Tardis:Out-of-universe perspective: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{mosnav|p=Point of view|In-universe perspective|c=Point of view}} {{moss|When writing the behing-the-scenes section of an in-universe article, write from the point of view th...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{mosnav|p=Point of view|In-universe perspective|c=Point of view}} | {{mosnav|p=Point of view|In-universe perspective|c=Point of view}} | ||
{{moss|When writing the | {{moss|When writing the behind-the-scenes section of an in-universe article, write from the point of view that your subject is fictional. There should be an obvious perspective shift from the rest of the article. | ||
<br><br>Alternately, if you're writing an article which is entirely about a real world subject — such as an actor, director or bit of behind-the-scenes terminology — write in a simple, journalistic style, as you would find in a newspaper, obituary or encyclopaedia entry.}} | <br><br>Alternately, if you're writing an article which is entirely about a real world subject — such as an actor, director or bit of behind-the-scenes terminology — write in a simple, journalistic style, as you would find in a newspaper, obituary or encyclopaedia entry.}} | ||
Revision as of 05:16, 15 November 2012
|
In-universe perspective → Neutral point of view → We're Wikipedia's evil twin → Out-of-universe perspective |
Alternately, if you're writing an article which is entirely about a real world subject — such as an actor, director or bit of behind-the-scenes terminology — write in a simple, journalistic style, as you would find in a newspaper, obituary or encyclopaedia entry.
There are two instances on this wiki when you will write from an out-of-universe perspective: when you're writing an article that is entirely about a real world subject, or when you're adding to the "behind the scenes" section on an in-universe article.
Real world articles
Real world articles are those articles ultimately housed in the category called real world". These are articles about production elements, such as actors, stories and filmmaking terminology.
Such articles should be written in a straightforward, third-person perspective, such as you would find in any newspaper or encyclopaedia.
It's useful to attempt to write such articles in the past tense as much as possible, since all these articles will ultimately be converted to the past tense, anyway.
Here are some common situations:
| Correct | Incorrect |
|---|---|
| Adam Smith directed the Doctor Who story The Eleventh Hour | Adam Smith is a British television director who directed the Doctor Who story The Eleventh Hour (It's unnecessary to use the present tense to call him a British television director. Our emphasis on any behind-the-scenes person is what they did in the DWU — and everyone's work on the DWU ends up in the past tense.)' |
| Smith and Jones was the first episode of the third series of BBC Wales Doctor Who. | Smith and Jones is the first episode of the third series of BBC Wales Doctor Who. Yes, it is. But as time passes, people inevitably start thinking of older episodes in the past tense. It's better to write it in the past tense from the beginning. |
| The 414th issue of Doctor Who Magazine was published on 11 November 2009. | The 414th issue of Doctor Who Magazine is current in November 2009. (It's tempting with periodicals to think of the here and now, especially if you're entering them into our database when they're first on newsstands. But they very quickly become back issues, and ultimately slide to a more natural-sounding past tense. Therefore, you should use the past tense from the start.) |
Behind the scenes sections
Every article about an in-universe subject — that is to say, every article ultimately housed in the mega-category, Category:Time-Space Visualiser — can have two distinct components: the main body and the section labelled "behind the scenes".
