Content deleted Content added
→Recommend removing software section entirely: new section |
|||
Line 23:
For this reason I recommend removing the section. I would be okay with a list of '''notable''' software (that is, software which ''qualifies'' for a stand-alone article in Wikipedia). I would also be okay with mentioning software which was unique in some significant way such as being "seminal" - that is, being the first software to do X, where X became a common feature in all similar software and where X is unique to the ___domain, not some generic feature of software in general (i.e. "first to print in color" doesn't count). [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])</small></small> 20:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
: Hmm. I usually agree with severe paring, but I'm hesitant about this one. The list of links has a lot of worthless commentary (written by X, maintained by Y, uses Z), but it also has some reasonable comments about approaches (powder, gravel, transfer chutes). I'd rather that there be an intelligent trimming. It is also possible that some of these programs could have an article but do not have one now.
: In other articles, I've gone along with the metric of removing projects by single persons or that do not seem like serious efforts and keeping academic and commercial products that are well-known or have some interesting aspect. [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 00:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
| |||