Talk:List of molecular graphics systems

[Untitled]

Minor edit to remove a link: WOT warning: "Warning: Keep out. IP/Hostname/Website related to Abusive Online-Pharmacy, Counterfeit products and other e-Mail/Web Scams/ADs (found on Spam-Images, ADs/UCE/UBE etc.). They could contain even malware or other dangerous software. If you find any discrepancy with my rating/comment or want me to re-review your site, just leave me a Board message: http://www.mywot.com/user/915771." as of this time webmaster has not contested the rating, wot member is reputable among the community, for the safety of readers i have removed this link. Please feel free to reverse the change if i am mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto148 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This also relates to bioinformatics and computational biology. So it should be part of the computational biology project. Ascha (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The page should probably be merged with Software for protein structure visualization Ascha (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed some issues, since this page now has plenty of references. Ascha (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Two other programs.

There are two other programs that are not mentioned in this article: Model Science Chemlab : http://www.modelscience.com/ And Molecular Workbench from "The Concord Consortium: http://mw.concord.org/modeler/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unsafeatanyspeed (talk • contribs) 18:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Request: Write the Article!

As this list is for notable programs only, I will start cleaning up this article in August 2020. All listings without own article, deemed not notable, will then be removed. The Banner talk 15:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. And no, the list is not only for programs with their own wiki pages. It's a fairly complete list of all molecular graphics programs. Wojdyr (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would you list non-notable programs? The Banner talk 12:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability is not a binary state. And see what would be left if you deleted entries without own articles in Web-based system - a single and not particularly notable program. Wojdyr (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That is why I have asked to write articles. An subject with an article is deemed notable as it is evaluated by other editors. Subjects without articles did not have that evaluation so are deemed non-notable, sorry. But it is a clear and neutral way for deciding. The Banner talk 08:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote, notability is not binary. A project may not be important enough to have own article, but important enough to be mentioned in a list. Telling others to write articles on a short deadline is arrogant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wojdyr (talk • contribs) 12:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. And especially WP:CSC: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. And ten days minimum is not short notice. (And it is not said that 1 will start cleaning out on the first of August.) The Banner talk 13:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

What you cite is an example criterion that could be used, but is not used here. See Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists: Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.. Here, the list is not large and editors do not put such limits. Wojdyr (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already requested the opinion of another editor to see of my stance is overly harsh. The Banner talk 20:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Banner: convention is (at least convention in decent and better-than-decent articles) to list things that have articles. This goes especially for BLPs, of course, but we do this for schools, for companies, etc. What I see in this article is less than desirable: these entries aren't even verified, so while "notability" may not always be "binary", in this case many of these are just catalog entries, with a company link. So essentially, this list consists of, or contains, advertising. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(1) The lists obviously don't consist of advertising, although it may contain some. I've been trimming down the advertising for the last few years. The entries don't contain company links, only project links - usually open-source projects not associated with any companies. (2) If the entries without separate pages would be removed from the second list, all important and open source projects would be removed leaving a single not particular important proprietary project that I'm not even sure belongs here - it's a deployment of 3DMol, perhaps with some modifications. (3) For the last few years I was adding all new open-source projects I learnt about to the second list, because having a fairly complete list helps people. I'm not going to write articles for all these entries because, as Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists puts it: the group or set is notable, the individual items [are not]'. Wojdyr (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I am a bit confused about your stance. When I see the list "Standalone systems" I see 5 articles starting with an A, four of them have articles. The Banner talk 10:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Then read it again. What is the second list in this article? Wojdyr (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please write the articles when you want to save the list... The Banner talk 17:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

But yes, I can understand that you are upset about the fact that a lot of your work is going to be destroyed, miracles excepted. The Banner talk 18:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with The Banner and Drmies. Some programs have clear references, for example peered-reviewed publications and/or reference in other encyclopedias, which means that a community has already agree on their importance. I think it is not the role of Wikipedia to decide that _ONLY_ its own reference are notable, noteworthy, and deserve mention in its lists. Ovhpa (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Due to The Banner's proposed limitation, the "web-based systems" category have almost vanished - before 17 programs, now only 1. The remaining one is a proprietary software (the limitation also enriched commercial software presence from 42% to 55% in the "Standalone systems" list). Additionally, some software have inexplicably disappeared, for example the web version of Jmol (listed in the "Standalone systems" list), JSmol, which share the same Wikipedia page and should at least meet The Banner's own proposed limitation. I therefore think that the limitation should be changed to more objective selection criteria, as stated in the Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists guidelines (the whole section). Especially If a software is listed in other listings and/or encyclopedias, is well referenced and/or numerously cited over the literature, I see no reason that it should not be deemed notable by Wikipedia simply by not having its own entry. Ovhpa (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the program without an own article again. It is not "my" requirement but, as you can see above, a common used criterion. So, write the article first... The Banner talk 09:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please at least remove it correctly? The whole table is a mess after your removal... Ovhpa (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It is _not_ a common restriction but an option ("editors may"), as stated by guidelines (I mean the whole of it). So I disagree, respectfully. But it's OK for now, I will call for another editor's view. BTW what about redlinks Wiipedia page? Would that be acceptable? What about JSMOL? Still removed? Ovhpa (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a long standing restriction about list to prevent spamming of non-notable packages. So the solution is simple: write an article about the package. The Banner talk 09:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The web-based section had a total of 17 entries, which of them would you call spam package? No I feel like the whole list of 1 package doesn't make any sense and should be removed. The prevention of spamming, in my opinion, should not be a tool to censor genuine and notable content. But I will wait for other opinions. BTW thanks for fixing the table Ovhpa (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Then write the article... The Banner talk 09:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? The whole 17 articles? No thanks ;) I find your voluntary requests to force (instead of inciting) people to write articles.. disturbing. What about you? Your removed 17 entries, surely you can add one. Ovhpa (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Just start with the program you had added. The Banner talk 10:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Even though I feel this is really not OK, and that it should _not_ be a requirement, I will, of course, eventually. What about you? Will you contribute? I mean with positive, green, actual addition to this list? You could start by re-adding JSMOL which you removed even though it does meet your own criterion! Ovhpa (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)