Talk:ParaView

Log of Changes

• The article has been tagged since June 2007 as possibly not satisfying the notability guidelines. Since then, independent articles have described how Paraview made a particular job possible. The guidelines appear to refer to Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines, none of which refer to software. A Google search for applications that perform a similar job to Paraview found very little, but found many links from a number of universities to Paraview. This suggests that Paraview fulfils an important role for which there is no substitute. I propose the notability tag be removed as notability has now been established. --Cameron.walsh 04:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• LuisIbanez (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (Disclaimer: Kitware employee since 2002). In an effort to improve the notability of the ParaView article, I have added several references to uses of ParaView at research institutions in different countries. I also took away the notability tag after adding these references to secondary sources.

Features section

Something seems fishy about the "Features" section. It reads like a ParaView developer wrote it for a business client, including use of the word "we". There are barely any citations as well. Should this be removed despite potentially containing useful info? Elijah (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"ParaView in use" ― Should university courses be included?

The section "ParaView in use" includes some mentions of academic institution courses that use ParaView.

Is this really worth mentioning here? 196.128.20.33 (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)