SmashWiki

Forum:The Project M debate

Forum Discussion
Revision as of 22:35, November 12, 2013 by FireMario1534 (talk | contribs) (→‎STMS: No)

It has come to my attention that this Project M thing is getting pretty big: it already has recognition and equal standing to the three real games on SmashBoards and in tournaments. And now, multiple people are requesting that we do the same here.

At present, SW:NOT defines that we should keep away from fanon and fan games due to the impossibility of defining a notability criteria. However, Project M has a few properties that make it hard to fit into this generality:

  1. It defines its own notability criteria by being the only Brawl hack to reach widespread public recognition and tournament participation.
  2. It is only ambiguously a fan game, as it is a hack and not a bottom-up recreation. Highly notable hacks do have a place on-wiki.

The current policy on notable hacks (including Project M) is to contain all info about the hack on a single page and refrain from mentioning it on other pages. This debate is to determine whether we should change this policy, and in what way.

Process

This page has several sections. Read every section before you vote in any of them; some are mutually exclusive. The rules of voting are as follows:

  1. Place your vote in each applicable section. Make sure to sign your votes.
  2. You may include a reason with your vote, or you may not. If you do choose to include a reason, do not argue with what others have already said, as this is sure to be a controversial subject and arguing doesn't help anybody. Instead, put your entire opinion on the table. Express your reasoning as completely as possible, preferably without referring to anyone else's reasons, so that you will not need to elaborate in the future.
  3. If what you want to see has no option, vote in whatever's closest and state what you want to see as your reason. If enough others decide to side with this option it may be added for real.
  4. You may change your votes and/or reasons at any time, ensuring that it still conforms to the above.
  5. Votes that are unnecessary (a "no" in a subtopic where the user already voted "no" in the parent topic) will be deleted. Unsigned votes will be deleted, as will those with incorrect formatting. Reasons that break the given guidelines will be removed; the vote itself will remain. You can re-vote later if you do it properly.
  6. As with everything on the wiki, winning the vote does not guarantee winning the decision. Weight is given to arguments and voters' on-wiki experience. Recruiting new users from offsite to vote for your side will not help.

Topic: Allow Project M to have independent character pages

Note: A "Yes" decision here implies that relevant images, templates, and categories will also be allowed.

TCP: Yes

Place your vote here if you would like to see Character (PM) pages that go into just as much depth as those for the real games.

  1. Why not? It's not like it'll do any harm.FireMario1534 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2013 (EST)
  2. I would be okay with this. Scr7 (talk · contribs) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  3. While I'm uneasy about giving some of these characters pages (as Toomai said below, "like Melee but a little bit like Brawl too" isn't very good) some characters (such as the Melee-exclusive veterans, who have character renders) I think are deserving of a separate page, and the metagame is vastly different in Project M from any other game as well, which makes pages slightly more interesting. IIRC there's a separate tier list as well, and that fulfills another part of the article. I would be okay with this, but not particularly saddened if the proposition fails. Jigglypuff the Magic Dragon (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  4. Dots   The Goldeneye 15:56, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  5. James Heart 17:42, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  6. Of course the PM Brawl characters are essentially new characters. We don't need new articles for the Melee veterans except for maybe Roy, Mewtwo and other drastically changed veterans--BrianDon't try me!  18:33, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  7. Yep, definitely. Here's where I stand- the current Project M page sucks. There's no denying it. No one wants all the information on one huge, cluttery page; many characters have changes that cannot be expressed simply in bullet points. Pages for Project M characters will encourage users to write more coherently and add new information in a fluent way, rather than just having a list of some apparent changes from Melee or Brawl which can be unclear. Expanding the character sections will just add to the gigantic size of the page, so in order to have paragraph explanations we need to move characters to their own separate pages. --Timson622222 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  8. Oh most certainly. Project M not only has two new characters but many characters function so differently from their vBrawl counterparts that is would be silly not to. Characters like Snake and Wario are so different. The Project M community would benefit greatly from this. As nice as Smashboards is the info can be confusingly formated or downright wrong. While SSBWiki can't completely defend against from this it will at least be all in one place.--User:LockableFaceman (talk)
  9. SmashWiki is not official, and PM can have its own character articles and such if it has a significant community fanbase, which it does. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:00, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
  10. Absolutely fine by me, the Project M article does a poor job of what these articles could do. Toast  ltimatum 15:15, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  11. I'm sorta on the fence with this one, but this would probably be beneficial to the wiki. ChuckNorris  18:39, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  12. I agree with B33FC4K3 and Timson, they are technically new characters designed to be /close/ replicas of their Melee counterparts, and as such have differing technical data. Oasidu (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2013 (EDT)
  13. The new character design standard in Project M deserves its own set of pages. Sartron (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
  14. I think this wiki be pretty cool. Fireblaze77 FalcoHeadYellowSSBB.png
  15. Project M has become the extension of the Melee metagame which Brawl failed to live up to. While it may not be "official" per se, it is being developed in a professional and thoughtful manner. Its popularity and increasing acceptance as a standalone Smash title is enough for the SmashWiki to give it the attention it deserves.Garbagehead4 (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2013 (EDT)
  16. Agreed. Project M alters Brawl metagames and most characters' movesets to make it more balanced and competitive, hence its successfullness, and it's also the first Brawl hack to include newcomers. It also has many drastically-changed stages, with characteristics that need to be listed. SmashWiki is not official, anyway.  Crazymasterhand98 19:49, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
  17. While I Don't every character needs a page(Fox or falco, for example), Roy and Mewtwo definitely shouldNocturnal Dragon (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2013 (EDT)
  18. It should be included. It is the most polished and supported mod, and arguably has had more work put into it than actual vBrawl. Perhaps we wait for 4.0/gold/final first, since things are still changing? DJLO (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2013 (EDT)
  19. Yes it should be added, the characters in project M deserve it. They put a lot of work into them so they need a page. Jellybeanman (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2013 (EDT)
  20. Yes. If we want Project M to grow a serious competitive scene (we do), and we want to be an important resource for Smash competitive scenes (we do), we need to not treat Project M like a second-class citizen. Personman (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2013 (EST)
  21. With the scope of PM's influence growing, I think it is a necessity to delve in-depth into to the characters, just like with the official games. Ryxis (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2013 (EST)
  22. Yes. P:M has a large number of fans and has large tournaments wherever Melee or Brawl tournaments are happening (mainly Melee). SmashWiki will never be complete, but it is missing a large chunk of the community without P:M. - Menace13 (talk) at 22:06, 12 November 2013 (EST).

TCP: No

Place your vote here if you think Project M character info should remain on the hack's main page.

  1. Not needed. Miles (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  2. We don't really need to delve into something that isn't official. Conny  17:23, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  3. Per Conny, this is an unofficial mod of a game. The info currently on the page for Project M can also be easily edited. DarkFox01 is in the Arwing 20:15, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  4. The article is more than enough. --HavocReaper48 20:37, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  5. project M is a hack not an actual game in the series so id say no--Pichu+Pichu (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  6. I think the article is enough. Boo Buddy   13:56, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
  7. Not necessary at all-- egadardery (edits) 17:06, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
  8. As I usually do in day-to-day discussions, I feel like it's time for me to come and lay out an often ignored truth that needs more attention. Ask yourself this question: "How long will this wiki last?" In reality, only one thing is certain: longer than Project M. SSB4's release is approaching and, hopefully, the future SSB5 announcement will knock us off our feet once again. One sad day or another, Melee will fall out of popularity and it'll become one of the old classics stored in the back of you messy closet. It would be great to have all our past research documented for the younger generations poking around the new Virtual Console, although Project's M's name and pride will be forgotten forever. I'm confident, that with how strong we've held on until now, that we'll last at least 'till then. One day, you're going to wake up on the wrong side of bed, get onto the wiki, see the confused mess SW:NOT has become, and give up counting the number of spammers pleading for support of their fan-made Smash Brothers game. You're gonna ask yourself why you damn supported so much a strange craze you had as a young adult - a few years in your stupid life and that you could only enjoy if you ever won. As if that ever happened. --72.53.134.85 23:22, 8 November 2013 (EST)

Subtopic: Allow Project M to have moveset subpages

Note: If you voted "No" for individual character pages, do not vote here (your vote here is assumed "No").

STMS: Yes

Place your vote here if you would like to see the moveset subpage project extended to PM.

  1. Most characters don't need them yes. But a select few have drastically changed frame data (like Sonic) that deserves documentation.--BrianDon't try me!  09:40, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
  2. Again. Most certainly! I play P:M and Melee and P:M is very different from Melee and vBrawl. The only characters I can think of that are similar enough to warrent no mention are Fox and Falco. And even inthat respect they are different enough. The new metagame means their moves may be used differently and of course frame data is not precisely similar. I honestly believe having all the Project M info for characters all in one very easy to navigate place will help a quickly growing community grow only quicker. Very few characters lack a new move or three and many existing moves act VERY differently (see Diddy's side special for example). I think Project M deserves it. User:LockableFaceman
  3. I don't see what's wrong with having them, and the PM articles would not be complete without detailed movesets like this. As long as there are people willing to write them (not me though since I don't play it), I'm perfectly fine with it. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:00, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
  4. The two games are just dissimilar enough to warrant it, but it should be limited to extreme differences or Brawl character's new or altered moves (like the Pokémon Trainer's new down specials). Oasidu (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2013 (EDT)
  5. Well, one of the primary things I think the wiki needs. Characters like Toon Link, Wario, Sonic and the Pokémon have a considerable change on frame data, and so will the newcomers do. Just listing the changed moves is unsufficient, and instead characters should have moveset pages with more technical data and competitive expertise.  Crazymasterhand98 19:55, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
  6. Definitely, for the same reasons as above. Personman (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2013 (EST)
  7. As long as this sort of data is kept separate from official game data, there is no harm of it merely existing on the wiki. It does not detract from the current standard of quality, and it provides players with the kind of information that is available for the other games. As PMs competitive scene grows, this kind of data will be in high demand, and this is a fine place to host it. Someone will exist who will want to gather this information, and telling them that they can't place it here is nonsensical. If a clear barrier exists between the fan-made and the official, then there is no possible reason to not have this information stored here. Ryxis (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2013 (EST)
  8. I think the pages would not be complete without moveset subpages. However, I don't think they would need much more than a single page containing all of the moves; they don't need individual pages for each move, nor should they be included in the main-game move pages for the same special moves. Menace13 (talk) at 22:08, 12 November 2013 (EST).

STMS: No

Place your vote here if you think the effort required to extend the project is not worth it.

  1. Completely unnecessary. Only more work. FireMario1534 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2013 (EST)
  2. Should the individual character pages notion pass I do NOT want to have to deal with doubling the project workload for minimal gain. Toomai Glittershine   The Eggster 12:44, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  3. Absolutely no need to go /that/ far. Scr7 (talk · contribs) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  4. I'm in agreement with the above; it's not noteworthy enough as a distinct entity or worth it, either. Jigglypuff the Magic Dragon (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  5. Dots   The Goldeneye 15:56, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  6. James Heart 17:42, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  7. I don't think we need that, though. --Timson622222 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  8. We're having a hard enough time doing this for the first three games (with a fourth coming up), we don't need to burden ourselves with more, which are mostly carbon copies of Melee or Brawl attacks. Toast  ltimatum 14:27, 19 October 2013 (EDT)
  9. Ain't nobody got time for that. ChuckNorris  18:39, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  10. The time and energy required to write character movesets is not needed at this point, especially in Project M's ever changing stages of development. Sartron (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
  11. Okay, we don't need to go THIS far. Fireblaze77 FalcoHeadYellowSSBB.png

Topic: Allow Project M to have other independent pages

TOI: Yes

Place your vote here if you would like to see pages for other things that are PM-exclusive, such as stages and techniques.

  1. I partially support this, at least when it comes to PM-exclusive stages, as I tend to place equal emphasis on stages as I do characters. The non-exclusives could probably work as subsections or gallery images though. James Heart 17:42, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  2. Some entirely new things are in Project M like Dracula's castle and Turbo Mode. Some moves have been drastically changed and may need further documentation in the future for example Mewtwo's hovering.--BrianDon't try me!  09:46, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
  3. While I do say yes to this I obviously don't think we need to go crazy. Things like Turbo Mode, the Crew Battle system, the buffer system, stage striking system. These all should be noted in new pages. But any mechanic that is the same or similar to vBrawl or Melee could potentially be left un-mentioned or only given a small description in their relative pages. Things such as footstooling could be noted to have changed. User:LockableFaceman
  4. Stuff such as new stages, and even things such as Green Hill Zone (PM) may be reasonable, how are people aupposed to know about this stuff? aren't we striving to be complete? However, I don't feel glitches and stuff (if there are any) need articles as the game has a mostly competitive fanbase and feel. As long as we have people willing to write this, I'm fine with it. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:00, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
  5. To be honest, it could have independent pages for things like unique stages and Turbo Mode. Partial support. Scr7 (talk · contribs) 17:10, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
  6. They can have pages for PM exclusive stuff.Fireblaze77 FalcoHeadYellowSSBB.png
  7. Would seem weird to disallow this while allowing the earlier stuff. Personman (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2013 (EST)

TOI: No

Place your vote here if you think Project M stage and technique info should remain on the hack's main page.

  1. I do not believe relevant info is substantial enough to warrant this. Toomai Glittershine   The Eggster 12:44, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  2. Per Toomai. Scr7 (talk · contribs) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  3. It should remain on the hack's page. Miles (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  4. I do not think that Project M has enough relevant, separate info for each stage to warrant individual pages, and techniques would fall under 'Melee' or 'Brawl' for the most part. The only possible exceptions would be stages such as Dracula's Castle, as it is entirely unique to P:M, but even that's a stretch. Jigglypuff the Magic Dragon (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  5. Dots   The Goldeneye 15:56, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  6. Per above. Conny  17:23, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  7. All of the above took the words out of my mouth. Again, this is a mod, and P:m-exclusive stages are totally new and hacked into the game. DarkFox01 is in the Arwing 20:15, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  8. I want to, but I don't really see a point. Most of the stages are just competitive redos of previous models. --Timson622222 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  9. I would prefer the exclusive moves to just get sub-sections on the character articles. The stages aren't particularly necessary, though I'm not strongly opposed to making those. My overall stance is no. Toast  ltimatum 15:15, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  10. I think a list of Project M stages would be fine. ChuckNorris  18:39, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  11. It should remain on the page. --HavocReaper48 20:37, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  12. See all previous comments Oasidu (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2013 (EDT)
  13. No, not worth it. Boo Buddy   13:56, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
  14. Not necessary at all-- egadardery (edits) 17:08, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
  15. Project M exclusive features already fit well on its main page. Sartron (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
  16. Not neccesary, other things can be just listed on the main Project M page.  Crazymasterhand98 20:08, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
  17. Project M is not a real game in the series.--Pichu+Pichu (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2013 (EDT)
  18. I agree with Crazymasterhand98 — The stages can be mentioned on the main P:M page, as can any special techniques, or a list of techniques carried over from each game. Menace13 (talk) at 22:10, 12 November 2013 (EST).

Topic: Give Project M equal standing with the real games

Note: "Equal standing" does not mean "part of the Smash Bros. series". The series itself will always be only the official games; the phrase "the Smash Bros. series" does not and will not refer to PM.

TEQ: Yes

Place your vote here if you would like to see things like PM information in game-agnostic articles and PM links in infoboxes.

  1. ...

TEQ: Partially

Place your vote here if you are okay with PM information in potentially any article, but only as a subset of Melee or Brawl information.

  1. I can't say I have a problem in principle with PM info, but it really irks me to think of having "In Project M" sections on every page that don't have much to say other than "In PM, it works like Melee with a minor difference". I would much prefer seeing this under "In Melee" or "In Brawl" sections. Toomai Glittershine   The Eggster 12:44, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  2. Per Toomai. Scr7 (talk · contribs) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  3. As long as the information is easily accesible, I'm fine with any option. I do say I don't want to dig through a long and tedious P:M article that covers everything. However, if P:M info were possible to be in any article, it should only be reserved in cases of extreme changes or noteworthy, special things, e.g. Mewtwo's added float capabilities. Jigglypuff the Magic Dragon (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  4. Dots   The Goldeneye 15:56, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  5. James Heart 17:42, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  6. I guess maybe. It's becoming more popular in the competitive scene, and it also has lots of updates, but it's not an official game recognized by Nintendo. DarkFox01 is in the Arwing 20:15, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  7. Ehhh. --Timson622222 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  8. --BrianDon't try me!  09:47, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
  9. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:03, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
  10. Anything other than Yes. I suppose this option is fine. Toast  ltimatum 15:15, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  11. Toomai has the right idea, it would require moderation. Otherwise, I see no serious issues. Oasidu (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2013 (EDT)
  12. Most articles should remain "canon" in the official Smash universe, but citing Project M information could be useful. Sartron (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
  13.  Crazymasterhand98 20:11, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
  14. I think this would be fine, but it really weirds me out by thinking about people saying "In Project M..." instead of "In Melee..." or "In Brawl". Fireblaze77 FalcoHeadYellowSSBB.png
  15. Very yes. Personman (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2013 (EST)
  16. Project:M definitely doesn't need its own section in every article; however, information about it in the Melee or Brawl sections of pages, or the generic sections when applicable, would be nice. Menace13 (talk) at 22:16, 12 November 2013 (EST).

TEQ: No

Place your vote here if you think info about Project M should not be visible on any page that is not directly related to the hack.

  1. The only place it should be mentioned outside of its own article is on tournament result pages. Miles (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  2. Has no really stand outside of the hack community. Conny  17:23, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  3. No matter how popular it is, it's not an official game. ChuckNorris  18:39, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  4. We're the Smash Bros. Wiki, not the Smash Bros. & Mods/Fanworks Wiki. --HavocReaper48 20:37, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  5. PM is just a mod, not an actual game. Boo Buddy   13:56, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
  6. Not necessary at all-- egadardery (edits) 17:09, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

Subtopic: Usage of Project M article icon

STAI: Everywhere

Place your vote here if you would like to see the PM article icon on any article that mentions it.

  1. ...

STAI: Limited

Place your vote here if you think the PM article icon should only be on PM-exclusive pages.

  1. Only needs to be on PM-exclusive pages. Though, I would be okay with it being on pages of tournaments with PM. Scr7 (talk · contribs) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  2. Dots   The Goldeneye 15:56, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  3. James Heart 17:42, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  4. I'm out of comments. --Timson622222 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  5. On PM character pages and tournaments.--BrianDon't try me!  09:41, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
  6. On its own character articles, stages, and tournaments. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:00, 17 October 2013 (EDT)
  7. No real comment. Toast  ltimatum 15:15, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  8. This would be very helpful. ChuckNorris  18:39, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  9. A Project M icon could be useful for citation in tournaments and character pages. It would help avoid confusion between Brawl and PM. Sartron (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
  10. Yeah, they can have a PM sign on PM exclusive articles instead of Melee and Brawl signs on Project M stuff. Fireblaze77 FalcoHeadYellowSSBB.png
  11. Per Scr7. Otherwise, I don't think it should be used on external pages, since some people are not interested on these type of hacks at all, and because it makes PM look official.  Crazymasterhand98 20:19, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
  12. I think this makes the most sense - all the necessary PM content should be on PM-specific pages anyway. Personman (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2013 (EST)

STAI: None

Place your vote here if you think PM should not even get an article icon.

  1. Not needed. Miles (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  2. No, it shouldn't. Conny  17:23, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  3. Not an official game; it's pretty much Melee on a Brawl engine. DarkFox01 is in the Arwing 20:15, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
  4. Not necessary. --HavocReaper48 20:37, 18 October 2013 (EDT)
  5. Nope.avi Oasidu (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2013 (EDT)
  6. It does not need one. Boo Buddy   13:58, 20 October 2013 (EDT)
  7. Nothing beside the article should be created-- egadardery (edits) 17:09, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

Votes: Delete notable hacks such as Project M from the wiki

Finally, there will be those who do not believe that even the most notable of hacks deserve representation on a wiki whose mission statement is to document the Smash Bros. series as unbiasedly as possible. This section is for those people to post their votes. If you intend to vote here, do not place a vote for the other topics.

  1. ...

Preliminary verdict

As of this time it appears the community's opinions have become mostly clear:

  • Project M is too big to ignore, and with the widespread character changes and much-hyped additions, the project should get independent character pages if nothing else.
  • Moveset subpages are not currently of importance; the effort required to create and maintain them during active development is not worth the benefit.
  • There isn't currently enough notable changes aside from characters to warrant independent pages for other elements.
  • Important PM notes can be noted in non-PM-exclusive articles, but as a whole should remain cordoned off in the main article.
  • Using a PM article icon is acceptable for PM character pages and tournaments.

Should the discussion close now, this is what would happen:

  • Character (PM) pages would be created for all Brawl characters plus PM additions. They would be placed in Category:Characters (PM) and the like, and given the PM article icon.
  • Tournaments holding PM events would get the PM article icon.
  • Categories such as Screenshots (PM) would be created as necessary.
  • Pages can have minor PM-related notes added, such as putting something like "In PM, the detection angle is reverted to Melee's range, so spikes exist" in the Brawl section of the meteor smash article.
  • Policies such as SW:NOT would have exceptions added for PM.

If you have a serious problem with going forward with this as written, and you feel like you need to say something you haven't said above, speak now. Remember to only state your full opinion and not argue with others'. Remember that like all wiki policies, this can change in the future if enough support arises, but as of this time this is what would happen. Toomai Glittershine   Le Grand Fromage 12:26, 3 November 2013 (EST)

  • The only capacity in which character pages for Project M should go forward is as clear subpages to the Project M subpage itself. I repeat that it should not even be mentioned in the mainspace outside of articles specifically about hacking/mods and pages for tournaments that include Project M events. SmashWiki should keep its mainspace emphasis quite strictly on the actual official games of the series, regardless of Project M tournament play. Miles (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2013 (EST)

Point number two: As long as there are people willing to write the moveset subpage articles (which there will be), I don't see what's wrong with having them, and the information can be changed as the game is developed (which shouldn't be hard to do). Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:07, 3 November 2013 (EST)

Point #3 - I don't think we should always put P:M notes onto pages if it's not important. If it's something new that P:M adds, like input buffer control, there could be a mention of it on a related page that discusses how Brawl has the 10-frame buffer. However, for spikes, it's already assumed that P:M reverts it back so we don't necessarily need that information. --Timson622222 (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2013 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Forum:The_Project_M_debate&oldid=503245"