Talk:WebMethods/Archives/2013
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Hassanfarooqi in topic A sales brochure, not a wikipedia article
 | This is an archive of past discussions about WebMethods. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A sales brochure, not a wikipedia article
It looks like somone simply picked up a couple of sales brochures and copied here on as is basis. Just look at the self-praising weasle words like "the company pioneered", "the most successful software IPO to date", " the fastest-growing software company in North America".
Can someone put some info about webmethods that actually tell what this? I mean change the lingo from that of a used car salesman into that of a technical reporter?
Don't believe webMethods Developer should be merged
The webMethods Developer is a tool of its own, just like Internet Explorer is a separate article from Microsoft. NathanLee 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't have an article on all tools or applications. Internet Explorer is notable, widely discussed in the media and widely known. A paragraph on webMethods Developer would be useful in the webMethods article, but I don't think it justifies a separate article. If Developer is a widely-reviewed tool, those references should be added.
- Also, NathanLee, if you are associated with webMethods, it's a good idea to mention this fact here on the talk page so that your bias, if any, is understood. Please see WP:COI. Hope this is helpful. --SueHay 22:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not associated with webMethods. I used to work with the technology and product in the past and used to do training courses on it. I am not, nor have ever been an employee of webMethods. I'd think that if a topic can be written about to sufficient detail then it warrants an article. I don't know that all articles in wikipedia need be the same granularity as those of a book based encyclopaedia. I'd say that's the advantage of wikipedia in that it CAN have an article on all tools/programs/things in the universe if someone has the inclination to do the research and put it in.. NathanLee 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying how you came to know webMethods so well.
- Research is important, particularly WP:RS (reliable sources). Has webMethods Developer been reviewed and discussed in the business or technical community? If you include references for independent reviews and discussions about webMethods Developer, you'll be making the case for the tool's notability. Unfortunately, information that webMethods provides about its own software doesn't establish the tool's notability. You've worked with webMethods' products, so you've probably seen some independent reviews. If you can bring those references to this article, that will help support keeping webMethods Developer as a separate article. Hope this is helpful. --SueHay 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can reference material from webMethods documentation and the like, but it's not going to have much detail on public linkable sites. As for whether it's a hugely noteworthy product? No, not really. It's not an IE or photoshop level noteworthy program. But ideally I'd like it to be part of the wikipedia universe so that wikipedia has a coverage across as many things as possible. Now that I've gone through the tumbler on wikipedia a bit I appreciate the need for more referenced material, I'll endeavour to fix it up so that it meets a higher level of article standard.. NathanLee 14:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do what you can to bring in non-webMethods online and offline reference sources. If the webMethods Developer product isn't notable in and of itself, it can still be listed and described within the webMethods article. Wikipedia covers an enormous range of information within its articles; not everything has a separate article. Since you know webMethods so well, why not expand the webMethods article itself, then see if there's enough material to break the article up into separate articles on the webMethod products? Just a suggestion. --SueHay 15:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good point, although as these products have a history before they became webMethods products (e.g. webMethods Glue) I think they may start looking a bit cluttered trying to put that information into the one article.. I'll keep refining the articles with references etc and then perhaps we can see if they warrant a cull of article numbers. For instance: the developer article might more happily exist as a section of the webMethods Integration Server I would think (as it's the IDE for the Integration Server.. and thus more suitably linked with that than a company page)? NathanLee 11:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. I'll take the merge tags off for now, and we'll see how the articles develop. --SueHay 12:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good point, although as these products have a history before they became webMethods products (e.g. webMethods Glue) I think they may start looking a bit cluttered trying to put that information into the one article.. I'll keep refining the articles with references etc and then perhaps we can see if they warrant a cull of article numbers. For instance: the developer article might more happily exist as a section of the webMethods Integration Server I would think (as it's the IDE for the Integration Server.. and thus more suitably linked with that than a company page)? NathanLee 11:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do what you can to bring in non-webMethods online and offline reference sources. If the webMethods Developer product isn't notable in and of itself, it can still be listed and described within the webMethods article. Wikipedia covers an enormous range of information within its articles; not everything has a separate article. Since you know webMethods so well, why not expand the webMethods article itself, then see if there's enough material to break the article up into separate articles on the webMethod products? Just a suggestion. --SueHay 15:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can reference material from webMethods documentation and the like, but it's not going to have much detail on public linkable sites. As for whether it's a hugely noteworthy product? No, not really. It's not an IE or photoshop level noteworthy program. But ideally I'd like it to be part of the wikipedia universe so that wikipedia has a coverage across as many things as possible. Now that I've gone through the tumbler on wikipedia a bit I appreciate the need for more referenced material, I'll endeavour to fix it up so that it meets a higher level of article standard.. NathanLee 14:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not associated with webMethods. I used to work with the technology and product in the past and used to do training courses on it. I am not, nor have ever been an employee of webMethods. I'd think that if a topic can be written about to sufficient detail then it warrants an article. I don't know that all articles in wikipedia need be the same granularity as those of a book based encyclopaedia. I'd say that's the advantage of wikipedia in that it CAN have an article on all tools/programs/things in the universe if someone has the inclination to do the research and put it in.. NathanLee 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
outragous exploitation of WP
I nominate the plethora of "webMethods" pseudo-articles as the current commercial outrage on WP in English.
The webMethods Integration Server article is not even flagged for this howler:
" An integration server may also be known as the core of webMethods Enterprise Service Bus. "
Who is the editor willing to take on software giant Software AG ? Someone who contributed to ehCache as open source ?
G. Robert Shiplett 00:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)