Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Super Smash Bros. Melee article.
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:
Wikitendo logo This article is part of WikiProject Nintendo, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Nintendo To-do:
Peer review Super Smash Bros. Melee has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Super Smash Bros. Melee is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: 16 September, 2006
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Future section still needed?

Is the future section really needed anymore? The opening paragraph links to both the original Super Smash Bros. and to Brawl – personally, I think that's enough. As I recall, the future section was originally created beacause the fate of the series was uncertain at the time; now that we know for sure that there will be a sequel, I think the section has outlived its relevance. --Sparky Lurkdragon 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, no one's responded for about a week, so I'm just going to chop out the future section. We already have a link to Brawl in the opening paragraph. --Sparky Lurkdragon 23:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giga Bowser

Any advice on how to beat Giga Bowser? And will Giga Bowser be back in the next game?

beating him is easy, getting to him is hard. Just spam airiels inside of him.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz
If you mean event match 51 then use Jigglypuff and use rest(Down B) in him.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz
I actually beat Giga Bowser with JP on both versions. It's pretty easy to get to him with JP once you've mastered rest. I can kill just about anything (Not including the Hand Bros.) with rest. You just have to master it. 24.48.189.235 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Rest isn't always an instant KO. Jaxad0127 06:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I used Yoshi and kept on doing the flutter kick on him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.31.152.232 (talk • contribs) .

Guys, can we discuss the article, not the game, please? There are plenty of guides out there on the rest of the Internet. --Sparky Lurkdragon 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes we need that future article. at least until the SSMB Brawl for Wii comes out. --159.83.4.139 22:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PAL vs European

I don't think either of these accurately describes the version with 290 trophies. "PAL" does not include France and "European" does not include Australia, New Zealand, and other countries that we're assuming have the variation of SSBM with 290 trophies. But are we even sure that Australia and New Zealand have the same version as Europe, or even that France has the same version as the rest of Europe? Cosmos 07:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What if we just say that there were 293 in the Japan/NA versions and only 290 for the rest of the world? Jaxad0127
That sounds good. It's simple and accurate. Cosmos 11:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

-should we add the "tiers" of chraracters (basically the playability in tournaments)? -akshayaj

Nooooo. It is cruft and only has relevence to people playing the game (hence, it fails the guidelines set forth at WP:CVG). Nifboy 21:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Besides, tiers are more or less arbitrary. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MPAA Rating Similarity

Super Smash Bros. for the Nintendo 64 would be similar to the MPAA's "PG" rating, and Super Smash Bros. Melee would be similar to the MPAA's "PG-13" rating.

Uh...no. Not only is that original research, I think that Melee is defitely closer to PG. - Kookykman|(t)e 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Since its rated teen, pg-13 is appropriate. Jaxad0127 17:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No. You don't compare the two rating systems, especially in the main article. - Kookykman|(t)e 16:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Right. So why are we even having this conversation? Jaxad0127 16:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've found that the "T" rating pretty closely approximates a PG to light PG-13 rating in games. SSB:M is pretty clearly PG material, as are many other games given the "T" rating. But this is purely POV and not suitable for the article. We should just try not to create the untrue impression that the game is unsuitable for families. Not that anybody's going to read this who isn't already a fan of the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.131.167.26 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Ninteno Power + extra trophies

What issue of Nintendo Power claimed the 2 extra trophies to be false? Nismojoe 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm...no issue. Those trophies are real. I've seen them with my own eyes. RememberMe? 21:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No issue I've read said that.(I've read all the issues since this game came out)Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 15:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preceded/Followed By?

If you edit the page, you'll notice that there is a Preceded By and a Followed By section in the infobox (Or whatever you call it, I'm drawing a blank), but it doesn't appear! Does anybody know why, and if so if it can be fixed? RememberMe? 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That would require changing the template. Jaxad0127 21:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Said fields were only briefly used in the template; they were taken back out because of the sheer ambiguity involved, along with concerns of the template's size. Long story short, those fields are no longer in use. Nifboy 23:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

Should we mention that the game topped (or was at least in the the top ten of) the GameCube's sales list every month for over two years? Jaxad0127 20:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a source, feel free to include it. That would be much better than saying that "ti's the top-selling game" Hbdragon88 07:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Nintendo power it has never left the top ten list (leaving the question of who doesn't own it yet).

Once again, source? Jaxad0127 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think for one month (about a year ago) it dropped to top 20.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smashing Live CD?

I've been a subscriber to Nintendo Power since issue 3, and I was never sent this CD, nor have I heard anything about it. tyam 05:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? I have been a subscriber for a few years and I recieved it. It is in a square coated paper caase inbetween the pages of an issue(I forget which one). It's not too special though, unless you play it while playing the game(like a different soundtrack).Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion-Sensor Bomb

The idea of the reason for the change from Perfect Dark's proximity mine to the Motion-Sensor Bomb being that Nintendo's relationship with Rare was shaky at the time is proposterous, seeing as the Motion-Sensor Bomb is exactly like the one in GoldenEye 007, another Rare-developed title. --Guess Who 20:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It should alse be noted that it's trophy lists it's game as "top secret". Jaxad0127 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but Perfect Dark is rated M, and 007 is only T. I think Nintendo wanted to keep the game as kid friendly as possible. (Although personally I dont think it would have mattered, the kids wont understand either of them.)Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't they credit rare for Perfect Dark and Donkey Kong or something like that in the credits anyways? Hm, I wonder what happened to that Proximity Mine trophy image I uploaded so long ago--Phred Levi 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's a few explanations 1) It's from "Perfect Dark" or "GoldenEye" and they listed it as "Top Secret" to preserve a family-friendly image, 2) It's from something new (unlikely - it's been years and they would have written "Title TBA" like they did for "Animal Crossing", or 3) They wanted a motion sensor bomb and they didn't have a game to take it from so they just threw it in anyway. That seems the most likely but it's purely speculation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.131.167.26 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Toad Hoax

Is the Toad Hoax really a hoax, or is it not? Bibliomaniac15 04:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's real. Keep trying it out. I'm sure you'll get him eventually Xubelox 10:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh god it's coming back...

TOAD IS A COMPLETE HOAX!!! RememberMe? 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a Nintendo page, but let's keep the level of discourse to intelligent levels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.131.167.26 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Citation needed

I've recently added a {{citeneeded}} tag for the sentence that says Snake was going to be included, but the game was too far in development. I do remember reading that, but I'd like to make sure that it was a legitimate source. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, Xubelox took care of it. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia is getting too long

It needs to be dispersed to other parts of the article or outright deleted, because it has become very, very long. Hbdragon88 03:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

its pointless and some of the information is unverifiable, I'd suggest it be deleted. 69.140.106.213 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I also removed this from the trivia : This is because Master Hand was originally going to be a playable character. However, he was removed, possibly due to the fact that he cannot fall. However, he can be accessed in a special debug mode using a Action Replay. I highly doubt Master Hand was going to be playable, and without a source.. 207.179.172.220 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved some of the trivia to sections I felt it would be appropriate, and I created a new "differences in versions" section because there was a lot of trivia that was specific to changes made in the various regional releases of the game. Jeff Silvers 04:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should we add a Glitch Section?

I know, personally of at least 2 glitches in SSMB.

One being the Black Hole glitch.

SOMEONE SHOULD ADD a GLITCH section to this article.

--159.83.4.139 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I know a great glitch with Link. The bomb rain. Just throw your boomerang off the stage and jump off and use the hookshot to grab the ledge and just sit there. When the boomerang hits your back Link will fly high above the stage for a while. Just throw down a bunch of bombs and it will be raining bombs. lol. But you need the original Smash Bros melee game though. I still have mine.

[edit] Tournament section mostly self promotion

I think it's notable to say that tournaments have arisen across the States, but this article is so specific it's basically advertising for the hosts (It's a borderline section page too). I think it needs to be revised and greatly shortened.

Kestrel 21:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Matt Deezie is considered the father of competitive Smash, his TG series needs mention. FC has held the top 2 largest tournaments in Smash history (each over 180 partipants), both these tournaments are of supreme importance to the competitive community. Last, OC2 would seem to be the first US tournament with large international appeal (7 confirmed Japanese players to attend), not only this but if expectations hold it will break the FC6 record for the largest tournament. It could be revised, but TG, FC, and OC all need mention, in addition to MLG, which holds Smash tournaments with an attendance of 150+ on a monthly basis now. 70.43.26.66 03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

ROFLton. This is more detailed than the damn game description itself, and I thought that this was supposed to be about the game. Various editors have removed a ton of game info because it was too detailed - either shifting it to StrategyWiki or to other character artciles. We seriously need to trim down this tournament section or else, at this rate, it's going to be bigger than the gameplay section itself. Hbdragon88

Seriously. At the most, the article should note that "several large Smash Bros. tournaments have been held.." but it shouldn't provide this many specifics. These people don't need a mention because their names in this article exist basically as advertising rather than as relevant, informative content. Would a printed encyclopedia article about Smash Bros include such specific information about those who hold tournaments? No, but it would likely acknowledge that such tournaments exist. Don't worry, I'll fix it up sometime soon. Kestrel 05:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that the whole tournament section doesn't really do much for the article. I mean, who would look up Super Smash Bros. Melee on Wikipedia to read info about some tournaments being held. The fact they are even being held tells me nothing about the game, which is what the article is supposed to be about. If anything, it should be split from the main article, then those who want to can add to it as much info as they see fit. That way, there can be a detailed page about Smash Bros. tourneys, while at the same time, the main Melee page can be about the game itself. I, for one, think this is a fair compromise. -SaturnYoshi 08:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that is, well, what other games have Wikipedia articles on their tournament scene? Halo doesn't, Pokemon doesn't... etc. It seems like too narrow an interest for Wikipedia to me, something better suited for a specialized Super Smash Bros. fansite. --Sparky Lurkdragon 01:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel the same way. Are we going to have to vote to keep or remove the tournament section from the article?? -SaturnYoshi 19:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I cut it down to just the MLG. MLG is pretty big and famous, so I see no reason why to include a short blurb on the tournaments. Hbdragon88 20:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the tournaments section is completely acceptable. Kestrel 01:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. Those pics that were added nearly made my head explode out of rage. -SaturnYoshi 08:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah good, the tournaments section is slowly bloating back again... Kestrel 02:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tier system

Why is there no mention of the tier system in the article? Considering its importance regarding tournaments (and also its recent revision), I think it deserves a spot in the article. 128.2.246.100 02:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Because, quite frankly, it's not something that really has encyclopediac value; it explicitly only has impact on those playing in national tournaments, and there are no reliable sources that discuss it. Nifboy 03:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.mlgpro.com/article.php?aid=1404 <<<Tier List 70.43.26.66 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different Versions

I am not familiar with the differneces in the versions, and it doens't seem to be mentioned here. I know they expanded the size of the homerun field.. does someone know enough to make a section? 207.179.172.220 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statements removed

Changes I just made:

  1. How the Toad Hoax is used to disprove other rumors - not relevent and also unsourced.
  2. Tournaments - smashboards.com is not a reliable source. Boards are not reliable sources. MLG is backed up by a source, as well as being a national tournamnet, and thus remians. Removed tons or irrelevent and trivial details ("5 stocks left" is meaningless to those who don't play this game).
  3. Removed images - Sonic, TAils, and Toad were just decorative. If we could get the EGM screens or upload some of the Toax Hoax, they would be appropriate. Cut the trophies gallery from three images to one.

I want this to at least pass a WP:GA, so there you have it. Hbdragon88 23:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IGN Editor's Choice Award

After looking through the relevant websites, I found no evidence that SSBM received said award. If anyone has evidence that disproves my claim, feel free to re-add the info, but for now, I've removed it. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tournament section restoration

Keep in former form

1. The tournament section is both truthful and well written. Removing true information from Wikipedia is always harmful.

2. An interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources agrees with with the fact that because of a lack of published sources, Smashboards becomes a reliable source. Also a professional journalist currently employeed with Major League Gaming under the gamer tag of AlphaZealot has written much of the information in the History of Smash thread on Smashboards.

For an in detailed description of why this section is a keep continue below:

I read the section on Self-published sources and I am sure it can be interpreted both ways. In fact much of what is said does not apply to this section. The concept of using a video game community as a source is still in its alpha stages Reliable sources has not taken this into account. Firstly, Smashboards is the only tournament community. Based off my read of the Reliable source article, there was a lack direction toward community forums. I believe that this article is directed at finding information on forums when publish professional articles exist. For example, a medical journal posted on a forum is not reliable because published accounts exist. Also there is reason on medical forums and other forums of such to lie. It could be to give false hope, to take away real hope, or to get attention. Reliable sources did not take into consideration the concept of a video game community where the reason to lie is minimal and where no other sources exist, I think we can all agree on this. Also information on scholarly topics maybe hard to verify because certain fields require extensive knowledge. However this threat does not exist in video game community because myth and rumors are easy to dispell. With over 40,000 members it is safe to say that if someone posted false information someone would speak out. Smashboards itself has thus because a reliable source in itself.

Sorry I was not able to write this section in a timely manner because of family events. I have added it now.

I have restore the tournament section for the following reasons:

Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources, It states clearly in the article that there are expections to this rule, emphysis placed on should. This is one of those cases.

I have cited the sources for the entire article in the tournament section. Smashboards is a reliable when it comes to Smash tournament history, because there are no professional articles about underground tournaments. Since the majority of tournaments are underground tournament Smashboards become a relible source. Not only is there no reason for a user to post false information on Smashboards, there is no way to post false information and still be able to host tournaments. Notable members (with 1000+ posts) take the game very seriously and would not want to harm the community with false information which is the category many of the posters in Evolution of the Smash Game thread are in. I, myself, am also a long time member of Smashboards and know a great deal about factuality about this section in relation to tournament history. I have also done considerable work on Wikipedia mainly in the field of citing sources so am I fluent in both communities.

In the thread Evolution of the Smash Game there is a member who posts under the gamer tag AlphaZealot. He is a long time member of the community and also is currently working for Major League Gaming as a journalist (See MLG website for more information). This meets the requiremant in Reliable sources:

A source is more reliable within its area of expertise than out of its area of expertise. Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material.

EDIT: Also on a side note to Hbdragon88 (no offense in anyway, if I come off as offensive I apologize it is unintentional, I know you know what you are doing) you remove information that made the section confusing. For example you added the last sentence which was The independent scene also thrives, with many regions hosting monthly tournaments, and the next incarnation of MELEE-FC on the horizon. But you removed MELEE-FC when it was mentioned earlier in the article, thus confusing the reader as to what FC is. Also you removed information on Ken Hoang who is official ranked as the best player by MLG. I'm sure readers would be interested in him.

Cheers Valoem talk 04:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, but it still cannot be accepted. Look at Self-published sources:
However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.
In general it is preferable to wait until other sources have had time to review or comment on self-published sources.
Reports by anonymous individuals, or those without a track record of publication to judge their reliability, do not warrant citation at all, until such time as it is clear that the report has gained cachet, in which case it can be noted as a POV.
MLG is good becuase it's been backed and covered by USA Today. If that user is a journalist, ask him to publish his findings through a press release on MLG or something; this would probably be seriously considered as a good source. But message boards are not reliable because they can be edited by moderators. They are not backed by fact checks or anything like that.
Apologies for making it confusing, I didn't actually check the article out after making the edits. Hbdragon88 04:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, however I would like to note that the tournament section revolves around tournaments. Believe it or not major underground tournaments bring more Smash players than professional tournaments with the expection of MLG Anahiem which brough 300 people (rumored). The average MLG tournament bring 128 people. The MELEE FC and OC have brought approx. 200 people. Therefore the information is pertinent and important to this section.

Also I read the section on Self-published sources and I am sure it can be interpreted both ways. In fact much of what is said does not apply to this section. Firstly, Smashboards is the only tournament community. Based off my read of the Reliable source article, there was a lack direction toward community forums. I believe that this article is directed at finding information on forums when publish professional articles exist. For example, a medical journal posted on a forum is not reliable because published accounts exist. Also there is reason on medical forums and other forums of such to lie. It could be to give false hope, to take away real hope, or to get attention. Reliable sources did not take into consideration the concept of a video game community where the reason to lie is minimal and where no other sources exist, I think we can both agree on this. Also information on scholarly topics maybe hard to verify because certain fields require extension knowledge. However this threat does not exist in video game community because myth and rumors are easy to dispell. With over 40,000 members it is safe to say that if someone posted false information someone would speak out. Smashboards itself has thus because a reliable source in itself. (I am gonna copy this to the top because I feel is a the apex of my argument).

Actually on another side note Smashboards is backed by Nintendo, they have recently attempted to purchase Smashboards and have it mention on there forums.

Also under vBulletin a moderator can not edit another person's post without it saying "Last edited by UserName" which it does not for AlphaZealot's posts.

Leave this section as the former self because this version has withstood the test of time. Ill put up a clean up tag and we can see what other people think. Cheers. Valoem talk 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"withstood the test of time" is a terrible argument. This is the beauty of Wikipedia: it can be deleted or restored at will. Just because nobody bothered to remove it doesn't meant that it should stay. Anyway, I posted a message to the CVG noticeboard about it, as it appears that you and I are not going to resolve the argument on our own. I think we need second and third opinions. Hbdragon88 06:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Compare SSBM to the StarCraft treatment of the tournement scene. StarCraft talks largely in generalities and cites specific instances of popularity to emphasize the game's popularity; [RED]NaDa earns $200,000 a year (cited), SlayerS_`BoxeR` has half a million fans (cited twice), and Lee Seung Seop who died in a marathon session thereof (cited). Those are the only names named in the entire FA. On the other hand, the SSBM article name-drops at every opportunity and emphasizes the community (or "the scene"). I very much like the short version better. Nifboy 06:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, "backed by Nintendo" means nothing...does that mean the Nsder boards are reliable now? They still aren't. Nintendo themselves has to release the information in a press release or something. Hbdragon88 07:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Before we talk about the Nsider forums which are not notable, although moderates from Nsider have posted about Smashboards, I have 3 sources, two of which are from MLG and one from wiizone that reference Smashboards. [1], [2], [3]. This shows the notability of Smashboards in and out of the community.

In reference to Nifboy, I have to say that the fighting game scene compared to Starcraft or first person shooters differ greatly, so greatly that the two should not be compared. FPS and Starcraft are in general more popular due to netplay. The online factor of the game itself could be used to promote major tournaments such as CPL. As a result the most prominent tournaments lie in the professional scene, thus making the independent scene obsolete. Unfortunately, fighting games do not have such luxury. Professional sponsored tournament have only begun to grow, first with IVGF in Seattle the 2003, and MLG in 2004, 2005, and 2006. However, professional tournament for Smash are still in the Beta stages. The majority of tournament still thrive within the independent scene therefore it is necessary to keep that information within this section. The largest hyped tournaments are still MELEE-FC and 0C. This is similar to Street Fighter who only has one professional tournament a year, EVO. In this sense fighting games still revolves around the independent scene which means that articles about tournament well be largely fan based and will not have professional articles written about it. Writing about tournaments for Smash require a great deal of knowledge from within the scene. Valoem talk 16:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Writing about tournaments for Smash require a great deal of knowledge from within the scene." That is exactly why we ought to remove it. It's OR. Nifboy 19:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the notability of the Smashboards - that would be if we were arguing for keeping or deleting a Wikipedia article on Smashboards. A reference to Smashboards does not establish reliability. It can still be considereed unreliable. I mean, Michael Moore is famous, but he's also famous for distortion, and we wouldn't cite him as a reliable source.

I have a little rule when deciding what should stay or not: if the reader would actually be interested in it. Let me quote one thing: "Isai, Chu Dat, PC Chris, Azen, ChillinDude829 and even over Captain Jack from Japan" - this is entirely irrelevent and of no interest to the casual reader, unless there are articles on those people as well. Hbdragon88 20:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"That is exactly why we ought to remove it. It's OR." It is only WP:OR in the context of WP:RS, so before we even worry about OR we should see RS. The section has established NPOV and I see no evidence of promotions. AlphaZealot is a source that has published many articles on MLG and is frequeny seen on Smashboards. The reason why Smashboards is mention for notability is because without Smashboards, MLG professional Smash would not exist neither would any tournaments. TG received its fame through Smashboards, simliar to the entire tournament scene. Also the information about ametuer tournaments must stay because major ametuer tournaments still bring a larger crowd than MLG. Since MLG is notable, ametuer tournaments must also be notable. Remember this section is called Tournaments, therefore we must included all important information about tournaments within Smash. Here is the bottom line, because Smash has a large underground tournament scene, few published article could be written about it therefore we have to use Smashboards as a source.

In response to Hbdragon88 there actually are article written about the following players P.C. Chris, Isai, Azen, Chillindude829 and Azen again, Chu Dat is currently ranked 2nd in power rankings, and Captain Jack is notable in Japan.

"A reference to Smashboards does not establish reliability. It can still be considereed unreliable. I mean, Michael Moore is famous, but he's also famous for distortion, and we wouldn't cite him as a reliable source." How does this have anything to do with Smashboards? Michael Moore is a political activist whose views on political situations are bias. Also there are published articles of evidence of distortion in his works. There are also other sources which have been written on topics he has covered. This is not the case with the Smash tournament scene. There is also no reason for distortion or false information on Smashboards. On top of that, I am a primary source who witnessed the formation of the tournament scene first hand. What is written in this section is exactly how it happened.

Valoem talk 23:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:INDY sums up my feelings on this debate rather well; sources ought to be independent of its subject material. Smashboards et al are not independant, therefore not reliable. Merely claiming the content is NPOV does not make it so. Nifboy 02:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Smashboards was initial designed as a forum for discussing game strategies and advance techniques in Smash. However the forum itself spawned into a section for tournament discussion. Smashboards can be viewed as an independent source because many of this major tournaments have their own websites. Here are some examples:

  • Melee FC
  • Zero Challenge
  • Tournament Go had its own website but was taken down all that remains is a bracket from TG6

The primary purpose of Smashboards is for Smash Bros. discussion not tournament history. Valoem talk 03:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's a "large underground scene" that hasn't been reported by anybody else but its users, it fails WP:V and should not be included. I don't care if you will stand by and verify it, if it isn't being fact-checked ore reported by anybody else besides the particpants in the tournament, it can hardly be called a reliable source. WP:RS says this: Reports by anonymous individuals, or those without a track record of publication to judge their reliability, do not warrant citation at all and an independant srouce should be a "well-known, professional researcher". Hbdragon88 05:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I have done extensive research, have cited many sources from both MLG and Smashboards. I take both this article and Wikipedia very seriously. You need to understand that. You speak as if I didn't disprove or counter argue any of your statements. I will say one last time. The poster in Smash history is named AlphaZealot. He works as a professional journalist for MLG. He has extensive knowledge about the subject. MLG is notable, yet MLG is not as large as the underground scene. Would you like to see more sources about the underground scene? Here:

There you have it. The underground scene has been reported by outside sources. Have I not proved that the notability of the underground scene? I think it deserve mention in the SSBM article. Valoem talk 06:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah... It was too hyped up and should really be a seperate article altogether. The page is supposed to be about the game itself, not how well people around the world can play it. Besides, a lot of this stuff is just opinionated anyway. -SaturnYoshi 14:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned and removed over 2 paragraphs. All that remains is a brief history of major underground tournaments and MLG. Valoem talk 17:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote the entire section, cut out a few things, and some things weren't entirely accurate. Currently MLG holds most of the largest tournaments to date, the only exceptions are FC6,FC3 (just barely, edged out Chicago by 1), and OC2 (they make up the top 3). MLG NY '06 had 143 participants, MLG Dallas had 144 (the cap then), MLG Anaheim had 160 (1 person was added to each of the 16 pools of 8 players, so 16 extra entrees, in addition to that, about 35 people were turned away, we had a wait list 56 names long, but about a half dozen players did not show up even though they registered), MLG Chicago had 184 (24 pools with 7 players each, then 16 pro players, this was the cap), and finally MLG Orlando had 172 (a few players short of the cap, we had 156 players for the open event, our cap is 168) players. Do not cite anything I have written on Smashboards unless I specifically mention I am speaking in the name of MLG or some other authority (the sticky thread can be cited, it is an Official Smashboards thread). While the history thread is a valuable resourse, I cannot see how my work with MLG would make it of any more relevence, there is a difference between what is published under the scutiny of my editor and readers versus what I post on Smashboards for the eyes of fellow players (for starters, grammar and spelling go out the window practically [although within reason], you can tell by this very post what I mean I'm sure).

The first MLG that Smash was an official tournament for was MLG Chicago in 2004. Smash was in a few trial events before that time though. 2005 and 2006 are the first two full seasons of Smash with MLG. This being said, I noticed that there were no links to Nintendo Power issues 195 and 196, these are great resources, they mention MLG, FC, Smashboards, the underground community, just about everything we want to mention in this section. Ken Hoang should be the only player mentioned, while other players are great, he is the only one who truely stands out, just keep an eye out for him in EGM next month guys. It could still use a little work, the final paragraph lacks direction and I don't know all the way to ref things using the tags/codes on wiki.Alphazealot 22:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick side note; older magazines are hard for the average editor to get a hold of: if you can contribute to the CVG project's magazine archive, that would be awesome. Nifboy 04:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input AlphaZealot. Tournament section looks very nice. Valoem talk 06:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed USA links to USA and not USA Network, I just copied the link from the old one but I think I may have messed something up, getting use to wiki is difficult. It could also use links to brackets from TG6, OC2, and FC6. All of those should exist separate from Smashboards, at least from what I remember. Ken Hoang can have several links, but I'm not sure they are needed since he is now listed on Wiki. He will be in EGM Oct, he was in Nintendo Power issue 195, he won the point totals for MLG in 2004 and 2005 (this was used in the previous version of the tournament section, I thought it wasn't that relevent). As I've seen, the best way to describe something on wiki (to remove opinion) is to use numbers. Don't say for instance "Smashboards is the largest community", say the number of members and make that statement afterwards. If I have failed to do that in the rewrite point it out. Also, I know that I mentioned each tournament having over 150 players, MLG has been down for the last 2 days but will be up very soon, I'm pretty sure I can get links to numbers of players from each, or at least a way to infer it, you always have to add 16 pro players to the number listed as having shown up on Saturday. Alphazealot 16:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The tournaments section is pathetic. I'd be willing to bet money that everyone pushing for its full restoration is involved in the tournaments. As it stands now, it's just advertisement rather than informative. Kestrel 15:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In it's previous state maybe, I'd like to know how you can talk about tournaments without actually mentioning the tournaments that are important? Or are you saying that naming the largest Smash tournament ever (actually lets take the 3rd largest, FC3) with a source from Nintendo Power, is advertising? Obviously Nintendo Power thought that FC3 was a notable and important enough to do a small story on it, it would also make sense that its next incarnation, which was even bigger, should be mentioned. 69.140.106.213 20:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't understand. Not only is most of the content unnecessary, it's also written like a plug. It's an advertisement. If it can be properly rewritten and stripped down to what is relevant, like it was some weeks ago, then it'll be okay. Kestrel 16:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the clean up tag because it has been cleaned and tagged for 5 days. I looking forward to this article's nomination of good article. Also Kestral, your argument hardly holds any ground. The sources have been cited, this section has been revamped with citations. In fact it looks more like your stating your opinoin then arguments against. Remember this section is label "Tournaments" which means all notable tournament should be included. Valoem talk 17:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is also a really cut and dry section as it is, it does nothing to mention of the Snexus, Gauntlet, Bomb, etc. 164.107.217.99 05:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination

I failed this article as a GA due to the extensive trivia section and the large number of bulleted lists. Some P. Erson 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "...many Japanese words are both singular and plural"

Concerning this line, in the Version Differences section:

*Ice Climbers appear as simply "Ice Climber" because many Japanese words are both singular and plural. <!--please talk before removing-->


I have done some studies on the Japanese language (truthfully, I'm just beginning to learn it, but anyway), and have always read that Japanese does not have distinct plural inflections - thus any given noun, for instance, could be either singular or plural depending on context. A quick Google search also yields some things about a "-tachi" suffix (which I've only seen on pronouns; mind, like I said, I'm nowhere near fluent), though I've not read the associated documents.

Someone care to clarify this? —Laogeodritt [ Talk | Contribs ] 20:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you check the article's history, this is the only wording acceptable to 199.126.137.209. It took a small edit war to arrive at it. Jaxad0127 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we eliminate much of the trivia? 164.107.217.99 05:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

-It's been a few days, if I don't hear any objections I'll remove the trivia, most of it is useless information anyways, similar to how the "advanced" techniques were removed for the sake of brevity. Also, do the voices really matter? We don't list all the designers of the characters, or all the other things listed in the games credits...164.107.94.192 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

-I say remove the trivia and elimante completely the voices section. 72.20.207.29 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worlds best player

I have noticed that there is a user that keeps reverting my edits and includes what he calls is the best player of the world today. He sites the Smashboards as his source yet when I go there, there is no reference to him as being the best player of the world. If anyone has evidence from a reliable source, as to whom is the best player in the world, then please by all means include his name but please site a source directly to it. 72.20.207.29 12:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not the person responsable for reverting the edits, there are a number of sources you can easily find. For starters his name is Ken Hoang. There is a wiki on him with ref's outside of smashboards. The last article of EGM (October 2006, number 208), on page 52 lists Ken as the 2nd most dangerious pro in the world, of course, this list includes nonsmashers and he is the only smasher on it (number 1 wen't to a halo pro). Ken has won the 2005 and 2004 MLG points totals and subsequent championships, along with Melee FC3, TG 4/5, OC2, GS2, and the list goes on. He has only not placed first 5 times in his Smash career. Again, check the wiki for more refs. In Nintendo Power issue 195 on page 77 Ken is mentioned in a caption as the best player in the world.

On MLG's website, Ken has been featured in an interview, as player of the week, in post event wrap ups, in articles about the character Marth, and a number of other instances, he has earned the nickname the "king of Smash". As for Smashboards, there is a sticky on the tournament section listing a top 25 players list, Ken has donned the top spot on each new list since its creation. He has only lost two tournaments this year (taking 2nd and 5th, both MLG events) out of more then dozen. Anyone who follows Smash knows about Ken, I find it hard to believe you looked very hard. You can hardly enter a topic about great players without Ken being mentioned as the best.164.107.94.192 14:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But the onus is on you to provide the ref, not for the questioner to find it. I don't read NP. I don't read MLG. Find the links or the magazine issues and page numbers and add them in, and the anon will have nothing to argue about. Hbdragon88 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That wouldn't be very difficult, but if his names links to a wiki that contains refs, that doesn't count? I'm just wondering because it seems like overkill to link to his wiki and then to cite things that are also cited in his wiki, but it will be done if need be. Also, I've already listed the magazines and page numbers, I could prob get the author for the EGM one, but NP author is already a ref. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.107.94.192 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Smashwiki

There is now (and has been for a while), a wikisite devoted entirely to the SSB series, I believe that deserves to be on the external links section. It is a newer site, but there are a handful of very devoted members (including myself) who update the site daily. It can be found at www.smashwiki.com/wiki. Thanks.24.220.197.19 22:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact it's newer, means it shouldn't be in external links yet. Wikipedia isn't the place to spam your fan sites and/or personal wiki sites. RobJ1981 18:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Wait, you're a member there? Can you help me? It says I need a Smashboards account to log in, which I have, but when I enter my name and password, it says I don't exist! (And, yes, I think it should be under external links) RememberMe? 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I never thought of smashwiki as being a "personal" wiki site. If that one is, why isn't any other wiki branch? Or even the Wikipedia itself? It's new, but it has close to all of the information there is to be had. This game has a LOT more depth than most people would think it to be. I ask you, RobJ1981, did you even look at the site? 24.220.197.19 19:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Smashwiki would be a great addition to this page. It has basically everything that anybody looking at this site in the first place would want to see. If they are coming to this page, then they would appreciate Smashwiki to the full extent of its uses. It has a multitude of in-depth information that would be extremely useful to anyone coming to this particular page.--69.165.41.151 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If there isn't objection, I'm going to edit it in within the course of the next week. 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I object on the grounds that it is a minor fan site. I think we have enough fan sites, especially with Smashbros and MELEE-FC. Hbdragon88 06:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't SmashWiki the "official" (whatever that would be) Wiki of Smashboards? If that is the case I would not characterize it as a minor fansite, but as part of a major fansite. --MaskedSheik 18:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No source for "Bowser and Peach in SSB"

I have removed the mention that Bowser and Peach were slated to appear in Super Smash Bros., as, after a Google search, I cannot find a source. However, if someone wants to search more diligently and finds a source, they are welcome to re-add the information. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alternate music tracks on lvls

if you notice, playing with atleast 1 of the 2 fire emblem users on the hyrul lvl increases the chance of the alternate playing, without l and r.

and i cant remmber how i got it to play saria's song 5 tim es in a row. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cody6 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Trivia/voices removed

I've taken out trivia/voices. Voices def does not need to be in there. Most of the trivia was also pointless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.107.94.192 (talk • contribs).

[edit] List of Pokémon Appearing In-Game

I was wondering if we could make a list of the Pokémon appearing In-Game, from Pokéballs and possibly in the PokéFloats stage. The Super Smash Bros. article has one and I think it's quite nice, though this article is already so long already that I don't want to clutter it up if it's not necessary. Perhaps I could add it to the List of NPCs article if it won't work here?--MJMyers2 12:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a list, but it was given the chop a long time ago. The NPCs article might make a good place for it, though, as well as for the SSB Pokemon. --Sparky Lurkdragon 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tournaments section pruning

THis is getting ridiculous. We need to remember Avoid peacock terms and realize that Wikipedia is here to report facts. It is not a vehicle for self-promotion. Among the things I just removed (bolding is mine): "held one of the largest national tournaments ever" "The number of users on Smashboards has more than doubled in the last year" "The popularity of Smash as a competitive fighter will surely continue to swell" "with the influx of new members on Smashboards the local tournament scene will continue to prosper." Let's keep it simple. Hbdragon88 22:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This section has been nothing but a source of problems since it was created. I personally find it to be utterly useless, but if it's going to be kept it needs to be watched closely so it doesn't become greater than the info on the game itself again. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 22:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
In Nintendo Power article number 195 they list the number of registered users at Smashboards at over 20,000. Going to the site now you can clearly see that is has surpassed 40,000. That is roughly double the amount of users in one years time. How is largest national tournament incorrect when that is exactly what it was? I can understand taking out some of the other stuff though. 164.107.94.192 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with HBdragon88. I think this new version edited by him is the best. It removed possible self-promotion without removing information. Also to Wikipedian06, the tournament section is notable. This section has already been cleaned up please do not remove it. Valoem talk 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

While discussing this, please don't remove the whole section. Ken Hoang and such are notable information. Andre (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for purging this entire section. Non-notable for Wikipedia. Wikipedian06 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It's fine that you think it is not notable. However, it meets notability requirement for Wikipedia. Removing factual verfiable information is vandalism. Valoem talk 00:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The sources cited don't meet Wikipedia:Reliable Sources requirements. Wikipedian06 08:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
So we'll find better ones. Andre (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Debug Menu

I think this section is fine because it shows the limits of the game. Valoem talk 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The amount of detail it goes into is extremely game guide-ish and features and advanced level of gameplay that the casual reader really wouldn't be interested in. Hbdragon88 03:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the casual reader would be interested in being able to play as Giga Bowser and crazy characters. Also on a side note the new version for tournament section is good, but you still have errors on it also I DID add a citation if you didnt see. I added a link from MLG homepage. Valoem talk 04:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing is pitifully still difficult to understand. Questions here:

  1. "These community sponsored events slowly grew, with certain tournament series proving to be milestones within the community." - peacocky, vague, and unclear: needs to be clarified
  2. "By its sixth incarnation in the summer of 2004;" - meaning what? They host a tournament every half year or something?
  3. "Not by coincidence, it was this same summer that the case was made for Smash to be added" - this is sheer ridiculousness, I tried to remove it, you keep reverting it.
  4. Zero Challenge 2 doesn't have a citation other than the site itself, which is not a reliable source. "truly international" also sounds extremely peacocky.
  5. "Matt Deezie" means nothing to me as he was not mentioned eariler in the paragraph. He just gets dropped in the middle of nowhere.
  6. What's Melee FC3 (2005) and FC6 (2006). Did they host three tournmanets within that time, or what?

More questions on the way... Hbdragon88 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not write this section. Just throwing that out there. It was written by AlphaZealot who is a journalist for MLG, also I did not rv, I simply copy and pasted tournament section. I acutally liked your version better, but it was filled with errors I didnt feel like proof reading it when the previous version was fine. Valoem talk 04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

1. "These community sponsored events slowly grew, with certain tournament series proving to be milestones within the community." - peacocky, vague, and unclear: needs to be clarified

TG was an underground ametuer tournament hosted by MattDeezie (unlike MLG which is a professionally run tournament with camera crew, television coverage, and sponsorship from major companies including Sprint and Gamestop). This tournament was a milestone in the community because TG is what sparked the acknowledgement of the popularity of smash from professional gaming leagues.

2. "By its sixth incarnation in the summer of 2004;" - meaning what? They host a tournament every half year or something?

Yes he(MattDeezie) did.

3. "Not by coincidence, it was this same summer that the case was made for Smash to be added" - this is sheer ridiculousness, I tried to remove it, you keep reverting it.

What? This makes perfect sense. Smash was added because of the popularity from TG. Ill tell you why, but i doubt it will be added in. In the smash community there is a former player (now employee of MLG) by the name of Jason (gamer tag M3D) who introduce Smash to MLG in 2004. Thus they added Smash to the roster.

4. Zero Challenge 2 doesn't have a citation other than the site itself, which is not a reliable source. "truly international" also sounds extremely peacocky.

I dont know what to tell you there, i think you just have to assume good faith. It is the truth though I know you are going to say that is hardly an argument. Remember this section was written by AlphaZealot, also I can be a primary source of its factuality as a member of the commuity with a good edit history of Wikipedia.

5. "Matt Deezie" means nothing to me as he was not mentioned eariler in the paragraph. He just gets dropped in the middle of nowhere.

He was a moderate on Smashboards, that sparked the tournament community.

6. What's Melee FC3 (2005) and FC6 (2006). Did they host three tournmanets within that time, or what?

Actually was a joke between the Kish brothers. They go in increments of 3:)

Feel free to add in what ever other information you want.Valoem talk 04:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A large reason Smash was added to MLG roster was because of the number of players that showed up at local/national tournaments. MLG is not ignorant of "underground" communities. When TG6 pulled over 100 people, making it one of the first Smash tournaments to do so, MLG began to see real potential, hence the "not by coincidence" line. It looks fine without it as well. OC2 could be removed, it is included in case people want to know about the international smash scene, which has roughly a dozen or so traveling players. This of course is not vital to the section. FC and TG are vital however, Matt Deezie is considered by most to be the father of the Smash community, and FC has run two of the largest Smash tournaments to date. I will be putting up a seasons total for Smash on MLG soon (a month or so, maybe less), so there will be an official source for the number of people at each MLG tournament (there were 206 at MLG NY, making it the largest tournament to date). Alphazealot 21:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tamagon trophy fix

Fixed minor error in caption to "Tamagon" trophy picture. Tamagon appears only in the Japanese version of the game, and was removed from the North American release because of its apparent association with the occult (from the "Demon World" series of games). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.131.167.26 (talk • contribs).

That's false. I have the Tamagon trophy on my game, and it's the US version. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For The Love Of Stages

Something very obvious worries me about this article: why isn't there a section on Stages? I would have thought it would be a cert in an article like this. Super Smash Bros has a section on this, and so does Super Smash Bros. Brawl, even though the game isn't out yet!--Ninty 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not, so I'll work on it as soon as I get the chance :) --DSMeatte 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Please don't. Listing individual stages merely pads the article without adding any significant content. For example, featured article Super Mario 64 works splendidly without them. Nifboy 07:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What about if we make that list as another page? The SSBM article does that for the characters, and it really doesn't seem right that SSBM doesn't have spmthing for stages when SSB and SSBB does. (though I can understand Brawl, since it's still in development and all) DSMeatte 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there no wavedashing section?

There's a "snaking" section in the Mario Kart DS wikipedia entry, but there is nothing at all in the Wikipedia entry for Super Smash Bros. Melee about wavedashing. Why not? Darkteferi 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There was an article, but it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wavedashing. Wavedashing is a very specific, advanced technique, and Wikipedia is not here for such game-specific information (that would belong in a strategy guide, like StrategyWiki). I'd suggest killing the snaking section on MKDS as well. Hbdragon88 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Just plain ol' deletion seems detrimental to what Wikipedia does. I wish the vote would have merged it into the current SSBM article. Theres no point in it really having its own article, but a subsection of the parent article wouldn't have hurt. :-/ 68.109.129.237 08:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smash Syndicate Forums

I've seen this forum linked over and over again on all of the Smash Bros. related articles. This forum has a whopping 19 members, and I'm pretty sure that puts it in the unnotable department. So if anyone sees the forum linked on any of the SSB related pages, do your best and delete it. Paji out ^_^ Comrade Pajitnov 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/p/Talk%7ESuper_Smash_Bros._Melee_1f92.html"