Talk:Super Smash Bros.

This is a featured article! It represents the best of the best that the Super Mario Wiki has produced. If there are any edits that will improve the article's quality even further, make them.
Edit the article · Add to discussion (new section) · FA page

Stages

Two questions:

1. Should images for the stages added to this article?
2. Should the article cover the stages from the non-Mario games?

Cobold 13:59, 10 February 2007 (EST)

All stages in the game can have their own page, according to the Importance Policy. Only info from Super Smash Bros. can be in these articles, and they must be placed in Super Smash Bros.-only categories. Remember, SSB is of secondary concern to this wiki. Mario is of primary importance. -- Son of Suns

Yes, but the Mario stage have a different look from other Mario games in this game. You didn't say anything about the images, which would be more helpful describing the stages than just words. Cobold 14:27, 10 February 2007 (EST)

Oh. Well those stages should have their own section in their respective articles (or get their own article). For example, the Peach's Castle section should have a section about SSB in the article, while the Mushroom Kingdom stage should have its own article, as the real Mushroom Kingdom is a political entity, not a level. This SSB page should probably just have links to those stage pages, instead of descriptions. The descriptions should be in the articles themselves. Images should then go in the stage articles. -- Son of Suns

Meant-to-be-in

Can someone give a source for all those characters who were meant to be in but left out? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 10:59, 12 November 2007 (EST)

King Dedede is confirmed through wikipedia. Bowser and Peach, I have no idea, but if we find Bowser, we find Peach. I don't know where the romor for Bowser and Peach is, but I know they were part of the same romour. I'll dig it up... --HyperToad 11:26, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I did here that Meowth actually was supposed to be in it. So was Mewtwo. Both removed. MegaMario9910

What's the source for the meant-to-be-in characters and the reasons for the cuts, actually? Don't cite Wikipedia, there everyone can edit, too. Beta Elements cites SmashWiki, but that's another Wiki as well. There's no source mentioned for the early voice cast, either. So, any reliable sources? By the way, Master Hand's artwork isn't from Super Smash Bros. --Grandy02 13:02, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I have added "citation needed" to several things since nobody answered. Better get reliable sources (NO wikis) or remove the info if it is false, because an article with such tags doesn't have to be featured. Also, can I remove the Kirby & The Amazing Mirror Master Hand artwork now? --Grandy02 09:14, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

List of characters

Is a complete list of the cameo characters really necessary, especially on the top of the article? We have List of Cameos for that. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 09:02, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Such a list has been added to several articles (example). Agree with Cobold, espcially because such in-depth information shouldn't be on the top and also because it's redundant in this case. --Grandy02 13:31, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

It really doesn't make sense for the cameos in one game to be listed on two separate articles. Agree with Cobold on this one. Glitchman (talk · contribs) 12:35, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

So, can the "Characters Appearing in This Game" list just be removed? --Grandy02 16:15, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

We shouldn't get rid of the whole section, but the "Cameos and Allusions" section, I scrapped, since you can't cameo in your own series. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

I think it should go now, because every character in the list is already in another list in the article. It's simply redundant. --Grandy02 09:02, 28 April 2010 (EDT)

Delete this article?

I think we should delete this article because when you think about it, it's actually Kirby's game, not Mario. Ugozima 20:46, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

No. Our coverage policy includes crossovers, which the entire Super smash Bros. series is. If we delete this one, we would also have to delete the Super Smash Bros. Melee article and the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article. · SMB (Talk) · 20:52, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, and there's four Mario characters (If you count DK and Yoshi) and another Kirby character didn't appear until Brawl came out. The only Kirby ties are with the creator and developers excluding Kirby himself, the Dream Land stage and any Kirby items. TIMMY TIM

how is this a kirby game? gamer2.1 (talk)

It's not, obviously. If it's based off any game, it's Super Mario Bros. Purplebackpack89 00:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

extra info

Just so everyone knows Metal Mario and Master Hand aren't playable in super smash bros. you can only play as them with gameshark or action replay. So all those videos on how to play as them are fake. gamer2.1 (talk)

And the article says just that. Metal Mario and Master Hand aren't listed under "Playable", but under "Bosses". - Gabumon^(talk) 23:30, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

Also that goes for the fighting polygon team too. Gamer2.1

Screenshots, please.

We need more screenshots for this article. Krizzy 06:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad Grammar

I noticed that the page has had some horrible grammar for a long time. May I edit it?--MarioMaster2011 19:23, 7 July 2011 (EDT)MarioMaster2011

Of course there's no rule stating you can't. Just edit it property. L151

Pit?

Was it true that Pit was meant to be one of the unlockable characters on SSB, however due to the popularity of Pokémon, Jigglypuff replaced him as a unlockable character at the end? User:McAusten! · talk to me · my edits 18:07, 13 December 2011 (EST)

No. 64Fan (Discussion)

Controls

There are no controls in the article, but I don't know the N64 controller graphics.--NSMM (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (EST)

Incorrect Australian release date?

Basically, this section was started due to an attempt on Bulbapedia to have an Australian release date for Super Smash Bros. After some searching on SmashWiki failed, I came across the date on this article for December 17th, 1999. However, with no reference on the article, I attempted to take the date and try to find a source that would collaborate it through a search engine. When that failed, I ended up checking the history and found that an IP address with only three other edits had added the date with no source. I was wondering if anyone could collaborate this specific date or if this date might possibly false or currently unconfirmable data. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Considering that there has been no response and that the only evidence I can find is that it came out after August 1999, can the date be hidden until something can collaborate this date? --Super Goku V (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2016 (EST)

I think I was about to respond, but I don't have any sources that can neither confirm nor deny it. If there isn't a source, you have to stick {{ref needed}} just to let readers know that the information is dubious. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:40, 9 February 2016 (EST)

Ah, thank you for responding. Based on what I can find, it definitely came out after August 4th of 1999, but dates after that get blurry quick. Currently, I would presume that the best way to confirm a date might be to find an Australian magazine that covered the game before it came out, but finding something that would help has not been going well. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2016 (EST)

Stage hazards

Regarding the stage hazards, which Pokemon were removed from in response to a recently passed proposal, I notice only a few of the stage hazards are not intrinsically linked to the Super Mario franchise. This includes Whispy Woods, Arwing, and acid. How should we go about these? Should these be listed in their respective stage descriptions too? They are all in a stage representing a different series. I could argue similar for Bumpers, but those appear in the Super Mario-themed Peach's Castle stage. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:43, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

That inconsistency is part of why I so vehemently opposed the Pokemon proposal. There was nothing in that saying they should be removed, so they should stay - you can't add parts to a passed proposal post-facto. I'm gonna make my own proposal next week when the time is available, though. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:52, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I'll aim to resolve the inconsistencies, then. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:08, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

Remove the remaining non-Super Mario "stage gimmicks and hazards"

This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Friday, November 15, 2024, 21:12 GMT

Following the successful proposal of removing excessive Pokemon lists to relegate into the Poke Ball and Saffron City descriptions, this left behind an inconsistency of four non-Super Mario stage hazards still being listed, as follows:

• Acid, in the Planet Zebes stage (Metroid)
• Arwing, in the Sector Z stage (Star Fox)
• Bumper, a Super Smash Bros. object, although in a Super Mario stage
• Whispy Woods, in the Dream Land stage (Kirby)

So wouldn't removing them be a straightforward reason? The four are no more intrinsically related to Super Mario than all the Pokemon that were removed. The only one I'd consider keeping is Bumper, but that's because it's in a Super Mario stage, Peach's Castle. For that reason, I'll make three options.

If this proposal passes, the mentions of acid, Arwing, and Whispy Woods will be integrated into the Planet Zebes, Sector Z, and Dream Land stage descriptions, respectively, as well as Bumper into Peach's Castle description if the option to remove all four passes.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Remove all

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Secondary
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option. We figure if we are going to treat the Pokemon in Saffron City this way, we might as well apply it to similar hazards.

Remove all except Bumper

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option. The Bumper is still generic enough that we can see merit in giving it increased mention when combined with its presence in a Mario-themed stage.
3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per my reasoning for splitting Meta Crystal to its own article; the Bumper is implicitly connected to a Super Mario stage in the same way that Meta Crystal's background elements connect it to Metal Mario.

Remove nothing

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - They can interact with Mario characters, so that argument is flawed (especially considering that, during your Pokemon proposal, your main argument was that the entire list was non-Mario, which obviously doesn't apply here. Also, Whispy Woods has crossed over with Mario otherwise. Also, there's the deliberately forcing me to wait yet another month to make the proposal I listed above your making these proposals not 20 minutes before you did, so obviously I was going to oppose from that bit of inconsideration. But enough on that; anyone who prefers the proposal I linked should probably oppose, if they so want, as that will allow it to be proposed quicker. And of course, anyone who thinks my idea is the wrong way to go and that this proposal is better, go ahead and support.
2. Hewer (talk) The better way to resolve the inconsistencies caused by the Pokémon proposal is all at once in one big proposal like what Doc is planning. I'm tired of all these endless small, one-by-one Smash removal proposals. Also per Doc.
3. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Doc von Schmeltwick Yes, they can interact, that's true. But the point I'm making is "why remove the Pokemon but not these?" They are non-Super Mario subjects that are interactable to Super Mario fighters no more than other representatives, and on equal level as the Pokemon removed.

Also, yes, Whispy Woods did, true, but its appearance in Super Mario publication has no instrinsical or inherent connection to its appearance in Super Smash Bros. One could make the case that the 151 Pokemon were in Mario Artist as designs, so they technically "crossed over" as well. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:23, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

Considering you know I still plan on revisiting that subject, calling precedence isn't going to work. Especially since I warned of this very eventuality in said proposal and you didn't care then. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:25, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

As for the Pokemon list, yes, I did make that argument. But this is not about this: this is about a gaping inconsistency that this proposal aims to resolve. It's not saying "remove all non-Super Mario stages, items" -- this is about resolving an inconsistency with the article in that only Pokemon gimmicks and hazards were removed but not other non-Super Mario content, which makes no sense. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:28, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I mean I mentioned in that proposal that it would leave random things like Bronto Burts, Arwings, and Gray Fox at a higher priority than the Pokemon with the same basic roles, which is just silly, and you didn't seem to have a problem with it then because those lists still had "some" Mario content - you were just too focused on removing the Pokemon to apparently register how that would look. (Also, considering this affects the same list and it was explicitly stated the proposal wouldn't remove anything else, this might be in violation of the same rule that keeps me from making mine... though of course, it might be perfectly fine. Depends on how the rules are interpreted.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:38, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

As a refresher to anyone interested, my planned alternative proposal is to give pages only to Super Mario elements, whilst covering everything else on the pages for the individual Super Smash Bros. games; unless otherwise stated, they will instead link to other wikis, be if the base series' wiki or SmashWiki. For instance, Link will remain an internal link (no pun intended) because he's crossed over otherwise, Ganondorf will link to Zeldawiki because he hasn't. Link's moves (originating from the Legend of Zelda series) will link to Zeldawiki, while Ganondorf's moves (original moves due to being based on Captain Falcon's moves) will link to Smashwiki. And as for miscellaneous details

1. Merge the "enemies" pages to their respective game - they're already structured like any other game's enemy tables anyway.
2. Merge the "Subspace Army" and "Subspace Stages" lists to each other to recreate a watered-down version of the Subspace Emissary page (to split from the Brawl page due to length and being exclusive to that campaign); it would also include a table for characters describing their role in said campaign, as well as objects/items found exclusively in it (Trophy Stands, the funny boxes, the metallic barrel cannons, etc) - once again, all except Mario-derived things will link elsewhere (mostly to Smashwiki in this case).
3. Section each game akin to how I had the SSB64 page as of this edit, including sections for Pokemon, Assist Trophies, Bosses, etc., and links to other wikis for subjects that we don't need pages on. Other sections can be added as needed.
4. Leave the lists for fighters, stages, and (series-wide) bosses alone (for now at least), as they make more sense to have a series-wide representation on here (similar to the fighters) in some capacity than the items or enemies. Also, you never know when one of them is going to cross over otherwise, like Villager, Isabelle, and Inkling suddenly joining Mario Kart, so it's good to keep that around in case a split is deemed necessary from something like that happening down the line.
5. Have image galleries cover everything that can reasonably be included in an image gallery for the game, regardless of origin. This includes artwork, sprites, models, screenshots, etc, for any subject - yes, including Pokemon, so that will undo that one proposal from a month ago. Just like on the game pages, the labels will link to other sites as needed.
6. Leave Stickers and Spirits alone, their pages are too large to merge and are fine as they are for the reasons that opposition to deleting them historically has brought up.
7. Include the "minigame" stages (Break the Targets, Board the Platforms, Race to the Finish, Snag Trophies, Home Run Contest, Trophy Tussle, the Melee Adventure Mode stages) in the "list of stages debuting in [game]" articles. For ones like Targets, it would just explain how it worked and then have a gallery for the different layouts rather than describing each in detail. Said minigame pages should be merged to a section in the SSB series article covering the series' minigames. The Subspace Emissary stages will get a section with a {{main}} to the stage section of the Subspace Emissary article (detailed in an above point).
8. Keep trophy, assist trophy, and challenge pages covering only Mario things, leave the remainder in the game gallery (fun fact: Smashwiki does not have game galleries, nor does their community want them; we can base what we could do on if other wikis do something, but not base what we cannot do from those - nothing forbids coverage from that).
   

-Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:08, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I think you've linked that before on the Pokemon proposal. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:19, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I did. But that's been three and a half weeks or so ago and I've altered it since then, so it seemed appropriate to spell it out again to anyone who might need a refresher. ;) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:08, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

Remove non-Super Mario "stage cameos"

This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Friday, November 15, 2024, 21:12 GMT

Accompanying the above proposal is a proposal to remove a few "stage cameos" not linked to the Super Mario franchise. So if this proposal passes, Bronto Burt, King Dedede, Ridley, and space junk will be removed from the stage cameos section, which will then cover Super Mario cameos only. They all appear in the background and have no meaningful connection to Super Mario franchise. If Pokemon, which can actually interact with Super Mario characters (although no differently than fighters representing other series) are no longer listed as the outcome of a proposal, it definitely wouldn't make sense to list stage cameos of characters/species from non-Super Mario series and games.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, and our general vibe of "we should probably cut down on excess Smash content in a world with Smash Wiki in it".
3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - No reason to cut out game sprites. Per before. (Especially since most of the things listed would later become interactable in later Smash games, sometimes as fighters... and the previous note that during your Pokemon proposal, your main argument was that the entire list was non-Mario, which obviously doesn't apply here.) Also, there's the deliberately forcing me to wait yet another month to make the proposal I listed above your making these proposals not 20 minutes before you did, so obviously I was going to oppose from that bit of inconsideration. But enough on that; anyone who prefers the proposal I linked should probably oppose, if they so want, as that will allow it to be proposed quicker. And of course, anyone who thinks my idea is the wrong way to go and that this proposal is better, go ahead and support.
2. Hewer (talk) Same oppose reason as the above proposal.
3. OmegaRuby (talk) Per Doc. I feel like it's better to see his proposal come to fruition to cover all of these mini-issues at once and wrap a little bow around the wiki's Smash coverage.

Comments

@Doc von Schmeltwick Again, this isn't a proposal about a clean sweep of all non-Super Mario content: just the stage cameos. The reason I thought to create this proposal is because stage cameos are one step below stage gimmicks, so from removing the gimmicks, it would be odd if the cameos were kept. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:31, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

Then why did you make them as two separate proposals at the same time...? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:18, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

Because the focuses are different. This one is about stage cameos. I made another for stage gimmicks and hazards. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:20, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

But you're comment above is acting like the other proposal has already passed when it obviously hasn't, having just been made. Imagine if one passes and one fails by a similar near-margin. Wouldn't that feel silly? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:29, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

Is there anything inherently wrong from doing the two proposals separately? If I considered proposing more features or MediaWiki extensions, let's say, I'd make the proposals separate in case there are separate arguments for each. Did you make several proposals at once before? Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:32, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I have made up to 16 proposals at a time, but never this blatantly related. This is the kind of thing that would make more sense as a single multi-option proposal. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:33, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

Just let these two proposals run their course. It's not a big deal. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:34, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

Easier for you to say, you're not the one being carroted along for two months XD. But I digress. I'll go ahead and see where this goes. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:09, September 17, 2024 (EDT)