SmashWiki talk:SmashWiki is not official

I see this as a very necessary and very well-written policy statement. I would like to see it become one of the wiki's official policies. {My name is Miles, and I approve this message.} 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe what I had in mind before writing this is better off not being said. CAFINATOR ^Indeed 22:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

hmm

If this wiki isn't official... then is there a smash-bros related wiki that is official?Lucas-IV- Paper Tosser 09:39, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

No.--Wolf rulez! Star Fox 09:43, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

For a wiki to be considered "official", it would have to be run by and/or owned by the company that owns the content. One case I know of is the Team Fortress Wiki, which was originally independent before being bought by Valve (TF's company) and is now the official wiki of the series. Nintendo does not own any wikis that I know of, so there are no official wikis for any Nintendo stuff. Toomai Glittershine Le Grand Fromage 10:48, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

Rewrite

I request permission to re-write some parts of this policy. It does not seem to be very coherant, and some parts are confusing. For example, the quote "If the community were to eventually prove that Brawl is a broken game (to use a hypothetical example), and all Brawl play cease in favour of Melee competitions, then that content is what the wiki would cover, whether Nintendo endorses it or not. " is not very relavent. It implies that if some sort of proof existed, we would no longer cover Brawl info at all, when that is not the case. Simply stating that Melee competitions play a large role in the Smash Bros. community should be enough to state why we cover Melee competitive scene, as well as Brawl's. There are some other parts that seem irrelevant to what the article is trying to say, such as "However, to someone not versed in martial arts, the word "ukemi" is meaningless.". Mr. Anontalk 22:56, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree that the part about Brawl being a broken game should be reworded or remove. However, I see no problem with the Ukemi/Tech part. Omega Tyrant 23:09, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

The problem with saying "Ukemi is meaningless to many" is that in that specific example, it has nothing to do with why the article isn't called "Ukemi". In fact, the page even goes on to say "The word tech is also meaningless, but tech is used more often". If that is the case, the page should just say "we call the page 'tech' because 'tech' is used more often". Mr. Anontalk 23:46, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Transplanted comments

NOTE: This section's comments have been moved from their original location, "User talk:Miles of SmashWiki/SW:OFFICIAL rewrite".

Comments welcomed. If there are no major objections, I would like to implement this in place of the current policy in the near future. Miles (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2015 (EDT)

SmashWiki is in no way directly related to, affiliated with, or controlled by Nintendo or Nintendo of America, or any game developer whose content is discussed therein (these parties will be collectively referred to as "Nintendo" for the remainder of this document), except through legal injunction (of which there have been none) or through showing a copyright violation that transcends fair use. SmashWiki is a branch of NIWA and as such, is held accountable only to the standards and practices set by NIWA, as well as any additional standards and practices agreed upon by the users.

How about that? More official. ...pun not intended.Serpent King (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2015 (EDT)

"The only way in which Nintendo could directly control the content of this wiki..." It's that that's throwing me off. Serpent King (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2015 (EDT)

Eh, that's a carryover from the old one and I don't think it's a particular problem phrasing-wise. Miles (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2015 (EDT)

Lol really? I didn't even reference it. Serpent King (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2015 (EDT)

I mean this is mostly an updated and edited version of the existing SW:OFFICIAL. I left parts I didn't think needed reworking as they were. Miles (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2015 (EDT)

I think this rewrite will be useful. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 16:49, 3 August 2015 (EDT)

Okay so paragraphs 1 and 2 seem okay and are kind of necessary updates to the current policy. I don't really know about the rest though; it just looks like moving cheese to me right now, with not much if any improvement. I'll give it another re-read later. Toomai Glittershine The Dispenser 22:51, 2 August 2015 (EDT)

Maybe the rules for PM should be laid out here. Serpent King (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2015 (EDT)

That's not a bad idea... but admittedly I am worried about putting a bit too much of my own opinion on the subject into the policy. As I said in the forum debate a while back, I continue to oppose covering it at all outside of the Project M page itself and tourney/smasher pages. Given the massive downturn in PM's prominence, I am all too tempted to try to push us back to that setup. Miles (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2015 (EDT)

Bump. Barring any major opposition I really want to get this in place. Miles (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2015 (EDT)

The only nitpick I have is the following phrase:

“

Prima Games guides or other fansites

”

Since Prima Games isn't a fansite, could we remove the word "other"? Nyargleblargle (Talk) 13:16, 5 August 2015 (EDT)

I guess the phrasing of that was ambiguous; the intended meaning was "other fansites besides SmashWiki", since we are also a fansite. Miles (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2015 (EDT)

What about move names that are official in other games

Specifically Kirby's Vulcan Jab among others? Is this allowed? Serpent King (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Or Link's "Jump Attack" (SSB4 only)? Serpent King (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Has to come from a Smash source. Miles (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Prioritizing Official Names

After the debate surrounding the official names of the Heros, what is preventing us from using the official names to eradicate any chance of debate? Also the Poltergust article has been the subject of debate as well and I think revisions to this policy can prevent that. I feel like this policy has become less of a real policy to follow and more of a cheap bullet point when arguing why the name you want should be the name of the article. I can't imagine I'm the only one that thinks that we aren't prioritizing official names, but I'm open to persuasion. Up to date and official names should always be the name of the article, unless, as stated in the article, another name is almost always used in place of the official names, such as tech. But making the claim that we should use Poltergust because "no one calls it Poltergust G-00", or that we should keep Beast Ganon because "Ganon, the Demon King is too long", and then referring to this policy is just not a strong argument. KungFuLakitu, Spiny Overlord 15:05, July 30, 2019 (EDT)