Talk:Server application programming interface
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Server application programming interface article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Computing Stub‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
PHP as an example
Hello, Ttt74! Could you, please, elaborate a bit on why do you find PHP to be a bad example, and its inclusion to be a "waste of energy"? As already noted in my edit, different SAPI options available in PHP were selected as an example, and adding more examples is what should be done instead of deleting already existing content. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I didn't say it is "a bad example", but I find that the content I deleted doesn't meet the wikipedia quality standards. Also, it sounds to be misplaced: it needs to be well-written in other section that contains many examples, not only PHP. Ttt74 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd have to disagree, the content in question isn't any worse than 90% of the content on Wikipedia. Please do realise that this article is currently a stub, and you simply can't expect it to grow by deleting already existing content. Let me reiterate myself, the key is in adding new examples. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know why you insist on "examples": well, it's not that necessary: how many examples will we need to write then, 100, 1000? That's why I said it's a waste of energy. BTW, what do you mean by "the content in question isn't any worse than 90% of the content on Wikipedia"? Ttt74 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- The article describes a rather abstract concept, and the whole thing is much more understandable with examples, out of which PHP is a widely used one. Please be constructive, we don't need hundreds of examples, a few would suffice. What I referred to in the quotation above is what I wrote, which means that the content you've deleted isn't badly written at all. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- "out of which PHP is a widely used one. Please be constructive, we don't need hundreds of examples, a few would suffice": reliable sources of information shouldn't use the widely used thing as the main example: articles on Wikipedia needs to be written on a neutral point of view without bias or spamming. You may put the content, you are finding to be important, on the PHP article and add PHP on the "See also": this article is not it. I think I'm done here: I don't want to waste more time on this article. There's no need to revert again. Ttt74 (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- The article describes a rather abstract concept, and the whole thing is much more understandable with examples, out of which PHP is a widely used one. Please be constructive, we don't need hundreds of examples, a few would suffice. What I referred to in the quotation above is what I wrote, which means that the content you've deleted isn't badly written at all. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know why you insist on "examples": well, it's not that necessary: how many examples will we need to write then, 100, 1000? That's why I said it's a waste of energy. BTW, what do you mean by "the content in question isn't any worse than 90% of the content on Wikipedia"? Ttt74 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd have to disagree, the content in question isn't any worse than 90% of the content on Wikipedia. Please do realise that this article is currently a stub, and you simply can't expect it to grow by deleting already existing content. Let me reiterate myself, the key is in adding new examples. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)