Talk:C standard library

message: — MaxEnt 23:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Three-edit one-day anon" isn't a valid reason (this could be anyone who edited from an uncommon location). But the fact that there's nothing clearly "misleading" and no clarification is. — Vano 00:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Yeah, IP addresses are human too, but the hatnote wasn't appropriate; I'd like to know what looked so misleading? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove drive-by tagging by three-edit one-day anon IP 

message: There are links to a site called cppreference.com (and almost all subarticles has those links) and it looks like WP:SOAP and I think (for example) the link to  should be replaced with  or . What do you think? --betseg (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the background but a quick look shows cppreference.com is pretty good. By the way, WP:SOAP is referring to advocacy (arguing, for example, in favor of a particular political outlook). I guess you are suggesting the website is being promoted (WP:PROMO). I don't know, but evidence for that would be if a small number of editors were focusing on adding that link. Issues such as whether a link is spam are normally discussed at WP:ELN whereas there might be more attention to which is the best C reference at WT:COMP, with a link to the discussion at Talk:C (programming language) and here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: cppreference.com is "at top" or "near top" of C function searches on google, just like Wikipedia, so they can't be all bad.  I've used those links and their information is pretty good. I like how they state the section number for each C/C++ specification.  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe the site is at top because Wikipedia has a lot of links to the site? That's how Google works. --betseg (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The engine automatically adds rel="nofollow" to every external link to prevent search engines from considering them in ranking - specifically to discourage this kind of "promotion". Though I agree that a site shall be judged solely by its content rather than position in a search result. — Vano 10:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think  would be the perfect thing to use.--betseg (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About subarticles (e.g. [[C mathematical functions]]) 

message: None of the linux distributions, over the past 18 years, I have every used, have required me to link with libm. The claim that you *must* link with -lm seems dubious if not outright wrong. Can anyone confirm that this real today?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.25.249 (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking libm on linux 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion