Talk:Super Smash Bros. (video game)/Archive 1

message: I have noticed that the point of veiw in this article sometimes changes from the point of veiw of the series to the point of view of the game when it should remain at the point of view of the game (ex. "while all characters from The Legend of Zelda have a Triforce symbol." and there is only one character from zelda).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.99.22 (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of view

message: I would say that the proximity mines in goldeneye are not related to the ones in SSB. I think that should be removed (and the section made longer)
Playwrite 23:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: mines

message: I remember a long time ago I read that Super Smash Bros. was being developed for the SNES or Super Famicom but was cancelled for later development for the Nintendo 64 version. I was wondering if anyone knew anything about that.  I've been looking online for something about it, but I think it'd be interesting to get some information on the SNES version. Has anyone else heard this?
: List of cancelled video games makes this claim, but doesn't give a source.  This isn't mentioned in any of IGN's early reporting on the game.  Does anyone have a source? Ace of Sevens 22:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, but I've read this too. Brutannica 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SNES Origins? 

message: Since Super Smash Bros. contains the Pokémon franchise, I think that the upwards ring out into the background is derived from Team Rocket's infamous "launch into the sky and disappear as a little dot".  Any thoughts?  Oh, and I think the same goes for Melee as well.  --Geopgeop 13:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. But that's me :P Adam Marx Squared 19:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's definitely not related. Andre (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The "star" effect is famous in Anime in general; not just Pokémon. OOZ662 18:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider this: 

message: There's not a trivia section?
one thing i find interesting is that the entire game is kinda based off of Hal's Kirby Super Star for SNES.  The master hand is just a boss called "Bam Bam Rock" and uses all the same attacks.
The controls are very similar and you'll notice many similar attacks and enemies from the game.
:Trivia sections are evil, because they are by nature not encyclopediac. Nifboy 22:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section? 

message: Not having sources is enough to fail this article, but there are other problems:
*Story: One paragraph is not enough for a section. Additionally, it should not speculate. It may be enough to say, "The game's introductory video depicts Master Hand..." and not speculate as to whatever "story" the game has.
*Gameplay/General mechanics: One paragraph is not enough for a section.
*Gameplay/Controls: Wikipedia is not a how-to. The CVG project suggests that "if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable." This entire section is game guide material, which doesn't belong here.
*Gameplay/Items: Again, too short for a section. Merge these three subsections together.
*Characters: An awful mess. The names of moves are guide material, and unsuitable. The charging nonsense is just that.
*Secret Stage: Not only is it one paragraph, it's the only bullet point there. Bullets are for lists, and lists have more than one item in them.
*Non-playable stages: A misnomer, since they are played in 1P mode.
*Criticism: One-paragraph section again, no references (which are vital to reception sections), and reads like an advertisement.
So! That's why you fail GA! Nifboy 00:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: This section is not notated very well (at all) and is very contradictory. It states that there is very little criticism, but goes on to say that many hated the simplified controls and 'outdated' graphics. If no one objects I'm just going to delete this section. --Thaddius 14:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this while looking and it does say that the graphics aren't amazing and that it isn't a 'fighting' game, but it does not criticism these aspects. I'd like to hear at least another person's views before I delete this altogether, or at least integrate it somewhere else. --Thaddius 16:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go ahead and delete it. Besides, the graphics are simple because of all the things going on in the screen at once. :/ M2K e 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Any kind of criticism (or, for that matter, praise or reaction, which would be a better section title) section absolutely needs sources for basically every statement in it. Nifboy 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "Many" is a weasel word. Please find a reviewer(s) who said it. Nifboy 05:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you asked. Quoth Gamespot's review of Super Smash Bros. Melee, "One of the original Smash Bros.' weaker areas was its single-player modes, or lack thereof. Aside from a halfhearted "story" mode, there really wasn't anything compelling, outside of the multiplayer game."  IGN also made somewhat negative comments toward the single-player mode.  The Legend of Miyamoto 18:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I'm very interested in seeing a source for this claim that Pit was supposed to be in instead of Jigglypuff.  Can anyone help me (and this article) out? --Xubelox 20:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank goodness he wasn't, huh? Jigglypuff ended up being the best character in this game, bar none. BonniePrinceCharlie 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL JIGGYQuatreryukami 16:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your opinion is less important than the balance of the game, which tilted to Jigglypuff. 68.84.224.36 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pit

message: This may not belong here, but I didn't know where else to go. Can someone give me a link to a website that has the opening movie AND YOU CAN SAVE IT? This does not mean Youtube. You cannot save Youtube videos. (Or if you can, please tell me). Sorry if this doesn't belong here, but I didn't know where else to go. RememberMe? 04:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I found one. : ) RememberMe? 20:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Share the love? :) --Sparky Lurkdragon 21:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Movie? 

message: Someone thought it was a good idea to remove the whole list of pokemon that appear in the game without discussing it first. I've added them back to the page. Maybe people think they belong somewhere else -- a trivia section perhaps? But I don't know. Before we change it dramatically, why don't we discuss first.
In defense of the list, it's the only place you can find anything like it (in english).
--Nick 13:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the opinion the pokemon list should be removed, for two reasons: One, it only helps people playing the game (A WP:CVG no-no), and two, this was discussed on the Melee page and the list of pokemon, list of items, and list of stages were ALL removed. Also, you can find lists exactly like this on GameFAQs. Nifboy 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that the Melee page reflects a very different wiki-philosophy from this one -- Take away this page's list of characters, pokemon, and stages and you have very little left. I'd agree it's a very "gamer-y" page. But I disagree that the list of pokemon only helps people playing. In fact, I'd argue it "helps" no one and instead could be interesting to anyone -- a pokemon fan, for instance. Maybe a description of what the pokemon actually do in the game is too "gamer" for the page, but I think a comprehensive list is necessary. And regarding its appearance on GameFAQs, no single list I could find gives every pokemon that appears in the game (saffron +item). I'd be happy with a merge to another page, but an outright delete doesn't seem right to me.--Nick 20:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that SSB's relevance to Pokemon fans is rather insignificant, but the "usefulness" of information isn't quite the issue here (else FAQs wouldn't be outlawed). Really, I just see the lists as "filler" that pads out the article yet serves no encyclopediac function. Nifboy 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokemon in Smash 

message: How do you activate the debug mode in the original game?  I've never even heard of it.
I think asked that a while ago. I'm not sure, I've found no gameshark codes (even when I tell it not to search for melee debug mode, it still does), and I heard on youtube that it can be accessed through the use of an emulator. —↑Darklinkskywalker|Talk_|i did this stuff_↓ 02:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debug mode? 

message: Shouldn't there be something explaining the items? bibliomaniac15 18:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Items 

message: Sorry, but I don't remember this. Anyone that's heard a bowling ball hitting pins would know that's a totally inappropriate sound for a thwack or hit. The sound in the North American game is like a violent "WHACK." I'm changing this. Brutannica 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bowling ball hitting pins"

message: "Rumor has it that Super Smash Bros. was originally a concept for the SNES." I'm gonna need to see citations for that. Valoem talk 23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section with no citation 

message: IP User: 67.70.23.32 had added a good deal of false information that required research to disprove. This page may need to be protected if vandalism continues.
He/She added "Heart removes only 300%" which is false. (Had to test that myself)
and also character can not died on Planet Zebes except by star finish. (Not True)
I am sure there were other things so I RVed to be safe. Valoem talk 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sneaky Vandalism 

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

message: How can you access Debug Mode in Super Smash Bros? What's the cheat code for it?
: You need a game hacking tool like GamesharkQuatreryukami 16:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debug Mode 

message: This article is growing into a game guide. Things like Pokémon and stage descriptions frankly aren't needed in an encyclopedia. I posted this so I don't start a controversy. Any opinions? bibliomaniac15 03:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Growing" into a game guide? Well, the page seems to have always been like this. I'm pretty sure that this page will become a very small article indeed if all the game guide is removed, smaller than most of the Pokemon articles themselves, like Cascoon. Hee. Being serious about this, however, I'm not sure how this page can be retooled into a Good Article. The Development and Reaction sections are definitely able to be expanded upon. I suggest bringing this to the attention of everyone at the Brawl article so that they may be persuaded to put a lot of encyclopedic work into this page as a constructive project to pass time until Brawl's release. As we all know, this page needs the attention while there's pretty much no value in continuing to edit the Brawl page as of now. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Donate) 18:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not agree. The article is very informative, and stage descriptions help the reader picture the stage in their mind. I say keep it.Quatreryukami 16:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game guide 

message: I added all of the stages and brief descriptions for them, but I have to go to school soon, so I don't have any time to expand upon them today. Anyone else want to expand on them? Takuthehedgehog 16:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Quatreryukami 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stages

message: I personally feel that most or all of the previous complaints are adressed, so I nom-ed it. Comments? Quatreryukami 15:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I find the presence of only SIX references, and the lack of any real development information as appalling. It even has lists which could easily be prose, not to mention a TINY reception section. FAR more work to do. But considering the current standards, I guess it'll make good article anyway... --125.238.28.28 04:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The images have copyright problems (box is too large for fair use, screenshots have no rationale), and the article does have lists. --Teggles 06:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dissagree: the screenshots show the game in action, and show the various stages possible in the game. As for CR...?Quatreryukami 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't "disagree". The images need to be smaller and the images need to have rationales. Otherwise it violates copyright. --Teggles 06:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't know why; I did explain the rationality of having the screenys. But how small do the images need to be for CR?Quatreryukami 15:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The rationales have to be ON THE IMAGE PAGE. If you want to find out the right resolution, try READING THE PAGE. --Teggles 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok, ok, the flame wasn't nesseccary, I just asked for an explanation. I will get on that ASAP. Quatreryukami 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What? I didn't flame. I just emphasized the key points. --Teggles 02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, I dont want conflict. If you feel so strongly that it doesn't qualify than simply fail it. Thanks. If you would like to discuss this further go to my talk. Quatreryukami 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply add quotes from the websites that reviewed the game such as - "IGN reviewer Peer Schneider awarded the game 8.5 (it says 9.6 in the tables which isn't true) out of 10, calling it a "refreshing multiplayer battle game that won't fix the gaping hole in the N64 fighting game lineup, but delivers a ton of fun and heavy dose of nostalgia." However, he criticized the reptiveness of the single play mode" etc M3tal H3ad 07:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nom 

message: I'm new to reviewing.  Any comments about the article's quality is appreciated.  Thanks!Kmarinas86 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The images have copyright problems (box is too large for fair use, screenshots have no rationale), and the article does have lists. --Teggles 06:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dissagree: the screenshots show the game in action, and show the various stages possible in the game. As for CR...?Quatreryukami 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't "disagree". The images need to be smaller and the images need to have rationales. Otherwise it violates copyright. --Teggles 06:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't know why; I did explain the rationality of having the screenys. But how small do the images need to be for CR?Quatreryukami 15:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The rationales have to be ON THE IMAGE PAGE. If you want to find out the right resolution, try READING THE PAGE. --Teggles 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok, ok, the flame wasn't nesseccary, I just asked for an explanation. I will get on that ASAP. Quatreryukami 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What? I didn't flame. I just emphasized the key points. --Teggles 02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, I dont want conflict. If you feel so strongly that it doesn't qualify than simply fail it. Thanks. If you would like to discuss this further go to my talk. Quatreryukami 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply add quotes from the websites that reviewed the game such as - "IGN reviewer Peer Schneider awarded the game 8.5 (it says 9.6 in the tables which isn't true) out of 10, calling it a "refreshing multiplayer battle game that won't fix the gaping hole in the N64 fighting game lineup, but delivers a ton of fun and heavy dose of nostalgia." However, he criticized the reptiveness of the single play mode" etc M3tal H3ad 07:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing nomination 

message: I noticed that there's a section talking about the changes in sounds from Japanese to English, but not a single mention of how Samus was given a real voice in the original Japanese game (her voice actor is even mentioned in the article!) but she has nothing more than "robot sounds" in the English version.  I think that's a lot more of a "notable change" than what's currently in that section... 63.215.28.146 03:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samus: Voice vs. "Robot Sounds" 

message: I think this article is good enough to be a GA. I recommend that you add more sources before nominating this article for FA status. Funpika 02:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! That makes me happy. Quatreryukami 02:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Pass

message: The screenshots need fair use rationales to keep it's GA status. Look to other GA video game articles for examples. Also, the box cover should be downsized on its image page, 800x550 is probably too big. Just shrink it down in an outside program and reupload it. --Nehrams2020 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be removing this article's GA status if this isn't done. I already told the editor about this and it still hasn't happened. It's a requirement of GA. I can't believe FunPika ignored it. A very good example of why the Good Article process needs changing. --Teggles 01:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Nehrams, it will be done, and would have been done earlyer if that was what was told to me. Quatreryukami 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA comment

message: This article is being reviewed; many of the problems brought up were adressed, but obviously it wasn't enough for whoever delisted. Quatreryukami 15:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]] 

message: There is a picture released on google images of all the characters available, and I just wanted to know if anyone knows who Black Shadow is.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 18:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Black Shadow is a character from F-Zero, but I don't know what that has to do with this game or its article.--Clyde (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brawl 

message: Shouldn't we be searching for more references for this article? Since I already cleaned up the layout of the page, it would only take more references to get this article back to Good status. I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure which statements need references. Cat's Tuxedo 22:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found most of the sources myself, but there wasn't much on a 8 year old N64 game, especially since little brother and baby brother (melee and brawl) are on the way. Quatreryukami 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More references?

message: umm, I wanted to see a complete list of all the characters in the game, but there isn't one compile. Can someone add a proper list on the article for me to read. Thanks Govvy 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one on Super Smash Bros. (series). — Malcolm (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character list? 

message: Wikipedia:What is a good article?
A good article has the following attributes:
# It is well written. In this respect:
#:(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and
#:(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
# It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
#:(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
#:(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
#:(c) contains no original research.
# It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
#:(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and
#:(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
# It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
# It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
# It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. In this respect:
#:(a) all images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for any non-free content; and
#:(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Please discuss any problems/contradictions you see with the criteria. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 22:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I laid out some problems above, and many still stand. Here's an overview. 
*Not a single reference in the gameplay, and many missing in development. 
*Some OR with the commercial spot in development.
*"If victorious against this bonus character, you unlock the character. For example, the first time one beats the game, Jigglypuff may be unlocked but not each time." Needs work.
*"In addition, the single-player mode was criticized for its perceived difficulty and lack of features" and "However, this criticism is addressed in Super Smash Bros. Melee, which was released in 2001 for the Nintendo GameCube." POV and the second borders on OR
*Development prose feels choppy and need much more info (see above comment)
*Reception needs much more info, reviews, and cleanup (see above comment)
*Leads needs to cover development and reception
*References need to be more filled out wit author, publisher etc. (see above)
Once you do these, I don't think a VGPR would hurt. By the way, gameplay is very well written (in my opinion).--CM (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Criteria 

message: I think that this article has too many pictures. Would it be OK if I removed some? RC-0722 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't think three pics plus a box art is that many. --70.48.172.149 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be if the article were bigger, but three images in one section of a rather short page is unattractive and cluttered.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: The new Iwata Asks column on Nintendo.com reveals the original protoype for Smash Bros. 64, and I added a few sentences about that. I don't know how to cite, but here's the link: http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/ssbb/vol7_page1.jsp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikintosh (talk • contribs) 22:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New information on game's origins