Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

On using superscript identifiers to note wiki links
November 22, 2006 6:46 PM   Subscribe

The love affair between the internets and all things wiki is out of control. Stop, you're hurting America.
posted by Saucy Intruder to Etiquette/Policy at 6:46 PM (128 comments total)

You probably could just flag the post as bad, Saucy Intruder.
posted by cgc373 at 6:50 PM on November 22, 2006


You probably could just flag the post as bad, Saucy Intruder.

what?!? no! the airing of grievances is an integral and appreciated part of every holiday season.
posted by carsonb at 6:51 PM on November 22, 2006


What part of "flag it and move on" are people having trouble understanding? I'm willing to hold an extra help session for our slower learners.
posted by carsonb at 6:55 PM on November 22, 2006


the airing of grievances

is that what this is about? if so, yay! everyone gather around the pole!

but seriously, what's the big deal about this? a community website is a community website, not a consistent-in-all-ways website or an adherent-to-my-standards website. community means an assortment of styles, preferences and interests. it's not like this is SaucyIntruderFilter.

and besides, if you think the link is dumb, cant you just live with thinking the link is dumb?

also, any chance we can get a "omg this is retarded" option on the "flag this post" page?
posted by sergeant sandwich at 6:59 PM on November 22, 2006


It's a lot better than the caret^.
posted by Chuckles at 7:00 PM on November 22, 2006


Festivus Pole is awesome! Gotta git me one-a them.
posted by Balisong at 7:02 PM on November 22, 2006


Saucy Intruder, these things were not out of control when you were a younster, so why not become deceased with grace?
posted by econous at 7:03 PM on November 22, 2006


Matt's fixed the dumb use of superscripted Wikilinks before; let's hope he does it again here. jeffburdges, if you're reading along, it's the norm to just link the words instead of getting cute with superscripts.
posted by mediareport at 7:04 PM on November 22, 2006


Sorry Saucy Intruder, I gotta disagree with the call-out. If you have information which refutes the data in the links, then by all means provide it. But don't attack the source just because it's Wiki, on occasion, factual information can actually be found there.

On the other hand, if we want to go after the poster for his over use of suping things, that might be a pitchfork wielding mob I can get behind.
posted by quin at 7:05 PM on November 22, 2006


America? I thought he was hurting Palestine.
posted by homunculus at 7:05 PM on November 22, 2006


Sorry, that probably wasn't the most appropriate nugget to dig out of your MeTa history, Saucy Intruder. In all seriousness, you seem to be an old hand at the MetaTalk--- so why the sneery attempt at behavior modification now? It has rarely (if ever) worked in the past.
posted by carsonb at 7:06 PM on November 22, 2006


oh, bitch bitch bitch.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 7:08 PM on November 22, 2006


It's a lot better than the caret.

Not really - even the hated caret is vaguely understandable if the links to Wikipedia are supplementary and adjacent to already-linked text, but if you can wrap words in anchor tags, there's just no bloody reason to follow them with the wp or ^ or I am a stoat-lapping mingetard, watch me pad out a sub-par post thing.
posted by jack_mo at 7:13 PM on November 22, 2006


I kind of liked thesewp. It's a lot better than the caret and I hate it when I click on words in the post and get carted off to Wikipedia. Yet sometimes supplementary Wikipedia links are appropriate.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 7:18 PM on November 22, 2006


Caret, superscript, whatever. The sooner you all let go of Jimbo Wales's engorged teat, the better.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 7:20 PM on November 22, 2006 [1 favorite]


Oh god. That's horrible.
posted by bob sarabia at 7:20 PM on November 22, 2006


I've expressed my support for the superscript wiki links before, and I'll do so again.

I contend that those opposed simply fear change.wiki
posted by Richard Daly at 7:25 PM on November 22, 2006


Yet sometimes supplementary Wikipedia links are appropriate.

For sure, but why bellow the source from the rooftops? It's like me coming round your house and being asked if I'd like a beer or a glass of wine, then smearing my faeces all over the chilled bottle of Pouilly-Fuissé by way of reply. Kind of.
posted by jack_mo at 7:28 PM on November 22, 2006


Again, worth noting that Matt's already mentioned he doesn't like superscripted wiki links on words that aren't themselves linked.
posted by mediareport at 7:29 PM on November 22, 2006


I am in your fistulas vibrating your carets.
posted by econous at 7:30 PM on November 22, 2006


?
posted by econous at 7:31 PM on November 22, 2006


I often wonder what stunning transformations would take place in the world if people here expended anything like the same energy and passion on things that actually mattered.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:31 PM on November 22, 2006 [2 favorites]


More wars.
posted by smackfu at 7:33 PM on November 22, 2006 [4 favorites]


Good point.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:34 PM on November 22, 2006 [1 favorite]


jack_mo, if you knew anything about the stoat-lapping mingetard community you would not toss off such accusations about us so lightly.

In the first part, we do not condone superscript abuse. In fact, it is shunned by all respectable elements of the community.

In the second part, it's harder to toss off a seasoned stoat-lapper than you probably imagine.

And don't tell me some of your best friends lap stoat, because I'll not believe it.

Pshaw, I say. And I'd say it again, too.
posted by psmith at 7:38 PM on November 22, 2006 [1 favorite]


I, for one, welcome our new wiki overlords.
posted by ajpresto at 8:15 PM on November 22, 2006


Fuck it, you're all furries anyway.
posted by klangklangston at 8:15 PM on November 22, 2006


Stop, you're hurting America.

If we stop, the terrorists win.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:15 PM on November 22, 2006


I agree its about a bajillion times better than the god damn carret, but why people can't just make the link text meaningful is beyond me. A superscript wp isn't clever.
posted by chunking express at 8:26 PM on November 22, 2006


Why the frack do we need a special system for wiki links? If it's a good meaningful link, link the godsdamn text If it's just fluff, padding or look-ma-no-brains, don't link it.
posted by signal at 8:29 PM on November 22, 2006 [2 favorites]


WHO WILL SAVE THE WEE PENISES?
posted by quonsar at 8:32 PM on November 22, 2006


Can we abbreviatew?
posted by five fresh fish at 8:46 PM on November 22, 2006


Wiki links are distinct from other links in that by the time you click it, it may have been completely changed from when the poster linked it. Having a special link indicator is a way of calling out this fact: "I'm linking something here, but by the time you click it, it may have been replaced with Angela Landsbury/Jim Nabors slash fiction."
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:48 PM on November 22, 2006


Y'know, I do believe the letter 'W' has been forever spoiled to me by your rotten President. That superscript 'w' gives me the willies. Curse your middle initial, George W, curse it to damnation!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:49 PM on November 22, 2006


At least he didn't use "wiki" as the link text like so many morons in this thread. Wikipedia is not the wiki. If anything is, it's ward cunningham's c2.
posted by blasdelf at 8:58 PM on November 22, 2006


wp is a crapload better than the stupid caret.
posted by xiojason at 9:08 PM on November 22, 2006


I don't get it.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:22 PM on November 22, 2006


I propose doubling up the first superscriptwpwp for those who don't know what "wp" stands for.
posted by hutta at 9:30 PM on November 22, 2006


Weasel puss?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:56 PM on November 22, 2006


but by the time you click it, it may have been replaced with Angela Landsbury/Jim Nabors slash fiction

My god let's hope so! Much better than another rehash of the Israel vs. Palestine short dicker.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:56 PM on November 22, 2006


I've always found that text with a whole bunch of links in it looks very authoritative.

So count me in for in-text linkery. Descriptive URLs are much better than leet <sup> skillz.
posted by !Jim at 9:59 PM on November 22, 2006


Naturally, apologies for the self-link. I hope it is found to be appropriate.
posted by !Jim at 10:00 PM on November 22, 2006


Wobbling Proboscis
posted by Pollomacho at 10:02 PM on November 22, 2006


Perhaps the last word on the caret.
posted by rob511 at 10:10 PM on November 22, 2006


aw.
posted by taz at 10:18 PM on November 22, 2006


WHO WILL SAVE THE WEE PENISES?

The fish in your pants don't seem all that hungry, so I'm pretty sure yours is safe.

Wakka-wakka!

*Puts on extra pair of gitch, crosses legs*
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:25 PM on November 22, 2006


Woebegone Punditry.
posted by loquacious at 10:26 PM on November 22, 2006



Wiki links are distinct from other links in that by the time you click it, it may have been completely changed from when the poster linked it.


Interestingly enough, if you watch closely you'll notice pages elsewhere on the interweb changing as well...
posted by scheptech at 10:53 PM on November 22, 2006


I have an opinion on this subjectbad credentials
posted by allen.spaulding at 11:00 PM on November 22, 2006


Okay, maybe just somewhat better than the caret..
posted by Chuckles at 11:04 PM on November 22, 2006


My cat just vomited.
posted by bobobox at 11:05 PM on November 22, 2006


jeffburdges, if you're reading along, it's the norm to just link the words instead of getting cute with superscripts.

Mediareport, you bring the well-deserved snark like no one else!

People using the caret? About time for some angry mob justice.
posted by mlis at 11:08 PM on November 22, 2006


"Academic politics is so vicious because the stakes are so small."
posted by tkolar at 11:30 PM on November 22, 2006 [1 favorite]


While you were all bitching about the correct format for a Wiki link, I played a rocking show. On stage. In front of a real audience. (while wearing a cast).

I only say this for a little perspective. If someone considers this an ax worth grinding, I only hope they grind it down to pure oak (or hickory).

We didn't need that damn ax anyway.
posted by sourwookie at 12:28 AM on November 23, 2006 [1 favorite]


Wikipedia isn't special. It is another website, it is another webpage, it is another link.
posted by TwelveTwo at 12:44 AM on November 23, 2006


If you have to describe the target, can't you do it with a title="Wikipedia link" link? Then our conversation would be less cluttered with secret handshakes and code words but your entire list of Wikipedia merit badges would be there (if you added it) for people who give a fuck.
posted by pracowity at 12:55 AM on November 23, 2006


The sooner you all let go of Jimbo Wales's engorged teat, the better.

What's your beef with wikipedia?
posted by slater at 1:00 AM on November 23, 2006


If you have to describe the target, can't you do it with a title="Wikipedia link" link?

Or, you know, people could just look to see if the target is at wikipedia.org before following it.
posted by grouse at 1:16 AM on November 23, 2006


Hurting America is good for it. Tough love.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:40 AM on November 23, 2006


I don't mind so much the superscript, but linking twice in the superscript looks like assWiPe.
posted by team lowkey at 1:46 AM on November 23, 2006


This is why no one shows up for the meetings.
posted by evil holiday magic at 4:04 AM on November 23, 2006


BTW, I'm in ur DB fillin' up your tables.
posted by evil holiday magic at 4:06 AM on November 23, 2006


> Ward Cunningham's c2

"Wiki" is a composition system; it's a discussion medium; it's a repository; it's a mail system; it's a tool for collaboration.

What can I say about this elixir? Try it on steaks! Cleans nylons! Small craft warnings! It's great for the home! The office! On fruits!
posted by jfuller at 4:55 AM on November 23, 2006


Saucy Intruder: "The sooner you all let go of Jimbo Wales's engorged teat, the better."

So let me get this straight. Your only problem with Wikipedia is its central figure? I just want to make sure I understand your position accurately.
posted by Plutor at 6:00 AM on November 23, 2006


What can I say about this elixir? Try it on steaks! Cleans nylons! Small craft warnings! It's great for the home! The office! On fruits!

You know, for kids!
posted by pracowity at 6:17 AM on November 23, 2006


'sup guys
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:29 AM on November 23, 2006


What's your beef with wikipedia?

Exactly, though I might have said "What the fuck is your fucking beef with Wikipedia, you fucking fucks?" It's an extremely useful reference; those of you who for some perverted reason have a weaselfucking problem with it can just fucking ignore it. Ist alles nun klar?
posted by languagehat at 6:56 AM on November 23, 2006 [1 favorite]


Wikipedia is an inaccurate, incomplete, inchoate mess, dominated by wannabe dictator cliques, and yes, a completely odious commander-in-chief. It's a boorish nerdgasm for its contributors and a lazy resource for uninspired college students, web surfers, and Metafilter contributors. Its articles are written with the earnestness of a fourth grade book report and with the grammar, pacing, style, and flow of, well, a fourth grade book report. Wikipedia is everywhere, and it is bad for you - it is the McDonald's of the Internet. Stop worshipping it like a god. It's just a website. It doesn't have all the answers. And it doesn't belong in fucking superscript on a metafilter post.

xthx happy thanksgiving.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 7:13 AM on November 23, 2006 [3 favorites]


Heh. I was just about to say that padding out a post with 'pedia links makes it look like a fourth-grade book report.
posted by klangklangston at 7:18 AM on November 23, 2006


Wikipedia is an inaccurate, incomplete, inchoate mess, dominated by wannabe dictator cliques, and yes, a completely odious commander-in-chief

sounds like somebody got his edits reverted :D

Wikipedia is everywhere, and it is bad for you - it is the McDonald's of the Internet.
I respectfully disagree.

Stop worshipping it like a god.
Nobody is.

It's just a website.
True.

It doesn't have all the answers.
None of us do. It's a good start, tho.
posted by slater at 7:25 AM on November 23, 2006


I see Wikipedia as kind of like the web as a whole - some of it is wildly innaccurate, a lot of it is badly written, but there is also plenty of accurate, well-researched, useful information. You just have to know which is which.

MetaFilter: a boorish nerdgasm for its contributors and a lazy resource for uninspired college students
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:09 AM on November 23, 2006


Saucy Intruder : "Wikipedia is an inaccurate, incomplete, inchoate mess, dominated by wannabe dictator cliques, and yes, a completely odious commander-in-chief."

And yet it's the handiest general reference site on the internet.

Telling people not to use it is like telling a person stranded in the desert who has three canteens -- one full of salt, one full of sand, and one full of Coke -- "Hey, guy, don't drink that Coke! It'll rot your teeth."
posted by Bugbread at 8:21 AM on November 23, 2006 [2 favorites]


You guys are tilting at windmills. Crap callout.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:39 AM on November 23, 2006


How 'bout this? It's all things to all people! Is it Alexander's sword cutting the Gordian knot? Is it the Sword of Damocles? You decide!
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 8:41 AM on November 23, 2006


cheebus lover! xTian superscripter! lollerderby!1!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:04 AM on November 23, 2006


There is no fucking reason to supercript links to wikipedia, especially when the fucking word isn't linked. Have we not gone over this a million times already? I swear, there is a special superscripted version of hell waiting for you all, one where a supercripted three-headed monster chews on your superscripted fucking head all fucking supercripted day long while fourth-graders read their book reports to you in a rising cacophany.

PS: Just a public service announcement: If you every write something real, like a book or an article, you don't put the reference number on some word in the middle of the sentence. You put it at the end of the sentence. And you can have more than one reference per note. I know that isn't relatetd, but whenever I think of superscripts, I like to take a moment to remind us all how to use them well. Which doesn't include ugly fucking superscripted links. Merry Thanksgiving.
posted by dame at 9:06 AM on November 23, 2006


Wikipedia is an inaccurate, incomplete, inchoate mess...

Sounds like somebody has a case of the Mondays!
posted by tkolar at 9:15 AM on November 23, 2006


The guidelines: A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.

Everyone has seen wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not that interesting as secondary sources and summaries. And they don't provide much meat for an informed discussion.

I'd be more interested in links to primary sources, such as:
* The text of the laws recognizing same sex marriage.

* Opinion essays from various sides of the issue published within Israel.

* First-hand accounts of gay Palistinian refugees.

* Articles providing better and deeper analysis than offered by the wikipedia sources.

I've grown to dislike wikipedia links on the blue for the same reason I've grown to dislike science newsfilter links. In most cases, primary documentation, or at least an abstract, is freely available on the WWW. Linking to Wikipedia, the Guardian, or the New York Times when you could link to primary documentation is lazy and not very interesting.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:19 AM on November 23, 2006


George_Spiggott writes "Wiki links are distinct from other links in that by the time you click it, it may have been completely changed from when the poster linked it. "

How is this different from any other page on the web unless the poster is making a self link?
posted by Mitheral at 9:20 AM on November 23, 2006


It's not qualitatively different (in that there's scarcely any such thing as a completely immutable web page) but it's quantitatively different in that the opportunity for it to change is incalculably greater given that the number of people in a position to change it is effectively unlimited. Indeed, by drawing attention to a particular wikipedia entry simply by linking to it from a popular site is to invite it to be different when someone follows the link.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:56 AM on November 23, 2006


Oh, and America could say the safe word at any time if it wanted to.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:01 AM on November 23, 2006


George_Spiggott: If you're worried about that, then link to a specific revision of the page rather than the live page. Like this. Problem solved!
posted by grouse at 10:19 AM on November 23, 2006


Who the fuck cares?

Who the FUCK cares?

Who fucking CARES?? What the hell is the matter with you people?! Seriously! Jesus Christ - Saucy Intruder you must be the most anal-retentive twit on the face of the planet! I'm so sick of people bitching and moaning about wiki links - you people would trust a fucking reporter from NewsCorp. over every other human being on the planet!

And then you piss all over the thread with your worthless, banal opinions about what websites you'd link to if you were going to make the post! You didn't make the post! It's not your fucking post! Shut the fuck up!

God dammit. Like a gigantic, braying nerd herd.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:40 AM on November 23, 2006 [7 favorites]


umm... errr... hm.
posted by slater at 10:44 AM on November 23, 2006


yeah i can't smoke at my mom's house on thanksgiving.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:46 AM on November 23, 2006


gonna go lay down.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:46 AM on November 23, 2006


God dammit. Like a gigantic, braying nerd herd.

SET THE MOTHERFUCKER ON FIRE!

oh, wait...
posted by carsonb at 10:47 AM on November 23, 2006


Recently someone said to me "I was at the broadcasting school the other day and do you know that the only skills they are teaching media students for research is to look at wikipedia"
I replied slowly "So?"
"Well because - I could do that myself."
"For a dollar an hour, like you pay your student interns?"
silence.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 10:52 AM on November 23, 2006


Jesus, you need something better to give a crap about, Saucy and dame. We can now all readily see that you hate Wikipedia, and have no place for it in your posts, but I'm pretty sure we can all also readily see that your opinion doesn't necessarily equal anyone else's, and that others might find a use for the site. And that your opinions about how posts be written likewise doesn't necessarily equal anyone else's, and that others might do things with their posts that you wouldn't.

And I might also note that your rage on this issue seems odd, like the kind of rage I'd think would be reserved for the person who killed your spouse or burned down your home. Get over yourself, use the flag mechanism that's handily built into this here community website, and move the fuck on.
posted by delfuego at 12:22 PM on November 23, 2006


Better still, what Baby_Balrog said:

And then you piss all over the thread with your worthless, banal opinions about what websites you'd link to if you were going to make the post! You didn't make the post! It's not your fucking post! Shut the fuck up!

Perfectly said.
posted by delfuego at 12:25 PM on November 23, 2006


I don't hate wikipedia. I hate shitty citation. Pay attention.
posted by dame at 12:41 PM on November 23, 2006


There is no fucking reason to supercript links to wikipedia, especially when the fucking word isn't linked.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
posted by matteo at 1:10 PM on November 23, 2006


And I might also note that your rage on this issue seems odd, like the kind of rage I'd think would be reserved for the person who killed your spouse or burned down your home. Get over yourself, use the flag mechanism that's handily built into this here community website, and move the fuck on.

Um, the only person that seems particularly pissed off about this is Baby_Balrog.

Also, I don't anyone cares one way or the other about wikipedia, it's the stupid superscript citation. So the next time you want to get all high and mighty on someone, why don't you actually read the fucking thread first?
posted by bob sarabia at 1:17 PM on November 23, 2006


MetaFilter: Why don't you actually read the fucking thread first?
posted by Duncan at 1:37 PM on November 23, 2006


bob sarabia: Also, I don't anyone cares one way or the other about wikipedia, it's the stupid superscript citation.

I think this is a bit odd because I've only seen superscript citations used to link to wikipedia and other reference sites. But I will stick my neck out and say that links to wikipedia pages on an issue are rarely "best of the web" and they don't meet the guidelines for a good link.

That's not saying anything bad about wikipedia. There are plenty of sites that I think are worth visiting on a frequent basis. But I don't read metafilter for links to stories that I wake up to in the morning, or that are only a search away in my url bar. It is rarely the case that a wikipedia article offers the best treatment of a given subject.

delfuego: And I might also note that your rage on this issue seems odd, like the kind of rage I'd think would be reserved for the person who killed your spouse or burned down your home. Get over yourself, use the flag mechanism that's handily built into this here community website, and move the fuck on.

In which case, we would probably be having the same argument here as to why such and such a post was deleted. But what is wrong with some constructive feedback about how to make better and more interesting metafilter posts?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:45 PM on November 23, 2006


There is no fucking reason to supercript links to wikipedia, especially when the fucking word isn't linked.

Okay, I'll bite. Let's suppose that poster X feels there *is* a reason to use superscript notation for links to wikipedia. It could very well be that the poster wants to superscript *all* wikipedia links, for the sake of consistency. This is assuming that one or more superscript-tagged words are already linked, but not all.

Outside of this hypothetical argument:

Baby_Balrog writes "It's not your fucking post!"

Damn right.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:09 PM on November 23, 2006


Okay, I'll bite. Let's suppose that poster X feels there *is* a reason to use superscript notation for links to wikipedia.

Okay, I'll bite. What reason should we suppose that poster X has? Cause I can't think of one.
posted by shmegegge at 3:59 PM on November 23, 2006


Oh come on. I explicitly marked that as an assumption for the sake of argument, so your question is obviously beside the point.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:04 PM on November 23, 2006


To stop these damn superscript Wikipedia links we should use a caret and stick approach.
posted by grouse at 4:11 PM on November 23, 2006


I feel like I have some kind of outsider opinion here. Cause I am teh N00b. Not everybody knows everything about everything. Even readers of MetaFilter. Wikipedia is an ok way to get ok information about something you have a vague interest in but don't care enough about to investigate further. I suppose one could just leave the reader of the post to look it up themselves, if they don't know what is being referred to. But lots o' people read MetaFilter who are not celebricommentsluts with internet integrity to maintain.
posted by bobobox at 7:27 PM on November 23, 2006


Pity, that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:04 PM on November 23, 2006


Pithy tat.
posted by bobobox at 8:16 PM on November 23, 2006


"celebricommentsluts"

You say that like it's a bad thing.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:25 PM on November 23, 2006


To stop these damn superscript Wikipedia links we should use a caret and stick approach.
posted by grouse at 4:11 PM PST on November 23


A caret-and-shticktfd approach seems more likely around here.
posted by diddlegnome at 9:16 PM on November 23, 2006


Oh come on. I explicitly marked that as an assumption for the sake of argument, so your question is obviously beside the point.

No, it IS the point. See, you were responding to the claim that there isn't any reason. Unless there is a reason that a poster can't simply make at least one letter of a word in her text the wiki link, or even just say "here's a wiki on the subject" somewhere, then everything else you said is moot. This ain't lincoln douglas debate. We're talking about practice, not theory.
posted by shmegegge at 9:47 PM on November 23, 2006


bob sarabia writes...
Also, I don't anyone cares one way or the other about wikipedia, it's the stupid superscript citation. So the next time you want to get all high and mighty on someone, why don't you actually read the fucking thread first?

Yes, bob, reading the thread before making an ass of yourself is a really good idea.
posted by tkolar at 9:56 PM on November 23, 2006


It could very well be that the poster wants to superscript *all* wikipedia links, for the sake of consistency.

I would say what all editors say when faced with ugliness in search of consistency: rewrite it. Put the link inside. Put it in parentheses: (wiki). Do anything--anything!--but stop making it ugly.
posted by dame at 10:13 PM on November 23, 2006


I'm trying to imagine what a special super/subscript hell would be like .
posted by eyeballkid at 10:53 PM on November 23, 2006


Huh. I might use this format for all my posts from now on.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:59 PM on November 23, 2006


Well eyeballkid, as long as it's not our posts we have no right to complain, apparently. Go for it.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:31 PM on November 23, 2006


He hates us all.
posted by languagehat at 5:15 AM on November 24, 2006


Do anything--anything!--but stop making it ugly.

It's still not your post.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:29 AM on November 24, 2006


It's still not your post.

It's not your callout, so lay off it.
posted by grouse at 10:36 AM on November 24, 2006


It's not your callout, so lay off it.

Right. From here on out, all callouts are inviolate. Because hey, if someone took the time to whine about it, it must be *important*.
posted by tkolar at 10:51 AM on November 24, 2006


or maybe we can recognize that "it's not your [x]" is a lame response to either charge, huh?
posted by shmegegge at 11:50 AM on November 24, 2006 [1 favorite]


No we should not. Sure, if one feels a post is offensive or otherwise morally questionable or whatever, feel free to call it out - that's what MeTa is for. But taking issue based on the opinion that a post is "ugly"? Come on. Make your posts the way you like them, and let others do it their way. It's obvious now that there are lots of people who either like the notation or do not mind either way (including, I suspect, a large silent majority), so I say live and let live and save MeTa for the drama queens, eBay scammers, and self-amputation threats.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:16 PM on November 24, 2006


You're complaining about superscripts and carets???!!!! What really pisses me off are those people who use the fancy Scandinavian, Icelandic apostrophe-like squiggle things like they are all important and know something I don't like how to pronounce that shit. I'm not sure if anyone has ever done that here but if they do and I find out I'm gonna raise some hell!!!
posted by Carbolic at 1:20 PM on November 24, 2006


Yeah! And what's up with that crazy New World date notation? Put the month before the day, but the year after that? What the hell? And don't even get me started about the imperial measures system. Seven shillings to a farthing? I'd rather be found dead in a gallon of my own vomit.

Future rants may include people who go clever with the [more inside] in AskMe, people who complain about people going clever with the [more inside], people who dictate how other people's posts should look, people who complain about the newbies being an uncouth, irreverent lot, newbies complaining about the cabal, the overuse of the phrase "X is hurting America", and airline peanuts.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 2:05 PM on November 24, 2006


This is my comment, it is inviolate.
posted by Kwine at 2:22 PM on November 24, 2006


But taking issue based on the opinion that a post is "ugly"? Come on.

we have plenty of aesthetic rules, here (no images on the front page. no excessive use of linebreaks. no unnecessary font size changes.) that aren't written in stone but which we try to adhere to. this is kind of one of them. if you want to say we can't talk about it, then that's because YOU don't want to, not because we actually shouldn't talk about it.
posted by shmegegge at 2:45 PM on November 24, 2006


Sure we have those rules, but the ones you mention are widely agreed upon. As I think should be obvious by now, this does not hold true for the superscript wikilink notation. For instance, I could take issue with your not capitalising the first letter of every sentence, and I'd probably find some likeminded people, but in the end it's not a generally accepted rule, and lots of people do it without being called out, so it would be sort of a futile cause. In my opinion, this also applies to the wikinotation issue.

Moreover, I never said I felt this is a topic that should not be discussed (we are discussing it right now), but rather I believe that this a frivolous, crappy callout, people should be free to format posts as they please within established conventions, and personally I am well tired of every careted thread consistently being derailed by people whining about such a typographic trifle.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:31 PM on November 24, 2006


they're widely agreed upon because they were discussed, and in all likelihood not all of them were always widely agreed upon. But the point is that they were discussed.
posted by shmegegge at 4:43 PM on November 24, 2006



Sure we have those rules, but the ones you mention are widely agreed upon. As I think should be obvious by now, this does not hold true for the superscript wikilink notation.


And how do you think those rules, or at least the general consensus that x layout is bad came to be? Magic?

Nope.

Metatalk posts like this one?

Yep.
posted by eyeballkid at 4:44 PM on November 24, 2006


also, i would call your attention to the y2karl debacles of yesteryear, which resulted in the now widely accepted practice of making large blocks of text in a post a smaller font. The fights generated when people cried out for and then against that practice make this look like a lady's luncheon in victorian england.
posted by shmegegge at 4:45 PM on November 24, 2006


Dude, gnfti, is this all because you like the ugly notation? Because, you know, I don't think it makes you a bad person. And you shouldn't be driven onto an ice floe to die of exposure or anything. It's just that you have shitty taste. And we're here to help you with that.

PS: I'm totally sorry I fucked up that argument that I know you thought was unfuckable, asking BUT WHAT IF IT IS CONSISTENT?!?!?!!! I know how that sucks.
posted by dame at 4:48 PM on November 24, 2006


This is my comment, it is inviolate.

There are many like it, but this one is mine.
posted by grouse at 8:05 AM on November 25, 2006 [1 favorite]


Bravo, grouse.
posted by Kwine at 8:56 AM on November 25, 2006


Sorry for the belated comment, I've had a busy weekend.

dame, I never claimed any argument was ever unfuckable (I doubt any are); the consistency example was really just hypothetical, and I'll gladly drop it. I will, however, stand by my argument that "don't use superscript notation for wikipedia links" is not at all a convention on par with "no images on the front page", "no huge quilts of text on the front page" or "no small type just because you're secretly in love with y2karl". In fact, it's not a convention at all. It's just how a bunch of people feel, perhaps strongly, and let's be honest, there are certain properties of some posts that I don't like either. But some of those aren't worth complaining about in my opinion, and to me this one falls decidedly in that category.

As far as the wikipedia notation goes, I don't really care either way. What bothers me is the insistence of some Mefites to dictate the formatting of other people's posts, with regards to something that can harm nothing other than their own delicate aesthetics.

Then again, considering that at this point in our discussion you only seem to reply in the form of off-topic snark, I doubt I can take you seriously on this anymore. I don't really care for your opinion on my taste or lack thereof; but I really don't need any help with that, thanks.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:26 PM on November 27, 2006


« Older I observed that I have saved m...  |  I'd like to suggest that "... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments