Several comments argued that a variance on the proposed change would be far more preferable (and obviously could be the subject of a subsequent RFC), but consensus doesn't clearly support that version (yet). In opposition, arguments were made that elevating a V/RS-verifiable fact to selectively only be included if it meets a higher standard (e.g., applying GNG to the discussion of the deadname itself) creates a special class of fact not otherwise seen for, e.g., routine name changes, and the harm-reduction/privacy elements of the BLP aren't necessarily overriding in-context to the point of needing to effectively codify them in guidelines pertaining to long-dead people as well. Furthermore, it's argued not all facts need to be included indiscriminately, and just because a fact is true doesn't necessarily make it worthy of inclusion in context. Therefore, applying similar standards for living people to long-dead ones would make sense, as it follows the best-practice requirements for content in an article. In this context (and historically for BLP), someone dying shouldn't necessarily change substantial elements of an article's content radically (i.e., BLP is a stronger standard of verifiability and includes a harm-reduction element for living people). Those supporting it gave rationales similar to the original rfc (June 2023), which predominantly focused on living/recently-deceased people and the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) the core elements of the general notability guideline (GNG) and how it pertains to article subjects (and relevant content) the policies of verifiability (V) through reliable sourcing (RS) and whether an incidental, verifiable fact is important in the context of its weight within the article's context (UNDUE), and general privacy/harassment concerns for living people. I'm also interested in alternatives that fit this context.Generally speaking, there is no clear consensus on the change. In my phrase, I am concerned whether 'finicky' doesn't feel neutral. All had definitions that seemed to imply an actor rather than an object, mostly with a disapproving connotation. I also found the similar fussy, fastidious, exacting and to a lesser extent dainty, among others. ![]() So it appears to me that there are a neutral and a disapproving connotation. Even the most finicky eater will find something requiring much care, precision, or attentive effort.extremely or excessively particular, exacting, or meticulous in taste or standards. ![]() needing great care and attention to detail.(disapproving) too worried about what you eat, wear, etc.E.g, dialectal word usage specific to your town, that a foreigner will pick a 100% in its normal sense.Īlso take into account that my question comes from the apparently disparate connotations I found in the dictionaries. ![]() Now, consider as well that the detail - despite seemingly trivial - might be or become interesting to look into, although it is often ignored. In case you learned the language, you may be interested in these finicky details, as they often go unnoticed by the untrained or inattentive eye.Ĭonsider we're talking about fine-grained detail about a language, which may escape a less experienced person's grasp (like the connotation of finicky does to me, as a non-native speaker).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |