User talk:Vivaldimort
Works of fiction endure[edit]
A work of fiction continues to exist even after it is complete. Using past tense means it no longer exists. Example - see The Adventures of Tom Sawyer or more amusingly Epic of Gilgamesh. Also if you have an editorial issue with an article make a comment in the talk page for the article, not inline in the article itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Account was registered in 2009 and that was your first edit? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- The account was created numerous years ago, yes, but I actually felt strongly enough about this to reset my password so I could go in and not even do the edit I wanted - it said it wasn't "allowed" - so I gave my informed and qualified opinion as a linguist that this "was/is" police is a very bad idea, take it or leave it. I will keep an eye on this though, just to see if Wikipedia wants to be either the grammar police or an open encyclopedia. Have fun! Vivaldimort (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Strange change in use of tense then. I tend to use present tense for things that still exist Acropolis of Athens vs. past tense for things that don't anymore Library of Alexandria and so far Wikipedia follows that. I was unaware that scholars had changed that. Since a series of television episodes still exist and are available for rebroadcast and purchase, it looks strange to treat them like they have ceased to exist in articles that talk about them. In general the Wikipedia manual of style and choices on how to use language when there are options makes sense to most editors and readers. I see no reason to change them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to offend. My actual point is that neither scholars nor anyone can "decide" on what's "correct" in language - this misconception is called Linguistic Prescriptivism. I think there's a page on that topic here too. The scientific consensus in linguistic is that prescriptive standards are social constructs, usually used to oppress; natural language is based on common sense and relevance. Any other question, I'm here! Vivaldimort (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Most publications, including this one, have a manual of style or style guide. Not prescriptive for the language at large but it may be more prescriptive for how the language is used in that publication so that there is some appearance of consistency in the articles produced. Wikipedia's is pretty lenient. Wikipedia's style guide is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Different national variations of English do cause some issues but we do try to maintain a somewhat more formal encyclopedic tone in the articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Manuals of style are very good indications for very formal writing. They're especially good with where punctuation goes and anything else that is completely extra-linguistic. I think we can both agree on this point. Works of fiction may endure in our hearts when everybody already realizes they are in the public domain (e.g. Pride and Prejudice) - in these cases, using tense is irrelevant because the *implicature* arising from the tense are irrelevant to the reader. In cases of a show that has recently been canceled despite a growing audience, the most *relevant* information is necessary; when present tense is used in natural speech to refer to TV shows (when describing them as an entity), the implicature that the show is still in production is generated. The usage of the word "was" is extremely likely to infer that it's been canceled, which is what you want the article to infer - the state of things. To further discredit the argument that the verbs "is" vs. "was" implicate existence regardless of context, posit that the word used is "was". The implication that is in question here is, supposedly, the show's existence. A show with "is" generates the implicature that it is in production. A show with "was" generates the implicature that it's not - but the supposed manual wants the editors to enforce an extra-linguistic agenda by pretending that the implicature "X was" = "X didn't exist" is true. Is anybody going to read "Gravity Falls was a show that..." and think "OMG, it doesn't actually exist because they use the past tense"? Nope. So, I'll reiterate my point: I know manuals are there for a reason, but so is common sense and the notion that this is meant for readers in possession of common sense, otherwise they'd be referring to some lesser information source. Let them read the better quality of information.
- The complete intro sentence is "
Gravity Falls is an American animated television series produced by Disney Television Animation that first aired on Disney Channel ... from June 15, 2012 to February 15, 2016
". The article is about the fictional work which still exists and endures, the first run info is correctly expressed in the past tense as it has competed. There is full communication to any reader with that construct and the stated end date tells the reader production of new episodes has ceased. Compare with how we treat other series such as the book series Harry Potter and the related film series Harry Potter (film series). Just because Rawling is finished with the series we don't consider her creative work in the past tense. We are pretty consistent with how we handle creative works. It would break that consistency to treat competed television series differently than other series and other extant fictional creations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)- Well, the first line is still ambiguous about the status of the show; it'd be marginally better, if it explicitly stated it canceled, but it doesn't anywhere on the page, giving the impression from the very few words and until the rest of the page that the show's status is anything but canceled. Your consistency must be admired but your practices should be context-dependent, otherwise they become bureaucracy. Since the people who look up Wiki page on a show want 1) basic details (such as status) 2) plot summary etc., this policy is not servicing its audience. If Wiki policy was that each show page also explicitly stated its status in a preallocated position which an average user would clearly see, then the policy is more likely to generate relevant information. Vivaldimort (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Part of the ambiguity is that we really don't know why the series ended and don't want to speculate in the article. According to the creator the last episode was a planned final episode that could indicate is wasn't cancelled as such but just reached its planned conclusion and ended there. The series is complete though and not left hanging with unresolved plot elements that can happens when television series are cancelled unexpectedly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response. I thank you for your reply and understand your position. The thing is, according to the show's creator, it's totally done. The source is this http://deadline.com/2015/11/gravity-falls-ending-disney-xd-alex-hirsch-1201632514/. Leaving it in the present tense is wishful thinking at best. Sorry for the awkwardness, I haven't properly edited on Wiki in a decade, but when I do put my time to it it's because I honestly believe it's worth the editors' time. Vivaldimort (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah he said he ended it as he planned and it was not cancelled "Hirsch pointed out that he was ending Gravity Falls, rather than it being canceled." I don't think most people expect a series to be continued after it is completed but it occasionally does happen Kim Possible for example. Some fans do wishfully hope for resumption but I doubt many will read the article and seriously expect that to happen. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response. I thank you for your reply and understand your position. The thing is, according to the show's creator, it's totally done. The source is this http://deadline.com/2015/11/gravity-falls-ending-disney-xd-alex-hirsch-1201632514/. Leaving it in the present tense is wishful thinking at best. Sorry for the awkwardness, I haven't properly edited on Wiki in a decade, but when I do put my time to it it's because I honestly believe it's worth the editors' time. Vivaldimort (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Part of the ambiguity is that we really don't know why the series ended and don't want to speculate in the article. According to the creator the last episode was a planned final episode that could indicate is wasn't cancelled as such but just reached its planned conclusion and ended there. The series is complete though and not left hanging with unresolved plot elements that can happens when television series are cancelled unexpectedly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the first line is still ambiguous about the status of the show; it'd be marginally better, if it explicitly stated it canceled, but it doesn't anywhere on the page, giving the impression from the very few words and until the rest of the page that the show's status is anything but canceled. Your consistency must be admired but your practices should be context-dependent, otherwise they become bureaucracy. Since the people who look up Wiki page on a show want 1) basic details (such as status) 2) plot summary etc., this policy is not servicing its audience. If Wiki policy was that each show page also explicitly stated its status in a preallocated position which an average user would clearly see, then the policy is more likely to generate relevant information. Vivaldimort (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- The complete intro sentence is "
- Manuals of style are very good indications for very formal writing. They're especially good with where punctuation goes and anything else that is completely extra-linguistic. I think we can both agree on this point. Works of fiction may endure in our hearts when everybody already realizes they are in the public domain (e.g. Pride and Prejudice) - in these cases, using tense is irrelevant because the *implicature* arising from the tense are irrelevant to the reader. In cases of a show that has recently been canceled despite a growing audience, the most *relevant* information is necessary; when present tense is used in natural speech to refer to TV shows (when describing them as an entity), the implicature that the show is still in production is generated. The usage of the word "was" is extremely likely to infer that it's been canceled, which is what you want the article to infer - the state of things. To further discredit the argument that the verbs "is" vs. "was" implicate existence regardless of context, posit that the word used is "was". The implication that is in question here is, supposedly, the show's existence. A show with "is" generates the implicature that it is in production. A show with "was" generates the implicature that it's not - but the supposed manual wants the editors to enforce an extra-linguistic agenda by pretending that the implicature "X was" = "X didn't exist" is true. Is anybody going to read "Gravity Falls was a show that..." and think "OMG, it doesn't actually exist because they use the past tense"? Nope. So, I'll reiterate my point: I know manuals are there for a reason, but so is common sense and the notion that this is meant for readers in possession of common sense, otherwise they'd be referring to some lesser information source. Let them read the better quality of information.
- Most publications, including this one, have a manual of style or style guide. Not prescriptive for the language at large but it may be more prescriptive for how the language is used in that publication so that there is some appearance of consistency in the articles produced. Wikipedia's is pretty lenient. Wikipedia's style guide is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Different national variations of English do cause some issues but we do try to maintain a somewhat more formal encyclopedic tone in the articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to offend. My actual point is that neither scholars nor anyone can "decide" on what's "correct" in language - this misconception is called Linguistic Prescriptivism. I think there's a page on that topic here too. The scientific consensus in linguistic is that prescriptive standards are social constructs, usually used to oppress; natural language is based on common sense and relevance. Any other question, I'm here! Vivaldimort (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Strange change in use of tense then. I tend to use present tense for things that still exist Acropolis of Athens vs. past tense for things that don't anymore Library of Alexandria and so far Wikipedia follows that. I was unaware that scholars had changed that. Since a series of television episodes still exist and are available for rebroadcast and purchase, it looks strange to treat them like they have ceased to exist in articles that talk about them. In general the Wikipedia manual of style and choices on how to use language when there are options makes sense to most editors and readers. I see no reason to change them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)