Help talk:Manual of Style/Modifications
Mod Grading by Digiku
Since you're writing up some, say, rules for mod admission on the wiki, I think it's worth reading what Digiku had wrote about it, may it help you in some way: User:Digiku/Mod_Grading --Ezer'Arch|עֶזֶר'AρχTalk 15:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I already know that page, but I'm afraidit doesn't really work out as well as those three criteria we decided upon, hence why it was never implemented. In any case, discussion on a case-by-case will probably help as a last resort. But just for fun, let's see what our current mods would get on that grading scale. --SpiritCrusherTalk • Contribs 16:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- No big-name mod.
- Popular MB topic. +4
- MB release. +2
- No custom levels, SOCs, unlockables, graphics, or bosses.
- EXE Mod, but no real "features", only fixes
Overall: 6 (not accepted)
- Probably not big-name, but the most popular level pack there is at the moment.
- Popular MB topic. +4
- MB release. +2
- Significant number of started levels. +4
- No SOCs, unlcokables, graphics, or custom bosses.
- No EXE.
Overall: 10 (accepted, even though it violates the quality rule)
Rule #4 of "Notability"
Quality: The modification must be of acceptable quality to be documented on the Wiki. Modifications that have a largely bad reputation or are notable for their lack of quality (e.g., Super Mystic Sonic) should not receive an article. Modifications with mixed reception (e.g., Tortured Planet) may have an article if the other criteria are met.
This probably ought to be revised.
An issue with having a "quality" metric: Mystic Realm doesn't match our current design standards, but it would be absurd to suggest removing it from the wiki, due to the amount of cultural and historic significance it has in the community. Meanwhile, Super Mystic Sonic has received dramatic updates while Mystic Realm has stayed largely the same from its original appearance and is no longer available on the MB; likewise, SMS also has cultural and historical significance. To say whether SMS is lower quality than Mystic Realm would be a *highly* subjective judgment at this point, and I think it raises a bit of a contradiction in how the wiki is currently structured in terms of which pages are up and which are not allowed to be up.
I do not know what the appropriate call to action would be here, but I think this would be an interesting point of discussion.
Yeah, SMS was most likely deleted from the wiki during Rob's 2.0 cleanup, according to Monster. I think because of the scale of these mods in terms of history, they should be added. --Radicalicious (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- The quality rule is ridiculous and feels like a remnant of the stuck-up days when Mystic was in charge. A better rule would be for a mod to be particularly popular (where SMS certainly qualifies) or significant to the game's history (like Mystic Realm, Botanic Serenity, SRB2Kart, what have you). I'm all for updating the rule. --Cookiefonster (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to the party, but I agree. The current guidelines are overly complicated and too restrictive. The main reason they were drawn up in the first place is because users kept adding articles about their own barely-started mods which never got off the ground. Clearly we still want to prevent that, but these guidelines are overkill and I think they have discouraged people from creating useful mod articles in the past. Here's what I think about each of the criteria:
- Scope: I no longer see a reason for having this as a criterion. The only case where I could see scope being an issue is if a mod doesn't have enough content to warrant more than one paragraph. But the documentability criterion already covers that. I also don't see a reason to limit it to level packs or source code modifications. Obviously, that rule predates Lua, which blew the doors wide open on what you can do without a source code mod. As for standalone levels, we already have an article on Dumbventure. And I don't see why we should exclude custom characters either, provided there is something informative to say about them.
- Documentability: I think this one still makes sense, although the wording is a bit convoluted and SRB2CS is a very outdated example.
- Popularity: This one is also fine. I agree with Cookiefonster that we should add something about historical significance as well. Like, obviously SRB2 Riders isn't popular now, but it was popular in its time and had a large influence on other mods.
- Quality: Yeah, this can go. It's pointless gatekeeping.
- I went ahead and drafted a rewrite at User:MascaraSnake/Modifications (edit: now incorporated into the article). Thoughts? Suggestions? --MascaraSnake (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)