Talk:Mario (SSBB)/Neutral attack/Hit 1/Archive 1

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Merge

Discuss.

I oppose because they are all attacks in their own right with their own hitbox and attack information. Putting them together could be quite confusing. Scr7 18:58, 3 August 2013 (EDT)

You do know that the attacks are just going to be in separate sections so the hitboxes and attack info will still be somewhat separate. Terrible is Terrible 19:08, 3 August 2013 (EDT)

Yes I do know that but I don't think it would look too good. Scr7 08:01, 16 August 2013 (EDT)

Bump. RoyboyX Talk 10:00, 14 August 2013 (EDT)

Bump x2. RoyboyX Talk 12:51, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Oppose Per Scr7. Dots The Gangnum Style 12:56, 21 August 2013 (EDT)
Support Is there really much you can say about the first hit of the neutral attack when combining them would describe the same thing, as well as describing the other two hits as well? Just list the frame data separately, saying "Hit 1:, Hit 2", etc. Awesome Cardinal 2000 13:01, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Oppose Even if these are three slaps in a combo separated, they still have enough hitbox and such info to make a combined page convoluted and messy. RoyboyX Talk 13:04, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Agreed - yes, it would look messy and cramped. Oh and doing this for neutral attack combos like Pit's would look even worse. Scr7 =D 13:07, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

How will it look convoluted and messy? Just put everything in separate sections. Awesome Cardinal 2000 13:08, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

We could do that but like I said, it would still entail people having to separate some hitbox information from other hitbox info. If that makes sense. RoyboyX Talk 13:09, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

If they're in separate sections, I don't see how people could get confused over it. Awesome Cardinal 2000 13:13, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Because they're cramped together, so the page can look fucking weird. Scr7 =D 13:35, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Support. There is absolutely no reason for multiple hits of a neutral attack to have separate pages from one another. The resulting combined page would hardly be difficult to navigate. Miles (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

They're different attacks. Do I really need to explain more? Scr7 =D 13:51, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Also, by this logic, cloned moves should be merged. Mario's 2nd and 3rd neutral attacks are more different than a cloned move. Scr7 =D 13:58, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

They're separate hits of the same attack more than they are distinct attacks. They don't deserve separate articles by any stretch of the imagination. Miles (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Just because they're all part of the neutral attack doesn't mean they should be merged. They're different attacks with their own uses and properties. This is enough for them to have their own articles. Scr7 =D 14:27, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Why are they different attacks if you press the same button to perform it and they're collectively referred to as "neutral attack"? And the separate hits could easily be combined, there isn't any difference in usage that couldn't be put on one page. Awesome Cardinal 2000 14:57, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Cardinal's got it exactly right. Miles (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

No he hasn't. They aren't the same fucking attack, is the third hit of Mario's neutral attack the same as the first and second? Lolno. Scr7 =D 15:12, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

And they aren't just all referred to as "neutral attack". They're referred to differently, as "neutral attack 1", "neutral attack 2", "neutral attack infinite", and so on. Scr7 =D 15:14, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

What Scr7 is trying to say: While they are all seperate "parts" of the Neutral attack, they are triggered separately, physically different, and functionally different and thus are seperate attacks and merit different articles. DoctorPain99 15:17, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Thank you. Scr7 =D 15:26, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Separate hits of the same attack count as parts of the same attack and should be treated as such. The same thing applies for this as it would for special moves like Dancing Blade; yes, there are different parts to the attack, but they certainly are not so individually important that they merit individual articles. They can all be easily contained on a single page. Essentially, if attack B can only be executed as a continuing part of attack A, there's no reason to give them separate pages. Miles (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Seperate hits of the same attack

They do count as different attacks, the term "neutral attack" itself doesn't count as an attack when you have the names like "neutral attack 1".

The same thing applies for this as it would for special moves like Dancing Blade; yes, there are different parts to the attack, but they certainly are not so individually important that they merit individual articles

Is Dancing Blade a neutral attack? No. All of its hits are actually supposed to be just variations of each other. Hits of a neutral attack are always different in one way or another, even with two attacks that look similar (like the first and second hits of Mario's neutral attack - they have different uses).

Scr7 =D 15:55, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

How are the separate hits of Mario's neutral attack so different in technical data and functioning that they need their own separate articles that couldn't fit on one page? Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:41, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Because they're different attacks with different uses, dumbass. The first and second hits appear to be very similar. However they have different uses. The first hit is useful for jab locking while the second is useful for jab cancels. The former cannot jab cancel reliably and the latter cannot jab lock at all. That's just an example. And they can certainly have different frame data - they don't exactly have the same hitbox, do they? Scr7 =D 15:55, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Support All three of the hitbox pages are too small to be separate articles. Terrible is Terrible 13:45, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

No. None of these articles are stubs, they all have enough data to be seperate articles. A lot of moveset subpages on more minor/less notable moves are small like that anyway. Scr7 =D 13:51, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

While I see the benefit of having them on the same page, my brain is not liking how they'll look one one page. The information is easiest viewed on multiple pages. DoctorPain99 14:19, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Exactly. It would look like a clusterfuck. Scr7 =D 14:27, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Really, what's wrong with having different sections? I don't understand. Awesome Cardinal 2000 14:57, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Because it would look cramped and annoying to view. I've said this before. Scr7 =D 15:12, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

It would not look cramped and annoying to view, all you are doing is just listing the technical data right underneath each other in sections, how would that look "cramped" and annoying to view? It would also be annoying if they were all separate because you'd have to go to another article just to find out complete information about the attack. Describing the function of one hit without describing the function of the entire sequence of hits is improper. Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:41, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

It would also be annoying if they were all separate because you'd have to go to another article just to find out complete information about the attack.

And they're different attacks! How many times have I said and explained this?

Describing the function of one hit without describing the function of the entire sequence of hits is improper.

If it really pisses you off that much, why don't you just put them in different tabs -_- Scr7 =D 16:02, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Then where do you put "This neutral attack combo is good at doing damage up close"? On Hit 3? No, because it's relevant to the entire combo. Putting the descriptions on the same page will make it flow better, so you can say "The first hit can jab lock, the second hit can jab cancel, and the combo is good for damage up close". Explain why you think it would be better if they were on separate pages, because they are part of the same attack sequence and are fully relevant to each other. If you don't like me calling the sequence an "attack", then I'll call it an "attack sequence" instead. Awesome Cardinal 2000 16:38, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

You don't just say "This neutral attack combo is good at doing damage up close". You explain why on the attack(s) that do this. If every one of these attacks is good at damaging up close, you just explain why each one does on their respective pages. Scr7 =D 16:48, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Your comment about needing a reason for being good at doing damage was irrelevant, and not everything needs a reason here. And the combo itself can be good at doing damage, not each individual hit by itself, which is why it's better to combine the pages so we can say this. Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:19, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Why waste the time of having 3 different tabs and having to go to one then the other when you can just merge them and just scroll down? Trust me, it doesn't look that sloppy. Terrible is Terrible 16:43, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Wait, switching tabs is time-wasting? Scr7 =D 16:48, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

I tested out how the page would look like with the three hitbox pages combined and it didn't look very cramped or annoying. It looked a little cramped, but I'm pretty sure that's just my phone, and in some ways, it actually looked a little better than them separate. Terrible is Terrible 15:54, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Oppose. I look at what a merged version of this page would appear to look like, and I have to say, it looks very sloppy and unprofessional. The frequent presentations of seperate overviews and post-hit data all for each individual attack in sucession make for, how you say, a vicious clusterfuck. Perhaps if all the specifics to each attack was removed, it would be possible.....but that is not an option for a wiki such as ours. Fusing all the data for the entire combo would look even worse, all bundled together with a disorianted array of hitboxes and numbers. It may not be a perfect solution, but merging it like this is clearly not the way to go.MegiBeelzebub 15:58, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

How does having three sections and three data tables instead of one make the page look messier, sloppier, and more unprofessional? I don't understand. And the overview should be one large paragraph covering all hits. Awesome Cardinal 2000 16:45, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

the overview should be one large paragraph covering all hits

Of course you wouldn't put everything about the different attacks in an overview about all of them, so it seems like you'd just put the basics of the attacks (i.e. the animation and damage). But just explaining those is unnecessary, as you can easily fit that into the attack-specific overviews. Scr7 =D 17:03, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but your arguements are giving me sort of a headache. Take a look at what the page would look like if it was merged. You got an entire PAGE'S WORTH of information and data on a single attack in a 3-hit combo. Not only that, but when all of them are combinded, it seems like the entire set is chocked with information that, from that perspective, unnecessary and repetitive (As the attacks in Mario's neutral combo is almost identical, and when all the set information regarding to each is all together like this, it almost looks like the page is repeating itself.). All of that plus a giant single paragraph at the beggining that is suppose to cover everything presented doesn't correlate well with the page itself. Basically, you're cramming in everything in 3 different pages all onto a single page and only giving a rushed bio of the entire combo as a way to make everything connect. It reminds me of a certain movie FOX made with simular conditions, all of which blew up in their face.MegiBeelzebub 17:06, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

This page with full technical data only takes about 2,300 bytes, so a full page with all three would probably take up only 6,000-6,500 bytes wihout being difficult to read. I don't see what's wrong with the page repeating itself as long it provides all the information necessary. The paragraph will not be rushed and contain less information if they're separate; just because we put more info doesn't mean the quality is downgraded. How would the layout of the paragraph with the separate frame data sections below it not correlate well? Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:19, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Well I guess I should elaborate why I set things up this way to start with:

• Each individual hit is an attack in its own right. Yeah they're all connected, but there are several examples of characters that only ever use the first two of three, or who only ever use the first just to hit with the third.
• Page length and clutter. Yes one can argue that clutter can be a necessary evil for data, but if it can be prevented without much downside, it should be done. Note also that some characters such as Pit or Captain Falcon will have a total of 4 frame data sets (1, 2, 3, inf; and inf by itself may need three timing bars, not sure yet).

Now for multi-hit tilts and smashes, I'm not so sure. I currently have the templates set up for unique pages per hit, but it feels less necessary compared to the neutrals. Toomai Glittershine The Boss 17:44, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Bump. Anyone else? RoyboyX Talk 00:52, 24 August 2013 (EDT)

I just wrote up a test page to see how these attacks would look merged together, here. You cannot tell me that doesn't look hard to follow. RoyboyX Talk 11:22, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

That's a terrible misrep of how a merged page would look. I'll make it better. Toomai Glittershine The Indescribable 11:39, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

The overviews are supposed to be combined at the top. Awesome Cardinal 2000 11:45, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

Still looks convoluted. The damage tables together. RoyboyX Talk 13:24, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

Bump for anyone still on tonight/will be on tomorrow. RoyboyX Talk 00:06, 27 August 2013 (EDT)

Ac2k: If the discussion "hasn't been resolved", then actually fucking comment on the discussion when it gets bumped twice. DoctorPain99 13:59, 29 August 2013 (EDT)

The combined page, as improved by Toom, is a major improvement over splitting the information across three pages. I continue to think we should merge the pages. Miles (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2013 (EDT)

How the hell is it an improvement? It still looks cluttery, and the fact remains that the three hits function as separate attacks. DoctorPain99 14:53, 29 August 2013 (EDT)

The latter hits are still continuations of the first hit and do not exist separately from the initial hit. It is actually a lot less cluttered of a page, as well, since the data for each part separately and the whole combo are easily found on the same page with a little scrolling. Miles (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2013 (EDT)

It doesn't matter if they don't "exist separately" when they are used for different functions and function as separate attacks. Aerials don't "exist separately" from jumping but we don't include aerials on the jump page. And just how the fuck is that combined page less cluttered than the individual page? That makes absolutely no sense; the individual pages are more comapct with less information. DoctorPain99 16:09, 29 August 2013 (EDT)

Even your example isn't valid, since you could also use an aerial from walking off the edge of a platform. The combined page is less cluttered because it discusses each hit's functions and technical data all in one place, and it's easy to navigate since there's clearly labeled headers. Much simpler than needlessly spreading the info across three pages when there's no benefit to it. Miles (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2013 (EDT)

Aerials and jumping are considerably more different than the three hits of a neutral attack. And how is the combined data so much more cluttered than the separate ones if the layout is almost exactly the same? Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:32, 29 August 2013 (EDT)

To be honest, the merged page has started to grow on me a bit. The merged page is almost 30% smaller than the three separate pages combined, which includes extra data that the separate pages can't display without duplication (i.e. the frame data for the combo overall). I'm much more undecided now. Toomai Glittershine The Indescribable 18:34, 29 August 2013 (EDT)

While that is kind of a point, is frame data for the combo overall really useful? As you said above, Yeah they're all connected, but there are several examples of characters that only ever use the first two of three, or who only ever use the first just to hit with the third. Having frame data for the combo overall is pretty much trivial and I don't see why it's needed. Scr7(talk · contribs) 12:41, 4 September 2013 (EDT)

We have it because there are people who are interested in frame data, and the frame data is part of our project to create complete encyclopedic content about attacks. Awesome Cardinal 2000 09:53, 6 September 2013 (EDT)

Still doesn't explain why it's needed. Scr7(talk · contribs) 12:11, 6 September 2013 (EDT)

Bump. RoyboyX Talk 15:16, 1 September 2013 (EDT)

Well, while this may not matter for characters with less useful and/or notable jabs, you say every jab would be merged. I sense the merged page won't look good for characters with more versatile jabs such as Ike and Pit.

Ike's jab has so many uses and options, a summary for all three would look confusing even when spaced out in paragraphs. It'd probably have two paragraphs - one for the first two hits, and another for the third and followup options. You'd have to explain how useful jab cancelling the move into itself and attacks such as u-tilt, d-tilt, grab, and so on, is. You may think I'm a hypocrite here, as I'm saying this while opposing the merge. In a merged summary, obviously the jab cancelling thing would only be explained once, so you may think it would be explained on both the pages of the first and second hits. However, both hits have different options during jab cancelling - the first is used for cancelling into itself to rack up damage, while the second can be cancelled into followup options such as d-tilt, u-tilt, grab, etc. So both hits have different uses and so they would fit well on separate pages.

A merged hitbox overview of Pit's jab would be utterly confusing. He possess two different types of jabs, so how the hell would a merged hitbox overview of his jab be laid out? You could just have one overview for the three hit combo and a separate one for the two hit combo -> rapid jab. But this would look cluttered and laid out poorly with no sensible way to improve it.

There are other characters with versatile jabs such as Captain Falcon whose merged overviews could have a similar result to the two I mentioned above (though probably to a lesser extent). Scr7(talk · contribs) 12:41, 4 September 2013 (EDT)

"Ike's jab has so many uses and options, a summary for all three would look confusing even when spaced out in paragraphs."

Whether the pages are merged shouldn't be based on how useful the attack is, because it can still be explained in separate paragraphs. Having separate paragraphs should be no more confusing than separate sections on separate pages.

"You'd have to explain how useful jab cancelling the move into itself and attacks"

You don't need to explain, you just need to say "The first and second hits can cancel into an up tilt, down tilt, or grab."

"However, both hits would have different options during jab cancelling"

Then their different options would be listed under each other separately, something like "The first hit can jab cancel into an up tilt ................ the second hit can be jab cancelled into a grab."

"Pit's jab would be utterly confusing"

We could possibly list the first two hits, then separately, the hit of the third hit and then the hits of the rapid jab. Possibly side-by-side underneath the first two hits. The overviews should be listed as "The three-hit combo..........The first hit........The second hit........The rapid jab......." It won't be cluttered. Awesome Cardinal 2000 09:15, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

We could possibly list the first two hits, then separately, the hit of the third hit and then the hits of the rapid jab. Possibly side-by-side underneath the first two hits. The overviews should be listed as "The three-hit combo..........The first hit........The second hit........The rapid jab......." It won't be cluttered.

Listing the three hit combo, then attempting to list the first two hits individually followed by the rapid jab, would certainly be cluttered. How can you say it wouldn't be? It already sounds complicated.

Then their different options would be listed under each other separately, something like "The first hit can jab cancel into an up tilt ................ the second hit can be jab cancelled into a grab.

The jab cancelling applies to Ike's jab as a whole, and with so many different ways to do it and followups to it that universally apply to the two hits, explaining it properly like that would be difficult.

You don't need to explain, you just need to say "The first and second hits can cancel into an up tilt, down tilt, or grab."

You definitely do need to explain. Aren't the moveset subpages trying to explain the attacks in full detail? Just saying that is not nearly as detailed as the moveset subpages aim to be. Scr7(talk · contribs) 12:11, 6 September 2013 (EDT)

For the point about Pit's rapid jab, I meant keeping the first two hits on top, and underneath the first two hits, have data containing just the third hit on one side, and the rapid jab on the other. For Ike's jab, we could list what both hits can jab cancel into, then list what the first hit can, and then what the second hit can. By explaining, do you mean something like "Ike's jab cancels can lead into multi-hit combos that can deal a lot of damage" or something like that? If not, I'd like to know what your definition of explaining is. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:34, 6 September 2013 (EDT)

About Pit's jab: listing two sets of data may, with all the frame icons needed, have to be on multiple lines, which wouldn't look good at all. Listing them like that, plus the first two hits on either side above, would definitely look cluttered due to taking up an annoyingly large amount of space.

About Ike's jab: listing what both hits can jab cancel into in the same paragraph would be hard to write properly. It's hard for me to explain this exactly, but it would be rather annoying to browse through. Something like "Ike's jab cancels can lead into multi-hit combos that can deal a lot of damage" would be a rather generic explanation, with more depth required. Scr7(talk · contribs) 11:45, 7 September 2013 (EDT)

For Ike's jab, you could write "Both hits can cancel into xxxxxxx, and the first can additionally xxxxxxxx, and the second can xxxxxxxx."

For Pit's jab, how could a table with say, five columns, look so much better than a table with ten columns? It shouldn't be much more difficult to read. Listing the third hit vertically followed by the rapid jab shouldn't even be hard to follow. An option to put the third hit and the rapid jab in separate tables that can be hidden would be possible. Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:27, 8 September 2013 (EDT)

"Both hits can cancel into xxxxxxx, and the first can additionally xxxxxxxx, and the second can xxxxxxxx."

Too brief, not specific enough, and written poorly.

how could a table with say, five columns, look so much better than a table with ten columns? It shouldn't be much more difficult to read. Listing the third hit vertically followed by the rapid jab shouldn't even be hard to follow. An option to put the third hit and the rapid jab in separate tables that can be hidden would be possible.

I'm referring to the frame strips, not the tables. /short reply Scr7(talk · contribs) 15:40, 8 September 2013 (EDT)

The description of Ike's jab canceling abilities would obviously go into much more detail the the short example I stated above. I would be interested to see how you would write the description to see what it looks like. And there would have to be two frame strips, one displaying the third hit, and the other displaying the rapid jab. Awesome Cardinal 2000 17:40, 8 September 2013 (EDT)

I would be interested to see how you would write the description to see what it looks like.

What description are you referring to?

And there would have to be two frame strips, one displaying the third hit, and the other displaying the rapid jab.

I don't remember saying otherwise. Scr7(talk · contribs) 10:58, 9 September 2013 (EDT)

I'm referring to a description of Ike's neutral attack, and I wasn't talking about anything you said about frame strips, I was just stating that there would have to be two. Awesome Cardinal 2000 14:19, 9 September 2013 (EDT)

I'm referring to a description of Ike's neutral attack

I'm still not entirely sure what you're trying to say...

I wasn't talking about anything you said about frame strips, I was just stating that there would have to be two.

When did I say otherwise? Scr7(talk · contribs) 16:30, 10 September 2013 (EDT)

(reset indent) Would you mind writing a description about Ike's neutral attack combined? Awesome Cardinal 2000 17:36, 13 September 2013 (EDT)

I can do that, but I don't have time now. Maybe tomorrow. Scr7(talk · contribs) 17:41, 13 September 2013 (EDT)

Fine then.

Merged description:

Ike punches with his left hand, then a step-forward kick, then an overhead swing of Ragnell, moving forward with each blow. This move alone gives Ike a great close range game, forcing the opponent to stay away from his jab range. It is very difficult to punish even when shielded for characters with poor out of shield options and is also great at punishing spot dodges. Excellent when crouch-canceled due to the first two hits having zero knockback and having high amount of hitstun, though it can be SDIed out of. Ike can perform versatile jab cancel combos with the first two jabs by crouch cancelling them, being able to use them repeatedly to rack up high damage, then being able to followup the second jab with an up tilt, down tilt, grab, etc. Its speed makes it a good out of shield option as well. The third hit delivers strong horizontal knockback and is one of the strongest neutral attacks in the game along with Snake's, being capable of KOing opponents around 150%. The first hit can jab lock, though this only works on certain parts of the hitbox, and due to Ike's speed, small changes in the setup can allow the opponent to break out of it. Does 4%, 5%, then 7%, for a total of 16% damage, but can deal about 20% or even 25% when jab canceled.

Seperate descriptions:

First hit:

Ike punches with his left hand. Does 4% damage. When used in conjunction with his second jab, Ike's neutral attack alone gives him a great close range game, forcing the opponent to stay away from his jab range. Along with the second jab, it has zero knockback, and has a high amount of hitstun, increasing jab cancel opportunities and followup options, as well as making the move excellent when crouch cancelled, though it can be SDIed out of. Its speed makes it a good out of shield option as well, whether only the first two jabs are used, or the entire combo is used. Ike's jab cancelling is usually performed by combining the first two hits repeatedly to rack up damage (it is possible to deal up to as high as 25%), with followup options usually being used after the second jab for maximum damage. Additionally, it can jab lock, though this only works on certain parts of the hitbox, and due to Ike's speed, small changes in the setup can allow the opponent to break out of it.

Second hit:

Ike does a step-forward kick. Does 5% damage. When used in conjunction with his second jab, Ike's neutral attack alone gives him a great close range game, forcing the opponent to stay away from his jab range. Along with the first jab, it has zero knockback, and has a high amount of hitstun, increasing jab cancel opportunities and followup options, as well as making the move excellent when crouch cancelled, though it can be SDIed out of. Ike's jab cancelling is usually performed by combining the first two hits repeatedly to rack up damage (it is possible to deal up to as high as 25%), with followup options after the second jab including up tilt, down tilt, grab, etc.

Third hit:

Ike does an overhead swing with Ragnell, doing 7% damage. Unlike his first two jabs, this jab is not suitable as a combo move, instead having all of the knockback of Ike's neutral attack. It is one of the strongest neutral attacks in the game along with Snake's, being capable of KOing opponents around 150%.

There. Scr7(talk · contribs) 08:23, 14 September 2013 (EDT)

If you like the separate descriptions better, I don't see why they can't all be on the same page. Awesome Cardinal 2000 09:18, 14 September 2013 (EDT)

Wut? It's either separate pages or merged pages (which will only have the merged description). Scr7(talk · contribs) 09:20, 14 September 2013 (EDT)

If you like the separate descriptions better, I don't see what's wrong with putting them on the same page (even if you take out the merged description). Awesome Cardinal 2000 09:26, 14 September 2013 (EDT)

This is steering away from the original conversation, but whatever. If the seperate descriptions were on the merged page, well, it would look like that. Toomai says that's a terrible misrep of how a merged page would look, and he says a merged page should look more like that (with just the merged description). Scr7(talk · contribs) 09:35, 14 September 2013 (EDT)

They could be put at the top in separate paragraphs. I also don't see what's wrong with having the merged description, as it's not hard to follow, and there's nothing in the separate paragraphs that isn't/can't be described in the merged. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:24, 15 September 2013 (EDT)

They could be put at the top in separate paragraphs.

Then they're not next to their frame data information while they likely should be.

I also don't see what's wrong with having the merged description, as it's not hard to follow, and there's nothing in the separate paragraphs that isn't/can't be described in the merged.

Having both the seperate and merged descriptions is pointless and a waste of space. And the merged description not being hard to follow, doesn't make it any easier to follow than the seperate descriptions. Scr7(talk · contribs) 11:02, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

I didn't say that both the separate and merged descriptions had to be on the same page. The merged description isn't any harder to follow than the separate descriptions in my opinion, and flows better as well. Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:07, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

An opinion is not what is valid. Scr7(talk · contribs) 15:09, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

That's rather irrelevant, as your thoughts on this article are opinions as well :/ Awesome Cardinal 2000 17:54, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

I meant just saying "imo" or something without explaining... Scr7(talk · contribs) 18:03, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

I provided other reasons as well in that statement. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:29, 16 September 2013 (EDT)

Oppose: They aren't identical attacks and I think it looks better separately. It's not something like Mario (SSBB)/Forward Smash tilted upwards or something. --MeMyselfAndI 13:46, 4 September 2013 (EDT)

How do you list information such as the entire attack sequence's duration and its uses without spreading it out over three separate pages and making it more difficult to write about properly? Awesome Cardinal 2000 09:53, 6 September 2013 (EDT)

How is explaining about the jab as a whole less difficult than explaining the three hits seperately? Scr7(talk · contribs) 12:11, 6 September 2013 (EDT)

New arguments were made actually, Ac2k. I repeat DP's statement the first time you reverted. 99.241.56.206 08:31, 6 September 2013 (EDT)

Bump. Scr7(talk · contribs) 12:10, 8 September 2013 (EDT)

Bump. Anyone else want to note on this? Dots The Light 17:21, 13 September 2013 (EDT)

No one has responded to my three currently standing points. If this is still the case in a few days, I'm de-tagging it. Scr7(talk · contribs) 17:33, 13 September 2013 (EDT)

Bump. Can we get this over with already? RoyboyX Talk 22:58, 20 September 2013 (EDT)

De-tagged per [1]. Scr7(talk · contribs) 16:12, 27 September 2013 (EDT)