W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: DigitalIceAge

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{Archives}}

PowerBook 100 ↗ under FA Review



I have nominated PowerBook 100 ↗ for a featured article review here ↗. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria ↗. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here ↗.<!--Template:FARMessage--> George Ho (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

:Hey DIA, saw your comments on the FAR page. Obviously the missing context is something I highlighted on the talk page, but I don't particularly see where that argues against a consolidation. The 100 has some design info that's separate, but there's a lot of redundant info across them (or it would be redundant if the 140 and 170 actually covered the info that's in the 100 article at present) and they were released as a set. Perhaps the 100 has enough separate reception and development info to be better apart, but that's not really evident at present. Regardless, I'm probably going to work on the PowerBook 100 series ↗ as a parent article with an eye to merging the other minor SKUs there; perhaps the 100 fits best there ultimately, perhaps not. Cheers! <span style="color: #ad3e00;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span> <sup><small><span style="color: #ad3e00;">talk</span></small></sup> 23:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::Hi David, I apologize if I sounded kind of curt in that reply on the FAR page. I do think that most entires in the 100 line are independently notable and warrant their own pages. Many, many dead-tree magazines, newspapers, and even several ↗ published ↗ books ↗ spilled a lot of ink about the nuances of the individual models, and I think that consolidation wouldn't do justice to the coverage. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ↗, but it's like the difference between the various iPhones, iPhone Pros, and iPhone SEs across the years, all of which have their own articles.
::Being that the bulk of the sources were published before the Internet, Google is very terrible at uncovering them, but I have access to ProQuest, Gale, and Newspapers.com, and I can tell you that sources number in the hundreds. As you can tell by my user page, I am trying desperately to rescue articles on vintage technology—it is frustrating dealing with the allergy to secondary sources that most of the article stewards had, but I also can't blame them because Google genuinely is so bad at scrounging up the relevant literature. It makes for very a recentist landscape on Wikipedia, where we have hundreds of articles on individual gaming consoles, smartphones, tablets, every flavor and subcomponent of Linux ever, etc. but their ancestors get a one sentence mention if they're lucky, all because the databases don't allow themselves to be indexed by Google. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Hey, no worries, I didn't feel you were curt. I don't disagree with them being notable, it's more whether or not they're better pages discussed in aggregate than apart (basically WP:PAGEDECIDE ↗ stuff.) I've been using a bunch of books and online databases to improve our iMac coverage so I'm definitely familiar with how much you need to search beyond Google these days, especially for pre-ubiquitous internet stuff. But there's plenty of other places to improve that don't have any apparent will to do something about them so I'm probably going to keep chipping away there. <span style="color: #ad3e00;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span> <sup><small><span style="color: #ad3e00;">talk</span></small></sup> 19:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

More redirect requests


Hi. Can you please redirect these ↗ two ↗?102.156.65.169 ↗ (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:Excuse me?102.159.156.200 ↗ (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry, I don't understand the request. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Set them to target here ↗, if you don't mind.102.159.156.200 ↗ (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Done. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::<s>Can you redirect user:torai ↗ to user:tóraí ↗, its associated talk page and possibly others and distinguish any of them to user:torai~enwiki ↗ and/or its talk page?</s>102.159.156.200 ↗ (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)<small>Nevermind.</small>
::::::I am not allowed to create redirects to userpages. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I apologize for making that request. Thank you anyways.102.159.156.200 ↗ (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::No prob. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi there. Do you have access to create templates?
If you did, please don't 4get to transclude them to their respective articles. ''(Hint: Follow the example of Template:Latest stable software release/Microsoft Office 2016 for Mac ↗)''41.230.176.126 ↗ (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
:Done. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please redirect PENSONIC ↗ to pensonic Group ↗? Also, happy third anniversary to your account creation as well as first edit.41.230.168.159 ↗ (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

:Done. And thank you! DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. It is me again, only relocated. Last year, I posted my concerns regarding Template:Timeline Windows ↗ on WP:TfD ↗ and eventually did what I was adviced ↗, only to have my thoughts archived ↗. Any ideas or any actions you have the ability take?197.244.232.1 ↗ (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

:I think once the X-axis year labels start to collide each other is the point at which the timeline should be split. In my opinion, as for now, I think nothing should be done. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::Hi. I've just realized that while visiting the Windows Server ↗ page, there used to be an LSR template depicting the updates for WS2022. Now, it only displays those of W11. There does appear not to be an LSR template for the latest WS version; not even transcluded in its own page.197.244.209.77 ↗ (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Can you create template:latest stable software release/Windows Server 2025 ↗ with these lines?
:::<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">
{{LSR
|article=Windows Server 2025
|latest release version=24H2 (10.0.26100.2894)
|latest release date={{Start date and age|2025|01|14}}<ref>{{cite web|url=https://support.microsoft.com/help/5050009|title=January 14, 2025—KB5050009 (OS Build 26100.2894)|work=Microsoft Support|publisher=Microsoft ↗}}</ref>
}}<noinclude>

←Back to article "'''Windows Server 2025 ↗'''"

{{Template reference list}}

Windows Server 2025 ↗
</noinclude>
</syntaxhighlight>
:::197.244.209.77 ↗ (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Mister {{u|digitalIceAge}}, it has been a month since I've placed this request. Is everything alright?197.240.46.171 ↗ (talk)

Hi. Long time no see. Say, is it OK for U to update the Microsoft Office#Timelines of support ↗ section?
{{text diff|1=
{{!}}row5=timeline
{{!}}row5-style=styleDef
{{!}}row5-1-to={{Year decimal|2015-09-22}}
{{!}}row5-2-to={{Year decimal|2020-10-13}}
{{!}}row5-2-style=styleSS
{{!}}row5-3-to={{Year decimal}}
{{!}}row5-3-style=styleSE
{{!}}row5-3-border=2px red solid
{{!}}row5-4-to={{Year decimal|2025-10-14}}
{{!}}row5-4-style=styleRE
{{!}}row5-2-text=Office 2016 ↗
|2=
{{!}}row5=timeline
{{!}}row5-style=styleDef
{{!}}row5-1-to={{Year decimal|2015-09-22}}
{{!}}row5-2-style=styleSS
{{!}}row5-2-to={{Year decimal|2020-10-13}}
{{!}}row5-3-style=styleSE
{{!}}row5-3-to={{Year decimal|2025-10-14}}
{{!}}row5-4-border=2px red solid
{{!}}row5-4-to={{Year decimal}}
{{!}}row5-2-text=Office 2016 ↗
}}
{{text diff|1=
{{!}}row4=timeline
{{!}}row4-style=styleDef
{{!}}row4-1-to={{Year decimal|2018-09-24}}
{{!}}row4-2-to={{Year decimal|2023-10-10}}
{{!}}row4-2-style=styleSS
{{!}}row4-3-to={{Year decimal}}
{{!}}row4-3-style=styleSE
{{!}}row4-3-border=2px red solid
{{!}}row4-4-to={{Year decimal|2025-10-14}}
{{!}}row4-4-style=styleRE
{{!}}row4-2-text=Office 2019 ↗
|2=
{{!}}row4=timeline
{{!}}row4-style=styleDef
{{!}}row4-1-to={{Year decimal|2018-09-24}}
{{!}}row4-2-style=styleSS
{{!}}row4-2-to={{Year decimal|2023-10-10}}
{{!}}row4-3-style=styleSE
{{!}}row4-3-to={{Year decimal|2025-10-14}}
{{!}}row4-4-border=2px red solid
{{!}}row4-4-to={{Year decimal}}
{{!}}row4-2-text=Office 2019 ↗
}}
The reason being, as U might have already known, Support for Office 2016 & 2019 have come to an end ↗ as at the time of editing.102.31.182.203 ↗ (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Awesome Aasim}} can you make my requested changes instead?102.31.182.203 ↗ (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
::Hi, sorry for the delay. If you would like to make an edit request you click "view source" then "submit an edit request" then fill in the appropriate fields explaining in an X to Y format what you want to add then submit. I hope this helps! Aasim (<ruby>話す<rp>（</rp><rt>はなす</rt><rp>）</rp></ruby> ↗) 21:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
:It doesn't look like anything needs to be changed. The timeline already reflects that Office 2016/2019 are currently unsupported. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Category:Conglomerate companies disestablished in 2024 ↗


48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

A tag has been placed on :Category:Conglomerate companies disestablished in 2024 ↗ indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category ↗, a category redirect ↗, a featured topics category ↗, under discussion at Categories for discussion ↗, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and removing the speedy deletion tag. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">'''''L'''''iz</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">'''''Read!''''' ↗ '''''Talk!'''''</sup> 00:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

List of Computer Chronicles episodes ↗



Hi, I am wondering where you got the Original air dates from? Some videos on the archive have a record date in the beginning, others a broadcast date, others nothing. ZombieLeChuck (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

:I don't exactly remember, but I think I got the air dates from TheTVDB.com ↗. Reliable sources about dates are hard to come by; I could probably find newspaper columns on Newspapers.com establishing the air dates of individual episodes, but unfortunately that service is down right now. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::I just found a site with people who take care of retrieving meta data from the tapes (https://computerchronicles.karpour.net/). Will see if they correspond. Thanks! ZombieLeChuck (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Help for Draft:Siliconix ↗



Hi, me again. Given your expertise in similar old tech companies' histories, I would like to ask your help in Siliconix article that is in draft ↗. Only extensive info that I could find about the company were Vishay webpage, EEJournal curation and news regarding Vishay's acquisition of the company. As far as I remember you have a good collection of old tech magazines so it would be awesome if you can find more, better sources. Thanks in advance! VectorVoyager (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

:Punching in '"Siliconix" "Hugle"' into Google Books I'm seeing a number of good books that discuss the company's history at length. Unfortunately most are only in snippet form ↗. I'll see what I can do. Right now I'm waiting for the WMF to repair Wikipedia Library ↗ proxy login access to Newspapers.com, as that's been invaluable to me in researching defunct tech companies in particular. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|VectorVoyager}} Finally got access back to Newspapers.com and expanded the article. Take a look: Siliconix ↗. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::Looks nice, thank you! VectorVoyager (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started



Hi DigitalIceAge. Thank you for your work on Technology Connections ↗. Another editor, Sdkb, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=This article was quite recently deleted ↗ at AfD. It seems you've created it independently, possibly unaware of that. You have a few sources not discussed at the AfD, but they're pretty iffy in terms of qualifying for notability, so on the whole this article is still on shaky ground. As such, I'm removing its autopatrolled status to give an independent reviewer the opportunity to check its notability.}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>Sdkb<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. <small>(Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)</small><!-- Template:Sentnote-NPF -->

<span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"><span style="color:#FFF;text-decoration:inherit;font:1em Lucida Sans">Sdkb</span></span> <sup>'''talk'''</sup> 15:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

:No, I was aware of the AfD nomination; that's how I found some of the sources needed to flesh out the page. The article cites plenty of sources with sigcov of Watson's channel, with plenty of opinion and not just mere rote regurgitation of his videos. For example, in a pretty beefy paragraph with editorializing and all, ''Consumer Reports'' cites Watson as a direct inspiration for the magazine performing a thorough investigation of the problem he brings up in the video. Which caused Hyundai to respond to ''CR'' promising to address the issue! Not what I would call "passing coverage"! DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Dynatech



Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Technology Connections ↗


48px|left|alt=|link= ↗
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article ↗.</p><p>You may want to consider using the Article Wizard ↗ to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on :Technology Connections ↗ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion ↗, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology Connections ↗. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Technology+Connections|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here ↗. <!-- Template:Db-repost-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

:Hey {{ping|Bobby Cohn}} Did you actually {{em|read}} the article as it stood when the AfD closed? It resembles nothing like the current version whatsoever ↗. The tag is bogus on those grounds, so I have reverted it. Please do your research before nominating articles for G4 speedily deletion; don't just assume that a recreated article is a Ctrl+C Ctrl+V job. DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
::You're right, my apologies. I hadn't checked to see if the page had been archived, so I was trying to evaluate if the arguments made in the AfD looked like they applied to the current revision. All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::No worries! DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

re the SVG's for Logitech



Thanks for the updated logo images for Logitech. I've almost no experience manipulating image stuff on WP; I was wondering if there's a way you could separate each of them as their own 'box', with even a slight gap between them? When I look at them, it's (mildly) confusing which text goes with each image, because they're all 'connected' so to speak. No worries if you can't, it's a very small matter! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

:No prob! Yes, {{tl|Multiple image}} has an {{tt|image_gap}} parameter that can be set to add a larger gap around the images. I've just set it to 15 (3× larger than the default gap). DigitalIceAge (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks very much! Definitely an improvement. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Simon (software) ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speech dictation ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of :Technology Connections ↗ for deletion


<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Technology Connections ↗ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗.

The article will be discussed at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology Connections&#32; (2nd nomination) ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> StewdioMACK (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Help with Accel edits



Hi, {{u|DigitalIceAge}}. It's nice to meet you. I work for Accel and I've declared my COI, which means I can't edit the firm's page ↗ directly. I noticed your impressive editing and interest in companies, including Accel way back in 2022, and was hoping you'd be willing to consider my suggested improvements and updates to the Accel entry, detailed here: Talk:Accel_(company)#Consolidation_and_Clarity ↗. Thank you for your review and input, SClay53 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Erroneous newline



I've been adding whitespace between templates related to the title, setup and content control and similar looking source statements that produces actual article content, typically infoboxes, navboxes and lead images. And more whitespace prior to the start of the lead. This whitespace doesn't affect rendering of the article so I wouldn't describe it as erroneous. It helps me more easily locate key pieces of source code when editing. I appreciate that it is not productive to twiddle this stuff back and forth so I only add whitespace in conjunction with other improvements and I don't revert anyone who wants to remove it and I don't actually think is is something worth arguing about but since you apparently feel strongly enough to revert ↗ these, I thought I'd let you know my thinking. ~Kvng (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

:In this case it actually {{em|did}} affect the rendering by creating a blank paragraph at the very top of the article body. On my browser this makes for a distractingly bigger-than-usual gap ↗ between the title heading and the first paragraph of the lede. I don't know if that's MediaWiki's parser glitching out or a fault with the infobox template or what. DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::I don't see this but I have some other stuff occupying that gap from tools like ShortDesc Helper ↗. I'll stop adding WS and maybe try to figure out what's going on. Thanks for sharing the screenshot. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research



Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this '''anonymous survey ↗'''.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page ↗ and view its privacy statement ↗ .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team ↗

<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 -->

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research



Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page ↗ and view its privacy statement ↗.

Take the survey '''here ↗'''.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team ↗

<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744489 -->

SVG logos



I just wrote the following essay page, let me know if you have any comments on it! Since you've quite frequently contributed them :) Wikipedia:Find SVG logos ↗. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|PhotographyEdits}} Excellent job! Since this advice also applies at Wikimedia Commons, I would recommend copying this page to Wikimedia Commons (under, say, Commons:Find SVG logos ↗).
:On an unrelated note, since I know you like ThinkPads a lot, I'm currently working on a comprehensive list of all models in the range in my userspace at User:DigitalIceAge/List of ThinkPad models. It's a mammoth undertaking but will be well worth it in the end, I think.
:Unfortunately, I don't have as much free time to work on big projects like this at the moment, so if you want to take a stab at completing it, feel free to contribute to that page, however you see fit. I initialy borrowed from this list from thinkwiki.org ↗ and this spreadsheet copied from Lenovo's website ↗ to populate the list, stripping all details beyond model names and such. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::Great list! I would suggest removing the brand column and instead mentioning in the lead that models after a certain date because Lenovo, with a link to the acquisition article. I'll try to fill in some more info when I have time for that, it's an article that should've already existed. :)
::Will copy the essay to Commons, good idea! PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::I have removed the brand column. I was thinking about the series / model columns and I'm not really a fan because:
::* They are frequently the same
::* If they are not the same, they commonly link to the same article
::I'm not supporting merging rows to de-duplicate series because that hinders sorting.
::What do you think about <code>Model (Series)</code> as a format, in a single column? And then making the <code>(Series)</code> optional. A downside of this is that it would need to duplicate the literal <code>series</code> a lot, because for example <code>T20 (T)</code> is unclear.
::We could also merge the series and model column together only if they link to the same article. I think that is the best option, but I'm not really sure. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The changes look good. I think we can just eliminate the series column altogether and link the series articles directly through each model number in the model column, since most of the model numbers have prefixes that imply what series they belong to anyway (e.g. T20 is obviously T series). DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/08&oldid=1258243765 -->

Terak



Hi! Just curious about your interest/knowledge in Terak. How did that come to be? My father is Dennis. 67.63.80.233 ↗ (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

:I had read about the 8510 a few years ago while researching digital image processing and graphics workstations and found the company historically significant enough to write about. I also have a relative who worked at Calcomp in the 1980s and the name came up once. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::Well we both appreciate your helping remember the project and past. 67.63.80.233 ↗ (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you! {{-)}} DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

DEC Multia



I've been trying to add a logo to the DEC Multia ↗ page. So far the best version of the logo I've found is this one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/31231773@N02/4462294854/in/album-72157623690009650/ (not a single one in a PDF unfortunately).

Do you happen to have any idea what the font is? It kinda looks like a wider version of Helvetica, but that isn't it for sure (the a doesn't match for example). WhatTheFont doesn't give me any useful pointers either. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

:It kind of looks like mutant Avenir ↗ to me, but I can't say for certain. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

My heartfelt thanks and appreciation for your work



Greetings Digital! I know you have way too little time to stop by, though I still just have to thank you for all your tedious and hard work, in constantly expand and create new articles – Especially that beloved topic of yours on everything digital! ''Thanks muchly!''

I really appreciate your work-ethic and never-ending efforts to cover the topics and forgotten companies, products and people! {{red|♥}} <b><span style="color:red">Smart</span><span style="color:#CCCCCC;">com</span><span style="color:green">5</span></b> <sup>(Talk?)</sup> 21:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks a lot for the kind words! The writing process is definitely tedious at times, but I enjoy it all the same. {{-)}} DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

More Dynatech



For your perusal: I found this Dynatech Frontier comment ↗ in an OSHA docket. (Incidentally, Western Electric ↗, Mead ↗, unions ↗, and couple dozen others submitted comments as well- the proposed rule by 3M ↗ must've been real controversial...) ——'''Randoms'''tapler's '''alt''' 01:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:It also seems to be longer than ''every other comment'' (combined?) in that docket. One can imagine... ——'''Randoms'''tapler's '''alt''' 01:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Moto



Many thanks for creating nice graphic logos for Startac and Microtac! Are you able to do the same for other products like V Series, even MotoSlvr, and maybe even non-Moto products? I've worked hard on getting logos here but I only know how to screenshot and don't know how to make the real graphics. If you can do others that'd be great too. Knoxmann (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:No problem! I use a program called Inkscape ↗, which allows me to extract the logos in their vector forms ↗ from PDF manuals and brochures. This allows them to be razor-sharp and infinitely scalable, without artifacts. The only catch is that the PDF has to be born digital; it can't be a scan or a photograph of a document. There's a guide on how to extract logos from PDFs here: Wikipedia:Find SVG logos ↗. If you give me a list of links PDF links, I can also do it myself. DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
::Most of my ones were site or even video screenshots if I couldn't find it on manuals. Still if you have the ability to make logos transparent (i've uploaded tons but they aren't, you can check my uploads out) it would be better than now. The logo for Motorola V phone ↗ / v60 I actually did get from a PDF! Here https://telekomunikacije.info/pdf/mot_v2288.pdf ↗ hopefully it is digital like you say. Also if this does work out, change it from gold to black as the gold is only for show in this particular brochure. Knoxmann (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
::I have made many requests over at Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Phone_logos ↗. --Knoxmann (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I'll get to these soon. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks. I just noticed I made 3 replies to you so apologies if it got overwhelming! Also you might be interested in what I wrote today on Talk:StarTAC ↗ regarding sales. Knoxmann (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::No you're fine, I just got busy IRL, plus I wanted time to chew on the question below before I could give a good answer. That's an interesting point about the StarTAC, I'll have to investigate it someday. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
::By tehe way MicroTac still has the 'may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines' and 'may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view'. I have tried but have not really been able to make it all good. I wonder how it could be fixed. Knoxmann (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{s|It would need to be heavily rewritten, if not totally overhauled.}} Looking at it closer it's actually not that bad, it just needs more and better citations. The existing citations are mostly Motorola manuals and the like, which we should cite only minimally (see WP:INDEPENDENT ↗), and fan websites, which we really shouldn't cite at all. Writing articles about old tech from before circa 1996, like the MicroTAC, is tough because even though hundreds of magazines and newspapers wrote about these products {{em|extensively}}, the vast majority of those sources only existed in print (predating the web) and are largely not indexed by search engines like Google. Resources like Google Books and the Internet Archive have a lot scanned and available for reading, but they don't have everything. Google Books in particular only has a handful of magazines available for reading in their entirety, and the rest are locked up behind Snippet View ↗, which is highly annoying and doesn't get you full citations unless you're creative.
:::What you really need is access to The Wikipedia Library ↗. It is a {{em|hugely}} useful resource, and I cannot recommend it highly enough. You need to be registered on Wikipedia for half a year and have over 500 edits, which sucks, but once you get it you have access to Gale, ProQuest, and EBSCOhost, which are basically the holy trinity of print research databases, plus others like Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive.
:::Gale ↗ especially is a wonderful resource; I use it obsessively every day, not only for Wikipedia but for looking up random obscure things I find in the wild at flea markets and at thrift stores. Search for the MicroTAC on Gale, I'm finding hundreds of sources in magazines like ''Cellular Business'', ''HFD'', ''Home Office Computing'', and others. ProQuest ↗ is also great, especially for mainstream newspapers and magazines. After you've assembled enough secondary sources, it's just a matter of paraphrasing and assembling the information in a way that general readers can understand. It's tough at first, but if you're an old hand at exploratory essays it's not that bad, and after a while it becomes rote and almost subconscious. Good luck! DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks! If anything this article looks much better now after our edits compared to how it was a few weeks ago. Knoxmann (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Your technical move request


40px|left|alt=|link= ↗

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}, your {{#if: Moist county (Kentucky) ||1293384225}}#{{#invoke:String|sub|{{#invoke:BaseConvert|16to36|{{#invoke:Hash function|main|adler32|{{#invoke:string|replace|plain=false| Moist county (Kentucky) Moist county |%W|}}}}}}|-3}}|recent request ↗|recent request}} at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests ↗ has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial ↗.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Stop Killing Games


{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On 3 July 2025 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Stop Killing Games ↗''''', which you recently nominated. The fact was ''... that the YouTuber behind '''Stop Killing Games ↗''' compared video-game publishers shutting down online-only games to silent-era film studios "burning their own films&nbsp;... to recover the silver content"?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stop Killing Games ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(here's how, Stop Killing Games ↗)</small>, and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page ↗.
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
{{DYK views|38,552|1,606.3|July 2025|Stop Killing Games}} GalliumBot (talk • contribs ↗) (he/it ↗) 03:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Dartmouth ALGOL 30



Hi, way back in February you voted in this AfD ↗ to merge Dartmouth ALGOL 30 ↗ to Dartmouth Time-Sharing System#Early history ↗. It's now the oldest listed at :Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion ↗, and whilst I could try performing it if needed, you seem to have much more expertise in this subject than I and your help would be appreciated. Instructions at WP:PROMERGE ↗ for your convenience if you choose to take this on. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|GoldRomean}} I honestly don't know a ton about ALGOL, so I'm kinda punching above my weight, but I gave it a shot ↗ anyway. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks! It looks pretty good imo (better than I could've done anyway). GoldRomean (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Partiful



Hi DigitalIceAge, I have a few suggestions for the Partiful ↗ article. As your work seems to be focused on technology, I would appreciate if you would take a look here ↗. Thanks so much! Lucas285 (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the save!



Awesome stuff on MacHTTP ↗! Clearly I need to do better when I'm looking for references to old software, but luckily you did that quite well!

One funny thing I noticed—in Google Books, did you see the summary it lists for ''The Web Server Handbook''? It's extremely bizarre and clearly for a different book. Very odd. Perryprog (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

:No problem! Can't blame you for not finding anything on first blush. Sources for old software is largely the domain of dead-tree magazines and books, and navigating Google Books' snippet view, Internet Archive, etc. can be a slog.
:I didn't notice the mismatched book summary. That is weird. I was gonna say it might be Google's AI hallucinating, but it turns out it's for an autobiography called ''Moonlight on Linoleum''. Probably a fat-finger error. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Your technical move request


40px|left|alt=|link= ↗

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}, your {{#if: Z (joke line) ||1308680550}}#{{#invoke:String|sub|{{#invoke:BaseConvert|16to36|{{#invoke:Hash function|main|adler32|{{#invoke:string|replace|plain=false| Z (joke line) Zzzzzz |%W|}}}}}}|-3}}|recent request ↗|recent request}} at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests ↗ has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial ↗.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Fwd: WRT Windows 3.0 logo



Hi, I've left a comment on Talk:Windows 3.0 ↗ that may be of interest. What sound does a duck make (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Trusteer



If the corporate structure of Trusteer within IBM has changed, then that information should be added to the article, with an appropriate reference. The lead sentence could then be something like "Trusteer is a brand used by IBM for...", or "... division of ..." or whatever IBM consider it to be.

Putting the whole thing into the past tense and categorising it as "defunct" is IMO completely misleading. - IMSoP (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

:Sure, I can revise the opening sentence to read that way. The only sources I can find that support Trusteer being consolidated are from IBM themselves, namely these ↗ two ↗ PDFs regarding Rapport that only list IBM in the legal footer. Same with the website: trusteer.com redirects to ibm.com. If it were an active subsidiary of IBM like Red Hat ↗ or Apptio ↗, it would still have its own website like those two do. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Photos requested


Could you please look at the Talk:Byte_Shop ↗ page? Thank you. --YanagisawaRetro (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/07&oldid=1322758895 -->

Your nomination of Epson MX-80 ↗ has passed



Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Epson MX-80 ↗ has <span class="nowrap">20px|alt=|link= ↗ </span>'''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Epson MX-80/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days.<!-- Template:GANotice |result=pass --> <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joereddington</small> -- Joereddington (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Epson MX-80


{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 13 January 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Epson MX-80 ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the '''Epson {{nowrap|MX-80}} ↗''' was the best-selling dot-matrix printer during its market lifespan?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Epson MX-80 ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(here's how, Epson MX-80 ↗)</small>, and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> &nbsp;—&nbsp;Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Vector logo of Centaur Technology



Hi! I have looked in a bunch of PDFs to find a vector logo of Centaur Technology ↗. So far I have been unsuccessful. I wonder if you would be able to find it, before I start to recreate the logo myself. PhotographyEdits (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

:This is the best version I have found, and it is not even a transparent version: https://web.archive.org/web/20200703221539/https://www.centtech.com/wp-content/uploads/Centaur_logo.jpg PhotographyEdits (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
::Sorry, I tried looking through archive.org's PDF search looking for an embedded vector of the logo, and I couldn't find anything either. Just embedded bitmaps like this ↗. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Listing for discussion of :Template talk:Oracle FOSS ↗


30px|link=|alt= ↗ :Template talk:Oracle FOSS ↗ has been listed for discussion ↗, which may result in the template being merged ↗ or deleted ↗ by consensus ↗. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at '''the entry on the Templates for discussion page''' ↗.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> CaribDigita (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

on sourcing



Hi mate, great work with ''Gord@k ↗''. I've been recently focusing on creating and improving 90s PC game articles and came across ''Gord@k'', but wrote it off as I couldn't find enohgh coverage on the Internet Archive. What kind of methods did you use to get the citations? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for the compliment! That one was dumb luck. I was searching the Internet Archive for information about ''Gord@k'' after learning about it through a YouTuber ↗, and someone just so happened to upload a scan of a magazine ↗ with an extensive review of the game on the very same day.
:The development source I found through Google Books, but it was locked behind snippet view. You can coax Google into giving the contents of the full article by feeding excerpts from the snippet text (enclosed in quotes) back into the Google Books search bar. Doing this usually gives you adjacent text that wasn't revealed in the snippet the first time. Feeding the adjacent text back into Google Books this way will eventually give you the contents of the full article. As a warning, it takes sometimes hundreds of queries to get it all, and all the while Google will constantly ask you to fill out captchas because it thinks you're a bot.
:The rest was all ProQuest, Google Books, and Internet Archive. ProQuest is the most useful research database to me, but Gale and Newspapers.com are also great. If you have access to the The Wikipedia Library ↗, you should be able to access them all for free. DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::Duly noted, I've checked out Newspapers via the WL but ProQuest is a new ome to look into. As you know, other than the ample magazine coverage from that era, there's little web and a Lot of print is lost to time. So this is really good to know. Thanks for the thoughtful response! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of :Future Internet ↗ for {{#switch:|merge|merging=merging {{#if:|to {{{target}}} ↗}}|redirect|redirecting=redirecting {{#if:|to {{{target}}} ↗}}|draft|draftify|draftifying|draftification=draftification|#default=deletion}}


<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Future Internet ↗ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be {{#switch:|merge|merging=merged ↗ {{#if:|to {{{target}}} ↗}}|redirect|redirecting=redirected ↗ {{#if:|to {{{target}}} ↗}}|draft|draftify|draftifying|draftification=draftified ↗|#default=deleted ↗}}.

The article will be discussed at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Internet ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> DefaultFree (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Information on Vermont Microsystems?



Where did you find that information on the story of the PGC? Fresh research or did you know to go looking? That's great!!! —DIYeditor (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

:Fresh research, actually. I maintain several large lists of red links to create that are based on collections of hardware that other people have, and their name caught my eye. I was not expecting them to have such a big role in the history of the PC's video hardware. I'm glad you like it! DigitalIceAge (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

":Just Crack an Egg ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗


30px ↗
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Just_Crack_an_Egg&redirect=no Just Crack an Egg]</span> has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 19#Just Crack an Egg}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> —<b style="font-family: verdana; color:#803280;">Myceteae</b><span style="visibility:hidden; color:transparent; padding-left:2px">&zwj;</span>🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Computer Chronicles Archiving



I saw your comment on the Computer Chronicles Episodes page and figured you'd be interested in knowing that there is a project me and several Internet Archive volunteers are running to once and for all properly archive the show. We assembled a definite (correct) episode list, added metadata, guests, etc, we also managed to track down 20 of the 35 missing episodes so far and put them on the archive. If you would like to join our efforts, please let me know!
The dataset will eventually serve as a source for a proper episode list on Wikipedia, as a lot of the information on the archive (and both the TVDB and Wikipedia page, which are based on it) is not correct. Karpour (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

:Sounds very interesting! ''CC'' is invaluable to me as a springboard for research, and I would be interested in volunteering metadata for sure. Let me know how I can help. DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::We have a metadata editor here: https://computerchronicles.karpour.net/
::There's a link to a discord server, as well as my email address. Karpour (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive



{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFF; padding:10px 15px 0; color: black"
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-size:130%" |'''Good article nominations ↗ |''' <span style="font-size:85%">June 2026 Backlog Drive</span>
|rowspan=3|right|75px ↗
|-
|'''June 2026 Backlog Drive:'''
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?
Interested in taking part? You can '''sign up here ↗'''.
|-
|colspan=2|'''Other ways to participate:'''
|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.
|}

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:TechnoSquirrel69@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/June_2026/Mass_message_list&oldid=1356124266 -->

Closure request


In regard to {{diff|Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Packard Bell Corporation#Merge proposal|next|1360254513|[this response]}}, page merging appears to be [in an interim stage ↗]. At present and according to WP:MERGE ↗, if a merge is thought to be controversial it should be nominated at AfD rather than on the talk page of the merging article. And any page taken to AfD should be closed by an uninvolved editor. I read all this to mean that uncontroversial merge proposals, such as the one at [Talk:Packard Bell Corporation ↗], could still be closed by any editor, to include involved editors. Anyway, that's my take, and I could be wrong, so let's get editor {{u|Iseult}}'s ideas on this as well. '''''<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;<span style="color:black">ed.</span> ↗&nbsp;–&nbsp;''welcome!''&nbsp;–&nbsp;<small>14:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)</small>

:It had been my understanding that even involved editors can close discussions; the risk is merely that the close is easily challenged and might not reflect true consensus. Where’d that line go, haha?
:I think that, in general, CR isn’t the place to take discussions that aren’t close to thorny, but I’m happy to action those closes. In solidarity ↗, <span style="color: #35b794">'''I'''seult</span><span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>'' Δx '' ↗</sup>talk to me</span> 17:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you''!'' It used to be written I'm pretty sure at WP:MERGE ↗; however, now it seems that only controversials are covered at that "info" page. We completely agree that when the outcome turns out to be uncontroversial, anybody, even editors who have been involved in the merge talk, should be able to close the discussion and to also implement any outcome if they want to. That should also be the case for uncontroversial merge outcomes at AfD. Since all this is presently in a state of flux, and older talks are still on talk pages of articles instead of at AfD, regardless of controversy/uncontroversy, this may be an issue that still needs to be handled/documented/perhaps-even-decided? '''''<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;<span style="color:black">ed.</span> ↗&nbsp;–&nbsp;''welcome!''&nbsp;–&nbsp;<small>17:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)</small>
:::I see now that WP:NACD ↗, linked via WP:AFD ↗, forbids involved closures. This is disappointing when it comes to mergers (also, {{u|Paine Ellsworth}}, what do you think of soft deletions getting listed here? These are limited to admins as only they can action deletions. Maybe those should be listed in the admin-only section or we should look into the mop?). So, DigitalIceAge, sorry about the uninformed comment. In solidarity ↗, <span style="color: #35b794">'''I'''seult</span><span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>'' Δx '' ↗</sup>talk to me</span> 17:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Well, to address the deletions, I think it's okay to list all deletion talks in their own section as it is now. Admins know to go there and check for the very reason that "delete" outcomes are only actionable by them. And yet "keep" outcomes, and now merge outcomes, both actionable by admins ''and'' non-admins, deserve their own section at WP:CR ↗. If you decide to go for the mop, I'll be happy to support you. Me? I've tried twice, and I'm still an apprentice mopper. Not all of us seem to be cut out for it. And yes, editor DigitalIceAge, apologies for all this confusion on my part. The bottom line is that I'm not sure about that yellow cue ball note... maybe it needs an update as well? '''''<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;<span style="color:black">ed.</span> ↗&nbsp;–&nbsp;''welcome!''&nbsp;–&nbsp;<small>19:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)</small>

I'd also like to get editor {{u|Primefac}}'s take. Is it still true that editors involved in uncontroversial merge talks can still close them? If so, where has it now been written ''or'' where should it be documented? (I think it used to be at WP:MERGE ↗, but not anymore.) '''''<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;<span style="color:black">ed.</span> ↗&nbsp;–&nbsp;''welcome!''&nbsp;–&nbsp;<small>15:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)</small>
:A few thoughts, not necessarily in any order. Not all discussions require "official" closure; the Bell discussion is unanimously opposed so I don't think the extra step of listing it at WP:CR ↗ was necessary (just let the discussion die off and then eventually get archived). That being said, if a discussion ''is'' going to be closed, there's nothing wrong with listing it at WP:CR ↗ if you're involved (I'm not ''entirely'' why the discussion at CR happened, that's the whole point of CR to list old discussions). Ideally one who voted in a discussion shouldn't close it, but on the other hand if it's unanimous (or very close) then it's not strictly forbidden (see my earlier point about irrelevance). On the whole I feel like I'm missing part of the discussion, in that nothing appears to have been done incorrectly? {{ppor}} Primefac (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
::Well, okay then, so the little blurb that was removed from MERGE about it being okay for involved editors to close unanimous or near-unanimous uncontroversial merge discussions was indeed removed purposefully. So now editors like this user, who might not be experienced enough to know what's "not strictly forbidden" (and yet unwritten), will continue to bring these talks to CR, and other editors will end up having this same discussion in the future over... and over... again on someone elses' talk pages. OR that could be nipped in the bud, couldn't it? We could return the blurb, and as well apply it to AfD merge talks that turn out to be uncontroversial. If there really is no reason why any editor couldn't conceivably close with such an easy decision, then shouldn't it be stated explicitly? (so editors don't have to "guess"?) '''''<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;<span style="color:black">ed.</span> ↗&nbsp;–&nbsp;''welcome!''&nbsp;–&nbsp;<small>20:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)</small>
::There are further clarifications at WP:MERGE#Procedure ↗ and at WT:Articles for deletion/Implementing the PAM–AfD merge#Closing formal merge discussions ↗. Essentially, the older talks on article talk pages can be closed by involved editors, while new formal merge discussions that are posted to AfD will follow the AfD rules at WP:NACD ↗. {{gi|Any editor, including the editor who originally proposed the merge, is permitted to perform a merge in accordance with consensus, as merging articles does not require intervention from an administrator.}} So this means that any discussion like the one at [Talk:Packard Bell Corporation ↗] does not need to be closed. For a discussion that goes the other way, that is, there is obvious consensus to merge, then any editor, involved or not involved, to include the nom who started the discussion, can perform the merge without actually closing the discussion. Heaven help me, I do hope this clears it all up''!'' '''''<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;<span style="color:black">ed.</span> ↗&nbsp;–&nbsp;''welcome!''&nbsp;–&nbsp;<small>13:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)</small>

Image tagging for File:MacPerspective icon.png


Thanks for uploading ''':File:MacPerspective icon.png ↗'''. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link ↗, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions ↗.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)