Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Wiki Project => Topic started by: TopAce on December 09, 2008, 12:18:10 pm
-
It's been itching my nose for some time, but after reading this (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/PF_Hellbat), I feel like screaming. Here's the original Tech Description for you:
The HellBat is a pirate varient of the Great War era Ulysses. Ulysses fighters were stripped of their shields, weapons, engines and many other tactical systems and were sold to the highest bidder under the Post Cappella Economic Reclaimation Act. Many of theese ships fell into pirate hands where they were heavily modified. Their innards were gutted to make room for a quad Gatling System. Much larger engines were added as well as lateral thrusters, greatly improving speed and handeling. Diamondfiber composit armor and makeshift shields complete the package, making the HellBat the biggest threat next to the Shivans. To quote the GTVA pilot that first spotted one 'It was like a bat out of hell, no pun intended', and the name stuck.
(And it's still not clear whether it's Hellbat or HellBat.)
If we were to correct all the mistakes that are in it, we would end up with this (corrections highlighted):
The HellBat is a pirate variant of the Great War-era Ulysses. Ulysses fighters were stripped of their shields, weapons, engines and many other tactical systems and were sold to the highest bidder under the Post-Capella Economic Reclamation Act. Many of these ships fell into pirate hands where they were heavily modified. Their innards were gutted to make room for a quad Gatling System. Much larger engines were added as well as lateral thrusters, greatly improving speed and handling. Diamondfiber composit armor and makeshift shields complete the package, making the HellBat the biggest threat next to the Shivans. To quote the GTVA pilot that first spotted one: 'It was like a bat out of hell, no pun intended', and the name stuck.
However, since this is a quote from someone else's work - specifically, the table file -, we just cannot modify it. It would also be inconsistent with the Tech Descp with which it was released. The standard way of handling quotes that have spelling and typological mistakes in them is the [sic] way:
The HellBat is a pirate varient [sic] of the Great War era [sic] Ulysses. Ulysses fighters were stripped of their shields, weapons, engines and many other tactical systems and were sold to the highest bidder under the Post Cappella Economic Reclaimation Act [sic]. Many of theese [sic] ships fell into pirate hands where they were heavily modified. Their innards were gutted to make room for a quad Gatling System. Much larger engines were added as well as lateral thrusters, greatly improving speed and handeling [sic]. Diamondfiber composit armor and makeshift shields complete the package, making the HellBat the biggest threat next to the Shivans. To quote the GTVA pilot that first spotted one 'It was like a bat out of hell, no pun intended', and the name stuck.
(Note that not only spelling mistakes were sic'ed here; absences of punctuation marks were not).
This is the method I encourage people to follow. This is the way it is done in journalism and academic writing to mark mistakes in quotes. Yes, it basically suggests "It is not me that cannot spell, but the one that I quote," but it's an excellent tool to leave someone's work intact while calling the reader's attention to the fact that is not something the editors can touch. Using such notations makes our Wiki look a bit more professional.
I would like to sort out a deal with you, as some of our Tech Descriptions have some sort of spelling mistakes in them, and it should be clear to all readers if it is the man that wrote the TD that cannot spell, or collectively all editors who happened to access that page.
-
Uh... it's a wiki. You're not quoting anyone. It's obvious what the intent was and even if it wasn't it's in your rights to change it.
I say just fix the silly mistakes. You're proofreading, not editing.
-
Were is the pun that "no pun intended" is referencing?
-
Ulysses is nicknamed the Bat.
-
I interpreted it as "bat out of hell" a pun to the name "HellBat" even though that doesn't make sense. If it's just a pun of the Ulysses's nickname, then it's not really a pun since that is its nickname called by pilots.
And I think TopAce meant that it shouldn't be proofread because the tech description of the model is messed up. In order for it to be proofread, one has to change the tech description of the model as well and re-upload a link, with a note saying that the tech description is proofread by so and so.
-
In order for it to be proofread, one has to change the tech description of the model as well and re-upload a link, with a note saying that the tech description is proofread by so and so.
:rolleyes: You can tell the community's getting older when an easy, logical fix like this that nobody would ever complain about if you fixed it gets bogged down in bureaucracy and red tape.
Just do it. Geez.
-
In order for it to be proofread, one has to change the tech description of the model as well and re-upload a link, with a note saying that the tech description is proofread by so and so.
... I reckon that if you're using the model, you'd probably change the tech description to suit your purposes, or at least I do, so I don't see the point.
So just fixing the wiki entry will be fine.
-
In order for it to be proofread, one has to change the tech description of the model as well and re-upload a link, with a note saying that the tech description is proofread by so and so.
... I reckon that if you're using the model, you'd probably change the tech description to suit your purposes, or at least I do, so I don't see the point.
So just fixing the wiki entry will be fine.
Exactly!
Its a tech description...and if its on a wiki, it means it can be edited. No one's going to go "F*CK YOU YOU EDITED MY TECH DESCRIPTION! I AM GOING TO SUE YOU!" Well, noone in the right mind, at least.
-
That's not the most important point of it. It's rather about inconsistency. If the real description is not the one that is in the Wiki, then the Wiki is inaccurate. Using [sic] -or leaving it as it is in the worst case - prevents it.
-
Who cares? :wtf:
Seriously, either just copy and paste to minimize the effort involved, or fix it and make it look pretty. Writing "[sic]" everywhere means you go to all the trouble of proof reading it and then make no positive changes. Waste of time. You're not quoting the Magna Carta here.
Incidentally composit should be composite. :p
-
...Writing "[sic]" everywhere means you go to all the trouble of proof reading it...You're not quoting the Magna Carta here.
Proofreading or not is your choice. No one orders you to do that, but if you want to do that, do it in a proper way.
It's not about what you quote, but the mere fact that you're quoting something. If you want to use some text that is not yours, you quote it. As much as you cannot just change complete words in quotes, you cannot change the way in which they are said or written. Or paraphrase it, but it won't work for Tech Descriptions. [sic] is the proper way of indicating mistakes in a quote. That we are a gaming community does not mean we should disregard everything that we don't like.
-
After watching the stupidity being displayed in this thread, I took the initiative.
-
After watching the stupidity being displayed in this thread, I took the initiative.
Thank God for Snail.
-
Seconded.
-
Well you can always add an information "Spelling fixxxored
-
Bump.
Uh, can we have clarification on this? I noticed some reverts going on with people changing tech descriptions.
-
Changing spelling is okay, per this thread. Changing the texts themselves (word choice, sentence structure) is not.
-
Changing the texts themselves (word choice, sentence structure) is not.
But what if the structuring of syntax sentence is using the incorrect of grammar and read resembling Engrish text from game Zero Wing "All your base are belong to us"?
-
But what if the structuring of syntax sentence is using the incorrect of grammar and read resembling Engrish text from game Zero Wing "All your base are belong to us"?
Then you must suffer for eternity.
-
Basically, changing it so that the tech description has good English is fine.
-
Changing sentence structure while retaining its original meaning is fine, but changing it to mean something different, is not.
-
Frankly I still think it should reflect what's in the .tbms, but...
-
Frankly I still think it should reflect what's in the .tbms, but...
Yes, that's the basic principle. Otherwise why call it "Tech Description," not simply "Description" or "Information"?
-
imho there is only one excuse for bad spelling and grammar and that is translating between languages
With modern word processors you have a tool useful for basic spelling and grammar, OK it's not perfect but a quick thesaurus check will reveal if you get the right word
-
hippocrite
misspelling intentional
-
Frankly I still think it should reflect what's in the .tbms, but...
Yes, that's the basic principle. Otherwise why call it "Tech Description," not simply "Description" or "Information"?
Then why are we correcting its spelling, let alone fixing its grammar? :P
-
Ask those who do change those things. I wouldn't change anything at all.
-
Ask those who do change those things. I wouldn't change anything at all.
Yeah I didn't either.
If people are annoyed by badly worded tech descriptions but have their hands tied in terms of changing them, they could always proofread the tech descriptions for a campaign, give it to the author and have them use it as a fix. Then your corrected tech desc will be "official" and you can likewise copy them into the Wiki. Har de har har ;7
But . . .personally, I wouldn't bother.