Re: [WikiEN-l] General versus specific names/scope for articles
On 16/01/2009, brewhaha%40edmc.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
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
On 30/12/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 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
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
[WikiEN-l] General versus specific names/scope for articles
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. (FWIW if you want to see how 'glider' used to be see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unpowered_aircraft&oldid=256711991 I'm not convinced I understand what that version is doing there specifically, but that's where it currently is.) -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be very 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
