Naming Convention: Theme Required?

[Karhu]

Should we require Themes be followed when naming our cities and units? Or should each city and unit receive a name without regard for its brethren? Cities and the various types of units would not necessarily have to follow the same theme, each could have their own unique theme. The thread that spawned this poll is here.

This poll is public and will last 72 hours.

 

[General_W]

I like themes.

But I also think we should give consideration to the surrounding terrain of the city and/or the specialized function of the city when naming.

This really helps everyone keep track of what we're doing when we get more than 4-5 cities.

I know from experience that this can be done without giving away info that the other teams wouldn't have anyway.

Ie - they'll know our holy city anyway... so calling it "Seat of Wisdom" or something doesn't really give much away - but helps us keep track.

Ditto if we found a city by a few rivers, naming it "The Vale" gives nothing of value away, but helps people reading in the forums go, "oh yeah, that's the city by the rivers!"


my two cents anyway.

 

[Theoden]

But I think it's perfectly possible to combine your consideration with a theme, General_W.
Say we have, for instance, a tea theme. A city by a mountain would then be named after tea that contains "mountain" in its name or that is somehow associated with mountains.
Obviously some themes fit better to this than others - tea is a good example of well suited theme - so we should probably consider when choosing a theme (if we are going with a theme at all, of course, but I'm much in favour of themes).

 

[General_W]

I think you misunderstood me. (or rather, I wasn't clear)

What you've just outlined is exactly what I'm suggesting. That's why I voted for a theme - I just wanted to clarify my "theme" vote with saying I think we ought to combine the theme with descriptive terms.

Your tea theme is a perfect example!

 

[Theoden]

I see. We're on the same page then; my evidently slow cognition just needed to have it spelt out one more time.

 

[IamJohn]

I voted yes, but it isn't a huge deal for me.

 

[Krill]

I would love it if we used an interesting theme; the tea theme for cities is a brilliant idea IMO, giving us some very descriptive names, that we can also shorten for use in reports to the abbreviation if necessary. Other themes such as translations of dutch words OTOH, are unwieldy.

Themes for the rest of our units, I'm not as interested however, so I'd leave the decisions for that topic to other people.

 

[Memphus]

unit names that are random are very tough to keep track of.....but i am for whatever. worker names of the team members (in order of signup) is always fun though!

 

[General_W]

Looks like the Tea Theme for cities is going to sail to victory without issue.

I think naming workers after Team SANCTA members is a great idea. In-order of sign-up seems fair... but I'd restrict the list to people that have actually said "hi" in the Member's lounge.

If we go past our number of members, then we can ask for names of member's significant others perhaps?


For units - I think naming any special units is fun (1st unit of anything. 1st unit to do something special like Circumnavigate or win our first battle or a battle that gets us a great general, etc. 1st warrior, 1st axemen, 1st scout - these should all have special names. Everything else can just be generic. My vote anyway)

Otherwise, like Memphus said, trying to name everything just becomes cumbersome I think.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

How many units will we have?

I'd like to name that warrior, in any case. I'm thinking padvinder or verkenner (which is what I get from an online engish->dutch dictionary when I type in scout).

The nice thing about naming units is that we can track what units do in battle... if we want.