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)
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 Super Smash Flash 2 content 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)

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)