Talk:Network diagram software
Add topicLatest comment: 7 years ago by 93.202.233.124 in topic Not directory
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Network diagram software article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Scope creep
[edit]Thanks for spotting scopecreep. This article needs references; will need to add this shortly.
The usage of the word 'free' in the license column of Network Mapping Software seems misleading. Since it is contrasted with 'proprietary', it implies FLOSS, while Spiceworks and The Dude seem only free of charge, but having a proprietary license to me. 195.62.68.244 (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Not directory
[edit]@Grayfell, don't you think you are terribly overdoing and overinterpreting the rules?!! your recent changes. I find your eliminations a serious loss of valuable information, despite your glorifying emphasis of the rules. --johayek (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Glorifying? I understand that it seems harsh or zealous. This article came to my attention because I was following a spammer, and this isn't the first time this has happened. The issue is that lists like these tend to attract spam and vanity edits, as well as good-faith addition of unsourced information. I'm not trying destroy people's hard work, but using primary sources to compile a directory of different commercial and open source products is outside of Wikipedia's scope. If reliable sources summarizes these as examples of this category of software, or alternately if this stuck to WP:WTAF, there would be a way to determine which entries are legitimate, which are spam, and which just need some attention. Right now there is no clear criteria for inclusion which meets Wikipedia's guidelines, so the article is potentially misleading, among other problems. Grayfell (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Once again, while looking at links to a site which was spammed on other article, I find another example on this page. This problem hasn't been resolved, and I still believe that removing the table would be better than providing a platform for spammers. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- As long as you are alone with this position, you should not proceed, I hope you agree.--93.202.233.124 (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)