Category talk:AutoHotkey Originated

Is This A Good Thing?

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)