Talk:The Gifted (American TV series)/Archive 2

Tense issues at The Gifted (TV series)
Hi, I thought it best to start a discussion with regards to tense usage in a tv article, as I am fairly certain that another editor (who insists on an incorrect usage of verb tenses) won't initiate discussion here. The section currently going back and forth:


 * This:


 * Emma Dumont as Lorna Dane / Polaris: {{Cast list break|A brave and loyal mutant whose abilities include controlling magnetism. She is introduced as being "unstable" due to bipolar disorder. Nix explains that there is "some awareness" that Polaris is the daughter of Magneto, within the series leading to the question "does she accept the mantle of her birthright? Is it her job to be Magneto in his absence?" Justin Gilbert Alba, of Comicsverse.com, notes the dedication with which Dumont has researched her character, having read the comics wherein Polaris appeared. The character is depicted with green hair, as she is in the comics, but "subdued shades of green". Dumont took mechanical engineering classes at Georgia State University to help understand the character's abilities. Nix did not originally intend to have the character in the show, and only added her as a love interest for Eclipse, but later noted that she "emerges as a central character" for the series.


 * or This:


 * Emma Dumont as Lorna Dane / Polaris: {{Cast list break|A brave and loyal mutant whose abilities include controlling magnetism. She is introduced as being "unstable" due to bipolar disorder. Nix explained that, within the series, there is "some awareness" that Polaris is the daughter of Magneto, leading to the question "does she accept the mantle of her birthright? Is it her job to be Magneto in his absence?" The character is depicted with green hair, as she is in the comics, but "subdued shades of green". Dumont took mechanical engineering classes at Georgia State University to help understand the character's abilities. Nix did not originally intend to have the character in the show, and only added her as a love interest for Eclipse, but later noted that she "emerges as a central character" for the series.

The same editor arguing for past tense usage has made the same argument before, without consensus. I think some discussion about how we use tense in Wikipedia would be helpful to all parties concerned. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved this discussion back to the article talk page, because the MoS talk page isn't for hashing out every style matter that ever comes up at articles; it's for working on the guideline and (by practice is not original intent) for settling broader interpretation questions, e.g. across entire categories of articles. Hashing out something like this is difficult at the MoS page, because the context is missing (e.g., no there one knows whether "Nix" means a character or a real person), and any conclusions that would be reached, even if correct, wouldn't be known to the regular editors of the actual article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;{{sup|ʌ}}ⱷ҅{{sub|ᴥ}}ⱷ{{sup|ʌ}}&lt;  10:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at the material in-context, I would conclude:
 * Nix is a real person not one of the characters, so past tense is used for this person's actions. See MOS:FICT: We use present tense for the fictional material (other than out-of-narrative background story, which is also past tense, as in "She {{bxt|is looking}} for clues about her brother, who {{bxt|disappeared}} when she was ten."). Using "Nix has explained" would be even better, since it makes it clearer that it's meta material, and the reader would be helped further by "has explained in an {interview | blog post| press release | whatever}{{sup|[1]}}", to make it even clearer.
 * The "within the series" bit doesn't make sense where it's placed; and quoting "some awareness" is pointless as well. What seems to be meant here is "Nix has explained in a {whatever} that some of the characters are aware that Polaris is ...".
 * "Leading to the question, '[two questions, actually]'" is also not right, because the reader has no idea if these questions are quoted dialogue, questions an editor here made up (WP:OR), a quote or paraphrase of Nix stating the intent, or a quote or paraphrase of something a reviewer came up with. Wording like "mantle", "birthright", and "to be Magneto in his absence" is insider-to-the-story-and-your-excitement-about-it writing – i.e., entertainment journalism – not encyclopedic writing, even if you didn't put it in possibly bogus quotation marks and without attribution.  Just replace all of this with something neutral and simple, like "leading them to wonder about her loyalties and motivations", after "is the daughter of Magneto".  If the material is a real quote, and is from Nix, not some random reviewer, and consensus thinks it's important to retain it, the source has to be attributed ("According to ..."), and the quotation has to be cited to a specific source (right now the entire sentence is cited imprecisely to two sources). Such a quotation would be better in the Production section, since it's not about the character in-universe, but about why the character and the relationships to her were structured this way.
 * The Alba sentence is just noise; something like that could be used to introduce a block quotation that demonstrated that intro as factual summary of the attributed quotation. But in this case it's just WP:UNDUE name-dropping and promotion of a website, and an excuse to call Dumont "dedicated" in Wikipedia's own voice, which is not permissible per WP:NPOV policy. Only a quoted notable reviewer can do something like in our material. It also has no relation to the green hair material which immediately follows it, and that in turn has nothing to do with the "Dumont took" material which follows that; it just a stream of non sequiturs.
 * Why is "subdued shades of green" in quotation marks? This is not the sort of thing we would quote. And if we did, it would be attributed to who said it. Just use "She has green hair, but a more subdued hue than in the comics." Way more concise, no pointless quotes, and uses the proper word ("shade" refers to greyscale not color, though people with no arts-and-media background misuse the word frequently).
 * Move the "Nix [has] explained" and "Next did not" material to after all the character description (e.g. green hair). This Nix side commentary is real-world meta-information, not part of the fictional content's description.
 * Move all actor-background-and-preparation material (about Dumont or anyone else) to the Production section where it belongs. In the interim, if you think it'll take time to do this, move it all to the very end of the character descriptions, even after things like "Nix [has] explained", and "Nix did not", which are at least about the character not about the actor.
 * Remove the quotation marks from "unstable". You guys don't seem to have a handle on what quotation marks are for. They are not for everyday wording that's generally descriptive. They're for unusual statements that are not encyclopedic wording and reflect an opinion, e.g. "According to Guy Persson, Polaris is 'the heart and soul of the entire show, and her conflicted feelings about her father are a well-crafted exploration of the tension between ... [blah blah blah]{{'"}}.
 * Hope that helps. I've gone into this level of detail to help suggest how to improve all of the article's (and other articles') text with similar editorial analysis. (And it's needed – articles on pop-culture and entertainment topics are generally the least compliant with WP policies and guidelines, and the most apt to be written like personal blog posts.)  For future reference, please keep discussions like this on the article talk page; if you need input from MoS regulars, you can post a pointer to the article-talk thread, at the main MoS talk page or better yet at WT:MOSFICT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;{{sup|ʌ}}ⱷ҅{{sub|ᴥ}}ⱷ{{sup|ʌ}}&lt;  12:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;{{sup|ʌ}}ⱷ҅{{sub|ᴥ}}ⱷ{{sup|ʌ}}&lt;  18:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|SMcCandlish}}Thanks for taking the time to offer your view on not just the matter I posted in MOS, but the rest of the potential issues as well. I have to admit that the MOS regarding tense is a bit unclear about the separation of fictional character quotes versus real person quotes. As I noted earlier, using present tense to describe an actor's or showrunner's intent that extends into their approach to events beyond the quote (such as, their ongling motivation for a portrayal, or a thematic choice that is to be developed out). If I am to understand you, these quotes are to be expressed in the past tense, is that correct, SMcCandlish? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, we do that in all articles. E.g., if Trump puts out a tweet today saying "I'm going to send a picture of my schlong to Elizabeth II", we'd report that as a past-tense statement, not a present-tense "Trump is saying ...", even if it happened only 1 minute ago. I.e., the only room for confusion here is if you approach writing about fiction here as something special that has been imported into Wikipedia and grafted on it, with its own isolated ruleset you need to learn independently. It's not. It's just encyclopedia writing; the only topically different thing is the use of present tense for most fictional elements as a way to help distinguish the fictional from the real-world facts. And it's not a WP idea; it's how real-world reviewers, film-studies academics, etc. write ("The transitional scene starting the third act is when Gruber tries to shoot McClane and realizes the gun isn't loaded"). An easy way to keep it straight is to write the non-fictional elements, then write the fiction-dependent ones (plot summary, character summaries) in a different edit or series of edits with a different "thinking cap" on. PS: Another way of looking at it is that "Nix explained" can be reworded in other past constructions, and they work, e.g. "Nix has explained", "When Nix explained ... he added that ...", etc.  But you can't do this with present tense without getting obviously faulty results. E.g. "Nix explains" → "Nix is explaining" which is even more obviously non-encyclopedic than "Nix explains".  Nix isn't actively doing anything at all in an interview published months ago. For all we know, he might have been run over by a bus this morning and is no longer among the living. :-)
 * Yes, i noted your use of the past infinitive tense ("Nix has explained"), which I admit that I like a lot more than "Nix explained"; it reads as more encyclopedic. And you're right, maybe I was making it bit more complex than it is, using the wider grammar set used outside Wikipedia and insisting on it in the absence of clear grammar usage guidance from the MOS. Thanks again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Analysis
I think that the subsection titling isn't really necessary as of yet; most of the comparisons being made are to the nazi SS. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"credits A to Y" not supported by source
Chung ... credits ... the earlier casting of Fan Bingbing as Blink ... in X-Men: Days of Future Past to "[Fox's flexibility]" The cited source doesn't actually support this text. The source appears to contain an error (I guess Chung misspoke and they transcribed her speech without asking her for a clarification?), as it makes no sense on this point. I honestly find it easier to read as her crediting her casting to a combination of (i) Fox's flexibility (?) and (ii) the earlier casting of an Asian actress in the same role. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What would your example replacement edit look like? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)