Talk:Super Smash Bros. Ultimate

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mhconte. Peer reviewers: Dcorso1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Should playable characters be it's own section?

The gameplay section is already big as it is, and given the fact that there's a link to another article about playable characters, I think splitting it would make the article a tad better. ShalomSir (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• It's a part of the gameplay, is it not? Or am I misunderstanding this request? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • While it is part of the gameplay, i just feel that it could be it's own section. ShalomSir (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It's perfectly fine where it's at currently, in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • At this point, there's no reason to split it off, it would be too short. If Nintendo ends up pushing 10+ DLC characters, maybe then, but right now we have 5 + 1 affirmed one coming, that doesn't need a separate section. --Masem (t) 00:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Alright then, I guess we'll just wait and see.ShalomSir (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Grinch Leak

Hello fellow lads, lasses, and everything in between. I'd like to ask if whether we should add the the "Grinch leak" somewhere in the article. In case you don't know, in a nutshell the leak was some french guy supposedly leaking Smash characters prior to the release of the game. It gained traction from the fact that the "leak" had never before seen Grinch promotional material, and along with many coincidences had the fandom in a war to see if it was true or not. Obviously, we know it wasn't real, but the buzz around it was. So I'm asking if we should add it to some part of the article. I've already found some sources, but i want to get some opinions on the matter. ShalomSir (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think so. It's not long lasting like the Sheng Long and Luigi in Mario 64 hoaxes, which many people believed (despite the fact they were obviously fake) and they both went on to influence their respective series. JOEBRO64 17:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

100% oppose. Every Smash game gets tons of fake leaks leading up to release, so why mention this one and not the others? Even if it's sourced, these leaks changed nothing about the game's development and legacy, and thus has no historical purpose for being mentioned in the article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Also opposed. It was fake, and there’s just so many more important things to cover in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Oke dokey, thanks for the input. I appreciate that. ShalomSir (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Note about Terry

Should we add to terry that his parent company's copyright was leaked by Nintendo earlier before his reveal? ShalomSir (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No, not really, he’ll be out soon enough, and it won’t really matter. We don’t need to cover every little thing the Nintendo fansites point out... Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Alright, got it. ShalomSir (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

To add, that fact brings no historical significance to the game's history and legacy. Imagine yourself reading about this game in 5-10 years, would the copyright thing even be remembered? Can you recall every single leak, both real and fake, from Smash 4 and Brawl? And even if you do, are they still relevant today? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead image

The Manual of Style recommends that lead images should ideally be a "representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." I'm not sure how a logo can give readers an idea of what the game is, especially if they're not familiar with the subject. The artwork used for the game's packaging does a far better job since it better illustrates to readers that this is a crossover fighting game – a number of the game's most famous and recognisable characters are displayed for the reader as well. A simple display of the game's logo simply cannot do that for a reader. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and actually edit conflicted on reverting the change at the same time you did. Cover art is almost always used as the infobox image, and I have no idea how one would argue how an all-text logo somehow better serves the reader in this case. Sergecross73 msg me 05:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: People have argued in the past that if a free-use logo exists, it should be used in preference over non-free media, though this completely ignores both the interests of the reader and the role and purpose of a lead image. I have yet to see a decent argument as to why a basic logo would be better than official artwork that adequately illustrates the subject for reader, and I sincerely invite other editors who disagree with our viewpoint to at least try to present one... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Other wiki's may have more limited use in non-free images, but en.wiki has allowed for cover art under NFCC#1 on the simpliest premise that it helps with implicit branding, but even the case of SSBU, the shear number of characters and cross-franchises in the game is well-demonstrated by the cover article, making a free logo not an equivalent free replacement that NFCC#1 would otherwise suggest. Talking about the SSB series in general? Yes, the logo is fine, since no single cover works to represent the series. --Masem (t) 06:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the usage of the game's cover art over the usage of a logo. Like you said, it represents the game far better and Template:Infobox video game also states "The ideal image is an English-language cover (...). Secondarily, use a logo (...).". Since there is cover art for this game available, I see no reason to use the logo of the game. Stefvanschie (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Number of playable characters.

Why are fighters like the Ice Climbers (Popo and Nana) and Rosalina and Luma all counted as individual playable characters instead of 1? Luma isn’t an entirely separate fighter that has their own dedicated slot on the character select screen who you can choose to play solo as, Luma is with Rosalina, and they are always together and they are a single fighter. Luma is just one piece that belongs to a singular fighter under the name “Rosalina and Luma” just like the Phantom in Zelda’s Down-b is just one piece of a singular fighter under the name “Zelda”. They aren’t separate playable characters. The official Super Smash Bros. Ultimate website lists the amount of fighters currently in the game (as of the release of Byleth) at 75. This article should reflect that. I suggest changing the wording from “playable characters” to “playable fighters” to help clear up confusion, as well as changing the number “over 80” to “75”, and to change that number as the next 6 challenger packs release. YeetZmeN (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I took a look back in the editing history, and back in April, someone added a bunch of unnecessary trivia to Note C. I've reverted the note back before the change. Also, you're forgetting that Echo Fighters share numbers. That is 76 fighters (counting Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard separately), plus 6 DLC, for a total of 82 thus far. As for "over 80", since it's in the lead section, a more general descriptor is fine. Maybe once the final DLC is released, we can consider changing it to an exact number. Wani (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn’t notice that Echo Fighters share numbers with the fighter they’re an echo of. That’s fair then. I still don’t personally agree with Squirtle, Ivysaur and Charizard being counted separately because they are all still technically 1 fighter (Pokémon Trainer). I’m gonna use an attack to help me justify why the trio of Pokémon should be counted as one fighter. For my justification I’ll use Side-B. Pokémon Trainer has 3 different Side-Bs, one for each Pokémon. But just because these Side-Bs are Pokémon-exclusive, doesn’t mean they’re associated with different fighters. Each Side-B is still associated with Pokémon Trainer, or at least different parts of Pokémon Trainer, but still Pokémon Trainer. Each and every single one of the Pokémon’s moves are, in the end, associated with one singular fighter, Pokémon Trainer. That’s one of my justifications for Squirtle, Ivysaur and Charizard not being counted separately in the total fighter count. I think that it should just be “Pokémon Trainer” and counted as 1 fighter. YeetZmeN (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

They are all while

They are all really different characters if you check the move list of they were One fighter they would be on the same page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.35.223 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 #metoo meltdown

The situation described here seems relevant to the article: https://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/hjfv0y/summary_of_sexual_and_nonsexual_allegations/ I would be willing to work on coverage but am a gaming outsider and would likely miss something obvious. Tim Bray (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Reddit’s not a usable source on Wikipedia per WP:USERG. While I have seen some reliable sources cover, I can’t see this getting anything other than a short passing mention. The article is about the game itself, not the gamers who play it and get themselves in trouble over their questionable personal lives. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The issues of what happened with #MeToo and EVO are covered in 2020 in video games, sexism in video games and the EVO articles, and I do not think that any of that applies to SSBU at all at this point even if there are some fallout of that affecting the SSBU community. As Sergecross says, we'd need RS to even start that, and if it is just a few players caught up in the larger problem, I'd not drag that into this article. --Masem (t) 04:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

New DLC character

Hi, I was skimming the DLC area, and I didn't see the newly added Min Min from ARMS, as part of Fighters Pass 2? I'd like it if she was mentioned in that segment, as it seems all the other DLC characters are mentioned. Thanks!2600:387:1:805:0:0:0:AC (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Very last line of the section called "Playable characters", she's there. --Masem (t) 00:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

oh sorry about that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:1:805:0:0:0:AC (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request: Minecraft Steve twitter crash

Five news articles are reporting that Minecraft Steve being revealed for Smash Ultimate has caused Twitter servers to crash temporarily. I suck at editing though. Here are the sources, make the entry something like this

"On October 1st, Nintendo revealed that Steve from Minecraft would be playable as DLC in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, the following reception caused Twitter server issues."

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/twitter-crashes-and-reacts-to-super-smash-bros-ultimates-minecraft-steve-reveal/1100-6482817/

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/minecraft-super-smash-bros-ultimate-reveal-causes-twitter-to-crash/

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2020/10/super-smash-bros-ultimate-minecraft-steve-reaction

https://screenrant.com/super-smash-bros-ultimate-minecraft-dlc-crash-twitter/

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/twitter-crashes-and-reacts-to-super-smash-bros-ultimates-minecraft-steve-reveal/1100-6482817/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1107:8A76:55E:1BC4:366C:3966 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a extremely trivial bit of infomation and not encyclopedically relevant. This will not be added. --Masem (t) 19:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. This may seem interesting today, but it’s not really notable in the overall context of this massive, multi year development history of a game with 80+ characters, let alone the game itself. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I know this is rather late but it does seem notable enough for a mention if you consider that the game and character are culturally significant enough to be the (probable) cause of one of the most used websites in the world momentarily crashing, something that rarely occurs even with events widely considered to be historically significant.DogsRNice (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it? Servers crash all the time or at least experience heavy load under any sort of breaking news, especially when they feature popular topics. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is the sixth installment

Hi. I am new to threads on Wikipedia so bear with me.

In the Wikipedia article for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, it states in the second sentence: "It is the fifth installment in the Super Smash Bros. series, ..." This is incorrect. Most people believe it is correct because the Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U games have many similarities and were both unofficially referred to by most fans as "Smash 4".

In a 2013 Kotaku interview with the director of the Super Smash Bros. series, Masahiro Sakurai, Mr. Sakurai mentions "versions four and five in the series". When asked if he means four and five as 3DS and Wii U and if they are separate, Sakurai says: "Yeah, exactly." The interview goes on more to explain the versions' differences and more about Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U.

This means that the director of the series officially considers Super Smash Bros. Ultimate as version six within the series.

You can find the link to Kotaku's interview here. The part I am referring to is right after the "Mega Man Joins the Battle!" picture.

With this, I would appreciate it if the Wikipedia article was updated to mention it is the sixth installment, and not the fifth installment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irebunxy (talk • contribs) 23:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This isn't new information, we've known about the interview for a long time (it's from 2013 after all). But reliable sources consider them to be the same entry on two platforms, and reliable sourcing is what Wikipedia is built on. That's why we treat them as a single topic. -- ferret (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

What? The games didn't even release at the same time. Regardless of any "dubious source", it is, by definition, the sixth installment in the franchise, regardless of whether you consider it the fifth generation, which is out of scope. -- (User talk:2601:6C0:8200:5C20:CDB6:5D9A:EE37:6FB4) 00:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C0:8280:10D0:5193:C9F9:3AE8:EA78 (talk)

We don't go "By definition". We go by what reliable sources say. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, this is inherently contradictory. Columns (published by Sakurai) in the Japanese Famitsu magazine can be found here . It is directly stated in column 465 that 3DS and Wii U are separate entries in the series; "They are already the fourth and fifth works" (すでに4作目と５作目であり）. Separately, an interview with Bill Trinen is below - . 'We don't go by definition." is a statement that contradicts Wikipedia's responsibility to deliver accurate information. While 3DS/Wii U were part of the same project ("Smash Bros. for", also referred to as Cross/CRS internally), please understand that this is separate from being the "same installment". If this direct source is insufficient, the following line "It is the fifth installment in the Super Smash Bros. series (sixth if the previous two versions are counted separately)" would serve any interest. With this said, I am not aware of any "reliable sources" that have considered them the same entry, and there has been evidence supporting the contrary for years. 2601:6C0:8280:10D0:5193:C9F9:3AE8:EA78 (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Blaze probably could have articulated that a bit better. It would be more accurate to say that we don't necessarily go by first party accounts. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Yes, Sakurai said that, but the massive amount of overlap in content and close timeframe of release of 3DS and Wii U versions usually have them considered a single entry by secondary sources. Sergecross73 msg me 12:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Prominent reliable sources like USGamer and Polygon mention it, for example. Overall, I'd argue it doesn't really matter much either way. Most sources, including Nintendo own retail listing don't mention it all. It's a fighting game, not some sort of multi-entry story heavy game where "being cannon or not" matters or something. Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the overlap in content, it is ingenuine to state that they are, in fact, the same installment. As mentioned in the Wikipedia style guide, primary sources are avoided due to the possibility of overreliance and misinterpretation. There is frankly minimal room for misinterpretation here, and there is no allegation to be made. By using a derivative of my example sentence in my last comment, I believe the best course of action is to acknowledge or clarify that while they are among the same generation Smash titles [due to releasing close to each other/sharing content], they are not the same installment, which can be erroneously interpreted as being the "same game". I primarily take issue with the fact that it is verifiably untrue, yet published on Wikipedia. Please review the third entry in WP:PRIMARY; the example given is nearly synonymous to this situation itself. A non-primary source cannot weigh in on whether 3DS/Wii U were published as separate entities; only the publisher has that ability. A popular misinterpretation isn't inherently correct just because people agree about it. For example, many of these same sites refer to the Nintendo Switch as a ninth generation console, despite being documented an eighth-gen on Wikipedia. The erroneous common opinion has no bearing on the original fact, and the same applies here. 2601:6C0:8280:10D0:5193:C9F9:3AE8:EA78 (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of PRIMARY, I'm the one who just cited it. But the whole point of PRIMARY is to avoid the use of self-serving first party accounts. Nintendo wants you to to buy more products, and the best way to do that is to label them as two separate and essential things to be bought. Though again, I think you missed the second half of my point that this whole things is totally inconsequential and navel gazing to the highest degree. It's best to focus on more constructive things. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of an opinion, it's verifiably inaccurate to consider them the same installment, which can be wrongfully interpreted as "the same game". With all due respect, all we are asking for is a clarification. Even a sentence like "...the fifth installment in the Super Smash Bros. series (when 3DS/Wii U are collectively considered the fourth installment)" is significantly better than the concrete claim the article has in place. Aiming for accuracy is not navel gazing in any form. There is no benefit to us by changing the word "fifth" to "sixth". It is certainly not unanimously agreed upon by the general public that the game is or isn't the fifth of sixth entry, and the game is referred to as both regularly. If it is an inconsequential change, then it needn't be met with contention of this degree. I am aware you know of WP:PRIMARY; I just wanted to call attention to the third point specifically. "For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label" is similar to the current discussion. "Nintendo just wants you to buy more products" is not relevant to the correct classification of its intellectual property. 2601:6C0:8280:10D0:1C7E:4FEE:253A:BC00 (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

References

The #BanSteve movement

A while ago, after a Japanese player who goes by "あcola" (sometimes "acola") won the Gimvitational in Ultimate playing Steve, the #BanSteve (and #BanKazuya, although to a lesser extent) movement began, with people participating in it trying to get Steve banned from Ultimate tournament play. Many top players talked about it, and controversy began surrounding Steve. If legit sources were found for this, would it be notable enough to include in this article?

Thanks, SpiderBreadIRL (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have a reliable news outlet on the topic, such as Polygon. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably not. With so much to be said about this extremely popular game, it seems unlikely that fanbase banter like this is going to be worthy of inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 03:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a Super Smash Bros. in esports article though. Might be able to rationalize a mention there if reliable sources cover it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. And I can see why such a movement would exist. I've played against Steve myself. *insert flashbacks here* It did not go well. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

He is kinda nasty, although, he's really hard to play well from my experience.

Thanks to everyone who replied, I'm gonna try to get sources other than my countless hours on Twitter to add it to the Super Smash Bros. in esports article. SpiderBreadIRL (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Addition of the story of World Of Light

Similar to Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Ultimate has a story mode. I feel that we have to mention the story (Currently it only mentions the gameplay.) Wikibrowser30 (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

There's really not much to say though, is there? Isn't it more or less "Bad guys seals almost everyone away, player saves them by fighting lots of battles"? It's not like its worth writing out "And then Kirby saves Luigi. And then they save Link. And then they..." etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"Super Smash Bros. 6" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Super Smash Bros. 6 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 2 § Super Smash Bros. 6 until a consensus is reached. Mia Mahey (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"SSB6" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect SSB6 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 18 § SSB6 until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

"SSB 6" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect SSB 6 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 18 § SSB 6 until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)