Final Fantasy Wiki
Register
Advertisement
FFWiki forum logo
Forums: Index > Rin's Travel Agency > Archive > Battle Description Conventions



Since there are no specific guidelines out there, what should be the Wiki's conventions for naming battle participants? There are two formats currently in use: the first, naming the characters outright (i.e., Squall, Zell). The second format is to list their job descriptions (i.e., Gunblade Specialist, Martial Artist). To avoid edit wars, a convention should be established. Opine on the matter and vote here. I know you all like voting :P


Votes for Names[]

Votes for Jobs[]

Comments[]

That's pretty hostile. Does it matter where the discussion takes place? Besides, I designed this so there could be a community consensus. If you feel a certain way, vote accordingly. This, by the way, is the pertinent discussion. Haveanicedays 01:43, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
But this is the discussion. It's not a poll, it's a vote that determines the consensus, and this section you're commenting in is meant for a discussion, if anyone wishes to start one. That said, if you wish to discuss, go right ahead and discuss. While I understand what you're saying, ultimately, we'd have to vote on it anyway to produce a consensus of an empirical nature, rather than a theoretical one. Haveanicedays 01:54, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
I am facepalming so hard right now. We don't need empirical consensus. For one, having the opinion of someone who won't elaborate is useless, as for all we know, they don't actually mean it. For two, most decisions on this wiki don't end in a vote. Why do we need to start when this method has worked for us for several years? I could probably think of more ideas against putting everything to a vote but I don't want writing this comment to take forever. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 04:02, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
What method? The lack of elaboration is exactly what needs to be addressed. I agree with you on one point, though - this isn't going anywhere. Whatever. I'll just do what seems right, and if anyone has a problem with it, then, well...no consensus, right? So be it. Haveanicedays 06:01, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
The method of having a proper conversation instead of a vote. And there's no 'no consensus', it's a matter of getting nearly everyone that wishes to participate in the conversation to agree, or at the very least all the admins. That's a consensus, and you don't need a damn vote to decide it.
As for the matter at hand, I prefer character names, so you'll hear no objection from me on it. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 12:05, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
Whatever, I don't care anymore. This was supposed to be the discussion, but it seems nobody noticed. I haven't seen anyone initiating a conversation instead of this vote, so it seems to me that the two of you are splitting hairs here over the format of consensus rather than being productive. If you really care about the issue one way or another, either contribute to this page or the talk page, but don't be counterproductive by discouraging efforts to accomplish something. Haveanicedays 02:04, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
First of all, the topic has only been up for a day. If you expected for this discussion to be settled within half a week, prepare to be disappointed. Second of all, since you apparently failed to notice, both Faethin and SCM have stated their opinion on the matter at hand -- Fae doesn't care either way, and SCM prefers names to jobs. Third, the way a consensus is reached is important, as well as the result, so I wouldn't begrudge them for their disapproval of the voting idea. Voting is okay for coliseums, not okay for important policy decisions. People need to come to an agreement, or at least majority consent, before anything gets changed, and a voting system isn't designed for debate, which is what's required here. Also, while I'm here, I support names instead of jobs. Jimcloud 03:42, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
Once again, I understand where you're coming from, but if you're going to outright reject this method then starting a discussion, as you stated, would be the right thing to do. Otherwise, by just disapproving of efforts to accomplish something, you come off as someone who's splitting hairs over trivialities such as this one, and I know you're not. I would appreciate, rather than lengthy asides about proper consensus-reaching protocol (which may be actually correct, as yours undoubtedly are), an action in the direction you feel is appropriate. T'would be appreciated. Haveanicedays 06:03, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

I support changing jobs to names as that prevents conjecture. However, there are other ways to label combatants other than using jobs. I also believe it'd be a good addition to add titles when applicable. - Henryacores^ 01:26, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

If we ever vote for consensus (usually only done when there is a large voice on both sides of the argument, and also when participants in the discussion are large in number) it should be done after a discussion has taken place. Because then people will vote what they think straight-off... when if a discussion takes place first, people will see deeper into the reasonings and may change their mind. Once you put a voting system out there, people have already made a concrete decision and are less likely to change on it. It's true. Also such votes are usually done by SysOps anyway.

But yeah, topic at hand by name. Also, if by "titles", HenryA means "Commander", "Captain", and suchlike, then do that too. 79.69.201.185 20:59, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Also I think that we should use jobs when we have them, but they should be followed by the character's name. - Henryacores^ 16:29, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

That sounds all right. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 23:11, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement