On 12 Jun 2006 at 23:48, "Death Phoenix" <originaldeathphoenix(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I tend to call it Commonwealth English, except when something gets me
> > really annoyed, and then I'm liable to call it Proper Bloody English.
>
> PBE's a good one.
Pompous Bullshit English?
It (British/Commonwealth English) tends, in my (probably biased)
experience, to be used by people trying to put on airs and sound
pretentiously superior, like real estate developers naming a
development "Harbour Centre" when it's nowhere near a harbo(u)r nor
particularly close to the center/re of anything important, or fashion
magazines ("Glamour") that desperately want to show how elegant they
believe themselves to be, or snooty academics who would rather be
involved with an "encyclopaedia" than a commoner's "encyclopedia".
I find it especially bothersome to encounter the word "paedophile",
since I hardly think pedophiles deserve to be dignified with a
pretentiously dressed-up spelling.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
> "George Herbert" wrote,
> AFD is not an acceptable substitute for a cleanup notice and some cleanup
> efforts.
I didn't say that it was... but you snipped all that out, and just replied
to
the bit that suited you.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:23:11 -0700, "George Herbert"
>On 6/16/06, Cobb wrote:
>> A legit subject. So when has there ever been any actual lightsabre
>> combat? Has military research made some significant breakthroughs
>> without me noticing?
>Legit fictional:
>It's a major aspect of the Star Wars series, which are well past the
>credible size of popularity where major subjects within the fictional
>series are worth having articles about. Fictional aspects are perfectly
>reasonable to report on.
I have no problem with an article on "Lightsaber (Star Wars)"... the toys,
the stunt work... the effect it has had on popular culture etc etc. They
could even mention that some people have taken the styles developed
for the films and tried to replicate it at a serious level. All of this
could
be written in an encyclopedic manner, with reference to sources, instead
of being original research and fan waffle.
But... the only reason this AFD was "keep" is because of the number of
Star Wars voters. Take a look at the history of the article too. Short of
slashing and burning it (and then it may as well have been deleted),
it's not going to get any better because it was named for and written from
a fictional viewpoint by masses of fans who cannot tell real from
imaginary... and as a result it is fundmentally unencyclopedic. It should
have
been deleted, if only to preserve the illusion that AFD isn't a big joke and
to
give it a chance to start again (with a different name).
>Legit real-world martial art phenomenon: There are a few people trying to
>replicate the movie fighting style at a serious level.
Not with lightsabers they aren't.
Anyway, I'm not here to fight a case for deleting it. I'm just pointing out
a
particularly hideous case of why AFD is a grotesque broken horror show.
>geni on Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:59:07 +0100, wrote:
>It is a legit subject. The article can be cleaned up with the
>liberal use of machete editing. It would be nice to have
>something explaining why the fighting styles are mostly
>rather stupid but I can live without that.
A legit subject. So when has there ever been any actual
lightsabre combat? Has military research made some
significant breakthroughs without me noticing?
Came across this one:
[[Category:Football (soccer) terminology]]
The items in the category are not, as you might think, articles about
soccer terms themselves. Rather, they are all concepts related to
soccer, that have been put into this category for the (IMHO dubious)
goal of producing an automatic "glossary" of soccer terms. It would
seem to me that this category could be easily constructed by compiling
all the entries of:
Football (soccer) laws
Football (soccer) culture
...and probably lots of other categories that *should* exist.
I note that entries that are *only* in this category, and in no other
soccer-related articles, are probably missing something. For example,
[[Captain (football)]] really should be in some kind of
"Category:Football (soccer) roles" or something.
Anyway, just something to bear in mind to extend my previous
collection of category types. It could be just a type of thematic
category, but this idea of building a glossary from a category is new
to me.
Taxonomic/attributes (soccer laws)
Thematic (soccer)
Meta-attributes (stubs, 1911 etc)
+Terminology (soccer terminology)
Steve
---- Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:50:36 +0200, "Steve Bennett"
> <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In other words, he doesn't take Wikipedia that seriously, and is able
> >to make valuable contributions anyway.
>
> Seems set to become a rouge admin even before he's started!
Absolutely!
I think this RFA shows that RFA is still working. Several editors have changed their mind and are supporting him now.
Sydney aka FloNight
(originally posted to tech list, but replying here because I think it's
more on-topic here)
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi all,
> There's a bot substituting {{clear}} with the equivalent HTML: <div
> style="clear: both"></div>. There are several reasons I can think of
> why this is a bad idea:
Myself, I never understood the point in it at all. Why do you ever want
to clear floating elements? It creates ugly stretches of empty space. If
you feel that you need it in some particular situation, then surely that
is an indication that the floating elements are positioned badly, and
using "clear:both" only adds to it by also positioning the section
headers badly.
If there are too many images on the page, surely the page would look
better if they were turned into a gallery or removed entirely, instead
of stacking floating elements left and right.
Timwi
<Snip>
> I made my name and my information publically viewable because I don't
> believe that these people can actually hurt me in any concrete way. Maybe
> that was naive but I still can't think of how. They can be annoying and
> harassing, but if I don't let it get to me, it won't. Part of administrative
> responsibility is having the force of will to brush aside the people who
> don't deserve the recognition that giving a damn about them or what they do
> gives them.
>
> Ryan
Ryan,
Harassment and stalking are crimes for a reason. Though you probably don't mean to be dismissive of victims of these crimes, you come across that way when you say that you "don't let it get to you". The psychological trauma from harassment and stalking is real. Wikipedia needs to do a better job identifying the people that have harmed by this abuse and supporting them through the experience. This is a wise course of action for many reasons.
Sydney
I just noticed that we have [[Category:Digital cameras]] and
[[Category:SLR cameras]], but no [[Category:Digital SLR cameras]]. How
incredibly frustrating that the options are:
- Tag all DSLRs with a new category, leaving the two old ones (redundant)
- Tag all DSLRs with a new category, replacing the two old ones, and
putting the new category as a sub category of both SLR cameras and
Digital cameras (doesn't seem clean)
- Use CatScan (broken)
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=…
- ???
Steve
