Jump to content

Talk:Clarion (programming language)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Restoring to October

[edit]

I've restored this article back to the earlier October 2016 version without the advertising. --Kartano (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced / What's the POV issue here?

[edit]

I've tagged this article for its complete lack of references. I'm going to delete some of the trivial info. Phyesalis 06:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the code examples as they were possible copyright infringements and made an already too-long article even longer. And they lacked sources. Something should be done about the history section - way too long. How does the history of JPI relate to the notability of Clarion? As the article is currently written, its notability is dubious. This article seriously needs some acceptable sources, papers written about it and that kind of thing to help clarify its notability and give the article s ome credibility. Phyesalis 06:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I've been inside and outside of Clarion for the last 17 years (I wrote the documentation from 1991-1998), and I see nothing here that's glaringly incorrect. So, what's the problem? Docmaster 20:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every single person who edited this page did so to praise the language, and this is the only contribution to Wikipedia the users ever did. This includes you, too. It's just blatant promotion of the language by people who work or have worked on it, and that sort of thing doesn't belong here. Besides, this talk page is here to discuss the Wikipedia article on Clarion, and not the language itself or any of its merits whatever those may be. Leave that for Clarion-related websites, thank you. — Kieff | Talk 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but saying "nothing here that's glaringly incorrect" is far from praise and blatant promotion. There are negative points raised in the article, and these also fall into the category of "not glaringly incorrect."

As for your statement "this talk page is here to discuss the Wikipedia article on Clarion" -- that's exactly what I was doing by asking this question.

The article DOES present an accurate narrative of the history of the language's development, with failures discussed as well as what success it has had. Therefore, there is no relevant POV issue in that regard.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be about presenting the facts. Just because you don't like those facts, don't attack them by raising the bugaboo of "blatant promotion." A features list of a commercial product in an article about that product cannot be construed to be other than a listing of facts about that product -- and certainly should not be labelled "blatant promotion." Therefore, there is no relevant POV issue in that regard, either.

So, again, what's the real beef here? Richard 18:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docmaster (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the beef is that this article reads like an ad for the product. Why is this subject notable? I'm not arguing for the article's deletion, but I think there needs to be more text about its notablity and less about how easy it is so easy to use. It also requires a ton of citation. It should be tagged for sourcing. Phyesalis 06:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I undid the deletions made by Phyesalis on 3-Nov-2007. Justification : too aggresive a deletion. Phyesalis claimed that various statements were POV, but I believe they are factual are suited for inclusion. Example "Templates are open for developers to modify ..." is a statement of fact about a major feature of the product and certainly should not have been removed. Ditto for various other text that was deleted. GrandPoohBah 13:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back to changes. They were not aggressive given the fact that the majority of info removed has possible copyright issues. The article needs citations. Suggest editors cite sources and obtain permission to include code examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs) 05:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the source code has possible copyright problems, I cant see any problems with the rest of the stuff that you deleted. Are you expecting citations for every point in this article ? that sounds a little ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandPoohBah (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the code presents issues, and it was a large part of what I deleted. But as for ridiculous, how about any point in the article? That might be a good start. I am expecting, as this is an article on software that it meet Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), namely, that this article contain several non-trivial discussions of the product produced by a party other than the author/s. Press releases and trivial coverage do not count. And, as info not cited or sourced, it may be removed if challenged. I challenge it. Given the lack of sources and non-trivial discussion of the subject, this article (as it is currently written) should be deleted. However, work could be done to highlight this subject's notability, but again, as the article stands, it's notability is not clear. If the subject is indeed notable, there should be some reliable third-party discussion of it in a tech journal/mag. Phyesalis 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I cant do much about adding citations myself, but Ive added a new NOTABILITY section. This needs to be enhanced and probably cleaned up (my writing style is not the best), but its a good start GrandPoohBah 00:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. I added some references to this article by looking at the wikipedia explanation of hous it should be done as well as what constitutes a reference. Where in doubt, I also looked at how the Microsoft Visual Studio entry was done and did the same.

I agree that a few screenshots of the workings of the product is in order, and we need to cut down on the history part. It does nothing to explain the product and it's capabilities. Riebens - 1 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.101.2 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the installs of all Clarion versions on my hard disk I entered more details into history. Also confirmed in the help file the addition of some significant changes. I'm also going to try to undelete the code examples. Other languages (VB, Delphi and C) contain code examples without copyright. I wrote the originals by translating other langugae examples into Clarion. It's a friken article about a programming language so it should show examples. Carl Barnes January 2, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.235.47 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added back the code examples that I originally added. The reason is this article is about a programming language and other programmers want to see what the code looks like. I also added an OOP example that I converted from a simple example on the Oject Pascal page. I added a link to the comp.lang.clarion group, IMO it establishes that Clarion is a language with a following. Clarion is no different then FoxPro, Visual Basic or Delphi. Carl Barnes.

The dispute around notability here is ridiculous. A business software package that has been around for a quarter of a century and is still being sold and used just has to be notable, no other proof needed. By the way, there are new versions - 7 and .NET, but I can't find release dates anywhere. 95.55.32.118 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

marketing personel

[edit]

personnel would be the correct version. as it only mentions Kahn what is trying to be said here? 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes on tags

[edit]

A couple of things since I just added {{notability}} and {{Refimprove}} to the article:

  • As the article stands right now, there's very little in the way of inline references. Many claims are made (especially in the Notability section) but no references or sources are provided to back up those claims. That's not good.
  • During the mid to late 80s there was a 4GL marketing craze (at least as I remember it), and many languages were introduced which gained no respectable marketshare or following. As far as I can tell, this language was never notable and still isn't (though the AFD appears to be heading towards keep, despite my plea for anything that might establish this as notable). Even if this article is kept, it still needs to establish notability through reliable sources (which help keep things verifiable). As it is, most of this article (in its present, unsourced state) is original research and should probably be either a) trimmed back heavily or b) sourced with inline sources.

Hopefully there's some sources out there for this stuff and it can get sorted out. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies in Articles

[edit]

The statement, "Clarion was created by Bruce Barrington, one of the founders of healthcare firm "HBO & Company" (now McKesson Corporation)," is inconsistent with McKesson's history as stated in its Wikipedia article. That article says McKesson was "founded in New York City as Olcott & McKesson by Charles Olcott and John McKesson in 1833." HBO didn't become McKesson; it was acquired by them. I made the change. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 03:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Clarion (programming language). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

A few months ago I added the Advert and Refimprove tags to this page since it literally is a giant advert for this programming language. It completely dismisses the idea that there might be any fundamental issues with it and makes it out to be the best language ever created.

Quite clearly this hasn't improved, there's no reason why the Advert and Refimprove tags should have been removed. This is why I am not sure why 110.20.11.139 undid that change. It seems like looking at history, this page has repeatedly had changes added to it which try to make the language look "better" by trying to cover up criticism. Unless 110.20.11.139 (or anyone else) speaks up about why this page has stopped being an advertisement and why suddenly the references have improved, I will put those tags back on in a week or so.

Arch-TK (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I undid the revision as stated.
Arch-TK (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are basically right. But it is also in the nature of software products that they are often not in the scientific focus, and that the only information available is provided by users or people involved in the product. Personally, I prefer this kind of information over none. So let's keep the warning there and live with the article as it is. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clarion (programming language). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clarion (programming language). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clarion_(programming_language)&oldid=1199653406"