Talk:Straferunning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
i dont understand this article i graduated magna cum in engineering so i know math seems to be overcomplicating the math in order to confuse the average user ill read over it again...
- ok i got it now, the picture threw me off, it does not correspond to the text, but is an example on the same topic. a little strange...
I agree that a drawing of 2 adjacent sides of a square with their corresponding diagonal would be less confusing as it pertains to the example.
[edit] Rename to Strafe running
Currently Strafe running redirects to Straferunning. I think the redirects should be the other way around. If you check with google Strafe running is the much more common form of the term. -- Mdmkolbe (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strafe-running would be better. I think all the compund terms in this series should be hyphenated. SharkD (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well we should probably use what ever is the most common term. That having been said, a search for "strafe running" (which also gets the hyphenated forms) seems to show a 50/50 split between "strafe running" and "strafe-running". So I'm neutral on which to use, but which ever is not selected should probably also be a redirect. (Gah! Too many redirects :-)) --Mdmkolbe (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Math?
Resolved. Material removed. Anthøny 00:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)OK, I'm not an expert on Gaming or Math, but I am very suspicious of the math in this article - it looks well dodgy to me. I've a feeling it's a hoax. It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you cut across a diagonal, you'll get there quicker - simple pythagoras theorem, not all this dubious looking stuff. I'm considering having some input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Math ... Camillus (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Forget Pythagoras', it's nursery-level shapes, or vectors at a push. I've wiped the material in question, in response to your thread raised at WT:WikiProject Maths, but by association, also your comment above. Thanks for raising this matter; in the interests of receiving wider input, I suggest keeping all further discussion at the relevant thread at the WikiProject Maths talk page. Regards, Anthøny 00:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
