User blog comment:P進大好きbot/Historical Background of the Ill-definedness of UNOCF/@comment-30279966-20200127075040/@comment-35470197-20200127152423

It might be good, although I am not certain whether UNOCF has as much influences to beginners as it had. In past years, people used UNOCF in their analyses without specifying what OCFs they are using, and created articles including analyses based on unspecified OCFs, which might be UNOCF or actual OCFs. (This problem which has polluted the wiki is terrible, because it is really difficult to judge which analyses are meaningful, i.e. given by actual OCFs.) On the other hand, currently, there are few googologists who create such new articles. (There are several googologists who add analyses by BEAF, though.)

If we create an article on UNOCF, then we need to be very careful because as the example of BEAF shows, even if we clarify the ill-definedness of UNOCF, beginners might not understand the issue. In order to avoid such trouble, it is better to just state the issues on UNOCF instead of to deeply decribe the intended behaviour and the intended strengthen. By the reason, it might be better to create an article on NIECF, which is a formalised variant of UNOCF by Nayuta Ito, than UNOCF.