Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-30719293-20200209231618/@comment-18014300-20200212040703: Difference between revisions
imported>Sol Pacificus Created page with "The etymology behind names are almost always OOU and definitely belongs in the BtS section. In the cases where the IU etymology is given in an AC source, then there simply sho..." |
imported>Sol Pacificus No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The etymology behind names are almost always OOU and definitely belongs in the BtS section. In the cases where the IU etymology is given in an AC source, then there simply should be a section in the body created specifically to explain the etymology. If the etymology is the same IU and OOU, then it can be mentioned in both sections from their respective perspectives. | The etymology behind names are almost always OOU and definitely belongs in the BtS section. In the cases where the IU etymology is given in an AC source, then there simply should be a section in the body created specifically to explain the etymology. If the etymology is the same IU and OOU, then it can be mentioned in both sections from their respective perspectives. | ||
Also, I wish to clarify that we don't necessarily need to phase out the trivia section even though it would be used solely to list IU facts that should be incorporated into the body later. If IU facts in the trivia cannot fit into the body, it is the responsibility of editors to find a way to do so eventually (e.g. in regards to etymology, creating a new IU section for it). Remember that the body of articles need not be limited to just "Biography", "History", and "Personality" sections. There's no restriction on what other section it can have for explaining IU content. On the other hand, you might find that the trivia point you thought could not be fit into the body is actually explained better as an OOU point, in which case it belongs in the BtS section. | |||
Revision as of 06:14, 12 February 2020
The etymology behind names are almost always OOU and definitely belongs in the BtS section. In the cases where the IU etymology is given in an AC source, then there simply should be a section in the body created specifically to explain the etymology. If the etymology is the same IU and OOU, then it can be mentioned in both sections from their respective perspectives. Also, I wish to clarify that we don't necessarily need to phase out the trivia section even though it would be used solely to list IU facts that should be incorporated into the body later. If IU facts in the trivia cannot fit into the body, it is the responsibility of editors to find a way to do so eventually (e.g. in regards to etymology, creating a new IU section for it). Remember that the body of articles need not be limited to just "Biography", "History", and "Personality" sections. There's no restriction on what other section it can have for explaining IU content. On the other hand, you might find that the trivia point you thought could not be fit into the body is actually explained better as an OOU point, in which case it belongs in the BtS section.