Talk:Zen Cart/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Zen Cart article should be definetly present in Wiki, as well as OsCommerce, CRE Loaded, and others of this kind

Osc4you 17:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Contents

Is this really encyclopediac?

If you look this over some of it looks more like a promotion then a part of an encyclopedia. --204.116.124.117 18:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in any way affiliated with this product - but it is recognised as being a major product and I came to the entry to see if I could learn more (It was too weak in this case). However the wiki is going to get very thin and useless if zealots remove all commercial products and brands (e.g. go through deleting the pages for BMW, IBM, Concorde etc). This sort of thing has happened in some sections already - e.g. DRM --217.44.249.224 08:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We should start a wikibook on installation and configuration (comment added by 70.181.37.188 02:06, 27 August 2006)


Zen-Cart is an essential part of HUNDREDS if not thousands of ecommerce websites. Do not delete this article. --SpyderCanopus 07:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear the disadvantages of Open Source carts are compared to off the shelf products - ie why should I pay when i can get zencart for free

It is simply a question of whether your time has a value. If it has then no software is 'free' - - some just don't have a license fee. --217.44.249.224 08:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Mikkalai, what on earth is your problem with Zen Cart "notability"? Do a simple Google search, "Zen cart" (with quotes) gives more than 2.8 MILLION hits! Thats more than, for example, both "Microsoft Exchange" (2.1 million) and "Microsoft Outlook" (2.4 million). Ever heard of those? Rule.rule 19:32, 7 Sept 2007 (UTC)

This is not "my problem". This is "your problem". If you want this article on wikipedia, please follow wikipedia rules. In is your job to select from these millions of hits some rerefences from reliable sources that say why this software is important. From this article I cannot see why this piece of code is any better than some random college project. `'Míkka 21:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several articles on the subject mentioned in the external links section and two books. To me this proves that this is more of a Míkka's problem. The question is why. Let's see Wikipedia turning into another dmoz.org with a bunch of opinionated editors imposing their opinion on others. No offense, Míkka, but this is how it looks. Random college projects don't have support forums with half a million posts and tens of thousands of users. Your reasons for questioning Zen Cart notability do not withstand any criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyrylkov (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Two books" are user manuals from what I can guess. Kyrylkov, why don't you put your keyboard where your mouth is and actually write an article text which proves the notability? So far all this rant in the talk page looks like as angry powerless bitching of a disgruntled owner pissed off with the percieved obstruction of the promotion of its pet soft. Please keep in mind that if I thought that the tool is worthless, I'd nominated it for deletion long time ago. Instead, I am only withstanding your childish revert war. Why don't you just do what is requested? `'Míkka 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see you have a nice and adequate vocabulary and ability to prove your point of view with a set of balanced arguments without getting personal. Thank you almighty for not deleting the article. How do you wish me to thank you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.36.23 (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Article protected from editing because of persistent deletion of the content warning tag without fixing tthe problem with the article, according to the warning in the article comment. `'Míkka 21:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The article will be unprotected if and when someone demonstrates a commitment to expand the article to explain the notability of the software basing on references to reputable sources. `'Míkka 17:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's notable. The Wikipedia notability guidelines state these criteria:
Significant coverage - yes, two books by independent publishers. Calling them 'user manuals' is obvious, as this is a piece of software. You can't expect a philosophical tract on the topic.
Reliable sources - yes, two book publishers, as well as multiple cited sources not affiliated with Zen Cart
Independent of the subject - Yes, as stated above.
Mikkal, you seem to have been alone in your attempts to delete this article. Judging from the discussion here, most contributers are fairly convinced of the topics notability. I fail to see why this is being questioned, and why this article is being protected.
Red herring, false statement. Where the heck you got the idea I want it deleted? `'Míkka 03:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if I got it wrong - the warning you added does say though that 'if notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion', and that threat is probably what's got people upset. Greenman 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Finally, Wikipedia principles are about free sharing of knowledge. Deleting something when they are a large number of contributers interested and contributing towards the topic is counter-productive. If an article such as this, clearly on a popular topic, gets deleted, it will inevitably be created again, and the work will have been lost. Wikipedia quality suffers. Rather focus your efforts on improving the article. Greenman 01:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Preach to your stubborn colleagues. I don't pretend I know the subject and will not mess with the content. My sole concern is that the artcle says not a single word which may explain why z-kart is important. It it just a brief description. `'Míkka 03:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's a weakness in the article. It may be self-evident to those involved in the topic, but it isn't conveyed in the article itself. Greenman 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Finally someone of you got some common sense. This is the whole point of my struggle here: while the product may be good, the article sucks, and the tag says "please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability.". `'Míkka 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Significant coverage" - user manuals are not "significant coverage". It is not even "coverage". If you happen to be a softw eng, you should know that user manual is part of software product (unless with all this agile programming user manuals no longer) `'Míkka 03:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
As with most projects nowadays, the user manual is available on the website. Books are normally commissioned by a publisher who thinks the topic is notable enough to gain enough readers to make some money. Greenman 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. With modern computer technology publishing itself costs little more than paper and toner, and printing glossy books are quite subsidized by the authors as a PR/advert effort. `'Míkka 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reliable sources, two book publishers - publishers are not "sources". Writers are. `'Míkka 03:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, two writers then, who were deemed reliable enough for two publishers. Greenman 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Are writers outside the zen cart team? `'Míkka 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Independent of the subject - so what? Are they reputable experts? e.g. who the heck is this kyrylkow who wrote the linkee review? `'Míkka 03:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
He seems to be someone who knows a fair bit about Fedora, Samba, Linux and development in general, as well as OSCommerce and Zen Cart. Greenman 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
the key word here "he seems". In wikipedia we need proof, from reputable industry sources, not from blogs. From his resume I may conclude he knows the stuff, but I cannot conclude that other people listen to his opinion. `'Míkka 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've requested an unprotect at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection, as I feel Mikkalai is the only editor with a dispute, and Mikkalai is also a disputing party, and suffering from a conflict of interest by protecting the page himself. Please add comments on the unprotect discussion page. Greenman 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I will unprotect the page when I see the pledge to address the requirement of the tag, which says "please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability.". `'Míkka 17:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that the article needs improvement. However, a tag that didn't threaten deletion, such as a stub tag, would have been more constructive, and probably wouldn't have been reverted all the time. That's the content issue. However, since then you have abused your administrator privileges, since you're involved in the dispute, and cannot objectively say you will unprotect it when your favoured version appears. If you're trying to improve the quality of the article, which I suspect, and thank you for, you're going about it all the wrong way, and should rather work with the community than place obstacles and make threats. Greenman 12:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I am involved in enforcing the rules of wikipedia, in particular, the one which disallows the removal of the tag without addresing its concern. The community so far played offended and did nothing but delete the tag. As I previously wrote several times, I am not an expert in the topic, and I am not going to mess with the content. It is the job of those who know things. `'Míkka 16:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Zen Cart

went to Wikipedia to find out more about Zen Cart, whats the problem, can someone explain why I can not get access to "free" information. Is this about what "free" means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.196.32 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The information has always been accessible, perhaps you didn't read below the notices at the top? Greenman 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Helpful article

While I understand pages should never be advertising, isn't there a bit of a contradiction in not being able to show how many ISPs offer this product which interferes with making the case for notability. Do we not need to compensate for this reduction of commercial, or at least free software, speech when making judgement. Doesn't popularity relate to some aspects of notability. The millions of references on Google are perhaps an alternative to show the wide popular acceptance of this product as might be the hit count on the encyclopedia page describing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.4.165 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.