Talk:Embrace, extend, and extinguish/Archives/2017
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Embrace, extend, and extinguish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Opening sentence
That opening sentence, which begins
- "Embrace, extend, and extinguish", also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate"...
is just irritating. First, according to MOS:WORDSASWORDS, shouldn't we use italics, not double quotes, when we state a phrase so that we are talking about the phrase, not using it? Second, what is this 'also known as' doing there? The phrase isn't 'known as' that other phrase, but the other one is a variant of it. It is not another name for the phrase, it is another version of the phrase. Unfortunately the rest of the sentence goes on
- ...is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found was used internally by Microsoft...
so we can't say Embrace, extend, and extinguish, and its variant embrace, extend, and exterminate, are phrases that the U.S. Department of Justice found were used internally by Microsoft... because, presumably, the DoJ didn't find both of them.
Thirdly, I can never find a reference to it, but isn't there a policy or a guideline somewhere that says that Wikipedia articles are not meant to be about the word or words that make up the title, but about the concept that the words refer to. I think that this is the main difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, and so it's pretty important.
So, is there some way we can sort out this long and ugly single-sentence paragraph, that solves at least two of these problems? How about
- Embrace, extend, and extinguish,[1] or embrace, extend, and exterminate,[2] is a business philosophy or guideline that was used internally by Microsoft.[3] The U.S. Department of Justice found[4] that Microsoft[5] employed the strategy by entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.
Is that still a fair description of the facts and findings? Is there a wordsmith here who can do a better job of untangling these ideas? --Nigelj (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Deadly embrace". The Economist. 2000-03-30. Retrieved 2006-03-31.
- ^ "Microsoft limits XML in Office 2003". Archived from the original on September 22, 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-31.
- ^ "US Department of Justice Proposed Findings of Fact". Usdoj.gov. Retrieved 2016-04-28.
- ^ "US Department of Justice Proposed Findings of Fact—Revised" (PDF). Usdoj.gov. Retrieved 2016-04-28.
- ^ "US Department of Justice Proposed Findings of Fact". Usdoj.gov. Retrieved 2016-04-28.
Requested move 14 August 2017
- The following is a closed 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: move (non-admin closure). feminist 15:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Embrace, extend and extinguish → Embrace, extend, and extinguish – Most of this article seems to use serial commas, and we should be consistent with that usage, per MOS:SERIALCOMMA. Either this article should be moved, or the serial commas should be removed from the body text. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Usage in the article (while not entirely consistent) does seem to favor the serial comma, which I see is used three times in the lede alone. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:23, 14 August 2017 (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.