Striga also sounds very much like 'strigoj', the Romanian term for vampires and witches or monsters of many kinds (bipedal ones, that is). Do I include this or do I leave the notes as they are? By the way, I like the idea of including the sources for names in each article... at least if it isn't clear where the name hails from, like Cataphract (not everybody knows that it means "armored rider") or Shamash. Thoughts on that? RagTag 20:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read responses to the other article where this came up, but we want to be clear that we are not Wikipedia and don't intend to provide real-world historical data in these articles. They relate to what we know (via official sources) about the subject. For example, it may be assummed that the J. Edgar is named after a certain dress-wearing founder of the FBI, but the actual truth may be much different. Similarly, we assume the Mickey Rat is named after a particular current-day superstar rodent, but we don't really know that. Instead, I'd suggest -at best- adding an ==External Links== section with a link to a WP article, but even then that seems to violate the mission of BTW, IMO.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, seems fair enough to me. Most of the names are easily explained anyways, nobody wonders about Warhammer or Assasin I guess... And with the real difficult ones the author can still include that in the description, like it was done with the Verfolger in the TRO:3067. Thanks for clearing things up! By the way, nice thinking about the J. Edgar, I'll be a follower of that theory from now on...! :D RagTag 22:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)