Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)/Archive 8

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 7 2 Controlling the Pokemon Trainer? 3 Dixie Kong 4 Raquazza 5 Shiek's models 6 look what i found looks fake but believable 7 ness footnote 8 Alloys 9 Pikmin 10 Why are the Pikmin listed first? 11 Pokémon Trainer 12 Super Smash Bros. Wiki 13 Sheik has been confirmed 14 Separate page for characters? 15 Character reveal 15.1 This isn't right... 15.2 Respect Sakurai's Wishes not to show character's accidentally shown 15.3 Don't confirm Lucario, Jiggly, and Ness without a proper source 16 Pichu and Mewtwo 17 Reading Comprehension 18 Regarding Primids 19 Zelda/Sheik and Samus/ZZS same character? 20 Stages

Archive 7

For the seventh time.→041744 00:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice! --LN3000 (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Controlling the Pokemon Trainer?

Under the note for Pokemon Trainer it says the player "controls the Trainer only when switching between the three Pokémon."

I don't recall seeing this on the site or in any other source. PT wasn't playable at E for All, so unless someone can verify this fact I think it should be removed. Unless maybe I'm misunderstanding what it means. Either way, I think it ought to be made more clear. 24.6.89.5 (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What that means is that the only action Pokemon Trainer does is switch Pokemon. All other actions are performed by Charizard and company. It's fine the way it is.Satoryu (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If that statement could confuse someone who is familiar with Brawl, imagine how much it could confuse readers who don't know a thing about it. I think it should be reworded a little. Shall I do the honors?    Powerslave  05:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That works.Satoryu (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dixie Kong

I am not saying to add this to the article but I think she appears in two screenshots of the update of the Co-op Events

1. In the first screenshot of the events, in event number 6, what appears to be a battle against a giant DK, if you zoom it on Paint you can see what appears to be diddy kong and dixie kong.

2. In the second screenshot, in the 4 event, you can see a blonde monkey, it may be Dixie Kong or less probable Tiny Kong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.39.74 (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she's in the game in some form or fashion; the Dec. 07 issue of GameInformer (with the Ghostbusters logo on the cover) also has a very blatant screenshot with her, Diddy, and a banana peel on a stage I couldn't identify for sure (looked like the first Subspace Adventure stage). But since we don't know whether she's a playable character or an assist trophy, there's really no point to this discussion. Arrowned (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The screenshot you are referring to, Arrowned, is with Trophies. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 06:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC) I just reviewed it, and I can't specifically tell. But still even if we do determine it is her, we can't add it in because it is Original Research. This is the same thing we did when we saw Donkey Kong in the gameplay video. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 06:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Found it, sorry for 3 discussions in a row. It was part of a movie, not a screenshot. Here is the link to the video on the Brawl Website. OMG DIXIE TROPHY?!?! Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 06:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a hunch, but is it all possible that Dixie Kong is a color swap for Diddy Kong? Nintendo's getting awfully creative this time around (Or just plain garish in the case of poor Snake's horrible orange/brown/god-knows-what cyber-punk excuse for a color. *shiver*) concerning colors. Also, on the aforementioned Game Informer article, they have all the characters that were confirmed (At that point, at least) and most of the assist trophies. Alas, Dixie Kong is nowhere in sight. BUT IT'S JUST A HUNCH! 209.247.22.26 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Any way you slice it, dixie kong is not comifirmed, saying so is orginal reasherch an spectulation.→041744 13:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In the game stop magazen issue #176 they also show a section of SSBB and Dixie kong(with diddy kong) is in it with a banana with eyes then on the next page it shows all the players but shes not on it so i think we should wait for Dojo.--DarkFierceDeityLink 13:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you guys missed the conversation with Tinkleheimer above (I can confirm the video clip he linked is the screencap I saw in a magazine), she's a normal trophy (not even assist). There's no need to even "wait for Dojo", because Dojo's already confirmed it. Arrowned (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Lots of playable characters and assists are also trophies, Arrowned. --(trogga) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I revised the screenshots that the first user say, and the first one really looks like Dixie Kong, and its probable, because one of the event matches can be a battle of Diddy Kong and Dixie Kong against Giant DK. And she has high possibilities of being a playable character, in melee Diddy Kong didn't appeared as a trophy and now he is playable. And in the video where she appears along Diddy Kong and Xananab, you can notice that the position of Diddy Kong is similar to the one of his artwork, Dixie Kong had also a different position that i think it has never seen in any artwork, while Xananab was given the same position as in his DK Jungle Climber. But all these is only speculation. User:Javier12345 —Preceding comment was added at 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I only saw (actually it was very hard to see because it was zoomed too much) a monkey wearing a purple hat. Dixie normally uses pink clothes not purple. And is there any way to make the image clearer???? --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont think so, but in that image the colors look different, Diddy Kong's colors look like maroon. And Dixie hat is more like magenta, so i'm almost sure that the one of that image is Dixie Kong. User: Javier12345 —Preceding comment was added at 20:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

All Right this is getting redicluos, seriosly MAGENTA?! Lets just close our mouthes and agree on this: (1)Dixie kong is not playable (2)Dixie kong is a trophy and (3)We do not know if she is a AT or not. Now can we stop this flibber-flapper over purple v pink v magenta on a unclear low-resolution picture, seriosly would he put an uncomifmed character in a photo, do you really think he is that stupid?→041744 22:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You never know. While I agree this debate has gone on longer than need be, Dixie Kong may still be a playable character. There is no confirmation or denial for that. So add her to the list of possible characters we not need mention on the article, if she isn't there already.Satoryu (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its not magenta, but is not exactly pink. And I agree that this is a ridiculous discussion, althought I think she is playable.user:Javier12345 —Preceding comment was added at 23:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the weakest character argument ever. --LN3000 (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this is the weakest argument on Wikipedia EVER, but 4channers still hold that unimpressive record. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Masahiro Sakurai read the stuff we put on wikipedia?--DarkFierceDeityLink 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

NTIKO. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not an argument, its only my opinion—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.39.74 (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, your opinion should not be in here and it can cause speculation. And thats not enough info, to say wether she is going to be playable or not. And I think Dixie has high possibilities of being playable, but its only speculation. user:javier12345 —Preceding comment was added at 02:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also now I notice Dixie clothes are pink and are very far from magenta, sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier12345 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

One last thing, when I said she appeared in two sceenshots, with that I mean she is playable(or was what I think), I know she has been seen as a trophy alongside a playable character and yes I know this is only speculation, and again this is not an argument, is my opinion. 201.163.39.74 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If we couldn't confirm Peach when she appeared in the Subspace movie, then we can't confirm Dixie from a couple of screenshots that leaves it questionable as to what her status is. TwilightPhoenix (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I never say we should put Dixie as playable in the artcle. 201.163.39.74 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mabey you should have clairified that alot sooner, appearently that's what we all thought you were impleing.→041744 22:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

o well, sorry for causing a confusion, it was only an opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.39.74 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for opinions, it is for the displayment of facts, please keep your opions to yourself.→041744 13:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't WP:BITE. Cheers, Axem Titanium (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see her to. Note: the second screen shot of event number four, it could just be a costume change to make her LOOK like Tiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.97.140 (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay hold up. 1) It is very likely that dixie kong could be playable, don't just assume that she'd not. 2) She isn't comfirmed so we should stick with DROPING IT, for right now. -LyokoTitan101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.97.140 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 19 January 2008

Saying it's likely is speculation. Unless we know for certain, we shouldn't even be having this conversation. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Raquazza

We now know for a FACT that he's a boss for Fox, Diddy.-SLJCOAAATR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.166.188 (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been noted already. Oubliette (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Shiek's models

I found this somewhere, I don't remember where, but what i found said, "Clay models for Sheik have been sent to Mr. Sakurai, but it is unknown if he will include Sheik." So, could you PLEASE put it back? Ivyluv (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(RI) The onus is on you to provide the proof, not on us to wait on you for proof. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually in this case, there already is proof... of the fact that the models were submitted. As the FAQ says, we have no idea what those models will be used for (Playable characters? Assist trophies? Subspace Emissary bosses?) or if they'll be used at all, so there's no reason to add that trivial note on its own to the article. Arrowned (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They were polygon models, not clay ones ;) Powerslave (talk|cont.) 02:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Two Things:

1. Oh. Thanks! and... 2. "Actually in this case, there already is proof... of the fact that the models were submitted. As the FAQ says, we have no idea what those models will be used for (Playable characters? Assist trophies? Subspace Emissary bosses?) or if they'll be used at all, so there's no reason to add that trivial note on its own to the article."::::Well, not to be rude of course, but, uh, if we put my note in at all, what should we put in?Ivyluv (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no point in discussing what we'd put in. There's no way to add a note to the character list in a way that would make it not be original research, and adding an abbreviated note somewhere else that pretty much just says what I did earlier would be a waste of space considering it's nothing but "here's some info that may or may not have any bearing on the game". Arrowned (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

look what i found looks fake but believable

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff285/horus_disco/luigirendervv21.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkFierceDeityLink (talk • contribs) 02:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright... so how is that going to help the article? Powerslave (talk|cont.) 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah how does it? Also maybe I'm just feeling De Jvju but hasn't this picture been brought up before? The Light6 (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want you guys to be on the look out people already have adding him in showing this picture and i have to do a lot of undoing and i'm starting to get a lil mad at people who add players to the game who are not in the game like Naruto. I believe that this page needs protection.--DarkFierceDeityLink 02:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the picture's genuine, there is no proof one way or another what role the younger Mario Brother will play in Brawl. Remember that a few PCs from Melee aren't going to be in Brawl, at least not as PCs. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But theirs no evidence that they(Luigi, C. Falcon ect) wont come come back, maybe the clones womt back excluding Ganon but theres no evidence to that. So I think we should wait for Dojo I just wanted you guys to see that picture( its fake if you zoom in to his left hand you see red which means this was really mario the person chnaged the picture like they did to the one from wolf http://www.maj.com/gallery/oozotheclown/Alternatecostumes/foxwolf.jpg really (fox)).--DarkFierceDeityLink 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence that they *will* come back, either. And I didn't need to zoom in to know it was Photoshopped - Luigi would not have the exact same pose. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew a photoshop of Luigi was discussed before, however it wasn't the same image Archive 3 - Luigi either way it's a photoshopped image so there is no point in discussing it, however I do agree that the page needs to be semi-protected again. The Light6 (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not THAT trigger-happy to prot. Besides, the unsourced-addition crap has died down. Semi-prot Declined (for now). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTE) Super Smash Bros. Brawl is Semi-protected. If you have any objections, voice them Here. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ness footnote

yesterday someone changed ness from "?" to "X". there is already a note in the sourse saying not to, but i belive we should place another in a more visable space.--68.150.17.145 (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If it keeps up the article is looking at a fortnight-long semi. We can't make the note obvious by adding it wholesale to the article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

i didnt change the ? but if you look on the ssb website, on lucas' page it says "There’s a character named Ness who has appeared in the Smash Bros. series up until now, and Lucas is very similar. They are from the same family of PK users." does that hint that hes not in this one? (Ohnomono3 (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC))

A hint is not confirmation, sadly. Indeed there has been a lot of back-and-forthing about this on Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and the consensus there and here is, barring more information, leave Ness as a question mark.

And please sign in instead of edit-conflicting me. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Alloys

There's a new tertiary character group similar to Wire Frames, the Alloys. I move that we add them to this artical with pictures. 71.48.91.171 (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I move that we don't; that's bias towards Brawl and against Melee (Fighting Wire Frames) and 64 (Fighting Polygon Team). This article is supposed to be about all the games. I don't object to a short description of them in the same section as the FWF and FPT, but no pics. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we get rid of the Fighting Polygon picture (it looks really confusing and unclear to someone who hasn't played that game) and put up one of the new, clear images of the Alloys. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 04:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Or the above suggesting with a new Polygon picture, perhaps? Oubliette (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that all the pictures will cause for a cluttered article. I suggest if we could get a larger picture of Fighting Polyglons that we just use that one, and get rid of the Fighting Wire Frames. Just my suggestion. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 14:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it would be best if we could combine three pictures into one to show the three different teams. But that's just my opinion. Luigi "Kurai" III (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No shoops, please... Anyways, guess I'll be bold. Coreycubed (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pikmin

Hey... at the Character list, it says Olimar can't do any attack. This hasn't been confirmed, it only says his SMASH-attacks can be done without pikmin. Normal A-attacks could still be possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wobster (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone edited it ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wobster (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On that note am I the only one who can't see Pikmin & Olimar listed in the table. It's in the source but it doesn't seem to show up. =/ 86.44.94.92 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's there plain as day. -Sukecchi (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's happened to me more than once. Not sure if it's got something to do with the way my browser's pulling stuff from MediaWiki, but a hard refresh should help. Try Ctrl-Shift-R. Coreycubed (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are the Pikmin listed first?

Why are the Pikmin listed before Olimar? isn't Olimar the Chracter and the Pikmin his help &/or weapons? I'm just curious, as I think it would be better if it was Captain Olimar and the Pikmin listed in a foot note, like with Pokemon Trainer!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

B/C THE PIKMIN ARE THE ONES WHO ARE REALLY FIGHTING AS IT STATES ON THE SITE WITH OUT THEM HE'S NOTHING NO SMASH ATTACK NO NOTHING.(SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS MY KEY BOARD IS BROKEN.)--DarkFierceDeityLink 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in that case, shouldn't every chracter that mostly uses a weapon be listed by the weapon they use, as it's the weapons that do the fighting? But, that's besides the point, I've just knotice (that as ever) I am mistaken, and the dojo lists them as Pikmin and Olimar!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dojo names them "Pikmin & Olimar", so that's what we use here. We did the same thing with Falco, Fox, Samus, and Snake; they all have last/other names in their canon sources, but Dojo/Melee lists their names as exactly that, so that's what we're using. Arrowned (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, DFDL, I had the exact same problem on my old com., i was constantly getting banned from sites due to being stuck on caps. BOT I thought DOJO ONLY said that Olimar will only not be able to do his final smash without Pikmin. It said nothing about his other attacks. I could be wrong. I'm sick,and when i'm sick,my whole memory goes screwy.-SLJCOAAATR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.37.40 (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, a new keyboard can be had for like $5, so you might want to just buy another one, or pop a few keys off of your keyboard and clean it with a damp cloth to see if that helps. Second, the quote from Dojo is as follows: "Without Pikmin, Olimar can’t even do a Smash Attack." In the typical vague fashion, this doesn't say he can't do regular attacks without Pikmin. Besides, what happens if all the Pikmin die? Point is, we don't know, which is why it's worded the way it is in the footnote. Lastly, SLJCOAAATR, you might want to register for an account. Your signature is being replaced with your IP address when you post. Coreycubed (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well from what I can tell, Dojo says Pikimin & Olimar, so that's my reasoning. It shouldn't matter what weapons he uses in his name. It says on the site exactly! Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 16:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Today's update should clear things up a bit for those who were wondering about his attacks, which confirms that our footnote is accurate: "In order to perform a Smash Attack, certain midair attacks, and even throws, you’re going to need Pikmin!" So, some of his attacks won't require the Pikmin (like other characters that use weapons for some, not all of their attacks). And for anyone who's actually played Pikmin, you'll remember that Olimar could attack on his own, without Pikmin. Coreycubed (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Corey, my old com. was a laptop, this one is too. Oh yeah, i don't make an account 'cause i raerly use Wiki. Sorry about my mistakes with the Pikmin thing. I skimed through the article REAL fast.-SLJCOAAATR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.37.40 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying you rarely use it. So what? It's not like it expires or anything. Just register already. >_> -Sukecchi (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, you have a good point...I might...i dunno...-SLJCOAAATR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.37.40 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon Trainer

Wjere it says " 2. ^ In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Pokémon Trainer stays in the background while the player takes direct control of Squirtle, Ivysaur, or Charizard. The set is listed under the name "Pokémon Trainer". ", I think that someonen should change it to " 2. ^ In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Pokémon Trainer stays in the background, although in moving stages he doesn't appear, while the player takes direct control of Squirtle, Ivysaur, or Charizard. The set is listed under the name "Pokémon Trainer" or "P. Trainer". "

source is ^[1]

Is that relevant? No, not really. Because no matter what, you aren't controlling the Pokemon Trainer. So changing the footnote isn't necessary. -Sukecchi (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Wiki

Would a link to Wikia's Super Smash Bros. Wiki be appropriate for an Smash Bros. related pages? I just wanted to ask to prevent any wasted edits on my part. Bonko24 (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We discussed this in a previous talk page chat; the archive for it is here. The ending decision was not to link to SmashWiki, basically because it fails criteria #2 (and somewhat 13) of WP:EL's list of links that should be avoided. Specifically, SmashWiki fails the criterion because of its instability and speculation, something a lot of individual Wikia sites tend to suffer from. Arrowned (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone SmashWiki and Super Smash Bros. Wiki are two different wikis. SmashWiki is hosted on Smash Boards, while the Super Smash Bros. Wiki is hosted on Wikia.--24.109.218.172 (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheik has been confirmed

Famitsu has confirmed sheik will be in brawl, so his status on the page should be changed accordingly. This is just one picture, but it's easily verified by anyone with access to the issue of Famitsu. http://i17.tinypic.com/6t5wvgj.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.89.5 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

They have also given it a 40/40, which few games have received in its long history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.35.10 (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, No. Lets wait for Dojo. Atomic Religione (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree its a good site but i dont trust it they were taken off twice then put back on i say we wait for Dojo(maybe tomorrow they will something).--DarkFierceDeityLink 05:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Famitsu is as reliable source as any. They have photos of Shiek even. There's no need to wait for the Dojo at this point. 24.6.89.5 (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Baloney, 24, unless you'd like to read the page for us. I say wait until Dojo confirms it. I'm not saying I think Famitsu sucks, but I would like to ask if it's possible to translate the page so that us english-speakers can read it. It's possible to use a picture with a caption in another language and claim "dog" when the text says "cat". -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I only know a little japanese, but I know enough to read that the title of that section of the image says Sheik Change for Zelda's down special attack. Look up a katakana chart on google and look at the letters yourself if you don't believe me. Besides, any translation I give counts as original research. (The magazine itself though doesn't). 24.6.89.5 (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a katakana chart on me; I'll translate it and post here. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Translation is "Sheik Change", as you said. Din damn it, not the 4th-generation all over again... -Jéské ^{(Gonk! v-_-v)} 06:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is a rough translation I found on Gamefaqs. It's not official, but it's evidence.

"Sheik Change: (down move)

The other face of Zelda - change into Sheik! After transforming, as well as the obvious visual difference, the gameplay is also totally different, from actions to special moves. Also pay attention to Sheik's brand new outfit." 24.6.89.5 (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The pic is enough as a conf; we don't need anything from GFAQs (which would fail WP:RS). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the foot note about Sheik not being an individual character should be updated to something like "3. ^ In Super Smash Bros. Melee and Brawl, Sheik is not a stand alone character but a transformation of Princess Zelda." 24.6.89.5 (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Really what if that text that you claim that you can read really says Zelda's old down was Sheik but now in Brawl it's different?--DarkFierceDeityLink 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, I said I only know a little japanese, but it's easy to look up some basic kanji and see that that is Zelda's Down special (That's the kanji in the background of the image it means down. look it up on google). Second, the picture is not of Sheik's melee model. It's clearly different. You can tell by the color and the wrappings on the legs, as well as the pose. In a worst case scenario, Wikipedia will be wrong for two weeks at most. But Wikipedia doesn't have to be right, it has to be sourced.

The kanji reads, directly transliterated, "Shiiku Chiinshi". Translated fully into English, that's "Sheik Change". Can we get proof that this is actually from Famitsu? This should work as confirmation; the editors of these pages aren't blindingly stupid. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

http://brawlcentral.com/famitsu_scans.php you guys have to see that scroll down smaus and her outfit changes.--DarkFierceDeityLink 06:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are her outfit changes throughout the years, DFDL. That's why I'm asking for a direct confirmation that it's in Famitsu, that way we could cite Famitsu. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of informing the editors on Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's in a you tube video or something, I doubt that will happen. But I'm willing to beleive it's Famitsu. They already rated the game a perfect 40/40, so I wouldn't be surprised that they have new screens, including Sheik. I say it's good enough as confirmation. Dengarde ► Complaints 06:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I also can confirm the title above Sheik reads Sheik Change. Can't read much else though.
While this scan does show Zelda transforms into Sheik, we don't quite know how Sheik functions. Maybe she is only a temporary transformation now. Perhaps she only does one move as Sheik and immediately transforms back. Outrageous, I know, but perhaps we should wait for either the Dojo or a translation. Or perhaps I'm being too speculative. I won't fight whatever decision is made.Satoryu (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, Heres the page for Bowser. In the right page, you see an image of him grabbing Sheik. Theres no existing picture like that on the web, so chances of it being photoshopped are close to none. If this isn't confirmation, I don't know what is. Dengarde ► Complaints 06:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me. That's what I needed to see: Sheik in action.Satoryu (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

can some one please show me to the like were you get all these pics if its possiable i just want to look at them.--DarkFierceDeityLink 06:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

...You're the one who posted them...>_> Dengarde ► Complaints 06:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a question say If i could find a picture of captian falcon fighting and its from Famitsu can we used that?--DarkFierceDeityLink 06:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)( I'm still looking for it but i found it before but was nervous to put it here b/c of my old getting yelled at for adding things people cant read)

Unfortunatly, there were no information of any characters other then those featured on the Dojo (Sheik excluded). So theres no pictures of Falcon. Dengarde ► Complaints 06:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

AND IT'S OFFICIAL!!! *Does a little dance* Dengarde ► Complaints 07:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Separate page for characters?

I think there should be a separate page for the characters in the series, with a brief description of them including their Special Moves and Final Smashes. - Addit (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see three things wrong with that page: game guide, cruft, and redundancy with main articles for each character. As it is, each character in the games has a SSB blurb on their page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea if you could get around those three things. Maybe it would work if it was more like a list than a game guide. Epass (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't get around the fact that it is redundant - that's the rub. As I've stated, all characters with an SSB appearance have a note stating so in their respective articles. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but it won't last long on wikipedia.Pikazilla (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There would need to be something about how they are/were accepted by fan/critics and other such 'real world' stuff!  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Once upon a time, such a page existed but it was deleted for the redundancy issues discussed above. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all of the characters actually have their own pages. Perhaps we could try it, and see if it works? - Addit (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The characters which don't have pages have a listing on pages about characters from the series they are from and they have the mention of Super Smash Bros. there. Also we will not being trying it to see if it works. People on wikipedia are suppose to be wikipedians first and fans second so I assume that various people working on this page and the Brawl page would support it's deletion if it goes against policies, myself included. The Light6 (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is fine the way it currently is.SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not what is being discussed. -Sukecchi (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Character reveal

Those of you who know me know I'm not a rumormonger or someone who posts unconfirmed content. However, I don't think it gets any more close to the source than this. There is a movie, currently viewable here, that shows footage from Brawl. Obviously, being posted on Nintendo's offical Wii site, any information shown there is legitimate. Per the sticker update, at 4:20, you can see the icons for characters who the stickers can be applied to. The Groudon sticker can be applied to Pikachu, Pokémon Trainer, Lucario and Jigglypuff. The EarthBound character shows Ness and Lucas. Images can be found here and here. Just wanted you to know that this is an official source, and I'm not just wantonly adding them to the article. Coreycubed (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, and I AM CONVINCED that that is sufficient proof of those three characters being in Brawl, but I also agree that we shouldn't put them on the article just yet because people will still whine about it. --HeroicJay (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree? Who are you agreeing with? Besides, it's an official Nintendo source -- even better than Famitsu. --Coreycubed (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else who says this is fake must be in denial. It doesn't get more concrete than this. The only problem with adding this information to the page would be citing the video. And before the "Wait for Dojo" complaints come in, I'd think Nintendo (you know, the people who make and own Smash Bros) is just as reliable as the Dojo, if not moreso. Satoryu (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw this on a thread on IGN a few minutes ago. I say put it on. "Oh, no! Those characters haven't been announced on Dojo! Don't do that!" Okay, for all of you who want to say that, complain, gripe, etc. read this because I'm only typing it once. I'm ALL CAPSing out of emphasis, not anger. IT IS OFFICIAL. IT IS ON THE OFFICIAL JAPANESE WII WEBSITE. ARE WE TO ASSUME THAT EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION WE'VE SEEN THAT HAS NOT BEEN ANNOUNCED ON THE DOJO IS NOT OFFICIAL? UNLESS THE MAKERS OF BRAWL ARE JUST TRYING TO MESS WITH US, THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE VIDEO IS FALSE. IF YOU DO, YOU ARE DEVOID OF COMMON SENSE AND SIMPLE LOGIC. Now keep in mind that I'm not saying that to people who believe the video is correct but still opt not to put those characters as playable. As much as I think those characters should be added to the list, at least those people have enough common sense to know that a good source isn't neccesarily the Dojo. That was directed at the inevitable wave of people who will say, "Well, even though it is on the official Japanese Wii website, it was not on Dojo, so it is not official."-(Vert Bandit (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

I say we put them on the list.--DarkFierceDeityLink 05:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were saying not to put the info in the article just yet, CoreyCubed. Anyway, it doesn't help that Nintendo apparently caught on and changed the video, removing all the stickers' details. --HeroicJay (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

However, this just further confirms that they are in, seeing as how they went to the trouble of removing them. If it was fake, then they would've only removed the Lucario, Ness, and Jigglypuff icons instead of the whole thing. They definitely meant to be a secret. (Road Forks You (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Are ten days really too long to wait? Keep your pants on, please. Wikipedia is not a provider of breaking news. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What happens in ten days??? DurinsBane87 (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Still we are not here to confirm leaks, we are here to make an honest true website. Leaks are just not a good reason to add characters. I feel that we need some serious confirmation in the form of the character trophy or actual character picture for it to be confirmed. Until then would someone please remove them from the list, or atleast put them as questionable. We are here for facts, not true leaks, because those leaks can be wrong. WanderingHero (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and disagree at the same time. On one hand, this was on an official Nintendo website and wasn't exactly ambiguous at all... on the other, Nintendo probably had their reasons for removing it (such as: the images appeared by accident) and we can't easily prove they were there any more. --HeroicJay (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The video's been on Youtube ever since it ws first shown. Multiplke people have uploaded it.Satoryu (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the noticing of those icons was recent. It's common knowledge now, and "Honest true website"? "True leaks"?. Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with truth, it concerns itself with verifiability. We've kept two of these characters out on very tenuous reasoning up until now. We know that they're there, without a shadow of a doubt. No question about it. --Coreycubed (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a leak. At all. It isn't some video secretly shot in a backroom at E For All on a shakey video recorder where the proof is too blurry to be debatable. THAT is a leak. THIS "leak" is on an official website, and nothing is blury. There is no debate here. No, this isn't your traditional, "Warning! Challenger Approaching!" update on the Dojo, nor is it from an official press conference, but it is an official video. This may sound crazy, but this may not even be an accident. For all we know, Saruki and crew were putting together this video, and PURPOSELY made those particular icons visible as an extra reward for those who look at the details. If it is a leak, it isn't the kind with poor camera work or "some guy who knows a guy who is working on the game." BTW, since someone added those three to the list, I went ahead and gave a source for them all. I linked to the video and said "4:20."-(Vert Bandit (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Vert, that's not true at all, and you can't source it that way. Besides, go watch the video again -- if you really were following it that closely, you'd see the section has already been blanked out. Everyone else, please don't start edit warring over it, not now. Given that the information is verifiable, policy dictates that unless consensus is for removal, it stays, satisfying WP:V. Coreycubed (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

this is what i mean about people being to picky this is good as dojo I say we add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkFierceDeityLink (talk • contribs) 05:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on people lets add look at poor lil ness all this time every one believed he was out I say we add it, its proof , it's nintendo and the maker prob made the video any way.--DarkFierceDeityLink 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

DFDL, as usual, we are all aware of your opinion. It's not about that. The bottom line here is that they gave away a piece of information they did not mean to, but it is verifiable none the less. Please try to keep your own opinions out of the matter and remember Wikipedia criteria. Policy is clear, what exactly is there to talk about? The video is in wide circulation and already well-attributed to Nintendo. Coreycubed (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just add a note to Lucario, Jigglypuff, and Ness? something along the line of saying that they were in a previously released video? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.105.146 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 January 2008

Whether or not it was on purpose or not (or some weird third scenario where Saruki and crew made the video, noticed the characters were their, and said, "noone will c it lol," it is still there. Was that part of the video blocked out? I watched it no more than 30 minutes ago, and those icons were in the video, around 4:20. It is very quick, as the pages are turing or something that makes the icons appear breifly (which supports(?) the crazy "noone will c it lol" theory), and even if the video has been removed, you can't change the fact that people took stills of the movie and remember seeing the icons. I'm not going to edit war over this because I wanted to wait until enough people were present to discuss the issue so the opposing side would get crushed at the undeniable (unless one is immuned to facts) proof. I only put the source because God knows that some edit Nazi would come to the page, see what has been done, and say, "OMFG WUT DID U GUYS DOO?" and change the page before even checking to see if there is any proof. I'm not trying to sound hateful toward anyone because just about everyone here seems to agree that the video is a reliable source. The only reason just about everyone here wants to leave it the same is that they are worried that the "others" will throw a fit when they find out that we are considering sources other than Dojo to be official. I could care less about those people, but I know we should wait because we have to vote (*grumble*) on it.-(Vert Bandit (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Removed? I see it plain as day. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 05:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to say I was wrong about Ness do to Brawl central but from now on I going to wait till tehy give us proof about the players so forget what I have said about Marth and Roy.--DarkFierceDeityLink 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this "just about everyone" is, seeing as how only two people have said "no" to adding them so far. Arrowned (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not really my say or anything as I'm not really much of a Wikipedian, but I think they should be kept off, but have a note added below the character list making note of their appearance in the video. Evan1109 (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a question that should be asked is "what is the nature of the icons?". Dojo said "some stickers can only be placed on certain characters" but it never said the way to find out this info. However this pictures seems to show either: 1. The icons mean the series it is from or 2. the character it can be used upon. However argument 1 fails for the new icons which shows icons unrelated to the series to be appearing when a sticker is highlighted so the icons must show what the sticker can be used on so therefore the icons are most likely playable characters, however this line of though sounds like original to me but if we just go by the icons then I say add them to the confirmed list. The Light6 (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh... not sure what you're talking about. The sticker highlighted in the second case is Groudon, a Pokemon, and only Pokemon character icons are displayed in its description. That said, icons seem to not appear in all cases - the Joshua sticker on the Dojo has none despite being from the same franchise as Ike. --HeroicJay (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand how it says these are playable characters. Just because they have small icons next to a playable character doesn't make them playable. It is just assuming they are, which is a minor case of Original Research. Unless another video from a reliable source such as this one shows the characters in a match (with damage counters on bottom), and/or shows them part of a character list, it cannot be added in my opinion. Wikipedia IS NOT about needing to add the info that is up to date, it is about adding correct info. And as I said, just having a small icon doesn't make them playable technically correct. <3 Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 05:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as I want to fight that, you're right. We can't go by the icons alone. It is OR to think they represent the characters the stickers can be equipped to. lol TheLight6, why'd you have to go and open your mouth?Satoryu (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I watched the video earlier, and the icons were there. I watched it 1 minute ago, and as it had been said, they were blocked out. Wow! Somebody working for Nintendo is really stupid. They could have played it cool, ignored the video, and everything could have been fine. Instead, they suspisciously block out the proof, like it is no big deal. They pretty much helped to prove that Ness, Lucario, and Jigglypuff are playable. Why go through the trouble to block something out if it wasn't meant to be a secret? Do they think that we are stupid? There are probably dozens of the "uncensored" video on YouTube. Why block it out? It's too late. We've seen it. If Ness, Jigglypuff, and Lucario end up being on Brawl, then I am personally going to look everyone up who thought that it wasn't a good source, go to their house, cuss them out, then go onto the next house. (Of course I'm not serious.)-(Vert Bandit (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

We don't have to do original research, do we? Can't we just point to non-Wikipedia websites, and I'm sure there are some, where they do the original research themselves? Isn't that what Wikipedia is about, compiling information from a lot of sources and offering links to them? If information is conflicting, for example, Nintendo denies that the characters will be in Brawl, then there's the issue of choosing whose information to list, or both. But in this case, where other sites are pointing out something which is totally plausible and sensible, I would think that the course of action would be to list the info. -128.84.45.231 (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OR is OR, no matter who does it. Until it's stated by an official source that the icons represent playable characters, we can't add this info. OTL I should've realized this sooner. Satoryu (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should ask, then, what is NOT Original Research. If you want to write a plot summary for a movie, do you have to wait for the director to release said plot summary before you can include it? Is it not acceptable to draw from a plot summary on a website or movie review column? Get a clue. Everything is OR. A newspaper is OR, based on the account of the journalists. Does that mean that you can't use information from a newspaper? No. It just means that, as with any source, you have to tell where you got the information from. We can't do the "original research", but we are perfectly within our rights to point to other sites which do it themselves. --128.84.78.80 (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[1]If you drag the bar thing to 4:20 or 4:21 and hold it there, you'll see the icons. If you let go, it goes back to 4:18, and the icons will be gone when the video gets to 4:20 and 4:21. Takuthehedgehog (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's weird. It worked for me, too, Takuthehedgehog. Well, if the characters are added to the list, then the video could still be used as a reference, assuming that the images aren't blocked completely by then.-(Vert Bandit (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

I zoomed my browser to 400% and looked at it per they way above. It looks to me that it is Pokemon Trainer and not Ness. But this is WP:OR so don't believe anything I say :). <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That is PT you see with Pika, Jiggly, and Lucario. Ness is in the picture with Lucas.Satoryu (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Satoryu, Tinkleheimer. It's not a case of OR at all. To those who are saying that those icons are not indicative of playable characters, please read the sticker update again. Per Sakurai: "Also, some stickers can only be placed on certain characters." The character's trophy is Kirby, and a sticker with Kirby, Meta Knight, and King Dedede icons is shown. Given that the item is a Kirby item, and that the Pokémon item (Groudon) shows four Pokémon characters, and the EarthBound character shows two EarthBound characters, it fits with the information given, and calling it OR is a real long shot. If that's the only argument against it, it doesn't hold up. Coreycubed (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know the icons stand for the avaiable characters? And those are only three stickers among thousands in the game. You can't go by them alone. It's OR, sadly.Satoryu (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I know people will dislike this suggestion but I think with this update from Nintendo that it is likely Dojo's update might reveal some info about it, so maybe we should wait for a while. Dojo updates in like an hour (or is it 5 mins? Damn daylight savings) The Light6 (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Aww, come on Satoryu, you know me well enough by now to know I'm not trying to pull something here. I'm one of the biggest sticklers to policy around. I know you've found the easy way out by claiming it's OR and trying to stifle the addition. Think about it, you'll realize why it doesn't hold water. On an item equip screen, which the game's creator has said will show that only certain items can be equipped to certain characters, and we're looking a section in a screenshot directly next to the sentence where he states this, and all of a sudden two characters which have been playable since the beginning are now on a list along with all the other playable characters? There's no research involved. WP:OR is invalidated, and you know it. (""Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found.", per WP:OR.) At this point I'm tempted to say that OR would be trying to show otherwise. At any rate, I'm all for waiting until the Dojo update -- this wouldn't be the first time the update gave us the answer we needed. If it's not related to those three, though, I will be here in the morning, pushing for their addition. Coreycubed (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll agree with that. Sheesh, I'm for it one hour, against it the next, and now I'm for it again. Can you say "flipflopper"? That said, I'm not going to fight whatever decision is made. I just don't feel up to the task of repeating my opinions over and over.Satoryu (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure dojo will update today isn't today Martian King day.--DarkFierceDeityLink 07:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would American children being given the day off of school prevent Japanese game developers from posting updates to a blog? Coreycubed (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In ten days, SSBB will be released in Japan and you know as well as I that some Japanese guy will manage to unlock every character on the first day and pictures will be all over the internet and everything will be peachy. Until then, can we put this discussion on hold? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Axem, there are Americans with imports who are going to have it just as fast, and no one asked people to wait until Sept. 21 to update the Wikipedia page for 9/11. In short, no. Anyways, the update was Zelda's Final Smash, so the information is still out there. Can someone please offer a good reason other than OR (it's not) or just can't be bothered (sorry Axem)? Coreycubed (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are waiting for an update that says, "The icons on the bottom of the screen are those of playable characters," then, no we shouldn't assume so. The truth is, though, common sense cannot be ignored. It is obvious that those are playable characters. Coreycubed is right. Just look at the sticker update on the Dojo. Those are all icons of playable characters. Pretty much everything suggest that icons on the sticker menus are those of playable characters. Why are we even debating this? Look at it this way: If the icons are not those of playable characters, then what reason would Nintendo have for blocking them after the video had been released? If those aren't playable characters, then does anyone have a reasonable idea as to why those icons are among the icons of confirmed playable characters? Again, conclusions derived from common sense are pointless to debate.-(Vert Bandit (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

1. Presuming that the icons on the bottom are playable characters, no matter how obvious it is, is Original Research. 2. Even if they are playable characters, how are we for sure that they are the specified characters. It may be obvious also, but it is still Original Research.

I am not saying that these icons are not playable characters, because I personally think they are. I am also not saying that they are not Lucario, Jigglypuff, and Ness, but again, I personally think they are. But without anything that is concrete proof, besides assumptions, that those are playable characters and are in fact the named characters, we can not add them. I will say this again, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT ABOUT UP TO DATE INFORMATION, IT IS ABOUT CORRECT, VERIFIABLE INFORMATION. VERIFIABLE MEANS SOURCES THAT EXPLICITELY SAY! Wow I think I went a lil' overboard with the caps. D= Oh well. Hopefully my opoint wil get across. Happy Editing. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much help this would give. This is not an opinion though but a well-thought of logical explanation. Note the words logical and explanation. They are not my opinion and they use logic as a verifiable case. You guys often cited this argument "Also, some stickers can only be placed on certain characters." And, we need proof that by saying these icons are playable characters, we could say that Lucario, Ness and Jigglypuff are playable characters. Now I'll draw your heads to the attention of DOJO!! Sakurai explains things after each picture. He gives a caption, and an explanation of the previous picture shown. The previous picture leading to this quote is the picture that shows Kirby character icons. If we go with the argument that these could just represent the series, this is a bad argument. There is a symbol that does show the series...the star for the Kirby series. And if this could be said the same with the other stickers, then why would there be no ike icons for Joshua. Sakurai explains himself in that line that certain stickers can be used by only certain characters. He would not have put that picture up if it did not illustrate what he meant by his explanation. The icons therefore are the playable characters that sakurai is talking about that can only use that certain sticker. To add more proof, the paragraph below the discussed picture discusses the placement of stickers. Which stickers to put, how to put them and etc. He uses the caption as an operative tool and the paragraph as an explanation to the illustration. He would not put an "ALSO" statement with these statements: "Stickers whose range of usage is limited in this fashion are proportionally stronger when placed appropriately. Do your best to find a good place for each sticker." To make a coherent paragraph, all of these should be related. The two following statements still pertain to the picture, therefore, the 1st statement must also pertain to the picture. Now, I explained the logic behind that. It's all up to you what to decide. It's not original work because I didn't use an argument. I just gave the logical bases. I know you guys are having an open debate about it and agree on assumptions but this is putting it in check. So have fun editing guys, and I hope this explanation will enlighten your decisions. deecee (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dcmjstar is right, the logic speaks for itself. It shouldn't take an act of God to connect the dots and add two and two to get four. At any rate, consensus seems to support adding the information, but in the interests of fairness and that a lot of people probably don't know what's happened here yet, and that there really is no time limit on consensus building, we'll give it a while longer before adding the info. Coreycubed (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between original research and logic.--24.62.237.165 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of making blanket statements, care to point it out more specifically? Coreycubed (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a dead give away that the characters are playable BUT,the pics. are blury making it hard for some people to see. Those people would probably start arguments. I think that some where in the article we should have a note about this, and place a citation to the pics. That would probably work. All in favor, please say "I". Thank you.SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. Anyways, it's not about the pics being blurry, and we couldn't cite an image hosting site regardless. It's about whether or not posting the information violates WP:OR or any other policies. Currently, consensus and policy support adding the info, but we're giving it more time to allow more of the regular editors to have their say -- Sukecchi, for example. Coreycubed (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been named: therefore I must respond! While I feel this is proof enough that Lucario, JigglesMcPuff, and Nessy Boy are in...seeing as how they removed them from the video now...and Serebii just openly said he knew about them...but then again, we can't use Serebii. Anyway: Despite this being pretty much proof they are in, I think it would be best just to wait for Dojo or the game. It comes out next week...just wait a bit longer. -Sukecchi (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

*waves* Hallo, I knew you were lurking about. I guess I'm fine with them not being added, but I don't know what we're going to tell people who come here to add it -- "Yes, we know, but we decided we didn't want to." Is that going to be our excuse? Policy doesn't prevent it (not that most of the people adding it even know what policy is) but we'd be fine to wait a week. Oh well, I had fun checking off boxes for the first time ever. Coreycubed (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello all! Miss me? Anyways, back to the topic at hand. I believe that Lucario, Jigglypuff, and Ness should be added to the list. The first problem is what the icons mean. As pointed out by Dcmjstar, the Dojo points out this information. It shows us a picture, then proceeds to talk about the details of the picture; using as many stickers as possible to get as many benefits as possible, what happens when you have two of the same benefits, and then about how some stickers are limited on which characters you can place them on. All of that directly refers to the picture above the paragraph. So we know that the icons represent which characters are able to use those stickers. So there's no question, or original research, that an icon of a character in the information of a sticker means that that character can use that sticker. Reading Friday's update, we know that you use the stickers to power-up characters you play as in Subspace Emissary. That means that if a character has an icon in the details of a sticker, that character is playable. None of this is original research also, I'm just taking 2 and 2, and getting 4. Mind you both 2's were provided by Nintendo themselves. Now about the video. The video no longer shows the icons when played normally, but by using the bar at the bottom of the video to skip to certain parts, we can see a freezeframe of the Groudon sticker and which characters can use it. You can't see the Claus sticker this way though, the next point you can skip to shows the Sonic sticker. However, there are videos of this video on Youtube and pictures of the video on official video game websites, like Joystiq. So we are able to verify all of this information with official sources and that none of this is original research. I personally see no reason why we shouldn't add the three to the list and think that we should add them. Shyrangerr (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for adding them, besides it doesn't matter if it is true or not it just needs to be verifiable and we do know the icons are in the official video. Also what has been pointed out about the icons if you connected the dots says that they are playable character which is common sense not original research. Also when I suggested the icons could mean something different I was just playing the devil's advocate because everyone was saying that is meant they were playable yet I couldn't recall a statement saying it exactly so I just mentioned the idea to make sure everyone wasn't being consumed by their POV. The Light6 (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You were just doing your job, don't worry. We all have to take a reality check now and then to make sure we're not getting POV-slammed, and thank you for reminding us of it. Anyways, this seems like consensus to me, I'm going to go ahead and restore the article if there are no more objections. Coreycubed (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think we should take vote of some kind just as a precautionary measure? You know, to show we have consensus? -Sukecchi (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote to have to have a vote! Shyrangerr (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree to have a vote lets start now!AlexanderLD (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, this isn't WP:ROLL, thank goodness. A vote isn't required for consensus, but it's a good idea if there are any more objections or undone edits to the addition. If anyone else voices a concern, we'll take a quick poll to establish consensus. For the first time, I think the anons are on the same side as policy...! Coreycubed (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a footnote or reference necassary? I would add it in myself, but I wouldn't know how to word it or even add it in...Shyrangerr (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

lol, it's funny. I saw this video a couple of days ago and didn't even look at those icons. Wow, I could've been like one of the first people to know about their revealing. Oh, well, that's life. Anyway, I definitely think they should be added to the character list. Without a doubt, the official Nintendo Website is as reliable as you can get. Just because it didn't come from DOJO doesn't mean a thing. This charade has gone on far too long. When Donkey Kong was revealed in that video at E3, we didn't add him cuz Dojo didn't, and then we added him just the next day. When that other site got leaked pictures of Sheik, we didn't add him cuz Dojo didn't. I mean sure, that one website might've been a little iffy, but this is straight from Nintendo. It's completely reliable. On the matter of how to source it, why can't we just put a link to the video? Even if we can't properly source it, they should be on their no doubt. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we did add Sheik before the Dojo "revealed" her.Satoryu (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The other characters aren't sourced, and the game itself will be the source in a short time. Unless someone's clamoring for it, I think it's OK. Coreycubed (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Speak of the devil, he hears you. Someone is asking for a citation. Should we just direct him here?Satoryu (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

nm, I just got an answer to that question.Satoryu (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I was going to say, we should be thinking of the best way to cite the site without putting any big glaring notes on the individual characters. If you look at the article, smashbros.com isn't sourced for playable characters at all, yet we still post the content. Maybe we should add a ref tag to the Playable Character header with smashbros.com and wii.com cited? (Specific URLs, of course. Videos are citable, and you can put a "retrieved on" section to avoid the whole "it's not there anymore argument".) Coreycubed (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

say if pokemon.com says they are in is that a reliable?--DarkFierceDeityLink 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Since a lot of fans saw this I believed that todays update would of been Lucairo, Ness or even Jiggly but i'm only guessing that tomorrow up dates will be one of these just how Sheik was announced the next day fans found out about her.--DarkFierceDeityLink 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, I saw the video, several times on the japanese wii website with the long smash bros. brawl instructional commercial, and i didn't see it at 4:20. I saw the sticker screen on the video, but all i saw at the bottom was a blank space. I saw the photo, but as far as I know, it could be wrong, Im not saying that i dont belive they will be there, but I would like an explaination. Was the video edited?

Yes, if you had properly read the talk page you would know the video has been edited but even so by pausing the video they are still apparently visible. The Light6 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: ok never mind, for some reason I can see it when i pause the video on it, for both, kinda stange... but fascinating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.156.246 (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't right...

The source you provided for it even calls it a rumour. It doesn't state it for specific fact. What is the problem of waiting 10 more days for the release to get the Absolute truth? If some of us can agree to wait or find a reliable source which doesn't classify this as a rumour, then can I ask that it be removed again? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Edit Conflict) This is also leading to the removal of Pichu and Mewto! We DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE if they are out, so they shouldn't be removed also. This is really out of hand. Please stay with me on this one. WE DO NOT NEED ALL THE POSSIBLE INFORMATION AS SOON AS WE GET IT!! We need reliable information <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Double Edit Conflict) AUGH!!!! <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This update says nothing to deconfirm either of them; any attempts to X them on the article will be reverted. We're not taking this and running with it, not by any stretch. Coreycubed (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with checking off Lucario, Jigglypuff, and Ness. We reached a consensus (as far as I know) that we should add them because we have proof from an official video on wii.com. The person that Xed off Pichu and Mewtwo were told not to because we also have solid proof that the video doesn't confirm they aren't playable. You can read the latest topic to see why.Shyrangerr (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel we don't have a consensus. I am trying to figure out if we can have an administrator or someone else that does not edit this article step in to see if s/he can help. I will begin looking. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

By what I can see right now you're the only one who doesn't think we should add them in. It seems like people want a reference to where it says the three are confirmed in. Would [2] work? I'm not sure since it's coming from someplace tht isn't Nintendo, but it contain information from Nintendo. I don't think linking to the actual video would work since it doesn't show the icons normally and when you use the skip feature you can only see the Pokemon and Sonic icons. Somehow though, the three need to be able to be check off on the list of playable characters.Shyrangerr (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Raises hand" Oh! Oh! I don't edit this article! However, you might not like that I also agree that Ness, Lucario, and Jigglypuff are confirmed. The evidence weighs heavily against them not being confirmed. Additionally, I feel I should mention that consensus doesn't have to be 100% for there to be consensus. Otherwise nothing would get done on this site. TwilightPhoenix (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So do you think they are or aren't? You said you think they are then you said the evidence weighs towards them not being confirmed. Typo?Shyrangerr (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He said "the evidence weighs heavily against them not being confirmed", which was basically a double negative and him saying "I think evidence says they're in". I think. Arrowned (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I curse English and how complicated it isShyrangerr (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm a little late and this has already been said, but... http://img341.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vip439380np6.jpg http://img341.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iup542612bd3.jpg In the later image, I see how it might not be Ness. After all, every main character of every Mother game looks just about the same. It could be Ninten, etc. I think that it is Ness, but my opinion isn't enough. In the former image, who are you (the anti-Lucario-and-Jigglypuff-on-the-list-people) thinking? Seriously? Who else could the icon on the very right be? Mudkip? I'd liek that, but now is not the time, and it is clearly Jigglypuff. Now I quit paying attention to Pokemon years ago, so Lucario was introduced after I quit caring. I can't really argue the point that it is clearly Lucario all because I don't know what other kind of Pokemon there are who could look similar. Again I think that it is Lucario, but my opinion is not great enough to decide the article. At the very least, Jigglypuff should be confirmed, and that is at the very least. I mean, I could see how Ness and Lucario are too bland to determine who the icons belong to (clearly characters we haven't seen yet), but Jigglypuff is where I draw the line. (HA! Never thought I'd say that). That is the one point that no one can debate. That is clearly Mudkip Jigglypuff, and anyone who is even entertaining the idea that it might not be should just log off, step away from the computer, and go pratice some exercises that help to build common sense and logic. P.S.: It's not Igglybuff because it has Jigglypuff's eyes. (Never thought I'd say that either.)-(Vert Bandit (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

We've got over that hump, the question now is how to source the whole deal. Everything we've come up with so far has been reverted. Coreycubed (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, could [3] work?Shyrangerr (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Man, it's stuff like this that makes me totally lose faith in Wikipedia. Rather than including stuff which can be arrived at by using a little common sense, or just citing places which use that common sense, everything gets tied up in bloody Wikipolitics. The best evidence at hand, especially including Nintendo's attempts to remove said evidence, point more strongly towards yes rather than no with regards to the inclusion of certain characters. The most accurate info regarding them is thus this "rumor" or lapse into "original research". But why make the obviously correct choice when you could just put up virtual red tape? Sigh. --128.84.78.80 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We all know it's true now, it's a few users who want us to keep unsourced material off the site, when there are billions of bytes of text in other articles that have no sourcing. No worries though, we'll pull through. FWIW, Joystiq sources The Tanooki, I imagine we'd use that as the link. Coreycubed (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We just need to add some sort of source so we can check the three off. I don't know what the policies are about what sources you can use. So we need someone who does know the policies to make a decision on what source we can use.Shyrangerr (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason the last source was removed, was because it didn't explicitly say that they were playable, even though deduction makes it clear. So all we need is a reliable secondary source, that cites wii.com, that states they are playable. I'll check around and see if Joystiq or Tanooki fit that bill. Coreycubed (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Joystiq article is acceptable. No obscure wording like Kotaku's page had. We can use it as a source.Satoryu (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I added in checks for the three characters and added in the Joystiq article in the notes section. I hope it all works right...Shyrangerr (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't the proper way to cite it. I fixed it for you. Won't be long before it gets reverted though. At least the proper version is there if we need it.Satoryu (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That is Ness not the pokemon trainer look at it more carefully.--DarkFierceDeityLink 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two pictures. One which shows who can use Groudon sticker which shows Pikachu, Pokemon Trainer, Lucario, and Jigglypuff. Then one more showing who can use the Claus sticker and it shows Ness and Lucas.Shyrangerr (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Place a warning on the page like the one telling people not to place Giga Bowser on the list or not to place Asssist Trophies on the list. Make it says something along the lines of coming to the discussion page instead of editing. It's not like they have to listen to it, but it might prevent people who don't know about the video from seeing it, freaking out, then editing it back without even checking to see if the information is correct. -(Vert Bandit (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

I added a note trying to persuade those who try to remove Ness, Lucario, and Jigglypuff from the article to come discuss it on the discussion page. -(Vert Bandit (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Good idea.Shyrangerr (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is something called consistency. If this article lists those as confirmed, so should the main article Brawl.

And by the way, the movie Spiderman trailer showed the World Trade Center. Did you actually see them in the movie? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the Main article in Brawl shouldn't mention then, They were just discussing it to sse if it was OR and if they should wait for the DOJO, and its is important because if they are confirmed the series article's playable characters was going to be updated, but not the Brawl article.--Fandangox (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Respect Sakurai's Wishes not to show character's accidentally shown

We all know Sakurai did not want the character's to be revealed to the world, and now it's spreading like wildfire. At first I didn't believe any of it, but now I really do think that they ARE in the game. So now I think that since they removed it from the site, we should respect the fact that they don't want the characters revealed yet. It was an obvious accident and now they're trying to cover it up. So we should help by taking the characters down. Atleast until Sakurai admits that they have been revealed. And if you guys can't do that then atleast put them as questionable and put a note saying they are in the game. We just don't have all the info yet. It's like deconfirming Mewtwo, there's not enough info to prove Mewtwo is out, so there's not enough info to prove Lucario is in. .WanderingHero (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why put them as a ? Lucario was never in super smash before so how would that look two x's and a ? Leave it the way it is, it was their mistake to show us, they were confirmed by the video by showing us their lil faces on the bottom and i'm pretty sure that the next up date will show all 3 of them.--DarkFierceDeityLink 02:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Wikipedia isn't interested if the info was leaked and the sources want to cover it up, if the info is known and it can be added then it is added, Wikipedia isn't censored which is why the spoiler tags were removed. The Light6 (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It should stay we agreed on it.--DarkFierceDeityLink 02:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, we aren't going to be getting any more DOJO!! updates, it seems - the English (american) part of the site times out whenever I click on it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Works fine for me. We got info about a Manaphy Pokéball and a link to this interview with tonight's update. Arrowned (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as I agree that this confirms Lucario, Jigglypuff, and Ness (HA! I was right. You owe me $20!). I must agree that this is still kinda vague. Though 99.9% Confirmation (at least to me), that remaining .1% prevents me from agreeing that they should be on the page. Dengarde ► Complaints 09:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Respect his wishes? I profoundly remember him saying that the game will be spoiled due to the nature of the internet so there's no sense in hidding characters.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

He didn't mean it like that. Say if I had Sonic Lucario and Luigi and you didn't that would make the game spoiled for the player. So They stay check and even if we did take it we'd have to take Luacrio off and half the world already knows they are in.--DarkFierceDeityLink 14:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't confirm Lucario, Jiggly, and Ness without a proper source

Nintendo removed the early leaks from their website. YouTube videos are never used as sources on Wikipedia. The second source you're using is self-published and is not verifiable.

I quote

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Wikipedia doesn't allow self-published third party sources so thats why you can't use Joystiq. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

First off it wasn't youtub we got it from we got it from nintendo 2nd looking at your talk page you seem like a bad person who may be up to something how about you don't touch the page unless you see the talk page and other users agree.--DarkFierceDeityLink 15:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Use punctuation marks if possible, please, it makes it easier to understand you. And if the edit war continues, I will either block you both or permanent protect the article. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't seem to understand your points DarkLink but the appropriated actions have been taken due to your hostile attitude. I'm merely trying to keep up this article well sourced and when your sources lack credibility or rather aren't appropriate for Wikipedia it is up to you, the one making those edits to provide a source. I have discredited the first source since it is no longer on Nintendo's website and the second source is not a proper source, it just reiterates what we already know without them citing their sources. I for one wish for an administrator to remove the disputed information and do a full lock on the article until January 31, after the game is released in Japan.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your not understing you believed what we had was from a 3rd party it wasn't it was from nintendo which is useable pluse the makes edited that video also so fans wont find out about this is really unnecessary and needs to be taken off.--DarkFierceDeityLink 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Like stated before your grammar makes your message very difficult to follow but unless you have a full, valid source, such as Nintendo's own webpage (had the video been unedited) then I wouldn't be removing your rash and undocumented confirmations.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it still possible to see the icons if you pause the movie? So doesn't that make the movie from the NINTENDO SITE citable? The Light6 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, Nintendo removed those icons and re-uploaded a new video, hence it is no longer credible to be used in the article. It was changed long before people started editing Wikipedia and claiming Nintendo still had it.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heave, we have actually reached a consensus about the matter. It wasn't DarkFierceDeityLink who made that change but Sukecchi and Coreycubed. I don't think you understood The Light6's message. Nintendo did remove those icons and re-uploaded a new video but there are still freeze frames from the edited video that prove the old videos. Thus, it is still a credible source. The use of joystiq was to show the original video where the freeze frames have easier access to for the sake of those reading it. But, the thing is, the edited video on the Japanese Wii site still has some of those freeze frames. So, I hope you understand Heave that people have discussed this. We don't need to make another edit war, there's been 2 of such already. I hope you've read the character reveal heading first before doing what you did. If you did, then please state why we can't use the nintendo wii Japanese site as a credible source. deecee (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heave, he's right. The icons are still visible on Nintendo's site. Furthermore, I added the reference while the page was still fully visible, and included the access date, at which time the video was fully visible. The history confirms this if you wish to be precise. Please refrain from making trouble, as you are not the only editor working on this page, and we have reached a consensus on the matter. Coreycubed (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A consensus was made to keep it in? Aw man, if only I had a connection, I could have partaken in the debate :( Anyways, after getting VERY little sleep on it, I have to agree with these guys. Dengarde ► Complaints 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember when DK was seen in the 15 second E3 trailer of Brawl and yet we decided against adding him? For all we know he could had been an assist. And consensus can change. While I concede the items are show shown on the Nintendo website you're deduction falls under original research and I implore you to stop the double-standards (see DK inclusion, see Sheik screenshots, etc). And for the last time I am not looking for trouble, Joystiq is hardly a reliable source if they are just spewing back what we ourselves deduced. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember fully well, and this is not the same scenario. As detailed in the previous discussion, it does not constitute OR to use the video as a source; no research is involved, and the source is the same for all content involved. WP:OR and WP:V do not conflict with citing the Wii video. Coreycubed (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, we've changed our minds since then. Back in those days we were so frustrated over rampant vandalism that we adopted a "no additions unless they're on DOJO!!" mentality in an attempt to counter, but we've since clearly relaxed that, partly due to so many more editors starting to keep watch over the page that it's easier to counter the vandals. In fact, we added Sheik hours before DOJO!! actually confirmed her. Now our stance is clearly that if another source that is legitimately trustworthy breaks the news, it's okay for addition. When the news is legitimate, we only get wishy-washy about it when there's a question as to whether they're playable or not, which applied with DK, but didn't apply with Sheik, and doesn't apply here. Arrowned (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I could continue to argue against such a motion but even playing the devil's advocate would be hard. If it means anything I still don't think the article requires Joystiq as a source, Nintendo of Japan should be enough in this case. They don't confirm anything NoJ didn't already show on the video and are linking to a YouTube video for vital confirmation. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)--HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No one's sourcing YouTube. The Joystiq article source the Wii site, and includes a mirror for convenience. I take what you're saying with a grain of salt anyways; did you even read our discussion on the matter? You're covering old territory. Coreycubed (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what? Joystiq is obviously a perfectly fine source, especially since the video is a NINTENDO RELEASED VIDEO. Plus the fact that someone already put Lucario Jiggly and Ness on. Following the comment of someone above, let's stop this discussion and wait a few more days, since we all know that some fanatic will manage to get their hands on it and hack it before it is even released. If no one does that, then we'll wait for the real release date and examine the blogs closely.--haha169 (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Haha169 why can't the other user be understanding like you.--DarkFierceDeityLink 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The charracter shown in the preview IS NOT Ness. It is Pokemon Trainer. This makes sense, as it is a Groudon sticker, and it only applies to Pokemon characters (as shown: Pikachu, Pokemon Trainer, Lucario, and Jigglypuff). This almost cuts off Pichu and Mewtwo, but let's wait till something official is said. I'll remove Ness from the list. KingBurgermon (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon Trainer is indeed shown on the Groudon sticker; nobody claimed that was Ness. Ness appears in a different shot entirely, along with Lucas, underneath a Lucas and Sonic sticker on the topright side of the image. Arrowned (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If that was Ness, everyone, including Mr. Sakurai himself, would know that image was Photoshopped. Ness is an Earthbound character, not a Pokémon character. Ness and Pokémon Trainer may look alike, but not enough to mix the two up with the other. ♥,Ivyluv (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so just completely IGNORE what I said about this subject not being a big matter. There is no doubt about it. NINTENDO VIDEO. Not only that, but they deleted the icons a day later...suspicious... So I suggest we just leave that character list as is, unless Dojo releases a new character. Leave Lucario, Jiggly, and Ness. If the game comes up without them (highly doubtful), then you can go remove them. For now...it has a perfectly proper source. --haha169 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

is this source proper enough? [4] FyreNWater (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pichu and Mewtwo

If Pichu and Mewtwo weren't on the list with the other characters, that means they are not playable so I put up an "X".69.121.102.73 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you dare. This does not mean they are not playable. Perhaps they weren't unlocked yet. Or maybe they're not usable in Subspace Emissary. Their fates are still up in the air.Satoryu (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what Satoryu just said. The video only confirms characters playable, it doesn't confirm characters not playable. The other characters (like Pichu and Mewtwo) might just not be unlocked yet, they might not be able to use the stickers, or they might not be involved in Subspace Emissary since only characters in Subspace Emissary can use stickers.Shyrangerr (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense, as the site said that *most* of the unlockables would be from the Subspace Emissary. Or perhaps certain scenes can't occur without a character being unlocked prior. Either way, this does not deconfirm anyone at all. Instead, be happy that the three are in, especially after that argument that got the page locked down before. Oubliette (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. let me ask you a question. In Melee were all 25 chars shown on the screen when u first played the game. Nope. Cuz they weren't unlocked. If they showed them and they weren't unlocked that would be just plain idiocy. I'm sure it applies here too. There not going to go ahead and show pictures of people that aren't unlocked UNTIL they are unlocked. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I, personally, find it doubtful that every one of the people shown in the icons so far are all default at the start (judging from how many and who you started with on Melee). It's quite likely that in the Testing version they were using that EVERYONE was unlocked. Likely, but not definite. So there's no "X" about it. 69.65.69.116 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok first off this isn't the testing version, the game comes out in japan in 9 days, i'm pretty dang sure it's the real deal. And this video couldn't have taken too long to make plus they probably didn't make it too long ago either so...yea. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what any of you think, the point is that it's a far cry from sourceable and certainly not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Any more speculation, as usual, will be subject to removal. Coreycubed (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

...he started it24.186.101.182 (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe that they would necessarily use the release version for promotional videos just because it's available to them. Unless there's some form of "actual gameplay footage" thing they have to or are for whatever reason abiding to. But you missed the point that the listed characters don't seem like they'd all belong to the starting set. If they have one unlocked, they should have all whether it's the release version or a debug version. It's not like the people making the video are actually playing through the game. Though this argument is moot because we both (all) think that they should stay as ?s. 69.65.69.116 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pichu and Mewtwo are NOT deconfirmed. Their fate is still up in the air, and they will remain as "?". --haha169 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree just b/c Lucario and the trainer are new to brawl it doesn't mean that mewtwo or even pichu are gone.--DarkFierceDeityLink 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that the Groudon sticker just doesn't apply to them. They may lack attacks that can use the sticker. For all we know, a Mario or Zelda character could use the Groudon sticker after a while. Oubliette (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Just cuz the sticker is from the Pokemon franchise doesn't mean that every Pokemon character may be able to use it. Pichu and Mewtwo may 1) not have been unlocked yet in the file from which the video was made, or 2) they may not be able to use the sticker and therefore would not show up on the screen. Another good point u made oubliette, was that just because all of the characters shown are pokemon characters doesn't mean only characters from the series that the sticker represents will be able to use it. That cannot be 100% determined as of this point. 24.186.101.182 (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading Comprehension

despite HAL Laboratory putting Game Arts in charge of preliminary development for Brawl. - I call bullshit. HAL was busy, that's why Skrai needed another team.--141.84.69.20 (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. HAL Labs shouldn't be listed as in place of the "we" as that's a bit of an assumption. Arrowned (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's still misleading. Game Arts wasn't in charge, but some of their staff came to be the core of the Brawl team.--141.84.69.20 (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Modified it again. As a friendly heads-up, you can be bold and make these changes yourself when you see they're necessary; we don't have a problem with sensible fixes like this. Arrowned (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see that happening anytime soon, but thanks.--141.84.69.20 (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, Arrowned, the page had to be semi-protected because of constant chicanery on the characters list. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oops; my fault. I forgot it was still semi'd. Arrowned (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Null persp; the article will be unlocked in three days anyhow. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Primids

"They can be seen forming out of strange purple spores that clump together" I believe these purple spores may be called Shadow Bugs, whilst it is slightly dubious, it seems extremely likely according to this trophy description of a Big Primid on the official Dojo Website. http://www.smashbros.com/en_uk/gamemode/modea/images/modea11/modea11_071226a-l.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.2.235 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but we'll need a source for that, which probably won't show up until after Brawl releases in English. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 22:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Even so, what is that going to do? We will not include that into the Brawl article because it is extra information. If we add so much information, the article will be a useless, unreadable clump. --24.6.103.162 (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes...that seems like an interesting trivial fact, but I agree with the person above me. We shouldn't do anything about it like adding it to the Brawl article.--haha169 (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think 82.30 was suggesting, you know, adding it to the series page. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 12:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Zelda/Sheik and Samus/ZZS same character?

Shouldn't Zelda and Sheik be counted as the same character and the same for Samus and ZZS? Because you cant choose Sheik or ZZ at the beginning of a match so that makes them transformations. Wiki is having problems today so i couldn't edit it right. - Dancingcyberman

Hmm, Sheik CAN be selected at the beginning of the match by holding a before the match. Yes, they are transformations but there has been a consensus already that since these characters were given Character profiles on the DOJO!!, they are given the privilege to be there separately but with footnotes attached to them. We follow Nintendo in making them separate characters. And besides, Zero Suit Samus isn't in 64 or Melee.deecee (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true. We do what DOJO!! does. LOLSLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Stages

Could we do a complete copy of the character list but with stages? It would make it very helpful, - Dancingcyberman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancingcyberman (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful to know all the stages but it is unnecessary. That's what we have Smash Wiki for. Having the same template as the Characters section would make it too cluttered. There's just too many stages as there are just many items and etc. It will take up too much unneeded space. I'm sorry but this too has been a long-time-ago consensus. deecee (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2008 (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.