Talk:Server application programming interface

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

"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 my edit again. Ttt74 (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Please stop deleting content mindlessly , and you're welcome not to waste your time any more. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

After searching for "Server Application Programming Interface" on google, I found few results and what I found is only ISAPI, NSAPI, Oracle SAPI and Apache SAPI. Seems that this term is not being widely used. So what I did is further moving the content to Web API#SAPI [1] and PHP instead of keeping redundancy infos and wasting energy on a separate article. I've moved [2] the PHP example to PHP article and added [3] PHP into the See Also section of Web API. Can we seek this merge as a compromize? Ttt74 (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, I'm wondering why should only I care about this article? If nobody else cares, I won't go into edit warring with you. This is just Wikipedia, and very few people take it seriously anyway. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

I hope I did the right thing: I'm always trying to compromize and do the right decisions. Ttt74 (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

In my book, doing that wasn't the right thing. Just my $.02. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

What do you mean by "Just my $.02"? Ttt74 (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Use a dictionary to look it up. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you explain why you think doing that wasn't the right thing? Ttt74 (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

1. "SAPI", as a term, is used widely enough to deserve a separate article.
2. SAPI can be explained and understood by the readers much better in a separate article.
3. Mergers, in general, should go through proposals that stay open for extended periods of time.

... to sum it up briefly. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

1. Only Microsoft, Netscape and Apache use it.
2. the content that was on this article was very few.
3. OK, You're right here, I missed that. Ttt74 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Wouldn't SAPI be notable enough if only Apache used it, even if Microsoft's IIS didn't use it? It doesn't matter that the article was a stub, we have numerous even smaller stubs all around. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Stubs are not great: they just keep redundency everywhere and cause many waste of time and scattered content, instead of being unified. Ttt74 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

That's your opinion, to which I respectfully disagree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

• Stub-Class Computing articles
• Mid-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles