Wikipedia

Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 5

< Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DcPimp (talk | contribs) at 02:46, 28 July 2006 (→Super Smash Move Name Change). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by DcPimp in topic Super Smash Move Name Change
WikiProject iconVideo games NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
NAThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Template:NESproj


Archives

Headers vs. lists

Latest comment: 18 years ago18 comments10 people in discussion

In early June, there was a little mini-war over whether the "Confirmed characters" section should have headers or not. Right now each character is presented like so: ===Mario===. I changed it to ;[[Mario]] : but that was changed back twice. On the second time HighwayCello (talk · contribs · count) recommended that I take it to the talk page. So why not. The question: Should the confirmed characters be changed to lists?

Pros for lists:

  • Discourages anons and other users from editing each individual section one-at-a-time; result is a cleaner edit history
  • Not as much as an eyesore on the TOC (there are more "confirmed characters" headers on that section than there are in the entire TOC)

Cons for lists:

Hbdragon88 22:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • I personally think that the fact that individual sections are edited is a PRO, not a con, of headers. It makes it more clear what the user is editing, and actually makes the history easier to read because you can browse each individual edit more efficiently. This one of the reasons why we encourage people to leave the automatically produced section header in the edit summary. I do understand your point about cluttering up the TOC. However, once the confirmed list gets expanded more, it'll probably be worth it to move the confirmed characters to its own subpage, and make the confirmed characters section a single paragraph of prose. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 23:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've seen many instances (not specifically in SSBB) where new users or anons rack up a ridiculous amount of edits because they're making changes to each individual section (sometimes 2-3 edits per section) since they don't know that it's easier and cleaner to go up to the main section header. This is why I consider it to be a pro to simply remove the edit sections and make them make all major edits under major header and not each individual one. Hbdragon88 23:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Having anons "rack up a ridiculous amount of edits" because they edit each section individually doesn't do any damage. Also, at the moment, we have the header, then a link to the main article of that character. With these link things, the header is the link to the main article, which in my opinion is confusing for the casual reader. -- Steel 23:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, of course it doesn't do any damage - it just makes the history more cluttered up. Re: the links - confusing? It's a blue link...blue, underlined links have been the default since the inception of the World Wide Web. On the flip side, I think the current way it looks - I think naming the character three times - header, main, and in the actual text - is overkill. Hbdragon88 08:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The history thing is really a non-issue. We're not in charge of the history, nor is it our responsibility to ensure it doesn't get "cluttered" (whatever that means). Also, about the overkill business, we could easily rephrase the beginning of each paragraph so the character is only named in the header and the main article link. -- Steel 10:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that the entire page, from content to structure, would be completely different by the time the game is released, so I suggest when we decide on this structure issue we think about the future. Erik the Appreciator 23:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • With the ammount of controversy involved in teh charaqcter selections and rumors of the game, I think it might be a good idea to include a section atleast noting the rumors and controversy. Not to say specificaly stating any of the rumors though but the evidence of the controversy it's self and the magnitude of the controversy aswell as the many confirmed hoaxes. This is not sugesting that we futher this controversy or rumors but to note that there is one, and possibly one of the biggest ever surrounding a videogame. --Magosis 03:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • See, the reason that hasn't been done is because there is no evidence. There is no conspiracy. There are just a few minor fansites with people who enjoy making up rumours, and others who enjoy believing any made up rumour that people tell them. It's also almost certainly not "one of the biggest ever surrounding a videogame". I'm sure the Pokemon fans could give you a run for your money. That doesn't matter though. Speculation like this does not belong in the article, period. (See: WP:V, WP:NOT) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • My point is nto to include the specualtion, But i think it would be a good point to note that said speculation exists. I may have not been clear enough it my prior post --Magosis 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Super Smash Dojo

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Name Change! the official site now lists it as Super Smash Dojo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.147.208 (talk • contribs)

I, in fact, have no idea what this person is talking about. I am, however, plopping it into its own section so it isn't confused at part of the above discussion. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There was a discussion here talking about Brawl's name being changed to Super Smash Bros Dojo. He's just confusing the site name for the game name. - Zero1328 Talk? 11:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this is pretty common from people who don't take a good look at what they're talking about. Even though the smashbros.com website clearly refers to the game as "Brawl" many times over, the name of the site itself is the "Super Smash Bros. Dojo". No name change for this article necessary. --HeroicJay 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"Dojo" is the name of the official site, and "Brawl" is the name of the game itself. they wouldn't change the name after making the logo and releasing the trailer under that name. FyreNWater 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This page was on Nintendo.com, but it got pulled (this is a mirrored version): http://wii.nintendo.com.nyud.net:8080/wifi.html. Scroll down to the section labeled "Fun", and you'll see this: "Join the Nintendo worldwide community! Play the coolest titles around with gamers from around the world via Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection. Whether you're thrashing with your friends in Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam or hammering the competition in Smash Bros. Dojo, Wii opens up a world of fun through online play!" What does that mean? Who knows. Max22 04:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
ZOMG! It couldn't mean that maybe the authors of a site containing a small note about SSBB's online play which no longer exists (the mirror doesn't work either) made a mistake or something...or could it? Let's take a look at the official site:

From the opening paragraph: "As for future updates to Smash Bros. Dojo... What should I do? I haven't given it much thought yet.

From the latest update: "When Super Smash Bros. Brawl is completed sometime in 2007, I plan to post more information for you. " Case closed. Xubelox 05:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Supposedly, it will be rated B in Japan, T for Teen in the U.S., and 12+ in Europe. --PJ Pete

Could you provide a source, please?--The Ninth Bright Shiner talk 01:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Considering he said supposedly, it's probably not a very good one. Xubelox 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Three new characters?

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments10 people in discussion

I heard this and was going to add this to the article, but then decided that it might not be true.

I have just found out that three new characters--Young Wind Waker LInk, Ridley(is that spelled right?), and Bowser Jr.-- were added to Brawl, and two character--Ice Climbers and Mr. Game and Watch-- were cut from Brawl. I have no idea if this is credible or not, so I wanted to ask if anyone knew.

I found this on Youtube(just search for "three newcomers"), and, if you watch the video, you can understand my doubts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbub (talk • contribs)

Exactly why we're going to go ahead and not include it. This rumours has already been passed around the article repeatedly, it's pretty dumb. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I say anyone who posts stuff like this should be shot on site. But since the technology doesn't yet exist to kill people over the internet (though hopefully it will someday), maybe we should settle for deleting it, much like "forumish" topics are treated. Xubelox 01:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this rumor was a foruminsh comment. --DcPimp 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
*Backs away from Xubelox* Let's all hope. The Sonic fake shot has been the best fake so far, this is just dire now. Highway Batman! 16:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come on. Not only is this rumor all but proven false, but the video in question involved scenes from Wind Waker, Super Smash Bros. Melee (for Ridley), and Super Mario Sunshine in its "NEWCOMER" intros. --HeroicJay 23:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just found an article about the "three newcomers", but it sounds like they doubt it too...http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151290 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.236.24 (talk • contribs)

"According to the French-based site LiveWii". -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That sight is getting a little annoying. Highway Batman! 14:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

They can't even spell "Ridley" correctly on that site. It's a load of BS that someone put up to freak out people. Also, don't believe ANY videos that aren't on official sites. It would be there unless it was accidentally leaked. In that case, it'd be up on official sites within a few hours. So STOP BELIEVING THESE FAN VIDEOS. FyreNWater 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Any honest person maing a fan video (ie not trying to trick someone) should put a warning at the beginning saying it's fake. I made a video and I did that. RememberMe? 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Arnt the vast majority (if not all) the fan videos blatantly fake? No offence intended Topic Creator but pay some more attention to the source.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 12:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright. First off, I would like to thank you people who simply told me that this was false. As for the rest of you, the ones who insulted me, grow up. You even suggested my case was worthy of death. Excuse me, but I metioned at the beginning of this section, that I had doubts(perhaps I should have put serious doubts) of the video's credibility, due to it's representation. The only reason I suggested it at all was because we need to keep wikipedia up to date, so I quickly came over to wikipedia after viewing this video, because I wanted to know if someone had heard this somewhere else. --Superbub

It's fine that you want to keep Wikipedia up to date, Superbub, it's just that this topic has already been thrown around before, including YouTube. I mentioned that site before, but that section of the talk page has already been archived. I don't think that people were purposely trying to be mean, and I'm pretty sure that no one really wants you to die. So even though you meant well, talk of those characters has become annoying now and no one wants to talk about it until they appear on the Dojo page (that is, if they even do at all). -SaturnYoshi 14:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
And I apologise if my first comment there insulted you. I was talking about how dumb the rumour itself is; badly faked, unsourced, etc. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I didnt mean to insult you either (I said it in my message) I was just saying that people that blindly beliieve those things are not the brightest people. bye the bye I'm QwerasdfzxcvvcxzDooD 12:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I thank all of you for your apologies. You're forgiven. I will also apologize for not noticing this topic before. If only I had looked....but, bah! Let's leave this stuff behind us, shall we? --Superbub

Stages, Items and Abilities.

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I don't think we should have sections on stages, items and abilities at this point since all we have to go on is an early trailer for a source. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Even at this early point, there is still enough info for these sections. We known they will have "Super Smash Atacks", that there are new stages, and that new items will be used. Those things were shown in the trailer, so unless they drastically change the game (which there is no evidence of) the sections can remain. It would just start an edit war if you try to remove them, and the sections are going to be there when the article reaches a "finished" state after the game is released. JQF 14:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with them in the article when the game is releaesed or even before then, but at this point we have no info other than a few announcements that take up 6 paragraphs between them, much of which concerns analysis of the trailer, not a report of what is in the game. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

I'm noticing that a LOT of people as of late are constantly vandalizing several of these Nintendo pages. The comment I read on this article really annoyed me. I'm thinking that this page should be locked from outside users from editing it because it seems that reverting the page just isn't enough. I know Wikipedia is supposed to be user friendly but all these unknowns think that it's just some joke site or they don't care that a lot of editors spend most of their editing reverting dumbass comments made by stupid people on the main articles. Maybe Wikipedia should change it's policy so that only registered users can edit any pages and any users caught maliciously vandalizing any articles should be booted off forever. - SaturnYoshi 06:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just something Wikipedians have to put up with, at least for the moment. It could be a good idea to semi-protect this page again, but... well, any Internet site will get its fair share of trolls, and to my mind it's too much effort to be annoyed by any but the most persistent. Don't sweat the vandals too much - just think of them as the village idiots. That's what I do, anyhow; laugh and revert all their 'hard work' with three mouse clicks. --Sparky Lurkdragon 07:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
if you had to be a member to edit, it wouldn't be the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" now would it? --DcPimp 03:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Expect anyone can become a member. If a=b and b=c, then a=c.—ウルタプ 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It's supposed to be casually editable and inviting. The only reason I created an account was so that my opinions would be respected more in AfDs, and I now use it because of the watchlist and being able to be contacted by people and whatnot. If I wasn't one who liked to vandal patrol and such, I probably would have remained an anonymous editor. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What if only people in the Wikiproject Nintendo could edit it? Is it possible to do that? I see that as a viable solution, as people in WP Nintendo are probably extremely up-to-date on the topic. And I doubt they would vandalize the page. --Belugaperson 13:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not possible with the wiki software, and even if it was, that feature would never be used. At any rate, the level of vandalism to this article is not actually that high. -- Steel 13:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I mean real vandalism, not good faith edits. -- Steel 13:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Solid Snake's Symbol Fan Info?

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Why is information on Snake's symbol being treated as "fan information"? All the other new characters have descriptions of their symbols, and Snake's being left out for this reason doesn't make any sense. Could someone please explain to me how this could even be considered "fan information" when it clearly shows that his symbol is the FOX symbol on the official Brawl website? I'd just like to get this cleared up. Comrade Pajitnov 15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think anyone pther than a fan would find the information particularly interesting. I can see it have minor notability, but their only use is to group characters in the game, which we're not even describing. I wasn't singling Snake out, I just saw it being added and didn't realise all the new characters had it. And I was trying to avoid another edit war. Highway Return to Oz... 16:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok then. Could we add the fact that it's the FOX logo, and leave out the whole Kojima bit? Comrade Pajitnov 16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not the FOX(HOUND) logo. Looking at its article, you can see that Snake's symbol doesn't match either of FOX(HOUND)'s logos.--the ninth bright shiner talk 19:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I never said it was the FOXHOUND logo, I said it was the FOX logo, which is also the logo of Kojima Productions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kojima_Pro_Logo.jpg Comrade Pajitnov 19:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, alright. I don't know squat about Metal Gear Solid, anyway. It would seem reasonable to leave out the bit about Kojima Productions; the characters' symbols are based on their franchises, not who made them.--the ninth bright shiner talk 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Super Smash Move Name Change

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

No longer are Super Smash moves reffered to as "Super Smash". Most forums have switched to calling them "Brawl" moves. Now, normally forums are full of specualtion and BS, but one in particular caught my attention: Nintendo's NSider forums. with the regular updating, and the fact it often recieves info well before other sites, their may be some stock in this. At the very least, we should say they are being called Brawl moves for the time being. --DcPimp 15:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel like sifting through that, care to provide the direct mention of it?Thursday Postal 06:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't give an exact link at the moment, so for now you'll kind of have to trust me. However, I should have a few links, or at least quotes from the pages, sometime tonight. --DcPimp 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Got some links here.

Brawl Attack Idea

Newcomer: Ike Fan page containing numerous refferals to "Brawl" attacks.

I'll try to find some others while I'm on the forums. I'm there a lot, so it shouldn't take too long. --DcPimp 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In my eyes, it's a fan term one way or the other. I, personally, prefer "Super Smash". Calling them "Brawl" moves implies that they won't be in the fourth game. --HeroicJay 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, I've primarily heard it called "Brawl" as of late. If nothing else, can we mention it in the "Items and Abilities" section? You know, put it in parentheses and say that many fans and forums are calling them that? --DcPimp 02:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Internet Play

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry for bringing this topic up again. I still solidly believe that Brawl has no confirmed online play. The reference you have from E3 2005 is unreliable, as it is out of date (at the time, it wasn't even called Brawl 0_o). Also, I was recently at the Nintendo DS Connection Tour in my local area in Australia, and I specifically asked them about online play in Brawl. Their reply was "Sorry, online play isn't actually confirmed, although everyone wants it so they will try to put it in there." Again, I won't edit it myself because if anyone disagrees they can just revert, so I'm doing my best to convince everyone =D Bringer 04:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl/Archive_5&oldid=66279325"