User talk:ToaneeM

Welcome!

Hello, ToaneeM, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to do lots more. Some useful pages to visit are:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. We're so glad you're here! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

Need a audio reference for "six-five-oh-two"

Do you have an audio reference for “six-five-oh-two”? In the 70s I used a KIM1 board and an early Apple II. I was a member of the Homebrew Computer Club in the Bay Area and the Northwest Computer Club in Seattle. I always heard “sixty-five-oh-two”. Here is an audio reference William Mensch saying “sixty-five-oh-two". [1]. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I haven't got an audio reference for it but I don't think that's the yardstick or authority for it, nor is dear old Bill saying it. For example, the VW Beetle can be referred to as the 'bug' in the U.S. and as 'the beetle' in the U.K. and I wouldn't say that an audio sample of the owners saying either provided some sort of verdict on it. I worked with circuit design and assembly programming of the 6502/65C02 in the 80's/90's and the Z80, 8051, 68000 (and more on the list that we all had a go with) since. I'm not trying to open the article too wide but drop into a professional environment in the U.K. and talk about this device and you'll hear both terms interchangeably. Maybe people find saying 'sixty-five' too clunky; the U.K. loves time-saving slang, like many places. I never heard many other terms, though. One gut did call it 'the oh-two' but only because we knew what he was referring to already. That's why I put it in - I'm not trying to push the opinion of just me and my four mates in one tiny lab' or something :-) Incidentally, I'm sure you're not either. I hope you'll see my change in this light: revising a comment from long experience in industry with it (please ignore the grandad overtones of that!).

Your revert on Microcontroller page

Concerning your revert on Microcontroller page (Special:Diff/818438351). Please see MOS:CAPSACRS policy in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, it clearly states that initialisms should NOT be capitalized in Wikipedia. All initialisms that I have decapitalized were checked against their corresponding Wikipedia articles to make sure that they are indeed generic initialisms and not trademarked proprietary names. As such, terms like pulse-width modulation, real-time clock, central processing unit, programmable interval timer and universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter should NOT be capitalized. Please re-consider your revert as it goes against the current Wikipedia Manual of Style. Additionally, this revert has rolled back other decapitalizations of clearly common nouns.

Hi there (unsigned) @Nyq, in MOS:CAPSACRS it clearly states the following for initialisms:

  On Wikipedia, most acronyms are written in all capital letters (such as NATO, BBC, and JPEG).
  Wikipedia does not follow the practice of distinguishing between acronyms and initialisms.

Line 1 says: use capitals. Line 2 says: initialisms, like acronyms, will use capitals.

It also states:

  Certain material may be written with all capitals or small capitals:
  Acronyms and initialisms (see § Acronyms, above); these are given in all caps not small caps

This corresponds with how these terms are used in untold piles of component datasheets and other technical documents.

Where is the bit where "it clearly states that initialisms should NOT be capitalized in Wikipedia"? ToaneeM (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the second part of the MOS:CAPSACRS policy, titled "Expanded forms of abbreviations". You are quoting the first part of the policy which deals with unexpanded forms of initialisms (and they indeed should be all caps, e.g. "UART" - and none of my edits decapitalized unexpanded initialisms). However, expanded forms is a different business and the second part of the policy does clearly state: "Do not apply initial capitals in a full term that is a common noun phrase, just because capitals are used in its abbreviation." Q.E.D.? Nyq (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nyq, right, now I've found the correct bit, please ignore my previous statement :-) But...

In MOS:CAPSACRS it states:

  Do not apply initial capitals in a full term that is a common noun phrase,
  just because capitals are used in its abbreviation.

So when 'central processing unit' is used as a common-noun phrase, it does not need capitalisation. During the first time that an initialism is used, it is regarded as good English to declare it if the reader may not recognise it e.g. 'executed by the Central Processing Unit (CPU)'. This makes a clear link between the initialism and its definition.

Thereafter, text should use 'central processing unit' or CPU, never 'Central Processing Unit'. That is what the MOS:CAPSACRS statement is saying, highlighted by the 'just because'. It doesn't mean that all initialisms first-use declarations should be lower-case. Otherwise, WP would be at odds with the component datasheets and other technical documentation that it references or is taken from, confusing the reader/learner.

Incidentally, it's 'a UART', not 'an UART'. ToaneeM (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your revert on "an UART".

On the issue of making it more clear to the reader on the first use, the same policy at the end of the second section states that if you really want to do this, you should use italics for emphasis, not capitalization and not the bold font. This is mostly useful for syllabic abbreviation expansions, where the link might not be obvious, but for initialisms that use one letter per word the link is rather self-evident.

Lastly, on the issue of WP being at odds with countless data sheets, a lot of commercial texts in various fields where marketing is involved (including integrated circuit design and manufacturing) have excessive capitalization of terms just to make them look more important and proprietary. It does not mean that WP must follow the suit. E.g., if you let Brother company write an article about their printers, I am sure their marketing folks will want the laser printer to be called Laser Printer, and on/off button to be called On/Off Button, but this is not the reason for us to do the same.

I am proposing a compromise where you revert your revert, and I will then make a partial revert based on that, bringing back the original "a UART" form. Does that seem reasonable? Nyq (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyq, please don't take this the wrong way but I'm far from daft enough to be duped by the marketing hype in some datasheets :-) I was referring to the majority of manufacturer's technical documentation which, as far as I've seen over a lot of reading, is very good and consistent. It's not really a compromise, since I'm strongly of the opinion that its a deliberate move in a bad direction, but I would have to reasonably substantiate that argument and I'm unable to do that. I think your script/editing is the Devil's work and it makes me grimace but it seems inevitable :-) How you sleep at nights, though... ToaneeM (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks very much! I will be less forceful and more ToaneeM :) ——SN 54129 14:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Spy Who Loved Me

First off, I did not add the Palm Beach Post citation. An anonymous user did on October 24, and all I did was filled in the reference. Moore's book My Word is Bond may have more reliable in which he may have repeated the claim, and I live close to a library that has the book in circulation. So, I'll update the page with a better source if I can. Thank you for being civil about this. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Genesis (band), you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 22:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Picard's Facepalm I'm afraid you've auto-reverted. I'm very aware of the text you've posted above. The article uses British English and is about an English rock band who were born, lived, wrote all their music and retired all in Britain (England actually). It's not an international topic i.e. no more applicable to one country than any other. It incorrectly uses US English. Also, under the description you've posted above, the corrections I made were right. As I remember it, the article some time back used British English spelling but this has been changed by another to US English, so it was put back. Rather than myself justifying the change, there's no justification for it being anything other than British English. This is a reasoned change so, accordingly, I'll reinstate the change. Please don't edit war by reverting again. Please put any discussion on this on the article's talk page, not my user page. Thanks. ToaneeM (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Character appearances

Hey, I've got a question for you. It takes awhile to explain, so I apologize for the length. There's no rush on this, but if you're able to ponder it at some point I would really appreciate it.

I've been editing a number of Star Wars character articles. Before I started editing, the pages had an Appearances section, which listed all the places the character has shown up. There was a sub-section, called Legends, Legends Works or Legends Media, which listed the appearances that are in the SW Legends narrative universe, which is separate from the official canon. Since I can't use proper header text in this post to illustrate, I will direct you to Lando Calrissian for an example of the original formatting. Here is the Appearances heading, and here is the Legends sub-heading.

My problem with this formatting is that it doesn't inform the reader what kind of appearances the non-Legends appearances are. They happen to be the official canon, but this is not usually clear. I changed the formatting on some pages, such as Padmé Amidala. Here is the Appearances heading, and here is the Legends heading. The only change is that the Legends section became its own section and not a sub-section, and the words "official canon" were added to the first heading to explain what those appearances are.

TAnthony has expressed that canonicity should not be a focus on these character pages. He believes the appearances should not be separated into canon and Legends categories. I understand his view, and I believe it may be beneficial to reduce the focus on canonicity on some of these pages. But in the meantime, we need headers that are descriptive and clear. TAnthony edited some of the pages that used my formatting, and now they look like Luke Skywalker. Here is the Appearances heading and here is the Legends heading. His version is basically a hybrid of the old formatting and my formatting. I think it has the same problem as the original formatting, in that it doesn't tell the reader that the first list of appearances are canon.

Which formatting do you think is best? For simplicity I'll post the three examples here: Lando Calrissian (original), Padmé Amidala (my version), Luke Skywalker (hybrid).

I'm also open to a completely different version, if you have ideas.

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I spoke with TAnthony, and the issue has been resolved as far as I'm concerned, so I don't need your input after all. Wafflewombat (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've not replied to this before now, I've been super-busy and just didn't have the capacity to absorb all that I read here. I'm glad you've managed to get the answers you wanted, though.ToaneeM (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]