Talk:Comparison of IRC clients/Archive 3

3232:, it's on you, the adding editor, though as I've repeatedly stated, I support its full reading, which includes trying to find sources myself, as I have tried to do. As already noted below, I already revisited the sources you offered, and sought Tothwolf's opinion about their use, and found another source as well. What have you done? The word "regurgitate" is incorrect: both independent sources and primary sources are used to support claims, whether quoted or paraphrased. The words "knowingly incomplete" are false - an article is only complete when its contents are reliably sourced in aggregate (and I don't mean every word, duh). In sum, your flame above is deeply disrespectful and full of falsehoods. If that's the only way you're going to interact with editors here, then I strongly suggest you apply one of the 3283:

reliable sources (after taking forever to get past the notability argument.) We are not arguing facts at this point - we are just arguing policy. I am not going to get reliable sources unless I start actively soliciting people to write about it, and that is something I see as gaming the system. (Yes, I do believe in the integrity of the system, hence the resistance to soliciting for reviews.) So at this point there really is no path to get the client included. That seems to be a loss for the article; by the omission the article implies that there is only one DOS client, and depending on the day sometimes there are no DOS clients.

4640:

There is also a listing for this software on FreeDOS.org, a persistent, independent source which has been deemed reliable for use in several other articles, and I just noticed that leetIRC is an included package in the FreeDOS distribution. In my opinion, the extant sourceforge link gets a pass as AGF, since it seems to be for project participants only. And there's a better SF link, too. In my opinion, these three sources are sufficient for leetIRC to remain

2222: 31: 2981:

it's a perfectly acceptable primary source. That, plus an independent RS would be enough. And as I've said before, patience pays. IRCjr or mTCP needs a review or extended discussion by an author, or on a website, or in a book, which can be, in some way, found to be a reliable source. Stop whinging about it. You're being entirely too impatient about all this. I'll discuss your proffered sources below.

603: 1386:, that section of text has not been maintained and is unfortunately not entirely in-sync with the way things are currently done or have been done for quite some time. It was written before Knowledge (XXG) grew to what it is today and should be updated, but that hasn't yet happened. Manual of Style pages and similar guides are notorious for not being maintained and up to date with current practice. 2668:

of fully fledged, up to date supported clients but many clients that have been developed for personal use alone. many times more than the "56" mentioned. if you think there isn't, make a list and I can guarantee I can find more that aren't on that list. I feel your conflict of interest for trying to include your own personal client may be clouding your judgement on this.

5050:) for it in this article for now. It is pretty new. You're certainly right about the Winsock and Trumpet N - I had forgotten about them. And as for sourcing some of the until-now-unsourced(or solely primary-sourced) clients, we now have a path, based on the RSN result. This took a while to get to, and was new to me, but I like it. I've written it up at 126:- I am a heavy user of this client, and I absolutely love it. It's special and notable because it is the ONLY currently active DOS client. A new version was released 2 days ago. I think it should very much be included in the table, as it is important to the thousands of people out there who still love DOS and want to do something useful with it. 1978:, "comparison of X in table format" is still a list article. And it doesn't make sense to compare non-notable products to notable ones, when from the start we were only supposed to cover the non-notable ones (again, we can make exceptions for products that are relevant for comparison, but they still need a source to show the relevancy)." 799:

into my userspace (until it becomes more notable, if that ever happens) and put the appropriate information into the table; if neither, then move and leave the table as it is. Given all the above discussion, I'm rather unsure what the criteria for inclusion are, although being an inclusionist I find myself in agreement with Tothwolf.

545:. (Nevermind the fact you've made 0 contributions to articles within this subject area, that is, if we don't count your edit warring over removing content here.) As pointed out both here, in the archives, AfD, and elsewhere, by myself and numerous others, the notability guideline is not intended to restrict article content. 1941:"Right, but the non-redlinked entry should have a third-party independent source, showing that it's notable for this topic, or relevant enough, or worth including for some completion purposes (like, for example, listing the first client for system X even if it doesn't have an article, because it influenced later clients)." 4734:

Inclusion into the list of software on FreeDOS is a matter of having the right open source license. Once again, my code isn't open source yet, so it can't be formally included in a FreeDOS distribution. Yet the entire mTCP project (of which IRCjr is a part) is discussed fairly often and recommended

2667:

Oh please, just because there is no particular citation for something doesn't mean it is not true, especially for this informal discussion. There are many many clients, that exist, many people do develop their own personal small irc client even for test purposes. I am not claiming there are thousands

846:

third party source" (emphasis mine); SchmuckyTheCat was the only commenter to have proposed such a rule, the rest of the !votes being either for WP:V, "one third-party WP:RS", or "own article". Moreover, while his edit summary claims "rm this client", he actually removed two clients, one of which is

423:

That is your flawed judgment. Once again, we are not asking for a separate article so you are misapplying the notability guidelines. It is the only DOS client in active development - that covers PC DOS, MS DOS, FreeDOS, and all of the other DOS clones and emulators out there. Nobody stands to gain

367:

It is as notable as many other clients on the list, and not just by the strict definition of "notable" which is being incorrectly applied here. And you are doing your readers a disservice by refusing to acknowledge the existing of this, and possibly other IRC clients. What exactly are we protecting

97:

For those 99.9% of you who have moved on to more advanced operating systems, IRCjr is a client for DOS. It runs on everything from DOS 2.1 up to the latest versions and variants, including FreeDOS. It does fine in emulated DOS environments like DOSBox under Windows or Linux. It runs on the slowest

5068:

I've not been able to locate much in the way of third party sources for mTCP or IRCjr. I did see a few YouTube videos but we can't use those. If IRC-Junkie were to review IRCjr, that would make things easy for us. Another possibility would be a round-up review which covers as many DOS IRC clients as

4612:

Once again, it doesn't make sense to remove the only maintained and actively developed MS-DOS client. (The last major update was in April.) It's not going to get coverage in PC Magazine or another "reliable source" because of the operating system. So the answer here is that it just doesn't exist?

3501:

Say, since this article is supposed to compare clients, why not put a brief mention in a separate section called "Unusual IRC clients"? Instead of having a full-fledge entry in the tables, keeping it only to the aspects that make it substantially different. Idem for "only DOS client in maintenance",

3176:. I never said "purely" - stop misrepresenting, and stop attacking editors, in this case, me. I assumed you wanted your product reviewed anyways - if not, fine. If you choose to cast my attempt to help you in a negative light, that's on you. The Watcom article is patently obviously not sufficiently 2872:

With this kind of editing it will never be notable enough for an entry. Nobody in a major "reliable source" is going to review a new DOS client, unless SlashDot or Digg decide to get some chuckles out of it. I am not going to start trolling around asking for other people to review it so that I can

2765:

My two cents here for more civility - IRWolfie-, please be cognizant of the dates of the postings. To reawaken a nearly three week old (previously hourly updated) thread, when much has happened in the interim, calls for care. And it's better to ignore provocative remarks, rather than answer them in

624:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really

215:

Regardless of that, what good is the criteria for inclusion in the list if it is subjectively applied? It is notable in that it is the only DOS client still being developed. Other people are using it. And it is at least as notable as some of the other clients on the list. (Hint: There is another

5188:

A quick Google search turned up a large number of references for this, so yet again this removal seems to be disruptive to the improvement of this article. I cut the results down to 4 which seem to be worth keeping. I'm including these in the draft of this article I have in-progress and they should

4997:

Unfortunately, even though I can tell that mTCP has users just from a simple Google search, it looks like it is still too new (2009) for there to be enough sources for it to pass Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guideline. If we had an article for mTCP, we could have a subsection there for IRCjr, but I

4781:

As much as I like SourceForge, is that a reliable source? It's a delivery mechanism for open source software. I could easy host a ZIP file on my web site and include an open source license, but that wouldn't be considered a reliable source for some reason. And inclusion in FreeDOS (which I would

4698:

LeetIRC appears on the FreeDOS software list and on SourceForge because it was open sourced. I have not open sourced my code yet. So we have an interesting problem; an application which is relatively stale (has not been touched in years) is notable enough for inclusion because it was open source,

4646:, but are insufficient for a full article on leetIRC. As I said when I restarted all this kerfuffle, I'm an inclusionist, but also a fan of inclusion criteria. Note also, that I will continue to press for further, improved sources as they become available; they quite often do, in surprising places. 3282:

The bottom line is that this client (and others) were removed for notability reasons during a mass purge; notability has turned out to be a bogus criteria. That should have never happened. I have been trying for a month to point out the flaws in continuing to exclude it. Apparently we are down to

3149:

So I think I have it correct up above - if some other "reliable" source writes about it then the editors here feel free to regurgitate that. But in the absence of that reliable source editors of an article would rather argue notability and reliable sources rather that just do the tiniest amount of

3014:

What exactly makes a reliable source? Can you be a reliable source? Is it somebody you have personally heard of? Is it any random user who writes about it in a blog? (A few have done that.) Is it somebody who has gone so far as to make a YouTube video demonstrating it? (That's been done by at

2924:

Are we protecting readers from something they should not see? Is it costing too much money? Is somebody making money and thus the entry would be considered commercial spam? Is the collective experience of software engineers who remember when IRC was new less useful and reliable than the opinions

4351:

I guess what I was trying to point out is that some of the earlier articles would have had a separate writer and editor. Unfortunately, the material archived by the Internet Archive seems to be somewhat sporadic. Only about half of the news/review links I tried pull up archived versions. I suppose

3032:

So it boils down to this .. nobody here is allowed to verify the facts themselves and we are supposed to go to other "reliable" sources to do that. Even though those other reliable sources might be solicited, out of date, or inaccurate. And nobody would be the wiser because for some reason, you

3026:

In the time we've been debating this you could have easily downloaded the VirtualBox appliance (link above) and seen it in emulated action on your machine of choice. But instead of doing what is right for the article, you are trying to explain to me the purity of the system and why I should shill

2980:

has been correctly rejected as a reason to exclude a client, but that doesn't remove the need for reliability and verifiability of facts claimed here. It's too bad you find the quite normal and common practice of requesting a review to be laughable. There's nothing wrong with your documentation;

2846:

I have been an on-and-off Wiki editor for a few years now - I did not just swoop in to get my favorite IRC client restored to a list from which it was removed. Some people have stated why they don't think IRCjr is "notable" enough for an entry in this comparison, and I don't agree because I think

2401:

and highly reliable self-published source which documents the features and functionality of a software program. As a source, it is more reliable than documentation included with a program, but either of these is more reliable than a published book, which due to how quickly software evolves and the

798:

weight to a "two-line review in an online magazine", which is (approximately) what Lexein seems to want? My opinion is that it may be enough to justify the standalone article and is most probably enough to justify inclusion in the list. If the latter but not the former, I'd move the article back

912:

Tothwolf, give it. To head off edit warring, cough up those "lots of books and other sources which aren't indexed by Google," (aside from the AmIRC and others already mentioned above, thanks) either publicly in your userspace, or privately to me by email. Doing so will only help everyone improve

4639:

On leetIRC: I've reverted its deletion, based on a primary source and an independent source. The primary is a long term website, by an author who has published several pieces of software, mentioned favorably elsewhere, and who carefully describes in some detail the features(hooray!) of leetIRC.

4584:

IRCjr and LeetIRC are very similar. Both are for MS-DOS. Both are self-published pieces of software described on their author's web sites. Both had stand alone articles. One was marked for deletion, and the other moved to this comparison table. Guess which one is in wider use and still gets

3020:

I called this laughable because shilling for a review is distasteful. So the message is that if I astroturf and solicit a review, then it might gain that reliable source that it needs so badly, and be included. Doesn't that seem wrong? Exactly how reliable is this if people are told to "get a

2789:

That was my thoughts on this too...the above was from three weeks ago and the discussion had kinda moved on. My point was if IRWolfie- has a genuine gripe about IRCjr having been included here, he needed to take it up with the people who were editing and trying to restructure this article at the

2187:

Overall, very very few IRC clients have been given more than a sentence or two or three when they are discussed in a dead tree source, so if you start trying to apply the notability guideline to content in this article, we end up with probably only about 8 or 9 clients discussed in this article.

1289:

If you want this article to be treated as non-list, then you need first to re-write it. As it currently stands it's a list in table format, with some sortable columns. There are no sourced comparisons among clients, no sources that make direct comparisons between two or more clients (client X is

501:

Some people want to remove only the ones that fall under c, other want to remove the ones under both b and c (remove anything that doesn't have at least one or two RS), and some want to remove anything under a b or c (remove anything that doesn't have a blue link, if you have RS then go write an

5317:

like OR, even though those sources show it isn't. Also, perhaps at least one of those sources needs to be cited in the article; as it stands it still leaves the reader wondering "confirmed by whom exactly?". Moreover the way that information is 'tacked on' the end after the table isn't really

3613:

As for communicating...that much is true, you aren't communicating, you are trolling. I've already sent some stuff to ArbCom since you tried to use that as an attack vector. You just can't seem to let anything go, ever. Why don't you go back to ED and your PS3?...oh right, you can't, so you are

3429:

Now, for the purposes of transparency, the reason "SchmuckyTheCat" has suddenly taken an unusual interest in my edits both here with this article and elsewhere on Knowledge (XXG) is due to past off-wiki, non-Knowledge (XXG) issues related to his trolling. He has specifically targeted material I

2898:

Let's skip the lawyering .. there are probably under 10 clients that exist for DOS. IRCjr is the only actively maintained one, and it's the newest one. It's been actively updated for nearly three years now. Other people are writing about it, but you don't consider most things to be reliable

2396:

self-published sources, including an IRC client's own documentation and source code when they are used only to note the features of the client itself? I'm beginning to think you don't want to answer this question because as a software developer, you know quite well that a software program's own

2350:

exaggeration. There are roughly a dozen or so Microsoft Windows clients which have been popular or somewhat well known within the IRC community, 3 clients for MSDOS, 8-10 for MacOS and MacOS X, 5-6 for the Amiga platform, maybe another 18-20 which support various other platforms or are platform

2642:

What I'm failing to understand is how somebody who is so loose with "facts" here in this discussion can justify excluding clients that are "not notable". IRWolfie, you clearly should not be putting yourself in a position to determine what is notable and what is not when you are so willing to

1006:

Orion was marked out as commented code. There is no reason to keep that. I am looking above at the clients IRWolfie proposed for removal. Post RFC, I see his list as being those that should be removed. There are also clients that are blue links only by virtue of being redirects. They should be

4838:

distro website (independent, long term, notable in its own right). I left the already-existing SourceForge link alone and walked away. At the FreeDOS site, there's a real, real-named person who applies editorial oversight to its contents, beyond just reading the license text. What I did had

4531:

No. I do not think any deletions are appropriate until all possible sources of sources have been exhausted. There is still active discussion of inclusion criteria and sources; it may take a month or two to settle down to a consensus. Even though I brought up criteria and an RFC, I still say

3027:

for a review. Fundamentally I fail to see how "reliable sources" can be used as a criteria for inclusion or exclusion. The presence (or absence) of a reliable source doesn't change the facts. The way that criteria is being used here it is just an excuse not to do any verification yourself.

2268:

I think it's quite fair to assume that at least a thousand people have seperately created a client for IRC to varying degrees of quality (even if noone uses them). we have clients which are only 400 lines long in the comparison article here. and please no "leave it to the experts" drivel.

4649:

As for IRCjr, get it reviewed. Mike Chambers, author of leetIRC, seemed happy when you announced the addition of multiwindows over in the forum on vintage-computing.com. Maybe he'll do a review on his website (please, on the web side, not the wiki or the blog!). These things take time.

2602:

programs and other programs which are not standalone "IRC clients". I'm familiar with their site and I've seen all sorts of mislabeled and even vaporware listed before. Occasionally there will be something useful in the mix, but most of the time their site doesn't seem to be too useful.

908:

Everybody, ignore all threats. If deletion of an item will prompt Tothwolf into providing inline citations of sources which can be verified by a visit to a (public, university, corporate) library(book, periodical, microfilm, microfiche), then it might be worth it. But maybe it's not

3591:

I'm trying not to communicate with you, because you seem to think this is a personal issue and gripe about it repeatedly. I simply don't care about some LiveJournal conversation from several years ago that I don't even remember. Stop bringing it up and focus on content right HERE.

2984:

Here are five of the things I've learned while editing Knowledge (XXG) and this article in particular: 1) sources can appear in surprising places, 2) they can take a frustratingly long time to appear, 3) sources can become reliable after deep research and discussion (example, see

2195:

Readers come here expecting to find a fairly comprehensive summary of the features of the IRC clients which are known within the IRC community. How does limiting this article to clients which could have standalone articles help those readers find the information they are looking

4716:

Even when I open source the code I may not host it on SourceForge, and then I won't get SourceForge as a reliable source to point at. And any open source programmer knows that the barrier to entry for a SourceForge project is low - it's a distribution mechanism, not a vetting

3015:

least two other people so far.) Is it somebody who runs a well known DOS forum and posts it on a list of software they have found useful? (That's been done.) Do the two links that the Open Watcom compiler people put on their Wiki count? Where exactly do you draw the line?

3795:"Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." 1776:

isn't exactly up to date with common practice. I had actually planned to work on drafting a proper Manual of Style page for comparison articles, however this silliness has taken a significant amount of time away from that and the article expansions I'm currently working

1675: 101:

This will be it's 3rd year of active development. Is it notable enough to appear in the comparisons? (There are a few people in the vintage computer community using it. Other clients for DOS are in the comparison table even though they haven't been touched in years.)

3317:

Even worse, if something like Open Watcom is suffering from not having enough reliable sources, then there is no point in bothering with IRC clients. Wiki has a more pervasive problem when the Open Watcom article is being flagged as not having enough reliable sources.

1172:"Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" are articles that primarily consist of a list or a group of lists, linking to articles or lists in a particular subject area, such as a timeline of events or people and places. The titles of these articles usually begin with 4598:

BTW, might as well get rid of the DOS column. There are no IRC clients that run under DOS according to the article, so the column is not needed. Or, we can leave it this way so that people can infer that no such clients exist because Wiki refuses to acknowledge

4055: 4070: 4799:

My intent here isn't to knock LeetIRC off the list - I think it's quite notable for a lot of technical reasons. My intent is to improve the article by being more inclusive, and reminding people that IRC exists on all kinds of platforms and operating systems.

2171:

Why should we prevent readers from reading about IRC clients such as the very first IRC client? How does preventing readers from knowing more about something historically important to this topic help improve Knowledge (XXG)? We don't have any issues with the

1051:

Even though the 3O was denied, I'd like to jump in to point out that notability has absolutely nothing to do with article contents, and should not be used to limit the contents of articles. Self published sources can be used within the limitations set out at

4843:

to do with "open source," or sourceforge (the weakest of the three, and really a "gimme", given the other two. In fact, I say, "meh"). What is "fresh" or "stale," is not relevant at Knowledge (XXG) in general, or in this list/chart. How well sourced - that

913:

this and other articles. I'll be happy to verify the existence of any proffered sources, and even go to a library or two to verify citations; I go pretty regularly anyways. Seriously, I'm laughing here, nobody cares that they're not indexed by Google. --

5318:

suited to a Comparison article. Perhaps one of the OS tables should have a 'WINE' column, though I'm not sure whether it should go on the Windows table (treating WINE as an implementation of Windows) or the Unix table (because WINE runs under Unices).

4352:

this is still better than nothing, and something I wasn't even aware had been archived. I did notice that the site was updated a lot more frequently in years past, although perhaps some of this is also due to the slow down of the IRC community itself. --

2088:

He does have a point with his requests, perhaps we could split the more notable clients from the unnotable ones into two separate tables in this article. At least then the unnotable clients without reliable sources can stand or fall by their own merit.

2475:

Who mentioned popularity? Unpopular/unused clients are in this list, I didn't say there were thousands of popular clients, I am saying there are thousands of clients that noone uses except their creator. For example, check here and take your pick

1850:

to say that all list articles should be called "List of", so we won't have people filling the comparison category with articles that don't contain any actual comparison, like this one here. But that's something for the guideline's talk page.)

463:

ok, thats really crazy and too much for me to read. What is the actual discussion and what are the arguments. I have now again a new laptop and access to the internet. I will discuss if somebody give me a short briefing of the actual state...

178:

and I will be restoring proper coverage of many of these clients. The individual who removed them AfD'd this article twice prior to blanking half the article, with both AN/I consensus and Arbcom sanctions finding his actions to be disruptive.

3074:. No, the system isn't perfect. Yes, we have too many confusing rules, policies, and guidelines. Yes, they sometimes get in the way of improving Knowledge (XXG) (with seemingly increasing frequency). Somehow we need to improve the system. -- 3219:

stuff, and to reach consensus while resolving difficult situations. It's clear that you're not reading that that is what's going on here - too bad. As for "do the right thing", I've already researched two previously unreliable sources and

700:, we actually do have 3rd party sources available which establish notability for roughly 75% of the clients we should be covering here (including many that were removed as "red-links"). Per your own argument, this means we are quite ok per 3348:

Already agreed that notability-based deletion was wrong, due to misunderstood policy and guideline. I disagree that there "is no path" to getting IRCjr included: keep an eye out for (potentially rehabilitatable) sources. Examples: see

4166:

IRC-Junkie focuses on the topic of IRC as a whole, so it isn't limited to just IRC client software. At one time there were a couple of other "IRC news" sites which were similar, but it seems to be the only one of them which is still

941:

has multiple RS anyway (books). I'll also state for the record that SchmuckyTheCat is only here because I banned him from posting comments to my old LiveJournal. I wonder if SchmuckyTheCat would like those comments made public here?

891:

Not really. Unless you want to be reverted, you still are going to have to discuss such removals on the talk page first and show cause for removing an entry. There are a lot of books and other sources which aren't indexed by Google.

2989:), 4) nothing happens without effort, 5) sour grapes don't help. I've given you the best reasoning, explanations, and encouragement I can, not to stop looking. Now I'm saying, if you don't care, stop lobbing rhetorical grenades. 4062: 1002:

I don't think anyone who wanted to require sources is going to object to those sources being reliable and significant. I'm not sure the sources in the article for AMirc meet either criteria. Let's start a different discussion

3008:

In your first sentence, what exactly about IRCjr needs "reliability and verifiability of the facts claimed here" that has not been provided? Is there a doubt that it exists? Or that it runs under DOS? Or that it is an IRC

2804:(emphasis mine) Meaning: There have been thousands of IRC clients, but not fully fledged, only bare bones clients developed for personal use. This is still simply not the case, and semantics aside, I got what IRWolfie- meant. 4853:

Improving Knowledge (XXG) articles means, among other things, according to us Knowledge (XXG) editors, adding content which is reliably, verifiably sourced clearly and unambiguously. Challenges abound, of course, leading to

2588:, so of course you are going to see a lot of non-"IRC client" results in that search (in addition to non-IRC stuff, it includes bots, daemons, servers, utilities, scripts, and a heck of a lot more). Again, you need to read 2950:

I really don't care anymore - this has gone on long enough. The article is lacking (not just on this one topic) and you alienate the people who can help you and do your readers a disservice with behavior like this.

4442:. O'Reilly Books Shortcuts. p. 9. ISBN:978-0-596-55771-3 "There are many sources of documentation about installing your own PEAR channel, but we recommend Tobias Schlitt's excellent tutorial, available at his blog, 3641: 4066: 3801:"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." 1195:

stand-alone list it would make no sense whatsoever to create a list of nothing more than red-linked entries without articles, especially if it is unlikely that those red-links would ever link to articles. For a

2770:

claiming that there have been thousands". All: I think MBBrutman is now calmly aware of my (our?) position that his client only lacks a review in a close-enough-to-RS for inclusion. Finally, I'm a big fan of

1700:

You are free to be surprised by whatever you want (purposefully avoiding a nit-picking discussion because I have had many of them and they don't usually result in improvements to aricles). The point being:

4433:. Addison Wesley Verlag. p. 662. ISBN: 978-3827322418 (DE). English tr.:"PEAR - License: PHP - By Tobias Schlitt (lead) Net_FTP provides an OO interface to the FTP functions of PHP and some accessories.") 1709:, says that this article is a list. Is it much to ask that you go to the talk page of that guideline and that you propose that the guideline is changed to say that articles like this one are not lists? -- 267:

is policy and the only thing that matters here. We don't have an issue with verification of the content; the only issue we have here are a couple of editors who've never edited here showing up to try to

3670:

Concur with Enrik, I just did the same EL search looking for where irc-junkie was determined to be RS, found a history Tothwolf making the claim repeatedly that it was, but nobody agreeing that it was.

3112:

isn't sourced well enough yet, but it's easily rehabilitated, as I have tagged. I revisited your proffered refs below, found one more, and requested opinion on reliability/notability of those sources.

2103:

I don't see how it would be possible to split something like that into a separate table. We have multiple tables and splitting content in that way would pretty much be impossible. It would also violate

1395:"Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." 3131:

Lexein, soliciting a review to gain a notable source purely for the purpose of getting included in Knowledge (XXG) sure smells like shilling/astroturfing to me. And that is exactly what was suggested.

94:

Forgive me for bringing this up ... While it may have been acceptable to delete the IRCjr standalone article due to 'notability' reasons, removing it from the client comparisons seems a little harsh.

3356:

In general I agree about gaming the system where there's bad intent, but here, there is none: it's absolutely no different than sending a book to a magazine for review. You can't predict the outcome.

1503:

find the inclusion of specific material helpful to them while making use of Knowledge (XXG), then it should be included. If the material would not be helpful to a reader, then it should be excluded.

5142:

would support a standalone article though. Other than the glossary idea which was discussed a few years ago, the only other thing I can think of is to have a section for DOS IRC clients in a future

5111:. I would actually like to include coverage of many more DOS clients, but finding sources for all of them tends to be difficult (even just locating copies of some of them is not easy). The irc.org 618:

doesn't say "you can add anything to the article as soon as you can find a source for it, even if it's just the programmer's comments in the source code of the program". And have you actually read

5335: 4760:) The FreeDOS and DRDOS web pages and Wikis have picked up on mTCP/IRCjr and include it in their lists of networking software. It has made it to the "DOS Applications for Internet Use" FAQ at 1683: 1679: 1100:) contain clearly definable comparative elements and are not "simple lists of wikilinks" intended to be used for navigation. Contrast with this userfied stand-alone list draft in my userspace: 679:

Well, WP:SELFPUB says "(...) as long as (...) 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." And you are proposing to include programs that are supported only by such sources...... --

4559: 4366:

No, I gotcha - separate editor/writer. The Archive bases what it collects partially on Alexa visit counts (a flawed system), so that explains the missing pages. I think nowadays, people just

4756:

Meanwhile, the rest of the DOS universe is getting the word. The host of the "DOS Isn't Dead" forum has it on his list of recommended DOS software, and that wasn't solicited in any way. (

368:

the readers of this article from by excluding it? So few IRC clients exist for any DOS flavor operating system, refusing to list the only one in active development is kind of ludicrous.

5097:

too (both are popular and included with many Linux and BSD distributions), but I just don't see a reason to create articles for them right now because they would just be small stubs like

2544:

Sourceforge is not a search engine. They host actual projects which there are links to. count some of them if you wish. it shows there are many times more than the 56 you claim. see here

2807:

To go a bit further here, why the hell are we arguing anyway? I worked with both Mabdul and Yarcanox on this and many of these articles and IRWolfie- has worked with Yarcanox as well. --

3585:

Deleting the unsourced clients seems to be the only way they get acted on to add sources. If that is the case, I don't care if I'm reverted, as long as the reversion comes with sources.

1639: 1632: 1586: 1358: 1347: 3300:

The policy puts a lot of the clients on the fringe at a significant disadvantage. The article should be renamed "Comparison of Well Known Internet Clients" if you want to be accurate.

2873:

finally be "notable" enough for inclusion. (The suggestion to get the author of LeetIRC to write a review so that we could, in effect, extend the chain of notability, was laughable.)

4333:

Yes, I had noticed the archives and Asmo (but not the sale), but didn't bring it up at RSN so as not to muddy the discussion. I was surprised to see how many articles irc-junkie.org

3645: 2640:

No, there are not "Thousands" of IRC clients. That is why I asked for a reference or a reliable source - there are none that can verify that claim, or any number even close to that.

4276:

by way of the Internet Archive. (I had not realized the Internet Archive archived many of the site's older pages, which may turn out to be useful because we can still access them.)

2479:. What is your exclusion criteria to prevent these being included? I've no particular issue with verifiability even with primary sources as long as we have an exclusion criteria. 216:

DOS client there that would be removed if you applied the criteria evenly.) It is freely available, and has been so continuously since it's first release nearly three years ago.

2365:

Let's see... 12+3+10+6+20+5 ...that leaves us with roughly 56 IRC clients, so even if I happen to be underestimating by as much as 100%, the total number of IRC clients is still

2250:

Thousands? Care to back that up with a reference or a reliable source? All kidding aside, you are exaggerating quite a bit. Why not leave the article editing to the experts?

212:- Sorry - there was no intention to astroturf there, I just made the mistake of mentioning the omission of IRCjr from the client comparison in, of all places, an IRC channel. 4251: 533:

Well now, that's certainly oversimplifying a number of things. Let's go for even simpler: Enric, you have been POV pushing for months to require each entry here to meet the

3211:

which takes a while to get used to. It's an encyclopedia which has a goal of being reliable and trustworthy. Nobody would "rather argue notability" - we discuss to avoid

4764:

which is a well known resource for DOS users, and that was also not solicited. I'm not going to list personal blogs and web forum discussions, but they are out there too.

2023: 1809: 1101: 322: 2156:. These type of self-published sources are considered to be reliable when it comes to information about the subject itself. We can't draw our own conclusions from them 1448: 1056:, and that includes the works themselves. Just be careful not to extrapolate or draw new conclusions based on self published sources, that would be original research. 4428: 3649: 2055: 1820: 1773: 1755: 1702: 1368: 1264:

If (as is often the case), the list has multiple columns and so is in table form, the name or title List of Xs is still preferable to Table of Xs or Comparison of Xs.

1163: 1122: 1106: 1085: 3195:

article come entirely from Morgan Stanley press releases? Would you object to some Congressional hearing transcripts, and some investigative journalism being cited?

219:

No, it's not going to be reviewed in PC World or the NY Times. That should not preclude somebody from spending a few bits to include it in the comparison tables.

3603:

No, irc-junkie is an IRC news site written by an expert in the field which has been discussed previously and found to be a reliable source. The other site is the

979: 508: 424:

anything from listing it here; you are only doing your readers a disservice by refusing to acknowledge its existence. What are you protecting the readers from?

4370:

IRC because it's a commodity. There's less scripting, less use of IRC per se in botnet command/control, so less controversy to bubble up into the tech news. --

3140:

Re:Open Watcom. Well, that kind of floored me - OpenWatcom isn't well enough sourced? I just looked at that article and shook my head. That speaks for itself.

4934:

Here's a review of mTCP which finds its FTP performance very good, and lists, but doesn't review IRCjr. Is this site, or Spiegle, a reliable source? Dunno.

4585:

updated, and which one has not been updated in years? The criteria are being applied inconsistently, and it is based on who is applying them at the moment.

2188:

Expanding that to reviews which have been found suitable per the notability guideline for the purposes of standalone articles (during the numerous AfDs, at

860:

Lexein asked that the source was independent, Mabdul said "per Lexein", Yarcanox said "as Lexein specifies", /me said "a good source" (meaning independent

2452:

for verification of the features and functionality of software? We've used these exact type of self-published sources for years within articles under the

2203:

self-published sources, including an IRC client's own documentation and source code when they are used only to note the features of the client itself? --

2043:"The above discussion already had consensus and arguments to move to "List of". It was closed just because someone had moved the page at mid-discussion." 958:

It's the article, not the editors. If you have any more(aside from the already mentioned ones above) non-indexed-by-Google sources, you would be helping

4555: 3632:

are pseudoanonymous, and they give no details on their expertise. This is just a personal blog. Please point us to those discussions, since I made an

2643:

casually make broad and incorrect assertions like you did above, while refusing to show a reliable source. (Even though you insist that others do!)

2027: 1813: 1089: 5051: 4123: 3790: 3637: 3071: 2598:

is not a reliable metric to use for the number of clients. It contains "IRC programs", not just "IRC clients", which also includes quite a number of

2122:

In your opinion, what exactly makes the very first IRC client which was included with the very first IRCd (irc2.4) "non-notable"? It was written by

1227:(wikitable). Neither of these make any sort of comparisons between the entries, nor are they sortable on a per element basis. Further comparison of 81: 76: 64: 59: 1302: 1298: 5334:? I've already taken care of it in my draft copy while reworking and restoring lost footnotes. And yes, SchmuckyTheCat was being disruptive, see 2529:

and would support a standalone article). I'll be reverting that blanking soon so we can begin restoring and adding citations for the material. --

2507:

in an attempt to justify removing material here. We don't remove clients such as Homer, PIRCH, etc just because they are no longer in common use.

5000:

Somehow we need a way to be able to cover stuff like this on Knowledge (XXG). The system has flaws, which is something even the WMF is aware of

2152:

for these and other IRC clients, including the source code and documentation embedded in the source code for irc2.4, so we aren't violating the

4073:. Of the four, only the Padula ref is weak, as it is a mere entry in a list. The Shelly, Kshetri, and Pranz citations of irc-junkie.org grant 2430: 1346:

argument without success. This is at least the third attempt you've made to invoke it here. You previously tried this argument without success

494:

secondary independent RS, but they have primary sources (some have detailed sources, and other have primary sources that don't go into details)

3565:

About OR, the review says that it's unusual and different (or implies it very strongly). And yes, it would also be good for those articles. --

2589: 2510: 1267: 790:. Since I'm not quite bold enough to just go ahead and add it, I'd like to know: Does having been packaged for a popular Linux distribution ( 344: 4973:. October 1, 2010. kishytech.wordpress.com. Don't know who Kishy is, and there's nothing supporting expertise from other sources. Oh well. -- 4337:

to have. I'm happy to respect the RSN suggestion to use irc-junkie.org "very carefully as a reliable source for limited claims about irc." --

3060:

3rd party sources are preferred for verification. I feel kinda stuck in the middle here because Mbbrutman has a point and Lexein has a point.

312:. This has previously come up in AfD and elsewhere. One editor who tried to have this article deleted twice even tried renaming this article 3542:

spinout (both of which I'm actually already working on). I wouldn't be opposed to restoring/add some footnotes which mention something like

2402:

way the publishing process works, is going to be outdated by the time the book is printed (for some very good examples, see the books about

1908:

and go do something else that doesn't involve edit warring and POV pushing. You've been trying this since January and October-November 2010:

3097:, but the research of others, writing in reliable publications (and some primary sources). Encyclopedias are by nature conservative: see 5082: 4473: 4268:

There is a little more to the background of irc-junkie.org. It was originally run by Asmo, who sold the site to phrozen77 in August 2008.

4230: 4208: 4171: 3350: 2986: 1901: 1767: 1444: 1376: 1272:

There are a number of formats, both generalized and specialized, that are currently used on Knowledge (XXG), for list articles. (...) 5.

733:

Accidentally? Oh, there are a lot more clients "out there" than that 25%, but there are only about 25% or so which we should be covering

1322: 1310: 133: 5332:"I'm including these in the draft of this article I have in-progress and they should probably be included in the mIRC article as well." 4029:

itself (which before we began quite a number of years ago, was pretty much unreferenced). Enric, you aren't doing yourself any favours

622:? Please actually read this text before claiming againg that WP:SPS allows you to use any and all self-published source for anything: " 193:

Failing the "criteria for inclusion in this list" is a ground for exclusion. We are discussing such a criteria in the section above. --

1281: 241:

Asking for inclusion because you feel it is notable is subjective, a clear cut requirement for reliable sources discussing it is not.

226: 112: 4122:

that irc-junkie.org is considered a reliable-enough-for-an-item source about IRC clients, based on these references to it. I suggest

3093:

Yikes, Mbbrutman. Astroturfing? Purity? Please. I can, and sometimes do verify software myself. But this encyclopedia isn't built on

2117: 5285: 5256: 5230: 5020:), although these would pass Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guideline. There was also an IRC client for the DOS Trumpet TCP/IP called 3958: 3906: 3859: 3834: 3412:

filesystem based client and is currently at version 1.6, released January 31, 2011. "SchmuckyTheCat" however removed this reference

1187:"Comparison of ..." articles are clearly much more than a list of links to articles, so just going by the guideline's own criteria, 4533: 3067: 2706:

being included here, then take it up with either me or Mabdul since we were the ones who were working on this material at the time.

5115:

contains quite a few of the older DOS clients, but it looks like it is missing others. I've still been unable to locate a copy of

4164:

Padula included IRC-Junkie in a list of references instead of direct citations, but I thought it would be worth mentioning anyway.

3951: 3852: 1525:"The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Knowledge (XXG) and do 5014: 3415:

and blanked this material from the article, while calling it "unsourced". In addition, we also have an irc-junkie.org review for

2328:

Now that's quite an exaggeration indeed! Considering your involvement with Eloxoph and WeIRCd (I don't see you arguing to remove

5240:

Schwarz, Michael; Anderson, Jeremy; Curtis, Peter; Murphy, Steven (May 7, 2002). "Necessary Evils Running MS Windows Programs".

1156: 751:

Say, since you seem to know so much about IRC clients, which Microsoft Windows IRC client was first to support colored text? --

440: 384: 5046:

Yup. While I'm confident mTCP/IRCjr will be N reliably sourced in time, I'm curious about a toehold reliable-enough ref (a la

3233: 3822:

Shelly, Gary B.; Cashman, Thomas J.; Napier, H. Albert; Judd, Philip J. (April 11, 2007). "Real-time Online Communications".

1801: 47: 17: 4274: 3841:

You can learn more about IRC clients, networks, and channels at sites such as IRC-Junkie.org, New2chat.com, and IRCHelp.org.

1398: 1277: 4970: 1655: 1645: 1318: 1306: 1228: 1097: 1452: 1436: 1432: 287: 4437: 3359:

Watcom/OpenWatcom has been discussed at length in tech press and books throughout its entire long history; there's just

2899:

sources. The very clear human readable documentation I've posted doesn't count as a reliable source because I wrote it.

2285:"There are thousands of clients which have only their own page as a source. are you saying they should be included too?" 4681:

Shilling for a review on a personal website kind of ruins the "reliable source" requirement. I'm not going to do that.

3693: 3106: 2236:

There are thousands of clients which have only their own page as a source. are you saying they should be included too?

1935: 1893: 1763: 1428: 1372: 5143: 3539: 3534:? What purpose would it serve to remove all the other information anyway? This really would be something more for the 4735:

on the FreeDOS mailing list, and users are rolling their own FreeDOS distributions with mTCP/IRCjr included in it. (

4273:

Posts prior to 9 August 2008 were made by Asmo or another contributor. Some additional background can be found here

1796:. This is why that text is written the way it is, and it was written before our number of true comparison articles ( 4994: 4941:

review. 2007. Ulrich Hansen, Mainz (Germany), modified 2010 by W.Spiegl. This is Wilhelm Spiegl, as listed in the

3636:, and I can only find discussions where they are treated as personal blogs that are not enough to show notability: 1314: 1232: 737:

which haven't been covered in a dead-tree source. This isn't a problem however, as we only need to worry about the

38: 3786: 3063: 2449: 2173: 2153: 1654:"It has more than just one table. It's not a list, that's obvious. It's a comparison article like all the ones on 738: 409:

IRWolfie-, I happen to disagree. Name one DOS IRC client which has been covered in depth in a 3rd party source. --

5274: 5069:

possible (both old and modern). We used some of these types of reviews for some of the Emacs IRC clients such as

4642: 1041: 3208: 1460: 549:

is policy. Per that policy, for the purposes of noting simple features and functionality of a software program,

3676: 3597: 2336:

comparison article, and only about half of those software programs have been mentioned in published books) you

1012: 2720:

really cares about. I can think of roughly 50-60 that have actually made a mark on the IRC community. This is

1808:, but that still does not change the fact that there is a clear difference between a stand-alone list such as 4443: 3109: 1631:

Enric, wow, why am I not surprised that you are still trying to misrepresent and mislead others? I linked to

137: 5313:: the removed content was not encyclopaedic particularly in terms of phrasing. The " — Confirmed" makes it 787: 4417: 4025:

goes... He has been instrumental in helping expand and add references to many of these articles, including

4000: 3731: 3212: 2526: 2414: 2257: 2181: 2109: 1985: 1912:"Delete all the non-notable entries. Lots of indiscriminate information, remove all the redlinked programs" 1551: 1489:

Rules on Knowledge (XXG) are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule."

1294: 1134: 742: 694: 534: 428: 395:

Your client has no particular grounds for inclusion. If it's discussed by reliable sources then list them.

372: 222: 163: 129: 108: 5322: 5219: 5198: 3900:

Fondamenti di informatica per la progettazione multimediale. Dai linguaggi formali all'inclusione digitale

2221: 1968:"No, not to verify that it actually exists, but to verify that it's notable or relevant enough to include" 1954: 1405: 1037: 851: 804: 230: 116: 3725: 3420: 1028:

as more than two people have already been involved in this discussion. I suggest you continue with your

4567: 3696:. This at least slightly improves the reliability of this source - it's not "pseudo-anonymous". As for 3661: 3570: 3507: 3496:

independent RS. So we wouldn't have entries where the only independent RS is a review in a IRC website).

1856: 1714: 1598: 1333: 987: 878: 723: 684: 632: 580: 520: 352: 198: 1975: 1889: 1847: 1759: 1590: 1383: 1364: 1343: 1325:

because they are the exact same list, with the comparison article listing more details in table format.

1259: 1033: 649:. As others have pointed out, we can use a software program's own documentation or source code to cite 340: 4938: 4516:

IRC clients exist? Relatively few clients exist for MS-DOS anyway (Charalabidis 1999, pp.250-251). --

3656:(meaning that no people outside the IRC world think that irc-junkie is anything else than a blog). -- 2056:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software/Archive_3#renaming_all_.22comparison_of....22_to_.22list_of....22

1885: 1839: 1819:

And yes, all this discussion makes it quite clear that we desperately need to improve the wording at

1797: 1224: 1220: 4801: 4614: 3608: 3319: 3216: 3151: 3039: 2952: 2644: 2457: 2376: 2251: 2149: 2105: 2058:, to see if we can end with this situation where some lists in table format are called comparisons." 1512: 1053: 701: 642: 550: 432: 376: 171: 5347: 5325: 5304: 5158: 5108: 5063: 5040: 4982: 4958: 4866: 4809: 4805: 4659: 4622: 4618: 4571: 4545: 4525: 4485: 4464: 4379: 4361: 4346: 4291: 4263: 4242: 4220: 4199: 4135: 4042: 4026: 3999:

This means IRC-Junkie easily passes Knowledge (XXG)'s threshold for a reliable source. Oh, and the

3948:

Theatralität digitaler Medien: Eine wissenssoziologische Betrachtung medialisierten Alltagshandelns

3766: 3672: 3665: 3623: 3593: 3574: 3559: 3535: 3511: 3483: 3376: 3327: 3323: 3245: 3159: 3155: 3122: 3083: 3047: 3043: 3002: 2960: 2956: 2816: 2784: 2737: 2677: 2673: 2612: 2556: 2552: 2538: 2525:

previously included before this article prior to it being mass blanked (some of them even meet the

2488: 2484: 2469: 2296: 2278: 2274: 2261: 2245: 2241: 2212: 2098: 2094: 2082: 1860: 1832: 1718: 1695: 1602: 1579: 1447:. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with 1337: 1252: 1079: 1075: 1065: 1045: 1008: 991: 971: 951: 922: 901: 882: 854: 835: 823: 808: 760: 727: 713: 688: 674: 636: 584: 562: 524: 470: 444: 436: 418: 404: 400: 388: 380: 356: 334: 299: 295: 281: 250: 246: 234: 202: 188: 175: 157: 153: 141: 120: 4699:

but an application which has been updated and enhanced several times in the last few years is not.

4269: 3474:

and if this behaviour continues I'll make a noticeboard posting to get this dealt with quickly. --

3467: 3229: 3173: 3150:

research to put something in a comparison article. So the article remains knowingly incomplete.

3033:

can cut and paste what you read elsewhere but you are not allowed to do the verification yourself.

2990: 2425:

of a subject. The notability guideline might be used at times to limit the number of red-links in

1804:, etc) grew to what it is today. There are probably a few stand-alone lists still currently named 1424: 1390: 653:. Using a source in this way is acceptable, however we can't use it to draw our own conclusion of 5343: 5300: 5245: 5154: 5036: 4521: 4357: 4287: 4195: 4038: 3975: 3923: 3875: 3619: 3555: 3479: 3363:

for some of those sources not to be cited in the article. Just as it was a poor choice to cite a

3079: 2812: 2733: 2608: 2534: 2465: 2292: 2208: 2078: 1828: 1691: 1575: 1415: 1301:, which has the same format as this article. Notice how this whole situation leads to stuff like 1248: 947: 897: 756: 709: 670: 607: 558: 414: 330: 325:

draft which is in my userspace. Thankfully, this article doesn't look anything like that list. --

277: 184: 4229:

Just reverted the deletion & cited the source, with a "(more)" wikilink to the rationale at

3435:

or discussed on the talk page. He has also been repeatedly reverted for these type of blankings

3098: 1905: 1563: 1559: 269: 3530:

Wouldn't us classifying some clients in an "Unusual IRC clients" section begin to run afoul of

1962: 5319: 5282: 5253: 5227: 4451:

These sources support Schlitt's software expertise, so I'm going to assert that his review of

3955: 3903: 3856: 3831: 2599: 2448:

self-published sources such as an IRC client's own documentation and source code used per the

848: 800: 5081:(both of these reviews were found to be reliable at AfD and probably should also be noted at 4175: 3466:

which he knew was right here on the talk page. Importing off-wiki disputes is a violation of

3102: 2518: 2453: 1846:". Oh, look, these words don't describe this article at all. (What we should do is reinforce 5098: 5070: 5059: 4978: 4954: 4862: 4655: 4563: 4541: 4481: 4460: 4375: 4342: 4259: 4238: 4216: 4131: 3827: 3762: 3657: 3566: 3503: 3372: 3241: 3118: 2998: 2780: 2403: 2123: 1852: 1844:

A comparison article deals with similar topics where differences are displayed and examined.

1710: 1594: 1329: 1328:

So, no, this is currently a list article, so inclusion criteria for lists are applicable. --

983: 967: 918: 874: 847:

supported by what appear to be reliable references. I have reverted his unilateral action.

719: 680: 628: 576: 516: 465: 348: 194: 5310: 5124: 5029: 5027: 5025: 3471: 3449: 3225: 2595: 2545: 2514: 2189: 2113: 1946: 1931: 1923: 1919: 1536: 1520: 1167: 1152: 1140: 1130: 1118: 1110: 1029: 646: 619: 538: 260: 148:"I like it" is not grounds for inclusion, show reliable third party sources discussing it. 5179: 3990: 3938: 3890: 3783:(ec) A news site may use a "blog engine" for content aggregation and still be a news site. 3422:

which irc-junkie.org reviews have previously been found to be reliable and sufficient per

2580:, which is going return all results which include partial matches of both of the keywords 2385:, Now, are you going to answer my question, or are you going to try to change the subject 1950: 4084: 3531: 3185: 3094: 2161: 1025: 795: 718:(accidentally acknowledging that 25% of clients don't have any third party sources.... -- 662: 4847:

Shilling? Nah. Requesting a review is hardly inappropriate; it's done quite frequently.

1286:". The guideline on list articles clearly indicates that this article is a list article. 5249: 3689: 3685: 3192: 2669: 2548: 2480: 2382: 2351:

independent (Java, Perl, Ruby, Tcl, etc), and maybe 3-5 which are web-based, including

2319: 2270: 2237: 2090: 2048: 1988:. We are not serving the reader by indiscriminately listing lots of non-notable stuff." 1663: 1567: 1354: 1117:

that include tables of information which might also include wikilinks. The text in the

1071: 1061: 819: 396: 291: 242: 149: 4271: 4015:

try that argument here. While Lexein and I may not agree on everything, IRC-Junkie is

3966: 3749:

just by way of comparison. So I am inclined to revert SchmuckyTheCat's deletion, and

3423: 2037:"This article has no comparisons, sourced or unsourced, just a list in form of table." 665:. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth to try to deceive and mislead others. -- 615: 546: 542: 264: 256: 5339: 5296: 5278: 5150: 5032: 4850:"notable for technical reasons" is not the same as Knowledge (XXG) notability, right? 4517: 4353: 4283: 4191: 4034: 4022: 3653: 3615: 3551: 3475: 3075: 2808: 2729: 2604: 2530: 2461: 2288: 2204: 2074: 1824: 1687: 1571: 1244: 943: 893: 842:, there was no consensus in the RfC (above) for requiring "supported by at least one 752: 705: 666: 554: 410: 326: 273: 180: 1129:

from growing out of hand with red-links and was never intended to conflict with the

5266: 3652:. The only person defending irc-junkie.org as a RS self describes as a "IRC freak" 2413:

As per above (and in the talk page archives here, RS/N, and other talk pages), the

2407: 1470: 1191:"Comparison of ..." articles should not be considered a "stand alone list". With a 272:

in order to use it as a precedence elsewhere. Put simply, it isn't going to fly. --

4782:

like) is predicated on a product being open source which should not be a criteria.

3849:

The Global Cybercrime Industry: Economic, Institutional and Strategic Perspectives

3546:

being "different" from other clients which use a CLI or GUI because of it using a

1357:

tried (after his multiple AfD attempts at deletion of this article failed) with a

5085:

with the information from the AfDs). We could probably support articles for both

3898:

Padula, Marco; Reggiori, Amanda (February 4, 2010). "Riferimenti webliografici".

3265:

Thanks for the lecture on Knowledge (XXG) - I'm quite familiar with how it works.

1204:

of sense to cover material which may not necessarily have its own article purely

1143:

has recently been changed without much in the way of discussion as it previously

982:. Do you have any third-party RS that makes it fulfill the inclusion criteria? -- 5055: 4995:

http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/freedos/index.php?title=Networking_FreeDOS

4974: 4950: 4901: 4858: 4757: 4651: 4537: 4477: 4456: 4418:"Tool of the year: ii (irc it)" - Tobias Schlitt, schlitt.info, 27 November 2008 4371: 4338: 4255: 4234: 4212: 4127: 3758: 3404:

however this seems to be far from the case. No one appears to be disputing that

3368: 3237: 3114: 2994: 2776: 1535:"comparison of" articles to material which would only meet the guidelines for a 963: 914: 749:

and the subject of "Intetnet Relay Chat clients" is notable and not in question.

263:

is explicit in that the notability guideline does not apply to article content.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5146:

spinout article. Maybe we could do something similar for the Emacs IRC clients.

4908: 4761: 1642:

from 10 months earlier. I also see the nom in the move revert request stating:

1070:

But it is relevant when we are talking about lists, which this effectively is.

5079: 4915: 4736: 3867: 3607:

client's own website and is fine for the release date and background info per

2562: 2477: 2034:) You know, perhaps it's time to do some DB queries and see what shakes out... 1772:

Enric, you and I have already had this discussion before, so you already knew

4834:

because of the leetIRC author's website (saying things about itself) and the

4096:. So a revert to restore the client is in order, citing (as listed 2 above) 3629: 2460:

project scopes so it seems kinda silly for you to argue against them here. --

1570:

that doesn't involve edit warring and being disruptive to others' editing. --

170:

restoring this client to this article's tables in the near future. This is a

5112: 3726:"ii – A Filesystem-based IRC Client" - Christian Lederer, 13 September 2010 3199: 2226:"There are thousands of clients which have only their own page as a source." 2051:

just prior to his second AfD attempt. It was moved back to "Comparison of".)

1478: 1057: 815: 321:. This would be a stand-alone list if it looked like the previously deleted 255:

Attempting to mandate that each bit of information in an article conform to

4207:

Noted - fair enough. I'm merging the 4 sources and URLs and adding them to

2022:

And hey, would you look at that, he even tried to use an unrelated AfD for

3180:

sourced, not with 100% primary sources. Wait a minute, have you actually

2847:

the notability criteria are being applied in an overly restrictive manner.

2047:(Uhm, no it didn't. The page was moved without discussion to "List of" by 98:

IBM compatible machines to the fastest emulated machines like VirtualBox.

5223: 3745:

independently sourced. Too weak? Well, it is waaaay better sourced than

2576:

claiming that it is not a search engine? Moreover, the default search is

2421:

is quite notable and we do not use the notability guideline to limit the

869:

At least, we are in agreement that we can remove clients that don't have

791: 655:"Program A is better than program B because program A supports feature C" 4942: 3718:

Two descriptive mini-review (blog) independent sources with screenshots:

3642:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Enhanced_Programmable_ircII_Client

3588:

suckless and ircjunkies are not RS. They are user-generated blogs/wikis.

3188:

policy, or do you simply refuse to believe that it's real, and serious?

4835: 4509: 2352: 1474: 286:

A comparison list is closer to a list than a regular article, also see

5005:

but I'm not sure how to fix it. Heck, we don't even have articles for

4560:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_29#LeetIRC

3946:

Pranz, Sebastian (January 27, 2009). "Direkte Schrift-Kommunikation".

537:

in an attempt to restrict article content in direct conflict with the

4513: 2702:

Dammit IRWolfie-, stop attacking Mbbrutman. If you have a gripe with

2505:"there are thousands of clients that noone uses except their creator" 2360: 2116:

we aren't supposed to do anyway since doing so ends up violating the

5001: 4897:

I used FreeDOS because it explicitly listed the LeetIRC IRC client.

4472:

Schlitt primary-authored one book, and contributed to another. See

3688:

at irc-junkie.org is openly revealed to be Christian Lederer in the

5138:, which also would give us something to redirect to. I don't think 4990: 3101:. For the extreme long-view perspective on this conservatism, read 2126:

while creating RFC 1459 and was used as the reference standard for

5077: 5074: 5003: 3732:"Tool of the year: ii (irc it)" - Tobias Schlitt, 27 November 2008 2766:

kind. I forget this at times. Correction: Tothwolf - IRWolfie is "

2356: 2220: 2184:, there is no reason not to give the topic itself proper coverage. 2127: 1958: 934: 515:

RS" seems to be emerging as the option with the most consensus. --

5330:

I agree it should be phrased differently, see above where I said

4885:

IRCjr/mTCP. The sources Mbbrutman listed as supporting IRCjr are

2283:

I don't think it's appropriate at all for you to make a claim of

2073:

Enric (or whatever name you wish to go by this week), move on. --

5190: 5175: 5127: 4554:

This one client already got its share of discussion and review:

3712: 3547: 3413: 3409: 2139: 2108:

because we would end up being subjective and again applying the

1539:, as this would then remove a huge amount of material which our 5089: 4009:"IRC-Junkie isn't notable therefore can't be used as a source!" 2176:, and since the topic of "Internet Relay Chat clients" itself 339:

Yes, they are. List articles in table format are mentioned in

25: 5174:

On 26 April 2011 SchmuckyTheCat removed the footnote for the

5017: 3914: 2798:

up to date supported clients but many clients that have been

1792:, however the majority of those have long since been renamed 814:

I don't think it's sufficiently notable for its own article.

3228:. What have you done? As for "tiniest bit of research", per 1382:

Third, as has come up in our previous discussions regarding

1268:

Knowledge (XXG):Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#General_formatting

345:

Knowledge (XXG):Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#General_formatting

4932:? Since the primary lists IRCjr as a part of mTCP, maybe. 4889:, not discussions or reviews. Further, they list the mTCP 4179: 4174:

as has been done previously by WikiProject Video games at

4170:

The best place to build a list of sources would likely be

3824:

Discovering the Internet: Complete Concepts and Techniques

3646:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Nettalk_(IRC_client)

3614:

instead trolling here and elsewhere on Knowledge (XXG). --

2925:

of people who clearly admit to not knowing much about IRC?

1938:

concerning list formatting and not a "content guideline".)

288:

Knowledge (XXG):Stand-alone_list#Common_selection_criteria

5134:

could probably be added to a section of an article about

5095: 4427:

Andi Gutmans, Stig Saether Bakken, Derick Rethans (2005)

2066:

well... Nice post to an inactive WikiProject's talk page

1350:. You also made the same argument while trying to do the 1258:

This is a list article with a table format. Please check

625:

worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

5271:

Administrator's Guide to Linux in the Windows Enterprise

5242:

Multitool Linux: Practical Uses for Open Source Software

4254:. Different conclusion than I expected. Go read it. -- 4063:

quote and citation of irc-junkie.org in Kshetri (note 4)

2596:

http://www.ircreviews.org/clients/platforms-windows.html

5186: 4922:

Are these sites as stable/notable/reliable as FreeDOS?

4505: 3633: 3464: 3457: 3442: 3440: 3438: 3436: 3433: 3431: 3402: 3400: 2060: 2045: 2039: 2031: 2019: 2017: 2015: 2013: 2011: 2009: 2007: 2005: 2003: 2001: 1999: 1997: 1990: 1980: 1970: 1943: 1928: 1914: 1672: 1668: 1660: 1650: 1219:, two examples of lists which use a "table layout" are 932: 839: 317: 313: 4187: 3202:

article be based entirely on its website and no other?

2716:, including the tiny little visual basic clients that 2145:

While not currently included in this article, we have

1676:

second attempt at nominating this article for deletion

1823:

as it is somewhat misleading as currently written. --

794:) by someone wholly independent of me have a similar 487:

RS that are more than compilations of software and/or

3847:

Kshetri, Nir (May 19, 2010). "Concluding Comments".

2976:

Hey, this is old stuff you're rehashing. Notability

1469:

It incorporates elements of general and specialized

5338:

for details as to why and what his motives were. --

4420:, I found citations of Schlitt's work in two books. 3967:

http://www.irc-junkie.org/content/l-cybersexnot.php

3062:Mbbrutman, what you are asking about is covered in 2130:and other IRC clients which came later. What makes 1896:guide page which is in need of some updating, (and 1821: