Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Modification of Notability Policy for Academic/Scientific SoftwareEdit

We (IntFOLD group members) are writing to ask if you could hopefully change the policy for accepting publication of scientific software in the Wikipedia. Our software IntFOLD, which is in the List_of_protein_structure_prediction_software though the draft is not yet accepted was previously rejected and has been re-submitted, but most likely will be rejected again due to notability policy. From our discussion with folks in (, the notability policy requires a software to be independently judged by people in the media coverage who are not users. We think this needs be modified, because first notability is very subjective especially in science. For instance, when a tool like ours is cited by hundreds of scientists in the peer reviewed journals, that would account as notable regardless of media mentioning/coverage. Secondly many tools if not all in the list above doesn't meet this criteria, why this applies only for us.

Therefore, we are asking this policy to be slightly relaxed or modified accordingly especially in this field, because many useful bioinformatics tools in future will be rejected on the basis of notability which would deprive the public an opportunity from understanding these tools considering millions of people who are visiting Wikipedia and how useful these are for public health and life science in general.

We do hope our requests will be accepted.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsalehe (talkcontribs) 09:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment — I wanted to add a sort of endorsement of this request, since it was my suggestion that Bsalehe bring this up here. As we have WP:NACADEMIC for the case of academics who do not receive much in the way of ordinary media coverage, it raises the question of whether a similar carve out could be made for scientific software where widespread use in the community, as defined by citation counts, for instance, could substitute for media coverage as a signal for notability. What might this modified threshold for notability look like?

    Please ignore the OTHERSTUFF arguments; those other examples are software packages whose pages were created 10 or more years ago, but Bsalehe is too new to know better. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Notability can also be established by coverage in academic papers. I have accepted, without problems, articles about obscure software that is used in important research. I will have a look at this draft. ~Kvng (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@Bsalehe Draft accepted. Apologies that AfC can sometimes feel like a gauntlet. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Diligent CorporationEdit

Hi, would an editor be interested in updating SaaS company Diligent Corporation's article? I posted an edit request on the Diligent Talk page addressing the missing sources from the live article and consolidating the history of the company.

I work for Diligent and have a COI. That is why I am seeking editor assistance. JHDiligent (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


Hi, Draft:Pixelfed has been lingering around in a zombie-AFC state for a few weeks after numerous declines. I think that the newest sources assert notability under WP:NSOFT. posting here to get consensus and feedback, or maybe a bit of extra help in getting this into article space. riffic (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel the same way @Riffic. It's also on the WP:FOSS space. Sadly the situation is not that easy for PixelFed. I don't even feel like there is a good recommendation to give.
I tried to dig up some sources and found this one:
But the source is from 2020 and it shows clearly that recently no reputable secondary source cared enough to write about it.
Is there any good parking spot for this article? Or is being a AfC the best way to park this article? It would also be rather sad to throw away if it barely suffices a creation.
GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 18:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@GavriilaDmitriev that's the best source that I've seen on this topic. One more like this and it will be over the hump. We could even add this and move it to mainspace now and see if anyone tries to delete it. Otherwise it can remain in draft space limbo and as long as someone does an edit at least every 6 months. ~Kvng (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Help updating Pitney Bowes infobox and introEdit

Hello! I've identified a few factual inaccuracies in the infobox and introduction of the Pitney Bowes article. As a Pitney Bowes employee, I understand that I shouldn't make edits to fix those details myself. Instead, I posted a request with the specific parameters and claims that need updating on the Pitney Bowes talk page. I made that initial request back in mid-January but unfortunately have not had any luck getting it implemented. I would deeply appreciate it if an editor from this WikiProject could take a look at my proposed changes. Thanks so much! MTatPitneyBowes (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Reviving IRCEdit

To support community socializing I recreated our IRC channel which died with the explosion of Freenode. Wikipedia is now on Libera. Feel free to join and say hello

Server host
Port 6697
channel #wikipedia-en-software
quick access

GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 09:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Copy edit neededEdit

Copy edit needed at Tek Fog. The DYK reviewer suggested copy editing. The article is about a PsyOps software. Venkat TL (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Evernote: Company section updatesEdit

Hey there! I'm Greg, an Evernote employee trying to get some help updating and improving the company's article. User:Evernotebrian, whom you might be able to tell from the name is a colleague of mine, assembled a new draft for the article's Company section. It covers some recent company history that isn't included in the current version of the Evernote article and adds some more Wikipedia-appropriate sources to the existing content in that section. You can view his draft at this link. I'll also provide an additional link to Brian's edit request on the Evernote Talk page. You can see my COI disclosure and follow-up note right below his post. We were also hoping to get the Company header changed to History, because we feel that's a more accurate description of what the section contains, but if an editor from this WikiProject could at least take a look at the new section draft, that would be a great start. Thanks very much for your time. Evernote Greg (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:DOS Navigator#Requested move 23 April 2022Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:DOS Navigator#Requested move 23 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. signed, 511KeV (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:OpenSearch (software)#Requested move 12 May 2022Edit

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in the proposed move of OpenSearch (software) to OpenSearch and OpenSearch to OpenSearch (syndication); see discussion. --Macrakis (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move: JavaEdit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Java (programming language)#Requested move 16 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Certes (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)