Talk:Pidgin (software)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carrier[edit]

The link to a Carrier article seems to have been taken down, trying to go to the carrier article redirects to Pidgin (so I'm going to assume that it's gone now), and there appear to be no links to the Carrier site. I would like to know the rational behind this. If the carrier project is dead, there should be some mention of this, and if Carrier will not have its own article, surely there should be a link to the carrier site somewhere where carrier is mentioned on this article?Zeotronic (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the Carrier talk page for details of why it was redirected here. A suggestion was made to include details of the fork in a "Criticisms" section (perhaps are part of the "deficiencies" section?) but I don't think it ever happened. Feel free to write something about it if you want (preferably with some sourcing too!) ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the project in "Software based on Pidgin/libpurple". It seems like a little more detail would be useful too. However, it seems like one user keeps trying to squash any information about it, but it seems very relevant to the topic. -- 98.154.*/13 March 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.241.243 (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the carrier project dead anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.219.41 (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to not be; the latest download ([1]) shows the version as 2.5.5, which according to Wikipedia was the version of Pidgin that was released 16 days ago, so it seems like it's still being maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.241.243 (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a long time, the Carrier project seemed dead - it hadn't updated itself for a long time (admittedly, neither had Pidgin so that probably explains its lack of updates). There is nothing wrong with including information about Carrier, but spamming the Pidgin page (which a certain user(s) was doing) is not the way to include information about it. That is why I kept removing information about it. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 08:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The carrier page used to link directly to here, so it would make sense to talk about it. I restored the carrier page and then will just restore the blurb about the controversy causing the fork (it IS a very important part of Pidgin's history). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.64.22.229 (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier is not that notable, and the page (as it exists) proves this. I've restored the redirect. Please discuss any desire to return this page here, and provide proof (outside the "Funpidgin" website) that it is notable. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 08:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was notable enough to be referenced from slashdot. See [2]. I'm going to edit the page to include additional references. Why is there a constant desire by numerous people to remove all references to Carrier from Pidgin's wp article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.64.21.103 (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably due to the fact it's only notable change (from what I understand) is the resizing of the text area when you type. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related software/libpurple[edit]

I fail to see the need of this section now; it's becoming a spot of blatant advertising for various clients and people revert to it for no reason? Just what is so special about a list of Pidgin-based clients? There's an IM software list for Pete's sake! 75.79.43.178 (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libpurple also redirects here; Pidgin is the source of libpurple, so it seems like linking to other software that is based on pidgin and/or uses libpurple seems like relevant to the topic at hand. Perhaps libpurple should be separated out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.241.243 (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you'd struggle to find enough information about libpurple to make a separate article out of it. As far as I'm aware, Pidgin (and Adium) are the most popular implementations of libpurple (with Pidgin being the most prominent open-source implementation). ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 09:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "software based on libpurple" category/list would be helpful to permanently get rid of this. HuGo_87 (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why was reference to Empathy's Voice and Video capabilities removed? 124.168.223.77 (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Funpidgin" currently redirects to this article, however it is not mentioned. If there's an explicit redirect, then i asume it is relevant enough to be at least mentioned.Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.164.56.5 (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image licence[edit]

Resolved
 – Image licensing issues solved.

I added a comment to File talk:Pidgin screenshot.png, concerning inappropriate licencing 121.44.27.165 (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot[edit]

Resolved
 – Image has been properly centered and licensing issues solved.

can someone explain why this screenshot is not centered and aligned to the left ? I can't seem to figure it out. furthermore, if someone would fix this, even better :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo 87 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it is off center is a bot keeps adding that {{puic}} template (which doesn't work in Infoboxes anyway) due to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 8#File:Pidgin screenshot.png. There isn't any point in removing the template because the bot will just automatically re-add it again. Tothwolf (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank. I've managed to center it for the time being anyway. A replacement SHOULD be found, though the dispute on whether it is or not free is still not finished. HuGo_87 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that image fine. Someone just got carried away in tagging images (again). Tothwolf (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New question
I have Pidgin 2.7.3 in Debian Squeeze. My Buddy List is similar to the screen shot here except that it has "Family" and "Friends" whereas I see "Friends" and "Buddies". Isn't a more recent screen shot warranted? Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I added the unbalanced template for the last section, current deficiencies. No other page on an instant messaging client has a section designated explicitly for deficiencies. I think notes from that section should be merged into other sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmyersturnbull (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this fails to be neutral. A features section follow by a deficiencies one, show pros and cons of pidgin, I actually would believe that IM articles without a "deficiencies" section are unbalanced. HuGo_87 (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mere existence of the section screams POV. I don't believe Wikipedia needs to embrace criticisms with so many articles, barring the ocassional exception where a subject is overwhelmingly criticized. Bear in mind, we are referring to software, which undergoes constant revisioning and recompiling. Wikipedia is neither a bug-tracker nor an issue board. 70.153.107.250 (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latest preview[edit]

There are never preview versions of pidgin, so I'd delete this from the infobox, but I can't seem to figure out how this template work.. could someone remove this? Thanks HuGo_87 (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are some issues with the underlying template code. I'll see if I can get to it in the next few days. Tothwolf (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just requested deletion of the underlying page that displays that information. That is the only way to get the preview information removed from the page. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 08:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it isn't. Tothwolf (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, which method would be best then? Looking at the template code, that seems to be the only way (aside from discarding the "latest version" templating system altogether) to remove the preview release details. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 13:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ran into this problem last week while working on Linux and Linux kernel and have some template code-in-progress that should fix this problem for all articles that make use of these types of infoboxes. I've got a couple of other tasks with a higher priority that I have to finish first though. Tothwolf (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The {{LPR}} template is fixed now and {{LSR}} should be updated soon as well. I'll start on {{Infobox Software}} and the other software infoboxes soon. If JGXenite wants to go ahead and withdraw and close the TfD for {{Latest preview software release/Pidgin}} the current infobox won't look so bad. Tothwolf (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Both {{LPR}} and {{LSR}} will now properly handle empty parameters for both latest_release_version = and latest_release_date =. See the template documentation for more information. The various software infoboxes still could use improvement but these changes fix the problems with empty parameters resulting in the infoboxes showing the variable names. Tothwolf (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the TfD as nominator keep and cleaned up the template as required. However, the template still doesn't appear to work correctly... ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 18:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The +/- link display is part of {{Infobox Software}}. All of the software Infoboxes really need to be reworked to support these templates better, but dealing with the bad output of {{LSR}} and {{LPR}} was the first step. Do you think having the +/- edit link for someone to add the preview version is a problem? Tothwolf (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I just think that it shouldn't display the preview version thing at all if there isn't a preview version. I don't think it is a problem, just doesn't look very good IMHO. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 19:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the current layout isn't that great. I've got several ideas but I need to spend some time looking at all the different infoboxes that make use of these templates to come up with a unified solution. On one hand, displaying Preview release on the line by itself is a little ugly, on the other hand, having the +/- link available makes it easy to update. Another issue is the {{LPR}} and {{LSR}} templates use the article = parameter to set the edit link used for the version number. The various software type infoboxes use the name = parameter to set the link used for the +/-. The infobox code is currently somewhat ambiguous as well. It currently only enables these subtemplates if the frequently_updated = parameter is set and then uses an {{#ifexist:}} function to see if the template file exists before transcluding it. The link that is generated for the +/- link is set up to preload a form template but the current infobox code will never make use of this feature because the {{#ifexist:}} overrides everything else. Try this link for an example of how the preload feature works.
--Tothwolf (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plaintext Passwords section[edit]

[3] reverted a section talking about the Summer of Code 2008 project to add integration with GNOME Keyring, KWallet, etc. I don't feel comfortable editing the page (as I'm involved in the project), but that SoC was completed successfully, it's just that the code has not yet been merged into Pidgin (it is slated to go into 3.0.0, because due to the way it works, it effectively needs to change ABI).
DarkRain42 (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evening. The plaintext passwords criticism doesn't quite match the source cited. In particular, the link points out that only the user has read access to that file. And anyway, it's getting integrated with desktop keyrings. I'm way too tired to make changes in a way that won't end up immediately undone, can someone look after this for me please? 82.3.192.241 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pidgin (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pidgin_(software)&oldid=1204687631"