Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software

Open file format has an RfC

Open file format has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

MP4 file format has an RfC

MP4 file format has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

ISO base media file format has an RfC

ISO base media file format has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Asking for help updating Verkada article's Controversies section

Hi there, I'm an employee at the physical security company Verkada. This WikiProject is listed on the company article's Talk page. A few weeks ago, I placed an edit request on that Talk page that asked editors to consider making a handful of revisions to the Controversies section of the article. You can view my request by following this link. I know that this is a somewhat touchy subject area for a COI editor, so I welcome the thoughts and judgment of unbiased editors, who can let me know how legitimate my proposed edits are. Thanks! Seakittea (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for review: Splunk edit request

Hi all! I've filed a {{edit COI}} request at Talk:Splunk#Proposed edits to the Product section proposing updates to the Product section of the Splunk article. I have a disclosed conflict of interest, so I'm not editing the article directly and am hoping an uninvolved editor can take a look at the proposed changes.

The request has been open for about two months, so I'd be grateful for a fresh set of eyes whenever someone has the time. I've tried to keep the proposal well-sourced and neutrally worded, and I'm happy to answer questions or adjust anything. Thanks for considering it! SBCornelius (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Question on sources

Hi everybody. I'm a software engineer by trade, and learning about editing wikipedia. When I read articles about software there's often claims about functionality that lack sources. It occurs to me that the way I would probably solve that if I needed to know the answer for work or something would be to go read the project's own documentation.

Can I use documentation from the software project itself as a source about the project's functionality in terms of features supported? On the one hand it seems like it's not a very good source as far as what wikipedia prefers. It is generally self published and questionably reviewed (I suppose good software projects mostly do a good job of reviewing their docs before publishing, but on the whole there's plenty of stale or flat out incorrect documentation out there).

But on the other hand I don't know where else one would be able to find reliable sources for those claims. For example the article on Emacs Lisp has a section on defadvice, and I cannot imagine there's anybody out there writing like reviewed journal articles or even serious magazine articles (there's probably some blogs that would be trustworthy enough for me personally by reputation, but I don't expect those meet wikipedia's quality standards either). In any case the article's sources mostly are either explicitly parts of GNU Emacs (its manual, its mailing lists) or are statements from GNU or Stallman.

I'd appreciate some guidance on whether these kinds of sources are acceptable, and if so when and how they may be used. Packrat3860 (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY may be of help. Primary sources are usable if you're careful and they do tend to see more use in technical topics such as those covered by this wikiproject. ~Kvng (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on draft Relativity (company)

Hello: I have just posted the article Draft:Relativity (company) in the draft space. I am an employee of Relativity and have a COI relationship with this article. Therefore, I am seeking constructive feedback on the draft, and thought someone in this group may have an interest in providing a review. This draft has been prepared in accordance with understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines.Thank you in advance for your time! Leahrelativity26 (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. A reviewer is going to try to identify evidence of notability. It might help for you to think about what you consider to be the WP:THREE strongest sources cited. ~Kvng (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Grok (chatbot)#Requested move 7 August 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Grok (chatbot)#Requested move 7 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 21:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved review: Freshservice

I have a paid conflict of interest because I consult for Freshworks through Ad Bacon Digital LLC, disclosed on my user page.

I’d appreciate uninvolved review of two discussions relevant to this WikiProject:

• COI edit request regarding two statements in the Freshservice article.
• Merge proposal regarding whether Freshservice should be merged into Freshworks.

VelvetParsnip (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

SolidWorks modeling technology

Hello editors! I have an open request on the SolidWorks Talk page to update the Modeling Technology section. The information is currently very outdated and the draft I presented updates it to include information on today's technology. This request was made on behalf of my work at Beutler Ink. Thank you very much! Stephanie BINK (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

COI Request: Adding zero-day patch content to Adobe Acrobat article

Hello, I work for Adobe and am contacting this WikiProject in my capacity as an employee. I recently posted a COI request to add some content about a zero-day patch to the Adobe Acrobat article's Security section, which is in serious need of an update. (The most recent development it covers is from 2016.) If that kind of thing interests anyone at this WP, here is a link to my full request. Thank you in advance to anyone who takes the time to review! Eric at Adobe (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Adobe Shockwave § Requested move 19 September 2026

An editor has requested that Adobe Shockwave be moved to Macromedia Shockwave, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 22:53, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
(Notification provided by Move+)

Elixir (programming language)

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Elixir (programming language)#Examples. I'm not very familiar with article about software, but the "Examples" section seem to run afoul of WP:NOTGUIDE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:FOCUS § Requested move 30 September 2026

An editor has requested that FOCUS be moved to ?, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
(Notification provided by Move+)

Independent notability assessment requested for PelandukOS

I am connected with the PelandukOS project and therefore have a conflict of interest. This request was prepared with AI assistance and checked against the linked sources. I am asking uninvolved editors to assess whether the subject meets the software notability guideline; I am not asking anyone to use promotional wording.

Sources for assessment:

• DistroWatch profile — lists PelandukOS as an active Malaysian distribution based on Debian Testing, using GNOME on x86_64, with Calamares and APT.
• LinuxLinks overview — independent overview dated 16 January 2026.
• Official GitHub repository — primary source confirming the project and code.

Could an uninvolved editor determine whether these and any other reliable sources provide enough significant independent coverage for an article? The official logo has not been uploaded because its free licence has not been verified. RimbaCatatan2026 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Additional source search (AI-assisted) found the following items, with limitations noted:

• LaserOffice.it weekly GNU/Linux news roundup covers the 2026.03.03 release in Italian. It is secondary coverage, but brief.
• Linux Association of Canada distribution catalogue lists and marks PelandukOS as verified, but its description closely resembles DistroWatch and may not represent independent analysis.
• Lowyat.NET discussion shows community discussion, including criticism, but it is user-generated and should not establish facts or notability by itself.

These are supplied for transparent assessment rather than as a claim that the notability threshold is met. RimbaCatatan2026 (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Image update: the official repository now contains an explicit GPL-2.0-only licensing statement for the logo. The file is available at commons:File:PelandukOS logo.webp. It should be used only if an independent editor determines that an article or another appropriate encyclopedic use is warranted. RimbaCatatan2026 (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Based on the source descriptions, LinuxLinks is your most promising source but I have reviewed it and find it weak both interns of reliability and coverage. It does not look like the notability requirements are met for this subject. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)