|Sources claiming more than one type:|
|Remained as <Name>:|
|Source claims Tribe|
|Were moved to <Name> tribe:|
|Source claims Clan|
|Were moved to <Name> clan:|
|Source claims others|
|Should remain as <Name>:|
Ok, we need to make a clear decision on group names for groups of mobs. Names are just going all over the place with no sources stated, just assumption. Either a vote or just plain agreement on something is needed so that this is no longer an issue.
I'll use ogres as an example, since they seem to be the most varied. If a group of ogres which have no items, quests, or speeches (made by in-game NPCs/mobs) specifying their status as either a tribe, clan, or alike, then their article name should remain without those extra tags. They should only be moved if otherwise stated what they are with sources linked. Whereas if conflicting sources say more than one type, then they should remain without those tags. User:Coobra/Sig4 06:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- The thing is that ogre articles without info saying it is a "tribe" or "clan" have the "Ogre clan" category. Ogre articles with info saying they are a "tribe" and "clan" also have the "Ogre clan" category. Finally, ogre articles with info saying they are a "tribe" have the "Ogre clan" category. That leaves only a few ogre articles that say they are a clan and actually should have the "Ogre clans" category. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then change the category to "Ogre organizations". --User:Gourra/Sig2 07:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to display examples, so to the right are all the groups of ogres. Those with the history link next to them either have an excessive amount of moves or non-sourced moves (just for the purposes of matching). Personally, if it came down to a vote, I'd rather all of them just remain as <Name>. User:Coobra/Sig4 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- That would really be more simple, and we can keep in the article the tribe/clan/band with its references.
- Here its becoming a little hell to think who's clan/tribe/band, etc...
- Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 21:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- This applies to all of them... as I stated I'm just using ogres as an example, since they seem to be the most varied. User:Coobra/Sig4 04:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think we should also put whichever word is used in lore after the name if it does not conflict with another source. For instance, naga are said to live in tribes in all the sources I believe. So the naga articles would have tribe as part of it. Ogres are said to live in tribes, clans, etc. so they would have to go by each individual case to see if they are a tribe, clan, etc. If there isn't a specific tag or too many tags attached to their group then, like you said above, the article would be named without tribe, clan, etc. in it. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- If there aren't referenced as anything, then they should remain as only name. If they had references, we choose the most logical one, basing of the sourcegiver, and we move it to that name.
- And, as Rolandius says, if we know a race's organizations are all the same, like orcs with clans and trolls with tribes, we simply move them all to those.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- This might be opening a whole other issue, but for some of these groups, isn't the term "Clan" part of the actual name of the group? As a real world example, what is commonly called "New Jersey" is officially "State of New Jersey" - the type of organization is part of its name. For the ogres in this example, is it really the clan known as Boulderfist? Or is it officially "Boulderfist Clan"? (and the whole other issue, shouldn't clan be capitalized if it is actually part of the name?) -- 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
So here we are discussing the names and how they should be, to prevent these constant moves and changing the redirects... and you start moving them again Rolandius... Don't force me to place a move restriction on all the ogre articles till this discussion is over. I'm pretty sure you shouldn't even be moving articles according to an agreement with your mentor... I'm not going to go through all those talk pages to find it, cause I know you've been told not to move articles unless given the ok (for certain ones). User:Coobra/Sig4 17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's correct to add the word "tribe", for example, to a group just because all the other groups of the race organizate in it. This reasonement have proven been wrong with Blackpaw clan (as all other gnolls are organized in tribes), and some tribes are even referred as clans sometimes (ex. Darkspear and Grimtotem are referred as a clan somethimes). Others, like murlocs, would be almost imposible to know if they are a tribe or a clan (because a group of tribes is a clan), so we can't put those words to the murloc organizations, except, if they are referred as one of those in a source. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to bring this subject up again... I feel that Blizzard just uses too many of the alike terms interchangeably and that the clan/tribe/group's name should just be the main name without a tribe/clan or whatever attached.
Meaning just have (for the vrykul in Howling Fjord) the group both called a tribe and a clan just be at Dragonflayer and Winterskorn the same. It was Winterskorn clan (I couldn't find a source of it, but did find a tribe source). They're just an example, I think this is how we should do it for all clans, tribes, etc. User:Coobra/Sig4 05:12, January 31, 2010 (UTC)