Talk:Super Smash Bros./Archive 7

If your question is on Super Smash Bros. Brawl, please read The Brawl FAQ to make sure your question has not been already answered.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Archive 5

You guys know the drill. Coreycubed 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My Last Edit About Jigglypuff's Confirmation

1) "On this stage, Snake communicates with his team to learn the key characteristics of his rivals... Whoa... Seriously?"
Definition of rival: A person who is competing for the same object or goal as another, or who tries to equal or outdo another; competitor.
The characters that are competing against Snake for the same goal of winning a match are all the other playable characters. That means that Snake has a codec conversation like Yoshi, Wario, and Zero Suit Samus's for every single playable character. This means that David Hayter has recorded lines about every playable character and therefor knows all of the playable characters.

2) Because of #1, David Hayter is a reliable source for information regarding playable characters (which is the topic at hand). Just being involved with the development of Brawl is not enough. The woman that voices Krystal for instance might not know all the playable characters because she most likely doesn't have lines that deal with every single playable character. Snake does have lines about every single playable character and does know them all; which is why he's reliable for this topic.

3) "...But I think it will be really fun to just whale on Pikachu or Jigglypuff or even Mario..."
David Hayter's wording shows that you will be able to beat up Jigglypuff in the actual game just like Pikachu or Mario. That means that Jigglypuff is a playable character because there would be no other way to whale on her otherwise. Besides that, there is nothing in his response to indicate he's talking about any character other than playable characters.

This is the last time I'm going to try and convince you all that David Hayter has confirmed Jigglypuff as a playable character. The last discussion got really long and cluttered up the Talk Page. So I will not be replying any more and cluttering up the Talk Page. If you want a response from me you may go to my Talk Page. Shyrangerr 22:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is the last time I'll say this. David Hayter is not a 100% reliable source, and leave it at that. :) Dengarde ► Complaints 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you say every one here is still going to say wait for Dojo.--DarkFierceDeityLink 22:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

...not really, no. Remember Donkey Kong and the Delay? That was put on here before the Dojo mentioned it =\ Dengarde ► Complaints 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

but we had proof that DK was in it due to a pre view of the game.--DarkFierceDeityLink 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And it wasn't from Dojo. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

to make very one happy why can't we just add her to the list we could always change it if she is not in the game.--DarkFierceDeityLink 23:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Because then we would be placing false information in the article. Like someone once told me: "All information is false unless proven". Not a very good saying, but it fits none the less. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This whole debate falls under Wikipedia:The Truth. TwilightPhoenix 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you that was part of what I was looking for: Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Hayter seems to be from my perspective a verifiable source, which means regardless of whether or not Jigglypuff is in if we have a verifiable source then it should be said that Jigglypuff is on. The Light6 00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the YouTube video is not verifiable by virtue of being a YouTube video without editorial review. Hayter could have said Barney and Homer Simpson are in Brawl and gotten away with it since that YouTube video has not been approved by Nintendo or other reliable news source. Axem Titanium 01:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Duh, of course it's not. It was an event about Metal Gear Solid 4. The reporter just came up with the SSBB question, because he worked on the title. --Mr.Mario 192 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shyrangerr, but I still don't think Jigglypuff should be put in the article. What Hayter said was a confirmation at heart, but Wikipedia is about tangible facts nonetheless. But, I think this should be pointed out: Hayter is just now getting involved in Smash Bros. because his character is in Brawl. I doubt he's played any of the previous Smash Bros installments. So how else would he know Jigglypuff even exists? It's not like he's just "naming names" like that guy at E for All did.

Still... We should wait for the Dojo. -- POWERSLAVE 02:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't he have played the last two installments? Just because he's famous that doesn't mean that he dosne't do things we do. He's just a normal guy.
Still I agree. Dengarde ► Complaints 02:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So, wait. How do you know he didn't played the last installments. And even if he didn't, there's more proof. If he was just naming names, how could he then know that Jigglypuff exists? If he didn't played the last ones, as you are saying, then this proves that he confirms it, because he could have discovered the name during development. --Mr.Mario 192 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is, he is most likely not very Smash-savvy or Pokemon-savvy, so if he does know about Jigglypuff as a Smasher, it is probably from those codec conversations. -- POWERSLAVE 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What's your sources? Can you verify that Mr. Hayter is not very smash-savvy or Pokemon-savvy? With reliable, third-party sources? I strongly doubt it. What you're suggesting is, at best, Original Research. Therefore, that isn't a valid arguement for Jigglypuff's inclusion on the page. Additionally, I remember reading that YouTube video's are not regarded as reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. Therefore, regardless of how reliable Mr. Hayter is, we cannot cite the video, and therefore cannot cite him. If, say, IGN had posted that video on their site, that'd be a different story. The issue here is not whether Mr. Hayter is realible, but whether citing our sources. And in this case our source fails to meet Wikipedia's standards.

I'd also like to point out that, if the above is any indication, our source is questionable. From WP:V: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." YouTube easily falls under this category. See also Examples of reliable sources. TwilightPhoenix 04:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hang on there, you misunderstand. I already said earlier "I agree with Shyrangerr, but I still don't think Jigglypuff should be put in the article." I'm not arguing that Jigglypuff SHOULD be put into the article, I'm just explaining why it is not stupid to take Hayter's words as confirmation, whether it goes into the article or not. -- POWERSLAVE 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. Not the first mistake I've made on Wikipedia. But I suppose my lengthy reply should pretty much cover all the reasons of why we can't use the video to confirm Jiggly, as much as I'd like to use this as an excuse to go ahead and check off Jiggly as playable. TwilightPhoenix 06:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the game is still 3 months away. So how can anyone be 100% sure that David Hayter even recorded all of his lines for the game? -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 16:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we're only one month away from the original release? =\ Dengarde ► Complaints 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't. Any assumption that he did is speculation. For all we know, they might not all be recorded and it could be a reason as to why the game is delayed. TwilightPhoenix 21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not true. Sakurai told us the game was delayed, so they put more emphasis on the Subscape Emissary and the Wi-Fi compatabilities. And how do you know if he speculated, TwilightPheonix? Didn't you see that he took time to think about the characters before he said the word "Pikachu"?? He is as reliable as he can be. He even confirmed that he finished all of the codec conversations. Remember that the event was about a Metal Gear Solid game, not Smash Bros. The woman asked him just for curiosity, so they could possibly publish to SSB fans. And videos normally come on Youtube first, because it's a network with billions of people who verify their stuff they like. --Mr.Mario 192 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Sigh", let me state it again. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:RSEX, and WP:OR. Find some policies that agree with the arguement that we can add Jiggly and I'll gladly check it off. And no, WP:IAR does not count, as adding a check for questionable information would not improve Wikipedia. And no, I haven't watched the video, and there is no need, as YouTube is not considered to be a reliable source, even if the leaders of every single nation in the world posted the video. TwilightPhoenix 16:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So does this mean we should put a check beside her? --Mr.Mario 192 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh...no. Dengarde ► Complaints 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, this is a reliable source, not because it's from Youtube but because of David Hayter. Before you say the stuff on the reliable sources examples article, remember that this video is purely from an event of MGS4, so if anybody search for this video on Google, you may find it. This is not original research. Then why not putting her on the article? --Mr.Mario 192 00:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

B/C we want to she her on Dojo just in case he's wrong.--DarkFierceDeityLink 01:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How could he be wrong if he recorded all of the codec conversations (which proves that he knows all of the roster). --Mr.Mario 192 01:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

At no point did Hayter explicitly state that Jigglypuff will be a playable character in SSBB. I can't see how this cannot be considered a case of WP:SYN. For the sake of reliability, we should wait for a firm, direct confirmation. Dancter 01:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so you think that a direct confirmation needs to have the word confirmed? Because, he already said that he wanted to wale Jigglypuff, Mario, Pikachu. This is considered as "confirmed". So, I don't understand why do you guys insist in this idea. --Mr.Mario 192 02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just b/c some pretty boy said jigglypuff doesnt mean we should add her, the only way we would add jiggly is her picture and information is on Dojo.--DarkFierceDeityLink 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to have the word "confirmed". There are plenty of other ways to directly state something, but Hayter did not do any of them. As previously mentioned, Hayter's statement can be interpreted as an off-hand statement not meant to be taken literally. And even when taken literally, being able to "whale on" a character does not mean being able to play as that character. Even if Hayter attested to actually witnessing Jigglypuff being playable in-game (which he did not), it does not mean the development team has actually committed to including the character in the final game. We can wait for a firmer confirmation. Even if Jigglypuff does end up in the game, it does not mean it would be right to claim so now based on this information, so you can put any "you'll see" notions out of your mind right now. Dancter 02:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Bosess

On http://wii.ign.com/articles/809/809868p1.html it says here Two updates today, both of them multimedia. First up is another video cutscene from The Subspace Emissary, this time bringing together Diddy Kong and Fox McCloud to fight off the legendary Pokemon, Rayquaza. "The clip seems to set up a boss fight for the adventure mode", so it could be that we finally have our second boss character confirmed – Rayquaza would join Petey Piranha, the only other boss so far known for sure, if indeed that's what the clip is implying.--DarkFierceDeityLink 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

#1 - Rayquaza is taken out by Fox in that very same cutscene; it doesn't even look like you would be fighting him once gameplay begins. #2 - What bearing does this have on the article, exactly? The Subspace Army paragraph covers all Brawl boss scenarios pretty well for the time being; I personally think it would be a waste to go into detail until the game is out and we can see for ourselves who all the new bosses are, thereby being able to list them all in one go. Arrowned 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Speculation, speculation, and more speculation, buku! -Sukecchi 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Im not saying add it to the article add it to the players list saying rayqyazz is not a player it is also unknown what its role is.--DarkFierceDeityLink 22:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You really need to stop, you're on thin ice as it is. Coreycubed 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ness

There’s a character named Ness who has appeared in the Smash Bros. series up until now
I'm not sure what to make of this. What do you think? Dengarde ► Complaints 07:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It means his chances of not being playable this time took a jump, but we should err on the side of caution and leave him with a "?" anyway. --HeroicJay 07:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what to make of this. I think it does sound like that Ness is, sadly, not in :( But we must develop a consensus.Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 07:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We can change it if he's confirmed, but I've added an X since there's reasonable proof that he won't be in at this point. Let's leave it there. GaeMFreeK 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We have evidence, but NOT proof. Leave it as a "?". Err on the side of caution! --HeroicJay 07:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself.Dengarde ► Complaints 07:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this qualifies merely as evidence. He has appeared up until now. I think that's pretty definite. He's not explicitly saying it, but I'm not so sure that there's any reasonable doubt at this point. But as long as a note is left, I think I'd be willing to accept a ?. GaeMFreeK 07:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Pretty definite" and "definite" are not the same thing. --HeroicJay 07:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"up until now" is pretty definitive. They aren't going to have an update that says "Ok, everyone, sadly, all these characters are no longer in the game." If anything, they will add that information in like in this update. LN3000 07:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. If we're not putting an X there, I don't think a ? would be suitable either without a footnote, then. GaeMFreeK 07:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is why we put a message in Ness's sectoion Dengarde ► Complaints 07:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

But the idea was to put the footnote there with the X. The question mark casts doubt, period. Even with the footnote. The X with a footnote means it's very likely, but not explicitly confirmed. GaeMFreeK 07:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[To Lamename:] Nor should they. The only such updates would be an AT update for Ness or somesuch. But we'll know by the time the game is released in Japan; we can update it then. --HeroicJay 07:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you absolutely insist, I think it should only be changed back on the condition that there be added a footnote stating that there is reasonable doubt of his reappearance even if there isn't explicit confirmation. Otherwise, leave it at the X. GaeMFreeK 07:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If we need a footnote to explain that it's unclear, we should just leave it as a ? and omit the footnote all together.

The problem is that it's clear enough to change something in the article, and I'm going to say we change to an X or leave the footnote. Preferrably an X, as what Sakurai said was pretty clear. GaeMFreeK 08:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

But that's not a consensus being reached on this talk page as far as I can see. You're extrapolating, and that breaks the Original Research rule. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --HeroicJay 08:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not until 100% proven. Keep it at the ? mark. Thedarkpp

What makes you say it is not "proven"? All the evidence is there, it says that Ness has been in the game until now. meaning not now anymore. I'm as big a Ness fan as the next guy, but this update is clear. LN3000 07:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Jumping the gun. Someone said this on GameFAQs, and I think it pretty much settles this.
It takes a logical step to get from "up until now" to "in the first two games but not this one". "Up until now" can also mean "from the start to now", which includes SSBB. Now, the meaning and the move similarities hint at Ness' replacement, but Wiki is based in Verifiability, not Truth: ergo, the burden of proof goes to those who challenge a fact, not those who protect it. Dengarde ► Complaints 07:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been told by someone who knows Japanese that that's a poorly translated sentence. My Japanese isn't good enough to confirm, but until we get more clarification it's not definite. 24.6.89.5 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your friend says. That's Original Research, as Dengarde likes to point out.. So now you are trying to attack the translator? The guy who translates it has MUCH closer ties to the actual game than any of us. He says Ness has been in the game up until now, then why are we doubting it? LN3000 07:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think reading the site in another language to verify a fact would count as original research. Of course, me hearing from a guy that it's translated wrong would, but if someone could actually double check that it'd be fine. I think it's also worth noting out that the Spanish language site makes no mention of Ness being gone in the same way that the "Until now" implies he gone. 24.6.89.5 08:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've come up with a reasonable solution. Check the page. GaeMFreeK 07:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, the fact is that Ness can be in Brawl. Why? Because as easily as you can say "Until now" means "In the previous two games", I can say that it means "From the first game to now, this third game." In other words, there is a conflict of interpretation. Thus, the "can be" statement holds true until someone involved in production explicitely states without any chance of an alternate interpretation that Ness will be or will not be in Brawl. Until then, Ness is still in that can be stage, which we have denoted with a question mark. You Can't See Me! 07:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Becuase "until now" generally doesn't mean that, and "up until now" is probably as explicit as you can say it. GaeMFreeK 07:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Until now" can mean "up to this very day". That includes the game in development. My interpretation is every bit as valid as yours. You Can't See Me! 07:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's a bit of a stretch, actually. GaeMFreeK 07:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying "he's out" based on a vague comment is stretching it too. Dengarde ► Complaints 07:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the comment just makes it worse. Saying that he's definitely out at this point, likely though it may be, is original research. Now we just have weasel words muddying it up. Let's just hold off until later. Better to be incomplete than incorrect. --HeroicJay 08:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What he said. Lets hope you all agree. Now, I have to report myself for violating WP:3RR. Excuse me...Dengarde ► Complaints 08:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that statement wasn't vague. It's pretty clear what he was trying to say, and it definitely wasn't on part of a poor translation. He was here up until now. If you're still saying he has a chance to be in, I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. I don't see how this is original research. Until means just that: until. If I am mixing cake batter until a timer I set goes off, I'd stop when the timer goes off. When the cake is done (Or the game comes out.) the timer has already rung and I've stopped, and the "now" Sakurai is referring to will have already passed. If you haven't noticed, the game isn't out yet. GaeMFreeK 08:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Up until now, we haven't had to deal with these sort of questionable updates. LN3000 08:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And guess what? It's now. And now we are dealing with a questionable update. Up until now, Ness has been in, and now he is not in. GaeMFreeK 08:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And to think that I thought that I've always been wrong up until now. At least we know that Mario has been a character in the Super Smash Bros. series up until now. :P LN3000 08:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[Lamename:] Completely false. The Smash crowd has interpreted (frequently MIS-interpreted) statements on the official website time and again. Two good cases are "a character can only use one Final Smash per battle" (proved false at the E for All demo) and "Pikachu's Final Smash can be canceled by other characters" (proved false when the translator actually edited Pikachu's profile to remove the confusing passage.) --HeroicJay 08:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea was to prove the point through example. And there is currently evidence that the E for All demo had the frequency of Smash Balls increased for the purpose of demonstration, and the second update was probably just a mistranslation. Not only that, but there has has only been disputes on those two because there was actually evidence to the contrary, and that's even if there even were disputes. Those seem like two open-and-shut cases to me. GaeMFreeK 08:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They're open-and-shut NOW, but there were HUGE debates about at least the first one before E for All, to the point that many believed ZSS would not get a Final Smash at all. There was no evidence pre-E-for-All that you could use more than one FS per character per match, and the ambiguous wording stated otherwise. Your claim that Ness could be dropped is original research. I reiterate, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When we know, we can update. For now, just leave it off. --HeroicJay 08:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh...Sorry folks, My request kinda...got denied, and they protected the page from editing instead. ^^; My bad Dengarde ► Complaints 09:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha Way to go! Well, it's not like you really thought you would be banned or anything for reporting yourself. At least now there won't be any other people coming around later and revert-warring. For tomorrow's update, we can use the editprotected tag to have an admin make any needed changes. LN3000 09:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=928518&topic=39397368

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=928518&topic=39398676 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.156.13 (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

From these additional translations, it's safe to say that Ness is officially out (besides, the game is in the final stages of development, nothing spontaneous like Ness' return is going to happen out of nowhere, especially with Subspace Emissary). 208.101.156.13 10:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/until

This got the page locked down? Oubliette 11:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"up until now" When is now? It is November 8th, 2007. What's up until this point? SSB and Melee, NOT Brawl. Brawl is released February 10th, 2008. It's not even the year of it's release. So how can that be anywhere near "up until now"? It can't. That means that Ness was in SSB from today back and not in SSB from tomorrow forward, which includes Brawl. The site makes it clear that he's not in Brawl. So there should be an X with no footnote because that's what the site says. If many of you find it that impossible to get over Ness being out, then we should put an X with a footnote saying that he still might be in. This makes more sense than a ? with a footnote, because right now we are being led to believe Ness is out, but people are twisting words to make it mean he might still be in. Shyrangerr 12:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, the page is on full prot because of our bickering. We need to come to a resolution so we can get the page unprotected. Personally, I don't see the harm in leaving the mark the way it was, as a ? with no footnote. I understand it's a big deal since, if confirmed, it would be the first veteran character to be dismissed from Brawl. That being said, whatever ends up happening is OK with me but I still want it left the way it was. Coreycubed 15:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is kinda like Luigi & Jiggly but for Ness don't you really think we have proof the maker him self said "There’s a character named Ness who has appeared in the Smash Bros. series up until now" maybe he's just pulling our leg but i really don't know what we should do wit this.--DarkFierceDeityLink 17:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt they'd make a seperate update for Ness just to say he's NOT in. Oubliette 17:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

Reading the arguements and weighing all the definitions of "up until now", I believe I've come up with something. Apperantly "up until now" seems to indicate Ness, as of now, isn't in Brawl. However, now just means that: now. There is no indication that he won't be in Brawl. I.E., it states that Ness isn't in Brawl right now, but it doesn't say that he won't be added later. Keep in mind, it is still a whopping 93 days until Brawl is released. As unlikely as it is, it is always possible Ness can be added later. However, the key word here is unlikely. Unlikely doesn't equal 100% certain. If something isn't 100% certain, it is unverifiable. If it is unverifiable, it may not be included in Wikipedia. This is applied both ways. It is unlikely, according to the wording, that Ness will be in Brawl. However, the mere presence of a chance of Ness appearing in Brawl, due to the somewhat ambiguous wording, also negates the verifiability of him not being in Brawl. In the end, we cannot verify if this is black or white, if Ness is or is not in Brawl. Therefore, we have to stick with the question mark for the time being.

I also might add, the Dojo has made mistakes before too. Remember the first Subspace Emissary update, "This world"? It completely lacked text when it was initially posted. Likewise, there is a chance the wording of that statement might be changed later today. This is pretty similiar to the whole "KRYSTAL IS IN BRAWL! ZOMG!", except it's "NESS ISN'T IN BRAWL! NOES!" I agree with most of you that he isn't in Brawl based on the update, but Wikipedia policy disagrees and claims that it has no idea whether he is in or not. Since articles must follow policy, we have to listen to that and leave the question mark for the time being. Though when more information surfaces and confirms Ness one way or another, I'll try to be the first one to check or 'X' him off, assuming I'm aware of the information soon enough. After all, this article got edit warred and locked before I even woke up today! TwilightPhoenix 18:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how you can argue that Ness is still in the game.::: Just to humor you, let us assume that Ness HASN'T been confirmed to be removed from the game. Back in the Super Smash Bros. Melee days, wasn't Lucas supposed to replace Ness? But they kept Ness in because Mother 3 was canceled for the N64? Even though they kept Ness in, wasn't he seriously de-powered? Well, since Ness was NOT replaced in Melee, because Lucas's game wasn't around, here comes Brawl, and now Lucas IS in the game. And now the daily Brawl update say that up until now Ness has been in the game.... but now Ness is gone. LN3000 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole "Lucas was Gonna Replace Ness" Certainly does contribute to that conclusion. But alas, that was in the past, and things tend to chance over time. I mean, Capcom originally announced that Resident Evil 4 would be a Gamecube exclusive, but look at it now. years later and it's been ported to four different systems.Dengarde ► Complaints 19:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

At the time of release, it was a GCN exclusive (as in, not a multi-platform release). Plenty of console-exclusives go on to be re-released on other consoles after the initial hype of the title dies down and the majority of people who purchased the console for that title have already made their purchase. Anyways, back to the topic at hand, can we remove the full prot and the OR template and/or the footnote? It makes the whole section look sketchy. I'd rather have the X than a nasty OR template and that speculative footnote. Coreycubed 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, my point was that Capcom stated that it would REMAIN a G-cube exclusive. They even said "It'd cut my own head off before we'd port it to the PS2", or something like that. Anyways, We'd need an admin to do that. Dengarde ► Complaints 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, but have we actually agreed what we're going to do with it? I know what I'd like to do, but I'd like to hear some other people chime in first before I put in the request for unprotection, so it actually has a chance of being accepted. Coreycubed 19:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

TwilightPhoenix hit the nail on the head. Everything he said above is correct and logical. Personally, I feel both characters will be in the game, with Lucas being the Luigi to Ness' Mario; a clone with some moves the same and other moves different. Until proven otherwise, Ness' fate is unknown. And the footnote is original research and speculation, and should not be there. Only the ? should be there. I'm not going to beat a dead horse, so this is all you'll hear from me on the matter. Cause these discussions can get downright ugly, and I won't sink that low. Satoryu 20:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

100% agreement. I'll submit the request for unprotection and then revert to this version before all of the mess started. Coreycubed 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if we are mistaken, we are. (Wow, I want to know who said that.) Oubliette 20:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that it's ironic how you will always see "Wait till Dojo says it, wait till Dojo says it." But now Dojo has said something unexpected, and many people refuse to believe it. Anyway, no matter which way you cut it, "up until now" means that the conditions that were true before are no longer true. e.g., Ness is not in Brawl. -- POWERSLAVE 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what are you talking about? What we are saying right now is "Wait till the Dojo says it". As in NOT in a vague hint. Dengarde ► Complaints

Uh uh uh... -- POWERSLAVE 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Content is Wikipedia must be verifiable, not true. I personally agree with you that Ness is gone, but the wording on the Dojo leaves too much doubt for Ness to be confirmed or rejected. Like I said above, "now" does not mean "later". If the wording was less ambiguous, or it was much closer to the release date, it'd probably be safe to say Ness is gone. But with 90 days to go and the possibility of "later" before release, too much doubt. The phrasing of the line is accurate whether Ness will be in Brawl or not, since Ness has not appeared yet in SSBB. And before I start sounding like a broken record, I'm going to add my sig and save my edit to the talk page. TwilightPhoenix 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say this again. "now" is November 8th, 2007. "up until" is November 7th, 2007 and any time before. So that means hes been in any SSB game November 7th, 2007 and earlier. That includes SSB and Melee. Any SSB game November 8th, 2007 and after he will not be in. Brawl comes out February 10th, 2008. That is clearly after the point of November 8th, 2007. That means that Ness will not be in Brawl.
One other way to look at it is that "now" is Brawl because that's the current SSB game. That means "up until" would be any time before the current point in time, which is Brawl. Which would still mean that Ness isn't in Brawl. There isn't any possibility that Ness will be in Brawl with the current evidence we have. Just because someone can twist around the meaning of the sentence to make it mean that Ness is still in, ISN'T evidence Ness will be in. It would be twisted and can't be used as evidence for Ness's inclusion. The correct way the sentence is mean to be read is that Ness has appeared in SSB games up until Brawl. Shyrangerr 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

*Sigh*. Same argument I've heard all day. Thats only one way of looking at it. ANOTHER ways is this:
"NOW" is not Novembe 8th, NOW is Brawl. "Up untill Now" could include Brawl. So, what the update MAY be saying is that Ness may not be in future Smash bros.
Neither thorie is correct, and neither theorie is incorrect. As such, coming to your own conclusion on a very vague comment is speculation. Either wait for the Dojo to update about Ness, or Wait until the Japanese version is out when we know all the characters. Is that so hard? Dengarde ► Complaints 22:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This type of argument is devolving into forum debates. Shyrangerr, your arguments do nothing to establish WP:V for reasons stated above. Unless you're prepared to make a defense that complies with Wikipedia policy, I suggest you stop repeating yourself. Coreycubed 22:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Shyrangerr explained it perfectly. Dengarde, using the example that now is Brawl, up until brawl Ness has been in the series. That means he's not now. As I, and nearly everyone else, have been saying, the fact is (and it is obviously verifiable using the blog) that Ness is gone, but you guys are trying to twist the plain-as-day meaning to cast doubt. --LN3000 22:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you think of it as you will. TwilightPhoenix explained our side perfectly as well.. Like I said, neither side is correct or incorrect.
The single, MOST IMPORTANT thing here is that, no matter how it's interpreted, It's still us comming to our own conclusions about something we know NOTHING about. It's original research, speculation, and un-verifiable. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Dengarde; you just misunderstand what "up until now" means. "until now" means any point in time UNTIL this ONE point which is NOW. "up until now" DOESN'T include "now". It specifically EXCLUDES "now" from it. "The sun isn't going to rise until 6 AM." The meaning of that is that from 5:59 and earlier, the sun will not have risen. But from 6 AM it will have risen. 6 AM is separate from anytime before it. Just like the "now" from "up until now" is excluded. So if "now" is Brawl, that means Brawl is excluded.
Coreycubed; my Verifiable Source is the Dojo. Any reader will be able to go to the Dojo (the reliable source, everyone agrees to this) and check the published article (the update from today) and read the sentence and see that Ness isn't in Brawl. Shyrangerr 23:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I'm got getting into the "Up until now" thing anymore.
And the update on Dojo was about LUCAS. not NESS. The statement is not a verifiable source, since it's people coming o their own conclusion about a totally different subject wich WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. Unless you're part of the development team and can actually PROVE to us that Ness isn't in brawl, such as a screenshot of the full roster, then, by all means, please do. It would help ALOT.
Great. Now I'M repeating myself.Dengarde ► Complaints 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

whatever your own beliefs on the interpretation is, it's all original research and speculation. To follow Wikipedia's policies, I would even go so far as to suggest the note under ness be removed. It's all in how you interpret the update. Personally I interpret it to mean Ness IS in. Now, my minority belief here has just as much leverage of any belief you spew out. Speculation is speculation, and all of this IS speculation, which IS against wikipedia policies. The term, "up until now" can be interpreted in many ways. "Jigglypuff has been unlockable in all game up until now, so it will remain that way." The entire ambiguty (spelling?) is too extreme to even warrant putting it in the article Balladofwindfishes 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. We're not trying to cast doubt, so please refrain from accusations. Besides, if it really was plain-as-day, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if it was obvious that this isn't confirmation that Ness has been dismissed, you and Shyrangerr wouldn't still be arguing it. There are many of us who think you're reading too much into those three words. Coreycubed 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't udnertand why we just dont wait to have a unanimous official confirmation? Is this so heart stoppingly imorrtant that we need to argue about it for over a day? As in this topic this is my first (and last) edit. Atomic Religione 23:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Dengarde
It doesn't matter that the update was about Lucas, it mentions Ness and that's more than enough. What I'm doing is looking at the sentence and defining those terms. I'm not putting in ANY personal opinion. I'm just saying EXACTLY what the sentence is saying (which is that Ness has appeared in every SSB game up until Brawl (which in turn means that he's not in Brawl)). The only reason there's any ambiguity is that it's widespread for people to be twisting the meaning of the sentence into something that it doesn't really mean.
Balladofwindfishes
As I said in the last paragraph, I'm not speculating anything. In all of my replies so far the only thing I've done has said what "up until now" means with no opinion. Your exmple is different because after you say "up until now" you add something on to the end. There's nothing like that in today's update. It just ends with "up until now", which makes it entirely different meaning from your example.
CoreyCubed
The meaning is plain-as-day; it's that Ness is cut from Brawl. People are just twisting the meaning of the sentence and other people are believing them. That makes more people believe it and it's then accepted as fact. I'm only reading into the three words because that's what other people did to twist the meaning of them to say that Ness isn't cut. If the other people would just accept the fact that Ness is cut then we wouldn't be having this problem. Shyrangerr 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, then: I've played every Super Smash Bros. game up until now. Does that mean that I am not going to play Super Smash Bros. Brawl? The fact is, I still might. You can challenge that fact as much as you want, but you will not attain any definitive proof that I won't until I either say I won't or die without playing it. The burden of proof is on you for challenging that fact, not me for defending it, and you have no proof. My statement was not plain-as-day; you can interpret it as much as you want, but until I explicitely say "I will not play Super Smash Bros. Brawl," you cannot hold me to it. Now, which would be twisting the statement: To say that "up until now" is definitely exclusive, or that "up until now" might be either exclusive or inclusive? You Can't See Me! 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

STOP

Ok, everybody just stop. I believe there should be no further discussion on this until after tonight's update (just 7 more hours). It's hard to predict what the daily updates will be, but my money is that if Ness is in the game, then he would be announced in tonight's update, especially after the big Internet explosion today. If there is nothing about Ness, then we can continue debating the meaning of "up until now" and the verifiability of everything over the weekend. --LN3000 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Shyrangerr 00:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

HOWZ 'BOUT THIS, YO. You could stop flooding the talk page with this useless banter and just wait until either the game comes out or Ness appears on Dojo. Really now, throwing the same things back and forth gets nothing solved. -Sukecchi 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As much as I agree, there was no need to sound all bitey, Sukecchi. Dengarde ► Complaints 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think that sounded bitey...I apologize, buku... -Sukecchi 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"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."

if Ness was out wouldn't it say "There "was" a character 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." ?--DarkFierceDeityLink 00:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe we can do this really novel thing called "wait until the game is released before we worry about having an article with all possible information about it." - Chardish 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that we should leave it, just keep it how it is now, don't ask them to change it, a note about confirmed information that just happens to be able to be interpretted different ways is fine. No ones going to wiki-hell. It's not speculation because that IS a quote about Ness's inclusion status in Brawl. But, just to give my opinion/predition: At first I said: "this quote obviously means Ness is out" then I looked at it again, and noticed that if you read the full quote like there's no comma in between 'series' and 'up'(since there's not), and just said it fast with no extra emphasis alteration between the beginning and the first comma, it sounds like they're telling you that Lucas is very similar to Ness. The translations I've seen seem to be even more ambiguous, and that he's just giving a comparision. But, I also highly doubt that they will tell us in it's own update that Ness is out, unless there's a whole list of goodbyes. We may just have to pretend this never happended and wait for more news, or a lack there of. Here's the full quote:

"There’s a character named Ness who has appeared in the Smash Bros. series up until now, and Lucas is very similar."

--Adam 00:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The note shouldn't be there because it is speculating Ness' fate.Satoryu 01:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't think the note by the question mark countss as speculating, it is only giving the information to the reader so the reader can make their own conclusion based on the fact included in the last dojo update: (See quote above) If you don't like that right now it only mentions the "up until now" then we should ONLY ask them to change the quote to include the full sentence since the context in which the "up until now" was in is relevent for the reader to make their own conclusion.--Adam 03:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a compromise. Someone copy the check-mark symbol, duplicate it and reverse one of them, cross them like an 'X', and then make them yellow. Then take that, upload it to Wikipedia, and put it in the place of Ness' question mark. I'd do it, but my computer has been having issues loading up GIMP lately. But something like that would satisfy both parties and confuse everyone reading the article just as much as the Dojo update has confused all of us.

Seriously though, this whole discussion has had no consensus and doesn't appear to be going any farther. I suggest that we take no action, as default of a lack of consensus, and submit this arguement to WP:LAME. TwilightPhoenix 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a picture of one of my posts on GameFAQs which summarizes my argument as well as I possibly could. Shyrangerr 02:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well put, but now only includes past and "present", using whatever definition of "now" we have determined we are using. If the Dojo uses "now" to refer to Brawl itself, Ness is unquestionably not in Brawl. However, if the first or second definitions are used, it leaves the possibility of a "later", as in "Up until now Ness was in the Super Smash Brothers series, though he may appear later." There's also the fourth definition, which may simply refer to the fact that, as of "now", Ness has not been revealed in Brawl. This wouldn't be so valid if it wasn't for past translation errors on the Dojo (or the lack of text at all in one instance). With four possible definitions of now, three of which leaving a chance for Ness to be revealed/added/undeleted/whatever later, we can't be 100% certain. I've been under the firm belief Ness was cut the moment Lucas was announced, but my opinions have no relevance here on Wikipedia. Hopefully it'll be clarified in tomorrow/today's update (depending on your time zone).

By the way, those questions like "What is the definition of now?" would be great for WP:LAME. TwilightPhoenix 02:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Odds are, there wont be any response to the internet regarding Ness and whether he will appear or not in Brawl, the final answer will most likely be said when the game comes out. Lucas and Ness are fairly similar characters with equivalent roles in their respective games which are part of the same series. In a sense, Lucas=Ness. Considering that both have similar skill sets, Mother 3 has been released so Nintendo may want to use the game's protagonist rather than the hero from the previous game from a decade ago. That's not saying that Ness wont be in the game, but it's highly unlikely in my opinion that Ness will appear again. For now, let's not try to read between the lines in search of what may not be in there and keep Ness's status as a ?. Not a yes, or a no, but only a not yet known. InsaneZeroG 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to be aggressive or anything, but honestly, can someone tell me a reason they think the current status or note of Ness on this page should be changed?--Adam 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats We have made WP:LAME, three cheers for us...Atomic Religione 03:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just emailed nintendo, ill post their response when they return it, until then, can we just SHUT UP?!?!?!?!? Wii2-13 03:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the note should be removed from Ness's spot. I personally find it clutterfull. The question mark still gets the basis across that we don't know if Ness is in Brawl. I also think the note is unencyclopedic and promotes speculation. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about whether it changes or not now, we made WP:LAME! Shyrangerr 03:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as I expected, tonight's update is NOT about Ness. You'd think that after the last post, if it was true that "Ness is still in the game because "now" means Ness is in Brawl!" then they would have given a full character confirmation, or at least special moves. But no, as I expected, life goes on, because Ness is not in the game. Can we please move on with our lives? --LN3000 07:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Um... why would you have expected last night's update to necessarily be Ness if Ness was still in? Consecutive updates are rarely directly related on the Dojo; when they are related, it's usually a character's moves the day after his/her profile. --HeroicJay 09:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What I was saying was that there is a character profile for all confirmed characters, so far, and Ness is not one of them. I was saying that those who took the "up until now" to mean that Ness was still in the game, then there would be no reason for them not to put up Ness' profile page. But they didn't, since Ness will not be in Brawl. Makes sense. --10:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamename3000 (talk • contribs)

That's pretty broken logic, and doesn't really prove anything new. DurinsBane87 13:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't all of this discussion based upon three words original research anyway? -Sukecchi 13:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, which is why I would reallly like to end the whole topic, actually. Really, all we know is that we're not sure, and as such, it doesn't matter until we get more information. DurinsBane87 13:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Up until now, I didn't care either way about Ness. -masa ♫ 15:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just remove that stupid footnote! Has anyone actually read it? It actually makes things more confusing than they already are. If everyone has agreed that there is no definite confirmation, then that's it. That's what the question mark is for. That footnote just looks... unprofessional. Insert a hidden comment if you want other editors to know not to change it, but otherwise it's a question mark until we have definite proof rather than an ambiguous comment. The footnote seems very speculative and kinda points out the obvious: we really don't know whether Ness will be in SSBB.

Besides which, if you want some information to help this debate, then consider the fact that this is the translated text. It is my understanding that the original Japanese text actually says "so far" as opposed to "up until now". Make of that what you will, but the footnote should go. Period. .:Alex:. 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the text shown on the site is the translation. People need to stop saying otherwise. Most people saying that probably just used an online translator, which is no where near reliable ("The **** ****?" from Peach's FS update translated). Even if they are translating it themselves, an official translator hired by Nintendo is more reliable than random people on the internet. Shyrangerr 21:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

ENOUGH!! It's quite clear at this point that no consensus is going to be reached. So enough of it already. We'll find out when the game comes out. wait the 3 months. DurinsBane87 04:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more like 2 months 30 days 22 hours and 32 minutes. --DarkFierceDeityLink 06:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

haha! Up until now, this thread was seriously tense. Thanks for the laugh! --LN3000 08:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How about we all shut up until Ness is confirmed or deconfirmed on the Dojo!!=??? Until some big honcho at Nintendo, Sakurai, or the Dojo!! says FLAT OUT Ness will be cut, the speculation should die. This is wikipedia, not GameFAQs. Johnknight1 09:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem. In reality, Ness HAS been deconfirmed. --LN3000 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No he hasn't, it only says "Up until now". Now is Brawl, so he has appeared in every Smash game, INCLUDING Brawl. Pluvia 05:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Even IF now is Brawl, UNTIL brawl, Ness has been in. UNTIL. (Meaning NOT NOW) It's a broken record you guys saying "including brawl". The definition of "until" can not be changed just because you refuse to see the truth. --LN3000 05:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I know I said I was going to leave this argument, but I'm going to just say one more thing and see if that helps.
In the update "Standard combos" [1], it says "up until now", but on the very next paragraph it says "that won't change in Brawl". and both paragraphs are talking about the same thing.
Just thought I should bring that up. This is my last edit on this subject. Dengarde ► Complaints 05:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good find. However, the definition I have been using still applies. The rapid-button press is still in the game, however, it has been changed. That change validated the "up until now". In Ness' case, if some how he got in the game, the way and context of the up until now wouldn't make sense with Ness in the game. So again, good find, it gives more explanation for Ness not being in the game. --LN3000 06:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oooh. Damn. I honestly didn't think you'd be able to turn that. Either way though I'm not gonna argue anymore, I don't care at this point. Good luck :) Dengarde ► Complaints 06:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this argument ends now, and apparently Dengarde didn't like how I worded it when I said to end ALL OF THIS. This argument has gone on too long and should end here and now. This has been going in circles. Reading between the lines falls under speculation. Which if I recall correctly is not what Wikipedia should have. In this way, Ness should stay as ? not y or n. No more about any of this. Dengadre, LN, this mean both of you too. If you want to continue arguing where it wont occupy space, go to GameFAQs or SmashWiki where I'm sure they will accommodate speculation. If this is understood, this entire argument should be archived or deleted or something appropriate where it's not a huge eyesore. InsaneZeroG 06:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• facepalm* InsaneZeroG, You are NOT the owner of Wikipedia, OR this page. You have NO RIGHT to tell people when to start arguing. The reason it's gone on this long if to HELP THE ARTICLE. And it will remain to increase until a decision is formed. If you're tired of this argument like I am (and if you've even read, I haven't posted in at LEAST three days aside from the above), then simple leave. Saying "This argument ends now" means NOTHING.Dengarde ► Complaints 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously telling everyone to stop doesn't help. Take a look at the name of this section we are discussing in. It's CALLED Stop, from when I tried to stop. Did anyone listen? No. Because people won't accept Ness' fate. --LN3000 06:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not about "accepting Ness's fate". I've already accepted that it is very likely he'll be cut. It's about verifiability, and Ness being cut is not verifiable. It will be come January (when the game is released in Japan) if not sooner. --HeroicJay 06:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's about verifiability. the Dojo is the source. It's verifiable. Anyone can go there see the post, and SHOULD know that Ness is gone. Here, everyone. Fine. Ness IS in Smash Bros. Brawl. However, they've updated his looks, his moveset, and name. When you pronounce the name "Ness" it is pronounced "Lu cas" --LN3000 07:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing.. I am not trying to use this as a source for the article or anything, but even the smashboards.com blog says that the update is clear to mean Ness is gone. http://smashboards.com/blog/2007/11/08/its-the-so-long-ness-monster-of-an-update/#more-2109 Just thought this was interesting for those who wanted to read to see that I am not just saying that Ness is gone for no reason. --LN3000 07:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 2

Felt that it was needed simply for organization and navigating purposes. I'd probably make a reply to some of the arguements, but I'd just be repeating myself again in different words. TwilightPhoenix 16:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed when reading the Norfair entry again, the possibility of the words being a bad translation rose. In the Norfair entry, talking about the lava wave, it makes a statement, "The tension rises. Yes." Not quite proper English, and the same may have happened under Lucas' moves entry. TwilightPhoenix 16:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is wise to question the translator. He works at Nintendo, he has played the game, he talks to the designer, he knows what is and what isn't with the game, so the translations will be accurate. Trying to diminish the translator and his job is not going to change the meaning of the post. It is the same in all translations. --LN3000 17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How can you say he's played the game. It just as likely they just send him text and have him translate it. DurinsBane87 17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

http://media.wii.ign.com/media/748/748545/vids_1.html Gameplay Demonstration (Off-Screen HD) (October 14, 2007) --LN3000 18:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bickering about Ness does not improve this article

I don't make judgments about what people choose to focus on when editing Wikipedia. Everyone has different interests and I think it is very good that there are people who are interested in improving the article on the Smash Bros series. Ask yourself, though, "does continuing the argument about Ness improve this article?" There are many improvements this article needs - sources for statements, copyediting for clarity, making the article more understandable for people unfamiliar with the series, etc. Continuing to bicker about this issue does nothing to unprotect the page, and thus nothing to improve the article.
The silliness of all of this is further exacerbated when one realizes that Brawl comes out in 3 months and all of our questions will be answered then. In other words, the consequences of this discussion will only be relevant for the next 3 months of this article's life. People who support the "?" need to realize that the evidence clearly points to Ness being gone, and if that is an error in interpretation, the error will only survive for 3 months. People who support the "X" need to realize that there's no real harm in letting the question mark stay here for another 3 months.
In other words, the best course of action is to stop caring about it, resolve that you won't revert the mark if it winds up in a state you don't agree with, and find better ways to improve the article. This endless debate is doing nothing to improve the article.
N.B. - if you really don't care about the article as a whole, and simply feel that the article is the best ground on which to turn your speculation about Ness into "the truth", then you are harming the project. - Chardish 18:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we all know it was useless, but that debate was calming down, I hope you didn't jumpstart it back up....Atomic Religione 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What you don't realize is that the argument is whether or not we can say that we can change the ? to an X in the article. If the information is there, we should change it to an X. Having people refuse to see it that way doesn't mean that the verifiable information is there at the Dojo. Wikipedia also isn't about truth, it's about verifiability. Saying Ness is not in the game and giving the source as the Dojo is enough to satisfy all wikipedia conditions. If some act of god changes Ness being in the game later on, we can fix it then. --LN3000 18:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

its more like 2 months 28 days 10 hours and 38 minutes. Sorry I have a count down for it on myspace.--DarkFierceDeityLink 18:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. The point is not about who is right. The point is that whatever outcome we select is less objectionable than a protected page that cannot be improved in any way. - Chardish 18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I am missing the point. --LN3000 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has been concretely verified concerning Ness. If you think that there has been something implied, then it's probably speculation as it's not directly verifiable. InsaneZeroG 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

See, this goes around in circles. You say that there isn't anything verifiable, I say that there is, but then you say no. The fact is Dojo say up until now Ness has been in the Smash Bros series. You say that is not proof. That is the problem, I am in no way speculating on anything. I am just relaying the facts from the official source. --LN3000 19:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it's not important what the article says now since we'll know for sure in less than 3 months, and putting a definitive answer up is not as important as allowing people to improve the article in other ways, regardless of what that definitive answer might be. Bickering about this prevents anyone else from getting anything done on this article. - Chardish 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the appropriate response is to leave a note next to the ? saying that there is controversy surrounding whether or not Ness will appear in the game. It is noteworthy to mention that this controversy is not within Wikipedia. Additionally, it points to a certain level of ambiguity in the daily updates that is so infamous coming from Dojo. On the argument on what up until now means, it was the consensus of me and my seven other suitemates in my suite that Ness was out of the game. While a consensus has not been reached, I think the logical answer is to leave the ? with a note, which is how it is at the moment. In a few months, when the game is released, unless someone or something of verifiable reliability says that Ness is not in the game before the release date, the status quo of right now is a fine middle ground to hold. It is better than to continually arguing over this point. Clearly there is a stalemate in this discussion, and should be let to sit for some days. Incidentally, how long has it been since the last character was announced? I'm starting to get the feeling that the Dojo-well of information may start going from daily to every other day. --Son 20:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The note should not be added. The ? says that it is unknown if Ness is in the game. The note says the same thing, except it clutters the page. It would also fuel confusion and speculation. No note. Just a ? Satoryu 20:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I've said above, there's been no consensus on this argumenet. Just like in AfDs and such, no consensus means no action. So, therefore, we should just leave it as it was before this update was made. TwilightPhoenix 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For my two cents, I honestly believe that the best course of action is to leave it a ? without a separate visible note. If we put an "X" and it turns out Ness IS still in the game - I'm not saying he WILL be! I'm saying it's still possible and we can't totally rule it out - then we had incorrect information on the page. If we put a "?" and it turns out he's not, no harm done. --HeroicJay 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No note, just a ?. No consensus means no change. Coreycubed 21:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have a note, that is misleading, since we do have information that very well could mean that Ness (if you weren't denying it) is out of the game. You can't ignore that. I am willing to accept the compromise with the note. That is all. If there is no note, there is no question mark. --LN3000 22:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That information is extracted from a single line. The question mark is not misleading in saying that we are not sure if Ness is playable or not. "Up until now" could very well mean including Brawl. We are arguing in circles and cannot reach consensus. We need someone to arbitrate this discussion so we can finally reach one. InsaneZeroG 22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hullo kids,

"up until now" does not imply exclusivity. Mario, as well, appeared in every Smash Bros game up until now. Ahem, duh!--91.121.83.168 23:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A simple solution (Arbitrary Section Break #3)

To me it's quite simple. Controversy surrounds whether or not Ness will be in the game. ? should remain. However, a note (¹) should remain, demarcating that there is controversy surrounding whether or not Ness will be in the game. My suggestion is not placing the ¹ because Ness may or may not be in the game; my suggestion is placing the ¹ because there's controversy surrounding whether or not the character is in the game. --Son 00:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no controversy. Sakurai made an at second glance ambivalent remark about Ness, which basically tells nothing (in numbers: 0; in sets: Ø). And nobody wants to read what Wikipedians think about Ness.--91.121.83.168 00:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The current note would need to go simply because it is redundant. A question mark says we don't know if he is in the game. The note says we don't know if he is in the game. Unless we change all the question marks to notes, then we need to drop the note since Wikipedia is not the Redundant Department of Redundant Redundancy. I wish there was a policy or essay page for that... The second note would require sourcing from a verifiable source. Do you have a source that confirms there is controversy that fits under WP:RSEX? And second, is it notable enough to mention the controversy? If we can answer yes to both of those, and provide the source, then we could use that note.

And I still think my yellow-charckmark-X-thingy I mentioned somewhere way above would have been the best compromise. TwilightPhoenix 00:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Redundant." That's the word I was looking for. And that's exactly why the note shouldn't be there.Satoryu 01:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to a japanese copy of the game when it comes out? THis would make everything so much easier Wii2-13 02:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for an edit

{{editprotected}} Hi, I'm requesting an edit to the Playable Characters section. Could a reference to Jigglypuff, Ganon, and Sheik be added? Like how I did it on the Super Smash Bros. Wiki? This way, people know what the Game Informer article said, and where David Hayter mentioned Jigglypuff as being in Brawl.

If you don't understand, then add this (edit the page and insert the text):

1. ? ⁵ (for Ganon and Sheik in the Brawl column)
2. ? ⁶ (for Jigglypuff in the Brawl column)

Then for the notes (remove the nowiki tags):

1. :'''5.''' {{note|5}} In an interview with Game Informer, Eiji Aonuma mentioned his designers submitted Ganondorf and Sheik's initial designs to [[Masahiro Sakurai]] for ''Brawl'' and that Sakurai's team then modified their appearance. However, it is unknown if they are still in the game.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200708/N07.0802.1741.54921.htm |title=Eiji Aonuma Talks DS Development And More |date=2007-08-02 |accessdate=2007-11-12 |publisher=Game Informer}}</ref>
2. :'''6.''' {{note|6}} In an interview, David Hayter was asked which character from ''Brawl'' he would most enjoy defeating. His response included Jigglypuff, among other characters, though it is not officially confirmed that Jigglypuff will be in the game.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=vmxj-cly1Dk |title=UltraNeko & SOLID SNAKE of Metal Gear Solid 4!}}</ref>

Please and thank you.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review the talk page archives. These have all been discussed and it has been decided not to add them based on their not being enough evidence to support they are in the game as playable characters...for Sheik and Gannondorf, Jigglypuff isn't added because Hayter isn't a good enough source to justify Jigglypuff is playable. -Sukecchi 21:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking that the article say they are in the game. I want the references to be added to show the rumors of them being in the game, not confirming them as characters. The table will still indicate it is unknown they are in the game. The references also tell more about the comments; when I was looking at the table I saw it saying "The GameInformer article is evidence, but it is NOT confirmation. Do not be too quick to repeat it, because it will be removed unless confirmed by official Nintendo sources". Alright; what Game Informer article? The reference indicates this article. The other reference is David mentioning Jigglypuff, though not official confirmations.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 22:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your bolded text indicates where we will object. We do not deal in rumors on Wikipedia. Leave that to the Super Smash Bros. Wiki. Coreycubed 22:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What rumours? I'm not trying to say they will be included! I removed the bolding too as its not what I mean. This edit that I am proposing will have references to indicate the sources of the rumours. Read the notes; they say it is still officially unknown of they are in the game. This is very hard to explain!--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 22:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard, your heart's in the right place -- but even sourced speculation is still that. We're all well aware of the content you're talking about, and have already made the decision not to include it in the article in any form. Sorry. Coreycubed —Preceding comment was added at 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I guess. Never mind then.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 22:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The External Links section lists smashbros.com twice

Someone should fix that.BobbyBritish 00:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I'll get right on it once the page is unlocked.Satoryu 01:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Until now...

Here we are again with another "until now" update. Until now there has been a handicap option where increased handicap made you weaker. That is no longer the case. The handicap feature is now where you increase starting damage. The "be weaker" handicap is gone. There is a new "Start hurt" handicap. This can be directly related back to the Ness update. No more Ness. --LN3000 07:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote is:

So until now, I’ve always made sure to include handicaps in each game in the series.

He did not say:

So until now, I’ve always made sure to include handicaps that reduce a character's stats in each game in the series.

Handicaps are still there, are they not? The fact that they've changed is irrelevant. Taking this back to your Ness comparison, that would be the equivalent of saying that Ness is still in the game, but radically different. You Can't See Me! 08:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between an item or feature changing and a character being changed/removed. Handicaps as they were are gone. It works here. It doesn't work saying that Ness is still in, because the "until now" thing was referring to Ness being in the game or not, not the content of the name of a feature. --LN3000 08:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You're losing me here. What you seem to be thinking is that he stated "Up until now, handicaps resulted in making a character lighter and less powerful." That is not the quote. The quote is "So until now, I’ve always made sure to include handicaps in each game in the series."

You have warped the meaning of the statement to suit your point. The fact that the system changes is irrelevant. Handicaps were in the series up until now, and they still are.

A similar instance of "until now" can be found in the Standard Combos update: The quote "up until now" was used to explain that the primary method of using a standard combo was repeatedly pressing the attack button. He then went on to say that (and this is an exact quote) "[t]his will not change," then elaborated about a new, alternate method of performing standard combos. You Can't See Me! 08:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)