New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Wikipedia Ember.js article to clarify #2374

Closed
hugolpz opened this Issue Mar 30, 2013 · 9 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@hugolpz

hugolpz commented Mar 30, 2013

Not a bug issue, but an important "project's communication" issue.

The Wikipedia article for Ember.js is pretty obscure, most of it focusing on SproutCore and it's timeline, nothing being said about Embers, its usages and specificities, etc. This wikipedia entry is really confusing. What is this SproutCore ? Is SproutCore really EmberJS ? What does Embers JS ? What the relationship between EmberJS and HandlebarsJS ?

Please may you go ahead and clarify a bit this introduction to your project ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ember.js

Last but not least, also receive all my encouragement :)
-- Yug, from wikipedia

@workmanw

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@workmanw

workmanw Mar 31, 2013

Contributor

+1, Ember and SproutCore have little in common any more. The current article is likely to confuse anyone new to either, especially since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SproutCore redirects their as well.

Contributor

workmanw commented Mar 31, 2013

+1, Ember and SproutCore have little in common any more. The current article is likely to confuse anyone new to either, especially since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SproutCore redirects their as well.

@hugolpz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hugolpz

hugolpz Mar 31, 2013

Let's clarify, so I can move ahead on wikipedia article. Is there a version 1.0 (SproutCore) & Version 2.0 (Emberjs) relationship, or is it a fork relationship ? If I know that, then I know what to do on wikipedia.

hugolpz commented Mar 31, 2013

Let's clarify, so I can move ahead on wikipedia article. Is there a version 1.0 (SproutCore) & Version 2.0 (Emberjs) relationship, or is it a fork relationship ? If I know that, then I know what to do on wikipedia.

@workmanw

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@workmanw

workmanw Mar 31, 2013

Contributor

There are others in the community who are better articulate and more fit to address this issue than I am.

But to answer your question, it is definitely a fork relationship. Ember.js started out as SproutCore 2, but evolved in such a way that it made since to rename it to Ember. Both SproutCore and Ember.js are maintained independently of each other.

Contributor

workmanw commented Mar 31, 2013

There are others in the community who are better articulate and more fit to address this issue than I am.

But to answer your question, it is definitely a fork relationship. Ember.js started out as SproutCore 2, but evolved in such a way that it made since to rename it to Ember. Both SproutCore and Ember.js are maintained independently of each other.

@lukemelia

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lukemelia

lukemelia Mar 31, 2013

Member

I recorded some relevant history on this SO question: http://stackoverflow.com/a/9436012/614844

Member

lukemelia commented Mar 31, 2013

I recorded some relevant history on this SO question: http://stackoverflow.com/a/9436012/614844

@hugolpz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hugolpz

hugolpz Mar 31, 2013

Ok, I forked the article into SproutCore on one side, and Ember.js on the other.
I think Ember.js have enough notability to stand by its own as a wikipedia article. There are the key factors which will play in the comming weeks/months:
This article will be reviewed by other wikipedians who don't know the field and may be more critical.
The article should have at least some more content, and be more coherent so they will not ask to delete it.
I move to other things, wish you good luck.

Article to expand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ember.js

hugolpz commented Mar 31, 2013

Ok, I forked the article into SproutCore on one side, and Ember.js on the other.
I think Ember.js have enough notability to stand by its own as a wikipedia article. There are the key factors which will play in the comming weeks/months:
This article will be reviewed by other wikipedians who don't know the field and may be more critical.
The article should have at least some more content, and be more coherent so they will not ask to delete it.
I move to other things, wish you good luck.

Article to expand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ember.js

@hugolpz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hugolpz

hugolpz Mar 31, 2013

@luke & community: it would be good if the Ember.js community can create an "History.txt" file within the Ember github project from http://stackoverflow.com/a/9436012/614844 , so we, wikipedia, got a reliable source to expand the wikipedia article.

hugolpz commented Mar 31, 2013

@luke & community: it would be good if the Ember.js community can create an "History.txt" file within the Ember github project from http://stackoverflow.com/a/9436012/614844 , so we, wikipedia, got a reliable source to expand the wikipedia article.

@vine77

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vine77

vine77 May 7, 2013

I took a first stab at a summary (noting a few citations like Zendesk's TechCrunch article). Is there a license or better resource for Ember.js logos?

vine77 commented May 7, 2013

I took a first stab at a summary (noting a few citations like Zendesk's TechCrunch article). Is there a license or better resource for Ember.js logos?

@hugolpz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hugolpz

hugolpz May 8, 2013

Nice shot ! It's now an elegant introduction :D

hugolpz commented May 8, 2013

Nice shot ! It's now an elegant introduction :D

@trek

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@trek

trek Jun 18, 2013

Member

I'd say the page is much improved. Thanks everyone.

Member

trek commented Jun 18, 2013

I'd say the page is much improved. Thanks everyone.

@trek trek closed this Jun 18, 2013

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment