Difference between revisions of "Talk:APL2000"

From APL Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
I have changed the page title from the registered company name APLNow to the service mark and commonly-used name APL2000, following the policies at [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Official names|Wikipedia:Official names]]. The registered name is very obscure as it is not even used by the company itself in most publications. It is also confusing to use it because, from the user's perspective, APL2000 has remained the same entity despite the change in ownership (it seems to be the same in practice as the takeover of Dyalog by Insight but with a different legal arrangement). --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] ([[User talk:Marshall|talk]]) 16:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 
I have changed the page title from the registered company name APLNow to the service mark and commonly-used name APL2000, following the policies at [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Official names|Wikipedia:Official names]]. The registered name is very obscure as it is not even used by the company itself in most publications. It is also confusing to use it because, from the user's perspective, APL2000 has remained the same entity despite the change in ownership (it seems to be the same in practice as the takeover of Dyalog by Insight but with a different legal arrangement). --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] ([[User talk:Marshall|talk]]) 16:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  
[[User:RLevine|RLevine]] ([[User talk:RLevine|talk]]) 00:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)I agree. APL2000 has been around for a while and deserves a clear description. I added a bit about the APLDN to support the reference to APLDN on the VisualAPL page which is interesting.
+
[[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)
 +
 
 +
::Thinking about your comments, I removed the point about "well-organized". The key idea was the suggestion to take a few moments to check out the APLDN forum even though it's stated focus is APL2000. I see your point - if it turns out to valuable as a general resource, this will be noted in time as you describe. One thing that would be nice to include at some point is a summary description of where APL2000 sits in the APL world, in terms of following any APL standard and any noteworthy extensions. This is all part of working on some entries for STSC and APL/PLUS --[[User:RLevine|RLevine]] ([[User talk:RLevine|talk]]) 03:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::Problem is that APL2000 is so secretive. No free demo or documentation or even information is available that I know of. [[User:Adám Brudzewsky|Adám Brudzewsky]] ([[User talk:Adám Brudzewsky|talk]]) 05:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:57, 26 November 2020

Page title

I have changed the page title from the registered company name APLNow to the service mark and commonly-used name APL2000, following the policies at Wikipedia:Official names. The registered name is very obscure as it is not even used by the company itself in most publications. It is also confusing to use it because, from the user's perspective, APL2000 has remained the same entity despite the change in ownership (it seems to be the same in practice as the takeover of Dyalog by Insight but with a different legal arrangement). --Marshall (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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. --Marshall (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thinking about your comments, I removed the point about "well-organized". The key idea was the suggestion to take a few moments to check out the APLDN forum even though it's stated focus is APL2000. I see your point - if it turns out to valuable as a general resource, this will be noted in time as you describe. One thing that would be nice to include at some point is a summary description of where APL2000 sits in the APL world, in terms of following any APL standard and any noteworthy extensions. This is all part of working on some entries for STSC and APL/PLUS --RLevine (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Problem is that APL2000 is so secretive. No free demo or documentation or even information is available that I know of. Adám Brudzewsky (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)