Talk:List of concept- and mind-mapping software/Archive 1

message: Is there any kind of standardizing mind mapping-software like IEEE or ANSI-rulese e.g. import and export interfaces like XML or so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.86.148.30 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardizing? 

message: BasKet Note Pads —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.69.86.239 (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another one 

message: If the inline external links after almost every item in this list are really Wikipedia:Embedded citations and not WP:External links, then they break the guidelines in some important ways (quoted from the project page):
# "This style of external link should only be used as a citation for a specific section or fact. Other external links should go in an External links section as described at Wikipedia:External links." At the present time, the links do not support a "specific section or fact." Thus, I would suggest they are really external links and belong in the external link section. Of course, that presents other problems: an external link is only provided on the article of a subject and should not be duplicated on other pages. So only items without articles should be linked in the EL section. Of course, the links would end up duplicating the list, which is another problem.
# "A separate entry in the References section is required. It should include as much information as possible about the source! If the link breaks, other editors must still be able to find the source, either as a paper copy or at another URL." Of course, there is no "references" section of this article because the links are not used to support a specific fact. Adding a References section (which is "required"), creates the same problems as an EL section.
# "A full citation might include the link, quoted title, author, title of publication, volume, issue, page, the date of publication, and the date retrieved." Of course, this is impossible because the links are general level urls to the homepage of a piece of software and are not used to support facts. 
I believe each of these examples demonstrates the links are not really "references" but are simply misused "external links." That said, I would suggest that all external links to pieces of software with their own article on WP already should be removed (there is precedent for this already). That leaves the non-notable ones. Possible solutions: red-links for potentially notable ones with in-line external links (which some editors will have a problem with) or another solution. Hopefully others will have suggestions. Nposs 15:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy having a bunch of red links with the external links . This way the link information is preserved and stub articles are encouraged for the notable entries. (Requestion 16:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like the commented out idea.  This would preserve the information without it cluttering the article. -- Ronz  18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have commented there in detail. To summarize, the sourcing shows that the software exists, and is not made up. It also sources the features. I support the compromise to not duplicate those sourcing links. --Timeshifter 04:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this argument unconvincing for a couple of reasons. 1) Demonstrating that a piece of software exists "should" be uncontentious. I say "should" because as you have noted, editors have inappropriately removed items from lists in the past. That is bad editing and is easy to correct, however. A few bad editing practices in the past shouldn't dictate future guidelines. 2) A general level url to the website of a piece of software/product/company/etc. does not necessarily lead the reader to the relevant material (if it really is supposed to be sourcing information about features). In that case, a deep link to specific information is totally appropriate. In fact, that makes for a good reference. Embedding general level urls could actually deter editors from adding these appropriate deep links because it would amount to duplicate links to the same domain (thus looking like spam). That's the beauty of using the ref system. It can be placed at the end of a line for each item without a WP article and lead the reader to the most relevant information (which is described in detail in the reference.) Brackets with a number tell the reader nothing about where they are headed next. Nposs 05:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am talking about a link to the page for that particular program. Not the overall company site that covers multiple programs. The program link is usually sufficient also to quickly find the features of the program. If not, people can add a link to that particular page also. If editors want to create a full reference, more power to them! I have no problem with that. But as a practical matter, most editors will not bother. It takes skill and experience to write up reference wiki-code and text correctly. --Timeshifter 05:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favor of any approach that allows readers to avoid having to go to a search engine if they find something interesting, and want to know more.  My personal preference is to make it as easy as possible for the reader, and that would be by a live link, but preserving the information in the wiki page somehow or other so the reader can find it easily seems the most important thing to me.  I'm inclined to believe the search engines when they say they don't count "nofollow" links, because it's not in their interests to risk delivering spammy content, and "nofollow" is routinely used where spam proliferates (in blogs for example).  Argey 11:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatley, "no follow" links from Wikipedia are not read the same way by each search engine. Even Google, which supposedly does take into consideration the no follow attribute does count the links that appear in mirrored version of Wikipedia that show up in Answers.com results and other copies of WP. Nposs 14:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embedded links and references 

message: Nposs made a comment above about our method of listing software features.  I think eventually it should be in chart form, as was done for List of content management systems. If we went that route, I would suggest off the top of my head fieldnames like "Name", "Description", "compiling language(s)", "Free (yes/no)", "Web Based (yes/no)", and "other features" Comments? I definitely think it would be appropriate for the web page to be the source of this information (even though I would still be mostly opposed to having the "hot" web link in the chart. MPS 15:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: turning this list into a chart

message: [Note. Please see WP:TALK. Do not remove or edit my comments on this talk page. Feel free to remove or edit your own comments. --Timeshifter 18:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this even here? It has to do with issues between editors and does not have a direct bearing for this article. That is why we posted those message on your User talk page. This just clutters up an already too long and complicated article talk page. I suggest you move it back your user page and link it here if you want comments on it. Nposs 18:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the comments I copied over were under my user talk section headings about List of mind mapping software. I do not like having to reply in 2 places concerning List of mind mapping software.--Timeshifter 18:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MPS added the blue background below. See this diff. I don't mind. People can comment after it if they want. --Timeshifter 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived discussion Please do not modify it.  
Two things: 1) Your revert of the article reinserted a terribly NPOV/promotional introduction. Please do not be so hasty in your reverts. 2) Copying/pasting a long discussion from an unrelated page is inappropriate. The talk page are for discussing the article. If other editors want to join in the discussion about the external link guidelines - they should join in at the WP:EL talk page. Nposs 12:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: See the talk page for my reply: Talk:List of mind mapping software. --Timeshifter 12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how I'm edit warring. I cleaned up the NPOV introduction after someone else had removed the external links (sorry, "references"). Then, when you had reverted the NPOV introduction (as well as the external links - which had remained absent from the subsequent article move by Jossi), I reverted. As for the talk page - that wasn't edit warring either (vandalism? sure.) The more appropriate solution would have been to include a link to the ongoing discussion on the EL page (rather than copying and pasting the entire thing - with the apparent intention to update it as it progresses?) Discussions should be kept in one place. This will only cause confusion (especially if article editors start to edit the version of the EL discussion now duplicated on the list page.) Also, user warnings belong on user talk pages - not the discussion pages of articles. Nposs 13:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've asked Timeshifter many times to stop violating WP:MULTI and now we have about a zillion duplicate threads. I'm so confused my head hurts. Oh yeah, one more thing, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a linkfarm. (Requestion 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have replied on the article and guideline/policy talk pages. Your views are in the minority. No need to duplicate discussions here. --Timeshifter 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nposs, I replied on your talk page. You must be confusing 2 different list articles. You have not commented at Talk:Comparison of time tracking software. --Timeshifter 05:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a need for these multiple ongoing discussions. It is confusing (yes, I was confused) and results in the same content being duplicated in multiple places. It might be better to allow the discussions in more prominent places (i.e. Village pump) come to some point of agreement before we begin to stir up these older discussions (at least a day old in the case of the "Comparison ..." article.) I would still suggest that you are mischaracterizing the viewpoints within the discussion to the detriment of the consensus process. I might also suggest that you and I have perhaps voiced our position with sufficient verbosity and that it might be time for us to step back and let others grapple with these issues. Nposs 06:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly why I asked for help from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. I don't know anyone there, so it is not like I am asking only people who agree with me. --Timeshifter 06:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Many people see excess external links as having the potential to border on spam, even if there is only one of each. I understand how conveneint it is to just click on links, but this directorial ease ease has to be balanced by the fact that spammers have and do frequently rely on this ease of clicking to trick wikipedians into entering spam sites. This is a huge problem on wikipedia and it is one reason why Requisition is so militant about minimizing too many external links on one page. The number of redlinks can be decided by you, me, and whoever else is editing. if you put the red link next to a hidden link, I think you will be fine. As for "hidden sourcing," I know of no guideline that prohibits it. It is new in the last week, but it makes sense to me and a lot of other people. Guidelines were created by people like you me and requisition who come to WP:CONSENSUS on what makes sense. Yes? What I am trying to do is form sound and practical policy that most wikipedins would agree to for this list. Peace, MPS 22:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One link does not make for spam. We have agreed that there will be only one source link per list entry. There will be no duplicate link. The problem is solved. You can't create your own wikipedia guidelines. I will reply more on your talk page.--Timeshifter 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Timeshifter, I see your point but I disagree. I am really wary of lots of links to largely unknown websites. We'll let the process work itself out on this one and let the wikipedia community decide what it wants. Peace, MPS 22:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User talk page comments moved here 

message: To avoid duplication, I have moved the list of relevant guideline/policy links and quotes to the top of my user page. See User:Timeshifter. It is also easier for me to update the info in one location. --Timeshifter 02:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude (or Dudette), at this point, a litany of guidelines does not help the discussion here. What helps are specific suggestions for how we can move forward (many of which have been proposed above). Nposs 18:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop with the "dude, dudette" familiarity please. Please see Wikipedia:Civility. Existing wikipedia guidelines and policies are the necessary base from which to start. Editors on this talk page, or coming to this talk page, who are new to lists and charts methodology will also need this info. --Timeshifter 18:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just trying to lighten up an overly serious discussion. (But then again, I'm just a "vandal" "censor" in "serious violation of the guidelines" whose ideas "comment" are is "BS"). Nposs 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "vandal" is not in the diff you linked to. Please stop the deception, and the misrepresentation of my positions. As for BS, I did not say your ideas were BS. That would be too general. I wrote concerning a specific comment: "Your comment is complete BS! Not you, but your comment."--Timeshifter 19:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my mistake. I believe I see your point now: it is words as represented on the screen by letters which I have strung together in that particular instance that bear a resemblance to the poop of a large animal. I have corrected my misstatement and shall withhold my future excretions. Nposs 20:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links, lists, and charts. Wikipedia links, guidelines, policies.

message: Concerning lists and charts on wikipedia; on my user page there is a section of links to relevant wikipedia guideline and policy pages. There are some quotes too. Currently, it is the first section at User:Timeshifter.
A quote below (emphasis added) from:
*Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism
;Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus.  Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal,  or , as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.
 
The above quote is from a POLICY page. 
I used the warning template  on Requestion's user talk page. I did not use the word vandalism. He believes what he is doing is helping wikipedia, so it is not vandalism. 
Timeshifter (me), Belorud, Quiddity, and Argey have spoken out against removing source links. 
So this edit summary by MPS (see this diff) while again blanking the source links is not true: "requisition didn't blank anything... he returned the link format to the one that everyone but timeshifter agrees to" --Timeshifter 00:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all it was a revert and nothing was deleted. The live external links were commented out, not blanked. Secondly, those are not verifiable references because they fail WP:RS. This also isn't the first time Timershifter has used ANI threats and warning templates as a debate tool. I find Timeshifters behavior extremely rude and uncivil. (Requestion 00:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think a review of WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:CON, and WP:VOTE by editors here would be appropriate.  I certainly don't feel comfortable contributing to the discussion here given how editors are treating others. -- Ronz  00:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Requestion buried the primary source links into hidden comments inaccessible to the readers. I did not do that. Requestion did it against the wishes of Timeshifter (me), Belorud, Quiddity, and Argey. So the rudeness is on Requestion's part. Calling him on it is not rude. Primary source links are allowed. See the relevant wikipedia guideline/policy quotes on my user page: User:Timeshifter. --Timeshifter 02:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question is not who is the bad guy or who is or is not rude. There is simply no consensus within wikipedia on this and we will go around in circles until there is or until somone gives up. The compromise I have made within myself is that I will engage in wiki-jihad (aka WP:BRD of the list of mind mapping in its current CodeCommented format) to discuss and form sound policy, but I am not going to impose the CodeComments solution on other pages (e.g., panoramas stitchers and viewers page). I don't think "the rules" are going to solve this one... I think it will come down to WP:BRAIN and somone coming up with an innovative design solution that meets most people's concerns. I'm not mad at anyone here, but there is definitely an unresolved difference of opinion about what is the good solution. MPS 16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are imposing a non-wikipedia solution. We should be using the existing wikipedia citation methods until they are changed. --Timeshifter 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia solutions are always changing. See How_are_policies_started. "The easiest way to change policy is to change common practice first." See WP:BRAIN.  MPS 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you are using selective quoting to make a radical change in wikipedia guidelines/policies. You have not changed common practice because you will never convince wikipedia to abandon Wikipedia:Verifiability for readers.--Timeshifter 02:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My intentions are not to "abandon Wikipedia:Verifiability"... just so you know.  MPS 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking 

message: Please see some relevant wikipedia guideline/policy quotes in a section near the top of my user page titled "Notability concerning lists and charts." See: User:Timeshifter.
There are conflicting guidelines on notability of items in lists and charts. But common sense allows article editors to reach a balance. It is obvious that some lists such as List of English writers could not include all writers. Wikipedia editors alone number in the millions! It is equally obvious to many that technology and software lists should include more than just the big corporate products. Some lists even have separate sections for freeware, shareware, and/or open source. 
All 3 of those forms of software are notable in themselves. The topic of the lists are notable. Basic WP:NPOV encyclopedic fairness requires some balancing by the article editors for any list.  There has to be a balance between corporate and non-corporate entries on lists. There have to be decisions made as to notability in the community of freeware/shareware/open-source -- versus notability in the corporate press where previous ad money often talks in getting press and reviews. Decisions need to be made as to the number of users using a program, product, or entry. Sometimes long lists may require limiting list/chart entries to certain thresholds of number of users for each category. Also, decisions as to whether an entry is fading into disuse, and therefore unworthy of taking up an entry slot if a list or chart is already long. 
So, editors should not just parachute into a talk page, make a few muddied wikipedia guideline/policy declarations, and then delete/blank large parts of the articles, entries, or sources/citations. All without participating in the long consensus process that preceded them on the talk page. There is no rush. --Timeshifter 03:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure WP:PARACHUTE-ing has occurred here. MPS 16:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability concerning lists and charts. 

message: * MPS -- The question at hand is whether (and how) we should list possibly non-notable mind mapping software next to external links. If we can't find any reference to that software outside of its web page, does that mean it is non-notable and should therefore be deleted from the list? Should we list it and link it even if it is probably non-notable? My preferred solution is to keep the list item even if it is "primary sourced" but to use CodeComments (URL hidden in a   ) to prevent the URL link from being seen by the casual reader (example of codeCommenting being reverted here). Others have convinced me to compromise towards the  "cold links in refs solution" which is a shorthand phrase for putting that website URL into a  <ref> tag but not have the URL be "live." Example would be the hot link to abc123.com   http://abc123.com  versus the cold link in ref  http://abc123.com   The last thing I want is for us to have to delete the primary-sourced (ergo possibly non-notable) list items, but I don't know what we can do to prevent use of wikipedia as a vehicle for non-notable software advertising. List entries should not link to possibly non-notable software. The contentious issue as I see it comes down to the question of whether a commercial software webpage alone establishes the notability  of that software. I am not sure if WP:PG has all the answers or if this is a new question that requires the use of WP:BRAIN. I don't see the clear answer to this question in the many (many, many, many )guidelines posted above. MPS 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

message: ;Moving on...
This has been an interesting debate so far.  I appreciate that while there has been significant disagreements, there has not been outright edit warring or personal attacks.  Compared to ongoing disputes I've seen on other pages, this has been a refreshing change!  So, thanks.
I still believe the links are valuable and meet the guides, but unless more editors come along with that point of view, I'm not going to continue arguing it.  So far, I've seen a few editors on each side of the debate, but other than myself (who came here only to comment and was not originally involved in the article), the proponents of keeping the links have not been nearly as active in the discussion as the editors who want to exclude them.  I don't need to carry the banner on my own.  Since the Request for Comment has only received a couple comments and the link-keeping proponents have been quiet, I'm going to let this drop and leave the editing of this list article to those who are most interested in maintaining it.
I hope you keep the links for the reasons I've stated, but I don't have an agenda about it. It's up to you if you want to leave the RfC open or not.  If something new comes up or editors here would like me to comment further, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page.  Best wishes for an excellent list article.    --Parzival418 Hello 22:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow-up Comments

message: From page 33 of this Time magazine article:
*http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1622009,00.html
Image caption for photo of Al Gore sitting at his desk in front of 3 large LCD monitors: 
"Climate central. Gore in his Nashville home office, where he wrote his new book. Mind-map software and huge Post-it notes help him order his thoughts." It is image number 20 here:
*http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1622338,00.html
The longer caption is in the print edition I am looking at now. --Timeshifter 12:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that this has to do with editing the article or solving the Request for Comment dilemma that seems to be the main point of contention for this article. MPS 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it had anything to do with the RfC. Why did you bring it up in this section? Please stay ontopic in each section. This Time magazine info can be added to the article when the sourcing issue is decided. --Timeshifter 10:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 28, 2007 Time magazine mentions mind-map software.  

message: This is why I removed some of the images:
1) This article is a list of software. Images belong on the main article about the software or on the individual articles for the notable programs. It really isn't appropriate on this page. (Unless, and please let us not do this, each item is given its own screencap.)
2) The captions are controversial. Removing the images removes the controversy. Nposs 21:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion and blanking is not the solution. All wikipedia pages can have images. All images can have captions. Please stop making up your own personal set of wikipedia guidelines.--Timeshifter 21:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing images=

message: This seems to be recurring problem, the solution to which has yet to be discussed. So, here are the two options: 1) this is an indiscriminate list of all possible programs, or 2) this is a list of programs that meet some standard of notability. I think 1) is both unfeasable and unnecessary: there is already a website that "claims" to have a list of all pieces of software (178 total). So, I would suggest that we come up with some standard of notability or inclusion. I think one solution would be: a) open-source, b) freeware, and c) proprietary programs that have been reviewed in a reliable source (i.e. not some dude's blog). Nposs 16:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checking - do you mean that only proprietary programs are required to have been reviewed or does the requirement to have been reviewed apply to each of (a) - (c)? Even though this might result in extensive shortening of the list, I do not believe that the latter entry requirement would be unreasonable. In contrast to usual Wikipedia notability practices, I think it would be fine if there is just a single review rather than multiple independent sources. Might have to think carefully about what is meant by "review", too. Could it be toned down to just needing an independent mention of the product at any level above the level of "this product exists". For example, would a reference saying "company X uses mind mapping brand Y" be enough? Or are we going to require a full independent review of the product to get it included? I can see http://reviews.cnet.com/ getting a lot a hits! :) GDallimore (Talk) 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Notability is a different animal but there was an attempt at creating a guideline for software. It it is now inactive, see Wikipedia:Notability (software). I think the main argument here is should entries be listed that lack reliable secondary sources (WP:RS)? I believe that answer is no. Above we were attempting create a compromise solution that had inactive links. As you can see that generated a lot of conflict. It might be best to use the strict WP:RULES interpretation and not allow such entries. (Requestion 20:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We seem to have an overlapping discussion thread here.  Please also review the comments in the section just above, which speak directly to the notability issue.  --Parzival418 Hello 06:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishing standards for inclusion on the list 

message: I've reverted it back again, given that no one has addressed my questions and there is considerable concern from other editors about the same issues. --Ronz 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because your blanking crew talks a lot does not mean you get to override wikipedia guidelines and policies. Dream on. --Timeshifter 00:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that doesn't address any of the concerns here. Please stay on topic. Thanks. --Ronz 00:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ontopic. You said "Given the amount of discussion here about them, I think it's fair to say that they are a problem." No, it just means there is a lot of discussion. All your points have been addressed already. See the previous discussion. --Timeshifter 02:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  I've asked questions, and brought up concerns about the image captions.  You've failed to address any of them at all.  Would you like me to repeat them for you yet again? --Ronz 16:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still no one addressing the image caption problems

message: Why is there no screenies for free software like vym or kdissert? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.136.208.241 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note. I moved the above comment from the top of the talk section titled "Screen Images - reference links" to here. It messed up the sense of that section since it was not in order, and it was unsigned. --Timeshifter 13:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  screenies for free software