Talk:Blinkenlights

Blinkenlights

Hey Berliners, anyone willing to take a "screenshot" of the actual Blinkenlights installation? Etz Haim 04:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is one for click the link at the bottom of the page.

Please note that the question was asked a year ago. mikka (t) 18:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

German translation

I'm adding a psuedo-translation of sorts: how a German-speaker might "read" the message. P 15:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Rubber-necking is a more accurate colloquialism than rubber-necked. 203.59.16.17 13:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't speak German so I require more explanation. The German version appears to have English syntax — which is not stated in the article —, but are the inflections on the words correct, and the words understandable to German speakers? Does a German need to understand some English to get the joke? Rintrah 08:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

it's more English than German

Regarding: "It is important to note that because the text mixes English vocabulary with German grammar and word structure, someone without a working knowledge of both languages would be unable to interpret the text as above;" My knowledge of German is pathetically little, and yet I was able to mostly make this out before reading the 'translation'(to the point where I laughed so hard and long I'm now having a bit of trouble breathing!) It could be I know more than I think I do(though I couldn't form a sentence, or even read any but a few rare ones), or something...but it wasn't that hard for me to figure out without knowing German! -Graptor 66.161.207.91 21:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- you need a little knowledge of certain characteristic or stereotyped structural differences between English and German, but you don't need a "working command" of German. A German-speaker, on the other hand, would need an intimate acquaintance with 1940s/1950s English slang terms ;) AnonMoos 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

also agree! I don't know any German, so I can't speak to how Germans would view it, but my English is fine and I have no trouble reading it. The article should be changed to say that it is English to sound like German immigrants. The article also says that such signs were common in the post WWII period: I don't doubt it, so I'm not asking for "sources and citations", but I have a sense that it might go back farther than that: the Katzenjammer Kids, for example. Until recently and probably even now, German DNA is the leading ethnic contribution to the US gene-pool (and not to mention the British royals are Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg) so there is a long tradition of finding German accents humorous. I mean seriously, their capital city is "Jelly Donut place". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.81.94.69 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

German here - It's actually more of mangled Dutch than German, with Dutch having large influences from English grammar and vocabulary; that's why it looks so much like english.

On a side note, need to clean up my account name mess @snaeqe/@baboo~wikidatawiki Baboo~wikidatawiki (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikiversion

If you go to my user subpage you will find my attempt to create a wikipedia version of it.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

Swabian Version

This reminds me to a similar german (swabia) version:

"Achdung!! Dieser Raum is voll bis unner de Deck mit de dollste un vollelektronische Anlaache. Staune un gugge derf jedder, awer romworschtele un Gnöbsche drügge uff de Gombjuder dörfe nur mir!! Die Experde" <-- It's not really Swabian German, but it sounds like.

(Translated in Standard German: "Achtung! Dieser Raum ist voll bis unter die Decke mit der tollsten und vollelektronischen Anlage. Staunen und gucken darf jeder, aber rumwurschteln und Knöpfchen drücken auf dem Computer dürfen nur wir! Die Experten")

--Rollo rueckwaerts 19:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not Swabian, that's Hessian.

2011-04-21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.20.9 (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's funny! "romworschtele un Gnöbsche drügge" :-)

I've found a slightly different version in a forum:

Uffgepaschd !

Dieser Raum is voll bis unner de Deck mit de dollste elegdrisch und elegdronische Anlach.

Staune und gugge derf jeder, aber rumwurschdele und Knöbge drügge dürfe nur mir.

Die Äkschperde !

Shinobu 07:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Knöbge is definitely not Swabian. Proper Swabian would be more like:

Obachd!

Dr Raum isch voll bis ondr die Deck mit die dollschte elegdrische un elegdronische Anlage.

Staune un gugge/luege derf jedr, abr rumworschdele un Knepferle drigge/drugge derfet nur mir/mir alloi.

Die Äkschperde!

Close, but not the same. (I don't natively speak Swabian – my native dialect is Western Central Bavarian, its eastern neighbour – but my version should sound more typical at least.) Hessian and Swabian are similar in some aspects, though, which means it can be tricky to tell them apart if you're not deeply familiar with either.

You might describe Swabian as "Swiss German with a Hessian accent", though. ;-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Older, other versions of Blinkenlights

For many years my father had a framed copy of this hanging in his ham shack. One difference, however, is that he must have obtained it prior to the invention of computers, as the second word of the second paragraph after the Achtung! line was MASCHINE, rather than KOMPUTERMASCHINE. I guess it was intended as a warning to visiters to his ham shack to not mess with the transmitters as they contained very high voltage which could cause spitzensparken.
ChardingLLNL 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe he modified it to apply to HAM radios rather than computers. jej1997 (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Internet version of Lookenpeepers

ACHTUNG! ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS!

Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben. Ist easy droppenpacket der routers und overloaden der backbone mit der spammen und der me-tooen. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen! Das mausklicken sichtseeren keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das cursorblinken.

Ommos (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cotton Picking

It would be nice if someone could explain the usage of "COTTONPICKEN" in the German and subsequently the translation. I'm not sure if that is intentional or if it has some other meaning in German, but it does seem to have vaguely racial undertones, at least in American culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.130.5 (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. It's just a common variation of "frickin'" or similar meaningless emphatics. 153.42.170.64 (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My grandpa used to say "cotton-pickin'" instead of "gosh-darned" or "blasted", e.g. "I can't make the cotton-pickin' thing work!" without any racist overtones. People of all races have picked cotton through the years. jej1997 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Formatting/presentation

The use of specialty formatting and giant boxes really isn't in keeping with Wikipedia's style. I think I understand the point, but for an encyclopedia it makes more sense to explain the thing first and then add some historical background/origin material in a seperate section. At first brush, the giant lettering right near the beginning of the article actually feels like a cross between a warning message and the kind of text one expects of recently vandalized articles.

Perhaps the use of a quote template would be better at offseting that text rather than the custom formatting? Dragons flight (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Style Evolution

Shouldn't this article mention that the faux-German writing style is a written form of vaudevillian "double-talk," which existed well before computers or even the start of WWII? Examples of it can be seen in many of the "Three Stooges" shorts of the early 1930's, as well as Marx Brothers routines of the same period and the performances of many of the classic humorists who came from or were heavily influenced by the vaudeville era (Sid Ceasar, Mel Brooks, etc.). I could cite some specific cases in classic humor if needed. 69.198.132.18 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, if that's true, then it would be a great addition to this article. I'm not sure anyone is more qualified to add it than you, though. jej1997 (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Actual Blinkenlights

Note that in those early days of computing the blinkenlights, along mit den switchen were a valuable debugging tool. What we often did was, mit den switchen insert an infinite loop in memory as a breakpoint. When das addresssen blikenlights became fixed we knew we were in the loop and could use den switches (or was it dem switchen) to examine memory (for which we printed out a link load map) and, if supported even registers. Once we knew what we wanted to know we would restore the instruction that had been there insert a loop somewhere else if needed and -- watchen das blinkelights all over again.

Science Fiction

Blickenlights have a very long history in science fiction cinema and television. If memory serves, they really got rolling in the '50s. There were certainly earlier lit, blinking gauges before WWII! kencf0618 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained change of image

@Altenmann Please explain the exchange of an very good explaining photo with an an extremely outdated picture.
Also there is nothing deleted at all, actually i did the opposite since i created an all new category at commons and put all blinkelight images into it. -- Angerdan (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not "extremely outdated": it illustrates the historical origin of the concept. Modern picturea are anachronistic. I Would also question whether these things are called blinkenlight in reliable sources other than in humorous profesional slan. I dont see them in article and I am going to butcher it of accumulated original research after waiting for a reasonable time. - Altenmann >talk 19:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Stop messing up the article

@Altenmann You didn't edit the article since 2016, so please follow the rules and don't start two editwars.
Actually you didn't even care 9 years about unreferenced content, so instead of deleting it just keep it and reference it. -- Angerdan (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, disagreed with your opinion about the rules of wikipedia editing. - Altenmann >talk 19:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Article focus (so cringe)

Since the article (at least now) is clearly about the concept of computerised blinking lights and the eponymous semi-humorous term of blinkenlights, the famous blinkenlights poster and its variants would appear to only still be relevant insofar as they seem to have been the origin of the term. Hence why they are—correctly—located in the Etymology section. No complaints thus far.
However, it seems pretty off-topic to then also recount this niche fact ESR saw fit to mention in his Jargon File releases, which is that some Germans came up with their own (counter-)version of the poster. I don't dispute that the latter may have existed (tho I'd not put it past ESR either to maybe invent stuff for teh lulz), but I submit said version was never as famous, and I don't see how it's relevant to the etymology of the term. The inclusion of the full text of that non-famous version of the poster in the actual article seems even more off-topic, if not awkwardly needy and defensive, in a NO U!, right back atcha and notice me, senpai! kind of way. I know nothing about the nationality of anyone involved, but seeing this made me wonder whether any of this was home bias-driven. Looking at the article history, the Teutonic retort text was added way back in 2007, apparently for humour – which I guess is fair enough, and I don't normally tend to side with Team Deletionism, but here at least this content seems to be asking (for) a Clash (question). —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually the shift of the focus of the article is 98% original research: There are no sources citet that the term "blinkenlights" entered mainstream, and a single ref is how some geeks decided it will be funny to call something 'blinkenlights'. I will be waiting for a month or so whether someone comes up with in-depth sources, After that I will be reverting to a pre-fan version or the like (which by the way, contained verifiable info about this (de:Projekt Blinkenlights). Unfortunately the "Blinkenlights Archaeological Institute" went off radar, after being quoted by several serious publications, including IEEE Computer. - Altenmann >talk 23:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

By the "single ref", do you mean the Jargon File entry?

Since when has the term entering "mainstream" been the standard, here or elsewhere? Clearly the term is hacker jargon, but as such, it is reasonably well-known and well-attested within its niche; see hackaday, Hacker News, vcfed, to mention but a few (tho I'd argue that prior to the odd post-1996 second wind, the term and especially the eponymous poster peaked pre-WWW, which affects googleability). Whatever parts of the Jargon File ESR may have embellished or made up during his editorship, he did not make up the term blinkenlights itself. Changing the article's focus (back?) to something about this less notable German project (which is certainly more obscure in the English-speaking world than the hacker jargon term blinkenlights) also would do a number on incoming links and violate the principle of least surprise, and, no offence, I would submit, such a course of editor action would also have the NO U! nature.

Not to mention that none of what you said here really has much to do with what you replied to, which was an objection to the inclusion of the very niche, non-notable and NO U! German "comeback" poster text. I see that you're actually the editor who added that text back in 2007 – for amusement, which, I generally do have time for humour, but still.

Also, your advocacy of a "pre-fan version" is a pretty sly slur. It implicitly asserts the existence of a non-objective editor, a "fan" of whatever it is about the current article (focus) you do not like, and it likewise implies that the "fan(atic)" must be wrong and you right, ipso facto. I might just as well have called you a fan of the German Project Blinkenlights you mentioned, though I suppose such a comeback too would have the NO U! nature.

Suffice it to say that it's eminently more reasonable to have this article focus on blinkenlights, res ipsa, especially so since (computerised) blinking lights are a general and reassuringly real-world thing, virtually omnipresent in the modern world of ubiquitous electronics. I note that blinking lights currently redirects to a musical album, which does however have a hatnote pointing to blinkenlights, and that's one of these perfectly cromulent incoming links. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

One {{or1}} or two {{or1}} too, that is the question.

IMNSHO this article was neither improved, nor became more likely to get improved by anyone else through the addition of a second identical {{or1}} template – added too, without any attendant talk as to what ailed the editor. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

<snip-snip> coming soon. That's why tags are placed, as a warning before the merciless trim. - Altenmann >talk 23:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What good does a "warning" (or two) do if it gives no specific indication as to what is being objected to? That just seems like an adversarial tactic to soften up the target before exerting "merciless" punishment for perceived but hitherto undisclosed infractions. It just feels like a CYA-before-ambush tactic to get your way. How is that constructive editing? Even if you have valid concerns, this makes it very hard for the editor on the bus ;-) to approach consensus and accommodate them. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Etymology v History

Further to the edit summary on my most recent revert, I actually think the blinkenlights article could do with a history section – in addition to its existing Etymology section. A history section might be focussed on the history of computerised blinking lights, and could lead up to the present day, where many a blinking light UI has evolved into no longer just monochromatic but colour-changing LEDs, powered by ever-cheaper driver ICs and PWM. That's becoming more common. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Article focus, part deux

I note, as per the hatnote on this article, there already is a separate article for the aforementioned Project Blinkenlights, so that ground, though adjacent, need not be covered here.
I also realise however that a distinction could (but IMHO need not necessarily strictly and strongly) here be drawn between the thing itself ([computerised/electronic] blinking lights) and the term for it (blinkenlights). If it turned out that a broad consensus were to emerge for rewriting and renaming this into a (lamer) blinking lights article in generic non-hacker NPC luser terminology, then I would not oppose such a change, however I believe the hacker jargon term still at least ought to redirect and be included too, along with its etymology. That said, coverage of the term's etymology and memetic hacker humour origins need not be overegged to the point of off-topicness, as it presently still is; see the above sections. Note by the way that the normie comprehensibility of the term blinkenlights is greatly enhanced by its being near-homophonous with blinking lights. PS: I wonder if blinkenlights has yet entered the OED. Not that that's the be all and end all, but is someone in a position to check real quick? —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Autoplaying animated GIF

The inclusion of an autoplaying animated GIF in the Actual blinkenlights section, while not unique to this article, is distracting and IMNSHO worthy of criticism, here and wherever else like GIFs are found in article space. Is there a way to change animating GIFs to be click-through instead of autoplaying? (If not, then isn't that a feature MediaWiki maybe should have? Who do I kvetch to?) —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sophistry?

The summary justification for this edit (or these two) strikes me as sophistry, no offence, because computerised blinking lights (or "blinkenlights", to use the titular eponymous jargon) are the enabling constituent technology front panels comprise; hence the pars pro toto phrasing of this metonymic usage is perfectly cromulent style in my book. I don't see what's wrong with it, and I certainly fail to see why this language should attract the accusation of being a "false and misleading statement".
Given the battle lines already drawn on this Talk page, above, it's difficult for me to not get the sneaking suspicion that this was just an excuse to delete explanatory prose from the lede that might have a bearing on the direction of the article. I'm not going to revert this myself, because that to me would feel too close to edit warring, but I would urge other Wikipedians to take a look and consider these points. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

"metonymic usage" is good on a newespaper, but not encycliopedia. In encycliopedia we must use exact language. Yes it is misleading and confusing, because it confusing the whole with part (tran's what mwetonymy do, right?). "Explanatory prose is called "original research" in wikipedia jargon. All information must come from reliable sources (WP:RS). I would not want to read an "explanation" of unknown expoertise. - Altenmann >talk 18:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, please avoid personal attacks and don't attempt to read other person's mind for sinister intentions. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Your appeal to tone is 1) a distraction, and 2) unwarranted, and as such itself escalatory. It takes some chutzpah to first lob fairly substantial unfounded accusations (i.e. "false and misleading") and then complain about a response less strident or definitive, and also less personal than you've now made this. You might not like this topical comparison, but those who launch lethal aggression might find themselves with little standing to credibly decry a less than lethal response.

In any event, when you do something that comes across very poorly, it is okay for another to point out the impression that might make. Pre-emptively ruling out the unflattering reading, now that would actually be closer to pretending to know what's in the former person's mind. The expectation that one should be above reproach however iffy or sus one's words or actions is an entitlement that fairly consistently leads to bad outcomes in any context.

On a lighter note, I would urge you to please leave your above comment unedited. It's superbly humorous just the way it is now. :) Further edits or commentary would only take away from that. Muphry's law was here. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)