Talk:Fast and Secure Protocol

Aspera naming

Some busybody keeps nuisance-deleting my edits saying that it's commonly called Aspera, which it is. For instance, in the European Nucleotide Archive: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browse/read-download#downloading_files_aspera or for this Hadoop Demo: https://github.com/laserson/hadoop-genomics-demo or

Since it's a proprietary protocol patented and owned by one company, nobody says "download it with fasp", they only say "download it with Aspera". That's just how it is, deleteing my edits won't change the way the world actually works.

Furthermore, if you aren't knowledgable about a given topic, please don't delete information while the page is under active development, this sort of behavior is absolutely killing Wikipedia. Miserlou (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Miserlou: Please read WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:OR, and then reconsider how you might have written your note above (or your edit summary beginning with "Do you work in this industry? Do you know what you're talking about?"), or whether you would have written it.

You still have not provided a source showing that "it's commonly called Aspera". You have now come up with three instances where you feel someone is calling it "Aspera" and then asserting in the article that it's commonly called that. That's original research, more specifically synthesis from individual examples based on your own reasoning. It doesn't matter how knowledgeable you consider yourself to be on a given topic, this is not allowed. Adding your own personal observations, based on the likes of "hey, this is what people I work with call it", to an article is an example of WP:OR. Even if something is true, it doesn't need to be here; if there's no proper source to back it up, then it shouldn't be.

On top of that:

• In the EBI source, "Aspera" is used to refer to the plug-in, not the protocol. (I'm assuming you don't think ENA Browser is a protocol.)
• In the GitHub sources, "Aspera" is something the reader is being instructed to install. In other words, it's referring to the software. When it then says "Download ... with Aspera", that's comparable to "Download ... with FileZilla". Likewise, when someone tells you "download it with Aspera", their telling you to use the Aspera product to download it, just as if someone told you "download it with FileZilla" or "download it with Chrome".
• In the original Register source, we have

• "a company called Aspera"
• "Aspera gateway"
• "talking fasp to the Aspera gateway", not "talking Aspera to the Aspera gateway"
• "[i]f the network blocks the fasp communication ... Aspera will switch to a traditional HTTP", which you quoted, and of which you demonstrated your misunderstanding, in an edit summary, not noticing that it calls the protocol "fasp" right there and uses "Aspera" to denote the thing that switches from that protocol to http
• "Aspera claims", i.e., the company
• "its fasp protocol and Aspera implementation", i.e., fasp is the protocol.

Not once does this source use "Aspera" to refer to the protocol. In several places, it's obviously being used in contrast with the protocol.

In other words, all three sources give an impression, even a strong one, that is the opposite of what you're claiming. They imply that, when "Aspera" is used on its own, it's understood to be referring to the software, to the infrastructure, to the plugin.

Finally, Microsoft has lots and lots of proprietary, patented products. Per your reasoning in your second paragraph above, one would expect that everyone would just call Windows and Word and Excel and Surfaces and Xbox "Microsofts". We don't do that, so the premise behind your second paragraph is not only not obvious but simply false. A given product may be referred to, as a matter of synecdoche, by the name of its manufacturer, but it's hardly a matter of fixed principle that it will be. Largoplazo (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)