Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open format

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  16:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open format

[edit]
Open format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested Prod. While i don't deny that the idea exists in the minds of many, the term itself hasn't reached the point of notability. The references which have been added are soley in articles discussing an unpassed law in a Single American State. They don't define the term, only use it, and while some might consider that to be an important or notable event, I couldn't care less, which draws me to the opinion that many may not consider it notable. Given the lack of any greater notability, as well as a lack of unified concept (it's not really important as a spoken concept, more a simple fact, perhaps deserving of a wiktionary entry) I support deletion.Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, that is what I meant, although I see that some people think that this is not the most appropriate place to merge it. My view is that these are all highly related topics with subtle distinctions and we need to make sure it is documented in a way that explains it all clearly. I am not really sure whether it is better to have one article or a group of linked articles but the key point is that this subject is very important and needs to be kept in some form. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The form is a minor issue here (one article might be better to avoid redundancy where the definitions overlap), but it is certainly a very important subject that needs to be documented and explained for the interested audience. Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Commonly used term, decent quality article discussing it. Do not merge, since "Free file format" has a slightly different (but related) meaning, just provide relevant links between two articles. LotLE×talk 22:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of Minor Definitions from software companies pushing forward particular agendas. If you believe this term is notable, not a dictionary definition and will hopefully soon provide notable references then i don't see the problem with a merge, especially considering Free File format is even less notable. I'd still like to see some Notable Sources though. Especially one with a definition outside the scope of a single company. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Google test" shows 340k hits, mostly apparently related to the same concept. It is not a term used only by one or a few companies, but a widespread term in computer technologies. Please see: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22open+format%22. LotLE×talk 23:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree, the google test isn't appropriate as they are two words, very easy to bring together to mention numerous relating concepts, however, as i said, there is no notable definition of the term. I know it's mentioned alot on google, i've probably made a post on a forum in the past that appears in that list, but so what? My other points stand, it's still just a defintion possibly worthy of wiktionary, listing many unnotable definitions doesn't make an article and most importatnly, I already agreed to support a merge if you find some notable definitions. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be, i believe i mentioned supporting a possible merge a few times... my point is there is no single definition of this term. It's an idea, with three differnet articles, and this one does not have suitable notability as a term. On top of that, i don't support having a single article on open or closed file formats becasue it's such an insignificant thing, which can hardly support a definition of what makes it more unique than any other protocol. Why don't we have articles on open exectutable formats, that's a mixture of words i'm sure many people have used before to represent an completely ambiguous and specific concept. How about open network protocols, open hardware specifications, how about this isn't a large notable topic with a well deifned definition, deserving of even one article, never mind the three it has. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to create an article Open executable formats. Or maybe just Executable formats with a subsection. We do have Category:Executable file formats, but not a corresponding article. FWIW, I think this emphasizes why Open formats shouldn't be merged into Open standards, ELF is the latter, but sort of borderline on being the former. LotLE×talk 00:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would that be good? It's a terrible idea. It's not a notable concept, it's simply the obvious term to use for an idea you immediately placed bias upon. Not shockingly your immediate thought rested upon ELF, despite pretty much all Executable formats being "open". My point emphasizes why this is a miniscual, unencyclopedic psuedo-definition, and as the FSF loving bias here just reminds me, i'm wasting my time thinking any of you would read the policies. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Abusive language, quite apart from not convincing anybody, is a violation of WP:CIVIL. I'd recommend you remove the inappropriate comments and watch your tone in the future. LotLE×talk 00:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? I haven't used any abusive language. Way to prove you don't even read any position that questions your own, and will say anything to pretend i'm not following policy while you're completely ignoring it. Note that to claim i have used abusive language, I A) Have to have used abusive language, B) Have to have used abusive language and C)- Can't have not used abusive language. I'm afriad also that as i mentioned in my last post, i don't want to convince you anymore because you don't bother choosing based upon policies but your own bias. So grow up, it's the Internet, don't try a sitting on a high horse and politely asking me to remove inappropriate comment, especially on a site that logs all messages so anyone can see haven't made used any language that could be considered abusive. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm afraid I can quite understand what you are trying to point out. However, note that we also have these somewhat related articles: Open content, Free content, Open source hardware, Open design, Open system (computing), Open specifications etc. I see no reason why there shouldn't be one about open (file) formats. Ghettoblaster (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those are all well documented names for concepts, and in those cases concepts with serious legal or cultural material behind the actual term, and relating it to a definition. We don't decide which "open ..." ideas are correct purely through our own speculation. I was simply trying to say, that while open format might be the most obvious term to use, it isn't well defined, and apart from Suns personal definition no one has provided sources, and i spent a long time looking and couldn't find anything substantial. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the sense of the merge suggestion, but not all open standards are about open formats. Things like wire protocols and APIs are also subject to standards, without being "formats" in the usual sense. I think "open formats" deserves a summarization in "open standards", but then with a "see also" or {main|open formats}. LotLE×talk 23:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully agree with that as a Standard is the parent of a format... A Standard is the level of expected performance and acceptance where a format is the venue in which to achieve a standard. If you feel that there is enough material (I don't think WP:N is an issue here) to warrent it's own article, then by all means, but I think that "Open format" is mostly a term reserved for software and does not really warrent that much explaining INHO.--Pmedema (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article now gives several definitions with sources. There doesn't need to be a single definition for a concept or term to be notable--for example, there is no one definition of acid. --Itub (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best name

[edit]

I'm not going to change my "keep" vote, but it kind of occurs to me with WillOakland's comments that the name "Open file format" might be better than "Open format". I guess for now, I'll make a redirect page, but what do other editors think of the best base name. LotLE×talk 00:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_format&oldid=1138186621"