- Also, Landmaster. And I see no reason the Reflectors shouldn't be merged either: Falco's is the only one that moves any different.- Gargomon251 (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. Masahiro Sakurai has stated on the Smash Bros. DOJO!! that Wolf dodges a split second after his Reflector activates. Fox merely stuns the opponent on contact. MarioGalaxy (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I agree with both sides. While the Blasters of all three Star Fox characters all have the same name, they all have unique abilities.
- Fox - No stun, but racks up damage.
- Falco - Stun, as well as longer range than Fox's.
- Wolf - Stun, shortest range, and a bayonet attached to it that can cause damage.
I think that we should merge the articles in this format:
General information about the Blaster.
Information about Fox's Blaster.
Information about Falco's Blaster.
Information about Wolf's Blaster.
Merge (conditional) - This is an interesting discussion in the context of the game as it develops and I don't think it's impossible that this article will eventually be split into three as players uncover more applications of the special moves of all characters. Many articles will be constantly under construction and there's no saying that this wouldn't be one of the more lively and "organic" ones. For the moment, I don't see anything wrong with finding the information and that's really the only purpose of separating articles: for better organization. But as it stands, the links to blaster from Wolf's article don't make it any more difficult to find just because it's lumped in with a couple other characters. Plus, it allows the reader to be able to do an on-the-spot comparison of how the blasters differ from one another--which is arguably the most interesting thing about the blasters!
BUT, what I don't understand is why there are not separate articles for [Blaster (SSB)]], [Blaster (SSBM)]] and [Blaster (SSBB)]]. Yes, this article should be merged, but this should be Brawl-only content. Like I said, how blasters differ from one another might be the most interesting thing about them, but you have to account for the readers. If all of the blaster links take you to the same place, you have to have an article that clearly disambiguates 6 different special moves across 3 completely different physics engines. It's way too much information and if someone happens to want to find out about Falco's blaster in Brawl by clicking on it in his article, he shouldn't have to read about how Falco's Melee blaster resembles Fox's 64 blaster. Especially when you consider how many new smash players have probably never even owned a Nintendo 64, much less played original Smash to the point where they know how Fox's blaster behaves.
Bear in mind that the sheer size of an article is not always a justification for merging or not merging. A few people have commented that most special moves don't have the content to justify a whole article and blaster articles are among the largest. For one thing, most existing special moves articles are probably not as large as they are going to be in the future and a well-written article will only get bigger as time goes on. More importantly though, it really is about quality over quantity when you're talking about notable articles. An article doesn't have to be large to justify itself, but it does have to be "complete". And when I say complete, I mean that its content should always be describing the title of the article and it should do so in such a way that there are no major loose ends. For example, you wouldn't have an article about Jigglypuff that didn't mention the word "pokémon" and had absolutely no info or link to Jigglypuff (SSBM). On the other hand, you can have an article like Deflicker that's pretty much fine the way it is because it tells you everything you need to know about it, which games it appears in and what the setting modifies. There's not much more to say, but its unique appearance in smash justifies an article in SmashWiki. Not to say that there would be something wrong with a comprehensive options article or something, but the point is: the location of the information is superficial. It doesn't really matter where it is or what article it can be found in, as long as it exists and makes navigational sense within the wiki. --RJM Talk 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No Merge. I believe they need their own articles. It makes navigational sense to have their own articles. If they were to be merged into one, wouldn't it make a the article a bit unorganized or messy? (Wolf O'Donnell (talk · contributions) 01:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC))