Forum:Categorizing Special Moves

Forums: Index → Proposals → Categorizing Special Moves

This is a closed discussion about a failed proposed change on SmashWiki. It remains for archival purposes. The closing administrator adds: "We're leaving it the way it is, don't fix what isn't broken."

For a while (probably ever since this Wiki's been around), many have argued upon how the special moves the playable characters should be categorized in pages. Some say to to do it by mechanics of the move or their users, others (like myself) say it should be by the name of the move.

Why do I think seperating them by mechanics is not a good idea? Some moves like Ike's, Greninja's, and Cloud's Final Smashes are very similar, if not the same mechanically. But it doesn't make sense to merge those together. Not counting those, if we just did it by mechanics, we'd be adding probably around 40 pages regarding special moves. Someone had suggested that all special moves, aside from the Echo Fighters, should have their own page, in other words, separate them by user. If we did that, we'd be making over 80 pages. It'd still be over 50 if you got rid of the Echo Fighters. With those in mind, we'd be separating them by mechanics or user.

Why do I think they should be separated by name? Because multiple characters share moves. Both Pikachu and Pichu have Volt Tackle, so it would make sense that for those moves to be on the same page. But what about moves like Bomb or Thunder? They have multiple characters who use them that are from different series. Then we'd separate those by series. Since Pikachu, Pichu, and Robin all use Thunder, that will be separated as "Thunder (Pokemon)" since two Pokemon use it, and "Thunder (Robin) since Robin is the only Fire Emblem character who uses it. In the case for Bombs, since Link, Young Link, Toon Link, and Samus use it, it will be separated as "Bomb (Link)" since multiple Links use it [or as "Bombs (Zelda)" since they are all from the Zelda series] and as "Bombs (Samus)" since Samus is the only Metroid character who uses it. With those in mind, we'd be separating both Name and Series.

Some games have moves that are able to be learned by multiple characters. Because of this, they are separated by the move itself. Things like execution usually depend on the character's individual stats, not the move itself. If there was more to the move, (like an extra mechanic that multiple moves apply to) it usually includes a link to the page where the move applies. I know the SmashWiki has its own rules which means it does not have to follow what other Wikis do, and that SmashWiki "not official" which means it’s not necessary to follow what Nintendo says in every circumstance. But I feel we need to find structure regarding this. Like I mentioned, the way to categorize the special moves have probably been discussed ever since this Wiki had been created. Numerous moves have been split, merged, re:split, and re:merged all for different reasons. I want to find a possible concrete solution for this that applies to the majority. Not specifically to myself, registered users, or even the admins. But one that would make sense for the majority to the people that come to the Wiki for information. Which is why I put this Proposal. When commenting, take your time and please do not support or oppose the ideas for yourself or a select few, but for the majority. Thank you. Wolff (talk) 17:03, May 12, 2019 (EDT)

If you really want a concrete answer on whether to split moves based on function, origin, or name, it’s a mix of both and there really isn’t a good answer that can satisfy all three. Wolf’s Blaster has a different name, but it’s entirely different otherwise. Same with Luigi’s Super Jump Punch. They should stay split. Daisy Blossom and Peach Blossom have different names, but are exactly the same otherwise, even down to both of them having no real origin. Dr. Finale and Mario Finale also have no origin and are the same functionally. They should be merged. There are some outliers, such as Counter having different animations for all characters despite clearly being the same move with the same function, or Dream Town Hall and Dream Home having the same functionality and animation but are based on different buildings, and I’m not sure how to argue on those. Splitting moves based on Origin of game is a definite yes though, even regarding exact same functionality. For example, Aether and Soaring Slash are similar functionally, but they should stay split because Chrom isn’t in PoR and Ike isn’t in Awakening. Especially so since Chrom’s Final Smash is Awakening Aether, which is entirely different from Ike’s Aether despite having the same name. Lou Cena (talk) 18:12, May 12, 2019 (EDT)

A few things I've notice regrading what you said:

1. ) Aesthetics alone don't actually change game-play.
2. ) Wolf's Blaster does has the same name as Fox's and Falco's being "Blaster" within the game. Same case with Super Jump Punch.
3. ) Peach's Final Smash comes from Super Mario RPG, while Daisy's is based on Peach's Final Smash.
4. ) Great Aether is different from Awakening Aether as Great Aether is not a move available within the Fire Emblem series. Awakening Aether works more like a regular Aether.
5. ) In the case for Aether vs Awakening Aether in Smash, Aether is a regular special attack and not a Final Smash like Awakening Aether.
6. ) Soaring Slash is not a move within the Fire Emblem series either. Chrom is able to use "similar looking" moves in Fire Emblem Warriors.

Aside from these statements, why do you think it would be "easier" for the "majority of visitors" to the wiki to find the moves separated by mechanics (how the move works) instead of by name? Wolff (talk) 18:43, May 12, 2019 (EDT)

It’s not that it’s “easier”, but it’s less cluttered and more logical to separate moves based on function as well. I agree that in some cases, separation by name works, such as Soaring Slash and Omnislash, but in cases like Super Jump Punch, they function so differently that there’s no reason I’d want to see techniques and strategies of each others’ moves if I only want one of them. Lou Cena (talk) 19:37, May 12, 2019 (EDT)

I understand that you'd wouldn't want that. I am not asking how it would be on one page or not. I'm asking what would make more sense for people who don't know how this wiki works, and easier to find what they are looking. Not what would make things easier personally, I'm talking generally. Ever since this wiki started, the special moves keep getting re:split and re:merged because we do not have a concrete rule for them, and it is not out of the question to assume that in a few cases some people may wait for an undisclosed amount of time to pass just so they can try to re:split or re:merged again simply because they did not agree with the previous carried out conclusion. If I may ask, can you give some reasons why it would be better for people (generally, not personally) to find the moves based on its function instead of its name? I'm afraid your previous examples are not conveying your answer to me. Wolff (talk) 20:27, May 12, 2019 (EDT)

Alright I'm just typing this so I can get a sense of how this is defined in a clear list, with some added points. Please tell me after you have thoroughly read it any changes you wish to see.

1. Mechanics do not primarily factor how a move is merged or split in most cases. If they do it's for some very specific reasons, but generally a move having different mechanics won't effect it's merge status. It is instead based on other factors due to multiple moves having the exact same mechanics but would not make sense to be merged at all.

2. If 2 characters have a special with the same name they must have the qualities listed below in order to have a merge. If even 1 of these qualities is not true then they shall not be merged

1. They must be apart of the same series, and in most cases should be a clone of some sorts, of the other fighter with the move. For instance if both Mario, and Bowser had the neutral special named fire, then they wouldn't be merged unless the function the exact same, mostly because these aren't similar users. If they aren't they are named according to character first then series (see Thunder for an example)
2. They must be used by the same input. This currently isn't an issue with any moves but let's say in the future there is a star fox character with a blaster set to side B. I feel since this is a different kind of move it should not be grouped into the other blasters
3. They have to have a similar origin. For this case take Cape and super sheet, the move merged into cape. Super sheet doesn't have any origin in any dr. mario game, however was given the move to be a doctorlike version of cape. A different case would be fox and falco's blaster which both have the exact same origin. In general this rule shouldn't mean much and is only a factor in severe cases, but should be noted for merging.

3. If a move used by a character in a previous game has had a name change but otherwise works the exact same, then it will stay merged with the original move.

• If a move on an echo is named differently but acts the exact same then it is also stayed merged. (See Daisy Blossom)

4. If a move is merged but has different mechanics, then those different mechanics will be explained in detail with each character having their own section dedicated to that character and the differences from the other versions of the move and it. (See User:Xtra3678/Blaster) This will help organize and keep techs that only work with one of the characters separate from the other characters so that someone won't find Falco techs when looking for information on wolf's blaster, as those would be in a different section.

5. If a merged move has custom moves and another merged move has customs as well, then each custom would be put in the same area but the information is mostly separate. (See Fireball or User:Xtra3678/Blaster)

With this I feel we have a clear well defined ruleset that makes sense. Please discuss under here some changes you wish to be made. If the changes get proper consensus I will change to rules to add that change. XtraTalk Edits 22:12, May 12, 2019 (EDT)

By changing your points to conform to mine, even debunking some of your previous arguments, you’re not making a very good case. If Mario and Bowser’s neutral special was named “Fire”, they’d still be split because they have significantly different functions, but Wolf and Fox’s Blaster should be merged despite having significantly different functions. Just end the arguement, because this is going nowhere. Lou Cena (talk) 12:10, May 15, 2019 (EDT)

Criteria 1, 2, and 3 are all pretty good. Criterion 5 is okay, but it may need some exceptions. Criterion 4 is not. I’ll say this a third time: Wolf’s Blaster has no resemblance whatsoever to Fox and Falco’s, and thise two also have throws and customs Wolf doesn’t have. It should not be merged under any circumstances. Ever. I removed Wolf’s blaster from the draft, and it looks much cleaner. Lou Cena (talk) 01:36, May 13, 2019 (EDT)

I mean, you should probably reread criteria 4 because I don't think it means what you think it does, but it's supposed to just make differences between moves more clear, your probably against criteria 1 which is what makes it so that wolf's special would be merged. I don't really know why you keep on insisting that wolf's blaster is nothing alike the others blasters, because that is just flat out not true. I think at this point you are just being ignorant to whatever anyone has to say, and are being quite toxic as well. I suggest you stop this kind of behavior. XtraTalk Edits 02:08, May 13, 2019 (EDT)

Saying that Wolf’s Blaster is anything like Fox and Falco’s is also flat out wrong, and you’re also being ignorant of what I’m saying by brushing me off repeatedly. Remember how the last time we had this discussion, it was forced closed? This is why we should keep it in the individual talk pages, because merging and splitting moves isn’t a black and white process of whether they have the same name or not. I feel like you’re ignoring the animations, the properties, and the applications of a move by oversimplifying it to a name game. I suggest you stop that behavior as well, because every single time you say something like that, discussion stagnates. Lou Cena (talk) 03:16, May 13, 2019 (EDT)

Excuse me Lou Cena, I have read your points regarding the animations, the properties, and the applications. Is it possible you could include an additional fourth point? I'm afraid the points you made (animations, properties, and applications) are not enough to clarify your side with just those three. Wolff (talk) 17:36, May 13, 2019 (EDT)

My fourth point is that out of everything to worry about, the name of a move is the wrong thing to worry about in the context of merging or splitting pages. If Mario and Bowser both have their neutral specials be named just “Fire”, would you support a merge? They shouldn’t, because those are different moves. Same situation with Fox and Wolf’s Blasters. Mario and Bowser both shoot fire, Fox and Wolf both shoot a gun. The similarities end there. They have different animations, different origins, different applications, and are present in some regular attacks for one but not the other. Lou Cena (talk) 21:37, May 14, 2019 (EDT)

I'm afraid only restating the same points as before without additional information is not very helpful.

Models only change how something looks, which is how Jigglypuff and Wolf got into Smash in the first place. The developers reused the framework from Kirby in 64 and Fox in Brawl over creating Mewtwo for 64 or Krystal for Brawl to save time on making new playable characters. Same framework, different models. Same goes for how Luigi and Daisy became characters of the Mario series in the first place (pallet swaps with sprites and later models before receiving unique models from Mario and Peach).

It doesn’t matter that Wolf is a kind of clone to Fox. The fact of the matter is that his special moves are too different from Fox’s to be merged. Lou Cena (talk) 12:10, May 15, 2019 (EDT)

Animations only change how something moves. In fact, that is how "Clones" are currently being defined on SmashWiki. Ganondorf is considered a clone because his animations are the same, if not similar, to Captain Falcon’s. The reason why we do not group their special moves together regardless of their similarity is because they come from two different series, being Zelda and F-Zero. Similarly, Kat & Ana and Latias and Latios are basically the same assist but from different items (Assist Trophy and Poke Ball). The main difference is that Latias and Latios’ animation has them attack individually instead of simultaneously like Kat & Ana’s animation. Same goes for a few Poke Ball Pokemon, like Chikorita and Snivy using Razor Leaf, or Piplup and Oshawott using Surf. Same move with different visuals and animations.

Yes, those are all good examples of the same moves with different animations. The moves you are arguing to merge, like Luigi’s Fireball, Wolf’s Blaster, or Super Jump Punch, are not those cases. They also have different framerates, different damage, and different properties. Luigi’s Fireball floats, Wolf’s Blaster doubles as a Melee and stuns, and all three Super Jump Punches do radically different things. Lou Cena (talk) 12:10, May 15, 2019 (EDT)

Techs are fan terms used to identify techniques that can be done and not necessarily something the developers had originally intended. Boost grab and Gimp being examples of general techniques. And Desynching and Crown Bouncing being character specific examples. Yes, both Fox and Falco use their blasters within their throws while Wolf does not, but the move is actually their throws, not their blaster. Using their down, up, and back throws activate their laser within the move (being intentional), which could possibly be instead considered a “Fighter Ability” to Fox and Falco, rather than a "tech".

When I said techs, I wasn’t referring to their blasters also being used in their throws. I was referring to the huge differences in function. Not only that, but you’re misunderstanding what counts as an ability. Something that gives out extra moves, gives a meter, or a passive ability qualify for that page. Not using projectiles for your throws. Lou Cena (talk) 12:10, May 15, 2019 (EDT)

With all that being said, I believe that separating the moves by name makes the most sense with making it easier for most people. With a move that has the same name that has multiple users, like "Blaster", should be on the same page. Someone could get confused on how to find differences between the users if they did not know if they were on different pages. With a move like "Daisy Bomber", where it does not have any differences from "Peach Bomber" despite having a different name, the page should be changed to incorporate both moves into the whole page and not just one section. A move used by multiple characters tend to specify like this: “Thunder Jolt (でんげき, Electric Shock) is Pikachu and Pichu's neutral special move”. However, Peach Bomber only mentions Peach. Someone may get confused while looking for information for Daisy if they did not know Peach Bomber applied to both characters. It should then say: Peach Bomber (ピーチボンバー, Peach Bomber) and Daisy Bomber (デイジーボンバー, Daisy Bomber) are Peach and Daisy’s side special move, or Peach Bomber (ピーチボンバー, Peach Bomber), and Daisy Bomber (デイジーボンバー, Daisy Bomber), is Peach’s, and Daisy’s, side special move. (Preferably the first one) Moves like with different names, like Electroshock Arm, that have mechanics that differ from its based move, Upperdash Arm, even if only slightly, gives it enough to be its own page. Because it has different mechanics under a different name (Electroshock Arm attacking at a 30-40˚ angle and 1% more damage in comparison to Upperdash Arm), it probably does not need to be compared to former. Like with Ganondorf and Captain Falcon, a move is separated by series even if shared by character from two different series. Like Pikachu and Pichu's Thunder and Robin's Thunder being separated. I believe it makes finding the moves easier for people to locate moves if we separate them by their names, with the few exception/examples I explained. Wolff (talk) 03:52, May 15, 2019 (EDT)

We have a tabber that shows Peach and Daisy using their moves. And yes, that should be placed in one section because it’s exactly the same. The moves you’re arguing to be merged are similar only in concept. You’ve been repeating yourselves, and I’ve had to repeat myself time and time again to tell you why this isn’t a good idea. I suggest leaving this forum page, because this is going nowhere. Lou Cena (talk) 12:10, May 15, 2019 (EDT)

I avoided talking to much about clones and just kept it to echos in order to avoid the cloneosity debate, but now that youve mentioned it for me youve finally pointed out the elephant in the room that really matters. Blaster (wolf) Is based off of foxes because of wolf's status as a semi-clone. I don't entirely feel like a clones moves should impact the merging procsess because of the general vaugeness of clones, but I feel that it should somewhat factor into it. I have also changed the rules a bit in order to account for clones, and origins. XtraTalk Edits 08:02, May 15, 2019 (EDT)

A clone’s status shouldn’t affect whether or not their special moves are merged, especially if Electroshock Arm and Silver Bow are split with minimal functional differences while Wolf’s Blaster and Falco’s reflector are merged despite only conceptually being the same. Lou Cena (talk) 12:10, May 15, 2019 (EDT)

Chikorita and Snivy's Razor Leaf do deal different damage. Chikorita's does 2% damage on the first hit, while Snivy's first does 7%. Piplup and Oshawott's Surf have different duration. Piplup's lasts 4secs while Oshawott's lasts 5secs (from after they say their names). Fighter Ability is a "certain ability a character has that automatically activates, without the player needing to do anything to make it happen", which means the blasters in the throw could count as it "automatically activates, without the player needing to do anything to make it happen". Same goes for Wolf's blaster. It does have a blade on it, but that can be considered to be more of a Fighter Ability as it "automatically activates". (Both of which I tested) A move can be the same with different properties, which gives people reasons to use certain characters over others (usually those who are referred to as clones). I previously added more information (and research) and now again to support my points, as per SW:NPOV and SW:CONSENSUS. Also Lou Cena, do not start telling people to leave a discussion if they are not vandalizing. You've already done that at least twice (SW:YAV, SW:AGF, and possibly even SW:NPA). And as per talk page rules, you are only suppose to reply to the end of someone's contribution (where their signature is), not in between. Wolff (talk) 17:47, May 15, 2019 (EDT)

I feel like that explains quite well. Even regarding the case with Daisy. I wonder if some cases they could be "Peach Blossom and Daisy Blossom are Peach and Daisy's Final Smash", then list "peaches for flowers will fall". Or "Palutena Bow and Sliver Bow are Pit and Dark Pit's neutral special", instead of mentioning the diffident name later. But it is named on the page as such ("Peach/Daisy Blossom", "Peach Blossom/Daisy Blossom") The names of the redirects show up, so don't think it wouldn't be confusing in that case. Wolff (talk) 22:59, May 12, 2019 (EDT)

DANGIT. when I said Daisy Blossom I meant Daisy bomber, but I guess that would also fit so I'm keeping it. FTR I feel that this should only be a echo rule and not a clone rule, so team star wolf stays. However that feels too weird so maybe we should just scrap that rule altogether. Or maybe make it not work for Final Smashes.XtraTalk Edits 23:05, May 12, 2019 (EDT)

I dunno where to put my message in this jumble of text, so I'll plop it here. I feel like a move should be split if you can tell the different between it and another move by either looking at it or if the move has different properties/damage. For example, Holy Water. Simon's is orange/red and deals fire, Richter's is blue and deals aura. Compare this to Axe. Axe looks the same between both Simon and Richter, and based off of memory, deal about the same amount. These moves remain merged. Hopefully that makes sense. Crazy456Rhino (talk) 11:44, May 17, 2019 (EDT)

That is why I think we need to compare lists of how all the moves would be categorized is we were to base it only on name, origin, functionality or animation, and see which would make the most sense. Wolff (talk) 16:05, May 17, 2019 (EDT)

Splitting all shared special moves

I feel like this is the only way to end Talk:Baster (Fox)|the Forum:Moves by name|debates. And by all, I mean ALL. Lucina's specials, Daisy’s, Chrom’s, the five counters. Split all of them, just so that we can have something consistent going on. Lou Cena (talk) 12:28, May 15, 2019 (EDT)

(Adding "=" up there is used for starting a new "discussion", which we are not doing. You are also appear to be doing it again [points #1 & #4].) You are contradicting yourself. Before, you kept stating moves such as Daisy's should be merged as there are no differences, same case with counter. If we separated the special moves by user, we'd be making over 80 pages. You need to add more in-depth information to support and justify such a decision. Is it not easier to find a move under the page of the same name? Counter=Marth-Roy-Ike-Lucina-Chrom, Blaster=Fox-Falco-Wolf, Fireball=Mario-Luigi. Is there perhaps an additional point that you have not yet shared that relates to your reasoning for your splitting decision? Wolff (talk) 21:11, May 15, 2019 (EDT)

This is technically something separate, as the rest of this forum was just talking about specific moves. Also, adding “=“ lets it be more organized. Also, before quoting Toomai’s warning at me, please realize that I never intended to end this discussion yet, but rather, suggest a new compromise. In fact, I hate to say it, but it seems like you’re the one who seems to believe that your stance is universally correct in this case, because this debate has been going on for 3 months and you haven’t let anybody come to a consensus because you keep reopening discussion about this on multiple pages. Also, it is harder to find different moves under the same name, as I’ve so kindly repeated myself about Wolf and Luigi’s neutral specials, because there’s no reason to have info of two vastly different moves on one page. And the reason why I suggested to split all of them was to kill any sort of debate on which moves should be merged or split. I contradicted myself earlier because this is the only way that you and Xtra will listen. I’m offering up a compromise. Take it or leave it. And before quoting a warning directed at me, please look at your own behavior. Lou Cena (talk) 21:51, May 15, 2019 (EDT)

I apologize if I had come off as rude. In regards to the example you gave relating to "reopening" a topic was because we were told (by SerpentKing) that particular topic belong on a different page and to start it on the correct one, (most likely because we were mainly talking about the blasters in that case), and did what I was told.

According to the rules for a Consensus, a strong argument is needed; and according to the rules for Talk Pages, repeating the same argument with nothing new to add is discouraged. With both those rules in mind, that means adding new information to support one's argument is needed. Strong arguments are still needed regardless of a single user's conflicting points as it depends on the stronger argument with Consensus.

I really want to understand why you believe separating moves with the same name and making over 80 pages on the Wiki is a good idea and makes thing easier and more manageable. I am having a very difficult time understanding how practical or beneficial a decision like that would be to the Wiki as a whole. Wolff (talk) 22:31, May 15, 2019 (EDT)

If we decide the question in terms of practicality, I think can compare pages rate of repetition and set a value to decide whether to split, just like the way we distinguish clones.--Capstalker (talk) 02:43, May 16, 2019 (EDT)

I don’t trust ourselves to come up with something practical. Our best bet is to just split them all. That way we can stop these drawn-out arguments on which ones to split and which ones to merge, because they’re all split. Lou Cena (talk) 02:50, May 16, 2019 (EDT)

But we need a better basis to split them all than just stopping "these drawn-out arguments", that is is only a part of basis and why we are having this entire topic to categorize the special moves in the first place. Wolff (talk) 03:03, May 16, 2019 (EDT)

Simply put, there seem to be four main points in the debate: name, origin, functionality and animation. Maybe we can look at them separately, when more half of them are different, they are split.--Capstalker (talk) 03:28, May 16, 2019 (EDT)

Doing that, what do you suggest for each move Capstalker? Wolff (talk) 03:34, May 16, 2019 (EDT)

My views on the controversial pages:

Fireball: I think it can split, they all seem to be different except for their names.

Super Jump Punch: Mario and Dr. Mario's don't need to split. but Mario and Luigi's are uncertain, their origins are the same, but functionality and animation are different. But I think Luigi's also origins to his high jump in SMB2, so I'm inclined to split it.

Daisy and Peach: I don't think it can split, although their names are different, but are almost the same. and Daisy have no origin of own, so can be said that it origin from Peach.

Blaster: It's like Super Jump Punch, but I don't know if the difference comes from the original series.--Capstalker (talk) 04:51, May 16, 2019 (EDT)

Finding the correct blaster page honestly is not hard at all, and claiming it is relies on having absolutely no faith in the intellective capabilities of the users. The search bar suggests the pages for all three characters if you type "blaster", the top of each page has links to the two other pages and at worst a disambiguation page exists too. Anyway if a move has absolutely no functional similarity to its homonym it should definitely be on a different page, even if the origin is the same. For example let's say that in the future a new character from the Pokémon series is introduced, and has a move that another Pokémon previously used, like Skull Bash, but uses it in a completely different fashion than the original user(in this case for example acting similar to DK's side special). The name would be the same and the origin too, because it would be based on the same move from the Pokémon RPGs, but the execution and functionality would be completely different. Would this hypotetical side special share a page with Pikachu's? Wolf's case is pretty much the same, because his blaster has no functional similarity whatsoever to Fox's and in fact the projectile most similar to it is probably Hadoken, but even then the bayonet (which is not a freakin' passive ability as I have seen mentioned, under any reasonable definition) is completely unique to Wolf. I think we should reach a common sense based consensus on the controversial moves (Blaster, Reflector, Fireball and Super Jump Punch), since this is the classic situation where one policy doesn't fit all.Rdrfc (talk) 05:29, May 16, 2019 (EDT)

"claiming it is relies on having absolutely no faith in the intellectual capabilities of the users" Thanks. This was actually me since Brawl on this Wiki until last November after I started editing on the Wiki for a month. I had no idea how to efficiently find the different blasters or reflectors, the search bar did not help me (maybe it was because of the device or browser I was using at the time?). I even had a few friends who shared my trouble, so I was glad I wasn't the only one.

1. If the bayonet activates automatically upon using Wolf's blaster, doesn't that qualify it for a Fighter Ability? No additional inputs activate it and is exclusive to Wolf. If that does not count as a fighter, or passive, ability, then the definition of a Fighter ability needs to be change on its page.
2. For the Pokemon hypothetical, Zero Laser. Its the same move but with Samus shooting it horizontally while ZSS shooting it diagonally and/or vertically.

Even if all 5 of users who have currently contributed to this discussion were to agree, it still wouldn't be enough for a Consensus, because aside from having a strong argument, it also needs to have an unknown amount of people agreeing apparently. That last part is hard to figure out as discussions are not based on votes, which is how strong argument falls in? I think I've read the rules too much tonight because I'm getting confused rule-wise at the time of writing this sentence. Regardless, we need to figure out a way to categorize the special moves in a way that make general sense. Perhaps Capstalker is right. We should should trying comparing all the special moves by the "four main points in the debate: name, origin, functionality and animation" individually and see how the moves would be separated from there in each circumstance. 4 different lists, and go from there. Wolff (talk) 06:29, May 16, 2019 (EDT)

Going by the idea that Capstalker proposed, by comparing the special moves by name, origin, functionality and animation, I currently did the one by name. (Numbered to make reading easier)

1. If all the moves were separated by name with no duplicate named pages, there would be 362 pages (keep in mind that pretty much all of them are already separated like this, and this is only counting default specials and Final Smashes [no customs]. This also counts one-time moves like Cook Kirby and Wings of Icarus). The only exceptions that are included in the number are Luigi's and Rosalina's Final Smashes in Ultimate which were only renamed (like Fire Bow to Fire Arrow, which is not included).
2. If we also separated the moves shared by two different series (which they currently already are), would be Bomb (Link/Samus), Counter (Fire Emblem/Palutena), and Thunder (Pokemon/Robin) [surprisingly few].
3. Currently, out of the 362 (360 without rename) pages, only Blaster and Reflector are separated despite sharing a name and all its users being from the same series, as well as Daisy Bomber and Daisy Parasol despite being merged with Peach Bomber and Peach Parasol having a different name. Those currently being the only 4 exceptions.
4. (Almost 40 of them are shared between multiple users by name [i.e, not Daisy/Peach Bomber/Parasol], but would cause over 100 pages if separated by user. Almost 90 if not counting Bomb, Counter, and Thunder at all)

(The Mii Fighters' default moves, as well as Piranha Plant's and Joker's moves, and all their Final Smashes were also included in the list) So who are the ones going to make the lists based on the moves' origin, functionality and animation so we can compare? (I do not believe I am capable enough to do functionality or animation) Wolff (talk) 20:54, May 16, 2019 (EDT)

You may have misunderstood me. I mean look at every points of a move independently.such as the Fireball's names are same, mark it as -1; and its origin, functionality and animation are different, mark it as +3, the total is +2, so the result is split. But it's just a simplified example, I'm not sure about the appropriate scoring method.--Capstalker (talk) 04:32, May 17, 2019 (EDT)

You had said to look at the main points and compare. A scoring system is not what comes to mind when with "compare" and "points". If we did base it on some sort of scoring system, we would first need to agree on how meany factors would be taken into account for each main point, and how they would be scored and in a way that would not immediately weigh it in one's favor from the start. Even without a scoring system, I feel that looking at "all the points of a move independently" is similar to what I had understood.

Being that we were going to make lists based on a move's name, origin, functionality and animation. Which would give us 4 lists explaining how the moves would be categorized. Showing which moves would be merged because they share the same name, origin, functionality or animation and which would be split if they didn't. Then comparing the differences on how the moves would be categorized from said list, and see which of the 4 seemed to be the most appropriate.

However, I do feel like we are heading in the right direction to the goal of categorizing all the special moves. Wolff (talk) 06:24, May 17, 2019 (EDT)

I am late to this discussion but it's come to the point where I feel that making a page for every special move, Echo Fighter or not, is the most consistent way of going about this. There's nothing that says we can't make a whole bunch of pages - it's not like the wiki has a shortage of them, especially when the individual moves of every character, including Echoes, are supposed to get pages. Take Simon (SSBU)/Neutral attack and Richter (SSBU)/Neutral attack. I apologize for using pages that haven't been made yet, but these are two pages that, when eventually made, are going to cover the exact same thing. If things this specific yet identical can have their own pages, there is not really a good reason why general information regarding special moves cannot be made into freestanding pages, especially those with actual mechanical differences. There has been talk about what "new users" would want, and if I were a new user wanting to read information on Wolf's Blaster, I don't want to have a page clogged with information that is not Wolf's Blaster, especially if I'm on my phone and every character takes up more bytes that causes the page to load slower.

I am kind of going back on myself by saying that all fighters' special moves need pages, but like I've stated, that is the most consistent option. Depending on the ideas of others, I am willing to find a compromise if there is one to be had, but I think we can all agree at least that there needs to be a consistent ruling on how to go about these pages. John HUAH! 23:29, May 27, 2019 (EDT)

If I'm not mistaken, there has yet to be individual pages for attacks that aren't specials or Final Smashes. Is there a reason only specials have pages?

I know that there is not anything necessarily preventing us from adding as meany pages as possible, but I feel having 15 or more pages needs approval from a few admins (especially is its closer to 80). At least so that they don't have to delete so meany pages if they were to deem it unnecessary (like with the one who was replacing images before|That was around 200).

Also, I'm confused. Is it really a problem to use the table of contents to skip to the desired section? Isn't that what the ToC if for, to jump to the desired section? Plus, a lot of pages have, and would have, more info than the Blaster combined so I don't think bytes size is that predominate a problem outside of talk pages. I think if it was, trying to minimize the amount of info on all pages would be more common. Some like character pages only get larger due to the amount of info. (Origin/Smash Installments/Pictures/Trivia/So on) I'm just confused with the reasoning with the byte size. Wolff (talk) 12:46, May 28, 2019 (EDT)

The issue we were discussing seemed based on whether these moves should logically share a page depending on their name or their function. I don’t believe byte size matters here at all. Anyways, the only way to just completely stop all debate on which pages should be split or merged is to split all of them. I’m with John here. This has gone on long enough, and every time somebody isn’t satisfied because of an inconsistency with another page. Splitting all of them is the safest thing to do. Lou Cena (talk) 20:35, May 30, 2019 (EDT)

I still think merging them by name is the better option. However, I have asked an admin if creating that amount of new pages would be acceptable or unnecessary. I guess we'll wait and see if the admin will respond. Wolff (talk) 20:44, May 30, 2019 (EDT)

I've gotta say that I think it's inherently counterproductive to split up pages that work quite adequately as-is. Counter may be a lengthy article, but there's little benefit to splitting it when a) all the names are the same, b) all the moves are conceptually the same, and c) all the moves are functionally similar, with explanations to how they differ. Subdividing and subdividing isn't inherently a good thing. Rather, I think these should remain as they currently are: case-by-case. Miles (talk) 20:51, May 30, 2019 (EDT)

One of the main problems that kept happening on the individual talk pages is that some user kept using moves that were also being debated to split or merge as examples to split or merge others that were being discussed. The same reasons, for each side, kept being repeated in different, if not the same, ways on each page. When one question was answered on a page, it would get asked again on another. These pages keep getting re:merged or re:split for the same reasons. I don't think a "case-by-case" situation can work with the mentioned problems, which is why this page was created. How to categorize the special moves that is easier and makes scene, and stop the re:merging and re:splitting debates. Miles, how would you categorize the special moves? Wolff (talk) 21:06, May 30, 2019 (EDT)

There's not a one-size-fits-all solution to this. There never has been and never will be. Hence my stating that it should be case-by-case. I could go through a big pile of examples, but the answer is that no, there's really no place to have a simple set of "X ergo Y" kind of rules for this that will be at all practical or reasonable to enforce. Miles (talk) 21:15, May 30, 2019 (EDT)

Even if it were to go back to the individual talk pages, how is it suppose to reach a consensus if all the moves being argued upon are being used against each other as examples one way or the other? How can it be case-by-case for that reason? This discussion happened because there is not a rule to categorize them, which is why it is being discussed. I don't think ending it now, or continuing on the other talk pages, won't really solve the problem.

Forgetting what I just said for a moment. Do you have any advice for if we were to continue the discussion of categorizing special moves? I do understand if there really is no current solution to the matter and cannot continue. Wolff (talk) 21:36, May 30, 2019 (EDT)

Okay, let me backspace to step 0 here. What do you mean by categorize? Because I feel like we're at a point where everybody is talking past each other and not really even necessarily talking about the same thing. Explain, as concisely and unambiguously as you can, what you want an answer to. Miles (talk) 22:32, May 30, 2019 (EDT)

I'll try my best. By "categorizing", I mean how should the Special Moves be separated. Which moves should, or should not share a page. Which is better and easier to find the moves?

Some say by name, meaning Fox, Falco, and Wolf's Blasters would share a page as they share the same name.

Others say by function, meaning Mario, Luigi, and Dr. Mario's Super Jump Punch would be three separate pages as the animations and damage is different.

Moves such as Reflector, Fireball, Silver Arrow, Zero Laser, Dancing Blade and Electroshock Arm have also been discussed to be separated or merged based on these ideas.

Some users keep using the mentioned discussed moves, like Blaster or Silver Arrow, in discussions for others, like Fireball and Dancing Blade, for their argument. But then the reverse also happens. Fireball or Dancing Blade being used for Blaster and Silver Arrow. All these moves had the same problem. Should they be merged or split? So here we are on this proposal where it talks about how to categorize the Special Moves.

Hopefully I explained it in way so it is better understood. If not, I will try again. Wolff (talk) 23:11, May 30, 2019 (EDT)

Then let me say two things. First, that my personal preference (and the best approximation for long-running wiki standards on the subject) is that if a move shares all 3 of its name, its core concept, and its general function across multiple characters, then it must remain merged (examples: Counter, Dancing Blade, Super Jump Punch). If, however, only 2 of those three are shared, then it's in a grey area worth discussing (Reflector, Zero Laser, Cape/Super Sheet) - and these must be case-by-case depending on the degrees of similarity/difference. Is Falco's Reflector being kicked from Brawl onwards different enough from Fox/Wolf's versions which are held, even though it's the same name, concept, and (partial) function? Ambiguous (my take is it should remain on the same page). On the other hand, what about Daisy Bomber where it's the same exact move in all but name? Ambiguous (my take is also that it should remain on the same page).

So to summarize:

• If all three match, one page.
• If two out of three match, discuss.
• If zero/one out of three match, separate pages.

Miles (talk) 23:22, May 30, 2019 (EDT)

That does make sense. But which moves only have one or two out of three that match? Zero Laser and Critical Hit where already agreed to be merged, and Silver Bow, Electroshock Arm, Gale Boomerang were already agreed to be merged. (Both not that long ago)

Are Fireball, Super Jump Punch, Counter, Dancing Blade, Shield Breaker, Double-Edge Dance, Flare Blade, Power of Flight, Guardian Orbitars, Boomerang, Bomb, Pocket, Balloon Trip, Hadoken, Shoryuken, Tatsumaki, Focus Attack, Charge Shot, Missile, Screw Attack, Toad, Vegetable, Axe, Cross, Uppercut, Holy Water, Volt Tackle moves with multiple users that would stay merged, while the Blasters, Reflectors, Capes, Bombers, Parasols, and Blossoms be discussed case-by-case? (I'm sure I've missed a few) Wolff (talk) 01:01, May 31, 2019 (EDT)

Roughly, something along those lines. Miles (talk) 01:14, May 31, 2019 (EDT)

That actually sounds pretty good. Should we write your suggestion down in one of the help page? Or is that not necessary? Lou Cena (talk) 01:32, May 31, 2019 (EDT)

Honestly, I'd rather not treat is as something that has to be formally codified. Generally speaking, I'd rather not make things into "rules that can be enforced" or similarly formal standards when it can simply remain an informal standard, as it currently is and has been for years and years without particular problem. Miles (talk) 09:34, May 31, 2019 (EDT)

I want to point out that I am still observing this discussion, but I've been busy without too much time for long-term wiki debates. I think that this "2 out of 3" approach seems to be moving in the direction of a workable compromise, but I want to ask: What is the difference between a core concept and a general function? Both of those seem like they could be pretty much the same thing depending on how you interpret the wording. John HUAH! 14:57, June 9, 2019 (EDT)

Forgive me if I seem rude, suddenly barging into the discussion like this; but I feel like this is something where we need a hardline rule to avoid this debate repeating itself five years later. I think the only consistent solution is to split every page, but I recognize that's... messy, what with all the similar moves floating around. However, I also think having some pages be merged and others be split would be messy in its own way. In that sense, I guess the question is "which type of messiness are we more able to tolerate"? Ahemtoday (talk) 13:09, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

Miles said it wouldn't make sense to split them all. That would create 80+ pages. Miles also suggest some "guidelines" to follow to better determine what should probably be discussed over. Lou Cena asked if those should be instead rules, to which Miles said he did not want to make them into "rules that can be enforced" because this this topic apparently wasn't a problem before. However, I do not think that the reason why we shouldn't add a new rule because there was not one before is a good point. I feel, that in addition to his suggested guidlines, that there should be some kind of rule, or set guidelines, in place. If only to prevent pages from constantly being split and merged again and again (at least, prior to major patches or future installments). Wolff (talk) 17:53, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

I would agree with you. If a wiki ruling is seriously challenged every couple of years, it is my opinion that the ruling is not a good one and should either be revised or removed. This particular issue, which gets brought up time and again, is one such instance. However, I think the lack of a ruling may be the problem here. John HUAH! 00:19, June 24, 2019 (EDT)

Then I do think the best compromise is Miles' guidelines, but I do think the term of "core concept" needs a bit of rephrasing. I would call it the NAF Rule, based on these names for the three factors:

• Name
• Animation
• Function

I think the term "animation" is a little easier to understand. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:30, June 24, 2019 (EDT)

It may just be me, but because "function" is used, "animation" here just sounds like a visual aesthetic change. Wolff (talk) 23:53, June 24, 2019 (EDT)

Well, I'm specifically talking about the animation of the model and not any accompanying particle effects. I'm thinking it over in my head, and most moves people would want to merge use the same core animation. The only exceptions I can think of are Dark Samus' Missiles (which is a minor change that most people wouldn't notice, and it still fulfills the other two criteria anyway), and Isabelle's version of Balloon Trip (where it's kind of common sense to differ in the "animation" regard). Ahemtoday (talk) 18:37, June 25, 2019 (EDT)

Wouldn't that still fall under "Function"? Wolff (talk) 18:42, June 25, 2019 (EDT)

Well, that depends on how broad a "function" is. Does Falco's reflector have a different function, since he kicks it? Or is that a variation on the simpler function of reflecting projectiles, which it shares with Fox's and Wolf's? I've been interpreting it as the latter, which means the former is more of the space "animation" covers. Ahemtoday (talk) 17:12, June 26, 2019 (EDT)

To me:

1. Name is what the move is titled as.
2. Animation is how to move looks.
3. Function is how the move operates.

With that in mind, I would say that a move's "range" falls under function. Just because the animation is different, doesn't automatically mean that it functions differently. And just because the it functions differently, also doesn't automatically mean it the animation is different. I am really having a hard time seeing how we can list both "Animation" and "Function" in a way that makes sense. Or at least in a way that can be easily understood just by reading it. Wolff (talk) 18:06, June 26, 2019 (EDT)