Template talk:Infobox software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

add Owner?[edit]

Dec 2014[edit]

I feel that there should be an Owner parameter, or someway to designate who or which company owns the software. For example Waze is now owned by Google. There is no way to easily display who owns Waze. Also, in the history on Waze someone has edited in the owner parameter already in hope that it would display. --Frankthetankk 21:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: In Waze, use |author=Waze Mobile |developer=Google. If Google is not developing it, use |developer=Waze Mobile and do not assume that Google acquired everything that Waze Mobile owned, unless you have a source. We have no end of trouble with people who assume Microsoft now owns Symbian OS because it has acquired Nokia. (This assumption is wrong; Symbian is owned by Accenture.) Otherwise, the justification given is not enough. If you have additional justifications, I'll be on around. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. That's a great response. --Frankthetankk 19:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Not so Fast[edit]

I think that it still might be a good idea to consider having (something like) an "Owner:" field. For example, in the article [about] TaxACT, it is stated clearly in the body of the article (not in the "Infobox software"), that

Blucora, then Infospace, acquired TaxACT in January 2012.[8]

. However, I think (and the [future!] consensus might agree) that it would be useful, to [also] have some kind of appropriate slot in the {{Infobox software}} template, for a place to mention Blucora (and maybe even to "also" mention that Blucora is the "parent company" or successor [or, new name] of what used to be called "Infospace").

If this template had an "Owner:" field, then (apparently) the correct contents for the "Owner:" field, in the article about Symbian, would be "Accenture". (right?) IMHO if someone were to enter something that is not correct, -- (no matter whether in the body of an article, or in an "Infobox software" template) -- then the solution would be for some later editor to come along and make a correction.

It seems to me that the decision about whether the information (OR the error, "if any") belongs (only) in the body of an article, or (both in the body of the article, and) in an "Infobox software" template, is a separate issue from the goal of trying to make sure that the information being provided is correct.

In general (like, in the example of TaxACT), (and maybe also Waze), if the information about the owner is useful (interesting and notable) enough to appear in the body of the article, then IMHO it might be a good idea to include some mention of it, in the {{Infobox software}} template. Just my 0.02. YMMV. Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Another Example[edit]

The page "Android (operating system)" uses the {{Infobox OS}} template. (Is that similar to {{Infobox software}}?) I noticed that, under "Developer" (as in "Software developer") there, it lists both "Google" and "Open Handset Alliance".

Is that misleading? From what I have read, it appears that "Android" was [originally developed by] an existing company, which became part of "Google" through a purchase transaction -- ("Google" bought "Android" Inc.). (See Android (operating system)#History). ["See also" the account given, [off-site] -- in about 12 paragraphs or so, starting with "By 2005", (here).]

Of course, the continuing development, after it became part of "Google", was occurring under the guidance of Larry Page, and was occurring as a part of Google. But wouldn't it be more helpful (more "correct") for this to be indicated by having an "Owner" field, and listing Google as the "Owner"?

I am not sure whether that topic (the issue of having an "Owner" field, in the {{Infobox OS}} template, is a separate topic from the issue of having an "Owner" field, in {{Infobox software}}. But IMHO the two [topics] are (at least) similar -- if not related. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Hi. Apart from the fact that I find your style of writing (which consist of an abundance of redundant links, repeated links, broken links, boldfaces, nested parentheses and nested brackets) is extremely annoying, I don't think you have grasped the concepts of due weight, verifiability and software ownership properly. The more I read, the more I become sure that the request is a can of worms.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Discontinued parameter[edit]

I believe this parameter shouldn't exist or be repurposed to show the date of discontinuation. Since there's already a 'status' parameter where the software discontinuation can be (and is) shown, it's redundant. Not to mention, the 'discontinued' parameter replaces (for some reason) the 'latest stable release' which is useful information to the reader. LusoEditor (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)