Forum:Organization naming

Vote: Organization naming
✅

Votes
Note that, for clarity issues, the poll uses the example described at the explanation. The poll, however, is supposed to refer to all the other articles with the same issue.
 * Kobold clan (organization) :


 * Kobold clan (Elwynn Forest) :


 * Kobold (clan) :


 * Kobolds of Elywnn Forest :


 * Elywnn kobolds :

Explanation
There are a good bunch of groups that lack naming. I've been working on the groups of harpies, kobolds and snobolds and troggs, and I know what I'm speaking about.

When I'm going to create the article of a group of beings that are certainly a group themselves, first of all, I search their name. Most of these minor groups don't have, or aren't referenced as, so I look at the names of their members, because most of them follow a pattern.

If the name is taken, I just put "name race", and avoid "name (organization)" because there could be more groups with the same name.

And here comes the problem. Some groups end being named with the name of their race. If I have a group of kobolds named Kobold, what should I do? name them Kobold kobolds? Of course not. The answer would be Kobold (organization), so problem solved. If some day a group with the same name appears, Kobold ("zone" organization) would be fine.

And here comes the second problem, when we know that troublesome-named group is a clan or a tribe. What should I do now, name them Kobold clan? Kobold (clan)? Kobold clan (organization)? "Zone" Kobolds? Kobold clan kobolds? "Zone" Kobold clan? Kobold clan ("zone")?

Feel free to voice your opinion and, if the option isn't in the poll, add it.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments
You can find the beginnings of this discussion at Elwynn Kobolds talk page.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be Elwynn kobolds, since All the "Kobold..." options are too generic. Without lore to back any choice up it is more a matter of community consensus, however. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 11:37 AM PST 27 Jul 2009
 * A detail: It should be Kobold, with mayus, since its a proper name like any other. Also, I would choose that, too (in fact, I created the article and gave it that name), but I think "clan" needs to be present at the name. I hope we can reach a consensus with this, since I'm planning on start with gnoll and murloc groups, and I'll have more than one problem like this.--Lon-ami (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends if we are looking for uniformity and neatness in a macro view or fixing the articles in a micro view. I liked the micro and macro view earlier because I thought it would be good to have each "group" called their full name like " clan" or " tribe". I was going by the race's lore of organization though. For instance, naga live in tribes so they would all be called " tribe" unless otherwise said by a source. A user would then look at all the naga groups and see all the " tribe" that the naga have. A lot of users though wanted to name a group with "tribe" or "clan" as part of it only if a text actually said " tribe" or " clan" together versus just lore saying how the race was organized. Some exceptions did arise, like the ogre groups, who were sometimes described as a clan and others a tribe. Using that naming method though, we now have races who are organized into 4 or more different names at times. For instance, kobolds are organized into clans lore says. WoWWiki has them organized into just their "name", "herds", their "name" and "race", and "zone" and "race". So if a user would look at all the kobold groups out there there would be no uniformity. One is a clan, the other is a herd, another is just its name, while yet another is the name and its race. Now we are discussing some other naming methods where we would have either "name" and "clan" (organization), "name" and "clan" (zone), or "name" (clan). Seems a bit complicated. Maybe we should make the naming method similiar to the way we name NPCs, that is, without their "titles" like Major, General , etc. That way we just name the article using the group's name and not worry about "tribe, "clan, "herd", etc. until we get inside the article. Tribes, clans, herds, etc. are going to end up under the "organization category" either way. We already are using just the name of the group for a lot of these races and also for whole races at times (satyrs who live in "sects", harpies who live in "matriarchies", etc.) so it wouldn't be too hard. Articles would then just be titled "Wildhammer", "Bronzebeard", etc. and within the article we could throw in all the terms for what they are organized into. Alternatively, we could go to the old method where we named them by the name of the group plus race. So it would be "Wildhammer dwarves", Bronzebeard dwarves", etc. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 03:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's my opinion these kobolds were just named after their race and class. Blizzard does not give every single group a name, for one reason or another.
 * While there is no overtstructure of government, kobolds organize in loose groups to plan out digs and scavenging.

This group is, to my knowledge, involved in 8 quests:
 * 1) Kobold Camp Cleanup -- Calls them a clan of kobolds (lower case)
 * 2) Investigate Echo Ridge -- kobolds (lower case)
 * 3) Skirmish at Echo Ridge -- kobolds (lower case)
 * 4) Kobold Candles -- kobolds (lower case)
 * 5) Gold Dust Exchange -- calls them Kobolds twice and kobolds once (lower case)
 * 6) Goldtooth (quest) -- kobolds (lower case)
 * 7) The Fargodeep Mine -- Kobolds (capped)
 * 8) The Jasperlode Mine -- kobolds (lower case)

While they are a clan, the clan name is unknown, so 'Kobold clan' would be incorrect. This group of kobolds have no name and any given is fan made. The question is... should any "organization" articles be made for creatures like this, that have no specific group/organization name. 06:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Coobra, if you want the truth, none of the kobold groups has ever been referenced by a name. None of them. I named them guided by the names of their mobs, which tend to usually share one part of the name. Example:
 * I find a group of kobolds at Boulderslide Ravine. Their groups consists of:
 * Gogger Geomancer
 * Gogger Rock Keeper
 * Gogger Stonepounder
 * There's no reference to any name for that group, but they are a group. So I name them for the shared part of the names of their members: Gogger.
 * And, of course, I apply this law to every group without known name. And I get to a group with these members:
 * Kobold Digger
 * Kobold Geomancer
 * Kobold Laborer
 * Kobold Miner
 * Kobold Tunneler
 * Kobold Vermin
 * Kobold Worker
 * Again, no name, so I apply the same rule. Oh, wait, the name of the group and the name of the race are the same one.
 * And there's the problem. Also, quests point they are a single group, allied with the Defias, so they deserve their own article.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a difference, unless the the zone the Gogger kobolds are found is called Gogger, that is their obvious name, but when a group is not given a name at all, like these kobolds in Elwynn, then thats blizzard not worrying about naming a group and they are just that a random bunch of mobs named after their race. Its the same with gorlocs found in Borean Tundra and other creatures that do the same thing. 19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So, what we do now? make up a new one? leave them nameless?
 * I think that, if we apply that law with the others, we should apply it with these ones, too. After all, what's more proper than the name of their race?
 * Also, how players recognize them is important, too, and it's in their names.
 * Those are the reasons for I have voted to put "Kobold clan (Elwynn Forest)".--Lon-ami (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to be the only correct way to actually give them an article, is to name it either Elywnn Forest kobolds or Kobolds of Elywnn Forest. I would vote for the latter, although longer, it describes, rather than names. 20:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do those groups need pages? There is always the option of making a list of the lesser groups of a race on one page.-- 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think they deserve it. Also, your option is similar to the one I have picked, Coobra: Kobold clan (Elwynn Forest). Just because we know they are a clan.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of the 2 just listed, I think Kobolds of Elwynn Forest is a better suited name for the page. The reasoning, if I remember correctly, is I thought there was a zone that had 2 different sets of (clans) of Kobolds in Classic WoW, or was it Timbermaw's? -- 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a consensus here at all, regardless of the arguments. Also, the vote doesn't seem to reflect the choices reflected in the comments. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 4:05 PM PST 29 Jul 2009

I think you're all thinking too much about this. The kobolds you see in Elwynn Forest, especially the level 1-3 neutral ones in the very starting zone, were probably among the first NPCs ever created (Kobold Vermin has the ID 6, so it was probably used for early testing) So, without thinking ahead, they just called them "Kobold Something". Nearly all other local variations of a mob type have a special prefix (clan for humanoids) or otherwise unique name. They were simply too lazy to give the "kobolds of/in Elwynn Forest" a proper clan name. So the term to refer to them here would be "kobolds of Elwynn Forest", with a lowercase k except of course in the page URL where the wiki engine wants an uppercase starting letter. "Kobold" with an uppercase K is not a clan name, maybe something the humans call them, but I bet they have their own name, too. Unless of course Elwynn turns out to be the origin of all kobolds, and the kobolds living there are such supremacists that they call themselves "the K obolds" ~ Nathanyel (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's clarify some points:
 * This group of kobolds are referenced to as a clan of kobolds, so I think they should have the word "clan" in the name of their article.
 * This group are referenced to as Kobold. It doesn't matter what Blizzard was supposed to, or that they are named liked that for lazyness. They follow the pattern of all the other groups, and if we have to apply the same rule for them, they would be named Kobold, Kobold kobolds, which is just dumb so we are discussing how to name them better, but Kobold should remain at the name article.
 * This group of kobolds can be found at 4 mines, 3 at Elwynn Forest and 1 at Westfall. Their presence is bigger at Elwynn Forest, so if we have to add a zone to clarify which group they are, Elwynn Forest would be my choice. They aren't referenced as anything regarding Elwynn Forest, it's just a point of clarification we could add, so this should only be included in the name if the "clan" and "Kobold" words are.
 * Remember people should be able to recognize this group by their name.--Lon-ami (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some other examples of this problem:
 * Lost One lost ones, a group of lost ones at Swamp of Sorrows.
 * Magnataur magnataurs, a group of magnataurs at the Dragonblight.
 * Makrura makrura, a group of makrura at the coast of Durotar.
 * Murloc murlocs, a group of murlocs invading Elwynn Forest, Redridge Mountains and Westfall.
 * Silithid silithids, a group of silithids at south of the Barrens.
 * The decision we took here should apply to these ones as well.--Lon-ami (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And all these, except (kinda) the magnataurs, were the first of their race the players encountered/the developers put in the game. Either the developers were lazy, or it's supposed to e.g. mean "those are murlocs, so the quest givers call them murlocs. There might be more elsewhere, but we don't know that yet" ~ Nathanyel (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Laziness or not, it doesn't matter. the fact is that they appear in-game like that, with those names. Until they are named in other way, we should respect what we have now. They're represented in a way in-game, and we should respect that way they're represented in.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So no one wants to use "common" as in "common kobolds"? I don't think they had created the pattern of "group + job", or whatever you want to call it, if these were the first mobs created. It looks like Blizzard just named them by "race + job". If they were supposed to follow some pattern they would have named them "Elwynn + job" or something like that from the start. Later groups were named "group + job". Don't forget that Blizzard sometimes used upper case and sometimes used lower case with races. So the instances of "Kobold" does not mean the clan is called "Kobold clan". Also, if you read the quests, it does not name the clan. It just comes down to a clan (no name) of kobolds (race). The model for the kobolds captured by the spiders in the mines (whose model by the way is called "mine spider") is called "cave mine kobold" I think. That is always a choice we could pick. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice find, indeed. Could solve the problem for these ones... if you show us proof of it, because I'm unable to find them at any wow database :S. If not, I still vote for Kobold clan + acalaration of where they are: Kobold clan (Elwynn Forest).--Lon-ami (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For my part, I'd prefer to see the eponymous/unspecified groups described on the page for the creature type. I have a hard time imagining anyone SEARCHING for "elwynn kobold" (vs "drywhisker kobold").  It's got to be a special case of some sort, simply because there is no name beyond the generic type.  To that end, the vote above introduces the 'unspecified' name issue unnecessarily, IMO. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I admit to not having read all of the relevant talk pages and forum topics, but I question whether there even needs to be a name for this group. As far as I can tell, it's not a unified clan (the reference for "clan" is only Kobold Vermin in Echo Ridge). It's just all the various kobolds who happen to be in Elwynn Forest. As such, that descriptive name seems best. If there is anything else unifying them (and given that some "Elwynn kobolds" are in Westfall) it's that they work for the Defias Bro'hood, so a name that reflects that may be better. But in general, I favor something generic in the form of "Zone creatures" or "Creatures of Zone", if a page name is needed. -- Harveydrone 22:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So what voting rules are we using for this vote? -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 11:04 AM PST 10 Aug 2009


 * Since the outcome of this vote will most likely determine the way similar pages are made, we should take the top 2 choices redo the vote with just those 2 and then do the normal voting rules. 20:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't intend this to be official, just sharing of opinion for later making the real official one.
 * Also, I see most people votes the same name, but with different order. I think we should decide first what to include at the name:
 * Kobold
 * clan
 * Elwynn Forest
 * And then decide the order:
 * Elwynn Forest Kobolds
 * Kobolds of Elwynn Forest
 * I think this would make the voting easier.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What should be included at the name?

 * This discussion seems to be stranded, so let's try deciding what should be at the name before discussing how to order it. Remember, this topic is about organizations whose name is the same as their race's:
 * 1: Organization/Race name
 * 2: Location
 * 3: Type of organization
 * What do you think should be included?
 * Remember, we have 6 cases:
 * Kobold kobolds, a groups of kobolds invading Elwynn Forest and Westfall.
 * Lost One lost ones, a group of lost ones at Swamp of Sorrows.
 * Magnataur magnataurs, a group of magnataurs at the Dragonblight.
 * Makrura makrura, a group of makrura at the coast of Durotar.
 * Murloc murlocs, a group of murlocs invading Elwynn Forest, Redridge Mountains and Westfall.
 * Silithid silithids, a group of silithids at south of the Barrens.
 * Looking forward opinions.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:27, September 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer the name of the race/organization and then the type of the organization (if it is not known, then it should be: "Race/organization-name (organization)". I don't really like the location beacuse, as it has already been pointed out, this kobolds aren't totally in Elwynn, they are also in Westfall. Also I should want to point out that the Lost Ones don't really fit this problem as it has been told in the RPG that they are named specifically "Lost Ones", unlike the other groups that haven't been referenced in the RPG. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 16:01, September 6, 2009 (UTC)