Talk: Water pantheon

page title

How was "water pantheon" chosen for the name of this article? Indeed, how were any of the titles of the Sub8 locations' pages chosen? I get that fans often pick the name of a location when the "official" name is unknown, but in this case, we have the title of the music track as a reference ("the temple"). I think it accurately describes the location. Unless there's some mention of "water pantheon" somewhere in the games or Mateusz's forum posts (in which case, make note of it in the article, please), I think we should change the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mordikai wartwunson (talk • contribs)

We've already talked about this several times, we tried to stay close to the track names, but in most cases it is improductive to choose them because they would interfere with existing names. Specifically, this one would interfere with Submachine 9's Temple; the sewers would interfere with Sub2's sewers, and so on. The author has decided to name different locations with the same name, but that wouldn't work in a wiki. We decided to do this instead of making disambiguation pages.

Also, we're not sure whether the track names are complately "official". Sub7's track names don't correspond to their known in-game names. In any case, this decision was already settled long ago, people have got used to the names, and it would be confusing to change them now.

But anyways, I'd like to hear what does the community say on this, perhaps some people have changed their opinion now, in which case we should reach a new consensus. Vortex2 (talk) 21:53, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Where is all of the previous discussion? 

I'm suggesting this because I think official names are preferrable to fan made names. The track names are the closest we have to official and, again, they accurately describe the areas. Bay, ruin, fort, and solitude are all available (and sewer, technically). the sewers, church, and temple can easily be renamed to something more appropriate (maybe Lighthouse sewers, bell tower, the temple (sub9), for example). We've done it before (ancient ruins, remember?). Except for maybe temple, no disambig needed. 

Furthermore, sub9 hasn'e even been released yet, so we don't even know if "temple" is actually an appropriate name for one of its locations.

Mordikai wartwunson (talk) 00:40, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't have strong feelings one way or the other; the track names are indeed our closest source to canon material. I don't now if these names are on everybody's lips either: I certainly don't remember them, referring instead to layer numbers. On the other hand, this has been discussed before in the forum (well, technically fora if my memory serves me well) and the names sort of became what they are, partially even due to us wondering if we can reveal them without Mateusz's permition. TL; DR: I don't know. Anteroinen1 (talk) 09:50, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

We don't need permission, at least not from a legal standpoint. Also, they've already been revealed, silly. Mordikai wartwunson (talk) 01:34, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

 I say leave them as they are just because people are used to them now. Water Pantheon works fine as a name, I can clearly tell what layer it's referencing. Same for the others. And soundtrack names are almost never just named after the locations they play in, let alone the official names. They're named after what they sound like, what emotions they evoke, or something plot-related -  like "Sorrow", "The Battle For Freedom", "The Dark Room", etc. Lorre R1 (talk) 17:19, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

No one is claiming that the sub7 track names are accurate or that all track names are accurate. Mordikai wartwunson (talk) 01:34, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I say leave them as they are. Even thought it does not match with the names that other sites use, it's way better than using disambiguation pages.

-NeroZero-BR (talk) 22:39, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

I've been working on a big ol' response all week. Whoo, boy, it's a doozy. It should address everything brought up so far. I want to organize my thoughts a little better before I post it. Sit tight. Mordikai wartwunson (talk) 01:34, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like anyone is directly disagreeing with any of the claims I'm making. Let me break them down just so we're all clear as to what they are:

1. Official names are preferable to fan made names.

2. The track names are the closest we have to official names.

3. These particular track names accurately describe the locations.

Does anyone disagree with any of the above? If not, it would stand to reason that:

4. The names I'm proposing are better than the ones we have currently.

...Right?

Don't worry, you can agree with #4 and still not want to change the names, as long as you have a good argument against doing so. Just don't use the following arguments because I'm about to tear them to shreds and feed them to the dog (which, in turn, I will tear apart and feed to a larger dog):

5. People are used to the current names.

Strawmen can continue using the current names without a problem (because redirects). And there's no reason they can't get used to new names. And I think they should, because they are better (as per #4).

6. People would get confused.

No, they won't. Someone searches for "water pantheon" and BAM! gets redirected to temple. The temple article would, of course, note that the location is commonly referred to as "water pantheon" by fans. It could even mention that the article itself was called "water pantheon" until some prick came and made a big fuss about it.

Also, Submachine doesn't exactly have a huge fanbase. Probably like, 98% of it is already participating in this discussion (maybe even twice that) and should therefore be well aware of a possible name change on the horizon.

7. We already talked about this.

Pastel Forum is not affiliated with Submachine Wiki. If you discuss wiki-related things only on Pastel Forum (as appears to be the current situation), you risk excluding members of the wiki. So in that sense, no, "we" haven't talked about it at all. As far as the wiki is concerned, "water pantheon" was chosen on a whim by the page's creator and this is the first time anyone has brought it up.

And even if this was supposedly settled long ago, so what? Nothing is set in stone. That's how wikis improve.

What if I just went ahead and moved the pages to the names I suggested? I would make sure that all the redirects work, make note of the old names in the articles, disambiguate where appropriate (with template:for, an entire page isn't needed), and take all of the other steps necessary to make this work. Would anyone be so strongly opposed that they would change it all back? Mordikai wartwunson (talk) 06:03, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, they can be changed right away. You're right, we're being silly here. Anteroinen1 (talk) 00:44, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll give it another day or two before I make the changes. Anyone else have any input? Mordikai wartwunson (talk) 23:29, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

1. No, not always. Sometimes fan-made names stick to the community in a way that they are used as much, or more, than the official ones. But I agree that, in general, it is better to choose the official names.

2. Not neccesarily; track names pertaining to a location sometimes even conflict with the name given to the location by the author itself (those from Sub7, for example), or give much less concretion respect to the current ones ("the structure" or "deep down" in Sub6 HD, for example). That leads one to think track names aren't meant to be a good replacement for the locations' names.

3. Yes, but that is not a reason to change them, because the actual names also describe accurately the locations, possibly even more.

4. I don't agree with this if it is a conclusion drawn from the three reasons you told above, as I explained. Anyways, I have to say that there might be other reasons that would be valid for me (for example, if people have bought Sub8 HD it would be easier for them to find the corresponding location pages). But we still have to discuss whether that is sufficient to make the change. I don't think we have to set editing the names as the default option to be taken, and then try to find a reason against it. If there are no good reasons at all for or against changing, then the 5th point would be enough to keep the current names.

5. I think it could be a significative reason in this case. As you said, the majority of Submachine's fanbase is aware of the Wiki and the current names, so to a certain degree it could be counterproductive to change them. But this can be easily overwhelmed by other major arguments.

6. Yeah, we could do that kind of things to minimize possible confusion in case the names get edited.

7. I agree that it's not a good reason, though I think it wasn't meant to be a reason, just information that could help with the case. Some of the reasonings we made could apply here too.

8. (What if...) I wouldn't mind if you changed them, as long as it were the general consensus. But if you took the initiative on your own before the discussion were solved, then I'd have to revert your edits. We have to agree on something before we start to modify things, because if not, arguments would extend unnecesarily.

So far, there are two people who agreed to change the names (you and Anteroinen), and three people who disagreed (NeroZero, Lorre and me). If the majority agrees, then I'll accept the changes and help to make them, despite any opinions I can have. But as I said, I can't take doing the proposal as the default option if people haven't spoken in its favour yet, sorry.

So I ask you to wait until enough people is convinced that changing names are better than doing nothing. You can use the reason I told in my answer to #4, for example. And the argument of whether it's preferable to have specific names vs. disambiguation needs to be solved too. Vortex2 (talk) 14:57, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

I think your counterargument 3 in particular is a bit shady:

• 1) "the dock" for "the bay" – For all intents and purposes those are the same. Does anyone have any idea what that place was actually for?
• 2) "cardinal church" for "church" – "Cardinal" alone doesn't really make a great reference to the compass, since the adjective alone means "having things based on it; the most important". We could just use disambiguation pages: Church and Church (SNEE).
• 3) "Cog trees" for "ruin" – Cog tree is a nice name for the plants in the area, not the area itself as much.
• 4) "Large sewers" for "sewer" – I guess they are large. Again though, if you find a sewer that you can crawl in, it is pretty large. This seems a bit pedantic and debatable.
• 5) "water pantheon" for "temple" – Well, pantheon? Where is the "pan" here, we just have Krishna. Water I grant you, sure. I remind you again of redirects.
• 6) "the armory" for "the fort" – These are basically the same thing. Why did we go for the armory in the first place?
• 7) "bamboo town" for "solitude" – This is justified: solitude isn't a place; the "town" is elsewhere though.

We now have synonyms or superfluous adjectives clinging onto the "canon" names. We've created longer names with rare words using their rarer senses instead of single word entries.

As for the point 5, I wonder if our names are that well known. I mean, they are longer and just like the track names they require memorization. The names are more or less arbitrary anyway, since most areas are probably known by their coordinates – in- and out-universe – which are wholly unambiguous. Some more important location - say- the edge or the loop - might in-universe gain names, but if you take, say, "the end ruins", what is the likelihood of having a name for such an area?

Anteroinen1 (talk) 00:34, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Well put. Your thoughts on point 3 pretty closely match my own. I would like to add:

• 2) I interpreted "cardinal" as "a high ranking member of the Catholic church". I thought the definition you provided only ever refers to the directions on a compass. The name makes a little more sense to me now, but that just goes to show that it is kind of arbitrary and confusing.
• 3) "Cog trees" doesn't make any sense. A cog tree is not a thing, to my knowledge. Neither the trees nor the leafy branches are composed of cogs. The three (or four) cogs that do appear are not a prominent feature.
• 5) Like with (1) and (6), "pantheon" and "temple" mean pretty much the same thing. Like with (3), I'd argue that "water" is not really a prominent feature.

Mordikai wartwunson (talk) 17:23, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in so suddenly, but I would just like to add a few points to the discussion:

• 1) We should be careful if we are to change the name of The Water Pantheon to the "temple" as it may be problematic as we know that Sub9 will take place at The Temple. The names are too similar and may create confusion. We do not after all, know what The Water Pantheon even is. What we do know is that it contains the dimensional gateway that can take us to The Temple. If we are rename either articles (Water Pantheon of The Temple) we ought to make sure that it is clear which is which. I don't know whether a simple (sub8) or (sub9) after the names of each would be enough – it might, but then again it might not.
• 2) The Cardinal Church, as I see it, does not bear a resemblance to that of a typical church so both names, as I see them, are problematic. This is just an opinion, however, and you can freely disregard it if I am the only one who sees it this way.

The Abacus (talk) 12:57, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that we'd name the two temples "Temple" and "Temple (Sub8)", since the other is titular, and ergo probably important, while the other is just a place we went through. --Anteroinen1 (talk) 22:43, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

I think a parenthetical note in the page title should be sufficient to differentiate between two topics with the same name. That other wiki uses this exact same system and it seems to work out okay for them. Side note: please don't jump so suddenly next time; you scared the crap out of me. Mordikai wartwunson (talk) 23:48, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

That would make sense. I think that's better than (what I think) was the previous proposal – that temple from sub9 should be renamed to "Temple (sub9)."

@Mordikai wartwunson: I'll be careful next time not to be so sudden. I don't check this wiki as often as I check Pastel Forum and the DMT wiki so I missed most of this discussion.

The Abacus (talk) 11:07, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

So... anyone, decisions? ̃ Anteroinen1 (talk) 22:17, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has been discussing this anymore, and it's unlikely we'll ever reach an agreement here. Since there's no fighting over the titles anymore, I guess we should just forget all of this and move on as it is now.

I've noticed the lack of discussion, but that is hardly a way to about this: to sweep an issue under the rug. I'm fine with any decision, but it would be nice of the wiki to actually make one. It seems there is a majority against changing the names, and I'm not even really expecting them to change, but I don't think arguments have been properly addressed yet. Anteroinen1 (talk) 10:59, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with either decision. The Abacus (talk) 06:03, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

split this

This page talks about two different locations in two different games. Let's have a page for each one. Mordikai wartwunson (talk) 23:05, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

New page has been created: garden. Let the wiki magic do it's work! Mordikai wartwunson (talk) 23:14, March 16, 2014 (UTC)