Talk:Fighter

Archives

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

Kill the "non-playable characters" section and rename this to List of playable Super Smash Bros. series characters

It's time we define this articles scope so we can quit having these long drawn out articles. Serpent  King 13:49, 11 February 2019 (EST)

Slight change to this proposal (if anyone who has already voted has a problem with it leave a comment below), This article is to be split into List of playable Super Smash Bros. series characters and List of non-playable Super Smash Bros. series characters. Serpent  King 18:58, 11 February 2019 (EST)

If this page is going to be a list of all playable characters (as opposed to just the playable fighters on the character select screen), there should probably be an addendum about Master Hand (SSBU). Smore (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2019 (EST)

Support

1. Remove. According to the official Smash website, the playable characters are known as "fighters". I propose changing the name of the article to "List of Super Smash Bros. fighters". An article including all (or just the non-playable) characters in Smash could be made with this article's current title as a compromise. Smore (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2019 (EST)
2. Support if and only if the non-playable characters receive their own article. If this is decided against, then I oppose. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 17:38, 11 February 2019 (EST)
3. Support, as long as we define character. Are Smash Run enemies considered characters? Subspace? WoL? If not, then why not? Why are boss characters counted then? If we were to list all the characters in the Smash series, this page'll be incredibly long. SugarCookie 420 17:36, 11 February 2019 (EST)

   This article would become only playable characters, another one created for nonplayables...this is more of a split than a move now that I think on it. Serpent  King 17:57, 11 February 2019 (EST)

4. Definitely lop that section off into its own article. I made a section about this earlier (though without a vote), so of course I'm on board. We can hash out stuff like alternate characters and genders and what an NPC should be later, but if one thing gets done I'd want it to be that article getting sliced. (Also, I second Smore's idea of making this page into "Fighters" or "List of SSB fighters" or something of that nature.) Ahemtoday (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2019 (EST)
5. Immence support The chart in this page has been moved to the page non-playable characters and it fits more on that page anyway. it just makes sense to have this page be exclusivly playable charecters.Xtra3678 (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2019 (EST)
6. Support. A page for List of Super Smash Bros. fighters and a separate on with NPCs sounds good. The Character page could be left as a redirect. --Meester Tweester (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2019 (EST)

Neutral

• Depends: I support this on the basis of two circumstances: that the non-playable characters get their own page, and that major alternate characters are listed under the main ones. Alternate characters are still playable, therefore deserve having a section here. Lou Cena (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2019 (EST)

Would not be against having a nonplayable article. Serpent  King 13:57, 11 February 2019 (EST)

We could also have a small section for background characters, and links to the Pokemon and AT list articlesSerpent  King 14:11, 11 February 2019 (EST)

Don't understand

What does he mean by "Killing the non-playable character section and renaming it"? SonDaniel (talk page) 23:53, April 8, 2020 (EDT)

That was from a year ago. I remember there was a table for several boss characters on this page, and it was instead named list of characters in the series or something along those lines. I think that’s the proposal that got this page renamed and made a new page for nonplayable characters. 72.203.118.154 00:01, April 9, 2020 (EDT)

Customizable and Transformation

Use background color to represent "Customizable" and "Transformation" conflict with "Unlockable", and these have notes. so should delete.--Capstalker (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2019 (EST)

I wasn't hugely on board with those when they were added either, but I came around while I was editing their colors to be not-terrible.

• I presume the reason "Customizable" exists is because there's some debate as to whether Mii Fighters count as unlockable, considering you can create them immediately after starting the game. In any case, the "Customizable" background color is a subset of the unlockable color. It's like complaining the 3DS Unlockable color conflicts with the regular one.
• As for transformation characters, they're considered an extension of another character, so the character that actually has a CSS slot is the one that gets the color. Which makes sense to me: it's not like you can unlock Zelda and not Sheik.

I think the table is still perfectly understandable with this information in place, so I reckon it should stay. Ahemtoday (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2019 (EST)

Move

I believe that the page non-playable character shows all the info on this page about npc's and more, and thus the info on this page should be removed. I also believe that this page should be moved to the page playable characters I would like to hear other peoples thoughts about this though before doing this.Xtra3678 (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2019 (EST)

Back to this topic again, as the draft appears to be done and implemented on non-playable characters and thus, it feels like it is the best idea to remove all npc information on this page, and move this pages address to List of playable Characters, or Playable Characters. Xtra Talk Edits 13:51, March 17, 2019 (EDT)

I think the new name of this article should be Fighters (or Playable Characters), with List of fighters (or List of playable characters) redirecting to it. In the same respect, I believe List of Super Smash Bros. series characters, List of Characters, and Characters should redirect to a disambiguation page in case people are looking for Non-playable characters. Smore (talk) 21:42, March 23, 2019 (EDT)

I agree. Right now the title is a little too long.

Sounds reasonable to me. Ahemtoday (talk) 02:40, March 27, 2019 (EDT)

I agree with the move. Since we split this page and the NPC page, we should clarify playability. Also, why on earth is this title so long right now? Instead of saying “List of...” just have it as “playable character” or “fighter”. Lou Cena (talk) 18:38, May 11, 2019 (EDT)

Should be Fighter. It's the term that's most often used to describe playable characters by official sources, and it's self-explanatory in regard to playability. --Burb (talk) 15:46, May 23, 2019 (EDT)

Bump. Lou Cena (talk) 03:12, May 30, 2019 (EDT)

Um, I have yet to see anyone against the idea, and the move notice has been up for months now. Maybe we should just go ahead. Ahemtoday (talk) 23:59, May 30, 2019 (EDT)

Yeah there's absolutely no reason to move this page. Like whatsoever. Miles (talk) 01:09, May 31, 2019 (EDT)

How come? We don’t need to call this page “List of Super Smash Bros. Series Characters” when shorter alternatives exist. We especially don’t need to call this page “List of”, especially when other pages that are also lists are simply called “unlockable character” and “up tilt”. There’s more to this page than the list; it’s also a description of veterans and newcomers. We don’t need a seven-word title when a one- or two-word title would suffice. I know redirects exist, but there’s no reason the main page should have such a bloated title. Lou Cena (talk) 01:28, May 31, 2019 (EDT)

Those are not simply lists; they also have a term to define and discuss. "Character" is self-explanatory enough that it does not require much in the way of definition, so this page is primarily a list - and generally speaking, lists on wikis include "List of" in the title. The only shortened form I might be willing to consider would be "List of characters", but even that seems like an unnecessary change to my mind. Miles (talk) 09:30, May 31, 2019 (EDT)

”Character” was already off the table, because yeah, I agree, it’s too simple. I was thinking of “Fighter”, since that’s what Salurai mostly refers to them anyways. However, “List of Characters”, “List of Playable Characters”, or “List of Fighters” is actually pretty fair. What deems that unnecessary? Lou Cena (talk) 10:40, May 31, 2019 (EDT)

I mean the reason this was named charecter was because it used to include npcs but it no longer includes them so i see no reason to call it charecter anymore, because we can now higher specify its purpose to fighters instead of just charecters. XtraTalk Edits 10:52, May 31, 2019 (EDT)

I do think that "fighter" as a term is less preferable to use in the page title than "character" or "playable character". I suppose "List of playable characters" could be acceptable as well. But I would certainly encourage you to wait for more input before moving such a major page. Miles (talk) 11:02, May 31, 2019 (EDT)

My idea: Akin to the boss page, descriptions could be given to each of the fighters in order to flesh out the article. In that case, this article could possibly lose the 'list of' modifier and become 'playable character' or 'fighter'. Smore (talk) 15:13, May 31, 2019 (EDT)

This sounds good in concept, but it’s just going to be bloated if we do this with 80 characters. The format of this page is fine. I just think the name should be shortened. Lou Cena (talk) 18:00, May 31, 2019 (EDT)

I guess I'll throw my hat in the ring: The article that has the big ol' table of all the stages is titled Stage. The article that has the big ol' table of all the items is titled Item. The Mode article may not have a big ol' table, but it does list all the modes and is also listed in the sidebar like the rest. If we follow that convention, this page should be titled "Character" or "Fighter". Ahemtoday (talk) 16:24, June 2, 2019 (EDT)

After further consideration, I'm inclined to support "List of playable characters" over all other options. Can I get an informal Support/Oppose tally on that? Miles (talk) 17:51, June 2, 2019 (EDT)

You were actually the only one who opposed a move in general, and since you support a move now, that means there are no oppositions. To specify what each one of us wants, You and I want to rename it to “List of playable characters”, Xtra wanted to rename it to simply “playable characters”, Smore wanted to rename it “Fighter”, I don’t know what Ahemtoday wants, and we may need to have more discussion on which one to rename it too. I think we have a solid consensus that the page should be given a shorter title; it’s what to call it that we’re disagreeing on now. Lou Cena (talk) 19:03, June 2, 2019 (EDT)

Oppose Granted, this page is primarily a list, but so are other similar pages such as non-playable character and stage. More content can always be added (e.g. timeline of when the characters were added; facts and figures on character representation within each game; alternate costume table; etc.) My vote is for Fighter, but I also could get behind Playable Character with a reference to the term 'fighter' near the beginning of the article (similar to articles with both fan-given and official names). -Also, as Ahemtoday pointed out, all the sidebar articles using the same naming convention would look slick. Smore (talk) 23:37, June 2, 2019 (EDT)

Throw my hat in the ring for Fighter. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:56, June 3, 2019 (EDT)

My vote is for Fighter as well. — Ardub23 (talk) 23:26, June 9, 2019 (EDT)

I'm okay with Fighter. Sakurai likes to call them fighters and the term has been common in the Smash community. SeanWheeler (talk) 11:16, June 10, 2019 (EDT)

I agree with calling it Fighter, it's easy to understand and convenient. There are a lot of page description characters that forget to add playable premises, Fighters is no ambiguity.--Capstalker (talk) 12:19, June 12, 2019 (EDT)

If my vote counts for anything, I am also in favor of Fighter, so it can match Boss and Stage. Xm0c (talk) 18:36, June 14, 2019 (EDT)

So far it looks like everyone except for me and Miles agree on Fighter. I do think we need to shorten this title, but I’m actually relatively flexible. I think Fighter would actually work, though we should probably have more discussion and more reasons given before moving this page. Lou Cena (talk) 19:03, June 14, 2019 (EDT)

Each of the fighters in the game have "As a playable character" in their playable sections on their character pages as well as trivia pages. However, in some cases, I think it is inconstantly used as fighter. A similar inconstancy would be using "universe" over "series" and vise-versa on numerous pages. Wolff (talk) 19:13, June 14, 2019 (EDT)

Worse comes to worse, we change “as a playable character” to “as a fighter” everywhere. But the two words are interchangeable anyways. Lou Cena (talk) 19:31, June 14, 2019 (EDT)

Multiple articles (e.g. stage) have different names (e.g. Japanese, English, official, fan) for themselves. I don't think the inconsistency is a big issue. People know that "fighter" and "playable character" (as well as "character" in context) are interchangeable. Smore (talk) 20:59, June 14, 2019 (EDT)

No opinion SerpentKing 19:37, June 16, 2019 (EDT)

Bump. While it is almost unanimous to move this page to “Fighter” (it does seem truly unanimous that the page should be moved, Miles is suggesting a different move, and Serpent King offered a neutral stance), I believe more discussion should be required, since this is a page that will always have a link on the left side of the page (which would need to be changed when this is moved, so that the link isn’t a redirect). Any comment, particularly from the other two crats, would be greatly appreciated. Lou Cena (talk) 16:30, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

Wait. Is this diccusion to change what we refer to the playable characters as, or changing the the page's title from "List of Super Smash Bros. series characters" to "List of Playable Characters" or "List of Fighters"? If it's the latter, I would think that Playable Character would makes more sense for what the page is about. But that's just me. Then again, official sources do list them as fighters, and "Playable Character" can simply be mentioned. Wolff (talk) 16:39, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

We are currently discussing changing the name of this page to Fighter, for consistency with Stage, Mode, and Item. Ahemtoday (talk) 01:21, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

Fighters are more appropriate than playable characters, because BOSS is also playable at certain times.--Capstalker (talk) 06:57, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

Support moving to "fighter" because it gets the point across. Appending "playable" is superfluous and just a mouthful. If it really comes to having to rename "As a playable character" to "As a fighter", or having the term "fighter" on the sidebar and navigation templates, so be it. Oh, and this page is more than just a "list" so I don't want to keep that in the name. - EndGenuity (talk) 17:13, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

But that is only changing the name of the page itself, and rewriting it to match, right? Wolff (talk) 17:27, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

I would assume so. - EndGenuity (talk) 17:31, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

Technically, we don’t really need to change a lot of info though. Calling this page just a “list” is a huge stretch, since it’s a also a description of newcomers and veterans. Anyways, 8 people want to move this to “Fighter”, 2 have suggested “playable character”, and 1 suggested “List of Playable characters”. Several of the “Fighter” people also thoroughly explained their point that the term got the definition across and was officially used. I think we’ve reached a consensus. Lou Cena (talk) 15:19, June 24, 2019 (EDT)

I was just wondering. Simply just "Fighter" would be more inline with the other page types. Wolff (talk) 15:29, June 24, 2019 (EDT)

Pikmin

Now that the move discussion has been finished, I was wondering if it would be alright to add the Pikmin to the Olimar's section in the table. They are on the the character template in parenthesis like Luma, but aren't on here. While I know the character in America is called just Olimar, I still think the section should be called "Pikmin and Olimar", because both are playable fighters. Xm0c (talk) 12:35, June 26, 2019 (EDT)

Well, every character on the table uses the same name they have on the CSS in American English. Why should we deviate from that? Ahemtoday (talk) 17:24, June 26, 2019 (EDT)

While I understand that, I think it is a disservice that the Pikmin are no where on this page. They are still classified as fighters, even if they are not in the name. And the character is still called Pikmin and Olimar in Japan, so including them wouldn't be that far out, even if just as a subscript or in parenthesis like in the template. Xm0c (talk) 18:44, June 26, 2019 (EDT)

Add fighter numbers

Since the numbers are "canonical" in Ultimate, why not list the official numbers as an additional column? Might be awkward for Pokemon Trainer (who doesn't have a number, just the individual Pokemon do) but. -The T (talk) 10:48, September 13, 2019 (EDT)

There was a long discussion about this, but basically: there is absolutely no indication that these numbers will be useful for titles that aren't Ultimate, or will even remain consistent after it. - EndGenuity (talk) 10:54, September 13, 2019 (EDT)

Transformation cell color

The transformation cell color is currently pretty similar to the unlockable character color. Could we make it a little bluer, less gray? I can barely tell that Charizard is any different from Captain Falcon or Chrom on Ultimate. TheNuttyOne 17:16, September 23, 2019 (EDT)

Delete the repeat

Notes 15 and 21 are nearly identical, and one should be removed. Magolor04726 (talk) 22:50, February 1, 2020 (EST)Magolor04726

Correction: 16 and 21, not 15. Magolor04726 (talk) 21:51, February 8, 2020 (EST)Magolor04726

Um, can someone please make that edit? I haven't become autoconfirmed so I can't. Magolor04726 (talk) 20:34, March 3, 2020 (EST)Magolor04726

I got it. --CanvasK (talk) 20:40, March 3, 2020 (EST)

Some trivia points that need to be purged

*Smash 4 is the first game to feature playable female swordfighters: Lucina, female Robin, female Corrin, and female Mii Swordfighter.

• • Wendy O. Koopa, who appears as an alternate costume for Bowser Jr., is the first female villain to be a playable character in the series.

It's kind of arbitrary if a playable character is male or female, no? Especially since Peach has both used weapons in Smash and was an antagonist in Paper Mario TTYD (albiet brainwashed) Samus being the only female character in the first game is notable though, since it was the first game.

*Wario is the only character prior to Ultimate to debut as a starter before becoming unlockable in another game, as well as the only one prior to Smash 4 to have never had fewer than 8 palette swaps.

• Prior to Ultimate, the only unlockable characters whose playable status was not kept a secret prior to release were Snake and Sonic in Brawl, and Lucina in Smash 4.
• Lucina and Wendy O. Koopa (the latter of whom is playable as an alternate model swap for Bowser Jr.) are also the first two unlockable female characters in the Super Smash Bros. series. Unlike Lucina however, it is impossible to face Wendy in an unlock match (due to her only being accessible as a playable character through Bowser Jr.'s alternate costumes).

While notable, these are better left on Alternate costume and Unlockable character (and I think they're already there, since this trivia section is excessively long.

**Conversely, the Koopalings and the Heroes from Dragon Quest III, IV and VIII are the only alternate characters who debuted before their base fighter. While the main trivia this is part of makes sense (Alph and Leaf didn't become costumes until Olimar and Red's later appearances), this seems to be only referring to these characters' home series. The Koopalings/Bowser Jr. and Heroes all became playable in Smash in the same game

*Master Hand is playable for one level during World of Light in Ultimate Already mentioned above the list. Redundant as trivia.

*When including DLC, every new Smash game has increased the number of newcomers per game. Most fighting games don't do this, but this isn't really notable because Smash 4 and Ultimate required DLC to make it at that point. 72.203.118.154|

Took out the ones that aren't notable or are better left/already on another page. However I personally find the Hero/Koopaling one interesting, so I seperated them to make more sense. OmegαToαd the Toαd Wαrrior (BUP) 17:46, March 2, 2020 (EST)

Adding Totals to the tables.

So I noticed the Stages, Boss, and Assist Trophy pages each list the total number of each on their tables. Should something like that be added to the table on this page? Maybe like what the Stages table does, and list returning and new fighters separate? Xm0c (talk) 19:08, March 11, 2020 (EDT)

I know it has been months since you discussed this, but we have added the Fighter totals to the page. Diddy Kongstar (talk) 20:09, September 1, 2020 (EDT)

Add other considered or intended fighters in a separate category?

As there have been several characters who were considered or intended to become fighters, should we make another table for those would didn’t get in? Diddy Kongstar (talk) 23:19, April 19, 2020 (EDT)

This one's not really needed. All it would really do is make the page longer than it actually needs to be. OmegαToαd64 • the Best Kαrter 23:28, April 19, 2020 (EDT)

Dr. Mario, Mewtwo, and Roy considered for Brawl?

As they have fighter data in Brawl, shouldn’t they be intended as there was work put into them? While Sakurai has never said they were planned, the fighter data suggests it. Diddy Kongstar (talk) 23:22, April 19, 2020 (EDT)

I'm going to have to agree on this one. I'm guessing it's because they were not officially confirmed, but because they have unused fighter data it's clear they were intended. According to the unused content page this is epecially the case for Roy and Mewtwo, as they have actual fighter data such as a fanfare. Plus Mewtwo has an unused Wiimote sound file for being selected, so for him it clearly implies that he was intended to be playable, but yet again cut for whatever reason, I'm still confused as to why they chose Jigglypuff over Mewtwo twice. OmegαToαd64 • the Best Kαrter 23:59, April 19, 2020 (EDT)

Quotation pages?

Hello, I was wondering if we could have separate quotation pages for fighters that are playable? There have been sounds and voice clips of every fighter as well as the announcer via https://www.sounds-resource.com/nintendo_switch/supersmashbrosultimate/ so we could also upload the sound clips that correspond towards their quotations. What do you think, should we add pages that show every one of their voice clips? GameBoy2936 (talk) 01:27, June 7, 2020 (EDT)

What quotations are you talking about? SonDaniel (talk page) 02:13, June 7, 2020 (EDT)

This includes what fighters say when using taunts, abilities, attacks and victory poses, basically wherever they use any of their voice clips. GameBoy2936 (talk) 02:42, June 7, 2020 (EDT)

I would lean towards no, mostly because the Sound Test does that in-game. We're not a resource repository, so uploading that many sound clips that really aren't necessary for encyclopedic reporting is a bit over the top. But even if we don't upload the sound clips, we already transcribe important quotes (such as taunts and victory poses) in their relevant sections, and anything else would just be variations of grunts. TheNuttyOne 02:57, June 7, 2020 (EDT)

Do we really need all the (intended)s and (considered)s and (boss)es clogging up the table?

I'm not going to say it's useless information. It definitely should be somewhere on the wiki. But does it really need to be right there on the table? This is the page about fighters, so I reckon the only information on the table should be "are they a fighter or not", and "are they unlockable or not", and things like that. Not whether they were intended to be a fighter or whether they were an assist trophy in that game. That goes on that character's trivia section, or on the beta content pages, or on the Assist Trophy page, or at least in the trivia section of this page or something. I just think it's clogging up the table as it is now, which makes the whole thing a little less cleaner to read. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:15, August 15, 2020 (EDT)

Regarding Transformations

Does there need to be a Transformation background for fighters? They already have references linking the fighters to being transformations and it doesn’t affect their availability. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have them be denoted as starters (with the exceptions of Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard in Ultimate as they’re unlockable with Pokémon Trainer)? Diddy Kongstar (talk) 12:19, September 3, 2020 (EDT)

I think them being transformations (and therefore effectively being part of another fighter) is a pretty major thing that warrants something more attention-grabbing than a footnote. After all, all the characters with blue backgrounds don't have their own space on the CSS. Ahemtoday (talk) 08:33, September 4, 2020 (EDT)

The issue is that Zelda and Samus also have the blue background despite appearing on the CSS. Diddy Kongstar (talk) 10:50, September 4, 2020 (EDT)

Huh? ...You're right, they do. I could've sworn they didn't. In my opinion, they shouldn't, and I think it was that way at some point, but maybe it was changed? Anyway, yeah, those two and Pokémon Trainer should have regular backgrounds. Ahemtoday (talk) 19:33, September 13, 2020 (EDT)

Reused assets for playable characters.

This is a topic that i already discussed on my talkpage, but given the large amount of reused assets, i wondered if any of the playable characters also reuse things like animations, models and etc from their home games. Apperently, according to comments from users or admins on the Model Resource, Sonic uses his model from Sonic and the Secret Rings but with different textures and edited model data, while Snake's model is his Sneaking Suit model from Metal Gear Solid 2 with different textures and Big Boss' head model from Metal Gear Solid 3. In addtion, Kazuya reuses his Tekken animations, some of which are almost 30 years old, while Ryu might reuse animations from Street Fighter IV and its updates. I don't have any model or animation viewing software or something like that, so can't verify if this is actually true. And for those wondering, im not counting reused from previous Smash games. So does anyone know any other potential asset reuses for playable characters? GameDestroyer2008 (talk) 16:43, November 14, 2022 (EST)

You don't seem to be making a distinction between re-used assets and re-created assets. Barring rare exceptions, I think it's safe to assume that models and animations for fighters are made specifically for Smash and that similarities to existing assets are because Smash is trying to represent the source material faithfully. Miles (talk) 18:50, November 14, 2022 (EST)

The only confirmed instance of a fighter reusing a model from somewhere else is with Ganondorf in Melee, where his model was taken from the Spaceworld 2000 GameCube Zelda Tech Demo due to his very late inclusion. Other similar models are purely speculation. Diddy Kongstar 00:35, November 20, 2022 (EST)

Just from how many different games have the Smash Bros games reused assets in general? GameDestroyer2008 (talk) 06:59, December 3, 2022 (EST)

Page name

I'd label the page with a move tag, but it seems just from general discussion that people can't decide on a name, so we're gonna gain consensus on what name this page should be called.

This page was originally called character, which wasn't terrible, but gathered enough outcry to warrant a move to the (at the time of this post) currently existing name of fighter. In attempting to figure out peoples' stances on this, the idea to move it to playable character was proposed, which I admit to not being opposed to myself. However, I think a single name decided under consensus should be utilized, so feel free to leave your thoughts here. Aidan the Spooky Gamer 13:50, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Playable character: "Character" in general seems to be a more common term than "Fighter"; however, I would much rather have "Playable character" since it is more specific and is also consistent with our Non-playable character page. And then "Character" can just be simply redirected there too. VoqéoT 13:58, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Playable character: as per Voqéo. Señor Mexicano (talk) 14:00, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Playable character: as per Voqeo and SenorMexicano Seahawk (talk) 14:12, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Leaving it is preferred but Playable character would be fine. To quote a short essay I wrote a few years ago, "I would argue that, while SmashWiki may not be official, putting the use of official terminology first and foremost if possible is conducive to its agenda on the whole." The word "character" by itself has a specific singular definition in the dictionary, but "fighter" is the Smash term for, collectively, whoever or whatever you are playing as. Some fighters include multiple separate characters, and that's not to mention the fact that "character" by itself doesn't even tell you that it's someone you play as. The word could include NPCs, bosses, and spirits for all we know. A term commonly used in the community isn't necessary helpful for information purposes. So if you ask me, "Fighter" feels like a no-brainer page name, but if you insist on using more fan-agreeable terminology, "Playable character" does tick the right boxes since it's technically not unheard-of in the realm of official use, and establishes dichotomy from Non-playable character. Sincerely, Ender Rhapsody Musk. 14:14, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Playable character --Meester Tweester (talk) 18:16, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Playable character: As far as I know, the term "Fighter" has only fully replaced "Character" in Ultimate, and in Smash 4 the two terms were used interchangeably. I support "Playable character" because it covers the most games and because "Character" is too vague. It's pretty rare for someone to call Melee characters "fighters", for example. Levii (talk) 18:29, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Fighter is concise, specific, and easily understood. And I think there's value in the fact that it's a Smash term: When you're talking about fighters, you know you're talking about the Super Smash Bros. series. League has champions, Dota has heroes, Smash has fighters. And yes, the context of being on this wiki can clue you in that you're talking Smash, but using 'fighter' gives the discourse that distinctive Smash flavor, while 'playable character' is beige and bland. —Ardub23 (talk) 22:17, November 1, 2023 (EDT)

I say leaving it as-is would be preferable, but changing it to Playable character would be ok, as per Ender and Ardub23. - Aykrivwassup (talk) 01:20, November 5, 2023 (EDT)

I'd say Fighter for the similar reasons as Ender and Ardub23. It's a concise way of labeling playable characters and I've recently been seeing more people use the word "fighter". Diddy Kongstar 23:36, November 7, 2023 (EST)

Maybe it's because I'm only really involved in the competitive side of the community, but I honestly don't really see "figher" used too commonly. Señor Mexicano (talk) 16:46, November 9, 2023 (EST)

Fighter. Although Smashwiki is not official, I think everyone can agree that the smash team themselves is pushing that name, such as with the latest Sakurai video, or terms like "Fighters Pass" or "Echo Fighter". Even disregarding official-ness though, "playable character" is just way too generic, and, as Ardub said, using "fighter" gives the wiki its own "smash flavor". Unnamed anon (talk) 12:37, November 10, 2023 (EST)