2,963
edits
No edit summary |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
[[User:RLevine|RLevine]] ([[User talk:RLevine|talk]]) 00:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC) I agree. APL2000 has been around for a long time and deserves a clear description. I added a bit about the APLDN to support the reference to APLDN on the VisualAPL page. I put in a small but positive editorial opinion about the forum which I trust is OK but am ready to submit to the "merciless editing" principle if not. It is an interesting forum though (:>) | [[User:RLevine|RLevine]] ([[User talk:RLevine|talk]]) 00:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC) I agree. APL2000 has been around for a long time and deserves a clear description. I added a bit about the APLDN to support the reference to APLDN on the VisualAPL page. I put in a small but positive editorial opinion about the forum which I trust is OK but am ready to submit to the "merciless editing" principle if not. It is an interesting forum though (:>) | ||
:As I understand it, Wikipedia doctrine is that a valuable source should be (or will naturally be) highlighted by using it for citations. Until someone has the time to go through APLDN and put the information in articles, I don't see a problem with the editorial. As for non-archive APLDN, it's hard to dispute that it's "well-organized" and I think that would be fine in an article regardless of the state of the wiki. --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] ([[User talk:Marshall|talk]]) 17:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC) |