Talk:Novell DOS

Split from DR-DOS

I propose that content from DR-DOS#Contribution by Novell be split to its own article here at Novell DOS. This is for the following reasons:

1. Previous standalone version was merged (apparently without discssion) in July 2007 and no longer has full consensus (at least one editor, i.e. me, thinks a separate article is justified)
2. A bold split to Novell DOS was reverted, so I'd like to seek the consensus view
3. The new references added to the split article establish notability of the product under that name in its own right - therefore the subject matter no longer has to be contained within a subheading of DR-DOS
4. Including many facts relevant to the OS while owned by Novell within DR-DOS could be seen as giving undue weight to this version there - splitting to a separate article will allow expansion by editors in the future without such constraints - I do not believe that the few references I found and included are the sum total of press reporting of this product while titled 'Novell DOS'
5. A number of articles already link to the term, e.g. choice (command), implying editors' consideration that a separate article is preferable

Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: we shouldn't spawn multiple articles about the same product unless the new article is about the name, not about the OS. Otherwise we end up with two articles on the same topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  The new article is proposed to be about what happened to the software when it was under that name and ownership. If your concern is that creation of Novell DOS would amount to content forking, that states Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. Furthermore, the software under Novell meets WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. -- Trevj (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT are irrelevant here at all, as the notability of topic (which is DR-DOS) is already established in the article. The problem is that there is no topic named "Novell DOS" to establish notability of. I see no need to make the content harder to find and comprehend. Furthermore, it may establish a malicious precedent, so that (ie. OpenVMS article will get split into VAX-11/VMS, VAX/VMS, VMS, hp OpenVMS, OpenVMS and friends). So the amount of problems with this proposal is huge, while there is no single benefit. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing out OpenVMS, which I'm unfamiliar with. One main difference between that product and DR-DOS seems to be the ownership. Did the former change hands like the latter? "DR-DOS" is indeed a notable term, as you say. The issue is that I believe "Novell DOS" to be independently notable too. My motivation for the split is that the original article seems to have been merged into DR-DOS just because of the change of ownership and name. Similar edits resulted in the disappearance and recreating of NTL Incorporated. While the subject discussed here is software, rather than a company (and WP:SIZERULE is not appropriate) I believe there still to be a valid case for a separate article. Regarding the possible establishing of a "malicious precedent", WP:OUTCOMES states While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. (While that's specifically in connection with deletion, notability does seem to be under question in this discussion.)

  Anyway, I'll leave this for now, wait for others to chime in and see what the consensus outcome is. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  The answer is yes: Digital to Compaq to HP. Peter Flass (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  
  The situations are identical with the difference that VMS is by far more notable then DR DOS. Also note: notability of Novell DOS is not argued upon – it is clearly notable, and that's why we already have an article about it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: While I would like to see the DR-DOS article expanded in various ways, I don't think, splitting off the Novell DOS part would be particularly helpful. 90% of an article on DR-DOS would have to be repeated in the Novell DOS article, whereas the 10% information specific to Novell DOS could be easily added to the DR-DOS article as well. After all, Novell DOS was nothing but the next version of DR DOS after DR DOS 6.0 and PalmDOS (and two unreleased versions of DR DOS named "StarTrek" and "Panther"). If we'd split off Novell DOS, we'd also have to split off Caldera OpenDOS 7.01, which is basically identical to Novell DOS 7 update 10. And if we did, where should we put Caldera DR-DOS 7.02 and higher, which are based on OpenDOS 7.01, Novell DOS 7 update 15.2 and a lot of new stuff (in particular in regard to the kernel, memory manager and disk tools)?

Splitting the article may become necessary, if someone would really add a lot of new information, but the current article is far from being too long, I think. Nevertheless, if we'd run into this scenario eventually, I would prefer a logical split (history, features, commands, etc.) rather than a physical split. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I don't think that there'd be any need to repeat 90% of the DR-DOS material, and doing so would be content forking anyway. WP:AVOIDSPLIT states [..] it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article, which I believe to be appropriate in this case. If proceeded with, a summary style approach could be followed for inclusion at DR-DOS#Contribution by Novell.

Anyway, right now my viewpoint is clearly in the minority. However, I'd appreciate it if the tag could be kept in place for another month or so please, in order that others have the opportunity to spot it. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh well, I've now removed the tag and imported my content to DR-DOS. Thanks for taking the time to comment above. -- Trevj (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)