Talk:Final Destination jump

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Article merit[edit]

I don't think this needs an article. Like the so called New Pork City jump, this doesn't have anywhere near the notoriety the Hyrule jump has, and it's not a noteworthy or even particularly viable competitive tactic. Plus going underneath Final Destination isn't really more noteworthy than going underneath other stages. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 02:46, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Merge Concurred with OT. --RoyboyX Talk 15:31, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Merge Per OT.--Starman125 (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Merge I agree with OT. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2012 (EST)

I agree this doesn't need an article, but it is related to scrooging which is a viable technique for MK. I'd also like to know what this will be merged with.--BrianDon't try me!Falco.gif 16:16, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Merge Not anything major so why not. Dots The StarCraft NintenNESsprite.png 17:12, 19 December 2012 (EST)

I say... Merge Not that huge of an article. Terrible is Winter 17:18, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Merge for the same reason as the New Pork City Jump. Air Conditioner AC.png The wiki's OTHER penguin 18:33, 19 December 2012 (EST)

@Brian: Scrooging is a tactic MK can use on any stage that does not have a barrier preventing him from going to the other side (which is pretty much every stage other than the Pokemon Stadiums), so it's not a technique unique to FD, and Scrooging deserves its own article, not going underneath FD itself. As for what it would be merge with, see the merge tag. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 01:33, 20 December 2012 (EST)

Seems like we can all agree to this merge but I'll just wait until doomsdayFriday to see if anyone would oppose the merge. If no oppositions then I'll merge. Dots The StarCraft NintenNESsprite.png 15:13, 20 December 2012 (EST)

What is with you guys trying to rush every merge/split discussion? Other users can't be expected to be on every day/every other day, and we are not under any time constraints, we can leave discussions open for at least a few days before acting on them. Even if the discussion is locked entirely in one side's favor, a strong oppose can come out of nowhere against full support (and it has happened many times before). Just leave the merging to me if you guys can't wait long enough to give everyone else a chance to see and comment here. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 17:52, 20 December 2012 (EST)
To be fair, there have been instances where there has been a merge done with as much support shown in as little time that has passed before, and there were no problems. New Pork City jump is one example, although discussion of a merge was present on that article's talk page for a year before anyone bothered to respond. Given the general behavior of the wiki, I don't think there will be anymore input (especially any significant opposition the merge). blue ninjakoopa 18:11, 20 December 2012 (EST)
I reverted merge attempts before that were rushed when I saw them (I would have certainly done that for your example have I noticed it at the time), and multiple times I've told users to let discussion be open for some days before making any actions on them (Royboy in particular, and I twice already had to revert two rush merge attempts here). As for farther responses, as unlikely as it is for a strong oppose to happen, it's still possible for it to happen (it has happened many times before on the Wiki), we can't just assume it won't. The original page creator should also be given a reasonable timeframe to respond here (Mr. Anon in this case) before merge/splitting/deleting the page. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 19:08, 20 December 2012 (EST)