Talk:Box set: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:52, 22 August 2014

Albums Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Television Unassessed

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film Start‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Nonmedia

Many other things can be reffered to as a boxed set outside "musical recordings, films, & television programs", such as boxed sets of games, toys, tools, etc.... Mathmo 06:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

This is really a "foo is bar" article ("a box set is a set in a box"). I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion but I know it would be kept. Perhaps somebody could make it less of a dictionary definition and actually tell us something interesting? To this end, I will tag with {{expand}}. --kingboyk 16:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about some history regarding the creation and marketing of box sets. Presumably they started with classical music and then baby-boomer genres. Hyacinth 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"foo is bar"?? W guice 14:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more "foobar is a bar of foo". boffy_b 15:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

The more common term is "box set". That article has over 700 references within Wikipedia. This title has about 140. *Sparkhead 12:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a term is commonly misused does not make it correct. Lately I've seen "free reign" more often than "free rein" but the phrase is still correctly "free rein". A "boxed set" is a set that has been boxed -- i.e., put in a box. A "box set" is a set of boxes. This really needs to be restored to the correct form. Worldwalker (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically speaking, I agree 100%. However, in terms of usage, "box set" is considerably more popular. Just as "sack lunch" is incorrect—it's lunch in a sack, not a lunch of sacks—but nobody says "sacked lunch". "Free reign", on the other hand, still has a way to go before it supplants "free rein" in popular use.

At any rate, I think that's why this was moved. But if you think it should be moved back, I wouldn't oppose. Just list it at Requested Moves (since evidently some people think it's good where it is) and see if there's consensus. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This definition just about sums up the most common criticism of Wikipedia - it's an unreliable reference.

And also sums up the most common cause of mirth... much of Wikipedia is bow-locks.

Perhaps the Wikipedia motto should be: Don't bother with what's correct, publicise what's most used... spread ignorance... bow to the lowest common denominator.

I guess that with well-meaning editors of widely varying intelligence and education reliability and accuracy are unattainable. There is no quality control, just popularity as supreme criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.3.98 (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article exemplifies the failings in American (US) education, which is responsible for the spontaneous reinvention of so many words and phrases, seemingly because the originator has never learned the correct version and makes do with any approximation.

'Boxed' means put in a box. A 'boxed set' is a set that has been put in box. 'Box' means box, a cuboid container (noun). A 'box set' would be a set of boxes.

But, please, please don't correct Wikipedia. This article and others like it (remember 'nucular'?) gives so much pleasure and entertainment to educated people across the world. If America has one international reputation it is, surely, to be a source of mirth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.3.98 (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.213.104 (talk) [reply]

Agree! With all that is despicable about the USofA's interactions with and view of the rest of the world, the rest of the world really appreciates all the things that are so funny about the USofA. "Nucular" and "box set" are laugh-out-loud hilarious. Funniest of all is that most USofA-ians don't even seem to get what it is about them that causes hilarity.

Keep it up, you Merkins! :-)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Box set → Boxed set – "Box set" is just wrong. Radiopathy •talk• 15:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose yes it's wrong. But it's English. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - "English" in what sense? the language? the country? What does it's "Englishness" have to do with the fact that, although it's wrong, you oppose the move? Radiopathy •talk• 16:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just that, unfortunately, like you I would rather people followed what is better grammatically and stylistically, if I was writing an essay or merchandising I'd use "boxed". Nevertheless as long as we have WP:COMMONNAME (which should be ignored sometimes) our hands are tied. Box set using Box as an adjective rather than a participle, like box car isn't so bad. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so you're defending ~~WP:COMMONALITY~~ WP:COMMONNAME rather than defend the correct term? I doubt that ~~WP:COMMONALITY~~ WP:COMMONNAME even applies here: there's no question as to what the term "boxed set" means, it's just that there's a contingent here who feel that ~~WP:COMMONALITY~~ WP:COMMONNAME justifies the use of common or vulgar or incorrect terms when the correct term is just as well understood as well as being "encyclopedic". Radiopathy •talk• 04:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both box set and boxed set are acceptable according to oxforddictionaries.com. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Paul 012 stated, both are acceptable. I also can cite a few reliable sources using "box set" (without the "-ed"), including one from Rolling Stone in the U.S.,[1] one from RTE in Ireland,[2], the BBC's shopping web site at bbcshop.com,[3] and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's shopping web site.[4] Other than that, no compelling WP:ENGVAR argument has been yet provided to warrant a move. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it isn't an ENGVAR issue: a boxed set contains a set of items, e.g. CDs, which are enclosed in a box. A "box set" would be a set of boxes, enclosed or otherwise. The issue is intuitively correct vs intuitively incorrect English - and shopping sites are not reliable sources, BTW. Radiopathy •talk• 03:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:UCN, as is frequently said, English is a language of exceptions and rulebreaking. Just because grammarians would like things to be spelled in a particular manner does not mean that people will spell or have spelt it that way. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close No policy-based rationale presented by the nominator. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is absurd. I come here defending the correct term, and you're telling me that I need a "policy-based" rationale, when policy says it's OK to use whatever bastardisation of the language people prefer, but there's no policy defending the English language? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia; instead, it's an alternative universe. Radiopathy •talk• 15:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need a policy to back-up your stance. Now go and find it and come back here when you have. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Ridiculous request, Both are well used and you should've known that before requesting!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what policy allows you to declare a request "ridiculous" and to chastise the nom? Radiopathy •talk• 01:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the nom makes a "ridiculous" non-policy based request. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts took the words right out of my mouth!, Perhaps I'm assuming bad faith here but your reason - "Box set" is just wrong is just a stupid comment to make.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - personal attacks are not policy-based, and should count against you in closing this discussion. Radiopathy •talk• 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:NPA before wrongly accusing everyone else!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE the nominator has changed the text of the article Definitive Collection Mini LP Replica CD Boxset from "box set" to "boxed set" [5] and requested an article rename to include "boxed set" in the article title, at talk:Definitive Collection Mini LP Replica CD Boxset -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that is correct: the other BOXED SETS were redirected long before this discussion. Radiopathy •talk• 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 ::This definition just about sums up the most common criticism of Wikipedia - it's an unreliable reference.
+:: And also sums up the most common cause of mirth... much of Wikipedia is bow-locks.
 Perhaps the Wikipedia motto should be: Don't bother with what's correct, publicise what's most used... spread ignorance... bow to the lowest common denominator.