reasonable, comprehensive, and pretty future-proof. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 00:12, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Can you elaborate on what parts are difficult to read? I'll try to fix them to the best of my ability.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 00:14, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

The opening couple of paragraphs are clause salad. The rest is at least acceptable. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 00:16, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Tried my hand at editing it. Is it better now, or does it still need a bit of work?

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 00:22, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Perfect. Shifting to Support. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 00:24, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Rockin'. Thanks for the input!

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 00:25, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Sounds good. I am on board. Serpent King 17:55, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

Support, I don't see any issue with this especially when we get a Smash for Switch. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 09:57, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

Comments

I would like some not-admin input on this before passing it, so givin it a good ole' bump Serpent King 20:39, 1 July 2017 (EDT)

If no one opposes it, I'll implement the rewrite early tomorrow. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 15:58, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

Nono wait, I think it's still too early for that. Barely anyone has given input, and 90% of those who have are admins. I don't want the idea that admins are pushing policy down people's throats becoming a widespread thing here. Serpent King 16:33, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

That's sensible, but I get the vibe that we won't get much input either way. We can wait things out for a bit longer at least. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 17:04, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

Bump again. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 18:57, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

Bump for final time. This passes if no one opposes in the next 3 hours. Serpent King 21:05, 7 July 2017 (EDT)

So as to make sure that I completely understand this, this is to completely replace the existing policy, correct? Serpent King 13:21, 8 July 2017 (EDT)

Indeed. I would, however, suggest keeping the old one (under the title "New Game Procedure (original)" or something similar), and adding the {{repealed policy}} template onto it.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 13:24, 8 July 2017 (EDT)

Quite. Gimme a few, this is as good as done. Serpent King 13:33, 8 July 2017 (EDT)

Move?

Should this page be moved to SmashWiki:New content procedure or something like that since DLC means that not all new content is full games? ---PinkYoshiFan 10:12, October 12, 2020 (EDT)