--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
It would certainly be nice if each use of units was quoted in both systems though, unless it makes no sense to do so (e.g. non-engineering-oriented science articles). Putting in miles is appropriate, but not providing a conversion for them is sloppy.
-Mark
It's not sloppy if the editor doesn't know how to do the conversion.
RickK
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
AD and BC might be offensive to some, who knows what the abbrevations actually mean. Good stuff that so few know about it. But what ACTUALLY MUST be extremely offensive to a huge number of people is the imperialist use of the word "American." Therefore, if we change all instances of AD/BC, shouldn't be also change all instances of "American" to something that will not offend the majority of all Americans?
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
AD and BC might be offensive to some, who knows what the abbrevations actually mean. Good stuff that so few know about it. But what ACTUALLY MUST be extremely offensive to a huge number of people is the imperialist use of the word "American." Therefore, if we change all instances of AD/BC, shouldn't be also change all instances of "American" to something that will not offend the majority of all Americans?
Heh, that one has already been fought over a bunch of times.
It needs a standard template, for instance "{{horse carcass 352}}" that will link to the category of all related pages.
:-)
Stan
I created {{Horse carcass 352}} right now, but I dunno what to do with it. :)
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Stan Shebs wrote:
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
AD and BC might be offensive to some, who knows what the abbrevations actually mean. Good stuff that so few know about it. But what ACTUALLY MUST be extremely offensive to a huge number of people is the imperialist use of the word "American." Therefore, if we change all instances of AD/BC, shouldn't be also change all instances of "American" to something that will not offend the majority of all Americans?
Heh, that one has already been fought over a bunch of times.
It needs a standard template, for instance "{{horse carcass 352}}" that will link to the category of all related pages.
:-)
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com
AD and BC might be offensive to some, who knows what the abbrevations actually mean. Good stuff that so few know about it. But what ACTUALLY MUST be extremely offensive to a huge number of people is the imperialist use of the word "American." Therefore, if we change all instances of AD/BC, shouldn't be also change all instances of "American" to something that will not offend the majority of all Americans?
The argument is silly; "American" is short for "citizen of the United States of America", not "resident of North or South America". Quite a few non-U.S. "Americans" find it offensive to be called "American", and what "ACTUALLY MUST be extremely offensive" to them is when Scandinavians try to appropriate their voice in order to bash the United States. The mindless application of the word "imperialist" whenever people think of the United States is also offensive.
Jay.
Jay.
Rick said:
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
It would certainly be nice if each use of units was quoted in both systems though, unless it makes no sense to do so (e.g. non-engineering-oriented science articles). Putting in miles is appropriate, but not providing a conversion for them is sloppy.
-Mark
It's not sloppy if the editor doesn't know how to do the conversion.
Wouldn't it be cool to have some kind of macro system for pint, liter/litre, kilogram/kilogramme, foot, and whatnot--something not unlike the date conversion system we use, that enables me to see 8 October, 1988 where an American would see October 8, 1988.
Zhengzhu's script for maintaining side-by-side traditional and simplified chinese articles should work just as well for side-by-side US and Queen's English articles. We should try that out...
SJ
On 5/16/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Rick said:
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
It would certainly be nice if each use of units was quoted in both systems though, unless it makes no sense to do so (e.g. non-engineering-oriented science articles). Putting in miles is appropriate, but not providing a conversion for them is sloppy.
-Mark
It's not sloppy if the editor doesn't know how to do the conversion.
Wouldn't it be cool to have some kind of macro system for pint, liter/litre, kilogram/kilogramme, foot, and whatnot--something not unlike the date conversion system we use, that enables me to see 8 October, 1988 where an American would see October 8, 1988.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sj wrote:
Zhengzhu's script for maintaining side-by-side traditional and simplified chinese articles should work just as well for side-by-side US and Queen's English articles. We should try that out...
I believe at some point en: made a rough decision that we were willing to put up with a non-preferred version of color/colour for the sake of not introducing unnecessary complexity.
-Mark
Delirium said:
Sj wrote:
Zhengzhu's script for maintaining side-by-side traditional and simplified chinese articles should work just as well for side-by-side US and Queen's English articles. We should try that out...
I believe at some point en: made a rough decision that we were willing to put up with a non-preferred version of color/colour for the sake of not introducing unnecessary complexity.
Orthography aside, the languages are very closely bound because of American TV and movies. It would be a tragic duplication of effort to produce dual versions; the great strength of the English Wikipedia is that so many people of all nations can write English well enough for others to understand what they have written and, if necessary, correct minor grammar and spelling errors.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Delirium said:
Sj wrote:
Zhengzhu's script for maintaining side-by-side traditional and simplified chinese articles should work just as well for side-by-side US and Queen's English articles. We should try that out...
I believe at some point en: made a rough decision that we were willing to put up with a non-preferred version of color/colour for the sake of not introducing unnecessary complexity.
Orthography aside, the languages are very closely bound because of American TV and movies.
Orthogrphy is of no consequence in a medium designed to appeal to the illiterate.
Ec
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Delirium said:
Sj wrote:
Zhengzhu's script for maintaining side-by-side traditional and simplified chinese articles should work just as well for side-by-side US and Queen's English articles. We should try that out...
I believe at some point en: made a rough decision that we were willing to put up with a non-preferred version of color/colour for the sake of not introducing unnecessary complexity.
Orthography aside, the languages are very closely bound because of American TV and movies. It would be a tragic duplication of effort to produce dual versions
I don't think anyone is talking about "duplication of effort". I, personally, would advocate the use of a new syntax to mark the differing words. If I remember correctly, the syntax used in zh is -{traditional|simplified}-, so why not simply have -{labor|labour}-?
Timwi
On 5/17/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be cool to have some kind of macro system for pint, liter/litre, kilogram/kilogramme, foot, and whatnot--something not unlike the date conversion system we use, that enables me to see 8 October, 1988 where an American would see October 8, 1988.
I'd be interested to see you doing some fancy footwork over this as other users try to pound some sense into your head. Keep it in your own back yard, please.
Pete, wondering if we could call in Babelfish as a consultant.
Skyring said:
On 5/17/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be cool to have some kind of macro system for pint, liter/litre, kilogram/kilogramme, foot, and whatnot--something not unlike the date conversion system we use, that enables me to see 8 October, 1988 where an American would see October 8, 1988.
I'd be interested to see you doing some fancy footwork over this as other users try to pound some sense into your head. Keep it in your own back yard, please.
I wrote a system to do this kind of thing in the 1980s.
In VAXTPU. :)
On 5/17/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Skyring said:
On 5/17/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be cool to have some kind of macro system for pint, liter/litre, kilogram/kilogramme, foot, and whatnot--something not unlike the date conversion system we use, that enables me to see 8 October, 1988 where an American would see October 8, 1988.
I'd be interested to see you doing some fancy footwork over this as other users try to pound some sense into your head. Keep it in your own back yard, please.
I wrote a system to do this kind of thing in the 1980s.
What, make lousy puns?
On 5/17/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be cool to have some kind of macro system for pint, liter/litre, kilogram/kilogramme, foot, and whatnot--something not unlike the date conversion system we use, that enables me to see 8 October, 1988 where an American would see October 8, 1988.
I'd be interested to see you doing some fancy footwork over this as other users try to pound some sense into your head. Keep it in your own back yard, please.
I wrote a system to do this kind of thing in the 1980s.
What, make lousy puns?
Hah, I just got that! Nice catch.
On 5/16/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be cool to have some kind of macro system for pint, liter/litre, kilogram/kilogramme, foot, and whatnot--something not unlike the date conversion system we use, that enables me to see 8 October, 1988 where an American would see October 8, 1988.
Is this the season for dead-horse resuscitation?
Unit conversion is not necessarily very well done in automated ways. Yes, you'll get a conversion, but without a huge amount of parameterisation for preferred units, precision, and the like, it will provide a much poorer conversion than a manual one, where human judgment can be used to provide a good conversion.
And if you're willing to go to all that work to parameterize a conversion operation, isn't it easier to just do the conversion yourself?
-Matt (User:Morven)
P.S. so long as [[User:Bobblewik]] is active, we don't need such a system; he seems to be quite willing to ensure that all Imperial and US measurements in Wikipedia get a SI equivalent ...