Wikipedia

Talk:Comparison of IRC clients/Archive 5

< Talk:Comparison of IRC clients
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

jIRCii

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The sources:

  • 1 Mudge, Raphael. "jIRCII - The Ultimate IRC Client". oldschoolirc.com.
Self-published.
Review in download website that mass-make reviews for its programs.
Self-published.
Written by the author of jIRCii.

No independent reviews, no notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • 1. Primary, accepted as with every other client here.
  • 2. Softonic.com has passed RSN, as discussed here previously, and considered both independent and reliable.
  • 3. The book - meh. I included it for some detail, and supporting author notability.
  • 4. Dr. Dobbs Journal article - editorially reviewed, and therefore reliable, if primary.
  • Has one totally independent RS, a primary website, and established author expertise in two pubs. I think it's more acceptable here than several others. My beardstroking opinion is keep. There are also mentions in news sources like
  • "jIRCii review". mirc.net, 20 November 2004, which due to longevity and topic expertise I would have no problem citing.

--Lexein (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I notice that Enric is at least discussing. Thank you.
  • However, Schmucky is again not discussing, deleting upon the start of discussion by someone else, but before responses can take place, and using misleading edit summaries. Primary sources are not "not RS" - see WP:RS - they are merely not independent, and yes, I'm going to insist that complete, correct language be used. We've agreed here that (well fleshed-out) primary sources are reliable, but not sufficient by themselves for inclusion here. The other source, Softonic, already passed RSN (as noted in prior discussions), and MIRC.net is a fine news/review source for this narrow topic. On the scale from "unsourced/bubble/squeeky/okay/solid" scale, this entry, jIRCii, seems okay. --Lexein (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Self-published sources show zero notability, since the author pays for the publication.
  • Dr. Dobb's is about a different program from the same author, jIRCii is only mentioned in passing.
  • The only sources for notability are:
  • a review in a download website.... mass-made by an editor who has also made reviews of "Grand Theft Auto IV Series Wallpaper (BB) (Liberty city in your Blackberry)" and "Tema Apple Leopard Today para BlackBerry (Pretend that you have a Mac un your BlackBerry)" [1]
  • a review in a specialized website.... by an acquitance of the author.... because he had previously worked in a program made by the author.
No books, only independent review is a short mass-made review in a download website. This is not a notable IRC client. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Continued use of the term "notability" is incorrect for list items. No requirement for notability exists for items in an article - reread WP:N. Notability only applies for whole articles. List items require RS per WP:V, both primary and secondary.
  • Notability of Mudge is not invalidated by self-publishing a book, when other works exist.
  • Independence of the MIRC review is not damaged by long-ago acquaintance, or long-ago work on a work by Mudge.
  • The book and Dobbs article mention jIRCii nontrivially, and count as usable primary source. And the Dobbs is editorially reviewed, and so cannot be dismissed as purely primary.
  • You seem not to like the sources while ignoring their usability here. They meet the requirements for use as primary and secondary sources. Dr. Dobbs Journal is an editorially-supervised publication. The Softonic review is enough by itself, and the MIRC.net is financially independent.
  • In all, the two independent sources provided are enough, and independent enough, and are certainly better than some other sources here.
  • It's unseemly for Wikipedia editors to be personally insulting and deprecatory against sources. --Lexein (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Articles written by the author about their own programs are not third party. Neither are reviews by acquitances of the author on their own website. Softtonic mass-reviews random programs, with unknown editorial control, which should make it not reliable. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • RSN already passed Softonic, and the the Softonic website clearly delineates editorial staffing - upon what policy basis or consensus are you disputing that? As for the MIRC review, having ever known someone as an acquaintance does not automatically disqualify them as a reliable review source, and I don't know what policy basis you're claiming so; especially this review, which includes negative comments. Dr. Dobb's' editorial supervision, makes that particular primary source rather strong. I never claimed the primary sources as independent, just multiple primary, with different publication dates and multiple publication media. Are you really conceding nothing, just to fight inclusion of this one verifiable, multiple RS client? I don't understand your goal here. There are other, much, much worse sourced, or unsourced battles to fight, more likely to lead to a win for you. To go forward, shall I call in 3O, or EA? I never object to calling in uninvolved, disinterested third parties. --Lexein (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Subsided dispute

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The "list dispute" tag is no longer relevant. The "dispute" has been settled for nearly a year, that reliable sources are required for clients without articles. 1 very good reliable source or 2 passable ones, plus a well-descriptive primary source, has become the defacto standard. There is no reason to continue screaming about any of this. It's just over. This article deserves to be unburdened of the bitter infighting practiced by an intransigent few. --Lexein (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Neebly

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Only has a two paragraph review in Softtonic[2]. The first paragraph is just an introduction, and half the second paragraph is a paraphrasing of the publisher's self-description[3]. I think that this doesn't qualify as "1 very good reliable source". This looks looks like a superficial half-baked review, doesn't even reach "passable". I didn't click in "Read more"....

Softpedia has a three paragraph description of its features[4], and would qualify as "a passable source".

I think that Neebly has only one "passable source", which makes it fall short of the criteria. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing, without intention to dilute or alter the (verbose) general inclusion criteria discussion. Here are the full texts of the reviews: the Softonic review is more than two paragraphs. Is it possible you didn't click "read more" (an annoying misfeature of the website)?:
Softonic:
Softpedia:
Thanks for finding the Softpedia review, and for hopefully reconsidering the Softonic one. --Lexein (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You are right, I didn't click in "read more". Ugh, my bad. This should qualify as two passable ones. Let's add the softpedia review to the article.
Maybe we should put the original verbose criteria at the top of the article? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Cool. I've added it. Also edited the lead tersely to state the bare minimum inclusion criteria, similar to the model at List of common misconceptions. The wikilinking to WP:V may have to go, since it's a reference to WP. --Lexein (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, links to WP pages usually go in notices in the talk pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

ThrashIRC

Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

ThrashIRC was added by an IP, with CNET and Yahoo refs, both not reviews. I commented it out, pending better RS. --Lexein (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

moved here from User talk:Lexein:

Hi sir, regarding adding ThrashIRC to the list, would this page of awards help? http://www.thrashirc.com/awards/

24.225.23.147 (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked through every review linked on the awards page. They are all quotes of the author's claims about the software, with no reviewer name shown, so they don't help. Don't worry, these things take time. Eventually it will be actually reviewed by CNET, or perhaps Softonic. For more about what we consider reliable sources, please read WP:Reliable sources. Note that we will go quite far to establish a source as reliable, if their work is of such high quality that they are quoted by others: see WP:WikiProject IRC/Sources. To quote myself, "Here are five of the things I've learned while editing Wikipedia 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 WP:WikiProject IRC/Sources), 4) nothing happens without effort, 5) sour grapes don't help." --Lexein (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It will take time, and money. Every site considered to be a good reviewer, also charges for such a wonderful privilege. I don't think we should have to pay CNET just to be listed inside Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.23.147 (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to support that claim, please? That would be very helpful info for us to have, when determining a site's reliability. From what I see on CNET's site no money is involved at any point. --Lexein (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cnet's download site is upload.com, and they have different packages for developers. Basic listing is free, but they charge for search placement, clicks, promotional and editorial reviews. https://upload.cnet.com/2706-21_5-979-5.html?tag=rb_content;contentBody

Developers create PAD files that describe their products which are polled by software distribution sites, that is why you see the author's claims duplicated on those sites. I sympathize with the contributors of this article, it must be a discerning task to separate home-grown from notable clients. I love this client, and could not find one review from an authoritative site. KymmyD (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw ad and promo packages, but no language that requires payment for editorial reviews. Since such information might be behind multiple pay- or login- walls, screenshots uploaded to, say, http://imgur.com would be helpful. --Lexein (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have "thrashirc reviewed by" in my Google alerts and was surprised when it delivered this today software informer on the page is "Reviewed by: Ciuta Ciprian" KymmyD (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It's not a substantial enough review on its own to hang inclusion on, and I'm an inclusionist. It does help, however, and when thrashirc is covered more widely in substantive reviews, this will be cited. Patience. --Lexein (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm the author of ThrashIRC so I want the editors/contributors to know I have WP:COI. I was asked if I knew of signed reviews, the only one I know of was on ircresource.info and the site no longer exists. But, they still have Twitter and Facebook pages. You can see the tweet of the review [5] on date 13 May 10 and also the Facebook post [6] same date. I'm sorry that's all I have :( AnthonyThrash (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for declaring. There are a couple of pages of ircresource.info at the Internet Archive. It's a drag that the site's not around, but worse that it seems, at least according to the Internet Archive to have only been around for a short time, though that appearance doesn't necessarily mean anything. I followed the Facebook link, then got the IRCresource ThrashIRC review page via the archive:
  • ThrashIRC reviewed by Solitary_Scar, 13 May 2010.
The review is kind of short, but perhaps IRCresource, its staff, and the author "Solitary_scar" can be deemed reliable based on expertise and/or by being cited by other reliable sources. I'll look into it later. --Lexein (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I added another note at the bottom. 24.225.23.147 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This comparison list of IRC clients seems to only require "verifiability" of a client to be included. I want to point out that irc-junkies.org is authoritative on the subject of IRC clients and includes ThrashIRC in their list of clients. *irc-junkies.org IRC clients — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.23.147 (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The existence of a laundry list does not necessitate that we repeat it. That is why reviews should be substantive and explain why a specific client merits inclusion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I read this discussion a few times a week out of curiosity, which...I need to stop, because of WP:COI. I moved the above comment to this section from the Adium client section, because it was about ThrashIRC. I wonder about celebs or inventors that Wikipedia has pages on, do they try to edit their own pages much?AnthonyThrash (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Adium client is missing from this comparison

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Adium (Adium's about page) is missing from this comparison of IRC clients.

Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobNewby (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Adium is a multiprotocol client, covered by Comparison of instant messaging clients. --Lexein (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

irc-junkies.org list of clients, main page missing ThrashIRC.

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This comparison list of IRC clients seems to only require "verifiability" of a client to be included. I want to point out that irc-junkies.org is authoritative on the subject of IRC clients and includes ThrashIRC in their list of clients. *:irc-junkies.org IRC clients — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.23.147 (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(Restored deleted comment as appropriate for discussion) IRC-Junkie is considered reliable lately, but mere presence on a list at IJ isn't substantial discussion. So, we still await more reviews of the client. These things take time. --Lexein (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Pidgin does not support the irc: URI scheme

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pidgin (at least on Windows) does not support the irc: URI scheme. Does it support it on Linux? --Xerces8 (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Boldly

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've boldly added what I believe to be the general consensus about verifiability (not notability) of clients added which lack articles, just above the TOC. --Lexein (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced QwebIRC and Pchat

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Two clients have been added which are not sourced sufficiently for inclusion in this list. A single primary source (such as the author) is not enough. Clients which do not already have their own articles need two "decent" independent reliable reviews or discussions, or one "excellent" comprehensive one, describing the client, for inclusion. It's not just me saying this: we've arrived at these criteria after long, painful discussion - see the discussion archives. Please note that if WP:RS reliable sources are not found, these clients will be deleted from the list:

  • Pchat
  • QwebIRC

(Content which is not supported by independent reliable sources can be deleted at any time. Other editors watching this list do delete on sight, so I suggest getting a move on.) --Lexein (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's some sources for qwebirc:

Discussion is somewhat difficult to find, as although it is one of the most popular IRC client by user count (at least on QuakeNet, where it is only second to mIRC), qwebirc is generally only deployed by a few IRC network administrators, and is then integrated into their own website (ala Rizon), it is not deployed by the general public: they just use the website.

Some other notable organisations that I can think of that run their own qwebirc installations (or forks of it) include the W3C, Wikileaks, Wikipedia and The Pirate Party. Slug (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice start - I'll look 'em over. IRCJunkie is the most usable of the lot, but use cases are good, if they write about their experience. Mibbit being dropped? Sounds serious. Some major general tech news outlet or blog should be covering it soon. --Lexein (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Conversation IRC client missing

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, it would be nice if someone would add information on the Conversation IRC Client for MAC: http://homepage.mac.com/philrobin/conversation/ Mayhaymate (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Pidgin absence

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

They are a row on the lowest table but don't appear in any of the others. Was it removed? Shouldn't the same number of programs be in each table? Y12J (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the tables should be consistent. However, Pidgin is a multiprotocol client, so it belongs in Comparison of instant messaging clients, not here, which is primarily about solely IRC clients. Good catch. --Lexein (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

IRCjr

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

FreeDOS 1.1 comes with two IRC clients but only one is listed. IRC Junkies recently reviewed IRCjr so it appears to have references. Is there a reason why it is missing from the article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.66.188 (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

(Forgot to sign this .. either way, it's time to move past old disagreements on inclusion. -Mike) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.66.188 (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Computing platform column

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This column currently lists CPU architectures rather than actual computing platforms which should include the host operating system and possibly desktop environment, if any. The CPU architecture is probably not a terribly useful differentiator for IRC clients.

71.184.245.22 (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

References are out of sync

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not quite sure what is going on, but it looks like the references are getting out of sync at the point where the latest release references start. We need help debugging this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.66.188 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Purple background / not in development

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article says that the clients in the purple background aren't in development any longer. However, none of them are listed as purple / out of development. Can someone take a swing at fixing this? CTA MART (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I have developed a kind of allergy (hives) to editing huge, fragile tables. Feel free to help out! --Lexein (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Palaver

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

86.149.241.65 has added this client here and on Internet Relay Chat and Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients, as well as its own article Palaver (IRC client), without any independent sources; the only source cited is Palaver's own website. A quick google found no independent sources; it looks like the author of this client is trying to use Wikipedia to promote it. I think it should be removed from the list (and frankly its article wouldn't survive Prod let alone AfD), but I'll give the creator time to find some sources first. PT 17:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for bringing it up, I didn't notice it. Feel free to wait, or to delete at once. Notability cannot be established at this time. I wrote to the article creator that the article should be userfied voluntarily, rather than subjected to the obvious result of snowball delete !votes. --Lexein (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey! Check out User talk:XDAREx! Best new editor responsiveness I've ever seen - agreed to delete mainspace & work on userspace, skipping the whole AfD unpleasantness. Let's encourage this one to stick around and edit stuff. --Lexein (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Instantbird

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is an IM client (not just IRC; it uses libpurple apparently) and indeed is already in Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients, so I think it should be removed from here. Consensus? PT 20:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - I usually explain this very thing in the edit summary when removing multiprotocol clients. --Lexein (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

HydraIRC does not support UTF-8

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm using it right now, and it's not working. Yet the table says it does.72.160.92.210 (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Missed some

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Can LeafChat and hIRC both be included please? I use them. Rcsprinter (deliver) 20:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What about ClicksAndWhistles? :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.231 (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also missing: Adium, Pidgin, all the IRC clients for iOS/Android — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.150.33 (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Months ago we discussed an inclusion criteria. You need that the client is mentioned in at least one reliable third party source. Near the top of this there is a search box for the talk archives. You can search the name of the clients and see if they were discussed before. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Passive SEND is not a thing

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

But rather a collection of all reverse SEND protcols. I think it should not be included in the table. 84.80.121.130 (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? That would help justify the removal. It's been in there quite a while. --Lexein (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Opera does not have IRC anymore

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The latest versions of Opera browser do not have an IRC client. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.37.101 (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

{{partial|script}} vs {{yes2|script}} or {{unofficial|script}}

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

IMHO, the usage of {{partial|script}} should be replaced with {{yes2|script}} or {{unofficial|script}}.  — Wulf (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Off-the-Record Messaging

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just added an OTR column in the protocols table. And I created this new section in the talk page so anyone can say something related to the edit. --Arthurfragoso (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

ThrashIRC may qualify for this list

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ThrashIRC may qualify for this list with primary source http://www.thrashirc.com and secondary source http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Chat/IRC-Clients/ThrashIRC.shtml I won't add it because of COI, but would appreciate if active editors would consider sources. AnthonyThrash (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

rIRC dead

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. I can't find any information about a client named rIRC, this project may be dead. However, I have found another project with the same name and a different capitalisation ; rirc, at this address http://rcr.io/rirc.html

--Lunavorax (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

List not sortable by last stable release

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The last stable release, while readable, is not sortable by short month, day, year. Moving to year, month, day does not fix the problem unless you use a numeric month, but this is not universally readable. Any suggestions? SweBers (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC) This depends on the JavaScript for table sorting, hence Wikimedia folks. They may have this on their buglist schedule already. I recommend asking politely for status update on irc wikimedia support channel. Best of luck!

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Broken table

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The table under "Release history" has an error I can't figure out. It's pretty visible. Would someone better versed in this take a look? Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

(Resolved.) Jessicapierce (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_IRC_clients/Archive_5&oldid=1249924304"