User talk:94.67.133.161

The Witcher and Warcraft

...has nothing to do with Smash. We are SmashWiki, not everything wiki, and thus focus on Smash. Plus, your additions dive into speculation, and we don't allow that. Please stop adding your edits, thanks! CookiesCreme 16:29, August 25, 2019 (EDT)

Shadow

Not only do you Edit war on that page before being blocked, but the trivia point doesn't make sense. Shadow is not an echo fighter of Sonic since he isn't even a playable character, and the trivia itself is false and volatile, which does not make it a good piece to note. CookiesCreme 22:36, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Is Smash wiki a representative of Nintendo in a similar way to the one shown in the popular racist Mario video? Is Shadow the Hedgehog hated because of not appearing in many Nintendo games despite being one of the most popular characters in the Sonic franchise? I said that Shadow is the only counterpart of another character in the Smash series who appeared in the game but not as a playable character. I know that there are other characters who used to be assist trophies as counterparts of playable characters but many of them have already made their transition in the latest games thanks to a massive roster. Please correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to lie but spread interesting ideas instead. Is that wrong? I couldn't think of any other reason to reject my edit other than not accepting the promotion a character that's competing against Nintendo. But can I have a specific example of another major character who is still an assist trophy as a counterpart of a playable character just like Shadow?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talk • contribs) 22:54, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

To put it shortly: The concept you're trying to spread isn't even a thing in the Smash Bros. series. Also, what is with the "sidekicks" part? The other two Links, Meta Knight, and Incineroar aren't considered "sidekicks" (atleast in Smash) to the characters you're trying to pair them with, and the latter two are sometimes grouped with the villains, so what were you trying to go for? SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 23:04, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Ok let's dissect this shall we?

"Is Smash wiki a representative of Nintendo in a similar way to the one shown in the popular racist Mario video?"

First off, what are you even talking about? Second, no we are a representation of Smash Bros., not Nintendo.. Third, this really dives into speculation.

"Is Shadow the Hedgehog hated because of not appearing in many Nintendo games despite being one of the most popular characters in the Sonic franchise?"

As far as I know, and you have said, Shadow is one of the most liked characters in Sonic. The hate itself isn't even worthy enough as a trivia point, since a similar scenario has happened with a lot of characters (to name a few, Waluigi, Skull Kid, Geno, pre-Ultimate Ridley, pre-Ultimate Banjo).

"I said that Shadow is the only counterpart of another character in the Smash series who appeared in the game but not as a playable character."

So? What does that have to do with the trivia point, which is practically stating that Shadow should be in the game because x character's rival is in the game. That's really jumping to conclusions.

"I know that there are other characters who used to be assist trophies as counterparts of playable characters but many of them have already made their transition in the latest games thanks to a massive roster."

So what does that have to do with anything? As a matter of fact, their transition was due to being popular Nintendo characters and an easy moveset to make, since it could just be a copy/similar copy to another fighter. Even then, other popular/heavily requested "counterparts" like Lyn and Black Knight aren't in the roster, so that nullifies that point.

"Please correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to lie but spread interesting ideas instead."

How is this trivia point even remotely interesting? You simply listed a bunch of characters with rivals and counterparts, which doesn't make it special at all. Noting that Shadow isn't in the game despite being a counterpart falls apart when there are many other characters (eg. the ones listed above) that fall under the same category. Trivia like that shouldn't be added for that reason.

"I couldn't think of any other reason to reject my edit other than not accepting the promotion a character that's competing against Nintendo."

...Or that it basically fits 2 qualities that makes it a bad trivia point, specifically the ones I literally mentioned at the start of the post. The wiki has it's rules, and you need to follow them. Also, SmashWiki is not a place for advertisements; we are a wiki, after all.

"But can I have a specific example of another major character who is still an assist trophy as a counterpart of a playable character just like Shadow?"

Again, I've listed those above. I'm just repeating myself at this point.

Your defense is literally based off of the fact that "Shadow should be in Smash, but isn't, despite all these characters having it." That's a terrible basis for a trivia point and is why it's being constantly removed. I suggest taking a good read at our rules first before attempting to make further edits to the wiki. CookiesCreme 23:10, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Sorry for not using the most appropriate word, but heroic protagonists are usually paralleled with either anti-heroes or villains. Anti-heroes are much different than villains but they are both comparable to characters of good alignment, albeit in a much different way. For example, Wario is an evil Mario, but his negative traits are way different than Bowser's. But I want a specific example of a character as popular as Shadow being an assist trophy but not playable. Isn't Sonic like much more popular, even when exclusively referring to Nintendo, than many franchises that have many more playable characters in the latest Smash games? I honestly find this fact to be very weird.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talk • contribs) 23:09, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

That itself is false for Smash. To list "a few" that don't: Ness, Lucas, Captain Falcon, Simon, Richter, Joker, Banjo, Shulk, every single Fire Emblem character. They don't have playable villain counterparts or anti-heroes. CookiesCreme 23:12, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Is this conversation turning into a Fire Emblem is better than Sonic debate? Are those characters connected to the Fire Emblem's heroic protagonists as much as Shadow is to Sonic? And seriously, no one can deny that Mario is not only by far the greatest franchise of Nintendo, but among the biggest in all video games. And Bowser indeed deserved being ranked as the biggest video game villain despite inconsistency and not so great character development. But Sonic is arguably Mario's biggest competitor. I'm not the right person to do that calculation, but how many times is Fire Emblem less popular than the Sonic the Hedgehog series?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talk • contribs) 23:21, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

I'm starting to think you either don't have any arguments left or you simply do not understand what we are talking about; this argument is straight-up unrelated to your argument above. In that case, let me leave you with this: your trivia point is not trivia. From your explanations it's advertisement and a complaint as to why Shadow isn't in Smash. If you really don't understand why that's not trivia, I really have nothing to say. CookiesCreme 23:25, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

First off, please sign your comments. Second, let's elaborate on your recent response:

"Is this conversation turning into a Fire Emblem is better than Sonic debate?"

How is listing characters without antagonistic counterparts turning this into a Sonic vs FE debate?

"Are those characters connected to the Fire Emblem's heroic protagonists as much as Shadow is to Sonic?"

What even are you talking about?

"But Sonic is arguably Mario's biggest competitor."

No, not anymore. Sega used to be Nintendo's rival but now decided to do only third-party development.

"I'm not the right person to do that calculation, but how many times is Fire Emblem less popular than the Sonic the Hedgehog series?"

Fire Emblem is nowhere near as iconic as Sonic but still have a lot pf recognition within Nintendo itself.

Your responses are making too many assumptions and false information, not every franchise has antagonistic "sidekicks". Adding to Cookies and Creme's list I'd also like to add in the Pokemon franchise for an exemple, it is one of the most iconic franchises ever made, yet no antagonists appear as characters (sure you have Team Rocket as Mii costumes, but those are costumes, not actual characters). Before adding anything else have a good read at SW:TRIVIA, SW:NOT and also SW:TALK. SupαToαd64, the Best 23:39, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

That's what I'm saying. No one can deny that Shadow is a big character but he should be small for not being as much Nintendo as other Sonic characters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talk • contribs) 23:43, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Um, no? It just means that Sakurai couldn't add him in because of other priorities. CookiesCreme 23:50, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Of course there are not anti-hero and villain counterparts of heroic protagonists in every franchise but they are commonly seen, especially for the franchises included in Smash.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talk • contribs) 23:46, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

I actually believe that Smash's decision to omit Shadow as a playable character is unfair, as do many others, but I didn't complain. You took that trivia as an accusation over Smash but it wasn't. I hope that Shadow appears in the next game firstly for deserving it and secondly for Smash to be redeemed for an injustice that has tainted an otherwise great fighter game franchise. So if Shadow is to appear in the next game, which is something I don't think anyone can know for sure, then my trivia would be an adverisement rather than defamation. Think about Hulk Hogan and Chyna in WWE 2K20 for example. But anyway, there is no better time than now to promote Shadow in both Sonic and Smash due to the movie being released with Jim Carrey not being identical to Eggman but still much more suitable for playing a crazy villain than any of his comedic roles, just like Jack Nicholson, since I believe that his movie insanity is more legit in real life than Jack's. Jack Nicholson and Joe Pesci in Goodfellas nailed it in doing comedy in films of different genres. Ever seen Jim Carrey's deepfake video as Jack Nicholson from The Shining? You can see that he's made for such roles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talk • contribs) 23:41, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Sigh... For the third time, SmashWiki is not a place for advertisements. We are a wiki. CookiesCreme 23:44, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Let me ask you this: do you have any other argument other than "Shadow is popular" or anything like that? CookiesCreme 23:54, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

I'm done arguing with you. It seems that we don't actually disagree. I think we've reached common ground that Shadow should appear in Smash due to being an iconic Sonic character but Sonic's franchise should be punished for not making as many Nintendo games as in the past, with Shadow probably being one of the main reasons for that. If Smash is meant to advertise Nintendo, then I agree that Shadow should not be included. But I still think that Shadow would be one of the best additions for increasing Smash's popularity as a video game regardless of Nintendo. Anyway, Samus is better than Master Chief but she failed to promote Nintendo as much as he promoted Xbox. I think that Nintendo is following the same "best for business" strategy that WWE's Vince McMahon had in mind when promoting John Cena over anyone else. Restricting the audience to a bunch of fanatics. I disagree with that idea but I can't deny that it's effective to some degree and usually endorsed, especially in politics between socialists and neoliberals.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talk • contribs) 23:56, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

No, not a single one of us even remotely stated our agreement. If you refuse to listen to what me and Toad said, we can't do anything about it. Just so you know, this won't help you in the long run. CookiesCreme 00:12, September 28, 2019 (EDT)

I don't want to disagree with you. I know that you've been running this wiki and I'm just here to contribute but only according to what you think is right. I'm not in position to judge what's right for Smash. But am I wrong about Shadow being a good choice for introducing as a playable character in order to increase Smash's sales, but if Nintendo is losing in the long run by promoting Shadow whose games would bring bigger losses for Nintendo's other games than gains for Smash, then this is the reason that he's omitted from Smash as a playable character?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talk • contribs) 00:40, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

So lemme get this straight: you are asserting that Shadow's lack of playability constitutes trivia because his exclusion doesn't make sense given this random assortment of facts.... D-Do you even know the site you're using? I'm not here to tell you to read policy: the others have already done that. What I will tell you is that you need to stop brazenly attempting to expand the wiki's scope by arguing semantics. Just because his exclusion is "trivia" in a sense does not mean it should be treated as trivia here. Use some common sense: if this site was about crossovers, why is it not "Crossover Wiki"? Or rather, why should it be outside of Smash being an intersection of franchises itself? Never mind the fact that your assertions are completely tainted in subjectivity that has no use being on a Wiki to begin with. It doesn't matter that Master Chief "deserves" to be in Smash more: what matters here is that he isn't, and until he is, it won't matter. Not a bad thing, but unless you can locate an objective discrepancy in certain character exclusions, it doesn't belong on the Wiki. And if you instead wish only to spur discussion about who "should" and "shouldn't" be playable, that's just a conversation better had elsewhere. Believe me, I'd love to discuss it, but not on a site clearly not prepared to handle it. - EndGenuity (talk) 01:17, September 28, 2019 (EDT)

I'm not arguing over why Shadow is better or worse than other Smash characters. Everyone has a share of both lovers and haters. But since Smash has such a big roster, not being playable but an assist trophy instead is more noteworthy for Shadow than any other character. It would be more understandable to exclude Shadow despite his iconic status if the roster was smaller, but that is not the case. But seriously? Having a dozen Fire Emblem characters is a better addition than making Shadow playable? I think it's obvious that it's way easier, faster, cheaper and profitable to prioritise Shadow over anyone else. But I'm not the one to decide whether Shadow will be in the next Smash game or not. Can't we just agree that his omission after so many Smash games is noteworthy no matter if the reason for that is property rights, development hell, big plans for the future or simply Nintendo's revenge against Sega? I didn't complain. I just pointed out an obvious fact. I believe that Shadow should be playable but of course I accept Smash's decision since it's developers could know better than I do. I still think that Sonic's movie will be enough of a success to convince Smash to feature Shadow in the next game. So why would I blame Smash? Other fighting games have done similar things. Tekken 7 did not include Jinpachi and True Ogre even if they both appeared in Tag Tournament 2, Soulcalibur VI did not bring back Setsuka alongside Tira and Zasalamel or the Hero King Algol and Street Fighter V omitted Haggar and Gill despite their popularity. I'm not judging Smash's decision to exclude Shadow from being playable unlike many others. I just mentioned that he's the only counterpart of a major heroic character such as Sonic that hasn't yet been included in Smash's huge roster. I don't know why and it's up to each fan to decide what reason should be considered most likely.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talk • contribs) 01:28, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

"I'm not arguing over why Shadow is better or worse than other Smash characters."

This completely contradicts the very next statement.

"But since Smash has such a big roster, not being playable but an assist trophy instead is more noteworthy for Shadow than any other character."

No it does not. Do you see a trivia about Waluigi like the one you're trying to add? No. May I mention how Waluigi is probably one of the most requested characters? Yet it is still not noteworthy enough to warrant a trivia about him being one of the villian and lacking playability, and the same goes for Shadow. The only trivia about Waluigi's lack of playability refers to how much backlash Sakurai recieved when he was revealed to be an assist trophy again, and how Sakurai even responded to the fans with him saying Waluigi being playable is ultimately his decision.

"It would be more understandable to exclude Shadow despite his iconic status if the roster was smaller, but that is not the case."

How does the size of the roster determine one's playability chances?

"But seriously? Having a dozen Fire Emblem characters is a better addition than making Shadow playable?"

Again you don't decide which characters "deserve" to be in Smash over others.

"I think it's obvious that it's way easier, faster, cheaper and profitable to prioritise Shadow over anyone else."

How many times do we have to tell you? SmashWiki is not a place for advertisements, NOR is it the place for opinions.

"Can't we just agree that his omission after so many Smash games is noteworthy no matter if the reason for that is property rights, development hell, big plans for the future or simply Nintendo's revenge against Sega?"

No we don't need to. Shadow is not the only popular character who never became playable: Waluigi? Geno? Captain Toad? Skull Kid? Isaac (Golden Sun)? None of them have trivia saying they aren't playable despite popularity. Plus did you even read my previous comment? Sega and Nintendo are not rivals anymore.

"I still think that Sonic's movie will be enough of a success to convince Smash to feature Shadow in the next game. So why would I blame Smash?"

Seriously? You're convinced that "movie" will be a success? ...Okay...? And how will that convince Sakurai to put Shadow in?

"I'm not judging Smash's decision to exclude Shadow from being playable unlike many others. I just mentioned that he's the only counterpart of a major heroic character such as Sonic that hasn't yet been included in Smash's huge roster."

But he's not the only one right? Porky would be Ness and Lucas's antagonistic counterpart, but Porky is not playable. That statement is completely invalid.

So in conclusion you keep trying to push your trivia about Shadow's omission because you want Shadow playable. We're a wiki stating facts, not opinions. It doesn't matter if you think he's a good choice, stop trying to push your opinion on a wiki and just leave it as it is. SupαToαd64, the Best 02:58, September 28, 2019 (EDT)

I forgot about Waluigi not being playable to be honest but just like Shadow he's omitted because of not being created by Nintendo despite being a major character in a popular Nintendo franchise. And I'm saying again that my trivia about Shadow is not an expression of my belief that he should be playable, but I can't deny that I endorse that belief because I still think it's only a matter of time before Shadow and Waluigi become playable, just like Hulk Hogan and Chyna in WWE 2K20 after many years of absence, and in fact Shadow deserving to be playable in Smash is an idea that the majority of people are accepting, but you are apparently amongst the minority that doesn't, which is the reason that you assumed that I was complaining that Shadow wasn't playable even when I wasn't, since Shadow deserving to be playable in Smash is as obvious as Hulk Hogan and Chyna deserving to be in the huge roster of WWE games. I don't need to blame Smash for excluding Shadow as a playable character. It's a great franchise and it will only become better when it finally includes Shadow and Waluigi as playable characters. But until that happens, I just mentioned a fact that's noteworthy for everyone except people like you who are either considering themselves as representatives of Nintendo or hating Shadow and Waluigi. And why did you protect Shadow's page for vandalism even if I'm the only one who's supposedly doing it? Maybe because you know that other people will agree with me before they do. I'm not saying that Shadow should be playable. But it's obvious that he deserves it and you are only rejecting my trivia because of believing that he shouldn't but you know that you're amongst the minority and that's why you've protected Shadow's page even if there wasn't anyone else yet that wanted to edit it.

"Among the minority" when at least 4 others users and an administrator had told you to stop. Try again. CookiesCreme 13:54, September 28, 2019 (EDT)

Yeah your opinion matters more than that of millions and millions of Smash fans.

And millions of Smash fans understand to follow wiki rules, which you don't. Look, I'm just gonna stop talking, if you keep on making similar edits I'm reverting. I'm done. CookiesCreme 13:58, September 28, 2019 (EDT)

Again, you have not put forward any relevant proof that Shadow will be in Smash, just extremely tangential precedent (And what objective proof did Hulk Hogan and Chyna even have going? Just people wanting them?). Putting aside that being a "major character" means diddly squat when it comes to character inclusions, you have yet to prove that Shadow not being playable is an objective discrepancy: you know, the game's entire roster is a big fucking discrepancy. Why Robin first instead of Chrom? Why a mob (and not even the main mob) instead of a protagonist? Why Dragon Quest instead of Tales? Smash has literally never had hard and fast rules for character inclusions; it doesn't even need them (nor can it even have them) because they're decided largely by one dude. And stop attacking other users just because they don't agree with your assessment. I don't think Shadow deserves to be in the game, but does that mean I have to insert my reasons for that in the article because I "truly believe" it, or it "makes sense" to me, or do I take a step back and realize that it's blatant editorialization that serves no purpose on a Wiki to begin with? The fact that you even admitted that these edits come with the sole intention of bringing these supposed discrepancies to light suggests that they're probably not as widespread and/or legitimate as you keep insisting either. - EndGenuity (talk) 13:58, September 28, 2019 (EDT)

Hulk Hogan and Chyna are not just popular. In fact, their popularity is much less than their iconic status. No one can deny that they both made history. Andre the Giant is the first ever WWE Hall of Famer. Hulk Hogan was the first ever wrestler to beat Andre and Chyna was the ninth wonder of the world, following Andre as the eighth. Many people might hate Hogan for his racist comments or Chyna for turning into a drug addict and a porn star, but no one can deny that they made history and they're an inseperable part of WWE. Andre was the first among many big men. Big Show will never surpass him no matter how better he may actually be because he's not the best and Andre paved the way for him. Hogan was far from the best wrestler. But there wouldn't be Stone Cold, The Rock, Triple H or the Undertaker without Hogan. Chyna was not as beautiful or strong as Beth Phoenix. But Beth Phoenix would not be a diva if not for Chyna. I just mentioned an example. No matter if people like you are hating Shadow and Waluigi, there are still more people loving them, so the bigger the roster, the more accepting it's supposed to be in controversial and polarising characters like Shadow, Waluigi, Hulk Hogan or Chyna. So you're constantly proving me right. What I'm saying is not wrong. It's a fact that a minority of people like you want to undermine because most people would not agree with you that Shadow or Waluigi should not be playable, no matter how much you're vandalising the Smash wiki on behalf of Fire Emblem or Nintendo under the pretext of representing it. You're accusing me of vandalism as if I'm posting wrong information but I'm not. And if I am, I apologise and you should correct my edits instead of discarding them.

Listen.

I'm going to be very blunt with you here. Consider this an administrative warning.

Edits like this do not add anything to the wiki. They are loose connections between things unrelated to Smash, and they do not have a place here.
Edits like this are incredibly specific, which we don't allow, and also are not true.
Finally, going through the discussion that has happened on your talk page, I'm going to say this in a way that cannot be misunderstood: what you're doing is incredibly disruptive. You are misconstruing arguments to deviate them into something completely unrelated, and you're directly ignoring questions directed at you by continuing to misconstrue them, in an endless cycle. The wiki is not a place for opinions or advertisements. This behavior will not be tolerated. Continue to do it, and you will receive another block. Aidan, the Rurouni 12:08, September 28, 2019 (EDT)