Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DATE (command)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rhododendrites (talk | contribs) at 16:05, 28 September 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DATE (command)

DATE (command) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a manual and this article is written exactly like a man page. It can, however, be moved to one of the sister projects or a Unix/Linux wiki. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no need for articles on individual OS commands, regardless of what the OS is. Especially since this command doesn't do anything particularly interesting; most operating systems provide a command to display and/or change the current date. Should we create articles for the equivalent commands from VMS, MVS, VM/CMS, etc? SJK (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"No need" and "not particularly interesting" are not valid arguments for deletion. The later argument is entirely subjective. Many of our articles contain sports statistics, and I am tempted to argue that anything is more interesting than that. James500 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the nominator's rationale is correct, the correct !vote would be "transwiki" (to wikiversity or wikibooks) not "delete". NOTMANUAL is not an argument for the elimination of any given content from all WMF projects. James500 (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, I am inclined towards keeping this article. What NOTMANUAL actually says is: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not" (my emphasis). This article does not consist entirely of instructions. Even if does contain instructions (and I am not sure it contains any), I don't see why they can't be rewritten as a description of how the command is used etc (WP:IMPERFECT). To put it another way, NOTMANUAL seems to be more about style than substance. James500 (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously James500, you should have more concern about what such a frivolous verdict would do to your own reputation, because this kind of interpretation of WP:NOTMANUAL is only found in sitcoms for their comedy value. The section, along with the entire founding policy, has a purpose. In addition, I've read thousands of manuals so far and have created two myself (excluding all those /doc pages that I edit in template namespace). All looked exactly like this page. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you will find that my reputation is perfectly secure. The word "manual" is exactly that: it is just a word that doesn't have any particularly precise signification in English. I am not prepared to entertain other users inventing their own definitions of that word out of their own heads, which is what you seem to be doing. According to the Compact OED, a manual is "a book giving instructions or information". The same dictionary defines an encyclopedia as "a book ... giving information ...". Clearly, according to that source, the only relevant difference is the presence of instructions. I am sure that you have read books that have the word "manual" printed on the cover, but their contents prove absolutely nothing because the title of a book is normally chosen by the publisher for commercial reasons (ie marketing reasons). It is not intended to be an accurate reflection of the nature of the book's contents, and cannot be assumed to say anything meaningful about the book's contents. Nor am I prepared to rely on your memory of what these publications contain. And of course you have, at most, only read a small subset of all the books calling themselves manuals. The last thing that we want to do is to start trying to inject meaning into vague, ambiguous, wishy-washy, airy-fairy, waffle words like "manual", because it is likely to produce absurd results. O Hood Phillips, for example, defined "textbooks" as "books other than statutes and law reports" (which would include encyclopedias). And by your logic, the ODNB is a "dictionary" for the purpose of our policy. Nor am I prepared to entertain assertions about the alleged purpose of our policies that are not supported evidence, which you have not produced. And even if I accepted your opinions about the meaning of the word "manual" (which I don't), you still haven't explained why the article can't be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner which would be the preferred solution per WP:IMPERFECT. James500 (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but it should be a redirect not a delete and can be worked out on article talk pages, not at AfD. ~KvnG 13:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess. The lede isn't really like a manual. Computers and operating systems are really important and so major commands (in several OS's I gather) are worth describing, I guess. The rest of the article is kind of manual-like, there's not a lot to say about it I guess, and I suppose that making a long article describing these commands might be called for is someone wants to do that. Herostratus (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The test at AfD is WP:Notability, which requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources about the subject. To be secondary, the source must off the author's own opinions or analysis. It can't just be a summary of the command line options lifted from the man page. Realistically, there are no such qualifying sources. Occasionally, we will allow articles where the sourcing is weak but where there's a consensus a separate article is warranted for other reasons. For example, we have an article on command substitution that survived AfD but that was because there was a consensus it's important construct that appears in many shells and the best way to deal with it would be with a separate article explaining the concept and where it first appeared. I find no similar rationale available here. Nom is correct: Wikipedia is WP:NOTAMANUAL. Msnicki (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but broaden to cover all related "date" commands (e.g. by merging Date_(Unix) here). @Msnicki: a secondary source does not require an author's opinions or analysis unless you're broadening "analysis" to mean an alternative explanation (alternative to a help file/man page). It would be difficult to base a number of technical, scientific, mathematics, etc. articles entirely on opinions or analysis rather than authoritative and informed explanation and description. It took me a few seconds to find this article, for example, which explains "date" in its own section of a paper using an analogy to a stopwatch, etc. @SJK: the detailed notability, etc. policies and guidelines are intended to take the place of generalized judgments of what there's a "need" for or what we decide is or is not "interesting". Plenty of things that are interesting aren't notable and plenty of things that are notable aren't interesting. The question here is whether there exist (read: doesn't matter if they're currently included) sufficient reliable sources out there. @Codename Lisa: The article does not appear to me to be only a man page, even if a large part of it appears that way, so that doesn't seem like a reason for deletion on its own. It does look like substantial parts here could be chopped, turned into prose, and adding sources would certainly help it to be less manual-like. I'm confident there are enough sources out there to justify an article on operating system date commands (one for each OS, I'm less confident). --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Rhododentrites, you're wrong about what's required to make a source secondary. From WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Simply reciting the command line options from the man page does make for a secondary source. It must also include the author's own thinking. Period. It's there in our guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're largely agreeing with me except where I'm misrepresented. You said it requires "opinions or analysis." On the other hand that quote includes "thinking based on primary sources," "interpretation," "evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas," and so on. Furthermore, your particular reading of "author's own thinking" removes from the definition of "secondary source" all reporting, for example. If the AP reports a story saying "Today the President announced that the United States would donate $50million in aid to fight ebola in Liberia. This is the second aid package to Liberia this year. So far ebola has claimed the lives of x number of people..." that would fail your secondary source test. Nowhere in my response did I advocate "reciting the command line options" -- that's just restating the initial argument. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up, for clarity, because this doesn't seem like something that has to hinge on the particularities of a Wikipedia policy: A secondary source is a source based on material originally presented elsewhere. If I just reprint or reword the original, that's one thing, but if I explain the original in a different way, if I summarize or generalize, if I add context or juxtapose it with other relevant material, or if I otherwise give any other take on the original, I'm publishing a secondary source. There's no requirement it have a certain kind of analysis or opinion. President gives a speech: primary. Someone else summarizing, generalizing, contextualizing, analyzing, judging, etc. that speech: secondary. Owner's manual: primary. Someone else explaining, summarizing, etc. an aspect of an owner's manual: secondary. There are separate arguments about what's reliable or appropriate but secondary isn't the question. --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DATE_(command)&oldid=627428141"