Talk:NeXTSTEP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Apple Inc. (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Please Put a picture of NeXTSTEP on article[edit]

{{reqphoto}}

IT's been done.

Slashdot[edit]

This slashdot article linked here today. That explains the sudden influx of anonymous vandals on November 12, but it does not excuse them. Vandalism seems to follow Slashdot referrals like clockwork; it's really starting to get old. --Ardonik.talk()* 06:47, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Why NeXT didn't succeed[edit]

Might be worth adding a paragraph explaining why NeXT never became immensely successful in the marketplace. As I heard it (this needs to be confirmed), they marketed their system purely towards educational institutions, rather than commercial ones. This was their mistake, and by the time they realized it, their technology was getting out of date or something. 66.92.165.123 17:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is - quoting you: 'as I heard it'. 'As I heard it' does not qualify as historical research. At best it's speculation anyway - but falling back on 'as I heard it' - rather forget the whole thing. What you CAN do is offer citations from pundits as to their opinions - keep it factual at all times. Finally: by the time of the merger NeXT were in fact floating fairly well with profits in the hundreds of millions per year. Even thinking this is an NS issue is - well 'stupid'. It has to do with the entire industry, the PC standard, so many other things - not just the anal retentive behaviour of Steven Paul Jobs.
I don't know that anyone here is omniscient enough to know the real reason; what we can do is to quote the theories put forth by technology analysts. I note that NeXT has some observations buried in the narrative, if not a concise summary of the various theories. Stan 06:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)::Exactly!
Exactly!
I've heard that they only marketed towards educational institutions because of the results of a lawsuit that limited them to the workstation market.
Again: that's an 'I heard'. It does not qualify.

We do not care what you think or heard, we want what you know with "true" information. Provide a source, please--209.80.246.30 (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems far more likely that other systems (namely DOS/Windows) were too dominant at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.216.248 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Name casing[edit]

The article is NEXTSTEP, the main text uses NeXTSTEP and the text notes it should be NeXTstep. Soooo... which is it? If it really is NeXTstep, I would suggest we change all of them to match. Maury 14:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought you would know that the casing isn't really all that consistent from the beginning? The problem is early NeXT docs used "NeXTstep", the operating system itself used "NEXTSTEP", but the format that everybody seems to "like" to use is NeXTSTEP. Dysprosia 22:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And I presumed people contributing to this article would know the REAL meaning of each form? The most prevalent is NeXTSTEP - this follows their $100 K logo of course. NEXTSTEP appeared later but what I know only these two forms were ever used. And yes, as things stand, this important article is a mess in that regard (and in many others too it need not be pointed out).
Well, even if NeXT itself was not consistent with their own name, Wikipedia should be. --Bletch 01:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Was' matches 'their'??!?? Oh and for the record: they were always consistent. If you haven't studied their corporate history properly and don't know why they changed case and when it's not their fault.
In all their press releases they write NEXTSTEP. See also the archived discussion below. --Sharcho 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Horse radish. Look at the link, Einstein! '/AboutNeXT/'. This is too rich. Someone delving into the subject for five minutes comes and says 'in ALL their press releases'. Oh yeah.

--- Just my two-cents: It seems the case differences of the name "NeXTStep" (Ed:1) occurred over time as the versions of the NeXT OS were changing. Given the version numbers were changing while they were bantering the case of the letters in the OS's name, and case sensitivity was an issue (to management) at the time, wouldn't this mean that various versions had different names in a case-sensitive sense?

More nonsense. Study the corporate history? Why do you think they paid Rand $100,000 for 'NeXT'??!??

((Ed:1) "NeXTStep" is a CamelCase version they never used by the way--I just combined "NeXT" and "Step" for the purposes of this entry.)

Yes and that was bad and completely arbitrary and wrong of you.

I agree that Wikipedia should be name-consistent (as I'm a rabid-lover of sensible-and-simply-coherence and regular-consistency), so I propose an idea to all-reading. (Take it or leave it, you're all meaningful and this is just an idea for-convention).

Where do these people (not) learn to write?

(a) The article should have the most up to date name of the OS, which is "NEXTSTEP"

No. It is 'NeXTSTEP'.

(b) If referring to a all versions of the OS en-masse, call the aggregate "Nextstep"

No. This is wrong. The only aggregate you may speak of is 'OpenStep' which is an API standard. NeXT's implementation of OpenStep is called OPENSTEP. The case thing only occurs with OpenStep - not NeXTSTEP. Jobs paid Paul Rand $100,000 for a logo with 'NeXT' - NOT 'NEXT'. That says it all. If they right before their segue to OPENSTEP did a fast dance with 'NEXTSTEP' - that changes nothing.

(c) If referring to a specific version of the OS, use the name for the OS at the time ("NextStep", "NeXTstep", "NeXTSTEP", or "NEXTSTEP").

Yes of course.

I gotta thank Steve Jobs & folks for the case fun! I'm smiling and giggling a little at the whole phenomena. I just love computer naming conventions! Oh, the creativity!!

You're making it into something way more than it was.

--Ed 04:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ---

Not sure I agree with the usage of "Nextstep" - this particular casing was never used by NeXT, so essentially, you've just made it up! I think we should go with whatever was the most common form used in official NeXT documentation. Letdorf 09:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC).
'Not sure I agree with the usage of "Nextstep" - this particular casing was never used by NeXT' - exactly. It was not. The trouble is we have wannabe historians here who aren't willing to do the research. 'so essentially, you've just made it up' - quite right again! 'I think we should go with whatever was the most common form used in official NeXT documentation.' - That's not arbitrary. You are FORCED to do that - if you wish this website to have any cred at all. And guess what the most prevalent form at NeXT was?

Kernel type[edit]

I'll copy this message here (paraphrased). Could someone provide some concrete evidence for the claim that Mach is POE-ized (that is, has the servers in the kernel)? It's not that I don't believe that Mach in NeXTSTEP is not a microkernel, I'd just like to see something written down. I do have NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP, so if someone could provide me with some sort of way of verifying that the Mach kernel is POE-ized, that would be useful. Thanks Dysprosia 07:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have NeXTStep/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody, run 'strings' on the kernel (/mach_kernel) or look at it in a hex editor and you wil find references to things like filesystems, networking, and Unix system calls, which would make it a hybrid kernel. Also, if you run 'nm' on the kernel, you will find symbols for Unix system calls. 207.153.26.108 09:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


window maker[edit]

the Next gui is alive, now its name is [Window maker]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move - 2006[edit]

NEXTSTEP → NeXTSTEP – Despite the inconsistent naming, a cursory search of the wiki, as well as the article in question seem to indicate that NeXTSTEP is the predominately used capitalization on the site. While no standard seems to exist on what the right capitalization is, I suggest NeXTSTEP be affirmed as Wikipedia's choice on the basis of precedence.

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support as less ambiguaous, but it's still ambiguous (wasn't there a TV show?) so maybe NeXT operating system would be better. Ewlyahoocom 11:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
NeXT technically produced two operating systems, the other being OPENSTEP. Dysprosia 12:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Not unless you consider NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP as being two versions of the same operating system, as OpenStep seems to do: "they released an OpenStep compliant version of their flagship operating system NeXTSTEP (...) and rebranded it OPENSTEP". Qwertyus 01:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
They clearly have different names. "NeXT operating system" doesn't describe either. Dysprosia 06:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support any consistent capitalisation. I like "NEXTSTEP," but "NeXTSTEP" or "NeXtsTEp" or whatever is fine so long as we pick one and stick to it. NEXTSTEP the OS is the primary meaning of the word, if there is a TV show or anything else that has a Wikipedia article it can be linked to in standard ways (Template:otheruses1 etc). NicM 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Strong Oppose NEXTSTEP's logos are clearly all-caps Logos, which, yes, constrasts with their capitalization of NeXT, the company name. --Davidstrauss 09:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose If NEXTSTEP was the final name, we should use that. Other articles should use the capitalization appropriate for the time they are describing. Qwertyus 09:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

NEXTSTEP uses NEXTSTEP. Perhaps we need to make the capitalization consistent, not the page name. Dysprosia 08:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
That sounds awfully confusing. The operating system went through at least 4 different name changes, and I don't believe that the system internals actually referred to itself with any care to capitalization. NeXT marketing was also rather inconsistent with their capitalization. -- Inanup 07:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the operating system's login page says "NEXTSTEP", which is rather indicative. Dysprosia 08:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a copy of NeXTSTEP handy, but I do recall seeing in The NeXT Book by Bruce Webster, published when the NeXT cube was first released, and the login pane screenshot had no indication of the OS name, just a giant NeXT logo. Are we just going by the OS' last iteration in choosing the naming convention? My thinking is that it's better to call it NeXTSTEP because it seems to encompass the camel case variants that the OS had prior. I realize most stuff on the web shows NEXTSTEP, but that's probably because that was the version that had the most Internet presence due to timing. -- Inanup 23:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
When people change their names, we use their new name, not their old name. NEXTSTEP was NEXTSTEP at its last iteration, so we should use NEXTSTEP. Dysprosia 23:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if that's the position, then I think that NeXTSTEP (or any other variants) should be a redirect to OPENSTEP, since the OS just changed names and conformed to the OpenStep API developed by NeXT. -- Inanup 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You make it sound like the jump from NeXTSTEP to OPENSTEP is a trivial one -- it isn't -- even though the operating systems may look the same, architecturally there are large differences. It makes sense to keep the two distinct since we don't need a discussion about NeXTSTEP when we are discussing the OpenStep API in the same breath since they have nothing to do with each other. The OpenStep article does not just talk about the implementation, OPENSTEP, but discusses the use of the API as well. Dysprosia 01:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but couldn't we expand each: the API and the OS, to independent articles. I realize I'm deviating, but just a thought. -- Inanup 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
We could, but that still may not be appropriate -- for example, compare Mac OS pre OS X and OS X, there are (if I remember correctly) seperate articles on each. What would be a good idea perhaps is to have a "timeline" type article, discussing both OSes briefly, and then linking to each article on each OS as a "main article". Dysprosia 04:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Really? I thought we used the name that most people expect to find, accounting for things like ambiguity, and that what someone is "named" or chooses to call themselves is only a part of that calculation. Or maybe we should use the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page? How does "NeXTSTEP III, 17th Baronet NEXTSTEP" grab you? Ewlyahoocom 23:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, really. We use the name that something is called, and provide redirects as appropriate to mop up any ambiguity to previous naming. Dysprosia 00:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess one learns something new everyday. Hey, when you get a chance, could you move Marshall Applewhite to Do? Thanks. Ewlyahoocom 00:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring the fact that we are not talking about Marshall Applewhite, and that Applewhite has nothing to do with NEXTSTEP at all, I don't know enough about Applewhite to know whether the suggestion that "Do" is a nickname as the Do article suggests or whether Applewhite was widely known as such to warrant a page move -- but seeing as you appear to be knowledgeable about naming matters, why don't you be bold and do that yourself? Dysprosia 00:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested addition of specific web browser shortcuts/features[edit]

The end of this article states

The first web browser, WorldWideWeb, was developed on the NeXTSTEP platform. Some features and keyboard shortcuts now commonly found in web browsers can be traced to originally being native features of NeXTSTEP, which other web browsers for other operating systems later reimplemented as features of the browser itself.

As soon as I read that, I wondered what features those might be? Ctrl-D for making bookmarks, perhaps? (I'm just speculating because I've always wondered.) Anyways, if anyone has read about this somewhere or remembers using the NeXTSTEP browser and is aware of some specifics, I think it'd be really nice to read about them. Itsameanick 09:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

It reads like something that has been passed down and passed down etc. The problem is that, even if e.g. Ctrl-D originated as a shortcut in Nextstep, how can it be proved that subsequent browsers copied this, rather than coming up with the same formulation independently? I dislike the passiveness of "can be traced". -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Who developed it?[edit]

What are the names of the people involved? - Samsara (talkcontribs) 19:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
From the look of the image on the right, Lee Boynton, Jean-Marie Hullot, Bertrand Serlet, and Keith Ohlfs; I know for a fact that Avie Tevanian was involved as well (he was also working at NeXT). Dysprosia 01:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

NeXT bought for how much? And when?[edit]

The article shows that "On February 4, 1997 Apple Computer acquired NeXT for $427 million", but on Steve Jobs article it says that In "1996, Apple bought NeXT for $402 million"... I guess at least one of them is wrong. 193.136.128.14 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

What's up with the 'Notes' section? It's got all the Wikipedia guidelines printed. Can we delete this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.165.204.55 (talkcontribs) 06:48, Jul 7, 2006 (UTC)

Notes are for footnotes cited in the article. – Mipadi 13:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unclear[edit]

Beneath the table in "Versions", which goes up to the 4.0 beta, it says "Versions up to 4.2 were published, the last version 4.2 after purchase of NeXT by Apple". What does this mean? OPENSTEP? If so, be explicit. I know very little about this subject, and can't work it out. 86.132.137.5 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

According to [1], NeXTSTEP 3.3 is the same as OPENSTEP 4.2. Please correct me if I'm wrong. D235j (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Consensus on capitalization of name (NEXTSTEP? NeXTSTEP? NeXTStep?)[edit]

Persistently moving this article based on someone's view of what is the correct capitalization of the system is somewhat pointless. Can we settle on one and be done with it? -- Switchfoot (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd vote for any capitalization that there is evidence to suggest was actually used by NeXT... ie. pretty much anything except the current "Nextstep" :-). Letdorf (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC).
Just to follow myself up, I know WP:MOSTM says we should ignore wacky capitalization in trademarks, but I think this guideline is worth taking issue with. Nobody seems to have objected to the title of the article about NeXT (an FA-Class article, no less) and deliberately referring to NeXT as "Next" would just seem willfully wrong. Letdorf (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC).
WP:MOSTM doesn't actually appear to say such a thing, at least not to me: it says that CamelCase in trademarked names is a "judgment call." I agree that NeXTstep seems more appropriate and propose moving the article there, though I think I agree with Letdorf (talk · contribs) that just about anything that was actually used by NeXT Inc. at some time would be fine. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright license[edit]

Is there is still copyrighted code originally produced by AT&T in Nextstep? What sort of license was obtained from AT&T, and are royalties still paid to Novell or SCO? -- Beland (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The UNIX code came from the Berkeley Software Distribution of UNIX and hence, was brought into NeXTSTEP under sundry free BSD licenses. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rename to NeXTSTEP[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Trying to find any consistency in the way the company capitalized "Nextstep" is a fool's errand, but "NeXTSTEP" seems to be the most common usage in the NeXTWORLD archives from 1991 to 1994.

I propose renaming this article "NeXTSTEP". Please discuss below. I will carry out the rename on Tuesday, September 15 if there are no major objections. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as per nom. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it that time of year again already? If I lodge a vote in this proposed rename, can I also lodge a vote for the 2010, 2011 and 2012 rename proposals at the same time? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh lol, missed previous discussion. Well, to my naive judgement looks at least as reasonable as other proposals (like NEXTSTEP), but frankly I don't have strong opinions on this. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said the last time this was mentioned, I would happily settle on any of the variants NeXT used -- NextStep, NeXTstep, NeXTSTEP or NEXTSTEP -- but I do feel strongly that we should use one of them. I trust the Wikipedia community to reach a similar consensus. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as contrary to MOS:TRADE which specifically addresses this very issue. In addition, the lack of any uniformity to capitalisation indicates to me at least we need not bend over backwards to accommodate "official" pronouncements on the issue. Why should we adopt whatever the trademark owners states when they themselves can't be bothered? Finally, blindly following one single capitalisation implicitly labels all the others "wrong". CrispMuncher (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
MOS:TRADE says: "Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable." Any of the alternative titles reflect general usage better than the existing one. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
But it also says this:

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official":

  • avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
  • instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss
which is the bit I disagree with. Letdorf (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC).
NextStep would be camelcase. NeXTstep, NeXTSTEP and NEXTSTEP fall within the guidance of WP:MOSTM. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
But this website says: "NextStep ... has never been used as a spelling as far as we can tell.", so that probably isn't a good choice. Letdorf (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC).
That is precisely my point: none of the spellings used by NeXT are camelcase so that provision does not apply. However, since I seem to be on the losing side of this debate I would at least suggesting adopting the typographical convention of using small caps - you can't do that for the title but you certainly can within the body text. So you would have NeXTSTEP instead of NeXTSTEP: it avoids every capitalised instance jumping off the page and screaming at you, although it will clutter the source code somewhat. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Support: as I've stated before on this page, although it's contrary to WP:MOSTM, writing it as "Nextstep" seems just plain wrong. An encyclopedia should, within reason, reflect reality as closely as possible and not distort it to fit its own norms, IMHO - but I guess I should be arguing that somewhere else. I've added a list of all the officially-used variations in the lead, so picking one of these as a "canonical form" for the title doesn't need to deny the existence of the others. Letdorf (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC).
Having reviewed the WP:MOSTM guidelines again, I disagree respectfully that it is a sufficiently strong reason against this rename. There are many counter-examples to the WP:MOSTM guideline but I think the most compelling is NeXT, which somehow managed to achieve FA status in October 2008 despite its wonky trademark name (which no one seems to have objected to on its talk page). What compelling reason is there for this article not to follow the conventions of its parent article? Tim Pierce (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Multics family[edit]

Moved to Talk:Mac OS X: Subsection is Talk:Mac OS X#Multics Family --Tothwolf (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we re-classify this article under 'OS family: Multics' in the info box, for the reason that Unix is based on Multics. MFNickster (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this on Talk:Mac OS X. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (21h00 16 September 2009)[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)



NeXTSTEPNeXTSTEP — Requesting the page be renamed NeXTSTEP per the discussion above. This move would replace the existing redirect at NeXTSTEP and therefore requires an administrator to help. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's already set to NeXTSTEP... 「 ɠu¹ɖяy 」¤ • ¢  21:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If anything, it should be moved to Nextstep as the current name violates WP:MOSTM. TJ Spyke 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment — The name formatted as NeXTSTEP, goes against WP:MOSTM, though. 「 ɠu¹ɖяy 」¤ • ¢  22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Damn TJ beat me to it. 「 ɠu¹ɖяy 」¤ • ¢  22:11, 16 September 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 4?[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


NeXTSTEPNextstep — Current name violates WP:MOSTM as the name uses odd capitalization for stylistic reasons only. There are a series of articles related to the company that made this that also needs to be moved (including the article on the company itself TJ Spyke 22:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose. For those with short attention spans, I refer you to the just-concluded discussion at Talk:NeXTSTEP#Proposed rename to NeXTSTEP. I repeat: Having reviewed the WP:MOSTM guidelines again, I disagree respectfully that it is a sufficiently strong reason against this rename. There are many counter-examples to the WP:MOSTM guideline but I think the most compelling is NeXT, which somehow managed to achieve FA status in October 2008 despite its wonky trademark name (which no one seems to have objected to on its talk page). What compelling reason is there for this article not to follow the conventions of its parent article? Tim Pierce (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I have requested its parent article to be moved to. No compelling reason to move? How about the fact that it violates the MOSTM guideline? There is no compelling reason to keep it at its current name just because the company that made it wanted to use an odd capitalization style. TJ Spyke 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I commend you on your consistency, but I reiterate: if NeXT made it all the way to FA status without anyone being bothered by the capitalization scheme, that alone suggests a strong community consensus that this is a reasonable exception to the WP:MOSTM guideline. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: see my previous comments above. Is this becoming a "rename war"? (cf. edit war). Letdorf (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC).
    • Your comments basically say you don't agree with MOSTM. Just because you don't agree with a guideline (which means it is official and articles HAVE to follow it) doesn't mean the article should violate it. TJ Spyke 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Respectfully, I think you are very confused. Please consult Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for the difference between a policy and a guideline. It is very specific on this point. WP:MOSTM, being guideline and not policy, is a strong suggestion but not a requirement. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
        • True, but we do not have a good reason for not following the guideline. All we have is an "other stuff exists" argument. In any case WP:Naming conventions is policy and advocates the same approach. CrispMuncher (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose this seems like move-warring. Just let it lie for a couple of months. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See discussion at Talk:NeXT. Bongomatic 14:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose NeXT and NeXTSTEP are the official and the most recognised form of the name. The product documentation and software that I personally have in my possession have NeXT and NeXTSTEP printed on them. Even the config.guess script for GNU Autoconf checks to see if NeXT (which is case sensitive) is defined in the system header files or is present in the output of the hostinfo command (note that the only place config.guess uses lowercase is the configuration name or canonical host name triplet that the config.guess script itself generates for the configure script). The MOS and other guidelines also do not override common sense, see WP:RAP --Tothwolf (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. NeXT and NeXTSTEP are, by most sources, the right capitalizations of the thing, and this should be reflected in the title of the article. As for WP:MOSTM, if the guideline proposes to erase the capitalization, then it is a problem with the guideline. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't use odd capitalization just because the trademark owner wants us too. "NeXT" is not only bad English, it looks wrong, and guidelines on WIkipedia go against it. TJ Spyke 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • It "looks wrong" because, as you have freely admitted, you aren't that familiar with the subject. If you were familiar with the subject, it wouldn't look wrong. Trust me, if you are familiar with the subject, then "Nextstep" looks wrong and "Next" isn't even recognisable as the companies name. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Strongly agree. "Next" is very definitely the version that "looks wrong." Tim Pierce (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:MOSTM is a guideline, not policy. NeXTSTEP is the most common variation. Nextstep sure as heck isn't. And given that the NeXT article is at "NeXT" and not "Next", how about we keep some consistency between the two. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • Do the people opposing to move to the correct name have any guidelines or policies to support them? Right now I see a guideline supporting the move, and nothing opposing it. I hope the closing admin is smart enough to take note of this. TJ Spyke 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • A guideline and a policy. WP:Naming conventions covers this also. I'm am not opposed to the current name on principle, indeed I can see situations where it makes sense if it aids readability (e.g. NetBSD, DirectX), but this isn't one of those cases. So far no reason has been advanced that is not specifically covered by either source. The whims of the trademark owner are specifically disregarded in both. I don't see any reason to ignore that policy and guidance: I am not saying there is no such reason, just that one hasn't been advanced and it is improper to simply disregard a policy based on a whim and no substantive reasoning. WP:IAR is not a free for all - it needs a reason to justify actions under it. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • WP:Naming conventions also says, "if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation." Tim Pierce (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I personally disagree wholeheartedly with the policy. It is self-evident that capitalization is an intrinsic component of a trademark. What is the rationale to ignore it in the article title? --Cyclopia (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
          • That is an issue for the wider community and irrelevant to the current discussion. In the absence of a change in policy what grounds do we have to go against policy? What reason do we have that a) has not been specifically considered and discounted by the relevant policy and guidance and b) is not merely merely picking holes in the rules? Just because if you look at the rule in a certain and probably improper way they seem to allow a given course of action to be taken, this in itself is not a reason for taking that action. CrispMuncher (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
            • In the absence of a change in policy what grounds do we have to go against policy? - WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR. If the policy in this case makes no sense, and adopting it would result in a worse article than not adopting it, what grounds do we have to follow the policy? The comment below by Tim Pierce is a good explanation of why this is the case. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
            • The goal of the WP:MOSTM guidelines, as it has been explained to me on the talk page, is that Wikipedia articles should adopt styles already in use from other sources and not invent new ones. Since existing reliable sources including CNET, CNN and The New York Times have used the "NeXT" style without complaint, it is reasonable to interpret that use as being consistent with the spirit of WP:MOSTM. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been some very interesting discussion at WT:MOSTM on this subject. It has helped me understand the purpose of the guideline on trademark naming. I don't think it's a bad guideline or rule at all, but the way it's worded is pretty confusing, and I think it's just a misinterpretation to apply it to NeXTSTEP or NeXT. Please see that discussion if you find the guideline troublesome, as I did when this all started. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Capitalization[edit]

There seems to be no consensus at all as to whether NeXTstep, NeXTSTEP, or NEXTSTEP is correct, as NeXT itself was never consistant, so why don't we just vote on the damn thing?

Capitalization[edit]

There seems to be no consensus at all as to whether NeXTstep, NeXTSTEP, or NEXTSTEP is correct, as NeXT itself was never consistant, so why don't we just vote on the damn thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.216.248 (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)