Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 25

While we wait, why not work on others for GA?
I thought I put up a discussion already, but I guess it deleted (before the archive). We should start working together to get Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee up to GA status. If anyone would want to help out, and possibly make it a mini-project, just post here. Trevor  "Tinkleheimer"   Haworth  21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea. For all the people who say "Wait till Brawl comes out," well, SSB and Melee are out, so we should work on those pages. Good idea Tinkleheimer.   Powerslave  22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Son was the one who mentioned it first, I just expanded on the idea. :). Trevor   "Tinkleheimer"   Haworth  22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this originally because it was off the topic it was posted under and it doesn't belong on the Brawl talk page. Perhaps you should move this to the SSB and SSBM pages or the Series page.Satoryu (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am posting it here because there are lots of people who edit this article, and not the other ones. While we wait, I figured I would get some generated interest into it. Trevor   "Tinkleheimer"   Haworth  01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help. I'll work on Super Smash Bros. Doppelganger (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll help out. Jareds2007 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Because of this image, it can easily be deduced that the Vault is for trophies and stickers, among other things. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 08:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Because of this image, it can easily be deduced that the Vault is for trophies and stickers, among other things. -masa ♫  08:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Maybe someone could see the SSB Series article in Japanese??? --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ShadowUltra is right, tomorrow a lot of people may come and edit this article saying something like: ###### confirmed in the CoroCoro magazine. we should semi-protect or protect the article.--Fandangox (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is semiprotected. And if this is true, we can't go by word of mouth. At the very least, we'll need scans of the magazine to verify any claims.Satoryu (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to panic, all that corocoro has is old news: http://www.brawlcentral.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrismSub7 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that site you gave us a fan site, it looks like some 12-19 year old made it.--DarkFierceDeityLink 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides the chaotic header, that site is actually very well-made.   Powerslave  03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the magazine in question was only going to be confirming characters already released on Dojo. Someone started the rumor that it was going to be a full roster lineup, but the article in question was actually just saying that the current roster was going to be covered in depth. At any rate, this article is fairly well patrolled. I don't think we have anything to worry about. Coreycubed (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The magazine came out, and there was nothing but old info. Sorry to anyone who got their hopes up. Anyway, that means there is no need to do anything to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Armageddon (talk • contribs)

Mii usage?
I don't see any proof that Miis can be used in-game. Why is this article in "List of games that use Miis"? 75.134.82.172 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Miis can be used as avatars in Wi-Fi mode. --(trogga) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does this get to stay every goddamn time i ask a question it gets taken off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkFierceDeityLink (talk • contribs)
 * It gets to stay because it's actually related to the article; he was asking a question about a category this article is classified in and whether it should be in the category or not. We only remove questions that have absolutely nothing to do towards modifying/improving the article. Arrowned (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually...I KIND of forgot about the icon usage in Wi-Fi... 75.134.82.172 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Sure, that sounds right. --LoganTheGeshrat 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bring it up at WikiProject Video games if you want, but I think things are fine the way they are with the current unreleased video game template. Comandante42 (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stage Section
Shouldn't there be a section concerning the stages? There is an entire section for the characters alone, so it would make sense that something is included in the article about the different stages that players will fight on. As it is, the only thing I've seen that comes close is a brief mention of the stage-builder feature in the Wi-Fi sub-section. Any thoughts? Comandante42 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Stages, are mentioned, they are under gamplay but not noteable for an indepent section, but for a paragraph. As is stage builder. Also the artilce is not dedicated to characters, we don't even mention every character in this article, We try to have a well rounded article.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  22:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the answer. I just wanted to know why stages weren't included since they are an integral part of the game; I was concerned that the article was missing something important. I didn't mean that a list of all of the stages should be included, but details could be added into the article in a similar format to the character section. Basic info like some stages have changing environments or the differences between the newer stages and the old ones could be added. If it really isn't necessary, though, then I won't push it further. Comandante42 (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, having more detail on the stages (what you mentioned) would help get it to GA status once the game is released. --Son (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that this would benefit the article now as well, if anyone wants to add a bit. The stages are certainly important enough. Erik (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And say what in that section? A description of each stage? Wikipedia isn't a game guide. There's nothing you can say about the stages besides coming from different games. -Sukecchi (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I think there's something missing from the article on stages that should be mentioned. The stages that are returning have this comment - 'We’ve tried to create an exact replica, but there may be a few areas that differ from the last game. I hope you understand.'
 * To me this is important info, as it states something that has changed from the last game. Any thoughts? -
 *  **BM**  20:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I never meant a list of details about each and every stage. I only think that a small section should be created that describes significant features of some stages. For example, since most stages have platforms, we wouldn't need to mention that since it would be trivial. If one stage has an environment that changes radically throughout a match, or has some other unique characteristic that makes it stand out as a stage from the majority, then perhaps that should be mentioned. At most, I would expect only two or three significant new stages to be mentioned in the section, in a way that balances the stage section with the character section in terms of content, since (in my opinion) both are equally important in the game. Comandante42 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Comandante42. Some levels change based on what time Wii's internal clock is.  I believe that's the Animal Crossing level.  Plus, on that level, there's a certain time of day on a certain time of week in which the characters can stop playing to listen to a background character play music.  I think that's pretty noteworthy, IMO.  That's just one level.  --Son (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * However, going into detail about that would be cutting too closely to a game guide, and according to this, we can't have that. If there is to be any stage section, I move that we wait until the game comes out (at least in Japan) so we will have all the info. Powerslave (talk - cont.) 00:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't violate WP:NOT, because if I was writing it, I'd be talking about technological advances between prior versions of the game and this one. A game guide would be going point-by-point detail about each and every level.  This would be saying that in prior versions of the game, it did not have this, this, and this.  That is not a violation of WP:NOT, that's showing technological evolution.  --Son (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We already have examples of features some stages have. There's no reason to add any more examples. We've already covered the vital info. Anything else will cross into game guide and cruft.Satoryu (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't provide enough information. --Son (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that we could improve the paragraph by adding a bit as well. As it is, it's pretty short and doesn't cover very much...basically what it says now is that stages are from represented game series, are flat in terms of movement, and that when you pass the stage boundary you lose a life (the most basic info that you could really give). It then says that some stages undergo changes and that some are being reused, and that's about it. Come on people, we've discussed the characters' controls in depth, how special moves are exectuted, which types of characters are appearing, which series are getting characters, the company ownership status of third-party characters, which territories characters are being selected from, how several particular characters (Snake, Lucas, Sonic) came to appear in Brawl, and how a character / music poll was conducted in Japan and on Nintendo's forums. Not that we should necessarily remove any of that, but it seems clear to me that if we can add all this character information without falling into game guide territory, the stage bit could be safely expanded. Erik (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already stated the reason why we don't need any more info on stages. I won't repeat myself.Satoryu (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Mabey we SHUOLD mention that there are 3rd party stages (not listing them all) and state some Melee stages are returning. Also that "moving stages" are coming back (Rumble Falls). That all seems like important information.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  12:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:CRUFT
Satyoru, here's the policy you've cited and the essay you've mentioned. By putting in more information about stages, what would violate WP:GAMEGUIDE? --Son (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling it cruft was wrong of me, yes. But this would be a case of too much information. It could escalate into game guide territory. We have enough examples as it is. Why do we need to add more?(I hate repeating myself.)
 * And I before I get blasted for assuming control, this is only my personal opinion. It is my belief that no more info is needed, not a doctrine. I feel that the paragraph present covers what needed to be covered.Satoryu (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It could escalate to game guide territory, but so could the character's section we all deligantly watch. The section can stand to convey newer information such as my seggestion for the includement of "mention that there are 3rd party stages (not listing them all) and state some Melee stages are returning. Also that "moving stages" are coming back (Rumble Falls)". It is true we use to have enough examples, but newer informtion is avalable, not just that old stages have been revamped with a day-night system but that Melee stages are returning, and there are 3rd party stages. Theorectilly ALL game articles could reach "game guide territory", but that is why we monitor pages in our watchlists and put limits on pages such as the "2 character limit" in that section.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is no different from giving examples in other parts of the article. We already have three. Why do we need more? Moving stages and 3rd party stages aren't really any more notable than the examples we already have. And we already do mention the day/night cycle and returning stages. Satoryu (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because there are more than three stages in the game. You keep saying that these are examples.  The idea of an encyclopedic article is not to use examples.  It's to tell about the game in some detail...given the importance of stages in this game (what game has ever posted blogs of significant detail on a single stages?) it is almost as important as the character itself.  --Son (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I say they're examples cause they are examples. And just because the Dojo gives stages their own update doesn't make them important here.
 * This is going nowhere fast, just like every other argument. I'm through.Satoryu (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is an incredibly ridiculous argument. I mean, come on, if we do not list all characters, why should we list the stages, which aren't a big of a deal??? So, imagine, if the SSB and SSBM articles are B-Class articles which do not mention stages, imagine what would this article receive. Even if there would be a need to mention stages, add it to the gameplay section since its the basis of the gameplay. And I've seen this discussion going on for days and this is very annoying, and, no offense, you should stop being stupid by continuing this argument. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Stages and characters are different things, for one we list every character in the ssb(s) article, while we just illistrate the diffrent varieties of stages. I'll admit that we should wait a month and a half more for full information on other stages, but right now I still think we should at least mention the return of some Melee stages.
 * And don't bite my head off, I have as much right to my opinion as you do.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  14:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, someone already added a mention of Melee stages.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a wealth of information available on stages already announced for the game (and there are twenty stages thus far). I revised the stages section in several ways.  First, I made its own subsection underneath Solo in the gameplay section.  Secondly, I added a second paragraph.  Thirdly, I added the Animal Crossing level includes a "live" performance (without mentioning the exact time it takes place...hence the ref to Dojo); I added that yet another form of the Metroid level where lava or acid rises from beneath the level is in Brawl; I also added that we have a third party stage, by having Shadow Moses Island from MGS.  The only other stage that is worth inclusion is the the PictoChat stage, because of its connectivity with the DS and the usage of the Wii Shop Channel music and Mii Channel music.  If someone wants to add that stuff, go for it.
 * And there may be other stages we might want to add after the game is released; Sakurai did say that other levels would be returning to Brawl aside from just Temple, but possibly with some modification. --Son (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent work on the section. Its exactly like I intended it to be, perhaps better. I guess now we'll just have to see if it can stand the test of time (and user edits). Comandante42 (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I spoke too soon. Comandante42 (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see the reason why that had to be expanded. Nonetheless, I'll only question the inclusion of the Metroid stages. Those seem incredibly trivial to mention. Removing them now. Everything else, I won't fight.Satoryu (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the whole second paragraph needs work too.Satoryu (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on questioning the Metroid stages mention...that having been said, I am reverting it back to being a level 3 subsection. --Son (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Although the general content of that bit is fine, I think it could be worked on a bit in terms of composition. Also, you (user Son) mentioned that the PictoChat stage had some sort of connectivity with the DS in the above comment. If that's true, can you provide some more information on that and a source? Otherwise, I don't think that we need to add information on the PictoChat stage to the article, unless it's to mention that stages not based on games are being included or something. Actually, that would also be somewhat dubious, as PictoChat is still a piece of Nintendo software. Anyway. Erik (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section needs some work. Not sure whether it was better when I first wrote the section, or when it was pared back afterwards...you may want to check the article history for that.
 * Two things on the PictoChat stage. It might be noteworthy simply because it's another crossing of this game with Nintendo products.  Everything else being used is tied into the Wii; in this case, the stage is tied in with the Nintendo DS.  Also, PictoChat is not a game; it's software built into the DS.  As it currently stands, this stage is probably the most unique of all stages.  Secondly, the source is on the DOJO!!! website.  Here's the link to make it easier to find... .  Maybe I've read it wrong and there's no connectivity; or perhaps there is and its too ambiguous to add into the article.  But the first part, the fact that a stage is based off Nintendo DS software, I think, is.  --Son (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, there is nothing on that page that suggests DS to Wii connectivity. Arrowned (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Dojo doesn't indicate that anywhere on their PictoChat update. So if the stage has no DS connectivity, I don't really think there's much reason to mention it in the article...just being unique in design isn't really enough. And I don't doubt that there will be other stages based on software made for the DS; it wouldn't make much sense not to, considering the DS's popularity. If, after release, it does turn out that the PictoChat stage is the only stage in Brawl based off of a DS title, then maybe we could mention it.

Also, I'm going to go through the edited bit and try to improve it. Erik (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

...And, it's done. What do you think? Perhaps it's just a tad better? Erik (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The section looks good, now that it looks like it has finally left the drawing board and is being applied in the article. Comandante42 (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wario's unique alt. costumes
Alright, so we saw this morning that Wario has an alternate costume. Should this be mentioned? Seeing as how it isn't a color swap like Peach becoming Daisy is. He also gets a different piece of art on the select screen...I just think this needs mentioned somewhere. Not sure where. Maybe it could be written into the character section where Wario is mentioned? That is...if you agree 'buku... -Sukecchi (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was mentioned it would interially stop the flow of the section, it is just simply to trivial to mention. The only reason this could be noteable is that this AC (alternitive costume) has it's own ACs, but still that is very trivial.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  13:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Too trivial.Satoryu (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then, that's what I thought, just wanted to see what consensus was about it. I liked the title of this discussion though~ -Sukecchi (talk)

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

Group mode
In addition to the standard multiplayer mode "Brawl", Super Smash Bros. Brawl features unique multiplayer modes and options in Group mode.

Where exactly is the standard multiplayer mode "Brawl"? I thought that Group was its new name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milind4 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

When you go to the Group menu, the first battle option there is Brawl. Sorry about the confusion. Powerslave (talk - cont.) 16:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Coin Launcher
Shouldn't somebody write anything about this on the Vault section??? I mean, it's totally notable due to the fact that it changed the way to get trophies, also using different gameplay..... --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For what I hope is the last time, notability does not mean Dojo had an update about it... This is a new game for a new system, there are bound to be many new features. Evaluate the content based on its relevance to the current title; only major changes in relation to Melee or SSB should be noted (for example, online play via Nintendo WFC). Coreycubed (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel it needs mentioned in some form, as it's different than Melee's way of getting trophies...BUT it needs to be well written. Everything that has been added so far has been poorly written and has been removed. -Sukecchi (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I added it to the article, please check it for any mistakes.--Fandangox (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, since they delete it what about writting it like this: A new minigame, the Coin Launcher, will replace the lottery from meele. The launcher, for which the minigame is named, is a machine that uses coins as projectiles. Using the launcher, you shoot coins at trophies to obtain them.--Fandangox (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting poorly written sections
Instead of removing sections of the article because they're poorly written, how about editing and improving it? The constant reverting because "it's not good enough" is against the point of a wiki. There's a reason why there is the "Edit" tab on the screen. Use it. We're all editors. Not publishing editors, Wiki editors. --Son (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


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

Subspace Emissary Logo
The Subspace Emissary is a major part of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, so I've just come here to discuss the use of this image:

http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/modea/images/modea02/modea02_070803logo.jpg

...in the article. Of course, I don't want to come here and demand the image be inserted in here, because I don't want the article to be littered with images - I know how much you fellow Wikipedians are passionate about keeping this page as neat as possible, so I thought I'd come here first to avoid angry users.

Again, the Subspace Emissary is an important part of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, since it is the firs mode to actually feature a storyline, rather than going through stages, or just fighting everyone for no reason. To highlight the importance of this mode, it would be useful if we added more information about this mode, but not making it the centre of the article - we all know the Subspace Emissary isn't the only part of Brawl.

By all means, you can completely disregard this idea - I don't mind, I'm not experienced in making articles, and you would be more advanced than me. I know how you all take pride in this article, and the recent arguments back up that knowledge. If the image is not allowed, due to Wikipedia's policy (Fair Use?), then I understand.

I don't want to start an argument over this, although it likely isn't going to happen - I'm just sharing my opinion. SpaceTym (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Subspace Emissary is a major part of Brawl, we know that, I don't see why that warrants the logo nessicary, we already have a team image. and a logo would seem more of a decrative image to me, it does not illistrate the section of help the reader understand better in my opion.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  13:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We know what its called and we know what its for, a logo isnt going to help the reader understand the article any better. Maybe sometime in the future once the game is released and we know the whole plot of the story mode, it would be possible to make a new article centered around the plot and use the logo there, but not now. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see understand. I don't really mind, I just wanted an opinion from the editors. Thanks anyway. SpaceTym (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


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

WikiForce SmashBros has been created

WikiForce SmashBros has been created. Check out our home page here. We are a task force of WikiProject Nintendo which helps to edit the Smash Bros series articles.-- S m a s h b r o s b o y  01:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?
No, I don't mean official criticism, but there's been a lot of hubbub over Brawl's online play. The following was posted on Masahiro Sakurai's page but I removed it because the comments on those boards were directly referring to Brawl, not Sakurai:

As of recently, Sakurai has been taking heavy criticism from online communities, such as IGN , Kotaku , and MP3.com ,  for his decisions concerning Super Smash Bros. Brawl's online play. He has yet to state whether the restrictions were imposed by Nintendo or were solely his own.

So...is it noteworthy? It apparently was noteworthy enough that, on Sakurai's page, it was removed then put back with apparent reasoning (iunno just speculating from the history). What do you guys suggest happens with this thing? I'm not the Wikipedia expert here... DRaGZ (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm gonna add the links those references went to: http://boards.ign.com/nintendo_wii_lobby/b8270/155397637/p1/ http://blogs.ign.com/daviddoel/2007/09/18/66604/ http://boards.ign.com/super_smash_bros_/b5213/155195704/p4/ http://kotaku.com/gaming/nintendo/yay-friend-codes-announced-for-smash-bros-brawl-329416.php http://www.mp3.com/features/speakeasy/show_site_blog_entry.html&topic_id=m-100-25153178

DRaGZ (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's worthy enough to kick start a criticism section in the article. Are there any other sources that goes along with this?  --Son (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's right to criticize a game that hasn't been released yet, nor put up a criticism section on the page. Better wait till the game is out.Satoryu (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing you can say about Brawl's online play when it hasn't been seen or tested by any of those people. It's all hearsay and speculation, unless you can find a source stating otherwise, that's what it is. -Sukecchi (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, criticism sections are best added after release IMHO, although there can be exceptions. In this case it might be okay, but I'd lean on the side of not adding it just yet. Wait a couple of months and the section will likely have more content to include as well. Erik (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...that's what I thought. After all, there is no real confirmation/unconfirmation that ladders are not in the game yet... DRaGZ (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Delay?
Please everyone look into this, sorry in advance if it's not relevant enough. On Smashboards.com someone said their gamestop told them of a March 28, 2008 release date, and then someone copied an E-mail from Walmart saying there was another delay. Now on the Walmart site it says in won't be available until March 28, 2008: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=6527131

Please everyone look into this. --Adam (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing official here. Until Nintendo says otherwise, the release date is still Feb 10.Satoryu (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for bringing it up, i wasn't really expecting anything official enough to change the page, but i wanted to see if anyone could find more evidence.--Adam (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I pre-ordered one at Gamestop and they did not told me anything of a delay. Actually I pre-ordered it since August and they did not told me that the game was delayed to Feb 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.39.74 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because the delay was announced in October. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 21:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not on the Dojo, it's Wal-Mart, and it says it should SHIP BY 3/9/08. I'm guessing there is no new delay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igglybuff63 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Australian Release date
I see you guys have put up an Australian Release date as March 9, but the confimation Link next to it leads to a site which claims it will be out "TBA".

Is this a false edit or...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.6.39 (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The infobox reads "TBA"; I'll check the body of text and remove any erroneous references to that date. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, Satoryu got it. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 06:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's back up again and then it was down again. Okay, I see it's just a joker now. Damn, I thought that may be the correct date... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.6.39 (talk • contribs) 06:49, Jan 2, 2008

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

Yes but I'm talking about the European release date, not the american one. Feb 10th is the american, the european is supposed to be Jan 25th. PS: Why did you delete that on the article? 88.24.7.133 (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Becuase this article almost exclusivly uses only offical sources. But the offical site does not mention a date at all.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What he said. Two online retailers and a message board on GameFAQs are hardly reliable sources. Coreycubed (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the unlikelihood that Europe will see this game before Japan or NA. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 18:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But the UK got Mario Strikers Charged before Japan, so it could happen again. I'm not saying it will, but anyway. Pezzar (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because it's a soccer game ... more likely to be popular in Europe than Japan or North America. The other Smash Bros. games were released in Europe after Japan and North America.  There's no news from Nintendo on the release date, and boards are filled with rumors but have no qualifiers and don't fall under the category of reliable sources.  --Son (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Delay
I've been hearing from various sources - such as EB Games - that Brawl is being delayed in Canada until March 1, can this be confirmed?

WiiDS (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not unless you've got a reliable source that the rest of us don't know about. Coreycubed (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes little sense anyways. All of North America is one region as far as the video game market is concerned; individual countries don't get their own delays.  Stores getting shipments in late for random reasons, sure, but official delays?  No. Arrowned (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And just a reminder, stores are not good and/or reliable sources for information, regardless of the game or country. JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been answering this question to people on many forums, I wasn't expecting it to appear on Wikipedia, but I'll just copy paste my answer from Gamefaqs: "Release dates for the US are called NA release dates. You know why? NA=North America. It is not a US-only release. Everybody stop trusting Best Buy and such. Even if Canada's release date was delayed then you can just get an American one, Canada's Wii's are not region locked against US games. So my fellow Canadians: STOP WORRYING ABOUT IT!". Also sorry if I sound harsh here, Gamefaqs does that to you.Unknownlight (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not the first refugee from GameFAQs to post here. Welcome to a somewhat lighter side of the web :) Coreycubed (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I made my GameFaqs account after my Wikipedia one, but whatever.Unknownlight (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I beleve EB Games... it's just that my friends do, so I wanted to prove them wrong by posting this on Wikipedia to see what you guys say. Thanks for your help, my friends are now speechless! :D WiiDS (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Perhaps these don't know the info is already there because it was integrated into an existing paragraph; the note is between the Feb 10 delay and the EU release date. Perhaps it should be made a little more visible.Satoryu (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Fix-Upping
I can't help but feel that people need to loosen up a bit on this article. Almost any edit made gets reverted unless "certain people" deem it appropriate. Now I honestly don't read reverts or anything so I dunno who or what, but I don't think this article can really change unless more edits are allowed. If someone wants to add new info in an ORGANIZED manner, why remove it?

Ragingtsunami726 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because we are adding info in such a manner. Anything in that article was both (a) leaked by  and (b) discussed over on this talk page and found to be worthwhile to include.  If we were to include everything, we'd be turning into a game guide. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But there is a difference between including detailed info and making a game guide. I can't recall when, but for example on the subject of new characters added to old series I changed a sentence from Meta-Knight was in to Meta Knight and Dedede, which was reverted instantly. Tell me how that was constructive. Mentioning new characters in an unobstuctive way is good for helping people who may not check character lists or anything and just go straight here for info. I AM NOT SAYING THIS ARTICLE NEEDS A CHARACTER LIST. Ragingtsunami726 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need to add those; see Super Smash Bros. (series) where characters are marked accordingly as they are announced. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 04:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ragingtsunami726, I hope you don't take this as a discouragement, but you must understand that there is a lot of thought that goes into what's added and removed (and yes, even reverted). For example, I'd bet that you were trying to make that edit during the lengthy discussion on the talk page (found under Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 23). To you, it may have been an obvious contribution, but to people who have been working on improving this article for months, it was going to be reverted because we hadn't reached a consensus yet. If you read the link, you'll see why the decision was made the way it was. If you want to be involved in new content and don't want to have it reverted, bring it up on the talk page and be prepared to defend your edits. Coreycubed (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Prot
I have semi-protected the article for a fortnight due to the rampant speculative, half-true, and bull edits from IPs. If there are any objections to this, voice them here with the reason why you object. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been semi protected for months, go on as long you feel like. I hope that you lock down the article completely for the first release day.--Henke37 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not unless there's vandalism or unsourced additions. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 03:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling that is not be unlikely to happen. Oh, yeah, that's maybe why I asked for it. Can you at least try to keep the page under extra observation that day?--Henke37 (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry; we'll all be keeping extra careful watch of this page around launch I'm sure, and if vandalism gets ridiculous, we'll ask for the appropriate measures to be taken ASAP. Arrowned (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need to ask - I have this page watchlisted and will protect when necessary. However, should I become so caffeinated I'm singing "Old Time Rock & Roll" wearing nothing but my underwear and sunglasses, you might want to ask at RPP.
 * And, Henke, Wikipedia's prot-pol expressly forbids what you're asking for, which amounts to a preemptive protection. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I don't ask for the protection now, I did read that page (after asking). I can not find anything about full page protection not being used for preemptive protection.--Henke37 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there will be a lot of vandalism on release day, unless the game turns out to be a big dissapointment. I don't think that preemptive protection will be necessary; although that is just my opinion :). RC-0722 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:PROT. Specifically:

Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes.
 * If a lesser measure is not permitted for that purpose, a greater measure is certainly not warranted. Or, to put it another way, if Action B (semi-prot) is a subset of Action A (full-prot), and Action B is not permitted in situation Z (preventive prot), then neither will Action A. Coreycubed (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep a pretty good eye on the page as well, I agree that it will likely need to be fully protect on the days surrounding launch, but I'll be too busy playing the game to worry about that. :) Useight (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't want to full-prot the page preemptively, even if we could. When Brawl comes out, there's most likely going to be a large amount of valuable information for this article that can only be discovered at/after launch. I also don't see why people might vandalize more just because it's getting close to its launch. Although Dojo only has about a month left, more things will have been confirmed at the day before launch than when it was first announced, leading me to believe less vandalism will occur on that day. That's just my logical opinion, I've never been around on Wiki for a major game launch before. DancingZombies (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Having been here for the D/P Dance, I will state that upon release, one of two things will happen:
 * People who aren't fans of the series will tend to try and sneak-attack the articles of the most-released stuff.
 * People who leaked information (see also Serebii.net and the fallout from that) will happily vandalize the article in their vindication.
 * -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we add Olimar?
It's inevitable, but how are you guys going to go about adding in Olimar?

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

While Olimar is indeed a slightly unexpected character for Brawl, and his battle style should prove to be very interesting and unique, we can't and won't add every new character to this page. Epic third-parties (i.e. Sonic) are okay, but generics like King Dedede just aren't important enough. DancingZombies (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He is far too important a character to leave out. He is unlike the ice climbers. He is more like a mix of Pokemon Trainer and Ice Climber. He has the help of five other pikmin, who he apparently does not start out with.

"Goodness! Captain Olimar joins the fray with five colors of Pikmin in tow! He plucks Pikmin from the ground and they fight as his allies."

Plus, the pikmin don't stay with him for the whole fight. They either scatter or supposedly die.

"And the short-lived Pikmin tend to scatter. Theirs is a fated symbiotic relationship."

And I'm pretty sure Ice Climbers can fightif one of them dies, whereas Olimar cannot.

"Without Pikmin, Olimar can’t even do a Smash Attack."

Olimar is truly a unique character, different from both Ice Climbers and Pokemon Trainer. Also notice how the name of the character is "Pikmin and Olimar". Ice Climbers aren't named Popo and Nana, nor is Pokemon Trainer called "Pokemon Trainer, Squirtle, Bulbasaur, and Charizard". That's because Olimar fights but cannot fight without the pikmin, whereas Ice Climbers work together and Pokemon Trainer lets the pokemon work for him. Olimar should be mentioned, if only a little bit. Besides, he does introduce a completely new franchise to the series and the only other first- party character doing that as of so far is Pit. He should be mentioned. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Ice Climbers can fight solo, but their attacks are weakened dramatically if one is gone, and a lone Ice Climber can't use its recovery move. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Why are third party characters the only ones that are important anymore. Olimar introduces a completely unique moveset unlike any other character. Why don't we instead take out generic characters that aren't unique and don't represent a new franchise, like meta-knight for example. He's not important at all. People might want to know a little about DIFFERENT kinds of characters that don't play normally like Samus, Ice Climbers, Pokemon Trainer, and Olimar, rather than Meta-Knight, Kirby's arch-rival. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Sorry, Meta-Knight's not in the article. But what about Diddy Kong, nothing important bout him.


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

Meta-Knight never even needed to be changed. There was just worry that if we put Dedede's name by him, the whole article would go to hell and every character ever even rumored would have to be added everywhere because we have no sense if one new character is mentioned. (or is that just what I percieved?) Ragingtsunami726 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I never understood why everyone was so concerned with that. Had Dedede been mentioned, it would just have gotten removed (which I'm sure happened at least once anyway). People are just way too sensitive about this article sometimes.

On the matter of Olimar, as interesting as he is, he does not really merit any particular mention in the article yet, for the reasons discussed above (IMHO). Erik (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we add a simple bullet list of all the other characters confirmed to be in the game, with links to their respective articles? D a n si m a n ( talk | Contribs ) 14:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean like how we have here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Smash_Bros._%28series%29#Playable_characters -Sukecchi (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand why Pit is there representing Kid Icarus, a new series added to "the fray", and Olimar can't represent Pikmin. Grey Master (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pit was one of the earliest ones revealed, as was Meta-Knight. The hapless captain was only revealed recently. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, the article is fine using the characters that are already mentioned. They serve to explain the overall mechanics of the game, not as introductions for new characters. These could be changed around without too many problems, but why bother? Adding Olimar just because he is Olimar isn't a good reason to change something that's not broken. Erik (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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

Zelda's Final Smash
Just take a look at that. I know you guys are probably just going to say anything outside of Dojo is fake and that it could have easily been photoshopped and it's not even in that great quality or whatever. But just take a look at it. It has some other info on ther too, some that we know, some that we don't and might be true. I mean, the FS given to Zelda kinda makes sense, so it's possible. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's cool and everything, but we can't put it into the article. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a fan site if so we are not allowed to use it.--DarkFierceDeityLink 23:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is information from CoroCoro. We're not adding it because the article contains no information of that variety. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it, since no one else has. That site is awful. They had fanboys going into seizures because they were "confirming" things based on that one grainy shot of something they had "multiple translators confirming!" where there wasn't even enough visible text. When they actually got scans later in the week, they recanted ("but everything else we posted was 100%"). It's an awful example of reporting and the farthest cry from a source that I've seen in a long time. Don't even think about using it here, or here. (edit: and now bandwidth has taken them offline. good riddance.) Coreycubed (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not Dojo not acceptableBaconBoy914 (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But it's from another acceptable source: CoroCoro. It still doesn't matter: we don't have any information like that in the article. -Sukecchi (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, if there was a reliable source translating CoroCoro, and if it was relevant, it might go in the other article. Why does it even matter? Game's out in a few weeks anyways. Coreycubed (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not enough information about the site, not even on the site itself, to see it as reliable. I am always pro giving someone a chance, but this is just too vague.
 * Besides that, the information seems to have been taken down. JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter anyway, since there's no reason to include that information in the article. No character currently has their Final Smash explicitly described in that manner within it, and I don't see why this would change anything. Erik (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We should includ a image of 1 as a example —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.245.2 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 January 2008
 * No - all Final Smashes are different, and some of them are not immediately obvious as such (i.e. Wario-Man and Diddy Kong). -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 22:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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

It is rated T because of Cartoon Violence and Crude Humor, so, I doubt if it has those two things it would be rated E. Epass (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In and of itself the Crude Humor would have more likely than not elicited an E10 rating, not an E. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 23:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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