Talk:XMLSpy

Product hype

The article reads like standard product sales brochure. Needs revamping in neutral terms.

Spam?

This article is clearly spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DigitalEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

So afd it. I removed your speedy as entirely inappropriate. Certainly if their claim to have 90% of the market is anywhere near true that shows notability, SqueakBox 21:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not cheat the system by removing deletion tags. If you believe they're inappropriate use the talk page to establish why.

Please sign and if you want to delete the article put an Afd on it. You unilaterally dont get to decide iof this article is deleted. I am using the talk page top establish why, SqueakBox 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. Its fairer to say you are cheating the system by avoiding a debate by speedying an article a year old, of a reasonable length, and by the major XML format documents on the market. Of course igf you afd it I would participate in the discussion and not dream of removing the tag but this tag is unwarranted, SqueakBox 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed every ad-like reference to this article, a pov tag would have been very appropriate, i will try to find some criticisms shortly, SqueakBox 23:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is a legitimate article that should not be removed. It has been collaborated on by many Wikipedia editors over a long period of time and continues to improve. With the ad-like references removed, this is hardly spam. It contains facts about the subject as well as information about related technologies. XMLer 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that the folks over at Stylus Studio (or at least their userbase) seem to really, really hate Altova and are repeatedly adding their links to any Altova articles and removing just about anything that could be be considered positively biased about their competitor. Maybe their new tactic is to simply try to whipe away the pages, since their edits are constantly reverted. CSZero 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think people are too delete-happy lately. It's really hard for me to see anything to do with free software as spam, and if this particular application is useful to a lot of people, then there should be an article about it. There's an article about Photoshop, and it's surely appropriate here, even if it's for-profit software. I think the bar for "what is spam" should be set higher for freeware. It's in peoples' benefit to know about free software, and it makes wikipedia more useful if you can not only learn about what XML is, but also what tools are available to learn more about it, hands-on. 71.197.131.165 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

XMLSpy doesn't look like free software to me. The licensing agreement says you need a key code, and from their website XMLSpy is $500 for the cheapest single person license. Sure they have a 30-day trial, that doesn't make it free. 128.117.194.163 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The home edition was free but they pulled the free bit. You can still use it if you have the keys they were giving free but you cant get it new otherwise, SqueakBox 16:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are generally issues not only about free software. After all would it not be POV to favouritize the free software model over the pay model epitomised by Gates and Microsoft. The anti company attitude of wikipedia could indeed affect our having an NPOV encyclopedia but this isnt the place to discuss such policy issues, SqueakBox 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not possible to link to plugins on XMLSpy entry?

As the Photoshop page is already mentioned here as an example I wonder why it is not possible to add the (my) plugins page as an external link to the XMLSpy entry. There are also competitors appearing with links on the XMLSpy page. What is the reason that they are allowed to appear but a page offering plugins is not? Both can be seen as advertising or information. --Spycomponents (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this before I reverted your edits. Although I can't say that those other links on this page don't violate rules, it is especially bad form to add your own personal commercial links to Wikipedia, and worse to re-add deleted links without taking it to the talk page first. Thanks for posting here though to at least ask, and if you haven't seen it, please read Wikipedia:External_links Thanks, CSZero (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There, I pulled out the external links. I believe it's a can of worms to start including add-ons, minor competitors, etc. Honestly, I'm not even sure this article should exist, at least not in the brochurish form it's in now. Since XMLSpy is a major tool, I can understand an article saying "XMLSpy by Altova is the world's most popular XML utility, it does blah blah blah." Much beyond that starts getting too advertish and commercial for an encyclopedia, IMHO. CSZero (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. So I expect that the references to the commercial Photoshop plugins on the related pages will also be deleted during the next days? Or is it possible to add some common plugins yada yada like on the Photoshop page to be able to place the links? I could do this too. But maybe it just depends who is checking your change on adding links... However, I like Wikipedia very much but I believe you are not treating me the same like others here. I understand this is of course not personally, but as we have the example of linking to commercial plugins I wonder where is the difference. Photoshop is more popular? --Spycomponents (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a few things. You're correct that the Photoshop page has writeups about these plugins. Photoshop in general has more of a writeup because it's so popular and long-lasting it's become a verb. Secondly, there is a sizable Photoshop community (as you said, it's far more popular) that can reasonably filter what is notable and what is not. Notability is a big issue on Wikipedia, and it causes a lot of fights. Third, your username and the fact that you registered just to post these links is clearly a conflict of interest, and there's a policy specifically against that. While Wikipedia "rules" are really more just guidelines, they should be followed whenever possible. Commercial products in general are a tough spot on Wikipedia, because there are few products that are truely encyclopedic, which makes it hard to avoid writing an advertisment or a competitive attack, etc. I watch this article because of all the fighting that was going on here before with a competitor of this product, when all I wanted was an overview of a piece of software I was handed for work. CSZero (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That said, you clearly know a lot about XMLSpy plugins, so perhaps a general write-up on what they are, how they work, etc and then inline your own product as an example, in context, would be helpful to the article. Keep in mind the issue here is the can-of-worms free advertising problem - if you add content to the article, you're more likely to be able to slip something in. There's probably a lot more to say about XMLSpy in general that you know and could add. CSZero (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New edits

I have added quite a few citations to address a posted tag and also made several updates to this page. I cannot find any discussion on this page regarding an article neutrality dispute, though I have tried to address this with tone and references. I will delete this tag for now since I believe it to be unsubstantiated and because there is no discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egandrews (talk • contribs) 18:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on XMLSpy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.xmlspy.com/company.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)