Talk:Comparison of issue-tracking systems/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Comparison of issue-tracking systems. 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

Scope

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When I started this article, I was thinking of just ticket-tracking or issue-tracking systems, specifically to the exclusion of the more specialized bug-tracking systems (e.g. Bugzilla), which may be better treated separately. Or maybe just include them all here until the article gets big enough to split apart. —Fleminra 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Remedy

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Added a row for Remedy (very commonly-used trouble-ticketing system). Now needs to be populated with data. --69.140.157.138 04:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think BMC bought Remedy's system. At any rate, we should add BMC Service Desk Express to the list. --dsleeter 01:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a row for BMC Service Desk Exprress --ronsorrell 02:00 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I use it daily, I probably should fill in the row. --Waveclaw 02:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Issue tracking vs. bug tracking

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Most of the systems that exist till date either cater to normal issue tracking or bug tracking. Thats is why it is okay to have two categories: one Issue tracking and other bug tracking. What about the system that cater to both ([tBits] for example)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alpha0 (talk • contribs) 21:10, August 8, 2006.

I was thinking that the capabilities of an "issue-tracking" system are roughly a subset of the capabilities of a "bug-tracking" system; i.e. bug trackers are a specialization of issue trackers. If that's true, one could use any of the bug trackers for tracking "issues" (e.g. for a help desk), so all of the table rows for bug trackers could be duplicated in the issue-tracking group. Anyway, among all of these systems, I only know Bugzilla really well, so maybe that explains my viewpoint. I don't feel too strongly one way or the other. —Fleminra 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct but to certain extent. To fit any bug tracking system into another issue tracking or ticketing system, the system should support extending the fields and modifying the workflow. Which I think only few bug tracking systems support. As far as I understand Bugzilla allows configuring field and roles but not the workflow. tBits which we have recently developed is one such system allows desiging new workflows too. The core of the system doesnt have any fields and workflow. It can be configured so that it can be used in any kind of workflow management solution.

My question still remains: Should we include such systems in both the categories or should we create a separate category called "Both"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alpha0 (talk • contribs) 20:15, August 11, 2006.

As I think about it, it might be better to do away with the "bug tracker" or "issue tracker" classification altogether, and just add columns to indicate whether each product implements the features that make the product suitable for one purpose or another. E.g., it might be nice to have a column for "customizable workflow." (I believe you are correct about Bugzilla — the only way to add workflow stages is to change the source code; otherwise additional workflow steps pretty much have to be simulated using the "flags" mechanism.) —Fleminra 02:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. I don't think we need two seperate categories here, and having columns detailing a few main features (bug tracking, etc) would make it much easier to read/compare solutions. If bug tracking systems need a more detailed comparison, maybe that should be under a seperate article. —Beethoven05 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has just stumbled across this article, looking for comparisons, I think that adding an extra section 'Combined Issue/Bug tracking' or the like would be useful. Just my two cents worth. Evolve2k 22-08-2006

The more I think about this, but better I think it would be to remove dedicated bug tracking products from this article and move them to their own comparison article. Bug tracking is a specific subset of issue tracking that has its own set of features to be compared. Items which do both should be left on the list. Is this kind of the consensus that has been reached? Beethoven05 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The table has grown to become unwieldy. —Fleminra 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree: At issue: We need a customer "issue" system; if it results in a bug (high probability) then it needs to be converted into a bug. It would be nice to NOT have two different systems to perform this task. YES -- but (defect) has it's own set of requirements, however - "issue tracking" and "Bug tracking" are hopelessly tied together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.61.32.30 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Picket to ticket tracking systems

One of the main goal for Picket is to provide two way email integration. But Picket is Bug Tracker still. It is sad that i couldn't accent on Picket email integration in Bug trackers section.--Serge Matveenko (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

tBits removal

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why tBits has been removed? tBits does contain the external links but there are still others having external links and I think this place provides a great info to an end user by providing the various avaible systems at single page and this comparision proves highly useful to an individual evaluating the various products. Let the wiki not present the incomplete information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.163.239.59 (talk • contribs) 18:01, August 21, 2006.

I suppose for the same reason that the tBits article was deleted (see deletion discussion). Personally, I would let entries on comparison articles such as this one stand on their absolute technical merits and not on their popularity, but I'm probably in the minority with that opinion. —Fleminra 02:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed tBits because it was part of a pattern of edits that is consistent with self-promotion of a company. Wikipedia works best when edits are made by neutral third parties, not by editors with a self-interest in the organization. A small set of editors has been basically adding only tBits links to a variety of articles and as well as creating the deleted article. This behaviour is typical of someone attempting to promote a business or trying to improve the search engine rank of a non-notable corp and is inconsistent with the spirit of Wikipedia. The company and anonymous IPs that edit on its behalf all trace to India. Coincidence? I'm about to take an extended break from Wikipedia, so other editors here will need to determine if self-interest edits are acceptable in this article, or not. JonHarder 20:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support Flemira. This table should present various systems available in market and let the user decide which one to pick. We can have a qualification criteria. For example, a system that can not fill more than 5 columns should be removed. If we just base our judgement on google's search result, we would be killing perfect competition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alpha0 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Additional columns

Pro's to more columns: the table is more useful. Con's: the more out-of-date the data could potentially become. With that in mind, potential columns that could be added: ( - Michael 06:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC) )

As mentioned above, the "issue tracking" and/or "bug tracking" shouldn't be a separate list, but rather an additional column as to whether or not the software could be used for issues, and/or bugs (perhaps just a single column, with multiple values allowed: { issues, defects, ...?} . It's rarely bugs XOR issues.
How about a column for the home page of the software package...!?!? How could that be overlooked? I guess "googling it" truly has become ubiquitous...

-Is this still a valid question for another column? Seems to me like the information is in the System/Creator columns, where available?

Software release version (especially valuable to compare if some software is at version 7.9 vs. version beta-19, etc.)
Email Integration: Since the success of such systems largely depends on ease of use, the email integration becomes quite important. If I have to open browser and then login and then go through couple of screens just for logging a small bug "label's color need to be fixed.", I would prefer fixing the bug instead of logging it. And if I can just drop an email to a particular address, it would be a breeze. To update an issue, if I can just reply to the notification mail, it makes my life easier. Most of the systems I have used so far provide one way (means notifications) but only few provide both ways integration. In my personal experience, both-way email integration increases the productivity a lot and makes such systems quite useful. So, I added a column called 'Email Integration'.
I'd suggest a column "Appliance available"? This makes testing much, much easier and faster, since some of these systems are a female dog(...) to set up. If you then discover it doesn't suit your taste/needs/whatever, you wasted a lot of time, so being able to test (or adapt) from a running system in a virtual machine saves a lot of nerves.

More about additional columns

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here's another comparison chart, with some different ideas about what columns are important.

http://geekswithblogs.net/flanakin/articles/CompareWebTrackers.aspx

I added the column "Unicode Support" to this article.

Ctrager 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

3 more commenrcial ones

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

3 more commercial ones are listed here, i will add them when i get a chance --phalseid 14:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of the Source code revision control system integration" column

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We have looked at this table for a product evaluation. We find that the "Source code revision control system integration" column is very misleading. First "integration" can mean a lot of things and should be defined. It can be a very basic linking mechanism, or it can be a very integrated system with change set attached to bugs, approval (the code is only commited in the SCM trunk when the bug is closed, etc..). Then, practically, the information is far from accurate. For example, for Bugzilla, the integration with "CVS, Subversion, Perforce" only exist with third-party project such a scmbug, which is far from mature, and difficult to deploy. I think that this column should:

mention how the integration can be done (third-party module, integrated plugin...)
mention the level of integration it provides. Something very simple like three level (tight/loose/minimal for example) would probably be enough.

I even wonder if that column shouldn't be removed entirely. (Farialima 20:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

I wonder whether this would be possible in the existing tables at all; but it should be easy to have a section on a page discussing aspects of trackers (see below). --Tobias 16:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Added FSF's GNATS

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added a skeleton of an entry for the FSF's GNATS bugtracker. Would someone who knows more about GNATS internals please flesh it out. Frotz 02:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparison by aspects

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What does the community think about accompanying this page by a page comparing bug/issue trackers by certain aspects, possibly without using tables at all? E.g. like this:

Workflow

(Some gibberish about workflow...)

Bugzilla: has a very elaborated workflow, including verification ("VERIFIED FIXED") and different resolutions ("RESOLVED DUPLICATE")
Roundup (issue tracker): has by default (classic template) a quite simple workflow, which can be hand-tailored using so-called "detectors"
a simple fixed workflow: is used by... (list of names and/or links)

E-Mail interface

Trackers can provide the possibility to be used via e-mail clients:

Issues can be created or modified via mail
Users can be notified of changes
The tracker can answer to queries sent to it via mail

The mail interface (or mail gateway) is considered complete when it provides all features of the system.

(... maybe a table...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TobiasHerp (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

SCM integration

Some trackers provide varying levels of integration of Source Code Management systems, e.g. Subversion or CVS (... description of possibilities, and maybe a table...)

(End of example)

That way, many aspects one might be interested in could be handled without introducing a new table column each time. Of course, this would be selective, with the most information given by the most active projects/user communities, and thus automatically be more useful than two quite large lists with some entries with unsure classification. --Tobias 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the article already have email integration and workflow information? jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ubuntu launchpad

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

somehow im missing this in the list or does it not fit?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.61.216.36 (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Launchpad.net is used by considerably more than just Ubuntu. That said, neither it nor Sourceforge.net are listed here because both are services rather than applications, per my understanding. Not to say that they shouldn't be listed - the WP:LEAD is unclear on this point, although no other services like this seem to be listed or, in the current tables, compatible. MrZaius^talk 10:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this encyclopedic?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry, but I really don't think so. This would make a great webpage somewhere, but Wikipedia should not be a shopping comparison tool in my opinion. FunnyYetTasty 16:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a handful of other editors that share your views, and a fair number that believe that these articles are legitimate implementations of Wikipedia:Lists. Operating by consensus, they're not going away any time soon. My personal feeling is that there's little to nothing wrong with 'em, but the category requires considerably more effort to purge spam. See the AfD and resulting RfCs and Village Pump posts that grew out of Comparison of time tracking software. MrZaius^talk 06:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Scarab

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Scarab is issue tracking software. And it highly customizable. It also provide full unicode support and i10n. In future version and also in trunk, there is LDAP Auth compabilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.141.94 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if some one can also compare java based itracker and jtrac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.64.147.254 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Drupal modules

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Case Tracker

This module enables teams to track outstanding cases which need resolution. It provides e-mail notifications to participants about updates to cases and is similar to many issue tracking systems. This is a rewrite of the project.module and is very similar to that module but varies in important ways. The project.module is specific to software development and the need for a more generic issue tracker has been expressed. As such, the casetracker.module only includes relevant functionality, but also uses regular Drupal comments and integrates with Views, Organic Groups, Mailhander, CCK, XML-RPC, and more.

http://drupal.org/project/casetracker

Project

This module provides project management for Drupal sites. Projects are generally assumed to represent software that has source code, releases, and so on. This module provides advanced functionality for browsing projects, optionally classifying them with a special taxonomy, and managing downloads of different versions of the software represented by the projects. It is used to provide the downloads pages for Drupal.org.

http://drupal.org/project/project

Project issue tracking

This module provides issue tracking for projects created with the project module. It allows users to submit issues (bug reports, feature requests, tasks, etc) and enables teams to track their progress. It provides e-mail notifications to members about updates to items. Similar to many issue tracking systems. You can see it in action at http://drupal.org/project/issues .

http://drupal.org/project/project_issue

Drupal is open-source software distributed under the GPL ("General Public License") and is maintained and developed by a community of thousands of users and developers. Drupal is free to download and use.

--jwalling 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing:

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

GForge -> http://gforge.org/features.php

Or am I too stupid to find them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.187.98.185 (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

RT -> http://wiki.bestpractical.com/view/HomePage —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boardtc (talk • contribs) 12:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OSTicket -> http://osticket.com/

Trouble Ticket Express -> http://www.troubleticketexpress.com/open-source-software.html

eTicket -> http://www.eticketsupport.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boardtc (talk • contribs) 12:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

vBulletin with Project Tools -> http://www.vbulletin.com/features_project.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.77.130 (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Zentrack

Cleanup urgently needed on this article

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

This list at the moment consists mainly of a list of products which have not asserted notability in WP articles, or been deleted following an attempt at an article. Out of 83 entries (including one duplicate), only 23 have an article. At the moment this is masked by the use of external links for ~~all~~ most product entries, and these product links are often duplicated in the creator column. In the issue tracking section:

ServiceCenter: deleted four times
SupportSuite: deleted for blatant advertising
Support Fusion: deleted for non-notability following discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Support Fusion;
SupportSuite: deleted for blatant advertisin
SysAid: deleted twice for blatant advertising;
VisionProject: deleted twice for blatant advertising and non-notability

In the bug tracking section:

AceProject: deleted for non-notability following discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/AceProject
Axosoft OnTime: deleted for non-notability following discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Axosoft OnTime
BugAware: deleted after uncontested prod
BugSentry: deleted as vanity page
Bugzero: deleted for blatant advertising
DITrack: deleted after uncontested prod
ETraxis: deleted twice for blatant advertising and non-notability
FogBugz: deleted for blatant advertising
Projistics: deleted three times for single-link content and prod
NetResults Tracker: deleted for copyright violation
TrackStudio Enterprise: deleted for non-notability
Unfuddle: deleted for non-notability following discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Unfuddle
VisionProject: deleted twice for blatant advertising and non-notability

My two attempts to clean this up have been reverted, so I'm bringing the discussion from the edit summaries to the talk page where it belongs. If the products are notable, then they deserve their own articles, or at least a redlink placeholder until an article get written. But at the moment this is sort of an Issue Tracker Elephants Graveyard, where deleted tracker articles go to die. It'll need a good scrub to turn it from a link farm into a WP article. Technobadger (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the policy that states that every piece of software in a software comparison article must be notable? In fact, I've seen suggestions that articles on non-notable topics be merged into other articles instead of deleted altogether, which suggests the reverse - that an item does not have to be notable to be discussed.—greenrd (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true that Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. But this isn't a case of some non-notable content added to a list of mainly notable content. In fact, the reverse is true here: 83 items, of which only 23 have demonstrated notability.

It's mainly the external links that I'm objecting to. Redlinks to products whose notability is as yet unproven would be better than what's here now, in fact I tried that in these edits yesterday, and they were immediately reverted. Technobadger (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "83 items, of which only 23 have demonstrated notability". Those are very precise numbers. Could you define what criteria you used to make that determination? I wonder if, if you specified your criteria, I could then go through the list and pretty much pick the same 23? Ctrager (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm broadly in favour of deletion of almost anything from a list which doesn't have its own article. If you're feeling generous, make them redlinks instead, but you've got my support for just deleting them. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaced external links with wikilinks. Some of the remaining redlinks should be re-evaluated for notability, especially the entries above which were previously determined to be non-notable. Technobadger (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding being "broadly in favour of deletion of almost anything from a list which doesn't have its own article", that seems to imply that the authority for determining whether something is notable is... Wikipedia itself. Huh? Wikipedia's determines notability based on... Wikipedia articles? Ctrager (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am the guy who twice reverted the destruction of the external links, and I'm going to do it again. My understanding of the WP guidelines is that are open ended enough to support the inclusion of the external links. So, why then choose to be destructive? Who gains by that? Why destroy information that people are finding useful? How about a constructive solution? How about adding another column for the wiki link? Not only would that be a non-destructive solution, it would also help visually distinguish the so-called notable trackers from the so-called non-notable trackers.

Speaking of notability. What constitutes notability for issue tracking software? (And don't use the existence of a Wikipedia article about the tracker as evidence - that would be tautological). Bugzilla is historic, venerable, but besides that, what? FogBugz is kind of notable, because Joel is notable. "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence." How does one apply that to bug/issue tracking software? What sources? Slashdot?

This WP page is just a chart. It's not an article. "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". Nobody is breaking a rule here by adding less familiar trackers to list with external links, so please stop destroying information.Ctrager (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug_tracking_system, which links to this page, lists links for exactly two systems: Bugzilla and....Jira. What makes Jira so "notable" as compared to, say, Mantis, Trac, FogBugz, or even Sourceforge?Ctrager (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ctrager, would you by any chance be Corey Trager, author of BugTracker.net, as externally linked in Comparison of issue tracking systems#Bug tracking systems? A quick browse through Special:Contributions/Ctrager indicates that you are chiefly interested in bug tracking systems, and in BugTracker.net in particular. The last time the matter of your linking to your own product site came up, in User_talk:S.K.#Edits_in_Bug_tracking_system_article, your understanding of the guidelines on external links seems to have been in line with mine. Why the different stance on this article?

No, there are no hard and fast rules being broken here. Wikipedia mostly works by guidelines and consensus, and the best use of external links is rightly a matter for ongoing debate. But your latest reversion has turned this article back into a spam page, a list consisting of three-quarters products which offer no evidence for their notability. Using the continued existence of a WP page as supporting evidence for notability is not tautological, though using it as an exclusive rule would be. When articles are deleted, the resulting redlinks normally get removed from other articles (though I tried to leave them alone here). This makes their existence a useful rule of thumb for notability, on the understanding that non-notable content will slowly get weeded out over time. Conversely, their prior deletion, and especially multiple deletions for non-notability, is useful evidence indicating non-notability. Using external links to bypass that process seems unfair.

There seems to to be a WP:Conflict of interest here. Technobadger (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested in bug tracking system. I would think that most contributors to WP articles are people who are especially interested in the topic that they are contributing too, right? Regarding conflict of interest, first of all, I'm campaigning for all the links, not just mine. Second, BugTracker.NET is free and open source, so I gain nothing if people choose to use it except the satisfaction of helping somebody. It's exactly the same motivation that makes me want to keep the external links on this page: because I *KNOW* they are helping people. On my website, I provide information that helps people learn about other trackers. I have even published glowing reviews of other trackers, like FogBugz, for example. What you call a conflict-of-interest, is simply... interest. I am interested in this topic. And I am interested in helping people. Can you see the difference between conflict-of-interest and interest?

I have NOT created a WP article about my own tracker. That would be a conflict of interest for sure.

Please read through this discussion here and you'll find that I have written in several places asking you to explain what constitutes "evidence of notability" for an issue tracker. I'm asking again. Teach me how I can evaluate an issue tracker and determine whether it is notable or not. Your claim that the existence of an WP article *IS* evidence of notability begs the question, what is the evidence of notability that allows that article about an individual tracker to exist in the first place, so it is a tautology for a WP article to use the existence of a WP article as evidence of notability. Imagine WP with no articles about trackers, and somebody tasked with creating a list of notable trackers. How would that person go about it? Using what sources? What criteria?

Finally, what is wrong with the constructive solution I proposed of adding an extra column so that there could be both the external and WP links? Ctrager (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've created an article for Debbugs, and I'll now write an entry for BugTracker.NET, as I think it's notable. Feel free to expand it with as much WP:NPOV material as you've got, and I'll try to keep adding to it. If we're wrong, then it will get deleted. I'll be sure to include external links there. Technobadger (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the BugTracker.NET article. Still, you haven't answered my question about how one goes about determining notability for an issue tracker. Also, I still don't agree with your personal interpretation of WP policy regarding this page. This page is not really an article, it's a list, meant to be useful. Maybe the whole page doesn't really belong in WP, but it's not hurting anybody and I'm just not wired to be destructive. I know this page - with the links - helps people and that matters to me. Again, adding an additional column seems like a win/win, so could you please at least comment on that proposal? Ctrager (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop repeatedly reverting my edits while we're discussing this, and especially stop reverting with blank edit summaries.

Please stop replacing wikilinks like Rational Software and Debbugs with external links.

Please stop accusing editors you disagree with of "choosing to be destructive". An edit you disagree with is not "destruction".

Please stop asking me to define precise rules for notability. There are obviously no hard and fast rules for notability, and you seem to be asking in an attempt to prove that all non-notable content that you happen to like is therefore OK here. It isn't. Please re-read WP:Notability. If you can find any supporting evidence for a product's notability, then cite it. I have demonstrated a reasonable example of citing sources supporting notability when I created BugTracker.NET yesterday: please have a look at that. It only took me an hour to create the article and find those supporting sources.

This will have to go to dispute resolution, if you insist on starting a pointless edit war. Technobadger (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Some (maybe) final words.

Sorry about the blank edit summaries. That's carelessness and inexperience on my part. (Wouldn't it be better if WP made it a required field?)

You deleted information that I and many others took the time to enter into WP and that I and others have found useful, helpful. It's not an accusation; it's documented in the history of this article and in references to this page that others on the web have made. I restored what you deleted, and then you deleted what I restored. I don't question your motives or integrity. Maybe the consensus of WP editors would agree with you.

Regarding how to establish notability for an issue tracking system, I kept asking because nobody answered. I don't see what's wrong with asking? The dispute resolution policy you refer to encourages exactly that kind of discourse. I did look at the sources you used to justify the notability of my own tracker and I mentally tried to abstract your choices into some guidelines one could use to apply generally. The following is not meant to be critical of what you wrote in the BugTracker.NET article. I think you did a good job. But, here were my thoughts when reading the references: 1) A irony is that one of the references is Secunia, listing some security vulnerabilities in my tracker. So, if I had been a better programmer, my tracker would escaped notice by Secunia, and would thereby be less notable. Luckily, I'm a sloppy programmer. 2) Another reference mentions integration with CruiseControl.NET. I was unaware of that work and I've never used CruiseControl.NET. 3) Another reference is from a some blogger (a couple dozen bloggers have written about my tracker). That makes me think that notability is kind of like a human version of Google page rank: Number of links weighted by the perceived importance of the sources?

The WP policy on notability applies only to the existence of an article, not the content of an article. And this "article", this list of issue trackers, is a very strange article. One could argue that as a whole, it doesn't belong in WP. But, since it is helpful, I have no desire to destroy it for the sake of strict adherence to WP policy. The fact that it's useful and helps people is meaningful to me personally. Ctrager (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of systems

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

The article includes plenty of entries where both the vendor and the system itself are redlinks (or, even worse, external links). The general rule for articles like this is that all entries should have a Wikipedia article; a minimum requirement should be that either the software or the vendor should have an article. Leaving the entries as they are for a bit to allow people to weigh in. --Bonadea (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey I like how this works. Some editor tags an existing article about a piece of good software for "speedy deletion", such as, say, Eventum, an open source issue tracking software, citing the policy about "notability" - while apparently being oblivious to the fact that the policy specifically states that it does not apply to articles about software - and so the article vanishes. And then here for the issue tracking software comparison we have people saying "The general rule for articles like this is that all entries should have a Wikipedia article; a minimum requirement should be that either the software or the vendor should have an article." Isn't this what's called a self-fulfilling prophecy? Clearly there is some sense of order that needs to coalesce out of the conflict of what belongs and what doesn't, but following catch-22 rules on the basis of ignorance is not the way to do it people. Greeneto (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of removing all entries that do not have an article. One of the main purpose of a list is as an overview towards navigation. A list containing red links does not provide the reader a way to find further info. Direct external links are just asking for spam, so the best way is to link to internal articles. I'm strongly in favour though of software having it's own article, although there are those who like to delete software, as has evidently happened to a lot of articles on this list.

A further problem with a comparison such as this is that none of the data is cited. With not even any internal articles to follow up, the data is unreliable.

As the guidelines say, However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space.

I've been removing red links from other comparison/list articles, but will wait for further feedback here, since it seems people have tried in the past and been reverted with this particular article. Greenman (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm for removing all entries that don't have their own articles, per WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No other comments, so I'll start removing some non-notables, starting with the most obviously non-notable. :) Greenman (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative, I endorse it fully. This article is verging on uselessness with all the non-notables. Haakon (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Your 'cleaning up' of the articles have removed a lot of useful content. While I appreciate that you don't personally care about anything that doesn't sell a million copies a year, the rest of us do. A lot of the systems you removed bear mention in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.29.169 (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My personal likes and the sales volumes don't matter that much. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia primarily for the benefit of its readers, and the guidelines state that entries should be notable. Greenman (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)