![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Maybe someone could see the SSB Series article in Japanese??? -- Mr.Mario 192 ( talk) 01:23, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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)
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.→ 041744 12:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:
- Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.(Note the how-to restriction does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia.) Also telling the reader how something is used is encyclopedic, telling how to use something is not.) If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks.
- Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not a place to re-create content more suited to entries in hotel guides, culinary guides, popular eating guides, gazeteers, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet inclusion criteria, but Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel, however.
- Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
- Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource.
-- WP:GAMEGUIDE
One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world. Articles on episodes of television series, or fictional characters in movies are more likely to be labeled fancruft if they are primarily summaries, biographies of made-up people, or collections of trivia that relate to the continuity of a series rather than its critical or social reception. In fact, an article should not be entirely composed of summaries or biographies of fictional characters. Articles can often avoid being labeled fancruft if they avoid focusing on their subjects as fiction. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for more about how to achieve this. -- Wikipedia:Fancruft#Tone and focus Take note that this is only an essay.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
They just confirmed Rayquaza as a boss in today's update! We should update the FAQ and other information. Fangz of Blood 21:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.-- Smashbrosboy 01:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
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 [1] [2] [3], Kotaku [4], and MP3.com [5], 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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? Dansiman ( talk| Contribs) 14:05, 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)
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)
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)
[3]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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=
and |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=
and |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=
and |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=
and |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=
and |coauthors=
(
help)