User talk:ToaneeM

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

Welcome![edit]

A cup of warm tea to welcome you!

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:

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 Farmbrough23:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Piper at the Gates of Dawn may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • field in infoboxes in articles about musicians, albums and songs]]) before trying to make changes) -->
  • name=DarkG185>Palacios 2010, p. 185</ref> of "[[Matilda Mother]]", then called "Matilda's Mother").<ref name="Irgh142"/><ref name=Irgh149>Chapman 2010, p. 149</ref> The following week, on the 27th,<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Need a audio reference for "six-five-oh-two"[edit]

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)

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!).

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, ToaneeM. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your revert on Microcontroller page[edit]

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)

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)


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)

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)
@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)