Editing Talk:Crush

==Different name==
A different name for the page could be Physical Force, so that both crushing and stabbing could fall into the same category. {{unsigned|76.93.54.135}}
:Hm, that's not specific enough. It could make players think this also applies to getting knocked back by shaking, for instance, or apply to a punch, or something. &mdash; '''{''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]''<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>}''' 14:55, December 1, 2021 (EST)

==''Different'' different name==
Maybe this would be inconsistent with some other pages, but would it be considerable to think about renaming this page to Crushing? I feel like Crush doesn't sum it up as a hazard and made me originally think it had some relation to the [[Crush Nugget]] (but that's probably just me). Like, in a conversation, you'd say "Crushing is a hazard", not "Crush is a hazard", at least in my mind. Would this be something to ruminate on? <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif">[[User:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">Deeb1324354657</span>]] ([[User_talk:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">talk</span>]])</span> 00:30, August 9, 2024 (EDT)

:As a general rule it's a good idea to follow {{w|Wikipedia:Article titles#Use nouns|Wikipedia's style}}. In it, it says to use nouns instead of verbs, which we do for stuff like [[whistle]] (not "whistling"), [[punch]] (not "punching"), [[combat]] (not "fighting"). It also says sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb is just the verb's gerund. So with all of that, I think "Crushing" would indeed by the right way to name this. On the other hand, we have [[P:TITLE|our own policies]], which says to use the infinitive instead of the gerund. Maybe we should instead change the policy? &mdash; '''{''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]''<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>}''' 12:00, August 11, 2024 (EDT)

::I think Crushing would be better after viewing the Wikipedia page; the noun here indeed does appear to be the verb's gerund. You would rarely ever use the word crush unless you're using a present-tense verb of the term, but crushing would be a gerund that would sum up the actual hazard. Wikipedia lists the example of [[Wikipedia:Swimming|Swimming]], which seems to be in the exact same situation as Crush/Crushing, yet has the ''-ing''.<br>I mean, I'm not going to stroll in here and tell you to change the policies, you're the bureaucrat haha, but I do think it would be better. Wikipedia says to use the gerund and the title of the section is plainly and simply "Use nouns", which sums it up at least in part. I think having [[whistle]] rather than "whistling" makes at least some sense as whistle is also a noun for the device used to whistle, but "crush" is not a noun in this context and therefore I believe the gerund should be used. I think [[combat]] is a special occasion as it essentially means "fighting" without being a gerund, and then [[punch]] is also a noun as well as a verb in the same sense that whistle is.<br>Sorry, that was quite scatterbrained and out-of-order. I do think the policies should be changed, as Wikipedia says to use nouns basically whenever possible, so I think they should mention gerunds taking precedence over infinitives. Additionally, I have personal preference; I personally think Crushing sounds much better than Crush; as I said earlier, I'd most definitely say "Crushing is a hazard" rather than "Crush is a hazard". Even the beginning of the article says the former which I prefer, so I do think it should be renamed to Crushing. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif">[[User:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">Deeb1324354657</span>]] ([[User_talk:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">talk</span>]])</span> 12:40, August 11, 2024 (EDT)

:::If we renamed [[Crush]] to Crushing, for consistency we'd also need to rename [[Carry]] to Carrying, [[Charge]] to Charging, [[Dig]] to Digging, [[Dismiss]] to Dismissing, [[Dodge]] to Dodging, [[Hide]] to Hiding, [[Idle]] to Idling, [[Lie down]] to Lying down, [[Pluck]] to Plucking, [[Punch]] to Punching, [[Swarm]] to Swarming, [[Throw]] to Throwing, [[Trip]] to Tripping, and [[Whistle]] to Whistling. This would be a very significant change. Some of these articles used to have names in the gerund form, but were renamed following a discussion in [[Talk:Swarm]]. I don't think renaming these articles would be a good idea. &mdash; [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 18:58, August 11, 2024 (EDT)

::::The discussion had very little depth; a user suggested it and it was done, and they didn't even provide that much detail on why the change should be made. I don't think we should take tedium into account when making this decision; just because something's a hassle doesn't mean we should avoid it.<br>You didn't really provide anything against this other than the fact that there was already a (fairly small) discussion and that it wouldn't be a good idea, and as a result I don't have much more to say. But Espyo did say on that talk page that it might sound worse, so on top of all of the past points for why it should be moved, I think this has some importance; there are multiple statements of the infinitives sounding less favourable.<br>Additionally, some of the names of the articles you've listed are nouns, and as a result wouldn't have to be moved; you can execute a charge, perform a dodge, throw a punch, aim a throw, and blow a whistle, whereas you cannot really "execute a crush" in the sense of "A Wollyhop executed a crush on my Pikmin". <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif">[[User:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">Deeb1324354657</span>]] ([[User_talk:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">talk</span>]])</span> 19:36, August 11, 2024 (EDT)

:::::One of the advantages that infinitive names have over gerund names is that it makes it easier to link to the articles. Currently, it's easy to link to the Crush article in multiple different grammatical forms, such as "it will <nowiki>[[crush]]</nowiki> the Pikmin", "the Pikmin will be <nowiki>[[crush]]ed</nowiki>", and "a <nowiki>[[crush]]ing</nowiki> attack". If the article was renamed, to avoid linking to redirects, we'd need to write these phrases as "it will <nowiki>[[Crushing|crush]]</nowiki> the Pikmin", "the Pikmin will be <nowiki>[[Crushing|crushed]]</nowiki>", and "a <nowiki>[[crushing]]</nowiki> attack". Another reason to use infinitive names is that it matches up with the games more; games present control actions as a command, like in button prompts to "Pluck" or "Charge", and actions are listed in this form in ''Pikmin 4''{{'s}} Gameplay Guide and in the various [[Controls#Controller diagram|controller diagrams]]. Wikipedia does use the gerund form in its articles about actions, such as {{w|Throwing}} and {{w|Digging}}, but we don't necessarily need to do the same thing; Pikipedia is a video game wiki and we have articles documenting the actions the player can do, and I think it makes more sense for the article titles to be the name of the action rather than the process of doing the action. &mdash; [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 21:43, August 11, 2024 (EDT)

::::::Just because something is easier doesn't mean it's the one we should do, so I don't feel as though that point is agreeable. Sure, it's easier to say <nowiki>[[crush]]ed</nowiki> rather than <nowiki>[[Crushing|crushed]]</nowiki>, but it's a couple characters, it's not that big of a difference, and I really don't think it should have much of an effect in the discussion of what we should do. Of course, I'm not the admin, so you can make the decisions you'd like, but I personally believe that point, respectfully, has little value.<br>I suppose matching with the official games is a fair point, but I don't think the games are talking about the actions in a context where the gerund can be expected. Like, the game wouldn't say "plucking" when you stand by some sprouts, because that wouldn't make sense. I see that as looking at the game to see if it uses the gerund or the infinitive, and taking the answer as the infinitive despite the gerund not being realistic in that context regardless. Sorry if that's hard to explain; I mean that you're figuratively asking the question of "gerund or infinitive" and counting the answer as an answer to a different question in which gerund would hardly be an option, where infinitive would probably be the only option. You would never say "plucking" when standing by sprouts because that would never work in context, so I don't think it's fair to say that the game uses the infinitive and not the gerund and so should we. It's not a fair situation to evaluate for this answer because the gerund would ''never'' be used in the context. Same with a charge; it would make no sense for the button to be labelled as "charging", but it ''would'' make sense for an article to be called that, because articles aren't necessarily in the same contexts as buttons are. The same goes for the controller diagrams. I don't know what you mean by ''Pikmin 4''<nowiki/>'s gameplay guide and therefore can't review any source for it. Again, sorry if my points were hard to explain; if you don't get what I mean I'd love to go into more detail. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif">[[User:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">Deeb1324354657</span>]] ([[User_talk:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">talk</span>]])</span> 22:39, August 11, 2024 (EDT)

:::::::I discussed this topic with some administrators of other NIWA wikis, and it's a bit more nuanced. Across these wikis, it's agreed that articles about actions, like Mario's [[mario:Jump|jump]] and Kirby's [[kirby:Inhale|inhale]], should be named with the infinitive form. From looking around some of these wikis, it seems pretty standard to name articles this way, and Pikipedia shouldn't be an odd one out here. However, crushing and stabbing are not actions, they are hazards. Hazards are things that can endanger Pikmin; for example, [[fire]] can burn Pikmin and [[water]] can drown Pikmin. But "crush" and "stab" are not "things" in this way, as they are the effect of the hazard, not the hazard itself, in the same way that burning is the effect of fire and drowning is the effect of water. So it would be ideal if these articles were named in a way that better fit with the names of other hazard articles. "Crushing" and "Stabbing" would work, but they could appear inconsistent with the articles about actions. The Crush article used to be called "Blunt force", and this could also work, though a new name would need to be made for the Stab article. &mdash; [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 00:37, August 12, 2024 (EDT)

::::::::I agree, they should be named to better fit other hazard articles, as "crush" and "stab" are not "things" in the way that "fire" and "water" are. I think "Blunt force" definitely works for this page, but I'm not sure what to put for "Stab". I've looked through the page and some pages of stabbing enemies and couldn't find much. I think we have to find an adjective and then a word to illustrate that the adjective is a force of some sort, but saying "force" directly might not sum it up well. Maybe something along the lines of "Sharp attacks"? I know that name is terrible, but perhaps we could build on it to make something good. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif">[[User:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">Deeb1324354657</span>]] ([[User_talk:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">talk</span>]])</span> 12:45, August 12, 2024 (EDT)

:::::::::Wikipedia contrasts blunt force with penetrating force, so we could use that name. But "penetrating force" is very long in comparison to the other hazard names, and "blunt force" is fairly long too. I wonder if "crushing" and "stabbing" would look out-of-place with the articles about actions. &mdash; [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 19:09, August 12, 2024 (EDT)

::::::::::Fair point with their length, but is it really that much of an issue to have a fairly long word in a title? I'm sure there are other pages where that's the case. I don't think the gerunds would look too out-of-place, as they're not actions that the player or their Pikmin perform, but I still personally am leaning toward a long title rather than one that could be potentially viewed as inconsistent. Regardless of who or what performs the actions, "crush" and "carry" are both indeed actions, so one as a gerund and one as an infinitive would be a bit weird. I think they could work as "blunt force" and "penetrating force" if that's fine with you; they sum it up accurately, and sure, they're a fair bit long when compared to other hazards, but I don't think that's a huge issue. Is that fine with you? Espyo, what are your thoughts? <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif">[[User:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">Deeb1324354657</span>]] ([[User_talk:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">talk</span>]])</span> 19:45, August 12, 2024 (EDT)

I'm thinking that in games you often see actions in infinitive because they're commands you usually find in instructions, like "(A) Punch", telling you "Press A to punch". So maybe only controls should use the infinitive. Others should use the gerund. I do like how writing something like <nowiki>[[crush]]ed</nowiki> is convenient, but we honestly should just learn to embrace redirects since they're free. As for changing "crush" back to "blunt force", to note is that swinging a frying pan at a thrown egg involves using blunt force on the egg, with zero crushing. i.e. crushing comes from blunt force, but blunt force does not crush. So my thoughts are that controls should use the noun (punch) first or infinitive (dodge) second. Hazards should use the noun (fire) first or gerund (crushing) second. &mdash; '''{''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]''<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>}''' 12:54, August 13, 2024 (EDT)

:I personally find that agreeable. We can have backups of sorts for naming when some options aren't available, and that way it doesn't have to be viewed as inconsistent. Your analogy of smacking an egg makes perfect sense; I do think that "blunt force" might not work because of that, and "penetrating force" is admittedly quite lengthy, despite that meaning little to me. I think we should update the policies to say just that, as it seems to solve as many problems as possible. It might not seem like the most consistent thing ever, but in a way, it is, so I think it's fine in that regard. Does that work with you, Soprano? <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif">[[User:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">Deeb1324354657</span>]] ([[User_talk:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">talk</span>]])</span> 15:57, August 13, 2024 (EDT)

::Sorry to send another message but it doesn't seem like we reached a conclusion on this so I was just curious as to what the verdict may be! Thanks. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif">[[User:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">Deeb1324354657</span>]] ([[User_talk:Deeb1324354657|<span style="color:#1e02f5">talk</span>]])</span> 23:32, August 23, 2024 (EDT)