Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Computing (failed proposal)/Archive 1

message: I have created this page to help writers of articles documenting commands and such to maintain a clean, professional look (and to make them easier to read and understand!).  Any information that is incorrect or inaccurate and any guideline here presented that is inconsistent with Wikipedia I implore you to correct.--Kbolino 02:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: I may have written it, but I no longer feel that DOS program names should be presented in all-uppercase.  It is, in my opinion, counter-intuitive.  It also might be appropriate to leave out the extension.  Shell commands are a different matter, though.—Kbolino 11:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All capitals in DOS program names 

message: The default prompt for DOS contains the working drive or directory (depending on version). This page, as it stands, says to use > alone as the prompt, but that may be counterintuitive and lead people to type the > character. I would like to suggest changing it to use C:\> or C>. --Random832(tc) 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOS prompt 

message: In my humble opinion, it seems to be counter productive to not provide all options to commands. Many man pages are not only poorly formated, written in a style making it difficult to understand and without examples.
When, someone comes to wikipedia, should they be sent away with a comment : look elsewhere.
Or even worse sent to a link describing what a man page is. This is not what the visitor is even looking for.
The listing for the ls command is an example of a "send them away" attitude.
ls has a large number of other options (see: man ls).
Clicking on this link sends the visitor to a page that has nothing to  do with the ls command.
I would like to reinsert the detailed list of options, but will wait for a while for a response.
Thank you all for providing a great resource.
I hope to assist in making it better.
Sincerely,
DGerman (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Providing comprehensive information, i.e. listing all options 

message: First, let me say that I find the use of x-height to set the font size rather peculiar.  Yes, it's standard-compliant CSS, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense (the font-size parameter sets the height of the font bounding box, the relationship of which to the x-height is not consistent across different fonts).  Instead, I replaced the 3ex value with 125%.  It's less confusing and it achieves the same effect.
However, I object to setting the font size manually altogether.  If you have difficulty reading text at the default font size, then you need to adjust your browser settings.  If there is a consistent problem with the default settings on most users' browsers, then it should be taken up with Wikipedia administrators so that a modification can be made to the style sheet for the whole site (after all, if it is a problem, it's not unique to just this page). —Kbolino (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font size of &lt;code&gt; blocks 

message: There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MoS naming style

message: Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:
Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?
It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved.  NoeticaTea? 00:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style