Indian › Certainly, I'll try a few and then I can collaborate with Yellow Sky on some of the longer more complicated ones.

Steampunk: 19th century Victorian era of coal, steam and chipmunks.

Dieselpunk: The first half of the 20th century era of motors.

Engine Room: Technical reports and news from the lives of engines.

More later...

Kimmarie › from the lives of engines

Our site engine is meant here, so this phrase is better re-worded like this: «from the life of our engine», or even «from the life of the site engine», to make it unambiguous.

Yellow Sky › I agree, I would go with the second one so everyone knows it is referring to the website.

Yellow house: A short description will be added later.

Rocketpunk: The 2nd half of the 20th century. Space travel.

Girls: Общество ценителей самочек человека. — This one is rather hard, lots of variants, «общество» can be association, community, company, or society, самочка человека — female human or she-human. I'd say «The Connoisseurs of Female Humans Assn.», still this also needs checking for correctness.

Architecture: Frozen music, for instance.

Radio Saigon: Psychedelics of the 1960s and the like. The music of the progressive peoples of the world.

Linguistics: Apart from their language, the system of signs to store and communicate abstract knowledge, the humans have simply no other difference from any other critters.

Ask: You are asking a question — the collective intelligence is answering. Huffing and panting, but still answering. («Collective intelligence» can be substituted for «hivemind».)

Dirty: Links to interesting discussions on Dirty and Lepra.
(We can add reddit, too. And «Lepra» can be changed to «Leprosorium».)

Habr: Interesting posts on Habr.

(Note: While writing comments this is still in Russian:
Жирно Наклонно Иронично Зачёркнуто Мелко «» | Ссылко Картинко Кинцо)

Yellow Sky › Looks great, the only change I would suggest is under Linguistics instead of saying, «the humans have simply no other difference from any other critters» you can say, «humans are no different from other critters.»

Kimmarie › OK, accepted.

Yellow Sky › The Connoisseurs of Female Humans...
...Human Females, I'd say.

Indian › Either way is the same, actually. But, please, do choose it the way you like it.

Yellow Sky › I found the difference between 'female humans' and 'human females' dramatic. The accent is not on what they are humans, but on what they are females. Let Kimmarie judge us.

Indian › The accent is not on what they are humans, but on what they are females.

Do you mean my 'female humans' have this accent on what they are females, or do you mean this accent is what should be in the text, but my wording fails to convey that?

(That «what» looks suspicious, as for me, from the grammatical point of view)

Yellow Sky › Do you mean my 'female humans' have this accent on what they are females

Quite the contrary. Take a look:

'Who?' 'Humans — a subject.' 'What humans?' 'Female humans — a predicate.'

And my intention is the strictly opposite: females as a primary, and humans as a secondary.


That «what» looks suspicious

Please correct my English anytime you see there something definitely wrong.
You mean, there must be: 'The accent is not on they are humans, but on they are females.' ?

Indian › «That» must be used instead of «what» there: «The accent is not on that they are humans, but on that they are females.» Another way of saying that is possible: «The accent is not on they being humans, but on they being females.» In the last example, «they» can be substituted for «their» or «them» without a noticeable change of meaning. «Being» is a Gerund here.

Indian › Both are correct really. But if I had to choose, I would say that «human females» is said more often as a rule than «female humans.»