Words consistenly used wrong on the wiki

A list of terms frequently used wrong has been added to MW:Good Writing. This thread can still be used for suggestions.
 
What about frequent grammar errors as well, like its and it's?
 
Duskull said:
What about frequent grammar errors as well, like its and it's?
Click to expand...

Even that's not consistently used wrong.

This topic is dealt with words used wrong, not universal grammar errors.
 
Just a minor nitpick, but shouldn't it be "frequently" or "persistently" rather than "consistently"?
 
Mario's Drunken Holiday Special said:
Just a minor nitpick, but shouldn't it be "frequently" or "persistently" rather than "consistently"?
Click to expand...

Oh my gosh, don't put irony in these type of threads
 
I think "consistently" works fine.
 
But since we're correcting words as we go, wouldn't it be now "inconsistent", with now the word being used correctly and incorrectly?
 
Double post:

You know, "pun" is misused. Does it warrant a mention here?
 
I've mentioned this on the talk page, but I don't think Mario Golf (GBC) is a remake.
 
Mario's Drunken Holiday Special said:
Double post:

You know, "pun" is misused. Does it warrant a mention here?
Click to expand...

I definitely think it does. Care to make a definition of both?

Giga12 said:
I've mentioned this on the talk page, but I don't think Mario Golf (GBC) is a remake.
Click to expand...

I don't know either. I get baffled between the two often.
 
I thought of adding this to the list. What's everyone's thoughts?

Beta:"Beta" refers to the period in software development where a product is feature-complete, but has yet to be extensively bug-tested or optimized. This usually happens long after things like early concepts being rejected, characters being cut from the game... etc.

While the MarioWiki uses the name "Beta Elements" for page about unused, changed or cut content for the sake of concision, "Beta" should not be used as a shorthand for "things that changed during development". More precise terms such as "cut", "unused", "concept art" or simple "early" should be used instead. Of course, this does not apply if the information is confirmed to be from an actual Beta build.
Click to expand...
 
I support it

I prefer if people call it "pre-release" or "early" version. Calling it "beta" relies on speculation and it's a term, similar remix, that gets coined to any object that appears in a game's pre-release form. Only if the game is actually confirmed to be in a "beta" build by the developers should we use the term.

Also, I still think calling the page "List of beta elements" is still misleading to people.
 
Glowsquid said:
I thought of adding this to the list. What's everyone's thoughts?

Beta:"Beta" refers to the period in software development where a product is feature-complete, but has yet to be extensively bug-tested or optimized. This usually happens long after things like early concepts being rejected, characters being cut from the game... etc.

While the MarioWiki uses the name "Beta Elements" for page about unused, changed or cut content for the sake of concision, "Beta" should not be used as a shorthand for "things that changed during development". More precise terms such as "cut", "unused", "concept art" or simple "early" should be used instead. Of course, this does not apply if the information is confirmed to be from an actual Beta build.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the veto of the original proposal just confuse users even further?
 
I added the "for the sake of concision" to explain why the beta elements name is used despite the obvious innaccuracy.
 
Because "pre-release" is wordy, on the verge of pedantic? I guess?
 
Also, just like "remix" and "cover version", I think "beta elements" sounds sexier than "early builds" and therefore more fitting for article names :P
 
I've been thinking about it and I'm not sure "cover" is the proper term, as I've seen it more or less exclusively referred in the contenxt of a band (or one-man act, whatever) doing another band's son. Wouldn't "arrangement" be the more proper and widely-used term in this context?
 
I'd argue that cover is the more widely-used term, actually, at least amongst average joes (i.e. I've only ever heard "arrangement" regarding classical and instrumental jazz music, while "cover" comes up all the time for rock music, including Nintendocore). I didn't look around for very long, but I was actually only able to find one website that compared the two:

[quote author=Internet]A cover song is basically a copy performed by another musician who is not the original writer. Although many cover versions are not exact copies of the original musical work, traditionally there's no intention of receiving writers credit when performing or recording covers; whereas an arrangement can constitute for shared royalties between the original writer and the new writer. Another thing a publisher or anyone working in industry should be aware of is the difference between a different sound recording of the same work, and an arrangement of the work. If a new rock group recorded Beethoven’s 5th symphony exactly how Ludwig wrote it, that would just be a “cover.” If the new rock group added a solo and lyrics, that would be an example of an arrangement.[/quote]

So not including the nitty-gritty copyright stuff, arrangements are when you add enough stuff to deserve accreditation, and cover versions are when you simply play someone else's song with or without some original spins to it? That's certainly not a disinfection most things seem to make in my experiences. I.e. the aforementioned Nintendocore stuff is mostly arrangement work, even though most people cay they're "covering" videogame music - including Wikipedia. Speaking of which, Wikipedia also categorizes covers as a type of arrangements, although it doesn't discuss the other term in either page (except for classical and jazz arrangements in the cover page). The two definitions are:

[quote author=wikipedia]In popular music, a cover version or cover song, or simply cover, is a new performance or recording of a previously recorded, commercially released (or unreleased) song, by someone other than the original artist or composer.[/quote]

[quote author=wikipedia]An arrangement is the adaptation of a previously written musical composition for presentation. It may differ from the original form by reharmonization, paraphrasing or development of the melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic structure.[/quote]
 
I'd argue that cover is the more widely-used term, actually, at least amongst average joes (i.e. I've only ever heard "arrangement" regarding classical and instrumental jazz music, while "cover" comes up all the time for rock music, including Nintendocore).
Click to expand...

Must be the corners of the Internet I go to, I've seen "arranged version" used quite a bit in relation to vidyas. That and the somewhat engrishy term "Arrange" is one that appears somewhat often in Japanese video game soundtrack releases to denote new versions of an existing song.
 
Shouldn't the title be "Words consistently used incorrectly on the wiki"? Other than that, I may help in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back