Talk:APL2000: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
510 bytes added ,  17:46, 25 November 2020
no edit summary
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)

Navigation menu