Talk:Dragon King: The Fighting Game

Could someone put a space between the : and The? Forbidden7 20:40, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Nevermind. I was being stupid. Forbidden7 20:44, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Is this necessary

I know this was the original idea for Super Smash Bros, but do we really need a whole article to this? Especially since so little is actually known about it. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

I think so. Nobody seems to oppose. Forbidden7 21:11, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Oppose, original Smash Bros. idea is certainly worth noting. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 21:25, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

I think it's relevant, and should at least be merged with SSB if it can't have its own article. Blue Ninjakoopa^(Talk) 21:30, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

I think its better as its own article, and are these opposes opposing deleting the article? Forbidden7 21:57, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

I think this is a important article to have as it's important to the series' history. Toomai Glittershine The Metroid 22:01, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Thank you Toomai. Besides, this has more info on DK:TFG than beta elements. Forbidden7 22:03, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

My edit

Why was it unnecessary?--PSIWolf (T • C • E) 12:05, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

The fact that it was released in 1999 is not relevant to DK:TFG. Simple as that. Blindcolours ZoOm! 12:08, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Um

There should a reason why the game was unfinished. Marioisawesome118 (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2011 (EST)

There is. It turned into Super Smash Bros.. Toast ltimatum 15:22, 25 December 2011 (EST)

Um, Toast, why did revert my signature? Marioisawesome118 (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2011 (EST)

I did no such thing. Toast ltimatum 15:36, 25 December 2011 (EST)

Never Mind.>_> Marioisawesome118 (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2011 (EST)

User:BlindColours, why do you keep reverting User:Marioisawesome118's edit? You both would do well to read SW:1RV, especially BlindColours, as you've been blocked for violating it in the past. As to the content of Marioisawesome118's edit, the information that there was only one stage completed cannot be found anywhere else in the article; thus, it is relevant. Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 17:23, 29 December 2011 (EST)

Why do you seem so concerned about SW:1RV? It's a policy yes, but you don't need to get so upset about it. BlindColours 17:34, 29 December 2011 (EST)

Why do you seem so concerned about SW:1RV?

SmashWiki's policies are guidelines for our conduct here. Your disregard for these guidelines reveals a disregard for the Wiki itself.

It's a policy yes, but you don't need to get so upset about it.

I'm concerned because you have blatantly violated SW:1RV multiple times, not limited to this and the time you were blocked. Seriously - if you haven't actually done so (and even if you have), (re)read SW:1RV. Your behavior is enough to merit administrator action, and also sets a poor example for newer users (e.g. Marioisawesome118). Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 17:51, 29 December 2011 (EST)

I have no disregard for the wiki or its guidelines (despite me breaking them very few times), thank you very much. If you believe admin action should be taken for a minor edit war, you're clearly not thinking right (I got blocked along with PSIWolf for a big, stupid, edit war). And Marioisawesome isn't new. BlindColours 17:55, 29 December 2011 (EST)

My edits were reverted many times by BC and Mousehunter as if I was a vandal recently even though I was clearly was trying to help. Overall, I'm the worst user here. ..... Happy New Year 18:58, 29 December 2011 (EST)

SW:1RV ..... Happy New Year 19:01, 29 December 2011 (EST)

Hey, don't be so hard on yourself. We know you're trying to help, and it's not always the case that we are simply 'reverting' your edits, we're sometimes just fixing them gramatically. And you're nowhere near the worst user on the Wiki. What makes McAusten better than you? Toast ltimatum 19:09, 29 December 2011 (EST)

For some reason, I try to revert anything as possible. ..... Happy New Year 19:14, 29 December 2011 (EST)

Blindcolours: I said that Marioisawesome118 is a newer user - you've been here 6 months, he's been here 3. It's good to know that you actually care about this wiki and its guidelines. Refraining from edit wars would more concretely cement that fact into our heads.

Dots: I reverted your edits when they did not improve the overall quality of the article. It's unfortunate that you struggle with English, but you've stuck along here for a while. There are many places to contribute, and I'm sure that the majority of us welcome your willingness to help. Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (EST)

But that's not answering the question. BlindColors, why did you keep reverting my edit? MouseHunter321 is right. The info is relevent. Marioisawesome118 FALCON PUNCH! 17:01, 19 January 2012 (EST)

RD, you are agreeing with BC, please don't undo the edit, it is relavent. Marioisawesome118 20:48, 25 January 2012 (EST)

1) He never said it wasn't relevant; he said it was too obvious, meaning it could easily be deduced from looking at the image, and therefore it's somewhat redundant. 2) Learn proper grammar. 3) Learn to spell. 4) Learn what SW:1RV is. DoctorPain99 _{ROLLBACKER} 22:15, 25 January 2012 (EST)

Hey where are supposed add that info on the article? Marioisawesome118 06:59, 26 January 2012 (EST)

The point is it shouldn't be added. It'd be like saying "Yoshi is green" when you can clearly see that from the images on the page. Toomai Glittershine The Labbie 07:45, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Well, since you put it that way. Marioisawesome118 17:57, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Oh, and Pain I have 3 things to tell you:

1. . I know how to spell.
2. . I know about grammar.
3. . I care for policies and even SW:1RV.

So stop treating me like I'm a baby. I think you should (re)read SW:AGF. Marioisawesome118 17:55, 1 February 2012 (EST)

DP was speaking about your edit war on the page itself, meaning you did not care for policies when you could have taken it to the talk page. You did not use proper grammar when you typed out, "why did revert", which makes no grammatical sense. "RD, you are agreeing with BC, please don't undo the edit, it is relavent." is a run-on sentence, starting with everything after BC. And you spelled relevant wrong. DP is pointing out things that make it difficult to understand what you are saying, would like you to read policies that you broke, and is suggesting that you fix the bad habits. He is not trying to treat you like a baby or assume bad faith. He is trying to help you. 108.194.146.241 18:09, 1 February 2012 (EST)

OK, the errors I made were accidents. They should not be major so DP and you should think relevant was a big mistake. Marioisawesome118 18:27, 1 February 2012 (EST)

The only reason I pointed it out is because you do it frequently. Just be a little more careful about your grammar and spelling in the future. DoctorPain99 _{ROLLBACKER} 18:29, 1 February 2012 (EST)

OK fine, I made accidents but I'm neat while making edits. Marioisawesome118 18:32, 1 February 2012 (EST)

I'd like to point out that your recent edit that you reverted yourself on the page itself is not neat. Human beings are not perfect, but it definitely helps if you strive to notice your errors and fix them. 108.194.146.241 20:44, 1 February 2012 (EST)

OK, I'll never revert more than once. 68.50.201.222 21:34, 1 February 2012 (EST)

And who's IP are you? Marioisawesome118 17:57, 17 February 2012 (EST)

But that mistake should not be major. Marioisawesome118 18:30, 1 March 2012 (EST)

So is everyone done with this section, because this discussion is over 2 months old by now. ..... The Pikachu 18:52, 1 March 2012 (EST)

OK, this discussion is over so no one, and yes that includes you ....., are allowed post here and my word final. 68.50.201.222 11:56, 3 March 2012 (EST)

Ok then, this also includes you too and that post was redundant because I already explained that this discussion is done with however. ..... The Dark Templar 12:34, 3 March 2012 (EST)

OK, I'm sorry I started it again. 68.50.201.222 11:22, 4 March 2012 (EST)

OKAY, THAT'S IT. NO MORE COMMENTS BELOW THIS ONE (UNLESS IT'S A NEW SECTION). AccoolX 13:54, 4 March 2012 (EST)

Merge

I oppose the merge, as it's important to the history of Super Smash Bros.. Red (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

Oppose. Article has too much information to allow for a simple merge into Super Smash Bros.'s already inflated trivia section.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 14:20, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

Strong oppose. This is basically what created the smash series...Qwerty da beast 14:32, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

Oppose Being the game where it all started, it should never merge at all and it is notable enough to have it's own article. It's not that poorly written anyways. Dots (talk) The Operator 15:42, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

Oppose This is enough to have its own article, and either way, you could never fit this into a single trivia point. Scr7(talk · contribs) 15:45, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

Merge into Super Smash Bros. "Development" section

I think that this article covers much of the development of the original Smash, and as the Super Smash Bros. page lacks a Development section, I can definitely see a merge of the information here sufficing. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 14:37, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Oppose, there's enough here to warrant a page. Miles (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Support. I've never been sure why this gets its own page. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 16:42, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Full oppose. No reason to merge this whatsoever. Serpent King 17:29, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Come on guys, I need more than "there's enough" (is there, and if so why?) and "no reason." This is an interesting, highly important, and pertinent part of the development of the original Smash Bros., and as such I think it warrants merging onto the same page of said game. It's how Smash Bros. started out before it turned into something far greater. Why should it not be on the Smash Bros. page? If it's on the same page, people may stumble upon and learn about its origins. It's lacking a Development section anyways, despite Brawl and SSB4 having one. I was thinking a merge of all the info, and then trim some of the structural fat, and then keep the images in a gallery at the bottom of the Development section. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 18:52, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Because the development section for that page should be talking about other parts we've heard from Sakurai interviews like the character rights process and Iwata's support from the project. This part of the development has enough images and content to stand as its own page, with a link from said section. Miles (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Of course, but Dragon King wouldn't comprise the entirety of it. We could start with Dragon King, and then talk about characters and Iwata and such afterwards. This page is short enough and I'm confident I can condense it to the point of it fitting with no problems or loss of info. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 18:59, 31 December 2015 (EST)

I think this is a case of, "We already have the info here, why not transfer it." I mean, the stuff talking about a 4P fighting experience, wanting to use a joystick, etc. is all part of the development of the game, right? If I'm not mistaken, this isn't even covered in other pages besides the unused content. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 19:02, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Dragon King, Sakurai, Iwata, Miyamoto, and the implementation of characters are all part of the history. We can put that all in Development section, with the Dragon King information transferred from here to there. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 19:07, 31 December 2015 (EST)

I'll put my money where my mouth is. How's this: I'll write up a draft of the Development section within the next few days with all the info we got on this. I'm pretty sure I can make this work. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 19:13, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Oppose, I think that it's a major enough part of Smash's development cycle to warrant its own page. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 19:14, 31 December 2015 (EST)

It's major, but that doesn't mean it warrants a page. It was the developing prototype before all the characters and negotiations and such, a stepping stone in the process. There isn't even a whole lot of info about it besides some screens, it being similar to Smash because it was Smash before Smash was Smash, and why/how it turned into Smash Bros. as we know it. Which is all part of the Development. Gotta tell me why it warrants its own page besides "it's major enough." If it was so major enough to warrant a page, why is it that only four articles make only a small mention of it (one of them being trivia)? It's a major part of the development, but not major to warrant its own page. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 19:21, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Personally, I think by merging this, we are disrespecting our series' roots. Dragon King is a notable enough part of the development of SSB, and it's what gave us the formula we have today. Serpent King 19:33, 31 December 2015 (EST)

I think that is a fair point. If there's no further input, I suppose I'll get going on writing the Development section...soon. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 21:25, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Move to Ryūō: Fighting Game

I was reading up on Source Gaming's unused content article, and it says the original concept for Smash got its name from an actual town in Japan: Ryūō. Given it's an actual place, and the game featured pictures from that town (and the article saying Dragon King is a possible translation, not that it actually should translate to it), wouldn't it make more sense to name this article Ryūō: Fighting Game? Xm0c (talk) 13:16, March 18, 2021 (EDT)