SmashWiki talk:What SmashWiki is not: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

SmashWiki talk:What SmashWiki is not (edit)

Revision as of 23:24, May 25, 2022

23,916 bytes added , 2 years ago

→‎Parody games

CanvasK

32,720

edits

@@ Line 210: / Line 210: @@
 == Amendment of censorship rule ==
+{{Proposal|passed}}
 There's been a flurry of activity on the Discord server that suggests an appetite for making the following change:
 <pre>
@@ Line 239: / Line 239: @@
 :Two different scenarios. The controversy sections are actively condemning the Smasher's actions. On the other hand, if we leave "rapetent" on the wiki it's as if we're supporting the use of this phrase. [[User:Cookies and Creme|<span style="font-family: Georgia;color: black;">Cookies</span>]][[File:CnC Signature.png|20px]][[User talk:Cookies and Creme|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: black;">Creme</span>]] 19:43, March 9, 2021 (EST)
 ::There is absolutely a difference between documenting notable people in the ''Smash'' community who were accused and confessed to sexual assault as a neutral, objective point of fact, and forcing in a mention of an offensive nickname that maybe a handful of people have ever said aloud. You're really playing bad faith here, Cardinal. ~ [[User:StrawberryChan|<span style="color: #e68;">'''StrawberryChan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:StrawberryChan|talk]]) 19:53, March 9, 2021 (EST)
-::''The second sentence of your policy states "Because SmashWiki tries to be a complete encyclopedia," and your proposal of removing offensive terms for things just because they're offensive goes directly against this goal of completion.''
+::"''The second sentence of your policy states "Because SmashWiki tries to be a complete encyclopedia," and your proposal of removing offensive terms for things just because they're offensive goes directly against this goal of completion.''"
 :You're not making sense, it's just ''one'' nickname with no signifficant usage. No serious player would use "Rapetent" in favor of "Greenhouse combo" in a serious discussion, the only time I would see the former used is in just a casual, and perhaps joke discussion.
-::''I also think that it's incredibly inconsistent to support censoring offensive terminology while SmashWiki has countless articles on people who were credibly accused of sexual assault and sexual misconduct.''
+::"''I also think that it's incredibly inconsistent to support censoring offensive terminology while SmashWiki has countless articles on people who were credibly accused of sexual assault and sexual misconduct.''"
 :Now that's just silly. These misconduct articles are documenting the smashers' actions, which had a signifficant impact on the smash community as a whole. "Rapetent" on the other hand is just a dumb nickname given to the Greenhouse combo, which the former term is rarely used anymore. [[File:Toad.png|20px]] '''[[User:Omega Toad|<font color="deepskyblue">Omegα Toαd,</font>]] [[User talk:Omega Toad|<font color="blue">the Toαd Wαrrior.</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Omega Toad|<font color="#7B5BEE">(BUP)</font>]]''' 19:59, March 9, 2021 (EST)
 :That's nothing but a 'grasping at straws' argument on your part. As Toad has said, there is no valid comparison between the misconduct articles and the "rapetent" nickname. One made a very significant impact on the entire Smash community, while the other is just a dumb nickname that same community is trying to forget about. I'm pretty sure I don't need to tell you which is which. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|🦊'''Furry Nation'''🐺]]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 22:40, March 9, 2021 (EST)
+::Being a dumb nicknames doesn't change the fact that it was at one point the most commonly used word to refer to the place on Hyrule Castle. And trying to forget about something is not a valid reason to delete an article. There are plenty of people who would like to forget that the sexual misconduct allegations of last summer ever happened. And there are plenty of sexual assault survivors who would want people to remember the Smash community's history of using offensive and sexist language. If you truly wish for SmashWiki to support the victims of sexual assault you should be at least willing to note an offensive and formerly widespread name in an article, so that readers can be more informed about the Smash's community's history of sexism, instead of sweeping the issue under the rug like it doesn't exist at all. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 01:44, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+::::"''Being a dumb nicknames doesn't change the fact that it was at one point the most commonly used word to refer to the place on Hyrule Castle''"
+:::You're missing the point. The "once notable, always notable" mindset refers to major instances which made a signifficant impact in smash history (smashers, Project M, etc.). "Rapetent" is just a nickname, what harm is there in deleting it? It's something really minor that hardly anyone knows about, and all serious players would greatly prefer "Greenhouse combo" when referring to the technique professionally.
+::::"''And there are plenty of sexual assault survivors who would want people to remember the Smash community's history of using offensive and sexist language.''"
+:::I don't get this at all. Do you seriously believe survivors of sexual assault would tell people "Hey! The greenhouse combo was sometimes called rapetent!"?
+::::"''If you truly wish for SmashWiki to support the victims of sexual assault you should be at least willing to note an offensive and formerly widespread name in an article, so that readers can be more informed about the Smash's community's history of sexism, instead of sweeping the issue under the rug like it doesn't exist at all''"
+:::This is just complete nonsense. How is mentioning "rapetent" on the Hyrule Castle article supposed to support those who have been in victim of sexual assault? It's just a stupid nickname, it has nothing to do with wave of misconduct which made a signifficant impact in the smash community. [[File:Toad.png|20px]] '''[[User:Omega Toad|<font color="deepskyblue">Omegα Toαd,</font>]] [[User talk:Omega Toad|<font color="blue">the Toαd Wαrrior.</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Omega Toad|<font color="#7B5BEE">(BUP)</font>]]''' 02:17, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+'''Support''', as other people have stated. Again, a case-by-case basis is the best approach, but this'll be a good idea for weeding out bad actors and, as a last resort, at least feeling more neutral and encyclopedic than having offensive terms directly promoted in article titles. I'm reminded of the "Team:MAGA KNIGHTS" page, a totally non-notable group which shouldn't have been documented to begin with, which sparked a discussion about the wiki's censorship rules; we should be harder on hate speech, as the community itself is cracking down on these situations, too. ~ [[User:StrawberryChan|<span style="color: #e68;">'''StrawberryChan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:StrawberryChan|talk]]) 19:53, March 9, 2021 (EST)
+'''Support.''' [[User:Miles of SmashWiki|<font color="dodgerblue"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''Miles''']] <font color="silver">([[User talk:Miles of SmashWiki|<font color="silver">talk]])</font></font></span></font> 23:34, March 9, 2021 (EST)
+It would be entirely counterproductive to make a hard set of rules, because that will lead to more trouble than it's worth. I '''support''' this revision to the policy. [[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''the Rurouni'''</span>]] 00:18, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+I don't understand why maintaining SmashWiki's reputation is suddenly so important. I can't recall any incident where using an offensive word caused damaged to our reputation, and there's plenty of other content that we get much more flak from, for example, [https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Smasher:Coney&diff=461899&oldid=449115 listing people's personal information on smasher articles], or [https://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/28yc4u/clearing_up_and_possibly_changing_my_smash_wiki/ top players complaining about the controversy sections on their articles]. For the record, SmashWiki's reputation comes from things like people saying "SmashWiki is unreliable," etc., not someone using the word "Rapetent" in an article. And why should an encyclopedic website be concerned that someone would react negatively to something said in an article? We should be concerning ourselves with the way the facts are presented, not the content of the facts themselves. We are a free to view website, not a corporation, and we should stop treating offensive language like a PR disaster waiting to happen, because this clearly hasn't been the case. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 01:44, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+:I'm failing to see the relation with the various controversy sections and not using an antiquated barely-used term the 64 community is making an effort to stay away from within the text of a mainspace article, and I don't see how Coney removing his last name as an IP without any sort of conflict about it and people making a fuss about some dubious claims in M2K's controversy section all the way back in 2014 are relevant examples to your point either. I also wouldn't look at this as a case of "preserving SmashWiki's reputation", rather than "not using blatantly inappropriate and outdated terms within mainspace text when more popular alternatives are available". Why are you being so difficult about this? I'm still contemplating if to throw my support behind this proposal or not, but mentioning "Rapetent" within the Hyrule Castle article hardly seems like a hill worth dying on, and even ignoring the offensive connotations, I wouldn't see it as a term worth mentioning nowadays. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 02:07, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+::Part of your argument is that a term like "rapetent" has become heavily outdated and therefore shouldn't on a SmashWiki article. So is the idea here that we should remove it because it's offensive, or remove it because it's not notable enough? If it's due to notability, then this would be an entirely separate issue (though I would argue that historically used terms and documenting the evolution of a phrase counts as notably encyclopedic material). But what if we have a term that's both offensive and highly popular like "sex kick," or what if we were having this conversation ten years ago when "rapetent" was much more widely used? Is the threshold for notability going to be much higher for vulgar content, and is SmashWiki going to be okay with replacing otherwise adequate encyclopedic content just because it's offensive?
+::I still don't understand the reason behind removing offensive content, even as simple as removing one word from a sentence, other than as an attempt to preserve the wiki's reputation. I think this policy would go dangerously into letting users' personal opinions on subjects affect the way that content is displayed, which isn't right for a website trying to be as encyclopedic as possible. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 03:41, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+:::If after all the explanation that’s been offered to you, you still don’t understand, then it’s best you just walk away from this issue. Nobody here agrees with you, and I’m sure you could find better hills to die on than this. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|🦊'''Furry Nation'''🐺]]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 04:48, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+::::Wow, so you're just not going to answer any of the questions I offered and just tell me to stop arguing over this? What's the point of having talk pages if people like you are going to be insistent on shutting down any nuanced conversation? FYI there are other people in this thread who aren't fully supporting the policy either, it's possible to be critical of the Smash community's usage of "rapetent" while also being against increased levels of censorship and word policing. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 17:35, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+:::::I'd hardly say that any argument you've made in this discussion is "nuanced", but if you want answers to specific questions:
+::::::"''So is the idea here that we should remove it because it's offensive, or remove it because it's not notable enough?''"
+:::::It's partly both, because even if it didn't get gradually phased out due to people saying, "hey, y'know, this term is kinda gross," need I remind you what happened in July of last year?
+::::::"''But what if we have a term that's both offensive and highly popular like "sex kick,"''"
+:::::"Sex kick" absolutely doesn't have the same level of offensiveness as "rapetent", so I'm not sure how you're even making that comparison (one's an innuendo and one's directly equating something to a harsh sexual act).
+::::::"''or what if we were having this conversation ten years ago when "rapetent" was much more widely used?''"
+:::::If we assume that this discussion was had ten years ago, with the rest of the timeline remaining the same (i.e., the events of July 2020 still happen in July of 2020 rather than 2010), then yes, it'd probably be a different story, but that was then, and this is now.
+::::::"''Is the threshold for notability going to be much higher for vulgar content, and is SmashWiki going to be okay with replacing otherwise adequate encyclopedic content just because it's offensive?''"
+:::::The point is that this term has been phased out by the community and is extremely vulgar—the two are not mutually exclusive. I'd hope that the community would continue this line of thinking with other offensive terms or terms relating to offensive people so that we don't ''have'' to have a separate threshold for notability relating to vulgar content, but in the grand scheme of things, no, that threshold wouldn't change. However, I fail to see how truly offensive content (as in, quite literally using the word "rape" as opposed to retaining the name of the person behind the ESRB leak, [[ESRB leak|which we already do]]) can be even remotely qualified as "encyclopedic".
+::::::"''I still don't understand the reason behind removing offensive content, even as simple as removing one word from a sentence, other than as an attempt to preserve the wiki's reputation.''"
+:::::If you think this is about "preserving the wiki's reputation" and not us making an attempt to keep with the times that the rest of the community is with, you should honestly go and do some self-reflecting and maybe work on keeping with the times yourself. [[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''the Rurouni'''</span>]] 18:47, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+::::::"''What's the point of having talk pages if people like you are going to be insistent on shutting down any nuanced conversation?''"
+:::::Yep, keep ripping 'em out, mate. I'll tell you that there's no 'nuance' in attempting to repeatedly go over the same tired arguments when every single one of them has already been rebutted, and when literally everyone else is opposing you. Come up with something new, and/or someone who agrees with you (preferably both), and maybe then we'll take you more seriously. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|🦊'''Furry Nation'''🐺]]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 19:38, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+:::I fail to believe that any good faith user is in support of keeping such terms up. It is incredibly insensitive to keep it and even the 64 community recognizes this. "Rape" should only be used in contexts where no alternatives would be correct or accurate to use, such as in controversy sections. "Sex kick" on the other hand is completely harmless. [[User:SenorMexicano|<span style="color:#850FFA; text-shadow: 0px 0px 3px green">'''Señor'''</span> <span style="color:#850FFA;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px green">'''Mexicano'''</span>]] ''[[User talk:SenorMexicano|<span style="color:lightpurple;text-shadow:0px 0px 2px lightgreen">(talk)</span>]]'' 10:21, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+::::I really don't think accusations of bad faith are going to help here. Remember [[SW:AGF]]. ''[[User:Alex the weeb|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Alex the weeb|<span style="color: red;">'''Weeb'''</span>]]'' 10:27, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+:::Yes, the denomination was commonplace in the past, but nowadays people stray from it, and for good reason. Removing explicit mentions of the name "rapetent" seems more tantamount to us removing "category: female smashers" for being a useless and frankly offensive way of separating players. This isn't an issue of notability, nor is it removing information, but an unnecessary effort to preserve the community's mistakes and let those mistakes constantly stare at them in the face. What ''would'' be questionable to police for instance is removing all mentions of ZeRo being the best SSB4 player for most of the game's life just because of what he did, or pretending the crew "DBR" wasn't once called "Death By Rape". And even in the hypothetical extreme that the playertag of the GOAT is something like "I hate N-word's", I doubt a player with that name is going to get very far without at least one person objecting to it or a reasonable minded TO refusing to register them.<br>Now that being said, in regards to "rapetent" specifically, OT mentioned that preserving the redirect should be harmless, as those who would put it into the search bar probably wouldn't be offended by it (although we might have to add a notice to the page in case anyone sees that it redirects and tries to add it back). I'm still not fully sure I support this proposal to the letter, but there is a point at which it becomes less about notability and more about random factoids that just editorialize and offend readers. - [[User:EndGenuity|EndGenuity]] ([[User talk:EndGenuity|talk]]) 11:26, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+:::"''I think this policy would go dangerously into letting users' personal opinions on subjects affect the way that content is displayed, which isn't right for a website trying to be as encyclopedic as possible.''"
+:::I understand the concern here, I empathize with this sentiment and I don't like that people have been assuming bad faith on your part for being contrarian here (especially from the other admins). Generally however, slippery slope arguments are fallacious; the administration should be trusted to distinguish between extreme cases that this rewrite is for and when someone lodging a trivial complaint is just being overly sensitive, and not acknowledging "rapetent" in mainspace text does not set a precedent for things like wiping from the the wiki any mention of "sex kick" or whitewashing what DBR used to stand for. We also have to deal with the reality that we are ultimately a wiki for an E10 video game series; while trying to police swearing in talk page discussions is dumb when young kids shouldn't ever be editing in the first place, and community-based articles will naturally cover more heavy-handed subjects when an older audience is involved, there's really no reason to have blatantly derogatory terms be in mainspace articles covering basic game stuff, like using "rapetent" to refer to a stage feature in a stage article. Plus, while I never liked the general argument of "this makes me uncomfortable so we shouldn't have this", I think there's certainly a point to not forcing editors to have to write down tags like the one used by the Zero Suit Samus player that placed 17th at {{Trn|Limit Break}}, especially so when crazies could try using that as a reason to slander the editor outside the wiki. Even though I am very anti-censorship, I certainly wouldn't want edits of mine writing that player's tag down instead of a cleaner alternative that couldn't possibly be held against me in the future. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 01:30, March 11, 2021 (EST)
+'''Support''' per reasons provided by everyone else. [[User:Superbound|Superbound]] ([[User talk:Superbound|talk]]) 07:00, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+'''Support''' I firmly believe that there is a line. There is such a thing as good censorship. It's not in our best interest to have articles titled with or even mention such serious topics like rape in a completely non-serious context (e.g. "rapetent"). Such things are a product of their time and I don't look down on anyone for having used the term before, but things change. <span style="font-family:Algerian;font-size:10pt;background:#000;border:outset #083 2px;padding:1px 3px">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083">Serpent</span>]]&nbsp;[[File:SKSig.png|12px|link=]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0">King</span>]]'''</span> 07:16, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+:As a general question, do you believe that SmashWiki was correct or incorrect to use the word "rapetent" in the article for the past eight years when it was more popular? '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 17:35, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+::It was a different time then, both for the community and the internet in general, so my opinion one way or the other is irrelevant. <span style="font-family:Algerian;font-size:10pt;background:#000;border:outset #083 2px;padding:1px 3px">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083">Serpent</span>]]&nbsp;[[File:SKSig.png|12px|link=]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0">King</span>]]'''</span> 17:56, March 10, 2021 (EST)
+'''Reluctant Support''' I've been neutral about this proposal for awhile, but I agree with a lot of what Omega Tyrant said above (@ 01:30, March 11). I am anti-censorship myself too and acknowledge words in of themselves don't have intrinsic meaning; however, I also recognize the slippery slope argument is indeed fallacious and hope that this policy doesn't snowball in the future to other forms of scricter censorship. While I agree in principle with what ac2k is saying about censorship, I guess I don't agree in practice (along with what OT said again).
+However, I would also like to add though that I don't think who gets to decide what's "too offensive" should be determined by admins alone, but should be based on a community consensus on a case-by-case basis; if we as a community decide we don't want to include certain language, then I don't see a problem with us not documenting it (as opposed to the musings of a single admin or even multiple admins alone without the rest of the community giving their thoughts). '''[[User:Voqéo|<span style="background:#000; color:white; padding:2px 6px;font-size:12px;">Voqéo</span>]][[User talk:Voqéo|<span style="background:#e70012; color:white; padding:2px 4px;font-size:12px;">T</span>]]''' 08:25, March 11, 2021 (EST)
+'''Support''' per above. [[User:Awesomelink234|<span style="font-size:10pt;background:#00FF20;border:outset #083 2px;padding:1px 3px;color:#050DF7">Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer</span>]] ([[User talk:Awesomelink234|talk]]) 10:27, March 11, 2021 (EST)
+'''Slight support''': As per my responses to Ac2k, this is where I lean as it's the more practical stance, but this is under the assumption that this is as far as the policy revision will go, as I will probably oppose any stricter revisionism to the policy. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 01:00, March 12, 2021 (EST)
+Alright, I'm going to put up '''mild support''' per what Voqéo and Omega Tyrant have said. I abhor censorship and would rather not have to deal with word policing, but given that, aside from cardinal, everyone here with reservations acknowledges that sometimes the line has to be drawn (including myself), it's clear the case for moving away from overly offensive vocabulary and denominations is there. But this is a ruling we have to use ''very'' sparingly so it doesn't snowball into removing actually vital information on the Wiki. There's no need for a hard ruling: the acknowledgement is more than enough. - [[User:EndGenuity|EndGenuity]] ([[User talk:EndGenuity|talk]]) 12:50, March 12, 2021 (EST)
+Okay, I am going to change my opinion to '''slight support''', assuming that the terms stated on this page are as far as things will go. I still don't fully trust the administration to properly decide what counts as too offensive or not, especially since two admins used their "executive authority" to enforce censorship, when, as demonstrated by this talk page, the issue was not a clear open and shut case at all, in addition to how the entire administration except for OT banded together to oppose me when I spoke out about it. I agree with the above posts that administrators alone should not be able to determine what counts as acceptable language. The consensus seems to be that the rapetent case is small enough for us to ignore, and I won't fight against that. However, there is a non-zero chance that an offensive enough term will surface and become too big to ignore, and we need to be careful about applying this policy in those circumstances. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 22:12, March 12, 2021 (EST)
+:"''in addition to how the entire administration except for OT banded together to oppose me when I spoke out about it.''"
+:It seems you are misinterpreting the opposition towards you—it was more directed towards your refusal to condemn usage of the term "rapetent", rather than any mindset you had on censorship. Quite frankly, I don't think any admin is necessarily "pro-censorship", and I don't think any admin actually commented on you being anti-censorship (besides OT, who was not in opposition). Let the record show that I too am anti-censorship, while still understanding that there are things that flat out shouldn't be said.
+:"''I agree with the above posts that administrators alone should not be able to determine what counts as acceptable language.''"
+:From the start, this was never the idea, so I'm not sure where you got that? SmashWiki has never been "the admins alone make these decisions", even though [[SW:ADMIN#...but administrators are still administrators|we, albeit rarely, still might have such cases]], but this isn't ''[[wikipedia:Ninteen Eighty-Four|1984]]''.
+:[[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''the Rurouni'''</span>]] 14:56, March 13, 2021 (EST)
+== Parody games ==
-'''Support''', as other people have stated. Again, a case-by-case basis is the best approach, but this'll be a good idea for weeding out bad actors and, as a last resort, at least feeling more neutral and encyclopedic than having offensive terms directly promoted in article titles. I'm reminded of the "Team:MAGA KNIGHTS" page, a totally non-notable group which shouldn't have been documented to begin with, which sparked a discussion about the wiki's censorship rules; we should be harder on hate speech, as the community itself is cracking down on these situations, too. ~ [[User:StrawberryChan|<span style="color: #e68;">'''StrawberryChan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:StrawberryChan|talk]]) 19:53, March 9, 2021 (EST)
+Are games like Nick All Stars Brawl and WB’s Multiversus allowed to have their own official pages or are they not official enough? [[Special:Contributions/174.55.24.64|174.55.24.64]] 23:19, May 25, 2022 (EDT)
+:No. They aren't official at all because they aren't made by Nintendo, they are made by other companies. We cover ''Smash'' and that's it. --[[User:CanvasK|CanvasK]] ([[User talk:CanvasK|talk]]) 23:24, May 25, 2022 (EDT)