Talk:Full BASIC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article issues remain unresolved.

(
)
  • ... that it took 13 years to ratify the standard for Full BASIC and it still had "intolerable" problems? Source: Guntheroth for intolerable, the ECMA spec doc for timing

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 14:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is long enough. It was created on May 12, but the nomination is dated May 26. This is longer than the allowed 7-day window, but the nomination states that a technical failure of the DYK tool is responsible for the late listing so I recommend that this requirement be waived per WP:IAR.
  • Earwig flags some potential copyright violations, mostly in the example program listing ("Program CRAPS"). It is properly attributed, but I'm concerned that the length of the copied material exceeds any fair use. It doesn't really add anything important to the article, so my suggestion is to delete that entire section.
  • I did not exhaustively examine every reference, but overall the bibliography looks to be all WP:RS and the article text appears to be adequately cited to those sources.
  • There are no WP:BLP issues.
  • QPQ is satisfied.
  • Regarding the hook, I don't see where in the article is says that it took 13 years to ratify. This needs to be clarified.
  • Overall, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Group formed Jan 1974, ratified by ANSI Jan 1987 = 13 years. Those dates are reffed, I don't think we need a ref for math. Source code is widely found in most language articles, I've never seen an issue with CQ being raised before, but I'm not sure the rules here, I can't find any comment on it. I can say it was not raised during Minimal BASIC which has a similar example. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1974 is when the ratification of Minimal BASIC was started. The ratification of Full BASIC didn't start until 1977 (at least according to the article), so that's 10 years. It's a bit confusing. I'll leave the fair use question about the source code to somebody better versed in copyright/fair use than I am. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: No, they are both the same effort, the split happened during the effort. It's like you want to build a car to go to the store, but then you realize that it's going to take longer than you like so you quickly put together a gocart and then return to building the car. The effort is and always was to build a car, and in this case, the effort is and always was to make a standard BASIC. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: is a new reviewer needed for this hook? @Maury Markowitz: are you able to find an editor knowledgeable in coding copyright who can speak to these concerns? Z1720 (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. The only substantial issue is the copyright question. I've posted a query at WT:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, so hopefully somebody will come along and clear that up. I still think the 13 year timeline statement could be improved, but I don't think that's enough of a problem to hold up the DYK. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on HouseBlaster's opinion that this fails WP:NFCC#1, I'm marking this review as failed. I see that the offending text has already been deleted from the article, so technically there's no more violation, but the time to fix that was before submission or when it was first pointed out in my original review. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be silly; DYK isn't that draconian. (In fact it's not at all draconian, now that I mention it.) If you're saying you were ready to pass it had it not been for the copyright issue, then this should be considered passed. However, I'll just add
    ALT1 ... that it took 13 years to ratify the standard for Full BASIC, after which it was completely ignored?
    EEng 03:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when you submit something for review, you have an obligation to respond to the reviewers comments. They had a month to work on this. Instead they just pushed back on the issues I raised and left it at that. If somebody else feels differently, I have no objection to them taking over the review. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: There are no action items for me in the above text, I was not pinged on the off-page action and was unaware of it, and the issue was "resolved" by another editor. I'm not sure what response was expected here? If the issue was fixed, pass it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maury, you really should keep an eye on nominations you make; shouldn't be necessary to ping you. Roy Smith, I don't understand why you want someone else to duplicate all the effort you've put in. Why not just pass it now? EEng 15:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want somebody to duplicate my effort; all I said was that if somebody else were to take over the review, I wouldn't object. To be honest, I feel taken advantage of. The nom is not an inexperienced user. Surely they understand about copyright issues and surely they understand about working collaboratively to resolve problems found in a review. Simply saying, "that's not a problem" and walking away is disrespectful of the reviewer's efforts. And, "nobody called me on it the last time" isn't a valid argument why it's OK now. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, I -- the Great and Powerful Oz -- has now scolded Maury and no doubt he stings from the chastisement and won't do it again. So can you please pass both hooks (my ALT1 is easy to verify) and no one will bother you further? EEng 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, this isn't worth fighting about. . -- RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz and EEng: I read through the article and the above conversation, but I cannot find where "after which it was completely ignored?" is cited in the article body (it's mentioned in the lede but not cited there). Can someone post the text from the article where this is mentioned? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead: The standard was ratified on 26 June 1986 as ECMA-116[1] and January 1987 as ANSI X3.113-1987. It was completely ignored. I should clarify that when I said ALT1 is easy to verify, I meant it's right there in the article text, not that I'd verified it in the source. Offhand, now that I look, I don't know what that's sourced to (nor do I see it in the article body). EEng 00:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The original hook is directly cited [17]. I'm not sure why a new hook was suggested. If you prefer ALT1, I have searched far and wide for production Full BASIC implementations and found zero examples, but I'm not sure how you cite that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly saying you put something into the article based on the failure of your personal search to find any implementations? I suggested A1 because the standard being ignored bit seemed hooky, and (more the fool me) I assumed that since that "fact" appeared in an article written by an experienced and respected editor such as yourself, it would of course be supported by an appropriate source. But it turns out it's just your own OR? REALLY? EEng 18:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. When writing the article, a several-month process that involved contacting multiple people involved in the stanard process (which is not trivial given many have passed), I examined the participant vendor's implementation details, mostly via archive.org but in some cases sent to me in email. The set included Bull (which was really Honeywell, which was really GE), IBM, DEC, DG, Burroughs, Wang, CDC, GE and Prime. Not one of this expanded set of companies made an implementation of Full BASIC. Most did not release any new versions during this period, and a number disappeared during the process. None of the other participants released a BASIC of their own, most were on the panel because they were heavy users of said language. Even the author of the basis for the standard, SBASIC, abandoned it and moved to Pascal. I also asked a number of these people if they were aware of such and none were. Guntheroth flatly told me no one did anything with it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"No, not really"??? What are you talking about? How is that not blatant WP:Original research? Do you, or do you not, have a citation(s) for It was completely ignored; the microcomputer revolution had occurred while the specification was being argued over, and by the early-1980s Microsoft BASIC running on tens of millions of home computers had already come and gone. Watching the process drag on, the Dartmouth participants left to produce True BASIC based on parts of the standard, but this saw little use. De facto standards like Microsoft's dominated the market and formed the basis for newer languages like Microsoft Visual Basic which incorporated similar concepts.? EEng 17:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz and EEng: Are we anywhere near a resolution on this matter or does this nomination need to be closed? I note the article has not been edited since before the last comment. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at my wits' end about what to do about this. I can't understand why MM isn't addressing this issue. I've been forced to add {cn} to this passage in the article. EEng 19:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this issue cannot be resolved after two months, then it's closing time for this nomination. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/IEC 10279:1991[edit]

I don't see the number 10279 in this article. Shouldn't "ISO/IEC 10279:1991" be added to this article? I'm not an expert on various BASIC standards, thus I'll leave this for someone else to do. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Full_BASIC&oldid=1202169528"