Aurora Wiki Problems

[Zen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28Programming_Language%29

It seems like it is about to be deleted because apparently its not a real language

Im not sure how to sort it out, so maybe some wiki guru can get it fixed.

Lewis

EDIT: Ok so I managed to fix it. Looks like we will have to keep an eye out on this to make sure it doesnt happen again. Maybe we should as a community add some more content etc

[Haim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28Programming_Language%29

Maybe we should as a community add some more content etc

Any idea what kind of contenet may help?

[Zen]

Hmmm, I know a lot of websites have there own wiki's and stuff where they have code samples, tutorials etc, but i don't think wikipedia is suitable for that, but maybe, ill take a look at some other programming language pages on there to get a few ideas

Lewis

[Rock Ridge Farm (Larry)]

How do you notify Wikipedia of your opinion?
We should each do so.

[Zen]

Well I edited the source and removed the pending for deletion code and also the bit that displayed a big stupid notice that says this is written as an advertisment

I have had a quick look at the C++ page, which covers things like where the name came from, future development, sample code, language features etc. Which we could easily put the same for Aurora. However, im not sure how all the Wiki code is used and I don't want to mess it up

I think Kale has a fair knowledge on Wikipedia and I know Jerry does as he has made a Wiki in the past for IBasic and now EBasic too. Perhaps we could get some help from these guys

Lewis

[Mike Stefanik]

There's still a banner indicating that the article is being considered for deletion. And to be honest here, that article does contradict the "conflict of interest" rules that Wikipedia has. For an article to clear that hurdle, it would really need to be written by an independent third party not associated with the product, company or Paul. That would basically exclude partners, project contributors and moderators here.

[Zen]

Well I believe it was Kale that originally wrote it. Before he was a partner developer. I wonder why the banner has come back. Bit silly really

Lewis

[Steven Picard]

I would hate to lose that page.  It looks good.

[Mike Stefanik]

I can understand the policy, otherwise Wikipedia would just turn into this giant spamvertising site and be of marginal value to anyone. Unfortunately you have a lot of folks who try to post real nonsense there because they know that Google prioritizes content in Wikipedia (that's why you find WP links to frequently be near the top of search listings), so moderation tends to be strict.

[Kale]

Very Very Odd! I will take a look immediately.

[Zen]

Thanks a lot Kale. At least you know what you are doin ;-)

Lewis

[Kale]

Ok, so i've had a look and it seems that there is one guy that wants the Aurora article pulled because Aurora is in Beta and it's not notable enough to be included!

I don't know that much about Wikipedia itself to work some magic but it seems you have to talk them out of it.

I've started a 'Talk' page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aurora_%28programming_language%29

To try and explain things. Maybe you lot would like to register and add a few comments of your own?

there is also a deletion thread here about it too, where you could add a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aurora_%28programming_language%29

This is about all that can be done.

[Zen]

Thanks a lot Kale. I will post something tomorrow on it. Right now I am off to bed!

Lewis

[Shannara]

There are tons of kiddies running around on Wikipedia, nominating hundreds of articles for deletion ... for fun. Bad part is, the admins permit this activity. Unfortunately, it looks like Aurora is caught in the cross-fire.  I nominated the article to be kept. But usually, in the end, the kiddies win.

[J B Wood (Zumwalt)]

I nominated it as a Speedy Keep.
There is no foundation for the creators arguement.
On top of that I might change it so that it points out that the creator is trying to prove some sort of point which is pointless.

[Parker]

I would say keep the wikipedia code for it, and if it does end up being deleted you can just put it back up when Aurora is no longer beta and it is more popular.

[Ionic Wind Support Team]

Don't fret about it too much.  We really don't get many referral hits from Wikipedia, most of our sites traffic comes from language specific websites, google, and shareware sites.  Last time I looked in the logs Wikipeida was at the bottom with 9 hits this month.

Paul.

[Zen]

Hey... 9 hits its nine 9 right? So its better than a kick in the teeth!

Lewis

[seberbach]

I agree with Paul.

I think Aurora should be in the list, maybe something should be said about what distinguishes Aurora from "Other Class Based/Oriented lanugages"

If it is a contribution to computer science, it should be in there, so if it is noted what it contributes, it is "notable".  I think a good start would be to note its compactness combined with completeness, lack of runtime library bloat, and construction from/with/for widely known and distributed community project sources (linker, assembler, syntax translatability from/to other languages,  inclusion in the syntax definitions of notable editors, such as Scintilla, etc.)

But why isn't Object Pascal or Delphi listed?  I think the listing there in Wikipedia is very incomplete, from the standpoint of directing prospective programmers to candidates for learning or usign a class-based language, or to find out which new languages support classes.

If I was using Wikipedia for finding a language to suit my needs, I would be quickly disappointed by the sparse coverage, but be happy to discover Aurora!

These criteria would certainly be met when the language is a little bit more mature, is more cross-platform, and there are some third party tools for it, and some notable applications are developed with it. Having a learner's package, like the one for Ibasic, would make it more notable, too.

An example:  Gentoo Linux is 'notable' for being distributed as source instead of pre compiled binaries, and being designed for custom building of operating system packages for different CPUs and configurations.

Just some thoughts that might help.  I was not quite up to publishing a notability thesis to defend a Wikipedia posting from the kiddies. To me,  Aurora was notable when it was alpha.

Steve

[kryton9]

I looked over the wikipedia site last night and I don't know what their objections were. Just because it is in Beta, how can that matter. It is a functional program already with people using it for tasks on a daily basis. Maybe they should come look at the forums here.

Kale and the others who posted you guys did a great job I thought. Sorry to see this kind of issue even be one over there. Strange world, always seems to surprise me. My thoughts and wished to you guys putting the good effort in, I was lost trying to figure out how to comment on wikipedia, never write or post to it, but do read it a lot.

[Rod]

I've started working on getting a review of Aurora into our local newspaper. Upon first conversation with the editor, it's a hard sell. The editor thinks the audience for such an article is too limited in a daily city newspaper. I haven't given up on it yet, but need to do some research to show him a broad-enough appeal to justify publishing it. If I'm successful, that would create a referenceable citation for Wikipedia.

[Zen]

Ohh thats great Rod. Hope you can pull it off. It would also generate some good sales, even if not for Aurora, but EBasic too.

Keep us informed

Lewis

[Mike Stefanik]

It looks like the "marked for deletion" banner was removed from the article, and replaced with requests for citations throughout the document. It also looks like you happened to get one of the most prolific moderators on Wikipedia. Take a look at the list of deletions he's submitted recently (about 5000 in the last month alone):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Awyong+Jeffrey+Mordecai+Salleh&limit=5000

This guy must do nothing but hang out on WP all day long.

[Kale]

Quote from the wiki site:

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

We just have to add a few citations. I'll put the deleted images back on later.

[J B Wood (Zumwalt)]

Man they butchered that page bad.
It went from rocking cool looking to .. well.. blech over night.
Just keep the affiliates off of there and clean it up some, what a pain that was to go through, but we survived!