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)

Oppose

1. Oppose. PM mentions should remain restricted to its own page(s) and competitive pages (Smasher pages, tournament results), with namedrops outside those pages limited to referencing it as an example of hacking (see instances like gameplay modification and file replacement). Anything more is tantamount to giving it equivalent status with main games, which is against what was decided. Among other reasons, a major issue is that there is very little way to definitively pin down an amount of "acceptable reference" between none and equivalency; things like "it can't receive a whole section header" do little to dissuade the possibility of excessive reference to it on any given mainspace article in ways that would definitely exceed whatever partial mentions the policy was intended to permit. It's a setup that's bound to fall into messy implementation and arguments over semantics even if the concept was considered desirable (which in my opinion, it is not). PM coverage on this wiki is still significant and its competitive play isn't being ignored; rather, it's simply not being given an equivalent status with the actual games. Miles (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

   Anything more is tantamount to giving it equivalent status with main games, which is against what was decided.

   I suggest you go back and read the discussion. It is not indeed what was decided.

   It's a setup that's bound to fall into messy implementation and arguments over semantics even if the concept was considered desirable (which in my opinion, it is not).

   I gave you ample time to take my offer and work together in defining what would be acceptable and what wouldn't. You did not, so please do not complain about how I did it. Serpent King 21:04, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

2. I feel it's interesting to point out that, while the original decision those years ago was to allow stuff like "Wavedashing was reimplemented in Project M" into regular articles, it basically never happened, and eventually people pretty much forgot about it to the point where everyone assumed it wasn't allowed. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure no one was actively misinterpreting the decision at the time; it just ended up abandoned.) And to be honest, I think that's what's best for the wiki. It's all well and good to have rules about how much is acceptable, but it'll inevitably become fuzzy as successive editors tweak a single sentence until it splits in two and eventually turns into a whole paragraph, and then the discussion will begin as to exactly how much of what's there is too much. The current standard is pretty black-and-white and in my mind leaves no doubt that the mod is a second-class topic (as it should be). Toomai Glittershine The Boss 21:19, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

   Alright then after this either way, it should be explicitly defined allowed or disallowed in policy: right now we have nothing whatsoever saying that this is not allowed, and it's being enforced as such. Serpent King 23:17, 20 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)
3. So I found myself in that poll four years ago to be semi-agreeable to having some Project M mentioning and coverage in articles. While I don't really like PM, at the same time I really have little to no knowledge about it either, so I have no say about what PM mentioning to have and what not to have and can't really complain about it. However, on one side, PM is argued to be not official despite its high popularity in 2013-2014 and for four years we kept PM coverage low and treat it as a side thing if people ever came across it on this wiki. On the other side, it can be argued that the wiki itself is not official which is true. If we're suppose to be such wiki about Smash Bros., we kinda need to step up our game for mentioning things outside the official boundaries (not saying we should cover other fan games and mods such as Super Smash Flash 2 as well). I will still uphold my original decision for that poll section. We need more PM coverage definitely, but not on a big scale compared to the official games. MHStarCraft 10:51, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
4. Support except for one thing. I feel that we shouldn't allow Project M mentions in tables. Otherwise, Project M would basically be on near-equal standing with other games in table-heavy pages such as Character or Item. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 13:27, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
5. Neutral with big reservations. I'm pretty conflicted. This comes down to a somewhat subjective interpretation of what Smashwiki is about.

There are two bits that should help determine this decision.

• Smashwiki was "...created to compile a complete, thorough, and dynamic repository of information relating to the Super Smash Bros. franchise"

and

• "SmashWiki is designed to include content relating to a number of issues including the games themselves, characters, stages, strategies and techniques, competitive play, the vibrant community that has developed around the game, and much more."

This should be a good guide to determine what to do here.

The first bit I quoted specifically uses the word "franchise." What constitutes being in the Smash Bros. franchise? The four official games? A mod of an official game? From that sentence, I'm not really sure if Project M qualifies, but other people could easily disagree. Whatever it is we're supposed to cover, it should be "complete, thorough, and dynamic." If Project M is deemed to be within the Smash Bros. franchise, then it should by definition be allowed to go wherever people want it to.

The second bit is also important. "The games themselves" is an important phrase, and what constitutes a Smash game is something worth considering. Is Project M "its own Smash game" or is it just a mod of a game?

"...competitive play, the vibrant community that has developed around the game, and much more." is the most important part of the stuff I quote. "Competitive play" seems like a good enough reason to add Project M results to tournament pages. The "vibrant community that has developed around the game, and much more" part seems to imply that anything related to Smash deserves a mention, provided it's notable. But what does that mean?

Personally, I think we are overstating Project M's importance if we put it into tables, like Nyargle mentioned. It highly depends on what "in the middle of prose" is defined as. If, for example, on Wario Bike we say, "This move was replaced by Wario's signature Shoulder Bash in Project M" - then I don't think we should allow Project M name drops.

Before getting mad, if the wiki/community collectively decides that "since we're covering Smash, we should be covering everything!" and gives Project M equal status, then this of course would not apply. What I'm afraid of is the day we start covering Super Smash Flash. John HUAH! 17:56, 20 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)

It seems like a weird distinction to cover specifically tournament results/players. but not the rules or anything else. I couldn't find the reasoning behind that anywhere in past discussions. This proposal exempts certain points about whether PM can have a page/section/box based on if the page is about competitive play, but I don't understand how that is defined. Why are some pages/sections about the competitive PM scene considered equal and others not? The proposal takes the distinction as something defined, that people already know. If the proposal is supposed to "explicitly define what mentions would be allowed, and what wouldn't", I'd say that's not accomplished if this isn't addressed. Pyr0pr0 (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

I am not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say. "Why are some pages/sections about the competitive PM scene considered equal and others not?" Could you provide an example here, or clarify what you mean? PM should not be considered on equal ground with the official games in any context, except for tournament results. Serpent King 18:13, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

Pages about tournament results, smashers, PMRank etc. Why are they considered acceptable pages covering the competitive scene and identical to their main series counterparts, whereas there is no PM section in Stage legality or a corresponding page similar to Tournament Legal. Why are tournaments, smashers, rankings, etc. not considered as giving PM "equal ground" or are deemed exceptions to the general rule? The distinction seems really arbitrary, so I assumed there would be some record of it somewhere. Was there a question over this that I couldn't find, where this was decided with guidelines that clear up the distinction. The only method I can find to understand what qualifies is assumption based on what is and isn't already there. As this proposal demonstrates, what is/isn't there doesn't necessarily reflect the actual rules/guidelines decided upon. Pyr0pr0 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

Stage legality and Tournament legal fall in the scope of competitive articles, so PM content is allowed there already. If PM isn't there, it should be. An article for each PM specific stage (or shared stages with the official games having PM sections) would not fall in this scope, so it is disallowed. Serpent King 19:04, 20 March 2017 (EDT)