Get Rid of Name Exclusivity

[ShorahNagi]

Might be a bit hard to code...but has anyone entertained the possibility of having non-exclusive names for dragons born after a certain period of time?

 

To explain- any and every dragon name in use on or before dec. 31st, 2020 11:59:59pm can never be used by more than one dragon. (Thus keeping the uniqueness some seem to value)

 

Any name that is thought of and used after that time [so jan. 1st, 2021 00:00] can be used by multiple dragons.

 

Ex. A dragon is/was named Bob on march 1st, 2010 - no one can use this name under this system.

 

A dragon is named Billy-Bob on January 5th, 2021. Everyone can use this name as it was avaible after the cut off.

 

*debatable if clearing an old dragon's name after the cut off would then allow it to be useable by more than one (ex. Bob's owner clears his name on jan. 2nd, 2021 - Bob can now be used by everyone)

 

**All dates are arbitrary and were only chosen for simplicity's sake

Edited December 22, 2020 by ShorahNagi

[pinkgothic]

45 minutes ago, Moriaty said:

I read the last few pages (pardon me for not having time to go through the entire nineteen pages...at some point I will) and no one is really giving any constructive idea as to what compromise to make, how things can actually be implemented to satisfy or at least partially console both end, etc.

I can't find it right now, but I'm reasonably sure someone suggested offering up a checkbox to "claim" a name exclusively when you're naming a dragon and you're the first person to name the dragon that particular thing. bonvoyage suggested a scroll-wide toggle. w0rmg0d suggested marking the first dragon to have a given name with a star (or some similar icon). Don't you consider those compromises, or did you not spot them when you were skimming the thread? (Honest question and not at all meant as an accusation! I'm just a bit confused from the side-lines.)

 

For the record, I don't think anyone is being selfish if they want names to stay exclusive. It's just a simple preference. I'm on the opposite end, but as previously mentioned, there are some names I really enjoy having unique claim to (those of my own published fictional universe, OCs), so I understand the urge to some degree. I'd just also be willing to give that up for the sake of making naming less like pulling teeth.

[Moriaty]

7 minutes ago, pinkgothic said:

I can't find it right now, but I'm reasonably sure someone suggested offering up a checkbox to "claim" a name exclusively when you're naming a dragon and you're the first person to name the dragon that particular thing. bonvoyage suggested a scroll-wide toggle. w0rmg0d suggested marking the first dragon to have a given name with a star (or some similar icon). Don't you consider those compromises, or did you not spot them when you were skimming the thread? (Honest question and not at all meant as an accusation! I'm just a bit confused from the side-lines.)

 

For the record, I don't think anyone is being selfish if they want names to stay exclusive. It's just a simple preference. I'm on the opposite end, but as previously mentioned, there are some names I really enjoy having unique claim to (those of my own published fictional universe, OCs), so I understand the urge to some degree. I'd just also be willing to give that up for the sake of making naming less like pulling teeth.

 

I didn't read all the suggestions - thanks for pulling the comment links up for me. I literally read the first two pages page, and then skipped to the last two or three page to see the most recent suggestion. I did see bonvoyage's suggestion but didn't think it would be by any chance useful to either party so I didn't mention that at all.

 

Now I do think w0rmg0d's solution would be nice though, to both keep the uniqueness and allow more people to use the same name. Stretching the suggestion a bit more, if the view, lineage, progeny link with the /n/ only lead to the first starred dragon (thus making it special as the "first" as well as keeping a lot of the things the current way), while not banning other users to name their dragon using the same name...

 

I kind of feel like a lot of people will now be saying keeping the /n/ link special to one dragon still be elitist/selfish though 🙃 I know you aren't saying that, but the vibe I get from a lot of the post is that, if you want something special for yourself, you're selfish and elitist and build your happiness on other's frustration.

[Nagapie]

I myself am okay with whatever happens to the /n/ page. If making the link to a specific name lead to a page with the first dragon who had that name makes people who care about the fate of /n/ happy, I'm all for it. I do think the page should also have a link like "See other dragons of the same name", but I wouldn't consider that a hill to die on. I would like that just for curiosity's sake ("What kind of dragons share their name with my dragon?"), but even without that it's fine.

 

I personally only care a lot about improving the experience of naming dragons by removing name exclusivity. That comes first and foremost. Whether the default page /n/ leads to showcases a single dragon or a dozen is just a side detail to me - doesn't matter so long as other players are not locked out of using the same name.

[Tini]

8 hours ago, Moriaty said:

Stretching the suggestion a bit more, if the view, lineage, progeny link with the /n/ only lead to the first starred dragon (thus making it special as the "first" as well as keeping a lot of the things the current way), while not banning other users to name their dragon using the same name...

I feel like this specifically would create confusion more than anything else. If someone looks at a lineage and sees a Loki, and then they go to /n/Loki and its a completely different breed, it would feel like a glitch (and probably be reported as such). Where as having them at the top and/or marked with a star wouldn't cause that but still make it unique. 

[MissK.]

 

9 hours ago, Moriaty said:

Stretching the suggestion a bit more, if the view, lineage, progeny link with the /n/ only lead to the first starred dragon (thus making it special as the "first" as well as keeping a lot of the things the current way), while not banning other users to name their dragon using the same name...

 

I kind of feel like a lot of people will now be saying keeping the /n/ link special to one dragon still be elitist/selfish though 🙃 I know you aren't saying that, but the vibe I get from a lot of the post is that, if you want something special for yourself, you're selfish and elitist and build your happiness on other's frustration.

 

I don't think it's a matter of being elitist/selfish in this case, just one of functionality. Personally it wouldn't affect me that much so I'm not set in my opinion either way, but it seems like it would offer more to be able to find all dragons with a given name through that link (in order of age presumably, though if there are sort options even better I guess?) and not just one. After all one of the reasons people wanted to have this feature was to be able to search for a dragon by name and not by code, so how would it help them if they only got the first with that name instead of the one they want? However, other workarounds could be found...obviously it's more complicated but if we had a separate search function for dragons, what happens to the /n/ link is immediately less important.

[Fuzzbucket]

5 hours ago, MissK. said:

I don't think it's a matter of being elitist/selfish in this case, just one of functionality. Personally it wouldn't affect me that much so I'm not set in my opinion either way, but it seems like it would offer more to be able to find all dragons with a given name through that link (in order of age presumably, though if there are sort options even better I guess?) and not just one. After all one of the reasons people wanted to have this feature was to be able to search for a dragon by name and not by code, so how would it help them if they only got the first with that name instead of the one they want? However, other workarounds could be found...obviously it's more complicated but if we had a separate search function for dragons, what happens to the /n/ link is immediately less important.

 

What happens to the /n/ link is actually rather important for those of us working on lineages.

[MissK.]

I agree @Fuzzbucket, that's why I'm supporting the /n/ link showing all dragons and not just one, so that you can still search for everything you need. I only said that having an entirely separate search feature would eliminate that need. Or did you mean something else?

[Keileon]

On 12/22/2020 at 5:53 PM, Moriaty said:

Now I do think w0rmg0d's solution would be nice though, to both keep the uniqueness and allow more people to use the same name. Stretching the suggestion a bit more, if the view, lineage, progeny link with the /n/ only lead to the first starred dragon (thus making it special as the "first" as well as keeping a lot of the things the current way), while not banning other users to name their dragon using the same name...

I'd be absolutely okay with this, though I would perhaps make it so that view/n leads to the list, not to the starred dragon. Or, potentially, make a new link like list/n or something.

 

For the record, I don't really care what happens to the view/n link and think that it's causing more issues than it's worth, but for those who want to keep it, I think this is fair.

[KrazyKarp]

I feel like I mentioned something like this before, but I don't think issues with the /view/n page are important enough to impact whether exclusivity stays or not.

 

As a more general statement: I don't think discussion in this thread is very productive anymore for either side, so I'm going to bow out unless I get any responses specific to my post again. My stance on those favoring exclusivity having a selfish point of view and having a desperate desire to cling onto being special still stands. It's no different from the people who didn't support the return of CB holidays, for example. In a similar vein, I also want to emphasize again that DC has clearly been going into a direction of less exclusivity. There's no telling when it will happen, but I'm confident name exclusivity will be gone at some point in the future because the issues with it will continue to get worse as time goes on.

[Moriaty]

49 minutes ago, KrazyKarp said:

I feel like I mentioned something like this before, but I don't think issues with the /view/n page are important enough to impact whether exclusivity stays or not.

 

Personally what happens to the view/n link is exactly why I leaned towards keeping name exclusivity at first. It does matter, and is important enough to at least some people.

 

However since it seems like most people who do want to get rid of exclusivity don't care about what happens to the view/n link I'm all hands for letting others use the same name.

[Charu]

Probably already suggested, but I'm not reading 20 pages of thread. The few pages I've perused seem to run in a circle. People on one side, people on the other. People having concerns with the link and what happens to it.

 

I'm very much on the side of removing name exclusivity. I had a name get released from inactivity and now I won't have it back, ever, because names are not released anymore. Fair enough that I left the website for several years, but it's kind of weird having a random dragon on my scroll, written with this name, that actually now belongs to someone else. Now my names are all 100% random gibberish. I also feel like it stagnates people being able to go ham with their lineages and do fun and cool things. People work around this with extra spaces/characters/numbers. So my personal opinion is "go for it", but let's try to not have links break. I sympathize with those concerns, especially as someone who loves their spreadsheets. Changing a link can make things difficult for my spreadsheets because external data is being changed without my knowledge. Fair enough. So, what if the links are not changed? Name exclusivity is removed, BUT the person that gets the first name gets the /n link.

• If you're the first person to name your dragon cat, you get the /n link. The URL will be view/n/cat. 
• If you're not the first person to name your dragon cat, you do not get the exclusive /n link. Instead, your URL will be view/n/cat_2. Or cat_3, etc. 
• Optionally, view/n/cat/1 as an example to clean up the URL.

The downside to this is that URLs have the potential to be incredibly long for common names. People get to name their dragon whatever they want and the folks working on lineages have the option to keep their original URL and do not have to worry about a site-wide change breaking their spreadsheet. 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Charu

[Kindred]

I always thought this was silly, cause instead you could always describing the dragon to keep it creative to your own dragon anyway instead of locking names like that. I can find people irl with my same name so it kinda just makes sense to be unlocked.

 

Edit: Plus we can only have one of each player username too anyway to keep things separate

Edited February 5, 2021 by Kindred

[Natayah]

I think - there are times where name exclusivity is very well justified. Back when we could only ever have (2) of each Xmas breed PERIOD, I made the decision to help build out a special Lineage because I wanted to be able to share it with others by being able to breed it with other special lineages with Spriters Alts..... and the name... he named himself. I don't think anyone will ever earn the right to name themselves Elick . That dragon is too special, that code is too special, and the confluence of the two was just pure Holiday Magic. Like there will only ever be ONE Midas Dorkface. Some dragons have earned their names, and it holds a special place in history in the game, whether it is widely known or not. And sometimes, things do need to be respected in those regards. So if its an all or nothing deal, I go for keeping it. I mean, you could always have the option of having a toggle installed in preferences that if you go inactive for XXX amount of time you are willing to release the names you have on hold. I think people who were retiring from the game or not around a lot would actually be OK with allow for that options, or even active players. But I think it should be the players' who got the names first choice, not the choice of the general public who wants to steal names. 

 

On the flip side, I think "dead" dragons should lose their names. The fact that you can placehold a name on a dead dragon, and can never undo it to release it (I get keeping the code for lineage purposes, although I love my "Deadline" dragons to bits), is silly. This should certainly go away. They are dead. They aren't a dragon that exists anymore. I think people were really bothered over the whole "Santa" I'm going to kill my Holly I'm tired of people asking me to breed it fiasco, especially as that is a name that others would like, but now it is forever held on a Grave Stone. I mean, Santa has history, so I can see that side of it too. But many people forget to remove the name before attempting to kill, and then cannot undo that action ever. That part is silly to me.

[HeatherMarie]

2 hours ago, Natayah said:

I think - there are times where name exclusivity is very well justified. Back when we could only ever have (2) of each Xmas breed PERIOD, I made the decision to help build out a special Lineage because I wanted to be able to share it with others by being able to breed it with other special lineages with Spriters Alts..... and the name... he named himself. I don't think anyone will ever earn the right to name themselves Elick . That dragon is too special, that code is too special, and the confluence of the two was just pure Holiday Magic. Like there will only ever be ONE Midas Dorkface. Some dragons have earned their names, and it holds a special place in history in the game, whether it is widely known or not. And sometimes, things do need to be respected in those regards. So if its an all or nothing deal, I go for keeping it. I mean, you could always have the option of having a toggle installed in preferences that if you go inactive for XXX amount of time you are willing to release the names you have on hold. I think people who were retiring from the game or not around a lot would actually be OK with allow for that options, or even active players. But I think it should be the players' who got the names first choice, not the choice of the general public who wants to steal names. 

 

On the flip side, I think "dead" dragons should lose their names. The fact that you can placehold a name on a dead dragon, and can never undo it to release it (I get keeping the code for lineage purposes, although I love my "Deadline" dragons to bits), is silly. This should certainly go away. They are dead. They aren't a dragon that exists anymore. I think people were really bothered over the whole "Santa" I'm going to kill my Holly I'm tired of people asking me to breed it fiasco, especially as that is a name that others would like, but now it is forever held on a Grave Stone. I mean, Santa has history, so I can see that side of it too. But many people forget to remove the name before attempting to kill, and then cannot undo that action ever. That part is silly to me.

 

While I understand that some names are special and sentimental for people for various reasons, the whole attitude that 'no other dragon has the right to this name' is kind of the entire problem with name exclusivity. It's elitist. It's favoring older users who just happened to use the name first, and shutting out thousands upon thousands of other users from using a name that might actually be *just* as special to them. I don't think any user *should* have that power, to decree that they are the only ones ever allowed to use a specific name just because it's special to them. That kind of attitude just isn't good for growing the game or keeping newer players around. We've already seen people posting about completely giving up on naming because every single name they like is already taken. When you *have* to resort to tags or random misspellings or extra letters just to get something that *resembles* the name you want, it can be very frustrating and make the game less enjoyable. And why? Because someone years ago just happened to get to that name first? 

 

Regarding the idea of 'respecting' certain names (like the Dorkface pair!), that's a complete non-argument imo because disrespecting 'special' names already happens. We already have fake Thuweds, Dorkfaces, etc, people who deliberately name their dragons in the same style or even using the exact same name just with an extra space or whatever. I have several dragons that look 100% like Thuweds, except if you click on the CB Thuweds you see they aren't *actually* TJ's Thuweds. It seems pointless to justify keeping name exclusivity by talking about respecting/preserving special names when that's already a problem that's already happening.

 

When it comes down to it, the biggest argument *for* name exclusivity is users wanting to keep their dragons special. But there are plenty of other ways to do that, including describing them, breeding specific lineages, making fun groups, etc. Keeping dragons 'special' for older users at the expense of alienating newer users and the thousands of users who just 'didn't get there first' is not good, imo. 

[Keileon]

On 2/5/2021 at 4:39 PM, Charu said:

Name exclusivity is removed, BUT the person that gets the first name gets the /n link.

 

• If you're the first person to name your dragon cat, you get the /n link. The URL will be view/n/cat. 
• If you're not the first person to name your dragon cat, you do not get the exclusive /n link. Instead, your URL will be view/n/cat_2. Or cat_3, etc. 
• Optionally, view/n/cat/1 as an example to clean up the URL.

I would be 100% okay with this, as well.

 

On 2/5/2021 at 4:52 PM, Kindred said:

Edit: Plus we can only have one of each player username too anyway to keep things separate

That's not comparable. Usernames are unique because of how logging in works, the site needs to know that the password you input is the one that belongs to that username. While Discord and other services do add numbers to the end of the username, those also have you log in via email, not username, because Discord usernames aren't unique. It's purely because of how the site works, not some mechanic in place to enforce some arbitrary creativity or separation.

 

On 2/5/2021 at 6:54 PM, Natayah said:

I don't think anyone will ever earn the right to name themselves Elick . That dragon is too special, that code is too special, and the confluence of the two was just pure Holiday Magic.

HeatherMarie summed up my thoughts on your post in general, but for this bit in particular-- okay, but what about when a code like elick or ELICK or eliCK or something comes up? I've seen many, many cases where two dragons (or more!) shared the same code but with different capitalization, and the name exclusivity mechanic doesn't count a unique capitalization as a unique name.

[KrazyKarp]

On 2/5/2021 at 7:54 PM, Natayah said:

I don't think anyone will ever earn the right to name themselves Elick . That dragon is too special, that code is too special, and the confluence of the two was just pure Holiday Magic. Like there will only ever be ONE Midas Dorkface. Some dragons have earned their names, and it holds a special place in history in the game, whether it is widely known or not.

The implication here is that once you get more dragons named Elick, or Midas Dorkface, or whatever, those dragons are no longer special and don't mean anything. This is a false implication. If we have 1,000 Midas Dorkfaces, the original one still holds its place in DC history, and is still special. Specialness and name exclusivity are independent of each other, completely unrelated. Elick still has it's code, it's still special. I mean, I don't personally think it's that big of a deal to have a dragon named after it's name code, but to each their own.

 

Keileon and HeatherMarie said everything else I'd say. Name exclusivity is elitist and selfish, that's the core of it.

Edited February 8, 2021 by KrazyKarp

[Fuzzbucket]

1 hour ago, KrazyKarp said:

Keileon and HeatherMarie said everything else I'd say. Name exclusivity is elitist and selfish, that's the core of it.

 

Not nice, and accusatory. You (and many others) hate it. That's fine, but it doesn't make it selfish of those of us who enjoy it to want to keep it.

[MissK.]

If you want to be the only one who has a specific thing, even though it would remain exactly as it is if other people could also have the same, isn't that selfish by definition? Technically it doesn't affect you at all what other people have or don't have; if you place value in something specifically for being exclusive and others not being able to have it, that's valid, but it does mean you're thinking of yourself over everyone else. 

 

Just to be clear, I am only talking about the points raised regarding the actual names, not the mechanisms behind them such as the /n/ link. Speaking of though, I would also be 100% okay with this suggestion:

On 2/5/2021 at 11:39 PM, Charu said:

Name exclusivity is removed, BUT the person that gets the first name gets the /n link.

• If you're the first person to name your dragon cat, you get the /n link. The URL will be view/n/cat. 
• If you're not the first person to name your dragon cat, you do not get the exclusive /n link. Instead, your URL will be view/n/cat_2. Or cat_3, etc. 
• Optionally, view/n/cat/1 as an example to clean up the URL.

 

[KrazyKarp]

55 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

Not nice, and accusatory. You (and many others) hate it. That's fine, but it doesn't make it selfish of those of us who enjoy it to want to keep it.

Selfish is defined as

 

"(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure."

 

Can you or anyone else make an argument that name exclusivity is not selfish based off of the definition? MissK. has explained it super well, too.

 

If the opinion you're supporting fits the definition, can you really claim it to be "not nice" and "accusatory"?

 

(also this is more semantics than anything) but I think you might just be a bit confused. I call the opinion of favoring exclusivity selfish, and the concept as a whole, but I haven't directly called any person selfish. Supporting a selfish thing doesn't automatically equal you being selfish yourself, so in that respect, I haven't done anything "not nice" or "accusatory".

Edited February 8, 2021 by KrazyKarp

[ricetheroni]

i'm very behind and don't have much to contribute, but i think i overall agree that name exclusivity be removed. it wouldn't affect me as i use a surname, but seeing how it would help other people enjoy the game more, maybe it's worth it (^_^)

[dragongrrl]

I still get new names every day without any problem and I am continually amazed at the names I can get. I don't see what is selfish about that. Everyone, everyday, has a chance to find great names.

[Caileh]

I'm in favor of keeping name exclusivity and I agree with a lot of what Murkydepths and Fuzzbucket and others who want to keep the game as it is already have expressed in this thread. I don't really have anything clever to add, but figured I could put my two cents in anyway. I think that the fact that every dragon in the game has a unique name is something that makes the game fun and special, and it would make the game less enjoyable if it was changed. 

 

On 12/20/2020 at 5:40 AM, bonvoyage said:

I've been casually following this thread, and while I do totally understand the arguments against it and that it can be a pain, I still personally prefer name exclusivity. I don't believe that's me being elitist or lacking empathy for others who might want to use the same names as me. I can guarantee that 99.9% of the names on my scroll no one is ever going to care about taking, most of them are inside jokes, stuff I've misheard, silly stuff I've seen online etc. The simple fact is the majority of the fun of the game for me is coming up with names no one has taken, using them in funny ways in lineages, and seeing what names other people come up with on their own scrolls. I have most of the dragons I want, so simply grabbing new breeds every month doesn't keep me invested. Instead I treasure my names, which represent 7 years of me naming dragons with whatever random stuff was going on in my brain at the time. I know for a fact that if name exclusivity was removed my names would get less creative, and naming would simply be less fun for me (personally; I'm not saying this applies to everyone by any means). Furthermore, suddenly every scroll would be able to take some of the most obvious names, which isn't necessarily a problem, but I do worry it would have a big homogenising effect on the site, and that it might actually cause people to become bored more quickly and leave. I know plenty of people disagree with me and that's totally fine, but that's just my opinion. I can live with name exclusivity being removed, I just personally prefer it and think it is something that makes the site unique.

This sums it up pretty well. I love looking at other people's scrolls and see what names they have come up with. It doesn't bother me at all when I see they have a name I think is coool and might I have liked to have, instead it just makes me happy for them. 

 

On 12/22/2020 at 10:20 AM, Moriaty said:

I don't understand what's wrong with feeling good about having a unique name, how that's making me a selfish gate keeper, or how that's making me elitist for god's sake. I'm saying this as someone who don't have any cool names snagged, I don't understand where this jealousy is coming from. I don't know if the people who are attacking are jealous or not but that's the feel I'm getting.

 

I like the current system. I know many of the good names are taken and it gives me a nice little surprise when one isn't or when a variation I came up with isn't, and it's those surprises (combined with other surprises like code hunt, etc) that keep me interested, especially as someone who doesn't like building lineages. I feel like it's already part of the game play - it's not the "this has always been the way the game is" thing, it's like a unique way the game shines. I personally sometimes love just chilling out checking out cool phrases and names and see their dragon page, progeny page, see what children they have and if the names connect, etc. I'm not completely against changes, but it needs to be very good if it happens, because seeing half a million Smaugs when I search the name up (using whatever progeny-like page that was discussed when I glanced) will kill some of my interest - just as some of you claim that not being able to take a name kills some people's interest.

 

Another thing is that, I feel like in some way the name are like codes - just that we have the opportunity to grab it instead of having to wait forever for a unique code to show up. If it's not fair to new players that they can't name a dragon one way, is it unfair that a new player can't get a code that has shown up and was already taken? Or is it "fairer" simply because codes are harder to come by / have a randomized air? As far as I know codes worth far more than names, and is truly fixed once it's there.

I agree with this as well. The name exclusivity is an important part of how the game works and changing it would kill some of my interest. I realize it might get other people more interested in the game if it changes, but I doubt the change would be positive for the majority of players. Of course people who want something to change are more likely to post in threads like this one, than people who are happy with the current way the game works.

[ricetheroni]

i should note that, personally, seeing the types of names everyone comes up with to get around the exclusivity block is really interesting (0_0) so, i suppose after reading much of this thread, i am actually neutral on it (^_^) i'll keep tabs on this, though. i want to see how it ends up !!

[Fuzzbucket]

1 hour ago, KrazyKarp said:

Selfish is defined as

 

"(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure."

 

Can you or anyone else make an argument that name exclusivity is not selfish based off of the definition? MissK. has explained it super well, too.

 

If the opinion you're supporting fits the definition, can you really claim it to be "not nice" and "accusatory"?

 

(also this is more semantics than anything) but I think you might just be a bit confused. I call the opinion of favoring exclusivity selfish, and the concept as a whole, but I haven't directly called any person selfish. Supporting a selfish thing doesn't automatically equal you being selfish yourself, so in that respect, I haven't done anything "not nice" or "accusatory".

 

I want other people's dragons to have exclusive names too, so not entirely, no. And I do consider others. And you know very well that calling someone out as "selfish" is an unpleasant thing  to do. As a matter of interest, saying that you want it changed to the way you prefer is just as much your being concerned chiefly with your own personal pleasure. You called those of us who would like it to stay as it is selfish. That is accusatory. I am not alone. You would like it to go your way; I would rather it stayed as it is. We are either both selfish or neither of us is.

 

49 minutes ago, dragongrrl said:

I still get new names every day without any problem and I am continually amazed at the names I can get. I don't see what is selfish about that. Everyone, everyday, has a chance to find great names.

 

Thanks for getting it !