Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

New editors not using archives

In my opinion, whenever there are new editors here who revive dead topics, they are told "we already discussed this in the archives" or "that is answered in the FAQ" but I don't think either one is working. In my opinion, we should do away with all those archives, and revise/clarify the FAQ.

Discussions of old aren't really helping, especially now that the Dojo provides new information every weekday. The only purpose of those archives is to sit there idly, looking huge and intimidating. No one wants to dig through 20 massive archives to find what has or hasn't been established. That's why the FAQ is better because it is organized, easy to navigate, and it answers the most common questions. But, it could still use some work. Basically I'm asking, do you believe we should get rid of the archives and expand the FAQ in its stead? -- POWERSLAVE 02:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While I admit that extending the FAQ to answer common questions from the talk page archives is a very sensible idea, I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia custom/current consensus says that archiving talk pages is preferred, and to never delete them except in special cases. My vote, therefore, is updating the FAQ while leaving the archives intact. Arrowned 02:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would recommend shortening the number or archives by merging them. While we have them archived by page, we COULD have them archived like...June 2007 - September 2007. That would make it at least a LITTLE easier. Dengarde ► Complaints 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arrowned and Dengarde, sounds like the best option to me. R-RockMan.EXE 04:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's how it's usually done. bibliomaniac15 04:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I converted the archive box into a handy-dandy collapsible box and categorized the archives by month. bibliomaniac15 22:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ganondorf

He's coming back and should be mentioned. He may not be playable but he is in the game. There's the interview, his voice actor listed here: [1], and down-right speculation, (dare I use that word on Wikipedia?). He should be mentioned Claycrow 17:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Untill he's confirmed, theres no reason to mention him. Besides, can't anyone edit that site? Dengarde ► Complaints 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm amused that you used "down-right speculation" as part of your reasoning for why we should add Ganon =) It's great that you want to add to the article, but as Dengarde said, and as many others will soon say, we can't add him until he's confirmed. -- POWERSLAVE 20:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

IMDB 'is' user submitted info, and is considered very unreliable for upcoming titles. DurinsBane87 17:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should only add info coming from:

-Brawl's official site.

-Nintendo's staff.

-Sega, in the case of Sonic joining to Brawl. R-RockMan.EXE 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And even if Ganondorf's VA was mentioned by an official site, we have no reason to believe that Ganondorf is going to be his role; for all we know, he might be voicing the Ancient Minister or something. Beyond that, there's a possibility that Ganondorf might appear as an assist trophy or TSE boss rather than a playable character. No matter how one looks at it, there really is no reason to assume he is returning as a playable character until he is officially confirmed on an official site. You Can't See Me! 22:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it WAS confirmed by Nintendo's staff. I know there's a slight possibity (If Nintendo are retards) he may not be playable, but he IS in the game! Claycrow 12:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And can you provide a reliable source to back up your claims? 'Cause without that, that's all they are -- claims. Coreycubed 13:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the last paragraph: [2] There's your relibable source. Claycrow 14:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable... Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 14:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say that Ganondorf is in Brawl. It says that "my designers did work on the designs for Sheik and Link and Ganondorf" and "We're working very closely with the team of Smash Bros. Brawl to make sure the characters look their best". Never once did anyone actually say which characters would appear. We know Link and Zelda are in Brawl, but that's just because of the Dojo. Even if this is reliable, it doesn't mean Sheik and Ganondorf will be in Brawl. The world's hungriest paperweight 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between submitting a design and putting a character in. As I said previously, he could very well be an assist trophy or boss, or even just appear in flashbacks in TSE to emphasize Link's character development. You Can't See Me! 21:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"You can't see me", you don't make sence. Even if he is those things, he is in the game through that way. BTW, Paperweight why would he have a design if they didn't even plan on using the character (in some way) in Brawl, that makes no sence. Claycrow 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The design was submitted by Eiji Aonuma and/or his co-workers, who work on the Legend of Zelda games. However, that's about all they did: create the artwork. They aren't the ones working on Brawl, so the decision of who is and isn't in Brawl isn't up to them. Or at least that's how I understand it. The world's hungriest paperweight 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether or not Ganondorf is in the game. The question is whether or not he's playable. Until he is shown as a playable character, there's nothing to mention about him. Remember when Peach was first shown in TSE?Satoryu 22:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Then shouldn't we say somewhere along of: "Gannondorf will be returning, but his status as playable is unconfirmed"? I beilive it IS inportant to let others know he will be appearing. Claycrow 00:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because even that much is unconfirmed. All we know is that the TP department submitted updated designs for Sheik and Ganondorf. We don't know what Sakurai has done with said designs, or even if he'll end up using them at all. Arrowned 00:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Then shouldn't we say somewhere along of: "Gannondorf will be returning, but his status as playable is unconfirmed"? I beilive it IS inportant to let others know he will be appearing. Claycrow 00:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really; the section is entitled "Playable Characters". Can't you wait for two months to say "He is in the game" or "He is not in the game" instead of placing some awkward, placeholder phrase? You Can't See Me! 00:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We don't even know that he'll be appearing. That guy who sent the designs could have done it just for fun for all we know. Untill we can actually confirm that Ganondorf will be appearing, theres no need to mention him. Heck, even if he is, theres still no need to do it. Dengarde ► Complaints 00:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine.Claycrow 01:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

With co-op confirmed....

As anyone who reads the Dojo updates would know, the most recent update included information previously unknown about the Subspace Emissary, in particular that it has co-op. I was wondering, should we change the "single player" section's name to something more appropriate, like Story/Adventure Mode, or include co-op in the title somehow? Oh, not to mention that the section itself needs updating, too. ;) 72.225.211.5 08:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me the way it is. Coreycubed 13:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Since technically it isn't a single player mode, I don't think it should be labeled as such too. Probably Story Mode or something, but not Single Player. InsaneZeroG 14:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Who called it Story Mode? No, we're not going to make up names for modes that already have names. It is called Adventure Mode, and the article reflects this. If you object to the single-player moniker, it is primarily a single-player mode. Remember how Sonic the Hedgehog 2 worked? The mode was still single-player, but playable by two. At any rate, unless they make an emphasis on the co-op mode being drastically different, we should leave it be. It's fine. Coreycubed 15:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason why Adventure mode should branch off into a whole section dedicated cop-op. Like stated in my edit this isn't noteable enough to have it's own section, and if anything it should be included with small wording of it. But as it stands, I think it's fine. --MrBubbles 18:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing problems w/ Tips & Tricks

Can someone with access to the relevant Tips & Tricks magazine from around August 2006 please confirm the bit about Sonic being mentioned by Miyamoto? This is a case of mind-boggling bad sourcing. We were formerly citing a GameSpot union post (made by a GS user, not a staff member), which in turned referenced nintendorevolution.ca, which in turn referenced qj.net, which has a low-res screenshot and claims that they picked up the story from the Nintendo NSider forums. If the NSider forums weren't down, I wouldn't be surprised to find the chain continuing through a half dozen more sources :) --- RockMFR 23:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note - the article currently cites this IGN article which cites a translation posted on a message board which is translating the now defunct Sakurai fan mail page. It would be preferable, in my opinion, to cite the fan mail page directly rather than citing IGN, who has shown no evidence of doing their own fact-checking on this matter. I don't have time to deal with this now, but I will this weekend. My point is that editors here really need to watch out for sources which themselves are just echoing a story from another location. It is preferable to hunt down the original publishing of a story, rather than this "he said she said he said some forums said that a magazine said" sort of stuff. --- RockMFR 22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

TSE image

Our current image for the section on The Subspace Emissary is zoomed a bit too far out. Could somebody with the necessary software crop and re-upload the image so that it focuses more closely on the two characters and the primid? You Can't See Me! 05:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. Dengarde ► Complaints 05:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Done That looks a little better at least. Dengarde ► Complaints 05:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

if that's the same picture i'm seeing then i have to say, my god the quality on that picture is damn poor! That kind of picture should not be on wikipedia, please change it to one where you can actually see who's there witohut reading the caption. sorry if it's just my pc loading the pic wrong.....and that button to place your signiture isn't working. ~TailsClock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.184.233 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

the picture is fixed now.--TailsClock 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You must have a REALLY big screen, because now the quality is even worse. Dengarde ► Complaints 16:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I chose that particular image because it actually shows the status and whatnot (even that of an enemy), which is really important to demonstrate the gameplay of that particular mode. Almost every other image lacks the stats (we haven't even seen the Pokémon Trainer's, which is said to have stamina for his Pokémon). — NES Boy 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Somebody needs to fix this image because on my computer, Mario, Pit's, and the Primid's damage meters are cut off. (Zojo 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

That's what it's supposed to look like. -Sukecchi 20:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, what it's supposed to look like is how it looks on the site. With the butchered image that's put up, it doesn't come across as actual gameplay. You need Mario and Pit's damage meters and the Primid's meter to look authentic. (Zojo 18:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes, thats how it's supposed to be. The full image is FAR too zoomed out to be used. Besides, it doesn't need the full image to be authentic. Dengarde ► Complaints 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay image

I have replaced this image with this one because the original was a bit outdated (Mario, Pikachu, and Wario's series icons had been changed a bit since it was originally added to the Dojo). — NES Boy 17:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I made the text smaller and I stand by your motion.--MrBubbles 17:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell the differences, can you point them out please?
Blindman shady 21:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The icons for Mario and Wario are different from the first screenshot to the second because this is an up to date screenshot of the game.--MrBubbles 00:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Every character

Should'nt it be meitioned how many characters are in the game in the character section?Green Kirby 04:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mabey when we get a final number, but not yet.→041744 04:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. I just wish you would make one sentence about Kirby.Green Kirby 04:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not include every character in this artcle, we have a table for that.→041744 11:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand, I just wish he would be put on there. You mean well.Green Kirby 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't need to be there because there's no reason for it. Why put the character list in this article when there is a perfectly good character list that spans the entire series in the main series article? Currently, the character section in the Brawl article is good enough by highlighting significant new additions to the roster. --4.242.21.38 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Look I know what you mean ok? But you can't change my opinion.Green Kirby 22:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Other Users: Spencer was stating his opinion, not asking for that line to be on the article.
• Spencer: Be careful with your choice of words. Also, this is not a forum, so you really shouldn't be posting your opinions if they have nothing to do with changing the article. You Can't See Me! 23:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see whats wrong with my choice of words, but ok.Green Kirby 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe UC'tCM is referring to your use of the word 'make'. It sounds like you are asking someone to make it, instead of expressing your desire for it. — Jaxad0127 01:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this disscussion is "over" but I didn't feel the need to start a whole new topic: Ike doesn't deserve to be mentioned, or at least not more than Bowser, Lucas, Kirby, or Pokemon Trainer. I'm going to replace him unless I get enough objections. Claycrow 13:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ike's name was only mentioned twice in the article. Once in the picture he's in and once in the "Playable Characters" and he was only used as an example of one of the new characters in the game. So in the end, it'd be pointless and stupid to remove him. Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 13:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

None of them really deserve any more mention than the other. They're examples. Leave them as is. DurinsBane87 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As much as I want Kirby meitioned in the article, we should just leave it as it is.Green Kirby 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sinse I'm a member of the site, I can edit it now. Do you want me to add anything, or just not bother.Green Kirby 19:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Green Kirby quit with the Melo Dramatics. This isnt the only article on Wikipedia, there are over 2,000,000. Anyways this isn't the place for this discussion. Atomic Religione 19:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the perfect place for this disscussion! I'm tired of giving you advice that might help you, but you're not listening! Just beacause I'm 12, dose'nt mean I'm an idiot! I already had one person tell me that I don't know anything.Green Kirby 20:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it bluntly, No it isnt this belongs on your talk page, all of the advice you have givin us was about adding some sentence about Kirby, most of us really dont care that your twelve, i'm only 13. And the person that tould you that needs to be reprehended for that. Thats it. Atomic Religione 20:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Woah, you're only 13? I thought you were SOOO much older then that. Anyways, A.R. is right. No-one thinks you're an idiot (Unless they call you that, but thats their problem), but really, saying over and over that you want Kirby in the article isn't advice, and that you seem to have a problem understanding that this page isn't a forum, kinda doesn't get you any points Dengarde ► Complaints 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you're right.(sigh)Green Kirby 21:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have been a bit over dramatic, and if I have, I'm sorry. I really like Kirby, and it did'nt seem fair that you did'nt meition him. But whatever, I mean you guys are probaly smarter than me, so I'm sure you know what you're doing. I'm also becoming 13 in 4 days, so I'll mature slightly. Right now I'm a bit edgey, but I think I'll improve over time. Just try to help me if you can, and if you want to continue to discuss this, do it on my talk page. I'll respond quickly.Green Kirby 23:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why isnt lucas in the playable characters section?

Not sure how to prove this by word...

...but I was in Nintendo World and saw the box art for Super Smash Bros. Brawl. It was the blue one, with Mario close up and Pokémon Trainer on the left. Unfortunately, I can't show you a picture. =/ Just wanted to bring this up. Oubliette 01:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We still don't know if it's the official box art. Why don't we just wait until december 3rd, so we can find out for sure.Green Kirby 01:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well spoken couldnt ave said it better myself. Atomic Religione 02:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Talking about what I said?Green Kirby 02:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he was, Green Kirby, would it have made sense in regards to Oubliette's statement, now would it? Anyway, whether what you saw was indeed the official box art, or not, you are not a verifiable source, so your point(however good intentioned it was.), is moot. Yoshiguy 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Going by the description, I think what Oubliette is talking about is that one boxart we've been speculating for a while. Lemme go through the archives and find it... :Edit: This one. Fits the description Oubliette gave us.Dengarde ► Complaints 03:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Did somebody Shoop da Whoop? InsaneZeroG 04:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess he was. My first good review!Green Kirby 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Shoop da Whoop? What's that supposed to mean?Green Kirby 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an internet meme that serves as a synonym for "editing/creating a picture in image manipulation software such as Photoshop." Actually the full explanation is more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it. Arrowned 04:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I got TLoZ:Phantom Hourglass for NDS today. As every game, there are some ads inside, you know, like "Get Nintendo Power". In 1 of those, there are 3 Wii games' boxes: Super Mario Galaxy, SSBB and another game I can't remember. Brawl's box is just a generic Wii game box with black background and Brawl's logo. My point is: If there is an official boxart, why wouldn't Nintendo show it while there is a random site showing one?--R-RockMan.EXE 06:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is official, it may change. Lets just wait until december 3rd so we can find out for sure.Green Kirby 06:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If the only thing on the current boxart is the logo, we might as well just show the logo for now. Should this actually be the boxart, we can easily upload a new image on the third of December (or whenever the final boxart is revealed). You Can't See Me! 06:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I felt sort of guilty bringing this up without any internet source. =/ But i'm not trying to mislead. Still, Green Kirby is on to something. While it's definitely a boxart from them, it might change. By the way, that "estarland" is blocked from where i'm currently browsing Wikipedia, so I can't tell you if that's the picture I meant. Oubliette 14:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the boxart has also appeared on Gamestop as well. [3] OBEY STARMAN 21:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please let's just wait. When you think about it, December 3rd is'nt that far away.Green Kirby 21:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well there's still nothing wrong with putting it up if Nintendo proves to you that it IS a boxart. Oubliette 02:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Very true. However, until we get such proof, we're better off leaving it out of the article. The world's hungriest paperweight 03:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

YeahGreen Kirby 04:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit on the Wario Ware page/SSBB

I would like to remind you all that Ashely's Theme is NOT confirmed as the Wario Ware stage music. For all we know it could be music for a different stage. I would like something about the music added to the FAQ. OBEY STARMAN 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's technically a song FOR the Wario Stage. Remember that stages will have multiple songs? -Sukecchi 17:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I recongize that, but it didn't confirm it for the currently known stage, it could belong to another stage, such as a Ashely's Mansion. OBEY STARMAN 18:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Who knows, lets just not start speculating. Atomic Religione 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

They are over here. Someone needs to settle this, it is a total fanboy brawl, I am getting messages from these guys now. OBEY STARMAN 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Box Art

I put the offical Box Art for the Game up and someone took it off!, it's offical!, it's on evrey game site where you can buy games, target, walmart, eb games, gamestop, and best buy, And its not the temporary one because i'm always on these sites and there was one with just a white backropund and a logog so dont take it off and see for yourself. Onepiece226 9:00, October 9 2007

Game sites do that ALL the time. So do stores. Look at the discussion, it's all explained. DurinsBane87 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is the real Box art! i just asked my brother who works at eb games, and when they recived things for their store for SSBB this was the art they were supposed to put on their walls and it is the real box art!

Then explain why Nintendo Power is still using the placeholder boxart? There are times when you need a third party source, a second party source, and a first party source. More-or-less anything that does not have to do with reception requires a first-party source, including the boxart. You Can't See Me! 01:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo Power is a MAGAZINE its not updated like a website! Nintendo probley just released it!

That boxart has been around for several months now. Look in the archives for proof. Furthermore, Nintendo Power is first-party; gaming websites are second-party. Again, wait for official confirmation. You Can't See Me! 01:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make that comment, i'm making this one. I had just found that box art! and last i checked walmart, target, and best buy arnt gaming websites, and they arnt allowed to put up fake box art, there only allowed to put ethier "No Boxart yet", or if there is logo art then their allowed to make a white or black backround with the logo, they arnt allowed to put non offical box art up. And I just called the local Gamestop and asked if that box art was offical and the guy said yes because with all of the Super Smash Bros Stuff they recived for their store they got the art saying to "put the offical box art up". I went there yesterday, it's the same one Onepiece226 9:18, October 9 2007

Lo and behold. That boxart has been around for a month, whereas Nintendo is still using the generic black box + logo as of the English release of Phantom Hourglass (see the discussion above). Again, first-party sources have priority. It doesn't matter what Gamespot thinks is correct. You Can't See Me! 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, the boxart in question was sent to Nintendo and Nintendo said it wasn't the real one. This is also in the archives of this talk page.--MrBubbles 01:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we thinking of the same one, becaquse ive ssen plenty of fake ones. But the one i'm talking about is all over Gamestop directly from Nintendo for the game. Onepiece226 9:33, October 9 2007

Yes, we are. Check the external links in the archived discussion. You Can't See Me! 01:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And while we're at it, you keep adding a confirmed rating from the ESRB. Care to elaborate on the E rating?--MrBubbles 01:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well they are talking about the same one, but i dont get it??? why would nintendo have Gamestop put it up as the offical art, then release a new one??? weird Onepiece226 9:53, October 9 2007

Nintendo doesnt give Gamestop the art. It's placeholder art. those places are ABSOLUTELY allowed to put temporary art up, they do it all the time. DurinsBane87 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

MrBubbles, why are you asking that here and who are you asking it to? Onepiece226 10:32, October 9 2007

I believe Mr. Bubbles was referring to this edit of yours, in which you added a rating which has not yet been given. Now, I assume you added this because of the "E for All" thing going on; that's actually a gamers' convention (the Entertainment for All expo), not a game rating.

In any case, I don't think that Nintendo actually did give that as a boxart. If you call a local Gamespot, you'll more-likely-than-not get an unwitting employee on the other end of the line, who is typically unwilling to put forth the effort into doing the required research and will instead give whatever response will end the conversation more quickly. If I'm wrong, well, I'm wrong. Regardless, the burden is on Nintendo (or NoA or the unnamed developer) to release the boxart in order for the image to be verifiable, and Wikipedia is based around verifiability, not truth. You Can't See Me! 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Nintendo now officially acknowledges the boxart. Personally, I think it would be more helpful if they weren't so damn secretive. Perhaps the "Nin" in "Nintendo" stands for something... You Can't See Me! 03:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sonic confirmed, among other stuff and Japanese date

http://wii.ign.com/articles/826/826130p1.html please check 14:24. 189.153.74.240 05:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WOAHWOAHWOAHWOAHWOAH. WHAT?! Is this real?! Dengarde ► Complaints 06:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is, we should recieve note about the delay on the official site sometime soon. I'm keeping an open mind, but I can't help but feel a bit skeptical; I doubt that they would have planned such a delay on the exact day of their presentation, meaning that they would have had intentionally withheld the postponement from public knowledge for several days despite having a high-traffic, dailily-updated site. You Can't See Me! 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

*Edit: Scratch that; they claim that it's the Japanese release date. Still, there should be room left for skepticism; IGN is a relatively credible site, but it has been known to make rather large, erroneous claims in the past. You Can't See Me! 06:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm being skeptical here, but I don't think we should include this in the articles until we're 100% sure...Dengarde ► Complaints 06:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think we should just wait untill he's confirmed on dojo.Green Kirby 06:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dojo has the habit of updating the exact same night when news leaks out. Everything is coordinated. If anything, Sonic's page'll be up by tonight. And if that's not the case the bootleg video will be up soon 66.133.193.216 06:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Still we should just wait because in my opinion, the only website that you can trust is dojo.Green Kirby 06:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that all we really need is a second perspective of another party present. If that means a Dojo!! profile, that's great, but even if it's just GameStop or something, that'll do. It's just the fact that IGN, of all websites, is reporting this which is giving me doubts. You Can't See Me! 06:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

IGN is not a reliable source. Please wait until information is on the DOJO before updating this article. Thanks. Wikipedian06 06:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) Nobody ever listens to me.Green Kirby 06:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrm? People have been responding to your comments on this thread. You Can't See Me! 06:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that will be today's update, be sure to check it out k? 189.153.74.240 06:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, IGN's "source" was a Japanese blog. The translations look accurate to me, but the fact that IGN simply uses another third-party blog as its "source" just shows bad journalism right there. Wikipedian06 06:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still shocked, and I think IGN is a reliable source. I'm pretty sure Dojo will confirm it soon. By the way, in Tuesday's update about Cook Kirby, there is a song only found in the Japanese version of the site. Can someone read what does it say next to the song?--R-RockMan.EXE 06:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(re-indent) Can we tell whose blog this is? That name could either dismiss this as a rumor or give it at least some credibility here and now.

By the way, that song is just the Japanese version of Ashley's song, which is available in English on any of the latin-alphabet versions of the website. You Can't See Me! 06:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I try to tell people to just wait, but no they want to keep disscussing this. I can't wait until I become an administrator, because then people will start listening to me. I took off Sonic's name on the playable charaters section, so that should earn me a point.Green Kirby 06:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kid, don't get obsessed with that. I was once like that and it only brought problems. I'm here cuz I wanna help, not to rule Wikipedia.--R-RockMan.EXE 06:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

People are still talking about this? The track is from the Japan-only cooking game しゃべる! DSお料理ナビ which was unveiled earlier this year at E3. Since the track is sung in Japanese and the game is exclusive to Japan (at least for now), the track hasn't been posted for the other languages. Wikipedian06 06:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See what I mean, nobody ever listens to me. Anyways, Dojo's on my favorites, so I check it every 2 seconds. I'll probaly be the first one to see it.Green Kirby 06:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Spencer, don't worry about it. This is a discuss-worthy topic since it does pertain to the article, so it's best to settle differences on the talk page rather than edit warring on the article and getting it fully-protected. You Can't See Me! 07:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you're right. So lets disscuss something while we're waiting for the update.Green Kirby 07:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.smashbros.com/de/index.html --- RockMFR 07:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope this will end this "war"--R-RockMan.EXE 07:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh crap! It looks real!Green Kirby 07:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sonic is up on DE. Release date isn't. Leave the release date as "TBA 2007" until further notice. Wikipedian06 07:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's bizarre... Why is it on the Dutch version of the site but not the others? I've clicked "refresh" a few times on the English and Japanese versions, but it hasn't come up there yet... You Can't See Me! 07:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

...Nor is it on any of the other latin-alphabet versions of the page... You Can't See Me! 07:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sakurai likes toying with us I'm sure, he's going "LOOK AT ALL THESE PEOPLE HITTING F5! :D" Seriously though, Sakurai updates whatever he can, and NOW it's up however http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/characters/sonic.html Forai 07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for saying "crap" but I was suprissed.Green Kirby 07:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Japanese release confirmed as Jan 24, 2008. Release dates for all other regions delayed. Wikipedian06 07:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So, are we going to call that old Swedish magazine good guessers or what?--Henke37 07:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Uk page updated too~ Its all there :D--Brendoshi 07:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was probaly the first one to see it in english because I was on there when it still showed Kirby, and I pressed refresh 10 times really fast and it suddenly showed Sonic.Green Kirby 18:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering whether it was really necessary to still use the IGN citation about Sonic since the official site had been updated. It seems somewhat redundant to offer a second source when the official page of the game is already cited as a source. Mandanthe1 01:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If i'm not mistaken i just read that you don't have to unlock sonic, to me that's cool we get to play as him right away. "The problem is Sonic. What to do... I suppose if we’re going to all this trouble, perhaps we should make him playable." that is from the site Nightwolf3000

Based on the context of the preceding paragraph, I believe that statement refers to the version that will be playable at E for All, and not the final game.

"And it appears that this event will display the first ever public playable version of Super Smash Bros. Brawl! I am planning on having people play the game—but with limited character selection." Dancter 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

North American Release Date

The NA release date on this page says "TBD". What happened to December 3rd? Was there news that changed that or something? --IntriguingPotato 08:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

They are probably changing it. Leave it TBD until further notice.~sdhonda

It's been delayed. Wikipedian06 09:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that's good and all, but did it say that anywhere? A source would be nice. --IntriguingPotato 11:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Source is smashbros.com as it is now. the official smashbros website, thereby it's legit. the OLD release date came from there to so just leave it. 70.89.49.205 11:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

They changed the date because of Sonic's inclusion. They have alot of work left to finish and they dont think they can finish it all before December 3, But think of the bright side! there could be a possibility that they might release the game earlier :) -ChristoCracker 11:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sakurai did say there's still a little more development to be done... --(trogga) 12:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction: There has been no date change. Simply put: Its TBD now, which means that the date is now liable to change. It could be delayed from dec 3rd, it could still be on for december 3rd. The simple fact is, it has not yet been delayed. However, it would be incorrect to state that it WILL be out on any paticular date. Hence, TBD.~sdhonda

I'm sorry that I have to disagree with so many of you, but the official site still has a page clearly stating that the North American release date is December 3rd 2007: [4] If they were now unsure of the release date, wouldn't they make some mention to that effect on the site? I am well aware that the Japanese release date has been confirmed for January 24, 2008, but that doesn't necessarily affect the North American Date, does it? And as far as sdhonda's statement goes, the fact of the matter is that any game could in theory be delayed sometime in the future, but if it has not yet been delayed, shouldn't we use the date that we have? The person who changed the date to "to be determined" cited the official Smash Bros. Site, but there is nothing on that site to indicate that the release date has changed. The direct quote that I believe is in question from the site is, "There’s still a little more development to be done... I’m hoping to complete it without incident." There is nothing in that statement to indicate that the release date has changed! He is hoping to complete development without incident, and I think that a delay would be considered "incident," so I think it can be safely assumed that he is still trying to keep the original release date. Pardon my rant, but I am very vehement that from Nintendo's 2007 E3 press conference it was specifically stated that Super Smash Bros. Brawl will be released in North America on December 3rd of 2007, and unless you have some reliable source that indicates otherwise, I believe that the release date should say, "December 3, 2007". Zenintendofanatic 13:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Forget what I said before, but someone could have mentioned that you need to look at the sidebar on the left to see the "Release Date: TBD". Anyway, the correct thing for this page to say is "TBD". I am now even more sorry for my rant, because I was wrong. Zenintendofanatic 14:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is still there because that was an old blog update, and they forgot to remove it. Plus, the developers have once stated in an interview that Japan will get the game first. Wikipedian06 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Son of a bitch! I mean, December 3rd is long enough! They're just playing games with us now! If there was a chance they would'nt be able to finish the game by December 3rd, they should'nt have said it!Green Kirby 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WHERE was it stated that Japan will get it first? You seriously need to back up your info before you start spewing crap. NintendoDSKing 18:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey,hey calm down DSKing, dont you think you could have asked a little more civially? Atomic Religione 18:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So overal, WHAT IS IT? Claycrow 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

They have'nt said.Green Kirby 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop being such a pessimist, Wikipedian06. -- POWERSLAVE 22:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I've had differences with Wikipedian before, but I don't necessarily see him doing anything wrong right now. If Sakurai stated that Japan would get it first, then that's just statement, not pessimism. I would like to see a source, though. You Can't See Me! 22:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys and gals. The date has been pushed back. First of all, why wouldn't Japan get it before us? The game is being made in Japan by people whose primary language is japanese. Also, the Sonic anouncement is more proof. If you were going to drop the bomb that the release date was going to be pushed back...again, wouldn't it seem wise to post some good information? Some people were so excited about Sonic, they didn't notice or not really care that the date has been pushed back. What further evidence do you need? (Zojo 22:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

First off, so what if Japan is developing it? Japan also developed Resident Evil 4, and that got released in Japan more then a week after being released in the US. Where it's being developed doesn't matter. Second, Sonic is proof of...well...Sonic. Nothing else. Theres no logic in thinking "OMG Sonics in! This means the games delayed!". Makes no sense. Theres no proof that the release date has been pushed back, only a little evidence. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find the link. No, I'm not making things up -- I clearly remember that's what Sakurai or Miyamoto said. Wikipedian06 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC

"The American release date of December 3, 2007 still holds." [5] WikiBone 13:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. But only because it conflicts with the Dojo, which still says TBD. SSBD seems like the most reliable source for this info, so let's stick with Dojo. The world's hungriest paperweight 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and just so people know Gamefaqs release dates have changed as well to TBA status as well[6] though when I checked it long ago it did say December 3rd. So this should also back up Dojo as well. -Adv193 15:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/info/info01.html

Listed as December 3rd. Also, did you guys check my quote on the article? Iwata confirmed a delay but said the announcement for the new release falls on the American division of Nintendo.--MrBubbles 15:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

the games come out fed 10 2008 now. which is good b/c they could fix all the bugs and maybe add more player like "Mega man" Nightwolf3000 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not to disscuss playable characters, and we know it comes out then! Claycrow 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sonic in Brawl VS. MrBubbles

MrBubbles, why are you repeatingly removing references to Sonic in the "Inclusion of Characters" section? It was all about third party characters to begin with, and Sonic is such a character. I even replaced the Snake/Mario picture with the Sonic/Mario one for the fact that Sonic was more desired than Snake, who was only put in by Kojima's request. The Sonic image has a more appropiate filename (as Wikipedia's file uploading page states, destination filenames should have something descriptive, not the default filename; the example included shows that "John Doe in 1997" is better than "IMG0592". Likewise, "Mario and Sonic in Brawl" is better than "Snake 070921h-l", which is a filename directly from the Dojo). But the point is, disacknowledging Sonic in an appropiate section is futile, so stop. — NES Boy 12:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Long time no see. Ive just popped over to the smash bros site to check on the info i give my little bro every wednesday when i go to see him. Turns out, that Nintendo just announced Sonic IS in Brawl. Showing the announcement video, his inclusion into characters, and his intro video (which shows him turning into Super Sonic at the end, possibly for his Smash Attack). - Leyasu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.48.238 (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, I haven't learned "to read" due to a copy-paste error. There is no reason to deleted such information. All it needs is some rewording. « FMF » 13:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe because if YOU ADD HIM then whats to stop me from adding someone else? If you had it your way then the entire section would be full of every newcomer, such as Diddy Kong.

And I apologize for removing your edit Falcon. That was unintentional. --MrBubbles 13:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there really is no need to add every new character just because you're particularly excited about them, or think that it needs to be included —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.217 (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And this isn't me vs Sonic. This is me vs people who blatantly ignore tags in regards to adding examples in paragraphs. --MrBubbles 13:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The way this is currently written is misleading. Pointing out that that Snake is the first third-party character to appear makes it sound like he is the only third-party character in this game. How many third-party characters are there going to be? If it's only a couple, I see no reason not to include Sonic in that section. If there are going to be several, it should be rewritten to make it clear that he isn't the only one. --Onorem♠Dil 13:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What? RockMFR added Sonic despite the tag deliberately saying NOT to add any without discussing it here. Fuck this bullshit. Some double standards. Fucking unbelievable. What if I wanted to add PK Trainer or Diddy Kong? OH NO, THAT's NOT OKAY. YOU CAN UPDATE THE TAG AFTER YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT ON IT BUT IT'S NOT OKAY IF I ADD SOMEONE THAT I WANT. --MrBubbles 14:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever added all these "don't change anything ever" tags in the article is completely wrong. I don't know why this practice has been encouraged here. --- RockMFR 14:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's to keep people like you from adding characters without consulting the talk page first.--MrBubbles 14:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bubbles, you're really making it sound like it's just a conflict of interest (whine whine! I don't get to do what I want to!) and not an issue of the article actually improving. Sonic is just as notable as Snake in that they're both third parties.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we already established that there will be 3rd party characters. And Sonic was also mentioned in the inclusion of characters at the bottom. Adding him everywhere with hidden tags made to keep the fanboys at bay goes against the consensus established long before said edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBubbles (talk • contribs)

Consensus can change. Edit warring over it is never acceptable. I don't know a single thing about this game. How many third-party characters are there expected to be? Either way, I'd say that the (supposedly from what I see here) most requested character probably deserves more of a mention than what was there in the version you kept reverting to. Is there a reason you removed the anon's comment. I saw no harm in their trying to remind people here to settle down. --Onorem♠Dil 14:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I know i'm ment to assume good faith, but i dont think Bubbles is here to improve the article. Sonic's announcment in Brawl is by far more notable than any other character anouncment. If he's not mentioned as a newcomer then none of the other characters should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TailsClock (talk • contribs) --TailsClock 14:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Onorem, Because this isn't a forum. I don't give a flying shit about his comment that don't divulge anything useful into this dispute. And there's a reason those tags where there, because if you wanted to add _____ you should discuss it here before going into full fanboy mode like there was this morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBubbles (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is also a policy, and reminding people of it can be useful in disputes. --Onorem♠Dil 14:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool.--MrBubbles 14:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sonic "not in the cards" statement

"Despite Sega's Sonic the Hedgehog being the most requested third-party character[citation needed], in an interview with video game website IGN, Nintendo Europe marketing director Laurent Fischer response to if Sonic will be appearing in Brawl was "That's not on the cards at the moment."[41]"

Seems a little out of date. 153.42.168.174 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence should be broken up/reworded to specify the time in which it has taken place and the fact that it is pretty much wrong. That sentence reminds me of the "Steve didn't pull the barb out" statement. However, this is about the events that has taken place during development of the game. Though Laurent Fischer has made such a sweeping statement, is it even notable enough (doubt Fischer is involved in anyway with Smash) to be included? « FMF » 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"That's not on the cards at the moment." is somewhat ambiguous, you can't really call it 'wrong' because it didn't lean towards a confirmation or denial of his inclusion. It doesn't need to be changed, but rather removed since it's no longer relevant. 144.90.45.227 20:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is pointless. Honestly, do you really have to complain about every little thing? As far as I'm concerned, It's fine the way it is. Quit complaning.Green Kirby 02:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That quotation was taken from an official source and was relevant to the game's development. That section is about the game's development, not the final product. You Can't See Me! 02:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Limited Release?

I went to Gamestop to reserve Super Smash Bros. Brawl, The guy told me this was a good idea becouse the game is going to come out with LIMITED RELEASE. Is this true? Or did he have no idea what he was talking about? If it is, It should be added to the article. The Wii Guy 03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think a retailer employee is the best person to turn to at this point, especially with all of the confusion surrounding the game's release in the first place. You Can't See Me! 03:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what he meant by "limited release". If he meant what it sounds like to me, that they will be releasing relatively few copies, then I'm guessing that he's full of hot air. Why, may I ask, WHY would Nintendo have a limited release for one of their most(if not the most.) anticipated games in recent memory?! "But Yoshiguy, what if they want to increase the rarity of the game so that it will be more sought-after?", said the random wikipedian playing the devil's advocate. Well, random wikipedian playing the devil's advocate, so many people would purchase the game anyway, that it would be a terrible marketing move. Does that really sound like Nintendo anyway? Oh and if I have misinterpreted "Limited release", please disregard my comment. Yoshiguy 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

He could've just used the wrong terms and meant "we're only getting x copies for our first shipment, and considering the hype you should reserve now because all the non-reserved copies will be gone in ten minutes."—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the above comment nailed it. This game is going to sell out like crazy and at least for a short while supply is going to lag behind demand. The "Limited Release" comment was probably referring to the fact that his store won't be getting a lot of copies in the first round of shipments. -Zomic13 04:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Or he could be messing with you to get you to reserve it. Claycrow 12:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Six images

Some of them have got to go, per WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. hbdragon88 04:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? If anything there should be more images.Green Kirby 05:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're thinking, but if a policy states an article is violating a rule it HAS to be fixed. Wikipedia has rules. -Sukecchi 09:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in said policies that require us to remove them. Dengarde ► Complaints 06:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

NFCC#8 states that images should only be allowed on given that they "significantly increase readers' understanding"; to be honest, I'm not sure that half of the images do that. Still, that doesn't necessarily mean I agree. Understanding is subjective, so as long as we're not using a 20-image gallery of pre-release screenshots, we're in the clear. If I remember correctly the whole beef with Non-Free images about a month ago was against the use of nonfree images on lists, not standard articles; I asked Durin about it, and recieved this reply. Notably, he pointed out that image amount matters little in itself and that context is more important. You Can't See Me! 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Take off Snake, Subspace and Characters (and maybe Sonic) we can add 1 or 2 replacements later. I'll do it if nobody objects. Claycrow 13:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Final notice regarding release dates

DON'T TOUCH THEM UNLESS NEW RELEASE DATES ARE POSTED TO THE DOJO.

• The DOJO is the only site that can be referenced. Third party media sites are UNRELIABLE and should NOT be used as sources. No exceptions.

• As of now, the only set date is Japan's 1-24-08. It is NOT known whether other regions are getting the game earlier or later. Please do not speculate.

• Apparently quite a few people didn't know what "TBD" meant. I've seen that question asked several times on prominent gaming forums. Therefore, I've written them out as "To be determined" so that there's no confusion.

Wikipedian06 10:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The major gaming media sites are reliable sources and using them as references is very much encouraged. Release dates do not have to come from official websites. --- RockMFR 18:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They may be reliable most of the time, but the official site should always overrule any gaming news or fan sites. InsaneZeroG 19:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Dojo website is that the previous release date was announced on July 12 and if the release date had been changed then that would count out using Dojo as a reliable source until a more up to date edit is made on that site to confirm the date in a present tense. Until then I will only consider that sites' release date partly reliable due to the date of when the release date was announced. Just remember how long it took to add Solid Snake to that site after he was originally announced to be in the game. -Adv193 23:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hidden tags don't solve anything, seeing as arrogant users who shall remain anonymous ignore them. So seeing as nobody follows then, I changed it to TBD. It's formal and it's whats listed on the official brawl site.--MrBubbles 14:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The game comes out Feb 10 2008 it's on the site. Nightwolf3000 12 October 2007

We can see that.

Wikipedia06, just follow the guidelines of Wikipedia and make sure proper verifiable sources can be used for any article. This article doesn't get a special case regardless of the fact that Nintendo is controlling the flow of the sources. Douglasr007 23:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Characters

I know we have dissused this MANY times, but Lucas deserves to be in it, we don't need to describe his intire backstory in Smash Bros. Universe, (maybe mention his backstory in Inclusion of Characters, like with Snake?) but because he has this backstory, he deserves to be mentioned.

P.S. Why the heck is Pit notable? Claycrow 12:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pit is notable because he has only been in two games, Kid Icarus and Kid Icarus: Of Myths and Monsters. He hasn't been seen in over 10 years. Fangz is hungry :3 13:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pit's mentioned because at the time that part of the article and examples of characters from previously unrepresented series were needed, Pit and Wario were basically the only confirmed examples. Since then any alterations of the examples have been quickly reverted so mention of him has remained. With regards to Lucas, he probably should be mentioned under inclusion of characters as the only currently confirmed example of a Japan-only character. Also agree that some mention of him having been scheduled to appear in Melee might be worth noting, if someone can find a source- have seen it mentioned around the Web but not by any official sources MarkSutton 13:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for one Claycrow 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes Claycrow, we all know you don't like Pit. It says on your user page.Green Kirby 17:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[7] I doubt it's reliable, but it's the only thing I found. Claycrow 19:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Reliable source found: [8]. Can I add it to the article? Claycrow 19:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is adding Lucas really important? Brawl isn't the first Smash game to feature Japan-only characters. (although Marth will soon no longer be Japan-only) Arrowned 20:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, he is the Brawl character that is Japan only, AND he was suppose to be in Melee, AND he may replace Ness, but since that is unconfirmed now, it doesn't matter. Claycrow 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So, can I put him in?!? Claycrow 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pit is a good Character you can't judge him from they way he looks, and you haven't even played the game he might be one of the top strongest Character. Nightwolf3000 1:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, were not disscussing that. SO CAN I PUT LUCAS IN!?! I will do it tonight if nobody objects. Claycrow 18:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

GO AHEAD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.138.57 (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No you can't. Do not add or change examples.Satoryu 22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But it is worth noting! He's is the only Japan only character confirmed, AND he was set to be in Melee, so he is just as inportant as Snake. Claycrow 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo Media Summit 2007 confirms the release date for February 10, 2008

Media Event liveblogging: Nintendo Media Summit 2007

Now pray tell why would you revert it the first time? Maybe it was because I didn't have close tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBubbles (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to revert that. I reverted something else and accidentaly reverted the date as well. Depressio 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But thank goodness, I left out some tags that screwed up the page. And we both edited around the same time. Anyway, here's hoping for some good character select [http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/826/826577/live-blog-nintendo-media-summit-2007-20071011094316680-000.jpg screenshots.] That's all we have that ~could~ be use in the article.--MrBubbles 16:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the character selection screen lacks Kirby and Zelda, both previously non-secret characters. It's also worth mentioning that characters from the same series are grouped together in the previous titles, yet Mario and Peach are on opposite sides of the screen and Diddy isn't next to DK. And what's that empty square? I say it's fake. TwilightPhoenix 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

...uh...no. It's like that because it's a DEMO. They probably didn't include Zelda because they don't wanna reveal Sheik, And probably not Kirby because they don't wanna reveal his different forms. The blank space could be "RANDOM"( Scratch that, I can read it clearly. is IS Random), and they may not me grouped together because not all the characters are unlocked. Remember how in Melee, Pikachu switched places on the board after unlocking Luigi? Dengarde ► Complaints 17:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ice Climbers are missing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.39.74 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it won't be confirmed until the game is released that who would be the starter characters will be. But just because the Ice Climbers, Zelda, and Kirby were starter characters in the previous games doesn't mean that it is not impossible to re-introduce them as hidden characters. -Adv193 23:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

To suggest previous starter characters would be hidden is speculation. Not to say it couldn't change, but it is unlikely and doesn't belong in the article. And characters may switch places, but it really does not fit with the previous games for the starter characters to be apart like that. In the original, Mario and Luigi were next to each other, as was Pikachu and Jigglypuff. In Melee, Mario, Peach, Bowser, Yoshi, were all on the same row. Link and Zelda were next to each other as well. When all characters were unlocked, Mario, Peach, Bowser, Yoshi, Luigi, and Dr. Mario all held the same row, Fox and Falco were next to each other, Link, Zelda, Young Link, and Gannondorf were all near each other, Pikachu, Jigglypuff, Mewtwo, and Pichu were in a row, Marth and Roy were adjacent. The above linked picture seems to have them in a fairly random order if you look for related characters to be near each other (Diddy and Donkey adjacent by the corner, Mario and Peach at seperate parts of the screen). In other words, it looks really dang good, but this situation in regards to the picture is very much like the "official" box art that was discussed earlier. We cannot use this image. TwilightPhoenix 00:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it is like I am implying, to simply wait for the official release and confirm the main and hidden characters and avoid using any speculation unless there is strong evidence that to back it up. The other point I was trying to get at is to state that it is possible for previous main characters to be pushed to hidden character status. Remember in Melee where Captain Falcon and Ness where moved to main character staus. Besides I would never put in speculation into the main article either-Adv193 00:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many videos on the net the prove that this image is real. The one on the bottom right is one of them. We CAN use this image Dengarde ► Complaints 00:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not sure how reliable the random videos are (I'm lucky if I can view videos on my campus network), the below proof of the box art would make the image in question misleading to use (assuming it is genuine). There are characters who are in the boxart do not appear in the starting roster of the above image, which could confuse people who are not as familiar with Brawl as we are. And on a side note, I think reading these talk pages for the past few months has perhaps made me too skeptical of third party sources. TwilightPhoenix 05:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo Media Summit 2007 confirms the release date for February 10, 2007

If only. I fixed the thread title anyways. You Can't See Me! 22:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

February 2007??? It's February 2008 :o - Looler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looler (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dojo now has confirmed the release date change so now the new release date has been confirmed. -Adv193 15:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to consider a "Playable Stages" section

I belive that it would be a good idea if we were to add a section under the Playable Characters section. Or at least have a seperate article for the playable stages and link to it.

Here is my example:

Example

Battlefield

The battlefield stage is considered a very basic stage and was in the original Super Smash Bros game. It has a main platform below 3 smaller floating platforms. Unlike previous smash games this one now has a changing enviroment as the stage goes through the different times of the day. (daytime, evening, night, and morning)

No, no, read the FAQ, no, and...no.

InsaneZeroG 00:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked it and although it does say no lists in this site wouldn't it be a good idea to have seperate article such as Super Smash Brothers: playable stages or something similiar? Then it wouldn't exactly be on the SSBB article but it would be information availible, we would just have a link to it from the SSBB article. That's all.

Spitfire 01:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No. If you want to add fancruft, go the the Smash Wiki. If you want to add something constructive, try again. Plus, I don't care if you're part of the Nintendo Wiki Project. I can be if I made a few edits here and there. It doesn't mean much unless you've really made some contributions to the articles.

InsaneZeroG 01:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I will try again, I know I can find something that will work

Spitfire 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt anything centered on fighting game stages will hold its own as an article. More specifically, it's unlikely that any out-of-universe information will come out of it, and as a result, there will be an extreme lack of second/third-party sources, if there are any sources at all. That boat may float for a few months while people don't care and/or give it time to expand, but it will hopelessly sink when it crashes into its first iceberg of an AFD. You Can't See Me! 03:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit: The best I can come up with is a Franchises represented in the Super Smash Bros. series article, listing out each franchise and every element of that franchise seen in the SSB series. Again, the same sourcing problems apply, and its first AFD will be an equally large iceberg; I think this solution has a better chance of being a featured list than just a plain list of stages, though. You Can't See Me! 03:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn't we at least MENTION them, I mean, it's not like they need there own section or article, just a mention in Developement or Gameplay or something like that. Claycrow 13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Gameplay section already lists a few examples of the stages and what special characteristics they have. Beyond giving a total number and general details like that once the game's out, probably don't want any more detail than that MarkSutton 13:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I found a good solution, look at the history panel for this edit. You can comment on it.

Spitfire 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You made a new article which we specifically informed you was unencyclopedic. That's not a solution. You Can't See Me! 23:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo press room confirms box art

Go to http://press.nintendo.com/loginSplash.jsp?id=9713 and enter "guest" as the username and "nintendo" (lowercase) as the password. You'll see the official boxart-the one all the retail sites have been using-as well as the 2/10/08 release date. ShadowUltra 02:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This also proves the afforementioned release date, so the above discussion technically isn't needed anymore. Thanks for the info Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 02:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight, this can explain why certain characters were released before others. InsaneZeroG 02:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the date? And InsaneZeroG, I left you a meassage on your talk page.Green Kirby 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He just said the date, it's 2/10/08. DurinsBane87 02:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(sigh)Green Kirby 03:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But on Dojo, it still says TBD.Green Kirby 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The site's the press page, meaning that they are technically above Sakurai when it comes to news. InsaneZeroG 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I think they only update at midnight. Hopefully the new release date will be on the Dojo in a couple hours. The world's hungriest paperweight 04:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its up there now. February 10. Everyone learn to deal with it. The world's hungriest paperweight 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the boxart to the article, along with a note pointing to this discussion should people need to see a cite. The infobox table doesn't seem to want to shrink in width, though. Arrowned 03:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, while this confirms it is from Nintendo, it could be used just to promote the game until the finalized version is revealed. « FMF » 14:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is changed later on, then we can simply change it as well (and I'm sure all the screenshots on this page will be replaced in time too). Since we have a first party source, the current one is reliable enough to use. TwilightPhoenix 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We should of it on months ago, we all knew it. Claycrow 18:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but was it official? Or was it reliably referenced? No. While it did show up, if was not official or sourced so there was no way of knowing if it was official or not. InsaneZeroG 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Shouldn't we list Brawl as an action game, seeing that DOJO! says it is? --(trogga) 19:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Be Bold, buku. -Sukecchi 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But I got reverted. --(trogga) 20:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Because "action" is too much of a broad definition. Not to mention Nintendo themselves classify it as a fighter:

http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=KnFMt3BjmYvIGiGjIfIXqkuretT-KLyA&

I don't see how helpful the term 'action' would be to the reader. It's a simple straight to genre to understand. Brawl is a fighter with a more multiplayer oriented style.--MrBubbles 23:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Nintendo also classifies it as an action game. Also, the one-player mode doesn't seem to have fighting. --(trogga) 23:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Teen?

I thought it was comfirmed to be rated E according to the website. --Coconutfred73 21:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe either's been confirmed (do correct me if I'm wrong, I probably am). — Malcolm (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the displayed boxart, the rating is still pending. Anyways, the website announced that it would be present at the E for All expo, not that it was rated "E for Everybody". You Can't See Me! 22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Yeah, T's confirmed (log in as username "guest" and password "nintendo" if necessary). — Malcolm (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, what with Snake's videos and all. Besides, wasn't Melee rated T as well? 141.133.160.52 22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The original was "E", but Melee was "T". As stated above, I can confirm that the press site states T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zomic13 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)