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

Archives
1

Merge

You wrote up separate descriptions about Ike's neutral attack in favor of keeping the pages separate. I told you that even if you wanted them to be separate, they could still be on the same page, underneath each other in different paragraphs. How is that steering away from the original conversation? Awesome Cardinal 2000 19:59, 28 September 2013 (EDT)

After that, but whatever. Scr7(talk · contribs) 03:07, 29 September 2013 (EDT)

Anyone else? Scr7(talk · contribs) 03:14, 29 September 2013 (EDT)

Personally I just want this discussion done. Come to an agreement, guys. I'm in favor of keeping them as is, but as we know I'm not one for longevity of discussions. RoyboyX Talk 10:00, 30 September 2013 (EDT)

It's obvious more people need to get involved in this discussion. At this rate, no one's saying anything, and me and Ac2k could argue forever with no result. So, I'm starting the support/oppose/comments thing.

Support

1. Per everything I've said in the discussion. Awesome Cardinal 2000 11:41, 5 October 2013 (EDT)
2. Still no reason to split it up like it is. Miles (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

Oppose

1. Per everything I've said in the discussion. Scr7(talk · contribs) 11:37, 5 October 2013 (EDT)
2. Per Scr7. RoyboyX Talk 11:47, 5 October 2013 (EDT)
3. It would be a lot simpler and cleaner if we just had separate data for each of the subpages. Dots The Smiley 12:50, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

Comments

@Dots: The tables don't look much harder to follow when merged, and putting them on separate pages just splits the information up making it harder to follow and read about as a whole. Awesome Cardinal 2000 13:11, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

So what your saying is that it is easier to just look at all the info on that one page so we don't have to move to page to page to look at all the info? Then your going to have to make subsections for each data. Dots The Mewtwo 13:26, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

The tables are put directly together when merged, they are most definitely more difficult to follow than separate tables. Scr7(talk · contribs) 13:28, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

Although they may be more difficult to follow, does that mean they are actually hard? Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:20, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

If neither are hard to follow and the merged ones are more difficult to follow (which is what you said), split ones are better. Scr7(talk · contribs) 15:24, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

What about the benefits that come from merging them then? Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:54, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

What fucking "benefits that come from merging them"? Scr7(talk · contribs) 15:56, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

• All the info is on only one page making it easier to follow than if they were separate
• Saves a lot of duplicate text and coding
• A description can be better written if all three hits are on the same page, even if the hits are in different paragraphs

Awesome Cardinal 2000 16:02, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

All the info is on only one page making it easier to follow than if they were separate

/how/ is it easier to follow?

Saves a lot of duplicate text and coding

You mean the tables? They're on seperate pages, don't see how that matters.

A description can be better written if all three hits are on the same page, even if the hits are in different paragraphs

Better written in what way? Merging the description of many jabs (except for the ones that are extremely easy to describe, which isn't relevant since the merge is planned for every neutral attack subpage) would be much more inconsistent and difficult to read than just laying them out separately. Scr7(talk · contribs) 16:18, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

Putting them all on one page is easier to follow because you don't have to go flipping between three pages to find information.

It saves a lot of duplicate text and coding, look at Royboy's merged MSNA or what Toomai said on the old discussion. Things such as the entire attack's framestrip don't have to be written three times, and also have a more fitting place to be put. Plus it also gets rid of two extra pages.

"Merging the description of many jabs...........would be much more inconsistent and more difficult to read than just laying them out separately."

I said that the descriptions of each hit could be in their own paragraphs even if they were all on one page. Plus there are things like "This attack combo is great for doing damage up close" that should be on one page covering all three hits, or repeated three times to sound right. Awesome Cardinal 2000 16:34, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

Things such as the entire attack's framestrip don't have to be written three times, and also have a more fitting place to be put.

The entire attack's framestrip and data isn't needed. This was discussed a bit in the archive, and what I said wasn't refuted.

the descriptions of each hit could be in their own paragraphs even if they were all on one page.

True, but they would still be difficult to lay out and explain properly. For things like "this attack combo is great for doing damage up close", you don't need to explain it on each page, just the first, since rehashing it on the second and third pages isn't needed; on the second and third pages, just refer to the first page. Scr7(talk · contribs) 16:58, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

"The entire attack's framestrip and data isn't needed"

It absolutely is. What if someone wanted to know how many frames the entire attack combo took?

"They would still be difficult to lay out and explain properly"

If the descriptions are to be separate, it's basically copying the descriptions on the separate articles and pasting them onto the merged article. I don't understand what's so difficult about that.

"just refer to the first page"

I don't like the idea of putting it only on one page; the article's title is Neutral attack 1, and if you added the information on one page but not the other, the title should be more like "Neutral attack combo and hit 1". The information about the entire combo is also fully relevant to each of the other hits, and by leaving it out on the other hits, you're leaving out relevant and necessary information. Putting the entire combo description on each individual hit article is better than asking readers to visit another page for more relevant information about that hit. Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:37, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

It absolutely is. What if someone wanted to know how many frames the entire attack combo took?

Would've helped if you said that almost a month ago, but anyway, one who wants to know how many frames the entire combo takes should just add up the number of frames for each of the hits. Adding numbers isn't hard.

If the descriptions are to be separate, it's basically copying the descriptions on the separate articles and pasting them onto the merged article. I don't understand what's so difficult about that.

Okay, but then it'd take up an unnecessary amount of coding and space when you can just split them up so they don't take up so much space.

I don't like the idea of putting it only on one page; the article's title is Neutral attack 1, and if you added the information on one page but not the other, the title should be more like "Neutral attack combo and hit 1". The information about the entire combo is also fully relevant to each of the other hits, and by leaving it out on the other hits, you're leaving out relevant and necessary information. Putting the entire combo description on each individual hit article is better than asking readers to visit another page for more relevant information about that hit.

Alright maybe I was wrong about that, but: if "the entire combo is useful for racking up damage up close", the different hits are obviously useful for racking up damage in different ways; simply list why the hits are useful on their respective pages. Just saying "the hits combined are useful" isn't detailed enough. Scr7(talk · contribs) 18:54, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

"Adding numbers isn't hard."

Well for some people it is, and it's important because the frame data of the entire attack combo is incredibly relevant. Since all three hits of the attack combo are commonly used in a row, it's useful to know how long the entire attack sequence takes.

"It'd take up an unnecessary amount of space"

None of the space it would take up would be unnecessary, and it still will take up the same amount of space than if they were on separate pages. If the hit descriptions were to be separate, the separate descriptions for each of the hits would not be duplicated in the entire attack combo description above. The entire attack combo description should be used for stuff like "The entire combo is good at racking up damage up close."

"the different hits are obviously useful for racking up damage in different ways; simply list why the hits are useful on their respective pages. Just saying "the hits combined are useful" isn't detailed enough."

I'm referring to using all three hits in a row to rack up damage, not each individual hit by itself. The hits used by themselves are not good at racking up damage anyways, as they usually do only 2-3%. Using all three though is good at racking up damage, and say because it does 11% or something when combined. If you're talking about how one hit can jab lock or something like that, that would be something different. Awesome Cardinal 2000 19:24, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

Do I really have to just make an executive decision here? Toomai Glittershine The Obfuscating 22:27, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

Wouldya? Couldya? Please? RoyboyX Talk 22:36, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

If you would like to. I recommend to at least give a reasonable point. Dots The Scientist 22:41, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

Or we could try asking other people to state their opinion. Awesome Cardinal 2000 22:53, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

Which they have, but let's be honest, this could go on forever with you and Scr7 arguing. We need to end this, and an executive decision will do that. RoyboyX Talk 23:18, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

Well I suggest we wait a while until we finish arguing; there's no need to rush to finish this discussion. Awesome Cardinal 2000 23:20, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

This discussion has gone on for two months now. It's hardly rushing. RoyboyX Talk 23:26, 5 October 2013 (EDT)

No I'm done with this. This has gone on two months too long and as far as I care nothing more useful can come out of further discussion. At some point I have to put a foot down, and it's now. Toomai Glittershine The Undirigible 23:35, 5 October 2013 (EDT)