Talk:Human

Probably tagged (not by me) because of the references to Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting which can be removed, along with (potentially) other Wikipedia copy-overs. Fw190a8 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Past Tense
When did humans cease to be widespread? When did the origin of humanity become known? After all, it says: "The origin of humanity was unknown."

I posit that the article was perfectly correct in its previous version and that the "all past tense all the time" structure makes it read as confusing and amateurish (no offense). --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 17:38, November 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * As you well know from the similar comments you've made on other talk pages, this is per our policy of removing the wiki from the timeline. We are writing articles as if the information gathered on them is from the very distant past. For all we know, humans are gone in that future; thus, the past tense. Cronje (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:57, November 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Problem is that the way the policy is being implemented is NOT the way it is written: "when writing articles, the events referred to should always be written in the past tense whether the information is taken from a newly-published and up-to-date product or not." The existence of humans is not an event; it is a neutral fact irrelevant of events. This arbitrary blanket implementation is wrong; you can say something like: "gold pieces are a form of currency that was used in ancient times", but by the implementation of the policy, it would be wrong and subject to a rewrite. Worse; there is no appealing the issue since the justification is "the policy".


 * I find the following statement: "For all we know, humans are gone in that future; thus, the past tense." highly problematic: the Forgotten Realms is NOT in the distant past, according to Greenwood (and well illustrated in canon by the numerous meetings between Ed Greenwood and Elminster), so it is absolutely certain that humans are still around and kicking. Furthermore, such a statement is highly speculative, without a shred of evidence to support it; therefore, by implying that humans no longer exist on Toril, the entire article's validity is subject to scrutiny.


 * Note that I am not advocating throwing the policy to the garbage; just the use of common sense in its implementation; sometimes it is far more accurrate to use the present tense when discussing things that did indeed take place in the past. I strongly suggest that the Humans article be restored to its previous version.


 * --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 19:16, November 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * You're correct that the Realms themselves are not in the distant past. However, this wiki is written as if they were. You should bring up your issues on the talk page of that policy, not those of articles you think are incorrectly written. Cronje (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:56, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

As per High Admin FW in Forum:Split the wiki... Creatures and monsters, plus Timeline pages are in present tense... not items... please read:

"So, I suggest:
 * Locations such as nations, regions, geography and settlements (including planes/cosmology): past tense
 * Individuals (people and specific named monsters): past tense
 * Items (food, specific weapons, specific magic items): past tense
 * Deities: past tense
 * Historical (such as History of Waterdeep, but not years): past tense
 * Years: present tense
 * Racial and monster descriptions (elf, dragon, etc, but referring to no specific individual): present tense"

His words... sorry Cronje and BadCat :( I forgot he wrote this... Darkwynters (talk) 20:02, November 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * The Split the Wiki forum is just that - a forum. It's not a policy or even a proposed policy. The standing policies take precedence. Cronje (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:49, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

I just changed the page to past tense as you suggested, Sings. I don't appreciate being dicked around so you can make a point, especially one you've already made. The page still needs a lot of development, as I said.


 * I was actually asking if you were going to change a page which was well-written; I was not suggesting you actually do it. Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 03:19, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

The use of past tense is no reflection on history and doesn't imply the destruction or passing of anything. It's just a way of writing that sounds more definite. That is has happened implies it continues to happen unless stated otherwise. It's used by many novels and many other wikias. If this were a non-fiction wiki, I'd agree with you, but this is a fictional one, so all past tense is more appropriate. That is, it all happened already, but in the source material, not reality.


 * It is used when appropriate; it is not intended to be universally applied across the board; in past tense the Human page reads very differently from what its intent is and actually contradicts intent; "the origins of humans were unknown" is implicitly stating that they are now known, for example. Just because it is fiction does not mean that the writing must be any less precise. Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 03:19, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

The policy is the policy is the policy, because a bunch of users made it so some time ago. If you disagree, propose an alteration to it, and try to persuade a majority of users to agree to it. -- BadCatMan (talk) 02:58, November 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that FW's suggestion is perfectly reasonable. Don't you? --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 03:19, November 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Completely reasonable. However, until it is made a proposed policy and voted upon by the frequent contributors to the wiki, it is NOT policy, and we must follow what is. Cronje (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:34, November 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I do agree it's reasonable and correct for an improved academic style. However, I don't agree that the current policy its any great problem or that we should change it to how you suggest. I believe that it will be a much bigger problem when unfamiliar users start spreading mixed tenses all over the place, in addition to their other writing problems. Simplicity is much easier. -- BadCatMan (talk) 04:07, November 7, 2012 (UTC)