Forum:Project M mentions: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Project M mentions (edit)

Revision as of 16:05, April 24, 2017

8,653 bytes added , 7 years ago

m

no edit summary

Amber Blackstar

Rollbackers

20,573

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Forumheader|Proposals}}<!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->
-{{proposal}}
+{{proposal|failed}}
 So here's the deal. 4 years ago, [[Forum:The Project M debate|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: [[Forum:The Project M debate#Topic: Give Project M equal standing with the real games|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.''"
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 #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). [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] 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. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #0b7">Serpent</span>]] [[File:SKSig.png|16px|link=]] [[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #fd0">King</span>]]'''</span> 23:17, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
+#: When I asked about that specific example elsewhere I was told it was not allowed. SW has a reputation from somewhere that those edits get removed so I doubt it was just abandoned. You can actually find examples just by going through the page history of such a thing happening. Project M was mentioned in it from 2013 until the user Miles started removing it repeatedly in 2015. There was no slippery slope growth like some claim and it wasn't just abandoned. The record doesn't support either of those opposing arguments in over 3 years. [[User:Pyr0pr0|Pyr0pr0]] ([[User talk:Pyr0pr0|talk]]) 03:48, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
+#::I'm curious: what information do we lack about PM that could be added if we were to allow stuff like "Wavedashing was reimplemented in Project M" in regular articles? The character articles (should) have all the character changes and details, while the PM article (should) has everything else (and I wouldn't be opposed to adding a page for "List of stages in Project M"). [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Researcher 12:59, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
+#:::I agree that a stage page wouldn't be a problem. In fact, it might be a good idea, since it would cut down on the over-sized ''Project M'' page we have now. <b>[[User:john3637881|<span style="color: black;">John</span>]]</b> [[File:John3637881 Signature.png|20px]] <b>[[User talk:John3637881|<span style="color: red;">HUAH!</span>]]</b> 13:58, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
+#:::The simplest and most common example you'd find (partly because it happened to me in the past) is someone who is playing project M hears about a tech they're unfamiliar with. The immediate intuitive thing for them to do is to put the unfamiliar term in the search bar and click on its page. It isn't intuitive to figure out they need to visit the project M page and read through the giant list of changes looking for if the thing they heard about is even there. You can't really expect users to understand the wikis rules for where it's allowed to be mentioned automatically or seek it out in the wikis discussion pages. Wavedash might be too simple of an example that most people know, but Melee players are often unfamiliar with brawl tech like RAR, B-Reverse+Wavebounce, glide tossing etc. and Brawl/S4 players are unfamiliar with Boost Grabs, Ledge Dashing, various Ledgestalls, etc. Some techs are subtly different from their counterparts in the original games, in either implementation, application, or interaction with other techs. These differences would hardly require their own section, but it also means that not every PM mention on a tech page would only be a "It is also in project M." sentence. An example would look something like [https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Air_dodge&type=revision&diff=944732&oldid=923597 this] for a tech where only interaction changes because it was re-implemented exactly. Complementary/additional informantion (like "Aerial glide tossing's height gain gives diminishing returns on successive use without touching the stage.") would be an example on the glide toss page. Non-tech examples of pages/mentions include the competitive ones I asked about in the comments section below, [[Stage legality]] and [[Tournament legal]], which would help a new or unfamiliar Tournament Organizer who is looking into running PM. It would be far easier than trying to find a list of tournaments and compare/contrast their various rulesets (if they are described at all) to piece together what a standard one might look like. Serpent King mentioned that pages on purely the competitive scene are allowed to be presented equally (like tournaments and smashers) but this has been enforced haphazardly. As mentioned, a separate page or a subpage for stages would help clean up the Project M main page. It is already one of the longest, not very easy to parse, and lacking useful information that would make both of those issues worse if just added in the same way. I'm already in the process of cleaning up and better describing the special modes added. I also think a separate page to reoganize how changelogs are presented would also be beneficial. It would be easier to just create a mock-up and show it than to describe it here though. In general I think it would be beneficial if these non-competitive pages were subpages of the main project M page, in same way moveset pages are subpages of the characters. That way the main article is less cluttered but can still link to the info, the useful information is well presented and has a well preserved place, the information is easily searchable because it's a top result after typing something like Project M stages, and yet its clearly distinct as not being equal to the main games by its status as a subpage of the mod. I realize that this proposal is more about mentions alongside the main games than the mod's pages, but all the better if both are addressed. Sorry if this response was too long for how these policy discussions are supposed to be.
 ==Neutral==
@@ Line 55: / Line 59: @@
 ::::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. [[User:Pyr0pr0|Pyr0pr0]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #0b7">Serpent</span>]] [[File:SKSig.png|16px|link=]] [[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #fd0">King</span>]]'''</span> 19:04, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
+::::::I mean you can say that but there's record of it being removed recently. What exactly is stopping it from being removed again? [[User:Pyr0pr0|Pyr0pr0]] ([[User talk:Pyr0pr0|talk]]) 04:31, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
 Can someone explain to me what's wrong with the name drops? What's the problem with saying that the Wario Bike was replaced with Shoulder Bash? What's the problem with saying that Wavedash is something that was added back in? The usual argument i hear is "slippery slope", in two particular directions:
 # ''These mentions are only the start; we would have to name drop it in way too many articles.'': False, Project M simply didn't change that much about Brawl. Not only that, but also a lot of what it did was restoring things that were already in Melee, or adding references to official games, so it's not like we'd be adding completely new things.
@@ Line 67: / Line 72: @@
 ::''I get that PM is not official... but why should it be a "second-class topic"?''
 :That's exactly it: Nintendo were the ones who ended the thing, so they obviously don't want to acknowledge it. Why should a wiki that covers official stuff cover a mod outside of where it needs mentioning? [[File:AidanzapunkSig1.png|20px]][[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: green;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: green;">'''the Irish Dragon Warrior'''</span>]][[File:AidanzapunkSig2.png|20px]] 22:40, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
+Ok so I have to admit that this is not at all what I was expecting to come out of this. I was not expecting the total lack of support here, and while I am fine with it, I would kind of like to know why...a reason other than "the circumstances of PM's mention are badly defined" or "it will be very difficult to undo". Also I am going to point out that there seems to be a total separation of interests between the smash community and the editors of SmashWiki as to what should be covered and what shouldn't, especially regarding PM. It really feels like neither community is willing to give an inch, and so I feel like the only logical solution is to find some sort of middle ground solution, and allowing the mention of PM it was previously voted doesn't seem to be that big a step back for SmashWiki editors. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #0b7">Serpent</span>]] [[File:SKSig.png|16px|link=]] [[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #fd0">King</span>]]'''</span> 01:31, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
+:Most of the people that care about PM fall into two groups:
+:#Not SmashWiki editors; they have their own stores of information on other websites and don't really need ours. I don't think it makes much sense to try and do anything about this, because it's not reasonable for us to add enough information to compete in this area.
+:#Want to use sites such as SmashWiki to promote and expand PM. That's not what we're for.
+:Let's not forget that PM is on shaky legal grounds (enough so for its development to abrubtly cease). I'm not an expert on the subject, but it may be best to leave our mentions of it a bit dormant. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] Da Bomb 06:59, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
+::I think you're ignoring the cause and effect a bit here. PM sources developed outside of smashwiki because smashwiki did not accept the information. Those sources are currently in forum threads or google documents, comparitively much worse for proper archiving and present-ability. The sources are much more prone to being lost in those locations and it would benefit the community to have it on SW. I've personally used SW any time I needed to look up a character's changelog because it was presented clearly and was all in one place over multiple versions. Other sources developed and were popularized out of necessity not because they would be better. And the fact that this information is available now is a benefit to the ease of creating better archived pages. PM's perceived (not ever tested or realized) legal status is based entirely on its distribution. The only ones with anything to even potentially worry about are people sharing the files. It is irrelevant in all other contexts. [[User:Pyr0pr0|Pyr0pr0]] ([[User talk:Pyr0pr0|talk]]) 03:30, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
+Going to give this a big ol' bump. I'll probably end this after AFD if nothing too major happens. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #0b7">Serpent</span>]] [[File:SKSig.png|16px|link=]] [[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #fd0">King</span>]]'''</span> 23:31, 30 March 2017 (EDT)