Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:38, 26 January 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Super Smash Bros. Brawl at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

HALT! STOP! DISCONTINUE! Before asking any questions, please read this handy FAQ to make sure your question has not been answered.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Gameplay of Pokémon (4 participants) Lisette Titre-Montgomery (4 participants) Party royale game (3 participants) List of Minecraft characters (7 participants) Carlton Wilborn (5 participants) Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants; relisted) Rat Race (video game) (7 participants; relisted) Red Barrels (3 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Console game (discussion) Atari Interactive (discussion) Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Donkey Kong (nom) Hotline Miami (nom) The Suicide of Rachel Foster (nom) Bejeweled (video game) (nom) Chris Redfield (nom) Good article nominations Pixel Piracy (start) River Raid (start) The Great Giana Sisters (nom) Dendy (start) Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Quiver (video game) (nom) Regi (Pokémon) (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (start) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (start) Schim (start) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Unsighted (start) Gardevoir (start) Cybermania '94 (start) End Poem (nom) Nuzlocke (nom) Berzerk (video game) (start) Overcrowd: A Commute 'Em Up (start) Frostpunk (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments A Space for the Unbound (rev) Bejeweled (video game) (rev) The Legend of Dragoon (rev) The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (nom) Appy Awards Articles that need... assessment (3) (0) reassessment (1) cleanup (3) infoboxes (9) cover art (250) screenshots (8,991) photos (70) translation from japan (187) creation merging Template:NESproj

	Super Smash Bros. Brawl was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 2, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed November 30, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33

Ending the Marth and Roy are out thing

They said the same stuff with Ness. "Do you remember Ness?" and "Ness is the predecessor or Lucas" and crap like that. Now look. NESS IS IN! He has been officially leaked, and this just means that nothing is known about Marth or Roy. Famitsu is just speculating. GET OVER IT!

That is true, I have also stated to forget what i have stated about them in a diiferent comment.--DarkFierceDeityLink 00:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Famitsu did a review of the game, so I think that as far as they played the entire game, they're not speculating... It's obvious, who would review a game with an unfinished copy? Obviously not the best known japanese source for videogames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.117.246 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But, they only showed characters that had been confirmed by DOJO!! already. Remember that Lucario and Jigglypuff were revealed via an official slipup after the fact. -Jéské 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Character reveal

Please don't post anything to this article regarding the reveal of Lucario, Ness, or Jigglypuff as playable characters. It's not relevant to the article. --Coreycubed (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That sure got out fast. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 05:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

? Can u get me a link just so i can c it? PLEASE?SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing it at the (series) talk page. Arrowned (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...i found that a few min. later...SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Although i am pleased that Lucario and Jigglypuff are going to be playable, i have to agree with Coreycubed. I hate to say it, but we're going to have to wait until they're confirmed on Dojo.*sheds tear*Ivyluv (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with me? Read again, I said it's irrelevant to the article, regardless of whether or not Dojo!! reveals them in the next week. Coreycubed (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Who said Brawl Central wasn't reliable?!? (66.214.8.7 (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Brawl Central isn't reliable, they posted an article earlier in the week leading many to believe that Ness was out. Plus, the source of the leak isn't Brawl Central; they were actually the last to jump on the bandwagon. Leak was from Wii.com, and reported first on other forums and Misplaced Pages (by yours truly). Coreycubed (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be included in this one, but it should be put in the character list. It wasn't only brawlcentral. It was posted on wii.com of Japan. It was pulled off shortly after, and it is footage of the game. they are definite.

Who sais the site will mention them at all. It'll probaly be mentioned after the game comes out. Should we say anything about the startscreen becaus if you go to Youtube, and search something like E for all SSBB in the video you'll see the start sceenBaconBoy914 (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

no starter/unlockable are not noteable, unless its a #, but we don't have every charcter.→041744 13:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

SoBaconBoy914 (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Captain Olimar Treated Unfairly

I keep putting Captain Olimar in the section of characters new to the series and their representing games, Pit, Wario, Snake, and Sonic are up, but Pikmin haver NEVER before appeared as characters in this series so why can't he be up there???Onepiece226 (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

The reason your addition keeps on getting reverted is because we already have enough character examples. We have Pit and Wario serving that purpose. Two is enough. And no character is more notable than rest, save for Sonic and Snake. We're leaving Pit and Wario there because they were there first, not because they're more important.Satoryu (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of replacing Wario with Olimar. Besides, most casual readers would say "Huh? Isn't Wario from the Mario series?" Powerslave (talk|cont.) 04:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're kind of right about that Power Slave, we should change the Wario sentence. Unknownlight (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So should we change Wario to Olimar since Wario is in fact apart of the Mario Series?Onepiece226 (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

*Having bad memories from Dedede* NO! The hidden note says "DO NOT ADD OR CHANGE EXAMPLES." There is no reason why Olimar should replace Wario or Pit. Just give it a while and people will stop trying to put him in as much, like it was with every other newcomer announced.
Of course, if it were me in full control, I'd have no examples whatsoever so these edits would never occur in the first place. But that might be unencyclopedic.
And Wario is from the Warioware series. It's their own fault if they don't know that, not ours.Satoryu (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Evrey other new Character is already from a series in the game. Just because Wario bears his Warioware suit, he still has his plumber suit to. Wario is apart of the mario series. Like I could say, "Oh Peach is representing the Super Princess Peach series. Captain Olimar is representing a newer series to SSB, So I think Captain Olimar should be up there. And no one said to remove Pit, he belongs there too, and King Dedede is apart of the Kirby series.Onepiece226 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

Bunk argument. The series every character represents on the official website is clearly displayed by their icon. Yoshi is not listed with the Mario characters; his icon is the egg that represents the Yoshi's Island/Story series. Wario is not listed with the Mario characters; his icon is the W symbol representative of Wario Ware. Arrowned (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are an expected 40-50 characters in Brawl. If we were to mention every one of them, the entire paragraph would be huge and therefore, non-encyclopedic. We will mention the following:

Mario, because he is Nintendo's main mascot.

Sonic, because he is a very unique 3rd party inclusion

Solid Snake, being another 3rd party character

Fox and Link, because of their new designs. (Nothing more)

Samus, due to Zero suit. (Nothing More)

Simply put, only those currently on the page and a new 3rd party character should be there. No more. --haha169 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but remember, both Yoshi and Wario, even though their symbols represent different series of games, THEY ALL COME FROM THE MARIO SERIES!, but Pikmin and Captain Olimar are not from any series but there own, so Wario still should be offOnepiece226 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

Your argument is still moot. We don't care where they originally came from. We only care about what series icon they're represented by in Brawl.Satoryu (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but Captain Olimar is from a way newer series to Brawl than Wario. Like Pit and Sonic and Snake, his series has never been in the game before. And so is Wario Ware but cmon, Wario was wayy more expected than Captain Olimar and I think Pikmin is a much newer series to be apartOnepiece226 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

It doesn't matter how new he is. To us, Olimar is no more important than any of the others. We will not include examples based on personal preference.Satoryu (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

40 to 50 characters are you insane? maybe 35. Onistly it doesn't matter as long as CO is on the playable characters list it shouldn't matterBaconBoy914 (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Game Arts is the developer of Brawl.

- 96.2.26.232 (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That was added to the article a good several minutes before you posted it here, thanks. And for the record, they are not said to be "Brawl's developer"; Sakurai just said he "secured staff" from their group to help. In other words, they joined the already set up Brawl team. So the official development studio's name is still unknown. Arrowned (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, the same article says that there was no named team. It was an ad-hoc team just for one project.--Henke37 (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sakurai did say, and I copy+paste: "we decided to leave the main part of preliminary development to (Game Arts) while we began to hire remaining staff" so while they don't make up the entire development team, they have contributed to development and should be listed as co-developers along with "Ad-hoc studio" or just "The Studio" if Misplaced Pages prefers. -199.126.62.64 (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I took it that they raided Game Arts (with GA's approval, of course) when GA didn't need the personnel and took them over to Sora to work on the game. I'd figure that we'll find out who developed the game once it's out in Japan at the end of the month. --Son (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Its looks to me as if Games Arts are the primary developer of Brawl, not Sora. --stevo1000 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All Sakurai says is that Game Arts had some staff who weren't doing anything and that those staff did the preliminary development while Sakurai hired other staff. Nothing in there about "raiding" GA and taking their personnel. -199.126.62.64 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear "the Studio" Sakurai referred to is GameArts... however there's so many new Nintendo hires on the team as well that they should also be listed as a developer, as well as Sora.69.243.141.41 (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

( more days please wait till then.--DarkFierceDeityLink 00:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Game Arts is definitely not the developer of Brawl. I read the interview, and it clearly states that they offered help in the form of personnel. HAL Laboratory offered help in the form of codes, but they're not "The Studio". Simple as that.

So let me repeat: GAME ARTS IS NOT THE DEVELOPER OF BRAWL. --haha169 (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What a headache, as if writing up a lot of the main development info myself wasn't hard enough, now this. The news just never stop!

1. Sora — Besides the director, it was never stated to my knowledge of anyone from Nintendo saying the Sora dev. team is working on this. It is always a possibility, but I believe that this is an assumption which should be avoided until more information arise.
2. "The Studio" — Right now leaning towards changing "The Studio" to Ad hoc studio. Indeed that "particular team" Miyamoto introduced is in fact Game Arts, however this bit of news raised more questions than answers like; (1) out of the total number of individuals who are responsible for the production of this game, how many of them are from Game Arts, (2) what other "outside staff" are working on this? « ₣M₣ » 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Other staff could just mean Nintendo contributors such as art teams from other projects (i.e.: Twilight Princess) and the localization staff of NOA and NOE. It's pretty clear to me that Game Arts is the majority developer responsible for the actual grunt work in the game, and the company will most likely receive billing for its involvement since it's not like they just loaned out a couple of interns after Grandia III was finished.--75.92.186.211 (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

While you may be correct, we won't be changing the article until it's absolutely clear, which likely won't be until the game's release in Japan. Arrowned (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Game Arts was "The Studio", simply that they be recognized as having handled the preliminary development. Sakurai outright stated that the Game Arts staff did the preliminary development therefore they should be recognized as developers along with "The Studio" or "Ad-hoc studio" -199.126.62.64 (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no room for discussion. Game Arts IS the developer of Super Smash Bros. Brawl. The end. http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50892 Not just preliminary development either. If you can read then use your reading skills and read this very carefully "in an extensive interview between Nintendo president Satoru Iwata and Super Smash Bros. series creator and designer Masahiro Sakurai, it was revealed that Tokyo-based Game Arts, developer of the Lunar and Grandia RPG series, handled a BULK of the development of Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Wii)." Emphasis on the word 'BULK'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.100.143 (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, on the old Dojo site, it is mentioned that "The Studio" (Game Arts) is at the "core" of the dev. team. How can that be misinterpreted if you put this and this together? Heck, their both on page 3! :D Game Arts started working on the game while more staff was being hired. btw, I've adjusted the VG Infobox above. As far as that link is concerned IP, its honestly nothing new, after all the director said years ago "The Studio" is at the "nucleus". You got Game Arts, a number of musicians from various companies, the remaining staff that obviously are not part of Game Arts and the director from Sora along with the comment from Iwata and I quote, "I think it’s quite unique to conduct hiring specifically for one game". How is this not an Ad hoc studio? In conclusion, I do not see what is wrong with using what I currently placed in the Infobox. « ₣M₣ » 15:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add in game arts in some capacity at the blurb box. Stating just "the studio" still, especially now that we have more info on who worked on the project isn't right. I'd agree with user FMF above in that even if we were just to say it was an Adhoc studio + people for game arts, would be a lot clearer than just saying "The Studio"; I actually thought the developer's name was "The Studio". Haracas (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Game Arts is the developer of Brawl., cont. (arbitrary break)

There's no doubt that Game Arts is A developer. But we don't yet know if it's THE developer of Brawl and/or "The Studio." We should not touch the info box until information becomes a little clearer.Satoryu (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Director: So it was that Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto introduced me to a "particular team" that had just completed a large-scale game. Until the day comes when I can announce the team's name, I shall simply refer to them as "The Studio". (2005)

President: We were introduced to this company by Miyamoto-san. You can share the name if you like.
Director: Oh, okay. It was Game Arts. It was just after they had finished Grandia III and they told us that they had some staff free. (2008)

Due to those quotes, I really do not understand what is there to discuss. « ₣M₣ » 02:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Satoryu says the truth. Game Arts is a developer, but we need to figure out who "The Studio" is. Since Game Arts provided personnel, they are a developer. HAL Laboratory provided game codes, but no one is arguing if they are a developer or not, so obviously, we need to figure out who "The Studio" is before we touch that info box. --haha169 (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, ok "a particular team that had just completed a large-scale game" which was Grandia III. "Until the day comes when I can announce the team's name", Iwata pretty much gave the director permission to share the name. All in all using the above infobox, does not mean it can be wrong in the future since "The Studio" is part of a team hired "specifically for one game with no guarantee of employment once the project was finished". If there is anyone else like Game Arts worth mentioning simply place it under/above Game Arts, removing "The Studio" and using the above does not make it wrong. « ₣M₣ » 19:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The quotes above definately point to Game Arts being the studio that Sakurai talked about in 2005, however it isn't directly stated that they are "The Studio". Plus Sakurai did mention that they hired additional staff specifically for the game. I'm leaning towards keeping "The Studio"/Ad-hoc studio and adding in GameArts as per the above info box. -199.126.62.64 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if every reliable source out there says otherwise, if that is what everyone else can agree on, so be it. Although I would like to point out it was stated in the quote, "the team's name", not "the name of those team's". « ₣M₣ » 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there won't be a formal name (i.e., EAD Tokyo) for Sakurai's temporary team of Nintendo and GameArts employees, I think Nintendo and GameArts should be listed as the developers. 69.243.141.41 (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But we don't know there won't be a formal name. We won't know that until someone can read the developer credits off the Japanese release's box. Arrowned (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Determining whether or not we should use YouTube

Template:RFCpolicy Someone already has a leaked copy of the game and uploaded brief seconds of the character selection as well as choosing Link

If do remember correctly when Halo 3 was leaked we were allowed to use the videos to write the plot details of the game. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to say that that is the game, and not just something someones made!  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So we can't use a video Nintendo released, but a YouTube video is considered authentic? Oh double standard, I knew you well. Anyways, it doesn't prove / show anything that's relevant to the article. Coreycubed (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We can and have used nintendo videos, not in this article but the series article. When DK was glimpesed he was included, as are Jigglypuff, lucarto and ness now.→041744 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We won't use the starting roster, and we most certainly won't use it from a crappy video like that.Satoryu (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on, but, just based in policy, we shouldn't be citing YouTube in the first place -it's too easy to doctor a video and YouTube does not verify the truth of its videos anyhow. -Jéské 19:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's right, YouTube is an unverifiable source and should not be used as a reference. QuasiAbstract (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted pictures of that and it was taken off anyway what does this have to do with the article?--DarkFierceDeityLink 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, its not, not in any wikipedia article do we mention which and what characters are starters/unlockables. We only host the starting # and the total #. Just by that this is disscussion is useless to improve the article.→041744 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't call me out for a hypocrite considering the Joystiq link still uses the non-edited version of the video. Seeing as we're still using an unreliable site such as Joystiq, I proposed YouTube and what should be done in regards to leak information. Is is relevant to the article's future, Anyone remember the big 'spoilerfest' that was going to occur with CoroCoro and what discussions happened here prior to the issue? This was the same, although some users have taken it to call out hypocrite while they themselves are.--HeaveTheClay (UTC)--HeaveTheClay

Personally, I have no problem with the argument you restarted (if not its timing, since we were already relatively done); you were questioning consensus, which is allowed. Such is life, and such is Misplaced Pages life. My only real irk is why you consider Joystiq to be unreliable. Arrowned (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If your still upset about the playable list get over it, its proof. The maker of super smash brothers made that video which counts as confirmation of Lucario, Ness and Jiggly. )If your not regard this.)--DarkFierceDeityLink 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely cannot comprehend if you're being serious or not but you gotta stop acting underage if you're going try to talk to me. This whole "YOU'RE UPSET ABOUT THIS SO AND SO" is an underage kiddo routine and quite frankly I'm not up to it at the moment to even bother with your crap. You're not helping this discussion by going for or against with any previous points and I take your comment like a stalker behavior.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't acted upset on this page so kindly shut the hell up. I have no reason for being upset but if you lack the mentality for knowing my actions on the Smash Bros series page then you really should stop talking to me. I'm asking you now to stop trying to troll me. Grow up.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

He believes dojo is the only source when i told him it wasn't he got mad and undid all the playable list please some one tell him that the Nintendo video is reliable.--DarkFierceDeityLink 23:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't care anymore to argue for YouTube or not, this has gone off-topic because a certain troll has decided to remove any criticism he gets for bothering me. I'm not answering anything until my original messages which he removed are restored. This user has been doing this since this morning.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read enough, I'm not going to play your troll game. This is a waste of time and space. I'm not promoting your attitude and stalker behavior and I'm asking someone else to remove this seeing as this is jut a personal play area for DeityLink to harass and troll me.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to butt in by saying since when do we only rely on official websites for sources? That video was originally released by Nintendo and was replaced by a new one after the realized they goofed. There's only about a week left before the game gets released in Japan, we should know son enough if these characters will be in the game and if so, I hope every disbelievers will have the balls to state that they were wrong. Duhman0009 (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Since people started asking stuipid questions and bringing up rumors monthes ago (not you). THe offical nintendo video is true (Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)#Character reveal) but it is not relevant to this article. Look at the characters section, we don't even mention every character! We have the table on the Super Smash Bros. (series) page for the sole porpose of ridding the game articles of listing every character. And there already the 3 characters are checked on the table becuase of the nintendo video. this disscussion is pointless to this article.→041744 13:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Understandable, the SSBB characters do have their own article (a privilege), no need to bombard the game article with charts if that's the case. Also, if the 3 characters are on the SSBB character page, no need to go into edit wars to place them on the main article, that's not what it's all about. Both Ness and Jigglypuff are vets to the series and that other one is not a huge announcement like Sonic or Snake, it's just a Pokemon, there was bound to have some new ones in that game. Duhman0009 (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Article protected, dispute resolution needed before protection is to be lifted.

I have fully protected this article against editing. In less than 24 hours, three posts to WP:ANI have appeared demanding that one editor or another associated with this article be blocked for actions on either the article or the talk page. This is going to stop one way or another. The protection will remain in place until dispute resolution is complete. I am filing a report at Requests for Comment seeking additional third party uninvolved comments on the situation. If that does not work, Mediation will be attempted. This nonsense will stop. This action is not an endorsement of one side in the conflict or another, nor is it a finding of fault with either side, but it is an attempt to encourage the sides of the conflict to cease the unproductive bickering that is going on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment initiated

Template:RFCmedia Three ANI reports have been filed by both sides of this dispute, and this situation needs to be mediated by outside, uninvolved editors. As an administrator, I am filing this as a neutral, uninvolved party, and only wish to see all editors involved return to productive editing. The article will remain protected until the dispute is resolved. Please carefully consider the article history and the article talk history before making comments.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do something with this user HeaveTheClay he's up to no good i'm undoing off topic thing and he restores them please do something.--DarkFierceDeityLink 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for that, take it some-place else.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No. There will be no more demands to block this user or stop that user. Such demands are disruptive. I recommend that all edits to this article and this talk page be stopped until uninvolved editors from WP:RFC come to comment from an outside perspective. If this talk page degenerates into further personal attacks, or comments continue to be removed, expect further action to stop those disruptions. This is to all people involved in the dispute; do not make demands that admins block one user or another for anything at this point. Let dispute resolution work its course, and let this lie for a while. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the WP:RFC Jayron. I posted one yesterday, but it was removed. Hopefully someone(s) will come in and help. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 02:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I just realized this isn't Super Smash Bros. (series). I was talking about a completely different article. O.O <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 02:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone may want to post a brief summary about what the dispute is so people are a bit more aware of what they are suppose to be commentating on. --Sin Harvest (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the dispute is between two users who decided to constantly revert each other's edits. Since this is an unreleased video game, there is a lot of speculation and debate circulating around. A mediator would probably want to begin by calming them down, then provide ideas in which both users could contribute to the article peacefully. I’m no mediator, so I can’t come up with good ideas. I hope this helped. --haha169 (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Release Date

When not loged in the release date reads Febuary 10 still. When logged in it then changes to the correct release date. Cansomeone fix or explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.69.44 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't happen to me. Try refreshing your cache (Ctrl+F5).—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Or you could just clear it, but that's harder to do.
Blindman shady 15:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-block discussion forum

We've decidedly had some difficulties here lately, however they are not things that can't be overcome. I have cordially invited both DFDL and HTC to participate in some productive discussion here. I encourage both users to embrace the following suggestions when posting:

• Please remain civil.
• The past is exactly that, the past. Leave it at the door.
• Be constructive, clear and concise in describing what you would like to accomplish.
• NO REVERT WARRING. 3 Revert Rule applies dynamically.
• Try to work towards concensus, or at the least, compromise.

Let's start with this; what is it that each of you would like to see in the article, and how would you like to implement it? Please bear in mind that it should be of encyclopedic value, pertain to the subject of the article, and be well-worded. I also encourage you to not make any preemptive changes to the article without discussing it here first, as we do NOT want to have to re-block it just as soon as this block comes down... Edit Centric (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll throw out my comment. I think some people are kind of over-protective of keeping the article exactly the way they want it, ruining the whole "Anyone can edit" thing. If instead of constantly fighting against adding info, maybe we could work to get it in the article in an organized, informing way? Ragingtsunami726 (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, as Edit Centric has said above, it is unhelpful to comment on past actions by anybody. The protection will be lifted when his requirements above have been met by all editors. Everyone is aware of the old problems. They are old problems. Lets be forward thinking. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that previous editors have done a great job on this article. Unless big news is released in the DOJO site or other reliable sources, I believe there is not much need of editing.

Of course, if there is any grammar issues, we should fix it, but aside from that, I am perfectly conservative for this article. I don't support the addition of every new character announced on the DOJO site or a "Leaks" section. --haha169 (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the same group, and that's why I initially semi'd this article - people were too busy adding all the minutiae. -Jéské 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of what was going on in regards to the main article, nor do I want to talk much about the past. I made a small discussion about what should be done with YouTube leaks. When CoroCoro was going to have their big Brawl information issue on December there was a discussion primarily focused on how that information should be used. That's all I set out to do, just wanting to hear if we could use YouTube leaks in some way to write out plot summaries to some extent. What occurred was that the other editor went into the discussion and brought up a dispute from another article. To which I replied multiple times and he removed my comments. That's the cause for the revert war, I'm sure some of you can look into the rest.

Going back to the other point, yes I did engage on a small edit war on the Smash Bros. series but eventually that was resolved and I helped clean up some of the wording as a result. I just want to see any new information properly sourced, I also want to apologize (again) for the block due to my hasty action on the Admin noticeboard. And some editors believe that once a discussion is closed it remains closed. Consensus is there for a reason, when I brought up my motive for removing the information from Smash Bros. (series) I was told that it was over and I couldn't have my say, I found it obnoxious and elitist. That needs to stop on all Brawl articles, hear what people have to say and don't use the generic "consensus" was reached to shut people out.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's a fair statement, and I'm glad that you felt you could share that with us. We're still awaiting DFDL's comments, but what I CAN provide as a disinterested, third-party is that revert warring, no matter what it's based on, is still considered "verbotten", and that each of us needs to be the better person, and rise above that type of tactic to get our message across, and our edits applied. In the future, you might want to try using the Bold, Revert, Discuss approach if it applies, and avoid revert warring and running afoul of the Three Revert Rule, if the other party wants to "speed down the highway", let them get stopped down the road. As long as you know that you are doing the right thing, you're standing on solid ground. In addition, never be hasty when doing anything in Wiki, the patient edit is always the better edit. (But you already knew that! :-D ) Edit Centric (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ssbbrawl3.jpg

Image:Ssbbrawl3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. bibliomaniac15 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New Brawl development detail

The Sakurai interview at reveals that Kazushige Nojima, writer for several Final Fantasy titles, was called in to help with the Subspace Emissary scenario. Can someone incorporate this into the article? 216.80.38.172 (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't add it to article just yet, do to the fact that it's protected.----Lbrun12415 07:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting article

Given that it appears that all parties to the former conflict are stepping up to the table, and appear to be willing to now work out their differences here on the talk page, I am presently unprotecting the article. This is not a liscence to return to the former bad behavior, but rather an act of good faith that said behavior has stopped forever, and the formerly embattled parties are now willing to work together constructively. Please continue to work under the guidance of Edit Centric, and please continue to behave civilly. Good luck and happy editing. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Masterpieces

We gotta add something about that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.9.105 (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. It's the subject of today's DOJO!! entry. NF24 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it's connection with the Virtual console be noted, as it's a sampler for games available on there?  Doktor  Wilhelm  13:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, especially since DOJO!! mentions that if you run out of time, you have to buy the full version in the Wii Shop. NF24 13:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Who thinks this will be in other games? After all, a handful of 1st party games have system updates on the disc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.9.105 (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The end of game screen shown states that the player will be returned to Brawl, so it's got nothing to do with updates (as if it was uploaded to the Wii console the Brawl disc would have to be in o play them), it seem it will just be a collection of demos on the game disc its self (which is a shame), there may even be games that arn't available on the VC. Though the statement of "for the first time ever, you can play trial versions of these games by the miracle of Virtual Console!" seems a bit cofusing, specially with: "You won’t need to be connected with Nintendo WFC to play these games." stated later. I'm confused now!?  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget. The Japanese Dojo showed MOTHER 2/SNES EarthBound and Fire Emblem: Monshō no Nazo, which could mean that the demo versions of them are only in the Japanese version. However, it is unknown whether or not that Nintendo divisions outside of Japan will let gamers try those two games out. Parrothead1983 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But hold on, let's not put anything in the article about having to buy the games after time is up. I'm sure sakurai wouldn't make something in brawl where you could only play once or twice and then it would become obsolete. In fact, it does say that you can try to beat your times and how far you can go, meaning you can play as many times as you want, but there is a time limit and u have to see how far you can get. Oh, and unless Earthbound is only in the Japan version of the game, that's kinda like further proof for Ness in Brawl. Don't comment on that last part, I'm just sayin'. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I heavily believe that a list of Masterpiece demos on the page is unnecessary for the same reason we keep all lists (characters/stages/AT's/etc) off this page. A note about the demos themselves is quite alright; this is a significant addition to the game, something neither 64 nor Melee had. But a list of them is just going to eventually make the page unwieldy and cluttered, especially once Brawl is released and we can see how many are there. Arrowned (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

S'why I just nuked it <3 Coreycubed (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

looks better like that, well done!  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Final edit warring warning

Well, I have had enough of all this edit warring. I have blocked Rikara (talk · contribs) for a pretty uncivil comment. A thing I hate is edit warring through edit summaries: we have talk pages to discuss, not the article itself. The game is nearing its release, and we all are a bit excited. However, reverting each other only makes things worse. If this happens again, I will fully protect the article until the release date so that only facts are added to it. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should so that doesn't happen again. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm for protecting Super Smash Bros. Brawl, AND Super Smash Bros. (series) until Brawls Release. It's been chaotic here since we're so close to the japanese release anyways. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I've not added to the articles in question, but I've seen what's been going on with my own eyes! I think protecting the page would be a good idea!  Doktor  Wilhelm  23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My original comment was written while I was on the Wii. Now I can go into further detail since I'm on the computer. You know when the block is up, Rikara is going to come back here with another "reliable leak" and continue to add it. I think protecting the article until the 31st would be a great idea. Of course, if we get a new character next week, it will have to be added by an admin. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You and Jeske are admins, so That shouldn't be a problem. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

...I'm not an admin. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

...I could have sworn you were. O_o Well...Jeske is still an admin, so theres still not a problem. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it'd be a better idea to protect it a few days beyond the 31st. There's going to be loads of fake rosters that day, and it would take us a few days to gather all the legit information that needs to be added to the article as necessary changes anyways. Feb. 2 or 3 perhaps? Arrowned (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the full protection here. If something absolutely NEEDS to be added, you can use {{editprotected}}. I'd advocate protection until 14th February. Not only is the unprotection date easy to remember, but it gives everyone a nice three weeks to cool down and most casual vandals will likely get disinterested. NF24 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I also blocked 67.171.14.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (apparently Rikara). I am one of those who always assume good faith and believe people can change, so I would give everyone another opportunity of cooperating (even though the characters article is already fully protected). If Rikara comes back and continues the edit warring, I will just block him/her until the release date. Should not be difficult to spot the disruptive editor. If another war edit between other editors break, though, I will protect the article until release date. My actions can always be reviewed by another admin, who can fully protect the article now if necessary. Anyone can go to WP:RFPP and request an extended protection at any time. Given the history of edit warring, it may be granted immediately. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think that this article should be blocked until at least February 22008. By then, we should have all the facts straight, and no more fake rosters circulating around. --haha169 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree at this point. I have attempted to set the standard for behaviour here with DFDL (now editing as Lbrun12415), and HeaveTheClay (Hide nor hair since the blocks...). Other editors have not seemed to get the point. This is just a game, hardly the Holy Grail of gaming in general either. So yes, until the title is released, I support a lock of the article, so that admin action is required to make a change. Edit Centric (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class video game articles
• Low-importance video game articles
• WikiProject Video games articles
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review