Talk:Dynamic-link library (Windows)
From Just Solve the File Format Problem
(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "While I agree that making the page "lighter" by removing all that text (which has/had nothing to do with the file format), I strongly object to removing all those links withou...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
While I agree that making the page "lighter" by removing all that text (which has/had nothing to do with the file format), I strongly object to removing all those links without placing them somewhere else first. They may not have anything to do with the file format itself (that is covered by the EXE article) but some of them privide valuable additional insight into the DLL "sub-format". --[[User:Darkstar|Darkstar]] ([[User talk:Darkstar|talk]]) 19:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC) | While I agree that making the page "lighter" by removing all that text (which has/had nothing to do with the file format), I strongly object to removing all those links without placing them somewhere else first. They may not have anything to do with the file format itself (that is covered by the EXE article) but some of them privide valuable additional insight into the DLL "sub-format". --[[User:Darkstar|Darkstar]] ([[User talk:Darkstar|talk]]) 19:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :If nobody beats me to it, I'm planning to revert some or all of Felix's changes to this article, the Icon Library article, and ''maybe'' the EXE article. I say that DLL ''is'' a file format (in fact, it can usually be identified by the ''file command''), so the deletion was based on a false premise. More to the point, it was based on the false premise that every article here has to correspond to a file format. But the real goal, as I see it, is to do whatever it takes to be a useful resource to someone trying to decode a file. [[User:Jsummers|Jsummers]] ([[User talk:Jsummers|talk]]) 15:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:41, 15 September 2016
While I agree that making the page "lighter" by removing all that text (which has/had nothing to do with the file format), I strongly object to removing all those links without placing them somewhere else first. They may not have anything to do with the file format itself (that is covered by the EXE article) but some of them privide valuable additional insight into the DLL "sub-format". --Darkstar (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- If nobody beats me to it, I'm planning to revert some or all of Felix's changes to this article, the Icon Library article, and maybe the EXE article. I say that DLL is a file format (in fact, it can usually be identified by the file command), so the deletion was based on a false premise. More to the point, it was based on the false premise that every article here has to correspond to a file format. But the real goal, as I see it, is to do whatever it takes to be a useful resource to someone trying to decode a file. Jsummers (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
