Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Story

Should we put on the Subscape Emissary section the events that occur on the story. It's much like a plot section on an average Wikipedia article, so I think it's better we put exactly what happens (such as Wario kidnapping Zelda as a trophy after Kirby beated Petey. --Mr.Mario 192 21:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If this DOES happen, it would be best to wait until,l the game is out. Dengarde ► Complaints 21:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Then let's put what was shown to date. --Mr.Mario 192 21:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a terrible idea. We don't know any details, we have no sound, just video. Just wait. -Sukecchi 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not true. I can tell a lot of what was shown. What did you meant by no sound? I have sound and I hear the shouts of all characters in the videos. --Mr.Mario 192 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sukecchi was referring to the latest Subspace Emissary videos on Gametrailers.com, were the sound has been cut. Although we can still gather what's happening from those videos, it can't be added because observing something and making interpretations is original research, which isn't allowed. It's good to see that you want to improve the article, though. -- POWERSLAVE 21:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this may be unprofessional and unhelpful(sorry Sukecchi) considering that every time I say this, people ignore me, but what we really need to do is wait until everything is confirmed on dojo. That's what I do. I even added it on my favorites, so I can just turn the computer on every morning, and check it, so I don't miss anything. You should do that. There, I think that's fair.Green Kirby 22:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I also meant those videos. I found those videos with sound on Youtube. --Mr.Mario 192 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

They will probaly delete that You Tube video soon, sinse it has'nt been shown on Dojo.Green Kirby 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So wait. You're saying that all the videos that are not shown on Dojo are false? Not true. Many videos were shown on E for All, right before Dojo. Those are not fake. --Mr.Mario 192 22:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. I mean that sinse it has'nt been shown on Dojo yet, It will be deleted.Green Kirby 22:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it had been shown. It's right there. --Mr.Mario 192 22:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Dojo. Sinse it has'nt been shown on Dojo yet, it will be deleted.Green Kirby 22:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But that was what you said before... --Mr.Mario 192 22:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

He changed "YouTube" to "Dojo" along with making a new post.[1]—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But still my answer is my first response to Green Kirby. It is not true that all videos with sound launches on Dojo first. It has been shown on Youtube. --Mr.Mario 192 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I think the creators want to show all there stuff on Dojo FIRST. Some of the other footage may just happen to be on You Tube. I never said it was'nt true.Green Kirby 23:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sound or no sound, Youtube or Dojo, we can't add anything on the story because we don't know the story yet. Wait for the game to be released so we can have the full story.Satoryu 00:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? We can perfectly see the story, which starts when Peach and Zelda watches Mario and Kirby fighting. And yes, Green Kirby, you had said it wasn't true, but in other words. You said that since it hasn't been shown on Dojo, that it should be deleted. And I meant what was shown in the videos, that when put together it creates a storyline, is what we should put in the article. Even if we didn't know, the story will be revealed before the game launches, I'm sure of it. --Mr.Mario 192 01:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. For all we know, there could be more prior to what has been shown in the movies on Dojo. What's been shown there is all we know. That's all. We can put up what we have now, but we can't say that it's the beginning. InsaneZeroG 01:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see we have come to an agreement. To wait until the game comes out. Now let's just drop it.Green Kirby 01:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but nobody said we came to the agreement of waiting for the game to launch. So I suggest to make a poll for Wikipedians to vote. And yes you are correct InsaneZero, I shouldn't say it's the beggining. I just inferred it, since there were no acts from the Subscape Army. --Mr.Mario 192 01:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this someone will make a new page only about the Subscape Army amd the different story mode for every player?--FrosticeBlade 01:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to help.Green Kirby 01:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research is still original research. Nothing concerning the story should be put on the article until we know all the facts.Satoryu 02:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said put it in the article. I said make a New article about it.--FrosticeBlade 02:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that could be done. But still, there's no real info on the story as of yet. Such an article shouldn't be made until we know everything about the story and the mode.Satoryu 02:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally think we should just wait until the game comes out to say anything about the story. Even if videos are posted on the Dojo we don't know what they mean, there are multiple interpretations. Unless it's downright stated by someone from Nintendo, you can't post it because it's Original Research. So until someone says anything about the story or until the game comes out, there shouldn't be any mention about the details of the story. Shyrangerr 02:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but then again, you guys probaly won't listen to me.Green Kirby 02:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In all truth, and in no offensive way, I'm more ready to listen to you than I am to listen to FrostIceBlade who seems to not understand how things are done on Wikipedia InsaneZeroG 02:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why some people are so adamant about information being put up before a game is out. Who is it really helping by simply having possibly erroneous information out before a game is out? And who would it be helping by just listing something videos are depicting without solid evidence? Wait for things to be released by an notable source and do not speculate. Also, please Green Kirby, contribute to discussions by adding thoughts other than apologies and simple replies to a post. Do not reply to this one for example. *kaburicho 07:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... as of right now, even if we did have all the facts about the videos, we still wouldn't have enough info to make a section about the story. The point of having a story section is to give details about the entire story, correct?

This reminds me of a while ago when everyone was arguing about Yoshi. The Yoshi's Island stage and Yoshi's Story music was on the Dojo, but no Yoshi. People wanted to put him in the article, even though he wasn't confirmed officially. However, everyone eventually stoped arguing and the Yoshi update finally appeared on the site. Long story short, the same goes with this. We'll eventually have all the info we need. We can't say we have the Yoshi when we only have the Island. We can't say we got the plot when we only have a few videos. --Kenny2k 08:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So have we finaly come to an agreement?Green Kirby 12:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

When I said we should make a whole new page just for the story I meant after the game is out and we know some more facts about it.--FrosticeBlade 17:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the last time I will say this, WAIT UNTIL IT'S CONFIRMED ON DOJO. I'm sick of you people ignoring me, and when you do talk to me, you only bring up negative stuff about me. For instance, saying that it's rare when you agree with me is negative. And when I do make a point, you just pretend I did'nt say anything and keep going with your pointless disscussion. Just because I'm not an administrator, dose'nt mean I can't help.Green Kirby 23:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Many editors here arent admins, please G.K get off your pitty potty. We can see what you type, although it is the choice of the reader to care or not. Atomic Religione —Preceding comment was added at 01:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your post does not relate in any way to the one it's referring to. You might want to reread the discussion.--141.84.69.20 00:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I try to tell people to just wait until it's confirmed on dojo, but they just ignore me. People like Sukecchi only point out the bad things I've done.Green Kirby 00:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read what you tried to tell. Have you read that FrosticeBlade in the end only promoted the idea of an article for the story mode, once the game was released? It has nothing to do with the first proposition of this section.
You should be thankful towards those who point out your faults. In order to overcome faults, you have to recognize them at first.--141.84.69.20 01:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you're right.Green Kirby 01:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new and i don't quite know how to post something on existing talk articles. but there was a talk article above that talked about including something about the plot for The Subspace Emissary. I agree and here's why. The current article doesn't include anything about the overall plot exept for saying "The Subspace Emissary features a new group of antagonists called the Subspace Army, who are led by the Ancient Minister". We do know some of the basic plot points from Dojo. Under the video post's there are sections where Sakuri explains what the video is about. We can include those plot points in the article. Also there are videos on Gametrailers.com that were shown at E for All's Nintendo booth. If they were shown at Nintendo's booth then I think that we can trust them. So i think that we should create a new article for The Subspace Emissary.How about K? 02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)How_about_K?

No, the current amount of information is too minor and even if a seperate article were to created it would have to be written it would have to be done in a way that does not resemble a game guide or it would be prone to merging or deletion. -Adv193 02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current amount of information is enough. For instance we know that Mario starts by fighting Kirby. Mario wins and Kirby gets turned into a trophy. Mario turns Kirby back into real life. Then the Ancient Minister comes and drops a bunch of primid on the arena. Mario fights them off. Then the ROB's come and plant a subspace bomb. Mario is attacked by Petey Pirana and is blasted away into the clouds. Petey traps Peach and Zelda in cages and Kirby fights off Petey and frees one of the princesses. Then Wario comes and shoots Zelda with some type of black arrow and turns her into a trophy. He runs away. Kirby and Peach fly away on a warp star and are attacked by the Halberd. Then they are knocked of off the top of the Halberd by an Arwing. Pit watched the match between Mario and Kirby and saw the arena get blown into subspace. Paluenta sends him to help and on the way he sees Mario in trophy form laying on a cloud where he landed after being knocked away by Petey. Pit and Mario then become a team. Meanwhile Donkey Kong's banana horde was stolen by minions of Bowser. He is attacked by three Bullet Bills but Diddy Kong saves him. We also know from the link by the game's rating that the Ancient Minister is trying to turn the characters into trophies to harness there power and suck the world into subspace. Is that enough info or not?How about K? 03:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)How_about_K?

Tis not. Best we know the whole story and put in the important parts. Dengarde ► Complaints 03:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed there should be no work on this kind of development especially since the game has not been released yet. -Adv193 04:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Then can we at least put in something more about the plot........maybe something like,"The Ancient Minister is trying to turn the characters into trophies and harness there power, while at the same time, blow up the smash world into subspace"?How about K? 05:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)How_about_K?

As small as that bit is, it's not enough. And that whole thing above was a pathetic pish-posh match up of things one might observe from the videos. There is no outside source that gives any info on the actual storyline, just a bunch of promotional media. To hopefully end this ridiculous debate, I'll paraphrase what has been said before: Wikipedia is not about telling the truth. Wikipedia is about having verifiable information. Until a 1st party source gives out the storyline for SSBB, there is none. 144.90.1.34 23:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of what you said WAS speculation, which isn't allowed. We don't know if you choose Mario or Kirby and the plot differeintiates because of your decision. We also don't know if the Ancient Minister dropped the Primid or Meta Knight (if he is on their side). It wasn't said if Peach and Kirby were attacked by the Halberd or if they chased it down. There also wasn't anything about an Arwing knocking them off in any video I saw. The point is it that we don't have enough information that isn't speculation for a section or article. It's best to just wait until the game comes out and we know the whole storyline so we can make a worthwhile section. Shyrangerr 11:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Videos as reference

Quick question: I know something about the Subspace Emissary because of videos found at GameTrailers, IGN and Gamespot, AKA how you will choose your character for the next stage. Can I write this info down and use those sites as references or must I wait for the DOJO to officially tell us? Thanks in advance. WebJiCi 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you'll have to wait until it's on the Dojo. Currently, deriving info from those videos would be original research, which should be avoided. When they're on the Dojo, they will probably have some info posted with them. Powerslave 22:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

TBC v. TBD 2008

There is constant back and forthing right now. We need to establish what is appropiate for the AUS Release Date. If there is even more back and forthing, I am going to request Full Protection until it gets resolved. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

1. TBC - The source says TBC, unless there is a more recent source, I think TBC is what we should use. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the WiFi debates in the archives. And the result was the bitter anal retentive wikipedieans were wrong in the end (they did however deny many interviews confirming WiFi and removed wifi multiplayer off the article for a short while). But I digress, appropriately it should fall under 2008 given the jurisdiction over Nintendo of Europe/Australia (as well as the languages for Australia, protip: It's not more than PAL). Regardless, we are not using TBC. It's better suited as To Be Announced (TBA). This will probably be changed to 2008 as soon as Nintendo of Australia cares to update their site or a release a press sheet.--MrBubbles 01:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rules

Can you guys put the list of each and every rule you've made for this page? I'm sick of having not only my contribution(s) deleted but also getting insulted by those who delete them, just because I didn't follow the rules. Guess what? your "rules" are hard to find, hard to see AND hard to read, as well as sometimes questionable. So can you guys please make a list of those rules, as well as a link to this list at the top of the page, right here, right now? Thank you. Forgive my rudeness, but I'm not pleased that us, SSB fans, cannot properly contribute to this page because of something we don't know about. WebJiCi 20:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Normal talk page rules apply, but anything that includes the same discussion as The Smash Bros. Brawl FAQ most likely will deleted. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Some general ones: A talk page is not a fourm, use common sense, wait for offical comfirmatiotion, be respectful (don't bite of other's heads), this is not a game guide, ect. ect.→041744 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that WebJiCi means more along the lines of don't make lists, etc. It does seem that the regular editors of this page are a bit more strict than others (which I can understand--this page does undergo a lot of pointless/stupid (for lack of a better word) edits, and I think WebJiCi is asking for a list of what should and shouldn't be included in the article.Purplepurplepurple 02:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Target Smash

Today's update on the dojo is the return of break the targets, we should add it to the stadium section, for Brawl. I would but, I have to go; so thanks whoever ends up doing it for me. (Sina Cool 10:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Targets have been in every game, so yes, I believe this does need mentioned because it's changed from Melee. However, for future reference, Sina, not everything on Dojo will be worth mentioning, just keep that in mind, buku. -Sukecchi 11:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Break the Targets is an important dojo update and at this point everyone who visits this article will want to know everything they can about the game so we should put every single update -Smashbrosboy —Preceding comment was added at 23:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ and WP:DIEU. — Malcolm (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There should be more info in here though. Before linking me to a retard-created rule hear me out: PEOPLE COME TO WIKIPEDIA FOR INFOMATION!!! THAT IS WHY WIKIPEDIA EXISTS!Claycrow 13:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Retard-created rule? Newsflash: You don't have to contribute here. Calm down. ShadowUltra 20:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Malcom. That clarifies things. Smashbrosboy 03:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Smashbrosboy

Intros

This should be in the article,look on the last archive for more info, the disscussion didn't really get finished. Claycrow 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's really only an aesthetic change...maybe if there was a small mention of things brought back from the first game...like the intros and the results screen...but other than that, no, not really. -Sukecchi 12:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This wasnt mentioned in the SSB page(at least when I last checked), why should it be mentioned here?→041744 12:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of is because they were absent from Melee. -Sukecchi 12:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Even so, that's not much of a reason. The intros are just too trivial to mention.Satoryu 17:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine then!Claycrow 13:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Video Replay and Data Sharing

This info was up on Dojo today...don't you think that this is significant enough to mention? I don't see it in the article as it is now, but this should probably be mentioned in the Gameplay section (after the mention of snapshot-taking and sending capabilities, I would imagine), or perhaps in the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection section. If we opted for the latter, perhaps we should change "Other Wi-Fi services are set to be available, but these functions are currently unknown." to something like "Other Wi-Fi services are set to be available, such as screenshot- and video-sharing functionality and other, currently unknown services."

Anyway, I want to know what you think before acting on this... 66.178.141.175 22:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The section mentions battles and sandbag co-ops, but it "could" mention sending screenshots and replay saves as well. Honestly, it doesn't hurt the section to mention confirmed wi-fi capabilities. Mentioning "other, currently unknown services" seems like a bad idea though. *kaburicho 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, except that the unknown Wi-Fi functions are probably still important enough to mention. It's been confirmed that they exist, which is certainly significant. We just don't know what they are precisely. So I think we should continue to make note of them until either a large enough number of functions are revealed that there's no real doubt that the vast majority of significant online capabilities have been covered in the article, or we get an update indicating that all online functions have been detailed or at least comfirmed to exist. Or the game comes out. :P

Also, this article might benefit from a general clean-up if anyone wants to do that. It's not terrible (actually it's pretty good compared to a lot of other game articles), but some sentences are missing encyclopedic tone or diction, et cetera. Anyway. Erik 03:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I added the info to a few places and went through the article for clean up and clarification. I don't know how to make citations, though, so someone needs to get the approriate Smash Bros. Dojo citations up where I put those "citation needed" markers for my edit.

If anyone has an issue with my changes, feel free to fix them as you like. I just rewrote the parts that needed tweaking, mostly. Erik 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

King Dedede

Is he worth mentioning anywhere?Claycrow 13:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In short, no. TO REPEAT: Just because there's an update on smashbros.com doesn't mean it needs to be added anywhere to the article. He's already listed under the playable characters section on the Super Smash Bros. (series) page. Coreycubed 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's worth adding his name into a sentence so that it reads, "Meta Knight and King Dedede from the Kirby series along Ike from the Fire Emblem series will make their first appearance in the Smash Bros. series.". But who am I, one without an account, to comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.149.249 (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Do that with one character, then we have to do it with everyone. It's not going to happen. -Sukecchi 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not like it clutters up the article. I figured it would make sense because it directly adds to the statement said without cluttering it up (because the character is of the same franchise as Meta Knight and therefore doesn't have to add much more than his name and two grammatical corrections). You're right though, if it had been a character from any other series that wasn't already mentioned in the sentence, I wouldn't think of adding them in because it would make the section overly long and tough on the eyes. But with Dedede, there doesn't seem to be much of an issue because Meta Knight and the Kirby series are already there and he, in a way, completes the idea trying to be conveyed. If I had an account to bypass the lock I would've editted in myself because of how minor an edit (and an issue) he specifically is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.149.249 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you do that for everyone, then it does get cluttered. -Sukecchi 01:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, I agree with you. But I don't think it should be done for everyone. Just Dedede because his franchise is already in the sentence. New franchises should not be added because it does clutter it up but because the Kirby series is already mentioned there, there's no real reason for him not to be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.149.249 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Just because" doesn't justify it. It doesn't need to be there. There is a list of characters on the main article. We do not need to mention every character in this article. That's how we've done it. -Sukecchi 02:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's neither a list of characters or a 'just because'. It's strengthening the argument already present. "Some previously represented series have had more characters added to Brawl. Meta Knight and King Dedede from the Kirby series along with Ike from the Fire Emblem series will make their first appearance in the Smash Bros. series." Both Meta Knight and Dedede are new and both represent the Kirby series. Why does Meta Knight get a reference when Dedede doesn't if they're of equal status concerning the topic being discussed? It makes no sense to reference one and not the other. As far as it developing into a 'list of characters', it's an impossibility because the only other characters that could be included into the section would be new characters from Fire Emblem alongside Ike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.149.249 (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Importance had nothing to do with it; the current list of examples are there because they were the first examples available when this article was created (back when we didn't know anybody beyond the initially announced nine) to the next several months beyond, and at one point consensus simply decided that example adding was getting ridiculous and to cut it off where it stood. This isn't a contest on who is more important than another and deserves an article mention. Arrowned 02:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then by your standards the article should be brought up to date to better represent current information on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.149.249 (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Except this isn't a case where current information invalidates the old. In the fact, the more important current information (info about gameplay and a synopsis of the game itself, which is what the article is supposed to be instead of focusing on minutae) is already there and kept up to date. Arrowned 04:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

74.70.149.249 does have a point. The only argument being presented is that it would clutter up the article, but it won't. It's mentioned that new Kirby characters will be in Brawl, but it doesn't mention Dedede. That leaves the sentence incomplete. The way it is now not mentioning King Dedede will mislead people into thinking only Meta Knight will be added from the Kirby series because the Kirby series is specifically mentioned. If you're going to say a series is getting new representatives, you either need to list them all, or say some and say there are others so that it's clear there aren't only the ones listed. In this case, it's easier to just also mention Dedede. Shyrangerr 11:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No. See, we don't need to list EVERY character in this article because we have THIS. It's linked to at the top of that section. -Sukecchi 11:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is making an argument why EVERY character should be listed. Get off it already. The argument's being successfully made that only King Dedede should be added to the article, not everyone else. And the argument that current doesn't invalidate the old, it doesn't. But by omitting the character in that statement is misleading. All one has to do is add and King Dedede. And if someone else wanted to argue adding other characters, pointing to precedence on this decision would fall short because this is a special circumstance. Not to mention that this is the first time that 3 Kirby characters have been in a Smash game (which, by my logic, is pretty significant). --Son 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Smash Wiki says that tons of Kirby stuff is revealed, and there is! (3 characters,1 AT, couple items, and more) so it's preety inportant. In addition, I know it's a rule but I think the Clutter-thing is being over-enforced. I seriously don't think the article gives enough info anymore. But that's not really the point, the point is we should add Dedede.Claycrow 13:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One character is perfectly representative, we don't need any more from the same series. Geoff B 15:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your confusing the issue. It's not about representing the Kirby series, it's about what the sentence states. --Son 17:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we maybe change the original Meta Knight example to someone like Diddy Kong or Lucas, where they're singular examples of characters being added from a previously represented series? That would seem to satisfy those who want to keep length down and those who have a problem with only listing one character in a sentence where two seem perfectly valid. MarkSutton 18:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be a logical consensus agreement. --Son 22:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Another character could easily be substituted as the example. Coreycubed 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend for this to develop into an edit war and for that, I apologize. It seems that neither side is willing to bedge on the issue so I agree we go with Mark's idea as well. That way, there will only be one newcomer in the replacement series so this problem should disappear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.149.249 (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Except if someone else from Donkey Kong or Earthbound make it in, people will want to add in the other example there. Then we'd have to switch out again. The only solutions I see to this problem are 1) leave the article as is, 2) get rid of the examples all together, or 3) name only the series, not the characters.Satoryu 02:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Then, why not just add and King Dedede in? It's three words, precedence would not suggest adding every character, and it would be making a technically incorrect statement a technically correct statement. Additionally, if you compare the Melee article to the Brawl article, it talks about the mechanics of play involving certain characters. The section also does not have wikilinks for the characters named in that article. Perhaps the same should be considered here. Also, you'd have to think, that since it is very likely there will be more characters in Brawl, then it would be proportionate to mention more characters in this section. I think you can add one to two more characters based on the way the section is written. But that can only change once the game comes out in February. --Son 15:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The reasons why have been said all too many times. If we put Dedede in, we'll have to put everyone in. Meta Knight is there solely as an example, and we don't need any more examples. The only other character that should be mentioned in this article is another third party character, and that's not guaranteed to happen.Satoryu 17:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not true though. It in no way implies that all characters should be mentioned in the section. The only other characters that this would open up the door to would be any other Kirby or Fire Emblem characters. No one else. All it is doing is correcting an incorrect statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.149.249 (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because we add in Dedede DOESN'T mean we have to add in all the other characters. We need to add in Dedede because it's specifically mentioned that there are new Kirby series characters. Right now it only mentions Meta Knight so we need to add in Dedede so that the sentence is correct and informative. Your only reason for not adding in Dedede is because you say it clutter up the article. 1) Adding in "and King Dedede" isn't going to clutter up the article and 2) We won't have to add in any other character so this wouldn't clutter up the article either. Unless you have any other reason for not adding Dedede he will be mentioned. Shyrangerr 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What is so wrong about that statement? There's nothing incorrect about it. It's giving an example of a new character from the Kirby series. Just because it doesn't list all the examples does not make it wrong. :I'll wait two and a half days. After then, if there are no objections, I will remove all character examples from that sentence and leave only the name of the series. If it worked for the composer list, it will work here.Satoryu 04:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What's so hard about just adding in King Dedede to the statement? I mean seriously why are you so opposed to it? It's incorrect because it's talking about the new characters representing those series and it doesn't mention King Dedede. Just adding in King Dedede is perfectly okay. Shyrangerr 04:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just throwing my 2$ in here, but Satoryu, on your edit summary you said what out IP freind said was a personal attack, but all he really said was "You dont get it". Just making sure no one is making assumptions or anything.Atomic Religione 04:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a personal attack. It was insulting my intelligence.

And for the last time, there is nothing wrong with the statement. The statement was not written to list every character from a series, it was written to give EXAMPLES of characters. "Do not add or change examples." It's the guideline that was set for the article, and I'm sticking to it.Satoryu 04:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No harm is going to come from updating an outdated example. Satoryu, you and Sukecchi are the only people here who are against adding in "and King Dedede". Unless someone else says that King Dedede shouldn't be mentioned, King Dedede WILL be mentioned. Two people are not enough to keep something from being updated. Shyrangerr 05:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Shyrangerr is right, consensus is in the wing of adding the reference; additionally, I have said repeatedly that precedence would not suggest adding every character into the list. I oppose removing character references and only keeping series references. I'll repeat myself again: precedence of this decision will not suggest adding in all of the characters currently announced to be in the game. Also, "you don't get it" is not a personal attack. If you're saying that "you don't get it" is a personal attack, then perhaps you should read what WP:NPA states. Also, it is an incorrect statement because it is leading the reader to think that Meta Knight is the only new character being added to the Smash series from the Kirby series. --Son 06:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He has a point, we dont want to compromise the quality of this article.Atomic Religione 06:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 1

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." If "You don't get it, Satoryu" doesn't fit this bill, I don't know what does. I still fail to see why you guys think Dedede's absence in the sentence makes it wrong. And there's no formal consensus yet. I'm fed up with this petty argument, and I want it done with.Satoryu 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want it done with, then just add the THREE WORDS into the article. And I'll repeat myself again. I don't know how many times I can state this. By reading the sentence, it is misleading the reader that Meta Knight is the ONLY new character added into Brawl from the Kirby series. By adding and King Dedede it would eliminate any possible misunderstanding. It makes the statement absolutely correct, which it is not now, as it stands.

As for the "personal attack", I'm not going to argue that ground. However, you have to keep in mind that I find your (and Sukecchi's) attitude to this whole article a bit apprehensive. While there has been lots of constructive things done with this article care of yourself and Sukecchi, attempting to edit this article in an environment such that has been created by both said users, makes a very unfortunate circumstance. And this discussion, of which you tire of and want it done with, is a direct result of this. In some manner, there is some implied ownership that you two control this article and if either of you like the suggestion its cool, but if either of you don't like it, and consensus swings against either of you, then a long discussion ensues, the environment gets even more heated than it already is, and editors are driven away from this article, and Wikipedia in general. And if you look back at this discussion, the main argument (and the only one that seems to be concurrent from you and Sukecchi) against adding and King Dedede is that it would lead to adding every other character announced. And no one arguing in favor of adding and King Dedede is suggesting that. And yet, the two of you can't move off that position. Which again, is troublesome, and hence it feels like that this article has turned into a walled garden of sorts.

That's my piece. I stopped editing this article weeks ago because of the problems then. I stopped by the article the other day and injected my opinion because of how I saw the discussion going and how stupid I thought it was. And in the time since I stopped editing this article and now, it still hasn't changed. --Son 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I in no way claim to own the article. I'm not veteran to Wikipedia, I'm actually a n00b. I am just going by the guidelines proposed on the FAQ and hidden messages. My attempts to explain the situation have utterly failed, and it's fruitless to continue. I give up. But just because I'm backing away does not mean Dedede should be added. We have not heard everyone's opinion on the matter yet.

But when three other Kirby characters and 7 FE characters are announced, you'll see what I was talking about.Satoryu 17:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The hidden tag says not to add characters until discussed on the Talk Page. It has been discussed and found that only you and Sukecchi are the only two people opposed to adding in "and King Dedede". More people are for adding in King Dedede than you two who are opposed to it. To your last comment, THAT is when the article would become cluttered and WOULD need to be changed. However, the addition of "and King Dedede" is not going to clutter anything up. Your arguments for not adding in King Dedede have been rebuttaled multiple times by multiple people. Seeing as how you have brought up no other points for your opinion and your current ones are not valid, "and King Dedede" will be added to the article. Shyrangerr 18:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have NEVER once claimed this article as my own. Wikipedia is a group effort. These absolutely no reason to say and King Dedede. You keep suggesting that if he's not there it will confuse the reading into thinking Meta Knight is the only new playable character from Kirby. That's what the list of playable characters link is for. You also claim that it won't be done for everyone else, just Dedede. Well, what if someone comes in wanting to add DK and Diddy to that list? Or Pikachu and Pokemon Trainer? You can't do something for one example and not the other. That would result in a wall of text. Why don't you understand that? We only need one example, not two. The list of characters in the main article is there to help the reader see who else is playable. You know what? I'm done with this as well. It is now up to you to make sure no other examples get added, because you have stated that won't happen. Good luck with that. -Sukecchi 18:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's too early to say you have consensus. After all, have you taken my yet to be mentioned vote into account? I am against King Deedee being added. In fact, I'd prefer to kill the whole discussion by replacing Meta Knight's example with a different one, such as Diddy Kong or Pokemon Trainer. No confusion, no Deedee. Simple, fits guidelines, fits policy, and it compromises. Anyone object? TwilightPhoenix 18:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do because there isn't any reason to completely change the example when simply adding in "and King Dedede" will fulfill everything needed and be perfectly fine. Shyrangerr 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not completely changing the example, it is just using a different example. It gets the same point across. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 18:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am for replacing Meta Knight's example with Diddy Kong and the Donkey Kong series. I am strongly for it. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am now also for replacing Meta Knight. -Sukecchi 18:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, to get it over with let's replace Meta Knight with Diddy. I choose Diddy because I find it less likely for other DK characters to be revealed and therefor will not lead to another debate like this one. Yes, that is speculation, but the speculation isn't going in the article. Shyrangerr 18:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to Diddy. Hopefully this long lasted discussion is over!! Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 18:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit probably is for the best, but I hope everyone is prepared to suffer consequences. History does repeat itself. Satoryu 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

For once I'm not siding with you two... What could you possibly mean by "suffer consequences"? You make it sound like something really, really bad is going to happen. The edit is done, everyone's still got their fingers and toes. No big deal. Coreycubed 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if someone like King K. Rool is announced, we'll have to go this whole process again. And it could potentially keep happening. The shuffling of examples would get really tedious. And I'm sure arguments would come up again as well. But for now, we're safe. The issue's done with.Satoryu 17:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection

"Though, a slight flaw within most Wi-fi connection battles, there may be some lag to the game play. Other than that, the game is guaranteed to run smoothly." - How does anyone know this for sure? The game isn't out yet!  Doktor  Wilhelm  15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to check to be sure, but I believe the release talking about the Wi-Fi battles actually mentioned that. But I'm not positive. DurinsBane87 16:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I reread the piece, I guess it does say lag could be an issue when playing against international opponents. But, doesn't that kind of go without saying? Anyways, it was worded really badly in the article. I nuked it. Coreycubed 17:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording was a bit off, but is the lag that may happen really needed to be includded in the article, specially before the game is even released, that's all I was thinking, but it's gone now so it's okay, I can relax and stop screaming!  Doktor  Wilhelm  03:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Krystal

I've found some evidence that Krystal from the Starfox series is going to be somewhere in the game, whether it be as a playable character, assist trophy, or part of the Subspace Emissary: [2] The voice actresses homepage is at [3] Do you think this is worth mentioning somewhere on this page or on others related to SSBB or Krystal? I think we should mention the evidence, because I think it is good proof that she will be somewhere in the game PS: Maybe then we could also mention the proof that Ganondorf and Shiek will be somewhere in the game as well. --Adam 05:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We're already having this discussion on the series talk page. Arrowned 06:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And a collective descision has been made not to add any characters (or rumors) until they're released on the official Smash Bros. website [4]. Joiz ^A. Shmo 12:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, it is to only add stuff once an authoritative source reveals it. I call the artist's page authoritative in this case. But per other rules, we don't add it. For one thing, we don't know exactly what to add, it could be a brief cameo apparence or a full character. This means we need a more detailed source too. And even then, there is the rule we can't add everything in the article.--Henke37 16:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn't we at least mention that there is a source that mentions some sort of inclusion of Krystal in Super Smash Bros Brawl.--Adam 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because it's speculation. There is NOTHING you can say about this that wouldn't be speculation. -Sukecchi 17:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What, that link provides proof that Krystal along with her voice, will be in Super Smash Bros Brawl in some form, not necessarily a playable character, I'm not speculating in that way.--Adam 21:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you people just wait till shes on Dojo just b/c the voice actor is mentioned does not mean shes in the game, Just wait till its on dojo. --FrosticeBlade 22:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It means that the voice actor worked with the makers of Super Smash Bros Brawl by giving them her voice for Krystal, I'm not saying she's playable, but we could say somewhere that: "Alesia Glidewell has provided the voice for Krystal in this game, but Krystal's role in the game has not be announced." or something like that, it's not speculation because she has given her voice, and we're not sure why.--Adam 02:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is speculation. Either way, it's not relevant enough to mention.Satoryu 02:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think proof that Alesia Glidewall's voice, portraying the character Krystal, from the Starfox series, in the game Super Sash Bros. Brawl counts as speculation. Plus on top of it all, whats so bad about some facts that there is speculation. Like saying that Krystal will be in the game, but there's speculation one what role she will play in the game.--Adam 03:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's speculation or not doesn't change the fact that it's not really relevant to the article. Krystal, if she appears, would only be as a playable character or an assist trophy... and assist trophies aren't listed in the article, while playable characters are getting no more examples added. If Dojo confirms her playability, she'll be added to the character table at (series), but not here. Arrowned 03:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But since there's also proof that Sheik and Ganondorf will in someway be included, couldn't we add a section to the Brawl page or the series page.--24.17.227.150 04:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, for the exact same reason I just mentioned for Krystal. Whether they're playable or not, they're not going on the Brawl page, so it's not relevant. And they're not going on (series) until Dojo has confirmed them. Arrowned 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to add that Alesia Glidewell's site no longer lists that she is voicing Krystal in brawl, i would imagine to stop most of the emails she is getting about Krystal being a character (since I've seen so many people saying that they e-mailed her and got a repsonse saying that she can't say anything)

Merge

Do Inclusion of characters and Characters, really need to be apart??? Claycrow 13:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because all other characters come from different series. Its not right to merge all the characters articles, which would be too long and confusiing. 1yodsyo1 14:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs)

The Characters section is about the characters themselves. The "Inclusion of Characters" is a sub-section of Development, and that is what it is about. So, therefore, they should stay apart, as they are talking of two different, albeit similiar, things. TwilightPhoenix 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How about just creating a whole new page about the characters in Brawl, listing them all ? WebJiCi 20:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There already is. Look at the box at the bottom of the page or above the Playable Characters section... Shyrangerr 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Trophies

A trophy section isn't really needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.101.182 (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It isn't even needed once the game releases and we know all the trophies and such. Shyrangerr 00:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I brought this discussion back after it was deleted what looks to be again. Two people are asking about it, so it should be discussed. This pertains to the article so it should stay on the talk page. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- trophies are too minor to be in the article. BlueCanary9999 02:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think trophies need to be referenced somewhere, seeing that they were a big part of Melee. --(trogga) 03:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say leave it for now and put it under a more inclusive heading once we know more about the game. Maybe something like "Unlockables"? Paul Haymon 06:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put "Collectables" instead. Sounds good ? WebJiCi 20:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be good if the section was long enough. I'm not sure we'd even have enough for a Collectibles section once the game is released. The section just needs to be deleted and Trophies and Stickers should be mentioned some place else in the article. Shyrangerr 21:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you should just list the trophies that are banned in some countries, important ones, hidden ones, and ones really hard to unlock. 68.81.252.24 21:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)68.81.252.24

No, there shouldn't be a Trophy/Collectible section. Trophies and Stickers should just be mentioned somewhere else in the article. Shyrangerr 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Trophies/collectibles aren't major enough to have their own section, and the article is big enough. A sentence for them is good, yeah. I agree with that. But not a section. BlueCanary9999 03:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The section is too small and seems out of place from the article. Should it be mentioned? Yes. But like it was said, shouldn't have its own section.--MrBubbles 15:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should put Collectibles in the Gameplay Section as a Sub-Section underneath Tourney Mode, or we could put One Sub-Section for Trophies, and one for Stickers in the same area, it seems to be a better area for that information and it leaves room for more information to be added once information is given.--Adam 17:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

New day, new update. Now we are collecting smash coins(non authoritative name, but they clearly isn't the normal Mario coins). I think the coins should wait a bit so that we can get a clear purpose of them.--Henke37 12:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh...this is not a collection of all the forumcruft that you gathered from other sites. We're not going to mention them at all. Coreycubed 15:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Characters not returning

Did anyone from Nintendo or anyone who made Super Smash Brothers Brawl say that some of the player will not be returning?--FrosticeBlade 21:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sakurai said it himself. However, like everything else he has said there's no link to it... Shyrangerr 22:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So it can't be proven,--FrosticeBlade 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no speculation FosticBlade, youve been told this numerous times... Atomic Religione 22:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Using the magic of web.archive, we can prove it. http://web.archive.org/web/20060703022507/www.smashbros.com/jp/toukou/bn/no8.html Sakurai's comment is on the bottom. Translated, it says "Sorry, though it's not too wise, I can't tell a lie, so I'll just write it. As for the previous work's characters, they will decrease. Definitely." 75.152.155.200 11:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Add Wikia link

{{editprotected}}
to the external links section please add {{Wikia|ssb|Super Smash Bros. Wiki}}. thanks.--Alertdaterms0 01:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A link to the Smash Wiki was fought over on the Super Smash Bros. Series article, and the apparent concensus was to not add the link, so seeing as the series page would be the best candidate to add this link, and it was not, I think that this article doesnt really need a link. But thats simply my opnion. Atomic Religione 02:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Declined - given the discussion there, it's probably best that we follow the same decision here. No consensus to add the link, sorry. Nihiltres^(t.l) 14:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is Stage Builder?

In article, like now. I'm not doing it because I can't edit for the life of me. So I thought I'd let you guys know 66.133.193.216 07:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Info's in there, it just got moved out of its own section and merged into the basic gameplay section after the bit about stages in general MarkSutton 14:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Brawl allows players to create their own stages using a variety of options. The editors can also save their stages onto an SD card to overcome the limitations of the internal memory. Players can also send their stages to friends they have registered on their friends list. Through Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, players will also be able to submit their creations daily to Nintendo, and receive a daily stage from the service. [16] Methinks this could use some work.75.67.206.173 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Tourney mode online?

The source given for Tournament mode being online doesn't state, as far as I can see, that it will be online. Would someone be a dear and point out where it states that, buku? -Sukecchi 12:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I nuked it since I can't find a source for it. Please folks, do your homework... Coreycubed 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay

The section is getting way too long, and it will only keep getting longer. We should not be giving expansive details on every little feature. Try to summarize parts and restructure it. TTN 14:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

For once, I actually agree with TTN. (And trust me, thats rare.) It seems like were adding details for every mode there is, which is really cluttering up the article. Dengarde ► Complaints 16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I approve of the wording in the final smash description, it doesn't fit there (it goes to indepth about the item). Additionally making note of items like Pokeball seems to be straining away from the general idea of the section. If someone could shrink those that would be nice. --MrBubbles 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Unnanounced but Confirmed

Going off of the Krystal debate, maybe their should be a seperate section about Unnanounced characters on the Brawl Website, but characters confirmed or hinted by other sources. Ex. Krystal, Ridley, WW Link, some sort of Animal Crossing Character. Sorry, no link. Maybe someone else can provide one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.222.18 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no "confirmed" characters besides the ones listed on Dojo. End of story. Our definition of "confirmed" means "shown on Dojo", so the argument is pretty much moot. Coreycubed 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

NOte: the proper definition for confirmed is by Nintendo or an equally reliable source. InsaneZeroG 22:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I think Dojo is definitely not the only reliable source. Of course if we here anything new it'll probably come from Sakurai and if it comes from Sakurai himself it will probably appear on Dojo around the same time. But that's not to say that Dojo and by default Sakurai are the ONLY reliable source(s). However, as of yet, we haven't had any reliable sources outside of Dojo confirming anything. Unless you count Donkey Kong in the clip from E3, but Donkey Kong was revealed right after that so...24.186.101.182 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless Wikipedia is not the place for speculation about who might be in, and who is being hinted at, sorry but end of discussion. Atomic Religione 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be better suited for the Smash Wiki. --Son 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, in case anyone does not know where this is, http://www.smashwiki.com/wiki/Main_PageAtomic Religione 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if she is confirmed, she's not going in the article. We already have enough examples for characters, so this discussion is kind of pointless (At least for this page. This would be more suited for the Smash Series page because they have that complete character list.) --Kenny2k 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sakurai is the only reliable source; since he's the guy in charge of, you know; making the game. Nothing is "announced" or "confirmed" unless he "announces" or "confirms" it. Not even if someone "says" Sakurai said it; only if it's straight from the Masahiro's mouth. - Jishmeister 11:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

At best, we can have a list of stuff not to bring up on the talk page in the FAQ.--Henke37 11:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Jishmeister, just because Sakurai is the one making the game doesn't mean he's the only one who knows what is going on. There are plenty of other people from Nintendo who would work just as well as a source. Did we wait until it was announced on the main site that the game was delayed to Feb. 10 before we put it on Wikipedia? I should hope not. 75.152.155.200 15:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

how about this we add her to the list but we put Question mark instead of a check just to make every one happy.--FrosticeBlade 15:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Not only is that against consensus, but since her role is speculation until Dojo mentions her, it's unnecessary. Arrowned 16:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For those who are just reading this and wondering what reliable sources are, I'd like to mention nintendo.com and nintendo.jp. Socby19 19:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and people like Reggie Fils-Aime. NOT that random E For All dude. Coreycubed 19:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this when we see the new players with our own eyes then we could put them up reading doesn't count. You have to see it, voice actors/actress don't count. Anything thats on Dojo counts only b/c the maker of the game puts the news up himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrosticeBlade (talk • contribs) 20:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sakurai and the Dojo aren't the only two reliable sources. Anyone high up in Nintendo, like Kapplan (sp?), Reggie, or Miyamoto are perfectly reliable sources. It doesn't have to come out of Sakurai's mouth (which the Dojo is) to be true. We shouldn't put any characters like Krystal or Animal Crosser though because it's speculation and isn't allowed. Shyrangerr 21:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth It is driving my crazy if there will or if there will not be a player from animal crossing in SSBB.--FrosticeBlade 21:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There is going to be an AC character. The icon confirms at. Every single icons always gets it's own character. Even though this is true, there isn't any official source for it so it can't be mentioned. Shyrangerr 21:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So who does PictoChat belong to Game and watch or some one from drawn to life?--FrosticeBlade 21:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The one that applies most directly to the icon is just a simple drawing from Pictochat. The music you can play (which currently we know is only available from the stage's series) is Pictochat, Mii Chanel, Wii Shop Chanel, and Brain Age. That opens up Miis you can upload from your system and Dr. Kawashima from Brain Age. You could go even further to say the icon represents Touch Generations and that opens up L-Block, Nintendog, and an Elite Beat Agent. Shyrangerr 21:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just cuase there is a icon does not mean there will be a playable reprensentive, what about the lip's stick from melee? Lip nor anything eles from that game never appear ecept mabey in trophies. And sayin "there will not be a player from animal crossing" and "That opens up Miis you can upload from your system and Dr. Kawashima from Brain Age. You could go even further to say the icon represents Touch Generations and that opens up L-Block, Nintendog, and an Elite Beat Agent." is nothing more than mindless speculation.→041744 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So why are you still talking about it? The PictoChat icon is the DS logo. Simple as that. Coreycubed 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

An icon DOES mean a character. That's why every single icon has at least one character. Lip' Stick is an ITEM, NOT an icon. There is a difference between the two. Shyrangerr 22:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That is still unbacked speculation with no place on wikipedia, besides we this arguement won't improve the article at all.→041744 23:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, that's why I said it shouldn't be added. Shyrangerr 02:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We're getting off-topic here. --Kenny2k 06:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no other source other than the Dojo that has 100% certainty with it. The one and only place which would count as "unannounced but confirmed" info would be hands-on experience with the Brawl demo, but they had only characters previously announced on the Dojo. Aside from characters, so far the only new info I've seen from hands-on reports would be Final Smashes, items and Assist Trophies, all belonging on the Smash Wiki, not here. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be the reason why I created the next talk section. Sakurai and the Dojo aren't the only reliable sources. Like if Aonuma were to have said "Sheik and Ganondorf are playable" instead of the their designs were submitted, that would be reliable because it's coming from the director of one of Nintendo's biggest series. Shyrangerr 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sakurai and the Dojo aren't the only two reliable sources

Some of you seem to think that unless it's said by Sakurai or posted on the Dojo that it's not true. There ARE other reliable sources besides those two. If someone like Reggie were to say "Sigurd is in Brawl", then Sigurd's in Brawl. Just like Aonuma saying that Sheik and Ganondof's models were submitted is true. Anyone high up from Nintendo that says something is just as reliable as Sakurai or the Dojo. Someone like that one random guy that mentioned Luigi in the interview is NOT reliable though. Just keep this in mind. Shyrangerr 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

isn't Reggie from Nintendo of America? So, what's he got to do with it, the games being made by a company on behalf of Nintendo of Japan?  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He makes statements at official Nintendo events on behalf of Nintendo as a corporation, as seen at E3 and previous trade shows, often before the official website shows the information. Coreycubed 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> True, but these are, by far, THE most reilable sources, other people in Nintendo could state somthing about Brawl but that doesn't mean it is true, they could have never even seen Brawl being devolped or heard news of it. As for Aonuma, he did state the 2 models were submitted but that by no means, means they are gareented a spot in brawl. →041744 22:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Yes, it pretty much means just that.--141.84.69.20 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reggie, Iwata, or Miyamoto are completly different than some schmoe who starts naming off characters. -Sukecchi 22:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC) The reason why People like Reggie are reliable sources are because they're people high up in Nintendo and know about things like that.\

Yea, Reggie isn't directly involved in making Brawl, but he stills knows about it. The point is if it comes from someone high up in Nintendo it's true. Shyrangerr 22:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"The point is if it comes from someone high up in Nintendo it's true"
That does sound very naive! We are talking about people who arn't connected to the project, and even members of the SSBB team, don't know what will be in the final game, until it is finally out?
(why are Americans so obsessed with Reggie, anyways?)  Doktor  Wilhelm  23:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Its his devilish good looks......nah, I guess we kind of see him as our gateway to Japan and Nintendo. Atomic Religione 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

With being Europian, I've no such figure-head of nintendo to look up to (they just ingnore us most of the time), 'tis a shame, that the only reason why I'm curious about americans' relationship with Reggie!  Doktor  Wilhelm  00:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's just as naive to believe that portions of a company don't stay in general contact with each other when it comes to products being released worldwide, don't give each other general updates, and don't keep the higher ups of each portion informed for PR reasons. If a person that we know for a fact is an employee of Nintendo but who isn't part of the SSBB dev team (Miyamoto, as well as Reggie, are examples) says something about Brawl, there's no reason not to believe it's true. If Sakurai later claims otherwise, there's no reason to believe the first person was lying; it's far more likely things simply changed and the second person is just the first to inform the public. Brawl's release date changing comes to mind on that end. Arrowned 00:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

it's not about lying, it's about back-upable information, anyone one can say that anyone said anything, unless there is a 'hard copy' of the facts so to speak, I've looked forward to much that various members (specially the "high ups") of games developers have promised, only to be disapointed when it was taken out/removed/never in the finished game! I really think there is a lot of speculation, that is being reported as fact, and can only be proved to be true or not once the finished product is in all our (probaly very Sweaty) hands! Also if Sakurai has final say on everything, why is it not of an advantage to wait for him to announce it? (and even then he doesn't seem to sure about everything!?)  Doktor  Wilhelm  00:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between speculation as you're talking and speculation as Wikipedia considers it. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If somebody "in the know" gives information and can be properly cited (or if gameplay videos are uploaded where they can be watched), there is nothing in Wikipedia rules that prevents us as using that as legit information in the article. Individual people can choose not to believe specific points until Sakurai confirms them, but as far as the article is concerned, there's no reason to wait. As for your note on things being removed from the game, if they were planned to be in the game at one point, then it's not speculation that they existed, but that's another discussion entirely. Arrowned 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"can be properly cited (or if gameplay videos are uploaded where they can be watched)", yes, but often it's neither of these, it's just something someone read somewhere! Oh, so if something can be Verified with ONE source, then even if it is a known un-truth (though because know one would really believe it, there is nothing to verifiy it's un-truth), it is acceptable? I am not against outside sources, I just wonder why people are considering that EVERYTHING is true, with out proper knowledge of anything solid! And how can people choose what to believe, if a lot of fact are just what people have read into various quotations of Heads of various Sections of a company?  Doktor  Wilhelm  01:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing against stuff being left out if there isn't any viable citations linking back to it; it'd be silly to put it in then. I'm arguing against the idea of stuff that does have proper citations to interviews with legit people being removed because "legit people" isn't just Sakurai himself and no-one else. As for your comment about "known un-truths", that's hardly relevant; from day 1, we've not been adding things to this article unless it was something that hadn't been conflicted by other news. All in all, it seems to me your complaint is less about Wikipedia's rules and more about your own disappointments with various developers in the past and news they announce that they later renege on, and while I totally understand where you're coming from (I feel the same way!), I don't think it has much to do with this article. Arrowned 05:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(I haven't read the entire conversation, so please forgive me if some or all of my argument was stated by somebody else.)@ Doktor Wilhelm - "We are talking about people who arn't connected to the project, and even members of the SSBB team, don't know what will be in the final game, until it is finally out?"; As high as Reggie is, he does know what's going on with the game, as he oversees the development of it. Smash is one of Nintendo's biggest franchises. Even if he doesn't oversee every detail, he does know what he says is true at the time, and most likely for the rest of game development. Do you really think he would make an announcement out of the blue that didn't have any truth to it? Can you imagine the consequences for having to retract or having someone else retract supposed announcement? Just look at what backlash had occurred when Reggie's 'December 10th' announcement from E3 was retracted and given another date. He made that announcement with full knowledge that the game would be ready by then. Why? Because the game appeared to be progressing toward that date. Sooner than later, we get a message that game development has some tweaking they have to do. They obviously didn't see this coming. When Reggie makes an announcement, it's because the message he is conveying has been backed up by proof that Nintendo stands by and won't have a problem in the future. As high as he is, he would want to see proof that what he's saying is true. (Again, he wouldn't want to make a retraction of such a statement.) One, last, shorter point. When he does make an announcement, (esp. with a character) he'd display such proof to the public. Socby19 05:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You could tell me that he is Higher than heaven it's self, and I still wouldn't understand how this man named Reggie has anything to do with the development of SSBM, it's not even in the hands of Nintendo of Japan at the moment, so how does the Head of Nintendo of America know all? This has all the trappings of the Great Wizard of Oz to me, somebody hould look behind the curtain! (I've ben on Message boards filled with many of the American gaming public and witnessed first hand, that Reggie tells porkies!)
I'll say this though: I believe everyone should post what ever they want about the game (as long as it's from the muth/site of Nintendo or a related company), I just hope that some people who read the article (In the future, with an spculativ information) but have no understanding of all this that is going on behind the scenes (with You the Fans), doesn't get disapointed with the final game (though if they do, I'll be the first to ask why!)...
Ack, this is the end of my comments on this subject, I've a feeling I'll do better to learn about NoA's Reggie and why NoE hates us so much, instead of creating walls of txet with my (probably miss phrased, and wrongly placed) question!  Doktor  Wilhelm  06:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reggie Fils-Aime is Nintendo of America's President and Chief Operating Officer. Satoru Shibata is his European counterpart as the President of NoE. The head of NoA does not "know all", but as he's in charge of one of Nintendo's major divisions, it's his job to know what's going on throughout the company, on either side of the pond. The same goes for Satoru Iwata, the President of Nintendo overall and specifically its Japanese division. Video game companies with branches in multiple countries do not act under embargo; when a game is to be released in different regions, a large number of people within the company in all regions involved are kept up to date on details of the game. Perhaps it takes having physically worked for a company with that type of setup to understand, but seriously; that's the way it works. It's illogical to think that Sakurai and the Brawl development team are the only people on the planet that know things about the game's details in action; it would be impossible for them to put the game out and keep the company's timetables apprised if they didn't tell their bosses what they were doing as they did it. Arrowned 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Kind of rooting from the point Arrowned has made. Although the game may be developed in Japan, it is still being released in America. Hence, Fils-Aime, as President of NoA, must have an overview of games that are being released in his 'territory', regardless of where it is being developed. From the same point of debate, he is the one to make an announcement, since America is his 'territory'. Socby19 22:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this even be here? how does it help the article?--FrosticeBlade 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You need sources for articles. So yes, it is important. -Sukecchi 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I originally created this because there were people that were saying Sakurai and the Dojo are the only reliable sources you can use. Then this developed into talking about Reggie because I used him as one example. Shyrangerr 11:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Proofread the Classic Section

I need someone who is a constant contributor to SSBB to proofread the classic section. Namely Sukecchi, Arrowned, Satoryu, etc. And sorry if I misspell your names, I am going by memory. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 02:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And me! Don't forget me! *ahem* I tweaked the section a little bit, otherwise it's perfect. It doesn't need to be any longer or shorter. Coreycubed 15:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)