Template talk:GNU

Might want to trim

That's a big template you've got there. Bigger than some of the articles it's include in :-) -maybe, I'm just guessing. A smaller version would be better, IMO. Gronky 03:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Each section could be made into it's own template, which leaves this {{GNU}} a template of templates. These templates could all be on one-line separated by the •'s. I suggest each of these new templates should have a last section: Other GNU templates, to aid in navigation. Lentower 04:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree.--Chealer 20:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Trimming done

I have been bold and edited this template down in a manner different then I proposed above. Note that the article GNU Compiler Collection had already deleted this template due to it's bloat (see the Page History) (I restored it). I noted that there was a one-to-one correspondence between the first version of this template and List of GNU packages, which is incomplete, and misses some of the significant packages, e.g. Ghostscript.

What I did:

• deleted the blank lines
• changed the title to just "GNU Project"
• deleted most of the listed software, keeping just a few of the most significant packages. Most readers will not be geeks, who might benefit for the longer incomplete list, and they can click into List of GNU packages for that.
• deleted most of the people I added from the Free Software Foundation article, keeping just a few of the most significant people, and left WikiLinks to the full lists. Again, the curious can click and explore those links.

The template as it is now, is designed as a navigation aid to the most significant articles about the GNU Project, instead of exhaustive, yet incomplete, lists of both GNU software and GNU people (as well as the most significant articles about the GNU Project). Lentower 04:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

excellent. --MarSch 14:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The list of people is positively comical now, bears no relationship to the most significant people who work in the GNU project. Tom Lord, but not Mark Mitchell or Richard Henderson? Geez. Stan 16:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What's in, what's out

The box was still very big, and the people listed as GNU's developers, documenters, and advocates were haphazard and misleading. So I removed the developers entry because (1) GNU, strangely, hasn't made any (or many) high profile programmers, and (2) the people listed, and those left out, showed a complete lack of criteria. I also removed the documenters entry, for the same two reasons plus the third reason that there were only two people there, plus a red link, plus a link to a section of the FSF article which is not relevent. And for the "speakers and advocates" section, I replaced the arbitrary list with the list of official GNU speakers. There are still some articles that this box is included in where the article is shorter than the box, but the number will now be very few. Gronky 22:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look bad to me. Perhaps it was improved after the comment. A link to the text of the GNU license might also be worth including? --BozMo talk 11:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In actual fact the template is considerably larger than the version Gronky was commenting on two years ago (check the timestamp on the post) - it's quite a bit less arbitrary and easier to read than that version, though. I agree that additions at this point are not unwelcome. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Information describing my idle is in reality completed

Adequate evening! Information describing my work is actually completed, proceed to withdraw implementation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.42.10 (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

'

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.8.86 (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Linux kernel/doc

I replaced the original docu with Template:Linux kernel/doc, I hope you ge the point. User:ScotXW^t@lk 20:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

GNU social

Add GNU social to the template? I don't know if it's an active project or not. -- HLachman (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)