User talk:Georg Peter
Programming languages with small user bases
There are several programming languages with small user bases which have wikipedia articles: A++, BuildProfessional, ChucK, Escapade, Frink, F Sharp programming language, Godiva programming language, Joy programming language, Joule programming language, Kvikkalkul programming language, Malbolge, Nial, Nemerle, Pizza programming language, Revolution programming language, Seed7, SuperCollider programming language, Unlambda, Var'aq, XOTcl, Z programming language, ZZT-oop.
Although googling is not a good measure, I produced a table of hits for this languages:
|Language||Hits("name" "programming language")||Hits("name programming language")|
|F Sharp programming language||315||40|
|Godiva programming language||228||37|
|Heron programming language||400||45|
|Joy programming language||800||51|
|Joule programming language||779||56|
|Kvikkalkul programming language||205||15|
|Pizza programming language||798||73|
|Revolution programming language||809||24|
|SuperCollider programming language||716||62|
|Z programming language||792||34|
As you can see the number of unique results returned is always under 1000. This is explained here and summed up with: "Hence the list of unique results will always contain fewer than 1000 results regardless of how many webpages actually matched the search terms.". That shows that arguments like "the number of unique results returned is still under 1000." are totally useless.
You can also see that searching for "name programming language" gives significant less hits than searching for "name" "programming language".
IMHO it is okay that programming languages with small user bases have wikipedia articles. People invest a lot of time to create interpreters, compilers, documentation, examples and more. These programming languages are notable for some computer scientists. This should count much more than the "not notability" of the average user. The problem is that a lot of people do not understand that wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (see also in Wikimedia). These people try to delete pages (to save paper, hard disk space, lemmas, ...) about things that are not notable. But this is a POV decision. What some people see as "not notable" is seen by other people as "notable". In this case the deletion of articles is the wrong solution. The "right thing to do" would be to add notability values to pages that are seen as "notable" by a minority and as "not notable" by a majority. Georg Peter 10:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I did actually look at the Talk page, but it took me a few minutes to update it after I edited the article -- sorry. Could you please revert your addition until we reach consensus on Talk? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)