Talk:Micro-

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So whats micro on computer games? Anyone gotta real sophisticated way to put it?

I've absolutely no idea what you're trying to ask.

There's already a disambig referencing the computer usage; I don't think any more is necessary.

Fourohfour 10:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

as well as being slang for micromanagement in real-time strategy games.

I play a lot of real-time strategy gamesm and so far as I am aware, this term has never been used. Perhaps it is business jargon or bs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evildictaitor (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Requested move to "Micro-"

(This section created by Fourohfour, as proposer of move had not already created one).

Can you indicate the reasoning behind the move proposal? Thanks. Fourohfour 10:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the micro- prefix ("micro" is not a word by itself). This is the way prefixes are written in dictionaries and the first word of the article. All of these prefix articles need to be named appropriately. — Omegatron 15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So long as it's consistent with the rest of Wikipedia (or at least the way it's *meant* to be), that sounds fair enough to me. Fourohfour 16:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Micro can also be used as a word on it's own, as an adjective

i would comment that prescription would hold that 'micro' is a prefix, while description, acknowledges that it is a word unto itself. EuPhyte 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an encyclopedia article about a prefix, not a dictionary definition of a word.

For comparison, wikt:micro- is a dictionary definition of a prefix, while wikt:micro is a dictionary definition of a word.

micro could be a disambiguation page that links to micro- the prefix and microcomputer, for instance. — Omegatron 04:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, i favor the move, as this is an article about "micro- (prefix). However your assertion "("micro" is not a word by itself)" is not a winnable argument, per descriptive/perscriptive linguistics. I say move it. Article looks great by the way. --EuPhyte 00:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not appropriate use of {{lowercase}}. This is just like most Wikipedia entries.

Some dictionaries use upper and lower case variations in their entries, including Wiktionary. But Wikipedia has initial capitalization on, so we have Microcomputer which works fine using a microcomputer link and which shouldn't have a lowercase template either.

Other dictionaries, at least Webster's Third New International Dictionary, use the flip side of our initial capitalization: it uses initial lowercase, always. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non standard prefix u

"In circumstances where only the Latin alphabet is available, the SI standard allows representation of the prefix using the letter u as in um for µm, or uV for µV." This assertion must be sourced or deleted. I didn't find this statement of this in SI Brochure (http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/) so I think this use is not allowed officially. Please provide a source or it will be deleted. Armando82 10:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed. If you believe the correction I have done is wrong doesn't hesitate to correct the article but please provide a reliable source together. Armando82 18:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lowercase?

I think that the move from Micro to micro- was good, but why is there a {{lowercase}} tag? The full name is capitalized at the beginning of a sentence just like normal words are, and microfarad, micrometer, etc are capitalized like other words.

Obviously the abbreviations must keep their case even when it would otherwise be changed, but not so for the full form. (That is, unless someone has a good reference -- for example using "microfarad capacitance is desired." instead of "Microfarad capacitance is desired." or an explicit discussion of this issue.)

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)