Help talk:Contents: Difference between revisions

The Terran Knowledge Bank
Jump to: navigation, search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
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
Why the persecution of Confed? It's a term used throughout the series both in speech and text. Otherwise everything else looks good. --[[User:Dundradal|Dundradal]] 22:15, 2 September 2010 (CDT)


As requested, some things that I have noticed in articles repeatedly:
Uh, that point has been in force for a while now...? It's mainly stemming from the rule that we are supposed to be official researchers or some such, writing archival and historical documents, not news journals and publications which may be less formal and rigid... but if you want to drop that idea, I can't say no, can I? But I'm just confused, if you don't like that idea, why only raise it now? - Wedge


* 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.
Because I had never equated Confed as an informal term and the notion never crossed my mind. Confed is used in official documents contained within canon sources. So I bring it up now because I never put it into that category and was surprised to see it there. --[[User:Dundradal|Dundradal]] 14:35, 3 September 2010 (CDT)


* 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.
It was in that original list I sent to you, so I thought you were okay with it. Anyway, it seems to me that the authors were probably also writing in an informal tone, but if it's in the literature now, I suppose we're stuck with it. Point removed. I don't like it, but I wasn't 'persecuting' it. - Wedge
 
* 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.

Latest revision as of 16:38, 4 September 2010

Rewrote most of the page, based on what was already there. Always room for improvement, of course. - Wedge

Why the persecution of Confed? It's a term used throughout the series both in speech and text. Otherwise everything else looks good. --Dundradal 22:15, 2 September 2010 (CDT)

Uh, that point has been in force for a while now...? It's mainly stemming from the rule that we are supposed to be official researchers or some such, writing archival and historical documents, not news journals and publications which may be less formal and rigid... but if you want to drop that idea, I can't say no, can I? But I'm just confused, if you don't like that idea, why only raise it now? - Wedge

Because I had never equated Confed as an informal term and the notion never crossed my mind. Confed is used in official documents contained within canon sources. So I bring it up now because I never put it into that category and was surprised to see it there. --Dundradal 14:35, 3 September 2010 (CDT)

It was in that original list I sent to you, so I thought you were okay with it. Anyway, it seems to me that the authors were probably also writing in an informal tone, but if it's in the literature now, I suppose we're stuck with it. Point removed. I don't like it, but I wasn't 'persecuting' it. - Wedge

Retrieved from "https://www.wcnews.com/wcpedia/index.php?title=Help_talk:Contents&oldid=12863"