PathfinderWiki talk:Manual of style/Archive 2
Class names used as generic terms
|
Changes Accepted |
As noted by 77stephen on Talk:Precipice Quarter:
| “ | I noted that beldrin is referred to as an "arcanist" small a. as pathfinder expands the class list towards 3 digit numbers and beyond (38 classes, 90+ prestige classes + archetypes) it may be unavoidable, but I wonder if the use could be confused with the Arcanist capital A | ” |
Many of the generic uses of arcanist on the wiki predate the class, in both the source materials and in our articles, but the point remains relevant: the relatively new ambiguity can be confusing, especially to new readers unfamiliar with the distinction.
We've had a note for a while at the top of arcanist stating that the term can be used both generically to refer to arcane magic users and to members of the arcanist class, but as new classes continue to join the canon, and in light of a few other collisions between class names and generic terms (like Category:Hunters vs. Category:Hunters (profession)), I propose that we suggest in the MoS that editors use specific, unambiguous terms instead of class names when they potentially collide. This should be a suggestion, not a hard-and-fast rule, as collisions are inevitable. However, I don't think we should use terms like arcanist generically going forward, even if they sound or read better that a more specific alternative.
When a collision is unavoidable, I propose that we suggest in the MoS that editors provide sufficient context to disambiguate the term's use. This might result in what might be unnecessary content or less elegant writing (hypothetically, "John is a hunter" could be written as "John hunts animals") in favor of unambiguous meaning, and clarity is closer to the encyclopedic tone and goals of the wiki than style.
I also propose that we suggest in the MoS that editors link to specific pages that disambiguate the subject when sufficient context cannot be added, such as in lists or tables. This might result in pages or redirects for otherwise unremarkable topics, like Hunter (profession), but it also uses tools native to the wiki to relieve some of the confusion by directing readers to a specific meaning.
Specifically, I propose:
- adding an H2-level section after Chronological items for Classes.
- incorporating the first two proposals above into this section.
- adding an item to the Wikilinks section explicitly allowing for using links to clarify ambiguous terms. -Oznogon (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Bumping this three-year-old proposal. If there's no interest, please feel free to close it out as rejected. -Oznogon (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Four years is probably sufficient to have this agreed, so will formally do so in a week's time - what's another week? Maybe just worth considering 2E, though, in that week in case there are any newly discovered points to make regarding the new edition? 19 December is the deadline now then. --Fleanetha (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Avoid "It is known"/"known to be"
|
|
Changes Accepted |
While following on to edits and new articles, I see phrases like this very often:
- "It is known that dragons lair in caves..."
- "These creatures are known to live in the Mindspin Mountains..."
- "Goblins have been known to carry dogslicers into battle..."
I propose instructing chroniclers to avoid those phrases. Including these phrases introduces doubt into the text—is it known but untrue? how widely known is it?—which is often not reflected in the source and not in line with our point of view (emphasis in the policy):
| “ | While in theory these things are not known to anyone within the Pathfinder universe, PathfinderWiki's POV is all-knowing, just like a Game Master or reader of Pathfinder fiction. | ” |
In all of the above contrived examples, the phrase can be removed without losing any context—those facts "are known" because an authoritative source definitively stated it. Even if there is an in-universe controversy about a fact, that controversy can be explained in more explicit terms than these. -Oznogon (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I am probably guilty of this, but it's a good prompt with a rationale and so I agree to its inclusion. --Fleanetha (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sure i'm another guilty of this, sometimes it is just the simplest way to reword a one sentence fact from a source. I can see it either way, personally its not something that bothers me enough to be a documented rule, but I'll abide to it either way I Abstain to this vote. -- Cpt kirstov (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. Tighter, more efficient language is always preferred over wheel-spinning. If a sentence can only be included by changing it in this way, then it's probably a simple enough sentence or basic enough fact to not count as plagiarism to include it verbatim.—
Yoda8myhead (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Another change with no dissension we can tidy - setting the clock for a week and we can formally accept this change. Any new comments please? --Fleanetha (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to set clocks to accept changes that have already attained consensus. These changes have been categorized as open for years; if someone wanted to chime in on them, they've had their chance.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)