Talk:Super Smash Bros./Archive 7

message: Jesus Christ! I leave for ONE DAY and this happens!
I suggested a vote as I saw it as being the only way to find out the majority opinion. And right now, I stick by it. If we don't decide something soon, it's going to start to effect the article quality.
Personally, I think we SHOULD have a vote on it.
Sure, some people may class it as original research. Debate that after the vote.
Others may say "OMG he t0taly ments tat Ness int in teh Brawl!!1!!". As has been said before, Wikipedia is all about verifiability, and right now it can't be fully verified.
So what say you all. Should we have a vote on the footnote? Decide now.
Beneath this message, I would like each user to say either Yay or Nay. NOTHING ELSE!! This is not a place to debate, it's a place to say whether you want a vote on the footnote.
And yes, I do see the silliness in having a poll about a poll, but it's the only way to make things clear.
Also note, 24 hours should be enough time for everyone who whishes to express their opinions to see this poll. So it shall close at 22:30 UTC.
So, register either Yay or Nay here:
-- Ixistant (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now hold on a second, buku...we seem to have some people who have never once contributed to this article voting. This is directed to user:Rhonin the wizard. This is his first edit on a Smash article. All his other edits are about Ben 10 and Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games.  Is their a rule about this? - Sukecchi (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I am aware of.  For example, I've done very little editing on any Smash Brother's articles (mainly because everyone beats me to the needed edits), but I've been active in this discussion and in a few other SSB related ones.  Though if they haven't had any edits before this, they might be a sock puppet.  TwilightPhoenix (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I haven't participated in this discussion, mostly because when I log on it's already over and I didn't want to repeat what others have already said, I am aware of the arguments of both sides. And I believe that this thing has dragged on too long and should be ended. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:LAME is for edit wars, not discussions, not votes, and not anything else.  Just edit wars.  Though I do agree that voting on voting is a bit on the absurd side. TwilightPhoenix (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENOUGH! 

message: NAY→041744 23:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: OK, the vote is closed and the result is 9 Nays to 6 Yays.
What does this prove? As has been shown, when this was 'settled' earlier the majority opinion was that the footnote should be removed. This poll also proves that the majority opinion is that this issue is over and should not be brought back up.
So not only should the footnote be removed, but this issue should be brought back up again.
Everyone clear? Ixistant (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So someone remove the note already..→041744 23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, it was technically only 8 Nays. If the person who voted "Neigh" would like to change his vote to a "nay" THEN it'd be 9. But Joke votes aren't counted, I would think. --LN3000 (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, that's taking it too far. It counts, you know it counts, everyone else knows it counts. It counts.
And the issue can be brought back up, as long as their is more evidence (eg. the dojo says something like "Ness has been replaced by Lucas"). And the vote was 9:6, and if I voted it would be 10:6 (although since I didn't it technically isn't, but really it is). I didn't vote because I didn't think it was appropruiate for me to vote in my own poll, but if I had I would have voted nay. So yes, the issue can be brought back u, but only once new, reliable evidence comes to light. Otherwise stop beating a dead horse. Ixistant (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A split vote is not enough to end discussion. Right now, I am not saying one way or another, because that's not the issue for me right now. My issue is people trying to end any possible communication. The poll shows that there is a major disagreement between two distinct points of view, and you can't shut down that discussion. One side says that all the proof IS there to say that Ness is gone, and that it is not Original Research, since it is very clear on the Dojo, yet the other side claims otherwise, by changing the definition of words. My point right now is that if anyone wants to continue or start talking about the issue, they are allowed to. --LN3000 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the way you explained that, thank you. --LN3000 (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm? On the article, you mean? That "Original Research" banner should be removed, but everything else should be left alone regarding that area... Otherwise, I'm not sure what you are talking about, since what I have been talking about isn't Original Research. But that is a different part of the discussion page... --LN3000 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why polling is evil. The losing party always complains that there was something wrong with the way it was conducted. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Funny. It doesn't work that way. --LN3000 (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it does. We voted democratically, and the nays won. The OR banner and the footnote will be removed, and Ness' ? shall remain. And for the time being, there's not much you can do to change it unless you want to go against Wikipedia itself.Satoryu (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the issue. I am not trying to go against the fact that it has to be removed, but I am saying that a split-poll does not mean that we have to drop the discussion. --LN3000 (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The majorty of the people want it removed, the poll showed that. But not just that, Wikipedia policy is clearly supporting it's removal. For the moment saying Ness is in or out is speculation, which has no place on wikipedia. Can't we all just follow the current speculation policy that had been proven time and time again. And please don't say "It was on DOJO, we have proof Ness will not return!", no you don't. We still do not the precise meaning of those three words (God, its just three words that cuased all this!). So can all the oppossing party stop being a sore loser.→041744 13:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no sore loser. Right now my point is to let people decide for themselves. You are not helping anything by saying that I'm against everything. The vote is so split, no final decision can be made. It is best to compromise. My compromise is No X, have a footnote, but you are still complaining about that. How else would you suggest making sure that you weren't giving mis-information? That is your reasoning, is it not? Just because you don't see it the same way as another side, doesn't mean we can't settle for something so readers can make their own decision, we aren't little grade-school kids who must get absolutely exactly what we want (At least, I hope not..)  --LN3000 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Letting people decide for themselves" equals encouraging speculation, unless I've missed something up until now. And calling it a split decision may not be so. 9/15 is close to half, but it's also close to 2/3 majority.Satoryu (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Deciding by discussion goes nowhere as LN and everyone else can't seem to agree on something. It's a fairly cut and dry decision, but alas, we cannot reach a consensus. Maybe we should actually vote to have the footnote even though everyone else seemed to say otherwise. Why they voted no makes no sense to me though. InsaneZeroG (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already backed down from the X, and my compromise is a footnote, so that readers can decide for themselves. --LN3000 (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't rush these things. Let's have a vote first to decide if this result counts. After that, how about a vote to sysop this until February?--91.121.83.168 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yet someone still removed the note. There was no consensus either way, so no changes should have been made. It works both ways, you know. --LN3000 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The note was the very change that there was (according to you) no consensus over. Why are you so insistent on keeping that obviously unpopular footnote anyway? --HeroicJay (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jay. What does the footnote say that a simple question mark doesn't? I still play the original research card about this enitre ordeal. -Sukecchi (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The footnote is redundant and encourages speculation.Satoryu (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it has been said so many times before: can we just STOP.→041744 23:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one that went ahead and removed the footnote. I was uninvolved in this entire discussion, which, by the way, is one of the pettiest, lamest discussions I've ever seen on Wikipedia, in terms of scope. I can't believe people can argue about a stupid footnote for so long. The question is quite simple, right? Is Ness confirmed not te be in the game? If all we have to go by is Sakurai's words from the footnote, then the answer is clearly no, he is no confirmed to be either in or out. That uncertainty is exactly what the "?" is for, right? What's the purpose of the footnote, other than to satisfy one user who will argue this point to death? Besides that, an encyclopedia article is not the place to speculate on the meaning of a man's rather vague statements.--Atlan (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously this is a hill that there is no getting over. If there is information, it should be in the article. You say it isn't conclusive, but the information should still be represented. Giving only a question mark is misleading, because it says that there is absolutely no information about it. With the footnote, shows that there is some information, and lets people realize that although some people disagree, there has been some talk about the subject. It's as simple as that. I am not going to push the issue, but I do believe you should seriously consider adding the footnote back. --LN3000 (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only actual bit of information from Sakurai's statement, is the fact that there is an as of yet unknown character similar to Ness in the game. Anything else you get out of that is speculation.--Atlan (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the argument, is it not? Whether or not it is speculation. --LN3000 (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the argument is only inside of WP, thus irrelevant.--91.121.83.168 (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true. There are plenty of places where there is discussion whether or not Ness is confirmed not in the game. But that is irrelevant to this discussion. Right now we are talking about whether or not it is appropriate to not say anything about Sakurai's comment on SmashBros.com, regardless of what anyone thinks it means. --LN3000 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a joke, and I did remove it right away, besides, the argument is that it's NOT speculation. Yoshi? You are giving a poor analogy. I never said anything about Yoshi's stage, and I wouldn't say that Yoshi was in the game because of that. You can not compare that to Ness. If anyone needs to lighten up, it's you. There's a clear source, and it's verifiable, but there are people debating it, but that doesn't change the fact that the core source is reliable. If it was worded ever-so-slightly, would you then believe it? I'm not the one with an agenda, I'm simply listening to what I see as undisputed fact. Obviously I'm not doing anything about it right now, since I'm not trying to edit the article with Ness being in the game, but obviously I'm not the only one who is trying to stand for what's right. Seriously, you guys need to just calm down. For now, my part in the discussion is over, because of a split-poll, and I'm going to deal with that. But it is NOT allowed to shut down the conversation completely because of it. It is clear to me that Ness isn't in the game, and I'm sorry that you don't see it that way, but that doesn't change the fact that the Dojo has information regarding Ness being in the game. --LN3000 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was making the point that just becuase there is un-soild information supporting the character's return/removal does not mean it should be listed in the article. And the "undisputed fact", that is true but we still do not know the true meaning of these 3 words. Fact? Yes. Fact with a undisputed meaning? No. But seeing as your "part in the discussion is over" I see no reason to convince you. And throughout this debate I have only seen you standing up for the note, true others supported you in the poll, but they never jumped in the conversation.→041744 22:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a poll about having a poll about the note. The votes cast were neither supporting LN3000 nor against LN3000. They were only for or against holding a second poll. -masa ♫ 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "the fact that Ness is not going to be on Brawl is not official" you can not argue that, they have only made a off comment no offical word. So now I Pray to God that we can all give up this arguement and wait paceintly.041744 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote Closed

message: You held a vote on whether to hold a vote on the footnote. The result is Nay. The only conclusion to draw from that is to not hold a vote on the footnote. Nobody voted to say that the footnote should be removed - you specifically said that the poll was not for that.
And now that consensus (as you put it) has decided not to hold a vote on the matter, you should be trying to reach a consensus/agreement based on discussion.
Incidentally, I'd rather it was left as a question mark with no footnote, but reverting it to a question mark with no footnote based on this poll is completely wrong. -masa ♫ 15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deciding by discussion goes nowhere as LN and everyone else can't seem to agree on something. It's a fairly cut and dry decision, but alas, we cannot reach a consensus. Maybe we should actually vote to have the footnote even though everyone else seemed to say otherwise. Why they voted no makes no sense to me though. InsaneZeroG (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already backed down from the X, and my compromise is a footnote, so that readers can decide for themselves. --LN3000 (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't rush these things. Let's have a vote first to decide if this result counts. After that, how about a vote to sysop this until February?--91.121.83.168 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yet someone still removed the note. There was no consensus either way, so no changes should have been made. It works both ways, you know. --LN3000 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The note was the very change that there was (according to you) no consensus over. Why are you so insistent on keeping that obviously unpopular footnote anyway? --HeroicJay (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jay. What does the footnote say that a simple question mark doesn't? I still play the original research card about this enitre ordeal. -Sukecchi (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The footnote is redundant and encourages speculation.Satoryu (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it has been said so many times before: can we just STOP.→041744 23:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one that went ahead and removed the footnote. I was uninvolved in this entire discussion, which, by the way, is one of the pettiest, lamest discussions I've ever seen on Wikipedia, in terms of scope. I can't believe people can argue about a stupid footnote for so long. The question is quite simple, right? Is Ness confirmed not te be in the game? If all we have to go by is Sakurai's words from the footnote, then the answer is clearly no, he is no confirmed to be either in or out. That uncertainty is exactly what the "?" is for, right? What's the purpose of the footnote, other than to satisfy one user who will argue this point to death? Besides that, an encyclopedia article is not the place to speculate on the meaning of a man's rather vague statements.--Atlan (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously this is a hill that there is no getting over. If there is information, it should be in the article. You say it isn't conclusive, but the information should still be represented. Giving only a question mark is misleading, because it says that there is absolutely no information about it. With the footnote, shows that there is some information, and lets people realize that although some people disagree, there has been some talk about the subject. It's as simple as that. I am not going to push the issue, but I do believe you should seriously consider adding the footnote back. --LN3000 (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only actual bit of information from Sakurai's statement, is the fact that there is an as of yet unknown character similar to Ness in the game. Anything else you get out of that is speculation.--Atlan (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the argument, is it not? Whether or not it is speculation. --LN3000 (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the argument is only inside of WP, thus irrelevant.--91.121.83.168 (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true. There are plenty of places where there is discussion whether or not Ness is confirmed not in the game. But that is irrelevant to this discussion. Right now we are talking about whether or not it is appropriate to not say anything about Sakurai's comment on SmashBros.com, regardless of what anyone thinks it means. --LN3000 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a joke, and I did remove it right away, besides, the argument is that it's NOT speculation. Yoshi? You are giving a poor analogy. I never said anything about Yoshi's stage, and I wouldn't say that Yoshi was in the game because of that. You can not compare that to Ness. If anyone needs to lighten up, it's you. There's a clear source, and it's verifiable, but there are people debating it, but that doesn't change the fact that the core source is reliable. If it was worded ever-so-slightly, would you then believe it? I'm not the one with an agenda, I'm simply listening to what I see as undisputed fact. Obviously I'm not doing anything about it right now, since I'm not trying to edit the article with Ness being in the game, but obviously I'm not the only one who is trying to stand for what's right. Seriously, you guys need to just calm down. For now, my part in the discussion is over, because of a split-poll, and I'm going to deal with that. But it is NOT allowed to shut down the conversation completely because of it. It is clear to me that Ness isn't in the game, and I'm sorry that you don't see it that way, but that doesn't change the fact that the Dojo has information regarding Ness being in the game. --LN3000 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was making the point that just becuase there is un-soild information supporting the character's return/removal does not mean it should be listed in the article. And the "undisputed fact", that is true but we still do not know the true meaning of these 3 words. Fact? Yes. Fact with a undisputed meaning? No. But seeing as your "part in the discussion is over" I see no reason to convince you. And throughout this debate I have only seen you standing up for the note, true others supported you in the poll, but they never jumped in the conversation.→041744 22:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a poll about having a poll about the note. The votes cast were neither supporting LN3000 nor against LN3000. They were only for or against holding a second poll. -masa ♫ 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "the fact that Ness is not going to be on Brawl is not official" you can not argue that, they have only made a off comment no offical word. So now I Pray to God that we can all give up this arguement and wait paceintly.041744 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The vote means nothing

message: If i were to take screenshots of the character select screen on the first two SSB games, and place them as a source for the character lists; would that break the rules as original research even though it's pretty much irrefutable?
213.40.219.36 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While they do show the character list, they are not the finalized list since those are only from the demos they've shown. InsaneZeroG (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it would not be. Else, one could argue you'd have to back up the story in a book, for example.--91.121.83.168 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, someone could argue that they've been shopped, or that they're missing secret characters :P -masa ♫ 20:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Screenshots count as primary sources I believe. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Screenshots Original Research? 

message: Shouldn't we request protection of this page so that only registered users can edit it, just like the Brawl page? We might go into a relapse of what happened before the initial protection.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's normal editing by new users who don't know better. And note he said "clear pattern of vandalism beyond what can be reasonably expected to be reverted by regular editors." Onces per day is not that bad. --Bobby D. DS. (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we request protection of this page again?

message: :Image:Super-smash-bros-brawl-20060510074501608.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  You probably didn't even need to go into that much detail, but on the other hand, more detail = even less excuse for the rationale to be disputed. Arrowned (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Super-smash-bros-brawl-20060510074501608.png

message: Today's update, it said something about Mr. Game & Watch being secretly "joined the fray". Does that mean we should put him??? I'm confused...   --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the DOJO!! update, and it does not mention G&W at all - just a musical composer around since the times of G&W.  See Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/FAQ. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The part that asks if a character who is "obviously" going to be in Brawl should be included.  Until DOJO!! out-and-out confirms it, the addition of G&W (which is extrapolated here from an unrelated post there) is speculation. That being said, please bring questions specific to Brawl up here, not on this page. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Given I'm relatively new to this particular talkpage (Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260) is more my forte), some clues for the clueless? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Game & Watch 

message: Please change the exact date to 2008 or the Japanese date. The English-speaking Wikipedia isn't the American Wikipedia. Meh. --86.12.232.113 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What?Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: QQ less, you Belfast scrub. :p Seriously though, I amended the article to include the specified release date. It's accurate now. Coreycubed 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: *Is there any confirmation or any note that some of the characters mentioned on the website are secret unlockables? Jason Garrick (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None.  The closest thing I've heard was that the third-party characters were hidden ones, but I'm unsure if this is true or not. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no official source, then it's probably not true. InsaneZeroG (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Sakurai said the third-party characters would be hidden, on the Dojo!! before it started doing weekday updates. If anyone can use the Wayback Machine and find it, that would be appreciated.  ♣  Powerslave  01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://web.archive.org/web/20070430173525/www.smashbros.com/jp/toukou/bn/no20.html --91.121.83.168 (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't help anything being consistently snappy at people. --LN3000 (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm ususly a very calm person. I'll cool off for a minute in future disscussions.→041744 13:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, man! *thumbs up* There is nothing wrong with being passionate about a subject. --LN3000 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Head Nod* *Thumbs Up*→041744 05:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Secret Characters

message: This page is 61kb.  I believe it is time to archive, right? TwilightPhoenix (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are right I would change it but i dont want to mess the up this page.--DarkFierceDeityLink 20:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, archive some older discussion threads. --LN3000 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival?