Talk:file allocation table

RFV discussion: September 2013–June 2014
Defined as a generic term, but Google Books rather suggests this is a proper noun referring to a specific file system. Proof of generic use is not provided. -- Liliana • 15:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * uses the term in connection with Unix and describes something which is definitely not the usual Microsoft/IBM FAT system. uses the term generically as does . Spinning Spark  21:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you quote those uses in context? For example your first link is to a book named "Operating Systems: A Concept-based Approach". your second link is to "Cache and Memory Hierarchy Design: A Performance-directed Approach". The authors of your third example (A. A. Puntambekar and I. A. Dhotre) might be second language users (like me), e.g. "Features of Book" (instead of "Features of this Book"). --80.114.178.7 23:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you need me to quote in context? Can you not read it in context in the link?. I am not going to go to the effort of transcribing citations for an entry that might get deleted.  I don't understand the point you are making by bolding the word "approach" in the book titles.  Is this meant to somehow detract from them as sources?  The Puntambekar and Dhotre cite is definitely not poor English with a missing article.  Section 13.10 of the book is "Allocation Methods" with subsections 13.10.1 (Contiguous Allocation), 13.10.2 (Linked Allocation), and 13.10.3 (Indexed Allocation) all describing a file allocation table for that method, discussed generically without reference to any particular operating system.  If "file allocation system table" meant a specific system to the authors then they would not be able to use it in all three sections. Spinning Spark  23:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I can read them now (and they are OK). I couldn't read them, because google had counted too many views. --80.114.178.7 12:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Passed. SpinningSpark’s citations added to entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

file allocation table
Nothing more than +  +. — Keφr 07:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's much more than SoP. Forms the basis of some operating systems. --Dmol (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So what if it does? The term, as defined, is SOP. — Keφr 07:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete generic sense. --WikiTiki89 20:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is both the name of a specific data structure in file systems of the FAT family, and the name of the file system itself. It is therefore on par with terms like . The data structure sense may be SOP, but as it can refer to a type of file system as well, it definitely isn't in that sense. 21:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The citations we entered support a generic sense, in which the term is SOP. Unless you are arguing for adding a subsense of "a data structure of this sort as found in the FAT family of file systems", in which you might argue the term is idiomatic. — Keφr 21:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this RFD is for the whole entry, but I'm arguing for keeping the entry because there are non-SOP senses that should be there. 22:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Atitarev: to clarify, keep a generic sense or a specific one? — Keφr 07:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Currently it only has one sense. My vote is for a generic sense, which may need a change. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 15:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)