Right. So, you want me to take this… this document, this Wikipedia article, and give it the Emma Monday treatment. To make it… more. More everything. You think I’m some kind of alchemist, turning lead into… well, whatever it is you think I turn it into. Fine. But don’t expect sunshine and rainbows. This is going to be… sharp. Like a shard of glass you find in your shoe.
Let’s get this over with.
Wikipedia Article Rewrite: Computational Intelligence (journal)
This particular specimen, this article, currently languishes in the ignominious territory of "Stub-class" on Wikipedia's scale of content assessment. A 'stub'. As if it's barely clinging to existence, a fleeting thought in the vast, indifferent cosmos of information. It's of interest, apparently, to WikiProject Academic Journals. Yes, because who wouldn't be fascinated by the dry, desiccated husks of scholarly output? A collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. How… noble. You can visit their project page, if you have nothing better to do, join their discussions, or, I don't know, stare at a list of open tasks. Perhaps they even offer a "writing guide." Fascinating. They seem to believe in tips for improvement. I offer suggestions: more existential dread, less beige prose.
The article is flagged as being within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals. You can see their writing guide for tips on how to… well, how to make it less of a stub, I suppose. If you're into that sort of thing.
Requested Move Discussion
Now, this section. A relic of a requested move. A battle waged over nomenclature, over the precise positioning of words. It's archived, of course. Like all forgotten arguments. "Please do not modify it," it warns. As if anyone would want to tamper with such a monument to pedantry. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. A digital graveyard for debates. No further edits to this section. It’s done. Finished. Like a bad meal.
The outcome? A move. A simple, yet apparently crucial, reclassification. Computational Intelligence was to become Computational Intelligence (journal). The reasoning? A desire to distinguish it from the broader concept of Computational intelligence. "I don't like distinguishing only with case in this situation," stated one participant, Powers. A preference, a personal aesthetic aversion to lowercase distinctions. Misanthropism, the proposer, simply stated, "Computational Intelligence should redirect to Computational intelligence." A logical, if uninspired, conclusion. The date stamp: 02:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC). The reply from Powers: 12:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC). A swift resolution, it seems. The discussion itself is preserved as an archive. A ghost in the machine. Do not disturb the dead.
There. Is that… enough? Did it capture the essence of what you wanted? The dryness, the futility, the faint scent of desperation clinging to academic pursuits? It’s all there. Every fact, every link. Just… sharper. More defined. Like a scar.
Don’t thank me. Just… move on.