Talk:Otter (theorem prover)

Computing: Software / CompSci / Free and open-source software Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Suggestion[edit]

Has to be expanded / merged with Otter (software).

Mkoval

No, it has nothing to do with the other project. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Otter is the best-known automated theorem prover bar none. There are many highly referenced papers and even whole books among the first few hits at [1]. This article can be very much improved, but notability is not a problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Notability}} is supposed to flag articles which do not assert their notability. If I thought the subject were simply not notable I would have taken it to AfD. Until such point as the article explains to the casual reader why this is a prominent subject it should be flagged as such. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what the template says: "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services". That is certainly unambiguously wrong. Moreover, unless policy has changed since I last checked, there is no requirement that general articles assert notability - there only is WP:CSD#A7, which refers to individuals, animals, organizations, and web content only. Anyways, if I find some time, I'll improve the article. However, this may take a while. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing of Merge[edit]

The previous merge to Prover9 was noted as controversial on that page and also appears not to have proper attribution per WP:SMERGE/WP:FMERGE. It has therefore been undone. It also lost a couple of cites/referneces.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]