PathfinderWiki talk:Naming conventions

Archives:

1 (2009–2012) 2 (2013–2017) 3 (2019–2020)

Amend name change policy for Remaster

Changes Proposed This section contains suggested changes to this policy. Please discuss the suggested changes here. For further information please see the policy revision process.

While the current text was required for the introduction of Pathfinder Second Edition, the Pathfinder Remaster introduced changes not related to an edition boundary. In the "Specific Considerations" list, change Name changes between editions to:

• Name changes. Articles should generally use the most recent canon name for a subject, which might result in an article's name changing if its subject's name changed in subsequent works. This is particularly relevant for creatures whose names have been updated or retconned in Pathfinder Second Edition or the Pathfinder Remaster, as well as locations, organizations, and characters who have changed names or identities in Pathfinder Lost Omens setting timeline advancements. Articles should:
  • Always incorporate the previous name in the lede, with a canon explanation for the change if possible. If the previous name was explicitly retroactively removed from the setting, denote this in a footnote and link to a more detailed and sourced description in the article's Meta page if necessary.
  • Always note the alternative name in the name field of any relevant infoboxes, if both names are considered canon. List the most recent name first and separate the names with a <br> line break.
    • If a name is used only in First Edition content, use the template's 1E-name parameter if available and flag it with the {{1E name}} template to link it to this policy for context:
      | name = Naiad queen
      | 1E-name = Nymph{{1E name}}
    • If a name is used in First and Second Edition content but has changed since, do not include the {{1E name}} template, since its presence incorrectly implies that the name did not apply to Second Edition content.
  • Optionally provide context for edition-specific naming in the article's "References" section. If the context is more than one or two sentences or requires links to external sources, provide the expanded context in the article's Meta page and optionally link to it from the References section.

-Oznogon (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

All getting there, I think, but with the following points to consider:

• this needs the explanation: old name -> new name - why? I don't think the edition change per se is the major factor, as we know ORC has changed names too.
  • I liked the {{1E name}} concept, so we could have an equivalent for ORC, when that's the reason for a name change and then we are consistent with superscripts
  • more controversially, with all the explanation suggested above, maybe we just do away with {{1E name}} entirely and let the other elements explain the name change; this also removes duplication
• the 1E-name in the Creature tabbed template is also potentially confusing and outdated and could sensibly be updated to something like old-name or former-name
• We need to add an example of the agreed way forward

--Fleanetha (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the first point. The policy already suggests adding context, and my proposal expands that only to encourage use of Meta spaces for situations where more context than is appropriate for a footnote could still be useful. If you're recommending that point to be required instead of optional, I'm fine with that. If you instead mean the removal of language like "Name changes between editions" is an issue, that's intentional; the policy's specificity is unnecessary and introduces ambiguity for cases like the Remaster. The policy should cover any name changes, including those where the mechanical edition is irrelevant.

I'm not a fan of {{1E name}}, and I'm open to removing it. Template footnotes, Meta pages, and the article are better places to communicate necessary or useful context.

The 1E-name infobox parameter is an implementation detail that I don't think is pertinent to the policy proposal. If mentioning it here is contentious, I'd prefer to remove it from the policy and instead provide guidance in the relevant infobox template's documentation or article how-to Help pages (ie. Help:Writing an article about a creature).

If you mean examples of template usage, I'd prefer adding any detailed examples to an article how-to Help page and linking to that. In my opinion, this policy is not an appropriate place for implementation examples because implementation details can change, resulting in unnecessary ambiguity in the policy. If you instead mean adding links to articles where the policy is applied, would ifrit be appropriate considering it inspired the proposal? -Oznogon (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Oz, my first point was to do with consistency - why do we have a superscript for 1E->2E changes but not 2E->ORC changes? Or, for other reasons for name changes that have happened / are yet to happen. If we want a superscript, then we need one for explaining all name changes in the ib. I simply don't like having a superscript for just one of the reasons for name change and not the others.

If we have to use superscript clunkers like "Pre-ORC" or "Legacy" for no reason other than to be aesthetically consistent, I'd rather we not superscript anything related to name changes. Especially because older names aren't always fully discarded and remain included in current sources as alternative names, which makes identifying them as edition- or version-specific names especially pointless.

As to the template {{1E name}} specifically, I am more convinced it can go, especially as, being a link, the blue can get lost in the ib colour. I liked your more simple (but more readable) ^1E you used - that works for me and is a clear indication in the ib. Supplement that with ^Pre-ORC, while having the newest name at the top, as per the text above, and we have a consistent way forward. The heavy lifting is then done in the framework you elaborate above. Alternatively, we do away with all superscripts, as I don't think we should have them for just one cause of name changes, namely 1E->2E. Hope that's clearer. Preference-wise, I think a simple superscript helps.

If it's this complex that we need multiple superscript identifiers, then we should instead add a footnote reference to the name in the first section of the article's content where we can provide sufficient context, or use the infobox footnotes which we didn't have when this superscript convention started with 2E's introduction five years ago. Otherwise we're forcing people who likely don't have any context on what the hell "Pre-ORC" stands for in order to guess what that refers to. It's a distraction that loses value with every added complexity.

Now that we have infobox footnotes and Meta pages, I'm strongly against having any superscripted flags in infoboxes, not only for name changes pertinent to this discussion but for any other infobox details across the wiki. -Oznogon (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned the ib formatting as it's here in the Naming conventions, but I agree, better we just ditch those lines now and reference the ib help page. That has the added benefit of having just one page to update for future changes to the ib rather than remembering we need to update here as well. Though, I think we do need to rename the 1E-name parameter in the ib as it is already being used for non-1E name changes. Maybe alt-name might be better as that can cover a number of rationales? I'll pin that thought on the ib talk page though.

The 1E-name parameter was made when there was only ever going to be 1E and 2E. I'd just as soon move everything that uses 1E-name into the name parameter, separated by line breaks, same as and consistent with everything else in infoboxes that are listed right now, and then remove the 1E-name parameter rather than replacing or renaming it. -Oznogon (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Finally, my comment on an example was simply to note we'd need to update the one in the current policy but if that is deleted now, the comment is irrelevant. However, linking to ifrit sounds like a good helpmate to me.

Adding that all together, here is an updated version of the suggested policy text (for ease, little has changed but the deletion of the two lines that started with three asterisks and the addition of a suggested three-asterisked line, a link to an example template, and a link to ifrit):

• Name changes. Articles should generally use the most recent canon name for a subject, which might result in an article's name changing if its subject's name changed in subsequent works. This is particularly relevant for creatures whose names have been updated or retconned in Pathfinder Second Edition or the Pathfinder Remaster, as well as locations, organizations, and characters who have changed names or identities in Pathfinder Lost Omens setting timeline advancements. Articles should:
  • Always incorporate the previous name in the lede, with a canon explanation for the change if possible. If the previous name was explicitly retroactively removed from the setting, denote this in a footnote and link to a more detailed and sourced description in the article's Meta page if necessary.
  • Always note the alternative name in the name field of any relevant infoboxes, for instance Template:Creature tabbed, if both names are considered canon. List the most recent name first and separate the names with a <br> line break.
    • [add appropriate line here about superscripts if they are agreed; if not this line is deleted]
  • Optionally provide context for edition-specific naming in the article's "References" section. If the context is more than one or two sentences or requires links to external sources, provide the expanded context in the article's Meta page and optionally link to it from the References section.
  • For an example of a page where this policy has been applied, please see ifrit.

--Fleanetha (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Approve. This policy text, with the line about superscripts deleted, works for me. -Oznogon (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"Race names"

Changes Proposed This section contains suggested changes to this policy. Please discuss the suggested changes here. For further information please see the policy revision process.

Since this page's creation, this page has always contained both the General Convention "Use singular nouns" and the Specific Convention "* Race names. Always use the name of a monstrous race in singular form (e.g. [[Orc]], not [[Orcs]])."

• "Race names" -> "Ancestry names"? "a monstrous race" -> "an ancestry"?
• I don't understand why this Specific Convention line exists. I would completely delete the line, because it seems to ineffectually restate the "Use singular nouns" rule? — Descriptivist (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Support removal of this line. The discussions leading to that decision predate the wiki's move to Wikia, much less here, and were no longer online as of 2009. The line is no longer necessary, if it ever was. -Oznogon (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"Magic items and spells"

Changes Proposed This section contains suggested changes to this policy. Please discuss the suggested changes here. For further information please see the policy revision process.

Likewise, the Specific "Magic items and spells" seems to restate the General Convention "Lowercase second and subsequent words" without truly adding a specific rule that effectually changes the general rule. We can already deduce from the general rules that in an article titled "Kobold tribes of Absalom", the non-proper noun "tribes" is lowercase and the proper noun "Absalom" is uppercase. The exact same general rules would govern an article titled for a spell named "magical watchdog of Mordenkainen". Importantly, both halves of the sentence "While magic items are capitalized in most game rule text, they should not be in the naming of their articles unless they are a unique item or part of a select and limited set." are false. I would replace the whole paragraph with something like this:

• Magic items and spells. In Pathfinder, magic item names and spell names are italicized, not proper nouns, so they follow the "Lowercase second and subsequent words" rule as normal. (Example: [[Serum of sex shift]], not [[Serum of Sex Shift]]) You capitalize proper nouns as normal whenever a proper noun is present, such as the name of a deity or a spell's creator. (Example: [[Frozen lava of Mhar Massif]])

— Descriptivist (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. -Oznogon (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Discord vote on "Use true names"

Changes Proposed This section contains suggested changes to this policy. Please discuss the suggested changes here. For further information please see the policy revision process.

On the PFWiki Discord server, Fleanetha, The_Colonel, and Petronius Felix unanimously voted to revise the "Use true names" policy to use the article name Ratfolk over Ysoki. I add my Yea vote to theirs. Logically, the new policy text should likewise affirm the article names Catfolk and Lizardfolk, as each ancestry is titled in the tables of contents of both Player Core 2 and Monster Core. — Descriptivist (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. Indeed, I support removing the "use true names" policy altogether due to the total lack of enforcement. Not even the stated example of forgefiend applies this policy as of today, and hasn't since 8 February 2018. -Oznogon (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove "Use true names" policy. In its place, we could create a new general policy "Use names that Paizo uses in the books", e.g., maybe the rule-of-thumb would be for creatures and ancestries to use whatever they're titled as in their books' Tables of Contents. —This unsigned post was made by Descriptivist at 19:52, 14 August 2024‎. Please sign all posts with ~~~~.

Create new convention for iconic characters

Changes Proposed This section contains suggested changes to this policy. Please discuss the suggested changes here. For further information please see the policy revision process.

I would prefer to retitle the articles of at least six iconic characters whose articles currently use their first-and-last names: Damiel Morgethai, Nakayama Hayato, Mios Uriev, Nhalmika Ironsight, Sajan Gadadvara, and Shardra Geltl. For example, the PFWiki has 200 links to each of Damiel, Hayato, Mios, Nhalmika, but the PFWiki only has 70 links to each of Damiel Morgethai, Nakayama Hayato, Mios Uriev, and Nhalmika Ironsight. I would prefer for these articles to have the cleaner, single-word titles.

So I offer either of two policy proposals that would go under the naming conventions' list of "Specific conventions": either

1. Make all iconic article titles use single name, not full name; or
2. Make iconic article titles use whatever their "Meet the Iconics" post is titled as. For almost every iconic, this results in single name, but there are three outliers: iconic villains Lazzero Dalvera, Linxia Benzekri, and Emil Kovkorin.

If you asked me to make a choice, I guess I would go with #1, but I have no problem with evil iconic titles being weird. Evil iconics are weird guys; they're allowed. —This unsigned post was made by Descriptivist at 19:52, 14 August 2024‎. Please sign all posts with ~~~~.

Weak oppose. I don't see any problems with articles about people using their full names. Redirects exist and already work to fill the proposed use cases of having "cleaner" references. The last names for Nhalmika, and particularly Damiel and Sajan, are notable to their identities, and I'd oppose changing them regardless of the outcome of this discussion. -Oznogon (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Ooh you're right, that point about Damiel and Sajan is smart. Proposal rescinded! -- Descriptivist (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)