Talk:CBR

Benefit-cost Ratio

How is 'Benefit-Cost Ratio' CBR...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanshi (talk • contribs)

The terms benefit-cost ratio and cost-benefit ratio are commonly considered synonymous, even if technically some might quibble over that. (In vernacular use, the word order is not necessarily understood to be significant, and not necessarily seen to imply one being the numerator and the other the denominator; it's mostly just the idea that both are considered relative to each other—either way—that is conveyed in loosey-goosey vernacular use.) I see the respective entry has since been changed to cost-benefit ratio, perhaps reflecting a renamed target article, though I found it not worth my time to actually investigate that. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup

Are the two entries about comic books distinct? What about the two about Honda motorcycles. Cleanup, perchance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai Miller (talk • contribs)

.cbr is also a file extension for comic book files http://www.geocities.com/davidayton/CDisplay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.255.130 (talk • contribs)

Yeah... a .cbr Comic Book Archive file and Comic Book Resources are entirely different. The former is a file format often used for digital distribution of comic books, and the latter a web site. Adding the file format back to the list. 69.243.27.252 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Comic Book Resources which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

From that discussion page:

"The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)"

—ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Puffery and nonsense – preferable why?

This edit reverted my preceding edit, and thereby reinstated both explicitly proscribed puffery and nonsense, in preference to (and due to claimed concerns over) my well-justified—in my edit summary—use of the term QUANGO, allegedly so on grounds of quango being "obscure lingo". This despite the fact that this is not the Simple English Wikipedia. If the latter's limited lexicon rules were applicable here, there would be no need for that other wiki, ergo they're not. I suspect it might be the case that quango is more common in non-American varieties of English, but British-adjacent dialects and word choices have, despite some recurrent AE/BE friction, never been ruled unwelcome in Wikipedia-land. Even if—arguendo—we were to accept the contention that the term quango was particularly obscure, or were to suppose—making all reasonable inferences in the other party's favour—that perhaps the other editor had a subjectively unhappy experience as a member of today's lucky ten thousand w/r/t the scrabble word quango (score: 16), still neither would be a good reason to remove that term and instead reinstate patent puffery and nonsense. All other things being equal, Wikipedia does not shy away from contextually appropriate uses of fitting terminology that might send a subset of readers to Merriam-Webster's for the definition. While Wikipedia is written for a general audience, Wikipedia is not aggressively and condescendingly dumbed down, which is never a good idea anyway, not even with children, because it limits teachable moments and ultimately their vocabulary, and it has never been easier to very quickly look up unfamiliar words. In light of this, I struggle to think of any reasonable excuse for the aforementioned action. One might hypothesize that perhaps the other editor wanted rid of the term quango because it is sometimes—rightly or wrongly—thought to carry a pejorative connotation. If—speculatively speaking—that was the real reason though, then why not say so? I can imagine someone who wishes to portray the respective CBR in a favourable light thus wanting rid of the term quango precisely because it is not puffery, and hence no good for putting a positive spin on the subject of the linked article. However, pursuing that theory further would be getting close to no longer assuming good faith, so I will leave it there. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)