Talk:IRIS GL

Initialisms

Hundreds of articles on Wikipedia do not fall into the criteria suggested in the MoS for bolding and initialisms: a good example is the OpenGL article. If editors/admins have a desire to anally amend emphatic designations to articles of their own interest and not all articles then perhaps they should shift their focus and concentrate on making the wiki better rather than attempting to gain peer recognition for editing their prowess. My interpretation of the MoS guidelines for bolding is suggestive not an etched in stone mandate. If wikipedia and its editors/admins insist on being this stringent for an article they did not write or research then I would be more than happy to make contributions to another online encyclopedia source, and request that any information researched or contributed by me be removed. Thanks. -milatchi

Look, it's a guideline. You asked for a cite, I provided it; the guidelines are on my side here. If you were going to ignore the cited guidelines, why did you ask for a cite in the first place? You were wrong, deal with it. Feel free to contribute to another encyclopedia, thanks. – Mipadi 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: As I've stated previously I disagree with the MoS on this article for aesthetic reasons pertaining to the conveyance of information provided by the bolding applied to the acronyms explanation. I am also wondering why this same "unnecessary and undesirable" violation to the MoS has not been amended on the prior mentioned OpenGL article? Thanks. -milatchi 09:20, 14 April 2007

Evidently no one has bothered to change it. It doesn't change the fact that there is a guideline. Let's look at the basic lineage of facts here:

1. You thought the initials should be bolded.
2. I reverted the change.
3. You suspected there was no MoS guidelines, as I suggested, and requested a cite—probably expected there to be no guideline.
4. I provided an MoS citation.
5. Miffed, you decided to unilaterally change the guidelines instead of admitting you were wrong.

Frankly, it is a guideline, and I provided a citation. Sorry, I'm reverting; it doesn't add anything to the article anyway, since a reasonable reader will understand where the acronym comes from, and the guidelines specify not to bold individual letters of an acronym. Sorry, you're wrong, I provided a citation. Reverting…again. – Mipadi 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And as a side addendum, I have two questions: a) if you weren't going to listen to a guideline if it went against your own opinions on formatting, then why'd you ask for a citation; and b) if you feel the MoS is written as a guide, not as a definitive rule, why require a citation in the first place, i.e. if you don't feel obligated to follow Wikipedia guidelines, why am I obligated to justify my edits with MoS citations? – Mipadi 20:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, "it doesn't add anyting to the article". Why do you feel obligated to only apply the MoS to this article and not the OpenGL article? The related OpenGL article is also in violation of the recommended guidelines yet I have seen no effort on your part to amend it. If we're going to clean up articles to be in compliance with the MoS then I think all articles should apply; not just those we pick and choose. If and when the OpenGL article is successfully changed to be in compliance with the MoS guidelines I'll drop my case, end of story. Thanks. -milatchi 11:33, 15 April 2007

Still haven't answered my questions, namely why you asked for a cite you were not prepared to accept. I feel you were being disingenuous in your request.

Furthermore, I generally only make edits to articles I read, and I haven't read the OpenGL article, so I haven't concerned myself with it. I stick to articles I've read because I don't have the time to persue all of CB. – Mipadi 04:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)