The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Already redirected by Twinxor Computerjoe's talk 15:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.tar.gz.gpg[edit]

.tar.gz.gpg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a combination of the GPG and tar.gz formats. While it's not too unusal to encrypt compressed data like this, it seems like the formats are adequately discussed on their own articles, and this page doesn't have much to say about the combination. Twinxor t 02:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected per consensus. Twinxor t 07:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 02:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into either of those, preferrably both. Delete afterwards. Just H 02:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't delete afterwards, if you merge anything, you at least need a redirect. FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect A simple redirect to Tar (file format) would serve well enough with a brief description in the appropriate section. I could accept it elsewhere though. FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (since they're "cheap") to GPG (as the file is fundamentally a gpg-encrypted file & will need to be de-encrypted before anything else) and because I don't see anything worth merging. --Karnesky 03:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with that is that GPG doesn't have any existing sections describing file names in it, where as tar already a section for filename extensions. Given that a link to GPG is easy enough there, I'd prefer that. In any case, this information should be there, so I'll go ahead and add it. FrozenPurpleCube 05:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see anything worth merging--it isn't THAT common of a format & I'm unaware of any programs that could process .tar.*.gpg in a single step. Explaining .tar.(bz2|gz|Z) is reasonable--they're more common and gnu tar has hooks for gzip/bzip2/compress, but not for gpg.

I guess that, if the consensus is to merge, a merge to tar might make some sense. But where would it stop? Would we include .tar.gz.uue? How about .tar.gz.gpg.uue (or at lest .tar.gz.asc)? --Karnesky 18:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I'd suggest putting that question up on the page for tar files. FrozenPurpleCube 22:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to relevant articles Alf photoman 15:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Karnesky. Yuser31415 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if redirected then also add tar.gz.gpg (no leading dot). This form is more likely entered in search box. Pavel Vozenilek 17:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirected to tar (file format). Twinxor t 20:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you reckon there is sufficient consensus to close this MfD as nominator and redirect? Yuser31415 00:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I think all the relevant information is over at the tar article. I redirected it. Twinxor t 07:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, individual articles suffice. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. DaveApter 10:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.