User talk:Blue Ninjakoopa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Don't Make me Regret This

Ok, you're back. I don't really know why I'm doing this, except I have this strange feeling that it's the right thing to do. However, considering that this was about the tenth time that you have been unbanned, I'm going to set some ground rules down for you.

1. This is your last chance. If you get banned again, not only will I ban your account, I will ban your IP and every IP you've edited from that I can track down. I will also delete every one of your user pages, blogs, forums you've started, etc. It will be as if you never had been here.
2. Don't flame/PA anyone. Ever. I don't care if your user page gets vandalized, or your worst enemy makes an account. Leave it to me to deal with them. You keep your cool.
3. Don't talk about people getting banned. In fact, if I see the word "ban" in your posts, I'm going to take it as a strong indication that you are requesting a ban.
4. Don't be a drama queen/martyr. SmashWiki is not Tianamen square or colonial America and you are not a rebel.
5. Don't request rollback. Deal with just having to use the undo button. If I honestly think that you need rollback, I will approach you about it.
6. If I seen you requesting sysop, I will ban you for disruption.
7. Don't brag about this on other wikis or to other users who have been banned. If they show up saying "why did BNK get unbanned and not me" I might forget that you didn't request sysop.  :)
8. Use Common Sense. If you don't think that it's a good idea to post what you are about to, don't do it.

Are your rules stricter than other users? Yes. Are they hash? Yes. Unfair? Maybe. Do I care? No. Has any user who has ever done remotely as much as you ever been given another chance? No. So enjoy the fact that you are being allowed to edit because I would have been fully within my rights to have banned your IP months ago. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:47, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. Blue Ninjakoopa 23:50, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Uh, one more thing; could you remove the information box and archive links from my twelfth archive? Blue Ninjakoopa 23:53, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Gracias. Blue Ninjakoopa 23:57, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

I want to drop by and say thank you for proving me right about letting you come back. You have been an exceptional user since you have returned. Thank you. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 03:00, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see this. Thank you so much. BNK ^[E|T|C] 23:41, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Also, you are welcome. BNK ^[E|T|C] 23:42, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

...

... ... ... ... YAY!L33t Silvie ^{I see wat u did thar...}

You removed my Ganondorf page add-on, I see. It's rather crucial to say that Ganondorf isn't as bad as tier-supporting players like to pass on, so that those wanting information on Ganondorf and stumbling upon pile after pile of complaints won't get turned off or get the wrong idea. You see, I think, you should include a disclaimer as such for all characters, saying the pros and cons hardly matter, and what does matter is the own player's effort values into the character. Reply back. SSBC We are the SSBC. We rule Youtube. We rule the world. (talk) 04:30, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Your post on the Gannondorf page is hardly a good example of an acceptable first post, this post is only marginally better, and your signature is absolutely not acceptable. You might want to shape up, because you are on the fast track to becoming a very good example of a bad account. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 07:32, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

OK, that was tasteless. But still, please learn what this and other wikis are about. Tiers exist, read. And change your signature. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 07:40, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Well, those kinds of comments don't really belong on articles for the characters, to be frank. Although I highly discourage this, you might want to state your opinions on the talk page. Blue Ninjakoopa 04:44, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I believe they do matter, seeing as your limits of your skill with the character is your knowledge of the character. You seem to think my respect for Ganondorf is unreasonable. I think that personal freedom in choosing our best characters is a wise liberty. Tiers should not exist, as any Ganondorf player could have a better tournament strategy then any other tournament player as a differentiating character, and utilize it and win. It's not surefire, but it's not impossible as most people seem to think. (I see people being discriminated against for saying Ganondorf could defeat a Meta Knight on fair terms in this Wiki, right this very day). And I need to keep my signature, I operate my own Wiki and it would be impossible to keep both Wiki's signatures on fair terms. And if you wish to ban me for speaking against what I find false or wronged in this Wiki, it's your choice. You can exercise your hunger to ban a user (made very evident by your beginning of the talk page), and also keep dislike towards Ganondorf sound, and silence me from trying to be in the right, ever again. We are the SSBC. We rule Youtube. We rule the world. (talk) 21:33, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

1. You can make different signatures for different wikis; you just have to do it in a bit of a roundabout way. For example, my signature is {{SUBST:User:Toomai/sig}}, which uses whatever's on said page as a sig - since the page is different on each wiki, the sig will be.
2. You have every right to enjoy using any character you want, and no one has any right to ban you for such. But as is said here, your assersion of "tiers should not exist" is ignorant of the fact that, while skill and strategy are the biggest deciders of a match, some characters are simply better under tournament rules. And remember, the tier list is a report, not a recommendation. You can't win by blindly follwing it, but you can't win without accepting its existence.

(And of course, don't forget that the tier list only applies to players at the highest possible metagame level - and that there are other tier lists at different levels.) Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 22:20, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see as to how people can "determine" the outcome of a match simply by character matchups. Strategy and skill is what a match needs. Slow bulk by no pales in comparison to others of higher speed calibur. The only conditional play is enviromental changes. I see what you're trying to say. You're thinking of, under those interruptions in the battle, that some characters may have an advantage over others in the shifting terrain. (Like a stage with only four spaces, all falling blocks, with four players, which would rely largely on your jumping abilities to stay alive; Meta Knight would prove very effective, while many others would meet trouble). However, you never know; maybe all hazards can one day be evaded with all characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSBC (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}

Take this conversation here, where it belongs, s'il vous plait. Also, I do wonder what you meant by "your hunger to ban a user (made very evident by your beginning of the talk page)". The mods here are most certainly not as banhappy as most make them out to be. L33t Silvie ^{I see wat u did thar...} 02:28, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Silvie, you're not wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSBC (talk • contribs) 00:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, whatever do you mean by that? L33t Silvie ^{I see wat u did thar...} 03:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

SSBC clearly meant to put that comment at the end of this section. PenguinofDeath 01:54, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

OH... MY... GOD...

Your unbanned. Congrats. Kperfekt ^{BURN!!! Revert That!} 00:53, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Meaning, I was having this conversation with Blue Ninjakoopa alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSBC (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}

1) Start signing your comments. It's not hard, and I'm not asking. 2)This is the internet, it's not private, and you don't even run the place or have any significant power on it. Don't tell other people to butt out. Semicolon (talk) 03:21, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Hey you

:D Miles (talk) 01:16, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! BNK ^[E|T|C] 01:17, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

I note with approval that you have been contributing valuable edits, you have handled yourself appropriately, and you are taking your chance seriously. I am surprised and pleased by your new attitude. I lobbied for your unbanning, and I am happy to see you have behaved as I predicted you would. In a phrase, thank you. Semicolon (talk) 05:02, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) BNK ^[E|T|C] 22:55, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Kirby Wiki logo

I've got 3 questions.

1: What was the point with this message ?

2: Why do you say I didn't make it ?

3: What text did I actually remove ?

--Mr Alex (T) 02:16, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

I've got 3 answers.

1: Your user page states that you've created logos for several wikia sites, and one of those said sites happens to be Kirby Wiki, which you didn't make the logo for. I wanted to make that clear so confusion wouldn't arouse. Also, I can't edit your user page. :$

2: Because you didn't. The upload history says so!

3: [1], [2]

--BNK ^[E|T|C] 02:54, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I did make the logo. You have to be an administrator to replace a logo. Since I'm not an admin in the Kirby wiki, I couldnt do it in my own, so I uploaded the logo and asked an admin (in this case, Max2) to replace the logo for me. It does states in the page that the logo is made by Max2, but all the credit goes to me. As a proof, click here to see the discution where I propose Max2 to replace the old logo by mine, and click here to see another file of the logo uploaded by me six hours before Max2 reuploaded it as the new logo. No other files of the logo has been uploaded before mine.

And also, what's the big deal if I remove all the discutions that I no longer need in my talk page ?

--Mr Alex (T) 03:28, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought Meta58 or this one German user had made it.

And you aren't allowed to remove text, even if you feel it isn't necessary. Also: discussion* BNK ^[E|T|C] 12:21, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Wow

I mistook you for many other users when I first joined this site, I apologize. Also, have you contacted my Youtube site yet? Also, what is "non-reverted mainspace edits"? SSBC (talk) 00:26, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

It's edits that weren't reverted. 98.111.95.78 00:30, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a link? I'll send a request. Or, you could add me. The link to my channel is on my user page. BNK ^[E|T|C] 01:28, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I might as well add you. Also, further asking questions, what does it mean to revert an edit? SSBC (talk) 01:57, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Well, on a page's history page, for the last edit there's a button next to it that says "undo". When you do that, it undoes everything that edit did. It's called a revert alternatively. 98.111.95.78 02:01, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

From my previous comment: Any user who makes edits continuing this discussion elsewhere during that time will be banned. You're both on a short leash. Don't stretch it any further. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 06:36, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hello Clarinet Hawk. How great it is to see you again. Not really, assuming that we're not continuing the discussion at all, I'm just asking a higher member of the site some terms I don't know, but... SSBC (talk) 10:25, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Hence why I didn't ban you. I simply was reminding you to be careful. If I honestly thought you were trying to circumvent protection, you would be gone. As it stands, you're doing yourself absolutely no favors mocking me. But to answer your question, a main-space edit is any edit to a page in the main-space (i.e. not User, User Talk, Forum, Talk, etc.) and it not being reverted should be pretty self explanatory. Try making some. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:43, March 31, 2010(UTC)

I won't remove what is on my account. Once there, it stays. SSBC (talk) 20:07, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind explaing what the hell you are talking about? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:50, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to undo, revert, etc. what's on my mainspace. It's there to stay. SSBC (talk) 22:28, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

There is no "your" mainspace. You have your own userspace (as noted by the User: prefix), but even then there are restrictions on what you can do. I don't know why this wiki doesn't have it (anymore?), but the default message on other wikis below the edit box says "Please note: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." <-- good principle to follow on wikis regarding mainspace contributions. If that's not your style, then don't wiki. Shadowcrest 22:41, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I can't tell if you're trying to put some weight on my shoulders, give me wonderful advice, or whatever... SSBC (talk) 19:27, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

He's simply trying to tell you what the mainspace is. Let me help. Ganondorf (SSBB): mainspace. User:PenguinofDeath: userspace. This page is in the user talk namespace as the page name starts "User talk:". So far, almost all of your edits have been to the user talk namespace. (To see a breakdown of your edits by namespace, see Special:Editcount/SSBC.) Clarinet Hawk is telling you to start making useful edits to pages like "Ganondorf (SSBB)", because at the moment you're not contributing anything to the wiki, and you're taking up other users' time, which they could be spending improving the wiki. PenguinofDeath 20:11, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

I see. But if I contribute anything, it'll most likely be stale or inaccurate information, which is why I haven't done anything yet. SSBC (talk) 02:28, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

that sonic page

No edit wars. I can't believe I'm cutting you this slack. I clearly stepped in to handle it, which means you should step out. You're not banned because I'm in a good mood and because as far as I can tell you're right. You're smarter than this, BNK. Nothing like that ever again. Please. Semicolon (talk) 00:13, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Edit war?! This site is a madhouse... isn't it? SSBC (talk) 19:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about, and what was the purpose of your comment? PenguinofDeath 20:11, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Why so serious? SSBC (talk) 02:28, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

PenguinofDeath is renowned for being a very serious administrator. He is thoroughly cunning and happily eats anything. BNK ^[E|T|C] 02:48, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Hello, Penguin. Death awaits those who claim to be a Penguin of Death though, I forewarn you. SSBC (talk) 02:56, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

The Penguin of Death is actually a poem by Edward Monkton about a penguin who people go to when they want to end their life (according to PoD's talk page). He prefers to be called PoD, by the way, as he appears to show disliking of the villain. Also, make sure you indent when replying. BNK ^[E|T|C] 03:00, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

I understand you revering that as it was clearly vandalism/P.A.'s/aginst policy. I don't have a problem with you helping out in user conflicts, just remembering your track record with user conflict in the past, I might advise against it. You have been a very good contributor since you came back and I'd honestly hate to see it runined because of one mistake from a user conflict.

Also, I really haven't taken the time to thank you for everything you've done since comming back, so I will let you know now how much I apprciate the edits that you have been making. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 04:26, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I'll try to keep more to myself. And you're welcome. BNK ^[E|T|C] 11:52, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your reverts on Sala's talk: you weren't wrong per se to keep reverting, but after he reverted you one or two times it probably would have just been easier for you to just go to the noticeboard and stop bothering to revert him until an admin handled it. Just for future reference. Shadowcrest 13:46, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I... but...

...but that image of those three Subspace duplicates is terriquality. Can't we just use my nice shiny G&W one from that there DOJO? Miles (talk) 20:58, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Miles, my man, that is one character. More characters, more fun! What we need is someone who can take better quality snapshots. BNK ^[E|T|C] 21:54, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

What's this mean?

What you said here. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 12:34, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

It's a meme from Home Improvement. Al would always say "I don't think so, Tim." whenever Tim did or said something stupid. Kperfekt ^{Talk Is Cheap... But I Am Not.} 13:14, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Wombo Combo 2

Why did u delete it, it was a fine article and there was nothing wrong with it? Doc King (talk) 20:28, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

lol

I didn't delete the article. In fact, it isn't fully gone. I simply made it redirect to a section of the Wombo Combo article. BNK ^[E|T|C] 20:30, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Wombo Combo 2 was deleted because it isn't notable enough to merit its own page, so the information about it is more suitable on the Wombo Combo page rather than being its own article. Omega Tyrant 20:33, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Wait, can we still have the stuff that was on there be on the wombo combo page? Doc King (talk) 20:37, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

No. Too many instructions and the word "you". BNK ^[E|T|C] 20:38, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

May I ask this but how come you guys always delete something that I make to help the site? I mean I'm just helping and you guys just delete it, how come? Doc King (talk) 20:43, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Mostly because it isn't needed. I'm sure there are other fields which require your help. BNK ^[E|T|C] 20:48, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

If there's an article that needs help, can you tell me because i would like to really help this wiki. Doc King (talk) 20:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

You can help by lengthening articles that are stubs, adding images to articles that need them, or improving articles that require clean-up (rewriting). BNK ^[E|T|C] 20:58, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

My RFA

I guess, you're right, my failed RFA is affecting my behavior. When Shadowcrest said that if I wanted adminship, I should try to act well in conflicts. Those words effected me, and since then I have tried to resolve conflicts, and act calmer and how an admin should, as I plan to run again later. If I am acting inappropriatly, then what kind of attidute should I have? Also, how was I not contributing to that argument? I was involved, defending the new user, and while OT hasn't violated policies, he should have stuck to the guidelines better. Mr. Anon teh awsome 03:03, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Your efforts to keep conflict to a minimum are appreciated, but not necessary. OmegaTyrant and Tuesday are having an argument over "clone standards". Within there walls are remarks and words that are offensive to a degree, but this is not erupting conflict; the two are having a debate that will likely last until either arguer concedes.

Sometimes, it is best to keep out of an argument, even if you feel one or both users are acting wrongly. I've made this mistake countless times before.

To answer your questions: You weren't contributing positively to the argument because a good percentage of what you said was telling OmegaTyrant to relieve himself of non-existent feelings of anger and to not be rude to Tuesday. You made comments regarding the clone article, but they're basically repeats and have been discussed in the past. Your attitude should be calm, collected, and patient. Include yourself in debates only when necessary. You aren't doing anything wrong, but on the track of becoming an administrator, you should avoid falsehoods and pointing the finger. BNK ^[E|T|C] 03:14, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

why

are you removing Template:Infobox Game? Yes, I know those articles are filled with irrelevant crap, but is there really a benefit to removing the infobox? Shadowcrest 02:49, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. When someone is reading info on a game, they really don't need to know what year it came out (especially in each region), who developed it, etc. All they need to know the game's influence in the Super Smash Bros. series. BNK ^[E|T|C] 02:51, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

I avoided the question. The benefit is that there is less wasted space (brackets, etc.) and there isn't much of a need for it other than for the Super Smash Bros. games, because information described in the box can easily be found at Wikipedia or that game's series' respective wiki. BNK ^[E|T|C] 02:53, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. When talking about a game, I feel that we should reference the year, as that does give insight into which of the smash bros games it may have influenced. Yes, you could go to wikipedia for that, but something as simple as the year takes up virtually no space and gives important information. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:59, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but other information isn't needed, and a whole box isn't necessary for just the date. We should mention the year somewhere at the top, to be honest. There is nothing else to tell about the game that is actually necessary. I'm already tolerant of box art, which I think, to an extent, is not necessary either. BNK ^[E|T|C] 03:02, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't take up much space and frankly doesn't hurt. The year is relevant info; why put a sentence at the top to do something that there's already a built-in functionality for? Shadowcrest 03:24, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

It is, but what good would an infobox be if the only relevant info is the date? "Etc is a GameCube game released on July 10, 2000 that features [...]" looks fine, and is informative. BNK ^[E|T|C] 03:38, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

It's not the only useful parameter. Title, image, possibly caption, publisher, series, platform, maybe even ratings... Shadowcrest 04:32, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We're not talking about something that takes up undo amounts of space. We're talking about basic information that can more easily be given in a concise info box than by a link to wikipedia. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 04:39, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Publisher, ratings, and platform definitely aren't necessary, but the others are. BNK ^[E|T|C] 04:37, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, all of those things are note-worthy elsewhere on the wiki, so why wouldn't they be note-worthy here? Characters from a non-Nintendo publisher were a huge topic, there's a note on Solid Snake about ratings, and platform is informative along the same vein as date. Shadowcrest 16:15, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Why would one need to know of that character's reception here? Platform tells which kind of game it is, but it isn't informative and is not relevant to Super Smash Bros. I suppose you have a point with the Publisher, so I concede there. BNK ^[E|T|C] 20:26, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

...we're talking about maturity ratings for the game (E, M, etc), which is noteworthy, as evidenced by the notes we already have about the maturity rating for the game. Platform is still valuable in the same way the date is relevant- it gives basic information about the game.

But honestly, given the multiple points we've brought up, could you just not remove the infobox (and preferably re-add it where you removed it)? Shadowcrest 21:14, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

I...OK. BNK ^[E|T|C] 23:12, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned

Dude, when you use the unsigned template, youre supposed to subst it so the words get printed on the page, not the template itself. Like this: {{subst:unsigned|User|Time}} Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 06:21, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Is there something I did to offend you?

Ever since you got unbanned I thought we were friends. However, in the past few months, you seem to be acting hostile towards me. When I once created a character arena fight you voted against it, but you didn't even give a reason. You just said "bad". When I was involved in a debate you came in, not contributing anything to a debate I was directly involved in, telling me to stop debating. When I voted for Peach in the character arena, you created a comment attacking my opinions for my vote, and when I explained it some more you further attacked my reason, even though I'm certainly allowed to have my opinion. When I commented on a user's subpage, however, you told me off, saying "don't make comments like this". And now, when I simply decided to change one of your templates to the proper one, you again came to my talk page, acting like I new nothing of the matter, even though i've been here for nearly a year. Is there something I did to offend you? I thought we were still friends. In any case, I call a truce. Mr. Anon teh awsome 04:09, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

You never offended me, Wikia is not a social networking site so my goals here aren't to make friends, you usually entered debates telling the arguers to "calm down" to assist your (twice failed) campaign for adminship.

I never "attacked your opinions"; you made a false statement ("Peach never had a game"), and when I told you the name of the game whereas she is the main playable character, you responded with a fallacious comment ("Nintendo made that game so they wouldn't seem sexist"), which was untrue, and you then went on to mention her parasol when no one said anything about Peach's weaponry, to which I replied exposing your fallacious logic. No one ever told you that you aren't allowed to have an opinion, please stop making it appear as if I'm attempting to somehow steal that ability from you, because I'm not. There are differences between "lies" and "opinions", by the way.

I have no personal qualms with you; your behavior is annoying, yes, but that doesn't mean it is necessary that I hate you.

I am blunt and to the point (usually) with what I say; if you're taking it to heart, I apologize, but that is not the intention of my words. In the future, avoid antagonizing me while rationalizing your own unreasonable behavior. Since no conflict really existed between us, a "truce" isn't necessary. Nonetheless, I do apologize if it seems as though I'm "targeting you", but really, you're the one with poor conduct recently. BNK ^[E|T|C] 04:24, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

I did not enter debates for the purpose of adminship, and saying that I failed twice is unncecessary and makes you seem like your rubbing it in my face.

About me being "annoying", how so? Sir Anon the great 04:45, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

I do, however, admit defeat on the Peach thing, and I'm glad this has been (mostly) settled between us. Anon 04:48, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

There is evidence all around you. See the Smash Arena, Clarinet Hawk's talk page, etc. BNK ^[E|T|C] 04:53, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

You aren't answering my question, instead further implying that I am always annoying. Sir Anon the great 04:57, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

On second thought would you like to discuss this on IRC? Sir Anon the great 05:01, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

No. BNK ^[E|T|C] 05:18, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

character strengths

Hi Blue Ninjakoopa. I was wondering, does smashwiki have a list of attack strengths for the characters in SSBB. I know we have a list of Weight, but what about attack strength. Thanks. Metroid Master (talk) 17:25, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

You can't rank characters based on "attack strength". How can you do so? Damage dealt by all moves? Maybe, but that isn't really atack "strength", since knockback is the main deal. Average knockback of all moves? Okay, but at what percentage and with who as a target? Do you count moves with set knockback? Do you count sourspots? What about uncharged vs. fully charged? Far too many variables. Weight is easy, since it's just a number. A concept like "attack strength" is not. Toomai Glittershine 17:36, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

It's Chuck Norris!

Nah, it's just me, ParaGooba348. Remember? Yeah, me. Sorry I haven't been talking, I've been using Starmen.net for a really long time now, and I've grown addicted. I know that soon, I'll find a new place where I can talk with friends, and I'll grow sick of Starmen, too. But I don't think that's going to be for a long time. So, what's been up with you? I don't join crews anymore because I am now an independent. If anyone asks me, I'll refuse, if anyone challenges me, I'll go up against the crew alone! (Dun dun dun!) I still believe that tiers exist, though I have it completely changed around now. I now main Ness (although I think next on the chopping block will be Mr. Game & Watch) and I'm actually as good as I say I am. I was never a god at this game, just to let you know, and I was never, ever really ignoring you, I just found starmen a lot more fun. So what's been goin' on with you? ParaGoomba348 20:54, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

My proboards. BNK ^[E|T|C] 21:29, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you have an account at starmen.net? What's your username? (I also have an account there, by my own username). Sir Anon the great 01:17, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

hey

Since I'm waiting for stupid fucking Auron in his stupid fucking Hawaiian timezone, I have some time to kill. Do you still want to talk to me on IRC? Shadowcrest 03:36, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm so late. :$ I'll get on now. BNK ^[E|T|C] 20:36, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Would you stop edit warring? You have to have everything the way you want it, and thats not what a wiki is about. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 02:58, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Stop

It hasn't been settled yet whether box art should be removed. Stop removing it from articles. Mr. Anon teh awsome 04:50, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ahem.

There has been no consensus yet on removing boxart, so why do you continue to remove it from articles? Toomai Glittershine 21:33, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

You keep recycling the same argument: "It's not necessary but it's not unnecessary; keeping it will make us look neat" etc. It is more so not needed than it is needed at all, to be honest. BNK ^[E|T|C] 21:36, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

There are a few problems here.

1. I didn't distinctly say we should "look neat". But even if I did, it is not just for show. This is a wiki about a video game that kids/teenagers play, so we have to look some degree of interesting for younger visitors.
2. That is not the entirety of my argument. Another big part is this: for the past decade if not more, people have seen game boxarts displayed on the internet when they look at info about said games. Being unique is fine, I just think that not having boxart is a bad case of unique.
3. We have displayed boxart on game pages for the majority of the wiki's existence. Removing it is a change. Therefore, the onus should be on you to prove that we should remove them, not on me to prove that we should have things stay the way they are.

Toomai Glittershine 21:42, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

1. That's a pretty dumb reason to have irrelevant information. We can't assume "kids and teenagers" are the only ones playing Super Smash Bros. games. Let's be reasonable here.
2. It's not a bad case. I'm trying to make sure we don't venture anywhere out of the Super Smash Bros. series, because that isn't necessary and as the SmashWiki, we need to document information on everything related to Smash. Box art fails that criteria. Again, it's the same as having official artwork for trophy characters.
3. It was a mistake from the beginning, everyone just ignored it and went with it. BNK ^[E|T|C] 21:47, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

1. But we can assume that there are quite a lot of kids and teenagers that visit the wiki, and it's not like it deters older people who visit.
2. Box art does not fail this criteria. Again, masterpieces are like the Smash Games themselves, as they are included in Brawl. It's kinda like the actual smash game's boxart.
3. You still have not explained why we should remove it, and repeatedly ignore our points. Futhermore, I asked you to give a better definition of "necessary to the wiki" than mine, yet you still haven't responded. Instead, you repeatedly remove the boxart from articles, despite there being no consensus. And please actually respond to this point. Anon 22:02, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

^This^ and BNK, again I mean no offense, but you are the only one who does oppose to having box arts. So why is it your say if they stay or not? Unknown the Hedgehog 22:14, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I admit that displaying boxart does nothing but make us look consistent with the rest of the internet, and since everyone (else) decided to remove game articles in general, I'd be okay with not having it. However, this doesn't change my opinion on the subject of character artwork. Toomai Glittershine 22:18, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Character artwork is another thing, but I'm not entirely against it, since characters are more important than the games, evidently. BNK ^[E|T|C] 22:19, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually care about this discussion, but when people are arguing against your actions and consensus hasn't been achieved, stop doing it. Shadowcrest 23:58, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Stop

You're abusing rollback at this point and going against an admin. Please quit it unless a consensus is achieved. Mr. Anon teh awsome 04:54, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks for the award! (Even though I found all the images on the internet. :P) Anyway, It's okay. I'm actually the one who was feeling bad about the SMB2 situation because you got banned over it. I didn't want that to happen. :/ Unknown the Hedgehog 04:21, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

It's all good. I was being the most disruptive. BNK ^[E|T|C] 22:08, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

You should really respond to talk page comments on the talk page they were originally posted on. Btw, congratulations on your award. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 04:26, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yo Dude!

Hey, I haven't spoken to you for ages. I see that you are on Anon's and Clarinet Hawk's bad side? Idk who Anon is. Never heard of him. Probably some "Internet tough guy" who thinks he is the shit, because he is friends with the Sysops. Message me back when you get the chance. BTW - I deleted all my SSBB Data and restarted from scratch. Bad move. Now I need to do everything all over again :P Zmario 11:48, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Before stupid shit starts, I'd like to point out that you (BNK) are not on my bad side. In fact, I am very pleased with your contributions and think you're a cool guy to have around. If you had been on my bad side, I wouldn't have said this. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:21, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

BNK hasn't been getting on my bad side, although he did annoy me during that recent conflict, we get along fine. Nor am I an "Internet tough guy whe thinks that he is the shit because he is friends with my bad side." :P.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Anon (talk • contribs) 8:16, 8-24-10

Z - Yes, it has been a while. You should come by my forum. The gang's all there!

C. Hawk - Thanks for the compliment and giving me another chance. :) BNK ^[E|T|C] 22:08, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, BNK, i came here because i was kind of desperate. Please, elaborate on why i am banned on club 64. Xtrme Whatever 13:54, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Things that happen on other websites don't belong on user talk pages. If you are that desperate, use SW:IRC Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 21:49, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I need the link to your forum place xD. Is it still Proboards? Zmario 14:54, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

[3] <- there you go. We migrated a couple of times lol, and yeah it's still proboards. BNK ^[E|T|C] 21:18, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

So uh as a general rule

I don't see using only older artwork of characters on their "non-Smash" profile pages as being beneficial, even if the character's appearance is based on it. Maybe including both older and newer artwork (a la the Triforce trio) might be better? Miles (talk) 15:54, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Umm no.. that's dumb, as the reader will never know what the character's appearance came from. I can understand Mewtwo's case, as he uses his appearance from Battle Revolution (though that itself is based on his artwork from FireRed & LeafGreen) (the same can go for Pichu, too, but still, don't remove the older artwork of either of the two), but characters like Dr. Mario, who do not appear in later games, need artwork of which their appearance in the last Smash Bros. game they were in is based off of. Apparently you haven't seen the other articles... I hope you know that for characters like Mario, who use artwork from Super Mario Galaxy, which was released a little before Brawl, it isn't exactly "most recent". Ganondorf, for example, uses artwork from Twilight Princess, but not Spirit Tracks or whatever. Since Brawl contains no information from these "new games" you want artwork from so badly, they are thus irrelevant. TL;DR - We don't need Mario's NSMBWii artwork because that's not what his appearance in Brawl is based off of. BUT, for characters like Ganondorf, who in Melee used artwork from OoT, but in Brawl used artwork from Twilight Princess, your case stands. This also can go for Fox and Falco. Pit is another story; his recent artwork is relevant because it is based off of his appearance in Brawl (it's sort of a backwards thing). Knahmean? BNK ^[E|T|C] 22:35, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

I was saying include both older artwork (so one can see the history of where their designs in Smash games came from, e.g. Ganondorf) as well as newer artwork so one can see what the character looks like in more recent games (i.e. Pichu). Part of the goal is to balance their history in relation to Smash with their history relating to their source games. In the case of Ganondorf, for example, the TP art serves as both (Brawl source and most recent game) and the OoT art serves as historical for his Melee design. For Mario, however, his Brawl design is a variant on his traditional design that dates back to SM64 and beforehand. Why not include art based on his more recent appearances?

My point is this: we ought to include art of the characters A) as they appeared in the games from which their Smash designs were derived, and B) from recent games that show the character as they are nowadays. Miles (talk) 18:43, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Eh, that's what I said (referring to the first part of your wall).

I strongly disagree (referring to the second part); it seems to me that your mindset on this is "lol i want these images", which may not be true, but your points are just bad. We don't need artwork on recent appearances, to be perfectly honest, because I believe it'll just be a waste of bytes.

What if the character's design is changed in a recent game? We can't have a picture of Ganondorf from a game after Brawl if his design is different, and even if the design stays similar it would be pointless uploading it. Besides, if we do such for him, we'd need to do it for everyone else, and that's just stupid. Mario's design in Brawl is from his recent appearances (most recent before Brawl), so why the hell do we need artwork of him from games like, say, Mario Kart Wii when we have a more absolute image from Super Mario Galaxy? There would be no point. And we can't just go "oh well the game before that then" because that wouldn't be fulfilling the proposed clause.

In short: I agree with you in that we should have artwork of a character that influenced his or her design in any Smash Bros. game, but I disagree with your stance on us somehow needing the latest game artwork. BNK ^[E|T|C] 21:06, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Blue Ninjakoopa on this one. This is the SmashWiki, not the NintendoArtWiki, and though we can have some info about where playable characters came from, we should keep most things revelant to Super Smash Bros. games, including pictures. How is Mario's Super Mario Galaxy 2 artwork if it isn't used in any Super Smash Bros. game? We should use artwork from the most recent game that has artwork from Super Smash Bros. Brawl in it, because everything on this website, including the artwork, should be relevant to Super Smash Bros. in some way. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 22:35, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "as the reader will never know what the character's appearance came from." It's not like we can't write a caption underneath the image, or write it somewhere in the article?

"it'll just be a waste of bytes. " Who cares? We have basically unlimited space, it's not like character pages are so large that they're a loading hazard.

"We can't have a picture of Ganondorf from a game after Brawl if his design is different" Uh. Why? All you've said is how this would be a terrible solution, but you haven't actually said why it's a bad idea.

"if we do such for him, we'd need to do it for everyone else, and that's just stupid." I think Miles is aware of this, considering it's not a particularly difficult concept. Furthermore, you still haven't said why it's dumb, other than the bad waste-of-space argument.

ps. Overconfidence is a negligible offense when you're always right, but until then, you might want to avoid it. Shadowcrest 22:39, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

@DP99, we already have stuff that's not directly relevant to Super Smash Bros- see here and other similar sections. While I agree that the focus of the wiki is on Smash content and other stuff should generally go, the characters articles are written as a "biography" of the characters, and why should that not include their appearance? Shadowcrest 22:42, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much what Salad said. Those pages are the expansion beyond Smash content and an introduction to the less knowledgable about the character's history in other games. Why not include something more recent in their history as well as the more Smash-related artwork? Miles (talk) 23:00, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

The bios should only really cover the character's history from their first game up until their most recent release before Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Same thing with artwork. The descriptions and artwork of Super Smash Bros. characters should be from games that contribute to the Super Smash Bros. series. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is not related to Super Smash Bros. Brawl whatsoever, so we shouldn't have any description or artwork of that game in our articles, unless we want to be like MarioWiki where everything that is even just barely related to Mario games gets its own article. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 23:04, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

IMO it would be better if they were not "bios of the characters until Brawl," and if they were instead "bios of the characters with an emphasis on Smash-related aspects." Miles (talk) 23:24, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the advantage of only including character information before Brawl? Link is Link, and if people are interesting in reading about him as a character (which is presumably why they're looking at the description section), they probably want to know about him, not about him-before-such and such-date. Also please read 1 to avoid making such arguments in the future. Shadowcrest 23:32, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

They can go to Zeldapedia for information on Link. I thought that was obvious already? Why do we need to even go beyond the Smash Universe at all? I see no reason, and your "because we're an encyclopedia" argument isn't very supportive.. and like Dr. Pain said, this is SmashWiki, where we document the Smash series and nothing past such.

"Uh. Why? All you've said is how this would be a terrible solution, but you haven't actually said why it's a bad idea." The answer isn't obvious to you? Again, how would the reader know where Ganondorf's appearance came from if one were to upload an image of him from a game where his design is different? How would that image be relevant? What point is there to document information on things not relevant to the Super Smash Bros. series? Can you answer these questions please?? BNK ^[E|T|C] 23:57, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

The argument that the information can be found elsewhere is a pretty bad one, because it can be applied to the entire site- why not just redirect the main page to google.com? "Why do we need to even go beyond the Smash Universe at all?" <-- because it's moderately relevant. Furthermore, I find your opposition to the idea of "going beyond Smash" ironic, because you're the one who wanted to keep articles about the characters' universes. We should keep an article about the world each character is from, but not an article about the characters that are the most important part of said universes and the most important part of Smash? Lol.

"how would the reader know where Ganondorf's appearance came from if one were to upload an image of him from a game where his design is different?" As I very clearly said in my post above, we can write words. This may be a shock to you, but there are these things called captions that explain what's in an image, and there's also sections where notes containing such information could go. Did you just not read my post or something? Shadowcrest 00:11, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

First off, google.com =/= Wikia. Google is a search engine, Wikia is a network of online encyclopedias. There's quite a large difference between the two; I'm sure you're aware of that.

Secondly, when did anyone ever want the universe pages deleted? Could you find my argument on it being kept, should said argument exist at all? And how is my comment "ironic"? Because if I can remember correctly, I'm the one who proposed the "purge of irrelevance", and thanks to the efforts of a few users, it was successful.

Don't act like I don't know what an image caption is. My point is this: Why do we need it? We don't need the up-to-date artwork, so why would we need a caption explaining what it is? It's like telling everyone at a zoo that a specific pile of crap belongs to a specific elephant; there would be no point; the visitors want to see the elephants and maybe spectate their behavior. Like how a reader wants to read about Link here, and not learn information about his latest game, which has no relevance to the Super Smash Bros. series. BNK ^[E|T|C] 00:24, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I meant to type "would want". BNK ^[E|T|C] 00:26, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

resetting the indent, boogaloo This is exactly why I was suggesting we try both newer and older artwork and descriptions. Let the reader know what influenced them in Smash as well as get a general feel for them outside of Smash. I quote myself (since nobody seemed to have read it): "IMO it would be better if they were not 'bios of the characters until Brawl,' and if they were instead 'bios of the characters with an emphasis on Smash-related aspects.'" Miles (talk) 01:29, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

"Bios with emphasis on Smash related aspects" would only include things up to the latest Smash game, which right now is Brawl. Ergo, we shouldn't have artwork or bios or anything else from after Brawl, because that stuff is 100% irrelevant to SSB. Once again, we are the SmashWiki, so all of our info should tie into SSB in some way, even if very loosely. Stuff released after SSBB, unless it came from SSBB like Pit's new artwork, is totally irrelevant because it does not appear in any SSB game. People who want to read a Link biography will go to Zeldapedia, not here (unless they are totally dumb), so we shouldn't waste our time with adding info that is totally irrelevant to SSB. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 01:48, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BNK: "Google is a search engine, Wikia is a network of online encyclopedias." That's nice. You failed to refute the argument. Saying "they can find the information elsewhere so we shouldn't keep it" is a bad reason to not keep information, because every bit of information ever can be found somewhere else on the internet, thus making the entire site "redundant".

Nobody wanted the universe pages deleted, learn to read. You yourself proposed something (in the page you linked, no less) that would retain information that you are now (indirectly) claiming should be deleted because it's "beyond the scope of Smash". You cannot argue that the universes of characters who appear in Smash are relevant to the game while the descriptions of the characters those universes exist for are not relevant.

You still have not provided a (legitimate, "waste of space" is just turrible) reason why we shouldn't keep up-to-date artwork. And tbh, your entire last paragraph is pretty zzz. I've only seen a few worse analogies in my life, regarding the elephant bs. Furthermore, you talk about how people want to read about Link here, but then talk about games occuring after Brawl as though they no longer apply to the character Link? News flash: the plot line regarding Link in Skyward Sword is as relevant to Link's biography as every other Zelda game ever. I'm not saying we should write an in-depth summary of SS's plot, but we should acknowledge the game exists and perhaps give a little background, because guess what? It's still Link, regardless of release date.

In addition, what exactly is your problem with Miles' proposal? Shadowcrest 02:00, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that, and you're telling me to learn to read? My main point to you is "bad" because you can't bring yourself to answer my presented queries. Is it really that hard?

The analogy was actually pretty good. I suppose the zoo visitors should Google elephants instead of going to the zoo? <-- Come on.

It's evident that those sections exist on the universe pages and need to be cleaned up a bit, but don't pin their messiness on me. Maybe I'll get around to it one day, but right now we're talking about artwork.

I just have a problem with it. For the umpteenth time, it's not necessary. Can you give any good reasons as to why we actually need it? Does Brawl use elements from Skyward Sword? What about Melee? Yeah... so why is Skyward Sword even relevant? This isn't a Nintendo news website (try nintendo.com), and really, if one needed information on Skyward Sword, they'd go to Zeldapedia. BNK ^[E|T|C] 02:16, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

@Salad: Also, our argument is not, "Skyward Sword is not relevant because it is not relevant to Link", our argument is, "Skyward Sword is not relevant because it is not relevant to Super Smash Bros. games." We are not Zeldapedia or nintendo.com; we do not need to include information about anything unrelated to Super Smash Bros. as we are the SmashWiki, not the SmashAndSomeOtherRandomCrapWiki. We are not trying to say, "delete this because it is on Zeldapedia", we are trying to say, "do not put stuff like this because if people want to find it, they will not look here." Maybe you should take time to read and fully understand our posts before responding. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 02:26, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, this a really dumb argument in the first place. While I agree that the artwork is irrelevant, it is not worth arguing about. The Wiki will not delete itself if we add extra info. So I think we should just keep 'em so we can end this stupid argument. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 02:45, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Keep what? Don't back out on me, man. BNK ^[E|T|C] 02:49, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I reread this whole section several times and realized how stupid it was. This isn't a very productive argument and it should have ended before it started, plus most of the arguments on it are retarded, but since I was stupid enough to get myself caught in it, I'll voice my opinion again.

If we are really gonna use this argument to make a decision one way or another, we should really get rid of anything that cannot relate to Super Smash Bros. games in any way, including artwork that doesn't have anything to do with Super Smash Bros. games and maybe link to Zeldapedia's/Wikitroid's/Kirby Wiki's/etc. pages so users can see this artwork if they really wanted to (but that's what Google Images is for, not SmashWiki). Like Miles said, our bios should comtain Super Smash Bros. related stuff and bios that have to do with games that are coming out more than two years after Brawl did is not Smash related stuff. And Salad, you claim that we came up with no good arguments, yet you fail to come up with any arguments yourself. The only arguments of yours I see are 1) our arguments suck, 2) BNK is overconfident and you are always right and 3) the fact that Skyward Sword is relevant to Link. Well @1: We are trying to say that we do not need info or artwork that is not relevant to Super Smash Bros. in any way at all because we are the SmashWiki. That argument is better than yours. @2: What the hell does BNK being overconfident have to do with anything, and you most certainly ARE NOT always right. No one is. @3: That is not a valid argument. This Wiki is not about Link. It is about SSB, and Skyward Sword has NOTHING to do with SSB, ergo we don't need it. I understand that some of BNK's arguments are dumb, but both he and I have given legit arguments, and you haven't you actually want to keep the artwork, actually refute our arguments and come up with some of your own. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 03:24, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I have said this many times before and I'll say it again. The general character pages are about the characters as they are outside of the Smash Bros. series. That's the point of them. If we don't need things that aren't 100% related to Smash Bros, then we would have to delete those pages, since there is no such info on them that is either 100% relevant or unduplicated on the (SSB) (SSBM) (SSBB) pages. We have such pages because we should have some sort of information about the characters outside of Smash Bros. Why? Because the games themselves do the same thing. Most trophies of things talk about both how they work in Smash Bros. and what they did in their original series. So, since the games do this, we should as well. And don't forget that most other wikis have mentions (if not entire sections or even articles) about their contributions to the Smash Bros. series.

Next, the argument about having only stuff from before a Smash Bros. game came out. People usually use this argument because the games don't (and can't) have any mentions of such (obviously). But guess what? That's because you can't change the game once it's out to accomodate such. But you can change the wiki to keep things up-to-date. And let's face it: If we put in a policy of having no info or art from newer games, the average user (having no knowledge of policies) will think we're just out of date, and try to correct it anyway. It is not a good idea to adpot a stance that the average user will not assume. As I said above, these pages are about the characters as from their own series, not as Smashers. Therefore, artificially limiting the scope of a character's biography makes the article incomplete.

I will now use a metaphor. Say you have a wiki about the Philadelphia Phillies (a baseball team, if you aren't aware). Of course, you'd have to have an article about Roy Halladay (their best pitcher). Now, Halladay may be on the Phillies, but he spent the first ten years of his career on the Toronto Blue Jays, making the All-Star team six of those years and winning the Cy Young in 2003 (the top pitching award). Would you leave this information out of his article on a Phillies wiki? Heck no. It's not relevant to the Phillies (the wiki's subject), but it's relevant to the article it appears on, and you'd be a fool to leave it out. Similarily, on a Blue Jays wiki, you'd be a fool to not at least mention the perfect game he pitched as a Philly.

Finally, I will say this. This argument is not based on facts; as such it will not end until one side either shuts up or gives up. I have presented a few arguments that do not appear to have been used before (on this page, at least), so I hope that this will end very soon. Toomai Glittershine 03:45, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

No one ever said we shouldn't have information like and such as "Mario debuted in X, but rose to popularity in Z, a game which Super Smash Bros. uses elements from". We're arguing against "Mario is set to appear in Mario Sports Mix and Paper Mario 3DS", or at least making sure it won't happen, in terms of both artwork and information. You misinterpreted our argument and it seems as though you're viewing this as something synonymous of what happened here, which it isn't.

I have to disagree with your metaphor, by the way, because, like with all of them, you fail to bring up valid points. How can you compare Super Smash Bros. to baseball? Yes, playing SSB is competitive, but otherwise, baseball has no relation, even with a metaphor.

Limiting the article's information does not make it incomplete. Keeping something relevant =/= making it eternally unfinished. As I've said many times before, if a reader wants further information on a character, they will need to go to that character's Wiki and find it there. It gets no simpler than that.

Why would a wiki for a character appearing in a Super Smash Bros. game not mention that that character has appeared in said game? Don't reverse this; every said wiki should mention Smash Bros., but we're a different case. We fully document Smash Bros., and we take note of games that influence or have attributes from the series' own. BNK ^[E|T|C] 04:19, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with BNK. The wikis in question give mention to us, a side series. They would be incomplete if they didn't, since their star character appeared in it. Most of our characters don't belong to us, now do they? Only the ones created specifically for smash are. And a person with a decent IQ will figure out that if SSB has a wiki, then other wiki's exist as well. This isn't even a generally popular wiki. That person would try searching for the character in the same method that he/she searched for us. We have deleted trophies, stickers, and games that don't contribute too much to SSB. Why should we turn back and give them a new artwork? A game>an artwork.--MegaTron1XD 05:58, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

@Toomai: The general character pages obviously are not 100% related to Super Smash Bros. However, they can be loosely related if and only if it talks about things from games that contributed to the making of Super Smash Bros. For example, if Link's character bio talks about Majora's Mask, it may show how Majora's Mask contributed to Link's design and maybe the design of other The Legend of Zelda elements. However, a game like Skyward Sword, which is coming out over two years after the latest Super Smash Bros. did, did not contribute any elements to Super Smash Bros. gamesl because the newest one has already been released. If Super Smash Bros. Four comes out with elements from Skyward Sword in it, then we should add the necessary artwork and information. About the "incompleteness", WE ARE THE SMASHWIKI; we do not need a "complete bio of Samus", that's what Wikitroid is for. The purpose of the general character pages, IMO is to inform people on the background on where the Super Smash Bros. charcters came from, and new games released after Brawl, do not have anything to do with where Brawl characters came from. Your metaphor is a bit of a different situation, as his career as a Blue Jay can still relate to his career as a Philly, because his career as a Blue Jay developed out of his beginning career as a Philly, like Pit's Kid Icarus Uprising artwork came from Brawl. However, Brawl is a burned disc; it will never change, therefore we would not include things from Super Mario Galaxy 2, as one does not influence the other. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 13:34, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

If you (BNK) don't see how the metaphor is relevant, here's why: The example I presented involves a wiki about one group of people that play a game, most (if not all) of them originally being from a different group. This is what Smash Bros. is: a series where most of its characters (and content) are from other series.

Yes, I am treating this as similar to the Super Mario Bros. 2 situation. Both that one and this one are an argument between the people that want a fence around purely Smash Bros.-related stuff and those who want a concrete bunker.

Okay, so people can go elsewhere to find further info on a character. I can't argue with this, and if we want to remain on-topic we have to keep character articles trimmed down. But this isn't a reason, in my opinion, to censor information just because it didn't exist two years ago. Say Metroid: Other M reveals some important fact about Samus - maybe a middle name, or the resolving of a plot hole. Why would we leave this out of her article? (Okay, so a middle name isn't that important, but plot holes are.) We don't need a play-by-play of her life, but we should have a sentence or two about each game. People can still go elsewhere if they want anything more than a summary, but they shouldn't have to go elsewhere because we cut out part of the background.

And yes, I believe I should "reverse this". We should mention things about other series just as other wikis mention things about Smash Bros. I would argue that talking about things that come from elsewhere is more important than talking about where they went. So why wouldn't we talk a bit more about things from their own series' point of view? Also, DP99's point about "one does not influence the other" is not necessarily true. Pit's new artwork and Egg Roll are two examples of how the Smash Bros. series gave things to originating series instead of the other way around.

Also, yeah Brawl is a burned disc. But this is where we have the advantage. We can continue to document changes to a character while Brawl has to stay static and clueless; and of course staying static is how wikis fail. (Not gonna happen since there's so much other stuff, but them's the facts.)

So can we please just end this argument and allow minor non-Smash Bros. info on general character pages and the like?

1. Without new info, the longer we go without a Smash Bros. game coming out, the more outdated things look.
2. When the next Smash Bros. game does come out, we'll have less work to do in updating things.
3. People are going to put new stuff in whether we have a policy against it or not, and every time they're pointed to it they'll probably start this argument again.
4. The difference is probably like 1000 bytes per page at this time. Almost less than trivial.
5. The general character pages (and universe pages) are less than 5% of the wiki. As long as things are brief, we're in no danger of geting off track.

Since I'm going back to university rather soon, I might be unable to continue this argument. Toomai Glittershine 13:58, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

To be clear when I said "emphasis on Smash-related elements," I meant roughly what Toomai was saying: a quick character history that summarizes who they are (more concisely than a wiki dedicated to that character's series, hopefully) and points out with special importance the parts that relate to Smash. Miles (talk) 14:45, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

We could do that without having artwork or irrelevant information tbh..... BNK ^[E|T|C] 00:10, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, I was gone for 2 and a half days, and look what this has turned into. Now, I belive it is unncecessary to have pictures Mario's appearence in NSMBW. Why? The game was made after Brawl, so it hasn't had much influence on Smash. Instead, though, we can have the much more relevent picture of him from Galaxy, which his Brawl appearence is based off of. Now, you guys say that we can have both. The thing is, if a viewer who's new to smash and doesn't know all the characters and they look here for a character they've heard about, they'll see the image from their latest game, which may not look much like the character from Brawl at all (The Links for example) and then they'll get confused. Furthermore, having more than one image can look ugly at times, and it can cause problems about which image should be in the character's infobox. Mr. Anon teh awsome 00:33, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Significant character apparance changes are the exception rather than the rule. Mario's peeps and Pokémon haven't changed much in 10 years, and guys like Ike or Pit haven't had enough games to change noticeably. Link and Fox (and their fellows) are the main culprits here, and even then it's still pretty obvious that they're not only the same character, but that by looking at the artworks you can tell where the Smash Bros. versions came from. Toomai Glittershine 01:11, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

"Now, you guys say that we can have both. The thing is, if a viewer who's new to smash and doesn't know all the characters and they look here for a character they've heard about, they'll see the image from their latest game, which may not look much like the character from Brawl at all (The Links for example) and then they'll get confused. Furthermore, having more than one image can look ugly at times, and it can cause problems about which image should be in the character's infobox. "

So uh galleries are pretty cool guys; they organize images and don't afraid of anything Miles (talk) 02:06, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Never thought of that. That could actually work. I'm starting to lean towards neutral. Still, we should keep the infobox image as the one that is most relevent to smash. Sir Anon the great 02:11, September 3, 2010 (UTC)