Talk:True flash file system

Please do not edit this page. Article merged, for current discussion see talk:Flash file system.

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There being no more discussion and no significant growth in the articles in over a month (e.g. to establish notability), merged into Flash file system.

Suggest that TrueFFS and ExtremeFFS (both stubs at the moment) be merged into one article, either as a subsection of solid-state drive (until enough information accumulates to warrant separate coverage), or at least as one article about flash file systems. ~~The article name should also be spelled out, rather than using abbreviations.~~ Zodon (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Zodon about the merge, although I think it should still be TrueFFS because that is the industry-standard name for the term. ←Spidern → 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to just leave the (very new!) articles and let them grow, since the topics have the potential to become full articles. But a separate flash file system article would be nice :). Thue | talk 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article name

If this is to be an article, the name should be spelled out (per WP:NAME#Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations). While it may be frequently used in abbreviated form in the industry, it seems unlikely to be widely known exclusively by that form to a general audience. (The abbreviated form should of course be a redirect to the spelled out one.)

Sorry, I shouldn't have introduced two different issues in one heading (above). Zodon (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both TrueFFS and ExtremeFFS are registered trademarks of Sandisk. Those are the names that they will be predominately recognized by. See this google result vs. this one. We can still mention the actual name behind its abbreviation on the article, but I still suggest that we keep the current article name of TrueFFS. As a comparable example, see NTFS (I've used it for 15 years and I didn't know what it stood for till I looked it up just now). ←Spidern → 07:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The searches are misleading since they lump all uses of the terms in with those specifically meaning True flash file system. (Consider for instance True Fault Free Set, which is also abreveated TrueFFS).

TrueFFS not nearly as well established as NTFS.

Moved it to be more compliant with naming policy, but a moot point for the moment since article being merged, per discussion above. Zodon (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of terms

Notability for TrueFFS: google news
Notability for ExtremeFFS: google news

I think the above are enough to establish notability for both topics. ←Spidern → 07:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not clearly so. Notability requires: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." WP:Notability.

I took a look at the search results and most of the sources I looked at seemed to not be independent of the subject. (i.e., parroting press releases, vendors/customers, direct information from the manufacturer, etc.)

Perhaps you noticed different items in the searches that satisfy the requirements for reliability and independence of source, etc. Zodon (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]