Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Archive 2 2 Giga Bowser 2.1 Comments 3 Unlock 4 Wait for Peach until she is confirmed! 5 Stupid Sandbag is not a character! 6 Zero Suit Samus 7 Why no Metal Mario? 8 Pokemon Trainer 9 Rewrite NPC 10 Peach as Playable character 11 Redirects and Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters 12 General Character List Idea 13 Last Names and Titles 14 Luigi 15 Hammer Bro as a playable character? 16 Giga Bowser is in Brawl

Archive 2

The page was growing larger than the orginal archive, 8 KBs more to be exact, I made into Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)/Archive 2→041744 22:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Giga Bowser

To continue the previous discussion on whether or not Giga Bowser should be on the Playable Characters list. While I personally think he should be on it but has been decided that he should not be. Of course people are disputing this hence this discussion. The Light6 05:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I think that this discussion is not truly if giga bowser should be on the table or not but weather the characters table is for full characters or for the main characters, power ups and final smash attacks. If we include every power up such as giga Bowser, The table Would look like the NPC table with every pokemon and Assist trophy, there are bound to be more Fianl smashs like bowser's, we can't include every character that is just playable for a few seconds(which does not include Zero Suit samus) In the table Can We? What would differentiate full characters from the countless final smashes? That is no way to organize a encyclopedia.→041744 12:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to the fact that it appears to be the same 3 people that don't want G-Bowser to be included, I've added this poll to get the general opinion of what the majority of people thinks about including this:

Fighter	SSB	Melee	Brawl	Series
Bowser	N	Y	Y3	Mario series
Notes: 3. In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Bowser's Final Smash allows him to temporarily transform into Giga Bowser.

Everyone is allowed to vote on whether or not we should include this note to the page, we should then decide what to do based on what the majority wants. Please sign your posts or your vote wont count.

• Agree I think that this should be included on the page as he is a temporary playable character, as said by Sakurai here Pluvia 15:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• DisagreeBowser's ability to transform into Giga Bowser is mentioned in the Giga Bowser section this article. No one is saying you're wrong, you know. -Sukecchi 15:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree I still don't get why the same three people think that Giga Bowser is a separate character from Bowser. Disaster Kirby^Talk 15:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Being able to temporarily turn into Giga Bowser has nothing to do with Bowser's playability in this game. It should just be mentioned in the Giga Bowser section. Depressio 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree It's already mentioned in Gigas section. There is no need to mention it again. Dengarde ► Complaints 17:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree For the same reasons that have already been mentioned above. Arrowned 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree per above. — Malcolm (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree. I've made previous statements. See Archive 2. --Son 21:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Giga Bowser is diffrent enough from Bowser to be considered a diffrent character, also note that he is becoming playable in a sense in ssbb. BassxForte 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Only those who are in the character section of the Smash Bros. Dojo website should be included in the list of characters. Bowser is in that section. Giga Bowser isn't. Therefore Giga Bowser should not be on the list and his status as Bowser's final smash should be mentioned in Giga Bowser's section. Ixistant 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Yup, if the creators intended him to be a separate character they would have given him a separate move list and feature article like Zero Suit Samus has gotten.Rglong 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Disagree, Per my Comment above this poll.→041744 05:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree The Giga Bowser from Melee & the one in Brawl are not the same. The playable one for Brawl is way smaller. Joey368 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree I understand why we wouldn't want to give Giga Bowser a row like other full characters. I do think that he should at least get a note mentioning he is playable. Yes, his section at the bottom does mention that he is temporarily playable, but that is at the bottom of the page, not on the playable character list. -(Vert Bandit 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC))
• Disagree Giga Bowser is just an attack, not a character. He is different from Zero Suit Samus because she stays in that form for the remainder of the match, and different from Sheik because you can switch to him for the remainder of the match. 81.240.177.91 08:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Giga Bowser is a separate entity from Bowser. If anything, this note should be below Giga Bowser, not Bowser. C. Pineda 05:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Hold it, hold it, hold it, Giga bowser doesn't deserve a spot on the page just because he has yet to be covered on the ssbb website? So if we knew of the "Zero-Suit Samus" name but the website never talked of her as a diffrent character, she wouldn't count as a seperate character? BassxForte 22:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with him there. The "He's not listed on Dojo" comments are just stupid. If thats the case, why are Meta Knight and Snake on the list? (Though I still stand by my comment above) Dengarde ► Complaints 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Meta Knight and Snake are there because they had profiles on the old website. I do think the Dojo thing isn't a good argument; why did we add Donkey Kong before he appeared on Dojo? Because he was shown fighting in an E3 video. — Malcolm (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Hm, y'know, I don't think all of the reasons have ever been listed all in one place. I'll try to summarize the key reasons that have been made.
      
      1. Giga Bowser is only temporarily playable (whereas Zero Suit Samus is effectively playable indefinitely, once you "unlock" her).
      2. Unlike Zero Suit Samus, Giga Bowser doesn't have a different moveset from regular Bowser, except for the elemental properties of some attacks.
      3. Despite what people think, Giga Bowser is not a separate character from Bowser. Giga Bowser may have originated in Melee, but that doesn't mean he isn't still just a transformation of Bowser.
      
      I think some people dispute that #3 could also be applied to Zero Suit Samus, but the fact that she has an entirely different moveset and other statistics from Power Suit Samus effectively makes her a separate character, hence the reason why Nintendo insisted on giving Zero Suit Samus her own character page.
      Also, Meta Knight and Snake were featured on the first version of the Brawl website, both have been featured in gameplay video footage, and Meta Knight has been making appearances in several of the screenshots in recent updates, which is why they're on the list. (If I missed a reason as to why Giga Bowser isn't on the list that was mentioned here, feel free to mention it. I think I covered the main reasons though...) Disaster Kirby^Talk 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• If Giga Bowser had a profile on Dojo this debate would probably have never started but what note is that we don't know why G-Bowser doesn't have a profile. It could be because the creators don't consider him a proper character as he is temporary and/or a final smash move or that he is so similar to Bowser with the same moveset and all that the creators deemed it unnecessary to give him his own profile. Unfortunately we do not know however their may be a circumstance where we may know and while could allow this debate to end. If another temporary character which is transformation brought on by the final smash is revealed and it's different enough to the untransformed state eg. Ganondorf and Ganon, then if they don't give them a profile then we know the creators don't consider them characters and we can leave them off the list while if they do get a profile we can assume that G-Bowser was too similar too Bowser to warrant a profile. The Light6 06:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we should just change the NPC list to something more general. Make it so that it's a list of characters that began as a result of the Smash Bros. series. That way, you can put a check next to Giga Bowser's name. Just before the list starts, you can state that Giga Bowser is an exception in that he's not playable just like the other NPCs from the first two games, but playable in Brawl. Oubliette 13:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • A section name change just to check a character off is silly, it would be like changing a section named "100" to "10x10". There are just to many bad scenarios if we change the section name like "what if a game specific character that appears playable, would list it twice?" or if "A new NPC character that is close enough to a other character but is never said that they are the same, Where is that listed?". The NPC section is fine as it is; If it ain't broke don't fix it.→041744 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying we should put Giga Bowser in the Playable Character section. It's just that the characters in the current NPC section were predominantly created to appear as Smash foes. If we state that instead of stating that they're NPC people, perhaps the debates that Giga Bowser should or should not be in the Playable Character section will end. He'll already be in a section, checked off, and will not have to be added to another section. Besides, what's wrong with "100" to "10x10" if it's the same result? Not that it reflects my idea, mine is more like "100" to "100 + 1". You get Giga Bowser checked off as something, the people who want him checked will stop complaining, the people who don't feel he is a full-fledged character yet ZSS is get to keep him off the main list, everyone wins. Oubliette 00:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry for how I might come off, but we are here to uphold the rules of wikipedia, not to make people have everything they want on this page.→041744 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry I spoke without thinking.→041744 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What makes my suggestion violate Wikipedia's policy? Oubliette 01:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Understood. Oubliette 02:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a simple switch. The section is meant to list characters that were created mainly for Smash. Master Hand, who has made a cameo appearance in some Kirby games, would still fit. I'm pretty sure that whoever created him years ago wasn't planning for him to be in Amazing Mirror, a game that wasn't even in production at the time. Plus, Roy was created for Fire Emblem. Even though he debuted in Melee, he was explicitly stated to be a Fire Emblem character in that game, is a playable character there anyway, and does not have a Smash Bros. logo. The idea is bulletproof, yet you don't want it put up because it seems "fine as it is"? If it was fine, we wouldn't have this poll up, and people would not be complaining or upset afterward about whatever the result will be.

And if it's "fine as it is" only because you don't want to change the list title yourself, i'll be more than happy to edit it in. Oubliette 01:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to change something like that just to please a couple people. -Sukecchi 10:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense. At least we wouldn't have to make this poll over and over. It's not like a proposition to rewrite the entire article. The new section just explains that these characters originated for Smash to the reader. Oubliette 13:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should understand the diffrence between a "playable character" (PC) and a "non-playable character" (NPC), a playable character is a character the player can directly control, a non-playable character is a character the player cannot directly control barring cheating/hacking devices. BassxForte 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is why I say make the current "non-playable character" section slightly more general. I understand the difference between a playable character and a NPC fully - i'm not saying (nor have I ever suggested) that we should combine the two lists. If Giga Bowser can be directly controlled in Brawl but not in Melee, he's still in the game. Having him marked as a ? is only going to be misleading to the reader. It would appear inconsistent with the paragraph format below the initial list, and they will only question why Giga Bowser was excluded from such a list for the sole reason of being "playable" (however temporary). The current list of NPCs includes characters linked together as Smash-themed opponents. Focusing on that instead of the characters being NPCs in the first and second games would not compromise anything. Oubliette 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To those of you who think the mention in Giga Bowser's section isn't enough...my response: Why mention it twice? -Sukecchi 23:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why do you have the current list of NPCs in the first place? By your logic, it's easier to remove it and keep the paragraph descriptions. Or do you plan on removing the paragraph format instead, keeping the list of NPCs only? At least Giga Bowser would be up only once. My point is that he's not there (on the list with Master Hand, Sandbag, etc.) at all now. Oubliette 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The game treats Giga Bowser as a wholly diffrent character, Giga bowser's symbol isn't Bowser's, in the Kanto stadium his name is registered as "G-Bowser" and there are multiple roars from him that can be found in sound test that aren't heard in-game, all this indicateshe was meant to be a playable character seperate from Bowser. BassxForte 01:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand he is considered seperate from Bowser, and that he may have been meant to be playable. If he wasn't, no one would write a whole paragraph about him in the first place. What you said about his logo being different is exactly what I am referring to. This logo that Giga Bowser has confirms that he is of Smash Bros. origin in concept. I am suggesting that we change the list title to that, then put a check next to Giga Bowser as he is a Smash Bros. origin character that makes an appearance in Brawl. No descriptions of characters need to be changed. Oubliette 02:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement. BassxForte 03:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We agree on Giga Bowser having been meant to be playable. However, what do you feel about changing the section from NPC to Smash Origin? Would stop this whole poll process from ever surfacing again, as these lists that felt it was necessary to include the Hands and the small fry teams acknowledged G-Bowser. Oubliette 03:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To change a section name just to stop a poll from coming up again is pointless. Unless there is really important new information about a NPC, we can just direct questioners to this section either way this turns out. So this wouldn't "surface again" if that's your whole arguement.→041744 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not just that, it's just so that we have to list Giga Bowser once in a list. Also, since he's listed under the Smash Origin category, we wouldn't have to put footnotes detailing that Bowser transforms into him. He's in Melee, playable or not. He's also in Brawl, playable or not. All I want is acknowledgement of it. I also want to know why this method does not "uphold the rules of wikipedia". Would you rather watch these arguments come up on the talk page from different people over and over? Ending the poll is just a byproduct. Oubliette 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As of right now, all the NPCs happen to be of "Smash Origin." What if, in Brawl, it turns out that there are some NPCs from other series. What if Sonic is in Brawl, but is an NPC? What if...well, this is all speculation. Status quo is fine for the NPC section. My suggestion is that we add a line saying that all of the NPCs are not seen in any other game series. --Son 14:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes little sense. For one thing, Master Hand appears in Kirby and the Amazing Mirror. After he's defeated, the player receives the Smash ability. Also, it's not like we're not going to list Goombas and Koopas as NPCs just to write paragraphs about them, they probably have their own articles. They have no logo, they take a set amount of hit points and then they're dead. The people on the Smash Origin list all have the smash logo, which is meant to detail their origin. Oubliette 15:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But what if there is an NPC that is not of Smash Bros. origin? Then we would have to change the name of the table back to Non-playable characters, instead of calling it Smash Origin characters. --Son 16:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A character that is not of Smash bros. origin will get a section wherever they are mentioned on wikipedia, non-smash bros. origin characters are always currently existing characters. BassxForte 16:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

An NPC that is not of Smash Bros. origin would likely either have a full moveset programmed, or be an Assist Trophy. I doubt anyone wants to list Assist trophies. If they did have a complete enough moveset, why not just make them playable? Still, are you referring to the Hammer Bro.? He's clearly an enemy from Adventure Mode, but I doubt he'd have a damage percentage or logo emblazoned on the screen. Oubliette 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to get off track, but Hammer Bro is an Assist Trophy in Brawl. Disaster Kirby^Talk 03:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware. He appears as an antagonist in The Subspace Emissary. Fox is kicking his hammer back at him. Do you think he's an NPC with a damage percentage? It seems unlikely. Oubliette 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. I forgot about that screenshot. How embarassing. Disaster Kirby^Talk 03:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It was just one screenshot of many, it's forgettable. Oubliette 03:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so, what's the decision here? Four people are for that addition and twelve are against. I think it's clear what the consensus is, buku. -Sukecchi 19:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about the poll and not my suggestion, right? Oubliette 21:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

of course, if I was talking about your suggestion my comment would be under yours. -Sukecchi 10:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlock

I think this page needs to be unlocked so we can add things to it. It is missing some info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclone1993 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It can still be edited by some people. (Me included), so no worries there. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And...what info? Could you be a bit specific? -Sukecchi 23:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have Peach listed as a character and she has been in pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclone1993 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Peach is only in the FMV, she hasn't appeared in any screenshots of playing the game. When she does, she will be added. -Sukecchi 02:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed before (see archive 2) and it was decide despite the fact we know she will be in the game we don't know what role or purpose she would serve, although we assume that she will be playable there is no proof saying straight out that she will be playable, so adding her has been held off until it is proven that she is indeed playable such proof would most likely be a character profile on Dojo. Also about unprotecting the article, this article is the subject of numerous bogas edits and vandalism especially by unregistered users so unprotecting it would be a bad idea, also if you looked closely would would have seen that it is only semi-protected "Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled" so if you have an account that older then 4 days then you should be able to edit the article. The Light6 06:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait for Peach until she is confirmed!

Yes, she's in the video, but she must be confirmed without a doubt as a playable character. In other words, wait for the Dojo to put up her feature article on the website as they have done with everyone else.Rglong 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well,didn't we have Mario,and a few others when we saw the first video?DOJO didn't have a Mario profile back then.We know for a fact that Peach is playable,as she come to help Mario,Kirby,and Zelda?Metaknight doesn't have a profile up yet,and we said "He's playable."Do you understand where i'm coming from?-SLJCOAAATR

Stop using Meta Knight as a freaking example. He's in screenshots of actual gameplay. -Sukecchi 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you not get the concept of 'gameplay footage'? Meta Knight has been seen in gameplay footage and in-battle screenshots, hence why he is on the list despite not being 'listed' on the site yet (same goes for Snake, but the recent lack of his appearances makes me think that he may be a secret character). In Peach's case, we've only seen her in an FMV, and a screenshot from that FMV. It may be obvious that Peach will be a playable character, but since that video doesn't specifically show her fighting, we can't prove that she is a playable character. Wikipedia isn't a place to just assume things. Disaster Kirby^Talk 23:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

When Donkey was seen in a video he was added without being confirmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.39.74 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And that was gameplay footage. We could clearly see Donkey Kong fighting Pikachu and Mario in the last bit of that video, so it was obvious that Donkey Kong was a playable character at that point. Disaster Kirby^Talk 23:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually we did see one of Peach's moves in the FMV.She twirled her umbrella,and zoomed up with Zelda to help fight with Mario,and Kirby.I bet by the end of the week,Peach will have a profile up.Also,in last year's E3 video,Snake was only shown in an FMV video,and didn't use any attacks (Unless you consider hiding under a box an attack.) yet we confirmed him to be playable.I believe his profile on the old site didn't come up for a bit longer.-SLJCOAAATR

FREAKING SCREENSHOTS. Are you not understanding this? Snake was in several in game shots and the second trailer showed him fighting. he shot a freaking rocket launcher at Pit! Why aren't you grasping that we've seen them in screenshots of the actual game before? - Sukecchi 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

When snake emerged from his box it said "NEWCOMER SNAKE", impling he was playable, but with peach it was all FMV with no actual gameplay. It also never implied she was playable or showed her actually fighting, so wait for her profile if (yes IF, don't bite my head off) it comes.→041744 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I say we wait until final confirmation, especially since some of the comments are close to personal attacks, it is clear she was running to help Mario and Kirby, in my opinion that means she's confirmed, but Wikipedia's rules are not arugable. BassxForte 19:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But in most video games as soon as we see a PIC of a char we add them. Not even gameplay pics.

Wikipedia is very paranoid about ssbb. BassxForte 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay people,let's just wait a week,or 2,by then,Peach's profile should be up.And BassxForte,that's why i'm saying she's confirmed,and yes people are getting quite paranoid here,it makes me wonder why i even go online anymore.I'm sick of people yelling at me that i'm wrong,then,a bit later,new info. (about 90% of the time.) proves me correct.My agrument about S.P.M. being only for Wii on Amazon.com,and many other things on many different sites.I'm also in an argument on the Ben10 video game page about when the game takes place,and about Cream being in Sonic Rivals 2.-SLJCOAAATR

Really now, Wikipedia's not paranoid. It just has rules that have to be followed. We all know Peach will be playable (anybody who actually believes otherwise is pretty much fooling themselves), but as she has yet to appear in a screenshot or video that physically shows her fighting in the game engine itself, she's not confirmed as far as Wikipedia is concerned. By trying to claim she is, we run the risk of a later editor or administrator reverting our edits on the basis of speculation. It's easier to just leave it alone until there's absolutely no question.

So in conclusion, it's not really necessary to confuse our actions with a personal vendetta to strike down your opinion or anything like that. We're really on the same side, you know. Arrowned 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to the ssbb page a lot of people seem to have gotton paranoid about the verifiability, but I guess that paranoia is the only thing that's keeping the ssbb page from being ripped apart by speculators. However, I think the "wait for Peach to be confirmed as a character" is just getting more and more retarded. BassxForte 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrowned:I can settle on that.Let's all just leave it at she WILL be playable,we know that for a fact.But not change the playable character list until she gets a profile.I can deal with that.What upsets me is the exactly what BassxForte said.I completely agree with that.-SLJCOAAATR

SLJCOAAATR, why don't you just get an account already? So you can sign your replies properly?

The fact is, Wikipedia has rules and we have to follow them. If you don't like them then don't come here. -Sukecchi 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to direct you to this. BassxForte 01:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sukecchi:I don't use the site often enough to have an account.I doubt i'll be here much longer so,to me it's a waste when i'll only use it a few times throughout the year.-SLJCOAAATR

CSpuppydog: I cant figure out how her being in that video isnt proof enough that she isnt gonna be in the game... for gods sake poeople... Im pretty sure that it is confromation. God damn people whats the big deal with saying she isnt in it anyway?

Yes, Peach is in the game. There's no denying that. But what hasn't been confirmed is if she is a playable character or not.--Satoryu 20:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

CSpuppydog: Wow... you really think she isnt a playable character? Oh god... I still dont see the harm of saying she is playable right now...

We all know that Peach will be playable. It's just that she hasn't been shown as a playable character yet. And until there is proof that she is playable, whether it be from a gameplay video, screenshot, or the Dojo gives her a page, saying she is playable is speculation.--Satoryu 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Disgustingly correct speculation, but speculation. BassxForte 23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How about we just change the page to say "Although shown in an FMV,there is still not enough information known about Peach's appearence to have a proper article on her appearence as a playable character in Brawl."Sound good enough?-SLJCOAAATR

Princess Peach has been confirmed already through the video, and the reconfirmation of Sheik and Ganondorf through a recent interview with Nintendo's Zelda series master, Eiji Aonuma too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanueltru (talk • contribs)

With all due respect... did you not read any of this discussion before you posted that? Also, new posts go at the bottom of sections, not the top. Arrowned 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone making a comment on what i said before?-SLJCOAAATR

No, leave the page as is. It's not as if people won't still try to add her. --Satoryu 20:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

FINE...-SLJCOAAATR

Pardon me for adding Peach. I didnt saw all this discussion

Can I surgically inject some logic into this situation? Sakurai would not add peach in a video if not playable, especially next to zelda, mario, and kirby. Sakurai made melee, so it is completely PROBABLE that peach and every other charater in melee. Plus, dk was shown in a video before he was announced. my last point, is that peach and other characters mede the game FUN. isn't it nice to put away the hero for a while and use a normally not playable NPC? Wii2-13 00:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(I hate edit conflicts) *sigh* Did you read this entire section before making that comment? Peach isn't shown fighting, so she isn't confirmed she is playable (however likely she will be). DK was put in because he was shown fighting. And that last part is your opinion. — Malcolm (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true, Peach will most likely be in the game, but we still can't add her until she is 100% confirmed. Being in that video made it very probable, but still not 100% to be in it. We can't add any one until it explicitly says that they're in it. Depressio 01:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

By this logic, we can remove Meta-Knight and Snake.--209.243.31.233 09:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No as Snake and Meta-Knight were confirmed even on the old site, the new site hasn't added back their profiles yet but that is no reason to removed them because that would be speculation that they have been removed from the player characters. The Light6 10:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't rocket science, people. Regardless of how much sense it makes, regardless of what rumors you may have heard, regardless of any other speculation you're "99%" sure about, it all still amounts to speculation! Wikipedia hosts fact, not speculation, and what we lack right now, at this very moment, are facts. Seriously, what's so hard about waiting another few weeks until you add Peach as a confirmed character? STLocutus 14:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank God! Peach has finally been confirmed! now this senseless battle can finally end! C. Pineda 07:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, can I scream for joy at the end of this idiotic conversation? BassxForte 17:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Stupid Sandbag is not a character!

It's just a damn object. Why isn't Bob-omb featured as a NPC then? It seems really silly to me to come to this article and see that dumbass sandbag getting an entire paragraph. (don't be offended by my tone, it's totally toward the sandbag, not at people)Rglong 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would it even be a character it doesn't have any arms or legs. Its just a bag. And don't be mad at the sandbag it never did anything.76.110.82.251 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If I had to guess, it's because no other NPC has a percentage meter. Don't quote me on that decision though; I wasn't around here back then to see how that consensus ended. Arrowned 17:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember, consensus can change. --Son 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sandbag is a character. Notice the eyes, the fact that he gets up by himself if knocked down, his percentage meter, and the fact that he's playable via hacking? Sandbag is a character. Bomb-Omb is an item. Dengarde ► Complaints 17:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before: "sandbag, he does have a symbol(the smash bros. symbol, as with all NPCs in that section) and damage meter, however because his role requires him to be a scingoat, he was given no moveset." And as the comment above has pointed out a Bob-omb is a item like pokemon and assist trophies, with one move or attack and no damge meter. Every character has a damage meter, but since Pokemon Assit trophies and a Bob-ombs have no Damage meter they are not "true" characters by this page's standard. As such they are not on this table. Just because you can't control something doesn't mean that is is a NPC.→041744 19:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

041744 is correct, the only thind which makes sandbag different from the other non-playable characters is the lack of a moveset which is unrequired for its role as 041744 also pointed out. The only reason to say that it doesn't count would be to say that a character requires a moveset to be in the list. While if that were agreed on it would be good enough reason to prevent any pokeball pokemon or assist trophy characters being added to the list the current decision seems to go along the lines of things which are defined by the game as characters and as it is playable through hacking it proves that sandbag was programmed as a character lacking a moveset. The Light6 06:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandbag is playable through hacking - bobombs are not. Sandbag lacks a complete moveset, yes. But sandbag does have the ability to jump! When playing as sandbag through hacked means, pressing the jump button will make him jump. (Although, double jumping will cause freezing). ~Kae.

Sandbag also has a trophy that mentions that it likes getting hit. Showing that he has some individuality. BassxForte 19:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no legit reason for having Sandbag as an NPC. Action Replay means nothing so stop mentioning that. He has no animations and is not on-par with NPCs like MasterHand and the Polygyon/Frame teams. Remove him.--ChibiMrBubbles 17:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove him. He has a logo and a damage counter. Oubliette 17:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The action replay proves that programming wise he is a character and I believe he does have a few animations eg. getting back up, but as said before because of his role he was giving minimum programming. The Light6 06:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the home-run contest challenge, if you jump to the other side of sand-bag, he will turn to face you. BassxForte 18:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well he must be alive then!Rglong 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

All characters who appear on Melee's debug list are characters. Period. Sandbag is on that list. Period. Though he appears on the character list, he is not playable through normal means. Period. He is a non-playable character. Period.

He was programmed as a character. He is not playable. He is a non-playable character. End of debate. -(Vert Bandit 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Yeah he was obviously meant to be a "character" - and that's why the game freezes if you hack into it with a third party device and try to force it to make sandbag into a "character".Rglong 23:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is a character otherwise he would not be playable with hacking devices, also the game doesn't just freeze by using sandbag it freezes when someone tries to do something with sandbag which wasn't programmed and as said already the reason he wasn't programmed with moves is because of his role in the game. However sandbag is capable of jumping and moving around the stage. The Light6 03:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandbag freezes so easily because he was never intended to be a playable character. He was intended to stand, face the player, and take a beating. He has a damage meter. He is an NPC. The game can also freeze if you win as Giga Bowser. Giga Bowser was never intended to be playable, so he has no victory poses, and the game freezes. He must not be a character because of that. If freezing the game is what it takes to be removed from the (non-playable) character list, then take him off, too. You have two options: accept the fact that Sandbag is a NPC, or take of both Sandbag and Giga Bowser because they both freeze the game when using Action Replay to control them. -(Vert Bandit 07:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

To add to this, the game also freezes if you win with Male Wireframe, Female Wireframe, Master Hand, and Crazy Hand. Just because a game freezes when cheats are used to play as NPCs, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be on the NPC list. -(Vert Bandit 04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

Also in this pic the game has labelled sandbag "CP" which means Computer Player, it appears over any characters heads who are being controlled by the computer. That is proof that he is a character and since he is not playable by normal means he is a non-playable character. The Light6 04:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, the last dozen or so posts are all in agreement, and the page still has him listed as an NPC for reasons stated above. Unless there are any malcontents, we can stop talking about it now...Coreycubed 04:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is good to see a consensus helping wikipedia rather then hurting it for once. BassxForte 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Zero Suit Samus

No, I'm not saying remove her but there is a little note on the page that you get ZSS when she uses her Final Smash. Isn't she an actual character?--12.210.228.164 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No..."you get ZSS when she uses her Final Smash." — Malcolm (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Why no Metal Mario?

Everyone knows it exists from game. It's silly thing to leave out. I would like some explanation. K^ aka Fooly-Dooly-00000 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Metal Mario is caused by an item now. This is going to turn into a Giga Bowser-esque discussion, and I think you should take him off the list until you see what other people think. -Sukecchi 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as a specific Metal Mario and Metal Luigi have appeared in two of the games so far, I don't see any reason not to include them. If they had just turned it into a random metal character (like they did with the giant battle), there would be no reason to have it, but he has been specifically included in both games. TTN 23:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts; So I was wondering why can't we. Besides, as TTN has said, Metal has been NPC, so it does belong in the list. K^ aka Fooly-Dooly-00000 00:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed before but if it has to be discussed again let me point out why he wasn't on there before here and here. The Light6 06:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because it was discussed before doesn't mean the right decision was made. Metal Mario was definitely a NPC in the first game, just like Giga Bowser was in the next game. Unlike Giga Bowser, Metal Mario even had his own stage! The rationale for excluding him has never been convincing, particularly since the idiotic sandbag ITEM is listed as a NPC and he isn't.Rglong 16:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

1. The sandbag is a character. 2. Metal Mario counts as a Mario character, and the only characters you get a description of on this page are characters unique to the smash series. BassxForte 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In SSB 1 Metal was an NPC though. And in SSBM he was unique because he NEVER turned back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SanjiSasuke (talk • contribs)

Pokemon Trainer

I for one am baffled. Do we list him as a character, or his three Pokemon? Or all four? I can't edit the page, so, yeah... DarkRyan75 07:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pokemon Are more like attacks, the site only listed Pokemon Trainer as 1 character, so thats what he should be marked as, unless the site updates it with all his Pokemon considered newcomers also

I think that we should make a note at the bottom naming the three Pokemon that Pokemon Trainer uses. -(Vert Bandit 07:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

The Pokemon Are more like attacks, the site only listed Pokemon Trainer as 1 character, so thats what he should be marked as, unless the site updates it with all his Pokemon considered newcomers also

It's hard to determine really, since Zero Suit Samus and Shiek are technically independent characters, but are only obtainable through the use of a certain move. Just like the Pokemon are only switchable through a certain move, they must also obviously play differently (speculation on my part, sorry). Regardless, it seems fine for now since it was introduced as "Pokemon Trainer" rather than "Charizard, Squirtle, and Ivysaur" InsaneZeroG 07:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not attempting to turn this into a forum or a speculative crystal ball, but I wonder why Nintendo made "Pokémon Trainer" instead of "Ash". Useight 07:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuz the anime sucks KingKon97

Because Nintendo don't want to admit that the Pokémon in the SSB series are based on the anime, even though it's kind of obvious with the voices... - MTC 07:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, we should get back to as to how to put Pokémon Trainer. Since the site says it's like playing 3 for the price of one and since they change from one pokémon to the other, I could only conclude that they are pretty much 3 separate characters. It would be stupid if they had the same special moves and according to Pokémon games, three of them can't come out of the same time. So it's bound to be that all of them have their own set of attacks. So let's put them as separate characters but put a note that they are all under Pokémon Trainer.deecee 08:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No. No no no no no. I say we stick with what the Smash Brtos Dojo says when it comes to characters. List characters under their name on the website. Only list those characters who are included on the website under the character section. In this case, the website lists Pokemon Trainer as a character. It does not list Squirtle, Ivysaur or Charizard as seperate characters. Therefore we should only include the Pokemon Trainer on the list while keeping Squirtle, Ivysaur and Charizard as fotnotes of the Pokemon Trainer character, much like how the list is roght now. Ixistant 11:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you denying the claim that Charizard, Ivysaur and Squirtle aren't playable? You already MADE the trainer's appearance in battle less interactive with him being in the background. So there is no "Brawler" if the character itself isn't in the midst of battle. Yes Charizard, Ivysaur and Squirtle deserve to be on the list either together or separately with the footnote going straight to the Trainer's footnote. Regardless, Charizard Ivysaur and Squirtle need to be acknowledged on the list in one way shape or form, and no, a petty footnote doesn't cut it because the Trainer himself doesn't do battle so he's not playable in that sense of the word, while his Pokemon are.--ChibiMrBubbles 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

On a semi-related note to the current discussion, I think Pokemon Trainer should link to Red (Pokémon) instead of Pokémon Trainer. Pokémon Trainer is only his name, Red is the actual character. Takuthehedgehog 12:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And the Trainer isn't based off Ash. If they were really doing it from the anime Squirtle would have his trademark sunglasses. We don't need to give him a name or that will cause unnecessary bickering over the name. Leave it as that, for all we know alternative costumes could be different Pokemon trainers. Hence the name Sakurai gave him, "Trainer". If he was really going to bring Red, it would had been "Pk Trainer Red". While this is a theory, it leaves space for doubt into giving the trainer an official recognition on Wikipedia.--ChibiMrBubbles 13:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

God, just make a footnote at the bottom and say "Trainer fights via Charizard, Ivysaur and Squirtle". Everyone's happy. More importantly, the info would be more precise.Rglong 16:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, yeah, just the way it is now looks great.Rglong 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that we actually have the note at the bottom, we should leave it there. There are people who are going to complain about it, but it should stay. Pokemon Trainer is basically a name for the collective of Pokemon. Trainer is like Zelda and Sheik plus one. I am pretty sure that all of the Pokemon he controls will eventually get their own pages. They will probably all have individual moves. I can understand why people don't want to add Giga Bowser to the list (I only wanted to add a footnote, anyway), but taking down this note would be stupid. -(Vert Bandit 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

NPCs are put on the page because they have a damage meter? Oh look, Charizard, Ivysaur, and Squirtle have a damage meter. They also are mentioned to be playable by Sakurai himself. So I ask again, why is no one discussing this issue? Whatever, I put it up and I'm waiting reasonable counterpoints for removing them.--ChibiMrBubbles 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I really suggest you remove them unless you get a consensus. — Malcolm (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, ChibiMrBubbles, what we could do is link Charizard, Ivysaur, Squirtle, and Pokemon Trainer to note #1. That will help avoid confusion. I don't want to do it yet because I don't even know if they will be taken down. -(Vert Bandit 21:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

I don't get it. This hurts my brain. People are 'upset' because I added playable characters but are okay with listing someone who in no way shape or form is 'playable' in the midst of battle. All 3 of them deserve to be on the list and not in a petty and worthless footnote.

People defend ZSS due to the character profile, fine. But Chikorita and other assists like Nintendogs and *forgot at the moment* dont have their pages in the site yet? Does that mean we remove any references to being assist or pokeballs? Of course not.--ChibiMrBubbles 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC) --ChibiMrBubbles 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, I say just add Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard to the list of playable characters, then add a footnote on each of them saying they are only playable through the pokemon trainer. With the footnote saying "Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard are not stand alone characters, but fighters for Pokemon Trainer". We did the same for Sheik, so thats the way we should do this as well. 65.12.159.223 22:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. --ChibiMrBubbles 22:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Pokémon Trainer should link to Red (Pokémon). The character is clearly him and there is currently no proof that there will be multiple Pokémon Trainers as Alt Costumes. Takuthehedgehog 23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't me who reverted the the first mention of Red. But since the design is off Red, I guess I could let it slide. So go for it and bite the guy who reverts it.--ChibiMrBubbles 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm waiting for the confirmation for Brawl to have each page for the Pokemons, I don't see the Trainer playing in stuff like Adventure mode. --ChibiMrBubbles 00:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See this. I did this before reading through this topic. Looking back at it, it seems rather awkward compared to what's currently on the page.

As for Adventure Mode and such, we still don't know how Trainer (whom I shall henceforth refer to as "Red") will move around even in a standard multiplayer round. Notice that in all of the screenshots, Red was in the vicinity of his monsters, so it's not like he'll be stationary in the background. Just keep an open mind. You Can't See Me! 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with linking Pokemon Trainer to Red, as the character design is clearly that from Firered/Leafgreen. The fact that he uses the three starters from Red and Blue doesn't seem like a coincidence either. On the side, I doubt that the design would change when swapping costumes; it would most likely just be a normal pallette shift. The reason he is referred to as Pokemon Trainer and not Red or Ash or Satoshi or otherwise is that in the games, the player can name him whatever they want. Sakurai seems to want to keep that in mind and not give Pokemon Trainer an actual name. Satoryu 04:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to argue for the sake of arguing, a player can also rename each Link in every LoZ game. I agree that Trainer ought to be linked to Red due to them having the exact same physical characteristics (and so that people don't confuse him with you-know-who), but I don't think it's because of the renaming thing. You Can't See Me! 04:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference between Pokemon Trainer and Link is that Link is the character's default name in the Zelda series. Red is not the only default name of a Pokemon Trainer in the Pokemon series. According to Red's page, two other default names are also Ash and Jack. As far as we know, Pokemon Trainer could have different costumes that represent different trainers. There are different appearances to male Pokemon Trainers in the series. Also, what if an alternate costume is a female Pokemon Trainer? His name is officially Pokemon Trainer; therefore, we must link him to the Pokemon Trainer page.

Sign you posts. Red is a special case in that he is in fact referred to as Red in GSC, just like Rival/Gary is referred to as Blue or Green. Regarding different costumes as different trainers, that is speculation. As of now, the only design Pokemon Trainer uses is that of Red. So Pokemon Trainer should link to Red unless the alternate costume theory is proven true.Satoryu 16:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The SSBB website didn't mention Red at all. He's NOT Red! He's just an avatar you used in that game in order to properly use Charizard, Ivysaur and Squirtle. He should link to Pokemon Trainer. Azuran 19:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He is Red. He's just not flat out called "Red." As of right now, it's 3 to 2 in favor of linking to Red. I'll wait another half hour. After that, if the majority does not change, I'm adding it.Satoryu 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that just because the majority agrees with something doesn't mean there's a consensus. — Malcolm (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

3 to 3. I believe it should link to Pokemon Trainer as that is the character name. Also, Red is an individual character in the games, and if it was red, he'd be called 'Red'. We also don't know there'll be an option of havng an alternate costume where the Pokemon Trainer will be a female. So we should stick with the official source (the website) and link him to Pokemon Trainer. Also, half an hour is an absurd amount of time. I did not see your 'ultimatum' until more than an hour and a half after the 'deadline' had passed. If you're going to say "I'm adding it after x amount of hours" then make sure that the amount of time given is enough time for people in all time zones to voice their opinion towards it, which would typically be a day or so. Ixistant 21:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I will admit I was hasty with adding it. But the topic had been addressed a day ago, when most ignored it. Call my edit a wake up call I guess. I more or less expected it to be reverted anyway.Satoryu 21:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Then stop trying to force your own feelings on the matter and let's come to a proper consensus. I think they're deliberately being obtuse in referring to him as "Pokémon Trainer". He's not Ash (of the anime) and not Red (whose character is fleshed out in the manga). He's not even the mysterious Red of G/S/C or the Stadium games. He is the male protagonist from the FR/LG games, which are also deliberate in not being too specific about the name. Think of him as a John Doe, or the every man's trainer. It's why he's been given all three starters...he's got pluripotential in representing the hero of FR/LG. If it helps, compare to Mr. Game & Watch.Coreycubed 23:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like your tone. They're not my feelings only; I'm not the only one who believes it should link to Red. Nor am I forcing them. If I was, I would be far more arrogant and n00bish and prone to cussing. It's comments like that that start flame wars. Something I want no part of.

I agree that he is the male hero of FL/LG. But the male hero of FL/LG is the same character known as Red in GSC, seeing as FL/LG is a remake of Red and Blue. I also agree that Red is not the character's actual name, as the player can name him whatever they want. But that character, regardless of name, is archived on Wikipedia under the article Red (Pokémon). The fact that Pokemon Trainer and Red share the same design and origin seems more than enough reason for the link. They're the same character, just named differently.

Bottom line: it makes far more sense to me to link a character to an bona fide, established character, rather than a general "occupation," for lack of a better word.Satoryu 01:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't an antagonistic post at all, and you were forcing your way by arbitrarily calling a vote on something that wasn't even being voted on, even if you had given enough time before wantonly making edits that hadn't been discussed. I think we've all been editing talk pages long enough to know that the change doesn't happen on the article until we've talked it over and come to some conclusion, by vote or consensus.

And look at the article you propose we link him to; there's barely a blurb mentioning him as a video game character, which Pokémon Trainer is intended to represent, and it likens Pokémon Trainer to "Red from Generation III" of the manga. If you really want to go with Red, we'll need a rewrite of the Red article, and a rewrite of the disambig (nowhere does it mention his presence in FR/LG, which is where the character in SSBB is from).

Lastly, take a look at the Pokémon Trainer article for a minute. It's well written, and describes the generic, pluripotent Pokémon Trainer, which the SSBB character reflects. If you don't believe in generic representative characters which can be imagined to be any one of several -- look up Pikachu, Mewtwo, Pichu, Yoshi or Jigglypuff -- each playable characters that are generic representations of a larger species. The Trainer is not a species per se, but is the same generic representation of the character.Coreycubed 04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a very valid point. You've convinced me. Leave the article as is.Satoryu 04:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A good point, but I should mention that Mewtwo is not a representation of a "generic" race, both the games and the anime make it clear there is only 1 Mewtwo in existence. BassxForte 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite NPC

First off, I think the NPC section is overly long as it is. Yes, everyone should realize by now how stupid I think the sandbag is, but even if I wasn't anti-sandbag, it's still a lot of info for an incredibly minor character. Right now the NPCs have more space than almost anything else in the article, and it feels very unbalanced to me. I think there should be one NPC section divided into a couple paragraphs, one of which would focus on the fact that some characters who were NPCs in previous games, like Metal Mario, Giant DK and Giga Bowser, evolved into temporary states for regular playable characters, general or specific, later on. Then we could just mention and describe the rest in another paragraph. It should be a general description of the NPCs and how they are used and/or change with each game. I don't think we need separate sections for each individual NPC, nor do we need that problematic list of NPCs, since they are all minor to begin with, and I also think it could be a compromise for people who keep fighting over the importance, or lack thereof, of particular NPCs. Otherwise the whole NPC issue seems too subjective and ambiguous to pin down, which is why I think there is disagreement.Rglong 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Characters like Metal Mario and Giant DK had already appeared in their own series', therefore mentions of them are made other places, not here. BassxForte 18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense Bassx, but that comment had absolutely nothing to do with what I proposed. The gist was that the NPC section is huge, and all those minor characters don't need multiple paragraphs. The NPC section is too long and complex.Rglong 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't one of the goals of wikipedia to make a comprehensive detailing of info, without making it too detailed? BassxForte 17:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Peach as Playable character

Just a question, shouldn't Peach be considered playable by now? She has shown up in the movie about the Subspace Emissary mode. I know she doesn't have a profile yet, but neither does Metaknight, and he is confirmed playable.75.75.88.25 01:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Tasuki17502

...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._%28series%29&curid=12633630&diff=151079690&oldid=151063608#Wait_for_Peach_until_she_is_confirmed.21

Read that. Stop using Meta Knight as an example. We know he's playable. He had a profile on the old site and he's been seen in screenshots. -Sukecchi 02:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects and Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters

There's currently an edit war going on over whether redirect articles should be in the category "Super Smash Bros. fighters". Could anyone comment on the relevant talk page so a consensus could be reached? Thanks. The T 04:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

General Character List Idea

I believe that all the arguing about which characters belong in the PC list should come down to the question "Will they be/ are they on the character selection screen?" I don't mean that in the sense of "We haven't seen the SSBB selection screen yet, we can't verify" I mean it less rigidly as "You choose to play as Zelda, you can then access Sheik, you choose to play as Samus, her clothes then fall off, you choose to play as Bowser, you then turn into Giga Bowser and you choose to play as Pokemon Trainer, then you can control Squirtle etc"

If I had my Way, I would put those characters in the list as "Zelda/Sheik+Footnote" "Samus+Footnote="After using her Final Smash Attack in Brawl, Samus' suit falls off, as she becomes known as Zero-Suit Samus" "Bowser+Footnote="Bowser's final smash in Brawl temporarily transforms him into a guise known as [Giga-Bowser]" AND "Pokemon Trainer+Footnote="Rather than fighting himself, the player will control [Squirtle], [Ivysaur] and [Charizard] Which can be switched in and out during a battle"

Comments?Joeldipops 11:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically I believe that the only characters that should be on the Playable Characters list (or confirmed for SSBB) are those characters who have their own profile on the SSBB site, past or present. Peach does not currently have a profile on the site and should not be confirmed for SSBB. Meta-Knight had a profile on the old website and should be included on the list. ZSS has a character profile on the website so should be included on the list fully. Giga Bowser does not have a character profile on the website so should therefore not be included on the playable character list. Pokemon Trainer has a character profile page on the website and should therefore be included. Charizard, Ivysaur and Squirtle on the other hand do not have individual character profiles on the website and should not be included on the list, and should merely be a footnote of Pokemon Trainer. This way at least everything is backed-up by the website as every character verified for SSBB has a character page on the Dojo. That would settle arguements over character inclusion. Ixistant 11:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that the existence of a profile on a no-longer existant site is hardly verifiable, but coupled with shots from the trailer does make includion of meta-knight etc fine. I was actually reffering to all the games. I don't see why Shiek should be counted as a different character to Zelda. In OoT they were the exact same person, which, for instance, can't neccesarily be said about Link and Young Link (although, If I had infinite power, I'd scratch Young Link from the list as well)59.154.24.147 10:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Except the list doesent concern OoT. Hell, in melee, sheik was more diffrent than zelda than the links were diffrent from eachother. But thats besides the point. The method described above is (at the time) the easiest to use method to determine how this article ought to be done. The only things that bother me are, like said, meta-knight and snake, which as we all know, havent seen alot of coverage on the SSBB site. However, given that theyve been featured extensivly in both the 2006 trailers, and had profiles on the old site, they can, for the time being, be listed as confirmed. Just because they havent been showed off lately, doesent confirm their absence. Only fanboys make such conclusions, and wikipedia is not a place for fanboys.~sdhonda

My point was that Sheik was just one of Zelda's moves. That was the comparison to OoT59.154.24.147 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"and wikipedia is not a place for fanboys.~sdhonda"

Um... have you looked around here lately...?Rglong 16:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care what you are, it cares about what you write. It shouldn't matter if you're a Nintendo fanboy, or a Stanford professor (though the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive!). What matters is that you remain NPOV and that your facts continue to remain verifiable through a reputable outside source. Keep that in mind, folks. :) Coreycubed 17:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Last Names and Titles

When listing characters with last names (Samus, Fox, Falco) or characters with a title (Princesses, Snake), should they be listed on the page with or without them? I believe they should be listed with the titles, as that is how they are named on the articles they link to.Satoryu 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be whatever they're called in the game. Remember, continuity is not necessarily preserved between games so for all we know, Falco doesn't have a last name in the SSB universe. Stick to what appears in the game (this would includes trophy descriptions and the like). Axem Titanium 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's my concern. On the character select screen, for example, Falco is just known as "Falco." But on his Trophies, his name is given as "Falco Lombardi." The same goes for Fox and Samus. Conversely, the Princesses are just named as "Peach" and "Zelda." I guess we should should go by what the trophies say. Because if we go by the character select screen, Donkey Kong will just be called DK. Satoryu 01:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, trophies are best. The character select screen is less formal so they're probably meant to be nicknames. Axem Titanium 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Donkey Kong would still be Donkey Kong, because that is what the announcer calls him. I suggest the names remain without the titles, and just stay the way the announcer reads them, since that fits with SSB continuity. The only reason the trophies have the full names is because the trophies fall into their series' respective continuity, which has nothing to do with SSB. -MoldyClay 06:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A good point, but I still think we should leave Fox, Falco, and Samus with their last names. It's more formal that way.Satoryu 16:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they stay like that because that's how their presented in the SSB universe. The trophies offer more detail about them but within the world of SSB (gameplay modes) they are referred by their first names. So I'm with the guys that say no as well.--ChibiMrBubbles 18:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I agree that a formal bit might be a good idea, but Smash Bros. isn't exactly a formal game. I mean, sure, they're listed by their full names on the trophies, but the game doesn't use any titles or last names on the character select screen, save for Captain Falcon. Talk about inconsistancy within a game, huh? Disaster Kirby^Talk 18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The trophies are in the game so I don't see how they could fall "into their series' respective continuity". I don't have a particular preference at this point but I wouldn't want the trophy names to be tossed aside for the current reason. Axem Titanium 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty much the same in that I don't have a particular preference (although I did switch the list over to the less formal way a short while ago). We should probably wait for more opinions on the matter until we choose a concrete list style. Neither style seems any worse than the other, so it really is mainly a matter of preference. Disaster Kirby^Talk 20:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not that the full names are only on the trophies because "the trophies fall into their series' respective continuity." True; The characters' regular trophies (the trophies won from Classic Mode) list first and last names. However, the red and blue Smash trophies (the trophies won from Adventure and All-Star Modes) which detail the characters' strengths, weaknesses, and abilities within the context of Super Smash Bros. Melee, also include character surnames.
To summarize: My personal opinion is that the characters should be listed by the name given on their trophies - First and last names without titles, save for Dr. Mario and Captain Falcon. You Can't See Me! 05:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Luigi

I think Luigi is in the game.76.110.82.251 16:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh lol, you didn't happen to see a shop similar to this, did you? Disaster Kirby^Talk 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, but isn't kinda obvious that he will in the game. I'm not saying he will be, but really, why would they put eveyone else but Luigi. He's part of the Mario series so he should. 76.110.82.251 01:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that it wouldn't make sense to leave him out of Brawl, we haven't seen any sign of him yet. Wikipedia isn't the place to make assumptions, so we'll just have to wait until we actually see Luigi on the official site. Disaster Kirby^Talk 01:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hammer Bro as a playable character?

I can see on this screenshot, from IGN, that Fox is fighting Hammer Bro. So is Hammer Bro a playable character? I'm not saying he is but just look. Source- http://media.wii.ign.com/media/748/748545/img_4763586.html 76.110.82.251 17:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[Assist trophy.] Arrowned 17:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

He's also an enemy in Subspace Emissary. But no, he's not a playable character.Satoryu 17:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish he was.76.110.82.251 17:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is meant for 76.110.82.251 The wikipedia discussion page isn't a board. It is here to make the article better, not to speculate. If you want to talk about who could be in Brawl go to IGN. AlexanderLD 15:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Giga Bowser is in Brawl

I noticed that we still haven't listed Giga Bowser in Brawl yet. It still has a question mark on the SSBB part on the table, and Giga Bowser has been confirmed to appear in Super Smash Bros. Brawl as Bowser's Final Smash. - Poke DP 11:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We are not going over this again. Look in the archives and you'll see why. -Sukecchi 11:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you got Master Hand and Crazy Hand on that list, so why not Giga Bowser? Poke DP 11:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a list of NPCs. -Sukecchi 11:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But, Giga Bowser is still in Brawl. He appears in it, so shouldn't he be added to THAT list? Poke DP 11:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because 1. NPC List and 2. Giga Bowser is not a permanent transformation.

I will not be discussing this anymore. Go look in the archives for further information. Or better yet, look on the talk page now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._%28series%29#Giga_Bowser-Sukecchi 11:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK, fine. What if he's a Boss in Brawl? THEN, we add him? Poke DP 11:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, If he's a full NPC and not just browser's final smash then we can check him.→041744 12:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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.