[WikiEN-l] Movie v. Film

[Stan Shebs]

Richard Grevers wrote:

> On Mon, 05 May 2003 22:11:16 -0700, John Knouse <jaknouse at frognet.net> 
> gave utterance to the following:
>
>> Whoa, here's a radical solution: use the form "Jackass
>> (movie/film)".  There.  Doesn't that cover it?
>
>
> Or we could be encyclopaedic and write (motion picture) - which is 
> what the movie/film industry tends to formally call itself.

Hmmm, this is certainly more professional-sounding, although I
note that Wikipedia officially favors "common usage" over formal ones, thus
we title the article "Bill Clinton" instead of "William Jefferson 
Clinton".  I
like it better than "(movie/film)", which tells our readers "wikipedians 
were
too stiff-necked to agree on something simpler". :-)

Perhaps the next generation of software can have more variables to
adjust for reader nationality set via preference, so you could have
"Jackass (%MOTIONPICTURE)", "labo%Ur", "theat%ERRE",
and so forth.  Makes a little more work for editors, but avoids giving
offense.

Stan
.
.
.
.
.
(See, without the :-) you weren't sure whether my last paragraph
was a serious suggestion or not, eh?  But no, I wasn't serious.)