Talk:Gold key (DEC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 April 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
What keyboards?
[edit]On what keyboards does a Gold Key appear? The existing article for the VT50 and VT52 terminals mentions that the Gold Key was introduced with those models in 1974, long predating the VAX (1977). Gold Keys were used on the VT100 terminal's keyboard (example here) and on the LK201 detachable keyboard (example here) used with the VT220 terminal; the Rainbow 100 (8088/Z80), DECmate II (PDP-8), and Pro-3xx (PDP-11) personal computers; and the VAXstation and DECstation workstations. As yet there are no source citations for any of that. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Rename article
[edit]The article title “Vax gold key” seems misleading, since
- the Gold Key was not introduced with the VAX line of computers;
- the Gold Key predates the VAX line by years;
- the Gold Key is not limited to use with VAX computers.
VAX is simply one of several computers which can run software which can recognize the Gold Key. The Gold Key itself is not a “Vax gold key” any more than a highway might be called “Toyota Interstate 80” just because a certain brand of vehicle can be driven on it.
A long list of precedents (e.g., Shift key, Control key, Command key) suggests that a better name for this article would be “Gold key”. Unfortunately, the term “gold key” is already well established in fictional banking; a slightly longer article name is needed to provide natural disambiguation. Since the Gold Key's keyboards and terminals, the software which recognizes it, and the computers which run that software are generally products of Digital Equipment Corporation, commonly known as “DEC”, I'd like to suggest the correct, concise, and unambiguous article name Gold key (DEC).
50.181.30.121 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Vax gold key → Gold key (DEC) – The disambiguating term “Vax” is inappropriately specific, as the Gold key is not a VAX feature; the more comprehensive “(DEC)” corrects this. Earlier notes within this talk page document various details. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC) 50.181.30.121 (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- To avoid confusion of the AfD, I suggest that this move discussion not be closed until WP:Articles for deletion/Vax gold key reaches a decision. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I had already told that discussion that the rename was about to happen, and that I had deferred adding links to this article pending the rename. The rename leaves a redirect, doesn't it? I don't think that would confuse experienced editors. Besides, improving the article name is one of the steps to rescuing the article. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is pointed out in WP:AFDEQ that such a move can confuse the automated scripts that some admins use to close AfDs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I had already told that discussion that the rename was about to happen, and that I had deferred adding links to this article pending the rename. The rename leaves a redirect, doesn't it? I don't think that would confuse experienced editors. Besides, improving the article name is one of the steps to rescuing the article. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support. But yes, the move should not take place until the AfD closes. I've posted a keep argument there. To me, having worked on several of the DEC machines in question, the AfD seems a no-brainer, but of course if the decision there is delete this RM becomes irrelevant. Hopefully not! Andrewa (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.