Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 19

HALT! STOP! DISCONTINUE! Before asking any questions, please read this handy FAQ to make sure your question(s) has/have not been answered. Thank you.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Release date

Sora has to choke out that release date soon, since it's more than halfway done with 2007. When will the site release this info?--Demonworks

We don't know. -Sukecchi 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

More than likely, if its going to be this year, he would tell us at E3 --Kenny2k 03:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that the game will be released in early 2008, but I can't remember where I found this information so don't post anything on the article.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 15:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

For the last time: SORA IS NOT DOING IT! 165.228.218.160 07:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Best Buy stores, it should come out in canada/america on November 30th, 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.96.136 (talk • contribs)

Retail stores/sites are often incorrect on release dates because they have a habit of putting temporary dates that they assume would be around when the game will come out just so they have something to say when customers ask. This is regardless of whether it's the actual date or not, and in most cases, the producing company hasn't released a date, so the stores are flat out lying. That's the case here until Nintendo gives word of the official release date, which will very possibly occur during E3 this year. Arrow 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The GameStop website claims that it releases in America on September 1st, 2007. 71.232.1.243

Personally I believe any store that sells games that has a release date is lying. Even well known places like GameStop just make up dates. That goes for other stores too, like Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, etcetera etcetera. I'm pretty sure there won't be a real release date until e3 in like a month. Hopefully their will be a nice little trailer to go along with it, we haven't had one of those since November. 68.195.110.145 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

look, stores will not have the dates out before Nintendo comes out with it first. as crazy as it seems, we just have to wait to find out when it's coming out. we need to add to the FAQ: no more talking about the release date unless there is solid proof from Nintendo about when it's coming out. i am so sick of these discussions and arguments that go in circles. FyreNWater 00:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes,I agree with Fyre:All we know is that the game is nearing completion since,if you recall,it was on the original site that they wouldn't begin updating again until the game is finished,so the release will come soon,we just need to be patient,and when it does,we'll put it up.XLS724 22:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Crates and barrels

Should the fact that they fit to match the stage be added anywhere in the article, or was it already done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.133.192.156 (talk • contribs)

(please sign your posts) i don't think it's a relevant fact. nice touch, but very trivial. FyreNWater 09:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Could I add two sentences like 'Crates and barrels return from previous games. Now they will conform to the style of the stage and new rolling verities appear which a player can jump onto an ride downhill into anther player to inflict damage.' ?--041744 13:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not something like "Crates and barrels have undergone many changes since the last game, Not only by being able to change what they look like in different stages, but the ability to slide downhill and damage players." Forai 16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what 41744 said was the better of the two. 66.133.192.156 23:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its been clarified that the crates do damage, it only says that you get knocked for a loop, so it may only push you. A different thing though I noticed is the fact that in the picutre with the crate rolling, Pikachu is standing on top of it, that was not something that happened in the last ones.--69.210.124.129 03:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this a first?

Is Super Smash Bros. Brawl the first Wii game to use all four control styles? If it is, should that fact be mentioned somewhere in the article? --Kenny2k 01:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Likely it is, but still this is very trivial and shouldn't be added.--041744 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

it appears to be a first, but it may be the first of a long list. after all, the Wii has only been out for so long. i don't think we should add it, it's kinda trivial. FyreNWater 09:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Snake isn't just the first third-party character, but also the first character from a M-rated series, but that's not notable, right? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 12:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It being a first isn't very important, but mentioning the control scheme is, I think, notable. Useight 22:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Time To Update FAQ?

Since inclusions of all characters, stages, items are apparently no longer allowed, should we update the FAQ stating that it is not neccessary to include every info on the game? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

When was that decided, anyway? I always thought that a Wiki article on a game should give the reader a good idea of what to expect if they were playing the game. Not in the sense of an instruction manual, but in the sense that as a writer, I'm describing the features of the average play session to a reader who has never seen the game before, and got this article when clicking the random article link over there on the sidebar. I feel that if the reader were to later play the game, or watch it in action after reading the article, and they see something and think "Hey! I didn't know that was in the game!", then the article is lacking. These articles are here to inform people about their subjects, right? SAMAS 16:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because games are highly interactive. If everything in the game were talked about , it would be a game guide. This is an encyclopedia. We're attempting to write an article to give people a solid idea of what the game is, any interesting development history, and anything that makes it stand out from other games, maybe. But not everything. That's gamefaqs job, not ours.DurinsBane87 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean in the sense that we tell them about every detail, but I do believe that all unique features of a game, and the effect they have on the gameplay, should be mentioned.

Take these articles (the Smash Bros. ones), for instance. Particularly the part that's been causing so much dissent in this one: The items. Items happen to be a big part of the series' gameplay. A character who is normally weak close in becomes a little more dangerous with a Beam Sword, and a thrown PokéBall can, one way or another, clear out half a stage if an Electrode comes out of it. The right (or wrong!) item at the right time can sometimes turn the tide of a battle around. Thusly, a couple of sentences in the middle of a paragraph that basically say: "Oh, and there are some items that appear sometimes, too" is, in my somewhat humble opinion, not indicative of the role they play in the game. SAMAS 23:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

But there are a wide variety of items that are individualy not very special. The difference between the beam sword, home run bat, and fan isn't really all that big. and there are too many items. Any item you'd mention, someone would come along and say "oh, well, if they mention that item, lets put a blurb about MY favorite item." Then there's the fact that we don't know many of the items that will be available in the game. information about items, since their a huge function in game play, should be in the Super Smash Bros. SERIES article. it makes more sense there then to put the same blurb in every smash bros. article. DurinsBane87 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm a little confused on what you said. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 16:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

we need to edit the section about release dates. apparently people just don't know it's there. FyreNWater 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So, can I update the FAQ? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive Time?

Looks like its archive time (yet again), if somebody could archive it, it would be most appreciated. --User:DOOMtech

I swear, this article discussion page has been going out of hand ever since the site relaunched. Everyone has been acting like the page belongs to them and reverts everything when someone edits. It actually makes wish that the site didn't relaunched at all. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 12:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I already tried to archive the current page, but my attempt was reverted for an unexplained reason (I assume Majorly thought it was vandalism), and there's a gigantic conflict between this talk page and Archive 15 now. I don't feel up to fixing it if I have to worry about my next attempt being ignored and reverted. Arrow 13:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-archived and fixed pages. Current discussions were kept. Seems the reason for the previous revert was because I forgot to include an edit summary, so people assumed I was blanking the page. Arrow 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it really time for an archive, this page seems substantially shorter than the current archives?Sasst82 16:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The page has already been archived, earlier today. The small page you're looking at now is the result of that suggestion. It won't be archived again until it grows. Arrow 16:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We're going overboard with the archiving. Look at archive 9, 43 topics. Now look at archive 15 (which is the one that DOOMtech was suggesting to be archived), 22 topics. See what I'm saying. Unknownlight 21:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry.....it looked long to me, and I wrote it in a form of a question, so people could reject it if it wasnt necessary. Sorry. --User:DOOMtech

Do we need to ask when it is archive time or comment on archives every time we clear the page?Sasst82 03:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh???

Uhhh.....what??? I'm sorry, but who changed the Development section from Fox being the latest character confirmed to Samus being the latest one confirmed? Am I missing something?? Wasn't samus revealed in the E3 trailer and Fox after her. I would change it back my self, but, now I'm gonna sound really stupid, I don't know how... Can someone change it back to Fox, it's incorrect 100% Maybe they didn't see the first trailer and just saw Samus on the site today or something, but, whoever did it, it's not right. Thank You. 68.195.110.145 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Samus (in the orange suit) was confirmed long ago, but she was only shown in gameplay screenshots just last night. Still, Fox is the latest confirmed character. It should be fixed. JMJ 19:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well being in a beta film is one thing, but it is nice to know that the developers have actually confirmed her. Things change. Perhaps everyone has a little different view on confirmed.--Clyde (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My idea of "confirmed" is when Sakurai said Samus will turn into Zero Suit Samus under the right conditions. JMJ 20:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, which means that if those "conditions" are not found, Samus will stay the same. If samus doesn't turn into zero-suit Samus but still plays, I'm pretty sure that means she's confirmed. Besides, why would they have official art for her if she was not to be in the game? 68.195.110.145 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the purpose of the picture in that spot is simply to show the latest character to appear in a profile at Smash Dojo, and perhaps the text can be changed to reflect that so as not to confuse people anymore. Arrow 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because the caption said Samus was the latest character revealed since the E3 trailer. Samus was IN the E3 trailer, waaay before her update on Dojo today. There you have it!. 68.195.110.145 20:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sakurai went out of his way to confirm regular Samus was still in the game in Zero Suit Samus's bio on the old site, which was released way before the movie with Fox came out. - Joshua368 21:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I was suggesting that we change the caption to prevent confusion; I wasn't arguing when Samus was confirmed. Have the caption say something like "Samus is the latest character profiled on the official site since the 2006 E3 trailer". Arrow 21:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Yes, I suppose that could be done, but stating the latest character to be revealed on Dojo just simply doesn't seem... I don't know, it just doesn't seem right. For now, we should simply have the picture of the latest character confimed since Brawl's conception. Of course, we won't have a picture like that forever, seeing as we won't have the latest character confirmed after the game has been released and all the characters are known, that would be a little unusual. But for now, I wonder if we should have the latest Dojo character pic, or the latest overall character pic. I vote overall. 68.195.110.145 21:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The image this topic is describing is unnecessary fair-use, so its removed again, this time by me. The best picture to have would be one that shows the most characters (close-up view) and that's already here. FMF|contact 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You just removed the pic?? if you did, someone just put another one back on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.110.145 (talk • contribs)

Lock the page?

I've been watching the history of the Brawl page, and it seems to get vandelized every day. The page has been cleared, letters and words changed, and new characters coming out of nowhere (Although Johnny Appleseed WOULD be a good character). Could someone lock it how it was locked before? It seems like only people that dont have a Wikipedia Account are doing this, so that should stop most of the problem. --Kenny2k 22:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Might want to read this so that you'll know how to request a page protection. I won't do it, because I'm afraid that I'll be denied...again. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 22:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can ask for it, but I have to warn you guys in advance, this page doesn't experience anywhere near the vandalism some articles on Wikipedia do, so we're likely to get just a one or two week-long semi-protection at the most. Arrow 23:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

empty space

if you look at the article right now, there is a big gap of empty space to the left of the thing that gives the info on the game (logo, devolper etc.)--67.189.192.245 14:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's because of the "contents" box. Nothing we can do. Dengarde 14:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem. --Kenny2k 14:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the Future Game tag being higher, I don't see a differenceDengarde 14:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... it looks right on my computer... Well, I did all I can. --Kenny2k 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

NA release

Somebody just put a date from Best Buy online. Should it be removed? "Releases 30 Nov/07. Take the legends of gaming - Samus, Mario, Link and... Jigglypuff?That’s right - all of your Nintendo favourites are back in the havoc inducing, controller swinging, all singing, all dancing combat game extraordinaire - Super Smash Bros Brawl! Product Features Featuring countless unlockables, hidden characters and trophies" Some of this info hasnt even been released by the official website! User:Fonzie77

-Yes it should be removed. There should only be a release date if it is from a reliable source such as Nintendo or smashbros.com. Best Buy is not a reliable source. Depressio 03:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, COME ON! How do they know Jigglypuff is in? And singing and dancing??

Nintendo is the ONLY one who knows FOR SURE when the game is going to be released.

Best Buy and EVERY other store in the world are just guessing. If they were right about the release date, how come NONE of them have the SAME release date?

Sorry if I'm overreacting, but this is seriously getting old. --Kenny2k 04:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be getting old, but it won't stop happening any time soon. Get used to it. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Protect the Confirmed section

Please protect it with all your MIGHT! I jus got all that stuff off the official website. 0.0 Also can some one make it into a chart? best regards--Hitamaru 23:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't necesary, and it's already in the article, with the exception of the trivial stuff that shouldn't be in the articleDurinsBane87 23:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Its supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a list. Plus, if we did keep it in the article, people will vandlize it like crazy. --Kenny2k 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It does however sum up the ssbb confirmed stuff, why not just make it into the chart, if it does get vandalized then we just get the page locked, it needs locking anyways. What is the worst that can happen? Atleast give it a try, to lengthen the article.Sasst82 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the other smash bros. articles. They don't have any of it. The characters are covered in the Super Smash Bros. Series page in a chart. And none of the items are really important enough to mention. DurinsBane87 00:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

though there aren't many the new items are atleast worth mentioning, because these are new to the smash bros. series.Sasst82 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The SSBM article doesnt mention new items, and the SSB article doesnt mention all the items. They don't change gameplay, not really, they just use the same gameplay in slightly different ways. The Final Smash is mentioned because it will change gameplay by giving every character a super move. That's why it was mentioned. Furthermore, any items that DO get mentioned should be integrated to the gameplay section, not given in a list. DurinsBane87 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright I guess that sounds ok,all I was thinking is a table would look nice,be easier to understand and lengthen this articleSasst82 05:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A table for day-by-day updates (if i understand right) is a BAD idea, It just fills the article with trivia. we need to mention only note worthy things, in the correct section, like characters and maybe stages, not EVERY item or attack.→041744 05:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember, its gotta match the other two Smash Bros. pages. --Kenny2k 06:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The character sections are different, in melee it is an unordered list whereas this article has the characters put in a paragraph(just pointing it outa)Sasst82 03:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Trailer Levels

Should the various levels seen in Nintendo's trailers for Brawl be mentioned somewhere? I'm not sure, as many could be just betas. Deoxys911 10:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is exatly why they won't be mentioned. Only confirmed stages like Battlefield and Delfino Plaza should be mentioned, if at all. Just a thought, dores anybody else think that it's kinda odd/lame that they're using MENU music for a stage? 195.195.15.250 12:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Mojanboss

We will not be discussing that part about the menu music. This is a talk page, not a forum. -Sukecchi 13:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

E-mail to Tips and Tricks (regarding Sonic)

Yesterday, I e-mailed to Tips and Tricks, I asked them if it was true that in their issue, if they stated that Nintendo has contacted Sega, here's the response I got from someone: I don't think we stated in print that Nintendo had contacted Sega. However, he did stated that: that Nintendo was actively negotiating for the rights to include at least one other non-Nintendo character. I guess we can now remove the part about Nintendo contacting Sega and add in the fact that Nintendo is activtely seeking to have rights for non-Nintendo characters. Source: August 06 issue. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I say we remove it. JMJ 18:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

not that I dont beleive you, but lets not all rely on 1 person--Demonworks

Correct me if I'm wrong but, aren't we are relying on one article to keep it?, which for all we could be written by 1 person; so why believe what we have. I know this was a while ago, when we had sonic in his own section why was it that it said the magazine's credibility has been question? If the magazine's credibility is questioned that is like adding a release date to this article. Before this goes any farther though it might be helpfull for someone to upload the article.Sasst82 03:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

we need more solid proof, like a link from an official site or the e-mail. even then, it's hard to tell. who e-mailed back and how valid is their word? FyreNWater 10:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to send a transcript to Wikipedia? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Final Smash Image

Do we think we could use this? Image:Final Smash.jpg
Blindman shady 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

no.--Demonworks

Yes, I think we can use this in the article.Ice12 20:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Care to divulge Demonworks? Your lack of capitalization leads me to not take you seriously.
Blindman shady 20:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Where would it be put? While the Final Smash is interesting, I'm not sure if we should add any more images into the article. DurinsBane87 20:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's looks nice. I'd say it should be in. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It could've been on the Final Smash section, if it wasn't deleted. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, there is absolutely no reason to use a shrunken version of the Smash Orb. Even if we needed a picture of the Smash Orb, we have a large version of it from the site. *Edit8 Oh, it was just shrunken here. Still not necessary. -Sukecchi 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I noticed people actually wanted this picture the most to be included in the article. Put it in the gameplay section beside the last paragraph. Mr.Mario 192 21:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I need less mixed messages, have an admin make a decision?
Blindman shady 02:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no "admin". Pages are a group effort. -Sukecchi 02:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

unless it's a free-use image, we can't use it. where is the picture from? FyreNWater 10:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's from Dojo. -Sukecchi 11:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to write more, but The power went out. I didn't want it in there because it was too small, but enlarge it and that would be great--Demonworks

I Have noticed.......

It was stated long ago that Fox keeps his gun out at all times, right? Well, looking closely at all the pictures of fox on the website, Fox no longer has his gun. should this be added??--Demonworks

Stating that he always had his gun out was original research to begin with. Now saying that he doesn't keep his gun out would be pointless. JMJ 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken, somewhere it says his gun is always showing because he now puts it in a visible holster.
Blindman shady 20:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this important enough to be in the article?? DurinsBane87 20:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys got to stop with the whole "this is not a game guide" thing. I think you'll only have to worry about that after the game comes out. You got to relize what this article means to most people and make sure those needs are met. This article (for me and others) was the best source of overall information on Brawl. It was no opinions or suggestions, all facts. And a list of the characters gave a convinient way to scan the article. You know what I'm saying? (Zojo 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

We don't need to meet anyones needs when those needs are outside what should be in an encyclopedic article. There's a list of characters on both the smash bros. series page and on the official SSBB website. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be just a collection of facts. only things that are notable should be included. DurinsBane87 00:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the game finished?

Sakurai stated like a year ago that the game would be playable very soon, and that he wouldnt update it much because of the games production. Now, he updates the site nearly every day now, so if the game is finished, then it shall be released soon--Demonworks

That's original research, he could do all the updates for the week in a hour one day and put them on the site one at a time, he likely still working on it or else he would say something like "the game's almost ready". Don't infer get facts.→041744 16:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And, if anything, the daily updates makes me think the game is not done. Fans are getting so anxious, this is a way to help keep them waiting. These updates can very well go on for months. (Zojo 17:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Excitement

Guys I know we all have good intentions here. We all want to provide the best information possible but I think for the most part things are getting a little too detailed. We are getting some pretty decent CONFIRMED updates now a days why not just stick with confirmed & offical updates and information until the game comes out. I think it would do everyone and the article good to just settle down a little with trying to include little details before the game is out. Just a thouhgt I think a lot of people share. (Poweroverwhelming 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Agreed, everything has been a little intense around here ever since the site has relaunched. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We all know to get updates from official sources but some ignorant people think a comment from a random blogger is as true as a comment from the game makers, I wish people had more common sense.→041744 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not so much that they believe it as they want to believe it.Sasst82 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

honestly, how many games give daily updates?? personally, i'm happy with these. i don't know why people don't just accept those and wait, rather than speculate and spread rumors? we should be focusing on taking care of broken links. FyreNWater 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, but more impatient people like me arent satisfied by information of characters we already know about and items of little importance. i suppose it will have to hold eveybody off till E3. God help us if there is any new info at E3......--User:Fonzie77

We need to make sure the page is protected during E3, or we might as well destroy the page now and save time. --Kenny2k 05:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good points. My biggest complaint is that although we all have these good intents wikipedia isn't a fan site (I know we hear it a lot) but what I mean is that we don't have to be the first place on the internet to provide facts or other information on this or anything else. We need to be more concerned about if the information is correct and true instead of being the first ones to provide the information. Any worthwhile information, in my opinion, will be announced officially. Again just my thoughts. (Poweroverwhelming 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't know. I know a lot of people (including myself) who come here first for the information. What is an encyclopedia but a source for information? (Zojo 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia is useless if the information isn't verified. The information has to have a source before it is sourced here. DurinsBane87 16:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration and I want the most updated accurate information too. But keeping things in context the game doesn't even officially exist yet. If Nintendo wanted to they could still scrap the whole thing (highly unlikely and near impossible). My point is that although we want the newest information possible this is still an encyclopedia and as such most don't talk about stuff that is yet to happen. I haven't seen a encyclopedia that predicts a presidential election based on poll numbers and things that are likely to happen or talking about major disasters or war or anything else before it has already happened. Anyways I think I have made my point now... I'll shut up. I encourage people to speak their mind on this subject as I think it's important. (Poweroverwhelming 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Sonic

If you guys really want to get serious about this article, you can't be putting useless comments like "As of June 2007, it is still unkown if Sonic will be included." (206.105.116.41 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Stop bitching, if you hate it so much remove it....but it will be reverted and put back there so just stop bitching. --User:Fonzie77

...was that behavior called for? Maybe you can tell us why that text is needed.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ummmm.....calm down Fonz....he can delete it if he wants...68.195.110.145 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

then the entire portion of sonic would be speculation; no offense, but if you take that out the info on sonic should go to and we don't need peope getting into edit wars, not with E3 coming so soon, we need to concentrate on important stuff like locking the article. Sasst82 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Sonic is worth mentioning because the character is the most requested third party character. The info is fine as is. There is no need to have the statement "As of ..." because a person already says that "That's not in the cards at the moment". Obviously, if Sonic were to be announced, that would change. --myselfalso 19:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see that.Sasst82 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like wikipedia's rules and even I relize that the "As of..." sentance is needed. And it is a redundant statement with "That's not on the cards at the moment" and the fact that he's absent from the confirmed charater section. All that is is a statement from a fan who's doing too much wishfull thinking. You're basically saying "He's not confirmed yet...but he probably will be soon. Just not now." (Zojo 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

If you say "As of June 2007, Sonic is still not confirmed", you might as well say the same thing about Yoshi. Nintendo talked about Sonic in Brawl. Nintendo talked about Yoshi in Brawl. Unless you also put "As of June 2007, Yoshi is still not confirmed", take it off the article. --Kenny2k 23:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection. I've requested to protect the page. --myselfalso 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It was declined.Sasst82 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Request again. This page is getting vandelized with the stupidest stuff, and has been completly cleared several times. --Kenny2k 23:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I did, but my timing was terrible, when I got it out there were already ones in front of it (I think they missed it). Sadly when the article is submitted for lockdown people spam it more, I hope I haven't lost anything, but I have reverted this article twice in the same day!!! It is getting very frustrating. I have requested a full lock during E3, no editing by anyone, but the admins.Sasst82 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

E3 protection is mandatory. I would perfer that it stayed protected until its released, though... --Kenny2k 02:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

myselfalso has commented on having the article locked until the game comes out.I personally would settle for through E3 over not having it locked at all. Also we don't know when it comes out (probably just have to get locked repeatedly)[[User:Sasst82|<font color=red>Sasst82</font>]] 02:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for a month. It's not preemptive (we don't protect pages preemptively, see WP:PROT), but it's because of the ridiculous amounts of vandalism for the past few weeks. Full protection during E3 is unlikely, as that should only be done when there are extreme levels of vandalism (though that could happen). — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Game Cover

Guys, on Amazon.com, I searched for SSBB. When I founded what I wanted, I suddenly found on one of the pictures being of SSBB with the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection Logo. I don't know if it's true, but you guys need to see it. Maybe it is a false cover, but I don't know how to analyze it, for the letters on the back are a little difficult to read. I would like to hear your opinions. Mr.Mario 192 17:59, 20 June 2007

It looks legit, but the point that they know this much about the game that isn't yet on the official site makes me question it. The game description talks about minimal characters and the stages, I have no way of reading the really small fine print(the built in magnifier distorts it) . One big strike against it is the point that, wouldn't the controller type atleast have the nunchuck attachment in with the classic.Sasst82 21:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be revealed by an official source before Amazon.com? It's more than likely fan-made. -Sukecchi 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

They always are on store sites. You're right, the fact that the nunchuck is absent definetely means it's not legit. Anything more or different from the official site that's on store sites is false. They can advertise better by making a concept design of the box. Not to mention but Nintendo usually has the habit of putting one larger font sentance up top.(Zojo 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

It's fake. You know why? Because in the bottom right corner it says VGBOXART.COM. The thing is that vgboxart.com is a site where people can design their own boxes for any game. To further this, usually people that make the boxes say "Made by (username)/(the game that they designed the box for)" somewhere on their design. On the left side of the screen, it (vertically) says "Designed by|Dragontear-wa/Smashbrosbrawl". Unknownlight 23:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If its not straight from Nintendo, it dosn't exist. --Kenny2k 23:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen ALOT of false covers. I mean alot. If you think it's really real, then can you send a link so I can see it??? EDIT: Fake. I've seen this pic before. All they did was take the Wi-Fi images from other games' covers and put it on the cover. The front is just composed of the official arts of the characters, nothing more. It can easily be identified as fake.68.195.110.145 01:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just a bunch of promo art spliced together in Photoshop. JMJ 01:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's pretty much what I meant when I gave proof that it was a fake. Unknownlight 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I summed it up for you :) JMJ 06:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

it's a nicely-made cover, but almost definitely fake. why? firstly, Nintendo hasn't released one yet. my doubts Amazon got it before Nintendo. secondly, it's created with the generic art that was released for the character profiles. i would think that they would have original art for the cover. finally, it's Amazon, not an official Nintendo source for info. FyreNWater 11:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the likelyhood of the box art having only the images and screenshots we have now before the game is released is very slim. The images and scenes on the box will be completely new to us more than likely. (Zojo 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Here's a link, I think its just a well made fake box, not bad, but still Fake.→041744 00:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Small pages

I'm surprised that most of the stuff like music and items is removed. Who is removing all of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pezzar (talk • contribs)

First off sign you comments, secondly most of it doesn't belong in this article, or atleast that is what has been mentioned in the "Protect the Confirmed section." For more info look farther up the page. Last, it doesn't matter who is doing this.[[User:Sasst82|<font color=red>Sasst82</font>]] 02:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. it isn't polite to start deleting sections from the talk page(It shoul eventually get archived with the rest of the page)

For the millionth time, its not a game guide, its an encyclopedic article. There is a big difference. Why is this so hard to understand? --Kenny2k 02:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To defend him, music and items aren't really gmae guide-ish. (Zojo 22:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

But how are they encyclopedic? — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 22:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Very small things, like music, that an average reader would help them understand the game shouldn't be added.→041744 00:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WHY is there a section about Stages??

We've all been over this before. There isn't a Stages section on the other pages, and I think we all agreed at one point that it dosn't belong in the article. Should I remove it? --Kenny2k 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody already removed it, I feel sorry for the guy who typed all that just to have it deleted. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Are they at least mentioned in the article somewhere. Even "a few new stages will be added such as [stage here]" somewhere would be good right?
Blindman shady 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 21:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. --Kenny2k 00:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There IS a stages section on the other pages.--Claude 02:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are sections for stages in the other two articles, Kenny do your research before stating things --User:Fonzie77

So I can't state an opinion now? If you payed attention, I said "wrong" to having a stage section. On ANY SSB article. Its too trivial.--Kenny2k 09:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

no, you said "there isn't a stages section on the other pages", which was what they were complaining about. you're allowed to have opinions all you like, and we'll happily listen to them. :) Djchallis 11:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think stages is a good idea so it must be a bad idea Anubiz ♦ 11:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think anything about the stages should be, at most, a subsection under the Gameplay section, or even just a paragraph within the Gameplay section. The fact that nearly all of the stages have something going on in them during battle is probably the most notable thing about the stages so far, as the said 'going ons' are fairly more significant and noticeable than those of the previous two games in the series. Disaster Kirby 11:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the stages subsection, but we can't speculate as much as the section that was removed(It speculated on stages that were in the trailers). It would be a subsection because there is very little info on stages.The other two games do have stage sections, but one of them is just an overview of how many stages there are and the other mentions examples, so we don't need to name all the stages (from the game) in the article.Sasst82 15:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we place a vote then? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 15:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell me why does this article not have a stage section while the other two do? Is it becasue it hasnt been released yet? User:Fonzie77

Because there's hardly any information about stages available. For the other games, there is information on all the levels...for this game there's so far...5? Maybe 6? When characters and stages were merged into game play, it was the consensus at the time to have a characters subsection but not a stages subsection because of the lack of info. It was suggested to wait until release to have a stages section. --Son 17:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to have an actual section for them. The current set up is as in depth as we are going to go. At most, there may be a couple of decent details to add, but there won't be more than a paragraph on them at any time. TTN 17:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --Kenny2k 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Zelda

Hey there, Zelda was revealed on the website today, she's been revamped to have her Twilight Princess look, the same as Link, can we add this to the character section?

You can, but it isn't neccessary. Deoxys911 07:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I pretty much did when I put her name between Link and Fox in the 'new design' sentence of the Characters section. Disaster Kirby 07:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Is her hair darker than in Twilate Princess? Anubiz ♦ 09:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, actually. It's definitely darker than in Melee. In any event, it's not really encyclopedic and probably doesn't need to be mention unless a big deal is made of it in the coming days. Jeff Silvers 12:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree.. Zelda's color tones are more vivid than in Twilight Princess (even on her dress).. but that's probably because TP's artistic style consisted mostly of washed up colors... maybe they decided to make her hair more contrasted in the transition from TP to Brawl so she would fit better with the abundance of shiny colors that are present in this game. Bleako 09:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment was "She has a slightly more subdued color scheme." But, still that really isn't necessary in the article. (Zojo 13:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Fighters

We should split the chatours we barly evin meacon thim right now.Anubiz ♦ 11:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The characters section is fine. By going into some detail, and linking to the list of playable characters, it's organized. There is no need to really expand upon it. -Sukecchi 12:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Right now, the section does a nice, brief overview of the returning and debuting characters without going into unnecessary detail. Really, any additional details would either turn this into a game guide (for a game that hasn't been released, no less) or would require the posting of speculation--neither of which belongs at Wikipedia. Jeff Silvers 12:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In time, though, a list might not be a bad idea if we start having to list 30+ fighters. (Zojo 13:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

But for now it isn't unreabul to serpreat the fighters with a couple of seneses for each. Anubiz ♦ 13:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)