> Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote:
> > Of course, I agree that having a king would be pretty bad for Debian,
Why bad? It's not like kingdoms ruled by Linus Torvalds or Larry Wall fare
worse than democracies. And the licenses allow you to rebel by making a
fork -- kind of like the explicit right of rebellion ("rokosz") Poland had
in case a king transgresses "against freedoms".
> > altought considering what the release names are this package would refer
> > at most to a mostly harmless puppet king.
> > Chris Lamb wrote that:
> >
> > > "Regnal" is really quite an esoteric English word these days.
I'm not a native English speaker, yet this word didn't strike me as esoteric
or obscure.
> > This was, however, precisely by design, as this method of dating is
> > quite an esoteric one that has passed in disuse (for quite a number of
> > good practical reason).
> >
> > I've tried to look for another name for this kind of dating, but it
> > seems to me that at least on the historical articles on wikipedia
> > "regnal" is the standard name used, even in cases like the roman
> > consules that wheren't kings (nor, during the empire, rulers).
When seeing this word used, I did not have even a shred of doubt that you're
talking about anything other than the reigning DPL. (Until having reviewed
the package, that is.)
> > Another term that occurs in those articles is "era name", which could be
> > made to fit, altought it is less precise.
A better fit, but indeed pretty unclear.
> > So, if there is a proposal that I've missed that doesn't involve kings
> > but evokes the same feel of "out of an history wikipedia page" I would
> > be happy to hear it and change the short description, otherwise I can
> > try to use something with "era name" or keep the "regnal" one.
> >
> > In the long description I would continue to use "regnal date" and add
> > "release date", to ease searching.
"release XXX" somewhat spoils the joke but indeed would be better.
Chris Lamb wrote:
> > I've tried to look for another name for this kind of dating, but it
> > seems to me that at least on the historical articles on wikipedia
> > "regnal" is the standard name used
>
> I've found using or citing Wikipedia for meta things like this can be
> quite misleading; all it needs is one contributor to spend a few hours
> changing them all to the "technically correct" word!
Wikipedia is completely at mercy of any organised "group" (which might be a
single person using sock puppets) whenever there's no large enough
countergroup. Case in point: the WW2 article praises the Soviets as best
allies, while in fact they started on the "bad" side, shot at their allies
in the middle (like, attempts to relieve the Warsaw Uprising) then ended at
hostile terms as well.
But I don't believe there's anyone with an agenda against an unloaded word
like "regnal".
> I stand by my comments that "regnal" — whilst possibly 100% correct — is
> incomprehensible to 99.9% of English speakers and highly recommend we
> don't use it. It'll only serve as a handicap when looking for this package
> I'm afraid resulting in fewer users.
I'd argue that it's a perfectly cromulent word... for when the ruler is a
person. Which is not the case here.
> > So, if there is a proposal that I've missed that doesn't involve kings
>
> We can surely reference "kings", etc. ironically and with a degree of
> cynicism...
Yes, Your Majesty! :p
Meow.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Meow!
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ I was born a dumb, ugly and work-loving kid, then I got swapped on
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ the maternity ward.
