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 is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
82.19.4.7(talk·contribs·WHOIS) says that the differences section that was in the article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia: [1], [2]. First of all, it is not comparison with the other product in any way, it is just to pretty much give information about a few differences of each product. Some discussion is shown here. I would like a third opinion on this. -Porch corpter(talk/contribs)10:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles. Although scraping the literal bar of "notability from sources" by the absolute skin of their teeth, neither of these articles have any real encyclopedic value. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andy that they need to be deleted. I've had a look for some content but there's nothing that elevates this software above the many other software packages that do the same thing. I'm not suggesting that they are culled from the encyclopaedia completely, they could probably be included in a List of Maintenance Software article if such exists. The disputed section is not appropriate. It's not clear from the article why the comparison between the two needs to be emphasised. There's no connection other than they do something similar. --Bill(talk|contribs)16:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your request from the 3O list. The 3O process is intended for disputes involving two editors, however it appears that a number of people have weighed in on the issue in this section. If you're still unable to resolve the dispute, please consider using alternative dispute resolution processes such as RFC, which is better suited for helping to determine consensus in issues that involve multiple editors. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Okay. The 3O of the section above was declined. Since this anonymous user says the differences are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article: [3] and [4], I would like to know if the differences section is appropriate for an encyclopedia, as I've not come across any policy or guideline stating it. I would like a quick consensus for this and close this RFC per WP:SNOW. -Porch corpter(talk/contribs)09:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is: Should this article include material (from a reviewer) comparing features of the Advanced Vista Optimizer to one of its competitors? The tentative text is "Washington Post Review claims that Advanced Vista Optimizer does not include as many utilities as Advanced SystemCare Free. But Advanced Vista Optimizer works efficiently as much like Advanced SystemCare PRO." --Noleander (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Off hand, I don't think this article should go into comparisons of the product with competitors. The article already reads too much like advertising ... see WP:ADVERTISING. I'd suggest that the comparison with the competitor be left out of the article, and furthermore that the article's wording be improved to be more factual and encyclopedic. I don't doubt that a reviewer made those comparisons, but an encyclopedia is not a good place to be repeating side-by-side shopping data: too much context is missing for readers to grasp what is intended by the reviewer. --Noleander (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so a 3O was looked for, of the two respondees one nominated it for deletion and one believed the section shouldn't be there, and the whole article should probably be merged. So why are we now going through the RFC on this? If you don't like the response of the RFC what then? However I'll repeat it's not encyclopaedic content, the data appears in reviews, but an encyclopaedia isn't simply a summary of reviews. I'll repeat what I originally suggested to you, look to well written articles like Opera (browser) (that's a featured article) to get a sense of what an encyclopaedia article on software is about. Reviewers have undoubtedly compared Opera to other browsers, yet we that article doesn't simply repeat what the reviewers said. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IP: RfCs are a recommended early step in dispute resolution. The purpose of an RfC is to solicit input from uninvolved editors who have not participated in the article before (such as myself). You should not attack an editor for initiating an RfC: RfCs are good things and often have a calming effect on Talk pages with on-going controversy. --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I specified that I didn't intend to edit this article further. The lister here requested a third opinion. I was quite impressed by that, since they could easily have just readded the content and I would have been good to my word of not editing further. The whole point is that WP:3O is to use your words "to solicit input from uninvolved editors who have not participated in the article before". We've had the input and so we now want even more input for some reason. This isn't an attack, it's a question about what is trying to be achieved - there is no significant dispute, there is no "on-going" controversy, there is no threat of an ongoing edit war, there have been outside opinions - what more is required? --82.19.4.7 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is only one source which is comparing the two products and it is just one line then definitely not. Why should these two pieces of software be compared over any others? It's like putting a section into Microsoft Security Essentials and having a section called "Differences with AVG Antivirus". Why would you highlight the differences between the two pieces of software and ignore the rest. The sentence from the source in question would be much better suited for the reception section where it is now. One last thing, I'm not sure what you mean by "I would like a quick consensus for this and close this RFC per WP:SNOW." Are you looking for people to just agree with you or do you want proper comments? --Bill(talk|contribs)07:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
