Talk:Cdrtools/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Are the sections Compatible operating systems and Availability needed?

RESOLVED
There is a four to one majority in favor of deleting mentioned sections, with a consensus that they are doing a poor job of adhering to Wikipedia:Due weight and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article include full lists of operating systems and linux distributions in the sections Compatible operating systems and Availability?

Arguments

Pro

  • The information aggregated here requires manual assembly from changelogs and many web sites, and is thus useful.
  • The "Compatible operating systems" section appeared in February 2010, more than four years ago! It did not change a lot since, except that a few months ago I did a big work in adding refs for each line . That section contains valuable information and is perfectly relevant for a cross-platform software. There is no consensus for removing that section, and doing so would be censorship. Ekkt0r (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Availability" section was added on February 4, 2014, but the first attempt to censor it came from Chire on February 24th, that is, 20 days after it was created. So I explained in the talk page why this was censorship and then partially reverted the removals by Chire. On April 24, another user completely removed both the "Compatible operating systems" and "Availability" sections without any prior discussion. So I explained in the talk page why these removals did not improve the article, and then reverted these section removals. Although smaller changes did reach consensus, there is no consensus for removing the "Availability" section. Doing so would be censorship. Ekkt0r (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Compatible operating systems" and "Availability" sections do not break any Wikipedia rules. They both report true facts in a neutral way. There are no valid reasons for moving their contents to an external website. Ekkt0r (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that the number of operating systems that ship cdrtools is so negligible compared to the total number of GNU/Linux distributions, making a list of all (or most) distros that ship cdrtools requires a lot of work. This has been done, and the list is not that big, so having it in the article is definitely something that is interesting to many readers. Moreover, anyone can skip the "Availability" section or collapse its table. Ekkt0r (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The editors who would like to remove the "Compatible operating systems" and "Availability" sections have not been able to provide a single Wikipedia rule that these sections would break. These editors only give personal opinions and completely ignore that other readers have other opinions. Ekkt0r (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no valid reason for not including this section. It's informative and has a neutral point of view. I don't see a major problem. --JustBerry (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Con

  • Section Compatible operating systems:
    • Obscure: Many of them (e.g. MiNT, Apple Rhapsody) are rather obscure/historic and support is not relevant for Wikipedia. Chire (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Outdated: The information may be outdated, there is no reliable source on the last successful use; only initial support in the changelog, no secondary source that it still works (WP:Verifiability). Chire (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Section Availability:
    • Misleading: It repeats any derivative of a number of Linux distributions that include the package (and that don't maintain the package in a note-worthy way).
    • Obscure: It includes a number of obscure Linux distributions such as "SlavankaOS", "magiclinux-plus". Chire (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Benefits: It does not include version or compatibility information; only a checkmark, so it is not that useful in the end. Chire (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Outdated: Some packages are not current, so users looking for the current version may be mislead. Chire (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Undue weight: The infobox already says "Cross-platform", which is good enough for other software such as Firefox. Chire (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Maintainance: The information gets outdated, and is high maintainance as it is spread over many sites. Who will keep it updated? Chire (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Length: Removing these sections would shorten the article to a more reasonable length, and also drop 24 references and 4 footnotes. Chire (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternatives: this information should be kept on the cdrtools homepage, or a community website dedicated to cdrtools. We should then link this information page in the infobox. Chire (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Only here for the RfC. The topic and its associated squabbles do not interest me, but I have no objection to inclusion of verifiable, nonPOV info in general. However, I agree with the likes of Chire that those items that involve length and above all maintenance issues, should be collapsed, or linked, or excluded. At best they do not make for a valuable article. JonRichfield (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Note that the text in question was added after some unfriendly people started to remove other information that is definitely of encyclopedic interest, claiming that this information is not sourced. Now as the text in question containes the verification for existence of various properties, the other text cannot be removed easily. It seems to be obvious that the people who previously tried toremove the parts with definite encyclopedic relevance now first try to get rid of the verifications. Schily (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What parts exactly would be supported by these sections? --Chire (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, "Availability" is not a good name for that section ("Binary Distributions") would probably be a better one) but changing it now would only serve to increase confusion :-) . Tzafrir (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

From the Pro arguments I see the word "censorship" and I wonder what it means. I get the impression that any removal of information from an article (or this article) is considered there as censorship. Certainly this is not the meaning of "censorship". I had very hard time removing information that is (in my opinion) irrelevant to this article, and hence this RFC. Tzafrir (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Roches for your contribution. The idea of merging the list and the table sounds nice, but there are a few disadvantages: There are more GNU/Linux distros shipping cdrtools than "active" compatible operating systems, so the lines currenly in the compatible OS list would be surrounded by lines of GNU/Linux distros. IMHO this would give undue weight to many non popular distros. It would also make the list harder to parse for the (rare :-) readers who would not care about GNU/Linux distros. Moreover, the compatible OS list contains some dead OSes (which are interesting for their historical side), whereas the table in the Availability section only shows distros and OSes which are not dead. Ekkt0r (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll just note that one of the arguments in the Con is that non popular Linux distributions get an undue weight in the current table. :-) Tzafrir (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Including non pupular GNU/Linux distros in the Availability table is one of the interesting aspects of that table. Moreover, removing the non pupular distros from the table would imply a value judgment about these distros, since we would have to decide which desserve to be listed, and which do not. These distros do not get undue weight as long as they are kept in the current table with the other OSes, the only criterion being that cdrtools is available for them, either from the vendor or from third-party repositories or websites. Ekkt0r (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
No, my argument is that the whole section gives undue weight to portability of cdrecord. Many applications (such as Firefox) are portable, and only get the infobox "Cross-platform", not a complete list of OSes they have once been compiled on successfully... it presents cdrtools as a wonder of portability (and availability). --Chire (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I use Firefox, and I know it is portable. But you can't ignore that the number of platforms Firefox currently supports is smaller than that of cdrtools. So yes, cdrtools is one of the most portable software I have ever seen (after "Hello world"). Did I write this in the article? No. The article only gives a list of compatible platforms. It does not say it is the most portable software, nor does it say it is available for all operating systems. It just gives true facts, and it does so in a neutral way. Readers are smart enough to make conclusions if they want. Ekkt0r (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal to "age" ("added more than four years ago"): age of contents does not imply quality or user needs. And the lack of consensus is exactly why we're doing this process... Chire (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Although consensus can change, the fact that the "Compatible operating systems" section was added 4 years ago and did never disappear means it was considered relevant all this time. It will be hard to find valid arguments supporting that it is no longer true. Ekkt0r (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't removed, as you considered any attempt to remove it to be censorship. Tzafrir (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess I need to thank you for not having removed that section... and for having initiated this WP:RFC. So thank you! Ekkt0r (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:Relevance of content is only a guide and does not even forbid the content you want to remove. BTW, you know that. So you cannot say that the sections you want to remove do not qualify for Wikipedia. Ekkt0r (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Everything is only a guide here. There are next to no strict "rules" for Wikipedia. That doesn't mean you can just outright ignore these guidelines... --Chire (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
You finally admit that guidelines are just guidelines and that the contents I added did not break any rule. That's a big step. Thank you! Ekkt0r (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure. But if you don't follow guidelines, you should have a good reason. Tzafrir (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course I do follow the guidelines. The reason why I have to remind you that guidelines are just guidelines is that you and Chire claim I'm not following them. This is your opinion. Ekkt0r (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Skipping over tables only works in some skins - and the "hide" button is overlooked by most users. I understand that building this list took a lot of work (which essentially means it is WP:OR), but if you put the information on the cdrtools homepage, this work is not wasted, and the information is kept at an appropriate place. Chire (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Spending time on search engines to find true facts and adding these to an article is not WP:OR. You say most users overlook the "hide" button. Maybe. But this is not a valid reason for removing or shrinking the table. Moreover, collapsible tables are there exacly for these situations. Ekkt0r (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You tend to read guidelines as if they were compulsory. Regarding WP:NOTMANUAL, section "Examples of use" is not a manual. It only gives examples of basic uses. BTW, the cdda2wav is not even there (relax, I won't add that one). Many articles have similar sections. Some even provide complete descriptions for all commands and options. So you cannot claim that this article is a manual. Regarding what you qualify as link farming, there are very few links and most of them only appear in the refs or footnotes. Ekkt0r (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal to "Obscure": something that might be obscure for you might not be for other readers. Ekkt0r (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal to "Outdated": Removing lines from the "Compatible operating systems" section just because they apply to old and/or outdated and/or retired OSes is nonsense. These OSes have existed and are part of the history. Besides, I have added a shared footnote (next to each of the relevant OSes) so that no user gets confused about the status of cdrtools for these OSes. Ekkt0r (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal to "Misleading", "Benefits" and "Outdated" (in the "Availability" section): readers who decide to try a non popular GNU/Linux derivative are clever enough to figure out whether the packages provided are up-to-date or not. You should not worry for them like you seem to do. Ekkt0r (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal to "Undue weight": To most readers "cross-platform" means "Windows + OS X + Linux", so providing the full list of platforms is essential. Telling a wikipedian that he/she needs to go somewhere else to have such an important information is a lack of respect. Ekkt0r (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal to "Maintainance": You ask "Who will keep it updated?". Do you really think that, to be allowed to add content to an article, editors should first certify they will keep that article up-to-date forever ? This is ridiculous. Ekkt0r (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The section reads "The latest preview release of cdrtools compiles on the following operating systems". Such usage of present tense hints constant updating. Tzafrir (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just fixed the sentence. I hope it satisfies you. Ekkt0r (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a good start. Now let's see what information we have in this section. The text tells us that a certain version of cdrtools now builds. I have no idea if later versions of cdrtools (specifically, the one claimed in the text above) still builds. Furthermore, I have no idea if the program actually works, which is more important than a program that builds. Tzafrir (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
If you are interested in correct statements, please first change the "cdrkit" page to mention that it does not compile for "unix-like" systems but maybe on some linux distros for x86 only. If you don't, I get the impression that your primary intention is not to have correct information but rather to harm the cdrtools project. So please explain yourself. Schily (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
This is not about cdrkit, but just to give a different example: cdrkit's build status on main ports. Look also at the Gentoo page for build status. and minor ports (arm64 is still not fully functional mainly due to lack of machines). I have no idea where else to find build logs. But the FreeBSD port is being maintained (which probably means it builds). Likewise is the NetBSD package. So it certainly builds for standard recent "unix-like" systems. And then again, who cares about cdrkit? It's being phased out for libburnia.
As for your actual argument: see "Rebuttal to censorship" above. Tzafrir (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, let me repeat: I am interested to know whether you are interested in a fair report about cdrtools or whether you might be interested to harm cdrtools. In this context, it is of course important whether other articles contain false claims that try to let the related software to appear better than it is.
Cdrkit does not compile on a certified POSIX/Unix platform, so it is most unlikely that it compiles on other UNIX like platforms - in special as the problem is a dependency to non-standard Linux specifics. People who traced the "development" from cdrkit know that cdrkit replaced the mature build system from cdrtools by something self made by people who miss most needed experience for portability. Claiming that cdrkit compiles on "unix like" systems therefore can be seen as an unsourced claim or as intentional false claim.
If you compare the features of libburnia with what cdrtools delivers, you should be able to recognise that libburnia now is older than cdrtools has been in 2004 (this is when Debian decoupled cdrkit from development) you should know that libburnia still is not able to replace a cdrtools from 2004, not to talk anbout recent versions of cdrtools.
Please explain your interests. Are they to harm cdrtools or are you interested in a neutral position, comparable to what you can read about other software on WP? Schily (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe Tzafrir has not noticed that developers generally indicate in the release notes which platforms gained support and which were dropped. Maybe he hasn't also noticed that developers generally don't bother to mention operating systems which have been discontinued or retired by their vendors. Now, for cdrtools, I don't remember having seen any release notes saying that support had been dropped for a given operating system, so I guess that anyone able to give the author enough credit will come to the conclusion that this part of the article is correct. I could even say that the shared footnote I have recently added in section "cdrtools#Compatible operating systems" is obvious and could be removed. BTW, I added that footnote only because Chire was being a little bit picky. (Tzafrir started later.) Because I'm pretty sure that even the latest preview release still builds on all listed OSes, including the retired ones. Ekkt0r (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Such statements are done as the developers don't want to support such platforms. But what I state here is simpler: you give no indication that the latest version builds on all platforms. Furthermore, you give no indication that it can actually burn CDs on those platforms. I suspect some of those platforms are nowadays mostly used in emulators and/or virtual machines and don't need a CD writing package. Was it tested to actually burn properly and not just build? Tzafrir (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the article should show refs pointing to the release notes at every place where obvious statements are implicit? Links to the release notes of the latest stable release and the latest preview release (as well as to the release notes of the releases that added support for each of the platforms in the list) are already in the article. Anyone willing to check the contents of the "Compatible operating system" section can read these release notes. Regarding your remark about the old platforms, suspecting that they are used in emulators or virtual machines does not have any impact on the article. Finally, if you are trying to suggest that J. Schilling releases software that does not work, I suggest that you first try some search engines and look for problems with cdrkit (which is still the default suite on some major GNU/Linux distros). You'll notice that all users of cdrkit who switch to cdrtools declare that this switch solved their problems. Don't you think the boycott of cdrtools by some major GNU/Linux distros has already done enough harm to both cdrtools and the GNU/Linux community? Ekkt0r (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
So we're back to the usual (and unrelated to this article) "Cdrkit doesn't work", which is largely spread by Schily - you'll find him pop up whenever the name "cdrkit" is mentioned and making false claims like in the above. But if we're straying off topic and get no other responses, it means that the RfC process has not, so far, provided us with useful comments (besides a single one), and thus it has not helped, so far, to break the stalemate. I'll give it a few more days. Tzafrir (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
If you claim that I am the only person that informs people about the bugs in cdrkit that prevent people from being able to use it, you are either uninformed or intentionally lying. In both cases, you should not edit the cdrtools article. If you check the bug tracking systems from the various Linux vendors that ship cdrkit, you should know that there are aprox. 150 different bugs that exist since Debian started their fork in May 2004 and this long list of partially debian specific bugs still exists, the bugs never have been fixed. You may need to use archive.org or similar as some distros like RedHat remove unfixed bugentries from their bugtracking system. If you check the net, you will find aprox. 3 trolls that claim to have no problems with cdrkit but dozens of people that explain what problems they had with cdrkit and that all problems disappeared after they switched to the original cdrtools software. So what is your intention? Do you like a neutral WP article about cdrtools or do you like to support people that attack OSS and that caused a lot of harm to Linux by boycotting cdrtools? Schily (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Invoking the censorship card again. I have some replies to this but this issue is off-topic for this RFC. Tzafrir (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Tzafrir, you know I did not write that "cdrkit doesn't work", so please don't pretend I did. What I wrote is that users who have problems with cdrkit find that cdrtools solves their problems. Of course I know cdrkit works, but what I claim is that it does not work with all optical drives. (On my system I need to specify the device with a "dev=/dev/sr0" option to wodim otherwise it cannot find my burner, while cdrecord finds it without any option.) How can this be possible? That's easy! Optical drives differ from each other because there are several manufacturers. And even within a given manufacturer, models differ. So if you are lucky enough to own a standard and "educated" optical drive, all programs work. But if you have a buggy drive, or a drive which needs vendor-specific options (not understood by wodim), then there are chances that only cdrecord will work. This is probably the reason why so many people aren't able to understand that cdrkit does not work for a pool of users. Now, regarding the discussions in this RFC, I hope you won't ignore them just because cdrkit was mentioned, will you? Ekkt0r (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I of course also know that there are claims on the cdrtools or cdrkit article that have not been written by Tzafrir, but if I got his intention correctly, he currently tries to claim that platforms that have not been verified may no longer work. This must be seen to be unbalanced as long as there are claims for cdrkit that try to create the impression that cdrkit compiles on all unix like platforms - it definitely does not.

Regarding the bugs, cdrkit comes with a SCSI layer that has been modified by people with no clue on SCSI and Linux. This is the reason why it may not even see some of the drives. As cdrkit does not include code to deal with the modified Linux SCSI kernel interface from September 2004, some drives only work (or work decently) if you call "wodim" or "icedax" as real root. In the other cases, wodim may work in a usable way for CD media. As cdrkit ripped off the original DVD support code from cdrecord and replaced it by something half baken selfe made, many DVD drives do not work at all and as wodim does not read out media information for DVDs there is a 50% coaster rate with DVDs when using wodim.

BTW: OpenMandriva could be added to the list of distros that come with cdrtools. It is in there since a while... Schily (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the relevance of the replies of both of you, I suggest we move this article to "cdrtools vs. cdrkit". This will at least make the discussion relevant. I will not comment further on this off-topic discussion until you sum up how you consider your claims to be relevant to the topic of our discussion. Tzafrir (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Once again, the fact that cdrkit was mentioned in the discussions of this WP:RFC does not change the current conclusions. Sections "Compatible operating systems" and "Availability" do not break any rule and their contents are perfectly relevant for this article. If you don't agree with this, I'm sorry for you, but you will have to live with it. Regarding your suggestion to rename the article to "cdrtools vs. cdrkit", I guess it is just a joke. cdrkit is the fork of cdrtools, and not the opposite. So it makes sense to write about cdrkit in the article about cdrtools, especially because the developpers of this fork started a boycott of cdrtools and then stopped maintaining the fork. Regarding the columns about libburnia, these were added by 94.216.83.114. I wouldn't have added these myself, but since libburnia is going to replace cdrkit on the distros that still have cdrkit, it did make sense to add libburnia to the comparison tables. I even helped filling these columns (Δa + Δb + Δc ...). But the biggest reason for keeping the title of this article unchanged is that cdrtools is the original software and that it is still actively maintained. Ekkt0r (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to remind you the topic - the RfC regarding those sections. Nothing to do with cdrkit. Tzafrir (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Then why did you suggest to change the title of this article to "cdrtools vs. cdrkit" in this very RfC? You can't go off-topic and then remind me the topic when I reply to your off-topic suggestion. Ekkt0r (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I was clearly joking. There was a whole thread in this discussion about cdrtools vs. cdrkit. I constantly reminded you that this subject is off-topic, but it didn't help. Changing the title was another way to make it on-topic :-(. Tzafrir (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
OK for the joke. But, once more, you can't seriously tell me you have "constantly reminded [me] that this subject is off-topic" while you have, at the same time, made off-topic edits (e.g. with the joke). Besides, although I knew it could be a joke, I could not be 100% sure, hence my reply. Anyone following this discussion can only agree that the off-topic parts do not alter the meaning of the rest of the discussion. So I suggest that we all give up off-topic edits from now on (or at least edits that mention the name of the fork). Ekkt0r (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal to "Length": I know articles should be of a reasonable size. But there are no absolute rules. Some articles are much longer. BTW, have you seen how long the "cdrtools#License (in)compatibility controversy" section has grown because of content added by you and some other editors who have the same opinion of cdrtools as you? Ekkt0r (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I have my own comments on that section, but I tried to keep this RFC focused. (missing signature; Tzafrir?)
  • Rebuttal to "Alternatives": You have tried several times to remove valuable content from the article. As long as the contents in the article do not break any rule, there is no reason to push it to an external website. Ekkt0r (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I have repeatedly given the WP:Relevance of content as reason for this WP:BOLD edit, and this is what this RfC is about. Please don't attack people personally. I have given Wikipedia guidelines as reason for this change - relevance of contents, WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. I agree that the contents are "valueable", but in my opinion, they are not relevant enough for Wikipedia; and that is a very good reason to move them to the project homepage (where they should be kept anyway, instead of relying on Wikipedia -- Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, this implies that it is not supposed to be a list of download locations either) and link to the project homepage for "further information". Resorting to "you edited the article in a way I did not like" is not a very good argument, you know... --Chire (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
When I say that you have tried several times to remove valuable content I'm not attacking you, but just telling the truth. You have been complaining several times in the talk page about the relevance of content of several sections ("Compatible operating systems", "Availabitlity", "Examples of use"), and you have even removed several distributions from the "Availabitlity" section. You have your opinion about the relevance of these sections, and I have mine. I have replied to every point you raised, and you have not been able to give any valid rebuttal. So the only conclusion is that there is no consensus for the removal of these sections. Sorry, you will have to live with that. Ekkt0r (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I removed distributions from the list that fail WP:Notability, as I consider it lacking Wikipedia:Relevance of content. But instead of discussing why Wikipedia guidelines should/should not apply to cdrecord, you prefer to get off-topic and blame me. That is a pretty lame attempt of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which says: Comment on content, not on the contributor.. --Chire (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
You accuse me of attacking you. I reply that I'm not attacking you but reporting true facts (non relevant edits in my opinion). Then you reply again that I'm attacking you. This discussion is getting nowhere. Moreover, I did never say that the article does not need to follow the guidelines. What I claim is that your interpretation of relevance of content is not neutral. So please do not suggest I am not following the guidelines, because this is not true. I already know you think I am not, so there is no need to repeat this again and again. Thank you. Ekkt0r (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This is Ekkt0r's reply to the #First_message_of_FleetCommand_in_section_Survey. Fleet Command, since you are suggesting to also drop sections "Version history" and "Examples of use", let me tell you that many articles have similar sections. Regarding your suggestion to add "Windows, Linux, BSD" to the "operating system" parameter of the infobox (and drop the "Cross platform" wikilink), I'm sure you know that many software which run on these systems do not run on several systems on which cdrtools runs, like OS X, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, AmigaOS, Atari MiNT, Haiku, Syllable and GNU/kFreeBSD to name a few. Moreover there are several articles which display "Cross-platform" but are compatible with fewer OSes. So suggesting to replace "Cross-platform" by a small list of operating systems is nonsense. All your other remarks have already been discussed in the #Discussion and Rebuttals section of this RfC, so I won't repeat my replies here. Ekkt0r (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Some points in your reply:
  • You consider "Windows, Linux, BSD" to be not good enough a description. How about: "BSD, Linux, Solaris and other Unix-like systems" (maybe extend the list further)?
  • The other points have been countered and then re-established in counter-arguments. I opened this RfC to get fresh perspectives. Tzafrir (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The question is not whether or not "Windows, Linux, BSD" is a "good enough description" for the "Operating systems" field of the infobox. cdrtools is cross-platform. Replacing the "Cross-platform" wikilink by anything else in that field would be absurd. Regarding your remark about "fresh perspectives", the reason why I explained in this RfC that sections "Compatible operating systems" and "Availability" should not be removed is because you and Chire did not take my explanations into account before this RfC. Why would I not reply to the arguments you have been writing? Readers catching this RfC would not get the whole picture otherwise. Ekkt0r (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I consider "cross-platform" along with a weblink to the full platform list on the cdrecord homepage the best choice (so people can verify if their platform is supported, if in doubt; but without giving undue weight on obscure platforms). But for example Apache HTTP Server does simply not specify the parameter at all. Bash (Unix shell) uses "cross-platform" without references. BIND only includes the most important OSes. I'm pretty sure it will also work on Solaris and GNU Hurd, too, for example. --Chire (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
So it seems you agree with the "cross-platform" mention in the infobox. Thank you! Now, regarding the list in section "Compatible operating systems", there is no reason for dropping it. That section is giving facts that are sourced and presented in a neutral way. Regarding the "obscure platforms" as you say, once again, you are giving your opinion. The only thing we can tell is that these platforms are not very popular, but that's not a valid reason for dropping them from the list or dropping the whole list. You might not be interested in these platforms, but other users are. Moreover, the list does not give "undue weight" to these platforms, and any reader can figure out by himself/herself whether or not a given platform is interesting for him/her. The article is definitely better with that section than without it. And that section is better like it is than with an arbitrary subset of platforms. Regarding the examples of articles which do not have lists of platforms, I'm sure you noticed that these articles are for software that are not as closely related to hardware as cdrtools is. Besides, I'm pretty sure that even BIND has not been ported to as many platforms as cdrtools has. Readers do not have the same interests as you. Don't you think so? Ekkt0r (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ekkt0r: When someone uses "other stuff exists" discussion, he or she reveals that he is a noob and loses credibility; so you might want to stay away from it. If other article have such sections, delete them all. (Sections, not articles.) Also, I do not care the least for any "counter"(argument) that you think you have provided as long as it goes against policy. And if you started the discussion to find a way to circumvent the policy, you are wasting you time. Fleet Command (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @FleetCommand:, thanks for your feedback. Binaries are not distributed directly by the author. But in the development model followed by the author, he provides the source, and packagers will include it in their distributions, if they want. The fact that it is included (or not) is some major distributions is noteworthy due to the licensing issue. That said, I don't think it warrants a section (let alone a top-level one) and a big table. Tzafrir (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I concur entirely. By the way, sorry for the mix-up earlier. Fleet Command (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is Ekkt0r's reply to the #Second_message_of_FleetCommand_in_section_Survey. FleetCommand, you removed a pointer I had added under your first message, so I'm restoring it now. Please do not remove it again. It was not meant (only) for you but for all interested readers. Regarding the edit summary you chose in this edit of yours, I'd like to make it clear that:

  • the wording "Discussion and Rebuttals" you see as rude was chosen by Chire, not by me.
  • this Rfc was initiated by Tzafrir, not by me. BTW, I was not interested in initiating this Rfc because I knew it would be a waste of time.

I hope you have noticed that I did follow you advice and made no other edits to this Rfc (until now) after you suggested that I "might want to stay away from it". However, I felt I had to add this reply now before this Rfc be closed. But please feel free to ignore this message if you think replying would be a waste of time. Thank you. Ekkt0r (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You focus 90% of your messages on warfare than on discussing the issue. And just because you say "please" doesn't mean that I let you do so when the integrity of my message is in question. Try focusing on convincing people with reason instead of throwing mud at their opinion. Fleet Command (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
FleetCommand, I did not remove nor alter any of your messages. What I did was add a pointer to my reply, in a separate line below your message. And contrary to what you say in your edit summary, my edit did not subvert the "Survey" section. You, on the other side, removed again that pointer, as well as the second pointer I had added after your first removal. Moreover, the edit summary you used for your second removal was very agressive against me and completely false. If readers can't easily notice the chronology of our messages, then they can't get the correct picture. Regarding your comments about my edits, anyone who carefully reads what I write can tell you I do not send mud to anyone's opinions. BTW, in case someone is wondering why I added two small hilites above, the reason is that I don't want to enter an WP:ER on the "Survey" section. Ekkt0r (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

  • Drop: these sections should be dropped from Wikipedia, and moved to the cdrtools homepage. Chire (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Mostly drop: There is some useful information in those sections, but it could be summed into roughly two paragraphs. Tzafrir (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: For all reasons explained in the "Pro" subsection above, and because there is no consensus for removing the "Compatible operating systems" and "Availability" sections, these sections should be kept. Ekkt0r (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Consolidate in a single list* This would be clearer if the two sections were consolidated, I think. To the first list, the specific Linux distros could be added. OSes with third party apps only could be marked (in italics, with asterisks, etc.). The table format should be dropped. Roches (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
See my reply to Roches above. Ekkt0r (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Change to my verdict: Investigation shows the developer does not provide any binaries at all. Hence, the operating system parameter must be removed from infobox. The subject of this article is not even a computer program. It is just source code. Fleet Command (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion - per many provisions of WP:WWIN, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and a bevy of other policies and guidelines. And honestly, I don't think the trimming should stop there; there are many aspects of this article as it stands that fall well outside the bounds of encyclopedic content and I'm in complete agreement with the perspectives previously expressed by other editors here that the majority of the information found here represents promotion and documentation that are not at all appropriate to a Wikipedia article. And while this RfC should stay focused on the content itself, I have to note that in reviewing discussion on this page, as well as the contributions of involved parties, it seems as if the two editors who have ardently opposed scaling back this problem content have narrow objectives and possible conflicts of interest which seem to have them struggling to understand where the needs of this project and the standards of its community conflict with the interests of the software project(s). Frankly, though there are 86 inline citations in the current article, I've yet to find a single source in any of it that passes the merits of WP:RS for purposes of WP:GNG and I doubt very much that this article could survive an AfD. As such, I think the first priority of those eager to maintain the content on this page ought to be upon improving the sourcing (if such can be done) and learning to work with more experienced (and less single-purpose oriented) contributors to keep said content consistent with community consensus and policy with regard to what is appropriate encyclopedic content and how it should be verified, rather than utilizing their own standards as to what should be included based on comparably subjective standards of what is "relevant". Minute details on version history, compatibility, and usage are presumably available through the projects which support this software (including, one expects, the voluminous pages used to "source" this article), but even if they aren't, it is not appropriate to try to fill that gap in a Wikipedia article.
I see a lot of animosity in the history of this talk page between the two sides who have been dukeing this issue out, but I must say honestly to the contributors who have been fighting to retain much of the documentation content that they are lucky that the editors they have faced off against thus far have not been more exclusionary editors than others would be in their place; Diego Moya and Chire may seem to be obstructionist/deletionist, within the context of your argument, but both seem to agree the article should exist and have made no move (that I've observed in reviewing this page) to scale back other sections which are clearly as problematic as the one currently being debated. In light of this, I again urge the inclusionist parties to make an attempt to reconcile their approach with advice from these editors as to what content is appropriate to the scope of this project (under its own policies), because if incivility takes root here and wider community attention is cast upon the content (say as a result of one of the above-named parties growing tired of hyperbolic accusations of vandalism and a general WP:OWN attitude) then I doubt very much you will like the likely result to the article as a whole. Barring new sourcing, I for one would support deletion of the article if there was an open AfD just now and I doubt very much I'd be in the minority. Just food for thought. Snow talk 05:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion?

The RfC has expired (after 30 days). I want to know if we have can come to an agreed conclusion, or should we escalate this issue further. Ekkt0r? Anybody? Tzafrir (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If you agree that there is no consensus to drop sections "Compatible operating systems" and "Availability" then we should just keep these sections. Honestly, can you provide a single valid argument supporting the drop? The only "arguments" supporting the drop that have been provided in the Rfc were not valid arguments but personnal opinions. Ekkt0r (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Almost all external feedback (with exception of one argument added to the end of the Pro section) asked for the sections to be at least mostly removed. I see that this does not convince you. I guess I'll have to escalate. Tzafrir (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This is not a poll and you should not be counting heads, especially when the "arguments" for the drop are all personnal opinions. Arguments need to be valid to be taken into account. I respected the process and answered to all of the "drop" "arguments". You are the editor who initiated this Rfc, so please accept its outcome. Thank you. Ekkt0r (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
From WP:RfC: "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies.". From my assessment of the arguments added in the survey section, there is a WP:Rough consensus that the contents as-is are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Even User:Roches clearly wasn't in favor of keeping them as exhaustive-tabular as they currently are; and the others all see Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOTMANUAL violated. IMHO, you need to start to accept this opinion... --Chire (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Stating that there is a WP:Rough consensus that "the contents as-is are not appropriate for Wikipedia" is not enough because this rough consensus is not based on rules but on personnal opinions. We all have personnal opinions and I respect yours. But Wikipedia is not a democracy and as long as sections "Compatible operating systems" and "Availability" do not break any rule, there is no valid reason to support the removal of these sections. Regarding WP:NOTMANUAL, it was answered in this edit. I'm just adding a shortcut now. BTW, this RfC was not even about section "Examples of use". However, as you can see, I answered to all arguments. And again, we are not suppoed to count heads but discuss the validity of each argument. Ekkt0r (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ekkt0r: the rough consensus is that they break a rule. Wikipedia is not an dictatorship either. Your personal opinion must not overrule the consensus, obtained by civilized discussion here. --Chire (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Nobody was able to name a rule that the sections would break. And I'm not using my personnal opinion to support the "keep" nor to overrule any Wikipedia rule. What is not forbidden is allowed, and the contents respect all applicable rules (e.g. neutrality, notability). If you start saying that most people want some sections to be dropped but cannot provide any rule that these sections would break, then this is just censorship. BTW, if you want to suggest something with the words "civilized discussion" then please be more precise. Because all my edits are civilized, contrary to some editors (not you, though). Ekkt0r (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ekkt0r: Nope. That is your opinion that it doesn't break these rules. Everybody else disagrees, and says these contents violate WP:Relevance of content, WP:NOTMANUAL, and many others... See below and above for Snow Rise even doubting WP:Notability of cdrtools altogether (I disagree here; it should be kept, but the article needs to shrink to a reasonable and readable again). Removing content that is not of encyclopedic relevance is not censorship. It's just removing non-notable contents. Cdrtools will still there, as is the link to the homepage where these contents need to go to. --Chire (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Chire, for admitting that cdrtools does meet WP:Notability. Now, for WP:NOTMANUAL, it was already discussed in both the "Discussion" section and this "Conclusions" section. Regarding WP:Relevance of content, you can see that it is "just" an essay, and that it bears this note which says that "essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines". Besides, relevance of content can be very subjective. So my conclusion is that sections "Compatible operating systems" and "Availability" do not break any rule. Ekkt0r (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Tzafrir, I understand you are only inquiring as to whether to take the issue to a still larger forum, but I think it would be helpful to use alternative wording to "escalate"; involved parties ought to be working to bridge the gap in perspectives between them and come to consensus and that sort of language implies antagonism and a quarrel.
Ekkt0r, you are correct that the RfC process is not a straight up-and-down vote, but the involved editors do form a consensus on how policy, which represents broader community consensus is applied, so you can't just declare your position the non-subjective one and dismiss the majority position as mere "personal opinion". And frankly the stridency of your claim to having the superior argument is only continuing to highlight just how inconsistent your perspective is with community consensus on most all of the above points of conflict; we simply do not allow anywhere near the level of archiving of documentation on the behalf of other projects such as you want to utilize this space for. We strive for encyclopedic tone here, and part of that is summary style, which requires us to include only content reaching a certain notability and only consistent with it's weight in sources. Which brings us the the larger issue; we can't even begin to appropriately weight content from our WP:Reliable sources because we have none here. Frankly this article is a candidate for AfD as stands, as it doesn't have sourcing sufficient to pass WP:GNG, let alone the more specific considerations for notability with regard to software.
More than dozen central policies and guidelines have been cited to you above, none of which you have responded to substantively, and yet you are glib enough to brand your opposition (who are in the majority and consist of vastly more experienced editors with a much lower personal stake in the content than seems to be the case for yourself) as the ones who are allowing their personal feelings take precedence over policy. It's often perfectly useful to combine your love and advocacy for another project with Wikipedia editing, providing you are still acting as a Wikipedia first and foremost when contributing here. But the level of documentation and promotion you want to add to the present article serves the interest of the software's project at the cost of ignoring the content standards of this project. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to host detailed documentation or manuals of usage; we present well-rounded information on encyclopedic topics with established verifiability and notability. None of those standards are being served by keeping an "article" that looks like it is straight out of a support page, and not supported by a single source that is non-primary and consistent with Wikipedia's standards on sourcing. Again, I stress to you your luck, given your degree of devotion to this content, that different contributors didn't arrive here who would simply decide to remove this article in its entirety for completely failing GNG. I assure you, without new and significantly more robust sourcing establishing notability, this article can't survive an AfD, so you really should start working with the editors trying to salvage this situation while you still have the benefit of their help in this regard.
I find Chire's interpretation of the emergent consensus as closest to the reality of the situation, but regardless, this is a case where, even though the majority position seems evident, it would be best to have an administrator close the discussion and we can move on from there. Snow talk 10:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
First, I would like to thank you, Snow Rise, for writing that "the RfC process is not a straight up-and-down vote". Now, let me try to explain, with a simple example, why sticking to rules is so important. Imagine I own a flat in a building, and that most of my neighbours think I have a better situation, or kids who succeed better at school, or a bigger flat or car. Now, imagine some of them decide they don"t want to see me anymore because they decided they don't like me. Should I accept to leave the building although I respect all applicable rules? There have been many cases in History where a majority of people have joined "forces" to discriminate minorities or individuals. Do you think Wikipedia should allow voting when the question is: do you want to drop some parts of an article (or the whole article) even if that article does not break any rule? Voting not only makes it possible and easy to do censorship, but it also makes it very difficult to fight discrimination. We should stick to rules, don't you agree? BTW, one of the links you provided, Wikipedia:Notability (software), is just an essay, and has this note that says that "essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines". I still have to read the other links you provided, so I'll probably complete this answer later. Anyway, thank you for your interest in this RfC. Ekkt0r (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much this discussion is benefiting from an allegory on why it is important to follow the rules; no one here is arguing for a state of anarchy and Wikipedia editors are generally not exactly unfamiliar with parsing rules and coming to conclusions withing their framework. The crux of the argument here is not whether policy should be respected, but which of the arguments being made is most policy consistent. Talking to those with whom you disagree as if they are children who just want to throw the rules out the window is a massive mischaracterization of the situation of the strawman variety and definitely unlikely to gain you much support for your position. Frankly, it's pretty ballsy given your opposition represents the bu;k all of editors responding to this RfC, consists of more experienced editors with a less personal attachment to this content, and, most importantly, they have cited numerous policies and guidelines, including multiple pillar policies, none of which you have responded to in a substantive way. Your entire argument is based upon what you feel is appropriate content, and yet you've failed to generate any kind of policy-based argument for it, and now you want to pain opposition as the ones who are acting impulsively and without regard for this community's standards. Sorry, I just don't see that.
On a (somewhat) separate point, I am well aware Wikipedia:Notability (software) is an essay -- that's why I phrased that statement as "more specific considerations" rather than "more specific standards" as I otherwise would have -- however WP:GNG is a policy, and a rather central one at that and GNG represents the minimum standard you have to meet in order to establish notability for a subject, a standard this article doesn't even begin to meet at present, which is why I've made two attempts already to try to urge you to work with other editors here on these sides issues before others begin to realize that all of these side arguments with regard to appropriate weight stem from the root issue that this article isn't verified by a single source appropriate for use on Wikipedia and doesn't pass muster with regard to notability. Keep fighting against consensus to keep trivial and non-encyclopedic information in though, and continue to disparage your opposition as personal and without policy basis while ignoring the policy arguments they have put before and I assure you, someone's going to decide that these headaches are not worth addressing one at a time and simply but the whole article up for deletion. Or someone new is going to be attracted to the discussion who just feels like doing due diligence in removing the article (as indeed it should be removed, if better sourcing cannot be found).
I very much appreciate the courteous tone with which you responded to my previous comments, but I have to note that your approach in taking the time to respond directly only to point out that one link was not a policy, while ignoring the other six that did link to policies (including major and pillar policies) as well as the other policies and guidelines I cited in my in initial post, is pretty reflective of how I've observed you have formulating your arguments with others above, ignoring the dozen plus major policies that have been cited to you as to why this content is excessive and inappropriate to our purposes here at Wikipedia and leaning on vague (and in-so-far as I can see, insubstantial) assertions of personalized editing in ignorance of the rules amongst your opposition. If you want to see this content stay, this is not the way. Snow talk 23:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is interesting that the closing comment for this block claims a consensus that does not exist. There is definitely no 4:1 consensus. Even if we did only count the contributors to the discussion (not cheking the arguments) there is no 4:1 consensus as there is more than one user arguing that the text should be kept.

Conclusion: there is no consensus and iff parts of the article are subject for a removal, we should rather remove those parts that are in conflict with the WP rules. This is most of the text in the licensing section, as this text mentions unverified claims and contains personal attacks and pointers to external personal attacks. Schily (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason I called for an comments (RfC. I originally opted for "third opinion") was because you and Ekkt0r had the impression that anyone who doesn't agree with you does so due to a bias. Now this clearly not the case. I would suggest that you consider the opinions and arguments of others. I would like to implement Snow Rise's conclusion shortly. Tzafrir (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This Rfc is not resolved at all. Codename Lisa wrote: "There is a four to one majority in favor of deleting mentioned sections, with a consensus that they are doing a poor job of adhering to Wikipedia:Due weight and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not", but this is not true.
So there is not even a majority supporting the drop. Moreover, a major rule was not respected by Codename Lisa in his conclusion: WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Therefore I consider that the currrent conclusion does not reflect reality, which means that the recent removals do not meet consensus. Ekkt0r (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
In addition, if people did know that one of the persons that voted for a complete drop, contributed very few constructive work to the article and sometimes seems to spend a major part of his free time in finding new ways to harm cdrtools on all possible channels (not only wikipedia), the discussion would have been different. Schily (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You have voiced this opinion several times on that page. Let's exclude all potentially-biased editors (Chire, Ekkt0r, you and me) and we'll be left with a complete concensus. Tzafrir (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
No, actually that probably would not (and in any event should not) influence the conclusions we came to here based on the content. Why should I, or any neutral editor, care about such an (unsubstantiated) claim of bias if it has not caused them to work at a cross-purpose to Wikipedia policy? Consequently, speculating about the motives of other editors instead as an alternative to addressing the content and relative policy itself is considered a serious breach of pillar policy WP:Civility. You are not allowed to cast accusations of this sort to colour impressions of the discussion contributions of another editor, unless of course an editor has a demonstrable conflict of interest, and you are the contributor here who qualifies for extra scrutiny on those grounds. And the resistance you show here to any kind of scaling back of the content that's been added is a textbook example of why it is strongly recommended that editors do not contribute on topics with which they are directly involved. In my experience, it is a very rare editor indeed who can truly maintain their neutrality, sense of perspective and loyalty to this project's guidelines under such conditions and I'm sorry, but all evidence here demonstrates that you are just not one of these exceptional few. Nor should you be expected to be; you don't have the experience as an editor and your purpose here as a contributor is a narrow one -- to utilize this project to expand the exposure of the project that is actually of interest to you here. Which would be fine if you had the sources to justify it and the command of Wikipedia policy to keep it within appropriate scope and get it done without coming into conflict with other editors over the priorities of this project. But none of that is the case.
And I have to tell you, having seen this situation play out innumerable times, if you can't resolve yourself towards working within Wikipedia policy, that the most likely results of continuing to fight tooth and nail to force in content for your project against Wikipedia norms will be that A) the article will be deleted, because all you are doing is attracting more and more attention to a completely non-sourced, non-notable article, and B) if it should turn out you can't accept these standards and end up personalizing the debate, which is quite frequently what happens in these cases and something you've already take tentative steps towards above, you could end up topic banned. Mind you, you haven't come even close to the truly nasty incivility that often proliferate in such situations -- I want to make that clear for perspective -- but that doesn't mean your approach is altogether unproblematic. Three times already I've tried to impress upon you and Ekkt0r that the two of you are beginning to represent the greatest liability to the very content you are so keen to protect and this makes four; you are augmenting a minor content debate into an AfD discussion that can only result in this article going away entirely, and you lack the experience to see it. But you can still take my word for it, and you really should, before you end up cutting off your nose to spite your face. Snow talk 22:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify: my opinion (as explicitly written in the discussion) was that those sections should be replaced with a simple paragraph or two. Removing the section was a good start. I meant to add the paragraph in a new section called "Availability" as I couldn't think of a better place (The article is messed up - not even a proper History section). The availability (and non-availability) of cdrtools in e.g. major Linux distributions is note-worthy given its history. Tzafrir (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding the usability of cdrtools on various platforms: cdrtools are more portable than most other OSS, so using a simple hint that might be OK for other projects is not sufficient.
  • The availability hints are important for users of unfriendly distros such as Debian and RedHat to help them getting working binaries.
  • The attacks in the licensing section definitely need to be removed. Schily (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure there's plenty of information that you would like to include here which is would be useful to other developers, but just because information is useful to someone, somewhere (even a number of someones) does not make it encyclopedic content appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can link to your documentation pages in the external links section, I doubt anyone would ever have a problem with that. What you cannot do is co-op this project as an extension of your documentation process. Snow talk 22:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
So when will the personal attacks and pointers to external personal attacks in the licensing section be removed? Schily (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Ekkt0r, you have put forth numerous times that content decisions are resolved not just by the number of editors supporting disparate approaches, but by the policy strength of the arguments said contributors make -- an assertion that is absolutely correct and yet this principle of broad community consensus does not support your approach in the way you seem to think (or at least want to claim) it does. Yes, community consensus as represented in policy trumps the isolated opinions on this page when the two come in conflict. So please provide me with examples of valid reliable sources appropriate to use on Wikipedia which establish the weight of the content you wish to include or, for that matter establish this topic as notable and valid for inclusion as an article to begin with. Because such sources are wholly missing from this article and that means in terms of Wikipedia policy, you don't have a leg to stand on here with your arguments. Meanwhile every experienced editor here is trying to tell you this is non-encyclopedic content and you just don't want to hear it. You can't keep trumpeting the "this a not a vote" statement while ignoring that, in fact, voluminous discussion has taken place and that no policy argument has been put forth to counter the content (not procedural) arguments which detail why this content is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Snow talk 22:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cdrtools/Archive_4&oldid=1136596731"