Talk:SftpDrive
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Please stop removing competitors without discussion[edit]
Every time someone links to anything mentioning competing products, someone else removes the link. Please provide your justification. Personally, I don't think this article should exist at all, so unless you want it to show up in the delete queue, play nice. 216.138.203.252 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have been advised that the links which are being removed without consultation are appropriate for this page. Please do not remove them a third time w/out providing a justification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_7#SftpDrive Somegeek 19:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- The person who provided that response on the Editor Assistance page is wrong in their assessment. There's two important considerations here. One -- for lists of software, we create list articles. The encyclopedia is much better served by having a complete list of SFTP clients gathered in one place, instead of having partial lists in many articles. It's important to think about these sorts of things from a position of global applicability. You don't see us linking to Mac OS X from any Microsoft Windows or Linux articles, do you? Why would we limit such a a list to those three major operating systems? Is that fair? Is that a neutral presentation? What about FreeBSD or AmigaOS or GNU Hurd or any of dozens of other lesser-known operating system articles we have on Wikipedia? It is both easier and more fair to provide a single wikilink to a list article. Alternatively, a template can be created that has all the relevant pieces of software gathered together and presented at the bottom of every article. Template:FreeCollabManageSoftware is a good example of this.
- Two -- note that WP:SEEALSO suggests that a "good practice is to treat subjects in a "See also" section as topics that could be worked into the article". Nobody's ever going to integrate articles on similar competing products into eachother... it'd create a nightmare for maintainability, and would make for very poor and potentially POV-laden prose.