Talk:SolveSpace

SolveSpace references (notability)
Former maintainer whitequark was interviewed here:

https://thenewstack.io/how-solvespace-is-retooling-its-3d-cad-open-source-community/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.47.94 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone took this time to create a set of 16 tutorials on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEvJVXu3VfGMSOdpA0jrGRzoM7NlNOl5s

and another 9 in his CAD challenge series:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEvJVXu3VfGNoDKGvlZBoj_dJV5ipaJ0p

Hackaday did a comparison of SolveSpace to FreeCad

https://hackaday.com/2020/07/16/freecad-vs-solvespace/

I don't know if these bring it up to wikipedias standards on notability, nor how to properly format them as content for the main page.

SolveSpace detailed feature list
A detailed feature list is found on the Shapeoko forum. Although well written, it is still just a post in an online forum, and I am reluctant to cite it in the WP SolveSpace article. It would however be a very good basis to expand the WP SolveSpace article. Stringybark (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Short description
, per WP:SHORTDESC: Each short description should:
 * be short – no more than about 40 characters (but this can be slightly exceeded if necessary)
 * The Shortdesc helper gadget displays a character count as the description is changed.
 * be written in plain text – without HTML tags or wiki markup
 * start with a capital letter
 * avoid initial articles (A, An, The) except when required for correct grammar and meaning
 * avoid a final full stop.

The reverted shortdesc has 69 characters, an article, and ends in a period. If you could please self revert back to the previous short description that fulfills these requirements, that would match those guidelines. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing
- «‎Development: cn» - «‎Constraints: typo, cn» - «‎3D modeling: cn, phrasing»
 * I'm afraid that tagging with cn doesn't help much because entire Workflow subsection is basically tied to the program's reference documentation… I tried my best on keeping it short. I think little can be done about that.

AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 23:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." Since the items I tagged are not obvious statements of fact (i.e. the sky is blue), they do need to follow that policy. However, the claims are not exceptional, so do not need an WP:EXCEPTIONAL source in my opinion (though someone else would be in their right to remove poorly or un-sourced material). Could we directly cite the program's reference documentation? It's not the cleanest, and I couldn't find any guidelines on doing that, but for noncontroversial material, it could be a good start, especially if its tagged with Template:Better source needed. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)