Talk:Comparison of IRC clients

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of IRC clients article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 90 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, January 29, 2010, see discussion.
speedy keep, 4 November 2009 (UTC), see discussion.

IRC (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject IRC, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.IRCWikipedia:WikiProject IRCTemplate:WikiProject IRCIRC articles

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Please read before adding clients

A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list has not been reached, but this is the gist of what has been wrangled so far:

IRC clients added to this list must either have their own article, in which notability is established, or they must be verifiable using independent reliable sources which discuss the client. In addition to an optional primary source (the author), the client must be supported by either two "passable" independent reliable sources which discuss the client in a few paragraphs, or one "excellent" source which discusses it extensively. These inclusion criteria are the result of long, painful discussion; see the Talk archives, above.
Only independent verifiability is required for this list, not general notability(required for article topics).
Some sources have been deemed to be reliable about IRC and clients after extensive discussion; these have been cited in the list.
Examples: these clients each have two "passable" sources: DMDirc and HydraIRC.
Sourcing IRC clients for articles and this list has historically been difficult; for old clients, sources may be out of print and/or only available offline. For new clients, typically nothing is written about them in independent publications. It takes time to find sources, be patient. But please do not add a client to this list without independent reliable sources, because it will be subject to deletion.

Linking to project-space in an article (plus external link)

Hello,

It seems strange to be linking to Wikipedia:Verifiability in the lead of this article; therefore, I'm going to remove that link. There's also a link to someone's personal website in the list – especially considering no other item in the list has an external link, I'm going to remove that too. Please let me know if you object to either of these changes here. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

xdcc in ircii

ircii had the original xdcc script authored by some idiot whose name slips me 158.59.127.130 (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adiirc irc-client missing from the page

Adiirc irc-client is missing from the page, here's the homepage of the client: https://www.adiirc.com/ . Earg (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adiirc is not missing, it fails the selection criteria for inclusion. For starters, it has no own article on the English-language Wikipedia. Without such article, it can not be included. Sorry. The Banner talk 23:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removals by Pppery

User:Pppery Could you please explain why you are massively removing content without prior discussion? Wikipedia is not a top site. If a given client went unmaintained, but was originally meeting the notability criterion, it should be moved to a separate section perhaps. -bkil (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD? Prior discussion is not required to remove content. And nothing was originally meeting the notability criterion - notability is not temporary so something that is not notable now never was. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of notable packages, as defined in having its own article on the English language Wikipedia. I see no reason to object against the removals by Pppery. The Banner talk 18:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just start with a concrete question. "HydraIRC" is mentioned in the banner as an acceptable inclusion. Why was it deleted then? -bkil (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't see the banner before making my removal and instead independently came up with The Banner's criteria of requiring a standalone article. That banner is a decade old and I'm not sure of the degree it reflects consensus in 2024, if it ever did. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You talked about notability as the rationale behind your removals, while the banner elaborates: "IRC clients added to this list must either have their own article, in which notability is established, or they must be verifiable using independent reliable sources which discuss the client. In addition to an optional primary source (the author), the client must be supported by either two "passable" independent reliable sources which discuss the client in a few paragraphs, or one "excellent" source which discusses it extensively. These inclusion criteria are the result of long, painful discussion; see the Talk archives, above. Only independent verifiability is required for this list, not general notability(required for article topics)." So, could you reconsider now and revert these changes, after reading through the banner and consensus formed on past discussions as per the archived talk pages? -bkil (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I am not bound by discussions over a decade old and I think that decision was wrong. And consider the more recent discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of mobile IRC clients. I think we've clearly reached the point where neither of us is going to convince the other of us of their position so further discussion is pointless. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one, I guess: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients (3rd nomination)?

And adding each and every package, will make it fall foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As long as nobody feels the need to write an article about a package, you can not judge its notability properly. The Banner talk 16:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the link I meant to use. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, "non notable" IRC clients were purged?

Ok, so the only actively maintained IRC client for DOS (IRCjr) was purged. What greater good does doing purges like this in the name of notability serve? Are the readers really better off having the less popular IRC clients hidden from them? 50.35.178.3 (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]