Talk:Aqua jump (disambiguation)

Could someone please add a video link or video to this page?--MysteryHeff ~ Ike Rox Sox off ^{TALK ~ CONTRIBS} 05:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't find anything on Youtube :'( Cheezperson {talk}stuff 05:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

would anyone be able to maybe make a video for it then, only if there willing to?--MysteryHeff ~ Ike Rox Sox off ^{TALK ~ CONTRIBS} 11:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The merge

I say No. For one thing, it's about 2 attacks.--MegaTron1XD 03:14, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

The article's really, really short, though, and I can't think of anything better to do with it. Sir Anon the great 04:01, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

A short article isn't a good reason for a merge. This can occur in the next SSB.--MegaTron1XD 04:04, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

No, but it could easily be explained in both the articles about water gun and FLUDD. Anon 04:09, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Well, It deals with two different articles, so it really can't be merged into both. 25T16 It's-a me! 23:43, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

Since it's only two sentences, it can be mentioned on both pages. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Also, it is generally not a good idea to bump a topic that is over a year old. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

While the topic is over a year old, the merge tag is still on, and the previous conversation came to no consensus/conclusion. So the bump here was perfectly fine. Omega Tyrant 00:53, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

For myself, I think the information here belong in those articles. This isn't really a "technique", or anything notable enough for its own article. Omega Tyrant

Why not putting this ' technique' to both article? (-O-)Lucas-IV- pikaaaa 14:36, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Maybe it could be a new technique

This could give Mario and Squirtle an advantage in competitive play. Why not make it a strategy? Remember, Vote NO For Issue #2 174.101.76.107 15:55, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Explanation? You just can't say something is useful without demonstrating why it is. Omega Tyrant 16:03, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Merge

Is the name "aqua jump" at all official? Even if it is, there's no need for it to have its own page... The information would be far better suited to being in the Trivia sections in the F.L.U.D.D. and Water Gun articles. PenguinofDeath 16:55, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Agree BlindColours 16:57, 7 November 2011 (EST)

As I said earlier in the IRC, this page is basically a trivia point fluffed up to somehow make a stub (though that's pushing it). Merge. --- ReiDemon, Author Extraordinaire, 17:02, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Merge This article seems near completely pointless by itself. It would be better as a small section in the moves' pages.-Ivy73 20:03, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Per all. Stubs are bad for our community. BUMP --107.5.57.137 20:16, 7 November 2011 (EST)

An article shouldn't be merged/deleted just for the sake of removing a stub. Omega Tyrant 21:48, 7 November 2011 (EST)

I expressed my reasons several times and responded to all disagreements, so I have 1/0 support for this merge. Mr. Anontalk 22:31, 7 November 2011 (EST)

This is barely even trivia. I'm sure all non-flinching hitboxes with nonzero knockback have the same effect. Toomai Glittershine The Different 23:24, 7 November 2011 (EST)

I thought it was a glitch? Mr. Anontalk 09:23, 8 November 2011 (EST)

--Sirmentio (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2012 (EDT) i think this REALLY is just gonna die due to all of those notifications on the actual page

No Merge — It's simple. What do we merge this with? FLUDD? Water Gun? Both? If one and not the other, it misses the valuable information for the other. If both, how does this redirect work? I think a disambiguation page for this makes the least sense. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is to just keep this page. If it was just a single character's move that could do this, it would be easy to say merge. But the logistics of this makes presenting the information on this page the most logical option. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:46, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

I have to agree with Clarinet Hawk, for the same reason we have Peanut as a separate article. No Merge Toast ltimatum 08:17, 20 April 2012 (EDT)

Bumping because I'm a horrible person but I'd say it's sufficiently mentioned in both articles, delete tags etc. Smoreking (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2012 (EDT)