Forum:Naming convention for object articles
I'm thinking of some moderation for object articles in our wiki. As you can see in Category:Objects, several object articles have the title of the exact name of the said object in-game (especially if it's exclusive to one series). For example, we have The Baker's Half Dozen Stand, Fortune Factory Fortune Cookie Maker, Foot-and-hand-ball, Ducksworth of Bathington, and a lot others. When someone wants to search about rubber ducky in this wiki, who would actually remember the exact name of the object, Ducksworth of Bathington?
The titles are specific, yes, but they lead to a poor maintenance. Not to mention, what if a similar object reappears in different series? Or what if an object of the same type is introduced in other expansion packs?
- The first instance is similar to heart-shaped bed. It previously has two separate articles for the beds in The Sims & The Sims 3, and The Sims 2 because the name of the beds are different.
- The second instance is teddy bear, which was previously named Wugglesworth Schnuggles Bear (now a redirect, not linking it because I'm thinking of deleting the redirect in the future). It implies the object only appears in The Sims 3 base game, while a lot of teddy bears are featured in the future EPs. The name of Wugglesworth Schnuggles Bear is no longer relevant by then. Besides, The Sims 2 also has teddy bear, so why separate another article of the same thing?
I think all these articles with exact object name should be titled in a more generic way, such as bake sale stand, fortune cookie maker, football, and rubber ducky. That way, it's easier and more convenient to search and link the articles. I think there should be some exceptions, such as Laganaphyllis Simnovorii. Cowplant already redirects to that article, but I think it's just a rather unique case of object. It's pretty well-known also.
I also have some plans of revamping the {{Object}} articles. Other than the layout is pretty old, there are some things that need to be changed. But right now, I just want to discuss about naming convention.
Thoughts? Nikel Talk – Vote! 05:06, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
Discussion[edit source]
If an object is unique in the series, I don't have an issue with creating an article using its name (for example, Fortune Factory Fortune Cookie Maker). I think this because it may be difficult to give an accurate name to some of the more unique objects that exist, such as The Eclectic and Enigmatic Energizer. In cases where multiple objects exist that serve the same or a similar purpose, as in the Heart-shaped bed example noted above, then it makes sense to group the objects together under a generic title.
I'm curious to see how others view this, but my initial inclination is to leave the non-generic names in place for unique items. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 06:15, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
- It might be handy to leave redirects for readers, as done here. K6ka (talk | contrib) 16:58, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that some objects are unique and may not have generic names like aspiration rewards, but I think they would be the case of exception. I suppose redirects would help, but I still think having a generic title for an object is better. Nikel Talk – Vote! 17:28, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
- I think generic names are good for items that appear in more than one game or expansion, especially if they appear under different names. For objects that are unique to one game or expansion, or that have the same name whenever they appear, I think we should use the unique name, with redirects as appropriate. Dharden (talk) 15:28, January 25, 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Dharden. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 15:40, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with Dharen on this one too. Beds (parlare - da leggere) 16:00, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
- I also agree with Dharden's comment. Hopefully, objects with a non-generic, specific or confusing name can be found linked from other pages if the person that's looking for it can't remember what it's called but may remember that it's an Aspiration Reward, for example. And I agree that the Object template could do with a little bit of a revamp! ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 08:02, January 29, 2014 (UTC)
- I also agree with LiR. It would be much easier to search for objects. Mate1234 (Chatterbox...) 18:28, January 30, 2014 (UTC)
- I also agree with Dharden's comment. Hopefully, objects with a non-generic, specific or confusing name can be found linked from other pages if the person that's looking for it can't remember what it's called but may remember that it's an Aspiration Reward, for example. And I agree that the Object template could do with a little bit of a revamp! ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 08:02, January 29, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with Dharen on this one too. Beds (parlare - da leggere) 16:00, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Dharden. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 15:40, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
- I think generic names are good for items that appear in more than one game or expansion, especially if they appear under different names. For objects that are unique to one game or expansion, or that have the same name whenever they appear, I think we should use the unique name, with redirects as appropriate. Dharden (talk) 15:28, January 25, 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that some objects are unique and may not have generic names like aspiration rewards, but I think they would be the case of exception. I suppose redirects would help, but I still think having a generic title for an object is better. Nikel Talk – Vote! 17:28, January 24, 2014 (UTC)
Conclusion[edit source]
The general consensus here seems to be towards favoring generic object names for objects which appear in more than one game or expansion, with redirects established as appropriate. I'll add something about this to the Manual of Style. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 23:31, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
- Update: The MoS now reflects this discussion here. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 23:39, February 10, 2014 (UTC)