Jump to content

Talk:Coffee sniffers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk13:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee sniffers
Coffee sniffers

Created by SoWhy (talk). Self-nominated at 13:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is new, long enough, well and neutrally written and properly referenced. Sources are in German, which I cannot read, but using machine translation I am satisfied that they support the content and that there is no copyvio; Earwig also detects nothing. Image is PD, so fine. Hook is amusing, interesting and sourced appropriately in the article. Awaiting QPQ, then this will be ready to go. GirthSummit (blether) 11:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Changing 'War Invalid' to 'Disabled Veteran'?

[edit]

Commonality

[edit]

As far as I can tell, the term "disabled veteran" is a direct synonym for "war invalid" and vastly more common in modern speech. While it's a crude measure, searching google for the prior year shows 254k results for "disabled veteran" and 808 results for "war invalid", many of which contain content from older war documents.

Nationality

[edit]

Dictionaries say "War Invalid" is chiefly British. Wikipedia says British English should be used for British topics, while US English should be used for US topics— and both are fine (as long as they're consistent) for general topics. This article is neither British nor US Centric. It does use the American spelling of license: '[...] it was to make sure people were wearing licensed wigs.' but that's not particularly persuasive.

A quick google search for "disabled veteran" "gov.uk" shows that the British government uses the term, so the change is not likely to confuse British readers.

Term of art

[edit]

If "war invalid" connotes a technical distinction that "disabled veteran" doesn't, it's not obvious from context, and should probably be considered technical language.

From the style guide:

"Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. [...] Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do."

My reading of that still points to changing it.

Takeaway

[edit]

Overall, the term seems arcane and lacks meaningful distinction from more common terminology. This is not my area of expertise, so I'll let this sit here a while before changing it.

Andythechef (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]