Talk:T-Square (software)
 | A fact from T-Square (software) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 December 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sketchpad
editLooking for sources, it appears Welden Clark and/or J.C.R. Licklider might have described the relationship (or lack of one) between T-Square (software) and Sketchpad. Does a free Internet copy of a work that explains this exist? --Susanlesch 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Influence
editCopied from RFC (which seems to only be about disputes which this isn't AFAIK). -Susanlesch 22:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- In T-Square (software) is the last sentence reasonable? The article has only one primary source so far (the museum video, in which it is mentioned by one author casually). It seems crystal clear and appropriate to me, but I thought perhaps someone here would know for sure. Thank you. -Susanlesch 22:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because I will probably edit it here is the sentence: "It is also important in the history of software in that its developers broke from artisanal craftsmanship to become computer users, in this case, with a set of self-authored options." -Susanlesch 22:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Table of content
editConsistency is good. Moving the Table without a prime reason is confusing to readers.Circeus 03:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Circeus, thanks for thinking of this but I think the guidelines would suggest otherwise. -Susanlesch 03:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Which guideline would that be?Circeus 04:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)- Actually, that refers merely to where the templat should be palced when it's used. My point is there is no reason to sue in the first place. Si non confectus, non reficiat.Circeus 04:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- One good reason is that the viewport above the fold is the most valuable part of the display, no? Why make people scroll more than they must? I never studied formal debate and am going to proceed in whatever way the Village Pump decides the question. -Susanlesch 04:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the problem is probably that the article uses a wee bit too much headers for its length. It's not difficult to find featured articles with longer, unmoved content tables: Sicilian Baroque, Palazzo Pitti or Sylvanus Morley, If it's not good enough for a featured article, it's not good enough for this.Circeus 05:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- One good reason is that the viewport above the fold is the most valuable part of the display, no? Why make people scroll more than they must? I never studied formal debate and am going to proceed in whatever way the Village Pump decides the question. -Susanlesch 04:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
According to {{TOCleft}}:
Note that this template should not be used when the result is to place the TOC in a visually poor ___location. A TOC that crosses a section division is probably a poor idea, if that can be avoided.
This is exactly what happens when viewed on my computer (actually this will happen on any article for someone who just happens to have the "wrong" combination of screen resolution and font size.) —Ruud 13:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. TOCleft works on a case by case basis and this is one of them. Nevertheless, done and archived. Thank you. -Susanlesch 18:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
PDP-1 software
editSuggestion to merge with PDP-1 software had no visible support in December 2006. Removing merge (archive). -Susanlesch 06:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)