Talk:Cppcheck

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 (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Deletion discussion[edit]

Deletion discussion is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cppcheck. Yasca and Clang fail the notability check proposed by Cunard. Also the backed up page User:Exuwon/Cppcheck now contains references. What's missing for inclusion then? 131.220.99.58 (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we've addressed the issues brought up in the AFD. Specifically, we now have multiple reliable sources to establish notability. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! So this edit war ends up pretty productive. Thanks for your help in making the page notable! 131.220.99.58 (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all you needed to do was read what I had written and you would have found a way out immediately. I started with an explanation of policy and an offer to help. I meant it. And I'm not the only one who would have helped. But if you want to be successful here you need to read those core policies and if they don't make sense find out why. Now are you going to start on the other article Flawfinder? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have little experience with flawfinder and that experience wasn't very productive. It has a much lower signal-to-noise ratio than cppcheck (you will probably ask for references, but you have to try out to see that). Also I doubt that we find as many references as we found for cppcheck, so we will probably fail notability checks. Do you think flawfinder is worth the effort? 131.220.99.58 (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whether the product is good or bad, but whether it's notable, IE reliable sources are talking about it. If you can't find sources, let's concentrate on the rest of the list instead. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intention about adding flawfinder to the list was to get the relevance/notability criteria applied consequently. I found flawfinder on another page and concluded that it must have met the criteria, so it was safe to add. The conclusion was wrong, but it enforced a bit more consequence. ;-) 131.220.99.58 (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the criteria are easy. If you have a wiki article it's in. If not, it's out. ;-) AliveFreeHappy (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to butt in here, there are several journal articles on cppcheck. Static code analysis is a major research field in its own right. here here here here were all turned up by a quick search. I have not looked at each of the articles here, but these are academic sources. Notability for cppcheck should not be under dispute. Any other tools would need to meet similar criterion for notability. User A1 (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking up the references! 1) Is already included, needs inlining. 2) 404. 3) Just mentions cppcheck in a list, so it is not a suitable reference. 4) is already included, needs inlining. 131.220.99.58 (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebirth[edit]

Thanks to several editors the article has been reborn in a form that should indicate notability and use proper sources. Thanks to all who assisted, and to those who will improve the start we've made. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy section[edit]

I've removed the Accuracy section for a number of reasons. First, it was improperly sourced; for example, using the bug tracker as a reference to say "it doesn't detect many bugs" is inappropriate. And text like "it is far from finished" doesn't really belong either. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cppcheck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]