Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tested bad hardware"
From LinuxMCE
(It's not a good idea to keep 3 pages about the hardware status) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Hardware status is now maintained on 3 pages. And that's just sad. It really should be done on a single page. If I want to know if something works, doesn't or unknown I have to check all 3. | Hardware status is now maintained on 3 pages. And that's just sad. It really should be done on a single page. If I want to know if something works, doesn't or unknown I have to check all 3. | ||
Comments like this: "Please keep the page layout the same as Tested good hardware." should give us a clue that we should only have 1 page to do this task. I think we should delete "Tested good hardware" and "Tested bad hardware" and keep only "suggested hardware". It makes things easiest for the user. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 02:05, 24 August 2007 (MST) | Comments like this: "Please keep the page layout the same as Tested good hardware." should give us a clue that we should only have 1 page to do this task. I think we should delete "Tested good hardware" and "Tested bad hardware" and keep only "suggested hardware". It makes things easiest for the user. [[User:Trout|Trout]] 02:05, 24 August 2007 (MST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | *So, can we get some consensus on this? | ||
Revision as of 22:48, 24 August 2007
It's not a good idea to keep 3 pages about the hardware status
Hardware status is now maintained on 3 pages. And that's just sad. It really should be done on a single page. If I want to know if something works, doesn't or unknown I have to check all 3. Comments like this: "Please keep the page layout the same as Tested good hardware." should give us a clue that we should only have 1 page to do this task. I think we should delete "Tested good hardware" and "Tested bad hardware" and keep only "suggested hardware". It makes things easiest for the user. Trout 02:05, 24 August 2007 (MST)
- So, can we get some consensus on this?
