Talk:Clone/Archive 3

current talk page

Archives

1. 1
2. 2

what about

Falco and wolf?Lucas-IV- Try to Talk 07:33, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Clone-ness is transitive. So if Fox and Falco are semiclones, and Fox and Wolf are semiclones, then Falco and Wolf are semiclones. Toomai Glittershine The SMASH-GINEER 08:49, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

So try to make the reader do the logical thinking by him/herself?.... sounds fine to me i guessLucas-IV- Try to Talk 08:57, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Is it really necessary...

To have a note saying some people consider Lucario and Mewtwo "semi-clones", just because one move is similar? If we did that, we might as well as have Roy and Ike there as "semi-clones" (neutral special), Bowser and Charizard (neutral special again), Mario and Yoshi (up smash, neutral aerial, forward aerial), etc. Also, I say Fox and Wolf would fit a note section, rather than actually being listed as semi-clones (they only have three specials similar in function and name, with the rest of their movesets being completely different, as well as not so similar physics). Omega Tyrant 18:59, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Unlike some of the other things you mentioned, the Mewtwo/Lucario thing is rather notorious and a very strong point of contention earlier in Brawl's lifetime. As for Fox/Wolf - I'm very sure that the mentality of the general public is that they are more like semi-clones than non-clones, so while it's probably the biggest stretch on the page, it should be kept. Toomai Glittershine The Bold 19:04, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

The Mewtwo/Lucario stems from false speculation that Lucario "replaced" Mewtwo, and those that makes such claims that they're clones have done so with terrible arguments that shows ignorance stemming from the replacing mentality (and lack of experience). Just because some people made the ridiculous claim that they have cloneship, doesn't exactly mean we should have to mention that on the mainspace page. If we're to mention it, it has to have some logical backing behind it, and calling two characters semi-clones just because of one move is not. Otherwise, we'll have to start acknowledging other ridiculous clone claims based on such a ridiculously lenient standard of what constitutes cloneship and general ignorance of the game (Ike and Marth being such an example that would have to go on, who also got claims of being semi-clones in the past, despite that their similarities being little to none).

Rather than acknowledge these claims, it would be better to just ignore them, and keep an acceptable standard to the page.

As for Fox and Wolf, while casuals tend to view them as semi-clones due to ignorance/inexperience, examination of their moveset and other statistics show they have very little to call them clones. As such, the note mentioning that they get sometimes viewed as semi-clones, despite the large amount of differences, is sufficient, rather than listing them among the semi-clones. Omega Tyrant 19:29, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

I mostly agree with Omega Tyrant, though I'm mostly neutral on the Wolf/Fox one. If we consider this pair as Semiclones, then we would have a pretty clear "lower line" of Clone/Semiclone category. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Mario and Luigi

Are Mario and Luigi really clones in Brawl????--Thejfh1999 (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

They're definitely not clones, but they have enough similar to qualify as semi-clones. Omega Tyrant 18:33, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Apparently Masahiro Sakurai said that there will not be clones in Brawl, and this is true in a way. ..... More Food........ 18:41, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Um, okay? BlindColours 18:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Clones and Semiclones

The following should be considered Semiclones in Brawl: Post here about clones and semiclones and your thought.

--Dinoboy411 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2012 (EST)

There are no clones in SSBB, but some are considered semi clones. ..... The Overmind 09:15, 31 January 2012 (EST)

This is not appropriate talk page discussion. Refer to SW:TALK. Mr. Anontalk 18:54, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Are you talking about my post? ..... The Liquid 19:06, 31 January 2012 (EST)

He aimed it at the OP, he should have indented correctly though. Omega Tyrant 19:24, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Both of your posts violated SW:SIGN, and I was addressing both of them. Discussion of who is a clone and who is not, unless it will impact the article itself, does not belong here. The discussion seemed to be about a general discussion of who is a clone and who is a semiclone, rather than about how this article's standards should be. Mr. Anontalk 21:36, 31 January 2012 (EST)

How does SW:SIGN in this talk have anything to do with? I do however agree that my post was irrelevant so sorry about that. ..... The Liquid 23:24, 31 January 2012 (EST)

I meant SW:TALK. I was writing on my phone, and it autocorrected to "SW:SIGN" (because I had previously added it to autocorrect during my edit to Mr. Curious' page). Mr. Anontalk 16:34, 1 February 2012 (EST)

Kirby and Jigglypuff

When it says that Ganondorf and C. Falcon are the only clones to come from different universes, that contradicts the fact that Kirby and Jigglypuff are clones in SSB. Hands off my Bread!King KirbyD (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Kirby and Jigglypuff are only semi-clones in SSB. Also, read SW:SIGN, as your sig violates this by using a mainspace image, which would be too big anyway. Toast ltimatum 19:25, 25 March 2012 (EDT)