Talk:Comparison of time tracking software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

The list could be sorted right for starters, the last entry is missorted. Some sort of standarization of terms would be useful.

Hu12 - can you explain why you keep removing mindsalt.com from the list on this article? The content is no different then most of the other items in the list. As well, the external link provides more information about the product. The other items in the list also have external links that provide the same. Is there something wrong with the way the MindSalt item was added?— 24.170.170.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on which links do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from inserting any link. Plenty of companies exist here that probably shouldn't. Equally, a lot of companies don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that "content is no different " doesn't prove that the company in question should also exist.
Your contributions, to wikipedia, using accounts Fred970 (talk · contribs), 128.159.133.103 (talk · contribs), 24.170.170.70 (talk · contribs), consist soley of adding external links to http://spam.mindsalt.com and creating Vanispamcruftisement articles such as MindSalt Corporation, and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, all seem to be mindsalt.com related only. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm nor is it a promotional vehicle. Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did [1][2][3][4]. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing. Remember this is an encylopedia. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off to mindsalt.com, right?--Hu12 21:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The wikipedia guideline WP:COI says that when there is a conflict of interest one should not add info and links about your websites, products, organizations, etc.. The safe thing to do is to discuss it on the talk page, and ask another editor to add entries, info, links, etc.. --Timeshifter 10:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] This page appears less useful that it was previously

I had to visit the discussion and find out what "Notable" was all about and how come there was no comprehensive list of time tracking software. Then I had to search through history to find the old lists. It seems to me you have ruined this page by replacing a more comprehensive list of time tracking software with a "notable" one, what ever that means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.20.172 (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Lists and charts on Wikipedia

Items on a list or comparison chart do not have to be notable in themselves. The topic of the list or chart has to be notable. See WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. The topic of the list or chart has to be specific. See again WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. A link back to the home page of an item on the list or chart is allowed just as any citation/reference link is allowed. Where people get confused is when the list drifts over into subjective analysis and reviews. Then the list or comparison chart becomes advertising or negative advertising. Then it needs to be cleaned up to remove the advertising language, reviews, and hype. This chart, Comparison of wiki farms, went through 3 deletion attempts until all these issues were discussed and addressed. I urge people to read the last deletion discussion where it was finally decided to keep the chart. Jimbo Wales created Wikia.com, a wiki farm. I found it somewhat amusing that I had to explain to wikipedians that the topics of wiki software and wiki farms are notable. Not every wiki farm on the list is as notable as wikia.com, but lists and charts do not have to have all notable items on them. Otherwise, wikipedia lists and charts would become supporters of only the largest companies with the best advertising budgets.

Freeware and open source software would be at a great disadvantage. See again WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. That guideline says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." I am sure that many people will not have heard of many of the people on the Nixon Enemies List. It is the list topic that is notable, not necessarily all those people listed.

Concerning software lists and charts: They are not shopping charts or advertising, because the charts do not discuss the relative merits of one feature versus another, nor do they discuss how well any particular program implements any particular feature. It would be impossible for wikipedia to fairly do such subjective analysis anyway. The feature columns in many charts do show the state of the art, and are thus encyclopedic in nature. Wikipedia has the necessary large numbers of WP:NPOV editors necessary to keep such charts and lists up to date, and free from advertising hyperbole. For many of these lists and charts there is nowhere else on the web that one can find such an NPOV list or chart. Few companies would want to maintain lists on their websites where they favorably discuss their competition. Few magazines have enough time or editors for maintaining such lists or charts. --Timeshifter 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WorkTime entry and link

Someone added the WorkTime entry and link. My edit summary when correcting the format of the link: "Removed red wikilink. WorkTime link changed to correct format for embedded citation. See Wikipedia:Embedded citations. See talk page also."

See previous talk section to understand more about the formatting of charts and citation/reference links in charts. --Timeshifter 22:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not what was agree'd to in the AfD. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. See WP:NOT#LINK. (Requestion 22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC))
WP:NOT#LINK does not apply to citation/reference links. No one agreed to change the wikipedia guidelines in the AfD. Anyway, an AfD does not have the authority to change wikipedia guidelines.--Timeshifter 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, you're wrong about WP:NOT#LINK. (Requestion 00:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC))
From WP:NOT#LINK: "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories." Wikipedia guidelines do not count reference/citation links as "mere collections of external links." See WP:External links. --Timeshifter 00:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're lawyering, the Wikipedia:Redlinks within reason, Bluelinks within context essay states: "if you don't intend to create an article from the redlink, consider leaving it unlinked. Excessive redlinks are discouraged in the style guide, and a cleanup tag exists specifically for this purpose." Considering the level to which this page was flooded with redlinks and external links to commercial projects that weren't covered elsewhere in the wiki, I stand by the earlier edits that were agreed to in multiple places, both in the AfD and in the discussion on the Pump that it prompted. MrZaiustalk 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I only see a few redlinks before you deleted most of the chart. Here is the version of the chart just before you did the deletion of the bulk of the chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_time_tracking_software&oldid=130227200
It is easy to get rid of redlinks without deleting the chart entries. Just remove the brackets. The other links were embedded citations. See Wikipedia:Embedded Citations. --Timeshifter 10:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most of chart deleted in May 2007

See this diff:

I did not edit this chart. But I have experience with other lists and charts. There is no wikipedia guideline (correctly applied) that allows this huge deletion of much of the chart, and almost 2 years worth of work. --Timeshifter 23:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That clean up diff was the reason why this article survived AfD with a keep. The article would surely of been deleted otherwise. (Requestion 00:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC))
No, there was no consensus before the cleanup, and it would still have survived. When there is no consensus, it defaults to "keep." It might have gone through more AfD's before people realized that your misinterpretations of wikipedia guidelines do not apply. I have seen this happen with other lists and charts that were attacked incorrectly by overzealous editors misinterpreting wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
There was obvious and plain consensus that those edits were approved of, given the shift from unanimous deletion to, after that edit, unanimous keeps, all but your own citing those edits as the rationalle. The article was thouroughly dominated by redlinks, rather than featuring one or two to articles that were likely to be created. Regardless of whether the article would have survived AfD without the cleanup, the question we need to ask is is there any reason to cover the timeclocks that aren't covered in seperate articles? Seems more reasonable to me to just create new articles for those that pass WP:NOTE and add them after the fact, as I did with the OSS one. I'd say just do the same with the other noteworthy systems. A bunch of them seemed likely to get instantly axed via template:db-web, or for obvious breach of the notability guidelines, as in the case of the emacs extensions. MrZaiustalk 01:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
See also User talk:Jasonauk MrZaiustalk 01:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said in the previous section there were very few redlinks before you deleted most of the chart entries. There was little discussion of that massive deletion. The people who initially agreed with the AfD did not respond to my points that wikipedia guidelines do not require the deletion of non-notable entries. Only the topic of the list or chart has to be notable. See my previous quotes from the relevant wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 10:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
See also this section of the talk page: #Lists and charts on Wikipedia. --Timeshifter 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, I also supported the majority opinion that having the vast majority of the entries reference time tracking systems that weren't covered in articles here and hadn't passed note check was unprofessional and a little spammy. Obviously you were a party to the discussion of the general topic, at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Shopping_Guide.3F, which came down very much on the side of limiting coverage to items of some note. Again, it is a fairly trivial matter to create a stub for those projects that have received minimal press coverage and what not. The vast majority of editors seemed to disagree with your assertion that the links in the edit you linked above were citations and not mere spam links, violating the linkfarm guideline. MrZaiustalk 13:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no consensus for your position at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Shopping_Guide.3F. In fact, your position violates the wikipedia guideline I linked to previously. Do you even read what I write here? Only the list topic has to be notable. Not every item on this list. Your edits are destructive to wikipedia. They blank sourced info and their references. --Timeshifter 10:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
However, the revision of this page that you'd apparently like to see restored isn't going anywhere. Why not try to make a case for your more general point in a draft guideline, for inclusion of everything under the sun in Category:Software comparisons articles, and see if you can get that accepted before reverting? Lord knows there's many more articles in the category that would benefit from a clear guideline, whether the consensus does or doesn't go your way. MrZaiustalk 13:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
See my previous comment. See also: Wikipedia is not paper. It would be good if more of your edits were actually creating, rather than destroying. What is your purpose here at wikipedia? To create content, or to destroy content? --Timeshifter 10:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello MrZaius, you are correct with your interpretation of the WP:RULES. Don't let Timershifter's rude comments get you down. I'm not sure if you've seen the threads at WP:EL, the village pump, and a couple other articles but Timeshifter is causing this same problem all over the place. (Requestion 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC))
Requestion is in the minority in nearly all of these discussions due to his misinterpretations of the wikipedia guidelines/policies. --Timeshifter 17:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, if I'm in the minority then why is everyone disagreeing with you? (Requestion 18:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC))
"everyone disagreeing with you." LOL. Yeah, right... --Timeshifter 06:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chart before most of it was deleted.

Here is the version of the chart before most of it was deleted:

Think of the months and years of effort down the tubes. The main editors seem to have left after this blanking. --Timeshifter 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Think of the unprofessionalism of having a majority of the links be redlinks, and of multiple entries being emacs plugins. If there's anything on there so prominent that it would warrant an article, create it and repost it to the chart. The consensus in the AfD discussion was plainly in favor of the cleanup. MrZaiustalk 14:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately User:Timeshifter doesn't think like that. If Talk:List_of_mind_mapping_software is any guide, the massive disruption will soon consume this page as well. Explaining the rules won't help. Probably best to avoid replying but that too will be an effort in futility. Many new threads will be spawned. Huge quantities of duplicate text will be copied and pasted. Discussion will become impossible. Hopefully an administrator will intervene this time around. (Requestion 15:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
MrZaius. The Afd started on May 12, 2007. Most of the article was blanked on May 13. So most people commenting did not have a chance to see the article before it was blanked. --Timeshifter 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Every vote prior to the deletion of the emacs plugins and other redlinked articles was a delete, many of which were changed to keep afterwards. My own support was contingent upon the cleanup. Only one editor other than yourself supported the articles existence without saying that the cleanup triggered support, and that editor didn't weigh in on the subject at all. Why are we still discussing this here? Again, this is a general topic that covers every article in the category. MrZaiustalk 20:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your characterization of the discussion. In any case many have been misinformed due to previous lengthy repetition by Requestion of his misinterpretations of wikipedia guidelines. He has been proven wrong in many cases in other talk pages. So past deletions of large parts of some list and chart pages based on mistaken reasoning needs to be corrected. Please stop deleting new entries. If you don't like the redlinks, then just remove the brackets. Other editors believe redlinks should be added to encourage creation of wikipedia articles. So the existence or non-existence of redlinks is no reason to delete new entries. The past deleted entries need to be returned. --Timeshifter 10:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
If you honestly believe that, then seek mediation and I'll abide by their ruling or file an RFC discussing the appropriate way for these Comparison articles to go and I'll go with the consensus. Most of the redlinks were to articles that cannot reasonably be expected to have been created, especially those two emacs plugins. Requestion had little to no impact on my decision to delete the majority of the spam from this article. To be perfectly frank, it's hard to believe we're reading the same discussions, and I do not understand why you believe there is a consensus to turn these articles into redlink-dominated directories. MrZaiustalk 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
There was no real discussion before you deleted most of the article. Redlinks can be fixed by removing the brackets. Since there was no real discussion, there is no mediation needed to revert non-guideline mass deletions. --Timeshifter 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, I and every editor other than yourself that mentioned the edit during the AfD believe your basic assumption that the redlinks and unlinked products and emacs plugins made the page a spam-laden violation of WP:NOT. If you would like to get someone from to back up that assumption and intervene via mediation, go ahead, but I believe I'm enacting the consensus of the AfD by continuing to prune such entries. MrZaiustalk 19:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect on both counts. See previous discussion. I will continue to revert any further deletions in violation of wikipedia guidelines/policies. See my user page for quotes from those list-related guidelines. --Timeshifter 19:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, please stop your relentless disruption. Talk:List of mind mapping software was rendered a wasteland, spawned an RfC, and even generated WP:WQA#User:Timeshifter. How many times and in how many forums do we have to make the same arguments? WP:PEACE out. (Requestion 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC))
I believe you need to read again about projection. As all those pages you link to point out, the problem is on your end. --Timeshifter 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we need an article, "The other editor is always wrong." Something along the lines of WP:WRONG. -- Ronz  17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is actiTIME a Free Software?

I suppose not according its license terms avaiable in its official website (http://www.actitime.com/license.html) at 3rd section.

Here goes what it says: "3. RESTRICTIONS ON USE. Licensee may not: (i) modify the Product; (ii) create any derivative works of the Product; (iii) decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code, underlying ideas, algorithms, structure or organization of the Product; (iv) redistribute, encumber, sell, rent, lease, sublicense, or otherwise transfer the Product or rights thereto.".

Please compare this with the Free Software definition at Free Software.

It seems by definition that this software is a freeware software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.12.137.206 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for digging that up - The earlier unexplained change was restored. MrZaiustalk 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)