Talk:Multi-Man Smash

Deleted

I say we get rid of all the tiny little articles about all the small Multi-Man Melee, and merge all the relevant information into the Multi-Man Melee article. Then we can delete all the Multi-Man Melee stubs. I have done the first part of this plan to the first 4 articles. Could someone else assist?--Oxico 12:49, December 13, 2007 (EST)

I insist we do this. If anyone has reason for opposition, post it here.--Oxico (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am of an EXTREME OPPOSITION. This article MUST NOT be deleted. It is off extreme importance. Kperfekt722 (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not removing this article, but every other Multi-Man articles and putting them in here. I agree that we should but delete them and put them in here. SuperLuigi 03:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Move

I don't like this move idea. The current title is fine, and moving it doesn't seem to confer any particular advantage. Toomai Glittershine The Different 13:28, 1 November 2014 (EDT)

I oppose the move. It's only called "Multi-man Smash" in one game, so it would be useless to move it there if there are two other similar modes with different names. Rtzxy Reflect!!! 13:31, 1 November 2014 (EDT)

I strongly oppose. See my reasoning on Talk:Special mode. PikaSamus (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2014 (EST)

Items

Do we really need to give an explanation on why certain items don't appear in the mode? I mean, they're logical, but are they necessary, and could be wrong? I'm saying no to the former, and yes to the latter. Smashedpotatoes (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

Merge modes here

Discussion on this merge should take place here. Serpent King 22:11, 5 May 2016 (EDT)

I would agree to merge these if you're saying that there shouldn't really be much to say about them separately. Dots (talk) The Quake 22:48, 5 May 2016 (EDT)

This one's a bit dubious because when combined it approaches the 32k marker of "maybe should be split", and I don't think there'd be a good way to organize the list(s) of rewards on such a merged page. It also kind of messes with the categorization of submodes that aren't in all games. So overall not a big fan of the idea at the moment. Toomai Glittershine The Emissary 23:00, 5 May 2016 (EDT)

^That's the reason why I didn't just do it. What I am thinking is that it's a little silly to have 3-Minute mode and 15-Minute mode or 10-Man mode and 100-Man mode on their own page. However, we can't merge just those separately, because then what do we call the target pages (if 10-Man got merged with 100-Man or the like with the timed matches)? Serpent King 23:08, 5 May 2016 (EDT)

Yeah doing half-merges like that is pretty much the least sensible thing to do in my opinion. It has to be all or nothing. Toomai Glittershine The Keymaster 00:15, 6 May 2016 (EDT)

Oppose But make a navigation template Poultry(talk) the God-Slayer 07:31, 6 May 2016 (EDT)

We could make a collapsible table for the rewards and handle the listing of which games submodes are in in a similar manner to Special mode. Still, Toomai makes a good point with the page size, and so I'm neutral. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 21:05, 6 May 2016 (EDT)

Oppose; it's messy separate but would be messier all on one page. Miles (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2016 (EDT)

Oppose. I personally see it fine as is. Should we merge this, we would need to give a brief description for each mode to avoid this article being too big and the rewards section is going to be messy. Dots (talk) The Five by Five 09:40, 10 May 2016 (EDT)

Proposed move, again.

Four years later and I'm bringing this up again, now that we have two games that use the "Smash" suffix for it (even if Ultimate's version uses "Mob" instead of "Multi-Man" for its prefix). It would coincide with how we've had Special Smash titled as such for years now on this wiki, which also used to be titled just "Special mode" (as it was last time I brought this up, and was used at the time for justification for keeping this page where it currently is). It doesn't make sense to me just to keep calling it "mode" when we already have one of four official names that overlaps with every other official name it's had over the years, similar to how Smash 4's "Special Smash" title that we use (and "Multi-Man Smash" also being from Smash 4) overlaps with "Special Melee/Brawl" and Ultimate's "Custom Smash".

I'm aware of SW:OFFICIAL, but no one calls it "Multi-Man mode" if we're using the common parlance argument. I've however heard "Multi-Man Smash" retroactively used even when discussing Melee and Brawl, due to convenience, and will likely also continue to see use with referring to Mob Smash due to seventeen years of familiarity with the "Multi-Man" prefix. VinLAURiA (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2018 (EST)

Oh, and this would also apply to the child pages such as 10-Man mode and Endless mode. Rival mode is especially egregious considering that it's only appeared in one game and therefore has only one name (sure enough, "Rival Smash"), which means it can't even use the "'mode' is game-neutral" argument. It's only named such to maintain consistency with the other pages, which highlights how nonsensical it is to use the 'mode' suffix in the first place. If anything should be used as the basis for consistency, it ought to be the "Smash" suffix; in part because - as per DracoRexKing on the Special Smash talk page (in support of the move from "Special mode" to "Special Smash", which passed) - all games are Smash and therefore it remains game-neutral anyway. VinLAURiA (talk)

Been a month-and-a-half since I opened this discussion. If no one has any objections, I'm just gonna do it. VinLAURiA (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2019 (EST)

The move has happened, and it was probably harder than i needed it to be since i didnt use the built in move feteure and instead used manuall work to move all the redirects and the text in the original article, due to the fact this page already existed as a redirect and thus i couldn't move it here normally.Xtra3678 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2019 (EST)

I appreciate the gesture, but I've actually been told in the past that you shouldn't do that since it doesn't carry over the edit history. The move needs to be done with the actual "move" command... VinLAURiA (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2019 (EST)