Talk:Icon library

[Re: 16:34, 12 September 2016‎] I don't agree with this change. It's always a judgment call, but we can't possibly disallow all articles that cover subformat(s) of some other documented format(s). Even being very conservative, we'd have to delete/merge hundreds of articles. Having separate articles is convenient for a lot of reasons. Jsummers (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree; some useful information about the particular uses of some of these subformats has been lost in the shuffle. Some of these pages which have been turned into redirects were about things that were, technically speaking, just files of the parent format with a different extension, but in terms of what they are actually used for, and what utilities are useful for dealing with them, there are important distinctions. Dan Tobias (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In addition, please make extra sure not to remove any links to external sites. People invest serious time and effort into locating and referencing external websites which describe these formats. Removing those links (especially without giving any reason) makes it look like their research/work is not valued (or worse). Also, archive.org crawls all external links and makes sure that they are saved, so removing links may actually make the task of finding that information again much harder in the future. --Darkstar (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

(See also Talk:Dynamic-link library (Windows).)