Support. This page could easily serve its purpose just as well by simply redirecting to the relevant section of Clone and mentioning how the competitive community treats the two there. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 08:42, 25 October 2017 (EDT)
- Oppose Sheilda exists, with the same functionality. Aidan, the Spooky Rurouni 10:25, 25 October 2017 (EDT)
- The Sheilda page has far from the same functionality as this one. One is a disambiguation page that lists two nearly-identical characters in separate slots, points out that they are clones of each other, and emphasizes that they can be played nearly the same way. One is a proper standalone page that describes the use of two very separate characters who share a slot, explains how they are different, and emphasizes they require differing knowledge and playstyles to compete. Even aside from that the Sheilda page is laid out and executed totally differently from this one. The only similarity I can see is that both pages talk briefly about an instance of two characters sharing a slot on a tier list, but if we make this a redirect to the relevant section of the Clone page as Nyargle suggests, it should become obvious to anyone not in the know why Pit and Dark Pit share a spot on the tier list. Nymbare and his talk 12:21, 25 October 2017 (EDT)
Support; it's easy enough to just say that the player uses Pit and Dark Pit, rather than sending them to another page that explains that "Pits" means... using Pit and Dark Pit. Seems unnecessarily indirect. Besides, this is a questionable disambig because it doesn't even address the other thing "pits" could mean, in video game parlance: the lower blast lines of stages. Not seeing a compelling reason to keep this. Miles (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2017 (EDT)
This page's existence is to ease linking on the rest of the wiki when referring to any aspects of the Pits; since they're nearly entirely interchangeable, you're going to be referring to both of them simultaneously 90+% of the time, and thus this cuts down on having to write "Pit and Dark Pit" while also having to link both of them. It's also standard terminology outside the wiki, so it stands up in that area. Now some specific things to address:
"This page could easily serve its purpose just as well by simply redirecting to the relevant section of Clone and mentioning how the competitive community treats the two there."
There is no specific section on the clone page about the Pits that can be linked to, and why exactly would creating a specific section for them there be better than this?
"It's also only linked to by one page in the entire wiki."
This page was created only a few weeks ago, for assurance to aid linking in future editing. Why would it be linked to by a bunch of different pages so soon, especially when the wiki has been slow lately? Maybe if a disambig/redirect page was on the wiki for a long time and had little-to-no linkage you could use it as an argument that the page is of little use, but to do so soon is killing the page before it can fulfill such usage.
"Besides, this is a questionable disambig because it doesn't even address the other thing "pits" could mean, in video game parlance: the lower blast lines of stages."
How is this a reason for deleting, especially when it is a disambig page to begin with? If you think that's another legitimate usage of this term, then make note of it on the page. Omega Tyrant 15:21, 28 October 2017 (EDT)
- Support. If you say "Pits", people might do not understand whether you are referring to Pit and Dark Pit, a bottomless pit, or the Pitfall item. -- Beep (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
- "There is no specific section on the clone page about the Pits that can be linked to, and why exactly would creating a specific section for them there be better than this?"
- I mean, you could just link here, but...
- That said, I'm gonna parrot Serpent King on this one. Aidan, the Spooky Rurouni 15:16, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
- I guess that's a better use for this page, making it disambiguate more.--Meester Tweester (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2017 (EDT)