Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion


	/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion

Posted By: MrHen Date: 10/18/06 4:13 p.m.
In Response To: Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion (RyokoTK)

: I'm not. Calling the SO "the player" is just a safe term, which is
: what I'm saying and have been since the start of this topic.
: Fobo said (and I thoroughly agree) that both of those are out-of-universe
: situations, and any use of the phrase "the player" can easily be
: recognized via context to refer to the gamer as opposed to the SO.
They are just as recognizable by referring to one as the player and the other as player-character. We have not lost anything by making the distinction explicit.
: Or you could just not have an article about the gamer at all, since who
: cares, as you said. Everyone will know exactly what you mean.
: See above; the gamer should have no article at all.
There will be an article on the player because there will be references to the player. If someone wants to write an article it will be in the wiki. What we are doing is trying to make sure there are as few terminology collisions as possible.
There will be references that refer to the player-character and not the player. These will need to go somewhere, and unless you want to force every single one of those links to be manually edited, an article called "player-character" makes more sense. And nothing is lost anyway.
Even if there was no article on the guy behind the keyboard, there would still be an article on the player-character. If you never want to read about the guy behind the keyboard, you do not have to.
I guess I do not understand what the big deal on this is... why limit the wiki when it is not needed?

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

Terminology questions MrHen 10/16/06 6:40 a.m.

Re: Terminology questions Aaron Sikes 10/16/06 7:01 a.m.

Re: Terminology questions Forrest of B.org 10/16/06 7:28 a.m.

accepted MrHen 10/16/06 8:16 a.m.

Re: accepted Document 10/17/06 2:37 p.m.

My own terminology question RyokoTK 10/16/06 3:36 p.m.

Re: My own terminology question MrHen 10/16/06 4:01 p.m.

Re: My own terminology question RyokoTK 10/16/06 4:48 p.m.

perhaps... MrHen 10/16/06 5:18 p.m.

Re: My own terminology question Document 10/17/06 11:51 a.m.

Like Halo? *NM* MrHen 10/17/06 3:30 p.m.

Re: My own terminology question Forrest of B.org 10/16/06 6:19 p.m.

on The Player MrHen 10/16/06 8:11 a.m.

Re: on The Player Document 10/17/06 3:04 p.m.

dissenting opinions, but flexible MrHen 10/17/06 3:49 p.m.

Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 7:07 a.m.

Now we are getting somewhere MrHen 10/18/06 8:55 a.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere Aaron Sikes 10/18/06 9:58 a.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere RyokoTK 10/18/06 11:56 a.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere MrHen 10/18/06 1:27 p.m.

whoops, forgot a point MrHen 10/18/06 1:30 p.m.

Re: whoops, forgot a point Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 2:13 p.m.

That's what I'm saying. RyokoTK 10/18/06 2:39 p.m.

I agree, but come to a different conclusion MrHen 10/18/06 3:41 p.m.

Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion RyokoTK 10/18/06 3:54 p.m.

Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 4:05 p.m.

this is getting more off-topic... MrHen 10/18/06 4:22 p.m.

Re: this is getting more off-topic... Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 6:31 p.m.

my bad... MrHen 10/19/06 4:48 a.m.

Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion MrHen 10/18/06 4:13 p.m.

Re: whoops, forgot a point MrHen 10/18/06 3:26 p.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere Document 10/19/06 8:52 a.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere Forrest of B.org 10/19/06 6:52 p.m.

Re: Now we are getting somewhere Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 2:01 p.m.

Almost there... MrHen 10/18/06 3:50 p.m.

Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 2:22 p.m.

now *that* makes sense (final draft?) MrHen 10/18/06 3:53 p.m.

Final Draft? Forrest of B.org 10/18/06 4:13 p.m.

Re: Final Draft? Document 10/18/06 4:27 p.m.

Good. *shakes hands of everyone* MrHen 10/18/06 4:28 p.m.

Re: Good. *shakes hands of everyone* Document 10/19/06 8:33 a.m.

:) Go for it. *NM* MrHen 10/19/06 9:20 a.m.

Re: Good. *shakes hands of everyone* Forrest of B.org 10/19/06 6:55 p.m.

Re: now *that* makes sense (final draft?) Document 10/18/06 4:33 p.m.

Agreed *NM* Document 10/18/06 3:55 p.m.

Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible Document 10/24/06 1:47 p.m.

in-universe or out-of-universe? MrHen 10/24/06 4:41 p.m.

Re: on The Player Document 10/24/06 2:08 p.m.

that solves that. ;) *NM* MrHen 10/24/06 4:33 p.m.

Re: Terminology questions treellama 10/16/06 11:21 a.m.

Or Jason Jones? *NM* MrHen 10/16/06 11:27 a.m.

Re: Terminology questions Document 10/17/06 11:41 a.m.

*exctend=extend *NM* Document 10/17/06 11:45 a.m.

Re: Terminology questions RyokoTK 10/17/06 12:53 p.m.

Re: Terminology questions MrHen 10/17/06 3:51 p.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: They are just as recognizable by referring to one as the player and the other : as player-character. We have not lost anything by making the distinction : explicit. : There will be an article on the player because there will be references to : the player. If someone wants to write an article it will be in the wiki. : What we are doing is trying to make sure there are as few terminology : collisions as possible. : There will be references that refer to the player-character and not the : player. These will need to go somewhere, and unless you want to force : every single one of those links to be manually edited, an article called : "player-character" makes more sense. And nothing is lost anyway. : Even if there was no article on the guy behind the keyboard, there would : still be an article on the player-character. If you never want to read : about the guy behind the keyboard, you do not have to. : I guess I do not understand what the big deal on this is... why limit the : wiki when it is not needed?

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

Terminology questions	MrHen	10/16/06 6:40 a.m.
Re: Terminology questions	Aaron Sikes	10/16/06 7:01 a.m.
Re: Terminology questions	Forrest of B.org	10/16/06 7:28 a.m.
accepted	MrHen	10/16/06 8:16 a.m.
Re: accepted	Document	10/17/06 2:37 p.m.
My own terminology question	RyokoTK	10/16/06 3:36 p.m.
Re: My own terminology question	MrHen	10/16/06 4:01 p.m.
Re: My own terminology question	RyokoTK	10/16/06 4:48 p.m.
perhaps...	MrHen	10/16/06 5:18 p.m.
Re: My own terminology question	Document	10/17/06 11:51 a.m.
Like Halo? NM	MrHen	10/17/06 3:30 p.m.
Re: My own terminology question	Forrest of B.org	10/16/06 6:19 p.m.
on The Player	MrHen	10/16/06 8:11 a.m.
Re: on The Player	Document	10/17/06 3:04 p.m.
dissenting opinions, but flexible	MrHen	10/17/06 3:49 p.m.
Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 7:07 a.m.
Now we are getting somewhere	MrHen	10/18/06 8:55 a.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	Aaron Sikes	10/18/06 9:58 a.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	RyokoTK	10/18/06 11:56 a.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	MrHen	10/18/06 1:27 p.m.
whoops, forgot a point	MrHen	10/18/06 1:30 p.m.
Re: whoops, forgot a point	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 2:13 p.m.
That's what I'm saying.	RyokoTK	10/18/06 2:39 p.m.
I agree, but come to a different conclusion	MrHen	10/18/06 3:41 p.m.
Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion	RyokoTK	10/18/06 3:54 p.m.
Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 4:05 p.m.
this is getting more off-topic...	MrHen	10/18/06 4:22 p.m.
Re: this is getting more off-topic...	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 6:31 p.m.
my bad...	MrHen	10/19/06 4:48 a.m.
Re: I agree, but come to a different conclusion	MrHen	10/18/06 4:13 p.m.
Re: whoops, forgot a point	MrHen	10/18/06 3:26 p.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	Document	10/19/06 8:52 a.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	Forrest of B.org	10/19/06 6:52 p.m.
Re: Now we are getting somewhere	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 2:01 p.m.
Almost there...	MrHen	10/18/06 3:50 p.m.
Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 2:22 p.m.
now that makes sense (final draft?)	MrHen	10/18/06 3:53 p.m.
Final Draft?	Forrest of B.org	10/18/06 4:13 p.m.
Re: Final Draft?	Document	10/18/06 4:27 p.m.
Good. shakes hands of everyone	MrHen	10/18/06 4:28 p.m.
Re: Good. shakes hands of everyone	Document	10/19/06 8:33 a.m.
:) Go for it. NM	MrHen	10/19/06 9:20 a.m.
Re: Good. shakes hands of everyone	Forrest of B.org	10/19/06 6:55 p.m.
Re: now that makes sense (final draft?)	Document	10/18/06 4:33 p.m.
Agreed NM	Document	10/18/06 3:55 p.m.
Re: dissenting opinions, but flexible	Document	10/24/06 1:47 p.m.
in-universe or out-of-universe?	MrHen	10/24/06 4:41 p.m.
Re: on The Player	Document	10/24/06 2:08 p.m.
that solves that. ;) NM	MrHen	10/24/06 4:33 p.m.
Re: Terminology questions	treellama	10/16/06 11:21 a.m.
Or Jason Jones? NM	MrHen	10/16/06 11:27 a.m.
Re: Terminology questions	Document	10/17/06 11:41 a.m.
exctend=extend NM*	Document	10/17/06 11:45 a.m.
Re: Terminology questions	RyokoTK	10/17/06 12:53 p.m.
Re: Terminology questions	MrHen	10/17/06 3:51 p.m.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : They are just as recognizable by referring to one as the player and the other : as player-character. We have not lost anything by making the distinction : explicit. : There will be an article on the player because there will be references to : the player. If someone wants to write an article it will be in the wiki. : What we are doing is trying to make sure there are as few terminology : collisions as possible. : There will be references that refer to the player-character and not the : player. These will need to go somewhere, and unless you want to force : every single one of those links to be manually edited, an article called : "player-character" makes more sense. And nothing is lost anyway. : Even if there was no article on the guy behind the keyboard, there would : still be an article on the player-character. If you never want to read : about the guy behind the keyboard, you do not have to. : I guess I do not understand what the big deal on this is... why limit the : wiki when it is not needed?
	If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
	Optional Link URL:
	Optional Link Title:
	If necessary, enter your password below:
	Password: