This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Any reason, why there is no article about foswiki? Was there a deletion discussion? I can't find it ... -- 217.227.248.101 ( talk) 19:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Foswiki is notable as part of the
History_of_wikis. That aside both projects, TWiki and Foswiki, feel the desire to maintain a wikipedia articles each on their own behalf more than trampling on each other's feet. See the recent edit history and related talk on the
TWiki article. Please don't delete the Foswiki page. Thanks.
Nuddlegg (
talk) 09:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedians, I am not a foswiki developer (or even an user for that matter) but I believe Wikipedia standpoint doesn't hold anymore. The discussion made 3 years ago was that foswiki was only a fork of Twiki. This fact isn't true anymore. I check those facts: Foswiki had 15 releases since the project started; it has an user base and a healthy community of developers. I talked to them on #foswiki on irc.freenode.net and they were very polite and helpful. So I ask to remove the AfD flag on this article. Jonas Fagundes ( talk) 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Wait... which way did they go?!? ...ok, sure, let's talk here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foswiki_(2nd_nomination) -pbr 4/20/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulReiber ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm adding this in hopes the Foswiki page is NOT deleted, and NOT re-redirected to TWiki, so that it can remain its own independent page - which it deserves.
Assuming we get to that, I'd like to recommend some minor edits which are in the best interest of both Foswiki and TWiki. It all comes down to not finger-pointing.
Wikipedia is not a battleground. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
The second paragraph for this page currently reads:
I recommend simplifying that:
Period. End of sentence. Why get your hands dirty rubbing salt in old wounds?
Likewise, I would recommend a rework of the "Origins" section.
It could be as simple as something like this:
I'll not be so bold as to edit the page myself - however I do hope that you all consider my recommendations above and act on them.
Kind regards,
PaulReiber (
talk) 04:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Can we agree on:
This is actually quite accurate and doesn't go into all of the details. Nuddlegg ( talk) 07:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Further ways to improve the article:
Nuddlegg ( talk) 09:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm moving the list of resources that were added the past couple of weeks here that aren't actively being used in the article. Some of them are pretty marginal (a paper that references Foswiki as an example is not very useful). Hopefully some of the Foswiki proponents will be able to pull the notable information about of these sources and add them to the article. As that's done, it would probably make sense to remove the reference from here as it should be on the main article at that point. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
References that were added to the article are marked accordingly.
Steven Walling, could you please explain why you added these two banners recently to the article? Which parts of it make you think so? Thanks for the feedback. Nuddlegg ( talk) 06:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed the banners again as previous edits seem to fully address the concerns, imho. Steven, would you mind to review them and drop some comments in here? Nuddlegg ( talk) 09:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
In response to the banner about advertising - which I personally consider to have been quite valid - I toned down the "sales pitch" nature of the description and tried to focus it back onto the features that make Foswiki stand out. -- Swandodger ( talk) 09:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay the claim that the article "may contain improper references to self-published sources" is back again without reacting on the related talk that we started here. Why? Nuddlegg ( talk) 06:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
There have been some recent edits to the page that I don't agree with, i.e. the deletion of the release history as well as flagging the list of features as being in list format. After reviewing a couple of other software products on wikipedia, it seems common habit to in fact have a release history as part of the article, as well as listing the features of the software in list format. So I'd like to revert these two edits as they don't seen to be appropriate or at least not taking into account common practice on the rest of wikipedia with regards to articles about software. Before doing so, I'd like to hear the opinions of those who made those changes just to get a clear picture. Steven could you please shed a light on this? Thanks. If I don't get a reaction within a week, I'll revert these changes. Nuddlegg ( talk) 06:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...
If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.
We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.
The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!
If you have need for a user script that does not yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.
If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.
At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Any reason, why there is no article about foswiki? Was there a deletion discussion? I can't find it ... -- 217.227.248.101 ( talk) 19:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Foswiki is notable as part of the
History_of_wikis. That aside both projects, TWiki and Foswiki, feel the desire to maintain a wikipedia articles each on their own behalf more than trampling on each other's feet. See the recent edit history and related talk on the
TWiki article. Please don't delete the Foswiki page. Thanks.
Nuddlegg (
talk) 09:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedians, I am not a foswiki developer (or even an user for that matter) but I believe Wikipedia standpoint doesn't hold anymore. The discussion made 3 years ago was that foswiki was only a fork of Twiki. This fact isn't true anymore. I check those facts: Foswiki had 15 releases since the project started; it has an user base and a healthy community of developers. I talked to them on #foswiki on irc.freenode.net and they were very polite and helpful. So I ask to remove the AfD flag on this article. Jonas Fagundes ( talk) 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Wait... which way did they go?!? ...ok, sure, let's talk here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foswiki_(2nd_nomination) -pbr 4/20/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulReiber ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm adding this in hopes the Foswiki page is NOT deleted, and NOT re-redirected to TWiki, so that it can remain its own independent page - which it deserves.
Assuming we get to that, I'd like to recommend some minor edits which are in the best interest of both Foswiki and TWiki. It all comes down to not finger-pointing.
Wikipedia is not a battleground. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
The second paragraph for this page currently reads:
I recommend simplifying that:
Period. End of sentence. Why get your hands dirty rubbing salt in old wounds?
Likewise, I would recommend a rework of the "Origins" section.
It could be as simple as something like this:
I'll not be so bold as to edit the page myself - however I do hope that you all consider my recommendations above and act on them.
Kind regards,
PaulReiber (
talk) 04:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Can we agree on:
This is actually quite accurate and doesn't go into all of the details. Nuddlegg ( talk) 07:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Further ways to improve the article:
Nuddlegg ( talk) 09:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm moving the list of resources that were added the past couple of weeks here that aren't actively being used in the article. Some of them are pretty marginal (a paper that references Foswiki as an example is not very useful). Hopefully some of the Foswiki proponents will be able to pull the notable information about of these sources and add them to the article. As that's done, it would probably make sense to remove the reference from here as it should be on the main article at that point. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
References that were added to the article are marked accordingly.
Steven Walling, could you please explain why you added these two banners recently to the article? Which parts of it make you think so? Thanks for the feedback. Nuddlegg ( talk) 06:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed the banners again as previous edits seem to fully address the concerns, imho. Steven, would you mind to review them and drop some comments in here? Nuddlegg ( talk) 09:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
In response to the banner about advertising - which I personally consider to have been quite valid - I toned down the "sales pitch" nature of the description and tried to focus it back onto the features that make Foswiki stand out. -- Swandodger ( talk) 09:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay the claim that the article "may contain improper references to self-published sources" is back again without reacting on the related talk that we started here. Why? Nuddlegg ( talk) 06:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
There have been some recent edits to the page that I don't agree with, i.e. the deletion of the release history as well as flagging the list of features as being in list format. After reviewing a couple of other software products on wikipedia, it seems common habit to in fact have a release history as part of the article, as well as listing the features of the software in list format. So I'd like to revert these two edits as they don't seen to be appropriate or at least not taking into account common practice on the rest of wikipedia with regards to articles about software. Before doing so, I'd like to hear the opinions of those who made those changes just to get a clear picture. Steven could you please shed a light on this? Thanks. If I don't get a reaction within a week, I'll revert these changes. Nuddlegg ( talk) 06:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...
If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.
We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.
The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!
If you have need for a user script that does not yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.
If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.
At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)