Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-18014300-20180717074641/@comment-18014300-20180719002946 - Revision history

imported>Sol Pacificus at 00:42, 19 July 2018

2018-07-19T00:42:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:42, 19 July 2018
Line 5:		Line 5:
	I thought that I was the only one who had considered that the infobox parameter where we might indicate "active" should also be named ''floruit''. I changed my mind after recalling that "active" is a commonly used parameter for biographical profiles, and I thought it made more sense for ''floruit'' to be reserved as a notation. Because of this, I figured it was no longer a matter being debated, and aside from that, it's a bit of a different matter aside from whether to even use ''floruit'' as a notation in the first place. I wanted to keep this thread simple.		I thought that I was the only one who had considered that the infobox parameter where we might indicate "active" should also be named ''floruit''. I changed my mind after recalling that "active" is a commonly used parameter for biographical profiles, and I thought it made more sense for ''floruit'' to be reserved as a notation. Because of this, I figured it was no longer a matter being debated, and aside from that, it's a bit of a different matter aside from whether to even use ''floruit'' as a notation in the first place. I wanted to keep this thread simple.

	As for why we should be academic, I think that that's a bit of an odd question because obviously, we, along with any other major wiki, such as ''The Elder Scrolls'' or ''Harry Potter'' or ''Star Wars'', have always striven to write professionally. As long as the format of our writing is meant to use correct grammar, syntax, and good organization, it is called academic writing. The question instead becomes what is the level of writing that should be used for the audience, not whether it should be academic or not, but determining what level is too advanced for our audience or not is a bit of a subjective and arbitrary matter, which is one of the reasons why this thread was opened, to see if people think that this sort of notation is too advanced.		As for why we should be academic, I think that that's a bit of an odd question because obviously, we, along with any other major wiki, such as ''The Elder Scrolls'' or ''Harry Potter'' or ''Star Wars'', have always striven to write professionally. As long as the format of our writing is meant to use correct grammar, syntax, and good organization, it is called academic or formal writing. The question instead becomes what is the level of writing that should be used for the audience, not whether it should be academic or not, but determining what level is too advanced for our audience or not is a bit of a subjective and arbitrary matter, which is one of the reasons why this thread was opened, to see if people think that this sort of notation is too advanced.

imported>Sol Pacificus at 00:37, 19 July 2018

2018-07-19T00:37:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:37, 19 July 2018
Line 5:		Line 5:
	I thought that I was the only one who had considered that the infobox parameter where we might indicate "active" should also be named ''floruit''. I changed my mind after recalling that "active" is a commonly used parameter for biographical profiles, and I thought it made more sense for ''floruit'' to be reserved as a notation. Because of this, I figured it was no longer a matter being debated, and aside from that, it's a bit of a different matter aside from whether to even use ''floruit'' as a notation in the first place. I wanted to keep this thread simple.		I thought that I was the only one who had considered that the infobox parameter where we might indicate "active" should also be named ''floruit''. I changed my mind after recalling that "active" is a commonly used parameter for biographical profiles, and I thought it made more sense for ''floruit'' to be reserved as a notation. Because of this, I figured it was no longer a matter being debated, and aside from that, it's a bit of a different matter aside from whether to even use ''floruit'' as a notation in the first place. I wanted to keep this thread simple.

	As for why we should be academic, I think that that's a bit of an odd question because obviously, we, along with any other major wiki, such as ''The Elder Scrolls'' or ''Harry Potter'' or ''Star Wars'', have always striven to write professionally. As long as the format of our writing is meant to use correct grammar, syntax, and good organization, it is called academic writing. The question instead becomes what is the level of writing that should be used for the audience, not whether it should be academic or not, but determining what level is too advanced for our audience or not is a bit of a subjective and arbitrary matter, which is one of the reasons why this thread was opened, to see if people think that this sort of notation is too advanced..		As for why we should be academic, I think that that's a bit of an odd question because obviously, we, along with any other major wiki, such as ''The Elder Scrolls'' or ''Harry Potter'' or ''Star Wars'', have always striven to write professionally. As long as the format of our writing is meant to use correct grammar, syntax, and good organization, it is called academic writing. The question instead becomes what is the level of writing that should be used for the audience, not whether it should be academic or not, but determining what level is too advanced for our audience or not is a bit of a subjective and arbitrary matter, which is one of the reasons why this thread was opened, to see if people think that this sort of notation is too advanced.

imported>Sol Pacificus at 00:36, 19 July 2018

2018-07-19T00:36:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:36, 19 July 2018
Line 4:		Line 4:
	</div>		</div>
	I thought that I was the only one who had considered that the infobox parameter where we might indicate "active" should also be named ''floruit''. I changed my mind after recalling that "active" is a commonly used parameter for biographical profiles, and I thought it made more sense for ''floruit'' to be reserved as a notation. Because of this, I figured it was no longer a matter being debated, and aside from that, it's a bit of a different matter aside from whether to even use ''floruit'' as a notation in the first place. I wanted to keep this thread simple.		I thought that I was the only one who had considered that the infobox parameter where we might indicate "active" should also be named ''floruit''. I changed my mind after recalling that "active" is a commonly used parameter for biographical profiles, and I thought it made more sense for ''floruit'' to be reserved as a notation. Because of this, I figured it was no longer a matter being debated, and aside from that, it's a bit of a different matter aside from whether to even use ''floruit'' as a notation in the first place. I wanted to keep this thread simple.

			As for why we should be academic, I think that that's a bit of an odd question because obviously, we, along with any other major wiki, such as ''The Elder Scrolls'' or ''Harry Potter'' or ''Star Wars'', have always striven to write professionally. As long as the format of our writing is meant to use correct grammar, syntax, and good organization, it is called academic writing. The question instead becomes what is the level of writing that should be used for the audience, not whether it should be academic or not, but determining what level is too advanced for our audience or not is a bit of a subjective and arbitrary matter, which is one of the reasons why this thread was opened, to see if people think that this sort of notation is too advanced..

imported>Sol Pacificus: Created page with "
Master Sima Yi wrote:
I'm a bit disappointed the discussed option of the term "active" over "floruit" is not being listed as an option here. Like I hav..."

2018-07-19T00:29:46Z

Created page with "<div class="quote">Master Sima Yi wrote:<br />I'm a bit disappointed the discussed option of the term "active" over "floruit" is not being listed as an option here. Like I hav..."

Páàjì titun

<div class="quote">Master Sima Yi wrote:<br />I'm a bit disappointed the discussed option of the term "active" over "floruit" is not being listed as an option here. Like I have mentioned over on Discord, this is my preferred option as it is much more clear to non-native English speakers and non-academics (as you clearly mention it is an academic term, and I see no reason why we need to be academical). I'm very opposed to using any sort of term where I have to look up what it means when a much more clear option is available.

In this regard, I agree with Jasca that this stays in the infobox only, as it may give the wrong indication (and has for me in the past on Wikipedia) when it's listed next to a birth or death date, or in their place.
</div>
I thought that I was the only one who had considered that the infobox parameter where we might indicate "active" should also be named ''floruit''. I changed my mind after recalling that "active" is a commonly used parameter for biographical profiles, and I thought it made more sense for ''floruit'' to be reserved as a notation. Because of this, I figured it was no longer a matter being debated, and aside from that, it's a bit of a different matter aside from whether to even use ''floruit'' as a notation in the first place. I wanted to keep this thread simple.

Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-18014300-20180717074641/@comment-18014300-20180719002946 - Revision history

imported>Sol Pacificus at 00:42, 19 July 2018

imported>Sol Pacificus at 00:37, 19 July 2018

imported>Sol Pacificus at 00:36, 19 July 2018

imported>Sol Pacificus: Created page with "Master Sima Yi wrote:I'm a bit disappointed the discussed option of the term "active" over "floruit" is not being listed as an option here. Like I hav..."

imported>Sol Pacificus: Created page with "
Master Sima Yi wrote:
I'm a bit disappointed the discussed option of the term "active" over "floruit" is not being listed as an option here. Like I hav..."