Talk:Literal

"literal person"?

 * "Literalism, the practice of being a literal person."
 * "Literalism, the practice of being a literal person."

What's a literal person? My best guess is that was intended, but the entry is too vague for me to tell. --Jesdisciple (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The first and last characters of this section's name are brackets, intended to convey that the section's heading was not placed by the first contributor to the section: sometimes bcz the first contributor omitted any heading-markup, or (as in this case) bcz i found the existing heading-markup somehow unsuitable (in this case, just plain broken in spite of showing clear intent to create a heading.) --Jerzy•t 14:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, hell with that, the real question is, literally, either how we should treat editors who try to put smileys into the title of WP-talk-page section, or "How should we literally treat editors who, etc., etc.? " Let me count the ways!


 * First, put in the closest feasible thing to what they seem to have wanted, as a heading, above their attempt to create a heading. But actually, i create a heading with what i think they intended, inside parentheses or "square" brackets, hopefully hinting that someone else (I) made a heading that they don't have to take responsibility for.
 * Second, they need to be told that section titles that don't begin with (at least one) "equals sign" and end with another neither display as headings nor cause a new section to begin. Putting a smiley at the end of your heading markup thus keeps it from creating a (Wiki-style) heading, and from creating a new section, and from having your non-section listed in the page's ToC.
 * (Next, show them, clearly, what their markup produces; but that's not really necessary, since the wiki-engine does a good job of that when they preview their edit. Or when they save their edit, if they don't preview. Or preview without looking at it, or without caring what they see when they preview.)
 * Then you show them (a) knowing what they want to get, (b) how to go about getting it -- or if precluded by the design of the wiki-engine, how to get the closest they could hope for. To wit: (a), look at the new table of contents, and the first heading below it; (b), like this:
 * ==   "literal person"? :)    ==
 * -Jerzy•t 14:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sabareesh
He is genuine boy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.22.94 (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Literals
There's a Fables spin-off calls "The Literals" - it's not note-worthy enough to be anything other than a mention in the Spin-Offs section of the Fables article (which it is), but I'm less sure on the rules for disambiguation pages - would it be fitting to have an entry for it here, linking to that section of the Fables article? --72.89.230.7 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Existence of Fables_(comics) puts your suggestion right in line with much past practice, and the wheels of progress grind slowly.... We IAR; still, contrary arguments should be entertained on this talk page if they show their faces; conversely this for me is a good example favoring explicit recognition of what i don't recall ever seeing in the MOSDAB/DAB guidelines. --Jerzy•t 16:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Verbose Dab text
Entries whose wordings feel like the result of one editor's misunderstanding (the truth being that Dab pages exist to Dab'ate, mediated by as little time spent reading as is feasible) abound on the accompanying Dab page. One example is in which a colleague has included info that should be valuable to a dictionary entry or a 'pedia article, but slows down access for those who have been so obtuse as to expect a Dab page to disambiguate as rapidly as possible by neglecting nuances that are irrelevant to a large majority of those who type in, in this case, "literal". I expect that 90% of users who do so look at 40% or fewer of the entries on an average Dab page. (We explicitly strive to place the most-often-sought near the top, with the result that most users never reach the more obscure ones.) My version of that entry is Mine has four nouns and adverbs, and four (single syllable) prepositions and articles; the version i found has 75% of more nouns, verbs, and adjectives, and an extra 25% of preposition and article syllables; mine has 12 syllables against its 22. I expect similar savings in rewriting the other entries. --Jerzy•t 17:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC) At the risk of stretching the topic of this talk section further than is usual before someone turns it into a multilogue, i find that
 * Literal (computer programming), a notation for representing a value within programming language source code
 * Literal (computer programming), coding for a value inherent in its program
 * Data that is represented "as is" in data compressed using data compression

links to an article that (currently) does not mention the term "literal". Perhaps reference to it there has been excised; if not this is simply a case of an editor trying to make a Dab page into a substitute for a cross-disciplinary glossary (as it already sounds). I understand the concept of data that is inherently incompressible, or so little compressible that treating it as such a "literal" is a computation- and/or time/space- tradeoff, but i am no compression expert. Perhaps there is a compression pro who can isolate a section in that d.c. article that is relevant to this sense of literal, and then go there to rewrite and/or put an anchor, so we amateurs who otherwise might follow this Dab's (about-to-be-in-excruciating-pain) entry pointing there can at least land in a relevant-to-compression-literals 'graph of that article. --Jerzy•t 18:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "* Class of typographical errors, normally to one letter or number"
 * is in the "glossary entry" category with "data compression", as is
 * "*Terminal symbol in regular expressions and in descriptions of formal grammars",
 * which is apparently motivated by the appearance of "literal" in
 * "Terminal symbols are literal symbols [emphasis added by Jerzy] which may appear in the outputs of the production rules..."
 * in the first line of Terminal and nonterminal symbols.
 * Some people talk as if you need some undesirable qualities to go on witch hunts. In this case, i think i would need more of some good qualities before i would examine the history of this article, and become aware of whose work i've been fixing, and i don't think i have the courage or sense of duty for creating myself opportunities for fixing more such dab pages, if it turned out someone's been editing multiple dab pages in this fashion. --Jerzy•t 19:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)