Talk:List of icon software

If notable, why isn't there an article?

If the listed software product is notable, why isn't there a Wikipedia article? In general, this is a good rule of thumb when deciding to list a software product or not. --HighKing (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I simply haven't got around to creating one yet. Feel free to create one. --Hm2k (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As per policy, I'll remove the unlisted products until they meet notability. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Which policy? The products are clearly listed here and do meet notability guidelines. Do not remove. --Hm2k (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

References used

Continuing the discussion from other pages, some of the references used here do not appear to meet guidelines for WP:RS, and there are questions over the notability of the software. To establish notability, coverage must be given in reliable 3rd party sources.

• For Icon Sushi, 3 references are given.

1. The ZDnet reference was written by Kenny Weytens and appears in the Downloads section and not the Reviews section. There is no indication of who Kenny is, and the write up does not appear very professional. Merely being mentioned on a website doesn't automatically denote notability.
2. The second reference is from "Official Windows Magazine" website. This website accepts "Community" guides and publishes them. The review was written by Karl Hodge. It appears that this was a "community" review, and not by editorial staff.
3. The 3rd reference is from Winfuture. The reference appears to be a direct copy of a feature list and doesn't review the product and the website appears to be a simple news aggregator. Listing on a website does not denote notability.

• For IcoFX, the reference provided is from Lifehacker and written by Jackson West. The front page lists editting staff, and Jackson is not listed suggesting it was a community contribution.

I've removed the references that don't meet guidelines and replaced with a tag rather than a full removal to wait to see if references that meet Wikipedia criteria can be found. Hopefully this solution is more acceptable to you. --HighKing (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• @Icon Sushi:

1. "Kenny Weytens" +ZDnet clearly shows that he's an established writer for ZDnet, thus one would conclude he's a reliable author else he wouldn't be writing for ZDnet.
2. "Karl Hodge" is a very well established author and writes lots for various Future Publishing technology magazines, including .net (magazine) and "The Official Windows Magazine". Yet another reliable author.
3. "Michael Diestelberg" is the author of this article, he's one of the team at Winfuture, which is an established windows online magazine in Germany. Since he one of a team of editors on the site, it'd be a fair assumption to say it's a reliable source.

• IcoFX: Did you even read about Lifehacker before you wrote this? "Jackson West" +Lifehacker is a former editor. Again, well established and reliable author.

I'll be adding these references back. If you did your homework properly in the first place, you'd see they are clearly reliable sources. I can't believe I've had to prove to you that each one is written by a reliable author. This is ridiculous! --Hm2k (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice tone - please behave. Of course, if you bothered to accept the opinion of .. what? 3? 4? 5? other editors on Download pages, and policy, and reliable sources, you wouldn't feel the need to make personal comments or to claim it's ridiculous. No need to throw toys out of the pram - if you AGF you'll realize the collective purpose is to improve the artice, not engage in needless squabbling.

I don't accept that the ZDnet source is reliable still - Kenny may be a prolific writer, but that doesn't equate to reliable. Same with Karl. Both appear to be submissions by freelance writers, and not part of the editorial content of these websites, so perhaps they were paid to "review" the products, etc. I would argue the same for Lifehacker - see below. --HighKing (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about all the sources mentioned here, but Life Hacker is definitely a reliable one for software. IcoFX is a notable application and I'm actually surprised there's no article about it on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone could create a stub for it and, if it survives deletion, then you'll know for sure whether it's considered notable or not. Laurent (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you consider Liferhacker a reliable source? I would have thought that since it's a type of aggregation blog that appears to accept submissions from .. well, anybody .., it would not be considered reliable. Just curious.... As to your suggestion to start an article - I already suggested this earlier to Hm2k but got a blow-off answer. --HighKing (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

They accept submission from anybody but only publish what they select, and always rewrite whatever you submit to them. I think that makes it a reliable source because they exercise an editorial control over their content. Also, according to the Wikipedia article, the website received a number of awards including from TIME, Wired and CNET. Laurent (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've no doubt the Lifehacker is notable, but you've not convinced me that the articles they produce are reliable. If they simply rewrite whatever is submitted then they are relying on the submitter to provide and check the details, no? That would mean that the sources, and the articles, do not meet policy guidelines. --HighKing (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Laurent, nothing in the Google news results you linked asserts notability for that software. Did you look at each of the results individually? Please point me to anything you think does establish notability.

Hm2k, that search for Karl Hodge doesn't return anything that establishes he is a reliable, credible author. His personal website doesn't count. Most of the results aren't even about him. The Kenny Weytens piece is very short, mostly describing what the program does with a few words of opinion. He says it's not earth shattering and does not establish it is particularly notable. Some guy (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Karl's website has his CV on it. You can check his credentials there. Also follow the .net magazine reference, he's actually mentioned on that article. Kenny's piece may be short, but it's what you do with it that counts and I used as a reference for notability, which is within the guidelines. --Hm2k (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A self-published source. Please read the policy. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please read the policy. --HighKing (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You're clearly mis-guided. I'm not writing an article about Karl Hodge here, these policies apply to articles, not to sources. --Hm2k (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please - no ad hominen attacks. This is the 2nd time you've resorted to name-calling - it's against policy. As to being mis-guided - step back for a minute. We're trying to establish if Karl's article is a reliable source. We've already established that the publication accept articles from external authors. We don't know for sure if this article was one of those. We can't establish Kenny as an acknowledged expert from his self-published CV. The objective isn't to make this list as big as we can get it. As a suggestion, perhaps we can find a reference by looking to see if a reliable source published a list of "Top 10 icon editting software" or similar? --HighKing (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Name calling? you want to see me calling you names. Whatever it is you're trying to achieve, it's getting very complex and we're getting nowhere. I suggest you stick to WP:DR to resolve this as I've had enough. --Hm2k (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that the sources are reliable, I'm still shocked that it came down to individually proving that each source has a reliable author. I've never seen as pedantic as this on the entire of Wikipedia. That aside I will eventually create stubs for these software titles, however I've been that wrapped up in this dispute that I even started to doubt the notability myself. I now see that I am in fact most definitely correct, no doubt about it, regardless of how many editors ignorantly believe otherwise. Enough is enough, I see no need to discussing this any further. Stubs to follow. --Hm2k (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please observe WP:AGF and don't call editors that you are in dispute with ignorant - your tone and attitude is unnecesary. I've once again deleted the references that don't meet minimum policy guidelines and replaced the tags. And while you may be shocked about having to prove each source - guess what? That's policy. You think we should just believe you and take your word for it? Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. BTW, you'd think that if they were genuinely notable, like the other software products, we'd have no trouble finding references. IMHO, the fact that references are not forthcoming from multiple sources proves to me that the software is better being left our of the article. --HighKing (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, why have you removed the links again? I've proved they have notability. Restoring. --Hm2k (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Proved? Go back and reread what I've said. You've proved nothing. Now stop restoring disputed references and take the lead from Laurent and your fellow editors, and wait till a consensus emerges. --HighKing (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Proved? You've proved nothing. Go back and reread what I've said. Now stop restoring disputed references and take the lead from Laurent and your fellow editors, and wait till a consensus emerges. --HighKing (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've created a stub for IcoFX. I use it regularly and it's a great app that is definitely notable. Laurent (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also created a stub for @icon sushi as notability of this software is clear from the above discussion. --Hm2k (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because you use it and like it doesn't automatically mean it's notable. Some guy (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, my comment wasn't meant to prove the app is notable, but I hope the sources I provided do that. Laurent (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

If you want consensus to resolve this dispute, try using one of the dispute resolution methods such as WP:3O or WP:RFC. I'm fed up with you continually removing references for no valid reason. "No consensus" IS NOT a valid reason for removal. --Hm2k (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but we're discussing the references and sources. Here's some policies so that you might understand why you are receiving objections:

• From WP:RS; Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
• From WP:SOURCES; The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.
• And WP:BRD recommends you discuss things after deletion. Be aware that constant reverting will result in page protection or a block.
• And in regards to some recent comments, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

What I don't get is why you are so determined to prove that Sushi is notable. Are you the author? Have you a vested interest? Is the article diminished in any way if the software is not listed while you look for a reference? While I was searching for a Top10 list, I came across this list from toptenreviews and sushi isn't even listed...nor is IconFX... --HighKing (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 10 apps and not a single freeware or open source app. I wouldn't call that a useful list. Laurent (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, *I* didn't write it, nor does anyone claim it's a *useful* list. But it *is* a list of icon software, which is more than some people have produced.... --HighKing (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source either, but you already know that right? --Hm2k (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I understand the issues facing notability and am fully aware of the policies, but you must also assume good faith. Also highlighting polices when i've not asked is rather patronising and considered an insult, which is far worse than any "name calling" you're accusing me of. I will also make a point of making a big deal out of this next time you do it, because you seem to prefer discussing that kind of thing than the actual issue in hand.
• No, I'm nothing to do with @icon sushi, i've never even used the software, but I can clearly see it's notable and should appear on the list. Why should we discriminate against @icon sushi? There's been very little mention of any of the others.
• I'd love to find a decent list of icon editors written by a notable author, but the best I could find was the one written by Karl Hodge, which to me, is good enough, as Karl Hodge is an author for a magazine that I purchase on an almost monthly basis, which is .net magazine. I have a copy sat on my desk right now. Since checking this article again and Wikipedia's policies, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the source is notable as is @icon sushi and for someone to have the audacity to question whether it's reliable or not, especially after spending the time providing conclusive proof seems really quite ridiculous and even offensive.
• I'm happy to continue to justify these references and stick to the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, but this discussion is too complex to really get a solid resolution. That's why I propose the use of a dispute resolution process with a neutral and concise request that we can agree on rather than this overly complex discussion. I've come a long way to preserve this content, because I'm trying to improve Wikipedia. I'm not about to let ignorance ruin it.
• I'm not prepared to let people just remove content willy nilly, for no valid reason, when I've spent time finding reliable sources as references to show it's notable. So you see, it's not @icon sushi I'm defending here, it's the entire thing. I don't mind WP:BRD in fact I'm very much for it and use it often but even when you resolve all their issues, they STILL remove the content, it just gets ridiculous.
• If after all this, you STILL have an issue. Don't discuss it here, there's no point, we're getting no where, leave me a message or open an WP:RFC with what I mentioned above in mind. Thanks.

--Hm2k (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting tired of your aggression now....I highlighted the policies to save anyone else pointing them out to you, and because you resort to name calling or trying to halt the discussion rather than being interested in resolving this dispute. Even now, you're putting forward a reason for inclusion that you buy a magazine. That's a pretty rubbish reason. It's obvious that you are either wilfully ignoring policy and other opinions, or have ownership issues with the article. Saying that the discussion is too complex to really get a solid resolution is pretty much an admission that you can't justify the inclusion of all the software on this list. Stating that you're not prepared to remove content willy nilly, for no valid reason while *still* trying to maintain that you've found valid references is, quite frankly and to use your favorite word, ridiculous. Fluster and bluster is all you've produced, and your name calling and other childish behaviour stretches your credibility and other editor's patience to the limit. In the meantime, I'll happily wait for the references. If the software is notable, why are you finding it so difficult? --HighKing (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're so sure, put your money where your mouth is and propose an RFC. --Hm2k (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

eh? So you've resorting to daring other editors now? I'll treat that with the amusement it deserves. Sorry, I'd prefer to stick with discussion and policies. --HighKing (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We already have the noticeboard discussion going anyway. Some guy (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can't find a compromise, maybe you could also give a try to informal mediation. Laurent (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Laurent is right. HighKing if you're not willing to use a dispute resolution process I'm going to call troll on this and simply won't engage you any further. I see no benefit to anyone discussing this here any further. If you want to work towards a clear resolution, I'm only happy to comply, but this is just needless dickery. --Hm2k (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to withdraw your trolling comment (here, and on my Talk page) or I will raise a WQA. I came to this page to try to resolve a reliable sources debate, and you've been nothing but abusive and aggressive. While I understand that tempers can run high, calling someone a troll is considered a serious matter. You're unhappy that the majority of people on the noticeboard discussion pointed out that Download pages, in general, aren't a reliable source, and that references should be checked on a case by case basis. I've given you ample opportunity to justify sources or find new ones, and now you're name calling and refusing to discuss matters any further. That isn't collaborative, and shows you have ownership issues. Policy is on my side on this. If you believe I'm trolling or that there is something in my behaviour you object to, you appear to have a firm grasp of procedure. As to moving forward; it's clear that if your new articles remain created, it denotes notability for the software products, and that would merit inclusion - this is a reliable acid test. I see you've done that now, so why do you feel the need to petulantly continue with your name calling? --HighKing (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I won't be engaging in this discussion with you any further unless you start an RFC. I won't be discussing your behaviour here either, that's what the comment on your talk page was for. However, I am hoping we can now both agree that no further action is required, for now. --Hm2k (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No reason why *I'd* start an RFC? The onus is on you to show that references are notable - it's not on the rest of us to show that they're not. And so far, you're on your own in this argument on reliability of sources... But I'm happy to draw a line under this episode and so long as the articles you've created remain created, then they'll qualify as notable as far as I'm concerned. Be aware that one of the articles you've indicated you might recreate on Microangelo Toolset was previously deleted as spamcruft. --HighKing (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to start an RFC because I'm not disputing anything. I'm aware of the Microangelo Toolset article's history and will be handling that issue should it arise, but I don't think it will. I'm glad we can finally class this as resolved. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an absurd solution. All we've done is scattered the sourcing problems all over the place. An item that was poorly sourced and non-notable suddenly becomes notable because an article is created using the same invalid sources? Some guy (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's regarded as a good reliable acid-test for notability. If an article exists, chances are the topic is notable. I've used this acid-test myself a number of time for software-related topics, and it ends up being the most satisfactory way to resolve any issues. --HighKing (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's backwards. By that same logic we should keep all of the non-notable bio and band pages that get created every day. These applications were considered not notable because he was using bad sources that don't establish notability. But if he creates an article using the same sources, they're suddenly notable? Some guy (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with HighKing - creating an article is a very good way to get a clear consensus regarding the notability of a software program. If you think the sources are not reliable, it takes a minute to nominate the article for deletion, while if there's no article it takes hours to discuss the sources and eventually we may still not have any clear consensus (as it happened here). In other words, if there's an article and if it survives CSD, PROD and AFD then we can be reasonably sure that it's acceptable per Wikipedia's criteria. Laurent (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Given the small number of notable software, does it make sense to merge this list with the article on icon software? --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. JBsupreme (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much all the interest. If I don't hear any more, I'll merge. --HighKing (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections. --Hm2k (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool - thanks for responding. After I merge, I'll flag this article for cleanup/deletion. I'll give it another day - what's the hurry after all... --HighKing (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That is unnecessary. You should merge and redirect. No further action should be required. --Hm2k (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)