|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| We need to update this to be more useful in the future.
| | Rewrote most of the page, based on what was already there. Always room for improvement, of course. - Wedge |
| | |
| Pasted from my talk page - suggestions from Wedge
| |
| | |
| As requested, some things that I have noticed in articles repeatedly:
| |
| | |
| * Articles should be written in a neutral tone. Yes, we are writing from the perspective of a Confederation historian, but I think words like 'fortunately' and 'unfortunately' should be avoided - there should not be any bias towards one faction over another.
| |
| | |
| * Do not assume that ships only exist within the era we see them in a game. Certain ship types also make appearances in novels and the Academy TV series, avoid saying things like ship X was phased out in favour of ship Y, or that a particular ship was only introduced in 2681 because we only see them from Secret Ops without supporting evidence from the literature.
| |
| | |
| * Avoid using the term 'Confed'. The abbreviation is fine in speech and informal writing, but to maintain a formal tone, the Terran Confederation should not be abbreviated to anything shorter than 'the Confederation'.
| |
| | |
| * Avoid just using the term 'war-time', specify what war you are referring to even if it seems obvious. We have the Kilrathi War, the Nephilim War, plus several other wars besides.
| |
| | |
| * If we don't know anything about a ship for a particular part of its history, don't say anything about it. Stick to writing about things we do know and avoid trying to 'fill in the gaps' even if what you are writing is logical from what we currently know. Future games can change many things, as what happened with Arena and Star*Soldier.
| |
Revision as of 12:24, 2 September 2010
Rewrote most of the page, based on what was already there. Always room for improvement, of course. - Wedge
