Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee/Archive 2

Template:NESproj

Archives
2004 to May 2006

Future section still needed?

Is the future section really needed anymore? The opening paragraph links to both the original Super Smash Bros. and to Brawl – personally, I think that's enough. As I recall, the future section was originally created beacause the fate of the series was uncertain at the time; now that we know for sure that there will be a sequel, I think the section has outlived its relevance. --Sparky Lurkdragon 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, no one's responded for about a week, so I'm just going to chop out the future section. We already have a link to Brawl in the opening paragraph. --Sparky Lurkdragon 23:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Giga Bowser

Any advice on how to beat Giga Bowser? And will Giga Bowser be back in the next game?

beating him is easy, getting to him is hard. Just spam airiels inside of him.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz

If you mean event match 51 then use Jigglypuff and use rest(Down B) in him.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz

I actually beat Giga Bowser with JP on both versions. It's pretty easy to get to him with JP once you've mastered rest. I can kill just about anything (Not including the Hand Bros.) with rest. You just have to master it. 24.48.189.235 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Rest isn't always an instant KO. Jaxad0127 06:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I used Yoshi and kept on doing the flutter kick on him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.31.152.232 (talk • contribs) .

Guys, can we discuss the article, not the game, please? There are plenty of guides out there on the rest of the Internet. --Sparky Lurkdragon 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes we need that future article. at least until the SSMB Brawl for Wii comes out. --159.83.4.139 22:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

PAL vs European

I don't think either of these accurately describes the version with 290 trophies. "PAL" does not include France and "European" does not include Australia, New Zealand, and other countries that we're assuming have the variation of SSBM with 290 trophies. But are we even sure that Australia and New Zealand have the same version as Europe, or even that France has the same version as the rest of Europe? Cosmos 07:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What if we just say that there were 293 in the Japan/NA versions and only 290 for the rest of thw world? Jaxad0127

That sounds good. It's simple and accurate. Cosmos 11:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

-should we add the "tiers" of chraracters (basically the playability in tournaments)? -akshayaj

Nooooo. It is cruft and only has relevence to people playing the game (hence, it fails the guidelines set forth at WP:CVG). Nifboy 21:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, tiers are more or less arbitrary. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

MPAA Rating Similarity

Super Smash Bros. for the Nintendo 64 would be similar to the MPAA's "PG" rating, and Super Smash Bros. Melee would be similar to the MPAA's "PG-13" rating.

Uh...no. Not only is that original research, I think that Melee is defitely closer to PG. - Kookykman|(t)e 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Since its rated teen, pg-13 is appropriate. Jaxad0127 17:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No. You don't compare the two rating systems, especially in the main article. - Kookykman|(t)e 16:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. So why are we even having this conversation? Jaxad0127 16:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ninteno Power + extra trophies

What issue of Nintendo Power claimed the 2 extra trophies to be false? Nismojoe 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm...no issue. Those trophies are real. I've seen them with my own eyes. RememberMe? 21:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No issue I've read said that.(I've read all the issues since this game came out)Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 15:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Preceded/Followed By?

If you edit the page, you'll notice that there is a Preceded By and a Followed By section in the infobox (Or whatever you call it, I'm drawing a blank), but it doesn't appear! Does anybody know why, and if so if it can be fixed? RememberMe? 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That would require changing the template. Jaxad0127 21:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Said fields were only briefly used in the template; they were taken back out because of the sheer ambiguity involved, along with concerns of the template's size. Long story short, those fields are no longer in use. Nifboy 23:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Awards

Should we mention that the game topped (or was at least in the the top ten of) the GameCube's sales list every month for over two years? Jaxad0127 20:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a source, feel free to include it. That would be much better than saying that "ti's the top-selling game" Hbdragon88 07:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Nintendo power it has never left the top ten list (leaving the question of who doesn't own it yet).

Once again, source? Jaxad0127 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think for one month (about a year ago) it dropped to top 20.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Smashing Live CD?

I've been a subscriber to Nintendo Power since issue 3, and I was never sent this CD, nor have I heard anything about it. tyam 05:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? I have been a subscriber for a few years and I recieved it. It is in a square coated paper caase inbetween the pages of an issue(I forget which one). It's not too special though, unless you play it while playing the game(like a different soundtrack).Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Motion-Sensor Bomb

The idea of the reason for the change from Perfect Dark's proximity mine to the Motion-Sensor Bomb being that Nintendo's relationship with Rare was shaky at the time is proposterous, seeing as the Motion-Sensor Bomb is exactly like the one in GoldenEye 007, another Rare-developed title. --Guess Who 20:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It should alse be noted that it's trophy lists it's game as "top secret". Jaxad0127 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but Perfect Dark is rated M, and 007 is only T. I think Nintendo wanted to keep the game as kid friendly as possible. (Although personally I dont think it would have mattered, the kids wont understand either of them.)Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't they credit rare for Perfect Dark and Donkey Kong or something like that in the credits anyways? Hm, I wonder what happened to that Proximity Mine trophy image I uploaded so long ago--Phred Levi 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Toad Hoax

Is the Toad Hoax really a hoax, or is it not? Bibliomaniac15 04:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's real. Keep trying it out. I'm sure you'll get him eventually Xubelox 10:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh god it's coming back...

TOAD IS A COMPLETE HOAX!!! RememberMe? 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

I've recently added a {{citeneeded}} tag for the sentence that says Snake was going to be included, but the game was too far in development. I do remember reading that, but I'd like to make sure that it was a legitimate source. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, Xubelox took care of it. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia is getting too long

It needs to be dispersed to other parts of the article or outright deleted, because it has become very, very long. Hbdragon88 03:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

its pointless and some of the information is unverifiable, I'd suggest it be deleted. 69.140.106.213 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I also removed this from the trivia : This is because Master Hand was originally going to be a playable character. However, he was removed, possibly due to the fact that he cannot fall. However, he can be accessed in a special debug mode using a Action Replay. I highly doubt Master Hand was going to be playable, and without a source.. 207.179.172.220 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved some of the trivia to sections I felt it would be appropriate, and I created a new "differences in versions" section because there was a lot of trivia that was specific to changes made in the various regional releases of the game. Jeff Silvers 04:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we add a Glitch Section?

I know, personally of at least 2 glitches in SSMB.

One being the Black Hole glitch.

SOMEONE SHOULD ADD a GLITCH section to this article.

--159.83.4.139 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I know a great glitch with Link. The bomb rain. Just throw your boomerang off the stage and jump off and use the hookshot to grab the ledge and just sit there. When the boomerang hits your back Link will fly high above the stage for a while. Just throw down a bunch of bombs and it will be raining bombs. lol. But you need the original Smash Bros melee game though. I still have mine.

Tournament section mostly self promotion

I think it's notable to say that tournaments have arisen across the States, but this article is so specific it's basically advertising for the hosts (It's a borderline section page too). I think it needs to be revised and greatly shortened.

Kestrel 21:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Matt Deezie is considered the father of competitive Smash, his TG series needs mention. FC has held the top 2 largest tournaments in Smash history (each over 180 partipants), both these tournaments are of supreme importance to the competitive community. Last, OC2 would seem to be the first US tournament with large international appeal (7 confirmed Japanese players to attend), not only this but if expectations hold it will break the FC6 record for the largest tournament. It could be revised, but TG, FC, and OC all need mention, in addition to MLG, which holds Smash tournaments with an attendance of 150+ on a monthly basis now. 70.43.26.66 03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

ROFLton. This is more detailed than the damn game description itself, and I thought that this was supposed to be about the game. Various editors have removed a ton of game info because it was too detailed - either shifting it to StrategyWiki or to other character artciles. We seriously need to trim down this tournament section or else, at this rate, it's going to be bigger than the gameplay section itself. Hbdragon88

Seriously. At the most, the article should note that "several large Smash Bros. tournaments have been held.." but it shouldn't provide this many specifics. These people don't need a mention because their names in this article exist basically as advertising rather than as relevant, informative content. Would a printed encyclopedia article about Smash Bros include such specific information about those who hold tournaments? No, but it would likely acknowledge that such tournaments exist. Don't worry, I'll fix it up sometime soon. Kestrel 05:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that the whole tournament section doesn't really do much for the article. I mean, who would look up Super Smash Bros. Melee on Wikipedia to read info about some tournaments being held. The fact they are even being held tells me nothing about the game, which is what the article is supposed to be about. If anything, it should be split from the main article, then those who want to can add to it as much info as they see fit. That way, there can be a detailed page about Smash Bros. tourneys, while at the same time, the main Melee page can be about the game itself. I, for one, think this is a fair compromise. -SaturnYoshi 08:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is, well, what other games have Wikipedia articles on their tournament scene? Halo doesn't, Pokemon doesn't... etc. It seems like too narrow an interest for Wikipedia to me, something better suited for a specialized Super Smash Bros. fansite. --Sparky Lurkdragon 01:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same way. Are we going to have to vote to keep or remove the tournament section from the article?? -SaturnYoshi 19:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I cut it down to just the MLG. MLG is pretty big and famous, so I see no reason why to include a short blurb on the tournaments. Hbdragon88 20:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the tournaments section is completely acceptable. Kestrel 01:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. Those pics that were added nearly made my head explode out of rage. -SaturnYoshi 08:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah good, the tournaments section is slowly bloating back again... Kestrel 02:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Tier system

Why is there no mention of the tier system in the article? Considering its importance regarding tournaments (and also its recent revision), I think it deserves a spot in the article. 128.2.246.100 02:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Because, quite frankly, it's not something that really has encyclopediac value; it explicitly only has impact on those playing in national tournaments, and there are no reliable sources that discuss it. Nifboy 03:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.mlgpro.com/article.php?aid=1404 <<<Tier List 70.43.26.66 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Different Versions

I am not familiar with the differneces in the versions, and it doens't seem to be mentioned here. I know they expanded the size of the homerun field.. does someone know enough to make a section? 207.179.172.220 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced statements removed

Changes I just made:

1. How the Toad Hoax is used to disprove other rumors - not relevent and also unsourced.
2. Tournaments - smashboards.com is not a reliable source. Boards are not reliable sources. MLG is backed up by a source, as well as being a national tournamnet, and thus remians. Removed tons or irrelevent and trivial details ("5 stocks left" is meaningless to those who don't play this game).
3. Removed images - Sonic, TAils, and Toad were just decorative. If we could get the EGM screens or upload some of the Toax Hoax, they would be appropriate. Cut the trophies gallery from three images to one.

I want this to at least pass a WP:GA, so there you have it. Hbdragon88 23:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

IGN Editor's Choice Award

After looking through the relevant websites, I found no evidence that SSBM received said award. If anyone has evidence that disproves my claim, feel free to re-add the info, but for now, I've removed it. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Tournament section restoration

Keep in former form

1. The tournament section is both truthful and well written. Removing true information from Wikipedia is always harmful.

2. An interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources agrees with with the fact that because of a lack of published sources, Smashboards becomes a reliable source. Also a professional journalist currently employeed with Major League Gaming under the gamer tag of AlphaZealot has written much of the information in the History of Smash thread on Smashboards.

For an in detailed description of why this section is a keep continue below:

I read the section on Self-published sources and I am sure it can be interpreted both ways. In fact much of what is said does not apply to this section. The concept of using a video game community as a source is still in its alpha stages Reliable sources has not taken this into account. Firstly, Smashboards is the only tournament community. Based off my read of the Reliable source article, there was a lack direction toward community forums. I believe that this article is directed at finding information on forums when publish professional articles exist. For example, a medical journal posted on a forum is not reliable because published accounts exist. Also there is reason on medical forums and other forums of such to lie. It could be to give false hope, to take away real hope, or to get attention. Reliable sources did not take into consideration the concept of a video game community where the reason to lie is minimal and where no other sources exist, I think we can all agree on this. Also information on scholarly topics maybe hard to verify because certain fields require extensive knowledge. However this threat does not exist in video game community because myth and rumors are easy to dispell. With over 40,000 members it is safe to say that if someone posted false information someone would speak out. Smashboards itself has thus because a reliable source in itself.

Sorry I was not able to write this section in a timely manner because of family events. I have added it now.

I have restore the tournament section for the following reasons:

Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources, It states clearly in the article that there are expections to this rule, emphysis placed on should. This is one of those cases.

I have cited the sources for the entire article in the tournament section. Smashboards is a reliable when it comes to Smash tournament history, because there are no professional articles about underground tournaments. Since the majority of tournaments are underground tournament Smashboards become a relible source. Not only is there no reason for a user to post false information on Smashboards, there is no way to post false information and still be able to host tournaments. Notable members (with 1000+ posts) take the game very seriously and would not want to harm the community with false information which is the category many of the posters in Evolution of the Smash Game thread are in. I, myself, am also a long time member of Smashboards and know a great deal about factuality about this section in relation to tournament history. I have also done considerable work on Wikipedia mainly in the field of citing sources so am I fluent in both communities.

In the thread Evolution of the Smash Game there is a member who posts under the gamer tag AlphaZealot. He is a long time member of the community and also is currently working for Major League Gaming as a journalist (See MLG website for more information). This meets the requiremant in Reliable sources:

A source is more reliable within its area of expertise than out of its area of expertise. Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material.

EDIT: Also on a side note to Hbdragon88 (no offense in anyway, if I come off as offensive I apologize it is unintentional, I know you know what you are doing) you remove information that made the section confusing. For example you added the last sentence which was The independent scene also thrives, with many regions hosting monthly tournaments, and the next incarnation of MELEE-FC on the horizon. But you removed MELEE-FC when it was mentioned earlier in the article, thus confusing the reader as to what FC is. Also you removed information on Ken Hoang who is official ranked as the best player by MLG. I'm sure readers would be interested in him.

Cheers Valoem ^talk 04:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, but it still cannot be accepted. Look at Self-published sources:

However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

In general it is preferable to wait until other sources have had time to review or comment on self-published sources.

Reports by anonymous individuals, or those without a track record of publication to judge their reliability, do not warrant citation at all, until such time as it is clear that the report has gained cachet, in which case it can be noted as a POV.

MLG is good becuase it's been backed and covered by USA Today. If that user is a journalist, ask him to publish his findings through a press release on MLG or something; this would probably be seriously considered as a good source. But message boards are not reliable because they can be edited by moderators. They are not backed by fact checks or anything like that.

Apologies for making it confusing, I didn't actually check the article out after making the edits. Hbdragon88 04:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, however I would like to note that the tournament section revolves around tournaments. Believe it or not major underground tournaments bring more Smash players than professional tournaments with the expection of MLG Anahiem which brough 300 people (rumored). The average MLG tournament bring 128 people. The MELEE FC and OC have brought approx. 200 people. Therefore the information is pertinent and important to this section.

Also I read the section on Self-published sources and I am sure it can be interpreted both ways. In fact much of what is said does not apply to this section. Firstly, Smashboards is the only tournament community. Based off my read of the Reliable source article, there was a lack direction toward community forums. I believe that this article is directed at finding information on forums when publish professional articles exist. For example, a medical journal posted on a forum is not reliable because published accounts exist. Also there is reason on medical forums and other forums of such to lie. It could be to give false hope, to take away real hope, or to get attention. Reliable sources did not take into consideration the concept of a video game community where the reason to lie is minimal and where no other sources exist, I think we can both agree on this. Also information on scholarly topics maybe hard to verify because certain fields require extension knowledge. However this threat does not exist in video game community because myth and rumors are easy to dispell. With over 40,000 members it is safe to say that if someone posted false information someone would speak out. Smashboards itself has thus because a reliable source in itself. (I am gonna copy this to the top because I feel is a the apex of my argument).

Actually on another side note Smashboards is backed by Nintendo, they have recently attempted to purchase Smashboards and have it mention on there forums.

Also under vBulletin a moderator can not edit another person's post without it saying "Last edited by UserName" which it does not for AlphaZealot's posts.

Leave this section as the former self because this version has withstood the test of time. Ill put up a clean up tag and we can see what other people think. Cheers. Valoem ^talk 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"withstood the test of time" is a terrible argument. This is the beauty of Wikipedia: it can be deleted or restored at will. Just because nobody bothered to remove it doesn't meant that it should stay. Anyway, I posted a message to the CVG noticeboard about it, as it appears that you and I are not going to resolve the argument on our own. I think we need second and third opinions. Hbdragon88 06:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Compare SSBM to the StarCraft treatment of the tournement scene. StarCraft talks largely in generalities and cites specific instances of popularity to emphasize the game's popularity; [RED]NaDa earns $200,000 a year (cited), SlayerS_`BoxeR` has half a million fans (cited twice), and Lee Seung Seop who died in a marathon session thereof (cited). Those are the only names named in the entire FA. On the other hand, the SSBM article name-drops at every opportunity and emphasizes the community (or "the scene"). I very much like the short version better. Nifboy 06:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, "backed by Nintendo" means nothing...does that mean the Nsder boards are reliable now? They still aren't. Nintendo themselves has to release the information in a press release or something. Hbdragon88 07:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Before we talk about the Nsider forums which are not notable, although moderates from Nsider have posted about Smashboards, I have 3 sources, two of which are from MLG and one from wiizone that reference Smashboards. [1], [2], [3]. This shows the notability of Smashboards in and out of the community.

In reference to Nifboy, I have to say that the fighting game scene compared to Starcraft or first person shooters differ greatly, so greatly that the two should not be compared. FPS and Starcraft are in general more popular due to netplay. The online factor of the game itself could be used to promote major tournaments such as CPL. As a result the most prominent tournaments lie in the professional scene, thus making the independent scene obsolete. Unfortunately, fighting games do not have such luxury. Professional sponsored tournament have only begun to grow, first with IVGF in Seattle the 2003, and MLG in 2004, 2005, and 2006. However, professional tournament for Smash are still in the Beta stages. The majority of tournament still thrive within the independent scene therefore it is necessary to keep that information within this section. The largest hyped tournaments are still MELEE-FC and 0C. This is similar to Street Fighter who only has one professional tournament a year, EVO. In this sense fighting games still revolves around the independent scene which means that articles about tournament well be largely fan based and will not have professional articles written about it. Writing about tournaments for Smash require a great deal of knowledge from within the scene. Valoem ^talk 16:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Writing about tournaments for Smash require a great deal of knowledge from within the scene." That is exactly why we ought to remove it. It's OR. Nifboy 19:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the notability of the Smashboards - that would be if we were arguing for keeping or deleting a Wikipedia article on Smashboards. A reference to Smashboards does not establish reliability. It can still be considereed unreliable. I mean, Michael Moore is famous, but he's also famous for distortion, and we wouldn't cite him as a reliable source.

I have a little rule when deciding what should stay or not: if the reader would actually be interested in it. Let me quote one thing: "Isai, Chu Dat, PC Chris, Azen, ChillinDude829 and even over Captain Jack from Japan" - this is entirely irrelevent and of no interest to the casual reader, unless there are articles on those people as well. Hbdragon88 20:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"That is exactly why we ought to remove it. It's OR." It is only WP:OR in the context of WP:RS, so before we even worry about OR we should see RS. The section has established NPOV and I see no evidence of promotions. AlphaZealot is a source that has published many articles on MLG and is frequeny seen on Smashboards. The reason why Smashboards is mention for notability is because without Smashboards, MLG professional Smash would not exist neither would any tournaments. TG received its fame through Smashboards, simliar to the entire tournament scene. Also the information about ametuer tournaments must stay because major ametuer tournaments still bring a larger crowd than MLG. Since MLG is notable, ametuer tournaments must also be notable. Remember this section is called Tournaments, therefore we must included all important information about tournaments within Smash. Here is the bottom line, because Smash has a large underground tournament scene, few published article could be written about it therefore we have to use Smashboards as a source.

In response to Hbdragon88 there actually are article written about the following players P.C. Chris, Isai, Azen, Chillindude829 and Azen again, Chu Dat is currently ranked 2nd in power rankings, and Captain Jack is notable in Japan.

"A reference to Smashboards does not establish reliability. It can still be considereed unreliable. I mean, Michael Moore is famous, but he's also famous for distortion, and we wouldn't cite him as a reliable source." How does this have anything to do with Smashboards? Michael Moore is a political activist whose views on political situations are bias. Also there are published articles of evidence of distortion in his works. There are also other sources which have been written on topics he has covered. This is not the case with the Smash tournament scene. There is also no reason for distortion or false information on Smashboards. On top of that, I am a primary source who witnessed the formation of the tournament scene first hand. What is written in this section is exactly how it happened.

Valoem ^talk 23:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:INDY sums up my feelings on this debate rather well; sources ought to be independent of its subject material. Smashboards et al are not independant, therefore not reliable. Merely claiming the content is NPOV does not make it so. Nifboy 02:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Smashboards was initial designed as a forum for discussing game strategies and advance techniques in Smash. However the forum itself spawned into a section for tournament discussion. Smashboards can be viewed as an independent source because many of this major tournaments have their own websites. Here are some examples:

• Melee FC
• Zero Challenge
• Tournament Go had its own website but was taken down all that remains is a bracket from TG6

The primary purpose of Smashboards is for Smash Bros. discussion not tournament history. Valoem ^talk 03:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's a "large underground scene" that hasn't been reported by anybody else but its users, it fails WP:V and should not be included. I don't care if you will stand by and verify it, if it isn't being fact-checked ore reported by anybody else besides the particpants in the tournament, it can hardly be called a reliable source. WP:RS says this: Reports by anonymous individuals, or those without a track record of publication to judge their reliability, do not warrant citation at all and an independant srouce should be a "well-known, professional researcher". Hbdragon88 05:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have done extensive research, have cited many sources from both MLG and Smashboards. I take both this article and Wikipedia very seriously. You need to understand that. You speak as if I didn't disprove or counter argue any of your statements. I will say one last time. The poster in Smash history is named AlphaZealot. He works as a professional journalist for MLG. He has extensive knowledge about the subject. MLG is notable, yet MLG is not as large as the underground scene. Would you like to see more sources about the underground scene? Here:

• Underground tournament in the News.
• The article version
• KillaOR on MTV He mentions the importance of the underground scene.

There you have it. The underground scene has been reported by outside sources. Have I not proved that the notability of the underground scene? I think it deserve mention in the SSBM article. Valoem ^talk 06:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah... It was too hyped up and should really be a seperate article altogether. The page is supposed to be about the game itself, not how well people around the world can play it. Besides, a lot of this stuff is just opinionated anyway. -SaturnYoshi 14:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned and removed over 2 paragraphs. All that remains is a brief history of major underground tournaments and MLG. Valoem ^talk 17:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote the entire section, cut out a few things, and some things weren't entirely accurate. Currently MLG holds most of the largest tournaments to date, the only exceptions are FC6,FC3 (just barely, edged out Chicago by 1), and OC2 (they make up the top 3). MLG NY '06 had 143 participants, MLG Dallas had 144 (the cap then), MLG Anaheim had 160 (1 person was added to each of the 16 pools of 8 players, so 16 extra entrees, in addition to that, about 35 people were turned away, we had a wait list 56 names long, but about a half dozen players did not show up even though they registered), MLG Chicago had 184 (24 pools with 7 players each, then 16 pro players, this was the cap), and finally MLG Orlando had 172 (a few players short of the cap, we had 156 players for the open event, our cap is 168) players. Do not cite anything I have written on Smashboards unless I specifically mention I am speaking in the name of MLG or some other authority (the sticky thread can be cited, it is an Official Smashboards thread). While the history thread is a valuable resourse, I cannot see how my work with MLG would make it of any more relevence, there is a difference between what is published under the scutiny of my editor and readers versus what I post on Smashboards for the eyes of fellow players (for starters, grammar and spelling go out the window practically [although within reason], you can tell by this very post what I mean I'm sure).

The first MLG that Smash was an official tournament for was MLG Chicago in 2004. Smash was in a few trial events before that time though. 2005 and 2006 are the first two full seasons of Smash with MLG. This being said, I noticed that there were no links to Nintendo Power issues 195 and 196, these are great resources, they mention MLG, FC, Smashboards, the underground community, just about everything we want to mention in this section. Ken Hoang should be the only player mentioned, while other players are great, he is the only one who truely stands out, just keep an eye out for him in EGM next month guys.Alphazealot 22:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It could still use a little work, the final paragraph lacks direction and I don't know all the way to ref things using the tags/codes on wiki.

A quick side note; older magazines are hard for the average editor to get a hold of: if you can contribute to the CVG project's magazine archive, that would be awesome. Nifboy 04:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input AlphaZealot. Tournament section look almost complete. Valoem ^talk 06:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)