![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
the article is getting a bit long... can we split it up into sections? Enochlau 11:55, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think I preferred it at WINE. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 21:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good luck editing all sixty-or-so of the secondary links, BTW. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 21:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so since nobody seemed to be doing the link edits, I have submitted a proposal to Wikipedia:Requested moves. See Jan 14 section. Please make your opinion clear there. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Like my request concerning Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny a few days ago, this is a request for a consensus to support the moving of a recently moved article back to its earlier location.
Recently somebody moved WINE to Wine (software) but he hasn't shown any sign of moving the three-score of internal links that currently point to WINE in order to avoid double redirects. If he had done this, or if he does this during the course of this request, I think that's acceptable. However if he doesn't I honestly don't feel like doing it myself because I think WINE was a perfectly good place for the article, since this project is a GNU-style acronym (Gnu is Not UNIX and WINE Is Not an Emulator). There is also an argument for the move to Wine (software) because the project is called Wine by the developers at WINE HQ. So if you want to vote against this move I think the best way to cast your vote is to promise to help me by fixing some of these links so they point to the article at its new location, if the decision should turn out against the move back to WINE. I'll be doing my share, too. I don't care, as long as I don't have to clean up after somebody's mess on my own when it may be that a revert to WINE would do just as well. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 22:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why is there a disambiguation link up there pointing to wine? They're navigation aids... I doubt anybody would would go to Wine (software) looking for Wine :-) -- Ihope127 01:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it's because WINE redirects here? Perhaps someone might type "WINE" when they want to go to wine. (Just speculating; actually I agree with you.) — Caesura (t) 14:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I think some subjects relating to legality/morality could be addressed in this article. I'm uncertain how relevant they are, but see below:
I suggest the above is incorporated into the body of text detailing Microsoft's response to WINE
-- ChrisJMoor 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand this section. What copy of Windows is being updated? - you wouldn't run Wine on a Windows machine, and when running it on Linux no copy of Windows is required (unlike Virtual PC, VMWare, etc). Where is the registry that's referred to? A rewrite of this section to explain the situation more clearly would be appreciated. PeteVerdon 21:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
anon: Link to info
The current version of the article states:
This is blatantly incorrect. There are many other ways to achieve this without modifying IE. For example, one could modify Wine to accept some command-line parameters that would "hide" these registry keys for a particular program, and then the IE setup program would simply not see the Wine keys.
I am modifying the article to say this. I don't have a source to cite, but I think this will be obvious enough to anyone reading the article. -- Chris (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
why does the screenshot of internet explorer 6 running though wine also display xgl/compiz. xgl/compiz have absolutly nothing todo with this article and confuses the issue. does anyone have a screenshot that could replace this? gord 02:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This appears to have stemmed from a handful of mailing list comments by Codeweavers staffers. At this stage it's pretty much just idle gossip, and unless some official statement is made regarding the direction of both projects then it should remain that way. Chris Cunningham 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added sources for the two statements that had previously been marked with {{cn}}, but I rephrased one of them to match the source more closely. -- Heath 128.173.105.144 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
the article is getting a bit long... can we split it up into sections? Enochlau 11:55, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think I preferred it at WINE. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 21:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good luck editing all sixty-or-so of the secondary links, BTW. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 21:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so since nobody seemed to be doing the link edits, I have submitted a proposal to Wikipedia:Requested moves. See Jan 14 section. Please make your opinion clear there. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Like my request concerning Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny a few days ago, this is a request for a consensus to support the moving of a recently moved article back to its earlier location.
Recently somebody moved WINE to Wine (software) but he hasn't shown any sign of moving the three-score of internal links that currently point to WINE in order to avoid double redirects. If he had done this, or if he does this during the course of this request, I think that's acceptable. However if he doesn't I honestly don't feel like doing it myself because I think WINE was a perfectly good place for the article, since this project is a GNU-style acronym (Gnu is Not UNIX and WINE Is Not an Emulator). There is also an argument for the move to Wine (software) because the project is called Wine by the developers at WINE HQ. So if you want to vote against this move I think the best way to cast your vote is to promise to help me by fixing some of these links so they point to the article at its new location, if the decision should turn out against the move back to WINE. I'll be doing my share, too. I don't care, as long as I don't have to clean up after somebody's mess on my own when it may be that a revert to WINE would do just as well. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 22:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why is there a disambiguation link up there pointing to wine? They're navigation aids... I doubt anybody would would go to Wine (software) looking for Wine :-) -- Ihope127 01:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it's because WINE redirects here? Perhaps someone might type "WINE" when they want to go to wine. (Just speculating; actually I agree with you.) — Caesura (t) 14:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I think some subjects relating to legality/morality could be addressed in this article. I'm uncertain how relevant they are, but see below:
I suggest the above is incorporated into the body of text detailing Microsoft's response to WINE
-- ChrisJMoor 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand this section. What copy of Windows is being updated? - you wouldn't run Wine on a Windows machine, and when running it on Linux no copy of Windows is required (unlike Virtual PC, VMWare, etc). Where is the registry that's referred to? A rewrite of this section to explain the situation more clearly would be appreciated. PeteVerdon 21:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
anon: Link to info
The current version of the article states:
This is blatantly incorrect. There are many other ways to achieve this without modifying IE. For example, one could modify Wine to accept some command-line parameters that would "hide" these registry keys for a particular program, and then the IE setup program would simply not see the Wine keys.
I am modifying the article to say this. I don't have a source to cite, but I think this will be obvious enough to anyone reading the article. -- Chris (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
why does the screenshot of internet explorer 6 running though wine also display xgl/compiz. xgl/compiz have absolutly nothing todo with this article and confuses the issue. does anyone have a screenshot that could replace this? gord 02:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This appears to have stemmed from a handful of mailing list comments by Codeweavers staffers. At this stage it's pretty much just idle gossip, and unless some official statement is made regarding the direction of both projects then it should remain that way. Chris Cunningham 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added sources for the two statements that had previously been marked with {{cn}}, but I rephrased one of them to match the source more closely. -- Heath 128.173.105.144 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)