Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tested bad hardware"

From LinuxMCE
Jump to: navigation, search
(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 21:48, 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?