Richard Grevers wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2003 22:11:16 -0700, John Knouse
<jaknouse(a)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.)