Template talk:Bettername
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Use of this template
It is my opinion that this template needs to stick to enforcing policy - both WP:NAME and WP:LORE. If there is no lore-based description suitable to use for an article, but the article still merits being posted on the wiki, then a neutral, descriptive title should be used, and this template should not be applied. Then move it if lore establishes an actual name in the future. This template should be only used when there is a lore-based reason which conflicts with the title of the article. That's my feelings on it - any other thoughts? --Pcj (T•C) 13:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, why not. I'm a bit tired of seeing this template "polluting" perfectly fine articles that just don't happen to have a canon name, and probably never will, as was said with the examples of Northshire River and Northern Lordaeron, although "Northshire River" is probably a bad example because it should rather be "Northshire river" I guess. Xporc (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure quite where I stand on this topic. On one hand, I think it is fine, in some cases, to point out, that a name is not official. However, without some restrictions, this template could be applied redundantly but correctly on a large amount of descriptive articles where it wouldn't really do much good. PeterWind (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're saying. Do you have examples? --Pcj (T•C) 14:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm or then again.. I'll have to brush up on some of the various policies on this topic. Been years since I looked at them. Some of what I'm thinking of could be covered by those. PeterWind (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well i don't want to put words into Pete's mouth, but I think he means that without the template, it's hard for people to know exactly if a page's name is canon/official or just a descriptive name made up by the wiki team. Xporc (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm just not seeing why noting that the name of an article is not an "official" name is important when there isn't a lore conflict. --Pcj (T•C) 15:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- On that note, as Xporc assumed, that was what I was getting at. As to my other point, I'm wondering, how or if the template, per its current description, should be applied to a lot of the terms in the Game terms category. I don't think Bank sitting really needs a "bettername" template slapped on it, even if the name probably isn't official. I think it's fine to limit the use of the template to areas where an official name is lacking, but one might reasonably expect there to be a "correct" name such as objects/creatures/spells or events/wars. On the matter of whether or not to use it on articles with effective and concise names that still are not official, I do not personally think that the template is problematic. An article might have the best, at the time, possible name, but unofficial is unofficial. When looking at war pages, if there is no tag telling me that the name is not official, I'll assume that it is an official name. I just don't think that the template detracts from the validity of the conent, as it only concerns the title. PeterWind (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- The main problem is that amboxes are meant to be temporary messages, not there for the life of the article. The information that the name is unofficial then needs to be conveyed in a different way if there is not a particular reason that the article should be renamed. --Pcj (T•C) 15:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think that the message of the template is important. Maybe an "unofficial names" category for things that came from Blizzard without official names? "Bank sitting" comes from the community, so they named it.--SWM2448 18:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- That category already exists. It can be used without the template. Xporc (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- The main problem is that amboxes are meant to be temporary messages, not there for the life of the article. The information that the name is unofficial then needs to be conveyed in a different way if there is not a particular reason that the article should be renamed. --Pcj (T•C) 15:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- On that note, as Xporc assumed, that was what I was getting at. As to my other point, I'm wondering, how or if the template, per its current description, should be applied to a lot of the terms in the Game terms category. I don't think Bank sitting really needs a "bettername" template slapped on it, even if the name probably isn't official. I think it's fine to limit the use of the template to areas where an official name is lacking, but one might reasonably expect there to be a "correct" name such as objects/creatures/spells or events/wars. On the matter of whether or not to use it on articles with effective and concise names that still are not official, I do not personally think that the template is problematic. An article might have the best, at the time, possible name, but unofficial is unofficial. When looking at war pages, if there is no tag telling me that the name is not official, I'll assume that it is an official name. I just don't think that the template detracts from the validity of the conent, as it only concerns the title. PeterWind (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm just not seeing why noting that the name of an article is not an "official" name is important when there isn't a lore conflict. --Pcj (T•C) 15:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well i don't want to put words into Pete's mouth, but I think he means that without the template, it's hard for people to know exactly if a page's name is canon/official or just a descriptive name made up by the wiki team. Xporc (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm or then again.. I'll have to brush up on some of the various policies on this topic. Been years since I looked at them. Some of what I'm thinking of could be covered by those. PeterWind (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're saying. Do you have examples? --Pcj (T•C) 14:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure quite where I stand on this topic. On one hand, I think it is fine, in some cases, to point out, that a name is not official. However, without some restrictions, this template could be applied redundantly but correctly on a large amount of descriptive articles where it wouldn't really do much good. PeterWind (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
What do you guys think about the cleaning I did to the WCI missions? Xporc (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page as requested by xporc.
- The name (War in Outland) is not canon, for it to be canon it needs to be mentioned in the game or literature (by Blizzard) which has not. It is indeed as has been put "words strung together by a person", tho. That person was not Blizzard, it was a fan, meaning it is a fanmade name - even though it is a concise a "fitting" one. Words about "lore conflict" cannot be said here since that fan doesn't create lore. Blizzard does.
- Regarding the box, tbh, I haven't been aware of all of its proper usage probably, but as Xporc (thanks for the good words, btw) mentioned how he understood its usage, this is how I, too, saw it for several years now, really. Its description and locations across the wiki kinda lean towards it. With descriptive names, when there's no official name, in my opinion, there should be something saying that it's not official/from Blizz, preferably at the top of articles (which the box seemed do a good job). And when (lore) articles have a descriptive name it is a good thing to differentiate between descriptive names used by Blizzard and descriptive names created by fans (such as the war in Outland and some more). Here's an example - Ogre girl. We don't know her name, but she is referenced in the book and art as ogre girl several times. Here I think it is not necessary to incude that box because she is referenced as such by Blizz. If the book didn't address that character as "ogre girl" but the page would be created with that name, then I could imagine putting it there for people to know it's fanmade.
- Hope that's clear and I'm still open to discussions but I will advocate for "something" to be put at the top of unofficially / fan named lore articles.--Mordecay (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with something more like {{For}} but an ambox isn't suitable, especially for pages like Alternate timelines which basically is a page talking about alternate timelines and there is no indication there will ever be a lore-based title for the page. --Pcj (T•C) 21:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Actions
Alright, so since the last time we discussed this:
- I removed the template from the Warcraft I missions and put in Warcraft: Orcs & Humans missions a warning that the names are unofficial.
- I moved Northshire River to Northshire river, removed the template and updated the text to reflect the name is not canon.
- I added a bunch of {{Move}} templates to pages that were formatted like official ones, mainly by having capitalized "War" in their names
Every page in which the template was removed is still categorized properly, if needed. Xporc (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)