Wowpedia talk:Naming policy


 * For some previous naming related discussion, also see Wowpedia talk:Policies/Archive (old discussion page)

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. 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. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 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.-- 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: -- DuTempete  talk  |  contr  01:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Append the unique quest ID to every quest name.
 * 2) *Should the disambiguation at the end of the name be removed?
 * 3) (Insinuation)Rename quests to the title of the first quest in the chain, using numbered disambiguations.
 * 4) (Insinuation)Use one article for all quests in a chain that use the same name.
 * 5) *Or one article for all quests in the chain?
 * 6) Name all quests with a disambiguation.
 * 7) *Including faction disambiguation.
 * 8) *First quest in a chain, or quest without a duplicated title would have (1).
 * 9) *Quest further into a chain, regardless of title, would be disambiguated by it's place in the chain?
 * 10) **For Example:
 * 11) **Quest:Title1 (1)
 * 12) ***Quest:Title2 (2)
 * 13) ****Quest:Title1 (3)
 * 14) Quests that are not in the same chain, but have the same title should be disambiguated by the zone they are in.
 * 15) *Starting zone, or involved zone?

Here is my opinion: -- DuTempete  talk  |  contr  01:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.  Quest:Return to the Marsh should be Quest:Return to the Marsh (Mage), as well as having Quest:Return to the Marsh (Zangarmarsh).  Zone disambigs should come first in a listing, if faction and numbering come into play.  So, the proper order would be (zone, faction, #).


 * 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...
 * Make a dedicated quest chain page, named " 'something' quest chain" if it is noteworthy
 * incorporate it into existing pages if short and not noteworthy
 * 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...
 * 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.
 * 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. 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 Campaign Template: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) 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.-- 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? 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. WP:GUILD/WP:PA/WP: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)

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


 * Yes :


 * No :

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 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. 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". 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. 03:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's rather arbitrary &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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. 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" &mdash; 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? Jsgelk@yahoo.com (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.-- 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.-- 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. [[Image:Ability_rogue_shadowstrikes.png|20px|link=User:Sebreth]] 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 , and  , 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  , 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.  -- 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 [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( 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.  -- 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 [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 10:21, 21 December 2008 (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:
 * Quest:The Might Of The Scourge
 * Quest:In Search of The Excavation Team
 * Quest: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, 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. -- 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 :


 * No :

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). -- 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.
 * 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,. As this type of syntax could be confusing on a wiki, typically recipes such as transmutes have omitted the leading "Alchemy:". For example, 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, 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 , but recipes that would then be named the same as the item they create will have   follow the name.  For example,  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 WP: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.

Votes (3)

 * Yes :


 * No :