George Herbert wrote:
I just found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Capote#In Cold Blood
Apparently some time ago, someone added a metric conversion (4 km^2) to the term "1,000 acres" in the quoted New York Times article.
That's a direct historical quote - is an in-line metric units conversion appropriate within the quote?
It seems to me like we shouldn't be doing that.
It's a questionable practice. It is in square brackets to show that it's an addition, but I think a footnote would be better in this case. Why too is it in km^2 instead of hectares?
Because it's Bobblewik.
This particular editor is or has in the past been focussed on providing SI equivalents for almost everything that doesn't have them. I had a discussion with him on this particular point, because I feel strongly that "hectares" is what you might call the idiomatic metric conversion for "acres." Bobblewik is somewhat single-minded and determined, but always courteous, well-informed, intelligent, and willing to engage in discussion. I don't want to bother looking up what he said at the time, but I believe he cited chapter and verse for km^2 rather than hectares being the only true, proper, scientific SI unit.
Whether it's appropriate to stick strictly to best scientific practice in unscientific topic matter is not so clear.
I think I tried to find evidence that _lay_ European readers would be more comfortable with and more easily understand hectares than km^2 and failed to find anything crushingly conclusive.
I think the square brackets are very important here. I really detest editors correcting spelling or grammatical "errors" in direct quotations. But Bobblewik is very punctilious about such things.
I agree that a footnote would be better, and I suspect Bobblewik wouldn't object to a footnote, nor object to the footnote including both km^2 and hectares... but I don't feel like bothering about this on an article that is not one that I work on actively.
I don't see any terrible harm in it the way it is.
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
I just found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Capote#In Cold Blood
Apparently some time ago, someone added a metric conversion (4 km^2) to the term "1,000 acres" in the quoted New York Times article.
That's a direct historical quote - is an in-line metric units conversion appropriate within the quote?
It seems to me like we shouldn't be doing that.
It's a questionable practice. It is in square brackets to show that it's an addition, but I think a footnote would be better in this case. Why too is it in km^2 instead of hectares?
Because it's Bobblewik.
Hasn't Bobblewik been banned for mindlessly running an unauthorised bot?
On 11/1/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
I just found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Capote#In Cold Blood
Apparently some time ago, someone added a metric conversion (4 km^2) to the term "1,000 acres" in the quoted New York Times article.
That's a direct historical quote - is an in-line metric units conversion appropriate within the quote?
It seems to me like we shouldn't be doing that.
It's a questionable practice. It is in square brackets to show that it's an addition, but I think a footnote would be better in this case. Why too is it in km^2 instead of hectares?
Because it's Bobblewik.
Hasn't Bobblewik been banned for mindlessly running an unauthorised bot?
I believe he's been blocked because he makes so many changes per minute that his edits seem bot-like. He's been blocked 16 times so far for making format/units/link edits in this way. He wants Wikipedia to look a certain way, and it's really hard to dissuade him.
Jay.
On 11/1/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
I just found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Capote#In Cold Blood
Apparently some time ago, someone added a metric conversion (4 km^2) to the term "1,000 acres" in the quoted New York Times article.
That's a direct historical quote - is an in-line metric units conversion appropriate within the quote?
It seems to me like we shouldn't be doing that.
It's a questionable practice. It is in square brackets to show that it's an addition, but I think a footnote would be better in this case. Why too is it in km^2 instead of hectares?
Because it's Bobblewik.
This particular editor is or has in the past been focussed on providing SI equivalents for almost everything that doesn't have them. I had a discussion with him on this particular point, because I feel strongly that "hectares" is what you might call the idiomatic metric conversion for "acres." Bobblewik is somewhat single-minded and determined, but always courteous, well-informed, intelligent, and willing to engage in discussion. I don't want to bother looking up what he said at the time, but I believe he cited chapter and verse for km^2 rather than hectares being the only true, proper, scientific SI unit.
Whether it's appropriate to stick strictly to best scientific practice in unscientific topic matter is not so clear.
I think I tried to find evidence that _lay_ European readers would be more comfortable with and more easily understand hectares than km^2 and failed to find anything crushingly conclusive.
I think the square brackets are very important here. I really detest editors correcting spelling or grammatical "errors" in direct quotations. But Bobblewik is very punctilious about such things.
I agree that a footnote would be better, and I suspect Bobblewik wouldn't object to a footnote, nor object to the footnote including both km^2 and hectares... but I don't feel like bothering about this on an article that is not one that I work on actively.
I don't see any terrible harm in it the way it is.
When silly conversions are added, particularly when they mess up quotes, and particularly when done by someone with a history of doing this, I would simply revert them. No amount of discussion seems to make an impact in these sorts of situations.
Jay.
On 01/11/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Bobblewik is somewhat single-minded and determined, but always courteous, well-informed, intelligent, and willing to engage in discussion.
Except when changing the MOS before making an editing run, then putting "per MOS" in the edit summary. He's been blocked repeatedly for this behaviour.
- d.
On 11/3/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Except when changing the MOS before making an editing run, then putting "per MOS" in the edit summary. He's been blocked repeatedly for this behaviour.
Far from the only one to do this, though perhaps the most noticeable - most people change policies and guidelines to win an argument on one page or a few pages, while Bobblewik does so to change something site-wide.
Fortunately this only extends to changes in things like units and dates.
-Matt
On 11/3/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/11/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Bobblewik is somewhat single-minded and determined, but always courteous, well-informed, intelligent, and willing to engage in discussion.
Except when changing the MOS before making an editing run, then putting "per MOS" in the edit summary. He's been blocked repeatedly for this behaviour.
But I thought that was the way you were supposed to do it - edit policy/guidelines before you get into an argument, and then you're always right, since we must blindly follow policy and guidelines. After all, isn't the rule "whoever breaks the rules first wins" since after that everyone else is edit warring or wheel warring (unlike the first person to act, who is BE BOLDing)
On 03/11/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
But I thought that was the way you were supposed to do it - edit policy/guidelines before you get into an argument, and then you're always right, since we must blindly follow policy and guidelines. After all, isn't the rule "whoever breaks the rules first wins" since after that everyone else is edit warring or wheel warring (unlike the first person to act, who is BE BOLDing)
Also, as long as you can write civilly, you can be as absolutely bloody infuriating as you like, because after all your opponent is obviously wrong because they blew their top first. Assume smarmy faith!
- d.