Jump to content

Talk:PragmaDev Studio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note regarding refactoring of comments

[edit]

The comments I initially placed here have been moved to the proposed for 'deletion' page. rickreed (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Hello,

I work on behalf of Airbus to develop Air Traffic Control applications. We use Pragmadev RTDS tool for many years to develop these applications. RTDS is one of the rare tools that support SDL notation and can simulate model and generate code. Moreover, RTDS is now used in both industrial (avionics, telecommunication...) and research domains (formal proof...).

From my point of view, I think it is relevant to have a dedicated wiki page for RTDS.

Regards Julien Honore (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag restored

[edit]

The notability tag has been restored.  The community has already spoken at the AfD, there was no determination that the topic is not notable, and placing such a tag on the article now is not actionable.  Regarding the claim that citations don't count as references in consideration of wp:notability, this view is without merit.  wp:notability exists independently of the sources in a Wikipedia article.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Note that in WP:BRD, discussion occurs after the R.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one reference, and that's self-published. The AfD discussion did not result in a keep, it was "no consensus" to delete. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And so you "discuss" and then revert when you don't get your way? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of the D in WP:BRD do you not want to understand?  You were bold, I reverted, there is not another R there.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of not getting my way is escalation.  It is not helpful.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way.
You did make several inaccurate statements though and you've corrected none of them:
  1. The community did not speak unanimously. Several editors stated that the article does not meet notability requirements that is why that tag was added. That is why that tag has merit.
  2. You didn't add a single reference, you added "further reading", and you added it in the wrong location.
Rather than discuss this, you decided to remove it. That's edit warring. That's a problem.
Removing the other clearly correct tags is even more wrong, but I don't think I need to explain why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have copied a post on my talk page here:
== "Further reading" is not "references" ==
You're mistaken. Please self-revert and discuss as requested and stop edit warring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the AfD was inconclusive and did not end in a "keep" vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You became agitated at AfD because you thought that when I said "material/information" I was saying "articles".  Now you don't understand or haven't taken the time to research the relationship between references and citations, which is that they are synonyms except that it is a Wikipedia convention to refer to the listings under Further Reading as citations.  However, they are still properly called references.  The idea that references/citations don't count because they are listed in the Further reading section I have already stated above has no merit.  As per WP:N, wp:notability only requires evidence that sources exist, not their actual citation.  I have restored a consensus version of the article in response to your request to self-revert.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't become agitated at all, I simply tagged the article correctly and stated the obvious.
Notability does not exist just because you say it does. Several editors disagreed that there was notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There was no determination at the AfD that the topic was non-notable, so your view was not sustained.
  2. Adding a tag now is not actionable, and you haven't attempted to refute this point.
  3. There are already 13 references/citations in the article.  How many do you want?
  4. You've not explained why we should keep the tag on the article while you build consensus to put it there.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No, you have been removing the tag because of the AfD. WP:N is clear and it applies here. You can't use the AfD discussion to play both sides of your discussion.
  2. Adding a tag is fully actionable: fix the problem as tagged.
  3. There is one, reference: http://www.pragmadev.com/company.html There are a dozen items in the "further reading" section. None of them are references to anything. However, if you continue to insist on stating that they are somehow references, I can add a {{tl:citation style}} instead of the {{one source}} and {{ref improve}}. You'll have to prove that they reference somthing though.
  4. Tags don't need consensus when their presence is obvious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're capable at looking at the AfD discussion. You're capable of counting. I'm not your servant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you examined the AfD. Where exactly did you see that there was any discussion of notability? There was edit that specifically stated that the subject "Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources". No one else actually provided any 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable sources that are 3) independent from the subject. That's why two "votes", as you called them, were able to prevent the article from being closed as keep. The remainder of the Real Time Developer Studio user group that showed-up to vote didn't offer any either. It does not meet the notability criteria based on that alone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is "several editors" "two editors"?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sorry. I should have clarified. I confused this AfD with another that was ongoing at the same time. There were only two who correctly used Wikipedia guidelines to request its inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd love to continue this useless discussion about users, which is against WP:NPA, why don't we discuss the subject's notability. Where are those "references"? I didn't see them get added. Many of the items in the further reading don't even mention Real Time Developer Studio. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per Template:Unreferenced, "A citation is any description of a reliable source that supports any of the article content, even a bare URL. The format of the citation and the name of the section heading are not what determines whether a link or citation is a source."  WP:N states, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you put that here and not below the response from the third opinion.
Please show me where those further reading articles discuss the subject in detail. I checked and didn't see it, but then I simply searched for the term "real time" and not an acronym of the subject's name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection requested

[edit]

A request was made at WP:RFPP for indefinite full protection.  The request was rejected by two admins; however, one of the two admins decided to add a one-week protection.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement that there is no consensus to add the notability tag

[edit]

This edit documents that there is no consensus to add the notability tag.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That shows nothing other than I added it. Why are you intentionally misrepresenting information? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So is your point that your edit was not what you intended, and that there is something else, in your opinion, that is the consensus version of the article?  Please do explain.  Unscintillating (talk)
No. The edit does not show that it wasn't against consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is a triple negative with an unclear antecedent for the "it".  Are you redacting diff=602067801 or not?  If you are, the admin who froze the article based on that diff should know.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I thought you were smart. I won't make that mistake again.
Let me make this clear, does this article meet notability guidelines? If it does, then you should have no problems with providing the material to support that. If it does not, then it should be tagged. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We just had a one-month AfD discussion, and in that month only one editor agreed with you about notability.  There are currently 13 references/citations in the article.  These references were reported at the AfD.  Now you've escalated by adding a reference to a penis in your last edit comment.  For your part you have told me I was "wrong", "dead wrong", other escalatory language such as that I have made edits to get my way, that I've made inaccurate statements that I have not corrected, that I've edit warred, and that I haven't discussed on the talk page here.  Above you made a reference to WP:NPA because I asked three times before I got a clarification for a statement you made.  You have templated my talk page.  In this thread you've used the accusatory language of "intentional misrepresentation", not "smart", and now the penis thing.  You first started using escalatory language when I researched the relationship between WP:N and entries in lists, and reported those guidelines at the AfD.  In this thread, I still don't know if you are redacting diff=602067801.  Where do you think this is headed?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated several times that there is currently only one reference in the article. Anyone can see that. I also just stated that the links in the further reading section do not discuss the subject of the article. Perhaps you should check your facts before making false statements. When you have references that show the subject's notability, please provide them here and indicate precisely how they discuss the subject. Without that, there's no reason to discuss this further. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
Hey User:Unscintillating and User:Walter Görlitz, I saw the request at WP:3O and swung by. I think I've never edited this page before and thus might be able to approach this neutrally. Just a reminder this process is non-binding, etc. etc.

I have two thoughts:
1.) There is currently one source in the article itself - inline citations are all that matter in this regard, per WP:CITE. "External links" don't count. Thus, I would put a "needs sources" tag on the article unless more sources can be provided to verify information in the article (and be used for inline citations).
2.) This conversation seems like it is escalating in tone - I'd encourage both of you to WP:AGF and please remain civil. We're all here to improve Wikipedia, even if we don't necessarily agree on how it should always be done.
Please let me know how I can be of more assistance, I'll be watching the talk page for a few days (but pinging me helps, too). If I'm missing what exactly it is you two disagree about, then please don't hesitate to clarify for me. Thanks. GRUcrule (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC) GRUcrule (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What if the article quotes some of the papers ? Would that be considered as different sources ? Manu31415 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the article quoted or relied on material in some of the papers two things would be required.
  1. They would have to be added as references.
  2. They would have to be removed from the further reading section.
Ideally, they material would actually have to be supported. When I checked the first two had reached their limit of views at Google books and so I couldn't see where the subject was discussed for lack of access. The others didn't discuss the subject using its name. It may have been discussed using an acronym or initialism. That is why I'd be concerned about how it's used in a reference, but that would obviously add more references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, because there's more than two parties involved, this isn't officially 3O anymore (per WP:3O, only two parties should be involved.) I'm still happy to try and offer my input, but not in this thread. I'll comment below. GRUcrule (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What tags should be added to the article?

[edit]

The current dispute began with the addition of four tags.  The article was frozen without restoring the consensus/undisputed version of the article, so there is no established consensus to add any of the four tags.  Additional tags have been mentioned or suggested, so I've added these to the discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to misuse the term WP:CONSENSUS. Please stop doing. The previous "consensus" was one of silence and so carries no weight at all.
The four that I added are sufficient and yours could be added as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I've "misused", I need to "stop" doing <something>, the previous silent consensus carries no weight(?), and you don't want to discuss any of the four tags because the four you added are "sufficient".  You imply that I added more than one tag, but of the six tags listed, five are your suggestions.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:one source

[edit]

Template:primary sources

[edit]

Template:ref improve

[edit]

Template:notability

[edit]

Template:Unreferenced section

[edit]

Template:citation style

[edit]

I disagree that as currently constructed, the use of the one source and primary source tags are technicalities....there is only one source used as an inline citation. Per WP:CITE and WP:GNG that's not good enough, so those tags should be there (as you stated). Agree with the ref improve, so I don't know if it's completely important to put the "unref'd section" tags or if that might simply be overkill. I don't think the Citation Style template is necessary because the issue is a lack of sources, not an improper use of them. In terms of notability, I think if you look at WP:GNG, as currently constructed the article deserves the tag because with one primary source as the only inline citation, it clearly doesn't have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." EDIT: Realized I didn't answer the question posed by Unscintillating (sorry...). I don't think WP:CONSENSUS applies here because this is a cut-and-dry look at WP:GNG and Wikipedia's "norms" as it says on the CONSENSUS page are what's in question here. The lack of sourcing in the article means there are inherent issues of notability, that much can't be denied. However, if there are plans to add reliable sources to the article once the protection template is taken down, then I could see NOT putting that notability tag on the article for now.

I also think that if there continues to be strong disagreement, then posting your concerns to the WP:DRN may be beneficial (it's the place for content disputes, which this is). Just my two cents. GRUcrule (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New reference

[edit]

I just found out a new reference to RTDS: https://github.com/mbrumbulli/demoddix

The article has a unique source because it has been nominated for deletion as soon as it was created, and now it can not be edited anymore.Manu31415 (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few points of clarification.
  1. The github link doesn't qualify to confirm notability as it is not significant coverage, it is not a reliable source, although it appears to be independent of the subject.
  2. The article was recreated after a previous deletion process succeeded.
  3. The deletion process was not related to its locking for editing, that was due to edit warring by another editor. The article is no longer locked. The lock expired about an hour after you posted.
Thanks for discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your belief that "another editor" did something, as if you had no involvement, speaks to your own limitations in speaking with objectivity.  The "B" in WP:BRD stands for a bold edit.  The "R" stands for revert.  The next step in the process is "D" for "discuss".  The problem started when you chose to "R" instead of "D".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK let's talk about your behaviour.
You were make dick edits.
I explain why you were being a dick, without resorting to calling you names.
You told me to f-off without being quite that rude.
I didn't back down because I I can deal with it.
You took your opinion to 3O.
3O came in and agreed that what you were saying was wrong.
Take responsibility for your behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connected contributor contributions up to May 2020

[edit]

Per Old revision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PragmaDev Process this article seems to have significant contributions from connected contributors, albeit likely done in ignorance and good faith in my opinion, with little attempt to hide any connection. I have applied a Template:COI to the article and about to apply a Template:Connected Contributor template to this talk page. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PragmaDev_Studio&oldid=970160926"