Testwiki:Reading room/Archives/2015/June

From testwiki
Revision as of 09:12, 19 August 2015 by imported>ArchiverBot (Bot: Archiving 1 thread from Wikibooks:Reading room/General.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Talk archive

Rename of the title of the book

Could you please change the letter in the word "peculiarities" from small to capital in the title Pragmalinguistic Peculiarities of English Slogan in Fashion Domain. I mistyped it in the page title and now it is written with a small letter, however it should be written with the capital one.

All done, thanks - QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 10:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this good wikitext?

Am I correct in assuming that the following is not valid wikitext?


Figure 9.3: Variation of Pressure with Depth
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3 cm 
\epsfbox{fig9-2a.eps}\end{center}\end{figure}

I ask because I once reverted an edit on a physics Wikipedia page only to discover that my browser was not configured properly. If the aforementioned text is valid, let me know and I will undo my revert.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 12:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I found it at Fundamentals_of_Physics/Fluid_Mechanics#Variation_of_Pressure_with_Depth and will hold off the revert till I hear from you reverted the edit.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 12:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 18:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Template:Ping It's LaTeX markup rather than wiki markup, and in this case it seems to be a symptom of the text being copied from somewhere else. I easily found it on the web by googling the first sentence of the section in question. Afaics it's copyvio.
(Looks like in reverting the edit you also undid a couple of typo fixes.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Template:Ping I reinserted the typo fixes, which should end this conversation, I think. Thanks, π0--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 12:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Pywikibot compat will no longer be supported - Please migrate to pywikibot core

Sorry for English, I hope someone translates this.
Pywikibot (then "Pywikipediabot") was started back in 2002. In 2007 a new branch (formerly known as "rewrite", now called "core") was started from scratch using the MediaWiki API. The developers of Pywikibot have decided to stop supporting the compat version of Pywikibot due to bad performance and architectural errors that make it hard to update, compared to core. If you are using pywikibot compat it is likely your code will break due to upcoming MediaWiki API changes (e.g. T101524). It is highly recommended you migrate to the core framework. There is a migration guide, and please contact us if you have any problem.

There is an upcoming MediaWiki API breaking change that compat will not be updated for. If your bot's name is in this list, your bot will most likely break.

Thank you,
The Pywikibot development team, 19:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #3—2015

10:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #3—2015

13:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Annotated Jurassic World Wikibook. Good idea?

I'm sure you're all aware that the summer blockbuster Jurassic World has just been released. Wikibooks's annotated texts policy states that works annotating movies can be created, and the featured status of the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter suggests that these sorts of companion pieces to copyrighted works are acceptable here, so I was wondering if a book-length scene by scene breakdown of the screenwriting, cinematography, effects, scientific accuracy (especially), etc of Jurassic World, like a movie version of Cliffs or Spark Notes, would be a viable project here. Abyssal (discusscontribs) 01:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It all depends on the "educational" content, in general blockbuster movies are not worth speaking much about in regards to creative writing or even the cinematography. This one in particular, Jurassic World, is a very poor example of movie art, its full of cliches and the logic of the script goes out of the window about 30m in. In general it would be better to go about it like we go about biographies, avoid covering contemporaneous subjects since they bring about a lot of emotional baggage... --Panic (discusscontribs) 09:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't pointing out cliches have merit of its own? Abyssal (discusscontribs) 14:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, despite starting the list with "movie stuff" like the screenwriting and cinematography, I'm personally more interested in scientific criticism. If contemporaneous topics aren't allowed, then why is the Harry Potter book featured? Abyssal (discusscontribs) 17:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate a book about writing/script writing clinches in general not particular to a specific movie, that would be educational.
Now regarding contemporaneous material I did not say we prohibit it but common sense dictates that it tends to be problematic and in general should be avoided. It rarely has any merit as contemporaneous topics are too "recent" to be of historic remark and importance (value, especially educational), lacking the time to contrast with what have and will happen. As an example, many movies had a very different status at the time they got to market (and a bit after) especially those that have very specific niches and did not get the blockbuster marketing expenses. For example w:Re-animator or the cycle w:Hellraiser did not had any special notability. Time is was defines what is culturally relevant.
In any case Jurassic World is bad-science fiction (very few connections to science facts or even scientific speculation) script wise, there is not much that is scientific about it, besides the points that it got from the first movie there isn't much positive to say in that regard. --Panic (discusscontribs) 00:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
"Jurassic World is bad-science fiction (very few connections to science facts or even scientific speculation) script wise, there is not much that is scientific about it,"
Well, yeah, that's kind of the point. Abyssal (discusscontribs) 19:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
As Panic writes, it is clearly allowed (i.e., fits within our content policies). In general, and this is a generalisation, book and other media annotations have tended to be for media that is either considered "classic" or appear as a set text for an educational course. But that doesn't exclude other work. Certainly detailed discussion of how such films are produced, using a particular film as an example, would be valuable. Personally I'd recommend starting the book and seeing how it evolves. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 11:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

HTTPS

22:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)