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

Initial comment

List of software copied in its entirety from the Mind Map entry. If this entry is accepted, recommend rationalising by removing the list from Mind Map and linking to this page from other related pages.

Standardizing?

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).

I haven't seen any. Many products use XML as the main file format or as an interface for import and export. I have seen suggestions that a standard should be established (can't remember where now), but I don't know that anything has come of it. I suppose the nearest thing would be OML and OPML, but if either were adopted, it would have to be rationalized and greatly extended. To my knowledge, Freemind .mm files are XML, so are MindManager files (recent versions contain XML components anyway) and Personal Brain 4 files. Topicscape accepts various XML formats for import and can export several types of XML, and earlier forms of Personal Brain had an export function that used XML. But none of these has an XML schema endorsed by a standards body, so far as I know. Argey

Another one

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

Question

why bubbl.us is listed as open source? I can't seem to find a place to download its source.

Linkfarm

Most of the external links need to be removed per WP:NOT#LINK. --Ronz 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed. I didn't try to convert any to internal links and have no idea if there are any valid ones to create. --Ronz 03:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that 'nofollow' is implemented on external links, there is no linkfarm effect, is there? Removing them just makes the article less useful to readers. Nothing lost if they don't want to follow the link, utility lost if they are interested to know more. Of course, the links must be relevant and not excessive (one per software package). Argey 24 May 2007

I strongly disagree. See Wikipedia_talk:External_links. --Ronz 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And that's a discussion? I give reasons for my opinions, you make assertions: "I strongly disagree" gets us nowhere unless Wikipedia is a dictatorship.

1. Linkfarms are sites that attempt to influence the main search engines by giving inbound links to a site. In the past Wikipedia allowed people to effectively set up linkfarms, agreed. Adding "No follow" to all links in Wikipedia, as is now done, tells the engines to ignore that link. There is therefore now no possibility of using Wikipedia as a linkfarm. What do you strongly disagree with in that logic?

2. If readers come to a page about mind mapping software isn't it most likely because they want to see what software there is? And if they find something they are interested in, what will they want to do next? Go to the software's web page, I would say. What would your view be? They can look it up in Google, of course, but making them take an extra step decreases the utility of this page in Wikipedia - that was the point I was making. What do you strongly disagree with in that logic?

I'm open to listen to other views if they are logically supported. Proper debate can be useful. Argey 05:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I routinely clean up linkfarms, so this is a non-issue to me. I don't want to be disrespectful to your position though, and didn't mean to be.

I think there is Wikipedia-wide consensus on what linkfarms are and how they should be treated. I strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia_talk:External_links for the many discussions on this issue. If you still disagree with me, I suggest bringing up the issue on Wikipedia_talk:External_links. --Ronz 18:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a link farm. Read the article on link farms. --Timeshifter 11:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you routinely clean up linkfarms good for you, but there can be none in Wikipedia. This was not a linkfarm. There is Wikipedia-wide consensus on what linkfarms are and it's spelled out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_farm

"a link farm is any group of web pages that all hyperlink to every other page in the group"; "A link farm is a form of spamming the index of a search engine (sometimes called spamexing or spamdexing)."

Neither of those definitions apply to the links removed here - the first one self evidently, the second because, as I wrote before, the "nofollow" tag prevents the search engine indexes being influenced.

I have looked at the talk page you recommended, thanks. There are many voices there and some seem to be speaking against what you have done to this otherwise useful page (I'm not saying that it did not require some clean up). As examples these:

"At the same time Requestion is using the vagueness of Wikipedia:External links to support the deletion of large parts of lists and charts that took years to compile. See Comparison of time tracking software."

"Another editor will only allow entries that have their own wikipedia pages. So Requestion deletes the links. And the other editor deletes entries that do not have their own wikipedia pages. So between the 2 of them they have created a reference-free chart that is much smaller than the original chart."

So under Wikipedia's own definition of link farm this was not a link farm, and in other places where similar exercises have been carried out, editors have objected and links have been restored. There are things wrong with some cases - there's some obvious spam, for example - but that is flagged and will no doubt come right pretty soon. I am not saying that this page did not need cleaning up, indeed I have done a little of the cleaning up myself. But I think link removal in this context makes this page less useful to the people who matter - the readers.

If it's a non-issue to you does that mean you are not interested in other views, all closely argued? If they are not not closely argued in your view, where is the logic wrong? You still haven't actually answered my points, just dismissed them. Argey 13:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please follow WP:DR as you see fit. I'm again suggesting you ask for help on Wikipedia_talk:External_links. -- Ronz  15:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Defining all external links in Wikipedia "evil" doesn't make sense to me, especially for a list of software, where actually the links are an important part of information. I'm actually shocked about this behavior of destroying a valuable article by arbitrarily deleting links. I would call this vandalism. As suggested, I had a look at the Wikipedia_talk:External_links discussion, too. Found very different opinions there, but definitely no license to arbitrarily destroy articles. --Belorud 20:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Since you're new here to Wikipedia, you might want to review some of the links I've added to your talk page. -- Ronz  21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there is actually a more important and relevant statement in "What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT): Articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." This is actually a policy (rather than a guideline like WP:EL). Nposs 03:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The links are citation/reference links and are not considered to be ordinary external links. Citations are REQUIRED, and are not optional. Otherwise the info can be deleted by any editor due to lack of reliable sourcing. See my replies and comments in the talk section below called "Wikipedia talk:External links". You are violating wikipedia policy by removing sourcing. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Timeshifter 11:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, people are missing the more relevant part of WP:NOT. From WP:NOT#DIR:

" Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted."

Only the list topic must be notable. Individual entries do not have to be notable in themselves. They are notable as being part of the topic. But the individual entries have to be sourced, or they can be removed according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. The easiest way to source them is an embedded citation to their home pages. See Wikipedia:Embedded citations.--Timeshifter 11:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that a link to a home page is a good source for a list entry, becase it is not a reliable secondary source. By your argument, I could create a webpage that reads "I make mind mapping software," and then put the link to that page in this article. But the truth is, to have a reliable source, I would need someone ELSE, who is reliable, saying that I make mind mapping software; that would be the appropraite citation to use for my entry in the list article. UnitedStatesian 13:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Please see this section of WP:Verifiability. --Timeshifter 15:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with UnitedStatesian. These links are not being used as references. The links are official home page links. -- Ronz  15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Please see this section of WP:Verifiability. That section, titled "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves", states:

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

So in an article discussing the existence and features of their program, a link to their homepage, features page, etc. is allowed. --Timeshifter 15:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, there are plenty of discussions on this issue. Perhaps it's time to rethink them. Your accusations of policy violations are not helping the situation, and ignore WP:DR and WP:CON. Please stop. Thanks. -- Ronz  15:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive the repetition of this from another discussion, but I believe it is worth restating: if editors are going to insist that these links are "source" and not simply misused external links, then they must abide by the citation guidelines. This includes the use of a "references" section. Please address this issue rather than quoting guidelines that don't solve the problem. Nposs 22:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Images of non-notable software

I'm concerned that the article contains images of software, including images of software that is not notable enough to have it's own article. I'm going to look for guidelines and policies on the use of images, but would like others' perspectives. --Ronz 03:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that an article on software that has visual images as the main end result should be illustrated. In addition the diversity of images is noteworthy. Argey 24 May 2007

I disagree. Policies don't cover this situation very well, but it appears overly promotional to include these images. --Ronz 18:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose different people would draw the "overly promotional" line in different places, but I think the value of the article to readers will be reduced if they are removed. Argey 25 May 2007

I'm basing my position on the recent changes in attitude to how promotional content should be handled. --Ronz 18:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The ability to prepare mind maps on computers is served by a very wide range of software (and more recently web services) as is obvious from the lists here and elsewhere. These packages produce mind maps in many and varied graphical forms. Hardly any meet Buzan's rules but mind mappers everywhere still call them mind maps. I've found that people always want to see screen shots of any software they are trying to find out about. So, as with the links to the software publisher's pages I mentioned above, not having images just sends people off to Google. They could be looking at the images in Wikipedia in an environment where comparison is made easy for them, rather than flipping back and forth as they look down the list.

In addition, a significant fact about mind mapping software is that the images it produces has diverged greatly from the Buzan model, and that is something that a reader of this article would not see without the illustrations. Do we really want to reduce the value of the page be removing two uses to which it may be put? Argey 05:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate software removed

I removed this (my quotes): "* General Knowledge Base is a good tool for mind mapping. It has the ability to create unlimited categories, and sub categories, attach unlimited topics and connect a topic to multiple categories. Search, sort, and filter features make it ideal to find things that are hard to categorize." I could see no graphical or map-like element in this software that could justify it being categorized as mind mapping. Argey 24 May 2007

Wiki syntax problem removed - should be possible to rescue

I removed this (my quotes): "[[Image:Visual-concept model.jpg|thumbnail|300px|Visual Concept touts itself as a mind mapping program. The final product is more like Visio, but seems to emphasize hexagon" Apart from the awkward grammar of the second sentence, the problem was that this appeared in-line in the text, exactly as shown here - no image, box or sidebar positioning. That was obviously not what its author intended, but I could not see the syntactical error that gave rise to this lack of rendering. Maybe the image is missing. Can anyone see what was wrong? Argey 24 May 2007

Wikipedia talk:External links about List of Mind Mapping software.

NOTE: Please refer to (and contribute to) the ongoing discussion about external links on this page at: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#List_of_Mind_Mapping_software. What follows is a old version of that discussion copied and pasted on this page. It is out-of-date and does not reflect the current status of discussion. When the ongoing discussion at WP:EL is complete, it will be archived here for future reference. Nposs 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[Copied the talk below from Wikipedia talk:External links. --Timeshifter]

I did some routine cleanup of external links in List of Mind Mapping software. A couple of editors are complaining in Talk:List_of_Mind_Mapping_software#Linkfarm. Could someone take a look? -- Ronz  21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a look I agree with them. The article is a list of software. For any article that doesn't have a wikipedia page a link to the official website is reasonable (as per List of bicycle manufacturers). I don't think this was a link farm, I agree with the editors of the page. Our policies shouldn't make pages less useful to readers. jbolden1517^Talk 02:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The usefulness of an article is how well it covers the topic at hand in an encyclopedic manner. A list of links isn't necessarily useful. "What Wikipedia is not" is pretty clear on the issue: WP:NOT#LINK Articles are not "mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." I don't find the List of bicycle manufacturers to be a good example of an implementation of external links. Ideally, the list would direct readers to articles about notable bicycle manufacturers. Adding external links to the non-notable ones has two bad effects: 1) it is a disincentive for editors to create red-links for manufacturers that probably should have articles 2) it encourages every dude with a garage and a blow-torch to add his name a link to his website. This pattern of editing actually rewards those who edit Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Nposs 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not mere external links. They are citation/reference links. See the wikipedia guideline section I quoted farther down. It is from the same guideline page you quoted from. Non-notable entries should not have their own wikipedia pages. All entries (like all info in wikipedia) should be verifiable. The easiest way is to link to their home pages with an embedded citation. --Timeshifter 11:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article is as useful as Comparison of IRC clients, which includes well-organized tables full of objective information. I have some experience with List of search engines, which has a rule that all entries need to have their own Wikipedia articles. That tends to keep spam out, and it establishes a minimum notability requirement. Would anything important be lost if such a rule were imposed here? The entries in this article are mostly unsourced. (There is nothing backing up the statement that is made about each package). Removing the software packages that don't have their own articles would eliminate that problem because we assume that the free-standing articles about the separate programs would include their own sourcing. EdJohnston 04:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Only the topic of a list or chart has to be notable. Individual items on the list do not have to be notable. From WP:NOT#DIR:

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted."

I will keep repeating this wikipedia guideline as necessary. Software lists and charts should not consist mainly of companies with bigger advertising budgets and better press. Wikipedia does not support shared monopolies (also called an oligopoly. --Timeshifter 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be reverting this list to the last sourced version with all the reference/citation links. From Wikipedia:Verifiability (emphasis added):

This is from an official wikipedia policy page. --Timeshifter 11:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources (emphasis added):

"Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source. See that page for more information about Wikipedia's policy on sourcing."

That is from the introduction of that page. So people who are removing citation/reference links are seriously violating wikipedia policies. --Timeshifter 11:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your argument for suggesting that external links to the websites of products/etc. that are not notable enough for their own article is a bad precedent. I also find that it is not supported by the policy you quote. You suggest they should have an external link because the guideline says "any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." The existence of a website/product/organization is not "likely to be challenged." Your logic appears to be that since any unsourced edit can be challenged, all edits require sources. That is incorrect and bad precedent. The external link you claim is being used as a reference is only supporting the fact that the software does indeed exist. No one is removing items from the list of mind mapping software claiming they do not exist and then refusing to do Google search to see if it does exist or not. If we wanted to get entirely legalistic (interpreting guidelines literally), it could be argued that the website of a piece of software does not constitute a "reliable source" (WP:RS) since it constitutes a "self-published" source. You'll have to find another way to prove that these inline external links that do not support any important fact (other than the fact that someone has a website) are references. Nposs 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nposs. Adding any item with a website to a list article makes WP an "indiscriminate collection of information." I fall back on the words of WP:N: "List articles, though, should include only notable entries; for example, only notable writers should be in List of English writers." That guideline is pretty clearcut to me. UnitedStatesian 13:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That guideline page is contradicted by this quote below from a POLICY page. From WP:NOT#DIR:

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted."

Wikipedia can not set an ironclad rule on what entries to put in lists and charts. It actually makes sense to only put notable writers in List of English writers. But it makes no sense in Nixon's Enemies List or software lists and charts. Otherwise wikipedia would be propping up business oligopolies. --Timeshifter 13:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We've already been over this. WP:NOT#LINK overrides WP:NOT#DIR in this case. No matter how much the rules are twisted and how much a bunch of external links shapeshift into references, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. (Requestion 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

The links being deleted are citation/reference links, and not just external links. I think there needs to be some kind of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and charts. Kind of like Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and many other wikipedia project pages. Someone needs to start it. I am sure many editors will join it if it gets started. Because there is a group of editors going around and blanking large parts of list and chart articles. They are violating wikipedia policies by deleting sourced info and the citations for it. It is a very serious violation of wikipedia policies when looked at correctly as blanking sourced info.--Timeshifter 11:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone who likes the current List of mind mapping software point to a similar article that you think is well done? It seems to me that this is a weak article, since there are no sources to justify the particular selection of software packages, nor the comments that are made about each package. As others have noted, just pointing to the web site of the maker of the software does not provide a reliable source. These days nearly every product on the market has a web site, so that is no mark of distinction. Someone mentioned Nixon's Enemies List, but that one is extremely well-sourced as an historic list, and as a bonus every person on that list also has their own article. If a third party had made an analysis of mind-mapping software and we reported the list of what they considered notable, that might be one way to do it. Wikipedia is not a directory; an article should add some value, and not just echo what is said on the web sites of the makers. EdJohnston 13:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be propping up business oligopolies by only listing the programs with the best advertising budgets and media connections. Money often buys media coverage through advertising in the same issue in which the program is reviewed. A "scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" system. There are many software lists and charts. They have various formats. The one rule-of-thumb that most people seem to agree with is that a software list or chart must tell something specific about most of the individual programs. Features, points of distinction, etc.. Otherwise it is just a directory, and it is against wikipedia guidelines to create directories on wikipedia. There is no point anyway in duplicating directories that are usually already on the web. It wastes wikipedia editors' time. It is the details that make the chart or list encyclopedic. Plus the WP:NPOV nature. That makes many of these lists and charts unique on the web. No sneaky POVs to push one product over another. No advertising language. No reviews. --Timeshifter 13:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion begun over at the village pump: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive BD#List_articles_full_of_links_as_.27references.27

It seems the "nofollow" argument is invalid: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Invisible_inkspam. -- Ronz  15:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by User:Timeshifter's reference to 'business oligopolies.' Wikipedia does its own investigations as to what information is worth keeping. We try to see through advertising and find out what's really important. There is no justification for including a software package in one of our list articles if our *only* research is to look at the website of the maker. We should be using secondary sources, and citing them at the bottom of the article. I do not see any secondary sources in List of mind mapping software that comment on ANY of the software packages used. (The Medical Education article is paper-based, not software-based). EdJohnston 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent). WP:CITE and WP:Verifiability cover citation/reference links. See this section of WP:Verifiability. That section, titled "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves", states:

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

So in an article discussing the existence and features of their program, a link to their homepage, features page, etc. is allowed. --Timeshifter 03:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the duplication of some of the info at Village Pump. From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): "Discussions older than 5 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 9 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 9 days the discussion can only be found through the page history."

So some more of the talk there will be moved here eventually anyway. --Timeshifter 03:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, you keep quoting WP:NOT#DIR and specifically Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Can you tell me how each of the items in the list are either famous because of their association with the topic or how they each have significantly contributed to the list topic? Their mere existence in the list doesn't add significant value to it, it just makes it longer. Also, why have you said on your talk page that User:Requestion's viewpoint is in the minority? From what I can see here it is in the majority, and over at the village pump there is an equal number on both sides...-Localzuk^(talk) 08:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinion is split on lists and charts and the notability of items on them. I suggest we let the talk pages of the articles decide. I have been reading the talk pages of some more lists and charts, and over time they have many of the same discussions we are having. As I said at the Village Pump, I now believe that a satisfactory compromise is to avoid duplicate linking by not putting an inline link on the list or chart page if there is already a wikilink for the entry. This solves most alleged spam problems, and does not delete entries. Requestion is definitely in the minority on this talk page here. He is trying to make a radical change of this guideline. Elsewhere Requestion's popularity varies by talk page, and by the day. So does mine. There is room for compromise on issues outside this guideline. --Timeshifter 04:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Requisition does not appear to be in the minority in believing that the inclusion of lists of items that simply link to company websites and which do not provide additional encyclopedic information in someway is inappropriate. His opinion that this particular guideline should apply to links that are used in citations is in the minority, but that's does not mean he is not part of a larger agreement that the type of lists you are defending are basically directories. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is about Wikipedia:External links, and as you and others have said, Requestion is in the minority in trying to to make this guideline change radically to apply to non-citation links. You are misstating my position on other lists and charts. I have never said I supported "lists of items that simply link to company websites and which do not provide additional encyclopedic information". I do not appreciate my position being misrepresented. And a pragmatic solution seems to have been reached on many lists and charts concerning citation/reference links. People have allowed wikilinked entries to serve as the citation/reference for those entries. So there is no duplication of citation/reference links on multiple wikipedia pages - thus blocking their utility as spam (intended or not). So when there is no separate wikipedia page for an entry the citation/reference link remains on the list or chart page. Notability discussions about lists and charts, and their entries, is wide and varied. But that discussion needs to be continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, as does discussion about sourcing lists. Because neither discussion is about non-citation external links (the topic of Wikipedia talk:External links). --Timeshifter 17:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I have misstated your position - It wasn't my intent, it is what I understood from your previous comments and what I believe Localzuk was inquiring about in the comment you responded to when you simply suggested Requisition was in the minority. Localzuk was drawing your attention to the fact that WP:NOT#DIR requires a list to be more than a simple collection of all associated entities and that items should in some way be famous or significant. I do not believe that a simple link to the main page of a website is appropriate as a citation in most cases - it is simply an external link wrapped up in the pretense of being a citation, and then it also fits under this guideline. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Actually there are 3 problems here. Notability, encyclopedic value, and citations/references. WP:NOT#DIR says that items in a list do not have to be notable in themselves. The topic of the list must be notable. But there are conflicting wikipedia guidelines, and list and chart editors vary widely in their treatment of that issue. That is offtopic for this talk page. A simple list of entries without some details, features, etc., is usually (not always) considered to be a directory. Depends on the list. That also is offtopic for this talk page. Ontopic is WP:CITE and WP:Verifiability. Those guidelines cover citation/reference links. As does Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.--Timeshifter 18:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIR does not say an item doesn't have to be notable in itself - it says there is nothing wrong with a list "if the entries are famous..." due to their association with the list topic. That still means that the item needs to do more than exist, it may not be suitable for an article of its own, but it needs to be notable in relation to the list topic. While this is digressing from the core of this guideline, it is appropriate in that in practice the understanding seems to touch on what links are impacted by this guideline. If WP:NOT is no longer taken to mean we shouldn't have these types of articles I'd certainly be more likely to support Requisition's position on what this guideline should cover, though I'd prefer the more classic understanding of WP:NOT#DIR and WP:EL. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, could you please tell me what a "wikilink" is? You've used that term several times and I have no idea what it is. External, internal, or inter-wiki link? (Requestion 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

In my experience, "wikilink" refers to a link to another page in the same Wiki, in this case, another page in WP. Inter-wiki would be used for a link that goes to a page in a different Wikimedia Foundation wiki, and external link would be to a page outside of Wikimedia. UnitedStatesian 00:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See this section of WP:Verifiability. That section, titled "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves", states:

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

So in a wikipedia article discussing the existence and features of an entry on a list or chart, a properly-formatted citation link to the entry's homepage, features page, etc. is a citation showing that the program and features exist. As I said previously though, there is no need to duplicate the citation link if there is a separate wikipedia article for the entry. This avoids most of the possible spam problems.--Timeshifter 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be repeating the same arguments verbatim. The point that User:SiobhanHansa was hinting at above was that this type of article is basically a directory, and WP is not a directory. A program should *not* be included in List of mind mapping software entirely on the basis of what is said on their web site. The quote that you have now given us from WP:V (twice in the current thread) is IMHO to allow the subject of a biography to testify as to their own date of birth, and stuff like that. The very context you are quoting from is more oriented to biographies rather than statements about a company. Certainly the corporate web site of a piece of software is not a reliable source as to the value of their software. EdJohnston 19:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with EJ: the key phrase in that section of WP:V is '"in articles about themselves."' Ignoring for the moment that "themselves" seems to only allow for people, List of Mind Mapping software is not an article about ANY of the firms mentioned in that artcle, so that section of WP:V does not apply to any of them. UnitedStatesian 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither of your comments, EdJohnston or UnitedStatesian, have to do with the topic of this talk page, which is non-citation external links. --Timeshifter 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

---

---

That is what is there so far. I will update the section above the line break. Or others can copy over the latest talk. Please comment there at Wikipedia talk:External links, or below, to avoid confusion. --Timeshifter 11:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to the last sourced version. --Timeshifter 11:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nposs wrote on my user talk page:

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)

Nposs. Editing other editor's comments is a violation of WP:TALK. This serious violation of the wikipedia guidelines can be reported to WP:ANI, and you can be blocked. Please do not remove and censor this talk section again. See this diff of your blanking of this talk section. You also again deleted the sourcing from the article. Please leave the sourcing in the article, and stop the edit warring. You seem to be ignoring the comments of other editors on this talk page, and wikipedia policies and guidelines. Anybody can put back the sourcing. Please get talk page consensus before further blanking. The minor edits need to be added to the sourced version, and not the other way around. The mistake was yours, so you can fix the bulk of the intermediate edits. --Timeshifter 12:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning (which belonged on my talk page - rather than here.) Nposs 12:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It belongs on this talk page so that nobody else tries it thinking that if it is OK for Nposs to do it, then it is OK for others to do it. Nposs, I added back in your edits to the article introduction. --Timeshifter 13:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussions should be kept in one place. Archiving the discussion from another page here will only cause confusion (especially if editors begin to edit the discussion here rather than at EL). The appropriate approach would have been to link the EL discussion encouraging other editors to have a look at it. Also, am I misreading the discussion you've quoted or are you the only editor who supports keeping the external links? Not really WP:CONSENSUS. Nposs 13:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is common to copy relevant discussion from wikipedia guideline/policy talk pages to the relevant article talk pages, so that unnecessary time is not wasted duplicating previous discussions. The discussion on the guideline/policy talk page will eventually be buried in an archive anyway, and the link to it would have to be updated. Since I am the one copying over the talk it is not a burden on anyone else. I asked people not to comment inside the copied material. This usually works. I am not the only editor wanting to keep the reference/citation links. A longterm editor on this page, for example, wants them kept in the article. --Timeshifter 13:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

One editor removed the reference/citation links without discussion. After the blanking that editor ignored the discussion from 2 other editors who opposed his blanking. I am a 3rd editor opposing the blanking, and since there was no consensus to remove the reference/citation links, I put them back. Anybody can put them back. --Timeshifter 13:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But who can remove them? There are a large (equal? greater?) number of editors who think they should be removed. But when they remove them, they are accused of vandalism and threatened with a report to ANI. Nposs 13:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The number of editors on this talk page who want to remove them are smaller than the number of editors who want to keep them in accordance with wikipedia POLICY. Concerning ANI reporting I was talking about removing talk page comments. See WP:TALK. There is little wiggle room in that guideline on removing on-topic comments. --Timeshifter 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Timeshifter has a history of violating WP:MULTI with the starting and pasting of duplicate talk threads. It is horribly confusing. This action in my opinion is talkspam and could be deleted on those grounds. (Requestion 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Those external links need to be deleted. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. See WP:NOT#LINK. I'm going to clean this up. (Requestion 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

WP:NOT#LINK does not apply since the links are embedded citations, and are not considered to be external links according to the wikipedia definition. See Wikipedia:External links. --Timeshifter 07:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. (Requestion 14:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

edit break

Please don't edit war, especially whilst discussion is obviously ongoing and consensus is disputed. Thanks.

I've added cats, and moved the images to beside their individual entries. I'll try to determine where the main discussion/s are occurring, and then leave a note here. Thanks again. --Quiddity 18:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As this appears to be a primary example, being discussed in the context of the larger issue, please concentrate discussion at these 2 links until consensus emerges.

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#List articles full of links as 'references'
• Wikipedia talk:External links#List of Mind Mapping software

Be friendly, much thanks. --Quiddity 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You revert the linkfarm, change the article a bit to make a future revert more difficult, and then you ask people not to edit war. I'm having a difficult time WP:AGF here. (Requestion 18:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Like I explained, it's being used as a primary example in an ongoing discussion. There is no deadline, and making the discussion more complicated (by having to use permanent diffs everywhere) doesn't help anyone. (Plus I had an software-editconflict with you, whilst I was trying to cleanup initially) --Quiddity 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. It is better if the article looks like a linkfarm while this discussion is going on. Sorry if I misunderstood your intentions. (Requestion 19:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

The links are embedded citations. From Wikipedia:Embedded citations: "One advantage of embedded links is that it is easy for readers and editors to check sources by clicking on the links and jumping immediately to the cited articles. Another advantage is that links are easy to create and maintain."--Timeshifter 06:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Timeshifter, for your recent efforts to clean up this article. I have a couple of concerns however. The embedded link format is an improvement, but the question remains - should all pieces of software be given an external link/reference (we seem to still disagree on the function of these). In the case of those items that have an article, the precedent is that the external link belongs in the external link section of that article. One might say that Wikipedia articles can't be used as references, but of course it is the link (along with other evidence in the article) that demonstrates the existence of the item - not the article itself. So, I would suggest that items with an article should not receive an external link/reference. Adding link in such cases breaks the previous precedent and creates a new one which would potentially allow the insertion of an external link every time something is mentioned - something we should very much try to avoid, since the goal of Wikipedia is to create a world-class encyclopedia, not funnel readers off to other websites. Nposs 12:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As stated at the Village Pump discussion I agree with the compromise to remove inline citation/reference links for wikilinked entries. People can go to the separate wikipedia page to see the sources there. This way sourcing is maintained but links are not duplicated. But sourcing is essential and should not be looked at as spam or external links or diversion offsite.

Duplication of links is the key to spamming, whether it occurs intentionally or accidentally. This compromise avoids the appearance of spam links, since spam linking depends on multiple links back to a website from wikipedia. Keep the inline citation/reference links for entries without separate wikipedia pages. Let the other article editors over time decide on the balance of notability issues concerning freeware, shareware, open-source versus big-name commercial companies and software. Opinions vary widely on that issue, but article editors seem to work it out over time. Give them some time. --Timeshifter 04:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we are moving towards consensus, but the inline citation is still problematic for the reasons discussed below. True embedded citations should also be noted in a "References" section at the end of the article. Of course that is impractical and would amount to spamming since each "citation" would require two external links: one embedded, one at the end of the article. The only solution I can see to this is the use of the <ref> tag which would produce a neat and tidy section of external link/references that could be easily monitored. I still don't believe these links are really citations, but I am willing to concede that at the moment there is no appropriate mechanism for dealing with them and that the ref system might be the most manageable approach. Nposs 04:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind refs. Other people hate them. About Wikipedia:Embedded citations; the addition of a references section is one of the most ignored "requirements" on wikipedia. And links to web pages such as software sites do not really need a full citation. I have created hundreds of full citations in reference sections. They are most useful for newspaper, magazine, and book references. Because the link may go bad, and people would need to find an archived copy of the article somewhere. That requires at least the title of the article or book. The author and date sometimes are essential too. But links to software program sites don't need all that detail. --Timeshifter 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that each ref would contain the same detailed information as a bibliographic entry. But information like "Official website of ..." or "Description of features about ..." or "Ontological evidence of ..." :) is very helpful to readers. Date of retrieval information would also be useful for indicating how fresh the link and info was. Of course, ref syntax is beyond many unexperienced editors, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to encourage the development of a beautiful (eventual) future. The point is this: you can't have it both ways. The links are either "external links" and are governed by those guidelines or they are citations and they are governed by those guidelines. The citation guidelines require a references section (even if it is often ignored). A reference section with types of links is problematic. The ref system (as opposed to embedded citations) is a good solution to some of these problems until something better comes along. Nposs 05:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what we are arguing about. We both agree that full citations are better than embedded citations. Requestion berated me on several talk pages for helping John Spikowski convert embedded citations to fuller footnoted citations at Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities. --Timeshifter 05:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Embedded links and references

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):

1. "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.
2. "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.
3. "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)

I would be happy having a bunch of red links with the external links <!-- commented out -->. This way the link information is preserved and stub articles are encouraged for the notable entries. (Requestion 16:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

I really like the commented out idea. This would preserve the information without it cluttering the article. -- Ronz  18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

MPS has suggested a policy change to this effect. Your comments are welcome in the ongoing discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive BD#Proposal_to_avoid_duplicate_links.2C_and_to_shorten_page_load_times_for_dialup_users Nposs 20:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Compromise: hidden links and wikification

Ok all, I was bold and made this edit based on recent discussions... what do y'all think? I personally think it looks sharp. MPS 18:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your version was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mind_mapping_software&oldid=134869187

Your edit summary said "being bold per discussion at village pump policy , I think timeshifter and Nposs would agree... we'll see if this sticks"

I did not agree to remove citation/reference links for entries without separate wikipedia pages. My goal was to only have one source link on wikipedia for an entry. Not to eliminate all source links for many entries. Duplicates are the problem.

I just clarified this further at Village Pump. Redlinked pages do not count as a separate wikipedia page. Until the redlink disappears, and there is a real wikipedia page with a source link there, then the source link should not be removed from the list or chart.

Also, the addition of dozens of redlinks is highly controversial. Wikipedia guidelines conflict, and there are editors who religiously remove them, and others who religiously add them. I think the most notable entries can be redlinked as encouragement to start making separate wikipedia pages. Then the less notable entries can be redlinked later. Opinions vary.--Timeshifter 18:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted back to User:MPS's version. This solution is what we agreed to at the pump and I think it looks very nice. The external links are commented out, we are encouraging stub building for the notable items,the linkfarminess is gone, this page shouldn't attract to many spammers, well done. Thanks MPS. (Requestion 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

In the first 2 sections of the article I just removed the duplicate source links for those entries with separate wikipedia articles.--Timeshifter 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Relook my edit. I did not delete the source links, I put them into <!-- "hidden comment" -->. What is wrong with this form of sourcing???? Nothing!! Also, IMHO, redlinking is no more controversial than external links to commercial sites. This mind map article is not going to be stable until we reach some sort of WP:CONSENSUS on how to include sufficient source links without opening the door to spammers. I sincerely believe that "the hidden link solution" is the required happy medium. Please revert to my hidden comment version if you end up agreeing. MPS 19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The entries are not sourced if they are hidden. The sourcing at wikipedia is for the readers, first and foremost. --Timeshifter 23:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is fine with me other than we're overlooking the links in the image captions. Can we just remove them competely? Notice there are no internal links where there could be, only some external links that are duplicates of what's in the article. -- Ronz  19:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I took care of image captions now as well... feel free to make any more changes if I've missed something. MPS 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Alleged agreements

It is dishonest to continue to claim agreement where none exists. I made this clear in my last edit comment, and even more clear very recently at the Village Pump. Belorud and Argey did not agree with you on the talk page here. Quiddity said to wait for more discussion. I will make an attempt to get comments from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. In the meantime there is no rush. So let us not edit war. --Timeshifter 21:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful to avoid violating WP:CANVAS. Thank you. (Requestion 22:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

We are not canvassing. We are not voting. That is the point. We are still discussing. It is common to ask the related WikiProjects to comment. I am a member of several WikiProjects. Quiddity asked that people stop radically changing the page until the discussion had more time. Requestion, you just put the article back again to the radically-changed version that MPS created. There is no precedent for what MPS is doing. --Timeshifter 22:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody had to be first : )  : )  : ) MPS 22:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted the following comments at the talk pages of Beorud, Quiddity, and Argey ...

USERNAME, please register your opinion over at Talk:List of mind mapping software... Timeshifter doesn't think that making <!-- hidden links --> (comments viewable only in the edit mode) is a good solution, and his edit comment reflected that you and OTHER NAMES hadn't had a chance to weigh in. What do you think of the difference between the hidden linked version and the non-hidden version ? MPS 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)}}

I think this is a fairly friendly way of inviting their perspective, and I hope they participate. Even so, I agree that you should be careful that you might be perceived as soliciting votes. A more neutral way would be to do a request for comment, but I don't think we need to go there (not yet, IMHO). MPS 22:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not voting. See my previous reply. --Timeshifter 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? your reply was at 22:26... my post was at 22:15... I feel like I am in a time machine. MPS 22:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to my reply to Requestion higher up. --Timeshifter 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh.. yeah... no, I personally don't think you were soliciting votes, but some (other) people see forum shopping where you might just see it as WP:CONSENSUS-building. MPS 22:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I see people from anti-spamming projects coming together here due to notices on various noticeboards, etc.. I don't actually know any of the other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists. So I don't know what their opinions might be. --Timeshifter 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This might be a good time to review WP:CON and WP:VOTE.

Belorud has made a grand total of one edit to Wikipedia, which is the comment on this page [1]. I see no reason to wait to see if we ever hear from Belorud again given the tone and content of this one edit.

Argey's nofollow and linkfarm arguments have been strongly refuted. I hope Argey'll skim through the discussions that have occurred in the past few days and add more comments here. However, I see no reason to wait for Argey.

Given that they've both commented here recently, I see no problem with encouraging them to comment further.

I'm in no rush on this myself though. I'd rather see a larger consensus develop from the other discussions first. -- Ronz  22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Ronz, that there is no rush. --Timeshifter 22:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, My wikistress level is holding solid at "Just fine" ... just so you know. At the same time, I am glad that I made that bold edit so now we can have a concrete example to look at as we discuss. Peace to all, MPS 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I can live with that. Here is the link to your version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mind_mapping_software&oldid=134924207

Now in good faith can you revert back to my last version?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mind_mapping_software&oldid=134926158

I made no major changes. In fact, I followed your logic in deleting all the duplicate source links in the first 2 sections of the article. Any entry with its own wiki-page does not need a source link duplicated on the list page. It is already on the separate wiki-page. --Timeshifter 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to revert anything. What's the rush? : ) MPS 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It was based on dishonesty. You said there was agreement where there was not. You should self-revert to show good faith. We have the version link to show people your example. --Timeshifter 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoah! "Based on dishonesty" and "self-revert to show good faith." Timeshifter, what's up with that? WP:NPA, please. (Requestion 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Whoah! What's up with the Whoah!? Why the tone of drama with many of your comments, Requestion? I explained the dishonesty thoroughly. --Timeshifter 01:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Whoah!" was a polite way of trying to improve the civility of your comments. (Requestion 16:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

The civility problem is on your end. As evidenced by the continual drama in your comments, and your frequent insults of sincere editors on list and chart pages. By calling them "spammers", "linkfarmers", "listcruft" promoters, etc, etc. ad nauseum. All for following wikipedia guideline requirements to add source links. --Timeshifter 18:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I like the extra h at the end of whoah... the 'h' makes it more personable. I think whoah should become part of wikiculture. H stands for "Hello there, I hope you are having a good day" MPS 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Various comments

Hi. I personally object to the use of code-comments for anything except code-comments; they're inaccessible to screenreaders, on mirror sites, and to the majority of the (non-editing) audience. Unless there is a consensus-precedent elsewhere, I don't think that is a good option.

The only other choices seem to be:

1. no external links at all [2]
2. external links from the software name [3]
3. external links after the software name [4]
4. external links as footnotes ?

1. Is simply not going to achieve consensus, as it removes useful information.

2–4 are essentially a matter of aesthetics/usability; I'd prefer 3 or 4, as the least confusing.

Now, as an extreme example, at Color tool we gave up and removed all the entries/links completely. Frankly that might almost be an option, as mind-mapping.org - whilst filled with marketing and opinion blurbs - is still more informative than most of the entries here (it has consistent screenshots, OS compatibility, and price info for everything). But it's an admission of defeat, and depressing to contemplate.

The most positive option, would be to work on the article, and transform it into a Comparison article. E.g. Comparison of file archivers. I hope you choose that.

The only suitable goal to aim for is Featured list criteria. It's up to you how we get there. --Quiddity 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Charts are almost always an improvement. Easier to read, too. --Timeshifter 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of the <!-- http:// --> comments is so that they are inaccessible. You're not supposed to see them and the spammers don't like them. If you desire some consensus-precedent examples I can browse through the couple hundred software lists I oversee for some that use commented urls. Another option for your above list is to move the external links from the article to the talk page. In my experience both methods work well for controling linkspam. (Requestion 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Both methods go against wikipedia guidelines. And as you learned at Wikipedia:External links, Requestion, concerning your proposed radical changes to that wikipedia guideline you were in a small minority. So the change did not happen. You also can not just follow your own wikipedia guidelines such as the 2 new ones you just created. --Timeshifter 01:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevant guideline/policy pages. And a wikiproject.

• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources
• Wikipedia:Embedded citations
• Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
• WP:Notability
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists --Timeshifter 01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had wine, so this is merely tangential and friendly. :)

Just so we know what some handy definitions/labels for this dispute are ("know thyself"), this appears to be a difference over where we individually fall on the spectrum of Eventualism vs. Immediatism.

I feel that the consistent and respectable style/look of Wikipedia is immensely important (which is why I spend so much time wikignoming); however, I feel that providing the most information possible is even more important, hence I believe the external links ought to be accessible, and that having links will aid readers until such time as articles are created. The vino suggests this is the crux of the dispute, and the essay suggests that start-level articles be treated with a preference for Eventualism. --Quiddity 02:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. As for "start-level articles be treated with a preference for Eventualism." There is this:

From Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources:

"Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor."

The emphasis was already there on the guideline page. So let's have patience and show some respect for the original creators of this article. Unless the goal is to discourage them from working in this area of wikipedia. As has happened before with editors hounded by Requestion and others. Ask John Spikowski at the talk page for Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities. That list article survived Requestion's personal wikipedia guideline applications. Other editors had to to step in to point out the genuine wikipedia guidelines.--Timeshifter 02:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that the embedded link reference format would never have developed into an acceptable format, even "eventually." In this case "following the system" doesn't work because it is the wrong system. Since it requires a "References" section - the embedded links format would necessitate a double external link. At least the hidden-comment format preserves the information to be incorporated into another system in the "eventual" perfect future (and at the same time removes the inappropriate embedded links which many editors here find so objectionable.) Consensus means that we find something that we all can live with. It seems like there are many editors here who cannot cohabitate with embedded links and we need to find a better way of doing things. Nposs 03:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is complete BS! Not you, but your comment. Some of this spamfighting is completely out-of-control. Following the logic of some of the spamfighters ALL citation/reference links are spam. Possibly the majority of citations on wikipedia use the partially-filled-out embedded citation format. Good luck correcting all of wikipedia citations to use the full format with a separate references section and duplicated links. Good luck getting all the footnoted citations filled out with more than just the URL. Your comment is illogical. Spamfighters do not want duplicate links. So why are you pushing for duplicate links? So I think you are trying to make a WP:POINT in an effort to promote a citation-link-free wikipedia with all citation links in hidden comments. Sorry, but we don't have the authority on this talk page to completely change these major wikipedia guidelines. Let me point out that the embedded citation guideline is just that - a guideline. So not filling out the reference section is not that serious. Otherwise, how come most of wikipedia does not do it? It is a goal. Just like getting people to fill out the details for footnoted citations with more than just a URL. Footnoted citations do not use duplicated links, but the code for footnoted citations is not intuitive for many editors. But eliminating citations altogether in lists and charts completely overthrows the citations guideline, and the Verifiability POLICY. Here is the text of the guideline banner at the top of wikipedia guideline pages:

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page.

See the part about common sense? and not set in stone... --Timeshifter 07:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, there is nothing here worth becoming angry about. My goal is to find a solution that we can all abide by. I have offered numerous solutions to the situation as have others. I have not once mentioned spam or suggested that "references" are spam. It is true, I disagree with you about the need to provide "sources" for the items in this (and some other similar types of lists), but I have set that aside to work towards consensus. Please stop insisting on your point of view and disparaging the contributions of other editors. There are lots of things in WP are non-intuitive to new users, but we still expect them in the "eventual" version of the article. Let's hope for the best rather than give up to what is "easiest."Nposs 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said that all citation/references were spam. The claim was that some can be. Wrapping <ref> tags around a bunch external links demonstrates how simple it is to bypass this technicality. The point is that spam can exist in many places and in many forms. My goal here is to build lists/tables that deter spam and at the same time are sustainable. (Requestion 16:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Hmm, I suspect that Compromise "means that we find something that we all can live with". Consensus is more slippery than that ;) --Quiddity 06:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the eventualist in me sees that in the long run these links will go away as each notable mindmapping software article gets its own wikipedia article and the non-notable or irrelevant software will be deleted from the list. It is within that context that I see the <!-- hidden comment solution --> (hereafter "CodeComments" as a compromise. CodeComments satisfy the desire of Timeshifter and others to have sources beside each list so that the list won't be deleted. CodeComments provide Timeshifter et al the link to software so that when they are editing they can gather more information about the piece of software as article content. At the same time, CodeComments assuage the concern of Requisition and other antispam gnomes because CodeCommenting drastically reduces the payoff for spammers who attack wikipedia with links. I would be amenable to moving some "hot" links to the talk page, but I disagree that there should be hot links on the main article since most of these links are primary source links to software with as yet unknown notability. PS... I am well familiar with the guidelines posted above. When I look at them, the consistently reinforce the need for solid sourcing. The other half of the coin is looking at what wikipedia is and what wikipedia is not. This article is not here to help mind mappers find websites (a directory, a repository of links) and it is not here to help programmers plug their software (Advertising). What it is is a really good, encyclopedic list of what mind mapping software exists. Hence, the title. Peace, MPS 15:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what you think about potentially referencing statements about the software: for instance, that a piece of software exports to certain file formats/uses a particular model of map design/runs on certain OSs. Would these statements warrant a reference to a webpage that contained this information (like the "About" page of a software product)? This seems to be done in some forms of charts when features are being compared, but I believe it is unclear how to apply it in a list such as this. Nposs 15:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A problem I have seen with some software comparison tables is the desire to reference every single feature, things quickly get out of control as the reference section dwarfs the article content. There is also a problem of WP:RS when a product's website is used as a citiation to itself. What Wikipedia wants are reliable secondary sources. An article in a print magazine would satisfy this, but such an article would also satisfy WP:NOTABILITY for software so a stub article should be created at that point. I'm all for comparison tables but I think they should be kept simple as I have seen many of these transform into fearsome beasts. (Requestion 16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

turning this list into a chart

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)

User talk page comments moved here

[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) ]

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)

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)

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)

Links, lists, and charts. Wikipedia links, guidelines, policies.

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)

---

---

Please only add wikipedia guideline/policy links and quotes to the part above the line breaks. Comment below please. --Timeshifter 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:Quiddity's proposal to aim for a featured list

See #Various comments, in a section far above, where Quiddity described his experience on other software articles, and concluded:

The most positive option, would be to work on the article, and transform it into a Comparison article. E.g. Comparison of file archivers. I hope you choose that...The only suitable goal to aim for is Featured list criteria. It's up to you how we get there.

He also questioned the logic of putting links into hidden text. A spammy list could be transformed into a useful list, and not just a list of every program in the world that claims to be mind mapping software. Making a useful list would require web research effort, and some reading of review articles, but most of us are probably well-enough trained to attempt this research. (The research may cause a lot of the current list entries to be dropped due to lack of secondary sources, but that's not a tragedy). EdJohnston 05:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What is needy is for spammy editors to read and understand the wikipedia guidelines as they stand now. --Timeshifter 10:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think working towards a "featured list" is a great way to look at this problem. That's why I can't support embedded links used as references - it could never develop into a featured list (due to the "references section" problem). There is already the beginnings of such a comparison chart here (with short descriptions after most of the programs. I'd be willing to help fill out the chart. I strongly support working towards this proposed version. Nposs 14:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Not verified}}

The above template, {{Refimprove|date=March 2008}} , is why lists and charts need sourcing/citation linking. With or without the references section. Why have a separate references section if it is just a list of URLs? That is what a lot of reference sections end up being. Reference sections are only useful if they are more detailed than just a URL list. I am talking about reference sections for embedded citations. Footnote sections are different. The only URL that shows up for footnoted citations is in the references or footnotes sections.

For an example of a useful reference section for embedded citations in a list or chart, please see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panorama_Stitchers%2C_Viewers_and_Utilities&oldid=135431261

Since the URLs are not clickable in that references section, they were left exposed. If they were made clickable, the text could be used as the label, leaving the URLs hidden, but clickable. I suggested the main editor of that page leave them unclickable. That way there is no duplication of linking back to the websites. Thus avoiding even the appearance of spam linking. -

For more info see: Wikipedia:Embedded citations. I also have many relevant guideline links and quotes at the top of my user page. Relevant to lists and charts. --Timeshifter 00:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please suggest another option than ebedded links. There are many editors here who will probably never agree to that. The suggestion above is to form a chart which would contain referenceable facts about the programs. That sounds like a good compromise. Can you please set aside the ebedded links for a moment and try something else. Nposs 00:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Actually, I think the above references section for the embedded links might be a good solution. The ref format might be easier to maintain in the long run and would produce clickable links in the ref section. Would you be opposed to that? Nposs 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a natural progression. First, plain embedded links. Anybody can do that. Then a references section as at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panorama_Stitchers%2C_Viewers_and_Utilities&oldid=135431261

Clickable or unclickable depending on the choice of the article editors.

Finally, the embedded citation links are gradually or quickly converted to footnoted links. That is done by pasting the reference text back up in the article, and using reference tags: <ref> </ref>

At all points there is only one clickable link back to any entry's source page. That is if the article editors opt not to make the reference section clickable. Footnotes are clickable. Citation links are removed from the list for entries with separate wiki-pages. --Timeshifter 10:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the links being clickable. Comment them or move them to the this talk page. (Requestion 16:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

You seem to be opposed to ALL clickable source links in lists and charts. A single link back to a website is not spam. Your position against clickable source links in lists and charts goes against a core wikipedia POLICY. That being Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please stop repeatedly deleting the source links. That could be considered to be vandalism. We have done everything possible to avoid duplicate links back to a website, the hallmark of spamming. If you again blank the article of all source links, I may report you to WP:ANI. This is a friendly warning, and there are many warning templates for this purpose. Because it is a wikipedia custom to warn someone before going to the incident boards. --Timeshifter 22:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources cannot be used to assert notability or verifiability. See WP:RS. The links in question are simply external links, not citiations, not references, not sources. Timeshifter, you've been trying to twist the WP:EL rules around for how many weeks now? It's getting extremely exhausting. Another thing, can you please stop with the ANI threats? You've done this before so this isn't the first time. Using ANI report threats as a debate tool is just plain wrong and it probably violates some guideline. Besides, do you have any idea how many times I've been reported to ANI today? 31 times, today, seriously. (Requestion 01:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Clickable links are appropriate in references (when available) and it is possible that if this list was turned into a proper comparative chart that links to the relevant product feature page could be used to support the facts. I know you are deeply concerned about spam (it's certainly what I spend most of my time on), but a single link used in support of fact is pretty easy to control. Nposs 02:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I like references that have clickable external links if they are used appropriately and if they are reliable sources. From WP:RS; "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process." The links being discussed here are promotional self-references (WP:V#SELF) and are not reliable sources. Now the quesiton is if the non-verifiable items should even be included in this list? (Requestion 14:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

You are incorrect. They are not promotional, nor self-references. The source links were not added by the program authors. The source links are primary sources. See:

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

The entries are only non-verifiable if you delete the source links. Which is usually your first step in trying to delete many entries from a list. As you have done on other list and chart pages. --Timeshifter 00:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Not WP:RS. Can't use self-links for notability and you can't use them for verifiability either. (Requestion 00:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

The topic of a list or chart must be notable. Primary sources are allowed for entries in a broader notable topic. See the relevant wikipedia guideline/policy quotes in the top section of my user page: User:Timeshifter. --Timeshifter 02:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff with your last blanking of the source/citation/reference links. --Timeshifter 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please get the terminology straight. The revert I did commented out the external links. Blanking is something completely different. (Requestion 01:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Requestion, it is blanking if readers can not find the sourcing. The sourcing is mainly for the readers, not the editors. The verifiability is mostly for the readers, not the editors. The encyclopedia is mostly for the readers, not the editors. That means your desires and personal, skewed, guideline interpretations are secondary to the higher purpose of this encyclopedia to serve the readers with VERIFIABLE info. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. A single link to a website is not spam, and that single link is primary-source VERIFICATION. I refer to and quote wikipedia guidelines. You are on a different mission from the goals of this encyclopedia. If you want to pursue your non-wikipedia goals, then do it elsewhere. Do not impose your non-guideline-based goals on this project.

I just added a standard blanking warning on your user talk page, Requestion. The warning message is from this standard template:

{{subst:uw-delete1|List of mind mapping software}}

found on this template compilation page:

• Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace--Timeshifter 08:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

More discussion about whether the links should be clickable or not

It's not wikipedia:blanking. 'Blanking' is a loaded phrase within wikipedia with a 'vandalism' connotation. I reverted because so far you are the only person to object to this style of sourcing. If you want to see those external links stick I sugget you start making articles for each notable piece of mind mapping software. MPS 14:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I objected at length to the CodeComment style. Please read prior discussions before getting involved in disputes.

To everyone else: Please stop pointless edit-warring; go find an uninvolved party to mediate. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Thanks. --Quiddity 17:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Read prior discussions before getting involved?" User:MPS has been part of the discussion here and at the pump. This particular discussion has been going on at WT:EL too. Lot's of people are involved. (Requestion 18:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

This edit summary. That's a blatant misrepresentation, that shouldn't need pointing out to you. --Quiddity 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor applies here. It was "blatant forgetting" what you said five days and 75 Kb of discussion ago combined with me not seing the same anti-CodeComments sentiment expressed by you recently. My apologies. My rereading of the May 31 conversation reinforces to me that I suggested CodeComments after reading your post and realizing that giving up and "remov[ing] all the entries/links completely ... might almost be an option" was a compromise option you were amenable to. My CodeComment response was attepmted to express that eventually we ought to have well-formed articles without links but for now it was ok to have inaccessible comments so that editors could work towards "featured list" or "comparison chart" type format. I am not sure that we are that far from agreement. BTW, I think even Quiddity would agree (please confirm or deny) that Requisition's reversion was not inappropriate "blanking" even if you disagree with the edit or my edit comment. Peace, MPS 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I substituted the word "discussion" for "carping" in the above section header that you added when you reentered the discussion. See WP:TALK. It says "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." I also moved the header down to where you reentered the discussion. --Timeshifter 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>MPS: Sorry for my being unhelpfully grumpy this morning. Agreed, there has been no "blanking" involved in the common use of the term; the explanation below is logical but subjective/obtuse. There has been altogether too much ridiculous wikilawyering and repeating of opinions going on from both sides.

Is there a guideline/proposal covering notability of software anywhere? (otherwise it's covered by WP:ORG) If none of the currently-redlinked programs are actually notable, then they're not going to get their own articles anytime soon, and hence this will be the only location suitable for linking to them from, at all. Otherwise you might as well delete them and just rename the article to "List of notable mind mapping software" (don't). That's the main reason I think the links should be accessible.

Philosophically: It's a very borderline article, but it's the fringe things like this that make many people love wikipedia (and just as many are frustrated by the fringes). I utterly appreciate the fight against spammers, but I think it's going too far in this instance. It's an utterly subjective case, and I'm completely ambiguous on what to suggest (which is why I'm taking part as little as possible). Only 5 of the bluelinked programs seem to have any attempt at ReliableSourcing; everything else could be deleted. (To put it Emotionally/Poetically: If that happens the wikilawyers and anti-spam-crusaders (to name the hyperbolic archetypes, not the human individuals involved here) would win, and everyone else would cry.) My opinion: It's not spam here, if the prose isn't shilling them; The links ought to remain accessible.

I'm quite badly sunburned from Saturday, so pardon my terseness. =| --Quiddity 01:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some relevant guideline/policy quotes about notability (emphasis added):

Quote below from WP:NOT#DIR:

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted.

Various quotes below from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. ...

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included. ...

If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article. If it is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services.

If a non-notable product or service has been written about in its own article, be bold and rename, refactor, or merge the article into an article with a broader scope, such as the company's article, creating it if necessary.

Citing primary sources is OK in list and chart articles. See the relevant quotes in the section at the top of my user page: User:Timeshifter.--Timeshifter 02:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Blanking

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, {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-delete1}}, 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 {{uw-delete1}} 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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

My intentions are not to "abandon Wikipedia:Verifiability"... just so you know. MPS 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities

We need some fresh thinking.

Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to know what people think of this page as a model for source/citation linking. Note that it follows the method of Wikipedia:Embedded citations and has a 2-part referencing system. The clickable source link is next to the entry. The source link details are in the reference section, and that section can be deliberately made non-clickable to avoid even the appearance of spam linking. Duplication of links back to the same website is the hallmark of spam linking.

Emphasis added to quotes below.

Quote below from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Link titles:

You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article. Instead, when giving an embedded link as a source within an article, simply enclose the URL in square brackets, like this. [5]

It is OK, though, to label links in the end sections of articles.

Quote below from the same section:

However, you should add a descriptive title when an external link is offered in the References, Further reading, or External links section.

I think this should satisfy the spam problems.

The notability issues are discussed in a previous section.

This method is better than hiding the link URLs in hidden comments that most readers will not have a clue about. --Timeshifter 03:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sez you. I obviously disagree. There is presently no wikilaw solution given that the links under discussion are not secondary sources. WP:BRAIN applies here.MPS 16:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed at times. See the guideline and policy quotes on my user page. --Timeshifter 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, and sometimes they're not. Different people are looking at this situation with different opinions. I hope you can respeect that. Peace, MPS 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are 3 combined policy/guideline quotes that sum up my position nicely. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process" (WP:RS). This is important because "anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published" (WP:V#SELF) and claim anything they want which is why "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable published secondary sources." (WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). I think of this as a sort of reference quality control. (Requestion 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

You are incorrect in your selective quoting. For a much more comprehensive list of guideline/policy quotes see the top of my user page: User:Timeshifter. For example (emphasis added):

Quote below from Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources policy:

Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.
Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, rather than analysis or commentary of other material; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

Quote below from Wikipedia:Verifiability policy:

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

Primary sourcing is used in wikipedia for basic non-controversial sourcing such as the existence of a software program. --Timeshifter 02:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary sourcing is only used in extreme situations. Everything in Wikipedia must be a WP:RS. Besides, all software manufacturers claims are controversial, just ask their competitors or their customers. (Requestion 03:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Those bolded quotes are completely out of context. It also looks like bad boolean logic is being used on that last bolded "third party" quote. The not doesn't mean that the other conditions can be ignored. Of more importance is that the spirit of the rules are not being honored. Rigorous references are the rule, not the exception. (Requestion 03:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

The spirit of wikipedia is verifiability by readers, and not just verifiability by editors. Thus you can not bury source links in hidden text. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. See also:

Emphasis added to quote below.

Quote below from Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline:

Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.

I have noticed that after you delete/hide the sourcing, you sometimes come back and suggest deleting the entries that do not have sourcing via a separate wikipedia page. --Timeshifter 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Group blanking

Ronz blanked the citations June 2, 2007. See this diff.

Requestion blanked the citations June 3, 2007. See this diff.

MPS blanked the citations June 4, 2007,. See this diff.

Nposs blanked the citations June 5, 2007. See this diff.

It looks like there is a regular blanking crew for this list article, and possibly other list and chart articles. Consisting of Requestion, MPS, Nposs, and Ronz. On other list and chart pages I have seen some of you doing this type of blanking and substitution of non-verifiable (to the average reader) hidden source links. I have traced it back to at least the beginning of March 2007. I note that occasionally one of you will feign compromise, but you always end back at this newly-invented method of yours of using hidden source links. It is completely against wikipedia guidelines and policies. It is only a matter or time before enough people notice. --Timeshifter 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your concern for sourcing is well placed, but there is a fundamental difference in perspective here: (1) the links are citations and (2) the links are misused external links. For those editors who subscribe to (2), it is not a matter of blanking or vandalism, but rather an appropriate application of the external link guidelines. To assert that their actions constitute blanking is a violation of AGF and suggests that you are unwilling to accept the possibility of their viewpoint (potentially disallowing the process of consensus building.) Namecalling and threats will not move this discussion forward. Please, let us return to the process of suggesting workable alternatives that editors are likely to support (embedded links without a reference section not being one of them.) I fall into (2) and would prefer that the links not be on the page, but I understand your point of view and have been willing to compromise on how the links might be incorporated into the page. What compromise are you willing to offer? Nposs 17:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nposs wrote: "Please, let us return to the process of suggesting workable alternatives that editors are likely to support (embedded links without a reference section not being one of them.)"

Emphasis added to quote below.

Quote below from Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline:

Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which provide source information for specific statements. Model articles provide general references that support all the content while giving inline citations for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. In some articles, where all sources used for the article are cited inline, a separate section for general references will be omitted.

So again you are going against wikipedia guidelines.--Timeshifter 02:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And again, you perhaps view the guidelines with unnecessary strictness. The relevant passage, "In some articles, where all sources used for the article are cited inline, a separate section for general references will be omitted," was only added on June 3rd diff. Firs of all, it's only a "guideline" and it only says "some". The editor admits that he wasn't sure if inadvertantly made any major changes to existing guidelines. Of course, it did just that because it makes a direct contradiction to the existing guideline on Embedded citations and what was in the Citing sources guideline previously - see the diff immediately prior to the diff noted above which preserves the original language (note: it still contains this language) (here is a link to the section about embedded citations, which states): "A full citation is also required in the References section." This was on June 3rd. Nposs 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines are in a constant state of minor flux. The goal is a separate references section. The fact remains that intermediate to that goal is the embedded link. The goal can be met later. You did not like embedded citation links even when there was a separate references section. You would not accept this example: Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities. So you are intransigent in your desire to eliminate source linking in lists and charts. I believe you did not even like footnoted references. Or do you accept footnoted references? --Timeshifter 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed using footnoted references on this page several times. I think it's a fine solution. Nposs 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that footnote references are preferred to in-line embedded links. The real problem here is WP:RS. (Requestion 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

I replied farther down in a new section discussing footnoted versus embedded citations. --Timeshifter 06:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The real question, Requestion, is whether you even read the many wikipedia/policy quotes I have shown you. --Timeshifter 06:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

... and in all cases where the 'blanking cabal' made these changes, Timeshifter 'blanked' them back . See also: blanking war. ... also, I hope that enough people notice; I think CodeCommenting is a good wikipedia workaround (for now) that should become a wiki-guideline until something better than CodeCommenting comes along. Peace, MPS 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MPS wrote (emphasis added): "I think CodeCommenting is a good wikipedia workaround (for now) that should become a wiki-guideline." It is not a wikipedia guideline now. All it is now is a group of editors blanking all the source links in articles. In any other wikipedia article people would be outraged. But because of your muddied interpretations of the wikipedia guidelines you have bamboozled and intimidated some editors on list and chart pages. That is over. --Timeshifter 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved this comment below from my user talk page to here to avoid duplicate threads and replies.--Timeshifter 02:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
• Assume good faith of other editors.

I hope you find this reminder helpful -- Ronz  17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been civil and polite. Pointing out blanking (along with the guideline quote for it) is not uncivil, namecalling, nor a personal attack. To call something a personal attack when it is not is considered uncivil. See: Wikipedia:Civility.--Timeshifter 02:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, we all have probably been uncivil at some point in this discussion (or is that just more BS?). At this point you seem to be attempting a war of attrition - seeing who can amass the greatest volume of supporting guidelines and policy. It really is not as complex as you make it out. There is a pretty fundamental difference of opinion at the bottom of this dispute (as has been discussed above). Each side is well-supported by both the best of intentions and relevant guidelines. Until we address the fundamental disagreement (are these links or citations?), perhaps we will not be able to find a suitable resolution. Nposs 02:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself as concerns incivility. Deleting sourced info is about as uncivil as one can get on wikipedia, in the opinion of many people. And you do not have wikipedia guidelines/policies to back you up. You have admitted this in that you have admitted that you are trying to change common practice.--Timeshifter 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to provide diffs (again) to your uncivil comments about myself (let alone other editors)? But really, that is not what this is about. I have not admitted to "changing common practice" and I'm not really sure at all what you are talking about. I have tried to be clear throughout this discussion that I respect and understand your point of view. It's just that I (and some other editors) disagree with it. It might help the discussion if you could at least begin to see the other side of the argument here. Nposs 03:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

See the section farther down on notability. I think that is the crux of the problem. See my reply to MPS higher up where I quote him (emphasis added): "I think CodeCommenting is a good wikipedia workaround (for now) that should become a wiki-guideline." Changing a wiki guideline is changing common practice. --Timeshifter 03:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you have it backwards. Changing common practice results in eventual changing of the guideline to reflect how editors really do it now. Chicken, then Egg. MPS 20:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent). I moved the following MPS comment below from my user talk page to here. I prefer not to duplicate my replies, so I moved it here. Feel free to remove it (and this comment), MPS, if you don't want it here. --Timeshifter 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Blanking. FYI, your continued use of the work 'blanking' on Talk:List of mind mapping software‎ is inappropriate, bordering on WP:TROLLish. I am not saying you are a bad person or even a bad editor, I just think that the word blanking will be seen as unduly accusatory when I personally believe the people you are using it against are making good faith edits based on rationales they have explained in the talk page. In some cases you are calling people blankers when they are in fact adding content to wikipedia, sich as the nowiki tag. Your continued use of the word 'blanking' after being referred to the proper definition at wikipedia:blanking makes me wonder if you are trying to be inflammatory or if this is just offensive to my ears. Maybe in the future you could be sensitive to people like me by using a different words to convey what are trying to say. Peace, MPS 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my use of the word "blanking". I showed the wikipedia guideline that uses the word. It applies. The nowiki tags remove the clickability of the source URLs, and therefore it removes/blanks the Wikipedia:Verifiability from the article. --Timeshifter 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Links because

I'll repeat the crux item I noted in my last comment:

If none of the currently-redlinked programs are going to get their own articles anytime soon, this will be the only suitable location for linking to them from, at all. Some of the bluelinked articles without sourcing, like NovaMind, should probably be merged/redirected here too. --Quiddity 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Is there a reliabile source for mind mapping software... something like the "newsletter of the international brotherhood of mind-mappers" or the "scholarly journal of mind-mapper software" ... these examples are mildly jocular but I am serious if anyone knows what sorts of publications or societies might grant notability to mind mapping software. That kind of source would put an end to some of the notability discussions. MPS 19:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if all the editors here are aware that the parent article Mind map has been getting better recently (Ronz and Quiddity are among those who worked on it). The present article, List of mind mapping software was originally created, in October 2006, as a means of offloading a detailed list of programs from the parent article, Mind map. Since a good external web site exists which comprehensively lists mind mapping programs (http://www.mind-mapping.org), and since we already link to that site from Mind map, that may eliminate the need to have this article at all. Any wisdom here that is actually useful could be merged back to Mind map itself. EdJohnston 19:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.mind-mapping.org does not have a detailed summary list on one page. That is the beauty of wikipedia lists and charts. That being the ability to have continuously updated and detailed lists for some notable topics. Quickly accessed from one page. Many of the lists elsewhere have subtle spins, and favor certain products. And they are often spread out on multiple pages, and are not as intuitive as wikipedia. A wikipedia encyclopedia article summarizes material well. We can not count on other lists offsite to be updated regularly. And they may favor certain features in their details. --Timeshifter 02:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a neat idea, but it really isn't what Wikipedia is for. A cool list isn't the same as an encyclopedia article. Nposs 02:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote below from WP:NOT#DIR policy (emphasis added):

Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables.

So again, you are unfamiliar with wikipedia and its guidelines/policies. I suggest you get a little more experience with wikipedia before trying to radically change it. --Timeshifter 02:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not be uncivil and suggest that you do not know what the word "tabular" means, but it does not mean the same thing as a "list." In fact, turning this page into a table has been a suggest direction of editing (that I certainly support). I took the time to follow the Google search links included in the NOT#DIR guideline. None of the top 8 comparison tables use embedded links by the titles of non-notable pieces of software as a reference. The only (almost) embedded links (most of which are used inappropriately) link to information supporting a specific fact about a piece of software. Of course, there are lots of lists on Wikipedia, too. Here are the top 8 that show up from the link given above:

• List of wiki software
• List_of_search_engines
• List_of_UML_tools
• List_of_algorithms
• List_of_company_name_etymologies
• List_of_social_software
• List_of_revision_control_software
• List of Google products
• List of PDF software

Of these, all (except for one) do not make use of embedded links. They consistently use red links and refs. Of course, there are some embedded links (most of which are used incorrectly.) So what about the exception: List of Google products. It is the only one that consistently uses embedded links, and based on the discussion on the talk page, it does so for convenience, not for referencing. I find no problem with this since the editors agreed to it. A caveat: these are just some examples. I don't think they prove one point of view or the other. But please do not accuse me (or other editors) of being inexperienced or trying to drastically violate established practices. Nposs 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent). You are inexperienced because you fail to realize that most featured charts start out as lists using embedded citations. This has been pointed out several times, but you religiously ignore it. And the featured charts have had the time to create separate wikipedia articles for nearly all the entries, and therefore no longer need the sourcing on the chart page. The sourcing is on the separate wikipedia pages for the entries.

Featured charts show up higher on google searches because they are the best charts, and are linked to by the most pages outside wikipedia. In comparison to the non-featured charts. So, we can not use your method of deleting/blanking large parts of non-featured lists and charts. Because then how will they ever become featured charts? And in any case the non-featured charts and lists are still following the wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 04:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But I (and other editors) have offered to turn this article into the format of a featured article. Why not take the plunge? Nposs 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands of lists and charts. Knock yourself out. I work on them as I get time. But please stop deleting and blanking them. It discourages people working on them and trying to make them into featured lists and charts.--Timeshifter 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability concerning lists and charts.

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)

I am not sure WP:PARACHUTE-ing has occurred here. MPS 16:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tabular

Less arguing, more editing. Please!

Example diff of tabular data. I've got it started, now you improve and finish it. --Quiddity 06:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the site column. Why should not a site be considered also as simply a feature rather than just as a citation? I may propose this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. --Timeshifter 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it! What do you think of this diff? (it looks like this) MPS 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The <nowiki> links makes the table a bit big but it works for me. I added the <small> tag to the links column. It helps with the table size but it doesn't look that good. A better solution would be to remove the site column on the grounds of WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:RS violations but that's been the crux of this whole discussion for the past week. (Requestion 16:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

I agree that the URL-ing is fugly but <small> -ing it is an improvement. Good job! The current version is a compromise position I am willing to live with since the links are not hot. MPS 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I just <nowiki>'d Nposs' <ref>s. It looks much better. I could live with this but I'm still not sure those entries have any WP:RS's. (Requestion 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

The refs were an improvement. Making them unclickable was not useful, and is bad usability. --Quiddity 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, we are just going around in circles here. Wrapping some refs around external links does not make them citations. They also cannot be citations because they lack WP:RS. Now WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK are being violated. I am going to delete the items that lack proper secondary sources. (Requestion 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Requestion. I am going to put back those primary source links that you delete. The only one going in circles seems to be you. I counter your points by quoting many relevant wikipedia guidelines and policies at the top of my user page. --Timeshifter 18:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't get around the fact that WP:EL, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:RS are being violated. If you want those items to stay then find some reliable secondary sources. (Requestion 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

They are not being violated. See the top sections of my user page. Stop with the baseless threats. --Timeshifter 18:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Threats" seems inflammatory. My preference is for not having the links be clickable and have them placed in ref, IOW, this nowiki'd version. I think that the notion of usability appeals to some part of me but at the same time the 'use' you seem to be referring to is wikipedia usable as a directory. If you feel that wikipedia is not a directory (which is what I feel) then that usability argument is not as compelling. I think it would be acceptably 'useable' to have the 'cold' URLs in the ref comment so if people were really interested they could copy and paste into the URL address bar. That would be usable too, yes? MPS 18:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer no links at all, but I am willing to compromise on the presence of links with the idea that this is not a permanent solution. Whether the links are clickable or not is not a very interesting distinction: the link is there already, when not just make it clickable? Keeping in mind, WP is not a paper dictionary and should take advantage of hyperlinks. I know there is a concern for spam, but let's keep it within the context of this article: we are talking about one link the website of a piece of software. For the sake of consensus, I think it might be best to keep the clickable links - at least for the time being until a better solution can be found. Nposs 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIR doesn't seem applicable, as pointed out by Timeshifter's numerous policy quotations. The MoS guideline Wikipedia:External links#What to link seems to indicate that these sites should be linked. Having an unclickable link defeats part of the purpose of an online encyclopedia; it makes as little sense as making http://www.mozilla.com unclickable in the mozilla article. It simply isn't spam, and continuing to treat it as such comes across as fundamental stubbornness. (If we were linking forums or to pure advertising-driven download sites (e.g. download.com), I'd agree with removing the links).

Unless there is/has been a fruitful discussion/consensus somewhere central (eg WP:EL) to use unlinked URLs in articles, then it seems backwards and is a hindrance. Why is it a good thing to make it harder to get to the software we're listing? Wikipedia uses nofollow, and there is no COI. There are so many more useful things we could all be spending our time on! But if the anti-externallink editors still disagree, then I really insist that the issues be brought (neutrally) to uninvolved and experienced editors (preferably admins). This is not the place to argue core policy/style issues. --Quiddity 19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(conflict) Thanks for your comment Nposs. I hear you that wikipedia is not paper, but I still disagree with live links for the spam reasons I know you already understand. If this were an issue of special consideration on this page that would be one thing, but truth be told, I am more interested the general guideline issue. This is sort of a test case for me. I really don't think wikipedia articles should be the first place on the internet that documents or corroborates the notability of a piece of software. If nobody else has used, reviewed, and written about it, then wikipedia is clearly being used as an advertising platform. Not only does that violate the letter of wiki policy, it also violates the spirit of the encyclopedia as not being an original source work or advertising. Peace,MPS 20:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you raise some really important points. Perhaps these more fundamental issues need to be addressed in a forum where more editors can help to shape the guidelines. I don't the existing guidelines cover this very well and it might be time to change that. Perhaps we should choose a forum for crafting a new set of list guidelines and bring up these issues: citations vs. external links, notable items vs. spam, etc. It seems like we are simply abusing this poor article at this point. I know this discussion has been brought up on the Wikiproject Lists page, so that might be a good place to raise these issues (one at a time - not all at once like we have tried here - God help us.) Is there a better venue? (Of course we'd want to realert the relevant projects: EL, CITE, etc. Nposs 21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There are some good arguments amidst all the discussion here that seem to indicate there are some very fundamental conflicts in how to treat articles such as this. We really need to address them slowly and carefully in a more suitable venue. -- Ronz  23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnoted versus embedded citations.

Nposs wrote on this talk page on May 31, 2007: "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 has also repeatedly said that he wants embedded citations to be fully completed with a references section. See Wikipedia:Embedded citations.

So my question to the blanking crew is why don't you add the reference section yourself, and complete the process, rather than going backward in the process by deleting the embedded links. There is no wikipedia guideline precedent that justifies deleting embedded citations. Completing them by adding detail in a reference section is actually helpful, not destructive, as your current blanking predilection is. --Timeshifter 06:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

From a words of wisdom perspective, I wonder if you have read WP:OWN: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." MPS 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with others editing my work. I have a problem with sourced info from anybody being blanked. --Timeshifter 17:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried a version using the ref format. I know there is concen about leaving live links, but at least this way, it requires two-clicks to get to the site (the same as if the user clicked on the article about the software). Perhaps if live links are still a problem, the ref could be edited to be nowiki. Nposs 16:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The refs look good. I commented above. (Requestion 17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Nposs. The clickable refs you created looked fine. Footnoted references like the ones you created are the gold standard for references in my opinion. Unfortunately, Requestion made the URLs unclickable by using "nowiki" tags. But Quiddity made them clickable again. Quiddity used this edit summary: "undo nowiki - not being able to click the only link doesnt help readers." I agree. Here is Quiddity's version.--Timeshifter 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor. I'm here after seeing a report at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Timeshifter. After reading the discussions above and on various other pages linked from this one, the references seem to me appropriate and useful. Just because a link is to a commercial site does not imply that it is spam. In a comparative list article like this one, there is little danger of conflict of interest spam as is often the case in single topic articles. (WP:External links#What should be linked). I also concur that the new format of using footnotes rather than in-line external links is an improvement.

It seems to me a link that is unclickable is a bad idea. Either the link is appropriate or it's not. If it's not appropriate then it should not be listed, whether clickable or not. If it's worthy of being listed, then making it unclickable could be seen as a form of removing information from the article. Unless the removal is non-controversial, in other words, unless there is consensus for removing the information, then after the first change and reversion, discussion and consensus should preceed the changes (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). My impression is that while there has been some heated debate here about this, progresss has been made and the links are appropriately clickable in the current version. --Parzival418 _Hello 06:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. When you said "If it's worthy of being listed, then making it unclickable could be seen as a form of removing information from the article." ... I want to inquire of you what you think "worthy of being listed" means and how one might demonstrate that. I think the crux of my opposition to the clickable links (as explained here) is that software we can't find secondary references for may not be notable or independently verifiable and therefore may not be worthy of being listed at all. My compromise for this list has been to allow primary sourced software to be listed and then referenced in in hidden comment rather than hot linked. "Cold links in ref" are another compromise I would be willing to make,in deference to the wishes of others here, but I think it is bad precedent for us to hot link to possibly/probably non-notable software. it violates WP:NOT/advertising and violates the spirit of wikipedia only showing notable information. Do you see my point? Peace,MPS 15:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed. Notability is dealt with specifically here:

Talk:List of mind mapping software#Notability concerning lists and charts.

Notability is dealt with in much greater detail here:

User:Timeshifter#Notability concerning lists and charts.

Primary sources used in lists and charts is discussed in detail here:

User:Timeshifter#Lists and sourcing.--Timeshifter 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, remind me again what constitutes reliabile sourcing for mindmapping software. you say it is a direct link to the software's website? I vehemently disagree with that -- a software product's website isn't a reliable source for establishing the notablility of that software. Your reponse? MPS 16:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I responded in the next sections. See the wikipedia guidelines and policies I quoted. --Timeshifter 16:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

please discuss before major reversion removing information

Shortly after I wrote the above comment, an editor reverted the page to the version with the hidden -nowiki- versions of the links. The edit summary was listed as: revert to last version by Quiddity, changes by Timeshifter violate consensus.

Although the edit summary claimed consensus, I do not see a consensus here for removing those links. I see a debate about the value of the links and the debate has not resulted in consensus yet. That was a major reversion, changing large a amount of information, without consensus, so I undid the reversion, following the policy of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Consensus.

Now that the change has been reverted, please take the next step and discuss this issue further before reverting the same material again. (My comments on the issue appear just above.) --Parzival418 _Hello 08:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to the version that was stable prior to Parzival418's arrival. For the past week 4 editors have been reverting to this version. Check the history log. If you wish to revert please engage in discussion about the relevant topics. Blind reverting is very unhelpful. (Requestion 14:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

On this talk page Timeshifter (me), Belorud, Quiddity, Argey, and Parzival418 have spoken out against removing source links from the article. There was never consensus to remove the source links. I and others have pointed this out many times on this talk page and in edit summaries. We have been alternating between various formats since May 19, 2007 when Ronz parachuted in and removed all the source links. See this diff of his first removal of all the source links without discussion. He gave notice on the talk page for a few hours, but he did not wait for a reply. So exactly what consensus was there for that initial removal of the source links? At no point was there EVER consensus to remove the source links. --Timeshifter 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

First, Belorud and Argey are non-actors in this discussion as they have not seen or responded to the discussion in days, especially since they haven't seen the proposed CodeComments solution. Second, Ronz is only as much of a parachuter as Parzival418 (both have the right to come in and make bold changes, and there is no prohibition -- no WP:PARACHUTE guideline -- on entering an editorial debate at the 11th hour. Third, I actually agree that there is no consensus, but that doesn't mean that your opinion is therefore the default. I believe that we are at a theoretical impasse until we clarify the guideline. Nposs, Ronz, Requisition, and myself may not be in 100% agreement on things, but I want to speak for myself and say that I am glad Requisition reverted to the unlinked version. I am erring on the side of non-advertisement while I respect your decision to err on the side of usability. MPS 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no guideline that allows the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy to be met through hidden URLs that can't be seen by the average reader. Even Nposs now believes that the URLs need to be accessible or visible to the average reader. Requestion reverted back to all hidden URLs. My latest version had all footnoted references. Even Requestion OKed footnoted references, but wanted them with nowiki tags. As did you higher up. But Requestion in his latest mass reversion went back to completely hidden URLs.--Timeshifter 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, I still think CodeCommenting is appropriate even though you don't. I have come around to a compromise solution of allowing the URLs to be shown in ref but disabled with the nowiki tags. You have clearly stated your opinion that you believe they should not be nowiki'd but I simply can't agree to that. My preferred option is CodeCommenting but you simply can't agree to that. I'll meet you in the middle with "cold links in ref" but I think you understand why I don't want to go further than that. Peace, MPS 15:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well then, explain to me why you keep supporting Requestion's reversion back to no sourcing at all for the average reader. Hidden URLs means no Wikipedia:Verifiability for the average reader. What good is an unverifiable encyclopedia?--Timeshifter 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. I have been thinking that WP:V doesn't apply to the average reader, but the lead of that policy clearly says it applies to "the reader" and not just wikipedia editors. That said, the lead also says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." So if you want to get technical, all the software links that don't have secondary sources should be removed. Since both you and I would both agree that removing these software would be a shame, I think we need to find a way to balance these competing realities. Could we put the unsourced on talk? I don't know, but I hope you see that the other editors here are making a good faith point about sourcing. MPS 16:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the point I've been trying to make. WP:RS requires verifiable secondary sources. If no reliable source can be found then the content does not belong on Wikipedia. I agree that deleting this content is undesirable which is why I'm willing to compromise by commenting the URLs, nowiki'ing them, or moving the links to the talk page. The longer this discussion drags on the more inclined I am that deletion of this unsourced content is the best solution. (Requestion 16:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

The content is sourced. Primary sources are allowed. Notability in lists and charts is a complex subject. See my user page. User:Timeshifter. All is dealt with there. --Timeshifter 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about notability. Your user page is an authority on Wikipedia policy? (Requestion 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

No, but the quotes there from wikipedia guideline and policy pages are authoritative. And reliable sourcing, notability, primary sourcing, etc. are intimately tied together. --Timeshifter 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The sections you made bold completely twist the interpretation, context, and spirit of the Wikipedia rules. They also break some basic boolean logic rules. It's your user page and you have every right to do this but just don't expect people to take it as an authority on Wikipedia policy, unless of course you can provide a reliable secondary source that says otherwise. (Requestion 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

I think I make a much better case than you. You have made many logical fallacies in your discussion of this topic. The bottom line being that you want to strip some articles of every single source link. And just because the article is a list or chart, you think you can get away with it, and not have some people be outraged. That's ridiculous on the face of it. --Timeshifter 18:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifer says: "Primary sources are allowed. " Yes, but IMHO primary sources do not establish notability. Secondary sources establish the notability and only then can we go to the primary source for fun facts. <point> For instance the fact that MPSmindmapper.com exists doesn't in itself source the notability of MPSmindmapper, regardless of if mind mapping software is downloadable there or not. My imaginary brother is writing a mind mapping program as we speak. It should be ready for publication on MPSmindmapper next week. ... but is it notable? of course not!! </point> The current list has no method of distinguishing between notable and non-notable mind mapping software, given that most of the list entries are "sourced" solely by the fact that they have websites. MPS 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Sorry to have to do this. But if you will not read my user page concerning this issue of notability, then I will have to bring the info here:

Notability concerning lists and charts.

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.

Emphasis added to quotes below.

Quote from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines policy:

Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

Quote below from WP:NOT#DIR policy:

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted.

Quote below from Wikipedia:Notability guideline:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines. List articles, though, should include only notable entries; for example, only notable writers should be in List of English writers.

Various quotes below from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline:

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. ...

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included. ...

If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article. If it is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services.

If a non-notable product or service has been written about in its own article, be bold and rename, refactor, or merge the article into an article with a broader scope, such as the company's article, creating it if necessary.

--Timeshifter 19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, your repeated posting of these guidelines over and over is completely inappropriate. I have read them and Requestion has read them on your talk page. This is not a case of people not having read them, it is that we disagree with your incorrect interpretation of them. I have added a div box... the sheer volume of this post is dizzying and I'll say it again... inappropriate. Next time please add the divbox yourself. MPS 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You obviously disagree with the guidelines and policies. So we need to discuss them in detail. It is against WP:TALK to edit the comments of other editors on a talk page except in exceptional circumstances. I removed the divbox. Feel free to put it around your crew's dizzying array of repetitious misinterpretations of the guidelines. --Timeshifter 19:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that editors need to use their WP:BRAIN sometimes, and not just think there is a wikipedia guideline/policy to cover every situation perfectly. --Timeshifter 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes... you posted 50 K of guidelines from your talk page and then admonished me about not relying too much on guidelines? And you used the WP:BRAIN essay that I wrote to make this point? How Ironic! Unfortunately I am not able to understand what you are trying to say. Your irony is obscuring your intent. Perhaps you could clarify. MPS 19:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

MPS. I just looked at the irony diff. I did not blank all the spam you guys were putting on my user talk page. I moved it to the article talk page here so as to avoid duplication in my replies. --Timeshifter 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you missed the point about what I posted concerning notability. Try again. Try using that WP:BRAIN essay you helped write.--Timeshifter 19:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

**cheek** MPS 19:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic." OK MPS, hand it over. (: (Requestion 19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks. I'd appreciate the matching cloak and hat too. (: (Requestion 19:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Various guidelines and policies

[Later note: This section is in reply to MPS and his points in the previous section about sourcing. MPS also added a section heading here. I made it more neutral. --Timeshifter 17:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)]

(Unindent) Emphasis added to quotes below.

Quote below from Wikipedia:Footnotes guideline:

Wikipedia:Verifiability, a key content policy, says that any uncited information may be removed from an article - and if it is, the burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to re-add the information, to back it up with a citation.

Footnotes are one way to cite sources. Alternative methods are embedded citations and Harvard referencing (also commonly known as author-date or parenthetical referencing). For more information, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, the main style guide on citations.

Quote below from Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline:

Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.

Quote below from Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources policy:

Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.
Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, rather than analysis or commentary of other material; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

Quote below from Wikipedia:Verifiability policy:

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

--Timeshifter 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, So tonight I am going to godaddy.com and buy MPSmindmapping.com and then write on my website that "MPS mindmapping software is a java-based mind mapping software" Tomorrow, I will come back here and add it to the list, citing my new website AS THE ONLY SOURCE. Does my website prove that "MPS mindmapping software" is notable? No. According to you, any Joe with 10 bucks can buy notability on wikipedia. Self published sources is EXTREMELY contentious. MPS 16:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy quote again: "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." It is not rocket science, not controversial claims, that we are verifying. It is obvious when a software site is what it claims. If you are so skilled that you can create a working software site with downloadable software that works, then your site is worthy of linking to. And I would give you kudos for being so skilled. We need more skilled programmers.

And please stop exaggerating just to make a point. And please cool down. Some humor: Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic and Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism and Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. --Timeshifter 16:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Claims on manufacturers sites are controversial. In fact most of the time they are contentious and unduly self-serving advertisements. Haven't you ever bought or downloaded software that didn't do what it claimed to do? This happens to me all the time. This is why secondary reliable sources are necessary if we want to build a verifiable and high quality encyclopedia. (Requestion 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

We only verify the existence of the software. Wikipedia does not do reviews, nor other subjective analysis. That is verboten. --Timeshifter 17:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you call a comparison chart? (Requestion 17:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Many people have suggested getting rid of the word "comparison" in article titles. Because some interpretations of the word "comparison" imply subjective comparison. On the other hand one can be comparing their claimed feature lists without subjectively analyzing those claims. --Timeshifter 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Without any reliable secondary sources how do we know that any of those claims are true? (Requestion 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

We don't analyze the claims as to truth. In fact, you have a fundamental lack of understanding of wikipedia guidelines. In any wikipedia article, whether a list/chart article or any article, wikipedia does not make subjective judgements as to what claims are true or not. I can't believe you just asked that question. Wikipedia justs puts out the claims and lets the readers decide. Please study WP:NPOV a LOT more. --Timeshifter 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point but we don't let the readers decide. Instead we let the experts who write the reliable secondary sources decide. If we happen to have two experts with differing opinions then we neutrally represent both points of view. (Requestion 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

WP:BRAIN

I think the blanking crew needs to step back and trust the editors of list and chart pages more. Trust our collective WP:BRAIN a little more.

You can step in now and then to make some suggestions that almost everybody could agree with if they thought about it. And suggest it in a peaceful, patient way. Suggestions such as not to duplicate links. That means not using a source link on a list or chart page if there is a separate wikipedia page. People can understand that.

And just stay out of the way on notability discussions. Otherwise you will just drive away editors from those pages. As has happened with some abandoned list and chart pages after you guys harassed the crap out of some editors on those pages with your nitpicking, wikilawyering, "mission from God" about spam.

Try creating more than you destroy. Use your WP:BRAIN. --Timeshifter 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I hate blanking MPS 19:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not blank all the spam you guys were putting on my user talk page. I moved it to the article talk page here so as to avoid duplication in my replies. I see though that when a blanking crew is on a "mission from God" that little I say will make a difference no matter how many times I answer your repetitious objections to keeping source links. --Timeshifter 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

clarification... I have not objected "to keeping source links" in general, but I do question whether a commercial software webpage establishes the notability of that commercial software. MPS

I have the same concerns. Specifically, there's the issue of importance (not to be confused with [[WP:N|notability) of each entry and how we determine that importance. See WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT. -- Ronz  20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel the notability / importance question is also answered by the existence of reliable secondary sources. So WP:RS can serve two valuable purposes here. (Requestion 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

suggestion for compromise and a way forward

I would like offer a suggestion that could cool down the discussion and allow the article to be improved. My suggestion has two prongs.

The first prong was suggested by MPS above, but the discussion is so long, i'll bring his comment here instead of adding this response in line above. Here is the quote:

Timeshifter, I still think CodeCommenting is appropriate even though you don't. I have come around to a compromise solution of allowing the URLs to be shown in ref but disabled with the nowiki tags. You have clearly stated your opinion that you believe they should not be nowiki'd but I simply can't agree to that. My preferred option is CodeCommenting but you simply can't agree to that. I'll meet you in the middle with "cold links in ref" but I think you understand why I don't want to go further than that. Peace, MPS 15:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we accept this offer of partial consensus from MPS, to includ the "cold links in ref".

I said previously that I believe links should be live if they are listed at all because either they are valuable or not. But I'll modify that comment now, because we have a situation here where although the links seem to me to be valable, it has not been possible to attain consensus for including them as live links. If we can include them as cold links so the information can be found by readers, I would see that as a significant improvement to removing the information..

I don't like the idea of including the information in hidden CodeComments, because readers simply will not see it, so it serves absolutely no value other than to "park" the information somewhere where it won't be accessed. No reader will ever look at the code of a page unless they are editing it. It would never occur to someone to peak at the Wikimarkup, just out of curiousity to see if there is some information about the topic hidden there. I know it wouldn't occur to me, and I'm an experienced editor. Aside from the question of whether or not the links should be included at all, if they are include only hidden in the code, to the average reader that is the same as simply deleting the information.

The second prong of my suggestion is to post a request for comment for the article. There is a lot of discussion here and at WP:WQA#User:Timeshifter about the behavior of editors and their ideas about policies, but that discussion has not helped to resolve the dispute about what is right for this article.

I suggest posting WP:RFC, with the specific question of whether the links should be included in the article, in other words are they valuable and do they meet the criteria of the Wikiguides? Ask for input from other editors to help establish consensus to determine if the links should be included (a) as live links, (b) as cold links, or (c) omitted from the article as either non-notable or spam.

When editors come to view the article, they would see the cold links that are not hidden, so they would be able to at a glance understand the question, and you would then have the benefit of additional editors helping to create a real consensus that does not depend on resolving this long-standing argument among yourselves alone.

The key to allowing the RFC to work for creating the consensus though is for everyone who has been discussing this to be open to the ideas of the new people who visit to comment, and also, to present the question fairly and without bias. The RFC should not be structured as a debate with arguments, or even with names of people who hold various positions int he debate. It should just be asked as a question - something like this:

• There is lack of consensus after extensive discussion at this article about whether certain information should be included or not. The situation is verging on an edit war and could use some more voices to help sort out the best way to proceed. The information in question are links to manufacturers of software. Some editors believe these links are spam and, and some editors believe the links are acceptable primary sources. This is not a conflict of interest issue because none of the editors are involved in any of the companies being linked, and there are multiple links, not links to one particular company. We invite editors to come and take a look and help create consensus about whether or not the links should be included.

I hope you accept my two part suggestion, because I believe it can help. A huge amount of energy is being expended here in your discussions and ongoing reversions. I'm sure that all of you have a wealth of information to offer Wikipedia and would be able to do lots of excellent editing if you could get out from under the burden of solving this disagreement within your group.

The discussion at WP:WQA#User:Timeshifter and on this page about the civility issues and the various ways you are each communicating with each other also don't seem to be going anywhere. There may be some abrasiveness in communication styles, but there are not any actionable offenses happening. I strongly suggest that everyone relax and don't take the comments of others personally, even if they seem to be meant that way. So what? Just let it go by. If there were an extreme problem it might need administrator help, but that does not seem to be happening here.

I know you are all experienced and aware of the Wikiguides, but in closing I'll mention just a few that might be good to take a look at for this particular situation: Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, and Wikipedia:Truce. --Parzival418 _Hello 19:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up At the request of MPS, I have gone ahead and posted the RFC, here. The section below is formatted for commets to be entered by visiting editors.

Please enter your debate points in the appropriate section so visiting editors can see a summary of the dispute.

Although the RFC is in progress, it may take a while to get results. I still recommend the compromise solution as suggested by MPS, to include the "cold links in ref" until there is consensus on the solution. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"cold links in ref" sounds fine for now. Thanks Parzival418 for doing the RFC. I did an RFC once on a page, Taba Summit. In a few months time while the page was protected there were around 4 comments. Nothing was resolved though until the number of editors in the related WikiProjects reached a critical mass that was large enough to effect change. I think the equivalent WikiProject in this case is Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists. It is relatively new, and so it may take a few months for the members to be able to overcome this blanking crew. Mostly by the more WP:NPOV-oriented members keeping all the hotheads in line (such as this tight group of blankers). In the UK "blankers" rhymes with... :)

I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective. I wholeheartedly support WP:NPOV. WikiProjects help mediate controversial topics. The more WP:NPOV-oriented members help moderate the more hotheaded members of the various projects. Also, they help watchlist and participate in discussions at wikipedia guideline and policy pages. Some hotheaded editors will try to edit those pages in ways that favor various POVs and methods of editing. I have seen it several times. I was one of the few editors to initially cross over into "opposing" wiki-projects and reassert the principle of cross-project WP:NPOV. But I am under no illusions about changing the hearts or minds of this crew of fanatic spam fighters who put fighting imaginary spam links as a higher priority than actually creating anything on wikipedia. I await moderate Wiki-Project members to keep them in line. --Timeshifter 20:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Was I just called a wanker? Good thing I'm not British cause the parts where I'm from we got no idea what foreign words like that mean. (Requestion 20:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Timeshifter, thanks for your willingness to accept the temporary compromise. I hope the others agree with that for now.

However, I respectfully recommend that you re-edit your above comment to remove the inflammatory statements about the other editors. You will make more progress towards your goal if you avoid judgmental personal descriptions when referring to your "honorable opponents," as they say in Congress. Instead of characterizing the people involved or how you feel about them, direct your comments speficially to the behaviors instead. That way, the discussion will not be deflected off-topic to focus on how you communicate rather then the content of the articles. When everyone treats each other with mutual respect, the process of working together feels more positive and is more productive. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't re-edit but instead strike if you must. Actually being called a "page wanker" is a lot less insulting and derogatory than being called a "page blanker." (Requestion 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

That's funny! Good to see that even while the debate rages on, a sense of humour prevails!

Actually, when I suggested re-editing, I was referring to the comments towards the end of the post, characterizing the "crew". I found that more inappropriate than the rhyming joke. The joke had a :) connected with it, so it felt OK, but the part at the end seems to be an insult without a joke or a smiley. To reduce the impact of that, I would recommend the writer remove it and substitute a comment like this: [re-edited to remove my intemperate comments] or, better yet: [re-edited to remove my intemperate comments, with apologies]. I prefer that to the strike method so the inflammatory language is not present to cause trouble, but there is a clear indication that it was there before and the original writer chose to go back and remove it, so if the following poster had responded to the comment the thread would still make sense. The actual text can always be found in the history if needed. If a logical break occurs due to the removal, the intemperate comments can be rephrased to make the statement in a helpful way instead. Strike-outs are good too, in any case the point is to reduce the impact of the intemperate comment. That's all sort of off-topic but an interesting etiquetee consideration.

Either way, the main purpose of my comment was to point out that there was a problem with that post and to encourage the writer to acknowledge it and make it better. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the only uncivil thing I said was the word "fanatic" in describing this group. One is supposed to comment on the edits, not the editors. I apologize, and I have struck it out. If you check their comments across many list and chart talk pages you will find much worse. They have frequently called many sincere editors names such as "linkspammers", "spammers", "linkfarmers", and worse. They rarely assume good faith when they parachute into a page, and make these accusations. They rarely apologize. They have called my comments "talkspam." I guess it would be more accurate to say that their edits can appear to be fanatical in the use of the word "spam." Is that uncivil? I can strike it out, or delete it. --Timeshifter 05:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge your lapse and apologize about it. That's something that might seem small but is surprisingly rare. I did not mean in my comment above to give the impression that I was passing judgment or that you are causing problems in general. (I entered a response to your not at the WQA alert page also, but your comment here is a bit different and I wanted to reply here to for completeness.

I can understand why you're upset about the situation here and the way some editors have been responding to your posts. I've seen a lot, but a lot of what you are describing I've not seen and sorry to say, I just don't have the time to continue trying to sort through it. I should also note that after you apologized, you went on to make additional accusations and you closed your post with a sarcastic comment about if you should delete it or strike it out. Even in a situation of adversity that seems to make no sense, bitterness will not help you find a better way through it. I don't mean to sound preachy, I really mean this in a practical sense. In other words, if you can stop focusing on those particular editors and work instead on finding editors who agree with your viewpoint, you could create a consensus here and not feel like your the lone defender of the version of the article you believe is best.

Here's a suggestion that may be useful - why don't you visit some of the various list projects and list articles and look for ones that are structured the way you feel this one should be. Then you could get to know the editors who worked on those, and invite them to come here and participate in the RFC or even with editing this article. If there are editors who agree with your concept for this article, that will be a valid way for you to improve the situation. If you search and cannot find any editors who concur with your view, then you might consider re-evaluating your position, since that's what consensus is all about. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I posted the RfC link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. There are plenty of editors on many list and chart pages who have disagreed with this group. But, in my opinion, until they join up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists they will not have the needed counterbalance to this dedicated [is that a better word? :) ] group of misinterpreters of wikipedia guidelines and policies. I have seen many pages destroyed by this group in spite of the protestations of many editors. Even knowledgeable editors such as yourself. As I said before I am a member of several wikiprojects dealing with some especially contentious issues. I have seen nothing else work except wikiprojects in getting past this type of obstructionism by other equally knowledgeable editors. I hope you join Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists. :) --Timeshifter 08:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, on this talk page Timeshifter (me), Belorud, Quiddity, Argey, and Parzival418 (you) have opposed the actions of this group. --Timeshifter 08:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A belated thanks, Parzival418, for stepping in and moderating this discussion. I think most editors can be hotheads at times, including myself. I am the moderator at times, too. --Timeshifter 11:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The version of the article with clickable, footnoted references that people are referring to is at this revision:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mind_mapping_software&oldid=136992148 --Timeshifter 06:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Requestion reverted the above clickable, footnoted version to an older, hidden-URL version without some intermediate revisions. Please use the above version as the starting point if some still feel the need to create a version with nonclickable, exposed-URL, footnoted references. Requestion could have added the nowiki tags himself to the footnote URLs instead of reverting back to his hidden-URL version. --Timeshifter 08:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: List of mind mapping software

There is lack of consensus after extensive discussion at this article about whether certain information should be included or not. The situation is verging on an edit warring and help is needed to create consensus. The information in question is the links to manufacturers of software. Some editors believe these links are spam and, and some editors believe the links are acceptable primary sources. This is not a conflict of interest issue because none of the editors are involved in any of the companies being linked, and there are multiple links, not links to one particular company. We invite editors to come and take a look and help create consensus about whether or not the links should be included. 19:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(For reference, Timeshifter's comment copied from above to this location so visiting editors can find the version of the question under discussion --Parzival418 _Hello 08:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)):

The version of the article with clickable, footnoted references that people are referring to is at this revision:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mind_mapping_software&oldid=136992148 --Timeshifter 06:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• 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 <!-- hidden comment text --> ) 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 versus the cold link in ref 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)

• Timeshifter. -- I think the choice is between a version with clickable footnoted links, and a version with ugly, unclickable, footnoted links. The clickable links can be labeled so that the underlying, ugly URL is not seen. --Timeshifter 09:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Quiddity - I completely agree with Parzival's summary below "The links in the references here are not spam. They provide sources of information valuable to readers of Wikipedia. Keep the links in the article, and return them to the standard Wikipedia format of clickable external links in references.". Unclickable or CodeCommented links are a terrible (accessibility, usability) and non-standard-wikipedia-style idea. --Quiddity 18:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ronz - The article is linkfarm and an excuse to promote otherwise non-notable software. When I first encountered the article it contained entries on 56 programs, of which 6 had their own articles. I agree with policy that articles should be sourced mostly with secondary and tertiary sources. I find it highly questionable to interpret the links to the official software home pages as primary sources. As the article stands, we have the problem of listing and describing non-notable software without secondary or tertiary sources. While I'm happy to work out a compromise with other editors, I've certainly been discouraged by some editors' inability to follow WP:DR and WP:CON. -- Ronz  02:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Requestion - To linkfarm or not to linkfarm, that is the question; whether 'tis notable spam used in the self-promotion of outrageous fortune, or the mere collection of external links, and by opposing links mainly intended to promote a website, end them. To reference, to cite; no more; and by citation to say we require reliable secondary sources from credible published materials with a reliable publication process, not unduly self-serving and contentious self-published sources of questionable reliability. The insolence of wrapping <ref> tags around external links do not citations make. Ay, there's the rub, sometimes 'tis better to have no information at all than to have information without a reliable secondary source. So I suggest a linkfarm of compromise which leaves the external links impotent either by <!-- commenting -->, red linking, <nowiki>'ing, or moving them to the talk page and thus lose the click of action. (Requestion 19:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Comments

Comment from random passer by...

I've had some experience of this sort of thing. I tried to get a list I'd worked on featured. The list I proposed, List of software patents failed because it did not have adequate inclusion criteria. I haven't read the whole of this talk page, but a quick review doesn't reveal any obvious discussion about what it should take to get on this list. Please someone educate me if I've missed something. Anyway, there are two extremes you might like to consider and think about where you lie:

• Inculsionist - any software you can find should be on this list. Lists of bird species try to do things like that
• Exclusionist - software can ONLY go on this page if it has its own wikipedia article - no red links in the list. This was used to good effect on a very emotional list which could have otherwise, List of HIV-positive people.

Lists of birds and similar lists are inclusionist, but they can get away with it because people aren't making new bird species all the time. Is a totally inclusionist ethos ever going to be satisfactory for this page? I doubt it.

The exclusionist criteria would probably be quite extreme (how many pieces of software have their own article?) but a more moderate version might be if the person/company making the software has their own wikipedia article.

So where's suitable middle ground between the two? What do people think?

This isn't answering the question in the comment request, but I think it is a vital first step because once you've decided what the inclusion criteria are, then it might be easier to decide what is and is not a spam link. GDallimore (Talk) 21:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - keep the links in standard (clickable) Wikipedia reference format

I posted the RfC, but I was not involved in the initial dispute and am not an editor of this article. I originally came here from seeing a post at Wikiquette Alerts and made the suggestion that we invite other editors to comment.

My comment: The links in the references here are not spam. They provide sources of information valuable to readers of Wikipedia. Keep the links in the article, and return them to the standard Wikipedia format of clickable external links in references. --Parzival418 _Hello 10:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment in favor of the exclusionist approach described by GDallimore/the Ronz approach

I've run into a similar problem at Comparison of time tracking software, which I arrived at via an AfD debate. They had similar references (nearly all were links to the publisher's official site rather than secondary or tertiary sources) and redlinks promoting a number of otherwise non-notable packages. The general consensus in that AfD, with the vocal exception of Timeshifter, supported my removal of packages not covered through separate articles or articles about their publisher. It got so spammy that even project-tracker plugins for emacs could survive there. Whatever the consensus here should probably be put into play there and at many other Category:Software comparisons articles. MrZaius^talk 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP

NOT#REPOSITORY

I'd say that WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, from WP:NOT, comes down on the side of those who want to cut the links. Antelan ^talk 09:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Source links are not "Mere collections of external links". --Timeshifter 16:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:EL: Links should be kept to a minimum; As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter; Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the {{linkfarm}} template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template.

From MoS:L: URLs as Numbered Links: When an embedded HTML link is used to provide an inline source in an article, a numbered link should be used after the punctuation, like this, [3] with a full citation given in the References section.

From WP:NOT: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.

I think these are all pertinent, but I'll leave it at this. Antelan ^talk 19:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

None of those apply. The links in question are citation/reference/source links. WP:EL only applies to non-citation source links. Read the introduction to WP:EL. The WP:NOT quote applies to the external links section of an article. Not the footnotes section of an article. The MoS:L quote covers just one way to use embedded citations. See my user page for detailed wikipedia guidelines and policies about all of this as it concerns lists and charts.--Timeshifter 20:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The other lists all use internal Wikipedia links. Why should this list be an exception? Antelan ^talk 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Many lists do not use only internal links. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of wikipedia lists and comparison tables. --Timeshifter 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Antelan. Last month we had a huge problem with Timeshifter over at WT:EL about this. Timeshifter believes that simply wrapping <ref> tags around external links turns them into references. Arguing with Timeshifter about this is an effort in futility. Good luck trying though. (: (Requestion 21:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Antelan. Requestion was admonished by several editors at WP:EL not to try to change a longstanding wikipedia guideline without consensus. Many editors have pointed out to Requestion his violations of wikipedia guidelines in blanking source links, and his fanatical overuse of the word "spam". At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam: it says: "Calling another user a spammer may be taken as an insult, so focus on the edits rather than the editor." Requestion has many roundabout ways of calling people "spammers" in so many words. It is best to ignore him. --Timeshifter 21:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a request for comment. I gave a few. This article is way out of line with the rest of the articles in the category Category:lists of software, and I pointed that out with my sentence consisting of links, above. Requestion, thank you for the kind advice. Timeshifter, your concern over the word "spam" is understandable; still, consider that you have a pattern of sometimes subtle but sometimes overt rudeness on this issue. Please be more considerate with your language towards others, especially if you expect others to do so towards you. I'm unwatching this article, so you may leave further comments on my talk page if you want to communicate further about content or presentation issues. Antelan ^talk 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Being called a spammer, linkfarmer, talkpage spammer, and much more by this blanking crew is much worse than anything I have said. Plus their frequent harassing messages on my user talk page is rising to the level of a personal attack and wiki-stalking. --Timeshifter 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Follow-up Comments

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)

Final Comment

Since there is so much intransigence on this article and since nobody is listening to anything anyone else is saying, I'm going to give up trying to find any consensus and just tell you all what I think. Listen and pay attention if you like, but I'm leaving you to the mess you've created for yourselves.

1. cold-linking the urls is just plain idiotic. It makes it harder for readers to navigate and having them as full urls doesn't make them more spam than having them not.
2. the urls are not "external links" so none of those policies that people keep on going on about apply. They are references, therefore they need to be there and they need to be easily accessible to enable anyone to verify the information in the article at a simple mouse-click.
3. Having only links to the websites of the programs in question is poor practice. If no independent references can be found at all, then the program in question should not be on the list.
4. The content of the independent source should, at a minimum, confirming that the program in question is a "mind mapping" piece of software. If no independent source confirms that then it is either original research or over-reliance on primary sources for it to be on the list.
5. Therefore, the solution I propose is to find secondary sources for as many of the programs as possible, and remove the rest.
6. Once independent sources for the items on the list have been found, then the links to the websites of the software in question can (and probably should) be removed, avoiding the entire argument that started this mess in the first place. However, if nobody accepts the proposal that independent sources should be found for everything on this list, then the links to the websites of the program MUST stay to ensure the information is verifiable.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.GDallimore (Talk) 10:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. My thoughts after much study of the wikipedia guidelines/policies quoted on my user page: User:Timeshifter. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline: "Notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.' It is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance.' Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." In the specialized world of software, freeware, shareware, open-source, etc. I believe that we can reference the online publications noted by that community. The lists and reviews maintained by CNET, for example.
• So notability comes from CNET, etc., and all the other types of secondary sources. Features are verified by using the primary sources. So, many of the entries may have both secondary and primary sources. Lists without features, notes, and annotation are just directories, and are not allowed on wikipedia unless all the entries have separate wikipedia articles. In that case they are covered by Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. I think this is where the blanking crew gets confused. They are applying unannotated list guidelines to annotated lists/charts.
• There is NO requirement that an entry has to have a separate wikipedia page. It would be nice if eventually more and more of the entries could have them. But they don't usually start that way. Even lists and charts that now meet featured-article status had to start somewhere.
• It is far more important that readers be able to access the primary source for verifying features, than it is to meet the imagined "linkfarm" standards of uninformed blanking crews on a spam mission from God. --Timeshifter 10:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Web Applications

It isn't technically software (so I haven't changed it yet) but the following sites:

Mindomo

Mind-meister

Bubbl.us

Think-ature

Are fully functional mind mapping softwares implemented through the web.

May 28, 2007 Time magazine mentions mind-map software.

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)

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)

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)

Screen Images - reference links

Ronz removed some of the image reference links today, so I restored them, because without the links if someone is interested in the particular image, the only way to find out more is to actually search the article for the name of the software and then follow that reference to the link. There is no reason to cause that extra work for the reader. Wikipedia is not paper, there is plenty of room to include the reference.

The screenshots examples of some of the software packages are some of the most interesting and valuable features of this article because they illustrate the variety of mind mapping approaches and give the reader a way of appreciating the importance of the topic. The references with links (cold links, as previously agreed) provide a way to follow through and get more information about the software shown in those images.

Ronz then reverted my change, again removing the links. He used this edit summary:

rv - I only see links on images to non-notable software. Why none for the notable too? Why do we need multiple links at all?

I don't know what criteria he used to decide which is notable and which is non-notable - they all look interesting to me as a reader with little experience in this area. As far as why we need multiple links, my comment here has already answered that question.

I'm not re-reverting Ronz's change at this time but I encourage other editors to do so, or at least continue this discussion, because those references are valuable and make the article better. Eventually, perhaps each of those software packages will have their own articles and then Wikilinks can be used. For now though, when a reader views one of those images, the references provide good sources for further research. --Parzival418 _Hello 04:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I returned the image links. The Ronz issues of notability are vague, untrue, and/or based on his personal criteria. Anybody can make the links into "name=" footnote links. That will allow the same footnote to be linked to from multiple places in the article. I urge Ronz to use that method of preventing multiple links to the same website.--Timeshifter 10:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Notable" = has own article.

Either all the pictures have links, none do, or someone will explain exactly why some are getting links and others none. I'm going to give editors some time to answer these points. If none do, I'm reverting back. -- Ronz  15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(As an aside, Ronz, I would like to thank you for requesting discussion rather than immediately reverting again. You of course have the right to revert and maybe you will, but wherever we go from here, while we may not agree about this particular issue, I wanted to acknowledge your good faith approach in the discussion.) --Parzival418 _Hello 07:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's an easy way to resolve this by naming the ref tags. Also, as I've mentioned above (although no one has taken me up on it) it is not a Wikipedia requirement for a list that every item in the list be notable enough to have its own article. Rather, you can choose to make that an entry requirement for the list if that is the consensus. Most of the arguments around this article are focusing on whether something is notable enough to be linked to when, in fact, what I think needs to be argued over is what should be included in this list: only notable software or all mind mapping software? Doing that avoids all questions of spam links and link farms and everything else that people seem to be worried about since it gets the nub of "what is this article for?" GDallimore (Talk) 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. The level of notability for an item in a list (in my view) does not rise to the level of notability for an item to have its own article. If it is notable enough to be in the list though, whether it has an image or not, then I find it helpful to have a link included too. If it's in the list and has no article, and has no reference link, then what's the point? Secondary sources are better, but when not available, primary sources are acceptable when it is not a vanity issue, per WP:RS. Since these are commercially available software packages, vanity is not the issue here. Spam links is also not the issue here, because inherent in the meaning of the term spam is that it is placed by someone with a financial interest (or perhaps the interest of a fan, as with a music recording artist). But when it is a primary reference in a list article, compiled by people who are not getting any benefit from the inclusiuon of the link, then it is not spam, it's just a reference. There can still be a question of whether the reference is a reliable source or not, but that is different than saying it's spam. In this list article, the links clearly are not spam. They might not be notable or reliable, that is yet to attain consensus, but the "linkspam" issue does not seem to be on the table, unless someone can clearly explain why it should be a concern here.

Aside from the linkspam question, GDallimore's point does need to be addressed. Is this a list of all functional and available mind mapping software, not a directory, but a resource for exploring the types of implementations that have been designed? Or, is it a list of software packages that have attained notability in commerce such that they have been discussed in third party sources? That's a fundamental question. My opinion is that it's easy for me to find the major commercial applications using Google, but this list gives me a way to research deeper alternatives that might not yet have attained financial success, but that could be adding to the scientific field of what can be accomplished with innovative interfaces for mind mapping software. That's not WP:OR because this is not an article or essay writing about those things - this is simply a list of what software exists that people are using to implement mind mapping in various ways. As a Wikipedia reader who has limited experience with this field, that is interesting and valuable to me. --Parzival418 _Hello 06:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a shopping guide. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Either this linkfarm is a trivial list that violates WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#DIR, or it is WP:OR that lacks reliable secondary sources (WP:RS). It could even be both. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep something. Neither is being useful or interesting. (Requestion 19:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes... I am familiar with all those Wikiguides. It appears that you and I have a different understanding of what they mean, which is perhaps why we need more editors to come and offer their views, so we can attain consensus on this issue. We can also consider that WP:RS does not require all sources to be secondary in order to be reliable. In WP:Verifiability it states that primary sources are acceptable in some situations and it seems to me that these links meet that criteria.

I'm not a fan of spam in Wikipedia and I've removed lots of it myself. But these links don't seem to be linkspam to me, because they were not placed here by people from those companies trying to advertise themselves. The links were added as part of developing the list itself, research on the topic by several people, resulting in reliable information that fits well within the guides. --Parzival418 _Hello 23:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

True, WP:VERIFY does say primary sources are acceptable in some special situations, this just isn't one of them. This was discussed in great detail above but the general idea is that anyone can create a website and claim anything they want. This is why reliable secondary sources are important here. I never said that these links were spam. I said this list was a linkfarm. (Requestion 02:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for clarifying that you said linkfarm rather than spam. I didn't mean to misrepresent what you stated. There's been so much discussion, I don't know where I got that impression. I acknowledge your point that anyone can make a website and say whatever they want, in general, and that in those cases the primary source criteria might not appy. In some of the websites linked here, that might even be true. But the I believe the links should stay because while a few of them might be off-track, most of them are real companies who have made real software that people are using, and the software is of a type that matches the topic of this list. With enough time and research I bet we could find plenty of additional sources; but I also figure that none of the editors on this article right now have the time to go and find them all. So meanwhile, there are at least primary sources. By keeping them, we don't lose the information that was already gathered, and we allow time for editors to eventually add more references.

As an example of this idea, I did an experiment. I picked a random title from the list I was not familiar with, "Mind Genius". I did a Google search on it using the search phrase "Mind Genius", with the quote marks included. There were around 51,000 hits. Many of them were companies advertising the software for sale. So those hits were not scholarly references, but the software package is notable enough to be widely advertised. Then I found a link to a university library in the UK that provides this software package to students who are dyslexic, to help them communicate better. That's clearly a reliable source and notable link. So, I added it to the article, and this link, which is secondary and not primary, I made a live clickable link. I hope you agree that is the right choice for a reference like this.

So my point is that in less than five minutes (not including the time it took for me to write this summary), I was able to find a WP:RS reference for a randomly chosen one of the items in the list. That's not technical proof that every one of those applications could be referenced that clearly, but it does support my point that we don't need to be in a hurry to delete the links. Let's let them "percolate" for a while and instead of debating this point on and on, encourage editors to find more third party references so we can develop an even better and solidly supported list article. --Parzival418 _Hello 06:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference you added lacks what I consider quality content but it is defintely the right idea for a reliable secondary source. A couple more references like that and Mind Genius would meet article notability requirements which I feel is the ultimate goal for this software list. I don't think "letting them percolate" is a good idea. I oversee more than 200 software lists. You have no idea what happens when links are allowed to percolate. (Requestion 19:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Just to clarify what I think requisition just said, I think Parzival418's source is good enough to qualify as a secondary source which keeps Mind Genius on the list... and if we had a couple more sources like on Mind Genius these would even justify a mind genius stub article. That said, the current Mind Genius secondary source does not establish article-level notability but does keep Mind Genius on the list and also possibly merits us linking (primary link) to the Mind Genius site if desired. Peace, MPS 20:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MPS for clarifying. Except for adding of the linking (primary link) bit in the last sentence, I agree 100% with what you just said. (Requestion 21:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

I think I made my point, which was not about that particular link or software package I checked. My point was that there is information that could be found pretty quickly about these applications. If a Google search doesn't pull up secondary source info within the first few pages of hits, that would probably imply that application is not worthy of being on the list. You may see it differently, but that was what I was trying to show by my experiment. Aside from that, please note, I've entered a follow-up comment in the RfC section above. --Parzival418 _Hello 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So, anyone have an explanation for the links in the image captions? -- Ronz  20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was now fine. There are links, but there aren't "extra" links. It's just a copy of the link for the main item in the list. Similar named refs need to be added for the other images. GDallimore (Talk) 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't make sense of why some image captions have links and some do not. I've asked for an explanation, but no one has provided one yet. -- Ronz  21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason no-one has given an explanation is that, most likely, the explanation is an obvious one: Nobody has got around to doing it yet. You've been assuming bad faith when, in reality, it's just lack of motivation. Removing the links is damaging to the article by removing references confirming that the images are what they say they are, and is therefore vandalism which is why your edits are being reverted. Improving the article by adding links to all the images would be more productive. GDallimore (Talk) 08:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, Ronz is not assuming bad faith or being a vandal. Them's fighting words you're using ... be careful how you say things around here. My thoughts are that if there is no new content in the image caption, there doesn't need to be a source for that content, especially if that info can be found elsewhere in the article. If the source is there so people know where the image came from, I think that the sourcing should be moved to the image's upload page. If you want to show correspondence between ithe images and the list, then we should make this a numbered list using the pound sign (#) Peace, MPS 14:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there should be information about where the image came from, but that's on the images own page, correct? -- Ronz  15:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Even if it is an unreliable primary source, the link definitely belongs someplace on the image article page. This is more for accountability than for sourcing purposes. (Requestion 17:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

We have multiple editors arguing that there will only be one link per list entry, yet editors are saying that the images need links as well. Further, no editor has explained when images need links, what the links are for, and why only some of the images currently have links. My assumption was that we had consensus that there would only be one link per list entry, so I removed the links in the image captions. It's now three days later and still no one can explain the need for the extra links nor why they have been used in a haphazard manner. Therefore, I'm removing them all again. -- Ronz  15:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing images=

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)

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)

Establishing standards for inclusion on the list

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)

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)

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))

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)

"name=" footnote links are not additional links.

Ronz is edit warring again. He keeps removing the image links thinking they are additional links. They are not additional links. They link back to the same links in the footnote list. I suggest that Ronz read my edit summaries before further knee-jerk reversions due to his ignorance of "name=" footnote links. --Timeshifter 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed my many questions about these links above:

"We have multiple editors arguing that there will only be one link per list entry, yet editors are saying that the images need links as well. Further, no editor has explained when images need links, what the links are for, and why only some of the images currently have links. My assumption was that we had consensus that there would only be one link per list entry, so I removed the links in the image captions. It's now three days later and still no one can explain the need for the extra links nor why they have been used in a haphazard manner. Therefore, I'm removing them all again. -- Ronz 15:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)". -- Ronz  18:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your question was already answered several times. On this talk page and in edit summaries. See previous discussion. I can't help it if you don't understand "name=" footnote linking. --Timeshifter 18:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find any answers. Please give me some indication where. It was certainly not answered in any edit summaries, nor in Talk:List_of_mind_mapping_software#Screen_Images_-_reference_links. -- Ronz  18:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Look up footnote link formatting in the wikipedia guidelines. Something you should have done long ago when this was previously discussed in my edit summaries, and elsewhere. --Timeshifter 18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That does not answer my questions. Please answer my questions or I will revert again. -- Ronz  18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to babysit you. Look it up. --Timeshifter 18:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of you:Timeshifter: Be nice, or take a break. --Quiddity 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to take a break, but Ronz keeps reverting, and keeps putting harassing notes on my user talk page. I move them to his talk page, and he deletes his own note and my reply to it. Thus showing that he was not interested in dialog to begin with. I believe this is called wiki-stalking. And then there is his lack of interest in studying "name=" footnote linking. So please tell him to be nice, too, and to stop wiki-stalking me. --Timeshifter 18:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please tone down your rhetoric. Ronz is not "harassing" you, "stalking" you, nor is he "ignorant," nor does he need to be "babysat." This does not improve the dialogue on this page. Nposs 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand how your crew specializes in team blanking of list and chart pages. I also understand how your team made an attempt at team harassment here. Click the "show" button on the purple bar. In that case your harassment was thoroughly exposed. Next...--Timeshifter 19:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. My apologies to Ronz for including him without verifying Timeshifter's accusations first. Timeshifter, take a break, you're getting over-emotional, not helping matters, and Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow. Most of your replies below this don't really add anything useful to the dialogue (ending up being clutter), and the rapid-fire replies are inherently emotional and argumentative. There are some stubborn opinions represented here and everywhere in Wikipedia, but you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and all that... --Quiddity 19:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You haven't bothered to check out the Wikiquette link either where I thoroughly exposed the harassment of this crew. Choice is yours. Feel free to take sides, and lose my respect. --Timeshifter 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Quiddity, you wrote: "without verifying Timeshifter's accusations first." You still haven't done so. And I don't appreciate your condescending tone. You may think that you will have better luck than Parzival418 in negotiating with this blanking crew. I wish you luck. But since you are now trashing me, you are on your own. Note that Parzival418 also gave up trying to work with this group of editors. As I said, I had already been taking a break before the latest outbreak of reversions and harassment. --Timeshifter 19:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Timeshifter. I thought we had a nice working compromise here. Why the relentless disruption? (Requestion 20:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes, why the relentless disruption on the part of your crew? The temporary compromise was to keep the non-clickable footnote links. Now some of your group/posse/crew are deleting "name=" footnote links. They send one to the same non-clickable footnote links. Is this too hard to understand? Do you also need further drawings, explanations, and diagrams? --Timeshifter 21:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the footnote links from the pictures are unnecessary. The image's pages (e.g. Image:Topicscape-3D-mindmap.jpg) should have the external links/references showing where they came from, that way they're inherently sourced on any page they appear within. --Quiddity 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but we should not depend on that. And what I said is still true. "name=" footnote links are not additional links. --Timeshifter 18:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The first image I checked does not have a link back to the source page. See: Image:Topicscape-3D-mindmap.jpg. --Timeshifter 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well why don't you fix that? Adding a link on the Image:Topicscape-3D-mindmap.jpg article page seems like a noncontroversial way to solve this "sourcing" problem. (Requestion 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes, then why don't you.--Timeshifter 19:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To return to the original thrust of this discussion, the relevant caption guidelines would be: Wikipedia:Captions and the related project: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Writing_Captions. Subjects of pictures should be Wikilinked (internal link) in the caption, but there is no information on what to do with non-notable items in a list without a WP article. I would suggest, as other editors have above, that linking the footnote is excessive and basically amounts to a "putative" double-link because the reference leads directly to an external link. At any rate, there is room for debate on this subject and no editor should assume that their position is infallible or obvious. Nposs 19:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The page you linked to was inactive. You quoted nothing from it. You referred to no wikipedia guidelines and policies. Basically, you just repeated all your past arguments without any wikipedia authority. Yet again. There is no double linking. Since your crew seems unable to use a search engine, I will give you the relevant page for "name=" footnote links. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. The links in the image captions are not double links. Not even "putative" ones. They bring one right back to the same footnote link. Shall I spell it out for you? Draw you a picture? Next.... --Timeshifter 19:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really have a crew here here (maybe a "posse," but I think I'd prefer "homeys"), nor do I see any support on the linked "footnotes" page for adding "references" to captions of images of non-notable list items. It is clearly an issue that does not have a definitive solution. I think many editors have been very clear here about why they believe adding the refs to the captions doesn't work. It is fine for us to disagree. There is no need to disparage the viewpoints of other editors. (Oh, and the reason I linked the "captions" page was to demonstrate that there is no clear rule of thumb on how to address this issue, even in the guidelines.) Nposs 19:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You referred to no wikipedia guidelines and policies. Basically, you just repeated all your past arguments without any wikipedia authority. Yet again.--Timeshifter 19:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Still no answers to my questions? Not even a comment addressing them? Let's keep the links out then. -- Ronz  15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to side with Ronz on this one... and not because of the recent super secret blanking team meeting we had last night... but because the "one link per list entry" was something even Timeshifer explicitly agreed to by saying "The spam problem is solved. There will be only one link on wikipedia now per list entry. There will be no duplicate of that link. The link will be either at the entry's wiki-page, or next to the entry on the list." Indeed there WAS an editor consensus (that included Timeshifter) and no explanation has been offered as to why an image caption should require us to deviate from this agreed style. If there are other new reasons let's hear them, but until then I am going to stick with the idea that only one primary sourcing link to each site is needed MPS 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't help it if you prefer to remain ignorant about footnote links and how they work. You seem to revel in your ignorance rather than read Wikipedia:Footnotes. At the time I wrote the above statement I was referring to the footnote link that led to the URL (clickable or not) at the bottom of the page. I assumed you understood how footnote links operate. Maybe when you have some more experience with wikipedia you can come back and sit at the big table. Footnote links allow the creation of multiple internal links back to the same SINGLE footnote link. Do I need to bring you a sippy cup? --Timeshifter 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Stylistically, it doesn't matter if you external or internally link -- you are still making multiple (redundant) links to the same bare URL string. I mean look at the article right now] we are literally footnoting the words "MindVisualizer Standard" and "ConceptDraw MINDMAP"... not any facts really -- just the names -- as if the TITLE of the software somehow requires sourcing via footnote. PS Today I got a cup of coffee from Starbucks and it had a to go lid on it. the table that I keep it on is about three feet high. Thanks for asking!!! In any case, I still haven't seen any reason presented explaining why we need to be footnoting non-new information multiple times in the same article. It's like wikilinking to go lid a number of times in the same response even though if you didn't click on to go lid the first time there is no reason to link to go lid more than once unless you are trying to promote that particular link to to go lid. MPS 21:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have little experience with footnote links. Probably since you spend a lot of your time deleting/blanking source links rather than creating them. It is common to have many internal footnote links back to the same SINGLE footnote URL at the bottom of the page. They are labeled with letters of the alphabet. Do you have any idea what I am talking about? Usually, though, as Quiddity keeps pointing out, that SINGLE footnote URL is clickable and labeled in nearly all footnote sections. --Timeshifter 21:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are in luck, MPS. I just happened across a good example. Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada#_note-casualties

I edit the casualties sections of several pages. Iraq War, Al-Aqsa_Intifada, Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003, etc.. So I am thoroughly familiar with footnoting, embedded citations, and other referencing methods. Such as the special referencing method used here: Template:Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.--Timeshifter 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent example, but actually, contrary to your absurd accusation, I have not edited this article in almost two weeks. On a positive note, I believe you that you are experienced with links... atta boy, Timeshifter!!! ... but that doesn't temper the concern of mine (PS it's not just my concern) that THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION IN THOSE CAPTIONS BEING FOOTNOTED. We are making multiple footnotes in the captions, but for no good reason. there is NO new information there. It almost makes me want to take the to go lid off of my paper cup and throw the to go lid across the room!!! MPS 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your general activities as part of the source-link removal crew across several pages. Footnotes act as source links for the images. It is not complicated. --Timeshifter 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Again your accusation is abjectly without basis. I have never (on this page or any other) advocated for the removal of source links; I have advocated for the de-linking (but not removal) of primary links that IMHO do not in and of themselves establish notability. Since when do images need to be "source linked" outside of their upload pages? Footnotes in captions may be required for new caption content, that does not apply here since there is no new content in the captions. I think we both agree that it is not complicated. Our disagreement is not technical in nature (i.e. how to footnote), but content-related (why to footnote). Peace, MPS 22:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is common to add footnote and/or source links to image captions. I see it all the time. And you still do not get it. Footnote links in the image captions are not ADDITIONAL source links. The footnote goes back to the SINGLE source link at the bottom of the page. --Timeshifter 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding footnotes here makes no sense... just because footnotes are common elsewhere doesn't mean have license to add footnotes to any and all captions whenever you want. Agreed that footnotes in captions are sometimes kosher. Disagreed that it is somhow kosher to insert footnotes without rationale wherever you want. PS I didn't call it source linking -- you did. Peace, MPS 22:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Still no one addressing the image caption problems

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)

Timeshifter wrote in his edit summary of his lastest revert, "They have been around a long time, and are not a problem." Given the amount of discussion here about them, I think it's fair to say that they are a problem. --Ronz 00:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sorry, but that doesn't address any of the concerns here. Please stay on topic. Thanks. --Ronz 00:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Cold linking urls

More immediately problematic, is the non-linking("cold link") urls in the footnotes. I have never seen non-linking urls used before this instance (examples welcome though), and I don't believe the linkspam fears are more important than the usability/accesibility problems in this method (people using screenreaders, or even just the non-tech-savvy will have problems accessing these urls). I strongly urge/propose making the links normal hyperlinks. Here I will quote verse: m:External links says "Supporting references or footnotes need not be kept to a minimum, but they should be separated from other external links.". --Quiddity 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Preach on with that wikipedia scripture... :) --Timeshifter 18:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I copied the m:External links quote to my list of relevant wikipedia and wikimedia quotes concerning lists and charts. On my user page. --Timeshifter 19:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

the prophet in me predicts that when people continue to disagree with Timeshifter's WP:PG interpretation, these policies will be pasted multiple times on this talk page. This prediction makes me sad.  : ( MPS 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

*Sigh*, I regret adding that final sentence. : (

Could I get some feedback on the actual proposal/question maybe? Thanks :) --Quiddity 17:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck kissing up to the blanking crew in your attempt to get them to be reasonable. When someone as completely neutral as Parzival418 can not get them to be reasonable, I find it hard to believe that any approach will work. But I will let slide your sleights of me in your attempts to get them to be reasonable. I wish you luck. --Timeshifter 21:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

When that happens, you could consider pointing out some of these policies. Antelan ^talk 18:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied below your comment. Please keep that discussion there. --Timeshifter 22:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Page protection?

Anyone against protecting the page? It appears certain editors here will not address, nor even acknowledge some of the problems we're having with the article. --Ronz 23:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure page protection will help. The problem will just return when the protection is lifted and/or the problem will migrate to some other innocent page. Remember the devastation that Timeshifter unleashed over at WT:EL? Timeshifter is obviously gaming the system with 1RR so it is just a matter of time until an indefinite block is issued. (Requestion 00:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

All the problems have been addressed by several editors. You just prefer to ignore wikipedia guidelines and policies. As at WP:EL where your attempts, Requestion, to radically change wikipedia guidelines and policies was overridden by many editors. --Timeshifter 00:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually my goal at WP:EL wasn't to radically change the guideline. My goal was to not let the guideline be changed such that spammers could exploit a new loophole. I achieved that goal and I'm quite happy how it turned out. (Requestion 01:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Please stop editing my comments. My previous comment was in reply to both you and Ronz. That is why I only indented it once. Nice try at rewriting history of what actually happened at WP:EL. Your attempt to make Wikipedia:External links apply to citation/reference links failed. Several editors stopped you. --Timeshifter 01:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, they stopped you too. (Requestion 02:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Actually, we agreed that the topic of the guideline should not be changed. I did not promote a change in what the guideline covered. You did. --Timeshifter 04:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection won't help. Mindmapping is actually theme and there are a lot of new software and a lot of software from the current list don't worth be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindmeisterr (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 June 2007

screenies for free software

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)

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)