Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 19

message: Seeing as a recent update mentions "Stickers are easier to get a hold of than trophies. Just play the game and you’ll start to earn them as rewards", could this mean that trophies like in ssbm, will be back? If so then should we mention stickers on the main article, and trophies (once these are fully confirmed, if the post is just speculation) Cocopopz2005 11:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of stickers had been added, but I think it could be placed in a better spot later on, when the whole article is expanded. The Dojo post only says that they're easier to get compared to trophies, not that trophies are in. It's left a little ambiguous. - Zero1328 Talk? 11:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stickers and trophies would add a lot of collecting to do. Speaking of which should a mention be made in the article about the (semi)3rd mode of Smash bros.? 1p, multiplayer, collecting. No trophies other than Assist Trophies have been annouced and we don't even know entirely how they work.Pine27 12:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stickers AND Trophies? 

message: Sonic has not "been on the cards" for too long. We should take him out of the Super Smash Bros. Series page! - 
4.130.2.178 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only mention of Sonic on that particular page you have linked to only mentions the Sonic hoax. -Sukecchi 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should all just shut it and WAIT. Sonic's being mentioned too much in the talk pages, and it's getting on my nerve. Pezzar 01:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: When that was said, we had no idea if Sonic was going to be in Brawl or not, just like we have no idea now.  Olympic Games was the first game sonic was ANNOUNCED to share with Mario. Joiz A. Shmo 12:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Sonic 

message: This game is currently listed in Category: Online games, yet there has been no official word on whether or not the game will have online play. I'd fix this myself, but apparently this is the part of the "Free Encyclopedia that Anyone can edit" that not everyone can edit.--209.243.31.233 03:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, i never noticed it. i'll make the change. also, it's blocked to unregistered people and new users because it was heavily vandalized and endlessly edited with trivial junk for months. FyreNWater 07:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coro Coro confirmed online play (and its Japanese release date). There was something about this here, but it got archived I guess. -- Tenks 19:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In regards to online play, I edited the commentary about that a long time ago because Iwata expressed a desire to include online capabilities. He didn't say it would definitely make it in. And since Iwata cannot speak for Sakurai, it would not be fair to include it in the article as fact, and hold the developers to someone else's promises. GraniteJJ 00:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Online Game?

message: I think the single player mode should be made its own section, rather than a subsection of Gameplay.  While the Melee article lists single player mode under Gameplay, the single player mode in this version is considerably more complex, more detailed than in previous games.  Plus its very hard to distinguish between 3rd level and 4th level section breaks.  I'm going to make the changes.  --Son 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's stated that it's a sidescrolling action game. We could also post the important tidbits that Sakurai has posted. Quatreryukami 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with 72.225.211.5 in that we need more details before we try anything. Perhaps some extremely elemental information might be appropriate; a basic summarry of the This World post or the overall goal of the Ancient Minister as mentioned in The Subspace Army post, for instance. However, I would advise against posting summaries of the two posted movies and This World's screenshots or (worse yet) conclusions drawn from the them. It would be like trying to present a synopsis of a film with a complex plot, such as Spirited Away, after watching the first three minutes. You Can't See Me! 04:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single player mode 

message: The article says that the single player mode will use full motion video. Dojo doesn't say how the movies in single player mode are done. It's quite likely they'll be scripted movies like in Zelda so that the player's selected costume would be used (if there are additional costumes and they can be selected for this mode). Until we know more, it's speculation and doesn't belong in the article. — Jaxad0127 17:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Dengarde ► Complaints  17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We can't prove that. (Read the post right above yours...>>)—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you know, technically, those are in game movies. The Subspace Emmissary happens before the primids arrive, and The Subspace Army vid takes place after Princess Peach, Mario, Princess Zelda, and Kirby defeat the primids. Ivyluv 04:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... yes. The question is whether or not those are FMVs, not whether they are in the game or not. As mentioned above, we can't know for sure whether they are FMVs or real-time rendering. You Can't See Me! 06:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full motion video? 

message: I noticed that when Petey Piranha smashes the cages with Peach and Zelda in them together, they (Peach and Zelda) turn to stone. Can we somehow fit this into the article, or do you suppose we should wait until we get more info on this? I just wanted to point it out. Please don't speculate about it though, I'm just simply asking if it should be in the article or not. (If this has been mentioned somewhere here before, feel free to delete this) --Kenny2k 06:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, the events of the two short clips and the sequence of screenshots in the This World post should be avoided, as they detailed descriptions of a plot that we only have literally two minutes of. But thanks for pointing that out. I didn't notice that at all. You Can't See Me! 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Petey Pirinha didn't have that power before....hmm maybe he's in the same category Peach was a couple of weeks ago.(SPECULATION)Pine27 12:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The turning to stone thing was speculation in the first place. I simply interpreted it as a lighting thing. Trying to interpret things with little info is technically original research, since it could be interpreted in any way. - Zero1328 Talk? 07:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. But, is there anything we could/should add about this update? Is it too soon to say that there could be multiple paths to take in the Adventure Mode? --Kenny2k 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd like it if it were less vague, but since it's directly from the blog, I don't think there's a problem putting it in now. - Zero1328 Talk? 12:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peach and Zelda turn to stone 

message: Diddy Kong's been announced. The question is: do we add him? Pezzar 06:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The article already has enough character examples. Don't want the article to get all cluttered, do we? Disaster KirbyTalk 07:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, and next time they make a dictionary, only put in like a hundred words. don't want it to get all cluttered, do we? --66.31.243.202 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a terrible argument. Besides that, a dictionary doesn't use a ton of examples for each word definition, does it? Disaster KirbyTalk 22:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No need to sound bitey.  Useight 06:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diddy Kong 

message: Havok's Site says that Brawl will use the Havok engine. I've added this to the page. If anyone has any objections, I'd like to hear them. Luigi "Kurai" III 17:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That page only says that the game will utilize Havok products. It doesn't say anything about the whole game using a Havok engine. The main game engine is obviously the same Super Smash Bros. game engine, just... utilizing Havok products. Disaster KirbyTalk 17:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Or am I mistaken as to how the whole "engine" stuff works? Disaster KirbyTalk 17:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking another look at it, I'd think that the Havok products are parts of a game engine, but I honestly don't know much about game engines. I just saw a thread about this on a forum, or else I wouldn't have seen it. Luigi "Kurai" III 17:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Havok Engine 

message: I read from a Wiki page that Bullet Bill will be in the adventure mode for BRAWL, is this true and is their proof (theyre could be and i jus didnt see it) -ChristoCracker 11:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A screenshot on the blog shows bullet bills as an enemy in a level. It should be on one of the articles pertaining to the adventure mode. I'm not sure on what  you're thinking while you're asking this, though.. it's just going to be a standard enemy, like the koopa troopas or goombas from Melee. - Zero1328 Talk? 11:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're still a type of bullet bill. — Jaxad0127 12:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?... are we having this conversation... wow...(Poweroverwhelming 22:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wasn't it a Bullet Bill that took Mario out on the video with Petey Pihrana?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayor Coffee Bean (talk • contribs) 12:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bullet Bill

message: Uh, I came across this article earlier today. I'm not quite sure if this deserves an article quite yet, though that might just be the mergist within me speaking. Anyways, I did what I could to improve it, then slapped on a merge tag before starting this thread. Personally, I think that we ought to wait until the game comes out first, since until then it is just a part of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, not to mention a part that we know very little about as of now. Any opinions on the matter? You Can't Review Me!!! 00:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that that article shouldn't really be up until the game is out, but a placeholder may be fine. Especially if the characters from the story become "major characters." On the other hand, the game isn't out yet so.... InsaneZeroG 00:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the page should just be redirected to the single player section, at least until the game is released but even then I doubt it should go into that much detail, Wikipedia is not a game guide!!!!!!→041744 00:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Subspace Emissary 

message: Gameplay
Sub- Adventure Mode
Sub- Subspace Emissary
Everyone is happy and it leaves room for more.--ChibiMrBubbles 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I propose we have new subs: 

message: Why is this still here? Online play was never confirmed; the most Sakurai ever said was "we'll try". Iwata said that the game would be online, but in the same breath he also said it would be a launch game for Wii. And that was at E3 2005; clearly out-of-date info. I'm removing this. Phediuk 17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already two discussions on this very page about this. Arrowned 17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussions which went nowhere. There was no reason to revert my perfectly legitimate edit. Prove that the game will be online or don't revert it. Phediuk 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to remove this since there is no confirmation. Deoxys911 23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You get to call this "lack of insight"? All Sakurai has said and all you've proven is that Sakurai would like very much and is trying to make this game Wi-Fi compatible. Does that mean Wi-Fi is confirmed? NO. Last I checked, before the game came out Pokémon XD was going to be a big fancy, main-series style RPG, but ohlook it was a Colosseum sequel! "My plan is to include WiFi and online functionality" does not mean "we've definitely got Wi-Fi functionality in this game."—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The article itself only says that Sakurai has "expressed an interest" in putting online in the game. I'm putting a [citation needed] on the Nintendo Wi-Fi note until someone provides proof of online. Phediuk 13:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh really? Shouldn't be difficult to provide a citation if there was indeed a confirmation. Phediuk 13:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Then provide it again. Until then, the citation note is perfectly legitimate. Phediuk 13:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's "all over the internet", then why can't you provide a single source? This is surely a contentious fact, given that I'm not the only one in this discussion to contest this point. Provide a source, and then you'll be the right one. One easy-peasy source. Shouldn't be difficult. It's "all over the internet", after all. Until then, the citation note is legitimate. Phediuk 13:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sakurai's blog doesn't even exist anymore, and on IGN, all he said was that he was interested and would "try" to put it in. It was in a picture in the background while Rerggie was talking about Wi-Fi, but no one has ever said that "Super Smash Bros. Brawl will be online", and it has never been mentioned on the official website. Until it is, the citation note stands, and the information should be removed from the article if no one can provide a source. But oh, I forgot, it's "all over the internet". How silly of me. Phediuk 14:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And when it is indeed confirmed, then I will be "struck down". Until then, the note stands, unless you can provide a citation. It's "all over the internet", as you say, so I don't know why this discussion has gone on so long. That CoroCoro thing was fake, by the way. Phediuk 14:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, citation stands, until you can prove that there is online play. I mean, it's "all over the internet". Come come, now. If you had the ability to shut me down with some conclusive proof, you'd have presented it long ago. Provide a citation, and hey, you win. But it seems you can't do that. Now, let's end this debate until you can find some proof. Should be quick, eh? It's "all over the internet". Phediuk 14:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And if you scrolled down a little after that, you'll see how I said that all Sakurai said to IGN was "we'll try", and how showing a picture in the background among many other games while talking about Wi-Fi=/="this game will be online". You'll also see how I said online has not been mentioned on the official site. Oh, and online wasn't even mentioned at E3 2006, just so you know. And besides, if any of these supposed "sources" provided proof of online play, you'd be able to easily cite them and end this debate. But lo and behold, you haven't. The citation note stands until you provide proof of online. Phediuk 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: ChibiMrBubbles and Kenny2k, please calm down and stop flame warring. — Malcolm (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just for the record, if there is ever a situation where the existence or truth of anything is in question, the burden of proof falls on the one who says it does exist, and not the other way around. That is why - for example - in a court of law, it is the prosecution that has to provide proof that the accused committed a crime. If it were the other way around (as some seemed to expect in this talk page), then the defense would be constantly labouring to prove that the accused could not have - under any circumstances - committed a crime.
Furthermore, Sakurai's claims have been nothing but aspirations. I want to have a billion dollar mansion and a summer home on a private island. Doesn't mean I'm going to make it happen any time soon. Such is the difference between wanting something and doing something. GraniteJJ 01:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, yes. We need a source for nearly every fact that is not immediately obvious to the reader. You Can't Review Me!!! 19:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wi-Fi mode 

message: This seems like a pretty good link:
http://wii.ign.com/articles/809/809868p1.html
Zixor 02:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Meta Knight has been removed from the playable characters list on dojo... and he has only been presented so far as an enemy character. It's becoming clear that, as seen in the video's, the Halberd is also prominently used in shipping those puppet enemies around (name escapes me.)
Should this be pointed out anywhere? It's kinda significant to the plot, and it's not delving too much into the realms of speculation. I know I haven't made any real points here, but I wanted to point out the Dojo thing and leave the content up to those with more experience. Rooreelooo 22:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then again, Dojo used him to demonstrate the Wiimote control set.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's definitely not gone. — Malcolm (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, was Meta Knight ever GIVEN a player character article on Dojo?  Whether the character is confirmed or not, they haven't showed up on the site until they decide to do it (Zero Suit Samus took forever to show up, and Snake isn't even there yet).—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not he has a page, the first video said that he was a newcomer.  It's only logical to make him a character.  BlueCanary9999 22:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I realize. I just said that to point out the fact that a lot of newcomers aren't on Dojo's player list, so it's a wrongful assumption to just think they're "gone."—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Saying that is like saying that Fox has no final smash just becuase there isn't one now. On the Dojo site before May and the daily updates, Met Knight had a little section on him along with Zero suit samus, pit, wario and Solid snake(so don't bring him up either) so they are confirmed to be playable even if the new site hasn't gotton around to given him a section.→041744 12:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And now, we have him confirmed. I wonder if they read Wikipedia :P 69.182.106.175 07:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: [[This one? You Can't Review Me!!! 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meta Knight is gone? 

message: It seems like this may be the official boxart of the game. Even though I would normally be skeptical about the boxart of the game, this caught my attention since every character is in a position that hasn't been shown in any screenshot so far. Does anyone else know if this is fake or not? Unknownlight 00:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, could be. But it's not a source from Nintendo, so we can't put it in the article. — Malcolm (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably the most possible box-art that's been brought up here. BassxForte 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think it's pretty realistic, but it's too small to use even if there were proof of its validity.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The two doubts you expressed could be easily explained. The release date on the site says December 4, instead of December 3. It's called a "typo". It's possible that Nintendo may have recently released the box art, and/or it wasn't supposed to be shown yet. We don't know. That's why, like I just said, we need a second image form another source for confirmation. We just have to wait. It's a waste of time and energy to argue, if that's all we need to do. - Zero1328 Talk? 02:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I know you were trying to make the atmosphere less tense but.. that was wierd. - Zero1328 Talk? 02:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Further evidence is the rating on the box, it's still pending. That means that attached symbols and logos are still tentative, as well as the cover itself. I'm not saying that it's unofficial, though. That's different. - Zero1328 Talk? 06:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: GameCrazy's looks big enough (269, 375), but we should wait for official confirmation. — Jaxad0127 12:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you really must pull the NOT OFFICAL tag on us, then where did the art for the pics come from? I'm sure that you can't use photoshop to make THAT convincing a fake. I say put it but warn it's unnoficial and pending. Maybe a caption saying "Box art provided is unnoficial" or something to that extent. Quatreryukami 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: IGN is also using the boxart, though Gamespot has yet to join the club.  While I'm generally of the opinion that we should wait for Nintendo in severe cases, I'm less an advocate of that as much as I am an advocate of reliable sourcing, of which Nintendo would obviously be topdog.  However, IGN and Gamespot, as legit video game news sites, count as "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and are used extremely often for cited information and links in various game articles on Wikipedia during preview timeframes.  As far as WP policy is concerned, there is now nothing against the rules about using this boxart.  If it turns out to be wrong (or, less majorly, just needs to be switch with the final version once it gets the appropriate ESRB rating and extra logos), then obviously we will get rid of this version, but there's still no longer anything wrong with using this one. Arrowned 19:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There's still something suspicious about it displaying every character confirmed up to that point and only characters confirmed up to that point. I know it would be a rather difficult to fake, especially since the characters' poses appear to be original, but I know several artistic friends who could do the same sort of thing with anime characters. All it takes is quite a bit of talent. I think we ought to hold off for a bit longer, just to be sure. You Can't Review Me!!! 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thing is, it's not displaying every character confirmed up to any point. Yoshi, DK, Ike, Bowser, and Zelda are all missing (Snake too, but that's not unexpected.) I personally don't think there are many starting characters left to go anyway; we already know more than Melee's starting roster. --HeroicJay 00:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: EBgames is now using the box. http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=230015 JesseMeza 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GameTrailers is now using it too. Look, there is nothing against the WP policy that keeps this boxart from being used. The policy states that there must be at least one reliable source linking to any statement, this boxart has more than enough. Two reliable sources (IGN and GameTrailers) several semi-reliable sources (like GoNintendo) and quite a few other websites (e.g. EB Games and Amazon.com) that are using it. What I think we should do is put the cover in the article and below it simply say "Boxart subject to change". It was the same with the Super Mario Galaxy boxart, why should it be different here? Unknownlight 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to say that the boxart was fake on the SMG page check here. Sorry I just had to say that, anyway the boxart was posted on a fake boxart hosting site here on 09/03/07, the day this disscussion was started.....→041744 12:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't disprove it. It's full of user submitted content, real images can still go in. Just look at the username, too.. at most, this just adds more confusion to the whole thing. - Zero1328 Talk? 12:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I originally said higher resolution, not high. The first appearance of the image was an extremely low resolution(less than 100x100px), making it useless to present the subject. That's not a problem now. - Zero1328 Talk? 12:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally I feel there is nothing stopping this boxart from being used on the Wikipedia page, seeing as we have a higher resolution now. If other legit sites (which have ties and links to Nintendo) believe that it is real then why not put it up? It would only be misleading if the other sites had no boxart. Unless the person who made the boxart was one heck of an artist and Photoshop user then it has to be real. - XINVADER Talk? 16:40, 8 September 2007 (GMT)
I think it looks fishy. 69.202.119.212 17:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EB Games is now using one with the "Nintendo WiFi" logo on it. http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=230015  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.70.99 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now they aren't, they changed back to the placeholder art. So what does that tell you, buku? -Sukecchi 12:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As is Gamestop. — Jaxad0127 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but EB and GameStop are the same now, so that's still only one source. Personally, I could see EB adding that to the boxart to boost preorder numbers, especially since most of the general public assumes that Wi-Fi is confirmed rather than just heavily hinted at and they wouldn't want people to think it's been canceled. I dunno, my suggestion would be to keep the one we have until we have sources for (A) Wi-Fi confirmation, (B) extra verification on this boxart and (C) a higher resolution version-- just like we did for the one we have now. --llamapalooza87 06:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxart? 

message: I'm not completely for or against this, but I am wondering... Should there be a mention of how some of the veteran fighters will have new special moves? Granted, Mario is the only veteran that we know has a new special move so far, so saying that more characters than just Mario may have new special moves is speculation at this point (though chances are there will be more veterans with new special moves). Or is this minute bit of info deemed unimportant to the article, like half of the stuff revealed on the official website? Disaster KirbyTalk 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am concerned it seemed to be a hasty decision and it looks doubtful that explaining new special moves is a waste for this page at least, unlike the Melee page because that page needed to mention the addition of a fourth special move. The only way I could think of for it to work (Though the chances of happening are also low) is to explain it as a revisements to a veteran character but only if there are more examples for other veteran characters and it be done with the minimum of words because Wikipedia is not a game guide, nor does give out strategies. -Adv193 17:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this happens to a few other veterans, then we could mention it. Or if a new special move command is introduced, like Diagonal B. [/speculation] But as of now, leave the article alone.Satoryu 18:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree that speculation on other vets is not good, but this is notable IMO because up until now, Mario used the Tornado, and F.L.U.U.D doesn't even do damage. It might be a notable change, even if for the sake of clues to things to come. Quatreryukami 18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's very much so possible that they could include a fifth B move. Just because it wasn't on that particular update doesn't mean it couldn't be in the game.Satoryu 20:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of a fifth special move still sounds like a hoax to me. But I'll support a possible sentence addition on the revisements when the time is right, as long as it isn't too broad. -Adv193 20:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote the site: "He still seems to have this move, though.
Eh? Is it a normal attack?!" In other words, it is not a fifth special move, but rather a standard attack (equivalent to A+tilt moves in Melee). With that out of the way, this is starting to get forumish. You Can't Review Me!!! 00:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He wrote that as a question. He didn't confirm or deny that Mario Tornado was an A Move. And that's the last of it you'll hear from me.Satoryu 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New special moves 

message: The "citation needed" at the end of the article was needed, I think. I did some googling and I couldn't find any official interview that actually had Sakurai say "2 or 3 third party characters." Should that fact at the end just be omitted since the closest thing we have at the moment has already been mentioned (Miyamoto and co. negotiating with other corporations for third party characters)? Unless someone can find an official interview that says otherwise.Falco x Fox 22:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of third party characters to be included 

message: On a website not so long ago I found This
I immediately thought it was fake, but the Music update is making me think otherwise. If you look at the top left of the music menu screens you can see the menu has a sort of folder design, with a circle (red on the char screen, purple on the music screen, kind of like the smash bros website's buttons)... There are also four slashes on the right, of the respective colors. The text in the menu is layed out the same way. 
I don't know how much proof that offers, but the fact that the picture was updated a few days before this update has me thinking that this might be the real thing...The Wii Guy 20:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the other picture in that guy's photostream, you'll see another character selection screen, with the characters all rearranged, which leads me to believe that this is poppycock. Anyway, where in the hell would some random guy get a copy of SSBB that? I'm very inclined to think that this is fake... in fact it is fake, there's no doubt in my mind! Oh and I'm not blaming you, Mr./Mrs. no signy. Yoshiguy 20:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah...the chances it's real seem very low. — Malcolm (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Luigi's picture has Pikachu's name under it alone makes it incredibly shifty. Arrowned 20:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't even notice that. :) Definitely fake. — Malcolm (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Tom Nook pretty much nails it as fake.  C'mon guys!  When would Nintendo ever let something like this slip?  (Zojo 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this Character select screen look real to you?