Editing Talk:1242: Scary Names
|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
;Arbitrary Scariness Formatting | ;Arbitrary Scariness Formatting | ||
I have a slight issue with the artificial percentage scale given for entries in the chart. First of all it assumes a linear chart that is measured in percentages. Secondly, it assumes Flesh-eating Bacteria is 100% scariest thing and scariest-sounding thing existant. Just because it's the highest on the chart doesn't make it "100%" (again, percentage seems like an arbitrary scale to assign) [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 16:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC) | I have a slight issue with the artificial percentage scale given for entries in the chart. First of all it assumes a linear chart that is measured in percentages. Secondly, it assumes Flesh-eating Bacteria is 100% scariest thing and scariest-sounding thing existant. Just because it's the highest on the chart doesn't make it "100%" (again, percentage seems like an arbitrary scale to assign) [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 16:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
:I disagree on your second point. The explanation expresses the scariness of something as a percentage of Flesh-eating Bacteria BECAUSE it is an arbitrary scale. It doesn't imply that the bacteria is the scariest possible thing. I think this is the best way; it's better than saying "Grey goo isn't as scary sounding, but is scarier than..." for all possible combinations of every item.<br>Also on your first point, it doesn't assume the chart is measured in percentages (although it does assume linearity). [[Special:Contributions/174.88.154.131|174.88.154.131]] 12:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | :I disagree on your second point. The explanation expresses the scariness of something as a percentage of Flesh-eating Bacteria BECAUSE it is an arbitrary scale. It doesn't imply that the bacteria is the scariest possible thing. I think this is the best way; it's better than saying "Grey goo isn't as scary sounding, but is scarier than..." for all possible combinations of every item.<br>Also on your first point, it doesn't assume the chart is measured in percentages (although it does assume linearity). [[Special:Contributions/174.88.154.131|174.88.154.131]] 12:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
::How about we just give the pixel coordinates and point out that the scale is arbitrary (or not defined by the comic). Percentage would suggest that the scale is in some way linear, which you actually cannot conclude from the graph. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 13:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | ::How about we just give the pixel coordinates and point out that the scale is arbitrary (or not defined by the comic). Percentage would suggest that the scale is in some way linear, which you actually cannot conclude from the graph. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 13:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
::Initially I had written out "Not very scary", "Somewhat scary", "Fairly scary", etc. but it seemed simpler and much easier to read and sort to simply use arbitrary percentages. [[User:RouterIncident|RouterIncident]] ([[User talk:RouterIncident|talk]]) 14:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | ::Initially I had written out "Not very scary", "Somewhat scary", "Fairly scary", etc. but it seemed simpler and much easier to read and sort to simply use arbitrary percentages. [[User:RouterIncident|RouterIncident]] ([[User talk:RouterIncident|talk]]) 14:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
:As there are no values or units listed, Randall's dots are fairly arbitrary, probably plotted relative to each other and to a roughly-equal apparent-to-actual-scariness line. So isn't it a little silly to argue about the listing of an arbitrary scale for these arbitrary values? [[Special:Contributions/138.162.8.57|138.162.8.57]] 15:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | :As there are no values or units listed, Randall's dots are fairly arbitrary, probably plotted relative to each other and to a roughly-equal apparent-to-actual-scariness line. So isn't it a little silly to argue about the listing of an arbitrary scale for these arbitrary values? [[Special:Contributions/138.162.8.57|138.162.8.57]] 15:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
::In my opinion the percentages are over interpreting the comic. But since it is here it should be explained as position on the graph relative to zero.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | ::In my opinion the percentages are over interpreting the comic. But since it is here it should be explained as position on the graph relative to zero.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
