Talk:Outliner

message: I see this phrase at the beginning of the article: "Mind Mappers and Wikis are related types of software." ... I agree with mind mappers, but not really with wikis... I do not know of a wiki that would offer outliner capabilities. Including this one for a start. wikis do not offer as a typical feature the ability to manage hierarchies neither to expand/collapse them nor to manipulate these trees.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pombredanne (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikis ? 

message: Commercial interests here, which is almost OK. There's no claim of notoriety, just seems to be a fairly random selection that isn't authoritative, with the list getting long. See WP:NOT advertising. Widefox 11:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ayup, the link spam is pretty overwhelming. We're not a web/software directory either... We probably should have articles about actually relevant and notable software. As things are now, it's a minefield for spam. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outliner Tools 

message: The commented-out section is either inaccurate or imprecise enough to be confusing. For example:
* Microsoft Word *does* allow both 'extrinsic' and 'intrinsic' outlines to be exported to other formats (intrinsically as HTML with headers, for example, and extrinsically with stylesheets); 
* jEdit does support View/Edit/Search operations on outline elements (either natively or with plugins); 
* the node-relationship constraints mentioned in this article are supported by both Word and JEdit. dr.ef.tymac 20:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarify or omit 

message: Article suggest most word processors  have outliner built-in. Alas OpenOffice's Writer is still missing this feature as of Jan 2007 its been Number 3 on the wish list for the last 4 years (). 80.7.195.184 15:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still no outline mode in OpenOffice 

message: This link, http://www.expandingbrain.com/wiki/doku.php seems broken (404, no redirection)
--86.75.149.234 (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link(s) 

message: Don't you think "Generally Acknowledged" is a bit weasel wordy? How do I add the (bracket)weasel words?(bracket) thing to that? I'd like to see it marked. It seems like we should have sources, not pretend that it is supposedly "generally acknowledged". Just so you know,  I agree with the comment, but not with the wording. Ryaxnb (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Words

message: I would love to see the information on OPML support of desktop applications, like there is for the web-services. --eugrus (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  OPML support in desktop applications 

message: IMO the list of Outliners would be much more useful, if it had columns for each important platform (W, M, L, Python, POSIX, Web, other ...), and a "license" type column (GPL, BSD, PayWare, AbandonWare, FreeWare ...).
Of the two, I find the license column has the highest value/effort ratio. 
I am aware, that the platform columns would be quite some work to choose the initial set, and keep that accurate, and therefore may not be desirable. The additional columns would be very helpful to separate the wheat from the old, unsupported/abandoned mono-platform commercial/non-free chaff.
88.207.143.25 (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columns in table of Outliners 

message: Why have a list of desktop outliners if quite a fraction of the entries concerns outdated products no longer available? Shouldn't we make a distinction between items of only technical or historical relevance and actual products currently available? Anyway, there seems to be only a small group of people still using desktop outliners today; most of them seem to be members of the outlinersoftware.com forum; so maybe we should ask these people which products are relevant? And do you really think that emacs org-mode is the right species representative to be presented in the top right display? A console application? Is this meant as a joke?
62.202.191.230 (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The list covers only "notable" applications (in Wikipedia's sense of the term, see link). But an additional "status" column with sourced information about the applications' current status could be useful indeed. The "Notes" field might also be useable, but would probably be less clear. GermanJoe (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outliner museum? 

message: I have removed a list entry for the CrossLine outliner, a small 8-month old GitHub project without any independent sources to establish its notability. Without such sources such applications don't belong in an encyclopedia - Wikipedia is no venue to promote personal projects and minor applications. Please discuss here if needed. GermanJoe (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Means: you don't know it so it cannot be notable; at least change the title to "presumably non notable" ;-) 62.202.191.230 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It means: what I (or you or any other editor for that matter) "know" is irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on independent published sources to verify its information, although a lot of articles are obviously still lacking in that regard. Our personal knowledge, opinion or most self-published information don't matter. But I'll admit that the term "notable" is often confusing for new editors - we had literally half a dozen discussions or more about this term, but never came up with anything better. So it's "notable" (with or without scare quotes) for now in Wiki-internal jargon. GermanJoe (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's dream on; no wonder that so many authors give up - or like me - don't even consider to get a login. 62.202.191.230 (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Create an article on that outliner. See wp:article for creation. Make sure it meets wp:notability. I'm available to help. Cheers Jim1138 talk 05:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-notable addition removed 

message: In my edit summary for  (which reverted a sudden addition of a massive collection of external links), I noted that the knowledge and effort that was used to amass all of those external links could be used instead to create a 'History' section that describes outliner history in prose, based on reliable secondary sources, per WP:V. I would be very interested to read such a history, and I imagine that I'm not alone in such interest. Biogeographist (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outliner history 

message: Roam should be added as a web-based outliner. Ben Finn (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I think Roam is notable. And Logseq could also be notable enough now. One of the recent comparisons of Roam/Logseq, Logseq vs Roam Research  --sabre23t (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roam 

message: Is the some reason the venerable PC Outline isn't listed here? TobyJ (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: PC Outline