Talk:Xbox 360 screen of death
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This subject does not warrent a page on its own, at most it should be added to the xbox 360 main page and given like 1-2 sentences. it should be mergedTik 21:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Blue screen of death and Red screen of death aren't merged with Microsoft Windows and Windows Vista. Why this should be? --Mateusc 21:30, 6 November 2005
- The BSoD has spun off into a sort of phenomenon, its existence is notable apart from Windows. Although I think that RSoD should be merged with BSoD. --anetode¹ ² ³ 22:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- I suppose all of these be merged, and the author of the proposal make the same in every article. --Mateusc 23:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- The BSoD has spun off into a sort of phenomenon, its existence is notable apart from Windows. Although I think that RSoD should be merged with BSoD. --anetode¹ ² ³ 22:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Blue screen of death and Red screen of death aren't merged with Microsoft Windows and Windows Vista. Why this should be? --Mateusc 21:30, 6 November 2005
I think they should both be merged and redirected into BSoD. The BSoD is the noteworthy thing in internet culture, and the other two are just spinoffs that, really, are hardly known right now. They can always be split off again if there becomes something worth writing about them. I'm gonna go ahead and throw a disputed merge tag up for the time being. --InShaneee 22:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- I disagree. The failure is a fact being strong reporting in tech media. Each screen of death has your proper article. Why the things need be different here? --Mateusc 23:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Because the Blue screen of death article covers Microsoft products, like the Xbox 360. The Xbox 360 screen of death article is destined to be a stub, and the BSoD article has enough room to merge. I just merged the Red screen of death article per its vfd discussion. --anetode¹ ² ³ 23:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, you're being a little impulsive. I revert your merge because wasn't argued and has other articles as yellow screen of death. Doesn't press your POV and doesn't disrespect the rules afterall. --Mateusc 00:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- As you may see in the history, I reverted redirecting this article after I noticed that you disagreed with the merger. Please do not accuse me of disrespecting rules, and please read over WP:BOLD. Also, this is not a issue of POV: I am not objecting to the contents of this article. --anetode¹ ² ³ 01:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, you're being a little impulsive. I revert your merge because wasn't argued and has other articles as yellow screen of death. Doesn't press your POV and doesn't disrespect the rules afterall. --Mateusc 00:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Besides, the only reason these phenomina even have a name is because they're 'kinda like the BSoD'. --InShaneee 23:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is encyclopedia, not a tech-magazine. Therefore the sub-articles had been created to report individual cases. --Mateusc 00:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- However, the sub-articles have little to nothing in the way to be said about them. Wikipedia doesn't want articles about errors. The BSoD is a special case because of how ingrained it's become in popular culture. The other "oD" pages are just extentions of that, and therefore should be listed on the parent page instead of remaining a perpetual stub. --InShaneee 00:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Category made by Wikipedia users to index screens of death.
- Wikipedia or YOU don't want? I follow the principle of information, registering facts already being made (yellow screen of death, green screen of death, black screen of death, red screen of death). I think that POV opnions are prevailing here instead of information of an encyclopedia nature. --Mateusc 00:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Category made by Wikipedia User (singular). Since only one person ever edited that category, there's really no way to tell if the idea has support or not, and certainly no basis to imply that the community as a whole created it. --InShaneee 01:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Are you right that only one wikipedia user created the category and other sub-articles and categorizated everyone? I'm saying that impulses and personal opinions are prevailing here.... --Mateusc 01:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm saying that one user created the catagory. Just because the individual articles exist doesn't mean they belong there in that form. Wikipedia is fluid. --InShaneee 04:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry but the category and the sub-articles it's here for months. It's just curiously now with a _console video game_ the things need happen. Respect the comunity, I ask for this, Here isn't a videogame/tech forum. --Mateusc 10:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- The nature of categorization is often arbitrary, the existance of the SoD cat is not the end-all-be-all validation of your argument. --anetode¹ ² ³ 10:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Made by community, this is more of than an argument, this is a fact, made by community. What is arbitrary is two Fanboys contest the work of a community. --Mateusc 11:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep it civil, Mat. Namecalling will only get you banned. And stop throwing 'the community' around like there's thousands of people supporting your position. We ARE the community, right here. --InShaneee 17:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Made by community, this is more of than an argument, this is a fact, made by community. What is arbitrary is two Fanboys contest the work of a community. --Mateusc 11:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- The nature of categorization is often arbitrary, the existance of the SoD cat is not the end-all-be-all validation of your argument. --anetode¹ ² ³ 10:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry but the category and the sub-articles it's here for months. It's just curiously now with a _console video game_ the things need happen. Respect the comunity, I ask for this, Here isn't a videogame/tech forum. --Mateusc 10:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm saying that one user created the catagory. Just because the individual articles exist doesn't mean they belong there in that form. Wikipedia is fluid. --InShaneee 04:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Are you right that only one wikipedia user created the category and other sub-articles and categorizated everyone? I'm saying that impulses and personal opinions are prevailing here.... --Mateusc 01:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Category made by Wikipedia User (singular). Since only one person ever edited that category, there's really no way to tell if the idea has support or not, and certainly no basis to imply that the community as a whole created it. --InShaneee 01:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia or YOU don't want? I follow the principle of information, registering facts already being made (yellow screen of death, green screen of death, black screen of death, red screen of death). I think that POV opnions are prevailing here instead of information of an encyclopedia nature. --Mateusc 00:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Category made by Wikipedia users to index screens of death.
- However, the sub-articles have little to nothing in the way to be said about them. Wikipedia doesn't want articles about errors. The BSoD is a special case because of how ingrained it's become in popular culture. The other "oD" pages are just extentions of that, and therefore should be listed on the parent page instead of remaining a perpetual stub. --InShaneee 00:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is encyclopedia, not a tech-magazine. Therefore the sub-articles had been created to report individual cases. --Mateusc 00:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Because the Blue screen of death article covers Microsoft products, like the Xbox 360. The Xbox 360 screen of death article is destined to be a stub, and the BSoD article has enough room to merge. I just merged the Red screen of death article per its vfd discussion. --anetode¹ ² ³ 23:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. The failure is a fact being strong reporting in tech media. Each screen of death has your proper article. Why the things need be different here? --Mateusc 23:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- No Merge: Screens of death effect every Microsoft user and are thus a valid topic for an encyclopedia. Furthermore I see no problem with each type of error having an article of its own. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: no one is arguing that SoDs are invalid topics. Why do you object to the Xbox360SoD & BSoD being documented in one page? The Xbox 360 SoD will probably remain very small (stub sized). If it gets big enough, it could always be split off later. --anetode¹ ² ³ 01:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- For you see, only 2 hours is sufficient to down the "consensus" that you have here. I'm saying that your acts reverts are being impulsive. --Mateusc 01:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Great. I agree with you Dread Lord. Deifinitively has no consensus here and the time is our instrument of negotiation. :) --Mateusc 01:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: no one is arguing that SoDs are invalid topics. Why do you object to the Xbox360SoD & BSoD being documented in one page? The Xbox 360 SoD will probably remain very small (stub sized). If it gets big enough, it could always be split off later. --anetode¹ ² ³ 01:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to summarize the argument, the possible reasons for a merger are simply and eloquently outlined at Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Why merge a page? --anetode¹ ² ³ 01:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Xbox 360 doesn't have nothing with blue screen death. --Mateusc 03:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- What it HAS is a natural evolution of the BS, an error that grew out of the original BS. There's nothing to say about it without the BSoD bolstering it, which is why it belongs on THAT page. --InShaneee 04:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's your opnion. People think different from you. Look for Blue screen of death and you can see a guy disagreed by the simple fact of different color. Wikipedia isn't what you think, but what comunity thinks. It's a crash from a system (and shamefull, if you are Xbox Fanboy) see green screen of death by the same in a TiVO system. --Mateusc 09:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is precisely why this stub needs context. Although the error messages have different colored backgrounds, they are thematically linked. As you mentioned in the article, the Xbox 360 uses a derivative of the Windows O/S, and these SoDs have an established (and documented) history of appearing in Microsoft products. (Oh, and by the way, since Wikipedia is a community, consensus is not merely about what you think either) --anetode¹ ² ³ 10:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- You are seeing blue screen of death into Xbox 360 console- But no, isn't Windows screen of death - although a kernel simplified of it to be present. --Mateusc 11:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's our point! It's derivative! Not to mention that, as stated before:
- You are seeing blue screen of death into Xbox 360 console- But no, isn't Windows screen of death - although a kernel simplified of it to be present. --Mateusc 11:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is precisely why this stub needs context. Although the error messages have different colored backgrounds, they are thematically linked. As you mentioned in the article, the Xbox 360 uses a derivative of the Windows O/S, and these SoDs have an established (and documented) history of appearing in Microsoft products. (Oh, and by the way, since Wikipedia is a community, consensus is not merely about what you think either) --anetode¹ ² ³ 10:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's your opnion. People think different from you. Look for Blue screen of death and you can see a guy disagreed by the simple fact of different color. Wikipedia isn't what you think, but what comunity thinks. It's a crash from a system (and shamefull, if you are Xbox Fanboy) see green screen of death by the same in a TiVO system. --Mateusc 09:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- What it HAS is a natural evolution of the BS, an error that grew out of the original BS. There's nothing to say about it without the BSoD bolstering it, which is why it belongs on THAT page. --InShaneee 04:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Xbox 360 doesn't have nothing with blue screen death. --Mateusc 03:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- . There isn't enough to say about this on it's own, thus warranting a merge to BSoD as per policy.
- . This is just an error message. There's no reason to include it on wikipedia unless it's in the context of the BSoD, a notable phenomina and cultural icon. --InShaneee 17:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. - Evil saltine 23:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I Agree - HerbaZ 04:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
agreed as well, i just dont think there is enough info or stuff to write a seperate article for it to be considered a good wiki article. inshaneee put my thoughts to words Tik 16:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
all derivitave, none would be called "Screen of Death" without BSoD. Merge it. As matsuec said, it's not a tech magazine, it's an encyclopedia...and there's no place in an encyclopedia for such small articles when they could easily be merged into their parent topic. The only place these articles deserve to be on their own, without the context ot BSoD, is a tech magazine. merge it.jfg284 19:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
This should not be bundled with the screen of death, simply because it refers completely to a new product, and therefore it is better for it to be standalone.
Even so, it only exists with such a title beacuse of BSoD, it is only notable beacuse of its correlation to BSoD, it is a stub which is liked destined to forever be this short (unless something notable does happen to the XB360SoD (though i cant think of a single thing that would happen)), in which case the article can always be recreaeted. In short, this only deserves to be menitoned because of its relation to BSoD, so and is only notable in that context, so it should be on that page. jfg284 you were saying? 16:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
