jack: (Default)
Dear wikipedia, when you say that towards the end of the film, one of the major themes is given physical manifestation when one of the main characters, surprisingly, literally transforms into a car: you probably don't need "literally", and you probably shouldn't have to need a footnote citation supporting the word "surprisingly"! :)

(Spoilers in comments)
jack: (Default)
http://www.discipleship.net/parable/talents.htm (Link chosen at random)

What I never realised when I was told parable of the talents was that a talent was a lot of money. I had the impression of coins, not of nearly someone's weight in gold. Though estimates vary a lot.

Of course, it's hard to establish any kind of comparison because everything would cost different amounts relative to everything else. And gold would be rather differently valued itself.

I hadn't hitherto realise banks were so well established then. Lots of fantasy worlds have some sort of banking, but they generally seem based on english banking as of 17th century.

Apparently you could *lodge* your money somewhere since forever, but I'm not sure when paying interest became the norm. Or how reliable banks were -- from 17th century times there were still "The king takes all your gold" problems :(
jack: (Default)
Last I heard there are ongoing wars on wikipedia between people who link every word in an article (come on, if you're reading about newton, are you really going to need to see a definition of apple?) and those who remove them again. Possibly they should have two[1] categories of link: technical terms related to the issue at hand, and ordinary words you should probably know, but might be curious about[2].

Or has someone who actually wikipedias thought of this?

[1] or more
[2] In fact, nearly everything would fit in the last category, but not quite. Maybe all nouns. But you would want to specify -- eg. apple would go to "apple (fruit)" not "apple (disambiguation)".