Talk:Conventions (theatre): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Launt Thompson (→We, us) |
imported>Joe Quick m (subpages) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
==We, us== | ==We, us== | ||
Is there a way to re-craft this without the "we" and "us" language? It gives it too much of a personal rather than "encyclopedic" tone, I think. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 00:06, 23 August 2007 (CDT) | Is there a way to re-craft this without the "we" and "us" language? It gives it too much of a personal rather than "encyclopedic" tone, I think. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 00:06, 23 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
| Line 5: | Line 6: | ||
Thanks of breaking up the paper and putting in the box. I didn't know how to do this. | Thanks of breaking up the paper and putting in the box. I didn't know how to do this. | ||
I've taken your suggestion and edited the 'wes' and 'uss' though I'm not sure the paper is any better for it. Rather, than an "encyclopedic tone' I thought of citizendium as a compilation of the peoples wisdom. Sanger suggests we be bold and the 'encyclopedic tone'does not seem to sit well with the notion of boldness. But not to worry. It may well be that this paper is simply not suitable for citizendium. It has to be the case that sometimes we try but fail. It's no big deal, I wont be insulted.[[User:Launt Thompson|Launt Thompson]] 04:48, 24 August 2007 (CDT) | I've taken your suggestion and edited the 'wes' and 'uss' though I'm not sure the paper is any better for it. Rather, than an "encyclopedic tone' I thought of citizendium as a compilation of the peoples wisdom. Sanger suggests we be bold and the 'encyclopedic tone'does not seem to sit well with the notion of boldness. But not to worry. It may well be that this paper is simply not suitable for citizendium. It has to be the case that sometimes we try but fail. It's no big deal, I wont be insulted.[[User:Launt Thompson|Launt Thompson]] 04:48, 24 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Well, sure, encyclopedia writing is a different kind of writing, but one, I can say, that is exceptionally satisfying. We can be bold when we find that Citizendium has no lead article for [[theater]], nor one for [[Romeo and Juliette]], for example - we can see that and write the encyclopedia entry for it ''without anyone's permission at all''. That's the idea behind "Be Bold!", and also that you don't have to worry that you know formatting tricks ''before'' contributing, because, as you've seen, someone will be along who knows how. The project is ''not'' about collecting people's personal experience, although that ''could'' be gotten from the idea of a Citizen's Compendium of Everything" and experience is ''certainly'' a part of acquiring encyclopedic expertise on topics, I'm sure you'd agree. I'd think there is most certainly established conventions in theater that, well, make it theater, and that it would therefore be a rightful subject of an an encyclopedia project. I confess to be largely ignorant about this general topic, however. One idea might be to read some [[:Category:Approved_Articles|approved articles]] on the wiki to get a good idea of the style and tone and so forth they are written in, and adjust things from there. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 06:01, 24 August 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:07, 18 December 2007
We, us
Is there a way to re-craft this without the "we" and "us" language? It gives it too much of a personal rather than "encyclopedic" tone, I think. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:06, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
Thanks of breaking up the paper and putting in the box. I didn't know how to do this.
I've taken your suggestion and edited the 'wes' and 'uss' though I'm not sure the paper is any better for it. Rather, than an "encyclopedic tone' I thought of citizendium as a compilation of the peoples wisdom. Sanger suggests we be bold and the 'encyclopedic tone'does not seem to sit well with the notion of boldness. But not to worry. It may well be that this paper is simply not suitable for citizendium. It has to be the case that sometimes we try but fail. It's no big deal, I wont be insulted.Launt Thompson 04:48, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
- Well, sure, encyclopedia writing is a different kind of writing, but one, I can say, that is exceptionally satisfying. We can be bold when we find that Citizendium has no lead article for theater, nor one for Romeo and Juliette, for example - we can see that and write the encyclopedia entry for it without anyone's permission at all. That's the idea behind "Be Bold!", and also that you don't have to worry that you know formatting tricks before contributing, because, as you've seen, someone will be along who knows how. The project is not about collecting people's personal experience, although that could be gotten from the idea of a Citizen's Compendium of Everything" and experience is certainly a part of acquiring encyclopedic expertise on topics, I'm sure you'd agree. I'd think there is most certainly established conventions in theater that, well, make it theater, and that it would therefore be a rightful subject of an an encyclopedia project. I confess to be largely ignorant about this general topic, however. One idea might be to read some approved articles on the wiki to get a good idea of the style and tone and so forth they are written in, and adjust things from there. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 06:01, 24 August 2007 (CDT)