Talk:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

So... release date.

We're probably looking at 2013 or 2014, maybe even 2015, right?--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Naturally we can't put anything in the article that can't be sourced, but just for off-the-record, we could be looking at 2014. 184.1.122.159 (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, hats off to the user who boldly started the article - but I'm concerned this article might be premature. So far we only know that Nintendo will get around to making SSB4, but it could be years off, and reliable information will be few and far between. Does anyone else share my sentiments or do you think we ought to leave the page intact? 184.1.122.159 (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

At this stage, this should probably be merged with and redirected to Super Smash Bros. (series)#Unnamed fourth installment. This could be a stub for years. Digitelle (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This article could house a significant amount of "expectations", and is inevitably going to be discussed to a significant degree. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I say keep it. It's been officially announced, and while it won't be out for a while, I'm sure there will be all sorts of reliable sources discussing it endlessly until then. Kind of like how Project Cafe was kept as an article, after it's announcement but before confirmation of it's name or true characteristics... Sergecross73 msg me 22:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The next Super Smash Bros. game doesn't even have a name. Even the article's title, Super Smash Bros. 4, is unverified. Digitelle (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Summer 2014 on 3ds and Winter for Wii u — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerpyPanda24 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...but you're answering a conversation started 3 years ago. Yes, the release timeframes you speak are common knowledge not disputable, now... Sergecross73 msg me 23:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Name of article

Alright, so far with the AFD, it looks like this article will be kept. However, we do need a new name for the article. "Smash Brothers 4" isn't really appropriate considering none of the entries have been numbered. Any suggestions? Has the press refered to it as anything else? Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As none of the games have been titled in special way, the best I can come up with is "Fourth Super Smash Bros. game". Don't know if anyone else can think of a better one. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

GameFAQs has it Super Smash Bros. Wii U/Super Smash Bros. 3DS. BusSDriver (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Some titles that come to mind are Fourth installment in the Super Smash Bros. franchise (but that's a bit long-winded); Super Smash Bros. U (speculative title), which is about as close as we can get without a source; or we can swallow our pride and call it Super Smash Bros. 4. 184.0.73.147 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

BusSDriver just moved it to "Untitled Super Smash Bros. sequel". Unless anyone's got a better suggestion, that works for me. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We really ought to come to a collective conclusion, then change it. People keep on taking the liberty of changing it and it's getting confusing. I liked someone's suggestion of having some sort of reference to the 3ds/wii u in the title somewhere personally...(but I don't mind the current one either.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems the title is about as objective as it can be at this point with Untitled Super Smash Bros. sequel. Referring to the Wii U or 3DS in the article title should be avoided as one version could be dropped anytime. 184.0.73.147 (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Naming - pt 2

Is the current name "Untitled Super Smash Bros. sequel" really such a good name? None of the other Wikipedia articles I know of use this, couldn't it be at least changed to "Super Smash Bros. (upcoming game)" or something? Androids101 (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If there's a precedent in doing it another way, that's fine, but I feel like the current way is the most objective name so far. I would typically suggest having the system names in there too, but with 2 systems and the current title, that gets to be awfully long... Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

How about we move it to Super Smash Bros. (series)#Future? Then it doesn't need a name. Sure, the subject is notable, but it isn't big enough for its own article yet. Who knows the next time we could ever hear more information about it. Until then, it would fit nicely in the series article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, we just had an AFD discussing that, and the consensus was keep. We just need to agree on a good name. (Though I'm more than happy with what he currently have.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. We voted against deleting it, but we could still have a merge discussion. Now that the article has been left alone for a month, only one source has been added. I will try and find more sources for it if you are really against merging. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, Merge wasn't explicitly mentioned, no, but Merge is an acceptable response in an AFD, and no one was pushing for that, and the AFD was only like a month ago. I really think it should stay, not only does it have coverage now, and survive an AFD, but despite it's distant release date, I think there will be a constant source of "most anticipated games" and "speculated characters/features" type reception from reliable sources, kind of like Mario Kart 3DS for the Nintendo 3ds. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the name can go two ways. It could be numbered even though it wasn't before, like Mario Kart 7, or it could be a synonym of a fight, like the 2nd and 3rd games. But with a fight name, I would suggest Super Smash Bros. Clash, or Assault, or even Battle Royale. Sonic0001 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I came up with a better name Super Smash Bros. (Wii U/3DS). It will be changed in the future. Canihuan300 (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not change article titles without consensus. Clearly, there has been much discussion on this article name, so you should wait and let discussion first, and get a consensus before moving. You did not give any time for any discussion to happen. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

OK Canihuan300 (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming - pt 3

On Nintendo's official press site, "Super Smash Bros." is in italics but "for Nintendo 3DS", "for Wii U" etc. aren't. The games are only listed as "Super Smash Bros." on the Nintendo eShop, and the "for __" terms are disposable. I think this means the upcoming games are just called "Super Smash Bros." and "for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U" is just added for the same reason someone would say "Mario Kart 8 for Wii U" or something. Should the formatting on the page be changed so only "Super Smash Bros." is in italics (to match Nintendo's official press site)? TheMultiYoshi (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Travis Touchdown // Suda51

On July 8th, 2009, a Destructoid autor wrote an article talking about Suda51 wanting Travis Touchdown (the main character of both No More Heroes games) to be in the next Super Smash Bros. game. The source is this: http://www.destructoid.com/suda-51-wants-travis-touchdown-in-smash-bros--138979.phtml

Two times, this info was erased by two users because "it's not important". I think that we must mention this in the article. What do you think? DragonNJMB (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think third-party developers talking about wanting their characters to appear in the game isn't near as notable as the characters actually appearing in the game. If anything, it's almost like they're latching onto the known popularity of the Super Smash Bros. franchise. If Project Sora makes an announcement about Travis Touchdown, or any other third-party character, appearing in the game, then we should include it. --McDoobAU93 04:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Just because unaffiliated somebody "wants" the character to appear doesn't mean it will. Honestly it's about as notable as the millions of people who post "I want to play as X!" -- ThomasO1989 (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree with McDoob and Thomas as to why it shouldn't be in the article. Additionally, another reason I don't think it should be included is because the Destructoid was written 2 years before this game was even formally announced. To me, that makes it even less relevent... Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just saying

Can someone please update this article? 'Kid Icarus: Uprising' has been releashed which means they probably started developement on the new Super Smash Bros game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.31.114.12 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to update unless he actually says that he is currently working on it. Yes, it is highly likely. In fact, he probably had a team of people actually working on the game while he finished up Kid Icarus. We can't say anything without reliable sources stating that though. original research is discouraged. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's already as up to date as much as has been announced. The farthest it has been discussed is the bit about Sakurai browsing the old website, which is already in there. Not sure what else there would be to say, unless we slightly reword it saying that Kid Icarus was indeed completed and released as of it's release date or something, as right now it still refers to that as a future event... Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Updates

Sakurai recently briefly mentioned the game, here: http://ds.ign.com/articles/122/1223789p1.html

Just thought I'd throw that up there for future use. (Not that it's that significant, but it seems like with a high profile game like this, there's always a ton of random people misinterpreting things. So I figure I'll put updates here for fact checking's sake. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the update and personally approve of the idea to post more updates on the talk page unless they're substantial enough for the main article. Thanks! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Megaman is DEFINITELY a character. Update this please.

Character List

Okay, so I figure this is coming up soon, so we should have a consensus on this: There's bound to be someone who starts up a character list. On one hand, character lists typically violate WP:GAMECRUFT. On the other hand, they seem to be allowable sometimes if its a core feature of a game, like crossovers, fighting games, or compilations of sorts. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, on the main, it's already here! I added a ref for the 11 confirmed characters. I wanted to add it, but I was beaten to it... Darrman (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I hadn't noticed that, I don't have the series article on my watchlist. I can't help but think that's not the best way to show in the info, that chart is rather unwieldly with four entries and however many characters span all the games now... Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• We've got one more surprise character. Someone add this one to the main article and the series article. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

How is a list of playable characters gamecruft?—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

My personal stance is that in this case, it wouldn't be, but in many cases, it would be. (Like, it wouldn't really be appropriate to have a chart for a game like Sonic Adventure, because its not really the focus of the game.) I'm just being pro-active in getting a consensus to point to, because this is a high profile, high visibility type article, and is bound to attract all sorts personalities and viewpoints. I also find it awkward that the character list is held at the series article, in a rather large chart... Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(I wanted to have clear consensus on how to handle edits like this. This is exactly what I was getting at. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC))

If we have the content in prose then we should just inform editors of that information. Of course, people enjoy their lists for easy perusal.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Move

Ok, this was moved twice in five minutes, from Upcoming Video Game to 2014 video game, to for 3DS and Wii U. The current article is very long, Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, with the reason being the proper name on the website. That is long, so am I the only one how wants this moved to one of the other titles? This might violate WP:COMMONNAME as well. Who will say, “Hey, did you hear about Super Smash Bros for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U?” They'd say Smash Bros. 4, but that's too informal. I'm leaning to 2014, but consensus rules at Wikipedia, not opinion! Darrman (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Super Smash Bros. (2014 video game)"? 128.223.223.82 (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not allowed to violate WP:COMMONNAME. It's been what? Less than 48 hours that all of this was revealed? Give things time for people to figure out what this thing is supposed to be called.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. For Wii U and Super Smash Bros for Nintendo 3DS redirect here anyways, so its not a major issue. Its just like pokemon x and y, but more complicated.Lucia Black (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the whole "for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U" not a tentative name? I'm still a little skeptical about that, has anyone confirmed this to be the final title? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Usually I'd assume a name like this would be tentative, but it's coming from the same company who used New Super Mario Bros. as a name. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Official Name

I don't want to start a fire storm, but series creator, Masahiro Sakurai, has stated in this interview with IGN that the games will be known as Super Smash Bros. 3DS and Super Smash Bros. Wii U. [1]

Should the title of the page be changed? I would think it should be Super Smash Bros. 3DS and Wii U. But I also know that the logo used on the official site has the "for" for both and "Nintendo" before 3DS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We can wait for clearer proof than "I talked with Sakurai and he said this".—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We need something more clear than the game's ultimate director telling a reliable source? Really? Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Right now we only have that one article saying anything at this time. We should wait for more reliable sources to come out because right now all the sources say "for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U" other than this one magical one that's appeared in the past hour.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"I talked with Sakurai and he said this"; Isn't that called being interviewed? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you basing everything off of this one interview that's not even been fully transcribed? We should wait until more sources (and not sources directly quoting this one IGN page) corroborate this information before we start changing everything again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Because moves are so difficult? And they cost a ton? Come on, its a video game, not a BLP...Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Because there's no deadline. I'd rather we be safe than have to do this all over again and have to deal with getting administrative assistance because of bot edits and shit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, best of luck with dealing with the waves of people who want to move this. I won't be telling them they're wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

All you have to do is point them to WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

IGN is a reliable source, so I'm not sure how persuasive just citing WP:RS would be. Even COMMONNAME isn't that helpful considering its been untitled for its first 2 years of existence, and been referred to its current title for largely the extent of this week... Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And this new title for all of an hour. I'm not saying that these are wrong. I'd just rather there be more sources corroborating the information before we institute a large series of changes.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So... he's confirmed the title is exactly as we've already used here? As for the "for/and" business: The article is about the paired versions, so we're using the style used to refer to both versions on official websites (both the SSB one and various official Nintendo sources). I think we should remove the paragraph in the lead mentioning this discussion with Sakurai, as it seems pretty redundant and contradicts the source. --Dorsal Axe 20:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The titles in the IGN report are "Super Smash Bros. 3DS" and "Super Smash Bros. Wii U", omitting the "for" and "Nintendo" as appearing in the official sources.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

IGN has no relevance in the matter. IGN is about as reliable as us. ServiceGhost (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

How is a reliable source interviewing the game's director "as reliable as us"? I mean, if we want to be cautious and wait this out, that's fine, at least the titles are largely recognizable, and used on Nintendo's website, so there's little room for confusion, but I don't follow that logic at all. (And I see nothing wrong with adding that to the prose for now at least.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out below, the IGN source has been revised, and now it includes the "for". So, there's nothing left to debate, the current title is correct. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

According to a letter by one of Nintendo of America's staff in response to a fan, the official names haven't been announced yet. Granted, all we've got is a Tumblr post about it, so we can't really make solid citations until someone makes an official media post about in, but it's something to bear in mind. Wonchop (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Official sources using confirmed titles

Normally, I would agree in that IGN on its own is not enough to warrant confirmation of anything, but there are a number of official sources using the names Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U, and none of them list the name as being tentative or a working title. If I can note a number of these:

• The Developer Direct video on Nintendo's official YouTube channel uses both names in the video;
• The new official website uses these names throughout;
• The European and North American press releases both use these names;
• Masahiro Sakurai uses both names as separate entities in this Miiverse post;
• The logos both use these names as well.

I understand that the simplistic names are causing a number of people to doubt this, but even if you don't take the article on IGN as gospel, there are numerous official sources which confirm the names. As such, as far as this article's title is concerned, I personally would suggest one of two:

• Super Smash Bros. (2014 video games)
• Super Smash Bros. (2014 video game)

The former works if you think of it as two different games; the latter works if you think of it as one game, two versions. We know from the Developer Direct that both have different content, such as unique stages, but both also share content such as the character roster. That's just my two cents on the matter - hope it helps in the madness somehow! Jack talk 17:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone really wants it to be Super Smash Bros. (2014 video game) anymore, someone just hastily moved it to that once they mentioned during E3. I think the debate is now more whether or not the "for" belongs in the title. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly advise that it does, as the sources listed above include it in the name. It wasn't originally included in the article on IGN, but that was rectified as Rich noted himself. Which would make the article's current name correct. Jack talk 18:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, or that the original source has been revised. I agree, the current title is most appropriate then. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Link's voice actor

Nintendo released videos depicting the character's new appearances and moves and it sounds like Link is being voiced by Akira Sasanuma. On one hand, it does make sense, given that his appearance is a combination of his Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword looks. On the other hand, I thought that Takashi Ohara would reprise the role. Do you have any confirmation about this? Leader Vladimir (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This seems purely based on original research on a game that has few details already. It is likely to be placeholder voices, but I wouldn't consider Link's voice actor to be particularly important in the scope of this article. Link (The Legend of Zelda) maybe, but unless there are reliable sources that explicitly state who his voice actor is I wouldn't give it any thought. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not relevant to the discussion of this particular game.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas is spot on. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Kotaku "no story mode" source

I've read this and it directs readers to just http://www.famitsu.com/ as the source, but I cannot find anything on the website regarding this column. Unless this information is to be found in the actual physical copy of Famitsu, I do not think that this one guy's posting on Kotaku should be used as a source for this article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• The information was pretty widely circulated. Polygon directly interviewed him and provided the same information, for example. - You ought to search for alternative before removing so quickly. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And where exactly is your source that Kotaku isn't a reliable source? Wonchop (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As I've pointed out in edit summaries, current consensus at WP:VG/S is that it is useable. While I understand Ryu's concern about trying to track down the original source and give them credit, but I don't agree with his "its not online so it's not verifiable" approach, nor do I think it's reasonable to expect English editors to go track down Japanese print media and then be able to decipher it as well, which lead me on my search to find the Polygon source, which I found after all of a few seconds of searching. (This was widely circulated a few weeks/months back.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I am living in Japan now so it won't be impossible for me to track down a copy of the magazine. I just don't know if my local convenience store has it. It's clear now that Polygon posted this information in June and Kotaku is simply regurgitating it. However, it might be completely true that he has since made this statement for the Japanese press. I won't know until I get the magazine to see myself, but it doesn't seem that we should be using this particular source for this statement when other sources suffice.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Upon my searching, it appears GameSpot, IGN, Eurogamer, etc etc all reported it and gave Polygon credit too, so there's no shortage of sources that will corroborate this. As long as one is in there, I don't really see a need to dig deeper into the Kotaku one. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So why do we need the Kotaku one now?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe we do. As you were saying above, the first source that provided the info is preferred, not the "source that covered the source", so it could be removed on those grounds. (That, and, if there's one source that is unanimously approved, and one in question, may as well just stick with the unanimous one... Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, Polygon's article explains that the game doesn't feature cutscenes whilst the Kotaku article explains why (ie. that they were removed cos spoilers for Brawl's cutscenes took away the excitement). Wonchop (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The Polygon article does in fact include that very information.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I checked for that too. At first I was going to rewrite it for the Polygon source, but then realized that everything was covered in both sources... Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Cover and release date

Does anyone know if this is the real cover? Or if this is the real release date? Koala15 (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, neither are official or real. Trust me, when these things are announced, there won't be any question about it. When something like this is announced for such a high profile game, it'll be plastered all over the internet. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

the first one is fake, the second is aplaceholder date most retailers have. it does not mean that its a confirmed date. wait until its announced.Lucia Black (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Character list

I know Wikipedia prefers prose over lists, but the section right now is awful. Its a bunch of jumbled sentences that doesn't demonstrate the point clearly. It's just a laundry list of "On Date x, they announced character Y". It links to a list at a series article, but that's a rather convoluted way of showing it. I propose making a list showing the character,and the series their series of origin. Sergecross73 msg me 05:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. Sergecross73 msg me 05:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• Opinion - I don't quite think that a list is even necessary, as it's covered by the "Playable characters in the Super Smash Bros. Series" link. It would be easier to say that the game features returning characters from Brawl (and list off a few notable examples like Mario, Sonic, Link), and only name the characters that are brand new to the series. Also add "As of X, N playable characters have been confirmed to appear in the game." --ThomasO1989 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand why we don't understand why we don't have this info about this game is this article though. Seems like it should be present here. Also, that chart isn't the greatest in seeing info for this game in particular, since it's format is focused around the entire series, so it's a mismatch of checks and ex's, instead of a straightforward list. I just feel like this info should be directly present, since it's the focus of he entire premise of the game. Sergecross73 msg me 05:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Then I'm not against using a table/chart to list the characters. I agree with Lucia that we can always go back to prose once the game is released and everything is finalized. Support. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support for the time being. Once everything gets finalized, things can go back to the original prose format if it can be done better.Lucia Black (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Implementing

I went ahead and replaced the prose with a table, using the one at "Playable characters in the Super Smash Bros. Series" as a reference. It lists each character and his/her respective franchise, with references included inside it. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks great. I had been meaning to do that, but hadn't had enough time to put that together all at once. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

i suggest possibly adding another parameter for status, showing if a character is returning or a newcomer.Lucia Black (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with conveying who is new and who isn't, though maybe we can do away with a third column and just have an asterisk next the newcomers' names, then have something like "Note: (*) Indicates character's debut in series", since only a few are new. Any thoughts? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I was wondering about that as well. I do think it should be marked somehow, but I'm not sure how best to show it. Should that be in the prose at the top? Or just like an asterisks or something? Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally prefer the third column for the reasons of allowing readers to manuever between them, just like how we can organize the table in alphabetical order by either character name or series name. here the third column could put the new comers first, then the returning.Lucia Black (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I, like Thomas, am more against a third column. Partially because I feel like it starts to fall into more WP:GAMECRUFT] territory, and partially because it opens the door for more excessive columns to pop up. (I've had to clean up a bunch of these sorts of list where people keep adding these excessive ones about the video game platform of origin, fictional world of origin, company origin, moveset, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It conveys the same information only less maneuvering. Also what grey area does the recurring/newcomer column that could provoke more? Since the returning/newcomer is based on super smash series overall, I doubt any of the possible columns will be considered because of that one. I find it exaggerating. To me, having asterisks seems more excessive.Lucia Black (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

How is a single asterisks with a note at the top or bottom that says "newcomer" excessive? How is it more excessive than increasing the table's size by 50%? Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The asterisk will be on every character name, while also making it difficult to maneuver. So it seems pointless to do if the idea is still allow readers to know "efficiently" that the characters are new to the series. Also considering how much the table takes up, its not as if its going to make it that much of an impact size-wise. Reasons against it are "gamecruft" and that the column is "excessive" but if we're going to illustrate which ones are newcomers and which ones aren't, the column will help do that more efficiently. to me, its either do the column or not even try to convey that information at all.Lucia Black (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I can see that adding a new column would have it easier to sort the information and separate the characters, but I think that level of interaction is overkill. You would not need an asterisk next to every character name, only those that are new. Out of the 21 characters revealed (which isn't a huge set by any means), only four are new, so only 4 asterisks are needed, and the reader can quickly skim the table to see which are new. The others won't need to be marked, so it would be clear they are "returning." I would say it's more simpler than adding a new column, for the time being. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

For 3 columns...i highly doubt its overkill....here's an example:

Fighter	Series	Status
Bowser	Mario	Returning
Donkey Kong	Donkey Kong	Returning
Fox McCloud	Star Fox	Returning
King Dedede	Kirby	Returning
Kirby	Kirby	Returning
Link	The Legend of Zelda	Returning
Luigi	Mario	Returning
Mario	Mario	Returning
Marth	Fire Emblem	Returning
Mega Man	Mega Man	Newcomer
Pikachu	Pokémon	Returning
Pikmin & Olimar	Pikmin	Returning
Pit	Kid Icarus	Returning
Princess Peach	Mario	Returning
Rosalina & Luma	Mario	Newcomer
Samus Aran	Metroid	Returning
Sonic	Sonic the Hedgehog	Returning
Toon Link	The Legend of Zelda	Returning
Villager	Animal Crossing	Newcomer
Wii Fit Trainer	Wii Fit	Newcomer
Zelda	The Legend of Zelda	Returning

Especially considering that we are expecting a larger list by the time the game is revealed. So it will be troublesome to maneuver just to keep track of who are the new characters to the series. Its going to be a fairly long list.Lucia Black (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Too much space is wasted on the return status. A simple asterisks would suffice. Sergecross73 msg me 01:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There's not much space to "waste" considering the table adds more empty space. It'll depend on how many characters return. there's still 15 more characters to be confirmed. How about a compromise: if more than "7" newcomers make it into Wii U/3DS Super Smash, then we include the column. Thats's would equal to 20% of the Super Smash cast.Lucia Black (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks far too large and too messy. I agree with asterisks or some other symbols being used instead. I mean, let's be honest, the section is eventually going to lose the table and point to Super Smash Bros. (series)#Playable characters like the other articles in the series anyway. Antoshi ☏ ★ 02:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough then...although, if Serge and Thomas vote for a long-lasting table, i still believe that 7 (20%) or more characters being newcomers would be enough to have a third column. other than that, i disagree with messy. its a fairly simple table.Lucia Black (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like this (abridged to make it easier to display here):

Fighter	Series
Sonic	Sonic the Hedgehog
Toon Link	The Legend of Zelda
Villager*	Animal Crossing
Wii Fit Trainer*†	Wii Fit

Notes

* Indicates that the character has not appeared in a previous Super Smash Bros. game and is new to the series.

† Both male and female variants of the character appear in the game.

I could not easily find a MOS for using asterisks and daggers for footnotes, so I'm asking for an opinion before implementing, and please take a look at the raw markup as well. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is partly why i believe making a third column is necessary, because its more visible to see especially with such a long list (and will continue to get longer). But i digress, i'm here only to compromise if the newcomer list gets larger up to 20%.Lucia Black (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I prefer Thomas's version. It's more concise, and as he says, is a more common, standardized approach. Sergecross73 msg me 04:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Try showing the entire table. for the record, its not like the third column is right between the first and second (making it difficult to manuever). Again, my compromise. take it or leave it, but don't ignore it.Lucia Black (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Didn't ignore it. Pretty clearly stated yours as worse, in less words. Was trying to be nice, but you've instigated it... Sergecross73 msg me 04:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If you were trying to be "nice". you could've been clearer. Either way, i still think more eyes would benefit. so i'll bring it to the wikiproject. A minor issue? it'll depend on how many characters out of the 35 will be newcomers. and again, we still have to establish if this is a permanent table.Lucia Black (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, why must you be so stubborn on the littlest detail. We've got consensus. Let's not waste more time for once. Sergecross73 msg me 04:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because you've ignored a lot of points....and you're just casting a vote, and its easy to just cast a vote and claim a reason when its not the case. I've countered every reason. Either way, there's still the issue of this even being a permanent table (again, completely ignored, so i still feel my compromise should be valid enough) and also....the asterisks isn't as visible color-coded column. And although looks hefty with the large amount of "returning" that's only when readers click the sort button for showing the newcomers first. OR we don't even have to use the color coded one. we can use the check mark/ X mark way, the column will be smaller, yet still completely visible.Lucia Black (talk)

Made the change to the table as I gave above. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Just read this, I am wondering is it alrght to use color box instead of asterisk for the new-comers? I couldn't see consensus about this.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 01:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually do like the color box more than the asterisk. Anyone else agree? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it better too. Stands out a bit better than the asterisk, but there's no excessive columns still too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Given that the table has now attracted more IP vandals than usual, would page protection be a viable option? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it sure has attracted a lot of hoax entries. I've protected it through E3. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time to protect the article once more, this time until January, when both games have been released. There would be less incentive then for editors to vandalize the characters list (though it shouldn't exist by then). --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Date revealed/official site links

• I feel its not necessary to mention the date characters are announced at all. Why does it matter when the character was revealed? They're no importance to this. We'll source every entry as to avoid hoax characters being added, so I don't see why we'd track this.
• Another excessive column added was a "official site" column, where it linked to the character's page for every single character. While it would be okay to link to a generic character page as an external link, or even us the official site as a reference to prove characters, but having a column for every character's official site is overkill. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Look like you're right, they're really stretching the table than they should. And what about external links? They're kind of bloating the reference table. Maybe external link will help fix this, but I guess I'd leave them up to you or to another editor.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 01:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• The only three things that should be in the table is the name, whether it is returning or new, and it's main series. All else is largely cruft. The date doesn't matter because the references tell the date and more in depth material. KonveyorBelt 01:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Wii Fit Trainer

"Wii Fit Trainer †" and "† Both male and female variants of the character appear in the game."
It's not know whether or not the male variant is a playable character as the list implies, so it has to be changed.
Also: in languages with grammatical genders/sexes (like German, Spanish, Portugese, French) the official SSB4 site only uses a female name for the character known in English as "Wii Fit Trainer". --93.196.237.229

Seems pretty likely though, considering the screenshot released by the games director - http://m.ign.com/articles/2013/10/31/smash-bros-wii-u-male-wii-fit-trainer-spotted Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It must also be noted that when the Skull Kid from Majora's Mask was shown to appear in the game, he deliberately noted that the character "is an Assist Trophy, not a new fighter. The characters announced on the website are the fighters." Given that the male trainer had appeared before this post, it can be reasonably assumed that the character is playable, not an assist trophy. However, some posts showing a character do not specify if the character is actually an Assist Trophy or appear through some other means. NintendoLife speculates that the male Wii Fit Trainer could be playable by examining the screenshot. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I can see where the IP user is coming from. Nowhere in that source does it accurately confirm that a Male Wii Fit Trainer is playable. The source also says that it may simply be a different skin, possibly like Wario's different outfits in Brawl. You even said yourself that it's 'reasonably assumed,' but not confirmed. Antoshi ☏ ★ 18:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We should either change the comment or remove it altogether. It could be "Both male and female variants of the character appear in the game, but it is currently unknown if the male variant is playable." --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas' Suggestion.Lucia Black (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I am assuming both of you agree with the change to the comment, so I have made the change to the article. If however either or you meant that you agreed that "it should be removed", go ahead and remove it. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I was agreeing with your proposed change. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving the Article

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop 06:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U → Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U – I totally checked at in Little Mac's trailer (which its the recent one) and it doesn't even shows the "and" on the title, its just the shows "/" in between "for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U" and the official website doesn't have that "/" changed to "and". DigiPen92 (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel there needs to be some 'perfect' umbrella term for both games. These are tentative names anyway. Once the final product's name is released, we can move it then. Antoshi ☏ ★ 22:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if/how it would factor in here, but I'm pretty sure there's an "article naming guideline" that prohibits us from naming articles with slashes in them. I'll have to look it up for proof, but I'm pretty sure... Sergecross73 msg me 01:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that was for Vertical bar, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Article titles#Special characters and there's nothing regarding the (back)slashes thing in that article. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 02:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I was actually talking about WP:TITLEFORMAT, which was cited as the reason why Sega Genesis/Mega Drive was not an appropriate title. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mega_Drive/Archive_3#Proposed_move for details. Pretty sure there's been other cases of it too... Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

.hack//G.U. and several media relating to the .hack franchise also uses several "/" if that's the only issue, i don't think there is much of a problem. Although the Sega Genesis/MegaDrive seems to be closer to NES/Famicom or SNES/Super Famicom. Its more of a different title for the same system and trying to incorporate both into it. However, the full title does use slashes in it. But its all up to what the sources prefer.Lucia Black (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this case is similar to Pokémon Red and Blue, Gold and Silver etc. There are two games in an article. There are Pokémon Red and Pokémon Blue, and to simplify the title we just use Pokémon Red and Blue. The same implies (as the official site shows them separetely) that we just simplify Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U as Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• As the two games are in fact different games and not just two different names for the same game it is apprpriate to use "and". KonveyorBelt 00:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well the collected form of referring to both of them is by slash, but again i rather we keep our decisions through sources rather than common sense. Because it can get subjective.Lucia Black (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If so, we must to look to thir-party sources, am I right? If yes, I just checked the sources on the article. The first: "working on the Wii U and 3DS versions of Super Smash Bros"; the second: there's no mention; the third: primary; the fourth: nope again; the fifth: "3DS and Wii U versions"; 6th to 28th: primary; 29th: nope; 30th: primary; 31st: "for the Wii U and 3DS Smash Bros."; 32nd: Smash Bros. for Wii U and 3DS; 33rd: "Super Smash Bros. for Wii U and 3DS"; as most of the are IGN and Andriansang, I jumped them; 47th: "No cross-platform play for Smash Bros on 3DS and Wii U"; 48th: "The new Super Smash Bros. for Wii U and Nintendo 3DS is shaping"; 49th: "the upcoming Super Smash Bros. for the Wii U and 3DS". I'll stop here. Nuff said, I guess. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Looks like this was pretty pointless to begin with.my vote is also for OpposeLucia Black (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Using a forward slash is a stylistic choice and per MOS:SLASH we "Generally avoid joining two words by a slash" abd suggest replace with clearer wording. So go with "and" or "or" but not a forwardslash.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose If I remember correctly, slashes don't work in titles very well due to the way subpages' titles are done (e.g. User:Pikachu Bros./sandbox). It could stay at the current title but with a technical restriction note, at best. Pikachu Bros. (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2014

67.247.208.111 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You can edit pages. DON'T DELETE EVEN IF IT IS WRONG!!!!!!!

Not done: No edit request was made. --McDoobAU93 21:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2014

They put in one parte that the release of the Nintendo 3D Version is in Q2 and in the right box they've written Q3. 92.228.253.11 (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2014

Change the release date for the 3DS version; it is Q2, not Q3. 24.99.96.92 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 24.99.96.92 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The cited source within the article states Q3. --ElHef (Meep?) 19:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That source DOES support his claim, actually. You can see in the text of the article and in the Nintendo Direct it's reporting on that the 3DS version will be launching in Summer, which begins in Q2. -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Astronomically speaking, it will be summer for approximately the last ten days of the second quarter. The other eighty days are in the third quarter. "Summer 2014" does not warrant a change to Q2, especially when the Game Details sidebar on the IGN article lists the release date for all regions as "Q3 2014". If you can provide a reliable source that specifically says Q2, April, May, or June, then this can be revisited. Until then, still not done. --ElHef (Meep?) 22:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014

In the characters section, change Yoshi's series to Yoshi rather than Mario. Danielvdell (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No, Yoshi originates from Super Mario World. Sergecross73 msg me 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In every game in the Super Smash Bros. series, Yoshi is shown to be a representative of his own series, which is the Yoshi series. He is given his own emblem (an egg, rather than a mushroom like Mario series characters) and his own victory theme (different than the Mario series characters'). His series is also represented through trophies, which are categorized as part of the Yoshi series -- outside of the Mario series's trophies. Danielvdell (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, he is listed as part of his own series on the official website, as shown by his unique emblem. Danielvdell (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The series article currently lists both series, with a slash between them. Is that a good compromise? Sergecross73 msg me 02:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand that decision at all. The fact is, Yoshi is considered to be representative of his own series within the Super Smash Bros. universe. There isn't any room for debate there: it's been that way for every game in the series. Yoshi isn't considered part of the "Yoshi/Mario" universe in-game -- he's just part of the Yoshi universe. In-game, Donkey Kong isn't listed as part of the "Donkey Kong/Mario" universe, either, nor does Wario belong to "Wario/Mario." Yes, they all originated from Mario games, but this article is supposed to be about Super Smash Bros., and in every game in the series, as well as on every official website for them, Yoshi has been listed as a representative of his own series (same goes for Donkey Kong and Wario). Yoshi (as well as Donkey Kong and Wario) can be listed as belonging to dual series if we want this article (and the other) to be inaccurate and instead use a subjective approach to what series the characters belong to. Is it not easier to just list them according to what the official website deems their series is (which is also citable, whereas "Yoshi/Mario" is not)? Danielvdell (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I think Danielvdell has a fair point here. This article is not talking about Yoshi's origins or character, it's mentioning Yoshi in the context of this particular Super Smash Bros. game. I looked through some of the characters on the website linked above, and while Mario, Peach, and Bowser all have the same mushroom symbol, Yoshi has an egg symbol. That strikes me as pretty clear-cut info from a reliable source. I support making the suggested change. --ElHef (Meep?) 18:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I honestly forgot about this. I don't really think it matters if a character has a little "egg icon" or "mushroom icon" next to them, and have no idea why one would care so much. Do whatever, I didn't think it was a big deal either way. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Also support per Danielvdell. Zell Faze (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2014

Replace the logo with the Wii U box art, and add the 3DS box art as an inline image. You can find both here. 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone did it anyway, so never mind, I guess. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr Game & Watch confirmed to return

Mr Game & Watch confirmed to return in WIIU/3DS version by the developer: http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/10/pac-man-mr-game-watch-join-super-smash-bros/ (mid text) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.166.202 (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Nintendo hasn't announced the arrival of the character on their official site as they have for Pac-Man, Palutena and the Mii Fighters, the three characters that have been publicly announced at E3 this year. I have a feeling the character is coming, so maybe this should be added as a reported addition instead of an official one? --McDoobAU93 15:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick search will tell you that his appearance at the end of Pac-Man's trailer was simply a cameo. Nothing is confirmed. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Mii in franchise

I do not believe that Mii characters are part of any specific franchise-- while they are prevalent in the Wii series, they originate from Mii Channel, which of itself is only an app, and Mii characters often cross over into numerous other franchises outside of Smash Bros. I updated the table to reflect this by replacing Wii with N/A, and it was reverted, so there is obviously disagreement. What are others' thoughts? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

well... there is Tomodachi Life and Tomodachi Collection witch there base off on that game there self Aozz101x (talk)

Tue Mii channel is also available on 3DS. i wouldnt say the Miis crossover other games but give you the option. Fortunately the column says "series" not franchise. so it may still be used. Lucia Black (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Is "series" and "franchise" not being used interchangably in this case? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Origin" is key here, not whether they've showed up in other series. (Mario was in a NBA Street game but there's no confusion as to what series he belongs too.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally feel like they're from the Wii series...but didn't someone say that they're not listed as such on the main website? So far it seems like the approach has been to go by Nintendo's classification. (See above discussion about Yoshi, DK). Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@New Age Retro Hippie and TheMeaningOfBlah: They are listed on the website with the Smash Bros. emblem. Wii Fit Trainer, who originates from the Wii Fit sub-series, actually uses a different emblem (similar to Yoshi having a different emblem than Mario (and to Wario in Brawl), though they're both part of the Mario franchise). However, Mii obviously doesn't originate from Smash Bros. However, the concept of "Mii Fighter" is original to Smash Bros., which would reasonably explain the emblem. NARH, MeaningOfBlah, would you mind giving your thoughts, given that you were both involved in recent edits relating to this discussion? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

My opinion. I'm still going to say that they are technically part of a series, even though others may think not. Although Thomas is right about them originating from the Mii Channel, that is technically not a game, but an application itself. The Miis have been in almost every single Wii series game (Wii Party, Wii Sports, etc.). Even though the website specifically shows that they are "new" to Smash Bros. (emblem), I'm going to have to say they still do originate from the Wii series. --TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think an argument that boils down to "they are featured in Wii series games, so they are part of the Wii series" is a strong one. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe we should use Mii Channel. It originates from there which is adjacent to the Wii. so one isn't a game, doesn't make it less part of a series. Mii fighters though probably just adjacent to Miis. Lucia Black (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not really a "series" though... Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point, no one really knows. It could be a series. Nintendo could classify it as part of the "Mii" series with Nintendo Land being part of it. But who knows. Similar to Mario is part of the "Mario" series. Lucia Black (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If "no one really knows", and if Nintendo hasn't classified it as anything, leaving as "N/A" is the best choice. A lot of that reasoning sounds a ton like OR to me, and that's obviously not a good thing. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Food for thought: I dont think the list is designed for where they originated (Mii channel) but i dont think it should be limited to "series". With that said, although its called Mii Channel in Wii and maybe Wii U, on the 3DS its MiiMaker and there is also a Mii Plaza. They are also featured in Tomodachi life and Nintendo life. I definitely believe Miis are part of their own series but i believe nintendo should confirm it. Lucia Black (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we stuck to actual games instead of getting overly technical with character series origins. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 12:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It shouldnt be upto us what nintendo chooses to put in their roster. and its not about getting technical. Lucia Black (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I said anything about how it should be up to us to decide who Nintendo adds, so I don't know why you mentioned that. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 19:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

What im trying to say is that this discussion has been against Miis by what you all want the table want to be. So just because its not technically a "video game" series, we should put in something more acceptable to what you personally feel comfortable.

MiiChannel isnt used despite being the origin. instead Wii was because its technically more video game related. it looks onesided. and i know theres a way to mention miis origins without going obscure and without geting over complicTed Lucia Black (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Conceptually, I see what you're driving at, though right now, I think the bigger problem is that there are a lot of options, with none of them gathering any sort of support. We've got:

1. Wii series
2. "n/a"
3. Smash Bros.
4. Mii Channel

I'd open it up to the Wikiproject, but I'm afraid that'll just lead to questioning whether or not we need a chart at all, which would just lead to a 5th option to argue about... Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Mii Channel/Mii is my strongest choice at the moment. but then again, no list might help get it to FA faster. Lucia Black (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I certainly concur that the Miis are a franchise in their own right. They're used in so many titles, just as the Mario franchise characters are. Just as Nintendo characters appear in random, unrelated games as bonus content (and how Sonic and Mega Man appear in Smash Bros.), the Miis do the same thing in games where players can unlock them (like in Mario Kart 8). What would make them any different? --McDoobAU93 15:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sakurai considers 3DS and Wii U as the FOURTH and FIFTH installment respectively

[2]

As you can see from the quote below, the intro should be changed from collectively grouping both versions as the fourth installment and change it to the 4th and 5th installment.

Sakurai: ...we're now going into versions four and five within the series—this is only something that's now possible.

Kotaku: When you say four and five, do you mean the 3DS and Wii U versions? Those are separate?

Sakurai: Yeah, exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.25.242.26 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else think we're giving this statement a little bit too much weight, given it's effectively a 'sure, why not' remark? In my opinion, it just points out these are different versions of the same game with differences in development (akin to console/handheld versions of Sonic games) rather than explicitly stating "3DS version is Smash Bros 4, Wii U version is Smash Bros 5". It's only really being phrased that way since the previous games were only released on one system each. As far as I can tell from the Nintendo Directs and Miiverse posts, Sakurai has been referring to the two versions as just 'Super Smash Bros', referring to them as 'versions' when talking about one format specifically. Wonchop (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Er...what exactly have we done with the info other than state it as said in the article? It doesn't seem to have affected much... Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Wonchop. I think of it as just about every Pokemon game. They always come out in pairs (Pokemon X and Y, Pokemon Black 2 and White 2, Pokemon Heartgold and Soulsilver, etc.), but they're both not considered to be individual installments into the series, they're two different versions of the same installment. For example, Pokemon X is not the (I don't even bother to keep track with all the Pokemon games there are anymore, so I'm just going to make up a number) 27th installment and Pokemon Y is the 28th. They're both the 27th installment, just alternate versions. I hope this clears things up. Gameditor (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Time to split?

Now that there is evidence that the developers consider the games two separate installments and that we have an edit skirmish (a mild one, but still) as to which box art should be shown in the infobox, is it now time to separate out the two games into separate articles? It looks like there may be enough content differences in each version (even though rosters are the same) to merit two distinct pages. Thoughts? --McDoobAU93 16:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Are we assuming that the 3DS version is the fourth and the Wii version is the fifth? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 17:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on release dates of the software, I would say 3DS is #4 and Wii U is #5, but that would be my personal opinion. --McDoobAU93 17:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, go ahead. Since they are the fourth and fifth installments, then they should be separated. The Wii U boxart image is about to be deleted in June 22, so yeah, let's change things up. RainingFlight 17:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The article names already exist and are currently redirects that point here. It would eliminate confusion in the infobox, allow usage of both images, and we can move the presented gameplay image to the Wii U version. Then add a new 3DS-based image showing the cel-shading look of that particular installment. --McDoobAU93 18:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yeah, let's go for it. We should start splitting up the article. I agree with adding a 3DS-specific picture instead of a Wii U one. I'll see if I can get one. Should I get a close-up screenshot? RainingFlight 19:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

−

I'd support it. Upon creation, we didn't know anything other than "there's be differences". Now we know what many are (release dates, separate game modes and levels, creators comment that they're to be viewed as separate games) so I think it's warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Bump. I support this. This article is quite the mess trying to squeeze the two games together into one article. Oneseventhree (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be good to keep this as a disambiguation page though if there is a split. Lucia Black (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. Coupled with the above, there's enough differences between the two games' feature sets to justify separate articles. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I also support. If the developers intend for them to be separate games, and the 3DS version isnt just a port, then I don't see why not. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Support. U strongly support this because the more detail we get about the two games will end up making the two games more and more different. We now know about the 3DS's single-player modes and stadium modes, but we don't know anything about the modes for the Wii U version. No to mention, the full character roster and list of stages for the 3DS version will be announced later this month, and the stages and characters will differ between the two games, so this update will really confuse things. However, an alternate fix is to do as Wonchop suggested below, we could split this article into two sections, or add a section specifically for the differences between the two versions, similar to that of Ocarina of Time vs Ocarina of Time 3D or The Wind Waker vs The Wind Waker HD and so on. Gameditor (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a question. If this gets passed (which it should), what will the disambiguation page be called? Is the disambiguation page going to be called "Super Smash Bros. 4" or "Super Smash Bros. For Nintendo 3DS and Wii U"? I don't think it should be called the latter, as it kinda would render it pointless. Oneseventhree (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Cautious support. Not every original game warrants its own article after all (the Oracles and the Zelda CD-i games come to mind). However, due to the different releases and the different histories for the games, as well as apparently different modes, I think that there will be enough content that is uniquely only about one game and not the other. However, we should not treat them as separate entries - while they are officially different games, they're discussed almost exclusively as a single subject by the devs and the press so far.
• As for what to call the disambig, this should be the disambig as is. Anything else would be unofficial. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering the 3ds version is releasing months earlier, it'll get all sorts of dedicated coverage, especially in reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Against. There are quite a few games that differ between their console and handheld versions gameplay wise but don't neccessarily require seperate articles for each version (examples include Sonic Colors, Disney Infinity, pretty much any of the Lego games). Same kinda goes for Smash Bros as, aside from some exclusive modes and release dates, we don't know enough details that clearly distinguish the two from each other. Wonchop (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• There are also other fighting games (eg. Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars) that have multiple versions featuring different modes or characters, but unless the gameplay mechanics are notably different between the two, they can often be kept to one article. I think the best option at this point is to just have a subsection under Gameplay reading Differences between the 3DS and Wii U versions, rather than create multiple articles which would repeat a lot of information that applies to both versions.Wonchop (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Just added a new section to the gameplay to show what I mean. There's only a handful of sentences that describe actual differences between the two versions, so two individual articles shouldn't be neccessary. Wonchop (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Split done

There was overwhelming support for a split, and today I've finally started that process. Any assistance would be great, since there's a lot to sort through. Beyond just removing "3DS" or "Wii U" from certain parts, there's a lot of instances where things have changed from plural to singular that need to be adjusted too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this was a very poorly thought out idea. They're the same game. Just different consoles, with very few differences between them that would require such a split.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it'll get better. With the 3ds version releasing months earlier, it's going to receive much more dedicated coverage and reviews. There's more to be done even now, really, I just haven't had time to do it. I figure others will assist, with it being such a mainstream article. The two will become much more different once they become less of a "compare/contrast" essay and more of a straight statement of what each one is individually. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

But if it's the same game why bother with a split? The only differences are hardware (the console that is), stages (an unimportant aspect for an encyclopedia), and one game mode. This is really one of those situations where a decision needs to be made on a wider discussion rather than deciding that this discussion from late June/early July is the source of a consensus for a change. All of the sources cover both versions so there's no reason for us to split things up when the world as a whole considers them to be one entity, regardless of the different release dates.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Theres different stages.
2. Theres separate modes of play.
3. The game's creator identified them as separate games.
4. Theyre going to have separate reception sections because of very different release dates.
5. A discussion ran for multiple months, with a clear cut consensus. This isn't some touchy POV or BLP type situation. It's a split of 2 videogames.

It's been split for less than 24 hours. Give it some time to take shape. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm seconding that it was a terrible idea. The section explaining the differences between the 3DS and WiiU version was only 2KB large. Now there's two ~30KB articles containing 99% of the same information. Does anyone really think there will be more new info in the coming weeks other than 2 or 3 new roster additions and critic reception? You can give this article time to take shape, but it'll just hurt more in the long run. This article was split several months too early than it needed to be.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Where were all the naysayers during the months of discussion?? It was literally open all summer, and was like 10 to 1 in favor of splitting. I'll make it better tomorrow. Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I never bothered to check the talk page since I just assumed a split was absurd. To mend the issue, I tried to replace everything in this article regarding duplicate or 3DS-exclusive info with a {{Further}} template. Unfortunately, that only left it to about three statements: "The Wii U version features high-definition visuals", "The Wii U version will be released in Q4 2014", and "The Wii U version will support Nintendo GameCube controllers". Is that really all that everybody felt necessitated a split? And for such a small article?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you should have checked the talk page? I'll work on it tomorrow since it seems people aren't able to update the article at the rate that the naysayers require. There's plent of differences if you bother to write it... Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's really fair to just assume that people were still in favor of a split, considering it was a good two months since I made my points againt it. By that point, it was pretty much an inactive discussion, as everyone else had moved onto other matters such as leaks and stuff. My points pretty much still stand that there's no need for two seperate articles, as there's so much that can be said about both versions and so little that can be said about the individual versions, hence why I added that little 'Differences between versions' subheading. None of your above stated points have particularly warranted a split. The facts there's different modes and levels shouldn't matter since the core elements, namely the gameplay and the playable characters, are identical. Like I've said before, the whole 'fourth and fifth installments stuff', which seems to have been the basis for the split discussion, is being given far too much weight in that's it's a single sentence quote that doesn't automatically mean "these are SSB4 and SSB5 respectively", and Sakurai still constantly refers to the two as 'versions' as opposed to 'games'. The Reception section is a moot point as well, since all it would take is an extra paragraph to describe how the Wii U version is received once it comes out, and would hardly make the article that much longer. Considering how many vocal users are against the split, along with how petty Serge's responses seem to be, we should probably cast another seperate vote as to whether they should be merged back to a single article. Wonchop (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes even less sense. That just goes to show it was unanimous until you chimed in months later. And not a single person responded to you, or changed their !vote. There was no indication you had swayed anyone's opinion. And you don't go to other sections to determine a consensus. That's all a very bizarre stretch of an interpretation of what happened... Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, it's been two months since my last post, during which I added that subsection, which seems to have gone down well. It's not so much a matter of numbers than it is a matter of "reading the mood", seeing how people think of the pages current state instead of just looking at two month old votes and assume people still think the same way. At the very least, you should confirm that people are still in a favor of a split if the discussion hasn't been active for a while. Wonchop (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody really said anything about that either. Again, people generally revise their stance if they've been swayed by a counter argument. No one gave any indication they changed their mind, and a "hey guys, you still sure?" Isn't really something that is typically done with such little present opposition. Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Remerge?

I'm literally thinking that this article should be "remerged" with 3DS. Why? Well, I agree with Ryūlóng, Wonchop, and Ilovetopaint that the split was:

1. Poorly done
2. Sergecross73 was basically in "favor of the split", even when Wonchop was clearly against it
3. It was absurd
4. A terrible idea from the start
5. The split came '"WAY'" too early

TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and just do this. There's clearly a renewed consensus that Sergecross73 should not have acted on a 2 month old discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

Add the following passage to the "Development" section:

Sakurai chose to include Miis as playable characters as a result of their growing importance to Nintendo and in response to character requests by fans, allowing players to use characters not featured in the game by creating them as Miis. However, due to concerns of being potentially used to facilitate bullying, Miis cannot be used in online multiplayer modes except against players' friends. 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Done I took the liberty of putting it in the list of playable characters instead, as it seemed to flow better. If I put it in Development, there would have to be a new paragraph as it really didn't fit anywhere else. The wording provided fits perfectly in the playable characters section, however. Good add! --McDoobAU93 19:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Reworded it a little and moved it back into Development, which got a little tidying up prior. The playable characters section is technically in the Gameplay section, whereas stuff about why the Miis were included is more related to decisions during development as opposed to how they actually play. Wonchop (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Separate Infoboxes

Anyone else think we should have two separate infoboxes, one for the 3DS version, and one for the Wii U version? Zmario111 (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

We're actually discussing an article split, which would necessitate two separate infoboxes. Let us know what you think at the thread above. --McDoobAU93 14:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Development section cleanup

I think the development section could do with a bit of a spring clean, since a lot of the segments are pretty outdated, such as quotes alluding to announcements (eg. they said something will happen at E3. then something happened at E3.) or statements that no longer apply (Bandai Namco won't get any priorities, Pac-Man then gets announced). We could also lose mentions of specific character announcements (eg. Mega Man, Villager, Wii Fit Trainer, etc.) and perhaps revise it into a short statement about third party involvement (today's revealed of a Rayman trophy shows it's not just limited to playable characters or directly involved studios). Wonchop (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Go for it. (Though it'll probably need to be done again around release because people feel obligated to add every little announcement and hint there is. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability

For the sake of historical documentation, I think some of the information was very notable. Let's not totally wipe out stuff like 'customized characters would have been uploadable to the WiiU' or 'Pac-Man was not added because of Namco's involvement'? Look at any other video game article's 'development' section and you will definitely see a lot of outdated speculation and planning because that's what video game development entails.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the best scenario is somewhere in between. Wonchop went a little heavy handed on the trimming, but some of the stuff, like SM's musings while reflecting on the old Dojo site, we're never very important, then or now. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Gematsu leak

Should we mention the Gematsu leak in the article (or maybe even have its own article)? The leak was very popular and seemed credible at the time. Below I've posted the leaks themselves (if we were to use them as citations/references) and articles reporting on them.

List of "leaks"

First leak

• "Sakurai confirms Smash trailer at E3 direct!". NeoGAF. June 10, 2013. Retrieved July 19, 2014. My unlikely predictions: Little Mac, Pac-Man, Animal Crossing Guy, Mega Man, Wii Fit Trainer, Mii.
• Sal Romano (June 11, 2014). "Wii Fit Trainer joins Super Smash Bros". Gematsu. Retrieved July 19, 2014. Last week, Gematsu was tipped off about Nintendo's E3 character reveals for Super Smash Bros. But since we were unable to confirm the validity of our source, we refrained from posting the information. Of the six characters we were told would be revealed, three have been confirmed: Mega Man, Animal Crossing Villager, and Wii Fit Trainer. The three left remaining are Little Mac, Pac-Man, and your Mii.

Second leak

• Sal Romano (April 8, 2014). "Rumor: Shulk, Palutena, more set for Super Smash Bros". Gematsu. Retrieved July 19, 2014.

Third leak

• "The Official Thread For the Sal Romano/Gematsu Leak". SmashBoards. June 10, 2014. Retrieved July 19, 2014.

Articles showing notability

• Will Holden (July 15, 2014). "'Smash Bros." Fans Get 2 New Fire Emblem Reps". Lez Get Real. Retrieved July 19, 2014. Masahiro Sakurai, the series' director, surprised fans with the reveal of two newcomers, neither of whom supporters of the infamous Gematsu leak were expecting.
• Klaus (July 11, 2014). "[Màj] Super Smash Bros. Wii U et 3DS : un nouveau personnage dévoilé lundi" (in French). Retrieved July 19, 2014. Certains ont automatiquement pensé que le directeur "teasait" en fait l'annonce de Shulk, le personnage principal de Xenoblade Chronicles, parce que tout cela correspondrait étrangement à un leak diffusé il y a quelques temps sur le site Gematsu.
• GameXplain (April 19, 2014). "Smash Bros Gematsu Leak Discussion: Shulk, Chrom, Chorus Boys, & more! (Wii U & 3DS)". YouTube. Retrieved July 19, 2014.
• Omar Taylor (April 8, 2014). "Report: Shulk, Palutena, Chrom, Chorus Men, Pokemon from Pokemon X/Y Joining the Smash Bros. Roster". Nintendo Enthusiast. Retrieved July 19, 2014.

Timeline of events

Date	Event
June 7, 2011	A new Super Smash Bros. game is announced at E3 2011.
April 29, 2013	Nintendo announces it would be showing off the new Super Smash Bros. at E3 2013.
June 10, 2013	First leak: Little Mac, Pac-Man, "Animal Crossing Guy", Mega Man, Wii Fit Trainer, and Mii predicted.
June 11, 2013	Villager, Mega Man, and Wii Fit Trainer are confirmed.
December 19, 2013	Rosalina is confirmed,
February 13, 2014	Little Mac is confirmed.
April 18, 2014	Second leak: Shulk, Palutena, Chrom, Chorus Men, and a "Pokémon from Pokémon X and Y" predicted.
	Greninja is confirmed.
June 10, 2014	Third leak: Ness will return and Lucas will be cut.
	Mii, Palutena, and Pac-Man are confirmed.
July 14, 2014	Robin and Lucina are confirmed.
	Chrom is deconfirmed.

Thoughts? [Soffredo] 21:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe as a sentence or two in the dev section. Certainly not its own article or even it's own section. It doesn't strike me as that big of a deal. Stuff is leaked all the time in this day and age... Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least some sort of mention is what I'm going for. [Soffredo] 21:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, just making sure. If you were suggesting maybe making another article for it, it seemed like maybe you'd want to put a lot of it in the article. Your chart, for example, would be excessive, if you made it for the purpose of including it in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 22:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Gamecruft is what i believe this is. once the games are released, when they were announced won't matter as much. and who was "deconfirmed" even less relevant. Lucia Black (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how off-hand mentions in a few articles and a YouTube video prove notability. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 17:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Besides the rules about speculation, due to the nature of Sal's alleged source, I don't think we could really count it as 'verifiable'...especially since, while the 'leaker' has gotten a lot of things right, they've also gotten some things wrong. Notability requires verifiable evidence. WANI (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the leaker was wrong about Chrom and didn't mention Rosalina & Luma, I'd say it was just a really lucky guess. TheMultiYoshi (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

As made evident by my recent cleanup up of the Development section, it's not worth noting down the announcement of every single character, or the revealing of specific modes for that matter, since they'll be covered by their relevant sections. You should only really make mentions to stuff that isn't neccessarily covered by previous sections (eg. if Sakurai was to announce a new name for the game). Wonchop (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but with this being such a mainstream game, we'll still have to actively enforce this... Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Co-director

Why do people keep putting Yoshito Higuchi as co-director? If anything, it will be Masaya Kobayashi since he's leading the Bandai Namco development team for the game. If people actually read the source reference (http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/30817/sakurai-and-kobayashi-release-messages-regarding-smash-bros), they'd see that nowhere does it mention Higuchi co-directing the game. He very may well, of course, but there has been no news of Higuchi's involvement since this 2012 announcement. The video in the IGN link doesn't say Higuchi will co-direct either, even though it says so in the first paragraph. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Character table

Can I get the green light to split the table into four columns? Right now it looks really long and you can't see all of the character at the same time in most browsers. It should look something like this when its done:--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Fighter	Series	Fighter	Series
Bowser	Mario	Pac Man	Pac Man
Captain Falcon	F-Zero	Palutena	Kid Icarus

• I like this idea, but it's not a necessity. Gameditor (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I was the one who initially rejected it. It made the table much more overwhelming to take in. I also find it puzzling to have redundant identical columns. Sergecross73 msg me 22:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is visually ugly and confusing. You can't see the entire article at the same time, so why worry if you can't see all the characters? The current table is fine. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - @User:Sergecross73, it's supposed to be two similar juxtaposed tables, but as the formatting is, I agree that it looks unusual. @User:Dissident93, personal aesthetic opinion, but I didn't really like the length of the table and the fact that it created a lot of white space in the middle of the article.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would actually have to agree with Dissident93. Though I would prefer to not have all that white space in the middle of the article, but simply changing the size of the table wouldn't completely get rid of the white space. I would suggest aligning the table in the center. At least with it centered, the white space would be evenly distributed on both sides of the table, so it wouldn't look like there's as much. Just a though. Gameditor (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Add info on single player modes for 3DS?

I just heard the other day that the single player mode for the 3DS version have been shown. You have the Smash Run (3DS only for sure), Target Blast and Multi-Man (both of which will probably be in the Wii U version, too), as well as the Home Run Contest (unsure exactly how this will work). Smash Run is based on Kirby's Air Ride. In Target Blast the player has a bomb that they must hit to damage it to make it lighter so that it can launch farther. In Multi-Man, the only notable difference from the 3DS version and Brawl is that instead of going against the wireframe enemies, you can battle against your Miis. I know we don't have much on these modes yet, but I think we have enough for a paragraph or two. Gameditor (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's already in there, in the "differences" section. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Split 3DS & Wii U Versions?

I think we should give the Wii U version its own page as well as the 3DS version. Masahiro Sakurai has stated that he is considering both versions of this game as individual installments of the series, therefore they are two different games. If that is the case, both games should have their own pages, especially considering the two games would differ from each other in terms of stages and maybe some characters and items, as well as modes. As of now, we don't know about exactly what would differ from game to game, but we know enough to know that the two games would be different in some aspects. I think it'd clarify things if we split this article. Maybe make half this article the Wii U version and the other half the 3DS version? Any thoughts? Gameditor (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be better to stick with the main discussion: Talk:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U#Time to split? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out. Didn't notice that section. Gameditor (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Items

I just noticed that under the section "Gameplay in the Super Smash Bros. series," it only mentions the return of the Smash Ball and Assist Trophy. Those are just two items out of a lot that we know of. I was just wondering if we could add a table like the one we have for characters, but for items. This table could look like this:

Item	Returning from Brawl?	Series
Assist Trophy	Yes	Super Smash Bros.
Banana Peel	Yes	Donkey Kong
Poke-ball	Yes	Pokemon
Smash Ball	Yes	Super Smash Bros.
X-Bomb	No	Super Smash Bros.

Any thoughts? Gameditor^Talk 02:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that would fail WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. From what we know so far, this game has many more items than any of the previous installments had, so I think it would be at least worthy of noting how many more items this installment has over previous ones. According to WP:GAMECRUFT, List of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts has an exception that states: "Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry." I think that the significant increase in items from what was already considered by most to be a lot of items would at least be worth a sentence or two. Gameditor^Talk 02:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with writing about more of them. I'm just saying that that the chart itself wouldn't fit the guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 03:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"From what we know so far, this game has many more items than any of the previous installments had." We do? How do you know?

I don't see how a list of items is essential to understanding the game. It has items. Some items return. That's all people need to know to understand. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 04:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so no. If readers want to know more, they can use the website or the Smash wikis. Erick (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is a quote indicating a significant number of new items, including a list of maybe a couple of the new ones, then that would be OK. Anything more than that is extraneous and indiscriminate. --McDoobAU93 13:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of the Cracker Launcher and Fan, all the items in Brawl that weren't tied to a certain character, stage, or mode have been confirmed to return. I think we should opt for something similar to the following:

"Nearly every item featured in Super Smash Bros. Brawl returns in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, along with new items such as the Beetle from The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, the Daybreak from Kid Icarus: Uprising, and the Boss Galaga from Galaga."

Also, if the statement about the return of Assist Trophies stays, it might be wise to cite one or two examples, noting whether they are returning from Brawl like Waluigi and Shadow the Hedgehog or new to Smash like Midna and Dillon. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I really like that sentence, Mr/Ms. IP 136.181.195,25. We don't even need that much info about the Assist Trophies. All we would need is to mention the new ones that are new to the series. We won't need to mention reoccurring ones. Gameditor^Talk 19:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Where are the sources, though? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What, for the new items? Can't we just cite Sakurai's Miiverse posts revealing them? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I would think Sakurai's Miiverse post would be an acceptable source. It's coming from the official source, so that lets you know that it's credible. Gameditor^Talk 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I was under the impression there was a Sakurai post that said something along the lines of, "Brawl items are all coming back, here's some more new stuff". Unless that is what you guys are talking about. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 03:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is what 136.181.195.25 was talking about. I know Sakurai did mention the return of the Brawl items and an addition of several new items. I don't remember where I read that, therefore I don't remember the exact quote. Could anyone quote Sakurai's statement about the items? A reference would be nice, too. Gameditor^Talk 05:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Small description of Smash Run

Sakurai recently posted a new screenshot of the 3DS's Smash Run mode and commented about it:

"The treasure chests that appear in Smash Run are very important. Not only do they give you stat boosts, but they also give you custom parts (the bag on the right) and Smash Run powers (the bag on the left). You should pick these up and use them in the next battle!!" reference

I was just wondering if this would be a good addition to, possibly the Differences between versions section, just to describe what the Smash Run is, since this is its first appearance. Gameditor^Talk 21:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

When to start adding secret content?

So obviously, the Japanese launch is only three weeks away. I assume once the game is out in Japan, we'll be able to use that as the primary source for who is and isn't part of the roster, despite still being unreleased in other regions, and can start filling out the article based on whatever we find in-game. However, my question is one of timing; specifically, what do we do in a case where someone gets a copy of the game early? And I'm not talking about something like a "leak" where we can't prove where it came from, if it's real, etc.; I'm talking a "Here's me holding the case and cartridge I bought from this specific retailer that broke street date; now watch me stream myself playing all the modes and unlocking everything for the next sixteen hours"-level case where the legitimacy can't be disputed. Do we wait until after the official Japanese launch date before adding unlockable characters, previously unrevealed features, and the like? Or is it okay to start making additions immediately despite the fact that Nintendo never OFFICIALLY announced them and the game TECHNICALLY still isn't out yet? (It's also probably good to establish precedence now so we can fall back on it when the Wii U version rolls around...) -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We add it when Nintendo or reliable third parties confirm it. Like always. Nothing changes. Sergecross73 msg me 10:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Emphasis on "reliable third parties". A YT video of someone showing the whole cast will not do. A reliable third party source (doesn't have to be Nintendo, thank goodness) that says "We got the game, here are the characters" will be OK. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad this has been established, as footage from the game has just leaked online, including battles involving as-of-yet-unrevealed fighters, so you're probably going to have a lot of people trying to add the characters from the recent leak. Depending on the influx of people adding Bowser Jr., Shulk, Dark Pit, Duck Hunt, etc., you may want to up the protection level. Just wanted to give you guys fair warning. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I heard rumors of leaks, but hadn't realized video footage had now leaked. The article is pretty well monitored at least, and I can protect it if need be. Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Also, on a similar note, what do we do in cases where reliable third-party sources actually post about the leaks? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

StickMan is right; if GameSpot or IGN covers it, it's allowed, both as reliably sourced and under WP:SPOILER, I'd think. --McDoobAU93 15:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is okay to include, as long as it's clarified that it's still an unconfirmed rumor. It wouldn't be okay to add the character to the main list yet. Just about every major website is covering the leak now, so it may as well be added in the prose, as a rumor. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, now that literally EVERYONE is talking about it, it might be wise to make mention of it somewhere, especially in the likely event that it proves to be accurate. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We may want to think about adding protection to the "leaked" characters' articles as well if vandalism/unsourced additions increase... namely Duck Hunt and Bowser Jr. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to at least keep an eye on Xenoblade Chronicles and List of Kid Icarus characters as well, just to be safe. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I maintain Xenoblade every since I rewrote it earlier in the year, so I'll keep an eye on that. Let me know if other articles are being vandalized, and I can protect it, though I really can't unless its already happening, and repeatedly. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I added a mention of the leak in a paragraph right before the list of confirmed characters, saying that none of it was confirmed. I actually got that info off of IGN, which makes it a reliable source. I'd say anything that talks about the leak should not be added as legitimate, but if a reliable source talks about the characters in the leak, but not actually about the leak, well, we should discuss that here. I will keep an eye out for unconfirmed additions. Gameditor^Talk 16:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2014

Change the following sentence...

Certain stages, trophies, and assist trophies are exclusive to each version of game, with the Wii U version featuring elements taken from console titles and the 3DS version taking elements from handheld games.

...to...

Certain stages, trophies, and assist trophies are exclusive to each version of game, with the Wii U version primarily featuring elements taken from console titles and the 3DS version taking elements primarily from handheld games.

Without the additional adverb, it makes it sound like there are no console related elements in 3DS or handheld elements in Wii U, despite the fact we know that's not true. (Palutena's Temple and Kalos Pokemon League stages in Wii U, Green Hill Zone and Boxing Ring stages in 3DS, etc.) 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014

Add Category:Wii U-only games to Super Mash Bros. for Wii U (disambiguation) page Augure (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You'll have to give more detail. For instance, what exactly would it be disambiguating ? Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014

Add Category: Wii U-only games to Super Mash Bros. for Wii U (disambiguation) page Augure (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I'm not sure I exactly understand. I don't see such a disambiguation page. And it wouldn't be a Wii U only title, there's a 3DS version. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2014

Change Shulk's series of origin to Xenoblade Chronicles to match the main Super Smash Bros. page. Also, update the first paragraph under "characters" to clarify that twelve newcomers have been announced and add Shulk to the prose list after Robin. 136.181.195.25 (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done On the Shulk part. It looks like series are used in this column, not individual games. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

True, but Xenoblade has become its own subseries now with the upcoming release of Xenoblade Chronicles X. Furthermore, Blade has little to do with the other titles in the Xeno series (none of which were ever on Nintendo consoles anyway), save for its director, and to our knowledge, no elements from Gears or Saga are present in Smash. Therefore, it makes more sense to acknowledge just the subseries the character himself hails from, similar to how the Namco × Capcom and Project X Zone pages only lists KOS-MOS as a Xenosaga character and not a Xeno character in general. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Xeno has been designated an overall series, per Iwata himself. There are two games with "Xenoblade" in the title, but they're not really considered their own "series" yet. There's only one game out, and no Xenoblade (series) article - nor should there be yet. Its no different than how we'd use Final Fantasy if Cloud Strife was in the game, not Final Fantasy 7 or Compilation of Final Fantasy VII, even if he wasn't in Final Fantasies 1-6. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, if you say so. Either way, though, the second part stands. This...

"eleven new characters have been announced to date: Mega Man, the Wii Fit Trainers, Villager, Rosalina, Little Mac, Greninja, Mii Fighters, Palutena, Pac-Man, Lucina, and Robin."

...needs to be changed to...

"twelve new characters have been announced to date: Mega Man, the Wii Fit Trainers, Villager, Rosalina, Little Mac, Greninja, Mii Fighters, Palutena, Pac-Man, Lucina, Robin, and Shulk."

The total character count of 38 earlier in the paragraph looks to already have been updated. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been done. I added Shulk to the list of new characters and changed the number from eleven to twelve yesterday. Gameditor^Talk 19:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't Shulk's series be listed as "Xenoblade Chronicles"

Shouldn't it be "Xenoblade Chronicles" as that is the official series he originates from and the IP Nintendo owns, Xeno is just an unofficial spiritual series encompassing unconnected games directed by Tetsuya Takahashi, the name Xeno was strictly used as tribute, "Xenogears", "Xenosaga" and "Xenoblade" are all separate series/IPs.

See the discussion directly above you. Xenoblade Chronicles is not a series, it's just a game. The Xeno (series) has been deemed as an overarching series by Nintendo President Iwata himself. Xenoblade, not so much. Since we're using series, and not individual games, Xeno is the appropriate choice. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sora?

Is "Sora" still being credited as the game developer? I know it was at the time of the article's creation, years ago. But I thought they disbanded like in 2012 after Kid Icarus was completed and released. I recognize it's largely the Sora staff, but still, is there a better name to put in there? Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's confusing, but apparently Project Sora is the studio that closed, and Sora Ltd. is the one still in business. The game releases in Japan soon, so the credits should confirm all of this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't realize they were different. Alright Nevermind then. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What qualifies as a "character"?

So here's an interesting quandry: Obviously, we have a few instances like Villager and WFT where their opposite gender appears as an alternate outfit, and they've been tagged as such. But what do we do when the alternate outfit is a separate CHARACTER? And to be clear, I'm not talking about cases where it's the same character but the color scheme resembles someone else like Daisy or Blood Falcon. According to impressions of the current demo in Japanese stores, half of Olimar's eight costumes actually change him to Alph from Pikmin 3, complete with a different model and name change. Similarly, if the leaks prove true, each of Bowser Jr's alternate colors will replace him with one of the Koopalings. Obviously, I'm not saying to add these now since we don't have any trustworthy sources for this information, but if/when these model changes do get confirmed, how should we denote their inclusion in the character table? Or, for that matter, on the character table in the main series article? -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think a note that other characters appear as alternate costumes would be good enough. It's better to just have the table list the "main" versions, where appropriate. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 08:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We'll probably just keep doing what we're doing and go by how Nintendo designates it. In the case of Bowser Jr, we could always put Bowser Jr./Koopalings since they have a collective article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Going by Sakurai's description of Lucina, characters are only given an idividual slot when there's a difference between how they play compared to another character, which in this case is why she's a seperate character from Marth. As such, we should keep the character list to one listing per character slot too. In the case of Olimar, you can either put "Olimar/Alph" in the character table, or list in a note that Alph is part of the alternative costumes. Or indeed, if it's the same case with Boswer Jr. and the Koopalings, list them in the same manner and link both entries with a note saying they are different characters selected as alternate outfits. Wonchop (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, news about Alph is now officially out, so someone should probably update the table accordingly, be it via footnote or shared space. -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. By the way, gamers in Japan have gotten the game early and have been streaming it, and have confirmed the ESRB leak is true (as if it still had non-believers) so how do we handle this? If (more like when) IGN or another reputable 3rd party source reports on this, would that be accepted as a source? Or does it have to be officially revealed on the official site and/or Sakurai's Miiverse first? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not 100% sure but I do think reputable 3rd parties would suffice. Here's one from SRK, for example. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 11:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think as far as what's going on with early streams and such, we should at least wait until the official street date (ie. the 14th), before adding characters revealed there. Basically, it should be treated like spoilers in that it should wait until the thing has officially been released. Wonchop (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

IGN's reporting them as real. So is Kotaku. That's two reliable sources confirming their presence, which is enough to add the ones mentioned within. The only ones missing at present is R.O.B., but I'm sure they'll update the articles as soon as he's unlocked anyway. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2014

The music section needs to be rewritten to account for the article split. My suggested rewrite is below:

As in prior series entries, Super Smash Bros. for Wii U features many original and re-arranged tracks from various different gaming franchises, including some pieces taken directly from earlier Super Smash Bros. titles. The "My Music" feature from Brawl returns, allowing players to adjust how frequently certain songs play on each stage.

On August 22, 2014, the Super Smash Bros. website revealed the list of composers and arrangers for the game. Various well-known composers such as Masashi Hamauzu, Yuzo Koshiro, Yasunori Mitsuda, Motoi Sakuraba, Yoko Shimomura, Mahito Yokota, along with many others, provided new arrangements for the game. The original music was created by Bandai Namco's in-house sound team.

A two disk, promotional soundtrack will be available to Club Nintendo members who purchase and register the 3DS and Wii U versions of the game. 69.136.149.237 (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

References

 Not done Even though I'm 100% sure the Wii U version features the same group of artists (give or take a few), the page specifically says "Musicians who worked on new arrangements for Nintendo 3DS version". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2014

Restore the paragraph about the 3DS character leak. While the screens and video are of the 3DS version, it's established in this very article that the two share an identical roster of fighters, so the section is applicable to this article as well, so long as you make sure to mention that the leaked screens were of the 3DS version, not the Wii U version. 69.136.149.237 (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Remerge

Considering the negative reaction to User:Sergecross73's decision to split Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U into two seperate articles, I suppose it's fitting that there be a vote as to whether the articles should be merged back. The discussion can be found here, but I'll quickly sum up the argument. The case for the split was largely based on how the two versions are supposedly considered by Sakurai as two seperate installments based on an interview with Kotaku, and that the difference in release dates would warrant multiple Reception sections. The case against the split is that the core mechanics, namely the gameplay and the character roster, and identical between both versiona, and the main differences between the two versions are pretty much limited to its unique stages and gameplay modes which, in the original article, I quickly described in a subsection in Gameplay. As such, there is too little information about how each version is unique compared to how much can be said about both versions, resulting in a lot of neccessary repeated information on both articles.

So yeah. Support if you want the articles re-merged, Against if you don't. I'm very much Support. Wonchop (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - There was a 10 to 1 consensus supporting the move, which ran for months. I have no idea why some long term maintainers failed to contribute to that discussion, but they did. People need to be more patient. There's much more to be documented, it's just that it was just split less than 48 hours ago. It's usually considered bad faith to nominate a newly created article for deletion so soon. Same applies here. Give it some time. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, you can't just look at it with simply numbers. You've also got to think logically. A lot of those votes were blindly made based on a single source of what is, when you think about it, a really passive comment that is pretty vague in what it can actually mean. There have since been many points raised, both on the weight that quote is given and why is not very efficient to split an article which largely covers information pertaining to both versions, into seperate articles. Wonchop (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Two people questioned the quote. You, and Gameditor, who was actually in favor of a split. That above comment in general was a pretty bad example of misrepresenting actual past discussions on this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly support as of September 7 – (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) The article was not intricate enough to warrant a split. As of right now, there seem to be only three key differences between the 3DS and WiiU releases. Later, a split can be considered if new info arises. But right now, while there's 99% overlap, and only 1% of factoids elaborating on three minor differences? No way. Why bother? I get that people would want them to be identified as separate games to avoid confusion, but all splitting did was create more confusion. At the very least, the WiiU article should have been built from scratch, and not structured as a copy-and-paste job. But then another issue comes to light: what goes where? Does the history of its development until now be confined to For 3DS? Or do we only make use of a {{Further}} template and cover WiiU-exclusive content in this article? Does shared info get duplicated? What if the ratio between shared info and exclusive content remains at 99:1? What happens over the next several weeks when editors add shared content to one article but not the other; when the same piece of information is written in two different ways on both articles and confuses readers?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There will be more changes between the two versions as their development nears an end. I actually got confused with the article not being split because you didn't always know which game was being talked about. Granted, the majority of the content will be the same, as stated by Sakurai, the two games are different installments in the series. For example, look at the entire Pokemon series! Every single release has two different versions, but they are considered to be one installment, so they are on the same page, not split into two. I oppose. Gameditor^Talk 18:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's the same game with minor differences that can be covered on a single article. And Sakurai's statement in one interview should not determine how we decide how to write the articles when nearly every other project has one page on both games, including the Japanese project. This was a hamfisted attempt to split the article up when the only "consensus" was a headcount of a discussion that had ended 2 months ago and no one acted on it. One of the reasons proposed was because the Wii U version cover was up for deletion? Wikipedia does not need these content forks on two "separate" games that are so inherently intertwined in their reporting to make it matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support – On one hand, Sakurai himself considers the games to be separate (although the actual differences between the two are small). But on the other, the split has caused more problems than it meant too. "What happens over the next several weeks when editors add shared content to one article but not the other; when the same piece of information is written in two different ways on both articles and confuses readers?" Like what Ilovetopaint said here, I think this split will just cause more confusion in the future and makes both articles worse off in the end than they could have been remaining a single article. There have been ports/other versions of other notable games with way more differences between them, yet they only have a single section of the article devoted to those differences. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• I was bold and reverted the split. Right now there just needs to be an admin to move the page back to its original title. Sergecross73 should not have acted on a 2 month old discussion that had very little participation, basing the decision on numbers, and deciding to do this long before the second version would be released. The biggest problem of this all was that this page was turned into the article on the Wii U version rather than the 3DS version, which is coming out first.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• I'd say it would be more of a quality article merged for the moment, until widespread information is released, and we can actually produce a large amount of content in the article that isn't shared. Otherwise, it would be a content fork. It is important that the article look as nice as possible and we don't have two fragment articles for too long. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think unless there's something game-changeingly significant about the Wii U version, I doubt it'll come to that, particularly since Sakurai's previously stated it won't feature a story mode. There have been a fair amount of games that have had multiple versions including some extensive additions (examples include Persona 3 and its FES and Portable updates and Trauma Center: Under the Knife and its Wii remake), but since the core elements are the same across the board, the need for a split doesn't exist. Wonchop (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the only thing it has going for it at the moment is the holiday release and the fact that 3DS competitive play is going to be a bitch for spectators.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to thank all the nay-sayers for your timely voicing of your opinions. It was really cool how everyone waited until after I took the time to split them off. Obviously 3 months of discussion wasn't enough time. Kudos to every one who worked so hard to rewrite the split articles too. Sergecross73 msg me 22:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no level of rewriting that happened. There were simply two identical articles except one of them had part of it dedicated to the sole different game mechanic found in one version. And you should have been more timely in applying a consensus from a debate that took place months before.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2014

In light of the final roster confirmation, along with Ryulong's rewrite, this sentence under "Playable characters" needs to be rewritten:

New third-party owned characters were added, as well: Capcom's Mega Man, Bandai Namco Games's Pac-Man and Shulk from Xenoblade Chronicles.

...Should be...

Third-party character Sonic the Hedgehog of Sega returns from Brawl, alongside two new third-party characters: Capcom's Mega Man and Bandai-Namco's Pac-Man.

...because Sonic's inclusion is notable being a non-Nintendo character, and Shulk is not third-party. (Nintendo owns Monolith and published Xenoblade, hence first-party) 136.181.195.25 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong appears to have changed this sentence. Is it correct now? Stickee (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've given the section a little rewrite, with the top half listing all the new fighters (not too much merit in bringing up Sonic since he's mentioned later in the development section anyway), and the second half briefly covering the leaks (removing detail about what was leaked since that's now covered in the aforementioned top half). Wonchop (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Final character count

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've seen that some people have been changing the character count (myself included). I'm planning to make the final count be 51 characters with 17 new fighters. This is because Sakurai considered the Mii Fighters (Brawler, Swordfighter, and Gunner) to be seperate fighters. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is a logical approach. Gameditor^Talk 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why it couldn't be 51. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 21:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Due to the fact they also have separate movesets, I also agree it should be 51. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There are three different Mii playstyles, but only one Mii character slot (likewise, they are only listed once on the official site), so I don't think they'd particularly count as three seperate characters. Its three styles are also largely related to its customizable nature. ie. it's a single Mii, but it's up to the player how it plays. What I've tried at the moment is to say there are 49 actual character slots (naturally omitting variations such as Alph and the Koopalings), whilst stating it is technically 51 when including the Mii Fighter variations. Wonchop (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Revised it a little further, saying there are 48 characters pulled from games PLUS the option to play as Miis using three different styles. That way we don't have to worry too much about the exact character count, or the infinite nature of Miis. Wonchop (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that, much like the whole 3DS/Wii split debate, we're kinda basing it on the whole 'Sakurai considers' assumption. From what I can tell from the final version, the Miis, regardless of which variation, are only considered as one (ie. there's only one character slot, both in-game and on the official website, the announcer only says 'Mii' instead of specific variants, and there's only one trophy/end panel awarded for completing Classic mode). Wonchop (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't agree with the total roster being 51 instead of 49, particularly since noone seems to have any citations for the three Mii classes being officially considered seperate characters (particularly in the case of the claim that Sakurai thinks they are). Mii is either one character or infinity characters, not three. Kotaku seems to consider this to be 49 instead of 51 [3] too. Wonchop (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The only source confirming this as stated by Sakurai. He stated that they are treated as separate fighters at 5:30 into the video. [4] TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Treated as seperate fighters". Not "they are seperate fighters". Much like the 3DS/Wii U being seperate installments quote, it can be perceived in many ways. If it was truly intended to be three selected characters, there would be three dedicated character slots, but instead, it's just an option in the whole customiseable shebang. For example, if you make a Mii and assign it as a Brawler and then later change it to a Gunner, it's still the same Mii. It's the same as how create-a-fighters in something like Soul Calibur can be given different fighting styles, but that doesn't neccessarily boost the base character roster. And again, outside of this single quote, Sakurai's only really been referring to them collectively as a single unit. Wonchop (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically, it's a lot more accurate to say "you can make a Mii Fighter and give it one of three playstyles" than to say "there are three Mii Fighters", given the vast number of Miis that can be made. It's a lot simpler to just keep it one-character-per-slot. Wonchop (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the idea of a 'final roster' is too unsure to decide on, it's better off to just say "there's 48 game characters, and then there's however many Miis you want", because the Miis just have too many variables to tack a number on. Sound reasonable? Wonchop (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I decided to go bold and revert Wonchop's changes. Again, Sakurai stated that the Mii Fighter variants are indeed treated as separate fighters, and I'm not sure how the Mii Fighters are actually infinite. Do you remember Zelda / Sheik and the Pokémon Trainer from Brawl? Well, Sakurai stated that there were actually 39 characters in that game, which led to Sheik, and the Pokémon Trainer's Pokémon being listed as separate characters. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's up for debate whether the three Mii fighting styles can be described as different characters (I can see both sides of the debate), but Wonchop keeps claiming the final roster number is 48, when the Mii selection should count towards the game's real number of 49. The YouTube link you posted also has 49 character selections. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never said that. It's just in the current statement that there is a total of 51 characters (btw we should try and avoid bold edits until the matter is settled), subtracting the three Mii types from that number would make that 48. The times where you changed it to 49 without checking its context would've made the sentence incorrect and add to 52. Basically, the 49 count roster only truly applies once we settle on Mii Fighter being classified as a single character (or at the very least, a single create-a-fighter option). There's also the option I've mentioned previously, which is to state there are 48 main characters, plus the option to create Mii Fighters, rather than factor in the uncertain value Mii Fighter possesses, which could also be reasonable considering their exclusion from With Anyone online play. Simply put, as a pluralistic entity by nature, Mii Fighters are hella awkward to write about properly. Wonchop (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Mii fighters are making everything so complicated for us! I think we should count the Mii fighters as one character. In Brawl, we count Zelda/Sheik as one character, and the Mii fighters aren't that different from Zelda/Sheik, in that they have alternate forms. Gameditor^Talk 02:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should say the final number of characters is 49, and then re-word it better to include the Mii fighters having different forms. Just claiming it's 48 is more incorrect than stating there are 51. On the fully unlocked character select screen, there are 49 different choices at face value, even if only 48 are playable in With Anyone mode. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Basically, it needs to either be 49 with the Mii and its properties listed among the fifteen new fighters, or 48 plus the ability to create Miis of various types, leaning more towards the former. Wonchop (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we've more or less reached a consensus, so I've switched the roster count to 49. I'll leave it to you guys to decide how to handle the character template on the series page. Wonchop (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Decided to revert Wonchop's changes yet again. Please see my comment in the previous section. I oppose them being classified as a single fighter because again, Sakurai stated that they are treated as seperate fighters and everyone else reluctantly agreed with me in the first place. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There's clearly more people who agree, so stop locking the darn arguments. Wonchop (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention most of the people who agreed with you then (namely Dissident and Gameditor), changed their mind once I provided the logical argument. Wonchop (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Oh well, I've poked Masahiro Sakurai about it. Let's see what he thinks.TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line is, most of the internet, including third-party gaming sites, peg the roster at 49, both the games and website only use one character slot for Miis, and the statement "there are three Mii Fighters" is blatantly incorrect and misleading. Between a statement that's 100% true and one that's kinda debateable, why ignore the more solid answer? Wonchop (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are valuable, but they don't override "Word of God". Sakurai has stated that he treats them as three separate characters - I don't see where the debate is there. Do you feel that there's room for interpretation there? One can even argue that, compared to Sheik in Brawl, Mii Fighters are more separate than she was (wherein she was still considered her own character, despite being a part of Zelda's slot), as completing Classic or All-Star as Sheik netted you a Zelda trophy too, and vice versa. With Mii Fighters, the slot exists for you to select one of three possible Mii character options. In order to get the Mii Gunner trophy, you must play as the Mii Gunner. The same is true of Mii Swordfighter and Mii Brawler. In this way, the only thing that connects them is their origin and the fact that they occupy the same slot. Further, street advertisement for Smash on 3DS had the Mii Fighters advertised separately from one another as separate characters (each ad had a little icon in the bottom left corner, showing a character). They were also numbered differently. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I was bold and reverted Wonchop's changes. Now we're going to have to revert the character template to before all this hullabaloo happened. New Age Retro Hippie is right. Reliable sources shouldn't override Sakurai's word. If he says that they are treated as seperate fighters, then they are seperate fighters in general. Done deal. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Three seperate movesets? Maybe, though it's technically more. Three different characters? Nope. There's a difference between 'treated as' and 'are'. It's still far more accurate to say it's one incredibly customiseable character than three seperate characters. Wonchop (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, the decision to choose between Brawler, Gunner, Swordswoman is made during the customization process. ie. You can't choose a Mii and then choose from a type from the character select screen. They are effectively selected in the same manner as other customized characters, so it's pretty much "Create-a-Fighter" rules here. Wonchop (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The create-a-fighter equivalents didn't state that the custom characters were their own separate characters. The reason why he says treated-as is simply because they are selected in a manner that is not conventional for Smash 4. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, Sakurai splits the three characters up w/ separate stats on Vs. Records, rather than grouping them under Mii Fighters. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC

I'm going to be bold and just get this over with. Wonchop shouldn't have even been in this discussion. Let's break this down as to why they are indeed seperate fighters. After that, I'm closing off this freaking discussion. There's only a brief mention of Mii Fighters 'being treated as three seperate fighters' during that E3 presentation. That's Sakurai's word. Reliable sources are valuable, but they don't override "Word of God". Sakurai has stated that he treats them as three separate characters. Well put. New Age Retro Hippie gets it. Also, Sakurai splits the three characters up w/ separate stats on Vs. Records. That's another important thing. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You seriously need to stop locking these conversations as if your word is final, TheMeaningOfBlah. And definitely stop with the "I'm gonna be bold" crap, because that is precisely what I get told off for. Putting aside whether or not "word of god" is an actual thing, the quote is still too vague to tag an actual number on it. Like I said before, trying to identify Miis as seperate characters causes too much complication; it needs to be more clear to the reader. It should either be "there are 49 characters, including a Mii with three different movesets" or "there are 48 characters... additionally, players can create a Mii Fighter with etc." Wonchop (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you're well within your right to hold it as such. However, the consensus as it stands feels that it is clear what Sakurai is saying. The three Mii Fighters were recognized as separate by Sakurai, but why wouldn't he do the same and say "there are three Palutenas"? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We've reached a compromise which can be found here. With that, this discussion will now be closed. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wii U Version Release Date

A preorder card reveals that the Wii U version will be released November 21, 2014: http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2014/09/ssbdate.jpg 24.71.44.31 (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I read about Fred Meyer having the release date on these gift cards, but if you notice, near the top of the card, it says that the date is subject to change, meaning that it may change. Also, the date has not been confirmed by Nintendo. November 28th has also been rumored, but again, nothing has been confirmed by Nintendo. Gameditor^Talk 03:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to say, we've got release dates announced. November 21 for NA, December 5 for Europe and December 6 for Japan. Wonchop (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Release Date in Germany

Because of the German National Holiday the release date is on October 2nd. Source: https://www.nintendo.de/News/2014/August/Ab-dem-2-Oktober-kannst-du-mit-dem-Super-Smash-Bros-for-Nintendo-3DS-Limited-Edition-Pack-stylisch-in-den-Kampf-ziehen--911185.html

23:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.33.64.149 (talk)

Maybe a mention can be made under the "Release" section, but I don't think this warrants adding/changing the EU date in the info box. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It doesn't seem worth mentioning for the English-language Wiki. Wonchop (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, why mention the Japanese release date on English wikipedia articles? It's notable, but not enough to change and add bloated info to the infobox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2014

Add the following sentence to either the "Playable Characters" or "Development" section:

The Ice Climbers, who appeared in previous series entries, were planned for inclusion as well, but were removed due to 3DS hardware limitations. 69.136.149.237 (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Not an edit request but more just bringing this to your attention...

In the Reception section, part of the first line reads:

"The 3DS version was met with critical acclaim in Japan with Famitsu giving the game an almost perfect score of 37 out of 40"...

I may be wrong, but providing commentary about how good of a score the rating itself is sounds unnecessary to me, especially when the score isn't 'almost' perfect (37 of 40 is 92.5%; a great score, but not almost perfect when one considers that great games have come closer to a perfect score than that). My own opinion is that the "37 out of 40" speaks for itself--that's a nice score just by looking at it, and the 'almost perfect' is either a hair generous, redundant, or a mix of the two. But that's my own thoughts. How do others feel about this? 67.186.207.83 (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't know why those two links showed up. I'm a rookie for sure at wiki. 67.186.207.83 (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Famitsu scores are different in that they actually consist of the sum of four reviewers' scores, so 37/40 could for example mean 9+9+9+10 (although I don't know what the actual sub-scores were for this particular game). I guess that's why some editor wrote that it's near perfect. I do agree with you, though, the score probably should speak for itself. Saying it's "near perfect" almost makes it sound like Wikipedia is being paid by Nintendo to market the game. IDV^talk 04:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically, putting aside its commercial success, we would only be able to talk about critical acclaim if we knew more than one reputable Japanese game review source. As is, we'll have to wait til the English reviews come in to get how it was generally received. Wonchop (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Splitting

I think, with the 3DS English release rearing its head, we need to split the two versions. Who's with me!? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. As we've stated before, we only need a few paragraphs to explan the differences between the two versions, and making two articles would involve a lot of repeated information. Wonchop (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what the potential WiiU split would look like. What's the point?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

An appropriate size for an unreleased video game, wouldn't you say? Once it IS released though, it's going to have dozens upon dozens of reviews discussing it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to split the article until it becomes too complicated to explain every difference in one space. This article is not a confusing mess, and so a split is unnecessary, because 'a confusing mess' is exactly what the split will create.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected?

Can someone please edit the Wii u release date to Q4 2014 to Holiday 2014? Here is a reliable source: http://www.smashbros.com/us/ They are Nintendo the creators of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KYR SMARTER (talk • contribs) 11:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, they mean the same thing, so there's no need. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

"Duck Hunt" or "Duck Hunt Duo"?

I feel like we need to establish some consistency for articles going forward. For the character made up of the dog and duck from Duck Hunt, which name do we want to refer to them by in articles? The JP and US versions of the game label them as simply "Duck Hunt", but from what I can tell, the EU version goes by "Duck Hunt Duo". I've seen both variants used on different pages of this wiki, so I feel like it's important that we pick one and stick with it going forward. (For the record, my own vote goes to Duck Hunt since that's the name used in more versions of the game.) -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I say we go with Duck Hunt Duo, seeing as though it helps differentiate between the character and game more than just calling them Duck Hunt. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

At the least, it's better than trying to call them "the duck and dog from Duck Hunt". Wonchop (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've decided to change this back to Duck Hunt, as it says that on the character template. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think it works well that way, as just "Duck Hunt" on its own isn't descriptive at all and can give the wrong impression. For all an unfamiliar reader knows, seeing the name "Duck Hunt" italicized without any further explanation might suggest that the character is a sentient Duck Hunt NES cartridge. (And in a series where you can play as an NES accessory, and summon a Pong derivative, that's not an unreasonable guess.) -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Regardless of how they're called in-game, in the context of how they are being described in this article, Duo works a lot better in terms of clarity. Much like how we say "Animal Crossing's Villager" instead of just Villager. Wonchop (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

Both versions will have the exact same rosters, says Masahiro Sakurai is a "Nintendo Direct". 96.19.152.219 (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The article already mentions the fact that both games have the same roster of characters. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Mewtwo

A bit confused here. Does it mean that it will only be for dual owners, or only be free for dual owners? KonveyorBelt 23:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

He will be free for those who own both versions. No word on if he will be purchasable as well though. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014

Place the AUS Wii U release date before the JP Wii U release date in the infobox, as the game will be released in Australia before Japan. 69.136.149.237 (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done DarkToonLink 03:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Offical Smash Bros site can be used for citation in Playable Characters section

The official nintendo smash site smashbros.com gives a full list of playable base and DLC characters, and can be used as a citation for that section. 8bitbanana (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

References