rfc|sci|rfcid=0E5684C
Should Windows XP contain this information about end of support?
This is a non-technical question about whether an article should contain certain information. Input from non-specialist editors would be appreciated and even a very brief response would be useful, though of course more in-depth consideration would be welcome.
Addendum: Windows XP is currently seeing a surge in page views, moving up the most viewed list from position 4410 on 6 jan 2014 to its current position of 1150. Its page view stats can be seen here. This is very likely to be due to the impending end of support deadline, however people looking for practical information about this subject will be disappointed since the group of frequent editors of this article oppose efforts to introduce this information, on the grounds that it violates wp:NOTHOWTO.
This is an effort, based on a referenced review of press opinion, to introduce the most important of the missing information, but in order to be convincing it requires the support of a larger number of editors than those who have already signalled their opinion.
Please take a moment to review this effort and add your opinion, for or against, to the poll. Upedge ( talk) 12:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC) and 18:35, 7 April 2014
There has been considerable discussion ( here) about the information on the end of support of Windows XP that should be included in the article.
My initial attempts at producing suitable paragraphs was criticised as a violation of Wp:NOTHOWTO to which I responded by quoting that guideline: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." This did not satisfy those against, who did not however make any counter propositions. What I wrote was:
I occurred to me that it would be very useful to separate the presentation of the information from a decision about the appropriateness of including (or not) the information in some form or other.
The documentation search ( covered here) revealed descriptions of only two free possibilities for dealing with the end of support of Windows XP, neither of which is currently covered by the article:
Two thirds of the sources mentioned the former and half the latter, indicating that both suggestions are mainstream.
Should they be covered? I suggest people answer with one of the following formulations, to avoid confusion:
If the result of this survey indicates that either option should be included then I will copy this page to talk:Windows XP (where I have already mentioned this RfC) to initiate a discussion about how the information should be phrased.
Poll Closed, see below. Thanks to those who participated.
If editors wish to enter into extended discussion, please do so here rather than in the survey section.
AIRcorn asked why this is on a user page. This was following the suggestion of an experienced editor. I don't know why he made this suggestion, but I've followed it for a number of reasons.
Note that I did not seek to avoid comment by those who had previously posted a negative opinion, and I placed a notice about this RfC on talk:Windows XP in case anyone there wished to participate. Upedge ( talk) 16:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I've now closed this poll. Although the overall direction is clear I don't think it's likely that it will gather enough weight to convince those on Talk:Windows XP to reconsider their position. Given that, I don't think much purpose would be served in copying it to that page - it would just generate more conflict and waste more peoples' time without worthwhile effect, which isn't desirable.
Many thanks to those who responded here. If anyone feels moved to continue the struggle then please feel free to copy this to Talk:Windows XP with appropriate explanation.
As a final thought, Windows XP normally gets around 4k page hits a day. On April 8th alone it got 27.5k and it's a fair bet they were looking for information about the end of support. I don't think it does any credit to WP that they didn't find it. Upedge ( talk) 21:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
rfc|sci|rfcid=0E5684C
Should Windows XP contain this information about end of support?
This is a non-technical question about whether an article should contain certain information. Input from non-specialist editors would be appreciated and even a very brief response would be useful, though of course more in-depth consideration would be welcome.
Addendum: Windows XP is currently seeing a surge in page views, moving up the most viewed list from position 4410 on 6 jan 2014 to its current position of 1150. Its page view stats can be seen here. This is very likely to be due to the impending end of support deadline, however people looking for practical information about this subject will be disappointed since the group of frequent editors of this article oppose efforts to introduce this information, on the grounds that it violates wp:NOTHOWTO.
This is an effort, based on a referenced review of press opinion, to introduce the most important of the missing information, but in order to be convincing it requires the support of a larger number of editors than those who have already signalled their opinion.
Please take a moment to review this effort and add your opinion, for or against, to the poll. Upedge ( talk) 12:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC) and 18:35, 7 April 2014
There has been considerable discussion ( here) about the information on the end of support of Windows XP that should be included in the article.
My initial attempts at producing suitable paragraphs was criticised as a violation of Wp:NOTHOWTO to which I responded by quoting that guideline: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." This did not satisfy those against, who did not however make any counter propositions. What I wrote was:
I occurred to me that it would be very useful to separate the presentation of the information from a decision about the appropriateness of including (or not) the information in some form or other.
The documentation search ( covered here) revealed descriptions of only two free possibilities for dealing with the end of support of Windows XP, neither of which is currently covered by the article:
Two thirds of the sources mentioned the former and half the latter, indicating that both suggestions are mainstream.
Should they be covered? I suggest people answer with one of the following formulations, to avoid confusion:
If the result of this survey indicates that either option should be included then I will copy this page to talk:Windows XP (where I have already mentioned this RfC) to initiate a discussion about how the information should be phrased.
Poll Closed, see below. Thanks to those who participated.
If editors wish to enter into extended discussion, please do so here rather than in the survey section.
AIRcorn asked why this is on a user page. This was following the suggestion of an experienced editor. I don't know why he made this suggestion, but I've followed it for a number of reasons.
Note that I did not seek to avoid comment by those who had previously posted a negative opinion, and I placed a notice about this RfC on talk:Windows XP in case anyone there wished to participate. Upedge ( talk) 16:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I've now closed this poll. Although the overall direction is clear I don't think it's likely that it will gather enough weight to convince those on Talk:Windows XP to reconsider their position. Given that, I don't think much purpose would be served in copying it to that page - it would just generate more conflict and waste more peoples' time without worthwhile effect, which isn't desirable.
Many thanks to those who responded here. If anyone feels moved to continue the struggle then please feel free to copy this to Talk:Windows XP with appropriate explanation.
As a final thought, Windows XP normally gets around 4k page hits a day. On April 8th alone it got 27.5k and it's a fair bet they were looking for information about the end of support. I don't think it does any credit to WP that they didn't find it. Upedge ( talk) 21:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)