Archive 1 — January / February 2006
Archive 2 — March / April 2006

I need a second opinion on the article Kimbo. This guy looks non-notable although the article is extensive. Flag for non-notable db or no? Sifaka ^talk 17:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article doesn't seem to be terribly encyclopedic in places, but that's fixable -- as to notability, based on the article it's a stretch, but there are quite a number of google hits, so it might pass muster. Regardless, WP:CSD is for clear cases of non-notability (like if I made a biography on my cat) or abuse; my suggestion is to go the WP:AFD route and find a consensus opinion from the community. The cool thing about this is that it gets that community consensus "on the record" so that it can be refered to in future discussions. Warrens 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, me, the policy says I should inform the uploader on their talk page when one is IFD'ing an image they uploaded. So, uhh, yeah. Warrens 20:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason why you think a separate article from reusability is warranted? The other person who commented on the talk page agrees they should be merged. -- Beland 03:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I removed the tags, they had existed in the article for more than half a year with no consensus being reached. There was one substantive, anonymous comment in favour of merge (on the Code reuse talk page) and one substative, anonymous comment in favour of keeping the articles separate (on the Reusability talk page). The person who originally added the merge tags provided no reasoning for doing so. Likewise for yourself when you re-added the tags shortly after I removed them -- you gave no rationale in the edit summary or on the talk pages. I really don't care about the outcome one way or the other; I do, however, believe that we shouldn't have merge tags floating around forever & ever if no consensus is reached in a reasonable amount of time. By all means, be bold and update or redirect the articles in a way you feel makes sense! Warrens 04:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. How come I sometimes come across pages where the trailing 's' is left off (or am I confusing that with the 's situation)? IstvanWolf 05:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps... Mediawiki hasn't always included the trailing s when making links like I described, and many people aren't familiar with this particular shortcut yet. As for article names, they will almost always be singular instead of plural so that it's easier to write sigular-form wikilinks to them. Take Typeface for instance: if the article were named Typefaces, but you wanted to use the word "typeface" in singular form, you'd have to write [[typefaces|typeface]] to get it to display correctly... which is rather ugly. :-) Warrens 05:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had been thinking for some time about the problems associated with the TOC. And today, I found the impetus to formally state the problems. I have done it in my talk page, and am interested in finding if some possible solution comes up (which can then be proposed on village pump). Could you please take a look and if possible give some suggestions. --soUmyaSch 11:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed {{software-screenshot}} from Image:GoogleearthDDA.jpg because "Google Earth images do not qualify for fair use." May I ask where this decision was reached, so I can read it? Also, do you know what the proper tagging for such an image would be? I ask only because several images in the Google Earth article are tagged with the aforementioned template. Staxringold 14:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I've reverted myself once I realized the difference (the screens in Google Earth provide commentary on Google Earth itself). Staxringold 15:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's frustrating, isn't it?  :-/ On the plus side, there is a pretty good free alternative you can check out, called NASA World Wind. Everything on there can be used in Wikipedia articles. I haven't tried it, but if you do and have some success with it, let me know! Warrens 17:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar For endless contributions to so many Computing related articles soUmyaSch 11:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just can't get any better than this. Enjoy!!! --soUmyaSch 11:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the section for Aero, it says:

Windows Vista will include a re-designed user interface, code-named Aero – an acronym (or backronym) for Authentic, Energetic, Reflective, and Open. The new interface is intended to be cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing than previous Windows, including new transparencies, animations and eye candy, which some report as being similar to Mac OS X^[1].

However, I think that the mention of similarity to Mac OS X(which includes a ref here as well) is not necessary here (coz this is a page detailing the features of Vista). It may be at max included in the Criticisms section in Windows Vista. What do you think?

And probably it is time for a Comparison of features in OSs or similar article, as you has somewhere suggested, to keep either OS articles from getting flamed. --soUmyaSch 15:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparasins with OS X surely belong in the Criticisms section. It can be dumped from the Features article... either that, or we go adding in lines to the OS X articles saying "ABC, a feature similar to Windows XP's DEF." Yeah, that'd get far. ;-) Warrens 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am gettin too tempted to try that out. :-) --soUmyaSch 09:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given Gnetwerker's persistence against consensus regarding comments about Aero's similarities to Aqua, I have forwarded the dispute to the arbitration committee and am notifying you as an involved party as required. Paul Cyr 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to call me "a disruptive editor" in edit summaries, you had better supply some proof. The edit you reverted was not improper. It would appear the only thing I am disrupting is your desire to WP:OWN a set of Windows-related articles. -- Gnetwerker 22:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm against the template as a whole. If I had more time on my hands I'd probably nominate it for deletion. I think people are getting a little template-happy around here.

No article on Wikipedia should contain speculation. Just because the software is unreleased is not an excuse. I work hard to keep speculation out of pages here, and I've seen you do the same. If these pages contain speculation the speculation should be removed.

The thing about "may change dramatically" is not limited to future software releases. Architecture of Windows 2000 changed dramatically five years after Windows 2000's release, because User:Ta bu shi da yu suddenly got a bee under his bonnet. Maybe we should stick "This page may change suddenly" at the top of each page in 50px text.

The only notable thing the template should be telling people is that the developers are still working on it, but that should be clearly stated in the intro paragraph. We don't need a great big stinkin' template at the top of the article.

Anyway rant over, to specifically comment on your exact question. The problem with "not publicly available yet" is that it doesn't apply to Boot Camp or Internet Explorer 7. Perhaps "final version not publicly available yet", but like I said, I'm opposed to the template as a whole. AlistairMcMillan 22:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]