This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WebGPU article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It keeps on needing to be edited every-time that there is an amendment to the draft spec, which is many times in the span of a month. Is there any alternative milestone that we could use in place of the current one? Maybe even the first draft date that was universally accepted as the 'Working Draft'? 86.14.56.116 ( talk) 13:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I would agree with a solution such as adding "As of Dec 2022" (or even Jan 2023) instead of constantly changing it for every edit to the spec which is many times a month. We can update it if or when it has a new status instead of the current Editor's Working Draft. Dasein ( talk) 21:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Apr 11, 2023, 15:09 - «Criticism: Totally inappropriate to try to cite discussion posts as a reliable source for criticism. Feel free to start a discussion on the discussion page.»
Apr 11, 2023, 15:05 - «WP:CONTEXTMATTERS; It's fine if someone comes and upgrades these sources; there are more to come»
Apr 10, 2023, 18:56 - «some grammar fixes, overlinking»
Apr 10, 2023, 13:28 - «Remove unreliable sources, add some tags»
Apr 10, 2023, 13:22 - «Critcism: none of these are WP:RS»
Apr 8, 2023, 10:42 - «Critcism: new»
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
It's perfectly reliable sources for the statement about critcism of WGSL. The two sources out of 3 refer to the same place where the subject of article is being developed. There is virtually nobody who can actually criticise it. I agree that for now the source is not perfect but in future more reliable sources may emerge. Currently this is a minor problem. I propose you revert your edit and just put a tag requesting better sources so everyone can notice. Stop babbysitting my contribs. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)... source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WebGPU article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It keeps on needing to be edited every-time that there is an amendment to the draft spec, which is many times in the span of a month. Is there any alternative milestone that we could use in place of the current one? Maybe even the first draft date that was universally accepted as the 'Working Draft'? 86.14.56.116 ( talk) 13:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I would agree with a solution such as adding "As of Dec 2022" (or even Jan 2023) instead of constantly changing it for every edit to the spec which is many times a month. We can update it if or when it has a new status instead of the current Editor's Working Draft. Dasein ( talk) 21:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Apr 11, 2023, 15:09 - «Criticism: Totally inappropriate to try to cite discussion posts as a reliable source for criticism. Feel free to start a discussion on the discussion page.»
Apr 11, 2023, 15:05 - «WP:CONTEXTMATTERS; It's fine if someone comes and upgrades these sources; there are more to come»
Apr 10, 2023, 18:56 - «some grammar fixes, overlinking»
Apr 10, 2023, 13:28 - «Remove unreliable sources, add some tags»
Apr 10, 2023, 13:22 - «Critcism: none of these are WP:RS»
Apr 8, 2023, 10:42 - «Critcism: new»
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
It's perfectly reliable sources for the statement about critcism of WGSL. The two sources out of 3 refer to the same place where the subject of article is being developed. There is virtually nobody who can actually criticise it. I agree that for now the source is not perfect but in future more reliable sources may emerge. Currently this is a minor problem. I propose you revert your edit and just put a tag requesting better sources so everyone can notice. Stop babbysitting my contribs. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)... source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.