Talk:Microsoft Windows library files

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft Windows: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:WP ʃ reviewed

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Article

Cwolfsheep 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be deleted or merged with Microsoft Windows? It seems to overspecialise. Lordofthe9 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps rather with Dynamic-link library? The problem with an article like this is to me that I think it's hard to know where to draw the line. MSVCRT.DLL info would for example rather belong to a section on the Microsoft C++ Runtime in the article Microsoft Visual C++. Hmm... — Northgrove 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User32.dll

how can you fix a damaged User32.dll?--Sugarcubez 18:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a how-to or discussion forum. Lordofthe9 17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PAL/HAL Confusion

In the HAL.dll section, HAL(Hardware Abstraction Layer), a part of the kernel, seems to be confused with PAL(Phase Alternating Line), an European television standard. If there is no opposition, I will correct it within 1 month (I am doing this incase the author meant PAL). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The HAL has nothing to do with television. I'll correct it to HAL instead. -- Prince Kassad 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side-by-Side DLLs

Applications built with Visual C++ 2005, 2008, ... require specific versions of Msvcr80.dll, Msvcr90.dll etc., providing the same services as the old Msvcrt.dll. These have a number of releases (8.00.40310.39, 8.0.50727.762 etc.) that are typically managed using the Side-by-Side Assembly mechanism. Warwick.fifield (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for deletion and merge of kernel32 and gdi32 articles

I can't see any of the DLL-specific descriptions here growing to more than a few paragraphs - most of them less than that. Kernel32 in particular is just a couple of sentences. GDI32 doesn't even exist. I don't think these merit separate articles.

Proposal: The text in Kernel32 should be merged here and that article nominated for Speedy Deletion, and the redlink to Gdi32 should be removed.

Discuss, please. Jeh (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there was no dissent, or discussion of any sort, for 10 days I just went ahead and did it. Proceeding with the merge proposal for user32.dll, following. Since there is slightly more "meat" in that article I'm doing it more formally. Jeh (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for merge of user32.dll article

As with the article on kernel32.dll there is really no point in having a separate article for user32.dll. The existing User32.dll contains only a few API names and those should not be on WP anyway. I propose that user32.dll be merged into this article. All we need here is a description of the types of API it exposes - the details can be left to Microsoft's Win32 documentation and other books covering the topic. Jeh (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for deletion

The proposal for deletion is misguided in almost every detail.

"Discussion of Windows Library files one-by-one is futile; There are so many dll files around" Yes, there are many, but just because a job can't be done completely doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted at all. An explanation of a few of the key API DLLs, such as is already here, is helpful.
"and information stored here is rapidly rendered obsolete." No, just about everything here applies to everything from Windows NT 3.1 through Windows 7.
"Also, "Library Files" are not only DLL nowadays, article title may be misleading and could provide the new user with false and/or obsolete information." So, that can be fixed with a sentence or two indicating that .cpl, .scr, and a few other file types are really the same as thing under other names. Speaking of that, many of those do not need a section per file, they can be described en masse. No need to enumerate every one, which further erodes the deletioner's first claim.

Jeh (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move to wikibooks

NO

Is there a cartel agitating to get rid of this article or something? I'm trying to improve it, my first step (getting rid of the redundant kernel32.dll article so that additions will be focused here) is done, second step (same for user32.dll) is in process. So what happens?

Shortly after I post the user32 merge proposal, one editor comes along and proposed it for deletion.

Now an IP who seems to have had little involvement with Windows-related articles in the past wants to move it to wikibooks pending "rewriting into an encyclopedic article."

And just like the previous would-be deleter, without so much as a peep here on the talk page. Aren't you supposed to create a section for discussion?

Mr. IP: Please specify exactly what is non-encyclopedic about this article. In short - what's your beef? Jeh (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like your accusatory tone. I removed the PROD, didn't I? I guess I just should have ignored the PROD, but I didn't think it was worth deleting, since someone did think it was worth deleting, a safe place to stash it would be Wikibooks, which is not bound by needing to be encyclopedic to a general audience, what a mistake I made, if I ignored it, I wouldn't need to get into some sort of discussion war. Sheesh, try to save an article, and get grief from other people wanting to save it. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, let's put this up for AfD, then we can get a consensus on whether to keep or delete this thing. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you might understand that I'm feeling a little attacked here... two deletion attempts in two days, right after I started working on it. And I don't understand how moving it to Wikibooks is "saving" it; it's still being deleted from WP. If "I guess I just should have deleted the PROD", why then put it up for AfD? Why put it up for AfD after I've said I am trying to improve the article? Not much of a way to motivate a contributor. I request that you withdraw your AfD. Failing that, I repeat.. can you please tell me what specifically you think is wrong? Jeh (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]