Talk:Network emulation

Linkfarm

It looks like all the external links in the article should be either removed to converted to internal links per WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK. There might be a couple that should be removed to an External links section. --Ronz 00:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Links removed. Didn't find any suitable for External links section. --Ronz 02:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Links removed. Doesn't look like anything else is necessary. --Warrentrevor 02:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I needed to remove the tag and the links you added. --Ronz 04:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The links in the article were very useful. Is there any problem with moving them to external links part? Dima373 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, such links are not included in articles per WP:NOT#LINK. --Ronz 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I read WP:NOT#LINK very carefully, but... In this case the links can be vary valuable till articles about the products/companies listed will be created (like NS-2 article). Dima373 08:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

These links were useful for anyone trying to find free or commercial products to help with their network emulation needs. I'm adding them back. If someone wants to convert them to internal links, that sounds fine..but just removing them makes the page less useful. Greearb (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

References

I removed a "reference" [1] because it appeared to be more promotional than anything. It doesn't meet WP:RS. --Ronz 17:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:List

This article is currently more a list than an article. Per WP:List, I propose the inclusion criteria for the list to be only emulators that already have their own articles. --Ronz 18:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I dislike this idea, removing the links helped no one, but feel free to add articles for individual listings and redirect the external links to them. That actually seems useful. I have re-added the useful links that I could find in the history. Greearb (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing them all again, as no acceptable alternative criteria has been discussed. --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What sort of alternative criteria do you want? The way I see it, you are removing useful content and making wikipedia worse off by your efforts. Greearb (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LIST. Independent sources that show clear notability and relevance are always good. --Ronz (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how your comment has anything to do with the WP:LIST. Do you think the links/list you removed are not independent sources? Do you think they are not relevant? Are they not notable? What gives you the right to suddenly decide that everything in the list must be to an internal wiki article, especially if you are not able or willing to write the articles? Greearb (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I wasn't clear. If an entry has independent references that clearly shows the entry is notable and relevant to being in this list, then I don't think anyone will object to that entry.

Lists normally contain only internal links, unless some other criteria has been agreed upon. --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The links were to products (commercial and free) that provide network emulation. Wouldn't you agree that this is relevant and notable since this is a page about network emulation? If someone is interested in network emulation, don't you think they would be interested in seeing products that do this? Greearb (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Such links are inappropriate per WP:NOT#LINK and WP:SPAM. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the NOT#LINK, and it is talking about entire articles, not a small piece of an article. I agree that if the page was *only* a list, it would not fit, but the list was just part of the article near the bottom. If you still disagree, tell me exactly which of the NOT#LINK items you think supports your port.

I also read the spam page, and do not see any problems with linking to relevent products and projects, so long as the entries are brief and not filled with marketing crap. If you have issue with the wording of descriptions of the links, that is one thing, but just removing them all seems unsupported. If you disagree, on what basis exactly do you think the links were spam? Greearb (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've presented you with my opinion on current consensus. You've ignored the alternatives I've offered. I suggest taking this up TALK:SPAM, or perhaps WP:THIRD. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed it...I don't know what alternatives you are talking about other than to create a wiki page for each product and that seems way worse spam than just adding an external link. If you have made other proposals, please let me know..I'm not overly in tune with wiki customs, so perhaps I just missed your suggestion. As for consensus, I see you and possibly Warrantrevor supporting your view, and me, Dima373, and Isaac Dupree opposing (not to mention the authors who added the links in the first place). You point into various wiki pages on spam, lists, etc, but my reading of this same information does not indicate you have a clear case against the links. When I ask you exactly which sections of these pages you find support your view, you just ignore my question. I'll go read WP::THIRD now..maybe that will help. Greearb (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Free software vs. Commercial software vs. Commercial hardware??

What about software that is both Free and Commercial (e.g. you can buy it, including support, but it's open-source)? Or software that's neither Free nor Commercial (e.g. freeware)? (Or even, is there non-commercial hardware, perhaps nonprofits? Well, maybe not.) I might change the labels, but it's hard to find evidence that e.g. WANem isn't commercial or that LANforge-ICE is definitely non-Free. But the labels definitely suggest a false dichotomy that should be remedied... Or maybe the lists just aren't encyclopedic enough to belong here (although on the other hand I would feel a loss if they were just deleted, since they're useful to many of the people who come to this article) —Isaac Dupree^(talk) 12:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)