OSDev Wiki talk:Pages To Convert

Rendundant pages

I'm thinking that HardwareComm is somewhat reduntant here... TheQuux 04:10, 29 November 2006 (CST)

Agreed. Posted a comment on Category_Talk:Hardware about it - Combuster 07:56, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Missing Pages

Did somebody create the bochs page without marking it here, or is it still WIP? - Combuster 16:02, 11 December 2006 (CST)

Sorry Combuster. I was moving the emulators over and then ran out of time. Fixed. Also there are some other pages that have been moved and weren't marked. I'll try to have a look through them.

Somebody partially ported the algorithms page, decided to post it here as well for completeness sake - Combuster 16:48, 17 December 2006 (CST)

Tutorials

There are some pages which seem to be in a "tutorial"-like format (Baby steps, bare bones, etc) which don't cleanly fit into any existing sections. What should we do about them? -Jhawthorn 01:39, 31 December 2006 (CST)

The Tutorials are helpful for new users, This is supposed to be a Wiki full of useful information about OSDev (From a developers experience..) right?. I don't think just posting the information exactly out of the specifications is the right idea. --Brynet-Inc 01:01, 2 January 2007 (CST)

The dilemma here is that tutorials, FAQs and the like don't fit in the original design of the Wiki. (and to be honest, It made the MT FAQ hard to navigate) To cope we could 'namespace' them, like suffixing 'Tutorial' and putting them together into a separate category (tree). That way people can easily see when it involves an informational or an instructional document. Possible Wikilinks: C Kernel Tutorial - Bootloader Tutorial - Tutorials. I have to agree with Brynet-Inc that dropping them would be a Bad Thing. (@BI: copying from specs isnt really related to tutorials. If you do find such a page plz put a note on that talkpage to start a discussion about rewriting it) - Combuster 06:41, 2 January 2007 (CST)

What would you think about something like [[Tutorial:C Kernel|]] (C Kernel) ?-Jhawthorn 14:28, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Same principle. I see you went ahead already :) - Combuster 01:06, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Recently Converted Table

What about splitting the table in for review and work in progress sections, and remove the pages that are on it for a few months now? - Combuster 07:56, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Deletion?

I'm pretty sure this can be deleted now. If nobody objects in the next week or so, I'll go ahead and do it. - Jackscott

I agree. It's outdated. - Walling 13:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded as well. - Combuster 22:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thirdeded. Ed. --Troy Martin 02:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted - Combuster 10:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)