Talk:Server application programming interface

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 16 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Server Application Programming Interface to Server application programming interface. The result of the discussion was moved.

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]