Talk:MS-DOS

Excessive amount of links
The links in this page should be less. We can't have 5 or 6 different pages only for small variations of the product. I suggest that instead categories should be made, or just general pages, like MS-DOS 3, MS-DOS 4 and so on - SistemaRayoXP

too many links discussion continued........
The way I see it is that we should make pages like for windows. Most of those links are for beta versions of DOS that need to be preserved. - Wilson2bGg

Too many pages makes management harder
If we create pages for every single build of Windows and MS-DOS and for every other build that ever existed, is rumoured, or is fake, we'll end up with a wiki with a thousand articles, of which 700 are only stub articles about builds.

My solution is creating just "main pages". This means creating only pages for major releases, and every minor release, that as you stated need to be preserved, will be merged into its major release.

Example, all the Milestone 4 builds (4001-4011) will be all in the page "Windows:Vista:M4". All the info about all the builds inside this range will go into this page, and they will be organised by titles ( == 4001 ==, == 4008 ==, etc. ) and subtitles ( Features of 4008, changes between 4005 and 4007, etc ).

This organisation avoids creating tons of stub pages while at the same time preserving the information in a more consistent way.

SistemaRayoXP (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2019 (GMT)

I don't think you understand
whats the point of preserving if we pick and choose what to document. In the case of dos, we don't need too many but in the case of Longhorn, we should be documenting as much as we can. That includes fakes. Unconfirmed to exist builds, no we shouldn't. - User:WILSON2bGg

You could have started with that
Really my solution only applies to builds which we can't speak a lot of. There are some builds like 4020 and 4032 which are almost the same. If you can expand an article to more than 3 paragraphs, then sure, create its own article. But if the article can't be longer than 3 paragraphs, it doesn't deserve an article. The only exception should be unconfirmed builds which we have info about

And I never said we choose what to document. The idea is to document everything but to keep the less amount of articles possible. As I stated earlier, too many articles that contain little to no info are completely useless. It's better if the articles just get merged into a bigger article.

I'd like to discuss this on the forum, it would be easier debate what is the best.