Forum:WinCruft: Not just another maintenance issue

Forums: Index > Village Dump > WinCruft: Not just another maintenance issue

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5755 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

ERROR IN FRAME #0077X67X.

Detect "non-genuine" products
Gather user information and credit card numbers
Cripple core system components
Deploy legal team
Launch civil litigation

Estimated time remaining:

Forever, or if you give me a cookie, I might shorten it to an hour.

Installing Windows has never been easiereasy

All you need to do is phone your local Microsoft Customer Representative, write down a very long set of numbers, type it all in, get an error message, phone our Customer Representative again, adjust a few things, get another very long set of numbers, type it all in again, install a few drivers, activate Windows again, lather, rinse and repeat.

Related technology:

Windows Product line:

This copy of Microsoft Windows is not activated.

It's actually more like a maintenance hell.

I spent the last few hours hacking the "Windows" article aggregation template (see above), and what I found therein was a staggering amount of articles that people apparently did not put much thoughts into when they wrote them. Since these Windows/Microsoft -related drivels were pretty much based on bad ideas and even worse executions, spending time trying to save them would be a pure waste of effort (and who is going to read them anyway?) My suggestion is to simply delete these pieces of WinCruft and call it a day, but since that is just my opinion, the ideal way to deal with this issue would be to pass them all through VFD and see which ones would get huffed. In the real world, however, VFD simply does not have that much capacity to handle these entries all at once. This is why I am raising this particular issue here at Village Dump.

A few examples of WinCruft are:

Article	Why it is crufty
"Windows BC"	The word "Windows" followed by two letters is by no means a real joke in its own rights (unless it's "Windows XP", of course). A close examination of the content also reveals that the author(s) did not actually have much to say about the subject, either.
"Windows for Cavemen"	This article is apparently based on an old, photo-shopped picture of the NT BackOffice splash screen. To be honest, even the picture itself is kind of stretching it ("back" -> "prehistoric").
"Windows Hitler"	The Godwin's Law of Uncyclopedia. Nuff' said.
"Windows RG"	This is apparently based on some Flash parody at Newgrounds. Not that I have much to hold against that particular website, it's just that there is simply no reason to write a loving article about it.
"Windows_3.1_(demo)"	I honestly don't recall a demo version of Windows 3.1 (getting old, maybe). But even if it exists, it simply does not deserve its own article. Not even on Wikipedia.
"Windows OMG"	The title says it all.
"Windows Vespa"	This seems to be more an in-joke than anything else, and a bad one at that.
"Windows XD"	This is like the beginning of a Windows version of the Apple iEverything, but this time instead of a lowercase letter, we get to have all kinds of different emoticons instead.
"Windows 2010"	This is an example of an article based on a one-line joke. Or two. At any rate, it bugs me as to why people were actually bothered enough to write a thousand words about the subject.

Dishonourable mentions include:

Article	Why it is horrible
"Windows XP"	Bloated and full of spam, this article almost make the real thing look like a perfert operating system from heaven.
"Windows Me"	This article more makes me wonder why it was created in the first place than reminds me how useless Windows Me was.
"Windows 2000"	It is articles like this that keep people interested in Hollywood movies. Just mindless drivels all the way, from start to finish.
"Windows NT"	This article is apparently too short to even include a version number.

So, any advice/suggestion? -- The Colonel (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Respond below

I would say that its an idea to put them out on VFD over a period (we can take up to twenty at a time) and we'll see what we can do - there's no rush and we can thin them down if you like:)--Sycamore (Talk) 11:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of them are crap and can be safely deleted, but I like the Windows Hitler one. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 11:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I love all of them soooo much, that the only way you can rid the world of them is to slowly put them on VFD. Am I just being a prick? The answer in next weeks episode, titled Modusoperandi: No, he's not just being a prick. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The prick's right. Just run 'em all through VFD, it's what it's there for. If you don't use VFD it might feel underappreciated and run away to Los Angelos with dreams of becoming the next big thing. Of course it'll eventually end up strung out in the gutter and turning tricks to get more crack. Next thing you know you'll see it on the news in a high speed car chase that'll probably end in a fatal crash since I have it on good authority that VFD can't drive for shit. You don't want that all on your conscience do you? DO YOU? -OptyC Sucks!

CUN13:33, 14 Mar

Edit conflict...

Yes, I do agree that VFD is an important process, but when it comes to situations like this it just seems to be a bit too heavyweight to be necessary. Not only that, we need people to make sure that these articles are actually on the voting system when there is space for them. Like I said, some of these articles are not even noticed enough to be worth the trouble rewriting, and by keeping them we are basically just wasting precious time bookkeeping, checking back on them and letting them clog up all available search systems just to frustrate users in general. Hence, it seems to me that what we need is people like Socky to put their hands up and say, "Hey, I really like this and that articles and here is why!" If no one is even bothered enough to do just that, then I don't really see the problem to burn them all just for a good ol' fashioned bonfire. -- The Colonel (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Add them to VFD, slowly. The counter-argument to this is, of course, "but I want to do it now." Well, tough. It'll get done. There is no danger of VFD filling up. As Yoda said to Luke Skywalker, "Patience!" Also, "Your sister, Leia is. Kiss her not."--<<

>> 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Yoda asked Luke "Hot you are. Have a sister do you?" Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Is uncyc just a load of parrots, as this entire thread, like so many, seems to just repeat what I said in the beginning. I have fears that I'm in some kind of solopsistic nightmare.--Sycamore (Talk) 19:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case, it's more support than an echo.--<<

>> 19:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If so, whoever is imagining this has a shitty imagination. I know it can't be me. My imagination is amazing. I'm a pirate! Yar! See? Awesome.Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Mine too. I'm going on an imagication this year to save money (upon the advice of an acquaintance who's big on savings). • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:55, 14 Mar 2009

Yes, put them out on VFD over a period (we can take up to twenty at a time) and we'll see what we can do - there's no rush and we can thin them down if you like.

Also, personally I think it's always a bad idea to delete articles we should have an article on, i.e. the ones in the "dishonourable mentions" table. In these cases it should really be a question of "fix it or make a better one yourself". Especially as many are so old that it was be easy to revert to an acceptable enough old version. Rehabilitation over the death penalty any day! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:53, 14 Mar 2009

So VFD it be

No hard feelings. If people here generally agree to stick with the established procedure, then so be it. And given that there is quite a good amount of space in VFD at the moment and some buzz here to advertise the ongoing, I may as well just put a few articles there and see what will happen.

Now here is another thing. There are some articles in Category:Microsoft that I think would be nice to keep (say, those referring to the real, existing operating systems) but lack the substance to go with. I am not going to look after them all by myself, so is there any chance for a collab? (Or, in other words, are there any people other than myself willing to spend their time to work on them?) -- The Colonel (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: Six articles have now been listed on VFD. Those I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, however, will remain until other articles in the same category have been dealt with so I won't end up having nothing show people in those tables. -- The Colonel (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Windows 7/Windows Hitler

Now that's Fascist!

Would moving the article back to Windows 7 be a good idea? What about reverting to an old revision and making any Hitler references less obvious? If you are not clear on this, the current state of the article has to do with xkcd, which the article specifically mentions as a footnote. Though I admit this is sort of plagiarism...

(Note: I have had no role in editing the aforementioned article, and I am neutral as to what people are doing with it.) --Pentium5dot1 t ~^_^~c 18:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Windows Hitler is a funny name. I'm not sure it is the appropriate name for the article though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It gives Hitler a bad name. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

True. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

But it you think hard enough, you'll realise that your computer is actually Poland. -- The Colonel (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Forum:WinCruft: Not just another maintenance issue

Respond below

So VFD it be

Regarding Windows 7/Windows Hitler

Navigation menu

Search