Talk:Ntfsprogs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Tags

Why do you object to a notability tag being on the article? The idea is to have the article tagged with things that will potentially draw in other editors to help improve the article. If you felt so strongly about it I can't help but, wonder why you didn't address the issue on the talk page when you removed it the first time. The two "non-trivial" articles look more like press releases than independent articles. Which tags would you as the author and main contributor prefer I use to help get others to improve the article? Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A challenge based on WP:N is inappropriate--the citations meet the criteria of being significant (directly about the subject), reliable secondary sources (in a magazine that publishes independent reviews & has been used elsewhere to provide citations for computer-related subjects), and are independent (not written by me or by ntfsprogs authors).

The articles are not press releases & I have no idea why you think they "look like them." They were written as part of a regular column in Personal Computer World, which is an established magazine that is relevant to computer-related topics. Did you read the full articles, or just the directly linked clippings? Unfortunately, I don't think PCW is online for free & you must rely on your library's online or physical subscription to read the complete article.

This meets any reasonable interpretation of WP:N and would meet other criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (software) if it were active (as ntfsprogs is included by default in many *nix distributions, is in the package repositories of others, and has been a popular and historically relevant way of having NTFS support on *nix).

If you want to challenge the citations, please demonstrate that they aren't independent or are unreliable.

--Karnesky (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken--the articles are online & I've put direct links to them. --Karnesky (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that no "challenge" was/is in anyway intended. I am sorry you saw the placement of the improvement tags as a "challenge". I AGF'd and placed tags that I hoped would help to draw other editors in to improve the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see the initial placement of the tag as a challenge. I didn't even think the second placement of the tag was a challenge (although I had added references & this stub was already better at meeting WP:N than many untagged articles, including the two (untagged) articles I based this on). But the third and subsequent times this tag was added & describing the articles cited as "like press releases" (without showing how they might be unreliable or non-independent) is what struck me as a bit silly.

I agree this article could be improved--that's why I marked it as a stub & why I have left the expert tag up. But I think that the subject matter is notable and that the citations I have included help to establish that notability. --Karnesky (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)