Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl

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

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^{(radio me!)} 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)

Protected per Request

Per request of the community I have Protected this article until February 14. Jeepday (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For those who still don't know, use {{editprotected}} to add a note in the talk page requesting a change to the article. I would suggest getting some consensus before adding large new content (say, if MegaMan is announced today, get the paragraph with the description done and not ask for an edit protected every minute just because you forgot to mention something). And whenever you think the article won't be violated again, just go to WP:RFPP and request the unprotection. And if you want, you can create a sandbox to format new sections or changes instead of doing it here. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Created New Archive

Old discussions have all been cleared, and page has reached a length. --haha169 (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Try not to archive topics that may be active again (especially topics that have been edited only hours ago) as it may give the impression you are cutting the discussion flow. Also, please use edit summaries, or others will think it is vandalism. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing me. I'm aware of my mistake now, since someone left a message for me. It was quite careless, in my opinion. I think it slipped my mind at the last moment. --haha169 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and also, the history, I believe, showed that either the topics hadn't been discussed for a while, or they had been resolved, except for the one I saved above. --haha169 (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Question for next character in Brawl

Now that the article can only be edited by admins, that means that normal users like myself cannot edit this page, correct? Anyway, I just wanted to ask, if a new character is revealed on the dojo website, and that character happens to be a third party character like MegaMan, how will we be able to edit him in?

Also, I've just heard that all of the characters on the dojo website (except for the third-party characters, as it's said that they'll be hidden characters) are the official starter characters in the game. I don't know if this is official, but whether or not a first party character gets in the game, we're not updating this article for him/her. We only update it if a new third party character like MegaMan gets in the game. Correct? Sorry, I want things clarified for me and many other users. Thanks!

WiiDS (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Scroll up and read the last paragraph in the Protected per Request discussion above; it explains how edits are made when the page is on full lockdown. Arrowned (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, they locked it again? It was unlocked for a brief moment. I'm going to go see what happened...curiosity killed the cat. I hope that doesn't happen to me. --haha169 (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If something needs to be edited in that badly before the article is unprotected, you can pretty much guarantee that someone who knows how or has permission to edit the article will do it before you get there. If it's not pertinent to the article (such as listing the starting roster), don't bother bringing it up here. Plus, if it's speculation, it'll just be reverted anyways. Coreycubed (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction

Under Game play, Stages, the text reads that the game is 3-D, but the characters are unable to move along the z-axis. Actually, in the common representation of Cartesian co-ordinates, the z-axis is vertical, and the y-axis measures depth. The characters cannot move into or out of the screen, that is, they cannot move along the y-axis. This is easy to confuse as the y-axis is generally vertical in 2-D co-ordinate systems. I think the obvious solution is not to refer to the stage in terms of its axes, and just say 'the characters may only move horizontally and vertically'. This is far less ambiguous and confusing. I don't know how to get an edit approved for a locked article, someone else do it :).--Erik the guy (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. If the article doesn't define where the axes lie, it shouldn't refer to them.219.79.114.119 (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. In the future, please use the {{editprotected}} template here with an explanation of the edit you want performed. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Sora the developer?

http://www.nintendo.co.uk/NOE/en_GB/games/wii/super_smash_bros_brawl_2785.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.5.150 (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. And on a Nintendo site too! However, I think we'll still have to just wait a while. We'll find out the truth soon! --haha169 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And here we have another source that is supporting the ad-hoc team idea: http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/ssbb/vol7_page3.jsp

"Even the development team itself is comprised of members that came together unexpectedly solely for this project..."--Henke37 (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Kazushige Nojima as Subspace Emissary Scenario Writer

{{editprotected}} I believe Kazushige Nojima should be named underneath Masahiro Sakurai in the Designers section underneath the game's boxart. The official interview by Satoru Iwata names him (in conjunction with Masahiro Sakurai) as the scenario writers for the Subspace Emissary. I'd therefore like to have
[[Masahiro Sakurai]] (director, scenario writer<ref name="IwataAsksSubspace"/>)<br />[[Kazushige Nojima]] (scenario writer<ref name="IwataAsksSubspace"/>)
in that box. "IwataAsksSubspace" is defined later in the article, so I hope it will work as a reference. Thanks! --pie4all88 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody objects? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't. Most video game articles tend to list director, producer, scenario writer, composer, and other such credits in their main infoboxes. This addition only makes sense. Arrowned (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have moved the references around since they are meant to be used after punctuation marks. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, though I just realized I forgot to include the link to Game director, which I kind of liked. I don't see any articles on scenario writers, unfortunately. Anyways, thanks for the prompt attention! --pie4all88 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Most infoboxes just link it as "scenario writer" or "original scenario concept" since the job itself has no article. Arrowned (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Release Date 2

According to DOJO, the release date was changed again. It will come out on March 9th. --User:Mkalv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.85.237 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link:[1]--User:Mkalv

We know, and have known for weeks. The article was updated the day it was announced. Refresh your cache if you're seeing the old date. Arrowned (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, somebody went and updated it before it was announced, since I was on Wikipedia before that fatal 11:00 PT, and it was already changed. But in any case, it was the correct date, so I left it as is. --haha169 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It was me actually. XD
Blindman shady 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

What has happened to require full protection on the page? As well, when the website starts releasing more updates on the game's development progress on weekdays, will we have to notify an admin so THEY can edit the page, if the update is notable enough to be included (examples of this would include more confirmed characters, or new playing modes)? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only lots of IP and registered user vandalism, but a nasty edit war that ended with one user getting blocked yesterday for a week. The article is fully protected until 14th February, hopefully everyone can cool down by then. NF24^{(radio me!)} 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rikara (talk · contribs) is due back today, actually. He was only blocked for 31 hours, not a week. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

ick! I hope everyone cools off by then, too. as for the edits, if any new information comes up, i'll shove it on the front of my user page as a temporary holding place until the protection is removed or reduced. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to read that edit war? It was a long week... Actually, there were 2 edit wars. The one linked above was bad. Plus, we reached a decision that we wouldn't add anymore confirmed characters to this article unless its a new third party. --haha169 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I'm not one to go against consensus (except in extremely rare cases), so i'll follow what you guys are doing. Upon reading the edit war...my goodness. all i can say is "The Ego Has Landed!" from all the Personal attacks and lack of civility when it's needed the most from all sides. i was particularly surprised by the person that said wikipedia is not a "whorehouse of information". completely unexpected. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering...is it absolutely necessary for this article to be blocked until mid-February? By then, everyone will know all the real information, and not even Rikara can say his information is true, (if it isn't). I think it should be pushed earlier a bit. --haha169 (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the other purpose of the 14th February end date is so everyone can have time to calm down, what with the recent edit war and all. If the article was only protected a week, then the edit war could start up again. Three weeks also deters most casual vandals because they don't want to wait that long to edit. It also acts as damage control because now all edits must be screened by admins - hopefully, that means no more unsourced crap. NF24^{(radio me!)} 13:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

After having read that edit war, I partially agree. Don't think that it should be protected for as long as it will be, but I still understand where this is coming from. But I do fear that if, by chance, Rikara (talk · contribs) does end up being right, he may cause more trouble. Temporary Text, will change after exams. Apologies for any inconveniance 14:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 14:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Game Arts

Why does the Smash Bros. Series article use Game Arts and this article uses "the Studio" as the Developer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.102.73 (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't know for sure who's exactly coding the video game. It could be HAL Labratories, Sora Ltd., or Game Arts, as those are the three most-likely developers, but nothing's confirmed yet. Nintendo's webpage is hinting that Sora is the developer, or at least developing it with Game Arts. I can pull up the URL in a second... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the series article does not call Game Arts the developer and only states that some members were borrowed to help work on the game. --69.156.206.112 (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, 69.156.206.112 :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Read it:

"Iwata We were introduced to this company by Miyamoto-san. You can share the name if you like.

Sakurai 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. So, we decided to leave the main part of preliminary development to them while we began to hire remaining staff. We did so by looking for people specifically for the Smash Bros. Brawl title. "

This fits with the quote from "How this game came to be made" that says the same studio that is working on Smash Bros. had just finished a major product and was introduced to Sakurai by Miyamoto. At the very least, Game Arts is confirmed to be the main developer. 75.152.155.200 (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, here's the quote from the old website: " 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.""

"The studio" is confirmed to be Game Arts. So either it should be changed to say "Unknown", or it should say "Game Arts", since this definitely confirms that the quote unquote studio is Game Arts. 75.152.155.200 (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you like quoting so much, here's some more:

• It turned out that Nintendo would build a new team around me in Tokyo.
• So, with the members of The Studio as our core, we dramatically increased our staff members.

Fascinating, is it not?--141.84.69.20 (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "The Studio" is confirmed to be Game Arts. Both Famitsu and the Iwata Asks articles say that Game Arts was the group that Sakurai was introduced to. But, Game Arts only constitutes one part of the group making the game. I think we should change "The Studio" to just say that it's by various groups. There's no single name that covers everyone. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that there's no source for claiming that Game Arts is the developer and not Sora Ltd., why not just wait until the game is released? We'll know then. --Coreycubed (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you perhaps read what I wrote again? I think you misunderstood what I meant. We can't say "The Studio" now, because "The Studio" = Game Arts. We should change it to just say it's by various groups, because there's no name that covers it as a whole. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't what you wrote that I misunderstood. I had forgotten that the old site had said it so specifically. In my mind, I'm remembering the following quote: "In other words, we would create a new studio." to be the reference to The Studio. Yet, it is clearly stated later on that page that the use of The Studio is in reference to Game Arts. (The above quotes are also accurate, but I somehow missed the boat there as well.) In that case, you are correct that The Studio can no longer be used as a placeholder, as it was described by Sakurai as such to prevent revelation of Game Arts' role. It needs to be changed to something else, but what? --Coreycubed (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well, none of us have any idea on how Brawl is going to be credited. It could be a list of all the companies that collaborated, or, a new studio name that consists of all those companies.

Maybe we should write "Ad hoc Studio" and cite all the quotes used here, and the Development section(if that's permitted) and/or all citations used in that section. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Also see what I tried to bring up here. « ₣M₣ » 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I read that, but I was having a bad day at work and forgot about it. I agree with that approach pending full release of a developer's title. --Coreycubed (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just change "The Studio" to "TBA"? --(trogga) 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be so bad to put Sora Ltd and Game Arts if people wanted to change the name that desperately before it comes out? BudokaZ 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The back of the game box lists Sora as the developer. I can provide a photo shortly. Coreycubed (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother providing the photo. Here it is: http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4962/boxart2yg8.png

http://brawlcentral.com/images/news/2008_01_28(1).jpg E.M. talk ● contribs 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Game Arts (Cont.)

I have to ask: What is that logo underneath Sora, then? Plus, that second picture is small and unreadable. At this moment, the UK Brawl site (linked above) has a better chance of cite then this picture. --haha169 (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Havok engine. Since no one can agree on even using a term to describe everyone involved, this discussion, as already mentioned, needs to be placed to hold until the game comes out or until a reliable source has the full staff credit information. « ₣M₣ » 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Vault

Masterpieces should be moved to the Vault section. 1 or 2 sentences should be said about Chronicles, Replays and the Album. Stage Builder should be talked about here instead of in the Wi-fi section. Spectator Mode should be mentioned in Wi-fi not here. I think stickers and trophies are talked about too much here. CDs have got nothing to do with the Vault and should be removed. M4192 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

All valid points. My Music, and CDs by extension, are a subsection of Options and should be placed in an Options section. As I have time, I'll draft a rewrite of the appropriate sections. Coreycubed (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Before you or anyone rewrite anything, take a look at the Melee page which has recently reached GA, but failed its FA nom. The whole "Group", "Solo", etc may eventually have to be renamed to something more... suitable if it wants to pass, the last thing that is needed is a section called "Options". « ₣M₣ » 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Masterpieces should not have its own section but remember that the info in your first sentence was just added today on the dojo and should be discussed first so someone doesn't edit without any logical thought or plan to incorporate it neatly LukewarmHoliday (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it should be changed post-haste. It feels kind of weird having a section about everything in Vault and then a separate section (which isn't really filled with too much info to be a proper section)for Masterpieces when Masterpieces are IN Vault. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, the article's full-protted. I'd do it myself but I don't get off of work for another hour. Coreycubed (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want it changed quickly:{{editprotected}}

NF24^{(radio me!)} 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're well aware of the {{editprotected}} tag, but you just inserted it onto the page without asking for a specific edit to be performed. The reason we haven't done so yet, is because this is a substantial rewrite, and needs to be drafted beforehand so the editing administrator only has to make one change.--Coreycubed (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that full game details are being released, we'll probably stave that rewrite off pending a full revision of the article after the majority of the info is out. Coreycubed (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

HAL labs is developing Brawl and I have confirmation

Check out this vid. It confirms marth and ness and that HAL is developing brawl if you look at it at the end.[2]--Smashbrosboy (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it need not be mentioned that the video also confirms Marth and Ness. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 04:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC) <removed editprotected tag pending consensus>

Developer HAL labs. Reference [3]--Smashbrosboy (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you aren't seriously trying to cite YouTube. Anyways, where does that say that HAL is the developer? It says that HAL holds copyrights along with Nintendo; they do. Coreycubed (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed the tag. I'd like to get a second opinion before we chuck that in; it's a good start though. Coreycubed (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For those that don't get how HAL holds the copyright, remember that the game is not completely written from scratch, they used the meleé codebase as a start.--Henke37 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This video is perfectly reliable (even if it is on youtube). However, HAL Labs does hold copyright, so its not a good cite. P.S. I don't see Marth. --haha169 (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's reliable, that's not the point. Also, Marth is at 1:29 and 1:44. Coreycubed (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridely was in the intro for melee, but was not a playable character.--Henke37 (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point in the game, since the game is out now, there's no need for citations. Unless you want to cite the game itself.Satoryu (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Ah...I see! Go Marth! Plus, those images on Luigi in Brawlcentral look incredibly legit. Hopefully, Isaac will appear in the midst of this massive leak fest. --haha169 (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC) The video is also on Gametrailers, and is listed as the opening movie. [4] I like to think that's a more 'reliable' source. But then again, as I think I've said before, is everyone really that desperate to edit the page this close to the games release? Marth and Ness could be NPCs...although highly unlikely. BudokaZ 10:04, 29th January 2008 (UTC)

Thats what i said when peach was first seen, so true, perhaps we can all just ignore all leaks till thrusday, then we'll have tons of japanese info.→041744 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ness and Marth have already been shown playable, but Gametrailers is almost as bad as Brawl Central -- they were using a fake roster in one of their highlight videos. Coreycubed (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

They used it to highlight there's been huge controversy on the roster front. They didn't use it as an actual list of characters...either way there's such an explosion of content going on it'd be hard to wade through it all at the moment, and also there's the question of whether or not everything is true.BudokaZ 15:05, 29th January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, I never watched the video in question. Coreycubed (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Pokemon website serebii.net also has a picture of the roster but my opinion is to wait for the Japanese version to be released first so someone at least can confirm it. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add [[is:Super smash bros. brawl]] to this site. Thank you. =) --BiT (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done bibliomaniac15 02:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Characters

Could an admn. use the character selection screen from DOJO!! as the pics in the character section. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.102.73 (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is fine, unless someone objects to using the starting roster instead of the incomplete one (in which case we'd have to wait for a verifiable shot of all 35 unlocked). Coreycubed (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets use the starting roster then On Feb 1st we change it to the full 35 roster.--Lbrun12415 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

a full roster like this one? http://s248.photobucket.com/albums/gg181/xblah/ssbm/?action=view&current=up254065.jpg 67.189.162.24 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, a full roster like this: http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/01/ssbbwolfroster.jpg . Bowser is missing on yours :P SirVenom (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just a game

Why is everyone going bananas over Brawl? All of this protection and Youtube leaks is very silly. Brawl is nothing more than Smash Bros. 1 on steroids. My main point is to reduce the article until enough valid information comes out.DeathMark (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We're going "bananas" in an attempt to protect the article until the valid information can be inserted. While some of the edit warring here has been extreme, this is still a case of editors trying to preserve Wikipedia's rules and regulations; whether the article is about a video game or World War II matters little. Arrowned (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No one's 'going bananas' -- suggest an edit to the article, or don't bring up your opinions on the talk page. In case you hadn't noticed, the article is under full-prot and hasn't been edited since yesterday. Coreycubed (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's silly and pointless. It's more pointless than people going crazy over a pen and paper game. All of this "security" is unnecessary seeing as the game IS released in Japan.DeathMark (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's released in Japan...

the opening blurb still says it's an "upcoming" game... 64.180.72.202 (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be released in Japan tomorrow. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is Jan. 31st over there.

{{editprotected}}

Please remove {{future game}} from the article. Thanks for reminding me, anon. Coreycubed (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait! It's actually one hour away from January 31 there. - 64.180.72.202 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? How do you figure? It's GMT +9, 7:39pm +9 = well beyond midnight. Coreycubed (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, I checked an old/cached paged of the Japan date and time. I should've trusted my calculation with the +9. 64.180.72.202 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jéské. Coreycubed (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Kinda makes you want to learn japanese; doesn't it? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I could read enough to figure out what was going on if I had to, but one conversational Japanese class in high school doesn't make me an expert; sadly, I fall somewhere in the crack between gaijin and weeaboo. Coreycubed (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's minor, but it still says "upcoming" in the actual opening text.

"...is an upcoming crossover fighting game to be published..." 64.180.72.202 (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jéské!

Please change the text "is an upcoming crossover fighting game" to "is a crossover fighting game". Coreycubed (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As well as anything in the text that indicates it has not been released yet. « ₣M₣ » 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Low Importance?

A mega-hyped game with tons of content, and it's LOW importance?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.29.37 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's for inclusion in a DVD or possible print version of Wikipedia. Space is limited so they need to put the important things in first. XENON54 | talk | who? 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia 1.0 is a "final" (so-to-speak) version of Wikipedia, and this game's not even out yet, and Wikipedia 1.0's been in the works for a long time. It's of Low importance to "make the cut" onto the 1.0, within the scope of WikiProject Gaming. It's of High importance within WikiProject Nintendo, however. Coreycubed (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)