Ultima Codex talk:Noun Lexicon

See Forum:Need_policy_on_capitalization_of_races_(and_I_guess_other_things) for the advent of this article.

I've decided to create this article, and just use this talk page to work out what should go in it. Like the main article, entries will be alphabetically ordered level 3 headings. I fear that there won't be a lot of input over these nouns, and the end result will be me making arbitrary decisions about what's common and what's proper. As horrid as that sounds, I think it's more important to be consistent, than it is to be perfectly correct. Besides, the more mistakes I make, the more outrage I'll cause, and the more interest I'll generate.

I should like to point out that many things that are proper nouns can also be common nouns. For instance, a Knight of the Garter can be called a "Knight" for short. Being a Knight, he is also a knight. That's a bit confusing, and as a rule of thumb I avoid it, but it's not improper. (Perhaps that very paragraph should be place in the article)

It should also be said that this won't work for all proper nouns. The Tear of Seas, for one, can be a Tear, but never a tear. A tear is a liquid secretion from an eye, while the Tear is a piece of blackrock.

Research

It's a good idea to just get a background on the criteria used to determine whether a noun is proper or common: wikipedia:Proper_noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns. AngusM 16:50, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Candidate words

"Gwani Horn"

Sure, it's magical and unique; the name doesn't really inspire proper. I vote common.--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"Obelisk"

This is the one that is currently, and possibly colloquially, called the Blackrock Obelisk. First, I'd like to have a look at what the name should be. If everything here is as it should be, then I guess it should be proper. AngusM 21:04, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about this one presently. "Obelisk" is invariably common in the game ("black obelisk", "Blackrock obelisk of the Great Temple", "great obelisk", "the obelisk") but it's causing me some dissonance given "Black Gate" is proper and the two constructs seem fairly equivalent. Whatever we do with "obelisk tip" might swing it too. --Terilem (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Dissonance isn't unheard of over these issues. We made an exception for the races that are the Shadowlords and the Elemental Titans because it just seemed too weird to make them common. Consistency is more important than correctness, in this case, so it sounds like we are leaning toward common. If I can get a more decisive word, then we can go w/that.--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Pride"

It's not a Virtue, in the U4 transcript LB makes it explicitly proper, but everyone else either has it ambiguously at the beginning of sentences or explicitly common (although, the gameplay had all text in upper case, didn't it? :(). So I vote common. The Ultra-Mind 19:54, 22 November 2012 (PST)

Hmm, good question. In the same transcript, "Humility" is used as a common noun most of the time, except for a few mentions. But if all text is uppercase in the game, then I don't know how useful is the transcript for this... does it reflect the real "hidden" text, or Underworld Dragon's opinion? Anyway, I always thought Pride should be proper just because it is the only commonly used anti-Virtue... so just for consistency with the Virtues. But I would like a more trustworthy source to decide...--Sega381 19:54, 24 November 2012 (PST)

U4's text is not allcaps, so the transcript is reliable. Pride also appears in the U4 manual and clue book, U5 manual and clue book, and U6 manual as a common noun, however it should probably be mentioned that humility also appears as common in the U4 manual, U4 clue book, and U5 manual. At first I was leaning towards ruling pride as common since it's not a Virtue, but the fact that it actually has its own mantra is giving me pause.--Terilem 20:26, 24 November 2012 (PST)

Wow, you're right. Even the Apple version has lower case. I wonder why I thought otherwise.

Also, if pride is proper, it's one of those proper nouns that can sometimes be common. However, just because OSI went both ways on that, doesn't prove it should be declared proper. It's also possible that they just weren't this conscientious about standardizing this stuff and I'm leaning towards that likelihood. So whatever decision we make is going to be pretty arbitrary, and I guess the best one will be what we think Origin would have done if they went though this deliberation. The Ultra-Mind 20:27, 25 November 2012 (PST)

"Sacrificial Slab"

Normally I'd say change the name to "Gargoyle altar" (which indeed is what I would have recommended, if I had Garriott's ear in 1989) but apparently it is a canonical name. So assuming that text wasn't added by an editor, I say keep it as it is (that means "proper").--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Schools (a la Pagan) and their students

So we have, Theurgy, Necromancy, etc. as well as Theurgists and so on. At first I was treating them like professions, but the word "school" is used. I feel like I want to call a "necromancer" common, but I'm unsure of the school of "Necromancy". But why would we have one common and another proper? Should we just say that "school" is another word for "profession"?--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Swamp Cave"

A name so mundane doesn't seem to be proper and I haven't found any material that would indicate it has *that* much significance, so I say common.The Ultra-Mind (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I generally lean towards proper for locations of note, and this one is given its own section in the U6 clue book. I don't necessarily think the mundanity of a name is a reliable indication that it should be considered common. --Terilem (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"Signpost"/"Sign Post"

Such as Eastern Sign Post. Once the spelling is worked out, I think something this mundane should be common, although, seeing these other "Landmarks" that are clearly supposed to be proper nouns gives me pause for thought. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ultima II items

Off-hand I don't remember all the items, so maybe some are proper and others aren't. An issue of contention is Talk:Force_Field_Ring. AngusM 22:26, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Weapons and Armour

This could take a while. IMO, everything that is common (you can get more than one of it) should be common. Unique things, I think we'll have to talk about. It'll be a lot of talking, to be sure.

Oh yeah, some good places to go for perspective are Weapon Values and Armour Values. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think unique things should absolutely be proper as a general rule. Can't think of a reason why they shouldn't be. --Terilem (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree too with the common and unique division, mainly because it is a simple rule that makes sense as well. --Sega381 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, there's unique and then there's unique. Some things are unique because no one in Britannia (or wherever) has ever heard of any others and then there's the equipment that the user only experiences once. Some examples below... The Ultra-Mind (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this has grown enough cobwebs that I'd like to go forward w/policy. Here's a summary of the issues:

1. Some say unique = proper and common = common, but there are a lot of examples of unique weapons, armour and other equipment that probably shouldn't be proper. Take Malchir's staff. You only get one, but it seems a strange example of a proper noun. Remember, there are two kind of unique: there's unique in that the player only can get one, and then there's in-universe unique (i.e., if you think there might be others in Britannia that you can't get to, it's not unique).
2. Someone pointed out that Korghin's Fang should be proper (even though it's not unique) because it isn't a fang, but a sword. But Wikipedia:St. Elmo's fire isn't fire.
3. I also think that equipment w/mundane names, like the sword of doing fancy stuff, should usually be common.

So, if no one objects, I think that weapons and armour (and all equipment) should be mostly seen as common, and we can debate special cases later. Things like Scimitar_of_Khumash-Gor and Gringolet I think are no-brainers. Something w/a sublime name like the Hoe of Destruction is a gray area to me. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

How about this then:

No easy answer. When a specific model of something is fashioned, it is usually given a name that is a proper noun. F-15 Eagles and even the Ford Tempo are some examples. A sword is not specific, so it is common, yet Gringolet is a very specific sword, so it is proper. A short sword is more specific than a sword, but not specific enough. This will leave grey areas which will needed to be decided case-by-case. One school of thought is that unique items should be proper and common items should be common, but there are several failed examples.

? I still think we need to talk about Ultima_Codex_talk:Noun_Lexicon#.22.28Weapon_name.29_of_.28some_unimaginatively_chosen_quality.29.22. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"Black Sword"

Unique (at least I think it is. It appears in both U7s) item with some special properties. The only argument for common would be the pedestrian name. Also, unlike a lot of other candidate words, at least the article on the subject is consistent about making it proper.--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Korghin's Fang"

My favourite. It sure looks proper, but according to Weapon Values there are 2 of them. I'd have a hard time saying that's a common noun. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say proper. Considering it's not literally a fang, I think it's pretty clearly meant to be a named weapon. --Terilem (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, Executioner's Hood isn't a hood, but it's treated as common, and I think rightly so. But an even better example is Wikipedia:St. Elmo's fire. It's a little confusing, because some of the component words are proper, but as a whole, it's common. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Granted, but I could counter with Big Berthas, Paris Guns, and F-15 Eagles. It might be prudent to approach this along the lines of a brand name. --Terilem (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Big fan of 20c weaponry, eh?

I have to wonder what went into deciding how "Big Bertha" would be named. The F-15... well... the big problem w/my thesis is the Paris Gun. It's not that imaginatively named, but seems to be proper. I guess when a very specific model of something is manufactured these days, whether it's an F-15 or something as lowly as a Ford Tempo, it'll be a proper noun. So we could probably go crazy debating about the subculture that was behind the naming process, and how well it translates to Britannia. I don't want to go there. So I guess something that sounds like its name is very specific, Korghin's Fang, should be considered proper. Having said that, it looks to me like just all the enchanted weapons from U8 are proper. We could also go back to the game text to use it as a guide, which is much more accessible these days, but I hate doing that for figuring out nouns. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"(Weapon name) of (some unimaginatively chosen quality)"

There are a number of these like Longsword of Major Accuracy and Axe of Great Damage. If I felt like christening some creation of mine as distinct, I'd probably think of a better name. I wouldn't name a pet "Dog of Barking" or "Cat of Mousing". I'd more likely call them "Prince" and "Seneca" respectively. At this time, I have no idea if any of these are unique. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Approved words

Attributes

That's the best word I could give to things like Dexterity, Strength, Intelligence, and Armour Class. I sorta don't feel like those are proper, but I think RPGs have an old tradition of treating them as proper. I wouldn't know what to do. AngusM 03:59, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say common. Dungy 19:19, 5 January 2011 (PST)

I'm not sure, but I'd say proper. I can talk about intelligence, and about Intelligence. Capping it makes it clear it's about the attribute, and not about the abstract concept of "intelligence". Same with the rest. I may want to say "you need a lot of strength", or "you may need a lot of Strength". In the first case, it's probably something not measurable, just a way of saying something is heavy; in the second case, I'm actually implying a specific value of the Strength attribute.--Sega381 11:40, 6 January 2011 (PST)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with Sega here. Those points make a lot of sense. --Terilem 19:54, 6 January 2011 (PST)

Ok, so proper it is, unless more arguments appear.--Sega381 05:58, 7 March 2011 (PST)

"Avatarhood"

I'll bet the "-hood" suffix commonizes any proper noun. I'll look into this, and probably make a decision at that point. AngusM 17:23, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Only depending on how it's applied, I think. The definition is as follows:

A native English suffix denoting state, condition, character, nature, etc., or a body of persons of a particular character or class.

Specifically, the former is all that applies here and in that case I don't see any reason to believe it contradicts the capitalization of the word. If it were used to refer to a group as opposed to the state of the individual known uniquely as the Avatar, you'd definitely have a point. I say keep it capitalized. (I hope it's okay to contribute discussion here) --Terilem 05:41, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly where you contribute.

If that's true, then when "God" (the theistic one) is suffixed w/"-hood", shouldn't the properness stay? A quick Google for "godhood" reveals only common nouns, including those appearing in a monotheistic context, and on credible sites. AngusM 05:58, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but on that note, what about Christhood? --Terilem 06:45, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... looks like whatever we do won't be completely right, but it'll be difficult to say it's at all wrong. Perhaps at this point, the least incorrect way would be to go back to what Origin says about this, if we find consistency. Crikey, that means going through all the documentation again! Terilem has already found a proper noun instance in the SI manual. Is there a single place that links all the Ultima documentation PDFs? AngusM 17:29, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry! :) I found two instances in the "Virtues" chapter of the U5 manual, one in the U6 in-game books and another in the U7 Usecode: all capitalized. There are text files of all the Ultima manuals here and I cross-checked with the hard copies just to make sure. --Terilem 23:30, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, well check this out.

Perhaps we should set another policy: if manuals and game texts are perfectly consistent on a word, it gets added to the lexicon w/out debate. Maybe we'd want to tack on a "and used frequently enough". AngusM 03:26, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but if we do, remember what I said about "knight" up at the top there. A noun that is sometimes proper and sometimes common might not be contradictory. It'll take some more wraggling to decide if it is or not. AngusM 03:29, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the out-of-game use of the word "avatar" can be compared to its Ultima form at all; they're different meanings with different usage. It's the same old "an avatar" versus "the Avatar" thing. Group versus unique individual. "Avatar" is a name as much as it is a title in Ultima, and it belongs to one person. In any case, your idea about rubber-stamping anything that's already shown to be consistent might be wise just to avoid extra headaches. --Terilem 04:01, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!! There goes consistency. I've confirmed with Notable Ultima and moongates.com that Joshua and another guy use it as a common noun. The shrines have it proper, though.

Again, I'm not saying this is a contradiction, since some things can be expressed with both a common and proper noun, but it definitely isn't consistent, which means more banging of the heads. AngusM 22:05, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

But wait: Wasn't the original Ultima IV in all-CAPS?? Even if some versions were not, early Ultimas in particular were known for inconsistency... I seem to remember "altar" being spelled "alter" all over the place in my original copy. --Polygoncount 22:17, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well okay, but there's still a clear trend in favour of capitalization. I found another instance in the U5 dialogue where it's proper. I'm leaning towards "majority rules" here. --Terilem 22:21, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Very good point. I, too, don't remember case when playing the game. But a quick look into the TLK files, shows case. :(

On the other hand, maybe that shouldn't make a difference. Maybe canon shouldn't be taken from hex edits from the files, but what the user experiences, or more specifically, what the user was intended to experience at release time. In fact, I think that line should go onto the canon page.

I'm not really in favour of a majority rules policy. Maybe a clear majority, like by at least 2/3 (or more). AngusM 22:27, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just went to look at a bunch of screenshots, and all that I saw w/text had case. When I looked around here for them I wasn't sure if they were the facelift shots, but MobyGames took the guesswork out of it. AngusM 23:27, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

My vote is for Avatarhood. Majority rules works fine, and since it's clearly capitalized throughout the manuals and games - with one exception - I think this case is overdue to be closed. --Warder Dragon 23:43, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Of something like eleven confirmed instances of the word, only two aren't capitalized. That's a comprehensive majority to me. --Terilem 02:12, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, that's why I added "Avatarhood" to the lexicon several posts ago. But we've been working on some important precedents, like what constitutes a sufficient majority, hairsplitting over canonical events, and the like. AngusM 03:10, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

"Balance"

I see this concept as being like an SI peer to Britianian Virtue. So I see it as proper. BTW, is there some generalization for Balance, Order and Chaos? Britannia has "Virtue", but I don't recall what SI has. AngusM 04:55, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

They are sometimes called "Principles", and some times "properties". Besides the fact that they are captitalized in-game, I vote to make these Principles (Balance, Order an Chaos) as proper too. If no-one else votes, I'll move them to the Lexicon.--Sega381 18:37, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think these have waited for more than enough time. Proper AngusM 04:36, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

"Chaos"

I see the answer to this as being the same as that for "Balance". AngusM 04:55, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Proper. AngusM 04:37, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

"Character Creation"

Maybe this should be expanded to include all those menu items. But maybe this isn't a question of it being a proper noun, since maybe it's more of a title. Maybe we need a lexicon to distinguish "phrase" from "title". AngusM 16:47, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I see your point. Thinking common when referring to the process of character creation, but could be proper when referring to the menu item itself (the "Character Creation" screen, kind of like the title of a book chapter, magazine article, etc.). --Terilem (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll put a footnote about it.--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Column"

Without thinking about it too much, I'd say common. AngusM 18:46, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Definately! Dungy 19:41, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Terilem 08:34, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

"Completion Certificates"

Seems like it isn't quite sublime enough to be proper. One editor at Ultima_Underworld_II:_Labyrinth_of_Worlds#Trivia seemed to think it should be commmon. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Common. --Terilem (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Currencies

Filari, Guilders, Monetari. Gold coins I'm pretty sure are fine as common. Currencies *sound* like the sort of thing that should be proper, but out-game, they aren't. ... and this would include Dirt Money and whatever else I missed from Category:Money. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Common. --Terilem (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"Dungeon"

I think the word "dungeon" should be common, as it is mostly used that way in the games (AFAIK), and it seems to be a very generic way of describing evil places by different fantasy settings. But their status would be different from "Shrines".--Sega381 13:39, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Definately common. Dungy 19:19, 5 January 2011 (PST)

I'd say it depends on the context. It should be common unless used as part of the dungeon's name, i.e. "Dungeon Destard" as opposed to "the dungeon, Destard." --Terilem 19:50, 5 January 2011 (PST)

But is it really used that way? If I say "Dungeon Destard is cool", well, then yes. But if I say "the dungeon Destard is cool", then it needs no caps. It's like saying "the river Maelstrom". And I'm not sure it's "ok" to say "Dungeon Destard". It's like saying "City Trinsic". But I'm not a native english speaker, so I'll bow to the majority, or to whomever has a lot of examples regarding it being used that way.--Sega381 11:37, 6 January 2011 (PST)

Yeah it's used both ways. Take these examples from Batlin, for instance:

"Thou shalt visit the dungeon of Destard, which is in the mountains just west of Trinsic."

"Ah yes, thou hast returned from Dungeon Destard!"

--Terilem 19:42, 6 January 2011 (PST)

I take it, Terilem, then that these are exact quotes? I'd say it's one of those situations where something that is identified by a proper noun can also be referred to by a common noun of the same word. (In which case we designate it proper, but the common counterpart is also appropriate). The Ultra-Mind 20:00, 6 January 2011 (PST)

Yup, copy-and-pasted straight from the Usecode. --Terilem 20:05, 6 January 2011 (PST)

"Ether Gem"

I would make the same arguments for this as I did for #.22Black Sword.22, including the dithering. :)--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Proper. --Terilem (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Equipment belonging to an individual

Erinon's Axe and Iolo's Bow come to mind. I guess they are unique, but so is Justin Bieber's hair. I'm not about to start writing "Justin Bieber's Hair".

But as far as stuff belonging to an individual goes, we already determined that Iolo's hut is common, so maybe it's already been decided. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The comparison to Iolo's hut is apt, so I'd go with common. --Terilem (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Gargish"

As this refers to the society (like "Britannian") and not the race, I think it should be proper. --Terilem 08:28, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

So do I. But if "Gargish" is a society, or an ethnicity (always proper in English), then that means "gargoyle" would sometimes have to be too. This would mean "gargoyle" could be either. I don't know if we wanna go there. AngusM 01:58, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

From what I remember, "gargoyle" and "gargish" are corruptions of "Gargl", which is the gargoyle's name for their own society. So "Gargl" should be proper, but I'm not sure if "Gargish" would be proper as it is the Britannian's name for the gargoyle society. -- Browncoat Jayson 14:10, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how that changes things if it still refers to the society. Wouldn't it be akin to something like the English word for Deutsch being German? --Terilem 14:20, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

"Iolo's Hut"

Doesn't really look like the stuff of a proper noun to me. Maybe if we found an instance in the game where it was made proper, but as we've observed, Origin has been pretty inconsistent about that sort of thing. AngusM 02:25, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that should definitely not be a proper noun. It's even common in the clue book (along with all the other huts). --Terilem 04:26, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's pretty straight-forward then. Common it is. AngusM 03:37, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

"Mantra"

I'm not sure on this one, probably common.--Sega381 13:39, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'd lean towards common. Dungy 19:19, 5 January 2011 (PST)

As noone else voiced their opinion, common it is.--Sega381 04:19, 2 March 2011 (PST)

"Moongate" and "Moonstone"

We should decide on this. As there can be several moongates (including all the ones created by the Orb), I guess we should treat them as common. Same with the moonstones; though there are eight of them, there may be more (such as the corrupted one in Savage Empire).--Sega381 06:36, 7 March 2011 (PST)

Agreed, definitely common on both counts. --Terilem 09:32, 7 March 2011 (PST)

Obelisk components

These would be the Tongue of Flames, the Tear of Seas, etc. I don't see how these could be common. AngusM 21:04, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yep, definitely proper. --Terilem 03:34, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

I don't foresee any more discussion here, so I'll be adding them to the lexicon.--Sega381 13:24, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

"Obelisk Tip"

While Tear of Seas I think pretty obvious, Obelisk Tip is less so. To me it seems a little overblown, giving such a bland term proper status. Furthermore, going through transcripts and texts gives no such (case sensitive) string as "Tip". I say common. The Ultra-Mind 17:01, 5 January 2011 (PST)

I agree with common; seems like a descriptor. It's also common in the game. --Terilem (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"Ophidian"

Same issue as "Gargish" above, though by English standards and consistently with "Britannian", I don't see how this could be but proper.--Sega381 13:39, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

"Order"

I see the answer to this as being the same as that for "Balance". AngusM 04:55, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Proper. AngusM

"Powder Keg"

I vote common, for the same reason as Main Gauche. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Common. --Terilem (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Race-Societies

Below is the Gargish debate, which doesn't look very conclusive to me. But another example of a race that is also a society is goblins. That article seems to have determined that the race-state will prevail in the ambiguity, but others like Simon feel otherwise. The Ultra-Mind 13:25, 20 October 2011 (PDT)

Any exceptions?

Shadowlords and Elemental_Titans_(Pagan) are races, but somehow... it feels wrong to make them common. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It seemed like the right play so I found where I had already made Titans proper as policy and confirmed Shadowlords as well. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to these remaining proper. --Terilem (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I would have probably suggested Banes of Chaos be an exception as well if I'd thought of it in the last year. Even if they were just known as "Banes" I probably would have expected that to be a proper noun, but "Banes of Chaos" clinches it for me: proper.--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Reagents

Though I would think this is fairly obvious, I think we should establish that reagents are common. I've seen them capitalized in several places through the wiki (probably due to the article's name being capitalized).--Sega381 06:03, 7 March 2011 (PST)

I think you're right. It's one of those things that really stands out now that I'm taking a harder look at these nouns. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"Rune"

Refering to the runes related to each Shrine. I'm not sure on this one, probably common.--Sega381 13:39, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

I feel it should be common too. Even for "rune of Honesty".--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say context-dependent. Common when "rune" (descriptor), proper when "Rune of Honesty" (name of unique item). --Terilem (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. I'll make a footnote.--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Sandalwood Box"

It was kind of an important artifact, but, I don't know... it seems too much of a description, and not enough of a name. The Ultra-Mind 17:05, 5 January 2011 (PST)

"Serpents" (Great Earth/Order/Chaos)

Yes, they are a race, but not exactly a race. They're a unique trio, which is why I think proper. Besides, we have got a load of "Great Earth Serpent" references, and not just in SI. Still, I wouldn't blame anyone for disagreeing. AngusM 04:55, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'd also be inclined to say proper, for the reasons you've mentioned. It also acts as a differentiation from serpents (as in snakes) or even silver serpents. --Terilem 03:34, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

I don't foresee any more discussion here, so I'll be adding them to the lexicon.--Sega381 13:24, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

And I think it should be folded into some of these other exception we have, like Shadowlords and Elemental Titans.--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Serpent Gate"

Probably as common as serpent jawbone.--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Common. --Terilem (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"Serpent Jawbone"

I feel it should be common. The name is pretty mundane and it's not a unique item (only half unique).--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Common. --Terilem (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"Serpent Teeth"

I think the case for commonality is even stronger for this than "Serpent Jawbone". As noted in Serpent Jawbone#Trivia, some of the teeth are even duplicated.--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Common. --Terilem (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Shrines

I think this should be linked to #Virtues. Since I'm used to seeing "Shrine of Compassion" and never "shrine of Compassion", I feel that this should be proper. AngusM 03:04, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this and the Virtues issues as well. --Terilem 23:42, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. Therefore, I'm adding it to the Lexicon.--Sega381 18:38, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

"Shrines" (Britannian)

I see this the same way I see #Shrines. AngusM 03:04, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but only when refering to the Shrines of Virtue? What about the shrines at Ambrosia, proper too? And the gargoyle and ophidian shrines? Maybe for consistency, to be clear that we are refering to Shrines as the term is used in the Britannia universe, not as a shrine who anyone could have at home.--Sega381 18:40, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. I'll change this heading from "Shrines" to "Shrines" (Britannian), and add other entries AngusM 19:13, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

"Shrines" (Ambrosian)

These are the ones found in U3. If they are to be proper, it wouldn't be for the same reasons as #"Shrines" (Britannian). AngusM 19:25, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I don't foresee any more discussion here, and in fact they are already specified as so in the lexicon.--Sega381 13:24, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

"Shrines" (Gargoyle)

Off hand, I'd say since these shrines are just supposed to be counterparts to #"Shrines" (Britannian), their statuses should be linked. AngusM 19:25, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I don't foresee any more discussion here, and in fact they are already specified as so in the lexicon.--Sega381 13:24, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

"Shrines" (Ophidian)

Same reasoning as above.--Sega381 13:24, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Spells

Since these are the names of spells, I'd say that they are proper. An instance of spell casting would be common, but the spell is pretty unique. AngusM 19:57, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this one. I agree, they should be capitalized. --Terilem 01:58, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

"Stone"

Refering to the Virtue Stones. I guess we may want to to capitalize it to distinguish them from regular stones?--Sega381 06:03, 7 March 2011 (PST)

I'm gonna go with the context argument again with this one: Proper when it's part of the name, otherwise not, i.e. "Virtue Stones/Stones of Virtue are colorful stones." --Terilem 08:35, 7 March 2011 (PST)

Sounds good enough to me.--Sega381 08:38, 7 March 2011 (PST)

Virtues

This is a pretty special set of words which have meaning and specifications as separate from out-world virtues. Also, Origin documentation is pretty consistent about this (probably perfectly consistent), so these should be proper. AngusM 22:26, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

There isn't as much interest as I had hoped, so I'll put these two into the lexicon, since I think they are pretty safe bets. AngusM 03:27, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

"Virtues"

I apply the same criteria here as for #Virtues. AngusM 22:26, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Weapons and Armour

It's pretty straight forward that sword, shield, bow, halbear, etc are common, but there are some fancier artifacts which are greyer areas.

"Blackrock Sword"

From U9. We only see one, but it was made by a smith who seemed like he could make another one for the next Britannian who came along, and didn't christen it w/any kind of distinct moniker. I'd say common. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Common. --Terilem (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Flaming Sword"

From U9. I think you can only get it in one place--British's hedge maze--but I'm not convinced it is a special one-of-a-kind weapon in Britannia. We just don't see another one. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Fire Sword/Locations there are two, so I say common. --Terilem (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Main Gauche"

I was trying to make a Main gauche -> Main Gauche redirect, when I was told this:

Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted.

You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience:

    22:01, 6 February 2011 Dungy (Talk | contribs) deleted page Main gauche (content was: "#REDIRECT Main Gauche" (and the only contributor was "Dungy"))
    21:42, 10 December 2010 Dungy (Talk | contribs) moved page Main gauche to Main Gauche (Everything else had both names capitalized...)

But I think the issue needs to be revisited. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Common. --Terilem (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"Whirlpool"

Natural phenomenon, doubt it's magical, certainly not unique. Seems pretty straightforward to me: common AngusM 03:42, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Terilem 03:34, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

I don't foresee any more discussion here, so I'll be adding them to the lexicon.--Sega381 13:24, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Word of Power

Refering to the Words of Power (dungeons) that opened the eight dungeons, and also to the Words of Power (magic) that arethe 26 magic syllables. I'm not sure on this one, probably proper as it is a name of a specific set of words.--Sega381 13:39, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Terilem and I resolved these WoPs as proper in Ultima_Codex_talk:Style_guide#Reviewing_fundamentals_of_italicizing_proper_nouns.--The Ultra-Mind (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Word of Passage

Refering to the Word of Passage that was needed to access the Codex. I'm not sure on this one, probably proper as it is a name of a specific words.--Sega381 13:39, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Indexing the lexicon by noun status

As of now, the lexicon has been reordered so that nouns fall under the headings "Proper" and "Common". I don't think that this is convenient. When editors visit the lexicon, I think they are less likely to be interested in all the nouns that are either proper or common. I would expect they'd be looking for a specific word, and finding that entry directly. This would have been easier with the previous style of indexing everything by noun. AngusM 19:32, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point. That's probably why you had them as titles, to get to them faster from the index? Even though that may facilitate access, I found it difficult to read. Anyway, if we separate them in two categories, AND order them alphabetically inside them, it's not so different. You would have to look in two places, though. I'm not opposed to going back to the other way, though. I just found this one more... ordered. But the original way may be more useful.--Sega381 00:14, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

The previous lexicon's strength wasn't in its looks, was it? Anyone else who wants to should check out the previous version and give an opinion. Notice how the nouns used to appear in the table of contents. This was lost. AngusM 05:49, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried merging both ways. What do you think of the result?--Sega381 00:19, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's definitely an improvement over the bulleted style. AngusM 03:18, August 27, 2010 (UTC)