Talk:MedCalc

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

interesting

It very interesting that in page with software information are added such chapters like Certifications, 2 direct links to web-site and the page is written using " It is best known for its...". May be user tesimonials should be also published? :( See history of this page. Where is it "best" known? Who decides it? The page is written by author & seller of this software. And I dislike it. Author & seller ever doesn't create own page, no information is available about him. And only one page was published. Wiki should not be a place for ads. Alexeysim06 11:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey: what the program is known for is clear from the listed independent reviews. Some of these features are also listed on the Wikipedia page Comparison of statistical packages. For the certification see [The list of applications that have earned the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo]. Today only 118 companies have obtained the Certified for Vista logo for one or more of their products, so this is probably a fact worth mentioning. Frank 11:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medcalcscreenshot.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Medcalcscreenshot.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find source

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

References & notability

I have added several references which are neutral and show notability. Frank1848 (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read a couple of them and they were both trivial mentions. The sources must include substantial content specifically about MedCalc, not a mere mention of the name of the program. - MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 2 independently published books, entirely dedicated to the program. These do not seem to be trivial mentions. Frank1848 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which independently published books are you referring to? MrOllie (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]