Forum:Project M mentions

Forums: Index → Proposals → Project M mentions

This discussion is in regards to a proposed change on SmashWiki. The discussion must first meet with a consensus before it is implemented.

So here's the deal. 4 years ago, a poll was created to decide how much coverage Project M was going to get. It has been pointed out to me that one topic of this in particular is currently not having its consensus followed in the least: TEQ. Consensus clearly says that PM is allowed to be mentioned in any article it would make sense in, yet we have more or less banned its mention in any non-PM related article. After a bit of research as to why that could be, I found that we never explicitly mention in any policy that this was allowed. In fact, the only mention of PM in any policy is in SW:NOT#SmashWiki is not official: "...pushing for the removal of information with the argument that it's not approved/endorsed by Nintendo (such as the Brawl mod Project M) will not be acceptable."

So the only logical choice is to re-vote on this topic, taking better care to explicitly define what mentions would be allowed, and what wouldn't.

Should this proposal pass...

• Any mention of PM in the middle of prose or even in a table would be allowed.
• Infoboxes, navboxes, and similar templates would remain not to be permitted to have PM listed (except for competitive ones).
• "In Project M" sections would remain not to be permitted.
• Screenshots of PM would remain not to be permitted outside of the PM specific articles.
• In general, PM would continue to be not treated like an official game, but it also would not be ignored.

In the future, it may be a good idea to actually make a content model policy in which this stuff would get moved to, but that's another day. For now, let's figure out what we are doing with PM. Serpent King 16:33, 19 March 2017 (EDT)

Support

1. Project M is a mod, so therefore it's not official. I don't see why we'd need to merge it with the official stuff anyways. Aidan, the Irish Dragon Warrior 16:46, 19 March 2017 (EDT)

   EDIT: I will say that simple namedrops (such as the one here) would be acceptable, but nothing beyond that. Aidan, the Irish Dragon Warrior 16:55, 19 March 2017 (EDT)

Neutral

1. Clarifying and rationally enforcing the rules would go a long way towards helping newer users (such as myself). I don't see an issue with PM mostly being mentioned within prose or as a section in tables, when outside of its specific articles and only where appropriate. However, I do think adding pages for PM specific stages would be helpful. Information on them is currently limited to an external link to an archive of the Project M website, ranging various levels of incompleteness. I think listing things like Turbo/All-Star/Debug/etc. mode under the project M page is fine, so long as disambiguation pages can be added for the people using the search bar to find them and there isn't a policy issue with the page becoming too large (it's already one of the largest). I would also say the moveset page subtopic in the linked discussion also warrants reconsideration at some point, based on some things having changed in the past 4 years (such as the development being finished). Pyr0pr0 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
2. Neutral leaning toward support. Honestly, it was always odd to me how much we've ignored Project M, even before I found out about that poll. I'm mostly neutral because I really honestly don't care either way (I've lost interest in PM ever since I picked up SSB4 practically full-time), but I do lean toward support somewhat because I really see no harm in expanding the PM coverage a bit, especially considering the fact that we technically should've been this whole time. Project M may be a mod, but we can't pretend like it doesn't matter on articles where it warrants a mention like we do with mods such as Brawl-. If anyone were to oppose, I'd hope they have a really, really good reason. We don't need another "no because I hate Project M and here's why you should too" flame war. Disaster Flare (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2017 (EDT)

Comments

What exceptions are made regarding pages/sections of purely the competitive scene (such as tournaments, rulesets, stage legality, smashers, etc.)? Only those currently allowed? Less/More? That's worth specifying in this discussion as well. Pyr0pr0 (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2017 (EDT)

The competitive scene coverage stays the same as it always has. We report on PM results and the like. Currently, PM-only stages are disallowed, and that is not what this proposal is for, so mentioning stage legality is limited to a list in the tournament article in question. Serpent King 21:37, 19 March 2017 (EDT)