Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum talk:Help - Article naming

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

Handling of disambig pages

Hive Fleets

Something that's been bothering me for a while - half of the pages on individual Tyranid Hive Fleets have page titles of the form Hive Fleet X and the other half have the form X (Hive Fleet) (or just X). I think we should standardise these pages to the Hive Fleet X form. Thoughts? KazilDarkeye (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion this should clearly be "Name (Hive Fleet)". As for all other such cases like (I didn't check this) "Leman Russ (Tank)" vs "Leman Russ (Primarch)". I mean hopefully nobody would name the corresponding article "Tank Leman Russ" or "Primarch Leman Russ"... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Companies, regiments, (Grand) Bataillons...

Is there a reason why for example basically nobody linkifys the actual unit but normally links to the organizational article? Example: Why the [[Ultramarines]]' [[Space Marine Company|Fourth Company]] and not the [[Ultramarines]]' [[4th Company (Ultramarines)|Fourth Company]]? For reasons of order I would however suggest to stringently use the same format. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2019 (MDT)

I think the reason is simply because most of these companies/battalions/e.t.c. don't have their own articles (off the top of my head the only one I can think of is First Claw for the Night Lords 10th Company. I was considering at least setting up some for at least the Space Wolves Grand Companies (because they all have individual names) and maybe the Iron Warriors Third Grand Company (featured in The Siege of Castellax (Novel) and Cult of the Warmason (Novel). I would agree that they should ideally have their own articles where possible.
Certianly individual Imperial Guard Regiments should have their own pages to prevent all the REDIRECTs (the main issue there is that regiments are often given inconsistent names that make it a bit hard to tell if they're referring to the same thing e.g. are Cadian III, Cadian 3., Cadian 3rd Shock Troops and Cadian 3rd Regiment all the same body or are they slightly different?) KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
We really have to get people away from this totally misguided idea that they can or should only link to already existing articles. And as you said, some, maybe even many units have such a rich history that it is total madness to try to include it in their "parent" organizational article. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
The other main companies I wanted to give individual articles were the Brotherhoods of the White Scars (I just remembered that at least one, the Brotherhood of the Blue Hawk, has its own article). The main question I want to ask with these company articles for consistency's sake - do we title the main articles with numbers (e.g. 4th Company (Ultramarines)) or words (e.g. Fourth Company (Ultramarines))? Obviously we could set up a redirect for the other. I personally prefer using words, but that's just my opinion. KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
I started to introduce this kind of links with numbers. Simply because like that we don't have the hassle with the alphabetical order. I would however always create a redirect with the spelt-out writing, just in case. And I think that at least for all the Legions and also the big Chapters this totally makes sense. I just hope GW has applied some consistency to the numbering... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
"I just hope GW has applied some consistency to the numbering..." - Hah!
In any case, your wish is my command. I'll start amending links and maybe get around to creating some of the actual pages if I can. KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
Oh, actually one other point - do we need to distinguish Great Crusade/Horus Heresy-era companies from Chapter companies in this regard? Just because a company in those days tended to mean something slightly different (and varied from Legion to Legion with regards to size, nomenclature, e.t.c.). KazilDarkeye (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
Yes, this is a question that crossed my mind. I think we will have to as I am doubtful about continuity here. But then I hope we are only talking about a limited amount of cases. As to the nomenclature maybe adding a "legion" would make sense? So for example 1st Company (Blood Angels Legion) as opposed to 1st Company (Blood Angels)? Otherwise we would have to add "Chapter" to all of the Chapter companies, even when they never were a Legion... But I am open for discussion. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
I took a stab at creating an article for this purpose (4th Company (Relictors)). Let me know your thoughts (there are a couple of tweaks that could be made). KazilDarkeye (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2019 (MDT)


T'au Names

(Brace yourselves for a long one)

I think one significant part of the naming conventions that is lacking is when it comes to T'au characters. For example, I'm trying to add articles from the old Tau codices at the moment and have come across a character called Fio'ui Bork'an Ulyr'ra (by the naming conventions later in the codex, this establishes them as a low-ranking member of the Earth Caste from the sept of Bork'an whose individual name is "Ulyr'ra"). Would the main article (redirects notwithstanding) for the character be:

  • Fio'ui Bork'an Ulyr'ra - Full name.
  • Fio'Ulyr'ra - Shortened form of full name, including caste.
  • Ui'Ulyr'ra - Shortened form of full name, including rank.
  • Ulyr'ra - Individual name only.

I ask because there appears to be little consistency in those articles:

Obviously we are limited by the available, sometimes contradictory, information with these characters (e.g. Aun'Va doesn't really fit the conventions established in the codex but is consistently given as such, so it makes sense that the article just defaults that way), but it would be nice to establish some kind of baseline.

Since we don't generally use ranks in page titles, using the "full" name seems weird. Also, I'm assuming we go for the original T'au rather than the translation where possible (e.g. Shadowsun vs. Shaserra). I'm quite lost here, though and would ask my superiors a judgment call here. KazilDarkeye (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking it is not surprising that this is missing from the naming conventions. Simply because I know shit all about the Tau. Obviously you are right with your remarks. In my opinion the article should be named purely with the individual name. If the individual name is actually mentioned? Because I have my doubts GW's authors will have been very diligent with that...? With redirects from the other sourcewise existing options. If you do a (sourced) article with what is known about Tau naming conventions I will happily integrate or link to it from the main naming article. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The T'au Lexicon section on names seems accurate - I'll just go and source it now. KazilDarkeye (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, just tell me when it's done and usable. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It is done. Now I just need to overhaul the sourcing on the rest of that page... KazilDarkeye (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I included a link to the name section of the T'au Lexicon Name section in the naming section. Will that suffice? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It will have to, for now. Unless GW magically pulls instant clarification from thin air. I suppose as long as we have redirects it won't matter too much. KazilDarkeye (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, it does matter with regard to as much uniformization as possible. I mean that is one of the main goals of investing all the time in overhauling and recreating the Help section... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
In any case, Ulyr'ra has now been created as an example. KazilDarkeye (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Warhammer_40k_-_Lexicanum_talk:Help_-_Article_naming&oldid=535468"