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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles 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.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
I don't think MARY could be called objetoriented. Should maybe be changed.
I've made a few changes to the article. The main one was to replaced "perpetrated" by "designed and implemented", because the word "perpetrated" has usually has negative connotations (eg., "perpetrating a hoax"). I've also removed "rather obscure" and instead added "An unusual feature of its syntax was that" to the start of the second paragraph. I also changed all but one present-tense verb to past tense. Further edits are welcome. Cheers, Chris Chittleborough 11:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article wasn't "originally" based on Foldoc. It was "originally" written by me, here on Wikipedia a long time ago (probably 2001). It has since been reworked quite a bit and there is now some good stuff here that wasn't written by me. I don't see anything obviously lifted from Foldoc, though maybe there is some. If there is, it would be added later, not in the "original" of this article. A lot of the other older computer articles here WERE originally lifted from Foldoc, maybe someone got a bit too enthusiastic and added some acknoledgements where they aren't needed? 198.142.19.219 (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed the reference to FOLDOC. Riordanmr (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
