Talk:LibreOffice Base

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Databases (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles

Tentative resources

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Scraped a sizable list of URLs while setting up the initial draft for the page. List of URLs included below lists various resources I've gone over superficially that seem tentatively relevant.

Six non-English Wikipedias have articles on LibreOffice Base, which might have useful content that can be translated. Pulled some information from the Italian version when drafting this article initially. Much of it was fairly outdated and ended up being rewritten entirely. Other foreign language Wikipedia pages on Base will likely have similar issues, but might be worth looking through, since LO is an international project.

DirkDouse (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Foreign Language Wikipedia Articles on LibreOffice Base

Unsorted URL Dump

Needs serious WP:RS attention

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

While it's a work in progress is one thing, but quite a lot of these sources don't pass WP:RS muster - primary sources, forum posts ... primary sources will need to be minimised. Forum posts aren't acceptable Wikipedia sourcing and shouldn't be in there at all.

Independent notability needs serious attention too - the third party mentions are substantially in the context of LibreOffice itself. What is there that evinces the notability of Base in its own right? - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Notability/WP:RS

Some of the third party sources are in the context of larger articles about LibreOffice, but are more than trivial mentions. As per WP:RS, there is a distinction between being a trivial mention and a discussion that is included in the context of a larger article. LO B not needed to be the sole or main subject of a source to qualify as notable coverage. The same trends are true of the articles on LibreOffice Writer and LibreOffice Calc; most of the citations for those articles also discuss other software in the office suite. The notability is still present.

Looked through the WP documentation and essays as well; the essay on WP:NSOFTWARE overviews plenty of additional compelling reasons for Base's notability:

LO B is the subject of instruction at multiple education institutions (e.g., University of IOWA -- plenty more are able to be located).
To a lesser extent, LO B is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers:
- https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&q="libreoffice+base"
- https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%22LIbreOffice+Base%22

Although those are additional notes on top of what are already notable sources.

Not sure why this article's notability is particularly controversial. Base's notability as a RDBMS seems clear in terms of points from third-party sources cited in the article -- cross-platform compatibility, open source in a niche dominated by proprietary tools, utilized by small business that are burdned by license cost associated with corporate tools.

In terms of the bulk URL list from the initial edit/creation of the talk page, as you've noted, yes, there certainly are some that wouldn't make the final cut for the article. As mentioned, those are from a preliminary scrape that should be narrowed down.

Would be interested to hear insight from other editors who've reviewed the page. I saw that @Ahunt: removed the tag previously and that @Xevus11: marked the page as reviewed in the page curation log prior to the notability tags being readded. Pinging them here to see if there are additional notes/suggestions to consider.

DirkDouse (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I removed the tag because I judged that had sufficient refs already to make the notability bar. Of course more can be added and the article expanded. - Ahunt (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I marked the article reviewed as the core article, LibreOffice, already has several related pages for its sub-products. While the lack of 3rd party citations was noted, a lack of 3rd party citations merely means they haven't been added yet, not that they dont exist. Seeing a list of links to other wikipedias with the same article, as well as a list of other links, I figured this established notability well enough, and marked the article reviewed. Xevus11 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic