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 no consensus.  Sandstein  15:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRS-80 character set[edit]

TRS-80 character set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No source for the Character set has been forthcoming, and like many similar articles by the same ed, should be removed from the project. We have a reasonably good article about the device itself. Roxy the dog. bark 15:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MP above is stretching the truth a little with regard to the ref supporting the article (the character set is not supported), and is obviously hard of thinking when it comes to reading the most simple of joined up writing, and can **** right off. Our german friend obviously doesn't speak engrish as well as he thinks. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The good thing is that everyone can check the talk and the given references himself in order to see who is stretching the truth, and who might have "language" and other conduct problems - that is, for as long as you stop disruptions like this: [4]. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In general, character sets of mass-produced computers and devices as well as those of significant solitaire machines (like those of the mainframe era) are important encyclopedic information, expected by readers to be provided by Wikipedia. They are highly sought after by computer historians, computer forensics, retro-computer users, and developers seeking for info on how to exchange and convert data and programs to/from modern systems (for example using Unicode). We therefore have a long-time project documenting character sets here at Wikipedia to achieve our goal of becoming a reliable reference for the knowledge of the world, past and present.
As we already have articles about the various TRS-80 systems, the TRS-80 character set info could be merged into, for example, the TRS-80 article. However, for various good reasons, we have an established standard format for character sets as stand-alone articles, so that the large tables don't add clutter to the main articles and the system information does not distract readers only interested in the characters, also so that additional use cases, usage histories and lists can be added to the character set articles which would be off-topic in the main articles. Therefore it is advisable that the TRS-80 character set article remains in this format as well.
It would be pointless to delete this article just because there could be more references (there will be eventually), because it would have to be recreated with the same or very similar content later on again.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ZX81 character set is in fact a good example, and that's why we have stand-alone articles about this as well as the other Sinclair character sets all following the established format how we present character sets in Wikipedia as stand-alone articles. The situation for the TRS-80 character set is not different, except for that it is still a very new article and therefore obviously needs refinements and more stuff to be added. But that isn't a reason for deletion. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am certain the information here can be sourced to the original TRS-80 technical manual, if anyone can dig one out from their attic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ritchie, that's exactly my point. The TRS-80 character set(s) is obviously documented more thoroughly in one of the technical manuals, and probably also in old home computer magazines. If that would not have been the case when these machines were sold in the late 1970s / early 1980s, it would have been impossible to program more than trivial stuff on them. So, we just need someone searching libraries and looking up suitable paper copies of the relevant documents. This, however, may take a while as it is time-consuming.
Until then our notability guideline explicitly states (WP:NPOSSIBLE) (emphasize by me):
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.
Therefore, following our notability guideline, the article should be kept and improved, not deleted.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Roxy, this isn't about giving a "carte blanche" to other editors, and it also isn't about your or my personal opinion, but about our established policies and guidelines and collaborative editing procedures, some of which you do not seem to be aware of, perhaps because you never created articles yourself or because you focussed too much on vandalism fighting, I don't know. But your aggressive approach towards fellow editors and your use of foul language indicates that you are seeing enemies everywhere, an attitude which is not compatible with the fundamental requirement to assume good faith (WP:AGF) in article development.
Almost all articles start as more or less crude stubs - good articles don't pop up out of a sudden, but are the result of the hard work and collaboration of many editors over a span of months and years following our normal continual improvement process. If a topic is notable enough and possibly existing issues have a chance to be fixed eventually, article deletion is in multiple ways counter-productive in regard to the goals of our project.
Even if your ever changing arguments ("not in source", "unreferenced") were factually true (they are not, because the article has some references and they do support at least the most important parts of the content already), per WP:NPOSSIBLE they weren't valid arguments for deletion, because what counts is the existence of source (somewhere on this planet), not that they are already cited in the article (see the quote above). Don't get me wrong, I want to see more and better sources myself (and I'm confident that the article will have them eventually - provided either by the article creator, by a fellow editor or by me), and if there are accuracy problems I want them to be fixed, but article deletion is obviously not the correct procedure for this, normal article improvement is. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, I can't agree with that. Sure, Wikipedia is not a textbook or manual, but it is one of our well documented goals to become a reliable and neutral encyclopedic reference containing broad and deep information on all branches of knowledge, past and present. Character sets are part of the "interface" to the outside world and in the case of historical devices, they are even part of the "essence" of what is left from them and still important to know for us today (I gave various examples further above). Character sets are clearly encyclopedic information and very much within the scope of this project - they can also be found documented in other printed encyclopedias (I can name a few if you want), and in an ongoing effort since the very start of Wikipedia we have documented quite a large number of character sets here already. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we usually do, at least if it is from some mass-produced system or significant solitaire machine, and therefore worth being documented. We don't, if it is about some obscure and unimportant machine or only used internally in a closed system and therefore has no significance for the "outer" world. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CPC character set as an example of one that got deleted. But, Matthiaspaul's comment about significance vs. obscurity makes sense. That being said, I'm not a fan of we usually do X arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only concern with the CPC character set was that it was unreferenced (and it was actually unreferenced by the very meaning of "being unreferenced", not some stretch of it). If I would have been aware of the AfD when it happened, it would most probably not have been deleted, because it was on the list of character set articles still to be created and I could have provided plenty of references documenting that character set. However, it was created by a new editor who was apparently completely overwhelmed by the hostility he faced here and who didn't understood our procedures good enough to "defend" the article. In either case, it was the first in a whole bunch of similar nominations and all others were decided as "Keep".
Regarding "we usually do X", we certainly have the freedom to decide on a case-by-case basis, but a consistent appearance is important as well, and if we have hundred-plus stand-alone articles on character sets all following the same basic format already, why should we make an exception for the TRS-80 character set? I mean, "we also have" standards for fonts, text attributes, section titles and orders, table formats, info and nav boxes, and much more. And there are good reasons why "we usually" follow these standards unless there are even more important reasons to do not. In this particular case, I have difficulties trying to identify reasons why we should not follow the basic format used for other character sets here as well.
There are several reasons why the stand-alone article format for character sets got established over the years: Some character sets are platform independent and therefore could not be described in a related article about the platform in the first place. Sometimes, several revisions or groups of related character sets can be combined into a single article about the group of character sets, so that they can be compared and discussed in context while at the same time there are several articles about the different target machines supporting them (to give you some examples for this arrangement: Amstrad CP/M Plus character set, KOI-7, HP Roman - in the long run I see this arrangement also for the TRS-80 character set article, because sources seem to indicate that there are several variants and it makes sense to discuss them all in context. Some people are only interested in the character sets, while others are only interested in information about the computers in general, so it is good to keep that information separated (but cross-linked) to not distract readers from what they're interested in. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, Roy: The very fact that it is special and contains a large number of non-standard characters in a rather unique arrangement makes it particularly notable (even beyond the general notability of character sets) as this is important info for people doing data/program conversions and for computer forensics. It is also vital information for computer historians researching questions like, for example, "Why did they choose this arrangement?", "Were there technical, linguistical or aesthetical reasons to arrange the characters this way?", "Did they derive the glyphs or the arrangement from some prior character set?", "Are there other character sets based on it?", "Which other character sets are conversion compatible?" In the long run, the article should be fleshed out to provide more info about this, but at the present stage where it still lacks such a detailed discussion, the character set table is actually the most important information to be kept. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 01:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a look at the official Level II Basic manual (which is preserved on archive.org), the character set is all verified there, except for the graphics characters, which you can verify yourself by grabbing a TRS-80 and running this:10 FOR x = 128 TO 191 20 PRINT x;: PRINT CHR$(x) 30 NEXT x Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What a pity. I supported this ref at the article, but of course I haven't read the manual (for at least 27 years). What does "except" mean? Anybody? I'd have dropped it if not for that. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:23, 14 August 2017 (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.
More