RMX, Rmx, rmx (a poll after midnight)

A recent edit has sparked a discussion on whether MBS-8865, which changed guess case to lowercase “rmx” as it does “remix”, should be reverted. I don’t have a particularly strong opinion either way, so let’s see what people think. There’s some arguments on that edit, but feel free to clarify/extend/contribute to the discussion under this post.

  • Lowercase (rmx)
  • Uppercase (RMX)
  • Title case (Rmx)
  • Other

0 voters

I’m leaning towards lowercasing it, but as with any “general” rule we need to be extra careful about Artist’s Intent.

2 Likes

And let’s not forget individual languages’ style guidelines (namely German and Japanese) that call for capitalization in cases where it wouldn’t normally be used in English.

3 Likes

If the package consistently says RMX we should keep.
It looks and sounds like BMX.
I voted RMX but it depends on the package.

1 Like

I lean strongly towards RMX. rmx is not a word, so using it reduces readability. For the same reason, initcap seems wrong.
I would also say that if it’s normal to change the case of RMX, there is very little argument for not applying the same case change for roman numerals.

1 Like

These are not the same.

Roman numerals are historically written with uppercase Latin characters and the lowercase versions are far less common and more modern, mostly used as a way to stylise the Roman numerals (e.g., for page numbers). This is well documented.

“RMX”, “rmx” and “Rmx” are still all (stylised, granted) abbreviations of “remix”. You’re then arguing that “RMX” is the standard capitalisation of that letter combination (I take it?), but no proof/data has been presented to back this claim up, only subjective, anecdotal evidence has so far been presented towards this claim. @reosarevok actually researched it and concluded that it isn’t clear-cut at all:

Based on this, I’d be happy with “enter as printed” and MB might, in turn, become an authoritative source for the more common capitalisation of this. Otherwise, I see no reason why this abbreviation should be treated differently than other abbreviations.

6 Likes

The point is that there are several places where MB accepts that styling matters. Roman numerals are one such case. While not the same as the RMX thing, a lot of the same arguments apply.

“Remix” is more readable than “RMX” - but 1998 is more readable than MCMXCVIII, and we don’t make that change.

“Other ETI is lowercased” - but roman numerals are not (except possibly if lowercase on the release)

And I will reiterate that my brain at least will always assume that lowercase and initcap words are, well, words (or names, in the initcap case). Neither “rmx” nor “xv” are words, and this negatively impacts readability; that alone should really be enough not to force a case change. If a release literally has “rmx”, then the artist chose to make reading the title harder, so I’d be fine with that; but I also would not oppose folding the case to RMX.

1 Like

Absolutely. That’s what the whole style guidelines thing is about anyway. :slight_smile:

Which? I still haven’t seen any that would apply the same to Roman numerals as they would to “rmx”. It really feels like you’re comparing apples to oranges.

Examples of abbreviations in lowercase that are also not words: min, ft, lb, km, etc. – it is not a phenomenon unique to “rmx”.

Are you arguing that those should also be written in uppercase? Also, your brain clearly doesn’t function the same as my brain. I personally find “Foobar rmx” far less jarring on the eyes than “Foobar RMX”. Which is why we shouldn’t make the guidelines based on subjective, anecdotal “this is how I feel” arguments.

Show us evidence that this is the standard, and I am happy to support special-casing the “rmx” abbreviation. So far the evidence shows that there is no standard capitalisation of this abbreviation, which means that it should either be entered as-written or follow current guidelines for capitalisation.