Talk:Rupt

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

We have an article on interrupt, they are commonly referred to as "Rupt". Chances of someone searching for "Rupt" are very high. Same as with "War" for Warrior. --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 13:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

/agree as many redirect pages as possible make the (crap) wiki search easier to use !"Klumpeet"! 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
"interrupts are commonly referred to as "rupt"": which may be true for GW1 (although I don't remember ever seeing someone calling an interrupt "rupt"). People don't talk enough about interrupts on GW2 for it to have a commonly used abbreviation yet. You are assuming all GW1 abbreviations will carry over to GW2, which is false. Erasculio 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
A large part of GW2 community comes from GW1. There is a high chance they will refer to stuff that has been brought from GW1 the same way. This assumption is not false as shown with War for Warrior and Ele for Elementalist. --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 13:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
"There is a high chance they will refer to stuff that has been brought from GW1": if and when they do that, we can make this redirect. Until then it's just speculation and not something that actually exists, so it has no point here. Erasculio 13:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not a speculation despite you nitpicking my comments. Moreso, making this assumption is not harmful to the wiki, quite the contrary it covers the possibility of a GW1 fan searching for Interrupt using this term. --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 13:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
sommunity sounds like a mental issue 8D--NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 13:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh snap! Fix'd. But I guess that statement will be true for sommunity as well. :P --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 13:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Surprisingly (given the history), I agree with Erasculio in terms of the amounts of redirects. We should wait and see how the community calls things instead of just pre-guessing and making what could turn out to be dozens of unneeded redirects that hardly get used. -- -- Konig/talk 13:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So how about we stop redirecting and just wait? existing redirects can stay, they may be used to create disambigs, and overall, theres no point deleting something we will need later.--NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 14:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
And also, don't just revert a deletion tag. Admins aren't going to (shouldn't) delete pages without checking to see deletion is the most wanted or best option. If it's tagged, leave the tag until a conclusion is reached.-- Shew 14:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, rupt? I've never seen someone call an interrupt that. Ever. The correct abbreviation is "int". --208.105.170.7 15:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Everybody calls it that. For example, "OH FUCK MY RES SIG GOT RUPTED!!" and not "OH FUCK MY RES SIG GOT INTED!!" o.o; --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 15:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) x1000 There is also no point in keeping something we don't need now since we may create it later. The sort of user who gets carried away and decide to add an article for every word that comes out of Arena Net's mouth is not the kind of user who would read a decision telling people to wait, anyway; we are left with damage control, which in this context means deleting articles that are not necessary right now. Erasculio 15:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
We have an article on Interrupt, commonly referred to as Rupt. To make search easier it makes sense to cover for common abbriviations. This is in no way damaging the wiki, quite the contrary. Also, you should view GW1 and GW2 communities as a whole because in the end it's the same game franchise. --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 15:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
.. if this is still a caninate for deletion, its going in my safe.--NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 15:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It really shouldn't be. --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 15:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
To reiterate what Erasculio said, if it becomes GW2 slang, then it should be a redirect page, but it's not GW2 slang atm.-- Shew 15:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It will become GW2 slang and probably is already because it's also GW1 slang and large part of GW2 community consists of GW1 people. Theres not such thing as GW2 community as of yet really because the game isn't out yet, it's mostly just GW1 crowd speculating. There is a great chance of this term being used, that's all you need to take into account. --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, now that it's made and has a great chance of being GW2 slang too, why delete it? Delete if doesn't but why waste time deleting if you will have to re-create later? Common sense, you needs it. --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 16:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
"It will become GW2 slang": and if it does, we can recreate it.
"Theres not such thing as GW2 community as of yet really because the game isn't out yet": which is exactly one of the reasons why we don't know which abbreviations the GW2 community will use, and thus we don't need redirects based on such abbreviations. Erasculio 02:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So[edit]

Wut should we do with this then? I'd keep it personally because it does no harm, is a popular abbriviation and makes searching easier. :3 --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's silly not to. It won't do any harm by staying here, it can only help really. It's not gonna suddenly start eating pages. --Odal talk 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
That'd be cool.--NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 16:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Well if we are still going to delete it, let me move it to my safe untill we need it again.--NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 16:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
@Odal: You must not have seen the Digimon movie. Anyway, I think this should stay. Considering it is currently an abbreviation, and assuming it will be, it couldn't hurt to leave alone. I know everyone on this page saying it should stay will probably call it a rupt in abbreviation. And if it becomes an abbreviation for something else, or the name of a class (lol) or something, then we can change it. It just doesn't seem harmful enough to me to warrant deletion. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 17:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The "it does no harm by existing" argument could be used to justify anything, really; someone could make a rather big article about the Muppets and leave it here, and one could argue it would not do any harm by existing, yet it would be out of place. The point of this wiki is to document GW2, not what people believe will happen; if "rupt" becomes a common abbreviation we may document it, but claiming people "will probably call it a rupt in abbreviation" is just speculation, not documenting something that actually exists. Erasculio 02:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Then how about this argument: it's related to the game (Muppets as your counterpoint was kind of silly), and it does no harm, and while it is speculation, it's speculation with strong evidence given it has been used in Guild Wars to abbreviate the same action. I have no doubt it will be used in GW2 by the same people who used it in GW1.
On a related note, I think this speculation vs fact issue is getting out of hand. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 04:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
"it's related to the game": not really. The speculation is that "it will be used in GW2", so until you can say "it is used in GW2", it's not related to the game.
"I think this speculation vs fact issue is getting out of hand": indeed. Some users are so carried away into adding anything to the wiki that we now have a heap of useless, worthless "articles" around based purely on guesses and opinions; and to make it worse, said users are so defensive of their contributions that the time it takes to actually delete those pages is only barely worth it. Erasculio 04:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
"so until you can say "it is used in GW2", it's not related to the game." It's related because it's an abbreviation of a function which existed in GW1 and that same function will exist in GW2. Those who have used it in GW1 will use it in GW2 because it's the same term for the same function. By your present-tense-dependent logic, nothing on this wiki should exist, because it is not related, because you cannot say "it is used in GW2". It's all speculation, even if ANet says it.
"Some users are so carried away into adding anything to the wiki" And some are carried away with removing everything that isn't explicitly confirmed or isn't related to GW2, to the point that you're removing a redirect which is only as "worthless" as any other accurate redirect. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 20:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
"will use it in GW2": and if that happens, then we can add this redirect. Until then, it's all purely speculation.
"nothing on this wiki should exist, because it is not related": not really. We know Guild Wars 2 exists, we know Warriors exist, we know Elementalists exist. Even if Arena Net changed their mind and removed those features later, there is a reason why some things are kept as unimplemented content while others are removed (even if they were seen as accurate on a later date).
"isn't related to GW2": the main page of this wiki states, "As a general rule, if something isn't relevant to or doesn't exist in Guild Wars 2, then it belongs on the Guild Wars Wiki, not here". Removing content that isn't related to GW2 is only the obvious thing to do, considering how this is the GW2 wiki. So far, no one has made any convincing argument about how this redirect would be related to GW2; all we have is guesses that it will be related to the newer game. Erasculio 02:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this redirect needs to exist. But it's a redirect. Its title is a segment of the target's title. An equivalent also exists on GWW. Therefore, I don't really care that it does exist. I can't think of a disadvantage (deleting it won't save space or anything), and although it probably won't be an important redirect, it has some kind of potentially advantageous use. A lot of discussion is occurring for something that, in my opinion, doesn't need it. pling User Pling sig.png 23:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't only the redirect itself. It's the kind of idea behind it:
  • The assumption that the GW2 community will be just a copy of the GW1 community, using the same terminology. That's the same thing as saying that we could just copy over all the policies from the GW1W, since the GW2W community would be the same as the GW1W community (something extremely ironic, considering how Super Igor, creator of this redirect, does not currently contribute to the GW1W).
  • The idea that adding useless and irrelevant content for the sake of adding content is something this wiki catters to. There was no point in the creation of this redirect, and it was only one among many unnecessary redirects created by this user.
  • The idea that we keep irrelevant content just because it would do no harm, which is the opposite of the statement on the wiki's main page about how things not relevant to GW2 do not belong here; the same kind of argument could be used to justify adding (and keeping) things with no relevance to GW2, since they would cause no harm by being here.
  • The very childish notion that tagging an user's article for deletion means staining the honor of said user, prompting him to defend his article; which is very similar to the idea that adding articles to the wiki increases an user's e-peen, even if those articles do not add any relevant content to the wiki.
And so on. This kind of thing is less an isolated problem that could be forgotten and more a situation which creates a precedent to seeing useless contributions as something worth doing. Erasculio 02:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
tl;dr I agree with both Pling and Erasculio. I don't think it belongs, but at the same time, not much is gained by removing it. However, in terms of precedent, it does more harm than good to keep the page around when it's 100% speculation. Like I said in the delete reason, when GW2 comes out and people start calling stuff rupts, you are more than welcome to create the page again, citing its use in-game. -Auron 08:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Its already in use by members of GW2 community that come from GW1 hence it's not a 100% speculation. Yes, you are taking GW1 into account but its stupid not to because GW1 community makes the current GW2 community. We have redirects on White Mantle, Shining Blade, Ele, War etc. despite the game not being out yet. @Erasculio: No, it's not useless. It has a use which is to make search easier. The idea behind these edits is fine too; it is to help the wiki make search easier by including common abbreviations/typos of the article. The stuff you wrote is silly, I don’t know who made you think that way, possibly your own actions in the past but those are certainly not the ideas I use. :3 --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 10:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Precedent isn't much use when sysops are supposed to govern by discretion anyway, although that discretion has just been used to justify setting a precedent case, which kind of saddens me. And as Igor said, it's really not 100%. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 15:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)