Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-18014300-20180717074641/@comment-1153722-20180719001321 - Revision history

imported>Master Sima Yi at 00:26, 19 July 2018

2018-07-19T00:26:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:26, 19 July 2018
Line 5:		Line 5:
	I'm also disappointed to see the ceased usage of "unknown" being listed as a remnant of OOU writing as this was never the case. And I would have preferred to see a vote on that in the first place rather than see it listed here as "this is what happened".		I'm also disappointed to see the ceased usage of "unknown" being listed as a remnant of OOU writing as this was never the case. And I would have preferred to see a vote on that in the first place rather than see it listed here as "this is what happened".

	"It is unknown, but to whom?" I do not see the relevance in this whatsoever. We're a database listing information on things that are known to us as database compilers. It's not OOU to acknowledge something as unknown. We don't know when so many people were born or died in real life. We don't know ~~when~~ [[Smenkhkare]] ~~was born~~ in real life and it's not 'out of our universe' to acknowledge ~~his birth date~~ as unknown. It doesn't mean that he was never born. And the whole reason to go IU in the first place was to depict the AC Wiki as an in-universe Wikipedia.		"It is unknown, but to whom?" I do not see the relevance in this whatsoever. We're a database listing information on things that are known to us as database compilers. It's not OOU to acknowledge something as unknown.

			We don't know when so many people were born or died in real life. We don't know the birth or exact death date of [[Smenkhkare]] in real life, and it's not 'out of our universe' to acknowledge these as unknown. It doesn't mean that he was never born. And the whole reason to go IU in the first place was to depict the AC Wiki as an in-universe Wikipedia.

	The reason we started using "unknown" in the first place is because the AC Encyclopedia, written entirely from an IU perspective, uses it.		The reason we started using "unknown" in the first place is because the AC Encyclopedia, written entirely from an IU perspective, uses it.

	I am honestly sad to see the usage of 'unknown' addressed as an issue, but for characters whose birth and death dates are unknown, I will support the usage of such a term added to the infobox.		I am honestly sad to see the usage of 'unknown' addressed as an issue, but for characters whose birth and death dates are unknown, I will support the usage of such a term added to the infobox.

imported>Master Sima Yi at 00:24, 19 July 2018

2018-07-19T00:24:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:24, 19 July 2018
Line 2:		Line 2:

	In this regard, I agree with Jasca that this stays in the infobox only, as it may give the wrong indication (and has for me in the past on Wikipedia) when it's listed next to a birth or death date, or in their place.		In this regard, I agree with Jasca that this stays in the infobox only, as it may give the wrong indication (and has for me in the past on Wikipedia) when it's listed next to a birth or death date, or in their place.

			I'm also disappointed to see the ceased usage of "unknown" being listed as a remnant of OOU writing as this was never the case. And I would have preferred to see a vote on that in the first place rather than see it listed here as "this is what happened".

			"It is unknown, but to whom?" I do not see the relevance in this whatsoever. We're a database listing information on things that are known to us as database compilers. It's not OOU to acknowledge something as unknown. We don't know when so many people were born or died in real life. We don't know when [[Smenkhkare]] was born in real life and it's not 'out of our universe' to acknowledge his birth date as unknown. It doesn't mean that he was never born. And the whole reason to go IU in the first place was to depict the AC Wiki as an in-universe Wikipedia.

			The reason we started using "unknown" in the first place is because the AC Encyclopedia, written entirely from an IU perspective, uses it.

			I am honestly sad to see the usage of 'unknown' addressed as an issue, but for characters whose birth and death dates are unknown, I will support the usage of such a term added to the infobox.

imported>Master Sima Yi: Created page with "I'm a bit disappointed the discussed option of the term "active" over "floruit" is not being listed as an option here. Like I have mentioned over on Discord, this is my prefer..."

2018-07-19T00:13:21Z

Created page with "I'm a bit disappointed the discussed option of the term "active" over "floruit" is not being listed as an option here. Like I have mentioned over on Discord, this is my prefer..."

Páàjì titun

I'm a bit disappointed the discussed option of the term "active" over "floruit" is not being listed as an option here. Like I have mentioned over on Discord, this is my preferred option as it is much more clear to non-native English speakers and non-academics (as you clearly mention it is an academic term, and I see no reason why we need to be academical). I'm very opposed to using any sort of term where I have to look up what it means when a much more clear option is available.

In this regard, I agree with Jasca that this stays in the infobox only, as it may give the wrong indication (and has for me in the past on Wikipedia) when it's listed next to a birth or death date, or in their place.