Talk:List of Unified Modeling Language tools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for List of Unified Modeling Language tools:

To-do list is empty: remove {{to do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Creating an article "Comparison of UML programs"[edit]

I vote not to create an article "Comparison of UML programs", as it is unclear under what aspects and how UML programs should be compared and whether Wikipedia is the right place for such a comparison (or comparisons).Well, I think we need to talk about UML programs in detail a little more. I further vote not to add an internal link to this nonexistent article on each and every individual UML programs article - at least not until there *is* such a comparison article. I think, one link on the list article here to this nonexistent comparison article and a back link to the list article on each program's article is enough. Adrian Buehlmann 17:29, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Since I absolutely agree with your arguments, I've removed the link to this nonexistant article for now, until someone comes along and convinces me otherwise. --S.K. 18:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Like any other piece of software a comparison can be made of UML Tools. Such an article would be interesting since the first comment about it. Some UML Tools are supporting only a few different diagrams, some other are trying to implement all of them, some are providing code generation, some are only plugins to bigger project (IDE), some focus solely on supporting one language, some comply to UML 1.0 only, ... you got the idea there. (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing or not removing external links of products with a separate article[edit]

I vote not to remove external links of products, even if they have a separate article. I find it useful to have a complete uniform list with all products *together* with their external links. If I like, I can have open the article List of UML programs in one browser window and open each product external home page in a second browser window, product by product. The external URL of each product also can serve as some form of unique identifier, what exact product is meant by a certain entry in this list here. The info in this list here is already stripped down to the near absolute minimum. I think we should not exaggerate. Please leave the links. I think they do not hurt. Adrian Buehlmann 12:45, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Too much links hinder reading. Reverted. --minghong 14:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that minghong wants to decide alone, ignoring contributions from others. I disagree with most of what he did, especially with his "cleanup" (removing short infos about programs on this page, thereby urging to create new articles). His cleanup lead to other new articles, which are already accused of being pure advertisements by others. As I do not engage in pointless edit wars, I hereby resign. Best regards, Adrian Buehlmann 08:58, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
That's the point! A product without an article is probably not worth mentioning (not a notable product) anyway... I don't think this is bad. In fact, I think this encourage contributor to say more about the product, instead of just link spamming (advertising, SEO, etc) the software lists. --minghong 05:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Creating lots of links to nonexisting articles paves the way for pure advertisement pages. Product "spammers" (like me?) just have to click on the corresponding internal link and paste in their marketing bla bla. But how do we distinct "marketing bla bla" from a wikipedia-worthy product descriptions? The description should be neutral. If I write "fast and lightweight" for Cadifra UML Editor people quickly think I'm not neutral, because everybody wants to claim his product to be fast. But if fast and lightweight was really a key development focus of our product, what can I do? Have you seen another UML diagram editor that fits on a single diskette? Theses days there are UML tool monsters that weigh in for 100MB or more. Back to the article: I find short descriptions on the list article here much better than pressing each product author to create a separate article facing the "advertisement" claims afterwards. You write "wikipedia is not dmoz" - ok fine. But what should the informational content difference between this list here and dmoz be? Why can't we just write a few words about each product here, and an external link to the product homepage. For those that want to write a separate article for their product, it's of course ok to create that article and link to that. But there are products that don't need a separate article but are still worth noting here on the list. I feel minghong has a bit too much fear for link spam. Honestly listing one's product with a short straight text description is not prima facie "link spam". And one notable difference between dmoz and wikipedia is, that on wikipedia there should be no page "administrator", no censorship. -- Adrian Buehlmann 09:04, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
Alright... I'll add back those short description. --minghong 11:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You added back only partway. -- Adrian Buehlmann 17:28, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
As an example, the article List of wiki software has lots of entries with both internal links to existing articles and external links at the same entry. May I ask a question to minghong: Do you intend to remove those external links on entries where an article exists on the article List of wiki software? If not, at least, this would be inconsistent with what you stipulate here. (This is nothing personal against you, just something I would like to kindly point out, as you are working on several of these software lists). -- Adrian Buehlmann 18:13, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
WP is not a list of external links. I've AfDed this article. If it is kept, external links should be rmed for articles wiht wiki entries. This conforms to a majority of software lists in WP. --Karnesky 00:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
"external links should be rmed for articles wiht wiki entries" No problem with that. We could have done that without AfD. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I just did rm the external links for bluelinked pages. The problem is that, while it improved the list, it didn't improve it enough--there are currently 23 redlinked packages, many of which are fairly small and insignificant pacakges. I AfDed it for more than just that reason. And please don't take the AfD so personally! --Karnesky 00:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, WP is not a list of INTERNAL links. -- 00:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I arrived here having followed a vandal. There are several policies that indicate that lists like this should only include articles, not links to external sites. I will be cleaning up this list shortly unless someone can show a policy to the contrary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do. --M4gnum0n (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I did. Thanks. Are you saying more need to be removed? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Do not remove tools without articles.
One: many of these tools are in use by European or non-English speakers, and are notable in the industry. Did you check if there are article in these tools in Japanese? Two: It's exactly here I would want to go to find a complete list of tools. Three: Forcing the existence of English articles, often results in articles that look like advertisements (written by non-English speakers), and Four: with articles that just repeat the content of the table but in paragraph form. Five: Some of these tool vendors are active in developing the standards, e.g., UML. Six.: This approach really discourages users who are new to Wikipedia who wish to add their favorite tool, are they expected to know the arcana of Wikipedia rules. Seven: What is the correct order to making these changes. Do you add the tool to the list and then make the article, how long do you have to make the article? Or do you have to do it the other way? Eight: Now I don't mind pointing to the articles, if they exist, instead of their websites, Keeping us within Wikipedia seems appropriate. In fact, for tools that don't yet have articles, they should also point to their (non-existent) article. This will encourage readers to become editors to supply the missing articles -- as the missing article is obvious. Nine: Now I agree that some of the deleted tools are probably not notable, especially ones that haven't been updated in more than 5 years. If they don't have their own article, they should probably be deleted. But I think encouraging the active tool vendors is a good side effect of keeping the active tools in the list.Mjchonoles (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
BTW, Astah* is now called Astah, unfortunately, I don't remember how to change the name of an article.
WP:LINKFARM explains that Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and that's what would happen if we just listed every tool. We have to consider the WP:NOTABILITY of each product. My next task was to review each article and nominate those that don't meet NOTABILITY criteria for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Walter Gorlitz. I think I jumped the gun. While I do believe strongly that notability is not determined by having a Wikipedia article, the tools you deleted are mostly ok to delete. So I apologize for my tone, though I believe generally in what I said. Here are some specifics about your edits.

I would add (or re-add) Artisan Studio from Atego. This is the major UK tool. It is the leader in UK (and probably in all of Europe), and is significantly active in the OMG standards community. The tool is actively maintained, and supports UPDM (for MODAF) and SysML.

Astah* ---> Astah.

The following tools should be additionally deleted.

IBM Rational Software Modeler (from IBM): This tool was important historically, but was withdrawn from marketing in 2010, and IBM has several replacements StarUML: Probably hasn't been active since 2005. RISE: It's primarily an ER tool, though it does allow UML Class Diagrams. I wouldn't call this a UML tool.

Can you make the above changes?

Also, are you active in the UML community or know much about it? I would think you would need to be very knowledgeable to understand whether a tool like Astah (the biggest UML tool in Japan) is a notable tool. Certainly its article is pretty bad. I would partially use the criteria if the company is active in determining the direction of UML or has significant market share in some community. Mjchonoles (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

What you think about notability doesn't matter in the slightest. What matters are Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.
If the tool is the major one in the IK (or the one that is most frequently used in the circles in which you "travel" in the UK) that is bound to have some reliable sources discussing it, which in turn makes the product sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article.
I can move the Astah article, as can you. See Help:Moving a page.
Since the article isn't locked, you may make the other changes as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Using unnamed external links[edit]

Should we really ignore the recommendation about external links, which says that unnamed external links are considered very bad style? -- Adrian Buehlmann 21:32, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

  • Addendum: it is minghong who wants those links to be unnamed. He quickly reverts anything else. Discussion seems pointless. -- Adrian Buehlmann 17:45, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
Stop going personal. P.S. if you check out the history, it was me who moved the article from "Integrated development environment software" to "List of integrated development environments" [1]. I didn't clean up the article yet. That's why the style is inconsistent. --minghong 10:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Aha, you didn't clean up yet. Please accept that I oppose to your style of "cleaning up". I have nothing personal against you. If it bothers you that I keep insisting with my disagreement, please do not take that personal. What I strongly dislike of your style is that you consistently ignore discussions and especially careful consideration of arguments and just go for your edits/deletions. And please accept that I am somewhat astonished about the great speed and vigour with what you revert anything deviative from your personal style in this article here while there is are obviously another other article articles where you havent imposed your style yet. That's all. Maybe you are the one taking it personal that someone (me) opposes your "cleanups" here. And you still haven't made a statement about my argument that unnamed external links are considered bad style (see reference above) -- Adrian Buehlmann 13:03, 2005 May 6 (UTC), updated 10:11, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
Unnamed links are appropriate for lists of software. A criteria for inclusion in the list should be that the product is notable enough to one day warrant an article. So, red link the main text & have an unnamed external link for entries without articles so that people could stub them. --Karnesky 00:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

External link to Visio Stencil for UML 2.0 by Pavel Hruby[edit]

It does not make sense to add the link to Pavel's popular Stencil to the Visio article and removing it here. Visio has hundreds if not thousands of Stencils. Pavel's UML Stencils have been well known and have been in use for a long time already, also by well known experts in the field like Robert C. Martin. Visio is not an UML program without the corresponding stencil. I would recommend that people who know something about the field contribute to this article here and that others do some investigation to learn a bit about what we are writing here. This would help understanding in weighting contributions to this article. The form alone is not the key point of this article. Content is more important. Adrian Buehlmann 12:49, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Don't pollute the list. Keep the list nice and simple. What make Pavel's templates so special that it has to be listed here? Your explanation above is clearly POV. Why is Visio so special that we have to list everything related to Visio here? This doesn't make sense. There are over 20 programs here. We shouldn't be biased toward Visio. --minghong 09:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not see why listing Pavels Stencil "pollutes" this list. And this isn't POV (I assume you mean Wikipedia:POV). There are well known professionals that use Pavel's Stencils. Pavel's Stencil is the only UML Stencil for Visio which is free and in common use. It does not pollute the list, if we mention the stencil here. And by they way: Do you mean that only "special" programs should be listed here? (If yes, I disagree.) If so, can you list the criteria for being special? The title of the article is "List of UML programs" - not censored list of UML programs or list of special UML programs. Pavel's Stencil turn Visio into an UML diagram program, so that merits listing it here. By the way, I do not have any personal benefit if Pavel's Stencil is listed here. I find, if we list it here, we increase the quality of this article by completing the information. By the way, Pavel is not a nobody. I suspect you are biased against this contribution because it's an external link. I also suspect that you are biased against external links per se because, maybe, you feel that nearly every external link is for SEO only. But that isn't true. At another place you wrote wikipedia is not dmoz. We haven't reached consensus on this point either. Could you please explain why listing pavel's stencil pollutes this list? Couldn't it be that suppressing listing it is your POV? And what are your criteria for this list beeing nice. Isn't that POV either? And what is your definition of simple - does that mean that we only can make additions to this article that pass your POV test for simplicity? Adrian Buehlmann 14:46, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
You clearly understood my point. Every entry here should be treated equally. There is no special treatment. Therefore Visio shouldn't be treated specially (allow it to mess up the page). Take a look of the article title. It is "List of UML programs". Visio stencil is clearly not a program. Reader interested in Visio-specific information should follow the link and go to the Visio article to read more. --minghong 15:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Wrong. I completely disagree. You are suppressing me, adding valid information to this article, because it does not fit your personal style. And you haven't answered any of my questions. I do not see how a link to the stencil can mess up the page. By the way: you haven't contributed anything to this article so far. You are just deleting, suppressing in your opinion misfitting content. This is nothing else than censorship, because you ignore others opinions. It is downright ridiculous to designate this link I added as an advertisement - as you did in the edit summary (Did you see that the stencil is is free?). I will stop here and let you go. Congratulations. I hereby resign. Go ahead. Adrian Buehlmann 17:13, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
Contributation doesn't only include addition, it also include article maintenance, categorization, etc. This is not the only one article I care, see my contributions. I think you should take a wider look of Wikipedia. Don't just concentrating on the area of UML tool. --minghong 09:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
And you forgot deletion. And yes, I took a wider look of Wikipedia. For example I have read Wikipedia:Revert (found on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines) which states Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face (I admit: I sometimes had that feeling here). And A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Or what about this on deletions: List your objections on the Talk page, but leave the main article as is ... Then, wait a bit for responses. And yes, I have taken a look at other lists of software and found that List of integrated development environments uses named external links, which I find superior, but which you do not want here (see other discussion point on this talk page) -- Adrian Buehlmann 15:58, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
In several of the commercially available list of UML tools the Pavel's Visio Stencil is included. In addition, Visio itself, bought with the correct options is a full featured UML tool, capable of generating and reverse-engineering code.Mjchonoles 04:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Should we Vfd?[edit]

Maybe this list is too broad: it covers everything related to UML, making comparison not possible/meaningless. UML is just one of the many ways of expressing idea. We should list the software according to the genre, not the technologies supported. e.g. We don't have "List of RSS programs", but we do have "List of news aggregators". Perhaps this article shouldn't exist. The software here should be listed in somewhere like "List of diagramming software", "List of code generation software", "List of code synthesis software", etc.

What do you all think? If no one object, I'm going to do that. --minghong 10:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Please do not delete/split this article. This list corresponds to the article Unified Modeling Language. It is correct that the full process of UML has some controversies, especially the automatic generation of code from model data. Nevertheless the graphic notation of the UML diagrams is widely accepted and there is industry wide consensus to use it over older previously competing notations. But people do study UML and they do think how far they should use the UML. And for that purpose it is helpful to have an article listing programs supporting some degree of UML. A "List of code generation software" would not be helpful. This would be list-inflationary. It would also be hard to categorize UML software because the degree of support for several aspects of the UML process (diagramming, code generation, reverse engineering) varies largely. And there are even other aspects. -- Adrian Buehlmann 12:47, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

JUDE may be proprietary[edit]

I could not verify that JUDE is Free Software

Then shouldn't it be on the proprietary software list?

blueprint may be proprietary[edit]

The site does not mention if blueprint is Free Software or Open Source. Please try downloading it and install it to see whether there is a README file or a EULA that indicates its status

It is proprietary & is furthermore non-notable. I rmed it. --Karnesky 00:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Blueprint found its way back into the non-proprietary section. I summarily deleted it for their unethical advertising tactics. --The Extremist [User, Talk] 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

UML Tools not UML Programs[edit]

I've been doing UML tool investigations for many years. No one ever call them "UML Programs". It's always "UML Tools". I would like to change this. Mjchonoles 04:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the rename from "UML Programs" to "UML Tools", if you prefer. This includes my agreement to rename the article "UML Program" to "UML Tool", if that should be requested. I believe that more people do search for "UML Tool" than for "UML Programs" on the internet. However, it might be that the term "program" is more precise than "Tool". Another option would be to use the term "UML Software", as there are several other wikipedia articles which use the sub-term "Software". Adrian Buehlmann 11:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
For example, there is a category "Lists of software" (see [2]). On that page, the sub-term "software" appears several times, whereas "programs" appears only in List of Unix programs (where I find it totally appropriate) and in list of UML programs. Adrian Buehlmann 11:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
I have done the move from "UML programs" to "UML tools". So, the name of the article is now "UML tools". Follow-up work is in progress (fixing links, ...). Adrian Buehlmann 08:50, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

List is long and volatile[edit]

Also at my last count, there were over 150 of these UML Tools available, but the list of tools and their webwsites, even their Open Source status change very rapidly. Do we really want a list that so long and volatile?Mjchonoles 04:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not find a conclusion in your observation. What is your intention then? Would you propose to delete this list here? (If yes, I would oppose). Adrian Buehlmann 13:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Just a warning. It's a useful list to me, but I'm relatively new here, and didn't want to go throught the trouble of making the changes, adding tools, and then finding that it wasn't desired because of the size and volatility. Mjchonoles 13:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I cannot see why any specific UML tool should not be allowed to be added here as long as this list exists. If anybody has some tool to report here, then go for it. This is not a censored exclusive club of tools (in contrast to some other lists, which are not publicly edited). The sheer amount of tools doesn't bother me. I think all tools should be treated equally and therefore every UML tool does have the right to be added here. And I think the volatility isn't that of a problem. We may also do have the chance that this list here is more complete and more accurate than others, because we can be faster than other centrally administrated lists on the web. Just my (somewhat longer) five cents. By the way, you may also contact me by private email if you would like to discuss this a bit deeper. Just click on my name. And welcome to wikipedia! Adrian Buehlmann 17:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
A good list is comprehensive, maintainable, and usable. There should be a criterion for inclusion. I know you disagree with WP:SOFTWARE, but we need some figure of merit. WP is not a database, nor a list of links. I'll propose several of the redlinked products for removal from the list. --Karnesky 00:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct name/capitalization is ArgoUML[edit]

The correct spelling of the name of this program, as given in all its documentation, is ArgoUML. I wasn't sure about the implications on linking if the name of the page was changed, so I didn't do any edits, but would appreciate it if someone could make the change.

Done. Adrian Buehlmann 12:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Only registered users are allowed to rename pages (see also why create an account?) --Adrian Buehlmann 20:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Supports UML 2.0[edit]

While it is technically difficult to determine whether a tool has full support of UML 2.0 (mainly because OMG has not yet come up with a certification suite), for a tool to be mentioned as supporting UML 2.0, it should

  1. Claim that it is a UML 2.0 tool
  2. Support the majority of UML 2.0 diagram types
  3. Support the majority of UML 2.0 features

At this point, Poseidon does not offer a UML 2.0 tool. They do support some of the UML 2.0 interchange capabilibities and the UML 2.0 sequence diagrams, but they do not yet offer the rest of the diagrams, nor do they yet claim full support for UML 2.0. I'm sure that they will soon qualify. Mjchonoles 17:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


May I ask: what has this to do with UML? I could not find the term "UML" nor "Unified Modeling Language" on any of the html pages where the external link points to. (Just thinking if that might fit better somewhere else) – Adrian | Talk 22:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Dmoz[edit]

Template:Dmoz has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz. Thank you. Adrian Buehlmann 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable products[edit]

I would argue that the following should be rmed from the list as non-notable, in approximate order of how strongly I think they should be rmed:

  • No Magic MagicDraw UML was AfDed once [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/No_Magic_MagicDraw_UML] and deleted once before that
  • Dotnet2UML AfDed as non notable Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DotNet2UML
  • Telelogic Tau G2 deleted as copyvio (presumably spam)
  • Eclipse GMT-XUML (UMLX) EARLY beta. And Eclipse is already listed
  • Jumli (very few users)
  • Umlet (very few users)
  • Ferret (relatively new, small user base)
  • Violet (small user base)
  • Gaphor (<1000 users)
  • Unimod (article was deleted due to link spam twice)
  • Artisan, eReqs MID, eclipseUML - I just think they're not notable
  • TO check: Telelogic System Architect [21], Telelogic Tau G2 [22], Unimodeler [23]

Removal is not a judgement on the quality of a piece of software--only of notability. Inclusion in this list doesn't mean I don't like you or your product. Exclusion from the list doesn't mean I do, nor that your product is actually notable -- I might have just missed you.--Karnesky 01:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remove whatever you think should be removed. I promise not to revert you, despite I disagree with you. I think if you remove those from the list, people will just come back and readd them or will add them to Unified Modeling Language or UML tool. I will not revert them, as I assume you are going to keep an eye on these articles in the future. Good luck! --Adrian Buehlmann 08:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD results[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion; the result was keep (following revisions). For details, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UML tools. BD2412 T 19:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Extra comments on links...should just go?[edit]

Honestly, the extra comments next to the links are ridiculous... MagicDraw's comments go over one line describing functionality that Sparx Enterprise Architect has as well, but it only says "supports UML 2.0". Can we get some consistency? Bihal 06:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just edit the page! Then we know what you want to have ;-) --Ligulem 07:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, since this page is about UML tools, I'm going to edit all the comments to describe what version of UML it supports, along with what degree, and I think it should stay that way. Anymore than that is just marketing. Bihal 01:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Notes on my changes
ATL <-- doesn't seem to belong here
Modelistic JME <-- only supports class diagrams? Doesn't sound like a UML tool.
Change on the page was made by me, forgot to sign in. Bihal
Apologies, but I find your edit too extreme. I have thus reverted. I think a short explanation is useful and shouldn't be removed. BTW, may I ask you to sign your talk page posts with --~~~~ (thirdmost button from the right on top of the edit window)? This produces also a timestamp. Thanks. --Ligulem 11:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I forgot to sign in. In regards to the article, in its present state it's a joke. Can you imagine the reaction you would have if you opened a printed encyclopedia and got this page? Its present state is a result of either marketing staff or enthusiastic users adding just a little bit more to their preferred product in the hope that it will stand out. If extra information is going to be given, it needs to be in a consistent format or not at all. Bihal 23:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You are raising some valid points. Maybe we can find some sort of compromise? Problem with your comparison here is, a printed Encyclopedia is not edited by everyone and does not have to obey consensus (Britannica sure has a hierarchical power structure with an escalating scheme up to the CEO which has the final word on everything). I can assure you that there are people who find this list here useful. We have taken this list out of the Unified Modeling Language article, because people kept adding tools there. And you can remove things here, they are readded once a week. Also, Wikipedia is not censored, which in this particular case means we don't present a biased collection of tools here. We all agree that info on this list here should be NPOV and factually true and that each entry should not exceed a certain amount (as you said in your initial statement). I do have a problem though, if you remove descriptions entierly. --Ligulem 08:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
What we need is a table/matrix like this [3] for the list, so the information is in a consistent format. We should be striving for equal and unbiased representation of the software listed on this page. That means presenting the information consistently. Bihal 02:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh. I don't think such a huge table would be helpful here. I completely agree with the unbiased. It's also good to strive for equality if possible, but not at the cost of removing information. I don't think that every entry has to look exactly like one another. If there is something useful to write about a tool that can be written in a non-POV factually true way in one or two lines, then it we should keep that. Of course words like "fastest" or something should be avoided and rewritten as needed. But we should trying to stay unbiased against any specific tool or class of tools. Otherwise we risk treating some tools unfair. --Ligulem 07:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
But we show bias by not having the same information for every entry. For example, the Marketing manager for Product A writes a NPOV feature statement about his product. Several other products have this feature, but only this one has it included in the article. This exclusion is a form of bias against Products B,C,D,E etc Bihal 06:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I've reverted the removal of all external links by by GraemeL. These links are not linkspam. If we keep just those links where we have an article, people will start again creating articles for each tool, which is not wanted either. If we accept only a limited number of tools, we have to choose which ones. If we would do this, we would violate WP:NPOV. If we delete this page, UML tools will be added again to UML tool or Unified Modeling Language, a situation we already had. It's much better to have a separate tool list. --Ligulem 23:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: GraemeL removed not only the external links, but also removed tools that don't have a separate article. So how can we make sure we have not a censored set of tools on Wikipedia? --Ligulem 01:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
For third parties: See also User_talk:GraemeL#List_of_UML_tools and User_talk:Ligulem#External_links. --Ligulem 00:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If we look for example at Visual Paradigm SDE Community Edition: That UML tool has it's own article with an external link. Is that external link ok there or not? If it is, should we create again articles for some tools that GraemeL removed from this list? And what is the criteria we use to create articles? How can we make sure we are not biased towards any tool or groups of tools (for example, should open source/free tools treated differently or not)? If we really remove all the open source tools from this list (together with their external links) they are readded day by day, either here or on UML tool or Unified Modeling Language. The whole thing started as a small list of some tools in Unified Modeling Language and then was moved into this separate page here. --Ligulem 01:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. GraemeL seems to refuse to discuss this. I tagged said article with a speedy delete [4], as it is Spam as well per the deletion of tools by GraemeL here. --Ligulem 13:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be an overly reactive approach to not being able to solve an editing dispute with Graemel. The list is useful and gives users a needed idea of the extent and penetration of UML market. Simple descriptions of the UML tools are needed to understand the specialization / fractionalization forces that are in play in the tool marketplace

In addition, we've already had a vfd here, and it failed. Let's not do this again and again.Mjchonoles 14:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The dispute with GraemeL is resolved. I have accepted his removal of external links. Thus the PROD. As you know, you can simply remove the PROD tag if you disagree with the deletion. On the other hand, you didn't address what I wrote in the PROD reasons. --Ligulem 15:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Removed the PROD myself per your disagreement [5]. --Ligulem 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are again many external links in the article, I added a cleanup tag. As list inclusion criteria I suggest to keep only entries with wikipedia article (as notability filter). - (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment and have removed the tag. Please discuss before adding such a tag again in the future. This has already been debated heavily here and the majority disagree with you regarding external links. This page has been voted to be kept. Please keep it in its current state. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the misplaced external links per WP:MOS, specifically, Wikipedia:Linking#Position_in_article. The majority of IPs here appear to be promoting their UML tools. Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

this is such a hot topic, so I'll just suggest to remove the links to pages and forums which are old and updated or they don't have any information at all this is a good candidate - just nine tools and there aren't post on the forum. This link was deleted too in UML wikipedia page.

The others links I think are ok. (it appears to be ok IMHO, but I have some doubts Id recommend to take a look) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aludstartups (talkcontribs) 17:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

More UML tools[edit]

Considerations on new tools? Specifically Architexa? How to go about an introduction, and what's required? Nhbaldwin (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)nhbaldwin 19 April 2011

I am new to editing wikipedia, and so I didn't edit the actual page. Among the tools that I've tried, I found two (both open source) very helpful: - a javadoc tool run from the command line (as taken from the docs:) "javadoc -docletpath UmlGraph.jar -doclet gr.spinellis.umlgraph.doclet.UmlGraph -private dot -Tps -ograph" It Generates UML class diagrams and sequence diagrams for documentation purposes. I found it very powerful and fun to explore. - a "LIVE round-tripping editor" which is great for generating UML models of existing code, but I don't think it is stable or accurate enough for development projects yet.

TheConfusedOne 11:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

JBuilder 2007 Enterprise also contains UML functionality. (

I found a UML tool not on the list: UMLet

jj5 (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Does it have an article on Wikipedia? If so, it's notable and should be added. If not, we shouldn't list it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No one has put up anything pointing to Metamill,, which I am not associated with, but looks like a running product based on what I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Table instead of list?[edit]

There is a lot of information in this list, and it's really not very helpful. This really needs to get rewritten as a table, similar to Comparison_of_accounting_software. There has been some talk as to what information is important. I'd recommend: Name, Developer, Platform (Win/OSX/Linux), License (FOSS/Proprietary, etc), UML Support (1, 2, etc), Code Generation support (from diagram), Diagram Generation support (from code), brief description. Anything else can and should go in their pages. When that is finished, it may also be a good idea to rename this page "Comparison of UML Tools". David Souther (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ftiercel (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest stable version[edit]

The "latest stable version" column of the comparison table should not contain version numbers, as these mean nothing in comparison to each other. Instead, it should contain a date (as in the "First public release" column). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


I do not want to cause controversy where it is not needed, but someone please rearrange this article to make the distinction between Free and Free more clear.

What I mean is, Free Software is not necessarily non-commercial, and Non-commercial software is not necessarily Free. Thus, grouping the two in the same category - particularly when it seems to oppose commercial/proprietary (also in a single category); this is clearly incorrect.

The edit should be to simply remove the second categorisation (free/proprietary) as, even if you don't agree with my definition of these words, you must agree that the definition is disputed. I didn't make the edit myself because of its controversial nature, and because I don't count myself as a Wikipedia editor (heck, I don't even count myself as a Wikipedia user).

Thank you. --Yoda (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing tool[edit]

OpenAmeos is missing - since I just found it, I do not know whether it is usable or relevant at all. But the authors say it was "the multi-platform/multi-user UML® Modeling Environment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Jude -> Astah[edit]

Change Vision JUDE has been renamed and/or superceded by astah*. Since JUDE has been EOL'ed, it is no longer noteworthy; therefore we should replace it with a reference to "astah*". The licensing model of astah* appears to be similar to or identical to the licensing model of JUDE, with the community (feature limited) version being unlimited-use freeware, and requiring commercial licenses to unlock all the features. I didn't make this change because I am not really an experienced editor and I wanted to solicit feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allquixotic (talkcontribs) 13:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

MDA – what exactly?[edit]

What does the app have to have for it to be MDA-compatible?? I find this very subjective and it really is not clear atm what the apps can do if they have a yes there. Code generation? Modeling is enough? --Kissaki (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

eUML2 – Why eUML2 is not mentioned in here?[edit]

eUML2 --Achyuth (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Only the tools that have an article can be added. Ftiercel (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Other UML tools[edit]

As it is said in the TODO list, this section should be merged into the two other sections. It should have been for a long time ago. I have already merged what I can. If nothing changes, I will remove this inappropriate section in a month. Ftiercel (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why they should be merged. No rationale was given on the todo list and it doesn't make sense to merge them. Can you give a rationale for merging? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no difference between being in the first two tables and being in the last table. The separation is only due to the past of the article. Ftiercel (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I have merged the content. Ftiercel (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It was there because there were major gaps in the information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverse engineering of programming languages[edit]

Can it be explained somewhat, rather than just thrown in there? --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

== Please add this tool: (It has been creating for several yrs now) then you can delete this, thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)