Talk:Captain Falcon (Super Smash Flash)

Page format
I changed the page's format intentionally to match SSF2 character pages as well as how the attacks are coded and named in-game. Up attack comes after down attack because up attack is technically an up aerial (the unified damages for up & down aerial is intentional too; they literally use the same variable).

Normal/side/down attacks are grounded moves that can be used midair, while up attack is the other way around. The way they're named is proof of that. I've been overhauling the SSF character pages so they're up to date with the new 'metagame' and the updates made to SSF2 pages.

Therefore, I'll be redoing my format changes and apply them to the other characters, and I'm expecting said changes to not be reverted again. Gregory  Naruto   02:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well I don't really see why the SSF pages actually need to match the SSF2 pages so closely. I guess I can understand why the attack images would be separated from the tables, but when the galleries consist of nothing but those images it feels pretty off. I can probably accept it though, and I will say I do like that the damages are unified when they're coded the same. I'm all for having attributes and hard data included, too (though I wonder if the latter really warrants a separate page).


 * But beyond that, the attack name column should not exist, period. Frankly I don't they should exist for SSF2 pages either, but for SSF characters, moves aren't actually named in-game or elsewhere for that matter. It doesn't look right at all when a lot of attacks and even full characters worth of movesets are completely unnamed and have no real names to put in their place. It's already been gutted from SSF pages in the past for that reason and I am not in any mood for bringing it back, if an attack is based on something then there's no harm in putting it in the description. CrazyNaut (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * While I cannot say completely dislike this change of format, what is conflicting me are the attack screenshots, I mean, I spent a whole afternoon taking those for the sole purpose to be part of the wikitable, not to be dropped off entirely on a gallery. This was due to the simplistic nature movesets from characters in SSF have and so that these rather short pages fill more lively.


 * I also gotta add the attack name column is very circumstantial too, while it works for certain characters (referring to characters' pages from both SSF and SSF2), it's completely useless for some, just looking at Naruto's moveset may get you the idea, it either may carry some generic names or it may end up with a redundant five-row column that just reads "N/A". --Ak-Un.PNG BYLL  EL  WYLL  Ak-Un.PNG 20:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I was actually planning on completely hiding the attack column on cases where no moves have names, but you two do have a point. I completely agree with CrazyNaut on the whole "attack images being separated makes sense, but they look weird when they're the only thing in the gallery section" thing. That can be solved by simply adding more screenshots, though, right?


 * While I do think that having the attack column there is better than, well, not having it, I'm fine with removing it, but we've got to be consistent. SSFs attacks mostly didn't get named, sure. However, neither did SSF2s normal attacks, and yet we're still keeping those in the table, for some reason. Gregory  SSF2_Zero_Suit_Samus_head.pngSSF2_Luffy_head.png Naruto   05:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I do actually remember bringing that up about SSF2 pages, I don't think the normal attack names are really necessary there either. If I recall correctly we got rid of them for at least one character (, I think?) but just never followed up on it for some reason. If I had the choice then I'd definitely go through with finishing what we started and keeping SSF the same way.


 * And you are right, technically adding more images to the galleries would make things look less weird. But, aside from the fact that SSF doesn't really offer much to work with as far as screenshots go (and actually getting consistently scaled screenshots is way harder), I think they'd still stand out from the crowd since they're just simple images of the attacks and that's kind of it. And since it's consistent with every page I'd wonder why we don't have that for the SSF2 characters for consistency's sake, and at that point I'd rather just re-integrate them into the table. In a way they cover for the images used in special move pages since the SSF attacks don't normally get their own pages, so I think keeping them together with their descriptions just looks right. CrazyNaut (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Good point. I guess it does make sense for the images to stay in the box...
 * Since my last post, however, I've changed my view on the attack column. For some normals in SSF2, their names were given by the devs (most notably Mega Man), and in other cases, the moves are quite clearly taken from their series (Sonic's forward aerial, for example). I really don't think we should just ignore that when deciding whether or not to give the normals an attack column...


 * What if the names for both specials and normals were added to the description column? This would completely remove the attack column from every move. The descriptions for each special are pretty long comparing to the descriptions for the other attacks. Due to the presence of the attack column, however, the special move wikitable is also the one with the thinnest description field.
 * This hurts the pages' design, and makes the boxes considerably longer as well. Making every attack look the way 's normals do would solve that. Gregory  SSF2_Zero_Suit_Samus_head.pngSSF2_Luffy_head.png Naruto   02:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I was aware certain normal attacks are given real names, just like certain moves in SSF may have names. That doesn't really change anything though, it's still very circumstantial and redundant for both characters that don't have any and characters with unnamed moves mixed in. Also, moves aren't usually given names because the developers explicitly give them a name; we generally just give them names because they're based on something that does have a name, and on that front I'd rather just put a "based on" or "resembles" sentence in the description. I think it's just as effective, and I also find it more proper and informative to say something like "based on the Sonic Eagle from Sonic Battle" instead of just "Sonic Eagle" in the attack column when we're referring to moves that don't have pages.


 * But as far as the special moves pages go, I can't say I'm willing to get rid of the attack columns there, mostly due to how the special moves are... well, special. They're far more complicated and important to each given character, and there's a reason why every single special move in the game has its own page, which the attack column also universally provides links to in that table. And as far as the description box goes, the Misc. table has a longer description box than every other table on every page due to the lack of a damage column (even though Luigi exists), but we make an exception for that table, and I think we can do the same with the special moves table. If all the attacks were in one table like on Smash Wiki then I'd probably understand why having a few shorter rows than others would substantially hurt a page's design, but I just see the special moves table as a special table. CrazyNaut (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)