Talk:Tub with tail with cape
Hi! All these still life articles are starting to add up to an impressive total. Do you have a goal in mind? It looks like you're promising RLE for all of these pages with "rle = true", but what's available so far is raw RLE. Let me know when you're at a stopping point and want me to fix that with the automatic-upload script.
But first... where did the term "Tub with feathery tail" come from? Mark Niemiec has it as "12.96; Tub w/tail w/cape" (paste the RLE in here to find it). But I can't find "feathery tail" anywhere.
If you just made it up, please don't do that... at least not without looking very hard for existing systemic names first, and maybe posting a list of apgcodes and names that you want to apply to them, to somewhere like the forums or the Tiki Bar first. "Cape" is used elsewhere for the same structure, so it seems better to keep the existing name. Applying "feathery tail" to this one case is just going to make a mess (in my opinion).
Most of what you've been adding has been recognizable systemic names for things. Have you added other neologisms here and there, maybe when Catagolue didn't supply a name? "Swimming cap" looks equally made up.
We just went through the whole three-step notability checklist thing with Entity Valkyrie. It won't hurt the rest of us to try to follow the same guidelines, even though it's painful when you really want there to be a creative name for something. Dvgrn (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I plan on having all 12-bit still lifes catalogued on the wiki by the end of the year. The name came from the tub having a tail, which in turn appeared to be fused with a feather. I've since moved it to a title closer to the provided name.
- All three pages are now marked for deletion, so you can clean those up if you want to.- AwesoMan3000 (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good! I'll get ready to run the auto-uploader early next year, then.
- Is my guess right that you've been using the name from Catagolue unless there isn't one, in which case you may sometimes have succumbed to the temptation to Just Make Something Up? It seems worth checking Niemiec's database in those cases. Will you go back and do that, or is there a list of the newly-made-up-name articles somewhere that I should check through?
- I'd rather not upload RLE with made-up names if a systemic name is available -- not that Niemiec's names are perfect, either, but all things considered they're fairly consistent and well-organized, and they match up with existing names. The two cases that have come up this morning seem like good examples.
- Even if you put in an etymological justification, as you did for swimming cap, writing it in official-sounding LifeWiki-ese makes it sound like this is a commonly-used name for this object... and that just ain't so.
- Put it this way: if you really can't resist applying your new name to a known object, then instead of saying
It is so named due to the presence of a hat-like section attached to a tub.
- it would be very helpful to me if you'd write it like this:
AwesoMan3000 gave it this name on December 21, 2018 due to the presence of a hat-like section attached to a tub; the name has never been used elsewhere.
- That way nobody has to bother looking all over the place for nonexistent prior uses of the mysterious new term.
- Another alternative would be to write the article using the apgcode as the systemic name. I don't like this idea much, just because the pname would have to have an underscore in it for readability -- but MediaWiki likes to change underscores to spaces in some contexts. Still, it's been tried, and it appears to work okay -- see xs15_3lkia4z32. If that seems like a reasonable solution for unnamed objects, let's maybe bring it up on the Tiki Bar and see if anyone can find a good reason to veto it. Dvgrn (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)