Talk:Hugin (software)/Archive 1

Notability

I see [1] that an article published by the Free Software Magazine was used to assert notability. FSM is an on-line e-zine. Is that a WP:RS in terms of WP:NOTABILITY? I need to go re-read those guidelines. (Requestion 00:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

Quite frankly it's not a great source for notability, but it's among the easier ones to accept for people who know little about free software. The usual criteria don't work well for software, even less for FOSS. There has been an attempt at creating a notability guideline for software, but it's inactive (Wikipedia:Notability (software)). Software like Hugin and ATLAS (an article which saw the same discussion) is clearly notable, and if it didn't satisfy the guideline (it does), then you'd know there's something wrong with the guideline. Rl 06:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, ATLAS is definitely notable. There must be a huge number of verifiable and reliable third party references for ATLAS, so I'm surprised there was even a discussion. Hugin is in a different class. Don't worry, I don't plan on pursuing notability here, I just wanted to raise the question because I've been seeing a lot of WP:RS problems lately. I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Notability (software), thank you for pointing it out to me. (Requestion 16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

Wow, I forgot I said that above. What brought me back here was that someone added a GoogleGroup forum link which WP:EL says to avoid. Then I saw that FSM e-zine link and we had a recent spamming problem with that at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_May#http:.2F.2Fspam.freesoftwaremagazine.com_http:.2F.2Fspam.illiterarty.com. Then I looked at the history log, saw the speedy "CSD A7 candidate" and notability edit summaries and thought that something was going on. I did it without thinking and I didn't intend to bring up the notability issue. But now that this can of worms is out of the bag let's deal with it and fix it for good this time. The key line from Wikipedia:Notability (software) is "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author" which parallels the line of thinking in WP:NOTABILITY. (Requestion 13:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Can't assist with figuring out the guidelines. The software is featured in an extensive tutorial in a major German print magazine: c't Magazin für Computertechnik 21/2006, pp. 224-226 [2], if that helps. 84.129.184.123 10:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Now the c't print magazine would make a good reference. Another one or two of those would do it. Also would inclusion in some sort of Linux distribution. (Requestion 13:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

hugin is in OpenSuSE, Debian Etch, Fedora Extras, Gentoo, FreeBSD Ports and probably others. But quite frankly I'm tired of defending articles against {{notability}}. I'm taking this off my watchlist. Rl 18:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that and the c't article are definitely enough to assert notability. Why don't the article creators add this stuff when they first create the article? It would save a whole lot of trouble. I'm removing the notability tag but someone else should add a couple refs to keep this from happening again. (Requestion 19:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Note that on the stats page of sourceforge the number of downloads each day is measured in thousands: [3] —Pengo 14:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Positive Outcome - The Hugin (software) page looks great. It now fits as a contribution with merit to the Wikipedia. You guys amaze me when you pull together for a common cause. John Spikowski 20:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)