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


The weblink section is a joke - a good article should contain not more than 5 or 6 weblinks. The rest should be linked as source where it makes sense, or just dropped. This is Wikipedia, not dmoz. -- 03:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

mah.. for me the more links there are, the best is the page -- 22:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Digg/ Rstandefer 20:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a fair point. The wxWidgets site has a more comprehensive list of projects, and it would be sufficient to say something along the lines of "numerous projects make use of wxWidgets" and then to include an external link to the list. The links do not add anything to the article and are essentially irrelevant. Moggie2002 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that, but I think the link would be better as an inline link rather than a reference. The reason being that a lot of people might not catch on that the reference points to a list, as opposed to a source which states that a lot of projects use wxWidgets. I have made the change accordingly. Felixac (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The "See also" section[edit]

All references in this section is examples of other widgets. They are all except Gtkmm listed on Widget toolkit, so why not drop all those references except Widget toolkit?

Done. Replaced all the links with a link to list of toolkits. Ham Pastrami 22:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"native mode" toolkit?[edit]

The use of the term "native mode" is misleading. Following the link for that very term, one sees that what "native mode" means can not be used to describe the difference between WxWidgets and GTK+ or Qt on Windows, for instance. Both of these two other run equally as native code with no emulation involved. What would be a more appropriate description would perhaps be that WxWidget on each platform uses the vendor-provided toolkit. TorLillqvist (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


The text doesn't describe the license correctly.

The license is LGPL 2 with extra wxWindows permissions. GPL and LGPL don't allow for modifications in the text, which is copyrighted, but they allow additional permissions, as long as these don't interfer with the GPL/LGPL licenses themselves. A branch does only need to follow LGPL or GPL at the brancher's option. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Bittorrent 7.2.1 screen.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Bittorrent 7.2.1 screen.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

See also section[edit]

The "see also" section is just a list of different GUI toolkits. But there already is a template which lists GUI toolkits at the page bottom. Should their listing in the "see also" section be removed? See: "and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links" (here). Gryllida 02:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What about virtual machines working well. This usually is a big problem for GUIs. A great info! It does not work well on virtualBox for example!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WxWidgets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead had too much puff[edit]

There's a point where litany defeats summary, and IMO this article had crossed that line. While I don't expect my "rough hand" edit to survive in its present form, I am hoping that the next editor finds a happier balance point. — MaxEnt 18:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)