Talk:File comparison/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

This vote was for the old merge proposal. To discuss merging File comparison with the Comparison of file comparison tools page, see Talk:File_comparison#Proposed_merge_with_comparison_of_file_comparison_tools. -Barry- 11:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The "merge" proposal of Diff, FileMerge, Cmp, Kompare, Meld, Microsoft File Compare, Tkdiff, and WinMerge into File comparison was removed by User:-Barry- from said articles on March 16, 2006. I assume this qualifies as a withdrawal of the merge request by said user.

Yes. If there would ever be enough support votes, it would take too long to get them, and I don't like banners on article pages. -Barry- 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote

• Oppose. This article is about a particular file comparison utility. Diff is also especially deserving of its own article because it was the first and continues to be the most important file comparison utility. Plus, the very first link in the article is to file comparison. Merging the articles would serve no useful purpose but to make the information about diff less accessible. Nohat 18:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the same reasons as Nohat. It's worth noting that file comparison warrants its own article: It's the reason I started it. --Ashawley 19:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support -Barry- 07:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. One article is about file comparison, the other about diff. It's very possible to use other tools than diff to compare files, and on the other hand diff is so widely used, and we've got so much about diff, that it clearly warrants it's own article. Therefore, we need two, separate articles. Shinobu 15:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  I just noticed that this isn't only about diff... I'd say, every program about which we can write at least one full paragraph deserves its own article, but of course there always remains the question of where to draw the line, I suppose. Shinobu 15:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. In general, I believe that individual programs, should they be sufficiently notable, should have their own articles rather than being merged into the article on their software function. I'd be happy for small stubs to be merged in here. This might include Apple FileMerge, Meld (software), and Tkdiff. Others should stay separate.-gadfium 06:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure. Wouldn't it clutter the destination article? Shinobu 14:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not just about diff. I'd like to forward several article titles that are in the See also section of the diff article to the File comparison article, and I'd like to rename/forward File comparison to Differencing because code could analyze the difference between just part of a file or data from a database, as opposed to doing file comparison, and that's essentially the same topic.

The merge would also make quality control and consistency (with See also, External links, etc.) easier, and there would be a tendency to keep write-ups about each differencing tool to approximately equal size and a bit shorter than if each had its own article, which would enable write-ups about commercial software products that are just as important as the various forms of "free" software, without making them seem too much like ads.

It would also assure that someone watching this one page would see what new products were added. Some of the people who watch for new software related articles would hopefully prevent a new one about another diff tool and instead guide the person who created the new article to this all-encompassing article.

An index to different tools would be on top so someone looking for a list of available differencing tools wouldn't need to go to the bottom for the External links or See also section. -Barry- 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The "File comparison" article should not be renamed to "differencing".

It's quite common for software packages to have their own articles on Wikipedia. It's a good practice for numerous reasons. --Ashawley 16:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Since this turned into a vote, isn't there some place on Wikipedia to advertise that there's a vote so more people will participate? I think there was a "How you can help" section, or something like that, that linked to votes in progress. -Barry- 12:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue about that, but can't you see the merits of an article for every software package? Oh, and don't ever put the word free between quotes like that. Shinobu 18:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If we keep a separate page for those products, I'll have to consider creating a separate page for my web application DiffNote even though I think it's too minor a product for that. It belongs in this article, but giving DiffNote its own webpage would open the door to articles about equally minor products, including commercial ones, since whether something makes a profit for someone has no bearing on whether it's encyclopedic. It would be justified for DiffNote to have its own article because a link to it belongs in this article and for consistency it shouldn't be the only product without its own article, but that reasoning wouldn't be seen by people with other minor products. They'd see a page for DiffNote and create a page for their equally minor, possibly commercial product, and there are tons of products like that.

It's all too messy with separate articles. Too messy to navigate, keep consistent, keep relevant, and keep a NPOV. I don't think this article would be too long if all related products were described here. In fact, I think it should be Wikipedia policy that if feasible, each writeup of a particular product that's distinguished by brand or author, especially if it or competing products of other brands or authors might be commercial, be included in the single broader, most closely related article as opposed to being given its own article. The writeup could include links to other articles that describe particular aspects of the product, but the writeup of each individual product within the broader article should be kept to approximately equal size.

I took another look at the article on Diff to see if there's too much information for it to be included in the File comparison article with other products with equally long descriptions. I don't think so. The sections See also and below wouldn't be part of the product's writeup. They'd be included in sections of the same name on the bottom of the File comparison article. In other words, each product wouldn't have its own See also section within the descriptions of the products. Each product wouldn't have its own Contents section within the product descriptions either. The length of the examples can be cut in half. In addition, the Normal output and Unified output examples could be shown side by side in their own dotted-line boxes. The paragraph about Project Xanadu can be replaced with a link to [Project Xanadu]'s article, which could probably be included in an existing sentence about Diff's beginnings. Allow Diff's writeup to be just a bit longer than the others, and I think we'd have a reasonably sized, easy to navigate page.

-Barry- 00:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I found that page for advertising surveys. Wikipedia:Current_surveys. -Barry- 09:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Comparison of text editors? You could start an article, Comparison of file comparison utilities. That way your need to publicize your own and other software packages doesn't get in the way of others organizing and writing good articles. --71.254.9.64 07:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This article contains only four sentences. If a Comparison of file comparison utilities is created, it should be part of this article, and I'd still want a full description of all of the utilities in the article, but it wouldn't be as important. TextMate is one of the text editors in the comparison, but its own article doesn't include a link to the comparison. That's the kind of thing I want to avoid. Plus, the article is a stub, which it wouldn't be if it were combined with others. Also, there are 42 text editors and only nine file comparison utilities. I'd probably put all of the text editors in one article, but it's much easier with the file comparison utilities.

I was just looking at the list file comparison utilities that I want to describe on the same page. The list is derived from those mentioned in the Diff article. They should all have been listed in the File comparison article too, but they're not. That's another example of the inconsistency problem. If there were a single See also and a single External links file that's included in the article of each file comparison utility using Javascript or SSI, it would be easier to update. If you click "edit" for that section, you'd be taken to the shared file, and the edit window you'd get from the "Edit this page" link would contain a comment at the bottom to say how to edit those shared sections. Until we have something like that, we have to use other means to have consistency and to make sure readers know about related information.

As for my need to publicize software, my need is one and the same with Wikipedia's need when it comes to my edits here, and my ideas will likely result in a shorter writeup for my product than if I were to create a separate page for it. If there was a separate article for my product (which is free, by the way) I'd make sure that a link to it is included on all of the relevant pages, so my desire for an infrastructure that prevents missing links is a desire to give other products proper mention at least as much as mine. -Barry- 08:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Stubs happen. That's why they are tagged as such and suggested to reader that they "can help Wikipedia by expanding it".

If you'd put all the articles on text editors in one article then you are really not going to reach a consensus with a majority of people on Wikipedia.

If some articles aren't mentioned in file comparison article and you believe they should, then that's an argument to put them there and not create an entire page about them. Maintaining consistency is done by reviewing articles, not by making stand-alone or combined articles. Some articles are longer and shorter because of their notability, and some articles may not exist at all. That's because Wikipedia:Notability is recognized here. That's a good thing.

If many of your preferences are motivated by your need to advertise your own software package then you may want to step away from editing these articles on Wikipedia. I appreciate that you wish to give fair play to your and other related software packages, and to limit the emphasis you'd put on your own software package in your edits. The fairness doctrine you are prescribing doesn't exist for an encyclopedia. Some software articles are going to be longer than others because of their influence, historical legacy and notability to garner edits. I think its a credit to Wikipedia that a stub article even exist for TextMate. It wouldn't seem notable enough for me to even mention. Wikipedia is not a Web directory. --64.223.93.219 13:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I proposed a file comparison infobox here, and there's more discussion about it here. People should know their options. -Barry- 08:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed descriptions

I've severely trimmed most of the descriptions (using the "blunt axe" method) because most of them just said "compares and merges files". If some piece of software has a peculiarity or selling point, is part of some larger distribution, etc. that might be okay to mention. Still, I would advice to keep descriptions short. Bye, Shinobu 09:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Where to list DiffNote

Regarding this edit summary, DiffNote IS free. It's not "Free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation [which] is software which can be used, copied, studied, modified and redistributed without restriction" but it's free to use. The definition used by that "sociopolitical free software movement" isn't the universal definition. If you want to specify the kind of freeness, go ahead, but don't separate it so far from the other free tools, unless you include a see also link, which would be ugly.

I don't know what part of that page on headings you want me to read, but I know you're ruining the usability of all of the file comparison articles and making it harder for people to get information with your recent reversions of my edits, assuming you're same anonymous guy. -Barry- 07:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If that section was meant for free-as-in-beer software, the other section wouldn't have been called "Proprietary software". As long as you can't use the source freely (as in freedom) it's proprietary, so it should be under the heading "Proprietary software".

I also note that the headings don't properly follow the MoS directives, and have an unnecessary sense of ambiguity. I'll fix that.

If we accumulate enough proprietary software that is gratis, you could make a subsection for freeware. Or maybe I'll do that too. Shinobu 08:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I may have reworded things to your liking as you typed that. -Barry- 08:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case I'll check the history, because I have been working on the article at the same time... Shinobu 09:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do much anyway. -Barry- 09:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I found it... that was the "including free-to-use webapps not for download". I've changed that to the section heading "Web applications".

DiffNote is the only link that doesn't link to a Wikipedia article. Others without Wikipedia articles are linked to nonexistent articles. Is that an oversight, or is DiffNote the only one that's not worthy of its own article? Personally, I'd remove the links to nonexistent articles, but if not, I'd have DiffNote link to one too. -Barry- 10:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not an oversight. Redlinking articles is very common, and considered an encouragement to start the article in question. If I'm not mistaken there's also a trick to get a list of redlinks, but I don't know how. Of course redlinks of questionable notability can be removed. Shinobu 12:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge with comparison of file comparison tools

Barry wants to include the huge tables in comparison of file comparison tools here. I think that would be a very bad idea because it would just clutter this article. It's neater the way it is now, having a separate article that people who are "shopping" for a file comparison tool can read, while still keeping the article clean for those who are not quite that interested. Shinobu 12:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The current lists of tools in this article should be replaced with the more detailed tables in comparison of file comparison tools. This article would be barely longer than comparison of file comparison tools. This article would consist of the four sentences currently at the top, and the more detailed list of tools at the bottom would still be easy enough to use if you want just a list of tools rather than all of the extra data, but the extra data would be there for those who needed it without having to go to another article. Also, the detailed list currently in comparison of file comparison tools wouldn't have to be kept in synch with the simple list in this article because there would just be one article. -Barry- 21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This idea never caught on. Deleting the proposal. --69.54.29.23 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Axing link database

This page is hideously strewn with external links. Wikipedia is not a link database. People may think the links are useful, but they get in the way of those looking to read an encyclopedia article about file comparison. I've tried improving the article by mentioning notable packages in the prose. Some I've kept in the "See also" section. The rest I've cut. Such external links still exist (duplicated themselves) at comparison of file comparison tools, anyway. If they're not covered there, they can be added there. If there are other notable comparison tools they sould be added, put them in the "See also" section.

Perhaps this article can earn some respect back and get back to describing file comparison with real references. --71.161.216.8 04:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

accuracy

This article currently claims "While algorithmic methods are very accurate indeed, nothing is ever as accurate as byte-level comparison. However, one must trade off speed for this type of accuracy. ... When one wishes to compare binary files, byte-level is probably best. But if one wishes to compare text files, a side-by-side visual comparison is usually best."

This seems to be incorrectly confusing a choice in one phase of file comparison with a choice in another phase of file comparison:

• Checking whether *any* differences exist between a file on a local computer and a file on a remote computer. Sending only a MD5 (as in the rsync protocol) or SHA-256 hash function is much is faster (over a slow communication link) than sending every byte in the entire file. However, there is an extremely small chance that MD5 or SHA-256 might incorrectly indicate that two files are the same when they are actually different.
• Displaying differences, if any, to the user. Showing side-by-side comparisons of the text in the file is great for text files, but not immediately meaningful for other kinds of files.[1]

Let me call the first choice "hash vs. full", and the second choice "text vs. other". (Feel free to suggest other names for these choices). The original diff tool was "full + text". Unison (file synchronizer) uses "hash + text".

Every file comparison utility uses some "algorithmic method". Does the current text implying some file comparison utilities don't use "algorithmic methods" simply incorrect, or am I missing something?

Every "full" file comparison utility is just as "accurate" as any other, whether it does side-by-side display or not. Does the current text implying that "side-by-side visual comparison" file comparison utilities are somehow less accurate than other file comparison utilities simply incorrect, or am I missing something? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)