Talk:Ch (computer programming)

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Dubious

I've marked a number of claims in the article as dubious. The claim that Ch is used in many universities and schools appears unsupported. No one questions that it is promoted for use in teaching and that it's used in that way at some (unknown) number of institutions. But there's no evidence this can be characterized as many; the use of this characterization appears promotional.

The claims that Ch is comparable to a C shell or that, as a shell for running external commands, it supports wildcarding or iteration of external commands appear factually incorrect. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Msnicki (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put it into context, "many" would be a noticeable fraction of the thousands of academic institutions. Perhaps a few hundred would be enough to justify that term. Scaling it down to the apparent reality (several, e.g., no more than a few dozen) would be less promotional. However, without a reliable source, the statement as a whole is promotional. TEDickey (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag

I'm a bit confused by the notability tag. First there are many sources that would seem to support the notability of the topic. Secondly, those sources were debated at AfD/DrV/AfD and found acceptable. Could anyone clarify? Hobit (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was the apparent WP:COI on the part of Chuser and various IP-addresses which created this topic. A majority of the sources provided by those editors are either the primary source (Harry Cheng) or authors who have been demonstrated to be close associates of Harry Cheng. TEDickey (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs prose which explains why the subject is notable. That means referenced content which shows why this subject is important. If more articles set out to explain such from the beginning, we wouldn't have lame wars over the deletion of articles which so not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TEDickey: The AfD clearly found it to meet our notability guidelines. The issue of sourcing was extensively discussed and found acceptable. @thumperward: The tags in question make the claim that it doesn't meet WP:N or other notability guidelines. That is different than importance. Also, there are _plenty_ of third-party sources. I just don't see an issue. Hobit (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did add the main users guide and removed the dubious tags. Hobit (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with removing the dubious tags. My comments supporting the tags appear in section above. The statements were not supported by the cited Campbell article, which clearly describes a C language shell that can also run commands, not a csh-style C shell in the section, "Command Shell & Shell Programming". But as an alternative to the dubious tags, I've fixed the language to match the sources. Msnicki (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Several editors have raised concerns on Chuser's talk page and on the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard that a major contributor to the page, Chuser, may be a single purpose account with a close connection to the subject. Msnicki (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Chuser has been asked more than once, without giving a straightforward answer, I'm curious what procedures might apply to this situation TEDickey (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The advice offered on the noticeboard was that it's fair to ask about the relationship and to express concern, giving reasons, but not fair go beyond that to insist on an answer or to hound the individual. Msnicki (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]