Talk:LabPlot

Notability?

I'm not seeing the notability for this subject, but I see now that it has been kept as part of a discussion earlier this September. I will check for available sources, but if I cannot find anything of substance, I will probably be renominating this for deletion at some reasonable time, perhaps as soon as next month. Comments? JBsupreme (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There should be a notability tag on this article. It was removed with the statement that an AfD 'keep' means a subject is notable. I can not find any documentation of that statement. The notability of this subject is still questioned in general, and the article still does not present sources showing it. Miami33139 (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LabPlot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66jGlcRqC?url=http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/labplot/index.php?title=Translations to http://labplot.wiki.sourceforge.net/Translations

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Extending the article

To work with old Origin files from my university times, I stumbled across LabPlot and want to extend this article as it lacks info what the program offers and where the limitations are. I benefit from these things a lot, this way e.g. recently started to use Julia. However, while I was already editing I checked the logs of the article. There I see that most of the info I wanted to add was once already in the article. But why was it removed? I also see here no discussion about the deletion. Also, when I check the last version with more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LabPlot&oldid=1240737172 I cannot see why it all had to be deleted. Here and there the wording should be improved, the section about the docs is not necessary and some info can also be shortened.

So, to extend the article, I would use that version as basis, adjust and shorten it. If there are objections, please explain.

I am not part of LabPlot, just a user and miss in the article the core features why the software is there.

As linked in the version history in the article, I am aware that a LabPlot maintainer tried to edit the article. However, that should not matter as long as the content of the article focus on the basics. thanks and regards --Muso (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle, lengthy lists of 'features' are off-mission for an encyclopedia. Additions should be based on independent reliable sources, not the project's own website or maintainers. We are interested in what others have to say about LabPlot in reliable sources, not what LabPlot has to say about itself - they have their own website for that. I would definately object to going back to the promo version in any form. MrOllie (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What promo do you mean? The article as it is, lacks basic info. So let's add it.

I see 2 ways:

1. You extend the article in a way you think it is right

2. I take the version that has the info, shorten it and round it up.

Since you replied to my change here withing minutes and I see your contribution list, I expect you are a bot. Fine with me, then please extend the article. I need the following info:

• what function does the software offer
• how is the interoperability to other programs like Origin
• what is the difference in functionality to e.g. software like Origin (data analysis software)

While you are at it, please shorten the ridiculously long list of releases of Origin (data analysis software). This list breaks the screen view, is not encyclopedic and provides no information. Muso (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you seriously just accuse me of being a bot? Also, I do not take orders from you or anyone else. MrOllie (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This should not be an offence, but you make so many edits that you must be a superhuman.

However, what way would in your opinion be the best? 1. or 2.? Muso (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I reject the premise of the question, this is a false dichotomy. If you want to extend the article, you can do so in a way that agrees with Wikipedia policy. That someone else hasn't is not a reason to go back to the version that's full of self promotional fluff. MrOllie (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. The article as it is lack sufficient info, right?

So why can't some of the previous info be re-added? I mean, just take that info and edit it as you think it should be.

If not let others do it.

Also, it would be cool, if you could add info instead of letting others do the work and then just judging over their work. Muso (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Additions need to be based on reliable sources. The previous stuff was not. If you re-add it, it still won't be based on reliable sources. You will not be fixing problems, you will be adding back problems which were previously fixed. The purpose of Wikipedia is not just to 'add info' (see WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE), it has to meet Wikipedia's content policies, such as WP:PROMO, WP:V, WP:NOR, and so on. MrOllie (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

> Additions need to be based on reliable sources.

Fine with me, then please to these additions

However, what is a reliable source? I am just the user of the software and would add the things I know. Muso (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I am just the user of the software and would add the things I know.. You should read the links I posted, starting with WP:NOR. Adding the 'things you know' is expressly disallowed by that policy. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We would need to exercise our raw judgement to decide which features should be covered how long. That would be WP:OriginalResearch. Instead, we rely on already-published sources to decide which ones should be covered.

Plus, it's just duplicating the maintenance work of official documentation anyway. While we are an encyclopedia, we're not an everything-pedia. I've posted additional elaborations to the official blog post complaining about the article. Hope this makes sense! Aaron Liu (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand: I came here as I just wanted to add info and extend the article. There was once already info in the article but removed. Instead some of the info should have been kept. But there is no discussion why ALL of it was removed? I don't get this.

Now I got 2 replies with just links to Wikipedia rules. But I just want to add info to the articel. I am not a lawyer, jsut a user. Muso (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

As you may know, nearly anyone may edit Wikipedia. Thus, changes happen spontaneously with discussion or not. Discussion happens when some things get reverted. It happened on Ollie's talk page last time.

Think of the rules as documentation of how to edit Wikipedia. If you'd like to use the editing tools, you should probably read them just like the manuals of other software. You asked for why this thing works this way, and these are the help files. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)