Talk:Starry Night (planetarium software)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Speedy Deletion

I won't argue that the current article content is very substandard, but it's hard to see how this article is an advertisement, other than to the existance of the software itself. The current wording is far from being an effective sales pitch.

As a user of the software (but an the author of the page), I have been intending to expand this article but do not have the time right due to a death in the family. Daveharr 22:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have done a preliminary expansion of the article. Daveharr 16:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement

Hi there; I am, for the record, also an owner of the software. It is, as I am sure you know, only available by purchase from Imaginova. That being so, how is your article not an advertisement? I have not reverted it.--Anthony.bradbury 20:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have spent a fair bit of time puzzling over this question, while I agree that there is a fine balance involved, I don't think the content present constitutes an ad. It sticks to the facts and does not provide comparisons against other software in this category. This seems to be in line with other software articles on Wikipedia. Is there something in particular that you object to?

BTW, I purchased my copy online from J&R, so it is definitely available elsewhere. :-) Daveharr 11:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this webcast lecture [1] by a professor at Berkeley and he mentions this program at about 16:16 after showing something similar to Starry Night. He works at Lick Observatory so I suspect it's known among astronomers and deserves to be on Wikipedia. Richard Cane 22:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about advertisement versus information plagues almost all articles in Wikipedia related to sofware. "Starry Night" is no exception. But frankly, I already saw far worse cases. My only sugestion would be to augment the information. This, in many senses, beautiful software (Ops! This is not an ad!) deserves a more in depth coverage.