Talk:Marxan

Hi,

the speedy deletion of this page is a result of a save in the early stages of writing that was automatically deleted due to its tiny content. I'm currently writing more on this subject, and including some more substantial references.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmut Ahab (talk • contribs) 01:27, 14 August 2006

Hi again,

Oh come on. I'm a PhD student at the University of Melbourne, working in conservation planning, and trust me on this one - MARXAN is the most used piece of marine reserve planning software in the world. It's probably the most used piece of systematic planning software in the world. If you don't believe this to be true, then (a) you're obviously not in the field of conservation planning, and (b), you don't read any conservation journals. Actually, you don't read any journals at all. In an issue of Science last year, Paul Ehrlich (and others) (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5734/603) used MARXAN to define global mammal conservation planning strategies.

The rezoning of the GBR, which represented the world's most progressive marine reserve decision, was powered by MARXAN. They're even using it in Cuba. This is not an ad for the software, and it's distributed free in any case. Pray tell, gentle administrator, how exactly you are qualified to judge whether this piece of software is notable or not?

That was me again --Helmut Ahab 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a primary source, its a teriary source. Everything here has to pass a threshold for inclusion which is verifiability and not truth, see WP:V which is a founding principal of wikipedia. If you can find more non-trivial mentions of this software, especially a write-up of it, this can be used to establish notability. We can't take your word for it. I'm also not an admin, anyone can leave templates and propose deletions and question articles.--Crossmr 01:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you offer some comments as to what constitues "notable software", and why this article does not illustrate that MARXAN fits that description? --Helmut Ahab 02:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the template I put on the article page, the one about the notability. There is a software link there. Its currently a proposed guideline, but still a good indication of what the product should meet. If you can show some verifiable evidence that its a widely used product, or a standard in the industry than that will suffice. If you can reference several non-trivial mentions in these journals or something else like that it should cover it.--Crossmr 02:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of References

Hi,

I've added references indicating the ubiquity of MARXAN in both marine and terrestrial reserve planning. These are mainly from internationally refereed journals, non-governmental environmental organisations' whitepapers and grey literature in the field. There are some explicit statements that MARXAN is the most widely used piece of conservation planning software in the world. I hope this is sufficient, and I admit the article is better as a result. --Helmut Ahab 06:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marxan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]