Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Stop RVing 2 Geno and Luigi 3 Archive 4 Padlock 5 Further confirmation of Ness (and possible confirmation of Marth)? 6 Sandbag 7 Roster Leaked 8 Minor stylistic change during protection 9 Start Screen 10 Pokémon Trainer 11 Marth and Ness TRULY confirmed? 12 Luigi Confirmed? 13 Leak Confirmations 13.1 Removed Characters 14 Characters discussion about leaked sources 14.1 Articles that can be used as reference according to our policies 15 Compromise 16 Japanse screen shot of Charcter Select 17 Characters officially confirmed according to Wikipedia's policies 18 About young link 19 Legitamite??

Stop RVing

• Dixie Kong is confirmed. She was seen with Diddy in an Events update screenshot.
• Krystal was confirmed due to the voice actor leak.
• yes, the leaker IS RELIABLE. He was known for leaking D+P info, and it was real. he said Sora's in. He's reliable.
• Famitsu said Marth and Roy are not in brawl.
• Pichu was deconfirmed in the Alt. Costumes update.
• Mr. game and Watch is in due to the icon theory.

Now, leave it as is. -Rikara (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

1. No, the consensus here is that the image is not proof.
2. No, she does not say Krystal is a playable character; just that she provided voices. Read Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/FAQ.
3. No; see the section above. Saying that Famitsu deconfirmed them is original research.
4. No; the section does not explicitly deconfirm Pichu.
5. Care explaining the "Icon theory?"

-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fail. No witty jokes or comments. Just Fail.
• yeah, Characters have voices. not ATs.
• Famitsu is reliable. They have Brawl. They reviewed it.
• It does deconfirm Pichu, as Peach's AC deconfirming Daisy.
• i don't know much about it, but the Pictochat stage is said to me his stage, or some shit like that. Dunno all the details.

And why'd you skip the Sora aprt? is it because I'm Right? -Rikara (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Sora part is also unconfirmed, read the FAQ. And, to reiterate:

1. The present WP:CONSENSUS is that the image is not proof. See Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl's archives.
2. This is patently incorrect by means of being OR; you don't know that ATs are silent.
3. They may have reviewed it, but they only showed characters [www.smashbros.com] already showed. Lucario and Jigglypuff were later confirmed by Nintendo.
4. No it does not - Just because Pikachu now has Pichu's ACs this time around does not mean anything, particularly because of Wario's presence after Mario usurped his own getup as an AC in Melee.
5. Pictochat's Icon is the Nintendo DS's symbol, not the G&W symbol from Melee.

-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, just stop Rikara, all of your so called facts are speculation. And the reason he skipped the Sora part was because it's ridiculous. Atomic Religione (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• LISTEN TO ME. Stop acting like a idiot. HE WAS CONFIRMED BY A RELIABLE LEAKER.
• -facepalm- Again, stop acting like an idiot. THE DOJO IS RELIABLE.
• E4All players said they were.
• THEY SAID MARTH AND ROY ARE NOT IN.
• Wth?
• Who the hell would be the rep? -gasp- GAME AND WATCH MIGHT NOT HAVE HIS MELEE SYMBOL! :o Look at Mario!

AR- Speculation my ass. LISTEN TO ME. STOP BEING AN IDIOT. -Rikara (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, Speculation, Original Research, and no Links. = Bull Shit. We're being idiots by following Wikipedias guide lines...?Atomic Religione (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Assist Trophies being silent is an odd claim considering how the voice actress whose voice was leaked as being for Zero Suit Samus and Krystal also voices Knuckle Joe, who we all know is an AT. Arrowned (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am this close to blocking you for the personal attacks alone, Rikara. In any case: YOU NEED TO PROVIDE CITATIONS - LINKS TO WEBSITES OR REFERENCES TO BOOKS - TO BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENTS IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE CHALLENGED. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rikara, Wikipedia is not a whorehouse of information: you can't just cram stuff in that's not completely verifiable. Do you at least have links for that Famitsu thing? Are E4All players official sources? Is the Icon Theory proof of anything? I didn't think so. So please, stop your idiotic ranting. No one cares about your speculations.

Yes, read my text. NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR SPECULATIONS. End of story.DRaGZ (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
1) Dixie was confirmed as a TROPHY. Doesn't confirm anything.
2) Krystal could have a voice as a character in Subspace, and could also be acting for Fox's secret taunts or a similar matter as Slippy and Peppy did in Melee.
3) No Leaker is Reliable.
4) Famitsu said so such thing about Marth and Roy, and only covered characters relealed by the Dojo (exzcept Sheik, but the was revealed the very next day)
5) How so? Pickachu has the goggles, yes. But that could imply mean that Pichu has DIFFRENT Alternate costumes.
6) The Icon theory is a THEORY. That speaks for it's self. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

STOP BEING AN IDIOT. It's not motherfucking speculation, and i'm not "attacking" anyone. Now shut the fuck up, because you are wrong. AND LEAKERS ARE RELIABLE!~ NOW PLEASE SHUT THE HELL UP! YOU ARE WRONG. END OF STORY!-Rikara (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* I see theres no arguing with you. We've proved you wrong and yet you insist of attacking us. You aleady have four violations of WP:3RR, and I can report you for the attacks as well. I suggest you calm down. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Give proof. Then I'll shut up. DRaGZ (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rikara...(Personal attack edited out by Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)}). Let's just stop this. It's moronic. Oh yeah, Dixie, is a SHE!!SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Rikara (24h) for gross incivility and personal attacks and opened a block review thread at AN/I.

And SLJ, watch it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If i get banned from here. Well. Ummm...27 sites...Everyone's insulting each other here...i just insulted the culprit. I'm always abused in life...(Begins crying) But, seriously...I think we should delete this whole part of the article. We're ALL acting like n00bs here (Fine, i'll include myself...) If a real n00b saw this, it could cause ALOT of confusion!SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You got warned for a minor offense. I'd be pretty surprised if you got blocked. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Can wii end this? I REALLY think it should ALL be deleted.SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Better that we leave it. The evidence of this edit war should stay around in case an administrator later has questions or needs to see what happened in case of an unblock attempt/complaint. Leaving this conversation here won't hurt anything. Arrowned (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There aren't going to be any further unblock attempts - Rikara was harshly incivil in all three requests he made, and his talk page was protected for the life of the block as a result. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was what the history was for...but either way is fine with me. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, figured i'd c what others thought.SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

After reading all of that incident, it makes me reealize how important it is to consider civility as well as the importance of using citations. Seriously, some of the stuff that guy said could be true, but then again it could be total bull. I also vote that we keep this thread up for reference. Indigo Rush 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear god, I just want Brawl to come out so this pissing contest can stop. I'm looking forward to seeing this article in tip-top shape after it's unblocked, does anyone know how long this is for? --HeaveTheClay (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The current full-prot is until the edit-warring stops - i.e. we can't unprotect it right away just because one of the edit-warriors is blocked (largely because the block is only 24 hours). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the editors? He was the only one. But I agree, Keep the page protected until at least saturday, when he'll either back off, or be blocked again for doing this exact same thing.Dengarde ► Complaints 03:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No he wasn't. I was at 3 myself. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What? According to the history, he was the only one who kept adding that...every one else kept reverting it, and they were all civil about it and never did more then two reverts. Who were the others, them? >_> Dengarde ► Complaints 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what history you're reading; I remember reverting three times. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe it. Smash Bros. Articles are being locked left and right due to people who have no idea that WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT USE ORIGINAL RESEARCH!! I don't care if it is a reliable leaker. Unless the leak comes directly from Nintendo (Lucario, Jiggly, and Ness), or comes from DOJO, it is not real until further notice. --haha169 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Redacted personal attack edited out by Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)}

Alright, people. Keep your opinions of other editors to yourself if they have barbs. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I was really annoyed at this...but I crossed it out for a reason. --haha169 (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This can't be proven correct, however nice it is Dojo is as far as I know is the only relaible source we are trusting.

For the record, though I know the last post in this topic is three days old, there is now a video of SSBB's intro circulating. Marth is pretty clearly in it (even if I was to discount the first appearance as possibly being Ike, I can't do that with the second case as both characters are on the screen in what appears to be a Subspace Emissary cutscene) so if Famitsu said anything about him being out, they were wrong. --HeroicJay (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is posted on the wrong topic. Try down below. Secondly, Yay! Marth! --haha169 (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Geno and Luigi

I know this is gonna happen, so I'm gonna make this clear since it's already proven.

The following picture, [1], is fake. If you notice, the text on the botton of the page is EXACTLY tat of the text on the image with Lucario and Jigglypuff [2]. Therefore, this is fake, ergo, Geno and Luigi have NOT been confirmed.

Thank you :) Dengarde ► Complaints 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that what you showed us is fake put who is the person next to Bowser?--DarkFierceDeityLink 03:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's Geno, but who's Geno, is he a Nintendo/Mario character? (sorry to ask here)  Doktor  Wilhelm  03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geno_%28Super_Mario%29#Geno .--DarkFierceDeityLink 03:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Geno is not a Nintendo character, unfortunately - in his cameo in Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga he is credited as Square Enix's property. As such, he would be a third-party character. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Luigi made it into brawl [3]

Archive

Except for that section concerning the edit war, I believe this is ready for a new Archive. --haha169 (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, 133000bytes?! I'm on it...Dengarde ► Complaints 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Dengarde ► Complaints 04:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya. I saw that too. I was quite surprised! :P --haha169 (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Padlock

I saw this discussion in the archives, but I was unable to find whether or not they reached a decision. If not, I Support. Could someone please clear that up for me? Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the discuss you refer to the one where unlockable characters have a padlock icon () as opposed to a tick (Y) from archive one? I think it was either no consensus or either a consensus to not put them there. I believe one argument was that people could be confused by the meaning of the padlock also I believed that it was argued it was unnecessary and that wikipedia is not a gameguide so I assume that padlocks will again be rejected. The Light6 (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, padlocks are used to denote a protected article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

True. However, does anyone have a good idea for showing unlock able characters? I understand how it could seem like a game guide, but it is also informative. --haha169 (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I supported using a padlock to denote unlockable characters. I also don't think it crosses the "game guide" line. What would cross it is if the article told the reader each method of how to go about unlocking the character. --Son (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think marking characters as secret is unnecessary. Marking them as such could be confusing, as new people might not understand what the padlock means. There could be problems with characters that are unlockable in one game and in the starting roster of another, like Ness and Captain Falcon. It's not game guide info, I just don't think it needs to be mentioned.Satoryu (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What about this image: (). It denotes an open padlock, which means unlock able. It will need to be enlarged in order to see the opening. --haha169 (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::That means is locked not opened.--Lbrun12415 06:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC). Never mind.--Lbrun12415 06:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Further confirmation of Ness (and possible confirmation of Marth)?

In today's update, this block of text was made:

Several memorable characters compete for brawl supremacy—that’s Super Smash Brothers Brawl in a nutshell. But what about the past fights for each of those characters? What were they like? It may sound impossible, but you can experience those battles in Brawl as well! That’s right, for the first time ever, you can play trial versions of these games by the miracle of Virtual Console! That’s what Masterpieces is! Here you can relive the greatest battles of the biggest star characters through demo versions of their games. Here are some of the titles you can expect to see available in Brawl. Crazy, isn’t it?!

If you go to the Japanese version of the Dojo: http://www.smashbros.com/jp/index.html

It shows pictures of Mother 2 (Ness), and Fire Emblem 3 (Marth).

As far as Ness goes, could this be added as a reference to further his confirmation?

97.100.29.236 (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fire Emblem 3, actually. And though it's a blatantly obvious common sense jump, it's not really enough under WP:OR to allow us to use as a proper source. While this isn't an issue with Ness, who already has a working citation, it won't allow us to change Marth's status on the roster. Arrowned (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as much with Marth. Ness was the main reasoning behind this logic anyways. 97.100.29.236 (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't evidence at all. None of this is. For one thing, the symbol looks like that Pokemon Trainer, not Ness. For another, even if the screenshot is real, the game is not out yet and content can still be changed. It's all rumor and speculation, and adding these characters before they are confirmed violates a number of wikipedia policies.VatoFirme (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Pokémon Trainer symbol does very well appear, in a different screenshot entirely from the Ness one; nobody tried to claim they were the same. Regardless, that's not what we're discussing here; you've confused two entirely different conversations/arguments/discussions. For what you're referring to, look in Archive 8 of this talk page, in which we spent an inordinate amount of time on that discussion. This is about Friday Jan. 25's update to DOJO!!, in which the Japanese side of the update shows screenshots for Mother 2 and Fire Emblem: Monshō no Nazo in its group of Masterpiece/demo images. And we already came to the conclusion that this isn't a good enough source for Marth's inclusion, so there's no need to continue the argument, really. Arrowned (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Damn Edit conflict)Umm the game is due out in like 3-4 days the content isn't going to be changed, plus the picture in question is straight from Dojo where it has the Earthbound/Mother symbol right underneath a picture from the game Mother 2 which features Ness and infact shows Ness in the game, actually I just realise that if you can play Mother 2 within Brawl that technically makes Ness playable within Brawl just not as a Brawller and I guess the same can be applied to Marth. :P The Light6 (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of both issues - one in which people think they saw something in the corner of a video (and assume all the footage in the video is recent and accurately represents the final version of the game), and another where people assume if a classic game is featured as a demo, it must mean the lead character is playable. Again, it is all speculation, not fact. Even if it seems likely or obvious, information shouldn't be included in wikipedia unless it is VERIFIED. The information should not have been included until it was confirmed by a reliable source.VatoFirme (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

On that note, did you read the link I provided? I'm not saying you don't have the right to argue your case; I just want to make sure you've gone through said archive to understand why consensus up this point ended on the side it did. We just had some pretty dramatic edit warring that required WP:ANI intervention over the matter; you can understand why we'd want to make sure everyone's up to speed before the argument is restarted. If you did indeed catch up, then I guess it's time to just let everyone else make the points they feel necessary in response. Arrowned (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dojo update does not prove Marth is in.--Lbrun12415 18:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The severe oversight here makes me laugh so hard. Earthbound and ye olde Fire Emblem being available as a demo confirm Ness and Marth? How about they are putting those as demos because they very well aren't going to (or able to)put demos of Mother 3 and one of the Ike-inclusive Fire Emblems onto the Wii disc? Reasoning and that tidbit about "Virtual Console" are great things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.10.1 (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, I hope Ness is in it. Of course, since Lucas has all of Nesses powers (and more) maybe it does not matter. --User:Mkalv

Ness is in. Check Archive 8 of this talk page.Satoryu (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Check your eyes, Satoryu. We know that's not Ness in the sticker picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.10.1 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You should re-read that discussion. Several people have had to repeatedly point out that Ness/Pokémon Trainer show up in individual shots to people that think one is starting rumors about both and not seeing the second instance. Arrowned (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I hadn't seen the second screenshot(Yay Ness). My comment still stands on the Marth inclusion, however. Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn are going to be impossible to emulate, so its only natural that they throw a Fire Emblem game into the mix that can actually be played through VC technology. Marth would be nice just to see some Smash continuity, but I'd rather have some of the newer Fire Emblem characters get their time to shine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.10.1 (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandbag

In the UK part of DOJO, there is the footage for the Tokyo/Kyoto test battle, like with the other regions. I haven't looked at footage for other regions (though I presume they are different) but in the UK one a sandbag (like that of the home-run) appears on the lower left corner of the stage. If anything, what should be added to the article now, or should we wait until SSBB is released? Sandbag appears approximately 2/3 to 3/4 of the way through the footage, and is knocked off the stage reasonably quickly by what I think is a pokeball. To me, this shows that he works the same as in home-run mode, but if moving at a decent rate can likely damage characters (similar to tossing an item). The footage is here: [4]. --kami.inu (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The footage is the same for all regions except the Japanese. And there really nothing to add to the article about that. Dengarde ► Complaints 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandbag was confirmed as an item at at least one of the events that had the demo version.Satoryu (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, as long as people now know that it's not worthy of putting in the article. Thank you!kami.inu (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Roster Leaked

I found a video on gametrailers.com called Challenger Approaching Pt. 2. 12 seconds in that video, they show the full roster of characters. The link is here. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 19:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as we all wish the full roster was already revealed, we can't make any changes until it is absolutely confirmed and is public knowledge. One video can't confirm that, especially since there is a chance that it is fake. --haha169 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Very possible. So, it's best to wait a day or two for confirmation on this. In the meantime, this is some great speculative material. KyuuA4 (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a picture that was already deemed fake. Besides, if you look at it, it has Batman on it...--Smashbrosboy (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Batman...LOL. Yeah, I see it. That's definitely fake. --haha169 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not Batman. It's Black Shadow from F-Zero. -Sukecchi (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case, it's still fake, as it uses old character art for several of the characters, Wind Waker Link being the most obvious offender. --tktktk (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The full starting roster has already been revealed, but it has no relevance on the article. The complete, full unlock roster will be available shortly after the game's Japan release -- we will have all the info of confirmation and potential deconfirmation then. Until then, unless you have a source from Nintendo or a reliable source that meets Wikipedia criteria, please refrain from posting obvious speculation on the talk page. --Coreycubed (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Its only 4 more days some one with no life will unlock all of them in one day.--Lbrun12415 05:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but some one else (with no life) might actually get the real roster early. For all we know, that image that we're talking about right now might be legitimate. Not likeky, but keep in mind that anything is possible at this point. So saying crap like "Oh my god this is fake because so and so is in the roster" isn't an educated thing to say. Just remember, how many of you speculated that the next Smash Bros. would have Snake, let alone Sonic as a payable character? -- Indigo Rush 16:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This picture is fake. Not because of who is in it, but because of the pictures that they use. Every character that has not been confirmed on the DOJO!! had their picture as game art from a previous game. For example, Bowser Jr's picture is obviously from Super Mario Sunshine or ganondorf's picture is from Twilight Princess. Depressio (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, those charcters could be in the game, but that picture is not confirming anything. Atomic Religione (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No,no... I understand. I'm just saying that anything's possible at this point. When some guy over in Japan starts spreading information in a few days, we'll know for sure, but until then, don't debunk ANYONE just yet. -- Indigo Rush (talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We haven't debunked anyone or anything over the last 8 months; we're not about to start now. I've got a roster that's 99% confirmed but you don't see me posting it here. Of course, as soon as the game is released and we've got screenshots of the final unlocked roster, those 8 months of unconfirmed edit reversion will be a moot point. --Coreycubed (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Marth has been confirmed in the Japanese Brawl. I saw an ad on youtube. (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor stylistic change during protection

In the characters table, I am switching from {{?}} to {{unk}}, unless there is an alternative to the question mark, as just having one does not appear aesthetically correct with the checks and cross-marks.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Question Marks look at lot better than Unknown with the check marks and Xs. InsaneZeroG (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the look of the unknowns more than the question marks, they looked smaller and out of place to me.--kami.inu (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually preferred the ? symbol rather than "Unknown", but like you said, it's a minor change, not earth-shattering. It can stay the way it is unless others chime in with disagreement. Coreycubed (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually liked the ? better too, it fit with the other symbols better. Atomic Religione (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer the ?s per AR's reason above.Satoryu (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea the ? looks better because it looks more cooordinated, what with them all being symbols. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer the ? marks better. It just seems better-looking. --haha169 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer the question marks...as per above. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the change, the ? were a bit small and it seemed a bit harder to read with it while the change does make more clearer in my mind but it doesn't look as good. So the question from my perspective is: Have it less pleasing to the eye while having the info more clearer and easily read or have it good looking while having it harder to take in all the info at once. This question should also be noted with the fact ? or alternatives only exist while an unreleased sequel exists and once all info if is known (through releasing it) ? are no longer necessary. The Light6 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The ? is much better. When I first witnessed it I said, "Eww, who did this..." it must be changed back to question marks.AlexanderLD (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh god, eww. Change them back to the question mark's ASAP the "Unknown" is just horrible. You have the X and Check icons then just text "Unknown", it's horrible.Shyrangerr (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please revert the "Unknown" edit to consensus-established "?". Diff can be found here. Thank you. --Coreycubed (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is too late to argue since it has been changed back but for the preceding text before the table I think was better as the new version as opposed to the old version we have back now. The Light6 (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Start Screen

I'm pretty sure we can all trust the E for all testing of SSBB last year. If you check the video on Youtube, you will see the official start screen though not confirming anyone I say it should be mentioned in the playable characters section. BaconBoy914 (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned how? We already have a starting roster; it's somewhat irrelevant to the article as we do not have a complete roster yet. Coreycubed (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We do? We have the starting roster for SSBB?BaconBoy914 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

...yeah. Seriously though, what difference does it make to the article? Coreycubed (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon Trainer

Wouldn't it be useful if we put under the note of Pokémon Trainer that it is possible to set which pokémon you would start with or set it to random? The same goes for Zelda and Sheik where if you want Sheik to start the game, you'll have to hold the A button? Well, it's just a footnote addition, does it deserve to be in the article? deecee (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if this is the Brawl Wikia site. Wikipedia has much higher standards, and we can't afford to include every tiny detail. Wikipedia is for educational purposes, not a game guide on how to select your pokemon or how to start as Sheik. That's what Gamestop and Game FAQ is for. --haha169 (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Marth and Ness TRULY confirmed?

Some screens of Brawl have shown up today. More specificly, One with Marth, and one with Ness. Any thoughts? Dengarde ► Complaints 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A Video that confirms it all! Dengarde ► Complaints 03:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin soon add Marth and Ness to the character table? Unknownlight (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ness is currently on the table due to an earlier leak (along with the Pokémon Jigglypuff and Lucario). --HeroicJay (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell. It doesn't show him as playable, that's a CG scene. But, that is the intro to the game. It's already in the hands of gamers over there, so I don't see what the harm is, he'll be confirmed playable within hours. Coreycubed (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It does show that he is playable because that is clearly the subspace emissary and there are primid in the background which he and Meta knight are fighting against.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So I suppose you've already confirmed that the SSE isn't going to feature any non-playable characters in CG cutscenes? That's cool, I'll go let Sakurai know. Coreycubed (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how can that NOT be proof? Yes, I know it's on YouTube, but come on. That vid screams confirmed. I think you might just be gatting a bit to picky at this point. Neo Samus (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not that, I was just making a point. Marth is a vet, enough for me. But...uh, YOU be the one to request the edit. :D Coreycubed (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Luigi Confirmed?

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q142/eirik_bucket/s06.jpg -Karaku (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is, it's far too unreliable to be used as a source. Wait a few hours, we'll have official confirmation. Coreycubed (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(conflict) I think it's just a green Mario. Time will tell though. Dengarde ► Complaints 04:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a Green Mario. Luigi has a longer face. -Karaku (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

About three pixels longer in that grainy photograph of a magazine scan, amirite? Coreycubed (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Luigi Confirmed!! [5] --88.107.227.59 (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And to add to previous comment:[6] Yes, Luigi confirmed. Add please.

Cross-checked that against a few other sources (since we all know my loathing of BC). Luigi confirmed. It takes an actual request to get it added, and I don't feel like making the argument to an admin right now. Coreycubed (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, characters will be trickling in all night -- I wouldn't mind waiting for a batch edit. Coreycubed (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Really, considering the amount of characters to be announced in the next day or two of rampant Japanese people unlocking as fast as they can, we might as well wait anyways. Arrowned (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the announcement of Isaac. But I also support the suggestion of a batch edit, especially when the entire roster becomes released. --haha169 (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Expect the entire roster within 24 hours. And Isaac is just pure speculation. Coreycubed (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The only way I'll request a change if when they confirm Puff N' Stuff. I mean...Jigglypuff. At this rate the entire roster will be revealed in as little as 72 hours, maybe even less if theres no "play for x time to unlock X" characters like Mewtwo is in Melee, so wait to make a batch edit.Dengarde ► Complaints 06:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that Isaac is pure speculation. I was just making a simple statement, although there is this thing in SSE that partially confirms a GS character...anyways...On topic, I expect the roster to be revealed tomorrow night at midnight, when some guy gets his hands on the Player's guide and posts the results. --haha169 (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Player's Guide? Dude, people already have the game. Coreycubed (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

C. Falcon Confirmed. Bout time too.Dengarde ► Complaints 07:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Luigi now 100% Confirmed and Marth Confirmed as Playable.Dengarde ► Complaints 07:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ha I just saw this as well (C. Falcon). Also I am all for batch edits however then we'll have people who don't read the talk page come along and say: "Dudes so and so is in add them" even though we already know. The Light6 (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Man tommorow, and the next day are going to be vicious.....Lets try to keep as much order on this talk, and in this article as possible, this is what seperates the Wiki-boys/girls from the Wiki-men/women.....sorry got carried away there, anyways guys lets do our best to keep it up-to date and orderly. Atomic Religione (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

/salute. I'll do my best. Someone else take my shift, I'm headed to bed. Night folks, hold down the fort. Coreycubed (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

...And the place we got all that was dead. I think we killed it's bandwidth. Anyways, sincle thats all for a while, I'm calling the edit. {{editprotected}}

On the Playable Characters Section, please change the following characters to a {{y}} on the Brawl Column and remove any hidden notes on said characters: Marth, Luigi, Captain Falcon. Dengarde ► Complaints 07:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sites back up, Request retracted. Dengarde ► Complaints 07:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Leak Confirmations

Closing this thread. Talk pages are to discuss about the article, not the topic. Here people are clearly discussing about the topic, the article hasn't been mentioned at all. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Characters discussion about leaked sources

I think we were gathering information, and then were going to make a batch edit to the article, once everything had been confirmed. I reckon that has something to do with the article, but then again what do I know.. Atomic Religione (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

...um, we were gathering information so we could make a batch edit to the article instead of spamming the {{editprotected}} tag. I request that the topic be unclosed. Dengarde ► Complaints 18:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Atomic Religione (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gathering information means finding reliable sources. Anonymous images posted in upload sites by anonymous users are hardly them. Try finding articles, not images, as anonymous images are not accepted as sources. For example, this article name some apparently confirmed characters, and there was another article confirming Bomberman. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. I don't really see how we're going to get any proof more verifiable than screenshots and word-of-mouth even once the game is released. Articles operate off of the same information that we can find. Also, if you take a look at the screenshots, they'd be pretty hard to fake. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that we're going to find many more informative screenshots until someone uploads a higher-res image with either Cel-shaded Young Link or Jigglypuff. oobug^talk/_contrib 18:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, articles operate off of the same information that we can find, yes. But there is a difference: they are secondary sources that pick that information and create a story; we are a third party source that needs to pick information from reliable secondary sources. Picking images and considering them reliable sources is considered original research. Leave the investigation to the secondary sources, we will just pick the facts published by them. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, we even have a video of Marth, it may be anonomously posted, but it'd be extremely hard to "photoshop" that...Atomic Religione (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard like the virtual reality helmet that was supposed to be Nintendo Revolution? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to the archive, since it just adds fuel to the rumor fire to allow that talk to continue, with everyone and their mother linking to their Photobuckets. That being said, most of what's posted in there is legit, the game itself being the source. After enough data has been collected (namely, full playable roster, with proof positive of any deconfirmations), we'll go ahead and request an edit. And where does your source get their info regarding Bomberman? Only info I saw on that was shopped. Coreycubed (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't care where our source got their info regarding Bomberman. It is not our task to question the sources of our sources, only whether the source we are using is legit or not. That is why we cannot use a NeoGAF forum post directly, but we can use an article that uses that same NeoGAF forum post, because the secondary source is giving their face saying that the rumour is accepted by their publishing standards. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the game hasn't been officially released. This is a leak, and leaks are to be taken with care, never included in articles unless they are covered by the media. We don't publish the fact that some album by some artist was leaked, unless reliable sites cover the leak itself. As far as we know, these copies could have been illegally obtained and the images could be considered proof of that act. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The game is officially released on Thursdays, and furthermore, many people, mainly those who will be hosting tournaments in Japan, have gotten their copy early straight from Nintendo themselves. It's fine. Also, why are you claiming the the game itself is not a creditable source? Dengarde ► Complaints 18:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say so? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're claiming that, JUST because most of these images are on photobucket (Seriously, where else would you expect them? Playboy.com?)they aren't reliable, even though they are images are from the game it's self. Thats pretty much saying that the game isn't reliable. Buy your logic, any news source could say "Oh! Rey Mysterio is in Brawl!", and even hough the game says otherwise, it's true.Dengarde ► Complaints 18:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Where I am expecting them? How about IGN? GameSpot? Gamasutra? How about any reliable media? Check Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of our core policies: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That should reply you about that "Rey Mysterio" thing. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

When you said that the video of Marth in the SSE wasnt acceptable because it was anonymously posted. Atomic Religione (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we know it is a real video? Just because "it is too hard" to make it? I say Marth may be in Brawl because a reliable source like Computer and Video Games said so, not because of a video. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but thats just retarded. You'd believe some Website who's source isnt even very clear, but would disregard what you see in front of your very own eyes? I understand the eyes can be deciving, but thats just ridiculous. ( Movie in case you havent seen it movie ) Atomic Religione (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the way Wikipedia works. If you don't like it, you can begin discussing at Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That is what basically divides forums from us. Those are the guidelines and policies that make us trust these sites even when their source is not clear. That is why people buy The New York Times, Forbes, The Washington Post, etc, because a broad spectrum of the media considers them reliable. By the way, have you seen the game with your own eyes? If you had, you would be playing or taking images yourself, not posting anonymous images posted in forums here. From what I understand, you would risk reliable sources and verifiability to put the information first because of a video of a game nobody is supposed to have right now? Again, that is what makes us different from forums. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What he said. Any source can give you information. Hell, a highly repected magazine once said that were was going to be a Final Fantasy VII remake, and yet thats been confirmed false. IGN and Gamspot, as wel as any other news-source is the same way. And you would rather beleive those rather then what you see in front of your very eyes? The fact that you even question if it's real makes me think you're arguing here just to troll. Dengarde ► Complaints 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone in a fan forum says a Final Fantasy VII remake is in the works, nobody will believe him. If a respected source says so, we will. As I said, there is a difference between reliable and not reliable. Even when their mistakes, people still look for information in those sites, making them reliable. By default, no anonymous picture by some anonymous forum member or blogger will be reliable. I will believe in-game information when it is published in reliable media until the day it is released, and the game itself once it is released. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. "No-one will beleive him"? You're in no position to talk for all of the internet. You may not think that these images are real, but that doesn't mean thousands of people looking forward to Brawl agree with you. If you're so convinced that these are fake, even the video with Mart, which has 0 chance of being faked, then I urge to to save yourself the trouble and leave, because many people have proven that they disagree with you, and arguing with hundreds of people when you seem to be alone in your opinions gets you no-where. Dengarde ► Complaints 19:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If I go to a forum, someone posts something, and I say it is fake because there is no reference, but everyone in the forum says "He is known here, he won't lie", I must play with their rules and consider what he said the truth. If someone comes here and say "This image comes from my friend who got the game!" we just need to show him that our procedure indicates verifiability, not truth. We don't care if you are Sakurai who wants to give us an exclusive preview of the game. In this site, Wikipedia, we follow our rules. Reliable sources or nothing. So, instead of telling people to leave, I prefer trying to educate them in what we accept and what we do not. Because they are likely to trip against the same stone again and again. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can undertand not adding it to Wikipedia, but not beliving it yourself? Thats just odd. If I took a picture of my dog and said he was a Cocker Spaniel, i'd know that, but I wouldnt be a reliable source for dogs. So I suppose DogSpot.com would have to confirm to my friends that my dog is indeed a Cocker Spaniel, and take a picture of him themselves, making him sourced? What i'm trying to get at is that Wikipedia rules shouldnt nessecarily be used in real life. But thats just my opinion. Atomic Religione (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. However, Wikipedia has its rules and they must be respected. If your dog saved your life and made it into the national news, we would have plenty of references to credit the race of your dog. It is said in our notability guidelines that, if there are not reliable sources, it should not be in Wikipedia. Look, I live in Argentina, and will have to either buy the game from Amazon and wait a month until it reaches here, or buy it for USD 100 from our auction site. I go to some forum and read news, and I like them. In some cases, I even believe them. But what _I_ think in real life is different from what I think in Wikipedia. In real life, if my friend tells me his dog caught a thief, I will believe him. But I cannot write an article about his dog catching the thief unless there are reliable sources. I am not a reliable source, in the same way those anonymous pictures aren't as well. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the higher res of Toon Link: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/greenday561/up254056.jpg deecee (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't start posting images here too. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a credible image, whyever not? Is the game itself no longer considered source material for the article? Coreycubed (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The game hasn't been officially released. Can't you wait two or three days more? This is not a forum, even though people are trying hard to make it so. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want it to be a forum. Check my edits, you'll see how many times I've reverted posts here. Unfortunately, all the people coming along posting on the talk page are bringing up things relevant to the article. Of course, if there were no playable characters section, it wouldn't be relevant at all. But we do have it, and it is relevant. If those screenshots can't be used as a source, how can we verify that the Melee cast shown in the article were actually playable? Or the SSB characters? Well, we can't use screenshots or pictures of the game, and the article sure doesn't source them. Maybe I should request their removal, too. Coreycubed (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources, or wait 3 days (we waited a year, why not 3 more days?). I was against the inclusion of those characters there because people based everything in a video released by Nintendo that was then modified. I grudgingly accepted it when they added a reference to Joystiq (which in itself is a blog and is not as reliable as GameSpot or IGN). If you can source the information, add whatever you want. If all you have is an imageshack picture, think again. We are not Wikinews. We don't need to be the first in breaking some piece of news. We can wait all the time it is necessary until reliable references appear. Is it _that_ hard to understand? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research is typically unverifiable. If I stick a fork into a socket and write about the experience, my story is unverifiable. However, if I take a video of myself sticking a fork into a socket, provide proof that the socket is active by powering it on and showing the results, and then have a medical examination, we have stepped beyond "original research" and I have become a reliable source on the experience. Similarly, if I say I've played a game, and then go on to tell someone about the characters you can unlock, that is unverifiable original research. If, on the other hand, I unlock characters in a video game and post videos and screenshots of my efforts, my pictures and videos have become reliable sources. Granted, it would be better if an English-speaking SSBB tournament holder were to upload a video showing the physical game disk, putting it in, and actively narrating and displaying all the features of the game, but I don't think that's going to happen. Also, thanks for the pic Dcmjstar, though we still don't have a good picture of Jigglypuff in the game. oobug^talk/_contrib 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>Re Brujo: Not at all. I've used the argument many times myself. We do not concern ourselves with the truth; we concern ourselves with verifiability. That's Wikipedia, no argument there. My only objection is to the distinction between an object's existence, and the date is was supposed to exist. The full game is out there, it's in people's hands now. The retail copy. When the game is released in Japan, none of US are going to have copies anyways. But people still have it, right? And the game itself can be used as a source. CAG, Joystiq, et al. will be using the same shots in three days as they are now; people will still be making fakes; the "reliable" news sites will still be getting duped; and the retail copy will not have changed one bit. And as you see, none of us are proposing any changes to the article yet. The article, which is what the world sees. And those of us behind the scenes making Wikipedia run are trying to decide what content to be added, and when. We've already established consensus in far more tenuous situations, and we will no doubt do the same here. When it's the right time. Without original research. Coreycubed (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Coreycubed makes an excellent point. We're not actually adding all of these references to the article immediately, we're gathering them so that once the game is released, we will have the information ready to go. All of this information is in preparation for a batch edit, so that we can avoid random IPs and users adding equally random and unverified information to the site. When we're prepared to make this edit, we will have references to both news articles and pictures that can additionally verify these articles claims. That being said, the conversation that we're currently talking about was turning into a bit of a forum. There are only two more from-game sources needed: a picture/video for Jigglypuff and a picture/video of Bomberman. Once we have that, then our character research is basically over. If someone wants to post a link to a picture, make sure it contains new information that can be referenced in the article. Frankly, I think it would be useful to the article to link to both articles and pictures. oobug^talk/_contrib 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I already said that when I closed the previous discussion: you are gathering images, not a single reliable source. If you are gathering them to use as reference later, I added a section below with reliable sources you can use. Feel free to add more there, but again, images found in internet are not reliable. No more images, no more videos. If secondary sources don't think they are worth anything, nor we. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're acting as if you own this page. You don't As for those places you mentioned: Bull. Wheres the evidence that theres that little bug in the game that these guys mention? And bomberman? Still no evidence. As for These guys, What do you think their using? One of the images that have popped up. ANY blog, site, or "reliable" source can claim something is real, that doesn't make them any more reliable then the images themselves. Why? Because they're getting their info FROM THE IMAGES, that YOU claim are unreliable. Dengarde ► Complaints 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't own the page. But I do understand our policy and guidelines, contrary to some around. And haven't you read all what I said? We cannot use a unreliable source by ourselves, that is left for secondary sources. We use secondary sources, even if their sources are unreliable. I mentioned that several, several, several, several, several, several times. If you don't want to comprehend, it is a different matter. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can read thank you. And what I said still hold true. These secondary sources are just as un-reliable as what their sourcing. If they can come up with their own images, then sure. But the fact that they're using the images that have been leaked all over the net makes them as reliable or unreliable as the images themselves, since those images are the very base on hich those articles were created. nothing more. Nothing less. Dengarde ► Complaints 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are apparently not understanding what I am trying to say, so I will put it bluntly: We don't care what is the source of a secondary source. Ok? We don't care if they got the information from a forum post (heck, maybe your own post at some forum!), if they got it from some Flickr picture, YouTube video, Nintendo or Sakurai himself. We don't care. It is not our task to judge if the secondary source has chosen the best primary source. They could have invented it, for all we know. We don't care. Understood? We trust them because they have been in the market for years, far more years than you or me have been browsing forums. If they do exist still, if other magazines and sites consider them reliable, then we must consider them reliable. So, a last time: they could have invented that, or gotten it from Sakurai himself who knocked on their door and pledged to listen to him. We don't care. Our policies and guidelines put it extremely clear: Verifiability, not truth -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Coreycubed, secondary sources have became reliable because there is a chain of delegation that includes proof reading, verification and publishing. They are supposed to follow a chain of command from the writer that recompiled data to the editor and the publisher. If they break it, it is not our fault. They publish something, and everyone here will accept it as a truth because, after 10 or 20 years, they have demonstrated that the chain works. Yes, they have been duped. But those are very, very few. Think it in this way: have you heard about The Boy Who Cried Wolf? Well, Wikipedia doesn't believe anything anymore, unless someone with credentials tell him to.

Yes, gamers will have the game and yes, the game can be used as source (albeit primary source). Why not to wait 3 days more? What is so much important that the world will shatter if we don't believe the pictures? Who will die if some YouTube video is not accepted? We are talking about 3 days, not 40 years. I understand fans waited years for this, but they can wait 3 more.

We believe what reliable source says. If a reliable source thinks some image is real or important enough to make a note about it, then we accept that article, not the original image. Wikipedia is made by anonymous, and the only way to gain some reputation of verifiability is using, you know, sources better than forums and anonymous images.

By the way, why hasn't IGN, GameSpot or more reliable sources picked the "leaks" so far? Because they are now confirming the information themselves. Chain of command, you know. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I still partially disagree with your definition of original research, but I can see the fruitlessness of reposting links to the same pictures over and over again. Part of the reason that I want links to pictures to be included as references is because I don't have that much trust in the reliability of ezines, even (sadly) Wikipedia. However, if I –- as a user, not an editor -- find links to what I consider to be hard evidence, like screenshots, then I can have a stronger faith in a Wikipedia article's reliability. We don't want to include images as our only sources, just like we don't necessarily want to include articles as our only sources! Nevertheless, if anyone does find a picture of a fully-completed character select screen (so far we're still missing Jigglypuff and potentially Bomberman), then I think it should be linked for potential upload to Wikipedia as an accompanying picture to the article. These pictures can also be used as content, after all! I agree that we should refrain from posting links to images which, considering our repertoire of linked images above, do not add any new information and can not be used as illustrative accompaniments to the article. oobug^talk/_contrib 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but consider that the actual release date is on Friday. Images obtained before the release date are considered leaks. Where did Nintendo publish they were giving early copies of the game? Please, don't point to some forum post for this. Remember that the Harry Potter publisher sued those shipping their books early. Again, I don't see why waiting for three days more will hurt anyone except those really fans who don't understand how Wikipedia works. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles that can be used as reference according to our policies

• Computer and Video Games (here is an article with some information, and here is another confirming Bomberman.
• GamesRadar (picks information from CVG) here naming some secret characters.

Compromise

I think a compromise could be achieved here. How about we only confirm the characters seen in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYlGy7V3H3o. It shows Marth and Ness, the other characters even though they are seen in the videos, could be fake. For example, in the character selection pictures, each character is in a different spot per picture. We can add Ness and Marth as confirmed, but the rest will have to wait about 40-something hours.AlexanderLD (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A YouTube video is not a reference. With the references I put above (there was no need to add this section at all) we can verify Lucario, Falco, R.O.B., Luigi, Ness, Mr. Game & Watch and Captain Falcon, plus appearances of Ridley and Ganondorf. We can even verify Bomberman. I know everybody is really excited, but lowering ourselves to use images and videos (which are copyright violation, since nobody has the rights to upload those images or videos), is pretty sad. 3 days are that long? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IGN now hosting the vid [24] JQF • Talk • Contribs 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is different, because IGN, contrary to YouTube, is a reliable source. Although Insiders can upload their own videos there, not sure if to that section, though. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is their own. This can be indeed used. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Then get an admn. to add Marth as playable.69.121.102.73 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

>_> he IS an admin. Rey, if you wouldn't mind:

{{edit protected}} Would an administrator please add the confirmation of Marth as a playable character, per gameplay footage and IGN's source of the intro video correlating with known info. No other characters need to be adjusted at this time. Thank you. Coreycubed (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it. As a side note, I'm adding something to the FAQ regarding the roster that's been floating about. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Nevermind, was entranced watching the opening again :-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanse screen shot of Charcter Select

Changed from Faked to edited. Everything but wolf seems to match up with other images I've seen.Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Characters officially confirmed according to Wikipedia's policies

Lucario, Falco, R.O.B., Luigi, Ness, Mr. Game & Watch, Captain Falcon - Computer and Video Games

Marth - IGN

Bomberman - Computer and Video Games

Please update this list with links to Wikipidia-verification-approved websites. The only characters that have not yet been confirmed by an official publication, but have been confirmed by pictures, are Ganondorf and Young Link, so be on the lookout for these articles. oobug^talk/_contrib 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already done Marth's, but given as I don't spend too much time looking through game sites, is C&VG truly a reliable source? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, wait till these sources are reliable. IGN is definitely reliable. But the other source does not appear to be so. KyuuA4 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd hold off on Bomberman. I've been reading that it's a faked shot. Equally unverifiable, but futher confirmation should be required, seeing as he's not mentioned by other sources, be they legitimate for Wikipeida or not. --LordHuffnPuff (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Computer and Video Games is backed by 26-27 years of experience. However, since exceptional claims require exceptional sources, you can wait until more sites pick that information up as well. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Thank'ee, Rey. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus, who says a reliable website, cant make a mistake. Atomic Religione (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated the list. It now looks somewhat bleak... oobug^talk/_contrib 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

why can't we add C.Falcon or Luigi?--Lbrun12415 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Until they're confirmed by a notable, verifiable publication, we can't say that they've been confirmed by Wikipedia's policies. Although I'm convinced by the pictures, it goes against Wikipedia policy to solely use anonymously uploaded pictures of an unreleased game as a source. This list is for characters confirmed by official, reliable sources. oobug^talk/_contrib 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

About young link

how are we going to add the new Link we can't put a check on young link b/c this link is not the same also what is the name of this new Link(toon Link).--Lbrun12415 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not even sure if This different Link is even in the game for sure, so lets talk about that later. Atomic Religione (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to wait until it comes out in America before we know the English name of the character. oobug^talk/_contrib 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

well its 10:00pm in japan now so we have to wait one more day for them to get it.--Lbrun12415 21:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• If he is indeed in the game, which because of little proof besides a character select screen, i'm starting to doubt. Atomic Religione (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Toon Link would still be a Young Link. He's still a young child (and thus needs to stay away from Quahog). However, we need hard and incontrovertible proof that Y/T Link is actually going to be in Brawl and not just speculation. I'd say that check Young Link when and iff he's confirmed, and put a footnote explaining that Melee's Young Link is modeled off of Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask, and that Brawl's is modeled off of Wind Waker/Phantom Hourglass. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Say if he has a different name like toon link or wind waker link, then what do we do put an X on young link? and add the new one?--Lbrun12415 21:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, check Young link and use a footnote explaining that Young Link is called Toon Link in Brawl (IFF he's confirmed). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK that works I was a lil confused about him.--Lbrun12415 21:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Legitamite??

Do any of these seem legitamite (I know they're from photobucket, but still)? Most but the character roster image appear to be straight from the game itself, but I can't be quite certain myself. 76.104.78.25 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm near-certain that the images are legitimate, but we're not going to use pre-release images as sources for the article. oobug^talk/_contrib 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they are legit, its just we decided not to add any more characters (unless they were either; A) Revealed on the DOJO!!!! or B) Shown on a reliable source such as Nintendo.com, Wii.com, or IGN.com) until the game has been released and we have definate proof of their confromation by NintendoAlexanderLD (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)