Talk:Blinkenlights

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)
 * Regardless of whether the adjective has lost its sting over time and gotten used more widely, the etymological origin of the expression is one of an insult used between enslaved African-Americans, some of whom —as Malcolm X subsequently recounted in even more explicit and to-the-point language— used to work in the big house while most used to work in the fields picking cotton, which was lower-status. Hence a house slave might have told a field slave they had "cotton-picking" hands, and there might have been some physical basis to that, because if you were doing that all day, your hands might've gotten quite calloused.
 * My personal impression is that, yes, the slur indeed got adopted by other ethnicities and non-American speakers, and became more of a generic insult at one time, but I also think those decades have passed, and it's now not just a dated insult, but also, given current trends, once again considered much more highly offensive. There's no merit in bowdlerising it out of an original quote, but to new users of the term: Caveat emptor. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As a non-American I indeed didnt understand the expression, consulted wiktionary, and found nothing "suspicious". Please add the "Etymology" section into cotton-picking. - Altenmann >talk 15:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can't currently be bothered to do that homework right now, and it might be a somewhat difficult assignment in that the printed record has not always been quick to reflect the language of the oppressed, and I don't want to add something to Wiktionary only for the inevitable Deletionist to triumphantly ride in and beat that down as insufficiently sourced. Etymonline takes a slightly different tack, which doesn't of course mean the adjectival form wasn't older than noted there, just that that's all Etymonline's editor could source. Etymonline limits itself to noting these terms came "perhaps with racist overtones that have faded over the years". From general cultural awareness, I think they've since un-faded, and I'm not sure if the apparent breaking of a certain cultural fever means said overtones will fade once more. If memory serves, further related printed info might be found in Malcolm X's autobiography (h/t Alex Haley), or in transcripts of Malcolm X's speeches. IIRC, Malcolm X also consistently used much more pungent terms referring to house and field slaves, terms I don't care to even repeat here. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: Etymonline's example seems to suggest that perhaps when they couldn't use Black slaves anymore, they used "work experience" child labour, children they've taken the care to identify as white. That's, erm, interesting too. I have no idea how prevalent or representative that was, but I suppose it's not inconceivable that from such jaunts might have flowed the use of "cotton-picking" as a schoolyard taunt. Maybe. Don't quote me on this.


 * Johnny Cash picked cotton as a child. However, as a 1950s prenominal slang epithet, "cotton-picken" meant about the same thing as "goshdang" or "dad-burned"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree. However, that was Before Woke. Whether the term is still—or once again—acceptable as a Mostly Harmless euphemistically minced oath would likely depend on the audience. And given the Internet, the actual effective audience might well go far beyond the originally intended audience. It's certainly not a term I would, in Current Year, still expect to find in advertising copy aiming for "quaint and cutesy" homespun vibes. And while once found in exhibits of workplace humour as per this article's Etymology section, there's a significant chance HR these days might have a less than permissive opinion on whether a term like this is NSFW. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not "advertising copy", it's signs posted in rooms containing early mainframe computers, and they were not going for "quaint and cutesy homespun vibes", but invoking a comical absent-minded foreign scientist stereotype, and they can't be blamed for not using time machines to go forward and find out what would be personally acceptable to you 60 years later. AnonMoos (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Nolo contendere. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The question asked in 2008 was to explain the origin of the term. I seconded the question and asked to clarify it in wiktionary, in "etymology section, where it happens to be. There is nothing to discuss in this talk page. Article talk pages are about improving article content, not for general discussions. - Altenmann >talk 18:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That sounds a lot like an unhealthy aspiration to come up with a bureaucratic excuse for censorship even on Talk. You have—for the time being—largely gotten your way on contested changes to the article, and now it sounds a lot like you would like to also control any talk you do not personally like. The reason I didn't try to more vigorously contest your changes to the article text is because I think it's healthier if in time third parties—other Wikipedians—take a look, consider the edit history and arguments presented on Talk, draw their conclusions, and maybe act accordingly. Trying to shut down Talk is not innocent. Zealous overapplication, and book-throwing of perceived and dubiously applicable rules is known as wikilawyering for a reason.
 * On the particular issue at hand, you've already proved it useful to raise awareness as to the baggage some of the article-included material comes with. Is the reader's understanding of the (technical and cultural) role of blinking lights in tech, and the endearing hacker slang term of blinkenlights furthered by choosing, from available alternatives, a version of the etymologically related blinkenlights poster which includes that loaded term? If yes, might it then serve the reader to at least note the baggage somehow? (While I don't like to speak up in favour of deletion, IMHO arguments for including the plantation adjective aren't much more convincing than those for including the "Teutonic comeback version" of the poster, and I've already noted what I think of that.) These are good questions we hadn't even gotten to, but nay, it seems you want to swiftly nip all things not to your own taste in the bud. Real talk.
 * On Wiktionary, nobody is stopping you from doing the homework I declined to do when you tried to assign it to me. You do the hard graft of etymological source-sleuthing, you add the info, you defend it to Wiktionary's standards, and not only won't I oppose you, I'll cheer you on. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody is censuring you; your text is intact. But nobody will read your wall of irrelevant text. There is a word for this: TL;DR. Re: Wiktionary: I was trying to assign it to you, because I thought you are a have knowledge, which I haven't. Now I see you simply have a knack with words. Good luck in expressing yourself and good bye. - Altenmann >talk 23:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * Somewhere in my possibly disc-rotting archives, I think I have a recording of a HOPE Conference talk where one of the Old Greats remarked that TV and film-makers loved to include blinkenlights—and spinning magtape reels—because it was visual. It showed on the small or silver screen that computer wizardry was happening.
 * Other motifs later included the near-obligatory "fast keyboard entry" shot, the "fast-scrolling source code" shot, and, post-Neo, yet another clever spin on the original "green letterlike symbols dropping into the scene like rain" shot. Honourable mention, in worst fake French Steve Martin accent: "Zœœm. Enhance!" —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2024 (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)
 *  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)

Category:Internet memes
@Altenmann de:Blinkenlights article is in the "internet meme" category since August 2015.

Which proof do you have that Blinkenlights is not a internet meme? Which argument do you have which opposes these weblinks from 2016 & 2017 ?

Please stop reverting edits without consent from now on. You can start a disc instead of interfering with users. Angerdan (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, colleague, per Wikipedia rules, all information in WIkipedia must come from reliable sources, including categories, see WP:CATV. What source do you have that Blinkenligts is an internet meme?. Please keep in mind the policy says that information without references can be removed at any time, i.e., without any discussions. - Altenmann >talk 18:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)