This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.
The two TOC articles, TOC protocol and TOC2 protocol, should be merged into OSCAR protocol. Mostly because they are really sloppy and all over the place. Having them in one article would allow editors to clean it all up, and clearly specify their correlation to each other. Right now, all three are highly unencyclopedic, and not very helpful to someone who is researching these protocols. In response to syphonbyte'scomment: while the two protocols are separate versions, they are not nearly important enough to have their own articles, like Windows is.
I believe I have removed the uncited claim that "Uground Productions" has been "working on an OSCAR Server as of June 16, 2007" multiple times. The kid that runs the pseudo-programming group called "Uground Productions", which isn't noteworthy at all and consists of only himself, keeps adding this claim. Unless he can provide some sort of citation, I don't think he should stay in there for so long every time he decides to brag about his 2 year old project nobody but hi has seen.--Anthonysenn (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This claim seems to be false; I'm currently writing a library to implement OSCAR, and I've observed firsthand that it's big-endian. This is also what the official documentation says, according to that paragraph, and joscar's unofficial protocol documentation agrees. Thus, I've removed the paragraph. Eurleif (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was no consensus to move. Cúchullaint/c 13:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
OSCAR protocol → OSCAR (protocol) – the word "protocol" is not a part of this protocol's name, which is apparently obvious from the fact that the abbreviation "OSCAR" lacks the letter "P" (compare with XMPP). Though most of the sources linked from the article use the word "OSCAR" and "protocol" together, it is seemingly a construct "name+qualifier", not a set phrase. Note: the full version of the protocol name ("Open System for CommunicAtion in Realtime") shouldn't be used as a move target per WP:COMMONNAME. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment -- "name+qualifier" is a valid method of natural language disambiguation and is often used in cases where editors for various reasons prefer to avoid parenthetical disambiguation. In this case, the lower case protocol indicates it is not a part of the name. For the record, I have no preference in this particular case as to which method of disambiguation is used -- I only wanted to prevent the proliferation of a mistaken idea that "name+qualifier" is inappropriate. older ≠ wiser 12:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
That was the reason why this page went to WP:RM instead of being simply moved. I would also note, that most wikilinks to this articles I came across are [[OSCAR protocol|OSCAR]]. As MediaWiki features automated completion of [[Namespace:Title (qualifier)|Title]], the proposed name would help to avoid several typos and "Preview" hits (at least for me). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The pipe trick is handy, but I'm uncomfortable using it as justification for favoring parenthetical over natural disambiguation. PowersT 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I know that WP:PRECISE favors natural disambiguation over parenthetical, but I personally prefer the latter as it allows to spot the "name" part from the first glance, while the former makes you read the article in order to separate name from qualifier or make sure that the name is the whole phrase. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The article start with "A submarine sandwich", not "A submarine is a sandwich", while here you would say "OSCAR is a protocol", not "The OSCAR protocol is ..." About the same reason as why we have the English language and Java (programming language). —Ruud 13:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This article does indeed use the "OSCAR protocol" wording in prose, though not in the lede. PowersT 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Support Consistent with the naming of most other protocols. Also note how the name is used in the lead sentence. —Ruud 13:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose the form "OSCAR protocol" is what some call "natural disambiguation", which is often preferred over "parenthetical disambiguation". Since protocol is lower case, nobody is going to be confused into thinking that it's part of the name; it's obviously a protocol with name OSCAR, often referred to as the OSCAR protocol, so it seems like a fine title. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Why would natural disambiguation be preferred over parenthetical disambiguation? Would you prefer Java programming language of Java (programming language) or Planet Mercury over Mercury (planet)? While I would intuitively prefer it in some very limited number of case like English language and English people it feels contrived in general and does add some possibility of confusion. (Perhaps the difference is related to, as you note, that protocol is not part of the name—or at least not to the same extent that "language" is in "English language"). —Ruud 15:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.