Talk:Demoman (competitive)

From TF2 Wiki

Article names

If you are going to have multiple articles with different content, could you stick with the same names for useability, eg Demoman (competative) to match Demoman. That way if anyone searches for 'demo' it will A. go directly to the disambiguation page and B. be obvious that it's another type of the same class. Also, in this case, 'Demo' is usually shortening of demonstration and slightly confusing. --urora (talk | contribs) 12:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The original plan was to go with common competitive jargon, and while I initially put demoman under "demo" because "demoman" is almost never fully said or written casually, in hindsight it is still used in formal competitive writing, so that's fine. In keeping with competitive norms I was also avoiding the roleplaying aspects of classes, referring to them as genderless, inanimate, non-unique, improper nouns ("a soldier" instead of "the Soldier," "it" instead of "he") and forgoing all setting-related information, though the gender part I might revise.

Moving demo to demoman is completely fine with me (I was sort've split when I wrote it on which to go with), though I'd like clarification on the topic in general. There are a number of phrases that are almost never used in competitive discourse but are part of Valve's nomenclature. For example, "airblast" is the common term for "compression blast," "bonk energy drink" (or some variation thereof) is almost always used instead of "Bonk! Atomic Punch," "sapper" instead of "Electro sapper," "sandman" instead of "The Sandman," etc. Is it okay to go with widespread competitive jargon on these, or am I obligated to name them according to Valve canon? Perhaps I should start a discussion elsewhere for style guides on competitive articles. G-Mang 08:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It probably would be best to use the TF2 Wiki:Discussion for this because, although on the surface it's a relitively simple point, as you point out it does have a 'lot more meat to it' when you start thinking about community jargon usage. I'll add this now and reply there (after a coffee and some deep thought :p) --urora (talk | contribs) 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)