I wrote this up in my sandbox in response to a recent series of articles that botched writing about the science (myself included). Photosynthetic suggested I add it to the site proper.
Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.
Technical Writing & You / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» Technical Writing & You
This is the discussion related to the wiki page Technical Writing & You.
Reminds me of the buckets of fun I had writing (and re-writing, and editing) SCP-1086 while knowing nothing about bacteriology, epidemiology, or medicine. But what you learn is always useful. And thank god for Wikipedia on this front.
+1 and good work.
+1.
Another piece of advice to people, coming from someone who enjoys watching science fiction shows what that have lots of technobabble (with varying degrees of real-world accuracy): if you're going to go into an explanation of technobabble, then offer a "short version." Fun example from Star Trek IV:
Kirk: Out of the way…
Shore Patrolman: Sorry, Doctor, I have strict orders…
Dr. Gillian Taylor: [Gillian moans in pain]
McCoy: My God, man. Do you want an acute case on your hands? This woman has immediate postprandial, upper-abdominal distention. Now, out of the way! Get out of the way!
[They enter the operating room]
Kirk: What did you say she has?
McCoy: Cramps.
Now, that's a comedic rather than horrific example, but the same principle applies.
Fantastic guide! This is required reading for anyone writing an SCP.
Hornby also made me think of this:
Fry: "Well, usually on the show someone would come up with a complicated plan then explain it with a simple analogy."
Leela: "Hmm. If we can re-route engine power through the primary weapons and reconfigure them to Melllvar's frequency, that should overload his electro-quantum structure."
Bender: "Like putting too much air in a balloon!"
Fry: "Of course! It's so simple!"
Thank you for this. +1, of course!
I've been thinking for a while that we should collect a list somewhere of SCP writers with real-life expertise in technical fields, for quick reference. I know I'm always happy to give botanical advice, and conversely am always a little annoyed when an SCP goes up with obvious botany fail and no one asked me for help… I also know I'm not the only one with that sort of attitude towards my area of interest.
If you guys make that document, im the guy you want for history. Or the history of the gaming and home computer industry especially, but im still pretty knowledgable about general world history.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
By the title I had thought this would go into standard vocabulary, tone and style. This is just as helpful, though I don't know why someone needs to be reminded of this in an article, wouldn't this be common sense? +1 regardless.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
"Too bad common sense isn't."
— from "The Quotebooks of Solomon Short", by David Gerrold
I had thought this would go into standard vocabulary, tone and style
I've been thinking about doing something like that, too. I'm just worried a bit about whether it'd be too controversial, what with the various levels of clinicalness present in existing SCP articles.
Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.
I'd also add: If the technical data doesn't add to the quality of the article, consider concealing it behind [DATA EXPUNGED] or referring to a second document for the details (the second document, of course, doesn't exist). Or just drop it altogether.
Good advice, but on the other hand, writers need to avoid using [DATA EXPUNGED] when they have no idea what the science is. Something like "SCP-XXXX does [DATA EXPUNGED] with quantum states, resulting in [DATA EXPUNGED] to the entire east coast of New Zealand" just looks sloppy.
A general rule for ANY use of [REDACTED] or [DATA EXPUNGED] is to know what's behind it. I personally would only use a reference to a secondary, non-existent document if I was referring to unnecessary details. YMMV, of course.
Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.
I've seen successful expungements done without necessarily the writer knowing what's behind the censor. However, if they expunge potentially "vital", or otherwise necessary information in an attempt to make it scary, it pisses me off. It's not how expungements are written in as much as "now what is the point of the expungement?". I guess I can better phrase it as "why expunge, and does it do what you want?"
At least that has been the difference between good and bad censoring that I've seen. I might be completely wrong though.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
ok, I'm going to be avoiding posting with my phone more often. Double posts like my shoddy internet.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
(account deleted)It should be added in here somewhere that "exponential(ly)" does not just mean "a lot."
I saw "exponential hardness " used in an SCP once and I smacked my head so hard off a wall that it bruised.
Misusing this word is a hanging offence.
I think a generally good thing to have might be a list of technical/scientific things that people frequently misuse, like 'exponential' there, or waves without mediums, or 'absorbing' different kinds of energy, or whatever else people think would be useful to have there. Sort of like the Rules of Thumb, but for avoiding bad science.
if your reading this your gay
Being a List of the Words that Thou Shalt Not Employ, Unless Thou Art Certain of their Correct Meaning and Proper Use:
Sentient
Memetic
Sapient
Terminated
Nuclear
Constituent
"It's", and its evil twin "its". (A grammar issue rather than a technical issue, but a pet peeve.)
Genetic
DNA
Cellular
Evolution
Ray
So, get this. It's a sentient, nuclear DNA that works on a celluar level, by altering the constiuent evolution of terminated sapients, in a ray of genetics.
Admin, SCP Wiki
I've always thought some sort of sentient/sapient DNA could make a good start for an SCP…
if your reading this your gay
/forum/t-444792/technical-writing-you#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
