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