[Billy_Club]

There is no spell template.  Naming a spell isn't required as part of the rules for designing a spell and so doesn't have any bearing on what the spell does. 

Steps for spell design:
1) Choose spell category
2) Choose spell type
3) Choose range
4) Choose duration
5) Determine effect
6) Calculate Drain Value
7) Final touches

It doesn't even require naming in final touches.  So I could create a spell called "Create (Oranges)" but the spell is actually a type of Stunbolt that screams "PWN!" as it impacts a target.  Alternately, I could leave the spell unnamed and it would still work according to the conditions I set down during spell design.  "The Unnamed Spell" has a certain flair I quite like anyway.  Naming conventions are, as all spells in any list are created through the above process, irrelevant.

[Bradd]

The spell name is a clear indicator of the rule as intended, and I think it's perverse to discount it.

[Charybdis]

The spell name is a clear indicator of the rule as intended, and I think it's perverse to discount it.

Hmmm, we're getting into Linguistic technicalities and opinions again 

Old argument. I'm out 

[Billy_Club]

Stop calling me a pervert!     Discount!  Also I thought you were a champion of not using RAI to establish rules Bradd?  (not talking houserules here)

[Bradd]

I think it's fine to try to discern RAI, I just think the FAQ mostly does a poor job of it.

[Billy_Club]

I just disagree that spell name is an intention of anything, is all.  Spell name is given no significance anywhere in the text.  Every spell in the book could just as easily be named Spell #1, Spell #38, Spell #Apple, and their effects and restrictions would still be identical to the way they are now.  Looking through spell creation, I just don't see from a rules standpoint how name has anything to do with the process.  I'd definitely not call discounting it as a rule factor perverse.

[Bradd]

Hm, I can't help but think that people would be much less comfortable with the discrepancy if it were more blatant. For example, if critter form said you could change into a particular kind of flower, I'm sure that most people would think it was an error in the text, rather than an odd variant.