Talk:Project M

Competitive
I feel like both the competitive scene for this game and the existence of Project+ are more than important. In general, I don't think this article is good quality, it is terrible at its intended purpose.  Inkybinky3  ( talk ) 01:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Character select screen image
Someone needs to replace the pic of the character select screen. It's based on an outdated, non-final build of the game that does not have all the characters, and uses a separate fan-made interface that replaces the character icons and portraits found in Project M, so it's not representative of the actual mod. This would be a suitable replacement, but it would be even better if someone would take a picture of the screen while selecting a character or costume not present in Brawl. I'd replace it myself but, being an IP, I can't. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have the game and YouTube videos tend to be of inferior quality. For now, I'll replace it with what you picked. Tezero (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that a select screen in general is unnecessary to be quite honest. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the whole point of the select screen being there was to illustrate the differences between Brawl and Project M, and since you can't really demonstrate that in a gameplay screenshot for the most part since the differences in balance wouldn't be easily discernible to the casual reader, Tezero thought this was a good solution. That said, if we were to to put in a different screenshot, it would probably have to be one of characters who were not in Brawl (Mewtwo, Roy) or characters wearing an alternate costume not in Brawl fighting on one of the mod's new stages. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do would be to find (or screencap) a multi-player match of Roy versus Mewtwo; since the game's intended to be played 1-on-1, it'd be advisable to show that kind of gameplay in the shot. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay
(From my talk page) Yep, I think gameplay should be expanded with the basics of how the game works, even if it's just to say that PM modifies X game. X game works like this blah blah blah, and PM tweaks the original's Y to be more like Z. If those sources aren't available, you could introduce PM, explain that it's based on Brawl/Melee, explain Brawl/Melee gameplay, and then add what's different about PM. It can be brief, perhaps not more than a few sentences, just to get the basics. It wouldn't be OR if as long as the source's relationship to the specific game is clear. The idea is that a reader who knows nothing about video games wouldn't be able to understand PM without a bit more guidance. Feel free to ping me here if you want a reply czar ♔   22:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

On the GAN nomination
I probably won't review this as I'm not as active as I once was. That being said I see a huge issue with this becoming a GA. It relies heavily on a primary source (25 of the 36 sources are from a primary). --Teancum (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That isn't necessarily a problem, considering it's being used for development details that likely wouldn't appear anywhere else but are nevertheless important to understanding the game's life to a reasonable level. Notability is well-established, and secondary sources are used where appropriate. Tezero (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the primary source criticism. I marked the article as relying too much on primary sources, which was reverted. Fair enough, it may not be problematic enough to warrant the PS template. However, I think the primary sources are used to over-describe game details. I think the abundance of primary sources suggest that much of this information could be significantly reduced, or even removed in favor of well-selected external links. Considering that Project M has notable secondary references, I think it would be better to describe its importance and notability (i.e. use secondary sources) rather than focusing on particularities of gameplay (i.e. summarizing information from the Project M website). It is not important, for instance, to note a bunch of specific gameplay changes as is currently done under the "Characters" section. In addition, the Project M website is used as a reference for factual claims about the subject's importance (number of downloads, etc.), which is exactly what primary sources should not be used for.Geethree (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I understand. This isn't an unreasonable concern, but two things: One, trimming away a lot of the volume won't substantially reduce the number of primary sources used; there'll simply be less from each one. As a result, someone down the line is just as likely to come to this talk page complaining of primary source overuse as you and Teancum already have. Two, I meant it when I said that there aren't really other sources that could be used for that kind of information - if there were, I'd gladly include them, but the only alternative is simply to not talk about the game's "sales". In essence, I'm picking the lesser of two evils. Tezero (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I definitely understand. I think a lot of issues would be solved by reducing the amount of game description. I think it suffices to describe Project M's goals in broad strokes, rather than particular character details. From the perspective of someone unfamiliar with Smash Bros., "peach's turnip" is a frankly meaningless concept—and a detailed description would be outside the scope of a wikipedia article. It is just as helpful (perhaps more) simply to say that Project M aims to re-balance the game to correct perceived flaws in Brawl, perhaps using one or two examples (which can be understood by a general audience) to illustrate the point. For some information, it may be possible to use alternative sources to describe the same basic idea. For instance, if you want to illustrate the mod's popularity, you can find secondary sources that describe its popularity at fighting game tournaments (as the current article does in one instance).
 * For facts that can only be sourced to Project M, I think it is better to err on the side of caution and minimize their use. If a fact can ONLY be sourced to Project M, I think editors need to ask themselves whether such information belongs in a high-quality article. Project M is, of course, the only source that could tell you how many downloads they've gotten—there's no escaping that—so I am not suggesting that primary sources be removed entirely. But I think they can be reduced, or corroborated through secondary sources (such as the Wired article currently used).
 * I say this all because I do think it's an interesting and notable mod and I'm eager to see how the page develops. IMO reducing jargon-y descriptions of gameplay, reducing the use of primary sources, and finding better secondary sources would go a long way to bringing the quality up. The work done so far has not been bad at all! I just think there's room to improve. Geethree (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, I completely forgot about this page. I've trimmed some of the details of Gameplay and may be back for more, but tell me if I leave out something vital. Tezero (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

On including Lyn, Knuckles, et al.
I've removed the following text from the "Characters" section for now, as I was unable to find any coverage of its contents in WP:VG reliable sources for the past month (Google search for December 1–31, 2015). Hopefully a RS will discuss the new characters that were being developed so the text can be restored in the future.

— zziccardi ( talk ) 02:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't you consider a full dev build leaked by one of the main developpers himself a reliable source? I mean, obviously no major network will take the risk of talking about it since that's gray-taped content on more gray-taped content. We're talking about a leak that shouldn't have happened on a game that should never have existed due to legal issues. --46.193.64.81 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding sooner—I missed your response initially. As for why the information couldn't be kept before, see WP:Verifiability. Anyway, I found a reliable source that mentioned all but Sami and restored the content. — zziccardi ( talk ) 16:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved to ...(Super Smash Bros. Brawl mod)
Project M is not a video game in and of itself: it is a mod of Super Smash Bros. Brawl so the page title is now more accurate. Kosmosi (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure this is the best choice either. Per WP:PRECISION, we try to keep the disambiguation bit as short as possible. If we’re assuming that your average reader understands what a “mod” is, then “Project M (mod)” would be sufficient because there are no other mods called “Project M” to differentiate from. If we assume your average reader doesn’t know what a “mod” is, then neither your proposal nor mine would work. Sergecross73   msg me  18:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would either go for Project M (mod) or Project M (video game mod). Since we already have a page called Mod (video gaming), I don't see much issue in naming it just Project M (mod) though. Arkhandar (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous naming of mods has given them the title "Mod title (video game)" as our expectation is that the general reader may not know enough to understand what a "mod" is. See WP:NCVG section "Games" item 3: For the purpose of naming, modifications (mods) are considered stand-alone video games. e.g., Counter-Strike, not Half-Life: Counter-Strike. When disambiguating, use (video game), not (mod). --Izno (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would personally pick either "(video game)" or "(video game mod)", as Project M is not an instance of "a Super Smash Bros. Brawl," and simply "(mod)" is indeed not clear. I would definitely argue that a mod is still a video game proper. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 19:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Could it be that the video game is the primary topic? Project M (mission) is hardly more notable than this game, it seems from the article's size. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 20:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would argue that the primary topic from Project M is the game/mod, rather than this NASA project. But failing that, why couldn't we just go with "Project M (video game)"? It being a mod doesn't change the fact that it's still a video game in the end. Anything else fails WP:CONCISE in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From the looks of it, the mod seems to be more notable. I also agree that it should be the main page. Otherwise, (mod) or (video game mod) would be ideal IMO. (video game) is somewhat misleading. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 01:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How? Disambiguation titles should only be used to disambiguate, any further explanation of the subject belongs on the article itself. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I’m not sure I follow either. Sure, mods aren’t an original work, but they’re still functionally a video game. A cover album doesnt cease to be an album of music just because it’s based on a prior work. Same here. Sergecross73   msg me  01:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted the move because everyone here seems to be against it in one way or another. I would be in favor of a requested move to Project M per primary topic. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a stretch, but Project M (video game software)? We could use "mod", but couldn't that mean a lot of things (you get mods on cars, or anything you can modify).  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A solution in search of a problem. A video game doesn't stop being a video game just because it was "modded" from another video game. There are zero reasonable objections to the current title. I reiterate that the discussion we SHOULD be having is Project M (video game) --> Project M. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I’d agree the game is the primary topic. The others are redirects or a short blurb about a small cancelled NASA project. Even the NASA article looks like it could be merged into the project that later succeeded it really. Sergecross73   msg me  12:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * +1 to make this the main topic. Kosmosi (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Nohomersryan (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

– Per the above discussion, it seems like this game is the primary topic. Out of all the Project Ms listed at the current dab page, only two of them even have their own articles, namely this one and a NASA project that didn't even come to pass. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Project M (video game) → Project M
 * Project M → Project M (disambiguation)
 * pinging members of the prior discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - per the prior discussion.  Sergecross73   msg me  21:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * support - seems like a pretty clear case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The other items should stay on the disambig, but the game trump's the rest in terms of scale/notoriety Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. ~ Dissident93 (talk</b>) 22:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose No indication this is primary topic here. I also don't think it's a huge onus on the user to make one extra click to the topic for which they're seeking. Doug Mehus T · C  01:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m curious to hear your rationale for what you think is the primary topic then. The only other one with an article is a short forgotten stub of an article... Sergecross73   msg me  03:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * |Project_M_(video_game) Page views indicates the video game is probably more interesting to our readers. (40-60x more views for the video game.) I agree with the other rationale besides. --Izno (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per all of the above. I love space missions, but this proposal seems to be a fairly minor topic in the history of spaceflight. Project M, meanwhile, is a very popular and pretty well-known video game, at least among video game enthusiasts. I don't believe the mission proposal is well-known among spaceflight enthusiasts. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Appears to be the clear primary topic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. My initial know-nothing-yet, knee-jerk reaction was that some mod isn't likely to be a primary topic when the alternative is a NASA thing. But looking at this more carefully, the supports above are clearly correct.  Maplestrip sums up my own viewpoint, word for word.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, as of 2020, the video game has sustainably clearly been the primary topic as of 2020. (You can check out the article view statistics |Project_M_(NASA) here.) ~ <b style="color: #8cc5ff;">Arkhandar</b> (<b style="color: #b3b3b3;">message me</b>)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

P+ and ProjectTE mentions/legacy
Should we add a legacy section or additional paragraphs, in a corresponding section, referring to PM's successor mods, ProjectTE and Project+, especially since ProjectTE used at more recent events, and P+ projects to become a effective sequel mod(yes, a mod of a mod) for PM, including characters that would have been added post 3.6? 2604:2D80:A205:F300:2801:FC55:17C9:D296 (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think a full section for Project+ is warranted, and it should include the continuing history of PM/P+ tournaments receiving C&D's from Nintendo. Gameplay-wise, P+ is extremely similar to PM, making significant changes to only some characters - most of the cast was lightly touched, so there's not much to discuss in that regard. It has caused a resurgence in popularity of PM though, and deserves its own section. Furthermore, P+ now has a robust history of being shut down by Nintendo, which is not discussed in detail in the existing article. This is a very important part of PM/P+'s history and identity and should be covered in detail on this page in my opinion. Nkfarwell (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, the content for Nintendo's relationship with PM should be its own section, alongside P+ which should also receive its own section. I believe Nintendo's relationship with PM is relevant to this page. If not, this information should be located on a different page. Nkfarwell (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)