Talk:Roy

Super Smash Bros. Brawl?

The bottom article is not needed. Simply put, people only say that because he is low tier, and they are biased, and hate low tiers. Hint: No Diddy Kong in Melee because of DK's low/bottom tier status. It has to do with tier status, that is why no one wants him. No one on the SWF has probably even played his game. Johnknight1 1:21, 7 October, 2007 (PCT)

Roy in Smash 4

This was probably discussed elsewhere, but should we mention that the latest update for Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS had data indicating that Roy might be playable down the line? - BrawlMatt202 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2015 (EDT)

Covered on List of rumors; we should avoid mentioning it elsewhere unless that data is confirmed to represent real DLC. Miles (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2015 (EDT)

Request for protection

This edit war is going to just get bigger if we don't do something to stop it IMO. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 16:05, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

...I hardly consider it an edit war. I added something, he removed it, I changed it to be better, he removed it again. It's four actions, and none of them were overly war-y. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 16:18, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Unnecessary for now. Miles (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Coding mention

It's not a rumor that the coding exists. We know it's there, we have more than five trustworthy sources (idk who they all are but I have two sources saying there are five sources, so :P). The "rumor" is what it's for. We have mention of Brawl's unused coding, why can't we mention the Smash 4 coding? You haven't supplied a reason besides "no". And I believe a reason is supposed to always be supplied. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 16:18, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Whilst it may be true that the code exists, it is not then assosiated that those characters will be in the game - noting them outside of the rumours page will be inferring their confimation, which will just end up with the rumor being needlessly spread further. In other reason, it comes down to the fact that "It's better to err on the side of caution.". That's how I see it anyway. ScoreCounter 16:26, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Bingo. We're far better off waiting to make any statements about what this code represents until we have an official source that says so. Miles (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

I'm actually siding with Nutta on this one; if we can mention what Brawl's code for Roy was possibly intended for, then why can't we do the same for Smash 4? The person who found the files clearly stated that the victory theme for Roy was the exact same as the current Fire Emblem victory theme. Aidan, Master of Speed and Aura 16:36, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Also, the statement I added didn't state anything about what the code represents- it specifically said it is "unknown". I could remove the mention of the theories, and then it would have no mention of your problems whatsoever. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 16:38, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Refer to the Newgame Policy (Which should be brought back into force now, methinks) - This file contains none of those prerequesites, and whilst the code does somewhat prove the possibility, mentioning it would infer that we think it satisfies the conditions of at least "Balance of Probability" that Roy is likley to be future DLC, to be legal about it, which, to be frank, it doesn't. ScoreCounter 16:43, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

that policy seems ridiculously specific in retrospect We don't have any of that evidence for the Brawl data, do we? It's basically the same evidence. Since we aren't referring to any possibility that he's included, just the possibility that the code is in there for unknown reasons (which, again, is true), idk if SW:NEWGAME applies. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 16:46, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Brawl was closed to DLC. SSB4 is open. Thus we should be treating its DLC the same way we treated any other prerelease content for it. Miles (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

(Edit Conflict) True, True. It is a bit specific, and a bit of a grey area. However, considering that, firstly, inference means a neutral reader may interpret the mention on a mainspace page as recognising it as a verifiable rumor, and, secondly, that the standard of proof, for any wiki, must satisfy some level of certaintly, at least that of, as I said, "Balance Of Probability". (Although I prefer a Majority of Certainty.) As it is new content within the game, it would qualify as new information about SSB4, and as such, falls below NEWGAME. ScoreCounter 16:57, 28 April 2015 (EDT)