A Stylistic Question: Present or Past tense?

[Argent he/him]

If Renarin's article is Feather's, you need to write it less like an essay and more like an encyclopedia entry I say this in good humor - it's good, no doubts about that. But it does feel more like an essay, it lacks the cold detachment I am used to seeing in encyclopedias. 

 

This, however, is not something I am going to raise beef about. 

[Chaos he/him]

I am not sure I agree with an Abilities section for characters. This - and maybe you too - implies magical abilities, and the majority of Brandon's characters don't have those.

True that. Feather in her very recent and excellent Renarin revision used the term "Attributes and Abilities," which is definitely better.

Though, obviously, not every character article would need to include that section. Additionally, I think it's good to note that for very short articles, it is not a good idea to force this section scheme on it. Two sections when all the info we have is two sentences is kind of silly.

[WeiryWriter he/him]

@Argent Not every article requires every section.  Abilities would be for those characters with magical, or unusual, abilities.

 

I can't think of any other sections for Characters.  Maybe a Relationships section?  Question though, would Trivia before in-world or out-world information?  Because if we have a "Development" Section that should be where the out-world stuff goes but we've been using Trivia for out-world information. (Wow... that does not make sense)  Let's try this again, will both Trivia and Development be out of world? (I think so)

 

Should we do a suggested order as well?  I could see it as

 

Intro

Appearance/Personality

History

Abilities

Relationships

Development

Trivia

Quotes

 

Edit: ALL THE NINJAS!

Edited October 15, 2013 by WeiryWriter

[Argent he/him]

I thought about relationship, but didn't like it. Feels a little redundant, since we can shove its content in the others (family information feels like it should go in Introduction, and friends / other characters they encounter should be in History). Especially for a young Wiki too many sections is bad mojo.

[WeiryWriter he/him]

Yah, Relationships is a very end-game kind of thing.  I see it as in-depth discussions of the characters most important relationships and the effect they have on the character.

[Chaos he/him]

I would personally order it like: Appearance and Personality, Attributes and Abilities, History, Relationships, Development, Quotes, Trivia. I'm not opposed to Quotes being last, though, because that could be a long list. I just feel Abilities should be before with a potentially-extremely-long history section, you know?

For Intro, are you having that be a section unto itself, or the stuff right at the top before any sections? I'd prefer the latter, personally. I only did it for the Shard article because the intro at the top already got too busy XD

[WeiryWriter he/him]

Hmm... I guess Abilities could go before History, yah that does make sense.  And yes the "Intro" was the pre-section stuff at the top of the page.

[Argent he/him]

I don't know, if I am trying to learn about a new character, I probably want to learn their history first and then their abilities. Because the history will likely explain how they got to have those abilities. If length is a concern, there is a table of contents right on top. Adding "Return to Top" buttons around should also be easy - I think it's standard now.

[FeatherWriter she/her]

For those wondering, yes the Renarin article is mine. I pretty much just rewrote it from scratch, and it's an example of how present tense would work. I was telling Chaos over skype, if you all want to give me free rein, I'll sweep over these character articles like a grammatically concious highstorm! I'm trying to decide if I want to work my way through the Kholins or go touch up poor Vin's article. For being arguably the most important character in her series, she's got little more than a plot summary in there right now!

 

I can see history or abilities going either way for which comes first. Content-wise, I'd put history first, but in regards to length, it might be best to have abilities first. It's up to you guys.

 

Can someone explain to me what exactly the "development" section entails? And perhaps we should rename it? At present I can't tell if we're meaning something like character development over time or Brandon's process in developing the character before writing, or what. Something to clear up that ambiguity might be nice.

[WeiryWriter he/him]

Can someone explain to me what exactly the "development" section entails? And perhaps we should rename it? At present I can't tell if we're meaning something like character development over time or Brandon's process in developing the character before writing, or what. Something to clear up that ambiguity might be nice.

 

I think Chaos' idea was Brandon's process of creating the character.

[Argent he/him]

If that's the case, I don't feel it's necessary. Maybe a few interesting tidbits could be included in the Trivia section, but I can't justify giving this an entire section.

[FeatherWriter she/her]

I would agree. That kind of thing could easily be put under Trivia, I think.

[Joe ST he/him]

Brandon's development is trivia imo, though maybe those could be interchanged depending on how much depth we need to go into. I don't think any of these things should be hard-and-fast rules tho. Just a suggested layout.

[Meg]

So do we have a new convention now in writing all articles in present tense? (I'm not literally knowledgeable, but it feels wrong to me as for all we write about -- except future books -- is in the past, and we don't really know what is "now" in the cosmere. I mean our RL-world "now" isn't related to the cosmere.) 

[Joe ST he/him]

We haven't decided yet, and you are quite welcome to continue writing in past or present tense until we have figured out what we are wanting to stick to. I am possibly leaning towards us not having a firm stance on this, tho I still kinda want to be consistent across the wiki, I don't really think we should stop or alienate people that want to edit in a particular style? Maybe we should just say, edit in whichever style you feel comfortable in, as long as you're also comfortable that it may be changed, which is kind of a prerequsite of editing the wiki anyway.

[Iredomi]

I would support a move to majority present tense, with past tense used where and when it is applicable (in articles concerning in world history and other such exceptions).

The majority past tense is cool but I would see it working best if the Coppermind was constructed as an in-Cosmere wiki which it inherantly is not as it focuses on all relevant Brandon Sanderson info (as it probably ought to).

However my writing is disjointed at best so anything I contribute would probably end up being reworked significantly. And ultimately there are those who are a lot more invested in the wiki and maintaining it than I am so it should really be up to them.

[cem he/him]

Since we don't seem to have a final decision yet, I'd like to share my opinion as well, albeit a little late.

 

I think we should use the present and past tenses together. Historical events (history of a nation, character biography etc.--any event, really) should be always written in the past tense. The rest should be present tense.

 

A small example:

 

AonDor is a manifestation of Investiture on Sel. ... If an Aon is drawn incorrectly, it can cause unpredictable consequences. For example, some time before the Reod, an Elantrian made a mistake while drawing Aon Ien. This caused the subject of the healing to manifest an effect very much like the half-finished Shaod that was seen on post-Reod Elantrians.

 

In the case of dead characters, extinct species, fallen nations etc. the article should be written completely in the past tense. I realize we may have some trouble determining if a character is dead since we have multiple worlds in different times, so we should determine it on the last published book in a given series, not the cosmere as a whole. Raoden was alive at the end of Elantris, and his article should be in present tense, even though some 300 years has passed by The Way of Kings.

 

I'm not entirely sure but I think this is the way Wikipedia does it by the way.

[FeatherWriter she/her]

Actually, Wikipedia (for the most part) is standardized to present tense. The  Sherlock Holmes and Prince Hamlet pages are good examples of this "narrative present" style in regards to a character bio. This style should be used for any kind of events or history as well.

 

The thing about trying to "switch" to past tense for dead characters or historical events is that it again tries to sync a fictional timeline to our own. It's much easier to stay fully separate from the events and use the present tense all throughout. Under this "switch" method, what would be done if a character dies in the middle of a book? Should we write Dalinar's page in all present-tense right now, but if he dies go back and re-edit everything to past? Would we say that all of the Mistborn Original Trilogy characters should be written in past tense because most of them are dead by the time Alloy of Law comes out? Or just the ones that are dead at the end of the series? It's a lot of work and a confusing system to work with. It might be a jarring switch from reading present to reading past simply based on the character's state at the "last time" we saw them. 

 

It also somewhat writes as though the person reading is current with all of the cosmere books, so that they know what is "most recent." It could be somewhat of a spoiler to see that a character's page is being written in past tense whereas all the other characters are in present, if that signifies that they are dead by the most recent book. Narrative present separates the author and the work about which they are speaking, showing that our timeline is wholly separate from theirs.

 

All of those events in the books "happen" everytime we open a book. It's not like Earth history, where an event happens once and then it's gone in the past forever. With a book, the events and things that happen are never truly "past." Vin joins a thieving crew every time I open The Final Empire. Kaladin is sold as a slave on the Shattered Plains and he becomes the bridgeleader of the Bridge 4 every time I decide to reread The Way of Kings.

 

I know I said I wouldn't argue for one tense or the other, but... I kind of am. It just makes more sense to do it right while we have the chance, doesn't it? I realize narrative present seems like it would be a wierd thing to work with, especially when the books are written in past tense, but honestly, it makes the most sense. There's a reason why it is the convention when talking about fictional characters and events, and it's what is "correct" in modern English.

[cem he/him]

Actually, Wikipedia (for the most part) is standardized to present tense. The  Sherlock Holmes and Prince Hamlet pages are good examples of this "narrative present" style in regards to a character bio. This style should be used for any kind of events or history as well.

Wikipedia uses present tense for fictional characters only. This might be a different topic entirely but I'm opposed to having Doylist articles on the wiki except for specific articles (books, real life people etc.) If we are going to use Wikipedia as a basis, I think we should look at the biographies.

Dead: Charlemagne

Alive: Obama

 

As you can see, they are using the tenses as I'm suggesting.

 

The thing about trying to "switch" to past tense for dead characters or historical events is that it again tries to sync a fictional timeline to our own. It's much easier to stay fully separate from the events and use the present tense all throughout.

Accepting a point in a book is not the same thing as syncing a fictional timeline to ours. In fact, I'm not saying anything about our timeline. This is Roshar's timeline we're talking about. At the end of tWoK, Taln comes to Kholinar. Under what I'm suggesting, that would be the present of Roshar. Anything happening before that the past, and anything that will happen after the future.

 

Under this "switch" method, what would be done if a character dies in the middle of a book?

Simple. The article is written in past tense. All dead characters are written in past tense.

 

Should we write Dalinar's page in all present-tense right now, but if he dies go back and re-edit everything to past?

Yep. Exactly.

 

Would we say that all of the Mistborn Original Trilogy characters should be written in past tense because most of them are dead by the time Alloy of Law comes out? Or just the ones that are dead at the end of the series?

I said we should keep timelines by series in my initial post, but what I should have said was probably Shardworld. The present of Scadrial is at the end of The Alloy of Law, so yeah, the characters of the original trilogy, as well as the articles relating to the Final Empire, since it no longer exists, would be in past tense.

 

It also somewhat writes as though the person reading is current with all of the cosmere books, so that they know what is "most recent." It could be somewhat of a spoiler to see that a character's page is being written in past tense whereas all the other characters are in present, if that signifies that they are dead by the most recent book. Narrative present separates the author and the work about which they are speaking, showing that our timeline is wholly separate from theirs.

If someone is entering a wiki, I think they should be accepting being spoilered. All articles are filled with spoilers. I don't know how we could even keep the wiki, if we had to concern ourselves with not spoiling people.

 

All of those events in the books "happen" everytime we open a book. It's not like Earth history, where an event happens once and then it's gone in the past forever. With a book, the events and things that happen are never truly "past." Vin joins a thieving crew every time I open The Final Empire. Kaladin is sold as a slave on the Shattered Plains and he becomes the bridgeleader of the Bridge 4 every time I decide to reread The Way of Kings.

I disagree. Roshar and Scadrial have their own histories. Vin joined Kelsier's thieving crew in 1019 FE(?) and Kaladin became a member of Bridge Four in 1173 EoS, regardless of what you or I do with our books.

 

I know I said I wouldn't argue for one tense or the other, but... I kind of am. It just makes more sense to do it right while we have the chance, doesn't it? I realize narrative present seems like it would be a wierd thing to work with, especially when the books are written in past tense, but honestly, it makes the most sense. There's a reason why it is the convention when talking about fictional characters and events, and it's what is "correct" in modern English.

I agree with the bolded. The longer we wait, the harder it is going to be to establish a standard later on. Maybe we should have a decision before WoR comes out. I would rather have a standard I don't agree with than no standard.

[WeiryWriter he/him]

Wikipedia uses present tense for fictional characters only. This might be a different topic entirely but I'm opposed to having Doylist articles on the wiki except for specific articles (books, real life people etc.) If we are going to use Wikipedia as a basis, I think we should look at the biographies.

Dead: Charlemagne

Alive: Obama

 

As you can see, they are using the tenses as I'm suggesting.

But the cosmere is fictional. And yes they are using the tenses you are suggesting but it would be wrong to do that on the coppermind. Charlemagne is written in past tense because he is in "our" past. NO part of the cosmere is in our past, it is entirely in our present. Any "dead" characters are also alive at any given point in our timestream.

 

Accepting a point in a book is not the same thing as syncing a fictional timeline to ours. In fact, I'm not saying anything about our timeline. This is Roshar's timeline we're talking about. At the end of tWoK, Taln comes to Kholinar. Under what I'm suggesting, that would be the present of Roshar. Anything happening before that the past, and anything that will happen after the future.

Except pointing at any point in time and saying "this is the present when we write articles on the coppermind" is the definition of syncing a fictional timeline with our own.

I said we should keep timelines by series in my initial post, but what I should have said was probably Shardworld. The present of Scadrial is at the end of The Alloy of Law, so yeah, the characters of the original trilogy, as well as the articles relating to the Final Empire, since it no longer exists, would be in past tense.

 

I disagree. Roshar and Scadrial have their own histories. Vin joined Kelsier's thieving crew in 1019 FE(?) and Kaladin became a member of Bridge Four in 1173 EoS, regardless of what you or I do with our books.

I don't agree with having a different "present" for every planet (well I disagree with having a "present" at all but that's beside the point). All of the planets are part of the same timestream, cutting it up like that is just messy. Having everything being in present tense would not only be technically correct but would just give a sense of order to the wiki. We wouldn't have to worry about what tense something should be in, and it would be consistent for every article.

 

I agree with the bolded. The longer we wait, the harder it is going to be to establish a standard later on. Maybe we should have a decision before WoR comes out. I would rather have a standard I don't agree with than no standard.

I agree as well.

[FeatherWriter she/her]

Welp, I was going to respond, but then Weiry came in and said everything I was going to. *username that ends in "Writer" high-five!*

[WeiryWriter he/him]

Welp, I was going to respond, but then Weiry came in and said everything I was going to. *username that ends in "Writer" high-five!*

Writers Assemble! We must present a united front!

[cem he/him]

But the cosmere is fictional. And yes they are using the tenses you are suggesting but it would be wrong to do that on the coppermind. Charlemagne is written in past tense because he is in "our" past. NO part of the cosmere is in our past, it is entirely in our present. Any "dead" characters are also alive at any given point in our timestream.

This is only a matter of perspective. Many fan wikis are written as if their fictional world was the real world, and many are written otherwise. There is no wrong thing to do here, only what we decide. Obviously, I am in favor of the former.

 

Avatar Wiki, for example, writes their articles the way I'm suggesting. Here's their manual of style: http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Wiki:Manual_of_Style#Tense

 

And WoT Wiki is (for the most part, it's not as well edited as Avatar Wiki) written as you're suggesting.

Dragon Age Wiki is written as you're suggesting: http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon_Age_Wiki:Manual_of_Style#Tenses

 

edit: da wiki is a better example

Edited December 19, 2013 by cem

[Iredomi]

Actually, Wikipedia (for the most part) is standardized to present tense. The Sherlock Holmes and Prince Hamlet pages are good examples of this "narrative present" style in regards to a character bio. This style should be used for any kind of events or history as well.

The thing about trying to "switch" to past tense for dead characters or historical events is that it again tries to sync a fictional timeline to our own. It's much easier to stay fully separate from the events and use the present tense all throughout. Under this "switch" method, what would be done if a character dies in the middle of a book? Should we write Dalinar's page in all present-tense right now, but if he dies go back and re-edit everything to past? Would we say that all of the Mistborn Original Trilogy characters should be written in past tense because most of them are dead by the time Alloy of Law comes out? Or just the ones that are dead at the end of the series? It's a lot of work and a confusing system to work with. It might be a jarring switch from reading present to reading past simply based on the character's state at the "last time" we saw them.

It also somewhat writes as though the person reading is current with all of the cosmere books, so that they know what is "most recent." It could be somewhat of a spoiler to see that a character's page is being written in past tense whereas all the other characters are in present, if that signifies that they are dead by the most recent book. Narrative present separates the author and the work about which they are speaking, showing that our timeline is wholly separate from theirs.

All of those events in the books "happen" everytime we open a book. It's not like Earth history, where an event happens once and then it's gone in the past forever. With a book, the events and things that happen are never truly "past." Vin joins a thieving crew every time I open The Final Empire. Kaladin is sold as a slave on the Shattered Plains and he becomes the bridgeleader of the Bridge 4 every time I decide to reread The Way of Kings.

I know I said I wouldn't argue for one tense or the other, but... I kind of am. It just makes more sense to do it right while we have the chance, doesn't it? I realize narrative present seems like it would be a wierd thing to work with, especially when the books are written in past tense, but honestly, it makes the most sense. There's a reason why it is the convention when talking about fictional characters and events, and it's what is "correct" in modern English.

I agree completely about this. I was of the mind that maybe dead characters should be past tense but I see how that could get messy. And anyways one major reason we should go with this present tense system is that the coppermind isn't even confined to Cosmere or even in world facts so presenting it as an in world document doesn't really add up to me.

[Joe ST he/him]

I'm sorry cem, but I think I'm also maybe defecting to the present