Talk:Bare-metal server

124.154.166.56 - why remove quotes?

Why are you stripping content from this article? I'm happy with the "descriptive term" bit, but explaining the two crucial terms in two paras is clearer, and the quote about clouding bare-metal servers is sourced and relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not "stripping content". Please be a bit more mature here. You are leaving dishonest edit summaries like "ce" when undoing all of my changes without discussing them. I find that very disruptive.

A 'bare-metal server' is a computer server that is a 'single-tenant physical server'.

These single quotes are not useful and do not accord with the manual of style. So why did you put them back?

Three successive paragraphs beginning with "bare metal servers" is absurdly repetitive. Why do you want the article to be repetitive in this way?

The article says "At one time", which I tagged with {{when}}, because it is not useful if the time frame is not specified. You removed this tag without explanation. Why?

The article had "all" in italics, for no clear reason, so I removed it. You put it back without explanation. Why?

Quotes must be used in accordance with the policies of the encyclopaedia. They must be valid fair use, which means there must be no free alternative available, and the source must be clearly identified. Typically, this means you are quoting someone's words, and so you would say "person X said thing Y [source]". The "quote" you restored was not a quotation from anyone, it clearly was not anything that could not be replaced by a free alternative, and the quote was not attributed. So why did you put it back? 124.154.166.56 (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Several people at the AfD (including myself) suggested merging this article if a suitable target is found. Pinging all commenters on that AfD: @Rhadow, TheDragonFire, Andy Dingley, AtlasDuane, and Capitals00: power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose You have yet to give any good reason for merger, or any indication what the benefit would be. You have claimed that the term is jargon (and so would belong nowhere). You have claimed that the article is "poor quality", which merger would make worse, not better. You have offered to merge it to an article that doesn't exist (and which anyway means the opposite of it), or to another article that has no references at all. You even mentioned "computer" as being a synonym for it (of course it isn't, it's a hyponym), as if that was a suitable target. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)