Talk:macOS/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Proposal to end consistently re-occurring pronunciation issue

Long discussion on 'Proposal to end consistently re-occurring pronunciation issue'

Reason for proposal: This proposal is brought prior to any dispute resolution in the hope of finally ending this pronunciation issue once and for all simply by putting in a clarification using only a handful of words in the article straight away. The bit dug way down in the 'versions' section should be chopped as it doesn't seem to work at present. Other issues: This article has more pressing issues to be sorted as evidenced by its recent failure at a GA re-assessment. Therefore the aim is to not stick to your guns and wiki-lawyer guidelines, but rather to compromise and come to a consensus which differs from the status quo. Current: Mac OS X /mæk oʊ ɛs tɛn/ is a line of computer... Pros: (why it's better than the proposals below) Cons: (why it should be replaced/not as good as the proposals below) While it's short and to the point, the alternative below (proposal #1) adds just a few extra words and addresses the re-occurring issue. Comments: Proposals for revision: (feel free to add your own) 1) Mac OS X (pronounced /mæk oʊ ɛs tɛn/; incorrectly as /mæk oʊ ɛs ɛks/) is a line of computer... Pros: (why it's better than the current text) Short and to the point; resolves issue straight away; sourced. Cons: (why it's not better than the current text, or what it doesn't address) Comments: 2) The article should mention that the 'X' is in fact a Roman numeral 10, and no mention of pronunciation is necessary at all. Comments: Insert your own compromise or comments below: MFNickster: I don't think I've changed my mind since the last time this was discussed; the article should mention that the 'X' is in fact a Roman numeral 10, and no mention of pronunciation is necessary at all. MFNickster (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I could easily be swayed this way since the bloody pronunciation bit is what's causing this circular headache. This is rather similar to example 2 above from the Simple English Wikipedia's article on OS X which doesn't seem to have the constant pronunciation issue. Nja247 14:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Althepal: This again? Ok here's the deal: Apple made version 10 of their OS and simply used the X roman numeral rather than "10". I think the article should somewhere explain why there is an X, saying that it is for 10 and not just a cool name. That is why the pronunciation was there: Since there is common perception, the article states that it is pronounced "10". I don't know whether or not it's important to say how people do something wrong. Still, the fact of the matter is that the whole topic isn't really clear, which is what causes the confusion. If it's version 10, why is Leopard not Mac OS 16? At first, "OS X" was to replace "System 9", but now there is a big different between the "classic" versions and the "OS X" versions. If this is the case, why is it still called "10"? As you can see, the whole topic is confusing to me just like many people. I know it's officially "OS ten" but I always read it in my mind as "OS ex". So, here's my proposal: We don't tell people how to pronounce it, rather we explain in the article (possibly in the intro) that the X stands for 10 as it came after System 9. I'm not sure if my opinion will change, but that's my two cents so use it as you will. -Althepal (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) @Althepal: Exactly this again. That's why it's time to sort it out. Essentially are you saying what MFNickster said above you? Nja247 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Yeah, pretty much. Why do we have to tell people how to say something? Just clarify what the X is for and be done with it. Althepal (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Warren: I've taken a stab at rewriting the bit of text about the version number. Some edits made a couple of months ago buried this information in that pictureless, sectionless morass of overlinked text that is the "Versions" section. (ugh, why!?) I moved the information to the top of the "Description" section instead, where it will be more easily found, and I've expanded on the whole roman numeral vs. normal number thing... comments, all? Warren -talk- 22:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC) @Warren: At least we're trying. But wouldn't it ensure success by having it in there straight away? I think with a little work and imagination the intro could be tweaked to sort it. As for the adjustment: it's a start as it's higher up, however there's little reason to have pronunciation discussed twice in this article. Any ambiguities with it should be handled at the same time and then just be done with it. I am completely behind MFNickster's idea, alternatively I fail to see the issue with proposal 1 (ie adding several words straight away and then delete the secondary mention altogether. @Everyone: After reading, what do you all think? Do you think the slight modification to the intro should be such a sticking point? Do you believe the topic needs discussion twice in the article? If not, where should it be? If not in the intro could you explain how to avoid the issue as this method has failed to work in the past (ie that's why we're talking about it over and over again)? Aren't you all tired of talking about this as there's more pressing issues to sort? Cheers and good night :) Nja247 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC) We'll get it sorted out, Nja247. My only concern -- and I'm going to keep repeating it, because it's a message that needs to get through to more editors -- is the the lead sentence is absolutely NOT where we stick in a whole pile of extra information that the odd editor here & there thinks needs to be at the beginning of the article. The sentence needs to read like... well... a sentence. It needs to invite people to read further. It needs to make sense the first time. It needs to be straightforward. It needs to define the topic. Any article that goes down the path of "Topic name (blah blah blah; more blah blah blah, oh, and even more blah blah blah) is a blah blah blah blah blah (what it is)" can only be described as an attempt at punishing the reader for daring to learn about a topic. Simple! Keep it simple! Everyone here has seen articles whose lead sentence is unreadable due to excessive parenthetical facts. Let's avoid that. With that said, if someone wants to add a few words later in the lead section, after we've established what the heck Mac OS X is, that's completely fine by me. No more than a few words, though -- like I've said, it's not that important compared to everything else we have to say about Mac OS X. Warren -talk- 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC) @Warren: I see what you mean here and I understand the points of lead, ie to establish what the subject matter is first. And yes we definitely need to get the pronunciation point dealt with as soon as possible in terms of its location in the article so that we're not talking about this month after month. Further I too want to keep it as simple as possible. That is why I think it'd be helpful to learn specifically why proposal #1 above would not suffice? It's essentially two extra words along with the incorrect pronunciation. It's simple, sourced, and it addresses the issue immediately. Alternatively if we just stick something into the lead at a later point that means extra wording about pronunciation which I think could be avoided as it's not exactly keeping it simple. To me, keeping it simple would be handling all this pronunciation mess in one go. Nja247 08:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC) ZooCrewMan: Nja247, I greatly appreciate your offer of help with this rather ridiculous argument. I never, in a million years, thought that simply mentioning that saying Mac OS Ecks is a common variation would draw out the kind of vehement opposition that it has. I also never thought that there would be the kind of douchebaggery that has been seen. (Maybe we should mention how the scots say windows). We're not talking about a simple "mispronunciation" as so many of you have tried to claim. A mispronunciation would be calling it "Mach OS X" or "Mec OS X." Many, many people say, Mac OS Ecks. Simply mentioning this is not one of the signs of the apocalypse. Nobody is trying to "stick in a whole pile of extra information." What we're trying to do, is, right after the correct way to say it, insert a VERY COMMON ALTERNATE. That's all!!! I vote to insert the reference. ZooCrewMan (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC) It's not exactly 'ridiculous', but rather something that needs a proper discussion which is what we're now doing. We're not voting on what's right or wrong, instead we're trying to work together to come to a compromise and agreement on how best to sort things. This issue of pronunciation has come up since its introduction into the article and what we're trying to do here is have a calm and useful discussion about changes to the article in order to make it better and to avoid this re-occurring issue. It's not helpful for you to make bad faith comments as you did above. Constructive comments are welcome and appreciated, however if you plan to act contrary then please do not bother as it only hurts any progress. We're all volunteers here and things will only work out if we all act in good faith towards one another and actually try to compromise. Name calling destroys that. Nja247 08:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I understand your frustration with my comments, and I'm sorry if I offended you. I am not sorry for saying what I said though. I believe that the sarcastic "Scottish people pronounce Windows windaes" was just as unconstructive. There comes a point in time when frustration with a situation warrants letting other people know exactly how frustrated you are. This, I believe, was one of those times. First off, let me assert once more that this disagreement IS NOT about pronunciation. I am getting sick and tired of people trying to call it that. A mispronunciation is a difference is saying the same word. The letter X and the number ten are two very different things. If I said "Apple" was "pronounced "Microsoft" what would you all think of me? That I simply mispronounced it? If you want to dispute my claim here, look up the word pronounce in a dictionary. You're splitting hairs. If you want to call it a 'misnomer' rather than a 'mispronunciation,' then fine, but in practical terms it's an argument over how it is said out loud, i.e. pronunciation. How you pronounce an 'X' depends on whether you think it's a letter or a Roman numeral - I doubt you could find any other example in English where a Roman number is pronounced as the corresponding English letters, except as a joke. MFNickster (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Secondly, I did a short search for "also commonly called" and found many, many, many, many examples or articles where a simple inclusion is not a problem: Eosinophil granulocyte, Braddock expedition, Guinea pig, Petaling Jaya, Ampersand, Ho-Chunk (I could keep going if you'd like) For all of you out there proclaiming the "Official" way of saying things, are you going to go out, and re-edit these articles because "Petaling Java" is the "official" name of the city, and not PJ? Or are you going to remove the reference to calling an ampersand an "and sign" because "that's not how you say it?" Thirdly, I fail to see how mentioning this, or any other common alternate way to say something or call a thing is a "Weasel Word." Lastly, Notability, as defined by the opening sentence in its own article, "refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article." Its own article. I again, vote for the inclusion, not exclusion, of this simple (what should be uncontroversial) phrase that consists of 6 words. ZooCrewMan (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Nimakha: I agree with ZooCrewMan that the /ɛks/ variant should at least be given mention equal to the /tɛn/ variant, on the grounds of notability. However, after reading Warren's comments, I realize that this needn't be in the introduction. I now support keeping the naming details in a later subsection. The only complaint I have concerning Warren's rewrite is that it prescribes rectitude. It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to tell people how they aught to be doing something. Rather, the distinction we should be making concerns what's official versus what's common. —Nima Khazaei (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Thus do you think that the approach offered by MFNickster (above) would be a good alternative? He said: "..the article should mention that the 'X' is in fact a Roman numeral 10, and no mention of pronunciation is necessary at all". Nja247 08:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Dravick: I disagree that it's notable enough to merit inclusion in the article (see: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight), but if it is to be included, it should be made clear that it's a non-standard pronunciation. Contrary to what ZooCrewMan says above, it is a mispronunciation. The name of the OS is "Mac OS Ten," as Apple has called it from the beginning. It seems to me that the only reason this keeps coming up is because people who mistakenly call it 'eks' are so defensive about it. MFNickster (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I agree with MFNickster. We've talked about it a bazillion times, the official pronounciation is "ten", and the fact that this pronounciation is mentioned in the article should be enough (most articles do not even have IPA string). I suggest we leave it as it was, which is, mentioned somewhere in article, but certainly not at the top. I also suggest people should just live with it, even if they decide to pronounce it differently. I personally say Ooo-bon-too instead of Ooo-boon-too, yet I don't go cry about it in the Ubuntu article. Dravick (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC) @Dravick: Leaving it as is is no good due to the fact that every single archive including this page has had someone complain about this issue since its inclusion in the article. It has got to be properly addressed as the status quo has failed. I still haven't received an answer as to why the addition of two words and a reference into the intro is unacceptable. My view is there's no glaring issue with notability when considered as a whole and regardless that guideline should never be used to defend exclusion and continue this mess, ie harm Wikipedia as demonstrated by the recent failure at GA re-assessment. We shouldn't be wasting time on this and thus a compromise needs to happen. Additionally I think what MFNickster said has merit, ie scrapping the whole bit about pronunciation and simply mentioning it's a roman numeral and let the user sort it themselves. I hope contributors can comment on proposals for revision and compromise versus continuing this circular battle as it hasn't solved anything for well over the two years this has been going on. Nja247 04:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC) The GA reassessment failed because basically I was the one who was supposed to take time to address every issue, but I had too much work in real life to spend any time here. As for the current issue, I agree with Warren's suggestion just below. Dravick (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, I had damn assessments and wished to spend more time helping. Once this is cleared up I'll look over the GA notes and do my best at tackling issues and then we can re-submit for review. Regardless the fact remains that energy will be better used not talking about this every month or so. Nja247 07:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Dravick (and others, of course), how do you feel about having something really short in the lead that clarifies that the X means the roman numeral "ten", but not explicitly address the pronunciation issue? We might also have to say that it replaces Mac OS 9, but by doing this, the progression from 9 to 10 can be inferred by the reader without belabouring the point. Warren -talk- 03:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Warren, could you, at your convenience, provide an example of how this revision might look keeping in mind our agreement to keep it simple and my hope for the point to be addressed as early as possible within the article. Nja247 07:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC) What about: Mac OS X (pronounced /mæk oʊ ɛs tɛn/; as the 'X' is a Roman numeral) is a line of computer... vs current, which is: Mac OS X /mæk oʊ ɛs tɛn/ is a line of computer... Nja247 11:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC) I guess that could be it. In theory, IPA strings say it all, but of course I don't think most of us are familiar with the IPA (I sure am not). My main point was that the "ten/X" issue can be somewhere in the article, but it does not deserve to be in the first five words. On the other hand, I could see the fact that it is roman numeral "ten" being in the lead. Dravick (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Please, as a birthday present to me (I'm getting olddddddddd) consider my points directly above Warren's comment and get back to us. Cheers. Nja247 04:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The pronounciation issue is silly. Most likely Mac intended it to be OS 10. They replaced the 10 with the roman numeral X, for aesthetic reassons, it looked cool. That led to OS X being pronouced as the letter X, not the number, as in Malcom X's last name. As WP is an encyclopedia not a grammar guide the question is whether or not the pronounciation of X as eks, not 10, is common enough to be worth noting. The question is not if it is correct, but if for cultural reasons it is worth noting, in the same manner that grammatically incorrect slang is worth noting. It might also be noted that the letter X and the roman numeral are the same character, and it was that way since roman times. X and 10 are the same character in the world we live in. If you call something OS X you are being purposely ambiguous. At around the same time OS X was introduced I think there was all that Malcom X stuff going on, with kids wearing hats with big Xs on them. I suspect that Mac was influenced by that also. So are there enough people saying OS eks to warrant a mention? Did Mac use the X instead of 10 because of all those Malcom X hats? I would sugggest a foot note to the pronounciation explaining that some actual people at the turn of the 21st century interpretted the X as eks. Geo8rge (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward with "roman numeral" in the lead

Okay, after brainstorming for a couple of days, I've taken a whack at updating the lead section to incorporate the ideas we've built up.

Mac OS X (pronounced /mæk oʊ ɛs tɛn/, as the 'X' is a Roman numeral) is a line of computer operating systems developed, marketed, and sold by Apple Inc., and since 2002 has been included with all new Macintosh computer systems. It is the successor to Mac OS 9, the final release of the "classic" Mac OS, which had been Apple's primary operating system since 1984. Mac OS X, whose "X" represents the Roman numeral for "10" and is a prominent part of its brand identity, is a Unix-based operating system, built on technologies developed at NeXT between the second half of the 1980s and Apple's purchase of the company in early 1996. Its sixth and most recent version, Mac OS X v10.5 is certified UNIX 03 while running on Intel processors.

I tend to approach lead-writing by putting two "facts" into each sentence, like this:

1. It's an operating system / Apple made it.
2. It replaces Mac OS 9 and Mac OS more generally / Its predecessor was around since the mid-1980s.
3. The X means 10 / The core is Unix-based and was bought from NeXT.
4. Leopard is the most recent version / It is certified UNIX 03.

When using this approach, you have to be concise with each fact, and every sentence is high-value and informative. Even if a person doesn't read any further than the lead, you want them to go away with some of the biggest points, and make them feel like they've learned something.

Anyways, comments welcome... Warren -talk- 20:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I've changed to what I think would address the issue best (directly above, not the article itself as there's no agreement yet). The reason for my change is the first thing seen is pronunciation and then you're forced to read on to find the info on Roman numerals which is aimed at avoiding constant discussions by the reading public who are unlikely to be so meticulous. I still think we could make the point straight away without hurting the fantastic approach you use for leads. We agreed to keep it simple, and I think we can be even more brief (see my revision). If the point isn't made sooner then I don't think we've accomplished much of a compromise.

Overall I agree with MFNickster and Althepal in saying scrap pronunciation altogether, ie tell readers it's a Roman numeral and let them sort it out. However if we can compromise and make the Roman numeral point along with the pronunciation, then fantastic as everyone should be happy and hopefully this is done with forever. If not I think we should consider the other proposal (remove pronunciation) as it would seem to have consensus and it seems to work for Simple English Wikipedia. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should scrap the pronunciation guide. We're supposed to use it in Wikipedia articles when the pronunciation isn't obvious or is contentious. But, pronunciation guides are only supposed to say what the correct way of saying it is, not why. I don't get the reasoning for putting that extra detail into the first sentence... why isn't the second sentence good enough? We do this in the Windows 2000 (it was released in 2000) and Windows XP (it stands for "experience") articles, why not here as well? Can't we at least get describing what it is out of the way before we delve into reasonings as to why it's named what it is? Warren -talk- 21:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but guidelines shouldn't be strictly applied when there's been such confusion. Every archive since its introduction into this article has contained queries on it. We'll put it to consensus on whether the current re-vision works, or if my alternative is preferred, or even scrap it. I think telling people the X is a Roman numeral acts as a good alternative and possibly more proper guide for them on pronunciation, which is why there's a good argument (and agreement by three of us) to be rid of it as is if need be. And I don't think adding seven words, one of which is an 'X', makes it a long parenthesis. Hell remove the parenthesis if need be. It's best for clarity to stick it all together, especially when it's seven (or six and a half) words. Nja²⁴⁷ 05:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I preferred the first formulation of the proposition. I don't know about you guys, but I tend to skip over long parenthesis. Furthermore, it implements the idea of mentionning it in the lead in a natural way, without being the first thing mentioned in the article. Dravick (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the parenthesis is kind of superfluous when there's a citation to a source immediately following. YMMV. MFNickster (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, writing "Mac OS X (pronounced /mæk oʊ ɛs tɛn/, as the 'X' is a Roman numeral)" is just too long of an intro. Leaving the "as the 'X' is a Roman numeral" part out would still get the point across. But I still think it'd be best to leave out everything about how it's pronounced and why from the first sentence, working it in a better way into the article. I see that right now there is a sentence in the intro that explains what the X means, so I think there is no need to keep anything about it in the lead sentence. It's just not important enough. Althepal (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be alright I suppose so long as there's no more monthly complaints about it now. If there are then it should be removed completely, ie the pronunciation. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Need to delete criticism sections from Description, redo/delete Description section

Need to delete imo inappropriate criticism sections from Description/redo Description section

Under the 1st section called "Description" it says:

" In 2003 and 2005, two Macworld editors expressed criticism of the permission scheme; Ted Landau called misconfigured permissions "the most common frustration" in Mac OS X,[19] while Rob Griffiths suggested that some users may even have to reset permissions every day, a process which can take up to 15 minutes.[20] More recently, another Macworld editor, Dan Frakes, called the procedure of repairing permissions vastly overused.[21] He argues that Mac OS X typically handles permissions properly without user interference, and resetting permissions should be tried only when problems emerge.[22]"

I don't think this belongs here. If you want to create a section for Criticism(or Criticism for the release it applies to) then fine but otherwise I think we should stick to the claimed features for the Description section if indeed the section is needed.

Secondly, under the section that starts "The most visible change was the Aqua theme." The description of Aqua is fine but I'd put Criticism of it in the Aqua section http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Aqua_(user_interface)

Looking at the "Description" section as a whole vs other typical Wikipedia OS articles on say WIndows XP or Debian seems to make a case for getting rid of it entirely. It's half-way between describing features and Criticism that doesn't apply to every OS release. If I were quickly skimming this page I'd be under the impression that the filesystem for OS X may have permission problems and the interface of OS X is controversial.

I would propose Deleting the section entirely and moving the few Descriptions of the OS features into possibly the Introductory section. If you take away the criticism paragraphs and the OS market size paragraph then there are not many actual description sentences left. Those left can be put in the Intro, History, Features, and the aforementioned Criticism section.

Thoughts? Mesostinky (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh! This was discussed in depth and dealt with a while ago. The permissions thing at least has both sides of the argument. I personally feel that the aqua thing is a little negative (just because you're able to find someone who didn't like the change doesn't mean that's the most predominant view on the matter), but whatever. I'm not getting involved in this again. Althepal (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections are discouraged. There used to be one, but we were required to incorporate it in the text. See WP:Criticism_sections and other links I might find when I have a little bit more time. Dravick (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)