Talk:Neutral attack: Difference between revisions

Talk:Neutral attack (edit)

Revision as of 19:43, January 15, 2021

4,317 bytes added , 4 years ago

→‎Move proposal

Nymbare

840

edits

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 :I '''support''' this move. ...I honestly don't think I've seen/heard a whole lot of people say "neutral attack" in favor of "jab" myself. [[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''the Rurouni'''</span>]] 02:30, January 15, 2021 (EST)
 :'''Support''': Not much else to add, considering jab is somewhat official now. [[File:Toad.png|20px]] '''[[User:Omega Toad|<font color="deepskyblue">Omegα Toαd,</font>]] [[User talk:Omega Toad|<font color="blue">the Toαd Wαrrior.</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Omega Toad|<font color="#7B5BEE">(BUP)</font>]]''' 03:25, January 15, 2021 (EST)
+:I strongly, ''strongly'' '''support'''. The use of "neutral attack" feels like an egregious failure to meld with the greater community's language. As for Toomai's counterarguments:
+:# I fail to see why any weight is being placed on this percentage of official attack names. There is no policy that dictates this is a percentage that ought to be kept high; contrarily, the existence of SW:OFFICIAL renders any sort of "officialism check" entirely arbitrary and unnecessary. SW:OFFICIAL exists because what should be kept consistent for a wiki intended to be a community resource is not the use of official terms, but of widely-used ones. In trying to maintain a precedent for the use of official terms despite popular alternatives, inconsistency is ''introduced'' to the wiki, not solved. Jab is used frequently on this wiki by virtue of being the simpler and wider-understood term. Instead of treating this like an inevitable slippage into the breaking of policy, we should correct the policy itself.<br><br>To argue that a move to "jab" would cause inconsistency is flawed on two fronts: if the goal here is to stay consistent ''with official content'', we're in violation of SW:OFFICIAL by trying to supplant a simple and pervasively-used term with its rarer, more unwieldy official counterpart; if the goal is to stay consistent ''within the wiki's usage of the term'', we are ''already'' failing, and it's far more preferable to correct this error by normalizing the community term.
+:# This second point is not chiefly an issue with the current argument, but of the potential to establish a precedent for messy special move name changing arguments down the line. I do not believe this will be the case, as not all official terms are created equal.<br><br>Consider that Reflector and Turnip are special moves, even the most common of which are only used by single-digit numbers of characters, and all of which are rigorously defined and named through in-game move lists, trophies, etc. Compare that to jabs – every single character who has ever been in Smash has had a jab, but official names for the term are, compared to special moves, often hidden within more obscure resources. This results in generally increased relevance of jabs as a discussable concept with regards to the series at large than any single special move. Furthermore, while that combination of circumstances is not the only one that facilitates the creation of fanmade terms, it ''does'' change the reason for which the terms are created and the purpose they fulfill due to a comparative dearth of official references to "neutral attack" despite its status as an official term. The official use of "neutral attack" is such a rarity that I believe the advent of "jab" was more brought about by the perceived need to fill a lexical gap than as an alternative to a known, existing term. I believe this is a contributing factor to jab having become such a widely-used term, and is simultaneously grounds to replace "neutral attack" with "jab", but ''not'' to, for instance, replace "Reflector" with "shine".
+:# As a final point, I'd argue that the result of this move ''will'' be beneficial enough to justify the work involved. Consider if, as of the Smash 4 era, we had decided to abide by officialism and refer to tilts as strongs throughout the wiki. Although searching "forward tilt" would still lead you to the page about the concept, "strong" remaining as the prevailing term would create an unnecessary and uncomfortable schism between common speech and wiki presentation, resulting in second-guessing, potential inconsistency of style, and in severe cases a hindrance in the flow of information and learning. The current case with jab/neutral attack is analogous to this scenario, and it's one worth correcting even if it takes a while – and even then, if we have a lot of people making coordinated edits assisted by bots, the switch and all its repercussions could be done and dealt with in a matter of mere days.
+:All this considered, I do not believe there is a justifiable reason to maintain the use of such a term under the circumstances. [[File:Nymbaresigicon.png]] [[User:Nymbare|<span style="color:#00BFFF">Nymbare</span>]] [[User talk:Nymbare|<span style="color:#0066FF">and his talk</span>]] 19:43, January 15, 2021 (EST)
 You are correct that the community at large uses "jab" far more frequently. However, consider the following: