Template talk:Sun Microsystems

message: I propose including ZFS in the software list. --Gaborgulya 20:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZFS 

message: I haven't looked at how this goes for similar companies, but is it appropriate to have every Sun-related article in this template?  Does JavaStation, for example, need to be here— especially when (as the above section mentions) ZFS isn't?
I'd also like to consider what order things appear in. I just moved SunOS out of the lead position, since Solaris is currently a more notable topic.  I'm surprised Java isn't higher on the list.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prioritizing / weeding 

message: With two people suggesting adding zfs, I did so, however I forgot to login. A thought would be to add a technology section, which would include zfs, nfs, etc. Any thoughts? Reiger (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology section?

message: We now have a , modelled after Ramu's subgroups in the previous revision of this template.
We should now work on reducing the number of links in this template until it provides just an overview rather than trying to map out WP's entire coverage of Sun. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the storage hardware to the hardware template. I think MAJC should also be moved there. If I recall correctly, it was used in a Sun parallel graphics system that shipped, which qualifies as hardware. The Sun research group should only contain projects that were experimental, not products that originated from it. Rilak (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a software template would not be a bad idea. Most of the template is now taken up by software products and solutions. The template should focus on Sun Microsystems, not Sun Microsystem's hardware or software. Rilak (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've created a rough draft of a much reduced Sun Microsystems navbox here. Letdorf (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not remove the whole hardware section? There can be a link to the hardware template. Articles that can be classified under both the hardware and company templates should have both, with the templates hidden by default. That's what the Apple articles do, I believe. Rilak (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean a link in the Sun Microsystem navbox to the Sun hardware navbox? I'm not sure how that would work...? The Apple Inc. navbox has links to Category pages. In any case, I've tweaked my draft cut-down template a bit more - if feedback is positive I will replace current navbox at some point. Letdorf (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant to say there can be a link in the article and articles that can be categorized in Sun and Sun hardware should have links to the navboxes. I've also moved Ramu50's naxboxes to its own section so I don't need to load pages of code. Hope no one minds. Rilak (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ummm, you mean link to a navbox, rather than transclude it? Is that good practice? Letdorf (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Excellent. I think it can be reduced even further, but that's a good start. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I've replaced the current template with my condensed version as a starting point for further work. Main difference is that I've tried to restrict software articles to only the most significant ones, while adding a few that I think have some historical significance (after all, this isn't a "Current Sun products" navbox). Not convinced about removing hardware entirely from this navbox, as that would reduce it to basically software products only plus a few odds and ends. Unless we actually wanted a "Sun software" navbox? Letdorf (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I was just browsing through when I noticed that dashes are used instead of dots to separate links (most noticeable on the right side of the hardware section). Since this introduces inconsistency into the navbox (the majority of the template uses dots), should they be replaced or do they have some purpose I am not aware of? Rilak (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was intended to denote a relationship between the subjects in question. This isn't necessary in a navbox, so feel free to replace them with bullets. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Rilak (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I used dashes instead of bullets to indicate subdivisions of groups, a convention I've seen on other navboxes. However I was a bit dubious about the aesthetics of it. Letdorf (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at the archived revision, I am not seeing any categorization. Am I missing something? Rilak (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dashes? 

message: Any thoughts on a SunWorld Magazine article? IIRC, it was later Unix Insider. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 19:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SunWorld Magazine?