More actions
Index → Panopticon → Discontinuity pages: spelling and grammar
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
The discontinuity pages are a sort of weird hybrid, halfway between a conversation (like a Forum or Talk page) and an article.
In particular, we don't sign questions and answers, and try to write the answers in an authoritative rather than speculative style.
But, at the same time, we generally don't replace or modify previous answers; instead, we add additional ones.
So, should spelling, grammar, wording, etc. be fixed on these pages, as in articles, or should the answers be left alone to reflect the original poster's intention (so long as they're coherent)? --Falcotron 22:23, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
- They are something of a weird hybrid. But they are theories rather than opinions, so I think they should be edited to at the very least be readable.
- Also any personal opinions shouldn't be there, opinions being for the realms of The Howling to deal with. It's a somewhat vague line but personal opinions (stuff on the Forums and talk pages) are signed, stuff in the discontinuity is theory though not personal. --Tangerineduel 13:26, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the discon pages aren't a hybrid in any sense. They're forum pages, and therefore explicitly discussions. I admit to editing a couple of lines when I transferred some stuff over — simply because they were god awful or because they were repetitive after separating the initial statement and the response from each other. But I kept a lot of horrible, horrible grammar and spelling in. The whole point of the move, from my perspective, was so that we could put those discussions in an area where copyediting was less of an issue. Perhaps more explicitly, I thought we were tucking those sections away in a zero maintenance zone.
- I'm also not sure I'm seeing TD's point above. How is a theory different than an opinion, exactly? And I'm really confused by the intimation that the discon sections aren't in The Howling. Of course they are. That was surely the point of the exercise. They are in an area where people can say whatever they want. We should not get into the business of watching these sections like a hawk for grammatical errors and confusing wording. To my mind, they are — like every part of the Howling — little admin-less areas for our users to play in however they want — provided they don't actually commit vandalism. Now that the TV pages are in — and let's face it, that was the bulk of pre-existing discon commentary — I think we just step back and let them evolve naturally. It's made explicitly clear on the story page and on the discon page (through the use of Template:discontinuity) that users are entering into a discussion and navigating away from the article proper. That should be all the action we need take, except in the case of true vandalism. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 19:06, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Although I agree that putting the discussion in terms of "theory" vs. "opinion" is a bit awkward, I think what Tangerineduel is getting it makes sense anyway.
- If the intention is for it to just be forum pages, then nobody should be touching anyone else's posts. But in that case, we really ought to have people signing their comments. For one thing, it's a lot easier to have a discussion when you know who you're talking with. For another, it's just easier to say "going back to CzechOut's point above" rather than "going back to 2 points before the one 2 levels of indentation from here".
- If the intention is closer to something like the Answers site, then it makes sense for people to edit existing responses to clarify them, rather than to (as people more often do) add a whole new 90%-redundant one just to clarify one part or add one bit. And, while we don't need to be vigilant to keep them in perfect form, if something is confusing or just painful to read, and you happen to notice, it's better to fix it than not.
- And honestly, I don't know what the intention is, which is why I brought this up. --Falcotron 19:45, June 3, 2010 (UTC)