Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 7 June 2007

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages allowed people to effectively set up linkfarms, agreed. Adding "No follow" to all links in Misplaced Pages, as is now done, tells the engines to ignore that link. There is therefore now no possibility of using Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages - 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 Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages. This was not a linkfarm. There is Misplaced Pages-wide consensus on what linkfarms are and it's spelled out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages "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 Misplaced Pages. Since you're new here to Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages." 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 "Misplaced Pages talk:External links". You are violating wikipedia policy by removing sourcing. See Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. The easiest way to source them is an embedded citation to their home pages. See Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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

Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages." 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (emphasis added):

This page in a nutshell: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed.

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

From Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (emphasis added):

"Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages 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."

Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lists and charts. Kind of like Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#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.' Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Lists, as does discussion about sourcing lists. Because neither discussion is about non-citation external links (the topic of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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.

• Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#List articles full of links as 'references'
• Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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/search/?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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, which is the comment on this page . 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/search/?title=List_of_mind_mapping_software&oldid=134924207

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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. external links from the software name
3. external links after the software name
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 Misplaced Pages: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.

• Misplaced Pages:Citing sources
• Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#How to cite sources
• Misplaced Pages:Embedded citations
• Misplaced Pages:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
• Misplaced Pages:Verifiability
• Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
• WP:Notability
• Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Lists.
• Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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

This page in a nutshell: Timeshifter added the following section from his talk page. Please do not edit it, as it is for record only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPS (talk • contribs) 19:19, 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)

The following discussion is an archived discussion Please do not modify it.

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

See the talk page for my reply: Talk:List of mind mapping software. --Timeshifter 12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

(copied from Talk:List of mind mapping software) 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  15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Timeshifter many times to stop violating WP:MULTI and now we have about a zillion duplicate threads. I'm so confused my head hurts. Oh yeah, one more thing, Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a linkfarm. (Requestion 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Have replied on the article and guideline/policy talk pages. Your views are in the minority. No need to duplicate discussions here. --Timeshifter 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were moving towards consensus on at least some of these issues, but this canvassing on the WikiProject Lists page is bad form. "work was deleted for no particularly good reason"? "I think the only problem with the chart then was that the wikilinks were mixed up with the embedded citations"? Notify the relevant project = good. Oversimplify the ongoing discussion while at the same time disparaging the good faith contributions of other editors ≠ good. Nposs 05:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nposs, I replied on your talk page. You must be confusing 2 different list articles. You have not commented at Talk:Comparison of time tracking software. --Timeshifter 05:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a need for these multiple ongoing discussions. It is confusing (yes, I was confused) and results in the same content being duplicated in multiple places. It might be better to allow the discussions in more prominent places (i.e. Village pump) come to some point of agreement before we begin to stir up these older discussions (at least a day old in the case of the "Comparison ..." article.) I would still suggest that you are mischaracterizing the viewpoints within the discussion to the detriment of the consensus process. I might also suggest that you and I have perhaps voiced our position with sufficient verbosity and that it might be time for us to step back and let others grapple with these issues. Nposs 06:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly why I asked for help from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Lists. I don't know anyone there, so it is not like I am asking only people who agree with me. --Timeshifter 06:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Many people see excess external links as having the potential to border on spam, even if there is only one of each. I understand how conveneint it is to just click on links, but this directorial ease ease has to be balanced by the fact that spammers have and do frequently rely on this ease of clicking to trick wikipedians into entering spam sites. This is a huge problem on wikipedia and it is one reason why Requisition is so militant about minimizing too many external links on one page. The number of redlinks can be decided by you, me, and whoever else is editing. if you put the red link next to a hidden link, I think you will be fine. As for "hidden sourcing," I know of no guideline that prohibits it. It is new in the last week, but it makes sense to me and a lot of other people. Guidelines were created by people like you me and requisition who come to WP:CONSENSUS on what makes sense. Yes? What I am trying to do is form sound and practical policy that most wikipedins would agree to for this list. Peace, MPS 22:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One link does not make for spam. We have agreed that there will be only one source link per list entry. There will be no duplicate link. The problem is solved. You can't create your own wikipedia guidelines. I will reply more on your talk page.--Timeshifter 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, I see your point but I disagree. I am really wary of lots of links to largely unknown websites. We'll let the process work itself out on this one and let the wikipedia community decide what it wants. Peace, MPS 22:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In regards to this: I have said nothing about the need to fight spam in this situation, nor do I feel the links are a form of spam. I have not suggested the doubling of links - in fact I have attempted to provide alternatives to this problem. It is true that I do not agree the links constitute "citations", but I have set aside that disagreement to work towards consensus. It is not true (nor fair to say) that I believe in a citation-free WP. We disagree, but I respect your point of view. I am sorry that you feel my point of view is equivalent to animal poop. The embedded citation is probably not going to fly with editors on the page, so why not try to work on a better way of doing things. Nposs 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey timeshifter, without sounding patronizing I just wanted you to know that I agree with your edit and edit comment. Woohoo. Peace, MPS 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Links, lists, and charts. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "List of concept- and mind-mapping software" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The above template, {{Not verified}} , 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/search/?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: Misplaced Pages: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/search/?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 Misplaced Pages: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:

Misplaced Pages:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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:

• Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes and Misplaced Pages: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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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:

• Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability for readers.--Timeshifter 02:48, 6 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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.

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 "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. See also:

Emphasis added to quote below.

Quote below from Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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):

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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? Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 (Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Notability guideline:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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))

Various guidelines and policies

(Unindent) Emphasis added to quotes below.

Quote below from Misplaced Pages:Footnotes guideline:

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, the main style guide on citations.

Quote below from Misplaced Pages:Citing sources guideline:

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

Quote below from Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages:Don't be a fanatic and Misplaced Pages:Don't-give-a-fuckism and Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages justs puts out the claims and lets the readers decide. Please study WP:NPOV a LOT more. --Timeshifter 19:05, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Misplaced Pages:Avoid personal remarks, and Misplaced Pages:Truce. --Parzival418 _Hello 19:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)