This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Bell (talk | contribs) at 19:17, 27 January 2006 (→Question about deleting NanoCAD page: - reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:17, 27 January 2006 by Doug Bell (talk | contribs) (→Question about deleting NanoCAD page: - reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Talk:Multiple inheritance
I restored the content because I felt it was useful to have that record in there. Deleting the talk page would have served no purpose at all. Regards, howcheng {chat} 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition
Do you really think this article needs to be merged with Java Platform? I'm not sure I see your reasoning. There's the Java platform, which is composed of J2SE, J2EE, and J2ME. Each is sufficiently large that it merits its own main article. Am I missing something? - ElAmericano | talk 19:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
RFC (standards)
Re: this edit, Where is the magic documented by which RFC 3066 becomes a link? And doesn't this result in overlinking if the RFC needs to be mentioned multiple times in an article? - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know where it is documented. I suspect it may be new? I was going to create a template to perform linking to RFCs when I noticed that the Wiki software was adding the links (similar, I think to how it handles ISBN numbers). And yes, it could result in overlinking. I suppose the inelegant RFC 3066 could be used instead to prevent linking after the first reference. – Doug Bell 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
TNX - Jmabel | Talk 00:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Template:Context
The edit is done. I didn't see it because I was looking only in the section that was tagged with {{editprotected}}. Regards, howcheng {chat} 07:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Question about deleting NanoCAD page
I see page about the NanoCAD program is currently under consideration for deletion. I'm curious about why that is. Is it considered a vanity page? Or is it that NanoCAD has such low visibility these days? (It enjoyed some popularity in the late 90s, and maybe I should be content with that.)
If I were to write something about the current Nanorex product, which is in a similar vein, would that also be considered for deletion? I expect it will become much better-known than NanoCAD ever was, and I'm proud of my involvement in its development.
-- WillWare 18:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- To quote from the (short) article:
- NanoCAD is a Java applet (formerly a Scheme program) that was intended to eventually evolve into a useful computer-aided design system for nanotechnology.
- That sounds to me like it never became a finished work, nor was notable. If this is wrong, the article would need to be expanded. You can place you comments on the delete page and explain why it shouldn't be deleted. This would most likely need to be accompanied by expanding the article. – Doug Bell 19:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)