Talk:Sample stages

SPECIFICS I think specific information about the Sample Stages should be included in their profiles. The stages' comments, music used and also an image of each stage. On a seperate note, could somebody please tell me what music track has been used for Sample S: Hole and what its comment is (grammatically correct please). Thanks you.

Good point... Anyone got the pictures?? And the songs should be mentioned as well... but alas, I don't actually own Brawl so someone else must add these data. 5280s (talk · contributions) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the comment for Sample S: Hole is?

pictures

the stages are too big to take pictures regularly(without the infinite camera hack). Trust me, I've tried.O, Mighty Smoreking 17:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget about the Gallery function. Anything is better than nothing. {My name is Miles, and I approve this message.} 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So, take a few pictures for each and make a gallery and say stuff like:"One section of Hole" and "Another section"?SmoreKing Happy Holidays! 18:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Miles (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Better idea: Special Brawl --> Fixed-camera, clear so characters aren't in the shot. Any takers? Miles (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't it be "Sample stages"?-- PSIWolf (T • C • E) 05:28, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

Split

This page has a split tag, but no respective discussion, so here's one. I support splitting these three articles, as the three things they have in common is that they are developed by the stage builder, but by that logic, there's an argument to merge all the returning Melee stages. A very, very weak and stupid one, granted, but there would be one. Besides being made by the Stage Builder, these stages are very different, and barring Sample M: Bath, they all have enough information to form separate articles. Bath can always be expanded after all, and can be filled with information like a description of the background like Battlefield and Final Destination have. Splitting them works better for categorization and templates, so said categories and templates can treat these separate stages separately, and is also better for navigation, allowing links of the stages' names to link to that article, rather than having users trying to find the articles via the template have to figure out that they're all in this Sample Stages article.

And inevitably, if we don't split them, the split tag will forever remain on the page, so what does everybody else think? Toast ltimatum 10:17, 24 August 2012 (EDT)

I oppose, as they are simply (default) samples of what the Stage Builder can do, wherefore I don't consider them to be independent enough stages. I don't see how splitting would simplify categorisation and such; seeing how they all are the same type of stage, belong in the same categories and have the same background, this layout is not problematic. The only aspect in which they differ is their designs, thus it's not unreasonable to cover them all in the same article.

Your last statement is false (as far as I know): a scenario where a vote for merging fails does not require the template to stay where it is. ^—Smiddle my sig is not fancy 10:42, 24 August 2012 (EDT)

Discussions of splitting on this wiki have a history of going unresolved for years before concensus is made, so that's what I mean by the template staying. To elaborate on the split being "better for organisation", it allows all three stages to be placed in a category and in the stages template, rather than being grouped into one page. having them in one means that the three separate stages aren't listed amongst all the other stages in said category, template, and other lists. Also, these stages don't have the same background like you say they do, all three have different backgrounds, and therefore the blocks also look different. Toast ltimatum 10:54, 24 August 2012 (EDT)

I see, but I don't find the presence of that template a reason to split it. As for the stages, I still don't find them independent enough, though. The "background" part was a misunderstanding; to me it sounded like background as in history, rather than backdrop image. ^—Smiddle my sig is not fancy 11:05, 24 August 2012 (EDT)

I do support splitting the pages, since they are unique stages. This is similar to how subspace emissary levels all have their own articles. Mr. Anontalk 12:21, 24 August 2012 (EDT)

I support for the same reasons as Anon. As for the fact that Bath doesn't have a lot of info compared to the others, it's a minor difference. --RoyboyX Talk 19:51, 19 September 2012 (EDT)

Neutral While I think these should remain merged, maybe adding a bit more info to Bath could constitute a split, as it looks a bit minor, although I'm not sure there's more info than that.--Starman125 (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2012 (EDT)

Oppose These aren't equal to full fledged stages. Unlike those Melee past stages, these don't have their own unique backgrounds, their own soundtrack, and have absolutely no tournament information. The only information each of these stages can have is a description of their basic stage design, which is nowhere near enough to justify separate articles. They're just samples of what the stage builder can do, they're not supposed to be full fledged stages. Now to get to specific arguments from split support:

"as the three things they have in common is that they are developed by the stage builder, but by that logic, there's an argument to merge all the returning Melee stages."

No it does not. Each of the past Melee stages are their own full fledged stage with an elaborate design, a unique background, their own soundtrack, and will have information regarding their impact/usage in tournaments. A custom stage from stage builder is not equivalent to an actual fully designed stage. This "argument" also blatantly ignores how large an article containing all the Melee stages would be.

"Besides being made by the Stage Builder, these stages are very different, and barring Sample M: Bath, they all have enough information to form separate articles"

They do not, the information currently on here is bare bones, and you frankly cannot expand much beyond it without going into irrelevancy.

"and can be filled with information like a description of the background like Battlefield and Final Destination have."

No you cannot, each of their background is just a basic background available to use in stage builder, they are not unique, fully designed backgrounds that actual stages have that could be elaborated on.

"so said categories and templates can treat these separate stages separately"

They aren't full fledged separate stages, they're just samples of what you can do with stage builder.

"and is also better for navigation, allowing links of the stages' names to link to that article, rather than having users trying to find the articles via the template have to figure out that they're all in this Sample Stages article."

You do realise redirects can link to specific sections on articles? In fact, their names redirect to their individual sections already. You don't need separate articles to improve navigation and ease the finding of these.

"And inevitably, if we don't split them, the split tag will forever remain on the page"

This is just irrelevant and horribly fallacious. You do realise tags can be removed when its deemed the relevant tag is not needed? The fact an experienced Wiki user actually try using this to support their action is appalling.

"To elaborate on the split being "better for organisation", it allows all three stages to be placed in a category and in the stages template, rather than being grouped into one page."

All three stages being put into a category is completely unnecessary when they'll end up in the same categories anyway, we don't need links to sample stages in the stage template (they're not actual stages), and as pointed before, redirects can already link to them individually, so they don't even need separate articles to be put on the stage template.

"Also, these stages don't have the same background like you say they do, all three have different backgrounds, and therefore the blocks also look different."

The backgrounds are the same, plain backgrounds you find in stage builder, they're not unique and elaborate backgrounds that would necessitate elaborate explanation of them on this page.

"This is similar to how subspace emissary levels all have their own articles."

A level in the SSE =/= a stage builder sample. How can you even compare them?

"although I'm not sure there's more info than that"

There isn't. Omega Tyrant 20:23, 19 September 2012 (EDT)

Yeah, that's all true. I now oppose. --RoyboyX Talk 20:50, 21 September 2012 (EDT)