4,296
edits
Forum:Competitive namespace reorganization: Difference between revisions
Forum:Competitive namespace reorganization (edit)
Revision as of 15:35, September 7, 2017
, 7 years ago→The discussion
John3637881 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
*'''Exclude 3, 4, 6, Ø, and X'''. To explain exactly ''why'' I disagree with those... For 3: It makes absolutely no sense to me to put crews under the smasher namespace. "Smasher" has always basically implied one to me, not a group of people. For 4: Admittedly, there may be some bias surrounding this one, but I just feel like the smasher namespace is already pretty tight as is. It just fits in so well, and to change it would just be....strange, for lack of a better word. For 6: Basically same reason as 4. For Ø: While I will say things have seemed fine to me as is, I can't deny I feel like the way we deal with tournament articles has been a little haphazard, to say the least. For X: Same reason as 4 and 6. Plus, it's overall just a stupid idea in general and anyone who agrees with that idea should be ashamed of themselves. [[User:Disaster Flare|<span style="color:Green; text-shadow: 0px 0px 3px green">'''Disaster'''</span> <span style="color:Blue;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px blue">'''Flare'''</span>]] [[File:Disaster Flare signature image.png|20px]] ''[[User talk:Disaster Flare|<span style="color:SkyBlue;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px skyblue">(talk)</span>]]'' 23:44, 31 August 2017 (EDT) | *'''Exclude 3, 4, 6, Ø, and X'''. To explain exactly ''why'' I disagree with those... For 3: It makes absolutely no sense to me to put crews under the smasher namespace. "Smasher" has always basically implied one to me, not a group of people. For 4: Admittedly, there may be some bias surrounding this one, but I just feel like the smasher namespace is already pretty tight as is. It just fits in so well, and to change it would just be....strange, for lack of a better word. For 6: Basically same reason as 4. For Ø: While I will say things have seemed fine to me as is, I can't deny I feel like the way we deal with tournament articles has been a little haphazard, to say the least. For X: Same reason as 4 and 6. Plus, it's overall just a stupid idea in general and anyone who agrees with that idea should be ashamed of themselves. [[User:Disaster Flare|<span style="color:Green; text-shadow: 0px 0px 3px green">'''Disaster'''</span> <span style="color:Blue;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px blue">'''Flare'''</span>]] [[File:Disaster Flare signature image.png|20px]] ''[[User talk:Disaster Flare|<span style="color:SkyBlue;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px skyblue">(talk)</span>]]'' 23:44, 31 August 2017 (EDT) | ||
*'''Exclude 4, 6, Ø, X''' Late to the party on this. And I am partly responsible for this vote's creation, so it seems even worse for me to be behind. Anyway, my stance is that Smashers: needs to be unchanged semantically. This has been the system for about a decade. Therefore, anything that needs to be put out of the mainspace shall be placed into the new category. It should not be a catch-all group since that would scrap Smashers. In terms of 3 and 5, I see another option which is essentially a hybrid of the two put together. So. At the very least creating Tournament: seems like the best option in my opinion. What dictates an article being placed under it needs to be ironed out. For example, [[Tournament]] would look ''really'' odd if it were not kept in mainspace or had its display title adjusted to hide the category (defeating the purpose). As a closer/side note, whether it is regional or national is less relevant than if it's directly on the subject of a specific tournament or series in my opinion. (Such as if it uses a tournament-related infobox template) [[User: RobSir_zx|<span style="color:orange">Rob</span>]][[User talk:RobSir_zx|<span style="color:blue">'''Sir '''</span>]][[File:RobSir-sig.jpg|16px]] [[Special:Contributions/RobSir zx|<span style="color:red">zx</span>]] 00:17, 1 September 2017 (EDT) | *'''Exclude 4, 6, Ø, X''' Late to the party on this. And I am partly responsible for this vote's creation, so it seems even worse for me to be behind. Anyway, my stance is that Smashers: needs to be unchanged semantically. This has been the system for about a decade. Therefore, anything that needs to be put out of the mainspace shall be placed into the new category. It should not be a catch-all group since that would scrap Smashers. In terms of 3 and 5, I see another option which is essentially a hybrid of the two put together. So. At the very least creating Tournament: seems like the best option in my opinion. What dictates an article being placed under it needs to be ironed out. For example, [[Tournament]] would look ''really'' odd if it were not kept in mainspace or had its display title adjusted to hide the category (defeating the purpose). As a closer/side note, whether it is regional or national is less relevant than if it's directly on the subject of a specific tournament or series in my opinion. (Such as if it uses a tournament-related infobox template) [[User: RobSir_zx|<span style="color:orange">Rob</span>]][[User talk:RobSir_zx|<span style="color:blue">'''Sir '''</span>]][[File:RobSir-sig.jpg|16px]] [[Special:Contributions/RobSir zx|<span style="color:red">zx</span>]] 00:17, 1 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
*'''Exclude 3, 4, 6, Ø, and X'''. I like the idea of an overhaul but I have a problem with most of these plans. '''3.''' is potentially misleading, '''4.''' implies that all Smashers are competitive players (some, like {{Sm|Toomai}}, are not. '''6.''' is a bad idea for the same reason, '''Ø''' is bad because we need a change, and '''X''' is a bad idea because people could be led to believe that aspects of the competitive community are an actual part of the games themselves. The other proposals are great though. <b>[[User:john3637881|<span style="color: black;">John</span>]]</b> [[File:John3637881 Signature.png|20px]] <b>[[User talk:John3637881|<span style="color: red;">HUAH!</span>]]</b> 15:34, 7 September 2017 (EDT) | |||