Talk:Cthugha (software)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Software: Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Can someone confirm if it was Wired magazine, or HotWired magazine that gave Cthugha coverage. The same quote was attributed to both magazines. Marasmusine (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont know the answer to that, but I will certainly say that the hacking back of the article that you just did strikes me as unnecessary and over the top. If you are worried about "cherry picking" of reaction and legacy quotes, why dont you look for some contrary quotes (if you can find any) rather than cutting out the ones that are there?

The references to postings to Usenet from 1993 are historically significant given how the "visualisation" software genre grew afterwards, and are in my opinion noteworthy of inclusion just by themselves. Fig (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not conviced that the Australian PC Review quote was representative of the review as a whole, since it sems to have been pulled from the Official Cthugha Home Page. We should also focus on writing prose rather than collections of quotes. Some of the factual parts of the HotWired (or Wired?) quote I've simply incorporated into citations elsewhere. The rest we can put in the "quote" field of the "cite journal" template once it can be confirmed which journal this was actually from. As for the Usenet posts, I'm not sure how these qualify for WP:Verification. Marasmusine (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]