Talk:Clip Studio Paint

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 June 2021 and 3 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Squeakko.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Definitely adding stuff but feel free to add stuff upon it or correct it. I'm a student learning how to use Wikipedia and I just thought that I'd come along and edit this article as I thought it was lacking stuff compared to some of the other software I've seen in the art industry not only that but I absolutely love using it. I eventually do want to break up editions into separate sections as I feel its just a long boring thing of text. I added A version history and file formats as I thought they were necessary with the software however I think the table can either be moved in the history section or made in its own section. Thank you, hope to keep making edits here. Squeakko (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributing, but I'm not sure I see much value in a log of every release of the software. In fact, "Exhaustive logs of software updates" is one of the examples given at WP:NOTDATABASE of "what Wikipedia is not". The focus of an article about a piece of software like this should be explain to the reader: What is it? Why is it noteworthy? What are its general features? What is it used for? How is different from other similar software? An exhaustive list of its version history, specs like file formats, or how to use it – things you can get from Celsys' own web site – aren't needed here. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a problem trying to contribute where I can. I do have to agree that the table does explain a little more than it should but I still think its relatively noteworthy considering Photoshop and Krita both have something relating to version history. I believe Corel painter has the same thing on its article, now i'm not saying that is the correct way but I do believe some sort of indication as to its version history should be relevant. When it comes to the File formats I also think it is relevant considering Krita has one that explains what it can import and export and I think people would like to know what the application can use, I also did manage to take a look at the other languages (notably Japanese and Spanish) of this article and they seem to have the file formats on there which again I'm not to certain if its correct or not. What I'm going to do is probably condense that table for the version history down a lot and probably only leave it to sections by year. Either way I still think both are notable but this again is only my third or fourth edit ever. But thanks again for the feedback definitely greatly appreciate it! Squeakko (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Be careful looking at other articles as guides, because in many cases they're bad examples. WP:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages The Photoshop article frankly goes into way too much detail about updates, because people kept adding all the latest news as it happened... and no one has been bold enough to go thru the article and edit that cruft out. But at least it focuses mostly on major updates that were important enough that sources other than Adobe wrote about them, and interesting enough to write something about them in the article. That's the standard we should be aiming for. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to know. I can easily go through the table and cut out stuff that really isn't major and probably keep what is major to the software or just reduce it all together. This one was definitely tough to find sources on about those updates so it makes sense to either reduce it or remove it, Would I end up doing the same thing with File formats?Squeakko (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the change-log section, because: 1) It's a textbook example of what Wikipedia is NOT. 2) Frankly, it is not useful information. 3) And it was getting worse rather than being improved. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)