Jump to content

Talk:Super Smash Bros. (video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Z1720 (talk | contribs) at 16:12, 19 January 2024 (Nominating for good article reassessment (GAR-helper)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleSuper Smash Bros. (video game) has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 18, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
April 29, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 3, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 10, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 22, 2008Good article nomineeListed
July 25, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
May 25, 2019Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article
WikiProject iconVideo games: Nintendo GA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
Note icon
This article was a past project collaboration.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Translation of title

From my user talk page:

Then the Super Smash Bros. (video game) article should be changed to "Fray" as well. The point is that the translated series name doesn't conflict with the English name of one of the games in the series. An article being denoted a good article doesn't necessarily mean all translations in the article are optimal. Zowayix001 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't find "conflicting with the English name" to be a compelling reason, given that it's not the English name, but the English translation of the Japanese name with which we are dealing. Regards being a GA, it seems preferable to keep the current translation since that name has undergone quality review (though I agree any particular fact in the article may be sub-optimally worded, placed, etc--it is still a wiki). I will ping WT:VG. --Izno (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do secondary sources call it? Also the whole Japanese portion of the lede should be relegated to a footnote—it isn't known by its Japanese name at all in English-speaking places and the first sentence of the lede is prime real estate. czar 18:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely to have a good answer to the first question; no opinion on the second point. --Izno (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's WP:USEENGLISH and WP:NCVG. Even if the "correct" translation is Fray, we go by sources. I don't recall seeing any WP:RS ever calling the game Fray. Changing seems WP:OR. --Soetermans. T / C 20:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there's an official source citing an English translation of the Japanese name, so someone had to have originally come up with it. I'm getting "Fray" from the translation the SmashWiki (ssbwiki.com) consistently uses, and I've seen that translation used many times before prior to knowing about that site. I have never ever seen "Great Melee" used before, and it's still visually jarring to see the same word used as in "Super Smash Bros. Melee" (almost always abbreviated "Melee" when talking about that one game itself). With no official source, why not just use the name translation that the most people are familiar with? Zowayix001 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought because of this remark "Then the Super Smash Bros. (video game) article should be changed to "Fray" as well." you wanted to change the article title of Super Smash Bros. to Fray, but now I think you're referring to the Japanese title in the lead of the Super Smash Bros. article, am I right? On what sources is the SSB wiki based upon? And what would suggest Fray is more common than another translation? --Soetermans. T / C 20:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm referring to the opinion that 大乱闘 in the series and game titles should be translated as "Great Fray" rather than "Great Melee". There is no official source stating which translation is 'intended' or 'correct', so someone must have separately come up with both of them out of thin air and neither is official. The best way to settle this might be to have a professional/native Japanese translator explain which is more likely closer to the original meaning. Outside of that, I'm wondering if there's any in-game text, promotional materials/advertisements, or anything else that happens to directly translate 乱闘 between the Japanese and English versions. (I recall the phrase "Enter the fray" being officially used a number of times somewhere Smash-related, but I can't remember where and wouldn't know if there's a Japanese counterpart to that phrase.) Zowayix001 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you meant wanted the article title to change, the one the above the article body, but you mean how the title is in bold in the lead. Have you tried WikiProject Japan? If you leave a message at their talk page, maybe someone there can help you out. --Soetermans. T / C 06:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Super Smash Bros. (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Legacy section

As someone pointed out in a discussion I started on WP:VG talk, the Legacy section of this article is not covering the long-lasting impact of this game, it is simply listing all the sequels. This is already covered in the main series article, which this section already refers to. I am boldly deleting this section, but have started a thread if someone objects and we can discuss. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThomasO1989 Is, in your opinion, possible to write something about the legacy of the game and reintroduce the information about his sequels? Redjedi23 (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the legacy section should cover this specific game's notability over time, or its direct influence on future games or other unrelated games. If its legacy is just "it made a bunch of sequels" then what is there is write about that isn't already covered in the main series article? ThomasO1989 (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has numerous uncited statements. The reception section is quite short, considering the amount of literature that has been written about it. I am also surprised there isn't a legacy section, considering that this is the first in a very successful video game franchise. Z1720 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon performing my own quick look at this article,
  • Release date is sourced in lead, but not in the actual article?
  • Reception is too short to conclude anything of how critics felt.
  • No legacy section, per above, which could easily be made even if it just goes over the sequels established by it. A start could be seeing if this games competitive scene has SIGCOV to warrant placement in this article, or even including some parts about the Smash Remix mod.
  • A lot of gameplay is unsourced.
  • Development seems to be okay?
If someone took the time to address the issues mentioned here and above I'm willing to change my stance but in my opinion this is a very clear Delist. λ NegativeMP1 17:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had boldly removed the legacy section because it merely lists all the sequels, which functionally makes it no different than the Super Smash Bros. series article and is thus redundant. It did not cover this particular game's legacy in the same way that Melee's Legacy section does with the its still active competitive scene. I had previously brought this up at WP:VG and the consensus seemed to agree. ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While that seems fair and I agree that it's pointless if it only lists sequels, a substantial Legacy section should still at least mention them. I do think however that it should go more into detail about other things of the games legacy, and contain the sequels to a small bit. λ NegativeMP1 17:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A legacy section can probably include the sequels to the game, its impact on the fighting genre, its impact on sales for the N64, and its use in tournaments, among other topics. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a legacy section could be created with its use in tournaments and mods like Smash Remix. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that lot of reliable sources exist for Smash 64's esports coverage, and a pretty decently-sized reliable source exists for Smash Remix [1]. Both are definitely material that can be included in a Legacy section. λ NegativeMP1 20:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of legacy sections on a first work in a franchise seem to just turn into redundancy with the series article, so I agree with the axing. But aside from the listing of sequels the relevance on the fighting game community and such does seem reasonable to include. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel like the screenshot does not really do a good job at showcasing the gameplay of the series. I think a better screenshot showing 4 players actively fighting on a fairly complex stage like Hyrule Castle or Saffron City would be good. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. For the breadth criterion, Reception should be greatly expanded from contemporaneous and retrospective reviews. A Legacy section is currently unhandled, per above. And the Gameplay section should be easily sourced to reliable, secondary sources. czar 15:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. There are citations in the lead. Also stuff in the lead is NOT present in the body itself. Brachy08 (Talk) 02:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.