Forum:What to do with pages about cloned and similar special moves

Forums: Index → Proposals → What to do with pages about cloned and similar special moves

This is a closed discussion about a failed proposed change on SmashWiki. It remains for archival purposes.

This is motivated by the recent discussion about Electroshock/Upperdash Arm, Dancing Blade/Double-Edge Dance and Fox/Falco's Blasters. I feel there should be some kind or policy, or at least a discussion about what similar/cloned special moves should be separated, and what ones should be covered in a single shared page.

Essentially, what warrants a split and what warrants a merge? Is a shared name enough to have a single page despite major differences (Pk Fire/Thunder, Blaster...)? Is a different name enough to separate very similar moves (Dr. Tornado/Luigi Cyclone, Dancing Blade/Double-Edge Dance)? What about partially cloned moves with different names (Electroshock/Upperdash Arm, Palutena/Silver Bow...)?

I feel consistency should be a key point in every area of the wiki, so ideally the outcome of this discussion should be applied to every relevant case.

Discuss. -Menshay (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

I'm going to propose something and I want to hear what you guys think about it. It's not perfect, but I think it may work.

Clone characters' cloned moves should be partitioned into different pages if the differing moves fit at least 2 of the 3 following criteria:

1. Differing English or Japanese name from cloned move's corresponding name(s). Moves owned by the same character with new changes in different installments are excepted.
2. Significant physical hitbox differences. Does the structure and/or behavior of cloned move's hitbox, such as size, length, duration, speed, range, trajectory, placement, and quantity, differ from the original moves' in such a way that there is enough to warrant a separate page due to the overall differentiation and amount of feasible and relevant content written or able to be written on the move?
3. Significantly differentiated move properties. Does the cloned move's properties differ beyond damage and knockback output? Are there are new properties such as spiking potential, hit quantity, and attack effects that there is enough to warrant a separate page due to the overall differentiation and amount of feasible and relevant content written or able to be written on the move?

MuteSpittah (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

I'd be fine with that. A different English name should already give itself its own page in my opinion, and the other two have already proven to make several other pages separate. Aidan, the Wandering Dragon Warrior 12:24, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Ok. Just as a note, all the moves you mentioned meet both the first and third criteria. With Reflectors, they will only meet the second criteria. For Blasters, they will keep as is (Wolf's meets all three, while Fox and Falco's only meet the third). Note that with this criteria, Fire Arrow would be given its own page (first and third criteria). MuteSpittah (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Silver Bow would also get its own page. Aidan, the Wandering Dragon Warrior 12:33, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Yeah. Meets first criteria, and it's pretty much different in every way slightly in terms of damage/knockback/distance/speed/range/execution enough. MuteSpittah (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

I can mostly get behind this, but I think the third criteria is a bit too relaxed. Attack effects involve literally one variable in the game's code, and other parts are a bit ambiguous ("differentiated enough in essence", for example). Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 13:28, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

I see that, but note that some attacks effects are more than just visual, such as fire (not affecting red Pikmin, exploding Blast Boxes, thawing frozen characters) and electric (not affecting yellow pikmin, freeze frame multipliers) MuteSpittah (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

There's still only so much that difference adds to an individual page (maybe a couple sentences at most). Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 13:37, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Has that ever been a problem? Look at Mario Tornado and Dr. Tornado. MuteSpittah (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Minor gripe, but wouldn't Reflectors meet the third criteria as well? Not only does it launch opponents at a completely different angle in Melee (Fox's semi-spikes while Falco's sends opponents upwards), it also has different properties in Brawl/Smash 4 (Falco's can trip while Fox's can't). "Xamad (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2016 (EDT)"

You are right, I was wrong up there. MuteSpittah (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

(reset indent) Okay, I can compromise on that then. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 13:44, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

I'll repeat what I said on this subject: I think that moves should have separate pages if they have both a) a different name and b) are used by different characters. Miles (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Then what do you think of merging Wolf's Blaster page with Fox and Falco's pages? MuteSpittah (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Claw blaster is way different + Wolf is not a clone Poultry(talk) the Team Liquid 13:23, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Of course. But it's not hard to see where Wolf's specials come from. Don't know if I call them cloned moves or not but Wolf has a Blaster just like Fox and Falco and that presents a problem with differentiating similar special moves by merely their English names. That's why I added the tidbit about diff Eng and Jap names. MuteSpittah (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Look at the talk page, they tried to merge it before but they failed Poultry(talk) the Team Liquid 13:31, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

I know. I'm just bringing up a problem w/Miles' criteria. MuteSpittah (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

I'd rather give YL's Fire Bow its own page than Wolf's Blaster. I dunno. Naming seems like a bigger deal to me, and it's the main way we've done it for a long time. Cloned moves with different names got their own pages: Double-Edge Dance, Agility, Falco Phantasm, Gerudo Dragon. Cloned moves with the same name share their pages: Counter, Thunder Jolt, Reflector, etc. I don't see a particular need to change that system. Miles (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

I'm not really one to care about following what is always been done if there's something that works better and wouldn't be a hassle to implement. Can you elaborate better on your reasoning? Let's take a hypothetical situation where a character has a neutral special move called Discombobulation. That character has a clone with a neutral special move that functions completely, 100% identically to Discombobulation, but is instead named Vex. Then what?

OR say that a character has a down special called Booty Crush, where it's a ground pound or something like that. Their clone has a down special called Booty Crush, but it's actually the character throwing a heavy treasure chest ahead, operating completely different from Booty Crush but having the same name. Then what?

What you can probably infer from this is that you can't always rely on names. That's the problem with the criteria you have presented. Logically both of these hypothetical situations would be a pickle with a criteria completely fixated on names. MuteSpittah (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

The problem is that then you have messy situations of "move with similar or identical function but different name" that have no business being together on the same page. Yoshi Bomb and Bowser Bomb both have the same trajectory and a similar effect, but have separate names and origins and are used by different characters. Drawing the line at "functions similarly" is ambiguous. And right now we do have a few instances of "same name, separate page" for moves that have absolutely nothing to do with each other in function, history or character, like Thunder/Thunder and Bomb/Bomb. Names are not an absolute grounds for splitting or merging on their own, but they are important. In your hypothetical, Vex would have its own page and the two BC moves would be separate, like Thunder and Bomb. Miles (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

I knew you were going to say something like that. That's all irrelevant because we're talking about clones, as in character clones (or characters that obviously derive heavily from others, e.g. Wolf), and their moves.

In my hypothetical situation, yes, Discombobulation and Vex, despite behaving completely identically between two clones, will be separated into two pages. And both Booty Crushes, despite behaving completely differently between two clones, will be on the same page, which highlights the problem of basing this all mainly on names. MuteSpittah (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Falco Phantasm and Agility are different moves completely Poultry(talk) the Team Liquid 14:18, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

Do you even read? MuteSpittah (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

@MuteSpittah: Those provisions more or less encompass all cloned moves. I can't think of one move that doesn't fall into those categories. Serpent King 17:17, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

Not exactly. There's stuff like Dark Pit's Power of Flight and Guardian Orbitars that are identical between the two. There's stuff like Lucina's specials which have same damage output throughout, but that's part of how she plays as a whole anyways. There's Dr. Mario's Super Sheet with slight damage and reach differences and doesn't stall in SSB4, in which case those changes are noted in the Cape page where both moves are covered. Don't forget Pichu, who damages itself with all electrical moves, and whose Skull Bash can be charged longer and do slightly more damage, and Thunder does different damage and knockbac, but those moves are still on the same page. Agility has a different name from Quick Attack and has no damage output whatsoever, and has its own page. Oh yeah, and don't forget all the Fire Emblem Counters, all of which have differences in terms of damage, knockback, range, frames, etc. and are on the same page.MuteSpittah (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

@Mute, Your wrong, Lucina's Neutral B has a different animation, Same with Power of Flight, and Guardian orbitars have a different voice clip Poultry(talk) the Team Liquid 12:31, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

Once again Poultry, do you even read? Or are you just trolling? We don't care about incredibly minor things such as a very, very tiny change such as small change in animation. Voice clips are irrelevant here. MuteSpittah (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

I have to say, that was a bit rude. Even if someone's logic is flawed, that doesn't give you the right to be nasty to them. Please try to be a little nicer and less critical. Serpent King 20:45, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

Sure, but if you're going to contribute to a discussion, at least know a significant amount about it so that if and when you contribute to it, you'll actually keep it progressing in a good direction and not come across as uninformed or trolling. MuteSpittah (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

SW:TALK rule break? -- BeepYou, a user with no grammar at all :v (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

You don't need to point any fingers man, that gets nothing done. MuteSpittah (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

I do read, in fact i have all games now, im just telling you that there NOT EXACTLY THE SAME, every move is different, whether it be just a minor hitbox change or small animation difference, hitbox changes can change the move completely Poultry(talk) the Team Liquid 20:54, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

You are missing the entire point dude. I never said that clone moves are exactly the same. It's just the some differences warrant separate pages and others don't. MuteSpittah (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

When it says "significant" up there it means "enough to warrant a separate page due to the overall differentiation and amount of content written / able to be written on the move's SW page." Not declaring minor-yet game-changing differences to be not game-changing differences. I didn't really say that, and thought that due to the topic at hand people would get it, but I guess not, so I guess this misunderstanding is on me. Sorry for getting mad at you. MuteSpittah (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

After reading all the points listed here and reviewing each potential candidate for a merge or split, I move that we Leave as is. Additionally, I agree with Miles: move properties should be mostly irrelevant in the splitting/merging of a special move page. If the name of the move is different, the moves should have their own pages. The only exception I can think of to this rule is Dr. Mario, but that should be a given. Serpent King 21:37, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

Can you elaborate though on why you think that is how it should be? I will admit that it is nice to have cloned moves with the same name on the same page. And, what would you think about Super Sheet, Silver Bow, Wolf's Blaster, Electroshock Arm, and Fire Arrow? MuteSpittah (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

All could get pages except for Wolf's blaster because it's still called "Blaster". Serpent King 22:42, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

Ok, that makes sense with your stance. But can you give a reason for your stance though? MuteSpittah (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

I take by your silence that you don't have an answer. Which is fine, I guess, but I was curious. MuteSpittah (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2016 (EDT)

No my silence meant that I didn't notice that you replied. Reason is: To merge all special move pages within a certain criteria is to create unnecessary clutter on some pages. On the flipside, to split all pages within the criteria is to create many pages with near-identical information. That is why I say that having a criteria list for this stuff is illogical, it has to be a case by case thing. Serpent King 17:55, 17 April 2016 (EDT)

Ok, I understand. I made the criteria mostly in a way that mostly reflects how things are right now. I get that it's flawed in the "significance" part which is where things get a little blurred. MuteSpittah (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2016 (EDT)

The case-by-case basis presented by this criteria is, is there enough, in an intuitive sense, enough feasible information written or to be written about this differentiated move. I just wrote this to at least give SOME form of structure. MuteSpittah (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2016 (EDT)

Bump (yes, I've been following this). John PK SMAAAASH!! 12:04, 19 April 2016 (EDT)