Talk:Eye-Sys
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Notability
[edit]Hi Pharmboy. I'm obviously new to this, so please bear with me. I've read the notability policy and understand your concern, particularly since the application is new. I used the OpenDX (a similar tool) article as one example. Other than the fact OpenDX has been around for years, I'm not sure why it's perceived as being more notable. Could I trouble you for a bit of guidance? Is the OpenDX article not a good one to follow? Clemenza16 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The problem isn't the formatting, which is fine for a start. The problem is the policy regarding WP:Notability. Wikipedia isn't here to be a list of every software application. I'm just an editor like you, albeit a bit more experienced, but with no powers or control that you don't have. You need to find links to reputable sources that are talking about the software: news sites, etc. Not blogs. Then incorporate that into the article. If it is so new (which I fear) that no one is talking about it, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Keep in mind, this *is* an encyclopedia, not a news site. Pharmboy (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. I wasn't so much thinking about the formatting as I was that there was no notability documented in the OpenDX article. OpenDX is notable, of course. You can find stuff all over about it. With Eye-Sys being new, I see your point. External references are harder to come by. Between the press releases on the corporate website and a few google searches, it seems clear that it was developed with at least partial funding from the US DoD for their own use in military intelligence analysis. MIT, NSWC, and Lockheed Martin are among the notable users listed on their site, but I can only confirm one externally (Lockheed, which looks like it's using it in conjunction with a controversial DARPA project). Refs: http://www.eye-sys.com/news/PR_Lockheed_Martin_Uses_Eye-Sys_11-13-07.pdf and http://www.atl.external.lmco.com/news/2007/101907.php. Not sure if this sort of stuff makes it notable or not by wikipedia standards. Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.99.218 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Work it into the article. It is only tagged for notability, not deletion. If notability is truly established (per objective standard) then removing the tag would be ok, but not before. New stuff is always hard to meet notability for, but it may pass if DoD and others were in the development, depending on sources. Pharmboy (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I may have gone a little overboard, but I added several references in the introduction to try and flesh out those things I discussed above. I still used a few eye-sys.com references, but mostly in cases where I had established a relationship with an external ref and used the eye-sys press releases to flesh out some of the details. Let me know what you think and thanks for your help! Clemenza16 (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've had the edits up for several days. I'm going to remove the notability notice. If you feel it still hasn't been addressed, I've got no problem with the notice going back up while I continue to work on it. Clemenza16 (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Work it into the article. It is only tagged for notability, not deletion. If notability is truly established (per objective standard) then removing the tag would be ok, but not before. New stuff is always hard to meet notability for, but it may pass if DoD and others were in the development, depending on sources. Pharmboy (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. I wasn't so much thinking about the formatting as I was that there was no notability documented in the OpenDX article. OpenDX is notable, of course. You can find stuff all over about it. With Eye-Sys being new, I see your point. External references are harder to come by. Between the press releases on the corporate website and a few google searches, it seems clear that it was developed with at least partial funding from the US DoD for their own use in military intelligence analysis. MIT, NSWC, and Lockheed Martin are among the notable users listed on their site, but I can only confirm one externally (Lockheed, which looks like it's using it in conjunction with a controversial DARPA project). Refs: http://www.eye-sys.com/news/PR_Lockheed_Martin_Uses_Eye-Sys_11-13-07.pdf and http://www.atl.external.lmco.com/news/2007/101907.php. Not sure if this sort of stuff makes it notable or not by wikipedia standards. Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.99.218 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Images
[edit]Boy. Uploading images to wikipedia is no joke. I've done my best to find similar fair use notices from similar articles to justify my use of the logo and interface screenshot. Using images is a pretty important part of describing a visualization application!
I'd like to include a few more screen shots under a new section that describes a couple of different systems but understand that the rationale might be harder to come up with. If I take the shots myself, does that change anything, or will the fact that it's a copyrighted program/interface always trump it? Clemenza16 (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)