Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/JWASM: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:16, 25 January 2010 edit70.162.219.214 (talk) Removal of deletion tag already referenced on JWASM discussion page← Previous edit Revision as of 16:00, 25 January 2010 edit undoHutch48 (talk | contribs)301 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 27: Line 27:


@OrangeDog: The JWasm article is relavent and serves the programming community. JWasm provides an important alternative to MASM for those who need to avoid a variety of licensing issues. For example, if a programmer wishes to write an operating system or distribute code under GPL open source, an alternative to MASM is needed (refer to MS MASM license). Quote: "...the owner of the dominating Operating System has tried to keep programmers away from this "low level stuff", and to force them towards High Level Languages..." Nothing could be further from the truth, as Microsoft continues to distribute MASM and provide low-level coding ability for high-level languages. Quote: "Masm is about to be phased out." Please site sources to verify this statement. Perhaps it would be best if you left articles about programming to those who are knowledgeable in that field. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> @OrangeDog: The JWasm article is relavent and serves the programming community. JWasm provides an important alternative to MASM for those who need to avoid a variety of licensing issues. For example, if a programmer wishes to write an operating system or distribute code under GPL open source, an alternative to MASM is needed (refer to MS MASM license). Quote: "...the owner of the dominating Operating System has tried to keep programmers away from this "low level stuff", and to force them towards High Level Languages..." Nothing could be further from the truth, as Microsoft continues to distribute MASM and provide low-level coding ability for high-level languages. Quote: "Masm is about to be phased out." Please site sources to verify this statement. Perhaps it would be best if you left articles about programming to those who are knowledgeable in that field. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

====Misplaced Pages policy versus unqualified tagging of specialised article====
The use of assemblers and assembler programming generally is a specialised field and to make a viable and/or meaningful analysis of a field as specialised as assembler programming, the person making a value judgement by tagging a page of this type has acted outside the guidelines of Misplaced Pages and passed an unqualified value judgement on a topic they are not competent to comment on.

* 1 '''Elen of the Roads''' tagged the article in under 12 hours of its creation while knowing nothing about the topic.
* 2 '''Magioladitis''' tagged the article as an orphan with no knowledge of the field or what reference material was available.
* 3 '''OrangeDog''' tagged the article for deletion without any form of consultation and with no known expertise in this field.

Citing the Misplaced Pages specifications for article deletion "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." this in fact has not been the case with the three (3) users who have so far incorrectly tagged the JWASM article, it has been an act of '''first resort''' with no consultation, no discussion on the "Discussion" page for JWASM, no consensus with any other person of any known expertise and from users who have no demonstrated expertise in assembler programming.

In particular user '''OrangeDog''' has attempted to isolate the current author of JWASM from its historical origin as open source code owned under a Sybase licence where in fact Sybase is a well known software company who purchased the Watcom line of development tool some years ago and made the source code availoable under their own Open Source licence. The names '''Watcom''' and '''Sybase''' are a sufficient condition to establish notability for a tecynical target like an assembler and it is a mis-representation on the part of user '''OrangeDog''' to try and represent the JWASM assembler as a private single ownership work.

{{expert-subject}}
Citing again the Misplaced Pages specifications for article deletion, "If the article is about a specialized field, use the '''expert-subject''' tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online." This is fact has not been done by any of the three users who have so far tagged the page rendering it useless and unreadable.

It is reasonable to require users who place tags on new articles to actually bother to '''READ THE RULES''' and properly comply with them rather than simply slap labels on work that defaces it and renders it as technically useless. Form is no substitute for content and as long as Misplaced Pages allow non-competent people to tear around technical pages with automated software vandalising the content in violation of the rules, the quality of the articles will be diminished and leave Misplaced Pages open to further pressure in terms of reliability and relevance of content.

] (]) 16:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:00, 25 January 2010

JWASM

JWASM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software product does not appear to be notable. My search failed to find any references apart from the product's primary website and various technical help fora. A previous PROD template was removed without providing any reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Much of the content also appears to duplicate the MASM article. OrangeDog (τε) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


The notability of JWasm is difficult to understand for non-assembler programmers. In a nutshell: Assembler is the last language that allows to produce very fast and compact code. Video viewers, for example, would be far too slow if programmed only in Basic or C or .Net. In recent years, the owner of the dominating Operating System has tried to keep programmers away from this "low level stuff", and to force them towards High Level Languages, notably .Net-based ones; the motivation is clearly economic, and has to do with the observation that bloated software needs faster hardware. Masm is about to be phased out. There is a small but dedicated community of free software developers who are more than happy that Jwasm has emerged as an alternative. If you want to have video viewers, animation etc that do not require the latest, best, and fastest PC on the market, then you will recognise the "notability" of JWasm. Remember that Mozilla was not so notable when it started challenging MS Internet Explorer... Jj2006 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


It's strange that someone would want to delete this article about a product that is currently under development and maintenance, while there are other assemblers with their own articles that are no longer in development and therefore not able to produce software that will function as native to current operating systems. JWASM is a modern assembler available as freeware to use. That makes it notable to assembly programmers, for whom this page is most useful. And incidentally, JWASM draws 12,000 hits on Google.

This is a bad idea and I'd recommend that the deletion notice be removed ASAP. There was no discussion of the deletion proposal on the talk page. Calls for deletion that make no effort to discuss before the notice is slapped up must not be taken seriously.

OrangeDog, you still don't seem to understand the point of showing the unique conventions of a particular assembler. When you say, "Much of the content also appears to duplicate the MASM article", you don't seem to have looked closely at the subtle but necessary differences. If you cannot see the utility of such information, then you probably don't have much use for assembly programming. -- spin 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of deletion tag already referenced on JWASM discussion page

The repeated premature tagging of this recently added article is neither well informed nor occurring within the guidelines of Misplaced Pages. In both instances the users who have nominated this page for deletion without any prior notification on the JWASM discussion page and apparently having even bothered to read the discussion page.

The suggestion to merge the JWASM page with the Microsoft Macro Assembler page is unsound, Microsoft, Sybase and Watcom are distinct commercial entities with different technical and corporate backgrounds and to include JWASM on the MASM page would mislead readers as to the identity of both assemblers. Note also that with the page up and readable that other updates have now been made to it to keep it up to date.

It is a mistake to assume that all assemblers are the same, notational differences, licencing differences, platform and hardware differences etc ... Implimentation of such assumptions if the editors do not have demonstrable experience with assemblers to correctly referencing technical data that applies to each different tool has the net effect that the quality of the Misplaced Pages article is seriously diminished and that the reputation of Misplaced Pages as a reliable source of technical data is placed under further pressure.

Hutch48 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

@OrangeDog: The JWasm article is relavent and serves the programming community. JWasm provides an important alternative to MASM for those who need to avoid a variety of licensing issues. For example, if a programmer wishes to write an operating system or distribute code under GPL open source, an alternative to MASM is needed (refer to MS MASM license). Quote: "...the owner of the dominating Operating System has tried to keep programmers away from this "low level stuff", and to force them towards High Level Languages..." Nothing could be further from the truth, as Microsoft continues to distribute MASM and provide low-level coding ability for high-level languages. Quote: "Masm is about to be phased out." Please site sources to verify this statement. Perhaps it would be best if you left articles about programming to those who are knowledgeable in that field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.219.214 (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy versus unqualified tagging of specialised article

The use of assemblers and assembler programming generally is a specialised field and to make a viable and/or meaningful analysis of a field as specialised as assembler programming, the person making a value judgement by tagging a page of this type has acted outside the guidelines of Misplaced Pages and passed an unqualified value judgement on a topic they are not competent to comment on.

  • 1 Elen of the Roads tagged the article in under 12 hours of its creation while knowing nothing about the topic.
  • 2 Magioladitis tagged the article as an orphan with no knowledge of the field or what reference material was available.
  • 3 OrangeDog tagged the article for deletion without any form of consultation and with no known expertise in this field.

Citing the Misplaced Pages specifications for article deletion "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." this in fact has not been the case with the three (3) users who have so far incorrectly tagged the JWASM article, it has been an act of first resort with no consultation, no discussion on the "Discussion" page for JWASM, no consensus with any other person of any known expertise and from users who have no demonstrated expertise in assembler programming.

In particular user OrangeDog has attempted to isolate the current author of JWASM from its historical origin as open source code owned under a Sybase licence where in fact Sybase is a well known software company who purchased the Watcom line of development tool some years ago and made the source code availoable under their own Open Source licence. The names Watcom and Sybase are a sufficient condition to establish notability for a tecynical target like an assembler and it is a mis-representation on the part of user OrangeDog to try and represent the JWASM assembler as a private single ownership work.

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.
When placing this tag, consider associating this request with a WikiProject.

Citing again the Misplaced Pages specifications for article deletion, "If the article is about a specialized field, use the expert-subject tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online." This is fact has not been done by any of the three users who have so far tagged the page rendering it useless and unreadable.

It is reasonable to require users who place tags on new articles to actually bother to READ THE RULES and properly comply with them rather than simply slap labels on work that defaces it and renders it as technically useless. Form is no substitute for content and as long as Misplaced Pages allow non-competent people to tear around technical pages with automated software vandalising the content in violation of the rules, the quality of the articles will be diminished and leave Misplaced Pages open to further pressure in terms of reliability and relevance of content.

Hutch48 (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/JWASM: Difference between revisions Add topic