Follow TV Tropes
Should we start making a page for various spirits? We already saw a few in the final Direct, and technically, they\'ll all eventually be fought.
Why is this page sub-divided by character reveals? I understand the necessity of breaking up huge pages, but why this way? The order in which they were revealed in pre-release publicity material lacks any sort of relevance once the game launches, and it\'s been years since the Directs or that year\'s E3 happened. Why divide it that way when a user reading the page in 2018 probably doesn\'t care, for example, whether the character was first revealed in a Nintendo Direct in 2014 or at that year\'s E3? Why not divide it as \"main roster, hidden characters, echo fighters, and DLC,\" then order any pages in those subdivisions alphabetically?
The pages got way too big when it was that way.
We spent a few weeks arguing about how to split up the character pages. Every method was bad, but some were worse than others.
Ultimately, numerical order made the most sense. The official numbering system is determined by the characters\' reveal dates. Characters tended to be revealed in batches of 4-6. Coincidentally, we needed to split up the character pages in batches of 4-6 characters.
Don\'t think of it as the pages are subdivided by character reveal. Think of it as \"The characters are subdivided into small sets, and the description next to it gives a hint as to which characters are where.\"
Do you think we should put the DLC fighters of Ultimate (Piranha Plant) in a page seperate from the base roster? Also, wasnt Dedede revealed in 2007?
I have an issue with some of the changes to this page. First, the pages for the games themselves are linked. It\'s not a bad idea on paper, but it affects the indexes at the bottom of the page. Every Smash game is now in the Smash Bros. character index, and anyone using the bottom index to go through the character pages will now have to go through the main pages. It might seem trivial when there\'s an index at the top, but I still think it would negatively affect the viewing experience for some people, and would like for those links to be removed. Finding the pages for each game is just a few clicks away from the main index anyways.
Second, the \"Characters by Game\" section originally included every newcomer and veteran from each game, but after the first version of the split, it was changed to just newcomers. That made sense at the time, because the page split made it unclear when characters were introduced. Now the pages have been changed again to make it clear who was added in which game, so I\'d suggest changing that section back.
Yeah, linking to work pages on a characters index is bad. I\'m gonna remove those links to games and put a commented out note not to add them again.
As for the \"Characters by Game\" section, it probably should be changed back. It would work better with the current character page format.
I noticed that some people have uploaded the alternate costumes from Ultimate on the character pages. I think we should remove the character artwork from past games from those pages in order to prevent the page from bloating up.
I\'d say the pages are now unlikely to get too long again anytime soon. Even Super Smash Bros 460 To 63, the longest, weighs only 260 KB. Plus, the images really don\'t contribute to page weight too much. The largest page mentioned earlier only got around 2 more KB thanks to Cloud\'s Advent Children costume and Bayonetta\'s first game style images. Neither the alternate costume images nor previous games images are problematic. I think it\'ll really only get bloated if the images get longer than trope lists, but that does not seem to be happening.
Though I don\'t think every single alternate costume should be used either. Only notable alternate costumes that distinctly change a character\'s appearance should be added.
The ones that are currently listed are distinct enough (and Mario\'s builder suit and wedding suit should be added, the hat and overalls are altered, so even if you looked at a silhoutte you\'d see the difference, and a few others could be added too), but stuff like normal palette swaps (like Mario\'s green and brown suit, it wouldn\'t alter the shape of his silhoutte), even if they\'re inspired by something obscure are not.
I\'m not sure I like this new ordering of characters. It\'s very arbitrary. I get that pages need to be under a certain size but can they at least be divided up by game (eg. Smash 64 characters 1, Smash 64 characters 2, and so on)? Maybe with Echos getting their own separate page if them throwing off the numbering is a concern.
Agreed, why was it split up this way? was there a discussion about it?
At least split the pages up by starters vs unlockables that way every game has two pages (or 3 if you do Starters, Unlockables, DLC)
i.e. there\'s no reason the first page should be 1-6. Make it 1-8.
Yeah this is ugh. Whoever did this needs to undo it.
Agreed. If the pages need to be split, then keep them split by game (i.e. SSB 64- Mario to Kirby, SSB 64- Fox to Jigglypuff).
@J Rads 47 That\'s how they were split. Charcters were listed in the game they debuted in (Though Smash 4 DLC was it\'s own page)
Yeah what happened? I didn\'t see any TRS on this.
I did this because the pages got too long. See this post and later posts. For the short version:
I\'ve run SSB character pages through a page size checker, and results were not positive. Almost all of them exceeded 400 KB, and Characters.Super Smash Bros For Nintendo 3 DS And Wii U exceeded 530 KB. TV Tropes pages tend to become a threat for the server if they are heavier than 500 KB, which is why they must be split. I posted in the too long pages thread with some ideas I thought could help, but none of the ones I had were really good. I asked someone with experience on editing SSB pages (Karxrida) to help me. He told me to split them by the official numbers. I thought that was a great idea, so I did that today, and now the pages turned out to be way shorter, having only around 225 KB on average. They hopefully won\'t get too long again.
I know this may not be perfect, but it really seems like it\'s the best way this could be done.
Ignore the above reply, I need to edit it, but a glitch prevents me from doing that. Updated version:
I did this because the pages got too long. See post 1657 and later posts in the too-long page repair thread (located in the Projects Long Term/Perpetual subforum). For the short version:
I\'ve run SSB character pages through a page size checker, and results were not positive. Almost all of them exceeded 400 KB, and Characters.Super Smash Bros For Nintendo 3 DS And Wii U exceeded 530 KB. TV Tropes pages tend to become a threat for the server if they are heavier than 500 KB, which is why they must be split. I posted in the too long pages thread with some ideas I thought could help, but none of the ones I had were really good. I asked someone with experience on editing SSB pages (Karxrida) to help me. He told me to split them by the official numbers. I thought that was a great idea, so I did that today, and now the pages turned out to be way shorter, having only around 225 KB on average. They hopefully won\'t get too long again. Acrobox then tried to give some ideas on how to split it later, which would possibly be better organised by each game, but none of them really seemed much better to me. I\'ll look into them more in about 5 hours, though.
I know this may not be perfect, but it really seems like it\'s the best way this could be done.
I mean, not \"today\", but \"yesterday\". Seriously, this bug is bad.
I haven\'t checked, but are they at least split with the series cutoff (i.e. ends with Jigglypuff with one, then begins with Peach on the other list) to show Super Smash Bros 64 and Super Smash Bros Melee separately?
There\'s a cutoff between 64 and Melee, but none between Brawl, For, or Ultimate. But I am thinking about a new split that may actually keep an optimal page length while keeping a cutoff. See , or post 1668 of the too long pages thread (located in the Projects Long Term/Perpetual subforum).
I really agree on this change, it should be what the character both starter and unlock able first appeared in the game.
Sorry I meant that I want the separate game pages back for the fighters that first appeared in that game in starter, unlockable and DLC rather than the numbers.
We should have them by official number but have the splits happen when the game changes. And if Echos throwing it off is a concern, we should given them their own page.
would have to agree that it\'d be better to split the pages by their starter/unlockable/DLC status, the current splits seem arbitrary
Definitely in agreement, here. Like, the original 8 would get a page to themselves, Luigi, Ness, Captain Falcon, and Jigglypuff would get one next, etc. Splitting them up into groups of three only seems like trying to fix an issue by creating a far worse one.
Wow, you really CAN\'T edit your own reply. Guess the update still has some bugs.
The original 8 would get a page to themselves, the first four unlockables would get another, and so forth. And the Echo Fighters debuting in Ultimate should probably get one to themselves, as well.
And if page length is an issue, might I suggest splitting pages up into at least two per part? Like, for example, if Melee\'s unlockable characters are too much, then maybe one half shows Dr. Mario, Pichu, Falco, Marth, and Young Link while another shows Ganondorf, Mewtwo, Roy, and Mr. Game & Watch. Just an example, really.
Point is, splitting them by number alone will only make it disorienting. I don\'t want to see Roy and G&W on the same page as Meta Knight, Pit, Zero Suit Samus, and Wario, is what I\'m saying. I would just like to see an accurate summary of which characters debuted in which game. That is all. None of this \"1-6, 7-12\" nonsense.
Yeah, I\'m not a fan of this whole split-by-number thing at all. At the very least, this should have been discussed first.
I ran something similar to SenorCornholio\'s suggestion by the \"Too Long\" cleanup thread and Piterpicher seemed to like it. If nobody objects it should go live in a couple days, just give him time. For those who don\'t want to follow the link, basically:
It should be, at the very least, much more manageable and readable than what we\'ve got now.
Jesus god this format blows, THIS is supposed to be the link. Dunno why that other bit is so ultra bolded.
The link still didn\'t work. My life is pain. Look- just, click it, then delete the first \"tvtropes.org\" in the URL.
Sounds good to me. As for Echos, I suggest we have Lucina and DP in their section at the top labbled SSB 4 Echos and then there\'s Ultimate Echos underneath
I dig it. As a side note, should the Echos be ordered by reveal or by number? I personally prefer the latter because that\'s how the official site presents them.
Honestly, putting Lucina and Dark Pit in the Echos page would leave SSB 4 with only two new unlockable characters: Bowser Jr. and Duck Hunt. It feels wrong leaving the two of them alone.
Sorry, I misread. I\'m, so far, agreeing with the direction this thread is going.
Mmm, let\'s see my take:
11 pages like we currently have, but at least it has some coherent cutoff points.
Seriously @Piterpicher , while the bug is important, what you did almost unilateraly is malapraxis incarnate. You took a single opinion before redoing the entire page set, and all that effort will account for nothing as it has to be reworked. Next time at least bother to take a look at how things work, or at least come to the discussion page of the thing you are trying to solve.
And @Karxrida , the one who suggested that way of splitting, this is akin to splitting the Pokemon character pages by number without paying attention to the generations they debuted. Come on, you can do better.
I see no reason to seggregate 3rd party characters into a different page. Snake and Sonic can go in Brawl\'s unlockables, Pac-Man and Mega Man within 4\'s starters, Ryu, Cloud and Bayonetta in 4\'s unlockables and DLC (thus no need to have the \"first party\" moniker), and the second Castlevanoa character (forgot the name) in Ultimate.
I don\'t see the need of seggregating Echos either. Only two debuted in 4 so they could go in 4 Unlockables and DLC (since both were secret). The rest can go in Ultimate.
Otherwise, great suggestion. Much better than the whole numbering thing, if you ask me.
I meant to say \"the two Castlevania characters in Ultimate (I was only thinking of the Echo at that moment, forgetting about Simon).
It\'s not really Karxrida\'s fault. He suggested the solution, but I think this all happened because of me because I\'ve did it wrong. But now I know to use the discussion page in the future and to not rely on just one person\'s opinion.
Anyway, there\'s also been plenty of discussion on the too-long page repair thread in the Projects Long Term/Perpetual subforum (can\'t link to it because of bugs). The debate parts start on post 1661 and continue to over post 1677 (it was after split, though). To sum it up:
In post 1663 Acrobox tried to say tried to give suggestions on splitting it either by category or by games like \"Game Name+Number\". I thought in post 1664 that I agree, but then in post 1665 Karxrida posted a rebuttal that numbers are better because they would keep a more consistent page size and they\'re clearer and more practical. While he would like grouping by game, he said it would be impractical due to the fluctuating roster sizes. I agreed in post 1666, saying that splitting by unlockables will barely reduce page size, especially on For\'s page which needed trimming the most.
In post 1667 Acrobox a new solution that would maintain game breaks. This one also was ordered by where the characters were introduced, like the first Brawl trailer. In post 1668 I asked about whether the page could still have numbers in the title, because I agreed splitting more thematically is a good idea, but I\'d prefer to keep the numbers in the page titles. In post 1669 he suggested splitting pages like \"Game Name+Number\". Ignore post 1670, it\'s irrelevant to the exact problem at hand.
In post 1671 I responded by saying that it doesn\'t seem like there are any other character pages that are \"Work Name+Number\", because TV Tropes uses more descriptive names, and it just wouldn\'t be consistent with our naming convention. I then gave my best shot at possible theme related titles.
In post 1672 Doc Sharp proposed a possibly even better solution that includes fighter numbers in the titles, saying that theme related titles are too long and would confuse people. To be continued in next discussion reply.
His solution was (also based on previous proposals):
Currently the Doc Sharp proposal from post 1672 appears to be uncontroversial and agreed upon by at least three other tropers. If any of you somehow have an even better idea than this, feel free to share it, but this currently seems to be the best proposal by far and it will probably be the split we\'ll ultimately settle this debate on.
And I admit I was hasty with my split. I now know to ask more than one person for agreement, possibly on the discussion page in a similar case. What I\'ve done was bad and it\'s not really Karxrida\'s fault, it\'s entirely on me. I\'ve done the split stupidly. With that in mind, I once again apologise. Sorry for any typos in my comments here, but I can\'t edit them out due to a bug. Thank you for reading these really long replies.
All is forgiven. We all make hasty decisions once in a while. Heck, it\'s my biggest overall flaw.
And the sorting order does make sense, though I have to wonder where that will leave Dark Pit and Lucina. Unless the Echoes page has headers that say \"debuted in 3DS/Wii U\" and \"debuted in Ultimate\". And even then, that is only counting the six Echo Fighters we are currently aware of. Presently, the only issue with the sorting is the concept of Echo Fighters being introduced long after the first two were in the roster.
Here\'s two proposals for layout for Characters.Super Smash Bros Echo Fighters I have:
Also, I\'m actually wondering whether titles like Characters.Super Smash Bros 1 To 4 shouldn\'t be like Characters.Super Smash Bros 01 To 04. The extra zeroes may seem unnecessary, but that\'s the official numbering system Sakurai used when numbering the characters and those are numbers the folders use. It seems like zeroes would be more proper, but what do others think? Should we put the extra zeroes in the title or not?
Finally, I wanted to say that I may not have enough time to split the list again on weekdays. Probably only on Saturdays on Sundays. I would prefer to come to a resolution by the day after tomorrow, but if not, I suppose I could do it a week later.
Ignore Layout 2. That\'s just awful. It should either be Layout 1, or it should be properly separated:
Debuted in Smash 4:
Debuted in Ultimate:
I personally prefer Layout 1.
Also, I agree with adding the extra zeroes.
I would prefer Unknown\'s layout (the whole point of this rework is to separate everybody by game, after all), but I have no objections to either.
Extra zeroes are a terrific idea.
Hmmm… Well, if the point of this rework is seperating everyone by game, Unknownlight\'s layout may work better. And I think I will add the extra zeroes. Anything else to discuss here?
I\'d like to do the rework tomorrow since there don\'t seem to be any major problems. Are others fine with that? If there\'s anything left to discuss, please say so, but if it\'s good to go, please say so too.
Just to recap the pages that will be made:
What is up with the apostrophes having a slash?
It\'s a weird glitch on discussion pages that causes apostrophes to have a slash. Don\'t know if it will be fixed.
So, is the rework good? I\'d like to know.
Can\'t we just drop the whole numbering nonsense? It only represents how they\'re listed in Ultimate. What was wrong about \"64 characters\", \"Melee characters\", \"Brawl characters\", etc.?
If it\'s really necessary to split the pages further, then sort it by \"64 originals\", \"Melee starters\", \"Melee unlockables\", \"Brawl starters\", etc. That was what Eriorguez suggested, and it\'s far less confusing. By having the name of the game in each subpage\'s title, we\'ll know from the get-go what characters are liested and troped there; why now do we have to memorize a bloated list-by-number?
To answer your question: No, the rework is not good.
Darn. I suppose it\'s not. Well, this debate really seems like a two side battle. The side that would like numbers thinks they\'re concise and the titles may be far too long and confusing, while the side that wants titles thinks that the numbers will be confusing while the titles will help know which games\' the characters come from immediately. I think we may never come to a conclusion with discussion… Then it\'s probably time to bring out the last resort.
What do you all say we make a crowner? I know they can\'t be hooked in discussion pages, but I could link to it in a new discussion. It would have three options:
The problem with separating strictly by Starting Roster and Unlockable is that it only works for Brawl, because it has an equal amount of starters and unlocks. The rest of the games are one sided in a way that overloads the pages again. We\'ll need to break them apart anyway. This idea only works if your answer was \"Super Smash Bros. 64 Starting Roster Page 1\" and \"Super Smash Bros. 64 Starting Roster Page 2\", which in my opinion is ugly as sin.
Also I feel I should have clarified something about my original set-up that would have made this cleaner. My original post had mini-headers separating them by game to make it easier to see who debuted where, i.e.:
If it\'s desired, we can put the concise titles to the right of the actual link for the heck of it, but as actual page names? That just isn\'t gonna work. Too clunky.
agreed. also we should wrap this up within the week before we have more fighters to deal with. Almost certainly going to be smash news in the delayed nintendo direct.
I like the second example of the Doc Sharp post directly above this one.
By the way, I want to apologize for sounding impatient in my latest post. I fully admit it was uncalled for. I simply believe that the numbers won\'t be of much help even when the hub character page specifies which characters are described there. When you look at your watchlist and see many of these named-by-number subpages, you have to open many tabs so you can see what\'s being edited in each of them. Conversely, if you want to edit something from a specific character, you better memorize their designated number or else it\'s going to Google Search to find the hub character page, go there and see where\'s your character.
On an admittedly off-topic note, if just four characters make up for a very klarge page, perhaps we should inspect if tropers are adding too much stuff that pertains to the characters themselves (as in, how they\'re described in their universes of origin) instead of stuff that truly pertains to their portrayal in this game. Is it necessary (this is just an example, by the way) to add tropes like The Hero, Trademark Favorite Food and Berserk Button to a character that displays those tropes in their games, but not in Smash?
Hmmmm... I\'ll wait for others to weigh in but the point about watchlists might be a deal breaker. I actually didn\'t even think of that, embarrassingly enough. We may need to use descriptive titles after all, despite my umbrage towards them. I\'ll see if I can make a decent draft for it, if it would please the thread.
For the latter note, I should mention that I considered putting the original 8 on one page, and the Unlockables on their own page. Then I realized that having 8 dudes on one page might still be too big, so I just cut it in half to be safe. The resulting pages won\'t be that big at all.
DocSharp\'s second method is the way I originally imagined this would work. I still think that\'s the best solution.
MyFinalEdit, I did a quick skim of a few pages, and there\'s a few things that could be cleaned up, but for the most part all character tropes apply to their appearance in Smash. The best you could do is cut out all the tropes that apply both to the original games and Smash (e.g. Robin has Badass Longcoat listed, which applies to Smash but isn\'t exclusive to it), but that\'s a hard rule to consistently enforce.
Additionally, all of these characters will continue to gain more tropes over time as new games are released, so there needs to be a buffer. If we don\'t split it into enough pages at the start then we\'re just kicking the problem down to when Ultimate releases and tropers start adding new stuff.
As for the watchlist issue, I\'m tempted to just call that an unfortunate sacrifice that has to be made in order to wrangle these pages together into something somewhat manageable. But it probably makes more sense to add the game titles to the pages:
I meant to have this in my previous post: a page titled something like \"Starting Roster, Second Half\" is a terrible name because it\'s even less descriptive than the numbers. Which characters are part of the first half compared to the second half? Who knows.
Alright… So it seems we won\'t be doing a crowner.
Well, I suppose Unknownlight\'s new layout may be the best way we could do it… But we should probably use 4\'s full name (Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U) and shouldn\'t \"Onward\" be \"Onwards\"? Basing this on Horrible.Video Game Generations Seventh Onwards. And will the Echo Fighters page still exist, Unknownlight didn\'t mention it?
Finally, in the You Tube video \"The NEW Date for the Delayed Nintendo Direct Uncovered?\" by Switch Force, they say that the new Direct\'s date will apparently be on 9/13. So I\'d like to come to a consensus on the layout by 9/11 (unfortunate date, I know) so I can have the time for page splitting. I will try my best to do as much of it as I can during that time.
I prefer the game titles on each page, but didn\'t want to hold up the process if it was going the other direction.
Unknownlights layout is the best option presented so far.
Yes to echo fighter page, since it also keeps the previous pages smaller, and can later be split itself. Again Unknownlights V2 is my preferred option presented so far:
One Echo Fighter page. On that page divide it as below:
also agree on going through and eliminating tropes and trivia that come from their home series if they aren\'t reflected in a meaningful way in their smash portrayal.
Arranging them by appearance in debut won\'t even affect the numbering anyway since it\'s how they are numbered to begin with. The only real placement \"problem\" are the echoes.
Yes to the Echo Fighters page and its layout, I think it works. Now, I\'ve asked once, I\'m gonna ask again. Does anyone else think 4 should use the full title For Nintendo 3DS and Wii U and should \"Onward\" be \"Onwards\", based on Horrible.Video Game Generations Seventh Onwards? I\'d be really grateful for an answer.
While I don\'t like the length of it, we probably should use the full title for consistency\'s sake. And yes, change it to \"Onwards\".
Absolutely there should be a separate Echo Fighter page.
Onward/Onwards doesn\'t make a difference. Use whatever. This page is only temporary until the release of Ultimate, then we change it to the proper numbers.
I personally prefer using Super Smash Bros. 4 rather than Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U. We already use fan nicknames when it\'s helpful—the title of the original game isn\'t actually Super Smash Bros. 64, after all. That said, I don\'t care enough about it to hold up the process.
Thanks for doing this crazy amount of work!
my vote is to use \'4\' since \'for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U\' is obnoxiously long, and both convey the same meaning.
You know what? I\'ll switch to a vote for \"4\", just so we can get this outta the way before the new character drops.
Supporting Unknownlight\'s proposed sorting. At least the names of the games are now specified alongside the numbers.
Alright then. Four people (including me) agree with the sorting, and two people want to get this done before the new character(s) drop(s). That\'s much more than the one person last time, and hopefully splitting will be relatively safe now.
I\'m gonna make these pages today:
The 64 and 4 subpage names will later have to be customized, since the numbers aren\'t separated.
[up] [up] That seems... kinda of an improvement. But my suggestion is that we place all the characters introduced from each individual game into one page instead of separating them.
(Example: Smash 64 had 12 characters introduced, so we should place those 12 in a single page.)
That\'s absolutely out of the question. The characters can\'t be on each game\'s page since the pages will get too long (and I don\'t mean \"I think it looks a bit too long to be comfortable to read\", I mean \"The server may get busted since it\'s so long\"). We\'re doing this split in the first place because the original pages, which had characters for one game each got too long.
So, the splitting began. What I\'ve done:
Thanks for all the work you put into making all the new pages! It looks great!
I notice that you didn\'t organize the pages in the main Characters.Super Smash Bros index by game and instead just put it in a linear list. I went ahead and fixed that, and I also tried to simplify the descriptions as much as I could.
Additionally, I put the Echo Fighters page under its own category so that we can easily make an \"Echo Fighters 2\" page in the future if necessary. It also just looks more balanced that way.
If you haven\'t already submitted custom title requests for the new pages, I can do that.
Ugh, visiting links in discussion is annoying due to the apostrophes.
Anyway yeah, the page looks clean. I\'ll probably add in a descriptor saying that they are arranged by debut which the numbers follow.
Minor complaint: Greninja was actually revealed before E3. Would it be better to categorize the first two Smash 4 pages as \"Pre-\" and \"Post-Smash Direct\" (when Greninja was revealed)?
Mii Fighters are what kick off the next break, I agree.
OK. The major work is over. Most links have been corrected, the upgraded navigational template has been added and each new page now has a short description.
Let\'s look at how heavy each page is, shall we? According to a page size checker:
The Tropper earlier today went to the \"Characters By Game\" section (the section below the one we\'ve been working on in this discussion) and deleted from each game\'s folders all the characters that weren\'t specifically introduced in that game.
This completely defeats the purpose of having two sections on the Character index. I personally think the edit should be reverted. Alternatively, the \"Characters By Game\" section should be deleted.
[up] Considering that characters that were first playable in 64 became mainstays for all other entries like others who joined the roster later on, why should that information be repeated in each folder? Especially if it’s more simple to only list the characters that were only introduced for each game?
The point of the second list was to show the complete list of characters that were included in that game, which also shows which characters were excluded that were in previous games. This applies to Ultimate too, as it will not have all of the Pokémon and Assist Trophies that have been in the series (I notice you didn\'t remove the duplicate assist characters, but I imagine that was an oversight).
Since the Characters By Category section is already separated by game, having a Characters By Game section is redundant if you only include the introduced characters. Thus, I think it should either be changed back to how it was or else be removed entirely.
The third alternative is that the Characters By Category section is deleted.
Why not just list characters that didn\'t return?
1.) The fuck is this new formatting?
2.) Why are we using 4? We\'re supposed to use official names unless we have a situation like 64 sharing its name with the whole series.
1.) The previous layout was a disaster. It was unorganized and confusing. We spent like a week working on something less haphazard and put it up after coming to an agreement.
2.) Consensus was that using the full name was obnoxiously long. There probably would have been a proper debate over it if it wasn\'t for the possibility that the Nintendo Direct would contain a new fighter, which would cause a little too much chaos for us to launch the rework in a reasonable timeframe. We decided to pull the trigger before Isabelle\'s trailer dropped. Still, since we\'re talking about it again, I do agree we should probably change it.
The more I look at it, the more I think the \"Characters By Category\" category on the main index should be cut. Just keep the \"Characters By Game\" section, which is far more straightforward.
The character pages themselves are fine.
Tropers.Senior Cornholio added character artwork for previous games on their profiles. Is that allowed?
No one seems to have changed it. If anyone says they disagree with the decisions, I\'ll gladly fix it.
Honestly, though, if anyone could come up with a collage of all of the games\' official models in one image, that would be great.
I'm currently working on a page for stage-specific tropes that can be viewed here. While stages aren't technically characters, many of them return from existing games like the assist characters do; if it needs to be relocated to a different namespace, please let me know.
I'm afraid such a page won't fly. Like you said yourself, Character tabs are for characters. Tropes specific to stages should be placed instead on the mainline trope pages (sorted alphabetically).
I'm just curious, would it work if we made a page on the main namespace just for stage-specific tropes?
I'll move what I was going with over to here.
You should ask in the main Smash article's discussion page first, but I don't guarantee an agreement on the other tropers' part. Like I said above, I would simply list stage-based tropes alongside the regular tropes from the mainline, non-character subpages if I were you.
This is a minor thing, but I'd appreciate it if the order for the fighters in Smash Bros Ultimate was "Inkling, Daisy, Ridley" instead of "Inkling Ridley, Daisy" since the former is actually what order they were introduced. They talked about Daisy first before moving on to Ridley's debut trailer.
What's the order that their trailers were shown? It seems like we should go with that, since it's the "official" announcement of them.
Gotta say, I'm very entertained by the fact the order for the new fighters is Inkling, Daisy, Ridley.
Shouldn't we merge the Ridley 'as a playable character' and the Ridley 'as a boss' character tropes?
Would anyone be opposed if I added fighters' artwork from previous games as notes?
ETA: Never mind this, misread the OP
Apparently we could have two new fighters on the way, since files for both Roy (the one from Fire Emblem, not a de-alted Roy Koopa :p), a veteran, and Ryu, the main character of Street Fighter, a newcomer; both of which have files added in the latest patch; a victory theme for Roy (makes sense, since Fire Emblem already has a stage in both versions) and both a victory theme and a possible stage theme for Ryu.
So should we add to the appropriate pages or wait for an official confirmation before doing anything?
Wait for confirmation. But fascinating. Genuinely fascinating.
I still don't get why Fox, Falco, Sheik, and Meta Knight have to be classified as Lightning Bruiser. Their playstyles revolve around rushing the opponent with tons of weak strikes instead of the strong strikes of Bowser and Falcon.
Also, are we really supposed to not reference the competitive scene at all?
I noticed that in Marth's folder his taunt was translated into "Everyone, look at me!" However, I've also heard some say that the original Japanese could be translated into several different ways and that a more fitting translation would probably be "Everyone, watch over me!"
Any thoughts on this?
Everywhere I've seen they have translated as the Attention Whore version. I don't know Japanese, so I can't say if that other interpretation is true, but it would make sense if it is.
My Japanese is a bit rusty but I've always thought he was saying "Everyone, watch over me!" as well. I suppose it would make his words more in-character than the Attention Whore version.
Can someone add a page titled "Super Smash Bros. Poké Ball Pokémon" or something like that? I don't know how to make it so the accents appear over the e's on the page title.
Adding accents is what you use a Custom Title for.
Okay, I made the page, and requested the Custom Title.
Ahhhh Guyss I thinks confirmed somethings about Nana and Popo, they are not sibling by this development blogs from 2001 of Sakurai, —here is◊. I don't this true o not, but this give another new glance about Ice Climbings
That's becoming Nana and Popo literally Childhood Friends, Like Brother and Sister and/or Platonic Life-Partners ???
Should we organize these pages' in alphabetical order? From the looks of it, all of them save for 4's are just thrown in at random. It makes navigating them more confusing than what it should be.
You could argue to put them in order of reveal, but that would make no sense to anyone unfamiliar with that order, which would be just about everyone in the long run.
I'd prefer the order they show up from left to right on the website. Especially for 4. It makes more sense that way. Order of Reveal is very logical as well.
When I mean left to right(for Hidden characters, same). It'd be, like in the first game, Mario, Donkey Kong, Link, Samus, Yoshi, Kirby, Fox, Pikachu(then Hidden), Luigi, Falcon, Ness, Jigglypuff.
Melee can work the same, and so does Brawl. For 4, we could wait for now, and just go with order of Reveal. Even if we do alphabetical, Hidden characters should go after regardless, imo.
The thing is that the left-to-right order would only be clear for the original game; in the following games you'd have to skip a lot of characters that are already featured in other pages, which at first glance would just look random.
And like I said, putting them in order of reveal only makes sense to only those familiar with that order and only while the game is in development. It's kind of like the problem that Examples Are Not Recent covers; these pages are meant to stay here long after the game is released, and anyone in the future that looks at a page that was organized by order of reveal will just see characters thrown in at random.
And I agree with keeping hidden characters separated from the others if the order is changed.
It's just as easy in Melee/Brawl. Just takes some research. Does anybody even remember the reveal of Brawl's characters? If not, it doesn't help.
Reveal is a good to do it for 4 until the actual roster picture is released.
But I see what you're getting at too. Yeah, Alphabetical Normals, than Alphabetical Unlockables. I'm for that.
For 4, why don't we wait and just show it in order of reveal for now. It's so we don't have to move anything right away and can just add to the end of it temporarily. Or leave a commented out note that "Please add any new entries in Alphabetical order". Either way.
I like it how it is, left to right then secret characters, or in the case of not yet released games, order of reveal seems fine for now and then, maybe, left to right again after release. The problem with alphabetical order is that they are not organized that way in the games themselves.
The page will be big enough soon. Should this page be splitted in three other pages? Such as Characters/SuperSmashBros64 (with the characters which debuted in that game) Characters/SuperSmashBrosMelee (same) and Characters/SuperSmashBrosBrawl (same)
It already has.
Would it be worthwhile/prudent to make a character page for the available Assist Trophies, too? They're limited in number and unique enough.
I see people throwing the words "Lightning Bruiser" around everywhere. The definition for "Lightning Bruiser" states that the character must have high offense, defense, and speed. And since weight in this game equates to defense, Fox, Sheik, and Meta Knight should not have that classification, since they all are low on the weight chart.
Defense refers to how well one can handle an opponent's attacks. A smash attack being able to send opponents flying at earlier percentages does reduce overall defense does not make it poor. Take Fox's Reflector, for example.
On R.O.B.'s Description, it says that he was the 'Metafictional' saviour of the NES and possibly the great video game crash of 1983. How? Didn't R.O.B. flop because he wasn't a good peripheral or something?
Not exactly. R.O.B. might've been a crap peripheral, but from what I've read the sheer "HOLY CRAP IT COMES WITH A ROBOT!" effect legitimately drove up sales when the NES was first released.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?