User talk:Costa
About splitting C++ history page
I notice you're splitting C++ history page, and I think it does make sense. However, what you actually did made me confused. Even if we need a break change, yours went too far. Here are main issues:
- Suspicious deletions on original pages. You delete anything but those from TS or C11. Why? That's neither an abstract nor a summary but a only part of new features. (Defect Reports should be also moved then)
- Suspicious link to new C++17 page, which fell far behind original place. May you think those TS listed after that is a part of C++17? - My fault, fixed --Costa (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2019 (PST)
- Suspicious new pages' paths. cpp/language/history/17 was fine enough. cpp/17 leaves everyone confused: Is '17' special number in C++?
(Note: In my view, cpp/language/history could be moved to cpp/history because it's not just the history of languages, but also libraries. Then put those pieces in cpp/history/C++XX would be nice.)
- Suspicious new pages' content. no navbar, no template, poor formatting and so on. Why you so hurry to move before everything is prepared? Before editing those important pages, you could, and should create a draft in your own user page and ask for some advice.
Though I wish to help, I don't know where to start. Yaossg (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2019 (PST)
C++ history
Thank you for paying attention. I understand that changes are surprising. Sure I need an advice to make it better.
- I moved 20 and 17 because started from the most recent changes. We can move/add TS, 14 and 11 latter.
- I intentionally "More changes in C++17" moved to the end of "C++17" section. Alignment of the link could be improved. I leaved intact the start of the section.
- Overall navigation on page history is confusing. Sections are not obvious. I tried to move carefully heavy content. Now is more easy to make order and define sections with "==".
- cpp/language/history/17 is too long. Also the history and C++17 are not about just language. It is about libraries too. "cpp/17" represents "C++17". Would you like to move to https://en.cppreference.com/w/C++17 ? More ideas?
- "cpp/history/C++XX" is not nice because of repetition "cpp" and "C++". Just one "cpp" or "C++" is better.
- C++XX is not have to be under history. Anyway history links to upper layer. C++XX makes sense by it self without the history. It is good to add links from https://en.cppreference.com/w/Main_Page and https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp to C++XX.
- I've tried to edit my user page, but havn't work. How it works. Thanks.
- navbar on history page is not valuable. The rest is not well formatted. Anyway cpp/XX pages are better formatted than before as flat text in the history before. navbar makes a page look more standard but will it doesn't make order the rest of the page
- Help I need:
- Do you suggest to add '==' sections to history?
- How do you suggest to improve cpp/XX pages? Which standard style is desirable?
- Better locations for cpp/XX?
Thank you. Costa (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2019 (PST)
Sorry for replying so late. Having read your explanation, I think maybe there were some misunderstandings.
- It's OK to use name like "C++XX". However, to describe those historical versions in all aspects, instead of just simply telling about new features, makes more sense to own a name like "C++XX".
- Some detailed information (e.g. Defect Reports, link to final/latest draft) should be introduced.
- navbar is also needed to list all versions and for fast viewing.
- We can also put a box in the head of pages with basic information (e.g. name and alias like C++0x and C++11, publish dates) and some buttons with "previous version" "next version"
