Because the suffix. Whether he has his green tunic or four paws, it's Link.
I still don't get what you're trying to write. Again, Sheik doesn't occupy a character slot, plus we already experienced her in Melee and for the most part, wasn't disappointing. She isn't 'useless' because she's Zelda's alter ego and Zelda obviously returned. That's like stating Samus' Zero Suit form insignificant.
I never stated anything of me. You're assuming things. It's hard to decipher your context because the format is so contorted. Anyhow, this portion is still contradicting itself. It seems you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.
LOL, k.
No, thats like saying Sheik shoudn't be in because she would just be too similar to Zelda. We have no 4 legged creature in SSBB except for Pikachu who doesnt really use his 4 legs, so adding WL would not make it similar to Link, it would be a COMPLETELY NEW character. And you might argue that he would occupy another slot with a Zelda character, but if any Zelda character deserves one of the slots after the obvious 3, (and I am betting Zelda will get at least 4, possibly 5), it should be Midna/WL combo, maybe Midna solo.
Sheik is Zelda's "alter ego" for one game, and even if you might view her as "significant" to the game, which I myself do not agree with, you have to agree that without a doubt both Midna and WL are way more significant to TP than she is to OoT.
Zero Suit Samus is the actual Samus in another suit, in all of the games, if she had that suit, she would be the same person, in TLoZ each game is a different storyline, no Zelda is the same (at least talking in WW, OoT, MM, TP view), so Sheik only appeared in 1 game, and she will probably not appear again.
Using the statement that she was in Smash and wasen't dissapointing proves nothing, if anything it proves you can create a whole new moveset for ANY character that has limbs, which means that the previous statement made by you to my previous statement about WL, (I hope you can follow) was actually wrong and your not really making any sense.
I never stated anything of me. You're assuming things. It's hard to decipher your context because the format is so contorted. Anyhow, this portion is still contradicting itself. It seems you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.
I just needed to quote this again.
Really? I mean really? Ok, so you say I am just assuming things, well, I might be wrong but psicologically (or however its spelt) speaking, when someone tells someone else they're making a mistake, its because they themselves do not make it. Let me explain it in an easier way, when you tell someone they're doing something wrong its because either you do it right, or you know its wrong and if you keep doing it, its because you want to do it wrong and not because you don't know how to do it right.
This being said, when you told me I could not comprehend what I read because I answered in a vague way using the wrong words (which was not actually used incorrectly, instead was a quote from you, which YOU SHOULD have realized if you were reading it), means that you CAN TELL I made a mistake, thus meaning you do not make it, and you do know how to comprehend a reading.
No, if you could comprehend what I wrote in the first place I would not need to explain myself further which will only complicate manners.
Hypothetical case so you can understand what I want to say:
Famous Person 1 is seen by Random Dude 1 eating a Hamburguer
Moments later
Random Dude 2 and Random Dude 3 get in an argument
Which is better?
Hamburguers or Hotdogs?
Random Dude 2 says Hotdogs are better because they taste better
Random Dude 3 says Hamburguers are better for the same reason
Random Dude 2 says noone Famous eats Hamburguers
Random Dude 1 jumps in and says he saw Famous Person 1 eating a Hamburguer before
Ok, in this hypothetical case, did Random Dude 1 at any moment say Hamburguers were better? NO, he just stated that there WAS a Famous Person eating a Hamburguer, thus killing Random Dude 2's statement, but he never actually took a side in the debate. SEE, THIS IS WHAT I MEAN.
Now do you get it? See how its not contradicting itself? See how its not arguing for the sake of arguing, but arguing to disprove a false or incorrect statement.