Talk:FreeMind

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

setup the page[edit]

I have setup the page for FreeMind mind mapping software. However, FreeMind also refers to a comic figure. As I am not quite versed in encyclopedia conventions, I'll leave this flaw for someone else to fix.

Bonsai link[edit]

Bonsai was definitely the wrong place to link to. I've changed it to Bonsai CVS code management system, the only computer program called Bonsai that I know of, but is that correct either? It seems a bit unlikely that such a thing would have an outliner. If there's another Bonsai program, someone please fix this. Graue 05:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's Natara Software's Bonsai [1] Palm-OS outliner product. I've fixed the reference. RossPatterson 15:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I saw the notability notice put on this article. After checking the notability guidelines, I think I can safely remove the notice: 

Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if it meets any of the following criteria:
3. Has more than 5,000 users; if software is distributed via sourceforge, download.com, 
or freshmeat, the number of downloads might be used to estimate the number of users

As you can see from the download page statistics at SF, as of today, only the last release (Sep 2005) has scored in total (source+Windows+Mac) more than 300,000 downloads (and counting). This seems to me beyond both the 5,000 users (and the 100,000 downloads) threshold required for a software to be considered notable, right? This said, the page is still a stub, so I encourage other WP contributors to enhance it with content. DarTar 09:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bonsai[edit]

But what does Bonsai have to do to with FreeMind? Nothing, it's got nothing to do with it, it's advertising. Sanssheriff 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub[edit]

I've trimmed the article back to a stub, given we've had no references since November and it's attracting linkspam. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced content[edit]

User Ronz has drastically removed the content from the page, including the list of features, claiming these are unsourced. Given the article contains a link to FreeMind Official Homepage & Wiki, which contains most of the removed information, this drastic removal seems unwarranted. This is not to say that no removal makes sense, just that this removal was nonselective. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (I have a formal bias per having been heavily involved in FreeMind project.)[reply]

And I'm removing it again per Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence.
The article needs independent, secondary sources. Otherwise it should either remain a stub or be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

added sources[edit]

I added several sources to the article. So it isn't unsourced any more. That has almost certainly thwarted the AfD currently in progress because notability has been established. I'm looking at the history of this article and see a lot of tagging and deletion of content going on. The sources that I found were not difficult to search for. So I'm skeptical about what appears to be a stifling level of enforcement going on here. I know there's often some tension between inclusionist and deletionist opinions so I'm being careful not to make it personal - people probably all believe they're doing the best thing. I'm just going to start this by digging some content out of those sources to expand the intro. I invite others to do the same. Ikluft (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are linuxlinks.com and innovationtools.com reliable sources here? Neither appear to have any fact-checking. I don't see how Chuck Frey has any special authority in this area. Are some of linuxlinks.com articles written by regular editors? I can't tell where their FreeMind article came from.
I agree with Ikluft that we do have sources that can be used to expand the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There was one change I made which wasn't an expansion... The streamlining of the wiki plugins from a list down to prose should hopefully alleviate the spamlinks issue that you mentioned. The descriptions of the other packages should be left to their own articles anyway. As prose instead of a list, it should present less temptation for people to add everything under the sun to it. Ikluft (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We can always require it to be sourced and properly weighted. Let's see how it goes. --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why all this (from del request to unreliable source)[edit]

I am almost astonished. Does the statement "It runs on Microsoft Windows, Linux and MacOS X via the Java Runtime Environment" needs reliable sources?! Isn't the JRE intention to provide an env to run Java application everywhere there's a JRE?! So, being written in Java (enough the homepage of the project to document this), the software can run on Windows, GNU/Linux and MacOS X, and on all the O.Systems having a JRE. The unrialable source are just redundant, and can be deleted.

The sources 2 and 3 are not used in other places, and are not useful where they are used; so if they are unrialable, shouldn't they be removed? No harm for the article (astonishingly in the Afd page... why not Pimki, or VUE (Visual Understanding Environment)? maybe these can be used as model for the page of FreeMind? anyway I've already posted my simple doubts on the proper page.) --Ittakezou0 (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that the references are there for the entire paragraph, rather than just the one sentence.
Source 3 (Chuck Frey) is being used as the sole independent source for the Features section.
The Pimki and VUE articles seem better in some ways, but are lacking when it comes to proper sourcing. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links[edit]

Please repair external broken link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.242.238.124 (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ij/o.okjipjh'opuj"Pkhgf.nlij;m.kl/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.119.253.178 (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FreeMind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FreeMind. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FreeMind&oldid=1207298477"