The German page already has the 2023 version. The fact that other language pages include these should be a hint. 
2 Likes
There is a related page called “Fortran 95 language features”. Mike himself wrote it quite a few years ago. It was initially rejected because some bot accused him of plagiarism, even though the “plagiarized” source was Mikes own work as well…
I created a page a year or so ago (on a topic having nothing to do with Fortran or programming), and cited a fairly encylopidic source for some of the details. The book was written 60+ years ago and often cited on other pages. Yet my page got bounced into a sandbox until I expanded it and quoted other, actually less credible, sources. Finally got accepted.
Life on the Internet…
1 Like
Under Wikipedia’s “N.O.R.” rules, Archimedes would not have been allowed to shout “Eureka” after his bathtub experience.
1 Like
@g
This one is understandable and is a classical issue: the content of a book is not free (unless specified). The author has granted some exclusive rights of publication to a book publisher. Wikipedia may be sued by the book publisher for reproducing some pieces of the book, even if it’s the author of the book who wrote the Wikipedia page.
1 Like
@PierU Do you suggest the corresponding booklet about Fortran 95 in the learning section should go, at least until clearance in writing by OUP / or CCC? What would be the status of other about OOP in Fortran – equally subject to a (temporary | permanent) embargo? There is no explicit license on its associated GitHub repo.
To be on a safer side, I add @m_b_metcalf to this discussion.
Yes, this is a common obstacle when referencing even your own previously published work. You sometimes must obtain explicit permission from the publisher to quote yourself or to republish, say, a graph or a table. If you cite the previous publication appropriately, you can usually get permission.
1 Like
I don’t know. The page says “The booklet is based on Wikipedia’s article Fortran 95 language features” : if it’s OK for Wikipedia then it is supposed to be OK for the fortan-lang page (the content of Wikipedia can be freely republished)
It really depends on the countries. In Europe I think that a content is protected by default, unless specified otherwise. But Github is a US platform…
The CRC Press – Eric Weisstein – Mathworld lawsuit reminds us that there are legal hazards to be wary of even if one is thinking of republishing one’s own previous work in a different format/medium.
1 Like
My feeling is that Wikipedia suffers from the “besieged citadel” syndrom.
Many people try using Wikipedia as a platform to promote their work/company/product/site/whatever… And many of them do not understand why it’s not authorized, and the concept of notability. And this is really a major issue. So, in practice, the admin/editors have to constantly fight against that, and it’s not easy.
And since of a few years, they have been under high pressure by some ultra-conservative groups who can’t stand the existence of an independent media with a large and worldwide audience, which can’t be bought, and which doesn’t relay the all the disinformation that can be found elsewhere.
When an organization is under pressure like this, the members tend to raise shields around, and ultimately to become paranoid.
6 Likes
Diderot and D’Alembert had also many problems with their Encyclopédie project…
1 Like
I think this is a very fair assessment (of the syndrome/mechanisms). Some of my distant colleagues are getting defensive, cause they’ve been under constant attack for physical realities about the climate that many don’t like. When the 95% of questions are asked to lure you into a rhetorical trap, it’s harder to take the 5% in good faith.
Looks like more voices of reasons were added to the discussion on Wikipedia. At this point, I’m pretty sure MLE will be re-added.
2 Likes
Another Metcalf book that I looked up this morning to check whether a feature was f77 or later:
Metcalf, Michael.
Effective Fortran 77
Oxford University Press. Print. First published 1985, reprinted with corrections 1986, with further corrections 1987, 1988, 1990.
Just a reminder to everyone (myself included!) to please stay “respectful, constructive, and on-topic”. People have different opinions on politics and let’s not discuss politics on the Fortran forum (there are other forums where you can discuss politics, such as various social media). Here is our Code of Conduct: Welcome to Discourse. Our goal here is to promote Fortran, and Fortran books and help Wikipedia (and alternatives) to present Fortran in an objective manner as much as we can. And help grow our small community.
5 Likes
Indeed, no license means you keep the ownership of your work. I know that in France, you can even not put your work in the public domain, as the paternity of your work is inalienable. The minimum CC license is therefore CC-BY (you can not use CC-0).
Let’s not get paranoid about this. The contents of both booklets are in the public domain. Neither has anything whatsoever to do with OUP.
MM
1 Like
I would rather not read opinions like that on the Fortran discourse. Really.
3 Likes
Agreed, please let’s stick to Fortran per my post above (MFE removed from books in current Fortran Wikipedia page - #54 by certik).
1 Like
I’ve drawn a complete blank getting the reference to MRC and B reinserted.
Here is a wikipedia link.
Wikipedia:Administrators - Wikipedia '_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warring_at_Fortran
It appears that the above discussion has been closed and expert comment has been rejected.
It is my understanding that the actual discussion about the book’s inclusion is taking place here, which remains open. After several editors confirmed the standing of the book and one was very clear (StarryGrandma), there has been no update for 2 days.
1 Like
Somewhere between October 12, 2025 (snapshot by waybackmachine/archive.org) and «now», the article got a padlock (just below the pull-down menu for tools, top right corner). This indicates edits to an article become public only after a supportive review by at least someone «higher up» than just an interested contributor.
So far, the waybackmachine collected more than 2k snapshots, January 4, 2004 is the oldest.
1 Like