User talk:Flippy

Hi there!

Welcome!

Welcome to our wiki, and thank you for your contributions! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.

Read this first as it provides many great resources designed to help users get oriented with the wiki and become part of the community.

Visit the recent changes to see what other people are editing right this minute, and where you can help.

Questions? You can ask at the help desk or on the "discussion" page associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page!

Need help? The community portal has an outline of the site, and pages to help you learn how to edit.

I'm really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you!

Mario Maniac 13:50, August 6, 2026 (UTC)

Edits

Why are nearly all your edits dedicated toward trimming out information? Conker the Squirrel (talk) 19:26, August 20, 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not going to edit war, but I think it's poor form and not exactly in good faith that after I offered feedback on a question of yours, you proceeded to go through many of my edits in short succession and undo them. If you disagree, that's fine, I'm open to discussion and certainly would be happy to under the right circumstances, but I would appreciate if you discussed this first instead of immediately escalating. Secondly, my edits are mainly to bring pages inline with SmashWiki:What SmashWiki is not and SmashWiki:Trivia as many of them have become cluttered otherwise in the opposite direction. In particular there are many tangents on pages that are not particularly Smash-relevant, patently-obvious or listed elsewhere, or trivia that is excessively over-qualified, hyperspecific, or too common to be noteworthy. Also, frankly, a lot of it is just not well-written and could stand to be cleaned up and get to the point more concisely. "More" information is not strictly better if said information is not particularly informative for the wiki's scope and makes it more difficult to read/access important information on pages. --Flippy (talk) 19:48, August 20, 2026 (UTC)

My point is that you registered this month and almost all of your edits have been trimming information in some form. Also, instead of removing info unless it very clearly isn't Smash-related, I suggest reorganize it. Conker the Squirrel (talk) 19:51, August 20, 2026 (UTC)

In many cases I am simply rephrasing or reorganizing information, or the information was already on the page. I am a longtime reader of the site and joined because many articles could use cleanup, and some of them even were categorized as such. If you think a particular trivia note is worth still having, then feel free to edit it back in where you feel it belongs, or bring it up for discussion. I wish to assume good faith but the fact that you are blanket undoing all of my edits even beyond this conversation, singling them out and thus causing even factual edits to be reverted (e.g. correcting/clarifying the origin of HAL's name) is making it very difficult to. --Flippy (talk) 19:58, August 20, 2026 (UTC)

Then let's see what a staff member has to say. I'm just concerned about a lot of content that people worked hard on being removed. If you see some of my edits, I only did a partial revert in a few cases where you did improve how something looked beforehand. Also, as for the category, I haven't seen you actually remove trivia on pages that were marked with that task then you marking it off. You're removing too much information, a lot of which went unexplained. Conker the Squirrel (talk) 20:00, August 20, 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so I didn't revert all information because some of the edits were improvement, but there was a lot of lazy removals. I also noted this on Cloud's article. Conker the Squirrel (talk) 20:27, August 20, 2026 (UTC)

Dude. Whether you agree or not, the fact that you disagreeing with me on a separate discussion page led to you immediately going through almost every single one of my edits and undoing them without any discussion is not cool. I don't exactly think staff will be happy about that. --Flippy (talk) 20:31, August 20, 2026 (UTC)

No, I noticed you simplified Event 25: Gargantuans then I noticed a lot of information was deleted across several articles. Regardless of the discussion, I would've reverted a lot of that info removal. Conker the Squirrel (talk) 20:34, August 20, 2026 (UTC)

"My point is that you registered this month and almost all of your edits have been trimming information in some form."

Not every user needs to start out doing major things. In fact, it's practically recommended to start out small and work your way up, because that allows you to get familiar with the basics of editing (both in terms of us specifically and in general) before you try to do something that would require a lot of effort and could potentially be messed up.

"I'm just concerned about a lot of content that people worked hard on being removed."

This wiki is a collaborative project between tens of thousands of users. No user owns what they put up, and no page is "finished" once it's uploaded. It certainly is frustrating to complete an edit that required a lot of effort and then have it all go to waste (believe me, I know the feeling), but such is the way a wiki like this works.

"[...]the fact that you disagreeing with me on a separate discussion page led to you immediately going through almost every single one of my edits and undoing them without any discussion is not cool."

"No, I noticed you simplified Event 25: Gargantuans then I noticed a lot of information was deleted across several articles."

This edit was made two days before that discussion, whereas this conversation started only a few hours after that same discussion. I'm not going to say I necessarily believe one side or the other, but I am going to put out a general reminder to assume good faith in our fellow editors and not get so confrontational unless someone is actually doing something wrong, like breaking a rule. Aidan the Gamer 16:39, August 21, 2026 (UTC)

No worries, that's why I only undid the things that I thought may have removed valid info. Conker the Squirrel (talk) 16:56, August 21, 2026 (UTC)

This edit on "Unused content (SSB)"

Hi, just want to make a few clarifications about the edit I linked in the header.

First off, when I was making my edit, I was specifically referring to the fan question asking about playable villains per this Source Gaming page. I was already aware that the poll results page mentioned the three cut characters, but I wasn't actually referring to that because it doesn't make any direct mention of the concept of playable villains.

Second, I am also aware of Mewtwo appearing in Event 51 and its Melee appearance basing it off its depiction on Mewtwo Strikes Back, but to be honest, I feel the only reason it was even in that event match in the first place is because, aside from Bowser and Ganondorf, there really weren't any playable villains in Melee's roster to begin with (not to mention it has a change of heart towards the end of Mewtwo Strikes Back and even returns as an ally in Mewtwo Returns and subsequent appearances in the anime with very little antagonistic traits, further putting its status as a true villain into question; although I will admit I'm mostly basing this info off of Bulbapedia, so do point out if I'm misinterpreting something).

It's also worth noting that Smash fighters tend to be treated as a general representation of the character rather than being strictly based on one specific incarnation/depiction (e.g. several biographies and trophy descriptions treat Link as an amalgamation of the various different Links instead of only treating him as the specific incarnation his Smash depiction is modeled after); while Smash Mewtwo does take a lot of cues from MSB, I think it's best to treat it (and all Pokémon, really) as a general representation of the "species" across all media, especially when its return in Smash 4 added in elements from Genesect and the Legend Awakened (which features a completely different Mewtwo) into the mix.

This has been my TED Talk. 🧥The Jacketed Terrapin🐢 02:01, September 19, 2026 (UTC)

It's all good, and apologies, I wasn't intending to debate. I was attempting to clarify the original reason for the edit but I understand looking at it that it must have come off otherwise, I'm genuinely thankful for the formatting tweaks because going through so much text and trying to figure out how to weave together multiple sources in a way that flows logically and linguistically is prime brainfry material. To me it's not something that's too important to fight for and it's more important to make sure the information is accurate and well-reconciled.

That being said what I will say is I don't think it's inaccurate to say Smash, especially Melee, leans into generally providing Mewtwo an antagonistic role. "Antagonist" is just a type of role, it doesn't strictly mean "evil"; he was a tragic villain who was redeemed in TFM, but objectively an antagonist nonetheless. Beyond that he was functionally a "secret final boss" in Red/Green, so him having been one wasn't an unfounded portrayal; I'd argue that was what played a big part in colouring his general perception. It might even be more precise to say he's treated as a "boss character" in Smash, which would reflect his original role in the games and his equivalency to Bowser and Ganon; Sakurai has frequently been on record that his and fans' perception of characters, and remaining true to how they were originally established in Smash itself, is something the series tries to balance with more literal faithfulness to their home series. I think it's all kind of semantic, but what I had been trying to say is that two things can be true - he may not canonically be a literal villain, but he is certainly portrayed and perceived as one and fills that role within the series. It's expressly the fact that Smash is non-canon and ultimately uses its own interpretations according to what best suits the game, that it is possible for these to both be true. But I really don't feel so strongly about this that there's a push to insist on it, I'm more trying to explain why I settled on the phrasing that I did. --Flippy (talk) 17:47, September 19, 2026 (UTC)

If I may add: regardless of whether or not Mewtwo should be considered a villain, it does seem likely that they were considered one for the purposes of their (scrapped) inclusion in SSB64. Given all of Sakurai's comments, it seems likely that there were plans for a group of 'villain' playable characters that failed to be realized in the final game, comprised of Bowser, Dedede, and Mewtwo. Which is obviously speculation on my part, though it does seem to line up with what we know about SSB64's development. Ironically enough, I think Bowser is the only one in that group who would count a villain, as even Dedede's been portrayed more positively as far back as Kirby's Adventure. So it's probably more reasonable to consider the trio's connection as more to do with their roles as antagonists more than anything, which Mewtwo and the others would almost certainly qualify as. ~LJorSomething 00:14, September 20, 2026 (UTC)

This is more or less what I was trying to say in my original writeup and how I interpret the likely original intention as being. To be honest, I think part of the issue is that "villain" is seen as kind of a loaded term, but Sakurai's exact word choice was 悪役 (akuyaku) which really just means "antagonist" in general. You're bang-on about Dedede; he's even less of a "villain" than Mewtwo is in the grand scheme of things, and he's actually the other reason why I tried to phrase my dot-connection between statements carefully. But I think it's a pretty consistent set of dots to connect between not only the statements we have, but how those three characters are treated in Smash and the fact that all three characters were tellingly grouped together. --Flippy (talk) 02:10, September 20, 2026 (UTC)

Interwiki linking

{{iw}} is preferred over {{s}} for interwiki linking. You can still use the latter for interwiki linking if you want to, though. Mario Maniac 00:04, October 13, 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, to be honest I see both when I edit and sometimes I just honestly can't remember which is the one we're supposed to use. Sometimes I just habitually defer to whatever's already on the page. I'll try to stick with iw going forth. --Flippy (talk) 00:08, October 13, 2026 (UTC)

Currently, I'm trying to replace {{s}} templates being used for interwiki purposes with {{iw}}. Mario Maniac 00:20, October 13, 2026 (UTC)

This edit on Final Fantasy (universe)

In your summary for aforementioned page, you removed a piece of trivia (which I'm assuming is the "third-party franchises with Nintendo-published installments" one) simply because other third-party franchises applied to it, with you stating Mega Man, Dragon Quest, and Mario & Sonic as examples.

While it is true those aforementioned franchises have installments published by Nintendo, the trivia as a whole was actually referring to installments exclusively published by Nintendo (or at least, during their initial release, anyway). I'll admit I never really thought about Sonic when I first added that trivia (probably because his only games to be exclusively Ninty-published were the Mario & Sonic crossover games), but Mega Man 6 was still published by Capcom in Japan and every Dragon Quest game that Nintendo has published in the West was still published by Square Enix (or just Enix in the case of the first game on NES) in Japan.
If you still think this trivia is too specific though, then I won't try to argue against you (hell, if you wanna be even more pedantic and include specific releases of an installment, Nintendo technically also published all third-party games in the NES Classic Series, which includes Pac-Man and Castlevania, which at that point would be too many examples).

That being said, I have since found that Nintendo might have only been a distributor of Crystal Chronicles in Japan instead of a direct publisher, as while it is listed with the first-party GameCube titles on this page on the official Japanese GameCube website and the back of the game's package does sport Nintendo of Japan's barcode prefix (4902370), the disc, instruction booklet, and both boxarts only show Square Enix's logo and not Nintendo's, while the disc, booklet, and back box art have the "Licensed by Nintendo" note, heavily suggesting Square Enix is the actual publisher in Japan (this isn't the only time Nintendo of Japan has distributed games without directly publishing them for the record, but let's not get off track). 🧥The Jacketed Terrapin🐢 18:47, October 14, 2026 (UTC)

Yeah my edit reason was getting too long for me to elaborate but Crystal Chronicles not actually being published by Nintendo in Japan is the the main reason why I removed it. I have to admit the wording of the trivia seemed ambiguous to me as I couldn't tell if it meant "published [by Nintendo] in all regions" or "published [by Nintendo] in any given region". But yes the former is outright not true and the latter has many many many examples so I just focused on that part in my writeup to moreso say that regardless of status, it's pretty normal for long-running multiplatform series to have had some form of publishing arrangement with Nintendo over their many long years. Nintendo had a long publishing relationship with Square Enix between the GBA and Switch eras that caused them to publish many of their games outside Japan, many FF games included, but it was always more of a marketing/distribution relationship than a case like Bayonetta 2 where they actually funded and own the game. --Flippy (talk) 19:58, October 14, 2026 (UTC)

Even if Square Enix is the actual publisher of Crystal Chronicles in Japan and Nintendo is only a distributor there, it is rather peculiar that the game is still grouped with the Nintendo-published titles on the Japanese GameCube website despite not being the case for the other GameCube titles published by third-parties (for example, Legend of Golfer, while published by Seta, was not only distributed by Nintendo, but even has Nintendo's logo on the box art and name listed in the copyright info, yet is only listed on this subpage listing third-party games released in the first half of 2004), which makes me wonder if Nintendo actually had any involvement in Crystal Chronicles beyond just simple distribution.

And yes, I am aware that the Japanese Nintendo 64 website also lists games Nintendo only distributed (some of Rare's games, Stars Wars: Rogue Squadron & Episode I: Racer, and F-1 World Grand Prix) despite otherwise only listing games they published, but those at least carry a disclaimer that state they were distributed exclusively by Nintendo (here's the Japanese box art of Rogue Squadron, for example; on another note, Nintendo having a large stake in Rare at the time is likely the other main factor in the Rare-published titles being listed on the website). It just seems odd to me that Crystal Chronicles got special treatment on the Japenese GameCube website when there isn't really anything to indicate that Nintendo has the tiniest bit of ownership of that title beyond the barcode prefix. 🧥The Jacketed Terrapin🐢 21:20, October 14, 2026 (UTC)

So I looked into it and thankfully the game credits explained everything. The NTSC credits for FFCC definitively credit Nintendo purely for "distribution" and "collaboration & assistance". The Japanese credits list The Game Designers Studio as "発売元" (hatsubaimoto) and Nintendo as "販売元" (hanbaimoto). These are closely-related terms, but the nuance in this context is basically equivalent to "publisher" (releases a product) VS "distributor" (sells the product). Hiroshi Yamauchi, Shinji Hatano (business/licensing guy at Nintendo), and Shigeru Miyamoto also get "very special thanks". TGDS was the shell company set up by Square to develop the game, but per this and this, received funding from Nintendo.

So tl;dr: Nintendo funded the studio and distributed/handled sales for the game, but their agreement didn't give them any rights or ownership, it's officially still a third-party title. Square were higher up in the publishing chain of command, so they could remaster and rerelease it years later without Nintendo. As for why it's on the website, here distribution presumably would have covered marketing; the fact that they won back Square and had an exclusive FF game was a big coup for them they wanted to promote pretty heavily. Worth noting is Nintendo's arrangement with The Pokémon Company is similar AFAIK; TPC are officially the publishers, but Nintendo handles sales/distribution. See Pokémon XD which is also on the GameCube page. It respectively credits TPC and Nintendo the same way Square and Nintendo are credited for FFCC. Obviously though, when it comes to IP that agreement is more equitable for Nintendo since they have actual co-ownership in TPC to begin with. --Flippy (talk) 13:01, October 16, 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, I did have a suspicion that FFCC's special treatment on the GC website had something to do with it being the first FF title on a Nintendo home console in nearly a decade, especially at a time when the franchise was seen as much more PlayStation-adjacent (not to mention Nintendo and Square's rocky relationship during the N64-era casting several doubts about Square ever returning to Nintendo).

As for Japanese distribution of Pokémon titles, I am well aware that TPC has been publishing the games since at least late Gen 2 and I have even checked the Japanese webpages for those games for my personal Chronicle project before, so I'm already aware of the whole "発売元" and "販売元" thing (admittedly I wasn't 100% sure at the time if "販売元" meant co-publishing [if that's even a thing] or just distribution, though I guess Bulbapedia always calling NoJ a co-publisher doesn't exactly help either lol).
Regardless, the Japanese webpages for Nintendo consoles do often still group most PKMN games since the 2000s with the stuff NoJ directly published anyway (GBA, GC, DS, Wii, 3DS, Wii U, NS, and NS2), so they're not really that much of a weird case compared to FFCC. The Japanese Chronicle in Brawl is pretty much the same deal, as it lists all the PKMN games since Gen 3 up to 2007 (at least the ones for major Nintendo consoles, anyway) despite otherwise not including other games NoJ only distributed (with Diddy Kong Racing being the only other exception, though I assume that's due to it being the only Rare-published title Nintendo retained the rights to after Microsoft bought Rare).

It is also worth noting though that NoJ doesn't distribute every PKMN game that TPC published on a Nintendo console (some examples include TCG GB2, Conquest, and New Snap; note that all three linked games have a barcode prefix of "4521329", the "Licensed by Nintendo" disclaimer, and lack the "販売元 任天堂" text; also note Trozei in the Conquest link, as a comparison, having NoJ's barcode prefix and the "販売元 任天堂" text, and here's Legends Z-A for a more recent example of this, just for good measure) and those games are excluded from the aforementioned lists (with the exceptions of Pokkén for Wii U and Pokopia, for some reason). This is also reflected by TCG GB2, the only TPC-published title at the time to not be distributed by NoJ (other than games for platforms that don't have dedicated Chronicle lists anyway such as Pokémon mini), not being listed in the Japanese Chronicle in Brawl. 🧥The Jacketed Terrapin🐢 09:51, October 17, 2026 (UTC)

I would like to be clear that I'm not trying to dispute Nintendo's ownership of Pokemon but more just explaining why FFCC is on the page. --Flippy (talk) 10:57, October 17, 2026 (UTC)

Oh no, I never thought for a second you were disputing Nintendo's ownership of Pokémon and I do sincerely apologize if my writing made it seem that way. I was more pointing out the oddity of how NoJ doesn't always distribute PKMN games on their platforms despite co-owning the publisher anyway. 🧥The Jacketed Terrapin🐢 11:33, October 17, 2026 (UTC)

Oh okay, all good, my bad in exchange. The relationship with Pokemon is particularly unique and has evolved a lot over the years. My understanding is Nintendo's global co-publishing arrangement is mainly for the core series while spinoffs and side games are less necessarily so, but I haven't really looked into it lately. While rabbitholing related instances to see what I could extrapolate for FFCC I found some of Nintendo's publishing arrangements are actually more complex than I thought. Baten Kaitos Origins is by far the one that most still confounded me. I had always fully believed it to be a Bayonetta 2 scenario (wholly-owned Nintendo game in a non-Nintendo franchise) but Bamco's self-published PC remaster threw a huge wrench into that, and the rabbit hole I went down indicates it's generally much more complicated and ambiguous about what Nintendo actually owns of the game if anything. I will say despite always having been fully-Nintendo published and even originally crediting Iwata as EP, it's absent from the Japanese Chronicle, the GameCube version's copyright, music (even in Smash), and trademarks solely ever credited Namco in Japan, and Nintendo's only explicit copyright credits are specifically for the NA GameCube version and the Switch remaster. The latter acknowledged them as its original publisher, but that credit, their logo, and copyright info were all scrubbed from the PC port. While Bamco have remastered games they've explicitly licensed from Sony, I think it seems possible whatever agreement Nintendo had with Namco for BKO was either just very generous in Namco's favour to begin with (probably out of goodwill considering the incoming buyout), might have been complicated by either the buyout and/or Bandai Namco merger, or the PC version was allowed through some type of loophole or blind eye. Who knows? --Flippy (talk) 15:31, October 17, 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I am aware of the whole legal confusion surrounding BKO. I even brought up its strange exclusion from the Japanese Chronicle on the Discord before (even noting how they were able to get away with namedropping five Mickey Mouse games but couldn't acknowledge some obscure GameCube JRPG; and for the record, I have checked Brawl's credits and it doesn't seem to account for games only mentioned via the Chronicle, so companies like Disney [Mickey Mouse], Shogakukan [Bakusō Kyōdai Let's & Go!! and Hamtaro], or Shueisha [Jump Stars and Eyeshield 21] aren't credited).

Speaking of the Japanese Chronicle, comparing it and all the titles listed on the Japanese webpages for each of Nintendo's consoles at the time, I noticed that, besides BKO, there are 17 other games NoJ published (that weren't exclusive to services like the Disk Writer and Nintendo Power ignore Super Mario Bros. Deluxe being listed anyway; the Chronicle page's trivia already points this out or were more of a peripheral like the DS Digital TV Tuner) that aren't listed: Blast Corps, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire, the original Banjo duology, Oriental Blue: Ao no Tengai, and all 12 third-party Famicom Mini titles.
I can understand excluding Blast Corps and Banjo since those are now properties of a rival company (though the PAL Chronicle still mentions Banjo, among other Rare IPs, by name, so who knows) and I guess they didn't want to be too pedantic with the Famicom Mini titles, though I can't really tell you why Shadows of the Empire and Oriental Blue were excluded (perhaps the other two Star Wars games on the Japanese N64 webpage only being distributed by NoJ had something to do with SotE's exclusion, but I'm not really too sure on that. OB:AoT seems to have been in a similar boat to BKO where Nintendo might've only owned the publishing rights, so perhaps that's why it wasn't listed, but again, not too sure on that one either).

Anyway, I'm gonna end my comments here cuz I feel this entire discussion has officially run its course. Point is, all of what we just discussed is a confusing, complicated mess lmao. 🧥The Jacketed Terrapin🐢 20:33, October 17, 2026 (UTC)

Interwiki linking (continued)

I forgot to mention that neither {{s}} nor {{iw}} work for piped links. If you want to do a piped interwiki link, then you have to do a regular piped link. I suppose you figured it out yourself, though. Mario Maniac 22:25, October 15, 2026 (UTC)

yeah that's what I thought. Thanks! --Flippy (talk) 13:01, October 16, 2026 (UTC)

you're welcome Mario Maniac 22:10, October 16, 2026 (UTC)

You deserve this

Mario Maniac 22:12, October 17, 2026 (UTC)

thanks buddy! appreciate it! --Flippy (talk) 22:55, October 17, 2026 (UTC)

I'm a nice guy, and wanted to thank you for your edits. Mario Maniac 23:55, October 17, 2026 (UTC)

Kirby's Air Ride and Dedede's SSBM Model

I was taking a look through your (very well put together) write-up of the origins of SSBM models, when I had an epiphany that may or may not be relevant to your work. While King Dedede's trophy model definitely seems to be specifically created for Melee, interestingly enough it seems to resemble the Dedede model used in Kirby's Air Ride 64. Given that KAR64 was developed by HAL Laboratory (and Sakurai was apart of its development team), I think there's a non-zero chance that the Dedede model from it was used as a basis of sorts for the one seen in Melee. I lack a definitive source for such claim, but I figured it could be worth considering! ~LJorSomething 19:00, October 30, 2026 (UTC)

hey thanks! I'm glad it's of interest to you! I actually totally wasn't thinking about Kirby's Air Ride at all when I wrote it up, very interesting hypothesis, it wouldn't be the only wink-wink nudge-nudge to the game. That definitely resembles Dedede's Super Star design and Melee trophy far more than his Kirby 64 model, which I disregarded for seemingly being less inline with how Sakurai prefers to depict him. It's obviously much lower-poly and could have been made low-poly to begin with, but it's not impossible there's a higher-res source made during dev - we know per this render of Kirby that at least one pre-render model exists from the game. I do think it's not impossible that the trophy is just original to Melee since it seems in general that HAL and Creatures had a lot of leeway and initiative when it came to franchises they were strongly involved in (see the presumed HAL-made Professor Oak model, and Mach Rider's trophy boasting an entirely custom design), and Kirby characters are relatively easy to model. But this is an interesting theory and I could certainly at least note the resemblance when I make my next round of updates on this, it's not impossible they could have reused texture work or simply used this as reference instead of his 64 model. Thanks!! --Flippy (talk) 22:11, October 30, 2026 (UTC)