Forum:Discussion: Perspective and its place throughout Nukapedia

	This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

^{Some Assembly Required!}

Nukapedia has always been a wiki centered around strict professionalism, and it surprised me to see a policy here that dictates the editors here to conform to a second-person point-of-view when writing out each and every article-page. You may find this current policy here. What I would like to propose is for a simple change from second-person POV conformity to a third-person POV conformity. Why do I feel the need to spearhead this change? Let me try and explain this in a concise way:

• Formal writing often relies on attempting to be as objective as possible, with the pronouns "I" and "you" naturally implying subjectivity, instead.
• The preferred method for most professional wikis/encyclopedias is to use words such as 'one', 'one's', the reader's name, the author's name, etc.
  • For example:
    

Informal: "You shouldn't travel through Sloan at a low level or with poor equipment."
Formal: "One should travel through the Nipton pass, instead, as a simpler, albeit longer, route to New Vegas."

Tl;dr - I want to change the current policy from using second-person POV in our article-pages to third-person POV. Discussion period will take place from now until next Friday. Should there be no opposition, the changes will be made immediately afterwards. Should legitimate opposition be brought forth, a vote will take place instead to gain a more in-depth look into how this change might be for the worse instead of for the better. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:30, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic writing and permission to use "you"s and "your"s everywhere cannot coexist. It's one or the other, and for obvious reasons, I suggest we retain encyclopaedic style over second-person POV usage. --Skire (talk) 01:33, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Who is "You", the Vault Dweller? The Courier? The Player at the keyboard? I'm neither of the first two, and in the third, I dont actually "go" anywhere. The term used should be the "canon" term for the PC - Vault Dweller/Chosen One/Warrior/Lone Wanderer/Courier. Agent c (talk) 01:35, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Sign me up too. I prefer third.  The Gunny   01:45, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

As do I, if second person is rampant I can program my bot to go through and change "You" in to The Player Character, Courier, etc. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 02:32, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

(←)  If you believe a bot can help in any way, then I welcome the opportunity to do so. The bot is already kept in check by you to make sure it doesn't go rogue, so I have full confidence that you will not allow it to make odd edits/vandalism. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 04:08, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

That would not be a good idea. This is not a task for a bot but a task that requires the collective effort of editors to change and rewrite sentences to third person. Doing so with a bot will have a ton of repetition and grammatically atrocious sentences. --Skire (talk) 02:34, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about full automating the job, if it's rampant it can aid us in small ways. I'm not talking about realigning sentence structures, I wouldn't trust it.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 02:40, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

How so? The only way to do it is by hand, since it's not just about switching every "you" to "The Courier", "The Vault Dweller" etc. For example, in a sentence like this: "Sacred Head Special Encounter, given to you by the Sacred Head and possibility of having a second if you use steal. Note that if you fail to steal successfully, the Sacred Head will instantly kill you." --Skire (talk) 02:44, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

There are two ways to operate a bot, you can run it fully automatic, where it does everything on its own, or semi-automatic, where it prompts you to look over every change before it is made. I was thinking it could be helpful in finding all of the second person mistakes, then I could change it accordingly, it's just a suggestion, I would think it better to go about it like this:

Whenever you are editing a page, and you notice a second person term, change it to third person.

If we told this to everyone, via edit notification, the amount of second person would be reduced. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 02:47, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well, the thing is they are so common that no doubt any editor while browsing the most popular articles with come upon cornucopias of second person. It's like capitalisation, it'll just have to take time I think. --Skire (talk) 02:51, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this? Let's just do it already, using You and I is highly unprofessional. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:31, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Also as a side note, the Bug Charts list pretty much all game-play articles for the main series, feel free to do with that what you will. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:41, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed? It's proposing a direct change to existing policy. --Skire (talk) 23:01, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Wait, our policies outline that it is ok to use second person pronouns? I was not aware of this. ---bleep196- (talk) 23:06, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the editing guideline states second person or third person is acceptable. Shocking, I know =) --Skire (talk) 23:09, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad Garoux brought this up, I am not sure why this has gone unnoticed for so long. ---bleep196- (talk) 23:11, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

(←)  I'm not immediately in favor of just replacing every "you" and " player" into Courier with a second thought. I've seen plenty of pages with too many times "Courier" or "Lone Wanderer" close to each other to read well. For example 11 times Courier in two paragraphs on Ain't That a Kick in the Head (quest). I can see some positives too, but it's not work for a bot. Every sentence needs to be looked at separately. Jspoel 23:20, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's never as simple as just replacing words, but rewriting of sentences in order to eliminate second person usage. --Skire (talk) 23:21, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Don't think "player" isn't that bad a term either, that's somewhere between the casual "you" and the formal "Courier". Also keep in mind people will very likely use "you" with a next game again (doubt they read policy about it), so it's bound to come back to us again. Jspoel 23:27, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

It's one of those things that'll just take time to fully show on the wiki's articles. Similar to capitalisation or no strategy, we'll just have to fix the edits that are in violation of policy. --Skire (talk) 23:30, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me just using "player" or "you" would refer to the one who plays, not the player character. One'd think with a sentence like "if the player does not turn the switch on, the creature will attack the player" kills a lot of people if they play it. So yes, it is definite to change it to Courier/Vault Dweller etc., depending on the article.

One thing remains, however - when do we write in the second person? The only thing that comes to my mind is something like this: "you can now choose the Courier's gender and traits". Anyone else has something in mind? Energy X 00:18, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Even then we should write, "One may now choose the Courier's gender and traits". The only reason to use second person pronouns is in direct quotations. --Skire (talk) 00:23, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

You/I should not be used in articles. I try to avoid using those terms as much as possible. Player I'm not so sure of, I think it has a valid place in sentences as long as we can define where it should be used appropriately. But if removing all three is much simpler and a better solution I'm all for that. It'll take some work, though. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 23:15, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

I would honestly rather see it left to interpretation, in other words 'the player character'. Conforming to some linear identity really murders the magic for me in cold blood. 16:42, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

That's similar to my thoughts on it. Courier or Lone Wanderer often just sounds too "static" / clunky, especially when you read it 6 times close to each other in a paragraph. "Player" or "player character" (and even "you") tends to make the sentence run smoother and better readable. There are instances the character's name is better used, but that needs to be looked at in each individual case. Jspoel 17:17, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

I understand the position being brought forth here. However, as a wiki, and a professional and highly-sought after one at that, we have a duty to keep a level of objectivity present. Also, remember that we already allow second-person POV where necessary in cases where in doing so, it wouldn't insert subjectivity into the article-page. (Quotes and the like.) ^{Some Assembly Required!} 19:51, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

So it seems consensus is:

• That the Second Person should be stricken from the policy.
• What existing placements of you should be changed to is up for debate.

So in the meantime, I'd suggest don't use "you" when creating new content (with obvious exceptions - quotes, etc) but non enforcement and no changeover of articles until we agree further. Agent c (talk) 18:45, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the policy uses 'should' to, ah, nudge editors into writing from a certain perspective. I will still keep making changes where appropriate, as the policy does not forbade editors to do as such. My policy change proposal here is to change the current policy from an unprofessional suggestion to an actual affirmation of what sort of standardizations we expect here when considering perspective. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 19:45, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

I contend that second person POV is completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedic style of writing. The latter is a must, the former is merely allowed. Again, this is contradictory and needs to be fixed. --Skire (talk) 21:27, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Just as an experiment, I completely re-wrote the Abandoned Brotherhood of Steel bunker article without using you in any of the main text. Something I did notice is the use of 'you' in bugs. To me, it is appropriate when it is addressing something outside of the game itself (i.e. you should download a new patch, or you should re-load a previous save.). Replacing this use with 'one' or 'Courier' doesn't make sense to me. ^{nihil novi sub sole} 21:43, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

A good mention. Keep in mind that the bug section is largely informal. (Why it was ever decided to move out of the talk-pages and into the article-pages themselves is beyond me.) So any form of POV is fine in that case. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:45, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

(←)  I should also note that this undertaking will be massive. That particular re-write took a decent amount of time, mostly because you actually have to read through the majority of the text before rewriting it. It won't be as easy as de-capitalization, as it will require much more critical thinking. _{nihil novi sub sole} 21:54, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

That was some fine work, Follower. That's the kind of change I'm looking for. Some personal love and care instead of just replacing words. Jspoel 21:59, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Of course this will be massive. Massive to the point where I won't even bother to start up a project over it, because it would be as futile as the capitalization projects. Also, I know that you don't personally like these sorts of changes J, but I would like to point out that this is not advocating for shoddy editing to try and hastily make changes here. Because if you're worried about that and only that, then it's not this proposal you're against, which is only to determine which POV style we should properly embrace here, but with the editors here at Nukapedia instead. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:17, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks J. If it is going to be done (and I believe it should be, for the reasons Leon stated above), it needs to be done correctly. ^{ōrdō ā chaos} 22:24, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

This change (which, again, will be huge and will take a lot of time) will no doubt increase the quality of our articles and wiki in general. It would be work with a good reward I think. --Skire (talk) 22:27, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

(←)  Is it possible we can get a bot to count how many time the word "you" is used on an article? I know it's not perfect but it will give us an idea of the scale, and which pages should be prioritised? Agent c (talk) 22:26, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Ctrl + F works for me --Skire (talk) 22:27, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Also, doesn't this mean we need to eliminate the possessive form of you, your?---bleep196- (talk) 22:29, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Naturally, "you", "your", "yours", "you're", "you'll", (contractions should be avoided in general) will all have to go. --Skire (talk) 22:30, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Your is much less common within articles, but yes. Your should also be avoided. In the article I mentioned above I removed 'you' or 'PC' 11 times. ^{ōrdō ā chaos} 22:31, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Contractions aren't as big of a deal, but it is my understanding that they are also to be avoided within formal environments. And yes, each of the variations will need to be attended to, as well. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:33, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

(←)  That's true, Leon, I am unhappy about the changes I've seen editors make from "you/player" into Courier/Lone Wanderer on pages. It's all been just replacing words instead of taking the time to see if it actually improves the page and reads better. When I read A Followers' page just now, that was one of the first example I've seen of a good rewrite. If it's all just replacing words I'm not in favor of this project, but with the way Follower's done it, I am. Jspoel 22:37, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

You might enjoy another idea that I plan on talking about, then. When I'm able to get on Nukapedia for more than a couple minutes at a time, then I'll see about dragging you into chat so we can discuss it. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 22:39, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help as well. ^{ōrdō āb chaos} 22:56, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Re Ctrl-F, if anyone want to go through 15k pages with CTRL-F, they're welcome to. Seems like Machine will be faster and better at it though. Agent c (talk) 22:43, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

"Is it possible we can get a bot to count how many time the word "you" is used on an article." "An" - implying one article is in question. --Skire (talk) 22:44, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking we count in an article, and then repeat until we have a table of all the articles, and their count. Agent c (talk) 22:59, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I should've known that was what you meant =P And yeah, it might be worth it to put forth a message to Bears, enquiring if such a function is possible (although I'm sceptical it is). --Skire (talk) 23:02, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Why does no one like headers?[]

I'm pretty sure that Ryan should be able to program the bot to count the instances of "you" and "your" and write them to a table. The Gunny   02:00, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though if it's anything near the size of the bug charts, then speaking from experience you may want to break it up into multiple pages based on the categories. That many links on one page will drive load times off the wall. ---bleep196- (talk) 02:10, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking into the re-writes of some articles. One thing I have noticed was mentioned before by J. We can't essentially tell users to use 'Courier' as opposed to 'you'. If this is done, on the majority of articles it becomes clunky and loses flow. What we should do is advise editors to avoid using either form in the articles. It's perfectly possible to write this way and in most cases the finished product is much more polished and smooth. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 06:09, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

I've had the bot run through and log every instance of "you" or "your" in our articles. It compiled the articles quite nicely and I've placed them here. There's over 7,000 so I can't really imagine taking that on. Of course not every single instance is 2nd person use of the words. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 02:41, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Ryan. I'll make sure to add the rough number to the vote. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:42, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind the dialogue articles are included, so that number will exclude those. There are roughly 1500 of them. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 02:45, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Is this issue now settled?[]

I just ran across this discussion, and it looks like there is consensus in this forum that third person is now recommended over second person in articles. But I was wondering: Does consensus being reached here mean that this can now be considered policy? The policy that was the subject of discussion here still indicates that second person is acceptable. I was wondering if this policy was set to be updated, and if I should begin to reword any second-person text that I happen to run across into third person? --FFIX (talk) 18:56, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

I think the kinks are still being worked out. It may be brought to a proposal, or an executive decision 'could' be made by the bureaucrats implementing it as policy. For now, third person is still preferable, so changing it to that when you see it (as long as it's done correctly) is not a problem. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 19:06, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

I think theres consensus at least that new stuff shouldnt use 2nd person. As for changing over, I think the question is how to go about a changeover. Agent c (talk) 19:36, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason why I picked Friday for this discussion to close on. I have something else in the works that I want to release before we finish up here. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 19:43, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, this discussion will be finished up later in the day. Remain patient, please, and thank you everyone that participated here. Your input is greatly appreciated. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 09:10, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Result[]

With only one user partially against this policy change, the proposal passes and the changes will be made soon unless anyone vehemently disagrees with this result. However, the partial opposition is being taken into the highest account, and a solution is in the works, which will be released shortly into its own separate forum page. This policy change will take affect after this forum has been released, so make sure to keep your eyes out for it! ^{Some Assembly Required!}

Um, point of order, but this doesnt appear to be following the usual process

To this end, the normal procedure for proposing new policies and guidelines or changing existing ones is to create a topic in the "wiki discussion" forum. Once the discussion has led to a final draft, call a vote. The vote needs to run for a week at minimum and at least 10 registered editors need to participate for it to be valid; a simple majority is sufficient to pass. The administrators may veto a policy; this should only be done sparingly and for good reasons.

The discussion here seems to have lead only to final draft status... and even then I'm not 100% sure what that is... We're agreeing to remove 2nd person, but the proceedure to change over seems unclear. Agent c (talk) 01:09, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

No one questioned it, so I was under the impression that the change was fairly straight-forward. Also, it is standard policy to push something simple through without going through the tedious process of voting. I am not introducing anything new here. The policy change is to remove the unprofessional suggestion of using second-person POV, and strictly using third-person POV where necessary instead. I also mentioned that I wasn't going to bother starting a project, because this will be a never-ending change such as capitalization. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:11, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

I don't exactly know what you're planning, but I'm entirely against just replacing words and I still consider you and player valid. It's what people accept. If someone is to change things, every page needs to be looked at individually when it's changed and the flow must be kept. Jspoel 01:13, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

You said you were okay with these changes as long as they were made appropriately. And as shown by us already making changes, they have been appropriate. Why on the last day are you all of the sudden saying that you would prefer 'you' and its variations? Before, you said that you only preferred 'player', which is still technically appropriate under certain situations. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:16, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

CO: Also, I'm not sure where you're getting that people accept 2nd-person POV. Nukapedia is one of the few encyclopedias that I've ever seen that embraces it. For instance, you could never be caught writing in the second-person in research or college papers. Nor will you ever find its use in actual encyclopedias outside of certain individual Wikia wikis. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:18, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

(←)  Look. This is a massive task and who going to check all those thousands of pages with "you" in it? We hardly have the people motivated for it in the manner this needs to be looked at. You and player is acceptable. It's all over the pages and mostly in a way the sentence has good flow. Ok, it may not be that professional, but if you start to replace it mindlessly it will become a mess. I'm ok with third person view has preference to be added to policy, but there's also place for you and player.

No offense, but that was a silly question. Every last edit here is meticulously scrutinized by just about every active editor here on Nukapedia. That includes my edits, and yes, that even includes edits from Bureaucrats such as yourself, or Clyde and even Gunny. I have also mentioned that I am not creating a project, which means that only freelancers will be going after majority pages, with most of us just making changes when we see the mistakes on pages we happen to be visiting. And to be frank, I wish you wouldn't have so little faith in our editor's abilities. There's a reason why Nukapedia is one of the largest and most professional wikis, and it's not just because of its leadership. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:45, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Actual Result[]

I thought this was going to be a simple change, as even a bit of research shows that third-person POV is the expected standard for formal writings, with first and second-person POV introducing too much subjectivity. But since we now have an official objection to these changes, I will begin writing out the voting process instead. Expect it to be up soon. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:26, April 13, 2013 (UTC)