Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of time tracking software

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Requestion (talk | contribs) at 02:35, 16 May 2007 (→[[Comparison of time tracking software]]: Timeshifter, you owe me an apology.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comparison of time tracking software

Comparison of time tracking software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

linkfarm Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 01:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Category:Software comparisons. The linkfarm arguments were, but are no longer, valid. Just need a wary editor to keep an eye on the page. If the other argument is valid, that the Wikipedia is not a shopping guide, then half or more of that category will have to go. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but that it might be better to have a higher level discussion of the topic. Asked about it here, as well: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Shopping Guide? & at the Village Pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:NOT a shopping guide MrZaiustalk 12:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the linkfarm argument. I think it is a linkfarm if there is only a list of programs and links to those programs. But once features are described, then we have a real, in-depth, encyclopedic wikipedia article based on the notable topic of time tracking software. Links back to the home pages of the programs are then just citation/reference links for verification and keeping the features info up-to-date on the chart. Please also see my comments farther down on notability and about what programs to include on the list. --Timeshifter 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MrZaius, thank you for cleaning up those external links. The article does look much better now. I feel a bit uncomfortable about that "Availability" column with prices. Something is just WP:NOT right about it. (: If that column was removed and if a couple editors could commit to keeping this article on their watchlist for spam then I would be inclined to change my opinion on this AfD. (Requestion 17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I agree about the prices, and have removed them from those entries that had them. (I wouldn't be opposed to providing approximate prices if they varied by more than an order of magnitude, but the few that there were were fairly similar.) Someone still ought to go over that column and make sure it contains accurate information on the pricing structure of the products (free / free with paid support / paid license per installation / paid license per user / monthly fee per user / whatever). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prices should be removed. They change often and are too difficult to keep up to date. Plus there is different pricing depending on educational, government, business use, etc.. And sales, rebates, coupons, etc.. General pricing info such as free / free with paid support / paid license per installation / paid license per user / monthly fee per user / shareware / whatever, is OK. That is common in charts on wikipedia. --Timeshifter 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no worse than most other Comparison of... articles; but needs rewrite to avoid becoming just a list with little or no relevant information. See Comparison of text editors for a good example of how it could look. Also a comment to Someguy1221. Although Wikipedia is not a shopping guide/link repository/linkfarm, a comparison page is perfectly valid as it does actually provide the reader with relevant and important information not always covered in other articles, and without having to read through the articles in a complete category to gather the same info. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meaningful, well-presented information. --Infrangible 18:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In light of recent changes to this page, I have changed my opinion. I felt this was merely a shopping guide due to statements such as "easy to use" and "user-friendly." With these highly subjective statements removed, as well as entries that had no sources (beyond the company website) or wikipedia articles of their own for easy verification, I have changed my vote to keep. Someguy1221 19:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep after the cleanup. I haven't looked at the past revisions, but as it is now the page seems like a fairly reasonable comparison list with no serious NPOV issues. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Items on a list or comparison chart do not have to be notable in themselves. The topic of the list or chart has to be notable. See WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. The topic of the list or chart has to be specific. See again WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. A link back to the home page of an item on the list or chart is allowed just as any citation/reference link is allowed. Where people get confused is when the list drifts over into subjective analysis and reviews. Then the list or comparison chart becomes advertising or negative advertising. Then it needs to be cleaned up to remove the advertising language, reviews, and hype. This chart, Comparison of wiki farms, went through 3 deletion attempts until all these issues were discussed and addressed. I urge people to read the last deletion discussion where it was finally decided to keep the chart. Jimbo Wales created Wikia.com, a wiki farm. I found it somewhat amusing that I had to explain to wikipedians that the topics of wiki software and wiki farms are notable. Not every wiki farm on the list is as notable as wikia.com, but lists and charts do not have to have all notable items on them. Otherwise, wikipedia lists and charts would become supporters of only the largest companies with the best advertising budgets. Freeware and open source software would be at a great disadvantage. See again WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. That guideline says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." I am sure that many people will not have heard of many of the people on the Nixon Enemies List. It is the list topic that is notable, not necessarily all those people listed. Concerning software lists and charts: They are not shopping charts or advertising, because the charts do not discuss the relative merits of one feature versus another, nor do they discuss how well any particular program implements any particular feature. It would be impossible for wikipedia to fairly do such subjective analysis anyway. The feature columns in many charts do show the state of the art, and are thus encyclopedic in nature. Wikipedia has the necessary large numbers of WP:NPOV editors necessary to keep such charts and lists up to date, and free from advertising hyperbole. For many of these lists and charts there is nowhere else on the web that one can find such an NPOV list or chart. Few companies would want to maintain lists on their websites where they favorably discuss their competition. Few magazines have enough time or editors for maintaining such lists or charts. --Timeshifter 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not spam. The issue is being discussed in both of those other places. In fact the other 2 discussions began from the discussion here. Others have copied their own comments too. Saves time. The issue is being taken up the chain of command. It needs to be dealt with at all levels, so that we avoid needless repetition of deletion attempts in violation of the spirit of this guideline WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Timeshifter 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm going to do the same in just a sec ;-) Someguy1221 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire argument was somewhat irrelevent to the discussion. This discussion was not so much about the notability of the elements of the chart, but whether they constituted spam (which they did at the time) and as I believed, violations of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. The notability necessary for inclusion is besides the point if the entries violate five other policies/guidelins. However, the article in question has been cleaned up since then. Someguy1221 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See this diff. Notability was the reason for the good-faith deletion of most of the chart by Mrzaius. --Timeshifter 02:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quad for 4 with this one to the talk and my watchlist just burst into flames! Saves time? What about the needless repetition of reading the exact same duplicate comment 4 times? (Requestion 01:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The talk page for the chart is where most future discussion of improvements to the article will take place. Most people will only be reading the talk page and will not be wiki-stalking me, or bordering on wiki-stalking me.--Timeshifter 02:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshifter, you lit up my watchlist with your duplicate posts. It's not my fault you posted the exact same comment to 4 places that I watch. I think you owe me an apology. (Requestion 02:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_time_tracking_software&oldid=131203099"