Talk:Time Sharing Option

I suggest that this is a proper noun --Volants 17:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Specific software product. IMO, it should go. Equinox ◑ 17:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RFV
This discussion should be reopened once our rules on this kind of entry change. - -sche (discuss) 03:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Time Sharing Option
needs to meet WT:BRAND criteria -- Liliana • 18:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be deleted, but not per WT:BRAND and its "A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon", italics mine. --Dan Polansky 07:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Under the literal, letter-of-the-law Polansky reading, as it is not a physical product, WT:BRAND does not apply. Just as WT:BRAND should not, under that silly reading, apply to Citibank, Lufthansa, Macy's, Google, etc.
 * Under a common-sense reading in accord with our pre-Polansky practice WT:BRAND applies. Which reading is to prevail? DCDuring TALK 13:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The assertion that it is part of common sense to read "physical product" in such as way that banking institutions and airlines are companies that provide their customers with physical products seems curious indeed, if not outright disingenuous. You have been repeatedly pushing such a reading of "physical product" that "brand name of physical product" and "brand name" become synonymous. If these expressions should be read as synonymous, you goals can be achieved by editing CFI by replacing "a brand name for a physical product" with "a brand name", which you are free to try to achieve in a vote. I imagine you might even gain consensual support for such a change of CFI, while I am going to be one to oppose this. But your creating a vote is unlikely to happen, as you have created not a single vote and not a single poll. I support a complete removal of WT:BRAND from CFI, if alone for the sake of inclusion of attestable brand names of pharmaceuticals. The implied assertion that there is any pre-Polansky practice in RFV as regards WT:BRANDS is left without proof. From what I recall, various deletionists including yourself have been trying to send all sorts of things they can find as needing to meet WT:BRAND in RFV, but only with moderate success. Editors other than me have repeatedly been looking at the "physical product" part of WT:BRAND in the RFV process. --Dan Polansky 13:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cited at Citations:Time Sharing Option, without any effort to meet WT:BRAND, which only applies to brand names of physical products. --Dan Polansky 14:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. You want literalism? I hereby invoke physics to note that all information products are necessarily embodied in signals that have physical reality. This would seem to include all financial services and information services. Accordingly, WT:BRAND applies to all such brands associated with such products, as it did under pre-Polansky practice. Similar arguments can be made for transportation, electricity, government and religion, some requiring more effort than others and some of which may be rebuttable. DCDuring TALK 14:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize that "physical product" stands in contrast to "information product", do you? You do realize that you are pushing wrong arguments, right? All that you need to do is remove "physical product" from CFI's WT:BRAND; why don't you do that? I do not know exactly what you mean by "literalism" other than a refusal to "interpret" the wording of the rules by editing it before application as you see fit. Your implication that "physical product" is a term synonymous with "product" or even "product or service" or even "entity" seems implausible. --Dan Polansky 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As to the results of your efforts with respect to proper nouns of various stripes, we have ludicrously incomplete coverage of toponyms and brands, on which no user would or could rely. Very few seem to be rushing to do more than insert entries for their home village and similar toponyms. DCDuring TALK 14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We have low coverage of all sorts of classes of information, including Slovak entries. No one is proposing to delete Slovak entries because of that. Wiktionary is a largely incomplete project; live with it. --Dan Polansky 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to RFD. I think Dan Polansky is right that WT:BRAND doesn't say it applies to this term, and I haven't seen so much as a BP discussion about generalizing it to nonphysical products. However, this term is a name of a specific entity, so as I understand it, no policy requires that we keep it or that we delete it. So we can choose to keep this entry unconditionally, or delete it unconditionally, or delete it unless it meets the same requirements as terms that are covered by WT:BRAND. In that last case, of course, we'd move it back here; but the initial decision should be made at WT:RFD. —Ruakh TALK 15:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions of BRAND (mostly by the same contributors) Talk:PowerPoint, Talk:vi. - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Detagged. Move to RFD if you feel the citations do not meet the necessary standard (BRAND?), particularly if one of the currently ongoing votes passes and changes or clarifies the standard. - -sche (discuss) 07:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Time Sharing Option
Moved from RFV (SIGH) -- Liliana • 11:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Are you saying it is sum of parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems like something you (SB) would usually vote to delete, since it's "not a word" (it has spaces: you've said this before about multi-word terms for products). IMO delete: Linux and Windows are gone, and this is more obscure. Equinox ◑ 01:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)