Talk:Wmii

message: * Don't delete this article, I just spent half an hour improving it, it is notable.  Getting rid of content is a bad idea in general.  Mind you, I think the article is poorly written, but I improved a few details to make it more accurate.  As for secondary sources, for a window manager, almost _everything_ is stated in detail on the webpage and mailing lists.
*Keep. Awesome, Rat, Ion, wmii and dwm  are very important window managers. This software implements a revolutionary methods of human-computer interaction. Each of these window managers has unique properties and are worth of articles in the wiki. Stop the Psychonaut, vandal, who marks all the articles about tile managers to delete! Ingwar-k (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't delete this article!!

message: :Image:Wmii-3 screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Wmii-3 screenshot.png

message: This article says it is by the same author as DWM. They are on the same website: . However the developer on each page is Kris Maglione for Wmii and Anselm R. Garbe for DWM. I want some clarification on this. --Matthew Bauer (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same author as DWM? 

message: There seems to be confusion about what a dynamic window manager is. I have changed that article, and its definition does not match wmii. I would like to know a source about wmii being a dynamic window manager.
Also see the according talk page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.110.7 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  wmii is not a dynamic window manager 

message: I added the Google Code link, which appears to be the official one now (see their old official website). Compared to the original one it appears to still be very minimal though, so I am not sure whether it should be replaced in Wikipedia.--Athaba (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Code website official? 

message: Among users of tiling window managers for Unix/Linux systems, the notability of wmii is indisputable, as many other notable window managers were based upon it. Here are some examples:
i3 was based on/inspired by wmii, as referenced on their website:
https://i3wm.org/
this fact is also referenced on the dwm website:
https://dwm.suckless.org/
as well as here:
https://beuke.org/bspwm-missing-docs/
in addition, dwm was also an evolution of wmii, as is referenced here by its author:
https://linux.softpedia.com/get/Desktop-Environment/Window-Managers/dynamic-window-manager-17319.shtml
While I understand that it might be easy for someone unfamiliar with the subject to see this as not being notable, I would suggest keeping this article for the sake of documenting the ancestor of other tiling window managers which still seem to 'notable enough' to remain on Wikipedia.
Perhaps opinions should be sought from Wikipedians who are indeed familiar with the subject, or any of the derivatives of wmii, before a conclusion is reached. I do not think deleting this article would serve any effective purpose other than to burn a piece of history, and I would personally go as far as calling the request to delete this article 'vandalism'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.116.119 (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * @ An AfD decision has been made ... link to discussion at top of article, and I am in the process of performing a formal merge per WP:MERGETEXT.  Can I urge you not to edit while this is in progress ( I started about 3 hours ago but chose to deal with other matters first for which I apologise. I like to have a clear focus when doing a formal merge ) .... any edits during the process would be regarded as disruptive.  Please review WP:AFD for leads to your options, or ask at the Teahouse.  Content improvements may be made after the merge but should not be used to disrupt the target article.  Attempts to convert this back from a redirect to an article will likely by reverted and regarded as disruptive unless sourcing and encyclopedic content are very good, or if it appears merely as an attempt to circumvent AfD and needs to unambiguously be shown to have addressed AfD concerns  ....  OK ... I'm going to suspend the merge for a minimum of 24 hours to allow for an appeal discussion being raised and in progress ... (See WP:CLOSEAFD) ... and will resume if that stalled or has not made significant progress or it not gone to DRV.   I will say myself I find little reason to challenge the Closers merge conclusion.  Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * There being no sign of the appeal process being initiated after 24 hours I will resume the merge.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, please do not delete this article!