Talk:Z shell

Move

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/whatever. Duja► 09:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I think this page should be moved to "Zsh"; it seems to be universally named that way, even on the official site. Any objections? --Gwern (contribs) 20:15 24 November 2006 (GMT)

That's the command that launches it, but is it the name? Compare C shell and "csh"; Bourne shell and "sh"; and all the other Unix shells. Ewlyahoocom 04:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the link to the wiki. The front page is all 'Zsh' this and 'Zsh' that. Or heck, look at any of the external links: they all use 'zsh' or 'Zsh' (with the exception of ZSH-LOVERS(1) - which alternates between zsh and 'Z shell'. The documentation rarely uses it. Searching through man zshall, there's exactly one use of 'Z shell', and that seems to be part of the description.

So I think it's the name. --Gwern (contribs) 04:42 21 October 2007 (GMT)

Can you find anything more "official" than wikis and documentation? (BTW, the first line of the man page at http://www.hmug.org/man/1/zsh.php is "zsh - the Z shell".)Ewlyahoocom 05:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned the manpage. That's the only ocurrence in the man page. If you read many manpages, you know that that line takes the format 'Name - description'. In this case, it goes:

       zsh - the Z shell

just as in cat you see

        cat - concatenate files and print on the standard output

Now, cat is obviously named 'cat' and not 'concatenate files and print on the standard output', just as zsh is named 'zsh' and not 'the Z shell'. --Gwern (contribs) 00:50 23 October 2007 (GMT)

Hmmmm... so what you're saying is that the name of the thing is "zsh" but the description of the thing is "the Z shell"? I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense... however, it seems to me that they're using both "Zsh" and "Z shell" interchangeabley (e.g. here or here), therefore I now oppose the move on the grounds that the current title is less ambiguous. Ewlyahoocom 11:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. It's the description, as the man page makes clear. Consider the Zsh.h you linked to writes that the responsible persons are "Paul Falstad and the Zsh Development Group", not Paul Falstad and the Z Shell Development Group. --Gwern (contribs) 12:38 23 October 2007 (GMT)

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.

Restored Origin section, with citations added

The Origin section was blanked. I restored it, and added citations. Detailed chronology:

• 1 Nov 2005: "Zhong Shao" info added.
• 8 Jun 2011: "Zhong Shao" info marked "citation needed".
• 10 Sep 2012: entire Origin section blanked (vandalism?).
• 18 Sep 2012 and 2 Oct 2012: Origin section restored, with new citations added.

It's easy to find sources on the web for the "Zhong Shao" info, but most of them appear to have gotten the info from this Wikipedia article. Therefore, in order to avoid a circular reference, it's better to cite a source that predates 1 Nov 2005, so I cited the Guckes.net reference (and Mr. Guckes told me his source was Mr. Falstad). The second reference (Zsh.org) may seem redundant (since it explicitly references Guckes.net), but it helps establish that the info predates 1 Nov 2005. I think this satisfies the "citation needed". -- HLachman (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Oh My Zsh logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)