Spencerian (talk | contribs) →Clarification Needed: +comment |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:I wouldn't use for actor pages though for example, as those are obviously out-of-universe per definition. I'd mainly use for articles where one might expect an in-universe POV from the title, but which are written from another perspective for one reason or another. The best example would be the one where you voiced the criticism in the first place and which gave me the idea. The [[small arms]] article, that doesn't explain the weapons on the show so much, as it compares them to real-world weapons. Or [[mythological references]], though the "references" might indicate clear enough that it deals with real mythology as opposed to the show's own mythology. | :I wouldn't use for actor pages though for example, as those are obviously out-of-universe per definition. I'd mainly use for articles where one might expect an in-universe POV from the title, but which are written from another perspective for one reason or another. The best example would be the one where you voiced the criticism in the first place and which gave me the idea. The [[small arms]] article, that doesn't explain the weapons on the show so much, as it compares them to real-world weapons. Or [[mythological references]], though the "references" might indicate clear enough that it deals with real mythology as opposed to the show's own mythology. | ||
:Personally I don't really see the confusion though, as long as the POVs aren't randomly mixed. You were the one who seemed the most in favor of a strictly in-universe POV. But even many of the "in-universe" articles make it clear that we are writing about a TV show and not some pseudo-historical document. It depends on the articles. Some stand to treat them strictly in-universe, while others are helped with more real-world references. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:05, 16 January 2007 (CST) | :Personally I don't really see the confusion though, as long as the POVs aren't randomly mixed. You were the one who seemed the most in favor of a strictly in-universe POV. But even many of the "in-universe" articles make it clear that we are writing about a TV show and not some pseudo-historical document. It depends on the articles. Some stand to treat them strictly in-universe, while others are helped with more real-world references. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:05, 16 January 2007 (CST) | ||
::Agreed on actor bios and any other cast/crew/behind the scenes info. Yeah, I'm trying to wrap my head around what I've seen and what we've done. Most of the time in episode and item articles, we speak in-universe, but often mix out-of-universe comment and comparison. No, I don't think its a very serious problem except where an article's context has significant real-world comparison. [[Small arms]] is a good example, but contrast [[Computers in the Re-imagined Series]] where contributors (of which I've been more of the primary contributor) have mixed the voice a bit. Perhaps I should drop by Memory Alpha again to review; I think that's where I saw the struggles they've had in voice. My goal is to keep the voice mixing to a minimum by establishing a writing pattern (as we have with the use of present tense), although practically out-universe voicing shouldn't be fully stopped (take [[Articles of Colonization]] -- the article completely loses context without its non-footnoted, out-of-universe comparisons). The problem stems more from our explanations than our documentation of what we have seen; voicing is all context. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:45, 19 January 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 13:45, 19 January 2007
Clarification Needed
Is this to consider an idea for a header noting a mostly "out-of-universe" article as opposed to episode articles, for example, which are typically in-universe perspective? --Spencerian 13:48, 16 January 2007 (CST)
- I don't know if articles are typically in-universe so much as they are usually so grounded in canon/cited that they are "on-screen" only. I guess the in-universeness might be the fact that we don't automatically call a Hummer a Hummer, but it's not like we're having to suppress anything or pretend not to know anything. It's a pretty omnicient pov. --Steelviper 13:59, 16 January 2007 (CST)
- Sort of the logic I had with the Religion articles. Just because we know that the Greek gods are similar doesn't mean we should make an repeated point about it in the article body. --Spencerian 14:04, 16 January 2007 (CST)
- I wouldn't use for actor pages though for example, as those are obviously out-of-universe per definition. I'd mainly use for articles where one might expect an in-universe POV from the title, but which are written from another perspective for one reason or another. The best example would be the one where you voiced the criticism in the first place and which gave me the idea. The small arms article, that doesn't explain the weapons on the show so much, as it compares them to real-world weapons. Or mythological references, though the "references" might indicate clear enough that it deals with real mythology as opposed to the show's own mythology.
- Personally I don't really see the confusion though, as long as the POVs aren't randomly mixed. You were the one who seemed the most in favor of a strictly in-universe POV. But even many of the "in-universe" articles make it clear that we are writing about a TV show and not some pseudo-historical document. It depends on the articles. Some stand to treat them strictly in-universe, while others are helped with more real-world references. --Serenity 14:05, 16 January 2007 (CST)
- Agreed on actor bios and any other cast/crew/behind the scenes info. Yeah, I'm trying to wrap my head around what I've seen and what we've done. Most of the time in episode and item articles, we speak in-universe, but often mix out-of-universe comment and comparison. No, I don't think its a very serious problem except where an article's context has significant real-world comparison. Small arms is a good example, but contrast Computers in the Re-imagined Series where contributors (of which I've been more of the primary contributor) have mixed the voice a bit. Perhaps I should drop by Memory Alpha again to review; I think that's where I saw the struggles they've had in voice. My goal is to keep the voice mixing to a minimum by establishing a writing pattern (as we have with the use of present tense), although practically out-universe voicing shouldn't be fully stopped (take Articles of Colonization -- the article completely loses context without its non-footnoted, out-of-universe comparisons). The problem stems more from our explanations than our documentation of what we have seen; voicing is all context. --Spencerian 07:45, 19 January 2007 (CST)