Forum:N-Strike Elite Community Vote

I am proposing a community vote on whether or not we should allow information to be added on unconfirmed blasters. This has been a continuing argument between several users, and I would like to end this.

As of August 4th, Nerfmaster8 has decided to prevent the rest of the users on this wiki from adding information on several articles (the likes of which include the Jolt, Firestrike, Strongarm and other blasters), and has instead moved information to the forums. I would like to have a community vote on whether or not information should be allowed on articles even though Hasbro has not said anything about them yet, or if it should be moved to the forums.

It would mean a lot if you could cast your vote for what you think should be allowed. Every vote counts, so thank you for your time.

Keep information on the article (+4)

 * 1) As the starter of this discussion, I see no reason why information will have to be used in a forum.  Ga  ge  21:15, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Any pure speculation that has no actual picture evidence should be posted on the forums or in talk pages. None of the information in the other thread is speculation, really. It's all been proven really.  Jet  [ TalkContributions ] 21:24, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I dont see why we cant edit pages, they are stil pages like every thing else on this wiki. what's the point of removing info on a page? User:Morshu.com
 * 4) This blasters already exist. They had to make the blasters in order to take the picture of the guy on the side of the retaliator/rampage boxes, and for the strongarm someone already got one on eBay. User talk:THE MAGSTRIKE GUY

Move information to the forums (+5)

 * 1) i agree with jetcell, if Hasbro or the company that created the blaster has NOT in fact confirmed the blaster then information should not be added. This is to prevent speculation from being added to pages along with unconfirmed images from being added. This has happened before and needs to stop. The main reason why rumors are being moved to the forum is because it was a constant counter productive war with people with no actual accounts. By only allowing new rumors on forum topics, it prevents the addition of false information/speculation. This has happened for the rampage, retaliator, stockade and pyragon.

The firestrike maybe confirmed by the rampage and retaliator boxes, but no information has been since released by Hasbro inc. There is some sort of confusion on the bottom unit, whether its a light or a dart holder. the reference ffrom hasbro singapore has since been removed from the facebok page.the jolt has no information besides the unclear image from the boxes due to the fact that its in a pouch.

We are just assuming things without confirming it. it may look like a jolt but its just speculation.

as for the strongarm, i do in fact realize that its an upcoming blaster but no information is considered truly confirmed. the box may confirm the name and other important information but its still a rumor. a rumor is defined as either not being confirmed/officially announced by the company or based on speculation.

jet, you say that this information has been confirmed. In reality, its been technically confirmed based on images. except the strongarm is another story. also i started a thread on nerfnation, somebody else posted the ebay listing in response. afterwards three others posted the ebay listing and nerfnation removed those posts, this leads me to believe that they don't want us knowing about this.

Nerfmaster8 (talk) 23:04, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) All unconfirmed info should be put on the forums or a speculation tag should be added.~Buzzsaw
 * 2) I agree with Buzzsaw PsyclOwnd (talk) 20:47, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Like some others have said, I think we should have a speculation tag and maybe a leak tag for blasters or information about them that has reliable but not officially released info (the Strongarm box photos for instance).``bluedragons
 * 4) Ok. I'll be voting. I vote that users can add information only if the box has been confirmed and it says that information on the box.

I vote that information should be allowed to be added by users only if it is on the box of the blaster.`theCiscommander

Comments
firestrike: top (firing) and bottom trigger (light). a 2 dart holder under the light.
 * A response to Buzzsaw - Thanks for the vote. I'm just wondering about your reasoning why we should move all unconfirmed info to the forums, especially considering lots of information on this wiki - old or not - is not officially sourced by Hasbro. Anyways, thank you for your vote! Ga  ge  19:08, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Gage, please read my reply. buzzsaw agrees with what i said. you come and go, you never stay longer than a few days. you don't know the full extent of the problem. its like hasbro singapore, just because they release a picture still doesn't confirm the blaster-it only shows that its upcoming. confirmed means: an official announcement by the compay.Nerfmaster8 (talk) 19:48, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Gage asked for Buzzsaw's thoughts, not your own. Aside from that, Gage most likely has a life. The site is not his main priority in life, and really, that's how it should be for each editor on the site. This site should not come before someone's own problems and goals. Sure, you can put a lot of effort into the site, but if time time arises, get off the computer and go do something else with yourself. As for this picture thing, yes, a picture with the blaster is not the same as an official announcement or confirmation. However, what it does is prove that the blaster does exist, since it's in something from Hasbro. At this point, the blasters in those pictures are no longer rumors. Jet  [ Talk • Contributions ] 19:59, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * please check tactical tag for the compeition poster. it does show the following information.

strongarm: darts are lined up to the muzzle (spectre)

Rampage with shield

Nerfmaster8 (talk) 20:34, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * i posted the current news to start a discussion on whether or not to add it in. The image has now since been removed from Hasbro singapore-no reference. This provides the question of if Hasbro made a mistake in releasing information about next year's blaster way too early. a possible reason that the image was taken down was because they caught their mistake and took it down. they did that with the elite catelog and demo videos once the blogs were informed of the information. Hasbro put a log in system in place so that unauthorized people were unable to look at the information. You are only trying to continue the current policy of allowing rumors/unconfirmed released products pages being created. You saw what happened to the longshot the other day, but you don't really know what happens to the rumor pages on a day to day basis. Its a constant fix of confirmed information deleted, false information added, speculation added or information that was confirmed somewhere (not by hasbro) without a reference. its not everyday, but its common enough that this policy is needed.Nerfmaster8 (talk) 22:55, August 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only did we already see that, I actually uploaded a picture of the Firestrike's light yesterday, which is still on its page. Besides that, I have no idea why this is in the comments section. This should really be about deciding, not current news. Ga  ge  21:39, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * yep, Hasbro Singapore confirmed my suspicons by replacing the contest image with the 3 US elite blaster. Originally it had the rampage shield, firestrike and strongarm. anybody still think the information should be included?Nerfmaster8 (talk) 02:21, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think about 75% of us... Ga  ge  03:23, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

"As for this picture thing, yes, a picture with the blaster is not the same as an official announcement or confirmation. However, what it does is prove that the blaster does exist, since it's in something from Hasbro. At this point, the blasters in those pictures are no longer rumors", jet

We know that the blaster do now in fact exist and are not rumors anymore but considered leaks now. i never questioned whether or not it was in deed real or not. That doesn't mean that information should be added, its not recommended as the information will spread on nerfnation just like the elite blasters...that was one of the main reasons that hasbro went after pocket-they were notified. the box images are still leaks, someone sold it on ebay. it won't be until late march or april before the blasters are officially revealed next year and finalized information will be released...a rumor page now will have to be constantly watched for incorrect information however.

"i am a nerf fan from the US, i was just curious about the singapore elite challenge for nerf. There seems to be an image from the site that has since been removed, was that because information on the New maverick and firestrike was accidentally released and you don't want us to know about them until next year?", original message.

"Those will be launching later, yes. But the contest is up very soon", Hasbro Singapore

analyzing first response: it seems as if closer inspection of Hasbro Singapore's response shows that my prediction was in deed correct. Hasbro Singapore confirmed that the Strongarm does in fact exist, but did not confirm a name or any other information. The launching later would be referencing next year-most likely. the "yes" would be to "was that because information on the New maverick and firestrike was accidentally released".

Also the 90% of information (strongarm & firestrike) that could have been confirmed by Hasbro Singapore, can no longer be backed up due to the fact that the reference is now gone unless you would like to reference urban taggers (doesn't count as reliable). however, a leaked information template would work to solve the problem at hand to those that would rather keep the information on the page.

if you want to reduce the amount of bad edits (vandalism) by wiki contributers, we could allow only "registered users" to edit the wiki. if the amount of vandalism by wiki contributors decrease to almost none after a month, then ignore the basic protect suggested.

in addition, articles should be about actual confirmed products rather than leaked information that is unconfirmed. we know that these exist, but its not yet confirmed. adding leaked information is not a good idea due to the fact that a major detail change would occur in the final product which requires constant changes to the article page. a better solution would be to wait and see until the final details are confirmed then create a page as there will be less trouble with the article page.

if you are willing to compromise, the template idea could work out even though previous policy was no leaked or unconfirmed information in pages-this was BEFORE gamegear360's arrivial. i am willing to agree to adding a "leaked information" template to the firestrike and strongarm articles along with pure rumors being on the forum. the only problem with pure rumors is that we always get an image of some sort, which undermines the effort of this solution jet proposed.

since this argument started orginally between nerfmaster8 and GameGear360, its best for a neutral person to write the consensus-notabally jetcell. otherwise the losing side will most likely not agree to the consensus written by the winning side due to reasonable bias.
 * before a consensus is reached, it is best to review/analyze any last minute released information and see if things did in fact did change.

Nerfmaster8 (talk) 16:07, August 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * should also get everybody on chat to discuss things one last time.

"We know that the blaster do now in fact exist and are not rumors anymore but considered leaks now. That doesn't mean that information should be added, its not recommended as the information will spread on nerfnation just like the elite blasters.."

Those blasters are only considered leaks in your mind. Never before has a Nerfing community had to wait until everything is announced bit by bit, and never before has a Nerfing community had to put a hold on gathering information because Hasbro has not said anything about it. Your next point makes no sense. The information that is known throughout the community will not be all gathered on NerfNation just because WE added it. The only thing that will happen is that our articles will improve, and we wont have to deal with any "leaked blaster restrictions".

"if you want to reduce the amount of bad edits (vandalism) by wiki contributers, we could allow only "registered users" to edit the wiki. if the amount of vandalism by wiki contributors decrease to almost none after a month, then ignore the basic protect suggested."

No, per the reasons in my message. No wiki that I know have has done this and been successful. It may seem like a good idea, and I even proposed the same idea to Brickipedia when it had less editors way back in '09, but I've realized that the unregistered edits are what this community depends on. Yes, the may have grammar errors, or they may be vandalism, but then we fix it. Plenty of times, the unregistered user fixes errors on articles, instead of creating them. It's unfair to group them all into one group just because a few of them are idiots. You and I were once unregistered contributors, remember that.

"adding leaked information is not a good idea due to the fact that a major detail change would occur in the final product which requires constant changes to the article page. a better solution would be to wait and see until the final details are confirmed then create a page as there will be less trouble with the article page."

For the last time, this is mostly not leaked information. Leaked information is information that is supposed to be kept hidden until released, such as official ranges, stores it can be bought at, etc. Things like the background of the blaster or the appearance of the blaster are NOT leaked information and should not be categorized as it. As far as I can see, there is no trouble that has ever been made on any of the NSE articles. Maybe if someone did a review on it with very detailed questionable information, that could be trouble. But the things that have been added to the page? Not yet.

"if you are willing to compromise, the template idea could work out even though previous policy was no leaked or unconfirmed information in pages-this was BEFORE gamegear360's arrivial. i am willing to agree to adding a "leaked information" template to the firestrike and strongarm articles along with pure rumors being on the forum. the only problem with pure rumors is that we always get an image of some sort, which undermines the effort of this solution jet proposed."

Who even said we would do this? I really like it how I'm the bad guy here, I'm the reason why this wiki has "so much vandals", or "leaked information that could get us sued". Not to mention how I've been here longer than you. The only thing I've done here is helped it to be a better place. Everyone can agree on that. My goal here is to help this website and the community here by spreading my knowledge of the topic. I'll bet you are willing to agree, even though you're the only one really opposing this. The other people on your side have just said remove leaked information, and move it to a different page. As of 7:00 PM, August 12, 2012, I have yet to see any leaked information make its way onto the articles. Feel free to prove me wrong.

"since this argument started orginally between nerfmaster8 and GameGear360, its best for a neutral person to write the consensus-notabally jetcell. otherwise the losing side will most likely not agree to the consensus written by the winning side due to reasonable bias."

The consensus was 4-3, as of the deadline which I told you; August 11. I would say the same thing if your side won, it's fair and square. The community decided, and that's that. With that, all further comments should be moved to the talk page, as the consensus will be decided between the administrators of the wiki. Ga ge  23:00, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Consensus Reached
We'll have information for "unconfirmed" products, such as the Strongarm in the forum. It'll be set up like a real article, but will allow for discussion as to what may or may not be real. A page will be created for it, but will act as a redirect that will point to the forum topic. The page will also be locked to prevent people from disregarding the forum topic. This way, it'll appear as though there is an article for it, but it will in actuality be a forum post.