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. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.93.54.135 • (talk) • (contribs)

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. — {Espyo^T} 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? Deeb1324354657 (talk) 00:30, August 9, 2024 (EDT)

As a general rule it's a good idea to follow 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 our own policies, which says to use the infinitive instead of the gerund. Maybe we should instead change the policy? — {Espyo^T} 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 Swimming, which seems to be in the exact same situation as Crush/Crushing, yet has the -ing.
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.
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. Deeb1324354657 (talk) 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. — Soprano_(talk) 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.
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.
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". Deeb1324354657 (talk) 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 [[crush]] the Pikmin", "the Pikmin will be [[crush]]ed", and "a [[crush]]ing attack". If the article was renamed, to avoid linking to redirects, we'd need to write these phrases as "it will [[Crushing|crush]] the Pikmin", "the Pikmin will be [[Crushing|crushed]]", and "a [[crushing]] 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 controller diagrams. Wikipedia does use the gerund form in its articles about actions, such as Throwing and 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. — Soprano_(talk) 21:43, August 11, 2024 (EDT)