Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 14

Yoshi inconsistency
There seems to be an inconsistency between the Playable Characters page and this one regarding weather Yoshi is in Brawl, with all of the evidence pointing toward it, a yoshi themed stage and the recent release of a yoshi's story song on the official site, it seems highly likely but I don't know which should be edited due to wiki's no speculation rule or how to edit the playable characters page. 69.140.230.2 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put in mention of Yoshi, and given evidence to why he's believed to be in the game. However, I've not said whether he's in or not. I'd imagine that this would be allowed, but it'll probably get deleted anyway. <_< 141.156.14.34 23:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Meh, I just deleted it, as it was close enough to speculation to get removed. Though I do believe that some mention of Yoshi should be in the article. 141.156.14.34 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Could it be said that "There is much fan speculation over the inclusion of Yoshi due to the release of photos of a yoshi themed stage and a yoshi themed song." in the character inclusion section?

Still too unverifiable. Vilerocks 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So what happened to Items and Abilities section?
A lot of it was removed, it was fine the way it was. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 00:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It was merged into gameplay, it isn't gone, plus it looks better too. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 01:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Its gameplay now. Anubiz 01:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just that I noticed a chunk info was removed such as the ability to crawl. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 01:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We need to wait for actual confirmation of it before speculating if it's character specific or general. There's nothing else to write about it otherwise. TTN 01:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So the Nintendo World Trailer isn't it enough of a proof? magiciandude (Talk) (review) 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, I get it now. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 01:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sonic debate
I propose that we delete the Sonic section and put any information on Sonic in the inclusion of 3rd party character section. I think the only thing that should be mentioned about Sonic is that he's the most requested 3rd party, maybe the claim by the magazine that he's in it, and that quote with the dude saying, "That's not in the cards at the moment." (Zojo 13:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Leave it. He was the most talked about Third Party Choice by both sides. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but if we're wanting to keep this article from looking like a fan site we need to get rid of it. A long paragraph for a character who may or may not be in the game? Even our confirmed characters don't have sections that long. It doesn't really make sense. (Zojo 13:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC))
 * The thing is, that Sega and Nintendo want him in, but he hasn't been announced, leave it until E3 in July. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We aren't guaranteed that at E3 we'll know if Sonic is in or not. We could always delete it now and if Sonic is announced, add him the the confirmed charater section. (Zojo 13:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Just wait. Someone also forgot to mention the Yoshi Island and Mario Kart course as well. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 14:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, man. The fact that the Sonic section will eventually be deleted, whether he's in it or not, makes me feel like it shouldn't be there. I don't know...that's just my opinion. (Zojo 14:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Snake had a section just like that last year, we deleted it after the Nintendo World Trailer by popular vote. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 14:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete the Sonic Section. He may we wanted by anyone not in their right minds, but he's still not confirmed. That section is pure speculation. Dengarde 14:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this is a collection of interviews, and quotes dealing him with Brawl. PS: Nice Alt. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 14:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So? It's still speculation. I mean, a foreign article thats been proven a rumor, saying he's the most wanted character, it's nothing notable. Until we get some solid proof that Sonic is in the game, NOTHING needs to be said about him. Dengarde 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we do one of those vote things and see what the majority thinks? (Zojo 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Lets wait till 1:00 PM EST, no one is on now. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 14:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: By the way Debgarde, read the FAQ. I will still post the poll at one though. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You really think I'd be stupid enough not to read the FAQ before posting here? Silly noob. It even says: Wikipedia is not for speculation. There are characters who are likely to appear (Yoshi, Donkey Kong, Captain Falcon, Princess Peach, etc.), but it's been agreed numerous times that the article should only contain confirmed characters (see "Confirmed Characters"), regardless of possibilities. So what if Sonic has been mentioned by both parties? It's been said that "People would like to see him" multiple times. Well, so would half the fan base. So what? IT'S NOT NOTABLEDengarde 14:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Now tray again, with alittle less crazy. Anubiz 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I'd like to "tray" again, My point has been made.Dengarde 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Dengarde. Having the Sonic section is including non-encyclopedic information.  That information is speculation by both Sega and Nintendo on whether the character will be included in the game.  Just because both parties discussed business speculation does not make it non-speculative.  Should there be an acknowledgment of the Sonic discussion?  Yes.  Should it be its own section?  No.  If anything, this section should be in Super Smash Bros. series because it's more related to so many people wanting Sonic in Melee.  Also, why would Sonic be a confirmed character?  Wouldn't one think that this would be an unlockable character?  With so many people wanting it to be in the game, I'd think they'd keep it secret until unlocked.  I believe this section requires a straight up delete.  --myselfalso 14:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I'm still busy with other articles I'll step in. Per MoS, Sonic should not have a heading in the ToC. The creation of that subsection and "Inclusion of characters" were done my me. Development was too long and required clean-up. Half of the former Development involved characters and half of that was dealing with Sonic. The reason Sonic is mentioned in the article is because of his high unavoidable demand to which the media and other key figures have responded to but yet to confirm or deny. I left that as a subsection so it would be easier to clean-up in the future by one of you regular SSBB editors to contain only facts and information worthy enough to be kept then merged back into "Inclusion of characters". That being said comments such as "...would be the perfect addition to Brawl's cast" and the one from Secret Rings producer Ogawa-san are irrelevant. Clean-up, merge  FMF |  contact  15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that we should remove all traces of information on him from the article... I mean, honestly, I'd say he meets all the criteria of WP:NOTE pretty well.
 * Significant Coverage: Several articles HAVE addressed the article in direct detail, if relatively few articles are written solely to address the subject.
 * Sources: All the sources are, in fact, secondary sources extrapolating what information they can from primary sources (in this case, Nintendo, Sega, Sakurai, etc.).
 * Reliable: most all of the references ARE, in fact, reliable. The citations show that, honestly. How many of them link to small-time websites that seldomly get linked to on this site itself? Most of them were the big-name gaming sites, as I recall.
 * Independent of the subject: Admittedly, this might disallow quotes from Ogawa or Sakurai, but by that token, it'd disallow most of the content on the page (face it, the blog kinda gets struck down as a source with this one, even though honestly it shouldn't be), so a little leeway here is preferable.
 * Of course, those criteria are for PAGES, not parts of existing pages, but going by that, I'd say he's notable. Notable enough to have his own section, however... not so sure. It's probably best to echo FullMetal's Clean-up and merge, honestly; but most importantly, do not delete. --Shadow Hog 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to say, keep. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 16:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Leats keap unless we can stamp out the posibilty of Sonic all toghter. Anubiz 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes a whole lot of sense. Why don't we say that Yoshi is a possibility because they have a song related to Yoshi in the game?  I agree that it should be merged, but no less than that.  Sonic should not be a standalone section. --myselfalso 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We really don't need to get into a battle here. We need to delete and merge. If a Sonic the Hedgehog section is justified, why not start saying "Probable Characters" is a justified section. Since the quotes really don't give us any new info, the only mention of Sonic should really be that he's the most requested 3rd party character. That's it. (Zojo 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Seconded--Dengarde 17:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The votes have spoken, it will stay. We are not saying he is in it anyway, we collected a much of quotes from Nintendo and Sega speaking of him relating to Brawl. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 17:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the votes are towards merging...(Zojo 17:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Done. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 17:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. Anubiz 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It needs to be cleaned up, I will do that later. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 17:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yoshi Vs. Sonic
Why is Sonic in the inclusion  of characters section and yoshi is not? either we get rid of the sonic info or add a little Yoshi infoMarioman12 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Who put this recourd on agian. Anubiz 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We already discussed and voted on this issue, please see the FAQ, he was mentioned a lot by Nintendo and Sega about being a possibility. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 19:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, So is yoshi and having him sing in a song for the game seems a lot more reliable than the creators "expressing interest" in sonic Marioman12 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So are Sonic and Yoshi in or not? Anubiz 19:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I wanted everyone's opinion on it none or both you decideMarioman12 19:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Both. Anubiz 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the safest thing to do, to avoid influx of "probable characters" that people think are going to be in it, would be to remove sonic's mention and see if the Sonic & Tails Hoax has a mention on an article somewhere. It would fit much better there than it would hereDurinsBane87 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that any inclusion of Sonic discussion is unencyclopedic. It should not be in the article.  Just because there is legitimate information does not mean it should be in the encyclopedia.  --myselfalso 20:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude you're getting a bit out of control w/ this Yoshi thing. First you say that your psychic and that Yoshi will be revealed soon(which I somehow believed) then you insisted Yoshi be added because he technically is confirmed, now this. Yoshi isn't as special as Sonic in the means that Sonic is the most talked about 3rd Party character. And Yoshi is..... other than having a few hints here and there, there's no good reason. If we talk about Yoshi like that, than we might as well add Ganondorf because the voice artist had ssbb under his works list in Imdb. 68.195.110.145 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That is what everyone's saying we shouldn't have sonic or Yoshi or all characters can be guessed they will be coming back and Bomberman and megaman are popular third party characters why not them in the article, we have to shut the door in yoshi and Sonic's facesMarioman12 20:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bombermand= and Mega Man aren't mentioned because neither have had developers talking about them where as Sonic has. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, It is also said that sonic is not in the cards at the momentMarioman12 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Except for the above quote, nobody has given us anything substantial regarding Sonic's inclusion. Both Nintendo and Sega aren't saying if or if not. We got nothing (info-wise). Should we put "nothing" in the article? (Zojo 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Once again, I'm going to rewrite it.
I said this before, but it got archived, so I'm making the topic here. Once again, if anyone has suggestions, let me know.

And in response to JMJ, yes, I'm doing the whole article. Kenny2k


 * It is fine as is for now, wait for E3 in July for this. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't listen to Starman E3 is more than a month away I suggest getting rid of Sonic it has been agreed to get rid of the informationMarioman12 20:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC) "Don't listen to Starman". =\ magiciandude (Talk) (review) 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why destroy a important part? Angry Sun 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, why is Sonic important? And how is it an important part of the article?  Secondly, there have been a number of editors that have said this article is in terrible shape.  Why wait to fix it "because more information will be coming out soon"?  That's not justification to have a poor article.  If there is really such a problem here with trying to fix the article, but not, then perhaps its in the better interest of the article itself to only update it with new information once a week?  --myselfalso 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of keeping some of the Sonic info, but not having a whole section about him --Kenny2k 20:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That Sonic section was merged into the third party characters section. --myselfalso 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sonic was made into it's own section because the rest of the Sonic info had nothing to do with the inclusion of third-party characters. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sonic is a third party character. --myselfalso 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a small conflict earlier involving that. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, if Sonic has his own article, why not Yoshi? Its just speculation. --Kenny2k 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Put this info on Sonic's page not hereMarioman12 20:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For Yoshi, how about we just say "With the addition of a Yoshi's Island themed stage and Yoshi's Story music, Yoshi has a good chance of being a returning character in Brawl," or somthing along the lines of that? I think we should say somthing about Yoshi, but without being speculative, if possible. Yoshi is more notable than Sonic. I mean, unlike Sonic, he has a STAGE, and a SONG, on the OFFICIAL website. --Kenny2k 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We are in a rut. Anubiz 21:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's have a refresher.
 * Q. Why is there a Sonic paragraph in the article?
 * A. Because Nintendo and Sega have talked about possibly including Sonic in Brawl.


 * Q. Why isn't there a Yoshi paragraph in the article?
 * A. Because Nintendo has not talked about the possibility of including Yoshi in Brawl.

--myselfalso 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Becouse Yoshi is ovieos. Anubiz 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

in this ongoing sonic discussion many people have suggested that to include the information about sonic's possibility in brawl is encyclopaedic. this is not true in the slightest. a reader of this page does not want to know the contents of the game, they want to know what brawl is and what impact it has had on the world. many articles have a "controversy" section or a "reception" section, where they mention the world's reaction to the game described in the article. hence, for a reader of this article who knows nothing about brawl the information on the possibility of sonic and the hype surrounding it will help build a more complete picture of brawl and it's situation. Djchallis 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But it dosnt need a whole section. --Kenny2k 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

'''Sonic was voted for a merge into Inclusion of characters section today. Just leave it alone.''' undefinedOBEY STARMAN 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sonic Was voted to be Merged: END OF STORY!
It was voted to be merged, not made into a separate page, or deleted. So stop trying to do that. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 21:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And please stop with the whole Yoshi thing. We know that Yoshi is in the game (in our hearts) but, unfortunately, by Wikipedia's standards, unconfirmed or probably characters can't be mentioned. C'mon guys. No one's going to be blindsighted if we don't put yoshi in. (Zojo 22:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC))


 * No. Consensus suggested Sonic to be merged. Wikipedia is not a democracy. And by that, Sonic was NOT voted to be merged.  And, there was not appropriate time given to the debate that was had.  For that matter, there wasn't much debate at all, and I'm not sure why the above section was closed for debate.  --myselfalso 00:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, you are forgetting to assume good faith, please stop backlashing the whole community. Me and Zojo closed it the debate upon choice. undefinedOBEY STARMAN
 * How am I forgetting to assume good faith? So, you and Zojo closed the debate upon choice?  When it's involving a community, you can't do that.  Believe me, I participated in WP:SRNC.  I'm not forgetting AGF, I'm merely pointing out that not enough time was given to this debate given the amount of reverts that happened in just a few short hours.  --myselfalso 00:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Me and Zojo agree that you are taking this too far. This is not a Bureaucracy as well. This place is based on facts, not strong belief. These are just a collection of quotes, nothing more, nothing less. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 00:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How am I taking this too far? --myselfalso 00:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You recreating an event that lead to a disaster that happened a few weeks ago. Ask Zojo for more details. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 01:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Just leave it there till E3, which is next month. Then we can remove it, ok? undefinedOBEY STARMAN 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict][Indent reset] What disaster? That we had a revert war over the Optical Disc? That's not a disaster by any means. And, far more importantly, after suggesting that I'm not remembering WP:AGF, you're not remembering it either. You're suggesting that I'm trying to harm this article by "recreating an event that led to a disaster that happened a few weeks ago". And that bothers me. To respond to the second comment, what is the logic in waiting until E3? --myselfalso 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm not in favor of deleting the content. If you see my thoughts above, I at first call for deletion, then I change to calling for the merge (as it is now).  --myselfalso 01:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The logic of waiting for E3 is very reasonable. Nintendo usually reveals everything big during that show, including updates. Do you think if they confirmed a third party character would be big? They already promised two after Snake. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 01:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that Nintendo is going to announce that Sonic is going to be in the game. For all we know, Sonic will be an unlockable character.  For that matter, Sonic might not be in the game at all.  If anything should follow the logical course, we should wait until E3 to put something about Sonic on the page.  But I reiterate, I'm not in favor of deleting the Sonic information.  I'm in favor of having it merged the way it is.  When it comes to the poll, I did what I did because of the amount of edit warring that was going on this afternoon.  How many times was the article changed between deleting the Sonic info straight up back to the way it is now?  --myselfalso 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * People have been doing it off and on. I really don't think a separate page is a good answer. undefinedOBEY STARMAN 01:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said it was. Once again, I support merge.   I like the way it is currently.  If, after two days, consensus suggests otherwise, that's what consensus is.  I only created a sub-page to salvage information that was being deleted in an edit war.  Again, remember assume good faith.  --myselfalso 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sonic inclusion poll
In order to determine true consensus, let's test the waters here. We have three options.

Option 1: Merge with third party characters section (current; per Zojo comment above) Option 2: Keep as independent section (previous) Option 3: Delete without merge (suggested by multiple users)

This poll will close 48 hours (2 days) from now. --myselfalso 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Option 1

 * Support
 * 1) Support per nom. --myselfalso 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, J  M  J  03:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, but delete the irrelevant info. Dengarde 03:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, ArchKnight47 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support why does Sonic get special treatment? he's a third party character just like Snake. FyreNWater 07:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support! Why should Sonic get his own section? None of the confirmed characters have their own sections. Its just fan food.--Kenny2k 08:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support! I think it looks much better this way. -Sukecchi 11:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) SUPPORT (Put the section in bold.)Pikazilla 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) SUPPORT The site flows better with the articles merged.--Sasst82 15:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) SUPORT per nom. --Takuthehedgehog 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support: It would be a huge irony to have a Wikipedian section based upon speculation for starters. Sonic doesn't deserve his own section anyway. Ashnard   Talk  17:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) SUPORT He could end up having completely nothing to do with the game what so ever but he was the only one who had his own section recently, that made the article seem so speculative. Since he is unconformed I think he doesnt deserve much attention until we have actual facts on him beyond just people/polls wanting him in the game.Ssbb marth 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support-Tuesday42 20:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support While Sonic’s possible inclusion is notable, I don’t think he needs his own section. Right now, I seem to like it the way it is. If anything, I think we should trim it down some more. Otherwise were making this article sound like a game site, and not an encyclopedia. All that we really need to know is that Sonic was the most requested third-party character, and that someone said that Sonic is “not on the cards” right now. It doesn’t sound very encyclopedic to give an unconfirmed character his own section. Master Strike 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per nom. Its sad to have a consensus when guide lines do exist and did anyone read my earlier comment? Merge and clean-up.  FMF |  contact  20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support I hate polls, but this suggestion is the only that follows MoS headings. It's fine as is.--Clyde (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per nom. -- SuperSmash44  ‡  19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support per nom. --- Marioman12 19:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose He is so heavily rumored and so many inquiries are made regarding his inclusion that he should be listed on this page as is. But more importantly, there's so much information about his supposed inclusion/non-inclusion that he can't be easily merged into the third party section without taking it over completely. --Bishop2 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean those few sentences there that cannot even form a elaborate paragraph? There not even properly sourced.  FMF |  contact  13:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The paragraph was edited down into its current form from the original version. There's only one line in there that isn't properly sourced.  The rest is heavy with citations. --Bishop2 13:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In regards to MOS, that one paragraph about a single character, not the game in general, deserves its own subsection because?  FMF |  contact  13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's exactly because he's just a rumor that we're having this debate. I'll admit Sonic deserves a mention, but his own section is just pushing it. Besides, his section if full of stuff that barely contributes to his inclusion, if at all. The only real thing thats worth mentioning is the fact that bot Nintendo and Sega have shown interest in Sonic being in Super Smash Brothers Brawl. And that can just be included in the Character Inclusion section.Dengarde 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose He needs to be mentioned, to much publicity has been on him not to.-User:Jumpman3.0
 * Read, this is about merging, not deletion.  FMF |  contact  13:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * 1) Maybe those new to the site (or not familiar with how articles should be structured) should look at the guide to writing better articles and CVG Article guidelines cause oblivious guidelines are being ignored, not to mention the other trivial discussions I've seen around here in the past. Keep this up and this article will remain just like the previous installments after it releases - a "B-class". Over half of the Sonic information from the media is not notable per WP:NOT (10), also after the clean-up per WP:MOS this character nor any character deserves there own subsection in these types of articles unless they play an notable part in the game's development to which it is lengthy enough to have its own subsection.  FMF |  contact  20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Maybe those new to the site (or not familiar with how articles should be structured) should look at the guide to writing better articles and CVG Article guidelines cause oblivious guidelines are being ignored, not to mention the other trivial discussions I've seen around here in the past. Keep this up and this article will remain just like the previous installments after it releases - a "B-class". Over half of the Sonic information from the media is not notable per WP:NOT (10), also after the clean-up per WP:MOS this character nor any character deserves there own subsection in these types of articles unless they play an notable part in the game's development to which it is lengthy enough to have its own subsection.  FMF |  contact  20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Option 2

 * Support
 * 1) Support per nom. --Unknownlight 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom -- undefinedOBEY STARMAN 01:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. --- Anubiz 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. --- magiciandude (Talk) (review) 01:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom.--User:Entei-Anubis
 * 6) Support per nom.--Henke37 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per nom.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per nom - Joiz A|A. Shmo 03:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support But we should trim it down. DurinsBane87 06:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support He is so heavily rumored and so many inquiries are made regarding his inclusion that he should be listed on this page as is. But more importantly, there's so much information about his supposed inclusion/non-inclusion that he can't be easily merged into the third party section without taking it over completely. --Bishop2 13:49, 6 June 2007
 * 11) Support. No other character has gotten more media attention, and mentions by Nintendo and the producers, than Sonic. Not even Snake, and he is Confirmed! Does he deserve his own section? Absoulutly. Enough info is there, so keep and don't merge!.Quatreryukami 18:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Between winning the most requested poll, and having a new mash-up with Mario,I believe it is totally relevent on this page. User:Religione Atomic
 * 13) Support per nom. -User:Jumpman3.0
 * 14) Support per nom. -User:Blades2121
 * 15) Support per nom. - Bluefire  princess  22:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Supportper nom.-User:GanonCanon
 * 17) Support per nom.--TailsClock 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose why does Sonic get special treatment? he's a third party character just like Snake. FyreNWater 07:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, use common sence, people. --Kenny2k 08:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, most of that paragraph is useless information. So what if the creator of Sonic and the Secret Rings wants to see Sonic in Brawl? It's not very encyclopedic. If we cut out all the trash, Sonic's section would be very small, and probably not enough to constitute its own section. J  M  J  18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, Sonic doesn't need a separate part. Plain and simple. -- SuperSmash44  ‡  19:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * The article should be the possiblty of sonic not just sonic there is just as many possiblties  sonic won't be in the gameMarioman12 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Option 3
Sonic should not be completly removed, just put in the article in a more reasonable way. --Kenny2k 08:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Oppose
 * Comments

Well done
I was just looking over the article today after I saw the daily update on the website (which was somewhat of a disappointment)and was very surprised. The article looked good!! Merging items and abilities w/ gameplay was a great idea, and everything also looked very nice and tidy. I'm glad we no longer have a separate section for Sonic but still have a nice amount of info on him in his merged section. I actually took the liberty to read the article over again, just to suck in the cleanliness of the article. And, well, I just want to let you guys know that I appreciate it. It was really quite aggravating, the messiness of the article. Just take in a nice deep breath and let know that you've done well. Give yourself a nice pat on the back why don't ya :D 68.195.110.145 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Developer?
Nintendo Europe's SSBB site Click on the "MORE SPECS" button brings up the game specs, and it list's Sora Ltd. as Brawl's developer. Should we trust this as official information? ArchKnight47 20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The regional branches have been wrong before, but the mention seems pretty deliberate. If it is to be included somewhere in the article, it should probably be qualified with an "According to the Nintendo Europe page for the game," or something similar. I'm generally opposed to stuffing infoboxes, so I don't favor adding it there anyway. I'm just not looking forward to "I told you so" comments that miss the point of Wikipedia policies. Dancter 20:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, if you want to go the route of people not complaining, you might want to put it in that box. I'd say there'd be more people whining to put it in there than people complaining that it's in there when the real developer is revealed. Judging by the diversity of companies on the music list, who knows what you could really call the group. (Zojo 22:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Their only called "the Studio", that's it, nothing more was said. How many times is this going to be discussed?  FMF |  contact  16:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Allot. Anubiz   ♦  16:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "The Studio" was said a while back ago. (Zojo 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Nothing changed since. Nothing more was said from the director.  FMF |  contact  16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that the Nintendo Europe page was already discussed and rejected. My apologies. Dancter 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I understand the terse comments. Someone tried to change the infobox. Dancter 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess people are saying Sora because Sakurai has always introduced himself that he's from Sora. Still, HAL labs still does have rights to the game along with Nintendo and who knows how much they're doing with the production. Like I said earlier, you'll probably get less people complaining by putting Sora...but puting unkown might be what's needed now. (Zojo 16:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
 * The reason I was giving it a consideration was that this is coming from a branch of Nintendo. But it's probably best not to open that can of worms, and treat the information as unreliable, like a release date listing on Gamestop.com. An official comment or announcement is probably what's needed before we even think of mentioning anything. As for infobox listing, this isn't about making the most people happy (which is why disputes over "fancruft" are so common), but ensuring the best article. Infoboxes don't have room for describing the nature of the information, which is not certain. Dancter 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Count to 10 everyone. Anubiz  ♦  16:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Europe: 2008?
Why the heck does it show the release date is 2008 for Europe? Proof? Or is it just some moron who thinks he can tell the future.......--Demonworks

That seems accurate if the U.S. version is coming out this fall, but it's most likely pure speculation. Dengarde 12:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, why is the character section so much longer?
Apparently some guy named 1SmileGuy1 just expanded the characters section immensely. What do you all think of this? Should we revert to the simpler version? --Bishop2 19:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no opion. Anubiz  ♦  20:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. For better or worse, TTN just opted to delete all of it. --Bishop2 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It was once even longer than that. It was trimmed a while back and is officially given on the "series" page. --HeroicJay, too lazy to sign on his work computer in again.


 * I'm inclined to agree with TTN's edit. There's no need to list each character and go into detail.  That's what Super Smash Bros. (series) is for.   --myselfalso 00:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

4 kinds of Control
It's official: Four control methods are compatible. Sideways Wiimote, Wiimote & Nunchuck, Classic Controller AND GCN controller. Please add J  M  J  07:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Gameplay section is best, no? I don't think it merits it's own section.

Also, considering there was little info on HOW the controls worked, I think a simple statement such as "This game is confirmed to use 4 types of controller. They are the Wii Remote (Held Sideways), Wii Remote (With Nunchuk), Classic Controller, and Gamecube controller. How this controls work is unknown at this time." will work just fine. RandomGuy42 07:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like it noted that Sakurai recommends using the Gamecube controller.--Viridistalk 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats irrelevant. Dengarde 07:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Told you so. Anubiz  ♦  10:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Wii games can be more than 4 player due to mixing and matching controler styles. Brawl may even turn out to be 8 player in some modes. Heres to hoping.--Brendoshi 11:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anubiz, remember what TTN asked you....
 * -Secondly, I'd like to note, but still enforce the fact that it's still unsourced, that blog that was discussed an archive or so ago said one of the control methods was with the Nunchuck, was it not? -Sukecchi 11:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * THE GAME HAS RUMBLE FEEDBACK! WHY ELSE WOULD SAKURAI COMMENT ON IT'S RUMBLE CAPABILITIES?!  PUT THAT DOWN!  (Zojo 12:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Comint on Subuct not on Users, right? Anubiz  ♦  12:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes -Sukecchi 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anubiz, learn to spell sometime soon, Because nobody can understand a thing your saying--Demonworks
 * Leave Anubiz alone, he has a spelling disorder.

Really? how do you know that? if so, sorry anubiz..--Demonworks
 * Well, Anubiz has been blocked for having a sock puppet. --myselfalso 13:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, though. Did ya'll put rumble feedback in the article yet? It's big news, guys. I hope that the Nintendrone guy is right about Nintendo redistributing the GC controller. I have a Wavebird but they don't rumble. I mean, you guys are 100% sure about Brawl having rumble, right? Also, to the guy who questioned an 8 player possibility, the official site says 1-4 players on the Home page. (Zojo 16:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Why is the rumble feature so important? It's not like it wasn't in either of the other two games... --myselfalso 17:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, by your logic, shouldn't we just include every other character who was in the other two games? Just because something has happened before does not mean it'll happen again, mention rumble in the article. ArchKnight47 18:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Because the other characters from the other games are irrelevant unless confirmed.  I believe the rumble feature is irrelevant for the very reason I gave; because the rumble feature has been in every game, rumble is a truly minor feature (and with the Wavebird controller, not even possible).  --myselfalso 19:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)