Talk:Super Smash Bros./Archive 7

Archive 6
Please do not resurrect the Ness "up until now" debate. Any attempts by editors with a personal agenda to force their opinion on others will be reverted. Unless you have new information to contribute, do not resume the debate as it has become counterproductive to contributing to the project. Coreycubed 19:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is unwise to archive an ongoing discussion. --LN3000 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, that discussion needed to end anyway. It was ridiculous. Atomic Religione 23:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't on going, there was no consensus to either add or remove it. The discussion was done with. It was all original research anyway. Any mention of it will be removed. That is all. -Sukecchi 23:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I think a lot of the stuff surrounding Brawl is unfortunate for the encyclopedia. --Son 02:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Active discussion should not be archived. It is not anyone's call whether something 'needs to end' or not, if there is communication. The general rule I've seen is that only things that haven't been posted to in 4-7 days should be archived. --LN3000 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not active. There was no consensus. It was done. -Sukecchi 02:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's contradictionary. It cannot be "done", if there's no consensus. You just risk a new edit war. At least make a quick poll for a decision until the 18th.--91.121.83.168 05:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If the discussion is really done then the page should be unprotected, immediately, as supposedly the disputes have been resolved. - Chardish 03:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It WAS active. The last post was barely 30 minutes before the archive. --LN3000 07:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether it was active or not it was clear no matter how much it is discussed was going to bring about a consensus, thus the only way to resolve it is to simply wait for obvious reasons. Any further discussions do not in anyway help the article which is what the talk pages are for. The Light6 11:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the argument that there wasn't going to be consensus released is genuine bs. How about having a straw poll to see what was going to happen, instead of having endless discussion?  Then you'd know either it's a thumbs up or thumbs down.
 * And, more importantly, archiving a discussion a mere 30 minutes after the last comment - simply stunning. It's simply stunning that any one can support doing such a thing.  Generally, a talk page should be archived up to a week prior to the current discussion.  And this was 30 minutes - it's a grab at silencing the discussion by Those Who Are In Power because they didn't like the opposition statements - so shut it down, amen!  --Son 13:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, this discussion was deleted. --LN3000 03:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ness' note
So now we feel it is necessary to argue about whether or not we are done arguing. Please focus on making positive contributions to the project, whether here or elsewhere. We've already made LAME, please let's avoid getting the talk page on the list, too. Coreycubed 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that we can help the article by removing it. I'm not trying to argue about Ness being in or out, I'm saying the note is useless, it gets us NOWHERE. (Please don't delete this, I want other users to see it) I agree this is preety LAME, but let's try to fix it ok. Claycrow 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The note WAS the subject of the argument, along with Ness' inclusion or dismissal. Please read Archive 6, specifically sections 4 and 5, and you will see why we were unable to come to a consensus on the matter. If, after reading that, you feel that you have NEW material to contribute to the discussion, and not something that has already been discussed endlessly, you are welcome to bring it up here. Coreycubed 15:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I fit that shoe. I already mentioned it, but, alas, I got ignored. I'm just a number... Which means, this has not beed discussed (at all). So, again, my point: Everybody acted as if "up until now" enforces some kind of exclusivity, and the whole argument went about if Brawl was inside this time frame that happened "until now". This is not the case. Here are two examples to picture where I want to go with this:
 * Up until now, Mario appeared in every Mario game.
 * Up until now, I awoke from every sleep. No, I'm not deadly ill.
 * The thing is, that sentence of Sakurai's tells absolutely nothing about the future. It is a mere observation of the past. Ness is in Brawl? Well, he still was in every game up until Brawl. Ness gets the bucket? He still was in every game up until Brawl. I hope you get what I am trying to tell.--91.121.83.168 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the only way I can see this getting resolved any time soon is with a vote. At least that way we'll have a majority opinion and this can be laid to rest until more reliable info crops up or the game is released. Ixistant 22:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm supposed to disagree with that, but having already made LAME...

COUNTERPOINT!!!

If a few other people think it's a good idea, let a straw poll be taken. Coreycubed 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that we vote so we can finally get off this silly issue. The Light6 23:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think a poll will get around Wikipedia policy. Because you have to interpret the meaning, it is considered original research Balladofwindfishes 00:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But a poll is consensus...which is part of Wikipedia. -Sukecchi 00:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but this matter doesn't warrant a poll. For the article to say that Ness is or isn't returning, based on the words "up until now," is original research. -- POWERSLAVE  00:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  As much as I agree, it's cause way too big of a debate. I say we hold a poll, and I'll make one should enough people agree. Dengarde ► Complaints 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What about a poll for "agreeing to disagree" or a poll on whether or not this issue should continue to be discussed? The Light6 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote that we just forget that Ness was even mentioned in the Lucas: Special Moves update. That means that we pretend this whole thing never happened and leave Ness as a question mark with no footnote until we get new information. --Bobby D. DS. 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this. Although those who want the note will obviously disagree.Satoryu 02:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A vote isn't going to help since there are so many people on both sides, so a poll is useless. And the anonymous's usage of "up until now" is obviously flawed. And just because the edit war has been listed on WP:LAME means absolutely nothing. LAME is not an official part of Wikipedia.It is mostly humorous. There is a very valid reason why people say that Ness is not in Brawl, but if other people revert it, there will be people who try to fix it the proper way. You can't just pretend something doesn't exist, because it does. Look what you made me do, I said I wasn't going to comment anymore. It's tough not to when there is so much that is being handled wrong about this Talk page. It's about talk, so instead of trying to delete comments or ignore issues, you TALK. --LN3000 03:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sweet Jesus Christ, please drop it. This is all semantic garbage and we'll know for sure in just a few short months. Is that so difficult to ask? Axem Titanium 03:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the only way to end this is to contact an admin and ask if it is original research, if it is then there is no point discussing it further, seriously this discussion is ridiculous and the point of being listed on WP:LAME shows how ridiculous it is. The Light6 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:LAME means nothing. And I do think it would be best to get an admin to say something. --LN3000 04:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

' Polls might not be a substitute to discussion, but THEY CAN supplement them. LN3000 claims that there are too many people on both sides, but I've only seen him on that side recently, but I could be wrong and merely misremembering. Hence, I am proposing a poll similiar to the AfD debates. Everyone votes and includes a reason for theer vote. Votes without any reasoning are ignored. This should help get all the points of both sides across, show who's on each side, and facilitate discussion in a different venue, as the current obviously isn't working. TwilightPhoenix 05:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded Dengarde ► Complaints 05:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For the love of god, can we all just shut up?! We are gonna make a double running in WP:LAME if we keep this up. Atomic Religione 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell do you think we're trying to do here? We're trying to get everyone to start a poll to reach a decision and shut up about this once and for all! And also, No-one cares about WP:LAME. Dengarde ► Complaints 05:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with AR. This discussion is going nowhere fast. The best solution is to drop the argument altogether and put it behind us. Perhaps locking the talk page would help, if such a thing can be done.Satoryu 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't drop an argument or discussion. As long as there are people willing to talk about it, it continues. If you don't, you don't have to say anything. It doesn't help posting just to say how you feel it's stupid. You can't lock a talk page. --LN3000 07:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Then let the dictionary definition readings of "up till now", begin. I'm through with this page. Atomic Religione 07:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, it's better to be "through" with this page than complain about how we are going "round in circles" --LN3000 09:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering we've been going in a circle for days, I doubt we'll reach a peaceful agreement. Atomic Religione 05:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A poll isn't about agreement, but a decision.--91.121.83.168 14:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering polls are'nt binding, its more of a agreement. -- Atomic Religione (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Um,hi.Im new.How do i do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark alvarez (talk • contribs)

It stops, here.
That's it. No more. No more arguing about this. It's pointless. There is only one user right now who feels that this is even a point of contention, and that is LN3000. I explained that any attempt to resurrect the argument would be reverted, and he revived it. When I removed it, he was the one who brought it back again. I don't mean to make this a vendetta, but there is only one person here who is perpetuating this. Forum discussions can and will be removed, and I was within my means to do so, as this is no longer a question of policy or original research. The problem is that he has a fact, and wishes to use insufficient evidence to support the claim. For the last time, Wikipedia is not about being true, it concerns itself with being verifiable. When a straw poll was suggested, which is not an unreasonable request, given the situation, people started saying that we can't have a poll because if it passes, we have to include original research. That is not the case. I presume everyone has read WP:POLLS, specifically this section. To reiterate, for the naysayers' sake:

"There is no absolute prohibition on polling, and there are often objections if a poll is summarily closed or deleted on sight on a claim that they are forbidden."

and:

"...article straw polls are never binding..."

The purpose of which would be to establish how many of our editors are in favor of ignoring those three words for the following reasons:


 * They are insufficient verifiability for the content in question


 * The dissension caused by the argument, and the counterproductive effect on Wikipedians, is not worth the inclusion of an edit that is a minor component of the article

By the way, this isn't debate club. Don't perpetuate this for the sake of argument. Coreycubed 15:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Who made you the authority? The problem is the way you are handling this. I am not trying to resurrect anything. But you cannot forcibly end conversation. If you go back and look, I was not the only person arguing. Get over yourself. The only way to end a conversation is to end it via communication. Not arbitrarily deleting all conversation. LN3000 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did re-read the archived sections. You're the only one consistently arguing on your side of the issue. And, like or not, we can still achieve consensus with one editor who disagrees. Read WP:PRACTICAL. Policy, by the way, not a guideline or essay.

Emphasis bolded:

"In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it."

That is Wikipedia's definition of consensus, which I believe is your only remaining defense against the majority of editors who do not accept your view. Bolded is the section which applies to you. Do you concede that there is a community view, or do you also reject the of the editors who ARE in consensus?

It's not me who's the authority, it's policy. -- Coreycubed (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a major problem if you think it's policy to remove messages from the talk page that are actively being talked about. Regardless of what the issue is, or how one-sided it is. I am not trying to start anything, and you need to put that stubby finger-pointing away. I do know that there is a consensus, and if you think that I have been arguing otherwise, than you are mistaken. I love it how people quote one policy, yet they still like to break others. Right on, man. Right on. but just listen, I am not going to back down from what in my eyes is undoubtedly truth, just because some Ness fanboys say otherwise. You may bend the meaning of phrases or Wikipolicy all day, but the fact that they are there can't be ignored. But please, if it makes you feel so high-and-mighty, continue pointing at me, the "only person who cares about this" --LN3000 (talk)
 * "Sigh". Just look at WP:TRUTH please.  We all know it is "true" that Ness has been cut from Brawl.  I even personally believe that.  The issue here is verifiability.  We can't be entirely sure Ness is cut from Brawl because of, well, it'd take too long to dig up and retype every single little reason we've come up with, everything from abiguity, the "lack of exlucsivity" of "up until now", "possible mistranslations", ::rambles on a list for another ten minutes::.  So unfortunately, we cannot put an X by his name, as much as I'd like to.  TwilightPhoenix (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Watching that argument unfold was where I got my inspiration for my first essay. It still needs some work, but it's there if you want to read it.  Useight 15:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Calm down. All the "THATS IT!  THIS IS POINTLESS!" type of comments are adding unnecessary fuel to the fire.  It's not going to be dropped as long as at least one person keeps bringing it up, and there's nothing we can do about that so long as they don't break rules with their debating.  If we want to solve this, we need to take a calm, logical approach to all of this within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.  Otherwise when November 18th rolls around this article is going to get locked again.  And to all the people worrying about WP:LAME, a discussion cannot make that list.  Even a heated arguement is not an edit war.  Now if people started to repeatedly revert the talk page, that'd be a different story. -- TwilightPhoenix (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear lord this argument is STILL going on? I thought there would've been a consensus by now to just leave it as a question mark with no footnote. Oh well. This all is just so funny once you don't care about it. You can just sit back, relax, and laugh at everybody's pain and rage at each other. I highly suggest it. Shyrangerr (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me....Atomic Religione (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to comment on the discussion if you don't want to be a part of it. It's rude and pointless, if you don't care. I have no rage, I do, however, find it wrong for Corey to deletes entire long discussions that are active to try to forcibly suppress discussion, as well as say that I am the only one who believes something, which is obviously not true. It is not helping saying stuff like "OMG this is still going on? LOL people!" --LN3000 (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I had two points to make with that comment. The first was to suggest just a question mark, Atomic Religione caught that part. Then the second was to point out how pointless this discussion is now and hopefully have other people realize this and just be fine with a question mark. Besides this I don't plan to contribute anymore to this discussion. Shyrangerr (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, there's only one way to end this debate. Three stock, zero handicap, no items, Final Destination. -masa ♫  20:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ENOUGH!
Jesus Christ! I leave for ONE DAY and this happens!

I suggested a vote as I saw it as being the only way to find out the majority opinion. And right now, I stick by it. If we don't decide something soon, it's going to start to effect the article quality.

Personally, I think we SHOULD have a vote on it. Sure, some people may class it as original research. Debate that after the vote. Others may say "OMG he t0taly ments tat Ness int in teh Brawl!!1!!". As has been said before, Wikipedia is all about verifiability, and right now it can't be fully verified.

So what say you all. Should we have a vote on the footnote? Decide now. Beneath this message, I would like each user to say either Yay or Nay. NOTHING ELSE!! This is not a place to debate, it's a place to say whether you want a vote on the footnote. And yes, I do see the silliness in having a poll about a poll, but it's the only way to make things clear.

Also note, 24 hours should be enough time for everyone who whishes to express their opinions to see this poll. So it shall close at 22:30 UTC.

So, register either Yay or Nay here: -- Ixistant (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now hold on a second, buku...we seem to have some people who have never once contributed to this article voting. This is directed to user:Rhonin the wizard. This is his first edit on a Smash article. All his other edits are about Ben 10 and Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games. Is their a rule about this? - Sukecchi (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I am aware of. For example, I've done very little editing on any Smash Brother's articles (mainly because everyone beats me to the needed edits), but I've been active in this discussion and in a few other SSB related ones.  Though if they haven't had any edits before this, they might be a sock puppet.  TwilightPhoenix (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While I haven't participated in this discussion, mostly because when I log on it's already over and I didn't want to repeat what others have already said, I am aware of the arguments of both sides. And I believe that this thing has dragged on too long and should be ended. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification for everyone, this is a vote to vote on making the footnote. Obviously, this should be included with WP:LAME as this is fairly ludicrous.
 * WP:LAME is for edit wars, not discussions, not votes, and not anything else. Just edit wars.  Though I do agree that voting on voting is a bit on the absurd side. TwilightPhoenix (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote
NAY→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  23:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

NAY→'''Atomic Religione (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

YAY→Son (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Neigh→ Trevor  "Tinkleheimer"   Haworth  07:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

NAY DurinsBane87 (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay→Adam (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

yay --LN3000 (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

YAY Rhonin the wizard (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

YAY - .:Alex:. 14:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay→ InsaneZeroG (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nay -Sukecchi (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nay→ Satoryu (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nay --(trogga) 19:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nay. Do we really need to vote on redundancy? TwilightPhoenix (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nay. Useight (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote Closed
OK, the vote is closed and the result is 9 Nays to 6 Yays. What does this prove? As has been shown, when this was 'settled' earlier the majority opinion was that the footnote should be removed. This poll also proves that the majority opinion is that this issue is over and should not be brought back up.

So not only should the footnote be removed, but this issue should be brought back up again. Everyone clear? Ixistant (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So someone remove the note already..→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparetly not that many admins read the SSB talk page...Atomic Religione (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your 'conclusion' is that Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. It is not a "Majority rules" thing, especially when the vote is divided so close. Obviously, there is a split in opinion, That does NOT mean it's an issue that can be "dropped and not be brought back up." --LN3000 (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it was technically only 8 Nays. If the person who voted "Neigh" would like to change his vote to a "nay" THEN it'd be 9. But Joke votes aren't counted, I would think. --LN3000 (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on, that's taking it too far. It counts, you know it counts, everyone else knows it counts. It counts.

And the issue can be brought back up, as long as their is more evidence (eg. the dojo says something like "Ness has been replaced by Lucas"). And the vote was 9:6, and if I voted it would be 10:6 (although since I didn't it technically isn't, but really it is). I didn't vote because I didn't think it was appropruiate for me to vote in my own poll, but if I had I would have voted nay. So yes, the issue can be brought back u, but only once new, reliable evidence comes to light. Otherwise stop beating a dead horse. Ixistant (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A split vote is not enough to end discussion. Right now, I am not saying one way or another, because that's not the issue for me right now. My issue is people trying to end any possible communication. The poll shows that there is a major disagreement between two distinct points of view, and you can't shut down that discussion. One side says that all the proof IS there to say that Ness is gone, and that it is not Original Research, since it is very clear on the Dojo, yet the other side claims otherwise, by changing the definition of words. My point right now is that if anyone wants to continue or start talking about the issue, they are allowed to. --LN3000 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"It is not a "Majority rules" thing,..." And it certainly is not a minority rules thing either, except when policy is clearly on the minority side. And in this case, it isn't. Otherwise this would have been settled. And please give it a rest already.

Though I do think this poll's results should be disregarded when considering who is on what side of the "Is Ness in, out, or who knows" debate. The question was "Do you think we should have a poll on the note?", not "Should we have the note?". Hence, they are not representative of anything worthwhile, unfortunatetly, even if I did happenb to vote... TwilightPhoenix (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the way you explained that, thank you. --LN3000 (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So can will we never drop this POV/Original Research discussion, or will it plauge remain on this talk page for weeks to come? Atomic Religione (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm? On the article, you mean? That "Original Research" banner should be removed, but everything else should be left alone regarding that area... Otherwise, I'm not sure what you are talking about, since what I have been talking about isn't Original Research. But that is a different part of the discussion page... --LN3000 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why polling is evil. The losing party always complains that there was something wrong with the way it was conducted. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So do we have an understanding? To quote some people: "It stops, here.", "stop beating a dead horse", "when this was 'settled' earlier the majority opinion was that the footnote should be removed." and "For the love of god, can we all just shut up?! ". It was all said before.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  04:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny. It doesn't work that way. --LN3000 (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. We voted democratically, and the nays won. The OR banner and the footnote will be removed, and Ness' ? shall remain. And for the time being, there's not much you can do to change it unless you want to go against Wikipedia itself.Satoryu (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue. I am not trying to go against the fact that it has to be removed, but I am saying that a split-poll does not mean that we have to drop the discussion. --LN3000 (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The majorty of the people want it removed, the poll showed that. But not just that, Wikipedia policy is clearly supporting it's removal. For the moment saying Ness is in or out is speculation, which has no place on wikipedia. Can't we all just follow the current speculation policy that had been proven time and time again. And please don't say "It was on DOJO, we have proof Ness will not return!", no you don't. We still do not the precise meaning of those three words (God, its just three words that cuased all this!). So can all the oppossing party stop being a sore loser.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  13:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no sore loser. Right now my point is to let people decide for themselves. You are not helping anything by saying that I'm against everything. The vote is so split, no final decision can be made. It is best to compromise. My compromise is No X, have a footnote, but you are still complaining about that. How else would you suggest making sure that you weren't giving mis-information? That is your reasoning, is it not? Just because you don't see it the same way as another side, doesn't mean we can't settle for something so readers can make their own decision, we aren't little grade-school kids who must get absolutely exactly what we want (At least, I hope not..) --LN3000 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Letting people decide for themselves" equals encouraging speculation, unless I've missed something up until now. And calling it a split decision may not be so. 9/15 is close to half, but it's also close to 2/3 majority.Satoryu (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The vote means nothing
You held a vote on whether to hold a vote on the footnote. The result is Nay. The only conclusion to draw from that is to not hold a vote on the footnote. Nobody voted to say that the footnote should be removed - you specifically said that the poll was not for that. And now that consensus (as you put it) has decided not to hold a vote on the matter, you should be trying to reach a consensus/agreement based on discussion. Incidentally, I'd rather it was left as a question mark with no footnote, but reverting it to a question mark with no footnote based on this poll is completely wrong. -masa ♫  15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Deciding by discussion goes nowhere as LN and everyone else can't seem to agree on something. It's a fairly cut and dry decision, but alas, we cannot reach a consensus. Maybe we should actually vote to have the footnote even though everyone else seemed to say otherwise. Why they voted no makes no sense to me though. InsaneZeroG (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already backed down from the X, and my compromise is a footnote, so that readers can decide for themselves. --LN3000 (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't rush these things. Let's have a vote first to decide if this result counts. After that, how about a vote to sysop this until February?--91.121.83.168 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue, that clearly does not work. Which helps my point: there should not even be a note their yet until there is a consensus for it, which there has never had been. This disscussion should be the oppisite of what it is now: there should be no note, yet, unless everyone agrees on it, which we haven't. No consensus, No note. Consesus says yes, There is a note. Consensus says no, there is no note.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  21:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet someone still removed the note. There was no consensus either way, so no changes should have been made. It works both ways, you know. --LN3000 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The note was the very change that there was (according to you) no consensus over. Why are you so insistent on keeping that obviously unpopular footnote anyway? --HeroicJay (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jay. What does the footnote say that a simple question mark doesn't? I still play the original research card about this enitre ordeal. -Sukecchi (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The footnote is redundant and encourages speculation.Satoryu (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As it has been said so many times before: can we just STOP.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  23:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was the one that went ahead and removed the footnote. I was uninvolved in this entire discussion, which, by the way, is one of the pettiest, lamest discussions I've ever seen on Wikipedia, in terms of scope. I can't believe people can argue about a stupid footnote for so long. The question is quite simple, right? Is Ness confirmed not te be in the game? If all we have to go by is Sakurai's words from the footnote, then the answer is clearly no, he is no confirmed to be either in or out. That uncertainty is exactly what the "?" is for, right? What's the purpose of the footnote, other than to satisfy one user who will argue this point to death? Besides that, an encyclopedia article is not the place to speculate on the meaning of a man's rather vague statements.--Atlan (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously this is a hill that there is no getting over. If there is information, it should be in the article. You say it isn't conclusive, but the information should still be represented. Giving only a question mark is misleading, because it says that there is absolutely no information about it. With the footnote, shows that there is some information, and lets people realize that although some people disagree, there has been some talk about the subject. It's as simple as that. I am not going to push the issue, but I do believe you should seriously consider adding the footnote back. --LN3000 (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only actual bit of information from Sakurai's statement, is the fact that there is an as of yet unknown character similar to Ness in the game. Anything else you get out of that is speculation.--Atlan (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the argument, is it not? Whether or not it is speculation. --LN3000 (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But the argument is only inside of WP, thus irrelevant.--91.121.83.168 (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not true. There are plenty of places where there is discussion whether or not Ness is confirmed not in the game. But that is irrelevant to this discussion. Right now we are talking about whether or not it is appropriate to not say anything about Sakurai's comment on SmashBros.com, regardless of what anyone thinks it means. --LN3000 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lamename3000, it is not approprat to have speculation anywhere on wikipedia, especally on a unrealsed video game. Not all information is good information. What about way long ago when Yoshi was still uncofirmed, there was a yoshi island stage and a theme but did we have a note that said "Despite a Yoshi Island stage and a yoshi theme song Yoshi himself has not been comfirmed"? No. Or Peach, when she was the Subspace Embusy video, did we say "Peach appeared in a video on the offical site but she has not been comfirmed as a playble a character yet."? No. The same goes for Ness. Lamename3000, can you please listen to logic and WP policy and stop fighting this to death?→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  12:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a joke, and I did remove it right away, besides, the argument is that it's NOT speculation. Yoshi? You are giving a poor analogy. I never said anything about Yoshi's stage, and I wouldn't say that Yoshi was in the game because of that. You can not compare that to Ness. If anyone needs to lighten up, it's you. There's a clear source, and it's verifiable, but there are people debating it, but that doesn't change the fact that the core source is reliable. If it was worded ever-so-slightly, would you then believe it? I'm not the one with an agenda, I'm simply listening to what I see as undisputed fact. Obviously I'm not doing anything about it right now, since I'm not trying to edit the article with Ness being in the game, but obviously I'm not the only one who is trying to stand for what's right. Seriously, you guys need to just calm down. For now, my part in the discussion is over, because of a split-poll, and I'm going to deal with that. But it is NOT allowed to shut down the conversation completely because of it. It is clear to me that Ness isn't in the game, and I'm sorry that you don't see it that way, but that doesn't change the fact that the Dojo has information regarding Ness being in the game. --LN3000 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was making the point that just becuase there is un-soild information supporting the character's return/removal does not mean it should be listed in the article. And the "undisputed fact", that is true but we still do not know the true meaning of these 3 words. Fact? Yes. Fact with a undisputed meaning? No. But seeing as your "part in the discussion is over" I see no reason to convince you. And throughout this debate I have only seen you standing up for the note, true others supported you in the poll, but they never jumped in the conversation.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  22:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a poll about having a poll about the note. The votes cast were neither supporting LN3000 nor against LN3000. They were only for or against holding a second poll. -masa ♫  01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been sitting here watching you guys discussing something that we already have the answer. I mean, it's original research and it's also speculation, because the fact that Ness is not going to be on Brawl is not official. This is discussion is useless, everyday I see people posting on this section (remember that I did not post anything up until now), and we are getting nowhere (at least we voted for the footnote). But still, stop insiting on this. Even if the words were from Dojo, it is a foolishness to waste time on it. Be patient and wait for more information (remember that it's not necessarly that information would come when the game launches; it could be any time before it). Just wait for more stuff then we can discuss it, but from here on out, it's better you guys stop posting anything about this. You guys most of the time post the same ideas... Well, at least I tried to help. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "the fact that Ness is not going to be on Brawl is not official" you can not argue that, they have only made a off comment no offical word. So now I Pray to God that we can all give up this arguement and wait paceintly. 0 4 1 7 4 4  22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are Screenshots Original Research?
If i were to take screenshots of the character select screen on the first two SSB games, and place them as a source for the character lists; would that break the rules as original research even though it's pretty much irrefutable? 213.40.219.36 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While they do show the character list, they are not the finalized list since those are only from the demos they've shown. InsaneZeroG (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it would not be. Else, one could argue you'd have to back up the story in a book, for example.--91.121.83.168 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, someone could argue that they've been shopped, or that they're missing secret characters :P -masa ♫  20:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Screenshots count as primary sources I believe. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we request protection of this page again?
Shouldn't we request protection of this page so that only registered users can edit it, just like the Brawl page? We might go into a relapse of what happened before the initial protection.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection can't be added in apprehension of vandalism, it can only be added after there has been a clear pattern of vandalism beyond what can be reasonably expected to be reverted by regular editors. If anonymous editors and vandals start causing a lot of problems, and reverting gets to be too much, we can request semi-prot. Coreycubed (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Isnt that already happening? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Smash_Bros._%28series%29&action=history ) Atomic Religione (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's normal editing by new users who don't know better. And note he said "clear pattern of vandalism beyond what can be reasonably expected to be reverted by regular editors." Onces per day is not that bad. --Bobby D. DS. (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Super-smash-bros-brawl-20060510074501608.png
Image:Super-smash-bros-brawl-20060510074501608.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First time tagging an image with the rationale template, but I think I've got it. If anyone wants to proof it, I'd appreciate feedback. Thanks. Coreycubed (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. You probably didn't even need to go into that much detail, but on the other hand, more detail = even less excuse for the rationale to be disputed. Arrowned (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Game & Watch
Today's update, it said something about Mr. Game & Watch being secretly "joined the fray". Does that mean we should put him??? I'm confused... --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen the DOJO!! update, and it does not mention G&W at all - just a musical composer around since the times of G&W. See Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/FAQ. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 22:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What part? I don't see anything.... --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The part that asks if a character who is "obviously" going to be in Brawl should be included. Until DOJO!! out-and-out confirms it, the addition of G&W (which is extrapolated here from an unrelated post there) is speculation. That being said, please bring questions specific to Brawl up here, not on this page. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention this. "Until now" is used once again in the DK music update, and its use might rekindle a certain argument. Let's hope it doesn't :) -- POWERSLAVE  23:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Given I'm relatively new to this particular talkpage (Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260) is more my forte), some clues for the clueless? -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 01:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no mention of Mr. Game & Watch, it was referring to Hirokazu Tanaka, a former Nintendo employee who is a composer that has worked with the company since the days of the original arcade cabinets and the Game & Watch handhelds. Coreycubed (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wario Man
Someone has already attempted to add Wario-Man on the list separately. I am against this. He's nothing more than a Final Smash (with the same moves as regular Wario to boot); he's no more a separate character than Giga Bowser or Super Dragon Yoshi. To anyone who wishes to compare with Zero Suit Samus, may I remind you that ZSS is not the Final Smash; she's a side effect OF a Final Smash. Samus's Final Smash is the Zero Laser. --HeroicJay (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am curious, however, is what happens next. When does Wario-Man change back into Wario? Or is it like Samus/ZSS, where there is no changing back. That might be what the question here is, but there is absolutely nothing to support anything. And we can't do anything to the article regarding it. I doubt we'll know about this until the game is released. --LN3000 (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would believe he changes back after getting geeked, but we would need confirmation either way. For now, do not make him separate. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 08:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Before this gets out of hand.. (Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)/Archive 4): "Here has Zelda and Shiek as sepprate characters on the OFFICAL SITE, Here is the table of characters with seprate Samaus and zero suit samus characters from the OFFICAL SITE, and Here is Pokemon trainer listed as ONE character on the (do I really have to say this again?) OFFICAL SITE. Sorry for being so blunt but our opinions are nothing compared to the makers of game and thus we should include what they think as far as characters go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 041744 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC) " And  Here lists Wario and Wario-Man as ONE character (also on the offical site). I'm not going to sit back and let this devolve into what happened to Giga-Bowser and Pokemon Trainer. No, not this time.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  13:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we don't know yet if Wario Man is temporary or not. That's an assumption. I'm going to change the hidden note to reflect this. But this doesn't change the fact that Wario Man does not have his own character page and, therefore, is not a seperate character.Satoryu (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes my bad, speculation and all...→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, these characters who were put as seperate characters were separate because they had different movesets, such as Zelda and Sheik. Now Wario-Man was said on the site to have similiar movesets (remember that the name of the update is: WARIO: FINAL SMASH), and because of this, Wario-Man is not considered to be a separate character. Another example of this is Giga Bowser. And one more thing, Zero-Suit Samus can get back to Samus by doing her final smash, which was an orb of light surrounding her which attracted pieces of her suit back in place (this was shown on E for All). So if Wario-Man is a final smash, how can there be a possibility that he wouldn't come back to be Wario (Wario-Man is not the result of a final smash, so what you said made no sense, LN3000)? Even if there was, it's speculation assuming anything about Wario's status after the final smash... I can't believe you guys rise a question for something that was already shown. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the conversation closer. None of us are questioning whether he should be in the playable character list or not; we're noting that people on random IP's who don't know better have already attempted to edit the page to do so, and are saying why it's not the case.  We're preaching to the choir here, really. Arrowned (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What's confusing about what I said? --LN3000 (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read what he said? he was talking about some IP who went ahead a edited the page.
 * But for future refrence, we use the offical word on what is a character or not, not our own logic, as that is such a touchy issue.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  13:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise for adding him to the list; I assumed that he had a completely different moveset from Wario. Although, I don't understand why people are so touchy about the subject. He keeps the same moves! for example. Hardcore gamer 48 05:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently we all have strong thoughts on what is a full character, but as I said it's what offical that counts, not our own logic.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wario Man is not a new player its only a final smash. People really need to learn how to read and pay attention even some one like me who has dyslexia read it 50 times just to understand it.--FrosticeBlade 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Date
Please change the exact date to 2008 or the Japanese date. The English-speaking Wikipedia isn't the American Wikipedia. Meh. --86.12.232.113 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Trevor  "Tinkleheimer"   Haworth  19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * QQ less, you Belfast scrub. :p Seriously though, I amended the article to include the specified release date. It's accurate now. Coreycubed 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Secret Characters

 * Is there any confirmation or any note that some of the characters mentioned on the website are secret unlockables? Jason Garrick (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * None. The closest thing I've heard was that the third-party characters were hidden ones, but I'm unsure if this is true or not. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's no official source, then it's probably not true. InsaneZeroG (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Sakurai said the third-party characters would be hidden, on the Dojo!! before it started doing weekday updates. If anyone can use the Wayback Machine and find it, that would be appreciated.  ♣   Powerslave  01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20070430173525/www.smashbros.com/jp/toukou/bn/no20.html --91.121.83.168 (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no word, besides this won't help the article, we don't LIST unlockable/starter characters ANYWHERE.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  02:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help anything being consistently snappy at people. --LN3000 (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm ususly a very calm person. I'll cool off for a minute in future disscussions.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  13:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man! *thumbs up* There is nothing wrong with being passionate about a subject. --LN3000 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Head Nod* *Thumbs Up*→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  05:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Archival?
This page is 61kb. I believe it is time to archive, right? TwilightPhoenix (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right I would change it but i dont want to mess the up this page.--DarkFierceDeityLink 20:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, archive some older discussion threads. --LN3000 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)