859
edits
Talk:Epoloch system: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
::::Shouldn't we simply remove the mention of the region being unknown/unidentified? In this case, it's known to pretty much everyone. And even if it were only known to the Forerunners, it should still be something like "a planet in the Forerunner ecumene". Instead of focusing on the lack of details (such as Requiem being on the extreme boarder of the galaxy or in the Orion Arm or whatever), we should focus on the details we know. "Unidentified" should be kept for pages that would require a name (Persons, ships, planets, etc), we know they exist but they weren't named in any Halo media, so we don't have much of a choice.[[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 21:11, 20 June 2013 (EDT) | ::::Shouldn't we simply remove the mention of the region being unknown/unidentified? In this case, it's known to pretty much everyone. And even if it were only known to the Forerunners, it should still be something like "a planet in the Forerunner ecumene". Instead of focusing on the lack of details (such as Requiem being on the extreme boarder of the galaxy or in the Orion Arm or whatever), we should focus on the details we know. "Unidentified" should be kept for pages that would require a name (Persons, ships, planets, etc), we know they exist but they weren't named in any Halo media, so we don't have much of a choice.[[User:Imrane-117|Imrane-117]] ([[User talk:Imrane-117|talk]]) 21:11, 20 June 2013 (EDT) | ||
Oh, totally agree Killjax...you can explicitly see the ''Dawn'''s trajectory and you can see how a new trajectory yanks the ship off its course directly toward Requiem on that holographic display. Just saying the ''Dawn'' had to have exited Slipspace in the edge of the Epoloch system as it couldn't have gotten | Oh, totally agree Killjax...you can explicitly see the ''Dawn'''s trajectory and you can see how a new trajectory yanks the ship off its course directly toward Requiem on that holographic display. Just saying the ''Dawn'' had to have exited Slipspace in the edge of the Epoloch system as it couldn't have gotten farther in 4 years without a translight capability. | ||
Also agree with you Imrane-117. Even a reference to unidentified seems more like its for the fans reading instead of something in-universe. [[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 21:17, 20 June 2013 (EDT) | Also agree with you Imrane-117. Even a reference to unidentified seems more like its for the fans reading instead of something in-universe. [[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 21:17, 20 June 2013 (EDT) | ||
:The wiki's viewpoint in relation to the universe is something that hasn't been clearly established - we've toyed with the idea of presenting it as an ONI document or something to that effect (see the site background), but beyond that we have no proper (fan-)fictional trappings. I would imagine our perspective occupies a strange limbo between the real-world fandom and an in-universe document - an inevitable result of the limits of our knowledge in relation to the UNSC, for example. It bears a mention, however, that we have two different established perspectives - the aforementioned in-universe viewpoint, used in most articles, and a purely real-world one which is applied in articles about real-world subjects as well as certain sections like Production notes, Trivia, Behind the scenes, and so on. The [[Halopedia:Manual of Style#Perspectives in articles|relevant section]] in the Manual of Style sums it up quite nicely. | |||
:Coming back to the unknowns, Imrane-117 is right on the money. Sometimes we have to resort to labeling subjects as "unidentified" because we simply don't know the name and can't make one up either. However, using the word is also rather pointless - it does not actually tell anything about the subject and as Imrane-117 said, it draws unnecessary focus to what we ''don't'' know. Thus we've gradually began to phase out our excess of "unidentified" subjects in favor of actually descriptive titles in the vein of [[Buck's squad]] or [[Truth and Reconciliation's AI]] wherever possible. The same applies to dead-weight statements like the "unknown region of space" in this article, or the very common "what happened to (the subject) after this is unknown" (which is actually noted as an example of what not to do in the Manual of Style). | |||
:You're also right about the modern-day comparison example; if we have comparisons to real-world counterparts, they should obviously say "20th/21st century" or what you said instead of "modern-day" or the like, unless it's a trivia or note section. These things happen a lot and with members from different backgrounds (different wikis have wildly different standards - many are written from a more real-world perspective than ours) not everyone always bothers to read our policies before editing. As with everything in this wiki, we can't fix everything at once and wherever these redundant structures or anachronisms continue to persist, feel free to change them. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 08:11, 21 June 2013 (EDT) | |||
::That was very helpful, thank you. I don't object to changing things here and there, but I don't want to be "That New Guy" who keeps changing things. I want to learn the standards and practices of this wiki and I have been doing so with just reading random entries for the past few weeks. I'm sure my questions will diminish now that I'm getting used to the place. :) [[User:ScaleMaster117|ScaleMaster117]] ([[User talk:ScaleMaster117|talk]]) 10:47, 21 June 2013 (EDT) | |||