Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 25

message: I thought I put up a discussion already, but I guess it deleted (before the archive). We should start working together to get Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee up to GA status. If anyone would want to help out, and possibly make it a mini-project, just post here. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great idea. For all the people who say "Wait till Brawl comes out," well, SSB and Melee are out, so we should work on those pages. Good idea Tinkleheimer.    Powerslave  22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Son was the one who mentioned it first, I just expanded on the idea. :). Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am posting it here because there are lots of people who edit this article, and not the other ones. While we wait, I figured I would get some generated interest into it. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd be happy to help. I'll work on Super Smash Bros. Doppelganger (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll help out. Jareds2007 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  While we wait, why not work on others for GA? 

message: I noticed someone changed the collectibles section to vault after today's update.  Although it is likely that this function has to do with collectibles, it wasn't confirmed. Should this be removed and returned to the way it was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Armageddon (talk • contribs) 
:Hell yes. Until we know precisely what it's for, it shouldn't be mentioned yet. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Though I expect a challenge.Satoryu (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but that does not pass for confirmation.  Unless they are confirmed to be in the Vault section via a Dojo or similar official update, then it is speculation to say they are. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's like saying that The Subspace Emissary was never officially confirmed to be found under the Solo option. It's speculation to say that it's found there. M4192 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't.  However, the Subspace Emissary is the game's Adventure mode, and the Adventure mode was initially revealed as a one-player campaign (the 2-player co-op option notwithstanding).  Don't make indefensible arguments, please. For all we know, the Vault could be something else entirely. Solo is obvious, Vault is vague. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it's just more fun to argue with you than to agree with you. M4192 (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is the idea of how wikipedia is supposed to work...--Henke37 (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on topic, so null persp. It's alright for a user to play Devil's Advocate. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 09:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vault 

message: As you likely know, CoroCoro is having a 30 page feature in its latest issue, to be released today (Japan timezone) to subscribers and tomorrow to everyone else. Supposedly, information on characters will be included, possibly including characters that haven't yet been revealed. We need to decide how we'll handle any new information and the flood of vandalism and unsourced material that will come attached to any major announcements in the issue. Time is of the essence as subscribers will be receiving the issue within the next few hours. ShadowUltra (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously we'd continue to use the standard "only add to the article if it's notable" mentality, but as far as sourcing, I say we wait for legit newssites (IGN, Gamespot, 1UP, Kotaku, Joystiq, etc.) to post info from the articles.  Using fourm and blogposts as citations comes with the pitfall of not being able to prove that info is true, as those aren't proper primary or secondary sources, unless said posts can be proven to be by people in the industry, which is only easy to do on company forums or blogs. Arrowned (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone can produce a full citation from a magazine (which most spammers won't) I don't see why it can't be considered. If someone proves that they actually are willing to source info with a magazine ref, it might be worth discussing. On a secondary note, some magazines post articles into an online database; while I don't know if CoroCoro does this, or if we can find a useful translation, we should keep our eyes open.--CM (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: ShadowUltra is right, tomorrow a lot of people may come and edit this article saying something like: ###### confirmed in the CoroCoro magazine. we should semi-protect or protect the article.--Fandangox (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is semiprotected. And if this is true, we can't go by word of mouth. At the very least, we'll need scans of the magazine to verify any claims.Satoryu (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that site you gave us a fan site, it looks like some 12-19 year old made it.--DarkFierceDeityLink 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the chaotic header, that site is actually very well-made.    Powerslave  03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-eminent CoroCoro preperations 

message: Maybe we should create a task force for Super Smash Bros. (the series) under WikiProject Nintendo. I am certainly in favor of it. If anyone would like to support it, please sign under Smash Bros. Task Force here.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smash Bros. Task Force

message: Over at WP:FILM, I noticed that they have a Future-class designation for all future-release films.  Perhaps we could employ this designation here and other as-of-yet-unreleased video games?  --Son (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future-class article? 

message: Shouldn't there be at least a couple of sentences discussing the options that are on the main menu picture?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milind4 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't really notable enough.  Besides, what are we going to say if it is included??  "This is where the player can choose between widescreen and full screen modes.  And this is where the player can choose their language.  And this is where the player can..."  Sorry, but there isn't enough noteworthy information there.  TwilightPhoenix (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Options 

message: In addition to the standard multiplayer mode "Brawl", Super Smash Bros. Brawl features unique multiplayer modes and options in Group mode.
Where exactly is the standard multiplayer mode "Brawl"? I thought that Group was its new name?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milind4 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group mode 

message: They just confirmed Rayquaza as a boss in today's update! We should update the FAQ and other information. Fangz of Blood 21:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: its already there, ive said it was a boss as soon as i saw the video.--DarkFierceDeityLink 23:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New boss Confirmed: [[Rayquaza]] 

message: Shouldn't somebody write anything about this on the Vault section??? I mean, it's totally notable due to the fact that it changed the way to get trophies, also using different gameplay.....      --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to the article, please check it for any mistakes.--Fandangox (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since they delete it what about writting it like this: A new minigame, the Coin Launcher, will replace the lottery from meele. The launcher, for which the minigame is named, is a machine that uses coins as projectiles. Using the launcher, you shoot coins at trophies to obtain them.--Fandangox (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Then why haven't you checked the revert log for the best of the poorly written editions of the Coin Launcher section, edited it for grammar, spelling and clarity, and then added it back? My guess is either you don't have the time, or you don't consider it that worthwhile of an addition to the article. In my case, it's both; but I do have the time to click "revert" on revisions where it would take more than a spell check to fix the problems with the addition. Coreycubed (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coin Launcher 

message: Instead of removing sections of the article because they're poorly written, how about editing and improving it?  The constant reverting because "it's not good enough" is against the point of a wiki.  There's a reason why there is the "Edit" tab on the screen.  Use it.  We're all editors.  Not publishing editors, Wiki editors.  --Son (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why haven't you checked the revert log for the best of the poorly written editions of the Coin Launcher section, edited it for grammar, spelling and clarity, and then added it back? My guess is either you don't have the time, or you don't consider it that worthwhile of an addition to the article. In my case, it's both; but I do have the time to click "revert" on revisions where it would take more than a spell check to fix the problems with the addition. Coreycubed (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting poorly written sections

message: The Subspace Emissary is a major part of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, so I've just come here to discuss the use of this image:
http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/modea/images/modea02/modea02_070803logo.jpg
...in the article.
Of course, I don't want to come here and demand the image be inserted in here, because I don't want the article to be littered with images - I know how much you fellow Wikipedians are passionate about keeping this page as neat as possible, so I thought I'd come here first to avoid angry users.
Again, the Subspace Emissary is an important part of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, since it is the firs mode to actually feature a storyline, rather than going through stages, or just fighting everyone for no reason. To highlight the importance of this mode, it would be useful if we added more information about this mode, but not making it the centre of the article - we all know the Subspace Emissary isn't the only part of Brawl.
By all means, you can completely disregard this idea - I don't mind, I'm not experienced in making articles, and you would be more advanced than me. I know how you all take pride in this article, and the recent arguments back up that knowledge. If the image is not allowed, due to Wikipedia's policy (Fair Use?), then I understand.
I don't want to start an argument over this, although it likely isn't going to happen - I'm just sharing my opinion. SpaceTym (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Subspace Emissary is a major part of Brawl, we know that, I don't see why that warrants the logo nessicary, we already have a team image. and a logo would seem more of a decrative image to me, it does not illistrate the section of help the reader understand better in my opion.→041744 13:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see understand. I don't really mind, I just wanted an opinion from the editors. Thanks anyway. SpaceTym (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if this belongs in a different article or not but as soon as the game comes out an article for the Subspace Emissary must be established. BaconBoy914 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would a separate article be necessary? It can just be a section here.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Emphasis on section. Please, no overarching plot summaries or one of the famous Wikifanboy "synopsis" essays. Coreycubed (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subspace Emissary Logo 

message: No, I don't mean official criticism, but there's been a lot of hubbub over Brawl's online play. The following was posted on Masahiro Sakurai's page but I removed it because the comments on those boards were directly referring to Brawl, not Sakurai:
As of recently, Sakurai has been taking heavy criticism from online communities, such as IGN  , Kotaku, and MP3.com,  for his decisions concerning Super Smash Bros. Brawl's online play. He has yet to state whether the restrictions were imposed by Nintendo or were solely his own.
So...is it noteworthy? It apparently was noteworthy enough that, on Sakurai's page, it was removed then put back with apparent reasoning (iunno just speculating from the history). What do you guys suggest happens with this thing? I'm not the Wikipedia expert here... DRaGZ (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worthy enough to kick start a criticism section in the article.  Are there any other sources that goes along with this?  --Son (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's right to criticize a game that hasn't been released yet, nor put up a criticism section on the page. Better wait till the game is out.Satoryu (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely nothing you can say about Brawl's online play when it hasn't been seen or tested by any of those people. It's all hearsay and speculation, unless you can find a source stating otherwise, that's what it is. -Sukecchi (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism?

message: === Another Delay? ===
Please everyone look into this, sorry in advance if it's not relevant enough.
On Smashboards.com someone said their gamestop told them of a March 28, 2008 release date, and then someone copied an E-mail from Walmart saying there was another delay. Now on the Walmart site it says in won't be available until March 28, 2008: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=6527131
Please everyone look into this. --Adam (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing official here. Until Nintendo says otherwise, the release date is still Feb 10.Satoryu (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I pre-ordered one at Gamestop and they did not told me anything of a delay. Actually I pre-ordered it since August and they did not told me that the game was delayed to Feb 10.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.39.74 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the delay was announced in October. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not on the Dojo, it's Wal-Mart, and it says it should SHIP BY 3/9/08. I'm guessing there is no new delay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igglybuff63 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about?  The infobox reads "TBA"; I'll check the body of text and remove any erroneous references to that date. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, Satoryu got it. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Which you subsequently failed to do, removing speculation. (New sections go at the bottom.) Coreycubed (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But Smashbros.com says Feb 10th, 2008]. Hmmm...Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 15:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Becuase this article almost exclusivly uses only offical sources. But the offical site does not mention a date at all.→041744 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  What he said. Two online retailers and a message board on GameFAQs are hardly reliable sources. Coreycubed (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's because it's a soccer game ... more likely to be popular in Europe than Japan or North America.  The other Smash Bros. games were released in Europe after Japan and North America.  There's no news from Nintendo on the release date, and boards are filled with rumors but have no qualifiers and don't fall under the category of reliable sources.  --Son (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Not unless you've got a reliable source that the rest of us don't know about. Coreycubed (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes little sense anyways.  All of North America is one region as far as the video game market is concerned; individual countries don't get their own delays.  Stores getting shipments in late for random reasons, sure, but official delays?  No. Arrowned (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And just a reminder, stores are not good and/or reliable sources for information, regardless of the game or country. JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You're not the first refugee from GameFAQs to post here. Welcome to a somewhat lighter side of the web :) Coreycubed (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I made my GameFaqs account after my Wikipedia one, but whatever.Unknownlight (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Already been done. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we just leave this one here so we don't keep deleting the same thread?--CM (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my point in posting it before. It would save a lot of headaches to just leave this one here. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet people still keep adding it. Wow.--CM (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now do you see why I've been deleting them? The sort of people who need to read it are the ones who don't know well enough TO read it. If I see another one of these get started, I'm deleting them down to just the one. Honestly, folks... Coreycubed (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe people keep re-adding it because they see that there isn't already a section dedicated to it. It's not quantum physics, here. Just a little common sense. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 05:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delays and release dates

message: Please everyone look into this, sorry in advance if it's not relevant enough.
On Smashboards.com someone said their gamestop told them of a March 28, 2008 release date, and then someone copied an E-mail from Walmart saying there was another delay. Now on the Walmart site it says in won't be available until March 28, 2008: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=6527131
Please everyone look into this. --Adam (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing official here. Until Nintendo says otherwise, the release date is still Feb 10.Satoryu (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I pre-ordered one at Gamestop and they did not told me anything of a delay. Actually I pre-ordered it since August and they did not told me that the game was delayed to Feb 10.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.39.74 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the delay was announced in October. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not on the Dojo, it's Wal-Mart, and it says it should SHIP BY 3/9/08. I'm guessing there is no new delay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igglybuff63 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Delay? 

message: I see you guys have put up an Australian Release date as March 9, but the confimation Link next to it leads to a site which claims it will be out "TBA".
Is this a false edit or...?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.6.39 (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about?  The infobox reads "TBA"; I'll check the body of text and remove any erroneous references to that date. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, Satoryu got it. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Release date 

message: Play.com, Gameplay and Gamemaster both confirm that the European release date is January 25th
I'm about to write it on the article with the proper sources
88.24.7.133 (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which you subsequently failed to do, removing speculation. (New sections go at the bottom.) Coreycubed (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But Smashbros.com says Feb 10th, 2008]. Hmmm...Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 15:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Becuase this article almost exclusivly uses only offical sources. But the offical site does not mention a date at all.→041744 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  What he said. Two online retailers and a message board on GameFAQs are hardly reliable sources. Coreycubed (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's because it's a soccer game ... more likely to be popular in Europe than Japan or North America.  The other Smash Bros. games were released in Europe after Japan and North America.  There's no news from Nintendo on the release date, and boards are filled with rumors but have no qualifiers and don't fall under the category of reliable sources.  --Son (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: European Release Date

message: I've been hearing from various sources - such as EB Games - that Brawl is being delayed in Canada until March 1, can this be confirmed?
WiiDS (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless you've got a reliable source that the rest of us don't know about. Coreycubed (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes little sense anyways.  All of North America is one region as far as the video game market is concerned; individual countries don't get their own delays.  Stores getting shipments in late for random reasons, sure, but official delays?  No. Arrowned (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And just a reminder, stores are not good and/or reliable sources for information, regardless of the game or country. JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You're not the first refugee from GameFAQs to post here. Welcome to a somewhat lighter side of the web :) Coreycubed (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I made my GameFaqs account after my Wikipedia one, but whatever.Unknownlight (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Delay 

message: Can someone update the page for the new release date (9 March in the US, 31 January for Japan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.130.77 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 January 2008
:Already been done. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we just leave this one here so we don't keep deleting the same thread?--CM (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my point in posting it before. It would save a lot of headaches to just leave this one here. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet people still keep adding it. Wow.--CM (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now do you see why I've been deleting them? The sort of people who need to read it are the ones who don't know well enough TO read it. If I see another one of these get started, I'm deleting them down to just the one. Honestly, folks... Coreycubed (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe people keep re-adding it because they see that there isn't already a section dedicated to it. It's not quantum physics, here. Just a little common sense. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 05:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in Release Date 

message: I can't help but feel that people need to loosen up a bit on this article. Almost any edit made gets reverted unless "certain people" deem it appropriate. Now I honestly don't read reverts or anything so I dunno who or what, but I don't think this article can really change unless more edits are allowed. If someone wants to add new info in an ORGANIZED manner, why remove it?
Ragingtsunami726 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we are adding info in such a manner.  Anything in that article was both (a) leaked by  and (b) discussed over on this talk page and found to be worthwhile to include.  If we were to include everything, we'd be turning into a game guide. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There is no need to add those; see Super Smash Bros. (series) where characters are marked accordingly as they are announced. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ragingtsunami726, I hope you don't take this as a discouragement, but you must understand that there is a lot of thought that goes into what's added and removed (and yes, even reverted). For example, I'd bet that you were trying to make that edit during the lengthy discussion on the talk page (found under Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 23#King Dedede). To you, it may have been an obvious contribution, but to people who have been working on improving this article for months, it was going to be reverted because we hadn't reached a consensus yet. If you read the link, you'll see why the decision was made the way it was. If you want to be involved in new content and don't want to have it reverted, bring it up on the talk page and be prepared to defend your edits. Coreycubed (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Fix-Upping 

message: It's inevitable, but how are you guys going to go about adding in Olimar?
He's pretty significant, adding a new franchise into the playable aspect of the game. 
P.S: Forgot to log in first =/Zanibas (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple. We Don't. As the hidden messages say, We have enough examples already. Dengarde ► Complaints  07:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the symbiotic character relationship he has is nothing new (see also: Ice Climbers). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The Ice Climbers can fight solo, but their attacks are weakened dramatically if one is gone, and a lone Ice Climber can't use its recovery move. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Olmar is no more important then any other character. The only way another character example will make it into the article is when another third part character is announced. Dengarde ► Complaints  21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Diddy is only there to set an example (It was originally Metakight, but people kept bitching that Dedede should be there too if we're using him, so we changed it), which, as I said, we have enough of. Third party characters are notable since, well, they're third party, which is in it'self notable. As for Olimar, what you're describing him as, "A unique character with a unique moveset" goes for every character in the game. Not to mention, we have almost NO idea how the Pikmin work. So even is he WAS notable, theres be almost nothing to add. Dengarde ► Complaints  21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You mean like how we have here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Smash_Bros._%28series%29#Playable_characters -Sukecchi (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Pit was one of the earliest ones revealed, as was Meta-Knight.  The hapless captain was only revealed recently. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And this discussion's already been had on a similar level for other sections of the article; the consensus was to only change if directly conflicting information arose in regards to a given sentence (which is pretty a pretty good standard for editing ANY article). Coreycubed (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we add Olimar? 

message: I think that maybe this article should be listed in the Wikipedia List of controversial issues. But what do other people think?--Henke37 (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think not.  The only controversy here are the rumors flying about - Lucario, Krystal, Mega Man, etc. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 15:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that page seems to be primarily involved around pages that experience major edit warring.  About the only time we had to deal with something on that level was when we were first deciding whether to leave Ness as ?, and that was in the series page, not here.  All edits here have just been reverting vandalism; there's been no edit warring. Arrowned (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page template 

message: ===Preorder slip===
I'm aware that the ESRB site says the game is rated T, however, my own preorder slip and several others I've seen at various stores say it is rated E. The rating even appears on the boxart, meaning someone would have had to have edited it. Are they mistaken, or has the ESRB forgotten to update the rating? I could scan the slip if you would like to see it. ShadowUltra (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More likely than not they are mistaken.  When it comes to ratings, the ESRB's word is the last. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What Jéské said. What appears on the preliminary boxart is usually made-up by the developer/publisher/in any case it's Nintendo.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 07:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In and of itself the Crude Humor would have more likely than not elicited an E10 rating, not an E. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Might I suggest looking for an ESRB judgement on the game? That would be a valid source, as would using the Wayback Machine (if the site in question is archived with it). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just traded the cite out with a link to Brawl's main area at nintendo.com, which shows the rating. Arrowned (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating in question? 

message: I'm aware that the ESRB site says the game is rated T, however, my own preorder slip and several others I've seen at various stores say it is rated E. The rating even appears on the boxart, meaning someone would have had to have edited it. Are they mistaken, or has the ESRB forgotten to update the rating? I could scan the slip if you would like to see it. ShadowUltra (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More likely than not they are mistaken.  When it comes to ratings, the ESRB's word is the last. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What Jéské said. What appears on the preliminary boxart is usually made-up by the developer/publisher/in any case it's Nintendo.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 07:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In and of itself the Crude Humor would have more likely than not elicited an E10 rating, not an E. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Preorder slip

message: The link for the statement that the game is rated "T" has expired. I am unable to find a replacement source, so could someone help me, or tag the statement with a dead link template? --haha169 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest looking for an ESRB judgement on the game? That would be a valid source, as would using the Wayback Machine (if the site in question is archived with it). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just traded the cite out with a link to Brawl's main area at nintendo.com, which shows the rating. Arrowned (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rated T 

message: The review for Brawl just got published on Famitsu. Guess what? 10 10 10 10, 40/40 baby!! Shall we include this in the article? Dengarde ► Complaints  06:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd probably be a good idea to wait at least until the game is released in Japan before we start thinking of adding a Reception section. Arrowned (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For somthing like "Amount of units sold", maybe. But I see no problem in adding review scores from places like this. Besides, Famitsu is a HUGE name. The fact that Brawl is one of only SEVEN games to ever get a perfect score from them is certainly notable. Dengarde ► Complaints  06:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We should put that in the article.Satoryu (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famitsu 

message: Can we add a section for moves and final smashes? They are ALL listed on the Dojo. MasterDX (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a game guide. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be cool if we could add another section next to the series and add final smash then on the bottom we put the name of only the final smash>--DarkFierceDeityLink 17:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be reasonable, but it looks and smells like cruftshit. You're going to have an uphill battle for that one. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 17:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Move List and Final Smashes