Talk:Make Compatible
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 10 February 2009. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator.. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Article issues
editThis article provides insufficient context to indicate what it is, and no references to indicate why it is notable. If this is something provided with Windows, it should probably be covered there (if at all). Bongomatic 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Notable
editThis is a notable article now. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- It certainly comes much closer to the mark, but interested parties should discuss ways to prevent its deletion or reasons that they won't work at the AfD. MrZaiustalk 16:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I had to reinsert this tag after it was removed, because much of the article currently reads like an instruction manual for someone using the software, and therefore such text is of no interest to anyone not intending to use it within the next few minutes. For those who do intend to use it, the software's help files are much more likely to be used as the source for the requested information than this Wikipedia article will ever be. Therefore, to make this article better, more encyclopedic, the question now is not what should be added to this article, but rather what should be removed from its current version. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Rubbish. You clearly don't have a correct idea of what an instruction manual actually looks like, or of the difference between "information" and "instruction" is, even though it's alluded to in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. There's not one whit of instruction or advice anywhere in the article. You also need to read your Wikipedia:Editing policy. Wikipedia editors are not in the business of removing verifiable information. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I just removed what clearly doesn't belong. If you re-add it, don't come crying when someone else removes it again. Just because information is verifiable does not mean Wikipedia must have it. Should the article about the Louvre Museum contain detailled information about where to find the rest rooms from the main entrance? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, you didn't. You removed information that describes the tool that is the subject of the article. It's information on what it does and why it was important, not an instruction or how-to guide. Warren -talk- 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Introduced in Windows 95
editI am frankly a bit baffled by User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's insistence that mkcompat is only included in Windows 98. This is incorrect, and we have multiple sources in the article that say exactly this. Why else would we have a reference to the Windows 95 Resource Kit, or to this article from 1997, or to MSKB 173086 which all state that it's a part of Windows 95? I don't care if a book says it's in Windows 98; that doesn't preclude its inclusion in Windows 95 or Windows Me. Warren -talk- 19:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- We do not have a reference to the 95 Resource Kit. It's listed in Further Reading. And you should care what the book says. The book is the source. (I could just write from my own personal knowledge on this subject, but I'm making it verifiable for you.) The sources used quite explicitly say Windows 98. One says it in its very title. Find a source that says that it was in Windows 95 and Windows ME as well, and you can change the article to say that. This is how writing verifiable content is done. This is how I, an expert, demonstrate to you and everyone else that I'm not just making stuff up. It's how you demonstrate that, too. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't give a shit about your personal knowledge on this (or any other) subject. I really, honestly don't. Nobody else around here cares either, sources are all that matter when working on Wikipedia. The article contains multiple links to information clearly demonstrating that the tool is included in Windows 95. They are right the fuck there in front of you and yet you willfully chose to ignore them. Why did you do that? Don't give me some hare-brained bullshit about "well my source says it's in Windows 98". So? Your source doesn't say mkcompat isn't in Windows 95 or Windows Me, does it? No? You are perfectly capable of doing a Google search for "mkcompat windows 95" and seeing that the tool is indeed included with Windows 95 and Windows Me.