Difference between revisions of "Talk:Glossary of player terms"
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
: {{c|Support}}, but there should be a hatnote where readers can easily find the trade and competitive specific glossaries. Also for the two different defintions of 'bombing' in Casual and Competitive, perhaps there could be a link that takes the reader to the competitive or casual defintion on either page.<br>[[User: Plutonium|<font color="FF4D00">Plutonium</font>]] {{FC|darkorange|(}}[[User talk:Plutonium|<font color="E3B778">talk</font>]]{{FC|darkorange|)}} {{FC|darkorange|(}}[[Special:Contributions/Plutonium|<font color="E3B778">contributions</font>]]{{FC|darkorange|)}} 21:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC) | : {{c|Support}}, but there should be a hatnote where readers can easily find the trade and competitive specific glossaries. Also for the two different defintions of 'bombing' in Casual and Competitive, perhaps there could be a link that takes the reader to the competitive or casual defintion on either page.<br>[[User: Plutonium|<font color="FF4D00">Plutonium</font>]] {{FC|darkorange|(}}[[User talk:Plutonium|<font color="E3B778">talk</font>]]{{FC|darkorange|)}} {{FC|darkorange|(}}[[Special:Contributions/Plutonium|<font color="E3B778">contributions</font>]]{{FC|darkorange|)}} 21:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC) | ||
− | :: Sorry for necroing, but I should probably clarify that it shouldn't be split any further than general, trade and competitive. Like [[User:Fisherboy800|Fisherboy800]] said, if we start making more glossaries like MvM, terms about [[Community fads|memes]], and class-specific terms (the latter not necessarily needing to be split, from it being fine staying on the General page) it will start to get frustrating for users who have to shift through lots of different pages to find one. Alongside this, some niché ones that could be created like [[Versus Saxton Hale|VSH]] would probably have little or almost no terms with no ways to verify they are used due to their low usage. Some newer editors might also put new terms in the wrong category and would have to be moved to the appropriate page, by moderators or other editors. If we have a bunch of pointless stubs that likely won't be updated it will cause frustration from both editors and users. <br> [[User:GrampaSwood|GrampaSwood]] once in an older topic on the [[Team Fortress Wiki talk:Community Strategy#Empty strategy articles|Community Strategy Project talk page]] where he suggested using {{tlx|Start map strategy}} to mass-create new articles, while Tark stated that ''"when a user clicks on an article, they expect to actually find *something*. An empty article is useless, and if the intent is to help editors... I honestly expect editors to know how to create pages in the first place."'' This basically applies here too, but for these glossary pages. <br><span style="font-family: TF2 Build;">[[User: Plutonium|<font color="FF4D00">Plutonium</font>]] {{User:Plutonium/Template:Sig/!}} {{FC|darkorange|(}}[[User talk:Plutonium|<font color="E3B778">talk</font>]]{{FC|darkorange|)}} {{User:Plutonium/Template:Sig/!}} {{FC|darkorange|(}}[[Special:Contributions/Plutonium|<font color="E3B778">contributions</font>]]{{FC|darkorange|)}} {{User:Plutonium/Template:Sig/!}} [[File:User Plutonium Welcome!.png|20x20px|link=Meet the Heavy]]</span> 19:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC) | + | :: Sorry for necroing, but I should probably clarify that it shouldn't be split any further than general, trade and competitive. Like [[User:Fisherboy800|Fisherboy800]] said, if we start making more glossaries like MvM, terms about [[Community fads|memes]], and class-specific terms (the latter not necessarily needing to be split, from it being fine staying on the General page) it will start to get frustrating for users who have to shift through lots of different pages to find one. Alongside this, some niché ones that could be created like [[Versus Saxton Hale|VSH]] would probably have little or almost no terms with no ways to verify they are used due to their low usage. Some newer editors might also put new terms in the wrong category and would have to be moved to the appropriate page, by moderators or other editors. If we have a bunch of pointless stubs that likely won't be updated it will cause frustration from both editors and users. <br> [[User:GrampaSwood|GrampaSwood]] once in an older topic on the [[Team Fortress Wiki talk:Community Strategy#Empty strategy articles|Community Strategy Project talk page]] where he suggested using {{tlx|Start map strategy}} to mass-create new articles, while Tark stated that ''"when a user clicks on an article, they expect to actually find *something*. An empty article is useless, and if the intent is to help editors... I honestly expect editors to know how to create pages in the first place."''<br> This basically applies here too, but for these glossary pages. <br><span style="font-family: TF2 Build;">[[User: Plutonium|<font color="FF4D00">Plutonium</font>]] {{User:Plutonium/Template:Sig/!}} {{FC|darkorange|(}}[[User talk:Plutonium|<font color="E3B778">talk</font>]]{{FC|darkorange|)}} {{User:Plutonium/Template:Sig/!}} {{FC|darkorange|(}}[[Special:Contributions/Plutonium|<font color="E3B778">contributions</font>]]{{FC|darkorange|)}} {{User:Plutonium/Template:Sig/!}} [[File:User Plutonium Welcome!.png|20x20px|link=Meet the Heavy]]</span> 19:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC) |
: {{c|Support}} Yeah, I was really only going to say that the Competitive terms should be split, but seeing as the list is just as big as the trading one, they should both be split off from the main page.--[[User:ShadowMan44|ShadowMan44]] ([[User talk:ShadowMan44|talk]]) 21:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC) | : {{c|Support}} Yeah, I was really only going to say that the Competitive terms should be split, but seeing as the list is just as big as the trading one, they should both be split off from the main page.--[[User:ShadowMan44|ShadowMan44]] ([[User talk:ShadowMan44|talk]]) 21:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC) | ||
: {{c|con}} Gonna go with no because there is a sizeable overlap between many terms in these categories which Mediarch provided good reference to. I believe creating a distinct barrier between terms will make it tedious to navigate other pages plain and simple complicates things and creates distinct lines when a lot of these terms sit in a grey area of usage. This problem is worsened by the fact that creating a competitive glossary would entail the creation of a trading glossary as many have discussed, and thinking about it MvM may also be a viable split under this proposal because of its significant difference from the other glossaries leaving you with 4 different pages for people seeking info to finger through. You also have to take into consideration that even if only competitive were split from this page it would be a tenth of the size of the actual glossary which in itself is not even that long. I'd see the appeal if competitive took up a big portion of the glossary but it really doesn't, so it would be a micro page that has a few loose terms that a wiki user looking for some arbitrary term that fit its parameters would have to navigate to for that info. It will just create confusion and is unnecessary. [[File:User Fisherboy800 Fisherboy.gif|100px|link=User:Fisherboy800]][[File:User Fisherboy800 User Talk Page.gif|45px|link=User talk:Fisherboy800]][[File:User_Fisherboy800_Contributions.gif|75px|link=Special:Contributions/Fisherboy800]] 02:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC) | : {{c|con}} Gonna go with no because there is a sizeable overlap between many terms in these categories which Mediarch provided good reference to. I believe creating a distinct barrier between terms will make it tedious to navigate other pages plain and simple complicates things and creates distinct lines when a lot of these terms sit in a grey area of usage. This problem is worsened by the fact that creating a competitive glossary would entail the creation of a trading glossary as many have discussed, and thinking about it MvM may also be a viable split under this proposal because of its significant difference from the other glossaries leaving you with 4 different pages for people seeking info to finger through. You also have to take into consideration that even if only competitive were split from this page it would be a tenth of the size of the actual glossary which in itself is not even that long. I'd see the appeal if competitive took up a big portion of the glossary but it really doesn't, so it would be a micro page that has a few loose terms that a wiki user looking for some arbitrary term that fit its parameters would have to navigate to for that info. It will just create confusion and is unnecessary. [[File:User Fisherboy800 Fisherboy.gif|100px|link=User:Fisherboy800]][[File:User Fisherboy800 User Talk Page.gif|45px|link=User talk:Fisherboy800]][[File:User_Fisherboy800_Contributions.gif|75px|link=Special:Contributions/Fisherboy800]] 02:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:04, 8 August 2025
Talk archives | |
![]() |
Archive 1 |
Split
I think we should split either the competitive terminology or both the competitive and trading sections into their own respective glossaries. We have the Wiki glossary on its own, which we can link to when necessary.
The benefits:
- Easier to navigate a single article with a dedicated purpose than an article with three separate large lists that may list similar terms in different lists.
- They can be individually linked on each relevant trading/competitive article at the top of the page. For example, all competitive articles have
{{competitive}}
and could also feature a line saying "This article uses a lot of competitive terminology. See Glossary of competitive terms for a list of the terminology and their meanings". This would save individual links to many terms in every article as well as set up the expectation that users are familiar with these terms. - Can provide a clear difference between a term that may be used in competitive and casual but with different meanings, or provide additional competitive-specific context for some terms.
Please let me know what you think. | s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 18:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I'd be okay with a split but I'd also be okay with it staying as is. Lot of the "competitive" terms overlap so not really sure if they need to be treated differently. Bombing, charge, rollout, etc are all listed as competitive terms but they feel like things that get used frequently in regular play. Or at least are things that most players would be familiar with. The majority A bunch of the "competitive" terms could get merged into the regular terms and feels like they would fit right. Not sure if there's enough actual competitive jargon to justify a split when a lot of them get used frequently by regular players. Splitting trading seems fine I guess as the lingo is a lot less likely to be used by non-traders. Mediarch
♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 14:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- I feel like that's exactly why it should be separated, the comp one can include more comp-specific definitions (e.g. a "bomb" can be just rocket jump where you shoot rockets from down below, but the comp one could specify when it's usually done or which targets it's most often done on). Doing this right now means most people that Ctrl + F the article get the casual player one instead of the comp one (would also mean having 2 different anchors).
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 15:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- I feel like that's exactly why it should be separated, the comp one can include more comp-specific definitions (e.g. a "bomb" can be just rocket jump where you shoot rockets from down below, but the comp one could specify when it's usually done or which targets it's most often done on). Doing this right now means most people that Ctrl + F the article get the casual player one instead of the comp one (would also mean having 2 different anchors).
- Just feels like splitting will mean the general glossary will have the exact same terms with less detail for arbitrary reasons. I just struggle to see how "Bombing casual" and "Bombing competitive" are really different enough to justify having different definitions in two different places. So the competitive definition would basically just add "and is typically used to kill high priority targets such as the medic" at the end? Don't really see why that can't just be included in the general definition. Same goes for terms like lit, destroyed, have/has, force, fat etc. They mean the same thing and are used in the exact same context so don't see why they need to be separated. They should just be merged in with the rest of the general terms imo. Mediarch
♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 16:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just feels like splitting will mean the general glossary will have the exact same terms with less detail for arbitrary reasons. I just struggle to see how "Bombing casual" and "Bombing competitive" are really different enough to justify having different definitions in two different places. So the competitive definition would basically just add "and is typically used to kill high priority targets such as the medic" at the end? Don't really see why that can't just be included in the general definition. Same goes for terms like lit, destroyed, have/has, force, fat etc. They mean the same thing and are used in the exact same context so don't see why they need to be separated. They should just be merged in with the rest of the general terms imo. Mediarch
Support The glossary itself is huge. It can really be divided into separate topics: the main part, trade, competitions
- DrotEroNoxt (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Support, but there should be a hatnote where readers can easily find the trade and competitive specific glossaries. Also for the two different defintions of 'bombing' in Casual and Competitive, perhaps there could be a link that takes the reader to the competitive or casual defintion on either page.
Plutonium (talk) (contributions) 21:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for necroing, but I should probably clarify that it shouldn't be split any further than general, trade and competitive. Like Fisherboy800 said, if we start making more glossaries like MvM, terms about memes, and class-specific terms (the latter not necessarily needing to be split, from it being fine staying on the General page) it will start to get frustrating for users who have to shift through lots of different pages to find one. Alongside this, some niché ones that could be created like VSH would probably have little or almost no terms with no ways to verify they are used due to their low usage. Some newer editors might also put new terms in the wrong category and would have to be moved to the appropriate page, by moderators or other editors. If we have a bunch of pointless stubs that likely won't be updated it will cause frustration from both editors and users.
GrampaSwood once in an older topic on the Community Strategy Project talk page where he suggested using{{Start map strategy}}
to mass-create new articles, while Tark stated that "when a user clicks on an article, they expect to actually find *something*. An empty article is useless, and if the intent is to help editors... I honestly expect editors to know how to create pages in the first place."
This basically applies here too, but for these glossary pages.
Plutonium | (talk) | (contributions) |19:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for necroing, but I should probably clarify that it shouldn't be split any further than general, trade and competitive. Like Fisherboy800 said, if we start making more glossaries like MvM, terms about memes, and class-specific terms (the latter not necessarily needing to be split, from it being fine staying on the General page) it will start to get frustrating for users who have to shift through lots of different pages to find one. Alongside this, some niché ones that could be created like VSH would probably have little or almost no terms with no ways to verify they are used due to their low usage. Some newer editors might also put new terms in the wrong category and would have to be moved to the appropriate page, by moderators or other editors. If we have a bunch of pointless stubs that likely won't be updated it will cause frustration from both editors and users.
Support Yeah, I was really only going to say that the Competitive terms should be split, but seeing as the list is just as big as the trading one, they should both be split off from the main page.--ShadowMan44 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Con Gonna go with no because there is a sizeable overlap between many terms in these categories which Mediarch provided good reference to. I believe creating a distinct barrier between terms will make it tedious to navigate other pages plain and simple complicates things and creates distinct lines when a lot of these terms sit in a grey area of usage. This problem is worsened by the fact that creating a competitive glossary would entail the creation of a trading glossary as many have discussed, and thinking about it MvM may also be a viable split under this proposal because of its significant difference from the other glossaries leaving you with 4 different pages for people seeking info to finger through. You also have to take into consideration that even if only competitive were split from this page it would be a tenth of the size of the actual glossary which in itself is not even that long. I'd see the appeal if competitive took up a big portion of the glossary but it really doesn't, so it would be a micro page that has a few loose terms that a wiki user looking for some arbitrary term that fit its parameters would have to navigate to for that info. It will just create confusion and is unnecessary.
02:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)