Talk:Scientific WorkPlace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Sales pitch?[edit]

I have made some edits, but overall this article sounds too much like marketing material. I checked it is different than the blurb at, fortunately. Also, I think the product started its life as T3 on DOS funded by an NSF SBIR grant before bought out by MacKichan, should that be perhaps mentioned. Don't have verifiable sources for that though, WP:OR. Jmath666 (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is like an advert - I see no reason for this page at all.[edit]

I see no justification for having this page. It is not a paricularly important piece of software. It simply looks like an advert to me too. Even if it was re-written in a non-advert manner, I do not believe the software deserves an entry. Drkirkby (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly it should not look like an advertisement. When I get a chance, I'll try to edit it to be more neutral.Theodore.norvell (talk)
As to whether it "deserves" an entry: There are lots of pages about various editors and word processors. For example Word and MacWrite. There is even a page comparing 20 TeX editors; 18 of these have their own pages. There is a List of Word Processors with about 80 word processors listed; almost all have their own pages. Who is to say what makes one piece of software sufficiently important to merit a Wikipedia entry and another not? Scientific Workplace/Word is one of only two (that I know of) editors for LaTeX that presents a somewhat WYSIWYG view of the document. That makes it highly valuable to those who need to edit LaTeX as efficiently as possible. Theodore.norvell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC).

I tend to disagree with whom mentioned it as not an important piece of software, do you know that the majority of Scientists use this software...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleAraujo (talkcontribs) 07:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Version 6.0 is out[edit]

since version 6.0 of scientific workplace has been out for almost 2 weeks now, when will the page be updated to say this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Some proposed changes[edit]

Hello. I'd like to request some updates for the Scientific WorkPlace page We're Scientific Word Ltd., the UK distributors of this software for MacKichan Software. Here are our suggested edits:

1. Opening line: is a software package for scientific word processing on Microsoft Windows *and Mac* 2. Right hand panel: the current version is v6.0.26 (March 23rd 2017) 3. Right hand panel: Could we ask that you add a link to our page 4. External links: Could we ask that you add a link to us, Scientific Word Ltd and our website, distributors in the UK and Ireland 5. Further information you might wish to use about the latest version 6.0 is available at

Thanks a lot. Do feel free to Email us at for any clarifications. Christopher Mabb (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Christopher. Unfortunately, I could only implement all but the last request. An encyclopedia cannot accept that link as a source because it is considered a primary source. Although visitors to this page can still find the info about Version 6 direct from the official website. Please contact us with any further requests you have. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
This request (or a portion of it) has been undone by Jytdog, who will explain the situation when he gets the chance. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. We're wondering whether our request has stalled, or whether Jytdog or someone else could explain the current status of our effort to bring the Scientific WorkPlace page up to date. Thanks a lot. Christopher Mabb (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi - please see your user talk page... Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)