Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-7091122-20170404034023/@comment-6031945-20170405133304

Snapdragon717 wrote: Camwood777 wrote:

Brainzzwhatevzz wrote: eh.. strawburst already make the application category and adding them to pages Guys, haven't we gone over not adding things until the vote's over? Seriously... Someone warn him for that. I did. Read Reply 16.

Just reverted his edits and here's the evidence plus the picture about it just in case. You're welcome. I know that you guys have school currently, but wouldn't it be better if either one of you done the reverts?

@YammaYamer21

Yes, that's what we are talking about. But, there's now something else that I'm been bothered about and give it a good read below this response...

GamerNerd i wrote: I'm going to say that maybe we shouldn't call them "applications" since the games themselves are also apps. I'd say "utility" but that really doesn't make sense here.

Maybe we could just call them "miscellaneous"?

VeXJL wrote: GamerNerd i wrote: I'm going to say that maybe we shouldn't call them "applications" since the games themselves are also apps. I'd say "utility" but that really doesn't make sense here.

Maybe we could just call them "miscellaneous"? Misc. is way too vague.

To be fair, "applications" is quite broad as well.

I just don't know what we could call these. Thanks for that clarification. It seems like a better choice than "applications" since there's people like YammaYamer who is a bit confused about the "applications" category being used for only "non-games".

Since it's "vague" according to VeXJL's tastes, we can just combine them and use either "miscellaneous applications" or "misc. apps" category instead and describe about it on its category page if either one of them were to exist. Which reminds me.....

Also, that "category" could use a rename to either "miscellaneous applications" or "misc. apps" due to my mentioned stance.