Talk:Wmii

Don't delete this article!!

 * Don't delete this article, I just spent half an hour improving it, it is notable. Getting rid of content is a bad idea in general.  Mind you, I think the article is poorly written, but I improved a few details to make it more accurate.  As for secondary sources, for a window manager, almost _everything_ is stated in detail on the webpage and mailing lists.


 * Keep. Awesome, Rat, Ion, wmii and dwm are very important window managers. This software implements a revolutionary methods of human-computer interaction. Each of these window managers has unique properties and are worth of articles in the wiki. Stop the Psychonaut, vandal, who marks all the articles about tile managers to delete! Ingwar-k (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article about wmii is worth being in Wikipedia because wmii is a notable example of how original Plan 9 from Bell Labs ideas get implemented in a GNU/Linux window manager. wmii is one of important free programs which propel end user software development. Wikipedia must keep articles about such programs. --Dmitry Dzhus (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, your keep votes don't go here, they go on the AfD page --Roguelazer (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wmii-3 screenshot.png
Image:Wmii-3 screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

wmii and java: zealous editors, stay your editing until 2nd of april, please! --Tase (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Same author as DWM?
This article says it is by the same author as DWM. They are on the same website:. However the developer on each page is Kris Maglione for Wmii and Anselm R. Garbe for DWM. I want some clarification on this. --Matthew Bauer (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The original author of wmii is Anselm R. Garbe, and the current author is Kris Maglione. So both statements are correct  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.217.240 (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

wmii is not a dynamic window manager
There seems to be confusion about what a dynamic window manager is. I have changed that article, and its definition does not match wmii. I would like to know a source about wmii being a dynamic window manager.

Also see the according talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.110.7 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Google Code website official?
I added the Google Code link, which appears to be the official one now (see their old official website). Compared to the original one it appears to still be very minimal though, so I am not sure whether it should be replaced in Wikipedia.--Athaba (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, please do not delete this article!
Among users of tiling window managers for Unix/Linux systems, the notability of wmii is indisputable, as many other notable window managers were based upon it. Here are some examples:

i3 was based on/inspired by wmii, as referenced on their website: https://i3wm.org/

this fact is also referenced on the dwm website: https://dwm.suckless.org/

as well as here: https://beuke.org/bspwm-missing-docs/

in addition, dwm was also an evolution of wmii, as is referenced here by its author: https://linux.softpedia.com/get/Desktop-Environment/Window-Managers/dynamic-window-manager-17319.shtml

While I understand that it might be easy for someone unfamiliar with the subject to see this as not being notable, I would suggest keeping this article for the sake of documenting the ancestor of other tiling window managers which still seem to 'notable enough' to remain on Wikipedia.

Perhaps opinions should be sought from Wikipedians who are indeed familiar with the subject, or any of the derivatives of wmii, before a conclusion is reached. I do not think deleting this article would serve any effective purpose other than to burn a piece of history, and I would personally go as far as calling the request to delete this article 'vandalism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.116.119 (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @ An AfD decision has been made ... link to discussion at top of article, and I am in the process of performing a formal merge per WP:MERGETEXT. Can I urge you not to edit while this is in progress ( I started about 3 hours ago but chose to deal with other matters first for which I apologise. I like to have a clear focus when doing a formal merge ) .... any edits during the process would be regarded as disruptive.  Please review WP:AFD for leads to your options, or ask at the Teahouse.  Content improvements may be made after the merge but should not be used to disrupt the target article.  Attempts to convert this back from a redirect to an article will likely by reverted and regarded as disruptive unless sourcing and encyclopedic content are very good, or if it appears merely as an attempt to circumvent AfD and needs to unambiguously be shown to have addressed AfD concerns  ....  OK ... I'm going to suspend the merge for a minimum of 24 hours to allow for an appeal discussion being raised and in progress ... (See WP:CLOSEAFD) ... and will resume if that stalled or has not made significant progress or it not gone to DRV.   I will say myself I find little reason to challenge the Closers merge conclusion.  Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There being no sign of the appeal process being initiated after 24 hours I will resume the merge. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This article has been vandalized.
As per the Wikipedia page on overzealous deletion, this is listed under "invalid reasons to delete"

3.3 Articles on obscure topics

WP:OBTOP

Obscurity does not mean lack of notability. There are some subjects that are only known to a handful of people in the world. There may only be a limited number of people who are interested in reading the articles, and very few if any GHits. But this is not grounds for deletion.

Many articles on obscure topics are presumed to be hoaxes by many who are unfamiliar. But before concluding that something is a hoax, it is important to assume good faith and consider that the subject is simply little known. The key thing to look for is high-quality reliable sources. You may never have heard about an obscure concept such as theodicy, but if a number of university press books attest to its existence (and they do), you can have confidence that this is a real concept.

3.4 Lack of familiarity with the subject

WP:LACK

You may not be familiar with the subject. You may not have ever heard of it before you came across the article. Therefore, it may not sound notable to you. Either way, it is known to the creator, and to those who made other contributions. No one is familiar with everything in the world, and you do not need to be aware of its existence for the article to stay. Rather than deleting it, why not take this opportunity to learn about what it is?

When you click the random article tab on the left, the minority of the articles and most likely, fewer than 10% of articles will be about something you have ever heard of. If not knowing about a subject were a good reason for deletion, we would be left with few if any articles.

The last edits performed on this page were indisputably destructive, and while I may have been encouraged to start an appeal process, there wasn't an awful lot of time alloted for doing this, nor is the means of starting such a process readily apparent. Neither is the means of reporting someone for vandalism, or else I would have done so already. As someone who regularly donates to wikipedia, it kills me to see that my contributions have been going towards efforts to delete historical reference out of ignorance of the subject. As I said before, no action should have been taken without consulting Wikipedians who are actually familiar with the subject, as was done in the previous AfD. The reason for starting the AfD this time was nearly identical to the previous one, and the previous decision should have been respected as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.112.157 (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @70.57.112.157.
 * If you are accusing me personally of vandalizing the article due to the merge that is to be regarded as a personal attack.
 * There was significant opportunity to contribute and monitor to the AfD discussion
 * Your talk page was templated with how to get advice.
 * I am a volunteer. It was actually more disruptive to me personally to have held of the merge from Sunday to Monday, and even more disruptive to have held it off longer.  Suspending it for 24 hours like I did I suspect is probably almost unheard of.  I would have considered a further suspension if there was any sign of a formal appeal within 24 hours.
 * From once the decision of the AfD closer says merge then a merge is expected to occur.
 * There remains nothing that has been done that prevents an appeal from being carried out ... per [[WP:CLOSEAFD] ... if successful I would obviously be disgruntled about the effort put into the merge (but in truth also probably happy the article had survived).
 * If appealing you may wish to bring arguments from Articles_for_deletion/Xmonad_(3rd_nomination) to the table.
 * I hope I have performed a sympathetic merge while respecting WP:UNDUE on the target, but feel free to improve but I urge to respect WP:UNDUE on the target.
 * There is nothing to stop this article being recreated, but it needs to address to concerns raised at the AfD or it will be speedily deleted (Actually I hope reverted!)
 * As before ask at the Teahouse for advice.
 * There are some possibilities you may be using an IP address because you have another wikipedia account or you have a COI interest in wmii. I (and I think many others) will respect a declared COI (especially non-paid volunteer) editor.
 * As a future suggestion please try not to be a person who simply whinges after the event, try and get in appropriately early on and contribute to due process. Thanktou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)