Talk:XLIFF

Related tools

Why is edit, which added new application to “Related tools” section, marked as spam magnet? I think it’s fair to keep it or delete whole list not just one item. Or make separate page with related tools instead of that section. --Dnlpsk (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that particular tool have any coverage on Wikipedia? XLIFF is a general format; the application only wants to deal with Word documents, so it is a narrow application. Many translation tools have multiple document filters. When I searched for the tool, it showed up on the second page of hits. The page is just an ad for the tool. WP is not intended to be a buyers' guide or a directory. See also WP:SPA. I won't claim the entire list is WP:DUE, but it does have significant apps that have their own WP articles: SDL Trados, for example. Glrx (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I personally use the Wikipedia as a source of information about a software. There are also special categories Category:Lists of software or Category:Software_comparisons, which contains pages that are in fact buyers guide. I think it’s not neutral point of view to allow just some apps. How to judge which (relevant) app is good enough to be in the list and which not? I checked first two links in Editors section – both are primary CAT tools which also support XLIFF file. Are they more appropriate than “Counterparts Lite” (recently added and then deleted app)? About that particular tool - it is primary XLIFF file editor (like Xliffie in the list) and support export to docx and then import back. It’s targeted to indie developers which using e.g. Fiverr for translation. There is no other low-price XLIFF application with docx support. People use Wikipedia to search software and Wikipedians create lists of software (Category:Lists of software). If you think that the bigger list on the page is inappropriate what do you think about new page List of XLIFF software? --Dnlpsk (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I don't claim that every application in the list should be there. I noticed your addition, did not see it as appropriate, and removed it. Just like I've removed a few other additions. I also deleted XLIFFIE; it linked to an uninteresting page that was more an ad for translation services than a description of the applications capabilities. The list is a spam magnet: every application developer will want their app on the list. Some startup writes a new application, puts it on iTunes, and then tries to advertise it here. That's not how things should work. Some hobbyist might post his new project to GitHub and then add his spiffy software to the list here. That's not how things should work. Are the applications any good? Wikipedia does not know. That's why Wikipedia has a WP:DUE requirement for including such entries. Wikipedia shouldn't mention anything unless it has some reliable sources that tell Wikipedia the software is significant (or even notorious).

If an editor cannot find reliable sources for a statement, then the editor can tag the statement with {{citation needed}}. If a reliable source is not provided, then the statement can be removed. WP requires sources for the comments it makes. The coverage needs to be more than just some application exists.

A neutral point of view does not mean that every application must be mentioned or included. A neutral point of view means the article is not biased. An article may not unjustly claim that application A is better than application B; such a claim would show bias. NPOV does not require Wikipedia to be all inclusive. If there are 20 suppliers of similar applications, it does not violate NPOV to list just three major applications as examples of the genre.

Yes, there are articles with lists of software, but they are often not a good idea. Separate list articles are even bigger spam magnets. Creating a list article may have been a simple way of purging a worthless list from the main article rather than fighting over it. Furthermore, the lists are difficult to maintain; apps appear and disappear; features get added. Wikipedia needs sources for such statements to meet WP:V. WP's mission is not being a buyers' guide. WP is an encyclopedia. People may use it to develop software, but I hope those developers actually consult real books and specifications.

Other websites can provide comparisons. For example, http://www.proz.com/software-comparison-tool/cat/cat_tools/2 (notice that many have few reviews).

Just about all CAT tools will support XLIFF now. It's sort of an uninteresting statement to make. I'm tempted to blow away the CAT list.

Glrx (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]