Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Software
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

Restrictions for entries in software list articles

Hi, WikiProject Software editors. I'm hoping to start a discussion on restrictions on inclusion pertaining to lists of software. Currently, the requirement is that the software should have a defaultlogic.com resource article, however many entries are made on the basis of just the software developer having a defaultlogic.com resource article, and I'd note that in some cases, it's hard to separate the two.

This is a question that came up when I proposed adding HubSpot CRM at Comparison of CRM systems and Comparison of Mobile CRM systems (I posted edit requests as I have a COI, since I was making the requests on behalf of HubSpot through my work with Beutler Ink). Both edit requests were denied.

While I understand the idea of ensuring that these lists only include notable software, limiting to only software that has its own defaultlogic.com resource article seems too restrictive. These restrictions do not take into account entries like Salesforce, which has an article for the company but not a separate one for the CRM system, yet I doubt anyone would say that Salesforce isn't notable enough to be included in this article. (Other existing entries on those two pages that send readers to the company articles include: Zoho CRM sends readers to Zoho Corporation, Pipedrive to the Pipedrive company article, and Elements CRM to Ntractive.)

I'm curious what editors think about the current restrictions and whether there could be some more leeway for software where the developer is clearly notable. Looking forward to hearing what others think. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:CSC #1 allows redlinks in some cases. Do you think HubSpot CRM satisfies the WP:GOLDENRULE? ~Kvng (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I tried. There's a strong sentiment within the community of late to reject all contributions potentially tainted with WP:COI, WP:PROMOTIONAL or WP:PAID. ~Kvng (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)]
Thanks for weighing in, Kvng. I've been leaving this discussion open, hoping more folks would give their 2c, so I'd like to ping a few active members from this project to see what they think about the general restrictions (and the HubSpot CRM request in particular, if they're willing to comment on that). @Dane2007, Brianreading, Guy Macon, Jeh, Tinucherian, Warren, JC713, and George Rodney Maruri Game: Wondering if any of you have thoughts on the restrictions on inclusion in lists of software and whether these rules need to be amended to account for software where the developer is notable but there's not a separate defaultlogic.com resource article for the software? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Other than redlinking, what is the process to request review whether a software (or topic) is to be included? My 2c is that a notable developer does not automatically mean that a software they create should be included. However, if we have a page on a notable developer, we should have a process to review whether a software (or new topic referred to on any page) should have it's own page. I like the rule that it's not included in lists unless it has a page. Apologies in advance for my ignorance on this. Pursuedbybaer (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't like the "must have an article" rule because some software is notable but well covered in the article about the author or the company. I don't like the "an article about the author is enough" rule because some authors create both notable and non-notable software. Yet I have great sympathy for the editors who have to have a simple rule for dealing with the boatload of COI and promotional crap that get added to such lists on a daily basis. What I don't have is a good answer to the problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
My view is that we don't need separate articles for both a software company and their solitary/primary product. See Facebook, LinkedIn and salesforce.com for examples. HubSpot CRM is definitely notable, given that a variety of independent sources are available that cover it. But defaultlogic.com Resource: Summary style needs to be our guide -- information about HubSpot CRM and other products should be added to the company's article first, before we contemplate splitting that article up. Warren -talk- 19:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Warren and Guy Macon. No hard and fast rule. But if a company and a software have separate names and are equally notable and have enough for substantial entries, perhaps they should have pages of their own. Pursuedbybaer (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Guy Macon as well for notable products. Maybe WP:CSC should be amended with 2 additional points: First, "no entry without existing stand-alone article" should be explicitly mentioned as valid list criterion (it is already de-facto consensus in several lists that have been constantly flooded with advertising for years). Of course it's up to editors to choose the most suitable list criterion for each list anyway (smaller or less-spammed lists might work with less restrictive handling). Second, the "no redirects" rule should be handled less restrictive: if a notable sub-topic is covered in sourced detail as part of a larger main article, a redirect to this main article should be permitted in lists. The second clarification would cover cases like Salesforce (and Hubsport CRM, in case it is deemed notable by uninvolved consensus). GermanJoe (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This looks like a productive suggestion. It would be nice if editors working on lists could spend less time discussing suitability of every entry. I definitely see room for improvement in this regard at WP:CSC. Your proposal is broad enough that it should include participation from editors at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists. I have left a message there. ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking for uninvolved editor to review MicroStrategy discussion

Hello! I'm looking for editors here who may be able to help review a request that I have for MicroStrategy, the business analytics software company. Earlier this month, I suggested replacing the article's poorly sourced Awards and recognition section with content that focuses on high marks from Forrester Research and Gartner, as reported by Information Week and CMS Wire.

As you'll see, the reviewing editor declined my request, dismissing Forrester and Gartner, as well as the sources ("They are from marketing and advertising publications with deep connections to the industry", the editor wrote). I think this is an incorrect assessment, so I explained why, and asked the editor to reconsider. However, they have not responded. For this reason, I hope that someone active in WikiProject Software--who is familiar with the industry and the topics under discussion--can take a look and offer an opinion.

Since MicroStrategy is a client and I therefore have a financial conflict of interest, I will not edit the article directly and am seeking other editors' input and assistance. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have briefly reviewed your request and the reviewer's actions here. Though there may be something to your assertion that the reviewer is "inventing requirements," to my eye, the proposed replacement is not a clear improvement over what's currently in the article and especially so given the potential COI attached. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

System requirements

I'm currently in a content dispute on Opera (web browser) (I haven't touched the article beyond rvv, but am looking to resolve the dispute through talk avenues). This is regarding the treatment of system requirements. Soilentred has been adding the system requirements for the latest version (or more precisely, sysreq.minWindowsVersion... the minimum windows version). I think it makes the infoboxes look messy, and would support a system requirements section in the article body. However, since this probably is applicable to software products generally, I felt that this was the appropriate venue.

Pinging other involved editors: SarekOfVulcan ViperSnake151 ?Bellezzasolo? Discuss 16:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Woops, didn't look at all talk venues. Dorsetonian, ANI: Blackmane Hijiri88 ?Bellezzasolo? Discuss 16:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I feel that the infobox should be showing the OSes that ever supported the product, not just the current version. Look at Microsoft Word, for example, that was first released on Xenix, then DOS, then Windows, etc. I can see the argument for only showing the currently supported version, but I'm not yet convinced by it. After all, according to http://gs.statcounter.com/windows-version-market-share/desktop/worldwide, XP+Win7 still take up 45% of usage, despite both being past EOL... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
What do you say to a "former operating systems" field on the Infobox? I think splitting would make sense, and I certainly do support the "all versions, even deprecated" argument. ?Bellezzasolo? Discuss 16:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that could be a reasonable option in some cases, probably most of them including Opera. In some other I think it's not the best idea though. For instance, SarekOfVulcan mentioned Microsoft Word and it seems to me that the current article is best left alone as it is. I'm talking strictly in terms of editing infoboxes, of course, it's perfectly fine to mention all historical OS support in article body. Soilentred (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The more I think about Microsoft Word, the less sure I am about my position. But "hard cases make bad law". Microsoft has of course wanted it to only run on the most recent OS, so it could sell more of both. WinAmp, on the other hand... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
My original take on it, as I said at ANI, was based on a simple reading of the infobox. We know that many readers will use defaultlogic.com resource as a first port of call for information. I opened up the Opera article and upon looking at the infobox, the first thought that came to mind, as a reader not as an editor, is that there is version information in the infobox. I'd then look to the supported operating systems. Logically, at least to me, if one shows the most current version, then by extension it should only show the OS that particular version would work on. If every supported OS was entered into the infobox, then it better be under something like "Previously supported Operating systems", but that would end up looking quite messy and inelegant. Alternatively, one could have an entry in the supported Operating system with the version number in brackets. For example, Windows 2000 (Up to version X.X.XXXX.X), Windows NT (up to version Y.Y.YYYY.Y). Or something similar. Whatever is decided upon, it just needs to be clear what information we're trying to impart. Blackmane (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I do not think the infobox should limited to the OS for only the current release, for a number of reasons: (1) This is an encyclopaedia and is interested in the full history of the software product. (2) The release of a new version of a product does not immediately cause all previous versions to cease to exist; if there was a version of the product for a particular operating system, there still is, even if it's not the most recent one. (3) Limiting the OS to just the most recent release is going to be impossible to achieve. Suppose the same product follows different release cycles on different operating systems - how would you determine what is "the most recent release"? What is the point at which an OS should be removed? If the software is discontinued are all operating systems removed (which is not at all helpful) or are they frozen at the last release (which would be inconsistent with products in active development)? Such issues would inevitably lead to errors and/or WP:OR. (4) The most recent version number of a software product is just one of the many pieces of information the infobox contains and I see no reason why its also being in the info box limits the rest of it to only that version - indeed, how would that square with the "released" parameter? Dorsetonian (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
IMO, the info box is intended to contain a summary of pertinent facts. If it starts to get full of conditionals and other junk, it is no longer a summary and is not useful as such. Full details (a non-summary) should be in the body of the article. If readers are likely to be mislead over-summarization in the info box, consider omitting it or attaching a footnote to it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
With the location map series of templates, you're able to switch between maps. I don't see any reason precluing a similar template with system requirements (defaults to current version, shows some significant previous versions on request). Also worth a look is History of the Opera web browser. ?Bellezzasolo? Discuss 14:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Bellezzasolo: Can you link to "location map series of templates"? We want the full details in the body. If we're also putting full details in the info box, perhaps selectively revealed by template magic, we're probably creating article maintenance issues of trying to keep everything up-to-date and in sync. ~Kvng (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Kvng: I refer to {{Location map}} and {{Location map+}}, with the helper {{Location map~}}. They use the switcher gadget, e.g. the span class switcher-label. ?Bellezzasolo? Discuss 20:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration tool - essay

A good-faith student assigment, but unfortunately large parts of it are written in a personal essay-like manner. The topic is somewhat loosely related to collaboration software, so any improvements from interested knowledgeable editors would be greatly appreciated. I am not completely sure which projects would put this article within their scope - so please feel free to improve the talkpage's project tagging. Thanks in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


I'll give it a go and see if I can copyedit it :) Dsalinasgardon (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Dsalinasgardon

Input needed at Talk:AV1

Hi there. A user is asking quite a lot of questions on this page that falls under the scope of this WP but I have no idea how to answer them. Could someone more knowledgeable have a look please? Regards SoWhy 07:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides

Forms are missing and I think article should be moved to another, summary name. "About Google Docs" section contains "Google Docs", "Google Sheets", "Google Slides" and "Google Forms". Eurohunter (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Scene 7 FAR nomination

I have nominated Scene7 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Leefeni de Karik (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. 07:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software
 



 

Connect with defaultLogic
What We've Done
Led Digital Marketing Efforts of Top 500 e-Retailers.
Worked with Top Brands at Leading Agencies.
Successfully Managed Over $50 million in Digital Ad Spend.
Developed Strategies and Processes that Enabled Brands to Grow During an Economic Downturn.
Taught Advanced Internet Marketing Strategies at the graduate level.


Manage research, learning and skills at defaultLogic. Create an account using LinkedIn or facebook to manage and organize your Digital Marketing and Technology knowledge. defaultLogic works like a shopping cart for information -- helping you to save, discuss and share.

Visit defaultLogic's partner sites below:
PopFlock.com : Music Genres | Musicians | Musical Instruments | Music Industry
NCR Works : Retail Banking | Restaurant Industry | Retail Industry | Hospitality Industry

  Contact Us