I feel like suggesting to write the past tense more carefully. Since Arda is a past mythological version of our world, we should retain some tense continuity about topics that exist now. For example the article mushrooms speaks about the mushrooms in the past, as if they exist(ed) only on Arda, or they don't exist any more. IF I wrote the article I would use present perfect since they existed on Arda and still exist. Sage 13:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was pondering about the exact same problem about grammatical tense too. Can we go ahead and change all such examples of incorrect past tense? --Morgan 07:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps we also can remove all "explanations" of commonsense concepts (like in the articles butterflies, pines, etc) and leave the explanations to WP? --Morgan 07:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do not agree on that point with Mith. Even if the ‘commonsense’ articles did not exist we would still have the articles on languages and scripts. In those I find at times uses of the past tense that to me feel extremely awkward. As long as one can describe a language, its vocabulary and its usages, a language is, not was. Although Latin is no longer anyone’s native language, we still say ‘The noun in Latin is declined’, not ‘The noun in Latin was declined’. I feel the same goes for the languages of Middle-earth that are subject of articles on TG. And I don’t think anyone would seriously advocate that those are not properly our concern. I was thinking to propose just this point (tense in articles on languages and on subjects that also exists in the primary world) for the agenda of next meeting, but I’m not sure that I can actually attend, so it does not feel proper to raise points.
- On the point of ‘commonsense’ articles, I thought we had a discussion in some other place, and I don’t think it need to be brought in here. It provides no arguments in the discussion on tenses. — Mithrennaith 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)