APL Wiki:Content guidelines: Difference between revisions

Because the [[#What is APL?|definition]] of APL is not rigorous (a particular language may be more or less APL-like), the notability guidelines above can be interpreted more strictly or more loosely. To determine whether content belongs on the APL Wiki at all, a loose interpretation is better. For determining how content is presented, however, editors should consider not just whether a topic is related to APL but how closely related, or central to APL, it is. Even a recent and niche development like [[Reverse Compose]] has a place in the Wiki, but most information about the primitive should remain on its own page and mentions on more central pages should be qualified in order to make it clear the primitive is not available in most APLs. In contrast, a topic like [[Outer Product]] can be mentioned anywhere, and omitting it from related articles like [[Inner Product]] or [[Each]] would be a mistake in emphasis.

Keep in mind that many APL users are not very visible to the outside world and don't publish anything about their usage (especially after the decline of the [[APL conference]]). For example, you are unlikely to see recent material about [[APL2]], but it is still widely used, and it's reasonable to think these users will look to the APL Wiki as a resource. As an editor you aren't expected to know every prominent language in order to contribute, but please think twice before removing material about a language you don't think is prominent. Evidence that the language is still in use might include major companies using it, active support forums, or significant development on the language indicating that it makes enough revenue to support this development. Significant historical use is also a sign, as usage of a particular APL rarely dies out quickly.