There's been discussion on Talk:Omsk on how to label subsections within the articles, without sounding dry, boring, or confusing. It seems the editors on the wiki are leaning towards somewhat standardized subheadings and we need a bit of brainstorming. — m (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
A section with information from an official source Edit
- (no subheading)
- In world
A section with information from the real world Edit
- Outside the Girl Genius Universe
- Outside world
- Possibly relevant outside information
- Meanwhile, back on EarthTM
- Extradimensional interference
- Transdimensional harmonics
- Transdimensional resonances
Common speculation Edit
- Open Questions (to pair with the article of the same name)
- Wild Conjecture
- Trivia (duh)
- Idle gossip
Let me explain my problem with 'inside/outside' Edit
Just so you know where I'm coming from on this.
I realise I take a somewhat more immersionist/fourth wall approach to this than the rest of you, as far as I can see. That means I'm not seeing 'in' or 'out' of anything - we're looking at parallel timelines, quantumly symmetrical realities, not the Shrunken City of Kandor or, even more diminished, a ship in a bottle. That's there/here.
We're also looking at not a journalistic recital of events in Europa, but a past-tense work of academic historical research filtered through a popular storytelling format (there's my immersionism). That's then/now. That also excuses a whole lot of author error, because we're getting this information on Agatha's life second-hand at the very best.
We also have theirs/ours. Anything not specified as different can be safely assumed to be similar enough not to matter for the time being - Heidelberg is a good example, Mnen and I were debating this. We don't need any of Othar's increasingly precious 140 characters to tell us Heidelberg is a famous university town with a party attitude and a taste for fencing scars - we know that, we can look it up here, because other than some faculty and departmental changes, they are the same place with sufficiently identical history. Therefore, our information is good enough until specifically contradicted.
Even if we don't specifically the there, theirs, then, we have to balance the equation; we have to define equal terms in order for them to make sense at all. And outside/inside are not those terms.
Ponderously, Corgi 22:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I kinda see what you're saying. At any rate, may I move this (or you can) to the comments section in the actual forum topic? — m (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh - I didn't want to mess up the structure that was there. Would you move it to where you feel appropriate, please? -- Corgi 06:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have other suggestions for words to use to distinguish the two worlds/settings/universes?
- I somewhat disagree with your example of Heidelberg. While we can gain some benefit from knowing the "real world" cities, we can't make assumptions based on the real world cities without canonical evidence.
- Then we have to go Fair Witness which means 'Heidelberg is a city in which beer was sold' is the whole of the article. By ignoring the parallel, you're also ignoring the inherent information we're given as to, say, Othar's path - Heidelberg isn't on The Map. We're also just following the same research and sources the Foglios are using (or are trying to). -- Corgi 06:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- [exasperation] History is not 'creating our own canon'! I understand not 'assuming facts', but you're taking it a little too far in the abstract direction. Next logical step is to tell me I can't assume London is in SE Britain, Paris can't be assumed to be French and Transylvanians can't be assumed to speak Romanian. Look, we can tell when it's a town not in our history because we won't be able to find it in Google Maps; and if we're wrong about something like Heidelberg having a university [insert laugh track here] then we edit it when we find out differently. Because nobody except the Foglios will be able to know we're wrong until EVERYBODY knows at the same time. Until then, being "wrong" won't damage anybody's reading experience and might actually teach them something.
- I feel like I'm not explaining myself well enough, so I apologise if this seems repetitive. -- Corgi 08:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- (I'd suggest we avoid using the Comments section right now. The forum is described as brainstorming, and I'd like to collect more suggestions before we stop brainstorming and start critiquing.) Argadi 01:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't noticed much in the way of actual discussion. Or suggestions that don't simply repeat the previous 'bottle-city' errors. To answer specifically for myself, I have had no inspiration as yet. -- Corgi 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Quoting a friend in the same circlesEdit
There's an interesting terminology that cropped up some years ago on the Lois McMaster Bujold e-list that might be useful here.
Depending on one's point of view, the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes had two different authors.
In "our world" it is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who wrote them as fiction.
In "their world" it is Dr. John Watson, chronicling true stories.
On the Bujold list, they use the terms "Doylist" and "Watsonian" to distinguish the point of view from within the story's universe from that of the "real world" people on the list. "The author had a better idea" often requires a complicated Watsonian explanation to why Ivan is Lord Vorpatril even though he is not the son of Count Vorpatril and other inworld conventions.
The Girl Genius e-list people seem to use "GGverse" which seems clumsy to me but at least has some precedent.
I have heard the term "ficton" used as a shorthand for "in-story universe" although I am really not sure where it came from. Possibly Heinlein, where they traveled amongst different fictons in "The Number of the Beast--" or possibly Spider Robinson. So, the Girl Genius Ficton.
-- Selene via Corgi 23:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. Too many people would think it was a misspelling of "fiction". — m (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
A partial contribution from elsewhere (meaning Blade)Edit
'Folgian Interpretation -- the popular interpretations "On The Aether" and in those cunning picture-books by the Professors Foglio'
- I like "On the Aether", but it's not a straightforward term. Though it tempts me to suggest "Extradimensionally". — m (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Transdimensional harmonics Edit
I think Transdimensional harmonics would be quite confusing for many readers. I think I would be confused about it at times. Extradimensional interference would also be unclear. I think we should strive for clarity for the sake of new or occasional readers. Argadi (talk) 11:16, June 17, 2016 (UTC)
- Then presumably you think "transdimensional resonances" is also too confusing? I was going to send a message to Girl Genius on Facebook to try to get input (from the readers there). And I feel pretty sure User:Corgi is still around; since this was their thing I would want to get the dog's approval before moving on it. Maybe User:Graybeard. Of course, you're used to it... Mnenyver at the time we started /Mad just wanted the PROI info moved off the main page into /Mad, regardless of what it was called. ⚙Zarchne (talk) 16:57, June 17, 2016 (UTC)
- While my first reaction was that the would be a clever replacement name for the "Possibly Relevant Outside Information" section, I have to agree with Argadi that readers new to Girl Genius, and possibly even many who were familiar with the comic, might well be confused as to what a section heading of "Transdimensional Harmonics" was supposed to mean. I, somewhat regretfully, feel I must withdraw my support for this idea. I think the current section heading of "Possibly Relevant Outside Information," while not inspired, at least describes the section's purpose clearly and reasonably concisely. -- William Ansley (talk) 03:29, June 18, 2016 (UTC)