Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Codename Lisa (talk | contribs) at 12:55, 20 April 2013 (→WP:Redirect: No). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome, Codename Lisa!

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Hello, Codename Lisa, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I'm Mr. Stradivarius, one of the thousands of editors here at Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  The five pillars of Misplaced Pages

  How to edit a page

  Help pages

  Tutorial

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

— Mr. Stradivarius 18:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tbullet-n

Template:Tbullet-n has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 13:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft

I closed this discussion as merge, but you may want to be careful, since one of the two templates was never tagged for discussion. I trust that you can take care of merging the two templates. Let me know if there are any problems. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ 20:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Plastikspork

Frankly, I want to be a lot more careful than you ask me; so much so that if I were to close the discussion, I'd close it as No Consensus. There are two participants in favor of the merge (BrownHairedGirl and Ghettobuster) and three people against it (65.92.180.137, T13 and LittleBen); put in that Ghettobuster is also inclined towards maintaining status quo. (That makes the score 1.5 against 3.0.)

I'd like to ask you to overturn the closure decision to No Consensus. Alternatively, you can relist the discussion and I put a discussion header over {{Microsoft}} and {{Microsoft Windows family}} as well to generate more input.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Plastikspork. You saved me from being branded as —

Well, let's just say you saved me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of templates is that they are for lists of things that will appear in many Misplaced Pages articles. Most WP users will not be here to read up on obsolete operating systems, so I'd expect a list of all (mostly non-current) MS operating systems to appear in one place only—rather than in a humongous template splattered all over the place. Templates, particularly sidebar templates, are useful to help people find and browse related current topics. Few users will read all the way to bottom of the page and click "Show" to display templates containing humongous lists of obsolete software. I'd prefer to see a single "See also" link to a single article listing all the obsolete stuff. LittleBen (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ben. So far three people have told this: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is part a history books. We write about things of the past that have received coverage elsewhere and specifically avoid writing about current stuff. "Obsolete" things are fine. If people want to read about current software, there are hundreds of websites out there, most of which are older than Misplaced Pages. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows

I was surprised to see you change past tense to present for old versions of Windows that are obsolete—no longer sold, and no longer supported. Past tense is used for things that obsolete—no longer produced/supported; Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud came to mind as an example. Even if you could obtain a copy of Windows 3.0, it'd probably be almost impossible to find hardware that it could be installed on. For all intents and purposes, it no longer exists; it's past tense. "Water flows downhill" is an example of a "universal fact" that is not likely to become obsolete. LittleBen (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Present tense is used to state facts that are always correct. The sentence "Windows 3.1 was an operating system" is wrong because Windows 3.1 is still an operating system; pass of time or discontinuation did not turn it into a video game or anything else. "Windows 3.1 ran on i386 computers" is wrong because it still runs on i386. Pass of time or discontinuation does not make it run on any different computer.

That said, Other stuff exists is never a good reason. If there are other errors in Misplaced Pages, that only means there are more fixing to do.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Windows 3.0 is no longer a manufactured, sold, and supported operating system, just as the Apple II, PC/XT, PC/AT is no longer a manufactured, sold, and supported computer, and the Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud is no longer a manufactured, sold, and supported car. LittleBen (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So what? It is still an operating system and it still runs on i386 or i486 computers. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The operating system and the 8086, 80286, i386, or i486 computers virtually no longer exist, they are obsolete, so we are talking about what they used to be—past tense—not what they are now. They are like the coal-fired steam engines of computing. Like OS/360 and VAX. Six of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World no longer exist, they are past tense. LittleBen (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. That is your personal assumption and it is completely wrong. But apart from that, so what if they didn't exist? The sentence "Windows 3.1 is an operating system" is changed into "Windows 3.1 is an operating system that no longer exists". But it is still an operating system, not a dish washer. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd understand "is" to mean "is a (current/popular)", and "was" to mean "used to be"—whether it's a car model, computer model, or OS. Maybe I should ask other opinions at MOS. LittleBen (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Question posted here. Most of the "owners" of the MOS seem to have self-destructed, so I'm not sure if I'll get any answers. LittleBen (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a very clear consensus yet. My personal position is "be kind to dumb users": a WP user, who has never heard of something before, wants to know if it is still current—or is it something that would probably never be encountered in the current-day real world, and so is only of historic interest. Thus the distinction between "is" and "was" is useful and helpful. LittleBen (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ben. According to English Grammar In Use, "We use the present simple to talk about things in general. We are not thinking only about now. We use it to say that something happens all the time or repeatedly, or that something is true in general. It is not important whether the action is happening at the time of speaking." Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I couldn't find anything about tense in either the latest Microsoft MOS (4th) or Chicago 15th (couldn't locate my copy of 16th), but—just as people are referred to in the past tense after they die—I think that OSes and software should also be referred to in the past tense after their EOL. While Windows 3.1 might have been considered to be an Operating System in its time, there is little chance of anybody trying to launch something like Windows 3.1—that offers no protection against programs clobbering one another, and no protection between users—and trying to pass it off as an operating system suitable for use on a shared computer today. Expectations have changed. Likewise, an operating system that could run only paper tape jobs—or even just card reader batch jobs—would not be considered an acceptable OS today. I think EOS or EOL are simple criteria for separating "live" software from "dead" software.

I'd be flexible about exceptions, though—apparently there are OS/360 programs that companies spent huge amounts of money on, and they can be used for free with OS/360 emulation today. Some Atari games are still used in emulation. Computer languages (like COBOL) are surely also an exception; they don't have a clearly-defined EOL—as they don't die, they only fade away. Some insurance companies prefer to patch legacy COBOL programs rather than rewrite them, even though few programmers are fluent in COBOL today. Music, musicals, and plays are examples of things that don't die—because there is always a chance that people will perform them, regardless of their age. But versions of MS Office that are past their EOS are not going to be used because of security and OS compatibility concerns—and because secure and up-to-date near-clones like OpenOffice or LibreOffice are free.

BTW, it seems that there really was a Windows 3.0 (I think that the WP article says that the series started with 3.1). Best regards  LittleBen (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ben. Why would you look into a manual of style for a grammar issue? Look inside a grammar book! And you are talking applying a case "exception" (your own word) to another case? "Exceptions" are not applied. They are left well alone. (Or else they would have not been laws, not exceptions.) And I strongly disagree with apply Atheists lingo to state verbs for operating systems that have reached EOL. What you are proposing is wrong × wrong × wrong. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Software license status is a similar can of worms to support status: Software whose license is switched (from Open Source to proprietary or vice versa) is no longer considered to currently have its original license: its license status has changed. This sort of status change is surely little different from the status change from supported to EOS or EOL=dead. LittleBen (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Instead of filling up your user talk page, why don't we move the discussion to Talk:Microsoft Windows#Present tense or past tense for EOL .28End-Of-Life.29 software.3F and get some WP:3Os? LittleBen (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of disk cloning software

Hi, I'm not an expert in wikipedia, but occassionally i help people in computer related things and one of the pages I often reference people to is this page -- I hope you don't mind if I can re-alphabetize the first column (i did not so long ago and noticed your contributions)

Talk:Comparison of disk cloning software#Inaccuracies & Proposal

I made a proposal entry that it's prevalent problem on certain inaccuracies.. I think the table on that page should be restructured.

Swestlake (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Silk Road (marketplace)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Silk Road (marketplace). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Suicide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Windows NT, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PAE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Order of adjectives and relative clauses

You changed "Features new in Service Pack 3" to "New features in Service Pack 3", citing the former as incorrect grammar. While it isn't a problem, I thought I'd point out that the former actually is correct grammar. It's a shortening of "features that are new in Service Pack 3". This is a case of ellipsis. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Let's assume you are right without checking your statement: The result (although acceptable in theoretic grammar) is still unnatural writing. People never say "apple red", "orange juicy", "films great", etc. with the pretext that they are using ellipsis. Why resort to using "features new", then go all the way through clause grammar and ellipsis grammar to justify it, only to run head-long into the barrier of contemporary English?

Finally, if I accept that your form is correct, why do you change from one correct form into another? Per WP:MOS#Top, this should be avoided in Misplaced Pages. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't find it unnatural writing at all. I encounter this construction all the time and I easily could have written it myself. I will grant that it is more common with a past participle (e.g. "features added in Service Pack 3"), but it is the same principle, and is common in headlines or, as here, section headings. (Cf. the Saturday Night Live sketch where Dana Carvey as Tom Brokaw kept repeating variations on the sentence "Gerald Ford dead today at the age of 83".) As for your second point — that we shouldn't change one correct form into another — isn't that exactly what you just did? True, it was in response to an edit (not mine, by the way) that was itself unnecessary, but that doesn't mean the reversion was any more necessary. - furrykef (Talk at me) 12:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, you say that people never say "films great", but what about a phrase such as "films great for children"? Surely you wouldn't change that into "great-for-children films". You probably wouldn't use it in the middle of a sentence, but as the title of some kind of article or section, it seems fine to me. - furrykef (Talk at me) 12:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am seeing a lot straw man discussion here. First, I find your objection to my revert out of context because you seem to have forgotten that I still think it is wrong. (You are the one defending this form, not me.) Therefore, I don't think I reverted the replacement of one accepted form for another accepted form (Although on a side note, such reverts are not automatically wrong). Second, "films great for children" is okay but "films great" or "great-for-children films" are not. There is nothing to tie the acceptance of one to another. Finally, journalist do a lot of things that we don't do. Their lexicon, syntax, semantics, style of writing and purpose completely differs. That said, no, I have never seen "Gerald Ford, dead today at the age of 83". I often see something like "Gerlad Ford, 83, Dies". (Present tense, word caps, no definite article, possessives.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can watch the sketch right here if you don't believe me. ;) - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hee! Hee! Hee! Very funny. Gerald Ford dropped dead today after Codename Lisa senselessly roared in laughter and Cherry said "All your base are belong to us".

With a smile,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Taskbar

Hi, I was wondering why you think that renaming the History section to "Early implementations" is a POV edit? - Wikizzer (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I said it is "purely POV", not "POV edit". It means you change the point of view, which is not bad. However, the reason that I reverted was that we had inbound links to that section of the article. Now, we don't. I have been fixing them all this time. So, now, you can suit yourself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:Redirect

Was your edit caused by WP:Village pump (proposals) #Deprecation of redirects? Or it was merely a coincidence? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I was not aware of that village pump proposal until now. I made that edit because I thought no one wants to see a typo in the article unless that typo itself is the subject of article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)