Revision as of 01:16, 14 February 2011 edit Rswarbrick (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 663 edits →Notability ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:30, 14 February 2011 edit undo FGrose (talk \| contribs) 54 edits move Notability 2 up after Notability Next edit →
Line 28: ::Anyway, as I wrote above I am now convinced that Factor is notable. I won't revert if anybody removes the notability tag from the article again. — [[User:Tobias Bergemann\|Tobias Bergemann]] ([[User talk:Tobias Bergemann\|talk]]) 07:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC) == Notability 2 ==▼ ::: Re: Re: Tobias, unfortunately you are not notable to most of us Wikipedia readers, probably your entries should be deleted from here. On the other hand and to change the tone, Factor is one of the most advanced programming languages today, along with Clojure and REBOL. Since I already know and like the language and do not want to find it on the web again, just delete away the entry! How the bloody hell can there be a guideline which says that a scientific or engineering feat as advanced as Factor should be simply omitted? And Jimmy Wales wanted my money for that the other day with those handsome portraits. My buttocks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.131.191.32\|82.131.191.32]] ([[User talk:82.131.191.32\|talk]]) 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->▼ It appears that the Factor article has been declared non-notable again. I don't understand why this is. There have not been more secondary sources on Factor, but there are now peer-reviewed academic publications on Factor in addition to the secondary mentions that have already existed. How has Factor become less notable in this time? <small>[[User:LittleDan\|LittleDan]]</small><sup>[[User talk:LittleDan\|talk]]</sup> 19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)▼ :As I wrote in {{diff\|Factor_(programming_language)\|406907219\|prev\|this edit summary}}, the Diggins source seems to be reliable and have substantial coverage, but it's barely used. Relies on primary sources elsewhere, and lots of unsourced material. Maybe after the referencing problems are fixed notability will be obvious. --[[User:Pnm\|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm\|talk]]) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)▼ ▲~~:::~~ Re: Re: Tobias, unfortunately you are not notable to most of us Wikipedia readers, probably your entries should be deleted from here. On the other hand and to change the tone, Factor is one of the most advanced programming languages today, along with Clojure and REBOL. Since I already know and like the language and do not want to find it on the web again, just delete away the entry! How the bloody hell can there be a guideline which says that a scientific or engineering feat as advanced as Factor should be simply omitted? And Jimmy Wales wanted my money for that the other day with those handsome portraits. My buttocks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.131.191.32\|82.131.191.32]] ([[User talk:82.131.191.32\|talk]]) 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> : I'm a bit mystified how the list of academic papers with six different authors at the bottom of this article does not establish notability. I actually come from a mathematics background, and as far as I can tell, people don't stick notability tags all over articles about maths subjects just because they don't know much about them yet. Mr Monsanto: you should not be surprised that Factor's web presence is mostly at factorcode.org. It includes a wiki, so maybe people consider adding info to that, rather to blogs. Moreover, you discount anything that appears in a blog post ending up on Planet Factor. Has it occurred to you that interesting articles about Factor get included in the planet's blogroll? So if an author writes articles about the language and then they subsequently get aggregated, that means that they "shouldn't count" as interest across the internet? Maybe you mistakenly believe that linking to something gives Planet Factor some sort of ownership of the material to which it links? [[User:Rswarbrick\|Rswarbrick]] ([[User talk:Rswarbrick\|talk]]) 01:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC) This post has a nice testimonial, http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=26979561 : --[[User:FGrose\|FGrose]] ([[User talk:FGrose\|talk]]) 01:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC) ==Interpreted language?== Quote: "Factor was originally only interpreted, but it can now also be compiled. The compiler is written entirely in Factor, and it does not output standalone executables but rather merely a faster image." Line 48 ⟶ 56: To the best of my knowledge Ideone is the only online compiler available for the Factor programming language. Online compilers might be of programmers interest due to several reasons (mobile devices usage, forum integration, programmers testing, programmers forum discussions) it does not [http://www.google.pl/search?client=opera&rls=pl&q=factor+online+compiler&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 google well]. Ideone does not require registration. Some third party site statistics: [http://www.xmarks.com/site/www.ideone.com/ xmarks], [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ideone.com alexa], [[User:Kuszi\|kuszi]] ([[User talk:Kuszi\|talk]]) 13:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC). ▲== Notability 2 == ▲It appears that the Factor article has been declared non-notable again. I don't understand why this is. There have not been more secondary sources on Factor, but there are now peer-reviewed academic publications on Factor in addition to the secondary mentions that have already existed. How has Factor become less notable in this time? <small>[[User:LittleDan\|LittleDan]]</small><sup>[[User talk:LittleDan\|talk]]</sup> 19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC) ▲:As I wrote in {{diff\|Factor_(programming_language)\|406907219\|prev\|this edit summary}}, the Diggins source seems to be reliable and have substantial coverage, but it's barely used. Relies on primary sources elsewhere, and lots of unsourced material. Maybe after the referencing problems are fixed notability will be obvious. --[[User:Pnm\|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm\|talk]]) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Factor (programming language): Difference between revisions