Introduce Illustrations, Kick Photos to the Curb[]
We have long had these five photos of scimitars on the article, as early on it was common practice for weapon articles. But at present most weapon articles use illustrations and we have a total of 58 illustrations on the wiki with the category "Images of scimitars". I think it's about time we get rid of these photographs and put our illustrations to use. In particular, I want to suggest "Circle of the Shepherd.png" and "Mamluk.png" for the infobox's 5e and 3e images respectively. - SunderedShor (talk) SunderedShor (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree more. There are more than enough illustrations from canonical sources. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree as well. I’m generally not a fan of all the photos on the wiki. - Arodp88 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Definitely, these should be phased out. I've already removed the images at short sword. ~ BadCatMan, Chief Scribe 03:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, I agree. Ir'revrykal (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am okay with this. —Moviesign (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Past Tense Discussion[]
I realize that the standard in this Wikia is to use the past tense in articles, but in this particular instance it seems completely wrong. Scimitars exist now in the real world, exist in the latest version of the Realms and are almost certain to exist in any future version of the setting (in-universe or ooc). Starting the article with "The scimitar WAS a weapon..." seems just plain wrong.
--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 01:11, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't undo the work that's already been done as per the policy. If you disagree with it, wait for others to get back to you on the discussion.
- I see no problem with using past tense here myself. This keeps consistency with other in-universe pages on the wiki, and we should only be talking about scimitars in Faerûn, hence the past tense is valid. Present tense is better for things that are explicitly based in the real world, such as sourcebook pages. -- BadCatMan (talk) 12:56, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
- If you'll notice the changes I made, not everything was changed to present tense; things pertaining directly to the Realms were kept in the past tense. Take for example the line "The scimitar was similar to the falchion in that it was a "backsword"," Even if every scimitar in the multiverse were to disappear, the scimitar would still be similar to the falchion; the resemblance does not end simply because this happened in the past. If we look at the rules, we find the line: "2nd edition and 3.5 edition Dungeons & Dragons allowed druids to wield scimitars..."; Those rules STILL allow druids to wield scimitars; even if they are not the "current" ruleset. Using "all past tense all the time" may be simple, but it is also the wrong approach for many entries. The Human article is an excellent example of a proper present-tense academic article: turning it into a past tense article implies that humans became extinct at some point in Faerûnian history, which is clearly not the case now now will it be in any foreseeable in-universe or occ future. The same applies to scimitars. Even in our real world, we still have scimitars, though few actually use them; any article that implied that scimitars no longer existed would be intrinsically wrong. THAT BEING SAID, one could say that "a scimitar is a weapon that was widely used by a particular ethnic group in the past". Care needs to be placed when writing and correcting such cases to maintain the correct tenses, but the result looks and reads better, is more authoritative and professional-looking. If the argument is that it "keeps consistency with other in-universe pages on the wiki", then the other articles in the wiki need to be reviewed as well; wrong is wrong, and "it's too much work" should not be an excuse for accepting an inferior and flawed product when something can be done to fix the problem.
- --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 15:49, November 4, 2012 (UTC)
- This wiki was originally written largely in present tense, but the policy for past tense was later adopted, and so we began writing in past tense and rewriting the old articles. The articles still in present tense are those that are incorrect and still need to be repaired.
- I see articles here as like a novel. Most novels are written in past tense, but this doesn't give any perspective that the characters are all dead and buried. Personally, I find past tense to be more solid and definite, "he jumped" rather than the more hazy and unresolved "he jumps". It's a matter of personal preference as to how one sees it, but I think most people won't have a problem.
- As you say, a great deal of care needs to be taken for proper academic styling (which we're not really aiming for here, by the way). I'm a scientific editor, and I'm forever switching between present, future and past tense when editing an academic paper. That may be too much to expect of most users, for whom more basic issues of article writing are enough of a problem. The in-universe/past-tense and out-of-universe/present-tense division is simple to understand and use, and widely adopted by other fictional universe wikias, and no great problem. -- BadCatMan (talk) 02:20, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
- Are you going to re-write the Humans page into wholly past tense? Not all articles should be written in the past tense; you are not the only scientific editor here... I should know. ;) --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 21:51, November 5, 2012 (UTC)