confocaloid wrote: ↑March 27th, 2024, 3:45 pm
Not really. As far as I can tell by looking at forum posts, dvgrn was the one who invented both of those
polemical labels.
Aha, you seem to be right! -- about who used the terms first, not about whether they constitute "polemical labels". Now that I see where the first experimental uses were, I can confirm with 100% confidence that the inventor of those terms honestly just wanted to help make these difficult points easier to discuss.
The fact that yoleo picked up those terms and used them exactly the way I intended for them to be used, was a very good sign that they were useful terms for the discussion. But then the discussion went terribly off the rails from there. From my point of view, this happened because you seemed to be unable to understand how useful it was to have clear short labels for the two competing definitions of "signal" that were at issue.
... Well, so be it. In the absence of anything better, I'll go back to trying to use "information-theory signal" as the standard phrase to refer to '
what confocaloid wants "signal" to be allowed to mean in LifeWiki articles".
confocaloid wrote: ↑March 27th, 2024, 3:45 pm
Obviously neither of the two polemical labels is a useful piece of terminology. Because there are no well-understood useful intuitive definitions, and almost certainly will never be.
They sure look useful to me -- for discussion purposes, though, not as permanent terms! Both terms appear to me to have clearly stated definitions, both in yoleo's post and in the
signal-terminology poll. It's only the term "polemical label" that seems to me to be an actual polemical label.
But...
Back to the original subject, maybe?
@confocaloid, this topic came up because I used "signal" here on the forums in a way you didn't agree with. You've previously said that
confocaloid wrote: ↑August 8th, 2023, 12:19 pm
I'm
not trying to "restrict" anyone's personally preferred use of the word "signal". In discussions, people can use whatever wording they prefer.
so it seemed to me that I was within my rights to use "signal" in the way that I and others have been using it in many, many places for the last two decades.
The
actual question, however, was about the idea of creating an article called "2c/3 signal receiver" that would not be a "pattern page" -- i.e., that it wouldn't contain an infobox, because there isn't really just one pattern that was supposed to be the "canonical" 2c/3 signal receiver. You were perfectly right that that's what I meant by "category article" -- I wasn't trying to refer to LifeWiki categories at all.
I'm thinking that "2c/3 signal receiver" is an uncontroversial use of the term "signal" -- it means a receiver for
2c/3 signals, which are already represented on the LifeWiki with a redirect to "2c/3 wire". What are your thoughts on that?