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.

In my opinion

Whenever there are new editors here who revive dead topics, they are told "we already discussed this in the archives" or "that is answered in the FAQ" but I don't think either one is working. In my opinion, we should do away with all those archives, and revise/clarify the FAQ.

Discussions of old aren't really helping, especially now that the Dojo provides new information every weekday. The only purpose of those archives is to sit there idly, looking huge and intimidating. No one wants to dig through 20 massive archives to find what has or hasn't been established. That's why the FAQ is better because it is organized, easy to navigate, and it answers the most common questions. But, it could still use some work. Basically I'm asking, do you believe we should get rid of the archives and expand the FAQ in its stead? -- POWERSLAVE 02:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While I admit that extending the FAQ to answer common questions from the talk page archives is a very sensible idea, I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia custom/current consensus says that archiving talk pages is preferred, and to never delete them except in special cases. My vote, therefore, is updating the FAQ while leaving the archives intact. Arrowned 02:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would recommend shortening the number or archives by merging them. While we have them archived by page, we COULD have them archived like...June 2007 - September 2007. That would make it at least a LITTLE easier. Dengarde ► Complaints 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arrowned and Dengarde, sounds like the best option to me. R-RockMan.EXE 04:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's how it's usually done. bibliomaniac15 04:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I converted the archive box into a handy-dandy collapsible box and categorized the archives by month. bibliomaniac15 22:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gannondorf

He's coming back and should be mentioned. He may not be playable but he is in the game. There's the interview, his voice actor listed here: [1], and down-right speculation, (dare I use that word on Wikipedia?). He should be mentioned Claycrow 17:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Untill he's confirmed, theres no reason to mention him. Besides, can't anyone edit that site? Dengarde ► Complaints 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm amused that you used "down-right speculation" as part of your reasoning for why we should add Ganon =) It's great that you want to add to the article, but as Dengarde said, and as many others will soon say, we can't add him until he's confirmed. -- POWERSLAVE 20:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

IMDB 'is' user submitted info, and is considered very unreliable for upcoming titles. DurinsBane87 17:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should only add info coming from:

-Brawl's official site.

-Nintendo's staff.

-Sega, in the case of Sonic joining to Brawl. R-RockMan.EXE 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And even if Ganondorf's VA was mentioned by an official site, we have no reason to believe that Ganondorf is going to be his role; for all we know, he might be voicing the Ancient Minister or something. Beyond that, there's a possibility that Ganondorf might appear as an assist trophy or TSE boss rather than a playable character. No matter how one looks at it, there really is no reason to assume he is returning as a playable character until he is officially confirmed on an official site. You Can't See Me! 22:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it WAS confirmed by Nintendo's staff. I know there's a slight possibity (If Nintendo are retards) he may not be playable, but he IS in the game! Claycrow 12:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And can you provide a reliable source to back up your claims? 'Cause without that, that's all they are -- claims. Coreycubed 13:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the last paragraph: [2] There's your relibable source. Claycrow 14:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable... Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 14:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say that Ganondorf is in Brawl. It says that "my designers did work on the designs for Sheik and Link and Ganondorf" and "We're working very closely with the team of Smash Bros. Brawl to make sure the characters look their best". Never once did anyone actually say which characters would appear. We know Link and Zelda are in Brawl, but that's just because of the Dojo. Even if this is reliable, it doesn't mean Sheik and Ganondorf will be in Brawl. The world's hungriest paperweight 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between submitting a design and putting a character in. As I said previously, he could very well be an assist trophy or boss, or even just appear in flashbacks in TSE to emphasize Link's character development. You Can't See Me! 21:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"You can't see me", you don't make sence. Even if he is those things, he is in the game through that way. BTW, Paperweight why would he have a design if they didn't even plan on using the character (in some way) in Brawl, that makes no sence. Claycrow 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The design was submitted by Eiji Aonuma and/or his co-workers, who work on the Legend of Zelda games. However, that's about all they did: create the artwork. They aren't the ones working on Brawl, so the decision of who is and isn't in Brawl isn't up to them. Or at least that's how I understand it. The world's hungriest paperweight 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether or not Ganondorf is in the game. The question is whether or not he's playable. Until he is shown as a playable character, there's nothing to mention about him. Remember when Peach was first shown in TSE?Satoryu 22:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Then shouldn't we say somewhere along of: "Gannondorf will be returning, but his status as playable is unconfirmed"? I beilive it IS inportant to let others know he will be appearing. Claycrow 00:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because even that much is unconfirmed. All we know is that the TP department submitted updated designs for Sheik and Ganondorf. We don't know what Sakurai has done with said designs, or even if he'll end up using them at all. Arrowned 00:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Then shouldn't we say somewhere along of: "Gannondorf will be returning, but his status as playable is unconfirmed"? I beilive it IS inportant to let others know he will be appearing. Claycrow 00:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really; the section is entitled "Playable Characters". Can't you wait for two months to say "He is in the game" or "He is not in the game" instead of placing some awkward, placeholder phrase? You Can't See Me! 00:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We don't even know that he'll be appearing. That guy who sent the designs could have done it just for fun for all we know. Untill we can actually confirm that Ganondork will be appearing, theres no need to mention him. Heck, even if he is, theres still no need to do it. Dengarde ► Complaints 00:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh...Ganondork? :) — Malcolm (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

More like Canon dorks to me. :) bibliomaniac15 00:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ganon+dork=Ganondork. It's a pun. I've used the nickname quite a bit myself. The world's hungriest paperweight 04:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine.Claycrow 01:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

With co-op confirmed....

As anyone who reads the Dojo updates would know, the most recent update included information previously unknown about the Subspace Emissary, in particular that it has co-op. I was wondering, should we change the "single player" section's name to something more appropriate, like Story/Adventure Mode, or include co-op in the title somehow? Oh, not to mention that the section itself needs updating, too. ;) 72.225.211.5 08:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me the way it is. Coreycubed 13:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Since technically it isn't a single player mode, I don't think it should be labeled as such too. Probably Story Mode or something, but not Single Player. InsaneZeroG 14:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Who called it Story Mode? No, we're not going to make up names for modes that already have names. It is called Adventure Mode, and the article reflects this. If you object to the single-player moniker, it is primarily a single-player mode. Remember how Sonic the Hedgehog 2 worked? The mode was still single-player, but playable by two. At any rate, unless they make an emphasis on the co-op mode being drastically different, we should leave it be. It's fine. Coreycubed 15:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason why Adventure mode should branch off into a whole section dedicated cop-op. Like stated in my edit this isn't noteable enough to have it's own section, and if anything it should be included with small wording of it. But as it stands, I think it's fine. --MrBubbles 18:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive

The page was really long and almost 50kb, so I went ahead and archived it. Dengarde ► Complaints 20:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That isnt very long at all....most of our archives are at least 70-90 kb long. Is there any way to un-archive it? Atomic Religione 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The archives I checked were about 50-60kb, so I thought it was about time. Besides, there was alot of useless stuff on this page anyways. If I was wrong, then sorry.

If you want me to undo it, I probably can to a point. Dengarde ► Complaints 20:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

o.O It isn't very long to be archived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBubbles (talk • contribs)

Seemed long to me, longer then some other archives, in fact...Dengarde ► Complaints 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking them over, most are around 40-60 kb long, so I don't see why it shouldn't have been. Dengarde ► Complaints 20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1. 1 In my opinion
2. 2 Gannondorf
3. 3 With co-op confirmed....

Beside this discussion. Too small to be archived.--MrBubbles 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. It's this small because I already archived it. I left those in because they were very recent discussions. Dengarde ► Complaints 21:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing problems

Can someone with access to the relevant Tips & Tricks magazine from around August 2006 please confirm the bit about Sonic being mentioned by Miyamoto? This is a case of mind-boggling bad sourcing. We were formerly citing a GameSpot union post (made by a GS user, not a staff member), which in turned referenced nintendorevolution.ca, which in turn referenced qj.net, which has a low-res screenshot and claims that they picked up the story from the Nintendo NSider forums. If the NSider forums weren't down, I wouldn't be surprised to find the chain continuing through a half dozen more sources :) --- RockMFR 23:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note - the article currently cites this IGN article which cites a translation posted on a message board which is translating the now defunct Sakurai fan mail page. It would be preferable, in my opinion, to cite the fan mail page directly rather than citing IGN, who has shown no evidence of doing their own fact-checking on this matter. I don't have time to deal with this now, but I will this weekend. My point is that editors here really need to watch out for sources which themselves are just echoing a story from another location. It is preferable to hunt down the original publishing of a story, rather than this "he said she said he said some forums said that a magazine said" sort of stuff. --- RockMFR 22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

TSE image

Our current image for the section on The Subspace Emissary is zoomed a bit too far out. Could somebody with the necessary software crop and re-upload the image so that it focuses more closely on the two characters and the primid? You Can't See Me! 05:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. Dengarde ► Complaints 05:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Done That looks a little better at least. Dengarde ► Complaints 05:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

if that's the same picture i'm seeing then i have to say, my god the quality on that picture is damn poor! That kind of picture should not be on wikipedia, please change it to one where you can actually see who's there witohut reading the caption. sorry if it's just my pc loading the pic wrong.....and that button to place your signiture isn't working. ~TailsClock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.184.233 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

the picture is fixed now.--TailsClock 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You must have a REALLY big screen, because now the quality is even worse. Dengarde ► Complaints 16:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I chose that particular image because it actually shows the status and whatnot (even that of an enemy), which is really important to demonstrate the gameplay of that particular mode. Almost every other image lacks the stats (we haven't even seen the Pokémon Trainer's, which is said to have stamina for his Pokémon). — NES Boy 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Somebody needs to fix this image because on my computer, Mario, Pit's, and the Primid's damage meters are cut off. (Zojo 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

That's what it's supposed to look like. -Sukecchi 20:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay image

I have replaced this image with this one because the original was a bit outdated (Mario, Pikachu, and Wario's series icons had been changed a bit since it was originally added to the Dojo). — NES Boy 17:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I made the text smaller and I stand by your motion.--MrBubbles 17:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell the differences, can you point them out please?
Blindman shady 21:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The icons for Mario and Wario are different from the first screenshot to the second because this is an up to date screenshot of the game.--MrBubbles 00:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How are they different though. Just the dates? Nevermind.
Blindman shady 04:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Every character

Should'nt it be meitioned how many characters are in the game in the character section?Green Kirby 04:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mabey when we get a final number, but not yet.→041744 04:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. I just wish you would make one sentence about Kirby.Green Kirby 04:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not include every character in this artcle, we have a table for that.→041744 11:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand, I just wish he would be put on there. You mean well.Green Kirby 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't need to be there because there's no reason for it. Why put the character list in this article when there is a perfectly good character list that spans the entire series in the main series article? Currently, the character section in the Brawl article is good enough by highlighting significant new additions to the roster. --4.242.21.38 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Look I know what you mean ok? But you can't change my opinion.Green Kirby 22:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Other Users: Spencer was stating his opinion, not asking for that line to be on the article.
• Spencer: Be careful with your choice of words. Also, this is not a forum, so you really shouldn't be posting your opinions if they have nothing to do with changing the article. You Can't See Me! 23:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see whats wrong with my choice of words, but ok.Green Kirby 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe UC'tCM is referring to your use of the word 'make'. It sounds like you are asking someone to make it, instead of expressing your desire for it. — Jaxad0127 01:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)