Talk:Environment variable

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Environment variable 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

The article Unset was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 February 2016 with a consensus to merge the content into Environment variable. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page.

Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}.

Archives

Archive 1

Lack of values in "Default Values on Microsoft Windows" table

The table lacks some default values on windows

%ProgramW6432%=C:\Program Files (on windows 64 bit)
%CommonProgramW6432%=C:\Program Files\Common Files (on windows 64 bit)

Vip17 (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PowerShell Display

Nit-picky, I know, but with PowerShell, you don't need the Write-Output cmdlet. Just type the variable name and press Enter to display it's value. $home will display your home directory; $profile will display the fully-qualified path to your PowerShell profile, et cetera.

AfflictedHorror (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary References to Multiuser DOS

The article is full of references to Multiuser DOS, which I feel is unnecessary as that product is, for all intents and purposes, dead. I suggest that the references be removed to de-clutter this article. Thanks. Todd (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. It is historically relevant. Wikipedia is not a computer magazine discussing current technology but an encyclopedia documenting technology (and lots of other stuff) regardless of when it was "up to date" for those who are interested to learn about it and to preserve this knowledge for generations to come. You can learn quite a lot for the future by studying the past, and a lot of old ideas can be reapplied to new technology - if you only know about them... There is no true progress, if the wheel gets reinvented again and again instead of building on experiences gained with already proven technology. Therefore, it is important to preserve this information in encyclopedic form as much as information about other achievements and events. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am w/ you regarding the need and obligation to preserve history. I think the problem here is that currently valid information which is immediately useful is mixed with historical facts. Not sure what the solution is. Todd (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Environment variable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference concerns

@matthiaspaul Many of the references on this article appear to reference your own work, at least one seems to download a zip file. You appear to be modifying/adding these references yourself. I believe this is likely unacceptable and all such references will need to be removed from the article. Do you have any comments? Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think there is anything to worry about here. The refs are not about me, but about the topic at hands, and they are highly accurate and facts-based, therefore they are perfectly acceptable to support the statements in the article just like any other refs. The reason why I sometimes added more than one link is to prevent possible link rot in the future - after all, we can be happy, that some of this stuff can still be found floating around in the net at all after so many decades. None of this is or was hosted by me. Anyway, if you find more and better sources, please add them - I wish there would be more of them, but it is my experience that it is very difficult to find sources going into the necessary detail level and in particular after so many years. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"C：\WINDOWS" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect C：\WINDOWS should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#C：\WINDOWS until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]