Talk:Screenwriting software

Previous deletion
This article was previously deleted (see log "deleted (Spam magnet)"), so contributors should check often the article and try to remove spam. Cate |Talk 10:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to add a comment in support of keeping this page. Of all the flaws that Wikipedia has the obsession with notability is the worst. A far more worthwhile criterion is utility and this article certainly meets that condition. I was looking for information on script writing software and found this article useful. (Psmythirl (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

-- The program Celtx is no longer a stand alone software, but now seems to be only web based.

Jgwinner (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Software notability criteria
A recent edit culled the list of software section considerably, removing "non-notable" entries. Looking at the removed entries and the remaining ones, I wonder by which criteria notability has been judged. Care to elaborate? 92.225.39.231 (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a note on the page

Please note that the threshold for inclusion here is the presence of a Wikipedia article for the software. Please link to that page when adding a program, and don't use an external link. Without this limitation, this page would get filled with spam far too easily. David.moreno72 (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I made an edit to remove red links under the notability threshold. In doing so it seems that the actual listing of software seems to be haphazard in terms of the details given. For instance, Adobe Story's and Celtx's pricing details are given whereas they aren't for others. It doesn't seem relevant or necessary to include that in the list of software. Should there be some greater consistency here? Should there be a separate list or sublist for discontinued or abandoned software? VanBoek (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * the threshold for inclusion is not the presence or absence of an existing wikipedia page. The threshold for a list item is notability and encyclopedic value as per normal wikipedia practice.  The qualifier should be non-primary citations and normal sources etc as per usual entries.  I agree that the listings should be consistent and keep to the facts.  I really don't like the "professional" and "powerful" and other qualifiers unless it is supported with cited sources, ie, an legit article noting it is used by professionals or a (legit) review citing professional features.  As for the red links, if there is a notable item that does not yet have a primary article, create the article. --2606:6000:66D7:CE00:4D38:6E26:2AE9:1754 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add to this that I think each software item listed should have some kind of external citation supporting the feature-set claimed in the article. Using the web site of the software or other primary source shouldn't be enough; look to third-party reviews, articles discussing the software, etc to show notability.  I won't add a "citations needed" template to each for now, but if editors can do this, it would be helpful --2606:6000:66D7:CE00:4D38:6E26:2AE9:1754 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Power ball
Millions of dollars to help my kids and family Shaqcoldhart (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Come on man big wins Shaqcoldhart (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

structure??
a description of the structure or layout of the softwares, illustrated by screenshots, is missing! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)