Talk:PhpGedView/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is this page really valid in an encyclopaedia?

Is this page really valid in an encyclopaedia? ... Just looks like advertising to me, it's a little specific.

Ditto. Tom 20:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

valid? what about GDBI?

Is there a policy against pages like this? Are the rules more lax when it involves open source instead of commercial products? I was going to add a page for GDBI, but I don't want to break the rules...

Ditto. The page can be improved. And perhaps phpGedView deserves an article. But in its current form, it is not a credit to the Wikipedia. Tom 20:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Notability

Instead of removing the tag, please leave it until we have the necessary sources required of WP:N, specifically multiple, independent sources from reliable sources. We're close. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged the two reviews as possibly being sources that fail WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronz is anything further needed? gioto (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the help. It's much improved.

However, we only have one independent source, and that is disputed. It's listed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Linux.com. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Added the review by Eastman back in that you removed? It is an external reference? I do not believe Eastman is part of the Phpgedview project? gioto (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

But it is a self-published source, so I don't think it's appropriate to use. --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have added an alternative reference from another persons blog. Also found this other review [1] that I have not added.gioto (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

added the above review to the article. gioto (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Another self-published blog, correct? --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the result from WP:RSN was that Linux.com is a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Past security issues with phpgedview

For this article should we also mention the security issues that have occurred [2][3] and that in the past phpgedview has been targeted [4] SunTzu Worm gioto (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

webtrees

I believe I have used independent sources and THE source in one instance. No source is from webtrees. Other programs, most "famous" being the fork of gcc, have discussion of forks on their articles.

The first source is a forum discussion on phpGedview's open discussion forum. The discussion starts off on why phpgedview can't be exported to some countries (encryption issues). The discussion continues with the lead developer saying he is quitting the project and goes on to list other developers quitting.

The second source is also a forum discussion on phpGedview's site. A person asks a question if phpGedview's development is still active. A person responds yes, tells why it's still active and then mentions webtrees.

Disclosure: I am a user of phpGedView, but not a developer nor do I know any of the developers. I have asked a couple of questions to the help forum. As a user of phpGedview, I would like to know the current status of phpGedview. Bgwhite (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion.

The link to webtrees is WP:LINKSPAM.

The sourceforge references are not reliable sources.

I've tagged them as such. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Giving ten minutes of "discussion" before reverting is not cool. Not everybody is in front of a computer all the time. You have not discussed your point, just given some links. You have reverted three times without discussion. Do not revert again until this is fully discussed out.

Why is it linkspam??? I've stated forks have been discussed on other articles. Look at gcc, XBMC, and MySQL.

Why is it not a reliable source? You didn't tag all the other references in the article too. Sorry, but relatively small software programs don't have articles in newspaper or magazines. From WP:RS, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Bgwhite (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The link to webtrees is linkspam: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product..." What else could it be? No one is bothering to hide it by formatting it as a reference, which would then be WP:REFSPAM - using citation formatting to disguise what is simply an external link added to direct readers to an external site. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The key here is "purpose of promoting a website or a product". I don't think the link is there for the purpose of promotion. It's not good to say the developers left and are creating their own fork, but don't tell what the fork is called or where it is located. At the moment I don't think webtrees should have a wikipedia article because the program hasn't been released yet. So, the only option is to link to the page. Bgwhite (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's there to promote a website, nothing else.

"So, the only option is to link to the page." We have many options other than violating WP:NOTLINK, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"Sorry, but relatively small software programs don't have articles in newspaper or magazines." Hence past discussions where I questioned the sources and notability. Note the tags were removed without reaching consensus.

If the forum notice, which I've tagged as self-published, is the best source available about the forking, then it probably is worth keeping. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's the best source I could find. I don't think it should have the self-published tag because, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:..." Bgwhite (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Conveniently, it has a link to webtrees, so using this source gets us around the need for any links to webtrees, right?

I've tagged the other reference as failing verification. It doesn't appear to verify anything in the article. Is the link wrong? --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The link is correct, but it is a three page reference. The main developer (Greg, aka fisharebest) quits on the 2nd page. Bgwhite (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That was my other guess if the link was correct. Why not just link to the specific page(s) that verify info? --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)