Category talk:AutoHotkey Originated

From Rosetta Code

Is This A Good Thing?[edit]

And if it is, shouldn't it be auto-generated for each task and each language? --Paddy3118 06:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I added this category for place to discuss prior and potential autohotkey contributions to the rosettacode. The items in this category are automatically generated if you put "\[\[Category:AutoHotkey_Originated\]\]" at the bottom of a task page. You could do something similar for all the other languaes... Automating this for tasks already created would require creating a bot that can examine the history for the first lang tag... I do mean to experiment with wikibots, eventually... --Tinku99 07:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tinku, but I was questioning the need for this because couldn't such discussions be a part of the page on Category Autohotkey? (Or that pages talk page). I remain unconvinced that this is a good idea --Paddy3118 10:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is common for people to take note of the first language something is written in, when it has been translated widely: For example: wp:List_of_literary_works_by_number_of_languages_translated_into--Tinku99 13:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But not on RC. I think the most we have had is a note in the task descriptions pointing to a language entry that fulfils the task, but that was usually to stop the need for some pseudocode. I think that that need is poor, and we should strive to make the task descriptions complete in themselves over time.

I wonder what others think? --Paddy3118 15:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a use for it other than personal bookkeeping (for fun basically). I guess it's not hurting much, but it doesn't need to be a site-wide initiative. Though it could be kept as a local text file rather than a public wiki page. --Mwn3d 15:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is less important to record for which language the first solution of a task was posted (or with which language in mind a task was designed :^). Rather, each language should strive to solve all tasks it can, and mark the others as "omit from", so that the matrix of tasks×languages is least sparse. --Suchenwi 17:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there's no need for such a thing too. If a task has no pseudocode and task's author (or others) wants to point a language as a "good example" of how the task can be done, then it's enough to write it in the task someway. --ShinTakezou 21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I also don't think we need to do this as a site-wide initiative, and I'd even be tempted to urge people to put this sort of information only on talk: pages. If the task is worthy of being here, it's possible to do it in many languages/libraries and so it shouldn't matter what it was written for first. —Donal Fellows 08:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've moved the categorizations. —Donal Fellows 08:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That didn't change much. I don't think it addressed the original concern which is that this is probably not the right place for discussion about these tasks. This list could be manually kept (since the first language to implement a task won't change) as a subpage of the AutoHotkey language page with no markings at all on task pages or their related pages (that is, if it should be kept at all). --Mwn3d 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm singularly unbothered about the whole thing now it's off the beaten track of main pages. (I track the pages I create — that I care about — in my watchlist, which seems a better spot to me, but that's a separate matter.) —Donal Fellows 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)