Talk:AndreaMosaic

Deleting the Article

Non-notable software

The first point we need to understand is: if there should exist an article about a photographic mosaic software. If photomosaic software's are not noticeable enough, then AndreaMosaic should be deleted.

But if there can exist an article in Wikipedia about a photomosaic application then there can exist also an article about AndreaMosaic software because

1. worlwide there exist only few applications (less than 20?) for the Windows platform and even less for Linux
2. it is a freeware software for personal AND commerical use
3. it is a well made software with a high quality level

AndreaPlanet (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As a user of AndreaMosaic Software, I have to disagree with the the non notable Software argument. There are indeed very few good Photomosaic Software, and AndreaMosaic is among the best with the most responsive developer. Wikipedia already has an article on Photomosaic, article that references the AndreaMosaic Software, the least would be that the reference link actually takes people to an article on the Software itself. As a user I can attest that the description made by the Author is perfectly acurate. Scrambler2 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) I would like to add, that the arrival of new tools like DeepZoom are making these mosaics a lot more usefull for computers and online use . They allow people to trully enjoy all the benefits of the very large mosaics, letting them move around an go from global view to deep zoom on details in real time. So Tools such as AndreaMosaic (which has a DeepZoom output), are bound to become more and more popular. Scrambler2 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

COI

I'm the author of the software and I tried to offer a neutral point of view, not spamming or advertising. I will add more references, so that every fact can be verified. AndreaPlanet (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"I tried to offer a neutral point of view, not spamming or advertising" Bluntly, you failed. Our COI policy is so stringent because (with the best will in the world) it's virtually impossible for somebody with a COI (especially one so powerful as yours) to keep a neutral point of view about their brainchild and its notability, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There only is a conflict of interest if the article does not get validated by unbiased people. As a user of the software, I can attest that the description in this article is truthfull and accurately reflects the functionnality of this great freeware. Scrambler2 (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

unsourced

• There are several references about the many features, popularity and artworks.
• License, Versions and actual feature list are available at the official web site.

AndreaPlanet (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should be left on asd it is very informative for new users getting into the field of mosaic art —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.209.127 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, that's not a reason to keep an article. I've had a look at the sources, though, and think it just about passes muster on notability grounds - that several people have used it as the basis for "how-to" guides speaks in its favour. GDallimore (Talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think this article should be left alone for now, and give a chance to users of the Software to contribute more references. Scrambler2 (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I, too, think the article should remain. I have used the program (as well as every other similar program in the industry) & can affirm its description. I have been building mosaics for several years, and an article like this would have been quite handy when I started. It could also use some samples, as well as examples of how is compares to other programs (features, speed, quality), but rather than delete I'd call it a stub & call for additions. As far as neutral POV, I agree with the assertion that the interface could be friendlier & that the grammar leaves a bit to be desired. JazzLad Photography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.19.182 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez, it's sure convienent that all these new users are just happening to make their very first edits defending this page.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not exactly a new user to Wikipedia, and I'll vouch that this software is pretty unusual and noteworthy. I've read the article and didn't see major signs of bias; I'll try to take another look in the coming days, but, as a veteran of Wikipedia (who actually kinda won a dispute with Wikipedia's founder, thank you very much), I'd say this article absolutely oughtta stay. --Thatnewguy (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The request for deletion of the page is fairly recent, so it seems pretty logical that users who start to find out voice their opinion (sorry if I was not faster, I do not spend my life monotoring Wikipedia :)) Scrambler2 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I believe that photographic mosaic software should be present in Wikipedia because photographic mosaics are of interest and the creation of common photmosaics cannot be made without the support of a specialized software (and the existing common Image Editors does not include such kind of features).

• COI issue is solved through the editing by other Wikipedia users that assure NPOV.
• unsourced issue is solved through the existing citations. If this is not true then let us discuss which statements miss citations.
• non-notable issue is solved because AndreaMosaic has popularity (see citations). If this is not true then it should be possible to prove that there exist enough software with a greater popularity (so that AndreaMosaic should not be mentioned in Wikipedia). AndreaPlanet (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You've missed the point somewhat. Popularity is completely irrelevant when deciding what is notable. However, an apparently reliable source SAYING that the software is popular does point towards notability. Do you see the difference?

Think about it this way - a founding pillar of Wikipedia is that content in it should be verifiable by reliable sources that are independent of the topic in question. Unless you have two or more such reliable sources, it is impossible to write an article that rests on this pillar. This has been short-handed as notability, but you see the practical reason why reliable sources - not blog posts or personal websites - are required.

As it happens, I don't think this article should be deleted in view of the sources that have been found (they're not great, but I think they're good enough) so I've removed the proposed deletion notice. However, I still think this article suffers from COI issues and POV issues, so have left/added the relevant templates. Hopefully, this will attract more people to the article to help improve it.

The article can still be nominated for deletion and, believe me, if that happens, don't try arguing that the software is popular or that Wikipedia should have an article on it for that reason. GDallimore (Talk) 09:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And don't bother with "I find it useful" as an argument for retention, either. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we consider the following sentences facts?

1. photographic mosaic's are notable
2. The creation of photomosaics cannot be made by humans, it require a specialized software
3. (So) the topic photographic mosaic software's is notable
4. A specific photographic mosaic software is notable if it is notable compared to all similar software

I start to think that AndreaMosaic is considered by someone as not-notable because I'm the author of the article and the author of the software. By looking at Comparison of raster graphics editors I find for example the articles about Ability Photopaint, ArtRage, Photogenics, (and many more) that seems to be notable (they exist in Wikipedia) but miss any reference that verify this and even any independent reference at all. Why are they notable?

In the world we have a large number of image editors and those software's are notable without any reference, but within the few existing photomosaic software applications my program AndreaMosaic is not-notable even after adding several references from reliable sources about the topic "How to create a photomosaic" (Engagded, PC World, PC Magazine, O'Reilly Book) and even after adding two artworks shown at two different International Architecture/Art ExhibitionsAndreaPlanet (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC).

This isn't the place to be discussing this. Go read WP:Notability, WP:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions since you don't seem willing to accept that Orange Mike and I are trying to help you understand Wikipedia policy. Maybe then you can engage in the deletion discussion happening here.

Having said that, I will make one final response to your particular comments here. First, pay particuarly close attention Wikipedia:Other stuff exists to understand why your raster graphic comparison is irrelevant. Vote those articles for deletion if you feel snubbed and it makes you feel better. As for your argument based on "facts", there are so many flaws in the logic that it is difficult to know where to begin. Primarly, however, it misses the vital point that notability (as a standard for inclusion in Wikipedia) is not relative, it is absolute and based on the guidelines we have been telling you about and the quality of the third party references that have been found. Something is notable enough to feature in an encyclopedia or it is not.

Something non-notable may be more notable than something else that is non-notable, but that doesn't mean that either is sufficiently notable to be included (eg my big toe is bigger and therefore more notable than my other toes so should have a Wikipedia article). Conversely, just because one notable thing is less notable than another notable thing does not mean that either should be deleted (Mozart is more notable than Salieri, so Salieri's article should be deleted). This article needs to be judged on its own merits, not in relation to anything else. GDallimore (Talk) 09:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

To make you happy, I've proposed the three articles you mention for deletion.GDallimore (Talk) 09:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the deletion request. I am not here to delete anything on Wikipedia. I am pointing out that since those other articles exists (and they should even if there is no reference) then why all this trouble about AndreaMosaic after several references was added. Those three articles are just examples, there are several more in that category, whoever knows in all other categories. I am asking why AndreaMosaic is not-notable when those other articles are? AndreaPlanet (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I proposed those articles for deletion because I believe they should be deleted as lacking notability. Just because nobody spotted them and nominated them for deletion when they were created doesn't mean they are notable. GDallimore (Talk) 09:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There are 50 articles about image editing, many of them miss references about notability, I cited only three. Do you really want to start a deletion battle for every article I can find without a reference? AndreaPlanet (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Of the 50 articles about Image Editors over a 30% of them miss completely a reference and 14% has weak references. Are you sure that your sentence 'nobody spotted them' for deletion is applicable?AndreaPlanet (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The number of new articles exceeds quite a bit the manpower of the self-appointed "wiki-police" (somewhat unfairly called deletionists around here). Articles in some areas are worse than in other areas. If you're confident an article does not meet the notability guidelines, feel free to nominate it for deletion, that not a WP:BATTLE. I normally try to find some references myself before doing so, even though the burden of proof rests with the editors adding the information. VG ☎ 13:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that a software that has helped some artists to create mosaics for the biennial in Venice, should stay in a modern encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Do you know what is the Venice Biennale? It is really very important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.194.107 (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Biennale The Venice Biennale (Italian: Biennale di Venezia; also called in English the "Venice Biennial") is a major contemporary art exhibition that takes place once every two years (in odd years) in Venice, Italy. The Venice Film Festival is part of it, as is the Venice Biennale of Architecture, which is held in even years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.194.107 (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course we know what the Biennale is; but notability is not contagious; it cannot be "caught" by contact with a notable entity. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

NO, NO! "contagion" is random, but this software is not the outcome of the case. In the case of andreamosaic, the artists in Venice have noticed this software. This 'software' was noted. This means that this software is a notable software. Without this software, artists could not create the mosaic. Software and the mosaic are one. No software, no mosaic. No mosaic, nothing at the biennial exhibition. the notability of this software should be seen within the software mosaics. Of course, naturally, nuclear fusion is 'more' notable that a software for mosaics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.194.107 (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This post is for CyberGhostface: let me explain better: You do believe that an anonymous can not help or can not have opinions. But anonymous also help to create wikipedia. "Wikipedia articles improve not only through the hard work of regular editors but also through the often anonymous contributions of many newcomers". I see no arguments against this software, I see so many arguments in favor of this software(I see also some other software). Who here has not arguments, speaks about anonymous?. We must talk about the mosaic, not about nonsense. A software like this deserves space because this software was noted by those who build mosaics. And the topic "mosaics" is in wikipedia. Of course, who is not interested in the topic "mosaic", can not notice this software. In the digital world, this software is notable. This software has already been noticed: PCWorld, PCMagazine, Biennale of Venice are the right critics, the right experts, professionals. A Software should be judged by who has the professional ability to do it. Are you "bigger" than PCWorld, PCMagazine, Biennale of Venice? You can talk about a software better than those who wrote in the magazine computer? For you the Venice Biennale is a exhibition of porno? In your post I do not see serious arguments. The problem of anonymity does not exist. You are CyberGhostface, good for you. "Cyber" is the name and "Ghostface" the surname? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.225.129 (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You do believe that an anonymous can not help or can not have opinions. But anonymous also help to create wikipedia. "Wikipedia articles improve not only through the hard work of regular editors but also through the often anonymous contributions of many newcomers".

Now you're putting words in my mouth. My argument was that an anonymous SPA IP with no prior contributions' argument isn't going to be given as much as weight as a registered user who has made a wide variance of contributions. I said nothing about contributing positively elsewhere on Wikipedia. By all means, contribute away. My only point was you'd be better off registering an account. But if you don't want to, then more power to you.

I see no arguments against this software, I see so many arguments in favor of this software(I see also some other software). Who here has not arguments, speaks about anonymous?.

Yeah, this article probably will be kept. I personally don't care much either way. I was just pointing out the simple fact that your first edit was on the AFD. You're the one trying to make a conspiracy about it.

The problem of anonymity does not exist. You are CyberGhostface, good for you. "Cyber" is the name and "Ghostface" the surname?

Yeah, you're absolutely correct. My first name is Cyber, after my great-grandfather Cyberonius the third. My last name is Ghostface, which is derived from the Ghostfacius family from Greece.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just checked. The article was kept. So what are you complaining about? Sheesh.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I defend the anonymous. that's all. No conspiracy. I had noticed that you in your arguments have spoken only about anonymous, not about the software. Okay check every article in Wikipedia. But we do argue. Suspects to the anonymous, is not an issue. If a problem were anonymous, wikipedia would not permit them to write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.222.39 (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be under the impression that I'm against having anonymous editors entirely. (Although I do think the vandalism would decrease significantly if only registered users could edit--but that's another story.) Everything I said in the AFD would apply to a registered person in the same situation.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup/next steps

I took what I hope is a decent stab at a general cleanup of the article, in terms of grammar, style, phrasing, neutrality and readability. Your mileage may vary. I do not know how close others may judge the article now toward finishing an NPOV review. Given the lengthy discussion above, I think it may be worthwhile to break this out and decide what the next steps should be. It looks to me from the discussion there's a consensus that this article should not be deleted after all, an idea since taken off the table. It also looks to me that there's a consensus that the software described in this article is at least as noteworthy as numerous other articles. In my opinion, this article is not an inappropriate length when judged by those measures.

So, the two big questions seem to be: What is needed to remove questions about neutral point of view, and how can, if possible, the "Reception" section be expanded?

(Minor note: I've been a reporter and editor more than a decade, but I did my changes at 2 a.m. waiting for some back pain medication to kick in -- I suspect I made some at least small errors, and already caught a small series of two. Any further cleanup efforts would be greatly appreciated, particularly if they move toward cleaning up the clouds hanging over this article.) --Thatnewguy (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:AndreaMosaicLogo.png, found on AndreaMosaic, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on AndreaMosaic. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid%2C71424-order%2C4-page%2C1/description.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0%2C2817%2C2192496%2C00.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022165521/http://www.dac.dk/visEmneside.asp?artikelID=4392 to http://www.dac.dk/visEmneside.asp?artikelID=4392
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025022045/http://www.dac.dk/visArtikel.asp?artikelID=4650 to http://www.dac.dk/visArtikel.asp?artikelID=4650
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100519125312/http://www.kaius.it/fightforbeauty/ to http://www.kaius.it/fightforbeauty/

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) 01:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Website is offline

The website of the software is offline as of September 22nd, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.218.125.43 (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)