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.

Archived

You know how it is    Powerslave  21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

While we wait, why not work on others for GA?

I thought I put up a discussion already, but I guess it deleted (before the archive). We should start working together to get Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee up to GA status. If anyone would want to help out, and possibly make it a mini-project, just post here. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea. For all the people who say "Wait till Brawl comes out," well, SSB and Melee are out, so we should work on those pages. Good idea Tinkleheimer.    Powerslave  22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Son was the one who mentioned it first, I just expanded on the idea. :). Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this originally because it was off the topic it was posted under and it doesn't belong on the Brawl talk page. Perhaps you should move this to the SSB and SSBM pages or the Series page.Satoryu (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am posting it here because there are lots of people who edit this article, and not the other ones. While we wait, I figured I would get some generated interest into it. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. I'll work on Super Smash Bros. Doppelganger (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll help out. Jareds2007 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Vault

I noticed someone changed the collectibles section to vault after today's update. Although it is likely that this function has to do with collectibles, it wasn't confirmed. Should this be removed and returned to the way it was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Armageddon (talk • contribs)

Hell yes. Until we know precisely what it's for, it shouldn't be mentioned yet. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Though I expect a challenge.Satoryu (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Stickers, Trophies, Stage Builder and Album updates show pictures with green backgrounds, the same colour as Vault on the main menu. This means they are in the Vault. However, CDs and Coins aren't in the Vault and will have to be moved somewhere else. M4192 (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that does not pass for confirmation. Unless they are confirmed to be in the Vault section via a Dojo or similar official update, then it is speculation to say they are. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's like saying that The Subspace Emissary was never officially confirmed to be found under the Solo option. It's speculation to say that it's found there. M4192 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't. However, the Subspace Emissary is the game's Adventure mode, and the Adventure mode was initially revealed as a one-player campaign (the 2-player co-op option notwithstanding). Don't make indefensible arguments, please. For all we know, the Vault could be something else entirely. Solo is obvious, Vault is vague. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's just more fun to argue with you than to agree with you. M4192 (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is the idea of how wikipedia is supposed to work...--Henke37 (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's on topic, so null persp. It's alright for a user to play Devil's Advocate. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-eminent CoroCoro preperations

As you likely know, CoroCoro is having a 30 page feature in its latest issue, to be released today (Japan timezone) to subscribers and tomorrow to everyone else. Supposedly, information on characters will be included, possibly including characters that haven't yet been revealed. We need to decide how we'll handle any new information and the flood of vandalism and unsourced material that will come attached to any major announcements in the issue. Time is of the essence as subscribers will be receiving the issue within the next few hours. ShadowUltra (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we'd continue to use the standard "only add to the article if it's notable" mentality, but as far as sourcing, I say we wait for legit newssites (IGN, Gamespot, 1UP, Kotaku, Joystiq, etc.) to post info from the articles. Using fourm and blogposts as citations comes with the pitfall of not being able to prove that info is true, as those aren't proper primary or secondary sources, unless said posts can be proven to be by people in the industry, which is only easy to do on company forums or blogs. Arrowned (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone can produce a full citation from a magazine (which most spammers won't) I don't see why it can't be considered. If someone proves that they actually are willing to source info with a magazine ref, it might be worth discussing. On a secondary note, some magazines post articles into an online database; while I don't know if CoroCoro does this, or if we can find a useful translation, we should keep our eyes open.--CM (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone could see the SSB Series article in Japanese??? --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

ShadowUltra is right, tomorrow a lot of people may come and edit this article saying something like: ###### confirmed in the CoroCoro magazine. we should semi-protect or protect the article.--Fandangox (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is semiprotected. And if this is true, we can't go by word of mouth. At the very least, we'll need scans of the magazine to verify any claims.Satoryu (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to panic, all that corocoro has is old news: http://www.brawlcentral.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrismSub7 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that site you gave us a fan site, it looks like some 12-19 year old made it.--DarkFierceDeityLink 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides the chaotic header, that site is actually very well-made.    Powerslave  03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the magazine in question was only going to be confirming characters already released on Dojo. Someone started the rumor that it was going to be a full roster lineup, but the article in question was actually just saying that the current roster was going to be covered in depth. At any rate, this article is fairly well patrolled. I don't think we have anything to worry about. Coreycubed (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The magazine came out, and there was nothing but old info. Sorry to anyone who got their hopes up. Anyway, that means there is no need to do anything to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Armageddon (talk • contribs)

Mii usage?

I don't see any proof that Miis can be used in-game. Why is this article in "List of games that use Miis"? 75.134.82.172 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Miis can be used as avatars in Wi-Fi mode. --(trogga) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does this get to stay every goddamn time i ask a question it gets taken off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkFierceDeityLink (talk • contribs)

It gets to stay because it's actually related to the article; he was asking a question about a category this article is classified in and whether it should be in the category or not. We only remove questions that have absolutely nothing to do towards modifying/improving the article. Arrowned (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually...I KIND of forgot about the icon usage in Wi-Fi... 75.134.82.172 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Smash Bros. Task Force

Maybe we should create a task force for Super Smash Bros. (the series) under WikiProject Nintendo. I am certainly in favor of it. If anyone would like to support it, please sign under Smash Bros. Task Force here.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Future-class article?

Over at WP:FILM, I noticed that they have a Future-class designation for all future-release films. Perhaps we could employ this designation here and other as-of-yet-unreleased video games? --Son (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds right. --LoganTheGeshrat 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games if you want, but I think things are fine the way they are with the current unreleased video game template. Comandante42 (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stage Section

Shouldn't there be a section concerning the stages? There is an entire section for the characters alone, so it would make sense that something is included in the article about the different stages that players will fight on. As it is, the only thing I've seen that comes close is a brief mention of the stage-builder feature in the Wi-Fi sub-section. Any thoughts? Comandante42 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Stages, are mentioned, they are under gamplay but not noteable for an indepent section, but for a paragraph. As is stage builder. Also the artilce is not dedicated to characters, we don't even mention every character in this article, We try to have a well rounded article.→041744 22:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the answer. I just wanted to know why stages weren't included since they are an integral part of the game; I was concerned that the article was missing something important. I didn't mean that a list of all of the stages should be included, but details could be added into the article in a similar format to the character section. Basic info like some stages have changing environments or the differences between the newer stages and the old ones could be added. If it really isn't necessary, though, then I won't push it further. Comandante42 (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, having more detail on the stages (what you mentioned) would help get it to GA status once the game is released. --Son (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that this would benefit the article now as well, if anyone wants to add a bit. The stages are certainly important enough. Erik (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And say what in that section? A description of each stage? Wikipedia isn't a game guide. There's nothing you can say about the stages besides coming from different games. -Sukecchi (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think there's something missing from the article on stages that should be mentioned. The stages that are returning have this comment - 'We’ve tried to create an exact replica, but there may be a few areas that differ from the last game. I hope you understand.'

To me this is important info, as it states something that has changed from the last game. Any thoughts? -

**BM** 20:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I never meant a list of details about each and every stage. I only think that a small section should be created that describes significant features of some stages. For example, since most stages have platforms, we wouldn't need to mention that since it would be trivial. If one stage has an environment that changes radically throughout a match, or has some other unique characteristic that makes it stand out as a stage from the majority, then perhaps that should be mentioned. At most, I would expect only two or three significant new stages to be mentioned in the section, in a way that balances the stage section with the character section in terms of content, since (in my opinion) both are equally important in the game. Comandante42 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Comandante42. Some levels change based on what time Wii's internal clock is. I believe that's the Animal Crossing level. Plus, on that level, there's a certain time of day on a certain time of week in which the characters can stop playing to listen to a background character play music. I think that's pretty noteworthy, IMO. That's just one level. --Son (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

However, going into detail about that would be cutting too closely to a game guide, and according to this, we can't have that.
If there is to be any stage section, I move that we wait until the game comes out (at least in Japan) so we will have all the info. Powerslave (talk - cont.) 00:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't violate WP:NOT, because if I was writing it, I'd be talking about technological advances between prior versions of the game and this one. A game guide would be going point-by-point detail about each and every level. This would be saying that in prior versions of the game, it did not have this, this, and this. That is not a violation of WP:NOT, that's showing technological evolution. --Son (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We already have examples of features some stages have. There's no reason to add any more examples. We've already covered the vital info. Anything else will cross into game guide and cruft.Satoryu (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't provide enough information. --Son (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that we could improve the paragraph by adding a bit as well. As it is, it's pretty short and doesn't cover very much...basically what it says now is that stages are from represented game series, are flat in terms of movement, and that when you pass the stage boundary you lose a life (the most basic info that you could really give). It then says that some stages undergo changes and that some are being reused, and that's about it. Come on people, we've discussed the characters' controls in depth, how special moves are exectuted, which types of characters are appearing, which series are getting characters, the company ownership status of third-party characters, which territories characters are being selected from, how several particular characters (Snake, Lucas, Sonic) came to appear in Brawl, and how a character / music poll was conducted in Japan and on Nintendo's forums. Not that we should necessarily remove any of that, but it seems clear to me that if we can add all this character information without falling into game guide territory, the stage bit could be safely expanded. Erik (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already stated the reason why we don't need any more info on stages. I won't repeat myself.Satoryu (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Mabey we SHUOLD mention that there are 3rd party stages (not listing them all) and state some Melee stages are returning. Also that "moving stages" are coming back (Rumble Falls). That all seems like important information.→041744 12:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:CRUFT

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:

1. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.(Note the how-to restriction does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia.) Also telling the reader how something is used is encyclopedic, telling how to use something is not.) If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks.
2. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not a place to re-create content more suited to entries in hotel guides, culinary guides, popular eating guides, gazeteers, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet inclusion criteria, but Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel, however.
3. Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
4. Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource.

--WP:GAMEGUIDE

One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world. Articles on episodes of television series, or fictional characters in movies are more likely to be labeled fancruft if they are primarily summaries, biographies of made-up people, or collections of trivia that relate to the continuity of a series rather than its critical or social reception. In fact, an article should not be entirely composed of summaries or biographies of fictional characters. Articles can often avoid being labeled fancruft if they avoid focusing on their subjects as fiction. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for more about how to achieve this. --Wikipedia:Fancruft#Tone and focus Take note that this is only an essay.

Satyoru, here's the policy you've cited and the essay you've mentioned. By putting in more information about stages, what would violate WP:GAMEGUIDE? --Son (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Delay?

Please everyone look into this, sorry in advance if it's not relevant enough. On Smashboards.com someone said their gamestop told them of a March 28, 2008 release date, and then someone copied an E-mail from Walmart saying there was another delay. Now on the Walmart site it says in won't be available until March 28, 2008: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=6527131

Please everyone look into this. --Adam (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing official here. Until Nintendo says otherwise, the release date is still Feb 10.Satoryu (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If its not on the smashbros website , then its not official.--Dlo2012 (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we get it. No need for anyone else to say 'If it's not on Smashbros, it's not official'. Once is enough. -Sukecchi (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for bringing it up, i wasn't really expecting anything official enough to change the page, but i wanted to see if anyone could find more evidence.--Adam (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I pre-ordered one at Gamestop and they did not told me anything of a delay. Actually I pre-ordered it since August and they did not told me that the game was delayed to Feb 10.