Talk:The Mint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For any other "The Mint"'s, please disambiguate at Mint. It wouldn't be appropriate to mention TV game shows and national reserves in this article, which is wholly devoted to an historical anomalous jurisdiction in London. Geogre 01:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A disambiguation line is appropriate here, not at Mint. The TV show is never known as Mint.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but whether the show is ever known as "Mint" or not, this is a specific instance, not a general one. Wikipedia works by disambiguating at a common level and never at a specific level. Therefore, as I've said before, disambiguate at Mint and not here. No one is disallowing a link to the show you want to talk about, but it's not appropriate here. I can assure you that the US mint in Denver is never known as "mint," either, but always as "the mint," and yet it disambiguates where it should. So must this. Geogre 02:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, are you sure it wouldn't be better to move this article to The Mint (London) and turn The Mint into a disambig page? If one were to be so rash as to go by a simple count of "what links here", both have roughly equal encyclopedic currency, and the problem with your Denver mint analogy is that the Denver Mint is not officially called "The Mint", whereas the TV show is. Doing it with an ambig page as I suggest would avoit the need for a (inane) disambig notice at the top of either article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Denver mint is most often called just "the mint." However, "the mint" as an anomalous district is only known as "the mint" and has been only known that way for 600 years. On the other hand, the TV show is new and will go away. Imagine having to disambiguate gong to accommodate The Gong Show or to disambiguate 21 because of the 1950's game show. Game shows are ephemera. They get a great deal of interest while they run, have a great deal of hits, and then not only vanish but are forgotten, so I think The Mint (TV show) is logical as a second order term, but not The Mint (district) for this. I also think that Mint should be Mint (disambiguation) and what is currently at "Mint" should be at Mint (plant). The reason it isn't is that the plant article got there first, just as this article got here first. As illogical as it is, "getting there first" is one of the principles of disambiguation at Wikipedia. Geogre 02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the above point; I've made mint the main disambig page now, though I've put the plant at its scientific name Mentha as that makes more sense (many species in the genus are better known by their scientific name) - MPF 11:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

But look at it from the navigational standpoint of one of those sad moppets who are actually trying to find an article on the ephemeral game show. Very likely, they will type "The Mint" — not "Mint" — into the search box and hit here, a dead-end for them. "The Gong Show" vs "Gong" is an unfair comparison (different names, again), while "21" is illustrative of my point regarding navigation: if you go to 21, there's a for-other-uses hatnote to 21 (number) which has a section that basically serves as a disambig page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read this I'd offer another option which would maintain the navigational ability -- a hatnote This page is about the district in London. For other uses of "The Mint" see Mint (disambiguation). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That last would be fine. I'll copy it over to the article now. Geogre 19:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Breeding ground for sewage"

A "breeding ground for sewage" doesn't make a lot of sense, but I am currently bereft of inspiration for rewriting that sentence. TheGrappler 16:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's "a breeding ground for sewage and water-bourne maladies", i.e. a breeding ground for the maladies, which are sewage-bourne and water-bourne. Ambiguous prose, yes, but clear by context I think. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Which I guess means there should be a hypen after sewage? I've put one in, but have to admit I'm not sure whether it is considered good style. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that makes far more sense. Not sure if it is great style but certainly far clearer. "Ambiguous but clear by context" is only true if you can see the correct meaning that the daft meaning is ambiguous with :-) TheGrappler 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In my defense, it's a pretty normal compound usage. "We will defend against air and ground attacks" wouldn't be misunderstood as being afraid of the air itself. Geogre 19:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Very true; although for some reason that example seems far clearer to me. I can't imagine that ever being misunderstood. While in retrospect I feel like an idiot for not "getting" the breeding ground for sewage and water bourne maladies I honestly think that if I'd looked at that phrase fresh again tomorrow, without having seen that explanation, I still wouldn't have "got" it. I think there is actually a difference between these examples; one is a like "X and Y Q" (with the "X" and "Y" clear alternative units) and the other "M and B C Q", where the B and C form a very strong natural unit (which apparently made me fail to spot that the M and B were alternative units, since I didn't want to break up the "B C"), the M actually matching the Q in form ("maladies" and "sewage" go together as two of the downsides of slum life) and clearly not working as an alternative descriptor of the Q (contrast: "bottled or freshly drawn water", where the "bottled" and "freshly drawn" are clear alternative units and "bottled" does not match "water" in form; in this instance "freshly drawn" is a strong natural unit and not naturally wanting to break it up makes the meaning even clearer). I think that is why one went straight past me and the other made immediate clear sense. I am sorry if this seems like rambling but I think it's quite instructive to consider why something that really ought to be clear and is perfectly good English actually left me utterly clueless. TheGrappler 23:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are good points, and it brings up some interesting semiotic questions. (My favorite semiotic puzzle, one that indicated that gender has a place in the deeper structures of langue than just what we associate in conscious speech, was 'Bill sleeps with his wife twice a week, and so does Jim' is a joke, but 'Bill washes his car twice a week, and so does Jim' isn't.) There are, as it were, closing points around some words, while others expect an open modification. Water and sewage are rarely anything but subjects and objects, and, more, they contain within their position in language an impossibility of modification in a way that other nouns don't. In other words, I think it's more cognitive than syntactic: these words are not nouns the way that "jet" or "granite" are. Geogre 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I rather like your examples! :-) What a shame that only the people who happen to explore the talk page of this relatively unimportant page will get to read this conversation! TheGrappler 18:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)