This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This page needs encyclopedising, and the Wikipedia-specific stuff moved to the Wikipedia: namespace. I'll do it myself when I have time, but I'm officially not here right now ;-) (Also, I'm not so sure FOLDOC is under the FDL, in general, it's just that Denis let us relicence it thus; which is a subtle difference, but one that will need to be checked in making this into a proper encyclopedia article...) IMSoP 19:36, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
What's the point of keeping these long lists of bare acronyms? I got to one of these pages because I searched for a term, and was at first happy to find it in here. I had to scroll way down only to find that there was absolutely nothing about it here. This is very annoying and a waste of every user's time! I vote for deleting all entries that do not have a link or an explanation. — Sebastian 00:31, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
If you're still around, could you clarify what long lists of bare acronyms you were talking about? The Wikipedia article "Free On-line Dictionary of Computing", which this page is intended for discussing does not, nor ever has as far as I can tell, contained such a list. Did you mean somewhere else on Wikipedia? Or maybe on FOLDOC itself - in which case mentionning it here will not gain anything, as this page has nothing to do with the organisation of that largely unrelated website. - IMSoP 19:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I am obviously slightly biased :-) but I would say that FOLDOC is notable as one of the earliest free computing reference resources on the Internet. Though it has been entirely eclipsed by Wikipedia, it is still up and running and I even update it regularly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Denishowe (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 September 2007
The primary concern there, though, is that the notability of the site isn't clearly established in the article proper and (just as importantly) isn't backed up by "multiple verifiable sources". MrZaiustalk 09:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
We should probably keep this article since there's a good amount of content from the FOLDOC here in Wikipedia and articles which use that content have Template:FOLDOC (also Template Talk:FOLDOC) that refers here. Jason McHuff (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with Jason McHuff. That is why I replaced notability tag by a verify tag. The notability tag gives a wrong signal. If the subject wasn't notable, we shouldn't and couldn't have used it as a source. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Talking about the FOLDOC template, which is included in a number of WP articles, I think this information belongs into the edit history and/or on the talk page (like other merge or similar information), but not into the article itself. It was okay to include stuff from FOLDOC into here at some stage. Therefore, it should not force us to put such visible meta-information into articles, basically, I don't think, incorporating stuff from there should have been procedurally different from incorporating information from elsewhere (where proper attributation is required as well). I think we should move the templates to the corresponding talk pages. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)