m (Discussion)
Line 40: Line 40:
{{User:Myles Prower/Signature}}
{{User:Myles Prower/Signature}}
'''Strong Oppose - Support Option D''' - The official nomenclature should be used where available (i.e. '''realms''' should definitely be used over something absurd like '''cosmology'''). When there is no feasible official name to use for something, I don't see a reason not to use a name for it we find appropriate (I guess there is no good official name for something like '''the Zarosian Empire'''. {{Signatures/Chessmaster}} 17:52, September 23, 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:52, September 23, 2018

Forums: Yew Grove > Naming of articles

As recommended by User:JaydenKieran, I post most of my thought about the Wiki's policy of naming articles here.

During the discussion about the deletion of page Realms in favour of using the page Cosmology, the main argument for keeping the page Realms seemed to be based on semantics, on the account that the term "Cosmology" does not appear in the game (instead being coined by JMods during RuneFest) and therefore the article shouldn't be named.

I found this to be odd, give that we already have the Wizardry page for the lore of magic, Lordship of the North Coast for the unnamed political entity in Northern Morytania and Eastern, Lunar, Northern, Southern and Western Sea for the hypothetical division of RuneScape's oceans, despite the fact that none of the article names are referred to anywhere in the game: in fact, all of them are inventions of the Wikia users.

Klenter's Pyramid was another example of an in-game object with no name being named by users of the Wiki in order to write about a location, only for the JMods to add the name to the game when Menaphos was introduced to the game: in fact, the namer of the article admitted that he should've used another name for the article, since the pyramid was not just for Klenter, but for all high priests.

So, if we do not want to look arbitrary and inconsistent in determining what articles can and cannot exist based on the article's name, and cause what is essentially headcanon by users of the olden days of the Wiki to be made canonical, we have three options:

  • A) make a policy which allows articles without in-game term like "Cosmology" or "Zarosian Empire" to exist,
  • B) introduce a new template which adds a banner on top of the page, telling that the article's name is not "canonically confirmed" but the name is used to cover the available information regarding the topic, or
  • C) remove all the articles in the Wiki regarding topics with no canonical name.

Personally, I would prefer the option A), while B) is an acceptable compromise. Adopting policy C) actually causes a lot of problems: for example, if somebody would want to be an article about the Zarosian Empire, under the policy B) such article could not exist since the empire remains officially unnamed, despite the fact that there is a lot of information about the Zarosian Empire which has not been documented in the Wikia.

In fact, it seems to be a recurring theme on the Wiki that articles are only being made if we have an official name for the subject of the article, regardless of how much information we have about the subject. As mentioned before, it has resulted in a situation where subjects like Zarosian Empire or Bandos' race, which by all accounts should have their own articles, do not have an article because we have no canonical name for them, while there are pages for even the most obscure and insignificant things in the game, as long as they are named.

AquaMage2459 (talk) 02:12, September 22, 2018 (UTC)


Support B, doing something like what Wookieepedia does with Template:Conjecture. Doesn't choosing B mean you also accept A though? They're not really two separate options. --Iiii I I I 07:28, September 22, 2018 (UTC)

Well, they're not mutually exclusive, but I imagined that sometimes there might not be a need for a big banner that says "the name for this article over here is not canonical", but now that you mentioned it, it is probably a smart idea to implement both options. Originally, I did not even consider the possibility of having a banner template and only had the options A and C.

But yeah, to answer your question: yes, I would accept B if I accept A, though it should probably be pretty important to establish both A and B, and not just one or the other. AquaMage2459 (talk) 10:47, September 22, 2018 (UTC)

Support A/B - Don't we already do something similar for articles on Template:Battles? We make up titles all the time for events that take place in-game, which aren't given any official name. I don't agree that a specific name has to be spoken in-game for it to become canonical. B can get a little obtrusive, but I guess with common sense it can work. It looks useful for articles where there isn't any name specified and it's hard to give a specific name (eg Western Sea). --Haidro (talk) 11:52, September 22, 2018 (UTC)

Support B - Per fetus --Sucy_orb_2.pngScuzzy BetaLuna_Nova_sigil.png 23:18, September 22, 2018 (UTC)

Support B - As we are meant to be encyclopedic, I feel that when we are using a "made up" name to cover a "real" topic, we need to disclose this. As there is a good amount of information that can be considered canon, that may not have a canon title/name etc, "B" seems to be our best option. I would also be okay with "A", but am strongly opposed to "C" (just because an idea doesn't have an official name, doesn't mean the information available pertaining to that idea shouldn't be published). Only caveat I would add is that all information posted about a topic obviously still needs to be properly sourced/verifiable. This proposal should make clear we are not opening up to any and all conjecture about RuneScape as a whole, just allowing for the use of a "placeholder" (invented title) that Jagex has not officially recognized at this time. (Following is just an example of what I am envisioning)

Clan avatars for members
This topic name is not official
While the name or title of this topic is not officially recognized by Jagex, the information contained on this page is still considered to be canon and is based on official sources.

User:Myles Prower/Signature

Strong Oppose - Support Option D - The official nomenclature should be used where available (i.e. realms should definitely be used over something absurd like cosmology). When there is no feasible official name to use for something, I don't see a reason not to use a name for it we find appropriate (I guess there is no good official name for something like the Zarosian Empire. bad_fetustalk 17:52, September 23, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.