Difference between revisions of "Talk:DeveloperWiki:CoreSignoffs"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Out of date: re)
(You're right, as always. Booooriiiing /jk)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
::Thanks. Do we close this discussion? -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 12:10, 11 December 2011 (EST)
 
::Thanks. Do we close this discussion? -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 12:10, 11 December 2011 (EST)
 
:::Um... article status templates should always be accompanied by a discussion in the talk page (add to style rules btw?), let's leave this open ^^ -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 12:16, 11 December 2011 (EST)
 
:::Um... article status templates should always be accompanied by a discussion in the talk page (add to style rules btw?), let's leave this open ^^ -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 12:16, 11 December 2011 (EST)
 +
::::I'd appreciate adding this rule to the styleguide.
 +
::::Can we add short explanations to the out-of-date template, a bit like the merge template works <nowiki>{{Out of date|Reason}}</nowiki>? It's just an idea, I'm fine with using talk page comments for this. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 12:24, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Revision as of 17:24, 11 December 2011

Out of date

At least the package names need updating, the list mentions gen-init-cpio and many other deprecated / renamed ones. -- Karol 04:47, 10 December 2011 (EST)

Marked as out of date. -- Kynikos 12:04, 11 December 2011 (EST)
Thanks. Do we close this discussion? -- Karol 12:10, 11 December 2011 (EST)
Um... article status templates should always be accompanied by a discussion in the talk page (add to style rules btw?), let's leave this open ^^ -- Kynikos 12:16, 11 December 2011 (EST)
I'd appreciate adding this rule to the styleguide.
Can we add short explanations to the out-of-date template, a bit like the merge template works {{Out of date|Reason}}? It's just an idea, I'm fine with using talk page comments for this. -- Karol 12:24, 11 December 2011 (EST)