Talk:List of Unified Modeling Language tools

message: I vote not to create an article "Comparison of UML programs", as it is unclear under what aspects and how UML programs should be compared and whether Wikipedia is the right place for such a comparison (or comparisons).Well, I think we need to talk about UML programs in detail a little more. 
I further vote not to add an internal link to this nonexistent article on each and every individual UML programs article - at least not until there *is* such a comparison article. I think, one link on the list article here to this nonexistent comparison article and a back link to the list article on each program's article is enough. Adrian Buehlmann 17:29, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
:Since I absolutely agree with your arguments, I've removed the link to this nonexistant article for now, until someone comes along and convinces me otherwise. --S.K. 18:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like any other piece of software a comparison can be made of UML Tools. Such an article would be interesting since the first comment about it. Some UML Tools are supporting only a few different diagrams, some other are trying to implement all of them, some are providing code generation, some are only plugins to bigger project (IDE), some focus solely on supporting one language, some comply to UML 1.0 only, ... you got the idea there. 93.96.115.80 (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating an article "Comparison of UML programs" 

message: The site does not mention if blueprint is Free Software or Open Source.
Please try downloading it and install it to see whether there is a README file or a EULA that indicates its status
:It is proprietary & is furthermore non-notable.  I rmed it. --Karnesky 00:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueprint found its way back into the non-proprietary section. I summarily deleted it for their unethical advertising tactics. --The Extremist [User, Talk] 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  blueprint may be proprietary 

message: The correct spelling of the name of this program, as given in all its documentation, is ArgoUML.  I wasn't sure about the implications on linking if the name of the page was changed, so I didn't do any edits, but would appreciate it if someone could make the change.
: Done. Adrian Buehlmann 12:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only registered users are allowed to rename pages (see also why create an account?) --Adrian Buehlmann 20:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct name/capitalization is ArgoUML 

message: While it is technically difficult to determine whether a tool has full support of UML 2.0 (mainly because OMG has not yet come up with a certification suite), for a tool to be mentioned as supporting UML 2.0, it should 
# Claim that it is a UML 2.0 tool
# Support the majority of UML 2.0 diagram types 
# Support the majority of UML 2.0 features
At this point, Poseidon does not offer a UML 2.0 tool. They do support some of the UML 2.0 interchange capabilibities and the UML 2.0 sequence diagrams, but they do not yet offer the rest of the diagrams, nor do they yet claim full support for UML 2.0. I'm sure that they will soon qualify.
Mjchonoles 17:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supports UML 2.0 

message: May I ask: what has this to do with UML? I could not find the term "UML" nor "Unified Modeling Language" on any of the html pages where the external link points to. (Just thinking if that might fit better somewhere else) – Adrian | Talk 22:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  eRequirements 

message: Template:Dmoz has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz. Thank you.
Adrian Buehlmann 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Dmoz 

message: I would argue that the following should be rmed from the list as non-notable, in approximate order of how strongly I think they should be rmed:
*No Magic MagicDraw UML was AfDed once [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/No_Magic_MagicDraw_UML] and deleted once before that
*Dotnet2UML AfDed as non notable Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DotNet2UML
*Telelogic Tau G2 deleted as copyvio (presumably spam)
*Eclipse GMT-XUML (UMLX) EARLY beta.  And Eclipse is already listed
*Jumli (very few users)
*Umlet (very few users)
*Ferret (relatively new, small user base)
*Violet (small user base)
*Gaphor (<1000 users)
*Unimod (article was deleted due to link spam twice)
*Artisan, eReqs MID, eclipseUML - I just think they're not notable
*TO check: Telelogic System Architect [21],  Telelogic Tau G2 [22], Unimodeler [23]
Removal is not a judgement on the quality of a piece of software--only of notability.  Inclusion in this list doesn't mean I don't like you or your product.  Exclusion from the list doesn't mean I do, nor that your product is actually notable -- I might have just missed you.--Karnesky 01:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remove whatever you think should be removed. I promise not to revert you, despite I disagree with you. I think if you remove those from the list, people will just come back and readd them or will add them to Unified Modeling Language or UML tool. I will not revert them, as I assume you are going to keep an eye on these articles in the future. Good luck! --Adrian Buehlmann 08:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-notable products 

message: This article was nominated for deletion; the result was keep (following revisions). For details, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UML tools. bd2412 T 19:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD results 

message: I've reverted the removal of all external links by by GraemeL. These links are not linkspam. If we keep just those links where we have an article, people will start again creating articles for each tool, which is not wanted either. If we accept only a limited number of tools, we have to choose which ones. If we would do this, we would violate WP:NPOV. If we delete this page, UML tools will be added again to UML tool or Unified Modeling Language, a situation we already had. It's much better to have a separate tool list. --Ligulem 23:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: GraemeL removed not only the external links, but also removed tools that don't have a separate article. So how can we make sure we have not a censored set of tools on Wikipedia? --Ligulem 01:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: For third parties: See also User_talk:GraemeL#List_of_UML_tools and User_talk:Ligulem#External_links. --Ligulem 00:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If we look for example at Visual Paradigm SDE Community Edition: That UML tool has it's own article with an external link. Is that external link ok there or not? If it is, should we create again articles for some tools that GraemeL removed from this list? And what is the criteria we use to create articles? How can we make sure we are not biased towards any tool or groups of tools (for example, should open source/free tools treated differently or not)? If we really remove all the open source tools from this list (together with their external links) they are readded day by day, either here or on UML tool or Unified Modeling Language. The whole thing started as a small list of some tools in Unified Modeling Language and then was moved into this separate page here. --Ligulem 01:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. GraemeL seems to refuse to discuss this. I tagged said article with a speedy delete , as it is Spam as well per the deletion of tools by GraemeL here. --Ligulem 13:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The dispute with GraemeL is resolved. I have accepted his removal of external links. Thus the PROD. As you know, you can simply remove the PROD tag if you disagree with the deletion. On the other hand, you didn't address what I wrote in the PROD reasons. --Ligulem 15:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. Removed the PROD myself per your disagreement . --Ligulem 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with your assessment and have removed the tag. Please discuss before adding such a tag again in the future. This has already been debated heavily here and the majority disagree with you regarding external links. This page has been voted to be kept. Please keep it in its current state. 125.238.236.174 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Considerations on new tools? Specifically Architexa?  How to go about an introduction, and what's required?  Nhbaldwin (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it have an article on Wikipedia? If so, it's notable and should be added. If not, we shouldn't list it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More UML tools 

message: There is a lot of information in this list, and it's really not very helpful. This really needs to get rewritten as a table, similar to Comparison_of_accounting_software. There has been some talk as to what information is important. I'd recommend:
Name, Developer, Platform (Win/OSX/Linux), License (FOSS/Proprietary, etc), UML Support (1, 2, etc), Code Generation support (from diagram), Diagram Generation support (from code), brief description. Anything else can and should go in their pages. When that is finished, it may also be a good idea to rename this page "Comparison of UML Tools". David Souther (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ftiercel (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table instead of list? 

message: The "latest stable version" column of the comparison table should not contain version numbers, as these mean nothing in comparison to each other.  Instead, it should contain a date (as in the "First public release" column).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.219.26 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest stable version 

message: I do not want to cause controversy where it is not needed, but someone please rearrange this article to make the distinction between Free and Free more clear.
What I mean is, Free Software is not necessarily non-commercial, and Non-commercial software is not necessarily Free.  Thus, grouping the two in the same category - particularly when it seems to oppose commercial/proprietary (also in a single category); this is clearly incorrect.  
The edit should be to simply remove the second categorisation (free/proprietary) as, even if you don't agree with my definition of these words, you must agree that the definition is disputed.  I didn't make the edit myself because of its controversial nature, and because I don't count myself as a Wikipedia editor (heck, I don't even count myself as a Wikipedia user).
Thank you.
--Yoda (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-commerical/Free 

message: OpenAmeos is missing - since I just found it, I do not know whether it is usable or relevant at all. But the authors say it was "the multi-platform/multi-user UML® Modeling Environment".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.55.53 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing tool 

message: Change Vision JUDE has been renamed and/or superceded by astah*. Since JUDE has been EOL'ed, it is no longer noteworthy; therefore we should replace it with a reference to "astah*". The licensing model of astah* appears to be similar to or identical to the licensing model of JUDE, with the community (feature limited) version being unlimited-use freeware, and requiring commercial licenses to unlock all the features. I didn't make this change because I am not really an experienced editor and I wanted to solicit feedback.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allquixotic (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jude -> Astah 

message: What does the app have to have for it to be MDA-compatible?? I find this very subjective and it really is not clear atm what the apps can do if they have a yes there.
Code generation? Modeling is enough? --Kissaki (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MDA – what exactly? 

message: eUML2 
--Achyuth (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the tools that have an article can be added. Ftiercel (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  eUML2 – Why eUML2 is not mentioned in here? 

message: As it is said in the TODO list, this section should be merged into the two other sections. It should have been for a long time ago. I have already merged what I can. If nothing changes, I will remove this inappropriate section in a month. Ftiercel (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why they should be merged. No rationale was given on the todo list and it doesn't make sense to merge them. Can you give a rationale for merging? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no difference between being in the first two tables and being in the last table. The separation is only due to the past of the article. Ftiercel (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merged the content. Ftiercel (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was there because there were major gaps in the information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Unified Modeling Language tools#Other UML tools|Other UML tools]] 

message: Can it be explained somewhat, rather than just thrown in there? --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse engineering of programming languages 

message: Please add this tool: http://umlfri.org/screen.php (It has been creating for several yrs now) then you can delete this, thx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.75.199 (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: It has been my understanding this list is like :list of GUI testing tools or :list of web testing tools where all entries have an article and hence do not become a :WP:COATRACK for everything. Or is it to be like :list of unit testing frameworks which focuses on being comprehensive?
See also :Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stand alone list or list to notable subjects 

message: I recently made an edit to this page by adding "Integrity Modeler" to the General table.
I then read some authoring guidelines and realised I should not have directly edited the page as I work for PTC, who develops Integrity Modeler, and therefore I have a COI. Please undo/revert my changes if needed.
I would like to request that Integrity Modeler is added to the article, specifically to the 2 tables.
Information can be found on the PTC website. There is an independent review available here:
https://www.ptc.com/en/application-lifecycle-management/integrity-modeler-independent-review 
Integrity Modeler does not have it's own dedicated page yet (I will request), but is part of the Integrity "family" of products which does have a page called "PTC Integrity". Pjo1945 (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Only products with articles already on Wikipedia are included in those tables. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to add Integrity Modeler to the article 

message: Hi there, as far as I understand this list, a tool needs to have an wiki article = being worth to be reported about it in the first place. Do different wiki languages account for? My company did some internal evaluation if this one https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovator_(Software) is worth to be used. And it seems this software has quite some history and also being available in English. Thanks for your time. -- 2A02:2455:A63:8100:B538:C4A5:3F58:D2D5 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, different language editions of Wikipedia have wildly different inclusion standards. MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding MID Innovator?