Talk:OmenServe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on August 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was NO CONSENSUS between Keep and Merge.

[edit] Speedy deletion

Quite notable, imho. OS has more then 1M downloads, it is widely used in most IRC networks. I would also like to notice that article is very much a work in progress. And, Frap could at least explain his opinion before slapping with "Speedy deletion". --DLX 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen a single OmenServe bot. And Polaris, etc don't have articles. Ashibaka tock 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what kind of IRC you are using. Do /list *mp3* in Undernet (biggest "real" network). Join any of the top 25 channels (biggest channels in the network). Do /ctcp version <channel name>. In all those channels, you will find that 90% servers are using OmenServe. DLX 05:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I only use ZIRC. Ashibaka tock 20:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it then - I just visited ZIRC, apparently there is no file sharing in there. In other networks, especially Undernet, IRCHighway and (less extent) Rizon, OmenServe is the prevalent file sharing script. Actually, it probably is 2nd most common mIRC script, AutoGet being the most common one.

I respectfully ask that you reconsider your request for deletion. The article may not be much at the moment, but I have unfortunately been way too busy with my real life during the last week - and I also was somewhat put off by the fact that my very first attempt to create an article in Wikipedia was slapped with "Speedy deletion" in less then 24 hours. I hope I will have time for editing it in the next few days, it should get into the state where we can remove "stub" status as well. DLX 03:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article trimming: rationale

OmenServe has only 624 Google hits: compare this, for example with mIRC, another IRC-related topic, which gets over 14 million hits, or ChanServ, which has 751,000 hits, yet has a far smaller article. Whilst OpenServe may be worth a mention in Wikipedia, it could probably be merged with other similar articles without any great loss, and the level of biographical detail in the earlier version seems to me to be possibly excessive: with or without the existence of this piece of software, do you consider that the individuals mentioned would pass the WP:BIO criteria? -- The Anome 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

DLX, I see that you reverted my trimming of this article, and invited me to discuss it here. OK, let me put it another way. OmenServe is a piece of software, and its article survived an AfD process. However, much of the present article is devoted to the life and times of Tipi, ^Omen^, ^empty^ and their IRC friends: I'm sure they're all great guys, but do you consider these biographical details notable enough to add to an encyclopedia, to a level of detail lacking in, for example, the Microsoft Windows and Linux articles?

Here's a possiblity: we split this article into two, one called OmenServe, and another called Tipi, ^Omen^, ^empty^ and their IRC friends. Then we keep the remaining rather short article about OmenServe, possibly merging it into a longer article about IRC scripting in general, and see if the rest of the biographical material, in its own article. meets the WP:BIO criteria. -- The Anome 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what is your point about ChanServ. That it has a smaller article means just one (or both) of two things: a) there is not much to say about it; b) it is a stub and needs expanding.

I do agree about history being overly detailed. Please let me think for a day or two how we could improve this - I see no point in just deleting the whole section. DLX 18:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The article (history) can be trimmed back a bit - but imo, some mention of the authors must be made,(though without the hyperbole). Lawdy 18:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree: mentioning "written by X, Y, and Z, now maintained by U and V", with perhaps a bit of background about the original morivation for writing the software should probably suffice; like other software articles, this article should be about the software, not about its authors.

To make a comparison, if the comings and goings and life events of the authors of the Linux kernel were to be chronicled to the same level of detail currently found in this article, the Linux article would be several thousand pages long, and almost completely devoted to biography. -- The Anome 09:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)