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! File:StarFoxSymbol.png 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)