Forum:Vote: 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	This forum page has been archived.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!}
Disclaimer

For those editors that did not participate in the previous discussion, we would like to advise you to do so before placing your vote here.

• Current policies at Nukapedia dictate that a second-person point-of-view is appropriate for use within our article-pages, with third-person POV also being acceptable.
• The proposal being put forth is to remove the suggestion to use second-person POV, enforcing third-person POV as Nukapedia's official standard.
  • For a wonderful example of which forms of perspective should be used where and when, I would personally suggest reading through this page.
• What will this mean, and what are we looking for? As seen here, courtesy of our very own wiki mascot, there is a current rough number of 7,000+ article-pages that use the words 'you', 'your', 'yours', 'you're', and 'you'll'. Keep in mind that there are other examples of second-person POV that haven't been taken into account just yet, although most of these should be located within the same spaces outlined through the list. Also keep in mind that in some cases, second-person POV is necessary, as seen throughout our quotes, developer documents, dialogue documents, bug sections and similar. Should this policy change go into effect, all cases of second-person POV used in a bad sense will either need to be changed over to third-person POV upon discovery, or by removing them through a thorough re-write that captures the original flow of the article-pages in question.

Poll

Poll finished on 8:14 am April 19, 2013 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section: Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal. Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal. Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain. Please do not edit other user's votes.

Proposal

Should the suggestion for using a second-person point-of-view in our article-pages be removed from policy? In doing so, the third-person point-of-view will remain as our sole standard for perspective around Nukapedia. This does not affect:

• Bug Sections
• Developer Documents/Commentary
• Dialogue Documents
• Direct/Partial Quotes

Yes

1. - Spear-heading this change, it is only natural for me to vote yes. I adamantly believe that this is a necessary step to retaining Nukapedia's professionalism and worth. How are we to ever be taken seriously as an encyclopedia of knowledge if we can't even follow the standard rules behind proper English conventions? ^{Some Assembly Required!} 03:35, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
2. I don't know why a vote is necessary on this. As an academic, second person perspective is NEVER acceptable in academic writing, other than in the form of quotations. Yes, this will be a large project, but I personally assure that I will do as much as possible to make sure it is done properly. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 05:00, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
3. I always figured third person was the way to go, and it's best we get this project and stuff out of the way now before FO4 details and the game come out. Richie9999 (talk) 05:10, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
4. I'm for this, but I don't want to see a lot of edits solely on changing second person. I mean, with that list available, anyone looking for a quick achievement can go through it. It would be best to be like this: If you are editing a page, and see 2nd person POV, make your edit and change it as well.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 05:36, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
5. As stated before, using words like player or you are not very good in articles (e.g. "The player can attack the deathclaws"), which makes it seem that the player is inside the game. I'll be at least satisfied with player character (though it should be specified which one). Energy X 11:27, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
6. This was never about word replacement. It's about conforming the wiki's content to match encyclopaedic style guidelines. Somewhat skilful rewriting will be required. --Skire (talk) 23:20, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
7. As it is the technically correct format for an academic and encyclopedic format I support it. Yet with the single cause of what TwoBears said. If you are editing a page, and see 2nd person POV, make your edit and change it as well. Don't just edit for the sake of changing the POV. Just my feelings is all. If that will not be the case, take this as a neutral vote. Unless we get a bot to do the change over. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 00:19, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
8. . I count 18 uses of "you" on this page alone! Crap. Make that 19. The Gunny   00:29, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
9. I've always done this. It's academic writing. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 05:23, April 15, 2013 (UTC)
10. hell yeah ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 22:40, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
11. Second person is unprofessional. ---bleep196- (talk) 15:33, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

No

Neutral

Comments

@Follower - I know the feeling. But there was opposition towards the proposition, and all criticism is legitimate and requires tending to. So let's just get this vote out of the way and move onto the important aspect of actually editing. :)
@Everyone that has concerns about editing out second-person POV: Follower, myself and Richie (I believe) have been going through making quite a few changes. I have been keeping an eye on such edits, and have found none of them lacking in quality. So with this at hand and taking the good-faith policy into account, I would really like for some faith to be put into the editing abilities of our users and anonymous here at Nukapedia. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:29, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that Richie and I are on most evenings (in our relative time zone) and I think I can speak for us both when saying that we monitor all edits and patrol or change them accordingly. Yeah, there are going to be some mistakes, but with diligence it shouldn't be a problem to implement. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 00:39, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

Results

Obviously clear. Motion passes as proposed. Make the changes, Mr. Sulu.  The Gunny   00:06, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for closing this up for me. (Just got home, so sorry for the late response from myself personally.) Keep in mind that a project is not currently in the works, and that perspective can be changed from a case-to-case basis. However, once Fallout 4 rolls around, I can only hope that our community will remain vigilant to keep such a huge work-load from burdening our editors another time around. Thank you for voting everyone! ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:22, April 20, 2013 (UTC)