SmashWiki talk:New game procedure (original)

This looks mostly okay. Few notes though:

• I believe there is a way to confirm that a Miiverse post was made from a game, or was at least made by someone who has played the game. If there is, we can use such posts as sources, as we know they cannot be faked.
• If something has a whole ton of different single images from different sources, while none of the images themselves are proof enough, the sheer volume of them may be. For example say that after release we see about fifty different images of some new character, all in different poses on different stages. That's far harder to fake than a few images all on the same stage.
• The current standards are "SSB4-3DS" and "SSB4-Wii U" (fuller names) for categories, and "SSB4-3" and "SSB4-U" (single chars) for images/templates. I'm not sure which combo is better for articles:
  • "-3DS" and "-Wii U" are the full system names, but the lowercase in the latter is unusual.
  • "-3" and "-U" is short and distinct, but a lot of people will probably find "SSB4-3" in titles confusing.
  • "-3DS" and "-U" is simple and convenient, but the mix of "full" and "one letter" doesn't feel right.

Toomai Glittershine The Undirigible 11:39, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

How about "SSB3D" and Smash 3D for abbreviating the 3DS version since several 3DS titles say "3D" as opposed to "3DS" i.e. Star Fox 64 3D and Ocarina of Time 3D? ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is a never lover boy 12:07, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

I agree that an exhaustive set of images might be legitimate, but it's harder to come up with an objective criterion for what would be considered "enough" for legitimacy. As for the abbreviations, my personal preference is for SSBU and SSB3DS in article titles and potentially in-article text, but I understand that my opinions on this aren't necessarily the consensus. I prefer not to use "Smash ___" as an abbrevation if possible, even if it means using SSB___ instead. Miles (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

Eh. I like SSB3D better, however, I am fine with both.

On a different note, I'm thinking that we should provide short blocks after 2 speculatory edits, and a longer block after persisting speculatory edits.Qwerty the lord Please click "lord" 15:57, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

During SSB4 early coverage, I mean.Qwerty the lord Please click "lord" 17:54, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

Unless that becomes an overwhelming problem, I think we can handle it on a case by case basis. Miles (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

If you're comparing SSB3D and Smash 3D, SSB3D is used in article titles whereas Smash 3D is used when mentioning the 3DS version in article bodies. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is bad for me 18:39, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

Is anyone even using the shorthand of "3D" for the handheld version and not "3DS"? I've only ever heard and seen references to it with "3DS", hence why I was advocating "SSB3DS". Miles (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

I've made some minor revisions; still accepting feedback for a bit longer before I try and put this into place. Miles (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

I'm not sure why you removed the "SSB4-U" and "SSB4-3DS" abbreviation options. If we're going to have "SSB4" in titles, which is a given, it makes no sense at all to leave out the "4" in the version-specific title options. (And then the hyphen is required, since "SSB43" etc is very poor.)

Actually, now that I think about it, this only matters at all for things like images and templates - it's not possible to have an article title like "Subject (SSB4-U)" or similar, because it'll be at "Subject (SSB4)", which covers its apperance in both versions. I cannot fathom how one subject would be so different between versions that it would need a separately-titled page like this. Toomai Glittershine The Aurum 09:58, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

I support all the things on the userpage at the time of this post. ♡FirstaLasto♥ 02:52, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

I too support this policy in its current form. The Miiverse policy will allow only people who're actually playing the game to contribute screenshots. intendrone⁴² 13:46, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

Question about the JP release

I wasn't around to know how the wiki handled Brawl's JP launch, so how would we handle things like menu options and move names that are only in Japanese? Would we roughly translate them and use them that way, then change them as soon as they're out in English, or would we refrain from making pages and such of Japanese names that are subject to change? intendrone⁴² 16:43, 3 July 2014 (EDT)

I see no reason to hold off on a page just because we don't know its English name; it should be easy enough to come up with a reasonable translation, and if not we can use generics (like how "Mega Man's Final Smash" is the current page title). Toomai Glittershine The Cloronic 17:10, 3 July 2014 (EDT)

Seconded with Toom. More or less the same policy I've seen in action over at Bulbapedia, where Japanese names are used prior to English ones being revealed. Miles (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2014 (EDT)

On a somewhat related note, any users who will be getting the Japanese version to help the research? Having people on the wiki gather info directly from the game might help us stay on top of the chaos that will inevitably ensue. intendrone⁴² 18:25, 3 July 2014 (EDT)

There's a store in my area that takes Japanese import requests. However, it takes a while; it's not like they just go over there on release day to pick it up and then immediately come right back over to give it to me. I have no idea if I would even get it before the NA release, so I doubt anyone will be able to get it unless they went to Japan themselves.

If I could go to Japan to buy it, I totally would. ♡FirstaLasto♥ 18:35, 3 July 2014 (EDT)

While it would certainly be nice to have an import copy to work with, it isn't hugely important. Worldwide access to Miiverse communities of other languages means we can easily have people dig through there for relevant screenshots. The only reason we could run into issues is if it's like the Pokemon X and Y community where screenshots aren't allowed, but that remains to be seen. Miles (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2014 (EDT)

Considering that Sakurai can upload images onto Miiverse from the game (with the icon that says he owns the game, like a normal post), it would be unusual if players couldn't do the same, especially since it would be an optimal platform for sharing screenshots and such. intendrone⁴² 18:45, 3 July 2014 (EDT)

Agreed that it's unlikely to be an issue. Just thought it warranted pointing out just in case. Miles (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2014 (EDT)

Leaks are not trustworthy sources / Considering recent leaks got video footage.

I propose revising this policy further: if there is nothing to confirm or deny the veracity of an unauthorized video, no information from it should be added to the wiki unless it can be confirmed by at least one other reliable source, preferably Sakurai or Nintendo. Videos may be hard to fake, but doing so is far from impossible. Bulbapedia doesn't have Volcana and Hoopa listed as Pokémon because they weren't confirmed even though they've been leaked- we should follow their example and keep in mind that even a convincing bootleg is not enough to confirm anything without substantial supporting evidence. We deal in facts, not rumors and speculation. --66.249.83.56 18:43, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

---

I think illegal leaks should NOT be covered. A rumor has been going around about a roster leak. And now there's a whole lot of pictures going around and there's even video footage to back up the rumors. But while there have been evidence that points to it being true, there's also evidence it might be fake such as the Duck Hunt Dog from deviantart, Shulk being in a similar pose to Little Mac, etc. I've gotta go to Tae-Kwon-Do now, so I'll let you discuss this. SeanWheeler (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Can you provide the image from Deviantart of DHD? I can't find it anywhere. All I can find is the one that was stolen and expanded upon (poorly for that matter) from the leak. Laikue (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

I merged two simultaneous sections here, now I'll write a response. Toomai Glittershine The Indescribable 18:45, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Okay so here's my response. The purpose of this policy was to codify how "strong" a leak must be in order to be treated as legit. Note that "leak" in this context is "any purported content not posted by Nintendo/etc", which this most recent leak would be, as would for example someone who buys the game early at a retailer that broke the street date. Your proposal is basically "don't cover leaks (outside the leak page) no matter how strong or obvious they may be". I respect this opinion, but at some point a leak may have so much evidence in its favour that continuing to ignore it is pointless. That's why this policy exists - to define where that line is, and as currently written the current leak crosses that line.

If I went off in the wrong direction for what you wanted to discuss, by all means set me straight, but if you want to change the policy you might want to try avoiding looking at this one specific leak (because it may restrict our perspective). Toomai Glittershine The Incomprehensible 19:03, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Did we create pages for fighters implicated in the Gematsu leak when it first surfaced? We never did until they were officially confirmed. This case should be no different. Berrenta (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Except this time, there is evidence in the form of a video. ChuckNorris 19:19, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

True, but we need to consider the chance that texture hacks and other types of video setup to create the footage were involved. Berrenta (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

If you've found evidence that those characters are Brawl hacks, then by all means, please show. --Lasifer 19:36, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

We drew a specific line, which this leak has now crossed. I've seen no evidence to support the claim of Shulk or Bowser Jr.'s gameplay being Brawl hacks. If you have such evidence, feel free to share it. As it stands, though, this leak has met our standards for legitimacy by providing clear and unambiguous video. Miles (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Had to wait until I got home from classes. Anyways, compare Shulk's movements with Marth or Roy's movements (Project M footage). Notice any similarities? Also, Shulk's voice may be taken directly from Xenoblade Chronicles. Berrenta (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

There are some minor similarities, although it doesn't explain the constant equipping and dequipping of the Monado (note how often it ends up on Shulk's back). Also, Smash reusing sound clips is very possible, but since Shulk's VA implied he worked on something big it could very well be new recordings of the same lines. On top of that, there's still the matter of Bowser Jr. Miles (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

I'm back from Tae-Kwon-Do. Also, there is the fact that Dr. Mario, Lucina and Dark Pit being separated from there franchise and being grouped together as "clones". Sakurai wouldn't emphasize the flaw of having clones. When he explained Lucina's clone status, he gave her an excuse for being separate from Marth. And why is Yoshi in the middle of the Mario characters if Smash considers him from his own series? And doesn't Ganondorf's head look like an inverted Twilight Princess artwork? I know Lucina has the same pose as her masked artwork from Awakening, but would they really be uncreative with poses? SeanWheeler (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Questionable design choices are not proof of it being fake, and once again, the subject under discussion here is strictly the videos. The screenshots on 4chan and imgur are a related but separate topic. Miles (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Uh, Greninja's pose is pretty much a mirrored version of his official X&Y artwork, that doesn't discredit anything. Lasifer 20:49, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Strong evidence has surfaced; Nintendo themselves have taken down these videos through copyright claim. That is a major point towards legitimacy; as are corroborating reports floating around that the leaker has been found, sacked, and sued. This is looking very legitimate at this point. And for the record, I'm of the opinion that Bulbapedia's stance on Hoopa and Volcanion is in error anyway, and that we should not follow their example. VinLAURiA (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Yoshi's Island was a Brawl stage. There's a chance the video was a Brawl match that was hacked to add Shulk and Jr., and edited to look like a 3DS screen. Brawl gameplay + hacked characters + edited 3DS = fake video. Nintendo might have blocked the videos to shut the convincing leakers up. A leak that convincing can hinder sales. Who would want a Duck Hunt Dog in there Smash game? No one would use him. And the leaked roster is pretty disappointing. Anyway, back to the video, Smash Boards has even compared a shot of Ganon to a part of the animation from Brawl. And really, we have no idea if that video is real or not. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

I really don't see how Wii Fit Trainer, Game & Watch, ROB, Ice Climbers, and Pit (Brawl) are any different from the Duck Hunt Dog, Sakurai adds who he wants. Lasifer 21:10, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Oh, the leaker has been sued? And maybe Sakurai would probably change up some stuff to punish the leaker even more. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

What are you getting at? VinLAURiA (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

That was just a rumor. There is no proof that the leaker ever had contact with NoA. --108.31.78.204 22:25, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

(reset indent) I will repeat. We're only discussing the videos here, not the screenshots. Unless you can decisively prove the videos are fakes at this point, the fact that the evidence meets this policy will continue to have us treat them as legitimate. Miles (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

We shouldn't have to prove the videos are false- they have to prove that they're true by virtue of their own improbable claims. The burden of proof lies with the leaker, not the editors of the wiki. The policy is too soft on videos right now- an unauthorized video should be verified by at least one additional independent source before being considered to be truthful, or at least get the same amount of scrutiny as a screenshot. So far, there is no piece of evidence (official or not) that can determine if the supposed newcomers will even be in the game, and I would prefer to assume it's false and add them back in later than assume they're true and damage the wiki's credibility. If nothing else, the leaked characters should be put in an "unconfirmed" section, inasmuch as they have not in fact been confirmed yet. --108.31.78.204 22:25, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Exactly. In fact, I'm hoping for tomorrow's pic of the day to disprove something in the video. Maybe make Bowser Jr. an assist trophy? And someone's definately in trouble. Do you know what could happen if someone within Nintendo or ESRB leaks something without the boss's permission? They can make last minute changes. SeanWheeler (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

The fact is, videos are hard to fake. Maybe not as hard as we might think, since Brawl hacking is rather advanced, but it would still be exceptionally difficult to not only make up movesets for the leaked newcomers, create all the assests for them, ensure there's no obvious bugs, throw in a result screen that perfectly matches known-legit videos, and then finally do what's basically a second fake in the 3DS's bottom screen and ensure it matches up perfectly. The fact that a couple dozen new images have surfaced alongside (which get less likely to be fakes the more of them there are, simply because it becomes so much easier to let an error slip through), plus NoA busting the videos, makes it (in my opinion) quite obvious that this leak is the real deal. Quite simply, it's in a class of its own compared to any other rumour or supposed leak we've seen so far, and there's really no evidence against it. Is it speculation? In the strictest sense, yeah okay. But noteworthy and widespread speculation is indeed within our scope, and this certainly qualifies.

And SeanWheeler, I'm 99.7% sure the game has already gone gold (as of a few weeks ago). Therefore, it is out of the question to make changes, and especially so just to spite a leak (which would also be rude and unprofessional). Toomai Glittershine The Quintonic 22:54, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

The Bowser Jr gameplay featured a Smash 4 style screen KO, which seems highly unlikely to be something that could be replicated in Brawl.68.62.241.33 23:04, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Well, I'm still hoping somehow this leak is fake. And you said spiting a leak is unprofessional? How many times have Sakurai trolled us? And the famous movie producer George Lucas has spited leakers. You know the part from Empire Strikes Back when Darth Vader reveals his relationship with Luke? George made the line in the script "Obi-Wan killed your father," to avoid leakers. That pissed David Prowse off. Anyway, back to Smash, I'm still hoping this is just some elaborate Brawl hack. *Edit conflict points out the screen KO* What? Man they're good. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

To think the leaker actually was from Nintendo before he was fired and sued for this... Because of that sudden news flash, I'm starting to accept that it is real and is happening. Will take back some of my old comments here in the meantime. Berrenta (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

That sounds even more improbable than the leak itself. The whole thing seems more and more like a big bundle of lies. --66.249.83.56 00

25, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

I would take that claim with a much larger helping of salt than the leak itself. Toomai Glittershine The Incomperable 00:21, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

We've obtained proof that the images in this album are real. In today's pic of the day, the term "Ω Form" is clearly seen in the selected stage's name. The only time this previously appeared is in said album, where there is an option for "Ω Mode" on the stage select. Obviously a codename for switching to a stage's Final Destination mode; regardless, that kind of term would be something very hard to guess correctly. VinLAURiA (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

Not only that, but the Miis are the same in both the pic of the day and the leak. This should be enough proof that it's real. Lasifer 03:41, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

For reference

To quote, the video, or videos in this case, have to be "clear and unambiguous". So... How is a series of short, 10 second low quality clips clear. Currently, I'm neutral leaning true in regards to the leak, but I think there's enough to doubt it, and that's what I feel is unambiguous - beyond any reasonable doubt. The supposed leak should still be mentioned, ad the characters listed as potential, but until definitive conclusive PROOF (not evidence) surfaces, I think we're jumping the gun. ScoreCounter 04:17, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

The actual recording quality of the video shouldn't be used for the clear argument. Both a low or high recording quality can be used to argue that a leak is either credible or not, depending on presumptions made by the arguer. There isn't an incredible amount of legitimate room to doubt the videos at this point, so if you actually have evidence pointing to the videos being false despite the argument that Toomai just brought up, you should probably bring up those points for further debate. MegaTron1XD 06:15, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

Well, I suppose Fair is Fair - I'm just someone who likes being thorough. As long as it's the consensus that the leak is true Beyond Reasonable Doubt, then I don't really care too much. But I've ended up looking like an absolute idiot over something like this, so online or not, I take care. ScoreCounter 06:34, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

It's not a consensus when one side is actively being silenced by the other. --66.249.83.56 06:52, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

Then continue to bring up your counterpoints and other counterpoints that have yet to be defeated instead of pursuing slacktivism and complaining about it. We have more reasons to believe that this is true than false, but if one side is truly being silenced, then surely, you must have points to bring up. MegaTron1XD 12:53, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

So maybe the leaks can be real. If they are real when the game comes out, I'd be fine with it. But I'm still disappointed about the roster. Why bring back Dr. Mario instead of Mewtwo? Why add Dark Pit as a separate character if he was already a Pit skin? Why is the Duck Hunt dog here? Why take out Wolf if he's less of a clone than Falco? Why isn't Krystal here? Where's Tails? Why is ROB here? Why did they make a group for clones? But hey, I'll still buy the game and enjoy it. At least I can have Sonic fight Mega Man. At least my main characters in Brawl weren't cut (except Snake who I was totally expecting cut). At least they introduced some exciting newcomers. Like Mega Man! But too bad some characters in my wishlist that didn't make it. I'm sure other people have wishlist with characters who don't make it, and that's normal. However, I'm still going to wait for the characters to be up on the official site before adding leaked newcomers like Ganondorf to my Sonic News Network userspace. Fine, you can have Ganon, Shulk and Jr. and do what you want. I'm still hoping for this leak to somehow to be fake. SeanWheeler (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

Dr. Mario is different enough from Mario to deserve his own slot, Sakurai said this when he revealed Lucina. It's not known whether or not Mewtwo is in the game. Dark Pit, like Dr. Mario, is different enough from Pit (moveset-wise) to have his own slot. Sakurai said not to expect "a lot of 3rd party characters", which counts Tails out because he would overrepresent the Sonic series. R.O.B. has historical significance as a landmark accessory, today he's a collectible and still makes cameos in games across Nintendo universes. The grouped clones is nothing new for one, considering Ganondorf was placed next to C. Falcon in Melee's menu, and secondly, the roster we saw doesn't have everyone unlocked yet, so of course the roster character placements look unconventional. Blue Ninjakoopa 13:37, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

Focus on the main issue here. A leak can look as convincing as it gets, but it is not and never will be a replacement for real, actual confirmation from trusted sources. Putting the characters revealed in the leak within the Super Smash Bros 4 confirmed content page is premature at best, as they have not been confirmed. Miles has consistently been dodging this issue by claiming consensus made before any leaks occurred- a consensus which is quickly proving to be false; as a former NIWA administrator myself, I am disappointed in how closed-minded Miles is proving to be in the face of reason. Now that the circumstances have changed they must therefore become even more stringent. The video may not be a hoax, but it could easily be a build that has since been scrapped in favor of something completely different. I should also add that the only evidence of Ice Climbers being cut is a quotation from a reporter which the reporter attributed to Sakurai. Additionally, notice that the game physics are completely different from those which have been shown in previous footage and that all of Shulk's moves are direct copies of existing characters' attacks (specifically, Link and Marth), not to mention that Duck Hunt Dog has had not even a single screenshot's worth of gameplay. The leaker even admitted to openly lying about DLC on two separate occasions. How can we trust someone who has been confirmed to be lying in the past- how do we know the leak itself isn't another lie? The leak is being given way too much benefit of the doubt- by definition, a leak is a mixture of partial truths and lies whose only purpose is to make the person telling them get their 15 minutes of fame. For now, nothing proves the leaks. Again, I propose the following change to the policy:

• Information derived from leaks can be present on pages, but it must not passed off as confirmed material until it is proven to be confirmed by official sources. --Anothrgamer1234 (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

All leaked information is clearly labeled as such. Additionally, we're not taking anything as definitive except what has been shown in video, which is orders of magnitude more difficult to fake. And the physics seemed different in the Shulk battle on YI because it was the end battle after Smash Run, so characters' attributes were altered accordingly. Miles (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

Okay, so how about we wait for real real confirmation? Sure, the evidence may be pretty convincing, but doesn't mean it's really true. Shulk's moves being copies of Link and Marth? Pretty suspicious. Although, Bowser Jr. did splat in the footage... But there's still a chance this can be a hoax. SeanWheeler (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

I'm wondering why people keep saying this, what do you mean Shulk is using Marth and Link's moves? I only saw one move that was similar (the Dolphin Slash-esque one) all the others seem to either have drastic range differences (such as the presumed Up-Tilt) or completely different animations ("Spin Attack" like move and if you mean that move looks like Marth's down smash, why is he spinning when using it?). Also, Omega stage forms were shown in the leaked pictures, so..... yeah, that's pretty much confirmation. I sincerely doubt they'd be THIS lucky. Laikue (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

the entire leak story is false. [CITATION NEEDED] Oh yeah?' Well, citation GRANTED. http://smashboards.com/threads/the-recent-smash-bros-leak-from-4chan-is-fake-and-heres-more-evidence.364895/ read it. The leak is false. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harro (talk • contribs) 10:02, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

That topic was posted on the 20th, days before the video leaks. It is no longer relevant. Toomai Glittershine The Awesome 10:19, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

Please explain this, this, and the video evidence and I will believe that it's fake. Lasifer 12:31, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

OK if your so smart, explain why monolith soft isn't in the copyrights of the game (back of japanese box) if they own shulk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harro (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

Because the first thing Nintendo would want to do when they were keeping these characters a secret is reveal them via company implications. MegaTron1XD 18:59, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

Additionally, Monolith Soft is currently a first-party subsidiary of Nintendo. Nintendo owns a 97% stake in Monolith Soft, compared to say, 32%, in the Pokemon Company. They may not need to be credited separately. Miles (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

Nintendo are only obligated to add the copyrights of companies for characters on the box-art itself, not the game. Otherwise where is Ubisoft if there's a Ray-Man trophy in the game? The recent album leak matches up perfectly with the latest official Picture of the Days, there's been video footage that has caused an aggressive take-down from Nintendo and the game is nearly 2 weeks from the Japanese release. The leak isn't false. FlynnCL (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2014 (EDT)

How about this - let's just let this debate lie, follow the policy as set out now, and if the leak does end up being fake, as it may or may not be proven in just over 2 weeks, then remove the content and have all those crying out fake feel smug about themselves. Because this is seriously getting old now. ScoreCounter 08:16, 28 August 2014 (EDT)

Just because a debate has been going on for a while doesn't mean that it should be stopped just because it's "getting old now". MegaTron1XD 11:30, 28 August 2014 (EDT)

If the Paterson footage was without a shadow of a doubt replicatable by a human, but we still had no intact evidence or bodies and such of a Bigfoot, would Bigfoot by considered scientifically real? No, as there is no confirmation or proof. It's irrelevant whether or not it's convincing, as a wiki they shouldn't be here until they are confirmed. You guys are missing the point.142.177.93.149 22:51, 28 August 2014 (EDT)

Bigfoot is considered scientifically implausible because logic extraneous to the Patterson-Gimlin film discounts the possibility of such a creature existing (small populations would prevent it from being sustainable, lack of traces of existence such as shelters or waste, etc.). In our case, logic extraneous to the videos (Nintendo's takedown of videos, hard cuts in video footage suggesting it to be ESRB footage) points to the video's contents as being real.

And remember: If you want to sound smart, making up words like "replicatable" is not the way to go!

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 23:08, 28 August 2014 (EDT)

I wasn't saying bigfoot or the Paterson footage is real, I was simply using a recognizable example that everyone would know. It's a metaphor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.93.149 (talk • contribs) 07:04, August 29, 2014 (CDT)

Shulk's official artwork matches the leak, I think this seals it. Lasifer 08:53, 29 August 2014 (EDT)

All right. I believe the leaks now. SeanWheeler (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2014 (EDT)

Yep. Game set. We're done here. VinLAURiA (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2014 (EDT)

Expand timeframe to include DLC Coverage?

As title, just to get rid of the grey area. ScoreCounter 15:37, 29 April 2015 (EDT)

I'm already more or less using it for this purpose. (Although given the more sophisticated fakes like Artsy Omni's Rayman, I may have to specify further on the subject of videos...) Miles (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2015 (EDT)

What Shall We Do Now?

We're approaching 3 years of Smash 4, and I don't think anyone here is going to dispute that the game is old news now.

That leaves the question of what to do with this policy. We could just archive it and be done with it, but I think it'd be better if we turned this into a general guideline that covers any future games in the series.

Thoughts?

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 00:00, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

It should have been written like that in the first place. Serpent King 00:07, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

odamn, was that a callout? lol

In any case, I'll see if I can whip up a draft in the next few days or so. This policy is too narrow as-is, but hopefully, we can make it more useful for future editors.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 00:20, 26 June 2017 (EDT)