Danakil

02:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

=Fortran=

Hiya. I noticed you changed Fortran to FORTRAN in 18:56, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC) *I ll change it back, but I must confess that it looks awkward to me to have both Fortran and ALGOL side by side...and the ALGOL site suggests keeping the capitalized version of the name. Thanks for pointing this out to me. --Danakil ::Well... as I understand it (which isn t all that well, since I don t know as much about either of these languages as I should...) they were both originally capitalised (ALGOL & FORTRAN), but Fortran s name later changed to the new version, whereas the no-longer-developed ALGOL hasn t. So it does look a bit strange, but is actually correct. 19:28, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

== Moving pages== Please do not copy and paste text to move it from one article title to another. Use the move page feature to change an article s title (look at the bar of options at each article and you ll find it). If you need a redirect deleted for a move, let an admin (like me) know. -- 05:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) *OK. Let me take this opportunity to clarify another doubt: ::What should be the standard for naming cities in, say, Mexico I saw both a Tampico page and a Tampico (Mexico) page. I don t think either one is the right approach: there is also Tampico, Illinois , for example (Reagan was born there); and there are several cities in Mexico with the same name but in a different State. See also the Altamira page. So, shouldn t a pattern like Cityname, Statename apply or is there already a different standard way of doing this ::Thanks for pointing out to me the right way to do a move. I hadn t thought about the perjudicial effects, in terms of page history, of doing what I was doing instead of using move . ::--Danakil :::With Mexican cities, I think we re tending towards leaving articles at the city name only where there is no disambiguation needed and apending the state name where it is. This seems to be more a case of what editors wound up doing than any established standard. There are certainly some cases where we can and should be clearer. -- 04:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

= =

Hiya. The thing about the new format is that it has the same problem as the old one, except more so: it s too large . It distracts from the actual article, and honestly I don t think the list is useful in this form however it s formatted. Listing every language is clearly not feasible, listing only some not only causes arguments as to what should be listed, and including even a reasonable subset makes it cramped, to say the least. I d rather leave it as it is (in the unconspicuous version) for now, and try to achieve consensus on a new, two-tier layout ASAP. 19:27, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

:I agree that a list of programming languages is useful. That s why we re working on a reasonable way to present this list in the articles (cf 19:42, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

= Function-level Programming =

You are right, I ll rework the translation. Thanks. -- 18:29, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

= Programming languages =

Hi, I was wondering why you removed Category:Programming languages from all lists of programming languages Yet you left Category:Esoteric programming languages in the List of esoteric programming languages article. Was that by mistake-) 12:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Hi,ZeroOne. I decided not to touch the subcategories, since by their own nature, they give rise to lists of programming languages (say, the LISP subcategory -> list of Lisp-related prog langs, and so on). Perhaps we should make an attempt to standardize on the subcategory naming convention, though. The other possible way to use the Category/subcategory hierarchy would be to use the subcategories to actually hold the links to their languages, rather than the Prog Lang category; but this approach has many disadvantages IMO: languages could end up in both the category and subcategory, and there would be no equivalent to the current de facto alphabetical list produced by the category (in fact, if we stick to a consistent interpretation of the category elements, we don t need the List of Prog Langs in Alphabetical Order article any more). Furthermore, if a consensus is reached on how to use the subcategories, we might end up not needing the List of Categorical prog langs article either. One more thing... I did remove HQ9plus as a programming language, but left it as an esoteric one, on the grounds that since it is easier to come up with a valid new esoteric language than with a full-blown language entry, eventually we would end up with a Prog Langs category with an overwhelming majority of esoteric mini-langs over the real langs. Please let me know what you think. Have a good day. ::I think the main reason that we need lists of programming languages is because an article does not exist for each and every language yet. Thus the categories can t create automatic lists that would be complete. Neither can categories organize the languages in a chronological order etc. The problem of languages falling under their specific category and/or the main category is real, though. How would it be decided what languages should have their own sub categories Etc etc... Maybe we could even setup a new 20:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::(Btw, I m moving this thread from my talk page to here. I think it would be logical for the conversation to take place in one Talk-page only and that is the talk-page where the initial message is posted. Maybe you should copy here your replies about those other subjects below, too. - 22:13, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC))

= Programming language articles =

You re making a gigantic mess of things by renaming all the programming language articles. There is simply no need to do it; for all but a handful, the name is completely unambiguous. Also, the names are actually BLISS etc, not BLISS programming language ; it s like titling an article Albert Einstein Homo sapiens , when there s never been anyone who s had that as a name. Why not add some content to language articles, instead of making more pointless work for everybody 20:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

: Agreed. Danakil, please see 21:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:These affect me (and others) by taking up time changing all the links that are now redirects - it s useless busy work that takes precious time away from content and fact-checking. These days, if I move something, I ll go back and edit some or all of the references myself, so as not to put more work on other people - putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak. There s also the aspect of having to explain to newbies how the articles are named opposite to the existing convention, fixing clumsy cut-n-paste attempts to undo the move, etc. Why didn t you just create redirs from the longer forms, as per the longstanding rule 21:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:One more thing - I see you re relatively new here, and by mostly creating new articles (which is great!), you probably haven t stepped on any toes so far. In general, when things look disorganized, it s worthwhile to stop a moment and ask why, instead of assuming all the long-time editors don t know what they re doing. This is partly my fault actually, because at one point I was going to add the redirs from X programming language , which would reduced the temptation to move articles, but got distracted and forgot. It never hurts to post a couple this is terrible, I m going to do something about it! notes on relevant talk pages and wait a day or two; if someone cares, they ll let you know. By doing a whole bunch of moves, unannounced, on a subject for which policy already exists, you re just about guaranteed to annoy lots of people, most of whom haven t yet logged in to see what s happened. You haven t done anything that s not fixable, and I expect a number of people will take that on over the next week - unless of course you do some fast talking on 21:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:Please don t make any more changes regarding programming language articles! If you disagree with the policy, get the policy changed, don t just ignore it - admins can and will revert all your stuff en masse if they think you re wilfully going against settled policy. It s a Sunday afternoon, the sh*t will hit the fan tomorrow most likely, so my advice is to cool it on the link tinkering for now, and make your case on the policy page. 22:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

= =

C++ is not a compiled programming language, since there are at least 2 interpreters available for the language. If you mean languages which can be compiled, I m really not sure this is a useful distinctian (nearly all languages can be both compiled and interpreted). 13:12, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC) *You re correct. I created the Compiled subcategory because of the existing Interpreted subcategory, but I should have removed the other one instead (it only has one language in it, and not a canonical one). I ll remove the Compiled/Interpreted distinction. — **Ah, I see - yeah, it s probably best to get rid of both. There s a page somewhere explaining this (e.g. why we don t describe Java as a bytecode language), but I forget where exactly... 15:08, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

**Maybe,

***What part of best to get rid of both did you fail to understand, Taku — 06:17, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey Danakil. Please go and add your vote here 18:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

= programming language classifier =

Hi. I noticed you reverted some of the prog lang names, and I was wondering if you had read the ongoing discussions regarding the naming of programming languages and, if so, I would be interested to know what you think about the following issues: :if there is a shorcut from, say, Sather AND Sather (programming language) to Sather programming language , then what are the disadvantages of having a homogenized programming language nomenclature, where all the base articles have the programming language classifier :what do you think about the impact of non-uniform naming in the perceived quality of the product :what s your position on the very large number of current dangling references caused by the fact that some languages are called X and some others X programming language and it is apparently quite difficult to remember which is which I m interested in knowing what you think about these issues. Have a good day. —danakil

:I have no preference in naming programming language articles. Since we have not yet to reach the consensus to put a programming language suffix to all of the articles, so I made reversion. Once we have reached a new naming convention, I am happy to put a programming language suffix. -- 11:30, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

*OK. So, since you have no preference, we can discount your vote on the issue, correct And, since you did not comment on my questions, you have nothing to say about them either, correct —

:I don t vote and like I said, I don t want to make comments on those issues, though I have my opinion. I just hate that articles title are put out of line. Please feel free to make a change in the naming convention. -- 11:52, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

:Technically, Taku is within his rights to change things to conform to an existing standard, but it s not very politic of him to do so; if we decide to change, then it s still more meaningless work to change everything once again. Unfortunately, it s all too common for editors to edit first and talk second, eh 06:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::I made a mistake and proceeded to correct it. Taku s behaviour is in a completely different league, Stan. Please see my recent comments to 06:09, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:::What did you think I was going to do, block Taku s IP for the crime of enforcing current policy You should know by now that there aren t really any options in between letting everybody do anything they want, and either protecting pages from all edits or blocking people from all editing. Taku s practice is not a good one, and it s not the first time he s done it, but only the Arbitration Committee can deal out punishments, and I doubt they ll want to bother in this case (feel free to submit it though). In any case, you get a plus sign by your name for restraining yourself when asked, which people will remember later when you need it, and Taku gets yet another minus sign, which people also remember when evaluating his edits. 21:29, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

= Competing BASIC categories =

Hi, I noticed the new BASIC dialects category (thanks; it was long overdue), but also a BASIC language family category -- is the latter one to be deleted I guess the dialects category is the most suitable, or what -- 01:55, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(ps: please feel free to reply below, right here on this page; that makes the thread much easier to follow!) --Wernher

*Hi, Wernher. The intention is for

::Thanks for the clarification. I fully agree on the categorization scheme suggested in your outline above. I should of course have thought more deeply about the distinction between p.l. dialects and p.l. family members. Anyway, I ve now done a little bit of p.l. category work myself re these cats, by adding 02:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

= programming language classifier =

Thanks for your message. This isn t a field where I am personally knowledgeable, and for more detailed help you might wish to find an administrator who is more familiar with the subject (has one edited any of the articles in question). I ll just say that I agree that if there is conflict about the classification and ongoing discussion, it is indeed wrong for one editor to make major unilateral changes not generaly accepted by the others interested. It s also inappropriate to make a habit of moving articles without being willing to do the work of taking care of the redirects. Beyond that, I can offer to help revert something that causes a particular mess, or protect a page if it gets to the point of an edit war. If necessary, take your concerns to somewhere like 17:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:I added the section 03:16, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

::I have better things to do than playing teen fights with you. — 03:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

---

Happy and honored to join 22:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

= Rlab =

Thanks for cleaning up 01:41, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) *Glad to be of help. — 01:46, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

= NGL =

Don t even think of undoing another TLA disambig page again - deleting other people s additions like that is called vandalism around here, and can get you banned. 17:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I won t. But if any vandalism has been done around here, it has been done by you. A good sysop must show neutrality and wisdom. — 17:47, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

**Ah, but I haven t deleted anybody s content, and added some in the process, plus discovered that 18:15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) *Hi, D; Hmm. I m not sure Stan wouldn t talk me out of my position (if you have correctly described his position), so don t count me on your side yet. But IMO that s less important than helping you get on an even keel re relating to your colleagues here. : I bring that up immediately bcz another disapproved behavior here (at least in the case of creating articles, and IMO the same principles should apply to editing) is what i would call ironic editing : making an edit just to demonstrate a point . The usual case is A disapproves of the retention of an article that B favored, and A writes an analogous article that A expects B to favor deletion of. The problem is that A has now written an article that A believes should be deleted, to make a point . Don t (as you already have) get yourself into the postion where you can t or don t want to defend your own work. : I ll look at the situation with the objected to, and see whether the issue is as narrow as you ve said, and if so try to explore his reasoning. In the meantime, please try to stay out of trouble. Without trying to be sarcastic, are you sure your time wouldn t, for the moment, be better spent learning the local culture, including but not limited to WP policies, rather than editing for the moment : Full disclosure: i m another admin (or sysop ), which is (a) no big deal, there are over 300 of us, and (b) no assurance that i ll sympathize more with him than you (e.g., we don t all know each other; 10 or 20 votes is a typical number to approve a new one; there are a lot of things not specifically covered by written policies; etc.). I just don t want you to feel i led you down the garden path by not mentioning it. : -- 04:16, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC) **Thanks, Jerzy. Commenting on your points: ::I do not recall having described Stan s position, as far as I can see, I limited myself to offering links to the relevant discussions. ::I am not counting you on my side, as I don t want to have a side . I only asked you if you would consider doing with the NGL article the same thing you had just done with the TRAC one. ::I am not here to socialize, but nevertheless, I have remained cool and respectful while a couple of others haven t (see first comment to me, above on this page, he hadn t even taken care of checking out whether or not I had written any content articles). Outside of those two people, the interaction with my Wikipedian colleagues has been very rewarding. ::No. I have not gotten myself into the position where I can t/don t-want-to defend my own work: the edit I made to the TRAC article is perfectly valid under the light of my reasoning that there should always be a disambig page for prog lang names that refers to the base article named along the [LangName programming language]] pattern. The only thing left to do was to immediately create one of the other TRAC articles. So I stand behind my actions. ::Thanks for the time you take to look upon the situation. Of course I know there is no assurance. And, in fact, the NGL article issue is not a big deal at all , rather, the problem I see is that sysops are supposed to show more tactful/neutral behaviour than the one I ve been experimenting. ::I am not looking for trouble. ::No. I had already read most of the documents you mention before I joined Wikipedia as a named member. Besides, I believe I am making a significant number of positive contributions in the area of programming languages and, also, in that of the mesoamerican natural languages. It is not a month that I ve begun to edit, and I m currently ranked 618. Plus I have created a good number of prog lang related articles and practically re-built the . ::Don t worry about me feeling let down: I won t. I am aware of the rights/limitations of sysops. ::Thanks again for your kind attention. Have a good day. — 05:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) :::BTW, it s not the case that I hadn t even taken care of checking out whether or not I had written any content articles - I always look over an editor s efforts before commenting to them. I will admit that I was rather irritated at the time, and my remark about creating article content was unnecessarily snarky, sorry. 06:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::::Apology accepted. Thanks for commenting on this. As you probably do yourself, I have no other intent here than to contribute to the Wikipedia to the utmost of my abilities. — 06:21, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

= weltanschauung map =

Hi danakil,

It is possible to give legends for the image of the 14:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

= Most likely, Malintzin s mother tongue was nahuatl =

Hi, Danakil: Concerning the 02:45, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) *You re correct. Nevertheless, the real extent of the use of Nahuatl as an ubiquituous lingua franca along the whole of Mesoamerica is being seriously re-appreciated as of late (in the sense that it has probably been significantly underappreciated). In any case, the article is about 02:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

= Article renaming =

Why are you renaming articles, e.g. 10:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was careful to correct all double redirects and you still have the previous way of referring to the article ( 10:39, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

If you believe the Wikipedia naming convention should be changed, then you must get others to agree with your idea. Put it up for discussion on 10:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Fredrik:

I have indeed read and all related info I have been able to find. My opinion (which is shared by at least a few other wikipedians who have expressed themselves on the issue after carefully informing themselves about it) is that the current naming conventions are not clear nor precise nor exhaustive (notice that I am not saying that I disagree with them, that s something else) and thus leave a lot of elbow room for interpretation (and with it, unfortunately, subjective disagreement), which is what you and I are doing now.

The particular interpretation you seem to adhere to is: unless in need of a disambiguating page, all articles must be named in the shortest form possible, removing any classifiers.

The particular interpretation I adhere to is: it is not required to use a classifier in the article s name unless there is a need for disambiguation page.

As per your suggestion to bring this topic up for discussion on naming conventions... it has been already done by me and a few other wikipedians in relation to the Programming Language articles, and I am convinced that it won t take us anywhere again for the following reason:

Really understanding the implications of this issue takes some reading and some thinking. Not many are willing to do that, whereas many are willing to just express themselves right on the spot when they first happen to stumble on a discussion . The result is that, just like you yourself did above, nobody ever addresses the points we bring to the discussion but, rather, confine themselves to a letany of this is the naming convention, unless we say that it is not, then that s what we do .

So... if seeing the text (algorithm) to the right of bzip2 bothers you that much (even though thats what you will pretty much find out everywhere else where encyclopaedic content is listed)... go ahead and feel free to make bzip2 the main article and bzip2 (algorithm) a redirect to it. For you it will certainly make no much difference, except that you will be able to enforce the manual of style , and for many of us.. the issue will be that we can t distinguish between algorithms, software, and file formats while scanning long lists of articles, and will continue to make many false clicks. I am not ready to go through this issue all over again... so do what you think is what s correct in the spirit of the community that created such a wonderful idea as the Wikipedia . Have a nice day, — 19:04, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Classification by category is a job for the category system. As for distinguishing between things on lists of articles -- where would this be a problem For the plain see also -kind of lists, the answer is that they are an inherently poor way to link to related things -- much better to provide some text. Instead of listing a bunch of file formats by article name, write a little about them and why they re relevant to the subject, or sort them under subheadings.

What about the programming languages articles names ABC programming language is only used over ABC if there s something else called ABC , if that s what you re referring to. 17:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

= fundamental terms - task process etc =

I see that you have removed the 10:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Ancheta. You re right they are fundamental terms. The idea is to extract the computer-science specific versions out of the general articles, and have those included in Cat Computing. The CS-specific ones will point out to the more general terms. And the more general ones will work also (as they are doing now) as a disambig page with main content, though without multiple specific contents other than the main (generic process, generic task). I intend to do that in the next few hours. What do you think — 18:40, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

If the disambiguation page points to the original using pages, and if the wiki-linked computing-specific terminology sits on the disambiguation page inside of a sentence, instead of a simple see computing-specific term then you have added value. But if the computing-specific term loses its place in the disambiguation page, which is how the innovators of the term thought of the concept, then history and etymology are lost. Especially for the word task , which arose in the mini-computer world, independently of the word process which seems to be the unix term for the same thing, that nuance is important. It is the link between the real-time OS s like VRTX, pSOS, RDOS and the multi-processing unix picture. I would appreciate it if that is not lost during the deconstruction of the task and process disambiguation pages. It occurred 10-15 years before the PC wave. 00:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean. I ll take a shot at it, and I will appreciate any corrections you make to it, until we obtain something that you are comfortable with. Thanks. — 00:32, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

= Editor Extraordinaire =

Danakil of the Wikipedians, I hearby promote you to the rank of Editor Extraordinaire , with all the privileges and responsibilities it entails. :)

These are your ASCII chevrons: