Talk:Super Smash Bros./Archive 4

Archive 3

The page was 76KB long, so I archived to Archive 3. --Son 16:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Giga Bowser

Giga Bowser is a playable character via Bowser's Final Smash Move, so add a yes for him. -- 13:13, 21 August 2007 (EST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.185.171.156 (talk)

Giga Bowser is Bowser's final smash, but Bowser does not stay Giga Bowser. On the other hand, Samus becomes Zero Suit Samus for the rest of the match after using her final smash. Giga Bowser is playable for a short time.--Poketape 22:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What?! where does it say that she loses her armor for the rest of the match? BassxForte 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere, it's an assumption. It's currently unknown if Samus is able to get her suit back.Satoryu 21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original question...see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Short answer's no. — Malcolm (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Master Hand in SSB

Master Hand is a playable character in Super Smash Bros by not using any cheat device, but by a glitch, so i think we should put as a playable character or at least mention him that he is a playable character by a glitch. Solidsonic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solidsonic (talk • contribs) 14:31, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

You mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CiiDYeOxi0 this? It's fake. -Sukecchi 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! how do you know its fake. Solidsonic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.215.61.7 (talk) 23:54, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Sign yours posts with four ~. He's using an emulator. -Sukecchi 23:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

While an emulator can mean that the game is running with modified memory data, it doesn't mean it definitely is. But regardless, a YouTube video isn't really a good enough source to cite for inclusion of Master Hand as a playable character. Find a reliable source that says as much, and then it can go in. -masa ♫ 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Subspace Emissary / NPCs

As much as I'm excited by the new characters, they haven't been confirmed as NPCs yet, have they? Either that or we need to rewrite the definition of a SSB NPC. For example, we have no confirmation that the Primid use the SSB Smash logo as their NPC icon, which is currently a qualifying factor. Pending a rewrite of the NPC definition, or ANY screenshots of the Subspace Army, I'm removing them from the NPC list. If you intend to revert the edit, please describe your reasons for doing so here and wait for at least one other person's agreement before making the edit. Thanks. Coreycubed 14:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I would think that the NPC in question would have the smash logo if they are original to the game which these are. Why should the NPC definition be artered, what seems to make these so diffrent from the others? But why must they be removed, they are original, not clones, and seem to be a full on character. I think the the little sections should stay we just will try to avoid speculation.→041744 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

69.108.162.2 14:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC) I have heard that Sakuri is keeping all the characters from the original tgame, and have heard Sakuri confirm that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.162.2 (talk) 14:31, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

That is pure speculation. And by the way I think the use of the talk page is to see if people agree with your opinion in a major edit, not seeing how many people disagree with you to get it reverted. Please wait to see what the consensus is until you make a rash edit.→041744 14:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What counts as a rash edit? Oubliette 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that this a offical term or anything, it is just a phrase I made up for a major edit made without getting a consesus or the like first or running by the talk page communty before making the edit.→041744 14:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

69.108.162.2, you're going to need to do better than that. You know how this works, we need source or it's no good.

That wasn't a "rash edit". It's removing unconfirmed data. I'm saying that we have no idea if they're NPCs or not by our current definition. Unless you want to redefine NPC, in the SSB context. I know the traditional non-playable character definition -- but we're going to be opening up a massive can of worms if we don't establish right now if we are going to continue to define them this way - which is a good way to continue doing it, but according to our own rules, these guys haven't been confirmed as NPCs yet. See what I mean? We've only seen FMV which doesn't confirm much in the way of NPC. For all we know, <insert speculation here>. We don't. Either we compromise and drop our current standards for "NPC citizenship", or come to some other consensus before adding them back to the NPC section. Either that, or re-add the removed sections to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article under the Single Player section. Coreycubed 14:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a few pictures of them being fought, with one showing a Primid using one of Samus's moves here (or something that closely resembles it). http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/modea/modea02.html Not sure if it contributes much, but I remembered that. Oubliette 15:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I say drop the checklist for NPCs. That's a barrier keeping us from writing short summaries on the NPCs, like the ones we have just below it. We only need the checklist for who's actually playable. Oubliette 15:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The checklist is for knowing at a glance which NPCs are in what game; more convincent than having to read through the whole section.→041744 15:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's no real reason to have a checklist and individual mini-articles. One or the other has to go. And seeing that the articles offer important info, we should nix the NPC checklist.

Regardless, we still shouldn't add too much about the Subspace Army. We don't yet know how they'll be incorporated into the game. Damage meter or not, we can't add them until we know exactly how they'll be encountered and fought by the player.Satoryu 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree on nixing the checklist and restoring the articles. I'll let someone else be the hero and put it back in; I'm at work, and I've already been the villain today. :) Coreycubed 15:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should the checklist or the NPC descriptions go? They both give information at convenience (which is the whole point of wikipedia), and each needs the other to show the description and the games they appeared in. So why does "One or the other has to go" when each gives good quality information quickly and conveniently?→041744 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The checklist does show which games they've appeared in, but save for two of them, the characters on that list have not appeared in the original. All SSB got was Master Hand and Polygons. One could state for each character individually which games they appeared in if we remove the list. Oubliette 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Any information the checklist gives is also stated in the mini articles. And the table of contents can direct someone to the NPC they want to read about as easily as the checklist can.Satoryu 15:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Plus, it will acknowledge Giga Bowser better. It's not convenient if he's explained in his summary to be in Brawl (NPC or not), but not on a list up with Master Hand and the others as "checked" when he's not going to be removed from the list. Oubliette 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha! This solves so many problems! Why didn't we think of this days ago? Coreycubed 15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I try to explain something eerily close to this in Archive 3? Oubliette 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 1

Well, is that checklist going to be pulled or not? It seems rather OR-ish to not add these characters to the NPCs section. --Son 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it. Oubliette 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome job, Oub. If anyone feels like rewriting the NPC description slightly to avoid excluding the new Subspace Emissary NPCs, and restoring their articles (check the history to copy the code), go for it. Like I said, I'm at work, and can't do it right now. Coreycubed 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll finish it. I should probably upload pictures, huh? If someone already did before I typed this, that would help. I don't want to upload what we already have. Oubliette 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There's already pictures uploaded. You should be able to find them if you check the history from earlier today, right before I did my edit.

Also, I'd just like to point out that while he may not be an NPC, R.O.B. should be properly linked if he does get a mention. He's the NES robot peripheral, and his cameo in Brawl is already listed under his article. Coreycubed 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He got a mention, but someone removed my writing. What was wrong with it being at the bottom of the page? And why did he remove the section about R.O.B.? Besides, they both have red and white coloring (like Famicom, the Japanese version), not Gray and Black like the NA version. That's why I named the section Famicom Robot. Oubliette 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that if we were to add every enemy encountered in the Subspace Emmisary, we'd have an absurdly large article. That would have to include every bizarre creature seen in screenshots, including the Hammer Bro and Bullet Bills. By extension, that would also include Melee's adventure mode opponents. Again, absurdly long.

Of course, it's not like we can leave the Minister out if he plays so important a role. You Can't See Me! 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we just list Primids, the Ancient Minister, the Famicom Robots (they are instrumental in the actual excising), and anyone who comes with a damage meter. We know the Primids come in many forms already, so we just write a short bit about them for the moment. I see little wrong with displaying any distinct varieties of Primids if we learn about them in the near future, but we don't need to include the simplest of enemies. Oubliette 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

With that being said, we need a picture of the R.O.B.s as they rob the section of the world. Oubliette 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we can safely list the Minister, the Primids, and R.O.B. in the article without resorting to speculation. I say "R.O.B." instead of Famicom Robot because this is the English Wikipedia, and Sakurai specifically refers to them as R.O.B.s on the official site, and the English Wikipedia refers to him as such as well. I didn't notice the coloring in the video. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coreycubed (talk • contribs) 18:13, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, they're red. A very dark red, but red like Famicom. Okay then, i'll leave it as R.O.B. Oubliette 18:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Get familiar with no original research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Putting back any of them on NPC is a theory, based off your personal beliefs. I also saw someone remove Petey.

What is this guys? You add things to NPCs based on your opinion but remove him off what judgement?

Premature, rash, and completely unprofessional. Borderline fanboyism here.

--ChibiMrBubbles 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We all know the rule. You don't need to flaunt it. We've lessened the restrictions on our standards to include the new Subspace characters as NPCs, returning to the original Wikipedia definition of "non-player character", which allows for the addition of these characters. Don't be a dick. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coreycubed (talk • contribs). I didn't add him but I'm the one who removed Petey and I had every right to do so. There's no proof he's ONLY an NPC. -Sukecchi 20:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And this is based off a single FMV, no ingame footage. Which goes back to speculation.--ChibiMrBubbles 20:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A FMV is ingame footage, although it may not be under the player's control. I wouldn't argue for Petey to be up there too much, but there's no proof that he's playable and not just a boss. We do know he's an ally of the Subspace Army for whatever reason, so he could be put with them temporailily. Oubliette 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not. -Sukecchi 21:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There's proof that Petey is a confirmed character either. I can't prove he's an NPC and you can't prove he's playable.

This goes back to adding characters from the FMV, because it goes in full circle. And the guy who posted a the dick thing. Congrats troll, you win zero kudos here.--ChibiMrBubbles 21:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Petey can be up there with the Subspace Army. He is an ally, and the whole thing is up there to give a general overview of the army and its allies. Oubliette 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But the entire SubSpace Army falls under NPC. This is all speculation from a single FMV. But if we were to put SubSpace away from NPCs branch that would be okay. But then their existence would be redundant on the article, which would fall under game forum speculation. --ChibiMrBubbles 21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The entire Subspace Army is up there because we know the Primids can be fought, and the rest is merely detailing their allies. Oubliette 21:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And why can they be fought? This is from FMV, not INGAME footage which doesn't confirm anything. You're speculating by adding them to NPC. Wait for ingame footage. Remember Peach.--ChibiMrBubbles 21:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Click here. http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/modea/modea02.html You'll see Mario fighting them in ingame footage. Oubliette 21:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I concede on that. But their leader, as well as Petey, should not be mentioned under NPC.--ChibiMrBubbles 21:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We could point out that the Primid are led by the Minister and Petey and R.O.B. are just allies, but primarily explain the Primid and their leader's motive. The Wire Frames would have info on their leader instead of remain mysterious, faceless beings if we had this much information on them. Oubliette 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I have no qualms. Continue.--ChibiMrBubbles 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaagh! Enough with the NPCs!!

This article is now about seventy percent NPC information. It's completely unbalanced, it's just being used as an excuse for fanboys to dump in lists of all these pointless minor characters and to have neverending nerd fights over what constitutes a NPC! There should be one section summarizing that each game features NPCs, and mentioning a few of the recurring themes (giant versions of preexisting characters, wireframe/polygon fighters, adventure mode enemies and Master Hand). Specific info, like all the new critters from Brawl, should go on Brawl's own page, not all dumped here.

I would try to rewrite it, but I'm sure the fanboys would lash out and revert it two seconds later. I just wish people would step back a bit and look at this article, and realize how ridiculous it has become.Rglong 21:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's information on the general series. If NPCs appear in more than one game, it's repetitive to list them in the other articles. What we put about the Primid is not speculation by fanboys, it's ripped from the site updates about them. Besides, i'm fine with Mr. Bubbles's suggestion about not putting the Ancient Minister for now. Oubliette 21:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not "repetitive" because those are separate articles. You can't assume people will read all the articles about a general subject. And if you're going to stick all this info somewhere, it should be in the specific articles, not all dumped into the generalized article that covers the entire series. And anyway you're missing the point. This article has become all about the stupid NPCs. They should have one or two paragraphs and given as much time as other major features of the series, like the gameplay, or the different modes. And I never said the Primid stuff was "speculation". I know the nerdballs are checking the Dojo website every five seconds and dumping everything they find there into the article.Rglong 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We have no place to put them. This is the place for all things Smash related. I don't think we're allowed to have an article of characters from the Smash series. If that was the case would could dump all the NPCs over there. I have no problems with that.

Things that are minor to the series, for example, minor characters in MGS all fall under one article for time consumption. If we are given the green light for this the NPCs would be out of here.--ChibiMrBubbles 21:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Following up on what Mr. Bubbles said, I feel that the article is more complete with the NPC section. Parting the two into seperate articles will just cause both to be stubs, and one could be sure that one of those stubs would be nominated for deletion or redirect (or both) within the month. And what do you mean by MGS? O_o Oubliette 22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because a fan of something is editing it doesn't matter as long as they're NPOV. You wouldn't expect anyone but a knowledgeable individual to be editing Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation for example. Also, remember that we're not a Smash directory. Coreycubed 22:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did we remove so much NPC info?

I found the extra info on the Fighting Wire Frames, the Fighting Polygons, and Sandbag to be quite informative. Why was it removed? Oubliette 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, it made the picture alignment appear a lot less broken. Now the Polygon picture is cutting into the Wireframe description. Oubliette 22:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dismissed characters

Does someone have a different definition of "dismissed"? If a character is dismissed to appear, it would mean they won't be in the game, and therefore should have an X, not a question mark. Question marks would mean we're not sure if they're in the game. 75.153.231.20 09:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There are currently no characters being removed from the game. Anything you have read is speculation. So a question mark is correct. -Sukecchi 11:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you miss read the note: "Question marks indicate that the character has not been confirmed or dismissed to appear as a playable character in Super Smash Bros. Brawl."→041744 12:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sukecchi, I'm honestly not sure how you could have possibly interpreted my comment that way. I'll assume you just didn't bother to read it carefully, but let me explain:

If a character is dismissed, it would mean they won't be in the game. I KNOW no character has been officially dismissed to appear, but let's say Sakurai says "Ice Climbers are dismissed to appear in Brawl". This would mean that they won't appear in the game. Therefore, they should have an X in their box rather than a question mark. It should just say "Question marks indicate a character has not been confirmed to appear as a playable character". Now do you understand? 75.153.231.20 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I heard that Ice Climbers, Mr. Game and Watch, and Young Link have been taken out. This is due to a lack of votes in a survey done in Japan. Players were asked their opinions about the characters. It is speculated that Orcana of Time Link will be in SSB Brawl. He is like Young Link, but has a different design.--Poketape 22:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poketape (talk • contribs).

That's the oldest rumor about the game you're talking about, at least initially. It's a rumor from an unreliable source, and it is most likely fake anyway. Disaster Kirby^Talk 22:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see the problem, why should we change the note? To quote you: "Question marks would mean we're not sure if they're in the game.", An "X" means they're 'dismissed'. A question mark is meerly a place holder till we get comformation of their status is Brawl, "not been confirmed or dismissed". What is so wrong with the word "dissmissed"?→041744 23:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe our IP friend interpreted the statement improperly. Substituting for the conjunction, you must have interpreted it to mean "Question marks indicate that the character has not been confirmed. Question marks indicate that the character has been dismissed." Should that be the case, you have misinterpreted it. The statement should be interpreted as follows: "Question marks indicate that the character has not been confirmed. Question marks indicate that the character has not been officially dismissed." I hope that clarifies things. You Can't See Me! 23:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps substitute "nor" for "or"? --HeroicJay 00:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well as you can see, Ice Climbers have been confirmed to be IN SSBB, so once again whatever people "hear" or "think they know" is false until it is verified to be on the Dojo page or when the game actually comes out.PlatypusToby 13:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Playable characters table

Why were the notes in the PC table moved out of the table? It 1) looked better in the table and 2) should be in the table. --Son 11:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's no real reason for them to be moved. Or was it too small for someone? I'm editing at 1280x1024 and the text being in the table didn't bother me. Oubliette 11:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason the notes were moved of the table is so the table could be sortable. If the notes were still on the table the note section would act like a regular row and screw up the sorting.→041744 12:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, can we add notes to the bottom of the page, just before/after References? Oubliette 12:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Characters Page

Shouldn't all of this character information be put into a separate characters page? 64.221.69.200 16:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? There isn't that much. — Malcolm (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of the other video game pages I have visited had had separate character pages. Secondly, the character information on this entry accounts for most of the information in the article and really clutters up the article. And finally, this is a series page and probably shouldn't have the extensive character coverage that it currently does. 64.221.69.200 17:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What is so "Extensive" about the characters section? We have a table for the Playable ad a short few paragraphs for each NPC. Also as this is a crossover game we don't really need a individual page for 30-40 Character links, and as for the NPCs there was once a whole page on it but it was deleted and copied here, so trying to revive that page would just get it deleted again.→041744 20:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be a great idea but I hope in any way it doesn't affect this article though if we are to add pictures of the fighters, let it be pictures of how they look in Super Smash Bros. VitasV 24/8/07 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:16, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

We don't need anymore images. -Sukecchi 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless they're of NPCs. Oubliette 14:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Ice Climbers Get A Note?

I've noticed that there is no note listed for the Ice Climbers on the playable character list. Considering that Sheik (for being a Zelda transformation), Zero Suit Samus (for being a Samus Final Smash transformation), and Pokemon Trainer (for being a background character plus 3 Pokemon characters roled into one) got a note due to their unique circumstances, shouldn't Ice Climbers (Popo and Nana) get one too (for being two seperate characters, one human and one CPU, that interact as one)?172.167.70.122 05:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just as warranted as the rest of the notes. -masa ♫ 06:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the name "Ice Climbers" implies more than one person, but this is a valid argument too. Oubliette 14:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's the fact that "Ice Climbers" always refers to both of them as a unit. Axem Titanium 15:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No. It would be redundant as a note and ICs, plural mind you, have their unique fighting style. I don`t the rationale for adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChibiMrBubbles (talk • contribs) 17:27, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

My main reason for asking whether or not they deserve a note isn't so much for the fact of mentioning that they are two characters (which a few of you have already mentioned as being redundant with listing them as "Ice Climbers"). My main reason for asking about a possible note is to mention the following three unique situations that occur as a result of them being two characters: One Ice Climber will always be contolled by the CPU. If the CPU controlled Ice Climber is KO'ed the player isn't penalized with a KO, but it does compromise the player's capability to perform special abilities/moves (third jump etc.). The player can select which Ice Climber is human and which Ice Climber is CPU by alternating the fighters' costumes.172.131.215.186 07:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Switching which Climber is the lead doesn't matter cause they're completely identical. As for their gameplay gimmick, it's just not noteworthy enough. If it isn't on their character page, that would probably be the place to mention it. If we gave the Climbers a note here, we'd have to give everyone a note.Satoryu 17:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Ice Climbers' duality is just as much of a gimmick as Kirby's/Jigglypuff's multiple air jumps. Furthermore, Nana and Popo are not two characters in terms of gameplay. They are just one character with, as mentioned before, a gimmick. ZSS and Shiek are considered separate characters from their base characters by the designers, and Trainer's note is there because of the complexity of his situation. You Can't Review Me!!! 19:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bosses

It has been confirmed that bosses will feature in the single-player mode of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, the first of which is Petey Piranha. Will they be mentioned here in the future, or are they going to be excluded from the article? .:Alex:. 07:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest only "Major" bosses be given there own section, i.e. Main villains, recurring NPCs, Etc.

(of coarse this will spiral downward with people discussing what qualifies as a "Major" NPC and will ultimately become the new Giga Bowser, So just keep your head!)→041744 10:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If the boss is some common variety "run into the enemy to attack" fiend like a Goomba or Topi, they shouldn't be listed. Petey is more complex, and we see him with a Smash logo. I think we can list him. Oubliette 11:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Under NPCs, mind you. He's a boss, other NPCs like Master Hand are bosses, Petey's even given the Smash logo. We've also got shots now of him fighting Kirby. He qualifies. Oubliette 11:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand we aren't allowed to have speculations on. But Sakurai said each character has their own storyline in Subspace game mode. And because Kirby is fighting Petey, it would be Kirby's own boss. Should we mention that or not?--ChibiMrBubbles 14:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What if we get to select the character at the beginning, and someone like Yoshi fights Petey? Remember that Sakurai said Petey was the first boss, so even speculators can't really say someone is a specific hero's boss anymore. (Why do I get the feeling there's a huge hole in my argument?) Oubliette 14:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is Petey Piranha with a smash logo?? And I disagree with Petey being Kirby's Boss. I mean, there really isn't a boss for each character. And it is pure speculation that the Ancient Minister is actually the main villain. He could be like a genral for the army while Giga Bowser and Meta Knight are in control of the Halberd. Mr. Mario 192 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, he's their leader. It says so. Oubliette 22:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, if Meta Knight was controlling the ship, why's he playable in the Subspace Emissary? Oubliette 22:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Because he would be unlockable after playing the mode once. Come on, why do you think Meta Knight's page is still not in the site?? Remember that Snake is not on the site because he is suposed to be unveiled on the same day or week as the other one or two third-party characters would be unveiled. And it didn't said that the Minister is the main villain. It just says that he is the leader of the army. Go see the definition on a general, the general is known to be the leader of the army, not like a vice-president or a president. Mr. Mario 192 22:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't put speculation on the page.→041744 04:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to add Andross on the bosses part becasue he's been confirmed on Super Smash DOJO I would but its locked User:AzureDragon321 22:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Andross is an assist trophy, not a boss. Dengarde ► Complaints 03:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just do for bosses what we do for playable characters:

If the boss/character is not original to SSB and he/she has his/her own article or section on Wikipedia (like Petey Piranha), just add that character to the table without placing its information on the article. You Can't Review Me!!! 17:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Icon

I don't know if it should remain, but I replaced the "Smash Bros." icon from smashbros.com with the version that has a white background, because the other version doesn't look very clean against a white background. (Both versions come from smashbros.com) --HeroicJay 22:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

Could someone please get a picture of Petey Pirahna next to the part that's about him on this article though the picture is of how he looks like in Brawl. Thank You. VitasV 28/8/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by VitasV (talk • contribs) 23:35, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon Trainer...again

I'd hate to beat a dead horse, but since the website just showed that all three Pokemon do in fact have their own move sets should they be listed on the character list as separate characters? YeahYeah SureSure 07:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be a smart-aleck but I told you so! I knew Squirtle, Ivysaur and Charizard would have their own movesets and the Down Special move is like Zelda/Sheik's transformation. If Sheik and Zero-Suit Samus are stand-alone characters even if they come from one original character (Zelda and Samus), the three pokémon should get the same treatment. deecee 09:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The character is Pokemon Trainer not Charizard, Squritle, and Ivysaur. It needs to stay only as Pokemon Trainer. -Sukecchi 10:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if you take that standpoint, then Sheik needs to be taken down, as the character was Zelda in the previous games, not Sheik... We can easily add those 3 characters to the list then have a footnote attatched to them just like sheik has. Its the exact same thing I suggested last time65.12.159.223 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

More proof to show that Sheik was the character Zelda is that in the records section, Sheik was registered under Zelda. Come on, look at the parallelisms of Zelda/Sheik and Squirtle/Ivysaur/Charizard. They both have a down special move that switches the characters (Transform and Pokémon Change respectively), they don't hold separate records, each character has three other moves (Zelda: Nayru's Love, Farore's Wind, Din's Fire; Sheik: Needle Storm, Chain, Vanish; Squirtle: Waterfall, Withdraw, unnamed; Ivysaur: Vine Whip, Bullet Seed, unnamed and Charizard: Flamethrower, Rocksmash, unnamed) and the only difference is that Sheik has his own page in the Nintendo guide/manual while we are unsure of this status for the three. So please decide ASAP!58.69.61.70 13:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in all likelyhood; the three pokemon will also have their own pages in the Brawl manual, if only for the sake of elaborating on their special moves. That doesn't make them standalone characters. I think the standard for deciding what's a "character" & what's not should be whether or not they appear on the "post-match" screen. For example; if you were Shiek at the end of the match (or when you were eliminated), then Shiek would be the character who appeared on the post-match screen instead of Zelda. This is also what will likely be the case with Zero Suit Samus, for the same obvious reasons. However, you can be assured that Giga Bowser will not appear on the post-match screen; because even if you were fortunate enough to be Giga Bowser when the match ended, he is a temporary character (and I use the term loosely) who will always revert back to regular Bowser (except for possibly during special event matches, which don't even count in the scope of this discussion); including on the post-match screen. Now, getting to Pokemon Trainer: Pokemon Trainer is at all times the "character" you are "playing," regardless of which pokemon is actually being controlled at any given moment. And you can guarantee that Pokemon Trainer is the character who will appear on the post-match screen; whether or not his pokemon accompany him. They are all conveniently grouped under the "Pokemon Trainer" profile, & until such time as it is officially stated otherwise; that is the way it should stay. I hope this rant was sufficiently long-winded enough to firmly drive this point home. Jishmeister 14:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

While the situation is similar it is not excatly the same. Shiek and Zelda are the same person but are two different persona or characters. Now Pokémon Trainer and his Pokémon: Squirtle, Ivysaur, or Charizard, are all different people but act as the one character. For example Ice Climbers are two people but act as the one character. Pokémon Trainer is the character but acts out the battle through his Pokémon while Shiek and Zelda are different characters which are capable of being switched in mid battle. So I say leave it how it is now.The Light6 14:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh for god sake. Look, I thought we came to a consensus on this. Here's a way that I think we can all agree on.

THE ONLY CHARACTERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THE LIST ARE THOSE WHO HAVE APPEARED IN PREVIOUS SSB GAMES OR THOSE WHO HAVE THEIR OWN CHARACTER PROFILE ON THE DOJO WEBSITE. SO THAT WOULD MEAN GIGA BOWSER IS NOT INCLUDED ON THE CHARACTER LIST. IT ALSO MEANS THAT THE POKEMON TRAINER APPEARS ON THE LIST. ALSO, SINCE META KNIGHT AND SNAKE HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE TRAILERS THEY SHOULD BE ON THE LIST AS WELL.

Now, does that not sound like a reasonable opinion? Only follow the character list gioven by the website. The website lists Pokemon Trainer as the character, not Squirtle, Ivysaur and Charizard, so only the Pokemon Trainer should get a spot on the list. Ixistant (talk • contribs) 17:09, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

To paraphrase, it is now much less likely that each of the individual monsters will have profiles on the site, since their moves are listed under PT's profile. Contrarily, Zero-suit Samus has her own profile on the site. As for Zelda/Shiek, HAL apparently acknowledged 26 different playable characters in Melee in some article or something, and Shiek is the only logical 26th. You Can't Review Me!!! 22:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's all about acknowledgment...Sakurai did acknowledge that! Sakurai said, "I guess you could say using this character is like playing three for the price of one!" and that is acknowledging already that they are three different characters for the price of one. If we base it on the final screen, we wouldn't even be sure what will come out for Pokémon Trainer so it really isn't a fine basis. If we base it on the acknowledgement of Sheik as the 26th character, we have proof for that as well in what Sakurai said. And those aren't our bases anyway, because we both call Sheik and Zero-Suit "not stand-alone characters." So could we just agree on two choices, either:

Sheik is treated like the pokémon or the pokémon are treated like Sheik. It's all your call. Let's have a consensus! deecee 09:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I say treat the pokemon as we do Sheik. The section that the list is under is entitled "Playable characters". Charizard, squirtle and ivysaur have their own moveset, just like sheik, and as such are playable characters. They are not individual attacks, but characters. It really makes no difference if they get their own profile on the site. They are the playable characters nonetheless. 65.12.159.223 10:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

They don't have a complete move set, because Pokemon Trainer has the ability to switch Pokemon, which takes up one of the moves that a normal character would have. --Son 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, minus one of a complete moveset... Just like Sheik and Zelda, who might I add are still on the list of playable characters, despite lacking the down special used to transform... But it is Still enough to be recognized as a distinctively seperate character, which is why they should be added 65.12.159.223 13:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I said it before the situation is similar but not the same thus they don't have to be the same. And to make it easier here is that post: While the situation is similar it is not excatly the same. Shiek and Zelda are the same person but are two different persona or characters. Now Pokémon Trainer and his Pokémon: Squirtle, Ivysaur, or Charizard, are all different people but act as the one character. For example Ice Climbers are two people but act as the one character. Pokémon Trainer is the character but acts out the battle through his Pokémon while Shiek and Zelda are different characters which are capable of being switched in mid battle. So I say leave it how it is now.

Also may I add that the nature of their Final Smash would be evidence in this argument, if each individual Pokémon has their own Final Smash then it would be evidence that they should be list as their own individual characters while if the Final Smash is for the Pokémon Trainer instead e.g. Using a legendary Pokémon instead of the standard three then it would be evidence that it should all be listed under Pokémon Trainer. The Light6 13:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The article should stay as is until: 1) the three Pokemon are given profile pages on the Dojo or 2) if each Pokemon has their own individual victory screen. Satoryu 13:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are we considering the individual victory screen anyway? First of all, we don't know if Sakurai would decide to change how the end of the match will go. The real reason everyone considers Sheik is a separate character, even if he/she isn't stand-alone, is that he/she has his/her own moveset and you could choose who you would want to use. And don't forget, there are techniques that only one pokémon has as compared to the others. Squirtle and Charizard could not tether recover. Squirtle and Ivysaur could not glide. All the more showing its differences. The move Pokémon Change is actually just a Pokémon version of the transform of Zelda and Sheik. OK? Why must everyone consider it different just because Pokémon trainer controls that move? The three pokémon will never be given profile pages on Dojo as they are already under Pokémon trainer so that's an unfair way to judge. As to getting a smashball, the trainer could not get it but the pokémon can thus it would be the pokémon that will get the power. It would most likely not trigger a change of pokémon. And as much as speculation is incorrect, I think their final smashes would be either Hydro Cannon, Frenzy Plant and Blast Burn just like Pikachu has its Volt Tackle. Back to the main topic, the fact that they have different movesets and technique capabilities proves that they are separate characters in one. Could we get that into agreement? The only true reason that Sakurai put them to one character...Pokémon Trainer is to simulate trainer battles in pokémon where you would have to switch when the pokémon's hp is low or let them faint. But character-wise, the three have different control strategies to be pulled with the hp system. So could we please have a consensus...treat Sheik like the three or vice versa. It's getting pointless already trying to prove other points because it's becoming nonsense. The thing about it's similar but not really, please open your minds because it is the same. deecee 16:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I'll clarify why Zelda/Sheik parallels the three. It is in a player's strategy for Zelda/Sheik whether he/she a. decides on playing Zelda only or playing Sheik only or b. uses both of them at the battle to maximize both movesets. In the player's strategy for the trainer, he/she can a. exhaust one of the three until the other faints then moves on to the next or b. use all three in a balanced way to maximize all 9 moves. In looking at this, you notice what Sakurai was considering and it was the strategy. In a battle, you can control both Zelda and Sheik during its duration as you can do with the three. But in characters, we considered Sheik the 26th so why shouldn't we consider the three as such? If we look at the same perspective, we can ask, why do we consider Sheik a separate character and the most valid answer is because he/she has a separate moveset, personality, ability, capability and strategy as to Zelda, which would be the same with the three. So the correct thing to ask is do we treat Sheik as a footnote to Zelda like the three or treat the three as separate characters with their own separate moveset, personality, ability, capability and strategy? OK? Does this clear things? deecee 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What it basically comes down to here is that the official site (or at least the Japanese one, as the US site doesn't seem to be accessible now) had Sheik with her own profile, while the three separate Pokémon do not. Arrowned 18:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

One more point to consider. Red is always present in the background. Therefore, he is the one issuing the commands to his Pokes. Zelda and Samus have no such higher power.

Also, a change in the moveset doesn't necessarily mean a change in character. If it did, we would have to list every form of Kirby and two versions of the Ice Climbers. (one vs. two)

Is it so hard just to WAIT until Nintendo acknowledges on the Dojo or in a strategy guide that each Pokemon has their own unique moveset? It's inevitable to happen (speculation, sorta), but it hasn't happened yet. As it stands now, Red is the character. Just leave it as that until we get more information.Satoryu 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, is it so hard to just make Zelda/Sheik just one character. Since everyone maintains that the player controls the trainer, why can't everyone come to an agreement that Zelda/Sheik is one character as well. Even in the Legend of Zelda series, Zelda and Sheik is one person. Even in the Metroid Series, Zero-suit Samus is still Samus. If people make such a big fuss that the trainer and his pokémon are only one, we should also hold that Zelda/Sheik and Samus/Zero-suit is one as well. Because when it comes down to playing the game, in one battle, you control 2-3 characters as one. Sheik and Zero-suit are NOT stand-alones and so are the three pokémon. They are all parts of one character. Sheik being an alter-ego of Zelda, Zero-suit being a costume of Samus and Squirtle, Ivysaur and Charizard being pokémon of the trainer. If that can't be agreed upon, the vice versa of this can be explained too. Zelda's gait is one of a graceful and magical character while Sheik's is one of a swift and stealthy ninja-like character. There goes their difference. For Samus, you get to use a more protected and powerful character while for Zero-suit, you get to use a more vulnerable yet speedy character. This would also be the case for the three. Squirtle would be the most agile of all, and utilizing water; Ivysaur would be the middle-weight, utilizing grass elements and Charizard would be the heavy-weight using either strong, flying or fire attacks. Their different characters in battle would consider them separate...no matter what Nintendo says. So which does everyone consider correct, the fact that they are one character utilizing many different attacks that give you a more diverse strategy or the fact that they have different aesthetics to them, which makes them different characters at the same time. We must just decide, which is right rather than make two different cases for the pokémon and the girls. 202.92.128.27 03:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sheik is also mentioned as another character. She is mentioned as her own character. She is even mentioned as a character by HAL. Zero Suit Samus is mentioned as her own character. She even has her own article. The only difference is that they are accessed through other characters, but still characters. The pokemon are all under one character. All their attacks and abilities are all put under one character, not three separate. Technicaly, you play as the Pokemon trainer who gives the demands to the pokemon making Pokemon Trainer the playable character. This is why things should stay how they are. Depressio 04:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Also bear in mind: the monsters' moves are all listed under Pokemon Trainer's on the official site. Given that, Sakurai seems to acknowledge that those attacks are the Trainer's, not the monsters'. You Can't Review Me!!! 04:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that you are confusing yourselves! It's annoying already. One, stop mentioning points already mentioned above. There are also counterarguments for them already and if you would be so rude to keep on repeating them, that just means you are not considering the facts laid out. What's with saying "mentioned as another character" but mentioning on the article "not a stand alone character." And there are other instances in this part that show so many contradictions with the article and the discussion. Second of all, when you play pokémon, you control the trainer that controls the pokémon but due to the fact that the trainer simulates yourself, the pokémon becomes the one being controlled. In RPG games with multiple playable characters, you assign these characters with moves right...just like how you do with pokémon. Therefore, the trainer, being a character, also plays as an instrument to control the titular characters of the game, the pokémon, in the battle. So in truth of the analytic definition of playable character: a fictitious creature that can be controlled by a human such as Pikachu, Link and Mario, you control the trainer but as well the pokémon making them playable characters in every right. But since, we maintain using Sakurai's vision, we limit ourselves from including the pokémon into the definition. I'm using basic logic here. Do not forget that the site is made into BLOG form showing Sakurai's official opinions on the matter. As much as it is dogmatic, they are also opinions moved by personal biases. He holds that the pokémon trainer is the real thing to control but we actually control three different characters by definition. Sorry if it is confusing but this is the most diplomatic way to do it. Think of the premises of Sakurai's logic. He holds that Sheik and Zero-suit are separate characters based on their difference to the a different "version" of their persona. These are differences in speed, power, defense and special abilities. This too differs in the pokémon but holds a different stance as he sees that the true character he controls is the Pokémon Trainer. But when you control Sheik, don't you really control Zelda using her magic to become stealthy and agile. When you control Zero-Suit, you control Samus one and the same with just a different outfit. See how his logic is contradictory. So shouldn't we correct it. I'm just saying. 58.69.61.70 13:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work like that. All articles are supposed to be encyclopedic and require properly cited sources, preferably primary, but secondary and tertiary are allowed. In order to "correct Sakurai's logic", as you so put it, we'd have to include an extensive note that itself cites at least a secondary source (tertiary in this case is shifty), which as far as I know, doesn't exist (I don't believe any staff member on any major gaming news site has written an essay on the bad logic of Dojo). Without that, any such note would just be considered original research, and is likely to be removed. Arrowned 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I dont know if this is possible, but here goes. Why don't you just indent the secondary characters under the primaries? For Example:

Pokemon Trainer

• Charizard
• Ivysaur
• Squirtle

Zelda

• Sheik

Samus

• Zero Suit Samus

...And do that in the table? So that they would be seperate, but beneath their selectable counterparts. I think that would work. Djcs410319 20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here has Zelda and Shiek as sepprate characters on the OFFICAL SITE, Here is the table of characters with seprate Samaus and zero suit samus characters from the OFFICAL SITE, and Here is Pokemon trainer listed as ONE character on the (do I really have to say this again?) OFFICAL SITE. Sorry for being so blunt but our opinions are nothing compared to the makers of game and thus we should include what they think as far as characters go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 041744 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Until you can select Sheik or ZSS from the character select screen, they have to be accessed from Zelda or Samus, who are on the character select screen, which makes them part of that character. Djcs410319 01:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

To reply, I will quote 041744, whose comment you somehow must have missed:

Here has Zelda and Shiek as sepprate characters on the OFFICAL SITE, Here is the table of characters with seprate Samaus and zero suit samus characters from the OFFICAL SITE, and Here is Pokemon trainer listed as ONE character on the (do I really have to say this again?) OFFICAL SITE. Sorry for being so blunt but our opinions are nothing compared to the makers of game and thus we should include what they think as far as characters go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 041744 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There's not much more to be said beyond that. It's what's official that counts, not whatever form of logic we come up with. You Can't Review Me!!! 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Smash Bros. Techniques

I don't know if this is appropriate but remember that there are game mechanics in Smash Bros. that don't exactly apply to their original games. These game mechanics are the techniques such as Natural Third Jump (exhibited by Kirby and Jigglypuff), Wall Jumping, Tether Recovery and Gliding. The thing is, these game mechanics aren't part of the series they come from but are made in-game. Couldn't we mention something like it or make a list of which characters could do these Smash Bros. techniques? deecee 09:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article should not list things, that is why we have one table for all the Playable characters and a list on each page. But still I think it should mention some (not every one) character specific moves.→041744 21:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't...

Sonic get a question mark in the list of playable characters characters in since he is rumored even thought its "not in the cards" it's possible isn't it?-Change is coming and potter should have died I might be Trolled and I just don't care 05:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: No; the long answer is, as is implied, long, and I'd rather not get into the details. If you want those details, I'm sure somebody will respond if you ask why. You Can't Review Me!!! 05:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is Sonic has never been in a Smash Bros game before. The question marked characters are those who were in the last two games but its not known if they'll return. With Sonic hes a rumored character but unless he is confirmed he won't make the list. --Gaiash 11:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sheik and Ganondorf

Eiji Aunoma has more or less confirmed that Sheik and Ganondorf will be in Brawl. His team apparently did the design work for them, as well as for Link, specifically for Brawl. Two checkmarks for them.Khasrod 20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this was already discussed shortly after the interview surfaced. But as things are now, even if Aonuma did 'confirm' them, it's still speculation at this point because of how Aonuma worded his response in that interview (the way he stated things only prove that character designs were submitted). Disaster Kirby^Talk 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I know Sheik will be there, but I don't know about Ganondorf. Although I do wish he would be in the game, I have seen no news of his appearance.--Kondrayus 00:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, how are you sure about Sheik? — Malcolm (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

LIST OF NPCs

I Created a diferent article of SSB NPCs to clean the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliefr99 (talk • contribs)

And I've speedy deleted it as recreation of deleted material. Please don't recreate it. — Malcolm (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

NPCs

The list really needs to be converted into prose (either my version or someone can type a new one up). It is fairly pointless to have a bunch of tiny sections when most can be summed up quickly. TTN 17:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We're trying to be as comprehensive as possible without pushing any of wiki's rules. BassxForte 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I just tried it. It's longer by a bit less than one kb, but it works, I suppose. You Can't Review Me!!! 20:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about assist trophies

Also introduced is the Assist Trophy, which opens up a non-playable character to fight on a player's side for a short period of time in a similar fashion to that of Poké Balls used in all Super Smash Bros. games.

I think that should be reworded because from all the screenshots we seen, the player who summoned said assist trophy disappears from the field. Now I know that saying they disappear would fall under original research, but the sentence itself should be reworded so it doesn't give the impression they are the same like Pokeballs.--ChibiMrBubbles 03:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they only disappear because the developers left said characters out of the screenshots. Anyways, I agree, it shouldn't be said that it's similar to Pokéballs, as thats original research in itself, it may turn out differently in the future...Dengarde ► Complaints 03:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

From the info we have now they seem exactly like Poke-balls expect for the characters they summon mind you. You throw it, a character comes out and fights for you, and then it dissappearces of the screen. I see no reason why we can't compare them to poke-balls.→041744 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All four players appear in Devil's screenshots, so the Pokeball assumption does seem more likely based on our material. You Can't Review Me!!! 08:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Check here, the offical site says that "these are characters who appear to aid the fighter that called them forth." - exactly link a pokeball. This is not speculation.→041744 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is. Nowhere on the site does it say "Exactly like a Pokéball." And the game isn't out yet, so there could be something about them we don't know about yet. Same goes for the Pokéballs too. Saying that they are exactly alike at this point is speculation. Dengarde ► Complaints 15:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

NPC section propsal

I'm not saying lets get rid of each NPC section entirely, I'm saying that instead of a section for each character we do somthing like this:

Giga Bowser

See also: Appearances as Giga Bowser

Giga Bowser as Bowser's final smash attack in Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

Giga Bowser, known in Japan as Giga Koopa (ギガクッパ, Giga Kuppa), is a more powerful version of Bowser who made his first appearance in Super Smash Bros. Melee. He is the "secret boss" of Adventure mode and only appears if certain conditions are met. He is also one of the fighters in Event Match 51, "The Showdown", with Mewtwo and Ganondorf by his side.

Super Smash Bros. Melee marked the first appearance of the character named Giga Bowser. In this form, he has several abilities that the regular Bowser doesn't and appears far larger and more intimidating, with longer limbs, and a manic looking face. He can be found in Adventure Mode if the player meets certain requirements.

Giga Bowser has been confirmed to make an appearance in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, when Bowser performs his "Final Smash" attack. Bowser transforms into Giga Bowser, and is near invincible, if not fully invincible, for a short time.

Thoughts? Objections? Other propsals?→041744 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, Giga Bowser seems like the only Smash Bros. series native to apply. As for other NPC bosses that are to be introduced in Brawl (ex: Petey), I doubt they'll need their own section at all. They can simply be placed on the table of NPCs with links to their respective articles or sub-articles. You Can't Review Me!!! 20:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They need a section, they're NPCs. The reason we really can't do much with Petey now is because of the amount of information we have on him so far. 72.68.181.58 12:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Little Mac

Someone posted Little Mac as a PC, if I don't don't see a source, it is vandalism.AlexanderLD 19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just removed it. There is no sources whatsoever to support Little Mac appearing in the game. The only characters who should be added to the list are those who appear on the Dojo website or are explicitly stated to be in the game as playable by Sakurai in an interview with a respectable source. Ixistant 19:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is still there, I would do it myself, except I keep getting signed out. I'll try again at another computer. Whoever did this sould be banned from editing this article.AlexanderLD 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Ixistant removed it. It's not there anymore. Dengarde ► Complaints 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fludd

Should we add FLUDD somehow? in sunshine he is a character, maybe we should footnote it.Wii2-13 12:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No. 1. Its unnecessary. 2. F.L.U.D.D. is just a move. 3. Peach uses Toad and Toad is a character but it is still just a move and no one would think it necessary to add a footnote about it. 4. If we added footnotes about all things like this there would be a whole heap of unimportant information in the article eventually. The Light6 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Music section?

I think the music of the Smash Bros. series should be mentioned in this article and the individual game articles could just refer to this section, thus effectively mentioning music in those articles. Who thinks this is a good idea? Joiz ^A. Shmo 22:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Definitely not noteworthy enough.Satoryu 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, can't see any reason why it should be. The Light6 01:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the very least, it could link Smashing...Live! with the rest of the series, and could refer to Brawl's new My Music feature. Joiz ^A. Shmo 04:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the new music announcement is noteworthy as it is a new feature of Brawl. However, it is only noteworthy in the Brawl article. So it should go in the Brawl article if it is to be added. Ixistant 08:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on there, cowboy.

Lyn isn't a playable character. She's been confirmed as an Assist Trophy character. What's she doing in the list of playable characters?--4.242.21.22 06:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandals. Happens all the time with Assist trophies and Bosses. It's been reverted. Dengarde ► Complaints 06:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I woulnd't call it vandalism so much as "spontaneous editing prior to checking for accuracy and hidden tags", but the point still stands. It happens all the time, and is reverted all the time. You Can't Review Me!!! 06:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Samurai Goroh

Samurai Goroh, Captain Falcon's rival from F-Zero, is a playable character in Super Smash Brothers Brawl as well. --Adam 2:00, 13 September 2007

No he's not. A yellow tab and a portrait without a gradient signifies that he is an assist trophy. You Can't Review Me!!! 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ice Climbers note

Is the note for the Ice Climbers in the playable characters box really necessary?12.31.252.43 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I ask the same thing. It's a good question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.161.230 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No it's not necassary at all...→041744 00:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, funnily enough, at Wikipedia we work on consensus. I, along with others, feel the note is necessary as you do not control both Ice Climbers. You only control one of them and the other follows, which is different from EVERY other character in the series so far. I think we should have a vote on this.

I vote that we do include a note about the Ice Climbers.

And 041744, a consensus takes a while to decide. Just because you don;t think it's necessary doesn't mean it ISN'T necessary. Ixistant 08:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a previous consensus on this very page (Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)#Shouldn't Ice Climbers Get A Note?) which is why I made the edit because it was already previously decided had nothing to do with my opinion.→041744 11:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Items?

I really, really think that we should add an item page. Does anybody agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik20202 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No. That crosses the border into fancruft. You Can't Review Me!!! 03:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No I think it is unnecessary and the list would take up too much room on an article that should be devoted to the main features of the game series.The Light6 04:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That info would be better on the SmashWiki, just like my Assist Trophy idea and a list of Pokemon that can appear from Pokeballs. In fact, it's probably all there already. The world's hungriest paperweight 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we stop linking that wiki? I don't really like the idea of encouraging people to think of that Wiki as an "enhanced" version of Wikipedia's pages on Smash. It's a bunch of unrelated information, and most of it is pages on wannabe Smash players. Coreycubed 15:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh. No. Were linking it because it's NOT an enhanced version. thats why we encourage people to put the itm list on THERE instead on spamming the good wiki with it.

Dengarde ► Complaints 15:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, whereas SmashWiki is a guide of sorts. Neither is an enhanced version of the other; each does a different job that just so happens to share the same subject matter. You Can't Review Me!!! 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New image?

Should we get a new image for brawl?The one up now has been around since like the site started,I suggest we get a new one.--DerekDD92 01:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The current one is a rather good image since it has four characters up close. If you feel the need to replace it, though, feel free to be bold. You Can't Review Me!!! 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

...You reasoning seems a bit flawed, buku. It's been up since the site started...so? It works for what it's intended for. -Sukecchi 01:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)