Talk:Qodem

Text and/or other creative content from Qodem was copied or moved into Qmodem. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qodem redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Notability[edit]

On notability:

Many of the terminal emulators listed in List of terminal emulators lack third-party references. See Tera Term for example.
If this article cannot stand on its own, it could be merged with Qmodem. An analogous situation is Minicom: it is a clone of Telix and is referenced there.

Kevin l (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First point, yes - most of those redlinks could be removed without lessening the quality of the list. Minicom has already established notability, and need not be merged. TEDickey (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try as I might, I can't find anything out there that will meet Wiki's notability requirements. Yet I still feel that someone researching Qmodem has a legitimate need to know that active project(s) exist related to it. If the reference currently on the Qmodem article looks OK ("In 2003 an independent free software re-implementation of Qmodem for Unix-like systems called Qodem[4] was released."), then I would not object to deleting this article. Kevin l (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there's a gotcha - if you're the only source of the information provided, then it's probably not notable TEDickey (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand how that works regarding this article (Qodem would need a print reference or some other evidence of notability - personal inventions are not notable), but does it also apply to specific information on an article that already meets the notability requirement (e.g. Qmodem)? An entire article about Qodem might not be notable, but the statement "Qmodem spawned a clone" is certainly verifiable. Does "Qmodem spawned a clone" within the Qmodem article have to meet its own bar on notability? Kevin l (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that depends on whoever's interested in changes on Qmodem, whether they find it topical, etc., TEDickey (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while - simply bumping up the version number isn't helping the topic. TEDickey (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's been two years with no edits but mine and bots. Tried to re-work the article to resemble similar projects like GNOME Terminal and Midnight Commander, but it ends up a press release. I think it's fair to model what SyncTERM does and just redirect to Qmodem. Kevin l (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would probably work out TEDickey (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]