Talk:Helicon Filter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Notability 2 Helicon Filter vs. Photoshop and others 3 Modifications 4 Release history

[edit] Notability

Like many photo editing programs, Helicon Filter deserves a page. I wrote a stub for it and will expand it shortly. Even if I do not expand the page, though, it should be kept so people who want can expand it in the future. If you google "helicon filter", you'll find that the search yields about 80,000 hits. As such, it seems to meet notability standards implied by the constituency of the list of raster graphics editors, which includes software such as Ability Photopaint (19,100 hits), CodedColor (96,600), ACD Canvas (25,400), and WinImages (17,400). I got this software a few weeks ago, and it certainly matches the quality and comprehensiveness of leading photo-editing software. It's fairly competitive and has received considerable public coverage and exposure (see here, for example). (By the way, I found a photozone poll that indicates that Helicon Filter is the fifth most popular tool for noise and grain reduction [1]). -Althepal 21:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helicon Filter vs. Photoshop and others

The article already has a little info on the differences between Helicon Filter and other programs, but I request that a detailed section be made. I don't personally have enough experiment with programs other than Helicon Filter to write a proper section. -Althepal 05:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I researched Photoshop and created the section. -Althepal 21:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modifications

I’ve had to make a few modifications to this article because some of it is not acceptable to WP. WP is not a review site and some of this article read like a review or an advert. The Release Schedule was certainly not encyclopaedic so I've removed it. I've also removed the occasional use of "one" and "you" which is not OK - Adrian Pingstone 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your contribution to the article. The Release History is encyclopedic, though. It is on many articles for raster graphics editors, most notably Adobe Photoshop. Althepal 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad argument, since it should not be on Photoshop either. You may be too close to the subject to see how odd a multi page Release History looks in an encyclopedia. I'll take Photoshop and Helicon Filter off my watchlist and leave you in peace. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Adrian. But again, you seem to, at least partially, be making edits based on something looking odd to you. It's not a book, so it doesn't matter about pages. Thanks again for your consideration, Althepal 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't in GIMP. I think that it is less useful here than in the Photoshop article. Photoshop is a very notable, popular program & has existed for a while. Their table lists major versions from 1988 to 2007. Your table lists MANY minor versions since 2004. Giving Arpingstone's objection, I'll remove it from this page. --Karnesky 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Like Photoshop, it lists every version. True, it isn't in GIMP, but it is in others, not all of them as "notable" as Photoshop. ACD Canvas, Paint.NET, Corel Paint Shop Pro, Ulead Systems, and others. Some of the articles that list history do not include information about those releases, some do. Please do not continue to remove the informative and verifiable history of Helicon Filter. Thank you for your contribution, Althepal 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:OWN. Multiple people have expressed concern that this doesn't belong here. Your program has fewer users and fewer independent reviews than ALL of the programs you named. --Karnesky 00:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who had this idea about version histories, aside from Adrian and yourself. Please produce a link to a page where there is consensus that version histories for software programs should not be in articles. If there is consensus, I'll obviously accept it. Otherwise, the version history seems acceptable according to WP:N, WP:NOT#PAPER, WP:SS#Levels of desired details, and WP:SIZE. (It fits right in with WP:TRIVIA#Article_content_should_be_interesting, too, because it isn't obvious information but it is useful.) Even if I would grant your assertion about users and independent reviews (which I don't), I don't understand why you hold some arbitrary standard about an article's required detail to notability ratio. I advise you to read Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Major_changes. I'll wait a bit for you to show me where your alleged consensus ("multiple people") has been accepted before I reinsert the version history. -Althepal 02:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How is the version history interesting or important? Are past versions more commonly used than current versions? Or are they of some kind of historical interest (first program to implement _____)? I think the article is worse with the history there. If you show how this information is both relevant and verifiable, I'd acquiesce. --Karnesky 04:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting: The guideline defines this as something people didn't know before. It is interesting to know what changes took place when, and people may not have known this before. Important: The guideline defines Important as something useful. It is useful for someone who wishes to use an older version (which would have a smaller file size and may run faster), and useful to someone using an old version who is considering upgrading. Relevant: it is about Helicon Filter's history. Verifiable: Most of the information can be found here: [2]. Some of it can be found in old download pages. Some of it can be found in Helicon Filter's forum. Now that we've established these things and that there is no consensus or reason to remove edit, shall we put it back? Althepal 05:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus to put it in. --Karnesky 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It fulfills the requirements for content to be included in a Wikipedia article. It is interesting, informative, useful, relevant, verifiable. An editor can be bold and does not need consensus to put in such important information. An editor does need to get a consensus to remove such information, though. Thank you for your input, Althepal 05:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's your 3rd revert. Adrian and I think it should go. Why do you keep putting it back? Have you read WP:OWN? --Karnesky 06:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I did. If you change the article like by adding information or changing wording, I wouldn't mind. But to remove the section... Recall your quote: "If you show how this information is both relevant and verifiable, I'd acquiesce." Now, please, let the good information be. Okay? (Friends?) Althepal 06:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't take part in edit wars, so I'll let this article look amateur and bow out. It's off my watchlist. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 09:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)-

I've made further edits for a balanced POV. I hope that everybody is happy. :) Althepal 04:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release history

The following are the main reasons to include the release history in the article: Interesting: The guideline defines this as something people didn't know before. It is interesting to know what changes took place when, and people may not have known this before. Important: The guideline defines Important as something useful. It is useful for someone who wishes to use an older version (which would have a smaller file size and may run faster), and useful to someone using an old version who is considering upgrading. Relevant: it is about Helicon Filter's history. Verifiable: Most of the information can be found here: [3]. Some of it can be found in old download pages. Some of it can be found in Helicon Filter's forum.

None of the guidelines brought forth in this talk page contain reason to remove the release history. Furthermore, there is no consensus to remove it, as it is a very common feature in most software articles.

Before removing the section, justify it with guidelines which force its removal and/or a consensus of software article creators which calls for its removal. Thank you. Althepal 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)