Category talk:WikiPOBia

From WikiPOBia

Revision as of 14:59, 26 September 2007

Re: naming conventions

To avoid confusion between real and fictional places, ships and events; I suggest that the sub category heading contain an indicator whether it is real or fictional. For example, the sub category ships, and article lepoard. It is not clear in the articles opening whether the article refers to the actual or fictional ship. The title bar could resolve this. If a standard convention is adopted now, it will avoid later confusion. --Sic Transit 01:02, 4 June 2007 (BST)

There is a note in the Naming conventions article that (ship) refers to ships in various books, while (historical ship) is a designation for an actual ship. Am I missing your point?

The pertinent bit from naming conventions:

For disambiguated names or names of secondary articles on a topic, the disambiguating text or secondary name should be placed inside parentheses following the primary name and the following conventions should be used:

* (novel) – for disambiguating book names

* (character) – for disambiguating character names

* (ship) – for disambiguating ship names

* (historical ship) – for articles on the real ships related to ships in O'Brian's work.

* for other less standard cases (like Jahleel Brenton), as concise an identifying description as possible --LadyShelley 02:35, 4 June 2007 (BST)

I've created the historical ship category and reedited the descriptive paragraphs for both Category:Ships and Category:Historical ships. Does that help to clarify which one is which? There is a Category:Actual location already created and I will make the Category:Fictional location to better define those items as well.

Events such as prominent battles, would probably be best served by writing the article about the actual event, then in the == In the canon == section specify how that event was used or described in the books.

Real vs fictional accounts of actual people could be handled in a similar fashion unless there are better ideas out there.

Much clearer, thank you. Perhaps I am slow but I found the distinction located in the naming convention something a casual browser might not pick up on. --Sic Transit 20:44, 4 June 2007 (BST)

I have a category suggestion, or two. "Flora" would be a good one, "Fauna" would be another. I also think a 'medical terminology' would be good; the next entry I'm adding will be for 'lint.' --Millia 04:15, 26 September 2007 (BST)

We have someone working on a Lexicon section (basically we're adding all of Gary Brown's Guide for the Perplexed)so "lint" may already be part of that. Also the lexicon space will be useful for very short, definition type entries. You can certainly add "lint" now, just know it may be moved later. --LadyShelley 14:44, 26 September 2007 (BST)

I'll hold off on 'lint'- it was just the next entry on my 'what i looked up' list. I'll move on to 'broad arrow' instead... And, this is of course IMHO, but I would think a lexicon might be narrowly defined to just 'words' that are not describing something that would fit into other categories- for example, lint falls into medicine, sloth into fauna, block into parts of a ship. Slut, however, doesn't really fit into such a category. I guess it's all kind of silly anyway for me, since 99% of the time I just hit 'search' over there on the left. YMMV.