Talk:Panotools

Thomas, Please stop reverting others work till you discuss it first here. I'm tired of your poor wiki manors. You can manage your own wiki in any way you wish but the Wikipedia has rules. The redirect has been removed and made a hatnotes page. The term "PanoTools/Panotools" mean different things. (software and groups) If you continue this removal without reason practice of yours, I will request that you be ban from editing on the Wikipedia. John Spikowski 15:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Using a REDIRECT assumes the person doing the search for "Panotools / PanoTools" is looking for Panorama Tools. Keep in mind the PanoTools shortcut for Panorama Tools didn't take off till after the PanoTools group started. This page allows the user to choose what PanoTools reference they indended. Rather then reverting the page without comment, justify why a REDIRECT is a better choice. John Spikowski 02:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to say what I've already said to John on his talk page - Wikipedia isn't a link farm. Please see WP:NOT for details.-Localzuk(talk) 08:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE read what a hatnotes page does when the same word or phrase means more then one thing. Then maybe you will stop calling these 5 links to important resources a link page. Check out the Panorama Software page. Is that a "link farm" also? John Spikowski 08:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have explained the problem with your use of hatnotes - there is no such thing as a hatnotes page... A link farm is a page full of external links. This is a page full of external links in the form that you propose. Also, by 'admin' do you mean Daniel? If so, he has said that he can't get involved on his talk page. I would suggest finding someone else, or if you would like, I can find someone who is as equally uninvolved in this dispute/panotools software thing?-Localzuk(talk) 08:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If the problem is that the page isn't in the proper format to branch a like term, then please reformat the page to standards. Redirecting PanoTools and Panotools to Panorama Tools leaves out the author of the software, the SourceForge project and the two groups that have supporting it for 4 years. John Spikowski 09:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * John, Wikipedia isn't a platform for the promotion of anything. It is a neutral site for providing a set of information. If the information is valid, it should be included in the article, if not then it won't. We have been through the links before - they are not valid links *when you place them here* due to your conflict of interest. Placing them here is simply a way of bypassing the large dispute that you have been involved with on the article.
 * As I have pointed out, the policy that is in play here is WP:NOT and specifically the part about the site not being a collection of links. Also, take a look at WP:EL which states that sites should be linked to if they are the 'official' sites or if they could, in the future, have their information integrated into the content. That doesn't mean that we plagarise btw. Now, I have shown you multiple policies and you have shown me one misapplication of a style guideline. It is quite clear that your actions are misguided, please revert to the redirect and take the discussion of the links to the Panorama Tools article.-Localzuk(talk) 09:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the Jones page. Is this page one big "link farm"? We have the same problem with the Panotools / PanoTools pages. It's a generic term that means different things depending how it's used. (Panorama Tools, groups or a class of software) John Spikowski 17:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is a disambiguation page. Note that there is not a single external link on that page. A link farm is to do with linking to external websites. What you are doing is producing a page which just lists external pages, which violates WP:NOT.-Localzuk(talk) 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying the format is wrong but offer no solutions or examples of turning this into a disambiguation page. The Jones page does have an external links section. Please look at the Redirect page as well to see how that page handles the term "Redirect". John Spikowski 19:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the problem with this page is that the only internal article listed is the one which it used to redirect to. The rest are external links. If the Jones page had only 1 internal link and more external links then it would be an inappropriate page and should be a redirect to the single internal article. The solution to this is the page(s) be turned into redirects and then the merits of the external links discussed on the Panorama Tools page. As it stands it simply violates WP:NOT as I have said.-Localzuk(talk) 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's like saying point the reader to brick ovens and they can find out what's in a pizza from there. Why force the reader to go to pages that that don't relate just to combine external links? John Spikowski 21:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Redirect page is a good example of a term that points the reader to the right source. I think your too hung up on external links and think any page that has one is really a plot by an evil spammer. The Wikipedia is made up of internal and external references. That's what makes it such a wonderful resource. Unless you can show just cause to change the format of this page, I would like to close this discussion and move on to more important pages then this. Thanks for your input as I always learn something from the seasoned editors like yourself. John Spikowski 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it should either be a redirect or be deleted. If it isn't put as a redirect I will put it up for AFD (and the other one) and let more people decide.-Localzuk(talk) 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Panorama Tools is called by it's nick name PanoTools 80% of the time. Its' used 100% of the time to refer to the support groups. Once again, you have yet to make your point why this should be a redirect narrowing the scope of a very broad term. John Spikowski 22:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your dead wrong on the redirect so let someone else not related to the topic chime in. I think you and I are too close to the topic to be judge and jury on this one. John Spikowski 21:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: It's not completely clear, but there are at most three things here: a piece of software with a Wikipedia article (Panorama Tools) and two groups named PanoTools which may or may not be related to each other and may or may not be related to the software. The link to the software Sourceforge page and the link to the author's website are already included in the software's Wikipedia article.

A disambiguation page is for handling situations when Wikipedia articles on separate topics would want the same title. This is not the case here, as there is only one Wikipedia article, and thus there should be no disambiguation page. The only thing left is a redirect, sorry John. However, if a useful Wikipedia article is created for the group PanoTools, then that article could get PanoTools and with at the top, or PanoTools could be made a real disambiguation page with internal links only. Anomie 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Anomie, Thanks for commnents. Is there any other option other then a redirect to branch the topic? I tried to add content to the PanoTools page when I created it. That lasted about 5 minutes when all the PanoToolsNG editors alarms went off and the page was immediately redirected. It's been a up hill battle to make the panorama topic something that truly represents the topic rather then a wishes of a few who think they control the direction of the community. John Spikowski 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope the compromise to redirect the PanoTools/Panotools pages to the Category:Panorama software page is fine with all interested parties in this page. John Spikowski 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Panorama software redirect
Redirects should not go cross-namespace when there is applicable article space target. This term is used in Panorama Tools and so it is inappropriate to redirect to a category. If you folks cannot resolve redirect vs. article vs. disambig on your own, then you need to seek dispute resolution. A RFC may be appropriate. I would warn all parties about WP:3RR. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 12:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * JLaTondre, Thanks for your feedback and clarification. There doesn't seem to be a good way to branch a term that has multiple meanings if it has to reference an external link. Back to square one. John Spikowski 19:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

RFD started for "PanoTools" redirect
John now nominated the redirect PanoTools for RFD. It looks like the concept of redirects still needs some clarification. --Einemnet 08:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)