Talk:Natural Docs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Natural Docs article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Merge: NaturalDocs into Natural Docs

Simple, we don't need two articles about the same exact thing. 68.226.61.4 06:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. It previously forwarded to Natural Docs because it's just a common way to write it. Someone changed it to a separate article and that should be undone. Greg10101 21:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirected other page, as this one is more complete and uses the author's preferred spelling. This shouldn't be controversial. Greg10101 21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming other tools as negative examples

It has gained popularity amongst ActionScript 2.0 developers because no other free documentation generator exists that fully supports ActionScript 2.0 and because it generates higher-quality output than similar generators that partially support the language, such as ROBODoc.

This phrase names another tool as a negative, (or comparatively worse) example. The output quality of other tools is highy subjective and a matter of taste. I think this comparision is unfair and at least the names of other tools should be removed here.

--Thuffir Hawat 09:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)