Talk:Rational Synergy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rational Synergy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing: Software Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Merge proposal[edit]

I agree with the idea of merging Accent (programming language) into Synergy's page. Synergy is still sufficiently popular and maintained to retain a solid web presence. The presence of Accent, however, seems to be merely copies of the same 2 sentences of information. There is one book which may be related (I could not tell without reading), but other than that, even a search for "accent programming language" or "CaseWare Accent" yields no useful information. I have been researching the history of Synergy, and became curious about this language. In my search, I have found no other programs that claim to be written in this language. It seems to be nothing more than "the language Synergy was written in," and thus is nothing more than a footnote to the Synergy page. -- CmdrRickHunter (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the founding engineers of this software, I agree that Accent is simply the language that Synergy is written in, and should be merged here. GregHolmberg (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Klbrain (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete proposal[edit]

I disagree with the proposal to delete; this appears to be a legitimate product that has had quite a few other articles written about it (27,000 Google hits). I suggest pruning down anything with NPOV, tagging stub, and letting it grow back. --chrylis (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in some more details and updated some of the NPOV things. Also added a company history with references. I'm happy to continue to refine as necessary to get this into shape. Please don't delete. Etaekema (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]