Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Archive 5

Archives
Archive 1 (October 2005 → E³) Archive 2 (24th May → 31st May 2006) Archive 3 (31st May → 6th June 2006) Archive 4 {6th June → 9 July)

Headers vs. lists

In early June, there was a little mini-war over whether the "Confirmed characters" section should have headers or not. Right now each character is presented like so: ===Mario===. I changed it to ;[[Mario]] : but that was changed back twice. On the second time HighwayCello (talk · contribs · count) recommended that I take it to the talk page. So why not. The question: Should the confirmed characters be changed to lists?

• Headers - how the article currently looks
• Lists - see User:Hbdragon88/Temp

Pros for lists:

• Discourages anons and other users from editing each individual section one-at-a-time; result is a cleaner edit history
• Not as much as an eyesore on the TOC (there are more "confirmed characters" headers on that section than there are in the entire TOC)

Cons for lists:

• It looks "daft" HighwayCello
• Harder to edit (HighwayCello)

Hbdragon88 22:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose Since my point has been POVed, why bother. Voting is evil. Highway ^Batman! 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose.--DarkHero 23:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry I couldnt vote earlier I was away for a while, but I have returned(obviosly) to say...who cares that much about the headers but cant see that the old way was neater?Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 12:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• I personally think that the fact that individual sections are edited is a PRO, not a con, of headers. It makes it more clear what the user is editing, and actually makes the history easier to read because you can browse each individual edit more efficiently. This one of the reasons why we encourage people to leave the automatically produced section header in the edit summary. I do understand your point about cluttering up the TOC. However, once the confirmed list gets expanded more, it'll probably be worth it to move the confirmed characters to its own subpage, and make the confirmed characters section a single paragraph of prose. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 23:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've seen many instances (not specifically in SSBB) where new users or anons rack up a ridiculous amount of edits because they're making changes to each individual section (sometimes 2-3 edits per section) since they don't know that it's easier and cleaner to go up to the main section header. This is why I consider it to be a pro to simply remove the edit sections and make them make all major edits under major header and not each individual one. Hbdragon88 23:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Having anons "rack up a ridiculous amount of edits" because they edit each section individually doesn't do any damage. Also, at the moment, we have the header, then a link to the main article of that character. With these link things, the header is the link to the main article, which in my opinion is confusing for the casual reader. -- Steel 23:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, of course it doesn't do any damage - it just makes the history more cluttered up. Re: the links - confusing? It's a blue link...blue, underlined links have been the default since the inception of the World Wide Web. On the flip side, I think the current way it looks - I think naming the character three times - header, main, and in the actual text - is overkill. Hbdragon88 08:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• The history thing is really a non-issue. We're not in charge of the history, nor is it our responsibility to ensure it doesn't get "cluttered" (whatever that means). Also, about the overkill business, we could easily rephrase the beginning of each paragraph so the character is only named in the header and the main article link. -- Steel 10:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that I can't decide because of the equality of the pros and cons. The Table Of Contents will look better if it's in lists, but it will be a bit tougher to edit like that.--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 03:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, what are we "Supporting" or "Opposing" in the poll? It would make a lot more sense if it said, say, Poll for changing character section to lists or something. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Presumably, we are supporting or opposing a change. Supporting no change would be opposing a change, the latter of which makes a clearer sentence. But it would be better to clarify.--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Should the confirmed characters be changed to lists?" If you want the characters as a list, support, if you don't, oppose. Is everything clear? Highway ^Batman! 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that the entire page, from content to structure, would be completely different by the time the game is released, so I suggest when we decide on this structure issue we think about the future. Erik the Appreciator 23:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• The characters would probably be moved to List of characters in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, at that point. Highway ^Batman! 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• With the ammount of controversy involved in teh charaqcter selections and rumors of the game, I think it might be a good idea to include a section atleast noting the rumors and controversy. Not to say specificaly stating any of the rumors though but the evidence of the controversy it's self and the magnitude of the controversy aswell as the many confirmed hoaxes. This is not sugesting that we futher this controversy or rumors but to note that there is one, and possibly one of the biggest ever surrounding a videogame. --Magosis 03:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • See, the reason that hasn't been done is because there is no evidence. There is no conspiracy. There are just a few minor fansites with people who enjoy making up rumours, and others who enjoy believing any made up rumour that people tell them. It's also almost certainly not "one of the biggest ever surrounding a videogame". I'm sure the Pokemon fans could give you a run for your money. That doesn't matter though. Speculation like this does not belong in the article, period. (See: WP:V, WP:NOT) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • My point is nto to include the specualtion, But i think it would be a good point to note that said speculation exists. I may have not been clear enough it my prior post --Magosis 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Super Smash Dojo

Name Change! the official site now lists it as Super Smash Dojo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.147.208 (talk • contribs)

I, in fact, have no idea what this person is talking about. I am, however, plopping it into its own section so it isn't confused at part of the above discussion. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion here talking about Brawl's name being changed to Super Smash Bros Dojo. He's just confusing the site name for the game name. - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is pretty common from people who don't take a good look at what they're talking about. Even though the smashbros.com website clearly refers to the game as "Brawl" many times over, the name of the site itself is the "Super Smash Bros. Dojo". No name change for this article necessary. --HeroicJay 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Dojo" is the name of the official site, and "Brawl" is the name of the game itself. they wouldn't change the name after making the logo and releasing the trailer under that name. FyreNWater 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This page was on Nintendo.com, but it got pulled (this is a mirrored version): http://wii.nintendo.com.nyud.net:8080/wifi.html. Scroll down to the section labeled "Fun", and you'll see this: "Join the Nintendo worldwide community! Play the coolest titles around with gamers from around the world via Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection. Whether you're thrashing with your friends in Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam or hammering the competition in Smash Bros. Dojo, Wii opens up a world of fun through online play!" What does that mean? Who knows. Max22 04:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG! It couldn't mean that maybe the authors of a site containing a small note about SSBB's online play which no longer exists (the mirror doesn't work either) made a mistake or something...or could it? Let's take a look at the official site:

From the opening paragraph: "As for future updates to Smash Bros. Dojo... What should I do? I haven't given it much thought yet.

From the latest update: "When Super Smash Bros. Brawl is completed sometime in 2007, I plan to post more information for you. " Case closed. Xubelox 05:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

Supposedly, it will be rated B in Japan, T for Teen in the U.S., and 12+ in Europe. --PJ Pete

Could you provide a source, please?--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 01:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering he said supposedly, it's probably not a very good one. Xubelox 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Three new characters?

I heard this and was going to add this to the article, but then decided that it might not be true.

I have just found out that three new characters--Young Wind Waker LInk, Ridley(is that spelled right?), and Bowser Jr.-- were added to Brawl, and two character--Ice Climbers and Mr. Game and Watch-- were cut from Brawl. I have no idea if this is credible or not, so I wanted to ask if anyone knew.

I found this on Youtube(just search for "three newcomers"), and, if you watch the video, you can understand my doubts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbub (talk • contribs)

Exactly why we're going to go ahead and not include it. This rumours has already been passed around the article repeatedly, it's pretty dumb. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I say anyone who posts stuff like this should be shot on site. But since the technology doesn't yet exist to kill people over the internet (though hopefully it will someday), maybe we should settle for deleting it, much like "forumish" topics are treated. Xubelox 01:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this rumor was a foruminsh comment. --DcPimp 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

*Backs away from Xubelox* Let's all hope. The Sonic fake shot has been the best fake so far, this is just dire now. Highway ^Batman! 16:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Not only is this rumor all but proven false, but the video in question involved scenes from Wind Waker, Super Smash Bros. Melee (for Ridley), and Super Mario Sunshine in its "NEWCOMER" intros. --HeroicJay 23:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just found an article about the "three newcomers", but it sounds like they doubt it too...http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151290 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.236.24 (talk • contribs)

"According to the French-based site LiveWii". -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That sight is getting a little annoying. Highway ^Batman! 14:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

They can't even spell "Ridley" correctly on that site. It's a load of BS that someone put up to freak out people. Also, don't believe ANY videos that aren't on official sites. It would be there unless it was accidentally leaked. In that case, it'd be up on official sites within a few hours. So STOP BELIEVING THESE FAN VIDEOS. FyreNWater 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Any honest person maing a fan video (ie not trying to trick someone) should put a warning at the beginning saying it's fake. I made a video and I did that. RememberMe? 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Stages, Items and Abilities.

I don't think we should have sections on stages, items and abilities at this point since all we have to go on is an early trailer for a source. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Even at this early point, there is still enough info for these sections. We known they will have "Super Smash Atacks", that there are new stages, and that new items will be used. Those things were shown in the trailer, so unless they drastically change the game (which there is no evidence of) the sections can remain. It would just start an edit war if you try to remove them, and the sections are going to be there when the article reaches a "finished" state after the game is released. JQF 14:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)