Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus.  Daniel  08:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

For all the reasons given below and copied here from the talk page. -- RHaworth 09:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the entire article is in this form useless and not relevant (see Relevance) because all topics are covered already on other pages at Wikipedia (like Panoramic photography, Equirectangular projection, QuickTime, PanoTools, Hugin...) and this is an encyclopedia not a tutorial page, overview or feature comparison (see WP:NOT). Also the text is just copy and pasted from other wiki pages. As all of us that followed John Spikowski know, the final goal is to add 5 links to panotools.info to this page and to create another battle ground as John demonstrated in the past (PanoTools Group (history link ), contributions, talk page archive,talk page). -- Wuz 13:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know nothing of the history between you and John Spikowski. There is nothing in WP:NOT against feature comparison lists and charts. There are thousands of them on wikipedia. See my comments farther down. The other wikipedia articles you mention do not have detailed lists or charts of this software. --Timeshifter 09:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is about stitchers, viewers and utilities not panorama photography in general. Panoramic photography The reference to Equirectangular projection is about map projections not panorama photography hence the direct reference to the PanoTools wiki. I don't see the point having separate promotional pages (not allowed anyways) and keep in the spirit of the Wikipedia offering factual non-biased information. I think the reaction to this page is more hurt feelings buy a vendor then what's best for the community. BTW: There isn't one link or refencence to the PanoTools group on the Panorama Tools page or this new page that is a little over a day old. All I hear from the pro-NG editors here is complaints but no contributions. Let's put some of that energy into the articles instead for a change. -- John Spikowski 09:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume the above is a keep. (And what on earth is a "pro-NG" editor?) -- RHaworth 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is an attempt to consolidate the panorama software offerings into a central source without bias and the 'fluff' added to the promo pages. John Spikowski 19:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * delete as nom. (and please John, every user on Wikipedia can read page histories and will notice that you tried to promote your page and have been blocked severals times (see talk page), not me. So please keep your rants out of Wikipedia and stop your personal attacks.) --Wuz 19:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a significant specialized class of software--and as a superior way than individual articles on the products.DGG 04:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I have thought of checking out tools for creating and editing panorama photos. This type of list is a good starting point. As long as all the politics, reviews, and advertising language is kept out of the article. --Timeshifter 01:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Software products should IMHO have their own respective articles if relevant, even stubs like Pixelpost have their own article and are already linked from appropriate categories. Existing categories such as photo software, photographic techniques and photo stitching software should be used to group articles. There is also another article Image stitching that can be used for a short overview. Einemnet 07:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Categories do not list features. Nor are they comprehensive like a detailed list or chart. Items on a list or comparison chart do not have to be notable in themselves. The topic of the list or chart has to be notable. Otherwise wikipedia will only be listing the largest companies with the best advertising budgets. Freeware and open source software would especially be at a great disadvantage. WP:NOT has a couple wikipedia site searches that link to thousands of detailed lists and charts on wikipedia. That guideline section says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." I am sure that many people will not have heard of many of the people on the Nixon Enemies List. For many of these lists and charts there is nowhere else on the web that one can find such an NPOV list or chart. Few companies would want to maintain lists on their websites where they favorably discuss their competition. Few magazines have enough time or editors for maintaining such lists or charts. --Timeshifter 09:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information about things that the reader doesn't already know about. If you know about a particular software package, there are many sources of good information, as well as in most cases trial versions. I've spent an unreasonable amount of time searching for new QTVR utilities. I just discovered this article and am going through the apps mentioned and looking to see which ones I add to my set of tools. I would be very sad to see it go.
 * In addition, QTVR utilities are a very specialized field. There are often small utilities that do only one thing. They may not be on their own notable, but finding out about their existence is useful.Bhimaji 23:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The only editors here that want this page removed is the vendors/project managers that want to keep their seperate product promo pages from being removed and consolidated with the other panorama offerings. John Spikowski 00:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This page would be of use if it would not be full of promo talk for your sponsors (like Kekus, EasyPano, RealViz see ) and if you wouldn't file AfDs for competing products --Wuz 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thomas, As mentioned above, this is a first draft using content available to me to build this page. I tried to remove the sales aspect of the entries and stick with the facts. Your more then welcome to edit any of the vendor entries that you feel sound too sales like. My hope is this becomes a good resource for people to find the software used in panorama photography. (including yours Pano2QTVR) John Spikowski 02:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I now see the source of the conflict. I have no idea of the relative notability of the various products. Wikipedia says that only notable topics should have articles. The detailed list is notable because the topic of the list is notable. Individual items on the list do not have to be notable. Notable items on the list are allowed separate wikipedia articles. Non-notable items on the list are not allowed their own wikipedia pages. I believe that is the current state of wikipedia guidelines on the issue of notability: Notability. The nutshell says: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." --Timeshifter 08:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I assume the consensus is to Keep the page. I would like to continue work on the page but I want to get by the removal process first. If there is anyone else besides Carl and Thomas that want this deleted, please vote now as the five day discussion period is coming to an end. John Spikowski 04:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I am reluctant to vote. My instinct is "delete" as this is barely more than a collection of external links. There seems to be a desire, however, to have a header article for the Category:Panorama software, and this could potentially be revamped into such an article. It would have to eliminate the "laundry list of software" approach and use reliable sources. It would need to discuss the generic features and strengths and weaknesses of panorama software, not specific packages. It would need to be renamed, as the current name violates naming conventions. There seem to be very troubling WP:COI motivations. Articles for deletion/Panorama Software seems to have been started partly out of confusion but partly out of interest in promoting the search engine ranking of the Category:Panorama software. I don't want to step in a mud puddle, but I should bring up the history between Spikowski and Wuz and others, which began years ago off Wikipedia and continues today on it. Therefore I can only vote keep if this article is moved and cleaned up to standards. As it is, however, it must be deleted per the nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 09:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is much precedent on wikipedia for this detailed list. This is not a directory or mere collection of external links. The links are citation/reference links. The list is detailed. From WP:NOT is this: "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example." I don't see COI problems with the list as long as prices and subjective judgments, reviews, politics and advertising hype are kept out. --Timeshifter 11:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding how this process works is if there is no clear consensus for deletion, then the article is kept. The only delete votes are from the management that split the PanoTools group after 3 1/2 years with over 2700 members. I think the bitterness factor needs to be taken into account as bias in the votes of these two editors. John Spikowski 17:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is generally true, although administrators must also take Wikipedia policy into account. My evaluation is that as it stands the article does not comply with policy. The closing administrator may or may not see it the same way.--Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure is this:
 * An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". ... --Timeshifter 17:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought this reference might be relevant to our discussion. Category:Technology-related_lists. John Spikowski 23:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dhartung. The article has been cleaned up greatly since your last reply. --Timeshifter 07:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment If this page goes then even more so should the individual pages on PTGui and pano2qtvr. Seems strange that a page listing various panorama software is targeted for deletion by the authors of pano2qtrv, etc. who themselves had an individual wiki page on their own software that was no more than an advertisement of their own products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuw (talk • contribs)
 * See What about article X?. The existence of other articles has no bearing on this particular discussion. PTGui, for one example, just had sufficient keep consensus that John Spikowski withdrew his nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I withdrew my nomination because the founder of the PanoToolsNG group posted a "Save The Pages" message to their group asking for unsigned Keep votes. What was the sense of a discussion when the 'wiki bullies' were going to dominate the page and not even read any of the past reasons for combining the page into a notable resource. John Spikowski 21:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is poor: citation needed for A dictionary tells us a panorama is "a picture (or series of pictures) representing a continuous scene". The introduction contains a large number of external links. Whoever wrote that introduction knows stitching only from hearsay and neglects the existence of applications that don't rely on setting control points by the user. QTVRAS, IPIX: not even mentioned. It's just a list with some minimal information, but I see no advantage over a category without a good comparison chart. Even each app's platform is missing if not stated on it's company's web site on page 1. -- next chapter's introduction lacks citation, links and facts. QuickTime introduced viewing of panoramic content long before Java. Other important technologies not even mentioned. Product descriptions look like shortish advertisements. -- Next section "Panorama Utilities": a list of three products looks more like the holes in Swiss cheese than like an overview. Introduction? Nada. -- Section "Virtual Tour Builders": are also utilities and belong in the upper section; no introduction, poor descriptions, no feature comparison. No wonder why such a little number of articles links to this "list". It has just no relevance. And I fear this type of page will not attract much contributors. -- Einemnet 23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was only started on May 12, 2007. See the history. I think it is a very good article considering the short amount of time so far. The things you mention are items for improvement, not reasons for deletion. The links are citation/reference links. See: WP:CITE and Embedded citations. --Timeshifter 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also an interesting fact that this article was submitted for deletion before it was even 24 hours old. John Spikowski 00:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just added a references section, and started converting some of the embedded citations to footnoted citations. This way it will be clear that the links are citation/references. --Timeshifter 17:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also removed the subjective advertising-type language that I saw. There may be more to remove. --Timeshifter 18:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Timeshifter, thanks for the footnote idea! I finished what you started and realized it was difficult to remember the footnote number you clicked once it scrolled down to ref. list. I expanded on your idea and built an external footnote section. This allows the reader to click on a interesting product from the same place they are reading the short description. A company/person - main URL ref. gives the hidden product link more information without looking like a "link farm". John Spikowski 00:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * John. When one clicks a footnote one is immediately sent to the correct reference. No need to scroll. Plus the reference is highlighted in light blue. With footnotes there is absolutely no doubt that it is a citation/reference. Just having inline links can cause problems sometimes, because some editors will claim they are spam external links. Please trust me on this. If you want to avoid future Articles-for-deletion reviews, use only footnoted references wherever possible. It is easy to do. Just add to the beginning and end of the link info. See Six-Day War for an example of a hybrid footnotes and references system. Do not use the word "external" in the title of the reference or footnote sections. Otherwise, some editors will consider it a spam linkfarm, and will delete all the links. See External links. Only a few external links are allowed on wikipedia pages. Always try to convert external links to reference links by using the link correctly as a citation for something specific in an article. Citation/reference links must meet guidelines of Citing sources. --Timeshifter 05:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean about the footnote reference being at the top of the page. It means the reader has to click twice and is disassociated with the text that the link belongs to. Lets do whatever the norm is so we can move forward with this. John Spikowski 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Carl, I have stitched more panorama images in one month then you will in a lifetime. (multi-state virtual tour business) If you re-read the stitcher intro again you will notice that I said from control points meaning using PTStitcher scripts to products like Panoweaver that automates the complete process. As mentioned in this page discussions, that it looks like you didn't read, this is the first draft and I said it's lite and put a call out for experts like yourself to contribute. Since you only troll the talk and discussion pages and offer no help to the content, your comments fall on deaf ears. Check out the Category:Technology-related_lists pages and you will see how this page fits. John Spikowski 01:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would really contribute to overall civility if you all would set aside your past associations and opinions of each other and focus on the task of improving this encyclopedia. Please cut out the personal attacks. --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this page meets the criteria for acceptance and cleans up the mess of random panorama pages being created with no association. I nominate that this discussion be closed and the page kept and improved. John Spikowski 07:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.