Re: [WikiEN-l] General versus specific names/scope for articles

2009-01-16 Thread Ian Woollard
On 16/01/2009, brewhaha%40edmc.net brewh...@edmc.net wrote:
 In this matter of choice, I avoid jeneral terms when I can. For example, I
 rarely write algae, because that could refer to moss that has a solid
 substrate or dissolved phytoplankton. The practical difference is that
 plankton can grow (and consume oxygen in decomposition) a lot faster than
 moss. Other writers figure that they want to, and can safely get rid of,
 both, so they lump it altogether in algae, a word that I avoid.

But what would you do if you found that the algae article in the
wikipedia had been hijacked by somebody that defined it to be only
dissolve phytoplankton, and two editors were conspiring to ensure that
this never changes; and at least one of the editors teaches people how
to dissolve phytoplankton for a living?

I mean if there's always two editors saying no to everything, then
there's never going to be consensus to change anything in the article
right?
-- 
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
imperfect world would be much better.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


Re: [WikiEN-l] General versus specific names/scope for articles

2009-01-15 Thread brewhaha%40edmc.net
In this matter of choice, I avoid jeneral terms when I can. For example, I 
rarely write algae, because that could refer to moss that has a solid 
substrate or dissolved phytoplankton. The practical difference is that 
plankton can grow (and consume oxygen in decomposition) a lot faster than 
moss. Other writers figure that they want to, and can safely get rid of, 
both, so they lump it altogether in algae, a word that I avoid.

Is no combusion external to an enjin? Or, external combusion is incidental 
to light enjinz like rockets and afterburning turbines. Does having the fire 
enclosed in solids for the vast majority of the burn make it internal 
combustion? I think that is a popular understanding that excludes rockets 
and turbines. 




___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


Re: [WikiEN-l] General versus specific names/scope for articles

2008-12-30 Thread Ian Woollard
On 30/12/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
 This is probably not the response you are looking for, but for
 me a glider is the hacker emblem, or any one of ASCII, or
 graphical representations of the pattern

Well, when I was younger I implemented Conway's Life many times.

 oxo
 oox
 xxx


 Being a representation of a pattern in John Conway's game
 of Life, which will travel in a diagonal line, unless it comes
 up on territory with other content.

Yes, then it often disintegrates. I don't think it will take over from
the aircraft territory articles for that reason, alas their other
lesser content will get in the way. ;-)

 Yours,

 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

Hacker != Cracker!

-- 
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
imperfect world would be much better.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


Re: [WikiEN-l] General versus specific names/scope for articles

2008-12-29 Thread Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Ian Woollard wrote:
 There's recently been a change to the naming disambiguation guideline.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Common_subsets_versus_less_common_supersets_with_shared_names

 I'm interested in whether that is considered a good idea or not.

 For example the term 'internal combustion engine' usually refers to
 piston engines and wankel engines, but the term technically actually
 covers gas turbines and jet engines as well, in a less common sense.
 This is actually the way the Encyclopedia Britannica defines the term,
 it defines it in the most general sense. If you try to define the
 everyday sense you end up with an arbitrary definition that is
 difficult to defend, it's this or that only. Presumably that's why the
 EB does it the general way.

 Another example is jet engine, again, it normally covers turbojets and
 turbofans, but also ramjets, and in the most general (less common
 sense) it covers rockets and water jet powered boats. That's the way
 the jet engine article currently goes.

 The term 'aircraft engine' very often refers to, in aviation usage,
 just piston engines and Wankel engines used for aircraft, but not to
 jet engines, however it's easy to find jet engine manufacturers that
 refer to their jet engines as 'aircraft engines' as well, and the term
 would lead you to expect it to be more general than just piston
 engines.

 The same discussion has in the last two weeks or so recently cropped
 up in 'glider'. A lot of people use the term to refer to what can be
 termed sailplanes, and some don't even really consider, for example,
 'hang gliders' to be gliders. I agree that people will usually imagine
 a sailplane when they are asked what a glider is, but I find that they
 will also usually agree that other things are gliders also.

 I'm not sure there's a right or a wrong exactly, but the wikipedia is
 probably a general publication and therefore, it seems to me, gets
 forced in a lot of cases to use general terms, (and this is the catch)
 even if they're somewhat less common, because the general term is
 synonymous with the specific term but a superset and usually easier to
 define.

 I'm just wondering what people here think about this issue in general
 and the ongoing 'glider' one in particular. Is 'glider' more or less
 anything/an aircraft that glides, or is it specifically a (for want of
 a better name) a sailplane.
   

This is probably not the response you are looking for, but for
me a glider is the hacker emblem, or any one of ASCII, or
graphical representations of the pattern

oxo
oox
xxx


Being a representation of a pattern in John Conway's game
of Life, which will travel in a diagonal line, unless it comes
up on territory with other content.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l