Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FTFF

FTFF

If you came here because John Siracusa, who is mentioned in the article and is the most well-known user of this term, told you to come here and vote, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Definition of a message board term catchphrase that is not widely used (948 Google hits, mostly blog posts and duplicates). The useful content could be moved to a Criticism section of Macintosh Finder. Dtcdthingy 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I get 40,800 hits in Google for "FTFF". Some are unrelated, but not 39,852 of them. "FTFF Apple" has 10,800 hits. "FTFF Mac" has 11,300 hits. —Siracusa 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful and redirect. Opabinia regalis 03:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: Wikipedia serves as a valuable tool for looking up unfamiliar acronyms and phrases, to learn what they refer to. FTFF serves as a unifying mantra for a large number of Mac users, some of whom have a great deal of influence in the Mac technical community, and the rallying cry has taken on a life of its own, beyond mere "finder criticism", a term which doesn't begin to capture the emotion evoked by "FTFF". It is something of an umbrella term, encompassing many areas of concern with the current finder, and so the article could stand to be expanded and clarified. But there's no reason to remove it altogether --jacobolus (t) 07:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it does not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. What you are looking for, for looking up the meanings of words and phrases, is a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The dictionary is over there. Uncle G 09:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it does. FTFF perhaps deserves an entry at Wiktionary giving the definition alone, but it should be pretty blatantly obvious that there's more to FTFF than just a definition. It is thus worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Keep per User:jacobolus and User:Horbal. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 04:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — definition to List of Internet slang phrases M a rtinp23 10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not used often enough even for a merge to the internet slang phrases article. Recury 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is going to be ~~kept~~ retained, it will need to add verifiable sources. This page has some good guidelines on what Wikipedia considers reliable. If none are available, then we have to delete. Recury 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's a "verifiable source" for something like this? Is the argument really that it doesn't exist or was made up for the benefit of Wikipedia? I don't understand this objection. As far as I know, there is no contested information in the entry. John Siracusa 04:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Opabinia regalis. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have never seen this before. If you want to look stuff like that go to urban dictionary. Dev920 21:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Lauren 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So the word "neologism" itself gets a page, but not a purported example of a neologism? —Siracusa 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: This may not appear in a generic "jargon file" or "urban dictionary" because it's so specific to a particular subculture. Merging it with another related page has the disadvantage of decreasing the visibility of the information. As an individual page and search result, it's succinct and to the point. I often google for "wikipedia mysearchterm" these days because the wikipedia page is usually the most concise and straightforward information source. If I had to wade through an already large "Finder" page scanning for occurrences of "FTFF," it'd be a less efficient and less pleasant experience. Retain and cross-link, not merge. This is the web, not real estate. There's little cost to a separate page, and many benefits. —Siracusa 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: "FTFF" is more than an acronym or mere neologism, it encompasses and accurately identifies a particular sub-cultural movement. It might even be considered a sort of rallying cry or pass-mot among Macintosh users. Furthrmore, this entry is clearly more detailed than a dictionary definition and well-written to boot. Keep it. Horbal 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make it clear. This is not a definition and I don't see anything in the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" link cited by Uncle G above that renders this article objectionable. If Where's the beef?, d'oh!, All your base are belong to us and Beam me up, Scotty can have entries, then so should FTFF. The difference is only a matter of degree. But if Wikipedia's goal is comprehensiveness and inclusiveness, this is no reason to eliminate a perfectly valid entry, simply because it may be relatively obscure. As Siracusa said, this is the web, not real estate. Horbal 03:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Dtcdthingy 04:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see nothing in that guideline that forbids this entry. John Siracusa 04:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nor do I. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 04:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, that article is poorly written. The list contains some specific examples of how the guideline may be applied, which is confusing, but I was referring to the guideline in general. --Dtcdthingy 05:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So how does this general guideline apply in this specific case? What is your argument? (beyond your earlier contention that FTFF is "not widely used") -- John Siracusa 05:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: FTFF must stay until they FTFF. Then the issue is moot. Silic0n 03:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - per jacobolus. josh~~buddy, talk 03:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Merge or Retain - it is useful if a Wikipedia search for a term at least points to the definition expected, especially for technical terms Bombcar 03:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - The entry is succinct and informative. It is a useful reference to which Mac users (new and old) can be referred to learn about criticisms of the current Macintosh Finder, and itself refers to further reading. Ravi Pokala 03:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain -- FTFF is immediately recognizable even to those, like me, who are not Power Mac users. I am just a Mac guy, and I have known what this term has meant for years. -- Unsigned comment by User:69.180.180.174

In the edit history for this page, there appears to be some conflict over John being "the most well-known user of this term." Also in the history, John claims "I've used the term exactly once that I can recall (in my Tiger review), and only in reference to its use by others." I see no proof that John is "the most well-known user" of FTFF and frankly find the banner spanning the top of this page to be 1) intellectually offensive, and 2) a dishonest attempt to sway discussion. While it could be argued that John's post to ArsTechnica is an equally dishonest attempt to sway discussion, two wrongs do not make a right. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - This needs to stay because until the Finder is improved, OSX will not be truly complete, and Apple has been lazy, it's symbolic of continued pressure on them to fix it. col_kurtz

Retain or Merge - It's a succinct explanation of technical jargon, condensing years of back-and-forth discussion into a few paragraphs. The term is frequently used, and having it available as a separate article is likely useful. It would be a shame to lose such a thorough, yet short, explanation. If you must pull it into the Macintosh entry, that would be acceptable, but perhaps suboptimal. It's of high interest to a subset of people looking up information about the Macintosh, but not all of them. Malor