Talk:Super Smash Bros./Archive 14

Characters

As is, the characters list is tantamount to guide content, of interest to no one that doesn't already understand the topic or the relevant topics. Because of the recent removal of TvC in order to make it of featured quality, I believe that it sets a precedence to remove such lists from all franchise fighters. It's an important precedence to carry out, because as much it is useful, it's clearly guide content, and the inclusion of these characters is arbitrary and offers no explanation as to why it's included. In the past, such articles listed items and stages as well, but were removed as guide content. What's the difference with characters, besides people personally identifying characters as important to the article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it should be included. It has lasted this long because there was a consensus to keep it. It is important to show what characters are playable in the game. People reading the article will want to know what characters are playable. In a fighting game like this, characters are everything. Even if the reader doesn't intend to play it, they would still want to know who is playable in it. That is a major aspect of the game. A list of levels is gameguide material. A list of characters is not. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, your argument seems to be based on nothing more than personal opinion. It seems to me that the reasoning as to why the stages are not guide content is simply an opinion. There's really no factual difference between the guide aspects of the stages and the guide aspect of the characters. The stages are similarly important to many, as they have a number of defining elements that make them of interest to fans of the series that these stages represent. It seems to me that the inclusion of characters on such a basis is not on any quantifiable basis, and I guarantee you that this list of characters would be removed as part of any featuring process. The three external links show every single character that appears in every single game and details them in more ways than we can here. The people reading the article are not just fans - we have to write content in two ways - one to demonstrate its history and reception, and the other to educate those who have no idea what the game is. It is not for fan interest. Like in TvC, the only characters mentioned should be those notable - for example, it can be mentioned that Sonic and Snake were added as part of the development information, while the characters who first appeared in the trailer can be mentioned. Other than that, there really are no characters that need to be mentioned. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I get that the people who read this aren't just fans. But even non-fans and people who have no idea who these characters are should be able to research them. Since you have removed the categories from the redirects, and now want to remove the table, there will be nowhere on Wikipedia for people to go from one article to the other, and that is a huge aspect of a wiki; to link articles together. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Again, the usefulness of the list is irrelevant. I argue that the list of characters is as useful as a list of stages. If fans want to research characters, the external links provide even better coverage. Why is Super Smash Bros. special in this situation where Tatsunoko vs. Capcom is not? Again, I argue that if brought to FAC, this list would be removed for the same reason. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Here, I got a curve ball for you. The inclusion of these characters has been heavily covered in reliable sources. Which characters were in or out was a very important matter. Which stages were included were not covered very much, if at all. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
          • What use does this content have? We certainly do not use any critical coverage whatsoever in the list. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
            • I agree that, at least right now, the list is rather game guide-ish. Do you think it might work if we tried converting it to prose? That'd probably allow any other details such as critical coverage in it, as well. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
              • No, because that would be a content fork of the individual character's reception sections. This table provides a directory to where such content can be found, thus why it is useful. I don't see why linking to the characters which are included in the game is gameguide. Gameguide would be saying which characters are light, medium, or heavy class, or even saying which characters have to be unlocked. Simply listing the characters is not gameguide. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
                • I didn't say the section had to have critical coverage. We could always just have three nice neat paragraphs that list the playable characters in each game (a paragraph for each game). It takes up less space than the list currently does, so that's always a bonus. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
                • P.S. The article does in fact specify which ones have to be unlocked, btw, through shaded cells. In all fairness, though, not much attention is drawn to it. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
                  • I definitely think that the table should stay, but denoting unlockables is definitely game guide stuff. I'm removing that, if nobody has any objections. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I say we should keep. I believe this is the most reasonable way we can mention the characters in their entirety without going into the WP:CRUFT/game guide area. However, the line must be drawn at the character list, as (per what Stickman said) mentioning things like unlockables and hidden character shouldn't be placed into the table. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left this alone for a little while to think about it, but I still cannot agree that we need to show every single character. We should be looking to Tatsunoko vs. Capcom for guidance because it IS the most recent franchise fighter and therefore, the one with the most adherence to the considerably stricter featured quality guidelines. In that article, it makes mention of the majority of characters simply through discussing development - which in Brawl's case, for instance, would cover Meta Knight, Sonic, Pit, Mario, Link, Pikachu, Kirby, Samus, Snake, and Wario, at least. Melee can also show the ones first revealed in the first trailer. And that can be executed here - we can mention each game's trailer or unique happening (such as Sonic and Snake) to substitute for the lack of character list to show a wide range of characters that will demonstrate the wide variety of franchises used. I see no reason to list every single character that has ever appeared in every single game as a reference table for fans. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I must also re-ask the burning question: if brought to FAC, do you all honestly believe that this list's removal will not be one of the conditions that prevents it from getting featured? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a "reference table for fans". I think even non-fans would want to know which characters are in the game. Unlike Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, most people actually know popular Nintendo characters. I do not think that this would be removed in a FAC. It helps the coverage of the article, and is not guide material. This is an important aspect. Like I said, sites like IGN had much coverage on what characters they wanted in the game, and what characters were eventually added. No such coverage was made for levels or anything that actually would be gameguide. Per WP:GAMEGUIDE "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are also considered inappropriate." An actual list of characters is not in this list of gameguide content, because it is allowed. It mentions character moves and weight classes, but does not mention the characters themselves. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't answered what would happen if brought to FAC. WP:GAMEGUIDE doesn't include characters because it would make for a muddled and unfortunate guideline that would be misconstrued and possibly damaging character lists period. Again, why are we taking the most recent FA in this subject and not taking the consensus on its character list and basing the potential FAC on it? As is, it just seems to me like keeping the list as long as possible before it's removed to satisfy the inevitable FA criteria. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did. I said I think it would not hurt the FA status with the table there. If it doesn't, and problems ensue, then it can be removed. The only people who wanted the Tatsunoko vs. Capcom table completely removed was you and Guyinblack. The other experienced editors just said they didn't like how it was handled, which I think was solved by removing the voice actors and series columns. They all disliked the character table, but said it didn't hurt the FA review. The consensus was not very clear on that point, and should not be used as a precedent for other articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. As far as consensus goes, the majority tends to lean toward keeping it with as little information as possible to not violate WP:GAMEGUIDE. As far as TVC, my comment at the FAC still stands, the only drawback that occurs from the table is the size of the whitespace. The table helps convey the most complete information possible without creating a messy list, or putting too much information into the section. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

At the very least we need to get rid of series that a character originates from and the non-playable characters. Both reek of guide content more than anything else involved in this situation. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Getting rid of the series column might be ok. I think the original characters should be kept though. Or at least Master Hand and Tabuu. The Sandbag might also warrant keeping. I am sure these characters have been covered in reliable sources. Not enough for a split article, but enough to be listed in a series article. I don't see why this is such a problem. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Because unlike the characters, they do not define the game and are rather minor aspects of it. Being mentioned is one thing, but having large sections detailing every single thing that they are known for is not. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"they do not define the game and are rather minor aspects of it"? I am just wondering, what makes these characters any less notable for a list then any other list of game characters? Why do they not get their due coverage? When you look at how much text is written about each character, there isn't really that much. I think it is a perfect summarization. Giga Bowser could probably be shortened quite a bit, with a redirect to Bowser (character)#Other games. And a few other less notable character such as the "Mysterious Small Fry Enemy Corps" could be excluded, but I see no reason for much of this section not to exist. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Because they are a list of characters in a plot-light game that you cannot play as. Master Hand, Crazy Hand, Giga Bowser, and Tabuu can easily be summed up in a few sentences, instead of this list of non-playable characters here that defines a non-playable character by whether it appears to be alive. We do not see Twilight Princess with a list of bosses. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that is an individual game within a series. We do see Characters in The Legend of Zelda series, which has characters which are arguably less notable then Master Hand, whose information in all three articles vary, and he needs a central location for coverage, which is what a series characters section is for. You stated "Being mentioned is one thing, but having large sections detailing every single thing that they are known for is not." Most of these characters are just mentioned. They are all combined into multiple paragraphs. Sandbag has the most individual attention with one large paragraph, which I would agree could be trimmed. I suggest you take a close look at the content you are proposing for removal. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In reading, I found one entire paragraph that went on way too long about something entirely trivial, namely the "non-playable alternate forms". Much of the section itself is entirely unsourced, and seems completely out of place for a Good article. Also, your example was not appropriate, as it's a Start-class article that clearly has issues with inclusion criteria. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You were the one who brought up the topic of Zelda. :3 Anyways, I don't think sourcing is a problem. There are sure to be a couple reviews which cover some aspect of them. So like you said, there is around a paragraph of trivial information. That can be removed. There is some notable content here though, and removing it would hurt the article's coverage. I will try to trim some of the trivia. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should remove the bosses subsection, and just make it "Non-playable" characters, and only list Tabuu, Master Hand, and the Subspace Emmissiary. Maybe Crazy Hand, but that's it. They're pretty much "Characters", anyone else is just a game feature. Harry Blue5 (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

How does the trimmed section look? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a step in the right direction. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC))

Chiming in- I'll state right now that I'm opposed to such character lists, but I know that this particular list has been kept due to a long standing consensus.

That being said, I don't think that whether each character is playable in each game is crucial to understanding the topic. The ones most interested in such information are typically gamers or buyers. I think a summary could provide the gist of it. I understand that fighting games are character driven, but the layman can learn that from the statement I just made.

Another note, the bold names should only be boldface if the term is a common redirect term. Most are redirects, but to other articles. As such, they should be unbolded here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC))

Keep it. Reason being that the information is encyclopedic. I still check it sometimes to confirm the characters that are in this series. I think that enough time has passed to consider this topic closed.Vernash (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should keep the list on the page, but make a more advanced list on it's own page, with pictures of the fighters. As a Smash Bros. fan myself, I think it deserves it's own page but should stay on the original page as well, with a link to the more descriptive page.Multusvalde (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Multusvalde

There's not really much of a point in making a separate page for characters of a crossover game when we can just link readers to the appropriate articles that already exist. A standalone page would be redundant. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wii U and 3DS games

Where should we put down that the 3DS and Wii U games have been announced? NP Chilla (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC) It has been done on the page Super Smash Bros. Series page. Good job to whoever did that. They will both need pages of their own after they are released.Vernash (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

HAL Laboratory is realy a second party developer?

This article says HAL Laboratory is a second party developer for Nintendo, but the HAL Laboratory article says it's a subsidiary of Nintendo. There are some importante differences between the two types (subsidiary is part of another company, while second party is another company altogether). One of the articles is obviously wrong, but I do not know which one is. (7:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.93.206.238 (talk)

Template:Nintendo developers says it is first-party, it is a confirmed subsidiary, I believe that info is correct. Also, see: The term "second-party" developer is a common misnomer used (erroneously) in place of subsidiary.. I have corrected the article.  Done --Salvidrim! (t • c) 07:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Gameplay section

Something should be added to mention the unusual (for a fighting game) nature of Smash Bros' stages; they are usually much more complicated than what you see in other fighters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.195.165 (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a reliable source discussing that aspect of the game? Salvidrim! 18:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally "Smash Bros uses the same one-attack-button, one-control-stick-direction combinations to access all moves for all characters" is clearly false 18:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 (talk)

False? How so? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 18:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think he means that different attack buttons in combination with direction movement does not result in different attacks, which isn't true. That paragraph does need a bit of clarification, though. As far as a reference, it's in the official game manual. Vernash (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Dead links

A ton of the Super Smash DOJO!! links are down. Not sure if they can be replaced or if anyone has archived them. czar · · 18:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone edited one of the external links in the Brawl page so that it still directed users to the SSBB stuff. It looks to me like Nintendo has kept the pages but modified the link a bit. Here is what it is now, and I believe all the former Dojo links can be fixed. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 23:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Character count

I've seen the character count changed multiple times for a while now and I don't think there's been a discussion deciding on it once and for all. (I briefly checked the archives, if I'm being an idiot and this really has been discussed in depth, please let me know.) So what are we doing? Should Charizard/Squirtle/Ivysaur be counted separately or as one with Pokemon Trainer? And should Zelda and Sheik be considered the same character or different? Also, as a side note should the character count row be removed entirely?
I personally feel that Pokemon Trainer and Zelda/Sheik should take up one section, and I don't really care about the character count row. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Brawl FAQ, the standards it sets would say that Pokemon Trainer counts as one, but Zelda and Sheik are separate. If this is something we can all accept I'll just go change it now. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Selection screen roster (35) and playable character counting (39) are two different thing. The Pokemon Trainer himself is not a playable character as you can only control his Pokemon instead and he'll only be seen on the stage background. For that he shouldn't be counted as one (playable) character but rather his three Pokemon, and I think they should be counted as one character each as they don't fight like the Ice Climbers, that also applies to Sheik and Zero Suit Samus for the same reason. I don't understand how does the "Brawl FAQ" thing has anything to do with this...Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 04:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As I realized and said, according to this, it was apparently agreed upon that based on how the Brawl website ordered things, that's what Wikipedia was going to use. I didn't go by the number of spots on the selection screen or the total number of characters you can play. I'm sure something like this is subject to change, though, if you still think it should go back to reading "39". TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 05:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I thought you were referring to Brawl FAQ thing from GameFAQS -_-" Gotcha. And yeah I still think it should be 39 counting transformations. it's about one playable transformation character = one playable character not 1/2 or 1/3 playable character. I think Brawl FAQs is wrong because it's just website design. How the hell can Smash Bros showcase Pokemon Trainer and his three Pokemon? If his Pokemon was going have their own webpages each then he'd end up having empty webpage, pretty sad isn't it? Meanwhile Zelda and Samus wouldn't have that same kind of problem with their transformation characters. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 06:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I honestly think it should be 36. Zelda and Sheik are two sides of the same coin, with players being able to freely switch between the two as part of normal gameplay. Same with the Pokemon Trainer, with the different Pokemon being part of the same character. In other fighting games, you have not-as-dramatic but still very similar examples in characters like Gen from Street Fighter (players can switch between two different stances, each with different normals, specials, and supers) or Zappa from Guilty Gear (you pretty much play five different characters at once, based on which spirit is currently possessing him). Strictly in gameplay terms, I would say that they are one character. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you've gone too far about what exactly is "character"... it should be 35 or 39 counting transformation and no more, no less. If you're going to merge Zelda and Sheik or Samus and Zero Suit Samus into one "character" then you're going to do the same thing to Dr. Mario and Young/Toon Link because they're on the other side of Mario and Link's coins as well. Depending on what is "character", it could mean that every single person you see in Smash bros game, be it non-playable characters, multiple transformations from one same character, Final Smash transformations, enemies, bosses, trophies, etc. are all "characters". Red (Pokemon Trainer's name) is a character as well and he'd end up having 4 characters including three Pokemon. Ice Climbers also have two characters named Nana and Popo. But that table should be about PLAYABLE characters (and "transformation characters" to some extent). I can see "three playable Pokemon" from Pokemon Trainer as "three playable characters" and they aren't like sides of a coin of one "character" nor they're like Ice Climbers. It'd be more "data-wise" (that's probably what Wikipedia wants) when I added Charizard/Ivysair/Squirtle under Pokemon Trainer as three playable characters and don't merge Sheik, and Zero Suit Samus with Zelda and Samus into one. Any objections?Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 02:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking strictly about gameplay terms. ZSS and Samus are separate characters. Under normal circumstances you cannot freely switch the two. You can with Zelda/Sheik and Pokemon Trainer, so I consider them as one character gameplay-wise. Dr. Mario and Mario are different characters by this standard, as well as the different Links. The Ice Climbers are one character by this standard. I did post examples (and you can add Phoenix from UMvC3) about what I meant. Am I making myself clear? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Does the ability to freely switch between the transformation characters matters?! They're still transformation characters no matter what, IMO. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 03:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel like it should matter. I sure would like other editors to weigh in on what they think, though. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 04:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll add three Pokemon back in considering it is about "Playable characters" and considering there are transformation characters like Sheik and ZSS in it, so unless someone else thinks Zelda and Sheik or Samus and ZSS should be merged into one, you can revert three pokemon back into one. I hope you'll be alright with this...Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 05:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus to make such a change. I just reverted it back to the closest thing I could find to a previously agreed-upon way of doing things, which was in the FAQ I linked. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 05:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If someone re-do my edits, you better deal with it.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 05:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll deal with it if they come here and a consensus is reached saying the way you want to do things is the right way. That's how things work on Wikipedia. The fact that it's just the two of us here talking isn't enough to change it one way or the other, so I've left the table in a neutral position for now. I don't know what made you think you could just change it back to your version, because again, nothing remotely close to an agreement on how the article should be was reached between us. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well seeing that total number is gone, the number counting transformation or whatnot or those sans 3 pokemon is no longer a moot.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to go. And like I've said already, there was consensus for those numbers. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 03:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Secret Characters

I edited the page to make it look like this, however it was undone by The Stick Man. Thoughts? [Soffredo] 02:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've said my part: It's an excessive gameplay detail, doesn't really add much to the article. Perhaps I shouldn't have cited WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE would have been a better thing to bring up. Why do you think secret characters should be marked as such? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see how can this directly violates WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE as they don't imply anything about characters with hidden status, not even the slightlest. But it may feels like game guide-ish to someone else, though. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 03:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a blatant, obviously game guide-ish thing, but there really is no good reason to mark them as secret characters. All the readers need to know is that these characters is playable. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 05:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And maybe they'd want to know if they're playable from the start? [Soffredo] 10:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to do so. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 12:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Made me wonder - why did the character table got to be there? It's not Wikipedia's job to do so either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.127.228 (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Characters in a fighting game are an important part of gameplay to point out, IMO. I think there was some discussion on this before, and ultimately it was decided that the table should stay. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 12:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Stick Man, this veers off into WP:GAMEGUIDE territory. Next people are going to want to know how they are unlocked, which is far more blatant GAMECRUFT. Anyways, if people want to know that sort of thing, they can go off to Gamefaqs. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I could just as well say that people saw characters on the table they haven't seen in the game yet and they would like to know how to unlock them.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 22:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean Wikipedia is the place to put this information. I don't see why this info needs to be on Wiki when there are tons of sites, most notably GameFAQs, that will not only tell you how but probably do a better job at it than Wiki. I just don't get it. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue that you couldn't "just as well" say that. Compare the level of detail required in having a section of how to unlock characters (which would require references specific in-game processes) to the gameplay or plot sections in the rest of the articles (which aim to provide a summary of the key elements of the game.) Sections of articles discussing mechanics of the game should be aimed at a reader who hasn't necessarily played it; details on secrecy of characters and especially details on how to unlock them would detract from this goal. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What you've just said is very subjective. What I meant for when I said that characters with hidden status can be there as well as characters, because neither broke WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE. The part where you've said that unlockable doesn't aim at readers is absurd. There are some readers, be it a player or not, who actually wanted to know is character a unlockable character or not, or so what I believed in. Again, I said that it might feels like game guide-ish to some people like you and others and then you tried to suppress it out of Wikipedia. That's the main problem here. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 06:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes right Wikipedia isn't place for that but it doesn't mean you should get rid of it just because it's alleged to GAMEGUIDE. If it happens to be there in the table, that's cool. Some readers will be thankful for that. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 06:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Or readers can just do the smarter thing and check a website more suited to listing information like that and would do a better job at it. People shouldn't be coming on to Wikipedia looking for this sort of information. And if they do, then they're looking in the wrong spot. It's not a major violation of GAMEGUIDE but it breaks it nonetheless. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 06:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point! You should've said that sometime before! Thank you. On the second thought, it same goes to characters in the table... Maybe just me. I would like to reiterate that it doesn't breaks GAMEGUIDE because I couldn't see why people keeps assuming that. Other than that, I couldn't agree with you more lol. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 06:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Just added "Unlockability status" (BTW is "unlockability" a word, right? I got it from Smash Wiki) into GAMEGUIDE and hopefully it will solve the problem here. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 07:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2014

I want to change the super smash bros. page to say that R.O.B. is from the NES, not N/A. That way it will have more detail 108.195.16.68 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done "NES" is not a series (and before someone says it, "Robot series" isn't really a thing either). R.O.B. doesn't need a series, there's nothing wrong with leaving it as "N/A". TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 21:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I mean "Robot series" has its own in game icon. If that's true than we can just mark "N/A" for Ice climber, which had one game and were reported coming out with a sequel that is now cancelled. Also Game and Watch was a series of hardware standalones like the ROB that's now discontinued. Heck it even says "Robot Series" on the Box art.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

ICs actually have a game that they come from. G&W actually has a series of handhelds (AFAIK Nintendo considers it a thing). ROB does not. He doesn't really "come" from anything; he was just a peripheral used for a handful of games that just happened to be denoted "Robot series" to indicate a ROB was required. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A move of this page to Super Smash Bros.

I don't feel that Super Smash Bros. on 64 is anywhere near noteworthy enough to hold onto the main title of the article. As we do with Castlevania (video game), The Legend of Zelda (video game), and Metroid (video game), we should remove the disambig and more Super Smash Bros. to Super Smash Bros. (Nintendo 64). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 14:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with the change, however there needs to be some sort of dinstinction within this article between the game Super Smash Bros and the series, it can be slightly confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Moving the original Smash article to Super Smash Bros. (1999 video game) would be ideal and inline with the Wikiproject video games article title guidelines.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 14:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No, if anything, the game should be at Super Smash Bros. (video game) and the series at Super Smash Bros., there is no need to disambiguate per year (nor console) when there is only one game with the title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Citations in intro

I'm not doubting that anything in the intro is incorrect, but shouldn't the intro paragraph here have citations?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not always? Sources are probably already provided elsewhere, anyway. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Name origin of "super smash bros"

There was a claim made in the Super Smash bros subsection in History that said that the name Super Smash bros is derived from the name Super Mario Bros. Even if this is true I don't think it belongs here.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming it's true, it's a useful bit of information. It's always good to have the origins and etymology in Wikipedia articles. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 11:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Changing Brawl Roster from 37 to 39

Seeing as Pokemon Trainer was split due to Charizard being revealed as solo in 3DS/Wii U, shouldn't the brawl roster be changed from 37 to 39, especially seeing as both Shiek and ZSS are also counted in that number (not to mention as also being separated in 3DS/ Wii U like Charizard). Just seems more consistent that way, either count all the transformations in the roster count, or change it to 35 (and Melee to 25).

See this. As far as I know, this was the clearest, most agreed-upon consensus, since it didn't head into any gray areas about what counted as a single character without having to point out excessive gameplay details. Of course, if listing the count at 39 is what people want, then maybe a new consensus can be reached. For now, it stays at 37. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 23:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Charizard's Playability in Brawl

I understand that Pokemon Trainer has been split in the new Smash Bros, allowing Charizard a separate entry in the roster. However, he is currently listed as absent in Brawl, which is clearly not true. Who agrees that we should leave the current roster as is, but only change Charizard's entry in Brawl to a "checkmark" instead of an "x"? After all, "Note 1" will still be present. I feel this would be fair. WiiDS (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That would make it a total of 38 checkmarks in the Brawl column, which just won't do. I've moved the note clarifying the whole situation next to the "x" mark in Charizard's Brawl column, in hopes of explaining things better. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Where did you get 37 from anyway? This is very definition of WP:OR. The REAL total should be 39 for literal "playable characters", even Sakurai did stated that there are 39 in total.

2. Regarding to N for Charizard in Brawl column, that is also misleading as much as does the Y that count himself twice via his part with Pokemon Trainer. Just like WiiDS said, it will confuse someone thinking he isn't in Brawl. WHY CAN'T we separate Pokemon from Pokemon Trainer and get over it? As we previously discussed about three Pokemon in one for gameplay-wise, it's something of the past now, the gameplay plays differently in Smash Bros. for 3DS and Wii U. If you still care, you can always use the note system ("note 1") denoting their parting with Pokemon Trainer in Brawl and describing their dependent with two other Pokemon during gameplay.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 08:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

1. I told you this back in August, but you've apparently forgotten. For a reminder, I pointed to this, which is NOT WP:OR at all.
2. That's why there was a note there; to prevent confusion. And once again (and I'm tired of having to tell you this over and over again), we can't just separate the Pokemon from the Trainer because there was no consensus to do so. How many times to I have to repeat the word "consensus" to you? You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know what that means and what it involves.
3. (Bonus point) I personally never agreed with the 37 count, but I stuck with it because, without having seen that article with Sakurai saying 39 before, a discussion of who counted as their own character and who didn't would get ugly fast and while the standard the Brawl FAQ set was not ideal, it was a clear standard with no gray area, and it (mostly) solved what's honestly an extremely minor issue. In other words, it was a compromise. Sometimes you have to compromise to get things to work on Wikipedia. Now we have the Sakurai article that most of us missed somehow. So congratulations, you get your count of 39. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(In case you were wondering, yes, I'm a little mad right now.) TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sakurai stating Brawl's roster as 39

Sakurai states in this 2008 interview with Nintendo Power that he considers the roster of Brawl as having 39 reps, is that a good enough source to split the trainer into 3 as it comes from the director himself?

"There are 39 characters in the game this time around..."

[1]

115.37.167.16 (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hm, this is actually pretty interesting and could be grounds to change it to 39. Gonna need more thoughts on this article, though. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Started a separate discussion here, where I think it's more relevant. Anyone is welcome to join/provide input. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

Is has unsemi-protected 172.4.225.64 (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: It's been semi-protected to stave off vandalism and other such stuff that's been hurting this article. Consider creating an account, then once you've done a few constructive edits, you can edit here! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 12:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2014

Add Mii to the playable character list, as it was just confirmed along with Palutena to be playable in 3DS/Wii U. There's an appropriate source on the game's page already that can be used if necessary. 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it was just  Done by someone else. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 17:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014

In the lead paragraph:

"Another third-party character, Mega Man, will be appearing in the fourth game as well." should become "Additional third-party characters, including Mega Man and Pac-Man, will be appearing in the fourth game as well. 69.136.149.237 (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done, with some of my own edits. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 12:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Characters Series

I feel the series should say what the symbol in the game identifies them as. As of right now, it does for everybody except ROB. ROB is identified with a spinning top, referencing Gyromite. Some people want to say Mii Fighters are from the Wii series. I disagree with this. Mii's are avatars that are used by the Wii, 3DS, and WiiU, and appear in many games. Furthermore, Mii Fighters are identified with a Smash Ball logo, which is a generic logo uses when things don't have a specific series to go into. This also furthers my point that ROB should be identified with Gyromite, as he did get a specific symbol. CoolDudeAl (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the icon is definitely a Gyromite icon, but saying that it "identifies" him with Gyromite heads into WP:OR territory. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 17:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Except it really doesn't. The game gave them symbols for a reason. And all the other series match up with the symbols, it is stupid to not have ROB also match up. Furthermore, you can't say ROB doesn't come from a series, but the Ice Climbers do. They both came from one game from the NES era, that never became a series. Well, ROB came from two actually, so if you'd prefer we do "Gyromite and Stack-Up", I'm fine with that, but the point still stands he should not be N/A. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who feels this way, wiki's are group consensus and it seems like you made this page how you want it, regardless of how others feel. CoolDudeAl (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Except it is. You're pretty much assigning your own meaning to the icons. Seems pretty OR to me.

Having both "Gyromite / Stack-Up" would be a little better, though I'm still unsure about the idea of saying that ROB originates from a game.

And uh, what? Not sure where this accusation of me trying to bully others into making the page the way I want it comes from. Of course wikis are group consensus, but if no one wants to work towards a consensus when I revert them, then that's not my problem. Besides, consensus isn't multiple different people making similar edits in a row. So kudos to you for finally starting the discussion. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, The Stick Man, you've really got to stop that. Stop trying to bully people into sticking with what you want to happen on this page. --Aradalf (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

He is not bullying anyone. Also wolf was not official confirmed. Go to this video and go to the 10:55 it show the demo roster that they could choose from. Youtube smash inventational NathanWubs (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Did Nintendo explicitly announce that Wolf is in the game? No. A simple Google search or just looking at the official site will tell you that. No bullying here, just facts.

Also Nathan: Even the demo roster wasn't complete. But thanks anyway. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I know the demo roster was not complete at all. But he was using it in his revert to say that it showed wolf. So I reverted him and then linked that here. NathanWubs (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Did the Gyromite/Stack-Up thing, since no one seems to be commenting either way. If anything, the fact that other people also feel that you are trying to make this page the way you want it, gives validity the fact that we should change it. And besides you said you felt better with having them both listed, and I much prefer it. And as far as ROB originating from a game, he does, all the characters do, the whole point of this fighting game is they are all original video game characters, which I believe Sakurai stated somewhere before the release of Brawl. And finally, "assigning my own meaning to the icons" and thus it being OR is just ridiculous. The symbols were given to the characters by the developer for a reason, which is to represent which franchise they come from, I'm not assigning any meaning that was not plainly put there for us. CoolDudeAl (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

1. I'm fine with Gyromite/Stack-Up.
2. Note that the other person who said that they felt this way only said so after I reverted his/her clearly false edit saying that Wolf was in the game, so if you ask me that just seems like a weak troll attempt. I hope you don't mean to say reverting unquestionably wrong edits is considered me trying to take over the page now. What makes your edit valid is that it's a good one (at least, you and I think it is), not because someone else got mad at me reverting something and decided to pile on with the whole "Stick Man is trying to push people around" stuff. It should be noted that if you think I really am and will continue to be a problem on this page and others, you should report me on WP:ANI and see what the admins think.
3. The icon interpretation stuff being OR makes sense to me, but fortunately we have reached a compromise, so everything's A-OK now.

Cheers, and happy editing! TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 12:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad we could find a compromise as well. You do do a good job keeping this page clear from errors and false edits, and to me the page looks really good right now. :) CoolDudeAl (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@CoolDudeAl:: So @Soffredo: seems to have an issue with this, so it looks like we need to continue this discussion, if Soffredo would like to comment? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 12:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello? Soffredo? I don't want you to start making disruptive edits again later like you often do, so let's settle this now so that you don't have to do that. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:37, 18 July 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)

Multiple other sources state that G&W's appearance was simply a cameo. Nothing is confirmed by his appearance. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2014

Change the following sentence in the lead section:

"The original Super Smash Bros. had 12 playable characters, and the roster count has risen to 25 characters in Melee and 35 in Brawl." to "The original Super Smash Bros. had 12 playable characters, and the roster count has risen to 26 characters in Melee and 39 in Brawl."

This is in light of discussions earlier on this same talk page regarding whether transformations like Sheik and Charizard are to be counted as separate characters or individuals, which ended in the decision to count them independently of the character they are tied to. See "Changing Brawl Roster from 37 to 39", "Charizard's Playability in Brawl", and "Sakurai stating Brawl's roster as 39", along with other pages linked to in said subsections, for previous discussions on the subject. 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2014

Super Smash Bros. for 3DS is currently planned to be released on October 3rd, 2014. Super Smash Bros for Wii U is planned to be released in 2014. Please change it when it says both are planed to be released sometime in 2014. Harrycol123 (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 to Present Section

It needs to be updated from 33 confirmed characters so far and 9 newcomers to 36 characters and 11 newcomers. 68.117.209.6 (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Smash isn't based around knocking off stages so to speak

Hi, could somebody remove this line at the top, not only is it completely unsourced, but inaccurate: "The gameplay differs from traditional fighters for focusing on knocking opponents out of the stage instead of depleting life bars."

Smash is not based entirely around knocking fighters off the stage, thats a tactic generally used in the smaller Competitive groups that play this way, most levels aren't designed with that in mind, its a brawler with wrestling elements and a combination of items, weapons, stages, hazzards, platforming and other variables like health and powerups along with moves. Knocking people off the stage is a tiny portion... So to keep it objective please remove that bit : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biltonkew (talk • contribs) 15:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The end goal 99.99% of the time is to knock opponents off the stage, whether or not you use items or play on stages with hazards. The statement seems accurate to me. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 22:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed!--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 20:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

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: moved. Would be great if sometime in the next few days someone went through all the incoming links to fix those that need correcting. Jenks24 (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

---

• Super Smash Bros. (series) → Super Smash Bros.
• Super Smash Bros. → Super Smash Bros. (video game)

– The primary topic for "Super Smash Bros." is the series and not the first entry (video game) in the series. By usage, searches for SSB reveal the series or latest entry in the series, not the original. By long-term significance, the title refers to the series and not the original game. czar ♔ 20:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Per previous discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This is consistent with other franchise video games, where the franchise gets the overall name and the first game gets the (video game) disambiguation. --McDoobAU93 20:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

For the most part, yes, but with notable exceptions, such as Donkey Kong Country czar ♔ 20:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Agree with the above, the series should be the primary page. Scarlettail (talk) 01:59, 8 August 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.

2014–present: Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U

I just noticed that on the page for Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, the character list contains a total of 37 characters, and yet, on this page it states that there are 39. Furthermore, this section of this article also states that there are 11 new characters. I was just wondering if that number includes characters that were multiple characters in one, such as the Pokemon Trainer (now Charizard) or Zelda/Shiek (now they're individual characters). We should probably mention if the separate characters are included or not. Gameditor^Talk 18:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone might have been counting the three different versions of the Mii Fighters. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 18:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but from what I've heard, the Mii is being treated as one character, not three. Either way, it should be specified to clarify things. Maybe try something like "37 characters (excluding different versions of Mii)" or maybe after the number of characters, add a note saying what all it includes. We shouldn't be trying to decipher the number because it should be clear enough to be understood by everyone WP:BECONCISE. Gameditor^Talk 20:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2014

The Super Smash Bros. main page states that there are 39 confirmed characters for the next game. To date, there are only 37 officially confirmed characters. Please change the 39 to 37. Ganman3 (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It actually was  Done by me. I figured just counting the slots on the official website would suffice. It was accepted as OK for Brawl before Sakurai declared it to be 39 so I decided that doing the same here would be fine. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Shulk has been confirmed for Smash

Shulk, the protagonist of Xenoblade Chronicles, has been officialy confirmed. You can check it out in the official Smash Bros. web and in Miiverse. so please, add it to the character list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.137.169.44 (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Shulk has been confirmed for Smash

Shulk, the protagonist from Xenoblade Chronicles, has been officialy confirmed as a new playable character. Please, add it to the character list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apolo13 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2014

In the section "2014–present: Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U", it says, "To date, 37 characters have been confirmed for the games with 11 brand new fighters revealed so far, including third-party characters Mega Man and Pac-Man." Because a newcomer (Shulk) was announced on the official Super Smash Bros. website, please change the number 37 to 38, and 11 to 12 in the statement. 108.208.57.169 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ganondorf

A video on Youtube has recently pointed out that Ganondorf was accidentally shown in the most recent Nintendo Direct. In a shot that displays Pikachu in gameplay, Ganondorf can be seen in the magnifying glass that only displays playable characters that are currently out of the field of view. In my opinion, this is confirmation enough that Ganondorf is indeed playable, much like the Ness/Lucario/Jigglypuff leak from Brawl.71.162.113.80 (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is wrong, unfortunately. Gotta wait for official confirmation first, even though it's obvious at this point that the leak is spot-on. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 05:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources already reported on the "incident" so I see no reason not to include him. Maybe we cal also add a not that despite this he hasn't been officially confirmed yet.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 14:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the reliable sources who reported it mentioned that it all still was speculation. I don't see a reason to add him and note "By the way, the picture was really blurry and there's no official announcement, but sources think it looks like him". TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'm currently neutral in this discussion so whatever side is taken I'm okay with it. Anyway, Ganondorf will probably be announced before the Japanese launch of the game, so we don't have to wait much longer until we have an official confirmation.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 16:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I say we wait. There is no hurry. Wikipedia has no deadline and is not a news source. Once an official confirmation is made we can add it. NathanWubs (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we split "Mii Fighters" into 3 separate characters on the table due to Sakurai considering them as such

[2]

In the E3 Direct, Sakurai clearly states he considers the types of Miis as 3 different characters due to differing move sets (similar to his interview where he considers the trainer as 3 separate characters), as such shouldn't we split them in the table to reflect this, especially seeing as it's coming from the creator himself as well as the trainer already being split? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.147.80.158 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Game is officially in the hands of players in Japan.

Two separate streamers have, live on camera, unlocked Ness, Falco, and Dark Pit. Can we add them? Also, one of them has faced "Duck Hunt" (the dog and one duck) in an unlocking battle but lost. 71.162.113.80 (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No. They are not officially confirmed and YouTube or any other video-sharing site is not a valid source, unless it was uploaded by an official source (ie. Nintendo, IGN, SmashBrosDojo). I appreciate you asking about this before you do it! Gameditor^Talk 13:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Alph & Koopalings, Alt Characters

Alph was confirmed as a costume swap for Olimar. He even gets his name in the title screen. Is this enough to merit a Playable character slot?

Also, when Bowser Jr. and the Koopaling alts are confirmed, will they be listed together as well or separately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfuyu (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a separate slot is a good idea. A footnote mentioning them should do. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 03:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TheStickMan, Sakurai made it pretty clear that he doesn't consider Alph and the Koopalings any different then male and female variants of characters like Robin or Wii Fit Trainer, by the fact that Alph didn't get a page on the official site. So I think footnotes are best way to handle them. We may also want to add a footnote on characters that have male and female variants (so on Villager, Robin, Wii Fit Trainer, and Mii Fighters). CoolDudeAl (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Olimar

Just wondering why Olimar is listed as "Pikmin & Olimar". I know that's what he's called in Japan, but in both Brawl and Smash 4 he's referred to in America as "Olimar". Shouldn't he be called by his American name like the rest of the cast? --74.47.4.2 (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Because it's Pikmin with Olimar and the site says that. It's not an "American" or "Japanese" name thing. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so is this article based off of Super Smash Bros. the game or Super Smash Bros. the website, because in game he's Olimar. It was even showed in one of the recent pic of the days. --68.115.96.228 (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Was he not Pikmin & Olimar in the game? Can I see the pic of the day? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It was from September 11th where they showed off Alph. The second picture he showed was this one: https://d3esbfg30x759i.cloudfront.net/ss/zlCfzSbbJKE5PlWw__ --68.115.96.228 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Olimar/Alph is used only on the character selection screen since it's too long. In the victory screen, it lists the full Pikmin & Olimar http://youtube/hGdOGAs-KSI?t=16m42s . You can also find Pikmin & Alph elsewhere too: http://youtube/scWr2TEsnTs?t=9m --(Kungfuyu) 18:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Both those videos are of the Japanese version of the game. He's referred to as "Pikmin & Olimar" on the CSS in those versions too. It's different for the American version. --68.115.96.228 (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ice Climbers

Sakurai has indicated that the Ice Climbers will likely be in the Wii U version [3]. Since the table treats the 3DS and Wii U versions as the same, how should we tackle this? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sakurai has not indicated the character will appear in the Wii U version. The article makes this statement: "However, Sakurai says the team has already prototyped the Ice Climbers running on the Wii U version of the game--a strong suggestion that the characters will appear on the home console version." This is the writer injecting his own analysis. Looking at Sakurai's words objectively and in conjunction with his earlier claim that the games will each feature the same roster, he is saying "We got them to work on Wii U, but not 3DS, so we had to drop the character altogether." In short, we shouldn't worry about tackling this issue yet because it's based on a speculative assumption. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point (I originally read the article in a rush). You are right, it is speculative. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Alph & the Koopalings

The footnotes for Bowser Jr. and Olimar initially (and at the time, currently) say:

• Bowser Jr.'s seven alternate costumes change the character's name and appearance to be one of the Koopalings: Larry, Morton, Wendy, Iggy, Roy, Lemmy, or Ludwig. However, they still play the same as Bowser Jr.
• In 3DS/Wii U, four of Olimar's alternate costumes change his name and appearance to Alph. However, Alph plays the same as Olimar.

I made this edit which changed Bowser Jr. and Olimar's footnotes to say:

• In 3DS/Wii U, Bowser Jr. shares his character slot with the seven Koopalings: Larry, Morton, Wendy, Iggy, Roy, Lemmy, and Ludwig. They all play the same.
• In 3DS/Wii U, Pikmin & Olimar shares his character slot with Pikmin & Alph. They both play the same.

This edit was then reverted (twice). When making this edit I was thinking to how in Tekken articles, Panda is considered a separate character despite commonly being an alternative costume for Kuma. The Koopalings and Alph are different characters with their own unique names, appearances, and sounds; saying "shares his character slot" does work. Listing them as separate characters would be wrong since they don't have their own slots. Slots are significant; Sakurai initially made Lucina as a Marth costume, but then gave her a slot. Also, the way the footnotes are written should be consistent since they deal with the same thing. [Soffredo] 12:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It is simpler to state that each of the Koopalings are just alternate characters to Bowser Jr-- for all intends and purposes, they are all fundamentally the same character, as they all retain the exact same moveset and properties. The "unique names, appearances, and sounds" don't matter from a gameplay standpoint, so it's not enough to treat them separately in that fashion. It is also why we (and third-party sources) say there are 48-49 separate characters, not 55-56. In addition, there is no reason that the characters' names must be bold. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Mii Fighters

According to this video, Sakurai says that they are treated as their own separate fighters. It's basically the same as when he said that the trainer's Pokemon are their own characters in effect, except I don't think he ever addressed them specifically - merely saying that Brawl had 39 characters rather than 35 or 37. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

On a slightly separate note, should we change the Mii Fighters to be Mii Fighter instead? The character selection screen and other places all refer to the player's character as Mii Fighter, which makes sense since we can only play one Mii Fighter at a time. Mii Fighters is only used on the official site to showcase all three varieties. Kungfuyu (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we just separate the entry to "Mii Brawler", "Mii Gunner", and "Mii Swordfighter"? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 22:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Mii Fighter should stay as is for a few reasons:

1. They share one character slot. Granted they are very unique in Smash Bros, the current precedent for characters that share one character slot (Olimar/Alph, Bowser Jr./Koopalings) is that they are still one character.

2. They are all the same character, only with different movesets. If for some reason, Ganondorf was given a Swordfighter option in the future, he is still the same character but with a different moveset. Playable characters would be counting each character rather than each default moveset.

3. Victory screen (at least in Japanese) only announce them as Mii, regardless or flavor. Kungfuyu (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sakurai clearly does not himself feel that slots define the character count, and Brawl is our proof of that. The only reason Sheik and Zero Suit Samus are not a part of Zelda and Samus is because the 3DS had trouble with transformations - the Mii Fighters are absolutely not the same as Alph or the Koopalings. With respect to Ganondorf, if he received an entirely new moveset based around swordfighting that you could choose similarly to how you could choose Sheik or ZSS in Brawl, he would and should be listed as his own character. We consider Bone Claw Wolverine his own character in MvC2, after all. Being very similar conceptually is irrelevant to the fact that they are their own characters with their own entirely unique movesets. If we were arguing that a playable character would count each character, then logically, Sheik wasn't his own PC in Melee, because it was OoT Zelda in a disguise. And Dr. Mario shouldn't be considered a character - he's just Mario in a different costume. Young Link in Melee shouldn't be separate because he's just the younger incarnation of OoT Link. You could even stretch it all out and say that Dark Pit is just a part of Pit's existence, so he's not his own character, either. We're applying way too many fan declarations to how to set up a playable characters list, when we have facts - Brawl had 39 characters, and Sakurai considers Smash 4 to have 51 characters. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not just add a footnote stating "The character count is ?? should one count Mii Fighter variations"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2014

They forgot to add the Mii Fighter.

96.19.152.219 (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Where did they forget this? it's in the list of characters Cannolis (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Duck Hunt/Duck Hunt Duo

Looks like there is a name difference for NTSC and PAL versions for a main character: Duck Hunt (NTSC)/Duck Hunt Duo (PAL). How should we distinguish this in the character screen? This is the English Wikipedia article, which serves both America and UK. Here's the source: http://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/2i0044/official_name_of_duck_hunt_is_still_duck_hunt_noa/ and http://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/2hweft/official_name_of_duck_hunt_is_duck_hunt_duo_dhd/ Kungfuyu (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Duck Hunt is the Japanese and American names, I suggest that we go with the US name. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We better go with NTSC since America is more dominant in English language. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 08:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add a note for this character? Since there isn't a character in any prior game that is referred to as "Duck Hunt," and fans of the game commonly know him simply as the Dog, someone who is unaware of his presence in Smash and reading this for the first time might be confused. I think it would be appropriate to keep the name as Duck Hunt, but add a note that mentions that it is a composite character featuring both the Dog and a Duck. 71.162.113.80 (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys, just remember that Duck hunt is actually a trio. Valehd (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Pikmin & Olimar

I've noticed that Pikmin & Olimar have been moved and renamed to simply Olimar. The current site and Brawl dojo call the character Pikmin & Olimar, so shouldn't the change be undone? Thoughts? [Soffredo] 02:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In game, he's referred to as Olimar. I think since this article is based on the game itself and not the website, the game should take precedence over the site. Just my thought at least. Depressio (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Prior to the announcement of Pikmin & Olimar on the Smash 4 site, he was referred to as simply Olimar on here as he was in the U.S. version of Brawl. IMO it should stay this way. 71.162.113.80 (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014

Change Shulk's series listing from "Xeno" to "Xenoblade Chronicles". This is the series he as listed as originating from in the actual game, and with Yoshi and Wario having established a precedent, it's only appropriate that we treat Shulk the same way. Furthermore, neither Xenoblade nor Xenosaga has any representation in any Super Smash Bros. title, so solely using the larger "Xeno" banner is misleading. 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Shulk may be from the game Xenoblade, but but he's from the series called Xeno. You'll note that "Yoshi" is linked to the "Yoshi series" article, not Super Mario World, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yoshi is linked to the Yoshi series because the game addresses him as being from the Yoshi series. When looking at the trophies of Shulk, Dunban, and Riki, they're not listed as Xeno, they're listed as Xenoblade Chronicles. Shouldn't the official categorization made by Nintendo in the game the article is describing be the same categorization we use? Remember, you had Yoshi listed as a Mario character until an argument made on the SSB4 talk page pointed out the separate notation; this is no different. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014

where it says that up to 4 players can play a useful edit would be to put in parentheses that in the newest one you can play up to 8 players on one wii u system Legoenforcer (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Smash 6? Really?

Why is this mentioned in the article? Isn't it a little ludicrous to believe that a sixth game would be released this year when the fourth and fifth games were -JUST- released late last year? Is that source trustworthy? I extremely doubt the validity of any of that. I request the removal of it. Devann (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It was pretty widely reported, albeit either an honest mistake on the developer's part or just something they accidentally publicly posted. I say just keep it in but don't expand on it.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

first of all

there is a new smash game that came out for the wii u and nintendo 3ds, so that thing about having questions about brawl should be changed Valehd (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? Sergecross73 msg me 02:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

near the top of the page, there's a message about having questions about ssbb Valehd (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

and second

smash bros. would actually be considered a mario game.

• super SMASH bros super MARIO bros.
• there are mostly mario stages and characters (including DK, yoshi, and wario) in every game
• in sound test and trophies, the mario series is first (besides smash bros. series stuff)
• some mario games are for the consoles that the smash series games are for

that is my proof. there might be more... Valehd (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This constitutes of entirely original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Yes, Mario, Mario characters, and elements appear in it, but it is not classified by either the creators or reliable sources as a Mario game itself, nor should it be. It's like, what, a 20-way crossover across 20+ different series. Mario's just a small fraction of it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

but it's mainly a mario game. it's a series in a series like mario kart and mario party Valehd (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2015

Change "The game features 51 characters with 17 brand new fighters, including third-party characters Mega Man and Pac-Man." to "The game features 49 characters with 15 brand new fighters, including third-party characters Mega Man and Pac-Man." As it exists now, the SSB3DS/U page treats Mii Fighter as a single character, so the same should be reflected in the series page. 136.181.195.25 (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "reliable sources"? All I'm saying is that one page says one number and one page says a different number, and the two should be consistent. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please read any or all of the following linked articles for clarity:

• Independent, Reliable, Source
• 42, Reliable sources — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm starting to be convinced that no one is actually reading the request and are just saying no by default. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: You will need to provide a reliable source to allow us to confirm which number is correct. We can then take the appropriate action and edit the appropriate article to bring them into line with what is considered appropriate. Amortias (T)(C) 17:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the archive of the discussion that led to the decision on the SSB4 page. (Note: The original link to the consensus reached is no longer available due to the associated user closing their account. You can find an archive here.) -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: that user's page is now here. Kharkiv07^Talk 18:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: There are no reliable sources (I only saw a WP:PRIMARY source and a link to a youTube video (which aren't notable in of themselves). If you can find a reliable source, then it can be changed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2015

Future Line In This Smash Brothers Article Is wrong. Smash Brothers Is To Not have a sequel in 2015 and Super smash bros 6 is not confirmed. Also that creator of the series "Masahiro Sakurai" says that Super Smash Brothers 4 Shall Be His "Final Smash" OfficialTrinix (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - It's not really clear what you're proposing, but the "Future" subsection is correct and according to reliable sources as far as I can tell. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Authority Control?

Add {{Authority control |VIAF=xxxxxx |LCCN=n/xx/xxxxxx |ISNI=xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx |ORCID=xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx |GND=xxxxxx |SELIBR=xxxxxx |SUDOC=xxxxxxxxx |BNF=xxxxxx |BPN=xxxxx |RID=xxxxx |BIBSYS=xxxxx |ULAN=xxxxx |MBA=xxxxxx |NLA=xxxxxxx |NDL=xxxxxxxx}}? — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This does not seem logical. I just tested the page and there is nothing loaded from Wikidata, so unless you have the IDs on hand this is not a good change. --Izno (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2016

I would like to add New & Returning Characters For Super Smash Bros 5.

Thomastylr (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)