Talk:Windows NT 6.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disambiguation[edit]

Hi, it seems to me this is a case of WP:Disambiguation#Broad-concept articles. Windows NT 6.0 refers to a single version of Windows NT, or at least a set of closely related versions. It is not ambiguous. Each of the articles listed on this page are instances of a 6.0 release. Two of them are linked directly from Windows NT#Releases, and the third (Small Business Server) does not have an article for this specific release, but is mentioned in Windows Server 2008 anyway. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 03:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC).

If this is a disambiguation page, it implies incoming links are taboo and encourages disambiguation changes like “the mklink command on Windows NT 6.0 and later systems” (Hard link diff). I think that link was fine beforehand; not ambiguous at all. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 05:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC).

Hello, Vadmium
First, I disagree with this page being a broad-concept article. This is like Martin Luther King (disambiguation), not like Virtualization. For one thing, "Windows NT 6.0" isn't a concept at all, let alone a broad one; it is part of the identity, a family name and a version number. Moreover, there is nothing about "Windows NT 6.0" to know once the title (e.g. "Windows Vista") is known.
Second, I am afraid revision #609997355 is a bad content fork. Content forks make maintenance difficult.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I guess “broad-concept article” was not a good description. My main point is that “Windows NT 6.0” is not ambiguous. Anyway I prefer restoring the redirect as you did. There was someone else a couple years ago that did not seem happy with the redirect, but I never understood their point of view. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 00:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC).

Hi again. My choice of restoring the redirect is based on an RfD in progress. (I'll dig the link for you though you can just see it in WP:RFD.) Unless I have badly mistaken, the RfD is about to be closed with a redirect verdict like this. I just thought it is a WP:SNOW treatment of the community's consensus. But I am always open to a full blown discussion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, It is me. I'm staying anonymous. But, Windows NT is ambiguous. Why, well NT 6.0 refers to Vista and Server 2008. If you look at the pages for NT 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, they show links for both versions of Windows. This page should be the same as the rest. 72.68.20.239 (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I don't know what to make of "It's me". But the rest of your message is just stating the obvious and a non-existent problem. If you have a point, please go ahead and say it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
My point is that this page should match up with the other Windows NT pages. If they are disambiguation pages, this one should be too. For Example, Windows_NT_6.1 has links to Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2. This page should have links to Vista and Server 2008. 72.68.16.61 (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello again. I get your point. It is an indiscriminate forms of "other stuff exists" arguments, the most hated argument in Wikipedia. MOS:STABILITY categorically forbids changing one page only so that it looks like another page... unless the change is a better idea. Please show me a better idea, if you have one.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)