Forgotten Realms Wiki talk:Past-tense policy

I'd just like to start the discussion off by highlighting the discussion where this proposal stemmed from. Cheers. Johnnyriot999 20:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a link to that, Johnny; I knew I was forgetting something. -- Heaven&#39;s Agent 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is going to get harder and harder now. 3.5e version of the Realms is largely what's represented here, current date as of 1375ish which starts to change drastically after that year and goes to hell in 1385. 4e Realms are going to be so much different... and over 100 years later, any consideration of a fork? How can this best be handled? -- Barfubaz 19:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No activity on this page for 8 months, then you add a comment on the talk page just before I make it policy! I totally missed this, sorry. We've discussed this quite a bit, in particular at Forum:4ed and the timeline, and my interpretation was a general agreement that this is best handled by having a tighter grip on writing style, making it clear when events occur on the timeline. This is reflected in the wording of the policy, but if you would rather see it handled another way, there's no reason why it can't be changed. Fw190a8 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well have been going over the changes announced and it's near completely a different world. Deities, maps, kingdoms, races, etc are hugely different, some echoes of the past. History would of course just be an extension. But, what would be useful to a 4e DM would make this site near useless for me a DM for a NWN2 multiplayer world set in 1375, and vice-versa. I just have a hard time imagining how you could do that in one wiki, at least without some pretty funky categorization and such. You handle it as you want, but that's my concern as a person who has grown to rely on this site for info. -- Barfubaz 21:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

History

 * As you may have noted, I've been laying out History like History of Myth Drannor. Can I propose we use ' : date ; ' in the History sections of Articals. They should be written in present text, as if it just happened. Refer Talk:History of Myth Drannor Also if we write the currently stuff, or the in the last few years stuff under years or between year sections it will make much more sence. Personally I think (note 100% sure on this idea) we need History sections on all articals to have them make more sence. The stuff above should be written as a ? pre-amble ? (Note sure if that's the right word) or an general introduction.
 * Hurtzbad 07:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Exclusion
Recently, a few edits were made to a few of the pages in Category:Years so that the articles comply with this policy. I thought we'd discussed this recently, but it took me a while to remember where. Over in Forum:Split the wiki, I suggested excluding this category from the policy, as present tense seems to be the standard for itemized histories, as evidenced in The Grand History of the Realms, on Wookieepedia, and on Wikipedia. I mention the latter two because a) Wookieepedia was specifically mentioned as something we might want to emulate and b) Wikipedia is the Grand Poobah of wikis.

In addition, Niirfa-sa had the following to say: "Personally, I'd prefer limiting the past tense to articles that specifically detail character biographies, events, background lore, etc, while leaving racial or class descriptions in the present tense unless canon has significantly altered these descriptors. It just seems awkward to me to talk about humans, for example, in the past tense as if they don't still exist in the setting."

What does everyone else think? Cronje (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:07, March 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think our roll of years should be written in the same tense/fashion as The Grand History of the Realms. 'Nuf said.&mdash;Moviesign 18:21, March 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought FW already stated that the timeline is present... creatures and classes, but the rest is past... so I agree, Movie :) Darkwynters 19:28, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

To Amend or Not Amend
Given the discussion in Forum:Split the wiki and in Talk:Human can we please vote on amending the policy as per a statement by FW reposted by Darkwynters:


 * 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"

For me I would like years to be present tense and am indifferent to the racial and monster tense.--Ijkay (talk) 18:00, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Why, exactly, would you even want Years in the present tense? But definition 'years' will always be in the past and part of history. And if you tell about something, even just a day ago, that is the past. And past tense makes sense when the event already happened.

Not that I agree with the way the wiki does history anyway(you know the 4E is awesome and everything before that is just crap and gets a tiny foot note way). But no one liked the idea of splitting each article into separate history sections as the 'awesome 4E stuff' would not be on top. (Bloodtide (talk) 18:20, November 7, 2012 (UTC))


 * The reason we put years in the present tense is because that is the format used by everyone else, from other wikis (including Wikipedia and the Star Wars wiki) and by Realms history books, such as The Grand History of the Realms. Cronje (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:13, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the change, though I'd like to point out that in the Items section there should be a distinction between 'generic' items and specific items; to wit: Cheese is a dairy product consumed all over the Realms (generic; present); Elturel Gray was a cheese produced in the city of... (specific; past). Longsword (generic; present), Pooh's Longsword (specific; past). Races, Monsters and (specifically) rules should always be in the present unless it is canonically confirmed that they are extinct. I also suggest that common sense be applied; there are ways to use both tenses correctly in a sentence (the longsword is a weapon that was widely used...). --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 19:27, November 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sings-With-Spirits about the generic items and substances being described in present tense and specific (perhaps "named") items, which will have a history and/or a chain of possession, being described in past tense. Races and monsters etc. can be in present tense but information about their location/population/history should be past tense. I'm not sure about what you mean by "rules" however. Most rules would fall under the "no crunch" policy I think, and those that do not are subject to change by WotC and would probably be better described in past tense. Your thoughts? I like all the suggestions in the bullet list above. I think the roll of years is great the way it is, in present tense. That's my vote.&mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:10, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

Some initial discussion began at Talk:Scimitar. I'm going to repeat some of my arguments.

I think the main reason that our years are in present-tense is because most were copied wholesale from Grand History. :(

While I agree that the model proposed is proper and academic style, I don't see any need or benefit from introducing it, and I don't see any real problem with the way we do things now.

There's been a complaint that the use of past tense makes everything seem dead and destroyed aeons past, but that's not an impression I get. It's used in many novels, and in them it's not a reflection on history, but just to give sense that things have definitely happened rather than the unresolved sense of them currently happening in present tense. That something has happened implies it continues to happen unless stated otherwise.

The full in-universe/past-tense style is used in many other wikias (consider the great Wookiepedia, at blaster including one I've worked extensively at. There, no user was ever confused by the full use of past tense. It's only here I've noticed a very few people wondering if it meant some city was destroyed or NPC slain, and I believe this is due to the present-tense still being in common use elsewhere on the wiki.

I'm a scientific editor, and I'm forever switching between present, future and past tense when editing an academic paper. It's fiddly and you have to keep reconsidering your POV; forget, and you're writing the wrong tense. I think this will be too much to expect of most users, for whom more basic issues of article writing (any use of past tense, formatting, citing, in-universe perspective, not copying) are enough of a problem. With this proposed policy in place, I believe that it will be a much bigger problem when unfamiliar users spread mixed tenses all over the place, in addition to their other writing problems. Which would you prefer: "the longsword was a weapon that is widely used" or "the longsword was a weapon that was widely used"? This amendment will make it more difficult to enforce the policy as a whole.

The in-universe/past-tense and out-of-universe/present-tense division is simple to understand, maintains consistency, easy to implement, and widely adopted by other fictional universe wikias, and is no great problem for anyone. I vote no. -- BadCatMan (talk) 14:28, November 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * "While I agree that the model proposed is proper and academic style, I don't see any need or benefit from introducing it, and I don't see any real problem with the way we do things now."


 * "There's been a complaint that the use of past tense makes everything seem dead and destroyed aeons past, but that's not an impression I get. It's used in many novels, and in them it's not a reflection on history, but just to give sense that things have definitely happened rather than the unresolved sense of them currently happening in present tense. That something has happened implies it continues to happen unless stated otherwise."


 * I strongly disagree with this statement: the benefit IS that it is a proper and academic style, which is something that should be aspired, not derided. Full-on past tense is useful in fiction, particularly in novels, but is not appropriate when creating academic works discussing the works in question, like the "A Guide to the Star Wars Universe" series of "The Complete Guide to Middle-earth", both of which are written predominantly in the present tense, where the items being discussed exist in the "OoC" present of the books being read, not the "in-universe" past of the text.


 * "[Choose:]"the longsword was a weapon that is widely used" or "the longsword was a weapon that was widely used"?; Neither: "The longsword is a weapon that was widely used... longswords still exist and are produced today, though their use is extremely limited. Tense problems will always exist with new users and articles, and these will still have to be corrected by more experienced editors; shouldn't we, as these more experienced editors, aspire to create the highest quality resource we can? --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 15:55, November 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Our first goal should a consistently good (not highest) quality resource that is easy to use and edit by non-experts. If a minor, harmless reduction in quality is necessary to ensure that, then I'm in favour of it. After all, large parts of this wiki aren't yet even decent. Academic quality is a step beyond the task we're looking at here.
 * Uh uh, I only gave you two options. Given a choice only between an incorrect statement, and a correct and okay statement, the latter is preferable. The statement that is correct and best may be more preferable still, but isn't reliably achievable.


 * However, having examined a good representative sample of well-developed wikias (okay, those I had bookmarked), I will concede that it's not as universal as I thought. The variations and justifications are interesting however. From the policies:
 * Star Trek - Memory Alpha: Past tense for all in-universe articles, but present tense for universal concepts. Interestingly, it adopts the in-universe point-of-view of an archivist at the library planet it's named for, albeit writing from the distant future to cover the different eras.
 * Star Trek - Memory Beta: Past tense for all in-universe articles, even for universal concepts, but this is inconsistently implemented for the universal concepts.
 * Star Wars - Wookiepedia: Past tense for all in-universe articles, even for universal concepts. This uses "A long time ago..." to justify its past tense POV.
 * Doctor Who - TARDIS Index File: Past tense for all in-universe articles, even for universal concepts. This is justified by extensive time-travel, and perhaps the occasional destruction of the universe, so all things are in the past. It also adds "Do not jump back and forth between tenses; this is confusing."
 * Stargate Wiki: Since this is set in the modern day, present-tense is used for things as they currently stand in the series, and past tense otherwise.
 * So, what's our perspective here? -- BadCatMan (talk) 08:25, November 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * As I see it, we need a policy that strikes a balance between the practical and the ideal. Yes, it would be easier to have a blanket policy that even monkeys with typewriters can understand, but there is plenty of work to do around here without creating more busywork for ourselves. Rewriting the 2,638 Roll of Years pages in past tense would be a herculean task that would drive even professional editors insane (IMHO) and possibly burn out a once enthusiastic and talented editor or two. We have a nascent cadre of contributors, each of whom have a life and do this for fun and a sense of accomplishment. I like "past tense for in-universe, present tense for universal concepts, leave the Roll of Years alone" because I think it will be the least amount of work that still produces content we can be proud of. That said, if there is someone who thinks it's enjoyable to clean the Augean stables, more power to them.&mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:54, November 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I always write my timeline articles in present tense because I'm looking at the events therein from the perspective of someone who is experiencing them in that year. Wikipedia does year articles in present tense and I've always based this wiki on them rather than other Wikia sites. hashtalk 15:41, November 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * The Roll of Years need to be rewritten anyway, as most are copied from The Grand History of the Realms. Fortunately, some are blank, so the number's not quite as high as feared.
 * I do agree with the easiness thing, and don't think we should bother with the Years pages. -- BadCatMan (talk) 12:59, November 12, 2012 (UTC)

Real world items
I just came across the Dead in Thay article and noticed that it is written in the past tense. Given that it is a real-world item in current publication, is it appropriate to have it (and other real-world ooc articles) written in the past tense? After all, it is not an in-universe item or concept that could possibly exist in the setting.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 03:43, November 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, this should be in present tense, as it is still in existence. Well, it should have mixed tenses as appropriate: "is an adventure module" (current), "was released in April 2014" (past). I've fixed it. — BadCatMan (talk) 04:06, November 21, 2015 (UTC)

Is a mofo alive or dead
Would really like to see "present tense" used to refer to people that are not dead. Such as "Person Y is a mage." instead of "Person Y was a mage." if "person Y" is still alive. Technically, the second, past tense example is factually incorrect if the person is both alive and currently a mage.

Not that I edit, so you know, feel free to ignore.71.89.12.74 04:04, April 20, 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really hold up, because maintaining a moving "present" (based on what? The most recent year used in 5e modules? An arbitrary year DR?) requires a significantly larger amount of maintenance, and increases the chance of errors. By removing ourselves from the timeline completely, we improve the quality of every single one of our articles. --Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 05:17, April 20, 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, as we've discussed extensively, above and for the last couple of years, we don't want to update or rewrite thousands of articles with every new edition. Past tense doesn't mean a character is dead, it's just a standard way of reading a story. Most Forgotten Realms novels are written in past tense, that doesn't mean the characters in them are dead. — BadCatMan (talk) 08:47, April 20, 2016 (UTC)


 * But my point is it could mean they are dead, while using present tense clearly indicates they are not. I get it the reasons though, it would be quite a bit of work to keep up with everything. I disagree about it improving your articles though. Because it is written in past tense I always have to look around and read more sources to find out if a person is alive or dead. I think you have merely traded one problem (present tense means alive, but maybe person is dead and article is not updated) for another (cannot be sure person is alive/dead and have to sort through other sources. Instead of complaining I should try to help, but I honestly have not kept up with things and use this site to keep me informed of the few stories I like.71.89.12.74 00:23, May 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * An article written in present tense also wouldn't tell you if they were dead, not unless it was updated to say if and when they died and in what source. And in what era might they be alive or dead? If you play in 1479 DR, then a lot of folk from 1358 DR are most assuredly dead. If you play in 1372, then most would be alive, and some would have died, and most in 1479 DR haven't even been born yet. Should we write in future tense? But for the majority of NPCs, we never find out when or if they died, nor even when they were born.


 * And present tense does not even mean "alive". I can write a line like "Joe the Knight dies in 1374 DR from a fall." That's the style for our years pages, adopted from standard chronologies. Or even "Joe will die in 1374 DR." Tense has nothing to do with the story being told, but it does make things clearer when used appropriately. Some novels are written in present tense, but most are in past tense. People don't question if a character is dead at the end of a novel written in past-tense, so why should it be an issue for a fictional wiki? — BadCatMan (talk) 00:48, May 4, 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again
I just want to add, as a random passerby who uses this wiki to flesh out details for characters I intend to play, the past tense thing makes many articles somewhat unreadable. "Soandso _was_ a deity of the _whatever_." Oh really? What are they now? With all the Spellplagues and Sunderings and whatevers that happen it's basically impossible to tell what exists and in what state in any given point in the history of the realms. (For reference, I care about 'current' 5e, whatever year that is...) 2601:441:8780:27CE:5C3C:5DB4:3F65:2817 04:26, May 15, 2018 (UTC)


 * It does not make articles unreadable. That's like saying you can't read a novel because it's written in past tense (aka narrative tense), yet all FR novels are in past tense. Or were in past tense, to use the past tense since the novel range stopped. Your last line is another good reason why we use past tense. There is no longer a fixed "present" to the setting, so present tense is pointless. It also not impossible to tell anything because all good articles should be dated to tell the reader when the information pertains to. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:00, May 15, 2018 (UTC)


 * I would say the current status or whereabouts of any given character would be whatever your DM decides. We always try to provide the most current information about a subject, and since the timeline has progressed over a hundred years from the 1st edition to the 5th, the "current" existence of some locations, people or groups simply isn't given. Furthermore, since 2nd and 3rd edition material were the most robust, the events of the following editions leave the world in a more open and malleable state of affairs. In terms of the years the editions take place:


 * 1st - 1356 DR - 1358 DR
 * 2nd - 1367 DR - 1370 DR
 * 3rd/3.5 - 1372 DR - 1374 DR
 * 4th - 1479 DR-1480 DR
 * 5th - ~ 1489 DR


 * Obviously there's a HUGE jump between the 3.5 and 4th editions and although there were many big picture changes during that century, the fates of a lot of characters, towns, etc is left up to the player, or future writers. Hope this helps to understand how we frame our articles. From my personal experience, I've always looked to the wiki as a way to help flesh out the background (as I think you do), and there are so many characters, events or organizations that are frozen at a moment in the timeline, due to lack of more-current source material, and it allows our imaginations to flourish. Ruf (talk) 06:06, May 15, 2018 (UTC)

Link Recommendation
I would suggest that we provide a link to Narrative time somewhere in this article. ~ Lhynard (talk) 20:37, May 20, 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will do! — BadCatMan (talk) 09:00, May 21, 2018 (UTC)

Really Confusing
This seems like one of the oddest decisions on this wiki. I was just at the Tressym page (which is a "Featured Article"... aka "one of the best"), which is about a type of magical beast, and everything is written in the past tense. Naturally I assumed it was extinct. *Why* would that article be written in the past tense? The reason "It's Narrative Past Tense" doesn't make sense... I'm not reading a novel.

Another example is the Wizard article: "Wizards were a form of who learned the art of through research and learning". Any normal person would read that article and think "I guess wizards don't exist anymore". The Monster Manual and the Player's Handbook are not written in this fashion for a reason.

Looking through some of the comments on this Talk page, I can see others feel likewise. There is so much precedent (and common sense) why a reference guide (which is a large part of this wiki) is not written in the past tense. Quickly reading through D&D materials, even those retelling stories from long ago (ex.: Fall of Myth Drannor), they do not use past tense except when they are retelling events.

Here's a great example from that resource where the author interweaves past narrative tense and present tense, depending on the context:

The choker's three chains share a singular clasp, though once worn, the clasp disappears and the chains unite until the death of the wearer."
 * "After its completion in the Year of the Dagger (348 DR), Symrustar never appeared anywhere without the familiar diadem glinting on her shapely neck.

Maybe that's a bit too advanced for regular wiki contributors, but there's no reason to force the Narrative Past Tense on all articles, even where it doesn't apply.

As an aside, it's not like somehow this wiki is the only one that has had to deal with a changing "current date" and where significant events happen to major characters. There are major game wikis (ex.: World of Warcraft) that deal with this all the time.

This was not a good decision from the beginning. And I vote to change it, at a start, for articles that are reference articles. That includes classes, monsters, items, spells and so on. Yes, sometimes the values (ex.: alignment) change over time (and editions). That's okay, we're already dealing with it, and putting everything in Narrative Past Tense doesn't make the problem go away.

TL:DR: Suggestion is to change the policy so that:


 * Reference materials are written in the present tense.

Thoughts? -- 03:27, May 18, 2020 (UTC)


 * "The reason "It's Narrative Past Tense" doesn't make sense... I'm not reading a novel."


 * See, I don't understand how it doesn't make sense. What do you think that you are reading then? You are reading narrative fiction, just like in a novel. I'm sure that you do not think the Forgotten Realms is real.


 * "Any normal person would read that article and think "I guess wizards don't exist anymore"."


 * Well, I hope that I am a normal person, and I do not think that at all when I read articles here. Especially since wizards don't actually exist! This is narrative fiction, describing a world that is supposedly forgotten. Who knows when the stories in this world took place relative to now? I don't find it any weirder than when I read any other work of fiction written in the narrative tense about a world that is completely imaginary. Any DM can also set the date to whenever she or he wants. All of my campaigns are set now in 1373 DR, but yours might be in 1495 or something. None of these dates have any relevance to the "now" of the real world. They could all be in the past or they could all be in the future.


 * You're basically just bringing up the same arguments that folks have made over and over. They've been argued through, and the fact is that the majority of regular editors here prefer the narrative tense policy.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 03:57, May 18, 2020 (UTC)


 * I find narrative past tense works really well in helping us maintain "Edition Neutrality". That being said, we should have the past-tense policy more prominently displayed, to help alleviate any confusion with new readers to the wiki. --Regis87 (talk) 04:15, May 18, 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the users above complaining about the use of past tense. It's really jarring! 'You' may be here so much that you think "Wizards were a form of who learned the art of through research and learning" is perfectly normal and in no way implies that a) wizards are extinct, or b) WotC have removed mages from the game. Most of us, though, read "Waterdeep... was the most important and influential city in the North" and wonder what happened to it, or wonder who killed all the dragons. No, I have no proof of this, except when discussing this wiki with friends and acquaintances, and several of them mention the jarring past tense.

There may well be a reason why people keep "just bringing up the same arguments that folks have made over and over"? Being dismissive or defensive about an issue people clearly have problems with isn't helping. Regards, TarbhDM (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel like the arguments for both cases have been made time and again so I personally will not rehash them now. May I ask what solutions there are to lessen confusion when reading articles on thr wiki? Ruf (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)