| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 75: |
Line 75: |
|
| |
|
| I also ask this: Why is "jab" being treated as a ''different term'' entirely, rather than as a ''shorthand''? Shorthands are not necessarily abbreviations of the root (usually yes, but not always). [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The SMASH-GINEER 17:00, January 16, 2021 (EST) | | I also ask this: Why is "jab" being treated as a ''different term'' entirely, rather than as a ''shorthand''? Shorthands are not necessarily abbreviations of the root (usually yes, but not always). [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The SMASH-GINEER 17:00, January 16, 2021 (EST) |
| :It should not be based on what you think is correct, it should be based on what the community considers correct, regardless of how uneducated/misinformed the majority of the fanbase is. And "jab" is not a shorthand for "neutral attack" the same way something like "fair" is for "forward aerial". '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 17:04, January 16, 2021 (EST)
| |
| ::If you think this is a question of "correct", than answer this: Does the community actually believe that "jab" is correct? Or are they just using it because it's easier to type/say than "neutral attack" (thus, a shorthand)? [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Incomprehensible 18:52, January 17, 2021 (EST)
| |
| :::Jab is definitely not the shorthand form of neutral attack, it came around because it's popularly used to describe these kinds of attacks in other fighting games, and happened to stick in Smash. It's not like Smash players looked on the official website and said "Neutral attack is too complicated, let's abbreviate it as 'jab' for short." The shorthand form of neutral attack is probably closer to "AAA" or “neutral A”. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 22:42, January 17, 2021 (EST)
| |
| ::::Okay so this is not a case of "we'll call it X because Y is bad", or "we'll call it X because we don't know any better", but rather "we'll call it X because we like X". I think this is an important distinction: the only reason people use the alternate term is because people use the alternate term. There's no additional reason such as "the official term wasn't known until too late" (like "ukemi" vs. "tech", or "attribute" vs. "effect"), "the official term is too unconventional" (like "prat fall" vs. "trip", or "Super Smash Bros. for 3DS and Wii U" vs. "Super Smash Bros. 4"), or "the official term is actively confusing" (like "grab attack" vs. "pummel" and "grab aerial", or "hitstun" vs "hitlag"). Because of this, I think the "it's more popular" argument is a fair bit weaker. This is why, in combination with the unique circumstance that this is not a ''lone'' term (as it resides in the pattern of naming attacks after inputs), I don't think we should rename it. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Zesty 07:53, January 19, 2021 (EST)
| |
| :::::It is not the wiki's job to actively question why people use a certain term over the other. In addition, just because the official name for a term was discovered too late, doesn't mean people will automatically switch to using it. Do you think that people would really call it "ukemi" over "tech" if they knew it was called that from the start?
| |
| :::::Frankly I don't understand why you're so insistent on preserving the page title for a term that's used at least 100 times less than the more commonly used name, for reasons that fail to transcend SW:OFFICIAL. Our policies state that we should use the community's name as the title, not "unofficial title if the official name is too weird/complicated/etc." If we changed every single mention of "neutral attack" to "jab" on SmashWiki, I believe that the articles would become more readable and accessible to the community, by replacing an archaic term with one that everyone knows. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 14:39, January 19, 2021 (EST)
| |
| ::::::The spirit of SW:OFFICIAL is that we should not be forced to use official terms simply because they are official. I am demonstrating that there is reason that isn't "it's official" to keep "neutral attack" as the name - that being it is not a ''lone'' term, but part of a larger ''system'' of terms that is reasonably formulaic and fairly self-consistent. People can keep using "jab" as a shorthand in article text, it's no more confusing than shorthands like "fair". (Yes, things can be shorthands even if they don't appear related, like "zair" for "grab aerial", or "Bolts" for the "Tampa Bay Lightning" hockey team. Language is weird sometimes.)
| |
| ::::::And of course, SW:OFFICIAL only says that "the fan term ''may'' be chosen instead" "on a case-by-case basis" (emphasis added). People seem to be under the impression that we have to make this move because there are numbers of term popularity. But even if we followed the letter of the policy rather than the spirit, that is not the case. There is reason beyond what is and isn't official to not change this. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Different 00:14, January 20, 2021 (EST)
| |
| :::::::The examples of "jab" and "fair" you listed are not the same. "Jab" is not a shorthand for "neutral attack." Using the term "fair" or "Bolts" in an article sounds extremely casual and perhaps not like formal encyclopedic speech, while using "jab" instead of "neutral attack" sounds encyclopedic in any context. In addition, there is no formulaic "system" in place at all with regards to the names of these articles, unlike what you think. Every move name other than "neutral attack" is named only after the community's most commonly used name (with the exception of maybe "get up attack" over "floor attack," though that might be a move for a later date). The tilt attacks were officially named "strong attacks" until Ultimate, yet the pages were named as "forward tilt" etc. for years, so our article titles clearly aren't based on what's official. The moves "forward smash" and "side special" are performed the same way with the control stick, yet one is called "forward" and the other is called "side," proving there really is no rhyme or reason when it comes to naming these pages.
| |
| :::::::And SW:OFFICIAL states "Prioritize using official names unless a different name is much more widely used." And the "spirit" of SW:OFFICIAL has always been that the widespread and popular community name should be used over the obscure official name. Do you really not think that a 100 times greater usage of the unofficial term applies here? '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 13:13, January 20, 2021 (EST)
| |
| ::::::::You missed the point of how moves are systematically named after their ''inputs''. "Jab" and "strong side" are not inputs, while "neutral attack" and "forward tilt" are. There is indeed some inconsistency between "forward" and "side", but there's only a single exception (side special) so it's not all that bad, and as stated above I am open to fixing it (although not ''enthused'' for it).
| |
| ::::::::In addition, "neutral attack" is far from an "obscure" name. It's not like "prat fall" or "impact stall", where the first reaction to using it is probably "what?". People just don't commonly use it because it takes a lot of effort to type out compared to "nair" or such, and there's not really a better way to abbreviate it. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Cloronic 20:46, January 20, 2021 (EST)
| |
| :::::::::What makes you so sure that people only use "jab" because "neutral attack" is so hard to spell out? By your logic, if shorter name = abbreviation, does that mean "tripping" is a shorthand of "prat falling", and we should rename that article title too? I don't know what your definition of "obscure" is, but the "proper" name being used at least 100 times more than the common name definitely seems pretty "obscure" to me.
| |
| :::::::::I am fully aware of the way that the moves are named. But who in this case is "systematically naming" everything? The "strong attacks" have been official names of the moves since the beginning of the series, and those have nothing to do with the controller inputs. I'd argue that "smash attack" doesn't either, because you perform those by "tapping" the control stick (quoted from the article).
| |
| :::::::::So who is doing the systematic naming here? It's definitely not Nintendo or Sakurai, and it sure isn't the community either. This naming system is entirely based off of people on SmashWiki who make up a tiny fraction of the Smash community as a whole. Your insistence on keeping this ideal system of naming articles is just an example of SmashWiki trying to police the community's terminology, rather than the other way around. Usage of the term "neutral attack" would be practically nonexistent if it weren't for SmashWiki. SmashWiki is a community based wiki, and I don't understand why you're so stubborn on trying to create a division between SmashWiki and the community all just to perfect everything up to what *you personally* think is correct. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 21:58, January 20, 2021 (EST)
| |
| I was initially going to say "well, the page should at least be 'jab attack' if we're going to move it", but then I remembered that we name these pages after their control stick inputs, not just "what the community calls them", and we most definitely should '''''not''''' move "neutral special" and "neutral aerial" to "jab special" and "jab aerial". Honestly I think having this incongruency would be a bigger sin than not naming every page after what the community calls them, especially when sometimes they don't know any better. And if that's really the prime reason to move... well isn't that the entire fucking point of the Wiki? To allow people in the community to inform others? And it's not like anybody would be confused from calling it a "neutral attack": it's not like "ukemi" which requires Japanese or "strong attack" which would probably have been a nightmare if not for the policy; especially with "neutral special" and "neutral air" I think readers will get the idea really quick (the only stickler is probably "forward smash", which I've called "side smash" my whole life but that's another discussion). Just because we have a policy saying we don't always name pages after what the games call them doesn't mean that we have to opt for more informal and more incongruous terminology, especially when that's far from the best option (like "regular A" or "side B" or "Z attack"). Those informal terms serve as redirects ''for a reason''.<br>So yeah, I '''oppose''' moving the page to jab. - [[User:EndGenuity|EndGenuity]] ([[User talk:EndGenuity|talk]]) 21:09, January 20, 2021 (EST)
| |
| :Sure our job is to educate people, but that doesn't mean trying to shoehorn readers into correcting something that was never incorrect in the first place. You can still inform readers with a line at the top of the page saying that the move is officially called "neutral attack." The word "jab" already appears four times as much as "neutral attack" on the page itself. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 21:58, January 20, 2021 (EST)
| |
| '''Oppose''' Toomai made a good point about the page being named after the input. Even though Jab is the more common name by the community, its meaning can be somewhat vague compared to the other move pages, since jab doesn't give its input in its name. Also, the word jab has real world applications that conflict with what the community calls it; for example, the type of punch in Little Mac's forward tilt is called a jab in real life, leading to the possibility that some people will think this is a style of attack a la sex kick. [[Special:Contributions/72.219.72.215|72.219.72.215]] 21:22, January 20, 2021 (EST)
| |
| :SmashWiki already has pages like [[Counter]] with a disambiguation line at the top of the page that redirects to the general type of attack. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 21:58, January 20, 2021 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| The phrase "jab" appears on the article 95 times, while "neutral attack" only appears on the article 20 times. Meanwhile the terms "f-tilt, "f-smash," and "fair" appear a grand total of 3 times altogether across their respective articles. Even if you discount all the usages of "rapid jab," there is no other move article with such a high usage of the supposedly shorthand term. This suggests that "jab" is not just a shorthand but an alternative name for "neutral attack." If "jab" really is just a shorthand for, neutral attack, how come SmashWiki editors aren't actively avoiding its usage like they are for the shorthand terms on the other move articles?
| |
| <br> In addition, I do not see the benefit of having one term be the article title, but another term be used far more often throughout the article. This only serves to confuse readers and decrease the page's cohesiveness. If you are in favor of keeping this article name as-is, would you also want to change every instance of the word "jab" to "neutral attack" throughout the article (therefore forcing SmashWiki editors to use a term that they don't prefer)? '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 03:08, January 22, 2021 (EST)
| |
| :Yes, because a [https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Jab&redirect=no link] that [[Jab|redirects to the related page]] is the most difficult thing one can make on a wiki... [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|🦊'''Furry Nation'''🐺]]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 03:19, January 22, 2021 (EST)
| |
| ::Hmm, actually, keeping that aforementioned redirect while keeping the page named as it is now would make much more sense. Since we already have the Jab redirect, people can already find this page easily enough. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|🦊'''Furry Nation'''🐺]]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 16:49, January 22, 2021 (EST)
| |
| :::If the reader is going to spend most of the article reading it as "jab," why not just move tje article title to "jab" in the first place? '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 03:21, January 24, 2021 (EST)
| |
| ::::Because that would break consistency with [[Tilt attack]], [[Smash attack]], and [[Aerial attack]]. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|🦊'''Furry Nation'''🐺]]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 03:42, January 24, 2021 (EST)
| |
| ::::"The article is currently not using its own title correctly" is an easily-fixable problem that should not affect whether the page is moved. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Wacko 11:46, January 24, 2021 (EST)
| |
| :::::So you're in favor of forcing SmashWiki editors to use a terminology that they overwhelming don't prefer? '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 00:32, January 26, 2021 (EST)
| |
| ::::::Don't try to play the emotional blackmail card with me. There is a redirect, and it's very easy to use. Heck, maybe we could even add "Also known as a '''jab'''" to the leading paragraph. Oh wait, it is already there. But seriously, the fact that renaming this article will break consistency with others is more than enough reason to not move. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|🦊'''Furry Nation'''🐺]]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 00:38, January 26, 2021 (EST)
| |
| :::::::What does emotional blackmail have to do with anything here? I am simply asking questions, and you should be prepared to answer them. I could reverse the situation and say that we should just have a redirect and say "also known as "neutral attack"" in the leading paragraph too.
| |
| :::::::Honestly, seeing a bunch of users ignoring the Smash community's overwhelming usage of a term due to their own personal preferences comes off as incredibly selfish to me. SmashWiki already has a hard enough time recruiting editors/maintaining connections with the greater Smash community, and people like you trying to preserve archaic and obscure vocabulary in the wiki's phrasebook certainly does not help. I still do not understand why you think that "consistency" is more important than the wants and needs of the thousands of readers who come across these articles? Who do you think SmashWiki is originally made for: the reader, or yourself? '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 03:10, January 28, 2021 (EST)
| |
| :::::::I would agree with you on consistency if “neutral attack” was also a widely used term amongst the community. But considering how “neutral attack” is virtually nonexistent outside of SmashWiki, I don’t see how the consistency argument can be a priority here. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 03:26, January 28, 2021 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| Pretty much in agreement with Toomai's points here. '''Oppose'''. [[User:Miles of SmashWiki|<font color="dodgerblue"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''Miles''']] <font color="silver">([[User talk:Miles of SmashWiki|<font color="silver">talk]])</font></font></span></font> 03:29, January 28, 2021 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| '''Oppose'''. I can say that "Neutral attack" is a common term used to describe the most simplest attack of a fighter. While this is true, the term "jab" defines it as a simple punch. While a majority of characters do that, some characters such as King Dedede and Marth use their weapons instead of a punch. So I don't believe that this page should be moved to "jab" and preferable to keep its title to "Neutral attack". [[User:Invisible Star|Invisible Star]] ([[User talk:Invisible Star|talk]]) 01:21, January 30, 2021 (EST)
| |
| :In the Smash community the term "jab" is used to describe all neutral attacks regardless if the character uses a punch or not (Everyone still calls it "Marth's jab" even if it's a sword swing). And if "neutral attack" is a common term, what do you make of the statistics provided at the top of the thread that show that "jab" is used at least 100 times more frequently on all platforms outside of SmashWiki? '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 03:01, January 30, 2021 (EST)
| |
| ::''"What does emotional blackmail have to do with anything here? I am simply asking questions, and you should be prepared to answer them."''<br>What question? You (come off as) very sardonically asking if I prefer forcing people to use the less common term, when, regardless of whether this page is renamed or not, they can very easily use either term, either when linking to this article, or writing in this article. It shouldn't be that big of a deal, and yet your tone very strikingly comes off as someone who's trying to cry out victimisation. Now, you can tell me that's not at all what your intentions are, and maybe that's true, but I personally find this entire move proposal quite frivolous, and your arguments, which I think carry no weight whatsoever for or against this proposal, are not helping. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|🦊'''Furry Nation'''🐺]]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 03:07, January 30, 2021 (EST)
| |
| This proposal hasn't gone anywhere recently, and the current consensus is at best heavily mixed. Do we want to carry this forward? [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|🦊'''Furry Nation'''🐺]]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 17:58, February 8, 2021 (EST)
| |
Log in
