Talk:Mewtwo (SSBB)

So

What does this article has that isn't covered here and on the Mewtwo page before Anon moved it here? And why does this information that easily fits elsewhere needs its own article, especially when the other "scrapped character" articles are going to be deleted or are contested? Omega Tyrant 13:39, 26 November 2011 (EST)

I guess it could me moved there. I moved the Mewtwo information here because I thought consensus on Talk: Roy (SSBB) concluded that sufficient evidence warrented an article for removed characters. As for fitting elsewhere, I copy/pasted it because I was in a hurry. I'll see what I can do to expand it. Mr. Anontalk 13:46, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Well, if those are going to be kept, here's a basic structure for a Dr. Mario (SSBB) article;

{{ArticleIcons|ssbb=y}} [[Dr. Mario]] was potentially a planned playable character in ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'', as supported by hacked data. The exact reason why the data is included in ''Brawl'' is unclarified, but the likely theory is that Dr. Mario scrapped in development, or the data was simply imported from ''[[Super Smash Bros. Melee]]'' for referential purposes. [[Category:Hacking]] [[Category:Removed characters (SSBB)]]

Toast ltimatum 13:47, 26 November 2011 (EST)

1st of all, I added more details in Trivia and Dr.Mario was a clone, which Sakuria Said No more clones ( despite Toon Link being added.Drakon64 (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2011 (EST)

I still don't see why this article is needed, my points were not refuted, and none of that trivia is verified. I'm sure the first point is not the Mewtwo data being completed, but rather a PSA import a hacker created. There certainly is no Goku data in Brawl's disc, yet there exists a functional Goku to use in Brawl. And on the Roy SSBB talk page, you guys seem to have missed Miles' post, which states "No merge. The identity of the Roy is ambiguous, therefore there is no way to determine for sure that it is the same Roy as in Melee."

So you guys will need a different argument than the Roy (SSBB) page existing to validate this article. Omega Tyrant 14:23, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Mewtwo's files ARE in game and yes Mewtwo was partially imported but it was fused with the original data. Plus there is now a WHOLE lot of Mewtwo fans who use this that may wonder how it started, so they find it here. Note that the only mention of the Mewtwo I spoke of is in Trivia and this talk page. Since Brawl co-workers took note of it, having this is similar to the Rumors and why most of those aren't deleted.Drakon64 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Mewtwo's files ARE in game and yes Mewtwo was partially imported but it was fused with the original data.

Mewtwo's files are easily covered in the articles I mentioned in my first post. And imported files is not relevant information to be covered on SmashWiki.

Plus there is now a WHOLE lot of Mewtwo fans who use this that may wonder how it started, so they find it here.

This can easily be turned into a redirect to the original Mewtwo SSBB section on the Mewtwo article.

Since Brawl co-workers took note of it, having this is similar to the Rumors and why most of those aren't deleted.

I really don't get what this is referring to. What does "Brawl coworkers" have to do with this, and do you have any sources to back up your claim about them? Omega Tyrant 15:14, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Examples of workers who noted this are Mario's Shigeru Miyamoto and Melee Mewtwo Voice actor Masachika Ichimura.Drakon64 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Brawl's co-workers is why we have the Machinima page. They made a notice so it's official, otherwise it's fanon which isn't allowed here. Sonic was heavily debated during Brawl's release but didn't get on this wiki due to Speculation and Fanon. The reason why this page is here is the same why we have Machinima. Delete this and there is no reason why Machinima should exists.Drakon64 (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Official recognition isn't why Machinima has an article, it has an article for the similar reasons that file replacement has an article. It is something prevalent in the Smash community made by using the Smash games themselves. An article about what Machinima is and how it relates to Smash Bros. doesn't fall under fanon. So Machinima existing doesn't validate keeping this article. And again, I'll point out my original points against this article have yet to be refuted. Omega Tyrant 15:58, 26 November 2011 (EST)

We put in extra details that would be........ You know what? Forget it. Nuke this article for all I care. I'm only delaying the inevitable here. Apparently Mr.Anon gave up on this article once you mentioned merging. This article will just float over readers like a lead balloon.Drakon64 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Because OT wanted his original points to be addressed, I will address them in the format of arguing why the Roy (SSBB) article also does not satisfy them.

"What does this article has that isn't covered here and on the Mewtwo page before Anon moved it here?"

What does the Roy (SSBB) article have that can't be mentioned there? The sole argument against merging it was that Roy could refer to a character from the Metal Gear series, though that can also be mentioned in a single sentence on the Beta Elements page.

"And why does this information that easily fits elsewhere needs its own article, especially when the other "scrapped character" articles are going to be deleted or are contested?"

This point I actually did address. All the other scrapped character articles seemed to have a consensus of keep, so that's why I thought it was safe to put up this article.

Also note that I did propose moving all scrapped character info to a single article, but only one person responded to the idea. Mr. Anontalk 16:39, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Those are certainly valid arguments for removing the Roy (SSBB) article. And if you didn't notice, the other scrapped character articles were strongly in favored of being deleted, they're just still around due to admin apathy. There certainly wasn't consensus to keep them. Omega Tyrant 16:43, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Again, the sole argument against merging the Roy (SSBB) article was the presence of a Roy from the Metal Gear series. However, that does not change the fact that the entire article can be merged with the Beta Elements article or a Scrapped Character article. Mr. Anontalk 16:47, 26 November 2011 (EST)

And that's relevant here how? Especially when I said those are valid arguments for getting rid of the article? Omega Tyrant 16:52, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Ah, sorry. I misread your previous statement. So yeah, we're on the same page. So should we merge both pages now? Mr. Anontalk 19:23, 26 November 2011 (EST)

yo

Why this article? ..... 10th 14:05, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Because there is a good lot of data for Mewtwo in Brawl. It's even completed by Brawl fan nerds with no lives to the joy of all Mewtwo players. All thanks to Project: Mewtwo. Some co-workers from Brawl even took note of this, so it's plenty notable.Drakon64 (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2011 (EST) P.S sorry for my screw-up on the discussion above.....

Now I wish Mewtwo was back in brawl. :P ..... 10th 14:15, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Then get the members of Project: Mewtwo to download him onto your Brawl disc. It's risky, however.....Glitches and Freezings became more apparent afterwards so now they're working on fixing that. Mewtwo is created as Lucario's 3rd costume yet announcer and picture changes once Mewtwo shows.Drakon64 (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2011 (EST)

I'm generally not sure about these articles of Mewtwo/Roy in brawl. ..... 10th 14:31, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Keep discussion about the existence of this article to the section above, don't spread it out over multiple sections. Omega Tyrant 14:32, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Evidence

Hi, I was reading this article, and I was wondering if there is any proof to the claims in "Trivia"? I haven't seen any of these claims before, so I'd like to know if these are true, and I'd like to see the pages/places this information comes from cause I'd like to read it. Thanks! 108.28.89.90 15:50, 11 January 2012 (EST)Vhat

They can't have their own page. All relevant information is already displayed. As for your other question, you could just google it or something so we don't have to give you a link to that same place.Drakon64 15:54, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Also this page is being merged with Beta elements due to lack of Importent information. So don't get that attached to the trivia, cuz it's days are numbered.Drakon64 15:57, 11 January 2012 (EST)

No, there was no proof. The trivia was poorly written and unverified/irrelevant information that only remained as this page was planned to be turn to a redirect. It just fell off the radar until now. Omega Tyrant 17:23, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Oh alright. Thanks for the info 108.28.89.90 18:00, 11 January 2012 (EST)Vhat