Talk:List of Super Smash Bros. series characters

Article Image

Would it make sense to add an image to the top of the article for illustration, similar to Mario or Donkey Kong? I personally think that once it launches, an image of the final character select screen for Ultimate would serve nicely, as it would provide a picture of every character with an accompanying name underneath, thus eliminating the need for an overly lengthy caption and serving to illustrate every playable character across the breadth of the series in one single image. (Should we go that route, I'd caution against updating the image every time a DLC character is added, save for perhaps once a "final" update is released.) Thoughts? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It should be something like the image at Characters of Overwatch. There is an official mural that features all the characters, but we should wait until everyone is revealed before adding. TarkusAB^talk 20:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree we should wait until after Ultimate launches before adding one, and I thought about the mural at first, but the image ratio is also roughly 5.4:1. By the time you uploaded it onto the page, you would have trouble making anyone out on it without having to view the image separately. The character select screen would be more useful at a glance. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Potentially. Since the image will not be free use, it must be less than 100,000 pixels (i.e. width x height must be less than 100K). Even the character select screen could be difficult to make out. We can append an upright tag to the mural so it doesn't default to the 220 display width. TarkusAB^talk 20:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

In that case, it looks like the mural would be around 750 x 130, while the CSS would be the standard 400 x 225. I tried resizing both, and you're definitely right that resizing the CSS wrecks readability. The only way I think that one could be salvaged is if we only used the top half of the screen where the characters themselves are, which would spare us a few extra pixels to work with, but that's probably not enough. On the other hand, I tried resizing the mural, and it's so dense and so many of the characters blend into the background that it's hard to make anyone out. So for the time, it seems we're stuck at a bit of an impasse, though thankfully one that we have two and a half months to figure out. I'm curious if any other editors have any thoughts, though. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Now that we've got the final roster, I'd like to revisit this subject. I took the liberty of mocking up different options at Wikipedia-appropriate sizes. Here's the banner, the character select screen, and a cropped CSS that only shows the fighters. I think the banner might be our safest bet, but I'd like to get some other opinions, especially since I can't upload images myself. (Here's larger versions of the banner and CSS if someone wants to try optimizing them further.) -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh that's some nasty JPEG compression, see WP:IUP#FORMAT, you should create the images in PNG format. I could go for either the banner or cropped CSS. TarkusAB^talk 17:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait, PNG is an option? I don't know why, but I was always under the assumption JPEGs were generally preferred for bandwidth reasons. In that case, lemme redo these; should only take a bit. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers SVG, actually. The reason you might see low quality JPG is most likely because it's a non-free use image and it was done in order to comply with WP:NFC. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, here's the PNG banner at the same resolution, coming in at 104,250 pixels. I tried doing the same for the cropped CSS, but lowering the resolution so much absolutely ruined the legibility of the names beneath each character's portrait, making them impossible to read. Given that, it's probably best we go with the banner. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I like it. IPs can't upload images? I can add it later today. P.S. Why not create an account? TarkusAB^talk 18:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I had an account once and got doxxed by a vandal I reverted, so I gave it up. Haven't used an account since, and I'm not in any rush to change that. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Well you'd be more anonymous with one, as long as you keep the name unique from other platforms you use. Anyone can geolocate or run a WHOIS query on an IP. See the bottom of your talk page. TarkusAB^talk 18:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(Worrying about doxing but using IP that shows a potential place of employment.... You should always edit signed in if anonymity is your goal, just don't use a name you use elsewhere) -- ferret (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Why "Do not add the fighter numbers from Ultimate"?

What is the harm in adding the official numbering as a column? It would be the only way to properly discern the order they were introduced historically (because ordering by each game's column only puts that game's roster on top, and the rest alphabetically, which is not historical order). CesarFelipe (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Added the column for reference. Feel free to modify it or justify removal. CesarFelipe (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It's been removed repeatedly. The discussions are at the talk page of the series article, where the table was originally. -- ferret (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

And how was I supposed to know that. Either explain the table's note in its article's talk page (i.e. HERE), or make a better note explaining why we shouldn't improve a table. FFS CesarFelipe (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree actually, it can't be expected that new users should be aware of archived discussions (especially if it's multiple pages long or on different articles), which is why I'm always in favor of adding hidden notes in articles. That, or we/Wikipedia needs to find a better way to keep important discussions that have been archived visible. Anyway, the gist of it being removed was that it's more of a marketing thing that something Wikipedia actually needs. Just listing them all in alphabetical order is the most objective way of doing it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Unlockables

Why is there no distinction between default and locked characters? For example: Captain Falcon, Jigglypuff, Luigi and Ness are all locked in the original SSB, requiring special criteria to unlock. There should be a yellow or blue check mark for all locked characters. --LABcrabs (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Because that falls under WP:GAMEGUIDE type information. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The echo fighter footnote

Ultimate barely even mentions he echo thing. It’s best to not have too much attention to it. Do not add it back up there. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.11.207 (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean Ultimate barely even mentions Echo Fighters? They have been discussed a lot by sources and are important to understanding how certain characters behave in the game. It should be in prose. TarkusAB^talk 08:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You could not be more wrong. Dr. Mario isn’t labeled as an echo fighter officially, yet he is by every standard one. Don’t call attention to it. 99.203.10.208 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

What does Dr. Mario have to do with this? We were talking about where to put the Echo Fighter text. But in response, since Dr. Mario is not an echo fighter officially, we don't label him as such here. I'm not sure what the confusion is there. TarkusAB^talk 00:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ken is less of a clone than Dr. Mario is. Don’t want to give unneeded attention to an inconsistent detail. Just stop with adding it in. It calls attention to something that absolutely does not need the attention. 2600:8802:6604:3FC4:E406:2331:235C:43F5 (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It was put specifically in a footnote for this reason. What does that hurt, especially when sources called attention to it? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s better off explained in the footnote. It applies to one game and only with 7 characters. Otherwise, Pokemon Trainer should be added to the table instead of being in a footnote. 99.203.10.208 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD. You've made your change and been reverted, and as a result we have a discussion and achieve consensus first. I'm with TarkusAB. It's fine as prose, and avoids making overly long EFNs. -- ferret (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If that’s the case, add Pokemon Trainer to the table. That footnote is even longer. And besides, some footnotes are deservedly long, such as Sheik being a transformation of Zelda in Melee and Brawl 99.203.10.208 (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Whether Pokemon Trainer should be added to the table or not is a completely separate topic. Start a separate thread about that if you want to discuss that. Back to the topic at hand, the Echo Fighter text is fine in its current state. We have an explanation of what Echo Fighters are at the head of the table, and footnotes indicating which are Echo Fighters. It's a gameplay characteristic that is central to how seven characters play, not trivial details about 2-3 characters. That's what the footnotes are for. TarkusAB^talk 00:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Except it’s not actually central to them. They’re labeled like that on the website, sure, but if it was truly central to them, Dr. Mario would be an echo fighter. It is a trivial detail, no matter how much emphasis you want on it. The entire purpose of adding it was marketing jargon. Also, Pokemon Trainer is a far less trivial detail, which is why I brought it up. 2600:8802:6604:3FC4:E406:2331:235C:43F5 (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this short enough for you? 2600:8802:6604:3FC4:E406:2331:235C:43F5 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

•In Ultimate, this character is labeled as an “Echo Fighter.” These characters are moveset clones whose display icons can be optionally stacked with that of the character they are based on.

I think that’s good. 2600:8802:6604:3FC4:894A:B6FC:488C:6145 (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, at the very least, the stacking thing absolutely does not belong here. It’s also a minor detail. Please, do not call attention to a minor detail. Besides, if the Wiki specific to Smash Bros doesn’t even bother listing the echo thing at all, it’s not useful info. So please just stop adding it in. https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=List_of_Super_Smash_Bros._series_characters&useformat=mobile2600:8802:6604:3FC4:894A:B6FC:488C:6145 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note that “BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.” I’m removing info that is barely mentioned outside of martketing, isn’t central to the characters, is inconsistent, and only applies to one game. This should not require a discussion at all. 2600:8802:6604:3FC4:894A:B6FC:488C:6145 (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)++

Opposition to your basic changes has been voiced by multiple editors, so you're editing against consensus. The moment you're repeatedly opposed on your change, then a discussion is necessary to move forward. Just continuing to edit anyway is disruptive, and can lead to a block if you don't stop. -- ferret (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Give out a good reason, and then I’ll stop being disruptive. Like I said, the echo thing is a minor detail that should absolutely not have any unneccesary attention called to it. It’s inconsistent, as shown by Dr Mario having more of a shared moveset with Mario than Ken does with Ryu, despite the former not being an echo and the latter being one. It’s not a new concept at all; Melee had clones as well. And the stacking thing is definitely not central to them. Hell, even the wiki specifically regarding smash bros doesn’t bother mentioning it, as I so kindly placed in a link just above. I’m just doing what’s logical by removing unneeded content. 2600:8802:6604:3FC4:894A:B6FC:488C:6145 (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A note from the admin who just locked the page - being unhappy with discussions does not give you the right to be disruptive, so you’re in no position to give that sort of condition. Follow protocol, keep discussing, and only make changes if you’ve got a WP:CONSENSUS to make them when you’re dealing with editors who are challenging your changes, or page protection and/or blocks will ensue. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A consensus isn’t the result of a vote though, which was the primary reason for keeping it. And the points for keeping it are flimsy anyways. It’s a minor detail in one game. Otherwise, we’d have to mention Pokemon Trainer on the top, as Pokemon Trainer is far more central to Charizard, Squirtle, and Ivysaur than the echo label is. The Echo label isn’t used for unlocking characters, as they are like any other character. It isn’t gameplay related, as there are still clones who are not officially labeled as an echo fighter, yet share most of their moveset and attributes. The stacking option isn’t even in most of the marketing. The only thing it is is a marketing tool. Nothing more. This is why there should be no discussion: it’s way too minor and inconsistent to call attention to, especially when more major details have attention called away from it (such as the aforementioned Pokemon Trainer) 99.203.10.195 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're making a mountain out of a molehill. This is a list of Smash fighters. Some fighters on the list were deliberately designed as clones of other fighters and are officially labeled as such by Nintendo. As we introduce the list, it makes sense to mention this. Dr. Mario's status as a standard fighter does not mean this information is less valid or less important to share. And again with Pokemon Trainer, that's completely unrelated. Start a separate discussion about that if you want but stop conflating it with this discussion. TarkusAB^talk 22:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You’re clearly not listening at all. I did mention that the label is inconsistent in definition, but the main point was that the anem and stacking applies to one game, and besides, clones are not a new concept at all. You’re placing emphasis on the wrong thing on this talk page, just as you are on the actual page. If you’re mentioning echo fighters, you’ll have to mention melee clones as well, and gove them footnotes as well. They are officially marked by Nintendo as well because they don’t have question mark boxes prior to unlocking. It doesn’t make sense to mention them for only that one game if they’re in multiple, and it especially doesn’t make sense to list the echo name and stacking if they are only in one game. And like I said, Pokemon Trainer is being brought up again and again not because they’re related, but because you’re intentionally placing more emphasis on an arbitrary label and stacking mechani that applies to one game rather than an actual playable character. You have three options: give Melee clones a footnote for consistency, place more emphasis on more important info, or completely remove the arbitrary one. You say I’m making a mountain out of a molehill, but you seem just as adamant to keep arbitrary and inconsistent info there as I am about removing it. Mentioning it at all is fine. Mentioning it at the top instead of the footnote is not. Your prior argument about the footnote being too long is completely invalid as well, as it was visibly one of the shortest footnotes.2600:8802:6604:3FC4:BD29:18C5:7E74:2734 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Or our fourth option, which is to not make a change, because no one else agrees with you that there is an issue. On the specific topic of the echo fighters, it's fine as it is and there's a clear consensus against your change. If you want other information added or expanded, open a separate discussion. -- ferret (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A consensus isn’t based on a vote. The fourth change is not a good option at all. Give out some evidence that it’s good. I’ve hammered my point down that it’s not central to the characters, the name is in one game, the concept is in multiple, it’s calling attention away from more important things, and the point about having overly long footnotes isn’t even valid because there are longer footnotes. But neither you nor tarkusAB have given out any reasons other than “it’s ok to be there”. 99.203.10.195 (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't have any evidence either. This is purely a subjective matter, and the basic fact is that others disagree with your view point here. There's no "evidence" to provide, we disagree with your opinion, which is just that. You might need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. -- ferret (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I gave out my evidence as to why it shouldn’t be there. This isn’t a subjective matter at all. I was getting rid of minor info before you and TarkusAB so kindly edit warred against me. And as I said before, a consensus isn’t vote based. It doesn’t matter if the odds are two to one against me. This isn’t supposed to end with more people agreeing on something. It’s supposed to end when one side has given out a more plausible arguement, which neither you nor TarkusAB have done. 47.176.58.194 (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You have literally no other support for this though. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I gave out multiple pieces to support myself. Look above. 47.176.58.199 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, yourself. There are no other editors who support this view as of right now, and thus there is no consensus to change anything. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Remember, a consensus is not vote based. It doesn’t matter if more people support keeping it up at the top. Only the guy on the bottom has presented an argument with evidence of some sort. 2600:8802:6604:3FC4:5416:EDCA:735F:663 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been sitting back eating my popcorn for the last few days, but I'll chime in that I'm also against the mystery IP guy's self-made "consensus". Echo fighters were featured in Nintendo promotional material and in most articles from reviewer commentary about the game. That's literally the goal of Wikipedia, to document what is known and seen as important about a topic. I agree that Pichu and Dr. Mario have potential to be called echo fighters, but they weren't referred to as that by anyone. If is it agreed elsewhere, awesome, but Wikipedia should not change the facts. I'll hand the stick back to you now: WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Bchill53 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I’m not against removing all mentions of echo fighters on this page. I’m just trying to move the definition from prose on the top of the page to the footnote instead, so as to not call attention to a label that is present in one game. And if documenting important info is really an issue, then that’s a point in my favor: it’s not important enough. I’ve said time and time again that the name “echo fighter” is in one game, and should only be mentioned in the footnote. Even if whether a character is a clone is important, then it should be mentioned for Melee as well, as those six characters were also marketed as “extras” on the Melee website, and thus deserve a mention on he top as well. I’d also like to mention that while echo fighters were featured in Nintendo’s marketing, they were only marked so when they were revealed and on the website. Reviewer commentary is also irrelevant by the way, and even if it was, I have only seen one piece of reviewer commentay that emphasized the name “echo fighter”: RelaxAlax. And it is agreed elsewhere: The Smash Bros.-specific wiki, which does not mention teh echo status of these characters at all on their table. If the wiki specific to the game itself sees it as irrelevant, then it likely isn’t relevant to be on the official wikipedia page. 2600:8802:6604:3FC4:5416:EDCA:735F:663 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You've a large misunderstanding of how consensus at Wikipedia works and a twisted idea of what "not a vote" means. You can continue posting if you like, but it's clear that the edits you want aren't going to happen. If the protection expires and you continue making the edits, you'll likely be blocked and if necessary the article reprotected. -- ferret (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so it sounds like your point is not to remove the info, but to remove its emphasis in the introductory paragraph before the list. Here's the text since I had to go back and reread it:

• "In Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, certain fighters are labeled as "Echo Fighters"; these fighters largely share their moves and abilities with another fighter on the roster, but with minor differences in their presentation and gameplay. They have an option to either be displayed next to or within the character portrait from which they are based on."

I ...don't see any issues with that. I would try to reword it to make you happier without pissing everyone else off, but I think it's pretty much perfect as it is. To your point, the concept of echo fighters were always a thing (all the way back to the first game with Luigi being based on Mario), but a new feature specific to Ultimate is that you can choose to overlay the echo characters in the select screen. The quoted text explains the idea very well, so I don't see any reason to change it. Only the characters given that ability have ever been considered echo fighters by anyone.

Going back to your arguments, it's been a few months so I'd have to check, but I really doubt RelaxAlax was the only one who covered them. I would bet a kidney that it was talked about by others... And just because info is or isn't somewhere else, doesn't excuse it from existing/not existing somewhere else on Wikipedia. Otherwise, no new info would ever be produced. The Smash wiki is incredibly helpful, but doesn't have any affect what happens here. I'm handing back the stick now: WP:DROPTHESTICK --Bchill53 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

My issue wasn’t the quoted text existing; my issue was where it is. The quoted text on the top of the page is far less central to those characters than most of the other pieces of info in the footnotes (such as the koopalings for bowser jr, or transformation characters). The smash wiki wasn’t meant to be a direct representation of what this should look like. That was just an example of it being agreed to be too minor to place emphasis on. If you rewally think it should be on the top of the page though, then add in that while clones have existed in every game, Ultimate gives them a name. 99.203.10.198 (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This I can get behind. I've made a tweak to separate the description of cloned fighters and the labeling of them as Echo fighters. -- ferret (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That’s perfect now. Thank you. 99.203.10.198 (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Creating articles

Hi, I'm trying to create articles for every character in Super Smash Bros. (or as many as I can). Currently, I'm working on Isabelle, Inkling, Pichu, Simon Belmont, and Wii Fit Trainer. Any assistance that could be provided would be wonderful! - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@New Age Retro Hippie: Be prepared for opposition. Unless you find sources that go in-depth on the real world importance of these characters (i.e. not listicle mentions), you will be met with "lack of notability" arguments. TarkusAB^talk 22:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that opposition, only makes the challenge more fun TBH. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a bad philosophy to have on Wikipedia. If a character hasn't had an article created for them by now, then they still most likely lack notability for it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really. In a lot of instances, the character lacks the article because the legwork has not been done for it. As someone who wrote Birdo, GLaDOS, Waluigi, Glass Joe, Midna, Little Mac, and many more, I've lots of experience dealing with characters who have been overlooked. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Well if you can find enough sources then it's worth a try of course, but don't expect every single one of them to. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Well that is why I said "as many as I can." :P - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I've also noticed that not every fighter has their own Wikipedia article. Is that because we don't have enough info about them yet? Red4Smash (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Little Mac

When I change Little Mac (character) to Little Mac (Punch-Out!!), it breaks the table. Why? Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It's the "!!" at the end. Because of how tables work, it thinks you're trying to create a new header cell. -- Cyberlink420 (talk)

Mii Fighter costumes

So with the new addition of Sans (and an accompanying music track), does anybody see the possibility of having another table featuring notable characters who are represented via Mii Fighter costumes? They differ from trophies, summons, and stickers because they are playable, which is what this list is about. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a weird case because these characters technically aren't playable, they're just customizable costumes you can equip on your Mii. Definitely not a table, though. At most, I think it should be limited to a paragraph in the "Other" section, basically explaining the implementation of costumes, adding Sakurai's cited statement of how Miis (and costumes by extension) were added so players would have a way to use characters not included in the roster, and list a few notable examples of characters and franchises who only appear in Mii costume form (Geno, Heihachi and Sans, to name a few). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote could be added that says "Costumes for Mii Gunner include [x], [y], etc." That's how we do it currently for other costumes. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there a bit more notable characters than a footnote should reasonably handle, but it's better than not mentioning any at all. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean that'd be the bare minimum, a table may be OK. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 00:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, I really don't think listing every costume is a good idea, much for the same reasons I don't think listing every assist trophy is a good idea. Sooner or later, it's going to end up getting pretty crufty. That said, I've added a bit to the prose alongside the previous mention of Mii Fighter customization; this should be sufficient. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No, but notable characters definitely deserve some sort of mention. Perhaps we can limit it to third-party characters that do not already have a playable representative? So characters such as Sans, Issac (Golden Sun), and Goemon would fit. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to remove these unnecessary sentences

Starting with Super Smash Bros. Brawl, characters from non-Nintendo franchises began to make playable appearances.

This is obvious just by looking at the table. The first two non-Nintendo characters make their first appearances in Brawl, and it’s clear just by looking at the table. Is it significant? Yes. Is it redundant? Also yes.

At the start of each game, some of the fighters will be locked from play. To unlock a hidden fighter, players need to clear certain conditions and defeat that fighter in a match.

I would think this one is fine if we at least mentioned which characters were unlockable. It looks awkward to say that there are unlockable characters but not mention which ones are unlockable.

In Brawl, players can also unlock fighters by encountering them in the Subspace Emissary mode.

This sentence adds on to my argument about unlockable characters in the previous paragraph. Also, this page is about characters in the series as a whole. This sentence calls too much attention to Brawl for doing something only slightly different.

In Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, players can make their own Mii Fighters that can be customized with different fighting styles and costume pieces unlocked through gameplay or purchased as downloadable content. Several of these costumes are based on characters and franchises not otherwise represented, such as Geno from Super Mario RPG, Heihachi Mishima from Tekken, and Sans from Undertale.

This sentence is actually fine being on this page, but I’m iffy about it being in the playable characters section since Mii Brawler, Swordfighter, and Gunner are all listed on the table. Still, these sentences might be fine by mentioning characters represented as costumes, though then that would fit better under the non-playable characters section, not in the playable characters section.

All games have featured fighters that largely share their moves and abilities with another fighter on the roster, but with minor differences in their presentation and gameplay.

Clone characters are in almost every fighting game. This is redundant.

In Ultimate, several of these characters were officially labeled as "Echo Fighters". They have an option to either be displayed next to or within the character portrait from which they are based on.

Not only does this call even more attention to clone characters, this calls too much attention to Ultimate for doing something only slightly different. Also, there are only 7 Echo Fighters out of a roster of 81 characters.

These sentences all either state the obvious, only refer to specific games, or are misplaced. 184.181.98.125 (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The text before the table is meant to be a broad strokes summary of the information in the table and the way characters are represented in-game, written in a way that explains it to an audience who potentially has no experience with the games or video games as a whole. Not everyone knows that many fighting games have "clones" or that Snake and Sonic are third-party. Aside from the sentence about SSE, which has been removed, the rest is fine. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Cyberlink420. All of the sentences mentioned (except for the Subspace one) are informative and useful to someone with no video game or Smash experience, and are a good summary. No need to change anything. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I also don't see any reason to remove these. Having this info here acts like a mini-history section. If we just got rid of it, then we're just left with a table of fighters without any real context. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hero link

What about making "Hero" have a link to Dragon Quest 11? Or have each letter in "Hero" link to 1 of the 4 Dragon Quest games that the playable Hero characters come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.209.69 (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Because the Hero represents four different characters equally, they had to settle on a default one (which was 11 for DQ11 Switch marketing purposes) just in case nobody picks an alternative. Linking each individual letter should also be avoided, because that would almost be impossible to click on for a lot of mobile/touchscreen readers, not to mention it would become an WP:EASTEREGG. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Note j

I believe we should get rid of note one for now, as (as far as I know) it hasn't been confirmed whether or not they are alts or other fighters yet. Gex4pls (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No, they're confirmed as other skins. There's no reason to remove the note. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I was unaware of that. Nevermind then. Gex4pls (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Expanded table

Maybe we could make an expanded table including alternate skins that have different characters (Koopalings, Steve) and Mii Costumes (Sans, Vault Boy)? They do technically count as additional characters... maybe an "alt" or "mii" tick could be added? Squid45 (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

We already have footnotes for characters like Bowser Jr. and Steve whose alts fully change them into other characters. And Mii costumes are just that: costumes, not proper characters. We don't need to go into that level of detail, just a broad overview. If people want every minor detail, they're better served using one of the many specialized wikis like SSBWiki. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I did propose that something could be done for the notable "minor" character inclusions, such as Sans and Vault Boy. But I'm not sure if we should add them to another table for now, seeing as they are pretty few in number. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

But then that gets into the question of who's a "notable" minor character. Everyone's going to have different personal standards for what does and doesn't count as notable, compared to the open-and-shut criteria of "do they have their own slot on the character select screen". And again, these are just costumes, not actual characters. There's nothing stopping me from putting Sans's head on Travis's body, for example, which obviously wouldn't be something you could do if they were real characters. And as you've said, it's a small list and the concept has only existed for two games. I'm strongly opposed to anything beyond the existing mention. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The Mii Fighter Costumes

Do we really have to try naming off every notable Mii Fighter costume? It's already resulted in an unreasonably-long sentence, and it's up for debate exactly which ones should be mentioned. 73.157.115.95 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Not everyone no, but certainly the ones that received several independent articles discussing their inclusion, such as Sans and Vault Boy. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding unannounced characters

Am I allowed to put two "TBA" rows on the list of fighters, since there are at least two more fighters coming to Super Smash Bros. Ultimate as DLC? Red4Smash (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• We should just wait until they are revealed, because there is a slim possibility they may never be released due to some production issues on the game or something. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

scope-"row"2601:300:4301:7CF0:D12B:5BC4:FAB3:6C9 (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

On the list of Playable characters, link an existing article Villager, then unlink Dark Samus, Richter, Piranha Plant, Incineroar and Ivysaur as it redirected readers on unwanted article that weren't existing. 189.223.178.58 (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've added the requested link, but the other links are acceptable links to a list where the topic is covered so they've been kept RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Cut content

Whether the content can be cited or not is immaterial to whether the content needs to be there. Many character lists tend to limit who they include even in the case where you could find a reliable source saying that this character exists. This list does not need to be an exhaustive summary of every single entity in the game that can qualify as a character, which is how it was. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other articles are formatted that way doesn't mean this one has to be. Smash isn't like other fighting games; character inclusion is more broad than just who is playable, hence why press coverage exists for the likes of bosses and assist trophies' inclusion. As long as we can find reliable sources discussing this material, it's worth inclusion, albeit trimmed down. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

A list of improvements I would personally propose to this page:

• Replace most, if not all, Smash Bros. Dojo references. Being the game's official site, it's a primary source and should be used minimally.
• Cut down the Mii Fighter discussion. This list only had three examples originally before becoming bloated; we don't need so many.
• Replace all references to IGN guides. While IGN is obviously a reliable source, these guides are largely user-submitted material and not eligible for use.
• Expand coverage discussing how characters are chosen and implemented. I think this is a great idea from the cut down version, but the existing paragraph only really covers the decision to use Nintendo characters in the original game; no mention is made of any later games, how the selection process has changed, getting third parties involved, etc.
• I'm ambivalent on the competitive use section. The cut down version only has the one source, and it again only refers to Sakurai's observations of the original game. Much more valuable would be more recent sources from after the series gained a much bigger competitive scene; there might be some sources in Super Smash Bros. in esports we can use, for example.

I'd be open to making a sandbox to collaboratively build things out, then port the changes over to the existing article. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If the standard for inclusion in the article is a character, NPC or otherwise, being mentioned by press outlets, this article would be unbelievably bloated and of intensely poor quality, which it was prior to cutting out the fancruft going into unnecessary detail. It's also not OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to point out that lists being indiscriminate collections of info is frowned upon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with Cukie. While I get the idea of wanting lists to be comprehensive, we should avoid them being dumping grounds. Trimming it down heavily and then building it back up with relevant info is the best approach in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

How is it "Indiscriminate"? The old article was well-organized and only provided examples instead of listing every NPC. I even offered a whole list of suggestions how we could improve it without having to rip the whole thing apart.

Apologies if I'm coming off a little heated; I'm just a little frustrated that Cukie's going all in on "no, you're just wrong and all your work is bad" when the new version of the article was left literally unfinished with messy grammar, missing sources, and no further changes for days. I genuinely want to assume good faith, and I apologize again if I'm reading it wrong, but it just comes off as a refusal to work collaboratively to improve the article, instead going for a "my way or the highway" approach. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cyberlink here. While I feel the old article could do with substantial improvements, I feel as though it wasn't in such a terrible state as to necessitate such massive cuts of information while replacing it an arguably lesser edit. I feel more discussion as to how the article should be written is warranted, especially given Cyberlink's fantastic suggestions for incorporating aspects of both versions of the article seems to be a good proposal for improving this article going forward. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Aight, here's the deal. Researching Sandbag and Galleom, I found 0 sources that would suggest that either of them are significant enough to mention. Looking up Assist Trophies, I found several citations about a character's inclusion in this capacity, but only a handful of ones that got more than a couple sources talking about them. In particular, Andross, Skull Kid, Ashley, Ghirahim, and Waluigi. Poke Ball Pokémon do not appear to get much at all. I would be willing to include mention of Tabuu, Master Core, Galeem, and Dharkon, but given the appropriate weight for bosses whose role begins and ends with a single game. My frustration comes with the fact that just as simple an edit was to replace the NPC category with what was removed, and yet you steamrolled all the new content, including replacing primary sources with reliable sources. The new content regarding roster development and competitive gameplay is limited because I was working on content from the original Smash Bros. before other content. If you would like to expand on the work done that'd be great, but I can't fathom why you would wipe out the content. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)