PathfinderWiki talk:Naming conventions

Archives:

Amend name change policy for Remaster

The following is a proposed PathfinderWiki policy, guideline, or process.
The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

A proposal's acceptance or rejection is not determined simply by counting votes.

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)