Difference between revisions of "Talk:Strategic advice from KataHex"
(Created page with "Great update! My suggestion would be to avoid recycling terms such as "efficient" and "useless triangle", even if this is how you call these concepts in your mind. It can only...") |
(replied to Selinger) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Great update! My suggestion would be to avoid recycling terms such as "efficient" and "useless triangle", even if this is how you call these concepts in your mind. It can only lead to confusion down the road if different people adopt the same terms to mean different things. How about "strong" or "influential" or "effective" instead of "efficient"? And I'm not sure where the triangle metaphor comes from; does that concept necessarily need its own name? [[User:Selinger|Selinger]] ([[User talk:Selinger|talk]]) 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC) | Great update! My suggestion would be to avoid recycling terms such as "efficient" and "useless triangle", even if this is how you call these concepts in your mind. It can only lead to confusion down the road if different people adopt the same terms to mean different things. How about "strong" or "influential" or "effective" instead of "efficient"? And I'm not sure where the triangle metaphor comes from; does that concept necessarily need its own name? [[User:Selinger|Selinger]] ([[User talk:Selinger|talk]]) 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | regarding "useless triangle": That content is already covered by the Dead Cell article. regarding "efficient": Another option is coming up with a different term or phrase for what's currently in the Efficiency article, though I can't yet think of one. [[User:Demer|Demer]] ([[User talk:Demer|talk]]) 04:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:00, 27 July 2023
Great update! My suggestion would be to avoid recycling terms such as "efficient" and "useless triangle", even if this is how you call these concepts in your mind. It can only lead to confusion down the road if different people adopt the same terms to mean different things. How about "strong" or "influential" or "effective" instead of "efficient"? And I'm not sure where the triangle metaphor comes from; does that concept necessarily need its own name? Selinger (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
regarding "useless triangle": That content is already covered by the Dead Cell article. regarding "efficient": Another option is coming up with a different term or phrase for what's currently in the Efficiency article, though I can't yet think of one. Demer (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)