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)

"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)