Talk:Double jump

do we really need speculation on how characters double jump? we dont have an article on how kirby holds items without having fingers. --The Anonymous--

Read. Confirmed is not equal to speculation. Think about it; do we really need IPs with an IQ equivalent in number to my fingers sharing their half-brained opinions? Semicolon (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

ips have feelings too. and this ip has been a member on other wikis, and knows a little bit about harassment. im asking you nicely to leave me alone, please. --The Anonymous--

if you make an account, then he wont bother you. JtM =^] (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

prejudice strikes at unexpected moments i suppose --The Anonymous--

Nothing prejudiced about it. I made an edit. You reverted it. Your revert was ill advised. I then judged you. It's not because you're an IP that I found your edit silly, it's because the edit was silly and that I judged you. You can become a valued user on this wiki as an IP. But what was I supposed to refer to you as, a user? That you may be, but a user is a term with semantic complications generally referring to those who have user pages and screen names. You're obviously a person, but to make such a distinction is foolish. The most salient detail was that you operate as an IP. Thus, that is what I called you. Semicolon (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

prejudice=prejudge. meaning u "prejudged" me by calling me dumb.--The Anonymous--

What's the point of just using IP anyway? Cheezperson {talk}stuff 04:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

it's a crime to humanity. o i thought u said "what's wrong" --The Anonymous--

Ugh. No. Take this vocab lesson. Prejudice is when you have an opinion about someone based on a content-less characteristic, such as race, religion, gender, etc. This is entirely different from a judgment based on something you've done. If I call you an idiot because you're Scientologist or something, even if you aren't an idiot, that's prejudice. If I call you an idiot because you say that, to take an utterly random example, that a fair judgment is prejudice when I've clearly established that there was a contentful reason for the judgment, then that's a fair judgment. Semicolon (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

that doesn't mean you can call people you dont even know a thing about personally idiots. --The Anonymous--

This is now an entirely different argument. I'm using a process called logical induction where I induce a quality about you based on limited data. This, unlike deduction, can be wrong, this much is admitted, but it is a logical conclusion nonetheless. I've seen some of the edits you've made; in fact, I've traced an awful lot of them. What I've seen is something very close to trolling, so I have an unfavorable opinion of you. Don't try and blame that on me; it's you who's given me that impression. Fault me for using induction, but don't fault me for the conclusion I've derived based on the data in front of me. You've been the ever-so-generous provider. Semicolon (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

all i want is an apology, which u have yet to have posted anything about give me one. --The Anonymous--

Apology for what? Semicolon (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

calling me stupid. --The Anonymous--

Fine. It was a bit uncalled for. I'm sorry. But do me a favor, if you would. Start contributing positively or find something better to do, because we've enough trolls as it stands. Semicolon (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

that was all i needed this entire time. --The Anonymous--

Hopefully you've taken something away from this experience as well. You'll learn something about me over time, Mr. IP. It's that I'm a giver. Semicolon (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"--The Anonymous--"

and when did i say i was a guy or girl? --The Anonymous--

Let it die. --The Anonymous--

Stop discussing, guys. I agree with the conclussion of beeing a platform wich makes possible the second jump. In addition, I always thaught that there was a platform below the character when s/he perform the second jump, and I never speculated that R.O.B uses the Robo Burner to jump in mid air, but as I said before, I agree with the theory of the platform. --TwinR.O.B. (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "How Characters Double Jump"

If this was a section that someone added and no one paid attention to, I would destroy it immediately. But since it looks like some people have worked on it a bit, I'm nominating it for deletion. Reason? It's in-game speculation; something that's fine on fansites but not so much on a factual encyclopedia. Toomai (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I vote Keep. I think it's fine, and speculation isn't that bad.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 18:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote delete. This needs to be decided soon, because it is messy. Gutripper^{Speak if you are worthy}

I vote keep. That section isn't speculation, it's explaination, because they definitely use this invisible platform. Malefix (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

How do we know it's a platform? Yes, the special effect looks somewhat like a platform. But it could be a gust of air for all we know. And a good deal of double jump animations don't look like the character is jumping off something. Besides, if we explained double jumps by saying there's an invisible platform, we then have to explain where this platform comes form.

And I guess speculation is okay, provided it's clear that it is such (which it is). Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 02:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're right, so let'sa add the "this section contains unverified claims" template. Malefix (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Kid, you were editing smashwiki from your phone? What the hell. Normally, I would think you're in class, but its a sunday so you obviously weren't. Let me give you some advice: Nothing on smashwiki is important enough to merit editing with a f&$%ing cell phone. Just wait till your in front of the computer screen and have a handy thing called the Keyboard, which incidentally has tildes on it. Normally, I would give some long anecdote about how Pope Pius the Second invented the keyboard before selling it to the king of the turks who taught me how to use it, but instead I'll offer up a tip. Instead of editing smashwiki on your phone when you're bored, see if you can download Chip's Challenge. Here's a hint: Chip can't swim without flippers. 13375poolR (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My "f&$%ing cell phone" does have a keyboard. It just doesn't have an Option key. By the way: It was monday and I was in the schoolbus. And it wasn't because I was bored but because I had just recieved the change notification. I always check my e-mail after school. Saves time. Malefix (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The ripples that you see are just an effect. It can be changed to many things with project smash attacks. You could make it an explosion, a splash or nothing at all. It is only there for graphic effects.highway pumpy ^sfs 19:03, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Add "in other games" section

Do you think it might be beneficial to add a section (or trivia point) showing which characters can double jump in their own games (the only one I can think of right now is Samus with her Space Jump Boots)? --RoyboyX Talk 10:59, 20 December 2012 (EST)

Not a bad idea. Include Yoshi and Kirby, and maybe the similarly-named "double jump" of the Mario series. Toomai Glittershine The Riotous 12:58, 20 December 2012 (EST)

Moving to 'double jump'

So I'll start off: I support a move to 'double jump'. It's indisputably the more common name, and thus would be the better article title. — Jigglypuff the Magic Dragon (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2014 (EST)

Support Ryxis (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2014 (EST)

Oppose "Midair" jump is a more accurate term because characters such as Kirby can go beyond their double jumps. A redirect solves how "double jump" is the more common term, so there shouldn't be any problem for those searching the term. Green Mario 15:45, 10 January 2014 (EST)

Comment We also need to know what the official name for this action is. If it is "midair jump", we should keep it as it is. Green Mario 15:45, 10 January 2014 (EST)

You should probably be informed that we don't choose page names just because they're official. Toomai Glittershine The Incomprehensible 16:32, 10 January 2014 (EST)

Ah, thanks. I'm not very savy in SmashWiki's policies, as I'm hailing mostly from MarioWiki (which has opposite policy when it comes to nomenclature). Still, my arguments aren't disputed. Yet. Green Mario 16:36, 10 January 2014 (EST)

Oppose I see midair jump getting sufficient usage, "double jump" isn't anywhere near ubiquitous in its use, and then on top of that, "midair jump" is much more descriptive of what it actually is; characters jumping in midair, not jumping a second time. Plus what Green Mario said about it not making sense for characters with multiple midair jumps. Omega Tyrant 16:40, 10 January 2014 (EST)

Google results:

"midair jump" site:smashboards.com: 1240

"double jump" site:smashboards.com: 6760

Toomai Glittershine The Jiggy 18:03, 10 January 2014 (EST)

Is there any policy dictating what gets priority: accuracy or usage frequency? Green Mario 18:42, 10 January 2014 (EST)

I wouldn't call that ubiquitous usage, and that does nothing to refute my other point, on how "double jump" is blatantly wrong. Omega Tyrant 18:43, 10 January 2014 (EST)

Ubiquitous no; significantly more common yes (unless you can come up with some other usage stat that says otherwise). Also note that techniques have never been known as "midair jump this", but "double jump that". And being "wrong" hasn't stopped us from using other significant terms, like "Sakurai angle" (misnomer) or "tripping" (the animations technically involve slipping, not tripping).

I'd also like to note that the internet in general vastly prefers "double jump", as by removing the SmashBoards restriction from the Google search, "midair jump" gets 4840 results (of which we're the top result, potentially due to us using it while not many others do?) whereas "double jump" gets 1.15 million. Toomai Glittershine The Labbie 19:00, 10 January 2014 (EST)

And oh yeah changing the Google search to work on us results in 82 for "midair jump" and 153 for "double jump", so it's not like we're much different in terms of using which term. Toomai Glittershine The Inconceivable 19:06, 10 January 2014 (EST)

Sakurai angle isn't exactly as self-explanatory sounding as "double jump", however. Tripping overlaps with slipping, mostly, so there really isn't any sort of misnomer, so we can let that slide. While it's true that double-jump overlaps with midair jump as well, I feel that midair jump is a better general term than double jump. I think "double jump" is more used in general, though, so that's why it's used more often in technique descriptions. Plus, most characters have only a second jump. This is sort of how "remix" is used instead of "cover" for songs. One is wrong, the other is used much less often. What should we go with? Green Mario 19:21, 10 January 2014 (EST)

"And being "wrong" hasn't stopped us from using other significant terms, like "Sakurai angle" (misnomer) or "tripping" (the animations technically involve slipping, not tripping)."

What is "tripping"? "A stumble or misstep." And what happens? The characters trip and fall. "Tripping" is certainly a correct term and not "technically wrong" at all, nor misleading/confusing in anyway.

Now what happens here? The characters jump in midair. They're not "double jumping", and jumping a prior time is not at all required for it. You run off the stage or get hit off the stage, you then jump in midair only once, without any prior jump. "Midair jump" is clearly correct here and not "double jump", since you know, it's a jump you perform in midair, not necessarily a second jump. Additionally, you have characters with multiple midair jumps. Saying they have multiple "double jumps" does not make any sense whatsoever. "Midair jump" explicitly and intuitively describes what the action is, "double jump" does not. Why does it need to be more complicated than this?

When we use "unofficial terminology", we do it when the "official term" is near nonexistent in its usage and is esoteric to the general public (which unlike "ukemi" and "prat falling", midair jump is not), and when the "unofficial term" can be used within articles without potentially confusing, misleading, or just blatantly getting wrong on what the actual action is (which as I shown, "double jump" does).

The Wiki additionally has prior precedence of using less common terms that are fully correct and don't cause confusion. For example, meteor smash vs. spike. Spike gets used a lot more in the competitive community, but we fully use meteor smash for the meteor smash moves to avoid confusion with the actual spikes. Then with priority, many competitive players misuse the term as a shorthand for "move's speed/reach/hitbox placement", but we make it a point to not use it that way here, as it misrepresents the actual characteristics of the move and causes confusion with the actual priority mechanic.

In this case, "midair jump" is an objectively superior and more descriptive/intuitive/consistent term, that everyone will understand the usage of (again, you say "Sheik has a high midair jump", and everyone will get it, unlike "Sheik has a far reaching ukemi"). We don't always go with the term that is just more common, it has to make actual better sense too (or at least equivalent) and not cause potential for confusion/inconsistency that the official term wouldn't. It's pretty damn clear that "midair jump" is the perfect terminology to use for this action, is this a term that is really worth fighting to change because competitive players inexplicably tend to use the inferior "double jump" instead? I'll also like to say we are an encyclopedia, not a repository of Smashboards threads. The terminology we use here should be what works best for encyclopedic purposes, not just what the competitive community uses more. If the common unofficial term works better for us, then we use it; it should be clear it does not in this case. Omega Tyrant 19:53, 10 January 2014 (EST)

We're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. We don't get to decide what "makes sense" in language, we report on what people use. And the data makes it clear that people use "double jump" more than "midair jump" despite the semantic technicalities. Toomai Glittershine The Jiggy 20:39, 10 January 2014 (EST)

The reason we are an encyclopedia emphasizes that we go by accuracy rather than "who uses it more", so being accurate is in conjunction with encyclopedia-like writing. Again, as Omega Tyrant said, we make a distinction between spike and meteor smash despite the two terms being used nearly interchangeably. We should inform, not continue to misinform because everyone else is using the word incorrectly. Green Mario 21:20, 10 January 2014 (EST)

We differentiate "meteor smash" and "spike" because there is an actual functional difference, regardless of how people use the terms. "Midair jump" and "double jump" are functionally identical. We are not "misinforming" anyone by using "double jump" as the primary term because, guess what, it's not wrong. It's even in Wiktionary as "To execute a second jump while still in midair from the first jump." and has been there for four years; "midair jump" has never even had a page. Given this plus the Google results above, the term "double jump" is clearly far more ingrained in the culture of gaming and the internet than "midair jump" is, to the point where the minor edge in semantics that "midair jump" has is insignificant. Toomai Glittershine The Glow 00:08, 11 January 2014 (EST)

The problem is that the midair jump in Super Smash Bros. does not adhere to Wiktionary's definition. "To execute a second jump while still in midair from the first jump." The "double" jumps from Super Smash Bros. can apply to Kirby's floating, jumping after getting hit, and jumping after falling off, so they're not double jumps. As I said, "cover" and "remix" are also two different terms that culture uses interchangeably; common misconceptions are also ingrained in culture: "redecos" and "repaints"; "ports", "remakes", "enhanced ports", and "re-releases". Just because a lot of people use it doesn't make it any more accurate. Green Mario 00:32, 11 January 2014 (EST)

The double jump from Team Fortress 2 acts the same: you can use it without having technically made the first jump. And it's still called a double jump, officially in fact (as far as I'm aware).

My point is that "midair jump" and "double jump" have the exact same meaning to people who play video games, and as a result we should go with the more common term. It's Jakob's Law - "Users spend most of their time on other websites.", describing how being familiar is more important than being unique. Toomai Glittershine The Victorious 01:11, 11 January 2014 (EST)

What other games use is irrelevant, and this isn't an attempt to "be unique", this is using the term that is best for our purposes. And as I shown, "midair jump" is objectively superior to "double jump", this is not a case like "ukemi vs. tech" where both terms are bad so we might as well go with the much more used and known one, or "prat falling vs. tripping" where the latter is a simpler and more sensible term as well as being used near ubiquitously. You can keep going on how "double jump" is used more, that doesn't refute my main point at all. And again, midair jump is not some esoteric term, all browsers will get it (because its name perfectly reflects the action), which again is not the situation with official terms like ukemi, so the "familiarity" argument doesn't fly here.

"We're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. We don't get to decide what "makes sense" in language, we report on what people use."

Except we're not being a dictionary by using the term that is objectively better and better suited for our uses? And sure, we're gonna mention that double jump is a common term in this article, but throughout the Wiki, we're gonna use the term that works better and more consistently for our purposes. Again, this is a jump in midair, why the fuck fight to change "midair jump" when the term already perfectly describes the action and is completely intuitive to use? It's not like Sakurai called it "antigravity bounce" or some other more complicated name that is awkward and can't be used as easily within articles.

"We are not "misinforming" anyone by using "double jump" as the primary term because, guess what, it's not wrong. It's even in Wiktionary as "To execute a second jump while still in midair from the first jump.""

Except for Smash, yes it is technically wrong as well? One, you don't need to execute that "first jump" to perform your midair jump, you just need to be in midair, and two, there are multiple characters in the series with multiple midair jumps, saying they have "two/three/four/five double jumps" makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes it's clear double jump is used more, but we don't just use a term just because it's used more. We're not gonna say "Meta Knight's down smash has great priority" just like it's nonsensical to say "Kirby has five double jumps" over "Kirby has five midair jumps". Seriously, out of all the "unofficial" vs. "official" stuff, why spend any expenditure changing an already perfect and better and completely intuitive "official" term that we have been using just fine for years? Who are we seriously throwing off or confusing or causing any "unfamiliarity" with by using such a perfect and intuitive, if less used, term already? This is all a negative expenditure that tries to fix a problem that wasn't there to begin with. Omega Tyrant 05:33, 11 January 2014 (EST)

Neither term is "objectively superior", stop pretending either is. Toomai Glittershine The Sphere 11:15, 11 January 2014 (EST)

May I also remind you that this is solely determining the title of the page. No effort would be spent doing anything other than moving the page and changing the opening sentence. We can still use "midair jump" and "double jump" throughout the wiki as long as each page is itself consistent, just like American vs. non-American spelling. And the argument that "we've always done it this way" is also bunk for hopefully obvious reasons. Toomai Glittershine The Producer 11:33, 11 January 2014 (EST)

One term is fitting for the move, the other is used more often (but not to the point where it can be used such see "octopuses" and "octopodes") and has a slightly different definition. I don't know why the "we're using it for a long time without problems" argument is bunk. I don't see how changing something that is correct to something that is used more in colloquial dialogue will fix anything other than a bit more hits in a search engine. Green Mario 13:55, 11 January 2014 (EST)