Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of IRC clients: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Thommey (talk | contribs)
53 edits
article title discussion comment
Line 224: Line 224:


Wikipedia naming conventions indicate that his move was proper [[Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions]]. ''If (as is often the case), the list has multiple columns and so is in table form, the name or title List of _ _ is still preferable to Table of _ _ or Comparison of _ _.'' It should be moved back.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 02:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia naming conventions indicate that his move was proper [[Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions]]. ''If (as is often the case), the list has multiple columns and so is in table form, the name or title List of _ _ is still preferable to Table of _ _ or Comparison of _ _.'' It should be moved back.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 02:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

:The header of [[Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions]] also states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and "preferable" isn't policy. There're a lot of "Comparison of" articles on wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Comparison+of&namespace=0]. That indicates there's consensus to use those names. The format chosen for software comparison is mostly a set of tables because it fits best, that doesn't necessarily make it a list, IMHO ([[:Category:Software comparisons]]). Crossmr, are you suggesting to rename them all? --[[User:Thommey|thommey]] ([[User talk:Thommey|talk]]) 13:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:34, 31 January 2010

More Info

This is most useful! However some (to me) critical details are currently missing:

  • download file size
  • is installation necessary
  • which versions of win will it run on (out of the box)

If I could answer the above I would... but as yet I cant. Tabby 10:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding new features in the list
  • Spell checking
  • Incremental finding
  • history/chat-log

* Auto updates Mabdul (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC) * DCC file send supports router port forwarding --Ubercoder (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More IRC Clients

Stale
 – See #Clients missing from comparison tables below for an updated list. IM clients in particular do not belong in this comparison article as they should be added to Comparison of instant messaging clients. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clients which need to be add and have already an article:

every other client should be on the to-do list on the project page mabdul 0=* 08:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the rest of the red links that are currently in the Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients tables to the Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/To Do List. There may be others in the clients table that could be added to to the comparison tables here. There may also be others in Category:Internet Relay Chat clients. If you find any existing client articles not in the category, please add the categories and add wikilinks to the WikiProject IRC article index. Tothwolf (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok; new features in the comparison want to get values! ;) mabdul 08:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Multi-IM instant messenger clients that have IRC support in the list above really do not belong in these tables since there is already a Comparison of instant messaging clients article that does a much better job covering those. Some of the above links are for actual IRC clients however and those should be added. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klient

One of the lines regarding "Klient" no longer servicing keys was incorrect. As recently I myself just purchased a key, while the wait was somewhat long, key's and replacement keys are still sent.Ykram (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clients missing from comparison tables

This is a list of clients that are missing from the comparison tables, there are more not in this list that could also be added but these either already have articles or are on the WikiProject's todo list and won't be red linked after the large merge and redirect project is finished.

--Tothwolf (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

May I request that the color for clients no longer in active development be changed to something other than light purple? There isn't enough contrast between gray (the default background color) and light purple; it is very hard to see the difference on some monitors & in some light situations.

AEnw (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the contrast but I'm not really sure what else we could use. It currently uses the standard {{rh}} and {{rh2}} rowheader templates which are widely used for these purposes in these type of comparison tables. It may be worth considering changing the {{rh2}} template itself. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Trillian

You know the IM software Trillian? It is also an IRC client. By default Trillian 3.1 and Astra carry a IRC add-on built in. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.215.79 (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trillian is an instant messaging client and is covered in Comparison of instant messaging clients. It used to have an entry here as well but if we were to cover all IM clients that offer IRC support in Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients this article would become unmanageable (and it was getting to that point when I removed the IM clients that were already included). I suppose we could have a Comparison of instant messaging clients with Internet Relay Chat support, but I think it would be far better to update and restructure Comparison of instant messaging clients to better cover these if needed. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pidgin

Pidgin (http://pidgin.im/) isn't on the list, but it isn't just an irc client, it handles most protocols. Should it be there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.79.49 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See #Trillian above. I've added hatnote templates which will hopefully help with this. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC

Editors who work on this article may be interested in the discussion here regarding Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC, which is one of the templates currently used in this article. --RL0919 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Version History chart

Version numbers and release dates are entirely arbitrary and not part of the comparison role of this article. Is there any reason to keep this section? Miami33139 (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I've been working on improving these tables I'll try to answer.
Many people come here to check the version and release dates of various clients. It actually does play a role in the comparison, although I think the sortable tables in the operating system and features sections may also be fairly popular. Could you elaborate as to how it might not be useful to readers? Currently the date fields are far from complete (due to a lack of time more than anything else) and we still need to apply templates to those dates to make those fields sortable within that table. Currently this article currently gets around 450-500 hits per day [1] so within this category of articles, it is one of the more popular, which is why we've primarily focused on it and the other meta-articles before taking on some of the smaller ones. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Platform column

The platform column is pretty useless at the moment. It just lists the processor architecture not the actual platform. "Platform" means a combination of processor architecture, underlying OS, and vendor. Things like Android, Solaris, AmigaOS, Ubuntu etc. need to be added.

If you listed *that* information, the web page might be useful to me. I came here to find an IRC client for a foreign platform that I didn't know anything about (something called Windows). Instead I ended up downloading Opera as I know that it has a built-in IRC client. 87.194.208.119 (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


he? solaris is in, amigaos also, android is a Linux, ubuntu also: so why not looking in these columns? these table/comparison is more cluttered that every other comparison i saw in wikipedia! mabdul 23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this list discriminate?

I feel that this list is arguably indiscriminate, beyond being an IRC client. What criteria must an IRC client meet in order to be included in this list? I am curious. JBsupreme (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As explained to me
  1. The client has to exist. We have to be able to verify that the client actually exists and isn't a made-up hoax entry. This is standard practice for comparison articles.
  2. The entry has to be more than just a name and link. It takes a good bit of time to research and fill out details so this raises the bar and tends to discourage drive-by additions of someone's no-name home-brew Visual Basic based client
  3. Only standalone clients, browser plug-in type clients, or web server or browser based Java applet type clients should normally be included.
  4. Multi-IM type clients that support other instant messaging protocols should go into the comparison article that covers Instant Messaging clients. This is for article size and maintenance reasons since many IM clients now offer basic IRC support.
  5. Clients for mobile / handheld devices go into their own comparison article. This is also for article size reasons and because mobile devices have completely different operating system requirements than normal clients.
Which still sounds indiscriminate as only the first two are inclusion critera. The last three are simple sorting. The inclusion criteria is proof of existence and someone spending five minutes to fill in the chart. Bullet 2 is just a burden, but apparently anyone who documents their feature set - even if they have no users - is allowed an entry in this list. Miami33139 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this criteria seems a bit arbitrary. is it backed by policy? what ever happened to reliable sources or notability? i support the removal of non notable clients i.e. if there isn't an article about it, or significant RS coverage, then it should be removed from the list. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave this thread open for a few more weeks. I feel that the "speedy keep" closure was inappropriate in this case and will renominate it if no argument can be made that this list is discriminate. JBsupreme (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better off to tighten the criteria. Miami33139 (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will be renominating this for deletion next week if no argument can be made that this list is in any way discriminatory. JBsupreme (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the critieria I see on these kinds of list insist on notable IRC clients. Which means any thing that is a red link or no link be removed. All of the URLs at the end make it seem promotional in nature.--Crossmr (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that red linked items should be removed, especially if they once linked to articles which have been deleted as a result of an AFD discussion. Does anyone disagree? If so, why? JBsupreme (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the first one as an example (but ran into a table problem there is a double line on the end, maybe someone can fix that).But there is a mass amount of charts here that seems overly extensive to be honest.--Crossmr (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on it. Miami33139 (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I need to go out shortly. Anyone can jump in and carry on with the other tables. There are several there. How about everyone picks one and does it?--Crossmr (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I disagree here. The value of an article such as this comes from it's ability to draw comparisons between different products. The more you limit the ability to draw those comparisons, the less useful it becomes. Given that there is no reason to limit this to notable software, limiting it on any other basis than verifiability and scope (IRC clients) is going to damage the article as a whole. - Bilby (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason. Because wikipedia isn't a discriminate list, it isn't for promotion, and it isn't for advertisements. Which is what these become. Drive bys for people to advertise their new non-notable project on.--Crossmr (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hard pressed to see how having a intrinsically neutral list of IRC clients and basic information about the specifications can be seen as advertising. Perhaps there's a case for having extra criteria, but I'm not convinced that notability is the criteria we need, as that limits this list too much for it to have any real value. - Bilby (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it included links to the sites. That makes it a directory and promotional. It isn't neutral if you're putting some random irc client that someone just whipped up in their spare time that no one has heard about on the same footing as notable projects. Neutrality is not giving the same attention to everything. It is given attention to things based on how reliable sources have covered it, and projects which aren't notable haven't been covered in reliable sources. These are even less than trivial viewpoints. So if you'd like to talk about neutrality, they have no place here.--Crossmr (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crossmr, perhaps not your intent, but I hope you do realise thay you are basically saying that the major contributors to this article such as Mabdul, Pyro3d, myself, and quite a number of others are "spammers" who are "drive by advertising". --Tothwolf (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps its not your intention but you're coming across as someone desperately searching for a personal attack to be made against you or someone else instead of actually contributing to this discussion by trying to put words in my mouth. This is the second time you've done this and you're dangerously close to assuming bad faith.--Crossmr (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have policy that addresses this: Wikipedia:NOT#DIR which is linked from WP:LIST Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Entries on lists or comparison articles are required to be "famous" which in wikipedia terms means notable. If they don't have an article they don't belong on the list.--Crossmr (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. It says, as you quoted, "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous" - it does not say "entries can only be included if they are famous ..." That's a rather odd interpretation you seem to be making. - Bilby (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if their entries are famous it doesn't say "if some entries are famous" it says if the entries are famous. Its a perfectly reasonable interpretation. If you have a list without famous entries, you're violating the policy which is what is going on here. The requirement is that the entries are famous.--Crossmr (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This remains a very curious interpretation. The full piece is:
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic (for example, Nixon's Enemies List). Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted.
First, whatever this list may be, it is not a "list or repositories of loosely associated topics", so the whole section doesn't apply. Second, if it did apply, NOT#DIR says we can add items which are famous for being connected to a given topic, it's true, but not that fame = notability, nor that the only criteria for a list is that it must contain famous things. It's a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition. As mentioned elsewhere, Wikipedia practice has been specifically to allow lists of non-notable topics, as a decent thing to do with content once the article has been deleted - it may not be notable enough to stand on its own, but it is reasonable to group them into a list. - Bilby (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Things are sometimes merged into articles, not lists. You can see List of social networking sites for an example where this isn't the case. Non-notable entries are always removed. The only way we have to measure fame on wikipedia is through notability. Anything that would indicate a client is famous would also indicate it is notable and qualify for an article.--Crossmr (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no - obviously, Lists of episodes and characters are both lists, and common. And fame is a really bad measure - notability simply doesn't relate to fame. With respect, I'd be hard pressed to believe that any IRC client is famous. And if you made a case that one was, it would be very much an exception, and based on more than significant coverage in a couple of secondary sources. - Bilby (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. You probably wouldn't find any IRC client that is famous, hence why the lower threshold of at least notability is acceptable. Beyond that you are giving attention to things which haven't earned any attention themselves. It is not wikipedia's place to create that attention. Even though this has been made into a comparison, it is still a list. There is a page that addresses that and per naming conventions it should still be called "list of..." per Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions--Crossmr (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also per Wikipedia:NOT#DIR #5, wikipedia isn't to be used as a price guide. We may list items as either, "free, shareware, or commercial" but listing specific prices is against policy.--Crossmr (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there. - Bilby (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the current state of the article [2], every entry in the table has a seperate article. Useful inclusion criteria could only be something in between "every existing verifyable IRC client" and "only IRC clients with a seperate article", IMHO. Therefore I don't see the need to limit the article any further. I'd still disagree with "only clients with an article", because there's on ongoing effort to delete those articles: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Those would be deleted from the table if we agreed on "seperate article" as inclusion criteria, just because the article was deleted and I won't agree with that. There's no policy limiting the content of this list type article to clients with their own article (the wikilink could just be removed instead of the whole line). FWIW, JBsupreme and Miami33139 both think Irssi wasn't notable in this field [9] [10], and it obviously should be in this comparison. I'd like to see a proposal that avoids the vague word "notable" for that reason. --thommey (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't vague. it is a well established threshold for inclusion on wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is a criterion for having separate articles. See WP:NNC, and proposal below. Pcap ping 14:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To quote WP:NNC: "[...] Various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight." -- As of right now this article is unbalanced (and something to the tune of almost 100KB) because there is no criteria limiting what can or cannot be added. Listing only the clients which are notable as defined by WP:N would be a positive step in the right direction, IMHO. JBsupreme (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NNC is over-ridden by WP:NOT. Not directly addresses this kind of page and states that entries must be famous.--Crossmr (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, (it seems we've moved away from the central point), sorry, but no, fame is not a requirement for inclusion in a list. You're applying the wrong aspect of NOT#DIR - this is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics, so the exception that entries can be included if they are famous for that association simply doesn't apply here. None of the seven "nots" under NOT#DIR are really applicable, to be honest. - Bilby (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A way forward

Clearly restricting this to wiki-notable instead of notable—in the plain English sense of the word—software is counter-productive. The purpose of a page like this is to be more comprehensive about this kind of software, but still not indiscriminate. The distinction between these notions is in the depth of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources. This is acceptable per WP:LSC: "exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles". I propose the following criteria, in line with WP:V, WP:NNC, WP:DUE, WP:LSC:

Typical examples of WP:SECONDARY WP:RS would be book mentions, e.g. [11], [12], [13]. Thoughts? Pcap ping 14:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that notability is not an appropriate metric for list inclusion; the guideline explicitly states this in WP:NNC with the exception of lists of people. I would propose that such lists require an RS that either compares a good portion of the proposed items (i.e. a comparison of 10 word processing programs from 2008 in PC Pro would be a justification for a 2010 WP list that compared those two and added a half a dozen newer programs backed up by other reliable sources). Just restricting it to anything reliably sourced means that there is no guidance as to what sorts of topics are appropriate for lists; any trivial collection of reliably-sourced data could be assembled. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars for inspiration.  Skomorokh  15:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically what I proposed. You wrote "require an RS that either compares a good portion of the proposed items"; that's usually called a "round-up review" (we have no article on this, but a google search finds plenty). I'm not sure what exactly you're worried about with "any trivial collection of reliably-sourced data could be assembled". Clearly only IRC clients need apply here. I suppose you're worried about the comparison criteria, which seems to be the issue in the Star Trek vs Star Wars AfD. I agree that those topics (normally the columns in this article) need to be reliably sourced valid comparison criteria. An example of I found to be a bad criteria is [14]. But, most of the debate on this page was how to select the software, not how to select the criteria used to compare it. Pcap ping 16:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. NCC is a guideline. While Wikipedia:NOT#DIR is a policy. It specifically governs what can be in a list, and this is a list per Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions. NCC doesn't remotely apply on this page.--Crossmr (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with this as a general principle. The only problem is it is going to keep in software that hasn't been updated for 10 years, and got a mention or three when it was new, while denying good software that was released more recently when there's less discussion about IRC, and thus is less likely to be compared. However, as some criteria beyond "it's a client" is required, it is probably worth taking this path rather than having no criteria or, alternatively, an overly strict option. - Bilby (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I guess I feel as if this list is broken beyond repair (hence the current deletion discussion) but if we were to instill some sort of discriminate criteria then I could be swayed to believe otherwise. I don't see how or why restricting this list to products with articles is counter-productive, but am open to hear why it would be. JBsupreme (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree. You're giving the same attention to something which is trivially mentioned vs something which qualifies for an article on wikipedia and putting them on equal footing. This is a violation of WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:NOT#DIR. Simply put, it is not wikipedia's place to promote subjects which haven't first received the coverage in reliable sources and a trivial mention in a massive open source round-up isn't sufficient.--Crossmr (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move revert

List of Internet Relay Chat clients → Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients — This move was done the other way round today by JBsupreme ([15]). I see no reason for it and unfortunately none was provided either. I think it's clearly a comparison, not a list. —thommey (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a list with a table embedded. JBsupreme (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has more than just one table. It's not a list, that's obvious. It's a comparison article like all the ones on Category:Software comparisons (except for those called List* of course). If you suggest renaming them all, please do so or request it somewhere. Don't do it one by one, it's difficult to establish consensus this way. --thommey (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Egad, that is a lot of comparative lists. JBsupreme (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia naming conventions indicate that his move was proper Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions. If (as is often the case), the list has multiple columns and so is in table form, the name or title List of _ _ is still preferable to Table of _ _ or Comparison of _ _. It should be moved back.--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The header of Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions also states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and "preferable" isn't policy. There're a lot of "Comparison of" articles on wikipedia [16]. That indicates there's consensus to use those names. The format chosen for software comparison is mostly a set of tables because it fits best, that doesn't necessarily make it a list, IMHO (Category:Software comparisons). Crossmr, are you suggesting to rename them all? --thommey (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_IRC_clients&oldid=341083901"