Talk:Box set

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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)


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)

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)
"foo is bar"?? W guice 14:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It's more "foobar is a bar of foo". boffy_b 15:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move[edit]

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)

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

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)
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)
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 (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

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)

Box setBoxed set – "Box set" is just wrong. Radiopathy •talk• 15:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose yes it's wrong. But it's English. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree 'yes it's wrong. But it's English' - it is, indeed, English, but so is 'boxed set' which has a different meaning. If the article is intended to be about a set of boxes, then 'box set' is both English and correct. If, as it seems, the article is intended to be about sets that have been boxed, then 'boxed set' is both English and correct. To intend the latter meaning but use the former terminology is a demonstration of ignorance that would not exist in a real encyclopaedia. But perhaps Wikipedia is not intended to be one, preferring to be a lowest-common-denominator barometer of populist, erroneous usage.

. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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. -- (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close No policy-based rationale presented by the nominator. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
  • Oppose - Ridiculous request, Both are well used and you should've known that before requesting!. –Davey2010(talk) 00:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - what policy allows you to declare a request "ridiculous" and to chastise the nom? Radiopathy •talk• 01:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
When the nom makes a "ridiculous" non-policy based request. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
WP:CIR. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:NPA before wrongly accusing everyone else!. –Davey2010(talk) 17:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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.