Hello there! We are conducting a survey to better understand the user experience in making a first edit. If you have ever made an edit on Gamepedia, please fill out the survey. Thank you!

Forum:RTS capitalization

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Village pump → RTS capitalization
(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)

Continued from User:Rolandius/Mentor#Warcraft_III_units and Talk:Skeletal warrior (and others).

This came up again. Should pages about RTS subjects be written uppercase or lowercase? In the RTS games, nearly everything is uppercase, but on WoWWiki subjects are generally lowercase. I want a solid decision made, if one was not already.--SWM2448 22:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on making the Warcraft III units capitalized as how they are in Warcraft III (Spirit Walker, Dread Lord etc), so I'm eager to hear what others have to say about it too. --g0urra[T҂C] 22:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
WW:NNA. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 22:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
They should remain as they're named in-game, in my opinion.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, capitalised makes sense to me for "named" units. For example, 'Druid' units are druids. Kirkburn  talk  contr 13:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is still a 'general topic' versus 'a thing in that topic that shares the overall name' issue. Like Murloc. Are we going to shove the mob info on the racial page? No. It would likely be made into "Murloc (mob)" (Though I do not think we need a page about that Elwynn mob). I do not see how Gourra's Battle.net-ish pages are relevant to this, unless the intent is to have two pages for each unit, one for lore and one for that unit's Warcraft III gameplay (Which might work). Now that I think about it, we should have both, and disambiguate if need be. But where does it end? What is the borderline for determining if a page is purely a Warcraft III unit? Like if lore is about the Icecrown obelisk (It exists in the RPG, but is not on the page as of now), does it stay lowercase because it has lore, or does it become uppercase because it is lore about a Warcraft III topic? By the way, what are '"named" units'? I agree with Gourra's second comment on Talk:Skeletal warrior. Also, I am reminded of Kirkburn's comment on Forum:Race capitalization‎, if that has anything to do with this. Is Wowpedia talk:Naming policy#NPC_vs._RPG_capitalization relevant?--SWM2448 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should keep the capitalization to the RTS units until they are described in other official source with lower case (Just like Icecrown obelisk). If an article has to much lore, then the WC3 information should be cutted of and moved to "article name (Warcraft III)" just like G0urra is doing. And if the unit conflict with a mob from WoW it should be made "article (mob)" and "article (Warcraft III)" and maybe make a desambiguation. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the W3 lore, like the in-game and manual descriptions, should be both in the lore page and in the unit page. In the lore page, it should be under a W3 section. Then, we could include a link there, directing to the unit page. But, well, definitely, including all the stats in the lore page is a fail. There's too much gameplay info, more than with WoW mobs.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that, and the capitalization should vary depending what the non-WC3 source say (but the WC3 article should always be capitalized). And also I think that WC3-only units shouldn't have a lore article. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
If they don't appear anywhere else, well, definitely, just because the only lore is W3's, and that one's already in the W3 article Tongueout.gif. But the W3 names, as they are in Warcraft 3. And, well, the same should apply for everything else W3-related.--Lon-ami (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely arbitrarily, I will make/enforce: multiplayer building pages lower case (separate building statistics pages are largely nonexistent), minor campaign building pages in-game case, multiplayer unit lore pages lower case, multiplayer unit statistics pages in-game case, and Warcraft III creep pages in-game case. Any doubts or care? I am not sure what to do about RPG lore that is specificly about a type of RTS creep or minor thing. Split or no? I am feeling 'no'.--SWM2448 19:19, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. And about the RPG lore: I think it would depend about how long the RPG lore is, if it can be put in one section, then it could be in the RTS article; but if it's long enough to form an article, it could be split. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:45, February 10, 2010 (UTC)