||This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any threads with no replies in 31 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
I note that the article on Context-sensitive help is rated 'High' on this project's scale of importance, yet has not had any references added to it since it was templated for having no citations back in 2011. If this doesn't change, it's very likely to get put forward for WP:AfD, just as Tip of the day is currently under review. Any takers? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- What would be the rationale for deleting Context-sensitive help? WP:NODEADLINES. WP:NOTCLEANUP. Tip of the day deletion proposal also appears to be ill advised. ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.
The WT:MOSCOMP#Definite article section is proposed, here, to be substantially revised for better agreement with RS practice, linguistics, and MoS norms. -- SMcCandlish ? ¢ >????< 17:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Nothing terribly urgent at the moment, but it would be great if some interested editors could take a look at this relatively new article - it has been edited by contributors with a possible COI. While I have trimmed some of the more obvious tone and NPOV problems, the article still could use more work from knowledgeable editors to provide an unbiased detailed description of LCDP as a new technology (more than 2/3 of the article focus on reception-related information instead of describing the concept first and foremost). GermanJoe (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- I took a flight at rewording the intro slightly to be a bit more clear and push the jargon later. You did an excellent job getting the article to where it is. Not sure if a COI issue was the original motivation for article creation, it is a bit of a stretch of an article topic, kind of just this side of WP:NEO. debating if it should be merged with Fourth-generation programming language or End-user development, these terms are somewhat fuzzy.Cander0000 (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
External link query
Would someone from WP:SOFTWARE mind taking a look at The Faery Tale Adventure#Macintosh port Video? An IP added an external link to the article, but it was subsequently removed by a bot. I gave the IP a general explanation as to why this probably happened, but perhaps someone more familiar with software-related articles could take a look and provide further clarification. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
~Kvng (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
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)