Forum:Racial organization template naming

It seems to be a standard to name racial organization templates as just "race" rather than "race ". Why is this? I have discussed this a few times at places like User talk:Lon-ami and User talk:Lon-ami to no avail.-- 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say because for the most part is not taken by any template, and shorter names seem to make things easier such as adding to the group pages (either that are missing it, or later down the road when new ones are added) without trying to figure out or remember if its tribes, clans, groups, etc after . 08:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I thinks it's because of what Coobra said, it's about groups holding some kind of sovereignty, I do it this way because it was done that way before I was here.--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand the desire for simplicity here in regards to naming, but to me (for example) a template called "Humans" would be a navigational aid about all things human, when it is currently just about human nations, kingdoms, and capitals.
 * We could go the direction of keeping the templates organization-based (which I feel merits a rename of them all), or we could go the direction of making the templates more complex and inclusive. If the latter, the organization aspect may be overshadowed, possibly getting a negative reaction from those who find value in it, and the templates would likely become a mess, as there would be more room for 'debate' and 'creativity'. However, I still think they would be more useful templates (ones that hopefully can be maintained).-- 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would prefer changing it to human organization instead of overcomplexizing, but out of curiosity what would you put in the Human Template besides those things you mentioned.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That specific template was "Human nations" until a bit ago.-- 22:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That doesn't answer my question at all!--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, sometimes expanding certain templates is nice, so it includes more info than just their groups... and I'd personally rather not have multiple types of templates for the same purpose. IE human groups, another for human nations, and another for human RPG class... (probably a bad example), but if a template is used to merge all that info is under the main races name, I'd be ok with that.... however, I do agree that it would eventually become messy and a place for edit warring with info reasons of "doesn't need to be there" and "does need to be there". So... yea... my opinion probably doesn't help. =P 20:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)