Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Archive 4

All GFDL images are software!
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories. Cross-posting here because that WikiProject sees little participation. Pcap ping  19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for "Comparison of ..." articles
I've started a RfC on my proposal for dealing with one of these articles, where the discussion has been particularly heated. My proposal is not specific to that kind of software, so hopefully the result of the discussion can be used as a precedent for all similar articles. Please participate at Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. Pcap ping  15:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Computer programmer BLP articles in danger of immediate, no warning deletion
For those not following the wiki dramaz, there's a plan in the works to prod all unreferenced BLPs (check your watch list notice for a pointer). Below is an intersection of that category with the Category:Computer programmers, using this tool. The usual battle plan is to strike them out as you reference them. Some may be incorrectly tagged.

* Alvy_Ray_Smith: Computer_graphics_professionals; All_unreferenced_BLPs ✅ Notable. Mistag.

* Andrey_"KranK"_Kuzmin: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs Questionable Notability. Sent to AfD.

* Antony_Crowther: British_computer_programmers, Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs ✅ Notable. Mistag.

* Birger_Møller-Pedersen: Computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs ✅ Questionable Notability. Asserted Notability, Verified Accurate. No Contentious Material.

* Bob_Scheifler: Free_software_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs ✅ Notable. Asserted Notability, Verified Accurate on Software Page. Citation Ported Over. No Contentious Material.

* Bob_Shannon: Computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs Questionable Notability. Sent to AfD.

* Bob_Smith_(Atari): Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs Non-Notable. Redirected to main article.

* Bob_Sproull: Computer_graphics_professionals, Computer_graphics_researchers; All_unreferenced_BLPs ✅ Notable. Mistag.

* Brian_Fox: Free_software_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs ✅ Notable. Mistag. * Daniel_Kottke: American_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs ✅ Notable. Mistag. * Sean_Barrett_(programmer): Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs Nonnotable, no contentious material. * Thomas_Knoll: Computer_graphics_professionals; All_unreferenced_BLPs ✅ Notable. Asserted Notability, Verified Accurate. No Contentious Material.
 * Ciaran_Gultnieks: British_computer_programmers, Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Daniel_J._Sandin: Computer_graphics_professionals; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Dave_D._Taylor: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * David_Crane_(programmer): Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * David_Jones_(programmer): Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * David_Moon: Computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * David_Rolfe: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Dona_Bailey: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Eddie_Dombrower: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * François_Lionet: French_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Fred_Parke: Computer_graphics_professionals; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Gary_Grigsby: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Gary_Martin_(programmer): American_computer_programmers, Computer_systems_engineers, Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Gerard_Beekmans: Free_software_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Gordon_J._Key: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Henry_Fuchs: Computer_graphics_professionals; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Ian_Bird_(software_developer): British_computer_programmers, Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Iikka_Keränen: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Jeff_O'Neill_(game_designer): Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Jeremy_Sagan: American_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Jez_San: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Joe_Sparks: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Johanna_Moore: Fellows_of_the_British_Computer_Society; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * John_Harris_(software_developer): Computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs ✅ Questionable Notability. Mistag.
 * John_Mashey: American_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * John_McAfee: Computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs ✅ Notable. Mistag.
 * Jorge_Stolfi: Free_software_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Keith_Packard: Free_software_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Loïc_Dachary: French_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Marius_Enge: Norwegian_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs ✅ Probably notable.
 * Mark_Grand: Computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Martin_Newell_(computer_scientist): Computer_graphics_researchers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Mental_Driller: Computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Michael_Abrash: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Michael_Meeks_(software): GNOME_developers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Michael_Sperberg-McQueen: American_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Michael_Sweet_(programmer): Free_software_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Mike_O'Brien_(game_developer): Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Mike_Robertson_(programmer): Norwegian_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Nasir_Gebelli: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Orkut_Büyükkökten: Computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Patrick_Buckland: Computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Patrick_Wyatt: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Per_Håkan_Sundell: Swedish_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Robert_Jaeger: Computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Roger_Hui: Canadian_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Ryo_Kawasaki: Computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Sampo_Karjalainen: Finnish_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Simon_Cozens: British_computer_programmers, Perl_writers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Siraj_Razick: Free_software_programmers, Sri_Lankan_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Steve_Fawkner: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Thom_Henderson: American_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs

* Tim_Anderson_(Zork): Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs ✅ Notable. Asserted Notability, Verified Accurate on Software Page. Citation Ported Over. No Contentious Material. * Wayne_Bell_(computer_specialist): American_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs ✅ Questionable Notability. Mistag.
 * Tim_Martin_(programmer): American_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Tim_O'Reilly: Irish_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Tim_Riker: Free_software_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Trung_Dung: American_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Wayne_Davison: Free_software_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Werner_Randelshofer: Computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Wes_Cumberland: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * William_Barden,_Jr.: American_computer_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * William_Tang_(video_game_author): British_computer_programmers, Video_game_programmers, ZX_Spectrum_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Yoshiharu_Gotanda: Video_game_programmers; All_unreferenced_BLPs

Regards. Pcap ping  13:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Businesspeople in software
This is a disjoint category, but some articles may be already included in the above list if they're categorized in both:


 * Brian_Schmidt: Microsoft_employees; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Daniel_A._Reed_(computer_scientist): Microsoft_employees; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Ed_Oates: Oracle_employees; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Eugene_Luskin: Microsoft_employees; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Grete_Faremo: Microsoft_employees; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Laura_Massey: Microsoft_employees, Microsoft_evangelists; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Robin_Raina: Businesspeople_in_software; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Scott_Isaacs: Microsoft_employees; All_unreferenced_BLPs
 * Syed_Iftikar: Businesspeople_in_software; All_unreferenced_BLPs

Pcap ping  22:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am Bob Shannon
The information on wiki, about me, which was originally input by one of our 7 children was disputed in many ways over the years since it's input. I no longer claim to be father of the BBS as it is, or was. I would like to mention that Kathy Yakal, one of the people who wrote about me was hard for me to look up after all these years and she is the one who put quote marks around her words.......I think she was signed in under her name...she was and still is an editor of computer magazines...the first being Computes Gazette and Computer magazine. She is fairly easy now for anyone to get a hold of if need be. I do still have a copy of the issue in question published in 1984.

I am now 64 years old. I wrote the program in 1982. I did in deed sell over 4000 copies not 400. Up until that point in my life I was disabled....and this program brought me out of it and into business..I had one of the first computer stores in Northern California.....all based on the monies I made from Electric Magazine. I am proud of what I did....and I am proud that one of my children decided to enter it into Wiki.

When I was young and writing this program...actually I was about 37......I was a happy father and happy for my success. It saddens me that some of the younger generation see reason to dispute what I have done...I am TRULY saddened. I have been very proud of my addition to Wiki...but if it goes....know this...I will accept it...but it will hurt me....My wife and I have taught and raised 7 kids, many of whom are now professionals in their own fields...5 college graduates....I am sure they too shall share in my emotional pain.

Electric Magazine brought me from a ill-nobody to a big (my word) somebody, recognized by very many when only a handful owned computers.....I humbly request of you not to delete it....

Thank you for your time and consideration. Bob Shannon Cheney, Washington —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eqshannon (talk • contribs) 05:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Quick Reply:


 * A) Welcome to Wikipedia!
 * B) This isn't the deletion discussion.
 * C) Per wikipedia policy, any editors claiming to represent real life people should send proof to the foundation. Real life information related to yourself/accounts should not be posted on wikipedia.
 * D) We are not disputing what you did, but per notability guidelines, reliability guidelines, and original research guidelines, your contribution might not be worthy of it's own article. Your software probably meets guidelines for inclusion on wikipedia (if verifiable, just not under it's own article. I understand that these policies have little in terms of human considerations, however, there is an (exaggerated) "crisis" on wikipedia right now involving biographies, and the interpretation of policies that you've experienced is actually quite lenient in comparison to some of the proposed solutions (to which I oppose).

(Can someone else fill in relevant links to the policies that explain the above? I'm overdue for bed right now) &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  07:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss appropriate sourcing
I'd like to see more discussion of what appropriate sourcing for software projects should look like, something like Reliable_source_examples and the 'see also' referencing guides listed there. I'm very concerned about the tenor of discussions, where I observe the Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions used. I'll mention this at WP:WikiProject Computing and WP:WikiProject Software but wanted to mention it here as well, since the current list of AfD made me believe this is needed. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Commented on Talk:Comparison_of_Internet_Relay_Chat_clients instead, since I think User:Pohta_ce-am_pohtit is addressing the right questions. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't a great venue to discuss it. This talk page is for maintenace issue with this WP:DELSORT queue. Usually something like you want to address gets discussed at a WP:WikiProject, in this case WP:WikiProject Software. Pcap ping  22:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:Notability (software) and Wp:Software notability essays are just around the corner. Otherwise, stick with WP:RS and WP:RAP and you're golden...unless someone wants to start a WP:Reliable Source (software) essay. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  00:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Noian, those are useful pointers. Notability_(software) suggests: "It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources[3] for free and open source software, if significance can be shown.[4] On the other hand, software that is distributed commercially or supported by businesses is a commercial product. Such sources should fulfill the breadth and depth of coverage required for a stand alone commercial product article." This is the sort of discussion I'd like to have. I think clear criteria (i.e. indicating and evaluating 'relatively informal sources') and consensus. I'd collaborate on WP:Reliable Source (software) but I don't feel able to start such a page... Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's difficult to list sources for something as vast as this, but the videogames wikiproject has guidelines, which give non-self-published reviews as reliable sources. See VG/RS. Something like this can be done in task forces or similar sub-wikiprojects. Pcap ping  12:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The VG/RS seems like a good model. I particularly like that they have a custom search engine. Anybody else interested in talking this through? Pcap is right, "software" is too big a topic. So I think the first step would be to either choose a subtopic or maybe to think about the different types of articles that exist. A sourcing discussion at Articles_for_deletion/MUME got me thinking about this again. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for article review
Hello! One of my adoptees would like the members of this project to review an article he created on a mobile device managment platform. I have helped him some with grammar, but as it concerns a product I am not personally familiar with and thus not an expert on it, it would me most helpful if someone(s) from this project could give the article a look and see if it is ready for mainspace. Thank you for your time. The proposed article is at User:PCJain/sandbox. It gets some hits on Google News that could perhaps be helpful. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

X11 WMs up for deletion
FYI, a bunch of X/11 Window Managers have been sent for deletion via AfD, see Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_February_21

70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:CNC, CAD, and CAM
FYI, Category:CNC, CAD, and CAM has been nominated for renaming. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:FORTRAN programming language family
Category:FORTRAN programming language family has been nominated for renaming. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Source code vs pseudocode
Please, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (mathematics). The problem is very important for future development of computer sci. articles. A consensus needs to be reached.--Tim32 (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

NanoZip article is to be deleted
Hello!

Help is needed. NanoZip is a novel file archiver in alpha state currently. Benchmarks show that it is better than any other archivers today. I think it worth to be mentioned in Wikipedia, but it is proposed that article is to be deleted. --Varnav (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Article is no more proposed for deletion, but some help with estabilishing the notability is needed. Please see the article's talk page for details. --Varnav (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for software?
Does this project maintain its own notability guidelines? The dwm and awesome deletion discussions inspired a chat about this at the recent LibrePlanet conference. –SJ + 07:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the saved book template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class software articles should have covers.

If you need help with the saved book template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Books, and WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. Earwig Bot ( owner •  talk ) 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Software status
Are there some guidelines that distinguish between freeware/shareware/abandonware and discontinued/unmaintained/maintained?Smallman12q (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a DRV for Informatica (the corporation)
at Deletion review/Log/2010 April 20. Pcap ping  04:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Pixetell
I have proposed an overhaul of the “Pixetell” article Pixetell that was previously posted and raised concerns among some reviewers. I am an employee of Ontier, the company that makes and sells Pixetell, which is an online communications software product. I value Wikipedia and understand the legitimate concerns about companies attempting to use Wikipedia for marketing purposes. My company wishes to have a presence on Wikipedia, one that meets the high standards of Wikipedia and strengthens it as a resource for objective information. I have made a point of reading through relevant policies, guidelines, and essays (such as WP:COI, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest, as well as Opera (web browser) (as an FA about a software product). I have also sought out advice from long-time Wikipedians. Please take a look at my proposed replacement text, which I hope you will agree is an unbiased and thoroughly cited improvement. Dan Cook 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Astrology software
Article needs help determining historically important developments and criteria for establishing notability of software packages and apps. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

GNU
There is a content dispute on - the problem is basically where and how to put the current usability status of GNU in the article lead. There is a long discussion between me and Cyclopia on the talk page about that and it seems we're unable to reach a compromise. Expert attention would help. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of VGASAVE
This is to notify members of this WikiProject, within which scope this article falls, that VGASAVE, has been listed for deletion. Editors interested in the deletion discussion, are invited to participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Software archaeology
This is to notify members of this WikiProject, within which scope this article falls, that Software archaeology, has been listed for deletion. Editors interested in the deletion discussion, are invited to participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Software archaeology. Thank you. - Radagast 3 (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Software articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Software articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Development status of MuPAD
There is a discussion about the development status of MuPAD at Talk:MuPAD, which people may be interested in. Yaris678 (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Second opinions about notability
Could I get some second opinions about Hamilton C shell? The only independent and reliable secondary source I see listed is this one by Dr. Dobb's Journal (not sure in which incarnation that source was in 1991). Other sources include a "personal website", a FAQ apparently produced by an individual, and a bunch of mailing list postings:, , ,. The other references are by the developer of this software, Nicole Hamilton, who is obviously not independent of the subject (just as an autobiography would not be an independent source in one of our biographical articles). I think this one Dr. Dobb's source would not confer notability under the general notability guideline (which is what seems to apply to software products), but I wanted to make sure I'm right about that before taking it to AFD.--Chaser (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, C_shell may contain some relevant assertions. There are no new independent sources, however.--Chaser (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a number of additional secondary sources (Middlesex News, PC Week, MIPS Magazine, BYTE, Software QA Magazine and Windows IT Pro) for a total of 7 traditional print sources about the product, spread over a roughly 10-year period. I also found an iTunes audio link where the author speaks publicly about herself and her name change on a panel discussion at Stanford; she comes on at 29:37.  Advice here would help:  The author seems open about her history but it doesn't look to me like there are sources to make her notable.  BLP seems to favor discretion re: peripheral facts about a non-notable individual's personal life.  Otoh, it's impossible to make sense of the sources if you don't know about the name change.  So I've been struggling with how to treat this; right now, I have it in a citation.  Some of you with more experience must have seen how this is usually treated.


 * Overall, I totally concede that the article is far from done and what's there isn't as good as I'd like or know it should be. I'm new at this.  The only thing I've really done so far was a rewrite of the C shell article from  this to what it is now.  I hope I made it better but realistically, I haven't gotten a lot of feedback.  I'm just learning, especially about how write for WP, how to document notability, the difference between a primary and a secondary source, how to achieve NPOV, etc.  I certainly make no claims to being at all good at any this!  But I want to get better.  Any helpful suggestions for improvement or help on the article itself will be greatly appreciated.  All I ask is AGF and that you respect my anonymity.  Cheers!  Msnicki (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My quick perusal of these sources indicates that they establish notability. I'll look at them more carefully the day after turkey day.--Chaser (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Chaser. Msnicki (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Recommended Structure for Software Articles
Does anyone know of any existing standards for the structure of software articles? Here's a recommendation for the structure of an article about a school, for example: WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. And here's one for countries: WikiProject Countries. And one for plays: WikiProject Theatre/Article Structure. It'd be great if we had guidelines like this for software. Matthew Simoneau (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some very vague guidelines at WP:Notability (software) with a rejected request for expansion, but aside from that nothing much. Refer to manual of style. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  11:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Alleyway
The usage of alleyway is under discussion, see Talk:Alleyway  --  65.95.14.34 (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Software Quality Assurance Article: A Proposal to Move Forward
Updating this article seems to have stalled. Here is a proposal to move forward. The Software Process and Product Quality Assurance group at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) are significant practitioners and authorities on SQA. They are well aware that SQA is a somewhat contentious subject and have offered to draft a neutral article on the current understanding and practice of SQA for Wikipedia. This may be a good way to move forward as they are a credible source without any commercial interests or biases towards or against standards (e.g. ISO) and methods. Before they expend effort on this, they would like to get some indication of interest from the community and if they would be accepted as a credible and neutral source of information on SQA. Dport (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not? (can't believe no one replied to this) &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  20:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Question
Is there a list of recently deleted software articles? I want to know so that I can see if I can find sources and request their undeletion. Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No idea, I would look st recent AfD's with software tags. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  20:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Software development
It sounds like computer programming and software development fall under the scope of this project. Is that correct? If no one objects, I'd like to add those to the description of the scope. --Pnm (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Policy supports your position. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  20:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the project scope at present:
 * WikiProject Software is a collection of pages devoted to the management of computer software articles on Wikipedia.


 * We aim to help set up standards of organization and presentation for articles on:
 * All articles dealing with software
 * Articles dealing with Software Vulnerabilities and Exploitation (Viruses, Adware, Spyware, etc.)
 * Articles dealing with Software Security tools
 * Articles dealing with Information Security issues
 * Articles dealing with free software


 * Adding software development is significant (it's only silently implied). A small fraction of the software development articles are tagged with this project now. There are a lot of them. They're significantly more technical than the other articles in this project scope.


 * If software development is in the scope of WP Software, I'd like to modify the template so software dev articles can be more easily categorized. I think we should also affirm that software development is the best term to use (vs. the more specific computer programming, for example). We should also examine the related category Category:Software development.


 * (I do think it's worth discussing before changing.) --Pnm (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Computing importance no longer defaults to Software importance
Articles tagged using WikiProject Software will retain their Software importance, but will no longer get assigned a general computing importance unless one is provided explicitly using.

When assessing articles for the Software project, please consider the computing importance and tag accordingly. For articles which also have a WikiProject Computing banner, its  must match the Software.

This will help WP Computing in three ways:
 * 1) Improve the accuracy of importance assessments for general computing
 * 2) Avoid unexpected changes to the Computing importance that result from changing the Software importance
 * 3) Bring attention to the parameter for general computing importance, reducing the likelihood of articles accidently being listed in multiple Computing importance categories. (This causes false entries in the Computing reassessment log – see discussion at WP:COMP/A – and likely other problems as well.) --Pnm (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

New article request
UltraSurf, discussed in depth (along with the Global Internet Freedom Consortium) in. Probably other sources out there too. Not my subject area, so I'm hoping someone better versed might be interested. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it meet WP:NOTABLITY? If so you could create an article with references. Make sure you use the tags to cite your sources. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Software development process/methodology merger proposal
People may be interested in Talk:Software development process. Yaris678 (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Software license agreement into Software license
I'd appreciate more input on this merge discussion. It began in 2006 and I'd like to get it closed, but there isn't consensus for a merge or a rationale for disambiguating the topics. --Pnm (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Editorial dispute at Comparison of platform virtual machines
I would like to request editorial assistance in arriving at consensus on the appropriate state of the article Comparison of platform virtual machines. Please see the discussion so far. Psuedonym 03:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Garant
I just stumbled upon this unreferenced article. I'm not a software guy and don't edit in this area. Thought you all might know what do with it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I just added a notability tag. Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

ACCPAC
ACCPAC has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC on the use of terminology like “GiB” (gibibyte) on Wikipedia
Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate under consideration is the use in this table of the “Hard disk drive” article of nomenclature such as “KiB”, “MiB”, and “GiB” to describe capacities. The governing guideline on MOSNUM is Quantities of bytes and bits. The quality of the discussion can be improved by broadening participation of the discussion. This will hopefully more fully achieve a consensus. Greg L (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Content of Infobox software - how many software releases to show?
Is there any best practice for the number of software releases that should be show in the "latest release version" parameter of the Infobox software template? I ask, because one editor is defending the display of four separate release version numbers at PostgreSQL. We have argued at Talk:PostgreSQL that only the current version of the latest release should be shown (which is after all what the parameter is named), as is currently the case in articles such as MySQL, Firefox, Joomla, Ubuntu (operating system) etc., all of which have multiple releases but he is having none of it. In an attempt to gain some consensus I would appreciate opinions from members of this project (who are very welcome to shoot me down if I'm the one who is wrong). --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 20:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Team Software Process Revisions
I am writing on behalf of the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI). We have noted that the Team Software Process page is in need of updating. It is noted on the Team Software Process page that "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2011)." The technical staff at the SEI has also uncovered several factual inaccuracies on the page.

In an attempt to help address these shortcomings and to ensure the page is accurate and up-to-date, we recommend that a number of factual updates and citations be made. We first and foremost welcome and encourage edits from the community. Please note that any edits made by the SEI will be sourced, justified factual changes that are made with the best interests of the Wikipedia community in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.28.14 (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about title of Unix shell article
People watching this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Bash (Unix shell). Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Windows component
I'm considering adapting this useful template for more generic usage. Currently, A component of Microsoft Windows is included by default. Adding an extra parameter would allow its use for components of other OSes. Perhaps there's already a suitable template available, in which case I'd be interested to know. If not, I think the template could be adapted in either of the following ways: Thoughts? --Trevj (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) New template based on Infobox Windows component, but including a new parameter parent_os or similar, along with any other changes deemed appropriate.
 * 2) Move Infobox Windows component to Infobox OS component, again after including the new parameter. If the parameter isn't present (or is blank) the template could default to the current Microsoft Windows statement. This would ensure existing usage (via redirects) isn't broken.


 * I'd rather we simply did away with it entirely to be honest and just used infobox software for all of them. It doesn't really make sense to maintain two separate levels of abstraction for these software components when there are only ~200 articles using the system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

ZextCMS
Hello, please help on how to fix this following article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZextCMS and also remove old article from; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zext Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxwire (talk • contribs) 09:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

PackML
Not too sure if this is the right project, but someone may want to take a look at PackML. It was written by the organization behind the 'product'. I have no idea what this talks about, but it's pretty clear it needs cleanup, a proper layout, a proper lead, etc. It seems to contain original research too, but I'm not sure. If anyone wants to take a look, and maybe initiate conversation with the user who created it (see bottom message), it would be appreciated. Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Software Engineering Institute
Hello, I am an employee on the corporate communications team at the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI). I’m seeking help in updating the outdated information that is currently in the Software_Engineering_Institute Wikipedia article. I’ve included links to several resources below that contain information about the SEI and programs, and technologies. Please feel free to consult these sources as you are making updates to the article.

Thank you for your help, Dana

• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10182/1069538-28.stm

• eWeek: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Software-Engineering-Institute-Contract-Renewed-466589/

• Dr. Dobb’s Journal: http://drdobbs.com/222301637

• PCWorld: http://www.pcworld.com/article/216936/when_trusted_IT_people_go_bad.html?tk=rss_news

• Government Info Security: http://www.govinfosecurity.com/podcasts.php?podcastID=465

• Software Integrity Blog: http://blog.coverity.com/uncategorized/interview-with-robert-seacord-head-of-the-secure-coding-initiative-at-cert/

• Bank Info Security: http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/podcasts.php?podcastID=823

• On Software Engineering: http://onsoftwareengineering.com/2010/12/03/cmmi-version-1-3-and-agile/

• About.com: http://adulted.about.com/od/learningorganizations/a/seicertificationatcarnegiemellon.htm

--CMUSEI (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMUSEI (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

HP TeMIP Software: notability and referencing concerns
Hello all,

Would any interested parties here like to take a look at HP TeMIP Software? I landed on it from the Random Article link yesterday, and one thing that jumped out at me was its complete lack of references (no Reference section, no inline citations, not even an External Links section). I added the References maintenance tag and Googled to find some reliable sources, but I honestly couldn't find one that fit the guidelines, so I then added the Notability template too. I realize Google isn't everything, so I brought this here in case anybody might know how to source this article; as it stands now, I don't know that it could pass a deletion discussion.

I've outlined all this on the talk page too. Cheers, Northumbrian (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of HP TeMIP Software


The article HP TeMIP Software has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The article fails to meet the general notability guideline; unable to find significant coverage in secondary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This notification pertains to the topic I started above. If an interested editor associated with the software project wishes to contest the deletion by removing the proposed deletion tag and then supplying the secondary sources that the article requires, please feel free to do so. Northumbrian (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bundled software#Redirect
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bundled software. Trevj (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ürban PAD
I was seriously considering CSDing this as advertising, bearing in mind the huge lack of RS I can find on it (see talk page). There seems to have been a lot of activity spamming it around forum sites very recently, including mention of targets for shipping it out .... I'm going to tag it as probably lacking notability, and PROD it, instead of going the CSD route. If any of you can find some decent RS for it, though, and maybe re-write it, please go ahead! Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 06:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I prefer being neutral myself at this time. But I also do not see anything stopping you from deleting the article if you reported it. If anything more important came up, please feel free to notify us so that project members can act in case of need. Fleet Command (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Citing a WinHelp manual
Not sure if this project is still active, but I thought I'd ask this question anyway. I'm working on the article British Open Championship Golf, and I've run across a complication: its manual is a WinHelp file. I have no idea how to properly cite one of these, but User:Jinnai suggested that someone in this project might have had a similar problem in the past. Anyone have some advice? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest Android release: doubts and controversy
Hi all, there seems to be a dispute on the Android talk page... Basically, two editors do not agree that a release of the source code counts as a release of the software... I disagree, so I would like to invite anyone with some skills to that debate. Regards --SF007 (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been resolved per . --Pnm (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Overly Enthusiastic Portalizing?
I was advised at The Village Pump to ask the following question here. If this is the wrong place, please let me know.

User:Sbmeirow recently added a portal box to software testing to a number of pages about computer hardware, such as ARM Cortex-M3, Single-board microcontroller and Embedded system. These appear to have only a tenuous connection to software testing. I don't want to accuse him of doing something wrong when I am unsure whether it actually is wrong, but it seems odd to list hardware in the software testing portal. Do these pages belong? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think fwiw that those interested in the Software Testing portal should be able to provide a description of the sorts of pages they intend to add the portal link to, for discussion here. Like Guy, I think it is not appropriate to link to the portal from any old IT-related page, such as the examples given above. I would have expected to see links limited to articles directly related to software testing, rather than - such as these - only indirectly related. There's a point at which such links become somewhat spammish. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Sbmeirow has been Invited to join this discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Microcontrollers and microprocessors are hardware devices that runs software programs, thus you can't hard group them into either a hardware-only bucket or software-only bucket. All ARM cores are purely "software-ish" descriptions of a CPU core until they converted into silicon, heck even VHDL and Verilog are technically software but typically only hardware engineers use those languages.  If the articles in question where resistors or capacitors, then obviously software related portal don't belong on them, but though CPU devices are hardware things they are useless without software.  Since those articles involve both hardware and software, I thought it would be useful to readers to have a portal of each.  I wish there was an embedded portal, because that would have been the prefered choice for all of them.  In response to spamish, if people think they are spam, then the entire portal concept should be removed from all of wikipedia.  Though most put portals in the "see also" section, I prefer to put them in "external links" section so they don't stand out so much, and "external links" is where I put them in city and school articles.  When searching for a software type portal, I didn't research the "software testing" portal, it more of sounded useful for embedded development.  If you don't like the "software testing" portal for those articles, then pick a better software type of portal in place of it.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  22:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If the topic isn't covered in the portal, it shouldn't be on the page. Agree that most IT-related articles are not sufficiently related. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a trivial issue to me and not important enough for me to care. If I made a mistake, just fix it or ask why I did it.  The above person should have either deleted my change or contacted me directly instead of making public discusion as the first point of contact.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  06:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My behavior was correct. All Wikipedia editors are subject to public discussion about their edits. As I wrote at the top of this thread, "I don't want to accuse him of doing something wrong when I am unsure whether it actually is wrong." Asking whether it was wrong in the appropriate place -- and inviting you to comment -- was the right thing to do. Reverting your edits or criticizing you for making them when I wasn't sure whether they were wrong would have been incorrect behavior on my part. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Xara Xtreme LX
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Xara Photo & Graphic Designer. -- Trevj (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Plan 9 from Bell Labs nominated for GA
Plan 9 from Bell Labs article was nominated for GA review (at WP:GAN). Comments (and the review itself) are welcome! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Mdadm how-to purge
I deleted a bunch of text from Mdadm that I do not consider appropriate for Wikipedia (per What Wikipedia is not). An anonymous user expressed some rage about my action on the article's discussion page, so I figured I would bring the matter here for additional attention and appropriate discussion.Dfeuer (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge comments
Please comment on merge proposal at Talk:7-Zip. Thanks, D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  19:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

API Classification
Hello, I assist in sorting stubs for WikiProject Stub Sorting. Would an API (such as this stub) be classified as a  computer programming tool or a  computer library? I'm drawn to side of computer library, but I would like your opinion.--Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  16:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would tag it with compu-prog-stub actually, as both libraries and tools should have some code at least. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Article split to Novell DOS (from DR-DOS)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Novell DOS. -- Trevj (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Netscape pics
Several Netscape pictures have been nominated for deletion. You may be interested. See Files for deletion/2012 March 17

65.92.181.184 (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Backbone.js
This article is a one-liner about a Javascript library which I deleted after it was PRODded for lack of notability. That has been queried on my talk page by a user who says it is important, even revolutionary, and has "made most of my 10 years of web development experience obsolete"; so I have restored it, invited him to expand it, and now post here in case anyone is interested in helping. JohnCD (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The closer project is WP:WEBSITES but it might get more attention at WP:COMP. As far as keeping the article, it does seem like an important topic, but it was just released in 2010. It's all over message boards and blogs but I couldn't easily find any reliable sources. Might be too soon. It's briefly mentioned in DocumentCloud and I took the liberty of merging it there. I think it may not meet WP:GNG at this time and figure the interested editors are better off adding the verifiable material they can find than navigating policy and Afd. It's obvious to me it'll be Wikipedia–notable eventually. --Pnm (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As community manager participating to many conferences and JavaScript meetups, I must say that backbone.js looks to interest a lot of people and it is a topic that is often proposed by speakers. I invite you to have a look on Lanyrd to get an idea: Backbone.js search results on Lanyrd Alexandre.Morgaut (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

MindTouch move discussion
The discussion about moving MindTouch Core to MindTouch (over redirect) is taking place. Opinions needed! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Chrome/Firefox
Why do we have one chrome article and endless versions of firefox floating around? Now firefox is on a rapid release schedule are we going to end up with many more articles breeding as versions come out thick and fast? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Instead of creating multiple Firefox articles, we have combined all rapid releases into one rapid release article. Thanks  ҭᴙᴇᴡ ӌӌ   15:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Altoros AfD
I've started an AfD discussion about Altoros article (software developer business) and quickly got overwhelmed with an amount of editors who have no contribution outside the topic, so that I'm now unable to judge on the process from an unbiased point of view. Please give a glance the article and state your opinion in the discussion. The more uninvolved people will come there, the less tricky it will be to judge on consensus, as currently the amount of people (as opposed to accounts) participating in discussion is IMHO very questionable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Firefox article needs repair!
Hello WikiProject Software! The Firefox article is really outdated and in need of repair. It would be great if we could put together a team to help maintain it - or at least bring it up to date. Thanks  ҭᴙᴇᴡ ӌӌ   15:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

xdvi
I've created a new article titled xdvi. It's still quite stubby. Have fun improving and extending it. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Accounting Information System
5 Steps of accounting information system and work process — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.120.8.67 (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LPR
Template:LPR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LSR
Template:LSR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

SUPER (software)
This program has issues with malware, etc. I have used it and agree. I am very happy using it, and just ignore or fix the issues on my versions. See the talk page and article history. It seems that some believe the article should have a 'controversy' section with RS. I don't know which RS are RS for computer software articles though. There is a little more detail about my issues with it on ref desk/computers--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

RELAP5-3D
Anyone got an opinion on the new article RELAP5-3D? I have just come across it. I think it contains some stuff of value but as far as I can see there are 2 main issues: However, I've not really worked on this sort of article before so I thought I'd get an opinion here.
 * 1) It is overly promotional
 * 2) It would probably be better to have an article about RELAP as a whole, with RELAP5-3D just being the latest version. (RELAP is currently a redlink but Relap is a redirect to RELAP5-3D)

Yaris678 (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

C++ Textbook
Hello all! I’m working with the Saylor foundation to create a series of original, crowd-sourced textbooks that will be openly licensed and freely available on the web and within Saylor’s free, self-paced courses at Saylor.org. We are using Wikibooks as a platform to host this project and hope to garner the interest of existing members of the Wikibooks and Wikipedia community, as well as bring in new members! We thought that some of your members may be interested in contributing to our book Saylor.org's C++ Programming. Azinheira (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC about wording and links in template:infobox software
The request for comments regarding recent changes in template:infobox software is filed at Template talk:Infobox software. Input would be very appreciated. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of RSD S.A.


The article RSD S.A. has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no indication of WP:NOTABILITY; written in a promotional manner

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Folding@home is a FA candidate
I just thought I'd let everyone know that Folding@home is now a Featured Article candidate. Please feel free to leave comments and voice your opinion one way or the other. Hopefully together we can proceed through the nomination swiftly. Thanks, • Jesse V.(talk) 14:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of FA status for Microsoft Security Essentials
I have challenged the decision to award this article FA status over what I allege is a lack of balance and neutrality in the article. Fresh opinions and input are encouraged here. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)
I have started an RFC at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system). Please join the discussion there. Elizium23 (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I responded there. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 22:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Maple example code listings
I removed a large portion of the Maple (software) page because I deemed it unfit for an encyclopedia. It was inserted again without further explanation. Am I missing something here? --Ysangkok (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Karl Wiegers
I'm thinking of creating an article about Karl Wiegers, an author of several books on software requirements discipline. However, I'm not 100% sure the person meets the notability criteria. Could you help me define if it's true or not? --ViseMoD (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've composed the article. Please review it. --ViseMoD (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Version History
Hi all. Is there a manual-of-style or something for software articles? I ask as I just came across an article listing a piece of software's entire version history, which seemed to be in contravention of WP:IINFO, but I couldn't find any software-related guidelines to confirm this. I removed it anyway - it was constituting 50% of the article and was obviously overkill - just wanted the response loaded if questioned! Cheers,  Nik the  stunned  12:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Nik, which article are you referring to? Instaed of deleting, shortening down massively can solve problems. Many version history tables are reduced to "important" or "major" releases, skipping security & bugfix releases. Also, Wikitables can be made collapsible. For standardized display of release histories (& version stages), please consider Template:Version. It is etsablished in de:WP, I am introducing it to en:WP these days. Jesus Presley (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Release histories - anal, banal, or encyclopaedic
Consider this edit at Plesk which is two people arguing over whether a long and detailed revision history, including quarterly point-releases, actually belongs in the article. I tend to side with the deletionist - at the very least it should be trimmed to just the major releases. What do the members of this project think? Is there guidance in any of the computing/software projects? --Biker Biker (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Only the significant releases should be included. The citations can serve to provide the reader for more information. See WP:IINFO and to a lesser degree WP:N. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 22:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That pretty much sums up my own thoughts, thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Can you help me introduce some of these guidelines to the Template:Version template? When I started introducing it to some articles, I stumbled upon many tables listing countless minor releases without description. "Keep it short" should be established as a style guide. Also, support my proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Computing Jesus Presley (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments: Establish standards for version history tables (or a styleguide)
I'd like to introduce the Template:Version template to the Computing styleguide, with the goal to establish one standard for version history tables (or lists) on WP. It simplifies creation of release histories, standardizes release stages and makes the content more accessible:

Please comment on the template talk page (there already is some active discussion going on). Jesus Presley (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments on lead sentence Domain-specific language article
Hi, could somebody comment here. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Revisions to Mindjet article
In recent weeks, I've been work on behalf of the company Mindjet, which makes mind-mapping software, to update their article here on Wikipedia. The article itself is relatively new, dating from earlier this year, and so the changes are fairly minor, despite a few big changes at the company.

I previously posted a request for editors to review my changes over at WP:Companies, but no one from there has been able to take a look at the article yet. One neutral editor has weighed in on the talk page, but would like input from other editors rather than making the changes unilaterally.

Given my COI on this request, I was hoping that someone here at WP:Software might be able to take a look at the changes that I've proposed over at Talk:Mindjet in order to reach a consensus about whether or not the changes seem appropriate and, if so, work with the other editor(s) to move the changes over into the mainspace.

If you have any feedback or concerns, please feel free to leave me a message here, over at Talk:Mindjet, or at User_Talk:ChrisPond. Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Done ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 22:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Dog (Programming language)
Can we get some eyes on this? My personal interp is that it is new and therefore not notable and seems to be advertising. Was thinking about afd but figured I'd raise the question here before I do Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * AFD until establishes it's notability. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 20:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Updating Mindmanager software article
In recent weeks, I've been work on behalf of the company Mindjet to update the article for MindManager, one of their software products. There have been a number of rather significant changes over at Mindjet recently, and the current MindManager article is quite out of date.

I posted a request for an editor to review the article on Talk:MindManager; you can also view my proposed draft in my userspace at User:ChrisPond/Mindjet (software)

Given my COI on this request, I was hoping that someone here at WP:Software might be able to review my draft and, if appropriate, make the changes that I discuss on Talk:MindManager, including renaming the article and moving over the revised draft. I have also requested help for changes

If you have any feedback or concerns, please feel free to leave me a message here, over at Talk:MindManager, or at User_Talk:ChrisPond. Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Done! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to help with iOS articles
If anyone is interested in iOS-related subjects, the articles iOS jailbreaking, Cydia, SHSH blob, and Greenpois0n have a lot of active talk page discussions that would benefit from additional perspectives and opinions. A bunch of the discussions have been between just one other editor and me. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots
Evening All! Following a conversation/debate on the Firefox article regarding the screenshot, I have proposed a new section for the software screenshot guidelines. Basically, it's designed to deal with OS wars, and clarify the standard for what OS should display what screenshot (without being too rigid). Please would you have a quick look at my initial proposal and make suggestions, give feedback, and hopefully get things moving. I note from older talk sections there that this has previously been a topic of discussion, so hopefully we can clarify it sometime! Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:Microsoft Office 2013
Hi.

There is a discussion about Talk:Microsoft Office 2013 licensing terms in progress and we need someone with access to source to confirm or deny the problem.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Style of LSR and LPR
Hi all,

after a style change of LSR there's a discussion on wether to keep the change and use it for LPR too, revert it or develop an alternative design for both. Some constructive feedback for the discussion would be welcome.

Furthermore you're invited to leave a vote for your favourite design or express your opposition against the others. -- Patrick87 (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Transformation
Please see WT:PHYSICS, where a discussion on creating an article on "transformation" is occurring. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Xfce-logo-big.png
File:Xfce-logo-big.png has been nominated for deletion. (are we allowed to use LGPL images?) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Apps Proposal
A proposal for a WikiProject Apps has been made at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Apps. As WikiProject Software is a related WikiProject, members of this WikiProject are invited to join the discussion. Thank you. XapApp (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_8#Category:Apps
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_8. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Active
Template:Active has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. I'm only notifying this WikiProject because the template is in Category:Software templates. Feel free to remove this message from this talk page. XapApp · talk · contribs 08:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

OpenEmuHeroScreenshot.jpg
image:OpenEmuHeroScreenshot.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:LG-WebOS.png
File:LG-WebOS.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Couple App page, request for addition
Hi, My name is Alan and I"m the marketing director at Couple. As to avoid any conflict I'm submitting to the community a request to add feature information to our page. Factual information only as follows:

1+ million downloads (crossed the 1m threshold in March: http://thenextweb.com/apps/2013/03/23/the-personal-social-network-couples-celebrates-its-one-year-anniversary-with-1-million-users/ ) Apple editors choice award (February 2013) Google Play staff pick (May 2013) Features include: ·     Private timeline to build a shared history & remember all your special moments · 	Real-time messaging to express yourself through sharing videos, voice messages, and photo (with photo filters too!) · 	Send Secrets: private photos that no one else can see; even set them to disappear! · 	ThumbKiss™ when you want to be close: whether next door across continents touch the same spot on your phones to make them both light up and vibrate simultaneously · 	Sketch together in real-time: draw together simultaneously from a thousand miles away! · 	Make phone calls or Facetime from insite the app · 	Share to-do lists: real-time syncing from new date ideas to remembering milk at the store · 	Calendar reminders: schedule dates, automatic notification of birthdays, anniversaries, and important dates · 	Instantly share locations · 	Cross platform support Contact info: Website: www.couple.me Support: http://support.couple.me/ Twitter: @CoupleApp Pintrest: pinterest.com/coupleapp Instagram: instagram.com/coupleapp

Please contact me ( alan@tenthbit.com ) with any questions, concerns, edits, etc.

Thanks for your help

--67.180.211.176 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, your app is not notable in any way, and we only cover notable subjects. Sorry! drewmunn talk 06:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Mozilla Portal
Portal:Mozilla has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

LSR Google Spreadsheets
Template:Latest stable release/Google Spreadsheets and Template:Latest stable software release/Google Spreadsheets have been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments on Avalanche_model
This article has been tagged as unreferenced since Feb 2012, and I can't find the term "avalanche model" used in this way other than on Wikipedia. Rattle (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8.1
Morning all! This kind of stems from a conversation we've had at the screenshot guidelines, but I'd like to expand it here in light of the Windows 8 article and its content. It was decided at the screenshots page that we should not allow screenshots of pre-release software unless they're from a reliable source (news site etc) and we're noting that they have been reported. The Windows 8 page now has a whole section devoted to the upcoming 8.1, a large percentage of which lists updates evident in leaked builds. My question is whether this information should be included (it does cite news articles), and if so, how the wording could be improved. Anyway, that's all for now! drewmunn talk 06:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Blackboard Inc.
Greetings all, I am looking for help with a request for the Blackboard Inc. article. Important to disclose: I am working on behalf of Blackboard Inc. to improve this article and address problems described by the warning tags currently in place. Because of my COI I will not make any edits to the article in the main space, hence my interest in finding other editors to review and, eventually, move a draft once consensus is reached.

I have been working on this new draft in my user space for awhile now and I am ready for other editors to review what I've prepared. If this is something you'd like to help with please take a look at the request on the Blackboard Inc. Talk page and my draft in my user space here: User:WWB_Too/Blackboard_Inc._(2013_revision). For anyone who is able to help, probably best to reply to me on the article's Talk page, which I have watchlisted. If anyone feels my draft needs additional changes, I'm very open to discussing that as well. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Mocana
I just created an article about my company, Mocana. I've made every effort to source all the information and present it in a neutral tone, but would certainly welcome any feedback. --Wurtis65 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Another user has raised questions about notability and neutrality of this article; I would appreciate any independent perspectives.--Wurtis65 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Help with Freddie A. Laker article
Back in early June I helped create an article for Freddie A. Laker, the founder of the software company Guide. I'm now looking for help with three small updates to the article.

I'm asking here because my work on the project has been as a paid consultant to Guide. I've only edited the draft in my user space and now that the article has been moved live, after review through AfC, I would like to avoid making any edits to the article myself. I've left a more detailed note on the article's Talk page explaining the changes I'm hoping to have made. Please take a look if you're able to help. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Volkswriter 2.2.jpg
image:Volkswriter 2.2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

MS Word for deletion
Several screenshots of MSWord are up for deletion, see Files_for_deletion/2013_July_27 -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, more screenshots from Files for deletion/2013 July 26 -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Final Cut Pro
Hi All! Would you mind popping over to the Final Cut Pro talk page, where I've started an RfC on the differentiation between the eponymous software and Final Cut Pro X? Your views are very much welcome. Thanks in advance! drewmunn talk 12:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Newton logo.png
image:Newton logo.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

P:Freeware
Portal:Freeware has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Umple and Executable UML; request for further comment
Last month in the Executable UML article a link was added to Umple in the "See also" section (see here), which was undone (see here) and restored (see here), etc... And since then there is a dispute about this link, see Talk:Executable_UML. I hereby request for further comments on this matter on the Executable UML talk-page, thanks you -- Mdd (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Notepad2Icon.png
image:Notepad2Icon.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads-up
I submitted a WikiProject proposal for Project Vocaloid, which is, as the name implies, a project focused on Vocaloid-related articles, their improvement, and the addition of Vocaloid-related articles that currently do not exist. Since the Vocaloid/2/3 engines and the voicebanks for them fall under the term "software", I just came by to inform the project of its (potentially) being listed as a related project.

I wanted to make this an entirely new project because Vocaloid has many things related to it that would fall under several projects' jurisdictions. For example, tools used for Vocaloid animation (such as MikuMikuDance) or vocal synthesis (such as the Vocaloid engine) could fall under this project's scope, due to their both being pieces of software, but pages like MikuMikuDance would also fall under WikiProject Animation's watch, due to the software being a tool used for 3D animation, as well as being both a piece of software, and being related to Vocaloid. WikiProject Vocaloid would simply unify them all under one general category covering an entire topic.

I just wanted to give the project a heads-up that it'll (potentially) be shown in the "Related Projects" section of another WikiProject.

Have a nice day! N  Studios   2  22:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Minesweeper
FYI, there is an RfC opened at talk:Microsoft Minesweeper -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

VirtualMachineManager.png
image:VirtualMachineManager.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Mobile Apps wikiproject
-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot of Style Jukebox on Galaxy Nexus.png
image:Screenshot of Style Jukebox on Galaxy Nexus.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Python 3.3.2 reference document.pdf
file:Python 3.3.2 reference document.pdf has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

New to Wiki Editing, going to overhaul the LabVIEW page
Hi all,

Myself and some other LabVIEW enthusiasts are keen to see the LabVIEW article brought up to speed and generally overhauled. It seems dated, a little subjective, it's certainly incomplete and less than complimentary.

We wish to conduct our modernization of the content objectively and sensibly, and expect a large proportion of the existing content to get modified. The current structure is not to our approval, so we wish to move sections about and move content between sections to accommodate a revised breakdown (something more akin to the MATLAB page perhaps, which appears to be better maintained).

Can I ask what the best approaches might be for us regarding these changes? We don't wish to spend a lot of effort performing adjustments to see them reversed by an auditor because they're too massive. Is there a generally accepted strategy for making major changes to a Wiki page?

Thanks in advance for any advice received,

ThoricCLA — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoricCLA (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeking community feedback regarding the Chakra_(operating_system) article...
Hello,

As Chakra_(operating_system) is noted on its talk page as being supported by WikiProject Software, I would like to offer folks an opportunity to voice their opinions on an ongoing thread at Talk:Chakra_(operating_system).

Thanks in advance for your time and attention,

--Kevjonesin (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Good Technology
Hi, I work for Good Technology. The article has had flags indicating problems for a couple years. It also had some small inaccuracies, and presented a pretty incomplete overview of the company's history. While I understand that I have a conflict of interest, I want to help improve the article according to Wikipedia's standards. I have recently made some edits and additions, making every effort to express a neutral point of view; I also added about 20 independent citations. I hope a more experienced Wikipedian can take a look at my edits and provide any needed feedback. (previous version, prior to my edits)

Also, in the future I think it might make sense to merge the Visto article into this one, as the companies are now one and the same. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

OpenOffice.org feature nomination
I've nominated OpenOffice.org for FAC. Uninvolved reviewers for FAC would be most welcome. Or, if you haven't time for that, just looking over the article would be good :-) - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Loomio
I work for Loomio and created a stub article on it in my userspace. It was quickly shifted to the live site by other editors. I'm new to wikipedia and am trying to follow Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest -Simontegg
 * I assume this was because they felt it was notable enough to be moved to the mainspace. However, I will inform EuroCarGT that you have raised these concerns as he can probably give you a more precise answer. On a side note, you may wish to declare this conflict of interest on your user page to make it even clearer to other editors but well done for trying to follow the guidelines at WP:COI as best you can. Oddbodz (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have spoken to EuroCarGT here and he has said that the article wasn't actually in your userspace and that he just moved it to a more appropriate title within the mainspace. Oddbodz (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, I'm still familiarising myself with how this works -Simontegg —Preceding undated comment added 01:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TestAuditor
Dear software experts. Can someone please take a look at the above submission at Afc? Even though I have had some experience in writing software, I can't tell if this article is describing the product in an encyclopedic fashion. Thanks! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Version History Tables, let's discuss discontinued products first, and then active products.
Consider my recent edit on Adobe GoLive, which was discontinued in April 2008. In fact, it is a perfect example of why I'd like to see this practice become standard. The final version was downloadable for almost a year after that version's stable release. So, let's add sentences such as that to the bottoms of Version History Tables, for Articles on discontinued products.

For active products (that is to say not discontinued, still actively developed and upgraded), I would also like you guys to look at the recent color code compromise (which is "pastel," essentially the same colors but in slightly lighter shades) over at Template:Version (click on the Template's Talk Page). This new compromise concerning the color code has not yet been implemented, but it will be implemented in a week or 2 if there are no further objections. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with BeerXML page
Hello,

I'm involved with the article BeerXML (as an advocate for software in brewing) I'd appreciate help with the article as I am not as well versed in software as in brewing. The article has been tagged for deletion by two users who object to its existence, although I know that brewing software is used daily by tens (if not 100s of thousands of people) Your views on whether the article should be given time to develop would be most welcome at Articles_for_deletion/BeerXML Thanks - Devils In Skirts! (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC).

Unintended Posting
Dear editors. I accidentally posted the same message. Wkmaster (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burton Howard Bloom
Dear software experts: Is this a notable person, and should this old abandoned Afc submission be kept and improved, or deleted as a stale draft? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

pdf 995
User reason for visiting this page. I need a list of free or quasi free pdf converters. The one I use on my laptop is pdf995. I forgot the name and so went looking for it on google and yahoo. It no longer appears on the first page of google, now it is on the second page.

Additionally, the authors of the wiki page for free pdf software or quasi free, FAILS to list pdf 995.

This is an excellent program and completely free. The only payment is looking at an ad.

I am not sure why you have not included pdf995. I have used it now for four years. for free.

Unfortunately, a list page of free software is very useful and I applaud the author or authors for their contribution, although not perfect.

The current problem, is that google is no longer reliable as it used to be. I believe my searches are more manipulated by them and things that used to pop us, no longer do.

One observation is that you get less links on the first page and some people, never make it to the second page.

Therefore, this wiki submission is helpful, even if it fails to include a very important free pdf converter, as pdf995 provides to the economical consumer.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.88.233.183 (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Completed some edits, feedback welcome
As I mentioned last year, I have updated and expanded the article on my employer, Good Technology with independently sourced content. I have done my best to address the concerns others had expressed about previous versions of the article, and expanded it in ways that are neutral and comply with Wikipedia policy; but I would appreciate any feedback from experienced Wikipedians. -Karenarlenereynolds (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Miarmy
Can an expert pay some attention to this and fix the issues? Bearian (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of content guidelines for Software
While this section has an obvious cause - the article Cdrtools was recently inflated with lots of advertising material, including exhaustive comparison charts mostly containing obscure features such as Disc tattoo support, "support for all three Unix times"), platform support lists with obscure platforms (Atari MiNT support!!1!) as well as a huge download locations table, trivial command line examples ("To eject the media of the default optical disc drive, or just open its tray: cdrecord -eject") and almost 100 footnotes and references - I noticed that I could not find a WikiProject specific guideline of what contents are relevant for a software Wikipedia article?

In my opinion, we should have some (easy to find) guidelines on what is relevant for a software article. Much of the contents on above page should go to the software homepage, and not be maintained in Wikipedia.


 * Features (including platform support) should be limited to the most notable features. A feature that doesn't exist in other software is not automatically notable (e.g. support for the Klingon language), but only if there actually is verifiable interest in this feature, but there should be media reports that highlight this feature.
 * Download links should be limited to the primary download location (if there is a substantial resource with download locations of alternate formats, it may be appropriate to also link this page additionally)
 * Version lists should be limited to versions which add important functionality, and for which notability is easy to assert (e.g. coverage in media).
 * For software with outstanding notability, it may be appropriate to "violate" above guidelines (Example: Features of the Opera web browser).
 * In most cases, the Template:Infobox software already gives appropriate weight to version numbers, platform and language support, and download locations.
 * (this list is only meant to start a discussion. I'm sure you will have more points to add.)

In my opinion, all of these are inherently implied by the Relevance of content guideline, but they could be formalized. This page also states: "More specific guidance on content may be provided by a WikiProject whose scope includes the article in question." Maybe such a guideline exists, and I could just not find it?

I would also appreciate a third opion on the relevancy of contents in the cdrecord article. It has been subject to major edit wars (and yes, I have recently been involved), suffers from WP:COI, and in my opinion needs independent cleanup to make the article readable and useful. Maybe even by someone that does not use Unix and this software at all! In my opinion (see also Talk:Cdrtools), much of the contents are not relevant for Wikipedia, may constitute WP:OR, give undue weight on obscure features, and mostly serve the purpose of advertising cdrecord over the alternatives/forks that are currently preinstalled on major Linux distributions. This request is to get some clear guidelines on what the "majority" of Wikipedia editors consider to be relevant for a Wikipedia article, and what not; in order to have a guideline to resolve this dispute. Please use Talk:Cdrtools for discussion specific to cdrtools; and follow up here if it is about general guidelines? Thank you. --Chire (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say that making a new general rule in order to solve a specific single-case problem is a bad idea. In this specific case the software author's repeated interventions on the talk page are a good indicator of the problem here - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relevance of content suggests for WikiProjects to provide such "more specific" guidelines. They don't need to ultimately decide everything for this particular software, but we should eventually have something, in particular if we want to be neutral. --Chire (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Talk:Cdrtools has a RfC on the specific case of that article. Please comment. Nevertheless, I do think WikiProject Software should provide some general guidelines for software pages. --Chire (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Software At Wikimania 2014
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project? We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply. For more information, click the link below. Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zopim
Dear software experts: This old Afc submission appears to have quite a few references. Is this notable software, and should the page be kept instead of being deleted as a stale draft? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The sources mostly are either collective blogs or small "news sites" earning their living by providing paid coverage. The article actually intermixes software and company in a way that allows to collect sizable amount of links without proving notability of either of these rather separate topics. The language of submission is indeed far from neutral. This piece should really die. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I figured they could clean it, but in this instance it sounds like the best option would be for them to start from scratch as a whole (if they want to try running it via AfC again). I'll delete it and leave the applicable notes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   01:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

KoodibooK
Could someone take a look at KoodibooK. It has been marked as an orphan & I'm wondering if it meets the notability requirements - but I'm not very familiar with this area.&mdash; Rod talk 13:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Articles for deletion/KoodibooK. You may re-nominate it if you want to. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks I've renominated as it got no comments last time.&mdash; Rod talk 17:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Category needed
It's silly to have IBM Rational Rose XDE and similar stuff only in category "IBM software". That says nothing about what it does, in terms of categorization. I had trouble finding something suitable for Rigi (software). Basically there isn't a category for either reverse engineering or one for software visualization. And there are surely plenty of software products to fill both of these. JMP EAX (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:Disassemblers is there for reverse engineering software and Category:Software modeling tools for software visualization. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added Rigi to the latter. JMP EAX (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, there's some confusion as to the purpose of that category. Most of the material in it was as you say, but some was off topic. I think the category should be renamed so it's more obvious from its name what it's for. JMP EAX (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Palringo
Hi – the Palringo article has a number of issues, mainly that it's very poorly referenced and gives undue weight to Palringo Groups. I've prepared a replacement userspace draft that is fully referenced and should tackle the issues that have been flagged. If someone could review it and feedback to me that would be much appreciated. In the interests of transparency I am declaring a conflict of interest in that I work for Bell Pottinger, a UK PR agency, and that Palringo is my client. I have made this clear on the article talk page and posted on COIN (since archived). Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your new article is in many ways better then the one residing at Parlingo. Provided that history merge is impossible here (overlapping histories) I believe you should just go ahead and copy-paste your draft there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, thanks for the feedback. Would you mind moving it across if you're happy with it? Owing to the COI I prefer not to edit directly myself. Thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Any.do
Hello software experts. Can someone take a look at this old draft an see if the references are reliable? The draft will soon be deleted under G13 if no one takes an interest in it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

GoldBug
Hi! There is an ongoing AFD discussion regarding GoldBug instant messenger. Right now the only participants besides me are several SPAs that came via Twitter post and flooded discussion with long posts with no respect to Wikipedia policies. I urge some experienced editors to assess this article and weight in with policy-based comments. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech help required to improve categories
Please see Village pump (policy) and User:Paradoctor/CatVisor if you are willing and able to assist this innovative WP project move along it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:NewFasant
FYI, there's a notice about this draft article at WT:PHYSICS -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Mailpile
Greetings, could somebody please take a look at Mailpile and assess its notability please. I don't think there is enough extensive coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, so should be deleted. What's your view? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The usage of is under discussion, see WP:RFD for the disucssion -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Software package"
The meaning and usage of "software package" is under discussion, see talk:Package (package management system) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Revive Proposed Change: Add "Repository" Field
See proposal on infobox talk page: This proposal was made, and not done previously: Template talk:Infobox software/Archive 3. I'd like to revive the change, which I have commenced through opportunity for discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, as well as with a specific diff of the proposed edit.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsenate (talk • contribs)  17:57, 16 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Help me to change the logo image
hi!

I haven't enough permission to update the logo image for All My Movies. The existing one is outdated. It wasn't used for several years. Can someone set this image as the logo: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15499178/amm_logo180.png ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxic9 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Help determining notability
Could use some more opinions here: Talk:Yet Another Cleaner --Neil N  talk to me 20:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Commented there. Thanks for the notification -Pete (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Date format in release history sections of Linux OS articles
Should all tables in WikiProject Software articles use the same date format? If something like that would be a viable new guideline, which date format should be used (MDY, DMY or ISO)? What about the tables collapsed by default? &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 01:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles status overview
Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers allows five day-specific date formats for use in tables:
 * 2 August 2001 = %e %B %Y
 * 2 Aug 2001 = %e %b %Y
 * August 2, 2001 = %B %e, %Y
 * Aug 2, 2001 = %b %e,%Y
 * 2001-08-02 = %F = %Y-%m-%d

Above formatting symbols as in glibc. %e includes padded blank, and is used for day of the month (1...31)

Table history

 * Start table. Derianus (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Added comment to Debian. 84.127.82.127 (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Lubuntu. Michael Shotter (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Kubuntu. Michael Shotter (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Xubuntu. Michael Shotter (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Linux Mint. Michael Shotter (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Mandriva Linux. Michael Shotter (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Mageia. Michael Shotter (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Freespire. Michael Shotter (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added comment to Debian. Michael Shotter (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added comment to Aurora. Aurora converted to YYYY-MM-DD for consistency with Fedora Core from which it is derived. Michael Shotter (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed comment for Debian. 91.9.127.47 (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added gNewSense. 91.9.127.47 (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed row order: List Debian before Ubuntu, since the latter is based on the former. 91.9.127.47 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Slackware. 91.9.127.47 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Manjaro. 91.9.127.47 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Grouping by first-level item of List of Linux distributions. Added column named "Base", containing a short name for the first-level item under which an OS is listed. 91.9.127.47 (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Knoppix. 91.9.127.47 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Skolelinux. 91.9.127.47 (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Kanotix. 91.9.127.47 (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Damn Small Linux. 91.9.127.47 (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Poseidon. 91.9.127.47 (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Aptosid, Bharat Operating System Solutions, Canaima. 80.134.94.228 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Finnix. 80.134.94.228 (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added HandyLinux. 80.134.94.228 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Pardus. 80.134.94.228 (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional description
From this discussion, the following decisions should be made: There is a divergence between technical readers that understand ISO 8601 and general readers that would rather use a word-based format. While I am inclined to use ISO 8601, this encyclopedia is for everyone. Debian was promoted to GA-class using a word-based format on June 24, 2014, and it is the only good article in the list above. Decisions are not made by vote; good articles represent better what an article should be and are the model for non-good articles to follow. Thus, I give in to a word-based format, but I will not defend this position. 84.127.82.127 (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Should visible tables in articles under this WikiProject use the same date format? Which one?
 * Accessibility tables, such as the timeline descriptions in Debian, are associated with timeline charts and they are usually collapsed. Should they use the same date format? Which one?
 * If ISO 8601 is chosen, what should be the format for dates with month accuracy?
 * There are technical readers like yourself that do understand ISO 8601 and would "rather use a word-based format". There are non-technical readers that understand ISO 8601 and would "rather use a word-based format". There are non-technical readers that do understand ISO 8601 and would "rather use ISO 8601". There might be readers that do not understand ISO 8601, but then ISO 8601 should be banned completely from Wikipedia. So, do you promote complete ban of ISO 8601 date format? How many such readers that do not understand that format exist? Are they normally converted to understanders after reading some reference sections and tables that use ISO 8601? 91.9.127.47 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Reply to User:84.127.82.127
 * The first bullet point has two questions attached. But I think if the first is answered with Yes, then the second can only be answered with ISO 8601. Otherwise one of US format and Afro-Latin-Euro-AU-NZ format would be forced on articles that might have no close relation with that format. ISO 8601 is not only short, unambiguous and international, but it is also neutral to the debate whether US or European should be used in this Wiki. I think the wiki interface should also change to ISO 8601 as default. Michael Shotter (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding GA-class - it was made GA-class whilst using US format in text and Afro-Euro-Latin format in the tables. So what does that prove? One could take any characteristic of the article at the time it gained GA-class and then claim this characteristic is needed to obtain GA-class. That is like cargo cult. Michael Shotter (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding uncomplete dates - at this talk, there seems to be no consensus for banning YYYY-MM. Michael Shotter (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I used to prefer YYYY-MM-DD date format for years, but in the last year or so MDY format became my favorite. FWIW, I'd say that MDY is simply much more readable, while the only benefit of YYYY-MM-DD is much easier automated sorting (however,  wiki code provides means to sort all date formats). &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This talk page is for discussion of articles, not for discussion of personal taste. Michael Shotter (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't get me wrong, but how your YYYY-MM-DD preference, which is clearly stated above, is more than some kind of a personal opinion? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At the same time, I'm strongly against establishing some kind of a standard for the date format in tables or anything else. Instead of a global consistency, we should ensure that each article is consistent on its own; that would also comply with MOS:ENGVAR and WP:ARTCON. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting that Dsimic speaks out for consistency inside an article. Did Dsimic read the intro of this section, before Dsimic put news words in front of it? For those less involved: 1) ISO 8601 is allowed for tables and not for text. Going to consistency between text and table, would mean indirectly disallowing ISO 8601. 2) Dsimic introduced D MMM YYYY in a table whilst the text for that article used MMM D, YYYY. Michael Shotter (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've read it. Ok, I've introduced a different date format long time ago, but that didn't prevent me from learning more about Wikipedia's guidelines.  Nobody is perfect, but everybody can better himself/herself. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The date format was not consistent; there are instances of DMY in that diff, such as in "Security updates". I will say it once: made a good decision then. Please focus on what format should be used to improve this WikiProject. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed comment in the table, introduced by User:Michael Shotter. 91.9.127.47 (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This whole ISO date format thing needs to be discussed. A whole bunch of articles becomes partially converted to the ISO date format with little to no discussion. Any chances, 80.134.94.228, to discuss that first, please? Per WP:ENGVAR and WP:ARTCON, articles shouldn't be changed that way. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to propose this: make the tables in Microsoft Windows and Timeline of Microsoft Windows use ISO 8601, and I will be convinced. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with what a particular article is about. In a few words, Wikipedia's guidelines apply to all articles. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Guidelines may apply only to WikiProjects, such as military history, video games and film. Computer science and schools are preparing their own. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but only two or three editors can't create the rules for a WikiProject, so this what we're doing here shouldn't be seen as in instance of that. Hope you agree. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Even one single editor can dictate rules for a WikiProject; these rules may happen to improve an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy: as long as the rules address all reasonable concerns, it does not matter how many people created them. Wikipedia has no firm rules: they can be modified if there are remaining concerns. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you're twisting the rules a bit – it's all about discussing and reaching a consensus, what WP:DEMOCRACY clearly states.  At the same time, and as I've already described, I do have concerns regarding imposing additional rules on the date formatting, within a project or not.
 * As more time passes by, this starts to look more and more as a WP:BATTLEGROUND for some editors. Why do I see it that way? Lack of discussion. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * On single editor CANNOT dictate rules for entire WikiProject. Things are done via talk, discussion and consensus.  That does not include one person deciding when others do not agree.  Guidelines apply to ALL articles and projects.  Other WikiProjects have style guides, but these are only recommendations.  WP:MOSDATE clearly applies and changing date formats for a group of articles goes against MOSDATE.  Bgwhite (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Widefox ; talk 08:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I . 84.127.115.190 (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dsimic invited me here to give my opinion. To the original question "Should all tables in WikiProject Software articles use the same date format?", I'd say no. Just like WP:ENGVAR, there are multiple correct ways to write out dates and people tend to not agree which is the "right way". Just let the original author use their preferred style and stay consistent with it, as long as it complies with MOS:DATE -- there is ample of precedent of solving consistency questions that way.
 * I think the opposite needs more justification: Why do we need to enforce any particular format within software articles/changelogs, if the greater Wikipedia didn't consider it necessary? Why are software changelogs special? -- intgr [talk] 15:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * also invited me and I agree basically with . I can appreciate the need for high-quality articles to be internally consistent. We need to be using recognisable and unambiguous date encodings. I don't see significant disagreement on these two points. Beyond that, this is not something I choose to spend a lot of time tweaking or discussing. ~KvnG 16:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello guys. I am also here by invitation. I must say I entirely support the status quo established by Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. While internal consistency within an article is important, I cannot find a logical rationale for cross-article consistency restricted to tables. To put it frankly, it looks like playing with fire and a recipe for trouble, the first manifestation of which is conflict with MOS:STABILITY and existing manuals of style. (I have far less trouble accepting a universal decree that establishes one of these styles as the only acceptable one across the entire Wikimedia Foundation projects. That eliminates all conflicts and potentials for conflict forever and sets the ground for personalization.) In addition, what happens when the inclusion of one article into WikiProject Software becomes a matter of dispute? As of now, it is possible to just include it and forget about the dispute because the inclusion only means more visibility but not more liability or responsibility. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do find a rationale for cross-article consistency: the best format should be used. However, cross-article consistency alone does not seem a valid reason. I would like to know why each article is using a specific date format: readability, table width, international usage, national ties, contributor's choice. Could this information be provided? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Different people have different opinions, views and preferences; thus, it's pretty much impossible to declare any date format as the best. Please have a look at MOS:DATEFORMAT (WP:DATERET and MOS:DATE TIES in particular) for answers to your questions. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dsimic invited me as well, and I'm quite surprised by just how off-topic this discussion got at one point. Anyway, forcing DMY or MDY across articles is not a possibility, because different articles may have different national ties. Considering MOS:DATEUNIFY, that should narrow this discussion to just two possibilities: standardize all project tables upon ISO dates, or stick with the status quo. Since I see nothing to suggest that a wikiproject can create their own standards, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS appears to prohibit it, forcing ISO dates is not really plausible. Thus, each table should either use the format of that article (either DMY or MDY), or ISO where space is premium. As to the question of month formatting, that one is obvious. Use MY and abbreviate the months where pressed for space. – voidxor (talk &#124; contrib) 05:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wandered in off the street (well, I spotted the note about this at user talk:Msnicki). I've only skim read the above discussion but I haven't seen anything compelling to change my opinion on date formatting generally:
 * Consensus must always be gained for each article before changing from one consistently used date style to another, regardless of the style used or reason for the change
 * Article prose must be internally consistent (excluding quotes and discussion of date styles)
 * Article tables must be internally consistent
 * Article tables may use ISO if the prose uses a different format, if there is consensus for this on the article talk page (or when a table with dates is first added to the article and there has been no prior objection on the talk page). Prose and tables in the same article may not use different non-ISO formats.
 * Articles on different versions of the same software should use the same date format (e.g. KDE3 and KDE4 should use the same format).
 * Where WP:TIES applies the standard format for that country/region should be used.
 * Where WP:TIES does not apply, the style used by the first significant contributor should be used.
 * Where the style used by the first significant contributor cannot be determined use the style first consistently used
 * Where no style has been consistently used, and there are no national ties, apply WP:BRD.
 * This is intended to be a hierarchy, so use the first one that applies to each article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Thryduulf misses the point of the discussion, if s/he refers to "applies the standard format for that country/region should be used" - ISO 8601 is not allowed in prose, and WP:TIES is about prose. 91.9.103.21 (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As others have said, I don't think we need any ruling here. Internal consistency with articles is a good idea, and if there are groups of very-similarly-formatted tables across different articles it'd be nice to unify the formatting across them in the absence of a reason not to to make comparison easier. Other than that, this isn't something editors really need concern themselves with outside of what the MoS already says. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Applying ISO 8601 in tables or in references, is the only place where ISO 8601 is allowed. ISO 8601 is only allowed for these specific purposes. It is allowed there, to save space. The whole monster-discussion only started, when Dsimic decided to single-handed change the date format from ISO 8601 to a format he thought to be better. 91.9.103.21 (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, please don't get me wrong but the whole mess started when some other editors saw the opportunity to create new rules and enforce ISO dates in tables all around. Ok, the ISO date format is back in Debian article, where that's appropriate (releases table), and it's been back for a while –  does that create an opportunity for everyone to put the whole mess behind and move on?  Please? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dsimic wrote "Should all tables in WikiProject Software articles use the same date format?". AFAICS, when "cross-article consistency" first appeared, it was not meant to refer to all WP Software articles. The first versions of the table here, showed Linux OSs. Currently all Debian-based systems listed used YYYY-MM-DD. Maybe one could narrow the whole discussion down to Debian-based OS? 91.9.103.21 (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see above (written by 84.127.82.12): "Should visible tables in articles under this WikiProject use the same date format? Which one?" That's what described the whole thing when the discussion was moved over here. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Linux websites
80.134.94.228 (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * https://www.kernel.org/ - YYYY-MM-DD
 * http://distrowatch.com/ - YYYY-MM-DD


 * That's completely irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't follow the way other sites display the dates. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * AFAICS that's not true. But can convince me, if Dsimic has an example answering this question: Which format does Wikipedia use, that is not "the way other sites display the dates."? 91.9.103.21 (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply put, there's no default date format on Wikipedia (please see the guidelines already linked above). Thus, there's no point in associating date formats on Wikipedia with date formats on other websites, or vice-versa.  In other words, if some website uses one date format, that provides no ground for enforcing the same format in Wikipedia articles, despite the fact that Wikipedia in most cases may use the same date format; in the end, there are no Wikipedia-specific date formats that aren't used anywhere else. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply put: 1) There is "WP:TIES" which influences date format decisions. 2) There is a default format in English Wikipedia, D MMM YYYY. Look at recent changes or your signatures. 3) There are two date formats which specify day, month and year that are allow in the prose of English Wikipedia's article name space. That is already a restriction from what is allowed in English. That restriction has been made for what reason? For consistency inside English Wikipedia maybe? 4) Among the two, MOS discourages changing. 5) But the MOS allows ISO 8601 for all articles in tables and in references. 6) Linux has no strong national ties, but date format ties might be seen in main Linux websites. This is not specified in MOS, but as analogy and maybe in the spirit of MOS, it could be some indicator. 91.9.103.21 (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Any chances, please, to elaborate further on what could that actually indicate? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That a) there is some tie to that format b) readers interested in that topic are confronted with that date format also outside Wikipedia. The latter is a reply to IP 84.127.82.127's statement "There is a divergence between technical readers that understand ISO 8601 and general readers that would rather use a word-based format." - general readers interested in Linux, already find the ISO format on other sites, they may very well know how to read it, if better than what is required by MOS, since MOS allows ISO for any article, including ones where strongly related sites don't provide the ISO format. 91.9.103.21 (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That would indicate we want to extend the date format consistency beyond Wikipedia articles themselves to other websites as well. To me, that doesn't hold water, as if a reader can't easily handle multiple date formats, how can we expect him/her to handle more complex things such as those explained here in Linux-related articles? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Gathering reasons
We need information to make proper decisions. Let us gather the reasons why each article is using its date format. I have provided the reason for Debian, and added the Windows articles and OS X to the table; please do not add more changelog entries, because users that care about history use "View history". 84.127.115.190 (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters what any article is using or why it is using it. It might matter if there was a reason to change articles to use the same format, but I can't see any justification for or benefit to that. Thryduulf (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in other words there's no "conspiracy" behind the currently used date formats. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added Microsoft Office because it is a major suite and one significant example; we are talking about software articles, not just operating systems.
 * This section is about gathering reasons and people could help me; I would appreciate if I did not have to do all that work by myself. has  about lack of discussion; that can be solved, because Dsimic has not brought an army of editors to state that consensus is not possible and that a best format cannot be decided. We are going to find out each article's reason; if a reason is not provided, then it will be "no reason". 84.127.115.190 (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, that digging through article histories is going to be a pretty much pointless waste of time. Please don't get me wrong, 84.127.115.190, you can do whatever you wish with your own time, and that's just how I see it. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As Dsimic says, you can do what you want, but I don't understand what you are trying to achieve? Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Thryduulf - enhancing English Wikipedia? 91.9.103.21 (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What I don't understand is why gathering the reasons why some articles use given date formats will enhance Wikipedia? As noted by everybody else who has commended, date format is chosen at an article level according to MOS:DATE guidelines. There is no reason, benefit or appetite to change the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If User:Thryduulf doesn't think it matters what format is used, then why is s/he taking part in the discussion? 91.9.103.21 (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You asked for help with this task, I explained why I don't think it is worth your time. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All IP editors look the same. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in fact 84.127.115.190 proposed the gathering of information, while 91.9.103.21 jumped in later. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed Windows and Mac. Both are owned by US based companies, while Linux is much more international. 91.9.103.21 (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * May 91.9.103.21 explain how Linux is any more international than Windows? Is OS X only used in the United States? Does ISO 8601 only apply to Linux or Debian? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, all three operating systems are pretty much equally of international nature. It isn't that now I support the whole "mess" we have here, :) but as a matter of fact Linux is no more international than Windows. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

T: Source code
FYI Source code has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Windows X listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Windows X. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boundary
Hello software experts. This old AfC submission has quite a few references. Is this a notable topic, and should the page be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on the references, this appears to be a notable company. I have resubmitted and accepted (Boundary (company)). ~KvnG 16:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Help is requested
Hello is looking for help with his article Draft:API Chaining. There have been concerns over the notability of this software, I am hoping someone here can provide further assistance, or may be more aware of where to find more reliable sources. Please engage Orubel directly, with advice and guidance. His other article API Abstraction has survived a Prod but this one did not originally survive AFD.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * as previously stated, peer reviewed conference materials count for notability. I was also asked recently to present to the Silicon Valley Grails Meetup on Shared IO State in Highly Scalable API's wherein I also talked about API chaining (http://www.meetup.com/San-Francisco-Grails-Centro/events/219217262/), slides available here (http://www.slideshare.net/bobdobbes/silicon-valley-grails). This continues to be a farce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orubel (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Invention of BASIC
There is a discussion concerning who developed the BASIC programming language at Talk:BASIC. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Article ratings
I have been contributing to Software & Computing related articles for a long time. I would like to get started in rating articles. I'm fairly unbaised in my approach which is why I usually cleanup, wikify, copy-write paras, rm advert-statements, neaten up articles, improve sections, reorder sections, and so on. I think I would be a good examiner, and I'm sure there are heaps of unrated articles or articles that could be re-rated.

I spoke to about this and he/she said that my ratings seem "solid", but I'd like to write here to (a) verify if my ratings are fine, (b) learn how to rate articles properly (yes I've read the quality assessment scale) and (c) find the list of unrated articles so I can do my thing. Copied below is the excerpt of the discussion.


 * ''"Can I change page ratings as per this guide or do I have to ask? MPLAB devices is at least C if not B. MPLAB is Start, Flare3D/Away3D is C, Adobe Flash Player, Adobe AIR, SpeedTree are C or even B. PIC microcontroller is C. The rest are mostly correctly rated as Start. Am I right?"
 * Wonderfl (reply) 06:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)''
 * Wonderfl Oop, my bad! I'd say those are pretty solid ratings - I'm not too experienced with quality ratings (especially since I'm not a member of those particular WikiProjects), but looking at the criteria, those all seem sitting. And thanks for your interest! The more we can sort articles into their respective WikiProjects, the better. ~ Super '' Hamster  Talk Contribs 03:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

''


 * Those ratings look reasonable to me. PIC microcontroller and Adobe Flash Player are potential WP:BCLASS articles. WP:BOLD applies to most everything non-administrators do on Wikipedia including ratings. You can improve your ratings by making some mistakes. Kvng (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

AVS Video Editor
Hi folks - User:NeviRom stopped by my talk page and asked me to look at an article they rewrote in their sandbox for AVS Video Editor. The article was deleted, rightfully so, due sourcing and notability concerns. I'm not as knowledgeable in the subject area of video editing software. Can someone take a look here and perhaps give NeviRom some feedback? I can't tell if the sources are reliable or not...or if it meets the guidelines necessary for determining notability for such a subject. Thanks a lot! Missvain (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Inkscape 0.91
Since the guys over at Talk:Inkscape want to degrade downgrade Inkscape 0.91 to an unstable preview release, please chime in and voice your opinion.

Regards, --Patrick87 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow! "Degrade" says it all! You have emotional attachments to this matter. That explains your rather furious comment to the person who said Option 2.


 * Look, nobody said it is unstable. Just because we put the version number into the correct slot does not mean that we hate Inkscape. It is just pure professional decorum known as WP:NPOV.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * a) My comment was not furious at all, I was just disappointed that Fleet Command started to blindly revert again after I had hoped we had settled that argument before and decided to discuss / find consent first. b) Yes you say it's unstable! By putting Inkscape 0.91 into the "latest preview release" field in contrast to the "latest stable release" field you explicitly declare it as unstable (that's the fundamental difference between those two fields and that's how we should use them). c) The only one that has a clear POV is you: In Special:Diff/654606374 you explain that because Inkscape, does not have an RTM release, does not make money yet, and does not offer professional support, it's to be considered only as a testing/preview version. All this reasoning achieves is however digging a trench between commercial software and free software, since the concepts of software release life cycle you try to use often just do not apply to noncommercial software. By that I might even be a bit emotional since we should not at all cost come to the point where we badmouth free software here on Wikipedia in a desperate approach to create questionable policies and find a universal and consistent rule set of what makes a "stable" release stable. --Patrick87 (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Codename Lisa that using the word "degrade" goes against our guidelines of canvassing. If you want to invite other people to an ongoing discussion, please do so without taking sides. Anyway, please let's not rehash the Inkscape argument all over on this talk page. -- intgr [talk] 10:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And his personal attacks hurt! His use of informal fallacies certainly don't make things better, in this case equivocating and straw man. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys, but I definitely don't know what you're complaining about and I definitely didn't mean anything of it. Only thing I could imagine is that the the word "degrade" has some other meanings I didn't had in mind – maybe I should've used "downgrade". English is not my native language, and in my mother tongue both words can have the same meaning. In this case please re-read my sentence above like I intended it and stop always assuming bad faith. --Patrick87 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Still not an improvement. It is still a personal comment: It accuses "guys over at Talk:Inkscape" of some sort of misdeed. You continue with more personal attacks like "blindly reverted" whereas he provided three articles and a diagram that he himself hasn't made. And again, there is the equivocating and straw man problems, all of which are informal fallacies. Why don't you show a source that says final releases may start at 0.x instead of 1.x?
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source that says final versions have to start at 1.x? Version numbers simply do not follow a mandatory scheme and therefore we at Wikipedia can not make one up on our own. The maintainer of a software decides which versioning scheme he/she wants to use, and we also have to accept bad decisions (like numbering stable version with < 1.0 which is uncommon but not against any policy). --Patrick87 (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure I didn't provide a source? To be more precise, are you sure, Fleet Command, I and Mark Viking didn't provide sources that contradict you?
 * Now, you've made several aberrant claims and are yet to fulfill your own WP:BURDEN. Furthermore, I am here to discuss constructively, make and respond to proposals and make compromises. Unless I see evidences of mutual cooperation, which I daresay are scarce at the moment, I am afraid I cannot keep it up.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. Re-read you "sources". Where does it say stable versions have to be assigned version numbers >1? Version numbering is pure convention that changes between developers/companies and might well change due to PR considerations (and there are plenty of sources for that). Maybe Inkscape should change it's convention for PR reasons (so there does not have to be a dispute like this) but it doesn't change the fact that Inkscape 0.91 is officially declared stable by it's developers (source: the official Inkscape homepage) and is the latest RTW version (source: the official Inkscape homepage). And in this there is no room for compromise with me (Inkscape 0.91 is stable and it's surely not a preview release). --Patrick87 (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Disregard him, . I know his type: He likes to cover his eyes and ears, pretend only he is right and the rest of the world is wrong, ignore all evidences to the contrary. Stubborn, that's what he is. Do you know how I found this page? Funny, the Talk:Inkscape was so silent that I thought I'd better make he hasn't taken the case elsewhere, gathering a cabal. I checked his contrib. log.


 * But that doesn't mean that others, including admins, are willing to cover their eyes and ears as well. I've jotted down my source URL, and the diff in which I gave my source, just in case. I suggest you do the same, in case this went to DRV, ANI or someplace not nice. Fleet Command (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you feel left out of this discussion Fleet Command, but a) please note Codename Lisa was the one starting this (meta-)discussion; b) I'm not stubborn but convinced through evidence that Inkscape 0.91 is the latest stable release version of the project and not a preview; c) I read you sources and they actually support the fact that – although uncommon – version numbers < 1 might well be used for stable release versions in the Open Source world. And last but not least d) I wont even bother to answer your personal attacks and the fact that you bring up some "not nice places" I've never been to before speaks its own language. Personally I'd never even considered anything close for a stupid dispute like this. --Patrick87 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also a little concerned about your battlefield-like mentality. Maybe it is a lawyer-like mentality and your comment is born from caution, not the willingness to fight, but I'd like to make it clear that solving Patrick87's problem takes precedence over whatever action that may lead to his exclusion from the article or project. If only he acknowledged that I am not seeing it the way he is seeing it, and that it is not a sin. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please keep Inkscape-related discussion on Talk:Inkscape, no need to spill over to here and fragment the discussions. And please stick to actual arguments, rather than insinuating personal attacks or unwillingness to listen. If you can't make progress, seek additional dispute resolution. -- intgr [talk] 12:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of AUCS Linux
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/AUCS Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of Q&A software
Help appreciated with this table. --Nemo 14:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

New software article I'm sending to AfC soon - requesting opinions
Just looking to get some preliminary pointers on my draft article here before I let the AfC review decide its fate. I realize the notability thing might be a stretch, especially since I don't have any material to build a development section like a lot of other sofware articles have, but I tried my best to make do with what I found-- if you guys in WP:SOFTWARE have recommendations past this point, I'd love to know. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, looks like you have put a lot of work into that article. I am sorry to say, it probably won't get too far, because the references are almost all from the software maker's own site. It's important to have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources (like software magazines, for instance) in order to establish notability of the topic. And all facts in the article should be cited to sources like that. The detailed rundown of software changes is not typically used in a Wikipedia article, for instance. I am sorry to bear bad news, but I think this article is pretty far from being accepted at AfC.
 * One related question -- do you work for the company? If so, you should make sure to disclose that connection on your user page and on the article's talk page if it gets published.
 * Regardless, thank you for your efforts, and I wish you well in your Wikipedia efforts! -Pete (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * All hope is not lost. There does seem to be coverage of this software:, , , , . AfC reviewers shouldn't be looking for a polished article they should be looking for a good start on a notable topic. Include some of the above to demonstrate notability. You need a minimum of two reliable sources. I would remove the revision history for now because that will just give reviewers a reason to reject. If the submission is rejected, don't give up. The AfC process is iterative. If at all possible, improve the submission as directed and resubmit. When it is working well, AfC should help new editors improve. ~Kvng (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers, guys. For the record, I'm not affiliated with jsr in any way, I'm just familiar with the software as someone who does music production-- I guess it comes at a risk that my prose would be biased since I really like FamiTracker, but I've been making doubly sure to keep it NPOV. I didn't figure that really uncontroversial or plainfaced technical details being cited back to the developer's website would be a huge issue; per WP:PRIMARY, stuff like that being cited from the developer's own mouth is okay as long as we're not putting any "spin" or interpretation to it that isn't through a secondary or tertiary source's lens.

I did see a couple of the articles you suggested before, but I was hesitant to add them based on the fact that a lot of them are republishing/parroting info from Gamasutra's interview of Kaufman re: Shovel Knight, and I wouldn't really be able to do much with the same info in different places as far as I know. Still, thanks for going to the trouble of finding those sources. Later on today I'll see if I can put them to use. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 13:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The same information covered in multiple sources is not important for verifiability but it is important for establishing notability. Parroting by reliable sources indicates that editors of secondary sources have deemed the subject is worthy of coverage and that's what establishes notability as far aw Wikipedia is concerned. To get through AfC, you're probably going to want more citations that you would otherwise have for a short article. ~Kvng (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All good advice . Good luck ! -Pete (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind and try to reinforce the draft based on that principle. Thanks again, you're all so nice! One more question for What did you mean by "removing the revision history"? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 17:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * was the one who brought that up, "The detailed rundown of software changes is not typically used in a Wikipedia article." Here's the guidelines on that. ~Kvng (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. In that case I'll probably just pare that section down to one sentence explaining the sort of things the updates changed. Thanks. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 17:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Question re: classifying a music app
I asked this on WPMUSIC but I was directed to go here, so here I am again.

I'm building an article for the iOS music sequencer app Auxy, but I'm just trying to figure out how to describe what kind of music-making app it is, because it kind of operates as a combination of a piano roll and drum machine/sequencer sort of thing like a Korg drumpad... no RSes describe the app in more specific terms than a "music app" that I've seen, but would calling it a "sequencer"-style music editor app or something like that suffice? I dunno if I'm splitting hairs at this point and should just call it a "sequencer" app. Opinions? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're splitting hairs and debating with yourself. Why not start by calling it a music app and see how that looks to you and other editors. ~Kvng (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it up to being called a digital audio workstation? - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, guys - this is what I've worked out so far on this draft, so let me know any suggestions you have for it (right off the bat I can definitely say it needs images of the app icon and a screenshot for the infobox, but AFAIK I can't upload any images until this goes live and outside of userspace, so I'm holding off on uploading those until then). BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability of Stella (software)
Stella is an app for depicting geometrical shapes called polyhedra. It is widely used by polyhedronists but, because little has been written about it per se, it is difficult to provide citations to support its notability and it has been templated for possible deletion. I am sure that this issue must dog other apps which might be popular in their field but little known outside of it. Is there any Project guideline or core of wisdom on what kind of citation material to look out for? Any practical help would also be much appreciated. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! I know first-hand how difficult it can be to fulfill notability requirements for technical articles, and how awkward is the requirement for providing non-primary sources where they will probably never be available (for example, when describing the internals of an immature and still rapidly developed but widely used software project).  However, that's what it is, those are the rules Wikipedia runs by. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If the software is well loved within an academic field, you may find good refs in academic papers by researchers that use the tool. The papers do not need to be about the tool to qualify but they do need to contain significant coverage; some description of the tool and how it works, not just a namedrop. These sources may be found at a university libray, Google Scholar or WP:LIBRARY. ~Kvng (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present). --Lucas559 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:Virtual disk
Hi.

There is a move request at, which I believe concerns this project. (It is not automatically listed in WP:SOFTW/AA.) Participants are welcome.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Uber RfC
Hi WikiProject Software. There is a Request for Comment on the Uber article Talk page regarding the description of the company's growth and history in the article. Since I think the article is of interest to this WikiProject, editors here may want to join the discussion. The question under discussion is how Uber's history might be best summarized within subsections. Craig at Uber (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: On Software Notability.
There is currently a RfC on the topic of software notability at Wikipedia talk:Notability (software). Interested editors are requested to comment. :) &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  09:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposing deletion / redirection for Citrix Online
Hi there. I'm looking for editors interested in software companies. If anyone here is willing and interested, I'd love to get another perspective on a proposal I've put forward to redirect the Citrix Online article to the Citrix Systems article. I am working as a paid consultant to Citrix, so I won't be making any edits to the article. I would like to discuss possible blanking and redirection over here on the article's talk page. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Outlook-related edits by User:Ians18
Greetings, everyone. Our fellow Wikipedian User:Ians18 has engaged in a number of edits that I find highly controversial; they are being discussed in. I believe we need additional input. A summary of the dispute is as follows:

Traditionally, both Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Web App / Outlook on the web had four modules: Mail, Calendar, Contacts (or People) and Tasks. But Ians18 changed the names of Outlook.com, Calendar (Microsoft service) and People (Microsoft service) into Outlook Mail, Outlook Calendar and Outlook People and merged Outlook Web App into Outlook.com. He initially said that they are actually renamed, but now has retreated to the position of "their rename is announced and will definitely happen". I, however, cannot see any of these and believe he has taken too much for granted, is sailing too close to WP:CRYSTAL, and his point of view is badly influenced by being an Office 365 user.

Additional input is welcome. Fleet Command (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Echo (Cloud Services)
Hello computer software experts. This old AfC draft appears to have references. Is this a notable software company, and are the references suitable?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

students in high school who wanna learn hacking
Umm, frist i will like to talk about we the teeneagers who wanna learn haking.I am pleading with the wikipedia to help us and bring us to the world of hackin thank you am ahmad adams fro nigeria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.68.78 (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

More on importance scale
It seems to me that some information about Importance is missing:
 * Where do those criteria come from? Is there a specific Talk / discussion for them?
 * Where should be discussed the importance rate of a specific article? Gabriware (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:COMPUTING has more detailed descriptions of improtance that may be applicable to software topics. See WikiProject_Computing/Assessment. ~Kvng (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Computer Program RfC
I question the validity of recent edits in Computer Program and would like comments from other editors. Timhowardriley (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like a bunch of work has been done to the article by and others since this posting. Is there still an issue here? ~Kvng (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * WikiLife is again good. Timhowardriley (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Amen to that!
 * But,, I think you should give more credit to "and others" because as soon as they came, the discussion was rolling.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Smartsheet
I have posted a request edit on the Talk page requesting consideration of a ~10 paragraph draft as a more complete/neutral/researched page. The article's content has indications of likely conflicted editing in the past and I think this will put it in a better place. Any thoughts from folks familiar with software pages would be welcome. Cheers. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 06:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

3D Software - Autodesk Fusion 360
I just noticed that Autodesk Fusion 360 is missing on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_3D_modeling_software

It's commercial and free for hobbyists/students. (And awesome btw). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.143.220.105 (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC) (Wikipedia confuses me a lot, someone please delete this after adding the software to the list. Sorry.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.143.220.105 (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion to Implement InfoBox Software : source code
In different circumstances, product website urls are distinct from their source code urls. It would be helpful to amend the Infobox for software, to include:


 * website               = example.org

| source code           = example.org

Not particularly certain on how to SandBox that proposal, as it appears locked. Thanks! --Elika Kohen 02:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elikakohen (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose. An external link to source code repository is not sanctioned by External links. Specifically, link to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" must be avoided. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Fldigi notable?
I prodded it, but the creator argues (Talk:Fldigi) it's notable in light of WP:NSOFT. It's not my area of expertise, the sources look weak, but before I go to AfD, I'd like a 30 from here. AfD or not? What do you say, software experts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Created by someone at WikiProject Amateur radio fwiw, so quite possibly notable in that field ... though the third-party sources on the article as it stands are basically blogs - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Fldigi is notable enough that it is in the "Ham Radio for Dummies " book as the simplest way to start decoding digital signals. To quote the book: "By far the most popular program of 2014 is Fldigi, by W1HKJ." (among soundcard-digital modem software)

kf4yfd (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is a stub.
Only describe one very small aspect of a huge IEC 62304 standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.211.6 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have marked IEC 62304 as a stub. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

cdrkit, cdrtools, Schily and List of software forks
See Talk:List of software forks. Joerg Schilling insists the cdrtools/cdrkit fork happened in 2004 not 2006, won't provide a third-party RS and claims the third-party RS that does exist (LWN.net) isn't good enough. Poster is also being abusive and using the talk page for possibly BLP-violating personal attacks on others. He first raised this a few years ago and couldn't provide RSes to support his claim then either. I realise he feels quite strongly about the issue, but that doesn't make his view an encyclopedic claim, and doesn't licence the abusiveness. Could others please have a look at the issue in case I'm actually completely wrong? - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, David


 * Have you ever experienced the state of being utterly miserable and completely out of all options? Because there is good chance you might experience it if you stick around this certain subject long enough. So, speaking strictly for myself, while I believe everything you said above without checking them, I don't believe I can do anything about it if you cannot. I don't believe anyone without a form of high authority can.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It sounds like WP:ANI would be the right venue for your query. If there are consistent issues with civility, RS and BLP, this should probably be discussed. Ping me when you do as I may have additional thoughts on this. Thanks. Samsara 19:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Mr Schilling seems to have calmed down now, but yeah, if it starts again you're right about the place to go - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"WikiProject iOS"
Someone has made a request to merge WPiOS inot WPAppleInc, for the discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject iOS -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

software infobox
Hi !

Not quite sure which portal or project is maintaning the the infobox and templates for software articles, so i'm asking that question here. At GeoGebra i noticed the peculiar behaviour that the version display is stuck at 5.0.180 and doesn't match anymore the value that was entered via the linked template which is currently at 5.0.187. Does anybody know why that is and how to fix that?--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello,


 * I am look at the article right now and I clearly see 5.0.187. (Did you refresh the article after changing its template? )


 * Software Project is the correct place to ask this question. But you should try the talk page of the template in question first. For example, in this case, the template is Infobox software. Click on its link and then go to its talk page.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd, now I see the correct value too after not seeing it for the last 2 days and yes of course I did the article refresh/reload. Maybe there was some cache refresh (needed) somewhere. Anyhow thanks for taking a look.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Biased instance of "Windows is insecure" edits
Hi.

A person with at least two different IP addresses (Special:Contributions/84.153.129.232 and Special:Contributions/84.153.152.170) has been engaged in edits that seems to me ... well, biased (Windows-phobic) and poorly sourced (WP:SPS, a newsgroup) in the following articles:
 * Template:PMS vs Installer
 * Inno Setup
 * Nullsoft Scriptable Install System
 * 7-Zip

I have reverted him once and he has counter-reverted, with some rather ... well, some remarks. Now, I don't want to form an ad hominem bias myself, so I'd be grateful if another editor review those edits.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)