Talk:Ubuntu version history

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ubuntu version history article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Linux Mid‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux 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.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

what about there debian versions with point releases

Ubuntu 4.10 = 3.0r2

Ubuntu 5.04 = 3.0r4

Ubuntu 5.10 = 3.1r0

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS = 3.1r2

Ubuntu 6.10 = 3.1r3

Ubuntu 7.04 = 4.0r0

Ubuntu 7.10 = 4.0r1

Ubuntu 8.04 LTS = 4.0r4

Ubuntu 8.10 = 4.0r5

Ubuntu 9.04 = 5.0.1

Ubuntu 9.10 = 5.0.3

Ubuntu 10.04 LTS = 5.0.4

Ubuntu 10.10 = 5.0.6

Ubuntu 11.04 = 6.0.1

Ubuntu 11.10 = 6.0.3

Ubuntu 12.04 LTS = 6.0.4

Ubuntu 12.10 = 6.0.6

Ubuntu 13.04 = 6.0.7

Ubuntu 13.10 = 7.2

Ubuntu 14.04 LTS = 7.4

Ubuntu 14.10 = 7.7

Ubuntu 15.04 = 7.8

Ubuntu 15.10 = 8.2

Ubuntu 16.04 LTS = 8.4

Ubuntu 16.10 = 8.6

Ubuntu 17.04 = 8.7

Ubuntu 17.10 = 9.2

Ubuntu 18.04 LTS = 9.4

Ubuntu 18.10 = 9.5

Ubuntu 19.04 = 9.8

Ubuntu 19.10 = 10.1

Ubuntu 20.04 LTS = 10.3

Ubuntu 20.10 = 10.6

Ubuntu 21.04 = 10.9

Ubuntu 21.10 = 11.1

Ubuntu 22.04 LTS = 11.3

Ubuntu 22.10 = 11.5 Yoelhgo2008 (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you proposing? - Ahunt (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IOS version history which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move "Table of versions" section higher up

I think most people using this page for looking up the version number to name mapping of the Ubuntu versions and the support dates. Thus I think the table of versions should be moved up as it is on several other version history pages:

Any objections for re-applying https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_version_history&oldid=1149043560 ? Tyilo (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it very different in section order from:

Keep in mind WP:NOTMANUAL as far as looking up support dates and such. Also what about the version timeline? - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reopen discussion

explicit, this is completely outrageous! U should not have closed the template while weighing the majority !votes without considering other users' opinions, which, unfortunately, only two seemed to be interested. Reopen that discussion now for fairer results!197.0.40.125 (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?
1. This is an appropriately notified TfD. Those interested have participated. Reopening will not make a difference and will not suddenly attract others for no reason.
2. All you do is say you do not want the template to be deleted without much reason or discussion. You only provided one train which I responded to and you have never responded to that. Why are you on this crusade and why are you so interested? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, excuse me, for a moment. That specific TfD U were typing about was not appropriately notified to all users. To make an appropriate notification, users who have recently been editing articles or related templates should instead be notified. Not notifying users under a particular WikiProject. Not notifying to a limited number of WikiProjects. This is one of the many problems of how a result could be made through falsification and, perhaps, through non-admin or little to non-experienced users. Go back and restore the discussion for an unlimited time and we will ©.197.0.40.125 (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects are in fact for notifying related articles and template, what more would you want? You have still not explained why you so desperately want this template to be kept and there is no reason why reopening the discussion without anyone else knowing about it would help. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

1. My problem with the ellipses is not that they weren't wrapped in brackets. My problem is that they are the single unicode character … instead of the MOS-prescribed ....
2. Removing spaces from templates, which you re-did in your recent edit, is NOT helpful. It gives no benefit to the reader and brings a lot of difficulty to editors navigating the template code. I have also preserved the removal of surrounding spaces from equal signs in my revert.
3. {{Version}} is a template. It changes on its own, and by transcluding it we automatically sync with upstream changes of what the legend should look like. You replaced the template with a snapshot of it for no apparent reason, which is not very good.
4. We have a very long reference list, for which separating into columns of 30em helps a lot.

While this was not a reason for my revert, I'd like to say that replacing HTML tags (<blockquote></blockquote>) with their template wrapper equivalent does nothing at all. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case if anyone is wondering Y the user commented with the second person, the above user was referring to my recent activity on the article.197.3.152.166 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]