Forum:Organization naming

Forums: Village pump → 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 ("zone")

1. Kobold clan ("zone") Lon-ami (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC) - (I think both their name (Kobold) and their type (clan) should be in the article name, and that the zone should be present because Kobold clan is too generic and it would help to recognize them at first sight)

Kobold (clan)

1. Kobold (clan) Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC) - (I'll choose this, if another article isn't neither a clan nor a tribe then it should have the word "organization" instead of "clan".)

Kobolds of Elywnn Forest

1. Kobolds of Elywnn Forest Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC) - (See below)
2. Yes Nathanyel (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC) - (they're not the clan "Kobold", just unnamed kobolds living in Elwynn)

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. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · 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 "<name> clan" or "<name> tribe". I was going by the race's lore of organization though. For instance, naga live in tribes so they would all be called "<name> tribe" unless otherwise said by a source. A user would then look at all the naga groups and see all the "<name> 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 "<name> tribe" or "<name> 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 <name>, General <name>, 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 (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.Template:Cite

This group is, to my knowledge, involved in 8 quests:

1. Quest:Kobold Camp Cleanup -- Calls them a clan of kobolds (lower case)
2. Quest:Investigate Echo Ridge -- kobolds (lower case)
3. Quest:Skirmish at Echo Ridge -- kobolds (lower case)
4. Quest:Kobold Candles -- kobolds (lower case)
5. Quest:Gold Dust Exchange -- calls them Kobolds twice and kobolds once (lower case)
6. Quest:Goldtooth -- kobolds (lower case)
7. Quest:The Fargodeep Mine -- Kobolds (capped)
8. Quest: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. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 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:

• File:IconSmall Kobold Small.gif Gogger Geomancer
• File:IconSmall Kobold Small.gif Gogger Rock Keeper
• File:IconSmall Kobold Small.gif 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:

• File:IconSmall Kobold Small.gif Kobold Digger
• File:IconSmall Kobold Small.gif Kobold Geomancer
• File:IconSmall Kobold Small.gif Kobold Laborer
• File:IconSmall Kobold Small.gif Kobold Miner
• File:IconSmall Kobold Small.gif Kobold Tunneler
• File:IconSmall Kobold Small.gif Kobold Vermin
• File:IconSmall Kobold Small.gif 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. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 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. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 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.--SWM2448 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? -- (M o r p hJames E. Rooks, Jr. aka: Morph
Morphgnome & Morphdraenei | ^C | _TLeave me a message on my Discussion/Talk Page) MorphgnomeMorphdraenei 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. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · 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 Kobolds" ~ Nathanyel (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

See also

• Forum:Group names