Talk: Sunwalker Dezco

Weaning names

This detail is relevant because the twins' weaning names are never used in-game. Players playing through the Horde questline in Krasarang Wilds are informed by Dezco himself that the twins are called Kor and <player's name>. It's very confusing to then find an article calling them "Redhorn" and "Cloudhoof". I was baffled by this discrepancy, and had to read through the short story itself in order to find an explanation for this apparent deviation from the in-game story. It doesn't seem too harmful to the article to include the four words "bearing the weaning names" in order to make this clear and save confusion. It's an otherwise inexplicable contradiction that warrants a tiny explanation. -- Taohinton (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you look up the definition of "weaning"?

The (passive) process of a child or animal ceasing to be dependant on the mother for nourishment. - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/weaning

Again, it's not relevant. --g0urra[T҂C] 13:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I already know the meaning of the word 'weaning', but its meaning has nothing to do with the relevance of this piece of information to the page. The point of the 'weaning names' is (as specifically stated in the short story) that those are not their true names, only 'weaning names' given to them until they are older:

Chi-Ji cocked his head. "You call them Cloudhoof and Redhorn, but those are not their real names."

"Not their real names?" Mokimo squeezed through the refugees, Lotus, and Horde who were crowding around the partition, eager to watch.

"No." Dezco looked at the Red Crane in astonishment. Redhorn and Cloudhoof were the children's weaning names—a rare tradition his tribe carried. In time, they would take on their true names: one for an old and dear friend who had died in Pandaria's coastal jungle, and the other for a new friend who had helped his tribe.

I don't see anything ambiguous about this. The involvement of the term 'weaning' has no relevance.

The point is that the twins are given one set of names in-game, and another in the short story. Players who haven't read the story will wonder as I did why the twins are being called by completely different names to those found in-game. Adding four words to explain this in no way detracts from the article, but it does serve to make this otherwise quite confusing point perfectly clear. -- Taohinton (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

How about something that would clarify it more, like this:

[...] he brought his newborn sons, Redhorn and Cloudhoof (names from his tribe's rare tradition), to the Shrine of Two Moons, [...]

That would be better. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so your objection is essentially that the meaning of 'weaning names' is not easily understood. It does indeed appear to be a term fabricated by the writer, although it doesn't seem that confusing to me. At any rate, in that case I'd suggest something like:

...he brought his newborn sons, bearing the temporary names Redhorn and Cloudhoof, to the Shrine of Two Moons...

It's certainly not perfect, but in my opinion "(names from his tribe's rare tradition)" fails to explain the change of names, merely suggesting that the names themselves are from Dezco's tribe's tradition. "Temporary" doesn't offer much explanation, but it does concisely and accurately explain the discrepancy. -- Taohinton (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Taohinton. "bearing the temporary names" or "bearing the temporary weaning names" works well IMO. Folks knowing what 'weaning' means can probably figure it out from there. MerryC (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In Dawnchaser tribe there is a "Note" section where this thing of the weaning names is explained. I think it would be a good idea to change it form "Note" to "Culture" (or something like that) and redirect weaning name there. In this way we could have:

"[...] his newborn sons, bearing the weaning names Redhorn and Cloudhoof [...]"

The link would solve all the ambiguities. -- Forco sussura agli abissi 21:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

But again, why is this relevant to Dezco's story? I think it's enough to have the explanation on the children's respective pages. --g0urra[T҂C] 07:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Great solution, Forco. I've expanded the section a little, and added the redirect. Gourra, as I've explained the detail is relevant because of the contradiction between the game and the short story. This solution seems a fair compromise between concision and language-accessibility. -- Taohinton (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not relevance (by the way, since it was Dezco that gave the weaning names to his sons, there is a little bit of relevance), but lack of clarity: since the fact that the babies have two names can confuse the reader it is better to explain it, and in this way it can be done without wasting words. -- Forco sussura agli abissi 10:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)