FANDOM


Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.
Forums: Index War Room Regarding the For template
Forum logo

Now, I'm certain that many of you know about the {{For}} template. And for the most part it works fine. However, I personally think in some instances, it's being used in cases that it may not be needed. For example on the MSMC page, we currently have it set up for "For similar looking weapons, see Uzi and PP2000.". Now while it does bear resemblance to these weapons, the names are incredibly different, in the case of the PP2000 they're a different weapon class, and they don't even appear in the same game. For this reason, I don't see how users could be getting weapons like this confused, and don't think that "similar looking weapons" is a strong enough reason to be using the For template. Other pages have also done this in the past, such as the Pyteak page having it link to the MG4 page, which once again, sounds nothing alike, and is in a completely different game.

For these reasons, I beleive we should set up a guideline for usage of the For template, so it only applies to similar named items, or same name, different universe items. And not for something such as similarity. While it may work on Wikipedia, it has no real function here. 14:40, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I don't see a problem to point readers towards similar looking weapons. Imagine someone who started playing AW, used the Pytaek, forgot its name and want to find its page. Something I did when I first came here was to look for similar looking weapons first (in this case, it would be the LSAT), and use the For link to get to the Pytaek page. And while you mention the MG4 thing on the Pytaek page (which I agree with), it also included a link to the LSAT, which I think was worth considering the Pytaek is a re-skinned LSAT. VaultTecLogo.png Rain - Talk VaultTecLogo.png 14:44, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

If they forgot its name, then how would they know to look up a similar looking weapon? Also, if it's in AW, they could easily just look up our list of AW weapons instead of having to jump between different guns in completely different games. 15:20, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
Because one could think that since the Pytaek is a LSAT clone it could be easily named 'LSAT'. Or the AK-12 the AK-47. VaultTecLogo.png Rain - Talk VaultTecLogo.png 16:28, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
AK variants would fall under the "sounding the same" critiea though. And it would seem odd if someone could remember that the Pytreak is a LSAT reskin, but not know the name of the Pyteak. 17:01, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
Or, they could just look up Advanced Warfare or Advanced Warfare Weapons, or Advanced Warfare Heavy Weapons and find the Pytaek through that... Personal LazarouDave image LazarouDave  17:57, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

I think we should just use the "For" template for linking back to disambiguation pages really. Most other uses take some degree of logical stretch to make sense. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk15:26, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sam definitely, because I think that For templates should only be used for an article which has the same/similar title and not linking weapons and that kind of stuff which look similar. RooTm3q.png Soap Shadow · Talk  15:41, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Per Sam, I don't see the point to using the "For" template to link to similar looking weapons, especially when the weapons barely look anything alike as is the case with the PP2000, Uzi and the MSMC. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 16:18, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. -- laagone (talk)  17:06, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see a point in discarding its current uses, if it causes problems then i'd see it, but as far as i see, it is just another means for not as savvy CoD players to look up a similar weapon or level or name etc. Besides, it's not like it's taking up excessive room or anything, so if you look at it that way, the positives easily outweigh the negatives - namely because i don't believe that there is a downside to the way it is used presently. Personal LazarouDave image LazarouDave  17:57, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

While I'm not necessarily with eliminating this use, I did notice that the template is sometimes overused, in cases like the MSMC page. Sometimes I also noticed it being used for weapons that have the same stats, despite looking completely different. I think that this template should be put in extreme cases, such as the PP90M1/Bizon or the M27-IAR/M4LMG. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 18:25, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

This forum isn't about getting rid of the template completely. It's about regulating it so we isn't used when we don't need it. 18:27, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to mention something, which is that its use for the extreme cases is about the "similar weapon" thing. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 18:33, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

im sorry but i disagree. i think its better to use it how we are, because it is an easy possibility that someone could forget the name of one gun but remember a similar-looking gun. yes, it takes some thinking to do that, but so does trying to find the page for the class the weapon is in, or moreover the template for weapons in that game. for the finding of the weapon class, what if the user looking for the gun doesnt know what class the weapon is in? then theyre out of luck if we remove this function of the for template. War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army RisingSun2020 Personal RisingSun2013 2000px-Flag of JSDF.svg (RisingSun's Talk Page Blog Posts Contributions) 23:52, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

Seems a bit odd for someone to forget a weapon like the MSMCs name and weapon class, but does remember it looks like the PP2000. Also, aside from the nav box, we also have the categories, which are easily accessed. 19:52, May 31, 2015 (UTC)
its easily possible for someone to remember a weapon looks like another weapon. they might not know how to find out the weapons name. they could pick it up, not realize it said its name in the pickup icon and miss that its name shows up in the bottom right corner...but then, they might know about a similar weapons name and know its similar-looking. War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army RisingSun2020 Personal RisingSun2013 2000px-Flag of JSDF.svg (RisingSun's Talk Page Blog Posts Contributions) 20:40, May 31, 2015 (UTC)
By that logic, should we also start having pages for weapons that don't appear in the CoD franchise, but look like weapons that do? Because if people are remember weapons purely on aesthetics, and not on which game it's in, which weapon class it's in, or even its name, then they could just try searching the wiki for any weapon that looks like it. It just seems stupid we're keeping "For" templates for people that go "Oh, I forgot what the name of the gun in X, but I know it looks like a gun in a completely different game, so I'll just look that one up". 09:57, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
ok, i see your point now. War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army RisingSun2020 Personal RisingSun2013 2000px-Flag of JSDF.svg (RisingSun's Talk Page Blog Posts Contributions) 21:02, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

VoteEdit

Since this is dead, I want to push this to vote to it can be closed.

  1. Keep For as they are.
  2. Only allow For for similarly named weapons, and not for similar looking weapons.

Option 1Edit

Option 2Edit

  1. Pictogram voting support Support — As original proposer. 15:33, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting support Support — Per Sam Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 16:34, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Pictogram voting support Support — Per my original point in the discussion. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk16:36, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting support Support — -- laagone (talk)  17:24, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
  5. Pictogram voting support Support — agreed, per sams last point he made to me. War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army RisingSun2020 Personal RisingSun2013 2000px-Flag of JSDF.svg (RisingSun's Talk Page Blog Posts Contributions) 22:39, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
  6. Pictogram voting support Support — Per Sam. bionicle__unity_duty_destiny_by_cyberpictures-d6p3li2.pngLegos-Rule-15 Talk 22:23, August 9, 2015 (UTC)
  7. Pictogram voting support Support — Sounds fair to me. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  19:12, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Closed - 18 days since last vote, 7-0 in favor of option 2. Safe to say all who want to vote have done it, proposal passed. No more using {{For}} for merely similar looking weapons. -- laagone (talk)  19:20, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.