Talk:List of concept- and mind-mapping software/Archives/2017

XMind license incorrect

This page lists XMind as being proprietary. It's dual-licensed under two open source licenses. http://www.xmind.net/license/ Danylstrype (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Support for Directed Graphs

Do any of the tools listed here provide support for directed graphs? Is there some other tool category specifically designed to draw directed graphs? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Some do (from a quick examination of the screenshots hem-hem), but you might start better at GraphML and tools that use it. Personally, I use graphviz to draw directed graphs. (I'm a bit off-topic for an article talk page here, sorry about that). Pinkbeast (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lbeaumont: @Pinkbeast: See also the graphdrawing library for PGF/TikZ 3 (which is listed in this list), another great free open-source tool for drawing directed graphs. The dot2tex program converts from Graphviz DOT format to PGF/TikZ, so if you're already using Graphviz it's easy to use the features of PGF/TikZ with your existing files. Biogeographist (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links

@Stesmo: I added the AlternativeTo link in the external links section that you removed in the most recent edit of this page. I believe this link satisfies WP:ELYES: it is a website that is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, and it contains "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail". I will restore this link if you don't have any reasonable objections. Biogeographist (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Biogeographist:! Thanks so much for pinging me and creating this conversation! There were a couple things from WP:EL I had in mind while I was looking at the external links (ELs) on this article.

1. Wikipedia 'List of...' articles "... are primarily intended as providing direct information and internal navigation, not a directory of sites on the web." (WP:ELLIST).
2. Are the ELs on a stand-alone list directly pertaining to the subject of the article (Lists of concept- and mind-mapping software) and not the items listed in the list? (e.g. links cannot be to a particular mind-mapping app).
3. Are the links promotional in nature? Are they spam?
4. Do the links contain material that is "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail"
5. ELPOINTS #3 "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum."

I removed the other two links, and should have probably removed the DMOZ link in hindsight, because the Wikipedia article would duplicate most of these lists. The catch with Lists articles is that websites that are added because they are also lists will probably have a pretty big overlap in the covered issues. I didn't believe that the removed websites added to the encyclopedic understanding of the topic ("Lists of..."). Additionally, most lists need zero ELs to function as internal navigation and this one was already up to three, two of which seemed promotional. And, promotional links tend to accumulate more promotional links ('hey, if my competitor has a link in the EL section, then I should be able to add a link to my site!') And, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum." Thanks again for the discussion! Stesmo (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Stesmo: Thanks for your response. I'm familiar with all the criteria that you mentioned, and I think the AlternativeTo link passes all of them: (1) its inclusion in the EL section does not turn this page into "a directory of sites on the web"; (2) it pertains to the subject of the article and is not a link to a particular mind-mapping app; (3) it is not promotional in nature or spam (for example, it gives a rough indication of the popularity of each app in a neutral way); (4) it is "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail"; (5) the EL section on this page is minimal. Regarding the other issues you mentioned: As you can see in the previous discussions on this talk page, one of the controversial aspects of this list is that it is not a comprehensive overview of the field of concept- and mind-mapping software—the amount of software listed here is quite limited—so there is not a "big overlap" between the content in this list and the content in the AlternativeTo page, and therefore the AlternativeTo page does add to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. Your argument that "promotional links tend to accumulate more promotional links" is irrelevant since this is not a promotional link. The one point in your response with which I agree is your statement that "most lists need zero ELs to function". And since we agree on that point but not on the other points, I will go ahead and delete the EL section entirely. Biogeographist (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)