Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Super Smash Bros. (series) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Good article Super Smash Bros. (series) has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the Super Smash Bros. series.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
If your question is on Super Smash Bros. Brawl,
please read The Brawl FAQ to make sure your question has not been already answered.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Contents


[edit] Archived

Archived just now.Smashbrosboy 03:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, where did it went? Logan GBA (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
nevermind, now I noticed that the archive box is updated automatically. Logan GBA (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did a reflow of the archive box a few months ago to implement automatic linking to new archives. Coreycubed (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brawl FAQ

Is the Brawl FAQ going to be deleted tomorrow, or will it stay until a week after, because of all the questions people will be asking after they buy the game? Epass (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The FAQ's fallen to the wayside since the game's been released. I imagine it's irrelevant now, but it's not doing any harm. It can go once the article settles down. Coreycubed (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If it is deleted upon Brawl's release, it still shouldn't be, because it will be of use for Europeans for many months to come. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think it should just be archived like past talk page discussions. Jeff Silvers (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Talk page archives as keep in talk page subpages eg. Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)/Archive 1 which is the same type of place the Brawl FAQ is. The Light6 (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
As someone suggested in the second deletion discussion, I think it should be added to the talk page with a show/hide button. Epass (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be archived. We may need to use it as a model if we plan on creating another FAQ for a future Smash game, or we could help the European Wikipedias out. --haha169 (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving it is kind of useless considering how it's already set up like an archive, as a branch path from a Talk Page. Arrowned (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bring back the Dojo article?

I believe that the Dojo article should be brought to the deletion review - it's especially notable, and if I recall correctly, Sakurai stated that it received, on average, more than one million hits per day, and more than five million per week. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dojo has an article? -Sukecchi (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Had one. Was AfDed all the way back in August. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions on Characters...

The list of characters lists "Wolf" from Star Fox and "Toon Link" from Zelda for Brawl. I have seen nothing on the Dojo to that effect. Is it vandalism perhaps? Anyone know the source? -Lagren 198.53.190.240 (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The game has been released in Japan and there are screenshots on reliable websites with Wolf and Toon Link in them. Epass (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It's out in America now too. The Dojo is not the only source of info. Satoryu (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. Didn't mean to sound so blunt in my earlier posting... I have a copy of it myself. -Lagren 198.53.190.240 (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And today, the Dojo revealed Toon Link to be a character, settling the matter about him once and for all. Remember the argument about him, by the way? Whether he would be called Young Link in the American version? There were some who attempted to prove it to be so, by logical reasoning. They were wrong, which teaches us all that logical evidence, no matter how good it may seem, is never enough; we need empirical evidence as well. Zeck (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The game's been out for a few weeks. His name being Toon Link is common knowledge. The matter was settled when the game came out. The Dojo doesn't matter anymore. Satoryu (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It being out in America, it is obvious what the characters names are and cannot be disputed. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EarthBound/Mother

What I was trying to hint to A Link to the Past in my last revert of his edit was that discussion for what he was trying to do really needed to be brought here first, as it's something going against previous consensus decided on for this page. Therefore... let the discussion begin. Should the fact that the only American Mother game had a name change in its release affect what we have listed as Ness and Lucas' series of source? Arrowned (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply no. The Light6 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Simply yes. The naming conventions on Wikipedia is to use the English names when they exist. One exists here, so we should use it. FightingStreet (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
But Lucas isn't from an Earthbound game. Brawl specifically states Mother 3. It should remain this way. -Sukecchi (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Mother 3 is part of the EarthBound series, and it doesn't matter that Mother 3 was never released in English. The articles for Mega Man (series), Castlevania, Mana (series) are all named after their English names instead of Rockman, Akumajo Dracula, and Seiken Densetsu, even though several games in these series were never released in English. FightingStreet (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"The naming conventions on Wikipedia is to use the English names when they exist. One exists here, so we should use it." But that is the name of one game not a series, is there any evidence to say the other games in released in English would be called EarthBound? Also since Dojo a reliable and verifible source has called one of the games on the English site the Mother 3 which fits the Japanese names and if the proper English name for the series was EarthBound then surely the name of the game would have been changed on Dojo to fit that but it hasn't. The Light6 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
EarthBound is the most - and ONLY name that would be known to English readers. There's no expectation that a large number of people will be aware what Mother means. Even if you proved that the Smash community knows it as Mother, that does not reflect what those outside of it knew. The only reason people want it to be called Mother is because in Japan, it's known as Mother.
And if you want to talk about Smash, tell me - what would it mean if New Pork City was labeled as being an EarthBound stage in the stage select screen? Because you said that the Dojo is a reliable source, then that means that Brawl itself is an even more reliable source. That means that it trumps your example, and you must acknowledge its legitimacy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to side with "Mother" on this one. There is no definitive proof that "Earthbound" means any more than Mother 2 (despite the hack of Mother 1 calling it EarthBound Zero, as it was made available after the fact). Just because "Earthbound" is the most recognizable name of *one* game does not mean that it is the name of the whole series, especially given as there are *no official* Earthbound games in English-speaking areas other than the SNES game. On the other hand, "Mother" is in the (original) titles of all three games. It's like saying that Charlotte's official name is Carlie. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There IS proof that EarthBound means more than the SNES EarthBound game. A sequel on the Nintendo 64 was planned to be released as EarthBound 64 in North America / Mother 3 in Japan, before it was cancelled. There are thus two titles in the series that are named EarthBound (the fact that the second was cancelled doesn't matter), therefore the series can and should be referred to as the EarthBound series on Wikipedia. The fact that some games in the series were not released outside of Japan doesn't matter either as the Mega Man, Castlevania and Mana articles show. FightingStreet (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, there aren't two games in the series called EarthBound because you said it yourself, it was cancelled. They didn't start using Mother in the U.S. until Smash Bros, such as on Lucas' stage. Just like how Square changed Aeris name back to Aerith during the first Kingdom Hearts, this proves that if they were planning on remaking them, they'd go under their original titles. Plus, the series article is called "Mother (series)", not "EarthBound (series)", though the latter is redirected to it. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 18:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. Good point - despite the fact that the title of that article is as disputed as this, it's perfectly good evidence. Sure, it may ignore every naming convention ever made, but who cares about that, huh?
  2. EarthBound 64 is 100% proof that Nintendo was using EarthBound as the series name.
  3. EarthBound Zero is a well-known name for Mother, despite it being a fan name, thusly making people identify EarthBound as a series. Oh, and Mother IS an official game in English. The fact that people commonly refer to it as EarthBound Zero does nothing but strengthen the idea of EarthBound being the series name.
  4. And, why didn't anyone respond to my argument that Smash Bros. uses EarthBound to describe the series? They didn't seem to oppose using a Dojo translation to support Mother, why not an entire video game? And I'm terribly confused, what? SSBB uses Mother in Lucas' stage? The only usage of Mother in the English SSBB is in reference to Mother and Mother 3, not Mother as a series.
  5. What evidence supports the naming of the series as Mother in English? There has never been a time when NoA has suggested that the series will be renamed as Mother here.
So you suggest that instead of the more common official English name - EarthBound - we should use the less common Japanese name? This debate is as laughable as the Mana (series) debate. Naming conventions says to use the most common English name for the series. EarthBound is so effing common for the series it's not even funny. Have you bothered to consider that so many people refer to Mother 3 as "EarthBound 2"? Hell, over at IGN, they give it the alternate name of "EarthBound 3" (them considering Mother as EB and Mother 2 as EB2). And on top of that, they say that the series is known as "EarthBound" in the west. GameSpot says Mother 3 is in the EarthBound series. EGM had an article titled "EarthBound series dead" (in reference to Itoi not planning a Mother 4). GameSpy calls it the EarthBound series. So, am I to understand that pretty much every one of the biggest gaming web sites and magazines are all wrong in calling it the EarthBound series? Oh, and remember - your argument cannot have a POV. It has to explain why everyone else is wrong and you are right. Explain why EarthBound is not the best name for the series in terms of ENGLISH SPEAKING AUDIENCES. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I noticed someone said that it cannot be called EarthBound because Lucas is from "Mother 3, not EarthBound". If we went on that logic, any series that featured any character exclusively in a game not released in English, we must use the Japanese name - for instance, if there was a character called Pocket Man in a Rock Man game, can we not call it Mega Man anymore, because Mega Man does not apply to all characters in the series? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And to add a third point, SSBB says "EarthBound (Mother)" as the series, clearly indicating that it treats it as a lesser name in English context, and that EarthBound is a legitimate name for the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You say Brawl calls the series Earthbound, but I believe there was a trophy calling it the "Mother series". It calls it Earthbound too, though. So going by Brawl (unless I'm totally off on that, but I don't believe I am), Mother and Earthbound are equally viable.

Second, Earthbound Zero really doesn't count for the official series name being Earthbound. It's nothing more than a fan name. The official English name of the first game is Mother and the official English name of the third game is Mother 3. And it can't just be said that "the games are Japan-only so they just use the Japanese names" because some of the Japan-only FE games got new English names too (from some of the stickers).

And if it counts for anything, there were discussions about this both on the Mother series page and earlier on this very page (it's now archived, though). Both groups agreed on calling it Mother. I would say that the series should be labeled as Mother/Earthbound, or maybe Earthbound/Mother. But just saying Earthbound doesn't seem correct (and you'd object to just calling it Mother).

And Earthbound 64 is only proof that Nintendo was using it as the series name, but that doesn't necessarily hold now.Sir Ilpalazzo (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking through the trophies, and I have every single EB/Mother trophy. Not a single one call it the Mother series - the only mention of Mother is in the individual games with the name Mother in it and the acknowledgment of Mother as an alternate name for the series.
But yes, they are both equally viable. I'm glad you agree. Which means that we default to the English name.
It doesn't matter. You cannot dismiss something as fan-made and decide its necessarily non-notable because of it. Looking at IGN's Mother page, they list EB0 as an alternate name to Mother because that's what it is - an alternate name. Not an official, but official and well-known are not the same thing. The English rom leak, the highly publicized one, changed Mother to EarthBound 0, and that's what people saw who played it.
But it is correct. To the English-speaking world, it is called EarthBound, not Mother. Mother may be well-known in the EB cult-base, but not in random people curious about the series, which they would refer to as EarthBound by the fact that they're exposed to that name significantly more often than they are for Mother.
It establishes that that was what the series was going to be called once the next game came out, and Smash using it predominantly establishes that it's what they use now. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

what you said was a good point. why don't we put "EarthBound (Mother)". because, as stated before, that's what Brawl uses. Ryu-chan

That's a surprisingly good idea. I was initially opposed by the fact that we should not use it in most naming conventions, in this case, the category for EB/Mother content is labeled under EarthBound (Mother) in North American versions of SSBB. I fully endorse this. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact, another thing I have a problem with Mother supporters is that in their ideal version, they wipe any reference to EarthBound, making it terribly confusing to the majority of the English-speaking world (it's already pretty confusing considering its cult status, but using a name that wouldn't be known outside of the fanbase is just silly).
And make note that me supporting inclusion of the Mother name does not become me supporting inclusion of the Mother name in its article. I support its usage because the series is referred to as such in SSBB, but that is just the name given to alleviate confusion, not as an official series title, but rather two given names to the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no real problem with the series on the character table being listed as "EarthBound (Mother)" but about the name of the series article which isn't really the focus here I think should stay as Mother. The Light6 (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That should honestly be discussed there, not here. Arrowned (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In the trophy gallery in the game the category is EarthBound (Mother), so that should be what it is called in the article. If Mother is the Japanese name, that would be great if this was the Japanese article, but this is the English game, and it even says in the game EarthBound (Mother). Epass (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd throw this in there. In Europe, Earthbound nor Mother was ever released, and so neither is really well known at all, only through Smash Bros, in which the first one mentions EarthBound, yet in Melee the music from Mother is named "Mother" & "Mother 2", while the single EarthBound song is named "Earthbound". So it seems quite neutral in Europe, and doesn't seem to "favour" any series name. Not to mention game names in US & EU differentiate quite often. Example: Star Fox has always been known so in US, yet in Europe it was known as Star Wing & Then Lylat Wars, under the "Star Wing series" until Adventures on GameCube. Just imagine the same situation for Mother, in which the series was named Mother in Japan & Europe but Earthbound in US. Would this make Mother the proper series title? I know this isn't the perfect example as StarFox was named Star Wing due to copyright issues, but you get my meaning. SuperLink9 (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tabuu

Under Tabuu it says he controls both Master Hand and Crazy Hand, yet I'm fairly sure Crazy Hand never showed up in the Subspace Emissary. Can anyone offer an explanation for this? 76.230.233.120 (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Speculation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A response of more than one word would be appreciated. 76.230.233.120 (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's original research. Which means it should be removed. Satoryu (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Or, in short, speculation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In case you need to know more details (which is probably what you were asking to begin with), read WP:NOR. Arrowned (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, I'm pretty sure it's not considered speculation? I mean if Master Hand is being controlled, what's to say Crazy Hand isint? Onepiece226 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

That's speculation. To suggest something without proper evidence is speculation. Saying that Crazy Hand is being controlled just because Master Hand is...that's speculation. -Sukecchi (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not stated clearly in the game so I think it's speculation. FightingStreet (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] in the part about Tabuu it says

"Super Smash Bros. Brawl's adventure mode, The Subspace Emissary, also features boss characters. Some of these characters, such as Petey Piranha and Rayquaza, are characters borrowed from other franchises." I don't exactly see what this has to do with tabuu, plus it is intently obvious from the rest of the article. So if the aren't any objectors I'm going to take it out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkracing (talk • contribs)

That's a separate paragraph, as the line of blank white space should tell you.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I say we keep it in. --User:Mkalv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.21.98 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Characters in the Super Smash Bros. series

User:Stormtracker94 has been slowly removing character information from this article to his newly created page. If he has disscussed this it is not this page or his new page. I currently have redirected it and told him to get a consusus and then continue to create the article.

So now we disscuss this article's right to exist. I personally feel this article does nothing that cannot be done here on this page. I see no reason to remove a large section of this arcle seeing as it is not noteable or good for this article. The new article seems at all not noteable. The news results on "characters" and the phrase "Super smash bros. series" brought 13 results. and most were merely covering Brawl and little mention of the caharacters in the series as a whole, not even mentioning NPCs. In short the new article is not notable and is takes away from this article hurth and does nothing this article can't do.→041744 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have a list for Asstist Trophies? BaconBoy914 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic, but okay... No unnessicary and would take far to much room. We don't "list" stages, items or pokemon, ATs have no home here.→041744 17:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No the toics called characters, so? If theres a characters list there should be an AS List, a Pokeball list, and a Stage list, or a page for all of them.
But are they notable, not fancruft or even necessary? I would say no to notabiliy and necessarity and say it is fancruft so they shouldn't be added. The Light6 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but they aren't even mentioned BaconBoy914 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes they are, in the Gameplay sections of the (series) and Brawl articles both. That's all the mention that's needed. Arrowned (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination?

All the other Smash articles are at least GA nom's, and this one looks ready to try for it. Thoughts? Any last minute things to do? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait until it is released in Europe as well? Don't see the point on rushing. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with that reasoning; all that will likely happen to this article upon European release is an update to the sales figures. There's no reason it couldn't reach GA status long before that. Arrowned (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I say nominate it. What is there to lose? If it fails, then it gets nominated after the European release. Epass (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Would we have waited for the US release before nominating it? Probably. There's much more to write. Sales information, reception, advertising, release, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree there is, but I think it might be GA ready. We can always add a lot and copyedit a lot for FA, but is it ready for GA is my question. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Brawl article already has GA status, so this article shouldn't wait. Epass (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

When was it nominated, listed, and de-listed? There should be a table on the top. --haha169 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roumaji

I notice a couple of Japanese romanization errors in this article. Some cases include: glides being spelled improperly, kanji being omitted, and the ー being spelled out as “chōonpu” instead of making a long vowel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C. Raleigh (talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Man, seriously. Naruto134, no offense; your effort is appreciated, but if you really can't read it you can just leave it in kana and someone else will add rōmaji eventually.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sheik

I don't know if anyone's picked up on this, but Sheik is playable from the character screen and not just in-battle. All you have to do is point your had on Sheik and (on the GCN controller) press A, and then you can play as Sheik and pick the different colored suits (as well). Also, in order to play as Zero Suit Samus, you hold down the R button (on the GCN controller) when you choose Samus. --Son (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We know. -Sukecchi (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Then if you know, why wasn't on the article page at the time I posted my comment? Also, thanks for your rather simplistic, bite-ish reply. It's greatly appreciated considering I wrote I don't know if anyone's picked up on this. --Son (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think his complaint is that the footnotes in the character table mention that Pokémon Trainer can switch Pokémon before or during a battle in Brawl, but only notes that Zelda can change during. A few extra words just need to be tossed in there. Arrowned (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was pointing out. --Son (talk)

[edit] Pokémon Trainer

Why is it linked to Pokémon Trainer#Appearance in other games instead of the main article? --haha169 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it explains the character, not Pokémon Trainers in general. --(trogga) 07:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boss Images

In the bosses section there are 6 images, one of crazy & master hand, one of giga bowser, one of tabuu, one of the wire frames, one of a primid, and one of sandbag. I think that it should be cut down to 3, or more spread out, because in that 1 subsection, there are 6, and there are only 10 in the whole article, so it's to crowded. Epass (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is the largest section in the article, and images could help the reader understand the characters, like full character articles. And the section infact very large, the images do not seem to "crowed" each other, each has relitive space.→041744 01:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, someone has removed 3 anyway. But I think there should be at least one image in the other characters, maybe the wire frames. I'm going to put the wireframe image back in, but it can be reverted if other people disagree. Epass (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Though we haven't really discussed gaining consensus yet, for the record, I'm with 041744. On my screen at least, that section was pretty ridiculously cluttered compared to the rest of the article because of the mass of pictures. EDIT: Though the four that are there look fine, if only because the Wire Frames image is spaced far enough down at the moment to not look too horribly cluttered with the rest. Arrowned (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I know how to solve the problem: delete the section altogether. Look at it, all it is is trivia and fancruft. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Not true. The information provided is rather notable, but not notable enough to warrant a seperate article. It's not cruft, and it's certainly not trivia. Satoryu (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're confusing notability with weight or relevance. The section is bloated with fancruft; if we were to cut it down to worthwile info, the section would be non-existant. All it is is a list of bosses and enemies—this shouldn't be acceptable in any article. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe their could be an image of Ness and Lucas in the development section, that would be more spread out. EDIT: Maybe this one: http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/characters/images/hidden01/hidden01_080201b-l.jpg Epass (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe there should be two images - Master Hand/Crazy Hand and Tabuu. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the series page, not the brawl page, and both those images are from Brawl. I agree that the images should be the hands and Tabuu, but the hands should be from ssbm. And who is a boss in the original? There should be one boss for each game. Epass (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Master Hand (alone) was the boss in the original game. We originally had an image of Peach against Master and Crazy Hand from Melee, but it was updated based on the oft-used reasoning on many articles that pictures of any subject should show the most updated form of said subject if there have been any significant changes to them over the years. Arrowned (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe there should be three images, one of ssb master hand, one of ssbm master and crazy hand, and one of ssbb master and crazy hand. Epass (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope that was sarcasm. Satoryu (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It was. So, is it agreed for the giga bowser image to be removed? Epass (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Tabuu Description

I just removed a portion of the Tabuu paragraph as it focused too much on plot and not Tabuu himself. To flesh out that paragraph, we'll need a physical description and notes on the kinds of attacks/weapons he uses. I'd do it myself, but I have a lot on my plate outside WP. Who's up for this task? Satoryu (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd do it but, my grammer skills still need a bit of improving...Sorry i can't help...SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can't help...then why did you respond? -Sukecchi (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If you didn't have an idea for Satoryu, then why did you respond? SLJCOAAATR 1, perhaps you should submit your version and one of us will correct it. Oubliette (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He is a humanoid being of pure energy, with a single "eye" lodged in his "chest" where a person's stomach would be located. He appears to conjure several weapons for use in battle, such as a rapier, a large chakram, and his own version of the Dark Cannon. Also, he is able to change his size at will, teleport, and split his body open. His penultimate attack involves adopting his second form and firing off a destructive wave of energy powerful enough to change the denizens of this world into trophy form in a single attack.

Anything else you wanted to know? ;) Oubliette (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take most of that, fix up some things, and stick it in the article. Satoryu (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] stages

shouldn't we list all of the available stages as well? I don't see how we could have missed that  :76.27.215.219 (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. They're not there on purpose. Arrowned (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but we can't apply the rules for a given aspect and then ignore them for others. The "Gameguide" criteria applies very much to the section about the bosses and recurring characters, yet the section still stands. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"gameguide" gives you direct advice on how to play the game, stating bosses and characters is not, even mentioning some of their moves is forgivable if it helps characterize the boss. →041744 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Your definition isn't applicable to Stages too, but it is still cited as a reason to exclude them from the article. Why characterise the boss at all? Why do we have this massive section of trivial info that is of no encyclopaedic use? Listing non-playable characters, enemies and bosses violates WP: WEIGHT. I can't believe that this has been nominated for GA with that in it. I can not for the life of me fathom why everybody here seems to love spinning out every single detail in this series. I mean, there's a paragraph dedicated to the generic wire-fram fighters, oh and wait for it...Sandbag. It's the same story at Brawl—the gameplay section is way too bloated, yet on the talk page I hear that people want to expand it. Yet, for probably the most anticipated game of the year, they want to be sparing for the Reception section. And at the same time, they look towards FA. Well, just think about—I won't be touching this article until about three months' time anyway. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I take your point, but we do not list every detail on every enemy in each game. But still the section could stand to lose a few pounds, I'll see if i can find a generic "too long compared to rest of the article" tag and put it over NPCs.→041744 14:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

While I feel the boss descriptions are necessary, some of the other NPCs can be done away with. Sandbag would be the main offender. Satoryu (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard

I think Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard should be listed as playable characters, along with Pokemon Trainer. They work exactly like Sheik does. Both can be selected from the start on the chracter select screen, both can be swapped mid-battle, both have their own trophies, and both are listed in the in game credits. The only thing Sheik has that Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard don't is a seperate listing on the Dojo, and I think that's hardly a reason to not list them. Takuthehedgehog (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this mindfield again. The difference between Zelda/Sheik and Pokemon Trainer is that the Pokemon Trainer is always present. In Zelda/Sheik's case, only one exists at a time. Also, even though Charizard, Ivysaur, and Squirtle have their own individual trophies, PT has his own trophy as well. And all four share a Final Smash trophy, whereas Zelda and Sheik have their own individual Final Smash trophies. Satoryu (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
*headdesk* Does ANYONE bother to read the FAQ? We've been thoruhg this loads of times. The consensus has been to follow the Dojo, and since the Dojo lists them as one character (Pokemon Trainer) we follow suit here. Also, Sheil and Zelda are not forced to switch between each other like the Pokemon are. You can play a whole, long match as either Zelda or Sheik without having to switch between them, while with the Pokemon you can't. Ixistant (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The notes cover all aspects of the "changing" characters, avoiding confusion. For the record I agree with everything Ixistant said.→041744 23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The FAQ was written before the game came out and speculation was rampent. Now that it is out I figured people might stop being so anal about how the Dojo is godly and all of our content should reflect what it says. I understand why it was this way when it was the most official source, but I think the game is a better source then the dojo now that the game is out. Takuthehedgehog (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Note that this argument is a moot point in this particular case since the game itself coincides with Dojo treating Trainer like one character on the select and victory screens. Unless you go out of your way to change that. Arrowned (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I presonaly think the table should just be left as it is, even if all people have seprate ideas on characters. That is why we don't even mention the total number of characters on the ssbb article and just direct people here. With the notes people can infer for themselfs on how many there are, without us having to tell them. Simply what I'm saying is "Agree to Disagree".→041744 12:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unlockable

Unless I'm mistaken, but what happened to "shaded cells denote unlockable characters?" --haha169 (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the phrase, I see no reason to remove this, without it the section could be misunderstood.→041744 23:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Problem

Someone put up a too long template in the article, and it is nominated for GA. If anyone reviews the article, it will be quick-failed. Can someone fix the problem with the section? Epass (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It was removed as it is baseless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Umm it wasn't baseless, it was added in response to a discussion only a few topics above this one: Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)#stages The Light6 (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I must say Judge, that tag was by no means baseless. In my eyes, there's no justification for the section to exist, nevermind it being some sort of colossus section. Despite that, there's probably a more tactful way of going about things than tagging an article when it's up for GA, even though it should fail anyway irrespective of that section alone. There are more things fundamentally wrong with the article. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well yeah it should probably not exist LOL I was responding to the tag on the article when the stages section had already been removed, and I saw only necessary sections, so I did think it was baseless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN 2

I would generally quick-fail this article, but I know there are plenty of editors working on this article so my concerns may get done if I bring it up:

  • Lead needs to be expanded to encompass the entire article. What is the gameplay like? More about history? What about the characters which appear? Reception?
  • Everything needs to be cited. There are sections without a single reference, and plenty of statements which could be considered original research unless it's been cited (ex, "The Super Smash Bros. series is a dramatic departure from many fighting games", "Master Hand and Crazy Hand look identical aside from their laterality, but Crazy Hand's fingers act in a more erratic and chaotic way", entire paragraphs).
  • There are a fair amount of fair use images. It's pretty obvious how you can justify the first three, but according to fair use requirements, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." How does a picture of a hand and a vector character contribute signficantly to the article?
  • Broad in coverage: Is there anything about the music? After all, they released a soundtrack album for at least one game in the series.
  • Other things: all references should be properly cited via {{cite web}} (see no. 6-7-8, 12-21).

Message me when you feel you've fulfilled the concerns. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This argument has been used on the Brawl page so I think it works here too. For the part about crazy hand, isn't the game a reference? Epass (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How do visuals on a screen allow you to make the POV-judgement "more erratic and chaotic"? That's original research looking at the game if someone hasn't published those thoughts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Crazy Hand's trophy from SSBM says something along those lines...Leprechaun Gamer (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The closest thing mentioned to that is that his attacks are "impulsive and destructive" (Melee trophy) and that they "evoke the bizarre" (Brawl trophy). So it should probably be reworded. Arrowned (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The hold expires tomorrow, so can someone do the rewording and cite-web things? Epass (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some references to point to the respective trophies, but I am not totally sure I cited it the correct way. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 14:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like most of my concerns have been dealt with. The trophies should be cited with {{cite video game}}, but that can be dealth with later. I suggest going through a thorough copy-edit; the prose is good, but it's hardly the "brilliant" of FAs. Good job, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

Now that this article has GA, should we get a peer review to see what needs to be done before FA? Epass (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not now. This article needs serious work first, or else the peer review will be shrouded with so many concerns that it would be quite impossible to sort through them all. But the peer review should be coming soon. --haha169 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wavedashing - should this get a mention?

Hi guys, should this be mentioned in this article? It was mentioned in an interview between Nintendo Power and Sakurai recently and there's a bit of a debate going on on the melee talkpage about whether its inclusion would benefit the (melee)article. Would appreciate some more opinions on the matter from any editors with a bit more knowledgeable than myself (and not involved in the argument as I seem to be!). Thanks! :) Darrek Attilla (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to discuss it here, as it wouldn't affect the Series page. Keep it over at Melee. Satoryu (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Topic

After SSBB's FAC is completed, we should nominate it at the FTC. It fits the criteria, and if SSBB succeeds at the FAC, it'll have 50% of their articles featured, much better a percentage than required. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, though we should also strengthen the original smash brothers article as it is much weaker than the other 3. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's true that the article is weaker, but I think it has a lot to do with the fact that SSB itself is weaker than the other two games in terms of popularity, quality, and content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to rain on the parade, but this article isn't looking too great either. I mean, big chunks of "devlopment" were copy-and-pasted from Melee, as well as other issues. I can't believe that this hasn't been picked up on before. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I am still surprised that this article made it past GA. It is looking much better than before, but still needs quite a bit work. And another thing, Brawl's FAC isn't looking too great either...--haha169 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, SSB has been delisted. Why don't we work on that? --haha169 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to anything past June 20th (exams); until then, I can't. User: Dihydrogen Monoxide has expressed interest in this on my talk page, so perhaps you could contact him if you want to work on it right away. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Brawl failed its FAC. Original got demoted. Things aren't looking so bright right now - plus, I'm being bombarded by people thinking that Taiwan is a SAR. Political debating...I can't help much either. Sorry.--haha169 (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SSBB Bosses

should we mention the bosses in SSBB?. Mysterious Nazo (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

They're already there. Satoryu (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ok.Mysterious Nazo (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Falcon

Since when was CF in SSB?--Raiespio (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Always Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes; he's an unlockable character. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
But not in Melee. --(trogga) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Master Hand

I archived this thread because it is practically a train wreck. Continuing on this thread at this point is disruptive. Do not remove the archival. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 02:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Master Hand should probably get a page for himself, since he does appear in quite a few Nintendo games. I don't want to have an edit war on this however. He can be seen quite easily in many Nintendo games, I'm not sure of any articles which point it out though. If we are going to say that pointing him out in Kirby Super Star is original research, then we should remove the point about Kirby & the Amazing Mirror as well. DeadManTyping (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't quite understand the definition of original research. Master Hand's appearance in Amazing Mirror isn't OR because his appearance there is as a boss with his name in clear view underneath his health bar in the bottom right corner of the screen while you fight him. Your claim that he's in a significant other number of games as the generic cursor is OR because neither Nintendo nor any of those games have ever said that was Master Hand or credited him as such. There are no sources online or in instruction booklets that we could possibly use for a citation for this. Therefore, such a claim fits under the "unpublished facts" and "speculation" explanation of being original research. It's not legitimately canon, and it shouldn't go in this article. Since by its very nature it's OR, there's also no way you're going to be able to "word it" to sound like it's not. Arrowned (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It is fact that his fighting style is the same as in Kirby Super Star, as well as having a few remnants of his appearance in Donkey Kong. That is undeniable. As for his other appearances, so what if he wasn't actually given a name? — DeFender1031 01:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Fighting style being identical doesn't change anything, considering it's possible the style could just be an homage. Now, internally, I know that's bunk; I know perfectly well Master Hand was flat out inspired by Wham Bam Rock. But, as we actually already mentioned in an archived discussion, there's nothing to use as a citation for that either; no legitimate video game website or news source ever mentioned that, and it's relegated to fan theory only as a result. Which brings us right back to the original point: if a verifiable, citable source has not said that a character is Master Hand or is inspired by him, we can't claim he is. There's your "so what"; it's Wikipedia's rules. Also, I'd like to point out that the claim of a generic cursor in a bunch of games (a white gloved hand as cursor having been used since PC games in the 80's) being related to the SSB boss, who in his first SSB appearance was hinted to be the hand of a child playing with dolls, is a tad bit flimsy. Arrowned (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It has been mentioned by Nintendo that Super Smash Bros. brings in characters and items from previous games they made. In fact, I can't recall offhand any thing that was first invented by Super Smash Bros. Yes, we should cite a source that Nintendo mentioned how it builds on previous games. Once done, it would be OR to say that something in SSB was invented by SSB. From a logical point, who would be a boss character from such a mixing? Probably best to go with something found in many games. The main characters from SSB are Mario, DK, Pikachu, Link, Samus, Fox, Kirby, and Yoshi. Mario & DK had the robot hands in Donkey Kong, Link had the hand in LttP, Fox has the hand as the final boss Andross in Star Fox 64, and Kirby had Wham Bam Rock. This makes it a character seen with 5/8, very fitting for a boss. A disembodied hand was used in Mario Paint, and the Mario Party series (also including Yoshi), and possibly other games I'm not familiar with. True, the name "Master Hand" wasn't used till SSB, but call it what you will, a homage, inspiration, or whatever, fighting one or two hands, or having a hand grab the player and take him elsewhere (see SSB intro, and LttP) is in games these characters are from. To say it was a homage or inspiration would perhaps be OR, since Nintendo never weighed in on it, but we can easily say that "disembodied hands" or hands with the same fighting style has been in use prior to SSB. I don't know what best to call it, call it a cousin of Master Hand, or whatever, but it is in essence Master Hand. Images of Wham Bam Rock which we know Master Hand was based on can be found here http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/5053/wbr1uw4.png and here http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/874/wbr2nx5.png DeadManTyping (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
original research. No way, no how. Good day. -Sukecchi (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to call this OR, we're going to have to modify a lot of WP in other places. See this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LAscreenshot2.JPG This image is included here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Link%27s_Awakening and says "One of Link's Awakening's sidescrolling areas, featuring a Goomba and a Piranha Plant cameo." Since it never said in the game itself that Goombas and Piranha Plants made cameos, we should remove that text. Even though we can easily see that they are Goombas and Piranhas. At some point we have to draw a line, where should this line be? I would say that if something can be easily seen, it can be pointed out. Such as saying, here are enemies that look like Goombas from the Mario series. It is obvious from the image that they look like Goombas. Here in this section, we can do the same and say Master Hand has a fighting style and look similar to hands in previous Nintendo games, it's just as obvious as Goombas making cameos. We don't have to say that both are Master Hand, or that one is a homage of the other. DeadManTyping (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Bunk point; Nintendo's own player's guide for LA flat out called those Goombas and Piranha Plants, and that's a citable resource as it was produced by the company. There's no such citable source for Master Hand being the same as "generic cursor". And even if that were an issue, that's an issue to be brought up at the LA article, not here. Arrowned (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, in the intro to SSB, the hand goes around and pulls all of the characters into the game. In the character selection screen, the hand is a cursor to choose your character, and you're telling me that it's not the same hand? The game portrays Master Hand AS a cursor, or rather turns the traditional hand cursor INTO a character. Furthermore, you mentioned earlier that you "know perfectly well Master Hand was flat out inspired by Wham Bam Rock". Comparison of fighting styles is not original research. Nearly half of Master Hand's moves are direct copies of Wham Bam Rock's. Has the world become so reliant on sources that it no longer matters what's true, but rather what's written somewhere? "The sky is blue" "No, sorry, that's original research". It's ridiculous. — DeFender1031 03:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You know what's really ridiculous? This discussion. No matter how you slice it, your claims are pure original research. There is nothing to back up your claims. By your logic, the gloves on Mario's hands are Master Hand, right? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Satoryu (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to back up my claim, huh? Would you like screenshots? I can provide plenty of screenshots comparing fighting styles, appearances, etc. These are things that can be quantified and analyzed, and if you so desire, that can be done, and my claim will be duly "backed up". — DeFender1031 04:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That's still OR. You're going to have to find a reliable source that actually says these things are indeed Master Hand. Which I can assure you no such source exists.
And I thought the discussion above this was outrageous... Satoryu (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, this article as it was gives the false impression that this is the first time the hand has appeared as a character. Fact: the hand has been in almost every nintendo game in one form or another. Fact: the fighting style of the hands from donkey kong and kirby super star in particular are very similar to Master Hand's. Fact: master hand is used as a cursor also. Fact: many other games had hands for cursors. Fact: nothing in SSB had its first appearance there. Fact: Master hand is the final boss in a game in which all elements are based on other nintendo games. Fact: a disembodied hand has appeared as a character in more nintendo games than any other character. Fact: SSB developers said that the game takes all of its characters and items from prior nintendo games. Based on all of this, claiming that Master Hand was invented for SSB goes AGAINST verifiable sources. need i go on? — DeFender1031 04:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Fact: All of your "facts" are original research, save for "many other games had hands for cursors." And even that isn't very citable. How can you honestly believe that every hand you see in a video game is Master Hand? It boggles my mind. Satoryu (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying that master hand is BASED on all those other hands, and every single one of my facts are verifyable. — DeFender1031 04:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
They're not verifiable if you don't have a citable source, specifically a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I don't know how many times we're going to have to repeat that. Arrowned (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
And i don't know how man times I'M going to have to repeat that the truth matters more than what some third party shmo has to say. All of my facts are readily available just from playing the games in question, save for "SSB developers said that the game takes all of its characters and items from prior nintendo games", which comes from any review or press release of the game. I have my own brain, I don't need a third party expert to tell me things that are that obvious, thanks. — DeFender1031 06:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Good for you, and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way at all. Forward and solitary thinking is obviously a good thing. But Wikipedia's rules are Wikipedia's rules, which is why I don't understand why this is still being argued. There's no getting around this. Arrowned (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not based on truth. It's based on verifiability. And the statement "SSB developers said that the game takes all of its characters and items from prior nintendo games" is not true either. What game had the Bumper? The Ray Gun? The Fan? Final Destination? Satoryu (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Bumper is in Kirby's Pinball Land, Ray Gun is something Jeff has in EarthBound, Fan is the first attack weapon Kirby uses in Samurai Kirby from Kirby Super Star. I'm not sure about Final Destination. 85.250.245.29 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The trophies say otherwise. Here's a better example: Giga Bowser has never been in a Mario game. Satoryu (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No trophies in SSB. However in SSBM where there are Trophies, it also says the Barrel is original to SSB Series. You telling me that it's not from Donkey Kong? I'd take what those trophies have to say with a grain of salt. Your Giga Bowser example is no example, as it's not in SSB. Find an example in SSB where they invented something. Granted that the later games in the series invented a few things. And even if we were discussing SSBM, Giga Bowser? You're telling me Bowser enlarged and touched up a bit it's a whole new character? Yeah, right. Maybe we should say Samus is a new character too, since she was never 3D before. If you're going to make an argument, make a proper one, and don't try to grasp for straws. I agree with DeadManTyping and DeFender1031 on this, there was nothing significant invented in the original SSB. 85.250.245.29 (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
So now every single wooden barrel that ever existed came from Donkey Kong? There is a serious problem going on here. Satoryu (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
So now wooden barrels which you can pick up and throw aren't from Donkey Kong? There's a serious problem if you think that it isn't. 89.139.233.43 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On a more pragmatic note, I know this article has a crapload of editors; some more people need to speak up. This argument has been going rather steadily, and five diametrically opposed opinions are probably not going to be enough for any sort of consensus. Arrowned (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is very possible that Master Hand and other items were created just for the SSB series. For instance, the bumper has the symbol of SSB on it. If it was from another series, it would not have that on there. Master Hand is probably based off of another character, but it would be nearly impossible to say that he is actually based off of another character, since there is nothing that says he is. Another "Master Hand" could very easily be a coincidence. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the argument of original research, it doesn't matter what the truth is, wikipedia isn't about truth it's about verifiable sources (which people have to hope represent the truth). So either go to a fan wiki where the rules aren't so strict and add it or get a source and show it to us here. The Light6 (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that it is verifiable just by playing the games in question the same way that plot summaries are verifiable just from watching the movie or tv show which it summarizes. You don't need an external source for information which is readily available. — DeFender1031 21:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Plot summaries are not always verifiable. They are if an official (from the instruction manual of the game, for example) or reliable source (such as a game review) is actually telling you of them. They're not if you infer things that haven't actually been told to you by the game or otherwise. You shouldn't have to gather the information yourself.
Your claims are not verifiable. You're piecing information together. No official source has even hinted at, let alone flat out said in writing, what you claim. That is the very definition of original research.
I highly reccommend you read over WP:V and WP:NOR a couple times to see why this is so. Satoryu (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If somebody plays Kirby's Super Star Wham Bam Rock and Super Smash Bros Master Hand they can't see the similarities? I think they can, I noticed it too. What's wrong with saying that players notice that Master Hand seems to be based on characters from earlier Nintendo games? I can easily point out many such players with a quick search on Google of forums related to Super Smash Bros. 217.132.13.51 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"Players notice" is, again, original research, without some sort of verifiable source that actually said they notice. You can only speak for yourself noticing, and however many people want to speak up as well, but forum/talk page posts by people who aren't related to the industry aren't good enough sources for what Wikipedia needs. You seriously need to do what Satoryu already suggested and read WP:V and WP:NOR, because this is retreaded material those two articles already goes over. Arrowned (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how "Players notice" is any different than tv episode summaries. I also looked over WP:V, and it only talks about the article as a whole, not little nuances that this argument is over. 217.132.13.51 (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The suggestion about TV episode summaries earlier was probably a bad thing to bring up, because it's not relevant to this discussion as the details are different. Specifically, summarizing TV episodes and/or game plot tends to be fine because there's nothing being inferred; it's flat out shown on TV/displayed over the course of the game. The TV show/game itself is the source. This Master Hand deal is something being inferred by fans that the game is not making clear on its own; it's not the same as plot summaries, because plot summaries involve writing down what happened, not piecing together random evidence. As far as WP:V goes, all nuances are covered under the line near the start, "whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". What we're arguing now is something that has not appeared in a reliable source. Arrowned (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not clear on its own that some moves that Master Hand and Wham Bam Rock display are identical? I also disagree with your understanding of WP:V. Not every sentence has a citation on Wikipedia. Yet readers are able to check something out if they have a frame of reference to go on, namely the games mentioned, and don't need a link to some other source. You yourself said above that it's okay to say Master Hand is in Amazing Mirror because they can read that in the other game, and don't need a 3rd party for it. Not all information is conveyed in text either, images count for something too. Otherwise for a tv episode, one could never write that A punched B in this episode. 217.132.13.51 (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I was never arguing the fact that not everything is cited; in fact, I mentioned in my last reply that when the game itself is the source, things are pretty cut and dry (I said that same thing about TV summaries, so I don't understand what you're trying to argue). The whole point of this discussion is the fact that this particular instance, that of Master Hand being inspired by Wham Bam Rock or Master Hand being the same as the generic cursor, is not. Also note that I never argued against the line of thought that MH and WBR's moves are identical; that's obvious. The claim that one inspired the other is not as clear cut and is what requires a citation. Arrowned (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think you and I are on the same page then. Let Wikipedia just say that MH has moves from WBR and DK and Andross, and leave it at that, delete the cursor thing. 217.132.13.51 (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are still OR without a source actually pointing out the similarities. They could just be coincidences. Satoryu (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen, if we were saying "master hand moves a lot like thing from the addam's family" okay, i could hear the coincidence argument, because the two things are not at all related. However, this is a case where it's a similar character in a similar style game, from the same development company... very hard to claim that they didn't know about wham bam rock when they were inspired to create master hand. Regardless, the similarities are obvious, and it is NOT original research to say that many of their moves are identical, that is fact. — DeFender1031 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Read this archived discussion to see why that is still OR. Satoryu (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I honestly cannot believe you are still trying to convince us this is not original research. -Sukecchi (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I honestly can't believe you are still trying to convince that there is anything more original about this, than saying a character with the same name appears in a different game. 89.138.134.246 (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Master Hand and Wham Bam Rock have identical moves could easily be coincidence. Since they are both based on the human hand, there are only so many movements that a human hand can make. Meanwhile, even if one was inspired by the other, there is no way to prove that unless a person who worked on the game actually says "This was inspired by that". Several things can be inferred about something, but that does not necessarily make it true. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought we already agreed to drop this whole inspired thing and just say that some of his moves look like moves of other bosses (will be listed) from previous games by Nintendo, and leave it up to the reader to put two and two together, in whichever way they desire. 89.138.134.246 (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a novel, where you have to read something and figure out what it is trying to say. This is an encyclopedia. It should only have information that is relevant, useful and correct. At no point should the reader have to put "two nad two together". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisnotpj (talk • contribs) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Master Hand having moves from other Nintendo characters is relevant, useful, and correct. No one has to put two and two together, but if they want they can. If someone likes Master Hand and wants to fight a similar character, they know which other games they can play. Is there any reason that such info shouldn't be there? 85.250.203.247 (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Because as already explained it is original research. Also on another note, I think this discussion is going to just keep going on and on unless we get a mod or someone else in power in here to resolve this. The Light6 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it was explained that if it were to say that one is based on the other that it is original research. 85.250.203.247 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, time to put the kibosh on this argument, as it appears to (α) be going nowhere and (β) is about unverifiable "facts" that, even if true, isn't worthy of inclusion in the article in the first place. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] SmashWiki

Well, I tried to restore the EL for SmashWiki but someone removed it, telling me to dicuss it in the discussion quite a while ago. Well, I finally got around to it, so I simply want to propose that SmashWiki should be put back in the external links for this thread. I mean, I don't see why it shouldn't be there. Its pretty good compared to other wikis we've been linking before. Most/all of the "speculative nature" of the wiki, which is what I suppose it was previously removed for, is pretty much gone now, and it provides much information about the competitive smash scene, something that Wikipedia and all the sites currently linked in this article lacks almost entirely. So why not put back the SmashWiki link? Tirkaro (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironically we just talked about this two days ago in the Brawl talk page. Arrowned (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Super Smash Bros. DS

Nintendo has hinted towards a DS Super Smash Bros. Game quite a few times, perhaps we should add a small note somewhere saying, for example "Nintendo has hinted towards Super Smash Bros. DS a few times, though It is not officially announced. FalconPunch2 (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be speculation, so I don't think that would be the best to add, unless it's announced. --Son (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Other articles have had similar small notes saying that the creators have hinted towards a sequel, new season of a show, etc., and it's been okay. So I don't see why this article shouldnt have one.FalconPunch2 (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Other articles" require a verifiable citation that said hints exist as much as this article does. If they don't, those lines shouldn't be in those articles either. That said, if you have a legitimate source we can site, sure, this can go in. Arrowned (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)