This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Should there be a category/list on this page or should there be a new one?
I have removed the PD notice, I don't see how this article can be "uncontroversially deleted" (as WP:DP says it would be with this notice on it) - it has clear content and this talkpage is filled with concerns about validity of product comparisons, which the PD reason claims does not exist on the page. So I'm honestly lost what whoever argued this article should be deleted thinks is missing from this page to be a valid "product comparison". Gijs Kruitbosch 20:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There should be a table for support of ipv6, utf8 and ssl too, and probably something about scriptability. I'll try to start adding some of it. Amaurea 05:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The information here should probably be reflected on the individual pages for the irc clients. Perhaps a template for irc clients, with fields corresponding to the table sections here, would help organize that? Right now they use a general software template. Amaurea 09:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Is DCCserver and passive dcc really seperate things? mIRC seems to use what it calls DCCserver to do passive transfers. The ftp-like file sharing server mode is called fserver there, but perhaps it is called DCCserver other places? It would be nice if someone could clarify, perhaps making articles about Passive DCC (probably best done as a section of the dcc-article) and dccserver, if it really is something else. Amaurea 06:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
If you don't believe me that xchat doesn't have a usuable text mode ui, here's a screenshot: Image:Xchat-text.png If everyone insists on giving xchat a Yes for text ui, then irssi would need to get a Yes for GUI - there is some xirssi stuff on svn.
If there had been a mirc script capable of adding utf-8-support, then I agree that that should be listed as something else than "No", but the script mentioned only translates between the tiny charset mirc is set to use and utf-8. That is, it only supports a small subset of unicode at a time, and will not let you write, for example, Russian and Japanese at the same time. This isn't unicode-support, but I guess it might still deservee a footnote, since it atleast lets you participate in a limited manner in a utf-8-based channel. Amaurea 03:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
As of v6.17, mIRC now supports UTF-8 in a limited way. It decodes all (as far as i've seen), and encodes some (having the curious behavior of leaving some characters as Windows-1252). — StationaryTraveller 15:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
A very limited way! mIRC does not encode server messages at all, so away, quit messages etc. goes in windows encoding. For queries you can't make encoding for some network, preferences are global for one nick on every network or for all queries on all networks. Sublimator ( talk) 18:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
With the correct settings mIRC can both encode and decode UTF-8. But if any character that is not a valid UTF-8 sequence enters the line (in the timestamp or nick for example) the whole line is rendered with native encoding. — MizardX ( talk) 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought we don't count cygwin emulated versions? then where could one get native BX and ircII Windows version? 83.216.199.120 15:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Trillian is on the above sections but not in the below "Features" section. 70.111.236.90 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Snak is a fairly popular client for MacOS (incl now unsupported versions for MacOS Classic). It should be included. —
StationaryTraveller
15:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It's listed as shell scriptable. It can use anything that can be a filter, and includes some perl scripts.— StationaryTraveller 16:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do we still have 0irc down on the comparison list if it is credited as to "unknown" to be an article? Ps0
ircII states that it's for UNIX and has a MacOS version of it. There's nothing stating that it can be run on windows. Dantman 03:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Editors of this article might want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fax software (2nd_nomination). This article was recently deleted via AfD, and it does have some resemblance to the present article. In general, the more analysis an article contains, the safer it is (apparently). EdJohnston 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Nettalk IRC-Client -- 82.149.82.142 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
lmao nevermind I'm an idiot please disregard
Which one uses the least CPU and works on windows ? Luminaflare 17:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it make sense to change the name of the ircII scripting language to it's official name (if one exists), or mIRC's Scripting language to 'Own Language' with a link to the mIRC Scripting page, to maintain consistency between the two? -- FrostyCoolSlug 19:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
There is one critical section missing in a comparison table - we don't show whether a client supports authorization using MD5 password hashing vs. old unsecure plain text authorization. With the advent of sniffers and trojans - it's a very important issue of security and privacy. // Artem S. Tashkinov, Tuesday 27 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.226.226.210 ( talk) 07:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems like there is more to DCC than I thought, enough to warrant its own table, perahps. These things could be covered as dcc subtypes: Normal, Resume, Passive, DCCServer, RDC, Reverse?, Secure. And for each of these there might be send, get, chat, fserve, whiteboard, it seems. I am not qualified to deal with all of that, but perhaps someone who knows more about this could take care of the dcc portion. Amaurea 11:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree, we really need a DCC Resume table, its function is very important, but I do not know how to add tables, someone can do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.77.102.18 ( talk) 21:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
With a long period I expanded the tables with data I found in the articles and which are given here. feel free to help ;) mabdul 0=* 16:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Documentation of RDC protocol: http://www.sysreset.com/rdcc-protocol.txt 210.168.185.69 13:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
reverse spec: http://cvs.prbh.org/cgi/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/epic4/doc/DCC_REVERSE?rev=1.4
Shouldn't there be a table for extendablity via scripts?
Under Features, Miranda should have a note (7) stating that multiserver support isn't thru the plugin itself, but by using the 'copy dll-hack' as it's called in the Miranda article, for completeness. I hope a Wiki experienced will add that.
I grepped latest sourcecode of BitchX (ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz) and EPIC (epic4-2.6 and epic5-0.3.4) and there was no mention about UTF-8 or Unicode. So, why on earth this article claims they have UTF-8 support?
-- juhtolv 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend to also include the "interface" with the clients. Since there are some CLI clients and some GUI (which is enough for Windows users but sometimes has to be split into Qt, GTK, ...) Maybe something like this:
whereas, of course, "Windows" is an addition which may include others. It's just for reasons of understanding - Windows users may be confused by specific terms.
It's just a proposal, aaand the table in the article itself has quite some width. I don't want to tinker about with that for now, rather than this proposal to be discussed :)
•
Lirion (Λιριων, Лирион, ليريون)
wtf? •
12:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I hate how all these pages are called "comparison of X," even though they're not necessarily comparisons. They're tables of product features; they need not be used to compare anything at all. It could just be used to reference a single product's features.
I could create a two column table listing words and their definitions, that doesn't make it a word comparison (unless the reader chooses to use it that way). 68.42.72.226 ( talk) 09:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
leafChat is a very good client for windows. I don't know about other oses, but I use it on my flash disk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.82.232 ( talk) 18:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This is most useful! However some (to me) critical details are currently missing:
If I could answer the above I would... but as yet I cant. Tabby 10:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
clients which need to be add and have already an article:
every other client should be on the to-do list on the project page mabdul 0=* 08:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I added the rest of the red links that are currently in the Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients tables to the Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/To Do List. There may be others in the clients table that could be added to to the comparison tables here. There may also be others in Category:Internet Relay Chat clients. If you find any existing client articles not in the category, please add the categories and add wikilinks to the WikiProject IRC article index. Tothwolf ( talk) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
ok; new features in the comparison want to get values! ;) mabdul 08:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the lines regarding "Klient" no longer servicing keys was incorrect. As recently I myself just purchased a key, while the wait was somewhat long, key's and replacement keys are still sent. Ykram ( talk) 05:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a list of clients that are missing from the comparison tables, there are more not in this list that could also be added but these either already have articles or are on the WikiProject's todo list and won't be red linked after the large merge and redirect project is finished.
-- Tothwolf ( talk) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
May I request that the color for clients no longer in active development be changed to something other than light purple? There isn't enough contrast between gray (the default background color) and light purple; it is very hard to see the difference on some monitors & in some light situations.
AEnw ( talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You know the IM software Trillian? It is also an IRC client. By default Trillian 3.1 and Astra carry a IRC add-on built in. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.215.79 ( talk) 11:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Pidgin ( http://pidgin.im/) isn't on the list, but it isn't just an irc client, it handles most protocols. Should it be there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.79.49 ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Editors who work on this article may be interested in the discussion here regarding Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC, which is one of the templates currently used in this article. -- RL0919 ( talk) 22:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Version numbers and release dates are entirely arbitrary and not part of the comparison role of this article. Is there any reason to keep this section? Miami33139 ( talk) 05:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel that this list is arguably indiscriminate, beyond being an IRC client. What criteria must an IRC client meet in order to be included in this list? I am curious. JBsupreme ( talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Generally the critieria I see on these kinds of list insist on notable IRC clients. Which means any thing that is a red link or no link be removed. All of the URLs at the end make it seem promotional in nature.-- Crossmr ( talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
We actually have policy that addresses this: Wikipedia:NOT#DIR which is linked from WP:LIST Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Entries on lists or comparison articles are required to be "famous" which in wikipedia terms means notable. If they don't have an article they don't belong on the list.-- Crossmr ( talk) 02:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Also per Wikipedia:NOT#DIR #5, wikipedia isn't to be used as a price guide. We may list items as either, "free, shareware, or commercial" but listing specific prices is against policy.-- Crossmr ( talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
At the current state of the article [2], every entry in the table has a seperate article. Useful inclusion criteria could only be something in between "every existing verifyable IRC client" and "only IRC clients with a seperate article", IMHO. Therefore I don't see the need to limit the article any further. I'd still disagree with "only clients with an article", because there's on ongoing effort to delete those articles: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Those would be deleted from the table if we agreed on "seperate article" as inclusion criteria, just because the article was deleted and I won't agree with that. There's no policy limiting the content of this list type article to clients with their own article (the wikilink could just be removed instead of the whole line). FWIW, JBsupreme and Miami33139 both think Irssi wasn't notable in this field [9] [10], and it obviously should be in this comparison. I'd like to see a proposal that avoids the vague word "notable" for that reason. -- thommey ( talk) 13:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Clearly restricting this to wiki-notable instead of notable—in the plain English sense of the word—software is counter-productive. The purpose of a page like this is to be more comprehensive about this kind of software, but still not indiscriminate. The distinction between these notions is in the depth of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources. This is acceptable per WP:LSC: "exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles". I propose the following criteria, in line with WP:V, WP:NNC, WP:DUE, WP:LSC:
“ | the software is included in any WP:RS round-ups, even if only covered in just a sentence, or mentioned in a list of software of this kind in two WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. | ” |
Typical examples of WP:SECONDARY WP:RS would be book mentions, e.g. [11], [12], [13]. Thoughts? Pcap ping 14:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Change title of article to "Comparison of notable Internet Relay Chat clients"? :) This article is a mess and will remain a mess once all the clients which the elite deem to be non-notable have been removed.
Is anyone going to tidy up this article? If not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.47.130 ( talk) 20:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Since we can all agree (I hope) that this is not an indiscriminate list, I will be removing items from this list that are not supported by reliable third party sources. I am being careful not to describe these as "notable" in any sense of the word, Wikipedia or otherwise, but strictly an adherence to WP:SECONDARY WP:RS policy. JBsupreme ( talk) 07:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Just closing the discussion since the page has been moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
List of Internet Relay Chat clients →
Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients — This move was done the other way round today by
JBsupreme (
[33]). I see no reason for it and unfortunately none was provided either. I think it's clearly a
comparison, not a list. —
thommey (
talk)
02:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia naming conventions indicate that his move was proper Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions. If (as is often the case), the list has multiple columns and so is in table form, the name or title List of _ _ is still preferable to Table of _ _ or Comparison of _ _. It should be moved back.-- Crossmr ( talk) 02:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I realise this discussion has been held before, many times, but most software lists comply with WP:WTAF. Having endless lists of mostly red links is messy, and an inconvenience for the reader, the primary purpose behind writing this encyclopedia. Entries that are not notable do not belong here. Greenman ( talk) 12:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
This is also not a "list of" article, for which the WP:LSC guideline was intended (and I personally happen to agree with). With a "list of" article 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 "comparison of" article on the other hand, it can make a lot of sense to cover material which may not necessarily have its own article purely for the purposes of comparison.
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (which WP:LSC is a subsection of) specifically states: "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 "list of" or "timeline of"." Most "comparison of" articles are clearly much more than a list of links to articles, so just going by the guideline's own criteria, most "comparison of" articles should not be considered a "stand alone list".
WP:NNC also clearly states: "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." (Note that while the current wording is slightly different from how it was worded in the past, the meaning is still the same.) Put simply, WP:N absolutely does not prevent us from comparing the features and functionality of software programs which may not (and might never) have their own standalone article.
Now, as far as sources go, I happen to agree with Bilby in that we need sources. We used to have sources here and they still need to be restored. That said, it is generally more reliable to use a program's own documentation per WP:SELFPUB when it comes to the features and functionality of a particular software program. Ask yourself, which would you trust more, a software program's own current documentation shipped with the software or on its website, an outdated book published years earlier, or a third party website which "reviewed" a software program say 3 years prior. It should be obvious in this case that the software's own documentation or website is going to be far more reliable for simple features and functionality, which again is perfectly fine per WP:SELFPUB. In addition, when it comes to open source software, one can even cite the software's own source code as a reference if the documentation is lacking (and this will be the most reliable of them all as the source code makes up the actual instructions for how the software program operates). Per WP:RSUE however, it is much preferable to use an English source vs source code which is a foreign language to the majority of the people who will be reading articles on Wikipedia. All that said, it would not be proper to use a software program's own documentation where it might hypothetically claim "this program is better than program x due to y" in order to show that "program x is better than y" as that would run afoul of WP:NPOV. It would of course still be perfectly acceptable to quote that documentation or website with attribution so long as it is clear who is making the claim.
Enric, I also do not see where you've ever contributed to this article or the talk page discussion until today. You claim in your edit summary that there was consensus for your removal of material here, yet you don't seem to have ever contributed to this article or interacted with those who've put quite a lot of work into it. How exactly was it you came to be involved here? Removing an entire entry the manner in which you did violates WP:BITE as it takes a considerable amount of time to actually add an entry to a "comparison of" article such as this (if you don't believe that, you try doing the research involved to properly add an entry sometime). -- Tothwolf ( talk) 09:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Because that text is outdated, I believe you are confused as to what WP:LISTNAME was referring to when it mentions Comparison of. Just because an article uses the "Comparison of" (or even "List of" or "Timeline of") naming scheme does not simply make it a stand-alone list. To help illustrate this, let's look at some real-world examples. Take for example Comparison of Windows Vista and Windows XP, Comparison of Unicode encodings, and Comparison of ADO and ADO.NET (three of many such examples from Category:Software comparisons). None of these are "list of" stand-alone lists even though they are named "Comparison of". Contrast those with say Comparison of BPEL engines or Comparison of scorewriters, which I would argue are just barely no longer "list of" stand-alone lists or say Comparison of open source and closed source, Comparison of Windows and Linux, Comparison of video codecs, or Comparison of ADO and ADO.NET which are absolutely not "list of" stand-alone lists. Furthermore, it is extremely common for us to have entries in "comparison of" articles which are either red-links or non-links. Take for example Comparison of x86 DOS operating systems, Comparison of graphics file formats, Comparison of raster to vector conversion software, Comparison of MUD clients, Comparison of disk encryption software, or even have a lengthy browse over Category:Software comparisons. If you spend some time comparing Category:Lists of software and Category:Software comparisons, I think the differences between "comparison" articles and stand-alone lists will be quite obvious. In all fairness, we did use to have quite a few "list of" stand-alone lists which were named "comparison of". The majority of those have long since been renamed "list of". In addition, we have numerous "list of" stand-alone lists which include red-links such as say List of Computer Viruses (All) where it makes perfect sense to include entries as red-links or non-links.
I think the best way to draw the defining line between a standalone list and a comparison article is if the article is merely a list in a table format without actually including comparable elements (features, functionality, etc) then it is a "list" and not a "comparison". If the article includes actual comparable elements (not just a version number and/or a release date), then the article is a comparison and not simply a list of internal wikilinks.
Neither WP:LISTNAME nor WP:LSC are hard and fast rules and trying to apply them as such (particularly when trying to apply them to something which they were not intended for) is both disruptive and damaging to Wikipedia. The very beginning of Wikipedia:Five pillars states: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." and the very last section states: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule."
I think the best way to sum up everything I'm trying to get across here is: Wikipedia exists for our readers, not the editors. If readers find the inclusion of specific material helpful to them while making use of Wikipedia, then it should be included. If the material would not be helpful to a reader, then it should be excluded. Comparison of articles are among some of our more popular articles (see WP:COMP/PP). It would be a huge disservice to our readers if we go against WP:NNC ("The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content.") and attempt to cut down all "comparison of" articles to material which would only meet the guidelines for a stand-alone article, as this would then remove a huge amount of material which our readers actually wish to know more about. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 04:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You attempted to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF because you had already made up your mind regarding WP:LSC and didn't care to consider my points.
Ultimately, what your arguments are clarifying here is that we desperately need to improve the wording at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists as it misleads individuals such as yourself into believing that all articles which include tables of information or which are named "comparison of", "timeline of", etc are without exception "stand-alone lists", which is clearly not the case and directly conflicts with WP:NNC. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and WP:NNC apply to lists which consist of wikilinks, not articles that include tables of information which might also include wikilinks. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 01:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Enric, now, will you self-revert, or do we need to take this to a noticeboard? -- Tothwolf ( talk) 04:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Per your definitions and criteria, we can't include the entry for the original IRC client called "irc" which shipped with the early IRCd software as it hasn't been covered in a book and about the only mention of it that you will find today is the original documentation and source code for the early IRCd software itself. The thing you might not realise due to your unfamiliarity with this topic is that Internet Relay Chat itself was created in August 1988 and predated the World Wide Web (~August 1991), Deja News (March 1995), Google (January 1996) and Google Books (~December 2004). Neither the "web" nor Google are magic oracles and are not going to contain everything. You might do well to have a read over the essay Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers.
Enric, if you won't self-revert your removal of KVIrc from the tables, then perhaps we do need to take your actions to a noticeboard? From the looks of things, you have a history of this sort of thing and it genuinely doesn't seem to be worthwhile or very effective in trying to reason with you. You know, it really is a shame too as this particular article was extremely low drama before the disruption and wikistalking/AfDs by one of the parties previously mentioned began. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 14:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
"Just a heads up...the first table in Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients was largely blanked by someone who was being disruptive. I've not yet pulled a clean version from the history and re-integrated edits since, but blanking more sections is counterproductive. Right now the larger issue of the individual involved is being examined by ArbCom."
...and here are some links for anyone who actually gives a shit (compare the names therein with some of the individuals who were pushing for large scale removals from this article in several of the above sections): [44] [45] [46] So what does the material in those links boil down to? tag teaming, meatpuppetry, harassment, specifically wikistalking, and off-wiki harassment of myself, friends, and co-workers, including phone calls to my place of work. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 11:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
There isn't any information about browser-based client/services section. Something like irc2go.com :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.77.32 ( talk) 14:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Kotniski ( talk) 14:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients →
List_of_Internet_Relay_Chat_clients — From
WP:LISTNAME, "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". This article has no comparisons, sourced or unsourced, just a list in form of table.
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. Enric Naval ( talk) 10:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software/Archive_3#renaming_all_.22comparison_of....22_to_.22list_of....22, to see if we can end with this situation where some lists in table format are called comparisons. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You previously made repeated attempts to invoke the WP:LSC section of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists as a content guideline when it was clearly a Manual of Style page. When those arguments ultimately failed, you slightly change tactics and now attempt to invoke WP:LISTNAME to have the page renamed "List of x" so you can justify removing material from the article... Enric, that tactic is considered POV pushing (cf. Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing) and is inappropriate.
Renaming "Comparison of x" articles to "List of x" articles is also a perennial proposal which has in the past been brought up on many "Comparison of x" talk pages and has ultimately been soundly rejected by the community.
In addition, Enric, you did not make a post to WT:SOFTWARE You made a comment on the talk page archive for WT:SOFTWARE. [47] You also knew quite well WP:SOFTWARE doesn't get too much activity, which is why you chose it over a more active WikiProject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing.
Enric, please observe WP:STICK. I don't have the time to argue this with you again, but others can review #Entries without articles above to see your past arguments. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 12:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
As I've said previously regarding WP:LISTNAME, 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 Wikipedia grew to what it is today and should be updated, but that hasn't yet happened.
This is precisely why WP:GUIDES states: "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." which is also echoed in template messages such as {{ MoS-guideline}} and {{ Guideline}}, which respectively state: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." and "This page documents an English Wikipedia guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
(Oddly enough, note that Wikipedia:Template messages itself is such a navigational list, where it wouldn't make much sense to include red-links.) -- Tothwolf ( talk) 13:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Should there be a category/list on this page or should there be a new one?
I have removed the PD notice, I don't see how this article can be "uncontroversially deleted" (as WP:DP says it would be with this notice on it) - it has clear content and this talkpage is filled with concerns about validity of product comparisons, which the PD reason claims does not exist on the page. So I'm honestly lost what whoever argued this article should be deleted thinks is missing from this page to be a valid "product comparison". Gijs Kruitbosch 20:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There should be a table for support of ipv6, utf8 and ssl too, and probably something about scriptability. I'll try to start adding some of it. Amaurea 05:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The information here should probably be reflected on the individual pages for the irc clients. Perhaps a template for irc clients, with fields corresponding to the table sections here, would help organize that? Right now they use a general software template. Amaurea 09:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Is DCCserver and passive dcc really seperate things? mIRC seems to use what it calls DCCserver to do passive transfers. The ftp-like file sharing server mode is called fserver there, but perhaps it is called DCCserver other places? It would be nice if someone could clarify, perhaps making articles about Passive DCC (probably best done as a section of the dcc-article) and dccserver, if it really is something else. Amaurea 06:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
If you don't believe me that xchat doesn't have a usuable text mode ui, here's a screenshot: Image:Xchat-text.png If everyone insists on giving xchat a Yes for text ui, then irssi would need to get a Yes for GUI - there is some xirssi stuff on svn.
If there had been a mirc script capable of adding utf-8-support, then I agree that that should be listed as something else than "No", but the script mentioned only translates between the tiny charset mirc is set to use and utf-8. That is, it only supports a small subset of unicode at a time, and will not let you write, for example, Russian and Japanese at the same time. This isn't unicode-support, but I guess it might still deservee a footnote, since it atleast lets you participate in a limited manner in a utf-8-based channel. Amaurea 03:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
As of v6.17, mIRC now supports UTF-8 in a limited way. It decodes all (as far as i've seen), and encodes some (having the curious behavior of leaving some characters as Windows-1252). — StationaryTraveller 15:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
A very limited way! mIRC does not encode server messages at all, so away, quit messages etc. goes in windows encoding. For queries you can't make encoding for some network, preferences are global for one nick on every network or for all queries on all networks. Sublimator ( talk) 18:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
With the correct settings mIRC can both encode and decode UTF-8. But if any character that is not a valid UTF-8 sequence enters the line (in the timestamp or nick for example) the whole line is rendered with native encoding. — MizardX ( talk) 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought we don't count cygwin emulated versions? then where could one get native BX and ircII Windows version? 83.216.199.120 15:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Trillian is on the above sections but not in the below "Features" section. 70.111.236.90 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Snak is a fairly popular client for MacOS (incl now unsupported versions for MacOS Classic). It should be included. —
StationaryTraveller
15:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It's listed as shell scriptable. It can use anything that can be a filter, and includes some perl scripts.— StationaryTraveller 16:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do we still have 0irc down on the comparison list if it is credited as to "unknown" to be an article? Ps0
ircII states that it's for UNIX and has a MacOS version of it. There's nothing stating that it can be run on windows. Dantman 03:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Editors of this article might want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fax software (2nd_nomination). This article was recently deleted via AfD, and it does have some resemblance to the present article. In general, the more analysis an article contains, the safer it is (apparently). EdJohnston 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Nettalk IRC-Client -- 82.149.82.142 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
lmao nevermind I'm an idiot please disregard
Which one uses the least CPU and works on windows ? Luminaflare 17:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it make sense to change the name of the ircII scripting language to it's official name (if one exists), or mIRC's Scripting language to 'Own Language' with a link to the mIRC Scripting page, to maintain consistency between the two? -- FrostyCoolSlug 19:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
There is one critical section missing in a comparison table - we don't show whether a client supports authorization using MD5 password hashing vs. old unsecure plain text authorization. With the advent of sniffers and trojans - it's a very important issue of security and privacy. // Artem S. Tashkinov, Tuesday 27 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.226.226.210 ( talk) 07:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems like there is more to DCC than I thought, enough to warrant its own table, perahps. These things could be covered as dcc subtypes: Normal, Resume, Passive, DCCServer, RDC, Reverse?, Secure. And for each of these there might be send, get, chat, fserve, whiteboard, it seems. I am not qualified to deal with all of that, but perhaps someone who knows more about this could take care of the dcc portion. Amaurea 11:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree, we really need a DCC Resume table, its function is very important, but I do not know how to add tables, someone can do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.77.102.18 ( talk) 21:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
With a long period I expanded the tables with data I found in the articles and which are given here. feel free to help ;) mabdul 0=* 16:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Documentation of RDC protocol: http://www.sysreset.com/rdcc-protocol.txt 210.168.185.69 13:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
reverse spec: http://cvs.prbh.org/cgi/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/epic4/doc/DCC_REVERSE?rev=1.4
Shouldn't there be a table for extendablity via scripts?
Under Features, Miranda should have a note (7) stating that multiserver support isn't thru the plugin itself, but by using the 'copy dll-hack' as it's called in the Miranda article, for completeness. I hope a Wiki experienced will add that.
I grepped latest sourcecode of BitchX (ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz) and EPIC (epic4-2.6 and epic5-0.3.4) and there was no mention about UTF-8 or Unicode. So, why on earth this article claims they have UTF-8 support?
-- juhtolv 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend to also include the "interface" with the clients. Since there are some CLI clients and some GUI (which is enough for Windows users but sometimes has to be split into Qt, GTK, ...) Maybe something like this:
whereas, of course, "Windows" is an addition which may include others. It's just for reasons of understanding - Windows users may be confused by specific terms.
It's just a proposal, aaand the table in the article itself has quite some width. I don't want to tinker about with that for now, rather than this proposal to be discussed :)
•
Lirion (Λιριων, Лирион, ليريون)
wtf? •
12:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I hate how all these pages are called "comparison of X," even though they're not necessarily comparisons. They're tables of product features; they need not be used to compare anything at all. It could just be used to reference a single product's features.
I could create a two column table listing words and their definitions, that doesn't make it a word comparison (unless the reader chooses to use it that way). 68.42.72.226 ( talk) 09:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
leafChat is a very good client for windows. I don't know about other oses, but I use it on my flash disk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.82.232 ( talk) 18:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This is most useful! However some (to me) critical details are currently missing:
If I could answer the above I would... but as yet I cant. Tabby 10:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
clients which need to be add and have already an article:
every other client should be on the to-do list on the project page mabdul 0=* 08:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I added the rest of the red links that are currently in the Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients tables to the Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/To Do List. There may be others in the clients table that could be added to to the comparison tables here. There may also be others in Category:Internet Relay Chat clients. If you find any existing client articles not in the category, please add the categories and add wikilinks to the WikiProject IRC article index. Tothwolf ( talk) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
ok; new features in the comparison want to get values! ;) mabdul 08:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the lines regarding "Klient" no longer servicing keys was incorrect. As recently I myself just purchased a key, while the wait was somewhat long, key's and replacement keys are still sent. Ykram ( talk) 05:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a list of clients that are missing from the comparison tables, there are more not in this list that could also be added but these either already have articles or are on the WikiProject's todo list and won't be red linked after the large merge and redirect project is finished.
-- Tothwolf ( talk) 09:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
May I request that the color for clients no longer in active development be changed to something other than light purple? There isn't enough contrast between gray (the default background color) and light purple; it is very hard to see the difference on some monitors & in some light situations.
AEnw ( talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You know the IM software Trillian? It is also an IRC client. By default Trillian 3.1 and Astra carry a IRC add-on built in. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.215.79 ( talk) 11:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Pidgin ( http://pidgin.im/) isn't on the list, but it isn't just an irc client, it handles most protocols. Should it be there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.79.49 ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Editors who work on this article may be interested in the discussion here regarding Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC, which is one of the templates currently used in this article. -- RL0919 ( talk) 22:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Version numbers and release dates are entirely arbitrary and not part of the comparison role of this article. Is there any reason to keep this section? Miami33139 ( talk) 05:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel that this list is arguably indiscriminate, beyond being an IRC client. What criteria must an IRC client meet in order to be included in this list? I am curious. JBsupreme ( talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Generally the critieria I see on these kinds of list insist on notable IRC clients. Which means any thing that is a red link or no link be removed. All of the URLs at the end make it seem promotional in nature.-- Crossmr ( talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
We actually have policy that addresses this: Wikipedia:NOT#DIR which is linked from WP:LIST Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Entries on lists or comparison articles are required to be "famous" which in wikipedia terms means notable. If they don't have an article they don't belong on the list.-- Crossmr ( talk) 02:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Also per Wikipedia:NOT#DIR #5, wikipedia isn't to be used as a price guide. We may list items as either, "free, shareware, or commercial" but listing specific prices is against policy.-- Crossmr ( talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
At the current state of the article [2], every entry in the table has a seperate article. Useful inclusion criteria could only be something in between "every existing verifyable IRC client" and "only IRC clients with a seperate article", IMHO. Therefore I don't see the need to limit the article any further. I'd still disagree with "only clients with an article", because there's on ongoing effort to delete those articles: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Those would be deleted from the table if we agreed on "seperate article" as inclusion criteria, just because the article was deleted and I won't agree with that. There's no policy limiting the content of this list type article to clients with their own article (the wikilink could just be removed instead of the whole line). FWIW, JBsupreme and Miami33139 both think Irssi wasn't notable in this field [9] [10], and it obviously should be in this comparison. I'd like to see a proposal that avoids the vague word "notable" for that reason. -- thommey ( talk) 13:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Clearly restricting this to wiki-notable instead of notable—in the plain English sense of the word—software is counter-productive. The purpose of a page like this is to be more comprehensive about this kind of software, but still not indiscriminate. The distinction between these notions is in the depth of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources. This is acceptable per WP:LSC: "exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles". I propose the following criteria, in line with WP:V, WP:NNC, WP:DUE, WP:LSC:
“ | the software is included in any WP:RS round-ups, even if only covered in just a sentence, or mentioned in a list of software of this kind in two WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. | ” |
Typical examples of WP:SECONDARY WP:RS would be book mentions, e.g. [11], [12], [13]. Thoughts? Pcap ping 14:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Change title of article to "Comparison of notable Internet Relay Chat clients"? :) This article is a mess and will remain a mess once all the clients which the elite deem to be non-notable have been removed.
Is anyone going to tidy up this article? If not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.47.130 ( talk) 20:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Since we can all agree (I hope) that this is not an indiscriminate list, I will be removing items from this list that are not supported by reliable third party sources. I am being careful not to describe these as "notable" in any sense of the word, Wikipedia or otherwise, but strictly an adherence to WP:SECONDARY WP:RS policy. JBsupreme ( talk) 07:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Just closing the discussion since the page has been moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
List of Internet Relay Chat clients →
Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients — This move was done the other way round today by
JBsupreme (
[33]). I see no reason for it and unfortunately none was provided either. I think it's clearly a
comparison, not a list. —
thommey (
talk)
02:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia naming conventions indicate that his move was proper Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions. If (as is often the case), the list has multiple columns and so is in table form, the name or title List of _ _ is still preferable to Table of _ _ or Comparison of _ _. It should be moved back.-- Crossmr ( talk) 02:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I realise this discussion has been held before, many times, but most software lists comply with WP:WTAF. Having endless lists of mostly red links is messy, and an inconvenience for the reader, the primary purpose behind writing this encyclopedia. Entries that are not notable do not belong here. Greenman ( talk) 12:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
This is also not a "list of" article, for which the WP:LSC guideline was intended (and I personally happen to agree with). With a "list of" article 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 "comparison of" article on the other hand, it can make a lot of sense to cover material which may not necessarily have its own article purely for the purposes of comparison.
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (which WP:LSC is a subsection of) specifically states: "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 "list of" or "timeline of"." Most "comparison of" articles are clearly much more than a list of links to articles, so just going by the guideline's own criteria, most "comparison of" articles should not be considered a "stand alone list".
WP:NNC also clearly states: "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." (Note that while the current wording is slightly different from how it was worded in the past, the meaning is still the same.) Put simply, WP:N absolutely does not prevent us from comparing the features and functionality of software programs which may not (and might never) have their own standalone article.
Now, as far as sources go, I happen to agree with Bilby in that we need sources. We used to have sources here and they still need to be restored. That said, it is generally more reliable to use a program's own documentation per WP:SELFPUB when it comes to the features and functionality of a particular software program. Ask yourself, which would you trust more, a software program's own current documentation shipped with the software or on its website, an outdated book published years earlier, or a third party website which "reviewed" a software program say 3 years prior. It should be obvious in this case that the software's own documentation or website is going to be far more reliable for simple features and functionality, which again is perfectly fine per WP:SELFPUB. In addition, when it comes to open source software, one can even cite the software's own source code as a reference if the documentation is lacking (and this will be the most reliable of them all as the source code makes up the actual instructions for how the software program operates). Per WP:RSUE however, it is much preferable to use an English source vs source code which is a foreign language to the majority of the people who will be reading articles on Wikipedia. All that said, it would not be proper to use a software program's own documentation where it might hypothetically claim "this program is better than program x due to y" in order to show that "program x is better than y" as that would run afoul of WP:NPOV. It would of course still be perfectly acceptable to quote that documentation or website with attribution so long as it is clear who is making the claim.
Enric, I also do not see where you've ever contributed to this article or the talk page discussion until today. You claim in your edit summary that there was consensus for your removal of material here, yet you don't seem to have ever contributed to this article or interacted with those who've put quite a lot of work into it. How exactly was it you came to be involved here? Removing an entire entry the manner in which you did violates WP:BITE as it takes a considerable amount of time to actually add an entry to a "comparison of" article such as this (if you don't believe that, you try doing the research involved to properly add an entry sometime). -- Tothwolf ( talk) 09:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Because that text is outdated, I believe you are confused as to what WP:LISTNAME was referring to when it mentions Comparison of. Just because an article uses the "Comparison of" (or even "List of" or "Timeline of") naming scheme does not simply make it a stand-alone list. To help illustrate this, let's look at some real-world examples. Take for example Comparison of Windows Vista and Windows XP, Comparison of Unicode encodings, and Comparison of ADO and ADO.NET (three of many such examples from Category:Software comparisons). None of these are "list of" stand-alone lists even though they are named "Comparison of". Contrast those with say Comparison of BPEL engines or Comparison of scorewriters, which I would argue are just barely no longer "list of" stand-alone lists or say Comparison of open source and closed source, Comparison of Windows and Linux, Comparison of video codecs, or Comparison of ADO and ADO.NET which are absolutely not "list of" stand-alone lists. Furthermore, it is extremely common for us to have entries in "comparison of" articles which are either red-links or non-links. Take for example Comparison of x86 DOS operating systems, Comparison of graphics file formats, Comparison of raster to vector conversion software, Comparison of MUD clients, Comparison of disk encryption software, or even have a lengthy browse over Category:Software comparisons. If you spend some time comparing Category:Lists of software and Category:Software comparisons, I think the differences between "comparison" articles and stand-alone lists will be quite obvious. In all fairness, we did use to have quite a few "list of" stand-alone lists which were named "comparison of". The majority of those have long since been renamed "list of". In addition, we have numerous "list of" stand-alone lists which include red-links such as say List of Computer Viruses (All) where it makes perfect sense to include entries as red-links or non-links.
I think the best way to draw the defining line between a standalone list and a comparison article is if the article is merely a list in a table format without actually including comparable elements (features, functionality, etc) then it is a "list" and not a "comparison". If the article includes actual comparable elements (not just a version number and/or a release date), then the article is a comparison and not simply a list of internal wikilinks.
Neither WP:LISTNAME nor WP:LSC are hard and fast rules and trying to apply them as such (particularly when trying to apply them to something which they were not intended for) is both disruptive and damaging to Wikipedia. The very beginning of Wikipedia:Five pillars states: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." and the very last section states: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule."
I think the best way to sum up everything I'm trying to get across here is: Wikipedia exists for our readers, not the editors. If readers find the inclusion of specific material helpful to them while making use of Wikipedia, then it should be included. If the material would not be helpful to a reader, then it should be excluded. Comparison of articles are among some of our more popular articles (see WP:COMP/PP). It would be a huge disservice to our readers if we go against WP:NNC ("The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content.") and attempt to cut down all "comparison of" articles to material which would only meet the guidelines for a stand-alone article, as this would then remove a huge amount of material which our readers actually wish to know more about. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 04:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You attempted to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF because you had already made up your mind regarding WP:LSC and didn't care to consider my points.
Ultimately, what your arguments are clarifying here is that we desperately need to improve the wording at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists as it misleads individuals such as yourself into believing that all articles which include tables of information or which are named "comparison of", "timeline of", etc are without exception "stand-alone lists", which is clearly not the case and directly conflicts with WP:NNC. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and WP:NNC apply to lists which consist of wikilinks, not articles that include tables of information which might also include wikilinks. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 01:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Enric, now, will you self-revert, or do we need to take this to a noticeboard? -- Tothwolf ( talk) 04:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Per your definitions and criteria, we can't include the entry for the original IRC client called "irc" which shipped with the early IRCd software as it hasn't been covered in a book and about the only mention of it that you will find today is the original documentation and source code for the early IRCd software itself. The thing you might not realise due to your unfamiliarity with this topic is that Internet Relay Chat itself was created in August 1988 and predated the World Wide Web (~August 1991), Deja News (March 1995), Google (January 1996) and Google Books (~December 2004). Neither the "web" nor Google are magic oracles and are not going to contain everything. You might do well to have a read over the essay Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers.
Enric, if you won't self-revert your removal of KVIrc from the tables, then perhaps we do need to take your actions to a noticeboard? From the looks of things, you have a history of this sort of thing and it genuinely doesn't seem to be worthwhile or very effective in trying to reason with you. You know, it really is a shame too as this particular article was extremely low drama before the disruption and wikistalking/AfDs by one of the parties previously mentioned began. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 14:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
"Just a heads up...the first table in Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients was largely blanked by someone who was being disruptive. I've not yet pulled a clean version from the history and re-integrated edits since, but blanking more sections is counterproductive. Right now the larger issue of the individual involved is being examined by ArbCom."
...and here are some links for anyone who actually gives a shit (compare the names therein with some of the individuals who were pushing for large scale removals from this article in several of the above sections): [44] [45] [46] So what does the material in those links boil down to? tag teaming, meatpuppetry, harassment, specifically wikistalking, and off-wiki harassment of myself, friends, and co-workers, including phone calls to my place of work. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 11:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
There isn't any information about browser-based client/services section. Something like irc2go.com :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.77.32 ( talk) 14:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Kotniski ( talk) 14:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients →
List_of_Internet_Relay_Chat_clients — From
WP:LISTNAME, "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". This article has no comparisons, sourced or unsourced, just a list in form of table.
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. Enric Naval ( talk) 10:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software/Archive_3#renaming_all_.22comparison_of....22_to_.22list_of....22, to see if we can end with this situation where some lists in table format are called comparisons. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You previously made repeated attempts to invoke the WP:LSC section of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists as a content guideline when it was clearly a Manual of Style page. When those arguments ultimately failed, you slightly change tactics and now attempt to invoke WP:LISTNAME to have the page renamed "List of x" so you can justify removing material from the article... Enric, that tactic is considered POV pushing (cf. Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing) and is inappropriate.
Renaming "Comparison of x" articles to "List of x" articles is also a perennial proposal which has in the past been brought up on many "Comparison of x" talk pages and has ultimately been soundly rejected by the community.
In addition, Enric, you did not make a post to WT:SOFTWARE You made a comment on the talk page archive for WT:SOFTWARE. [47] You also knew quite well WP:SOFTWARE doesn't get too much activity, which is why you chose it over a more active WikiProject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing.
Enric, please observe WP:STICK. I don't have the time to argue this with you again, but others can review #Entries without articles above to see your past arguments. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 12:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
As I've said previously regarding WP:LISTNAME, 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 Wikipedia grew to what it is today and should be updated, but that hasn't yet happened.
This is precisely why WP:GUIDES states: "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." which is also echoed in template messages such as {{ MoS-guideline}} and {{ Guideline}}, which respectively state: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." and "This page documents an English Wikipedia guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
(Oddly enough, note that Wikipedia:Template messages itself is such a navigational list, where it wouldn't make much sense to include red-links.) -- Tothwolf ( talk) 13:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)