Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 28

message: Well, I have had enough of all this edit warring. I have blocked  for a pretty uncivil comment. A thing I hate is edit warring through edit summaries: we have talk pages to discuss, not the article itself. The game is nearing its release, and we all are a bit excited. However, reverting each other only makes things worse. If this happens again, I will fully protect the article until the release date so that only facts are added to it. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should so that doesn't happen again. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm for protecting Super Smash Bros. Brawl, AND Super Smash Bros. (series) until Brawls Release.  It's been chaotic here since we're so close to the japanese release anyways. Dengarde ► Complaints  23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I've not added to the articles in question, but I've seen what's been going on with my own eyes! I think protecting the page would be a good idea!  Doktor  Wilhelm  23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My original comment was written while I was on the Wii. Now I can go into further detail since I'm on the computer. You know when the block is up, Rikara is going to come back here with another "reliable leak" and continue to add it. I think protecting the article until the 31st would be a great idea. Of course, if we get a new character next week, it will have to be added by an admin. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You and Jeske are admins, so That shouldn't be a problem. Dengarde ► Complaints  23:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I'm not an admin. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I could have sworn you were. O_o Well...Jeske is still an admin, so theres still not a problem. Dengarde ► Complaints  23:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think it'd be a better idea to protect it a few days beyond the 31st.  There's going to be loads of fake rosters that day, and it would take us a few days to gather all the legit information that needs to be added to the article as necessary changes anyways.  Feb. 2 or 3 perhaps? Arrowned (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the full protection here. If something absolutely NEEDS to be added, you can use . I'd advocate protection until 14th February. Not only is the unprotection date easy to remember, but it gives everyone a nice three weeks to cool down and most casual vandals will likely get disinterested. NF24(radio me!) 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also blocked  (apparently Rikara). I am one of those who always assume good faith and believe people can change, so I would give everyone another opportunity of cooperating (even though the characters article is already fully protected). If Rikara comes back and continues the edit warring, I will just block him/her until the release date. Should not be difficult to spot the disruptive editor. If another war edit between other editors break, though, I will protect the article until release date. My actions can always be reviewed by another admin, who can fully protect the article now if necessary. Anyone can go to WP:RFPP and request an extended protection at any time. Given the history of edit warring, it may be granted immediately. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I also agree at this point. I have attempted to set the standard for behaviour here with DFDL (now editing as Lbrun12415), and HeaveTheClay (Hide nor hair since the blocks...). Other editors have not seemed to get the point. This is just a game, hardly the Holy Grail of gaming in general either. So yes, until the title is released, I support a lock of the article, so that admin action is required to make a change. Edit Centric (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For those who still don't know, use  to add a note in the talk page requesting a change to the article. I would suggest getting some consensus before adding large new content (say, if MegaMan is announced today, get the paragraph with the description done and not ask for an edit protected every minute just because you forgot to mention something). And whenever you think the article won't be violated again, just go to WP:RFPP and request the unprotection. And if you want, you can create a sandbox to format new sections or changes instead of doing it here. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final edit warring warning 

message: Per request of the community I have Protected this article until February 14. Jeepday (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who still don't know, use  to add a note in the talk page requesting a change to the article. I would suggest getting some consensus before adding large new content (say, if MegaMan is announced today, get the paragraph with the description done and not ask for an edit protected every minute just because you forgot to mention something). And whenever you think the article won't be violated again, just go to WP:RFPP and request the unprotection. And if you want, you can create a sandbox to format new sections or changes instead of doing it here. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected per Request

message: Old discussions have all been cleared, and page has reached a length. --haha169 (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try not to archive topics that may be active again (especially topics that have been edited only hours ago) as it may give the impression you are cutting the discussion flow. Also, please use edit summaries, or others will think it is vandalism. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing me. I'm aware of my mistake now, since someone left a message for me. It was quite careless, in my opinion. I think it slipped my mind at the last moment. --haha169 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Created New Archive

message: Now that the article can only be edited by admins, that means that normal users like myself cannot edit this page, correct? Anyway, I just wanted to ask, if a new character is revealed on the dojo website, and that character happens to be a third party character like MegaMan, how will we be able to edit him in?
Also, I've just heard that all of the characters on the dojo website (except for the third-party characters, as it's said that they'll be hidden characters) are the official starter characters in the game. I don't know if this is official, but whether or not a first party character gets in the game, we're not updating this article for him/her. We only update it if a new third party character like MegaMan gets in the game. Correct? Sorry, I want things clarified for me and many other users. Thanks!
WiiDS (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll up and read the last paragraph in the Protected per Request discussion above; it explains how edits are made when the page is on full lockdown. Arrowned (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, they locked it again? It was unlocked for a brief moment. I'm going to go see what happened...curiosity killed the cat. I hope that doesn't happen to me. --haha169 (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for next character in Brawl

message: Under Game play, Stages, the text reads that the game is 3-D, but the characters are unable to move along the z-axis. Actually, in the common representation of Cartesian co-ordinates, the z-axis is vertical, and the y-axis measures depth. The characters cannot move into or out of the screen, that is, they cannot move along the y-axis. This is easy to confuse as the y-axis is generally vertical in 2-D co-ordinate systems.
I think the obvious solution is not to refer to the stage in terms of its axes, and just say 'the characters may only move horizontally and vertically'. This is far less ambiguous and confusing.
I don't know how to get an edit approved for a locked article, someone else do it :).--Erik the guy (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. If the article doesn't define where the axes lie, it shouldn't refer to them.219.79.114.119 (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  In the future, please use the  template here with an explanation of the edit you want performed. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 09:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the x-axis was forward/back.  That would mean they can't move along the x-axis.  I know.  Nitpicking. -Capefeather (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction

message: http://www.nintendo.co.uk/NOE/en_GB/games/wii/super_smash_bros_brawl_2785.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.5.150 (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. And on a Nintendo site too! However, I think we'll still have to just wait a while. We'll find out the truth soon! --haha169 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And here we have another source that is supporting the ad-hoc team idea: http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/ssbb/vol7_page3.jsp
"Even the development team itself is comprised of members that came together unexpectedly solely for this project..."--Henke37 (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Sora the developer? 

message: I believe Kazushige Nojima should be named underneath Masahiro Sakurai in the Designers section underneath the game's boxart.  The official interview by Satoru Iwata names him (in conjunction with Masahiro Sakurai) as the scenario writers for the Subspace Emissary.  I'd therefore like to have Masahiro Sakurai (director, scenario writer)Kazushige Nojima (scenario writer)in that box.  "IwataAsksSubspace" is defined later in the article, so I hope it will work as a reference.  Thanks!  --pie4all88 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody objects? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't.  Most video game articles tend to list director, producer, scenario writer, composer, and other such credits in their main infoboxes.  This addition only makes sense. Arrowned (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have moved the references around since they are meant to be used after punctuation marks. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, though I just realized I forgot to include the link to Game director, which I kind of liked.  I don't see any articles on scenario writers, unfortunately.  Anyways, thanks for the prompt attention! --pie4all88 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most infoboxes just link it as "scenario writer" or "original scenario concept" since the job itself has no article. Arrowned (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kazushige Nojima as Subspace Emissary Scenario Writer

message: What has happened to require full protection on the page? As well, when the website starts releasing more updates on the game's development progress on weekdays, will we have to notify an admin so THEY can edit the page, if  the update is notable enough to be included (examples of this would include more confirmed characters, or new playing modes)? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only lots of IP and registered user vandalism, but a nasty edit war that ended with one user getting blocked yesterday for a week. The article is fully protected until 14th February, hopefully everyone can cool down by then. NF24(radio me!) 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  is due back today, actually.  He was only blocked for 31 hours, not a week. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ick! I hope everyone cools off by then, too. as for the edits, if any new information comes up, i'll shove it on the front of my user page as a temporary holding place until the protection is removed or reduced. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to read that edit war? It was a long week... Actually, there were 2 edit wars. The one linked above was bad. Plus, we reached a decision that we wouldn't add anymore confirmed characters to this article unless its a new third party. --haha169 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That sounds fair. I'm not one to go against consensus (except in extremely rare cases), so i'll follow what you guys are doing. Upon reading the edit war...my goodness. all i can say is "The Ego Has Landed!" from all the Personal attacks and lack of civility when it's needed the most from all sides. i was particularly surprised by the person that said wikipedia is not a "whorehouse of information". completely unexpected. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the other purpose of the 14th February end date is so everyone can have time to calm down, what with the recent edit war and all. If the article was only protected a week, then the edit war could start up again. Three weeks also deters most casual vandals because they don't want to wait that long to edit. It also acts as damage control because now all edits must be screened by admins - hopefully, that means no more unsourced crap. NF24(radio me!) 13:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After having read that edit war, I partially agree. Don't think that it should be protected for as long as it will be, but I still understand where this is coming from. But I do fear that if, by chance,  does end up being right, he may cause more trouble.  14:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: I have to ask: What is that logo underneath Sora, then? Plus, that second picture is small and unreadable. At this moment, the UK Brawl site (linked above) has a better chance of cite then this picture. --haha169 (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Havok engine. Since no one can agree on even using a term to describe everyone involved, this discussion, as already mentioned, needs to be placed to hold until the game comes out or until a reliable source has the full staff credit information. « ₣M₣ » 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Game Arts (Cont.)

message: Please add is:Super smash bros. brawl to this site. Thank you. =) --BiT (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: bibliomaniac15 02:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki

message: Could an admn. use the character selection screen from DOJO!! as the pics in the character section. Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.102.73 (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fine, unless someone objects to using the starting roster instead of the incomplete one (in which case we'd have to wait for a verifiable shot of all 35 unlocked). Coreycubed (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets use the starting roster then On Feb 1st we change it to the full 35 roster.--Lbrun12415 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  a full roster like this one? http://s248.photobucket.com/albums/gg181/xblah/ssbm/?action=view¤t=up254065.jpg 67.189.162.24 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, a full roster like this: http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/01/ssbbwolfroster.jpg . Bowser is missing on yours :P SirVenom (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Acualy Wolf is missing (i didn't notice till i looked XD)67.189.162.24 (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but this is the EN version of Wikipedia, I don't think there's any reason to use the full 35 roster in Japanese, when we have the NA version of the starter roster, and will have by next month a 35 NA roster. Coreycubed (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I like the idea, possibly like the Mario & Sonic version at MarioWiki? - Dancingcyberman  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancingcyberman (talk • contribs) 18:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters

message: Why is everyone going bananas over Brawl? All of this protection and Youtube leaks is very silly. Brawl is nothing more than Smash Bros. 1 on steroids. My main point is to reduce the article until enough valid information comes out.DeathMark (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going "bananas" in an attempt to protect the article until the valid information can be inserted.  While some of the edit warring here has been extreme, this is still a case of editors trying to preserve Wikipedia's rules and regulations; whether the article is about a video game or World War II matters little. Arrowned (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No one's 'going bananas' -- suggest an edit to the article, or don't bring up your opinions on the talk page. In case you hadn't noticed, the article is under full-prot and hasn't been edited since yesterday. Coreycubed (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's just a game 

message: A mega-hyped game with tons of content, and it's LOW importance?!?!?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.29.37 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's for inclusion in a DVD or possible print version of Wikipedia. Space is limited so they need to put the important things in first. XENON54 | talk | who? 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Wikipedia 1.0 is a "final" (so-to-speak) version of Wikipedia, and this game's not even out yet, and Wikipedia 1.0's been in the works for a long time. It's of Low importance to "make the cut" onto the 1.0, within the scope of WikiProject Gaming. It's of High importance within WikiProject Nintendo, however. Coreycubed (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Low Importance?

message: I'm really surprised that we didn't add the official website to the external link. I can see it is used throughout the article, but only specific pages; not the site itself. I wanted to add it to the external links section, but it says you needed "Discussion". walkingonthesun Say something to me 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already there.  In fact, it's literally the only link listed in the External Links section. Arrowned (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, I usually visit supersmashbros.com. They both go to the same site. My bad, then. walkingonthesun Say something to me 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official SSBB site? 

message: Nintendo UK's site says that Sora is the developer for Brawl.  See here.
Thoughts?  --Son (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The game's title screen makes no mention of Sora. Only Nintendo and HAL.Satoryu (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And then why would Nintendo's site say the developer was Sora?  --Son (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Those are probably just the copyrights. Owning copyright doesn't necessarily mean you made the game. A better source would be the game credits at the end. - Zero1328 Talk? 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the discussion.  The discussion is about the developer.  Nintendo's official (UK) website says it's Sora.  Unless someone says otherwise, that's a legitimate, verifiable source, and it should be in the article.  --Son (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure my comment is relevant to the discussion. I was telling Satoryu on why the Title screen isn't sufficient to determine the developer, and I was suggesting another ingame source. - Zero1328 Talk? 05:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. The title screen doesn't necessarily always list the developer. Is there a scan of the game's case floating around?Satoryu (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developer 

message: excuse me, i seemed to have stumbled upon this little item.
Could anyone please tell me whether this is acknowledgable?
This is very important.4.130.0.242 (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The game has already been released in Japan; therefore, we no longer need to rely only on DOJO!! for confirmation of new items.  The game itself serves as all the confirmation we need. Arrowned (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That has little to do with any perceived issues in the article.  It's not like we're claiming there aren't any more characters; we're not saying anything either way.  We've just listing who's known to be playable in the game up to this point. Arrowned (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly Confirmed Characters-Do Not Erase 

message: I found an article that said that in the first day of sales in Japan, super smash bros brawl has already sold 500,000 copies.  Should i add this? Here's the link:  
http://www.cubed3.com/news/9449
:I saw something about that on the article a little while ago. I came back, and that info was gone. I think it would be great to put that back in. Jareds2007 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to add info with references 

message: I'm wondering if there needs to be an AT section. The page seemed fine before, but now it looks crowded around the middle, especially with the AT table. Going into details about items and such, even impressive ones, is boardering on guide material. A brief description is fine, but a section and table seems to be a bit much. Thoughts? 96.232.244.100 (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. AT need to be mentioned in an items section instead of having its own. 150.201.63.107 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, they are already mentioned in the items section with Pokeballs. Everything's already taken care of.Satoryu (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We have one list already. Notice how we only list characters. No item lists, no stage lists, and no Pokemon lists. Same goes for ATs.Satoryu (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think instead you need to look through Wikipedia's policies regarding game guide material. All of those things are better suited to game faqs. DurinsBane87 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so too. Usable items from Super Smash Bros. Sounds like a good article name, though it could be considered as a game guide. --haha169 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be no different than the random weapon lists from games. All of which got deleted. DurinsBane87 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: So you're saying that because it will have items from several other games, it'll be kept. I HIGHLY Doubt it. DurinsBane87 (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need a section for Assist Trophies? 

message: I was reading the article and noticed some grammatical and composition mistakes. Specifically, the SSE section was kind of strange. The first paragraph didn't flow right. I don't know, could just be me. Any English majors want to check it out? Jareds2007 (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subspace Emissary Paragraph 

message: I just wanted to point out something:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9569856&postcount=228
http://ameblo.jp/sinobi/
So, according to those linkies, Brawl apparently sold 500,000 copies on its first day in Japan. It's probably noteworthy enough to mention, right?
Although, problem is, I don't think those two links in particular qualify for Wikipedia's verifiability rules and junk, so does anyone know where people can get legitimate info on game sales and stuff? DRaGZ (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is already using Jeuxvidéos.com as reference for that. I noticed IGN picked the news (calling Sinobi a trusted source) as well as Joystiq (who called them untrustworthy). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First day sales in Japan 

message: On various character pages people wrote about those characters' roles in the Subspace Emissary based on the footage from the previews. Should they be put up this prematurely? Because I ask unless if there are different variations, then should this stuff be postponed until more confrontation details are found. I only asked this because of the mention I removed from Samus's page stating that she and Pikachu would be fighting Riley from Metroid and I was wondering if there are different variations of that. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really a problem that needs to be brought up on those individual pages and not here.  Also, it's not exactly a problem anymore; the game is out, and while incomplete plot details are somewhat annoying, it's not the same thing as putting up information that can't be verified to be true because the game isn't available. Arrowned (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Something to ask

message: Should we add a Technical Issue section to this article? Because this is a dual-layered disc, it is more sensitive than single layered discs. If the Wii's lens has dust, it will have a hard time reading Brawl. This can be fixed by cleaning the lens. Also, because Wii owners are less likely to have a disc lens cleaner that works on the Wii, this causes even more problems. Nintendo (at least in Japan) is willing to fix affected Wii consoles for free if it's under warranty. I don't know if the North American version will have this problem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmark089 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I say add the fact that there has been problems with Brawl on Wiis in Japan (IGN has reported on them), but do not say anything about the NA-region one because it is speculation at this juncture. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I beleive the Japanese Dojo also mentions the technical issues in the Notices section on the front page. I can't read Japanese, but a file it links to has some images displaying the start-up glitch. Dengarde ► Complaints  08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Techical Issue 

message: I know that the back box art of Super Smash Bros Brawl says that 12 new characters were added but I counted 17 including Zero Suit Samus. What's up with that?Brawlmaniac08 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not including hidden characters, mostly because they're...well...hidden. Dengarde ► Complaints  22:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Character Count Question 

message: Several players of SSBB have hacked the game and discovered some partial character data for characters than are not used in the final retail version. I don't know if this information can be used at this point in time, but I felt it was worth mentioning nonetheless.
  \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_dixie.pac
  \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_dr_mario.pac
  \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_mewtwo.pac
  \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_pra_mai.pac
  \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_roy.pac
  \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_toon_sheik.pac
  \RSBJ01\effect\fighter\ef_toon_zelda.pac
The characters listed are: Dixie Kong, Dr. Mario, Mewtwo, Purasuru and Mainan, Roy and Toon Zelda/Sheik.
There are also Assist Trophies and Pokémon that were seen and used in playable demos that were removed from the final code. Missing ATs include: Sothe, Rosalina, Duster, and Pegasus Knight. Missing Pokémon include: Onix, Regigigas, and Shaymin.
As I said, this may not be able to be included at this particular time (after a long time this kind of stuff can usually be added as it can then somehow be verified) but I felt like mentioning it. .:Alex:. 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Plusle and Minun as a tag-team combo like Popo and Nana? That's fascinating. If there's any sourced info, I'd love to see it included one day. Right now, with just that though, there's not much to go on. Maybe something will come of it. Coreycubed (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sakurai's speech at GDC would be a perfect opportunity to get sources for this information (as well as much more). Those character files are definitely not alternate costumes as they are under a different filename altogether. I'm not 100% sure about all the AT's and Pokémon, but I believe some of them were captured on video and put onto youtube so I'll check that one out. But the characters are definitely in the files. .:Alex:. 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Game Developers Conference 2008 will take place at the Moscone Center on February 18-22, 2008. And Alex will post the link when he can, I'm sure. Coreycubed (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That's already been established; the roster that is out is the final roster. However, at the conference, Sakurai may go into detail about the reasoning behind the inclusion or exclusion of certain characters, as well as the potential new characters listed above, and what their purpose was. Coreycubed (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there was any extra character data in Melee. Closest thing to that was a few unused stages (ICETOP, AKENIA, DUMMY, and TEST), which were easily accessible in the debug mode (although no one them except TEST and ICETOP are playable, and ICETOP is just the Ice Climbers stage with no music). Also through that debug mode you could access all the character data, and there was nothing beyond the 26 characters, plus Sandbag, Giga, The Hands, and the Wireframes.  But unless this turns out to be true by hacking on the Wii becomes possible and playing as them is an option, working or not, I don't think it's notable Dengarde ► Complaints  01:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed characters from Super Smash Bros. Brawl 

message: Does the article really need to say that getting to 999% damage is rarely reached. I do not think it is needed in the article and that the article would not be any different if that was deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubbiesfan644 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That does seem pretty trivial. I'll remove that bit.Satoryu (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it needed

message: Do we yet know the whole plot of the SSE? If so, should it be added? 24.186.101.182 (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your first question: yes, though I'm not sure if any of the editors here are privy to that information. To answer your second: nothing more than a cursory synopsis is necessary; something to the efftect of character x, y, and z are involved in a struggle against nemeses a, b, and c. Coreycubed (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not going to be as in-depth as a Zelda game, and Mario games don't have much plot to begin with. Besides, most plot section are over-lengthy in articles as is. I've worked too hard on this article to let a plot section ruin it now! Just kidding, TTN would probably delete it before I had a chance to. Coreycubed (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that once the whole plot is discovered, someone should make a new sub-section entiled "Subspace Emissary Storyline."Ivyluv (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subspace Emissary 

message: is 10/10! Source: . Add to reception? Unknownlight (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sign your signature with the signature button on the top, or with 4 ~~~~. Thanks. --24.6.103.162 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: All right, then. Put it up! Be bold. If its public, then there is no need for citation. --haha169 (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it still needs to be cited. Also, just saying the score isn't enough. A reason for the score, such as a direct quote from the review, is required.Satoryu (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Pretty sure an electronic source isn't required. Just citing the magazine itself should be fine.Satoryu (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Nintendo Power reveiew 

message: If there is no vocal part in a composition, it is a piece. Using the word song is slang, nothing more
212.17.141.54 (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Could you please leave a quote or some part of the article as a reference? That way, we can fix it. Also, how does the word song constitute as slang? --haha169 (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he means that technically we should only use "song" if it has vocals. If it's instrumental, use "piece".—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let it be noted that the "song" article cites no sources when it says that a song must contain vocals. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Urutapu got it right. (sorry if I was unclear) Here's a source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/song (there are many more - look around) And I was talking about the music section of the article, of course. It should at least use correct language. 212.17.141.53 (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Music

message: I just wanted to say that the article is looking amazing. This article went from being a worhtless piece of crap that just had bits and pieces fo Dojo info to an actual informative article that people might need. Great work everyone!
Ragingtsunami726 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article looks great! 

message: I was browsing game.co.uk, and they have Brawl listed for a 1st of May, 2008, release.
Their guess is probably as good as ours, but I thought I'd post it here :)
Kev19 (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering Nintendo said it won't be out before July, I highly doubt a May release.Satoryu (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Release Date? 

message: I usually only edit Wikipedia for minor/small facts, and/or grammatical/spelling errors, so in the line under "playable Characters" it says:
"while Samus has gained the ability to change into a new form, "Zero Suit Samus", by using her Final Smash."
It was just revealed on the DOJO!! that ZSS can transform from the start, and by rapidly taunting. Can someone take out/change the line "by using her Final Smash"?
EDIT: I forgot to sign: 99.144.228.81 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Satoryu (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Zero Suit Samus Transformation