Talk:Battlemind

It's not making the page anti-4e and it's not strange that people notice the name happens to follow Wizards' newer naming conventions and make fun of it for that. Yes, you are free to point out that the name existed well before 4e, and what I added was an explanation of why it is still made fun of. Without that addendum, you're basically implying that anyone who does make fun of the name in this way is stupid, because if they're making fun of 4e somehow they must be grognards who prefer the older editions and don't even realise the name predates edition (which is not necessarily true; does what edition the name first came into use make any difference to someone who isn't familiar with DnD and observes the silly naming scheme?) What this does is say yes, it is an older name, but it'll be lumped in with the newer names because of its similarity.

I'm not trying to "flavour the entire wiki", I'm trying to make the article a little more neutral and explanatory. Chill out, man. --87.194.31.223 22:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The page originally stated that people have nicknamed the class, why, and commented upon that with a fact. You have added a criticism to WOTC's naming conventions to defend the people who call it "Fightbrain," effectively crossing the line and taking it too far. This page is about Battleminds, not about the people who criticize WOTC's naming conventions, or WOTC itself. You can make a page for that. Please do not inject criticisms about 4E/WOTC into a page about the class, Battlemind. Thank you.

PS: This is a subject best left alone, seriously. We've had a lot of issues with people overtly hurling criticisms about 4E in every page relevant, which has resulted in two bannings lately. Just leave 4E pages neutral, if people want to know what is wrong with 4E, they can find it rather easily without seeing it littered throughout a wiki where they aren't even expecting it. --76.94.191.184 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

But the parodical name and the reason people might use it is relevant to the Battlemind. This is supposed to be a wiki about how things relate to /tg/, and this is one of the ways in which it does so. You might still note that the overwhelming majority of the page is about the Battlemind, and there is in fact one sentence which describes the nickname and its cause. You can either have the explanation of why, despite the fact the name has been around in 2e, it will still be made fun of, or you can strip out the comment about the time of the name's introduction entirely. To have it in without clarification appears, as I mentioned above, to solely criticise people who make fun of the name, suggesting they're too stupid to know it originated in an earlier edition; to have the explanation in still makes it apparent that they don't know (or care, because it may be entirely irrelevant to them, seeing as how any individual person need not be a DnD player with a preferred edition at all) about the origins, but illustrates why it is made fun of.

You're not the person responsible for deciding who gets banned and those who have been banned were not banned for making criticisms of 4e. Do not try and use the prospect of bans to scare off debate on edits you don't like. --87.194.31.223 23:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the page worked fine before you took offense to a sentence that doesn't ACTUALLY offend anyone in their right mind at all, and changed it to a sentence that offends all people who are fond of WOTC's naming conventions. That's the problem; you're adding a major criticism/topic of debate/rage to a page that doesn't need it at all, thinking that it's justified because it "defends" a person who did, in the first place, make a mistake in criticizing a writer for something it isn't actually responsible for. So, you have to decide what fits the page better: a light-hearted, factual snippet of wit, or drying up all that makes the statement interesting by adding a major criticism to the edition where it doesn't belong, effective putting a bad taste in the mouth of any reader.

I'm sure you won't see it my way, as you haven't in the past. But I would sincerely appreciate it if you just left it about the class. Nowhere on the wiki is it a requirement that every little point needs to be defended from both sides, even if it goes off topic (which in this case, it undeniably does.) So just leave it be. You are completely welcome to make a page where you list off the poorly named things about 4E, and in fact I encourage you to - you could even link to this Battlemind page - but please, that crosses the line of "on-topic" to the point that it harms the quality of a class-page, and therefore it really ought to go. I appreciate your reading and reasoning with me about it. --76.94.191.184 04:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional edit: Also, it's important to realize that the Battlemind term isn't a product of the "poor naming convention" thing WOTC did, it's been there since Gygax was on board. So technically there really is no point in referencing the fact that people criticize the edition in general for its name, but just the name of this specific class, because it isn't even necessarily included in that category/complaint in your average context. In other words, sure it's true that people criticize the naming convention of WOTC in 4E, but it's not even brought up in this page without your edit. In fact, originally you simply erased the statement rather than "defending" those people, so I assume it's just you taking offense to it. So please, let's not make this about 4E, let's just make it about the Battlemind class and its own nicknames. --76.94.191.184 04:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, forget it. If you really think the page needs this explanation put in it, then go right ahead and revert it, I'll leave it be. But make sure you clean up the spelling/punctuation. Thanks! --76.94.191.184 04:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Rolling over and giving up is verboten, as are edit summaries that claim I'll just revert things arbitrarily. "Fine, have it your way" is not an acceptable conclusion to discussion.

If it's such a problem, why don't you just remove the mention of the parodical names entirely? The point is that it isn't "strange" that it gets made fun of. It's perfectly understandable, and it doesn't matter that the name originated in an earlier edition - many people do not in fact care about particular editions of DnD, they'll just make fun of it in general.

And what was wrong with the spelling/punctuation? --87.194.31.223 09:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Dickshits, I missed an n first time around. Well, technically that's not a punctuation issue, so I shall claim victory regardless. --87.194.31.223 09:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well to be fair, I didn't say "Have it your way," I said "You know what, maybe you're right." In any case, I like this recent wording the most, it kind of summarizes it entirely, so that works, too. Thanks! --76.94.191.184 21:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)