Talk:Mario (SSBB)/Neutral attack/Hit 1/Archive 1
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)
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)
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".
- 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)
- Thank you. Scr7
- 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)
- 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
- Cardinal's got it exactly right. Miles (talk) 15:01, 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
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?
- 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)
- Because it would look cramped and annoying to view. I've said this before. Scr7
- Really, what's wrong with having different sections? I don't understand. Awesome Cardinal 2000 14:57, 21 August 2013 (EDT)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
