BattleTechWiki talk:Manual of Style

Policy

I strongly recommend that this essay become policy. It forms the basis for Policy:Italics and for several other policies I have in mind, in the arena of Manuals of style. By making it policy directly, we can refer to it in the quest of standardization of articles. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No arguments here. --Scaletail 14:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Past tense in articles about vehicles?

• Discussion moved here from its original location at User talk:Revanche (since removed)

Why did you put the Chameleon article into past tense? Should vehicles etc. not be written in present tense unless clearly and totally extinct? Frabby 07:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for writing about fiction state that you should always write in the past tense about them, because they were written in the past. It does get a bit confusing because BT is a living storyline that is never finished, but I believe the same rules should apply. I haven't always been the best about following them myself, but I think Revanche is in the right here. --Scaletail 12:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Scaletail is right about my motivations. We've talked about it here somewhere, but unfortunately, I'm not as good at you at finding past discussions. I've been planning on writing either an essay or policy candidate that would address it. My in-universe perspective is that we're all researchers at the University of Sarna at some distant point in the future, writing about the past. As new materials (i.e. new products) are uncovered, we add to the historical archives. If you adopt that persona, its easier to bypass 'issues' between the 'now' of CBT and the 'now' of the Dark Ages. (The only exception, of course, would be the real world articles.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree. For starters, contrary to what Revanche wrote above, the fiction being referred (especially the TROs) was not written in the past tense - if it was then I would not have any issues here. More importantly, I feel the decision has already been made long ago as all the BTW 'Mech and vehicle articles (save Chameleon) are actually written in present tense. Frabby 11:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the articles being written that way. Unlike other fictional universes, times does go by in the game. These vehicles/Mechs were written sometimes IN the TROs as present time of the name the TRO. Example: TRO: 3025, TRO:3060, TRO:3075. I believe that articles here should reflect the past since time will past by after the writing of the article. -- Wrangler 11:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) Scaletail was referring to articles on fiction rather than the official sources themselves (which tend to bounce between reported upon and presently occuring, depending upon the character). We are, however, working with several different timelines: CBT (currently in 3076, IIRC), Dark Age (3139 and holding?) and possibly with a whole slew of future Editors waiting to beat down our door for the MechWarrior reboot, set in 3015. By taking the stance (and copius amounts of citations) that -by the time the article is generated- everything is past tense, we avoid internal conflicts of interests as to what "now" we're talking about. Inculcating all Editors into one firm policy (much as we are firm that we don't determine canoncity) of 'past tense', we avoid debates about what is true 'now.' To abuse a phrase: "we report, you decide."

To be honest, aside from the work to change tenses (which is just another unending task of copyediting), I don't see the in-universe downside. Making it present tense, especially considering the nature of the new materials for all eras in CBT, plus those of other official sources, seems to be the greater burden...to me. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not convinced. I maintain that a past-tense approach to BTW as "Jane's BattleTech" is neither doable (for its sheer workload - you are effectively suggesting to "copyedit" aka rewrite the greater part of all articles here!) nor desirable. I still don't understand why BTW should adopt a different style from, say, the TROs in this.

In the hope that maybe there was a misunderstanding, I shall try to explain what I feel is correct, and why:

• The Kentares Massacre is a thing of the past and a finished event within the BT timeline. It is to be referred to in past tense, as it is a past event being reported on.
• The Locust is, not was, a 20-ton 'Mech and will remain that forever. Past tense is not applicable and present tense is called for.
• For OOC articles the same principles apply: Far Country should be covered in present tense, as should be the plot summary. However, if you would create an article about the Telendine, a specific IC JumpShip that has been lost, you would revert to past tense again because the Telendine is no more and the events leading to its loss are a thing of the past. See Liberator as a case in point.

To sum it up, only events (which occurr at a certain point in time) should be referred to in past tense, and only if they are already over. Similarly, specific/individual vehicles or people should be treated in past tense if they are lost/dead/whatever and the article is looking back. Everything else should be written in present tense.

As for timelines, the latest bit of information always sets the viewpoint. Anything else would not make sense because you would otherwise end up reporting on future events. I'd like to add here that, as a contributor and BTW author, I consider myself a real person outside of any BT timeline. Frabby 14:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on that last statement, now I am confused. It seems then that tenses change dependent upon what type of in-character (i.e., a subject not in the Real World, like FASA or Randall Bills, but Illium Shipyards and Kai Allard-Liao) article is being written: dead, alive, presumed dead/missing, currently utilized, currently active, destroyed. So are we writing from the perspective of 3076? Or are we writing from 3139 (as Dark Age stories are being written for BattleCorps)? Some subjects exist in 'the now' in both time lines. An Editor writing from the perspective of the MechWarrior video game reboot may talk about the invasion of Deshler as it is happening now, while if Deshler is the subject of Jihad Turning Points: 3078, then it too will be present tense. Plus the assassination of Lord Muckety-Muck in 3140 on Deshler is also present tense. The reader could be quite confused.

Yes, I am a real person, and I, even as an admin, would see numerous discussions taking place as to whether or not the tense was correct, depending on each particular Editor's POV. As a contributor, as well as an admin, I'm not interested in mediating such debates as to which takes precendence 'this time' for 'this article', when it can be solved with a simple policy of 'this happened then.' To be honest, as a historian yourself, I'd have thought you'd prefer the past-tense.

I understand your point about the Locust. WP does something similar, writing about a current tank (M1A1) in the present tense, while using the past tense for the M4. But, I don't see the downside in writing from the past tense for any article.

As for the editing...no big thing. No article has been deemed to be perfect yet. Bibliographies and references are all screwed up, citations are not at all expected in the articles, many articles don't even have complete sentences. But Editors that seek to bring an article to perfect status and are familiar with these policies can improve articles to meet these standards on an individual article basis. Its not a violation needing a slam-template if an Editor writes in the present status. But, after dealing with all of the various incosistencies, an article will become a featured when it meets all of the policies in-place. I don't intend to 'counsel' Editors who write in the present tense, though -if it becomes policy- I would be willing to use it when Editors seek to promote an article to featured status.

I sense you feel strongly about this, much as I did for including fanon on the site. Can you address any other downsides for past tense?

[Side note: You might want to read this above and take the reins...consensus may be shifting.]--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest moving this discussion to Policy talk:Manual of Style. The discussion I believe you were referring to is at Template_talk:InfoBoxMercUnit#Layout. --Scaletail 23:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and done. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

While I am normally on the side of simplicity, I think I have to agree with Frabby that unit articles should remain in the present tense. I recently edited the "Blood Asp" article and simply could not bring myself to migrate it to past tense. I'm not sure why, but it just sounds wrong. Let me see if I can explain. Fictional events happened in the past. The author put the proverbial pen to paper in the past. If he or she did that in the present of future, we could not read it, therefore it must be the past. The problem is that the Sylph is not an event. It is a thing, however imaginary. Because of that, it exists now just much as it did yesterday and just as much as it will tomorrow. They are markedly different from other fictional objects because I can use it now in a game of BattleTech. I suppose if BT dies and everybody stops writing for it and nobody plays it anymore, we will think of the units in the past tense. Somebody else lend me an assist here. Note that I only refer to unit articles. All other articles on BT (aside from articles about the real world) should be past tense. --Scaletail 00:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Consensus?

Okay, I was hoping to invite more to the debate, but other than Wrangler joining in (thank you), just the usual suspects taking part. And I'd say we're rather entrenched (though in a more positive attitude than usual) and equally so. I feel we really do need to resolve this, and for a pro-past tense contributor, it would be easier now than later, but...in the drive for a featured article, it only has to be resolved before we do host featured articles...so no immediate need. So, we'll proceed as we have done as individuals on this matter, and I'll further resolve to not post-tense-ize current 'mech (et.c) articles, unless I create them myself (which is unlikely, in any case).

Side note: my absence in the near term is not due to this (just to ward off concerns). I've been apart from my family for over a year now; they come back tomorrow and I have 10 days of leave. If I'm hear, it'll be for small eye-catching things and not in my usual Warden role.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophe Reference

If you're like me and have trouble remembering when to use an apostrophe, there's an illustrated guide at http://apostrophe.me/ Even better, it's amusing, so you'll remember what you see there.

Tables

Since we're starting to have disagreements about the use of tables in articles, I propose adding the following text in a new section. This comes from w:Wikipedia:Tables.

When tables are appropriate

Tables are perfect for organizing any information that is best presented in a row-and-column format. This might include:

• Mathematical tables
  • Multiplication tables
  • Tables of divisors
  • Lookup tables
• Lists of information
  • Equivalent words in two or more languages
  • Person, birthdate, occupation
  • Artist, album, year, and label

Often a list is best left as a list. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.

Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table: Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, arranging a group of links, or other strictly visual features. It makes the article harder to edit for other Wikipedians. Also, when compared with tables, wikimarkup is more flexible, easier to use, and less esoteric when used for desktop publishing, page elements, and page orientation and positioning.

--Scaletail 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is keep the text from the above box, but in the list remove/add, so it reads something more relevant, like:

• Word translations
• Person, birthdate, occupation, deathdate
• Wikilinks
• Locations
• Attributes

I'm certain the list can be much larger, but if a nice mix of options achieves the point, then better. Also, I'd make a statement about...well, statements being verboten.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me examples for the last three in the list? I'm not sure where any of them would apply. I agree about the statements. Statements, sentences, phrases don't belong in tables; but in the body of the article. --Scaletail 06:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, there may be a better list of items to...list, but examples of the last three are:

• Wikilinks - Rosice, as in a 'See Also' function
• Locations - X: -281.66 Y: 53.46, Skytower City, etc.
• Attributes: blue eyes, tall, etc.

The list was my brainstorming and was meant to indicate we didn't need to list the same things Wikipedia provided (Multiplication tables, Tables of divisors).