Talk:Java (programming language): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Java (programming language)/Archive 6) (bot
Line 55:
}}
 
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Maryland/INST201-0101_Introduction_to_Information_Science_(FALL_2017)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Abharati|Abharati]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:Abharati|Abharati]].
 
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 01:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Versions? ==
 
This article has a section on 'editions' (SE, ME, etc). But nothing on the differences between versions. Java 1.7 (and 1.8, though not yet finalized) is in some ways quite a different languages from 1.0. Does anyone think there ought to be a 'Versions' section with ''brief'' notes on the main changes (or perhaps just the language changes) in each version? These could include links to information on the relevant topic elsewhere on WP.
 
== Merger proposal (2020) ==
 
I propose to merge [[Java version history]] into [[Java (programming language)#Versions]]. I see this as the natural follow up to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Java version history]] which was recently closed as keep. There is important information on [[Java version history]], but the state of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] about the subject remains unclear. {{u|Modernponderer}} helpfully linked to some sources at the deletion discussion, and I believe those sources are an excellent reason to include this information here, but I still don't see the logic in maintaining version history as a separate article. None of the sources provided are about Java version history, they're about modifications to the Java programming language that were made with each new version; ''precisely the type of information that belongs in the the history section of this article''. That's an important distinction that wasn't stressed enough in the deletion discussion. ''Java version history'' as it exists now is just too much of a violation of [[WP:NOTDIRECTORY]], with far too little notability of the subject itself, to qualify for an individual article, and the series of ''keep per x'' votes with little or no explanation following the relisting, don't change that. --[[User:Puzzledvegetable|<u style="color:#0000ff"><span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#000000">Puzzledvegetable</span></u>]]<b><sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">[[User talk:Puzzledvegetable|Is it teatime already?]]</sup></b> 16:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 
===Discussion===
Vote '''NO MERGE''' - only because this is being used as an alternate way to delete the "[[Java version history]]" article right after it was voted down. • [[User:Sbmeirow|<span style="color:#8D38C9;">Sbmeirow</span>]] • [[User talk:Sbmeirow|<span style="color:#8D38C9;White;">Talk</span>]] • 17:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
:"[V]oted down" is too strong. Deletion discussions are supposed to seek [[WP:CONSENSUS]], rather than count votes. The discussion was relisted due to lack of consensus, and nothing changed. Nearly every subsequent edit fell under the category of [[WP:NOTARG]]. The discussion, which was closed by a non-sysop, should have been closed as ''no consensus'' or else left for a more experienced sysop to close. Ordinarily, this would warrant renomination, but seeing as I don't actually agree with the nom that it warrants deletion, I am seeking consensus about a merger instead. --[[User:Puzzledvegetable|<u style="color:#0000ff"><span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#000000">Puzzledvegetable</span></u>]]<b><sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">[[User talk:Puzzledvegetable|Is it teatime already?]]</sup></b> 18:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
:'''no merge''' This article is already long enough. --[[User:Salix alba|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]): 21:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
:'''no merge''' Agree, this article is already long enough. [[User:Peterl|peterl]] ([[User talk:Peterl|talk]]) 06:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
:'''Speedy close''' as the proposal would be in gross violation of [[WP:SIZERULE]] – unless of course this would actually be an end run around the recent deletion discussion as has already been suspected here, with the vast majority of the article in question's content being removed. [[User:Modernponderer|Modernponderer]] ([[User talk:Modernponderer|talk]]) 01:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
:'''no merge''' I agree this seems like someone trying to weasel around the earlier deletion being shotdown. *IF* I were to even entertain this idea (and it totally violates several things including [[WP:SIZERULE]]), I would rather see it merged in the other direction where the Java language history is merged into the larger Java platform history. Merging the platform history into the language history seems like a good way to subsequently remove the platform history as it would no longer be on topic after the merge and could be removed over time. —[[User:Uzume|Uzume]] ([[User talk:Uzume|talk]]) 14:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
:'''No merge''' this is pretty obviously too long to belong on the main page unless the information is shortened greatly, which I think would be a mistake. [[Special:Contributions/172.73.179.154|172.73.179.154]] ([[User talk:172.73.179.154|talk]]) 15:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
: If you people are going to merge, kindly merge all contents. As belong to java world, this page is really helpful for us. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/122.173.61.65|122.173.61.65]] ([[User talk:122.173.61.65#top|talk]]) 10:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
== "Java Programming Language language" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==