Talk:APL2000: Difference between revisions

Line 7:

: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. --[[User:RLevine|RLevine]] ([[User talk:RLevine|talk]]) 03:34, 26 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. --[[User:RLevine|RLevine]] ([[User talk:RLevine|talk]]) 03:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:34, 26 November 2020 (view source) RLevine (talk \| contribs) (→‎Page title) ← Older edit		Revision as of 03:39, 26 November 2020 (view source) RLevine (talk \| contribs) (→‎Page title) Newer edit →
Line 7:		Line 7:
	: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)		: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. --[[User:RLevine\|RLevine]] ([[User talk:RLevine\|talk]]) 03:34, 26 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. --[[User:RLevine\|RLevine]] ([[User talk:RLevine\|talk]]) 03:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:APL2000: Difference between revisions

Navigation menu

Search