Editing Talk:2715: Pando

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png 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:
 
This is a terrible sentence: "The celebration is often claimed to be built heavily upon pagan traditions,[2] though this is disputed by some historians[3], as well as on annual social customs, then arguably converted into a far more secular event for many." [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.136|172.70.211.136]] 05:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 
This is a terrible sentence: "The celebration is often claimed to be built heavily upon pagan traditions,[2] though this is disputed by some historians[3], as well as on annual social customs, then arguably converted into a far more secular event for many." [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.136|172.70.211.136]] 05:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 
:Like "a camel is a horse designed by committee", it was through multiple edits, as varying views were inserted.
 
:Like "a camel is a horse designed by committee", it was through multiple edits, as varying views were inserted.
βˆ’
:It would also help if instead of <code>some kind of statement of fact,<nowiki>[bare_reference]</nowiki></code>, it was more <code>some kind of statement <nowiki>[text_reference of fact]</nowiki>,</code>, IMO, but the last edit I made to that bit myself was before some of this increasing need to qualify the qualifying statements and made it obvious that concensus hadn't settled down yet.
+
:It would also help if instead of <code>some kind of statement of fact,<nowiki>[bare_reference]</nowiki></code>, it was more <code>some kind of statement <nowiki>[bare_reference of fact]</nowiki>,</code>, IMO, but the last edit I made to that bit myself was before some of this increasing need to qualify the qualifying statements and made it obvious that concensus hadn't settled down yet.
 
:Definitely prime for a minor rewrite of that snippet. Reorganise, split concepts, perhaps even lose something (arguable ''what'', though, and it might be reinserted) as one simplifies. Not gonna be me doing it, right now, but perhaps only for time reasons. Anyone can try, though, and as likely to be improving as anybody else. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 12:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 
:Definitely prime for a minor rewrite of that snippet. Reorganise, split concepts, perhaps even lose something (arguable ''what'', though, and it might be reinserted) as one simplifies. Not gonna be me doing it, right now, but perhaps only for time reasons. Anyone can try, though, and as likely to be improving as anybody else. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 12:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page: