Template talk:SSBU character table

Order by Smash Debut

So, what do you guys think about maybe ordering the characters by their debut in Smash? I know that is usually not done for these games, but since the CSS for Smash Ultimate seems to be ordered by debut, I was wondering what everyone else would think about that. It would make the roster more flexible because you wouldn't have to worry about characters being separated from their series. We could also do this for Melee, Brawl and 3DS/Wii U. I would say we could do 10x10 for this game, so that the main veterans are all evenly laid out and then have the Mii Fighters (possibly separated into 3) in the final row. Thoughts? Master Zach (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (EDT)

I don't know if we should do it for the other games, since that's not how anything is ordered there, but if we're being given a canon order for Ultimate, we should probably use it.

Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 18:42, 12 June 2018 (EDT)

We don't have to be wrong just because Sakurai chooses to be. Toomai Glittershine The Interspacial 18:45, 12 June 2018 (EDT)

You worded that kind of dismissively. With that said, yeah, after thinking it through some more, it's probably a poor order for our purposes. An alternative might be the series order listed here. What we have right now isn't going to be a problem otherwise, though.

Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 23:23, 12 June 2018 (EDT)

Slight Reorder

I propose that we move Ice Climbers down a row to be next to Mr. Game and Watch, so that Corrin can be on the same row as the rest of the Fire Emblem characters. It looks a bit awkward to have Corrin as the only character on a different line than his series. 96.245.165.208 18:33, 13 June 2018 (EDT)

I would like that too, but ICs go first because they were announced in Smash before FE. Master Zach (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2018 (EDT)

Pokémon Trainer

Since only his Pokémon are playable and not the trainer, shouldn't his spot take up only 3 spaces instead of four? I realize this doesn't change much in terms of series breaking (there's always the option to just organize the characters by their debut in Smash!), but it would help a little. Regardless, it does make sense to keep at least the 3 Pokémon separate, much like how Zelda & Sheik were separate in Melee & Brawl. Master Zach (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2018 (EDT)

We kept them all together for the table in Brawl, for whatever that's worth. Either way, this table's gonna look ugly as long as we stick to series debut order 96.245.165.208 12:01, 22 June 2018 (EDT)

Denoting the starter characters

This may be too early for it, or unnecessary, but do you think we should highlight the starter’s names in bold this time instead of the unlockables? It would be a first, but I wanted to make sure before I started to work on it. Speed48 16:52, 6 July 2018 (EDT)

Should we add character numbers below and slightly change the ordering on the table?

This versrion (https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Template:SSBU_character_table&diff=prev&oldid=1175275) has the character numbers next to tbe series icons, and the characters are slightly reordered. Should we keep it that way? Here are the following reorders:

-Sheik is listed before Zelda, since Sheik was revealed first -Young Link is before Ganondorf, since YL was unlocked before Ganondord in Melee

-Pichu is placed before Mewtwo, due to Pichu was unlocked before Mewtwo in Melee

-Lucina is right before Rovin, since she was revealed before Robin. Even in Smash 4, despite Lucina being unlockable, had her trophy listed before Robin

-Wii Fit Trainer before Little Mac, since Wii Fit Trainer was revealed before Little Mac

-Additionally, This version listed the upcoming number of DLC newcomers as well, without editing the actual table. Should these changes by kept? 184.181.102.188 20:33, 21 January 2019 (EST)

See here and here for previous instances in which admins have explained the reasons not to use fighter numbers. For my thoughts on ordering, see here. Miles (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2019 (EST)

If Little Mac is placed before Wii Fit Trainer because Punch Out came first, then Duck Hunt should as well. That reasoning just doesn’t make sense. Also, if Pichu comes after Mewtwo because of the trophy list, then Lucina should be before Robin 184.181.102.188 20:51, 21 January 2019 (EST)

As I explained on my subpage, Little Mac comes before WFT because Punch-Out had representation in Brawl and Wii Fit didn't; Mewtwo before Pichu and Robin before Lucina are because clones go last. Duck Hunt was unlockable in SSB4 whereas Villager, Little Mac, WFT and Shulk weren't. The logic for my ordering is, to the best of my abilities, the simplest compromise between Smash's various ordering schemes that maintains consistency and ease of use. Miles (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2019 (EST)

Your ordering finally make sense to me aside from Little Mac and Lucina. While yes, technically Little Mac was an assist trophy in Brawl, that isn’t major representation. I don’t fully count Ice Climber as being represented in Smash 4 since it has no symbol in that gane, despite the polar bear enemy and the ice climbers trophy. Little Mac is also marketed after WFT all the time. Additionally, you never explicitly stated that clones go last in the ordering suggestions page. And with Lucina being revealed before Robin in both Smash 4 and Ultimate, as well as her trophy being before Rovin’s on the trophy list, I would say that she goes before Robin. 184.181.102.188 21:24, 21 January 2019 (EST)

Keep in mind that Lucina also comes after Robin for being unlockable in SSB3DS, where Robin is a starter. And I only used Punch-Out's Brawl representation as a "tiebreaker" since Little Mac is the older character but WFT was revealed for Smash first. Miles (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2019 (EST)

If your logic is that Lucina was unlockable, then Marth and Ness should be after Lucas and Ike. Even if they were introduced in the same game and Lucina was unlockable, the fact of the matter is that she was revealed to be playable before Robin. And while yes, technically Mac was technically in the series first, Wii Fit Trainer is marketed before Mac in literally everything. I don’t count the assist trophy as major representation. 184.181.102.188 02:01, 22 January 2019 (EST)

I take unlockability into account only for the character's debut game, so it's only important for distinguishing the order between characters who debut in the same game as one another. And the Little Mac/WFT issue is subjective, and I've decided it the way that makes the most sense to me based on the available criteria. Miles (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2019 (EST)

While I do see what you mean about taking into account the debut games for the characters as well, Imd still argue that Lucina should go first. Regardless of her status as an unlockable clone, the fact of the matter is that she was revealed before Robin was. Pichu and Young Link I can see being after Mewtwo and Ganondorf since none of them were revealed until after Melee released. I still disagree with YL after Ganondorf and Pichu after Mewtwo, but the reasoning you gave for kepping them after them was complretely reasonable. Lucina, on the other hand, was revealed before Robin, and should be before him regardless of her unlockable status. Even though Snake and Sonic were unlockable third parties, they were numbered by their debut like the other haracters as well (ibviously, they should stay put here because they’re third party), so I don’t think it would be a good idea to have Lucina after Robin just because she’s unlockable. As for Little Mac, the only criteria you’re giving me that makes sense to me is that he was an assist trophy in Brawl. However, the series icon, the playable character, the fact that the stage was punch-out themed, literally everything else came after wii fit trainer. Even in Ultimate, WFT was revealed before Mac. 184.181.102.188 02:50, 23 January 2019 (EST)

Should we add in boxes for the 4 (or 3 if a newcomer is revealed tomorrow) Fighters Pass characters

We know that they’re coming; the Fighters Pass is pretty explicitly stated to be 5 characters (1 of which is Joker, and another of which is pretty much confirmed to be revealed during E3). We know that these characters have to be new; there aren’t any veterans left to come back. We know that as a result of this.. So should we keep in the fact that there are 17 characters to future-proof this? And should we add in boxes for the other characters that use a code to something like this:

|colspan=2|
Fighters Pass Challenger X (DLC)

Lou Cena (talk) 22:11, June 10, 2019 (EDT) Lou Cena (talk) 22:11, June 10, 2019 (EDT)

I'm against the idea; it's gonna look weird with a bunch of whitespace in a table that doesn't need it. Aidan, the Rurouni 22:23, June 10, 2019 (EDT)

Fair point about the blank space. What if we use the image from this template (

) scaled up instead? Would that work? Also, even if we shouldn’t have the boxes, should we either keep the number at the top at 17 instead of 13-14, since we do know that’s our final number? Lou Cena (talk) 22:27, June 10, 2019 (EDT)

Nope. Add them as they are revealed. Serpent King 22:45, June 10, 2019 (EDT)

Ultimate’s Order

Why can’t the roster on here match the order in the game? This question has been brought up a couple times and shot down without a proper discussion without a real decisive reason.

If it’s because it would create an inconsistency, that’s not true. If it would, then the roster order for the original Smash Bros. for the Nintendo 64 would need to have its order changed. It currently has it match the order in the game, as should Ultimate’s. The other inconsistency is even though the lists are currently in the order of when each series joined Smash Bros, then Captain Falcon should be before Earthbound, which he’s currently not.

Although we don’t have to follow the list in the game, but that’s only if the community decides if we don’t want to after a proper discussion. I would like to have a proper discussion on the matter, as a case like this is suppose to.

May we please have Ultimate’s roster in the order that it is listed in the game? It would only be for this page. As well as a PROPER discussion for it? 172.58.169.12 02:04, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

Just a heads up, next time, keep discussion about a template on the template itself, not on the page it is on. I've done it for you this time. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer Leave a message if needed 03:56, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

There was already a more proper discussion on this topic here[1]. As for me, although I listed fighters by number on WikiBound, I don't agree with listing the fighters by number on SmashWiki, a more Smash Bros focused wiki. First of all it can create inconsistency, a prime example would be by what Serpent King and Toomai mentioned: Echo Fighters. Being listed as the same number as the fighter they were cloned from is confusing, let's take Daisy for example:

First, Daisy is a newcomer while Peach is a veteran, Daisy should be listed as #65 as she was announced after Inkling, but because she is Peach's Echo Fighter, she is #13 like Peach. This would be inconsistent as newcomers should be listed after veterans.
Second, let's say Daisy gets de-cloned in Smash 7 (or 6 if you count SSB4 as the same game) then she would now be fighter #65, then as a result, Ridley would be moved to 66, Simon 67, K rool 68, etc. This would mean everyone after Daisy would need to be re-identified and can cause confusion especially to those who've gotten used to the previous order.

Although I do agree EarthBound should be listed before F-Zero as Ness is listed before C.Falcon.

So in conclusion I oppose. SupaToad64 04:25, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

Oppose The only reason Smash 64's character table is the way it is is because veterans and newcomers aren't a thing in that game, with it being the first Smash game and all. Thus, other games should keep consistency, and thus Ultimate's should be ordered by series. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer Leave a message if needed 04:44, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

The Sakurai numbers are basically 100% arbitrary. (Yeah they're connected to character reveal order, but that itself is arbitrary - they could've chosen to tell us about Olimar before Diddy Kong on the Brawl website, and their numbers would change.) And even then, because of how clones/echoes work, the order can change between games, therefore making it impossible to be consistent. This makes them one of the worst possible orders to sort characters for any reason. SmashWiki is not official, so we shouldn't lock ourselves into being inferior just because the game does. Toomai Glittershine The Free 06:35, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

First off, I’d like to start off with an apology if I was not able to find a discussion on this topic before. Everything I COULD find seemed to have been shot down immediately. I do appreciate a discussion happening.

Smash Bros. for the 64 being the first should not be the deciding factor that it gets to be the exception to the rule, especially if this wiki is dead set on being consist throughout it. If Ultimate can’t be listed by number because it creates a inconsistency, then a change for the Smash for 64’s order is needed.

It wouldn’t matter if echo fighters were to be rearranged in a future installment as it would only effect Ultimate’s page template as it only applies to such. If the 6th installment had Daisy listed with a proper number, then it would only change the order for the 5th’s page and leaving Ultimate’s untouched.

Why does it matter if the numbered order doesn’t actually match up with characters’ deputes? It was already said that this wiki is not official, so I don’t see how that would create an inconsistency or problem. Also, if one is fine listening it themselves this way on a different wiki, why wouldn’t they be fine doing also on here? If it’s the echo fighters, then I already explained why that WOULDN’T make an inconsistency, and wouldn’t matter if it did. Same goes for the order of the stages. 172.58.169.12 09:50, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

The difference between WikiBound and SmashWiki is that WikiBound is an EarthBound focused wiki, not a Smash Bros Wiki, and the main reason a Smash Bros page exists on there is because of EarthBound representation, same goes with others like Bulbapedia or Super Mario Wiki. If the order changes between games then it won't affect WikiBound much because its not a Smash Bros wiki and consistency doesn't matter much on there. SmashWiki, however, is a wiki focused on Smash Bros and consistency is more important on here because Smash is the main focus. If the order changes in a later installment then the listing here would be incorrect if we leave it the same, and it will cause confusion. Also in the past we've always listed fighters by series as it makes it more organized and easier to locate a fighter, and then changing the order here would cause confusion and make the characters out of order: Let's say someone browsing this page wants to look up Rosalina then its easier to find her when she's grouped with Mario characters, but if she's listed by number then they'll have to search through a big pile of fighters to find her. Sure they can use the search bar but it makes it more convenient for them to just click on her portrait. If the order eventually changes then it's much harder to rearrange 80+ fighters compares to 12. Even though Smash 64 lists the fighters the way they are in game, they are still grouped by series as the only 2 franchises with more than 1 fighter (Mario and Pokemon) have the fighters in the same spot. There was no real valid reasons to why we should list fighters this way besides it being the "official listing", whereas people have given actual reasons to why we shouldn't. SupaToad64 11:20, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

But there are already inconsistencies which makes no sense as that what the main basis for these reasons why we shouldn’t. 64, Captain Falcon, and third-party are all inconsistencies right now. Plus, because I have been playing Ultimate since it came out, I personally find it much easier to find the characters when ordered the same way as Ultimate. It shouldn’t be a problem for those who play Ultimate. If you wanted info on Rosalina, you can just use the search bar. Same goes for the stages. (Which is not what I am getting at) Forgive me for saying so, but I feel the claim of that it would be inconsistent is more of not wanting to change it for the sake of not wanting change. Before dismissing Ultimate’s order due to the possibly of an inconsistency, please fix the inconsistencies of 64’s roster, as well as the placement of Captain Falcon and the third-party characters so that claim, if wished to be used, is more valid. 172.58.169.12 11:52, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

I think it’s fine as is honestly. None of the things you listed are broken per say.

While Cap is numbered after Ness is in Ultimate, everything else F-Zero is listed before Earthbound, from the stages being before Earthbound, to the sound test listing F-Zero before Earthbound, to every previous game listing Captain Falcon before Ness. I don’t know why Captain Falcon is numbered after Ness, but a lot of other F-Zero content is still listed before Earthbound content, especially in past games.
64’s roster table is inconsistent when compared to the other games, but that’s because it’s the first game. It doesn’t need a veterans and newcomers table because it’s the first game. I think it’s fine as is, especially since every other game except Brawl uses a giant clusterf*ck of characters put together in random places.
The third parties in general got listed last in Smash 4 and Brawl. They aren’t really anymore in Ultimate, but it’s consistent with two other games in the series. Lou Cena (talk) 13:16, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

I will admit I did not know that about F-Zero, but that doesn’t change the inconsistency with 64 or third-parties. Snake and Sonic should be before Villager with PAC-Man afterwards as that is when their series joined. Ken should also be in front of Inkling for the same reason. Being the first is not a viable reason to create an inconsistency. If 64 can, then so can Ultimate. If Ultimate can’t, then neither can 64. You guys want “consistency” on this wiki, but keep making “exceptions” for them. I can’t understand that reasoning. If none of them are consistent, it technically would make them consistent. The reasons previously stated, of which I already said my pieces on, do not make sense with the basis of supposed “consistency”. Do you WANT consistency on this wiki, or not? I do not understand with any of your conflicting examples and reasoning. 172.58.169.12 13:34, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

I am changing the SSB64 table to be consistent. Toomai Glittershine The Zesty 18:48, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

I thought those kind of actions could only be preformed AFTER an agreement had been reached? Regardless, what about third-parties? If third-parties are suppose to be listed last, then they have to be listed after the Mii Fighters for both WiiU3DS and Ultimate as Mii Fighters are FIRST-party. I still do not see what is “wrong” or “confusing” or “inconsistent” with having Ultimate’s page match the game’s, like 64’s before you just changed it (BEFORE any agreement was reached). Why can’t we recreate the lists from the games on here? It honestly WOULD make the most sense. There’s no real reason not to. Why does listing them by “series introduced” make any more sense than their actual orders? 172.58.169.12 19:05, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

OK so upon further investigation it seems F-Zero is indeed almost always listed before EarthBound in the games despite Ness being before Falcon so that explains that. Anyways are there any valid reasons to why they should be listed by number besides it being the official order? SupaToad64 19:24, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

Are there any valid reasons why we shouldn’t list them by how they are shown in the games other than the wiki not being official? 172.58.175.155 22:19, June 21, 2019 (EDT)

If you read my earlier post, I mentioned how Echo Fighters can disrupt the order if the next game declones them as they are listed as the same number as who they were cloned from, and newcomers should not be listed in same place as veterans. The numbers have no real significance besides the marketing hype of all veterans returning, if they actually had significance such as unlock order then that's different. Listing them by series is not only consistant but makes the list more organized, whereas the number based order is just confusing and out of order, especially the Echo Fighter dilemma. SupaToad64 00:09, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

If you read MY earlier post, I explained why that wouldn’t matter. If echos become regular fighter later, it won’t effect Ultimate’s character roster template. I am not saying to change the characters’ listing on the “general” character list, only Ultimate’s roster template. When I had spent an hour on my phone changing the template so I can have an example of what I am trying to explain. Right here. I only want to change the template for the installment(s). I am NOT talking about THIS page. Especially considering how well Pokemon Trainer ended up fitting in it, I do not see why we can’t have it in the order that’s in the game. Same goes for 64 (and possibly the other installments). Can my example please be viewed before simply stating that it can’t be? 172.58.175.155 00:25, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

The list does look good and there's nothing wrong with wanting the list to be that way. For now though the current list we have is fine as it is and me and the admins gave our reasons why we should leave it the same. If you think we absolutely need to change the order then I recommend discussing it with someoneà like Miles, as he made the current list. SupaToad64 00:59, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

Quite frankly, we've used our own listing for the character rosters from the very beginning - we never did match up with 64's, Melee's, or Brawl's, we didn't do it with Smash 4 either, and, in fact, this topic has been discussed before for this particular table. We don't need for it to match up with what the game says, since we already have consistency with ourselves. Aidan, the Rurouni 01:02, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

You say there was already consistency, but 64 wasn’t consistent before. AND it was changed WITHOUT a consensus for it.
The topic you linked, it was dismissed without a PROPER discussion.
Talking about this on an admin’s page isn’t the appropriate place for it. Especially considering the one who created it ISN’T even the one doing the dismissing.
It May just be ME, but why does it seem that the admins are not open minded about change on the wiki? I’m referring to that others symbol debacle, which was also shut down without a real reason. Though, I MAY have somehow missed the valid reasoning.
The wiki is “unofficial”, it’s fine as is. Those do not seem like valid reasonings if it’s used, by an admin or anyone else, more as an excuse to not have or continue a discussion.

Sorry if I have stepped out of line. Could someone tell me a positive about having it match the games? When having an argument, you are suppose to give examples of BOTH sides. The only positive I can see with NOT following the games’ listings is that it consistent. But that does NOT mean it can change or be improved. Is it because I’m an anonymous IP? Because the wiki states that ALL users, IP or Admin, opinions matter and are not to simply be dismissed or taken as law because of such. Or is that an unfortunate lie? I feel that my idea isn’t being given a FAIR chance, or that anyone is actually considering it as a possibility. 172.58.175.155 01:42, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

The thing about the way the games listing is that aside from 64, the orders were all hot garbage. Melee’s was asymmetrical, Brawl’s sorted them vertically, Smash 4’s isn’t even consistent across versions (Shulk is placed before 3rd parties in Wii U, but with them in 3ds), and Ultimate sorts them by an arbitrary debut order that would have been decent if Echo Fighters didn’t exist. I thought that you wanted the 64 table to be consistent. It’s not that you’re an IP; far from it. Until I started editing here as an IP (before making this account to edit protected pages), I actually got 2 proposals accepted. The problem isn’t being an IP; it’s the fact that you were insisting that we needed consistency and then complaining when an admin does what you ask.

That’s not to say you’re entirely wrong; far from it. I absolutely agree with you that “Smashwiki is not official” is a weak argument in most cases where I’ve seen it. I still agree that was a terrible reason to keep an ugly, confusing, and unofficial symbol for miscellaneous content for theoretical circumstances that could still happen if we kept the current one (I made a draft if you want to read it, because that symbol is part of why I even started editing here.) However, when the official orders are complete garbage, a series sort will work better. Before mentioning 3rd parties again, we sort them last because previous games sorted them last. Even Sonic’s appearance in Smash 4 treated him the exact same way as Mega Man and Pac Man, despite Sonic being a veteran. Ultimate is the first case of them not being last. If we ever get a new smash game and 3rd parties are not sorted last again, then we should probably move them to their actual series debut.

One last thing: actual discussion isn’t truly necessary when we have a unanimous agreement. Your suggestion to either make 64’s table consistent or change the other ones was fairly unanimous, so it was passed. Actual discussion would have been a waste of time. Lou Cena (talk) 03:34, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

I understand that trying to place the characters in their roster order probably doesn’t work for Melle, Brawl, or 4. But, is it REALLY not possible for Ultimate, and 64, to have it in THEIR roster order? It didn’t seem to be a problem for 64 until I brought up the inconsistency. Which was changed before THIS discussion was over, which what made me asked about being an IP. Is it just not possible to even consider the possibility of just THOSE two installments following the order of their rosters? My main problem was that 64 being first made it exempt from inconsistency which was apparently somehow preventing Ultimate’s numbers from also be an “exception”.172.58.175.155 09:31, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

Sometimes, something changes to break consistency without discussion and nobody notices; the SSB64 character table was one of these things, so I fixed it as soon as it was pointed out. I guess it's "cool" and "neat" to have it match the character selection screen but those aren't very good reasons to be inconsistent.

All across the rest of the wiki, we universally use two orders for things: either alphabetically, or by series. These orders are quite good to sort things by because they are fairly intuitive and used across the majority of the games. By contrast, the Sakurai numbers are harder to use (e.g. it takes more effort to find a character because the subgroups are fewer and larger) and do not have any leniency within subgroups (e.g. with series sort, we could put Peach or Bowser first and there'd be enough precedent for either to make sense). Toomai Glittershine The Boss 10:00, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

Sorry for asking, but what is alphabetical on the wiki? Aside from the OPTION to do so with the tables, I can’t think of an example. I haven’t seen an example for not doing 64’s or Ultimate’s roster like how they do it other than inconsistency, or it’s not a problem the way it is. In the case for Ultimate, why would it be difficult to locate the characters if it matched the order? If anything, I think it makes it easier. After all, I’m looking for a CHARACTER and not a SERIES. Plus, the series are listed under them anyway. Aren’t people who DON’T play Smash a minority on here? 47.199.39.81 11:45, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

Thank you! SOMEBODY who’s at least considering it! 172.58.175.155 11:47, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

(Reset indent) Both this and this (and the template the latter is for) are alphabetical. As for your second point, if you're looking for a character, you likely know what series they're from, and it's easier to find a character within a series than finding a character in a roster - would you rather find a needle in a large haystack, or a collection of smaller haystacks while knowing which one had the needle in it? Aidan, the Rurouni 11:58, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

So you WERE referring to just having the option to list them. Only the Final Smash template do I see that it is “stuck” in alphabetical. If that’s really the case, why not just adjust the templates so it can be organized by name or series, or number in Ultimate’s case? I know I joined this discussion kind of late, and that idea may not work for the series introduction order. Although it may not work, it’s just a thought it’d figure I’d throw in. 47.199.39.81 12:08, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

Templates cannot be made into lists; those take up too much space. However, if you mean changing the other in general, then that would have to be proposed on the talk page for the template in question. Aidan, the Rurouni 00:08, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

So if I wanted to change 64’s order in addition to Ultimate’s, I have to propose it on 64’s character template? If that’s true, why was Toon allowed to change the order when we are discussing it on HERE when Toon didn’t discuss it on THERE? Does being an admin allow Toon to bypass the need for consensuses? That doesn’t seem right. 172.58.175.155 00:31, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

Administrators and anonymous users without an account are on different restriction levels you know. SupaToad64 23:53, June 25, 2019 (EDT)

If the order was already being discussed, it looks bad for someone to change something in relation before the discussion they were part of was over. Which the admins have have said before is against the rules, and the point of having discussions in the first place. It’s like if someone were to rewrite the rules without an agreement just because they didn’t like how someone used the rules against them. I am not making that assumption, but I think it would have been better to have waited until THIS discussion was over. If the wiki wanted the order to be by series, why not the one on Ultimate’s website? I see no reason to have it in the current order over the one on the site, or over their numbers. 172.58.173.51 00:12, June 26, 2019 (EDT)

Incorrect placement of several fighters

As far as I can gather:

The fighters on this table are ordered within their Smash-designated "universes" by fighter number, and said universes are ordered by the fighter number of the first fighter of that universe to join Smash (and then the universes are separated into first-party and third-party sections).

A few fighters on this table break this order. I briefly considered fixing them myself, but since this is such an important table I'd like to get confirmation first. First of all, Yoshi is listed right after the Mario fighters when, as fighter #5, he should be listed after Zero Suit Samus as the only playable fighter of his "universe" (always was strange to me that Smash disconnects him from Mario so hard, but I digress). Secondly, Capt. Falcon, as the first and only playable member of the F-Zero universe, should come after Ness and Lucas since his number is #11 and Ness' is #10. Finally, Dark Pit should be listed directly after Pit as #28ε, without Palutena, who is all the way down at #54, in between them. Again, can someone give me the go-ahead to fix these problems, or tell me why I'm wrong? Thanks. Sincerely, Samuel the Banjo-Kazooie Boss. 12:45, November 10, 2020 (EST)