Warcraft Wiki talk:Naming policy/Archive03

Titles

A new discussion!

So I notice we appear to have slightly conflicting policies regarding character names. Currently Lore Chars get no title, NPCs do - but what happens when something falls into both categories?

My thoughts are the NPC part takes precedence. That way we only ever use the most up to date titles, if any. User:Kirkburn/Sig 18:23, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Agreed, with a redirect to that name from their name without the title.--Sky 18:25, 27 February 2007 (EST)

How about have all article tiltes be full name, and simply redirect NPC titles to it? I don't really care what variation the article is named, as long as i end up at the right article, directly or redirectly, heh. I see no reason why this can't be done.

But, if you're going to go with the above, then atleast remove the lore version so a lack of titles aren't enforced on non-NPCs. Think it's fine to use a probable title for lore characters. --Zealtalkcontrweb 18:50, 27 February 2007 (EST)

My opinion is we should go with a character's full lore name, that is a name that will be mentioned in an article, novel, quest log, or other source of lore. That is for example, instead of "Mekgineer Thermaplugg" we should go with his full name, "Sicco Thermaplugg", or "Mekgineer Sicco Thermaplugg". The NPC title can redirect into the lore name.

Whereas in the case of minor characters that do not have full names, we can fall back on the NPC title instead, for lack of having a more accurate name.Baggins 22:40, 27 February 2007 (EST)

This is an old discussion, but does a minor NPC whose full name is known, but also has a title in their NPC name, ever not get moved to a page that omits the title? I am seeing a lot of that.--SWM2448 21:44, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Quest names, chains

This discussion was held in July, but an agreement was not reached, nor has it been brought here, yet, so I'm going to lay out the ideas for further discussion. The question was how to deal with the names of quests that are identical, whether they are part of a chain, or otherwise. It was brought up because of the creation of new articles by User:Laurlybot.

Here are the different ideas talked about on the pump:

1. Append the unique quest ID to every quest name.
   • Should the disambiguation at the end of the name be removed?
2. (Insinuation)Rename quests to the title of the first quest in the chain, using numbered disambiguations.
3. (Insinuation)Use one article for all quests in a chain that use the same name.
   • Or one article for all quests in the chain?
4. Name all quests with a disambiguation.
   • Including faction disambiguation.
   • First quest in a chain, or quest without a duplicated title would have (1).
   • Quest further into a chain, regardless of title, would be disambiguated by it's place in the chain?
     • For Example:
     • Quest:Title1 (1)
       • Quest:Title2 (2)
         • Quest:Title1 (3)
5. Quests that are not in the same chain, but have the same title should be disambiguated by the zone they are in.
   • Starting zone, or involved zone?

--DuTempete talk|contr 01:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is my opinion:

1. No way in hell. I'm not typing out quest IDs in links, and having to pipe them to fit them into a sentence as well.
2. Not user friendly. Users are going to search the the title of the individual quest, so unless we create redirects from the individual names, this wouldn't make sense. If we did that, then links could get messy, since identifying sections and using pipes would be necessary to fit it into the article. There would be multiple links of this sort for almost every quest.
3. Same as above.
4. I think if it's not broken, don't fix it. I'm assuming that Laurlybot can have some way of identifying which quest comes first, and if two quests have the same name, otherwise, I'm sure we can prevent it from doing anything at all, if there is a problem, and it can be manually requested, once someone has identified how the problem should be solved. Numbering by place in the quest chain, regardless of title, would only add to the confusion. Part of the quest boilerplate is a listing of the chain progression, and it should suffice.
5. I definitely think this needs to be added to the policy, but only for cases where a duplicate title is found. And in this case, both articles should contain the disambiguation. Return to the Marsh should be   [40] Return to the Marsh, as well as having  [10-30] Return to the Marsh. Zone disambigs should come first in a listing, if faction and numbering come into play. So, the proper order would be (zone, faction, #).

--DuTempete talk|contr 01:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My own not-so-humble opinions are well known to those that have borne the brunt of them, and not applicable to most other people. But in this case...

Chains

Having invented the genre, I felt entirely free to name quest chains as I saw fit. They sometimes have the name of the first or last quest in the chain. Often, though, they were named based on the theme of the chain. (eg 'the Terokkar mana bomb') Where I encounter older, automated quest chain names (eg Quest Name/Quest Chain), I try to...

1. Make a dedicated quest chain page, named " 'something' quest chain" if it is noteworthy
2. incorporate it into existing pages if short and not noteworthy
3. leave the page as a transclusion page, but remove it from the Quest Chains category

• Where the first quest of a chain is used as a transclusion page for the rest of the chain, I generally only disturb these if (and when) I make a dedicated quest chain page.

Equivalent quests

Where pages existed before, I've followed the existing conventions. Where they didn't...

1. Alliance/Horde - Quite a few quests in Terokkar forest are identical for alliance and horde. I created a single page and gave quest boxes for both sides. In most cases, these got 'voted down', resulting in 3 pages per quest: one horde, one alliance, one disambiguation.
2. location (eg 'Gnome Engineering') - When they were precisely identical, I did as above; create one page with the base quest name. Where they weren't, I split them up, using (location, faction) (I think)

Sequence

Always, I use the base name for the first quest in the chain, and appended the sequence number for the following ones.

Combinations - where location, sequence, and/or faction conspired ... memory fails me. I THINK I have used (faction, location, sequence), but I don't recall any cases where location and faction were both factors in disambiguating the name.

Disambig page - For any disambig page, my philosophy is

describe the similarities on the disambig page. Two nearly identical quests? Describe them 'nearly completely' right there, and leave the 'horde'/'alliance' pages for those who favor them.

--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle pages

A while ago I began creating a series of articles devoted to battles, using Wookiepedia as my model: A template to describe place, outcome, combatants, etc. Each article was named as most battles are named in the real world: Type of battle and place. However, Baggins, who has the annoying hobby of moving and renaming everything that doesn't fit his views, has moved every single article by using the names of the mission in which each battle is featured, even moving battles that are merly backstory. He has done so without the proper discussion. There's no naming policy for Battles, so let's I believe we should settle with voting before and Edit War between him and those who have created other articles following my convention begins.--Gonzalo84 13:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason I named each battle the way I did, its simply because that was, in my opinion, the closest you can get to an encyclopedia. And BTW, the Battle of Mount Hyjal should be named that way because there's even an instance named Battle of Mount Hyjal.--Gonzalo84 13:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We use official names where possible. One thing we certainly don't do is make up our own names for battles and capitalise them to make them look official. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"there's even an instance named Battle of Mount Hyjal"

Actually the name of the instance is Battle for Mount Hyjal, and yes we stick to official titles. As Kirkburn said, we don't make up names, or capitalize them to try to make them look official..Baggins 17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm apathetic to this, but I lean more toward the view that we use official names if possible. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As someone who's not familiar with the Warcraft universe outside of WoW, I was pretty confused to go to a page called Misconceptions and read about a battle that was called something else. I had to follow a few links to figure out where that name came from. I think if a game campaign name is used as the title, then the intro to the article should reference that name, eg "Misconceptions is the first mission in the Whatever campaign covering The Third Battle of Dalaran", or whatever. It would also help IMO if the article was clear whether it was lore/history, or a description of a game element (or to separate these in sections if it refers to both). -- Harveydrone ( talk | work ) 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, the problem with Misconceptions was only because it was linked to the wrong campaign. It is now quite clear where the name comes from. -- Raze 02:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the problem, Misconceptions was not called something else. The other name in the article was fanfic and doesnt' exist in any official source. We are slowly working to correct this and remove all the references to the fake names, and link into source material. Please be patient.

As for your concern of it being about game element or lore/history. I'd have to say its both. In warcraft III and the earlier RTS games it was all pretty much tied together at the hip. The later books rarely describe these earlier encounters except occasionally. Some were described in small paragraph descriptions giving an overall outcome, but hardly went into any details, or gave names to the battles.Baggins 18:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats because battles are named after the place they happen. Besides, what would yo do, Baggins, about the final two missions of the Scourge campaing of Reign of Chaos. Two missions, one battle. Under your convention, we should have an article using the name of the two missions, whereas in my convention, we would use the much simpler title of "Siege of Dalaran", or "First Battle of Dalaran". These battles are the only case in which there are no official names, therefore we need to develop an accurate naming policy, not based on the policy we use for units, since every unit has an official name.--Gonzalo84 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Each level will have its own article. It makes it easier to keep track of the information that way.Baggins 23:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Should*. Nothing is set in stone until a vote is had, and not even then; policies can be overturned if the populace feels it. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the policy, the official mission names are much clearer anyway. I found the old battle names quite hard to follow since I don't know the exact location each mission took place, and I'm sure not many users do. Since the missions are numbered it makes it much clearer, and names like The Siege of Dalaran, Under the Burning Sky, and By Demons Be Driven are what my mind associate with those battles anyway. What's the reason to make up names if they're not gonna be more helpful. -- Raze 02:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Added Template:Warcraft III CampaignTemplate:Warcraft III campaigns to help navigate through the campaigns while browsing through the mission names. Examples - Curse of the Blood Elves, Legacy of the Damned (Stole the dungeon template design). What do you think? -- Raze 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to categorise templates! (Fixed) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 03:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Spells?

Should there be a Spell:SpellName Naming for spells? ~Terry 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

NPC vs. RPG capitalization

If the RPG lists info on a overall type of Creature, and an obscure creature exists by this name in WoW, should...

• the info go on the obscure Mob page with the mob info (Fleshbeast or Nightsaber)?
• there be two pages with the Mob as it is cased in WoW, and the RPG info in lower case (Blue Dragonspawn/Blue dragonspawn or Carrion Grub/Carrion grub or Core Hound/Core hound or Void Terror/Void terror)?
• there be two pages with how it is cased in WoW, and how it is cased in WoW with a (Mob) at the end (Blue Dragonspawn/Blue Dragonspawn (mob), Grell/Grell (mob))?
• the info be like on Bloodpetal or Nightsaber where the lore has taken the place of the info about the mob by that name deliberately?

I would prefer if there was a written rule.--SWM2448 21:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there should be. I'd go with:

• Where the mob is named differently (including case), have the articles as written. This will mean the lore is lowercase, whilst the mob is title case.
• Where the names are identical, have the mob take (Mob).

Covers all possibilities? Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Vanity redirects

Since I've been rather zealously deleting vanity guild/character redirects (and created {{vanity}}), perhaps it's time it gets put on the policy page? Something to the effect of:

Vanity redirects to articles not in the main namespace as per other portions of this policy (e.g. Project:GUILD/Project:PA/Project:PC) may not be created in the main namespace. --k_d³ 01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And whats the problem with a redirect, if that page is nonexistant? --TheAdamant 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It might possibly need to be in the future. --Sky (t | c | w) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The word is "possibly." The page can be changed then, its not like anything on this site is permanent. Its rather stupid to implement this in my PoV. It seems like a desperate attempt to isolate pages. --TheAdamant 14:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well seeing as no one else said it.. Main namespace vanity redirects show an unfair and advantageous bias towards those lucky articles that have an opertunity to have a main namespace redirect. It's also there not polute the namespace with information from other namespaces which are subject to different rules, as it's being presented under the guise of main namespace information to browsers (eg. a user page in the main namespace). If i'm not mistaken, a search for the article will also go to the redirect, rather than correctly provide alternative search results because the article doesn't actually exist. This is even more of a problem if a user is searching the main namespace only, as they will recieve results they do not want. -- User:Zeal 15:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"The ..." articles; vote start

Votes

Whether to remove the part of the policy where "The" should not be a starting part of articles, and namely zones.

Yes

1. Yes Murph (talk · contr) 08:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC) - (But replace it with a rule that says it should only be used where it is commonly capitalised *or* is consistently used as a complete label (e.g. full faction name, full zone name, titles, organisations). If it's essentially optional, e.g. you can say "the Cenarion Circle" without raising any eyebrows, but it's clear from other usage that "Cenarion Circle" is the faction name, then omit "the". My vote is to improve what we have, not simply remove it.)
2. Yes Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 22:59, September 26, 2009 (UTC) - (If Blizzard always use the word "the" in the zone name, then, who are we to change that?; We should stick to what Blizzard uses.)
3. Yes -- Sebreth (talk) 22:37, December 16, 2009 (UTC) - (Exactly what Benito said. See my post below.)
4. Yes Navalu (talk) 09:28, December 17, 2009 (UTC) - (it makes the articles look ugly, if you ask me.)
5. Yes Bfx (talk) 15:47, December 21, 2009 (UTC) - (no comment)
6. Yes Ewolfg1 (talk) 02:00, February 5, 2010 (UTC) - (If blizz is calling it with a The or A or w/e why differ from that?)
7. Yes Monty845 (talk) 21:48, June 8, 2010 (UTC) - (Its better to deal with this on a case by case basis)
8. Yes ddcorkum (talk) 15:56, October 11, 2010 (UTC) - (Eye_(Tempest_Keep) should be called "The_Eye_(Tempest_Keep)". Its not normal English, but it is what Blizzard does.)
9. Yes Renkien (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC) - (It's just what Murph and Benitoperezgaldos said.)
10. Yes A F K When Needed (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) - (I consider this to be a wiki which strives to document the game. Accordingly, it should refer to names as they are in-game, rather than as decided locally by the Wiki entirely by people with no affiliation with Blizzard. If it is not consistent in-game, then whatever the map says should be presumed to be the correct variant.)
11. Yes MerryC (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC) - ('The Placename' does not equal 'A Placename' does not equal 'Placename'. How you name something, even in the smallest details, alters the impression the name gives. If the wiki isn't going for accuracy, what is it going for? If ease of use, that's what redirects are for.)
12. Yes - jerodast (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC) - (We should reflect what's in-game. "Barrens" is simply not what the zone is called.)

No

1. No Sky (t · c · w) 03:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC) - (See below)
2. No Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 04:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC) - (Seems arbitrary.)
3. No --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC) - (comments below)
4. No -- Harveydrone 20:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC) - (but I may be confused....)
5. No SWM2448 22:42, December 16, 2009 (UTC) - (See comments.)
6. No g0urra[T҂C] 23:13, June 8, 2010 (UTC) - (Nominated, and changed my mind.)
7. No Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC) - (no comment)

Comments

---

I'm getting a real headache now with the articles who start with "The", namely The Nexus but also other zones like The Barrens and The Oculus. According to the current policies the "The" should be removed entirely from the article name and be referred to as just the zone after the "The". To me this sounds ridiculous as I can't find a real good reason. Perhaps only because of sorting issues, but that's what {{DEFAULTSORT:<zone>}} is so good for.

Now I want a vote on whether you want to remove the part of the policy where "The" should not be a starting part of articles, and namely zones. g0urra[T҂C] 03:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason it exists is because actual name of something may not be "The Barrens", but "the Barrens". Another example is the Dragonblight, which is not "The Dragonblight", even if it is referred to with a "the". Kirkburn  talk  contr 03:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The zone name, going after the actual in-game zone, is The Barrens and should be called that. Dragonblight isn't called "The Dragonblight" in the same way, and you shouldn't take that as an example. g0urra[T҂C] 03:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's rather arbitrary — why-so? We have a definite rule here at the moment, and that is to redirect "The x" to "x" (unless the article is on an NPC/item, though I'm not sure why anymore on the former). Redirects are cheap, so if someone wants to use the 'the', they can. It also does make categorization a breeze — while a defaultsort isn't difficult, it's not something we need, I don't think. In other words, I think Kirk's reading of it is correct. --Sky (t · c · w) 03:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Only issue I have is with categories... both ways are used:

Examples where 'The' is used Category:The Barrens, Category:The Hinterlands, and Category:The Eye.

Examples where 'The' is not used Category:Slave Pens, Category:Botanica, and Category:Steamvault. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 04:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This policy hardly makes any sense. I'm new to WoWWiki, but I'm no stranger to them; I'm admin to two. Though each are understandably not as large as this one, I still think it's important to be as specific as possible to what's canon. It's like, going by the naming policy and using Undercity as an example, it is always referred to by characters as "the Undercity," but appears solely as "Undercity" in the zone name, so it's reasonable that the article be titled simply "Undercity." But in the case of zones that are referred to both in lore and by zone name prompt with "The" or such, not that it's inaccurate, but then again it's not necessarily accurate either. Mantecon (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a very rare case when you end up with an article with has to remain with the "the" — As you can see, there aren't many which aren't redirects. If they aren't redirects, then the majority I can safely say are mobs or items. --Sky (t · c · w) 17:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How helpful would it be to follow Blizzard's naming conventions? [email protected] (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I find that what I would have said, has been said. DEFAULTSORT is cheap and easy to add, and so often appropriate, and not just on "the" pages. And redirects can be made that go in both directions ("the" <--> "no the") depending on which name wins the popular vote. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. The policy is to exclude "the" from all other articles without their own policy, unless it's capitalized in running text. There is no zone page specific naming policy that I see, though I thought there was one at one time (to use the exact zone name from the game). So the policy as is should exclude "the" from most examples I've seen (the Barrens, the Crossroads, the Slave Pens). I think this policy should stay as is. It's a different question whether there should be a new policy for naming zone articles, and what it should be. -- Harveydrone 21:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that even if we, in the case of zones and subzones, go with exactly the minimap says, there will still be problems. Things like articles are rarely capitalized in running text, just look at race names. It is too inconsistant, and many 'also known as' lists are messes as it is. I do not want to see anything like this, but backwards. Redirects and categorization do not seem to be an issue, beyond the effort of doing it.--SWM2448 22:26, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the articles should be like... It should be The Barrens, as that is what it is referred to in-game. The game specifically calls it "the Barrens" in quest dialogue and stuff, so it should be part of the article name. However, as the quest dialogue does capitalize the "the", the "the" in the zone name should not be capitalized outside of the article name and the beginnings of sentences. It may be easier to name it simply "Barrens", but it is incorrect, as Blizzard refers to it as "the Barrens". -- Sebreth (talk) 09:22, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

The article should match whatever the name is in game. If item/zone/object of your desire has the "the" so be it. This will eliminate confusion when new players come here for resources. For a concrete example, the player title  [Merrymaker] does not have a "the" whereas The Hallowed does. Ariule (talk) 23:52, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that this isn't going to be getting any more votes. Is this going to just stay open indefinitely then? Sebreth (T.C) 23:44, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

A side has to win by five for three days for anything to happen. Unless one side is made up of idiots or sockpuppets, but I do not see that here.--SWM2448 23:49, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of this. However, Yes has been winning by one for at least a month now and I highly doubt there will ever be a victory by five votes. Sebreth (T.C) 23:53, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Idea

I am not sure if anyone brought up this idea in the past. What if we name articles that we know have a "The" in them, like "The Kalu'ak", like this instead "Kalu'ak, The"? This way we keep the word "The" but it does not mess up the whole alphabetized policy. It can also work with something like "Stromgarde, Kingdom of" so that we get the whole name in but the word "Stromgarde" is in front. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I like that style of naming. It looks ugly to me, makes the URLs ugly, and I don't really see what it buys us. With judicious use of {{DEFAULTSORT:<key>}}, and [[Category:<name>|<key>]], the automatic aplhabetisation is easily tweaked for the relatively few occasions that it's necessary to do so, and it's not difficult to adjust manually created lists to look good. If need be, templates can relatively easily strip standard prefices from {{PAGENAME}}, if that's an issue. What advantage do you think it gives over the current policy? Do you have some examples of lists or categories where it would look better the way you propose? I guess I'm really just trying to figure out what problem you are trying to solve. --Murph (talk · contr) 07:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering if there was a way of keeping the whole term of something in the title of an article when a term has something like "The" or "Kingdom of" in them, like "The Kalu'ak" and "Kingdom of Stromgarde" instead of naming the article just "Kalu'ak" and "Stromgarde". I picked Kalu'ak as an example because if you look at the NPCs in-game it says "The Kalu'ak" and not just "Kalu'ak". I picked Stromgarde as an example because everyone knows it was a kingdom. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm about 50/50 on whether "The Kalu'ak" should come under the existing clause There is an important exception to this rule: "the", "a" or "an" is included when it would be capitalized if it appeared in text.. As for Stromgarde, that's a trickier example - it's commonplace in WoW to simply refer to it as Stromgarde or Stromgarde Keep, and exceptionally rare to hear someone talking of the "Kingdom of Stromgarde". In real life, the "Kingdom of Fife" is typically just referred to in all as simply "Fife" - even the local government is simply "Fife Council", although it is well known in the local area as the "Kingdom of Fife", and it's not particularly unusual to hear that form of the name. I'm still less than convinced that reversing the names around a comma would be a step forwards. --Murph (talk · contr) 08:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on "The Kalu'ak" as it could go either way. Although, in the case of "The Kalu'ak" it does have support in that in-game the info when you click on them says "The Kalu'ak" and the official website calls them "The Kalu'ak". With Stromgarde, it is more in lore where you see the word kingdom a lot. Although, I think there is an in-game book or two that talks about "The Seven Kingdoms". Another thing is that on WoWWiki, we do have "Kingdom of Stormwind" and "Kingdom of Azeroth" as articles and no one in WoW uses those terms. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Slight change

Instead of changing the whole thing use or don't use "The" on every article that has it, how about we just have it where "The" is not used for zone/subzone articles, and have "The" used on proper names, like with ships, zeppelins, inn and taverns. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is a great restriction, since the very first example I think needs changing from current policy is The Barrens, which is nearly ALWAYS called The Barrens in official sources. Besides, names of specific places ARE proper names - it doesn't have to be a building or vehicle as in your examples. - jerodast (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That exception is already included, the policy reads "There is an important exception to this rule: "the", "a" or "an" is included when it would be capitalized if it appeared in text.". If it is called "The Barrens" everywhere, then that is what the article should be named, per the existing policy. Nonetheless, I am vetoing this proposal as movement on it has apparently stagnated. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 04:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Prepositions and articles in quest titles

It seems that Blizzard does not work consistently with prepositions (in, on, before etc.) and articles (the, a, an etc.) in quest titles. While some are written correctly, others are just capitalized. For example:

•   [8-30] The Might Of The Scourge
•  [24] In Search of The Excavation Team
•  [16] Cleansing of the Infected

Should we just follow the spelling Blizzard used in the game, or make a rule for it? I prefer to write prepositions and articles in lowercase.--Iggey (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

MNSHO - First letter capitalized (wiki will do it anyway), and "name of quest in-game", so people searching for the quest can find it. (Part of what frustrates me so with disambiguations.) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If we have a lot of frustration from horrible capitalization used by Blizzard, at least the most common variants can be given redirects. For instance, in the above "of the" examples, redirects with "of the", and "Of The" could be added. (Yes, took me a moment to see your point, sorry.) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Pcj in Wowpedia talk:Village Pump#Prepositions and articles in quest titles, we should always follow the spelling Blizzard used. Personally, I'm not too happy with this, because it causes a certain inconsistency. Making redirects is really no problem, but it's the policy itself that needs to be changed.--Iggey (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think of them as book titles, then it would be "Might of the Scourge, the". However, Blizzard's game is not aimed at a bookworm audience. It is following a slight deviation from proper English where 'the' is being treated as part of a proper noun. In that context, even a book title would read "Might of The Scourge", the" where "The Scourge" is a singular noun. On the other hand, there is no such entity as "The Infected" so the third sample quest title follows normal rules. If you look at comments made elsewhere on this subject, you will find examples where Blizzard quest authors have failed to adhere to their own special treating of proper nouns, which is likely a case of "good habit" getting in the way. D.D. Corkum (T / C) 19:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

CVar articles

Propose we add a CVar article naming policy, as some of the new cvars are now 2 words, and have the 2nd word capitalized. With this naming policy, it'll be easier to keep track of the cvars as they won't be moved to new name to follow "Other articles" naming rules (and thus the complete CVar list won't have to be updated as often). Something like the following should be acceptable?

CVar Articles
Shortcut: WP:CVA
Console Variable articles are prefixed with "CVar " and then exactly as the console variable name, with the same capitalization and no whitespace (unless its part of the variable name). For example, CVar bgLoadThrottle and CVar cameraDistanceBarber Shop.

Thoughts? Comments? Ressy (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Implementing as {{Grandfathered}} since this is already the practice. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 16:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Playable race as primary article, lore at Race_(lore)

Personally, 90% of the time when I put in the name of a race and click "Go", I want to see the playable race article, not the lore article for the race. I propose that the naming policy be amended so that articles about playable races in WoW are named "Race" and articles about the lore of a race are named "Race (lore)". Jamash (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Votes (2)

Yes

1. Yes Jamash (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC) - (Nominated)

No

1. No g0urra[T҂C] 18:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC) - (See comment)
2. No Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 18:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC) - (See comment)
3. No Ddcorkum (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC) - (But there should be a "did you mean ____(the playable race)" link at the top of the page, which there is already)
4. No Renkien (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC) - (No comment)
5. No Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 07:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC) - (no comment)
6. No Yourbuddybill (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC) - (I admit I am usually looking for the playable faction, but starting on the race page is fine, and as A'noob mentioned reduces any Wow bias.)

Comments

The main race name articles are for lore and general information about the race, which is how it's always been. When there's a playable version of a race, it doesn't necessarily mean that the "version" of the race is the same as the playable one - for example there's humans that has no connection to the ones from Stormwind (playable humans), just as there's orcs not from Durotar (playable orcs). --g0urra[T҂C] 18:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Plus Wowpedia is a global Warcraft wiki, choosing to put Race (lore) and Race would mean that we favor a World of Warcraft point of view.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 18:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, it's not like the site has Wow in the title or something. Snafoobar (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Naming Convention for Recipes

Profession recipes, patterns and schematics in the game are formatted with the name of the profession followed by a semicolon followed by the name of the recipe. For example,  [Draught of War]. As this type of syntax could be confusing on a wiki, typically recipes such as transmutes have omitted the leading "Alchemy:". For example,  [Transmute: Cardinal Ruby] omits this leading text.

While this standard is easy to follow for recipes that don't create an item, it is a bit more difficult for recipies that do. For example,  [Draught of War] could be confused with  [Draught of War] if the leading "Alchemy:" was removed. I would thus like to propose a naming convention to resolve this ambiguity: Recipe names will omit the leading <Profession>:, but recipes that would then be named the same as the item they create will have (<profession>) follow the name. For example,  [Draught of War] would be called Draught of War (recipe). D.D. Corkum (T / C) 17:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but how about "... (recipe)" to keep it consistent across all professions? --k_d³ 22:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

NPC article titles

As it's been pointed out to me, the current phrasing of Project:NNA requires that NPC articles be named according to the full name of the character, rather than the in-game name of the NPC. I'd like to propose the following revision: NPC articles based solely on the NPC's in-game functionality should be named using the in-game name of the NPC.

In practical terms, the current wording requires Archmage Pratt, an otherwise unmentioned Undercity NPC, to be moved to Charles Pratt because of an in-game gossip line. To me, this seems counter-intuitive -- as long as his article only concerns his existence as a Reforger NPC in Undercity, I'd expect its name to match that of the NPC.

It would seem that this was also the policy's original intent. Wording resembling the current was first introduced as a clarification in 2007 (attempting to draw a line between character and NPC articles), and subsequently altered, replacing the clarification's "full name not used" with "full name unknown," leaving us in the current situation.

So, to reiterate: NPCs articles that only reference the in-game NPC should be named by the NPC's in-game name. Character articles, which draw on information from non-in-game sources, should be named using the character's full name.

Initial Vote

Yes

1. Yes foxlit (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC) - (Proposed)
2. Yes SWM2448 02:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC) - (Their full name can still be noted on their page itself, of course, but as far as page titles go, yes.)
3. Yes Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 02:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC) - (no comment)
4. Yes Deludo - Its latin google it! (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC) - (Otherwise we might as well rename the Thrall page Go'el)
5. Yes Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 19:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC) - (no comment)

No

Comments (2)

I missed this one, but just letting you known I vote No. If we have the full name of an NPC we should use it in-game only or not.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 07:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well of course a Loremaster would vote no :P 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Recall Vote

Recall

1. Recall Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 18:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC) - (Proposed)
2. Recall Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC) - (With the specific proviso that if the character is an NPC, there always be a redirect to the "full name page" from the "in-game name".)
3. Recall User:Matix/sign 22:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC) - (no comment)
4. Recall Luxor (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC) - (no comment)
5. Recall Aedror (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC) - (As long as there is a redirect and that both names are clearly stated in the article, then it shouldn't really matter. Personally i like the use of the "lore name".)
6. Recall Darksora110 (talk) 3:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC) - (no comment)

Keep

1. Keep SWM2448 18:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC) - (See above. For lesser NPCs, people will likely look for the name as it is written.)
2. Keep — foxlit (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC) - (no comment)
3. Keep Klakmuf 19:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC) - (no comment)
4. Keep g0urra[T҂C] 20:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC) - (no comment)
5. Keep Khaydarin (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC) - (no comment)
6. Keep DoomeЯ TC 09:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC) - (no comment)
7. Keep k_d³ 21:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC) - (See full comment below.)
8. Keep Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC) - (no comment)
9. Keep Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 15:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC) - (no comment)
10. Keep Petrovic (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - (no comment)
11. Keep Aaron of Mpls (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC) - (I'm ok with things either way, really, as long as the full name (if known) is mentioned in the article, and there's a redirect at the in-game name if the article title is the lore name.)

Neutral

1. Neutral Dark T Zeratul (talk) - (no comment)
2. Neutral LemonBaby (talk) - (no comment)
3. Neutral -- Joshmaul, Loremaster of Chaos (Leave a Message) - (no comment)
4. Neutral --  Varghedin  talk / contribs - (no comment)
5. Neutral Sports72Xtrm (talk) - (no comment)

Comments (3)

Specifically, we've created two classes of character pages: in-game NPC pages, and lore/book character pages. A character such as Varian Wrynn, or Magni Bronzebeard, who appears prominently in both generates an argument over which takes precedence. If that argument is won by fiat ("they appeared in a book, so there!") then we are in a place where any in-game character that subsequently appears in a book has to be moved.

SWM's comment has merit, though, that people will look first to the name of the character in-game, if that is where they see it. Thus my proviso that there always be a redirect from the in-game name.

I find Deludo's reasoning unconvincing - Thrall/Go'el, Varian Wrynn/Lo'Gosh, both names in each case are used in-game and in books/lore by the characters themselves. Which name is chosen as the page name and which as the redirect to the other is largely a matter of judgement.

Truly, though, I don't have a great deal invested in this decision - typing in either name in the search box gets you what you are looking for, yes? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's really more about the content of the article, rather than whether that character has appeared in a book. It's fairly clear that Varian Wrynn is about the character, rather than the NPC appearance of the same; it's also fairly clear that Lyros Swiftwind concerns the NPC rather than the character mentioned in Wolfheart. An interesting corner case would be Archmage Mordent Evenshade: on one hand, the article is based primarily on his NPC appearance (and that Wolfheart section makes kittens cry); on the other, his involvement in the story might warrant a few paragraphs, which then raises the question of whether we keep Archmage in the title or not. Personally, as long as that Wolfheart section is not too significant, I'd view that article as primarily concerning the NPC, who incidentally appeared in a book.

If we draw the line based on the above reasoning, I don't think we'll have to deal with a significant number of page moves due to book releases -- there simply aren't that many NPCs whose story is significantly expanded upon in books. I'd prefer to avoid mandating creation of redirects -- it's virtually impossible to enforce (what are we going to do, ban people for contributing NPC articles but not creating a redirect?), and unless all of those redirects are created, finding NPC articles on Wowpedia would be a painful game of "guess the right article title". Keep in mind that reverting to the old wording might also require that pages be moved as new information about character names is added through various sources.

All of that makes me think that naming NPC articles using the in-game NPC name makes things easier for both editors and readers in the long run. — foxlit (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My position on this has shifted over the years. Currently: NPCs should use their in-game name as article title (with exceptions for NPCs such as Taylor and Nazgrim, whose ranks keep changing). Redirects can be created for other versions of the NPC's name (without title, full name if we know it, etc.). No proviso for yelling at editors for not creating the redirects is implied or desired. I am of the opinion that if editors are looking for him, they're going to use the name as it appears in-game.

So, "Watch Commander Loon Mai"'s article title is Watch Commander Loon Mai. "Loon Mai" should be a redirect to Watch Commander Loon Mai. If we learn his given name ("Loon Mai" feels like a compound family name to me), that article (<foo> Loon Mai) could be created as a redirect as well.

On the other hand—if Loon Mai's title changes the way Taylor's and Nazgrim's have, "Watch Commander Loon Mai" moves to "Loon Mai", as does the |name= in his {{npcbox}}. Links to the NPC's name (in quest boxes) should at least show the current title of the NPC (but link to the non-redirected version). For example, All of Taylor's quests in Vashj'ir should refer to him as [[Taylor|Captain Taylor]], but his quests in Pandaria should display use [[Taylor|Admiral Taylor]], or via {{NPC}} as appropriate. --k_d³ 21:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to end this vote, but I need a really clear line on what is "based primarily on in-game"

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 08:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Really clear lines are hard, since the intention is to allow some flexibility, and not mandate that articles be needlessly moved around to satisfy the policy after a new lore source is released.

Think of it like this: if you're creating a page because you saw an NPC in-game, use the NPC's in-game name. If it later turns out that that NPC is a major lore character, and the article begins looking like Varian Wrynn -- with significantly more content about the history of the character than NPC-related boilerplate such as location/quests/vendor/whatever information, it'll no longer be considered an NPC article, and should probably be moved to the Project:NCA-specified name instead.

This would accomplish the main desired effect: if you're staring at an NPC in-game, you could simply transcribe its name to view its page on Wowpedia (if it exists), without requiring that everyone contributing NPC articles creates redirects. — foxlit (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I just want to mention that I vote blank as I have no strong preference for one option over the other. --Varghedin (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Tactics pages

Building off of the above, what is to be done with tactics pages? They are as "based primarily on in-game content" as you can get. Right now we have things like "Kargath Bladefist" for lore, and "Kargath Bladefist (tactics)" for the boss fight, while the boss is actually named "Warchief Kargath Bladefist". Also, if Dungeon Journal entries contradict the boss' actual name, which takes precedence?--SWM2448 18:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you give an exemple of a Dungeon Journal entry that contradicts the "boss' actual name"?

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 18:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Nefarian's End. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. So far, it seems that it has only came up once (unless Deathwing's two count), and when when the boss has appeared before, but Talk:Escaped from Arthas#Encounter name and the DJ updates in MoP make me think it may become more widespread (though again, this is when a boss appears twice).--SWM2448 18:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We may keep on doing:

• Name for lore (and tactics if his lore is only a "background")
• Name (tactics) & Name (Location tactics) when we have no specific name
• Dungeon Journal name if it is special like Madness of Deathwing, Nefarian's End or Escaped from Arthas

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 07:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)