Talk:Python (programming language)/Archive 7: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:37, 19 March 2009

Revision as of 04:22, 30 April 2009

Line 61:

Where else would you put it? Sure, I guess it can also have its own page, but even if it doesn't, Pippy has to be mentioned in Wikipedia, and the Python page is the obvious place that quantum of data belongs with.

yamaplos 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Yamaplos|Yamaplos]] ([[User talk:Yamaplos|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yamaplos|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== External links ==

I've reverted the removal of an external link. (I didn't add the link, just tweaked the test, as did another editor after me.) The link is to a tutorial at python.org.

There is already links to the main python.org page; also to the documentation at python.org.

It doesn't seem too much for a link to the official tutorial.

[[User:Peterl|peterl]] ([[User talk:Peterl|talk]]) 21:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see the NoMoreLinks tag, but the wording there is 'consider carefully

:I don't care about the procedural stuff about who added or removed the link. However, I think the Python tutorial pushes us in the direction of linkspam, and is better omitted. There are many excellent pages at the official Python website; which is why it's good to give a single one for the home of that site, and let readers navigate to what they want. Linking to each "nice to have" page at Python.org is unnecessary... moreover, it's not even like the official tutorial is the only ''very good'' tutorial on Python. If that's what readers want, I'm sure Google could help them search for "Python tutorial" and give them many good choices. <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 22:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

::Fair enough. I agree with being careful of linkspam. In which case should the link to 'Official documentation and resources' also be removed? [[User:Peterl|peterl]] ([[User talk:Peterl|talk]]) 23:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

::: Yes, probably. It's on the same ___domain as the official website, and isn't of such critical value to the article to warrant separate inclusion. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 09:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== Philosophy ==

this word is miss used several times, it takes to a lower level, this discipline of knowledge it some much more that "a way we think".

I ask kindly if someone could use a another word. Philosophy its not a word to use so vaguely.

--[[Special:Contributions/190.161.73.209|190.161.73.209]] ([[User talk:190.161.73.209|talk]]) 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

: You have item three [http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/philosophy?view=uk here] that might fit. the use of the word. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 07:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:: I managed to earn a doctorate in philosophy without actually learning anything that would suggest the usage of the word in this article is inappropriate. Just saying. <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 08:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)